Should adventurers be "better"?

[Ace]

I want the players to make the characters they want to play within the structures of my game world.

If they want to play "Joe Average" made good or a superman I let them

The easiest way to do this is to let the players set the stats they think are appropriate, no dice rolling (unless they want to) no point buy, just them consult me and play

It works for me

 

[Snoweel]

And let us not forget that the PCs are the ones who "win" in the 6-book series that is their life (in most cases), despite their stats.

The PCs don't face dangers that NPCs do (ie. the kind of sudden-death plot-device that kills a character despite best efforts to the contrary or sheer bad luck) and can safely assume that they will be able to find solutions to their problems, no matter how convoluted.

Also, they know that they will be rewarded for taking risks (or at least not punished for such) as long as those risks advance the story and bite on the DMs plot-hooks.

Whatever their stats, the PCs know they are special. They know that their efforts will be rewarded. they know the DM wants them to solve the problems and be the heroes.

Unless their DM is a true rat-bastard.

Also, LEVELS are what makes characters more able than their competition. And it is levels that PCs have the power to change through the course of their career.

However, ability score disparities are something the PC is more or less stuck with for their entire life.

And everybody will have a lot more fun if their characters aren't markedly and irreversibly different in power level throughout the entire campaign.

 

[Glyfair]

I can't imagine running a PC with "10" in every ability score. Or even some combination of 8, 10 and 12. That's BORING!

A lot of that is that D&D is very statistic-centric. At the most direct level, try running a high-level wizard with every stat a 12. Gee, an 18th level Wizards that can cast a lot of very low level spells. How did he get that high of a level when his power is so poor.

Other systems handle the "average" hero better. However, the real key is the GM & players. It's a matter of what sort of campaign feel the GM & players can generate. I do think that the more "normal" game requires a little more work or talent in this area.

Of course, the really hard part is the mixed party. It takes a very talented GM to make the normal character (say "Frodo") seem as important in a group that includes more powerful characters (almost any non-Hobbit in the Fellowship). Yes, players can help a little bit, but the burden is mostly on the GM to keep the spotlight focused.

Another issue is the David vs. Goliath comparison. While a true archetype of the common man overcoming, in game terms, it comes down to a lucky die roll. Unless you make David a high-level character, or give him a "magic sling," 99 times out of a hundred, David is going to die (and usually quickly). The system just doesn't really work on this level (and very few do).

Glyfair of Glamis

 

[Rune]

I prefer heroic games.

That's why I came up with a "roll 4d6 and drop the highest" mechanic.

And I would have gotten away with it too, if my players hadn't promised to kill me in my sleep.

I'm serious, by the way.

You see, heroism isn't about power, it's about rising to the challenge and overcoming it. It isn't about being the best, it's about becoming the best.

 

[Snoweel]

A lot of that is that D&D is very statistic-centric. At the most direct level, try running a high-level wizard with every stat a 12. Gee, an 18th level Wizards that can cast a lot of very low level spells. How did he get that high of a level when his power is so poor.

Ok, but assuming the PCs Int started at 12 (because if it had've started at 8, he would definitely not have been able to reach level 18), it would be 16 by 18th level, allowing him to cast 6th level spells (many of them metamagicked) and generally kick ass. Not only that, but a magic item that grants +3 or more to intelligence (well within his abilities to create) would have him fully competitive with any other 18th level Wizard.

All in all, I'd say a heroic story of an Int 12 Wizard that does the most with what he's been given.

 

[Sanackranib]

In other words, if normal folk could be successful adventurers, they would already have become adventurers, and there'd be no adventure left by the time your game actually starts.

good point

 

[Snoweel]

good point

Is it?

Umbran talks about "successful adventurers" as though all they need is high stats.

I think that, more important than high stats is the courage to be an adventurer.

This is why the 16th level, high-stat, warrior-king (who has immense courage on the field of battle, where he knows what he's facing) hires "lowly" 10th level PCs to go into the unknown rather than do it himself.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

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.

You are seriously misinterpreting what is being said. It isn't that genetics is the primary determinant of being a hero, but the very best heroes have the combination of all things.

For example, Michael Jordan would be nothing if he didn't have the drive to become the best basketball player I have ever seen play this game. But, he would also not be as good as he is if he didn't have a favorable set of genetics.

I feel the very best adventurers would be no different from the best athletes or soldiers of this time. If you think Joe Average can make it through SEAL training or become a sports star, then we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Make sure you understand that I know genetics alone won't carry you. Good genetics is simply one component necessary to be great in your given field. If that field is adventuring, I think you would need to be all around great like a top Special Ops soldier or an Athlete. I'm sorry, they don't allow Joe Average in either of those fields.

 

[Snoweel]

The topic of this thread (and indeed the point of discussion) has nothing to do with the "best" adventurers.

It is about how good one must be born in order to become a successful adventurer, to make an impact on the world, to become a hero.

And it is sad that in these days, effort and ambition is discouraged in the less-than-perfect.

 

[Celtavian]

From this thread.



Why?

Why should adventurers be better than normal people?

