Should adventurers be "better"?

[Snoweel]

Good point, Heav.

I mean, who'd last longer on a typical dangerous "adventure"?

Arnold Shwarzenegger: Expert 3/Commoner 1.

STR 19 (began at 18)
DEX 12
CON 18
INT 14
WIS 10
CHA 14

or

Drake Darklance (don't laugh): 18 levels of Fighter and associated Prestige Classes

STR 16 (began at 12 - Drake is a skinny, bandy-legged white guy)
DEX 12
CON 16
INT 10
WIS 10
CHA 11

Even unarmed and unarmoured, Drake would kick Arnies ass and "make all of the Seven Sisters give him their panties".

 

[ForceUser]

So I don't think good stats make an adventurer, neither do I think average (or even sub-par) stats can stop somebody from having an impact on the world.

Hear hear. Somehow, I doubt Frodo or Sam had what you would call exceptional stats.

 

[Aaron L]

I prefer playing Elric to that one guy that got killed in that one chapter.

 

[ForceUser]

I prefer playing Elric to that one guy that got killed in that one chapter.

Elric was a moody, unimaginative cuss. I've never seen what was so inspiring about him, but he did have an interesting sword.

 

[Snoweel]

Elric is the star of the story - he's a PC, if you will.

That guy that got killed? He's obviously an NPC extra.

And don't forget that Elric is a hero (or antihero) despite being a weakling.

 

[Drakmar]

Why should adventurers be better than normal people?

They should. And they shouldn't.

To me.. it really depends on the campaign flavour and what "feel" the DM and the Players want to achieve.

I personally prefer to play what I call Hero Characters.. larger than life people, who have been blessed with a mighty attribute and a desire to do good stuff. I get a kick out of it.

But.. I also really enjoy playing a character that has average stats and has to do the hard slog to get anywhere. I find both style of characters rewarding.

Mainly what kind of character I play depends on the DM and the Campaign and what I feel like playing at the time.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

In a pre-modern setting a major part of what you would achieve in order to become a hero would be far better than average stats.

You don't have to think of it as genetics, afterall a major part of the qualties of the elite characters listed earlier, while they would certainly have some genetic basis, were created by choices that those people made. People choose to exercise in order to get better athletic 'stats,' and for those of us who have our doubts about IQ testing there is a lot to be said for choice there as well.

Reggie Jackson certainly took up a large part of his will and time with the discipline necessary to assure athletic prowress and intellectual accuity. The same with Leonardo, a man who also used his intelligence and charisma to give an overblown account of himself even in his own time period, mush less today.

In a pre-modern setting acquiring those higher stats becomes not simply a choice, but an essential requirement for advancing in any career. A monk or theologian can't simply be persistent and willing, he has got to use that persitence and willingness to acquire both the wisdom and intelligence necessary to maneauvre through the duties of the faithful, master several languages, and acquire a vast amount of systematic knowledge from a heavily flawed matrix. Similarly, being a medieval soldier involves becoming stronger and more dextrous or never making it through training to your first battle.

Heroes have to have high stats in the same way that a doctor has to have several degrees.

 

[FireLance]

The Lottery of Life means that characters with higher statistics tend to survive.

The greataxe swing that just misses the Dex 14 rogue slices the head off the Dex 13 rogue.

The paralysing poison that the Con 14 fighter just manages to shrug off leaves the Con 13 fighter as carrion crawler food.

The Cha 14 bard just manages to put the ogre to sleep, while the Cha 13 bard is out of luck.

Successful, high level heroes may be more determined, braver, more adventurous or just plain luckier than ordinary mortals.

But chances are, they will also have higher stats.

 

[Gnarlo]

My favorite take on it, Sean Connery drilling the troops in The Man Who Would Be King :

"You are going to become soldiers! A soldier does not think! He only obeys! Do you really think that if a soldier thought twice he'd give his life for queen and country?! Not bloody likely! He wouldn't go near the battlefield! One look at your foolish faces tells me you're going to be crack troops! Oh, him there, with the 5 1/2 hat size, he has the makings of a bloody hero !"

/gnarlo!

 

[Umbran]

FireLance has a reasonably good point. There's gonna be a strong Darwinian selection against mediocre heroes.

Plus, let's face it, our modern world is cushy. We can afford to lack motivation. In a world where monsters walk the earth, it's motivate or die. If a "normal" person could do all the things that needed doing, they'd get done by normal people.