Hi all, me again, back with one of my weird polls that are, as usual, inspired by some little thing or strange point I just had pop into my head.
This time, it is about the Ethos -- or basis of a playstyle -- that you find is what works best for your group / game / table.
THe poll is multiple choices, but the goal is to look at two aspects of playstyle: Character Ethos and Power Ethos.
Character Ethos is how you see the point and purpose of the characters, ultimately, within your playstyle. I only present two options for it, plus the blended form, but I am aware there are others. The two I present arise from what I see across multiple social media locations around the nature of characters, and are the two most common:
the folks who see PCs as a way to express a Power Fantasy that is already powerful, capable, heroic figure.
the folks who see it more as a nobody who must work to become powerful and are growing as people and heroes with each level.
Then I added in a presumptive form of a blending between the two -- though it is interesting in that one cannot have a power fantasy at the start in the second option, and one cannot have a nobody who grows in the first.
The next ethos I look at is part of how one handles the abilities that people can have, and the source of those abilities. THis one arises from the distinct difference between how TSR's older guard saw things and how the Hasbro present day designers approach tings. This is simply how the two approaches differer and where you stand on that line.
The first one is the older, TSR style, drawing more from folklore and and myth, where the hero is still strong and noble and whatnot, but to fight monsters, they need special equipment -- their great power is in their magical items.
the second one is the more modern style, drawn from video games, television shows and a modern ideation that the power is there in the person, it just needs practice and time and bring it out -- magic items are great and all, but aren't critical or necessary.
I also offer up a theoretical blended form of it as well -- again, it it difficult to conceive, but I have no doubt that such a possibility exists.
Now, when folks do polls, people often suspect there is a purpose behind them, and mine is n different.
My purpose is simple: I am curious as all hell. That's it. No paper to write, no products to sell, no stuff to toss around. Boring, I know. Totally not a capitalistic thing. Bad me.
Meh. I just like to know stuff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
You’re not alone in liking to know stuff. As for ethos’ : despite the fact that I prefer to start with a fairly powerful PC I prefer to start at L1 and build.. I’m a firm believer in “ man proposes, the gods disposes” ; your plans are disposed of by reality and your all too often flying by the seat of your pants and having to change directions as new situations slam into you. So the PC develops over time not follow some preplanned sequences of steps. Hen I want the power fantasy ( yes occasionally I do) I have or can create and then play extremely powerful PCs. However, the ones I already have are ones that grew into it from level 1 over the course of years of play. As for the question of tools - they make the PC better at what they do, not mAve them able to do it in the first place. Yes you can do things with a vorpal sword you can’t with a +3 sword (like cutting off a limb or head) but they are extensions of what the basic tool does (in the case of a vorpal sword the mundane sword cuts just not as spectacularly well). Magic enhances what the PC already has, it doesn’t give him something he didn’t have in him before. The adventures should help the PC discover who and what he really is by challenging that essential core at every step and in as many ways as possible.
And not even sure what you mean by most of your labels. Arthur, in legend, was not some compete useless person before being given Excalibur. Excalibur boosted his power (as magical items tend to do) but that does not equate to him having been nothing before obtaining the sword.
Characters start weaker and become stronger over time. That is called growth and character progression. If the character is a power seeker, then any power ethos in there is part (perhaps even the largest part ) of their character ethos.
Not sure why you figure TSR style required magical items to defeat monsters, either. That implies that magic users were just chopped liver. Glass cannons, sure, but that firepower has always been non-trivial. Furthermore, even in the TSR days, very few monsters actually required magic items to defeat. Even things like werewolves could be defeated with non-magical silver. Ditto even far more powerful threats such as devils (silver) or demons (cold iron). Magic items do (and did) increase power, but were far from the only means.
Furthermore, how powerful someone is is always in relation to their environment. Not all fantasy is high fantasy. Low fantasy also is a thing, with less (or at least more subtle) magic and smaller scale threats... saving a local town or maybe even just a local business instead of saving the world or all of reality.
In the end, it really comes down to what kind of story do you think you are best able to tell at the time, taking into account what your players respond to best.
And not even sure what you mean by most of your labels. Arthur, in legend, was not some compete useless person before being given Excalibur. Excalibur boosted his power (as magical items tend to do) but that does not equate to him having been nothing before obtaining the sword.
I think the same is true of any level 1 character in 5e. Even starting out the average adventurer already has at least two or three higher stats than a commoner's 10 across the board and is already capable of surviving a fight that would kill a commoner so even if you aren't someone who wants to play a superhero you already are exceptional by the default standards of the world.
