PDA

View Full Version : Are PCs brave or just plain stupid?



UglyPanda
2008-12-05, 11:37 AM
A dungeon crawl is essentially a black box that takes in adventurers and outputs corpses. So when I play, my characters often try to figure out as much as he/she can before doing anything. Often the lack of information can be truly ridiculous and all available information just seems to tell me to run away. However, despite what you or your character wants, you have to go. Sometimes it's railroading, other times it's because the other characters think your character is a wuss. And often it's because your character is indeed a wuss, but you go anyway because you're simply roleplaying being afraid and/or you simply aren't afraid of what may happen to your character.

So my question is this: When is it cowardly not to go on a quest and when is it stupid to go on the quest? How much does your character really need to know about the situation before he/she does anything? If you do know how dangerous the situation actually is, how much danger would it have to be before you just say that you're not doing the quest? How much faith do you put into your DM that he/she isn't actively trying to kill you and you don't have to perform five divinations per day?

newbDM
2008-12-05, 11:45 AM
Hmm. Very good topic.

I think it would vary too much on the specific situations, games/DM styles, and PCs to get a straight universal answer.

However, the promise of loot and/or fame has lead to many people getting killed stupidly IRL, so I imagine there are plenty of PCs out there who could be fully aware of the Tomb of Horrors but would still willingly go in if they believe they will be filthy rich once/if they get past the demi-lich.

Oslecamo
2008-12-05, 11:49 AM
Neither. They're greedy. Shinies override natural logic.

I also heard the hot chicks dig guys who can slay a dragon and are briming with gold and jewels.

Keld Denar
2008-12-05, 11:52 AM
Sometimes, the Fate of the World(TM) depends on it.

Also, graverobbing and dungeoneering is often profitable, as long as you don't get killed. So is selling drugs. Risk vs Reward, how much do you have vs how much you stand to lose vs how much you stand to make. Yea, you'll probably die, but if you succeed, you'll be able to live comfortably for the rest of your life. Are you prepared to flip that coin?

Telonius
2008-12-05, 11:54 AM
Discretion is the better part of valor. It's smart to ask what the risks are before you start out. It's stupid to go ahead and go on the quest (without at least some increase in reward) when it becomes clear that the king (or whoever) has no idea what's waiting for you. It's cowardly not to go if the king gives you a decent amount of information, and you think you have a decent chance of achieving the goal.

valadil
2008-12-05, 12:26 PM
Going on the quest is a convention of table top gaming. Your GM put a lot of hard work into making that dungeon and you'd be an ass if you made him throw that away and do something else instead.

Where I've seen discretion come up is in choosing quests if the GM gives you options. It also comes up in planning your assault. You can be shrewd and cautious in insisting on looking for a back door or in bribing guards instead of fighting them. You'll still invade the fortress, you'll just do it in a less dangerous way.

Coplantor
2008-12-05, 12:39 PM
Everyone in D&D is stupid. I dont think I've seen a fight wich ended with "We surrender!". Really, are those goblins willing to fight to death to protect the stupid almost worthless treasure they have? (Wich might contain magic weapons they didnt even used), or die to protect the pig they stole from the local farmers? And what about thieves assaulting you in the road? Everyone fights to death in D&D. But the only ones doing so knowing they can resurrect are the PC's.

Back on topic, quiting from a dungeon crawl involving saving the world is wussines, running from it once you realized there's no way you can beat it, not so wussy.

Going into the tomb of horrors? plain stupidity, going twice? Make a SAN check please.

Telonius
2008-12-05, 12:52 PM
Surrendering to an army might be smart. Surrendering to a small group of irregular weirdos isn't quite as smart. If you're a bunch of thieves, the punishment for you is probably going to be somewhere between cutting off your hands (on the merciful end) and execution. The thieves also know that they wouldn't hesitate to kill you if they capture you, so they expect the same in return.


Really, are those goblins willing to fight to death to protect the stupid almost worthless treasure they have? (Wich might contain magic weapons they didnt even used), or die to protect the pig they stole from the local farmers?

Some (http://www.goblinscomic.com/d/20050703.html) of them (http://www.goblinscomic.com/d/20060106.html) are (http://www.goblinscomic.com/d/20060107.html).

Then again, there are traditions (http://www.goblinscomic.com/d/20050704.html)...

