So what about the everyman?

[Baron Opal]

For what it's worth, I have never had a party go above 8th level in 3.x D&D. They end up dying, mostly from stupidity. So, we have lots of "everyman" characters when they roll up a new one.

Although in this game, everyone is a noble, so they aren't quite "eveyman" this time.

 

[Irda Ranger]

A hero is NOT a special person. Most heroes will tell you, they are no one special; just ordinary folks that did extraordinary things when the time warranted.

You and I are on the same page; agreed there.

One of the things I liked about the original game and most of its incarnations was the sense of growth the character experienced over time. Starting with 3.x (thought 2e had its share) its seems that leveling is quicker, abilities are growing out of control and things are heading down the slippery power slope.

I agree with you about the leveling quicker (it was a design goal of 3E), but that's so easy to control by reducing XP awards by a set fraction that it's a negligible complaint. 3E's real sin with respect to controlling advancement (IMO) was how treasure multiplied PC power and had to track with level; I far prefer Conan's "ale and whores" rules. But that's really neither here nor there.

My contention is that you will be able to play the game you want with 4E if you frame it correctly. This is all in your head, not in the rules. If NPC peasants are on par with 1st level PC's (or close enough to be half-way there even), the PC's can be an everyman (because every other man is just as tough (but also equally weak when facing an Ogre)). It doesn't matter if you have 8 HP or 38 HP. Those are numeraires; made up numbers solely to act as guideposts within an imaginary setting. What I think matters to you is that your PCs start out on par with the average man, and that dangers are really dangerous.

Well, you only need to do four things to accomplish that:
1. Write a character background that makes sense for your race and class, but don't worry about the rules of the "feel" of a 1st level. If you want to play a human fighter, maybe you'll be inspired by Will Turner from Pirates of the Carribean (an "everyman" weaponsmith who, through practice and self-training, could duel with Capt. Jack Sparrow). In the rules you're a normal Fighter level 1, but don't worry about that. Those are "made up" numbers.

2. Rule 0 all NPC's as being 1st level in something. If NPC classes are on par with PC classes, then they're all equal choices. A 1st level Artisan (whether mason, blacksmith or carpenter) may not have the same training with longswords as your 1st level Fighter, but he's no push-over either. Be assured that your PC will have his clock cleaned by the townspeople if he starts a fight in the local pub. These people have managed to survive in a world with Orcs in it, just like you.

3. Make sure your DM knows how to challenge PC's in a 4E game. Simply running Against the Giants with minimal conversion won't do the job; you need to know what's an appropriate encounter for 4E PC's in a 4E game. But I assure you, a DM who knows what he's doing will have you spending most of the time hiding and waiting in ambush if that's what he wants.

4. Retire somewhere between 10th and 20th level. I'm pretty sure that the Epic Destinies will not be to your taste.

 

[shilsen]

OK folks, THIS is what I mean. (Scribble, your quote kind of sums things up nicely, please don't feel as if I'm picking on you directly, unfortunately, you have the unenviable talent of summing up the mish-mash of ideas so far.)

A hero is NOT a special person. Most heroes will tell you, they are no one special; just ordinary folks that did extraordinary things when the time warranted. One of the things I liked about the original game and most of its incarnations was the sense of growth the character experienced over time. Starting with 3.x (thought 2e had its share) its seems that leveling is quicker, abilities are growing out of control and things are heading down the slippery power slope.

Lineage and everyman don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive (though it probably helps). I guess I'm trying not to draw parallels (it seems far too easy and often done here of late), I guess what concerns me is that so far, no one connected to the game has even attempted to dispute the point. (No I'm not being bitter here, just point out the obvious).

Again my intent is not to shame, disregard, belittle or hassle anyone. In 30 years I've seen the game grow in scope and power and the people play it change right along with it, however, I'm getting old and approaching that point where major change is no longer desirable. (so don't make me hit you with my cane. ) But I long for the days when 'ultimate' power wasn't so easily gained and you had to 'work' for the payoff.

I don't know, maybe I'm just wanting what I can no longer have...

You can have it just fine, but you need to put in a little effort for it. Luckily, the growth and availability of power in the game isn't handled by WotC, but by the DM. Just level your PCs more slowly and remove a couple of their powers if it bothers you so much.

And make sure to scale the challenges to fit the character power levels. It's nice to define heroes as ordinary folks that did extraordinary things, but since this is a game, the kind of extraordinary things one can do is very heavily limited by the power one actually has. Characters in a novel have plot immunity, which is why things like Lord of the Rings, much as I love it and the rest of Tolkien's works, are usually a horrible analogy for D&D games. If you're going to make your PCs 2nd lvl, don't drop a hill giant on them. The only extraordinary thing they'll be doing is dying.

So set and adjust the power levels as you want and run with it, and keep a careful eye out for consequences. That's all you need to do.

 

[Felon]

I personally like to play and see played the regular Joe rising above adversity to take on a power that is seemingly unstoppable. Yes its cliche, but its what makes fantasy work for me. I guess my biggest fear is that with all of the discussion of changes that have been released so far, I don't see the possibility of the 'common man' doing anything but polishing the boots of Mr. Hero. I realize that for the majority of folks, this isn't a problem, but as someone who has played for years (30 by the time they print 4e) I would hate to think that I would be excluded from a hobby that has sustained me for the vast bulk of my time on earth.

