A rant against so-called heroes

Ravengm · Post by **Ravengm** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:20 pm

Elennsar wrote:The fact that I haven't died yet doesn't mean it was impossible for me to die before now, it means I didn't die.

The fact that my character hasn't died yet doesn't mean it was impossible for him to die before now, it means he didn't die.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:08 pm

If I ever make my character ignore the fact that a man is pointing a gun at her, it's either because my character doesn't know what a gun is, or I'm metagaming. In which case, I'm not roleplaying my character at all because I'm not staying true to what she would do.

And setting up the rules so that if the character knows anything about the realities of being shot at that they know that the other guy will miss the broadside of a battlecruiser means that the characters -should- know that ISMA graduates will miss them. Which is not good.

Metagaming not required - just experience with ISMA graduates.

You are seriously suffering from a lack of creative story-telling.

No, I am pointing out that you can recover from just about anything short of death, given the right conditions, to a greater or lesser extent. Break your leg? It will heal. Depression? Therapy can help with that. Get captured? You can be rescued. Etc, etc.

You never are forced to say "I am willing to die if that will make a difference.", because you can win the war -and- take part in the victory parade.

Don't ever mock the idea that giving up your time is not a sacrifice. Time is the most valuable currency a person has to spend, and unlike anything else, you never get it back. Giving up your time to help people is sacrifice, and downplaying it in any way, shape, or form is just cruel.

No, it isn't. Insisting that it is a great and terrible sacrifice is ridiculous unless losing that time -costs you something-. Oh damn, you had to stop and give someone directions so you were ten minutes late to something you wanted to go to.

You're a hero. NOT!

I refuse to accept your crazy idea that sacrifice is defined by Extreme Hurt™. There are many ways that a person can sacrifice, and giving up their mortal flesh isn't the only way.

Sacrifice is defined by actual, serious, meaningful, stinging hurt. Losing half an hour to deal with something is as much a sacrifice to my life as sleeping in half an hour later would sacrifice anything that day.

But do not use your desire to repeatedly roleplay death scenes as a justification that our desire to roleplay someone who's willing to die - but stays alive - isn't heroic.

Your unwillingness to ever give the last full measure of devotion means that your characters will never be able to show if when the chips really and truly are down and things really are "live, and (), die and ()." whether they are willing to die for something.

Being willing to die without any actual risk of death is an easy thing to say. Being willing when that risk actually is threatening you actually means something besides that you're reasonably self confident.

But because she lived on in an insane asylum, incapable of even responding to her own name, she didn't actually give her last full measure of devotion. Screw you.

If she's incapable of being cured? That's one thing. If she's "alive" but for all intents and purposes as good as dead and that won't go away, then its not a big difference so far as the Last Full Measure goes.

But insanity can be cured or mitigated. Death, barring resurrection, cannot.

Of course not. Who does?

I want to know that if my character is fighting someone who should be capable of killing them that they're not invulnerable because there's "still another three sessions before we fight the big boss." That destroys immersion.

Why would I want to invest time into making a character only to have her trip on a spike, stab herself, and die halfway through the plot?

Why would you want to have a character who can laugh off any obstacles to the end of the story? So that a "death trap" is just an opportunity to add to the people who haven't read that "I will not put the heroes in an overly elaborate an ineffective death trap to show how brilliant I am which will only succeed in showing how brilliant the heroes are. Instead I will just shoot them."?

Boring Invicible Hero.

Why would I ever create personalities and backgrounds and put forth the effort of living vicariously through fiction if all my effort is going to be wasted by premature eradication?

Because gee, the character might have something happen that they can't beat and they can't survive - not because the GM is a dick and deliberaetely trying to fuck you over, but because bad things happen to good people too and they ran into one of those things.

Killing a dragon is a Big Deal™! It's dangerous! It's something that no one has succeeded at before! And if we don't succeed, then the dreams of every person in the world will make their brains bleed out through their ears and civilization as we know it will be extinguished! Dying is clearly the easier option here.

It isn't a big deal and it isn't dangerous if you're not actually at risk and you're not actually challenged. It is no more of an amazing feat for you to kill a dragon when it is impossible to be scarred or slain than it is for me to trample an ant hill.

