PDA

View Full Version : Why do heroes have to be super?



Pages : [1] 2

Anderlith
2011-11-04, 07:17 PM
So I have found on this site a surprising number of people who think that their heroes in the games they play must be super powerful or superskilled or way better than the peons of the world just because they are "heroes". I've never seen this in the behavior of anyone I've gamed with or anyone I or they know. So I ask the question why, why do you need to have lots of abilities & power & skill to feel like a hero? Can't you be a hero against the odds instead? (the more likely thing to happen). Is it really all that rewarding to roflstomp the competition, fully understanding that you were better to begin with? I'm not saying that my playstyle is better or anything. I'm just trying to wrap my head around others find this particular playstyle favorable.

Pigkappa
2011-11-04, 07:22 PM
Can't you be a hero against the odds instead? (the more likely thing to happen).
You can, but the chance of failure is really high.

Many RPGs out there (including D&D for sure) are about extremely hard quests. Quests that common people can't face. Kill the mighty dragon who can kill a regular person in one second. Go teach the bunch of Gangrels who left a bloodless corpse on the street what their place is. You can't do these things without super-powers.

Seerow
2011-11-04, 07:23 PM
The problem isn't so much that you need to be super with tons of skills and powers to be a hero. It's that in D&D, being super powerful and changing the world around you has always been a part of the high level schtick. There are games out there that balance to a lower power level as the top end, that get by just fine. As an example, Shadowrun has the PCs playing as guys who are a cut above the average in their field of expertise, but not super heroes by any stretch of the imagination. Or if you prefer the D&D system, if you want characters at the top end to be cool but not over the top, that's what E6 is for.

Tiki Snakes
2011-11-04, 07:24 PM
Personally, having skills powers and abilities is always much more about having options than anything, giving me a legitimate range of new and exciting ways to interact with the world.

Can't say I've any overwhelming need to feel the hero in any given situation though. It's an appropriate role in some games, and not in others.

Coidzor
2011-11-04, 07:32 PM
Because an average person isn't a hero except in a song from Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog sung by Captain Hammer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqCXXMvMm6g) They're an average, normal person. :smallconfused:

A villain whose plots can be defeated by an ordinary man or small group of completely ordinary people does not have their stuff together and is kind of a joke.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-11-04, 07:35 PM
So I have found on this site a surprising number of people who think that their heroes in the games they play must be super powerful or superskilled or way better than the peons of the world just because they are "heroes". I've never seen this in the behavior of anyone I've gamed with or anyone I or they know. So I ask the question why, why do you need to have lots of abilities & power & skill to feel like a hero? Can't you be a hero against the odds instead? (the more likely thing to happen). Is it really all that rewarding to roflstomp the competition, fully understanding that you were better to begin with? I'm not saying that my playstyle is better or anything. I'm just trying to wrap my head around others find this particular playstyle favorable.

Have you ever read or watched any stories about such heroes? None come to me.

Dusk Eclipse
2011-11-04, 07:40 PM
Have you ever read or watched any stories about such heroes? None come to me.

Actually most of the stories I have read/watch are about underdogs.

For example Dragonball Z, at first Goku could barely face Radditz which was the weakest of the Sayans, he had to sacrifice himself and work with Piccoro to kill him.

Against Frieza he had to go Super Sayan to match him (I do concede he all but curbstomped him once there)

Cell: None of the heroes could beat him till Gohan entered his rage

Buu: They had to use the fusion dance to get a chance to beat him.


So even when the heroes are powerful in most cases the evil is greater than them...

Anderlith
2011-11-04, 07:46 PM
I never said an ordinary person, but a competent person sure. A policemen or a soldier doesn't have superhuman capabilities yet there are countless records of soldiers & such doing heroic things, look at the exploits of one John L Barkley or Teddy Roosevelt, I've always viewed heroes as the ones that "could get the job done" not necessarily the ones with the biggest toys, i.e. +x weapons of x, & more broken spell combos than you can shake a stick at.

GolemsVoice
2011-11-04, 07:49 PM
Power is relative. The better question is perhaps if the character fits the powerlevel of the game/story he's in. The eponymous hunter in White Wolf's Hunter won't mow down werewolves by the dozens, and that's ok, because that's not what Hunter is about. But the things the game actually IS about, I want my character to be good at them. Trying the impossible and failing is no problem. But regularly failing what in the game is considered a standart challenge gets boring and frustrating.

A bad example would be being forced to play a common soldier in a game where everyone else is a power-armored superhuman. (Unless the group as a whole asks for this, of course)

And one more thing: I, personally, play games to be someone extraordinary. Doesn't mean I have to be the world's greatest hero, simply being someone I'm not in real-life, like a cop or a soldier, can be great. If I want to struggle with mundane things, I wouldn't need to play RPGs at all.

(Now, mind you, in the end, it's about what the group likes best. If you and your gaming group would disagree with me, and you're having fun, that's fine, but I likely wouldn't join any of your games)

Dusk Eclipse
2011-11-04, 07:50 PM
To be honest I think because most RPG games are an escapist fantasy, if I want to be a hero I want to be the best hero I can be. Sure you can play at lower levels of power where you have to struggle to come by; but for many (at least apparently) that isn't the norm.

Dust
2011-11-04, 07:58 PM
http://c181321.r21.cf0.rackcdn.com/PHDIKHILJ1oOHK_1_m.jpg

Frozen_Feet
2011-11-04, 08:08 PM
It's because in a lot of games, especially D&D, player characters are assumed to be heroes before the fact, and are by default given things a hero "should" possess. Hero is something you are.

This in contrast to a playstyle where the players are nothing unless they make themselves to be something; they aren't given anything either unless they themselves see trouble to have it. If they want to be heroes, they have to be heroes with the stuff they have. Hero is something you become.

I like the second style more, even when playing with superpowered characters.

Also note: the idea that a hero can't be an "average person" is a very different prospect under these playstyles. In the first, of course some joe can't be a hero, since they lack the things they need to be one! And on the flipside, a hero can't be some joe since they'ree heroes.

In the second, there is nothing inherent separating some joe from a hero. It all lies in their actions. These actions might make or prove them "unaverage", but it's only observable after the fact.

some guy
2011-11-04, 08:34 PM
It's because in a lot of games, especially D&D, player characters are assumed to be heroes before the fact, and are by default given things a hero "should" possess. Hero is something you are.

This in contrast to a playstyle where the players are nothing unless they make themselves to be something; they aren't given anything either unless they themselves see trouble to have it. If they want to be heroes, they have to be heroes with the stuff they have. Hero is something you become.

I like the second style more, even when playing with superpowered characters.

Also note: the idea that a hero can't be an "average person" is a very different prospect under these playstyles. In the first, of course some joe can't be a hero, since they lack the things they need to be one! And on the flipside, a hero can't be some joe since they'ree heroes.

In the second, there is nothing inherent separating some joe from a hero. It all lies in their actions. These actions might make or prove them "unaverage", but it's only observable after the fact.

It's basically this. Or as Zak S. has written recently, the Han vs. Luke issue. I feel more for starting small and unimportant, taking arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them and all that. Barely surviving, but through wits, luck and determination succeed.
But I can imagine there is also something to found in being already awesome and rad. Being something fantastic and different, trying to experience that. The sooner you are rad, the more the radness-meter fills.

EDIT: You know, I usually run games in which the pc's are not extraordinary. I once played in a game in which the DM felt the pc's had to be heroes (I like to call the pc's 'adventurers', not 'heroes'). There really was not a very clear difference between how he ran his game and how I run my games.

Deepbluediver
2011-11-04, 08:43 PM
Many people find playing an uber-powerful god like being fun; its like asking why some one prefers chocolate ice cream. Think of how many videogames have cheat codes to this effect. There was even an entire PC game (called Black & White) where the premise was that you ARE god to your tiny-but-growing civilization.

Now, I don't think that there are quite as many super-powered epic characters out there as these forums sometimes make it appear. A lot of people just like theorycrafting maxed-out toons for the fun of it, or finding ways to "break" because you can. Not every players considers the DM to be an enemy, but a few people probably think that if can break the game they've "beaten" WotC.


Personally, I haven't played as much D&D as other posters, but nearly everything that I have done has been low to mid level campaigns or one-shots, and no one in our group ever complained it wasn't fun.

Coidzor
2011-11-04, 09:08 PM
I never said an ordinary person, but a competent person sure. A policemen or a soldier doesn't have superhuman capabilities yet there are countless records of soldiers & such doing heroic things, look at the exploits of one John L Barkley or Teddy Roosevelt, I've always viewed heroes as the ones that "could get the job done" not necessarily the ones with the biggest toys, i.e. +x weapons of x, & more broken spell combos than you can shake a stick at.


So I ask the question why, why do you need to have lots of abilities & power & skill to feel like a hero? Can't you be a hero against the odds instead? (the more likely thing to happen). Is it really all that rewarding to roflstomp the competition, fully understanding that you were better to begin with? I'm not saying that my playstyle is better or anything. I'm just trying to wrap my head around others find this particular playstyle favorable.

By saying that anyone who wants to play a character with power and skill and abilities is just playing to roflstomp the competition, you are giving the impression that your intent is to talk about characters who lack power & skill & abilities and are thusly ordinary. As in, the most likely thing there is in the game world.

So, if you say you don't mean it that way, then it behooves you to clarify what exactly you're positing on both sides or else we can't really discuss it with you.

Because I'm pretty sure that Teddy Roosevelt's larger than life living style isn't what you were implying in your OP. As, while he did roflstomp his childhood illness, that was only after he put in a lot of hard work, but by the same token, nor was he just marginally competent as an adventurer. Being as he became famous for his adventuring habits. And someone who can become famous as an adventurer and make a habit out of it rather than it being a one-off fluke is going to be exceptional amongst whatever class/type of person it came from.

And now we have no idea what the heck you're trying to contrast this with.

Totally Guy
2011-11-04, 09:25 PM
Check out Mouse Guard. It's a game in which the characters suffer for their goals and principles. They become heroes because they do it anyway. It can get pretty bleak and I love it.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-11-04, 09:47 PM
By saying that anyone who wants to play a haracter with power and skill and abilities is just playing to roflstomp the competition, you are showing a hostile attitude towards it.


Ayup. Go read Percy Jackson and the Olympians/The Heroes of Olympus. Percy, the Grace siblings, the Di Angelo siblings, Leo Valdez, and the entire damn Zhang family all have extreme superpowers, Hazel Lavesque and Piper McLean have moderate superpowers, and Annabeth Chase and Clarisse (have no idea what her last name is) are badass normals.
Percy is also is an excellent rider and swordfighter, plus he bore the Curse of Achilles for almost a year before wading through the Little Tiber, and both Graces can match him in combat before he bore the Curse and after it washed away in the river.
Not sure about Nico Di Angelo, but his half-sister Hazel was impressed by his sword skill after being amused by the scrawny pale boy saying his black sword was "Stygian iron" all serious-like.
Hazel also thought Percy was a god when whe first saw him carrying the old lady that happened to be Juno (remake of Jason the Argonaut carrying Hera across a river).

They face monsters, immortals, and the media (long story) on a regular basis, and don't curbstomp everything (actually, I can't remember them ever curbstomping anything, although I think they use the Inverse Ninja Law when facing a monster army as long as they have a number of people on their side in the double digits). And did I mention they're just regular people who happen to be children of gods?

Ziegander
2011-11-04, 10:14 PM
So I have found on this site a surprising number of people who think that their heroes in the games they play must be super powerful or superskilled or way better than the peons of the world just because they are "heroes". I've never seen this in the behavior of anyone I've gamed with or anyone I or they know. So I ask the question why, why do you need to have lots of abilities & power & skill to feel like a hero? Can't you be a hero against the odds instead? (the more likely thing to happen). Is it really all that rewarding to roflstomp the competition, fully understanding that you were better to begin with? I'm not saying that my playstyle is better or anything. I'm just trying to wrap my head around others find this particular playstyle favorable.

Oh, there's nothing wrong with being non-super and still heroic. "Real life" heroes typically triumph despite the odds once, maybe twice, in their lives. That doesn't make them any less heroic. Heroes in a role-playing game are typically meant to triumph despite the odds multiple times a day, multiple days per week. The sheer mathematics typically demand that a hero in an RPG be super in order to survive.

king.com
2011-11-04, 10:14 PM
I never said an ordinary person, but a competent person sure. A policemen or a soldier doesn't have superhuman capabilities yet there are countless records of soldiers & such doing heroic things, look at the exploits of one John L Barkley or Teddy Roosevelt, I've always viewed heroes as the ones that "could get the job done" not necessarily the ones with the biggest toys, i.e. +x weapons of x, & more broken spell combos than you can shake a stick at.

One of the reasons Dark Heresy is my favourite roleplaying game. Your just ordinary people, with that barest hint of potential, where everything and everyone in the universe is more powerful and dangerous than you and its your job to stop them.

navar100
2011-11-04, 10:19 PM
It is not a sin for player characters to be "powerful". If you absolutely just can't stand that, get out of the DM chair.

king.com
2011-11-04, 10:28 PM
It is not a sin for player characters to be "powerful". If you absolutely just can't stand that, get out of the DM chair.

Thats an extremely odd and out of place comment when someone was asking for logical explanations.

Drasius
2011-11-04, 10:34 PM
Define Super? If your character (to use D&D standards) has better than 10/10/10/10/10/10, then you are by definition playing a character with above average stats, which some could call super, or at least, certainly not an everyday joe bloggs.

If your all 10 character faces housecats, then it's fair play, if the 20/14/18/12/10/10 half somethingorother barbarian faces off against housecats, then that's Super. If the same characters face off against a dragon of level appropriate status, the "Normal" character is a tasty snack whereas the "Super" character will probably have a new set of armour and some scars.

One of the main reasons why you get "Super" characters is that not everyone plays in low magic campaigns all the time, hence increaseing threat levels require Super heroes. Add this to the fact that when Joe Average goes adventuring, he is normally the guy who the Super loots for anything useful after he has failed and become a corpse.

FatJose
2011-11-04, 10:34 PM
Get this out of the way.
Definition of HERO
1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one who shows great courage
2 a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement

There you go. You're a hero by default because your party is the focus of the game's story. Clearly, it doesn't matter "what" you are. It covers anybody. Literature supports this. Especially if you're looking beyond cheesy children's fantasy novels.

The idea that D&D has super-powered heroes has more to do with the enemies and common folk being super underpowered. RL humans would stomp human commoners to death. I've never seen an actual man killed by a house cat but its commonly known in D&D circles just how garbage D&D villagers are. All of the evil races you face early in your careers are supposedly horrid threats to the good people but their stats put them at a huge disadvantage. (Why the commoners don't take care of the goblins or kobolds is anyone's guess. They're at least at equal footing.)

NikitaDarkstar
2011-11-04, 10:43 PM
As so many others have pointed out already, in a game such as D&D you need to be quite a bit above average to even survive. The trick is to avoid being significantly more powerful than the other players and not be the best at everything. Ever heard the therm Mary-Sue (most probably have by now, but oh well.), it comes from fanfiction but it can be applied to anything that uses characters. A Mary Sue simply is a perfect character. It's the best in fighting, the best in magic, best in social situations, amazingly beautiful and so on. Avoid being that character.

But is there anything wrong with being able to swing a mace hard enough to make a dragon cry? Not really. Is it wrong if you're also immune to anything the dragon can throw at you including enough Damage Reduction to make physical damage negligible at best? Yhea it can lead to boredom and frustration for everyone involved.

Beleriphon
2011-11-05, 02:56 AM
The idea that D&D has super-powered heroes has more to do with the enemies and common folk being super underpowered. RL humans would stomp human commoners to death. I've never seen an actual man killed by a house cat but its commonly known in D&D circles just how garbage D&D villagers are. All of the evil races you face early in your careers are supposedly horrid threats to the good people but their stats put them at a huge disadvantage. (Why the commoners don't take care of the goblins or kobolds is anyone's guess. They're at least at equal footing.)

Well, the average human commoner has 4 hit points and AC 10 (in all editions prior to 4th). They have +0 to hit, -4 to hit with anything other than simple weapons. That doesn't stack up well against hordes of goblins or kobolds.

Goblins by default get a +2 to hit with morningstars, +3 with javelins and have AC 15 in 3.X (pretty similar level in previous editions sitting around 5 or 6). Human commoners, who don't have light armour proficiency, would have AC 14 (or 6 or 7 in previous editions). Goblins come in gangs of up to nine, or much larger group with much more dangerous warbands with worgs. This also doesn't take into account the penchant of goblins to work with hobgoblins which can be much more dangerous.

Kobolds are pretty similar, although by and large less dangerous individually.

Essentially the idea with D&D is that human villager could probably fight goblins, as a huge group (like the whole village) but it takes exceptional people to do so in small groups.

Jerthanis
2011-11-05, 03:36 AM
Part of it is simply numbers. In a literary work, you can write whatever power disparity you want and be sure of whatever outcome is necessary. In D&D, you actually have to make the roll. If you stack the game such that they have a 50% chance to survive each fight they're in, they're probably not going to survive four fights, let alone the dozens you'll see in the course of a campaign... so numerically speaking, the PCs MUST be more powerful than their opponents almost all the time or they will have an excessive chance of failing completely.

In addition, in many cases, the more power you have, the more options you have as far as leveraging that power. More options means more choices that you can make, and more unexpected solutions people can come up with. People like coming up with plans and making choices, and a lot of the time that's easier when you've got powers that can make meaningful changes on your world.

I like the underpowered heroes too, and really like the idea of ordinary people faced with extraordinary challenges and rising up to them to overcome with courage, tenacity and cleverness... but in the context of an RPG the laws of probability are against you and the dynamic of what makes things interesting is concretely different between mediums where the audience is a passive consumer and a medium in which the audience ARE the actors.

It's possible to make underpowered 'normal guy' heroes have the kinds of interesting choices as those with more dynamic and potent powers, and it's possible to make it seem as though they're squeaking along by the skin of their teeth (without having to actually deal with 100 anticlimax TPKs for every 1 satisfying game about unexpected success) but it's SO much more work that way.

cattoy
2011-11-05, 04:01 AM
they don't.

{Scrubbed}

My hero is this guy.
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/71175_96962183712_1019593_n.jpg

Totally Guy
2011-11-05, 04:20 AM
Heroes in a role-playing game are typically meant to triumph despite the odds multiple times a day, multiple days per week.

But then it's not really despite the odds, is it?

I had this problem with a game called Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. In this game choose characters to fight baddies and every move you make against them the game tells you the odds to hit. Eventually I realised that I was taking virtually no risks and I'd win anyway. I got no further enjoyment from that game.

Ravens_cry
2011-11-05, 04:30 AM
Even games about "ordinary" mortals often have some extraordinary extra mechanic to give them a bit of an edge.
Take Hunter: The Reckoning. Despite being fluffed as a mostly vanilla mortal who hunts monsters, you got a few extra knacks, like Conviction, to help make just about every battle against the Monsters not be a nose crushing, gut kicking, groin crumbling, curb stomp battle of messy, inevitable death.

jseah
2011-11-05, 04:44 AM
Totally guy:
FFTA? I played that! My first introduction into true char-op (customizable skill sets FTW)
Off topic:
Marche is useless, but eh, one Turbo MP Double-cast Madeen-Madeen pwns even the final boss in one hit. Or just use a moogle gunner with the outsider weapon for ultima charge with 9 range... plus you can use Concentrate on it for +50% to hit!

OP:
I think perhaps you might want to rephrase that question. You seem to be asking why people want to play "special" characters. Characters that stand out from the rest of the population.

If you didn't mean that, then I can ask it. =P Why do people want to play "special" characters?

Ravens_cry
2011-11-05, 04:50 AM
Because we play another character all the time.

GolemsVoice
2011-11-05, 05:18 AM
they don't.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I suppose you have a good explanation, and don't just go around insulting probably half the players on this site? Otherwise, I'd be really angry. See, this is what I was waiting for, the belief that being superpowered (by human standarts) makes you a bad roleplayer, and that being ordinary makes you a good roleplayer.

DoctorGlock
2011-11-05, 06:29 AM
Because some people like the idea of being powerful, of being something out of the ordinary, something out of myth or legend. My favorite games are exalted, M&M, and high level 3.5. When I play, I want to be a god or godlike something, but not to roflstomp the competition, which only happens if the DM/GM/ST cannot plan accordingly, but to deal with divine threats. I want to wrestle with Fenris on the eve of Ragnarok. I want to descent into the pit and crack the gates of Dis so that my chronicler can complete his dire warning and account of the torments there. I want to hold back the sun, cause crops to grow on a barren world, raise the dead, and fight the great beast on the day of reckoning, and I want to do it on my own strength, not because the DM was kind enough to grant me the artifact of awesome. I want to be awesome. I do not want to be Skipper Biff the fisherman, because Biff cannot do this. If Biff sees Fenris he wets himself and gets eaten. The limits of Biffs capabilities are clobbering another fisherman with an oar for poaching on his turf. That is not my idea of fun because I can clobber someone with an oar in real life. Why then should I play it in my game?



{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

My hero is this guy.


Yeah, thanks for just crapping all over a completely valid play style and the majority of the games on the market. I think we remember what happened to that guy. I think it takes more imagination to manage a pantheon than be a massacre victim

Totally Guy
2011-11-05, 07:10 AM
I do not want to be Skipper Biff the fisherman, because Biff cannot do this. If Biff sees Fenris he wets himself and gets eaten. The limits of Biffs capabilities are clobbering another fisherman with an oar for poaching on his turf.

Can we call this a double standard here? I mean it sounds like you're crapping on a completely valid playstyle.

Lord Raziere
2011-11-05, 07:13 AM
they don't.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

My hero is this guy.


and guess what? sure he is a hero….but we also want to have fun being heroes. a soldier who sacrifices his life so that all his buddies can live and fight another day or a citizen who takes a bullet for someone else, yes heroic.

Fun? Nope. I wouldn't play that guy.

king.com
2011-11-05, 07:15 AM
Can we call this a double standard here? I mean it sounds like you're crapping on a completely valid playstyle.

Its what this thread looks like its about, it started on a valid question, was answered and now people are left beating their chests telling the otherside they dont know what fun is.


and guess what? sure he is a hero….but we also want to have fun being heroes. a soldier who sacrifices his life so that all his buddies can live and fight another day or a citizen who takes a bullet for someone else, yes heroic.

Fun? Nope. I wouldn't play that guy.

Case and point.

Totally Guy
2011-11-05, 07:25 AM
I have come to the conclusion that "fun" is the least productive word in gaming.

Viktyr Gehrig
2011-11-05, 08:03 AM
One of the reasons I play fantasy roleplaying games is escapism. I am already an ordinary person in real life-- I am even a competent person, in terms of low-level D&D characters-- and I hate it. I hate that my capacity to amass wealth and power is constrained by society's rules and my own psychological inability to function within them. I hate that my body is slowly failing and that one day I will die, not in glorious battle, but lying in my own waste in a hospital bed. I hate spending every day of my life in a losing battle with panic and despair.

I already know what it's like to be that guy, every day for the last thirty-one years. I play RPGs to get a small taste of what it's like to be something else.

The Boz
2011-11-05, 08:09 AM
Case and point.

Every time I see someone write "case and point", I get this strange, inexplicable urge to beat them up with their own spine.
For all intensive purposes, I lose my self control.

GolemsVoice
2011-11-05, 08:25 AM
I want to wrestle with Fenris on the eve of Ragnarok. I want to descent into the pit and crack the gates of Dis so that my chronicler can complete his dire warning and account of the torments there. I want to hold back the sun, cause crops to grow on a barren world, raise the dead, and fight the great beast on the day of reckoning, and I want to do it on my own strength, not because the DM was kind enough to grant me the artifact of awesome. I want to be awesome. I do not want to be Skipper Biff the fisherman, because Biff cannot do this. If Biff sees Fenris he wets himself and gets eaten. The limits of Biffs capabilities are clobbering another fisherman with an oar for poaching on his turf. That is not my idea of fun because I can clobber someone with an oar in real life. Why then should I play it in my game?

