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?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

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 fairytale lies in making heroes start out as someone just like us. Conversely, Chesterton observed that the modern psychological novel often makes the heroabnormal. This distinction raises a perennial question for tabletop role-playing games: Are our heroes normal people or comic-book style superheroes?​

​

Are we roleplaying psychological novels? I am pretty confused about attributing to Chesterton the idea that enduring tales must have a normal main character in general, since that would make him unaware of the appealing nature of the Illiad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, despite being a 19th century scholar.

With regard to the character's psychology, roleplaying normal persons is easier since most of us are normal persons. This stays the same irrespective of the character's power level or ability. Roleplaying alien psychology is hard because it doesn't come naturally, and by alien, I'd say the mind of a character that is very close to us, a regular 18th century nobleman for example, might be removed enough to be difficult to roleplay... given a set of beliefs that wouldn't come to us naturally.

 

[CF07]

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.

Well Croft (and other pulp heroes) are very much in genre, though you're right that the general pulp genre (which is very broad; I'd include James Bond in it, for example), involves incredibly lucky heroes who take a licking and keep on ticking. But I think once you start poking at Trek, it's pretty far from consistent, too. While they're not as tough as pulp heroes, the physics makes no real sense and is covered by technobabble. The show was never truly about that anyway. Especially when it comes to tOS, it was always about the characters. But it does have a genre and the game is pretty solidly consistent with that.

Even as well thought out a world as Middle Earth makes little sense except narratively in many spots. The Third Age is three thousand years, the last thousand and change of which are slow decline most places, with large areas of Middle Earth essentially unpopulated and desolate. Why? Essentially because the land lacks a True King. Who do the Shire hobbits trade with? Don't they notice that their old trading partners to the south no longer exist? Again, narratively. Shire hobbits are supposed to be incredibly provincial so they simply don't think about things like that.