Constructing a D&D cartoon.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Someone asked in this here thread if it wouldn't be awesome if Dungeons and Dragons had a good cartoon to it. I agree with that sentiment. It could be awesome. But constructing a good cartoon is apparently difficult. Constructing a good cartoon that's also an advertisement for merchandise is even harder than that. But I don't think that it's impossible. We have fucking Avatar: The Last Airbender, which should be an example--if not a template--for how cartoons should be constructed from now on. I don't think the show was perfect. Just really, really good with a lot of great precedents/examples. While one of the things that makes the show great is an extreme attention to detail (like basing their bending off of actual martial arts) and a reference to actual cultures, I don't think that they're necessary towards making a cartoon.

I'm a big believer in Gall's law. Which states that complex systems that work are built from simple systems that worked. Building a complex system from scratch will fail. So rather than throwing down something like an episode guide, my post(s) will really be more like an outline for constructing the show. Yes, sometimes I like to fantasize myself as being the next Gene Roddenberry. Hey, who wouldn't want to be one of the authors on the short list of How To Construct A Speculative Fiction Universe?

This post doesn't really go into the particulars of constructing a D&D cartoon. This is because I start out talking about creating your cast of characters, a task which is pretty much universal and thus has generic advice. The actual plot of the show, which is also where I will be constructing example characters more fully, will have more details. So I apologize ahead of time if this post doesn't have much advice for a D&D cartoon specifically. The next post, if I feel like making it, will have more details.

So why did I start here? Because the single biggest thing that you can do to ensure the success of your adaptation is to have a cast of characters. Even if the rest of your show sucks donkey balls, if you have two or three regularly-recurring characters whom the audience takes a shine to then your show will have a lot of momentum.

Constructing the secondary cast
All casts of characters can be divided into two groups. Primary and secondary characters. While you don't need to have a large and vibrant cast of secondary characters (Teen Titans certainly got by without one) they are like the spice to your show. People often make two big mistakes when constructing the secondary cast; either they don't have enough of them or the secondary cast is too big. Because it's much easier to inflate a secondary cast than to keep them manageable (especially in Dungeons and Dragons) we will focus on the latter problem.

Introducing an interesting secondary cast and then not doing enough with them has been the Achilles' Heel of many a show. This will alienate fans even faster than not having them in the first place. When people take a shine to characters, they want to see them in action. It's like making a baby cry. If you want to make it cry, you give it a lollipop first--then take it away. If you never gave the baby a lollipop in the first place they would have nothing to cry about.

Regardless, once you have a sizable secondary cast you need to manage them properly. Truthfully, about the largest number of non-protagonist, non-villain characters that any show can support being in the limelight is about fifteen to twenty. The problem is that stories that go on for a long time (especially stories where the protagonists visit a lot of locales) have a tendency to inflate like crazy. You have five basic tools help you tame your cast size.

• If you're a really long runner, like One Piece, you can just rotate secondary cast members in and out of the limelight as necessary. This means that a character that was important in the first arc gets shelved for several years and then brought back. Pros: Least controversial way of doing things, rewards people for sticking with the show. Cons: Can alienate new viewers who hopped into the series at the halfway point. Also, you really do need to shelve the character for a long time; if the character stays offscreen for less than two seasons then they won't give any space for new characters. This is also a copout measure rather than a permanent solution. If your secondary cast really starts inflating you need to use another method. If you're such a badass writer that most of your secondary cast catches fire then people are going to wonder where so-and-so is anyway.
• Sketch members of your secondary character cast flatly. You should be able to describe practically the whole of the character with a short phrase. Pros: People grok the meaning of the character quickly. Saves valuable screentime you might need for plot and other characters. Cons: If done too often it'll give your world a generic feeling. Also if you employ this technique when your secondary cast is already getting too big (meaning that you gave character development to SC people beforehand) people will complain that the new secondary cast isn't as interesting as the old one. If you are going to use this method you need to really space this out.
• Kill characters off. Maybe not literally kill, but erase them from the story in a way that people won't be wondering where the character went. Pros: Keeps the stakes high in your show. Great way of generating drama and sympathy for a character, even an unliked one. Makes people think your show is more mature and adult than it really is. Cons: If you do this too often it alienates fans because they'll intentionally detach themselves from the character. If you do this too meanspiritedly people will hate it for the cheap gimmick that it is. Fist of the North Star had this problems in spades. While it's actually really dramatic when Rei and Toki are killed for real, Buronson did it so often that when it became Jyuza and Falco's turns (also characters that caught fire with the fanbase), it left people feeling angry and numb rather than ZOMG!
• Finish a character's arc. This is similar to killing them off but works differently. If your character is generating interest because people want to see whether the Schrodinger's Cat of their plot hook is going to live or die, decide it for them. The indecisive prince who is being bullied by his chancellor disposes of him and ascends to the throne. The alcoholic mom who causes problems for her kids sobers up. The shallow love interest who is in love with the main character gets a firm rejection and they find love with someone else. Pros: Thins the cast without it feeling meanspirited or cheeky. Cons: It may involve giving the character more screentime than you can spare. Also, if the reason why a secondary character catches interest is because of their personality rather than their issues, then this is not going to work. People would still want to see Han Solo in action even if he became mayor of Cloud City, married Leia, and paid off the Millenium Falcon.
• Do a side-story episode. Gather all of the secondary characters that you have been neglecting and give them a dedicated day in the limelight. This is a way to quench the fanbase's urge to see 'what's going on with so-and-so' without it derailing the plot too much. Pros: If done correctly, it's a really good way to 'deal' with the characters you've been neglecting. A good one of these will quell the fan-wrath for years. Cons: If done TOO correctly all it'll do is generate even more interest. This is also a huge problem if people find your secondary cast more engaging than the primary cast, like in Naruto or Bleach. Furthermore, depending on the length of your series you might not have enough space to do a side-story episode. But then again, your cast shouldn't have inflated that quickly anyway.

For a D&D cartoon, I recommend resorting to mainly keeping a flat secondary cast. Don't make ALL of them flat. The party should occasionally meet the tragic warrior who is cursed into fighting the way he is and loses more of his mind with each battle, the duke who puts up a good front but is secretly working for the forces of evil--in order to raise enough money to resurrect a hero from thousands of years ago, etc. But for the most part the people they meet should be stereotypes. This is because a D&D party should be meeting lots of people and going to lots of locales. There's just no way you can work out more than a quick one-sentence description for 90% of the people who have a line.


