Can We Stop Using The Word "Adventurer" Now?

[Jiggy]

bugleyman wrote:

...stimulationist ruleset.

That's a whole different kind of "roleplaying", buddy.

[Jiggy]

Neal Litherland wrote:

You can say, "adventurer," or "troubleshooter," but those words don't mean anything.

Sounds to me like a function of your setting, not of the term.

If your setting is well-civilized and has countries, jurisdictions, regulated law enforcement, and sufficiently-developed populations such that you can hire whichever set of specialists (explorers, bounty hunters, artifact analysts, etc) you need for this particular job and still have some selection available among the candidates; then sure, "adventurers" might not be a common thing.

If your setting is more wilderness-dominated with smaller population centers that don't have formalized defense organizations or specialized career training, where someone who wants to make a living exploring, fighting, investigating or relic-hunting is going to need to be capable of all of those things instead of just their preferred specialty (or at least be on a team that can handle them all), and where folks who need such jobs done likewise don't have a pool of specialized experts to choose from for just the type of job they need done and instead have to hire one of these "generalist" teams; then "adventurers" might well be the best term for the teams in question.

The hobby is bigger than your own narrow set of habits.

[PK the Dragon]

Game I ran (Serpent's Skull)had a bar that explicitly catered to "Adventurers" (since that was how it was described in the module iirc).

The term didn't do anything to change or pigeonhole the PCs, but it did

-Set up the expectation that there are adventures to be had in the region
-Show that there are enough "adventurers" in the region- jack of all trades groups looking for excitement

It was a fairly minor place in the first town, but these two things did help set the tone for the game- this was going to be a game with old school adventuring, it was going to be fairly ridiculous and lighthearted (which is important because if taken too seriously Serpent's Skull has a few unfortunate undertones), and they could look forward to meeting other adventurers in the process. All that from one word.

Therefore, it really depends on your game, but I can say the term definitely has a use.

[thejeff]

Jiggy wrote:

Neal Litherland wrote:

You can say, "adventurer," or "troubleshooter," but those words don't mean anything.

Sounds to me like a function of your setting, not of the term.

If your setting is well-civilized and has countries, jurisdictions, regulated law enforcement, and sufficiently-developed populations such that you can hire whichever set of specialists (explorers, bounty hunters, artifact analysts, etc) you need for this particular job and still have some selection available among the candidates; then sure, "adventurers" might not be a common thing.

If your setting is more wilderness-dominated with smaller population centers that don't have formalized defense organizations or specialized career training, where someone who wants to make a living exploring, fighting, investigating or relic-hunting is going to need to be capable of all of those things instead of just their preferred specialty (or at least be on a team that can handle them all), and where folks who need such jobs done likewise don't have a pool of specialized experts to choose from for just the type of job they need done and instead have to hire one of these "generalist" teams; then "adventurers" might well be the best term for the teams in question.

The hobby is bigger than your own narrow set of habits.

But in that first case, your group of PCs would have to specialize to get work. Which generally isn't what you want to do in the game. You don't want to only have bounty hunter jobs, because doing a variety of things is fun.

Obviously, your game might be the exception - where the PCs focus on just one kind of task by intent and everyone's happy with that.

[burkoJames]

In my most recent campaign I decided that my Snakebite Striker Brawler/URouge should be a 'bodyguard'. decided that he should be looking for mercenary guard work as a caravan guard or ship's guard. You know how often that backstory influenced my characters actions? Zero. All it did was put him into position to be hired as part of a group solving problems for one of the local nobles. An adventurer as you will. Which is how he describes himself now.

[Herald]

I've had discussions with myself how to best describe PC types from non-PC types without having resort to the midi-chlorians/Star Wars trap. I never really ever get something that really satisfies, so it just becomes a mental exercise really.

And I'm not exactly sure that Paizo should come up with a rule/canon answer for me, but it might be interesting to see how 3PP might pull it off.