Coplantor
2008-12-05, 01:01 PM
Surrendering to an army might be smart. Surrendering to a small group of irregular weirdos isn't quite as smart. If you're a bunch of thieves, the punishment for you is probably going to be somewhere between cutting off your hands (on the merciful end) and execution. The thieves also know that they wouldn't hesitate to kill you if they capture you, so they expect the same in return.



Some (http://www.goblinscomic.com/d/20050703.html) of them (http://www.goblinscomic.com/d/20060106.html) are (http://www.goblinscomic.com/d/20060107.html).

Then again, there are traditions (http://www.goblinscomic.com/d/20050704.html)...

I thought that someone would draw the "goblins" card. But let's remember that the PC attacking the goblin's fort arc started as a joke, and names took the sword and the shield.

What I meant to say is that ussually DM's doesnt consider the creature motivations, they are just cannon fodder. Most monsters arent used in fights the way their int scores should make them fight. A dragon, an ultra smart creature with huge treasures hoards, he knows that his home is an adventurers magnet, yet they ussually choose to fight inside the cave. A dragon's most valuable weapon is not his fire breath or spell casting ability, is the ability to fly. Against low level characters, a young dragon should be delivering firey death from above. Caves and dungeons places dragons in a huge disadvantage.

And liches, those guys turned themselves into undeads because they didnt wanted to die, it is immortality at all costs. And they have no problem to fight till death? Some of them doesnt even bother to hide well the phylactery.

Hal
2008-12-05, 01:15 PM
Why does this title have an "or?" It should read "and."

Anyhow, there's kind of an unspoken pact between the Good GM (TM) and his players. The Good GM (TM) will only passively try to kill the player characters. Actively trying to kill the players is a terrible game, because the GM is all-powerful in the game world; if he wants level 1 players to fight an ancient red wyrm, well, I'm sure he'll have his good laugh about that. However, any absence of real threat is also a losing proposition, as players can end up bored and/or lacking any reason for behavioral inhibition.

Now, to what degree you have a Good GM (TM) means you get to take varying levels of risk in your adventures, and so will the villains. You could spend days analyzing the motives for any given encounter to flee/surrender or fight to the death, but that isn't always going to be a factor in the encounter.

As for why any rational person (PC) would take these risks, well, keep in mind that you're not supposed to be playing average joe. You're playing people with better than average to god-like abilities, so you're not going to have the same motivations as a commoner.

Hal
2008-12-05, 01:22 PM
What I meant to say is that ussually DM's doesnt consider the creature motivations, they are just cannon fodder. Most monsters arent used in fights the way their int scores should make them fight. A dragon, an ultra smart creature with huge treasures hoards, he knows that his home is an adventurers magnet, yet they ussually choose to fight inside the cave. A dragon's most valuable weapon is not his fire breath or spell casting ability, is the ability to fly. Against low level characters, a young dragon should be delivering firey death from above. Caves and dungeons places dragons in a huge disadvantage.

And liches, those guys turned themselves into undeads because they didnt wanted to die, it is immortality at all costs. And they have no problem to fight till death? Some of them doesnt even bother to hide well the phylactery.

Then you have had terrible DMs. An intelligent monster is only going to let himself fight at a disadvantage if 1) it's actually a trap, or 2) he has no other choice.

For example, I ran a game where the lich did not, in fact, hide his phylactery, but left it sitting on a pedestal in the main entrance of his tower. It was left there as a challenge to anyone stupid enough to think they could challenge him. The catch: He loaded that thing up with magic, such that destroying it would result in an enormous death spell going off (100mi. radius) and give the lich an opportunity to take over the body of the person who controlled the phylactery.

Now, if you're an adventurer, that just screams of a challenge to be met, but the lich never expected that anyone could overcome his magic. He wasn't stupid, just arrogant.

Coplantor
2008-12-05, 01:25 PM
Then you have had terrible DMs. An intelligent monster is only going to let himself fight at a disadvantage if 1) it's actually a trap, or 2) he has no other choice.

For example, I ran a game where the lich did not, in fact, hide his phylactery, but left it sitting on a pedestal in the main entrance of his tower. It was left there as a challenge to anyone stupid enough to think they could challenge him. The catch: He loaded that thing up with magic, such that destroying it would result in an enormous death spell going off (100mi. radius) and give the lich an opportunity to take over the body of the person who controlled the phylactery.

Now, if you're an adventurer, that just screams of a challenge to be met, but the lich never expected that anyone could overcome his magic. He wasn't stupid, just arrogant.

