A rant against so-called heroes

[Psychic Robot]

Holy shit, if you're playing in a game where characters die (and stay dead), you clearly hate your PCs and want them to suck.

GTFO WOD, WFRPG, OR ANYTHING ELSE NOT CONFORMING TO THE D&D MODEL.

Elennsar: Just ignore them. Honestly, it's a little like arguing with /b/, except things are a little more coherent here.

[Draco_Argentum]

Screw this... People are repeating what I said three and four pages back (in addition to themselves). At this point, I'm just going to say it: Elennsar, your definition of "hero" sucks. You are a death scene junkie, and I am not interested in playing your idea of an RPG.

No, we're saying the same things we said in the last thread about this topic.

---

PR, why don't you shutup? What part of RC's example of Shadowrun being a good world for deadly combat didn't you understand? For some guy who spent a bunch of effort trolling Paizo for being stupid you sure seem to have a high tolerance for it when E is spewing it.

Who else here is sick or PR rolling into threads to defend E's right to spout shit?

[Elennsar]

Quoting out of order because my response is clearer that way.

So, your insistence that there is no danger because people can't be hit is retarded because the rules make sure that all characters do their best not to be hit at all times.

And "do their best" and "do sufficiently well" are two entirely different things - sometimes, your best isn't enough, and sometimes you blunder.

What this means is that within the setting there is a risk of a PC tripping while attacking and lopping their own arm off, or messing up and leaving themselves open to a killing blow. However, the rules stop this happening to make a fun game. Having the level of competence doesn't reduce the risks.

However, mysteriously, that chance is ZERO. If I'm supposed to be worried about that happening as a PC in the game, I should have an actual chance that that could happen - it might take extraordinary circumstances (two natural 1s in a row, the first of which missed the other guy's AC by 10 or more?). If not, then it shouldn't be in the game - but saying that I should be worried that I can shoot myself in the foot (literally) when it is literally impossible to do that in the game without trying to is about as reasonable as saying I should expect to fly by flapping my arms when that isn't supported either.

There's nothing wrong necessarily with the PCs losing. Sometimes heroes fail at some point or another. Some, like James Bond, even make that part of their standard operating procedure. Most Bond films involves Bond getting captured at one time or another.

What you can't do is kill the PCs, because that stops the story.

No, what it stops is the lives of the PCs. Because it is so entirely impossible that the story could continue with new PCs.

Wait. What the ::censored::?

While it might be true that Elminster is way better than the PCs, you don't want to constantly rub that in their faces. "Yeah you guys nearly died saving that village from the ogres.. but man, Elminster, he could do it no sweat, with a snap of his fingers."

And from the looks of it, you don't even want that to be true to begin with.

If Lord Awesome is a hero, then sometimes he -will- save the day. Sometimes you and he will save the day. Sometimes the day won't get saved despite the best efforts of the PCs or Lord Awesome.

But nooooo. We can't have that. We have to coddle the precious wittle egos of the players who can't stand to have anyone do anything their characters can't.

This isn't not having a Batman comic involve Superman saving the world. This is about making it so Gordon is a fucking moron so that he can't ever accomplish anything without Batman walking him through it and doing all the hard stuff.

Borrrrrrringgggggggggg.

Ultimately you have to accept that the campaign is the story of the PCs. If you TPK them, then the story is over.

What a boring story. So the answer to Lago's question from a while back on what to do when the PCs somehow or another die is "make it not happen!"?

My suspension of disbelief is being choked by your storytelling.

Not to mention my ability to play a character whose perception of their situation and their actual situation have anything to do with each other.

There's a reason why this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Shackleton impresses me and this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal-el doesn't. And its not xenophobia.

Note: No, I don't think Shackleton was a hero. But a human surviving Antarctica is rather more impressive than Mr. Invincible Well Wait Not Quite Invincible - if they'd picked something and stuck with it (either the faster than a speeding locomotive or something later), it might be easier to take Kal-el seriously.

[Psychic Robot]

[quote="Draco_Argentum]PR, why don't you shutup? What part of RC's example of Shadowrun being a good world for deadly combat didn't you understand? For some guy who spent a bunch of effort trolling Paizo for being stupid you sure seem to have a high tolerance for it when E is spewing it.

