The Gaming Den

"I want to play a brave hero, but I don't want the orcs to be able to kill me."

Okay, we can deal with that - there's plenty of things that can make it so that unless you do something stupid (even if you roll low, you're safe, other than this, in other words) you can beat up a fair number of orcs.

"I want to play a brave hero, but I don't want the ogre to be threatening either."

Okay?

"Or the giant. The giant should be afraid of ME."

...

"and of course, the BBEG can't win. Because that would suck."


If you want to play a game where you're battling against competent opposition, you should risk losing.

You should be able to die in a death trap (doesn't mean you should actually die, but you should not be never brought below 1 hp or the like)

You should have to make a sacrifice when your character is self sacrificing.

You should actually have to be worried that Goliath is a problem if he is supposed to be a problem, instead of having the Never Rolls Below a 20 When Fighting Philistines power.



If you don't want to be actually risking anything, but you want characters to take "risks", what the fuck? You want the heroes to take the route through the desert not because they have to (even though its dangerous), but because crossing the desert and wanting water just gives Pacos Bill an excuse to make the Rio Grande (kudos to anyone who knows what I'm talking about)?

There are a lot of terms for that. Not all of which are critical - that was a funny movie.

But "heroic" and "courageous" aren't among them.

Umm... good for you?

Elennsar wrote: There are a lot of terms for that. Not all of which are critical - that was a funny movie.

But "heroic" and "courageous" aren't among them.

No cinematic or literary heroes are brave according to you then, since the plot is already written and they're going to live. This means they survive 100% of the time.

Conan, John McClaine, James Bond, Rambo... they're all going to survive to see another day.

They're not brave if the rules make it so that they can't be killed.

Not "aren't". "can't be".

Conan -could- fail to block an attack, but doesn't. Conan could get stabbed in the heart, but isn't.

If Conan being stabbed through the heart is going to be an inconvenience, then no, he isn't brave to risk being stabbed in the heart.

Your way of thinking leads to unplayable and boring games. Your way of thinking is bad and you should feel bad. Wait, thats a little harsh.

Lets try that again.

I can see what your talking about in that it can be easy to neuter challenges and make them no longer challenging. However, trying to make them challenging is difficult without making them unplayable.

Take your death trap suggestion:

You should be able to die in a death trap (doesn't mean you should actually die, but you should not be never brought below 1 hp or the like)

The problem with this is that it is too easy to make simplistic but difficult challenges. It is too easy to make a D&D death trap just the same as normal, but do more damage and have a higher DC. This is not more heroic.

I get where your saying that going into a trapped crypt when you know you have a chance of "dying" (I don't really understand what you mean by the bracketed part) is more heroic than going into a trapped crypt when you know the worst that can happen is using up half a wand of healing.

However, by doing it with death traps is not a fun game for several reasons.

---

Firstly, you have to make sure that the players AND the PCs know that there are traps. Otherwise the PCs are not heroic, the players are just bastards for putting them in unknowing danger, or there are arbitrary deaths every now and then. And if you do this for every trapped area, then you know to just put the rogue in front and search for traps while the rest of the party sit back and drink tea and eat biscuits and have a magical teaparty.

If the players and PCs don't know all the time whether death traps are ahead, then they either have to act as if there are traps, or act as if there aren't. If they act as if there are traps, then it tends to end up either a paranoid party poking everything with 11 foot poles and throwing bouncy balls everywhere, or just ignoring the danger, which is stupidity, not heroism.
If they act as if there aren't, then the PCs are being stupid, not heroic.


If you don't know about the dangers then its not heroic. This can lead to you always knowing when a trap is coming up or paranoid behaviour, neither of which is fun.

---

Secondly, rolling a reflex save isn't heroic. Noticing that the trap is going off ahead and the PC in front of yours hasn't noticed it yet and running forwards and bull rushing him to the side to avoid the swinging blades is heroic.

However, the rules can't deal with this. This would require either the GM making stuff up on the spot which isn't fair to the players, or a whole trap minigame, which you have to create rules for, and make sure they're balanced, and make sure they work for all traps including ones really devious and bastardy GMs come up with, and make sure they interact with combat, and, and...