It is however tempting to have an in canon explanation of what makes certain people be able to do certain things. But on the other hand I guess that every player gets to do that every time they build their character with their back story.

[kyrt-ryder]

'Old school adventuring'...
...
...What exactly IS that?

[BigNorseWolf]

am i the only one picturing a glen beck esque word salad and a blackboard reading that article?

[Jiggy]

thejeff wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Neal Litherland wrote:

You can say, "adventurer," or "troubleshooter," but those words don't mean anything.

Sounds to me like a function of your setting, not of the term.

If your setting is well-civilized and has countries, jurisdictions, regulated law enforcement, and sufficiently-developed populations such that you can hire whichever set of specialists (explorers, bounty hunters, artifact analysts, etc) you need for this particular job and still have some selection available among the candidates; then sure, "adventurers" might not be a common thing.

If your setting is more wilderness-dominated with smaller population centers that don't have formalized defense organizations or specialized career training, where someone who wants to make a living exploring, fighting, investigating or relic-hunting is going to need to be capable of all of those things instead of just their preferred specialty (or at least be on a team that can handle them all), and where folks who need such jobs done likewise don't have a pool of specialized experts to choose from for just the type of job they need done and instead have to hire one of these "generalist" teams; then "adventurers" might well be the best term for the teams in question.

The hobby is bigger than your own narrow set of habits.

But in that first case, your group of PCs would have to specialize to get work. Which generally isn't what you want to do in the game. You don't want to only have bounty hunter jobs, because doing a variety of things is fun.

Hence why so many adventures have some kind of non-professional plot hook, such as being thrust randomly into a dangerous situation or being called in for a favor by an old acquaintance.

Seems a lot of folks want well-developed settings (like Golarion), which isn't always very conducive to stories based on being an "adventurer", so there's always some other way to get the PCs involved in the plot.

All I'm saying is that doesn't mean there's something inherently meaningless about "adventurer" as a term; the lack of such a profession is a product of the setting.

[captain yesterday]

How's about Death Pillagers.

[thejeff]

Jiggy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Neal Litherland wrote:

You can say, "adventurer," or "troubleshooter," but those words don't mean anything.

Sounds to me like a function of your setting, not of the term.

If your setting is well-civilized and has countries, jurisdictions, regulated law enforcement, and sufficiently-developed populations such that you can hire whichever set of specialists (explorers, bounty hunters, artifact analysts, etc) you need for this particular job and still have some selection available among the candidates; then sure, "adventurers" might not be a common thing.

If your setting is more wilderness-dominated with smaller population centers that don't have formalized defense organizations or specialized career training, where someone who wants to make a living exploring, fighting, investigating or relic-hunting is going to need to be capable of all of those things instead of just their preferred specialty (or at least be on a team that can handle them all), and where folks who need such jobs done likewise don't have a pool of specialized experts to choose from for just the type of job they need done and instead have to hire one of these "generalist" teams; then "adventurers" might well be the best term for the teams in question.

The hobby is bigger than your own narrow set of habits.

But in that first case, your group of PCs would have to specialize to get work. Which generally isn't what you want to do in the game. You don't want to only have bounty hunter jobs, because doing a variety of things is fun.

Hence why so many adventures have some kind of non-professional plot hook, such as being thrust randomly into a dangerous situation or being called in for a favor by an old acquaintance.

Seems a lot of folks want well-developed settings (like Golarion), which isn't always very conducive to stories based on being an "adventurer", so there's always some other way to get the PCs involved in the plot.

All I'm saying is that doesn't mean there's something inherently meaningless about "adventurer" as a term; the lack of such a profession is a product of the setting.

Agreed. I prefer to avoid the "I go into town and look for adventuring jobs" approach.

But if that kind of mercenary approach is the way you want to run games, having "adventurers" be a thing in the setting is useful, so a GM should look for ways to make it work, rather than ways to remove it.

In other words, I don't see it so much as a setting thing as a meta-game construct.

[captain yesterday]

Wealth Molesters.

