The Heroic Impulse: Where Have All the Heroes Gone?

[Hussar]

JRRNeikalot - oh come on. By about 5th level, AD&D characters are more or less invincible in combat. By name level, they truly are. When name level characters are taking on armies of giants, are you seriously going to contend that they are not super-heroic? Name level AD&D characters are taking on GODS. And winning.

Note, that even a 1st level fighter in AD&D can have super powers. He get's percentile strength. No other member of a PC race can ever have this. He isn't just stronger than a normal commoner, he's stronger than a normal commoner can ever possibly be.

And this isn't super heroic?

Please.

You can talk about power creep all you like, but, when you start doing comparisons between 1e PC's and 3e PC's and the monsters that they face, suddenly it gets pretty obvious who's more powerful. Look at 1e modules and the number of monsters you face at any given level. If you used those numbers against 3e characters, they would die every time, yet the 1e characters not only don't die, they regularly succeed.

Yet, it's the 3e characters that are more powerful? Not by a long shot. 3e made combat FAR more lethal than 1e by ramping the damage of monsters way, way up. 1e troll does 24 points of damage max. 3e troll does over 50. What's the hit point difference of a 5th level 1e vs 3e character? 3e might have more hit points, but he certainly doesn't have double.

This whole meme that 3e is the "powergamers edition" is just crap and doesn't stand up to 30 seconds of actual comparison.

 

[Hussar]

Jack7 - again, you have a strange definition of balance that is all your own. Balance simply means that no character is obviously stronger than any other character of a given level. You imply it to mean that all encounters must be of an equal level to the party. That's counter to what's actually stated in the 3.5 DMG and the 4.0 DMG. And I believe it's counter to the encounter design advice of the 1e and 2e DMG's as well.

So, where are you getting this notion that every encounter must be fair and balanced?

 

[Remathilis]

All I'm saying is that each editions power creep makes characters more and more powerful and the more powerful one gets, the less heroic their acts are.

By that logic, all characters who get to 2nd level should retire, since they'll never be as heroic as they were at 1st...

 

[Lizard]

Indeed. Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when our magic fails reality.

Reality, reshamality.

It's simply an amusing inconsistency, or more likely the result of different design goals.

Design Goal 1: Skills ought to matter, even for magic. Thus, many rituals enhance rather than replace skills, or require skills. You NEED a high Heal skill to effectively use even magic to cure ongoing conditions.

Design Goal 2: Death should be minor, and it should be very hard to lose a character permanently. Thus, Raise Dead requires a very small (by level) outlay of cash, and can be cast by even a first level party (remember, using a ritual scroll requires no feat) with no chance of failure or "permadeath". Having a high rank in a specific skill -- such as Heal -- would run counter to this, because it would also violate ANOTHER 4e design goal: No "gotta have" skills or classes. No one "has" to be the Cleric (Warlord can fill that role, as can Paladin in a pinch, not to mention Bard), and no one "has" to have Heal.

Those two goals smash into each other, with Cure Disease being risky and Raise Dead (theoretically, a much more "potent" magic, and certainly one which does more to the body than curing it of disease -- it can rebuild it from the smallest scrap!) being utterly infallible.

One of the key design decisions behind 4e seems to be that internal consistency for the world is much less important than "optimizing the core play experience". Thus, both design goals above were considered valid, and making magic make "sense" -- whatever that might mean -- was relegated to third or fourth -- oh hell, fifth -- place.

Fanwank "explaining" how the two spells "make sense as written" coming in three... two... one...

 

[Jack7]

So, where are you getting this notion that every encounter must be fair and balanced?

Fox news?

You imply it to mean that all encounters must be of an equal level to the party. That's counter to what's actually stated in the 3.5 DMG and the 4.0 DMG. And I believe it's counter to the encounter design advice of the 1e and 2e DMG's as well.

Nah, I'm not talking about the difference between various editions of the game.