If the dragon is big and nasty and dangerous, your PCs should be able to die at its hands, should be able to be scarred (mentally/pyschologically or physically) by it, should be at actual risk.

The fact that my character hasn't died yet doesn't mean it was impossible for him to die before now, it means he didn't die.

Which is awesome if there's an actual chance that if the right things actually happen that he (she?) can actually die - it is not awesome when your character makes all saves vs. death on a 1 and a 20 doesn't hit them ever.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:42 pm

Elennsar wrote:Right, because the fact that it didn't happen means that it was incapable of happening. That makes no logical sense.

For a book, it makes perfect sense. Because a book isn't determined by physics or rules or anything. It's purely author fiat. There is only one given way that any one author is going to make the story happen.

Granted you might say "If Tom Clancy wrote Conan the Barbarian, then Conan might have died."

But when you're talking about one author's work, it's set in stone and that's the only way it could happen, because the author has absolute power. Conan doesn't roll to hit, he doesn't rely on his expertise to block attacks. What he does is determined solely by the author.

He could even magically conjure space marine armor and a rocket launcher and go to town on a serpent cult if the author wanted him to. Because there are no rules in a novel. It's pure illusionism.

They'd call you a bad author if you just had random shit happen, but you could do it. If you want fluffy orange fire breathing bunnies to fall from the sky for no reason, you can do it. That's the power of writing a novel.

You seem to be willing to apply illusionism to novels, but not to RPGs, such that you accept while watching a James Bond movie that Bond is in real danger but can't accept that a D&D character is in real danger. And seriously, if you can't get past that then RPGs just aren't for you, at least not the conventional kind of RPGs with recurring characters.

When you make it virtually impossible for them to fail seriously, and then make it even more impossible to stay dead (death: the revolving door is just paying diamonds every so often for staying alive) - for all intents and purposes, a D&D character will not be dead and gone to wherever anything short of the things specifically noted as screwing with resurrection magic as a pretty safe given.

Well, saying "you can't die" and "you won't stay dead" are too different things.

I mean hell, Conan did die in Conan the Barbarian, and he came back too.

D&D characters are generally accepted to die more than Conan and come back more often.

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:04 am

A couple of things:

Consider these two statements:

During the course of a story, what happens within it can be changed by the authors whims and other peoples suggestions, but the basic plot and whether a character manages to jump over a bottomless pit or not (as an example) is solely down to the authors decision. If they are reasonable then they will base what happens on what has happened so far, what makes sense and what will make a good story, but in the end it is down to them.

During the course of a campaign, what happens within it can be changed by the players decisions, but the basic plot and whether a character manages to jump over a bottomless pit or not (as an example) is solely down to the GM's decision. If they are reasonable then they will base what happens on the rules and what will make a good and fun game, but in the end it is down to them.

Now, assuming that you don't disagree with these, what is the difference between
- a character not dying to a random mook because an author doesn't want him to die,
and
- the GM setting up the situation where the PC is unlikely to die and fudging rolls because the GM doesn't want the character to die.

Suicide bombers. By all your definitions, they are heroic. Because of their beliefs and principles, they are willing to die to attempt to change the world.

But would you really call suicide bombers in real life heroes? I'm sure you'd get a lot of people telling you otherwise.

How much of heroism is people's views? In my slightly parodic suggestion, I used the examples of the Charge of the Light Brigade. Were they heroes for charging into certain death to try to win the battle?

Or how about Custer and the Battle of Little Bighorn? Was that heroism? Or just arrogance and stupidity?

In the first, I can see the argument for heroism in that if they had refused then the willpower and orders of the whole army would be demolished, so they were willing to die to keep the whole army working, and to give them an ideal to aim for. Of course, it could just have been fear of punishment...

However, what would have happened if it wasn't witnessed by anyone. The whole cavalry dying,and being forgotten about. Were they heroes?

The second, by almost every historian I've heard of, thinks that it wasn't heroism.