[BigNorseWolf]

Murderhoboes
Free lance wealth redistribution specialists
no one
Acme Moving company
Extra dimensional space fillers
Cranial liberators
Sackers
Pilliagers
Laisez faire pre industrialists
Very small government
monsterbait
trouble makers
weirdness magnets

[captain yesterday]

Ooze Food.

[Jiggy]

thejeff wrote:

Agreed. I prefer to avoid the "I go into town and look for adventuring jobs" approach.

But if that kind of mercenary approach is the way you want to run games, having "adventurers" be a thing in the setting is useful, so a GM should look for ways to make it work, rather than ways to remove it.

In other words, I don't see it so much as a setting thing as a meta-game construct.

I'm actually working on a setting in which "adventurers" are a thing in-universe, so no, it's not (inherently) a meta-game construct. It's only a meta-game construct if the setting doesn't include it. Which was kind of my point.

[thejeff]

Jiggy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Agreed. I prefer to avoid the "I go into town and look for adventuring jobs" approach.

But if that kind of mercenary approach is the way you want to run games, having "adventurers" be a thing in the setting is useful, so a GM should look for ways to make it work, rather than ways to remove it.

In other words, I don't see it so much as a setting thing as a meta-game construct.

I'm actually working on a setting in which "adventurers" are a thing in-universe, so no, it's not (inherently) a meta-game construct. It's only a meta-game construct if the setting doesn't include it. Which was kind of my point.

Fair enough. I meant that it's added for meta game reasons, which doesn't mean it can't be given justification within the setting.

[Jiggy]

thejeff wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Agreed. I prefer to avoid the "I go into town and look for adventuring jobs" approach.

But if that kind of mercenary approach is the way you want to run games, having "adventurers" be a thing in the setting is useful, so a GM should look for ways to make it work, rather than ways to remove it.

In other words, I don't see it so much as a setting thing as a meta-game construct.

I'm actually working on a setting in which "adventurers" are a thing in-universe, so no, it's not (inherently) a meta-game construct. It's only a meta-game construct if the setting doesn't include it. Which was kind of my point.

Fair enough. I meant that it's added for meta game reasons, which doesn't mean it can't be given justification within the setting.

That's true of an awful lot of fantasy RPG staples, not just the word "adventurer". Special inks for spellbooks/scrolls, divine miracles that mirror mortal magic in scope/availability/relationship to general experience, most of the 3.X magic item paradigm, and plenty else. The fact that the word "adventurer" gets called out from among them is a bit silly, IMO.

[lucky7]

Delvers!

[Norman Osborne]

No.

[Sissyl]

Adventurer means someone without a place in society. Someone who takes risks FAR beyond what sane people would be comfortable with. Worse, they NEED TO, because getting strange and extremely dangerous missions is the only way they can have a decent income. And of course, these missions are not necessarily matched to their capabilities. So they have very high rates of attrition.

In short, not something you do if you want a good life expectancy.

And thus: There needs to be a reason why the person chooses to be an adventurer that is more important to him/her than a good life expectancy. That is what makes them interesting.

[Atarlost]

bugleyman wrote:

I personally dislike the term "adventurer," because I don't like the idea of so many people running around doing this that they need a name.

Imagine if the Rebel Alliance had just hired "a party of adventurers" to blow up the death start, or if Gandalf had simply posted a want-ad for "some adventurers" in order to take the ring to Mordor.

No, but that's pretty much how Gandalf sold Bilbo to Thorin's company. It's also pretty much Han and Chewie's gig between episodes IV and V.

[Jiggy]

Atarlost wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

I personally dislike the term "adventurer," because I don't like the idea of so many people running around doing this that they need a name.

Imagine if the Rebel Alliance had just hired "a party of adventurers" to blow up the death start, or if Gandalf had simply posted a want-ad for "some adventurers" in order to take the ring to Mordor.

