The Heroic Impulse: Where Have All the Heroes Gone?

[Herschel]

I tend to agree with Raven Crowking on this one.

I think society as a whole has drifted from the type of hero in the OP. There seem to be fewer classic heroes in pop culture now. Maybe because those heroes aren't "cool" enough for modern tastes. Maybe heroes of that type are now the "Dudley Doorights" from my youth, the characters that we laugh at because they aren't as advanced and worldly as we are.

I'm sure there are "classic" heroes in recent mass media, but there sure seem to be a lot of Hancocks and Vic Makeys. I see a touch of evil as the new replacement to the tragic flaw of the heroes when I was a kid. Heck, it seems like a lot of the heroes when I was a kid didn't really have any flaw at all, just misfortunes that stretched out the action for the length of the TV show or movie.

Based on these totally unscientific observations, I have come to the conclusion (for myself) that game systems don't dictate the heroic spirit a player can create, but the players themselves tend to create characters for which they have a ready reference. I don't want to play an assassin, but somebody who really digs reading Punisher or playing Assassins Creed might.
Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

I agree.

I do feel too many rules ruins the heroic feel for me, which is why I so disliked 3E, but again, that's just me.

 

[Novem5er]

I think it breaks down to this:

Some people want to write stories, and other people want to play a game.

D&D is a game. It has rules that define character actions as they progress towards a goal. The vast majority of the D&D rule set focuses on combat. Combat has so many rules because, being still a game, combat must be fair. Players (of a game) don't want to play if they know the odds are against them. Obviously, D&D provides some variance and players will often take on a more challenging fight... but in general the rules are there to make sure that everyone is having fun.

Fun, in modern video games, is typically defined by lots of little risks that do not prevent the player from moving forward. Ever play an original Nintendo game? Yeah, those were hard... game designers were focused on providing a challenge and didn't really care if players never got to level 8. Now, video games are "easier" in the sense that the designers WANT players to beat the game, and thus the risks provided are ones of little dings.

* oops, you fell of a ledge... climb back up? (time risk)
* oops, you got hit... use healing potion? (resource risk)
* oops, you died... restart level? (time risk)

BUT D&D ISN'T A VIDEO GAME!!!!!

No, but many of the design elements are the same, and have been since 3e. WotC has designed a game system that presents a fair playing experience. What differentiates D&D from a video game is that WotC puts the whole thing into the hands of a DM, who uses that system as they see fit.

Even I sometimes find myself in the trap of wanting to get lost in the wonder of RPing, like I did when I was 12. I can have a good time RPing, and 4e has definitely forced me into the unknown (I have to memorize a whole new Monster Manual)... but I can't escape the fact that D&D is a game system.

Want to tell epic stories of great heroism that ACTUALLY feels fresh, new, bold, and completely mysterious? Write a novel. Seriously. While we can break down a piece of fiction into RP terms, we cannot reverse-engineer the same thing. Characters in a book are NOT living people sitting around a table waiting for their turn. As a writer, I can spend a chapter focusing on the littlest act of charity performed by an infamously selfish character... the act can be the climax of an entire chapter... but I can't waste that time as a DM. Books are not games, and games are not books.

 

[Sir Brennen]

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.

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.

And again (and again)... a character is going up against something as a heroic objective, the player is playing a game where he pits his numerically defined character against a numerically defined challenge.

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.

Acts of manhood by whom? The character? The player? Are you perhaps projecting the lack of heroic storylines in the games you are involved with, and your dissatisfaction with such, onto the hobby as a whole?

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.

What would you prefer? That we go back to all playing cops and robbers, no dice, no paper, no rules? "I shot you!" "Did not!"

Certainly, there are more narrative games, such as LARPs, out there that rely on more role-playing and less math, but does that make the actions of the characters more heroic?

Can you point to any specific examples where "the imagination is slave of the measurement" and it has become the norm? This thread seems bursting at the seams with people that still think RPGs still serve the imagination, and not the other way around.

 

[megamania]

The subject you have brought up reminds me of the first time I tried to piece together a game. I placed a call xxx-xxxx if you would like to play in a game that I would DM at the local bookstore where DnD was sold.

I got a few replies. All were teenagers (I was mid 20's) and asked what they wanted.

They all wanted to KILL< KILL< KILL. Foolishly I replied I wanted to run a game with heroes. The teenagers left.


The idea / concept of playing heroes doesn't fit in today's mentallity. Times have changed and I am still dragging my feet to "confirm" and play games based more on an evil slant.

