Healing surges and other such fail.

[Bigode]

Congratulations, violence.

Thanks for missing my point. A fifty-fifty fight should be one the PCs can lose. Good tactics can win it by the PCs. They can also lose to enemy good tactics, but that doesn't mean that they can't or won't win.

Fights between groups nominally of same power played to the fullest on both sides mean, as a rule, that the PCs die, as said.

And agreed, it isn't. But you do have to deal with being prone (-4 to attack rolls, which may include the one to grapple...yes, I am assuming the SRD applies, because I don't have a good revision handy to refer to instead. I know they exist, that's not the point.), which is a bad position to be in, before making your roll to grapple me.

Take the chance to pick one such revision (you know where) - just reading it'll lead to arguing less idiocy.

Yes, because we ensure that NPCs are incompetent fools who should have known better to cross path with our PCs.

Given that PCs die often otherwise and that it's usually PCs who go after villains instead of the opposite, yes, and you do that by actually making them a series of fights each individually way easier than 50/50 and the last maybe close to that after deducting exhaustion - instead of playing dumb.

Which is incredibly and painfully stupid and obnoxious.

The Dark Lord threatens the whole world with conquest and despair...until the PCs come along, and then its only a matter of time before he gets his ass kicked.

Wait, what?

Do you know anything at all about contemporary Western art?

[shau]

I am saying that the recognition of your actions as heroic by other people is what makes a hero. And that is entirely independent of performing a morally correct action.

How far does this go for you? If I manage to convince people that I am a doctor, does that make me a doctor?

[Bigode]

Hero tends to be defined as what others think of you, unless you take "fought in Troy", which mostly includes what Elennsar likes to call "butchers". Doctor's defined as either having a diploma or completing a course depending on who you ask - neither's just a matter of external perception. So, there might be viable disagreements, but not this one.

[Talisman]

So saving a child's life isn't heroic unless it earns you a parade?

That's truly sickening.

I'm going to move beyond your attempt at character assassination here

No character assassination intended; I merely stated that I find that view - that public perception, not actions, define heroism - to be revolting to me.

and ask you this: would you term someone else a hero with no knowledge of whether or not they had actually done anything you'd call heroic?

Irrelevant. Whether I know what they've done does not change the simple fact that they did it.

Would attempting, and failing, to save a child's life make someone a hero?

Yes, especially if it placed the person in harm's way. Attempting to save another at risk to yourself is heroic.

Is performing an expected function heroic?

Depends on the function. If it involves saving/protecting others at personal risk? Hell yes. A policeman who risk his own life to save someone is no less a hero because he's been trained and gets paid for it.

I am saying that the recognition of your actions as heroic by other people is what makes a hero. And that is entirely independent of performing a morally correct action

And I disagree.

Are you saying that, if I run into a burning building to save a child, then slip away before anyone knows what I've done, I am not a hero? That's malarky. Heroism is about actions.

By your logic, "hero" = "glory-hound." I cannot and will not accept that.

Heroism is defined by actions and intentions, not by public accolades.

He did his best to avoid the risk in the first place. Even then, the only reason he shouldered the quest to begin with was a selfish one. Is he less heroic because of that? Or is he still a hero because he freed the people from Farquad's rule? Does it matter?

Shrek is perhaps a bad example because, as you note, he had selfish motivations and the common good he accomplished was largely accidental. Also, Fiona was in no real danger from the dragon.

[Draco_Argentum]

D&D doesn't support heroic behavior or stories. It never has. It supports wargame behavior and stories. People don't have story-arc-related protection, and you are far more likely to die being punked than you are to have a last stand defending what matters most to you. If those deaths were good enough for Richard I and Alexander the Great, they're good enough for you.

Your character recurs in the narrative as long as your cunning and luck keeps them alive. When they fall, they fall, and the world goes on. And so do you, just with a different character.

I believe the point of the thread is to discuss mechanics that make heroics a good plan.

Trying and failing can't = death. Not because failure/death isn't heroic (less rewarded but same mindset so it counts for the discussion) but because having the PCs die contradicts the goal of continuing PCs.

Consider a three adventure campaign with each adventure having a climatic fight with a 50% death chance. The odds of a character making it to the third adventure is 25% assuming no death spiral effects are present in the combat system.

That doesn't simulate Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It simulates season three of BtVS being a new show called Xander the Vampire Butt-monkey.

[Talisman]

^Agreed.

Now, I must say I do like two concepts that have been mentioned here:

The Ragebar. As you get beat up, you gain access to Drama Points, or floating bonuses, or Power Through the Pain or some such. This is only effective in a short burst (i.e., during the climactic final battle). In effect, it allows the heroes to ignore penalties/gain bonuses during this fight, while still being banged-up and injured.

The Hero's Last Stand. When your character is incapacitated from damage or outright killed, you can declare the Last Stand. You immediately get to take a full round of actions, and everyone else on your team gets some sort of bonus (minor healing, +X to attacks and saves, whatever) as their outrage and your badass death empower them. The downside is, you die and cannot be resurrected.

