D&D 5E I hope 5th edition makes room for "Adventurers" and "Heroes".

[Ahnehnois]

It could be argued that his decision to spare Gollum was what led to the destruction of the ring, and hence, he did succeed - not through cleverness, willpower, or force of arms, but by doing good.

So, for me, at least, the relationship is a bit more complex than "heroes don't fail". As a DM, my games and campaigns tend to evoke the theme that it is ultimately better in the long run to do the morally right thing. At the same time, I do not define heroes by their power level relative to a commoner, nor bestow the title of hero based on simple success. Instead, to me, a hero is one who always (or, at least, usually) tries to do the morally right thing. The fact that doing the morally right thing usually leads to success in my games is actually secondary.

See, I think when we're talking about heroic D&D, we're talking about something a little bit different than the broader definition of heroism. There's nothing wrong with that particular theme as an artistic choice for you, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

If I tell a D&D player "you'll get to play a country bumpkin under three feet tall who will never be particularly good at anything, devoted to anything, or achieve anything concrete, but will somewhat unintentionally save the world by taking a long and miserable hike, transporting a powerful artifact to the Mountain of Doom, failing to destroy it and being seduced by its evil, but then watching as the insane monster he foolishly spared mutilates him, steals the thing, and falls in to the volcano during his victory dance, leaving your character to escape and live out the rest of his days uneventfully and in misery", I don't think that D&D player would consider that the heroic or even the adventurer style of D&D.

Not that it's a bad story.

 

[Iosue]

Well, he failed. He succumbed to the ring and even though it was ultimately destroyed, it wasn't his doing. Heroes don't fail.

Uh-oh, you've summoned the Tolkien thread hijack.

Frodo didn't fail because from the beginning there was no possible way to succeed, if success is defined by throwing the Ring into the fire. No one could have done it. What made Frodo a hero is the fact that he made it so far, and put the Ring in a position to be destroyed. That and showing Gollum Pity and Mercy.

I would say this is a character who is just a guy, one of the archetypical everymen in fiction.

You're thinking of Sam. The point of Frodo was that he possessed an inherent nobility of spirit that enabled him to bear the Ring.

***

As to the other characters, I think that many D&D players would not consider them heroes because their actions are for the most part irrelevant to the outcome of the story.

I don't think most D&D players are so unsophisticated. Without the Fellowship, Frodo doesn't make it to Amon Hen. Without Pippin, Faramir would have been burned alive. Without Merry, Eowyn and who knows how many others would have been slained by the Witch-King. Without the Three Hunters and Gandalf, Theoden would not have recovered, and the Westfold would have been massacred. Without Aragorn, the Ring could have been destroyed, but only after the armies of Mordor and the Corsairs of Umbar had laid waste to Gondor, razed Minas Tirith, and wiped out the Rohirrim.

These are all victories in and of themselves, and even if they don't have the weight of the Frodo story, nonetheless they have provided inspiration for countless heroic fantasy role-players. I don't think most D&D players think they have to be world-saving heroes. They can be happy being local heroes, and regional heroes. I daresay the majority of campaigns don't have the world in the balance. They are about heroes focusing on the task at hand, being heroic at this moment, overcoming this problem, just as the remains of the Fellowship did in Books 3 and 5 of LotR.

Heroes are heroic folk who perform deeds of heroism.

 

[Raith5]

Heroes don't fail.

But do they have total control over what success and failure mean in the world inhabit?

I agree that DDN should support the hero, adventurer and everyman - I just hope that an overly mechanical alignment system doesnt crush ambiguity with respect to this.

 

[Iosue]

See, I think when we're talking about heroic D&D, we're talking about something a little bit different than the broader definition of heroism. There's nothing wrong with that particular theme as an artistic choice for you, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

If I tell a D&D player "you'll get to play a country bumpkin under three feet tall who will never be particularly good at anything, devoted to anything, or achieve anything concrete, but will somewhat unintentionally save the world by taking a long and miserable hike, transporting a powerful artifact to the Mountain of Doom, failing to destroy it and being seduced by its evil, but then watching as the insane monster he foolishly spared mutilates him, steals the thing, and falls in to the volcano during his victory dance, leaving your character to escape and live out the rest of his days uneventfully and in misery", I don't think that D&D player would consider that the heroic or even the adventurer style of D&D.

Not that it's a bad story.

Amusing, but not at all convincing as argument. Any heroic story can be reduced to ironic absurdity, but that doesn't truly detract from the power of the original. History is against you -- no few players of D&D came to the game inspired by LotR, and wishing to recreate those kinds of adventures. It's not for nothing the basic game comes with fighters, wizards, elves, dwarves, and hobbits.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But do they have total control over what success and failure mean in the world inhabit?

While this seems a bit strawmanish, I actually think it's sort of true. There's a style in which the PCs completely control their own destinies, and nothing external can ever derail them.

no few players of D&D came to the game inspired by LotR, and wishing to recreate those kinds of adventures.

That was kind of my point to begin with. That not everyone expects to be a knight in shining armor or a treasure hound, some want to just play characters.

 

[Doug McCrae]

After all, if you leave the town and go in a far or forgotten locale and kill 100 dragons, they don't raise up a statue of you.

They do if you bring back all the treasure.

I think the Campbellian conception of the hero's journey is that he leaves his society, his Hobbiton, goes on a perilous quest, and returns with some treasure or skill or knowledge which he uses to benefit his people.

 

[Iosue]

Oops, one other biggie that I forgot regarding the rest of the Fellowship. Frodo doesn't make to Mount Doom without the other characters drawing Sauron's eye to the Black Gate. Methinks you crossed a bridge too far by saying the other characters had no say in the outcome of the story.

 

[Iosue]

That was kind of my point to begin with. That not everyone expects to be a knight in shining armor or a treasure hound, some want to just play characters.

Then what I referred to is not your point, because I'm saying people were inspired to play heroic saga, a la Aragorn et al.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Oops, one other biggie that I forgot regarding the rest of the Fellowship. Frodo doesn't make to Mount Doom without the other characters drawing Sauron's eye to the Black Gate. Methinks you crossed a bridge too far by saying the other characters had no say in the outcome of the story.

By that logic, the blacksmiths who made their swords and armor were also heroes. I think D&D heroes would expect a more direct role in the outcome.

 

[Emerikol]

For me it's where you start out relative to other NPCs in the world.

The town guards start out at least equal and often better than the character in my concept of things. I've never had a world ever that didn't have these "mary sues" that everyone is talking about. Level is a distribution and yes there are 20th level NPCs. There are a lot more 12th and a whole lot more 5th and even more 1st. So I see no issue with all the high level NPCs in Forgotten Realms. The number of them will dictation how magical the society is of course. But they exist. I can't imagine playing it any other way.

So if you tower over society at 1st level then thats what I consider superheroic play or super high fantasy. If you only tower over society when you reach 20th then you are high fantasy and thats where I'm at often. But even then you are one of many not alone.