General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
For instance one could easily say that both Frodo Baggins and Aragorn are Heroes, but very different kinds of Heroes, (though very much the same in some respects). But numbers and levels and ranks and classes and races and powers and that kind of thing didn't make them heroes. Neither did titles. Frodo was not a Hero because he carried a +3 short sword named Sting, and Aragorn was not a Hero because he was really the King in exile wielding the sword that was remade. He was heroic long before anyone knew he was a King. Frodo was heroic despite Sting, Sam was certainly terrifically heroic despite having no magic at all. Probably more heroic because he had no magic at all. Frodo bore the ring, but Sam bore Frodo. That kind of thing happens all the time in heroic myth. You don't see it exemplified much in modern games though. Heroism has become artificially "attached or linked" to things that have nothing to do with Heroism, and so mask or camouflage those things that do have to do with real heroism. A Hero is not somebody who has actually done anything heroic, he's somebody in game who has reached a certain level,a tier, or has become high enough in rank to warrant a Paragon path. Mechanically speaking. As for speaking about acts of heroism, who knows or cares. The point is he leveled up. That is the real point of heroism, right?
This is why Lord of the Rings should be banned from all discussions involving D&D.
Pop quiz: What does Conan, King Arthur, Frodo, and Robin Hood all have in common? They're all heroes. Anything else? Nope.
Frodo is a hero for his compassion, self-sacrifice, and sense of duty despite NOT being a great warrior or wizard. This is completely different than Conan, who is a hero by doing good thing while in pursuit of his own ignoble goals. Arthur is an exemplar of righteous piety and chivalry, Robin Hood of vigilantism and justice agains the corruption of society.
What role-playing game allows you to have Frodo, Conan, Arthur, and Robin all on the same "party"? In what world would Frodo's compassion amass the same strength as Conan's savage fury?
Its not D&D. D&D has not, nor has it ever, rewarded heroic sacrifice and noble chivalry. D&D has reward Conan-esque heroism; PCs go into a dungeon, slay the evil monsters, destroy the evil temples, and walk off with all the gold the evil cultists were hoarding before they died. No noble struggle, no heroic sacrifice, no common-everyman who overcomes by heart and will. D&D doesn't like those traits (well, its never created much in the way of mechanics for them) its rewarded power (be it martial power or magical power) with power; kill things, complete quests, steal treasure, level up, do it again.
D&D similarly, has never viewed compassion as a necessary quality. Imagine if Gandalf had cast "Detect Evil" on Gollum and declared Frodo's compassion would fail him and Gollum couldn't be redeemed? D&D does that. D&D makes kobold's Lawful Evil (or Evil in 4e) to allow you to slaughter them without moral quandry. You want moral grayness in D&D, throw some baby kobolds in a nest of them and watch your well-intentioned D&D group degenerate into moral stickiness that will eat up as much time as needed to justify them putting them to the sword. So much for compassion, eh?
(The above is doubly fun with a paladin PC. Ever notice paladin's are the proverbial thorn in every other player's side?)
Oh sure, I can run a game that rewards heroism and heroic traits beyond power and survival, but the game gives me nothing to it. There is no rules for honor, love, beauty, sacrifice, piety, charity, compassion, or virtue (Book of Exalted Deed's excluded). There ARE rules for accumulating and spending wealth, gaining XP to gain new levels of power, and (formerly) rules on morale, henchmen/retainers, and epic magic items.
Pop quiz: What does Conan, King Arthur, Frodo, and Robin Hood all have in common? They're all heroes. Anything else? Nope.
They are all male.
They all gain some stature due to their birth/inheritance (the blood of the Atlanteans flows through the Cimmerians).
They are all elevated above the common person, by means of rank (Conan and Arthur become Kings, Frodo is the Master of Bag End, and Robin Hood was an Earl).
They all spend time among common people (Conan in his youth, Arthur in his youth before pulling the Sword from the Stone, Frodo in his youth in Buckland, Robin Hood in adulthood when he is outlawed).
All are concerned with the legitimacy of the King. Conan with becoming the legitimate king (the only REH Conan novel deals with this, with specific and intentional references to King Arthur, as does the first Conan story, The Phoenix on the Sword). Arthur both with becoming King and regaining/maintaining legitimacy in the Grail Quest. Frodo with aiding Aragorn to see the Return of the King. Robin Hood with defending the common people from Prince John until the true King, Richard the Lionheart, can return.
They all believe in self-sacrifice to protect the weak and innocent -- even Conan shares this impulse. While Conan pursues goals that are sometimes ignoble, the idea that he was naturally noble -- and naturally behaved in such a fashion -- is fundamental to the character.