Who else here is sick or PR rolling into threads to defend E's right to spout shit?[/quote]
Why don't you eat shit? 'Cause I'm pretty sure that this type of deadlock that happens in 99% of Elennsar threads. Is it his fault? Probably, since this sort of crap doesn't (usually) happen to other members. (See the recent PL vs. Frank's "pro-floating island, anti-hollow world" thread for an exception.) However, when I read the threads, I see people making intelligent points on both sides, and then it devolves into fail and AIDS.

Elennsar has a very clear-cut idea of what type of game he wants game mechanics to support. He doesn't know how to work out those mechanics, yet, but he has the idea down: combat is deadly, and there's a good chance you will die against an equally-skilled opponent.

[Elennsar]

And a good chance you can deal with it - which is why I am not interested in Shadowrun or Riddle of Steel.

Sword of the Samurai is probably the best computer representation - yes, you can die very quickly very easily. Or not.

[PhoneLobster]

Elennsar has a very clear-cut idea

Stop right there. The great E-dini doesn't have a very clear cut idea period.

He doesn't agree with himself, on multiple counts and in multiple directions simultaneously, sometimes in the same post.

You could remove every post but Elen's from this very thread and STILL have a roiling mass of contradiction, logical impossibilities and general malignity.

But then, you are only on his side for the trolling.

[Psychic Robot]

Yes, I'm trolling. Hurf durf.

EDIT: Elennsar, I'm thinking you need to settle on "character death is probable" and deal with it (as I suggested in your Arturius thread). Instead of devising a work-around to death right now, hash out the system you want to use, polish that up, and then start looking at how you can let the PCs remain safe.

[PhoneLobster]

No need to mention that, I mean you ARE typing...

[Elennsar]

EDIT: Elennsar, I'm thinking you need to settle on "character death is probable" and deal with it (as I suggested in your Arturius thread). Instead of devising a work-around to death right now, hash out the system you want to use, polish that up, and then start looking at how you can let the PCs remain safe.

Character death is quite possible. There are a lot of things between "he's attacking you!" and "hope you don't die."

Regardless, I intend to figure out how to write the basic mechanics anyway - if two attacks in three miss, I feel a lot better about the other one being hard to soak, since "don't get hit to begin with" options make your survival in play fare better.

If two attacks in three hit, then soak needs to be more reliable, which is probably not good for "a hit can threaten you".

Anyway, if you've thoughts on how to set this up, the thread's open to anyone intelligent and civil. This isn't where I intend to discuss it.

[Username17]

Elennsar has a very clear-cut idea of what type of game he wants game mechanics to support.

This is very importantly not true. He refuses to accept the implications of his ideas. He wants:

• People to do things that have a really low chance of success. Like, a million to one or less because marching into certain death for a cause is heroic and shit.
• People to succeed when the actual (rather than perceived) odds are a million to one.

And you know what? That's fucking retarded. Because when the odds are a million to one, you don't succeed. That's what a million to one odds is. What he thinks he's looking for is a heroic legend generator that creates stories about the guy who overcame real adversity and triumphed in the face of very real odds stacked against hi high enough to blot out the sun. But the problem is that when you do that, you also generate the hundreds of thousands of failures that real long odds really generate.

He could play his heroic legend generator for a hundred years and never get the one in a million heroic legend. Because nine hundred and ninety nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine times out of a million tries he'll just get another corpse and another failure. And every time people explain basic lottery statistics to him he gets all defensive and weird. He goes on about how choice and specialness or something defy the odds. No they fucking don't. Odds are odds. A 50% chance is a 50% chance. This isn't discworld where one in a million chances come out and everyone gos home happy.

I put him on permanent ignore because I gave him the choice to accept that "something which may or may not happen has a chance of happening" or be ignored forever. He refused to accept that very basic statement of chance. There is literally no reasoning with him.

We're actually totally fine with people making games where the players lose pretty much every time. That's fine. The part that's not fine is where you make such a game and then insist that the players will win even though they obviously won't. That's just fucked up.

