A rant against so-called heroes

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:29 am

Not going there. You've spent all your time getting increasingly bitchy.

My advice?

Start over. Think about what you really want in a game (moods, themes, setting, whatever), ideas for mechanics that support what you really want in that game, and then pitch it for suggestions on how to polish it up.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:46 am

Not going there. You've spent all your time getting increasingly bitchy.

No, I've spent a fair amount of time being bothered by people who are determined to avoid actually assisting and who are quite eager to mock, discourage, frustrate, belittle, and otherwise add negativity.

If you have nothing actually helpful to add to the project, you are welcome to ignore it.

If you do, then actually offer actual assistance, instead of seeing how many questions you can think up without lifting one finger to explore answering them.

Its that simple. Either help make it or ignore it.

Anything other than that will be treated for all intents and purposes as equivalant to what Roy is doing, because it is accomplishing exactly the same thing - nothing useful.

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:04 am

You're designing this game, not us.

Asking questions is, in fact, helping. Have you seen Frank's game design flow sheet? It's nothing but questions, and is incredibly useful. Designing a game is about answering questions, but to answer them you have to ask, or be asked, the right ones. Once you have your questions answered, then you can move on to the parts where other writers can help (see the Writing Powers thread)

When the question is "what are your goals?," my, or anyone else, answering this question would, in fact, be bad for your game, and we haven't gotten anywhere. When the question is "goal statement A and goal statement B contradict eachother, how do you want to fix this?," the correct answers include either dropping one, or rephrasing one or the other. Obfuscation is not a helpful answer; you are seriously holding yourself back on this project by saying

You must put yourself at risk, and that risk is real a fair amount of the time. While you can try to reduce it with tactics, you're never going to reduce it to the point that you can feel comfortable in combat. PCs are probably not going to die easily, but nor are they unable to avoid risking death if they actually do something noteworthily bold. A saying about fighter pilots may or may not apply.

That's 76 words there, and you end up saying nothing. Seriously. Nothing at all. "I want PCs to have to be at risk, but to be able to make the risk go away. Mostly. I don't want them to be at much risk, but if they play like they're supposed to, they should be." You manage to switch between option A and a weird fusion of B and C twice in that single paragraph.

Nobody can tell you want you want, and nobody can even figure out what you want for themselves because you keep contradicting yourself.

Seriously, I have a couple game ideas that I'm working on myself, about as well-formed as Arturius. If I posted them in the state they're in, I'd be looking for questions; they're not ready to have other people's answers put into them while still being my projects.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:13 am

I just gave you something useful--I just offered a chance to recapitulate all the things you want in the game. If you notice, I haven't been in this discussion very much--I don't have much bias for or against Arturius, just at the way you've handled the discussion.

If you've been more worried about taking umbrage than about developing your own thoughts, to the point that you can't or won't summarize what this game's about to a fairly neutral observer for a fresh starting point of discussion...

Well, what the bloody hell are you doing here. at the Gaming Den? This board does not have any mods seeking it to turn it into a happy place of cookies and candy.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:17 am

You're designing this game, not us.

Asking questions is, in fact, helping. Have you seen Frank's game design flow sheet? It's nothing but questions, and is incredibly useful. Designing a game is about answering questions, but to answer them you have to ask, or be asked, the right ones. Once you have your questions answered, then you can move on to the parts where other writers can help (see the Writing Powers thread)

No, it is not helping. Not when you insist that I tell you what answers I want when I'm still in the stage of deciding on those answers.

That's 76 words there, and you end up saying nothing. Seriously. Nothing at all. "I want PCs to have to be at risk, but to be able to make the risk go away. Mostly. I don't want them to be at much risk, but if they play like they're supposed to, they should be." You manage to switch between option A and a weird fusion of B and C twice in that single paragraph.

I want the PCs to have to be at risk but able to fight that risk. Risk=DOOM. I want it to be mostly true that PCs are not short lived, but if you do something noteworthily bold, you are putting yourself at serious risk.

Nobody can tell you want you want, and nobody can even figure out what you want for themselves because you keep contradicting yourself.

No contradiction there. Sometimes you are at very serious risk, sometimes you're not, and "avoid having to face the situation at all" is not really a viable option.

Seriously, I have a couple game ideas that I'm working on myself, about as well-formed as Arturius. If I posted them in the state they're in, I'd be looking for questions; they're not ready to have other people's answers put into them while still being my projects.

