I wish D&D could have been more heroic

[s/LaSH]

I think the system is already more heroic than realistic. Without the need to focus on several opponents at once, AC means your odds against higher numbers of opponents are higher than normal. That's the big one, of course... but it doesn't promote true heroism, does it?

For the system itself to promote heroism, you'd have to throw in some things of which I have no idea. Like taking 10 on attacks... should be possible, but in what circumstances? It would greatly assist in fighting lesser opponents who should pose no threat to you.

See, there's one thing about heroes: they rarely fail. They know their capabilities, and always act within their (enormous) confines. Legolas doesn't miss with his arrows; he doesn't slip when performing insane tabogganning stunts. Why? Because his efforts aren't as random as those in D&D. His chance of failure is well below 5% (or at least it looks that way).

Is it worth taking out the randomness of these actions? If a player can push their limits accurately, then it might well be. If you can say, "I can jump that chasm", then you have confidence to proceed with death-defying stunts and so forth.

This isn't a complete theory, but it's something I've been considering a while... and the basic principle of heroes rarely failing is one that merits further consideration.

 

[Umbran]

I'll have to chime in with a "these folks have the right of it".

The issue isn't the game, as represented in the books. The issue is with the players and DM. D&D is as heroic as the group wishes to play it.

 

[zouron]

I would idly point out that something isn't heroic if there is no chance of failure, shooting arrows and skating on those shield things isn't what make legolas heroic, it is things like him jumping up on the back of a cave troll firing an arrow down through it's head, or gimli being tossed into a group of spears with orcs on the blunt end and so on.

 

[Tokiwong]

I'll have to chime in with a "these folks have the right of it".

The issue isn't the game, as represented in the books. The issue is with the players and DM. D&D is as heroic as the group wishes to play it.

I agree with that sentiment, the players will determine how heroic a game is along with the DM/GM or what have you... my games have plenty of heroism, and I like to think that many of my own characters are heroic in their way, but I could be heroic in any game I think, unless the campaign was not about being heroic...

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

It's not the system it's the players

That being said, I think there is a particular breed of DnD player who Tracey Hickman (in that article) described as "forensic dungeoneers". The kinds of people who make Artax and Yeagar of Nodwick fame seem positively altruistic.

It seems that EofN plays with a group like these.

All I can say is - find some other players. We're not all "forensic dungeoneers". Hell in my current campaign we have to remind ourselves to check the bodies of our enemies for treasure. We have actually forgotten to loot the bodies on at least one occasion, because we were there on a rescue, not a dungeon hack.

[gratuitous pimp]To see what our campaign is like, left click on the link in my sig line.[/gratuitous pimp]

 

[Voneth]

I suppose it depends if you see living longest as the point of the game. Personally I think if a character dies is less important than the manner of their death.

It is true that many of the "common" men who have given their life for their ideas are indeed heroes even though they never lived long enough to go past 1st level.

But then these men do not become legends and myths and this is what we are truly talking about, yes?

"Legendary" Roleplaying is a subject that is full of paradoxes. DnD certaintly has a capacity for large scale action even in the PHB, but most people claim that they have more fun barely surviving their first few levels off lucky die rolls.

Personly, my luck sucks and I like my heroes to have some chance to survive before I try something suicidal, but fun.

Marketing wise before 3ed.:
Beyond what a lot of people did with home brewed rules for DnD, most mythical games were not best sellers. Though some are still around and chugging along (Pendragon is my favorite ... and proved that epic does not mean large scale.) Others had great potential to some degree and failed horribly (Everyway and Amber come to mind)

After 3ed, the rules offered some ground work, but prove that that games with the true flavor of legends and myth reside in the GMs hands. (My current PC game, I have to sleep in my armor to make sure I will live to 2nd level. On the other hand, the Space Fantasy game I run has people jumping out of airlocks all day.)

 

[LostSoul]

Is it worth taking out the randomness of these actions? If a player can push their limits accurately, then it might well be. If you can say, "I can jump that chasm", then you have confidence to proceed with death-defying stunts and so forth.

You could open up the Take 10 mechanic, so that you can use it more often.

 

[William Ronald]

Edena, welcome back again!

Heroism is a choice and can be expressed in many different ways. For example, the paladin you mentioned is heroic to perhaps the point of foolhardiness in the eyes of some. However, he is someone that most players would want as an ally to rally troops in a battle.

The issue of stealth can be a sensitive one for paladins. I tend to think of stealth as something a paladin will use or tolerate in order to save lives -- besides his own. He may be willing to help sneak past a dragon to save an innocent, but he should be planning for the day when he will smite the beast. Similarly, if he has to use a back entrance to reach a blackguard, I expect a paladin will personally challenge his foe face to face.

What matters is the readiness of a hero to fight and, if need be, die for their beliefs.

There are different sorts of heroism. I have played a few characters who sacrificed their own lives to defeat tyrants and save the lives of friends. My DM has usually rewarded players for such sacrifices, as they add depth to the game.

So, I think the problem lies not in the game but in the players. Maybe what you need are a few heroic players.

 

[Tokiwong]

For some reason i don't see anything wrong with a Paladin cutting down a known evil foe in a less then heroci way, I mean, does being heroic mean you have to give up the tacical advantage? It all depends on the style, and the focus of the character...

If Bob the Paladin decides to sneak in and slay the Red Dragon in its sleep I say more power to him, does not mean he is wrong for it, each Paladin is an individual. While if Lisa the Paladin stomps up to the same dragon and openly challenges it and all more power to her, it is all a matter of style.

Course I don't mind Paladins being harsh, there is difference bewteen being Good and being stupid, course I may be in the minority.

 

[Xarlen]

Edena, I must say, that I would love to have you in my game. I feel that everyone has said how I feel pretty much: it's about the players, not the system. So I won't say it.

The campaign that is about to go into Hiatus is a 'Foresnic Dungeneer'; they havn't done much heroics. Of course, a lot of situations have required stealth, secrecy, and mental prowess; a murder mystery, for instance.

But I am beginning a new campaign that I WANT to have Heros. I WANT things of Legend. I am working to make it LotR style, and grand, and wonderful. How, I don't know. But I will.

And I'll also try to do this with my Supers campaign. I would highly suggest to you, Edena, that you might want to check out the Hero system (Fantasy Hero is coming out, too).

But, I say again. There would always be a place for you at my gaming table, real or electronical (I play online, at the moment), Edena, and anyone like you.