-Username17

[Elennsar]

People to do things that have a really low chance of success. Like, a million to one or less because marching into certain death for a cause is heroic and shit.

People to succeed when the actual (rather than perceived) odds are a million to one.

Some of the time, point 1, though usually not nearly that extreme.

Point 2? No. I want success to be possible even at very long odds because very long =/= absolutely impossible.

What he thinks he's looking for is a heroic legend generator that creates stories about the guy who overcame real adversity and triumphed in the face of very real odds stacked against hi high enough to blot out the sun.

No, what I am looking for is something where you CAN overcome real adversity, as distinct from something where the adversity is all illusion.

Washington crossing the Delaware was amazing because there were actual obstacles that were actually overcome.

I put him on permanent ignore because I gave him the choice to accept that "something which may or may not happen has a chance of happening" or be ignored forever. He refused to accept that very basic statement of chance. There is literally no reasoning with him.

I am perfectly willing to accept that it has a chance of happening. I am not willing to accept that because some times drinks wine that sometimes they drink poisoned wine as an inevitable fact - you could by coincidence or knowledge avoid it each time. Unlikely? Yes.

We're actually totally fine with people making games where the players lose pretty much every time. That's fine. The part that's not fine is where you make such a game and then insist that the players will win even though they obviously won't. That's just fucked up.

Insisting that victory is possibility when there's a real chance of losing is something entirely different from having a game where you "lose pretty much every time", which is not my goal.

Apparently, it is impossible to be in a situation where you can die without dying. Because once you have "can die" in the system, it will inevitably generate it whatever actions are done or not done and whatever rolls happen or don't.

[Neeeek]

Point 2? No. I want success to be possible even at very long odds because very long =/= absolutely impossible.

Here's one of the many things you aren't getting: If the average lethality of your encounters is merely 10%, your campaign is going to end very, very fast. Typically within 5 encounters. If that's what you want to play, you have fun. But you won't, and neither will anyone else who plays with you because that game sucks donkey cock. Seriously, a 1% chance of a TPK will kill any sort of long-term campaign you might want to run. Because it only has to happen once. Ever. And that assumes that individual PCs aren't integral to the plot, in which case having that guy die kills the campaign.

You want to know what a hero is? The best example is Samaritan from Astro City. He spends all his time making things better for as many people as possible. Most of the time he isn't in danger. THAT'S COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT. He's a hero because he uses the only resource that is of real value to make other people's lives better.

[Psychic Robot]

Depends on how combat-focused the game is.

[Elennsar]

Seriously, a 1% chance of a TPK will kill any sort of long-term campaign you might want to run. Because it only has to happen once.

So because it CAN happen, it automatically destroys any long term campaign.

So much for being able to play a long term game of SotS - there's a chance of dying without an heir.

Its not a very good chance and you can prevent it with a certain amount of certainty - but it is possible. So are long term games.

Without reloading, too.

You want to know what a hero is? The best example is Samaritan from Astro City. He spends all his time making things better for as many people as possible. Most of the time he isn't in danger. THAT'S COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT.

No, it isn't. And nor is that the best example...it may well be a good example, but its not the best example.

[Neeeek]

Seriously, a 1% chance of a TPK will kill any sort of long-term campaign you might want to run. Because it only has to happen once.

So because it CAN happen, it automatically destroys any long term campaign.

No, because if it CAN happen, it eventually WILL happen. That you don't get that is seriously sad.

[Fallen Hero]

In my limited experience of DMing (as in effectively a total newbie), I've intentionally made TPK a 0% chance option because on the basis of: you cannot predict everything someone will do; you need to bring TPK to be the players actively looking for it (ie. taking off all armour and charging against the Great Wyrm Red Dragon wielding feathers and shouting blasphemies against the gods that watch over them). Simply because one of the characters will make a mistake and cause a TPK to occur. It may not happen in a short time, but eventually it will if you let the campaign continue on for extended periods of time; people make mistakes.

[Elennsar]

The problem is - so do their enemies.

I'd rather risk a "premature" ending then never have to fear anything save my own deliberate stupidity, speaking as a player.

The former, I can deal with. I can beat the odds. I can make the right decisions. Etc.