Seriously, you're providing about as much help off ignore as if I used it (which I am not inclined to do). You're not offering assistance in coming up with answers, you're not suggesting possible things to look at, you're not doing anything to produce anything -but- questions that can't be answered until what answers are desired are decided.

If you've been more worried about taking umbrage than about developing your own thoughts, to the point that you can't or won't summarize what this game's about to a fairly neutral observer for a fresh starting point of discussion...

I do have have a summary of what the game is about in the thread about the game.

Which, if you actually are interested in being helpful instead of being a pest, I would be more than willing to show (or retype here).

Because several people are pretending that being a pest is being helpful, I'm very doubtful of you having any interest in genuinely assisting.

So. Are you interested in assisting in creating this, or are you interested in playing Three THousand Questions That Need Answers Before We Actually Do Anything But Ask Questions?

Because if the latter, I can save both of us time and ignore (as in the command) you.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:20 am

Elennsar wrote:
Since you want heroes, option B is clearly out. You have already stated that you're against option C.

So all that is left is option A.
Or D.

D) Unavoidable Elements of Real Risk: You must put yourself at risk, and that risk is real a fair amount of the time. While you can try to reduce it with tactics, you're never going to reduce it to the point that you can feel comfortable in combat. PCs are probably not going to die easily, but nor are they unable to avoid risking death if they actually do something noteworthily bold. A saying about fighter pilots may or may not apply.

People have survived actual combat and have faced it without being insane, suicidal, or scarred to the point they feel they're going to die.

I am against making it so that PCs are threatened with things that can't actually threaten them. I am fine with PCs be able to counter the threat of a rank and filer, but I am not fine with that rank and filer never being able to threaten a PC to begin with.

Exactly what do you mean by counter the rank and filer? I mean, in your vision, if the PCs play with the mechanical precision of an SAS team, are they going to win more than 95% of the time?

Or are you thinking Call of Cthulhu or Paranoia, where even if the PCs play w2ith the mechanical precision of an SAS team, there are strong structural incentives to do otherwise and instead do something brave/stupid, and the PCs are almost certainly going to die or go insane in the course of a single adventure with 60% or more certainty.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:23 am

Note: Please repost any questions directly related to Arturius in the Arturius thread. Thank you.

No, seriously. I'm going to have to collect the questions and answers together there anyway, and it would be very useful to have them there to begin with.

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:32 am

Thanks for the suggestions SunTzuWarmaster. Helplessness and not being able to fight back effectively I can see being very scary and risk seeming, even if I don't kill off the PCs while I do that. Comparing the PCs to random NPC could be useful but could be ignored if the players think if themselves too highly.

Back on illusory risk for the players to make the PCs seem more heroic.

Rather than argue hypothetical abstract sitations, how about I give a small really bad example for Elennsar of a situation where the PCs are at risk, especially if they are not careful, but I want to give the illusion of more risk so as to make the fight mean more. This actually happened so everyone can read and laugh at me being a bad DM.

Maybe other people can give examples of game play where the PCs are at risk of dying if they aren't careful but if played out straight would be boring so an illusion of risk is necessary. A reasonable counterpoint Elennsar could make would be examples he's seen in play where the PCs were in no risk at all and could ignore the enemies at will.

Game situation wrote: There are four players, three of whom decided to be melee types and one a weak spellcaster. They are about level 3 and they are going into a kobold warren. The kobolds will mostly be level 1s with a couple of level 3s.

Now, each player could probably take out 2-3 kobolds each, and they have enough experience to know this out of game, but there is a reasonable chance that they will get hit by enough of them to badly injure them, as well as the fact that if they get surrounded then it could go very badly. This is worsened by the fact that they don't really have much healing so any damage is worse. The PCs are at risk here; its not a case of the PCs are immune to danger. However, the risk isn't as high as I want the players to think it is.

My aim here is to make the kobolds scary, to make it seem like invading their territory is a dangerous and brave thing to do. How can I do that without telling them out of game that these are badass kobolds or making them all level 2 or 3 kobolds minimum?

My solution:

The solution I came up with was to show the players that the kobolds noticed the PCs arrive and started preparations to defend, and the remaining guard kobolds defended a while, hitting the PCs a couple of times, thus suggesting that the kobolds aren't complete pushovers and they are preparing to kill them.

Then, when they went inside, they were ambushed from all directions from cramped corridors. The actual mechanical effect was to make them fight kobolds one at a time but on a nearer to equal level.

My thought was that being surrounded, fighting with penalties and being badly wounded had roughly the same effect as being surrounded in a straight up fight, but that it seemed riskier and was more interesting and fun. I also made a couple of the kobolds half-dragons, but that was just me being bastardy.