I guess that's a case of expectation vs. game. Say, if you wanted to play a high-powered game, but for whatever reasons you don't, that just means that you either joined the wrong game, or that the DM somehow screwed you over. But that doesn't make it wrong to play Biff the Fisherman, if one enjoys it.

I think what most of us can agree on is that games should feature something extraordinary to make them worth playing. This could either be an extraordinary setting, an extraordinary story, or just extraordinary characters. For example, playing a normal cop doing normal things is probably quite boring. But playing a cop who suddenly investiagtes supernatural killings is fascinating. Both have the same character, but it's the situation that's different.

king.com
2011-11-05, 08:33 AM
I have come to the conclusion that "fun" is the least productive word in gaming.

Thats cause you dont know to game :smallannoyed:


Every time I see someone write "case and point", I get this strange, inexplicable urge to beat them up with their own spine.
For all intensive purposes, I lose my self control.

Ah...sorry I guess?

DoctorGlock
2011-11-05, 08:57 AM
Can we call this a double standard here? I mean it sounds like you're crapping on a completely valid playstyle.


I guess that's a case of expectation vs. game. Say, if you wanted to play a high-powered game, but for whatever reasons you don't, that just means that you either joined the wrong game, or that the DM somehow screwed you over. But that doesn't make it wrong to play Biff the Fisherman, if one enjoys it.
.

It isn't wrong or bad to play as Biff, I only said that it is not my idea of fun. It could be yours, go for it, I'll play Exalted. However, Biff cannot possibly hope to beat a godlike entity with his oar (though I would find that amusing), and stating that is not the same as saying you should not play Biff. It was saying that I should not play Biff because I'd rather go and do something that I find fun.

Frozen_Feet
2011-11-05, 09:00 AM
The sheer mathematics typically demand that a hero in an RPG be super in order to survive.

This is something of an illusion, and not true of all RPGs. Sure, it's true in D&D and like where you are theoretically risking your life all the time, but on the other hand there are games where survival of the hero is not the important matter at all.

Likewise, in a lot of games, the hero can achieve being heroic 100% of the time, without a single roll being involved, as long as they think things through. Being the hero is not about having enough stat points to overcome level-appropriate challenge, but doing the right thing in the right place. Math barely enters to it, and being super isn't required.

Besides, the "sheer mathematics" you talk about arise wholly from genre convention. Again, you're assumed from the get-go to be fighting superhuman threats, necessitating superhuman abilities. The game is rigged from the start to be unsurvivable for non-supers, necessitating escalating character power.


they don't.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}


I suppose you have a good explanation, and don't just go around insulting probably half the players on this site? Otherwise, I'd be really angry. See, this is what I was waiting for, the belief that being superpowered (by human standarts) makes you a bad roleplayer, and that being ordinary makes you a good roleplayer.

I'm sorry, GolemsVoice, but you got the logic of the statement wrong. Cattoy's comment about imagination doesn't state or imply that playing a superpowered person makes you a bad roleplayer, or vice versa. Roleplaying playstyles aren't even what's being talked here. Note the important part: "only people with inferior imagination need..." People with superior imagination might not need superior abilities, but it doesn't follow from the statement that they can't or shouldn't have them either.


I have come to the conclusion that "fun" is the least productive word in gaming.

I couldn't agree more.

king.com
2011-11-05, 09:06 AM
It isn't wrong or bad to play as Biff, I only said that it is not my idea of fun. It could be yours, go for it, I'll play Exalted. However, Biff cannot possibly hope to beat a godlike entity with his oar (though I would find that amusing), and stating that is not the same as saying you should not play Biff. It was saying that I should not play Biff because I'd rather go and do something that I find fun.

Biff can defeat a godlike entity the way any mortal can, he can stand up to them. He set own rules for when he would fish and why. He would no longer make a sacrifice so that his family nearly starved each winter, he was his own man with own beliefs and if it would mean the god would come down from the heaven and smite him...then he would win. He would have gained the attention of a GOD and die standing.


I have come to the conclusion that "fun" is the least productive word in gaming.


I couldn't agree more.


Fun is the golden apple, a fleeting distraction when our goal should be satisfaction.

Totally Guy
2011-11-05, 09:08 AM
To clarify, the word fun comes up time and time again and it's never useful.

I can have fun doing all kinds of things. Posting on a forum can be fun. Running can be fun. Negotiating a deal at work can be fun. But if I can get fun from those other places then why do I need role playing games at all?

What ends up happening over and over. I say something is fun and you disagree and they you say something is fun and I disagree. And neither of us are lying!

Prioritising "fun" when applied to gaming things becomes essentially meaningless in communicating ideas.

So it's an unproductive word.

So the next time someone says "I do this because of fun" or "I don't do this because it gets in the way of fun", I'm not going to take it seriously. It hurts the posters credibility to me.

Coidzor
2011-11-05, 09:19 AM
If you didn't mean that, then I can ask it. =P Why do people want to play "special" characters?

Because commoner campaigns in D&D are the exception rather than the rule and the system is set up to run a different game type entirely. Because some games are set up so that one is, by definition, out of the ordinary in order to be a character. Like D&D 3.5, D&D 4E, every system White Wolf has ever developed last I checked, or Mutants and Mastermind IIRC.

Shadowknight12
2011-11-05, 09:25 AM
This may have been explained before, but I'm going to say it (again?) because it honestly bears repeating.

An average person who rises to heroism is possible in predetermined stories, such as those found in literature, cinema, theatre and so on. This is because the author is in full control of the situation and will make the protagonist succeed or fail as he wills it. A good author is the one that, knowing where the protagonist will win and fail, convinces the reader to care as if such an outcome was not already predetermined.

This approach fails in most games, because the outcome of a given action is not in direct control of anybody at the table (save, perhaps, the DM; and in such cases, the DM is explicitly told in most RPGs not to take direct control of an outcome unless it is strictly necessary), but they rely on a combination of system mastery and random chance. While it is common for heroes to fail at several points in their stories, they must succeed at least once to resolve the conflict that drives the story. If they didn't have to succeed, they wouldn't be necessary in the story and their purpose as protagonists would be superfluous, which is why they MUST succeed.

The problem is that this is not actually guaranteed. Due to random chance and a lack of system mastery, it is highly possible that the hero will fail where he was supposed to succeed, leading the story to an unsatisfying anticlimax (with the exceptions of stories who suddenly turn out the better for it; though they are the exception and not the norm). And a high system mastery will turn the character away from average person into the realm of the superhero or the larger than life archetype.

And here lies the terrible, cruel dichotomy of RPGs. They try to emulate, at once, both real life and stories, unknowing that, unless Lady Luck is willing, the twain shall never meet. Stories exist because real life does not turn out the way we want it to. Real life is unpredictable and heroic triumphs are far from assured. Heroes fall and their quests vanish, the villains live to harm the world another day. And if an RPG wishes to emulate life and enable the telling of stories, it will come across this dichotomy. Does it sacrifice realism to allow for the heroism of the average person? Or does it remain cruelly affixed in reality and stories be damned? Or does it try to strike a balance, running the risk of failing at both?

Therein lies your answer.

ranagrande
2011-11-05, 09:29 AM
Every time I see someone write "case and point", I get this strange, inexplicable urge to beat them up with their own spine.
For all intensive purposes, I lose my self control.
I don't know about anyone else, but I see what you did there, and I approve. :smallsmile:

Frozen_Feet
2011-11-05, 09:33 AM
Why do people want to play "special" characters?

Once again - genre convention. Most games are build upon the assumption that the characters are "special", at least when compared to their players. Most of which aren't, are build upon the assumption that the situation the characters end up in is "special", again at least when compared to situations their players face.

Those two types of games cover 99% of all RPGs. Of course, what counts as "special" is highly subjective. For me, an ordinary fireman doing ordinary fireman things would be different enough from my ordinary life to satsify me need to act someone else. It wouldn't "special" when compared to real life as whole, of course.

It might also be that for a lot of players, there's an element of wish-fulfilment that draws them to the hobby. They aren't just present to play a role, just any role won't do; for them to enjoy the experience, the role must in some way allow them to pretend to be something they idolize or wish to be.

jseah
2011-11-05, 09:50 AM
Come to think of it, the question is really more like this:
"Why do people playing RPGs make characters who are special compared to their in-game peers?"

You can play a 'commoner' but if commoners in some far-future society captain their own ships mostly crewed by machines, then you can experience something "not in real life".
Or playing a magician where the characters are like any other magician in the setting. Eg. Apprentice to some other magician, made a spell that ferments a particular brand of beer and did various guild stuff. Otherwise, no other deeds of note.

When I said "special", I didn't mean "special" compared to RL. I meant "special" wrt the setting.
If having wings and flying around is common, then the characters having wings don't count as "special". *not* having wings might count if everyone else has them.

EDIT2:
if saving the world happens every other weekend by some guy in the setting, then how your character saved the world this time isn't "special" either. Although working out how to stop the world from constantly needing saving would be.

EDIT: I can accept the "wish fulfillment" part of the reason. Although I must admit that I really don't like it.

Morty
2011-11-05, 09:54 AM
It's funny how people keep bringing up D&D even though this thread is in the general roleplaying section.
With that said, I'm definetly on the side of those who don't believe you need to have superhuman abilities and generally be special to be a hero. A hero is someone who does heroic things, nothing more and nothing less. The power level is nothing more than a genre convention; some people prefer higher power levels and some prefer the lower ones. A high-power hero who's a special snowflake will fight a dragon. A low-power hero who's a normal person will fight a gang of criminals terrorizing a town.
Nor do I agree with those who say that "ordinary" is "boring". An ordinary person can be highly competent at what they do. And even if I don't play a competent person, I'm not playing as myself. If I play a rat-catcher in WFRP, I'm still playing as someone else because I'm not a rat-catcher in a fantasy version of medieval/Reneissance Germany.


I have come to the conclusion that "fun" is the least productive word in gaming.

It is, yes.

Coidzor
2011-11-05, 10:24 AM
It's funny how people keep bringing up D&D even though this thread is in the general roleplaying section.

I'd say it's more to be expected, because of the forums ties to D&D making it rather likely, in addition to other factors, that forum members who have played or have an interest in P&P RPGs will have some experience with D&D or even be active players.


Nor do I agree with those who say that "ordinary" is "boring".

An ordinary person would be unable to rise to meet challenges that the person finds interesting to deal with. That's generally what they mean from what I can gather. But they don't say that, because it's generally taken as a given that their shorthand will be understood well enough, more or less.


Come to think of it, the question is really more like this:
"Why do people playing RPGs make characters who are special compared to their in-game peers?"

Well, that's certainly a completely different question. Though it could use some clarification. I'm going to assume by in-game peers you're going to mean actual peers and not the rank and file of that world, so that vampires are being judged as whether they're special compared to other vampires rather than compared to humans and werewolves and vampires and pictsies.

In that case, it's mostly up to the system's conventions whether or not PCs are inherently different from their NPC counterparts and less a matter of individual player preference. :smallconfused:


You can play a 'commoner' but if commoners in some far-future society captain their own ships mostly crewed by machines, then you can experience something "not in real life".
Or playing a magician where the characters are like any other magician in the setting. Eg. Apprentice to some other magician, made a spell that ferments a particular brand of beer and did various guild stuff. Otherwise, no other deeds of note.

So you now seem to really be asking why people find what they find exciting to be exciting and worth their time imagining.

I'm afraid that if you go much further you're just going to be asking a question that's unanswerable beyond platitudes about taste and individual preferences. Might already be in that territory as it is. :smallconfused:


EDIT: I can accept the "wish fulfillment" part of the reason. Although I must admit that I really don't like it.

You don't like that some people play RPGs to fulfill the wish to be something more than what they are?

Seems a bit harsh to go and judge like that, don't you think? Considering just how much of fantasy and sci-fi is powered by escapism.

Viktyr Gehrig
2011-11-05, 10:40 AM
Nor do I agree with those who say that "ordinary" is "boring". An ordinary person can be highly competent at what they do. And even if I don't play a competent person, I'm not playing as myself. If I play a rat-catcher in WFRP, I'm still playing as someone else because I'm not a rat-catcher in a fantasy version of medieval/Reneissance Germany.

I agree. It isn't that "ordinary" is boring-- because I have seen fascinating play with "ordinary" characters-- it's the fact that I can kill and eat rodents in my own house. I've done it before. I can get into a fight with a couple of unarmed street punks and walk away from it.

If I found these things exciting, I could just step away from my gaming table and go do them.

Alleran
2011-11-05, 10:42 AM
I don't mind playing an "average" person in a terrible world that hates me. For example, a PC in Warhammer Fantasy RP. Or (in a way) in a Call of Cthulhu game.

Dr.Epic
2011-11-05, 10:43 AM
So I have found on this site a surprising number of people who think that their heroes in the games they play must be super powerful or superskilled or way better than the peons of the world just because they are "heroes". I've never seen this in the behavior of anyone I've gamed with or anyone I or they know. So I ask the question why, why do you need to have lots of abilities & power & skill to feel like a hero? Can't you be a hero against the odds instead? (the more likely thing to happen). Is it really all that rewarding to roflstomp the competition, fully understanding that you were better to begin with? I'm not saying that my playstyle is better or anything. I'm just trying to wrap my head around others find this particular playstyle favorable.

You don't have to be super, but if the villains are, you sure better be.

jseah
2011-11-05, 11:13 AM
You don't like that some people play RPGs to fulfill the wish to be something more than what they are?

Seems a bit harsh to go and judge like that, don't you think? Considering just how much of fantasy and sci-fi is powered by escapism.
By "I don't like it", I meant as a GM. I prefer a world where the extraordinary (by our standards) happens, which is similar to what you say about fantasy and SF. And yes, I do like fantasy and SF.

I don't have too much of a problem with someone wanting some wish fulfillment but I can't understand why that has to come with being 'special' or 'a hero'.

Why talk about some extraordinary guy in an extraordinary setting when the new 'normal' of setting is already so much more interesting?
You put magic into a world. It isn't just there so you can shoot fireballs at dragons or slice down zombie after zombie. Sure, those things might happen, but there are so many other questions to answer.

Like how do people get their lunch? (no seriously, in any medieval-like era, getting food dictates how society operates)

EDIT:
ok, some people just want to go lop heads off and save the world. Fair enough.
ok, those people might find watching the wheat grow boring. Fair enough.

Then why play in a setting with all that? Just have your fireballs and your worlds to save. Play in the superhero genre if you want to be a hero.

EDIT2:
And yes, I don't read/play/like the superhero genre.

Unless they involve a look into the nitty details of time travel. Paradox resolution is always fun. Especially trying to engineer an ontological paradox.

Coidzor
2011-11-05, 11:24 AM
ok, some people just want to go lop heads off and save the world. Fair enough.
ok, those people might find watching the wheat grow boring. Fair enough.

Then why play in a setting with all that? Just have your fireballs and your worlds to save. Play in the superhero genre if you want to be a hero.

Big Damn Heroes happen regardless of base genre from fantasy to sci-fi to superhero. Just because Master Chief is a badass doesn't mean there's not dirt farmers still in existence, but if the focus of the game is on people fighting the good fight. Or fighting the dirty fight, as the whole RPG small group paradigm so often lends itself readily to.

Perhaps you should explain why someone should have to play in superhero land when they want to play in sword and sorcery land just because they don't want to get wrapped up in kickstarting the industrial revolution with magic.

Just because the setting has something in it, even if it's only really implicitly because the rules of the game system as written imply that something akin to it exists in order to give a backdrop, that doesn't mean it has to ever occupy the limelight.

Though this is all getting a bit vague for my tastes.

Gamer Girl
2011-11-05, 11:41 AM
You get three types of people:

Type A:They want to be the big super hero. They want to be Batman, Sherlock Holmes, Hercules or such. They want to be the big star and get all the attention.

Type B:They want to be a hero, but don't want to do it all by themselves. In short they want to be a sidekick. They want to be Robin, Wattson, Ilioles or such.

Type C:They want to be the back ground support hero. They want to be Alfred, The chief of police, or a sage/scientist. They don't want to be noticed as much as they want to do a job.

As you might have guessed the Type A folks are the most loud and vocal. That is why you see so many posts here all about super human characters.

Type B's don't post a lot, and mostly luck
Type C's only really post about rules and such and never about other stuff.

Morty
2011-11-05, 11:49 AM
An ordinary person would be unable to rise to meet challenges that the person finds interesting to deal with. That's generally what they mean from what I can gather. But they don't say that, because it's generally taken as a given that their shorthand will be understood well enough, more or less.


I know that's the reasoning. And I don't share that sentiment. I also don't think that it means any hero has to be super, just that a certain subset of players expects them to be.


I agree. It isn't that "ordinary" is boring-- because I have seen fascinating play with "ordinary" characters-- it's the fact that I can kill and eat rodents in my own house. I've done it before. I can get into a fight with a couple of unarmed street punks and walk away from it.

If I found these things exciting, I could just step away from my gaming table and go do them.

So you can go out and sneak into a goblin camp any time? Or escort a vile necromantic artifact that ended up in your possession? Those are the things I did in my last WFRP campaign as a perfectly ordinary grave robber.


You get three types of people:

Type A:They want to be the big super hero. They want to be Batman, Sherlock Holmes, Hercules or such. They want to be the big star and get all the attention.

Type B:They want to be a hero, but don't want to do it all by themselves. In short they want to be a sidekick. They want to be Robin, Wattson, Ilioles or such.

Type C:They want to be the back ground support hero. They want to be Alfred, The chief of police, or a sage/scientist. They don't want to be noticed as much as they want to do a job.

As you might have guessed the Type A folks are the most loud and vocal. That is why you see so many posts here all about super human characters.

Type B's don't post a lot, and mostly luck
Type C's only really post about rules and such and never about other stuff.

I don't think that's an accurate summary. A person who isn't a super - whichever form "superness" might take - isn't necessarily a sidekick or a support character. They tend to end up in those roles if they appear beside people who are somehow special. But if all protagonists more or less conform to realistic human capabilities, an ordinary person can be the main hero.

bloodtide
2011-11-05, 12:03 PM
You can blame popular culture for the rise of the SuperHero.

A decade or two before, what made a 'hero' was different. Take just about any good character Clint Eastwood ever played, they were just 'average Joe' types, nothing overly special. Indiana Jones was not epic, he was just a guy. Even LotR only has 'normal folk' that are not too 'special'.

But recently, a 'hero' must be superhuman. No one liked the 'ordinary' hero. And you have seen the mass of (true)superhero movies. A great example is Neo from the Matrix, he is not just a guy, in the matrix he is God.


So just look at gaming. Back in the '80's it was a players dream to be like 'John Mclaine or 'Indiana Jones'. They expected to get beat up and bloody. They expected to be low on HP and everything else and still have to fight the big bad at the end of the adventure.

The more modern game players dream about being beyond human. They expect to be so 'good and perfect' that noting can touch them and they can defeat anything. Again, Neo is the perfect example as he is invincible. They expect to be at full power when they fight the big bad guy.


And then just look at superheros. The average superhero is a boring, invincible type. You know that Batman, Captain America, Thor, Superman and such are never going to loose a fight, or even slightly get hurt. (yes it has happen in some rare stories, but grab a random story and they can go to hell and back without a scratch).

flumphy
2011-11-05, 12:06 PM
By "I don't like it", I meant as a GM. I prefer a world where the extraordinary (by our standards) happens, which is similar to what you say about fantasy and SF. And yes, I do like fantasy and SF.

I don't have too much of a problem with someone wanting some wish fulfillment but I can't understand why that has to come with being 'special' or 'a hero'.

Why talk about some extraordinary guy in an extraordinary setting when the new 'normal' of setting is already so much more interesting?
You put magic into a world. It isn't just there so you can shoot fireballs at dragons or slice down zombie after zombie. Sure, those things might happen, but there are so many other questions to answer.

Like how do people get their lunch? (no seriously, in any medieval-like era, getting food dictates how society operates)

EDIT:
ok, some people just want to go lop heads off and save the world. Fair enough.
ok, those people might find watching the wheat grow boring. Fair enough.

Then why play in a setting with all that? Just have your fireballs and your worlds to save. Play in the superhero genre if you want to be a hero.

EDIT2:
And yes, I don't read/play/like the superhero genre.

Unless they involve a look into the nitty details of time travel. Paradox resolution is always fun. Especially trying to engineer an ontological paradox.

I don't see why playing a hero precludes exploration of the everyday life in the setting. Most scifi and fantasy covers that stuff out of necessity, and it's usually seen from a hero's perspective.

It's not that I'm not interested in exploring the setting. It's just that I prefer to do it as someone extraordinary and awesome. Not so I can more efficiently bash in heads, but simply for wish fulfillment purposes. I'm a complete failure in real life, and in games I like the chance to forget that for an hour or two.


You can blame popular culture for the rise of the SuperHero.

A decade or two before, what made a 'hero' was different. Take just about any good character Clint Eastwood ever played, they were just 'average Joe' types, nothing overly special. Indiana Jones was not epic, he was just a guy. Even LotR only has 'normal folk' that are not too 'special'.


I would actually call most of these characters superhuman, or at least far above human average ability. Yes, even Sam Gamgee, and especially Indiana Jones.

Gamer Girl
2011-11-05, 12:11 PM
I don't think that's an accurate summary. A person who isn't a super - whichever form "superness" might take - isn't necessarily a sidekick or a support character. They tend to end up in those roles if they appear beside people who are somehow special. But if all protagonists more or less conform to realistic human capabilities, an ordinary person can be the main hero.

I'm not talking about the 'real' roles. I'm talking more psychology. A good third of the people in the world want to be the 'sidekick', and not the main hero. That is just human nature. Not everyone dreams or wishes to be in the spotlight. And 'sidekicks' are popular for this reason.

Shadowknight12
2011-11-05, 12:12 PM
I'm not talking about the 'real' roles. I'm talking more psychology. A good third of the people in the world want to be the 'sidekick', and not the main hero. That is just human nature. Not everyone dreams or wishes to be in the spotlight. And 'sidekicks' are popular for this reason.

And you consider yourself to be in the fourth category you left out, don't you? :smallwink:

Morty
2011-11-05, 12:20 PM
You can blame popular culture for the rise of the SuperHero.

A decade or two before, what made a 'hero' was different. Take just about any good character Clint Eastwood ever played, they were just 'average Joe' types, nothing overly special. Indiana Jones was not epic, he was just a guy. Even LotR only has 'normal folk' that are not too 'special'.

But recently, a 'hero' must be superhuman. No one liked the 'ordinary' hero. And you have seen the mass of (true)superhero movies. A great example is Neo from the Matrix, he is not just a guy, in the matrix he is God.


So just look at gaming. Back in the '80's it was a players dream to be like 'John Mclaine or 'Indiana Jones'. They expected to get beat up and bloody. They expected to be low on HP and everything else and still have to fight the big bad at the end of the adventure.

The more modern game players dream about being beyond human. They expect to be so 'good and perfect' that noting can touch them and they can defeat anything. Again, Neo is the perfect example as he is invincible. They expect to be at full power when they fight the big bad guy.


And then just look at superheros. The average superhero is a boring, invincible type. You know that Batman, Captain America, Thor, Superman and such are never going to loose a fight, or even slightly get hurt. (yes it has happen in some rare stories, but grab a random story and they can go to hell and back without a scratch).

I think that's true, at least to a degree.


I'm not talking about the 'real' roles. I'm talking more psychology. A good third of the people in the world want to be the 'sidekick', and not the main hero. That is just human nature. Not everyone dreams or wishes to be in the spotlight. And 'sidekicks' are popular for this reason.

I see. In that case yes, I suppose I agree. A low-powered hero isn't in quite the same category as a higer-powered one, even if he or she is the central character of a story.