None but the last of these is needed to make a character a hero, IMHO, but these characters do share more in common that it might appear at first.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
What role-playing game allows you to have Frodo, Conan, Arthur, and Robin all on the same "party"? In what world would Frodo's compassion amass the same strength as Conan's savage fury?
Its not D&D. D&D has not, nor has it ever, rewarded heroic sacrifice and noble chivalry. D&D has reward Conan-esque heroism; PCs go into a dungeon, slay the evil monsters, destroy the evil temples, and walk off with all the gold the evil cultists were hoarding before they died. No noble struggle, no heroic sacrifice, no common-everyman who overcomes by heart and will. D&D doesn't like those traits (well, its never created much in the way of mechanics for them) its rewarded power (be it martial power or magical power) with power; kill things, complete quests, steal treasure, level up, do it again.
<snip>
Oh sure, I can run a game that rewards heroism and heroic traits beyond power and survival, but the game gives me nothing to it. There is no rules for honor, love, beauty, sacrifice, piety, charity, compassion, or virtue (Book of Exalted Deed's excluded). There ARE rules for accumulating and spending wealth, gaining XP to gain new levels of power, and (formerly) rules on morale, henchmen/retainers, and epic magic items.
Says alot about D&D's emphasis, doesn't it?
Yes, it says D&D is a framework for adventures but not the be-all or end-all of heroic fantasy gaming. Some of that has to come from the DM and players.
If you want to look at D&D as a vehicle, say a Mercury Tracer, it provides the means of getting from point A to point B and involves certain rules - gas goes in, the engine burns the gas to drive the wheels, the clutch enables the gears to be changed without grinding, and off we go. But that says little about how pleasurable or fun the ride would be other than with things tied to the mechanics.
But the driver, and how and where they drive, will have a major impact on whether that car ride meets the goals and desires of the people riding in it.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
The heroes in D&D are gone do to the increasing power creep of the game. It's not heroic for an Eladrin to run out on a 3 inch wide ledge to rescue a child, after all, if he falls, he'll just teleport inside the building to safety. In 3e, a pc with a +30 swim check diving in a flooded river to do the same is still not heroic, he'll make the check on a one. It's just a stroll in the park to either of these guys. If it's a simple task, with little or no personal risk, there's nothing heroic about it. A hero is not Superman, he is a normal person, who manages to rise above the common folk due to courage. He may be a bit more skilled than the average Joe, but not amazingly so. That's the difference between 3e and later games and AD&D. A 1e first level character had a couple more hit points than a farmer, but otherwise, they were pretty much the same. He was a HERO because he chose to be, not because his hd was bigger. The mechanics nowadays don't support heroes. When pcs are just exponentially better than everyone else, it's not heroic to face down an ogre, it's just being mercenary.
The heroes in D&D are gone do to the increasing power creep of the game.
Power creep doesn't remove heroism - it merely drives up the requirements for what is considered heroic. The issue at hand is challenge and risk. The DM is always capable of creating scenarios that pose a real challenge to the PCs.
The heroes in D&D are gone do to the increasing power creep of the game. It's not heroic for an Eladrin to run out on a 3 inch wide ledge to rescue a child, after all, if he falls, he'll just teleport inside the building to safety. In 3e, a pc with a +30 swim check diving in a flooded river to do the same is still not heroic, he'll make the check on a one. It's just a stroll in the park to either of these guys. If it's a simple task, with little or no personal risk, there's nothing heroic about it. A hero is not Superman, he is a normal person, who manages to rise above the common folk due to courage. He may be a bit more skilled than the average Joe, but not amazingly so. That's the difference between 3e and later games and AD&D. A 1e first level character had a couple more hit points than a farmer, but otherwise, they were pretty much the same. He was a HERO because he chose to be, not because his hd was bigger. The mechanics nowadays don't support heroes. When pcs are just exponentially better than everyone else, it's not heroic to face down an ogre, it's just being mercenary.
See, here is a problem with this mentality; it doesn't work the minute random probability (IE) dice work into the equation.
PCs face the lion-share of dice rolls; attacks, saves, etc. They will take more critical hits, fail more saves, and fall into more pit traps than any monster, farmer, or creature the DM runs. If these people are little-better than the farmers they're defending, you end up with the other end of D&D; kleenex-pcs that step up to the ogre, get killed in 1-2 blows, and are replaced by an equally disposable PC. Those superheroic bonuses (be it spells, superior ability score, or even the virtue of levels) are guards against the random power of the d20, who has a nasty habit of failing at dramatically appropriate moments that would turn a heroic act into a pointless waste.
If heroism is defined in the act, then yeah, my fighter with a +2 to swim is more heroic for jumping into the river to save a drowning child than a fighter with a +30. In a good fiction story, he'd rescue the kid by sheer luck and determination. In D&D, he's more likely roll poor and drown alongside the kid.