Constructing the primary cast

Don't make the primary cast bigger than the story can handle (unless you intend to kill someone off/have them turn traitor early to raise the stakes). While you're in the middle of the story adding to the primary cast, if done at all, should be done as a reward for being an interesting character that will benefit the show from having time in the limelight. You will have to play catch-up in the character development part with this character, but the whole 'new guy smooths things over with the old cast' generates lots of fun material. You should not have to promote people to the primary cast more than twice unless you have a REAALLLLY long-running series like, again, One Piece. By the time you get to seven people though you should seriously consider shrinking the primary cast before you use anyone else.

If you simply MUST have someone added to the team but you're worried about inflating the primary cast too much, make them an important hanger-on of sort. They're an aged weaponmaster who mentors the party. They're the younger sister of the Spiritual Type whom is too useful to leave at home because of their fortune-telling abilities but not strong enough to bring into the actual action. Avatar did this with Suki to some success.

So, character development. Character development is the meat and potatoes of peoples' interest with the character. Even the most badass character will become stale if they remain the same person over the course of the series, especially if their comrades change. But character development is a tricky beast--see what happened to Toph. Once she conquered her 'runaway from home' and 'friction with teammates' character hooks she got pushed off into the background. The trick to proper character development is to make them advance without not making them advance too much over the course of the series. They should have a couple of plot hooks that don't get resolved until the end of the series (if at all) or until they get removed from the cast. So if you have a mercenary hero who is angsting over all of the lives he's taken over the course of the series during demonic possession and is hated by the world because of it, you should either make them less hated or have him conquer his weakness towards possession. Not both.

The size of your primary cast has in inverse relationship to how big you should make your secondary cast. The fewer 'main characters' you have the larger you will need to make the latter be; otherwise it will make your world feel artificially tiny and/or the plots repetitive. Samurai Jack had one character and had to introduce new people for him to be with every episode. Teen Titans had five and they were able to get away with a mostly flat secondary cast.

But for a D&D cartoon, there's no contest. You should have five people in it. The actual game should be able to be smoothly ran with less people than this, but in the cartoon you don't have to worry about not finding enough people for a game or people not showing up. The success of Five-Person Ensemble casts have been documented extensively; search TVTropes, because I don't provide links to such hugbox tripe. In some ways, Dungeons and Dragons makes constructing your 'core cast' easy--you neatly dodge the biggest problem with most 5PEs have of the members being represented inequally. So as long as you avoid Mary Sues like Raistlin. So here is how I would construct the party:

• You need a leader type of some sort. Someone whom while not being the muscle of the party is still at the vanguard. The easiest way to convince people that someone is a good leader is to emphasize their nurturing/motherly/fatherly qualities. And the easiest way to prove have them protect the others. Unfortunately, this character has a tendency to be rather bland. I'll give my recommendations on how to spice this character up below this. My recommendation: A Paladin.
• You need a spiritual type/second-in-command of some sort. This person should constantly interject the settings' religion into it and be a walking advertisement for the wildlife and landscape without it being too obvious. You do this because you are trying to get people interested in the core game. To make this character more interesting, they should regularly be at odds with the leader type. The character should be constructed in such a way to be in a rivalry with the leader of some sort. If you notice, the most popular 'second-in-command's do this. Everyone remembers and loves Kain and Spock. As K said in another thread, this person should provide the alternative viewpoint. My recommendation: A Druid.
• You need a macho smasher type of some sort. This is stereotypically doesn't need to be a hugely muscled male; as Toph Bei Fong has shown us you can be a small female child and people will take you seriously as long as you have the attitude for it. You want this person to appeal to the 'dwarf' personalities and also because you will need a person who will punch the guard captain in the nads if the plot is going too slowly. This person provides the adrenaline and the boisterous belly laughs if done properly--do NOT make this character the 'strong, silent, stoic' type. They're boring as fuck. Everyone loves Sabin and Barret, nobody loves Kimahri. The macho smasher doesn't necessarily need to resort to physical prowess one-hundred percent but their way of fighting should be up and in your face. My recommendation: A monk.
• You need a smart type of some sort. This is the person who generates the snark and also the clever plans. They are there to stimulate potential players' imaginations and to make them realize that they could be constructing plans this awesome too if they play. If something sneaky or tricksy needs to be done, they are also the go-to guy. My recommendation: A bard (Rogue/Enchanter in 5E). Not the wimpy 3rd/4th Edition bard, but the badass 1st edition bard. Who was a spymaster/assassin/enchanter/illusionist. Biggest rule: NO SINGING. Playing musical instruments in combat is fine, if a bit silly. Singing to hurt enemies or help your friends is not.

People who are familiar with the Five Man Band should know that I'm about to deviate from the formula. Don't put 'The Heart' onto your team. This role should be combined with the leader or second-in-command. No one likes this character. They tend to be the comic relief or the stupid damsel-in-distress. Starfire was the least interesting person in Teen Titans because of this. Avatar dodged this entirely and we have Katara (who would traditionally get saddled with this role) at the cost of bucking tradition.

So who should the fifth person be? That one is easy. This person is the Dark Magical Girl (again, ugh, see TVTropes). Now keep in mind that despite the title and the majority gender this archetype has the character doesn't have to be female. Famous examples of male Dark Magical Girls are Raistlin, Shadow the Hedgehog, Riku, and Uchiha Sasuke. They are the 'brooding loner' of the party, the person who just doesn't quite fit into the dynamic (this is intentional rather than a feature of bad writing) but is attached to the group anyway. The best example of this character I have ever seen done is Raven from Teen Titans. You will obviously have to change your version of the character to avoid too much of a direct comparison, but this person is obviously gold. My recommendation: A wizard (who will be the conjurer/evoker if 5E gets my druthers).

Let's go back to the leader type again. If you look at any cast which is composed of a team, the leader typically tends to be the least interesting person on the cast unless the author makes them overpowered compared to their teammates... which might make them worse or better, depending. This is because they tend to be the most responsible, the most moral, and the most mentally stable. And because it's much harder to write interesting characters who aren't conflicted internally or with others, they tend to be the most boring. Now, there's no reason why they SHOULD be this. It's just tradition. If you'll notice, the best 'leaders' are the type which are either morally shady, the comic relief/snarkmaster, or the most badass. Probably some combination of the above. If I was going to make a leader-type, they would be the 'bad boy' of the team. They're the most handsome, the most smooth, and the most morally ambiguous--even moreso than the Dark Magical Girl. The problem is that people have trouble writing these characters without them coming across as selfish or jerkish, which is what happened to Robin and Squall. I would base this character template off of Zuko or Batman, who are the closest towards getting it right.

(added section 8/3/2010)
More on primary cast construction.

Now with that out of the way. RULE NUMBER ONE ABOUT BUILDING YOUR CAST. The primary cast that you construct will be universally cute/pretty. A couple of members are allowed to be a 'grizzled' veteran (due to double standards, this will be male)/badass old grandparent, but that's it.