Oh no, most of it comes from gaming exaples, I ussually DM, half the time I let the monsters die because we play late and we are all tired and wish to end the game quickly. Can I take the lich thing for a campaign Im running?

Tadanori Oyama
2008-12-05, 01:29 PM
I play heavily on the learning side of things. My character likes to know a few things about where he's going before he risks too much. Because I always play supportive, I follow the other PCs around more than lead and I tend to fall into the role of guy who says things like "I have a bad feeling about this". I'm also often right about the danger ahead of us.

Conversly, when I DM, the players seldom ask me for much detail before rushing off in whatever general direction I point them.

snoopy13a
2008-12-05, 01:36 PM
It would certainly be smarter for your level 1 wizard to study under the town wizard and eventually take over his/her magic shop business or for your level 1 cleric to live a relatively comfortable life as a temple priest/priestess. Additionally, fighting types would be better off aspiring to be skilled tradesmen or merchants (expert class). Even a bard is better off with the relatively safer job as a traveling minstrel instead of an adventurer.

However, roleplaying "smart" characters who use their skills to maintain comfortable and safe lives isn't very fun :smallsmile:

Telonius
2008-12-05, 01:42 PM
Well, sometimes it can be fun. Every once in awhile I throw in a Rincewind or an Apropos to shake things up. But the key there is to put the character in a situation where he really has to do something - where the situation itself puts him out of his comfort zone.

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-05, 10:44 PM
Most adventurers either (a) are devoted to An Important Cause, or (b) dump-statted Wisdom. :smalltongue:

Nefarion Xid
2008-12-05, 11:01 PM
I've concluded that most adventurers in any sort of typical game must be afflicted with Antisocial Personality Disorder. Thrill seeking behavior. Little or no remorse for hacking up sentient beings.

But, even in the real world, the promise of riches can drive otherwise normal people to do dangerous or nasty things. Piracy comes to mind. Your average voluntary dungeon crawl should hold a reward roughly equivalent to capturing a fat merchant ship...or yield far more. After all, there's little chance of dragons guarding a galleon. A dungeon should hold the promises of enough riches to live in relative luxury for the rest of your days.

Fortunately, for the sake of the story, often something beyond monetary reward makes the characters press on.

BTW, it's a great idea to sit down and discuss real character motivations for doing this otherwise-crazy-dangerous-stuff before the game starts. "My character got bored of farming and took up a sword" just doesn't fly. That's tantamount to being a moron with no sense of self preservation. My characters tend to be either power hungry (and hoarding magic items and immense wealth is a wonderful avenue to world domination) or they just have a god complex ("Why do I slay dragons? because I can and you can't and never could")

Hal
2008-12-05, 11:41 PM
Oh no, most of it comes from gaming exaples, I ussually DM, half the time I let the monsters die because we play late and we are all tired and wish to end the game quickly. Can I take the lich thing for a campaign Im running?

Heh, if I said no, would it make any difference?

Actually, it's not my idea anyhow. I took it from Shamus, here (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=185), and this is a reference for the full campaign (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?cat=1) he ran.

I ran the campaign my first time DMing. A lot of it probably resulted in railroading, since I tried to set up the world the same way his players experienced it. I think it turned out all right, though, because my players probably weren't looking for anything with a lot of deep thinking. In the end, we all had fun, so what does a little railroading matter?

chiasaur11
2008-12-05, 11:48 PM
Most adventurers either (a) are devoted to An Important Cause, or (b) dump-statted Wisdom. :smalltongue:

And some don't have an excuse.

RS14
2008-12-06, 12:08 AM
I pick stupidity, but not remarkable stupidity. PCs are heroes, and everybody* wants to be a hero, because they're important and famous and because attractive, available people throw themselves at them. Or maybe they're just badass enough to inspire people. No matter what exactly it is, PCs, and some NPCs (NPC wizards and clerics and adepts such -- the doctors and professors to the rockstars and athletes that are the PCs) are admired.

Yes, they die young. That's a good thing. When you can level up twice in a week, the world stays sane only by killing off most of the people who would otherwise hit epic levels in about two months. A huge majority, in fact. Most of them even die before they even get rich enough for a casting of reincarnate. The only way to live a long and prosperous life is to retire early.

Now, heroes don't always live out their retirements so well. Sooner or later they'll burn through their money on feasts and gambling and expensive toys. Or if they're the lawful sort, maybe they're just called out of retirement by their friends/kingdom/order. Either way, old adventurers won't have been "adventuring" for their whole life, at least not without handwaving experience.

