A rant against so-called heroes

[Maj]

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.

[Elennsar]

The PCs are -among- the main characters. They are -among- the people who are remembered and named.

Apparently, the attitude is that either you're a nameless mook or you're the only characters worth remembering.

No option #3.

Bleh.

[PhoneLobster]

This is a gem in the rough...

Apparently, the attitude is that either you're a nameless mook or you're the only characters worth remembering.

No option #3.

...let me polish it!

Options for Option #3!

1) Nameless character worth remembering

2) Named character not worth remembering

3) Mostly Nameless character almost worth remembering.

4) Character who's name you can't remember

5) Guy who's name sounds vaguely familiar

etc...

[ckafrica]

This is seriously one of the stupidest fucking arguments I've ever read.

No. I've seen worse here. No names will be dropped.

This is by far one of the most unusual though.

Seriously can you PM it to me, for I am curious what has come up and been seriously discussed that is stupider than this. The only possible thing that has made this thread unusual is that he hasn't morphed his argument quite so often as in other threads to avoid clear refutations of his point.

[Elennsar]

A few of the named and remembered characters.

As distinct from the only named and remembered characters.

[PhoneLobster]

A few of the named and remembered characters.

As distinct from the only named and remembered characters.

You sir are a gentleman and a genius.

A sub group of memorable characters that AREN'T part of the set of the only characters that are memorable.

Genius.

[cthulhu]

This is retarded:

All Elennsar wants is for the GM to create the illusion of risk in just the say way Conan was subject to the illusion of risk.

The Elenssar method is just what I'd estimate a solid 70% of DM's do anyway: the DM doesn't tell the players that they'll never die unless its super cool, instead they rig it behind the DM screen to make it feel close and risky, and then proceed with life.

That basically gives you the Conan experience to the T

[Cielingcat]

This is retarded:

All Elennsar wants is for the GM to create the illusion of risk in just the say way Conan was subject to the illusion of risk.

The Elenssar method is just what I'd estimate a solid 70% of DM's do anyway: the DM doesn't tell the players that they'll never die unless its super cool, instead they rig it behind the DM screen to make it feel close and risky, and then proceed with life.

That basically gives you the Conan experience to the T

That is specifically not what he wants. He does not want the illusion of risking death-he wants every single action the PCs take to have a very real chance of ending with them dying.

[Elennsar]

No. I want the actions that are supposed to be able to kill them to be capable of generating that outcome.

Not "Every single action" or even every single action in combat.

But if someone swings at your head, that should be capable of killing you - you should have to prevent it from doing so by what you do rather than it ruled incapable of doing so to begin with.

[RandomCasualty2]

The PCs are -among- the main characters. They are -among- the people who are remembered and named.

How are they going to be remembered if they can't survive for more than 1-2 quests without perishing and are constantly being replaced by new characters?

[Elennsar]

Apparently, the reason http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/ these guys were forgotten is not because no one studies WWI anymore.

Thank you for explaining that its because they were expendable characters who no one cared about.

[PhoneLobster]

How are they going to be remembered if they can't survive for more than 1-2 quests without perishing and are constantly being replaced by new characters?

RC you fail to comprehend the sheer ambition of the "not the same as the only characters that are memorable" set.

It isn't just a stupidly large set of memorable characters including various one hit wonders.

But rather they are also not the ONLY memorable characters. So not only is Sir Died Shortly After Being Introduced Five Characters Ago memorable. But so are... some other guys who aren't even player characters and that may not even be directly observed in game play!

You see the threshold for memorable character here is so low it is not just possible to meet it in a partial session of game play, but possibly even without even that, EVEN!

It's part of the great E-dini's crypto-objectivist philosophy. To prove his point rather than resorting to mere sanity the great E-dini produces a flourish of redefinition to transform the trait "memorable" into an objective trait met by numerous hypothetical characters within the imagitheoroprobathetical space of the game hypoverse.

What an argument! What logic!

Pure Genius.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I remember seeing that King Arthur movie with Clive Owen. One of his 'knights' was played by Ray Stevenson (probably best known as Pullo from HBOs Rome), whose character was named Dag, which I thought was a bad omen for him, since all the other characters were named for arthurian characters who I knew.

Dag sacrificed his life to take out a chunk of the Saxon army, which was moderately awesome. Then at the end of the movie there was a line like '...and their names would live forever.' To which I was forced to add '...except for Dag.'

[Absentminded_Wizard]

How are they going to be remembered if they can't survive for more than 1-2 quests without perishing and are constantly being replaced by new characters?

RC you fail to comprehend the sheer ambition of the "not the same as the only characters that are memorable" set.

It isn't just a stupidly large set of memorable characters including various one hit wonders.

But rather they are also not the ONLY memorable characters. So not only is Sir Died Shortly After Being Introduced Five Characters Ago memorable. But so are... some other guys who aren't even player characters and that may not even be directly observed in game play!

You see the threshold for memorable character here is so low it is not just possible to meet it in a partial session of game play, but possibly even without even that, EVEN!

