Simon Smith wrote:
> "gleichman" <Fox1_217NoSpam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>"Simon Smith" <simon_smith_new@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>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 . . .
>
> Do you believe the reverse? That seems even more unlikely to me.
>
> How can you be heroic when you're scrabbling to survive? In heroic
A hero is somebody who is willing to (frequently) put his life at stake
for some ideal (although it doen't have to be a "good" ideal). In order
to empower the players to create actually heroic characters, combat must
be (potentially) dangerous.
Another thing is "style", though. Style occurs when the PCs are
sufficiently on top of things that they (the characters - remember, the
players do not exist) feel they can make suboptimal choices. Each PC (as
well as each NPC) has his own style, his or her own tendency towards
certain kinds of suboptimal choices.
I'm in favour of "style", but also of combat being potentially
dangerous. My way of doing that is to have damage dependent on how many
(un-countered) successes you get on your attack roll (note to newcomers:
I'm *not* using Storyteller), multiplied by the weapon chosen (swords
tend to hurt more than daggers), but at the same time having a quite
large "damage span" between "incapacitated" and "dead".
> scenarios, characters almost always all survive, and if one of them dies
> it's usually by choice - a heroic sacrifice. In gritty scenarios
characters
> die, and if a heroic sacrifice is necessary the characters will rarely
get
> the chance to choose who makes it. I consider Star Wars D6 - very low
> mortality - to be heroic, and tough/killer DnD scenarios as discussed
here
> - higher mortality, possible TPKs, characters dying simply due to bad
dice
I think D&D is irrelevant, because in the typical D&D world, there are
no ideals (in the broadest possible sense of the word that still retain
any meaning) to put one's life at risk for. It typically ends up being
about material greed, and lust for character development (i.e. the
characters wish to gain levels). Any real problems are best solved by
superhuman NPCs (Elmonster, et cetera). This utterly fails to leave room
for heroism.
Brian's campaign is set in Tolkien's Middle Earth (not 3rd age, though,
AFAIK), which has obvious room for heroism.
> luck - to be gritty. 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
What you call "heroic", I call "style". Or sometimes I call it
"roleplaying" or "(non-capabilitistic) individuality" or "personality".
It is showing who you are (as opposed to showing, through actions, what
you are willing to risk your life for).
> 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, scrabbling merely for
survival
> doesn't.
>
> Please expand on your own point, and/or ask me some questions to expose
the
> holes in my own assertions.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
|