Coidzor
2011-11-05, 12:21 PM
So you can go out and sneak into a goblin camp any time? Or escort a vile necromantic artifact that ended up in your possession? Those are the things I did in my last WFRP campaign as a perfectly ordinary grave robber.

Then the whole grave robber/rat catcher thing is kinda irrelevant in the face of the general adventurer shtick that's going on. And if adventuring is going to be the focus of the game anyway, why not have the characters and players be honest with themselves about having dedicated adventurers? :smalltongue:

Morty
2011-11-05, 12:24 PM
Then the whole grave robber/rat catcher thing is kinda irrelevant in the face of the general adventurer shtick that's going on. And if adventuring is going to be the focus of the game anyway, why not have the characters and players be honest with themselves about having dedicated adventurers? :smalltongue:

I... don't really see your point. My point is - he's having adventures despite being an ordinary person trained in stealing corpses from graves. He's not super, but he's a hero in his adventure.

Coidzor
2011-11-05, 12:35 PM
And you consider yourself to be in the fourth category you left out, don't you? :smallwink:

Someone's gotta be the Game Master, after all. :smallamused:


You can blame popular culture for the rise of the SuperHero.

PNP Gaming is derived from geek culture. Which has been linked to super hero comics for a fair while now. Longer than many posters on these boards have been alive. So it doesn't even need Pop culture to explain it if that's really what you're going with.


So just look at gaming. Back in the '80's it was a players dream to be like 'John Mclaine or 'Indiana Jones'. They expected to get beat up and bloody. They expected to be low on HP and everything else and still have to fight the big bad at the end of the adventure.

The more modern game players dream about being beyond human. They expect to be so 'good and perfect' that noting can touch them and they can defeat anything. Again, Neo is the perfect example as he is invincible. They expect to be at full power when they fight the big bad guy.

For one thing, this dichotomy you're making to bemoan "kids today" or however you view modern gamers is a false one. Elminster is darned old and he's someone's powertrip fantasy of being an uber-wizard. There've always been people who wanted to play kickass wizards who wielded magic beyond mortal ken or else there never would've been a magic-user class in the early days of D&D.

What I don't get though is why you can't see anything other than "ordinary" or "super"

Is there no room for exceptional people who aren't ubermensch? Are John McClane and Indiana Jones really ordinary to you? :smalltongue: Man survived an atomic explosion inside of a refrigerator.

Sucrose
2011-11-05, 12:37 PM
You can blame popular culture for the rise of the SuperHero.

A decade or two before, what made a 'hero' was different. Take just about any good character Clint Eastwood ever played, they were just 'average Joe' types, nothing overly special. Indiana Jones was not epic, he was just a guy. Even LotR only has 'normal folk' that are not too 'special'.

But recently, a 'hero' must be superhuman. No one liked the 'ordinary' hero. And you have seen the mass of (true)superhero movies. A great example is Neo from the Matrix, he is not just a guy, in the matrix he is God.


So just look at gaming. Back in the '80's it was a players dream to be like 'John Mclaine or 'Indiana Jones'. They expected to get beat up and bloody. They expected to be low on HP and everything else and still have to fight the big bad at the end of the adventure.

The more modern game players dream about being beyond human. They expect to be so 'good and perfect' that noting can touch them and they can defeat anything. Again, Neo is the perfect example as he is invincible. They expect to be at full power when they fight the big bad guy.


And then just look at superheros. The average superhero is a boring, invincible type. You know that Batman, Captain America, Thor, Superman and such are never going to loose a fight, or even slightly get hurt. (yes it has happen in some rare stories, but grab a random story and they can go to hell and back without a scratch).

Do look at superheroes. Observe that in the latest Iron Man movies, Tony Stark was forced to confront both his own mortality and his failings as a human being, in dealing with poisoning from the power source for the magnet that keeps shrapnel in his chest from killing him, and a sort of dark mirror into his own past with Whiplash, and the personification of everything wrong with his previous approach toward that which he built, Obadiah Stane. He was very nearly defeated by both, in addition to taking notable hits from many of the other enemies throughout the movie.

Observe The Dark Knight. Bruce Wayne is pushed to his ethical and physical limits by the entrance of the Joker. In the end, he loses the trust of Gotham City, watches a good friend fall to madness, is forced to kill in the defense of a child, and gets beaten down rather badly by a madman and some trained dogs, before he finally manages to gain the upper hand.

Captain America? Despite this being one of the most idealistic movies, there is the fact that he didn't manage to save Bucky, and he was forced to sacrifice his life, at least in the time he grew up in, to prevent the destruction of the eastern seaboard.

Even in Thor, a movie about a god, the character ultimately surrenders to the overwhelming forces pressing against him after he is forced to confront his own hubris, and only reclaims his full power by throwing away his life buying time in a fight against an opponent he could not hope to injure.

The most popular superhero media of the past decade have definitely had meaningful conflict. It just hasn't typically been with the mooks. Loss typically occurs when it would have meaning. (Though even when it's somewhat meaningless, it can happen. Bucky died fighting a Hydra mook with a heavy weapon.)

Similarly, it's true that players don't expect every scrap with a goblin to end with them bleeding half to death. That doesn't mean that they don't want to see meaningful conflict in their games.

Gamer Girl
2011-11-05, 12:39 PM
And you consider yourself to be in the fourth category you left out, don't you? :smallwink:

Not at all. I'm a type C. I like to be in the background and help, but get no reward.

And that is why I'm always a DM and never 'play' a character.

Shadowknight12
2011-11-05, 12:44 PM
Not at all. I'm a type C. I like to be in the background and help, but get no reward.

And that is why I'm always a DM and never 'play' a character.

Oh, my mistake, then!

I have to throw my hat with the "power fantasies are nothing new" crowd.

Ziegander
2011-11-05, 12:48 PM
I don't understand how anyone is expecting an "ordinary heroes" RPG to play. At level 1 you have a near-death experience trying to shoo and bat from your basement and by level 20 you've reached such heights of power that you are able to rally a militia against the "horde" of 10 goblins and their pack of wolves in the hopes that you'll drive them out of your village or die trying?

Morty
2011-11-05, 12:52 PM
I don't understand how anyone is expecting an "ordinary heroes" RPG to play. At level 1 you have a near-death experience trying to shoo and bat from your basement and by level 20 you've reached such heights of power that you are able to rally a militia against the "horde" of 10 goblins and their pack of wolves in the hopes that you'll drive them out of your village or die trying?

:smallconfused: I'm not sure why you're assuming every RPG out there has the same advancement curve as D&D or even uses levels.

Shadowknight12
2011-11-05, 12:57 PM
:smallconfused: I'm not sure why you're assuming every RPG out there has the same advancement curve as D&D or even uses levels.

I think he's using one of those fancy newfangled things called 'metaphors.' :smallwink:

Morty
2011-11-05, 12:58 PM
If it's a metaphor, I'm afraid it's not working for me.
Besides, it's not about what people "expect to work". Such RPGs already, you know, exist.

GolemsVoice
2011-11-05, 01:03 PM
A decade or two before, what made a 'hero' was different. Take just about any good character Clint Eastwood ever played, they were just 'average Joe' types, nothing overly special. Indiana Jones was not epic, he was just a guy. Even LotR only has 'normal folk' that are not too 'special'.

Have you ever watched an Indiana Jones movie and looked at all the stunts he pulled? Watch the movie again, and everytime he does something, imagine what system you'd use and what rolls he would have to make. Want to lose these Nazis in the narrow streets of some oriental town? Driving roll. Want to steer your plane so that your pursuers crash into the zeppelin hanging above the lake? Piloting roll. Want to snatch the Macguffin out of von Bösherr's fiendish grasp and jump onto the revolving stone thingy to escape? Two athletic rolls, both with a significant malus. What, you "wanted to make things up as you go, and therefore have only minmal (if any) skill in Pilot (Aircraft)? Well, too bad then, you crash and burn."

Thing is, while Indiana Jones may seem like an ordinary hero, because he has no obvious superpowers like a magic sword or superstrength, the things he regularly does are far from "ordinary human".

Ziegander
2011-11-05, 01:08 PM
If it's a metaphor, I'm afraid it's not working for me.
Besides, it's not about what people "expect to work". Such RPGs already, you know, exist.

It was an example. One that everyone understands, a common language if you will, so that a conversation can be started.

Okay, so such RPGs already exist. How do they work?

Frozen_Feet
2011-11-05, 01:12 PM
I don't understand how anyone is expecting an "ordinary heroes" RPG to play.

Firefighters rescuing people from a fire. Modern day soldiers on a modern day front fighting modern day enemies. A drama game where the players are trying to find out a missing relative who's fallen to depression. So on and so forth.

Morty
2011-11-05, 01:15 PM
Of those systems, I've played two: Warhammer Fantasy RPG and Hunter: the Vigil. I also played GURPS at 100-300 power points, but briefly. I'll base my comparion off them.
They work simply - they have a much flatter advancement curve than D&D. 1st level D&D characters are strong but not superhuman and they break human limits at level 10 at most - usually earlier. By level 20, they're earth-shatteringly powerful.
A character in a low-powered system starts somewhat competent - it depends on the system - and becomes more competent with experience, but much more slowly and never reaches the level D&D characters reach. My grave robber in WFRP, as he gains experience, will become a better thief, but he'll never pull off stunts D&D rogues do.
Or, what Frozen Feet said. Either way, it really seems obvious to me.

GolemsVoice
2011-11-05, 01:19 PM
A drama game where the players are trying to find out a missing relative who's fallen to depression. So on and so forth.

All of which, honestly, doesn't sound very appealing for me. The third could be part of a larger game of mystery, but the first two, well. There's a reason there are no "job simulator" P&P games out there that I know of. Because after you've doused all the flames by rolling well, or just rolling long enough, what's there to do?

Ziegander
2011-11-05, 01:31 PM
Firefighters rescuing people from a fire. Modern day soldiers on a modern day front fighting modern day enemies. A drama game where the players are trying to find out a missing relative who's fallen to depression. So on and so forth.

I understand how a less "action-y" game can work for ordinary heroes, especially if we accept some stretching of the definition of hero, but those first two examples don't sound very fun to me. A whole game where the only thing I do is firefight? Or the second, where I'm a soldier, how do you work out the math so that I'm not constantly being killed? Or is that just part of what the "non-supers" side of the argument expects and enjoys (rolling new characters often and being less attached to any specific character)?


A character in a low-powered system starts somewhat competent - it depends on the system - and becomes more competent with experience, but much more slowly and never reaches the level D&D characters reach. My grave robber in WFRP, as he gains experience, will become a better thief, but he'll never pull off stunts D&D rogues do.
Or, what Frozen Feet said. Either way, it really seems obvious to me.

So, another approach is to just have a "low-powered" system? How does the math work out? I understand that you're claiming that WFRPG has a flatter character advancement, but are you not still expected to fight monsters several times a week? I have a hard time believing that Warhammer of all things enables "ordinary heroes."

I've played Marvel RPG a couple times at low stone count (it's a point advancement system similar to GURPS), but those times I did the game was much more RP focused than on any game mechanics at all, because most of the "things we could do" were too undeveloped to get any success out of. Of course, those weren't great games and had hamfisted GMs.

navar100
2011-11-05, 01:33 PM
You get three types of people:

Type A:They want to be the big super hero. They want to be Batman, Sherlock Holmes, Hercules or such. They want to be the big star and get all the attention.

Type B:They want to be a hero, but don't want to do it all by themselves. In short they want to be a sidekick. They want to be Robin, Wattson, Ilioles or such.

Type C:They want to be the back ground support hero. They want to be Alfred, The chief of police, or a sage/scientist. They don't want to be noticed as much as they want to do a job.

As you might have guessed the Type A folks are the most loud and vocal. That is why you see so many posts here all about super human characters.

Type B's don't post a lot, and mostly luck
Type C's only really post about rules and such and never about other stuff.

Where as when Type B or C do post about Type A, they sometimes deride Type A with an air of superiority because they don't need to be special or have high abilities or super powers to be a hero.

Despite that, there is still nothing wrong with wanting to play Type A; it is still not a sin to be such. If you can't stand players who want to play Type A, tough noogies.

Yeah, I'm Type A. I have no problems with Types B or C. I do have a problem with Types B or C claiming to be a better player precisely because they aren't Type A.

Morty
2011-11-05, 01:34 PM
All of which, honestly, doesn't sound very appealing for me. The third could be part of a larger game of mystery, but the first two, well. There's a reason there are no "job simulator" P&P games out there that I know of. Because after you've doused all the flames by rolling well, or just rolling long enough, what's there to do?

*sigh* I do hope you realize that while this might not sound appealing to you, it does to other people. Which is the whole point of this thread. Unless you want to tell us we're wrong for enjoying what we do.



So, another approach is to just have a "low-powered" system? How does the math work out? I understand that you're claiming that WFRPG has a flatter character advancement, but are you not still expected to fight monsters several times a week? I have a hard time believing that Warhammer of all things enables "ordinary heroes."

Not really, no. The Old World is presented differently in WFRP than it is in WFB - from a much more personal perspective. Combat is deadly, so you only fight if you have to. Which, incidentally, holds true for many realistic, low-powered RPGs where the protagonists are ordinary.

GolemsVoice
2011-11-05, 01:45 PM
*sigh* I do hope you realize that while this might not sound appealing to you, it does to other people. Which is the whole point of this thread. Unless you want to tell us we're wrong for enjoying what we do.

And I hope that, from reading my previous posts, you realize that I have more than once said I'm fine with whatever people play. I just try to understand what people find appealing about this, and why they would go to the length of dedicating an entire game to it. And because my first reaction was a strong feeling of "I really wouldn't like such a game", I thought I'd go ahead and ask. After all, I would say that this idea of a roleplaying game won't appeal to most gamers. If that needs to be said again: that doesn't make it bad, but a very unusual definition of "hero".

flumphy
2011-11-05, 01:47 PM
*sigh* I do hope you realize that while this might not sound appealing to you, it does to other people. Which is the whole point of this thread. Unless you want to tell us we're wrong for enjoying what we do.

Several people in this thread, however, seems to be positing that it's wrong not to enjoy them, or that those who enjoy other types of games are less creative. And that's equally wrong.

Ziegander
2011-11-05, 01:52 PM
Not really, no. The Old World is presented differently in WFRP than it is in WFB - from a much more personal perspective. Combat is deadly, so you only fight if you have to. Which, incidentally, holds true for many realistic, low-powered RPGs where the protagonists are ordinary.

Do you gain XP for non-combat activities?

Morty
2011-11-05, 02:02 PM
And I hope that, from reading my previous posts, you realize that I have more than once said I'm fine with whatever people play. I just try to understand what people find appealing about this, and why they would go to the length of dedicating an entire game to it. And because my first reaction was a strong feeling of "I really wouldn't like such a game", I thought I'd go ahead and ask. After all, I would say that this idea of a roleplaying game won't appeal to most gamers. If that needs to be said again: that doesn't make it bad, but a very unusual definition of "hero".

There's no simple answer to that. People like what they like. Speaking for myself, I just prefer to play people with down-to-earth capabilities. I find them more entertaining to roleplay and easier to identify with.


Several people in this thread, however, seems to be positing that it's wrong not to enjoy them, or that those who enjoy other types of games are less creative. And that's equally wrong.

Well, yes. But as far as I'm aware, I haven't said that, at least not intentionally.


Do you gain XP for non-combat activities?

Yes. In WFRP, you get XP at the end of a game session for challenges surmounted and objectives accomplished, whatever form they take. D&D is the only system I'm aware of that gives XP for each enemy defeated.

Ziegander
2011-11-05, 02:06 PM
In WFRP, you get XP at the end of a game session for challenges surmounted and objectives accomplished, whatever form they take.

Ah, so how does that work? Is there a formula used to determine how much XP characters should be awarded? What exactly constitutes a challenge in WFRP and what constitutes an objective? How would one qualify as having surmounted or accomplished them respectively?

(I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm trying to understand the game is all.)

Coidzor
2011-11-05, 02:08 PM
Well, yes. But as far as I'm aware, I haven't said that, at least not intentionally.

That's kind of how your tone and the OP's tone have been coming across to me, tbh.

Was kind of confusing in contrast to your actual content.

Anderlith
2011-11-05, 02:16 PM
Hmm, this seems to have exploded whilst I was away. I would like to quote & rebuttal a good half of you, but that will create a mountain of tl;dr.

When I say that I want to play a hero instead of a superhero. I don't mean I want to play Joe the Plummer, I don't want to play a Commoner (as a class). I mean someone like McClane or Indiana Jones, or if you watch the show, the Winchesters. I want to play a person that is within the believable bounds of human ability, maybe have one supernatural ability (bonus if it has a price). I remember watching Buffy & thinking, wow Giles is a badass & he's an old man. Willow is a witch but she has little control of it. & Xander is only a competent fighter of evil, does that stop him? No. I fight the treats close to home & every once in a while I go toe to toe with an elder evil, but with enough planing & moxy I'll come out on top.

Seriously, I think having super abilities in games lowers the amount of scheming that could be done, because people are more willing to hit the "win" button instead of setting up a three phase plan to snare the werewolf, & stab it with a silver spearhead.

Anderlith
2011-11-05, 02:17 PM
Ah, so how does that work? Is there a formula used to determine how much XP characters should be awarded? What exactly constitutes a challenge in WFRP and what constitutes an objective? How would one qualify as having surmounted or accomplished them respectively?

(I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm trying to understand the game is all.)

Ever seen the XP guide to RIFTS? It's a a big long list of everything you can do to get XP, & the most potent XP rewards are from avoiding combat

Morty
2011-11-05, 02:19 PM
Ah, so how does that work? Is there a formula used to determine how much XP characters should be awarded? What exactly constitutes a challenge in WFRP and what constitutes an objective? How would one qualify as having surmounted or accomplished them respectively?

(I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm trying to understand the game is all.)

There are three approaches. One is abstract, in which you simply give a set amount of XP for each four hours of play. One is narrative, where you give XP at each dramatic "chapter" in a story. The third one is detailed, and most similar to D&D. There, the GM divides a session into scenes, decides how difficult each one is and gives XP accordingly.


That's kind of how your tone and the OP's tone have been coming across to me, tbh.

Was kind of confusing in contrast to your actual content.

I guess I might have come off as a bit arrogant. I do that sometimes.

jseah
2011-11-05, 02:49 PM
Okay, so such RPGs already exist. How do they work?
I ran one where the players were put in a fantasy setting that was just beginning to undergo the industrial revolution. They were going to deal with the social upheaval that would generate (lots of unemployed people) and the various problems that go with a highly stratified society when a new class of rich comes along. (as well as the inevitable riots when the huge weaving industry goes out of a job)
Some players were town mayors on another continent and one player was captain of a merchant ship.

Loads and loads of talking.
And some skill checks (one player was a blacksmith who had to finish a key part of the gnomes' magic flywheel).
The occasional kidnapping, thief taking and caravan escort. Most of which were touched in one way or another by the upcoming magic powered flywheel.

Some key spells, magic items and pure diplomacy. The blacksmith was on his way to becoming a minor landholder by the time the game ended due to RL issues. (recruiting laid-off weavers and trying to carve out some farmland)

-------------------------------------

Or the strange mystery investigation I proposed in the 4E forum that would need players to investigate both a string of strange events as well as conduct key experiments/observations on how the magic system worked.

That one is just a game idea. Haven't had time to try running it.

Ziegander
2011-11-05, 02:55 PM
The disconnect I'm seeing in this thread is that it seems that some posters feel that the "pro superhero" camp is arguing that mundane games can't exist or can't be fun. Meanwhile, it seems that some posters in the "pro mundanes" camp are arguing that non-heroic games can be fun even though this is supposed to be a thread about heroes, or so I thought.

So, I think we need to have the OPs definition of a hero clearly outlined for us to have any sort of meaningful discussion on the topic. Or maybe we should collectively talk about what the Hero concept means to us and eventually work toward a definition we can all agree on.

jseah
2011-11-05, 03:07 PM
Or maybe we should collectively talk about what the Hero concept means to us and eventually work toward a definition we can all agree on.
A hero, to me, means someone who does something that other people agree is heroic.

It's a social construct, in other words. It depends on what people think is worthy of praise and "looking up" to.

Which isn't necessarily self-sacrifice or doing very hard things.

Hubert
2011-11-05, 03:15 PM
My 2 cents in this interesting discussion.


Ah, so how does that work? Is there a formula used to determine how much XP characters should be awarded? What exactly constitutes a challenge in WFRP and what constitutes an objective? How would one qualify as having surmounted or accomplished them respectively?

I don't know the game Morty is talking about, but from my personal experience with games of this kind it's often the GM's call. Usually there are guidelines like "never more than 20 XP at a time" and "at least 10 XP if the PJs faced a life-threatening situation", but otherwise the GM decides the XP amount on a case by case basis.

Also, having superpowers and being super-powerful do not always come together. In INS/MV for instance, the PJs are demons or angels living undercover in the human world and trying to advance the goals of their faction. As supernatural beings, the PJs have various special abilities, and are nigh unkillable by human weapons. However, they must respect the "masquerade": if they drag too much attention (by using their flashy powers in front of many humans), the other side (or even their side) comes with the big guns to kick their newbies' asses back in hell/heaven. Bottomline: in INS/MV starting a fight against regular cops can be really risky, even for demons. (But it is a very funny game :-)

Anderlith
2011-11-05, 03:49 PM
The disconnect I'm seeing in this thread is that it seems that some posters feel that the "pro superhero" camp is arguing that mundane games can't exist or can't be fun. Meanwhile, it seems that some posters in the "pro mundanes" camp are arguing that non-heroic games can be fun even though this is supposed to be a thread about heroes, or so I thought.

So, I think we need to have the OPs definition of a hero clearly outlined for us to have any sort of meaningful discussion on the topic. Or maybe we should collectively talk about what the Hero concept means to us and eventually work toward a definition we can all agree on.

I think I already defined hero by my standard. If not I apologize. Note that I prefer the term "adventurer" but people seem confused when I say it.

1)The player characters
2)A person who can "get the job done" (through various means)

VanBuren
2011-11-05, 03:55 PM
You can blame popular culture for the rise of the SuperHero.

A decade or two before, what made a 'hero' was different. Take just about any good character Clint Eastwood ever played, they were just 'average Joe' types, nothing overly special. Indiana Jones was not epic, he was just a guy. Even LotR only has 'normal folk' that are not too 'special'.

But recently, a 'hero' must be superhuman. No one liked the 'ordinary' hero. And you have seen the mass of (true)superhero movies. A great example is Neo from the Matrix, he is not just a guy, in the matrix he is God.


So just look at gaming. Back in the '80's it was a players dream to be like 'John Mclaine or 'Indiana Jones'. They expected to get beat up and bloody. They expected to be low on HP and everything else and still have to fight the big bad at the end of the adventure.

The more modern game players dream about being beyond human. They expect to be so 'good and perfect' that noting can touch them and they can defeat anything. Again, Neo is the perfect example as he is invincible. They expect to be at full power when they fight the big bad guy.


And then just look at superheros. The average superhero is a boring, invincible type. You know that Batman, Captain America, Thor, Superman and such are never going to loose a fight, or even slightly get hurt. (yes it has happen in some rare stories, but grab a random story and they can go to hell and back without a scratch).

Eh, I think it goes back even farther than that. In Greek mythology, heroes were just better than normal people. Usually do to some kind of partial divinity, but better nonetheless.

GolemsVoice
2011-11-05, 04:07 PM
Or the strange mystery investigation I proposed in the 4E forum that would need players to investigate both a string of strange events as well as conduct key experiments/observations on how the magic system worked.

That sounds great, actually, the only question is, why use 4E? I assume there won't be that much fighting, so wouldn't other systems that are more oriented towards social things work better? Using 4E (if it's mostly like 3E) for a game focused on investigation is like using guns to open locks. Possible, but a bit odd.

jseah
2011-11-05, 04:25 PM
That sounds great, actually, the only question is, why use 4E? I assume there won't be that much fighting, so wouldn't other systems that are more oriented towards social things work better? Using 4E (if it's mostly like 3E) for a game focused on investigation is like using guns to open locks. Possible, but a bit odd.
Ye-es. That was the precise response I got.

