Worlds of Design: From Zero to Hero

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

“This is why the new novels die so quickly, and why the old fairy tales endure forever. The old fairy tale makes the hero a normal human boy; it is his adventures that are startling; they startle him because he is normal. But in the modern psychological novel the hero is abnormal.” G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936)

The debate over the fundamental nature of the hero has endured for centuries. As noted by author G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936), the appeal of the old fairy tale lies in making heroes start out as someone just like us. Conversely, Chesterton observed that the modern psychological novel often makes the hero abnormal. This distinction raises a perennial question for tabletop role-playing games: Are our heroes normal people or comic-book style superheroes?

This discussion continues a long-running inquiry into heroic identity, which we explored previously in discussions about whether heroes are born or made and how our perceptions of heroics have evolved from a black and white morality to shades of grey. Today, the focus is firmly on the question of normalcy.

What's Normal, Anyway?​

To clarify the terms, we can define normal as "conforming to a typical or expected standard, being usual, ordinary, or average, and free from defect or irregularity." Abnormal, by contrast, simply means "deviating from what is normal or usual," without necessarily carrying a pejorative meaning. Even within the definition of "normal," there is a wide range; for instance, a person who is two meters tall is still within the realm of normal, though certainly an outlier.

Fantasy and Mundane Archetypes​

Chesterton’s ideal of the "normal boy" is closely echoed by characters like Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. This is unsurprising, given that J.R.R. Tolkien was steeped in fairy tales and only a generation younger than Chesterton. It has been suggested that the hobbits, as a whole, represent normal people thrust into extraordinary circumstances.

Contrast this with Aragorn, who is born with a heroic destiny already assigned to him. Even so, he must apply bravery and dedication to achieve it, much like a gifted young athlete who must strive to become a star. Athletes themselves offer an interesting parallel to heroes, existing on both sides of the normal/abnormal spectrum. Players like Brooks Robinson became great through sheer hard work, while others start with exceptional gifts. Even an outlier like Mugsy Bogues, a 5'3" NBA player in a sport dominated by larger athletes, can be seen as representing the normal among the abnormal.

From Normal Start to Abnormal Finish​

How players and Game Masters approach character generation often dictates where a hero begins on this spectrum. Some GMs prefer to create "normal" characters by using dice-rolling methods like 3d6, forcing players to take abilities in the order rolled. Other GMs create "abnormal" characters right away by allowing players to generate far-above-average statistics or backgrounds. Even point-buy systems, like the one used in Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition, might force characters to start as statistically normal, yet provide common pathways for them to become abnormal as they progress.

Regardless of their starting point, characters inevitably become abnormal at higher levels in many RPG systems, essentially becoming superheroes in a fantasy setting. This progression leads some GMs (myself included), to begin characters at higher tiers to ensure PCs are a little more extraordinary—and better able to survive—than a raw first-level character, even when using normal ability scores.

From the player's perspective, this decision hinges on the method of engagement: vicarious participation vs. acting. A player engaging vicariously might try to maintain a sense of "normal" behavior, doing what they would do in a given situation. Conversely, they may act "abnormally" due to the freedom afforded by the game. If the player views their role as an actor, the expectations of the rest of the table will strongly influence the character's level of normalcy.

In the end what's "normal" is really defined by the group. Most players play fantasy role-playing games to be heroes. And yet the basics of leveling systems like D&D imply that the character must start out weaker to make the journey all the more enjoyable, so that there is a clear difference in power between starting and ending a campaign. Levels provide the structure for superpowers, but adventuring makes those characters superheroes.

Your Turn: Are the heroes in your RPG games predominantly normal, abnormal, or somewhere in between?

 

[Micah Sweet]

View attachment 420606
Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

The debate over the fundamental nature of the hero has endured for centuries. As noted by author G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936), the appeal of the old fairy tale lies in making heroes start out as someone just like us. Conversely, Chesterton observed that the modern psychological novel often makes the hero abnormal. This distinction raises a perennial question for tabletop role-playing games: Are our heroes normal people or comic-book style superheroes?

This discussion continues a long-running inquiry into heroic identity, which we explored previously in discussions about whether heroes are born or made and how our perceptions of heroics have evolved from a black and white morality to shades of grey. Today, the focus is firmly on the question of normalcy.

What's Normal, Anyway?​

To clarify the terms, we can define normal as "conforming to a typical or expected standard, being usual, ordinary, or average, and free from defect or irregularity." Abnormal, by contrast, simply means "deviating from what is normal or usual," without necessarily carrying a pejorative meaning. Even within the definition of "normal," there is a wide range; for instance, a person who is two meters tall is still within the realm of normal, though certainly an outlier.