Meh, I'll take my Supermen. I get to play them longer.
It's not heroic for an Eladrin to run out on a 3 inch wide ledge to rescue a child, after all, if he falls, he'll just teleport inside the building to safety.
Only if he falls by a window. Line of sight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRRNeiklot
In 3e, a pc with a +30 swim check diving in a flooded river to do the same is still not heroic, he'll make the check on a one. It's just a stroll in the park to either of these guys. If it's a simple task, with little or no personal risk, there's nothing heroic about it.
Yes, but someone with a +30 Swim can do things far beyond anything that can be considered a "simple task". Arguably that makes them heroic.
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
Yes, but someone with a +30 Swim can do things far beyond anything that can be considered a "simple task". Arguably that makes them heroic.
Not true. One could make the argument that Michael Phelps has a +30 swim skill. That makes him athletic, not heroic.
If he were to dive into a whirlpool to save a drowning baby, that makes him heroic.
If he calmly strolls into the shallow end to help save a drowning 27 year old in water-wings (look, I'm not the best swimmer ), that doesn't make him a hero, it makes the other guy a default virgin.
However, if a five year old who just finished her third swimming lesson dives in to save said 27 year old, that would make her a hero.
Heroism is self-sacrifice for the greater good. If there's no possible failure, then you didn't really sacrifice anything.
__________________ "..Death greets me warm; Now I will just say goodbye.."
I think we're confusing two different definition of hero here. There's the ancient definition where hero simply means superhuman. If you've read some ancient myths, a lot of "heroes" aren't very "heroic" in the modern sense. They don't have to be moral, or brave, or self-sacrificing. They're flawed, selfish, jealous. They kill monsters not out of the goodness of their heart but to get the loot or to prove themselves. A lot of the times, they're borderline psychopathic. They get to be called heroes simply because they can do awesome badass stuff.
The modern definition of hero is where it places more emphasis on courage, virtue, self-sacrifice, motivation etc. rather than on the hero's powers.
This leads back to gaming. Are you trying to portray the ancient hero archetype or the modern hero archetype with your own character.
Last edited by nightwyrm; 23rd December 2008 at 11:39 PM..
Heroism is self-sacrifice for the greater good. If there's no possible failure, then you didn't really sacrifice anything.
Which is a poor system for an RPG. Most* RPGs are designed to follow a single character from nobody to epic. Luke from farmboy to Jedi knight. Frodo from landed gentry to savior of Middle Earth. The stories lose some emotional depth if Luke dies because his X-Wing is randomly shot down by a TIE fighter or Wilbo Baggins, Frodo's long lost cousin, has to complete his quest because Frodo was crushed by a cave-troll in Moria.
You need something to mitigate the odds and allow your hero to survive and do heroic things.
* (There are some that humorously void this principle: Call of Chulu, Toon and Paranoia are famous examples).
Good point, Nightwyrm. I was referring to a more modern view of the hero, but hadn't really considered the classic Beowulf, Herc, or Achilles.
So, I would argue that the XP and loot structure of D&D cater to those ancient hero archetype more than the modern version. So it's easier just to make an "awesome" hero than a "paragon of virtue" hero, but it's not impossible.
They kill monsters not out of the goodness of their heart but to get the loot or to prove themselves.
Usually still against a great element of risk, regardless of motive.
In a "balanced" game the risk can be much ameleorated. I felt my old 1e characters were always more at risk than they were when I played 3e for example.
Personally I think the term 'Hero" is often mis-used/over-used. When I used to play 1st ed. D&D I never thought I was playing a 'Hero" I was playing an "adventurer" - more of a mercenary really considering the motives ("show me the money, tapestries, and expensive carpets"). We always used the term "Heroes" very tongue-in-cheek.
Paladins were an exception, but our group never played them properly, we abused them for their powers.
Which is a poor system for an RPG. Most* RPGs are designed to follow a single character from nobody to epic. Luke from farmboy to Jedi knight. Frodo from landed gentry to savior of Middle Earth. The stories lose some emotional depth if Luke dies because his X-Wing is randomly shot down by a TIE fighter or Wilbo Baggins, Frodo's long lost cousin, has to complete his quest because Frodo was crushed by a cave-troll in Moria.
You need something to mitigate the odds and allow your hero to survive and do heroic things.
* (There are some that humorously void this principle: Call of Chulu, Toon and Paranoia are famous examples).
I disagree here. Your point is valid, but the possibility of failure is ever-present in the RPG and in the stories you mention.
In Star Wars, Anakin was the fated hero to save the day. Unfortunately, the player wasn't paying attention and was seriously irritated that obi-wan was higher level; he ended up with too many dark side points and lost the character.