Seriously, making time is a sacrifice. Forgoing your wants is a sacrifice. The month of Lent and the month of Ramadan are sacrifices. Every single Muslim who goes the month without eating, drinking, and abstaining from any sexual behaviour during the day is showing heroic behaviour.

Elennsar wrote: Sacrifice is defined by actual, serious, meaningful, stinging hurt.

If you don't think that doing this isn't really fucking difficult, serious, meaningful and sometimes painful then your an idiot. You should try not eating or drinking and doing your best not to even think about sex from 5 in the morning till 7 at night for three to four days.
It requires determination and strength, mental anguish if your a heavy smoker or extremely used to coffee, and can have a long lasting effect on your mental state. Don't tell me that's not sacrifice.

Now, to calm down a bit, I'm not saying that all Muslims are heroes or that fasting is the same level of sacrifice as losing a leg or dying, but only that heroism is a range of behaviour, from helping a cat out of a tree to going into an inferno to help random strangers. And performing heroic tasks doesn't make one a hero.

Just like Bill Gates spending time is more generous than most people. Think of it this way. If Bill Gates spends 10% of his free time planning, motivating, publicising and doing charitable behaviour, then thats probably 10% more free time than just about everyone else out there.

I think I have to say part of that again.

Performing heroic acts does not make you a hero. Some acts are more heroic than others, and you are ignoring most of the heroic acts.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:33 am

You seem to be willing to apply illusionism to novels, but not to RPGs, such that you accept while watching a James Bond movie that Bond is in real danger but can't accept that a D&D character is in real danger. And seriously, if you can't get past that then RPGs just aren't for you, at least not the conventional kind of RPGs with recurring characters.

I am willing to assume that it is possible that the author could have picked something else, but didn't - I am not willing to accept that a given outcome cannot be created without breaking or replacing the rules.

Well, saying "you can't die" and "you won't stay dead" are too different things.

If you can say with a very high level of confidence that someone won't stay dead, at best they're "somewhat dead".

Now, assuming that you don't disagree with these, what is the difference between
- a character not dying to a random mook because an author doesn't want him to die,
and
- the GM setting up the situation where the PC is unlikely to die and fudging rolls because the GM doesn't want the character to die.

The GM fudging things is one thing (and acceptable in the same sense the author saying that the event occured is). The rules making it so that unless the GM breaks/replaces the rules a given outcome cannot occur is another story, and the latter is the problem.

Suicide bombers. By all your definitions, they are heroic. Because of their beliefs and principles, they are willing to die to attempt to change the world.

No, they're not - they're certainly very brave and they're certainly very commited to their principles, but calling them "noble" is disputable, at best.

The second, by almost every historian I've heard of, thinks that it wasn't heroism.

I would describe them as brave. I cannot describe them as heroic in the sense of willing to die for the greater good when they were following orders ("theirs is not to wonder why...") and no more - though I'd be willing to point to an individual or individuals who went beyond merely "following orders" to accomplish something extraordinary. Saving a companion who lost their horse? Sure. Simply making the charge? Not enough on its own.

Seriously, making time is a sacrifice. Forgoing your wants is a sacrifice. The month of Lent and the month of Ramadan are sacrifices. Every single Muslim who goes the month without eating, drinking, and abstaining from any sexual behaviour during the day is showing heroic behaviour.

Lent and Ramadan, yes. Spending half an hour on something, no.

It requires determination and strength, mental anguish if your a heavy smoker or extremely used to coffee, and can have a long lasting effect on your mental state. Don't tell me that's not sacrifice.

^ Response above. Unless you want me to repeat the same words.

Now, to calm down a bit, I'm not saying that all Muslims are heroes or that fasting is the same level of sacrifice as losing a leg or dying, but only that heroism is a range of behaviour, from helping a cat out of a tree to going into an inferno to help random strangers. And performing heroic tasks doesn't make one a hero.

Helping a cat out of a tree is not heroic and it is not a meaningful sacrifice. Fasting like that (Ramadan) for a month is. Lent - depends on the sacrifice.

Giving up meatloaf - not so much. Giving up smoking - definately.