Fantasy and Mundane Archetypes​

Chesterton’s ideal of the "normal boy" is closely echoed by characters like Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. This is unsurprising, given that J.R.R. Tolkien was steeped in fairy tales and only a generation younger than Chesterton. It has been suggested that the hobbits, as a whole, represent normal people thrust into extraordinary circumstances.

Contrast this with Aragorn, who is born with a heroic destiny already assigned to him. Even so, he must apply bravery and dedication to achieve it, much like a gifted young athlete who must strive to become a star. Athletes themselves offer an interesting parallel to heroes, existing on both sides of the normal/abnormal spectrum. Players like Brooks Robinson became great through sheer hard work, while others start with exceptional gifts. Even an outlier like Mugsy Bogues, a 5'3" NBA player in a sport dominated by larger athletes, can be seen as representing the normal among the abnormal.

From Normal Start to Abnormal Finish​

How players and Game Masters approach character generation often dictates where a hero begins on this spectrum. Some GMs prefer to create "normal" characters by using dice-rolling methods like 3d6, forcing players to take abilities in the order rolled. Other GMs create "abnormal" characters right away by allowing players to generate far-above-average statistics or backgrounds. Even point-buy systems, like the one used in Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition, might force characters to start as statistically normal, yet provide common pathways for them to become abnormal as they progress.

Regardless of their starting point, characters inevitably become abnormal at higher levels in many RPG systems, essentially becoming superheroes in a fantasy setting. This progression leads some GMs (myself included), to begin characters at higher tiers to ensure PCs are a little more extraordinary—and better able to survive—than a raw first-level character, even when using normal ability scores.

From the player's perspective, this decision hinges on the method of engagement: vicarious participation vs. acting. A player engaging vicariously might try to maintain a sense of "normal" behavior, doing what they would do in a given situation. Conversely, they may act "abnormally" due to the freedom afforded by the game. If the player views their role as an actor, the expectations of the rest of the table will strongly influence the character's level of normalcy.

In the end what's "normal" is really defined by the group. Most players play fantasy role-playing games to be heroes. And yet the basics of leveling systems like D&D imply that the character must start out weaker to make the journey all the more enjoyable, so that there is a clear difference in power between starting and ending a campaign. Levels provide the structure for superpowers, but adventuring makes those characters superheroes.

Your Turn: Are the heroes in your RPG games predominantly normal, abnormal, or somewhere in between?

It depends on the game and the players. My personal preference is definitely for a more grounded game, where the PCs may be "special" by virtue of their actions, but themselves fall within the normal range of their species (albeit likely higher in that spectrum in some areas). If I want superheroes I'll play a superheroes game (which I love and sometimes will happily play). For D&D and it's relatives, and for any game where there isn't an explicit, in-setting reason why the PCs are physically extraordinary compared to everyone else, I want normal people who make extraordinary choices in extraordinary situations.

All that being said, I'm not the only person at the table. Many players don't want what I want, so I regularly have to compromise on my preferences for social reasons. All I can do is get as close as my players will let me. Their fun matters, but not more than mine as the GM. I don't see GMing as a service I provide to the players (like a job), or derive my fun (as some here seem to) entirely from making the players happy. We all should be doing our best to maintain an environment where everyone can enjoy themselves.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I play a normie in reality. I'm not too interested in playing one (or running for them) in my fiction. Definitely on the "heroes" side of things for me, though I'm not saying "no challenge."

Whereas I want my fiction to resemble reality unless there's an in-setting reason it doesn't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To Chesterson, Spider-Man/Peter Parker would probably be largely "normal" in the sense he was speaking: He's basically a normal guy, with normal guy anxieties, cares and relationships, thrust into a really weird situation. While hyper-obsessed, protected by wealth Batman/Bruce Wayne would be abnormal.

Spider-Man vs. Batman is an excellent comparison, and IMO characters like Spider-Man area big reason behind Marvel's early popularity. I wouldn't want to play a superhero game in a setting where Batman-style personalities (ie, paragons of something or other) are the norm.

 

[CF07]

You are definitely leaning into power over deed. Im the opposite.

I don't know that's how I'd think about it. I do like deeds and want a game that has plenty of options for that, but what I don't like is the kind of "---- in the dirt" campaign that seems to come with normie type games. I want the PCs to be able to give and take a beating. Swords and sorcery is a good spot for me... REH Conan. Lower end supers is another good example. PCs really do need to be challenged or there's no point.

