For the sake of adventure

[Henry]

There is one player in my regular game who has NEVER played anything but the same character-type - a mercenary Han-Solo type who is in it solely for the money. He tends to be a bit difficult to work into every adventure, because there's only so many times you can use the "she's rich" plotline before the PC has all the money they should theoretically want. Even now, his Artificer is setting up shop in Eberron for making magic items for others.

I like playing different character types and some of those PC's only want the thrill of adventure. Others will want some reason to risk life and limb besides fortune and glory, just like most people in real life wouldn't just up and go to some global hot-spot just to see how long they can dodge bullets.

 

[Belen]

I like my characters to have a history and motivations that help create plot ideas, yet I would love to see people just go off and find adventure just for the love of it.

I miss those types of games. They were so uncomplicated.

 

[TheEvil]

I often run my characters as 'professional' adventurers. They are in it for the thrill, experience, treasure and prestige, more or less in that order.
I game for the fun and it can get frutrating when someone is constantly piping up with 'Well, my character wouldn't be interested in that...' and so yet another adventure hook passes us by. To many games stall for this very reason. On the other hand, playing LG has taught me how irritating the 'you are outside the dungeon of such and such' can be...

 

[Voadam]

Whatever happened to being an adventurer just for the sake of adventure?

Would your group of PCs go look for the lost city just to see if they could find it?

Would your group of PCs go explore the old, abandoned mines just to see if anything was there?

Would your group of PCs go track down the bandit raiders just to put a stop to their attacks?

Would your group of PCs go into the Haunted Forest just to test themselves?


Do your PCs need plot hooks or rewards to go on an adventure?


Quasqueton

Right now the party I DM includes a paladin, an exalted druid, a good cleric, and a neutral arcane trickster.

Three out of the four seek heroic wrongs to right and the fourth is being partially caught up and converted to heroic righteousness from his thiefly past.

So for right now they would intervene with the bandits, but probably pass on the "its a neat place to explore" hooks.

My PC who is going solo is involved in several ongoing plots, and though he would enjoy checking out odd things and traveling to neat places, he feels a responsibility to deal with the multiple evils, mysteries, and political machinations he is actively involved in. It would take more than a mention of cool abandoned mines to get him going, although he would love an excuse to go to them.

 

[Khur]

The professional adventurer thing is easy, and it works. I’ve had whole campaigns based around the professional explorer types. One rumor, a scrap of a map, and off they go. The thing is, professional adventurers aren’t the same thing as heroes, though the two needn’t be separate entities. Professional adventurers still have motivations, whether those be curiosity, lust for knowledge, greed, or some queer combination of those and more. Most of these characters also have desires and histories that provide hooks for other types of stories. There’s nothing wrong with that either.

I think the major problem that can arise is when the DM provides no guidance for persons who wish to create story-rich characters, and other types of players don’t co-create to make a group that works together. These two failings inevitably lead to impasses as the method actor cries, “Where’s my motivation?” and the others cry, “Just follow us—we three don’t have any reasons to even be together, much less go on the adventure.” Such problems also lead to situations in which the party has no reason to help each other, much less someone else in need.

If the situation were the opposite, the method actor might be able to say, “My character isn’t personally interested in this, but she’ll go to protect her friends.” That’s real enough. As is, “My character isn’t personally interested in this, but he’ll go to make sure something interesting doesn’t happen without him.” The list goes on. (“Those @%#$^@s aren’t going anywhere without me. They owe me, and I aim to collect!)

Even professional adventurers need reasons to work together, otherwise inter-party conflict is usually soon in the offing. Who would take a group of three unknown ruffians with him into the Temple of Abominable Awfulness? A fool, and that’s about it. People team up to compliment each other and ensure success, and the wise avoid as many unknowns as possible. There’ll be enough unknowns in the Temple.

Someone who has a character that can’t be hooked also has a character that would be boring in any other form of entertainment, from novels to films. That person has created an uninteresting situation by creating a lackluster character. If boredom follows, it’s not the DM’s fault.

Even kick-in-the-door players need loose back-stories to tie their characters to one another with some form of loyalty. Call it the Krusk-Vadania-Soveliss method of party construction. (Vadania or Soveliss can tie into Mialee, Devis, or even Nebbin for a little arcane power.) That is, unless there’s to be no roleplaying whatsoever. If it’s go in, pound the monster, and grab the loot, then that’s very much like a video game. It’s no wonder such players would prefer Diablo or some MMORPG, either. The gratification is quicker and easier.

I don’t think there’s any right way or wrong way to play. If you’re having fun, you’re doing it right. But you get out of the game as much as you put in.

 

[TheEvil]

Well said indeed!

The professional adventurer thing is easy, and it works. I’ve had whole campaigns based around the professional explorer types. One rumor, a scrap of a map, and off they go. The thing is, professional adventurers aren’t the same thing as heroes, though the two needn’t be separate entities. Professional adventurers still have motivations, whether those be curiosity, lust for knowledge, greed, or some queer combination of those and more. Most of these characters also have desires and histories that provide hooks for other types of stories. There’s nothing wrong with that either.

I think the major problem that can arise is when the DM provides no guidance for persons who wish to create story-rich characters, and other types of players don’t co-create to make a group that works together. These two failings inevitably lead to impasses as the method actor cries, “Where’s my motivation?” and the others cry, “Just follow us—we three don’t have any reasons to even be together, much less go on the adventure.” Such problems also lead to situations in which the party has no reason to help each other, much less someone else in need.

