Triumphing Over Evil

[Black_Zawisza]

I basically see two ways the hero can triumph over the villain, depending on which of the two is more powerful.

#1: He can defeat him through sheer combat/magical/intellectual prowess.
or
#2: The hero loses/might lose, but then the story receives a healthy dose of deus ex machina/luck and the villain gets his ass kicked.

Both methods are unsatisfactory, if you ask me. If the hero rips off the villain's head easily, it's boring because we know he's going to win. It's much more interesting when the hero is an underdog. On the other hand, if the hero is an underdog, it's impossible for him to win without favorable luck, hubris on the villain's part, or some kind of outside help.

How is this dilemma resolved?

[BluesEclipse]

Why must the hero either win easily or be an underdog? Why can't the hero face a villain who they're equally matched against?

[Black_Zawisza]

Why must the hero either win easily or be an underdog? Why can't the hero face a villain who they're equally matched against?
If they're equally matched and luck favors neither one, they will die simultaneously. Since we're looking exclusively at heroic victories here, see #2.

[Lurkmoar]

If they're equally matched and luck favors neither one, they will die simultaneously. Since we're looking exclusively at heroic victories here, see #2.

They don't have to be equally matched for an interesting fight to occur. Imagine Superman versus Lex Luthor, where constraint and raw power goes up against unlimited ambition and genius. Now take out plot armor and find out what happens.

[Drakevarg]

Your premise is fundamentally flawed, methinks. According to you, the options are:

A) Hero is superior to the Villain, and therefore must win easily.
B) The Hero and Villain are evenly matched, and therefore die simultaneously.
C) The Villain is superior to the Hero, and therefore a Deus Ex Machina is necessary for victory.

What about:

D) The Hero is only slightly superior to the Villain, and therefore just barely wins.
E) The Hero and Villain are evenly matched, but not equals in the same qualities. The Hero wins by using his qualities in such a way as to overcome the Villain's strengths. This does not mean the Hero is superior, as had he or the Villain chosen to act differently the outcome could just as easily been in the other direction.

[Mastikator]

Power isn't linear.
The hero is usually superior physically to the villain.
The villain is usually a better leader and strategist than the hero.
The villain can beat the hero if he has a chance to plan and access to his minions and resources. But if the hero ambushes the villain then he wins easily. So he merely has to get into the villain's secret head quarters unseen.

Neither of them are "better" than the other, nor are they equal. Because neither of them exist in a vacuum.

[Drakevarg]

Neither of them are "better" than the other, nor are they equal. Because neither of them exist in a vacuum.

This is what I was trying to say in E). Thank you for putting it much better than I did.

[Black_Zawisza]

Power isn't linear.
The hero is usually superior physically to the villain.
The villain is usually a better leader and strategist than the hero.
The villain can beat the hero if he has a chance to plan and access to his minions and resources. But if the hero ambushes the villain then he wins easily. So he merely has to get into the villain's secret head quarters unseen.

Neither of them are "better" than the other, nor are they equal. Because neither of them exist in a vacuum.
If a villain can't defeat a hero without yelling "Guards! Get him!" and running away like a ***** with the princess to another castle, I'm going to run into some trouble trying to think of him as the hero's equal. :smallbiggrin:

I would argue power is very linear, in a way. Strength, magic, genius, and so forth, are in the end all about what you can do to your enemy and what he can't do to you. It's all well and good to command an army, but if you're pretty much just a commoner with the Leadership feat, you have an enormous weakness on your hands. Me, I'll take personal power over a legion of orcs any day. Besides, I look at stories as, at their core, conflicts between The Good Guy and The Bad Guy. If The Bad Guy isn't a threat individually, it feels much less dramatic to me.

[MightyTim]

There are several factors at play here.

Skimming through the responses, most people have already pointed out that power comes in different forms, and is not always directly comparable to each other. A trained Navy SEAL with an assault rifle is inarguably more 'powerful' than a 50 year old, not particularly athletic man, but when that man happens to be the president of the United States, who's more powerful now?

But even say you can directly relate them. That isn't always what matters. What matters is the perception of power in the eyes of the audience. In pretty much every video game ever, by the end of the game, the main character ends up being more 'powerful' than the final boss, but does that mean the victory was meaningless?

This leads me to my next point, in that what's important isn't just the final confrontation, it's the entire story leading up to it as well. You're looking at the final confrontation in a vacuum, and you can't do that.


If the hero rips off the villain's head easily, it's boring because we know he's going to win.
Beforehand, we didn't know that he was going to win. It's only apparent afterward. That's like basing your opinion of Star Wars Episode 5 on the fact that you already had it spoiled to you that Vader was Luke's father. Of course the revelation isn't going to be as awesome if you already know the ending.


On the other hand, if the hero is an underdog, it's impossible for him to win without favorable luck, hubris on the villain's part, or some kind of outside help.
Again. Being an underdog doesn't mean he's objectively 'weaker' it just means he's perceived as being weaker.

[Black_Zawisza]

Skimming through the responses, most people have already pointed out that power comes in different forms, and is not always directly comparable to each other. A trained Navy SEAL with an assault rifle is inarguably more 'powerful' than a 50 year old, not particularly athletic man, but when that man happens to be the president of the United States, who's more powerful now?As I've said, power is very much a linear thing. It's simply about what your strengths are and what your weaknesses are. The more strengths you have and the easier it is to capitalize on them (and the opposite for weaknesses), the more powerful you are.


But even say you can directly relate them. That isn't always what matters. What matters is the perception of power in the eyes of the audience. In pretty much every video game ever, by the end of the game, the main character ends up being more 'powerful' than the final boss, but does that mean the victory was meaningless?Hard to say. Meaningless in what sense?


Beforehand, we didn't know that he was going to win. It's only apparent afterward. That's like basing your opinion of Star Wars Episode 5 on the fact that you already had it spoiled to you that Vader was Luke's father. Of course the revelation isn't going to be as awesome if you already know the ending.
You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about reviewing a story, I'm talking about a plot where it's clear that the villain is dead meat, and the whole story is just the hero moving from Point A to Point B, the location of the villain.


Again. Being an underdog doesn't mean he's objectively 'weaker' it just means he's perceived as being weaker.
Fair enough. What I mean by underdog here is someone who is objectively weaker than someone else; all things being equal, if the underdog goes up against the villain, he's not going to win.

[Drakevarg]

Fair enough. What I mean by underdog here is someone who is objectively weaker than someone else; all things being equal, if the underdog goes up against the villain, he's not going to win.

But all things are never equal, making the basic premise irrelevant except as a thought exercise. However, you seem to have laid it out as a fundamental problem in the Good vs. Evil dynamic.

