Heroes, Zeroes, and Kings

[SKyOdin]

This is about like admitting that a long infantryman is not the equal of an apache gunship or main battle tank. I fail to be amazed.

To make that infantryman the equal of a gunship or tank requires giving him superhuman powers. If your genre conventions forbid that, then you must look outside the infantryman and let him go to the quartermaster to pickup a stinger or TOW missile.

In D&D terms the fighter needs magic items, or a flying mount, or a team of guys with a catapult. You can do this.

What you cannot do is make a guy with a big knife the equal of a man who commands the elements and the forces of life and death. Or at least, not without turning him into Goku. And you also cannot insist that I play Dragonball RPG when I wanted to play D&D.

Except there is an absolute ton of literary and mythological precedent for fighters being able to do completely amazing feats that fly in the face of realism. Non-wizards being able to do amazing things is a well-established part of the broader fantasy genre. Expecting fighters to be awesome is an integral part of my expectations out of fantasy, mostly because it is heavily shaped by mythology.

Heracles didn't need any fancy magic items to slay nasty monsters and rearrange European geography. Beowulf tore Grendel's arm off with his bare hands. Thor could drink the ocean down a few feet of sea-level and fished up a serpent so big it encircled the world. Cuculain slaughtered an army of men so strong they carried spears as large as pillars by throwing pebbles at them. These heroes of myth didn't need magic in order to be strong and impressive, and were not chained to some silly idea like realism.

People have been trying to argue that this part of mythological influence is somehow foreign to fantasy, but that idea is silly. J.R.R. Tolkien was heavily influenced by this mythological legacy, and it clearly shows in his works. There is nothing mundane or realistic about his elves, or the men of Numenor. Aragorn lived for more than 200 years, after all; that is not something a "mundane" human will do. The mythological influence of Tolkien is even more clearly seen in the Silmarillion.

Fantasy itself evolved out of myth and fairy tale, and in the world of myth and legend, heroes are not constrained by such petty things as realism. On the contrary, heroes are defined by how they defy and exceed human limitation. What makes characters like Heracles so interesting is that they are so much larger than life. In my book, telling a character that they have to be "mundane" is akin to telling them that they can't be a hero at all!

And I for one want my characters, be they fighters, wizards, or thieves, to be heroes.

 

[13garth13]

Heracles didn't need any fancy magic items to slay nasty monsters and rearrange European geography. Beowulf tore Grendel's arm off with his bare hands. Thor could drink the ocean down a few feet of sea-level and fished up a serpent so big it encircled the world. Cuculain slaughtered an army of men so strong they carried spears as large as pillars by throwing pebbles at them. These heroes of myth didn't need magic in order to be strong and impressive, and were not chained to some silly idea like realism.

You know, these sorts of arguments (which invariably summon up Heracles, Cuculain, et al) would be a lot more compelling if the characters involved weren't at least partly (and in some cases fully) divine.

And, in some people's minds (which does not make it better than your opinion, but you sure gotta respect it as a valid opinion) having a normal mortal do things that demi-gods of myth and legend could do does not make for a fun game. Some of us like our rogues and fighters to be street smart, tough-arse brawlers and battle hardened warriors, not super-heroes capable of divine-level feats of mythological prowess. Some people balk at the idea of a regular ol' human/dwarf etc doing something that if they saw an action hero do it in a movie would shout, "Oh come on!" at the screen, but see no problem with someone who studies arcane secrets in forbidden tomes blasting out balls of fire because that just makes sense to them. Wizards cast spells which by definition are unreal ergo are allowed to be fantastic and world-altering. But that dude over there in the chainmail with the battle axe? If he jumps forty feet up in the air and starts running on branches I'm turning off the movie/playing a different game/putting down the book with a sigh.

It doesn't have to make sense to you, but you can't presume that this is the wrong way to play D&D, anymore than your way is the wrong way.

There's a little too much heat from people about these sorts of issues....take a deep breath and remember that your fun and your notions of acceptable genre tropes aren't going to float everyone's boat. And that is OKAY!

