Fiddling around with Fifth Ed

[Salthorae]

Doing a 'reluctant hero' is problematic in 5e - heck, in D&D in general, and in most RPGs, really.

Especially as part of a party.

Really? I feel like Reluctant hero is almost all in the RP and backstory you have going. A young sorcerer who is born with powers but just wants to be normal like the other kids and that colors his life ever after? A sage Wizard who is forced by circumstances to actually go out and get his own *special ingredients* but first has to find them and needs companions to survive in the wild? An older priest in a clergy who on his 50th birthday is finally blessed by the god and given spells (priest --> cleric) and the heirarchy forces him out to go on the same world journey/walk-about thing that the other 18 yr old clerics have to go on, a young urchin forced to choose between bad options ends up working for the thieves guild, learning their trade, but then something goes wrong and they have to flee, now they are on the road, a strapping young man whose noble father forces him to learn to fight, but his own heart longs for art and music (a la Monty Python) so he has the skills of a fighter but the heart of a poet and somehow circumstances force him into a life of adventure when all he wants is to sit an paint or compose, I could go on and on.

Unless you mean something else by "reluctant hero" than I do. Frodo is the classic reluctant hero, he had no desire to leave the Shire in the books. Bilbo too to a lesser degree since he did dream of adventure at least.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Really? I feel like Reluctant hero is almost all in the RP and backstory you have going. A young sorcerer who is born with powers but just wants to be normal like the other kids and that colors his life ever after?

Yeah, the life he lives trying to be normal, rather than going on crazy adventures...

A sage Wizard who is forced by circumstances to actually go out and get his own *special ingredients* but first has to find them and needs companions to survive in the wild?

And is then done adventuring.

An older priest in a clergy who on his 50th birthday is finally blessed by the god and given spells (priest --> cleric) and the heirarchy forces him out to go on the same world journey/walk-about thing that the other 18 yr old clerics have to go on,

I'm not sure how reluctant that is, he may feel reluctant, but he has solid motivation to finish his rite - and go back to the monestary and never do it again, of course.

a young urchin forced to choose between bad options ends up working for the thieves guild, learning their trade, but then something goes wrong and they have to flee, now they are on the road

And the first big score (and adventurers come into some hugely valuable treasure), he retires in obscurity somewhere.

, a strapping young man whose noble father forces him to learn to fight, but his own heart longs for art and music (a la Monty Python) so he has the skills of a fighter but the heart of a poet and somehow circumstances force him into a life of adventure when all he wants is to sit an paint or compose, I could go on and on.

Yes, you can, and I doubt you'll ever find one that actually works well in an RPG campaign.

The bolded bit gets into the problem: if your concept is 'forced by circumstances,' the poor beleagured GM is going to have to continually manufacture circumstances that keep you un-willingly adventuring and reluctantly-heroing.

 

[Salthorae]

Yeah, the life he lives trying to be normal, rather than going on crazy adventures...
And is then done adventuring. I'm not sure how reluctant that is, he may feel reluctant, but he has solid motivation to finish his rite - and go back to the monestary and never do it again, of course. And the first big score (and adventurers come into some hugely valuable treasure), he retires in obscurity somewhere. Yes, you can, and I doubt you'll ever find one that actually works well in an RPG campaign.

The bolded bit gets into the problem: if your concept is 'forced by circumstances,' the poor beleagured GM is going to have to continually manufacture circumstances that keep you un-willingly adventuring and reluctantly-heroing.

I’d say it’s on you as the player to do that not the DM. I have done many of these concepts and was able to keep them reluctant throughout the course of the adventure or path or whatever. It’s not that hard but it takes some work on the player part and effort at role playing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I’d say it’s on you as the player to do that not the DM. I have done many of these concepts and was able to keep them reluctant throughout the course of the adventure or path or whatever. It’s not that hard but it takes some work on the player part and effort at role playing.

The player doesn't control the cirucumstances surrounding the character - he can have a backstory of having been a reluctant adventurer, at first (and now being all angsty about it as he continues to adventure), but it's not going to keep up without constant pressure from outside (from the other PCs needing his help, or the DM forcing circumstances, or whatever).

 

[MechaPilot]

Really? I feel like Reluctant hero is almost all in the RP and backstory you have going.