[Black_Zawisza]

But all things are never equal, making the basic premise irrelevant except as a thought exercise. However, you seem to have laid it out as a fundamental problem in the Good vs. Evil dynamic.
I was responding to BluesEclipse, take it up with him. :smallbiggrin:

[MightyTim]

As I've said, power is very much a linear thing. It's simply about what your strengths are and what your weaknesses are. The more strengths you have and the easier it is to capitalize on them (and the opposite for weaknesses), the more powerful you are.


Would you describe action movies as anticlimactic, or having unsatisfactory conclusions? Was Die Hard a bad movie because John McClane was clearly more 'powerful' than Hanz Gruber? Not a rhetorical question. I really don't understand your train of thought here.


Hard to say. Meaningless in what sense?

Maybe meaningless was a poor choice of words. Perhaps I should have rephrased it to ask 'Is that not a satisfying conclusion?'


You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about reviewing a story, I'm talking about a plot where it's clear that the villain is dead meat, and the whole story is just the hero moving from Point A to Point B, the location of the villain.

You can't judge whether a conclusion was satisfying or not without considering the context of the story in which it takes place.


Fair enough. What I mean by underdog here is someone who is objectively weaker than someone else; all things being equal, if the underdog goes up against the villain, he's not going to win.

There's a term for that, it's called 'bad storytelling.' :smalltongue:

I agree that if you're looking at the small subset of hero-villain final confrontations in which you can directly see that the hero is much weaker than the villain in all important aspects... and the hero ends up victorious, then by definition, you did have to resort to some sort of deus ex machina to do it. And yes, it's not going to be a satisfying conclusion. (As well as the equally unsatisfying situation where the hero is going to win all along).

Your original post listed two ways for a hero to win over the villain. I'm saying that there aren't just those two ways.

[Knaight]

But all things are never equal, making the basic premise irrelevant except as a thought exercise. However, you seem to have laid it out as a fundamental problem in the Good vs. Evil dynamic.

Except for if you look at the conflict wherein one set of traits triumph over another, it acts as a culmination to the story about those sets of traits, and the commentary on them. Interesting narratives aren't just events happening, there are ideas presented, and what the whole good vs. evil dynamic does well is allowing an analysis of the values of traits. It is by no means the only dynamic that does so, but it does so well.

As such, example 1 of triumph as presented in the opening post is just fine, as what is actually going on is a clash of ideals, and a clash of traits. The hero wins because the hero has traits deemed heroic, largely because the traits possessed by the villain inherently undermine them in some way. The villain's cruelty might backfire when the hero gives a former lackey the belief that they can win, and the former lackey changes sides. The villain's arrogance leads them to force a confrontation where they are at a disadvantage, and that causes them to lose. The reverse is true with the heroes traits, which ultimately help them. What these are varies highly, though an ability to operate well with other people is frequently among them, manifesting as help from allies throughout the story.

What makes things more interesting in the story arc is that both the hero and villain in most good stories possessing the good vs. evil dynamic have traits of their opposite. As such, each character becomes more interesting, and the climactic conflict tends to be characterized by the diminishing of these traits possessed by the other role. Essentially, the climactic conflict marks a change in the power dynamic, wherein the sum total of the heroes traits as relates to power increases over that of the villain, often shown via a scene during the conflict. The dilemma of endings 1 and 2 is fixed by joining them, as is borne out in countless stories.

[Jarawara]

Edit: There have been several posts which have been added since I started typing this. Not exactly ninja-ing me, but they do touch upon the concepts I list here. Nevertheless, it's 12:30 in the morning and I don't have time to update the post, so here goes...



I basically see two ways the hero can triumph over the villain, depending on which of the two is more powerful.

#1: He can defeat him through sheer combat/magical/intellectual prowess.
or
#2: The hero loses/might lose, but then the story receives a healthy dose of deus ex machina/luck and the villain gets his ass kicked.

I accept your premise.


Both methods are unsatisfactory, if you ask me.

And I agree with your assessment.


Solution #1: Hero is superior to BBEG, and could defeat him in a fair fight, but...

1) Cannot find him.
2) Cannot identify him.
3) Cannot confront him due to political, moral, or other reasons.

Thus the conflict of the game is to identify who the real villian is, where he is, and then resolve the political and other issues, thus freeing the hero to face the villain and lay down some much deserved smackdown.

Think of a recently deceased international terrorist. He went down in a flash, wasn't even a serious risk in combat, didn't even grab for his weapon. But the 'campaign' to take him down took nine years.

My Tiatia campaign just concluded with the final fight scene requiring no dice whatsoever. It only required that the player figure out who she had to fight, and once she finally figured it out, the fight was an automatic win for her. The players called it one of the most dramatic and epic finales they had ever seen, even though it was essentially over as soon as it started.

I have also had the villian, when finally found, simply surrender and be led off by the authorities. If the game to identify him and find him was dramatic (and traumatic) enough, the players will feel quite satisfied watching him be hauled off to the jailhouse. (Note: If you do this, don't have a jailbreak to free him, unless the players are there to stop/kill him as the epilog of the story. Otherwise, the players will never allow the villian to be simply arrested again.)


Solution #2: BBEG is more powerful than the heroes, maybe unimaginably more powerful. To defeat the villain, the heroes must...

1) Throw the ring into mount doom, or any number of similar scenarios.
2) Find the one hidden weakness to defeat the BBEG.
3) Find the right allies to defeat the BBEG. Note, this does not require DM-NPC. It might simply require uniting the entire population of the planet.

4) Defeat the BBEG's plans. Seriously, who needs to defeat a god if you can defeat the god's chosen one or undo the god's secret agenda. Evil god will go sulk for awhile and then come back to be the villain in the next campaign, but the meantime, the PC's get to be the heroes.

5) Talk the BBEG out from being the BBEG. Think about it - if the BBEG has the power to wipe out the entire world's population, and you have made that necessary (by uniting the entire population against him)... then who is he going to play Parchessi with once he's killed everybody? BBEG backs away from the world-ending plot, PC's get to be the heroes *and* are invited to play Parchessi at the BBEG's house next tuesday.


I almost never have a perfectly balanced BBEG as the finale combat of the campaign anymore. I have one of the scenarios listed above, in their many multitudes of variation.

*~*

Also, let me introduce you to the "BBEG rule of three"*. Similar in concept to the rule of three clues, wherein you provide for three clues to point the party in the right direction (first clue might be missed, second one misinterpreted, third one hopefully is the charm). For the BBEG rule of three, you present three possible BBEG's for the party to fight.

Establish three NPC's who might be the BBEG. Party needs to determine which of the three is the 'real' BBEG, and which is simply some noteworthy minion. Only you know the real identity of the BBEG.

And which of the three is the real BBEG, you ask of yourself? Well, here's the trick. DO NOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION! Not even to yourself, hidden behind a cone of silence and ensured secrecy!