Look at what happened to Teen Titans. Cyborg is my favorite member of the cast. He's witty, he's hardworking, he's cheerful, and always has his teammates' backs. But the problem is that he's not pretty. So he's the least-popular member of the cast despite having no real reasons to dislike him. If they wanted to avoid that, they should've made him skinnier and shorter, made his cyborg implants less obvious (especially on the face and chest), and had given him some hair.

This unfortunately means no ugly races. And if they are from an ugly race then they will be made cute. The other flipside to this is that aside from being not-ugly, the character will also have to be shipping bait. I'll discuss more of this later, but the biggest thing is that they need to be about the same size as the average height of the rest of the cast. This means no-one grievously shorter than the rest of the cast.

So, my recommendation for races/class combinations:

Human Paladin
Elf or Hobgoblin (the race will receive a pretty retcon) Druid
Shifter or Dwarven Monk
Drow Assassin
Warforged Necromancer/Summoner who will be of the 'pretty pretty android' type.

If we use elf and drow then something will have to be done about that elf crap of 'we hit puberty at age 60 and live for 400 years'. That just doesn't work for the show. Either we'll have to bite the bullet and make them half-elves or we'll have to retcon the age thing. Now, ages of the characters? No contest. They are in the range of 14-18. If you need someone older or younger than that then they need to be added to the cast at a later date once they prove themselves.

Now let's talk about weapons/primary attacks for a bit. The biggest consideration for what kind of weapon you should have on your show is the extent of carnage that your network will let you show. This usually means that slashing and piercing weapons are right out unless you're doing something lame with them like pinning someone's clothes to a tree or fighting with a reverse-bladed sword. Trust me, this is VERY noticable on some shows like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Avatar. If you're lucky you might get your violence set at a 'Bleach' level where people are allowed to slice limbs off and drive swords into various body parts as long as they're not too graphic. But don't count on it.

Most of my example characters don't have to worry about constructing weapons to begin with. The druid, the monk, and the necromancer don't care about this stuff before their violence is safely PG-rated. The ones who care are the paladin and the assassin, who traditionally use a sword and a dagger. The assassin's weapon issues can be gotten around because they fight mainly through trickery and stealth and also has some offensive magic tricks. And because this is a Dungeons and Dragons cartoons a huge number of opponents will be cannon fodder that S&P don't mind having graphic things happen to like undead and elementals. So against foes that could bleed they'll use something else. When the 'safe to hurt' enemies come out it's dagger time. Which just leaves the paladin. What do I recommend? A short lance. That way for the most part the paladin can go full-throttle without creating too much blood and gore and it will 'feel' like they're using a sword, even if they're using it wrong.

So. Gender balance. Having a balance of 1/4 or 0/5 is not going to work. It's really noticeable and puts too much of an onus on the 'odd gender out' to perform. Usually the formula is 'two girls, three boys'. I'd like to change that to 'three girls, two boys', for a change of pace. Now, assigning sex. While I would really like to break out of the stereotype of having a male leader because it's seen too damn often, I would ALSO like to get away from the stereotype of having the straight-laced, friendship-speech giving, responsible, pure and healing-hands character being a female. It's a 'pick your poison motherfucker' deal here. The other ones are pretty easy, I think, and it won't ring anyone's PC-meters on what you give them. I personally would not make our 'angsty not really evil but DARKNYSS' brooder type male only because I fucking hate Raistlin. But that's a personal preference.

So here's the fun stuff. Cast dynamics. The trick here is to add as much conflict as you can without straining believability of their friendship. The best ensemble casts have a lot of tension underneath the surface but it's still clear that they love each other. Standard tricks include:

The ambiguous loyalty character: This is the character where the show plays at whether-or-not this character is going to turn on the group at a crucial moment. Traditionally this role has been given to the Lancer or the Dark Teammate. They don't always end up turning but it can be an interesting episode just to show us that. Teen Titans has showed us that you can make it really gut-churning if it's the hero, too.

The ambiguous morality character: This character doesn't necessarily have to be evil or even anti-heroish, they just need to be a counterpoint to what the rest of the group is doing to break out of groupthink. Spock and Data are examples of characters who form this role without coming off as shady... though you should still strongly consider having a character who approves of putting poison in the castle water supply or making a deal with the devil. This can be anyone, including the hero. It's not a good idea to combine this with the ambiguous loyalty character, otherwise you'll have the person come off as too much of a jerk.

Siblings: Two of the characters are related to each other by blood. For my example, the Elf and the Drow could be half-siblings. This can be a source of interesting friendship and bromance or a source of tension depending on how they're related. Something like a party member's parent running out on them to raise a happy family with the other party member.

Racial tension: Unfortunately, probably our only real opportunity to explore this concept except as a joke (because it is really depressing and sensitive) is through a fantasy cipher. You have two ways of doing this. You could either have two or more castmembers with a rivalry/grudge against another member, such as the elves on the dwarf, or one party member whose role it is to be the unspoken apologist for their race or the person who calls out the other castmembers on their insensitivity.

Unrequited love: Pretty much all casts have at least this dynamic happening once. Unfortunately, they usually mess this up in one or two ways. They have the unattached hero pining for unattached the chick which kills tension because you know that it's going to happen anyway. If you want to shake this up, either have a non-standard unrequited love match (such as the Green Ranger pining for the Hero) or have this aimed towards two people who are already a couple.

Evil family member antagonists: This one is a classic. Avatar did this perfectly. The trick behind this one is to have one or two party members who have a large, evil, powerful family whom they often come into conflict with. Great source of meaningful conflicts.

Power level discrepancy: Cast member A is inferior in power level to the rest of the cast and it causes them angst and discontent. You can either use it as a temporary motivation for them to become stronger or you can play it as a source of inferiority throughout the show. I recommend doing the former; no one likes seeing the sadsack character weep about how weak they are for more than a couple of episodes.

Naive newcomer gets exposed to the real world: People loooove having the 'rich kid has to make it on their own' character. It's a good way to emphasize how difficult and exhausting their journey is when the rich kid complains about having to sleep on a log or drink deer's blood for dinner. Usually this character gets over it and toughens up over the course of the journey, but if you regularly have party members have a spot of comfort like sleeping in an inn with real beds you can drag this out without making the rich kid look like a whiner.

Character has some side goal that's very distracting: This side goal needs to be something fairly important. 'Checking in on my younger sister' does not count. 'I'm part of a knightly league' or 'if I stay away from the druid circle for too long then my rival will maneuver against me'. The tension from this comes from the responsibility of the 'main' adventure conflicting with their other duties.

There's more than this, much more, but I have to get to class soon. Next time I'll talk about shipping--I think I laid down enough rules so that you can arrange the dynamics ahead of time, but this warrants its own discussion. Shipping is a really easy way for your show to get fans and spread word of mouth but it's also hard to get it working properly. Then I'll talk about villains.

