PDA

View Full Version : It's because they're Adventurers, silly.



RukiTanuki
2008-01-28, 10:16 PM
I had a revelation as I tried to gather my thoughts, in order to counter someone's concerns that level 1 D&D characters (particularly in the forthcoming-and-nebulous 4th Edition) are perceived as superheroes by the rest of their world. And I'll warn you: I already did my big serious rant of the day, and now I'm in a silly mood.

The worry seems to be that being a level 1 PC, versus a common NPC, is a distinction observed not only in the rules (where PCs have more restricted character options) and at the table (where PCs are run by players who have to be kept happy, so they keep buying me pizza), but in the world itself. It's as if NPC mothers scooted their children into the house, answering their protests with "he's a PC, dear, it's best we not disturb his kind."

I think there is a distinction in the world for PCs, and I think the NPCs know that. However, it's not because the PCs are player characters. It's because they're adventurers.

Unplug the Rules Machine, pack it away in its box, and let's sit wholly in the world of Make-Believe Without Limits. Your character is an Adventurer. He (I'll use my gender for simplicity) is the Fixer. His job, his living, is to go places where people have dangerous problems that they can't solve, and solve them. Those people are helpless because confronting those problems would, typically, result in their deaths (which puts a damper on dinner plans). Your character, through training, tenacity, toughness, whatever, has the skills, knowledge, training, or just the brass gumption it takes to go spit in danger's eye and de-pants it when it's not looking.

"But Bob's just level 1!" you cry out. Yes, and in Numbers Land that doesn't sound impressive, but here in Make-Believe that covers lots of things more deadly than a housecat, but less lethal than a giant enemy crab. It even covers your everyday "crazy person charging you with a knife"! A normal common person (say, you, or to a lesser extent as far as "normal" goes, me) has every reason to freak out when Crazy Knife Guy attacks, even if he's Commoner Level 1. But not Bob the Adventurer. *parry* *stab* *dead* Bob doesn't blink. Normal guy (watching Bob yawn) stares so hard he forgets to blink.

Unless you deliberately play against type, every Level 1 Adventurer is a person who says "Charge!" when the common folk say "run away!" Let's face it, you're not a normal person. And that has nothing to do with the rules.

If you accept this, then the remaining issue is the amount of power granted to level 1 PCs... that's less about being super-powered, and more about being strong enough that defending yourself against Crazy Knife Guy doesn't result in you immediately replacing the character for whom you spent 12 hours on backstory. Just because the common folk think you're crazy for being an adventurer, doesn't mean you have to prove them right by setting out before you're ready... :)

No one's saying that your PC didn't exist before level 1, or that he didn't do the things he does before level 1. He did exist, and he did those things. It's just that it was difficult, and probably a bit dull, and we don't want to roll to see what happened, on the off chance you end up dying during character creation. (If that's your thing, there are other games where that's a distinct possibility.) Level 1 is just the earliest point where we can say "this is where our story begins" without running a big risk that you roll bad once, die, and we end up with a really bad pilot episode that the networks will never pick up.

So are PCs more powerful than normal folk? Yes. Why? 'Cause they're adventurers, and adventurers don't get far unless they can handle Crazy Knife Guy. Maybe you'd like to play Steve, Man Who Fears Crazy Knife Guy, who goes out and collars stray cats, drags truant children to school, and hunts turnips in the hopes that he, too, may one day take on Crazy Knife Guy. Your kind of hero is not in the Player's Handbook, but hold out hope: Complete Commoner may yet be in the wings. (In fact, that sounds like an excellent homebrew project for me to take upon myself!)

Why are normal folk less powerful? Because they are squishy and are afraid of fighting Crazy Knife Guy. So they hire adventurers, and the adventurers take out Crazy Knife Guy, and the people are glad, and the adventurers go on to fight Crazier Knife Guys, and Crazy Guys with Bigger Knives, and Crazy Monsters with Knives, until one day they find someone so crazy, so monstrous, and with such a big knife, that they threatens to stab the entire world.

Unless the level 1 adventurers skip Crazy Knife Guy and go looking for Crab. But that's why I have spare character sheets. :)

SilentNight
2008-01-28, 10:41 PM
Please allow me to say that I enjoyed that immensely.:smallbiggrin: Yet another reason that adventurers are so powerful is because they are the main characters, the leading men and women. And to quote one of the coolest leading men ever, "You haven't forgotten my part in this little story have you? I'm the leading man. And you know what they say about the leading man, 'He never dies'".:smalltongue:
While not neccesarily true in D&D it sometimes applies.