I would say that any sensible character would refuse just about any quest. Most powerful NPCs will be exactly this sort. Cowardly? Yes, because the world of professional adventurers is made up of people who want to be heroes. If they show cowardice, they're no better than an NPC, or at best an unprofessional adventurer.

Note that the unprofessional adventurer is a perfectly valid archetype. But at some point, they're likely to realize that they're no longer adventuring because they're thrust into the position: people have come to depend on them, or they've forgotten what it's like to not adventure, or the crisis has passed, and they really should be heading home.

Yes, I do trust my DM to give me reasonable challenges. Yes, I acknowledge that this is absurd -- a realistic level-one random encounter table should have everything from CR1/4 to CR5+, with emphasis on the heavy stuff, because something needs to kill off those adventurers before they get powerful enough tear the established setting apart. We accept that the PCs are the heroes who get lucky enough not to get eaten by a kraken on their way to their first adventure, or anger a ballor the first time they visit the planes. It's how the game works, although I wouldn't mind a one-shot where everything goes wrong as the level 1 PCs try to slay some overpowering foe. It would be like Tomb of Horrors, or early-game NetHack.

*Or at least everybody who wants to be powerful. In a game about powerful people killing other powerful people, this looks a lot like everybody.

Yahzi
2008-12-06, 12:14 AM
However, roleplaying "smart" characters who use their skills to maintain comfortable and safe lives isn't very fun :smallsmile:
Sure it is. The trick is to run a world where there is no safety; where trying to live a save and comfortable world requires adventurers to hold back hordes of vicious, slavering monsters.

rayne_dragon
2008-12-06, 12:17 AM
When I play a smart character I usually can usually point out why undertaking particular quests are stupid, but I let other people talk me into comming along, if only because they`ll be worse off without me. Usually I say "I told you so" when things start to go badly. I tend only to outright quit quests if I feel there's no fighting chance to survive the quest and there are no obvious risks to avoiding it. If it's fight the dragon or die, I'll fight the dragon. If it's you're a first level wizard, fight the dragon with no spells left or don't loot it's treasure... well, I'm richer if I'm poor and alive, right?

I also generally trust my DMs to not spring horrible inescapable death upon me without any warning... although I've been proven wrong about that before. I don't mind death traps when there's a sign saying "Warning: Death Trap", then it's my own curiosity that gets me killed if I decide to check it out.

Xuincherguixe
2008-12-06, 03:57 AM
I would say they're a special kind of insane. A bit of both really.

Any adventurer would have to have figured that there's a lot of them that die, and if they continue on that path they'll meet some horrible end. And if they're really unlucky, there are fates worse than death. What kind of rational person would then go charging straight at it?

And that insanity that is what gives them so much of their power. If you're an evil goblin chief bent on ruling the world (or at least feeding your starving subordinates, so that your would be rivals will have a hard time gathering support), are you going to expect four or so pink things to make the attempt to stop you? Are you even going to consider them a threat? Only if they're genre savvy. Otherwise they're most likely a paranoid lunatic. Which should put them on about the same level as the PCs and make them into a truly dangerous enemy.

valadil
2008-12-06, 10:44 AM
Part of the problem in my opinion is that most players metagame this aspect of being a PC. They know the GM is trying to challenge them without killing them. Even if a fight looks impossible, PCs know in the back of their collective unconscious that there is a way to beat it.

One thing I tried in my last campaign was I sat the players down and explained that I was doing 2 kinds of encounters in this game. There were combats and escapes (this game was set in a thieves guild and everyone was at least half rogue). Part of the challenge of the escape scene was identifying that it wasn't a normal combat, and then getting away from more powerful foes. I also told them that all the town guards were gestalt (in a non gestalt game) and at least 2 levels higher than the PCs. For all intents and purposes they were agents in the Matrix. The players accepted the escape scene encounters and it worked great.

Knaight
2008-12-06, 11:23 AM
Everyone in D&D is stupid. I dont think I've seen a fight wich ended with "We surrender!". Really, are those goblins willing to fight to death to protect the stupid almost worthless treasure they have? (Wich might contain magic weapons they didnt even used), or die to protect the pig they stole from the local farmers? And what about thieves assaulting you in the road? Everyone fights to death in D&D. But the only ones doing so knowing they can resurrect are the PC's.