For my money, the Book of Nine Swords was one of the best books on the planet for triggering my gag-reflex, but I didn't engage in any online bashing, 'cause I thought, hey, it's an optional book, I don't have to incorporate any of that silliness if I don't want to, and if somebody else wants it in their game, more power to them. Of course, had I known that the entire next edition of D&D was going to pull serious lessons from said book, I may not have been so quiet .

And that is one of the problems that I (and many others) had with 4E that 5E (whatever it ends up being called) will have to avoid, and that is having such a hard-coded play-style/atmosphere to this game we all used to enjoy in so many different ways.

Anyhoo, tldr, not everyone thinks that the feats of a demi-god are what a mortal warrior should be capable of, and that's no more wrong than your preferences for more legendary feats of wahooness. 5E (unlike its predecessor) will have to satisfy both of us.

Cheers,
Colin

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't think that's quite true though. The game is saying that someone who plays by the rules (of physics) is not, by himself and in his underwear, the equal of someone who eats physics for breakfast.

This is about like admitting that a long infantryman is not the equal of an apache gunship or main battle tank. I fail to be amazed.

To make that infantryman the equal of a gunship or tank requires giving him superhuman powers. If your genre conventions forbid that, then you must look outside the infantryman and let him go to the quartermaster to pickup a stinger or TOW missile.

In D&D terms the fighter needs magic items, or a flying mount, or a team of guys with a catapult. You can do this.

What you cannot do is make a guy with a big knife the equal of a man who commands the elements and the forces of life and death. Or at least, not without turning him into Goku. And you also cannot insist that I play Dragonball RPG when I wanted to play D&D.

Precisely. Earlier versions of the game system tried to balance out the Fighter by giving him multiple attacks per round, and by giving him a much higher survivability. It didn't try to do it by having him Jump 60 feet into the air without magic.

Wizards (and other spell casters) use magic. They can do non-realistic things. Fighters do not use magic. They should be limited to plausible things, at least in the core rules. But, they get other different advantages.


One of the problems of D&D in general is that many players want their cake and eat it too. In 1E, a lot of players played multiclass Fighter/Wizards or multiclass Fighter/Cleric/Wizards so that they could do everything. But, those PCs were limited in armor and if XP was used correctly, they were lower level than their PC allies. They could do more, but they were second tier in many ways. But with the thrust for balance, the 3E version of the game turned into one of "every PC could a lot more than single class PCs, they just had to pick the right combinations of classes and feats and prestige classes". There is a big difference between splitting your XP between 2 or 3 classes, and being -1 to hit and a few defenses.

Then suddenly, these players of combo classes complained when a different player stuck to his guns with a Wizard, or Cleric, or Druid and was outshining them at higher level. Let me see. Your PC was the best for 10 levels, now his PC is the best. And you find that not equitable?

In all of the 1E through 3E games I've ever played in, it wasn't the players of the straight Fighters complaining about higher level Wizards and Druids and Clerics. It was the min-maxers multi-class players (especially in 3E) who wanted to be able to do everything who were complaining. The players of the straight Fighters realized that without them, the spell casters didn't have enough time to be able to blow away an encounter. Sure, the spell casters could do that, but it was rarely with a single spell. It often took a combination of spells and without those Fighters, those spell casters wouldn't survive.

In fact, 3E is the edition that allowed spell casters to craft scrolls so easily as well, making Thieves a bit more obsolete. In earlier versions, there was a chance of failure and the rules indicated that the DM should force the player to go off and adventure to acquire the appropriate materials (special quills and inks). In 3E, most of that was blown off.

IME, 3E is the edition that let the genie out of the bottle (feats, specifically metamagic feats, cheaper and more fine tuned multiclassing, easier magic item creation, haste and polymorph and greater invisibility) which 4E then tried to stuff back in with its balance rules. Spell Compendium had some extremely powerful and/or useful spells in it. In 1E/2E, spells could be disrupted with any damage. In 3E, a concentration check prevented that and a feat made it hard to miss that check. Plus the front line could not do opportunity attacks pre-3E. The game became one of making life easy for the spell casters, hence, they by default became more powerful. Pre-3E and post-3E, the game was a lot more balanced.