No, but that's pretty much how Gandalf sold Bilbo to Thorin's company. It's also pretty much Han and Chewie's gig between episodes IV and V.

The crew of Serenity in the Firefly series isn't too far off from "adventurers", and the show heavily implies that they're far from uncommon.

The so-called "pirates" in One Piece are a fixture of both daily life and world news, yet many (most?) of them are less like "pirates" and more like "adventurers". (In fact, the only reason I became aware of the show was because a friend was telling me about how it feels like it's basically somebody's D&D campaign. My wife once pondered this very issue of why it seems like so many random civilians are combat-capable, and resolved the dilemma by saying "Well, I guess if I just assume Pathfinder is like One Piece where you never know when someone will pop out and try to beat you up...")

The fellowship of the Ring is basically a band of adventurers, just not serially/professionally.

The protagonists in The Mummy are basically an adventuring group: first they're planning to delve a ruin for treasure, then they end up facing off against an undead BBEG for the fate of the world. Because THAT's never happened in D&D, amirite?

The concept of adventurers has quite a pedigree.

[MendedWall12]

Neal Litherland wrote:

Can We Stop Using The Word "Adventurer" Now?

I've got a better idea. How about we stop trying to impose our pet peeves and personal opinions on the gaming tables of the greater community. If you don't like the term adventurers, the only we that should be discussing that is your table, cause my table loves the term adventurer. Cause, you know, we go adventuring... :)

[captain yesterday]

Acquirer of Antiquities.

[captain yesterday]

Monsterologists.

"Okay Bill, we know dragons dry hump big ass piles of gold, let's go already!"

"Hold on, let's see what he does if we take a handful"

[Talonhawke]

Jiggy wrote:

Atarlost wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

I personally dislike the term "adventurer," because I don't like the idea of so many people running around doing this that they need a name.

Imagine if the Rebel Alliance had just hired "a party of adventurers" to blow up the death start, or if Gandalf had simply posted a want-ad for "some adventurers" in order to take the ring to Mordor.

No, but that's pretty much how Gandalf sold Bilbo to Thorin's company. It's also pretty much Han and Chewie's gig between episodes IV and V.

The crew of Serenity in the Firefly series isn't too far off from "adventurers", and the show heavily implies that they're far from uncommon.

The so-called "pirates" in One Piece are a fixture of both daily life and world news, yet many (most?) of them are less like "pirates" and more like "adventurers". (In fact, the only reason I became aware of the show was because a friend was telling me about how it feels like it's basically somebody's D&D campaign. My wife once pondered this very issue of why it seems like so many random civilians are combat-capable, and resolved the dilemma by saying "Well, I guess if I just assume Pathfinder is like One Piece where you never know when someone will pop out and try to beat you up...")

The fellowship of the Ring is basically a band of adventurers, just not serially/professionally.

The protagonists in The Mummy are basically an adventuring group: first they're planning to delve a ruin for treasure, then they end up facing off against an undead BBEG for the fate of the world. Because THAT's never happened in D&D, amirite?

The concept of adventurers has quite a pedigree.

Jiggy if you really want to have a laugh Google Grandline 3.5 it is a web comic that portrays One Piece as a DnD game.

[BigNorseWolf]

captain yesterday wrote:

Monsterologists.

"Okay Bill, we know dragons dry hump big ass piles of gold, let's go already!"

"Hold on, let's see what he does if we take a handful"

Crickey thats a big one. I'm gonna take his gold and then poke him with a stick....

*whooosh*

We're gonna need another timmy..

[Jiggy]

@Talonhawke: Ooooh, that sounds fun; I enjoyed DM of the Rings as well.

[thejeff]

Jiggy wrote:

The fellowship of the Ring is basically a band of adventurers, just not serially/professionally.

I can't really comment about most of the others, but if you think the Fellowship as a "band of adventurers", that's far and away from anything anyone else is talking about here.

I see your "just not serially/professionally" caveat, but that's basically what we're talking about. I mean, they're "adventurers" in the sense they go off on an adventure, but that applies so broadly it's not really useful.

