Heroes, Heroism, and RPGs

[Creamsteak]

To me the biggest thing against Heroism in D&D is the easy of Raise Dead and like spells. If there isn't any risk involved for the character then they can't really be a hero. If the ultimate sacrifice is just a bump in the road, the character/player is never really risking anything. It's the same if the DM always fudges the rolls to keep PC's alive and the players realise this.

I borrow my raise dead logic from Dragon Ball Z actually...

The "I pay 5 grand to buy a diamond and 3 grand to have the spell cast" only works one time IMC. If players have something that can be used as a revive item from a previous journey, it's always a more worthwhile item to keep your hands on than any sword...

I try my hardest to make sure the PCs have at least 1 such item (whether they know it or not) at all times, but if they don't have enough then they have to work to acquire one again.

Not like anybody cares about my methods...

 

[megamania]

The player needs to be heroic. We all agree on this. But what of the GM?

When I GM I try to describe the action and consequences of the actions cinematically and as dramatically as possible. It boosts the morale and the sense of heroism for the players.

Player 1 I roll a 16 to hit the Orc. 5 damage.
Player 2 I roll a 15 to miss the orc.
Player 3 I roll a 19...16 to confirm the critical for 10 damage.

Booooorrrring. snooze time.

I tell them what happens-
Player one steps in attacks the dangerous orc. He scores a hit! But the creature dosen't go down! It glares at you.
Player 2 attacks. Angry and defiant, the orc pushes off your otherwise killing blow as your sword glances off his shield. This leaves the brash and barbariac Orc open as the (player 3) swings and hits him very hard burying his axe in deep. The orc barbarian drops in defeat snarling and spitting blood at you in defiance.

Sounds better and somehow above the norm=heroic.

If you mean strictly a LG heroic. The DM needs to give players the reasonable chance to not just fight the good fight but lose and come back. I love putting players through mental trama. In real life it builds character. It should in DnD also.

 

[The_Gneech]

Every time I try to be heroic, I roll a 1. I have some of the worst great fighters you've ever seen. I once rolled a 16 on 8d6.

It's very frustrating.

But I keep trying.

-The Gneech

 

[Reynard]

To me the biggest thing against Heroism in D&D is the easy of Raise Dead and like spells. If there isn't any risk involved for the character then they can't really be a hero. If the ultimate sacrifice is just a bump in the road, the character/player is never really risking anything. It's the same if the DM always fudges the rolls to keep PC's alive and the players realise this.

In a game where ressurection is possible, there are far worse fates than death, particularly for characters high enough level to have access to or afford such spells. Strongholds, titles, reputations, and loved ones can all be targets and can have great impact, particularly when the PC must choose between one of these and achieving the greater good -- heroism is all about choices, I think.

Part of the problem is when characters don't have anything worth risking, whether the fault of the players ("I don't have any friends/relatives/lovers because I don't want them to get targetted.") or of the DM (who rewards PCs with little more that gold and magic items).

Creating circumstances under which true heroic action is possible is the responsibility of both the players and the DM. The dcie cannot rule everything, and the characters need to be more than the sum of what is written on their character sheets. DMs must offer not only the kind of quests and goals that make one a hero, but must create the situations in which true heroism is separated from mere victory. Finding and destroying the Orb of Ultimate Badness is not heroic unless the PCs are threatened with some sort of *personal* consequence for failing to do so. If players don't care about their characters' not statistical aspects, true heroism isn't likely to occur.

Of course, playing that way is not bad or wrong, it is just different. But everyone has to be on the same page. You can't have a DM who visualizes great, epic, tragic heroism and players that just want to engage in tactical brawls. On the flipside, you can't have players (or worse yet, one of a number of players) who want to explore what it means to be a hero and have a DM who wants to see how many beholders it takes to TPK the party.

 

[Steverooo]

Heroes?

Not too many years ago, there was a small group of men who were following a plan, and had been, for many yaers... They faced long odds. Their actions were relevant, and, indeed, affect the world to this day. They made their choices. They made the ultimate sacrifices, too...

