So what about the everyman?

By your description of what you're looking for in a game, might I suggest Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay? The 2nd edition has combat rules that are very similar to D&D, and features a system whereby you do start as something menial (by and large) and work your way to greatness. It wouldn't be uncommon to start the game as a camp follower, a thief, a rat catcher, or a tax collector.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Thunderfoot said:
I am wondering if the possibility of the everyman hero is going to be a lost part of the history of gaming once the 4e rules are dropped.
What's an "everyman hero"? Is being "everyman" a background, a story, or a set of stats?

So, play a blacksmith's apprentice who loses his master and friend to goblins, forges his own chainmail and shield and takes up his forge-hammer to seek revenge. Now you're a level 1 Fighter. You're an "everyman" and a "hero."

You just need to adjust what you think "rising above adversity" is. It used to be fighting and besting 2 goblins. Now it's fighting and besting 4-6 goblins. That seems to be the extent of the change.

You control the tone of your campaign. If everyone has the stats of a 1st level PC, and then 1st level PC's are "everyman." The heroes are the ones who do something with it. To me it sounds like the only thing you need to do is make sure you don't play with a DM who stipulates that all PC's of 1st level write a background explaining your extensive training and superiority.
 


Warhammer is THE game if you want to play an everyman. It is an immensely wonderful game and I highly recommend it. Also, old school RuneQuest did "daring peasant with a spear" very nicely.

I run OD&D and everyman status does not last much past 7th level even in the classic rules. Honestly, once you can suffer 10 sword blows and launch fireballs you are probably not an everyman anymore.

I fully agree that 4e is aiming more for gameplay inspired by modern fantasy sources, aka video games, anime and movies. However, the snippets so far appear to show that even though heroes are more "cinematic", so are the enemies.

D&D never did a great job with the everyman hero because the differentiation between commoner and hero quickly diverged greatly. D&D's strength is high magic, high drama and the market data seems to indicate that this what most people like to play.

Want to keep to everyman status? Run short arc campaigns where people play 1st to 4th level characters. I have done this and it is IMMENSELY fun. Once the story arc finished, we went to another part of the world with new heroes. The Red Book D&D only campaigns are always a hoot.
 

You use Bilbo as an example...Bilbo left the Shire as the Everyman hobbit (though, Gandalf saw in him something that made him more than the typical hobbit); when he returned, he was much more than the Everyman hobbit. Same with Frodo, Sam, Pippin, and Merry as shown by the Scourging of the Shire in the Return of the King. The entire point of the chapter was to show how much both the Shire and the hobbits themselves had changed in the time they were gone. I always thought D&D did a good job of showing that growth. The PCs might be the Everyman when the adventure begins, but how can they go on grand adventures or lead others to glory (or even safety if danger comes for them) unless they go beyond being the Everyman and become a Hero? The PCs are the stars of their own story...by being a star, by being the focus of a story, any story, they are already taken to a level above everyone else who is not the focus of the story, a level no one else can achieve.

I ran an adventure in which the PCs started at 0th level, and each had an NPC level to represent what they did in their village. It was a low-magic home-brew campaign. All the starting characters began in the same barbarian-ish village in the wilderness, having known each other from birth, and all had aspirations and plans for their life in the village. When the adventure began, one was hunter (expert class), one was training with the town shaman (adept), one was training to join the barbarian lodge (warrior class). After the adventure began, they rose above the others in the village (who were mostly various NPC classes) and joined the more elite ranks of character classes, showing their rise above the Everyman status as their journey progressed.

And I see the increase in low-level hps as an advantage to this Everyman image. In 3e, that first goblin encounter, every hit from the goblin's sword is a scewer through the character's chest that could result in utter death. One hit. On a crit, sure, that very well could represent a chest-scewer. But a regular hit should only be a cut, a small gash across the arm that, while painful and a hinderance, shouldn't knock the wizard out.

By increasing the HP at first level, WotC is decreasing the huge jump resilience betwen 1st and 2nd, and even 2nd and 3rd. Going from 10 hp to 18 is a dramatic powering up of a character from 1st to 2nd level. Going from 32 to 40 isn't such a large discrepency; there is no longer a practical doubling of a character's power because he went from 1st to 2nd lvl.
 

