New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 51 of 51
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

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

    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.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Jun 2020

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Entessa View Post
    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
    Native Sha'ir enthusiast. NO GENIE WARLOCK DOESNT COUNT!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky McDibben View Post
    I am unburdened of my salt, and I rise like a bland-ass potato chip from the ashes of my discontent.
    Rate my homebrew: https://forums.giantitp.com/showsing...&postcount=323

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

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

    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 ?

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Stonehead's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    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.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    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.

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Satinavian; 2022-04-27 at 09:16 AM.

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    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.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    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.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    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).
    Last edited by Telok; 2022-04-27 at 06:28 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    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.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    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...
    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    ... 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.
    Last edited by Telok; 2022-04-27 at 07:47 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    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.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

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

    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.
    Last edited by Satinavian; 2022-04-28 at 02:35 AM.

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Stonehead's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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."

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    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.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Earth
    Gender
    Intersex

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

    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.

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mucat View Post
    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.
    I love playing in a party with a couple of power-gamers, it frees me up to be Elan!


  19. - Top - End - #49
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Duff View Post
    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.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Lord Torath's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Sharangar's Revenge
    Gender
    Male

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

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

    Spoiler: The Redheaded Rookie
    Show
    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.
    Warhammer 40,000 Campaign Skirmish Game: Warpstrike
    My Spelljammer stuff (including an orbit tracker), 2E AD&D spreadsheet, and Vault of the Drow maps are available in my Dropbox. Feel free to use or not use it as you see fit!
    Thri-Kreen Ranger/Psionicist by me, based off of Rich's A Monster for Every Season

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Gender
    Male

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

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    Work is the scourge of the gaming classes!
    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    Neither Evershifting List of Perfectly Prepared Spells nor Grounds to Howl at the DM If I Ever Lose is actually a wizard class feature.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •