Whatever happened to all the adventurous heroes?

[Steverooo]

I think modern RPGs are a large part of the problem... There is absolutely no point in expecting the players to have their PCs act like heroes when the rules very clearly make sure that they are not! With 4 HPs, less than a 50% chance to hit anything, no armor, few (if any) weapons, and about a 50% chance, at best, to make use of any skill they possess, it's no wonder that PCs don't feel at all heroic!

Monsters in the hold... Go down into hold. Get killed. Roll up new 1rst level PCs. Rinse. Repeat!

Maybe Seventh Seas has a better idea: Assume that the PCs already ARE heroes, give them skills enough to handle situations, and then make advancement slow... It's another option, anyway.

In D&D, starting PCs have 50-55% chance to hit naked enemies, and it drops with armor and DEX Bonuses. On skills, they will have +4, max., with a typical +2 bonus, against a DC:15 target number... In targets, as with skills, they are more likely to FAIL than to succeed.

Is it any wonder, then, that they are cautious?

Try ramping DOWN the threats. Instead of having the ship attacked by pirates armed with sabers, have an unarmed revolt, or something. If you need a trap, have a Tanglefoot Bag fall from the ceiling, trapping the PC, instead of a pit trap that can and will kill him/her if they fall in.

Look at the characters' (lack of) abilities, and rate the challenges to that. Remember: D&D is designed as a game where "No one can do everything". If only one in four PCs can do what needs doing, OF COURSE the other three are going to be sitting around, unheroically picking their noses (or whatever).

It seems to me that D&D is designed to make the PCs be "Hero-wannabes" up until about 10th level, or higher. So it really isn't until that level that you should really expect Kick-In-The-Door type action. IMHO, anyway. YMMV.

 

[Zweischneid]

Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Boromir, and Gandalf---all willing heroes

And each and every one with decades of adventuring under their belt....

Those certainly ain't the "1st-level" guys.

Frodo---didn't need a kick in the pants to take up the quest.

Infact, the chapter on Gandalf getting Frodo into action is quite a bit longer than the chapter detailing the Battle on the Pelenor Fields.

 

[JesterPoet]

In my experience, comments like this almost never change player behavior. I remember telling my players during City of the Spider Queen that they'd keep getting killed if they insisted on walking into every fight with no strategy and acting as if they are completely ignorant of tactics. Didn't help.

You have no idea how nice it is to know that I am not the only one this happened to in that module.

Seriously....



And about the lack of heroism... I attribute it to the abundance of cool anti-hero figures in the movies and comics and literature now... everybody wants to be an anti-hero.

 

[Doug McCrae]

As a player, I would always assume, unless told otherwise that I should generate a PC that will get involved in adventures. Go down dungeons, accept perilous missions and yeah, even investigate a mysterious noise. Wooh! Scary! Even 1st level characters are tougher than average folk ie 1st level commoners.

The motivation for going on adventures might be a desire to defeat evil, lust for power, thrillseeking, knowledge seeking, serious debts, extreme greed. Whatever, it doesn't matter. Stop crying and get down that dungeon.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

But it could be something scary in the hold!

Like a few cats.

Those things are terrifying. It's a wonder they don't run half the villages in any given kingdom.


I do sympathise though... and I'd agree with some of the other posters - players have probably had their minds polluted playing too many lethal modern games.

I do find you get a lot more heroics from slightly higher level characters, they feel a lot tougher... I'm quite a fan of starting campaigns off at 2nd or 3rd level.

 

[diaglo]

That's exactly the point that Quasqueton is making.

yeah, i got what Q was saying.

my point is... if i jump at every bump in the night. i'm not gonna get any sleep.


it needs to be more of a hook for me.

 

[shilsen]

Whatever happened to all the adventurous heroes? Easy - they died and the smart heroes took over.

 

[Quasqueton]

I do find you get a lot more heroics from slightly higher level characters, they feel a lot tougher... I'm quite a fan of starting campaigns off at 2nd or 3rd level.

For the record, the PCs in my anecdote are 2nd level.

As a player, I would always assume, unless told otherwise that I should generate a PC that will get involved in adventures. Go down dungeons, accept perilous missions and yeah, even investigate a mysterious noise.

Me too. And I even have this explicitly stated in my Player info for my game.

I've often stated that if a Player wants to play a cowardly or overly cautious character, you should have a reason to attach him or her to another PC who will lead you into danger.

Saying, "I'm scared; I don't wanna do it," can be fine if it doesn't actually stop the adventure.

One thing about PCs being timid and unmotivated though, is that how did they become actual PC classes? I mean even a fighter is an elite individual, with intensive training, and above average motivation (compare to the warrior class). A person can study magic without being able to cast spells---an expert with Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Planes), and even Spellcraft, versus a full-fledged wizard.

And when a DM starts the PCs at a level above 1st (2nd level to start my campaigns), that means the PCs have at least taken on *some* challenge. You don't accidentally build up 1,000xp.

Quasqueton

 

[TheEvil]

Out of curiousity...

In my experience, people who focus on roleplaying tend not to play heroic characters and often to make it difficult to move ahead with plots. This makes things particularly difficult if people make roleplay intensive characters with clashing motivations. That way lies total party deadlock. I would agree that it might have worked better if you started them off knowing each other, but I didn't notice you asking for advice. If you are, there are a number of good threads on that topic already, and they make the same points I would much more eloquently. In any case, you certainly have my condolences on your situation.

Out of curiousity, which characters investigated: fighter, monk, or one of the two mages?

 

[nyrfherdr]

I'm in the middle camp on this one.

On the Player Side:
I think the DM has an obligation to find hooks that the characters will sink in to. What is the point of writing a character background at the beginning of the game, if not to provide a reason to adventure and to give the DM free hooks.

Using Quasqueton's scenario and Diaglo's request for a better hook...
DM: "You hear bumps and crashes below deck."
Player: "I'm covering my head with my pillow to get more sleep."
DM: "Just before you do that, you hear a scream and some shouting. The voice sounds very much like your sister. You haven't seen Ella in 3 years. Could that really be her voice?"
It doesn't have to be, but at least he has a reason to investigate.

On the DM Side:
I find the unheroic actions of any character mildly annoying and not particularly productive. I also find that players who create characters with absolutely no reason to be part of the group even worse. Everyone knows that to game as a group, the characters needs to be compatible. At least an unheroic character that is compatible might be good for tension, but the hardened criminal in the midst of Clerics and Paladins is strife, not tension.

Anyway, I find that players who don't often play together fall into the trap of individualistic characters and players who have played to type for several campaigns create characters that are against type and often act unheroic at the beginning. If everyone hits that stage at the same time, the campaign may need a slight tweak to get back on track, or to move in a different direction.

Specific, constructive feedback is what you need in all cases.
Don't say "The campaign will be short if you keep this up."
Be specific and be prepared for specific feedback in return and accept it as helpful. Don't be defensive. The game will improve for both parties.
If the group is new to playing together, then be more specific about the campaign style so that the characters can be crafted to fit better.

Anyhow... Longer post than I expected.
Game ON!
Nyrf