Should adventurers be "better"?

I have players roll 4d6, drop the lowest, place number where they want to, so point buy doesn't apply.

What I want to know is.......how does rooting around in dungeons make you a hero? Adventurers at the core are people with nothing better to do, so they set out. Sure, there are paladins and clerics, and they don't all dip into the coffers, but a basic fighter, starting out, is a hero? Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are heroes? Even through their adventures, they are opprotunists if anything, out for loot. They do save the world, I will say (Bazaar of the Bizarre, the Swords of Lankhmar) however, in many more cases, they bored, broke or looking for fabulous treasure. My group are a group of adventurers who are out for fun and profit, no lofty ideals, therefore there is no reason for them to possess heroic statistics.

hellbender
 

log in or register to remove this ad

hellbender said:
My group are a group of adventurers who are out for fun and profit, no lofty ideals, therefore there is no reason for them to possess heroic statistics.

But neither does your group work in offices during the week, mow their lawns on Saturdays, make mortgage payments, sit around watch ESPN, etc...

Instead of calling them "heroes", how about "protagonists in action-adventure stories"? Does that help? Motivation or ideals have nothing to do with it. RPG's all feature dangerous situations straight out of adventure books and films, and usually sport larger-than-life characters up to meeting those challenges.
 

hellbender said:
What I want to know is.......how does rooting around in dungeons make you a hero? Adventurers at the core are people with nothing better to do, so they set out. Sure, there are paladins and clerics, and they don't all dip into the coffers, but a basic fighter, starting out, is a hero? Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are heroes? Even through their adventures, they are opprotunists if anything, out for loot. They do save the world, I will say (Bazaar of the Bizarre, the Swords of Lankhmar) however, in many more cases, they bored, broke or looking for fabulous treasure. My group are a group of adventurers who are out for fun and profit, no lofty ideals, therefore there is no reason for them to possess heroic statistics.

hellbender

They are the heroes of the stories. Heracles is not a nice guy (except on the show), neither is Conan, but they are heroic figures. They are certainly not average stat people.

If your looters are extraordianary larger than life people of action and adventure then they are heroic figures whether they are noble or not.
 

My own take on this:

There is no such thing as an "average person." Averages are statistical abstracts. While the average peasant may have str 11, dex 10, con 11, int 10, wis 11, cha 10, the village supposedly inhabited by this "average" peasant may not have any individual peasant who fits that description. It probably has a peasant with Str 15, Dex 7, Con 11, Int 9, Wis 13, Cha 10, another with Str 13, Dex 11, Con 8, Int 13, Wis 7, Cha 15, and another with Str 9, Dex 11, Con 9, Int 17, Wis 12, Cha 8. Each of the peasants will have their own story and their own list of skills and feats that they've chosen in accordance with their interests, discipline, and desires.

(And despite the supposedly bell curved distribution, there will be very few peasants with less than an 8 con--most of them died in childhood accidents, plagues, or childbirth).

In this world, "adventurers" are not a separate race of people. They are those who by temperment, choice, or circumstance, took up the role of "adventurer." When the Shieldlands were overrun, most peasants fled, many were enslaved, and some were trapped behind enemy lines but not captured. That last group--those who chose to remain behind as resistance fighters, those who had no choice but to remain behind (because their escape route was cut off), and those who escaped slavery are the "adventurers." Some of them are stronger, faster, tougher, smarter, wiser, and more persuasive than the others. Others of them are none of the above but were just lucky enough to survive (the 14 dex rogue may dodge one blow in 20 that would have killed the 13 dex rogue, but there are probably 5 of those twenty blows that will kill either rogue and if the 14 dex rogue is unlucky enough to catch those rolls, it's the 13 dex rogue who'll survive). Still others are doomed (because of lack of skill, foresight, wisdom or luck) to be among the many victims of the occupation--their corpses displayed as warnings to others and their skulls paving the road to Dorrakka. (Some of these unfortunates will have died with the first arrow, others will have sold thier lives dearly but this group is all dead--both the high stat and the low stat ones).

So what does that mean for PCs? It means that the pool of "adventurers" is not that different from the pool of non-adventurers. Just as some peasants are strong, smart, and good looking and others are weak and unhealthy and are doomed to struggle their entire lives, some adventurers are tall have bulging muscles, cleft chins, wise minds, and gleaming white teeth, while others are weak and sickly and drag themselves along the bottom of the adventuring rung until fortune smiles on them (and they have the opportunity to loot the corpse of the white-toothed high-stat adventurer after the dire bear got him) or they become the NPC who dies in the opening scene so that the DM can show how evil the villain is. When I have the choice, the PCs are middle of the road adventurers. They're not the children of the gods or the scions of the master race but neither are they the whipping boys of fate. At 25-32 point buy, they'll show up their enemies through teamwork, skill, luck, and superior experience rather than because it's their birthrite. And some--perhaps many (especially at the level 5-8 breakpoint between low and mid level play)--will die in the process. Occasionally, they'll be shown up by "commoners" when they visit a town fair and assume that they're stronger or more skilled than anyone there (especially at low levels). But that's a part of the source literature too. (Robin Hood often found that others were his equal with the quarterstaff (from Little John, to Will Scarlet, Friar Tuck, and the Tinker) and Richard the Lion Hearted was slain by an anonymous French crossbowman).

