N. Wright at Lawful Indifferent has a piece up about preferring anti-heroes to heroes, and adventures to 'saving the world.'
I agree that 'save the world' plots in RPGs get old quick. They're fine every now and then, for HIGH LEVEL PLAY. But so many GMs I see or read about want the whole damn campaign to be about this great quest with the goal of saving the world, a la LotR/Dragonlance/whatever Final Fantasy game they've just played.
When it comes to the adventure, I'm really more interested in the episodic, picaresque, motivated by personal self-interest type things. Like REH stories, or Lieber, or your typical B movie plot.
HOWEVER, I do enjoy having characters that are more like Galahad, Luke Skywalker, or the Lone Ranger in the mix. If everyone's an anti-hero I'm less interested in things. And in my personal gaming experience in the past 10 years or so, I don't see many characters like this (even when someone's playing the Paladin).
Now, I'm not saying I think a party of all stand-up, dependable, honorable characters would be best. It might be fun for a while, but having a mix of characters in the group is where there's the most fun.
Compatible, but sometimes at odds. That's fun. And more dramatic.
Luke and Han don't always see eye to eye, but they are friends and can work together. Same with Batman and Superman.
You need a few heroes out there to make the anti-heroes meaningful.
Powers Enumerated I
5 hours ago
I agree about the conflicting characters. And I don't think "Save the world" remains interesting for too long in most RPGs as a campaign goal. It starts to feel very heavy and drag on the fun factor when you don't feel the full freedom to do what you choose with your characters. Now, if you *choose* to save the world, then that's different. I just don't want it handed down by the DM that it will be my character's sole purpose in life for the entirety of the campaign, and once we succeed (cause admit it, DMs who do this tend to make it so you will succeed), then the campaign is over, cause that was the end of the story! It works great in fiction (and Final Fantasy is more fiction than game), but not so well in a real, traditional D&D-type RPG where there are no artificial constraints beyond what the DM imposes.
ReplyDeleteI'm a sucker for playing the bold hero who tries to rescue everyone in sight. That's my deal, I guess. But saving the world is a bit much.
ReplyDeleteI tend to play Superhero and Sci-Fi RPGs more than anything else and my favorite Sci-Fi subject is Star Trek so saving the world is my bread and butter. ;)
ReplyDeleteAs I've noted on my blog in the past, I starting gaming with the notion that I was playing a hero. In the first few adventures I was ever in we almost never looted bodies, killed any opponent who didn't attack us first or did any of the things a typical D&D character does. Why? Simply put our inspiration was movies, TV and comic books. When was the last time Superman or Mr. Spock killed a guy and took his stuff?
Well, in Star Trek you can save the world every week, but it's almost always a different world. So it might not get so tedious.
ReplyDeleteWith Supers, I could see the same problem as with fantasy games, though. Not every supervillain needs to be bent on world domination/destruction, or altering the time-line, or whatever. Some of them maybe just need to get some revenge, or steal some money/tech, or are simply psychotic freaks.
Loved the post, and found myself agreeing whole-heartedly, especially with:
ReplyDelete'so many GMs I see or read about want the whole damn campaign to be about this great quest with the goal of saving the world.'
Influenced by contemporary media, I'd guess. But there are still some GMs out there who simply allow the players total freedom of action, luckily enough. It's more fun that way, imo. I like seeing what they get up to, and reacting. Not big on a campaign theme or plan, though I've played those before. But each to their own.
One thing, though:
'Batman and Superman':
Not Post-Crisis. DCMMV by the minute, it seems! :-)
@anonymous:
'I don't think "Save the world" remains interesting for too long in most RPGs as a campaign goal.':
That's been true in my experience, but of course YMMV.
@Christian:
'I'm a sucker for playing the bold hero who tries to rescue everyone in sight.':
You and me both!
'But saving the world is a bit much.':
I know right, how often can(should?) that occur in the average campaign time frame with a set number of PCs? I mean, once is special and awesome! The second time, ti kind of looks ridiculous; you're like: 'isn't there someone else who can do this stuff? Where are the other guys who fight Evil?'(I never believed the PCs should be the only hope, it's kinda cliche and less fun, imo.) Three times: now it's a job! :-)
@Barking Alien:
'saving the world is my bread and butter. ;)':
Someone has to care! Amirite ;-)
'we almost never looted bodies, killed any opponent who didn't attack us first or did any of the things a typical D&D character does.':
It varies from campaign to campaign, even within groups sometimes. A LOT of people were on the same page with you, from what I've seen. By 1983 or so, TSR started emphasizing the notion that the players were here to save the day, not necessarily just wreck shop! The problem then became adapting a 'hero' based adventure to a more neutral or selfish(even 'Evil') perspective!(Additionally, Modules generally had a 'plot line', that could cause problems anyhow, regardless of style. I believe the ideal solution would be to set up the adventures to allow any style of play, ranging from altruistic to situational to outright bastard.
I prefer the details to work themselves out. Though I generally root for heroic behavior personally, I just deal with the players' actions, and let the chips fall where they may, as it were.
'the notion that I was playing a hero':
Everyone's the hero in their own story, right?
'When was the last time Superman or Mr. Spock killed a guy and took his stuff?'
There's always those 'mirror' dimensions! :-)
What I always did in high school and college was try to run my games based on story-arcs that gradually fed into an over-arching "save the world" storyline once the game shifted gears into high level. I especially tried to infuse a lot of character decision-making and background into the overall shape that the endgame took on.
ReplyDeleteA good example is my Dark Sun campaign in college. It started low-level, with the characters as escaped slaves. I adapted a lot of the modules throughout the course of the year, but gave the players a lot of meaningful choice in their actions, influencing the course the adventures would take. There was more than once that I let the guys jump off the railroad tracks and instead adapted what was in the module to the choices they made.
In the mid-game, they were on a quest to save their city, the first and only democracy in the campaign setting. I gave them open-ended clues and basically let them wander the campaign map in search of the talismans they hoped to find to save their city. By the late game, their discoveries had led them to a new, broader quest to save all of the known world from an impending invasion from the lower planes.
But I let them make the decisions as to how to do it, and I had the villains take advantage of any mistake they made. Although the game ended with my graduation from college, it had become pretty legendary.
Too often, DMs railroad players on the "save-the-world" quests. I've found low-level games thrive on story-arcs, mid-level games do well with quests that give lots of freedom within a well-defined area (kingdoms or regions) where they can make a meaningful difference. High-level campaigns where they travel across continents on grand quests (or even hop across planes) are pretty good, too. But it is about gradual development and expansion of scope.
And granted, this is certainly NOT the traditional, standard OD&D megadungeon-focused game. It is very, VERY easy for a DM to try to railroad players. For me, it was exhilarating to throw the map at the players, give them their clues, and have them debate where to go and what to seek. You also have to have an INTIMATE grasp of the setting and the ability to generate stuff in your head at a moment's notice.
But this is what I stared playing D&D for in the first place: "Wait a second, I get to play Aragorn? Can I choose to go with Frodo to Mount Doom instead of Rohan and Gondor? I can! ALRIGHT! Let's find out what happens when I do that!"
Maybe this is an unspoken assumption, and I’m about to play the part of Captain Obvious, but...
ReplyDeleteIn my groups it usually isn’t “save the world” but simply “save something other than the world”. There are tons of opportunity for heroism without any worldwide threat. You know...Seven Samurai for example. In fact, I’d say my aim as DM is to create many small threats and leave it up to the players to pick which one they will pursue.
(Or to choose none of them, but I know my players will choose one of them.)