Can DnD ever approximate the heroic literature?

The thread about BADD got me thinking about how unheroic dnd seems to me. Dragons in the heroic literature were fearsome beasts of destruction that bowed to no one, and never feared to fight with their teeth and claws, but were far from the most intelligent beings on earth.

Dragons in 3e, on the other hand, are forever skulking, conniving, and mortally afraid of getting their claws dirty. I didn't know that dragons had become ninjas...

What dragons in literature made traps so that it didn't have to fight, cast spells from afar, and generally acted as if they were guerrillas rather than fearsome beasts of destruction? A dragon should be proud to fight claw-to-hand, should rejoice in tearing apart its enemy with its massive jaws, and generally should not have resort to underhanded stragems to win.

Alas, that's not true in 3e; in 3e, a dragon that doesn't skulk is a dead one. Especially in a high magic setting like FR. Unfortunately, mechanics leave dragons little choice: Get ninjafied or die. Even a mighty great gold wyrm is a toast if he gets in melee; all it takes is a 17th level wiz/archmage/red wiz or shadow adept with spell pen & greater spell pen to blow away that measly SR32 and put him in Temporal Stasis, Trap the Soul, Imprisonment, or host of other nasty touch spells. Or a 15th level hierophant with Harm and then a fighter delivering the coup de grace (figuratively, not mechanically).

So I can understand why dragons have to skulk, but it doesn't change the fact that 3e dragons are decidely unheroic.

Same goes for the pcs. I have seeing my pcs skulk around as if this was the Rainbow Six rather than a heroic fantasy roleplaying. Real heroes almost always fought fair, and led armies at the head, instead of acting like bunch of Mosad agents seeking to eliminate terrorists.

Alas, once again, rules seem to dictate otherwise. Because initiative and surprise round is so important, it's foolish not to skulk around. I completely understand why my pcs have spent a fortune in getting guerrila and anti-detection magic items; even though they are not optimized for combat, they are nonetheless devastating effective and almost always get surprise against foes without blindsight.

Plus, because monster BABs seem to outpace pc ACs, it fortifies the pc determination that surprise is the best answer to not being hit.

However, I do miss things like chivalric or Homeric combats. But I can't begrudge my pcs for acting so unheroic, since it would be foolish for them to ignore the rules. Many dms would call that 'stupid' and say that they deserve to die. After all, why shouldn't the rules be optimally used?

This isn't about house rules or anything like that: just a little musing on the state of 3e, as I understand it, and my game. I can't but help to think that the image of fantasy created by 3e is decidely 'unfantasical.'

Yes, but it's not up to the system, it's up to you. To do this depends on the DM and the PCs equally. It's not easy, but I've done it. It's sort of like any other campaign. Figure out how you want it and what the basics are and go from there. You seem to alkready have that part down.

Try playing Shadowrun, where a bullet from a office ladys hold out pistol can kill you

In all fairness though, I understand and have thought the same thing... To be honest, I use the BESM rules for "heroic fantasy" anymore, but maybe the ELH will change some of this.

I still play DnD mind, but not for the herculean type stuff.

This issue comes up time and again, and the answer, time and again, is the same: limit advancement. D&D at high levels has always resembled a supers game. It's not quite as marked in 3E as it was before, but it's still there. However, nobody forces you to use the entire spectrum of advancement if you don't want to.

If the PCs are limited to 10th level or thereabouts, nearly all your problems go away. You don't have clerics casting harm and slay living all over the place, wizards teleporting and blasting stuff at will, and all the other superheroic staples of high-level D&D. A 10th level character can still be threatened by an army of (moderate-level) orcs, and the issues they have to deal with aren't completely divorced from the concerns of ordinary mortals.

hong said:

This issue comes up time and again, and the answer, time and again, is the same: limit advancement. D&D at high levels has always resembled a supers game. It's not quite as marked in 3E as it was before, but it's still there. However, nobody forces you to use the entire spectrum of advancement if you don't want to.