If the situation were the opposite, the method actor might be able to say, “My character isn’t personally interested in this, but she’ll go to protect her friends.” That’s real enough. As is, “My character isn’t personally interested in this, but he’ll go to make sure something interesting doesn’t happen without him.” The list goes on. (“Those @%#$^@s aren’t going anywhere without me. They owe me, and I aim to collect!)

Even professional adventurers need reasons to work together, otherwise inter-party conflict is usually soon in the offing. Who would take a group of three unknown ruffians with him into the Temple of Abominable Awfulness? A fool, and that’s about it. People team up to compliment each other and ensure success, and the wise avoid as many unknowns as possible. There’ll be enough unknowns in the Temple.

Someone who has a character that can’t be hooked also has a character that would be boring in any other form of entertainment, from novels to films. That person has created an uninteresting situation by creating a lackluster character. If boredom follows, it’s not the DM’s fault.

Even kick-in-the-door players need loose back-stories to tie their characters to one another with some form of loyalty. Call it the Krusk-Vadania-Soveliss method of party construction. (Vadania or Soveliss can tie into Mialee, Devis, or even Nebbin for a little arcane power.) That is, unless there’s to be no roleplaying whatsoever. If it’s go in, pound the monster, and grab the loot, then that’s very much like a video game. It’s no wonder such players would prefer Diablo or some MMORPG, either. The gratification is quicker and easier.

I don’t think there’s any right way or wrong way to play. If you’re having fun, you’re doing it right. But you get out of the game as much as you put in.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Depends on the character and campaign style. I'm certainly willing to play a character who goes adventuring for the sake of adventuring. But I prefer actual plots and stories. I want my character to feel like he's more than numbers on paper, and that means believable motivations. And "I feel like delving into this dark catacomb for no better reason than to see what's there" is only believable under very set circumstances. Same when I DM. I prefer plot-intensive campaigns, often epic in scope, often saving the world. And anyone who thinks that can't be done without railroading hasn't had a decent DM try it.

Though of course, the DM has to mention in advance that it's going to be that sort of campaign, so the characters are created appropriately. There's nothing wrong with a DM saying "Only good characters in this campaign" or "No dwarves" or whatever, if he's trying to create a cetain feel for the setting.

As far as the whole "Well, my character wouldn't be involved in that!" syndrome? Anybody in one of my games gets to play that card once, at the beginning of the campaign, and I'll make an effort to find a plot hook to involve them. Once.

If it comes up a second time? "Okay, your character stays at home making scrolls. If you want to play tonight, roll up a new one who will participate, because the rest of the party's going into the woods."

 

[RFisher]

Whatever happened to being an adventurer just for the sake of adventure?

Nothing. It's always been right h...wait...where did...oh...phew...right here all along.

 

[Rel]

That's a heck of a good post up there, Khur.

My take is this: I make PC's with extensive backstory and I like it if the GM will tie in some plot hooks to what I come up with. But I write the backstory with this sort of thing in mind. I GM a lot of the time so I know it can be a pain if somebody makes a PC with narrow interests. So my PC's have very broad interests like "wants to get rich and meet possible business contacts in far flung parts of the world" or "wants to seek out obscure bits of magic relating to his chosen field and will go anywhere they are rumored to be" or "just wants to see the world". So it should be real easy to accomodate those motivations and I like it when the GM puts in that minimal effort to mold the adventure to my PC (and makes similar tweaks for the other PC's).

That's not to say that I have to have my special flavor of motivation every time I set my foot out the door. I don't mind going along on the adventure just to help cover the tails of my pals most of the time. Just as long as I get a nod once in a while.

The one thing that bugs me (and maybe it shouldn't but it does) is when the GM sets up a scenario that goes like this: Powerful NPC asks the low level party to engage in some petty errand that is roughly the right power level for the party but would take someone with access to the power the NPC has about 10 minutes. They always frame this quest as being terribly important, but apparently not important enough to take a morning off from being a 15th level archmage to take care of themselves. This all becomes vastly more irritating to me when they imply (or flat out say) that I should be doing this "for the good of the world" or some such.

Look, I'll rescue old women and orphans and farmers all day long for the good of the world. If you're innocent and helpless, even some of my more selfish characters will help out. But let The Lord High Humperdink, High Priest of Dingdong and 13th level Cleric tell me that he wants me to ride half a day out of town to stomp out a dozen goblins that are plaguing the trade route into town and do it for "the good of the kingdom" and I start to bristle. If he dares to tell me, "You may keep any spoils that you plunder from the evil Goblins.", I find it hard not to laugh in his face.

But that's just me.

 

[Philip]

I agree, good post Khur.

I always tell my players when they are busy making their new characters that the D&D game assumes two things:

1. You play an adventurer.
2. You play in a group.

They are free to create whatever personality they want, but it must be an adventurer: someone who's interest is piqued by hearing of a great treasure, someone who acts when he sees a damsel kidnapped in the street. If you want to play a stay-at-the-temple priest, don't play D&D.

Second, the players need to find reasons for their characters to remain with 'the group'. Maybe the the dwarf PC reminds the half-orc barbarian PC of a dwarf that spared him when a dwarven clan raided his parent's village and killed his parents, and tags along despite his universal hatred for dwarves. Whatever, be creative! If they go looking for conflict within the group, they don't play D&D.