Part of why my Creation Schema SH stalled then failed was how the players were becoming evil fighting evil to win the big prize.

It seems people no longer enjoy being good and fighting the good fight.

Why?

Well look at today's heroes.

Singers / Athletes whom all do drugs and womanize while being overpaid

Politicians- more corrupt than the crimals they are swearing to catch

and even the books and comics- Batman (vigilante) , Wolverine (cold blooded killer) and Punisher (sociopath)

It seems the closest to a "LG" hero in todays world is Harry Potter and he is manipulated constantly and people don't like that and don't want to live like that.


and as a complete side to this (though related) when I first read "Where have the heroes gone?" I think of Lethal Weapon where then the bloodied and crazed Martin Riggs comes crashing in with a dead body as a shield.

There is today's hero.


someone else can preach now.......

 

[Sir Brennen]

They all wanted to KILL< KILL< KILL. Foolishly I replied I wanted to run a game with heroes. The teenagers left.

I dunno. 25 years ago I think you could have easily run across the same group of teenagers. "KILL KILL KILL" oddly isn't entirely incompatible with running a heroic game. As has been oft pointed out for decades, many people play the game simply to kill monsters and take their stuff. Usually this is done in the context (under the guise of?) performing heroic acts.

Well look at today's heroes.

Singers / Athletes whom all do drugs and womanize while being overpaid

Politicians- more corrupt than the crimals they are swearing to catch

and even the books and comics- Batman (vigilante) , Wolverine (cold blooded killer) and Punisher (sociopath)

For all these examples, there's plenty of examples of more "heroic" individuals in each area. Superman comics still sell rather well, I believe. What about the huge success of the Lord of the Rings movies?

Batman has always been a vigilante for 80 years. Justice unfettered by the rule of law is a common fantasy in "heroic" fiction, especially in comics. And in RPGs. This is closely followed by revenge fantasies ("You wiped out my entire village! Prepare to die!"). People have been accepting of this brand of fantasy hero since stories were told about heroes. It's nothing new.

I would say, though, that fictional heroes that have to overcome personal, internal challenges (the "tragic flaw" idiom) do tend to seem more human, sympathetic and just plan interesting. Plus, if the hero is a protagonist of a story, there has to be some room for growth of the character, which the squeeky clean LG types don't tend to leave a lot of room for, (unless they fall and/or are humbled).

This is the point of the Hancock movie, for instance. It's not about a drunken, apathetic superhero. It's about a drunken, apathetic super-powered character that grows into being a true hero. Just like Luke Skywalker having to overcome his fear and hatred, the story is about the personal challenges the hero has to overcome on his journey.

Read some Joseph Campbell.

 

[shilsen]

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.

You should really read all of the earlier posts. A number of them have already debunked this idea that math is being used as the engine of heroic endeavor, yet you keep beating the poor dead horse.

The whole question of exactly what is heroism, and whether you mean heroism on the basis of the player or the character, are also worth considering, since you never spelled them out in your complaints.

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

As Firelance said above, neither.

 

[Remathilis]

someone else can preach now.......

Compared to what heroes from the past?

Odysseus, who flaunted his superiority against the gods, slept with every half-goddess between Troy and home, and helped himself to a fair share of monstrous treasure between there and home?

Elric of Melbourne, the dark sorcerer wielding a demon-blade?

Perhaps Conan the Savage who drank, womanized, and sought personal glory (his own kingdom) for completely selfish reasons?

Dark, flawed heroes have been in vogue since Oedipus Rex, and I doubt they're going away. While some noble heroes (Sir Galahad, Superman) appear and call to our better angels, heroes like Batman and Lancelot continue to fascinate us BECAUSE they're imperfect, and therefore more "human."

 

[shilsen]

Thank you. That's a point which, however often and well made (as you just did), seems to be forgotten by many people. Not that it's new, of course. The complaint which megamania made was being made by Plato in The Republic and ever since (and before, I presume). Literally every generation complains that there are no "real" heroes any more and that the definition of heroism has changed from what it was, as if there was a single monolithic definition which every generation/culture before it held. Yeah, right!

 

[Mallus]

Right. Folks have been complaining that the present is a pale shadow of the past since, well, the distant past. It's an idea whose enduring quality is only matched by its falsehood.

 

[Lizard]

Right. Folks have been complaining that the present is a pale shadow of the past since, well, the the distant past. It's an idea whose enduring quality is only matched by its falsehood.

The King by Rudyard Kipling