[for DM] What's the consensus about coward characters?

[Entessa]

I am wondering if playing a coward character would mean a hassle for my dm and my party.

I was thinking about making a character who was told that he was destined to do great (and in fact he is not that bad at fighting), but secretly, well, he is a coward. He would like to avoid fighting

In general, I think the concept could be cool and would be about the growing of a character from coward to "hero". No pacifism here (like "I'm not going to fight this beholder that is eating these guys because he deserves to live exactly as us"), mostly like "how can I satisfy the will of my ancestors/father/tribe", and live "happily" knowing that there is a stigma if he doesn't go for it.

Edit: Well, after reading the post again, I'm not sure it's a good idea.

[Telonius]

It can work, if the players are all down with it and the character (at least eventually) contributes. It would intersect very well with a "party face" character - the guy that does all the talking. It could even explain why somebody would lean into diplomancy, especially if they're really good at it. If there's a Paladin (or whatever in your game or edition is immune to fear) in the party, even better. The Paladin might be dismissive of the coward initially, but the coward could be secretly (or not so secretly) jealous of the Paladin's immunity to fear. Could set up a really interesting roleplay dynamic.

That said, it does require some work with the party and the DM. For the DM, make sure you design encounters that can be solved socially; but not so many that it becomes The Bard Show. For the party (players), they've got to be prepared in case Sir Robin bravely runs away.

[MoiMagnus]

"Negative" characters can be a hassle. When I say "negative", I mean "character defined by what they don't want to do". But it's fine for "positive" characters to have "negative" traits.

If you play an academics that is adventuring to find ancient knowledge, it's reasonable for your character to be a coward. After all, they well intend to come back to their library alive. Your character has a negative drive which temperate his main positive drive: seeking knowledge. Having this positive drive is important, as it means that if your character were to reject a plan because "it's too dangerous", they still have some objectives to guide "well, then, what do we do instead?".

On the other hand, if you simply play an academics who never signed for danger and only wishes to come back home, and only marginally care about accumulating knowledge (or wealth, or whatever) or helping their friend, then it can be quite annoying. The main drive of your character is negative, and you force everyone around the table to compensate for it.

It's also important to check things with your GM. Some RPG systems, or at least some GM playstyle, can heavily encourage or punish coward characters.

For example, if your GM/RPG focus on making "level appropriate" encounters, then the balance of the encounter likely rely on the assumption that every PC will try to play optimally, which mean that a character which is too much of a coward will actually be problematic for the team.

On the other hand, other GMs/RPGs give to the players tons and tons of safety nets (or at least the ability for players to set up safety nets given enough anticipation), which is great for cowardly characters as it allows your character to still actively contribute toward the objective and then "getting out of there" (followed by everybody else) when things goes wrong.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There are "coward characters" and "coward characters". One who would prefer not to fight, will generally try to avoid fighting, and will generally prioritize defense over offense when the party is forced to fight (but will contribute)? That's ok.

One who, when the party decides to fight wants to sabotage the party? Or will just disappear/hide in a corner and not participate? In a D&D game specifically, that's not so ok. Especially the first part.

The key question to ask is "why is the rest of my party willing to have me around despite my <flaw>?" If you're struggling to find an answer or if there are even significant doubts as to why, IMO it's time to reconsider the character. Those reasons will depend on the party.

[Lemmy]

It's okay to be a coward... it's not ok to be useless (or even worse, a hindrance)... After all, if you're either of those, why is the party bringing you along in the first place??

Even if the rest of the party enjoys the company of your character, they'd probably much rather you stayed away, somewhere safe, for both your and their sake (I doubt many soldiers would like to have their civilian friends and family members out with them on the battlefield).

Fortunately, you can be a coward and still contribute enough to be worth keeping around. There are plenty of tasks that a coward can still do competently.

You can even participate in combat. In fact, you should. Specially in combat-centric systems, such as D&D.

Combat is a situation where you allies are risking life and limb, presumably for your sake too. So even if your character is too cowardly to fight directly, he should still try to be useful in some way. Maybe he only attacks from far away, or just quietly heals and buffs his allies, while doing his best to remain unnoticed (or at least a low-priority target) to the party's opponents.

[gijoemike]

A character like this can absolutely work... in the correct party. If the rest of the party are a bunch of murder-hobos they are in direct conflict with your character concept and I just don't see it working out. But you can play a fighter that just doesn't like fighting and tries to avoid it. S/he learns a face skill or begins reading the same books as a wizard. S/he later multiclasses and becomes a gish.

In those early fighter levels take disarm or trip. When a fight does happen, you are never the one to start it and just trip the enemy and declare to them "you have lost this just give up." The mook pulls out a dagger you reach over and take it way and say "No, we aren't doing this while I have a hangover." (you say perfectly sober). You can win the fight quickly with bravado and intimidation. It is possible to come off as a bad ass yet not actually fight. As a coward in a fantasy setting don't draw out the fight or go for gore. Don't relish power attack and keen weapons. Instead go for combat expertise and trip.


The big thing to remember in fantasy settings there are fights you just HAVE to have. Undead cannot be avoided or reasoned with. Dire Wolves most likely cannot be lured away and the party must deal with the pack, dragons are there to eat you. Mindless evil, true evil, and hungry animals must be fought sometimes, but just hate it. The trick is to avoid fights with humanoids and intelligent monsters. Talk to the orc/fey/devil instead of murder hobo. Always mention that fighting them is a terrible idea. The odds aren't in our favor, etc.

[mucat]

I once played a ratfolk who was venturing onto the strange and frightening surface world in search of new imports to revitalize his family's failing trading business. And the little guy had a cowardly streak. He was afraid of the Sun. He was afraid of zombies. He was afraid of bankruptcy. He was afraid of cats. He was afraid of storms and dragons, which he pretty much thought were two words for the same thing. He was afraid of hornet adders, which do not actually exist.

He did, though, have a fierce loyalty to the new friends he'd made, and a determination not to return home a failure. These two traits kept him active and contributing to the party and the story, even at times when he would rather curl up and hide. He would charge headlong at the drake that had grabbed the party wizard, or negotiate trade deals over dinner with a caravan of catfolk, even when clearly scared out of his mind.

So I would say a cowardly character is fine, as long as cowardice is not their sole defining trait. Give them a strong motivation to stay in the game even when they want to cut and run, and they can be a memorable and vivid character that everyone is glad to have at the table.