I think Pantagruel is right and a better set of questions is around tiers of play. I like both playing and running games where the characters are what the poll describes as a "power fantasy ethos", I want to be heroic and feel powerful and I offer my players the same but I also rarely play above tier 2 because I find it a little boring how powerful you are by the time you hit that level so do I really have a power fantasy ethos or do I just like feeling like the hero of my favourite fantasy books? Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli can comfortably take on a small army of Uruk Hai by themselves and walk away but they're not reshaping reality on a whim and that's where I like to play
And not even sure what you mean by most of your labels. Arthur, in legend, was not some compete useless person before being given Excalibur. Excalibur boosted his power (as magical items tend to do) but that does not equate to him having been nothing before obtaining the sword.
I think the same is true of any level 1 character in 5e. Even starting out the average adventurer already has at least two or three higher stats than a commoner's 10 across the board and is already capable of surviving a fight that would kill a commoner so even if you aren't someone who wants to play a superhero you already are exceptional by the default standards of the world.
I think Pantagruel is right and a better set of questions is around tiers of play. I like both playing and running games where the characters are what the poll describes as a "power fantasy ethos", I want to be heroic and feel powerful and I offer my players the same but I also rarely play above tier 2 because I find it a little boring how powerful you are by the time you hit that level so do I really have a power fantasy ethos or do I just like feeling like the hero of my favourite fantasy books? Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli can comfortably take on a small army of Uruk Hai by themselves and walk away but they're not reshaping reality on a whim and that's where I like to play
It is important to realize with Lord of the Rings, Frodo and Sam were the only real level 1's. Even Merri and Pippin had actual combat experience as guards for their respective portions of the Shire. The rest of the fellowship were all from legendary bloodlines (which makes a HUGE difference in Tolkien's cosmology) plus considerable prior adventuring experience. Aragorn was holding back on taking the throne of Gondor, his birthright, to actively patrol the wilderness and had been doing so for years before the Fellowship formed. And Gandalf was a demi-power unto himself, even if under orders to slum it lest he make a literal mess of the landscape. And even then he took out the side of a mountain at the end of his fight with the Balrog.
Only Frodo and Sam were anything resembling 'normal starting PC's' and even there, Frodo had mithril mail good enough to stop a troll's attack on its own, a dagger capable of damaging Shelob (another demi-power) and the One Ring, itself, an artifact level invisibility ring.
And not even sure what you mean by most of your labels. Arthur, in legend, was not some compete useless person before being given Excalibur. Excalibur boosted his power (as magical items tend to do) but that does not equate to him having been nothing before obtaining the sword.
I think the same is true of any level 1 character in 5e. Even starting out the average adventurer already has at least two or three higher stats than a commoner's 10 across the board and is already capable of surviving a fight that would kill a commoner so even if you aren't someone who wants to play a superhero you already are exceptional by the default standards of the world.
I think Pantagruel is right and a better set of questions is around tiers of play. I like both playing and running games where the characters are what the poll describes as a "power fantasy ethos", I want to be heroic and feel powerful and I offer my players the same but I also rarely play above tier 2 because I find it a little boring how powerful you are by the time you hit that level so do I really have a power fantasy ethos or do I just like feeling like the hero of my favourite fantasy books? Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli can comfortably take on a small army of Uruk Hai by themselves and walk away but they're not reshaping reality on a whim and that's where I like to play
It is important to realize with Lord of the Rings, Frodo and Sam were the only real level 1's. Even Merri and Pippin had actual combat experience as guards for their respective portions of the Shire. The rest of the fellowship were all from legendary bloodlines (which makes a HUGE difference in Tolkien's cosmology) plus considerable prior adventuring experience. Aragorn was holding back on taking the throne of Gondor, his birthright, to actively patrol the wilderness and had been doing so for years before the Fellowship formed. And Gandalf was a demi-power unto himself, even if under orders to slum it lest he make a literal mess of the landscape. And even then he took out the side of a mountain at the end of his fight with the Balrog.
Only Frodo and Sam were anything resembling 'normal starting PC's' and even there, Frodo had mithril mail good enough to stop a troll's attack on its own, a dagger capable of damaging Shelob (another demi-power) and the One Ring, itself, an artifact level invisibility ring.