Yeah, sometimes PCs die. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; in fact, it can be downright cool for a PC to die heroically and dramatically. it's lame to be ground to death by goblin hordes; it's cool to die by grabbing Lord Dreadly and hurling both of you into the Cosmic Fountain.

Edit: Since I am interested in the actual topic of this thread, I shall cease my "what is heroism?" derailments. Carry on.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I believe the point of the thread is to discuss mechanics that make heroics a good plan.

Yeah, and there's a lot of pointless grappling with the conflated definitions of heroism. What, exactly, do we want to see happen that we are not seeing?

• Support for PCs as protagonists with a story arc, not just playing pieces?
• Characters pressing on while injured and generally taking bigger risks, rather than playing it safe?
• Other?

Once we have some specific, measurable goals, we can actually work towards them.

[Draco_Argentum]

Well thats been reasonably constant. Continuous cast and people continuing on the adventure rather than having resting after each encounter be optimal. The difference is how those should be accomplished. At least, noone has been explicit about disagreeing with those premises.*

*I'm very barely skim reading Elennsar's posts at this point so if he has disagreed then I missed it.

[Elennsar]

#1: PCs can and will press on because they are determined to do so - it might be too stubborn or too proud or too focused or too whatever, or it might be motivated by idealism or greed or whatever.

However, they do not have to press on at all times. People press on when they need to press on or feel they need to.

If you're facing something where there's no reason to get there early, there's no need to rush. But people will rush if there is a need or percieved need.

#2: A consistent cast of major characters, with PCs included but not the sole members.

#3: The possibility that you can die other than by activating "Last Stand". If you're worried about dying to the goblin hordes meaninglessly, the game needs to support (mechanically) "run the fuck away". Some fights are pretty nearly "death? Not going to happen." Plenty aren't, however.

See #5 for more on encounters ending other than the gory end.

#4 Facing encounters with minimal risk should not be better for advancement than maximum risk, nor should we necessarily favor maximum risk.

#5: The reality that NPCs who are supposedly your equals actually are. If you want lots of weaker opponents so PCs have better than 50-50 odds, then we need lower level people for PCs to run into, not people who are weaker than you despite being the same level.

#6: You. Killed. My father. Prepare to die! The Ragebar, as Talisman put it. I'd prefer "ignore penalties" to "gain bonuses", though the "you killed my father, prepare to die" vengeance quest itself may give bonuses (so the fighting-through-the-pain just negates the penalties, but the "I will hunt down the six fingered man." gives bonuses, and they can/should be used together for the climatic scene.)

#7: Taking of prisoners being possible (by winning NPCs, and PCs for that matter) instead of every fight being to the gory end. There are plenty of things where Conan or whoever can be overwhelmed, beaten into unconsciousness, thrown in a dungeon, and not dead.

#8: A gap between "best possible" and "necessary to not get killed". Heroes make dumb mistakes. So do villains. So does everyone. And it won't necessarily get you killed.[/i]


I have a problem with the "There will be sequels" shield. Our priority should be for Bob the Werewolf Slayer to have a fighting chance of making it through episode 1. No more than that, no less than that.

If he does, great. We can do episode 2. If not, well, if being a werewolf slayer was easy, we wouldn't have ______ _______ playing Bob (fill in the blank with the name of your favorite male actor of the right age range).

James Bond is a lot more badass for laughing as he gets tortured then for having a power called "I win at cards.".

He is grabbing a triumph from something actually gone wrong.

And if we can't have PCs ever doing that, then a lot of really cool scenes don't work very well.

[Username17]

James Bond can't ever die. He can have temporary and even permanent set backs. But he is completely shielded by the fact that there will be mor movies about him.

He doesn't have a fighting chance of survival, he has a 100% chance of survival. That's just an objective fact. Anything you use James Bond as an example of is an example of something you can do with a character who can't die, because he's a character and he can't die.

-Username17

[Elennsar]

Congra-fucking-lations on entirely missing what I was using Bond as an example of, Frank.

Bond winning at cards is not particularly impressive. We know he's good at playing cards. That's part of what makes Bond who and what he is (whether given "going to survive" or not).

Bond laughing while being tortured is a lot cooler, because him being captured is "Wait. How'd they do that? How'd they manage to capture him?"...so instead of being Mr. All My Rolls Succeed, he's grabbing a triumph out of a situation that he failed at his primary goal at (avoid being captured).

That is cool. The fact that it won't cost him anything has nothing to do with it.

[RandomCasualty2]

Bond laughing while being tortured is a lot cooler, because him being captured is "Wait. How'd they do that? How'd they manage to capture him?"...so instead of being Mr. All My Rolls Succeed, he's grabbing a triumph out of a situation that he failed at his primary goal at (avoid being captured).

What? James Bond gets captured all the time, to the point where you're not even surprised when it happens.