Lord Tataraus
2008-01-28, 10:59 PM
I will agree it was a good read and you have a solid argument. However, I will assert that that is one type of play-style, many people do not think that PCs should start as super-people. just because they are adventurers. The best example of this is FR. The setting says that you are not the only adventurers in the world, many others have begun your journey and a few have succeeded to be extremely powerful, more powerful than you might be. Many people like this because they feel it adds realism to the game.

I personally prefer the PCs to not be the almighty all the time, I've run campaigns with epic NPCs who rule the world and the PCs were on the run until they were powerful enough and experienced enough to challenge them head on. The only problem I have with this argument is that many others do not respect (or at least seem not to) the preference of each player/DM. Both are valid playstyles and neither is the "wrong" way to play. Even if you abhor the thought of super-PCs or super-NPCs, could you please at least say "I respect your preferenece" and drop it, even if you can't, for some reason, understand the other side one bit can you at least have enough respect for personal preference to drop it? I find these arguments extremely aggravating because of the arrogance of the debaters. I frequent this board to the exclusion of all others because this is a rare community of respectful and cool-headed people, however, these arguments (among a few others) bring out the worst in people.

So, I implore you all to just drop it. The issue does not need to be debated unless some one comes out and says "I don't understand your stance, enlighten me." At which point, I would gladly participate in enlightening the individual in a discussion where the single side that was asked is presented, with only counter arguments given by the inquirer. However, I realize that is probably too much to ask but I can always hope.

Thank you for reading my lengthy and long-suppressed rant.
Lord Tataraus

Charles Phipps
2008-01-28, 11:04 PM
Almost a verbatim conversation at my PC's bar.

Fuji: Okay, now we have to go rescue the Princess.

Edgar the Gnome: Why?

Fuji: Hmmm?

Edgar the Gnome: Who died and made us the defenders of Cormyr's problems?

Fuji: Edgar...

Imzel: She's a friend!

Edgar The Gnome: No, I'll say my peace. I'm getting sick of this. No matter where we go, there's :censored: hitting the fan of some sort. The local lord has been overthrown, there's an invasion of Githyanki, someone's child has been kidnapped, or there's an invasion of Giants.

Fuji: Errr...

Edgar The Gnome: Seriously, it's like the whole world is going to pot. Sometimes, weird, I think that the dung doesn't hit the windmill *right until we visit the place.* It's like the Gods of Evil hold off their plans right until we walk into town JUST so that we'll be compelled to stick our nose in things.

Galan: Edgar...

Edgar the Gnome: Just let me phrase this simply. Next town, I don't care if BANE HIMSELF is going to show up and challenge me to an arm wrestling match...

Lisa: You'd lose.

Edgar the Gnome: I am going to keep my head down and just HAVE MY BEER without interruption.

Fuji: Are you done?

Edgar the Gnome: Do we even get paid for this? I thought we were mercenaries and thieves!?

zaei
2008-01-28, 11:15 PM
I will agree it was a good read and you have a solid argument. However, I will assert that that is one type of play-style, many people do not think that PCs should start as super-people. just because they are adventurers. The best example of this is FR. The setting says that you are not the only adventurers in the world, many others have begun your journey and a few have succeeded to be extremely powerful, more powerful than you might be.


Actually, FR says that EVERYONE succeeds at adventuring. Elminster is just power-leveling them. Then, after a few weeks, they settle down as incognito 20th level bartending wizards :smallbiggrin:

horseboy
2008-01-28, 11:29 PM
I guess it all depends on if you're playing in Harn or Barsaive on are your players to be super powered.

Miksal
2008-01-29, 12:28 AM
I will agree it was a good read and you have a solid argument. However, I will assert that that is one type of play-style, many people do not think that PCs should start as super-people. just because they are adventurers. The best example of this is FR. The setting says that you are not the only adventurers in the world, many others have begun your journey and a few have succeeded to be extremely powerful, more powerful than you might be. Many people like this because they feel it adds realism to the game.

I personally prefer the PCs to not be the almighty all the time, I've run campaigns with epic NPCs who rule the world and the PCs were on the run until they were powerful enough and experienced enough to challenge them head on. The only problem I have with this argument is that many others do not respect (or at least seem not to) the preference of each player/DM. Both are valid playstyles and neither is the "wrong" way to play. Even if you abhor the thought of super-PCs or super-NPCs, could you please at least say "I respect your preferenece" and drop it, even if you can't, for some reason, understand the other side one bit can you at least have enough respect for personal preference to drop it? I find these arguments extremely aggravating because of the arrogance of the debaters. I frequent this board to the exclusion of all others because this is a rare community of respectful and cool-headed people, however, these arguments (among a few others) bring out the worst in people.