Don't decide on who the real BBEG is today. Don't decide later on. Don't decide even leading into the grand finale. In fact... it won't be YOU who decides who the BBEG really is, ever.

It will be the players who decide this. They will tell you who it is, one way or the other.

They will watch the actions of the three, try to guess which of the three is the real power behind the throne, try several times to kill the NPC off, and survive the NPC's attempts to kill them in return. And all you have to do is watch which one of the three pisses them off the most. Which one incites the most anger, of whom the players most want to take down and enact messy revenge upon? THAT one is the real BBEG.

And then, when it comes to the final battle of the campaign.... plan for three of them! Set up three possible grand finales, let the players go into the first one (usually the easiest), progress onto the more difficult battles from there.

But here's the trick... players have an unusual knack to finding an easy way past a battle, which you thought would be a massive slug fest. If they bypass the first fight, maybe even killing one of the three BBEG's in the fight... well, that wasn't the actual BBEG, that wasn't the actual grand finale battle.

And players also have a knack for messing up, making things worse for themselves, making battles much more deadly and nerve-wracking. If they mess up in the 2nd finale, barely getting through it, losing several members of the party and just barely able to drop one of the remaining BBEG's in the final round of the battle... well, THAT was the BBEG, and THAT was the grand finale of the campaign!

If there is a surviving BBEG candidate that fled, let him be captured or killed in a epilog, or escape to be a future villain of a later campaign. Delete the entire 'third grand finale', we won't be needing it.

The players will remember that super-close fight as the 'grand finale', even if it wasn't what you had planned as the final fight of the campaign. And they'll feel justified in killing that rat bastard they hated the most, even if it wasn't the one you thought might be the BBEG. Simply go with how the players perceived it, and the players will be happy.


*Note, the rule of three doesn't actually require it to be 'three'. You could have only two, or four, or twelve, or whatever works for your storyline. But by having multiple possible BBEG's and multiple possible grand finales, it lets the players decide for you what the final fight and who the ultimate BBEG really was.

[Killer Angel]

#1: He can defeat him through sheer combat/magical/intellectual prowess.

Both methods are unsatisfactory, if you ask me. If the hero rips off the villain's head easily, it's boring because we know he's going to win.



If The Bad Guy isn't a threat individually, it feels much less dramatic to me.

Well, just for an example, many of John Woo's films, present an evil antagonist who not only is a threat individually, but it's basically also on the same level of the good guy, and far superior than anyone else in the movie.
The good guy wins, but it's not easily at all.
...Unless you wanna discuss on how much "boring" are stories with an already known final result (good guy's victory)...

[TheCountAlucard]

I basically see two ways the hero can triumph over the villain, depending on which of the two is more powerful.And that's your problem, isn't it? :smalltongue:

To me, the idea of quantitatively measuring a character's "power" (assuming we can even come to equitable terms over what that is) is laughable, even when there are arbitrary RPG stats tacked onto said characters.

Also, again IMO, there's a thousand thousand shades between your two very-broad options, and another thousand thousand in entirely different directions. As always, results will vary based on any number of things.

For instance, must it be a Deus Ex Machina if the hero would lose, but has something in his possession that brings him to victory?

For that matter, who says the Deus Ex Machina automatically turns things into a curb-stomp battle after that?

What if the hero loses, but doing so ultimately furthers his cause, effectively defeating the villain?

Presenting another option that's already been kinda-mentioned, what about just talking with the guy and coming up with an effective compromise?


If the hero rips off the villain's head easily, it's boring because we know he's going to win.Again, you're seeing one thing, instead of the truly-massive number of options available. It's entirely-possible, for one, that killing him solved nothing. And also, I don't see where you're coming from on the "is better than villain = rips head off easily."


On the other hand, if the hero is an underdog, it's impossible for him to win without favorable luck, hubris on the villain's part, or some kind of outside help.I'm going to disagree with you on this one for two different reasons.

1) The hero might also win by just plain being smart/perceptive/resourceful/tricky enough.

2) Your connotation of "underdog" seems to be drastically different from the actual meaning. If you're the underdog, it's unlikely, not impossible.


How is this dilemma resolved?Easily: by not locking things into such a binary "If-Then" statement.


If a villain can't defeat a hero without yelling "Guards! Get him!" and running away like a ***** with the princess to another castle, I'm going to run into some trouble trying to think of him as the hero's equal.That's your problem, not mine.


Me, I'll take personal power over a legion of orcs any day.Once again, that's your problem.


Besides, I look at stories as, at their core, conflicts between The Good Guy and The Bad Guy. If The Bad Guy isn't a threat individually, it feels much less dramatic to me.Once again...


As I've said, power is very much a linear thing.As I've said, it's anything but.


The more strengths you have and the easier it is to capitalize on them (and the opposite for weaknesses), the more powerful you are.But are strengths linear? Is one strength equal to another? The answer to both of these is, "heck, no."


You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about reviewing a story, I'm talking about a plot where it's clear that the villain is dead meat, and the whole story is just the hero moving from Point A to Point B, the location of the villain.That's a problem with the story.

[dsmiles]

That's like basing your opinion of Star Wars Episode 5 on the fact that you already had it spoiled to you that Vader was Luke's father.
Wait. WHAT?!?!? Vader is Luke's FATHER??? :smalleek:
Now you've gone and ruined it for me. :smallwink:

[Totally Guy]

There are other questions that are being overlooked.

Why do the protagonists fight evil?

What will the protagonists sacrifice to see their plans fulfilled?

It's not necessarily what you fight, but what you fight for.

[Jarawara]

It's not necessarily what you fight, but what you fight for.

Oooh! Quoted for Truth times 10. An internet for you, sir!

I could run an entire campaign with the goal simply to answer the question, why do you fight? Once we've learned the answer, the fight itself wouldn't even have to be played out.

[Conners]

Not all villains are beaten in raw combat, remember...................... Code Geass has an awesome example.


Categorizing hero-besting-villain into types, much less two, seems a bit difficult.

If the hero is stronger by enough to win easily, that seems like a boring story. Of course, a weaker villain could still be more clever, and this means a lot in a fight (especially since a clever person sets up their fights well).
Of course, being weaker doesn't mean losing automatically (except maybe in DnD), it just means the stronger person has a better chance--the weaker one can still cut your stomach open to leave your guts on display, if you get careless.

With the two being equal, while the Samurai Passing Slash ending, where the bad-guy dies then the hero dies is possible, it isn't the only conclusion available. Goku vs. King Piccolo, for example.

