A rant against so-called heroes

[Leress]

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

My mistake.

[RandomCasualty2]

Elennsar really wants Mook: The perishing because he just doesn't think that PCs have any value. They're apparently not integral to the story and are just supposed to be easily interchangeable with the next PC you might create. Right from the beginning Elennsar pretty much wants to tell PCs that their characters don't matter, and that the story will go on without them.

You're not allowed to have recurring characters because you will constnatly die, but that's okay, because Elennsar never bothered to read your backstory because you weren't important anyway, so the next character you create is just as important as the last and after a few characters you're so desensitized to character death that you dont' bother giving your characters a backstory and just write "Conan the 4th" on your sheet instead of thinking of a new name.

Survival at that point doesn't even become anything you care about, because you know that even though you survived this quest, you'll never really be a recurring character. Eventually your luck runs out and you die. So ultimately you treat your character like a playing piece in a game of chess. But that's okay according to Elennsar because your PC doesn't matter anyway.

And if you came in expecting to play Batman or Conan, then tough shit, because you've got to earn that right by beating the odds and winning 20 coin flips in a row. Until then, you just get to be some random character off the street who tries to emulate Batman or Conan. Because remember kiddies, every punk with a gun is a very real threat that may kill you. But hey, it's possible to generate a Conan or Batman in the system if the character is fantastically lucky, because anyone can beat the odds and it wouldn't be heroic if you had a decent chance of surviving. Fuck you Mr. fireman, I don't consider you a hero unless you douse yourself in gasoline before going into the burning building. You don't get to be Conan unless you're the luckiest motherfucker on the planet. But technically it's possible and you're supposed to keep playing for that one in a million result.

But that's okay because you're all fucktards if you think that this story was supposed to be about your characters. No, you're just along for the ride and when your characters are all dead, Elminster will swoop in and save the day, and then your next batch of PCs can hear tales of how awesome he was and how badly your last PCs sucked. Because apparently Elennsar wants you to still be memorable in his world, even though you only survived 2 encounters and didn't save the day. So guess what? You get to be memorable failures! Because hey, someone has to die to prove how awesome Elminster is, right?

[angelfromanotherpin]

That whole sentiment is very early D&D, honestly.

[Roy]

That whole sentiment is very early D&D, honestly.

Plus Fucking One. With a hint of FR. And I don't just mean the Elwanker reference. Hm, notice a similarity in names?

[Ice9]

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

Well sorry, an RPG isn't going to give you that, unless you hire somebody to stand next to you and punch you when your character takes a hit. Of course the adversity is an illusion - you're playing a game!

Oh, but wait, it can still be "real" to the character, right? Sure. But to be real to the character, it simply has to feel real - aka suspension of disbelief. At minimum a character who believes they can be killed is as heroic as a movie or book character.


And as far as "percieved danger doesn't count", I call BS on that. There is no way to absolutely prove that we aren't living in the Matrix right now. As a result of that, there's no way to absolutely prove that a given person won't "respawn" after being killed. So I guess nobody who's still alive is a hero, right? Because it's impossible to absolutely prove that they aren't immortal. Heck, even with people who appear to have died, that could have been a copy - guess they aren't heroes either.

This example isn't arbitrary either. From the perspective of a character in a game, it's very much like being in the Matrix. And if that matrix grants them invincibility by altering chance in their favor, they would never - by definition - be able to tell that they weren't just repeatedly lucky. So if a character in a game who believes themselves mortal but isn't can't be a hero - then nobody in reality can be one either.

[Fallen Hero]

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

Well sorry, an RPG isn't going to give you that, unless you hire somebody to stand next to you and punch you when your character takes a hit. Of course the adversity is an illusion - you're playing a game!

Oh, but wait, it can still be "real" to the character, right? Sure. But to be real to the character, it simply has to feel real - aka suspension of disbelief. At minimum a character who believes they can be killed is as heroic as a movie or book character.