I've heard this so many times and always wondered why. I always found that success was more to do with attitude and opportunity than ability. Actually, I'm an example of this - all through primary school, everybody thought I was gifted, in both sports and academia, yet a bad attitude and lack of opportunity handed to me on a platter (which a good attitude would have countered to a great extent) has seen me do very little with my life.

Likewise, I read about people (I even know some personally) who have done the absolute utmost with what they were born with and have gone from strength to strength despite lacking what we might consider in D&D terms, "uber stats". There is truly no stat for being an overachiever.

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.

I don't disagree with this statement. In D&D terms, we are talking about people who adventure for a living. "Heroes for hire" for lack of a beter term. A good modern day comparison would be Special Ops soldiers or Athletes who must be multi-talented to be at the top of their game, especially basketball players who are less specialized than the other sports.

People generally work to their strengths. So a person with just a high intelligence might not become an adventuring wizard because the physical rigors would be more than they could take. They would find themselves a nice cushy job working for the local wizards guild as a research scientist or the like.

Adventuring wizards would be those who were highly intelligent as well as being in sound physical shape to deal with the rigors of the adventuring life. Long travel, physical combat with dangerous monsters, etc, etc.

Yet none of these people are what we'd call adventurers. They don't risk their lives for a living, and in fact don't have to - what a waste it would be to risk their lives when they can stay safe and get rich doing whatever it is they're blessed to do.

Once again - none of these elite specimens are adventurers.

Best example of a modern day adventurer would be a Spec Ops Soldiers. I'd be willing to bet even the average Spec Ops Solidier meets or exceeds the 32 point buy system according to the rules. They may not have it all in one stat, but they definitely have a wide spread of good stats.

The very best Spec Ops Soldier would definitely exceed 32 points IMO. Think of all the different tasks they are required to undertake during a mission. They must be very strong, durable, quick, sure-handed, mentally alert, and intelligent to complete the training and perform on missions.

They weed out people who don't have the genetics or heart (You do need both) to cut it.

I feel they wouldn't need to "adventure". Sure some of them would be great in the practice yard or at tournaments or in the courts of kings or leading armies (and historically, few leaders of armies led from the front - hp don't exist IRL) but you'll find some of the most famous "adventurers" in history weren't that special, at least not from a D&D stats perspective. Sure they might have had one or two high stats, but they weren't the epitome of human ability in every attribute.

What set them apart, in every case, was their attitude (not Charisma).

Agreed. Attitude is very important, but think of the Rudy movie. He had the heart of a lion, but just didn't have the genetics to make it on the team no matter how hard he tried. He may have obtained a small victory, but given good genetics, Rudy would have been a dominany football player with his big heart.

I bet most adventurers or explorers were very well rounded skill and ability wise. Probably not overly strong, but probably intelligent, wise and charismatic. If they were known as great fighting adventurers say like Miyamato Musashi, probably very good physicall as well. Miyamato was probably reasonably strong, very, very, very quick and very healthy.

Also, take a look at Bruce Lee. The man used to weightlift to build strength and power, then cut back to concentrate on speed. For a small man, he would lift quite alot as well as being so quick that even the camera had to be slowed down. Very healthy as well.

But how much fun does random dice rolls make it for the players who don't end up with the Master Race Pototype you espouse?

I generally choose a favorable dice rolling method that only the most unlucky player will end up with an unfavorable character. Everybody wants to play someone special. Let's face facts here, most people play Joe Average every day of their life doing what they can with what they are given. I don't see a problem with a person wanting to play a genetically gifted person who goes on extraordinary adventures.

I mean, if you want real life, certain choices are MUCH BETTER than others, and some choices are downright foolish.

However the maxim of D&D is a resounding "all choices must be balanced (and therefore equal)".

Yes, I hate this idea.

In real life, this isn't the case. In real life, there are choices that are "so powerful as to make all other options suboptimal" - this would make those choices "broken" in D&D terms, but are Reality.

Reality has to take a back seat to fun in a group RPG. And while "balance" is mostly an illusion, intended to stop players from feeling overshadowed by others, nothing will disguise the fact that one player in a group with "astoundingly good genetics" is just better than everybody else for as long as that character is active in the campaign.

And Reality also says that such a character isn't necessarily going to have the right attitude (or even desperate determination) to make a successful adventurer. Of course, the mere fact of that character being a Player Character says that he/she will have the right attitude. Likewise for the not-quite-perfect PCs.

PCs are better than the average Joe, because they know that the average DM wants them to stay alive. They won't suffer arbitrary death (in most cases), which is what the majority of NPCs in a game world probably fear every day, regardless of their super !33t genes/stats. PCs also know that there is always a solution to their problems.

That's what separates adventurers from non-adventurers.

It's all about attitude, not genes or stats.

Personally, I like all my players to have a decent set of stats. I do not like to distribute alot of magic, so their stats have to carry them alot of the time.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, if two people have in equal amounts the intangibles of success, yet one has better genetics for a given profession that they are both trying to excel in, who will achieve more? I do mean equal amounts of all intangibles such as luck, timing, heart, attitude, etc, etc.