Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DM_Blake" data-source="post: 4200567" data-attributes="member: 57267">Dangit, John, I always like arguing with you, but this time I can't...Speaking as a writer, I have to totally agree with what you've said. Fiction abounds with characters who must face their own weaknesses and prevail despite those weaknesses.Without weaknesses, a fictional hero becomes uninteresting.I think Superman is a classic example of this. He could do it all. Outfight, outfly, outspeed, and outmuscle all his enemies, he's indestructible, can see through almost anything, has eye lasers and a breath weapon for those useful ranged and ae attacks when super-strength just won't get the job done. He can even time travel, when needed. Ahh, but kryptonite. How many times can we see Superman kick everyone's butt, then be laid low by kryptonite, then find a way to escape the kryptonite, then finish kicking everyone's butt?So, for once, we agree.With a caveat...While reading about fallable heroes makes for good literature, sometimes reading about invincible heroes is just plain fun. Conan, John Carter, Rambo, John McClane, Superman. Nobody beats them. They never lose. They can still be fun. One-dimensional. Predictable. But fun.Each of these guys has their other problems though. Sure, John McClane kicks everyone's butt, and can't be killed, even by highly trained expert mercenaries with machine guns, explosives, high-tech gear, and even advanced prototype military aircraft. But, he can't keep his wife happy, has alcohol issues, fear of flying, relationship problems with everyone, etc. So his flaws, while they don't slow him down in butt-kicking combat, really crush his role-playing aspects.Even Superman couldn't live a happy, carefree heroic life. Secret identity, can't get the girl or she'll expose his secret, etc.Oh, and one more caveat...From the POV of actually being the hero, all things considered, I like to be the invincible kind.If I had to strap on some armor, and go crawling through dark dangerous dungeons (DDD), and I had my choice to either A) be all powerful, able to find traps, slay monsters, heal myself, and cast endless magical utility, or B) pick one of those things and rely on strangers to join me in the DDD so that they can, hopefully, do the rest of that stuff without screwing up and getting me killed, I would pick A.So, when I game, I try to go for A there, too, though I'm not so singlemindedly dedicated to the idea in a game as I would be if it were real life.But, my current group of players in the group I'm not DMing has me thinking that self-sufficiency is required. One player can never be counted on to make good tactical decisions. He's a dual-wielding barbarian who never rages, not even once in months of play, and deals about an average of 10 HP per hit at 9th level. Our only rogue shows up to 1/3 of the game sessions and generally detects traps by blundering into them, or hanging out in the back to let the barbarian set them off first. Our cleric things nothing of charging into battle screaming prayers to Kord, and is usually the first one to go unconscious - at best she's spending round after round healing herself to stay alive, so nobody else gets much healing. Our fighter ok, fairly dependable and makes good tactical decisions. And I'm the mage. I usually account well for myself, but since I get no protection from the group and very little healing, and most of the monsters are intelligent enough to take me out first, I spend most of my combats using defensive utility just to try to stay alive.Yeah, I like the players, and enjoy the gaming, but that's the kind of group that makes me want to be Superman.</blockquote>

Verification