However, 4E has a more robust power structure than 3E (which is all over the place).
Amusingly, when considering what changes I'd have to do to translate a brand new magic system into each system's language, 4E was less work.
You can define effects in 4E with various keywords and their interactions can be worked out by the players. You'd still need that paragraph that 3E has, but at least it won't be a page long.

Basically:
In both, all magic items disappear, all magic using classes disappear. No rituals.
In 4E, the magic system consists of various one-shot items with predefined effects, each of which could be written up like a daily power with an added paragraph.
In 3E, I'd have to write a bunch of new spells for one-shot items, each with vastly more parameters than in 4E.

And no, I can't steal the existing spells except for ideas. The magic system requires certain little things which the mystery can't be solved without.

Specifically, the magic system views the world as a computer would look at the world of an MMORPG on a harddisk (think massively distributed computing cluster). Space doesn't mean anything compared to information and relations between objects.
Working this out is key to solving the mystery as most of the events are unexplainable without this revelation.

GolemsVoice
2011-11-05, 04:31 PM
I admit, I don't know much about 4E, so that's that.

jseah
2011-11-05, 04:42 PM
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212583

Eventually concluded that D&D is bad for this. Especially since I will have to overturn the assumption of frequent combat and the assumption that the player characters are 'special' (which they are not, at least to start with).

FatJose
2011-11-05, 04:43 PM
Eh, I think it goes back even farther than that. In Greek mythology, heroes were just better than normal people. Usually do to some kind of partial divinity, but better nonetheless.

Greek mythology is awful, though.

There are no "heroes" in Greek myth. Everyone's just a douche working for the wishes of a divine douche. The entire point of Greek myth is to tell people to know their place and remain in the dirt.

Maybe that was okay then but that is not what heroes are. Look at actual heroes for the definition, not characters in old religions who only exist to put the fear of god(s) in the common man.

flumphy
2011-11-05, 06:23 PM
Greek mythology is awful, though.

There are no "heroes" in Greek myth. Everyone's just a douche working for the wishes of a divine douche. The entire point of Greek myth is to tell people to know their place and remain in the dirt.

Maybe that was okay then but that is not what heroes are. Look at actual heroes for the definition, not characters in old religions who only exist to put the fear of god(s) in the common man.

"Hero" is a complex word. One of its many definitions is literally "guy who is exceptionally powerful." You don't need to be a nice person, or even a good person, to be a hero in the mythological sense. It is, in fact, possible for a hero to act as a villain. That happens frequently both in Greek myth and recent fiction. (See the Fable series and Dr. Horrible's Singalong Blog for a couple very obvious examples.)

In my experience, it is this mythological definition that is typically meant in the context of gaming. After all, "hero" is much easier to type out than "powerful protagonist who may or may not be of questionable morality."

navar100
2011-11-05, 08:51 PM
Indiana Jones is a hero. He's smart, fast, brave, and a bit reckless. He doesn't have extraordinary powers and often makes errors in judgment. He makes do with what he has and improvises.

Superman is a hero. He's strong, fast, honest, and has whatever "magic" power is needed for the plot. Despite kryptonite he's invincible. Compared to him Indiana Jones is a paramecium. Takes nothing away from Indiana Jones; it just means Superman can do with ease what Indiana has to struggle. Superman has great power. He tackles problems of equal greatness.

Indiana Jones has to stop the Nazis from having an ancient relic. Superman has to stop earthquakes. They're both heroic. The only difference is the scale of "power".

king.com
2011-11-05, 09:07 PM
I don't understand how anyone is expecting an "ordinary heroes" RPG to play. At level 1 you have a near-death experience trying to shoo and bat from your basement and by level 20 you've reached such heights of power that you are able to rally a militia against the "horde" of 10 goblins and their pack of wolves in the hopes that you'll drive them out of your village or die trying?

Take Dark Hersey, you an ordinary human being in a universe where genetically engineered super soldiers regularly get crushed. A single bullet has the potentially to kill a max XP character and combat is a fairly large aspect of the system. The game is broken up into Investigation, Action and Horror as your characters slow go insane or become tainted by the evils they are tasked with hunting down. You get XP per session and are given bonuses relative to events or scenario goals. These can range from discovering the "who done it" to actually putting down the planet wide rebellion.

Your character does not 'level up' per say but instead spends the XP on you skills and talents until they have a spent a certain amount in their class and they are granted access to another bracket of skills and talents from which they can repeat the process.


The disconnect I'm seeing in this thread is that it seems that some posters feel that the "pro superhero" camp is arguing that mundane games can't exist or can't be fun. Meanwhile, it seems that some posters in the "pro mundanes" camp are arguing that non-heroic games can be fun even though this is supposed to be a thread about heroes, or so I thought.

One thing I would like to point out, a lot of people find the idea of optimizing to be synonymous with work, I know i personally do. D&D is a game that absolutely murders you if you treat it this way (if anyone else actually optimizes), everyone will outperform you and your left feeling utterly without purpose. A lot of systems with low power don't focus too much on optimizing as a factor, focusing the play not on the decisions made beforehand but entirely on what you currently have available.

I don't collect magic because the idea of building a deck puts me to sleep but I enjoy playing the game. Same idea with roleplaying games, playing is great, sifting through books to build a character of a high enough performance so that my character can do more than just stand and watch is not fun. I wonder how many others feel the same way.

Anderlith
2011-11-05, 09:18 PM
Warhammer is a bit to fatalist for my tastes. I like the feel of Shadowrun. You don't have to combat if you don't want to, & given the right circumstances anyone can die (even dragon's giving inauguratal speaches). Yet you still have mages that can do awesome stuff, & streetsams & Phys Ad.s tearing up the place

Anderlith
2011-11-05, 09:20 PM
Indiana Jones is a hero. He's smart, fast, brave, and a bit reckless. He doesn't have extraordinary powers and often makes errors in judgment. He makes do with what he has and improvises.

Superman is a hero. He's strong, fast, honest, and has whatever "magic" power is needed for the plot. Despite kryptonite he's invincible. Compared to him Indiana Jones is a paramecium. Takes nothing away from Indiana Jones; it just means Superman can do with ease what Indiana has to struggle. Superman has great power. He tackles problems of equal greatness.

Indiana Jones has to stop the Nazis from having an ancient relic. Superman has to stop earthquakes. They're both heroic. The only difference is the scale of "power".
Kind of the whole point of this thread. I feel singled out because I'd rather play as Indiana & everyone else wants to jump to Superman levels of power.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-11-05, 09:22 PM
Indiana Jones has to stop the Nazis from having an ancient relic. Superman has to stop earthquakes. They're both heroic. The only difference is the scale of "power".

Aye. In my earlier post I mentioned Percy Jackson and the Olympians. Do you know why he bore the Curse of Achilles? Because his enemies were an army of monsters and the frickin' lord of time. He still lost horribly to Kronos (it. Is. Chronos! There's no copyright on the correct spelling, Riordan!), only survived because Kronos was toying with him long enough for his mortal host (how he came back from Tartarus was by having someone be his host) to regain control of his body long enough to redeem himself by stabbing his armpit (his Achilles Heel). Percy did, however, manage to beat the sun Titan by continually battering his flames out with a mini hurricane.

FatJose
2011-11-05, 09:49 PM
"Hero" is a complex word. One of its many definitions is literally "guy who is exceptionally powerful." You don't need to be a nice person, or even a good person, to be a hero in the mythological sense. It is, in fact, possible for a hero to act as a villain. That happens frequently both in Greek myth and recent fiction. (See the Fable series and Dr. Horrible's Singalong Blog for a couple very obvious examples.)

In my experience, it is this mythological definition that is typically meant in the context of gaming. After all, "hero" is much easier to type out than "powerful protagonist who may or may not be of questionable morality."

In origin, but I think that's more of a...less than honest explanation. Not by you, by historians. These myths were someone's religion. Those heroes may have the precedence of being superhuman, but that is because a huge part of the Greek religion was the idea that Gods were always right. Whenever a God rapes a woman it was her own fault. This was an actual belief by the people. So, while modern people would see the story of Medusa as unfair and tragic, the people of that time saw an evil seductress getting what she was asking for. Fast-forward a couple thousand years and now Medusa is an evil, man-hating seducer. It isn't just Disney. People have been re-interpreting and "forgetting" bits of Greek myth so its heroes can match our current morals for a long time. Still, in context of the time period, they were "good" people who did "good" deeds. Maybe not exactly good, but they were loyal to whatever Gods they served and were role models to the people of faith.

Many people assumed that this thread refers specifically to D&D and that D&D assumes that its heroes are a cut above the rest. If that's the case, Gygax must have just skimmed LotR because the fellowship had every kind of hero present. You had a demi-god, a super-human, hardened veterans of war, naturally talented novices and a couple of "just some guy"s. All heroic, all completely legit heroes in their own rights.

As for me, I just call 'em Protagonists. They can have a more accurate label once the game starts. Referring to them as heroes from the get-go is both undeserved for 1st levels and gives the strong suggestion that I don't want them being villainous or neutral.

paddyfool
2011-11-05, 10:22 PM
Indiana Jones is a hero. He's smart, fast, brave, and a bit reckless. He doesn't have extraordinary powers and often makes errors in judgment. He makes do with what he has and improvises.

Superman is a hero. He's strong, fast, honest, and has whatever "magic" power is needed for the plot. Despite kryptonite he's invincible. Compared to him Indiana Jones is a paramecium. Takes nothing away from Indiana Jones; it just means Superman can do with ease what Indiana has to struggle. Superman has great power. He tackles problems of equal greatness.

Indiana Jones has to stop the Nazis from having an ancient relic. Superman has to stop earthquakes. They're both heroic. The only difference is the scale of "power".

This. (Personally, I enjoy gaming at either power level).

All too much of the rest of this thread is just more of the old "Oh no, your fun is bad fun." "No, my fun is good fun, your fun is bad fun."

The Boz
2011-11-06, 08:29 AM
Both groups should try some new experiences.
You enjoy playing tall, broad-shouldered, square-jawed heroes of legend that accomplish feats of epic valor on a daily basis? Talk your group into playing Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay or Call of Cthulhu.
You like being the common farmer who stops a goblin invasion with nothing but a pitchfork and enough balls to hold one? Ask if you could play Exalted next time.
After you've done both for at least a month or two, then you can talk.

Hello, my name is Boz, and I enjoy all playstyles equally.

The Glyphstone
2011-11-06, 08:34 AM
This. (Personally, I enjoy gaming at either power level).

All too much of the rest of this thread is just more of the old "Oh no, your fun is bad fun." "No, my fun is good fun, your fun is bad fun."

And both can be enjoyable. The only time it's a problem is when Indiana Jones joins the Justice League, or when Superman visits the Temple of Doom with Willie and Short Round. Characters need to be scaled to their party members, else the adventure is thrown out of whack.

GolemsVoice
2011-11-06, 08:54 AM
Still, people mustn't forget that Indiana Jones still accomplishes feats that are, in a way, more than human. With him, however, it's not a visible superpower, but rather the power of him being the star of the movie, or let's call it "luck". Thus, in a game, you'd either have to roll really well most of the time, or you'd have stats good enough to pull things like Indy does regularly. I'd say most "ordinary" folks couldn't.

Ravens_cry
2011-11-06, 09:08 AM
You know, characters with super powers are far older than superheroes, comics, print and possibly written language. Certainly older than a written form of some of then languages of the cultures they arose from.
Lets see, a man who is completely invulnerable except a weak spot. No, not him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman). Him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles) and also him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigurd), Sigurd and Achilles. And that's just some Western examples.
Or how about crazy half breeds that make no sense, a staple of D&D jokes? Hardly new if tone of the oldest known stories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh#Versions_of_the_epic) is about a two-thirds god, one third man man.

paddyfool
2011-11-06, 09:08 AM
And both can be enjoyable. The only time it's a problem is when Indiana Jones joins the Justice League, or when Superman visits the Temple of Doom with Willie and Short Round. Characters need to be scaled to their party members, else the adventure is thrown out of whack.

Absolutely. To use another example, I'm very happy to be playing at an Avengers power level, a Marvel Knights power level, a Howling Commandos power level or even a "rookie police/military trainees thrown in way out of their depth and have to use their wits to survive in a world with big gribbly things" power level (although in the latter case, I'd appreciate a stack of character sheets). But I'm not so keen on an Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw) situation.

I do, however, find games that deliberately attempt to model groups with varying power levels (e.g. the Buffy & Angel RPGs) interesting, even if the only time I've played Angel, we subverted the whole idea by having the entire group be Veterans.

Jay R
2011-11-06, 12:40 PM
A friend of mine, a top-level fighter in the SCA, was starting a new D&D game, and had a first level fighter. The party found themselves facing an Ogre, and he suddenly put down his pencil and said, "I quit. Why should I try to entertain myself by pretending to be somebody who is right now quivering in his boots wishing he were me?" He soon switched to Champions, so he could pretend to fly, or throw cars, or do other things he cannot really do.

I understand and respect that point of view.

On the other hand, I can play characters at all levels. I have played, among others, high-level D&D characters, a starting squire in Pendragon, a simple Parisian thief in Flashing Blades, and characters in Hero System games from 100 points (Normal) to 350 points (super-heroic).

And the most powerful character I ever played was from Toon - Ragnar Rabbit, the Hanna-Barbarian.

But you don't take a normal Parisian thief against a family of Red Dragons, or a 17th level Wizard against two street thugs in a Parisian alley.

Coidzor
2011-11-06, 05:44 PM
One thing I would like to point out, a lot of people find the idea of optimizing to be synonymous with work, I know i personally do. D&D is a game that absolutely murders you if you treat it this way (if anyone else actually optimizes), everyone will outperform you and your left feeling utterly without purpose. A lot of systems with low power don't focus too much on optimizing as a factor, focusing the play not on the decisions made beforehand but entirely on what you currently have available.

I don't collect magic because the idea of building a deck puts me to sleep but I enjoy playing the game. Same idea with roleplaying games, playing is great, sifting through books to build a character of a high enough performance so that my character can do more than just stand and watch is not fun. I wonder how many others feel the same way.

And D&D is not the only system which is high powered, so saying 3.X or AD&D depend upon the player knowing the game in order to overcome the obstacles before them is a criticism of the system independent from the issue of whether people find high-powered games enjoyable and why.

D&D is not the only high powered system.

VanBuren
2011-11-06, 05:55 PM
Greek mythology is awful, though.

There are no "heroes" in Greek myth. Everyone's just a douche working for the wishes of a divine douche. The entire point of Greek myth is to tell people to know their place and remain in the dirt.

Maybe that was okay then but that is not what heroes are. Look at actual heroes for the definition, not characters in old religions who only exist to put the fear of god(s) in the common man.

Except that they are heroes by the classical definition. It's absurd to claim--using a later definition of the word--that it is inappropriate to call such characters by the very word created specifically to describe them.

Mnemnosyne
2011-11-06, 06:49 PM
Indiana Jones is a hero. He's smart, fast, brave, and a bit reckless. He doesn't have extraordinary powers and often makes errors in judgment. He makes do with what he has and improvises.

Superman is a hero. He's strong, fast, honest, and has whatever "magic" power is needed for the plot. Despite kryptonite he's invincible. Compared to him Indiana Jones is a paramecium. Takes nothing away from Indiana Jones; it just means Superman can do with ease what Indiana has to struggle. Superman has great power. He tackles problems of equal greatness.

Indiana Jones has to stop the Nazis from having an ancient relic. Superman has to stop earthquakes. They're both heroic. The only difference is the scale of "power".
Indiana Jones and Superman are both invincible. They're written by the writer(s) and will succeed where the story requires them to succeed, and fail where the story requires them to fail. Examples from static fiction are good for characterization and story, but not a great example of power level because in such a work, the writer is going to have the characters succeed where he wants them to. If the writer is skilled, we will be tricked into thinking, at least for a brief time while we're watching/reading it, that chance and skill and such other things played a part.

In my relatively limited experience with systems other than D&D, particularly 'low power' systems, the DM often 'fudges' dice rolls much, much more often than with a group of D&D players that build characters of reasonable power. This pushes the game more toward being a static work of fiction, since the DM keeps the characters alive unless he deems the moment would be 'dramatic' for them to die, or something of that nature. This may not be a universal observation for everyone's games, but it seems to be a definite influence in any game where characters can die easily, and the mechanics of it do not give them much ability to determine for themselves whether they will live or die.

FatJose
2011-11-06, 07:02 PM
Except that they are heroes by the classical definition. It's absurd to claim--using a later definition of the word--that it is inappropriate to call such characters by the very word created specifically to describe them.

Absurd? Learn more than one language and see for yourself. Two words that originate from the same old tongue could be spelled almost exactly the same but have completely different meanings. We're speaking English. The English word "hero" doesn't need powers attached and it came into the english vocabulary long after it lost the whole "godly" aspect. When speaking of D&D, the core races and PC classes in it may be a cut above the norm but they aren't the Greek definition at all. You have to be a Demigod to be a Greek hero. It's not enough to have 10 more points to spend on creation, you have to have wings, or +20 to Strength, or Eye Laser Spell-like Ability Infinity/Day. No one uses that definition for hero anymore with the exception of any story or game that is specifically about Greek mythology.

Anderlith
2011-11-06, 07:50 PM
Indiana Jones and Superman are both invincible. They're written by the writer(s) and will succeed where the story requires them to succeed, and fail where the story requires them to fail. Examples from static fiction are good for characterization and story, but not a great example of power level because in such a work, the writer is going to have the characters succeed where he wants them to. If the writer is skilled, we will be tricked into thinking, at least for a brief time while we're watching/reading it, that chance and skill and such other things played a part.

In my relatively limited experience with systems other than D&D, particularly 'low power' systems, the DM often 'fudges' dice rolls much, much more often than with a group of D&D players that build characters of reasonable power. This pushes the game more toward being a static work of fiction, since the DM keeps the characters alive unless he deems the moment would be 'dramatic' for them to die, or something of that nature. This may not be a universal observation for everyone's games, but it seems to be a definite influence in any game where characters can die easily, and the mechanics of it do not give them much ability to determine for themselves whether they will live or die.

Okay, this thread is soooo far of topic. Lets not argue the term hero. call them PC's, call them adventurer (my favorite) or whatever.
As for works of fiction; that is what they are, they only get to do things that the writer writes about. But you can judge their powerlevel. (Superman's is over 9000!)

Mnemnosyne
2011-11-06, 08:25 PM
Okay, this thread is soooo far of topic. Lets not argue the term hero. call them PC's, call them adventurer (my favorite) or whatever.
As for works of fiction; that is what they are, they only get to do things that the writer writes about. But you can judge their powerlevel. (Superman's is over 9000!)
What I meant by static fiction is stories that are written entirely as the writer(s) choose, as opposed to RPG's which generally are non-static, having some or much of the determination of the story left up to a partial element of chance, weighted by character skills. In an RPG, sometimes things just happen differently than how the players expect them, and this is something that cannot exist in a work of static fiction, since everything in static fiction occurs precisely as the writer intends.

As for judging a level of power, not really. They don't obey any rules that determine precisely how powerful they are. There have been many times in comics that various characters 'fight' and some reason or another is written in to prevent the obvious loser from losing. There is no system of rules that is followed to determine what Superman's exact abilities are, indeed they change from one writer to another. He doesn't have a Strength score, he has whatever amount of strength the particular writer wants him to have in order to solve the problem of the day, or fail to solve it and have to find another option.

If we're talking about whether a character is superior to their peers as far as the game goes, if the game expects there to be a good deal of combat, and for that combat to be impartial, and expects the characters to survive for very long, the characters must necessarily be much more powerful than their opponents in general, because otherwise they will not survive long. Therefore, either the opponents must be exceedingly weak compared to the average person in the world (in which case, why are heroes even needed?) or the opponents must be stronger than the average person, therefore requiring the player characters to be much stronger.

This ties somewhat into flavor. If mechanically, combat requires the players to be stronger than their opponents, and the opponents to be stronger than the average person, it is very difficult to build a flavor where the characters do not also feel vastly superior, because they are.

Again, my experience with systems other than D&D is somewhat limited, but those times I have played with low power non-D&D systems, where player characters are not considerably more powerful than the average person in the world, I have inevitably noticed the DM needing to be more careful not to kill the player characters. Either that, or death tends to be more common, and often not where it is particularly interesting and fun.

Most of this tends to apply to a game where combat is the, or at least a, primary focus. If combat is shifted away from being a primary focus, then the player characters are able to seem much more mundane, since they do not have to be stronger than their opponents because combat will be rare. In this case it tends to simply be the fact that they happened to get into a particular situation that makes them the protagonists, not any inherent quality about themselves.

navar100
2011-11-06, 08:55 PM
Indiana Jones and Superman are both invincible. They're written by the writer(s) and will succeed where the story requires them to succeed, and fail where the story requires them to fail. Examples from static fiction are good for characterization and story, but not a great example of power level because in such a work, the writer is going to have the characters succeed where he wants them to. If the writer is skilled, we will be tricked into thinking, at least for a brief time while we're watching/reading it, that chance and skill and such other things played a part.

In my relatively limited experience with systems other than D&D, particularly 'low power' systems, the DM often 'fudges' dice rolls much, much more often than with a group of D&D players that build characters of reasonable power. This pushes the game more toward being a static work of fiction, since the DM keeps the characters alive unless he deems the moment would be 'dramatic' for them to die, or something of that nature. This may not be a universal observation for everyone's games, but it seems to be a definite influence in any game where characters can die easily, and the mechanics of it do not give them much ability to determine for themselves whether they will live or die.

It's called verisimilitude. By your definition every character everywhere is invincible until such time as the author wants them to fail. All discussion is then meaningless. To have any context you need to ignore the fact they're fictional characters and just consider their individual universe.

Indiana Jones is imperfect, often defeated many times before finally saving the day, with the occasional victory along the way. Sometimes, he's not even the one to do the saving; he's just smart enough to know to keep his eyes closed. To defeat Superman requires a less direct approach. It has to be something that isn't evil, criminal, or wrong, just something Superman personally wouldn't agree with. I'm not familiar with the comics to give an example, but I can from Ye Olde Lois & Clark tv show with Dean Cain where Lois willingly agrees to marry Lex Luthor.

Anderlith
2011-11-06, 09:04 PM
Again, my experience with systems other than D&D is somewhat limited, but those times I have played with low power non-D&D systems, where player characters are not considerably more powerful than the average person in the world, I have inevitably noticed the DM needing to be more careful not to kill the player characters. Either that, or death tends to be more common, and often not where it is particularly interesting and fun.

Most of this tends to apply to a game where combat is the, or at least a, primary focus. If combat is shifted away from being a primary focus, then the player characters are able to seem much more mundane, since they do not have to be stronger than their opponents because combat will be rare. In this case it tends to simply be the fact that they happened to get into a particular situation that makes them the protagonists, not any inherent quality about themselves.
Or the players could show a modicum of intelligence? Shadowrun doesn't have an even playing field but you can still kill dragons & leviathan if you are smart enough & have the right equipment. The same could be used in D&D.

Silus
2011-11-06, 09:21 PM
Probably said already in the thread (Not gonna slog through 5 pages to see if someone said this one little bit), but here goes.

One isn't a hero (super or otherwise) based on their powers or abilities. It's based off of the choices they make.

charcoalninja
2011-11-07, 11:08 AM
Firefighters rescuing people from a fire. Modern day soldiers on a modern day front fighting modern day enemies. A drama game where the players are trying to find out a missing relative who's fallen to depression. So on and so forth.

What precisely is ordinary or average about groups of individuals training year round to the peak of their physical fitness and taught skills that routinely allow them to save lives, take on platoons of armed insurgents with an efficiency that allows most of them to come home alive each day?