If the PCs are limited to 10th level or thereabouts, nearly all your problems go away. You don't have clerics casting harm and slay living all over the place, wizards teleporting and blasting stuff at will, and all the other superheroic staples of high-level D&D. A 10th level character can still be threatened by an army of (moderate-level) orcs, and the issues they have to deal with aren't completely divorced from the concerns of ordinary mortals.

Click to expand...

Completely besides the point. Jackcarter doesn't "complain" about PCs being too powerful but about D&D encouraging a very un-heroic (and more realistic, IMO) style of play. Ganging on a same foe to get flanking bonus, for instance, is a very logical thing to do, not a very heroic one. (Last time I tried being heroic, my PC died.)

And it is the first reason why I disliked Starwars d20 in the first place. Unlike the WEG version, it did nothing to capture the heroic feel of original trilogy.

I understand and cannot refute the accurate points you all have made regarding the sort of play dictated by the rules.

However, I think heroic play can still occur and is more dependant on story line and plot than on mechanics. It is not easy thing to do to build a campaign to the point were player's are morally challenged rather than tactically.

Standing down the barrel of a charging orcish horde just because you can is not heroic. Standing there and getting slaughtered isn't very heroic either.

But standing there becasue your character knows ther is no other morally acceptable solution and some how managing to survive is.

About a year and half ago, our campaign reached a storyline end point that resulted in our PCs leading hte city of Loudwater in a battel versus a demon lead goblinoid army. We were outclassed, outgunned and split up on all sides.

The GM (Faust if anyone knows him) had set the stage cunningly to put each of us a position of moral and physical dilema.

Each PC conducted himself accordingly and we still talk about that session today.

They don't happen often but they do happen. I think its one of the big reasons why I continue to play this game.

Wuxia said:

Completely besides the point. Jackcarter doesn't "complain" about PCs being too powerful but about D&D encouraging a very un-heroic (and more realistic, IMO) style of play. Ganging on a same foe to get flanking bonus, for instance, is a very logical thing to do, not a very heroic one. (Last time I tried being heroic, my PC died.)

Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but I've never associated D&D with a "realistic" style of play, even at low levels. There's nothing particularly realistic about a fighter or barbarian wading through a dozen orcs and cleaving them into little pieces. As for ganging up on the same foe, that strikes me as a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if faced by small numbers of individually powerful enemies.

I also have no idea what your PC did that killed him/her, but if you think it was a cheesy death, you should talk to your DM. I've had no problems being "heroic" in the last few sessions I've played. A lot of these issues sound to me like they have more to do with campaign tone and style, rather than the rules as such.

Originally posted by hong I don't know about you, but I've never associated D&D with a "realistic" style of play, even at low levels. There's nothing particularly realistic about a fighter or barbarian wading through a dozen orcs and cleaving them into little pieces. As for ganging up on the same foe, that strikes me as a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if faced by small numbers of individually powerful enemies.

Click to expand...

What you call "reasonable" I call "realistic": we've been talking tactics, and ganging on someone is a realistic tactic, not a heroic one.

Originally posted by hong I also have no idea what your PC did that killed him/her,

Click to expand...

Basically, rolling very low (below 5, IIRC) on both his Move Silently and Hide checks, then being attacked by critters that rolled a series of 18, 19 and 20 in the very first round. And the leader completely maxed out damage, too. It was in a small tunnel (my PC was a halfling) filled with water and only the party gnome could have saved him, but did not try, even when the critters given up the chase. My halfling's body was unconscious, carried by the stream, and finally died like that.

Originally posted by hong but if you think it was a cheesy death, you should talk to your DM. I've had no problems being "heroic" in the last few sessions I've played. A lot of these issues sound to me like they have more to do with campaign tone and style, rather than the rules as such.

Click to expand...

The party advised that we came back with the city guards, to crush the baddies under sheer number. Easy victory, realistic way to fight. They were right.

Problem is that the D&D rules put everyone on a level playing field of sorts. Everyone has different assets and powers, but they obey the same basic rules dictating exactly what they can and can not do with those assets.

In literature, you have one guy calling all the shots. When you play D&D, the dice discard the best laid plans of mice and men.

Jackcarter, you make some great points. I really can't argue with any of them. I've thought that way myself concerning dragons and Rainbow Six style parties and the like....