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

[Haffrung]

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.

But the default story hook these days - "villagers are threatened by humanoids/undead/dragon, you must save them!" - is no more sophisticated. At least greed has the merit of being genuinely appealing to players. I'd guess many players take the 'save the village' hook just because they're supposed to, not because they feel any sense of obligation to a generic fantasy-world community.

I'd just like it if more adventures offered a nod to non-altruistic reasons for engaging with the setting and NPCs. I'll modify published adventures to suit my needs, but writers don't make it easy when they presume the PCs are going to take a particular altruistic and perilous course of action or the adventure 'plot' simply stalls. I think the key to supporting 'adventurers' rather than 'heroes' is to make locales interesting and attractive in themselves, rather than rely on specific social choices on the part of the PCs.

 

[Hussar]

I'd buy that, although, to be fair, it's pretty rare for the quest to come with no expectation of renumeration. PC's (and particularly players) expect to get paid. Most of the standard save the "town" (insert noun as needed) adventures come with a double approach of "Hey, this is what heroes should be doing" and "if you do this, we'll make it worth your while".

I wonder how people would react though if the reward offered was the only reward. Most of the time it's "we'll pay you a bit on top, but, it's the loot you get in the adventure that's going to be your reward". And, conveniently, every orc you hit sprays gold blood. It would make for a very different dynamic if the monsters were all dirt poor (as quite possibly, they should be, no convenient lootable corpses lying around) and the party only gets a monetary reward from the quest giver.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If LotR isn't high fantasy, then nothing is. It's the benchmark.

It used to be high fantasy. Then power creep set in.

Gandalf's only a 5th level wizard, anyway.

Two other thoughts on this thread:

- I like playing adventurers who might turn out to be heroes, but I'm not going to roleplay being an urchin for two levels just to gain a background!

- "We are all heroes. You, and Boo, and I ... hamsters and rangers everywhere!"

 

[Emerikol]

It used to be high fantasy. Then power creep set in.

Gandalf's only a 5th level wizard, anyway.

You made the same mistake I did above. High magic =/= High Fantasy. LotR is without question about as high fantasy as you can get. The literal world is at stake. It is not high magic though by any means.

 

[Sadras]

You made the same mistake I did above. High magic =/= High Fantasy. LotR is without question about as high fantasy as you can get. The literal world is at stake. It is not high magic though by any means.

For me to clarify your perspective, when 'the literal world is at stake', like in most James Bond movies, you are equating those movies as High Fantasy?

 

[Iosue]

For me to clarify your perspective, when 'the literal world is at stake', like in most James Bond movies, you are equating those movies as High Fantasy?

High adventure, sure. But they're not fantasy in the first place, so not high fantasy, no.

 

[Sadras]

High adventure, sure. But they're not fantasy in the first place, so not high fantasy, no.

Ah, so the 'when the world is at stake' it allows one to utilise the word "High"
That is the common denominator in each instance.

 

[Iosue]

Ah, so the 'when the world is at stake' it allows one to utilise the word "High"
That is the common denominator in each instance.

I would say "world is at stake" is a sufficient condition for "high", but not a necessary one.

 

[dream66_]

But the default story hook these days - "villagers are threatened by humanoids/undead/dragon, you must save them!" - is no more sophisticated. At least greed has the merit of being genuinely appealing to players. I'd guess many players take the 'save the village' hook just because they're supposed to, not because they feel any sense of obligation to a generic fantasy-world community.

Wow, greed is litterally the least appealing hook to me. My life is full of instances where I'm forced to think in greedy ways simply in order to pay my bills. Saving people helping people is what I wish I could do in real life, but real lifes problems don't have as clear visible answers as dnd.

I play this game in order to be someone I can't in real life, not to just think about money and worry about what am I'm getting out of it, that's my day to day life. Selflessly risking my life, for no reward to save people from rampaging gnolls? That's what fantasy is for.

 

[Haffrung]

I play this game in order to be someone I can't in real life, not to just think about money and worry about what am I'm getting out of it, that's my day to day life. Selflessly risking my life, for no reward to save people from rampaging gnolls? That's what fantasy is for.

For you. People play D&D for all sorts of reasons. Exploring, finding cool stuff, and powering-up is a pretty standard fare, not just in D&D, but in fantasy CRPGs. If the only way to play Skyrim was to go around selflessly saving villages from dragons, it would have a much smaller audience.