Quote from: Christopher Brady;999831For every mythic hero, there are hundreds of wannabes that simply aren't.  How is this confusing?

Well done, that man.

For me, survival is a huge part of the fun.  I'm that way in wargaming too, though; I'd rather play Hurricanes vs Bf109E than P51D vs FW190D, I'd rather play 1941 tank battles than 1945.  Doing something useful with M3s and Matildas and Pz II and Pz III is just more interesting than Panthers and Tigers vs Fireflys and Jacksons.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;999831For every mythic hero, there are hundreds of wannabes that simply aren't.  How is this confusing?

In my experience, at least, D&D PCs don't have a less than 1% survival rate to higher levels. I don't think I've seen less than a 10% survival rate except in one-shots. More typically, I'll see survival rates of 20% to 50%. At the higher levels, there's maybe one player who has his original character, but most of the players are on the second through fifth.

So that makes it strange that the PCs at first didn't stand out at all, but then turn into legendary.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;999834Well done, that man.

For me, survival is a huge part of the fun.  I'm that way in wargaming too, though; I'd rather play Hurricanes vs Bf109E than P51D vs FW190D, I'd rather play 1941 tank battles than 1945.  Doing something useful with M3s and Matildas and Pz II and Pz III is just more interesting than Panthers and Tigers vs Fireflys and Jacksons.

I'm fine either way. I enjoy playing hapless ordinary people caught up with the unknown in Call of Cthulhu, but I also like playing superheroes, or a capital ship in Star Trek, or similar.

Quote from: jhkim;999843In my experience, at least, D&D PCs don't have a less than 1% survival rate to higher levels. I don't think I've seen less than a 10% survival rate except in one-shots. More typically, I'll see survival rates of 20% to 50%. At the higher levels, there's maybe one player who has his original character, but most of the players are on the second through fifth.

So that makes it strange that the PCs at first didn't stand out at all, but then turn into legendary.


I'm fine either way. I enjoy playing hapless ordinary people caught up with the unknown in Call of Cthulhu, but I also like playing superheroes, or a capital ship in Star Trek, or similar.

Here's the thing.  Again, it's all play style and at the end of the day, you do you.  But no matter how you do, whether the players end up always being the Mythic Heroes, or are the Wannabes, it pretty much remains the same.  You have a select group that reach that pinnacle and you get a bunch of others who think they can.  

To be honest, it's a lot like real life in a lot of ways.  Someone gets successful in some venture, whether by skill or luck, and then EVERYONE wants to copy it, hoping to be that second lightning in a bottle.  Often with varying degrees of failure.

Quote from: jhkim;999843In my experience, at least, D&D PCs don't have a less than 1% survival rate to higher levels. I don't think I've seen less than a 10% survival rate except in one-shots. More typically, I'll see survival rates of 20% to 50%. At the higher levels, there's maybe one player who has his original character, but most of the players are on the second through fifth.

So that makes it strange that the PCs at first didn't stand out at all, but then turn into legendary.

Unless you are talking about the myths like Heracles or Gilgamesh where the hero started out as a demigod, all most of the heroes started out as nobodies (or, at best, a prince or something, and there are lots of princes who go adventuring lying dead on some battlefield).

As to the percentages, there is a significant selection bias based on whom the 'camera' stays fixed upon. There are, in the hypothetical game world, lots of 1st level parties that start out adventuring. One group of 4-12 goes into a dungeon, and maybe 50% of them come out with enough gold to become 2nd level and plenty of other groups never come back). Some more people latch onto that group and join up (the players who lost their characters roll up new ones) and go to the next dungeon, and they have a slightly higher than 50% survival rate (half the party is 2nd level). Eventually you have a party with a healthy survival rate (as parties of level 5+, played by players capable of getting their PCs to 5th level, tend to be). This is the notable group that the focus stays upon (and the Players and DM keep playing). But that these somehow aren't the one-in-a-hundred (or thousand, million) because PCs don't have a 0.1% or lower survival rate is missing this bias.

Quote from: jhkim;999830Different games have PCs on different scales. Amber Diceless and superhero games have PCs that are already big hitters in their field, while Call of Cthulhu has characters that are much more modest.