[Mask_De_H]

Lago, you have the Dark Magician Girl confused with the Lancer (snippy, aloof second in command type) and your Lancer (the druid) sounds like The Chick. The Dark Magician Girl starts out as an evil counterpart to the leader/the heart and gets won over by TEH POWER OF TRU WUV or some shit like that. Terra from Teen Titans is a triumphant example of that. The Chick offers the softer worldview.

Also, your leader sounds like a Gary Stu, and that's terrible. A Jerkass Stu of the highest caliber too, and that's barrel of cocks suckingly terrible.

I do agree with your Five Man Band idea, and would bolster it with a Five Bad Band who fit the classic Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric plus the (actual) Dark Magician Girl archetype. Bonus points for messing with classic D&D truisms with them.

Fighter: Erudite murderhound who hides behind "hurr I liek swords" Obfuscating Stupidity.

Wizard: Haughty jackass who quests for ultimate power and uses every dirty trick in the book. Brilliant but lazy, and prone to solving problems with brute force and larceny. Basically an evil Lina Inverse crossed with what the Paizils think of Frank.

Rogue: Gangsta ass motherfucker who hides behind the guise of lovable bastardry, but has no scruples or moral code. Not nearly as cool as he thinks he is. He's dog kicker extraordinaire, and can probably be the buttmonkey.

Cleric: Deluded follower of an evil god/does evil things in the name of a "good" god, considers himself to be the "good guy" and rationalizes ungodly atrocities for the "greater good". Classic well intentioned extremist, with a dash of the Pollyanna.

DMG: An undead necromancer who sees herself as a doll. Possibly geased to the Wizard's side, is made to be cynical but is truly sweet and innocent at heart. Like Fate Testarossa from Nanoha, or Rei Ayanami. She'll probably be the object of creepy fan affection, so fuck it. Switches teams at the end of the first season.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Lago, you have the Dark Magician Girl confused with the Lancer (snippy, aloof second in command type) and your Lancer (the druid) sounds like The Chick. The Dark Magician Girl starts out as an evil counterpart to the leader/the heart and gets won over by TEH POWER OF TRU WUV or some shit like that.

The basic idea behind the archetype is that you have a character who is plagued by 'dark' powers which makes them angsty and detached from humanity but are still basically good at heart. A popular variant on this is someone who is pushed too hard by their dark powers to the point where they become actually evil, but the basic idea behind the character is that their 'dark' powers create conflict and cause detachment. If someone actually embraces their dark side and uses that to cause problems/be evil that's a different archetype.

Seriously, most Dark Magician Girls are heroes or 'softer' versions of anti-heroes. Shadow the Hedgehog and Raven from Teen Titans are perfect examples.

Also, your leader sounds like a Gary Stu, and that's terrible. A Jerkass Stu of the highest caliber too, and that's barrel of cocks suckingly terrible.

They're not supposed to be jerks or Gary Stus. That's a symptom of the character being done incorrectly.

Robin in Teen Titans is so dedicated to fighting evil that it causes friction with the team and causes him to do some morally shaky things. He's the leader, but he's still routinely called out on this. He's an unsympathetic character in the first season (probably intentionally so) because it's been shown that he's willing to risk his integrity and his friendships to keep the streets safe.

Squall is closer to Stu but not really. He's a loner who would like to be one but he has a bunch of responsibility dumped onto his shoulders at once. He's also called out by his teammates for being cold and selfish and like Robin he also improves.

They're both good characters but my problem with them is that they started out too much like jerks and didn't end up enough in the 'good guy' column to wash out the taste.

I do agree with your Five Man Band idea, and would bolster it with a Five Bad Band who fit the classic Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric plus the (actual) Dark Magician Girl archetype. Bonus points for messing with classic D&D truisms with them.

Secondly, I intentionally avoided using the Fighter and Rogue archetypes. Those characters as presented in 3E-4E should fuck off and die. Sokka and Suki's characters became increasingly pointless over the course of Avatar because they were Fighter and Rogue and had to have situations contrived to make them feel useful. The fighter is especially awful; even ignoring the whole Linear Warriors / Quadratic Wizards thing, the entirety of the class is composed of by fighting.

I don't want to have a character whose sole contribution to the party is fighting and doing mundane shit you can see in bodice rippers. I suggested making the bard the master planner because they have illusions and enchantments that help supplement their plan. If you have this jackass the 'obfusicating stupidity' guy then your plans need to be mundane or someone else needs to be the spotlight implementer.

Now I wouldn't mind having a fighter and a rogue if they had the fundamental concepts behind the character classes completely redone (especially the fighter; 'fights good' is too narrow of an archetype), but the problem with that approach is that as you can see in the Weaning People Off The Martial Power Source thread is that people start crying like little bitches if fighters and rogues get any special effects that are not induced by someone else.

I suspect that this isn't just true for D&D people but for people in general.

So fuck it. Rather than having a One-Piece style fighter where you can shoot fireballs and shapeshift just by doing enough situps, we don't have fighters and rogues. All of the classes for our party have supernatural powers.

[Lago PARANOIA]

This thread is pretty much why our group should not have a fighter or rogue or any non-spellcasters:

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50538

I'm fine with rangers and paladins and even hexblades because the cartoon can handwave peoples' magical phlebtonium to a point where it's useful. I mean, people ACCEPT the idea that the paladin powered by holiness can fire holy sword beams and summon a dragon spirit to fight alongside him and graft angel powers onto his body even though such a thing has never happened to a 3E/4E paladin in a level-appropriate way. I mean, these were all spells a paladin could cast that literally and figuratively functioned how I described--the problem was that these still weren't level appropriate because the paladin class sucked and the mechanics of these spells sucked. But the special effects were still there and that's good.

Once you get your foot in the door though you can make it happen. Once the paladin's friends are doing amazing shit then people will accept the paladin doing crazy shit on the same level, too, whether it matches up with what's going on in the actual game or not. And honestly even if 5E drops the ball and makes paladins inferior over time to wizards the cartoon should just ignore it and give the paladin crazy powers anyway.

The flip side to this though is that no one will ever except a 'Fighter' doing things like that. Seriously, Robin was able to suplex a motherfucking 30' tall stone golem and make him beg for mercy and people whined their asses off at that. Can you imagine Sokka ever being able to do something that cool? No, because he's tethered to being a 'rogue/fighter'. Notice that for the most part when Robin had to do amazing things he had to resort to gadgets.

[Mask_De_H]

The basic idea behind the archetype is that you have a character who is plagued by 'dark' powers which makes them angsty and detached from humanity but are still basically good at heart. A popular variant on this is someone who is pushed too hard by their dark powers to the point where they become actually evil, but the basic idea behind the character is that their 'dark' powers create conflict and cause detachment. If someone actually embraces their dark side and uses that to cause problems/be evil that's a different archetype.