Funny, I have seen this all the time, and the cases where it didn't happen it made sense, whether it was because someone thought they could win, and the other person knew that they always had the ace up their sleeve that could probably kill all their opponents instantly, or the ghost just isn't afraid as a host body is easy to replace. And sometimes the danger comes after the PCs not the other way around, in which case it is neither bravery nor stupidity, as with counter attacks that need to be done now due to intelligence, such as a new weapon being developed that could seriously tip the scales when mass produced, and it is actually safer to attack with limited information than to give people enough time to start mass production.

For instance, specific cases in my campaigns. First was a fight between NPC enemies that the PCs managed to orchestrate, four demon mages against a spirit possessing a body known as "The Servant". The demon mages had an advantage, and were confident that they could win, The Servant had a secret weapon, namely that the flask of mercury which held magic to expend could also just blow up the mercury, and not the magic in it, killing everyone at the expense of a few ounces of highly valuable magical mercury. Then there is the sci-fi game, where the companies Hailstorm and Cheaptech were both after the PC's blood(or whatever the robot equivalent is), and Hailstorm had to go before they developed the Helios warhead(which, among other things, involved several pounds of alkali metals, a method to spray them, coated with oil into a large area of air, and then the ability to spray them with water. Nasty weapon.) That and when the team were ambushed by cheaptech robots. The thing in common with all of these was that there was no stupidity, and the fight to the death was justified, either by everyone thinking they would win and come out alive, or because thats what the programming was, or even the knowledge that surrender meant being turned off and reprogrammed.

kjones
2008-12-06, 12:32 PM
I think you are all missing a major reason as to why adventurers adventure - power, in the sense of XP.

In the non-metagame sense, there's the wizard on the quest for "ultimate arcane power", wherever he can find it, the swordsman who wants to prove to himself that he's the greatest swordsman in the world, the cleric who wants to grow closer to his god, or the barbarian who just loves a good fight.

Hal
2008-12-06, 02:07 PM
Part of the problem in my opinion is that most players metagame this aspect of being a PC. They know the GM is trying to challenge them without killing them. Even if a fight looks impossible, PCs know in the back of their collective unconscious that there is a way to beat it.


That's why I describe it that the GM must try to passively kill the players. The thing is, if the GM wants a player dead, he can make it happen. If the GM wants to let his players know that they probably can't beat this encounter, then he ought to send signals to this effect: Overwhelming numbers, NPCs who flee outright, any sort of sign that a being of insane magical power is about to enter the room and they ought not to be there when he does.

If PCs ignore those signals, you could just kill them outright, but what fun is that?

Kiero
2008-12-06, 02:38 PM
Going on the quest is a convention of table top gaming. Your GM put a lot of hard work into making that dungeon and you'd be an ass if you made him throw that away and do something else instead.

This. As far as I'm concerned, genre conventions trump all other considerations. If everyone else is having to come up with ideas to "persuade" one of the players that this is something their character should want to do, they're being an idiot.

Emperor Tippy
2008-12-06, 02:59 PM
Neither.

PC's adventure for power. What they want that power for varies but power is the driving motivator.

A PC can gain power at a truly amazing rate, as in a level every 3 days or being epic level in under a year. Yeah, they have to take risks consummate to the power that they want.

It's like a guy who wants to be rich. So he works for a few years and saves up 20,000 bucks (for example) and then goes to vegas and puts in all on a single spin of the roulette wheel. He has a 1 in 37 chance of winning, if he does then he walks away with 700,000 bucks. But if he looses then their goes 2 years of hard work.

Adventurers do the same thing but they bet their lives and try for power. Most fail, but a few succeed. And when they "win", they tend to win big.


Now the PC's might be fortunate to only run into challenges that they can actually beat. They are the lucky ones. Most adventurers run into that CR 12 monster on their first quest and end up dead.

Drascin
2008-12-06, 03:29 PM
Everyone in D&D is stupid. I dont think I've seen a fight wich ended with "We surrender!". Really, are those goblins willing to fight to death to protect the stupid almost worthless treasure they have? (Wich might contain magic weapons they didnt even used), or die to protect the pig they stole from the local farmers? And what about thieves assaulting you in the road? Everyone fights to death in D&D. But the only ones doing so knowing they can resurrect are the PC's.