Just like Bill Gates spending time is more generous than most people. Think of it this way. If Bill Gates spends 10% of his free time planning, motivating, publicising and doing charitable behaviour, then thats probably 10% more free time than just about everyone else out there.

That doesn't make him a hero in any sense of the word, nor does it make it a great sacrifice.

Performing heroic acts does not make you a hero. Some acts are more heroic than others, and you are ignoring most of the heroic acts.

Performing heroic acts is heroic. Does that mean that every devout Muslim is a Great Hero? No. But its certainly a damn impressive feat and if heroism is defined by courage, resolve, and meaningful sacrifice (me giving up candy canes or web comics for Lent, if I was Catholic, would be a pretty meaningless sacrifice for me), it definately is a form of heroism.

If you don't perform a heroic act, you are by definition not heroic. If you perform one, you (all things being even) are.

I am perfectly okay with pyschological being as severe as physical, but it has to be as severe enough - as stated, while I would miss not having candy canes to some extent, calling that a "sacrifice", let alone heroic, is a joke.

Calling that a sacrifice is like calling a vow of chasity by an asexual antisocial loner a sacrifice.

By your apparent definition of sacrifice, me helping look for a friend's glasses (or waiting while that friend looks) is a true sacrifice in the same sense that taking a bullet is a sacrifice.

That's a little too much to take seriously.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:42 am

Elennsar wrote: I am willing to assume that it is possible that the author could have picked something else, but didn't - I am not willing to accept that a given outcome cannot be created without breaking or replacing the rules.

But there are no rules in a movie or a book except what happens. In fact what is written is the rules.

The director can't say "fuck the script, Bruce Willis is going to die in the opening scene of Die Hard, and officer Carl Winslow is gonna save the day as the real hero." because he's bound by what was written out in the established plot, and he gets fired if he totally fucks with things.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:51 am

The point is, what is going to be the script is not (for the creator, asumming he has the authority - if not, that's another story) set in stone.

Take LotR. Aragorn marrying Arwen is not the only possible outcome that could have happened, its the one Tolkien picked, but its not the only one he thought of or even the only one he seriously considered (as in, did something besides think and we don't know what he thought).

So it could have been something else. Saying it couldn't have been anything else is like saying history couldn't have been anything else, which is

material.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:49 am

Elennsar wrote: Take LotR. Aragorn marrying Arwen is not the only possible outcome that could have happened,

Yes it is. When you are reading LotR, it is the only way the story ends. Every time.

Tolkien does not dynamically choose another ending for you.

So it could have been something else. Saying it couldn't have been anything else is like saying history couldn't have been anything else, which is material.

Reality is based on fixed physical rules. Novels aren't.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:08 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Way to miss the entire fucking point there, sigma.

Wrong. I understand you but I don't agree with you, and I'll leave it at that if you'd like.

Multiquote, multiquote, personal attack, multiquote, bile and vitriol, bitter retort, quote again, feeble comeback, and another thread created solely to escalate fleeting netrage in to a 10-page flamewar.
Done.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:10 pm

Yes it is. When you are reading LotR, it is the only way the story ends. Every time.

Tolkien does not dynamically choose another ending for you.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it was the only outcome that could have happened to begin with.

Multiquote, multiquote, personal attack, multiquote, bile and vitriol, bitter retort, quote again, feeble comeback, and another thread created solely to escalate fleeting netrage in to a 10-page flamewar.
Done.

Seconded. Because it saves the server the bandwidth if we assume that happens before it actually does, and do something else.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:13 am

Elennsar wrote: Which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it was the only outcome that could have happened to begin with.

Where is this other outcome exactly, in your head?

In a book, there's no resistance. Tolkien gets his way, period. There's no possibility of another side winning because there is no other side. Sauron, Frodo, Gandalf, they all follow Tolkien's directive. There are no die rolls or random elements. It's just one nonrandom input: Author fiat. Because there are no variables, there are no alternate outcomes. It's just author fiat=LotR. Of course, you can change the author, but then it really wouldn't be LotR anymore in any conventional sense.