[Easy e]

They can be great fun to play, but are less fun to GM for.

The key thing is that the coward can not get in the way of what the party is trying to do. Once they start doing that, they are no fun for anyone.

[Xervous]

Echoing what others have said here, so long as it doesn’t get in the way of other players or the game it can work.

[t209]

How about Flashman, Ciaphas Cain, and Rincewind?
Coward but with good luck and PR (ambiguous for Ciaphas Cain).

[Telok]

1. Don't screw the party.
2. Be a net positive.

Thats all. Manage that and you should be good.

Played Shadowrun with some people trained on D&D (great GM tho, long time SR GM). Naturally they all made different gun bunnies except the guy who did a physAd ninja type. No technical skills (I think only one of them could drive and the ninja could barely hotwire an old car), no first aid, no magic, etc., etc. I'd been expecting that and pulled out a cybered summoner face using skillwires (load a skill on a datachip to use, not as good as knowing it yourself but servicable) & foci (pricy magic boosters but sommoners couldn't cast spells so those points went into the summoning foci) with lots of contacts & social skills.

It worked out fine. I think my only direct "attack" in the campaign consisted of blindly sticking a smg out a door and spraying bullets in the direction of enemies. It might have made someone duck.

[Pex]

For D&D, if you refuse to do anything in a combat why are you playing? You can be for all the roleplaying drama you want. D&D has combat. It exists. D&D does not need to apologize for it. It will happen. Participate in the combat. As a spellcaster, summon creatures to do the fighting for you. Buff the party. Debuff the enemy. Alter terrain to your favor. Do something while hiding in cover. Don't just Dodge every time all the time and/or run away. It is an acceptable tactic to cast a Concentration spell that is so crucial the party needs it or they will lose such that you cast it and Dodge forever the rest of the combat. That can happen once in a while, not every combat. As a non-spellcaster, you're an archer. Hide behind cover and plink away. Depending on the combat scenario it's possible combat isn't the goal. The party engages the enemy while you deal with the McGuffin or whatever task that is the point of being there. That's fine too.

What you never do is absolutely nothing. Play the game, not despite the game. Play with your fellow players, not despite them.

[elros]

From the GM perspective, it is hard to have one character split off and act differently from the rest. If you are sitting back as the GM handles combat with the rest of the party, and then glossing over what your character does when not fighting, then it would work.
The other challenge is for you to make meaningful contributions while not fighting, but that is doable. For example, you could focus on battlefield control or other non-violent actions. If you discuss your actions with the GM before the game session, the GM can figure out how to make it work.

[Vahnavoi]

Asking for consensus about anything remotely unpopular just returns laundry list of reasons for not doing it. Don't ask that question. If you feel like doing it, ask how it can be done well.

In any case, the chief problem facing a cowardly character is that a lot of game masters neglect thinking of what would happen if a character actively avoids and flees from danger. On a practical level, this means actually playing cowardice leaves you unable to progress or actively penalizes you.

As for it being a "hassle" to your "party".... look. In group-oriented military and paramilitary cultures, cowardice is virtually defined as failing your group, while courage is defined as taking risks to help it. If other characters have this mentality, being a coward should lead you to expect being hated and expelled from the group. Your best hope is a loose collection of individuals who are all implicitly following "every man for himself" mentality. In such a case, your decision to stay out of danger will be respected, you may even get other characters to join you in pursuit of less dangerous paths.

The closest you can get to being a coward while still staying within mainstream paradigms of play, is to very carefully count your odds and hedge your bets, always taking and advocating for the safest course of action. If you are good with game mechanics, it helps if you can do and show your work. Some game masters dislike cautious play like this. Hope yours isn't one.

[Kraynic]

What does bravery look like in the games you play? If bravery is boldly standing your ground before any threat, even when you don't know what it is, then the character that takes cover behind a nearby tree with their bow is "cowardly" (but might actually survive if things go bad).

[Rynjin]

For D&D, if you refuse to do anything in a combat why are you playing? You can be for all the roleplaying drama you want. D&D has combat. It exists. D&D does not need to apologize for it. It will happen. Participate in the combat. As a spellcaster, summon creatures to do the fighting for you. Buff the party. Debuff the enemy. Alter terrain to your favor. Do something while hiding in cover. Don't just Dodge every time all the time and/or run away. It is an acceptable tactic to cast a Concentration spell that is so crucial the party needs it or they will lose such that you cast it and Dodge forever the rest of the combat.

This is an important note. As a character in the party, you must contribute to combat. However, "contribute" does not necessarily mean "deal damage". zDPS characters are perfectly viable.

Hell, I'm playing one right now in a Pathfinder game. He has a number of buffs he can concentrate on for free as a Move, or spend spell points to make them last. Normally he opts for the former option, because it's free.

So when combat begins he's usually already got one buff up (we move at half speed as a party to search for traps etc. anyway), and throws on a second, flexible buff (I have about 4 options to choose from, all good in different types of combat) at the start of combat. And...that's it. All his actions are taken up buffing the party, and generally the only reason I need to stay engaged at the table is I have stuff that can make the party and enemies reroll stuff as needed. Oh, and my new summoned warrior companion (flavored as a "non-coward" [read: non-wizard] version of him from a different universe).

This is a big contribution to party effectiveness, so it works. If you character does NOT bring anything like that, it's hella frustrating.

[Vykryl]

Ever seen the Court Jester? The hero in that movie wasn't the most eager to fight, though useful in other ways. Kept getting hexed to do things far outside his comfort zone, with no or little memory of those events. Could be entertaining with help from the party

[Kesnit]

This is an important note. As a character in the party, you must contribute to combat. However, "contribute" does not necessarily mean "deal damage". zDPS characters are perfectly viable.

I once played an Warlock/Cleric/Eldritch Disciple who would not cause HP damage to enemies (except with his Eldritch Blast, because, well, it's a major class feature!) All invocations and prepared spells were buff/debuff or did ability damage. He had the ability that let him heal at a distance. (Yes, I know in-combat healing isn't optimal, but neither was the group I played in.)

He would never get into combat, but if happened, he was there to make sure his friends survived. He also made a really good face, given his focus on CHA.

[KorvinStarmast]

I am wondering if playing a coward character would mean a hassle for my dm and my party.
If you have to ask, you already know the answer.