Well, in my games, most humanoids and monstruous humanoids start fighting to the death, but as soon as things start getting ugly, chances are quite a few will turn tail and flee, or surrender. In fact, my players have been making use of bigger area effects lately, because they hate it when some of the people they fight escape yelling in terror and warn everyone else within a two mile radius. It's not good for their health - the Nomad/Maverick Voidshaper has been dubbed Most Valuable Person in the team repeteadly, for his ability to both pursue runners and get the group the hell out of dodge with a quadruple-reach Dimension Door when reinforcements, patrols, or other random things attracted by the escapees, come :smallwink:.

monty
2008-12-06, 07:48 PM
With great power comes great responsibility. In this case, the responsibility is killing monsters so they don't eat all the peasants. However, killing monsters makes the character more powerful, which requires even more responsibility from them.

It's a vicious cycle, really.

random11
2008-12-07, 05:22 AM
I think the problem starts with the word "adventurer".
In the real world, "I am an adventurer" should be translated to "I'm a homeless bum without a steady job".
In the real world, who would respect a profession that relies on searching (and usually finding) trouble?
So they are not brave, stupid or heroic, they just follow their strange profession.

In specific situations, the characters usually manage to balance between information and action by understanding what the great deity (the DM) expects them to do.
There is usually a silent law that states that if a DM worked on a quest for a long time, the adventurers should probably be able to finish it.

Immutep
2008-12-07, 06:21 PM
I cannot vouch for the reasoning behind other PC's but my barbarianistic characters always follow a simple path with this specific philosophical problem.

Don't ask! If you find out that where you're going there is a great wyrm that has single handedly wiped out an entire army sent to slay them then you'll be called foolish for going. If on the other hand you just know that there's a horde of dragon gold to be had for the taking (and maybe the slaying of a dragon) then you'd be called foolish for not going. Furthermore if your outlook on life is that everything you achieve in your life is simply a test of worthiness for acceptance into the best afterlife then even if you're unlucky and somebody tells you EXACTLY what you're up against then to not go is to fail one of these tests and so cowardly (especially if the foolishness some might associate can be explained away by others desicion to go and you simply couldn't let a companion face such horrors alone!) so in short, point me to the danger, i'll either batter it into submition or die trying and if anybody wants to call me cowardly/stupid then they'd best do it quietly or well out of hearing.

Stupendous_Man
2008-12-07, 06:23 PM
I think the problem starts with the word "adventurer".
In the real world, "I am an adventurer" should be translated to "I'm a homeless bum without a steady job".
In the real world, who would respect a profession that relies on searching (and usually finding) trouble?

The police? The military?

Optimystik
2008-12-07, 06:31 PM
The police? The military?

The police are reactively defending a specified area from crime, not actively venturing forth (and leaving said area) to hunt down evildoers.

The military's mission is noble; however marines, like adventurers, are not often considered pillars of stability and sanity. (See also: Jarhead.)

random11
2008-12-08, 12:29 AM
The police? The military?

Exactly my point.
Even if individually they are not 100% trusted, the police and military are somehow controlled by the local government. More importantly, they get paid even if nothing happens.
The adventurers however, are completely free loose cannons, who can join any side, do whatever they want (more or less), and actually depend on trouble for survival.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-08, 12:37 AM
Exactly my point.
Even if individually they are not 100% trusted, the police and military are somehow controlled by the local government. More importantly, they get paid even if nothing happens.
The adventurers however, are completely free loose cannons, who can join any side, do whatever they want (more or less), and actually depend on trouble for survival.So...mercenaries?

random11
2008-12-08, 02:02 AM
So...mercenaries?

I think of adventurers as mercenaries with ADHD.

Even mercenaries are smart enough to prefer comfortable and easy jobs if it gives them the same money.
Adventurers will take quests that require them to go deep into the enemy army and slay the leader, but will not consider a long termed job like protecting a village for a year.

Crow
2008-12-08, 02:36 AM
I think of adventurers as mercenaries with ADHD.

Even mercenaries are smart enough to prefer comfortable and easy jobs if it gives them the same money.
Adventurers will take quests that require them to go deep into the enemy army and slay the leader, but will not consider a long termed job like protecting a village for a year.

Interestingly, in the first instance most adventurers will go into great detail in their planning to get in and slay the leader, yet not even bother with trying to come up with an escape plan for afterwards.

kpenguin
2008-12-08, 02:41 AM
I think the problem starts with the word "adventurer".
In the real world, "I am an adventurer" should be translated to "I'm a homeless bum without a steady job".
In the real world, who would respect a profession that relies on searching (and usually finding) trouble?
So they are not brave, stupid or heroic, they just follow their strange profession.