I'm talking about the difference between going up against something because you had an heroic objective, and going up against something that was mathed- up good and proper as a fair encounter design.

It's kinda like the difference between the Normandy invasion and the tactical assault practice training simulation.

In one you fight for your life and the lives of others because it has to be done, and so it becomes heroic to do. In the other you fight for points and team medallions.

But I'm not talking about heroism as being measured out by mechanics and design. I'm talking about heroism being measured out in acts of manhood.

I just find it kinda amusing is all, that nowadays math is the engine of heroic endeavour, even in our fantasy imaginations. As if the imagination is slave of the measurement, instead of the measurement being tool of the imagination.

Is it the Game dreaming of being a Hero, or the Hero dreaming of being a Game?

 

[nightwyrm]

We still on this topic?

You're a hero if you succeed despite danger and difficult odds, whether because of your own skills, powers, preperation and/or planning. If you fail, you're an idiot.

If you (an unarmed, untrained civilian) tried to attack some armed people robbing a bank in real life, you're not heroic, you're stupid and a hinderance and possible danger to other people.

In terms of escalating risk, there's: safe->dangerous->heroic->stupid. You're not automatically heroic just because the odds are against you. You have to have the skill/ability to be able to succeed in overcoming the odds if you want to be heroic. Cops don't become more heroic if they leave their guns and bulletproof vests at home.

 

[billd91]

JRRNeikalot - oh come on. By about 5th level, AD&D characters are more or less invincible in combat. By name level, they truly are. When name level characters are taking on armies of giants, are you seriously going to contend that they are not super-heroic? Name level AD&D characters are taking on GODS. And winning.

???
You played the same 1st edition D&D the rest of us played? Ninth-eleventh level characters taking on gods? Maybe if the DM was throwing wiffle-gods at them. And more or less invincible by 5th level? A whole lot of character deaths I witnessed came well after becoming invincible apparently.

Let's roll the hyperbole back a bit, OK? Fifth level characters could be quite easily challenged in 1e, same with name level characters. And it didn't take a killer dungeon like Tomb of Horrors to do it either.

 

[FireLance]

I'm talking about the difference between going up against something because you had an heroic objective, and going up against something that was mathed- up good and proper as a fair encounter design.

It's kinda like the difference between the Normandy invasion and the tactical assault practice training simulation.

In one you fight for your life and the lives of others because it has to be done, and so it becomes heroic to do. In the other you fight for points and team medallions.

Again, there's the issue of whose perspective you're using. D&D may very well be the former for the characters, but I believe it is closer to the latter for the players. The characters aren't supposed to know that they have a good chance of beating the monsters they encounter, even if the players do (and that's hardly a given - it depends the DM's play style).

But I'm not talking about heroism as being measured out by mechanics and design. I'm talking about heroism being measured out in acts of manhood.

I just find it kinda amusing is all, that nowadays math is the engine of heroic endeavour, even in our fantasy imaginations. As if the imagination is slave of the measurement, instead of the measurement being tool of the imagination.

I'll just re-ask the same question that I raised earlier on in the thread: am I correct in assuming that for you, one of the prerequisites of heroism is that the hero must be willing to take action when he has no idea what his chances of survival are?

Is a 10th-level fighter who takes on an ogre heroic because he doesn't know what are his chances of beating it, even though he is almost certain to win?

Or is it more a question of the player rather than the character? If it was an inexperienced player running that 10th-level fighter, would it be heroic of him to decide to fight the ogre because he doesn't know that his character would beat it easily?

On the other hand, if the player was familiar with the behind-the-scenes math, and the character was facing not an ogre but a fire giant or something else that he knows he has no realistic chance of beating, would it no longer be heroic for the player to decide to fight it in order to achieve some broader objective (to give some villagers time to escape, for example)?

Or are we talking about two different types of heroism here?

Is it the Game dreaming of being a Hero, or the Hero dreaming of being a Game?

Neither. Hopefully, it is the players that dream of becoming heroes. The math is just there so that the DM knows approximately how easy or difficult he is making it for them.