[Jiggy]

thejeff wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

The fellowship of the Ring is basically a band of adventurers, just not serially/professionally.

I can't really comment about most of the others, but if you think the Fellowship as a "band of adventurers", that's far and away from anything anyone else is talking about here.

I see your "just not serially/professionally" caveat, but that's basically what we're talking about. I mean, they're "adventurers" in the sense they go off on an adventure, but that applies so broadly it's not really useful.

I didn't mean they're adventurers because they went on an adventure, I mean they fit the "band of adventurers" trope in the sense that they're a group of mixed skillsets doing a job that they're not exactly specialized for. The council of Elrond didn't hire a professional courier and a team of career bodyguards who specialize in protecting a VIP during overland travel; they sent a grab-bag of available people.

Fair point on the "not serially/professionally" thing, though. Still, there are plenty of other examples. Firefly, which I mentioned, is about an adventuring company that makes their living as such, in a universe where that lifestyle is not exactly uncommon. Much the same for One Piece, and there are other examples as well.

Having a setting in which such a lifestyle/career is common enough that it would make sense to have a word for it is pretty easy.

[captain yesterday]

"Egads! That Medusa turned Phil into stone! We gotta run!"

"Hold on, maybe it was a fluke"

[HyperMissingno]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

captain yesterday wrote:

Monsterologists.

"Okay Bill, we know dragons dry hump big ass piles of gold, let's go already!"

"Hold on, let's see what he does if we take a handful"

Crickey thats a big one. I'm gonna take his gold and then poke him with a stick....

*whooosh*

We're gonna need another timmy..

CRIKEY! That there's a wild o' ghoul! Careful with this one, they eat corpses and their bite can turn you into one of them!

...

I'm gonna poke it with a spear!

[HeHateMe]

I tried introducing the term "Specialists" last time I ran a campaign. The players hated it. Adventurers it is!

[kyrt-ryder]

I can't remember the last time I actually used the term adventurers in a campaign of my own creation. Just people who walk a road of self development seeking profit or power.

[ShadeKyubi]

Canaries

[BigNorseWolf]

ShadeKyubi wrote:

Canaries

WOOF!

[Protean Milkshake]

Lab mice.

[UnArcaneElection]

^Don't you realize that mice are actually the 3-dimensional projections of a hyperintelligent pandimensional species?

[Skeld]

Ugh. Just, ugh.

I'm not clicking any links to this blog again.

-Skeld

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

TempusAvatar wrote:

In my experience, I don't think I've ever heard a PC describe themselves as an adventurer; however, if you see a mercenary, a witch-hunter, a preacher, a thief, and an explorer roll into town, what do you call them?

Answer: ** spoiler omitted **

Especially since "The Three Amigos" are already taken.

White Dwarf magazine used to have a recurring comic called "Thrud The Barbarian". It's take on "The Magnificent Seven" was hilarious.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

In my setting they call themselves "adventurers" because they belong to the Adventurers Society. Or they're pretending they do. The word means "members of this group". And membership in the group means "accredited heroic freelance troubleshooter/explorer" (not "wanders around killing things and taking stuff").

[cuatroespada]

Jiggy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

The fellowship of the Ring is basically a band of adventurers, just not serially/professionally.

I can't really comment about most of the others, but if you think the Fellowship as a "band of adventurers", that's far and away from anything anyone else is talking about here.

I see your "just not serially/professionally" caveat, but that's basically what we're talking about. I mean, they're "adventurers" in the sense they go off on an adventure, but that applies so broadly it's not really useful.

I didn't mean they're adventurers because they went on an adventure, I mean they fit the "band of adventurers" trope in the sense that they're a group of mixed skillsets doing a job that they're not exactly specialized for. The council of Elrond didn't hire a professional courier and a team of career bodyguards who specialize in protecting a VIP during overland travel; they sent a grab-bag of available people.