 

[CF07]

Whereas I want my fiction to resemble reality unless there's an in-setting reason it doesn't.

To me I want the secondary reality to make sense.

For example, I really enjoy Modiphius' Star Trek Adventures. STA doesn't simulate reality, it simulates Star Trek TV shows and movies. PC motivations are, of course, up to the players and are often "realistic" in important ways, but it's definitely not reality.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To me I want the secondary reality to make sense.

For example, I really enjoy Modiphius' Star Trek Adventures. STA doesn't simulate reality, it simulates Star Trek TV shows and movies. PC motivations are, of course, up to the players and are often "realistic" in important ways, but it's definitely not reality.

I love STA (mostly because I love Star Trek), but for me it is a specific departure from the type of gaming I usually enjoy, with all its narrative mechanics and character focus. Running it (which I haven't done yet but is my plan) is an explicit move outside my comfort zone.

 

[dragoner]

Whereas I want my fiction to resemble reality unless there's an in-setting reason it doesn't.

To me I want the secondary reality to make sense.

I'm all right with it not being realistic as long as it is honest about doing it. 100% people should play what they like and if they want supers, then they should do it. Pretty sure that playing a game with rules for supers is going to be more satisfying than trying to shoehorn them into a game where they don't fit. Though a lot of this circles back on D&D which is made to control the power of Magic Users originally, and evolved from there. Someone was describing to me a martial build that had the damage dealing capability of a caster, and that is cool, esp how into it they are, though it's a bit much for me.

 

[CF07]

I love STA (mostly because I love Star Trek), but for me it is a specific departure from the type of gaming I usually enjoy, with all its narrative mechanics and character focus. Running it (which I haven't done yet but is my plan) is an explicit move outside my comfort zone.

I've played a ton of STA. I'm not a Trekkie by any stretch of the imagination but the game is super fun. The game system reads strangely but it plays incredibly well... as long as the players and GM all get on board with the fact that it's really NOT a wargame.

You will suck if you just roll 2d20 and hope. Whenever a roll matters spend Momentum or take Threat to make it more likely to succeed.

In action sequences, your characters should be creating an Advantage or removing a Disadvantage, building Momentum, or spending it to succeed at whatever their big task is.

The best talents in the game are Bold and Cautious; they are not only character-defining but also show up all the time. Bold characters take Threat but generate Momentum when they do (by accumulating extra successes). Cautious characters spend the Momentum that gets generated.

Players should take Threat and GMs should spend it. That's how the game runs. Starving the GM of Threat is usually (but not 100%) a recipe for a boring game.

 

[CF07]

I'm all right with it not being realistic as long as it is honest about doing it.

Totally.

The idea of a secondary reality (as opposed to concepts like suspension of disbelief) is very liberating in my view. A game (or piece of fiction) doesn't need to be realistic, it needs to be reasonably self-consistent. In Star Trek, there are genre tropes that make total sense even though they're manifestly not realistic (as in our world in a few centuries probably won't work that way). Star Trek is rife with time travel and FTL travel, weird sci fi monsters, interfertile alien species, etc. Same with supers... totally not realistic at all. I mean, how would Superman actually pick up a building without crushing into the ground or the building falling apart? But it works in the genre. Pulp heroes like Lara Croft can fall down from heights, grunt and groan, but manage to get up and fight not too long after. What I really like about STA is how well it nails the Star Trek franchise shows. It really nails the secondary reality.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Totally.

The idea of a secondary reality (as opposed to concepts like suspension of disbelief) is very liberating in my view. A game (or piece of fiction) doesn't need to be realistic, it needs to be reasonably self-consistent. In Star Trek, there are genre tropes that make total sense even though they're manifestly not realistic (as in our world in a few centuries probably won't work that way). Star Trek is rife with time travel and FTL travel, weird sci fi monsters, interfertile alien species, etc. Same with supers... totally not realistic at all. I mean, how would Superman actually pick up a building without crushing into the ground or the building falling apart? But it works in the genre. Pulp heroes like Lara Croft can fall down from heights, grunt and groan, but manage to get up and fight not too long after. What I really like about STA is how well it nails the Star Trek franchise shows. It really nails the secondary reality.

My issue here though is that all those things you mentioned for Trek are considered scientific facts (and in fact are such) in universe. The principles of reality allow for those things, and the people in setting know it. That isn't necessarily true for something like Lara Croft. Instead, it's in the narrative layer, not in the setting layer like it is with Trek. I see a real difference there.