 

[FireLance]

The Ballad of the Balanced Heroes

[SBLOCK]That’s impossible my friend
It’s not very safe,
The odds say the run
Is not worth the race,

It’s dangerous, it’s risky
It’s so very hard
It’s dire and desperate
You won’t get too far,

It’s scary and fretful
And so very dark
That kind of adventure's
No walk in the park,

Let’s find an encounter
That’s fit for our wits
Nothing that’s too harsh
To give us a fit,

I’m not much for caves
Where the monsters do lair
That’s sounds kinda creepy
And damp is the air,

Abandoned old castles
Don’t thrill me too much,
Why something in there
Might just have me for lunch,

I don’t like a tomb
That’s filled with the dead,
Such a harrowing place
Could give me the dreads,

And who likes a hamlet
With guilds full of thieves?
Best well avoided
Than a running retreat,

So mount up your horses
We’re riding by town,
I hear that there’s danger
In there to be found,

Why “better than even”
Is all that we ask,
It’s only quite fair
If peril’s your task

What makes a good Hero
Is waiting around,
To see if some patsy
Will ride into town,

We’ll send such a lout
In to take all the risk
Then we’ll come a’lootin
To see what was missed,

For when X stands for danger
It don’t mark the spot,
But rather it tells you
Just what is for naught,

Cause there’s one thing
We Heroes are never about,
“That’s taking on danger
Whenever there’s doubt!”

So I’m gonna watch
From the corner right here,
Til the odds tell me
“Hero, there’s nothing to fear!”
​

[/SBLOCK]

Incidentally, I understand that some DMs consider this to be proper player behavior in a sandbox-style game.

 

[Hussar]

???
You played the same 1st edition D&D the rest of us played? Ninth-eleventh level characters taking on gods? Maybe if the DM was throwing wiffle-gods at them. And more or less invincible by 5th level? A whole lot of character deaths I witnessed came well after becoming invincible apparently.

Let's roll the hyperbole back a bit, OK? Fifth level characters could be quite easily challenged in 1e, same with name level characters. And it didn't take a killer dungeon like Tomb of Horrors to do it either.

Sorry, I mispoke. Name level characters were pretty much invincible to melee combat. Yup, you could kill a 10th level party, but, it took multiple dragons to do it. And that was only because of the breath weapon. 1e creatures just don't do enough melee damage relative to PC hit points to be all that threatening unless encountered in large numbers.

42 hit point giants and all that indeed.

My basic point is that JRRNeikalot is claiming that 1e characters are more heroic because they were very weak compared to 3e characters. My point is that this is false because he's comparing apples to oranges. When you compare 1e PC's to their opponents and then compare 3e characters to the same 3e opponents, suddenly the 3e characters are nowhere near as powerful.

Why do you think everyone points to 4e as a step back towards 1e when they talk about combat grinds? You simply don't have rocket tag in 4e and you only had it in 1e with save or die effects.

As far as name level characters taking on gods, name level does extend beyond 9th you realize. Queen of the Demonweb Pits is for 10th level characters, so whacking a God by name level isn't exactly a stretch of imagination.

It's kinda like the difference between the Normandy invasion and the tactical assault practice training simulation.

In one you fight for your life and the lives of others because it has to be done, and so it becomes heroic to do. In the other you fight for points and team medallions.

Sorry, not buying it. The planners of the Normandy invasion most certainly took advantage of every means at their disposal to calculate the risk involved in every stage of the invasion. They KNEW as far as they could, roughly how many men would be lost, how much ground they should gain each day, how many bullets they would need etc. etc.

Never mind WWII battlefields, try a modern one and tell me that odds and math doesn't come into the planning stage.

I think you're taking a very romanticized view of how things work. They didn't just gather a bunch of guys together, load them on boats and fire them across the Channel. They planned for MONTHS beforehand. They took every single precaution they could to increase their chances of success.

To do anything else would be monumentally stupid.