If the hero is weaker, the same applies to if the villain is weaker. Often it happens that the hero uses some clever method to make up for the weakness, making the chandelier fall on the villain, or using their energy absorption against them so that they overload and explode, using the villain's personality weaknesses by making them cocky or distracting them. Also, some heroes will go for a kamikaze win, the noble sacrifice (in this case, not the historical one).
Sometimes you get the power-of-friendship thing too, where the hero wins thanks to his friends. Sometimes it's the one who wasn't-actually-dead-after-all, who surprises the villain, sometimes they all work together against the villain and barely win.
Either way, the hero can still take the realistic approach--he can still open the villain's stomach up, and put his guts on display, if the villain gets careless.


Remember that one can outsmart the other to win. You don't need a gunfight, it can be just as dramatic if the hero is about to be killed, but then the villain finds out he has fallen right into the hero's trap.


Sometimes an anti-climatic battle can be good, too.


Those are some of the "types" I can think of.

[Jay R]

If you follow any sport, including the combat sports, you will quickly discover that it's not true that either A can always expect to beat B or B can always expect to beat A. Most series of games or bouts end with each team or competitor sometimes winning and sometimes losing.

And even when one team or fighter is inherently better, the "lesser" competitor sometimes wins. President Kennedy once said, as an example of something very hard, "Why does Rice play Texas?" The short answer is that Rice sometimes (rarely) wins. Not through a Deus Ex Machina, but simply because every game or fight is different.

So your initial assumptions are simply false.

In the SCA fencing I do, I know who's overall better than I am, but there's nobody I don't sometimes beat. I know who's worse than I am, but, except for the newbies, there's nobody who can't sometimes beat me.

Sports are popular because nobody knows who will win.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I'm confused as to the intent of the opening statements. Is the opinion that stories where the hero beats the villain through superior power or where the hero wins through a deus ex machina because they can't compete with the villain in a straight fight is a bad thing?

Honestly, I think that that's a flawed assessment of what gives a story its quality. It could have either ending and be crappy or good depending on the presentation. As a certain site is quick to suggest, tropes are not bad. They're the building materials of fiction. It's how they're put together that defines the structure's quality.

[Tengu_temp]

A hero underdog can still win through determination or exploiting the villain's weaknesses in a clever way. You might argue that those count as deus ex machina, but from my experience, the biggest difference between deus ex machina and a sudden triumphant turn of the tides is the quality of writing.

[MarkusWolfe]

Wow. Nice dichotomy. Too bad it's false.

Once you start to get into the high end of global sports, you start to see that the best teams are close enough in skill that they could all beat each other on any given day. At this point, no one plays to see who is better, they play to see who wins today. As someone said before, sports are fun to watch because anyone can win.

This is what the fight between the players and the BBEG should be like. The only advantages either side has are the ones it gains mid-combat.

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: I could see this in roleplaying games, but media is probably a better fit. Moved.

[Killer Angel]

I could run an entire campaign with the goal simply to answer the question, why do you fight?

The answer is easy (http://www.blastwave-comic.com/index.php?p=comic&nro=1). :smallcool:

[Frozen_Feet]

http://th02.deviantart.net/fs19/300W/f/2007/259/1/7/Kenpachi_by_Tru_Colorz.jpg

"Since when you've needed a reason to fight?"

[Lurkmoar]

http://th02.deviantart.net/fs19/300W/f/2007/259/1/7/Kenpachi_by_Tru_Colorz.jpg

"Since when you've needed a reason to fight?"

Even Kenpachi has a reason to fight... it's fun for him. Fighting has given him purpose and endless entertainment!

Another problem with.. 'triumphing over evil' is just because you overthrew the Big Bad guy, doesn't mean that the world will magically get better. Rebuilding out the ashes is its own challenge. That's if the villain of the piece is the Overlord type of course.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Typically, underdog heroes win by acting in a way the villain doesn't expect, or never accounted for. Often this can seem like Deus Ex Machina, but other times the hero spends the entire story getting into a position where he can blindside the villain, and that's the entire purpose of the journey.

Take the original Star Wars. Final battle: looks like a Deus Ex Machina in a vacuum. "Oh, the superweapons just happens to have this exploitable weak point." But when you consider that literally the entire film up to the last three scenes was the heroes getting into a position where they could use that weakpoint, and it was established as existing hours earlier, it's not really DXM. Underdog hero beats invincible endboss through strategy and planning.

Han's last-second save and the one-in-a-million unguided torpedo shot are a little more suspect, but those were also foreshadowed and Star Wars isn't actually that well written. It's just a famous example.

Return of the Jedi is approximately the same thing. Luke is getting his ass kicked hard by the Emperor, only to be saved when Darth Vader acted in a way the Emperor never would have even considered expecting at that moment, but one that Luke could expect because he'd been working toward it since he got to Endor. It was still a longshot, but eh. The long-term plans were all pretty screwed at that point.


Unrelatedly, I also take issue with your idea that power is linear. Different people have different strengths, and different weaknesses, and use their strengths and their opponents' weaknesses in different ways with different levels of effectiveness. You can't just add up all of something's advantages and disadvantages on some pseudo-numerical unit scale and say "person X is net stronger than person Y".

[Tengu_temp]

You can't just add up all of something's advantages and disadvantages on some pseudo-numerical unit scale and say "person X is net stronger than person Y".

http://www.blenderguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/over9000.jpg

Who didn't see this coming?

[Nerd-o-rama]

And even in the context of that show, for the one story arc people cared about them, the numbers could fluctuate or inflate by orders of magnitude based on minor changes in people's condition, apparel, or even just sheer willpower.

[Lurkmoar]

Shoot, the best DBZ ability was always the Solar Flare one. Didn't do any damage but it always blinded the target. Not sure what it's called in Japanese though.

Worked on Frieza and it worked on Cell too. Was it ever used on Buu? Don't recall. What I do remember is that the person using it was almost always 'weaker' then their opponent.

[Black_Zawisza]

And that's your problem, isn't it? :smalltongue:I'm not disputing that my point of view may be rather rare, but I am disputing your claim that it is a "problem" until you can prove such a thing.


To me, the idea of quantitatively measuring a character's "power" (assuming we can even come to equitable terms over what that is) is laughable, even when there are arbitrary RPG stats tacked onto said characters.For the purposes of this thread, do you accept my definition? "What one is capable of doing in pursuit of victory over a given enemy, and what one is capable of doing in evasion of defeat"?


Also, again IMO, there's a thousand thousand shades between your two very-broad options, and another thousand thousand in entirely different directions. As always, results will vary based on any number of things.

For instance, must it be a Deus Ex Machina if the hero would lose, but has something in his possession that brings him to victory?If he already possessed it before the fight, I think that certainly can be counted as one component of his "power", but certainly not if he's granted it in the midst of the fight. When the hero is about to have his throat slit by the villain and at that moment he's granted The Favor of the Gods™, the battle has become a battle not with the hero vs. the villain, but with the hero and the Gods vs. the villain.


