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.
JRRNeikalot - oh come on. By about 5th level, AD&D characters are more or less invincible in combat. By name level, they truly are. When name level characters are taking on armies of giants, are you seriously going to contend that they are not super-heroic? Name level AD&D characters are taking on GODS. And winning.
Note, that even a 1st level fighter in AD&D can have super powers. He get's percentile strength. No other member of a PC race can ever have this. He isn't just stronger than a normal commoner, he's stronger than a normal commoner can ever possibly be.
And this isn't super heroic?
Please.
You can talk about power creep all you like, but, when you start doing comparisons between 1e PC's and 3e PC's and the monsters that they face, suddenly it gets pretty obvious who's more powerful. Look at 1e modules and the number of monsters you face at any given level. If you used those numbers against 3e characters, they would die every time, yet the 1e characters not only don't die, they regularly succeed.
Yet, it's the 3e characters that are more powerful? Not by a long shot. 3e made combat FAR more lethal than 1e by ramping the damage of monsters way, way up. 1e troll does 24 points of damage max. 3e troll does over 50. What's the hit point difference of a 5th level 1e vs 3e character? 3e might have more hit points, but he certainly doesn't have double.
This whole meme that 3e is the "powergamers edition" is just crap and doesn't stand up to 30 seconds of actual comparison.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Jack7 - again, you have a strange definition of balance that is all your own. Balance simply means that no character is obviously stronger than any other character of a given level. You imply it to mean that all encounters must be of an equal level to the party. That's counter to what's actually stated in the 3.5 DMG and the 4.0 DMG. And I believe it's counter to the encounter design advice of the 1e and 2e DMG's as well.
So, where are you getting this notion that every encounter must be fair and balanced?
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
All I'm saying is that each editions power creep makes characters more and more powerful and the more powerful one gets, the less heroic their acts are.
By that logic, all characters who get to 2nd level should retire, since they'll never be as heroic as they were at 1st...
Indeed. Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when our magic fails reality.
Reality, reshamality.
It's simply an amusing inconsistency, or more likely the result of different design goals.
Design Goal 1: Skills ought to matter, even for magic. Thus, many rituals enhance rather than replace skills, or require skills. You NEED a high Heal skill to effectively use even magic to cure ongoing conditions.
Design Goal 2: Death should be minor, and it should be very hard to lose a character permanently. Thus, Raise Dead requires a very small (by level) outlay of cash, and can be cast by even a first level party (remember, using a ritual scroll requires no feat) with no chance of failure or "permadeath". Having a high rank in a specific skill -- such as Heal -- would run counter to this, because it would also violate ANOTHER 4e design goal: No "gotta have" skills or classes. No one "has" to be the Cleric (Warlord can fill that role, as can Paladin in a pinch, not to mention Bard), and no one "has" to have Heal.
Those two goals smash into each other, with Cure Disease being risky and Raise Dead (theoretically, a much more "potent" magic, and certainly one which does more to the body than curing it of disease -- it can rebuild it from the smallest scrap!) being utterly infallible.
One of the key design decisions behind 4e seems to be that internal consistency for the world is much less important than "optimizing the core play experience". Thus, both design goals above were considered valid, and making magic make "sense" -- whatever that might mean -- was relegated to third or fourth -- oh hell, fifth -- place.
Fanwank "explaining" how the two spells "make sense as written" coming in three... two... one...
__________________ Post-Gencon Update! Breakfast Crunch!Daily (Weekdays) useful stuff for your RPG needs! This week is Zombie Week! You can has feed! LizardGames, now in easy-to-read Feed form! Do you have mad 133t Joomla and CSS skills? Do you want to do unpaid work on a site hardly anyone knows exists? If so, email me! (Hey, I'm honest, at least...)
So, where are you getting this notion that every encounter must be fair and balanced?
Fox news?
Quote:
You imply it to mean that all encounters must be of an equal level to the party. That's counter to what's actually stated in the 3.5 DMG and the 4.0 DMG. And I believe it's counter to the encounter design advice of the 1e and 2e DMG's as well.
Nah, I'm not talking about the difference between various editions of the game.
I'm talking about the difference between going up against something because you had an heroic objective, and going up against something that was mathed- up good and proper as a fair encounter design.
It's kinda like the difference between the Normandy invasion and the tactical assault practice training simulation.
In one you fight for your life and the lives of others because it has to be done, and so it becomes heroic to do. In the other you fight for points and team medallions.
But I'm not talking about heroism as being measured out by mechanics and design. I'm talking about heroism being measured out in acts of manhood.
I just find it kinda amusing is all, that nowadays math is the engine of heroic endeavour, even in our fantasy imaginations. As if the imagination is slave of the measurement, instead of the measurement being tool of the imagination.
Is it the Game dreaming of being a Hero, or the Hero dreaming of being a Game?
You're a hero if you succeed despite danger and difficult odds, whether because of your own skills, powers, preperation and/or planning. If you fail, you're an idiot.
If you (an unarmed, untrained civilian) tried to attack some armed people robbing a bank in real life, you're not heroic, you're stupid and a hinderance and possible danger to other people.
In terms of escalating risk, there's: safe->dangerous->heroic->stupid. You're not automatically heroic just because the odds are against you. You have to have the skill/ability to be able to succeed in overcoming the odds if you want to be heroic. Cops don't become more heroic if they leave their guns and bulletproof vests at home.
Last edited by nightwyrm; 28th December 2008 at 05:35 AM..
JRRNeikalot - oh come on. By about 5th level, AD&D characters are more or less invincible in combat. By name level, they truly are. When name level characters are taking on armies of giants, are you seriously going to contend that they are not super-heroic? Name level AD&D characters are taking on GODS. And winning.
???
You played the same 1st edition D&D the rest of us played? Ninth-eleventh level characters taking on gods? Maybe if the DM was throwing wiffle-gods at them. And more or less invincible by 5th level? A whole lot of character deaths I witnessed came well after becoming invincible apparently.
Let's roll the hyperbole back a bit, OK? Fifth level characters could be quite easily challenged in 1e, same with name level characters. And it didn't take a killer dungeon like Tomb of Horrors to do it either.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
I'm talking about the difference between going up against something because you had an heroic objective, and going up against something that was mathed- up good and proper as a fair encounter design.
It's kinda like the difference between the Normandy invasion and the tactical assault practice training simulation.
In one you fight for your life and the lives of others because it has to be done, and so it becomes heroic to do. In the other you fight for points and team medallions.
Again, there's the issue of whose perspective you're using. D&D may very well be the former for the characters, but I believe it is closer to the latter for the players. The characters aren't supposed to know that they have a good chance of beating the monsters they encounter, even if the players do (and that's hardly a given - it depends the DM's play style).
Quote:
But I'm not talking about heroism as being measured out by mechanics and design. I'm talking about heroism being measured out in acts of manhood.
I just find it kinda amusing is all, that nowadays math is the engine of heroic endeavour, even in our fantasy imaginations. As if the imagination is slave of the measurement, instead of the measurement being tool of the imagination.
I'll just re-ask the same question that I raised earlier on in the thread: am I correct in assuming that for you, one of the prerequisites of heroism is that the hero must be willing to take action when he has no idea what his chances of survival are?
Is a 10th-level fighter who takes on an ogre heroic because he doesn't know what are his chances of beating it, even though he is almost certain to win?
Or is it more a question of the player rather than the character? If it was an inexperienced player running that 10th-level fighter, would it be heroic of him to decide to fight the ogre because he doesn't know that his character would beat it easily?
On the other hand, if the player was familiar with the behind-the-scenes math, and the character was facing not an ogre but a fire giant or something else that he knows he has no realistic chance of beating, would it no longer be heroic for the player to decide to fight it in order to achieve some broader objective (to give some villagers time to escape, for example)?
Or are we talking about two different types of heroism here?
Quote:
Is it the Game dreaming of being a Hero, or the Hero dreaming of being a Game?
Neither. Hopefully, it is the players that dream of becoming heroes. The math is just there so that the DM knows approximately how easy or difficult he is making it for them.
???
You played the same 1st edition D&D the rest of us played? Ninth-eleventh level characters taking on gods? Maybe if the DM was throwing wiffle-gods at them. And more or less invincible by 5th level? A whole lot of character deaths I witnessed came well after becoming invincible apparently.
Let's roll the hyperbole back a bit, OK? Fifth level characters could be quite easily challenged in 1e, same with name level characters. And it didn't take a killer dungeon like Tomb of Horrors to do it either.
Sorry, I mispoke. Name level characters were pretty much invincible to melee combat. Yup, you could kill a 10th level party, but, it took multiple dragons to do it. And that was only because of the breath weapon. 1e creatures just don't do enough melee damage relative to PC hit points to be all that threatening unless encountered in large numbers.
42 hit point giants and all that indeed.
My basic point is that JRRNeikalot is claiming that 1e characters are more heroic because they were very weak compared to 3e characters. My point is that this is false because he's comparing apples to oranges. When you compare 1e PC's to their opponents and then compare 3e characters to the same 3e opponents, suddenly the 3e characters are nowhere near as powerful.
Why do you think everyone points to 4e as a step back towards 1e when they talk about combat grinds? You simply don't have rocket tag in 4e and you only had it in 1e with save or die effects.
As far as name level characters taking on gods, name level does extend beyond 9th you realize. Queen of the Demonweb Pits is for 10th level characters, so whacking a God by name level isn't exactly a stretch of imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack#
It's kinda like the difference between the Normandy invasion and the tactical assault practice training simulation.
In one you fight for your life and the lives of others because it has to be done, and so it becomes heroic to do. In the other you fight for points and team medallions.
Sorry, not buying it. The planners of the Normandy invasion most certainly took advantage of every means at their disposal to calculate the risk involved in every stage of the invasion. They KNEW as far as they could, roughly how many men would be lost, how much ground they should gain each day, how many bullets they would need etc. etc.
Never mind WWII battlefields, try a modern one and tell me that odds and math doesn't come into the planning stage.
I think you're taking a very romanticized view of how things work. They didn't just gather a bunch of guys together, load them on boats and fire them across the Channel. They planned for MONTHS beforehand. They took every single precaution they could to increase their chances of success.
To do anything else would be monumentally stupid.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
I think society as a whole has drifted from the type of hero in the OP. There seem to be fewer classic heroes in pop culture now. Maybe because those heroes aren't "cool" enough for modern tastes. Maybe heroes of that type are now the "Dudley Doorights" from my youth, the characters that we laugh at because they aren't as advanced and worldly as we are.
I'm sure there are "classic" heroes in recent mass media, but there sure seem to be a lot of Hancocks and Vic Makeys. I see a touch of evil as the new replacement to the tragic flaw of the heroes when I was a kid. Heck, it seems like a lot of the heroes when I was a kid didn't really have any flaw at all, just misfortunes that stretched out the action for the length of the TV show or movie.
Based on these totally unscientific observations, I have come to the conclusion (for myself) that game systems don't dictate the heroic spirit a player can create, but the players themselves tend to create characters for which they have a ready reference. I don't want to play an assassin, but somebody who really digs reading Punisher or playing Assassins Creed might.
Just my opinion, for what it's worth.
I agree.
I do feel too many rules ruins the heroic feel for me, which is why I so disliked 3E, but again, that's just me.
Some people want to write stories, and other people want to play a game.
D&D is a game. It has rules that define character actions as they progress towards a goal. The vast majority of the D&D rule set focuses on combat. Combat has so many rules because, being still a game, combat must be fair. Players (of a game) don't want to play if they know the odds are against them. Obviously, D&D provides some variance and players will often take on a more challenging fight... but in general the rules are there to make sure that everyone is having fun.
Fun, in modern video games, is typically defined by lots of little risks that do not prevent the player from moving forward. Ever play an original Nintendo game? Yeah, those were hard... game designers were focused on providing a challenge and didn't really care if players never got to level 8. Now, video games are "easier" in the sense that the designers WANT players to beat the game, and thus the risks provided are ones of little dings.
* oops, you fell of a ledge... climb back up? (time risk)
* oops, you got hit... use healing potion? (resource risk)
* oops, you died... restart level? (time risk)
BUT D&D ISN'T A VIDEO GAME!!!!!