Well, after reading the post again, I'm not sure it's a good idea.
+1.

1. Don't screw the party.
2. Be a net positive.

That's all. Manage that and you should be good. This is good advice. It takes effort, and it takes the player really getting into the character to find out what they can do to contribute within the constraints of the concept, and it's not hard for it to blow up in your face now and again.

Discuss with fellow players before trying this. find ways to contribute.

[Pauly]

How about Flashman, Ciaphas Cain, and Rincewind?
Coward but with good luck and PR (ambiguous for Ciaphas Cain).

Flash Harry got stuck in the soup because of his undeserved reputation for bravery and his desire to keep his social standing.

In RPG terms there has to be something that overcomes his desire to run away in screaming terror. Some things that got Harry into adventures were
- fear if being found out
- blackmail
- getting drugged and/or shanghaied
- fear of what his party members would do to him if he backed out
- trying to avoid an even worse danger
- volunteering for what seemed to be a cushy job
This is a bit too over the place to make for a good RPG character.

So in a RPG with a consistent party there has to be a steady force that keeps the character from running off and abandoning the party.
Some possibilities.
- They need the protection of the party (example Dr Smith in Lost in Space, Vila in Blake’s 7)
- Social repercussions of being found out (the general situation for Flashman. I think this would work best with dwarven culture in D&D).
- Being hexed or otherwise bound to another party member (example: Pigsy in Journey to the West, although Pigsy isn’t technically a coward he definitely is against taking any unnecessary risks)

[NichG]

For me, this'd be fine in any campaign where the things which the character seeks to avoid are failure states or occasional seasonings rather than where the main gameplay is. And as long as the character has some reason to proactively pursue things, rather than having to constantly be forced into things. But with enough lead time, its always possible to find/make a system and campaign premise which would support that, so in general I can work with this if the player lets me know. If they suddenly spring this as a replacement character in a combat-heavy campaign, that's a problem (and I'd at that point say 'is this your way of saying you're not interested in the combat parts of what we're currently doing?' and see about maybe switching campaigns).

So e.g. 'I hate violence and danger, so rather than fighting the enemy I'm always going to try to figure out a way to negotiate and deal and compromise. And since its riskier to try to do that on the spot, I'm going to find a way to get in contact with potential future enemies and make those negotiations in advance as much as possible!' is great. 'I hate violence and danger, so DM could you have me be conscripted into the kingdom's military and forced to travel with the other PCs?' is not a character I'd want to run for.

[Stonehead]

Being a full on Scooby Doo, "run away from combat" coward might not work, but the reluctant hero is a classic staple of adventure stories. It's been mentioned here that they all have a reason to overcome their fear and participate in the story. Creating a reason like that and working it into the story is more work, so in a sense it's a hassle, but in that sense it's also a hassle for the GM to work anyone's backstory into the campaign story. Most games are made better though, when the GM puts in the effort to tie the characters into the story on a personal level.

I think a lot of players have played with some horrible backstabbing cowardly thief-type characters, and have a negative gut reaction to cowardly characters as a result. I have the same thing for evil characters though (even CN tbh), but evil characters can still be fun to play with.

[Tawmis]

I am wondering if playing a coward character would mean a hassle for my dm and my party.
I was thinking about making a character who was told that he was destined to do great (and in fact he is not that bad at fighting), but secretly, well, he is a coward. He would like to avoid fighting
In general, I think the concept could be cool and would be about the growing of a character from coward to "hero". No pacifism here (like "I'm not going to fight this beholder that is eating these guys because he deserves to live exactly as us"), mostly like "how can I satisfy the will of my ancestors/father/tribe", and live "happily" knowing that there is a stigma if he doesn't go for it.
Edit: Well, after reading the post again, I'm not sure it's a good idea.

I think this could be played well, with an RP - with starting as a coward and finding your strength.
I'd work with your DM - to find that "moment" that the DM could inject - to be the turning point for your hero.

It's important to note - that being a coward doesn't mean running away - but the character vocalizing their doubts, is a perfect example of still portraying the coward, but having the skill to be able to fight when you need to.

"As I swing, I say to the others, 'There's so many goblins! I don't think we can win!'"
- So you're still engaging in combat, and conveying the cowardly aspect of the character.

[False God]

The context of the campaign matters.

If you're doing some kind of roleplay intensive game where there will be a lot of time dedicated to non-combat activities, character development and there are non-combat solutions to many potential combats, you'll be fine.

If you're doing some form of a combat-heavy game, or if if the game is a low-roleplay "beer and pretzels" sort of thing, I'd advise against.

It really depends on what the game is being sold as, and what the players are interested in doing.

Certain system will also make this easier or harder, systems with heavy combat focus and little focus on character qualities will make this more difficult to play, both for you and for the party/GM. More story-oriented systems will make it easier (usually).

As other people have said, if you don't being immediate combat value, you need to ensure that your character brings other value to the party. Crafting. Socializing. Exploration. Your character is not some NPC the party is required to have around in order to complete the quest.

Beyond that, it's always your right as the player/character to determine what fights you get involved in, and what fights you don't. "Contributing" to the party is not the same as backing up all their bad decisions and running head-first into every bit of danger and trouble that presents itself.

[Composer99]

To my knowledge, there are definitely games where you could play an inveterate coward and still contribute towards the table having a good/fun/enjoyable/satisfying game session.

Since this question is presumably about D&D (given the reference to DMs), D&D as a game doesn't really have a lot of support for that kind of gameplay. You can do it, but it takes a suitable table culture (so to speak) and effort to make the character work in spite of the lack of support from the system. To my mind, the instance of cowardice in this Critical Role episode (https://criticalrole.fandom.com/wiki/Lost_Treasures) works just fine, but I could see it being a sticking point at many tables. (Obviously, a gaming table made up of professional actors is not typical for a D&D game.)

The best best approach is to discuss with the DM and fellow players in advance of starting play, and work out the mechanics and portrayal of your character in a way that both suits your vision for it and doesn't step on their toes. As a DM I would certainly be happy to work with a player having a vision of someone who starts out cowardly but grows in a way that lets them overcome it (even with backsliding). As others have said, a lot might depend on how much combat is going to matter to the table you're playing at as well.

