Should PCs Be Exceptional?

[Ath'kethin]

I run tough games, pretty much entirely D&D or D&D-derivative (such as DCC, which has been my go-to for a few years now). I think PCs should be exceptional inasmuch as they should have much greater chances of survival than common folks; that's why they're PCs.

So toward that end I have players generate ability scores using 4d7, drop the lowest and treat a 7 as a 6. I give max hit points at every level and all healing potions/magc heals its maximimum value as well. This has a small but noticeable impact, granting slightly higher ability scores and making characters slightly tougher than they would be otherwise.

This approach in no way changes the stories are played not made up approach of the game, but gives people a slight boost. The players feel good, I feel good, the game works fine, and everybody has a good time.

 

[cbwjm]

I prefer that they start off as typical and grow to become exceptional. Level 1 PCs are fairly common and typical representatives who later become exceptional heroes.

Maybe they're slightly above typical at the start, but only slightly.

 

[aco175]

I covered this stuff in the OP.

Too often posters get hung up on "should" and want to make points about that instead of the subject. It's exhausting.

Then people like to say "it depends." And that's why I addressed it immediately.

I would suggest that folks feeling uncertain re-read the OP and then decide if they really want to engage the proposed discussion.

Nobody wants to make the hard choice. Like when there is a poll and people place the squishy 'maybe/sometimes' choice in it, instead of making people just choose yes or no and sticking to it.

 

[Scribe]

Nobody wants to make the hard choice. Like when there is a poll and people place the squishy 'maybe/sometimes' choice in it, instead of making people just choose yes or no and sticking to it.

This is why I prefer a nice binary.

Anyway, what do folks think is the more important lesson to impart?

1. Some people are just born special.
2. With effort, you can make yourself into whatever you want.

 

[aco175]

If people want to play heroes, then just start at a higher level. If you are talking about starting off, just roll for scores instead of standard array. I used to do it when we were 12 and everyone had an 18. Then we tried 3d6 and 1d8 to make them a bit more, more. But 5e does take power creep into account. So, it must be what players want or what they think we want.

 

[SableWyvern]

I know, every campaign is different.

But, broadly speaking and talking about your personal preferences

My broad preferences are to mix it up, with maybe a slight lean towards preferring games where they start as mildly exceptional.

I also don't really like the "should" phrasing in the thread title. PCs should be suitable for the game being played; the idea that there is any kind of level of exceptionalism they should be by default, with no reference to the context of the game in question, makes little sense to me.

 

[SableWyvern]

I covered this stuff in the OP.

Too often posters get hung up on "should" and want to make points about that instead of the subject. It's exhausting.

Then people like to say "it depends." And that's why I addressed it immediately.

What if your preference is to participate in a range of different games where different levels of exceptionalism are appropriate? What if it actually does "depend"?

I would suggest that folks feeling uncertain re-read the OP and then decide if they really want to engage the proposed discussion.

If you'd said in the OP that you only want to hear from people who have a clear preference for a particular level of exceptionalism, I would have respected your request and stayed out of it. However, you did not say that, and thus I was not aware you weren't interested in hearing from anyone whose opinion doesn't neatly fit your premise.

 

[Tonguez]

I think PCs should be competent at what the characters want to do but that doesnt always mean 'exceptional'

for instance Orbril the gnome alchemist was clever and courageous and made a carreer of running away from combat, ducking for cover and throwing grenades. I had lots of fun and he did become a famous Professor of Applied Alchemy.

In my current game PCs are all human but may be scions of --- making them exceptional (Scions of Oracles, Scion of Fey, Scions of Angels, Scion of Trolls etc)

I also once played with a woman whose character was a cook working in a tavern that adventurers would frequent. She played the character as a homely, pleasant farm girl, with skill in cooking and hospitality, but no prophetic destiny or lingering doom - she did exceptionally well at it. The game was urban focussed investigation so it worked well.

 

[Koloth]

Most game systems assume the PCs are above average at the start. I am good with PCs starting there. No need for the "Chosen by god/fate/etc." stuff. Let the rest come thru play.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Define "typical"? Would that be a character with all 10s for stats?

Since this is posted in "TRPGs in General" I'm not assuming a single system. In my opinion, "typical" more describes how the characters fit into the world than any numbers on their character sheet. I enjoy it a lot more when campaigns start with characters being typical of the world or society around them, then rise to exception through their adventures.

If I were running my ideal D&D 5e game, the stats aren't what make the characters typical or exceptional. Even a fighter with 18 Strength might start out as a member of the guard, a retired soldier, or one knight among hundreds. But through their adventuring, they become heroes and rise above their starting station.

I know that's not everyone's cup of tea, but it's the kind of story I enjoy!