And as far as "percieved danger doesn't count", I call BS on that. There is no way to absolutely prove that we aren't living in the Matrix right now. As a result of that, there's no way to absolutely prove that a given person won't "respawn" after being killed. So I guess nobody who's still alive is a hero, right? Because it's impossible to absolutely prove that they aren't immortal. Heck, even with people who appear to have died, that could have been a copy - guess they aren't heroes either.

This example isn't arbitrary either. From the perspective of a character in a game, it's very much like being in the Matrix. And if that matrix grants them invincibility by altering chance in their favor, they would never - by definition - be able to tell that they weren't just repeatedly lucky. So if a character in a game who believes themselves mortal but isn't can't be a hero - then nobody in reality can be one either.

I'm going to have to disagree with this argument with regards to the not knowing if we are in the Matrix; philosophy has an answer to that.

Now, to support your point:

Heroes do not need to face death to be heroes, sure, it makes it more "epic" and people like to think there was a risk in dying. However, the devotion that would be expected from the possibility of TPK being noticeable is not there in table-top games(especially when you keep dying). If you seriously want people to value the life of their character, go LARP. Those require much more effort and time to create than a D&D charater. Beyond that, the suspension of disbelief of the player should go as far as disbelieving their characters game significance if they want to get that feeling.

And as a finale: Story Time.

I play a F&K Assassin in a friend's game. Because of the world setting and campaign setting/concepts, he happened to be fighting a Hydra. When said Hydra dropped him below 0, my first thoughts were not: I'll live because my character is central to the game, but rather: Oh Shi- I hope someone heals my ass before it hits me again! as well as other such thoughts. Was there a threat of TPK not really. Granted, if we stood around, we could have died, but the amount of con-dmg that we hit that thing with, even if I died, the party would have survived the encounter. That did not make it any less scary as a player playing a character.

[Username17]

I'm going to have to disagree with this argument with regards to the not knowing if we are in the Matrix; philosophy has an answer to that.

Not a satisfactory one. Plato's answer is "We totally are in the Matrix, but don't worry because my gut instinct tells me we're probably only in one and not an infinite layer of progressively more real matrices." Descartes' answer is seriously "God wouldn't do that to us! If he did, he'd be the kind of total asshole of an omnipotent creator that would allow babies to be born into horrible agony only to die of inherited diseases." It's basically foolhardy.

You can't know that you aren't in the Matrix. You can't even know that other people exist. Just because people around you pass the Turing Test doesn't specifically mean that they aren't just very clever simulations. Yes, you know that you "exist" but that doesn't mean that your sensory input is real and not illusory.

Not of course, that there is any practical effects of you living in a fantasy world. You should still treat your perceived surroundings as if they were real whether they "actually" are or not. It's just that Cogito Ergo Sum only applies to "you" the questioner. The real answer to "why should I treat the rest of the world as real?" is unfortunately "Why not?"

-Username17

[Fallen Hero]

I could have sworn that that sceptical challenge was answered. I believe the one I was given was that it requires more assumptions than the Real-World Hypothesis and thus was less plausible and not as good an answer as the real-world theory.

Matrix theory requires that there has never been a being in the matrix who has also been outside the matrix; else the beliefs which would otherwise be true, would be false.

Appeals to ignorance make bad philosophical stances. Also, Evil Demon Theory was also disproved by the fact that it requires many more assumptions than the real world theory, which needs only one: Everything we encounter exists as we know it to.

Descartes' Proof of God also makes no sense with his Induction (?) theory.

The real answer to why we should treat the world as real, in my opinion, is that you would likely will die if you were to cease believing in gravity and many other things, such as cars on the highway.

While I agree that, there is no true answer to the Sceptical problem, I think that the appeal to the most fullfilling answer (least assumptions, most explanation) is the best; hence the Matrix is not real.

[IGTN]

"P is simpler than Q" and "P and Q are both possible" does not mean ~Q. It means P is more likely than Q, but that's it. You can't say that we're not in the matrix because that requires assuming the existence of both the matrix and a reality with something that would put us in the matrix, while saying that we're not just requires assuming the existence of a real world, because simplicity doesn't invariably lead to truth.

