In the campaigns you GMs run - how often do you let players BE Heroes?
Enjoy the temporary adulation and fame of being Heroes?
Or as Whedon TV shows put it 'Big Damn Heroes' ?
If you more often a player: How often had you had that HERO! moment in a game?
Where you felt the satisfaction of your character doing the Heroic or Right Thing in a BIG way?
- Ed C.
The song that inspired this thread's title:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdo5f_ozf6E
"Heroes" by David Bowie
Quote from: Koltar;444123In the campaigns you GMs run - how often do you let players BE Heroes?
Enjoy the temporary adulation and fame of being Heroes?
Or as Whedon TV shows put it 'Big Damn Heroes' ?
If you more often a player: How often had you had that HERO! moment in a game?
Where you felt the satisfaction of your character doing the Heroic or Right Thing in a BIG way?
- Ed C.
The song that inspired this thread's title:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdo5f_ozf6E
"Heroes" by David Bowie
As a GM, I look at it more as letting the action play out as it may and not constraining the PCs - if they choose to act heroically it's of their own doing. I don't like to set up "insert hero here" situations; for me as a player it feels cheap, so I don't want to GM something that I'd regard with distaste as a player. As a player I am interested in adventuring more than heroism really; this doesn't mean I want to play an "antihero" or that my character is necessarily not a good person, just that being the "hero of the story" is not what I'm looking for in an RPG.
I'm like Cole on this. I like to let situations develop wherever they may. If that leads to the PCs having their hero moment, that'll be on their own turf, of their own choosing, and that makes the experience all the more rewarding. It means that as a GM I keep my mind (and thus, the game world) open to such possibilities. No option is verboten. Whatever the players choose to do, wherever the PCs choose to go, there will be a world able to respond in kind.
I had a few moments like this as a player. One of them coming to mind was playing Rolemaster in a tight sandbox very early on, when I was a kid. The basic setup was basically a war between two fiefs, with the PCs thrown into the situation and having to basically find a place there. We ended up organizing a whole revolt of the serfs and went after one of the keeps. Many died during the assault, which was entirely prepared by the players, the GM just reacting to the plan, but in the end, we were victorious. We were the heroes of the place. We had liberated them from their petty lords. It was awesome.
Big Damn Heroes requires a morally simplistic black & white world. Those settings play best in superhero RPGs or a Good vs. Evil fantasy games or space opera like Star Wars.
So it depends on the game, the genre and the players.
I would look at it as heroic actions by the PCs are great (and if the PCs act heroically, most NPCs will probably like them for it) whereas "big damn heroes" seems like it's rigged.
I guess there are times and places where I like to see it happen. I think "heroic" depends on context. The "end of all things" Twilight:2000 scenario I've been bouncing around, for example, almost forbids it: it's The Road with tanks and guns.
On the other hand, I love seeing adventurers rise to the occasion in my AD&D games and become heroes of legend.
Quote from: Benoist;444127I'm like Cole on this. I like to let situations develop wherever they may. If that leads to the PCs having their hero moment, that'll be on their own turf, of their own choosing, and that makes the experience all the more rewarding. It means that as a GM I keep my mind (and thus, the game world) open to such possibilities. No option is verboten. Whatever the players choose to do, wherever the PCs choose to go, there will be a world able to respond in kind.
You can let them play out, but I think it is important to point out that GMs can easily make being a hero impossible in a sandbox game. It is no problem to set up no win situations for good people. If you want to let heroes be heroes, you need some good guy NPCs around to help out.
For example, in my current game the party is trying to help a girl that was arrested for being a member of an illegal magical order. While the Holy Order of the Sun and the Emperor that rules the order and the nation are all assholes, the magistrate that is actually holding the girl right now is Lawful Good and plans on deputizing the party Paladin, to insulate him from the order.
