Should PCs Be Exceptional?

[Lanefan]

And you are interpreting "exceptional" as "completely different" which makes no sense.

Exceptional means above the average, a difference of scale, not kind.

Exceptional in this case would seem to imply "stands out like a sore thumb" among its people.

Another thing to consider is whether the PCs are assumed to be the only adventuring types in the whole setting* or whether adventurers and-or other PC-comparable individuals are more common than that. The more PC-compatible people there are, by which I mean other adventurers, high-level stay-at-homes, etc. - the less exeptional the PCs would be in their setting.

As I go by the idea that there's always other PC-comparables out there, this makes the PCs themselves not that exceptional at all.

* - the should-be-obvious problem with the PCs being the only adventuring types in the whole setting is where do replacement PCs come from when existing PCs die or retire?

 

[Thomas Shey]

* - the should-be-obvious problem with the PCs being the only adventuring types in the whole setting is where do replacement PCs come from when existing PCs die or retire?

You only view this as a problem because you run ongoing single-world campaigns for years. I don't think that was even common thirty years ago, let alone now, so its a nonissue for most people. Even moreso with low mortality campaigns where you can go the whole campaign with few or any replacements needed.

 

[Lanefan]

Following on from my previous post:

Yet another very related question is whether rules and game mechanics apply equally to PCs and NPCs within the setting. If yes, then the PCs are by definition more akin to their NPC peers; if no, then the PCs are by definition exceptional because they've got those little "I'm a PC" stickers on their foreheads.

And yet another is whether, in the setting, there's ways of gaining levels and-or abilities that don't involve field adventuring. Can, for example, a stay-at-home mage eventually learn how to cast high level spells? If yes, then the PCs become less exceptional; the difference being more of how they gain their levels rather than just their having of them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And yet another is whether, in the setting, there's ways of gaining levels and-or abilities that don't involve field adventuring. Can, for example, a stay-at-home mage eventually learn how to cast high level spells? If yes, then the PCs become less exceptional; the difference being more of how they gain their levels rather than just their having of them.

Well, and possibly how fast they'll tend to. If most skill accumulation in a day-to-day situation is a lot slower than in high-stress usage, they PC mage will still probably stand out by likely being significantly younger than their stay-at-home equivalent in skills.

 

[Lanefan]

You only view this as a problem because you run ongoing single-world campaigns for years. I don't think that was even common thirty years ago, let alone now, so its a nonissue for most people. Even moreso with low mortality campaigns where you can go the whole campaign with few or any replacements needed.

It's a problem the moment you need even one replacement, for any reason:

--- an existing PC gets captured long-term and its player needs a temporary or permanent replacement
--- a player for whatever reason decides to retire a PC and bring in something new
--- real-life-driven player turnover during the campaign
--- an existing PC becomes unplayable due to something like limb loss, alignment change, ascendence to divinity, etc.

Any of these can happen even in a basic AP-style campaign where character death is off the table.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's a problem the moment you need even one replacement, for any reason:

--- an existing PC gets captured long-term and its player needs a temporary or permanent replacement
--- a player for whatever reason decides to retire a PC and bring in something new
--- real-life-driven player turnover during the campaign
--- an existing PC becomes unplayable due to something like limb loss, alignment change, ascendence to divinity, etc.

Any of these can happen even in a basic AP-style campaign where character death is off the table.

And one more special case is just one more special case unless the PCs came from a common source in the first place. Exceptional groups in TV shows manage to find a new character every so often too, but almost no one thinks twice about it.

 

[James Gasik]

If the PC's aren't special, and there's always other adventurers out there to handle things, is their any real risk to the setting if they fail?

 

[Distracted DM]

If the PC's aren't special, and there's always other adventurers out there to handle things, is their any real risk to the setting if they fail?

I can see why you'd ask this question, because most of the official published adventures have the PCs saving the world/setting/multiverse. I have a couple thoughts on it:

This is very much like the question of "why can't the king just send his knights and wizard to fix the problem?" These adventurers are the ones here to fix the problem now; there might be other adventurers, but they're busy with their own paths.. maybe, even, the ones that were in the area already failed elsewhere.

But to the question... why does every adventure have to risk the setting? Why can't the stakes be more personal, not world-threatening? Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are tasked with retrieving Death's cloak by some wizards. If they failed... well, the wizards just wouldn't have the cloak they wanted. The highest stakes I can recall were Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser unintentionally saving Lankhmar's nobility from a murderous cult. If the cult had succeeded.. well, there'd probably be some time of unrest, and then a new order would set in. But failure doesn't have to equal the end of the world.
Now, as I say this, I have run plenty of DnD adventures. They often involve the PCs saving things of consequence.. so if you're gonna be running those adventures, fall back on the first reply: the party are the ones that are here to handle things. The other adventurers/minor deities/elminsters aren't available.

 

[Kichwas]

I know, every campaign is different.

But, broadly speaking and talking about your personal preferences (so don't @ me with "should" nonsense) do you think the player characters should be exceptional in fiction of the game?

This is such a 'it depends' question.

There's a time when you want to play Paranoia where you PC has almost negative importance, and another time when you want to play Mutants and Masterminds and you're a world saving super hero.

Even if I 'narrow this to the typical 'litRPG style fantasy game' then you have your 'Warhammer Fantasy' and such games where you're a peasant who found a sharp stick, and you have things like the new Daggerheart or Pathfinder's Mythic rules where you're... almost or actually a super hero.

In the typical fantasy RPG, you kind of start out as a nobody who's a cut above the crowd. You're level 1 when they're all level 0. You have 75 or 150pts when they have 25pts (I think that's how the old Fantasy Hero was - been a LONG time). As the campaign goes on you pull further and further away from the common person.

Games seem to follow two basic trends here: You start way ahead, and end up a little more ahead of that. You start barely ahead, and end up shockingly ahead of that.

Or rather you go from middle to a little amazing, or you go from scrub to epic.

Slow or fast advancement seems to be inversely related to how 'above the normals' you start out.

So... What do I feel is best?

I think a narrative focus will prefer you starting in the mid range and advancing slowly. You matter enough for a story, and you don't go so far so fast and end up jumping sharks. This can be harder on people who want game challenge leading to dopamine hits from rewards, but it builds more engaging stories.

In a gamist focus you start weak so there is a major game challenge in just surviving, and you end up so powerful as something of a game reward - but story can get lost along the way.

I'm still in 'it depends' camp there, but with a system by which to pick.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If the PC's aren't special, and there's always other adventurers out there to handle things, is their any real risk to the setting if they fail?

Saving the world isn't the only things people do in games. Sometimes it isn't even a thing that's on the table.