What other solutions could you use to make a straightforward kobold killing massacre into seeming like a risky series of fights to survive?

Or how about another situation.

Another GM dilemma wrote: The PCs are travelling across Antarctic conditions. Its freezing cold, going to kill people within 15 minutes if they aren't careful and so on. However, the PCs have decided to use really good equipment, take reasonable breaks, and so on. Hell, even in a blizzard they just put up a really damn good tent and hide in it for a couple of days until it blows over, and the worst they have to worry about is some Wis damage from cabin fever. They aren't even using Endure Elements but can still deal with it.

This is a situation where the PCs are in danger, but they have avoided the danger due to planning and common sense. The PCs are not immune, but have built up huge resistance. But I want the players to be aware of how likely they were to die otherwise.

How can you make travelling through deadly conditions scary? There are days worth of travel and since they really like combat I don't really want to go a couple of sessions without some combats to forward the plot so I can't detail each and every hill, and make them describe all the dangers. Besides, if they die there are no backup characters so one player will just get bored waiting to play.

Its situations like these where killing a character would be game destructive, there can be danger but they have avoided it, and I don't want to spend a long time describing all the dangers.

A couple of solutions I thought of:

Showing some NPCs that went without the necessary equipment and froze to death.
Showing how wildlife ended up really really hungry after the blizzard. (heh, blizzards. In Arctic conditions, a blizzard is a 00 on the percentile dice. In that game it probably came up 5 times out of 20. It came up twice in a row once.)
Finding a building where the inhabitants went insane from cabin fever and killed the others.
Spending longer describing the stark beauty of your eyelashes freezing to your eyeballs and your sweat icing up. Oh, wait, that one will just get boring after every single survival check.

.... I'm stuck. The only other things I can think of actually make it more dangerous, such as force an accident where a load of supplies disappear.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:42 am

This is a situation where the PCs are in danger, but they have avoided the danger due to planning and common sense. The PCs are not immune, but have built up huge resistance. But I want the players to be aware of how likely they were to die otherwise.

Since describing how likely you were to die otherwise is a matter of narrative and not mechanics, I'm going to respond to this in regards to dangers and overcoming them:

I would say that is an example of "Yes, you overcame the risk.".

There was an actual danger that could actually kill a character (hopefully), but they took the steps necessary to deal with that, they walked carefully, built fires, etc, etc.

If something inexplicably went wrong (blizzard, say) that could potentially happen (such things can happen here), they might still be at actual risk (roll Fortitude or Survival or whatever and death could eventually come out of it.) still to be overcome.

In other words, the mechanics, assuming that the precautions the characters took should be sufficient and necessary for the characters, need to model it being sufficient and necessary.

The game also needs to make it possible (though the GM may not inflict it) for disaster to strike.

There, actual chance of death, actual method of overcoming said problem, and live PCs.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:19 am

I'm terribly confused by the mindset of "fight your way through to the king even though you're likely to die." I thought Elennsar's game was focused on making combat deadly and encouraging players to think their way through encounters. Why on Earth would any sane person try to fight his way through to the king when he could bribe the guards, sneak past the watchmen, and then talk his way into the throne room?

That does not compute.

I get the whole "do it for virtue" thing, and I can get behind that. Virtue for the sake of virtue and all that stuff. But fighting when there are other solutions just because it's "heroic"? That's only going to happen in a game when you're confident in being able to best the guards. In a system where combat probably leads to death for the heroes, telling them to suck it up and fight when they're going to die is retarded.

If you want characters to be particularly heroic--in terms of "besting overwhelming odds" rather than "avoiding combat at all costs"--then you have to design a system to encourage it in some way. There's no fucking point in creating a system that's going to punish the hell out of players for engaging in combat and then expecting them to charge headlong into situations that are certain death, particularly when certain death is in-character knowledge.

Again: does not compute.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:23 am

Heroism, to me, is far more than beating up a couple of guys to tell the king to lower his taxes. That's glorifying combat. Heroism is braving the odds and getting the king to lower his taxes, regardless of whether or not violence is used.

Agreed. What is the problem is this:

What if you -can't- sneak through, bribe through, etc.? Do you just say "Fuck it."?

That's where we see you show whether or not you're going to be brave or you're going to back down.

There are forty-odd "major" battles. There are more than that many "encounters" - quite a few of which -should- be handled with good sense, not a good sword.

Fighting for fighting's own sake is not heroic. However, in a goddamn war, you're going to be fighting.