People commonly site soliders as the ordinary guy doing heroing. There's nothing average or ordinary about a trained soldier. They train for years to be able to do what they do.

You want the ordinary man's soldier look at the hundreds of thousands of dead conscripts from the first world war. That's your average man's war. The modern soldier is a tricked out, highly trained kiling machine and is not what I would call average.

FatJose
2011-11-07, 11:25 AM
They're still just guys. And the comparison doesn't stick at all. WW1 both sides were on even ground. America's current enemy are using weapons from the 70's against drone planes and-

You're wrong is what I'm saying.

Frozen_Feet
2011-11-07, 11:49 AM
What precisely is ordinary or average...

Ordinary, in the sense that they are a common real-life occurrence and decidedly non-fantastic and non-super. At no point did I say they're average. The whole concept of an "average person" is a statistical illusion anyway, putting aside the fact that when people think of an "average person", they're really thinking of someone plain, uninteresting and inferior to themselves (because people have this tendency to think they're "above average").

If you really were to create, say, an average Finnish male, you'd get someone who is married with at least one kid, has at least one vocational degree and is well on the way of gaining an university degree, has 5+ years of job experience, owns a car, an apartment and at least one firearm, has gone through year long military conscription, goes to the gym twice a week, hunts and practices martial arts for a hobby, can speak and read two languages and has studied a third, is 171 cm tall and weighs 65 kilos, being lean and good looking. Instead of the couch potato totally unfit for heroics, this "average joe" is actually pretty competent on most fields of life.

I'm also putting aside the fact that our conceptions of "modern soldier" are quite different. You're thinking of the few who pursue it as a career, I was thinking of military conscripts who get drafted to service and put to duty six months or a year to their training. There's plenty of room for heroics even there.

For those obsessed with system math, I again remind you that "prevailing against the odds" doesn't necessarily need luck as much as it needs the correct course of action. Example would be a game where you have a set amount of moves to complete a task - any invidual move is guaranteed to succeed, you just have to use them carefully to get what you want. For someone who plays it safe or smart, survival is guaranteed - being a hero isn't, but why should it be?

As I noted way back, a game doesn't have to assume the protagonists will be heroes. A game doesn't have to assume there's a story to follow - instead, the game is a game, and if there's a story, it will emerge as the result of the game.

I follow this philosophy as a GM, and thus feel no obligation whatsoever to "guarantee" my players will follow genre convention and triumph when "the story" requires it - there is no story.

Anderlith
2011-11-07, 12:01 PM
Head-desk:smallfrown:
Head-desk:smallmad:
Head-desk:smallfurious:

When I say something like "ordinary" am talking about human capabilities. Why do people feel a need to go beyond them just because they are playing a "hero"/adventurer/PC/whatever socially acceptable name you want to use!

charcoalninja
2011-11-07, 12:06 PM
They're still just guys. And the comparison doesn't stick at all. WW1 both sides were on even ground. America's current enemy are using weapons from the 70's against drone planes and-

You're wrong is what I'm saying.

Yes both sides were on even ground in WW1, it was average Joe conscript being gunned down by average Joe conscript.

And as for today, the AK47 is still a fantastic assault rifle and as modern as you need it to be. America is currently using "heros" to fight a lot of "average joes". That's my point. I understand that soldiers are an ordinary occurance in the world but trained soldiers routinely make up less than 1% of their national population, are trained year round in numerous methods of killing people, taught survival skills and trained on a wide range of weapons and equipment. They are directly analygous to what systems like D&D set out to be their low level PCs. Now higher level PCs are more analygous to martial arts experts and special forces, people capable of feats of skill that would blow your mind but I feel my point still stands.

The modern soldier isn't ordinary in the scope of this discussion. The OP I feel seemed to be more focused on heros you'd see in a game of peasants and plowshears. Where a PC is a farmboy who uses his basic hunting smarts to run messages during the American Civil war or somesuch rather than the tactical experts we field in modern day warfare.

I just don't feel the carreer soldier fits the ordinary joe bill very well is all.

Anderlith
2011-11-07, 12:22 PM
Yes both sides were on even ground in WW1, it was average Joe conscript being gunned down by average Joe conscript.

And as for today, the AK47 is still a fantastic assault rifle and as modern as you need it to be. America is currently using "heros" to fight a lot of "average joes". That's my point. I understand that soldiers are an ordinary occurance in the world but trained soldiers routinely make up less than 1% of their national population, are trained year round in numerous methods of killing people, taught survival skills and trained on a wide range of weapons and equipment. They are directly analygous to what systems like D&D set out to be their low level PCs. Now higher level PCs are more analygous to martial arts experts and special forces, people capable of feats of skill that would blow your mind but I feel my point still stands.

The modern soldier isn't ordinary in the scope of this discussion. The OP I feel seemed to be more focused on heros you'd see in a game of peasants and plowshears. Where a PC is a farmboy who uses his basic hunting smarts to run messages during the American Civil war or somesuch rather than the tactical experts we field in modern day warfare.

I just don't feel the carreer soldier fits the ordinary joe bill very well is all.
This is the OP, & look at the post above you. Frozen Feet has the right of it

Jayabalard
2011-11-07, 03:29 PM
A villain whose plots can be defeated by an ordinary man or small group of completely ordinary people does not have their stuff together and is kind of a joke.really?

So, a villain who operates for 3 decades, inflicting mass casualties of innocent civilians. He's a joke just because it doesn't require a team of people with superpowers and magic to take him down?

Beleriphon
2011-11-07, 11:47 PM
Head-desk:smallfrown:
Head-desk:smallmad:
Head-desk:smallfurious:

When I say something like "ordinary" am talking about human capabilities. Why do people feel a need to go beyond them just because they are playing a "hero"/adventurer/PC/whatever socially acceptable name you want to use!

Because even Indy goes beyond "ordinary capabilities". So does John McClane, perhaps the best examples of "normal" people in fiction that do amazing things are those two. Indy survives all kinds of things, and does the sorts of things that should by and large be physically impossible for people to do. Even relatively normal things like hanging on to a ledge by his finger tips should't really be possible, but Indy can do so because he's a Big Damn Hero.

He isn't superheroic, he doesn't do things that are seem on their surface beyond the pale of humanity (for example flying under his own power), but Indy is still impossible. No person should be capable of those things we see in the movie. The best example I can think of is getting hit in the head multiple times and seeming to be okay to keep going, rather than have a series of more severe concussions that should have Dr. Jones staggering around, or more likely have him end up requiring extended medical care.

If you wanted an RPG where with ordinary characters are in then they should 1) be worried that a being punched in the face might give them permanent brain damage, 2) a fall of 5 feet or so might actually kill them or leave them permanently disabled, 3) catch a disease and have a chronic illness for the rest of their lives after spending the rest of the game in a hospital, 4) or be killed at random at any moment by random crime (seriouslly this is rare, but really does happen).

How about this, your character is ordinary, they enter into combat with the rest of the soldiers in their fire team. The first guy trips a mine, your character is now double amputee and requires years of physical theraphy to recover their ability to walk. That is the ordinary guy in combat. By default most RPGs assume at some level your character has something about them that puts them at least a little bit beyond the other people.

These are completely typical things that might happen to somebody, they are rare but could happen. In comparison can you seen Indiana Jones dying because he rolled off the top bunk of a bunk bed in his sleep?

flumphy
2011-11-08, 01:31 AM
really?

So, a villain who operates for 3 decades, inflicting mass casualties of innocent civilians. He's a joke just because it doesn't require a team of people with superpowers and magic to take him down?

I wouldn't call him a joke, no, but at the same time a game revolving around taking down a mundane terrorist or dictator probably wouldn't be escapist enough for my tastes. In fact, it would probably be the opposite, to the point that I'd refuse to play. If I wanted to dwell on realistic warfare I'd turn on the news or watch a documentary or something.


These are completely typical things that might happen to somebody, they are rare but could happen. In comparison can you seen Indiana Jones dying because he rolled off the top bunk of a bunk bed in his sleep?

All good points. Which bring up another point: do you really want to be constantly reminded of your own mortality while gaming? Some people don't mind it, I guess, or else you wouldn't see any of the low-powered, high-mortality RPGs that are out there. Even if you do like that kind of game though, I imagine it would be easy to see why others are uncomfortable with it.

Jayabalard
2011-11-08, 10:19 AM
People commonly site soliders as the ordinary guy doing heroing. There's nothing average or ordinary about a trained soldier. They train for years to be able to do what they do.Nope, they're quite ordinary. They can't set fire to things with their mind, or project force bullets, or control magnetic fields, or create ice, or shoot lazer beams from their eyes, or take off from the ground fly around without some sort of mechanical device, or breath regular salt water for extended periods of time without drowning, or catch bullets in their fist, or punch through a tank with their fists, or instantly morph into the likeness of other people, or open portals to far away places and instantly travel there, etc.

They're just regular, ordinary people.

flumphy
2011-11-08, 10:26 AM
...or create ice...

My husband's a marine, and I'm pretty sure I've seen him use an ice cube tray. :smalltongue:

Jayabalard
2011-11-08, 10:36 AM
My husband's a marine, and I'm pretty sure I've seen him use an ice cube tray. :smalltongue:But he's not actually making ice there... The cold air of the freezer makes the ice.

If he can really make ice just using an ice cube tray, well, that's impressive; standing around while a machine does so, is a bit less so. :smallbiggrin:


I wouldn't call him a joke, no, but at the same time a game revolving around taking down a mundane terrorist or dictator probably wouldn't be escapist enough for my tastes. There's no reason that taking down a perfectly mundane dictator can't be escapist. The point is that taking him down doesn't require superman; you can do it with regular ordinary people (you know, not superhumans, or people slinging around magic).

Or if you really want to play superheroes, you could have the exact same villain do it with supers (low or medium powered) or in an over the top swashbuckling campaign.


In fact, it would probably be the opposite, to the point that I'd refuse to play. If I wanted to dwell on realistic warfare I'd turn on the news or watch a documentary or something.Whether you're talking about fiction, or roleplaying, not everyone is looking for pure escapism. It's fine for you to only enjoy playing in escapist games, and I'm not saying otherwise.

Frozen_Feet
2011-11-08, 10:50 AM
These are completely typical things that might happen to somebody, they are rare but could happen.

So rare that purposefully modeling them in a RPG system would be a fool's errand, since even if they were modeled, chances of them coming up during a single game or even a campaign are dismall.

There are much likelier points of failure for ordinary heroes than simple bad luck, but on the flipside, there are also chances for them to be heroic that are as much or more likely. You might be part of the team who steps into mines... but you might as well be the medical team who'll come to rescue them. Blam, instant ordinary heroics!

Nevermind that the "four bad things for ordinary characters" you listed apply to nearly all low-level fantasy heroes as well. All things you listed are, for example, a serious threat to starting D&D characters. On the other hand, while they are threat to ordinary people, a cursory glance to real life is enough to tell you that a lot of people face them daily and still survive, even thrive.

And I sure can imagine Indy falling from a bunk and dying. Chances for it are about as small as those of a normal person succeeding in the things Indy did. :smalltongue:

flumphy
2011-11-08, 11:53 AM
Whether you're talking about fiction, or roleplaying, not everyone is looking for pure escapism. It's fine for you to only enjoy playing in escapist games, and I'm not saying otherwise.

I never said you did. The question in the OP related to why people preferred higher-powered games, however, so I was explaining my reasoning.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-08, 11:55 AM
So I have found on this site a surprising number of people who think that their heroes in the games they play must be super powerful or superskilled or way better than the peons of the world just because they are "heroes". I've never seen this in the behavior of anyone I've gamed with or anyone I or they know. So I ask the question why, why do you need to have lots of abilities & power & skill to feel like a hero? Can't you be a hero against the odds instead? (the more likely thing to happen). Is it really all that rewarding to roflstomp the competition, fully understanding that you were better to begin with? I'm not saying that my playstyle is better or anything. I'm just trying to wrap my head around others find this particular playstyle favorable.

Because, the etymology of Hero stems from the greek demi-god, and our entire concept of what is a Hero is derived from the Campbell mono-myth sources.

Those dudes aren't normal people. With very few exceptions, they were NEVER normal people, and were marked as special from birth or before. That's what a hero is, culturally, and it's what the word means.

There's also a strong connotation of goodness or nobility. That's generally considered a requirement(note that goodness may only be exhibited toward his native culture) for heroism as well.

Now, there's nothing wrong with playing a game in which you're all ordinary people, but just because your person takes risks and is interesting doesn't make him a hero.


Even relatively normal things like hanging on to a ledge by his finger tips should't really be possible, but Indy can do so because he's a Big Damn Hero.

He isn't superheroic, he doesn't do things that are seem on their surface beyond the pale of humanity (for example flying under his own power), but Indy is still impossible. No person should be capable of those things we see in the movie. The best example I can think of is getting hit in the head multiple times and seeming to be okay to keep going, rather than have a series of more severe concussions that should have Dr. Jones staggering around, or more likely have him end up requiring extended medical care.

Also, riding while lashed to a submarine only by his whip for 20 hours through....poor conditions.

And let's not even discuss the fridge.

Cogidubnus
2011-11-08, 12:11 PM
I recently built a character for a PbP campaign about the entirety of the Outer Planes trying to wipe life off of the Material Plane. A handful of the great heroes and villains oppose them, for various reasons. Most have sided with their gods or fiendish overlords. It's level 30 gestalt, which is already something of a byword for overpowered, and the character I've built is a fantastically powerful archer.

Why did I build him so powerful? There are two reasons. The first is metagaming. In games like this, you fear not being powerful enough to have any impact on the game so you hunt for things to up your power level so you'll be able to contribute and not be outshone by your allies or curbstomped by your enemies. That's a slightly depressing reason and not a good one. The second, and far more important one, is that when the odds are that stacked against you, if you can't clear a dozen balors off the field before one of them lays a vorpal sword on you, you're not going to succeed. The campaign setting called for characters who were able to do the impossible, face dangers beyond belief and overcome them. So I fitted the character into the madness of the setting. I mean, as part of his backstory, he stood on a mountain range and shot every single member of a demonic army on one side and a fiendish army on the other before they reached him. I wanted a character who could replicate that in-game.

Ed:



Because, the etymology of Hero stems from the greek demi-god, and our entire concept of what is a Hero is derived from the Campbell mono-myth sources.

Those dudes aren't normal people. With very few exceptions, they were NEVER normal people, and were marked as special from birth or before. That's what a hero is, culturally, and it's what the word means.


In fact, a Greek hero HAD to have some divine blood somewhere. They all did. It was what made them special.


There's also a strong connotation of goodness or nobility. That's generally considered a requirement(note that goodness may only be exhibited toward his native culture) for heroism as well.

Not for Greek heroes, but certainly for the modern feel of the word. I cite Achilleus (who I'm currently writing an essay on arguing he is heroic precisely because he does things the Greeks think are wrong).

Anderlith
2011-11-08, 07:05 PM
Okay, okay. Stop it with the references to Greek myth. We as a society have outgrown that very narrow definition. Why do people feel the need to have such escapist fantasies? I can find escapism playing something mortal & not superpowered, & I wonder why others must play superpowered characters to feel "safe" & to have enjoyment.


Instead of terming the PC's "heroes" (cause it leads to derailment) lets use "professional". I see no reason that playing a professional soldier, or scout, or mage, or such should make me ready to be slaughtered. More soldiers died of dysentery than swords, so unless I have to roll dice to use the bathroom I'm going to feel relatively safe, (also any difference in power level can be made up for with an appropriate about of strategy)

Hiro Protagonest
2011-11-08, 09:10 PM
Does Annabeth in the Rick Riordon books (Percy Jackson and the Olympians/The Heroes of Olympus, but Rick Riordan is much shorter) count as a non-super character? What about Sokka in Avatar: The Last Airbender?

No seriously, I just want to try and pinpoint your PoV.

Jayabalard
2011-11-09, 04:02 PM
I never said you did. The question in the OP related to why people preferred higher-powered games, however, so I was explaining my reasoning.Actually, the question reads more like "why is that seen as the only valid gaming style by some people" to me, rather than just "prefer higher powered games"


Because, the etymology of Hero stems from the greek demi-god, and our entire concept of what is a Hero is derived from the Campbell mono-myth sources.Meh, and that stems from Proto-Indo-European *ser- (“to watch over, protect”). The meaning has changed quite a bit since then. Since we're writing in English, we should go more with the current English definition of the word over that of an ancient greek one.

1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.
2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child.
3. the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc.

you don't get to the demigod definition until you get to the 4th most common usage of the word.

Rockbird
2011-11-09, 06:42 PM
Okay, okay. Stop it with the references to Greek myth. We as a society have outgrown that very narrow definition. Why do people feel the need to have such escapist fantasies? I can find escapism playing something mortal & not superpowered, & I wonder why others must play superpowered characters to feel "safe" & to have enjoyment.


Instead of terming the PC's "heroes" (cause it leads to derailment) lets use "professional". I see no reason that playing a professional soldier, or scout, or mage, or such should make me ready to be slaughtered. More soldiers died of dysentery than swords, so unless I have to roll dice to use the bathroom I'm going to feel relatively safe, (also any difference in power level can be made up for with an appropriate about of strategy)

Well for one, different power levels enable the game to ask different kinds of questions.

For instance, Exalted (a prime example of PC's with absurdly superhuman capabilities if I ever saw one) has characters with that kind of power for the express purpose of asking the players "given superhuman personal power, what would you do?". It becomes, to quote one of the writers from memory:
"Not about ´can we do this?´ but rather about ´Should we do this?´"

Roderick_BR
2011-11-10, 10:35 AM
Because I have enough real life in my real life. Most escapism fantasies (rpgs, videogames, movies, comics, etc) are about fantastic people living fantastic lifes.
Movies often do have "normal" people against fantastic odds, for a feel good feel, but in games, people don't want to be mundane, they want to be special.
Then again you do have games with normal people against those fantastic odds, but those are for people looking for a harder challenge.
Still, most people will turn to games where their PCs can break dragons in half, not a paper pusher trying to escape an armed robber.

Compare a "normal" combat simulator like Battle Field, where you play a normal soldier, and more fantastic ones, like Team Fortress or Deus Ex, where you can survive a rocket launcher shot to the face. Matter of taste.

So, if you like "low power tier" games, good for you, have fun. I like to play super heroes, thanks.

People don't "need" it. They just like to play like that. Why do you "need" to play lower powered characters? It feels like the Stormwind's Fallacy all over again.

MukkTB
2011-11-10, 12:22 PM
It would be pretty much an escape for me to roleplay a dude trying to stop a despot's decades long tyranny. Even without using magic powers. Its not something I do everyday.

The DM can run low power characters if he wants. He could tell the players to make lvl 1 commoners. Sound like fun for a bit. Should he stop them from multiclassing out? If he gives them an even challenge and they all die, that's game over. D&D doesn't simulate low power that well.

Probably he'd want a different rules system. D20 isn't awful for simulating average dudes. Shadowrun maybe? Call of Cthulu? At some point when enough of the power to fight is taken away from the PCs it becomes a horror game. Nothing against horror games. I'm just pointing out that a commoner party VS a ghoul is going to play out like a Stephen King novel. "Everything floats down here."

Actually a commoner party VS a ghoul will probably play out like a zombie apocalypse.

Mystic Muse
2011-11-10, 12:50 PM
Head-desk:smallfrown:
Head-desk:smallmad:
Head-desk:smallfurious:

When I say something like "ordinary" am talking about human capabilities. Why do people feel a need to go beyond them just because they are playing a "hero"/adventurer/PC/whatever socially acceptable name you want to use!

As Roderick_BR said, because I have enough real life in my real life. If I'm playing a game, I want to be the big damn hero. I want to be the Paladin that kills the vile Lich that has been threatening the land for decades. I want to be the wizard that prevents the world from annihilation by forces beyond our comprehension. I want to be the rogue that assassinates the bandit king that is intent on seeing his enemies driven before him, and hearing the lamentations of their women. I want to be a Silver Dragon fighting Great Wyrms, getting gods pissed off at me, and getting away with it because I'm just that badass.

What I do not want to do is play an average human, because I'm already an average human. I play games because I want to escape from real life, hence the term "Escapist fantasy"

If you don't like it, that's fine. We all have our own playstyles and preferences. Just don't get pissed off at me because I like something different from what you like.

Frozen_Feet
2011-11-10, 12:52 PM
Why do you "need" to play lower powered characters? It feels like the Stormwind's Fallacy all over again.

You don't need to, any more than you need to play superheroes. The question was why some people seemingly think you can't have ordinary people be heroes. {{scrubbed}}

flumphy
2011-11-10, 01:42 PM
Why do people feel the need to have such escapist fantasies? I can find escapism playing something mortal & not superpowered, & I wonder why others must play superpowered characters to feel "safe" & to have enjoyment.


An interesting question. I definitely do feel that way (not that I believe everyone does) but had never thought about why before now.

I think part of it stems from something I mentioned earlier in the thread: my husband is in the military. Unless the war I'm fighting in an RPG involves elves or aliens or eldritch horrors, I am inevitably going to think of Iraq or Afghanistan or the mental health issues my husband suffered from his deployments and how it almost destroyed our marriage and the chance, however slim, that he'll be forced to go back there eventually. If the game contains certain themes and there's not a huge distance between the game and reality, then I will be too bogged down in reality to enjoy the game.

I preferred high levels of escapism even before I met my husband, though. I could say it came from being abused as a child and wanting to "get back" at the world through fantasy, but I'm not sure that's the root of it either. Frankly, it's giving that scumbag too much credit. I think it's that I'm naturally a pessimist, and gaming gives me the chance to be an optimist. That I'm limited in real life, and I take advantage of gaming to run free to my imagination's fullest extent.

I may be wrong, though. Like I said, I never really thought about it before, and these are just my initial thoughts on the topic.

Jerthanis
2011-11-10, 01:43 PM
Really, for me, it does essentially come down to a desire to have more interesting things to do that affect the game that makes having a higher powered game more appealing as a player.

As a totally Average Joe PC, I can only do what average joes can do, but as Superior Sam, I can do every brave and clever thing Average Joe can do, but I can also do brave and clever things which relate to my ability to light fires with my mind, or control electronics, or reverse gravity, or whatever my powers are. Each game type can have problems though.

Average Joe games have the problem that every way the PCs have to oppose their foes and win the day are introduced by the GM. Vampires are repelled by garlic and combust in sunlight in this game because Average Joes need tools to fight them. The aliens fear water, the killer robots have no magnetic shielding of their vital functions, the invisible creatures reveal their presence by completing electric currents in an area around themselves, the monster that attacks in dreams can be staved off by medications that prevent you from dreaming, and is destroyed when his bones are given a proper burial... these things are elements introduced by the GM in order to give AJ a fighting chance. It's still a lot like having superpowers, but having them handed out by the GM.

Superior Sam games have the opposite problem, where the GM introduces situations and villains which can be overcome using the powers the PCs have. I have historically found Disease to be particularly subject to this problem. If no PC has any method of dealing with disease, and no one suggests or reminds the DM of its potential as a problem, you could not see a single disease in the course of a game. Make a specific character focused on disease diagnosis and removal and all of a sudden the GM will create situations in which such a power is useful. It's a problem birthed by the potential of the PCs to stop it.

But for me, essentially the Superior Sam method is more fun because I have more input into what problems I'm going to be solving and how I'm going to go about doing them. There is more variety in terms of the tactics and planning when there are more options at the PCs' fingertips. Of course, variety is the keyword, so varying the power levels of the campaigns so that the different feel of each can be mixed in and everything kept fresh is ideal.

gkathellar
2011-11-10, 01:46 PM
I wonder why others must play superpowered characters to feel "safe" & to have enjoyment.

Because at the end of the day, "a hero" or "the heroes" are the leading players in your story, and different kinds of story call for different heroes.

It's not so much that people "must" play superpowered characters, as that sometimes they want to. Sometimes they don't want to. True, some people prefer one to the other, but then some people prefer one kind of game to another, or one kind of speculative fiction to another.

