Unarchetypal Heroes

[Citizen Keen]

One of the things the HERO System prides itself on is the ability to think "outside the box" during character creation. However, 95% of the time, the box is there for a reason. If I conceive of a "fighter", I can explain my character concept very easily to other players. If I say a "priest", the same applies. Sometimes, a qualifier is required, like a "fire-wielding wizard", or a "plate-mail wearing druid", but generally, the box works.

 

I'd like to hear about characters for whom the box DIDN'T work. Characters with whom you really needed the HERO System to bring them to life.

 

Rules:

 

• Campaign must have been High Fantasy HERO
  
• No fancy races - I'm more interested in character concepts and occupations than "an elf, with WINGS!"
  
• Reasonably recognizable world - if it's High Fantasy "but with mechs!", too far.
  

 

Basically, I want to hear about campaigns which could be built with D&D (or at least, almost), but character concepts that needed HERO.

 

Ready, set, GO!

[Old Man]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

My present campaign cannot be done with D&D. None of the PCs fit into the box.

 

One is a high STR, low INT, laborer with little formal weapons training.

 

Next is a scholar who gained his skills through book learning.

 

Last is a real bard. The singing, non-fighting, non-thieving, non-magic kind of bard.

[Labrat]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

 

Ready, set, GO!

 

Well I'm running a game called Arcane Apocalypse on yahoogroups (just now moving to HeroCentral) that has four classes of archtypes:

 

Plane Mage (Dimensional Wizard... nothing new)

Enforcer (More or less a light fighter... nothing new)

Explorer: Sort of new. Sure you can say that they're like thieves without the greed, but their main purpose is to scout ahead and get into places normally not accessible...

Envoy: New. Politician and smooth-talker, necessary because the PCs are representatives of a culture not of this dimension...

 

They are all considered 'Wardens' and have crossed over as a landing party to see whether or not the Material Plane is once again inhabitable after a wild mage-war devistation left the earth a wreck. There was enough time for the Plane Mages to teleport two kingdoms to safe pocket dimensions, but the endurance needed to keep them there after a full generation is getting low and there are side effects of 'thinning reality' that are giving an immediacy to the landing party's mission.

 

Is that what you're looking for?

[tarragon]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

Two recent real examples.

 

First, I wanted to play a wizard that has been doing a bunch of magical research in his tower for the last few years. He notices something is up and decided to go out into the field for real research. He's not powerful in battlefield magics because his studies have taken him a different way.

 

In D&D terms, he could have been a 1st level mage except that all those knowledge skills he should have go up strictly with level. I would have gladly traded several known spellls for higher knowledge skill rolls.

 

Second was a swashbuckling light fighter with some magical talent; a touch of dragons blood in the family tree perhaps.. It was just enough talent to let him detect magical auras and to use magical items (some interesting D&D magic items are limited to casters only). It was intended that in the future he might learn to augment his abilities making himself harder to hit, run faster, hit harder, sneak better, that kind of stuff.

 

To do this I made him primarily a thief and had him take a level of sorcerer early on. That actually gave him many of the many of the things I wanted, but I also only ever used 2 spells (detect magic and mage armor). Even though getting a familiar is good part of the strength of a sorcerer I didn't do it for character. Also, because of the utility of Mage Armor I was eventually tempted away from concept and would cast it on several party members before a battle.

 

So I didn't use some of the powers available to me, making me weaker than equivalent characters and pure utility of other powers tempted me away from the concepts I started with.

[The Hyborian]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

My present campaign cannot be done with D&D. None of the PCs fit into the box.

 

One is a high STR, low INT, laborer with little formal weapons training.

 

Next is a scholar who gained his skills through book learning.

 

Last is a real bard. The singing, non-fighting, non-thieving, non-magic kind of bard.

 

Not to criticize anyone's campagin, but you guys must be HARDCORE roleplayers. I say that with both envy and touch of fear in my voice. I like to see players with dedication to avoiding cookie cutter characters, but what keeps them all from dying a horrible death the first time they get in a tavern brawl, much less take on a genuine "monster". If your campaign is almost entirely role playing opportunites, ok, have fun. But what do you do with characters that are ineffective in the name of originality/role play. You have a fighter without fighting skill, a scholar (possibly useful character, depending on what they know, but again it sounds like a noncombat character) and lounge singer. Dont they all die the first time a 50 pt. goblin with a shortbow shows up? Physcial conflict is a standard genre element in most fantasy stories and games. Your characters sound well adapted for lifting heavy things, knowing obsure information, and social situations, but how do they make it through the action sequences?

[Confusion]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

Hmm..