Even in Dr. No, the very first bond movie, He got captured.

[Elennsar]

So shoot me, this is why I don't claim to be a Bond expert.

I still find him laughing while being tortured to be a lot more impressive in terms of "I am a badass. I can do badass stunts." than him for the umpteenth time winning at cards.

And it would be nice to give PCs times that when something has gone wrong, they can still seize a triumph, rather than making it so that success is (almost?) inevitable so those occasions never come up.

[Username17]

And it would be nice to give PCs times that when something has gone wrong, they can still seize a triumph, rather than making it so that success is (almost?) inevitable so those occasions never come up.

That's just hit points under a different name. Rolls go against you and you deplete your Edge (or whatever you call it), and when you run out, you pretty much have to stop. The bad guys at this point get away and you try to get them next time, wherever you happen to be at the time.

-Username17

[MartinHarper]

Hero tends to be defined as what others think of you.

Well, we have a stock phrase for people who perform heroic actions, where those heroic actions are not widely recognised by others: unsung hero. I don't think you give a game a more heroic flavour by including more bards.

[Draco_Argentum]

#2 and #3 are inconsistent. Someone already posted the maths.

[virgil]

I don't think you give a game a more heroic flavour by including more bards.

I must respectfully disagree

[Bigode]

Well, we have a stock phrase for people who perform heroic actions, where those heroic actions are not widely recognised by others: unsung hero. I don't think you give a game a more heroic flavour by including more bards.

Let's suppose I was willing to be senselessly technical: I could say Armin Weives isn't being sung enough* and any definition of hero other than "public appreciation" is highly subjective, so I can proclaim him an unsung hero. But you know what's (in theory) more important? That your line of thought does require a subjective decision on which people here really don't agree about (though not to such an extent that anyone might include Weives, I suppose) - and you know what? This was about rules, not morality - disagreements can be "solved" via alternate rules, if they matter at all.

*: he's being sung a lot, actually - but hopefully not as a hero ...

[JonSetanta]

How often--on a round-by-round basis drawing from a pool of daily resources. To what degree--per unit of resources, or overall?

Overall.

[Elennsar]

That's just hit points under a different name. Rolls go against you and you deplete your Edge (or whatever you call it), and when you run out, you pretty much have to stop. The bad guys at this point get away and you try to get them next time, wherever you happen to be at the time.

That's not "seizing victory from the jaws of defeat" by you.

Having PCs constantly win (and making the bad guy run off is better than nothing by quite a lot) and never have any scenes where they can find a small triumph and use it for all its worth doesn't allow for that scene.

Or for prison escapes, which can be pretty cool.

#2 and #3 are inconsistent. Someone already posted the maths.

#2 and #3 are only inconsistent because we think that the math holds up in the real world.

I rolled several d6 yesterday (being a subcommander for someone in a Battlefleet Gothic game).

6d6=/=1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 consistently. My first roll of that was 5, 3, 3, 2, 2 as I recall.

Sure, if we roll dice "long enough", probable outcomes will happen.

And if we have infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters, one of them will turn out the works of Ayn Rand.

Several, actually.

But we're not rolling infinite times, and it is just as likely you'll get a 1 when it doesn't matter as when it does.

So, yeah. The math may not support it, but actual dice in play do.

Real question: What do we intend to do about short term healing, defined as something that can be done in the field, in rounds or minutes instead of hours or days (or weeks), in regards to what it can save you from and why we should bother with it?

[Username17]

So what you're saying is that winning the lottery is awesome, so the game should be set up so that actually winning in the game is as difficult as winning the lottery in real life, so that if you ever win in the game it will be as awesome as winning the lottery?

Game design fail.

-Username17

[Elennsar]

No. I am saying that PCs should, at times, fail. And at times, fail badly. (because NPCs are Incompetent sucks ass).

It also sucks because it eliminates any scene of where PCs can triumph in the face of defeat.

Let's say you're in an army. The army is defeated despite the best efforts of the PCs. The PCs can hold the rear and let the king escape (before taking care of their own escape).

If the PCs will never lose, you can never have that.

As for the dice: If and when rolling d6 gives me the same number of 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s, and 6s, I'll get back to you. For now, counting but not limited to yesterday, it hasn't.

So assuming that rolling a d6 six times will produce the 1/6 outcome because Math Says So is not supported by actual dice.

[Username17]

If the chances are that the players will fail, then the chances are that the players will fail.

I don't know why you have trouble accepting this fact. It's a god damned tautology.

-Username17

[Elennsar]

The chances, yes. The actual outcome, in actual play, with actual decisions and actual dice, maybe, maybe not.

In the United States, a bit less than 1% of the males share my first name.

I've met at least two Georges and I know well enough to remember the names less than two hundred people.

Maybe less than one hundred.

And things like that happen.

[Tshern]

So the chances are that the players will fail, but that means absolutely nothing, because not all die rolls actually work exactly the same way averages dictate? Imagine that.