On the 11th of September, not too many years ago, they highjacked several planes, and crashed them into the Pentagon and World Trade Center, after years of infiltrating and training in their enemies' stronghold...

They met all of the above criteria... Yet were they heroes?

Or were they the villains?

Of the FOUR planes that went down that day, we know that only on ONE of them did the passengers and crew attempt to stop the hijackers... The one that crashed in PA. There, a small group of men also followed a different plan, which was made in haste. They faced shorter odds. Their actions, too, are still relevant; they still affect us, today. They, too, made the ultimate sacrifice...

Some would call the first group heroes. The rest of us call them Terrorists. Most call the second group heroes...

Why? What is the difference between the two?

If anything, the first group suffered the longer odds, and were more willing to sacrifice themselves! So that can't be it...

Captain Kirk explained it pretty well to the rock beings trying to understand the difference between Good and Evil, when their representative protested that they couldn't tell the difference, that both sides used the same methods, and fought in the same ways... He told it to look at what they fought FOR, what it had offered the two sides; that THAT was what made the difference between the two!...

The Terrorists fought for terror, revenge, to "make a statement", and to pen a protest in blood and flame...

The second group had been previously instructed to call their friends and families, and tell them what was going on. They fought to defend their own lives, and those of the other people on the plane, as well as those they didn't know, who they would otherwise have been crashed into...

IMO, there is your heroism. Not in long odds, not in sacrifices made or not made, not even in succes or failure. Just in the willingness to try, and why you do it.

FOUR planes crashed, that day. THREE of them took a lot of other people with them... Only on ONE plane did somebody try to stop the hijackers... On the other three (apparently) nobody tried. Even on the one, they were only partially successful.

En Memorium Dei!

 

[reapersaurus]

I don't think D&D lends itself very well to heroism.

My main mechanics-based observations:

Skills: Not enough skill points for adventurers to set them apart from joe schmoe.
The only thing that is in the adventurer's favor is that they will have at least twice as many levels as a commoner. This is the only realistic way for them to be of equatable skill, due to the low # of skill points and class skills in most classes.
A hero shouldn't be upstaged by a low-level commoner who happens to do that for a living in Podunktown.
It just doesn't lend itself towards being a well-rounded hero (or a knowledgable hero) at all.

Feats: there are simply not enough feats, nor enough interesting feats, to make a heroic character. If they are to be legendary in their maneuvers they can pull off, they have to sink a lot of feats into one feat chain (usually). So even IF they are good at something (ooh! +1 to hit!, etc) than they are one-trick ponies, since they had to dedicate so many feats just to be good at it. (i.e. a 6th level character only gets 3 feats - really impressive )

Let me put it this way - almost EVERY heroic character that comes to mind can do way more impressive things than are even in D&D (think Legolas in LotR).

Spells: Even though 3.5 has helped, there are simply too many world-changing things that are dependant on magic.
The overwhelming dominance of magic spells and magic items in D&D ruins the heroic feeling for me.
Without magic, what can a character possibly do?
He'll horribly outclassed, and bone, muscle, sinew, and heart just can not compare to the effect of magic.
Combine the overwhelming power of magic with the effortless, graceless, machine-like precision of almost-all magic in D&D (that doesn't cost anything, nor have any randomness or drawbacks) and you have a very unheroic system.

Even a legendary fighter (say over 12th level) will have no chance against a stock wizard of his level. Magic overwhelms the comparison.
The only way to fight magic is to add more magic.

Throw in the few spells that utterly rob D&D of its heroicness, and I find it very hard to think of D&D as heroic at all.
Spells like Teleport (what would LotR be with Teleport), Scry (unless unbelievable and unattainable precautions are taken, it destroys almost all storylines or conflicts), Fly (takes away heroic gaming and substitutes super-hero gaming, but only for the few who owe their flight solely to magic, not their heroism), Improved Invisibility (why wouldn't every spellcaster use this most unheroic of spells?) just to mention a few are REAL problems in trying to have a heroic game (at least what comes to MY mind when I think 'heroic gaming').