Yet Call of Cthulhu characters are, IMO, among the most heroic. They start with the least and stand against near certain death.
You're a hero because of your behavior, in the face of adversity, regardless of you're chances of success.
You're not a hero just because you have powers and might, or a badge of office, or a daddy who's a god.

Quote from: jhkim;999843In my experience, at least, D&D PCs don't have a less than 1% survival rate to higher levels.

The "hundreds of wannabes" include 0-level commoners.

To use sports, most people can toss a ball around, even if they never play the sport officially. PC's are the ones who took up the sport officially. As you go up in level you're seeing those with promise either rise to the next level (high school starter, high school league champions,  high school division winners, state champions, etc. with it continuing through college, to professional, to hall of fame, to best to have ever played the sport) or they drop out of the sport, get their careers cut short by something, etc.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;999853Unless you are talking about the myths like Heracles or Gilgamesh where the hero started out as a demigod, all most of the heroes started out as nobodies (or, at best, a prince or something, and there are lots of princes who go adventuring lying dead on some battlefield).

As to the percentages, there is a significant selection bias based on whom the 'camera' stays fixed upon. There are, in the hypothetical game world, lots of 1st level parties that start out adventuring. One group of 4-12 goes into a dungeon, and maybe 50% of them come out with enough gold to become 2nd level and plenty of other groups never come back).

In traditional myths, I think most heroes start out as being destined for greatness and already possessing extraordinary qualities. Achilles, Odysseus, and most others were already extraordinary at the start of their sagas - as were Gandalf, Legolas, and others.

I don't understand your point about the camera. In my campaigns, at least, there is continuous camera focus on the PCs from level 1 on up. We know how many losses the group took, and we didn't lose half the party getting from level 1 to level 2.

This was noticeable particularly in my recent D&D campaign, because it was set in an ongoing apocalypse - so nearly everyone in the world was adventuring as they fought monsters and tried to survive in the midst of the apocalypse. I had NPCs die and level up, but given hundreds of NPCs, they weren't all advancing at the rate that the PCs were. It's not like it ruined the game or anything, but we did exchange a few quips about the odd PC glow that meant they advanced more than everyone else.

Quote from: Spellslinging Sellsword;999876To use sports, most people can toss a ball around, even if they never play the sport officially. PC's are the ones who took up the sport officially. As you go up in level you're seeing those with promise either rise to the next level (high school starter, high school league champions,  high school division winners, state champions, etc. with it continuing through college, to professional, to hall of fame, to best to have ever played the sport) or they drop out of the sport, get their careers cut short by something, etc.

I'm not that much of a sports fan - but my impression is that in general, if a skilled person watch a high school sports team, they will be able to notice ones who might go on to become professional hall-of-famers. For example, by the time they were in high school, Michael Jordan or Barry Bonds stood out as noticeably different from the vast majority of their classmates.

It's not the D&D has to conform to this metaphor, but rather, I don't think that the metaphor holds up.

D&D is its own thing, and I enjoy it - but I can also point out some of its peculiarities and inconsistencies.

Quote from: jhkim;999982I don't understand your point about the camera. In my campaigns, at least, there is continuous camera focus on the PCs from level 1 on up. We know how many losses the group took, and we didn't lose half the party getting from level 1 to level 2.

While the PCs might be more competent than some of their peers, the big distinction in typical modern D&D play is that the PCs get to face artificially balanced encounters & the NPCs don't - http://dmdavid.com/tag/the-story-of-the-impossible-luck-that-leads-dd-parties-to-keep-facing-threats-they-can-beat/ - the GM stacks the deck in favour of the PCs whereas off-screen NPCs are assumed to face a truly random threat level.

So in-world the PCs may be "dime a dozen" adventurers. They are only special in the metagame.

Quote from: jhkim;999982I'm not that much of a sports fan - but my impression is that in general, if a skilled person watch a high school sports team, they will be able to notice ones who might go on to become professional hall-of-famers. For example, by the time they were in high school, Michael Jordan or Barry Bonds stood out as noticeably different from the vast majority of their classmates.