Besides, it's simpler to believe that you're just a figment of my imagination. That requires belief in nothing other than my own mind.

[Roy]

Elennsar, go play Star Wars NOW. It gives you insta gibs by random mooks, which is what you want to fap to right? Also, the PCs don't matter, only the canon characters do, which is again what you want. There you go. Mook: The Perishing with no effort. Also, it makes you shut the fuck up.

[TavishArtair]

I'd like to note that since D&D grew out of a wargame... well... D&D grew out of a wargame. This is basically a second-hand story by now, as I'm just relating what I've read from the people who sat at the same table as Gygax. But...

At first, it was considered acceptable for Chaos/Darkness/Evil to win against the Britannians/Good Guys/Adventurers, because even though Chaos is bad, if Chaos never had a shot at winning, then no one would play Chaos. However, as time grew on, it became less fashionable to have the enemy player vampires (in fact, the cleric class was designed specifically as a vampire slayer) and so on. People wanted Evil to lose more often, to make it more heroic. So the Dungeon Master, instead, took on the role of the monsters, instead of disappointing a half-dozen members of a team just one guy put himself into the role of "fall guy" for the players to knock down his stuff, and since he still got to essentially play vampires and dragons and such it was still cool.

So the idea that the heroes should win more often actually was in the game by the time that D&D saw its more recognizable form.

Of course you still had to be hard as nails. Players didn't use a single character who ran a high risk of death, they'd bring multiple characters, in the form of henchmen, et cetera, and expect death to come for some of them. Gradually more insurance policies were built into the game, however, increasing their survivability, until playing a single one became the popular mode.

[Fallen Hero]

"P is simpler than Q" and "P and Q are both possible" does not mean ~Q. It means P is more likely than Q, but that's it. You can't say that we're not in the matrix because that requires assuming the existence of both the matrix and a reality with something that would put us in the matrix, while saying that we're not just requires assuming the existence of a real world, because simplicity doesn't invariably lead to truth.

Besides, it's simpler to believe that you're just a figment of my imagination. That requires belief in nothing other than my own mind.

I didn't say it was absolutely not the case, only that it was more feasable and more likely that the world is real and not a part of a matrix.

Believing that I am a figment of your imagination would also require more assumptions because there you would have to assume that there was a reason why I was imagined, and etc. and etc. Real World really is the best option.

[TarkisFlux]

I think it's a stretch to call the world being real more feasible than the world being imaginary. There are plenty of good reasons to deal with the world as a system of causes and effects that you have varying degrees of direct control over (mostly none), but they doesn't make any distinction as to the reality of things outside of yourself. Most modern philosophy sidesteps the question by taking the epistemological position that the only thing that is real is what you can experience.

More generally, conflating "the world is only what is revealed by my senses" with "someone is/I am imaging this" is unhelpful and lacking necessary details. Whether the world is real or fake is an entirely separate issue from the solipsistic position that you have some control over the world because it is just an imaginary construct created by oneself. If you had some control over it, you could test that, and most of those tests (as seen/imagined by me anyway, I haven't personally tested much along these lines) fail spectacularly.

Edit: Since I don't think anyone else has said it yet, welcome to the den Fallen Hero.

[Fallen Hero]

I think it's a stretch to call the world being real more feasible than the world being imaginary. There are plenty of good reasons to deal with the world as a system of causes and effects that you have varying degrees of direct control over (mostly none), but they doesn't make any distinction as to the reality of things outside of yourself. Most modern philosophy sidesteps the question by taking the epistemological position that the only thing that is real is what you can experience.

More generally, conflating "the world is only what is revealed by my senses" with "someone is/I am imaging this" is unhelpful and lacking necessary details. Whether the world is real or fake is an entirely separate issue from the solipsistic position that you have some control over the world because it is just an imaginary construct created by oneself. If you had some control over it, you could test that, and most of those tests (as seen/imagined by me anyway, I haven't personally tested much along these lines) fail spectacularly.