The latter makes making good decisions a lot less meaningful, and makes being willing to take risks not really well, involve any risk.

Kind of hard to feel proud of having slain a dragon when the dragon never stood a chance.

[Roy]

Wrong. I want characters who are supposed to be doing something where they can die to be capable of dying.

That's the role of the combat extra cast. All the soldiers in the D-Day scene in Saving Private Ryan are not actually in the script. So whether one guy makes it to cover or not is actually uncertain. No rule says that he has to or not, and whether he dies or not, the story remains pretty much the same, because the character really doesn't matter to the story. You could cut the scene where the random soldier dives for cover and makes it or dies trying and probably nobody would notice. In fact, about the only time these guys register on the radar for the movie is if their death is memorable. Like we all remember that guy who bounced off the propeller in Titanic. But that guy isn't remotely needed to tell the story.

I'm not exactly quite certain, but isn't what you're describing, RC, the point of Elennsar's Artorius campaign? Where you're Dux Artorius' minion willing to die for the cause, but where you're never the main character, The Dux?

Yay! Let's all play Mook: The Perishing.

Pretty much. It does allow him to wank off to his masochism/snuff fetishes though. Without that pesky law enforcement problem.

[Fallen Hero]

The problem is - so do their enemies.

I'd rather risk a "premature" ending then never have to fear anything save my own deliberate stupidity, speaking as a player.

The former, I can deal with. I can beat the odds. I can make the right decisions. Etc.

The latter makes making good decisions a lot less meaningful, and makes being willing to take risks not really well, involve any risk.

Kind of hard to feel proud of having slain a dragon when the dragon never stood a chance.

The dragon should stand a chance, but if it has any intelligence, it also has the option to run away, and thus survive. There are are other ways of allowing characters to be heroic without significant risk of TPK.

[Roy]

You're a big proponent of DMPCs, aren't you? Do your players actually listen to you when you're talking about the exploits of Lord Awesome and Captain Wonderful, or are you delivering a monologue to a table that has long since tuned you out?

Of course he is. And they all have shit like +10 bullshit bonuses to all stats, just because he's the power tripping DMPC. Also, knowing him, he probably forces IC rape or something to abuse that in world power.

Meanwhile the players say fuck this and get a pizza, while you wank around your party.

PR, why don't you shutup? What part of RC's example of Shadowrun being a good world for deadly combat didn't you understand? For some guy who spent a bunch of effort trolling Paizo for being stupid you sure seem to have a high tolerance for it when E is spewing it.

Who else here is sick or PR rolling into threads to defend E's right to spout shit?

*raises paw* I normally like PR, because he's entertaining. But what the fuck, defending Elennsar Fail? Ain't nothing amusing about that shit. Seriously PR, cut that shit out, before you turn into a LN.

[Leress]

I will say this again El, look at Bushido and Shadowrun. You are not the first person to want highly lethal combat or people being a regular threat. When I looked at SotS it was practically screaming Bushido.

I have my opinion on what a hero is and I see mine encompasses yours, El. You have yours and I'll let it be, I've stop caring.

I also don't appreciate your mocking tone towards me.

EDIT: PR, stop it with the broad generalizations. Multiple people have suggested a number of game systems that have what El is looking for in lethality. I myself enjoy shadowrun and nethack (I am working on a d20 version of that albeit very slowly). There is a reason that "The Ends" is stickied on this page.

[violence in the media]

Who else here is sick or PR rolling into threads to defend E's right to spout shit?

*raises paw* I normally like PR, because he's entertaining. But what the fuck, defending Elennsar Fail? Ain't nothing amusing about that shit. Seriously PR, cut that shit out, before you turn into a LN.

LN?

Lawful Nerd?
Legitimate Nuisance?
Loveable Nincompoop?

[Leress]

VitM: He means Logic Ninja, a poster on the WOTC and Paizo broads who at first was very much like his/her namesake. Recently it seems that LN has been drinking the Paizo Kool-Aid and defends it like almost like a zealot.

[violence in the media]

Thank you, Leress.

[Roy]

He's more of a 4.0tard than a Paizil. But yeah.