For that matter, who says the Deus Ex Machina automatically turns things into a curb-stomp battle after that?I feel my point stands even if the fight remains very difficult. If the hero would not have emerged victorious without it, then it remains a Deus Ex Machina either way.


What if the hero loses, but doing so ultimately furthers his cause, effectively defeating the villain?Here, I'm strictly concerned with 1v1s between the hero and the villain. While an ultimate victory over the Dark Side is better than a villain-on-hero curbstomp, I'm still greatly unsatisfied by the inability of the protagonist to win.


Presenting another option that's already been kinda-mentioned, what about just talking with the guy and coming up with an effective compromise?That really depends on the story. It may resolve Jimmy's relationship problems with his folks, but conflict resolution between Gandalf and Sauron would be just silly. :smalltongue: I'm talking about the typical epic fantasy story; part of my premise here is that the protagonist and antagonist are fighting to the death.


Again, you're seeing one thing, instead of the truly-massive number of options available. It's entirely-possible, for one, that killing him solved nothing. And also, I don't see where you're coming from on the "is better than villain = rips head off easily."If killing him solved nothing, then why is he the primary antagonist in the first place? :smallconfused:


I'm going to disagree with you on this one for two different reasons.

1) The hero might also win by just plain being smart/perceptive/resourceful/tricky enough.I consider all of those facets of power.


2) Your connotation of "underdog" seems to be drastically different from the actual meaning. If you're the underdog, it's unlikely, not impossible.Are you saying it's objectively unlikely or subjectively unexpected by most people? If the former, a) that's not the actual meaning either (don't argue semantics if you aren't prepared to win :smallcool: :smalltongue:), b) that was indeed a poor choice of words. As I clarified earlier, I'm referring to a character that is less powerful than another character.


Easily: by not locking things into such a binary "If-Then" statement.Given my premise, it's kind of hard not to be binary. Either the hero is more powerful or the villain is. (True, it's possible that they perfectly equally powerful, however not only is that unlikely, but if the story gave me that impression, I would conclude that after 200 pages of wasted time the whole damn outcome was based strictly on random chance, which still sucks. So I'm not considering it. :smallwink:)

Premise: Two characters, the hero and the villain, are fighting to the death. The hero wins.

Corollary: Either the hero was capable of achieving victory alone, or he wasn't and needed either an alteration in the fight's circumstances or extremely favorable luck to win.

Premise: I'm dissatisfied with both outcomes.

Conclusion: I will never enjoy D&D ever again. :smallbiggrin:


That's your problem, not mine....I don't disagree?


Once again, that's your problem....see above? Is it just me, or are you being unnecessarily aggressive and condescending?


Once again...I have been outlining here how I[B] look at stories. I'd like to think that I'm open to rational persuasion to a different perspective. I'm [B]not open to suggestions that I am wrong without justification, especially when I think that they sound needlessly hostile.


But are strengths linear? Is one strength equal to another? The answer to both of these is, "heck, no."
I suppose I ought to clarify my position. I'm not saying that in an analysis of power, for example, being able to lift a wooden chair and being able to time travel to the past are equal strengths. What I essentially mean is, in my view, the following:

Take a campaign setting. Define absolutely everything about it, from the diplomatic relations between principalities to the position of a weapon on a table. From there, examine two particular characters and everything about them. Say for the moment, each despises everything about the other and wants the other dead. So far, we've had the universe on Pause. Press Play, experience the story that unfolds, and record the outcome. Rewind, and change some part of the setting. Go through x number of trials, where x is a really ****ing large number that varies depending on how powerful they seem to be at face value. Now count up the number of situations where the outcome was favorable to one party or another.

I'm not saying that this isn't a task anybody less than a god could achieve, given two characters who are unequally powerful but are so close to each other that they appear so. I'm simply saying that it is theoretically possible to determine whether Bob or Larry is more powerful, and that it is certainly fair to claim that Chuck Norris is more powerful than the average bear. :smalltongue:


That's a problem with the story.
Again, I'm not disputing that. That's what this entire thread has been about.

[Dr.Epic]

How is this dilemma resolved?

It's solved by you accepting that's the only way it can be. :smallconfused: When you break it down into such a vague description and complain about it being like that you come off kind of dense:

I hate stories with endings and resolutions! What's the solution to that?

or

I hate three act stories where the first act introduces the characters, setting, and conflict, the second act heights the drama and conflict making it seem as though the protagonist can't win, and the third act delivers us an ending!

Really, you're complaining about the basic structure of all storytelling, kind of like complaining about houses with roofs. There isn't a solution because there isn't a problem. You just have to realize this and quit nitpicking.


Both methods are unsatisfactory, if you ask me. If the hero rips off the villain's head easily, it's boring because we know he's going to win. It's much more interesting when the hero is an underdog. On the other hand, if the hero is an underdog, it's impossible for him to win without favorable luck, hubris on the villain's part, or some kind of outside help.

Yeah, except no. In a good story (not something you described) the conflict is in there is some form of struggle for the protagonist, something that challenges him. What you described are two different extremes (and extremes are rarely good things). The underdog story is entertaining because we see the character growth, progress from a neophyte: a character arc. They don't have to rely on contrived luck. And even if the protagonist is an expert or champion, the story could still be good because it's a more powerful threat they've never encountered before or it challenges a side of them that's unrefined.


I basically see two ways the hero can triumph over the villain, depending on which of the two is more powerful.

#1: He can defeat him through sheer combat/magical/intellectual prowess.
or
#2: The hero loses/might lose, but then the story receives a healthy dose of deus ex machina/luck and the villain gets his ass kicked.

Third option: there is no victory for the hero, everything goes bad, and evil wins. You act as though the hero or good will always win and that's an unbreakable rule in storytelling but it's not. *cough* tragedies *cough* Part of the excitement is seeing how the protagonist goes through the conflict caused by the antagonist, how they deal with the conflict, the turmoil of seeing a character we like going through such rough times, and seeing how they beat the big bad (or don't). You make it sound like good always has to win like it's a predictable formula, but they don't and the fact it doesn't creates suspense.

[Sir_Chivalry]

As a guy who prides himself on DMing conclusions to games that aren't like this, I can only say one thing:

Only a sith deals in absolutes.:smallamused:

[Dr.Epic]

As a guy who prides himself on DMing conclusions to games that aren't like this, I can only say one thing:

Only a sith deals in absolutes.:smallamused:

Isn't the phrase "Only a sith deals in absolutes" an absolute? Sir_Chivalry, are you a sith?

[Lurkmoar]

Isn't the phrase "Only a sith deals in absolutes" an absolute? Sir_Chivalry, are you a sith?