So you're going to have to deal with combat being the situation you're facing many a time.

Let's say you're leading a military unit. It looks like its wavering. Do you race to the forefront, grab the flag, shout something inspiring, and move forward?

Or do you do something else?

You're not risking dangers for the sake of risking dangers. You're risking dangers because this is a dangerous time with dangerous situations.

Heroes rise to the occasion.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:26 am

I edited my post. Heroism really depends on how the story is told. From one perspective, Thief can be a tale of heroism: waltzing through a castle, almost being spotted by guards, fighting off a few of them. On the other hand, Thief can be a tale of anti-heroism: hiding in the shadows, striking from the shadows, fleeing at the first sign of trouble.

Narration makes heroism.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:27 am

Elennsar wrote: What if you -can't- sneak through, bribe through, etc.? Do you just say "Fuck it."?

Yes.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:30 am

I edited my post. Heroism really depends on how the story is told. From one perspective, Thief can be a tale of heroism: waltzing through a castle, almost being spotted by guards, fighting off a few of them. On the other hand, Thief can be a tale of anti-heroism: hiding in the shadows, striking from the shadows, fleeing at the first sign of trouble.

Narration makes heroism.

Narration and deeds.

Thief doesn't involve any particularly bold deeds - you're actively trying to avoid being bold.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:36 am

Hardly. I imagine a thief has to have some solid balls to negotiate past the guards. Think of the constant knot of worry in your gut. Think of how you *know* if you're caught, you're going to get the fuck beat out of you at the very least. Think of how you're all too aware that you have no allies with you. If you get caught, you're screwed.

A burglar has to have some guts to do that. Sneaking into a heavily guarded place all by yourself? That's bold.

It has both recognizeable and real risk. It takes big and brassy nerves to do it. It's not something everyone can do.

I'd say it can easily be heroic.

Edit: Corrected, and saw room to explan.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:39 am

Some, yes - but I wouldn't describe it as a deed that would be worth giving him a checkmark for Valourness in the sense that the guy grabbing the banner and saying "Men of (Kingdom name)! To me!" would deserve one.

Still - "Not brave" (no positive check) =/= "cowardly" (one negative check).

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:44 am

Elennsar wrote: D) Unavoidable Elements of Real Risk: You must put yourself at risk, and that risk is real a fair amount of the time. While you can try to reduce it with tactics, you're never going to reduce it to the point that you can feel comfortable in combat. PCs are probably not going to die easily, but nor are they unable to avoid risking death if they actually do something noteworthily bold. A saying about fighter pilots may or may not apply.

Um. I think that was option A.

I am against making it so that PCs are threatened with things that can't actually threaten them.

What you said can never be true. It's basically just saying that you're against things that are illogical.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:47 am

Um. I think that was option A.

Other than the part where it assumes risk cannot be conquered, if it is possible to die at the hands of a blizzard, that possibility cannot be overcome.

You should not be comfortable that a blizzard cannot happen when traveling in an area blizzards can happen. But you should be able to prepare for winter travel and more or less eliminate the perils of it (barring such events).

Real chance of something happening. Real method of being able to deal with it.

What you said can never be true. It's basically just saying that you're against things that are illogical.

Point is, I'm against having the idea that an orc (with +4 to hit) is supposed to be a concern to a PC with AC 25+ (assuming 20s don't always hit).

Either the orc should be of no consequence both mechanically and in fluff, or the level of concern Aragorn is supposed to feel is matched by what the orc can actually do as a game piece.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:50 am

Elennsar wrote: Other than the part where it assumes risk cannot be conquered, if it is possible to die at the hands of a blizzard, that possibility cannot be overcome.

You just said the risk was unavoidable. If it's unavoidable then it cannot be overcome. You might get lucky, but you can't actually eliminate the risk. You're just praying to the dice gods.

Either the orc should be of no consequence both mechanically and in fluff, or the level of concern Aragorn is supposed to feel is matched by what the orc can actually do as a game piece.

So you're saying adventurers should automatically know how threatening every enemy is just by looking at it? Does every orc have its AC and HP listed out on its chest or what?

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:57 am

You just said the risk was unavoidable. If it's unavoidable then it cannot be overcome. You might get lucky, but you can't actually eliminate the risk. You're just praying to the dice gods.

It is unavoidable that bad things can happen. It is not impossible to deal with them or to avoid them happening any given time.

After all, just because I can trip and fall in a puddle doesn't mean I'll do it.

So you're saying adventurers should automatically know how threatening every enemy is just by looking at it? Does every orc have its AC and HP listed out on its chest or what?