An RPG is not that way. You have a DM with a quest, but that quest isn't necessarily set in stone. You have the separate choices of each PC and you have the separate rolls of the dice. You have lots of variables. It's more like Quest + DM choice + PC choice + Rules + die rolls= D&D adventure. You've got lots more variables and much more interaction between them, such that the end result is undetermined.

And really Elennsar, if you don't get that, I don't know what to tell you.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:25 am

So, because the author chose a given outcome, he could not have picked something else.

Once something is picked, not only are all other outcomes not the case,
but they could never have been chosen to begin with.

Seriously. What the hell?[/i]

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:32 am

Elennsar wrote:So, because the author chose a given outcome, he could not have picked something else.

Right. Because author fiat isn't random, it's deliberate.

And do you seriously think that Conan could have died in the first 5 pages of the book? Seriously?

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:11 am

How about this to confuse you. Theres a way of thinking that everything is predetermined. If things happen in a given way based on physical laws, and people react to stimuli in a certain way, then while it my appear that there can be many possibilities, only one can ever happen.

And mental and emotional responses are predetermined. In the same situation and mindset, the same stimuli will cause a specific output. If someone who can't gain any more long term memories like Memento wakes up in a controlled environment, they will always react the same way.

So, yes, a books plot is that way because thats the only way it could ever have been. All your choices are predetermined. There is only one way you could react to this post and while in theory you could respond differently to how you feel right now, all the other 'possibilities' are impossible.

Complete mindfuck and of no use whatsoever in real life, but possibly interesting...

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:38 am

The best response to that philosophy?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107048/ is a very funny movie.

Right. Because author fiat isn't random, it's deliberate.

Being nonrandom doesn't mean it was inevitable.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:59 am

Parthenon wrote:Why don't we try something more destructive than just asking the same questions over and over and sidestepping Elennsar's train of thought. Its obvious he's thinking in a different direction. Oh, wait, I meant constructive.

Why don't we make his Artorius, but properly.

Here would be the basic ideas behind it. This whole post is one chain of thought so could go anywhere.

The RPG is set in Britain around 400AD. Roman rule is breaking down, but in a heroic way. The barbarbarian invaders are destroying villages, eating babies and destroying hope in their belief that their teutonic blood is better and should be worshipped. Yes, the invaders are actually Nazis, and as such it is entirely acceptable that they should be killed on sight.
(Diplomacy is impossible because they don't believe you are worthy of talking to them. Hell, you don't even know each others language, and keeping one of them alive long enough to learn is impossible)

There is one last, bright hope for humanity. The Dux Artorius and his last Legion is fighting to save the non-Aryans, and is doing heroic acts of battle to save the day.

The PCs are cohorts of the Dux. Combat is quite lethal. It is quite likely for a PC to die within a battle. The Charge of the Light Brigade is an acceptable and even encouraged military tactic. After all, if heroism needs possible risk, then definite death is more heroic. Suicide bombers are indeed the most heroic people in the world.

This means that the players will be changing characters a lot of the time. Hmmm... we could have a pool of characters and swap them around, and the main focus of the game will be the campaign, not the party. That could possibly work, but one PC could be played by many players over different sessions. The nearest thing I can think of would be Fire Emblem, but with a different player for each PC. If there is a TPK then the focus of the story goes to a different squad. If the Dux dies then another Dux is put forward and the PCs continue to be cohorts.

All characters should take 3-5 hits to die, so a Wound system might be best. Wounds should also give penalties, since a wounded character who continues fighting when they could retreat and go to the medics is more heroic because it is more dangerous.

No idea of normal combats, but chance of death within one encounter should be about 10-15%. As in, whether a normal combat should be between your company and 1,000 screaming Nazi barbarbarians, or with the PCs and a couple of red-shirts against 5-10 Nazi baby-eaters.

Any other ideas? Could this game work? What do you guys think? How often should the PCs see the Dux? Should the Dux get into combat? Is there a way to stop the invasion?

As a side thought, I can't be bothered to go through the Dungeonomicon and so on to see if Frank and K have come up with a useful combat minigame that makes combat interesting and proactive and have choices within it. Is there one, because otherwise the only thing I've seen is the notice-react-resolve-conclude, which doesn't work well with something like D&D.