You likely can't go wrong having a mixture of roleplaying and character mechanics that let you contribute positively towards the success of the group in-fiction despite the character's cowardice (the character is scared but manages to pitch in anyway) and/or in keeping with it (the character avoids DPR but does things like buffs/debuffs/healing/crowd control, allowing them to contribute while staying out of the thick of things), which from what I've read is pretty consistent with other suggestions.

[Jophiel]

Not saying much new but you did ask for "consensus"

A character who is a hindrance or dead weight in a party isn't much fun for the group. So avoid characters who just curl into a ball at the sight of danger or run away or turn invisible and climb a tree. But you can still approach it from a few angles:

Engage in combat from range. Role play hiding in the doorway or behind the crates you're using for cover as you fire your crossbow. Climb that tree to get out of melee range but then throw daggers or flasks of oil. If something gets in melee range, describe turning your head away as you sloppily stab at it ("Get it off me!"). There's a number of combat options that most people would see as tactical but you can fluff as acts of fear, allowing you to maintain the illusion of cowardice while not weighing the party down.

Play a support role. The obvious choice here would be to play a utility/support caster with the usual healing, buffs, debuffs, environment shifting, etc. This might be harder if you want to evolve into a fierce warrior though you could always start slotting in offensive spells later on. For a more melee role, you can use actions to administer potions or healing, Help actions, ball bearings/caltrops, etc. This might be harder to keep up and really feel useful and I would still try to mix in some of the other combat refluffing already mentioned.

Neither of these might feel like "true" coward but a true coward in a D&D group is going to be like a video game escort mission and everyone is going to hate protecting and dragging your weight around to the point where the party would operate better by ditching you in the next town. Also, this is just about combat; you can make arguments for the less dangerous path each time, describe how you sink down when a call is made for volunteers, comically declare surrender at inappropriate (non-combat) role play moments, etc. Just start with the core idea that you're going to be a contributing character and view it as a challenge how to dress cowardice around that.

[Pauly]

Another aspect you can bring to the character is that your character will always be looking for the non-combat solution to the problem
- Why don’t we try talking to them first?
- Can’t we just sneak in? we don’t really need to fight those guards do we?
- Why don’t we bribe these NPCs to fight them for us?
- Let’s just run straight for the door without stopping.
- Remind me why going on a side mission to slay a dragon is a good idea in the first place. It’s a delay and distraction from out main mission. I’s what the BBEG woukd want us to do.

It also depends a lot on the class you intend to play. A class that is has a lot of ranged support and non-combat utility (eg Rogue, Bard, Wizard) is a good fit for the character design. A class that is supposed to be melee heavy with limited non combat utility (eg Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin) is a poor fit for the character concept.

[ross]

Why are you asking us how your group will feel about something? Don't you think you would be able to get a more accurate answer from your group?

[Jophiel]

Why are you asking us how your group will feel about something? Don't you think you would be able to get a more accurate answer from your group?

While you're going to be talking to your group eventually, I think it's well worth it to cast a net for opinions or experiences about your plan. Be able to say "Hey, I was thinking about playing this but not like THAT..." so hopefully people will be more receptive.

Also, a number of people aren't going to tell a fellow player NOT to play something. They might inwardly groan or roll their eyes but ultimately feel like it's your character, your choice. Or not want to tell a friend that their idea is a bad one. So going into it with a plan on how to make it more enjoyable is a great idea.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If you do wind up playing such a character, you'll want to be careful that you don't internalize too much of it. It's not that disruptive to play a reluctant hero who keeps getting thrown into situations that terrify him as long as you the PLAYER are happy to keep making the horrible life decisions endemic to PCs everywhere. From your aside about pacifism, it sounds like you're ready for this, but it's worth watching out for all the same.

(Cowardly PLAYERS who are convinced that every opportunity is a trap and every NPC will immediately double-cross them, are right at the top of my mental list of disruptive player archetypes. I'd much rather have the rules lawyer or the perpetually-rules-illiterate person; at least they're not actively trying to keep interesting things from happening.)

[Quertus]

So... it depends on the implementation, and the table culture.

I played Balteus Battlerager ("Rage" for short (darn short jokes)), a Dwarven Berserker who always opened with open arms and diplomacy. In Ravenloft. Yeah, this worked approximately never. But, when diplomacy inevitably failed, he waded through his foes like they were human (wrong party, but the quote fits). This worked for the table culture, and thus the character worked.

Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, is a (mild) coward. "Run" and "Hide" (or, at least, "take cover behind the largest terrain element / other PC") should be buttons on his character sheet. Given that he's a totally OP Tier 1 Wizard, that and his tactical ineptitude help make his contribution balanced to the table.

Xyzzy was afraid of "Weird Stuff". The first time he encountered "Weird Stuff", he fled. He just assumed the party would be right behind him. They were not. As the party's heavy hitter (and likely best tactical mind), his unexpected absence threw the party, and the GM, who I believe were not accustomed to Roleplaying taking priority over the tactical minigame. This did not work well, but they adapted (and Xyzzy got turned into "Weird Stuff", helping him overcome his fear).

My Sentient Potted Plant... is a potted plant. It considers things like "move under own power" or "push buttons" to be super powers beyond its kin. It literally cannot contribute (outside talking, perhaps thanks to the demigod (someone else's PC) who carried it). This would not fly at many tables (because contribution = 0), but was great fun at the table in question.

So, know your group. Know the table culture, know what is expected of your character. Then ask, does your character match that? If so, great; if not, adjust, or make a new character.

Does the table require your character to contribute? Equally? Does the table allow you to play a character who is a burden? (How) Will your character's goals / desires conflict with the party? Is that conflict treated as a bane or a boon to the group's enjoyment?

Figure out how your character manifests their cowardice, how that will interact with the party, and how that will affect the group's enjoyment.

Hope that helps.

[Jervis]

I am wondering if playing a coward character would mean a hassle for my dm and my party.

I was thinking about making a character who was told that he was destined to do great (and in fact he is not that bad at fighting), but secretly, well, he is a coward. He would like to avoid fighting

In general, I think the concept could be cool and would be about the growing of a character from coward to "hero". No pacifism here (like "I'm not going to fight this beholder that is eating these guys because he deserves to live exactly as us"), mostly like "how can I satisfy the will of my ancestors/father/tribe", and live "happily" knowing that there is a stigma if he doesn't go for it.