If I made the magistrate and asshole too, the party could never win. The state would take payment for the girl, kill her anyway, and chase the party into exile for aiding her in the first place. Yeah, it is sand box, but the people I put in the sand box characterize it.
Quote from: Cranewings;444135You can let them play out, but I think it is important to point out that GMs can easily make being a hero impossible in a sandbox game. It is no problem to set up no win situations for good people. If you want to let heroes be heroes, you need some good guy NPCs around to help out.
The solution for me is to not "set up situations" at all. I come up with an environment, with various NPCs, factions, geographical features, landmarks, whatnot. There is a starting point. From there, the players basically do whatever they want. I might throw some situations or opportunities at the PCs once in a while, but I don't "set up" scenarios and don't think of contingencies the players have to go through as in "adventure path" kinda thing. I just react to what they do.
If instead of helping out the girl they decide to let her die, or to assassinate the magistrate, or to make her escape from the jail by seeking out the thieves guild, or whatnot, I'm okay with it. I just role play the environment, extrapolate once in a while with stuff I had not determined before, improvise based on what I got, and try to keep things fair, entertaining, and consistent/believable. That's it.
Quote from: Cranewings;444135If I made the magistrate and asshole too, the party could never win. The state would take payment for the girl, kill her anyway, and chase the party into exile for aiding her in the first place. Yeah, it is sand box, but the people I put in the sand box characterize it.
If the magistrate was as evil as the rest of them, and the PCs, learning of this, decided to take the girl away to safety at the cost of angering the authorities, isn't that heroic? I would think they would meet NPCs who would think so.
Quote from: Benoist;444141The solution for me is to not "set up situations" at all. I come up with an environment, with various NPCs, factions, geographical features, landmarks, whatnot. There is a starting point. From there, the players basically do whatever they want. I might throw some situations or opportunities at the PCs once in a while, but I don't "set up" scenarios and don't think of contingencies the players have to go through as in "adventure path" kinda thing. I just react to what they do.
If instead of helping out the girl they decide to let her die, or to assassinate the magistrate, or to make her escape from the jail by seeking out the thieves guild, or whatnot, I'm okay with it. I just role play the environment, extrapolate once in a while with stuff I had not determined before, improvise based on what I got, and try to keep things fair, entertaining, and consistent/believable. That's it.
My players aren't the kind of people that really respond well to total freedom, so I have to keep my finger in there a little, moving things along. I didn't have the magistrate written up until they told me they were going to go find him. At that point, I could have made him an asshole, doubling the difficulty of the game. Instead I made him a good guy, so they can be good people without being screwed.
I've played in plenty of games where the GMs said they do what you do, but if they fill the world full of assholes, there isn't anyway to be a good guy and come out decently, maybe even alive. Evil always wins because good is dumb and all that.
Sure, if I detailed everyone they ever met before they came up with the idea of talking to them, I could hold true to it the way you are suggesting, but if you come up with the character after the players make the decision to find him, your depiction of the guy will have a big impact on the game.
Quote from: Cole;444143If the magistrate was as evil as the rest of them, and the PCs, learning of this, decided to take the girl away to safety at the cost of angering the authorities, isn't that heroic? I would think they would meet NPCs who would think so.
Sure, it is heroic, but it also doubles the difficulty of the game. It takes away their sandbox freedom pretty much forever and turns it into enemies of the state. Evil always wins because good is dumb.
Quote from: Cranewings;444144I didn't have the magistrate written up until they told me they were going to go find him. At that point, I could have made him an asshole, doubling the difficulty of the game. Instead I made him a good guy, so they can be good people without being screwed.
[...]
Sure, if I detailed everyone they ever met before they came up with the idea of talking to them, I could hold true to it the way you are suggesting, but if you come up with the character after the players make the decision to find him, your depiction of the guy will have a big impact on the game.
You may think I am crazy but I would probably make a reaction roll to see if the as yet undefiined NPC was sympathetic to their cause (i.e. a positive reaction - he's basically good, negative he's basically evil.)
