Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Moogleproof" data-source="post: 5107856" data-attributes="member: 87466">Just recently I heard of a session where the party was saved by a lucky shot with an arrow that practically turned the tide of the battle, since it slaid a particulary tough enemy. I don't remember what particular monster it was, but the hit was a critical I guess. I started thinking about how the party said they got lucky. Had it been an action movie, the heroes wouldn't have been lucky - they would've been competent. There's the scene in the LotR movie where the Fellowship flees through the Bridge of Khazad-dûm, and Legolas shoots an orc who's miles away (okay, perhaps a few a hundred feet...), behind a cover and Legolas' arrow swirls all over the place, but finds the orc's head spot on. He wasn't lucky, he just was very, very good with a bow. Why is it when we are playing heros in a game we credit it to luck, but in other fiction such as books and movies we give the heros the credit they deserve? I do understand that if combat is resolved through dice there of course IS an element of luck involved and the players tend to take it into account, but I'd at least like that in-game, if not out-of-game, we'd dish out the fame for displaying heroics. I've noticed a tendency (consisting of merely subjective observations, though) that players consider their characters competent only if they have solid stats and kick those monsters' behinds who are NOT out of their league. Isn't it more heroic to beat the bad guys if they are tougher than you? Any opinions on this? Have you noticed any other deviations that occur between roleplaying and other types of fiction besides the critical hit... ....thingy?</blockquote>

Verification