A reluctant hero BACKSTORY is fine. But, the PC really needs to be past that when adventure time comes around (or, at least, at the end of the first adventure). This is especially so in a party of other PCs, because the DM (and at my table, that's usually me) shouldn't be forced at the start of each new adventure to lavish a ton of time and attention re-baiting the one reluctant hero PC. I'm not writing a never ending slew of Death Wish sequels (where each one opens with Charles Bronson's friends and family being violently assaulted and murdered), I'm writing an adventure for a group of 4-6 players who want to play through the adventure and have fun together. And the rest of the players, who are ready to engage the game and sensibly have characters ready to go on the quest (with just a little bit of incentive), shouldn't have to sit there while the DM throws all the spotlight on getting one player effectively begging her to engage because her character is the ever-reluctant hero.

If the rest of the party is nothing but NPCs and I'm running an adventure for a single player, that's a somewhat different story (though still tiring and monotonous due to the repetition).

Frodo is the classic reluctant hero, he had no desire to leave the Shire in the books.

Frodo is a work of fiction written by a man who wanted that character to be part of an overarching story. In other words, his DM could chose when that reluctance was overcome. A TTRPG reluctant hero is played by someone not the writer of the story, imposes their reluctance on the rest of the playgroup, and starts out with an adversarial relationship with the DM. It's effectively an attitude of "I don't want to adventure, so you'll have to make me." No, I won't make you. I'll ask you to leave so the rest of us can play.

 

[Mouseferatu]

May I humbly suggest that you're coming at the question from different campaign styles?

In a sandbox or a series of adventures, yeah, an adventurer who's still "reluctant" after the first adventure or two is going to be a pain.

But a lot of campaigns--such as many of the adventure paths--are essentially single-story. You can be Frodo, because the question to toss the Ring into Mt. Doom is the campaign.

Just saying, I think this may be a mismatch of expectations as opposed to an actual disagreement.

 

[Salthorae]

May I humbly suggest that you're coming at the question from different campaign styles?

In a sandbox or a series of adventures, yeah, an adventurer who's still "reluctant" after the first adventure or two is going to be a pain.

But a lot of campaigns--such as many of the adventure paths--are essentially single-story. You can be Frodo, because the question to toss the Ring into Mt. Doom is the campaign.

Just saying, I think this may be a mismatch of expectations as opposed to an actual disagreement.

There is definitely some of that going on, but I still maintain that it's both fun and possibly to do in a campaign with a sandbox/series feel.

A reluctant hero BACKSTORY is fine. But, the PC really needs to be past that when adventure time comes around (or, at least, at the end of the first adventure). This is especially so in a party of other PCs, because the DM (and at my table, that's usually me) shouldn't be forced at the start of each new adventure to lavish a ton of time and attention re-baiting the one reluctant hero PC. I'm not writing a never ending slew of Death Wish sequels (where each one opens with Charles Bronson's friends and family being violently assaulted and murdered), I'm writing an adventure for a group of 4-6 players who want to play through the adventure and have fun together. And the rest of the players, who are ready to engage the game and sensibly have characters ready to go on the quest (with just a little bit of incentive), shouldn't have to sit there while the DM throws all the spotlight on getting one player effectively begging her to engage because her character is the ever-reluctant hero.

If the rest of the party is nothing but NPCs and I'm running an adventure for a single player, that's a somewhat different story (though still tiring and monotonous due to the repetition).

Frodo is a work of fiction written by a man who wanted that character to be part of an overarching story. In other words, his DM could chose when that reluctance was overcome. A TTRPG reluctant hero is played by someone not the writer of the story, imposes their reluctance on the rest of the playgroup, and starts out with an adversarial relationship with the DM. It's effectively an attitude of "I don't want to adventure, so you'll have to make me." No, I won't make you. I'll ask you to leave so the rest of us can play.

If that is how its' going down, then the player is doing it wrong. It should be, "my character doesn't want to adventure, but here is the reason that I have crafted to get him out the door and I'm handing you potential plot hooks for future development." It is collaborative story telling after all.

The player doesn't control the cirucumstances surrounding the character - he can have a backstory of having been a reluctant adventurer, at first (and now being all angsty about it as he continues to adventure),

No but you control your character's response to circumstances and that is all the difference between an enthusiastic character and a reluctant one.

but it's not going to keep up without constant pressure from outside (from the other PCs needing his help, or the DM forcing circumstances, or whatever).

