Can DnD ever approximate the heroic literature?

[Ridley's Cohort]

Actually, it's quite liberating to shift the challenge level in either direction, higher or lower. In either case, the players can focus on something other than min-maxing mechanical combat performance. On the other hand, this is a game we're discussing, and what keeps it interesting as a game is an appropriate challenge level. Ideally, I suppose, we need to mix encounters of various challenge levels into a plausible story-line with plenty of opportunities to display character.

I would suggest the opposite is true: what keeps it interesting as a game in the long term is an unpredictable challenge level of encounters.

Once you have gotten well beyond the newbie stage, you may find there certain meta-game knowledge creeping into your consciousness. In particular, you may come to suspect/believe that as long as luck of the dice doesn't go way out of whack, the good guys will always win, and the only thing to wonder is how many, if any, of the heroes is temporarily dead.

 

[hong]

Once you have gotten well beyond the newbie stage, you may find there certain meta-game knowledge creeping into your consciousness. In particular, you may come to suspect/believe that as long as luck of the dice doesn't go way out of whack, the good guys will always win, and the only thing to wonder is how many, if any, of the heroes is temporarily dead.

Knowing that the good guys always win can be just as liberating as knowing that the good guys always die.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

There are many, many monsters in D&D that don't match their roots. When's the last time a goblin played a trick on someone? No, wearing studded leather armor and attacking with a morningstar isn't quite what I was thinking. No, a sneak attack with a javelin isn't quite it either.

I'm sure we can "fix" quite a few things quite easily though. Use a T-Rex with fire breath for a dragon, use gnome stats for goblins, eliminate most monsters altogether, and so on.

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.

This brings up a few things. First, much of the "source material" does involve skulking around: Conan, Fafhrd and Gray Mouser, Robin Hood, Sigurd slaying Fafnir from his hiding place in a ditch, Bilbo sneaking around the underground goblin kingdom, etc.

Second, given the nature of dungeon adventures, breaking down doors and fighting room to room, a "Delta Force" feel is almost unavoidable. If you want to get away from dungeons, you might have more hope of a heroic feel.

Third, the game, for logistic reasons, keeps the number of combatants per battle pretty low, so we don't see our heroes leading their armies into battle, heroically holding on against all odds and restoring the morale of their troops. They have no troops, so inspiring the troops isn't an issue (or an option).

Because initiative and surprise round is so important, it's foolish not to skulk around.

One big reason surprise is so important isn't mechanical; it's the genre convention of having small, "bite size" encounters in separate rooms. You have an opportunity for surprise with every room, and an adventure is just one room after another. It's not one long clash between hundreds of soldiers; it's dozens of distinct clashes between our four heroes and a few enemies at a time.

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?

I agree that it's poor form to just say "play heroically" when all the rules are against heroism, or to say that your players aren't "good roleplayers" if they can't/won't ignore the rules to achieve the nebulous goal of "heroic" gameplay

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Can DnD ever approximate the heroic literature?

There are many, many monsters in D&D that don't match their roots. When's the last time a goblin played a trick on someone? No, wearing studded leather armor and attacking with a morningstar isn't quite what I was thinking. No, a sneak attack with a javelin isn't quite it either.

I'm sure we can "fix" quite a few things quite easily though. Use a T-Rex with fire breath for a dragon, use gnome stats for goblins, eliminate most monsters altogether, and so on.

Goblins don't play tricks in The Hobbit, and dragons fly and dominate people in as many stories about them as not. The roots of many creatures, whether they're big or small, are ill-defined. Trying to "fix" them so that they match up with their roots is a similarly ill-defined task.

I agree that it's poor form to just say "play heroically" when all the rules are against heroism, or to say that your players aren't "good roleplayers" if they can't/won't ignore the rules to achieve the nebulous goal of "heroic" gameplay

Rubbish.

 

[mmadsen]

I don't know about you, but I've never associated D&D with a "realistic" style of play, even at low levels.

I agree that Wuxia's use of "realistic" may not have been clear, but he definitely has a point in that D&D (whether via written rules or simple genre conventions) emphasizes a wargaming style.

If you wanted to de-emphasize tactical thinking, you could certainly devise game mechanics aimed at a more heroic style: no flanking bonus, penalties for less-than-mortal damage (to further reduce ganging up) or fewer hit points but higher defenses, more feats like Whirlwind Attack and Cleave, no bonus for Sneak Attack, etc.

Also, you could avoid certain genre conventions, namely the dungeon full of isolated rooms full of monsters waiting to be surprised.

Further, you could combine those two ideas and modify all the rules that are largely D&D genre conventions, all the spells that promote guerilla warfare, all the magic items that do the same, etc.

I'm not suggesting those changes, but certainly the mechanics affect how people play their characters.

 

[hong]

I agree that Wuxia's use of "realistic" may not have been clear, but he definitely has a point in that D&D (whether via written rules or simple genre conventions) emphasizes a wargaming style.