Keep in mind I'm not saying there's any reason the magistrate SHOULDN'T be a good guy - I'm just saying that PC heroism isn't predicated on having a magnanimous NPC patron enabling it.
Quote from: Cranewings;444145Sure, it is heroic, but it also doubles the difficulty of the game. It takes away their sandbox freedom pretty much forever and turns it into enemies of the state. Evil always wins because good is dumb.
Some people would love this sort of stuff and take opportunities from it, killing the evil magistrate, then escaping from the ensuing chaos, finding refuge in the city's underworld, plotting revenge against the whole corrupt system. Imagine V for Vandetta, but in a city like Ptolus. That could be epic!
:)
Quote from: Cranewings;444144I've played in plenty of games where the GMs said they do what you do, but if they fill the world full of assholes, there isn't anyway to be a good guy and come out decently, maybe even alive. Evil always wins because good is dumb and all that.
That would be a failure of GMing, a failure at understanding the basic needs and wants of the PCs, a basic failing at keeping the game entertaining. I mean, in the end, the answer to that is for the guy to become a better GM.
Yes, but not every NPC encountered needs to be an adversary, asshole, or a jerk. There is the 33% of the universe's NPCs that haven't met the player characters yet or made a decision about them.
Also, I like to show in my games that just as doing stupid or idiotic actions has consequences so does doing heroic or smart actions.
Sometimes I think GMs forget to account for the good ripple effects of a player character's actions.
(Not every GM, but many or some are like that)
- Ed C.
Quote from: Cranewings;444145Sure, it is heroic, but it also doubles the difficulty of the game. It takes away their sandbox freedom pretty much forever and turns it into enemies of the state. Evil always wins because good is dumb.
I don't follow you here. They're enemies of Faction A; presumably that will make them more appealing to Faction B or C. If they are in hot water with Faction A, I don't see how that "takes away their sandbox freedom pretty much forever." They might have to act covertly, go incognito, etc. in areas where Faction A is in power, yeah, but its part of a choice they made, and that could be an exciting game setup. (I remember a long time ago the PCs in one of my games became outlaws and all assumed masked "mystery men" identities, for example.)
Arguably this makes the game more difficult, yes, but being heroic is more difficult than being selfish or cowardly.
I don't understand the "Evil always wins because good is dumb" idea. Evil is very often dumb.
Quote from: Koltar;444151Yes, but not every NPC encountered needs to be an adversary, asshole, or a jerk. There is the 33% of the universe's NPCs that haven't met the player characters yet or made a decision about them.
Also, I like to show in my games that just as doing stupid or idiotic actions has consequences so does doing heroic or smart actions.
Sometimes I think GMs forget to account for the good ripple effects of a player character's actions.
(Not every GM, but many or some are like that)
- Ed C.
Absolutely.
For fucks sake, I'm not sure I've ever gotten to play a hero in a game without being shit all over. That's why I almost always GM, so I don't have to deal with it.
One of my friends was talking about a game we was playing while stationed in the UAE. They were all Lawful or Chaotic Good. Kings would loan them magical weapons and armor because of their reputations. They were way, way past buying magic items.
I can't even run a game like that, maybe until this one, because my players LOVE playing parties made up of selfish antiheroes. Still, I want to be that paladin that gets the kings sword for being a great hero. Never seen it happen.
Quote from: Koltar;444151Also, I like to show in my games that just as doing stupid or idiotic actions has consequences so does doing heroic or smart actions.
Sometimes I think GMs forget to account for the good ripple effects of a player character's actions.
(Not every GM, but many or some are like that)
That's a good point.
As a GM I like to give the PCs the benefit of the doubt and I don't try to screw them over.
In the magistrate situation if the magistrate turned out to be evil, I don't mean to say I'd automatically set the PCs up and then tell them "then they hanged the girl. SUCKERS!"