In my view, point buy doesn't serve to set "adventurers" apart from "peasants." Instead, it serves to put all of the PCs at a more or less equal level in the adventuring community (so that party is playing the Hobbits in the Fellowship or Boromir, Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn, et al but nobody's stuck playing Pippin while everyone else gets to be cool) and (at 25-32 points) to place them firmly in the middle of the adventuring community so that some people will be more statistically endowed and others will be weaker.
 

hellbender said:
What I want to know is.......how does rooting around in dungeons make you a hero? Adventurers at the core are people with nothing better to do, so they set out. Sure, there are paladins and clerics, and they don't all dip into the coffers, but a basic fighter, starting out, is a hero? Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are heroes?

It depends on what's in the crypt.

In the Dragonlance Saga, the heroes delve into the Ruined City of Xak Tsaroth to recover an artifact that signals the next Era of their world. They delve into the Dwarven Citadel of Pax Tharkas to unvcover the secret to Dragonlances. They delve into the ruins of Istar not by choice, but by misfortune.

Piratecat's Defenders of Daybreak go into the underworld to destroy the White Kingdom of the ghouls, and to rectify some past "sins."

It's not necessarily all "let's get the loot," though most casual games end up being that way.

Fafhrd and the Mouser are more anti-hero than hero, but they are still fun to watch. If you ever want to see the true basis for casual modern-day adventuring parties as the majority of D&D is played, read Leiber's Fafhrd and the Mouser books, or howard's Conan stories (the ones about Conan's early life.) Most adventuring is heroic, though many characters are just as competently played as anti-heroes.
 

I have to say, SnowEel, it's a pleasure to hear from you on this issue. You are making some very solid points that I will use in my own gaming.

The character who dominates one of my current campaigns started with the lowest average starting attributes of any character. However, after a few levels, the advantages of experience begin to overwhelm whatever genetic/inherent advantages people with high starting ability scores have.

Far more important for my lead PC is having collected more experience points and gear than anyone else. Clever tactical playing (his big spreadsheet for calculating the optimal power attack, e.g.) also helps.

I think it's a pretty sad commentary on society: our obsession with genetics and undervaluation of choice that is causing more and more people to believe heroes are created through genetics rather than choice.

Heroism is about choice, pure and simple.
 

he·ro ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hîr)
n. pl. he·roes
1. In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.
2. A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war.


The word hero does not describe my group. Protagonist, yes, antihero, at times, but they are no heroes. To call any old person who strikes out on adventure a hero besmirches the term when applied to true heroes.


hellbender
 

"Hero" is overused (I believe they had a column at one time over at RPG.net that talked about what it really meant), I agree. But 'protagonist' is still a valid term for the 'stars of the show' in an age when everything seems gray and self-interest is the noblest quality around. So I'd use 'protagonist'.

Anyway.

My game, I justify larger-than-life heroes by presupposing some sort of 'adventurer gene' which gives the character the ability to progress in levels really quickly to the point where they can take a clip from an M16 in the gut and keep on fighting. This is not a normal person - this is a person with enhanced positive energy flow and maybe some other extraplanar connections (which explains the sudden manifestation of new abilies when they take a prestige class). Given that, extraordinary stats aren't so extraordinary (especially after considering the possible influences on the history of humanoid evolution in the world - here's a hint: "We're big, we're fire-breathing, we're smarter than you, and we've been here a lot longer than recorded history."). Adventurers are born with a purpose, and that purpose is to kick butt.
 

Addenda:

6'6" and 300lb isn't the epitome of fighting perfection. The most dangerous men in the world are the short, unassuming fellows with special forces training. They don't look the business, but they sure can perform.

I've heard (not seen, so unverifiable) that there was an episode of Gladiators (remember that?) where they got an audience volunteer, a retired SAS officer. Probably two heads shorter than the ox-man he's up against. They hand him a giant cotton-bud, he hefts it, and beats the crap out of the other guy in a little under a second.

I've heard worse things, too. Like the guy who went in to kill a guy in the middle of a dance at a social event, and who completed the mission so well nobody even noticed him leaving the dancefloor with a corpse. Or another case of an SAS operative who was consulting with Latin American police on an anti-drug operation, and whose idea of fun when coming back from the bar at night afterwards was to purposefully attract muggers and leave them broken in the gutter.

These are not ordinary people, although they look it.

Now why don't we have protagonists like this in the literature more often?
 

fusangite said:
I think it's a pretty sad commentary on society: our obsession with genetics and undervaluation of choice that is causing more and more people to believe heroes are created through genetics rather than choice.

Heroism is about choice, pure and simple.
Deeds? yes.

But many intellignet heroes in history had genetics on their side. So did some figther pilots by having razor sharp reflexes, excellent hand eye coordination, a naturally low adrenaline level and resistance to G-Forces. People without those traits simply don't become fighter pilots anymore.

And I might want to play a strong yet smart wizard once. Point buy pidgeon holes characters into their archetypes 99% of the times. The lower the point buy, the more this is the case.
 

Remove ads

Top