Edit: Well, after reading the post again, I'm not sure it's a good idea.

It’s encouraged for 3.5 games because you can add your character level to sneak attack damage, up to 6 times your level if you sneak attack with a lance after charging at a person on horseback.

Jokes aside, it’ll be fine so long as it doesn’t hurt the party too much you’ll be fine. Being scared doesn’t mean you can’t contribute

[Satinavian]

While again everyone is assuming D&D again, there is not actually any system specified by the OP and we are in the general roleplaying section.

Characters utterly useless/non-contributing in combat are fine at many tables and in systems. Whether a system does support that well depends on two things :

- How important are combats in the game ?

- Does the system allow to shift ressources from fighting ability to out of combat utility so that your character can be still a huge boon to the paty even if he doesn't fight at all ?

Now D&D, specifically 3 and above have long been belittled as tactical combat games and for some reason. They don't work well with people who don't participate in fights. But is is much easier to do so in GURPS or Shadowrun or WoD or ... well, most others, actually.



As for roleplaying coward and still fighting as normal, i personally wouldn't like it much. It is not special to have characters who yould want to avoid unnecessary bloodshed as best as they could. So it wold not be noticable to have a character trying nonviolent solutions first but using violence when those don't work. That is pretty much the baseline, not a distinguishing feature. So what is left of the cowardice ? Telling people you are afraid all the time but doing all the stuff anyway and without hesitation whenever it matters ?

[Stonehead]

If you do wind up playing such a character, you'll want to be careful that you don't internalize too much of it. It's not that disruptive to play a reluctant hero who keeps getting thrown into situations that terrify him as long as you the PLAYER are happy to keep making the horrible life decisions endemic to PCs everywhere. From your aside about pacifism, it sounds like you're ready for this, but it's worth watching out for all the same.

(Cowardly PLAYERS who are convinced that every opportunity is a trap and every NPC will immediately double-cross them, are right at the top of my mental list of disruptive player archetypes. I'd much rather have the rules lawyer or the perpetually-rules-illiterate person; at least they're not actively trying to keep interesting things from happening.)

Actually, that's a really good point. Any hint of metagame cowardice quickly becomes super annoying. A character afraid of fighting a dragon can be fun, a player who never does anything out of fear of losing his character is not.

[Pex]

While again everyone is assuming D&D again, there is not actually any system specified by the OP and we are in the general roleplaying section.

Characters utterly useless/non-contributing in combat are fine at many tables and in systems. Whether a system does support that well depends on two things :

- How important are combats in the game ?

- Does the system allow to shift ressources from fighting ability to out of combat utility so that your character can be still a huge boon to the paty even if he doesn't fight at all ?

Now D&D, specifically 3 and above have long been belittled as tactical combat games and for some reason. They don't work well with people who don't participate in fights. But is is much easier to do so in GURPS or Shadowrun or WoD or ... well, most others, actually.



As for roleplaying coward and still fighting as normal, i personally wouldn't like it much. It is not special to have characters who yould want to avoid unnecessary bloodshed as best as they could. So it wold not be noticable to have a character trying nonviolent solutions first but using violence when those don't work. That is pretty much the baseline, not a distinguishing feature. So what is left of the cowardice ? Telling people you are afraid all the time but doing all the stuff anyway and without hesitation whenever it matters ?

Doesn't matter if it's D&D or not. You participate in the game. You don't do nothing while everyone else engages what's happening. You don't do nothing when there is a combat.

[Quertus]

Doesn't matter if it's D&D or not. You participate in the game. You don't do nothing while everyone else engages what's happening. You don't do nothing when there is a combat.

While I mostly agree, and feel that "combat" is great in an RPG because it's an opportunity for everyone to participate... even so, this is *slightly* table dependent. Like, even in D&D, if the Face gets a lot of spotlight during the talky bits, it's fine for them to mostly fade into the background in combat (at least at some tables).

Of course, depending on the table and the coward, "cowardice" might cause one to fade into or grab the spotlight, depending.

But, yes, my own preference is for everyone to participate in combat, even if that participation isn't even. But the contribution should generally[1] be *positive*.

[1] I say "generally" because, sometimes, everyone has a bad day. The Wizard's Fireball gets swatted out of the air, and detonates on the party; the Soldier's grenade gets swatted out of the air and detonates on the party; the Assassin's poison vial breaks, and poisons the party; the Priest's deity orders the Priest to engage in PvP against the party, and the players smack the GM with a clue-by-four; etc. Anyone can be a detriment sometimes; but generally, their contribution should be positive - at least, at my tables.

[Satinavian]

Doesn't matter if it's D&D or not. You participate in the game. You don't do nothing while everyone else engages what's happening. You don't do nothing when there is a combat.
I very heavily disagree.

Combat doesn't have to be an activity where the whole engages. It might be something, that only the combattants do. Like scouting is often something the scout does alone and like negoatiation is often something the face or the character with the highest social status does. Or crafting is what the crafter does. Or the cyberspace excusion is something the hacker does.

Now there are players who don't like this and want all characters doing all things together, no matter how little sense that makes (everyone fights, even the noncombatant civilians, everyone searchs the books in the library for clues even the illiterate party members who have to rely on pictures, everyone takes part in all negotiations even those that don't know the language, everyone takes part in the secret scouting mission, even the load and big ones)... but i am certainly not one of them.



That D&D so heavily relies on "combat is for everyone" is the main reaso, it can't have proper fighters. Because the difference between someone specialized in combat and a civillian is not allowed to exist for PCs. That is not alwqays the case in other games.

[Telok]

I very heavily disagree.

Combat doesn't have to be an activity where the whole engages. It might be something, that only the combattants do. Like scouting is often something the scout does alone and like negoatiation is often something the face or the character with the highest social status does. Or crafting is what the crafter does. Or the cyberspace excusion is something the hacker does.

<snippage>

That D&D so heavily relies on "combat is for everyone" is the main reaso, it can't have proper fighters. Because the difference between someone specialized in combat and a civillian is not allowed to exist for PCs. That is not alwqays the case in other games.

Way true. Played a Shadowrun character in a party of combat whores, covered essentially everything except fighting & stealth. Think I fired my gun twice in a whole campaign and took damage once (who the frakkin heck snipes a couple suits lunching in McDs with a bloody anti-tank rocket!? never did find out). Naturally the session RL made me miss was the one where they pulled a stupid & TPKed.