 

[Dancer]

Let me put it this way - almost EVERY heroic character that comes to mind can do way more impressive things than are even in D&D (think Legolas in LotR).



It takes some of the edge off of being heroic if you are a 1000 year old elven prince of a superhuman race who is thought to be the best archer of your lifetime. If someone gave me that profile for DnD then I'd be happy to compare myself to Legolas. Since that probably isn't going to happen, you have to work within the system as it is set up.

Heroism isn't in the stats, skills, or feats of a character

It's in the heart

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Steveroo, please find another way to make your point. That is a very loaded example, and for the sake of my sanity and keeping my tone civil I'm going to ignore it.

Heroism does have to come from both sides of the table. If the players don't want to be heroic, the DM won't be able to talk them into it. But if the DM doesn't want things to be heroic, then they won't be. I've spent several campaigns trying desperately to act heroic, and discovering that it doesn't work. As a player, I need rewards for risking my neck, and my character has to find something worthwhile in it.

Reaper brings up several good points. I think that, depending on how high level the rest of the world is, it can be hard to feel over the top heroic. There's actually a fairly easy way of dealing with it though. Lower the average level of the world, and lower the DC's where appropriate. If you want people to run on walls like the main character in Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, then make the balance DC a 15. Now it's achievable half the time with 5 ranks. You can be doing manuvers like that at level 2 if your DM is up to it.

A little bit of that sort of tweaking, and Legolas isn't that impressive.

I can see a 14th level character pulling off the same crap Legolas does. Climing up an elephant? Make the jump check, now a climb check, now a balance check. Good thing everyone's too busy stomping on the mooks to pay attention to the elf. It's allready beat up from the calvery charge, so he only really needs to spend a round or two of shooting to bring it down.

I can't see the things heroic characters doing as any more impressive than what you can get in D&D. It's just that the heroic characters have better cinematography and awesome music. Can you folks who think that heroic characters can do things that are more impressive than D&D give a few concrete examples? I'd love to hear them, so I can alter my game to make them fit.

Now, magic defniately changes the tone of the game. I can't say if it makes being an impressive meele character harder. Mostly, it sounds like the need to keep shiny uber powerful NPC's under control, and keep up with pacing. Like I said, if the average joe is level 1, anything begins feeling more heroic.

We seem to have two 'definitions' of heroism coming up. Grand scale vs Noble and Sacrifical. I still think that proper feedback and rewarding(from everyone involved) is the only way to really make it work.

 

[Bagpuss]

Personally I thought the hobbits were more heroic than any of the other characters in LotR. And they didn't need super-moves or special effects to manage it just determination and strength of character. Legolas never looked like he was acting outside his abilities and looked at ease (as if he wasn't taking any risks) even in the most difficult fights.

 

[William Ronald]

I think the hobbits were particularly heroic in the LOTR as there heroism was unexpected. No one initially expected Frodo and Sam to make the sacrifices they made to destroy the Ring.

On another topic, I would agree with ThoughtBubble that running a heroic campaign needs the active participation of a DM and the players. Roleplaying is a hobby that is best enjoyed when the participants share similar goals and vision. Campaigns and gaming groups can fall apart when there are different visions.

Similarly, a DM and the players should agree on the power level of the campaign. I have played in games of different power levels. I do not think a particular spell or ability makes a character any less heroic. (Incidentally, the two characters I had who willingly sacrificed themselves for the greater good -- knowing full well that they were going to die -- were spell casters. One of whom could teleport.

I have also seen parties that were dominated by strong melee characters who picked out a strong combination of feats, classes, and equipment. (There are times when I wish that more of the power in D&D 3.5 was internalized in the characters and not their equipment. However, that might be an option for a future edition or a supplement.) Of course the issue of balance is important. I think every character should have a chance to shine in a group. Otherwise, players can feel that their characters have little meaning -- the opposite of feeling that one's character is a hero.