If you could do this, then you could have heroic traps which aren't lethal.

Simplistic succeed/fail chances aren't heroic. There needs to be some element of choice of heroism within it.

---

Thirdly, things don't have to be deadly to be heroic. For example, going out is a snowstorm to rescue a lost child is heroic, even if your connected by a rope to other people and there is no risk of death, because you could still be hurt and your going out of your way to help someone in need.

By the same token, base jumping isn't heroic, even though there is a risk of death.

Making traps deadly does not make them heroic.

Having a risk of death doesn't make something heroic.

---

Fourthly, if you have a lot of deadly or dangerous stuff then the PCs will get injured or killed a lot more, which a lot of people will equate to as losing, and as such will not have fun. Yes, they are being whiny bitches, but you should still consider idiots views, even if it is just how to reduce the chances of having to listen to them bitch.

Enough people equate dying to not being fun that making stuff deadly should be rare and important, to make death important.

---

---

Basically, what I'm saying is that your ideas of heroism by making stuff dangerous is simplistic and doesn't take into account other ways of making things heroic.

For example, you could make there be lots of traps that are really weak but getting more dangerous as you get nearer the end, and show how lots of other people have died to the traps. This would show how powerful the PCs are which a lot of people find fun, and show the danger of continuing without having instant death. The act of continuing through the danger to do something heroic makes the act more heroic.

This last idea isn't really that well thought through, but you should be able to see what I mean.

I get where your saying that going into a trapped crypt when you know you have a chance of "dying" (I don't really understand what you mean by the bracketed part) is more heroic than going into a trapped crypt when you know the worst that can happen is using up half a wand of healing.

You might well not actually be killed - but it has the potential do so so. For instance, if you have 50 hit points, it does 10d6 damage.

If you don't know about the dangers then its not heroic. This can lead to you always knowing when a trap is coming up or paranoid behaviour, neither of which is fun.

You can know that it -could- be trapped.

Secondly, rolling a reflex save isn't heroic. Noticing that the trap is going off ahead and the PC in front of yours hasn't noticed it yet and running forwards and bull rushing him to the side to avoid the swinging blades is heroic.

Being in a situation where it doesn't matter whether you do that or not isn't heroic either.

If you could do this, then you could have heroic traps which aren't lethal.

Simplistic succeed/fail chances aren't heroic. There needs to be some element of choice of heroism within it.

Its dangerous! But if we don't get through here we won't be able to save the princess! Guess we'll have to chance it then.

Thirdly, things don't have to be deadly to be heroic. For example, going out is a snowstorm to rescue a lost child is heroic, even if your connected by a rope to other people and there is no risk of death, because you could still be hurt and your going out of your way to help someone in need.

Making that "hurt" meaningless eliminates the heroism - and going out of your way may be nice, but "heroic" is a mite strong. I wouldn't consider Superman heroic for it. Batman (as Bruce Wayne, not in the suit), yes. Batman in the suit, probably not.

Fourthly, if you have a lot of deadly or dangerous stuff then the PCs will get injured or killed a lot more, which a lot of people will equate to as losing, and as such will not have fun. Yes, they are being whiny bitches, but you should still consider idiots views, even if it is just how to reduce the chances of having to listen to them bitch.

If they don't wnat to play this, they're not being asked to.

Simple.

Enough people equate dying to not being fun that making stuff deadly should be rare and important, to make death important.

That is their problem.

For example, you could make there be lots of traps that are really weak but getting more dangerous as you get nearer the end, and show how lots of other people have died to the traps. This would show how powerful the PCs are which a lot of people find fun, and show the danger of continuing without having instant death. The act of continuing through the danger to do something heroic makes the act more heroic.

Yes, and I'm going to point something out (bolded).

That is the absolute antithesis of what I want. It is "Sure, its dangerous, but the PCs (as distinct from the NPCs, which are overwhelming in the "died to" camp - as in, exceptions are usually limited to those who set the traps) don't need to worry about it."