D&Ds are mainly a combat system plus some accumulated cruft bits, and get more & more balanced around everyone being numerically equal in combat as the editions progress. As the various noncombat cruft gets dropped (hex crawling, realm management, built in money sinks, etc.) the combat engine takes over and is pushed towards nobody being allowed to be sub-optimal in combat, not even the NPCs. Then, in a never ending spiral of "simpler" vs "balanced numbers", you reduce everything to numbers as simply as possible by making the combat all about damage/dpr without other 'win conditions' in the rules.

Try to balance combat by making each PC contribute. Find that non-damage contribution valuation is tricky & difficult. Simplify combat by reducing or removing rules support for encounter solutions that aren't about damaging creatures to zero hp. Balance combat by making everyone do similar damage/mitigation totals. You can do it, mmos have done it for a long time.

[Pex]

I very heavily disagree.

Combat doesn't have to be an activity where the whole engages. It might be something, that only the combattants do. Like scouting is often something the scout does alone and like negoatiation is often something the face or the character with the highest social status does. Or crafting is what the crafter does. Or the cyberspace excusion is something the hacker does.

Now there are players who don't like this and want all characters doing all things together, no matter how little sense that makes (everyone fights, even the noncombatant civilians, everyone searchs the books in the library for clues even the illiterate party members who have to rely on pictures, everyone takes part in all negotiations even those that don't know the language, everyone takes part in the secret scouting mission, even the load and big ones)... but i am certainly not one of them.



That D&D so heavily relies on "combat is for everyone" is the main reaso, it can't have proper fighters. Because the difference between someone specialized in combat and a civillian is not allowed to exist for PCs. That is not alwqays the case in other games.

Everyone should be able to participate in everything. Just because your character is the party face should not mean my grunt soldier warrior is forbidden to talk to NPCS. I want your party face in the combat with me. You don't have to be doing the damage. It's enough if you provide a buff or alter terrain in our favor while hanging out in the back trying to avoid being attacked. You participate.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Everyone should be able to participate in everything. Just because your character is the party face should not mean my grunt soldier warrior is forbidden to talk to NPCS. I want your party face in the combat with me. You don't have to be doing the damage. It's enough if you provide a buff or alter terrain in our favor while hanging out in the back trying to avoid being attacked. You participate.

I agree, and it's one reason why hard niche protection games (Shadowrun?) are not my jam. I prefer games where people are mostly moderately specialized but can and do contribute meaningfully outside of their specialty, and where specialists can't do it themselves and need others to help. And where players play into that.

On an abstract scale from 1-10 (1 is "in the way", 10 is "I can handle it by my self") , I prefer of everyone is between a 3 and a 7. Good enough and willing to help even in their weak area, not powerful enough to do it by themselves even in their strong area.

[Telok]

I agree, and it's one reason why hard niche protection games (Shadowrun?) are not my jam. I prefer games where people are mostly moderately specialized but can and do contribute meaningfully outside of their specialty, and where specialists can't do it themselves and need others to help. And where players play into that.

SR is not, intrinsically & up through 3e (last ed I played or cared for), a hard niche protection game. Characters are generally built point buy or by a priority system, neither of which promote hard niches. A forum/internet meta has evolved around super specialized characters, but its similar to the D&D 5e "has to have espertise & reliable talent & buffs to hit the base skill DCs" thing. So, the internet meta is basically only true if the GM is upping difficulty to match the PCs with the higest numbers.

D&D 5e has rather stronger niche protection than SR, with the caveat that (as always) a strong optimizer using all possible options without any GM input and with a whiteroom setup can bend the rules into a pretzel & break/cross niches. Clerics heal & buff, wizards get the control & area blasts & utility, warrior types hit stuff, rogue types get all the non-intelligence skill stuff, etc., etc.

Edit; players playing into the "not over-specialized" thing is depends on there being noticable, significant, & meaningful drawbacks to specialization, in addition to the opportunity to meaningfully generalize. D&D is bad at that by having generally linear/exponential advancement for specialization and generalizing being normally a trap option (ex: wizard 15 vs wizard 8/fighter 7).

[PhoenixPhyre]

SR is not, intrinsically & up through 3e (last ed I played or cared for), a hard niche protection game. Characters are generally built point buy or by a priority system, neither of which promote hard niches. A forum/internet meta has evolved around super specialized characters, but its similar to the D&D 5e "has to have espertise & reliable talent & buffs to hit the base skill DCs" thing. So, the internet meta is basically only true if the GM is upping difficulty to match the PCs with the higest numbers.

D&D 5e has rather stronger niche protection than SR, with the caveat that (as always) a strong optimizer using all possible options without any GM input and with a whiteroom setup can bend the rules into a pretzel & break/cross niches. Clerics heal & buff, wizards get the control & area blasts & utility, warrior types hit stuff, rogue types get all the non-intelligence skill stuff, etc., etc.

Edit; players playing into the "not over-specialized" thing is depends on there being noticable, significant, & meaningful drawbacks to specialization, in addition to the opportunity to meaningfully generalize. D&D is bad at that by having generally linear/exponential advancement for specialization and generalizing being normally a trap option (ex: wizard 15 vs wizard 8/fighter 7).

Our experiences differ. The target numbers in 5e D&D in my experience are low enough that even someone with a +1 modifier can meaningfully contribute most of the time (ability checks). And I'm thinking at a higher level of generality--both a cleric and a wizard can contribute to combat even if neither one does anything the other does (ie one buffs and the other blasts). A bard and a fighter can both contribute socially (in different ways). Etc. The required (by teh system) level of specialization is...basically none. It's only DMs stuck in the 3e (and especially 4e) mode of "only specialists need apply" or "DCs should be set to challenge the specialist" that cause issues.

And Shadowrun (likely earlier editions) was an example I'd heard (but never played) of one where you need a decker (who generally can't do magic or really contribute much to combat and who cannot be replaced/helped by anyone else), a mage (who engages in whole adventures in magic-land where no non-mage can even start to assist), and a rigger (who is the only one who can really do much with vehicles in any kind of important scenario even if everyone else can drive during narrative time). It doesn't have niche protection (from what I've heard) in combat, but a heavily-built street samurai-type or martial adept can generally do orders-of-magnitude better than a non-combat-specced person.