 

I had a character in a High Fantasy game, he was a Goblin Trader. All sorts of social skills, his previous owner.. err.. Master thought it would be funny to train him in the courtly arts and things like that. He trained him a bit too well, because he bought his freedom, and eventually bought up all his previous masters debt and hired him the be the respectable face to the organization. That game also had a Pixie Thief and a typical Barbarian you know Big, Dumb and Pretty.

 

Currently I'm runnning a Knight Engineer. Not to odd, but he does have a bad habit of building trebuchet and ballistae if forced to stay in one place for too long.

[Doppler]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

I ran a Jarl from the northlands in a GURPS Fantasy game. He was kind of like a barbarian, but with a great ability to "turn on" charm and captivate an audience and a great skills for tactics, simple engineering, sailing, and event planning (!). In most cases, you could mistake him for a crazy old street person, but when he had to do his job, he was a spectacular leader.

 

He was nominally a fighter, but his fighting skills were slightly below-average.

[Curufea]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

Hmm, well - most of the characters from my first Western Shores could probably fit within the box. Kinda, anyway.

 

3 Elvan nobles, one retainer and one escaped reptilian slave.

However, the nobles had heirloom weapons and the honour and respect of the entire continent (the alternate history being that the Western Shores was conquered by the Elves and was their empire) - none of them would be classed as "fighters" as that was a pretty minor part of their skills - if I had to give them a class box to put them in, then "noble" fits best, the retainer was good with animals, but more servant than "ranger", and the slave was more of a "martial artist" headed on his way (with lots of experience points if we got that far) into turning into a dragon (which is what his race does).

 

Too reduce it down to the D&D genre, the nobles could be Paladin/Thieves (because thieves are the only D&D class with skills), the retainer was a Ranger/Thief and the slave companion was a Monk.

 

The PBeM set in the Western Shores later was primarily systemless - as the party consisted of a Demon (disguised as a Dwarf Fighter), a Goddess (disguised as an Elven Mage), a God (disguised as a Half-Elvan Ranger), a Paladin (disguised as a Priest), and a Necromancer who owned the dungeon they were entering (disguised as a Halfling Thief).

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

Hrm...

 

Warrior whose main weapon was their hair - extremely long, had a club thingy bound to the end of it. Had steel wires run through it to protect it/make it more dangerous.

 

A merchant, whose main use to the group was that he had the money to buy (for himself ONLY - greedy ) ten quite powerful magical rings, thus makign him something of a mage for the group... but with no real knowledge of magic, instead focusing on trade.

 

A deadly dangerous fighter wih average strength, equally effective versus humans, zombies, and doors...

[Curufea]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

Physcial conflict is a standard genre element in most fantasy stories and games.

 

Well, that about sums it up doesn't it - combat being a standard. Actually it's more of a stereotype for fantasy.

 

By and large - combat should always be thought of as optional - then you open up games to whole new dimensions. Political, melodrama, horror, adventure, detective etc...

 

The trick is to think outside the D&D box. To play "What if?".

 

When I finish New Crobuzon Hero - there will be nothing that is boxable as anything

[Old Man]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

My turn:

 

- A priest of Set whose skills include snake-style martial arts and the use of a poisoned whip.

- A mage who powers his magic by sucking end out of others.

- A blind psionic mage.

- An old, has-been mercenary captain--physically unimpressive but very skilled and knowledgeable from the start of the campaign.

- A shapeshifter.

- A high STR, low INT, laborer with little formal weapons training.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

A dwarf smith with Magic Skill but no spells (to forge magic items).

 

A hedge mage who might not actually have known any magic (Invisible Power Effects).

 

A worldly village priest with no spells.

 

A scholar who gained his skills through book learning.

[The Hyborian]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

Well, that about sums it up doesn't it - combat being a standard. Actually it's more of a stereotype for fantasy.

 

By and large - combat should always be thought of as optional - then you open up games to whole new dimensions. Political, melodrama, horror, adventure, detective etc...

 

The trick is to think outside the D&D box. To play "What if?".

 

When I finish New Crobuzon Hero - there will be nothing that is boxable as anything

 

Well, I dont want to end up sounding like some kind of powergamer here, I really am not. I truely enjoy gaming with significant non-combat elements.

 

But

 

It can be hard to find gamers for regular groups at all sometimes, let alone poeple who are willing to sit through a four hour session that doesn't have a action sequence or two. Most people who play the fantasy genre expect some combat/action because it part of the genre. If you read a Conan story and no one drew a sword, threw a punch, or stole something you probably would be pretty dissapointed. A "Combat Optional" campaign is going to cost you players.