From a certain point of view...

[Dr.Epic]

From a certain point of view...

Isn't that also a phrase commonly used by the Dark Side.

[jseah]

In terms of what I hazily remember from literature class, conflict stories can be classified in a few ways:

Man vs Man
Man vs Society
Man vs Environment
Man vs Self

Man vs Man is obviously you are talking about here. However, the others have all been used to write good stories before.
If you're bored of reading the same kind of Hero vs BBEG epic fantasy plot, why not read/write/play something else?

And of course, not all conflicts stem from a few characters. You could write a passable story in which the conflict is between two societies.
eg. A sort of fantasy history showing the cultures of both sides, why one conquered/colonized/culturally assimilated the other.

You could write a science fiction story about a human society trying to survive on and master a harsh barren world, terraforming it to pave the way for the coming generations.
eg. The Mars Trilogy.
- A fantasy version could be the establishing of a new city in another continent of a fantasy world, ala the colonization of Australia/Americas without the whole killing natives bit.

[Sir_Chivalry]

Isn't the phrase "Only a sith deals in absolutes" an absolute? Sir_Chivalry, are you a sith?

How could I be, I'm just a random swirl of colour . . . DISTRACTION!

[Lurkmoar]

Isn't that also a phrase commonly used by the Dark Side.

Pfft, the only differences between the Sith and Jedi are attitudes and numbers. Well, the Sith do get that awesome Force Lightning deal and Jedi get to be... Force Ghosts.

This leads me to cheer for the Empire and Palpatine.

At any rate... perhaps we should define evil before talking about triumphing over it? /joke

[Killer Angel]

All this talking 'bout Sith, makes me think that those are villains that, decisely, don't fall in any of the 2 categories of the OP...

[Jerthanis]

If power is linear, then Bilbo Baggins can beat up Gollum and Smaug.

Okay, maybe I don't want to bring up The Hobbit, since there was like, a 10,000 plot device pileup at the end, but it's still a good example of how mismatched strengths can result in a far weaker protagonist triumphing over a far more powerful antagonist.

See, Gollum and Bilbo were equally matched in their riddle solving capability. They were just as smart as each other and were at an impasse. It was through lateral thinking (or cheating) that allowed Bilbo to triumph.

Then, Smaug could detect Bilbo despite his ring of invisibility and his skill at stealth, and he very obviously couldn't have taken Smaug in a fight. Still, Bilbo was able to apply cleverness and escaped with knowledge that would save the day. On the linear model of strength, this means Bilbo is stronger than Smaug.

Endings are hard, and I'm unsurprised that you find it hard to find a satisfying climax that doesn't invalidate the threat the story built up, but I think your linear model of strength is flawed.

Also, does it count as a Deus Ex Machina for you if the plot device which allows the less powerful protagonist to overcome his more powerful antagonist has formed the basis for the entire story?

In one of my favorite books, the main character is an interdimensional traveller from a Sci-fi world who often visits a fantasy world. In the fantasy world, there's magic and elves and stuff. Anyway, when his wife puts on a special sort of net device which cuts off magic effects, she becomes 'desynchronized' in a way that will transport her back to the sci-fi world in 3 days, but in tiny pieces. This kicks off the plot of the main character having to track his wife down and resynchronize her. During the plot, he runs into a mage so powerful he can only be likened to a living god. The magic-blocking net is applied throughout the plot to various ends, and finally at the climax, it's used to allow the protagonist to gain the upper hand against that mage.

[Frozen_Feet]

Also, does it count as a Deus Ex Machina for you if the plot device which allows the less powerful protagonist to overcome his more powerful antagonist has formed the basis for the entire story?


For the record, no, it doesn't. The term Deus Ex Machina has been horribly misused by people to deride any plot event they find dislikeable. It means a contrived and abrupt intervention of an outside force coming to dramatically alter the plot. It doesn't mean just any unbelievable or badly done plot event.

As a rule of thumb, if it's had any foreshadowing at all, it can't be Deus Ex Machina. If a god stomps the villain at the hero's darkest hour, that's Deus Ex Machina. If two hours earlier, it was said that the villain's actions have roused the ire of gods and that they're trekking to the homeground of the god, then it isn't.

[Jerthanis]

For the record, no, it doesn't. The term Deus Ex Machina has been horribly misused by people to deride any plot event they find dislikeable. It means a contrived and abrupt intervention of an outside force coming to dramatically alter the plot. It doesn't mean just any unbelievable or badly done plot event.


Yeah, I was just asking if such a situation qualified under his defined situation #2, where Deus Ex Machina/luck allow a hero to win when otherwise he would lose. I took his #2 classification to basically mean any time a plot device allows a character to win when otherwise they would have lost. I wasn't sure if my situation qualifies as that or falls into a different category for him.

[SPoD]

I find it telling that the OP hasn't actually provided any examples of stories that fit into his false dichotomy. If the premise is that the only possible outcomes for a story are #1 and #2, he should be able to classify every story ever written as one or the other, right?

This whole thing strikes me as almost a strawman argument: "I hate stories that follow this specific pattern that you only find in badly written stories." Yes, that's why they're badly written.

[drakir_nosslin]

If killing him solved nothing, then why is he the primary antagonist in the first place? :smallconfused:


Ever heard of the Xanatos gambit (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit)?

Yea, some BBEG:s are that bad...

[KillianHawkeye]

Shoot, the best DBZ ability was always the Solar Flare one. Didn't do any damage but it always blinded the target. Not sure what it's called in Japanese though.

Worked on Frieza and it worked on Cell too. Was it ever used on Buu? Don't recall. What I do remember is that the person using it was almost always 'weaker' then their opponent.

Taiyo-ken, "Fist of the Sun". I don't remember if they used it during the Buu Saga or not.

[SuperPanda]

If I understand the OP the situation is summed up this way:

If any of the three following is true, then enjoyment = false.
* With all facts considered during the final confrontation the hero has a clear advantage over the villain
* With all facts considered during the final confrontation the villain has a clear advantage over the hero yet is still defeated.
* With all facts being considered the two are evenly matched and the fight could easily have gone either way.

The stated genre for these conflicts is high/epic fantasy and the match-up is suppose to be only 1 on 1.

I, personally, think this sort of misses one of the major points that come up in Good versus Evil stories throughout the ages. When the chips are down evil is all on its own but good is never alone. One of the strengths Evil has is that it doesn't trust and therefore cannot be betrayed by others. One of the strengths Good has is that it inspires trust meaning that the hero should not be going into the final confrontation alone.

Take Avatar the Last Airbender (I know what some people think of the finale and we can stow that for a moment, I'm talking about the premise of the finale not the execution). The enemy leader is powerful enough that there is a good chance of the hero dying. On top of this, one of the hero's weaknesses (arguably) is that he will not kill.

