How often would you say you play either? What are the pros and cons by comparison?

Mostly heroes, because that's what the players tend to lean toward. But there's always a somewhat mercenary element involved, because they so often accept jobs from various contacts.

Neither. Both are too spoon-fed. Are we going to spoon feed heroes what they *should* do via some played-out, cliche morality? Or are we going to have mercenaries punch a clock and pick up a paycheck?

I run adventurers as entrepreneurs. They have goals that are important to them. Whether it's to accumulate wealth, build a stronghold, find some ancient relic, whatever. Occasionally they can take up missions as heroes. When they do so, the motive doesn't need to be cliche morality as the adventurer(s) have specific goals and values that are important to them. And occasionally they'll do something for pay. And when they do so, it's not just for money but motive behind the need for the pay-off. They are also more likely to be an equal partner in setting the terms of the deal and just as likely to be hiring mercenaries as they are to be hired as mercenaries.

I think my players tend to be more on the Hero end of the spectrum, looking for wrongs to right and such.

Another vote for neither. Also not murderhobos or Game-of-Thrones-there-are-no-heroes types. They are characters who grew up in a society that values basic virtues, and people grow of dreaming of being heroes of legend... but are well aware that that's more of an ideal than a reality. Thus, the characters, who like Lunamancer's are mostly entrepreneurs (pull yourself up by your bootstrap entrepreneurs, no less), are going out to earn their fortune in a dangerous world full of brigands and thieves (and orcs and dragons). That means the ones that survive will be crafty, dirty-fighting, [strike]cowardly[/strike]judiciously cautious, underhanded, but absolutely will make decisions based on moral concerns at times.

Quote from: Lunamancer;961597Neither. Both are too spoon-fed. Are we going to spoon feed heroes what they *should* do via some played-out, cliche morality? Or are we going to have mercenaries punch a clock and pick up a paycheck?

Huhn?  I don't know about you, but my current crop of D&D characters are out and out heroes, they're wandering but when they hear about trouble, they immediately decide to do something about it.  I give players options and see which ones they want to do, and they are pro-active about what they do.  I don't spoon feed anything.

Quote from: Lunamancer;961597I run adventurers as entrepreneurs. They have goals that are important to them. Whether it's to accumulate wealth, build a stronghold, find some ancient relic, whatever. Occasionally they can take up missions as heroes. When they do so, the motive doesn't need to be cliche morality as the adventurer(s) have specific goals and values that are important to them. And occasionally they'll do something for pay. And when they do so, it's not just for money but motive behind the need for the pay-off. They are also more likely to be an equal partner in setting the terms of the deal and just as likely to be hiring mercenaries as they are to be hired as mercenaries.

So, Mercenaries then?  Because that's what you're effectively running.

Have played both and have had fun with both.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;961607Huhn?  I don't know about you, but my current crop of D&D characters are out and out heroes, they're wandering but when they hear about trouble, they immediately decide to do something about it.  I give players options and see which ones they want to do, and they are pro-active about what they do.  I don't spoon feed anything.

So, Mercenaries then?  Because that's what you're effectively running.

Dammit, where are my 'eating popcorn' .gifs?!

Quote from: RunningLaser;961609Have played both and have had fun with both.

Same here. Sometimes with the same characters. Mercs who become heroes, and weary heroes who just end up as cynical mercs.

These days I prefer to play mercenaries myself, but dont mind playing the hero on occasion. The most fun hero I like to play is similar to Jack Burton in Big Trouble in Little China - means well, but often doesnt quite get there!

Quote from: Lunamancer;961597I run adventurers as entrepreneurs.

Gawddamn, that's the best answer to this question I've ever heard.

Heroes. Even the 'mercenaries' in most fantasy are really heroes underneath and I prefer it that way.

Quote from: Psikerlord;961637These days I prefer to play mercenaries myself, but dont mind playing the hero on occasion. The most fun hero I like to play is similar to Jack Burton in Big Trouble in Little China - means well, but often doesnt quite get there!

OFF Topic:  Apparently, the idea of that movie was that Burton was the Sidekick, not the main hero.  And there would be sequels, but in those there'd be a new 'hero' that Burton would be the sidekick of, but the execs didn't care for that, and sold the movie incorrectly.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;961647Gawddamn, that's the best answer to this question I've ever heard.

I really find it to be the only answer that makes sense.

Wise-ass, fun-sucking gamers used to say (and maybe they still do) that if we role-played properly, no one would ever set foot in a dungeon. Risk of death is too high. No rational person would ever do it.

It reminds me of an old joke about an economist and his wife walking down the street. They come upon a $100 bill just sitting there on the ground. The economist sees it and just continues on. The wife asks why he doesn't pick it up, and he replies, "It's obviously fake. If it were real, someone would have picked it up by now."

These are the types of scenarios entrepreneurs are built for. They face calculated risks to take advantage of opportunities "rational" people routinely pass on. This also syncs with Campbell's "call to adventure" where a guardian (the risk) keeps ordinary folk from crossing the threshold over to the supernatural, saving that special world for the hero.

Quote from: Lunamancer;961597Neither. Both are too spoon-fed. Are we going to spoon feed heroes what they *should* do via some played-out, cliche morality? Or are we going to have mercenaries punch a clock and pick up a paycheck?

I run adventurers as entrepreneurs.

That's my ideal as well.  Sadly, I tend to mostly find players who have been trained to seek out plot hooks and bite on them rather than creating their own.  Even then, though, I give them a variety of options, some morally-driven, others profit-driven, and let them decide for themselves which they want to pursue.  I don't consciously try to push them towards either "hero" or "mercenary"... but they usually seem to end up choosing "mercenary".