Granted, other people might have different experiences.

 

[SKyOdin]

You know, these sorts of arguments (which invariably summon up Heracles, Cuculain, et al) would be a lot more compelling if the characters involved weren't at least partly (and in some cases fully) divine.

I understand that some people don't like that, but the thing is, I see Thor as a perfectly acceptable example of a high-level PC. To me, that is what high-level play is. After all, high level PCs are fighting demon princes and the like. I think that kind of thing should at least be part of 5E, be it module or not.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I'm going to mix up the order of your post for clarity's sake.

I didn't once make that argument, nor did I defend it.

If you do not defend that argument, why on Earth are you going to such effort to specifically reply to my argument against that idea? Why are you even getting yourself involved in that discussion if you claim you are not defending that?

I do think that your wuxia preferred play style should be kicked out of core D&D. But I have no problem with it being an add on module for people like yourself who enjoy it.

Again, the conversation you have involved yourself in had nothing to do with this subject. Talking about it now is irrelevant. I'll disagree with you on this, sure, but that's a different matter.

Maybe with the comment:

"D&D only fails to work for anime/wuxia fans in the minds of people who don't like anime/wuxia fans enjoying D&D."

We said nothing like this. This is an assertion about how we think that gives you the appearance of a Johnny Come Lately attitude concerning the grognards. We said that anime/wuxia shouldn't be core because it's very rarely seen in the game system and then, only in 3E or 4E splat books. We said nothing about it not working (as long as it isn't core rules).

Or maybe with the comment:

"Are we having "badwrongfun" by playing a different style and having the game work for us? That's where this argument of yours is going."

The argument isn't going there. It's merely going into a direction of keeping this stuff out of core. Nothing more. Nothing less. You are putting a spin on what we are saying and making assumptions about how we think about your play style.

Those comments were primarily in response this comment by ArmoredSaint: "Maybe the people who want that sort of thing in D&D could go play that game instead...".

I don't particularly care what you thought what I said or what I was replying to, but you are quite mistaken. I was replying to a particular person who said I should pack my bags and leave, so your claims that I was somehow replying to you and your ideals is absurd. That claim was made, and I addressed it. I have no idea why you are trying to twist my words into something they were not and are pretending that ArmoredSaint's comments didn't happen. I wasn't making my comments to you, so I see no reason to justify them in the context of your ideas. In other words, you have no right to make claims about what people other than you intended or really meant, and I have no reason to agree with your complete misrepresentation of my ideas.

I also continue to despise your "Johnny Come Lately" talk. Again, our age difference is irrelevant. Tradition is irrelevant. Tradition isn't even a good argument given how long it has been since 3E was released. I have no obligation to consider your preferences when expressing mine. All things considered, my money is as good as yours, and that's all that matters.

 

[KarinsDad]

I understand that some people don't like that, but the thing is, I see Thor as a perfectly acceptable example of a high-level PC. To me, that is what high-level play is. After all, high level PCs are fighting demon princes and the like. I think that kind of thing should at least be part of 5E, be it module or not.

Notice your phrase "to me".

I don't recall the story of Thor all banged up and scrounging around the three dead orc bodies, trying to find himself a shield at first level.

The argument that a fictional super powered deity by blood character exists in mythology, hence, high level D&D fictional PCs should be that same way, even though they do not start out deity by blood, isn't a real compelling argument.

 

[SKyOdin]

Notice your phrase "to me".

I don't recall the story of Thor all banged up and scrounging around the three dead orc bodies, trying to find himself a shield at first level.

The argument that a fictional super powered deity by blood character exists in mythology, hence, high level D&D fictional PCs should be that same way, even though they do not start out deity by blood, isn't a real compelling argument.

Not all campaigns start at level 1.

