Re: Difficulty Balance

Simon Smith wrote:
> Funnily enough, I'm the only player I know who has actually had a
character
> steam in, slaughter some foes and then in a bull-like voice demand
surrender
> from the remainder. I'm entirely happy with that as a definition of
heroic.

I find it interesting that this is rare, ranking with the idea of PCs
retreating.

Both are rather common in my groups.


> And in a bit you snipped I said "whacking down weaker foes isn't
> particularly noble, but I think it's about equally common in the hardest
> scenarios /as in heroic ones/". The difference is, in a heroic scenario,
> after having killed some, the hero demands surrender from the remainder,
> while in a gritty scenario he then goes on to try to slaughter the rest
as
> well. It's not the butchery that's heroic, it's the later restraint.

Killing is never heroic itself. The reasons for, and events surrounding
it is the determining factor.



> Of course, the butchery is a necessary prelude, otherwise how can you
show
> you are capable of carrying out the threat? Characters who charge in and
> immediately demand surrender without killing anyone are trying a bluff;
> that's even lower down the violence scale - so 'cinematic' rather than
> 'heroic'.

Sigh. It true.

I once called for surrender before an ambush thinking that our position
of advantage combined with our reputation would be enough.

Not only did it fail, I took a good deal of razzing from the group as
well. Now I'm of the opinion that some opening slaughter is a good
thing.