I would probably make it plain what kind of individual he was - if they took the risk of defying him to take the girl to safety, I think that would improve their reputation with a lot of people; rebels against the evil order would aid them, etc.
Quote from: Benoist;444148Some people would love this sort of stuff and take opportunities from it, killing the evil magistrate, then escaping from the ensuing chaos, finding refuge in the city's underworld, plotting revenge against the whole corrupt system. Imagine V for Vandetta, but in a city like Ptolus. That could be epic!
:)
LOL well, there is that.
Quote from: Cole;444152I don't follow you here. They're enemies of Faction A; presumably that will make them more appealing to Faction B or C. If they are in hot water with Faction A, I don't see how that "takes away their sandbox freedom pretty much forever." They might have to act covertly, go incognito, etc. in areas where Faction A is in power, yeah, but its part of a choice they made, and that could be an exciting game setup. (I remember a long time ago the PCs in one of my games became outlaws and all assumed masked "mystery men" identities, for example.)
Arguably this makes the game more difficult, yes, but being heroic is more difficult than being selfish or cowardly.
I don't understand the "Evil always wins because good is dumb" idea. Evil is very often dumb.
Yeah, the players could make lemonade out of lemons, but as a player myself, I get sick to death of being fed nothing but lemons.
Quote from: Cranewings;444153Kings would loan them magical weapons and armor because of their reputations. They were way, way past buying magic items. [...] Still, I want to be that paladin that gets the kings sword for being a great hero. Never seen it happen.
I see where you're coming from. For my part though I generally just do not enjoy the campaign model (which I have seen often) where the party are the loyal retainers of the Good Duke Von Hero from whom the rewards and the decisions alike tend to derive. I prefer my character to be acting of his own will, which, let me reiterate, doesn't necessarily equate to a "selfish antihero;" he might well be Lawful Good.
Edit : I'm speaking in terms of "general" gaming; With certain stylized games, for example Pendragon where feudal loyalty and the gift/patronage economy are central, that's very different. Though in Pendragon heroism often comes at a bittersweet cost.
Quote from: Cole;444162I see where you're coming from. For my part though I generally just do not enjoy the campaign model (which I have seen often) where the party are the loyal retainers of the Good Duke Von Hero from whom the rewards and the decisions alike tend to derive. I prefer my character to be acting of his own will, which, let me reiterate, doesn't necessarily equate to a "selfish antihero;" he might well be Lawful Good.
There is a difference I guess. It is why I like E6. I can write up the most powerful king of the land as Fighter 2, Aristocrat 4 with a handful of extra feats, and a second or third level party are very important to him. Hell, a 6th level party are the greatest heroes of the land. If the party is still helping Duke Von Hero at that point, they are practically superheroes doing it because they want to.
I have played as the loyal retainer of Mr. Great, and you are right, it can suck. It is lazy DMing and half the time, it is also stupid (why are we doing this, can the king send the army?). When it becomes good though, I think it is really good.
It depends. This sort of thing generally get's addressed in the original game pitch in which you discuss with the players what kind of tone they want for the campaign and what kind of things they envisage their characters doing.
I'd say generally we tend towards Big Damn Heroes, but it varies.
With the exception of wanting to play Necessary Evil, my preference is to play the heroes.
In fact, I've spoken to my players, and pointed out. I've seen way too much negative things in real life to want to touch upon most of them in a game. I want the players to play heroic characters who make a difference. If they don't like that they are welcome to GM their own games, or find another GM. I don't get bothered by that--it is just what I want to spend my time on.
That doesn't mean I don't make them face hard choices, and complex moral elements--it just means when everything looks dark, they pull together and fight for what is good and right.
Quote from: Koltar;444123In the campaigns you GMs run - how often do you let players BE Heroes?
Enjoy the temporary adulation and fame of being Heroes?
Or as Whedon TV shows put it 'Big Damn Heroes' ?
