D&D 5E I hope 5th edition makes room for "Adventurers" and "Heroes".

[Uchawi]

I am not sure there is a standard definition for adventurer versus hero, but in modern terms I believe it would be a non-professional or weekend warrior, versus a professional or skilled athlete. The biggest problem with 5E is the classes are not treated in the same fashion starting at first level. So fighters would tend to be adventurers because what they do is not very defined or limited, and they have to wait longer to start to diversify or specialize where a bard, wizard, or cleric is a professional right at the start.

 

[Hussar]

I would say that Dragonlance is standard fantasy while Forgotten Realms is high fantasy.

Not everyone and their mother is slinging spells in Dragonlance and everyone doesn't walk around with a magic sword.

Just as a point, they actually do. Every single one of the Heroes of the Lance has several magical weapons, most of them +3 or higher, by 5th level. DL is very, very high powered.

Note, your use of high and low fantasy here is actually not how the line is drawn. In high fantasy stories, the fate of the world is at stake. Cast of thousands that sort of thing. Low fantasy is local, with a small number of characters in the story. Thus, LotR is most certainly high fantasy, as is A Song of Fire and Ice, while Conan or other similar stories are low fantasy.

The amount of magic in the story does not define high vs low fantasy.

 

[Hussar]

Whoops, just saw how much of a thread necro this was. Sigh. Should have known from the names.

But, in any case, Mercurius is absolutely right. You can do any level of adventurer to high heroic in any version of D&D.

 

[Emerikol]

Just as a point, they actually do. Every single one of the Heroes of the Lance has several magical weapons, most of them +3 or higher, by 5th level. DL is very, very high powered.

Note, your use of high and low fantasy here is actually not how the line is drawn. In high fantasy stories, the fate of the world is at stake. Cast of thousands that sort of thing. Low fantasy is local, with a small number of characters in the story. Thus, LotR is most certainly high fantasy, as is A Song of Fire and Ice, while Conan or other similar stories are low fantasy.

The amount of magic in the story does not define high vs low fantasy.

I don't think that is how people are using high and low fantasy. Maybe they really mean high and low magic and are using the word fantasy in error. I'm not disputing your official definition if that is what it is but I'd lump LoTR and SoFI in the low magic settings. Harry Potter would be a high magic example. D&D has traditionally been high magic.

Using your definition for fantasy, I never play a high fantasy game. I prefer low fantasy all the way. I do prefer high magic though.

Confused yet? .

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I've always seen the term "High Fantasy" used in relation to things being far away from reality vs "Low Fantasy" which is really close to reality.

High Fantasy has always referred to stories with magic everywhere and an abundance of fantastical creatures.

Low Fantasy is stories where it is very close to real life, even historical except for a couple of small changes like only a couple of people who can do magic or almost no fantastical creatures.

 

[Haffrung]

That said, I'm disappointed to yet again see the PH giving warnings against playing evil PCs. Sigh.

WotC are more than a little inconsistent on the matter. They warn against playing evil PCs, then publish whole settings books like Menzoberranzan and Heroes of Shadow that are all about running wholly evil parties. In fact, it's the middle ground shades of grey parties, who have mercenary or selfish motives without being entirely black-cape evil, that seem to get the least amount of support. For instance, you rarely see greed or curiosity cited as hooks for adventure.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think that is how people are using high and low fantasy. Maybe they really mean high and low magic and are using the word fantasy in error. I'm not disputing your official definition if that is what it is but I'd lump LoTR and SoFI in the low magic settings. Harry Potter would be a high magic example. D&D has traditionally been high magic.

Using your definition for fantasy, I never play a high fantasy game. I prefer low fantasy all the way. I do prefer high magic though.

Confused yet? .

Oh no. I totally agree with you. LotR is a pretty low magic setting, although I think there is perhaps more there than people think.

I do think a two axis grid for plotting fantasy works better. A high magic low fantasy game looks a lot like what I usually play. Greyhawk is a great example, particularly in the old modules.

 

[ccooke]

WotC are more than a little inconsistent on the matter. They warn against playing evil PCs, then publish whole settings books like Menzoberranzan and Heroes of Shadow that are all about running wholly evil parties. In fact, it's the middle ground shades of grey parties, who have mercenary or selfish motives without being entirely black-cape evil, that seem to get the least amount of support. For instance, you rarely see greed or curiosity cited as hooks for adventure.

I don't think that's entirely inconsistent.

The PHB should contain a warning against playing evil characters. If you're new to roleplaying, evil characters in the party (and especially a mixture of good and evil) massively increases the chances that your game will crash and burn and potentially ruin friendships. Hell, even some groups that are full of experienced roleplayers avoid evil characters because they know it leads to tensions they don't find fun.

People who want to play evil characters are going to ignore the PHB and play evil characters anyway. They'll have a lot of fun doing it, because it's what they want to play... but the PHB should give advice that suits new players first, otherwise they might not become experienced players.

So, the PHB advises against it, but there's a ton of material supporting evil characters because that's what people want.

Hopefully the DMG will contain a proper discussion - just a paragraph or a sidebar will do fine - about the issues with an evil game or mixed party.

 

[Lanefan]

In fact, it's the middle ground shades of grey parties, who have mercenary or selfish motives without being entirely black-cape evil, that seem to get the least amount of support. For instance, you rarely see greed or curiosity cited as hooks for adventure.

Good point, particularly about curiosity...though to some extent that part may be player-dependent. If the players-via-characters aren't curious about the game world (and a surprising number aren't, it seems) then curiosity as a hook by itself won't go far.

Greed, on the other hand, will get most players-via-characters out of bed any day. I'm surprised it's not used as the straight-up basis for more adventures, particularly at low level.

Lan-"NG alignment in my game usually means Neutral Greedy rather than Neutral Good"-efan

 

[DEFCON 1]

Greed, on the other hand, will get most players-via-characters out of bed any day. I'm surprised it's not used as the straight-up basis for more adventures, particularly at low level.

They probably figure that the "Kill 'em and take their stuff" is such a cliche at this point that they don't need to actually offer that as an option, since that's in the background as 'Story Hook 0' in every D&D adventure anyway. Hell... it's so cliche that Steve Jackson designed an entire series of games around the concept. LOL.