Anyways, why are specifically calling out my use of the phrase "to me" anyways? Of course I am talking about my preferences.

To me, the idea of a first level fighter scrounging around for a shield is just as extreme and undesirable as the idea of Thor as a PC is to you. For me a first level PC is a hero who is saving a village by holding off waves of attacking kobolds, or getting dragged into the fringe of an epic battle conflict between a few dozen ancient and powerful factions. Even a first level PC deserves the title of hero, and earns the respect and admiration of those they meet.

 

[KarinsDad]

I also continue to despise your "Johnny Come Lately" talk. Again, our age difference is irrelevant. Tradition is irrelevant. Tradition isn't even a good argument given how long it has been since 3E was released.

Dude, try the decafe. You're the one who implied that earlier versions of the game didn't matter cause you were not interested in them. If you are going to express pro-wuxia anti-traditionalist and hence anti-grognard comments like that, don't be surprised when the grognards reply.

While you are at it, why don't you point out where the Wuxia is in 3E? A core book? Or a few splat books (like book of 9 swords which didn't come out until 2006) printed years after the many editions and sub-editions of core?

And if tradition doesn't matter, then your tradition of playing D&D wuxia superheroes doesn't matter. Good for the goose, good for the gander and all that. Let the more traditional D&D show up in 5E core and you can just wait for your 5E wuxia fix.

 

[KarinsDad]

For me a first level PC is a hero who is saving a village by holding off waves of attacking kobolds, or getting dragged into the fringe of an epic battle conflict between a few dozen ancient and powerful factions. Even a first level PC deserves the title of hero, and earns the respect and admiration of those they meet.

Mostly in 4E.

For 34 years, first level PCs were not quite heroes yet. They fought. They often won. They might be considered heroes after the fact, but until 4E, they were paper tigers who could be wiped out via a small string of unlucky die rolls by a small group of low level NPCs (and pre-3E, zero hit points meant dead).

4E was the first edition that gave all PCs the survivability and the tools (like At Will powers for spell casters) to possibly even be considered heroes who could hold off waves of attacking kobolds. Anymore, the word hero is banded about right and left. But when AD&D first came out, it was a word reserved for 4th level Fighters and NPCs out of Deities and Demigods. When AD&D first came out, PCs were Acolytes and Apprentices, not heroes. They were cautious because they were vulnerable, they weren't cocky because they were so tough.

Conan wasn't a hero in the stories when he first set out. He was the protagonist, but not a hero. It's easy to confuse the two. Heroics means deeds that normal NPCs cannot achieve. Above and beyond, not something anyone can do with a lucky die roll.

The game has morphed over time to allow first level PCs to be heroes because it is very difficult (shy of the DMing going outside the XP guidelines) for PCs to die (and it's fairly easy anymore to get them brought back from the dead). They are heroes not just because of their deeds, but because of the difficulty for NPCs to wipe them out. PCs almost win by default anymore. One of the early complaints from some players was that 4E first level PCs were like 4th level PCs from earlier editions. So yes, the game has morphed towards a more powerful PC, even at first level.


But even that aside, the argument that since Thor exists, superhero high level PCs of every class should exist in D&D isn't that strong.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of D&D heroes, even at first level. It's the superhero concept that bugs some people.

 

[KidSnide]

1E had no historical Asian weapons or armor or anything. Even the Monk (less than 2.5 pages of 1E) had nothing specific in it to indicate an Asian flavor. Some people might read the Monk as having Asian influences, but that doesn't mean that he is. The 1E Monk is no more Asian that the 1E Assassin is specifically derived from any historic real world culture.

Oh yeah, sure -- other than the mystical kung fu abilities, there is little to distinguish the 1E monk from its monastic European counterparts. St Benedict of Nursia was renowned for his quivering palm...

Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and Temple of the Frog God are equally examples of the strict genre discipline of AD&D.

I too want the ability to run a western-only game. But it doesn't bother me if strict attention to genre requires a short list of "don't take this" material.

-KS