One idea, actually brought up by a friend of mine who was pursuing a rather similar idea to realize more lethal fantasy stories (like A Song of Ice and Fire, where the heroes die at quite a perceptible rate comparable to the villains, only to be replaced by new heroes), would be to have game rewards that can more perceptibly pass on from one character to the next, so that you don't feel like you've lost everything as soon as you lose that next character in A Game of Thrones. Possibly even somehow incentivizing the occasional heroic sacrifice. Also, to have goals that would span multiple characters.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:55 am

Elennsar wrote:The best response to that philosophy?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107048/ is a very funny movie.

Seems more like a video game or MMO really.

You die, pull clumps of your hair out, come back to the spot you died, ribkick your own corpse, and get back to the same behavior or task that got you killed the previous 5 times.

In an RPG it could work but without a sense of appreciation for irony you lose credibility of theme very fast with effects such as Made A Pact With The Afterlife, or just plain Resurrection or Raise Dead.
Jesus, etc.

I don't get why some of you are on about a story ending early when the hero dies.
It doesn't need to.

Baton-passing as Caedrus mentioned would work for a low-magic low-fantasy setting (read: grimdark and grit) but I personally prefer the Groundhog Day and high-fantasy, along with settings that support said option to return when needed... with certain restrictions and/or costs.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:56 am

Being nonrandom doesn't mean it was inevitable.

Where was the randomness exactly?

When Bob Keane is writing up a battle scene for Batman, what were the odds of the author deciding to have him get killed off permanently in a fight with mooks?

I mean, if the chance of the author having Batman die in a fight with mooks was possible, what would you have it pegged at? When Batman is on patrol and he comes across some muggers in an alleyway, how likely is he to be shot in the gut fatally--causing Batman's story to end right then and there for all time?

MartinHarper · Post by **MartinHarper** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:07 pm

Elennsar makes more sense when you have him on ignore. That way you can theorise about what he might be trying to communicate without being distracted by his actual words.

The audience, watching Die Hard for the first time, might not know whether McClane will survive. In Die Hard the RPG, the players are the audience. Since the players know that McClane has the "won't bloody die" feat, so they know he will make it. To Ellensar, this makes McClane appear less heroic in the RPG than in the movie, despite his out-of-universe chance of death in both mediums being 0%, and his in-universe chance of death in both mediums being 100%.

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:25 pm

Elennsar wrote:The best response to that philosophy?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107048/ is a very funny movie.

That film [Groundhog Day] sort of proves my point. Each day is exactly the same and has the same stimuli in the same situation to everyone but Bill Murray. The waitress will always drop the tray, unless Bill comes along and changes the stimuli. The guys on the radio will always say the same thing.

The interesting part of that is how Bill Murray changes and that while normally it is how one person reacts to different situations, this is about how a changing character would respond to identical situations.

If Bill did exactly the same thing each day then exactly the same thing would happen each time. Imagine if the guy from Memento [who can't add things to long term memory] was in the same situation as Bill. It would be a very boring story, with the same thing repeated over, and over, and over, and.....

Elennsar wrote: Being nonrandom doesn't mean it was inevitable.

Errr... yes, yes it does. Almost by definition. If something isn't random, then it will happen in a certain way. It is inevitable that a nonrandom event will happen in a certain way.

So, the ending to LotR was inevitable. Your reaction is inevitable. Each of our deaths in inevitable.

The only thing that really contradicts this is multiple universes and the trousers of time, and when it all goes quantum. Because nobody understands fucking quantum.

As an aside, I actually tried DMing a game where the PCs were meant to die, and then later adventurers would find their memories and based on the earlier adventures already know the map and weak points etc, and possibly keep some abilities from the memories. Sort of like Eternal Darkness (Gamecube game).

Didn't work.

The main problem was that it had to be far enough away from civilisation to ignore resurrection to have meaningful death without rocks fall, everyone dies, and replacing PCs didn't make a whole amount of sense within a memory arc. TPKs could be fine, but if one PC got killed then the player didn't have anything to do until either another possible PC turns up or the arc ends.