If you more often a player: How often had you had that HERO! moment in a game?
Where you felt the satisfaction of your character doing the Heroic or Right Thing in a BIG way?
- Ed C.
The song that inspired this thread's title:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdo5f_ozf6E
"Heroes" by David Bowie
All the time.
That is, I don't force them to be heroes...but if they are naturally inclined to be as such, I let them see their good deeds matter.
When I ran Forgotten Realms in AD&D2e, people knew one of the PCs (a Paladin) by reputation. Now, this also meant he had some enemies...but he also had allies that he never personally knew because people saw, and recognized, the good that he did.
Timely post.
The PCs in my Stars without Number game just helped the local authorities capture some pirates and break a dishonest cargo broker.
Now, as GM I know they did it because the local law was too efficient to make crime palatable and assisting was more profitable than not, but the fact remains that from the locals' point of view the PCs risked their lives to help out.
That should get more than a monetary reward. It should get recognition and thanks.
Hm. Thanks K. That'll come up in the next session.
Quote from: Cranewings;444135Yeah, it is sand box, but the people I put in the sand box characterize it.
Absolutely!
I use 1D6 for NPCs in my campaigns and rate them Good/Selfish/Evil or Law/Neutral/Chaos depending on the world. Then I assign a X in D6 chance for each depending on the world. You can set the tone of the area / species / nation / setting by choice of X.
Quote from: Koltar;444151Sometimes I think GMs forget to account for the good ripple effects of a player character's actions.
True.
I run my Splintered Isles 4e setting with two key concepts:
1) No good deed goes unpunished.
2) No evil deed remains secret.
I design every session based only ripples from prior PC actions and its gone pretty awesomely insane.
Heroes are boring. Villains can be irritating after a while. The ideal for a PC for me is morally pragmatic. IE their scruples are determined by what sort of mess they are in.
Quote from: Ian Warner;444456Heroes are boring. Villains can be irritating after a while. The ideal for a PC for me is morally pragmatic. IE their scruples are determined by what sort of mess they are in.
See, I'm your opposite in that regard. I think those sorts of characters are the most boring.
The main thing heroes have to know, in order to be heroes, is How to Die. For that, its required that they be allowed to do so.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;444584The main thing heroes have to know, in order to be heroes, is How to Die. For that, its required that they be allowed to do so.
RPGPundit
...but they don't have to.
LOVE the stories where one of the good guys is more than willing to sacrifice hherself or himself to let the rest of the group escape or achieve victory - but at the last mminute or second a fellow 'good guy' tries some3thing off-the-wall that works and they all live.
OR 'Good guy' character gets shot - and thinks they are ded. Last words are said, then they open their eyes. Yep, they were hit but the bullet hit the bullet proff vest or was a through & through. Other Good Guy character says "Guess today wasn't your day after all. We're stuck with you for a while, and you still owe me 20 credits."
(Obviously a TRAVELLER or STAR TREK game session.....)In an RPG that might show up as that shockingly
good critical success roll in favor of the player's character.
- Ed C.
Fair play K, but the two most memorable heroic endings I've had in my gaming both involved TPKs.
In one the PCs, warriors and heroes of an ice age tribe, chose to give their lives causing enough damage to a rival tribe that it could never trouble theirs again. They went into battle determined to keep fighting until they were all dead and to sell their lives dearly.
They took down many times their own number and broke the enemy's power. Their tribe went on to greatness thanks to them. Brilliant ending.
Another was an early Vampire game. The PCs discovered that the vamps were planning to trigger a nuclear apocalypse so as to slow down technological progress and get humanity back under control (a plot later used in a tv series coincidentally enough). The PCs went in to the bunker being used by the vampires and in the course of the final battle sealed it behind themselves. Not intentionally I grant, but permanently all the same.
The game ended with three of five PCs dead and the vampires defeated. The final scene was the last two PCs grinning at each other tired and bloody as the air ran out, knowing they'd saved the world. Nobody else would ever know. They didn't need them to.