It's not the D&D has to conform to this metaphor, but rather, I don't think that the metaphor holds up.

Correct, you can recognize and cultivate talent. Most people don't have it. Most people in D&D aren't PC's, they are level 0 humans. In D&D those with talent start at level 1 (high school) and through practice and honing their craft (leveling) become the professionals and hall of famers. Those who are 0 level NPC's lack the talent to become a 14th level character. Those level 1 characters with talent may or may not have enough to make it, you have to see how their career goes.

Quote from: jhkim;999982In traditional myths, I think most heroes start out as being destined for greatness and already possessing extraordinary qualities. Achilles, Odysseus, and most others were already extraordinary at the start of their sagas - as were Gandalf, Legolas, and others.

Odysseus did nothing before the Trojan war except try to get out of getting drafted into it by pulling a Max Klinger routine, but if we swap in Theseus, your point stands. But that is cherry picking. We could go with Jack the Giant Killer, Odysseus, Bilbo, Frodo, and the other hobbits, Beowulf (whose pre-Grendel Saga mostly involves his parentage), Robin Hood, and so on and so forth, and most of them were, at best, nobility and maybe noted as being strong and brave.

QuoteI don't understand your point about the camera. In my campaigns, at least, there is continuous camera focus on the PCs from level 1 on up. We know how many losses the group took, and we didn't lose half the party getting from level 1 to level 2.

My perception of your point about percents was that PCs don't have the 1-in-100 (or thousand, million, or whatever) survival chances that would be needed to explain why the world wasn't awash in heroes. My point is that there is a selection bias based on our focus (the 'camera,' so to speak) that precludes using PC survival percentages as a measure of what chance a starting adventurer has of becoming great.

I'm not sure which system you are using, or how you play, but I've found the 1st-2nd level mortality rate (including characters that survive, but realize that they aren't cut out for this line of work) being somewhere between 25% and 75% (which I then averaged to 50%. Again, this is very dependent on system and how you play. If you play such that you do not have to roll your level 1 hd, that takes away a huge chunk of the early deaths and retirements, for instance.

QuoteThis was noticeable particularly in my recent D&D campaign, because it was set in an ongoing apocalypse - so nearly everyone in the world was adventuring as they fought monsters and tried to survive in the midst of the apocalypse. I had NPCs die and level up, but given hundreds of NPCs, they weren't all advancing at the rate that the PCs were. It's not like it ruined the game or anything, but we did exchange a few quips about the odd PC glow that meant they advanced more than everyone else.

Well, if the PCs and NPCs were being played by the same rules, then the PCs must have been surviving because they were (played) more cagy and resourceful than the NPCs. In which case they deserve to be the people who end up as the notable heroes of the day.

QuoteD&D is its own thing, and I enjoy it - but I can also point out some of its peculiarities and inconsistencies.

Oh, absolutely. Although I am not sure D&D is being inconsistent, so much as not matching 100% the literature that inspired it. D&D is a game and a lot of the structures built into it are game-centric, and not literature-centric. The levels of heroism and propensity of monsters being just a few notable examples. The economies, survival chances for non-monster-related activities, and many other things absolutely don't make numerical sense for the vast swaths of 0-level non-PCs either. That's because the whole thing is a (hopefully relatively successful) illusion that the world exists as anything but a backdrop for the PCs to go in and out of the subterranean funhouses of terror, coming out with loot to spend and tales to tell.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1000007Odysseus did nothing before the Trojan war except try to get out of getting drafted into it by pulling a Max Klinger routine, but if we swap in Theseus, your point stands. But that is cherry picking. We could go with Jack the Giant Killer, Odysseus, Bilbo, Frodo, and the other hobbits, Beowulf (whose pre-Grendel Saga mostly involves his parentage), Robin Hood, and so on and so forth, and most of them were, at best, nobility and maybe noted as being strong and brave.