The method of passing experiences on wasn't great- memory gems retrieved and passed on to the next person.

Not completely sure why I'm writing this out, but it is an example of a badly attempted "Elennsar'-heroic campaign, showing how multiple PCs have died to attempt the heroic act.

Seriously, if we want exaggeratedly heroic actions with life or death consequences that have a reasonably high chance of failing, then high PC turnover is necessary. What methods are there of replacing PCs within a party very quickly? Some I can think of are below:

Have a pool of PCs and only use some of them (Computer RPG method, the extension of which is something like Suikoden). This could require everyone in the whole group sharing experience, not just the party used.

Automatic/very easy resurrection. Could end up like South Park's Kenny, with shit characters dying multiple times a session.

Have replacement PCs just 'turn up'. Often difficult to explain and justify, and can reduce immersiveness.

Have an organisation, deity or deus ex machina that replaces characters, but is explained. Requires the PCs to always be within a certain distance of the organisation, and for instant communication to know to replace them.

Ignore the death. Let them just get back up again after the fight with 1hp. Pretty stupid, and either requires ignoring that a PC was swallowed by a dragon, or stopping enemies continue to hit 'dead' PCs. Also means that death is unimportant, and so 'non-heroic'.

Now, the bottom three are difficult to explain or just plain stupid. The easy resurrection is D&D, and can work reasonably well, but has its problems. The only other one I can see is the top one, which also allows players to swap PCs for the situation, and so use all sneak-capable for some parts of the story and all diplomatic for others and straight up combat for others.

However, it does reduce connection to individual PCs and prevent.. 'imprinting?' onto the characters? Is that the word? This reduces emotion and fun for a lot of people.

Are there any other ways to replace PCs? Ways to make these better?

[EDIT]
Oh yeah, the other one is something like hero points which negate the death. These have issues which I've stated in another thread:

That if it is negating the immediate cause of death (that single hit) other cause directly after could kill the PC anyway.

If it is time-travelling back to the start of combat, then a lot of notekeeping and fiddling about with statistics/models can happen.

It gets complex with important NPCs- should they have hero points? Can they ignore death?

How often should you get them? Every level, every day, every encounter?
[/EDIT]

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:30 pm

To Ellensar, this makes McClane appear less heroic in the RPG than in the movie, despite his out-of-universe chance of death in both mediums being 0%, and his in-universe chance of death in both mediums being 100%.

Incorrect - McClane is less heroic when his chance of death by what these are trying to model is 0%, whether that's because he has Won't Bloody Die or not. Now, him not dying is fine, because there's a chance of that happening in the setting he exists in that the movie and rpg are portraying. Him being incapable of dying = bad for claiming he's a hero for risking his life, because his life isn't at risk.

Misspelling my username doesn't add anything other than an air of "I'm too much of a jerk to care what he actually thinks.", so I'm not sure what the point of that is.

Errr... yes, yes it does. Almost by definition. If something isn't random, then it will happen in a certain way. It is inevitable that a nonrandom event will happen in a certain way.

So, it is random whether or not I will use the strikethrough tag, because it isn't a given that I will use it.

Whaaaaat?

MartinHarper · Post by **MartinHarper** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:39 pm

Parthenon wrote:Are there any other ways to replace PCs?

Paranoia clones.
You could have players playing unkillable spirits that 'possess' bodies, either by consent or by force.
You could have players playing intelligent magic items.

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:10 am

Elennsar wrote:
Errr... yes, yes it does. Almost by definition. If something isn't random, then it will happen in a certain way. It is inevitable that a nonrandom event will happen in a certain way.
So, it is random whether or not I will use the strikethrough tag, because it isn't a given that I will use it.

Whaaaaat?

No. Whether or not you use an ability at a certain point is inevitable. Everything is inevitable. Nothing is random.

Your choice of ability is based on the situation, your mood, previous happenings, what you expect to happen in the future, random thoughts and so on. These can't be calculated, and can only be slightly predicted, but will be deterministic.

