I do so get tired of being told that the "American" conception of a hero must include fantastic powers. Always quoting an American game author, but never from an American Gamer when it shows up.  If Mr. Laws had said that in a more mainstream sort of audience he would have gotten funny looks from all the people who have labled firefighters and soldiers and police men heroes... especially in the last 5 years or so. Or from those same firefighters, soldiers and policemen (among others) who earnestly proclaim they are not heroes but that some other guy doing some other job is. None of whom would naturally grab the "Action Hero" or the 'SuperHero' model as the default for 'Hero'.

Maybe. MAYBE we, americans only perhaps (but I doubt that), like to ascribe even to ordinary men sort of heroes some sort of supernatural ability.  To a soldier, former soldier, or family member of a soldier, the military does a lot of things, but granting superhuman abilities is not one of them. But to a civilian with few contacts to the military, they learn 'superhuman' skills with guns, put themselves into 'superhuman' dangers that ordinary men would crumble under. They don't understand what is mysterious to them, so they ascribe mystic traits to it.  Firefighters are attributed with superhuman levels of altruism and courage because the average man can't believe an ordinary man would run into a burning building to save an old woman, a dog, a child.  

I suspect that is true for all nations and all peoples. Heroes are those other guys who do things that you can barely understand, barely believe.

Quote from: SpikeI do so get tired of being told that the "American" conception of a hero must include fantastic powers. Always quoting an American game author, but never from an American Gamer when it shows up.

Oh, get the fuck over it. Whether it's American, ancient Greek or a conception of hero from Timbuktu is beside the point. The point is that there are different ideas of what a "hero" is. Exactly where they come from is not important for the purpose of anything but anthropology or wanky patriotism, "our idea of hero is better than yours!" The American/British example was illustrative only. Stick to the point:-

What's a "hero" to you?

Quote from: JimBobOzWhat's a "hero" to you?

Food that gets away.

QuoteI do so get tired of being told that the "American" conception of a hero must include fantastic powers.

Guess what the two most popular game lines in the US prominently feature?

That's right, guys with funky powers.  

I wonder what could've possibly given people the impression that American gmaers like guys with funky powers . . .

Quote from: J ArcaneGuess what the two most popular game lines in the US prominently feature?

What are the two most popular games in the UK, Australia, or pretty much anywhere else? I'll bet the vast majority of those involve funky powers.

Everyone knows that the definition of a hero is somebody who gets other people killed.

Yet oddly enough, none of the games that are expicitely about having powers are in fact anywhere near the top two.

Your characterization is likewise a bit off. Some of the characters in D&D have funky powers, but by no means all. The fighter class is refreshingly powerless yet still capable enough, and rogues only have 'powers' in the very very broadest sense of the term.

As for the WW games, at least half to three quarters of the people I have spoken to regarding the nWoD in the area are all very excited about running Mortals with it. Quite a few think Mortals is where the system works best.

Go figure.  



I don't dispute that 'A' version of heroes includes powers beyond mortal ken or some shit. I just dispute that it is THE american hero way, or that other nations reject that model, relegating it to the lowest form of herodom.

Along with perhaps a subtle, even unintentional sidebar that their way is somehow morally superior.  Like saying their tastes are not better, just more mature...:rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeAs for the WW games, at least half to three quarters of the people I have spoken to regarding the nWoD in the area are all very excited about running Mortals with it. Quite a few think Mortals is where the system works best.

Go figure.  

I have no real interest in Vampire/Werewolf/Mage/Prometheans (or whatever the latest one was called) but I love the idea of a nWoD mortals campaign.  Then again I'm English, for all that it matters

Quote from: SpikeYour characterization is likewise a bit off. Some of the characters in D&D have funky powers, but by no means all. The fighter class is refreshingly powerless yet still capable enough, and rogues only have 'powers' in the very very broadest sense of the term.

As for the WW games, at least half to three quarters of the people I have spoken to regarding the nWoD in the area are all very excited about running Mortals with it. Quite a few think Mortals is where the system works best.

Your bias is showing.  

Rogues get abilities that let them dodge explosiosn at point blank range and take no damage.  Fighters can cleave through opponents faster than any ordinary being can even move.

And bollocks to your claim about Mortals being the most popular of the World of Darkness options.  If you honestly believe that you've not really been paying very much attention to the history of the gameline or how it's actually played at the table.  

I realize you want to play the patriot and defend your great counttry against the slights of them nasty furriners, but you'd do better to not take leave of reality in doing so.

A hero is a larger-than-life figure that embodies his or her culture's values.

A hero is one who embodies the values of his culture. Most hero tales that have come down to us through history are tales of the ruling class; therefore the culture of the ruling class. Cuchulainn, Beowulf, Hector, Lancelot, Yoshitsune: all members of the warrior class that ruled premodern society. This class tended to value personal honour, bravery, loyalty and generosity; as well as being bloody good at killing people. All these values are tied to the structure of the society in which they ruled. Loyalty is an essential ethic for a society built on personal ties between individuals, for example.

In our splintered modern society, where not only the ruling class can read, write and make art, there is more tension in the notion of the hero. It depends greatly on where you are positioned in society. I find something heroic in the character of Henry Chinaski, but I'll bet a lot of other people don't. I don't see anything heroic about Winston Churchill, but many do. To me, Chinaski represents the unquenchable spirit of human beings in the worst of conditions; while Churchill just made a few speeches and did a lot of political manuevering. To somebody else Churchill is a hero for inspiring and uniting his people in wartime; while Chinaski is a drunken slob.

The fireman who rescues a child from a burning building is a working-class hero: a man who does his job even at risk to himself. Sports stars partake of the reactionary values of Nietzsche: the Superman who leads by being a superior being. Princess Diana was a hero to many by virtue of being pretty and gracious despite being rich and famous – the idealised aristocrat. Bill Gates is a thoroughly bourgeois hero: the self-made man who gained immense wealth through hard work, determination and outsmarting his rivals. Che Guevara is a hero to romantic young people (often of bourgeois origin) who fancy themselves as revolutionaries. And so on.

So 'hero' today means everything and nothing. Your concept of a hero reflects you rather than the hero. Me, I try very hard not to have heroes. Undoubtedly somebody else can glean more from that than I can.

Quote from: droogIn our splintered modern society, where not only the ruling class can read, write and make art, there is more tension in the notion of the hero. It depends greatly on where you are positioned in society. I find something heroic in the character of Henry Chinaski, but I'll bet a lot of other people don't. I don't see anything heroic about Winston Churchill, but many do. To me, Chinaski represents the unquenchable spirit of human beings in the worst of conditions; while Churchill just made a few speeches and did a lot of political manuevering. To somebody else Churchill is a hero for inspiring and uniting his people in wartime; while Chinaski is a drunken slob.

Actually, Bukowski and Churchill were both drunken slobs.

Churchill is my my hero because he said "History willbe kind to me, for I intend to write it." He could have been almost anything short of a child rapist and I'd still have to give him mad props for making a claim that bold and then seeing it through.

Quote from: YamoActually, Bukowski and Churchill were both drunken slobs.

Incontrovertible – at least on one level.

You can be a drunken slob on multiple levels? Damn, and here I thought I'd already achieved the pinnacle of success.