Douglas Muir 406 |
The Five Man Band is a trope: a way to build a team (adventurers, superheroes, whatever) that pops up repeatedly, presumably because it's a good plot engine that produces interesting stories. If you haven't heard of it, probably the best description can be found right here, by Red over at Overly Sarcastic. While there are a lot of different versions -- this is an empirically observed thing, not a rule that someone has written down -- the classic Five Man Band goes something like this:
The Leader -- Self-explanatory, yes? May be the hero or protagonist, but not necessarily. Not the best fighter, or the strongest, but the one who makes high-level decisions and sets the direction for the team. Captain Kirk, Captain Mal, Cyclops in classic X-Men, Robin in the Teen Titans, Nate on Leverage, Roy in The Order of the Stick, Monkey D. Luffy.
The Lancer -- The Lancer is a foil to the Leader. He's a character who differs most from the other four, either in personality, in motivations, or in tactics. He's therefore most likely to be involved in conflicts with the others, or to provide implicit or explicit criticism. Wolverine, Belkar, Han Solo, Melinda May, Spock, Zuko in Season Three (after joining the Gaang). Battlestar Galactica had two Lancers: Starbuck (to Apollo) and Tigh (to Adama).
(Note that the same character can switch roles depending on context. So, Batman is a Leader to the Batman Family, while in the Justice League he's usually in more of a Lancer role. Captain Jack Harkness was something like a Lancer to the Ninth Doctor in Doctor Who, but was a Leader in Torchwood.)
The Heart -- The emotional center. Most likely to be female (though not always). Probably kindly and nurturing (though not always). Probably either the most wise / sensible, or a sweet innocent. Provides emotional support, pep talks, good advice, maybe healing. On Firefly, Kaylee and Shepherd Book neatly split the Heart role down the middle (one Wise, one Sweet and Innocent). The Invisible Woman, Katara, Durkon, Starfire in the Teen Titans, Groot.
The Big Guy -- The one who solves problems by strength or hitting things. Jayne, Cyborg, Colossus, Eliot on Leverage, The Thing. Usually male and usually literally big, but not always -- Toph in A:TLA was a Big Guy. Might be a gentle giant, but OTOH Mr. Hyde in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen also qualifies.
The Smart Guy -- The one who solves problems with brains. Might be a tech genius, mad scientist, psychic, robot, or wizard. Brainiac 5, Vaarsuvius, Donatello, Felicity Smoak, Hardison on Leverage, Mina Harker in LOEG. Reed Richards is a hybrid Smart Guy / Leader.
Okay, so: this sort of thing can lead to ENDLESS nerd conversations (isn't Spock more of a Smart Guy than a Lancer? What about the Avengers? You are WRONG about Firefly!) but (1) it's a very broad vague general empirical pattern, not an actual set of rules as such, and (2) that's not what I'm asking here.
What I'm asking here is... has anyone tried to use this to set up a campaign? Like, here on the forums, recruitment is either free-form (most common) or, if there's a structure, people may say "we need a melee tank and a specialized arcane caster". Has anyone tried a recruitment where you say "We need one each of the classic Five -- tell me if your proposed character is a Leader, Lancer, Heart or whatever, and briefly explain why"?
It might not work -- I can think of a couple of failure modes, easily enough -- but I'm just wondering whether anyone has tried it.
Doug M.
Andostre |
I've never seen it tried in a fantasy campaign, but I've seen a similar recruitment style with a modern era campaign. It was a Monster of the Week game, which focuses more on the storytelling aspect of RPGs. I've found that modern-era games in general tend to worry less about finding a group with the right spread of mechanical roles (striker, healer, skills, etc.).
It's an idea worth exploring. Often in a PbP group you start with a group of characters that are all waiting to be told what to do, with nobody feeling comfortable making the next-steps or end-goal decisions. I've also seen it where multiple people try and be the group leader. What happens is the rest of the party listens to one leader, and the player of the other PC leader feels hurt. I've also seen similar scenarios for other archetypes, as well. Two Smart Guys can be fun, but there's also a lot of redundancy.
On the other hand, I don't envy a GM who wants a front-liner/striker/skills/blaster/healer mix while also trying to recruit for a Five Man Band.
John Woodford |
I've only seen it once on the boards, and that was quite a while ago. LINK
Douglas Muir 406 |
It's an idea worth exploring. Often in a PbP group you start with a group of characters that are all waiting to be told what to do, with nobody feeling comfortable making the next-steps or end-goal decisions.
Right. Besides the novelty value, I was thinking it might be useful to provide a framework for roleplaying, not just as individuals but as a party too.
I've also seen it where multiple people try and be the group leader. What happens is the rest of the party listens to one leader, and the player of the other PC leader feels hurt. I've also seen similar scenarios for other archetypes, as well. Two Smart Guys can be fun, but there's also a lot of redundancy.
Yeah there are some obvious failure modes. "Leader player thinks that means he should be telling other players what to do," "Heart player thinks that means constantly telling other players what they /should/ do, "Lancer player decides that his role is to be an a&@++~$ / critic / loner," and so forth.
Doug M.