Edit: Since I don't think anyone else has said it yet, welcome to the den Fallen Hero.

Thanks for the welcome.

I don't know too much about anything, but I was taught that the world being real was more plausible because it answered more questions while relying on less assumptions.

[Elennsar]

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

And I don't appreciate people recommending the most lethal things they can think of and claiming that's what I want.

Elennsar really wants Mook: The perishing because he just doesn't think that PCs have any value. They're apparently not integral to the story and are just supposed to be easily interchangeable with the next PC you might create. Right from the beginning Elennsar pretty much wants to tell PCs that their characters don't matter, and that the story will go on without them.

No, I don't. Guess again.

You're not allowed to have recurring characters because you will constnatly die, but that's okay, because Elennsar never bothered to read your backstory because you weren't important anyway, so the next character you create is just as important as the last and after a few characters you're so desensitized to character death that you dont' bother giving your characters a backstory and just write "Conan the 4th" on your sheet instead of thinking of a new name.

Wrong again.

And if you came in expecting to play Batman or Conan, then tough shit, because you've got to earn that right by beating the odds and winning 20 coin flips in a row. Until then, you just get to be some random character off the street who tries to emulate Batman or Conan. Because remember kiddies, every punk with a gun is a very real threat that may kill you. But hey, it's possible to generate a Conan or Batman in the system if the character is fantastically lucky, because anyone can beat the odds and it wouldn't be heroic if you had a decent chance of surviving. Fuck you Mr. fireman, I don't consider you a hero unless you douse yourself in gasoline before going into the burning building. You don't get to be Conan unless you're the luckiest motherfucker on the planet. But technically it's possible and you're supposed to keep playing for that one in a million result.

Incorrect.

But that's okay because you're all fucktards if you think that this story was supposed to be about your characters. No, you're just along for the ride and when your characters are all dead, Elminster will swoop in and save the day, and then your next batch of PCs can hear tales of how awesome he was and how badly your last PCs sucked. Because apparently Elennsar wants you to still be memorable in his world, even though you only survived 2 encounters and didn't save the day. So guess what? You get to be memorable failures! Because hey, someone has to die to prove how awesome Elminster is, right?

False.

Oh, but wait, it can still be "real" to the character, right? Sure. But to be real to the character, it simply has to feel real - aka suspension of disbelief. At minimum a character who believes they can be killed is as heroic as a movie or book character.

Which by the definition that they are never at risk and there's no reason other than illusion to believe they are, is "not very".

This example isn't arbitrary either. From the perspective of a character in a game, it's very much like being in the Matrix. And if that matrix grants them invincibility by altering chance in their favor, they would never - by definition - be able to tell that they weren't just repeatedly lucky. So if a character in a game who believes themselves mortal but isn't can't be a hero - then nobody in reality can be one either.

By that logic, thinking that a mouse is a lion makes you heroic for facing a lion.

What the hell?

Apparently, there are only two types of game in the Den.

Invulnerables: The Pwning.

Mooks: The Perishing.

There is NO possibility that you can be in real danger and survive, because no one is ever capable of surviving real danger except by one in (very large number) odds.

No possibility of PCs being special but not the only special people who take up screen time and do things important and making a difference.

No, we have to have all the NPC heroes slaughtered helplessly by the NPC Big Bad Evil Guy so that the PCs don't have any competition for saving the day.

And of course, the day will be saved. Because the Big Bad Evil Guy gets -20 to all rolls vs. PCs. Or maybe -5. Whatever.

[Neeeek]

The real answer to the various Matrix/Evil Demon/Brain in a Vat arguments is simply "It doesn't matter." Since you can't tell the difference between the "real" world and the fake illusion anyway, your actions in both should be the same.

I really, really hated epistemology. Only interesting part were the Gettier problems.

[RandomCasualty2]

Well sorry, an RPG isn't going to give you that, unless you hire somebody to stand next to you and punch you when your character takes a hit. Of course the adversity is an illusion - you're playing a game!