So, I implore you all to just drop it. The issue does not need to be debated unless some one comes out and says "I don't understand your stance, enlighten me." At which point, I would gladly participate in enlightening the individual in a discussion where the single side that was asked is presented, with only counter arguments given by the inquirer. However, I realize that is probably too much to ask but I can always hope.

Thank you for reading my lengthy and long-suppressed rant.
Lord Tataraus

Honestly, to me, it looks as if you are agreeing with Ruki. You are saying "Adventurers are powerful, and anyone can be adventurers." He is saying "PCs are powerful because they're adventurers." The assumption you have to make with Ruki's is that if an NPC became an adventurer, he would also be powerful. Which fits in perfectly with what you said.

Oh, and, Ruki, I loved your post.

Voyager_I
2008-01-29, 12:36 AM
In a standard setting, the PC's are more powerful than the average NPC. PC stats and a maximized first hit die count for a lot when your typical Warrior only has four points. I did the math before, and a 1st Level fighter is only slightly less powerful than a 4th Level NPC Warrior made with the nonelite array. Now, nobody's going to come burn your DMG if you scale down the PC's or bump the NPC's accordingly, but much of the idea is that the Players are supposed to *win*, and the rules are built to accommodate that. NPC's are designed to offer limited help or be killed by them.

osyluth
2008-01-29, 12:56 AM
Good argument, made me laugh. However, it is much more satisfying for the PCs themselves if their characters start out fairly average, and then become unrealistically superpowered, so I'm still strongly against this 4e change.

Yahzi
2008-01-29, 01:19 AM
It's because they're adventurers.
Exactly. :smallsmile:

Over in some other thread I've been ranting about how icky it is to have the PCs divinely protected by Special Rules. But I don't have any problem with what you've just said.

Heck, I don't have a problem with the PCs getting to start with the Elite array of stats, while all the NPCs are stuck on Average array. It's ok for the PCs to have a starting edge, whether it's a magic sword or a destiny or a lucky stat roll or just plain gumption.

What's not ok is to say that only the PCs can have that. By your take, any NPC you meet could potentially be a PC being played by the GM. Which is the way it should be.

Kyeudo
2008-01-29, 01:44 AM
Your argument is flawless and funny. You, sir, win the internet.

Felius
2008-01-29, 01:57 AM
Good argument, made me laugh. However, it is much more satisfying for the PCs themselves if their characters start out fairly average, and then become unrealistically superpowered, so I'm still strongly against this 4e change.
Depends on the survivability: If all the players need to die is for a mildly lucky roll of some npc, it's VERY annoying, unless it's the point of the system (Paranoia for example). But if the average guy can have a chance of not dying at once, then it can be fun. Although it's fun to start unrealistic superpowered and then become more powerful than the gods (exalted :smallwink:)

Behold_the_Void
2008-01-29, 02:49 AM
I tend to prescribe to the adventurers are powerful even at level 1 train of thought, because they are. In my current setting, the PCs are at level 4 and they're trusted with some fairly important tasks because they're adventurers. Elite. They're made for this kind of thing.

That's not to say that there aren't others who are powerful. By the time they hit Sigil, for example, they'll start rubbing elbows with people who are disturbingly better than them in every possible way.

The Professor
2008-01-29, 03:22 AM
Yeah, in my games, I run Adventurers as something special too. Most every NPC has it in their heads that they're loaded to the teeth in magical items (mostly true) and could very likely take out the Town Guard without a second thought (the level and number of town guards is directly related to the Chaotic and Evil quotient of the party). Thus, if they know what they are, they're a bit more careful around them.

Children also flock to them in waves at times (also directly related to the Chaotic and Evil quotient of the party).

VanBuren
2008-01-29, 03:22 AM
IIRC, Level 1 doesn't mean greenhorn anyway. If I remember, it implies that there's some level of fairly extensive background training and the like, if a lack of practical experience. So it would make sense for the PC to be more powerful as they have PC class levels.