Thunderfoot said:
What I am trying to find out is if I am forced to find another system or if I can mold the game into what I want. I like D&D, not C&C of LA or one of a myriad of other products. That's my point, I don't want to have to leave, but am I being shown the door as a non-conformist? I really don't want to 'break up' with my game.

Come to the C&C Dark Side. We will show you things you cannot learn from the WOTC Jedi.

Seriously, I think WOTC doesn't want your money anymore. From what I can tell 4th edition is even more of a fantasy super-heroes game than 3rd edition was. I expect that trying to make it into the lower powered game of previous editions will simply not work. WOTC has already said that 4th edition will not be compatible with ANY previous edition of D&D. We will play the game their way, or not at all. I choose "not at all", and I think that gamers like you who don't want to play a fantasy super-heroes game will also eventually choose "not at all".
 

Clavis said:
Come to the C&C Dark Side. We will show you things you cannot learn from the WOTC Jedi.
Oh please. I know this was supposed to be mildly humorous ("funny, except not"), but its insinuation is off base.

I don't want to get in "Tastes Great! Less Filling!" shouting match over whether C&C or D&D is better, but C&C does not do "everyman" any better or worse than D&D.
1. You still go from level 1 to 20.
2. PC's by level 5 laugh at orcs.
3. Fireball

Clavis said:
I expect that trying to make it into the lower powered game of previous editions will simply not work.
Low power? I played those "previous editions" with their Longswords +3, +6 vs. Dragons, and Rings of Shooting Stars, and Decks of Many Things. I recall with great satisfaction getting access to 5th level spells and thinking "Now who's the weakest character in the party? Eat it, Fighter!"

C&C and AD&D are not somehow limited to levels 1-5. If the OP wants to play "everyman" games, he needs to play E6 or something like it.

Clavis said:
WOTC has already said that 4th edition will not be compatible with ANY previous edition of D&D.
What they said was that there can be no exact conversion rules that work every time for converting a character from previous editions to 4th edition. And that's true. You can't create a "perfect" conversion form for any two games; even between C&C and AD&D. You can come close, but it will never be perfect. So WotC did (IMO) the honest thing and admitted this fact.

Clavis said:
We will play the game their way, or not at all.
Because in 4E, house rules are illegal.

Clavis said:
I choose "not at all", and I think that gamers like you who don't want to play a fantasy super-heroes game will also eventually choose "not at all".
Maybe. But if you're honestly looking for "low fantasy" you won't be playing C&C either, as seems to be your original contention.
 

Perhaps I misunderstand your intent, but it seems to me that what you enjoy is the struggle of having low powered characters against similar monsters. If that's the case, why not simply extend the low-leveled end of the campaign by slowing down the rate of advancement? Sure, the PHB will give you XP values for certain monsters and tell you that after you earn so many XP you'll gain a level. So what? It's all based on the assumption that after X encounters of level Y you'll gain a level. If you think it would be more fun to have 10X such encounters before leveling -- do it. It hardly seems like it would break the system.
 


To the OP if you want gritty, nothing remarkable about the character and a lucky stroke from the weakest goblin could kill you then no version of D&D is really set up for that. Warhammer Fantasy Role play is much better. You start off a random something or other and eventually you will die in ditch somewhere and your corpse will be eaten by rats, or ratling or whatever,

Now consider Sam Gamgee, in the fight at Balin's tomb Sam shows a couple of orcs what for, I don't have the books handy now so I am going from memory but he is specifically mentioned as wounding an Orc Captain that Boromir takes down. He does well enough to be commended by Boromir.

Now I reckon that is his eight enounter that would have yielded xp if I was DM'ing :)

The way I see the effects and manovers that are becoming part of the mechanics of the game is now instead of the to and fro of dice rolling we have named actions to represent the thrusts, feints and counters of a real fight. Stuff we would have imagined in the movie version in our heads.

By the way after 30 years of that kind of game, is not time for a change? :)
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top