Very good point but to me (with the exception of Gandalf) they're still top of tier 1/tier 2 characters which is where I like to be. As I said none of them are fundamentally changing the world around them with a word, they're just spectacularly good with swords, axes and bows, so I think they fit neatly into a heroic fantasy ethos without being a power fantasy ethos while the original poll above seems to conflate the two
I bounce off the traditional item-focused style because in my experience, players like to have some freedom to build their character, whereas when the bulk of your game skills come from your equipment, and the DM controls what magic items you have access to, it can create an adversarial dynamic if one player isn't finding the item they need to play the type of character they want to be.
I've always preferred magic items to be optional, while preferring modular feats and subclass choices that players get to make determining what kind of character you get to play.
Very good point but to me (with the exception of Gandalf) they're still top of tier 1/tier 2 characters which is where I like to be. As I said none of them are fundamentally changing the world around them with a word, they're just spectacularly good with swords, axes and bows, so I think they fit neatly into a heroic fantasy ethos without being a power fantasy ethos while the original poll above seems to conflate the two
I think my point was that, in those books, 'spectacularly good with swords, axes and bows' was to mythical levels. Even Boromir held back a literal army, literally pin-cushioned with arrows, and even then held on to life until they found him. Those who think the idea of hit points might be silly should consider that as an example of where the idea comes from.
I do agree completely that they were not really power fantasy ethos. The closest in LotR who come to that are Boromir and Saruman, but Boromir wants the power to defend Gondor and Saruman is convinced it is the only way to defeat Sauron, so even in their cases, it is indeed arguably still heroic fantasy ethos, even if via anti-hero paths.
That level of play can be fine for experienced players, but give new players such characters and they end up having to be walked through pretty much everything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi all, me again, back with one of my weird polls that are, as usual, inspired by some little thing or strange point I just had pop into my head.
This time, it is about the Ethos -- or basis of a playstyle -- that you find is what works best for your group / game / table.
THe poll is multiple choices, but the goal is to look at two aspects of playstyle: Character Ethos and Power Ethos.
Character Ethos is how you see the point and purpose of the characters, ultimately, within your playstyle. I only present two options for it, plus the blended form, but I am aware there are others. The two I present arise from what I see across multiple social media locations around the nature of characters, and are the two most common:
the folks who see PCs as a way to express a Power Fantasy that is already powerful, capable, heroic figure.
the folks who see it more as a nobody who must work to become powerful and are growing as people and heroes with each level.
Then I added in a presumptive form of a blending between the two -- though it is interesting in that one cannot have a power fantasy at the start in the second option, and one cannot have a nobody who grows in the first.
The next ethos I look at is part of how one handles the abilities that people can have, and the source of those abilities. THis one arises from the distinct difference between how TSR's older guard saw things and how the Hasbro present day designers approach tings. This is simply how the two approaches differer and where you stand on that line.
The first one is the older, TSR style, drawing more from folklore and and myth, where the hero is still strong and noble and whatnot, but to fight monsters, they need special equipment -- their great power is in their magical items.
the second one is the more modern style, drawn from video games, television shows and a modern ideation that the power is there in the person, it just needs practice and time and bring it out -- magic items are great and all, but aren't critical or necessary.
I also offer up a theoretical blended form of it as well -- again, it it difficult to conceive, but I have no doubt that such a possibility exists.
Now, when folks do polls, people often suspect there is a purpose behind them, and mine is n different.
My purpose is simple: I am curious as all hell. That's it. No paper to write, no products to sell, no stuff to toss around. Boring, I know. Totally not a capitalistic thing. Bad me.
Meh. I just like to know stuff.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
You’re not alone in liking to know stuff. As for ethos’ :
despite the fact that I prefer to start with a fairly powerful PC I prefer to start at L1 and build.. I’m a firm believer in “ man proposes, the gods disposes” ; your plans are disposed of by reality and your all too often flying by the seat of your pants and having to change directions as new situations slam into you. So the PC develops over time not follow some preplanned sequences of steps. Hen I want the power fantasy ( yes occasionally I do) I have or can create and then play extremely powerful PCs. However, the ones I already have are ones that grew into it from level 1 over the course of years of play.
As for the question of tools - they make the PC better at what they do, not mAve them able to do it in the first place. Yes you can do things with a vorpal sword you can’t with a +3 sword (like cutting off a limb or head) but they are extensions of what the basic tool does (in the case of a vorpal sword the mundane sword cuts just not as spectacularly well). Magic enhances what the PC already has, it doesn’t give him something he didn’t have in him before.
