D&D General What Should Magic Be Able To Do, From a Gameplay Design Standpoint?

The bravery part was their not fleeing. The heroic part was their not quitting.
Tenacity is an admirable quality, but IMO by itself it is not really a heroic quality, though it is necessary in order to be heroic. Sort of like how being conscious isn't a heroic quality, but it is necessary in order to be a hero, or how intelligence by itself isn't a heroic quality, but it can facilitate heroic action. Sauron showed incredible tenacity in refusing to give up after Isildur cut off the Ring, but that tenacity objectively was not heroic in nature.

I think the ring would have overcome Sam if given long enough; and that he only carried it for a day or two makes it a moot point in any case.
Sure, but the claimed point was that nobody would have been able to endure the Ring at the precipice of the Fire of Doom. If Samwise is sufficiently defended against the Ring that it would take a long time for him to succumb to it, then it seems reasonable that even if the Ring twisted its screws as hard as it could, it wouldn't have stopped Sam from throwing it into the Fire of Doom, and thus proving himself a hero--someone able to overcome the Ring's temptations and willingly give it away (a feat specifically called out as being Extremely Unusual when Frodo offered it to Galadriel, and reinforced by how Bilbo was unwilling to part with it.)

At the last, when his courage mattered most, Frodo failed. Sauron would have reclaimed the Ring, and the war would have been lost, had it not been for Gollum's greed and desperation driving him to try to steal back the Ring. That's something a classical anti-hero (in the style of Spider-Man) would do: falter, fall away from the trial of greatness at the very moment that that greatness would be achieved.

Frodo isn't the hero of LotR, nor is Samwise. The hero is Aragorn. That's why it's so impactful in the films, when Aragorn speaks so highly of his hobbit friends: it is the objectively most heroic character in the story praising the tenacious mundanity of the hobbits.

For a contrasting example, this is precisely what makes Death of a Salesman such a profound tragedy. It doesn't have a hero, not even a tragic one. Willy Loman isn't a hero, he's utterly mundane and the crazy dreams he aspires to are just that, crazy, unachievable nonsense. He grasps and grasps and grasps for things he can never have, ruins his life and his sons' lives through his desperate desire for Something More, and in the end his inability to accept his mundanity is his own undoing, the very thing that drives him to suicide rather than finding joy in the life he has. Willy Loman isn't a hero, and that's what makes him tragic.

In exactly the same way, Bilbo, and Frodo, and Samwise are not heroes, and that's precisely what makes them brave, ordinary people attempting something even the extraordinary would struggle with. They fail, but Gollum's foolish greed manages to save the day--the Ring's own corruption causing its eventual destruction, a self-defeating evil, as is so often the case in literature--because as Gandalf said, “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

It really is one of the most important themes of the LotR trilogy that Frodo isn't a hero. Sam is almost a hero--he comes across as a bit like a more wholesome, less-tricksome fairy-tale peasant boy--but not quite there. There's an argument to be made that Merry might be a hero, given his role in helping take down the Witch-King, but it's pretty clear he's a sidekick to Eowyn there so it's a bit murky.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think Lancelot is always going to be the last to go down in his unit, and will take four hits to kill!
Oh, most assuredly. He is, after all, the greatest knight in the world, and totally not Chrétien de Troye's Original Character Do Not Steal. It's just interesting to see him put alongside Arthur and Aragorn and other moral paragons, when Lancelot is anything but a moral paragon.
 

* - missing on first glance are Illusion, Emotion, and Polymorph (others, as opposed to shapeshifting oneself).
illusion (the classic schools still exist) and shapechanging/transformation cover the first and last, but ig you COULD have an emotion school?

but to be clear, the spells in level up are mainly grouped by the classical schools. the others are more like tags or traits
 



illusion (the classic schools still exist) and shapechanging/transformation cover the first and last, but ig you COULD have an emotion school?
There are a couple of spells in Level Up and in D&D that can generate an emotion in an individual such as Fear, but I think they would fall under the psychic school/tag as they are trying to bring about a mental change.
 



Regardless of discussions of how things should be, or whether survival play is conducive towards heroic gameplay, I've come to a conclusion on a separate point. And that's that TSR-era A/D&D did a poor job of making the survival mini-game fun and interesting.
Agreed.

there are the occasional 'do we cut short the adventure and head back?' or 'do we take the shortcut (we might get lost)?' decisions in wilderness travel, but for the most part the only decision is how much food and water to pack. To the later, regardless of one's opinion on character death in general, the whole party* setting out for a dungeon and never being heard from again (starving to death) is one of the most ignominious/least interesting TPKs one can imagine. *assuming the party generally all packs the same amount, and/or shares food until it is gone

I think I've seen a group that actually went through with that all of twice in 42 years of gaming. Some have come up with some kind of house-rule alternative consequences*. Most just over-pack food and water** and try to have backups*** asap, making it pretty much a survival-insurance tax, rather than an interesting part of the gameplay.
*"All but 10% of you wander out of the woods 1d3 weeks later, 1d4 towns over, with 1d6 hp left, and 1d8 lasting injuries. Make 1d10 item saves amongst your magic items. Those of you in the 10% group, roll on this chart to see why you aren't amongst them..."
**pretty inexpensive after a few levels, so not horrible if you have to jettison some in place of treasure on most adventures.
***magic items, create water/create food & water/good berry spells, or emergency go-home abilities.


Most other games I've seen do the same or less interesting*, although few advertise it as a major part of the game, either*. However, if someone wanted to make an interesting game around such things, there's no reason why you couldn't.
I have not done much survival-esque stuff in my FRPGing until I started GMing Torchbearer 2e a few years ago. It works pretty well, and adds a certain grim comedy to play.
 

The bravery part was their not fleeing. The heroic part was their not quitting.

I think the ring would have overcome Sam if given long enough; and that he only carried it for a day or two makes it a moot point in any case.
Eventually perhaps but Tolkien wrote in one of his books of unfinished stuff that Sam's wants and desires were so simple the ring just had nothing to work with. Tolkien loves the idea that the truly good simple man was like a moral rock of Gibraltar. Not letting any of those over analytical thoughts pull them away from their9ral compass.
 

Remove ads

Top