Whatever happened to all the adventurous heroes?

[Doc_Klueless]

Speaking only for myself, I dislike "heroic" campaigns where the group is off "saving the world/town/etc." I prefer adventures that strike closer to more... er... "realistic" (for lack of better word) motivations: cash in the pocket, food on the table, accumulation of power, lap of luxury, preservation of friends/family, just having a damn good time, etc. Sometimes for less honorable reasons: greed, lust, revenge, piss-n-vinegar rage!

When a DM springs the whole "but you're heroes!" card on me, I can usually think of a handful of more powerful, better connected, slicker NPCs that can handle the icky problem that's just raised its nasty head. I don't usually play heroes (for the most part, my past Paladin character, Honor Steelbright, being the exception and most of what he did was for God and Church). Most times my characters don't care about the world at large, my characters care about family and friends. If taking care of them helps the greater good, so be it, but it's an incidental side-effect, not a target goal.

Aaaaargh, I'm tired and sure I'm not explaining this adequately.

Be that as it may, my character would have checked out the noise, not to help the screaming dude so much as because just about every character I've ever made has been a nosy SOB.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Maybe so, but even "personally motivate" non-heroic adventurers need to be motivated To Adventure. It's all well and good that a character may be motivated to engage in day trading in the exchange market or try to seduce the lovely lady from around the corner but if he's not interested in adventuring then his role in the campaign is only going to be to bore the other players by running every direction except the one they want to go in. "Get yourselves another drink or go to the bathroom, the next fifteen minutes belong to Billy the Expert and his attempt to manipulate the local commodities market."

The kind of railroading you discuss doesn't sound very fun to me either. However, one way or the other, if you want to play D&D, either your character has to bring his own motivation to adventure or the DM has to provide a motivation to adventure. DMs providing motivation tend to be things like "you're slaves under the lash of Turosh Mak, how do you escape," "There are epic level ringwraiths coming to kill you; you might be safe in Rivendell, what do you want to do oh first level halfling aristocrat?" "You're accused of a crime and have two days to clear your name or you will be hanged," etc.

Adventuring is the nature of the game. Either you adventure or you don't play. And that's the nature of motivation to adventure (or more specifically, to join in a specific adventure with specific companions): You either want to do it or someone makes you. If you don't want to do it and nobody makes you, then you don't do it. If you don't adventure, you don't play. If you don't play, you need new characters or a new campaign.

That's not to say that the DMs always run good campaigns but it does mean that, if you want to play in a campaign, it's your responsibility to design a character who wants to do what the campaign's about and if you don't, you've no ground to whine about being railroaded.

Actually, thats not true. Non-heroic doesn't equal unmotivated. I've played in several campaigns where the PCs are adventuring and very active for very personal reasons, and the last thing on their mind is pursuing the "greater good". The railroading I'm speaking of involved a DM who, along with one player, decided they wanted the campaign to be heroic, and basically strongarmed the rest of the group into doing it by threatening imprisonment in the king's dungeon, retaliation from an enclave of wizards, and general guilt tripping. We hated being forced into heroics and saving the world- its easily the most miserable campaign I've ever played in.

 

[Altalazar]

It might help to tell the players, before the campaign begins, that it will be one requiring characters of heroic inclinations. Then they can make their PCs accordingly. With no guidance on that, you never know what sort of characters you'll end up with. That can be ok, depending on the campaign, but obviously for yours, you need a certain sort of personality in the PCs in order for the plot to move along.

Of course, some players will always be cooperative - as in asides to the rest of the players that, "hey guys, this looks like the DM's plot hook, so we should really see where it goes" - usually done because that player wanted to get into the adventure and see what happens more than just roleplaying disinterest.

 

[VirgilCaine]

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!
...

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?

No wonder at all.
Thats why I hate 1st level--what are these people doing "adventuring"?
They have almost nothing but minimal armor and weapons, no horses, little, if any, money. Almost anyone else can kill them in just a few hts.

 

[ForceUser]

I prefer that players play heroic characters in my campaigns, but without prompting from me. If I have to prod them to make heroic decisions and sacrifices, then it's moot and I get no enjoyment from their choices.

The truth is that most people aren't heroes, nor do they choose to roleplay them - that's what makes heroes special. Heroes are self-sacrificing. Heroes are brave, or make brave choices despite their fears. Heroes raise the bar for everyone, exemplifying an ideal that is difficult for most people to look up to - specifically, the ability to put the needs of others before one's personal needs.

