So what about the everyman?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mechanically, I agree it is easier to view somone as "Everyman" if they don't have extraordinary stats & abilities, meaning a system like HERO is indeed better suited to designing such a person.

However, IMHO, "Everyman"-ness is a matter of psyche & character, not game mechanics. Someone may be quite extraordinary and still be quite grounded and "real."

Thus, even though Frodo, Sam and other hobbits do perform acts of extreme bravery and cunning, they are still, at their core, very normal...at least, as normal as they can be after such transformative events. They didn't seek adventure, adventure sought them out. They reacted in ways one might see as unusual, but others might see as natural responses to pressures on their moral codes. Raised to be good, solid folk, then faced with earth-shattering evil, they did anything and everything they could to stave it off.

The guys who stopped the gunman who sprayed the White House with automatic gunfire a few years ago were normal Joes. However, they reacted in unusual ways to the stimuli of their environments- instead of fleeing, they tackled the guy while he was trying to reload.

As for D&D Everymen, one of my favorite PCs of all time was a "frontier granny" who was forced into an adventurer's lifestyle after a raiding party wiped out her small settlement. While she personally became more and more powerful, she still had her conservative views of right & wrong, economy and politics.

So, as far as 4Ed goes, I don't think the players who value "roleplay" above "roll-play" will find designing their own personal Everyman.

 

[Hussar]

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...

See, that's my point. Almost none of the characters you point to are everymen. They are kings, or the decendents of kings. That's not, IMO, an everyman. King Arthur may have thought he was a commoner, but, the fact that he wasn't allowed him to pull the sword from the stone.

As far as your points about 3e xp, you do realize that 1e only rewarded xp for killing stuff and taking their loot. Anything you did beyond that was entirely your own creation. How is that any shorter of attention span than 3e?

 

[ptolemy18]

See, that's my point. Almost none of the characters you point to are everymen. They are kings, or the decendents of kings. That's not, IMO, an everyman. King Arthur may have thought he was a commoner, but, the fact that he wasn't allowed him to pull the sword from the stone.

But hey, there ARE fantasy novels/books/whatever where the characters are REALLY everymen who just stumble into the adventure. Where's the love? How about Jack Vance, Clark Ashton Smith (okay, I admit it, nobody reads Clark Ashton Smith, bad example)... umm... George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire, even though they're mostly nobles... Lloyd Alexander, but no wait, Taran isn't exactly a normal person... er...

Okay, there aren't MANY examples, but they DO exist. :/

 

[Irda Ranger]

See, that's my point. Almost none of the characters you point to are everymen. They are kings, or the decendents of kings. That's not, IMO, an everyman. King Arthur may have thought he was a commoner, but, the fact that he wasn't allowed him to pull the sword from the stone.

So what? Do you think kings are somehow superior to everyone else in some respect other than political influence/authority?

 

[Victim]

But hey, there ARE fantasy novels/books/whatever where the characters are REALLY everymen who just stumble into the adventure. Where's the love? How about Jack Vance, Clark Ashton Smith (okay, I admit it, nobody reads Clark Ashton Smith, bad example)... umm... George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire, even though they're mostly nobles... Lloyd Alexander, but no wait, Taran isn't exactly a normal person... er...

Okay, there aren't MANY examples, but they DO exist. :/

Vance? Dying Earth is full of wizard characters. While Cudgel isn't really awesome, he's still rather unusual - mostly for being a sociopath and really lucky. Planet of Adventure? Scouts are described as very not ordinary. I'm not seeing the ordinary-ness here.

 

[Hammerhead]

So what? Do you think kings are somehow superior to everyone else in some respect other than political influence/authority?

Successful kings are probably smarter than average. They have more way more resources than the average person, and are a million times better connected. Nobility in general was battle-trained with some of the best teachers.

Everymen they ain't.

 

[AllisterH]

So what? Do you think kings are somehow superior to everyone else in some respect other than political influence/authority?

Personally I don't but I'm not sure a lot of other people (especially writers) believe that.

Its pretty damn hard to actually FIND an everyman in fantasy fiction as what usually happens is the "big reveal" that the everyman is something special.

Good example would be Luke Skywalker. In the very first film, the only thing special about Luke we learn is that his father was a Jedi (and at that point in time, we knew nothing about the Jedi and the Force).

Now? Luke is the son of a virgin birth guy who was prophesized to be the "saviour".


Really, I think even Conan has the "rare descendant of Atlantis" thing going for him as well.

 

[Nifft]

So what? Do you think kings are somehow superior to everyone else in some respect other than political influence/authority?

Yes. Nobility are stronger and smarter than ordinary folks because they were not subject to childhood malnutrition.

Also they benefit from a far greater range of experiences, and have had training.

Cheers, -- N

 

[xechnao]

Historically, Everymen have been so glory unfriendly because of the system-fame and power being tied so close. People working on the farms and labour were usually slaves. So to the irony of the system as civilization has been shaped by everymen indeed.
The only exception of fame I can think of is when there has been need of some talent or genius. Of course those people did not require so much of power to claim to their achievements.

 

[Kintara]

I always liked the idea of characters that lean a bit on luck, and don't seem all that impressive in themselves. I think a Human/Halfling Warlord might actually fit the idea pretty well. "Warlord" has an impressive connotation, but the idea of a guy that has a lot of his power invested in making other people cool is a good way of toning down your own personal badassness. Also, it sounds like perhaps Humans or Halflings will have a good suite of racial abilities that aren't necessarily about skill or talent as much as luck or determination (which is what an "everyman" archetype often relies upon).

Edit: Also, I find that multiclassing helps because it feels more "everyman" to me for the character to be less specialized.