Only to the extent that a DM feels compelled to stick to convention when designing adventures, or allow a wargaming atmosphere to dominate around the table. Something as basic as only allowing players limited time to make their choices in combat can go a long way to promoting a more frenetic style of play.

If you wanted to de-emphasize tactical thinking, you could certainly devise game mechanics aimed at a more heroic style: no flanking bonus, penalties for less-than-mortal damage (to further reduce ganging up) or fewer hit points but higher defenses, more feats like Whirlwind Attack and Cleave, no bonus for Sneak Attack, etc.

I think you need to pinpoint exactly what it is you mean by "heroic style" before giving suggestions on how to achieve it. I certainly haven't encountered many problems with achieving a "heroic" style of play under the rules as given.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Re: Re: Can DnD ever approximate the heroic literature?

Goblins don't play tricks in The Hobbit...

I'm sorry, I forgot that The Hobbit was the only reference to goblins in all literature. Sigh. Obviously, if you want a Tolkien-esque goblin/orc, the D&D Goblin matches well enough -- except that it should have the D&D Orc's Light Sensitivity, and it's default equipment should include a Small scimitar.

Anyway, with the exception of The Hobbit, the word "goblin" doesn't mean "small orc". It usually refers to a nasty fairy/spirit. Oddly, in a game with Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, and Orcs, they're all variants on Tolkien's Orcs: nasty, brutish humanoids that wear armor and wield weapons as warriors. None of them represent the fey trickster usually referred to as a "goblin".

...and dragons fly and dominate people in as many stories about them as not.

Dominate people?

The roots of many creatures, whether they're big or small, are ill-defined. Trying to "fix" them so that they match up with their roots is a similarly ill-defined task

You act as if I suggested that there's One True Dragon, and it's not the one you like.

 

[mmadsen]

Again, that's not a problem with D&D as such, as with the design of the campaign and the adventure. It doesn't really matter which system you use; strength of numbers is usually an advantage, all other things being equal. In this situation, the questions to ask are:

- why was the party able to call on the resources of the city guards?
- why are the guards strong enough face the challenges of the bad guys?
- why are the bad guys in a place where the guards can come down and fight them?

All of these questions have to do with how your DM designed the adventure. Personally, I don't think any adventure where the PCs have the option of calling on big brother to help them out is that great -- it cheapens the PCs' contributions and results in questions being asked as to why they're necessary at all.

(We've gone off on a tangent, but this is interesting.)

I agree about adventures where the PCs can just call in an army but aren't expected to -- usually with no good reason not to. If the PCs are heroes, and they're facing a credible threat to civilization, why wouldn't the Duke send his men with them? And if the PCs are just strong enough to defeat this threat, the PCs plus the Duke's men should easily dispatch the enemy. The real issue then is: what keeps the "dungeon" safe from a horde of guardsmen?

Many adventures don't answer this. After all, if four heroes are good, why not a dozen? With henchmen?

 

[mmadsen]

In D&D there is a peculiar incentive to throw all your party's attacks at a single target until it drops, and then repeat until you win. Basically it is because of the HP mechanics. I find that it both unheroic and unrealistic.

Thanks for clarifying, Ridley's Cohort. I agree completely.

The Iliad has line after line of introducing brave and noble men, Greek and Trojan, telling us about the beauty of their lands--perhaps one whose family fields produce particularly sweet wine, and then one warrior tosses a javelin through the other dude's throat. Repeat.

Ah, I wasn't thinking of the spear-carriers; I was only considering the heroes (as PCs).

There is a story of a brave knight who aids a beautiful enchantress carrying a sword. He asks for the sword as a reward. She attempts to dissuade him, saying he may have the sword, but if he takes it he will have great adventures and die by his brother's hand. The knight gamely responds, "Sign me up!" When he is dying by wounds inflicted by his own brother, he is sad but just doesn't get philosophical about it. Dying is the expected price to pay for memorable adventures.

I enjoyed that story too, but I guess I didn't see it as typical.

If you played in that style, your average PC would live maybe 2 adventures. And none of that sissy coming back from the dead.

I guess that's how I already think of D&D. Given the way the game plays -- and how I always played it (especially as a kid) -- you go through countless 1st-level characters, a few mid-level characters, and very, very few high-level characters.

Can you see why I find CoC more heroic than D&D? The mortality is a generally closer to my expectations.

I can see that.

 

[hong]

I agree about adventures where the PCs can just call in an army but aren't expected to -- usually with no good reason not to. If the PCs are heroes, and they're facing a credible threat to civilization, why wouldn't the Duke send his men with them?

What Duke?

And if the PCs are just strong enough to defeat this threat, the PCs plus the Duke's men should easily dispatch the enemy. The real issue then is: what keeps the "dungeon" safe from a horde of guardsmen?

Because the DM provided a credible reason for it not to happen. This has everything to do with adventure design and world background, and nothing to do with the ruleset.

Many adventures don't answer this. After all, if four heroes are good, why not a dozen? With henchmen?

Because it's usually assumed that the DM is smart enough, or the players accomodating enough, to push these issues into the background.