Odysseus didn't have any noted experience - but he was already a powerful and respected fighter and thinker, who immediately commanded respect among the greatest heroes, far from a 1st level novice. Similarly, Beowulf was from the start of his sage was able to fight off barehanded a monster that dozens of warriors couldn't match. In contrast, Bilbo and Frodo seem pretty much 1st level at their start, and they grow somewhat, but they don't become powerhouses. Even close to the end, they have difficulty defeating a single orc.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1000007My perception of your point about percents was that PCs don't have the 1-in-100 (or thousand, million, or whatever) survival chances that would be needed to explain why the world wasn't awash in heroes. My point is that there is a selection bias based on our focus (the 'camera,' so to speak) that precludes using PC survival percentages as a measure of what chance a starting adventurer has of becoming great.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1000007Well, if the PCs and NPCs were being played by the same rules, then the PCs must have been surviving because they were (played) more cagy and resourceful than the NPCs. In which case they deserve to be the people who end up as the notable heroes of the day.

I don't get the camera focus point. In a written story, there is a selection bias, because the author knows the end of the story, and doesn't write about adventurers who all die or retire. But in a continuing RPG campaign, there is a chance of the entire party dying, and we play that out. The risks that the PCs face in an adventure are the same as the risks that NPCs would face. If 50% of the PCs die in a given adventure, then I would expect that roughly 50% of NPCs would die in the same situation.

In my recent campaign, while I might give them a slight edge, in practice the PCs were not particularly distinguished by being more cagy and resourceful than NPCs. They did distinguish themselves in bravery and ruthlessness, but different NPCs distinguished themselves in other ways.

Quote from: jhkim;1000053The risks that the PCs face in an adventure are the same as the risks that NPCs would face. If 50% of the PCs die in a given adventure, then I would expect that roughly 50% of NPCs would die in the same situation.

But NPCs face different and often over-leveled adventures. In most RPGs PCs face "suitable" adventures.

Quote from: jhkim;999982I'm not that much of a sports fan - but my impression is that in general, if a skilled person watch a high school sports team, they will be able to notice ones who might go on to become professional hall-of-famers. For example, by the time they were in high school, Michael Jordan or Barry Bonds stood out as noticeably different from the vast majority of their classmates.

It's not the D&D has to conform to this metaphor, but rather, I don't think that the metaphor holds up.

D&D is its own thing, and I enjoy it - but I can also point out some of its peculiarities and inconsistencies.

Yes and no on the "might go on to become" part.  That is, the "might" is vast understatement.  There are people that stand out.  Out of all of them, most will drop by the wayside, due to lack of interest (even better at something else that is their goal), talent that isn't quite as good as it appears, lack of will, bad luck (injury, financial, whatever), or any number of other reasons.  A solid chunk of Hall of Famers will come from this pool, because, "You can't teach height or speed."  

OTOH, some people are slow developers (physically) or have a late epiphany at the right moment.  Which is why there are a few Hall of Famers that no one predicted would amount to much.  All in all, the scouting is good enough and useful enough that people keep doing it, but it's also so bad that even professional NFL scouts that do the grunt work for picking out of the cream of college football stars ... consider it an excellent draft if they get it right half the time.  

I think the metaphor holds up fairly well.  You do the random 3d6 in order thing in early D&D, have some insight into the tendencies of the players involved, you can make some informed predictions of which characters will be successful and which ones will not.  But you'll be off quite a bit too.  Even in the later versions of the game, with things skewed to make it more predictable, there's still a decent amount of guesswork.  I can make a highly informed guess on how my usual players will manage particular characters with me running a game.  Change any of those variables, and I really don't know.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;999834Well done, that man.

For me, survival is a huge part of the fun.  I'm that way in wargaming too, though; I'd rather play Hurricanes vs Bf109E than P51D vs FW190D, I'd rather play 1941 tank battles than 1945.  Doing something useful with M3s and Matildas and Pz II and Pz III is just more interesting than Panthers and Tigers vs Fireflys and Jacksons.

A fellow thinker at last!  My preferred WW II wargame army is the Romanian--small herds of Panzer 35(t)'s brewing up, I mean thundering up, across the steppes; in Napoleonic wargaming, I also introduced the concept of the "Saxon Speed-Bump" to Napoleon's Battles play in my wargame club, though I did not by any means originate it.  Anyone can win with the Old Guard, but it takes a tiny bit of talent to manage it with the Saxons/Westphalians/Bavarians.