No, but if the response by Aragorn is supposed to be "gee, these orcs can kill me.", that ought to be supported by what they can actually do to him.

He should be able to tell that a five year old is not a threat - I presume, therefore, that he can tell if an orc is.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:14 pm

Elennsar wrote:It is unavoidable that bad things can happen. It is not impossible to deal with them or to avoid them happening any given time.

After all, just because I can trip and fall in a puddle doesn't mean I'll do it.

If the chance that you are going to trip and fall in a puddle is 20% per hour walking outside, and you spend 10 hours a day walking outside, then yes, it does mean you will trip and fall in a puddle.

It actually totally means that.

If combat results in death 20% of the time, except when you bias combat by using good tactics, in which case it's 2%, then the actual chance of death is 2%.

You can't have a 50% chance of winning, but win 70% of the time. If you win 70% of the time, then you have a 70% chance of winning.

No, but if the response by Aragorn is supposed to be "gee, these orcs can kill me.", that ought to be supported by what they can actually do to him.

He should be able to tell that a five year old is not a threat - I presume, therefore, that he can tell if an orc is.

This has gone on for ages, so I'm apparently going to have to say it because no one else will.

Aragon/Legolas/Gimili= 0 threat from Orcs.

Seriously. Aragorn isn't supposed to think the orcs can kill him, because he knows they can't. He's that good. He knows that any 20 orcs that don't have bows are going to lose to him, every single time.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:39 pm

Kaelik wrote: If combat results in death 20% of the time, except when you bias combat by using good tactics, in which case it's 2%, then the actual chance of death is 2%.

You can't have a 50% chance of winning, but win 70% of the time. If you win 70% of the time, then you have a 70% chance of winning.

We've already established that Elennsar doesn't know probability at all.

He's used just about every probability based fallacy there is at one time or another.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:05 pm

RandomCasualty2 wrote:
Kaelik wrote: If combat results in death 20% of the time, except when you bias combat by using good tactics, in which case it's 2%, then the actual chance of death is 2%.

You can't have a 50% chance of winning, but win 70% of the time. If you win 70% of the time, then you have a 70% chance of winning.
We've already established that Elennsar doesn't know probability at all.

He's used just about every probability based fallacy there is at one time or another.

And a few there isn't. All at once. While singing horribly.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:55 pm

You can't have a 50% chance of winning, but win 70% of the time. If you win 70% of the time, then you have a 70% chance of winning.

We've already established that Elennsar doesn't know probability at all.

He's used just about every probability based fallacy there is at one time or another.

We've already established that probability and actual play may or may not have anything to do with each other.

Having a 50% chance of winning each of three encounters can go several ways: Win, win, win. Win, win, lose. Win, lose, lose. Lose, lose, lose. Etc.

The formula that you are only 12.5% likely to win all three would be rather more useful if it wasn't for the fact you have to win the first (50% chance) to have any chance of winning all three. And until/unless you do, the other rolls don't matter.

Seriously. Aragorn isn't supposed to think the orcs can kill him, because he knows they can't. He's that good. He knows that any 20 orcs that don't have bows are going to lose to him, every single time.

Then don't pretend its dangerous and brave of him for the sake of an illusion that has nothing to do with what the character is really facing.

If he can treat it as a cakewalk, it -should- feel like one.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:34 pm

Elennsar wrote: The formula that you are only 12.5% likely to win all three would be rather more useful if it wasn't for the fact you have to win the first (50% chance) to have any chance of winning all three. And until/unless you do, the other rolls don't matter.

Fail.

Seriously, the reason WHY the probability is 12.5% instead of 16.6% or whatever other number that seems to fit is that it accounts for that.

Here are all possible paths for three encounters.

1. Lose-Win-Win
2. Lose-Lose-Win
3. Lose-Lose-Lose
4. Lose-Win-Lose
5. Win-lose-lose
6. Win-lose-Win
7. Win-Win-lose
8. Win-Win-Win

Only 8 is counted as a success, and you'll notice that in half the paths, you lose encounter 1, so 50% of all fail on encounter 1. 25% of all fail on encounter 2 but not 1, and 12.5% fail on encounter 3 but not 1 or 2. 50+25+12.5= 87.5, and 100-87.5=12.5, so 12.5% of possible paths are full victories, and the others collectively form the remainder, including the 50% of the total that fail on encounter 1.

edited for screwing up phrasing like an idiot. it's like the time i thought the cube root of 54 simplfied to 8*square root of 7