That's more "Dark is not Evil" and Broken Bird; a DMG tends to not have friends or are plagued with loneliness/a fear of people and that's why they end up evil.

Seriously, most Dark Magician Girls are heroes or 'softer' versions of anti-heroes. Shadow the Hedgehog and Raven from Teen Titans are perfect examples.

Shadow and Raven are different types of character though: Raven just has dark powers and is a demon rape baby. Shadow was actually pigfucking evil before he became the moody loner. I get where you're coming from with your characterization, you're just using contradictory characters as examples.

They're not supposed to be jerks or Gary Stus. That's a symptom of the character being done incorrectly.

Robin in Teen Titans is so dedicated to fighting evil that it causes friction with the team and causes him to do some morally shaky things. He's the leader, but he's still routinely called out on this. He's an unsympathetic character in the first season (probably intentionally so) because it's been shown that he's willing to risk his integrity and his friendships to keep the streets safe.

Squall is closer to Stu but not really. He's a loner who would like to be one but he has a bunch of responsibility dumped onto his shoulders at once. He's also called out by his teammates for being cold and selfish and like Robin he also improves.

They're both good characters but my problem with them is that they started out too much like jerks and didn't end up enough in the 'good guy' column to wash out the taste.

The thing is; the way you described what you wanted the character to be and the examples you use are completely different. I'm not saying Robin and Squall are Stus, I'm just saying that the "morally ambiguous, smoothest, coolest, baddest motherfucker in the room" kind of character is wanky wish-fulfillment at best. Now, it can be done sorta well (Sol from Guilty Gear, that dude from Needless), but that only works if you make him a solo act. That kind of spotlight-grabbing character type is very hard to do well, and damn near impossible to do within a group dynamic. Now, you can make him a lovable jackass like Laharl or Lupin or Locke Lamora, but you can't make him all of those X-est things. It smacks of badfic and Rob Liefield penned comics.

Also, Robin and Squall aren't "cool" or even really "bad-boys"; they're extremist neutral types, losers really. That kind of character can work pretty well though: see the dude from Welcome to the NHK or Genjo Sanzo from Saiyuki. Also, Rebuild!Shinji seems to be a well done fatalistic version of the character idea I think you're going for.

Secondly, I intentionally avoided using the Fighter and Rogue archetypes. Those characters as presented in 3E-4E should fuck off and die. Sokka and Suki's characters became increasingly pointless over the course of Avatar because they were Fighter and Rogue and had to have situations contrived to make them feel useful. The fighter is especially awful; even ignoring the whole Linear Warriors / Quadratic Wizards thing, the entirety of the class is composed of by fighting.

I don't want to have a character whose sole contribution to the party is fighting and doing mundane shit you can see in bodice rippers. I suggested making the bard the master planner because they have illusions and enchantments that help supplement their plan. If you have this jackass the 'obfusicating stupidity' guy then your plans need to be mundane or someone else needs to be the spotlight implementer.

Now I wouldn't mind having a fighter and a rogue if they had the fundamental concepts behind the character classes completely redone (especially the fighter; 'fights good' is too narrow of an archetype), but the problem with that approach is that as you can see in the Weaning People Off The Martial Power Source thread is that people start crying like little bitches if fighters and rogues get any special effects that are not induced by someone else.

I suspect that this isn't just true for D&D people but for people in general.

So fuck it. Rather than having a One-Piece style fighter where you can shoot fireballs and shapeshift just by doing enough situps, we don't have fighters and rogues. All of the classes for our party have supernatural powers.

I forgot that we changed the nomenclature of "Fighter" to "Hero" in the Kick-Ass thread, so that's one thing. Another thing is that in the main thread (which I was working under the assumption of), we decided that Charles Atlas Superpower like abilities were okay if you built the system to accommodate them. The third thing is that those tropes are ingrained into the collective gaming consciousness; so putting them in the bad guys' hands will make your work seem more clever to those who understand that. It also sets up some neat little "tearing down the old guard" symbolism.

[Mask_De_H]

This thread is pretty much why our group should not have a fighter or rogue or any non-spellcasters:

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50538

I'm fine with rangers and paladins and even hexblades because the cartoon can handwave peoples' magical phlebtonium to a point where it's useful. I mean, people ACCEPT the idea that the paladin powered by holiness can fire holy sword beams and summon a dragon spirit to fight alongside him and graft angel powers onto his body even though such a thing has never happened to a 3E/4E paladin in a level-appropriate way. I mean, these were all spells a paladin could cast that literally and figuratively functioned how I described--the problem was that these still weren't level appropriate because the paladin class sucked and the mechanics of these spells sucked. But the special effects were still there and that's good.

Once you get your foot in the door though you can make it happen. Once the paladin's friends are doing amazing shit then people will accept the paladin doing crazy shit on the same level, too, whether it matches up with what's going on in the actual game or not. And honestly even if 5E drops the ball and makes paladins inferior over time to wizards the cartoon should just ignore it and give the paladin crazy powers anyway.

The flip side to this though is that no one will ever except a 'Fighter' doing things like that. Seriously, Robin was able to suplex a motherfucking 30' tall stone golem and make him beg for mercy and people whined their asses off at that. Can you imagine Sokka ever being able to do something that cool? No, because he's tethered to being a 'rogue/fighter'. Notice that for the most part when Robin had to do amazing things he had to resort to gadgets.

And the flip-flip side of that is having a 30' tall stone golem that doesn't have a badass little girl inside it does not fit Avatar in general.

Besides, wasn't the point of 5E to kill the sacred cows of 3rd and 4th edition, and isn't "Fighters Don't Get Nice Things" one of the worst ones? Rubes play Exalted to be effectively Badass Fighting Men, and we've had discussions on getting outside of the "Tolkien-wank low fantasy" shackles of the previous editions. There's enough modern and classic mythology to pull from that we can get around "hitting things" and "stealing things" being mundane concepts. I mean, fuck, the Dungeonomicon Monk is built around "hitting things" and it's one of the most interesting and flavorful Tome classes. If Frank and K can do it within the confines of 3.5, out hypothetical creative team could do it with a new setting. Phlebotinum is phlebotinum.

If you're trying to restart a brand, you can do whatever you want with the characters and idea; let the sleeping dogs of your pre-edition prejudices die.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I hate multiquoting. So attach my responses to your quote as appropriate.

1) First, TVTropes sucks. Who fucking cares that I got the nomenclature wrong? The point is that any ensemble is usually benefited by having the 'dark but not evil lonely loner who struggles to control their powers' archetype.

2) Secondly, I'm not trying to argue that the leader should have all of those things at once.