He rolls up his new character, Luke, and the story continues on. Mid-way through the campaign, he meets up with his previous character, now Darth Vader, and finds out that Luke is Vader's son. "That's not true! That's impossible!" says Luke, but the DM chuckles and says that yes, in fact, Padme' did have a child. This time, the player is smarter and doesn't pick up the same amount of darkside points, and is able to redeem his previous character, in the process.
In Lord of the Rings you get the same story. Elendil failed his save vs the ring and disbanded the party (Elrond's player was really peeved). The new character, Aragorn, a decendant of Elendil, would succeed on the save and eventually become king.
D&D totally allows for this, the players & GM just have to think outside the box-d set.
__________________ "..Death greets me warm; Now I will just say goodbye.."
Not true. One could make the argument that Michael Phelps has a +30 swim skill. That makes him athletic, not heroic.
If he were to dive into a whirlpool to save a drowning baby, that makes him heroic.
If he calmly strolls into the shallow end to help save a drowning 27 year old in water-wings (look, I'm not the best swimmer ), that doesn't make him a hero, it makes the other guy a default virgin.
However, if a five year old who just finished her third swimming lesson dives in to save said 27 year old, that would make her a hero.
Heroism is self-sacrifice for the greater good. If there's no possible failure, then you didn't really sacrifice anything.
What if Phelps calmly strolls into the shallow end to save a drowning 5-year old?
Is it only heroism if chances of success aren't very good? Or is it heroism if it's the right thing?
I think the important part is that it's the right thing. You can do the right thing with +2 just the same as you can with +30. The difference is that with +30, you're more likely to succeed and keep playing the same character and do the right thing next time. +30 rewards heroism with success, and I think most people find that satisfying and that's why they prefer playing with +30 rather than +2.
I disagree here. Your point is valid, but the possibility of failure is ever-present in the RPG and in the stories you mention.
In Star Wars, Anakin was the fated hero to save the day. Unfortunately, the player wasn't paying attention and was seriously irritated that obi-wan was higher level; he ended up with too many dark side points and lost the character.
He rolls up his new character, Luke, and the story continues on. Mid-way through the campaign, he meets up with his previous character, now Darth Vader, and finds out that Luke is Vader's son. "That's not true! That's impossible!" says Luke, but the DM chuckles and says that yes, in fact, Padme' did have a child. This time, the player is smarter and doesn't pick up the same amount of darkside points, and is able to redeem his previous character, in the process.
In Lord of the Rings you get the same story. Elendil failed his save vs the ring and disbanded the party (Elrond's player was really peeved). The new character, Aragorn, a decendant of Elendil, would succeed on the save and eventually become king.
D&D totally allows for this, the players & GM just have to think outside the box-d set.
Neither Luke nor Anakin may _fail_ at anything. They're authorial characters; there is no element of chance in their doings at all.
While you can read the situation as you present it, all of the dice have to fall exactly correctly in the absence of rules to allow tweaking random results or a "cheating" (benevolently!) DM; most tables will see Luke fail during, at minimum, the trench run, and be replaced with Bluke Spywalker, who is of course unlikely to be related to Anakin, what with the new last name.
Star Wars introduces new mechanics to at least encourage swashbuckling action -- force points -- and encouraging falls from grace -- dark side points.
However, even those are only necessary (and not sufficient) for the kind of swashbuckling derring do that main characters survive in novels.
Neither Luke nor Anakin may _fail_ at anything. They're authorial characters; there is no element of chance in their doings at all.
Authorial characters can fail; their success or failure is controlled by the author.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
I disagree here. Your point is valid, but the possibility of failure is ever-present in the RPG and in the stories you mention.
D&D totally allows for this, the players & GM just have to think outside the box-d set.
The problem is that in D&D, 90% of the time success or failure is dictated by randomness, not plot. In SW or LotR, the author decides the hero fails when it is dramatically appropriate. In D&D, barring house rules, your just as likely to fail in the first encounter with orcs/battle droids as you are in Mt. Doom/Mustafar.
That does not encourage heroic behavior, or at least, it doesn't reward it. It rewards careful, thoughtful play, retreat when outgunned, strength in superior numbers, and no unnecessary risk-taking (check out some of the Enworld threads about 1e players avoiding monsters for a great example). All of which run counter to the "heroic impulse" found in most fiction.
In honesty, I find fourth (and somewhat third) encourages a more heroic attitude by overpowering PCs. They are better than the common man, and they have power to counteract bad luck with dice. Sure, they fail, but its less often than before. That empowers me to be heroic, to try things knowing I have a bit of a safety net for failure beyond "4d6".
), that doesn't make him a hero, it makes the other guy a default virgin.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