Ibn Battuta? Marco Polo? Giacomo Casanova? Teddy Roosevelt?

All have been called adventurers and none of them seem to fit the description of "homeless bum without a steady job"

random11
2008-12-08, 03:02 AM
Ibn Battuta? Marco Polo? Giacomo Casanova? Teddy Roosevelt?

All have been called adventurers and none of them seem to fit the description of "homeless bum without a steady job"

They were adventurers, but not in the same way.
The people on your list, along with many others, were explorers, authors, traders and diplomats.
Whatever their goal and means of survival were, it did not include moving from place to place just looking for trouble.

D&D adventurers would be bored to tears if they spend years as storytellers, historians or diplomats. They will want ACTION.
Because their profession is unrealistic and exists only for the pleasure of a good game, I don't think it can be judged with realistic motives like bravery or stupidity.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-08, 03:07 AM
D&D adventurers would be bored to tears if they spend years as storytellers, historians or diplomats. They will want ACTION.
Because their profession is unrealistic and exists only for the pleasure of a good game, I don't think it can be judged with realistic motives like bravery or stupidity.It's not action, really, its power. An adventurer will level once every 3-4 days of adventuring(13.33 encounters at a rate of 4/day). Assuming that after every level he takes a few days off to rest/recruit a new rogue/make items, you're still looking at a living legend after a few months, and within a year he'll be an earthly god. It's a high-risk, high-reward job, where you'll have to face the same risk no matter what in order to get to your reward.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-12-08, 03:19 AM
This. As far as I'm concerned, genre conventions trump all other considerations. If everyone else is having to come up with ideas to "persuade" one of the players that this is something their character should want to do, they're being an idiot.

I agree with this in a slightly more empathetic manner :smalltongue:. Everyone who rolls up a character for D&D knows that, on one level or another, that character is going to be an adventurer. The DM has a lot of work to do already, so he can't be terribly worried about any more than the most basic of player motivations.*

So, in most cases, it is prudent of the players to give their characters reasons for going on adventures (especially if the game is not going to be an epic campaign which from level 1-20/30 leads the players towards their saving of the world from ultimate destruction video game style). If survivability is going to be factored seriously into PC motivations for every adventure, then the DM must know (and probably agree) to this, because it can significantly increase his/her workload.

*Of course...

Everything I am saying changes if the DM and/or the players have set up a different premise for the game than D&D seems to intend. There is the "up-front mentioning that some encounters will be escape encounters" example listed above, which I also tend to use.

And, if the players have agreed to play a more grit-driven, realistic adventure than the PHB and DMG seem to suggest, then this should be made plain before hand, and the DM will probably work the motivation of "survival possibility" into his equations and adventure hooks.

Shpadoinkle
2008-12-08, 02:52 PM
There's nothing that prevents them from being both.

Immutep
2008-12-08, 03:05 PM
Ibn Battuta? Marco Polo? Giacomo Casanova? Teddy Roosevelt?

All have been called adventurers and none of them seem to fit the description of "homeless bum without a steady job"

you forgot Sir Francis Drake ect. But good point!

Immutep
2008-12-08, 03:06 PM
Interestingly, in the first instance most adventurers will go into great detail in their planning to get in and slay the leader, yet not even bother with trying to come up with an escape plan for afterwards.

THat's because the best laid plans never survive first contact with the enemy, so why bother making part of the plan for after you've planned to definately have made contact with the enemy

Zen Master
2008-12-08, 05:00 PM
Now - I'll start by saying I usually play stupidly brave. Just so that's taken care of, you where I'm coming from.

Now ... I have asked myself, and my fellow players, what point there is in playing someone who wouldn't actually go. I mean - if your character is indeed more inclined to staying at home, you might want to consider playing someone else. Or there is no game.

I realise I metagame horribly. I do so because that's where the fun is. I play someone who takes the risks the GM wants, knowing full-well that I'll get hurt.

Naturally, you could have fun with roleplaying the whole fear/angst/reluctance thing too. Only that's not me. I play the other guy.

Winged One
2008-12-08, 05:22 PM
Now - I'll start by saying I usually play stupidly brave. Just so that's taken care of, you where I'm coming from.

Now ... I have asked myself, and my fellow players, what point there is in playing someone who wouldn't actually go. I mean - if your character is indeed more inclined to staying at home, you might want to consider playing someone else. Or there is no game.