No, but many of the design elements are the same, and have been since 3e. WotC has designed a game system that presents a fair playing experience. What differentiates D&D from a video game is that WotC puts the whole thing into the hands of a DM, who uses that system as they see fit.
Even I sometimes find myself in the trap of wanting to get lost in the wonder of RPing, like I did when I was 12. I can have a good time RPing, and 4e has definitely forced me into the unknown (I have to memorize a whole new Monster Manual)... but I can't escape the fact that D&D is a game system.
Want to tell epic stories of great heroism that ACTUALLY feels fresh, new, bold, and completely mysterious? Write a novel. Seriously. While we can break down a piece of fiction into RP terms, we cannot reverse-engineer the same thing. Characters in a book are NOT living people sitting around a table waiting for their turn. As a writer, I can spend a chapter focusing on the littlest act of charity performed by an infamously selfish character... the act can be the climax of an entire chapter... but I can't waste that time as a DM. Books are not games, and games are not books.
I'm talking about the difference between going up against something because you had an heroic objective, and going up against something that was mathed- up good and proper as a fair encounter design.
In one you fight for your life and the lives of others because it has to be done, and so it becomes heroic to do. In the other you fight for points and team medallions.
And again (and again)... a character is going up against something as a heroic objective, the player is playing a game where he pits his numerically defined character against a numerically defined challenge.
Quote:
But I'm not talking about heroism as being measured out by mechanics and design. I'm talking about heroism being measured out in acts of manhood.
Acts of manhood by whom? The character? The player? Are you perhaps projecting the lack of heroic storylines in the games you are involved with, and your dissatisfaction with such, onto the hobby as a whole?
Quote:
I just find it kinda amusing is all, that nowadays math is the engine of heroic endeavour, even in our fantasy imaginations. As if the imagination is slave of the measurement, instead of the measurement being tool of the imagination.
What would you prefer? That we go back to all playing cops and robbers, no dice, no paper, no rules? "I shot you!" "Did not!"
Certainly, there are more narrative games, such as LARPs, out there that rely on more role-playing and less math, but does that make the actions of the characters more heroic?
Can you point to any specific examples where "the imagination is slave of the measurement" and it has become the norm? This thread seems bursting at the seams with people that still think RPGs still serve the imagination, and not the other way around.
__________________ "Sometimes we buy books because we think we're buying the time to read them." - Warren Zevon
Location: center of despair to the left of depression
Posts: 12,935
The subject you have brought up reminds me of the first time I tried to piece together a game. I placed a call xxx-xxxx if you would like to play in a game that I would DM at the local bookstore where DnD was sold.
I got a few replies. All were teenagers (I was mid 20's) and asked what they wanted.
They all wanted to KILL< KILL< KILL. Foolishly I replied I wanted to run a game with heroes. The teenagers left.
The idea / concept of playing heroes doesn't fit in today's mentallity. Times have changed and I am still dragging my feet to "confirm" and play games based more on an evil slant.
Part of why my Creation Schema SH stalled then failed was how the players were becoming evil fighting evil to win the big prize.
It seems people no longer enjoy being good and fighting the good fight.
Why?
Well look at today's heroes.
Singers / Athletes whom all do drugs and womanize while being overpaid
Politicians- more corrupt than the crimals they are swearing to catch
and even the books and comics- Batman (vigilante) , Wolverine (cold blooded killer) and Punisher (sociopath)
It seems the closest to a "LG" hero in todays world is Harry Potter and he is manipulated constantly and people don't like that and don't want to live like that.
and as a complete side to this (though related) when I first read "Where have the heroes gone?" I think of Lethal Weapon where then the bloodied and crazed Martin Riggs comes crashing in with a dead body as a shield.
Andy the originator, Mega the drama queen, Mania the insane, Al whom uses movie quotes to connect with the world he did not create, Ugh- primal urges and the only sane one of the group and DarkMania the Sith Lord
Lovin' the four 'B's of life- Beer, Babes, Buffets and Bombs. just being funny
They all wanted to KILL< KILL< KILL. Foolishly I replied I wanted to run a game with heroes. The teenagers left.
I dunno. 25 years ago I think you could have easily run across the same group of teenagers. "KILL KILL KILL" oddly isn't entirely incompatible with running a heroic game. As has been oft pointed out for decades, many people play the game simply to kill monsters and take their stuff. Usually this is done in the context (under the guise of?) performing heroic acts.
