Can DnD ever approximate the heroic literature?

[hong]

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

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

Exactly. There is no One True Dragon, so suggesting that T-rexes that breathe fire would "fix" anything is meaningless.

 

[SableWyvern]

Dominate people?

Turin and Glaurung in the Silmarillion springs readily to mind - no other specific example though.

I would guess from what little I know of oriental dragons that they may have had that sort of tendancy, but as I understand it they were quasi-godlike.

Actually, now that I think about it, I think the dragon in Peter Morwood's "Lord" series was the dominating kind. But that, and the Silmarillion, are both fairly recent works.

I must admit, I don't really know anything about classical dragons.

 

[SableWyvern]

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

Exactly. There is no One True Dragon, so suggesting that T-rexes that breathe fire would "fix" anything is meaningless.

Unless, of course, that the thing being "fixed" is the fact that dragons as they stand do not fight optimally in a brutal, physically aggressive fashion.

If you look at the term "fix" in its intended context, the original statement was perfectly reasonable and meaningful.

 

[hong]

Turin and Glaurung in the Silmarillion springs readily to mind - no other specific example though.

I would guess from what little I know of oriental dragons that they may have had that sort of tendancy, but as I understand it they were quasi-godlike.

Actually, now that I think about it, I think the dragon in Peter Morwood's "Lord" series was the dominating kind. But that, and the Silmarillion, are both fairly recent works.

I must admit, I don't really know anything about classical dragons.

I was actually using "dominate" in the non-D&D sense of simply having awe-inspiring force of personality, as opposed to controlling people like puppets (but that would count too, I guess). There are as many tales of smart, intimidating dragons as there are of dumb beasts.

 

[hong]

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

Unless, of course, that the thing being "fixed" is the fact that dragons as they stand do not fight optimally in a brutal, physically aggressive fashion.

If you look at the term "fix" in its intended context, the original statement was perfectly reasonable and meaningful.

Here are the original statements:

Or, as another option, use dragons that don't have sneaky powers. A T-Rex with flaming breath fits the classic dragon much better, and it doesn't have as much to gain by fighting sneaky.

and later on...

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.

Tell me now what the context is.

 

[Black Omega]

I don't know..some of these things seem easy enough to fix. My own campaign is based in Rokugan and I do alot with honor, glory and bushido. There are three samurai in the group, so they can't really retreat from a close encounter to look for help because the first question would be "If you were pretty sure you could win, why didn't you attack? Don't be such a wimp!"

Now..if the threat -is- credible against the daimyo and his land..then the PC's can go for help, but it would be far from easy. After all, the threat is credible. Be definition it won't be easy even with help. I -will- now and then throw something at the PC's I don't expect them to beat if they choose to fight. But I'll try to give a way out. I'm not a fan of PC deaths.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

What an interesting thread. I'm not going to argue or offer counterpoints to others' statements, mainly because I don't think this is the sort of thing that can be argued. People have different ideas of heroic, and because of that one DM/player's ideas on how to "fix" the game to provide that feeling probably won't do a thing for someone else.

To illustrate this, my own idea of "heroic" seems to be contrary to many here. I don't see dying as heroic. I don't see simply charging in and fighting melee every time (or mostly) as heroic. Myself, I see heroic as being part of a larger whole, as being the hero of the story. As such, I'd hate (if I ever played in them,) games with a high character mortality rate. Creating a character you want to play, to see grow and become powerful, only to have him cut down. Again. And again. Would ruin the game for me. I want to create a single character for a single campaign, and watch that PC grow and develop as a character and as a force in the campaign world.

The tactics don't really bother me--in that they don't interfere with the feeling of heroism one way or another. Killing the lich to prevent the undead hordes from eating the village is heroic, whether or not you swarmed the lich or fought it one-on-one.

 

[SableWyvern]

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

Tell me now what the context is.

Isn't it painfully obvious its the one from the first post you quoted?
Has to be, otherwise my opinion with regard to my infallibility is wrong.

And that cannot be the case.

 

[S'mon]

I run a heroic Iliad-style battle as follows. I've done this for 1e-2e, I think it should work for 3e unless all the PCs can both go invisible & see invisible. It works very well for PC warriors, clerics and other sluggers.

The battle itself (say 30,000-50,000 combatants per side) is abstracted, I use the OD&D War Machine rules. The % roll to see which side wins is affected by PC actions.

The battle is assumed to last several hours.

Those PCs who enter the battle are split up, roaming the battle lines, and random encounters with individual enemy leaders rolled for each one. If the PCs don't split up, they don't get any random encounters - since no individual enemy leader will face a group, and groups are much more obvious than individuals.

So, each PC gets to fight one-on-one with an enemy champion. Rinse and repeat depending on number of champions, each victory gives their side a bonus to the roll that determines ultimate victory. Incidental encounters with spear-carriers are ignored since these pose no real risk.

 

[LordMelkor{Talos}]

Edit