In a given situation, there are connections in the brain that get used. The various synaptic happenings in the brain will happen in a certain way based on physical/biological/chemical laws. This will create your mental responses and thoughts. Your "random" thoughts aren't random. Your decision making isn't random.

Even "random" events like rolls of dice are inevitable, because you throw the dice in a certain way based on your mood/style/etc, and the physical laws control its movement, so there is only one way that a certain roll can fall. White noise isn't random. Random number generators aren't random. Nothing is random.

It just can't be predicted accurately.

Told you it'd be a mindfuck. And useless.

[Oh, and the other possible thing to change inevitability is time travel. Well, some forms of time travel.]

Hmmm.... I'm trying to come up with an example. Okay, hows this:

Inevitability and the random: Weather
A butterfly can flap its wings and cause a storm on the other side of the world.
So does that mean if I bring a lot of butterflies to the middle of the pacific, there'll be a monsoon in the Sahara?

Do you think you're going to have rain tonight? I don't know. Nor do the weather forecasters. Not for certain. Weather is impossible for us to completely predict.

Humanity has gotten a lot better at it. We can predict large scale behaviour, local weather and temperature, but we're still often wrong and we can't predict too far into the future.

But, is it random? Hell no. For starters you have large scale pressure sytems and clouds, so you can predict where rain is likely to occur. And you have previous history of the weather at this time of year, so a very good prediction can be made. But thats not all, and other factors can change things.

The amount of sun you've had so far today will affect the weather you'll have tonight. The wind from the poles and the equator will affect the weather you'll have tonight. Your local geography will....

There are a lot of interconnecting factors deciding whether or not you'll have rain tonight. We can't take account for everything. Just measuring them will change them. So we can't predict with 100% reliability what the effects of all of these will be together. But if we did know everything and had enough time, we could predict exactly what the weather will be. If we knew enough, we could predict perfectly every breeze, raindrop and glint of the sunset.

So, to us, the weather can be predicted but is, to some extent, random. But in reality it is inevitable and could be predicted if we had the knowledge, time and tools to do so.

Just like your thoughts seem normal and sensible and to some extent random. But in reality your thoughts are inevitable. As are mine. As are everyones. As is the entire universe.

Do you hear that, Elennsar? That is the sound of inevitability.

(heh sorry)

MartinHarper wrote: Paranoia clones.
You could have players playing unkillable spirits that 'possess' bodies, either by consent or by force.
You could have players playing intelligent magic items.

Interesting idea, the possession or intelligent magic items. However, how to make sure that any new PCs that come along take the intelligent item? Or, how to get the spirit into a close by NPC? What happens if one NPC takes all the intelligent items?

Sounds similar to an idea I had a while back, of using Ender's Game style ansibles (instantaneous across all distances communication devices) to control clones of soldiers. When the clone dies, the next clone in the series gets controlled by the mind of the soldier. Of course, I was thinking about it in the context of a computer game, to try and explain respawning/upgradeable bodies/instant teleportation around the galaxy, not an RPG.

You know, I've managed to spend waaay too long writing this out.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:02 am

Elennsar wrote: Incorrect - McClane is less heroic when his chance of death by what these are trying to model is 0%, whether that's because he has Won't Bloody Die or not. Now, him not dying is fine, because there's a chance of that happening in the setting he exists in that the movie and rpg are portraying. Him being incapable of dying = bad for claiming he's a hero for risking his life, because his life isn't at risk.

No, there's not. Because the "setting he exists in" is a Hollywood movie. And the main star is not going to die in the first 5 minutes and not come back. It just won't happen. Ever.

Yes, John McClane as a character thinks he could die, but Bruce Willis knows he won't and the director knows he won't.

How is this different from the character in an RPG fearing for his life, but the player and DM knowing that the character probably won't die?

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:13 am

Since you have neatly defined him as being blatantly nonheroic in any meaningful sense (as stated, fearing that a mouse is a lion doesn't make you bold to confront it)

How is this different from the character in an RPG fearing for his life, but the player and DM knowing that the character probably won't die?

If you're playing it just the same way, where the character is just as delusional about the danger he's in, both are not risking their life and deserve no credit for taking a "life threatening" risk.