Oh, but wait, it can still be "real" to the character, right? Sure. But to be real to the character, it simply has to feel real - aka suspension of disbelief. At minimum a character who believes they can be killed is as heroic as a movie or book character.

Yeah, and Elennsar's theories further reduce the feeling of player risk because you're playing in a super deadly setting where you're constantly reducing characters. The value of the only thing you stand to lose (a character you like) is diminished because you just don't bother getting attached to your character. So whether the danger to your character is real or illusory, you as a player seriously won't care, because losing the character just isn't a big deal to you.

[Leress]

El, have you even read Bushido?

[Elennsar]

I'm assuming you mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido_(r ... ying_game) , so if so: not well enough to get a good sense of it - but a game that begins with describing a character dying horribly against an oni is not inspiring great confidence that death is "possible and preventable".

Possible, definately. Preventable, no.

Its an interesting idea though (what I have read of the system) - pity it is written in the typewriter age.

[RandomCasualty2]

I'm assuming you mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido_(r ... ying_game) , so if so: not well enough to get a good sense of it - but a game that begins with describing a character dying horribly against an oni is not inspiring great confidence that death is "possible and preventable".

Possible, definately. Preventable, no.

Nobody here has been arguing that PCs should be totally invulnerable. If you do something stupid, then you die. But you shouldn't die just because of a bit of bad luck when your tactics did nothing wrong.

I didn't get the idea that you wanted death as something preventable. At best it seemed that tactics gave you a better chance of surviving in your perceived perfect game, but there was always going to be a very real chance that you didn't come out alive, even if you did everything right.

[Murtak]

By that logic, thinking that a mouse is a lion makes you heroic for facing a lion.

What the hell?

Correct. It also makes you deluded, but that doesn't mean you are not also a hero for your willingness to put yourself in harm's way (presumably to save the innocent or some such).

[Leress]

I'm assuming you mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido_(r ... ying_game) , so if so: not well enough to get a good sense of it - but a game that begins with describing a character dying horribly against an oni is not inspiring great confidence that death is "possible and preventable".

Possible, definately. Preventable, no.

Its an interesting idea though (what I have read of the system) - pity it is written in the typewriter age.

Yes I am talking about that one. You can do adjustments to the system to lessen the lethality. Here is the thing the oni was on par with the character so the chance of being defeated was about 50 percent.

[Elennsar]

Right.

Mind (in the thread discussing creation) explaining why this would be a good thing to work from?

This thread seems to have been taken over from the original rant into a discussion of reality being an illusion or something that we can't tell if it is or not - and this http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=83123#83123 is where I'm sorting out rules anyway.

[Heath Robinson]

"possible and preventable".

Right. What you want has been defined. The problem here is that you are refusing to recognise that this paradigm exists in most games, and it's the desires of the GM that avert it. A good tactician running with the "level-appropriate" function modified a little will present the level of challenge that you want.

The problem is that the "preventable" part of this combination is the bit that makes you think that games don't let you die. Players have incentives to fight well, and GMs have no such incentives (and even some incentive not to). Thus, players will tend to utilise more effective tactics. There is also the fact that the GM has to improvise far more than the players due to having a varying combination of troops at his command.

What you want isn't a game, it's a tactical manual.

[Elennsar]

The problem here is that you are refusing to recognise that this paradigm exists in most games, and it's the desires of the GM that avert it.

Which turns it from "preventable, but possible" to "never happens". You're never fighting to save your life because losing it is an outcome that will never happen unless you shoot yourself in the head.

What you want isn't a game, it's a tactical manual.

No, what I want is a game where the difference between a good decision and a bad decision actually effects the outcome.

If you're supposed to regard an orc as capable of killing you, then he should be capable of generating that result - your task is to prevent him from doing so, but having the GM make it so he can't actually do so is boring.

So let's say it went like this:

Orc swings.
Orc makes his TN to hit.
You use an action to defend. You manage to defend.

Had you not managed to defend, you could be in serious trouble - maybe even dead.

But you did manage to defend. Your defence actually mattered. Huzzah.