First thing's first, usually there will always be someone on the team that you can point to as 'the coolest'. If the character was specifically assembled to fit into a team rather than being imported into one (like Batman) the chance of this character being the leader is low. 'Coolest guy' is just a role someone plays, much like 'funniest guy' or 'sexiest guy'. Yes, some teams don't have 'cool guy' intentionally built into them, but someone always ends up assuming the role after awhile just because fanbases are expected to look for these things.

Why is this chance low and why should we care? Because there's a tendency in fiction to make the leader caring, personable, mentally stable, and responsible. Otherwise they wouldn't be the leader for very long. Unfortunately, those requirements for being a good leader often leads to a character being cut off from interesting plot hooks. You can't have a leader that regularly fights with other crewmembers or sulks all Achilles in their tent style. You can't have a leader that sometimes flips out and starts blasting people due to the voices in their head. You can't have a leader who doesn't care about the team's ration levels or the fact that they're breaking a bunch of laws for short-term gain. Etc. So you have to make the leader character interesting in some other way. I recommend making the leader type 'cool/sexy guy' so that they don't compete with other team members for the title. There are other hats you can give the leader, but the leader character is already wearing the 'nurturer' and 'leader' hats. Unless you're trying to make another Captain Kirk or Mary Sue you should just give him that one and distribute the other interesting hats to the others.

3) Even though gamers will have to accept the paradigm that fighters Will Get Cool Things, the fact of the matter is that the people at large who view the cartoon will probably not get it. Seriously, people were raised since birth to think that Prince Charming from Sleeping Beauty and Aladdin are how 'rogue/fighter types' are supposed to play. Unless you had an explanation why as to why Prince Charming can tank acid flame with a mean look or that Aladdin can stab Mozanreth with shadow clones people are going to go 'WTF'. And unfortunately for us the Lowest Common Denominator will accept 'they get their power from divine/arcane' magic but not from 'they did enough situps'.

Like I said, go to a Teen Titans fanboard and ask people what they thought about Robin suplexing Cinderblock. Most of the people will tell you that they thought it strained belief. That was a one-time thing, too. Now imagine a character who regularly did that. If you did it ENOUGH times the audience would be forced to accept it, but the beginning of your show is not the right time to introduce that kind of stuff.

Remember, the most popular name for Book of Nine Swords is 'Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic'. Why do you think this is?

4) You can't have an ensemble cast that have some characters who are only about hitting things and some characters who are about hitting things AND some other shit. Not without having cast imbalances. Starfire NEVER advanced the plot under her own power in a way that didn't involve punching/shooting and was thus the most boring out of all of them.

They tried to do that shit in 4E and it didn't work.

5) Letting sleeping dogs lie and letting old prejudices die out should be done by the game itself, not by the cartoon. Yeah, that attitude is bad for the brand and reinforcing the idea that 'sword-based classes can fuck off and die' is bad for the game. But there's a lot more to the game and attitude than trying to tear down that attitude. And believe me, it's an attitude that will meet resistance.

I'd rather save up the social credits on the cartoon for something more important. Like getting rid of the idea that 'gods are good because we say so'. Or the worship of the crushing poverty of feudalistic society. Or the idea of law and chaos as concepts that people can build an alignment base around. Or the idea that there are some sapient races that are evil from birth. 'Fights can have nice things, too!' is far down my list.

[Sir Neil]

Cleric: Deluded follower of an evil god/does evil things in the name of a "good" god, considers himself to be the "good guy" and rationalizes ungodly atrocities for the "greater good". Classic well intentioned extremist, with a dash of the Pollyanna.

Fvck no. This is a D&D cartoon -- that false good bullshit can go somewhere else and die.

[Lago PARANOIA]

To be fair, Mask was talking about making the 'bad guys' that, not the good guys.

An Evil Preacher archetype has a lot of gold to it. I don't think that his 'five bad guy' band idea isn't that bad, really, I just don't think that it should have a Fighter, A Rogue, and a Cleric in it unless they're strictly used to be a combat menace.

A bad guy whose only thing is 'I can swing a sword real good!' is fine but it's not for a hero.

[Nicklance]

Slayers already did a pretty ok job.

[Psychic Robot]

And then you need the plucky wizard who has a magic hat that is useless unless the plot demands it.

[Sir Neil]

To be fair, Mask was talking about making the 'bad guys' that, not the good guys.

I caught that.

An Evil Preacher archetype has a lot of gold to it. I don't think that his 'five bad guy' band idea isn't that bad, really....

I agree; but I think the evil priest should embrace evil. The last thing we need is another Kingpriest.

[Mask_De_H]

On Starfire, the uselessness of: Star had several day in the limelight episodes that didn't involve blowing shit up, and was the major love interest and morality pet of the leader of the team. She kept the team together. You have this idea in your head that the usefulness of a character is in direct proportion to how many mechanical toys they have: which is okay for a roleplaying game, but doesn't matter for a series.

On Stus and Leader Types: That makes more sense, but you didn't actually say that in your first post. And you can make an interesting character who isn't fucked in the head; if you're feeling especially creatively bankrupt, make him the Straight Man at least.

On Hitting Things: The classic fantasy hero's "mechanical" role is to hit the thing with the other thing. We had threads where we discussed most hero-types in fantasy literature are Rogues on several occasions. And again, don't assume that just because a character's focus is on hitting the thing with the other thing, that they can't be interesting. Take Usopp, Zoro, Gourry, Logen Ninefingers, any wizened old sellsword, the average Kung-fu flick protagonist, etc. for example. You're confusing mechanics with characterization. Stop it.

On Fighters Getting Nice Things: Lago, your entire argument hinges on terms of D&D gaming, even if you don't think you are talking about them. The players are who called Bo9S the Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic, the players are the ones freaking out about Fighters being able to eat lightning and shit thunder. If it's cool enough, mundane people can do impossible things; as centuries upon centuries of myth, legend, literature, movies, comics, and cartoons have pointed out. Most people don't give a fuck if X can beat Y, as long as the in-universe power tautology stays within reason: Robin suplexing Cinderblock probably gets wank because he was never shown to be that strong beforehand, not because he's a "fighter" type. Again, if it really bothers you that much, use Spiral Power/Hard Work and Guts/yer mum as an explanation to why someone can glare down an acid blast. Or, you know, don't have them do that.

Your entire argument against fighter/rogue types disregards everything before and after the Established D&D Paradigm, and both the concept of the game (and by relation, the cartoon) was created by you to shake up, if not outright destroy the Established D&D Paradigm. You can do all of those other important things while still having fighters get nice things: you fucking use One Piece as an example in your opening post.

Do that.

Use shonen and seinen anime. Use high fantasy. Use Final Fantasy. Use things that aren't sucking on the moldy old cock of Tolkein like you said you were going to do in the threads before this one.