 

And, it doesn't answer the question of what happens when your back is to the wall and violence does break out. Not every character has to be focused on conlfict, but again its part of the genre that physical conflict will erupt from time to time. If the group as a whole is unable to deal with physical threats then its difficult to feel heroic.

 

I suppose that you could just say that your playing a different genre than traditional fantasy, but your need special and talented players to pull this off. Its going to be hard to find players for a "horror" game, for instance, where the characters run like hell most of the time and have almost no chance of defeating the menace. Im not saying you wouldn't enjoy it. Im not even saying "I" wouldn't enjoy it with the right group of people. But its going to be a hard sell to the general gaming community, and would require some unorthodox storytelling.

 

I also dont want to give the impression that I am against original or non-standard characters. I rather lilke them in fact. But the characters have to be able to function within the genre and campagin setting. If your going to play in/GM lets say a Champions campaign based on the Avengers, i.e heros live in a big mansion and fight supervillians, and one of your players makes a character who's mutant power is to turn purple and pull grapefruit out of his armpits, you have a problem. Unless Baron von Badguy, leader of the villians, happens to have a vulnerability to fruit based attacks, the character really cant participate in the "fight supervillians" part of the campaign.

 

So, I guess I am just saying that you have to work within the expectations of your campaign when you create characters, and if I was invited to play in a fantasy campagin I would create a combat capable character of some kind, unless the GM first explained that the campaign would not include combat. And if that was the case, then I would need some information about the focus of the campaign, so I could make a charcter that would mesh with whatever we were going to do. A vatgrown cyberninja would be just as out of place in a noncombat campagin as Captain Grapefruit above would be out of place in a standard supers campaign.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

Well, I dont want to end up sounding like some kind of powergamer here, I really am not. I truely enjoy gaming with significant non-combat elements.

 

But

 

It can be hard to find gamers for regular groups at all sometimes, let alone poeple who are willing to sit through a four hour session that doesn't have a action sequence or two. Most people who play the fantasy genre expect some combat/action because it part of the genre. If you read a Conan story and no one drew a sword, threw a punch, or stole something you probably would be pretty dissapointed. A "Combat Optional" campaign is going to cost you players.

 

And, it doesn't answer the question of what happens when your back is to the wall and violence does break out. Not every character has to be focused on conlfict, but again its part of the genre that physical conflict will erupt from time to time. If the group as a whole is unable to deal with physical threats then its difficult to feel heroic.

 

I suppose that you could just say that your playing a different genre than traditional fantasy, but your need special and talented players to pull this off. Its going to be hard to find players for a "horror" game, for instance, where the characters run like hell most of the time and have almost no chance of defeating the menace. Im not saying you wouldn't enjoy it. Im not even saying "I" wouldn't enjoy it with the right group of people. But its going to be a hard sell to the general gaming community, and would require some unorthodox storytelling.

 

I also dont want to give the impression that I am against original or non-standard characters. I rather lilke them in fact. But the characters have to be able to function within the genre and campagin setting. If your going to play in/GM lets say a Champions campaign based on the Avengers, i.e heros live in a big mansion and fight supervillians, and one of your players makes a character who's mutant power is to turn purple and pull grapefruit out of his armpits, you have a problem. Unless Baron von Badguy, leader of the villians, happens to have a vulnerability to fruit based attacks, the character really cant participate in the "fight supervillians" part of the campaign.

 

So, I guess I am just saying that you have to work within the expectations of your campaign when you create characters, and if I was invited to play in a fantasy campagin I would create a combat capable character of some kind, unless the GM first explained that the campaign would not include combat. And if that was the case, then I would need some information about the focus of the campaign, so I could make a charcter that would mesh with whatever we were going to do. A vatgrown cyberninja would be just as out of place in a noncombat campagin as Captain Grapefruit above would be out of place in a standard supers campaign.

 

 

 

What this guy said.

[Curufea]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

Pretty much the same for me. Our group know what types of games will be run too.

 

The only combat-heavy games I've been in recently are D&D ones. And that's mainly because those are the only rules available in D&D.

 

Everything else I've been in, or run, has been combat-light. Because other systems actually cover more things than just combat. It adds to the realism of the setting, rather than everyone thinking it is just a pen-and-paper adaptation of video games.

[Citizen Keen]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

I'm down with The Hyborian. I do love lengthy political intrigue scenes, and mercantile negotiations. Romantic trysts leave me hot and bothered, and extensive backstreet cat-and-mouse games make me jumpy. But the core of role-playing is escapism.

 

I deal with bureaucracy in my real life. I deal with romantic conflicts, negotiations, and attempting to lie and keep secrets. What my life lacks is ass-kicking!. Nothing leaves me more satisfied than a well-played fight. The fight was arrived at through good role-playing channels, there are plenty of sufficient pauses for dramatic monologues, and at some point, I dive out from behind a corner, guns blazing. Or swing from a chandelier. Or punch through a wall and shout "It's clobbering time!" I like to escape.

