In message <1168528267.068296.23360@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
"Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> gleichman wrote:
> > Simon Smith wrote:
> > > In message <7pCdnYugQYcRtzvYnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > "gleichman" <Fox1_217NoSpam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Simon Smith" <simon_smith_new@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > > > news:81bc47a34e.zen44412@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Easier scenarios make for a more heroic tone. Harder scenarios
> > > > > make for a grittier tone.
> > > >
> > > > I completely and strongly disagree with this.
> > >
> > > Oh? O-kay . . .
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > Being heroic is a luxury over and above surviving. If
> > > the characters can barely survive, they have no margin in which to
act
> > > heroic - they may even have to minimax the rules and their
characters in all
> > > sorts of ways just to achieve the edge they need to survive. Make
the
> > > scenario easier, and characters get the chance to look beyond their
own
> > > immediate round-to-round survival and do more stuff that would
generally be
> > > considered heroic - such as sparing villainous NPCs, and performing
flashy
> > > but probably suboptimal combat moves during the fight. That sort of
> > > behaviour makes for a heroic tone in my eyes
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > Please expand on your own point, and/or ask me some questions to
expose the
> > > holes in my own assertions.
> >
> > It's not an easy one to expand and I had to do some consideration of
> > it. I knew the statement was horribly at odds with my own viewpoint, a
> > reaction intensified by the section of your post I quoted above.
> >
> > Flashy moves? Luxury? We have serious disconnect on what heroism is
> > here.
In a deadly scenario, characters have to use every trick in the book in
order to survive. That includes dirty tricks. Dirty tricks aren't heroic -
if characters do them, the tone of the game becomes increasingly gritty.
If
characters /must/ do them in order to have any chance of survival, and
especially if they sometimes still die even then, it's a gritty scenario.
Being heroic, s****ting and honorable involves refraining from performing
such dirty tricks. Therefore being heroic is a 'luxury' which characters
can
only afford if the scenario is made slightly easier. I hope that makes the
distinction I'm trying to draw clearer.
> > >From dictionary.com, first and thus most common meaning: "a man of
> > distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and
noble
> > qualities."
> > Where's the courage in a easy scenario? What noble qualities are
> > displayed by whacking down weaker foes?
/Easier/, not /easy/.
> > And I find the assumption that difficult adventures allowing no time
> > for role-play somewhat foolish. Make time. It isn't hard of that's
what
> > you're interested in.
> > Suboptimal? Yes, throwing oneself on a grenade is a suboptimal action-
> > if you're more worried about yourself than you are the other people in
> > the blast range. The point of selecting a Suboptimal action, and it
> > being heroic is precisely because it's a suboptimal action- and it
just
> > happenes to be the only action that will make the difference needed.
But in order to sustain a heroic campaign, you can't have too high a
mortality rate. Individual characters constantly having to sacrifice
themselves selflessly (or 'heroically') stops feeling heroic after a time
-
it becomes routine, especially from the point of view of the players and
GM,
who witness /all/ the deaths - and I think that makes for a gritty tone,
even if individuals within the game are indeed being heroic. Heroic /tone/
requires such sacrifices to be relatively rare, otherwise they lose their
impact.
> > There seems to be the common assumption today that heroism is fla****ng
> > gun play, cute one-liners, and surviving characters. That may be
> > Hollywood Action-Adventure, but it's not the stuff of heroes. It's not
> > even the stuff of Classical Mythology where failure and death is
nearly
> > always the closing result. Nor is it the stuff of classic Fantasy
works
> > from LotR on. And it certainly isn't the stuff of real life.
Those are all fair points. But my feeling is that you can't run a heroic
/campaign/ unless the characters have a reasonable survival chance in each
individual scenario. That means toning the difficulty down slightly - see
below, where I try to provide some ballpark numbers.
> When a person I despise says something that is exactly correct, I still
> despise him but I have to say: hear hear.
Off-topic, but - I cannot imagine any cir***stance where mentioning
- even just in passing - that you despise someone is going to be helpful.
Please refrain from doing this.
> What others have called heroic here is best called "cinematic."
> Whatsisname didn't use that term but that is what he is talking about.
> Even in good cinema, some heroism ****nes through but the cinematic
> style of gaming is not about facing difficulty, it is about looking
> cool and feeling like a kick-ass.
<snip>
Ah, yes, that's a useful distinction, and one I wasn't making when I
posted.
Try this, but note that the numbers are qualitative only:
Party operating at Common result
150% of capacity TPK
120% of capacity Gritty tone,
survival a struggle,
regular character deaths
100%-110% of capacity Tone somewhere between gritty and heroic
survival hard
occasional character deaths
90-100% of capacity Lighter tone,
somewhere between heroic and cinematic
Survival acheivable
character deaths rare
80-90% of capacity Cinematic tone,
Survival pretty much certain
Character deaths very rare
under 80% Very light tone
Becomes increasingly Monty Haul under 50%
This illustrates where /I/ think heroic tone fits into the gaming
spectrum.
So I'd have to modify my original post and admit that I'm usually
running a cinematic game.
Is this a less contentious position, or do you still have issues with it?
PS, sorry, who's Whatsisname?
--
Simon Smith
When emailing me, please use my preferred email address, which is on my
web
site at http://www.simon-smith.org
|
