Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 7079139" data-attributes="member: 57112">The &quot;reluctant hero&quot; is only one of a bevy of character tropes that don't fit well with goal-oriented, teamwork-centered games like D&amp;D. I think it just happens to be the most benign. There are others, the glory-hound, the &quot;paladin&quot;, the mercenary, the double-agent, the &quot;chaotic neutral&quot;, the kender. Even these could be well-intentioned, say with an eye towards a character arc (&quot;No see, they're eventually going to learn the power of friendship!&quot;) but they break the central conceit of the game nonetheless. I've been guilty of a few of these myself, and have allowed such characters in my game in the past as well, with predictably terrible results.I think it's helpful to establish early on (especially with new players) that D&amp;D is in fact a game (not necessarily first and foremost) one that is based around establishing and meeting goals through cooperation and teamwork. That said, building characters that specialize is more or less encouraged in that regard; certainly in a system where point-buy (or even rolling for stats but then getting to assign them) allows for meaningful character choices at the start. This was true in past editions too; I know I rarely played &quot;athletic&quot; characters, and routinely dump-statted Strength and Constitution for most of my 3.5 PCs. These characters fulfilled specific roles (both out of and in combat) that helped the team accomplish their goals. This type of character design is, once again, very much encouraged by D&amp;D as a system (in any edition, though certainly the WotC era with its embarrassment of riches in character options).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gradine, post: 7079139, member: 57112"] The "reluctant hero" is only one of a bevy of character tropes that don't fit well with goal-oriented, teamwork-centered games like D&D. I think it just happens to be the most benign. There are others, the glory-hound, the "paladin", the mercenary, the double-agent, the "chaotic neutral", the kender. Even these could be well-intentioned, say with an eye towards a character arc ("No see, they're [I]eventually[/I] going to learn the power of friendship!") but they break the central conceit of the game nonetheless. I've been guilty of a few of these myself, and have allowed such characters in my game in the past as well, with predictably terrible results. I think it's helpful to establish early on (especially with new players) that D&D is in fact a game (not necessarily first and foremost) one that is based around establishing and meeting goals through cooperation and teamwork. That said, building characters that specialize is more or less encouraged in that regard; certainly in a system where point-buy (or even rolling for stats but then getting to assign them) allows for meaningful character choices at the start. This was true in past editions too; I know I rarely played "athletic" characters, and routinely dump-statted Strength and Constitution for most of my 3.5 PCs. These characters fulfilled specific roles (both out of and in combat) that helped the team accomplish their goals. This type of character design is, once again, very much encouraged by D&D as a system (in any edition, though certainly the WotC era with its embarrassment of riches in character options). [/QUOTE]

Verification