Whereas in 5e D&D, even a bog-standard fighter without proficiency in any of the relevant skills is only a factor of 2 or less different from a rogue with expertise.

[Telok]

Our experiences differ. The target numbers in 5e D&D in my experience are low enough that even someone with a +1 modifier can meaningfully contribute most of the time...

And Shadowrun (likely earlier editions) was an example I'd heard (but never played) of one where you need a...


... A forum/internet meta has evolved around super specialized characters, but its similar to the D&D 5e "has to have expertise & reliable talent & buffs to hit the base skill DCs" thing. So, the internet meta is basically only true if the GM is upping difficulty to match the PCs with the higest numbers...

So basically you totally agree with me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So basically you totally agree with me, just without reading what I wrote.

My apologies. I thought on first read that that part was referencing SR.

[Satinavian]

SR has a lot of niches, but not really much niche protection. It does allow hybrid characters and makes them quite viable. What abilities you combine and use and which you leave completely out are basically up to you. You just have to balance your strategy around it.

It is utterly possible for one group to feel like full of one-trick ponys and the next group to feel like full of generalists and both work.

Let's demonstrate :

And Shadowrun (likely earlier editions) was an example I'd heard (but never played) of one where you need a decker (who generally can't do magic or really contribute much to combat and who cannot be replaced/helped by anyone else), a mage (who engages in whole adventures in magic-land where no non-mage can even start to assist), and a rigger (who is the only one who can really do much with vehicles in any kind of important scenario even if everyone else can drive during narrative time). It doesn't have niche protection (from what I've heard) in combat, but a heavily-built street samurai-type or martial adept can generally do orders-of-magnitude better than a non-combat-specced person.I've only played 3rd-5th edition including some second edition supplement, but :

A decker only really needs a datajack. You can afford that easily even on a mage (and can take some nice other stuff before you lose a second magic point) and make a mage decker. Which i indeed have played once in 3E. Aside from the datajack, a decker only needs skills everyone can buy and a deck which costs money. You can make nearly everyone a decker as secondary speciality. Amd of course the only thing preventing even a starting decker from being really good at fighting is the the lack of money for a really good deck and a complete set of combat implants.

A rigger is more complicated. You can't put that easily into a magic character because it needs more essence. But beyond that ? I have played a streetsam/rigger mix and a decker/rigger/streetdoc and all were more than good enough at all their jobs. Now a pure rigger or pure streetsam would have been more powerful in their field than the first of those characters but not that much more.

And adepts ? well, mage-adeps were a thing for all those caster/martial adept hybrid and sometimes even those had implants. The synergies you could get...

Now as for adventures in magic land : There is astral projection, which really only full mages could do. But that was overpowered anyway and didn't make for a good game so many groups kinda skipped/restricted it. More important and interesting are astral journeys. In theory those where mage exclusive. But there was a workaround. With a help of a spirit with the correct spirit power the whole group could go there. Which is what mostly happened anyway as those were often big enough to be their own adventures.



To iterate : SR has niches, but no niche protection. That one comes only from how it is played.


But there is a significant difference to D&D5. Where D&D5 is basically "everyone can try everything and has a chance", in SR you generally have to invest into something for it to make sense to try. Depending on edition and exact task, otherwise you are at "extremely unlikely" or "straigth impossible" and there are also fumble rules with fumbles exponentially more likely the lower your corresponding stats.




Coincidently, SR didn't feel much of a game where combat was "where everyone needs to contribute". Most characters did anyway, but there was little pressure. What felt far more like "everyone needs to be able to do that" was stealth. A runner who couldn't infiltrate anything without being noticed did often feel like a liability. There is only so much, remote support can do and most of those options are indeed only valid for certain archetypes.

[Stonehead]

Like, even in D&D, if the Face gets a lot of spotlight during the talky bits, it's fine for them to mostly fade into the background in combat (at least at some tables).

One kinda cool thing about D&D is that the go to Face class (Bard) kinda fades into the background while still contributing to the combat with party buffs. So "fading into the background" doesn't necessarily have to mean "not contributing to the fight."


I very heavily disagree.

Combat doesn't have to be an activity where the whole engages. It might be something, that only the combattants do. Like scouting is often something the scout does alone and like negoatiation is often something the face or the character with the highest social status does. Or crafting is what the crafter does. Or the cyberspace excusion is something the hacker does.

Now there are players who don't like this and want all characters doing all things together, no matter how little sense that makes (everyone fights, even the noncombatant civilians, everyone searchs the books in the library for clues even the illiterate party members who have to rely on pictures, everyone takes part in all negotiations even those that don't know the language, everyone takes part in the secret scouting mission, even the load and big ones)... but i am certainly not one of them.



That D&D so heavily relies on "combat is for everyone" is the main reaso, it can't have proper fighters. Because the difference between someone specialized in combat and a civillian is not allowed to exist for PCs. That is not alwqays the case in other games.

Ultimately I agree with your point, combat can be just another part of the game, and not everyone always needs to contribute to every scene.

I think DnD is kinda designed around combat though, and as a result most of the people who play DnD view combat as a bigger part of the game than say, foraging for food. And a good chunk (but not all) of the rest just haven't played any other system. If the DM is planning tactical combats for a party of 4, and one of them is playing a pure non-combatant, I think it's fair for the other players to get upset if they party-wipe.

Still playing noncombatants is totally fine in my book. The OP just asked about the general consensus, so the issues should at least be brought up.

[Alcore]

There is nothing inherently wrong with a reluctant hero or even a cowardly hero. However care must be taken as instead of making a lone wolf you might instead make a lone sheep. Both can be detrimental to a game.

Remember it is a group effort.


If you came to my virtual table with that character and refused to have him grow or contribute to the adventures my response might be; “Bob leaves the party and opens an axe shop.”

If the character was meant to grow? Absolutely; let’s work out the details of the narrative. He can stay reluctant but if he is The Hero he only needs to shove the Mcguffin Sword into the Dark Lord and go home. Beginning, middle and end.

[Duff]

He did, though, have a fierce loyalty to the new friends he'd made, and a determination not to return home a failure. These two traits kept him active and contributing to the party and the story, even at times when he would rather curl up and hide. He would charge headlong at the drake that had grabbed the party wizard, or negotiate trade deals over dinner with a caravan of catfolk, even when clearly scared out of his mind.