What the show did: Split the party so that they could handle all of the conflicts as they arose. On the whole it worked pretty good.
The show also could have split the characters in a different way and had some of Aang's friends show up to support him, turning Aang's greatest strength (true friendship) to his advantage.

Aang versus Ozai didn't work out ideally, but the conflict with Azula was wonderful. Zuko had been outclassed by Azula the entire show, but he had recently found a way to counter her greatest advantage and minimize his greatest weakness. At the conflict the two were equally matched until Azula attacked Katara. Zuko's change of heart proved not to be a weakness however because his friendship inspired Katara to act. While Azula was much more powerful in terms of pure offensive power, Katara was clever and clear headed. Both Zuko and Katara's separate one on one's with Azula gave the sense of a mighty enemy who had been surpassed while keeping the sense of danger and conflict there.

Not going into Aang vs Ozai.

Similarly in Lord of the Rings it requires the whole fellowship acting together and acting separately to bring down Sauron. Without the hero(s) the villain would have overpowered everyone and everything. There wasn't ever the possibility of Sauron vs Gandalf or Arragon in the final show down. No one on Middle earth stood a chance against him and the whole story is set up with that in mind.

I think I agree that the starting proof should be rewritten as:

If any of the three following is true, then quality = poor.
* With all facts considered during the final confrontation the hero (singular) has a clear advantage over the villain, and proceeds to defeat them with ease because of it.
* With all facts considered during the final confrontation the villain has a clear advantage over the hero yet is still defeated through no act of the hero himself or as result of the villain's own confidence.
* With all facts being considered the two are evenly matched and the fight could easily have gone either way especially if they started the story this way as it would mean neither of them has grown or learned anything.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

QUALIFIERS! They make even the worst arguments salvageable! :smallbiggrin:

[BluesEclipse]

Premise: Two characters, the hero and the villain, are fighting to the death. The hero wins.

Premise accepted - the battle itself involves only those two characters.

Corollary: Either the hero was capable of achieving victory alone, or he wasn't and needed either an alteration in the fight's circumstances or extremely favorable luck to win.

This is where you run into the problem - it's not simply a binary issue. The hero may be capable of achieving victory alone, but you have to consider how much effort is required for that victory, and what costs are paid to achieve it. Likewise, if there IS an alteration in the fight's circumstances, consider if that alteration is something that was engineered previously, through the efforts of the hero or those he's influenced to aid him - part of the hero's power does generally come from allies made through the course of the story. As far as extremely favorable luck goes, if the hero's power includes manipulation of luck and chance(either intentional or otherwise), even this could be justified - though it's much harder to do.

Regardless, while the initial premise is fine, this corollary you've tied to it is flawed because it doesn't take into account any of the specific circumstances leading to the hero's victory - you see the only options as "curbstomp" or "deus ex machina", when that's simply not the case.

Premise: I'm dissatisfied with both outcomes.

This is due to your binary outlook that I mentioned previously.

Conclusion: I will never enjoy D&D ever again. :smallbiggrin:

Or any other form of storytelling aside from tragedy, since you don't seem to see that the hero can win without either being overpowered or extremely lucky.

Responses in blue.

You have to consider all aspects of the power of both the hero and the villain. And not all of their power is strictly personal - if, for example, a hero were to recover a dragon's egg that had been stolen by agents of the BBEG, and return it to the mother dragon, it would not be at all unreasonable for that mother dragon to show up during the hero's battle with the BBEG and turn the tide of battle. It's not a DXM, since it was already established that the hero had helped the dragon - gaining a powerful ally in the process - and the dragon might have been waiting for the opportunity to return the favor, as well as strike back at the BBEG.

Another option is this, if you insist on eliminating all outside interference in the fight itself: The hero knows that the BBEG's power relies on something specific - for this example, we'll say that the BBEG draws power from life around him, passively draining everything nearby to fuel his own strength. And the hero was told, previously, about an area where no life exists, by the mother dragon from the previous example, as the reward for saving her egg. The hero manages to draw the BBEG into this area in order to fight him, and in doing so ensures that the BBEG can't use his full power - allowing the hero to win against an otherwise superior opponent. Even if it is a curbstomp battle at this point, it can be justified.

Alternative 3: The hero wins against the BBEG, only after his friends die at said BBEG's hands. In his anger from their deaths, the hero used his powers far more fiercely than normal - particularly viable if the hero's power is fueled by emotion - and overwhelms the BBEG, who expected that the hero would instead be demoralized and broken. It might be a curbstomp at that point, but the hero paid a high cost for that victory.

Things like that are why it's a problem to look at this scenario as a binary one - you can't simply say either the hero is capable of winning alone regardless of other factors, or that it's a Deus Ex Machina, because there are countless other factors that can influence the fight, and the capabilities of both can be changed(through effors of one or the other) in ways that would alter the outcome significantly.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Basically, Black_Zawisza, your original premise makes no sense and has no bearing on either reality or fiction, so of course you're going to find the conclusions unsatisfactory. The outcome of a battle is not (usually) predetermined by objective analysis of advantages and disadvantages, but relies on complex interplay between the actions of one side, the other side, neutral parties, and the battlefield.

Hell, it makes even less sense if you're speaking specifically of D&D, where the luck of the dice determines a very great deal - does the hero fall to the villain's Ultimate Trump Card of Certain Death, leaving only dust in the wind, or does he miraculously survive through sheer hardiness of body? Roll a Fortitude Save. You can't call a random number generator falling on one side or the other "Deus Ex Machina" when it's part of the rules.

[Jay R]

Given my premise, it's kind of hard not to be binary. Either the hero is more powerful or the villain is. (True, it's possible that they perfectly equally powerful, however not only is that unlikely, but if the story gave me that impression, I would conclude that after 200 pages of wasted time the whole damn outcome was based strictly on random chance, which still sucks. So I'm not considering it. :smallwink:)

Given your premise, yes. We're not disagreeing with that. But we don't accept your premise, and that's the actual point of disagreement. It's not true. Consider the Human Torch vs. the Sub-Mariner. Underwater or near water, Sub-Mariner is more powerful. In the desert or away from water, the Torch is more powerful. They had several interesting fights in which each tried to turn the situation to his advantage.

Who is more "powerful", Superman or Lex Luthor with kryptonite? Depends on lots of things, including especially how much each knows about where the other is and what he's doing. So stories are about trying to hide their movements and discover the other guy's.

In a fist fight, my friend Glen would beat me. In a fencing match, I would beat him. So he should try to start a fight away from the swords, and I should try to start it with swords.