RukiTanuki
2008-01-29, 03:26 AM
I was limiting my observations to level 1 player characters versus level 0 commoners (or whatever stats the "average" person in the campaign world uses). Starter PCs seem to be a bit more powerful than NPCs for two reasons: 1) Lots of people like playing the character according to their archetype as early as possible, and 2) players get a wee bit frustrated if their character dies in the first six seconds of his career. The question is: are you someone for whom 4e's "better level one characters" means "better survivability," or "rolling a new character is four times faster"?

And yes, yes, YES, there are other adventurers in the world! Why? Because there's no shortage of crazy people (and they don't all have knives)! Lots of bright-eyed young people set out upon the world, still smelling faintly of pig slop, in hopes of becoming someone who changes the world. Some of them make it. Many die horribly, thinking to themselves, "well, at least I got rid of the smell of pig slop." For some, their last appearance in an adventure is having their reanimated skull torn asunder by a blast of extraplanar energy beaming from a guy who really, REALLY, likes the sun.

So yes, DMs, put other adventurers in your campaign. Provide your PCs with their very own Team Rocket! (Or Team Magic Missile. Sigh. I miss gnomes.) Show the party wizard why he can't punch out at 9:10AM: He'll come back the next day to a sign reading "This dungeon now an orphan housing project, brought to you by Team Magic Missile and a scroll of Stone Shape." Have your bards recant the tale of the rogue who accidentally drank his Alchemical Fire and spewed it onto the wizard, igniting his spellbook and scaring his familiar, who proceeded to, um, spoil his material component pouch.

And by all means, make sure your NPCs treat the adventurers with all the respect due to a random, ragtag, occasionally bickering group of mentally unbalanced nomads, who shuffle into town, start a bar fight, start a bar fire, poke old men and ask for "quests", head off in a random direction, kill the first green-skinned/sharp-toothed/armed-humanoid they see, come back to town to collect more money than the NPC will see in a year, then barter for horses and ride off into the sunset, leaving the townspeople significantly more concerned about the state of the world than when they first arrived.

Sorry, silly mood continues. :D

Sebastian
2008-01-29, 03:54 AM
I'm more for the 2e approach, your PCs are heroes, but this only mean they have the potential to become powerful. At the start the almost only thing that take them apart from the average zero-level person is the attitude.
You don't like that? Start an higher (2-3) level as an "experienced adventurer", this way everyone can choose the play style they want.

3e for my tastes is a little too pumped, for example I never got over the rationale for the +1 stat every 4 level. Can you show me in the genre literature and archetypes someone that get stronger, smarter, etc,etc as he going "adventuring" (in a way that can't be better explained with things like higher level, skills, feats, NWP or what else?)
I always assumed that when an adventurer start his career is already at his phisical and mental top and nothing short of magic (or old age) can improve his stats and I have still to see something that make change my mind about it.

4e seems to be even worse

Khanderas
2008-01-29, 04:50 AM
I always assumed that when an adventurer start his career is already at his phisical and mental top and nothing short of magic (or old age) can improve his stats and I have still to see something that make change my mind about it.

4e seems to be even worse
I think it is perfectly possible that Str and Con would improve from the hardships of adventuring (provided you are a class that wears the armor and swings the lumps of metal). Dex is for the improved reflexes and reaction times you either hone or you die. Int and Wis from seeing the world and Cha from learning what makes people tick and/or the fact you get more impressive and self-confident when you are decked in gear that makes barons weep out of jelosy.

Now I find it harder to get how fireballing goblins lets you learn new spells in scrying or other magical knowleadge. But I guess that is where abstraction comes to play.

Overlard
2008-01-29, 07:13 AM
I always assumed that when an adventurer start his career is already at his phisical and mental top and nothing short of magic (or old age) can improve his stats and I have still to see something that make change my mind about it.
And I have yet to see something that backs you assumption. Why on Earth would they already be at their pinnacle?

Sebastian
2008-01-29, 08:48 AM
And I have yet to see something that backs you assumption. Why on Earth would they already be at their pinnacle?

Can you mention me a single character of a book or other archetype that is explicitely stronger,smarter, more dexterous,etc at the end of his adventures that at the start (assuming it don't start as a child, of course) and in a way that can't be explained in form of rules in a simpler (and hence better) way like an higher level, more hit points, higher skills, better saving throws, a prestige class, etc, etc?

DruchiiConversion
2008-01-29, 09:04 AM
Can you mention me a single character of a book or other archetype that is explicitely stronger,smarter, more dexterous,etc at the end of his adventures that at the start (assuming it don't start as a child, of course) and in a way that can't be explained in form of rules in a simpler (and hence better) way like an higher level, more hit points, higher skills, better saving throws, a prestige class, etc, etc?