For any character you need to have an answer to the questions:

Why do they adventure?
Why do they stay with the party?
Why does the party accept them?


Cowardice means all 3 of those questions need a stronger answer.
And loyalty is a good answer for all 3.

Just be aware the roleplay could be repetitive.
"I'm scared!!!"
"Suck it up and keep going"
Might get old fast for some people.
OTOH "Repetition makes it funny" is a thing in comedy, so, choose your audience and accept that maybe a certain amount of the character's dialogue doesn't need to be said at the table every time.

[Quertus]

Just be aware the roleplay could be repetitive.
"I'm scared!!!"

One need not manifest fear in repetitive ways; that said, Quertus moving to take cover behind <largest party member> / Armus moving to provide cover for <PC with better defenses> being repetitive made for both observable character traits, and an advantage that made bad impostors easy to spot.

If it hasn't been mentioned yet, the severity of the cowardice can play a big part on how it is received by the table. As can the specific implementation thereof.

[Lord Torath]

I'm reminded of a poem a friend shared with me a while back

The Redheaded Rookie
Author Unknown


He was only a redheaded rookie,
As raw as one ever arrives;
And the poor simple cuss
Was wished upon us
In a crew of sevenry-fives.

He enlisted the last of September,
About a month before starting across;
And he came all the way
On bumpers they say,
From the home that he left in LaCrosse.

When the medical gave him his physical,
It was plain as day to be seen,
There wasn’t a hair
On his cheek anywhere;
And he couldn’t have been seventeen.

But he swore he could vote in Wisconsin,
And was older by far than he looked.
The doctor winked his eye
And let him pass by;
And he held up his hand and was booked.

They put us on board the transports,
And together we started for France.
Then the redheaded rube
Was the regiment’s boob.
To escape it, there wasn’t a chance.

For he asked how the crew weighed the anchor,
And they told him by submarine scales.
And he never did know
What made the ship go
When he saw that it didn’t have sails.

He was sent for the key to the bowsprit
To the captain of Battery B.
The captain sent him back
For some red lamp black
And a camouflage coat for the sea.

So the kidding went on ‘til we landed.
We camped at Coquelin [Ko-k-dan].
Then the redheaded rook
And the fun we partook
When the firing began.

E’re time a near burst was registered,
Long ‘fore our ears caught the sound,
He’d turn deathly pale,
His breathing would fail,
And he’d burrow right into the ground.

It was along in the middle of April,
I guess you all know the day,
When the Huns came across
Our third parados
Near the town they called Ciphaupres [Sif-o-pray].

They called it a raid in the papers;
But you can take it from me, it was worse.
For the list of our dead
Was written in red
(That’s better left out of the verse).

They opened up with camouflaged batteries,
Gun n’er known to exist.
And the whiz and the whine
Of those shells from the Rhine
Simply paralyzed all that they missed.

Three of our guns were now silenced,
In advance they had gotten the range.
They raked us with death
And poisoned our breath,25
And we never got back an exchange.

The earth shook with the fury of Hell
‘Til the hours for shelling did pass.
Then the infantry came
Like a forest aflame.
They came in a solid grey mass.

But three of us yet were unwounded.
It was the rookie, and Adams, and I.
We trained the old gun
In the face of the hun,
And together we worked her in high.

Suddenly two of us got it.
Adams and I were the pair.
That left only one
At the tail of the gun,
The rookie with the rouge in his hair.

As I lay in the lee of the limber
And looked up at the muzzle of the gun,
My heart gave a bound
As my ears caught the sound
Of Old Glory, of Old Number One.

There at the breach block stood the rookie
Cool as a mid-winter’s day.
And shell after shell
On its mission of Hell
He rammed in and sent on its way.

God, how he punished those botches
For who could miss such a mark.
He’d open up lanes
Like the passage of trains
Each time that old Bertha would bark.

Then the deluge closed in upon him.
I saw them swoop in with demands,
And an officer hun
From the point of his gun
For the rookie to put up his hands.

Then the something I saw made me sorry
For all the mean things I had said,
For the jobs I had saved,
And the details I gave
To the rookie with the brick-colored head.

For instead of his hands flying up
To the tune of that corporal’s spiel,
He stunned the mere case
With a slap in the face
With his sand-colored stelliform of steel.

Then he whipped out his big automatic,
And she barked like a litter of hounds,
‘Til a black-bearded hun
With the butt of his gun
Put me out of the hearing of sounds.

The rest of the story is simple,
As they told as they carried me back.
For all the huns that remained
When our guns were obtained
Were caught in our counterattack.

Today they are planting a rookie
At the spot where he fell to his rest.
And the regiment stands
With their hats in their hands
And a medal is pinned to his breast.

It was at the breach of old bertha they found him
With his colt buried down in the sand.
And the rookie, they say,
Made eight Germans pay
Within the range of the reach of his hand.


*NOTE: This poem was printed on a plaque in the Officers’ Club at the Army’s Field Artillery School at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Presumably, it was placed there to teach young officers that the worth of a solider is not measured by outward appearances, but rather by how he responds in crises – the ultimate test for a soldier being personal combat.

The above is taken directly from the copy my friend gave me. I've googled the French names and come up blank, although the city of Aupres was the site of some major battles in WWI. The friend who gave it to me got a print-out from his grandfather, who said his father memorized it during WWI, so he may have messed up the spelling. But that's neither here nor there.)

The point is that here is someone who was definitely cowardly, but stepped up when it really mattered. If your PCs can do the same, no one in your party will complain about them.

[Velaryon]

I think lots of good advice has already been given, so I'm going to echo the ones that stick out most to me: make sure you are not a drag on your party members. Find a way to make meaningful contribution in combat, and avoid being useless or a hindrance. If you can manage that, you can make the character work.

Let me provide something of an example of what not to do. Some years ago in one of those not-quite-D&D d20-based systems, a friend of mine was playing a mad scientist type character. He decided that he wanted the character to be absent-minded and sorta ADHD, the kind of character who might drop whatever he's doing no matter how important it is, because he just had a great idea and he absolutely has to write it down right now. He decided that the way to do this was go make himself roll Will saves periodically, even in combat, and if he failed whatever arbitrary DC he had set for himself, his character would get distracted and would fail to act during his turn. I cannot stress this enough: DO. NOT. DO. THIS.