Look at the betting odds on any game or team. They show that:
It's usually clear who has the most power, and
It's possible for the other side to win without absurd luck.
Then go look at the stadium, and you can see that people are fascinated watching how the game plays out.


Premise: Two characters, the hero and the villain, are fighting to the death. The hero wins.

Corollary: Either the hero was capable of achieving victory alone, or he wasn't and needed either an alteration in the fight's circumstances or extremely favorable luck to win.

Or, as in most stories and in most real-life situations, victory was in doubt and the situation could have gone either way. (Or, to put it another way, the real competition is in trying to create, or prevent, that change of circumstances.)


Premise: I'm dissatisfied with both outcomes.

You listed three outcomes:
1. capable of achieving victory alone, or
2. he wasn't and needed either an alteration in the fight's circumstances or
3. extremely favorable luck to win

I'm also dissatisfied with outcomes 1 and 3. Fortunately, in the books I read, and the games I play, and the sports I watch, the situation is always number 2, and there is real competition in trying to alter the circumstances. Even in stories in which extremely favorable luck is needed, the hero also has to take risks, plot strategy, try to modify the situation to his benefit, etc.

Do you watch, or take part in, any sports? It's just not true the the better team always wins unless the lesser team gets "extremely favorable luck". It's not true. In a best-of seven series, a 4-game sweep is pretty uncommon.

Why should a wizard's duel be any different? If we ran the same combat out a dozen sides, either side could win each time, and no one side would win every time.


Conclusion: I will never enjoy D&D ever again. :smallbiggrin:

Fine. Then don't play. Meanwhile, my party is about to face a group with more physical power than we have, and are trying to use our wits to improve the situation in our favor. If in your games, all situations are straight-up fights without the business of trying to improve the situation, then I agree with you - I wouldn't enjoy that either. But the heart of the game is trying to improve your circumstances.

That's what D&D players do, that's what professional prizefighters do, that's what the heroes in most stories do.

Because in almost all cases, the fight could go either way.


I have been outlining here how [B]I[B] look at stories. I'd like to think that I'm open to rational persuasion to a different perspective.

If you had just been outlining how you look at stories, I would never have replied. In fact, you are outlining how you look at stories, based on an assertion that stories are always in situation A or situation B.

I'm arguing against that assertion, since I know very few good stories that fall in that category. I'm not arguing a perspective, but an alleged fact. You think either the hero can always win, or he will always lose with incredible luck. I think I've rarely read that story, and never played that D&D game.


I suppose I ought to clarify my position. I'm not saying that in an analysis of power, for example, being able to lift a wooden chair and being able to time travel to the past are equal strengths. What I essentially mean is, in my view, the following:

Take a campaign setting. Define absolutely everything about it, from the diplomatic relations between principalities to the position of a weapon on a table. From there, examine two particular characters and everything about them. Say for the moment, each despises everything about the other and wants the other dead. So far, we've had the universe on Pause. Press Play, experience the story that unfolds, and record the outcome. Rewind, and change some part of the setting. Go through x number of trials, where x is a really ****ing large number that varies depending on how powerful they seem to be at face value. Now count up the number of situations where the outcome was favorable to one party or another.

I'm not saying that this isn't a task anybody less than a god could achieve, given two characters who are unequally powerful but are so close to each other that they appear so. I'm simply saying that it is theoretically possible to determine whether Bob or Larry is more powerful, and that it is certainly fair to claim that Chuck Norris is more powerful than the average bear. :smalltongue:

Of course. This is perfectly normal Game Theory (mathematics of games).

But once you acknowledge that there are victories on both sides, your assertion of a binary situation disappears. It's just not true that, barring incredible luck, one person always wins. Assume that the evil wizard has three rings of protection - one against fire, one against lightning, one against acid. My mage/thief can sneak up on him and use one of three deadly attacks. But after the first attack, the evil wizard will know where he is and can kill him. Unless my mage/thief can tell what rings he's wearing, the wizard is "more powerful" by your definition. He will win 2/3 of all situations, by wearing two rings. But he will still lose 1/3 of the time. Now, my mage/thief wants to improve his odds. So he uses fire and lightning spells a lot, and never shows his acid attack. Or he starts a rumor that he doesn't have an acid attack. Perhaps he researches what the wizard has been known to be hit with in advance, or sends others attacking with fire and lightning on a regular basis to force the evil wizard's hands. Meanwhile, he's trying to improve the odds in his favor, by making it harder for me to sneak up and take the first shot, casting Mirror Image or other illusions, etc.

This kind of maneuvering is how you play a game, and most people find games in which one side has overwhelming power to be unsatisfying.

I won't play chess with children, or box with professional prizefighters. I don't want a fight between my tenth level warrior and a single kobold, or between my kobold and a tenth level warrior for that reason.

The only thing we disagree with you about is your contention that most situations are either a clear win for the hero, or he requires incredible luck. The third situation that you mention and then ignore (need to alter the situation to win) is the state of virtually all stories and games, and is where the meat of the competition lies.

[Ozymandias]

If you define power as "capabilities against a given person in a given context" then sure, the more powerful will always win barring a change in circumstances.

But then you don't know about their power beforehand. Hence the dramatic tension, the suspense, the reason you're reading/watching the work in the first place. Who is faster, Blondie or Angel Eyes? You don't know until the end of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. They aren't equal, but they're close enough that you don't know until it's all over. You can say ex post facto, oh X won because he was faster but that only diffuses the tension if you already know it. So essentially you're saying that if you have something spoiled for you then the tension isn't there anymore. Congratulations on that startling insight.

[Jay R]

If you define power as "capabilities against a given person in a given context" then sure, the more powerful will always win barring a change in circumstances.

This is simply not true. The lesser team sometimes wins a game; the lesser fighter sometimes wins a fight. Game theory shows many situations in which the more powerful has a probability of winning greater than 50% but less than 100%.

Consider two low-level D&D fighters with equal stats and 9 hit points, one of whom has a longsword (d8 damage) and one of whom has a shortsword (d6 damage). The longsword fighter has higher capabilities, and will expect to win with two hits. But it will take him at least three hits 7/16 of the time, and the shortsword fighter will win in two shots 5/18 of the time. He has a fairly good chance to win, but it's less than 50%.

(I'm assuming a simplistic, early D&D fight in which nothing is counted except hit points.)

It is simply not true in a given situation that the only possible probabilities of winning are 0%, 50%, or 100%.

[Obrysii]

I'm not sure if this is relevant, but villains often lose due to one thing: their own ego.

A good example: Pein, when fighting Naruto, had every advantage. Superior strength, skill, experience, and with god-like bloodline traits.

Why did he lose? His own ego proved his hubris - he believed he was a god, and acted as if there was not much that could hurt him. He got into a habit of monologuing - forcing Naruto into a pseudo-deus ex machina thing.