Now, the part in italics is awesome. But there has to be an actual danger that you actually worry about - not something that looks dangerous but isn't - being brave because you think a rabbit is a lion is no more really brave than being brave against a lion you think is a rabbit isn't just stupid.

Personally, I despise the "show me how awesome I am" mindset. It's really...lame. Why do I need to be told how awesome my character is? Well, I don't, since I'm not playing an RPG so that I can masturbate on my character sheet. Your character isn't awesome because he can beat up twelve guys at once. Look at Rand. That whiny bitch could destroy the world, but he's not awesome; he's a menstrual cycle because his character is a piece of shit.

Speak for yourself. I like showing off how awesome my character is, and it's part of the reason I build characters to be awesome.

It goes two ways, though. You need to be interesting too or you just end up stupid like Rand. But if you want another example from that series, you could have a guy like Mat who regularly shows off how awesome he is and is also fairly interesting.

Elennsar wrote:That is their problem.

Then nobody is going to play your game, lol. Try to check in on reality for just a minute here.

If you wanted to be a normal person you wouldn't need any fucking game. You'd just do this thing called live. Part of being a normal person? Being weak. So guess what? Being badass is a basic part of fantasy. Raise your hand if you want to be a peon. Anyone? Anyone at all? I thought so.

Then nobody is going to play your game, lol. Try to check in on reality for just a minute here.

No, only people who don't need to have death be something that only happens 0.1% of the time (over a game) will play. And that's okay, because the people who want death to happen virtually never aren't the people I'm trying to attract.

As for being badass:

Being inhumanly badass (whether larger than life, superheroic, or "just lucky" - Han doesn't seem to be fundementally more skilled than any human on Earth could be, but he's luckier.) is not necessarily cooler than being humanly badass.

Or to put it this way, it isn't ten times cooler to beat twenty people than two.

Death traps suck for the most part in RPGs. It's because they're arbitrary. Players don't actually get to do anything meaningful in a "Roll a reflex save or die" or "you picked Door #1, you die, you should have picked identical Door #2." Tomb of Horrors is particularly bad. There's a rod/crown "puzzle" where you have to touch the rod to the crown in the right way to continue. Doing it a different way alright kills you. There's no clue or "hey it says touching the silver ends will kill you!" That sucks, since you're not really doing anything.

That said, I'm a firm believer in giving players enough rope to hang their PCs. If the PCs threaten to kill the godfather and then immediately afterward accept a meeting from him in a time and place of his choosing, they should be ambushed by assassins that have a chance of killing them. It's because the players choose to go that route and are suffering the consequences of it (maybe we shouldn't trust people we threaten to kill). With forethought and/or planning, things could have been avoided or even reversed. Picking from identical doors or rolling a die isn't either.

However, you should have the players know what sort of game they're getting into. Tomb of Horrors can be fun if you know that the GM is playing Tomb of Horrors. King Quest games work in a similar fashion (though with more saving/loading). If the PCs think insulting the mob boss should get into a CR appropriate fight, they'll be unhappy when the hit squad is tougher than that.

Death traps suck for the most part in RPGs.

Agreed. Trapping someone in a pit with a tiger is one thing. Roll Reflex or fall on a spike and die isn't challenging (except to the Reflex save, which I can't fiddle with in midfight).

However, you should have the players know what sort of game they're getting into. Tomb of Horrors can be fun if you know that the GM is playing Tomb of Horrors. King Quest games work in a similar fashion (though with more saving/loading). If the PCs think insulting the mob boss should get into a CR appropriate fight, they'll be unhappy when the hit squad is tougher than that.

Text (underlined) applies everywhere, but definately here.

My objection is to insulting the mob boss being something that supposedly is a dangerous thing to do - as in, people get killed if they do that - and then the hit squad is a no sweat fight. Thus the rant in the first post.

So and Immortal character can never be heroic?

Personally, I think herosim should generally involve an element of *risk*. But risk doesn't have to be risk of death. It can be risking the lives of one's family, risking one's chance at happiness, risking pain and suffering, risking the loss of possessions, or risking humiliation and dishonor.