It's part of the great E-dini's crypto-objectivist philosophy. To prove his point rather than resorting to mere sanity the great E-dini produces a flourish of redefinition to transform the trait "memorable" into an objective trait met by numerous hypothetical characters within the imagitheoroprobathetical space of the game hypoverse.

What an argument! What logic!

Pure Genius.

I think his redefinition of "main character" is even more interesting. I mean, the PCs are, by definition, the main characters of the campaign because they are the most developed characters and the focus of the audience's (players') attention. Just like the protagonists of a novel are the main characters because they're the ones being written about and the ones the reader is paying attention to. And this is true regardless of what other awesome people exist in the universe of a game or novel.

[Elennsar]

Because the standard definition means that the PCs are the only ones awesome/interesting/well developed/active enough for the audiance/players to care about, which is slightly less appealing than being transfered to Flanders trenches from the RFC.

If there are other awesome people, then they should get time in the spotlight and do things worth doing, not just be made to look bad or lazy or conveniently always busy when the PCs are around.

[CatharzGodfoot]

If there are other awesome people, then they should get time in the spotlight and do things worth doing, not just be made to look bad or lazy or conveniently always busy when the PCs are around.

You're right! Next adventure I run, I'll make sure to spend at least half the time covering NPCs that are more awesome than the PCs. I'm sure the players will love it.

[violence in the media]

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?

[Elennsar]

I'm a big proponent of NPCs that if they're meant to be capable and impressive are, guess what, capable and impressive.

I am disappointed in NPCs who accomplish nothing other than make the PCs look good when they (inevitably) beat them.

If I'm facing the Greatest Jouster in the Land as a moderately good jouster, I should risk losing most of the time and I should listen to his exploits.

A GM who can't tell me a story about Lord Awesome is a GM who can't tell a story, period. A GM who won't is actively discouraging me giving a shit for Lord Awesome - despite the fact my character should (or if he doesn't, its for other reasons than NPCs being all inconsequential).

[PhoneLobster]

If there are other awesome people, then they should get time in the spotlight and do things worth doing, not just be made to look bad or lazy or conveniently always busy when the PCs are around.

Character rights now!

Down with players, up with fictional characters!

Characters are real people too!

Characters not only have objective qualities within an independent game universe they also have RIGHTS to a fair share of your recreational time!

Hear Hear, I say! About time the god damn players gave over some of the fun to NPCs that only exist in an imaginary universe. It's only fair after all due to their fictional objective imaginary awesome deservingness.

[Elennsar]

And here I was thinking that the only reason a GM exists is that someone has to roll dice for the orcs - on the occasions we actually care what they roll, since they're doomed anyway.

[PhoneLobster]

Ah, the crypto-objectivist methodology becomes all the more clear!

The GM exists to enforce the objective fairness of exceptional orc character screen time!

Yet we know from its early teachings that exceptional orcs are unpossible!

Excelsior!

[CatharzGodfoot]

And here I was thinking that the only reason a GM exists is that someone has to roll dice for the orcs - on the occasions we actually care what they roll, since they're doomed anyway.

There's a significant difference between being wimpy and being a main character.

[Parthenon]

No. I want the actions that are supposed to be able to kill them to be capable of generating that outcome.

Not "Every single action" or even every single action in combat.

But if someone swings at your head, that should be capable of killing you - you should have to prevent it from doing so by what you do rather than it ruled incapable of doing so to begin with.

You know, its almost as if you can't work out how characters and the setting relate to the rules.

Think about a basic attack in D&D. Straightforward, neh?

Now what it is is the attacker doing their very best to kill the defender (1d20 + bonuses), and the defender doing their very best to stop the attack (10 + bonuses). So, the rules themselves stop the characters fucking up completely. The characters are already doing their best to prevent someone swinging at their head from killing them. If they weren't then they would count as flat-footed all the time or be open to coup-de-graces.

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.

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.

[JonSetanta]

There's a significant difference between being wimpy and being a main character.

Objection! One can be a wimpy main character.

Sure they don't get the job done but they provide comic relief or other crucial plot drive (wrench-in-the-works and similar).
If anything, they become more lovable to many fans as a result.

[RandomCasualty2]

If I'm facing the Greatest Jouster in the Land as a moderately good jouster, I should risk losing most of the time and I should listen to his exploits.

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.

A GM who can't tell me a story about Lord Awesome is a GM who can't tell a story, period. A GM who won't is actively discouraging me giving a shit for Lord Awesome - despite the fact my character should (or if he doesn't, its for other reasons than NPCs being all inconsequential).

If Lord Awesome is a villain, then sure. OK. You can spread tales of how he's raping and pillaging most of the kingdoms of the south and how all the greatest warriors have had trouble stopping him. It builds suspense at their foe, and can also generate emotion if the guy did something really horrible.

If Lord Awesome is a hero, that's bad, because then it generally just steals the PC's thunder. It'd be like reading a Batman comic where Batman just stopped the Joker and yet instead of people caring what Batman did, everyone in the comic is talking about how Superman saved the world from a giant asteroid. 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."

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