And? I still don't think this is as hard as you guys are trying to make it sounds. What is the difference between being "angsty about [adventuring]" and being a reluctant hero? Angst is literally "a feeling of deep anxiety and dread". Reluctance is literally "an unwillingness or disinclination to..." they go hand in hand. The old priest I mentioned earlier is pulled directly from a Story Hour on these boards from the early 2000's by Pirate Cat. Velendo of Calphas He is also the very definition of reluctant hero playing in a long running game that was more episodic than one main long arc.

Just because you're reluctant doesn't mean you can't develop relationships with the other PC's that continue to pull you along for the ride without a lot of DM or PC effort to drag the PC out. For the rogue idea earlier, why couldn't the horrible mistake be one where the head of the theives guild will not rest until he has word of your character's death and his agents pursue you (at random times) across every where you go? That's not that hard and also puts great tension in their building PC relationships because that other PC knows that he/she is a threat to new friends and/or may need to run at any time and isn't sure if the other PCs will want to go with. It also provides a great adventure for the DM to plan to alleviate the that threat and maybe allow the PC to become a more normal adventurer.

REGIS! I just thought of him. He is a picture of the rogue plot I talked about and it provides all the points I mentioned above. Stole from the head of the guild, pursued all the way from Calimport up to Ten Towns in the north. He never wanted/liked stepping foot outside his door on adventure, but he did every time his friends called because they were his friends... and still he went. Why can't a player have that in a game? Is that really so hard to play or DM? And there are other ways to have that kind of situation besides exactly duplicating the Regis storyline.

It's like you guys are looking at "reluctant" as "impossible to work into the story" and I just see it as "a challenging roleplay idea". Either way. Don't use the concept then if it's so hard for you.

 

[Staccat0]

I feel like people look at the encounter building rules and seemingly endeavor to make boring combats by treating a “medium” combat as a “recommended” combat. I’m assuming it’s the way it’s written or something in the DMG.

IMO They work better as a ruler and not a stencil. Just a (maybe kinda flimsy) tool. Not a guide.

I do find 4e monsters cool and interesting, and steal ideas from those monsters but if I make a boring fight without inherent tension and drama that’s generally on me.

I feel like people should be lifting from 4e AND the OSR scene if they wanna spice things up. If your players feel safe, never have to rush and fight everything to the death combat gets boring fast. After level 3 just go HARD and let them solve the problems with creativity.

I’ve found that embracing everything I thought was dumb and tedious about old D&D as a kid makes combat a lot more thrilling when approached with a cleaner 5e kinda mindset.

After level 10... yeah it gets really hard to scare them. Luckily that means you can just go harder and harder or start a new game.

I suppose none of this is useful for people running pre-written stuff. I guess we’ll see where Undermountain goes. In my games, when I can’t threaten the PCs I start to threaten the things they care about instead. Try to spread them thin. I’m assuming they found a better solution for a published adventure.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's like you guys are looking at "reluctant" as "impossible to work into the story" and I just see it as "a challenging roleplay idea". Either way

That's starting to sound more ambivalent, brooding or just edgy.

Don't use the concept then if it's so hard for you.

Snidely implying incompetence is the only reason to disagree with you does seem to have a solid track record around here.

It's not that it's difficult, but problematic. You can RP your character that way, but it'll frequently be forced and implausible, because you just have control of the character.

There are very few RPGs that give players the kind of narrative control to pull off the concept in a functional way.

 

[Salthorae]

That's starting to sound more ambivalent, brooding or just edgy.

Snidely implying incompetence is the only reason to disagree with you does seem to have a solid track record around here.

It's not that it's difficult, but problematic. You can RP your character that way, but it'll frequently be forced and implausible, because you just have control of the character.

There are very few RPGs that give players the kind of narrative control to pull off the concept in a functional way.

I wasn't implying incompetence... more of a lack of effort. You and Mecha said that it was problematic/hard/difficult/whatever, I tried to give you ideas and examples of how it can work fairly easily and you just continue to tell me how problematic it is and how it won't work, so that's fine. I'm finished with this discussion.