Different stories require different kinds of power and ability to be functional stories. All-Star Superman needs Superman, with all of his power to function as intended. Puella Magi Madoka Magica specifically requires a protagonist who is the living incarnation of hope. The scale of Herakles' myth can only be so immense because Herakles has such immense strength. All of these are great stories, grandiose stories dealing with grandiose themes — and they require characters of grandiose power.

It's not difficult to understand that some RPGs may be similar in nature. Nobilis is thematically about capital-w Wonder, on such and awesome and terrifying scale that it boggles the mind, and it requires mind-boggling characters. Exalted, as a previous poster noted, is less about trying to succeed and more about deciding what to do with your might and facing the consequences of those decisions. Even Dungeons and Dragons, at high levels, is essentially about using extraordinary power to overcome extraordinary challenges. None of these games, and none of the ideas behind them, are possible without heroes that are also "super."

This works both ways. Superman could wreck any Batman story in instants, and if you drop a WH40K character in a d20 Modern game he'll destroy your plot inside of a few days. NWoD is about coming up against your limits — if it had characters running around at a Weapons of the Gods power level, the game would crack in half. Low-level D&D doesn't jive with high-level characters. A Wushu game with traits like "Reality Warper 3" doesn't mesh with one with traits like "Likes Swords 4."

As you can see, different types of plot and different types of game require different types of hero. Sometimes, they requires heroes that are larger than life. Sometimes, they require heroes that are larger than possibility. There's nothing wrong with this, just as there's nothing wrong with smaller heroes — there's no contradiction in simultaneously loving Superman because he has no limits and loving Batman because he has so many.

Likewise, many people like to play powerful characters and relatively mundane characters. Many only like one of those two options. There's no moral superiority associated with any of these choices — they're games, and people play them for a wide variety of reasons. Taking a moralist attitude about the whole thing where you complain about people "not being able to enjoy playing less powerful characters" is a poor approach to other people's preferences.

GolemsVoice
2011-11-10, 04:58 PM
Originally Posted by Anderlith View Post
I wonder why others must play superpowered characters to feel "safe" & to have enjoyment.

I don't. In many games I play, enjoyment comes from the fact that you have very strict limits on what you can do, and are very fragile. That#s one type of game.

Now, in other games, I DON'T want to worry if every little fight could kill me, or if the arrow that just hit me might wound me such that I'll likely die of infections or am useless for the rest of the adventure because I can't move. Both are fine, they just focus on different things.

Jayabalard
2011-11-10, 05:06 PM
As a totally Average Joe PC, I can only do what average joes can do, but as Superior Sam, I can do every brave and clever thing Average Joe can do, but I can also do brave and clever things which relate to my ability to light fires with my mind, or control electronics, or reverse gravity, or whatever my powers are. Each game type can have problems though.That's not actually true...

Average Joe can do the action "perform activity X and be in danger" .... Superior Sam cannot.

Being superpowered does not mean that there are actually more total interesting things that you can do. You just have a different set, not necessarily a bigger or smaller set.

gkathellar
2011-11-10, 05:08 PM
Being superpowered does not mean that there are actually more total interesting things that you can do. You just have a different set, not necessarily a bigger or smaller set.

Well, yes and no. A wizard has a billion options, while a fighter does not. True, things that threaten the fighter don't threaten the wizard, but things that would annihilate the fighter completely do.

Jayabalard
2011-11-10, 05:20 PM
Well, yes and no. A wizard has a billion options, while a fighter does not. True, things that threaten the fighter don't threaten the wizard, but things that would annihilate the fighter completely do.That's not really a counter argument. The wizard has more options because he has more options, not because he's more powerful.

He's more powerful because he has more powerful options.

Johnny Onespell is more powerful than Fred Thefighter, because his single option is more potent than anything Fred can do, but he doesn't have as many options.


Movies often do have "normal" people against fantastic odds, for a feel good feel, but in games, people don't want to be mundane, they want to be special.That doesn't require being superpowered.

I won a solo/ensembe competition. That makes me special. It does not make me superpowered.

Alice and Bob are really great at cryptography; that makes them special, but not superpowered.

That's really where the fundamental disconnect is: why are non-superpowered people viewed as not special.


People don't "need" it. They just like to play like that. Why do you "need" to play lower powered characters? It feels like the Stormwind's Fallacy all over again.Noone said that they do need to play low powered characters. The question is a lot closer to "why is superpowered viewed as the only valid playstyle".

And if you are going to compare this to stormwind, you really have no idea what fallacy is about; there's not even the remotest likeness between that guy's argument and the fallacy that stormwind identified.

gkathellar
2011-11-10, 05:55 PM
I'm not sure "options" and "power" can really be sectioned off like that — if telekinesis is an option, hey, it makes you more powerful. If flight is an option, it makes you more powerful. If shooting fire out of your hands is an option, it makes you more powerful.

Most superpowers basically come down to having new toys. Certainly some powers are greater than others, by virtue of limitations or practicality or whatever, but at their core they're just the addition of new capacities that human beings in general don't possess.

jseah
2011-11-10, 06:07 PM
If flight is an option, it makes you more powerful.
If you get flight via wings... it's almost certainly a disadvantage rather than a superpower.

I've tried designing some wings for a story to write in, looking at wikipedia for the range of values the wing should have based on birds.
As birds get bigger, they tend to have higher aspect ratios and lower wing loading. This saves energy needed to fly, since you can glide more.

Basically, it came down to this:
10 meter wingspan of average 1 meter wide wing
- aspect ratio 10 is on the low side of "high"
Total body weight of 80kg
- wing loading of 8kg per m^2, which is not exactly "low" since birds go from 1 to 20

Assuming a wing mass of 5kg per m^2 (including muscle for the wing), you have a body weight of 30kg.
Which is in the bottom 1% of 14 year old girls. Yeah, I know about hollow bones and all that, but I doubt even lightweight bodies (which are fragile) can get much below the bottom 1% of human variation.


So you have a wing span that will block three lanes of a road, fragile body, weak arms/legs and have to eat alot (although not necessarily a disadvantage depending on whether you like your sweets)

Sure, it's a new toy for flying, but I doubt it's going to be anything but a hassle.
Oh, and you need a running start.

gkathellar
2011-11-10, 06:21 PM
Yes, it is true that if you try that fantastic speculative fiction abilities are largely impossible in the real world, or would be prohibitive in a way that's not at all relevant to the basic premise of the thread. What a shock.

Jayabalard
2011-11-10, 06:26 PM
Yes, it is true that if you try that fantastic speculative fiction abilities are largely impossible in the real world, or would be prohibitive in a way that's not at all relevant to the basic premise of the thread. What a shock.I think his point is that not all options = more powerful.

Your post above seem to imply this is the case... and it's simply not so.



Nor does adding options necessarily add to the total number of options.

Example: you can shoot lazzzer beams out of your eyes. This does not add an option. It replaces "shoot them with a gun" because guns are no longer meaningful options; guns are now functionally equivalent to "hit them with a spitball"

FatJose
2011-11-10, 06:45 PM
I want to be the rogue that assassinates the bandit king that is intent on seeing his enemies driven before him, and hearing the lamentations of their women.
....
What I do not want to do is play an average human, because I'm already an average human. I play games because I want to escape from real life, hence the term "Escapist fantasy"

That rogue isn't super. He just knows how to fight dirty specifically because he isn't super in any way. I don't think you or most of the people arguing against the idea understand what the OP is asking at all. And no matter how many times they reiterate, you guys are going to keep pressing something that is completely beside the point. Your examples don't show you prefer superheroes. They show you play D&D.

Mystic Muse
2011-11-10, 07:29 PM
So I have found on this site a surprising number of people who think that their heroes in the games they play must be super powerful or superskilled or way better than the peons of the world just because they are "heroes". I've never seen this in the behavior of anyone I've gamed with or anyone I or they know. So I ask the question why, why do you need to have lots of abilities & power & skill to feel like a hero? Can't you be a hero against the odds instead? (the more likely thing to happen). Is it really all that rewarding to roflstomp the competition, fully understanding that you were better to begin with? I'm not saying that my playstyle is better or anything. I'm just trying to wrap my head around others find this particular playstyle favorable.


That rogue isn't super. He just knows how to fight dirty specifically because he isn't super in any way. I don't think you or most of the people arguing against the idea understand what the OP is asking at all. And no matter how many times they reiterate, you guys are going to keep pressing something that is completely beside the point. Your examples don't show you prefer superheroes. They show you play D&D.

He never said anything specifically about superheros. If he had, I wouldn't have brought these example up. Okay, granted the rogue isn't that super but the rest of the examples work.

Maybe the OP elaborated further later, but there's nothing about superheros specifically in the OP, or in the post I quoted.

Anderlith
2011-11-10, 08:05 PM
Okay, I'm going to try one last time, to make my point.

While I understand that people play games for escape, I do not understand why they must play such blatantly "overpowered" types of characters. Why is there a need to play a gonzo superhuman strength warrior? I can find escapism from playing a non-super warrior with a non-sword killing dragons, or as a guy who's good with guns shooting mages in Shadowrun.

But whenever I want to play a game at any level that feels like I can have actual variety (i.e. levels 6+ D&D) I feel like I am so beyond a mortal that it isn't fun. It seems like any game made today makes you an automatic badass, when I feel that true badassery comes from chance happenings & good RP, not mechanics. In D&D if I want to play on a level close to mortal man I have to limit myself to levels 1-6ish, & that just sucks cause I don't have access to the amount of variety of challenges (interesting enemies & such) I would like.

I feel like the odd man out whenever I play a game because I like to feel like a am a competent individual who has flaws & vulnerablities, not an "average joe" but not an Ubermench either.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-11-10, 08:07 PM
Does Annabeth in the Rick Riordon books (Percy Jackson and the Olympians/The Heroes of Olympus, but Rick Riordan is much shorter) count as a non-super character? What about Sokka in Avatar: The Last Airbender?

This seems to have gotten missed.

Mystic Muse
2011-11-10, 08:17 PM
Okay, I'm going to try one last time, to make my point.

While I understand that people play games for escape, I do not understand why they must play such blatantly "overpowered" types of characters. Why is there a need to play a gonzo superhuman strength warrior? I can find escapism from playing a non-super warrior with a non-sword killing dragons, or as a guy who's good with guns shooting mages in Shadowrun.

But whenever I want to play a game at any level that feels like I can have actual variety (i.e. levels 6+ D&D) I feel like I am so beyond a mortal that it isn't fun. It seems like any game made today makes you an automatic badass, when I feel that true badassery comes from chance happenings & good RP, not mechanics. In D&D if I want to play on a level close to mortal man I have to limit myself to levels 1-6ish, & that just sucks cause I don't have access to the amount of variety of challenges (interesting enemies & such) I would like.

I feel like the odd man out whenever I play a game because I like to feel like a am a competent individual who has flaws & vulnerablities, not an "average joe" but not an Ubermench either.

I think it's a difference in preference, and that's all. Sort of like how people like different foods or different music from you. We have different ways of enjoying ourselves.

Tanuki Tales
2011-11-10, 09:56 PM
I think a defining line between what is "Superhuman"/"Overpowered"/etc. means and what non-super means needs to be made.

Because I'm seeing examples like Batman and a high level rogue being used for "non-super" and I personally don't really agree with that anymore than I agree that Indiana Jones isn't beyond human ability.

Just using Batman as an example:

Without the plot switched on and between his gear, training, will-power and skill, you have an individual who could school an entire team of the world's best special ops members like they were novice kids in their first year at a dojo without really breaking a sweat.

That seems "super" to me. He may be just below the level of "Peak Human" and thus not classified as being "Superhuman" in comics, but that sure isn't something I'd expect from what some people have given as the impression as a "non-superhero game" as being.

With the plot switched on, Batman has done things like force Darkseid into a stalemate or knocked Superman unconscious for a short while or stalemated Karate Kid in h2h or pulled off massive Xanatos Gambits on a planetary scale.

Definitely not "low-powered".


Could we also stop using "Superhero" and use "Superhuman" in reference to high power? Because if you just throw on a cloak, a mask and know how to shoot a pistol and then go out to fight crime, by definition you're a Superhero (which classifies a lot of the golden age/WWII superheroes).

Mnemnosyne
2011-11-10, 10:44 PM
Head-desk:smallfrown:
Head-desk:smallmad:
Head-desk:smallfurious:

When I say something like "ordinary" am talking about human capabilities. Why do people feel a need to go beyond them just because they are playing a "hero"/adventurer/PC/whatever socially acceptable name you want to use!
Because we are usually fighting monsters that are superhuman in these sorts of games. If we were to put a normal human with normal human abilities against the bulk of the Monstrous Manual in D&D, for instance, there would be such a tiny chance for victory against the majority of his enemies that he can't possibly win.

It typically takes one solid hit with a proper weapon to put a man out of a fight, possibly killing him in the process. If that's what you want to mimic with your mechanics, I'm pretty sure there are games for it. But in D&D, where you're expected to fight things that are vastly superior to humans, have multiple encounters a day, and survive, you cannot be that weak and still have the game work. If you can take more than about 12 points of damage (tops!) and still be breathing, you are, by definition, superhuman (at least in D&D's hitpoint/damage by weapon calculations).

D&D does 'human capabilities' fine at level 1. It's just that 'human capabilities' doesn't work well when combined with non-scripted, combat-heavy gameplay where death is a possibility if you roll poorly or your enemy rolls well. It especially doesn't mix well with fighting creatures that are as far beyond humans as humans are beyond mice in combat ability.

VanBuren
2011-11-11, 12:59 AM
Absurd? Learn more than one language and see for yourself. Two words that originate from the same old tongue could be spelled almost exactly the same but have completely different meanings. We're speaking English. The English word "hero" doesn't need powers attached and it came into the english vocabulary long after it lost the whole "godly" aspect. When speaking of D&D, the core races and PC classes in it may be a cut above the norm but they aren't the Greek definition at all. You have to be a Demigod to be a Greek hero. It's not enough to have 10 more points to spend on creation, you have to have wings, or +20 to Strength, or Eye Laser Spell-like Ability Infinity/Day. No one uses that definition for hero anymore with the exception of any story or game that is specifically about Greek mythology.

Which is all well and good, however I wasn't arguing that the definition of hero is limited to those of the Greek myths, only that it makes little sense to define the word so narrowly as to exclude the origin of the concept.

Jerthanis
2011-11-11, 01:46 AM
That's not actually true...

Average Joe can do the action "perform activity X and be in danger" .... Superior Sam cannot.

Being superpowered does not mean that there are actually more total interesting things that you can do. You just have a different set, not necessarily a bigger or smaller set.

Only if one of their powers is "Perform activity X while immune to its danger."

We have Johnny Nospells and Johnny Onespell and the only difference is that one can cast a single spell and the other cannot. In any given situation, Johnny Nospell can climb, jump, talk to people, run away, reflect on his existence, and so on. Johnny Onespell adds "Use his one spell" and "Choose not to use his one spell" on top of all that to his list of options.

Except in specific instances, adding more powers isn't going to necessarily remove options and will almost always add options.

For your statement to be true, a no-armed, no legged, blind and deaf person would have exactly the same number of options available to him as Batman. It's hard to see how that's possible, practically speaking.

navar100
2011-11-11, 01:49 AM
Okay, I'm going to try one last time, to make my point.

While I understand that people play games for escape, I do not understand why they must play such blatantly "overpowered" types of characters. Why is there a need to play a gonzo superhuman strength warrior? I can find escapism from playing a non-super warrior with a non-sword killing dragons, or as a guy who's good with guns shooting mages in Shadowrun.

But whenever I want to play a game at any level that feels like I can have actual variety (i.e. levels 6+ D&D) I feel like I am so beyond a mortal that it isn't fun. It seems like any game made today makes you an automatic badass, when I feel that true badassery comes from chance happenings & good RP, not mechanics. In D&D if I want to play on a level close to mortal man I have to limit myself to levels 1-6ish, & that just sucks cause I don't have access to the amount of variety of challenges (interesting enemies & such) I would like.

I feel like the odd man out whenever I play a game because I like to feel like a am a competent individual who has flaws & vulnerablities, not an "average joe" but not an Ubermench either.

Oh! So you suffer from Stormwind Fallacy, unable to accept the possibility that one can be good at roleplay while at the same time have powerful mechanics. That explains it.

GolemsVoice
2011-11-11, 03:23 AM
Oh! So you suffer from Stormwind Fallacy, unable to accept the possibility that one can be good at roleplay while at the same time have powerful mechanics. That explains it.

I wouldn't neccessarily say it like that, but I would also say that there seems to be the miconception that characters which have a lot of power won't have flaws, and are somehow invulnerable. A standard D&D character is still human (or an equivalent to it), so he'll have all the flaws you want him to have. The fact that he can throw fireballs or take a battering ram to the face and keep fighting doesn't mean he's in anyway more than a human in person. Why would you think that?

Anderlith
2011-11-11, 04:46 AM
Oh! So you suffer from Stormwind Fallacy, unable to accept the possibility that one can be good at roleplay while at the same time have powerful mechanics. That explains it.

No, first this is my opinion. Opinion are not limited to logic.
Second, there is a difference between standard badassery (cool things that anyone can achieve) & true badassery (things that may only happen once, even when attempted a subsequential time) It has been my observation that these once in a lifetime happenings are either from super lucky dice, idea, or RP or a mix of both, not just something derived as a plus 2 or such on your character sheet.

Knaight
2011-11-11, 05:09 AM
No, first this is my opinion. Opinion are not limited to logic.

Opinions can be wrong. If I have the opinion that the world is flat, that is an objectively wrong opinion, period. And while we are on that tangent, lets take a look at some of the claims backed up by opinion in this thread, implicit and explicit. So:


BS Claims
Enjoying characters who are more powerful than the typical human, and enjoying characters who are the typical human is mutually exclusive. This is obviously wrong. Moreover, there have been a bunch of claims to this effect like "because these people play characters who can do more than real humans, they don't play normal humans, and thus my playing style is a minority".

The capacity to enjoy one type of characters removes the reason for another type to exist. Honestly, that this is BS doesn't even need to be pointed out.

Everyone plays games for escapism. Also objectively wrong, reasons like being part of a creative process, or catharsis exist.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-11, 11:57 AM
I wouldn't neccessarily say it like that, but I would also say that there seems to be the miconception that characters which have a lot of power won't have flaws, and are somehow invulnerable. A standard D&D character is still human (or an equivalent to it), so he'll have all the flaws you want him to have. The fact that he can throw fireballs or take a battering ram to the face and keep fighting doesn't mean he's in anyway more than a human in person. Why would you think that?

Er, because I'm a person, and I can't take a battering ram to MY face.

He can do things that are far beyond my(and any normal persons) capabilities. He is thus superhuman.

That's what superhuman means, really. I'm not sure how you're dragging "invulnerable" into this, since that is quite clearly not a property all superheros possess. And yes, an individual capable of routinely creating fireballs and such with his mind will probably have an inherently different outlook on the world than I do.


Meh, and that stems from Proto-Indo-European *ser- (“to watch over, protect”). The meaning has changed quite a bit since then. Since we're writing in English, we should go more with the current English definition of the word over that of an ancient greek one.

1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.
2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child.
3. the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc.

you don't get to the demigod definition until you get to the 4th most common usage of the word.

Those are all tied up together, sir. After all, certainly not EVERY principle male character in a film would be accurately described as a hero, right?

Sure, we've somewhat expanded past the demi-god's specifically...but that's how it started, and that's what people were comparing to when assigning the label to others. It has a pretty strong association with extraordinary status.


Also, yes, opinions can be wrong. If your opinion requires the rejecting of logic to accept it....it is wrong. That's what logic is for.

Tanuki Tales
2011-11-11, 12:11 PM
Er, because I'm a person, and I can't take a battering ram to MY face.

He can do things that are far beyond my(and any normal persons) capabilities. He is thus superhuman.

That's what superhuman means, really. I'm not sure how you're dragging "invulnerable" into this, since that is quite clearly not a property all superheros possess. And yes, an individual capable of routinely creating fireballs and such with his mind will probably have an inherently different outlook on the world than I do.


He's speaking on a mental and emotional level, not on a physical level.

Any of the old world gods are a good example of this. They had massive amounts of power but still had very human mindsets and motivations and still wept when they were sad or screamed when they were hurt. They had personality flaws and had traits that did not make them greater than humanity save in physical/metaphysical power.

In fact, a lot of the gods were actually far more flawed than a regular person.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-11, 12:25 PM
He's speaking on a mental and emotional level, not on a physical level.

Any of the old world gods are a good example of this. They had massive amounts of power but still had very human mindsets and motivations and still wept when they were sad or screamed when they were hurt. They had personality flaws and had traits that did not make them greater than humanity save in physical/metaphysical power.

In fact, a lot of the gods were actually far more flawed than a regular person.

I don't think that's a normal expectation. In short, I think "lack of flaws" is NOT a normal expectation of superheroes(see also, why people make fun of superman), and essentially any superhero tends to have at least one notable flaw. So, I'm afraid I don't see any discord there.

That said, someone who has vastly higher capabilities than I might well have different mental and emotional responses as a result. A guy who can alter reality with his mind in the manner of a traditional caster? Yeah, thats almost guaranteed to have pretty dramatic effects on your emotions and mental state.

Tanuki Tales
2011-11-11, 12:34 PM
I don't think that's a normal expectation. In short, I think "lack of flaws" is NOT a normal expectation of superheroes(see also, why people make fun of superman), and essentially any superhero tends to have at least one notable flaw. So, I'm afraid I don't see any discord there.

That said, someone who has vastly higher capabilities than I might well have different mental and emotional responses as a result. A guy who can alter reality with his mind in the manner of a traditional caster? Yeah, thats almost guaranteed to have pretty dramatic effects on your emotions and mental state.

Now I'm just confused on what you're saying.

Are you now agreeing with Golem or are you arguing against my interpretation of what Golem said?

Knaight
2011-11-11, 12:40 PM
Now I'm just confused on what you're saying.

Are you now agreeing with Golem or are you arguing against my interpretation of what Golem said?

I may be wrong, but I see Tyndmyr making two points:
1) Superhumans are defined as having capabilities humans don't have. Taking a ram to the face and being fine would be a superhuman capability, as humans can't do it.
2) Superhumans are still very human in characterization in most cases, which includes having flaws. While there are changes, things like flaws, strengths of character, and human emotions usually remain.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-11, 12:46 PM
Right. If you can do stuff normal humans can't, then you're, by definition, superhuman. Superhero tends to assume you are a superhuman, and also heroic.

Lack of flaws is not really an assumed thing. Sure, you almost certainly are less flawed than an a normal human since you have increased capabilities in at least one area, but there is no reason to assume a complete lack of flaws.

Tanuki Tales
2011-11-11, 01:00 PM
Except Golem wasn't talking on a physical/metaphysical level. Casting fire and taking a battering ram to the face and grinning afterwards do make you superhuman in a physical/metaphysical sense.

Where the disconnect occurs is where you go on assuming that this means that said superhumans are in no way human on an emotional/mental level. They still have human traits and flaws and mindsets that may or may not be warped or altered by the power they have gained or were born with.

It's like the erroneous belief that Superman is a boring hero or has no character flaws. He may be a boy scout, but he's like an Exalted character put into D20 modern and he needs to reign in *insert "World of Cardboard" speech here*

Knaight
2011-11-11, 01:05 PM
Where the disconnect occurs is where you go on assuming that this means that said superhumans are in no way human on an emotional/mental level. They still have human traits and flaws and mindsets that may or may not be warped or altered by the power they have gained or were born with.

It's like the erroneous belief that Superman is a boring hero or has no character flaws. He may be a boy scout, but he's like an Exalted character put into D20 modern and he needs to reign in *insert "World of Cardboard" speech here*

That disconnect doesn't exist. The human traits and flaws and mindsets are a shared assumption, and the only point where there is any difference is that Tyndmyr has implied that Superman is poorly written due to not having flaws, or at least has a reputation to that effect. From what I've seen, I'd call it an earned reputation.