Of course not.

Bonuses to inherent attribute scores are mechanical bonuses. At best, they give +1 to a small set of dice rolls. All of these bonuses to dice rolls can be supplemented or replaced entirely with bonuses from classes. There is no difference between +1 to your strength modifier and a big set of bonuses which mirror the ones from an extra point of strength perfectly.

Why is that relevant? Why is it that the character has to be explicitly stronger in a very mechanically-defined way for a story without mechanics? The reason why no story says 'Well yeah, but even if he didn't know all this stuff that he has learned, he would still be stronger now because of the exercise!' is because it's simply not useful to the story that the reader knows this. It doesn't matter.

You're keeping a very crisp line between mechanical differences which just aren't there in stories, then expecting us to show you examples where the reverse is true. These crisp lines aren't found in stories because the stories aren't written with D&D in mind.

Lord Tataraus
2008-01-29, 09:12 AM
Honestly, to me, it looks as if you are agreeing with Ruki. You are saying "Adventurers are powerful, and anyone can be adventurers." He is saying "PCs are powerful because they're adventurers." The assumption you have to make with Ruki's is that if an NPC became an adventurer, he would also be powerful. Which fits in perfectly with what you said.

Well, it might have read that way, but I was trying to say that non-adventurers can become powerful too. Adventurers, at least in my worlds, are relatively rare, but many people are around level 5 and many are around 10, even when my players start at level 6. The PCs are not the most powerful people in the world and have to run a lot. Powerful warlords have level 10 warriors and mages and are much higher themselves. If the PCs piss him off, they have to run or be skewered/burnt to a crisp. In this type of game where the PCs are overshadowed by the powerful, there is (in my opinion) a greater sense of accomplishment when they can finally beat that arrogant warlord.


You're keeping a very crisp line between mechanical differences which just aren't there in stories, then expecting us to show you examples where the reverse is true. These crisp lines aren't found in stories because the stories aren't written with D&D in mind.

Except for Dragonlance, but then again, it does stray from D&D when necessary.

Miles Invictus
2008-01-29, 11:45 AM
Can you mention me a single character of a book or other archetype that is explicitely stronger,smarter, more dexterous,etc at the end of his adventures that at the start (assuming it don't start as a child, of course) and in a way that can't be explained in form of rules in a simpler (and hence better) way like an higher level, more hit points, higher skills, better saving throws, a prestige class, etc, etc?

Ability score increases reflect improvements too general to be applied to a single skill. Someone who spends a lot of time running is going to become a great runner, for example, but their increased lung capacity will allow them to become a better swimmer. They'll also be able to do things like climb, jump, and swing big swords without becoming quite as tired. This translates to a small bonus across-the-board. Granted, ability score increases aren't the most effective implementation, but there you go.

Mechanically, ability increases are necessary in part because a number of feats and class features (e.g. archery feat chain, spellcasting) require minimum ability scores.

Behold_the_Void
2008-01-29, 12:11 PM
Of course not.

Bonuses to inherent attribute scores are mechanical bonuses. At best, they give +1 to a small set of dice rolls. All of these bonuses to dice rolls can be supplemented or replaced entirely with bonuses from classes. There is no difference between +1 to your strength modifier and a big set of bonuses which mirror the ones from an extra point of strength perfectly.

Why is that relevant? Why is it that the character has to be explicitly stronger in a very mechanically-defined way for a story without mechanics? The reason why no story says 'Well yeah, but even if he didn't know all this stuff that he has learned, he would still be stronger now because of the exercise!' is because it's simply not useful to the story that the reader knows this. It doesn't matter.

You're keeping a very crisp line between mechanical differences which just aren't there in stories, then expecting us to show you examples where the reverse is true. These crisp lines aren't found in stories because the stories aren't written with D&D in mind.

A lot of them? Most characters are significantly more awesome at the journey's end than they are at the beginning. Hell, look at Frodo from Lord of the Rings, or the rest of the Hobbits. They're significantly more capable when they return to scour the Shire.

Devils_Advocate
2008-01-29, 04:23 PM
I am going to keep my head down and just HAVE MY BEER without interruption.
Edgar may say that, but I think that, deep down, he knows that if he sits the next one out, his friends will run off without him and get captured by the villain, and he'll be forced to mount a daring rescue attempt. He might as well not even bother, really.

(Heh heh, "You'd lose." Yeah, seriously, why would Bane even do that? That was just a poorly chosen example, Edgar.)