Quote from: Kyle Aaron;258064There are two common conceptions of "hero". The first is the Anglo-Saxon conception which we had from about the 18th century onwards, which is as you said, someone struggling against great odds. Which is why we have stories like Rorke's Drift, a hundred redcoats against six thousand Zulus, or 300, where the 4,000 allies are forgotten or mocked, and the numbers of the Persians inflated, to make the Spartan struggle sound even more heroic than it was.

The second is from the ancient world, especially Greek myth. In this, the hero is someone far beyond what any normal person could ever be. Achilles is a heroic fighter - even though since his whole body except his ankles is invulnerable, by fighting he risks nothing. Cu Culainn is a heroic fighter - even though he has so much magical aid that people actually stop the whole universe's movement forward in time so he has a chance to heal up before the next fight while his foes remain wounded.

Discuss.

That's the lamest way to start a thread I've seen in years.

Heroes are for fascists. There I said it. Discuss

Better boulet ?

Regards,
David R

Yes, those are the two great heroic models.  Superman and Batman, you could say.  I think both are important, though Batman is usually more interesting, unless Superman's story is told really really well.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;258097Yes, those are the two great heroic models.  Superman and Batman, you could say.  I think both are important, though Batman is usually more interesting, unless Superman's story is told really really well.

RPGPundit

Superman vs. Batman. Discuss.


TGA

As far as Supes & Batty, didn't Miller say everything that needs to be said, in the Dark Knight Returns ?

Regards,
David R

So this is the part where the thread devolves into an argument about Superman vs. a Jedi?  Tsk.  It hadn't even got started.

Quote from: ttagxamm;258100So this is the part where the thread devolves into an argument about Superman vs. a Jedi?

Which iteration of Jedi? The Eps. 4-6 trilogy, the Eps. 1-3 trilogy, or the Clone Wars cartoons?

!i!

Hector vs Achilles. Hector is a man, a very competent one, but a man nonetheless. Achilles is the son of a god, and invulnerable except for his ankles - but nobody knows, so they'll only strike them by chance.

I'm on Hector's side. Achilles risks nothing, the coward. Hector risks all, expects to lose but fights anyway.

Munchkins are on Achilles' side.

Reading kyle's quote, I'm reminded not of Achillies and Hector or Superman and Batman but rather of Roy Batty and Rick Deckard.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;258102I'm on Hector's side. Achilles risks nothing, the coward. Hector risks all, expects to lose but fights anyway.

Another example I like was from an old movie (maybe Jason and the argonauts, but I'm not 100% sure). A competition on how far one could cast a stone staged Hercules against Jason (or maybe Theseus, I have doubts now). Obviously other argonauts are rooting for Hercules whose strength is unmatched. When it comes to the underdog to cast his stone he adopts sideways thinking and choose a flat stone. Casting the stone with a spin he manages to get some ricochets and beats Hercules at his own game. I guess it's a bit like David vs Goliath with an advantage to the witty guy. Gotta love a smarter hero.

Here's the thing, the thing I probably should have started with:

While the ordinary man who overcomes tremendous odds may be the more interesting story, it tends to fail as a game.

In a game where success or failure is determined not by an author, but by random probability generators, the likelihood of an ordinary man overcoming an overwhelming force is...not good.  And stories about ordinary people being crushed mercilessly by forces far beyond them are, well, kind of depressing and not really fun.  Certainly not the sort of thing most people want to experience vicariously every week.  That's why you don't see a lot of people wanting to play Commoners in 3.5.  It'd be cool if you survived, but you almost certainly won't.

So we necessarily make PCs better than normal folks, and start them off against challenges they can face, until they become badass enough to face challenges that are overwhelming...to normal folk.  Hector may make the better story, but Achilles seems to make the better game.

Either that, or we have to extend to PCs the same plot protection that makes Batman able to go toe-to-toe with Superman, with the same occasional ridiculous results (Batman can dodge punches from Superman who can outrun the Flash who can move faster than time.  You figure that one out.), and the same sort of namby-pamby "no real challenges" gameplay.

Either that, or we aren't actually talking about games of heroes, we're talking about games about cannon fodder with differing life spans.

Quote from: Jackalope;258110While the ordinary man who overcomes tremendous odds may be the more interesting story, it tends to fail as a game.

Unless the ordinary man uses his brains, like in boulet's story about Jason and Herakles.

Player smarts matter more than character ability or the dice. Old school, baby. The dice are Fortune, who favours the bold.

Quote from: JackalopeHector may make the better story, but Achilles seems to make the better game.

Yeah, and next time we have a race, I'll get on a Ducati and race a kid on a tricycle. BEHOLD MY AWESOMENESS.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;258122Unless the ordinary man uses his brains, like in boulet's story about Jason and Herakles.

Player smarts matter more than character ability or the dice. Old school, baby. The dice are Fortune, who favours the bold.

No, actually, that's the point.  Fortune does not actually favor the bold, unless you use Action Points.

Trust me, I know this from years of playing RPGs.  Being bold gets you killed.  If you want to survive, you have to be smart, tactical, and cunning.  You have to be the exact opposite of bold.  You have to be extremely cautious.

If you go charging into, swinging from the chandeliers and flashing your blade around like a proper hero, you will get killed.  You don't even know how many fighters I've lost to a bad DEX roll trying to do something bold.

And not just lost, but died stupid ignoble deaths falling and breaking their necks.

So, then, player smarts.

This is where my DMing experience comes in.  Here's what player smarts amounts to: entertaining the DM enough that he doesn't make you roll dice.  Because if you roll dice, you'll probably fail.  Because who decides if the player's plan is smart?  The DM.  Who decides if it works?  The DM.  So really, player smarts really ends up being "player ability to play to DM prejudices and avoid the game mechanics by working the ref."

QuoteYeah, and next time we have a race, I'll get on a Ducati and race a kid on a tricycle. BEHOLD MY AWESOMENESS.

Hey, false dilemma!  I had a feeling you'd show up!

Let's see if we can avoid that in the future, and talk about the middle ground, where there is so much potential.  Let's try to remember that Jason may not have been a demigod of strength like Heracles, but he was still a wicked badass.

And let's also remember that in stories, the ability of heroes to "outwit" their adversaries is a plot device entirely under the control of the author.

Quote from: boulet;258108Another example I like was from an old movie (maybe Jason and the argonauts, but I'm not 100% sure). A competition on how far one could cast a stone staged Hercules against Jason (or maybe Theseus, I have doubts now). Obviously other argonauts are rooting for Hercules whose strength is unmatched. When it comes to the underdog to cast his stone he adopts sideways thinking and choose a flat stone. Casting the stone with a spin he manages to get some ricochets and beats Hercules at his own game. I guess it's a bit like David vs Goliath with an advantage to the witty guy. Gotta love a smarter hero.

Throwing a stone vs throwing a specially-made object.

Discus.