Tanuki Tales
2011-11-11, 01:07 PM
That disconnect doesn't exist. The human traits and flaws and mindsets are a shared assumption, and the only point where there is any difference is that Tyndmyr has implied that Superman is poorly written due to not having flaws, or at least has a reputation to that effect. From what I've seen, I'd call it an earned reputation.

I wasn't talking about Tyn, I was talking about the users that Golem was originally addressing with his reply that Tyn responded to and said was incorrect.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-11, 01:12 PM
I don't think those people exist as a real audience. In short, I don't think there are people out there who believe that every hero is entirely without flaws. Certainly not any notable number of people.

There may be people who, for whatever reason, wish to portray a hero without flaws...or with very limited flaws, but that's rather different than believing that they HAVE to be that way.

Certainly, there are a great many people interested in portraying a hero with special powers, but I do not see how that implies a belief in lack of flaws.

navar100
2011-11-11, 01:16 PM
Since players aren't perfect, any character they play will be imperfect, regardless of game mechanics. A player makes choices for his character. Those choices have consequences. By choosing to act (or the act of not acting for a situation) stuff happens. That is what drives the game. Having a numerical mechanical minus number somewhere is irrelevant and having one is not proof of superior playing skills.

Tanuki Tales
2011-11-11, 01:17 PM
I don't think those people exist as a real audience. In short, I don't think there are people out there who believe that every hero is entirely without flaws. Certainly not any notable number of people.

There may be people who, for whatever reason, wish to portray a hero without flaws...or with very limited flaws, but that's rather different than believing that they HAVE to be that way.

Certainly, there are a great many people interested in portraying a hero with special powers, but I do not see how that implies a belief in lack of flaws.

The OP has kind of made the case that he views high power as making good rping not possible and that kind of means that he views "overpowered" characters of lacking the interesting and compelling personas (flaws and all) that low powered characters would have by virtue of being low powered.

Edit: In short, this thread is devolving into the Stormwind Fallacy apparently.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-11, 01:29 PM
The OP has kind of made the case that he views high power as making good rping not possible and that kind of means that he views "overpowered" characters of lacking the interesting and compelling personas (flaws and all) that low powered characters would have by virtue of being low powered.

Well, if correct, that's just Stormwinding.

Power levels and quality of RP are mostly unrelated. You can have a terrible or fantastic RP about superheroes or dirt farmers.

Good characterization is all about detailing. Flaws are only part of that detailing. Focusing on the flaws to the exclusion of all else(as is implied by believing that low power -> more flaws -> better rp) is exactly as bad as the opposite would be.

After all, Johny the blind, deaf, speechless, quadruple amputee is probably not the most fun character to play.

Knaight
2011-11-11, 01:33 PM
Good characterization is all about detailing. Flaws are only part of that detailing. Focusing on the flaws to the exclusion of all else(as is implied by believing that low power -> more flaws -> better rp) is exactly as bad as the opposite would be.

Well, focusing on flaws majorly can work well for a tragedy. Still, you only want one big flaw per character in that case. Probably hubris.

Tanuki Tales
2011-11-11, 01:38 PM
Well, if correct, that's just Stormwinding.

Power levels and quality of RP are mostly unrelated. You can have a terrible or fantastic RP about superheroes or dirt farmers.

Good characterization is all about detailing. Flaws are only part of that detailing. Focusing on the flaws to the exclusion of all else(as is implied by believing that low power -> more flaws -> better rp) is exactly as bad as the opposite would be.

After all, Johny the blind, deaf, speechless, quadruple amputee is probably not the most fun character to play.



Okay, I'm going to try one last time, to make my point.

While I understand that people play games for escape, I do not understand why they must play such blatantly "overpowered" types of characters. Why is there a need to play a gonzo superhuman strength warrior? I can find escapism from playing a non-super warrior with a non-sword killing dragons, or as a guy who's good with guns shooting mages in Shadowrun.

But whenever I want to play a game at any level that feels like I can have actual variety (i.e. levels 6+ D&D) I feel like I am so beyond a mortal that it isn't fun. It seems like any game made today makes you an automatic badass, when I feel that true badassery comes from chance happenings & good RP, not mechanics. In D&D if I want to play on a level close to mortal man I have to limit myself to levels 1-6ish, & that just sucks cause I don't have access to the amount of variety of challenges (interesting enemies & such) I would like.

I feel like the odd man out whenever I play a game because I like to feel like a am a competent individual who has flaws & vulnerablities, not an "average joe" but not an Ubermench either.

Bolded important points for emphasis.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-11, 01:46 PM
Well, focusing on flaws majorly can work well for a tragedy. Still, you only want one big flaw per character in that case. Probably hubris.

Yup. Still, it's no more important than the positive aspects. I mean, almost any tragedy has the protagonist(s) starting out in some notably good circumstance and then losing it. The powerful part is just as important to the story as the flaws.

Bend, the only example he gave was "gonzo superhuman strength warrior". Personally, I do not find a warrior having very high levels of strength to be unusual. It is quite common in any fictional depiction of the warrior hero archetype. Any flaws in such a character are typically in other areas. As such, the example is extremely weak, and does not seem to justify his claim.

Tanuki Tales
2011-11-11, 01:54 PM
Yup. Still, it's no more important than the positive aspects. I mean, almost any tragedy has the protagonist(s) starting out in some notably good circumstance and then losing it. The powerful part is just as important to the story as the flaws.

Bend, the only example he gave was "gonzo superhuman strength warrior". Personally, I do not find a warrior having very high levels of strength to be unusual. It is quite common in any fictional depiction of the warrior hero archetype. Any flaws in such a character are typically in other areas. As such, the example is extremely weak, and does not seem to justify his claim.


He called any character over a certain level of power (which I think was Indiana Jones, but forgive me if I'm misremembering) as being "blatantly overpowered". A very negative connotation.
He then goes on to claim that low powered characters earn badassery through "chance and good rp" and that those who are not low powered are automatically badass because of mechanics. So he's equating that those "automatic badass" lack good rp and that high powered characters aren't fun to play because good rp is not involved. That's Stormwind.
He then says that average joe and Ubermench lack either competence or flaws and vulnerabilities because his playstyle has both and that's why he does not want to play one of the other because they lack having both at the same time. Average joe obviously lacks competence because he's average joe; this leaves flaws and vulnerabilities to Ubermench.

Jayabalard
2011-11-11, 03:23 PM
Oh! So you suffer from Stormwind Fallacy, unable to accept the possibility that one can be good at roleplay while at the same time have powerful mechanics. That explains it.I'm not sure how you're reading that out of the quoted text

Tanuki Tales
2011-11-11, 03:31 PM
I'm not sure how you're reading that out of the quoted text

Well, he's not the only one who sees that quoted text as leading towards being of the fallacy if not already there.

Jayabalard
2011-11-11, 03:34 PM
Yup. Still, it's no more important than the positive aspects. I mean, almost any tragedy has the protagonist(s) starting out in some notably good circumstance and then losing it. Not really. Lots of them even start out with the protagonist in a fairly rotten spot; then he gets something nice and it's snatched away.


Well, he's not the only one who sees that quoted text as leading towards being of the fallacy if not already there.I don't want to be offensive, but I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.

Anyway, I don't see anything in the quoted text that states that optimizing a character means that you cannot roleplay while backing it up with a false dilemma... and as long they avoid the latter part of that (backing it up with a false dilemma) there's no stormwind fallacy involved, just an opinion that you disagree with.

Anderlith
2011-11-11, 03:35 PM
Opinions can be wrong. If I have the opinion that the world is flat, that is an objectively wrong opinion, period. And while we are on that tangent, lets take a look at some of the claims backed up by opinion in this thread, implicit and explicit. So:


BS Claims
Enjoying characters who are more powerful than the typical human, and enjoying characters who are the typical human is mutually exclusive. This is obviously wrong. Moreover, there have been a bunch of claims to this effect like "because these people play characters who can do more than real humans, they don't play normal humans, and thus my playing style is a minority".

The capacity to enjoy one type of characters removes the reason for another type to exist. Honestly, that this is BS doesn't even need to be pointed out.

Everyone plays games for escapism. Also objectively wrong, reasons like being part of a creative process, or catharsis exist.

You are confusing fact & opinion. Your argument is invalid


He called any character over a certain level of power (which I think was Indiana Jones, but forgive me if I'm misremembering) as being "blatantly overpowered". A very negative connotation.
He then goes on to claim that low powered characters earn badassery through "chance and good rp" and that those who are not low powered are automatically badass because of mechanics. So he's equating that those "automatic badass" lack good rp and that high powered characters aren't fun to play because good rp is not involved. That's Stormwind.
He then says that average joe and Ubermench lack either competence or flaws and vulnerabilities because his playstyle has both and that's why he does not want to play one of the other because they lack having both at the same time. Average joe obviously lacks competence because he's average joe; this leaves flaws and vulnerabilities to Ubermench.
It should not be considered badass for the Hulk to tear a man's head off. It is a common enough occurrence & well within the Hulk's capabilities. It is however badass to for say... the Punisher to rip a man's head off. The thing is, people seem to want to pull off these types of actions regularly. It seems masturbatory to play such over the top characters.
As for the "average joe"/ubermench discussion was me trying to rectify the assumptions other people had about my previous discussion; they were thinking that I want to play a commoner instead of a normal class. I'd like to see the power level of D&D drop so that the "butterzone" is at a point where the characters are competent without being superhuman (magic users aside)
On another note. Please stop framing my discussion to other posters. It creates unhelpful assumptions.

Tanuki Tales
2011-11-11, 03:46 PM
I don't want to be offensive, but I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.


That just because you don't personally see it doesn't mean that others don't. No smoke without fire and all that.

Edit:

@OP: I'm merely voicing the opinion that I've gotten from what you're written and said over the course of this thread and that post in particular. Any assumptions I've made were from your specific word choices and the over all tone you've seem to cast on this matter.

If you don't agree with what opinions and assumptions I've formed based on what you've actually written..well...I don't know what to tell you there.

Jayabalard
2011-11-11, 06:25 PM
That just because you don't personally see it doesn't mean that others don't. No smoke without fire and all that.Lots of people see stormwind fallacies in places where there isn't one ... it's fairly commonly misunderstood.

Shadowknight12
2011-11-11, 06:27 PM
Lots of people see stormwind fallacies in places where there isn't one ... it's fairly commonly misunderstood.

Shall I compare thee to a stormwind's fallacy?

Tanuki Tales
2011-11-11, 06:46 PM
Lots of people see stormwind fallacies in places where there isn't one ... it's fairly commonly misunderstood.

Doesn't mean that's the case here just because you personally think it is.

Edit: Though with the way certain posts have seemed to be going, I think this is where I'm bowing out of both replying to this thread and even following it. Take care all.

Knaight
2011-11-12, 12:54 AM
You are confusing fact & opinion. Your argument is invalid.

Opinions interact with facts. If I have the opinion that 2 > 3, I am wrong. If I state that something that exists doesn't exist (say, people who do two things), I am also wrong.

VanBuren
2011-11-12, 02:02 AM
Not really. Lots of them even start out with the protagonist in a fairly rotten spot; then he gets something nice and it's snatched away.

My Theatre major is leaking through here, but that's very odd for a tragedy. One of Aristotle's key points is that the "tragic hero" is a noble figure--in status, though morality was usually tied up in that as far as the writing was concerned.

I mean, sure you have people like Arthur Miller using the common person as the subject, but even then the basic format from Oedipus to Joe Keller--and yes, even Hamlet--is that the character is at a very high place in life and in society and then falls from there.

Anderlith
2011-11-12, 10:01 AM
Opinions interact with facts. If I have the opinion that 2 > 3, I am wrong. If I state that something that exists doesn't exist (say, people who do two things), I am also wrong.

No that is not an opinion. Facts are verifiable opinions are not. Since badassery is not verifiable then it is a fact. Logical fallacy is in your court not mine.

NichG
2011-11-12, 11:51 AM
I sort of agree that if you want to really play a character that feels badass, you don't want to be more powerful than what you face. You don't want to be incompetent either, because you can go far enough away that it will generally push what you're trying to accomplish beyond your ability as a player.

This is distinct from Stormwind. In fact, I think the RP connotations of powerful/weak are not really a necessary the point here. You can have this entire conversation just about character mechanics and play-feel. Basically the way I read it is in analogy to difficulty level in games. You could play Morrowind and abuse potion stacking, or other games with the difficulty on the easiest setting and be an 'automatic' badass. Or Disgaea on the second playthrough with Lv9999 characters, or many other examples. This makes you an 'automatic' badass, but you as a player don't have to bring anything of yourself to the table to win - you're more powerful than what you face by enough that strategy, tactics, and so on don't matter. Basically if you go far enough in power your numbers overwhelm the importance of your decisions as a player, so nothing you choose (mechanically) really matters that much, you can win in any way you want.

On the other hand, if you're too much weaker than the things you're facing, overcoming the power gap may be beyond your ability as a player.

'True badassery' would be living at that point on the edge where you as a player are just clever enough to pull off wins despite the level of difficulty. Of course, that could also be 'just scraping by', so there's a stylistic aspect of doing it in a way that makes people go 'how the heck did he just pull that off'.

This is all before we even get to the matter of RP, mind you, so I don't think Stormwind is called for.

DodgerH2O
2011-11-13, 01:10 PM
Basically if you go far enough in power your numbers overwhelm the importance of your decisions as a player, so nothing you choose (mechanically) really matters that much, you can win in any way you want.

On the other hand, if you're too much weaker than the things you're facing, overcoming the power gap may be beyond your ability as a player.

'True badassery' would be living at that point on the edge where you as a player are just clever enough to pull off wins despite the level of difficulty. Of course, that could also be 'just scraping by', so there's a stylistic aspect of doing it in a way that makes people go 'how the heck did he just pull that off'.

This is all before we even get to the matter of RP, mind you, so I don't think Stormwind is called for.

This is pretty much how I feel as well. All other issues aside, that "sweet spot" can be very hard to achieve and I think that's where a lot of these discussions originate, from failure to balance on that edge point.

nightwyrm
2011-11-13, 01:47 PM
This is pretty much how I feel as well. All other issues aside, that "sweet spot" can be very hard to achieve and I think that's where a lot of these discussions originate, from failure to balance on that edge point.

This can be even more difficult in games where resource management is an integral part of a characters power. What may be easy when the characters are high on resource can be impossible for characters when they run out. Not only is the "sweet spot" difficult to find, it moves around over the course of the game.

Gnaeus
2011-11-13, 01:48 PM
I play RPGs for escapism. The superhuman element is very important to me. This has nothing to do with power level or comparative badassery.

If I were playing in DC universe, and I had a choice between playing Batman and, say, Animal Man, I would play Animal Man. Every single time. Sure, Batman can kick his ass. That is entirely unimportant. Playing a muggle, even a supremely awesome muggle, is not what I play for. The supernatural or sci-fi aspect is way more important to me than the power level. To me, Batman will never approach the coolness of his least powerful mutant or supernatural cohorts, because normal people, even insane rich normal people trained by ninjas with genius level intellect and olympic level physical prowess, are just boring.

GolemsVoice
2011-11-13, 05:26 PM
It should not be considered badass for the Hulk to tear a man's head off. It is a common enough occurrence & well within the Hulk's capabilities. It is however badass to for say... the Punisher to rip a man's head off. The thing is, people seem to want to pull off these types of actions regularly. It seems masturbatory to play such over the top characters.

I can't see the appeal of your playstyle, therefore YOU ARE WRONG.

You are of course right in saying that Hulk beating regular guys to pulp isn't very exciting at all. But that's why, in games where you power grows dramatically, say, D&D, your enemies do as well. Being level 20 and spending all your time dismembering level 5 city guards isn't really badass, because it's just easy. But being level 20 and fighting an evil necromancer on the back of his dragon steed IS badass. Of course higher levels of power need other challenges. But unless you're Legolas (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1098), a high-powered game with low-powered enemies is jsut no fun.

Knaight
2011-11-14, 01:50 AM
No that is not an opinion. Facts are verifiable opinions are not. Since badassery is not verifiable then it is a fact. Logical fallacy is in your court not mine.

Badassery is hardly the only thing you've tried to protect with opinions. Hence the nice little list in that first post of "opinions" that are objectively incorrect.

Lvl45DM!
2011-11-14, 02:02 AM
I like my characters to be competent and to feel like if they dont do this then noone can. Arthur Dent is a great character but would be frustrating to play all the time
When i play a Rogue i want my Hide skill to work. I don't need to fool magical detection all the time or kill people with single blows from the shadows. But I want to be able to hide from average people consistently. Sometimes its great to be able to wreak havoc on low level punks and feel almighty. Once in a while.
The majority of the time I do like to feel I'm on the back foot.
But here's something i haven't found so far in this thread. Most D and D is a combination of both styles. You fight a bunch of mooks that you kill relatively easily, expending about a quarter of your resources. Then you fight another bunch. Then another bunch. Then a big bad with another bunch of mooks. So you're epic but at the same time outmatched. Its like being John McClane in Diehard. Dude is faster in the draw, smarter, more resourceful, more brutal and far far far far tougher (like O-Chul tough seriously) than one one terrorist. But the fact that theres like 20 bad guys is what makes it a challenge. He doesnt have access to clerics or healing surges of course which makes it even harder.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-14, 09:17 AM
Not really. Lots of them even start out with the protagonist in a fairly rotten spot; then he gets something nice and it's snatched away.

Right. So, the good things are still important. You can't really make a tragedy without something bad happening...but you need the good for contrast. Sure, they won't end up with it(happy ending = not a tragedy), but they might well start out with it. And, as Van Buren pointed out, starting out in at least a pretty good position is pretty much par for the course in tragedy.

There is a notable implication of stormwinding, as well. He doesn't outright say it, but it's a very plausible justification for the statements he DOES say.

What, exactly, is badassery? Certainly it's not merely being the underdog, though yes, many examples include an underdog. I can think of a number of examples in popular media where someone accorded the title of badass is in fairly little danger. Consider, say, Alucard from Hellsing. Therefore, it's clear that being mechanically weak is not necessary for being a badass.

Hell, even in your classic action "One man takes on hundreds" scenarios, that one dude usually has a background that justifies him being substantially above par. He's a secret agent, or a retired ex military dude, or whatever. Certainly in above average physical shape. Probably has access to weapons, contacts, etc. Money is rarely shown to be a major constraint in such tales. Such a person is not at all average. The only real exception to this is Scott Pilgrim.

Knaight
2011-11-14, 09:23 AM
Right. So, the good things are still important. You can't really make a tragedy without something bad happening...but you need the good for contrast. Sure, they won't end up with it(happy ending = not a tragedy), but they might well start out with it. And, as Van Buren pointed out, starting out in at least a pretty good position is pretty much par for the course in tragedy.

Yep. If one is going to screw their mother, kill their father, and claw their eyes out one might as well start out a king. Similarly, if one is going to tear their family and their culture to pieces resisting the inevitable tide of an invasive culture, one might as well start off well ranked and with many yams.

Jayabalard
2011-11-14, 11:54 AM
Well, if correct, that's just Stormwinding.It's really not. It's only stormwinding if he says that the High powered character cannot be roleplayed at all.

He can hold the opinion that high power makes "good roleplaying" impossible without stormwinding, since the answer to the question "what is good roleplaying?" is that it's a matter of preference and wholly subjective. It's not a very useful statement in a debate, but it's not wrong either.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-14, 12:17 PM
It's really not. It's only stormwinding if he says that the High powered character cannot be roleplayed at all.

He can hold the opinion that high power makes "good roleplaying" impossible without stormwinding, since the answer to the question "what is good roleplaying?" is that it's a matter of preference and wholly subjective. It's not a very useful statement in a debate, but it's not wrong either.

You are incorrect. To quote Tempest Stormwind's original post:


The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

Clearly, you do not need to claim an impossibility to be guilty of stormwinding.

Yukitsu
2011-11-14, 10:04 PM
To go back to the opening posters question, same reason you feel the need to play Indie. I just happen to prefer going in as Stephen Strange. I don't need a reason for this any more than you need one for yours.

Jayabalard
2011-11-15, 02:28 PM
Clearly, you do not need to claim an impossibility to be guilty of stormwinding.No, you really do. The fallacy is only the "Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa." part, and it only shown to be a fallacy due to the "cannot" bit. Since he only actually proves the falseness because of the usage of the word cannot (Proof by contradiction/counterexample as i recall) the "corollary" doesn't actually follow from the statement above it because of the added phrase "nor infringe upon" ... so it's not actually a corollary.

Nor is his argument relevant except in the context of optimization vs non-optimization; there's no relationship between and that and preferences between high powered campaigns and non-high powered campaigns; either of those can be optimized or non-optimized.

And like I said above, none of this remains meaningful once someone starts talking about "good roleplaying" ... the specific things that make roleplaying "good" rather than "bad" is wholly subjective. There's nothing fallacious about holding an opinion that roleplaying is good when it's in fantasy RPGs , or realistic RPGs, or sci-fi RPGS... it's just a statement of preference at that point. It doesn't mean that he's correct... just that he's not making a fallacious argument at that point.

Jayabalard
2011-11-15, 02:32 PM
To go back to the opening posters question, same reason you feel the need to play Indie. I just happen to prefer going in as Stephen Strange. I don't need a reason for this any more than you need one for yours.I'm not saying you need a reason... there's nothing wrong with having a preference one way or another. But I for one am really curious if there are any reasons for people beyond what "its what I like to play".

Ultimately, I think that any reasons are going to boil down to "I like X, Y and Z better" and experienced gamers are going to be a bit better at articulating exactly what X Y and Z are. And different people are going to come up with different X, Y and Z's.

Edit: I'm going to post that separately since i waited so long to edit that in.

Yukitsu
2011-11-15, 02:55 PM
I'm not saying you need a reason... there's nothing wrong with having a preference one way or another. But I for one am really curious if there are any reasons for people beyond what "its what I like to play".

Ultimately, I think that any reasons are going to boil down to "I like X, Y and Z better" and experienced gamers are going to be a bit better at articulating exactly what X Y and Z are. And different people are going to come up with different X Y and Z's.

In my case, nope. I play world alteringly powerful characters just because that's what I find fun. There isn't anything in particular about it, it's just what I like.

Jayabalard
2011-11-15, 02:59 PM
Personally I'm good with either as long as there is a pretty strict delineation between whether we're playing "superheroes" or not, and I can certainly enjoy the latter, even in fantasy RPGs. I've enjoyed both games where we were the little fishes in the big pond and ones where we were earth shattering heroes; the only times I've really had problems is when there wasn't a clear consensus on which we were playing.

I think a lot of reason I enjoy the non-supers games comes down to being able play a more "human" character; it's something you can do better (not just easier, but better) with the guy who is humanly strong than the guy who is inhumanly strong. Sure, you can play the latter guy the same as the former, but at a certain point it just doesn't come across as very believable; the inhumanly powerful should be markedly different sorts of people than humans.


In my case, nope. I play world alteringly powerful characters just because that's what I find fun. There isn't anything in particular about it, it's just what I like.I find it really likely that there are reasons, you just haven't spent much time thinking about them; most people don't.

I kind of liken it to food/drink preferences. Some people just say things like "I like dark beer" without really thinking a lot about what it is, exactly, about dark beer that they like; but if you get into beer brewing, you might find yourself analyzing your preferences more, trying to brew a better beer.

Yukitsu
2011-11-15, 03:15 PM
That's certainly one interpretation of high power characters, but it's not a necessary one. I think it matters what sort of character you play, as even among the high power characters, personality varies. A larger than life figure who's public persona matches their abilities will certainly be someone difficult to relate to, but an individual that isn't well known, who uses subtler abilities, and who is used to encountering things similar to themselves will seem far more human than the former. Saying that it's "better" at being human in all cases where one is limited in their capabilities is I think wrong, I think it may simply be that you view high powered individuals in a specific way that isn't really necessary to who they are.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-15, 03:42 PM
No, you really do. The fallacy is only the "Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa." part, and it only shown to be a fallacy due to the "cannot" bit. Since he only actually proves the falseness because of the usage of the word cannot (Proof by contradiction/counterexample as i recall) the "corollary" doesn't actually follow from the statement above it because of the added phrase "nor infringe upon" ... so it's not actually a corollary.

Nor is his argument relevant except in the context of optimization vs non-optimization; there's no relationship between and that and preferences between high powered campaigns and non-high powered campaigns; either of those can be optimized or non-optimized.

And like I said above, none of this remains meaningful once someone starts talking about "good roleplaying" ... the specific things that make roleplaying "good" rather than "bad" is wholly subjective. There's nothing fallacious about holding an opinion that roleplaying is good when it's in fantasy RPGs , or realistic RPGs, or sci-fi RPGS... it's just a statement of preference at that point. It doesn't mean that he's correct... just that he's not making a fallacious argument at that point.

The entire point of the stormwind fallacy, as per the guy who wrote it stated in the very same post where he wrote it, is that levels of optimization and levels of roleplaying are independent.

You're trying to argue RAW about a forum post in defiance of what the OP himself said it meant in the post. That seems...really odd. It ain't a game. No need for RAW.

Jayabalard
2011-11-15, 04:19 PM
The entire point of the stormwind fallacy, as per the guy who wrote it stated in the very same post where he wrote it, is that levels of optimization and levels of roleplaying are independent.Yes, and I'm saying he didn't actually show that. He only shows that the statement "Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa." is false. He does not actually show that they're independent; he just makes that claim with no proof.

In fact, if you treat his argument as proof that the "levels of optimization and levels of roleplaying are independent" then you're are falling prey to the same fallacious logic that stormwind pointed out (namely, a false dilemma).

I tend to call this the Stormwind-Fallacy Fallacy.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-15, 04:30 PM
First off, this looks like a thread derailment attempt. If you disagree with the validity of the Stormwind Fallacy, please take it to a different thread. However, the SW Fallacy was clearly intended to apply to just this situation.

Note also that dependance or independance is by definition not a false dilemma. Something can be more or less dependent, yes, but that does not make it a third option. It's still dependance.

To get back to higher powered games/players...the definition of hero has historically been applied to higher powered people of legend and mythos. It is of little surprise that many wish to play heroic characters in a system like D&D that explicitly encourages and supports this outlook, and which is best described as heroic fantasy. If someone wanted super D&D mage powers in say, Bunnies and Burrows, you might have cause for complaint, but someone, in D&D, wishing to play a "gonzo superhuman strength warrior" is not at all unusual. The really, really strong warrior is not a particularly unusual or broken archtype in the context.

Jerthanis
2011-11-15, 04:39 PM
But isn't the claim that they ARE interdependent an equal claim to the one that they are independent, and thus you have the burden to prove your claim?

I mean, I think power of the character has no impact on one's ability to roleplay them because it's a model that is reasonably accurate to what I've seen.

I also find it very interesting that you have a FLCL avatar, which had some absolutely ludicrously overpowered protagonists and yet told one of the most human and down-to-earth stories I think I've seen in Anime.

Yukitsu
2011-11-15, 04:51 PM
But isn't the claim that they ARE interdependent an equal claim to the one that they are independent, and thus you have the burden to prove your claim?

Even if he does, and they probably are, interdependence isn't an indication of mutual exclusivity. He can, at most, claim that it makes you a "worse" role player, or that it changes or alter the roleplaying, but the former is a subjective measure of personal preference, and the latter presupposes that the difference in role play somehow makes one category inferior to the other. I don't really think it necessary to ask him that they are mutually exclusive, it's basically a fool's errand.

Just for the record, I do agree that I think he's wrong in his ultimate conclusion, but he most definitely can find an interdependence upon the two.

Jayabalard
2011-11-15, 04:55 PM
That's certainly one interpretation of high power characters, but it's not a necessary one. I think it matters what sort of character you play, as even among the high power characters, personality varies.Certainly, personality varies. But if it's completely divorced from the power that character can wield, you're doing something wrong.

You get the same thing even within the bounds of human capabilities; if you have (for example) someone with a genius plus but still human intellect, it's not believable if you don't make that have some sort of effect on his personality.

Having a cosmic superhuman level intellect should have such a large impact that you're no longer something I would call human.

There are pieces of what makes us human that are the result of our limitations as humans ("human frailty"). When you start taking those limitations away (and/or replacing them with other limitations)... well, at a certain point I say it's not longer believable to be playing the person purely like you would a vanilla mortal human. Doing so is (in my opinion) poor roleplaying.


I'm not saying you can't roleplay that person well... but you cannot roleplay them well without making them something more than human; it absolutely needs to be part of who that person is. As you move from human limitations toward (and past) ultimate cosmic power, there should be more and more of an effect on who you are.


Note: I realize I'm being kind of Tautological here, but that's the way I see it; keep in mind that this is almost exclusively talking about opinions. I totally recognize that you feel differently about it, and I don't expect to sway you to feel the way that I do.

When you have a topic like this, about the best you can hope for is people understanding where you're coming from, even if they feel differently about it, and as a result of the discussion, they may get a better idea about why they themselves feel the way that they do about it.


First off, this looks like a thread derailment attempt. If you disagree with the validity of the Stormwind Fallacy,No, the fallacy claim is completely correct, but the conclusions that you're drawing on it are equally fallacious.

Yukitsu
2011-11-15, 05:08 PM
I don't view that as necessarily true. Humanity isn't about a constant reflection on frailty and incompetence, and not all super powered individuals would have any reason to view themselves as anything other than frail and incompetent. The troubles that say, a normal, chivalrous knight and for argument's sake spiderman in relation to how they view the world, the problems they have etc. are not so different. Sure, Parker had his 5 minutes of pig headed arrogance where he assumed he was far above the little people "below" him, but that got snuffed out when he realized that powerful does not mean omnipotent.

I suppose I would need to ask what exactly you're referring to when you say "humanity". I view it more as a need of companionship, of having emotions, of acting on those emotions and of having wants and desires rather than frailty. As such, I don't view any disconnect between a high level character and a low level character in terms of their humanity, I see no reason why a tremendously powerful or intelligent being would automatically be too arrogant to accept their own desires.

GolemsVoice
2011-11-15, 07:08 PM
I'm not saying you can't roleplay that person well... but you cannot roleplay them well without making them something more than human; it absolutely needs to be part of who that person is. As you move from human limitations toward (and past) ultimate cosmic power, there should be more and more of an effect on who you are.


That may be true for someone who actually HAS cosmic intellect, and he would cetainly function different from normal humans (see Doctor Manhattan in Watchmen).
But for everyone else, that's not true. To take D&D as an example again, a level 20 rogue or fighter or even a mage aren't that different from normal people personality-wise. Sure, the wizard might be very intelligent, and of course, it's your job to roleplay that to some extent. But he will still look for a person to love, he might want to start a family, he might be arrogant, or kind, selfish or sacrificing. He would have more ways to achieve something than a normal person would, but in the end, he's still a human with extremely fancy toys, just like most superpowered individuals whose superpowers have little or no effect on their mental facilities.

Also, being "high-powered" doesn't have to mean ultimate cosmic power, in fact, it rarely does. A fighter level 20 is far beyond what normal human fighters might achieve, and he's certainly a man of legend, but he's not a being of cosmic significance.

Wardog
2011-11-15, 07:17 PM
The idea that D&D has super-powered heroes has more to do with the enemies and common folk being super underpowered. RL humans would stomp human commoners to death. I've never seen an actual man killed by a house cat but its commonly known in D&D circles just how garbage D&D villagers are. All of the evil races you face early in your careers are supposedly horrid threats to the good people but their stats put them at a huge disadvantage. (Why the commoners don't take care of the goblins or kobolds is anyone's guess. They're at least at equal footing.)

Well, equal footing means they probably have a 50:50 chance of dying, and in such a scenario, most ordinary people are probably going to say "hey, let someone else deal with it". And then the ones that do deal with it are the heros.

And as such, I am rather sympathetic to the idea that heros and adventurers shouldn't (necessarily) be better than anyone else: their defining characteristic isn't that they are "super", but they perform heroics and go on adventurers.

The thing that makes an Bob the Adventurer different from Joe Dirtfarmer is that when a rumour goes round that there is treasure in a cave guarded by kobolds, Joe thinks "50:50 odds of dying? Are you crazy? I'd rather be poor but alive and with my family than rich and dead. And you don't even know for sure the treasure is there!", while Bob thinks "I could get rich!"

Add in the fact that (among NPCs at least) there is no such thing as level-appropriate encounters, and you see why adventurers are rare, and successful adverturers rarer still.


That said, different game systems probably favour different playing styles, both interms of what the setting emphasises, and what the mechanics make reasonable. More experienced players might disagree, but D&D looks to me like a system that favours "powerful" heros (not least because at low levels an evenly-matched fight doesn't have much opportunity for tactics, and almost becomes like flipping a coin to see who wins). Other systems that either make even-odds combat less deadly (so you don't have to powergame to survive), or alternatively make all combat very deadly (so you try to avoid it where possible) would probably be more condusive to non-super heros.

Mystic Muse
2011-11-15, 07:44 PM
The thing that makes an Bob the Adventurer different from Joe Dirtfarmer is that when a rumour goes round that there is treasure in a cave guarded by kobolds, Joe thinks "50:50 odds of dying? Are you crazy? I'd rather be poor but alive and with my family than rich and dead. And you don't even know for sure the treasure is there!", while Bob thinks "I could get rich!"


So, the difference between Bob the Adventurer, and Joe Dirtfarmer, is that Bob's being an idiot?

Yeah, I try not to play characters like that, thank you very much.:smalltongue:

Anderlith
2011-11-15, 08:05 PM
Badassery=/= Roleplay.

I just don't like the idea that D&D is slowly removing the "competent but believable" hero from the game. As such I started this thread to understand the other faction that seems to be the ones making D&D change to a self indulgent game of superhuman heroes. The NPC/PC advancement needs to be the same not separate, & they need to broaden the length of the "competent but believable" hero by about 5 levels, at least. As someone once proved, Einstein was 5th level. An elephant is CR7. This means that someone who is a professional hunter equal to Einstein in ability (hunting, not physics) would be hard presses to kill an elephant. This is clearly unbalanced.

Yukitsu
2011-11-15, 08:11 PM
I honestly can't recall D&D ever being about competent but believable heroes really. When a staple of the game is killing dragons, you're clearly no longer talking about a believably competent individual.

Knaight
2011-11-15, 08:18 PM
I just don't like the idea that D&D is slowly removing the "competent but believable" hero from the game. As such I started this thread to understand the other faction that seems to be the ones making D&D change to a self indulgent game of superhuman heroes.
Its a shame that D&D is the only game on the market, and that if it stops providing things for the competent but believable hero it dries up for the RPG industry. Also, its a shame how superhuman heroes are somehow inherently self indulgent.

Shadowknight12
2011-11-15, 08:21 PM
Badassery=/= Roleplay.

I just don't like the idea that D&D is slowly removing the "competent but believable" hero from the game. As such I started this thread to understand the other faction that seems to be the ones making D&D change to a self indulgent game of superhuman heroes. The NPC/PC advancement needs to be the same not separate, & they need to broaden the length of the "competent but believable" hero by about 5 levels, at least. As someone once proved, Einstein was 5th level. An elephant is CR7. This means that someone who is a professional hunter equal to Einstein in ability (hunting, not physics) would be hard presses to kill an elephant. This is clearly unbalanced.

Two questions:

Has it ever occurred to you that

A) What you find believable might differ from what others find believable?
B) D&D isn't a completely simulationist game, and therefore some of its design decisions have been made prioritising posing a challenge to a player regardless of the level? (Meaning, the fact that the elephant is CR 7 doesn't mean that it's necessarily true, but that the designers wanted a CR 7 animal and chose the elephant)

Just wondering, since there seems to be a conflation of several different topics in this thread that quite frankly, people seem to be utterly unaware of, and it's starting to get in the way of having an actual discussion.

EDIT: Also, yes, what Knaight said. You might want to tone down the derision there for the sake of a civil discussion. Your gaming style is just as self-indulgent as anyone else's.

Mystic Muse
2011-11-15, 08:24 PM
Badassery=/= Roleplay.

I just don't like the idea that D&D is slowly removing the "competent but believable" hero from the game. As such I started this thread to understand the other faction that seems to be the ones making D&D change to a self indulgent game of superhuman heroes. The NPC/PC advancement needs to be the same not separate, & they need to broaden the length of the "competent but believable" hero by about 5 levels, at least. As someone once proved, Einstein was 5th level. An elephant is CR7. This means that someone who is a professional hunter equal to Einstein in ability (hunting, not physics) would be hard presses to kill an elephant. This is clearly unbalanced.

Somebody who was close to Einstein in terms of competence in their field of work would have equipment specifically made to be able to take an elephant out. A single hunter wouldn't be shooting bows at it or going up to it and stabbing it with a sword. D&D doesn't have modern day guns, so taking an Elephant out isn't going to be easy.

Granted, the elephant does have what sounds like far too much HP if it's supposed to be a real world analogue, but you're talking about 3.5, and D&D 3.5 has never been particularly good at handling realism.

Though, if you do want to take an Elephant out at level 5, find some sort of poison that deals charisma or intelligence damage (Preferably intelligence), put a few doses on some arrows, and you'll drop it in a round or two. That seems the logical way a big game hunter would take stuff out in D&D. Find the creature's lowest stat/s, take them down to zero, then repeatly coup de grace them until they're dead.

flumphy
2011-11-15, 08:26 PM
Badassery=/= Roleplay.

I just don't like the idea that D&D is slowly removing the "competent but believable" hero from the game. As such I started this thread to understand the other faction that seems to be the ones making D&D change to a self indulgent game of superhuman heroes. The NPC/PC advancement needs to be the same not separate, & they need to broaden the length of the "competent but believable" hero by about 5 levels, at least. As someone once proved, Einstein was 5th level. An elephant is CR7. This means that someone who is a professional hunter equal to Einstein in ability (hunting, not physics) would be hard presses to kill an elephant. This is clearly unbalanced.

I am now picturing Einstein nuking an elephant and the elephant climbing out of the crater unscathed. I must use this somehow.

Anyway, have you considered E6? If what you want is extended low level D&D, then that should fill your needs nicely. Yeah, it's a set of houserules, but D&D was never meant for playing mundane guys out of the box.

Or, as Knaight suggested, you could try a different system. D&D is very much on the high end of the power scale.

Anderlith
2011-11-16, 12:48 AM
Its a shame that D&D is the only game on the market, and that if it stops providing things for the competent but believable hero it dries up for the RPG industry. Also, its a shame how superhuman heroes are somehow inherently self indulgent.

No, it's not the only game on the market, but so what? I can't want to have a game that I like designed more so? What is the point of new editions if we were to hold everything absolute? There was a point in D&D where you retired before you could break the world. I would just like to see more like that again.

Knaight
2011-11-16, 12:55 AM
No, it's not the only game on the market, but so what? I can't want to have a game that I like designed more so? What is the point of new editions if we were to hold everything absolute? There was a point in D&D where you retired before you could break the world. I would just like to see more like that again.

Given that the vast majority of games do exactly what is being described, turning one of the ones that doesn't towards that seems counterproductive at best.

navar100
2011-11-16, 01:17 AM
Badassery=/= Roleplay.

I just don't like the idea that D&D is slowly removing the "competent but believable" hero from the game. As such I started this thread to understand the other faction that seems to be the ones making D&D change to a self indulgent game of superhuman heroes. The NPC/PC advancement needs to be the same not separate, & they need to broaden the length of the "competent but believable" hero by about 5 levels, at least. As someone once proved, Einstein was 5th level. An elephant is CR7. This means that someone who is a professional hunter equal to Einstein in ability (hunting, not physics) would be hard presses to kill an elephant. This is clearly unbalanced.

In D&D one can spontaneously create a 40ft diameter sphere of flame over a great distance burning most anyone or anything within it with a handful of bat poo. "Believability" is relative.

GolemsVoice
2011-11-16, 04:41 AM
No, it's not the only game on the market, but so what? I can't want to have a game that I like designed more so? What is the point of new editions if we were to hold everything absolute? There was a point in D&D where you retired before you could break the world. I would just like to see more like that again.

The thing is, you're complaining that a game that clearly has a design philosophy that you dislike has a design philosophy that you dislike. You say that you're trying to understand why some like to play supoerpowered heroes, and I think the thread has given you many good answers. Some like it for various reasons stated, but almost everybody has said that heroes don't NEED to be superpowered. But if you don't want that, I'm sorry, but D&D just isn't the game for you. And by continuing to ask questions in the way of "why do these people (who play D&D) keep playing masturbatory powerfantasies, I don't understand that" you keep making the game and it's philosophy (the PCs are big damn heroes) look bad.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-16, 08:17 AM
Badassery=/= Roleplay.

I just don't like the idea that D&D is slowly removing the "competent but believable" hero from the game. As such I started this thread to understand the other faction that seems to be the ones making D&D change to a self indulgent game of superhuman heroes. The NPC/PC advancement needs to be the same not separate, & they need to broaden the length of the "competent but believable" hero by about 5 levels, at least. As someone once proved, Einstein was 5th level. An elephant is CR7. This means that someone who is a professional hunter equal to Einstein in ability (hunting, not physics) would be hard presses to kill an elephant. This is clearly unbalanced.

Meh. I find a level 1 wizard far more unbelievable than a level 20 fighter. Sure, the level 20 fighter can make a pretty impressive leap. And hit things really, really hard. *looks at action movies* Yeah, I can buy that. A dude creating flame with his mind, or being able to understand every language in existence? Those are sufficiently badass superpowers that a movie would likely be written about a person with only a single one of those.

So, D&D can do whatever level of realism you're comfortable with, and your choices determine what that level will be.

I would also like to point out the following:

A. The Alexandrian article which you reference has been refuted many times.
B. Elephants do kill hunters from time to time, including professionals. It is common for people to hunt them in groups for safety as a result.
C. Note also that they are using firearms, which deal rather notable damage if you're using the stats for such guns as given in D20 modern(2d12 or more, generally speaking)

Anderlith
2011-11-17, 02:03 AM
A. The Alexandrian article which you reference has been refuted many times.

Wait, what article?

Tyndmyr
2011-11-17, 09:01 AM
Wait, what article?

http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

It's an oft-quoted article that does some very good poking, but ultimately comes to entirely the wrong conclusions.

For one thing, his assumption that being unable to heal Frodo's wound at weathertop means he can't make a standard DC 15 heal check. This entirely ignores that the wound is explicitly NOT normal, and is much more akin to vile damage. Ringwraiths are not your standard mook.

Next up, he calculates CR for the orcs he personally slays, ignoring that CR calculations are for a PARTY. That's a rather notable difference that leads to estimating a significantly higher level for Aragorn. Note also that he was entirely uninjured in doing this, which tends to indicate that the encounter was below his level, not above.

Ringwraiths don't have a specific level. That said, Wraiths do. Solo chasing off all the wraiths at weathertop is a fairly notable encounter. Also, the cave troll. Trolls are CR 5. Note that this fight was not just a troll by any means, so the overall CR is substantially higher.

It also ignores other notable events, like him talking to ghosts and lead them as an army. That is a notable diplomacy check at a minimum(and Aragorn IS fairly well spoken throughout).

Plus, it entirely ignores things like the Balrog explicitly being a Balor in D&D, and it got killed by Gandalf. This pretty much guarantees that Gandalf has 20+ levels/hd(though logically, the rest of the party is somewhat lower).

Simply put, the LOTR is not at all well modeled by assuming level 5-6 as the cap for basically everyone.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-11-17, 04:54 PM
Badassery=/= Roleplay.

So, um, are you saying higher powered characters are harder to roleplay?

Emmerask
2011-11-17, 05:31 PM
Well it would be quite hard to roleplay pun pun I would imagine.
I would even go so far as to say that it is impossible to roleplay pun pun correctly... how to roleplay something that is that much more intelligent then you are?

While this is the extreme case of the most optimized/high powered possible character I think it is a lot harder to roleplay a hyper intelligent char then a stupid or normally intelligent one.

So yes as far as intelligence optimized/high powered etc characters go I think it is harder to roleplay them ^^

Str dex con based high powered characters on the other hand are no problem to roleplay regardless of powerlevel.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-11-17, 05:53 PM
Well it would be quite hard to roleplay pun pun I would imagine.
I would even go so far as to say that it is impossible to roleplay pun pun correctly... how to roleplay something that is that much more intelligent then you are?

While this is the extreme case of the most optimized/high powered possible character I think it is a lot harder to roleplay a hyper intelligent char then a stupid or normally intelligent one.

So yes as far as intelligence optimized/high powered etc characters go I think it is harder to roleplay them ^^

Str dex con based high powered characters on the other hand are no problem to roleplay regardless of powerlevel.

He's not talking about Pun-Pun. He's talking about basically the entire Straw Hat crew in One Piece, and pretty much every member of Team Avatar in Avatar: TLA, except maybe Nami and Sokka.

flumphy
2011-11-17, 06:24 PM
He's not talking about Pun-Pun. He's talking about basically the entire Straw Hat crew in One Piece, and pretty much every member of Team Avatar in Avatar: TLA, except maybe Nami and Sokka.

I would argue that, e.g., Aang is more challenging to roleplay than Sokka. After all, Aang is a pseudo-immortal dealing with several issues no real human has ever had to deal with.

Notice, however, that I said "more challenging," not "impossible" or even "impossible for the average player."

Anderlith
2011-11-18, 01:08 AM
So, um, are you saying higher powered characters are harder to roleplay?

No, the level of satisfaction derived from exceptional performance is separate than that of the actions taken my the player/ character. Yes they can be intertwined but that only a facet & is not the rule

Frozen_Feet
2011-11-18, 05:37 AM
So, um, are you saying higher powered characters are harder to roleplay?

No, rather, he's saying that even when played well, the high power of a character diminishes impact of their feats. Ie., someone playing Superman can make an enjoyable scene out of incapacitating a group of thugs, but act itself doesn't feel impressive (or "badass") because it's not a challenge, and never was.

You can argue that Superman facing challenges of his own level becomes impressive again, but I'll provide a counter-argument and say that there's a point after which "things challenging so Superman" is so far removed from reality, it doesn't trigger the same emotional response. At least, that seems to be the case with Anderlith.

Jayabalard
2011-11-18, 02:58 PM
http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

It's an oft-quoted article that does some very good poking, but ultimately comes to entirely the wrong conclusions.It also ignores things like running for 3 days straight (which as i recall is a pretty extreme feat).

There was a discussion on this forum a while ago that talked a bit about the tracking of Merry and Pippin; I don't think there was a strong consensus, but some of that implied a bit higher level for Aaragorn (picking out the hobbit tracks after they were trampled by the Uruks, spotting the brooch at a run, stuff like that).

Jayabalard
2011-11-18, 03:01 PM
So, um, are you saying higher powered characters are harder to roleplay?depends on what makes them high powered.

Extremely high int, wis, or cha are hard to roleplay; so are characters with Intellectus, or omniscience.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-18, 03:03 PM
It also ignores things like running for 3 days straight (which as i recall is a pretty extreme feat).

There was a discussion on this forum a while ago that talked a bit about the tracking of Merry and Pippin; I don't think there was a strong consensus, but some of that implied a bit higher level for Aaragorn (picking out the hobbit tracks after they were trampled by the Uruks, spotting the brooch at a run, stuff like that).

Right. I'd definitely put Merry and Pippin as the lowest in the party, with Aragorn being fairly high, and Gandalf definitely being the highest. Also, Gandalf is more Gish than pure Wizard, imo. He uses the sword plenty.

There's always a certain amount of subjectivity in statting up chars from any media, but they at least should be capable of doing the things they're shown doing in some fashion.