[Eosin]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

Martial Masters have always been hard for D&D/d20 - average to moderately high stat characters who through skill and dedication can just hand you your backside. Monks ain't the answer.

 

I ran a character once - formerly a knight who served as the kings guardian - who used his hand to block a sword meant for his charge. His sword hand. Due to his disability he was dismissed from service ...blah ... blah... drunk... blah... drunk some more... Then discovered that he had a talent for mage craft. He almost never cast spells (but could if needed) instead he relied on his somewhat diminished skills as a warrior. A great character to RP but one that would have been much harder to model in AD&D of the time...I could probably do him decently in d20.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

Combat between evenly matched numbers of relatively weak fighters is still combat. It doesn't have to be a small handful of mighty-thewed warriors standing knee-deep in the dead every game to be a satisfying combat.

[Old Man]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

Combat between evenly matched numbers of relatively weak fighters is still combat. It doesn't have to be a small handful of mighty-thewed warriors standing knee-deep in the dead every game to be a satisfying combat.

 

Let's face it, the fights you remember are the ones where somebody in the party died.

 

As for power level--I've learned the hard way to make characters that are survivable. I like roleplaying, but I wouldn't want to play the game if there was not the constant threat of mortal combat and death.

[Old Man]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

Everything else I've been in' date=' or run, has been combat-light. Because other systems actually cover more things than just combat. It adds to the realism of the setting, rather than everyone thinking it is just a pen-and-paper adaptation of video games.[/quote']

 

I've noticed that other game systems are also less likely to have wandering monsters or other fights that don't advance the overall plot.

[Curufea]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

I lilke fantasy settings that actually make sense, you see. That you can actually empathise with - because it is realistic enough that you can imagine living there.

 

This is why I always imagine D&D is a video game - Final Fantasy had wandering monsters, as do most CRPGs.

 

I've always thought - how exactly do villages survive? If all non-PCs are low level (or zero), why aren't they wiped out by the first wandering monster?

 

But then - combat is the only way to get experience and learn about the world (Quick - Magic User, stop studying at the university, you'll never learn spells past level one- go and and kill things immediately!)

 

I'm not saying "no-combat". I'm saying "combat-light". I actually think it is more believable for people to attempt to avoid mortal combat and death as much as possible (as one of the side effects, is actually death, you know). I'm a big fan of Lord of the Rings for example - it had comba, but they didn't rush into it, and there were very few alternative options.

[AnotherSkip]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

You have a fighter without fighting skill' date=' a scholar (possibly useful character, depending on what they know, but again it sounds like a noncombat character) and lounge singer?[/quote']

No offence to either side but this writeup of the characters sounds like David Eddings was gaming one day..... (looks like Durnik, Belgarion and a slightly modified Silk/Mister Wolf were out adventuring.)

 

 

Anyways try this set:

a "druid": casting magish spells and doing something similar to the Al Quadim summon mage magic (but with a single ghost giving him 'ghost powers' through a 15-21 point V.P.P.), wearing as much if not more armor than the heavy hitters in the group(no platemail though, does not really exist).

a "cat man": imagine Tarzan of the Bobcats at age 14.....

a "berzerker": Red Sonja with mental disorders and an equal companion.

most of the rest of the group would be 'boxable' and I think the party "Bard" would almost be a lounge singer except she has more class....

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

Funny... I was going to mention Durnik as a great example of a "unarchtypal" hero that would be a breeze to do in HERO, but a nightmare in D&D

[gojira]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

There's always that unique blend of bard and theif: the Disco Bandit.

 

I won't even get started on the Turtle Tamer or the Pastamancer.

[Old Man]

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes

 

You have a fighter without fighting skill' date=' a scholar (possibly useful character, depending on what they know, but again it sounds like a noncombat character) and lounge singer. Dont they all die the first time a 50 pt. goblin with a shortbow shows up? Physcial conflict is a standard genre element in most fantasy stories and games. Your characters sound well adapted for lifting heavy things, knowing obsure information, and social situations, but how do they make it through the action sequences?[/quote']

 

Well they finished their first fight without any real damage taken. Luck had something to do with it and an axe swung by a STR 18 guy hurts. The scholar is also able to use a bow which he did to good effect. The bard was tied up.

 

Low level combat is just as good as high powered combat, it just lack some of the special wiz-bang effects. I was honestly surprised and pleased that my players came up with the characters they did. Giving them obstacles that won't kill them outright will be a challenge but that's part of being GM.