I realise I metagame horribly. I do so because that's where the fun is. I play someone who takes the risks the GM wants, knowing full-well that I'll get hurt.

Naturally, you could have fun with roleplaying the whole fear/angst/reluctance thing too. Only that's not me. I play the other guy.

Really? From what you've said, you seem to metagame quite well.

Doomsy
2008-12-08, 05:47 PM
Interestingly, in the first instance most adventurers will go into great detail in their planning to get in and slay the leader, yet not even bother with trying to come up with an escape plan for afterwards.

This is why they are expendable assets. You just point them at the enemy/quest/bad thing and hope they die in a successful failure so you don't have to pay them at the end of the day, or that they are just happy with the loot they recovered if they live. They're more like freelance troubleshooters than real mercenaries.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-08, 08:53 PM
This is why they are expendable assets. You just point them at the enemy/quest/bad thing and hope they die in a successful failure so you don't have to pay them at the end of the day, or that they are just happy with the loot they recovered if they live. They're more like freelance troubleshooters than real mercenaries.That's why I got an RPG feel from Leverage last night. "Bad guys have money. We can get that money. Just tell us who the Bad Guys are and do our planning and we'll be good guys.:smallwink::smallbiggrin:"

Curmudgeon
2008-12-08, 09:09 PM
Every PC gets a feat at 1st level. What they don't tell you is that this is paid for by the Flaw: Adrenaline Junkie. The PC classes exist mainly to promote and provide action. So yes, they're stupid; they just can't help themselves.

Zen Master
2008-12-09, 03:22 AM
Really? From what you've said, you seem to metagame quite well.

Well, yes. Metagaming well is horrible.

Winged One
2008-12-09, 02:20 PM
Well, yes. Metagaming well is horrible.

Not the way you do it. Metagaming to get better treasure or have your character know something they wouldn't otherwise know is bad, but what's the problem with metagaming to be sure that there's a game and that it's fun?

horseboy
2008-12-09, 04:41 PM
I think of adventurers as mercenaries with ADHD.

Even mercenaries are smart enough to prefer comfortable and easy jobs if it gives them the same money.
Adventurers will take quests that require them to go deep into the enemy army and slay the leader, but will not consider a long termed job like protecting a village for a year.Well, caravan guard is a very common profession for 1-3 levels. Mainly because it pays so well, and ultimately more survivable than "dungeon crawling" through a complex full of traps, bad construction and angry inhabitants at those levels. A player, and by extention, a character that doesn't stack the odds in their favour while undertaking a very dangerous undertaking deserves to die.

As a survivor of the Gygaxian era DM, one of the most useful gaming skills I have is the ability to read a GM and figure out just how deadly the game is going to be. If it's just a fun and recreational then I'll facilitate the GM including making a character that will fit easily into the campaign. Even if it's just someone who's good at fixing Warp drives and this is the first job offer they've gotten in a while instead of the gung-ho spec ops killing maching. Even if they're not fearless and psychotic they still have a reason to be there. Start throwing in Mary Sues I'm going to make you work harder by pulling out an Antiquarian. If we're going cat and also cat, well, you're going to force rocks to fall, cause you're not going to kill me, cause my character took the explosives skill.

Zen Master
2008-12-09, 05:20 PM
Not the way you do it. Metagaming to get better treasure or have your character know something they wouldn't otherwise know is bad, but what's the problem with metagaming to be sure that there's a game and that it's fun?

Ok - that's true enough. But I also do the other stuff. Or do really annoying stuff like willfully not metagaming, while being all sly and wink-winky about showing the GM I know whats going on, and not acting on it.

Narmoth
2008-12-09, 05:27 PM
In the current campaign my character has a very simple reason for adventuring:
He's just tagging along.
Hes long time friend is dragging him along after finding him getting hopelessly drunk in some small fort and this friend is pushing him to get his act back together.
That he is a lvl 10 dark knight (paladin 6 / blackguard 4) dealing from 2d6+7 to 7d6 + 7 (sneak attacking and with boosting spells) in damage with a single blow from his greatsword doesn't change this

Winged One
2008-12-09, 05:56 PM
Ok - that's true enough. But I also do the other stuff. Or do really annoying stuff like willfully not metagaming, while being all sly and wink-winky about showing the GM I know whats going on, and not acting on it.

Well, now that you know that you're doing it, you know to only use metagaming for good.:smallwink: