So what about the everyman?

[Scribble]

The thing I think you're missing, is that in all of those stories, all of those characters were not simply the everyday man.

Sure, they thought they were. They appeared to be just another average Joe doing his average thing. But each time, each one of them was able to overcome incredible odds, and discover an inner strength even they didn't know they had.

 

[Counterspin]

I don't know. If I was gonna do the everyman thing, I'd probably use the Unknown Armies system(less firearms of course). Short dangerous combats, a fleshed out madness system with a variety of stimuli, and a super simple resolution system. Plus, you can just skip xp entirely, as I have in a couple of games, and just use the organic advancement rules (10% chance to advance a single percentage point whenever you use the skill).

 

[The Little Raven]

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.

Agreed. Except for broad strokes (which you can easy determine yourself), the 2e->3e conversion guide wasn't very accurate, especially when dealing with dual/multi-classed characters.

 

[Irda Ranger]

The thing I think you're missing, is that in all of those stories, all of those characters were not simply the everyday man.

Sure, they thought they were. They appeared to be just another average Joe doing his average thing. But each time, each one of them was able to overcome incredible odds, and discover an inner strength even they didn't know they had.

I prefer to think that you are the one who is missing something. Only JRR can say for sure what he was thinking, but I believe the tale of The Lord of the Rings was that "the everyday man" was capable of great things; of winning the war, and coming home to the Shire.

They did special things, but they weren't "special." Well, maybe Aragorn was "born special", but not the others. Any number of Hobbits, given the same task and set down the same path, would have had the same (slim) odds of "overcoming incredible odds, and discovering an inner strength even they didn't know they had."

Imagine the blacksmith's apprentice mentioned above. It's five years later now, and he has been to Mordor and back. But at his side is the same hammer he left with; it is his trusty tool, useful both in war and in peace. In the course of his journey he has overcome terrible odds, and discovered an inner strength. His trials have proved (and developed in him) a greatness, but his life could just have easily been a simple one.

This simple blacksmith has done heroic things because destiny put him in that place in history, in that moment in time, and the tasks were his to do. But it could have been any other man as well.

My point? I think as long as you stick to levels 1-10, 4E will model an "everyman" just fine.

 

[kennew142]

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.

I like this suggestion a lot. In my home games, I don't give out xp. Characters level when it's time (in our minds) to level. Each level consists of 3-4 adventure points. A short adventure (1-2 playing sessions) is 1 point. A medium length advenure (2-4 playing sessions) is 2 points. A long adventure (4-6 playing sessions) is 3 points. And a very long adventure (6+ playing sessions) is 4 points. Characters never level in the middle of an adventure. The one thing my group has disliked about 3e (and expect to dislike even more about 4e) is the fast rate of character advancement. However, that is perhaps the easiest thing to fix.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The thing I think you're missing, is that in all of those stories, all of those characters were not simply the everyday man.

Sure, they thought they were. They appeared to be just another average Joe doing his average thing. But each time, each one of them was able to overcome incredible odds, and discover an inner strength even they didn't know they had.

Most winners of battle field bravery awards (aside from being dead, the hero business is not very survivable) are pretty ordinary people and many that do survive go on the lead fairly ordinary lives. It is just often that they found themselves in extraordinary situations and they had to do something extra-ordinary to have a chance (or give their comrades a chance) to survive it.

That situation was best summed up by an American officer on Utah beach "men there is no point standing here getting killed, we might as well go inland and get killed."

Though now that I think a little more on it an everyman adventurer is a bit of a contradiction in terms. The everyman fantasy story is the character starts out ordinary but fate or the bad guy pursues them and until they have triumphed over that and become heros.

Now an everyman adventurer that never rises above his/her ordinariness but keeps adventuring, why? why keep doing that dangerous stuff, why not get a real job, minding pigs, hauling stones or something.

 

[Scribble]

I prefer to think that you are the one who is missing something. Only JRR can say for sure what he was thinking, but I believe the tale of The Lord of the Rings was that "the everyday man" was capable of great things; of winning the war, and coming home to the Shire.

They did special things, but they weren't "special." Well, maybe Aragorn was "born special", but not the others. Any number of Hobbits, given the same task and set down the same path, would have had the same (slim) odds of "overcoming incredible odds, and discovering an inner strength even they didn't know they had."

Imagine the blacksmith's apprentice mentioned above. It's five years later now, and he has been to Mordor and back. But at his side is the same hammer he left with; it is his trusty tool, useful both in war and in peace. In the course of his journey he has overcome terrible odds, and discovered an inner strength. His trials have proved (and developed in him) a greatness, but his life could just have easily been a simple one.

This simple blacksmith has done heroic things because destiny put him in that place in history, in that moment in time, and the tasks were his to do. But it could have been any other man as well.

I think we're saying around the same thing, just doing so in a different way? Maybe I wasn't clear with how I explained it?

Think of Frodo. Sure, he was a nice normal Hobbit doing nice normal Hobbit things. Complete with second third and 9 millionth breakfast.

But then as soon as he went off down the road to Mordor, he became a hero. Sure, any other Hobbit could have done it, but they didn't HE did. HE is the hero of the story. He is facing Orcs, and Black riders. He is living through a magic poison stab wound. He is overcoming his fear and finding the strength to complete his task.

In game terms he's just become a level one hero.

Yes, D&D 4e is saying the characters you have are "heroes" from the beginning. But it doesn't mean they popped out of mommy wearing a cape.

It just means that in terms of a game, YOU are the one the movie is about. You are the one that seems to be overcoming great obstacles and defeating this great evil. The game is simply giving you a way to do it without just hoping you get lucky.

Your character doesn't have to know or believe he's super human. The powers and such your character has are just him/her doing what has to be done. Just like the everyman hero.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Thanks for all of the replies so far.
As many of you have stated, yes the everyman does become the hero eventually (otherwise, what IS the point), I was just worried that with what I've seen, that yes, they "popped out of mommy with the cape." (I love that quote)

I guess the survivability is what bugs me. There is no chance for failure (on the most severest of scales) anymore. I remember a time when we used to hide in dungeons when the goblins came just so we didn't get the wrong end of the sword and then followed them and set up ambushes. By the time 3.5 came around it was more, drop the napalm and open up with the mini-gun, I'll flank them on the right and cast Bigby's Tactical Nuke and the rogue can finish them with the Coup de Grace of cleaving...that should get us to level two, I think. (Obvious hyperbole but I think you get my point) The days of hoping you made the right decision are being erased and replaced with I hope I selected the correct tactics for this situation, a subtle but vital difference IMO.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Thanks for all of the replies so far.
As many of you have stated, yes the everyman does become the hero eventually (otherwise, what IS the point), I was just worried that with what I've seen, that yes, they "popped out of mommy with the cape." (I love that quote)

I guess the survivability is what bugs me. There is no chance for failure (on the most severest of scales) anymore. I remember a time when we used to hide in dungeons when the goblins came just so we didn't get the wrong end of the sword and then followed them and set up ambushes. By the time 3.5 came around it was more, drop the napalm and open up with the mini-gun, I'll flank them on the right and cast Bigby's Tactical Nuke and the rogue can finish them with the Coup de Grace of cleaving...that should get us to level two, I think. (Obvious hyperbole but I think you get my point) The days of hoping you made the right decision are being erased and replaced with I hope I selected the correct tactics for this situation, a subtle but vital difference IMO.

I am not convinced that there is no chance of failure, that is largely up to the DM but death by housecat or single goblin is not on the cards. The increased survivability is good for people starting off. I remember my first ever game of D&D, red box basic and myself and 3 others were playing, I had heard of D&D in a magasine, no one to gives any tips and I had two TKPs in 10 minutes from a single monster (a carrion crawler) at the castle gate. While they were rolling up their third characters I decided to cheat on the parties behalf to get them past this monster and see how it went from there.

They still talk about stuff that heppened in the rest of the dungeon though no one ever mentions the carrion crawler. Nowadays with the crpgs all over the place I doubt we would have the patience to roll up 9 characters in an hour just to kill a carrion crawler.
Especially since characters now are more complex also and take a lot longer to create.

 

[ptolemy18]

Kind of my point - the 'Power Creep" (I hate using that term because of the can o' worms it always seems to open) has kind of been killing the possibility for years. However, a fighter, ranger, bard or rogue (or even a sorcerer for that matter) could start as a simple peasant and be guided to glory (though by 4th level they were usually beginning to reach beyond scope.) Which is what I'm afraid of, am I doomed to run characters to 3rd level and then ditch my campaign? If so D&D won't be for me and as a looong time player, that would be more than a little saddening. I love the game and would hate to have to leave it.

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.

I totally agree with you. One of the things I traditionally liked about D&D (up until 4e, perhaps, we'll see) is that you start out as a total wimpy 1st level pud and then you have the POTENTIAL to advance to awesomeness. It gives you a real feeling of accomplishment when you jump over the hurdle to, say, 3rd or 4th level. Whereas in most other RPGs you start out at a medium power level, and even for a starting character, there are plenty of minion types running about which you can beat up on. Evidently there aren't enough people who want to play wizard's apprentices, new-recruit soldiers, green rangers, and the other types of archetypal 1st level characters, or at least Wizards thinks that there aren't enough people who want to play them. I like 'em, though. I can see how "Agh! The orc hit me! I am dead already! This sucks!" could be a barrier to new players... but personally, I like the option to play a grittier, low-power game.

Having said that, though, in my current 3.x "mythological" campaign I had the players start out by making 4th level characters. :/