Endings like that are hard to beat. Mere survival wouldn't have been nearly as cool.
Quote from: Cranewings;444466See, I'm your opposite in that regard. I think those sorts of characters are the most boring.
Interesting :)
But you can appreciate where I'm coming from? When you're scruples depend on what is going on you get to portray the full range from good to evil.
Quote from: Koltar;444123In the campaigns you GMs run - how often do you let players BE Heroes?
If they want to go that path, I'm not stopping them.
QuoteEnjoy the temporary adulation and fame of being Heroes?
Or as Whedon TV shows put it 'Big Damn Heroes' ?
If they deserve it, of course. If he PCs do something to be notorious, they will get the notoriety.
Quote from: D-503;444622Fair play K, but the two most memorable heroic endings I've had in my gaming both involved TPKs.
Few things beat death when it comes to drama.
Quote from: Ian Warner;444646Interesting :)
But you can appreciate where I'm coming from? When you're scruples depend on what is going on you get to portray the full range from good to evil.
I get ya. Actually, most of my players agree with you.
Personally, I think it is more interesting to play good and evil characters that make inefficient decisions because of their attitudes :)
No, its true that they don't have to die, but they have to be in a situation where death is likely (and the player knows that it CAN happen, not that he has "script immunity"). Those are often the most memorable moments in gaming.
RPGpundit
Additional questions related to this concept or thought discussion.
In your campaigns and games:
Can an Android be a Hero?
Can an animal be a hero?
How about a 'half-breed' ?
(half-elf, half-Orc, Half-Klingon, Half-minbarri...)
A former Criminal ? - can they be a Hero!?
(Think Sawyer on "LOST")
- Ed C.
Hero is as hero does... and the doing doesn't necessitate survival once it's done. All the more heroic if going in you know you won't survive and no one will ever hear about it.
Quote from: Koltar;447870Additional questions related to this concept or thought discussion.
In your campaigns and games:
Can an Android be a Hero?
Can an animal be a hero?
How about a 'half-breed' ?
(half-elf, half-Orc, Half-Klingon, Half-minbarri...)
A former Criminal ? - can they be a Hero!?
(Think Sawyer on "LOST")
- Ed C.
Yes to all of the above. Why couldn't they be?
The difference between a fictional hero and a fictional fool is that the hero somehow survives the ordeal. :D
As a GM I provide situations, the players choose if they want to be heroes. I don't think I can state it more honestly or simply then that.
In my Exalted campaign I used to allow for lots of "big" Good vs Evil type situations, but surprisingly, while the players would often step up to help people, they were morally ambiguous enough at other times that I'm not sure I could call them real heroes.
And in my current campaign, the moral questions that come up are pretty complex, since while it's Tolkien-esque, it's a dirty, medieval type world with difficult problems to deal with, and not many easy solutions.
Frex, one of the players has an elven character who absolutely believes people deserve second chances. Another PC is a dwarf who had a falling out with his clan, and so it's become the elf's mission to help him win back the favor of his people. But they've come into a situation where the elf PC's brother, the son of a councilman and a strong political leader, had convinced his old military unit to attempt a coup and assassinate certain elven political leaders. They're now attempting to track down the estranged elven sibling in order to convince him to end his coup or to take him by force. One elven leader, the father of the two elves, has been killed in the infighting.
So in this situation, does the estranged brother really deserve a second chance? Is it right and just to kill him, or should he be handed over for trial? If he is executed or imprisoned, does that really jive with the PC's belief that people deserve second chances, especially if the brother is brought to true grief and repentance for his sins? How far does this belief in "second chances" go, and what would a hero do in this situation?
Obviously I know my own answers to those questions, but I have no idea what the player of the elven PC will do. Can he be both a hero to his people and a savior of his brother? Only the player's decisions and the progression of play can tell.