Fuck, this thread is more of a "Constructing the D&D 5th edition Iconics" thought exercise anyway, with how unmade rules are coloring the discussion. In any fiction, even fiction built to sell a product, it doesn't matter what the character can physically do; it's how the character interacts with his world and the other characters.

[Zinegata]

Someone asked in this here thread if it wouldn't be awesome if Dungeons and Dragons had a good cartoon to it. I agree with that sentiment. It could be awesome. But constructing a good cartoon is apparently difficult.

A good D&D cartoon already exists. It's called Legend of Lodoss War.

[virgil]

Forget Record of Lodoss War, Slayers is where it's at.

[Zinegata]

I actually do like Slayers better. But Lodoss War is literally a 2nd Edition D&D game turned into a cartoon.

Not "a game like D&D" or "a setting like D&D". It's really a bunch of Japanese guys playing 2nd Ed D&D, turning their adventures into AARs, which then turned into a manga, then a cartoon.

[Lago PARANOIA]

On Starfire, the uselessness of: Star had several day in the limelight episodes that didn't involve blowing shit up, and was the major love interest and morality pet of the leader of the team.

Yes, and her spotlight episodes were extremely repetitive. You didn't notice because the writers wisely decided not to give her many episodes, but they are.

Seriously, a Starfire episode revolves around her angsting about not being loved as much as she should or not getting Robin's attention. The only episode she had that didn't involve these two plots was her raising Silky. That's it. That's a major problem with her character.

There is a very good reason why Starfire didn't get a season dedicated to her. It's because her character can't hold a plot that you can't do on Sesame Street. And this is because in an action-adventure show, she has no unique abilities that can cause or solve action-adventure. She can just fight. That's it.

Take Usopp, Zoro, Gourry, Logen Ninefingers, any wizened old sellsword, the average Kung-fu flick protagonist, etc. for example. You're confusing mechanics with characterization. Stop it.

Yeah, and those characters are vanilla and boring over an extended period of time. Zoro is the worst character (except for Brook) out of the entire Straw Hats from an ensemble standpoint because all he can do is fight. This isn't a big deal in One Piece because everyone solves their problems by fighting--but that's inappropriate in any kind of adventure that is supposed to have depth to it.

Zoro wears the 'badass' hat of the crew so people don't notice it too much. But he defines vanilla hero.

Usopp is a gadgeteer. Not a rogue. His problem is that Oda intentionally kept his 'level' low in order to create more pathos for his character. If he was brought up to be more of Luffy's level he would be fighting with a variety of powerful devices and gadgets rather than being rescue fodder.

I don't know about those other characters. The sellsword and the average Kung-fu flick protagonist archetypes only work because their adventures are not fantastical. Stick them and Willow and you'll see the problem with them.

If it's cool enough, mundane people can do impossible things; as centuries upon centuries of myth, legend, literature, movies, comics, and cartoons have pointed out.

Have you ever watched Crouching Tiger: Hidden Dragon? Pulling that stuff out of nowhere causes laughter and gaping, not awe.

Audiences, at least American audiences, have been trained not to accept people doing awesome things without sufficiently-convincing phlebtonium. 'Gets power from a god' is sufficiently convincing, 'does enough situps' is not. The entire point of the fighter and rogue classes is that they don't have phlebtonium but can do cool things anyway.

Yeah, it sucks that people can't suspend their disbelief for something this trivial. If you're going to whine about that then still then seriously... you can go pound sand. There are much more worthy causes to attack in terms of breaking down audience preconceptions; like people getting upset when their fantasy has guns and penicillin in it. Why is 'getting superpowers through pushups' more pressing? I just don't feel like in addition to all of the other stuff the cartoon has to tackle we also need to challenge peoples WSoD.

Especially if the reason is weaksauce as 'b-but this is D&D... where's the fighter?'

Use things that aren't sucking on the moldy old cock of Tolkein like you said you were going to do in the threads before this one.

Sorry, guy, but adaptations must cater to the tastes to the audience to some extent. Out of all of the other things I want this cartoon to challenge while still feeling like D&D this is just low on the priority list. You can only challenge so many preconceptions at once before people call your show 'weird' or 'ungrokkable'. I think making the 'evil' races sympathetic and understanding and calling out the 'good' gods for not actually being good is enough soapboxing for any show.

And like it or not:

Your entire argument against fighter/rogue types disregards everything before and after the Established D&D Paradigm,

Sorry guy, Dungeons and Dragons is an established paradigm. It's not just some niche meme like Shadowrun but it's influenced how we see action fantasy and an entire genre of video games altogether.

It's just not worth challenging in a public venue the idea of the boring bodice-ripper fighter. It's fucking ingrained whether you like it or not. Fighters and rogues full-attack while using maneuvers that you can imagine Val Kilmer doing without looking retarded. Even if you haven't actually played Dungeons and Dragons, you can ask almost any nerd with exposure to fantasy 'hey, do fighters or rogues cast spells' or 'hey, could a fighter kick a dragon so hard that he does a backflip'? There are a people who have never played a tabletop game could give you a brief description of what a fighter and a rogue/thief does.

People have to cater to audience preconceptions all of the time; they can't challenge EVERYTHING. There's a reason why Matrix didn't go with its original idea. Deal with it.

[Zinegata]

You people haven't watched the 2nd D&D movie, have you?

[Zinegata]

Just to elaborate on the 2nd D&D movie (which was actually fairly good)...

The hero of the film is the Fighter. And he uses swords and wits from start to finish, never getting a mid-movie magic sword upgrade. And he gets his ass kicked the moment he goes against a high-level caster (A Lich). And despite the B-movie campiness and his lack of flashy moves, he's actually a pretty tolerable lead who wins the day without being the most uber member of the team.

The MVP of the movie has to be the rogue. Because he figures out how to disarm two very major traps in a reasonable and realistic fashion, while doing competent sneak attacks. Sadly, in the second trap he fumbles a roll and gets knocked down to negative HP, but otherwise he did real good.

So no, Fighters and Rogues can actually be fairly awesome in a D&D-setting piece of fiction. Even if they're relatively low level. You just need to let them do what they are supposed to do.

Also, no, they didn't tune down Magic for the 2nd movie. The Cleric died early soloing a Dragon, but his turn undead was wicked enough to stave off a Lich. The Elven Wizard was kinda weaksauce, but my take is that she's more of a Diviner than an Evoker anyway (this is an artifact-hunt, not a mass murder mission). Besides which, I think she used up all her offensive spells on the dragon and they didn't really have a lot of downtime.

The Lich however? He pretty much wipes out the entire frigging Royal Guard with one fireball.