Truely heroic PCs are rare, and I'm okay with that. Most players make their characters' choices based on their real-world paradigm or their personal ideology; it's difficult for most role-players to separate what they believe, do and say from what their character would believe, do and say. That's okay. Nobody's playing to win an Oscar.

Once in a while, though, a player will submerse themselves in the story and make a truly heroic sacrifice based on what is required within the context of the moment, without immediate regard for the wellbeing, or indeed, the very survival of their character. When such an event occurs - without DM prodding - it is a glorious moment in the campaign that will be remembered forever. As a DM, that's what I live for. As a player, that's what I play for. All other moments in a campaign are merely the prelude to greatness.

 

[Edward Kann@StoryART]

This is a great thread. Thanks for bringing the topic up and all of the comments.

I can only really speak from my own experience as a Dungeon Master / GM so here goes...

Early on in my DMing hobby I ran into some of the same exact problems. Really the goal back then was to sit down with my friends and allow them to adventure, more or less off the cuff, in the fantasy campaign we happened to be using at the time. It was up to the players to get together, or not, and to decide on what town or dungeon to go explore and what trouble to get into.

Some of those games were great. I think that style just takes a bit longer to develop into a really good game. Characters need some time to sort out their relationships with one another and some players just need two or three or four or five game sessions under their belt before they really have some clear personal goals.

My advice is to just be patient. Have a good selection of possible directions to go each game. Maybe have one or two downloaded small adventures, maybe a larger dungeon you purchased and a city map or two plus some wilderness. That way if the characters ignore your bumps in the cargo hold its no big deal..the voyage continues and when they land in the next town they can decide what they want to do.

Maybe the players already have in the backs of their minds some style of game play that they really look forward to and they are just waiting for it to appear. Some players really like playing rogue adventures, getting entangled in the rogues guild, breaking into the barons mansion and finding out the baron is actually a necromancer..blah blah blah...some characters want to head out to a classic dungeon and ancient ruin. It really depends. Having these as options though lets your group mature and grow in a direction that is hopefully fun for YOU and fun for them.

Later as a DM I found that these adventure styles weren't really as challenging or fun from my end. That's when I started trying adventures that were designed to play out more like a film. Basically these campaigns were not endless and open ended. They had a specific theme and a definate beginning, middle and end with clear goals. I those games the player characters were all designed around the story. All the players were Dwarves from the same clan on a quest, or they were all members of the same Samurai family engaged in a war with two other rival families, that sort of thing.

Dungeon Mastering is supposed to be fun right along with being a player so find out what most entertains you as a DM and try to go with that.



Ed

 

[Orius]

Paladin: "All in a knight's work."

Groan.

 

[Orius]

The DM shouldn't have to ask for it, it is simply being considerate of your fellow gamer (including the DM). The only value I think is universal is that D&D is a group activity. Just don't ruin it for others. It's pretty simple. Players and DMs who make characters/campaigns that make it difficult on the group for their own enjoyment are being selfish. Sure, you should be accomadating(sp?), up to a point. How surprised can people be when they put nothing into a campaign and it falls apart? How many threads are there on this and the dozens of other message boards about disfunctional groups? I see it all the time, it's the "my character concept is the only thing that matters" mindset. Funny how it means nothing when the campaign implodes.

I've read about it before, twits that do things like create druids that refuse to step foot inside a city when it's clear that the campaign is going to be urban-based. Role-playing in character is all well and good to some extent, but it's irritating when players don't take the time to consider how their concept is going to screw with the campaign or other players.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Thats why I hate 1st level--what are these people doing "adventuring"?

Desire to do good. Lust for gold. Thrillseeking. Adventuring is a big risk for a big reward. If you want a safe, easy life, go back to farming. If you really want to get ahead, you're going to have to take some chances.

Why do people do dangerous things in the real world? Why do they become explorers or mountain climbers or mercenaries or criminals?

 

[DragonLancer]

D&D is about (at its core) heroic adventuring. When I run a game, I want the party to be heroes. My group however tend towards the mercenary, don't care - won't care, just give us the gold, its not our problem, type of play which I can't stand! The one time I raised that point, they got offended for some reason.

Players should want to emulate the heroes of fantasy literature and movies, not be the anti-heroes who don't care.