Elennsar, you said something about changing things in the middle.

Why not have multiple checks and balances for everything? If you fail one roll, you move on to the next roll.

1st a Notice Roll; did you see the goblins? pit trap? demon lord?

2nd a Speed Roll; did you ambush the goblins? stop in time with the trap? avoid the demon's fire ray?

3rd a Resolution Roll; did you survive the goblins swords? survive the fall? remember to stop drop and roll?

4th a Conclusion Roll; do the goblins leave you to bleed out, or capture you? did you break a lot of bones, or rupture some organs as well? does the demon eat you alive, seal your soul or send you to the hells?

Now, all of your encounters need 4 rolls. That's your system.

How rolls are resolved is more interesting.

I'd suggest that the worse your initial rolls are, the higher the bonuses are to your later rolls; thus minimizing catastrophic failure as a result of previous failures (to prevent vicious death spiralling).

Or, have percentages increase in chance of success when severity of failure is greater.

So,

50% chance to noticing an encounter

60% chance of acting quickly enough to the encounter

80% chance of surviving the encounter

95% chance of being able to conclude the encounter

I'm not sure if that's a 0.01% chance of dying on any one encounter, but it's pretty slim.

You get a 50% chance of success at first; if you fail, you have a 60% chance; if you fail again, you have an 80% chance, if you fail again you have a 95% chance.

So, you have danger, but killing is a bit harder. Of course, it doesn't mean that characters aren't hurt. The 50/60/80/95 system allows for PCs to have broken limbs and still survive.

Or you could do Mordeheim, maybe Necromunda.

So and Immortal character can never be heroic?

Personally, I think herosim should generally involve an element of *risk*. But risk doesn't have to be risk of death. It can be risking the lives of one's family, risking one's chance at happiness, risking pain and suffering, risking the loss of possessions, or risking humiliation and dishonor.

Achilles is a butcher. Nothing any of his foes can do to is any form of hardship or peril (unless you count killing his best friend/gay lover, which doesn't count).

Now, all of your encounters need 4 rolls. That's your system.

How rolls are resolved is more interesting.

Not arguing - its much more interesting.

I'd suggest that the worse your initial rolls are, the higher the bonuses are to your later rolls; thus minimizing catastrophic failure as a result of previous failures (to prevent vicious death spiralling).

That I disagree on, though I wouldn't say "always bad".

So, you have danger, but killing is a bit harder. Of course, it doesn't mean that characters aren't hurt. The 50/60/80/95 system allows for PCs to have broken limbs and still survive.

Which is damn meaningful if broken limbs are, not if they aren't. And you don't need to make it less likely to have Bad Failure to get that, either.

I do think the notice-reaction-resolution-conclusion is a very good model, however.

Elennsar wrote: Achilles is a butcher. Nothing any of his foes can do to is any form of hardship or peril (unless you count killing his best friend/gay lover, which doesn't count).

There's something wrong with you.

No, I'm pointing out that Achilles isn't risking his boyfriend being killed in battle (his boyfriend is taking that risk for his own reasons), so it doesn't count as "sure, he's invulnerable, but his loved ones aren't."

Wait, so Superman and Green Lantern aren't heroes now?

News to me.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Wait, so Superman and Green Lantern aren't heroes now?

News to me.

They're just not heroic.

Wait, fighting to defend your loved ones isn't heroic unless you personally are at risk?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

In the sense of being bold in the face of great danger and willing to be self sacrificing ?

Not unless they're facing great danger and/or being self sacrificing.

Simple as that.

Boolean: Is it generous for Bill Gates to spend a million dollars on feeding the hungry?

Not really, no.

That's not to say its a bad thing, but its not a deed of sacrifice, nor is it a deed of bravery for an invulnerable person to fight someone.

Elennsar wrote:Boolean: Is it generous for Bill Gates to spend a million dollars on feeding the hungry?

Not really, no.