Quote:
Well look at today's heroes.
Singers / Athletes whom all do drugs and womanize while being overpaid
Politicians- more corrupt than the crimals they are swearing to catch
and even the books and comics- Batman (vigilante) , Wolverine (cold blooded killer) and Punisher (sociopath)
For all these examples, there's plenty of examples of more "heroic" individuals in each area. Superman comics still sell rather well, I believe. What about the huge success of the Lord of the Rings movies?
Batman has always been a vigilante for 80 years. Justice unfettered by the rule of law is a common fantasy in "heroic" fiction, especially in comics. And in RPGs. This is closely followed by revenge fantasies ("You wiped out my entire village! Prepare to die!"). People have been accepting of this brand of fantasy hero since stories were told about heroes. It's nothing new.
I would say, though, that fictional heroes that have to overcome personal, internal challenges (the "tragic flaw" idiom) do tend to seem more human, sympathetic and just plan interesting. Plus, if the hero is a protagonist of a story, there has to be some room for growth of the character, which the squeeky clean LG types don't tend to leave a lot of room for, (unless they fall and/or are humbled).
This is the point of the Hancock movie, for instance. It's not about a drunken, apathetic superhero. It's about a drunken, apathetic super-powered character that grows into being a true hero. Just like Luke Skywalker having to overcome his fear and hatred, the story is about the personal challenges the hero has to overcome on his journey.
Read some Joseph Campbell.
__________________ "Sometimes we buy books because we think we're buying the time to read them." - Warren Zevon
I just find it kinda amusing is all, that nowadays math is the engine of heroic endeavour, even in our fantasy imaginations. As if the imagination is slave of the measurement, instead of the measurement being tool of the imagination.
You should really read all of the earlier posts. A number of them have already debunked this idea that math is being used as the engine of heroic endeavor, yet you keep beating the poor dead horse.
The whole question of exactly what is heroism, and whether you mean heroism on the basis of the player or the character, are also worth considering, since you never spelled them out in your complaints.
Quote:
Is it the Game dreaming of being a Hero, or the Hero dreaming of being a Game?
As Firelance said above, neither.
__________________ shilsen is broken - Crothian (and this is why)
My Eberron Story Hour. Updated November 12. Almost at the climax!
Odysseus, who flaunted his superiority against the gods, slept with every half-goddess between Troy and home, and helped himself to a fair share of monstrous treasure between there and home?
Elric of Melbourne, the dark sorcerer wielding a demon-blade?
Perhaps Conan the Savage who drank, womanized, and sought personal glory (his own kingdom) for completely selfish reasons?
Dark, flawed heroes have been in vogue since Oedipus Rex, and I doubt they're going away. While some noble heroes (Sir Galahad, Superman) appear and call to our better angels, heroes like Batman and Lancelot continue to fascinate us BECAUSE they're imperfect, and therefore more "human."
Thank you. That's a point which, however often and well made (as you just did), seems to be forgotten by many people. Not that it's new, of course. The complaint which megamania made was being made by Plato in The Republic and ever since (and before, I presume). Literally every generation complains that there are no "real" heroes any more and that the definition of heroism has changed from what it was, as if there was a single monolithic definition which every generation/culture before it held. Yeah, right!
__________________ shilsen is broken - Crothian (and this is why)
My Eberron Story Hour. Updated November 12. Almost at the climax!
Right. Folks have been complaining that the present is a pale shadow of the past since, well, the distant past. It's an idea whose enduring quality is only matched by its falsehood.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Right. Folks have been complaining that the present is a pale shadow of the past since, well, the the distant past. It's an idea whose enduring quality is only matched by its falsehood.
__________________ Post-Gencon Update! Breakfast Crunch!Daily (Weekdays) useful stuff for your RPG needs! This week is Zombie Week! You can has feed! LizardGames, now in easy-to-read Feed form! Do you have mad 133t Joomla and CSS skills? Do you want to do unpaid work on a site hardly anyone knows exists? If so, email me! (Hey, I'm honest, at least...)
- Crothian (and 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