[Username17]

If the last thirty years have taught us anything, it is that no one expects or allows the Martial Power Source to be worth a heap of donkey shit under any circumstances. Even going back to the 80s cartoon, the Thief was only able to accomplish anything because of her cloak of invisibility; the Cavalier was only able to accomplish anything because of his force field shield. The only way martial power source characters can amount to fuck all is if they have their artifact sword. And then they can accomplish... whatever the sword lets them do. Hell, even in Slayers, there is an entire season dedicated to the fact that without a badass artifact sword, Gourry is basically just a double strength Mook #12.

If you're going to include name-character Fighters at all, they can show up in three places:

• The Evil Knight who shows up in black armor and has an evil black sword and is a recurring villain.
• The good questing knight who is a side character in an episode and maybe makes return appearances, who needs the main characters to solve rudimentary problems like "there is a chasm" or "lolwut: harpies fly".
• The side character impetuous youth who charges in and stabs some baddies, only to get captured and need rescuing by the main characters.

While any or all of those characters can also stand in as a love interest or sibling for one of the main characters (or both, like Darkfire), they seriously are not main character fodder and never ever can aspire to be.

Lagos' team list is pretty solid, but I would ditch the Bard because it comes with way too much fucking baggage. Paladin/Druid/Monk/Wizard is the basic four you want to go with. Your Green Ranger probably wants to be a Warlock, but if you made them a Necromancer or Assassin, I would totally understand.

-Username17

[Zinegata]

Guys, fiction doesn't subscribe to the TGD view of D&D.

Heck, most D&D players don't subscribe to the TGD view of D&D and see the place as a gathering of power-mad blokes.

And again, a Fighter or a Rogue doesn't need to be the most uber guy in the team to be interesting?

See Rock in Black Lagoon. He's an office worker stuck with a bunch of mercenary pirates, and yet he's pretty damn awesome for the simple fact that while his companions are min-maxed to be awesome in combat, their social skills are on the level of spoiled 5 year olds and they can't negotiate themselves out of a wet paper bag.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Guys, fiction doesn't subscribe to the TGD view of D&D.

Heck, most D&D players don't subscribe to the TGD view of D&D and see the place as a gathering of power-mad blokes.

And again, a Fighter or a Rogue doesn't need to be the most uber guy in the team to be interesting?

See Rock in Black Lagoon. He's an office worker stuck with a bunch of mercenary pirates, and yet he's pretty damn awesome for the simple fact that while his companions are min-maxed to be awesome in combat, their social skills are on the level of spoiled 5 year olds and they can't negotiate themselves out of a wet paper bag.

So... fighters should be weak in combat but should be the only ones with effective social interaction abilities?

[Username17]

In a cartoon show, characters do not have to be on the same power level.

Aang >> Katara, Toph, & Zuko >> Sokka & Suki >> Teo, The Duke, & Momo.

That is fine. You can even scatter some of the people of each power level all the way down to "mascot" in the main characters and have that totally work. But that's because in a cartoon you can contrive to have the lower powered characters have lower powered opposition in important confrontations. The Wizard fights the enemy demon lord, the fighter fights some troglodytes. The plot moves on.

What makes the Fighter concept unworkable as a main character is that they don't do anything outside of fighting. You could actually bring a Rogue in, because disarming a trap or filching a key could justify screen time, even if the character in't contribute much against dragons or mind flayers. But "guy on horse what has armor and a sword" just isn't enough to be an interesting protagonist. Not even in an ensemble cast. But if you add "sacred power to smite evil, cure wounds, and dispel magic" you have got a deal. That's a character who can do shit when they aren't split off into a one-on-one fight against a monster or NPC scaled to their level of badassery.

The Rogue has that problem to a much lesser degree, what with having "social skills", "sneaking", and "trap disarming". But again, if you replaced the Rogue with an Assassin, he' be able to do all that plus some alchemy and unerhanded shadow magic. A much more interesting character.

Basically you have lines you need to deliver and plot points that need to be overcome. The more different abilities a character has (without being confusing), the better they are from a plot advancement standpoint. As far as dialog goes, pretty much anyone can deliver it if their character is written consistently to deliver the same type of dialog. You need:

• Friendship Speeches. This is traditionally one by "the girl" but can be mixed up. Hell, in Pokemon, these are delivered quite often by the main character. Obviously, a Paladin is born to deliver these lines.
• Clueless Questions. These aren't just for comic relief, they are actually there to slip in expository dialog without straining believability. Someone has to ask what are (for the world) retarded questions so that characters in frame can give fundamental exposition while maintaining he fourth wall. You want to spread this role out, because if the same character always asks the clueless questions, that character becomes viewed as retarded by the audience. So you want one of the characters to be an Underdark race like a Drow or a Dwarf so that they can ask clueless questions about the surface world while also having the Druid character be a wild child so they can ask clueless questions about the cities and so on.
• Exposition. You need a lot of exposition in every episode. You could go the Pokemon route and have some imp Pokedex everything, or the Burn Notice route and have the main character narrate everything. But you don't want to do any of those things. You want to split up the exposition jobs just like you did for the clueless questions. The Drow exposits about orcs, the Druid exposits about monsters, and the Wizard exposits about magic.
• Lame Jokes. OK, the cool thing about a character who tells "bad" jokes is that it allows the writers to put in jokes that are risk free. If people laugh, great. If they don't laugh, well the character was supposed to be telling a clunker, so no loss. This is the service of Sokka an Orco and it is invaluable. Obvious choices for this role are the Wizard and the Monk.
• Disrespectful Badassery. Sometimes your writers will think of a really great badass line that is totally disrespectful. Totally. And so you need a Toph, Robin, or Wolverine who can deliver them as your writers think them up. Traditionally, this would go to the Monk.

-Username17

[Zinegata]

Guys, fiction doesn't subscribe to the TGD view of D&D.

Heck, most D&D players don't subscribe to the TGD view of D&D and see the place as a gathering of power-mad blokes.

And again, a Fighter or a Rogue doesn't need to be the most uber guy in the team to be interesting?

See Rock in Black Lagoon. He's an office worker stuck with a bunch of mercenary pirates, and yet he's pretty damn awesome for the simple fact that while his companions are min-maxed to be awesome in combat, their social skills are on the level of spoiled 5 year olds and they can't negotiate themselves out of a wet paper bag.

So... fighters should be weak in combat but should be the only ones with effective social interaction abilities?

No, but just because they're a Fighter doesn't mean they have to be a Dumb Melee Fighter.

Does anybody ever complain that Roy's superpower in OoTS is common sense?

[FatR]

Slayers already did a pretty ok job.

In Slayers, Gourry is pretty much a sidekick, despite having superhuman skills, being able to jump 20 meters high, having an artifact sword and regular appearance of enemies that are only/mostly vulnerable to this sword. And all the spellcasters tend to "play" very similarly. A good party model Slayers is not.