I'm still not sure how one could have played D&D without running into this issue before. D&D simply isn't about mediocre putzes succeeding only through pluck and a lucky whack with a frying pan. No need to abandon the hobby. Plenty of games out there for that, just not D&D.

 

[The Little Raven]

No need to abandon the hobby.

"This new version of a game isn't shaping up to be what I want, so I'm going to quit the hobby I've enjoyed for decades just because I don't like the new stuff. My old stuff is suddenly unusable, and my joy from this hobby has been drained away."

I don't get this mentality at all. Maybe I'm just not emo enough.

 

[Thunderfoot]

"This new version of a game isn't shaping up to be what I want, so I'm going to quit the hobby I've enjoyed for decades just because I don't like the new stuff. My old stuff is suddenly unusable, and my joy from this hobby has been drained away."

I don't get this mentality at all. Maybe I'm just not emo enough.

Now that was uncalled for...
My point isn't I can't use my old stuff, of course I can.
But that in the face of official games I must learn the new system and also, are the designers looking into all aspects of the game and not just the power mongers (that sounds harsher than I want it to) or the battle hungry. In other words, are the abandoning the wide reaching scope of the game in order to placate the easy sell? If they are, that's fine, they are a business and its their right, it would just be nice to know if the old guard that's been around since the seventies and our slower more intensive style of play is still being included in their definition of potential customer.

For example, I was really disappointed in the combat oriented Experience charts in the 3.X rules and thought the "optional" rules they suggested were more than a little weak. It showed a "short attention span" attitude toward the game and personified the 'kill things and take their stuff' and while, yes this is an integral part of the game, it isn't the only aspect and shouldn't be the end all and be all of experience. I didn't stop playing, but it did make certain aspects of the new version less enjoyable to me. If the trend continues, then yes, the new system will be even less enjoyable and as the trend continues with new players being 'indoctrinated' (for lack of a better word) into the newer more battle intensive, attention span of a ferret type game, then yes, that could very well effect whether I can play, because newer players might find the style of game I play to be "blasphemous" and therefore, I am left without a hobby.

Of course, this is long-term overreacting conjecture, but I hope you can see where a movement of the thoughts of a generation can move the accepted in to the unaccepted. I mean hey, have seen an 'Al Jolson' style movies lately? Or how about one of them 'injun' killing flicks? What was accepted for many generations is now abhorrent in modern society. And while game styles are hardly a society wide problem, for me at least, it could mean the difference in being able to have a hobby and not. (Again hyperbole, but better to prepare against the worst and then having to only endure the least).

 

[Captain Tagon]

I'm not sure DnD has ever been a system for "everyman" characters. But I also wouldn't consider Bilbo Baggins of Wil Ohmsford everymen either.

 

[Thunderfoot]

I'm not sure DnD has ever been a system for "everyman" characters. But I also wouldn't consider Bilbo Baggins of Wil Ohmsford everymen either.

I've got to ask (though I might probably regret it ) - why?

(BTW - Tagon and crew are in a bit of a pickle no?)

 

[Jhulae]

<snip> If the trend continues, then yes, the new system will be even less enjoyable and as the trend continues with new players being 'indoctrinated' (for lack of a better word) into the newer more battle intensive, attention span of a ferret type game, then yes, that could very well effect whether I can play, because newer players might find the style of game I play to be "blasphemous" and therefore, I am left without a hobby.

Of course, this is long-term overreacting conjecture, but I hope you can see where a movement of the thoughts of a generation can move the accepted in to the unaccepted. I mean hey, have seen an 'Al Jolson' style movies lately? Or how about one of them 'injun' killing flicks? What was accepted for many generations is now abhorrent in modern society. And while game styles are hardly a society wide problem, for me at least, it could mean the difference in being able to have a hobby and not. (Again hyperbole, but better to prepare against the worst and then having to only endure the least).

Wow. Indoctrinated. Blasphemous. Unaccepted.

I'll agree I don't get where this mentality is coming from at all either. I don't think I've seen anyone consider anybody else's games, including the 1st Edition ones still going on, as 'blasphemous'. Nor, do they invoke anything such as 'Al Jolsen'. I think you really need to find some better comparisons and wording.

Now, if you were to compare movies such as "The Godfather" with "Die Hard 4" (or insert any modern action movie/drama) or "Forbidden Planet" to "Star Wars Episodes 1-3", you might be on to a better analogy, as many people might not want to sit through 'long' dramas without lots of action or find old special effects to be 'cheesy' compared with current movies, the same as new players might find the rules of 1st Edition and such to be 'outdated' or 'antiquated'.

But, comparing editions to Al Jolsen movies? Really? Saying someone's been 'indoctrinated'? Really? Blasphemous? Really? Melodramatic much?

 

[Captain Tagon]

I've got to ask (though I might probably regret it ) - why?

(BTW - Tagon and crew are in a bit of a pickle no?)

Why are they not everymen?

Because they both have something in them that makes them a step above the rest of the people around them. For me an everyman is Sam's dad from Lord of the Rings. Someone who would never be a hero because there is nothing necessarily heroic in him.

As for as why I think DnD doesn't do the everyman well, I just never felt the system would do that kind of character. In HERO or something you can make a farmer off the street, but not in DnD. At least not effectively.