Fair point on the "not serially/professionally" thing, though. Still, there are plenty of other examples. Firefly, which I mentioned, is about an adventuring company that makes their living as such, in a universe where that lifestyle is not exactly uncommon. Much the same for One Piece, and there are other examples as well.

Having a setting in which such a lifestyle/career is common enough that it would make sense to have a word for it is pretty easy.

i think the point is that not a single character in any of those settings refers to themselves as "an adventurer" (or is even referred to as such by anyone else in the setting). that's a thing we do. the fellowship is the fellowship. luffy and his crew are pirates. and mal and the crew of serenity are just trying to keep flying.

[captain yesterday]

Gug Toothpicks.

"Oh my god, it just ate Hastings!"

"Hold on, maybe it's full!"

[BigNorseWolf]

It's a meme that interfaces with the zeitgeist to manifest a distinctly
brobdingnagian cornucopia of metaphysical airs...

[Tectorman]

cuatroespada wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

The fellowship of the Ring is basically a band of adventurers, just not serially/professionally.

I can't really comment about most of the others, but if you think the Fellowship as a "band of adventurers", that's far and away from anything anyone else is talking about here.

I see your "just not serially/professionally" caveat, but that's basically what we're talking about. I mean, they're "adventurers" in the sense they go off on an adventure, but that applies so broadly it's not really useful.

I didn't mean they're adventurers because they went on an adventure, I mean they fit the "band of adventurers" trope in the sense that they're a group of mixed skillsets doing a job that they're not exactly specialized for. The council of Elrond didn't hire a professional courier and a team of career bodyguards who specialize in protecting a VIP during overland travel; they sent a grab-bag of available people.

Fair point on the "not serially/professionally" thing, though. Still, there are plenty of other examples. Firefly, which I mentioned, is about an adventuring company that makes their living as such, in a universe where that lifestyle is not exactly uncommon. Much the same for One Piece, and there are other examples as well.

Having a setting in which such a lifestyle/career is common enough that it would make sense to have a word for it is pretty easy.

i think the point is that not a single character in any of those settings refers to themselves as "an adventurer" (or is even referred to as such by anyone else in the setting). that's a thing we do. the fellowship is the fellowship. luffy and his crew are pirates. and mal and the crew of serenity are just trying to keep flying.

I agree with this. "Adventurer" is useful for the purposes of we, the audience, existing outside that universe to describe the general tone of the events this or that particular grab-bag of characters is participating in. Sure, individual adventurers will have more specific monikers, but "adventurer" is really the easiest way to describe the main protagonists in this sort of genre.

Not that I would ever expect snyone in universe to use that term.

[captain yesterday]

Pit Fiend Back Scratcher.

"Holy s@~+! He just consumed Eolar in Hellfire for sassing back!"

"Hold on, maybe he just needs a hug!"

[Kobold Catgirl]

Are you trying to put me out of a f#%&ing job?

[thejeff]

Tectorman wrote:

cuatroespada wrote:

i think the point is that not a single character in any of those settings refers to themselves as "an adventurer" (or is even referred to as such by anyone else in the setting). that's a thing we do. the fellowship is the fellowship. luffy and his crew are pirates. and mal and the crew of serenity are just trying to keep flying.

I agree with this. "Adventurer" is useful for the purposes of we, the audience, existing outside that universe to describe the general tone of the events this or that particular grab-bag of characters is participating in. Sure, individual adventurers will have more specific monikers, but "adventurer" is really the easiest way to describe the main protagonists in this sort of genre.

Not that I would ever expect snyone in universe to use that term.

Even from the meta level, for me at least it only fits some sub-genres of the genre. Those protagonists who do it as a career or go out looking for adventures.

Those who get caught up in one grand AP length campaign with a single larger motivation aren't really "adventurers" in the same sense. They're on a quest.

OTOH, as Jiggy and others said above, it's certainly possible to structure your setting so that "Adventurers" makes sense and is the term used in world.