The adventures should help the PC discover who and what he really is by challenging that essential core at every step and in as many ways as possible.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I would probably do this as a rating poll (i.e. for each thing, how desirable is it), and maybe rearrange it. I think you're asking 2-3 questions:
What ThievesGuildMaster and Pantagruel said.
I'm far more interested in what intrinsically makes the characters heroic or driven or courageous, etc. than I am in "I've got a Marvel super suit."
Blended.
And not even sure what you mean by most of your labels. Arthur, in legend, was not some compete useless person before being given Excalibur. Excalibur boosted his power (as magical items tend to do) but that does not equate to him having been nothing before obtaining the sword.
Characters start weaker and become stronger over time. That is called growth and character progression. If the character is a power seeker, then any power ethos in there is part (perhaps even the largest part ) of their character ethos.
Not sure why you figure TSR style required magical items to defeat monsters, either. That implies that magic users were just chopped liver. Glass cannons, sure, but that firepower has always been non-trivial. Furthermore, even in the TSR days, very few monsters actually required magic items to defeat. Even things like werewolves could be defeated with non-magical silver. Ditto even far more powerful threats such as devils (silver) or demons (cold iron). Magic items do (and did) increase power, but were far from the only means.
Furthermore, how powerful someone is is always in relation to their environment. Not all fantasy is high fantasy. Low fantasy also is a thing, with less (or at least more subtle) magic and smaller scale threats... saving a local town or maybe even just a local business instead of saving the world or all of reality.
In the end, it really comes down to what kind of story do you think you are best able to tell at the time, taking into account what your players respond to best.
I think the same is true of any level 1 character in 5e. Even starting out the average adventurer already has at least two or three higher stats than a commoner's 10 across the board and is already capable of surviving a fight that would kill a commoner so even if you aren't someone who wants to play a superhero you already are exceptional by the default standards of the world.
I think Pantagruel is right and a better set of questions is around tiers of play. I like both playing and running games where the characters are what the poll describes as a "power fantasy ethos", I want to be heroic and feel powerful and I offer my players the same but I also rarely play above tier 2 because I find it a little boring how powerful you are by the time you hit that level so do I really have a power fantasy ethos or do I just like feeling like the hero of my favourite fantasy books? Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli can comfortably take on a small army of Uruk Hai by themselves and walk away but they're not reshaping reality on a whim and that's where I like to play
It is important to realize with Lord of the Rings, Frodo and Sam were the only real level 1's. Even Merri and Pippin had actual combat experience as guards for their respective portions of the Shire. The rest of the fellowship were all from legendary bloodlines (which makes a HUGE difference in Tolkien's cosmology) plus considerable prior adventuring experience. Aragorn was holding back on taking the throne of Gondor, his birthright, to actively patrol the wilderness and had been doing so for years before the Fellowship formed. And Gandalf was a demi-power unto himself, even if under orders to slum it lest he make a literal mess of the landscape. And even then he took out the side of a mountain at the end of his fight with the Balrog.
Only Frodo and Sam were anything resembling 'normal starting PC's' and even there, Frodo had mithril mail good enough to stop a troll's attack on its own, a dagger capable of damaging Shelob (another demi-power) and the One Ring, itself, an artifact level invisibility ring.
Very good point but to me (with the exception of Gandalf) they're still top of tier 1/tier 2 characters which is where I like to be. As I said none of them are fundamentally changing the world around them with a word, they're just spectacularly good with swords, axes and bows, so I think they fit neatly into a heroic fantasy ethos without being a power fantasy ethos while the original poll above seems to conflate the two
I bounce off the traditional item-focused style because in my experience, players like to have some freedom to build their character, whereas when the bulk of your game skills come from your equipment, and the DM controls what magic items you have access to, it can create an adversarial dynamic if one player isn't finding the item they need to play the type of character they want to be.
I've always preferred magic items to be optional, while preferring modular feats and subclass choices that players get to make determining what kind of character you get to play.
I think my point was that, in those books, 'spectacularly good with swords, axes and bows' was to mythical levels. Even Boromir held back a literal army, literally pin-cushioned with arrows, and even then held on to life until they found him. Those who think the idea of hit points might be silly should consider that as an example of where the idea comes from.
I do agree completely that they were not really power fantasy ethos. The closest in LotR who come to that are Boromir and Saruman, but Boromir wants the power to defend Gondor and Saruman is convinced it is the only way to defeat Sauron, so even in their cases, it is indeed arguably still heroic fantasy ethos, even if via anti-hero paths.
That level of play can be fine for experienced players, but give new players such characters and they end up having to be walked through pretty much everything.