That's not to say its a bad thing, but its not a deed of sacrifice, nor is it a deed of bravery for an invulnerable person to fight someone.

Yes it is. That's a million dollars the ex-Microsoftian will never see.

It doesn't matter if your sacrifice is having to travel across the land to return an ancient artifact or agreeing to kill six snow mooses, it's still a sacrifice.

Am I the only one troubled by the fact that Elenssars definiton of heroism excludes the protagonists of all works of fiction ever?

Yes it is. That's a million dollars the ex-Microsoftian will never see.

It doesn't matter if your sacrifice is having to travel across the land to return an ancient artifact or agreeing to kill six snow mooses, it's still a sacrifice.

No it isn't. Does it cause him any hurt, discomfort, or disturb his life style in any way? NO!

That's not a sacrifice. Treating Bill Gates doing that as a sacrifice makes a mockery of the entire concept, somewhere akin to the idea that spending money on an indulgence is equal to giving to a charitable cause.

Am I the only one troubled by the fact that Elenssars definiton of heroism excludes the protagonists of all works of fiction ever?

What it excludes is any protagonist who can't fail to dodge/parry/block/duck, who can't get seriously injuried if they are hit, and who can't die if they are seriously injuried.

The fact that they DID survive doesn't mean it was inevitable for them in the world the author is writting, which is the important part.

Conan could fail to defend against an attack. He could get seriously hurt (and has). He could die if seriously hurt enough (didn't manage to happen, but possible).

Making a game with any of the following, on the other hand, strips heroism (as something that you have in combat) away:

A 0% chance of being hit at any point.
A 0% chance of being seriously hurt if hit at any point. (as in, at no point will it happen)
A 0% chance of dying if seriously hurt.

You can be a wonderful guy and save lives and rebuild countries and so on and that's bloody awesome. But its not self sacrificing if there's no sacrifice.

Elennsar wrote: Making a game with any of the following, on the other hand, strips heroism (as something that you have in combat) away:

A 0% chance of being hit at any point.
A 0% chance of being seriously hurt if hit at any point. (as in, at no point will it happen)
A 0% chance of dying if seriously hurt.

A hypothetical situation:

You are some ridiculously powerful adventurer dude. You are practically invincible if you aren't fighting other ridiculously powerful adventurer dudes. You have a beloved peasant village that burned down in the first chapter and a beloved sibling who has proved to be remarkably fire-retardant, but merely semi-ridiculously powerful as an adventurer.

Your beloved sibling puts on a monocle, and is now EVIL! The monocle gives your beloved sibling the power to BLOW UP THE MOON! This takes about 5 minutes of EVIL monologue, which can be done while fighting. Once this EVIL action has been performed, your beloved but now EVIL sibling will gain LASER EYEBEAMS that might actually pose a threat to you.

You have a climactic four-minute-and-fifty-nine-second long battle and defeat your beloved but now EVIL sibling for the sake of the GREATER GOOD!1!! But your beloved but now EVIL sibling is now dead, so you're kinda depressed.
- - - - -

A second hypothetical situation:

You are a citizen of the EVIL EMPIRE. You have poorly-explained invincibility, but you refuse to fight for the government and make your living as a humble haberdasher. You don't like fighting. One day, you see some dudes from the Ministry of Love filling their EVIL quota for the day by hauling off some other dudes to torture.

You finally lose it. You can't bear watching others suffer any more without intervening. You take off your razor-sharp top hat and throw it at the EVIL TRUCK of the Ministry of Love. It cuts the handcuffs off the captives and whirls back into your hand. You are forced to beat the EVIL enforcers into unconsciousness.

Now that you've taken a stand against the EVIL EMPIRE, you're going to have to fight for the rest of your life, even though you find violence incredibly abhorrent. But you do make this sacrifice, and legends are told of the level 1 commoner with infinite saves, BAB, and HP for centuries to come.
- - - -

Do you count as heroic in either of these situations?

- - - -

A question:

Is the Nameless One from Planescape: Torment heroic if you play a sane Lawful Good type?

- - - -

EDIT: moar capitalization