The Gaming Den

Elennsar wrote: If you're playing it just the same way, where the character is just as delusional about the danger he's in, both are not risking their life and deserve no credit for taking a "life threatening" risk.

So basically if you're saying that characters who show some degree of fear about their situation are more heroic than characters who are not afraid of the situation. So John McClane is more heroic than Conan for instance, because Conan does not show fear in the face of death. Is that what you're saying?

No - characters who have something to be afraid of in a situation.

A character combating a phobia may deserve much credit even if their phobia is something silly, a character who has nothing to be afraid of does not.

An Immortal (in the Highlander sense) has very little to be afraid of, in terms of life and death and injury, if facing a group of people armed with guns.

No kudos for chargning a man with a shotgun, accordingly.

Not more heroic, but more human. It's for the fan's benefit.

Not all heroes need to feel fear in the face of opposition. It's not a requirement.

That's like saying every olympic swimmer must swallow a little water and come up coughing during their career peak or else they were never challenged in the first place.

Not more heroic, but more human. It's for the fan's benefit.

Not all heroes need to feel fear in the face of opposition. It's not a requirement.

That's like saying every olympic swimmer must swallow a little water and come up coughing during their career peak or else they were never challenged in the first place.

A hero that has nothing to fear cannot be applauded for being brave in the face of danger.

So while it might be true that if we need someone to save someone from a burning building, Superman is more capable, Joe Firefighter is braver and in the sense bravery and heroism are related, more heroic, for he is overcoming a risk and a legitimate fear - Superman is doing something about as dangerous for him as me picking up someone's keys if they dropped them, and he should not be considered more courageous for saving the person than me picking up the keys.

So the Olympic swimmer situation is another kettle of fish entirely.

Elennsar wrote:No - characters who have something to be afraid of in a situation.

Note that you used the word "characters", not players.

In RPGs, your character could very well have something to be afraid of, even if the players know that the numbers are heavily in your favor. Because fuck man, your character knows that swords are sharp and that they kill people. Unless you've got unbeatable DR, you can still take damage from swords.

Note that you used the word "characters", not players.

Because the characters are the ones being expected to be brave of danger to be able to say they're brave - the players aren't at any risk (unless you're doing some kind of wild and crazy LARP).


And unless that damage can do one of the following:

1) Cause serious pain - serious is relative, but enough that you -are- going to mind it. Slamming your thumb in the door barely counts.

2) Serious injury.

3) death or incapaciation.


Then it is meaningless. "Heavily in your favor" - fine. In your favor to the point that "swords kill people" is "swords kill -other- people", no.

A mid level D&D character has less to fear from being hit by a 1d8+Strength weapon than I do of falling on the sidewalk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_t ... uter_game)

Being hit with a sword in this game, on the other hand, is the kind of threat where skilled swordsmen live and unskilled ones die.

Elennsar wrote: A mid level D&D character has less to fear from being hit by a 1d8+Strength weapon than I do of falling on the sidewalk.

But that's metagame concepts which the character is not aware of. Hit points don't represent the character as just being some supernaturally tough tank that gets stabbed in the chest and keeps coming. They represent the ability to turn what could be a deadly thrust into a weak one.

This is similar to how cinematic heroes seem to take grazing wounds from attacks that kill other characters. The Predator's shoulder cannon blows off one guy's arm, but Arnold luckily manages to only get grazed by it.

But the D&D character isn't aware of "I have 120 hit points and thus can't be hurt by this goblin." anymore than John McClane is aware of the fact that he has script immunity.

This is all player knowledge, not character knowledge.

But the character isn't aware of "I have 120 hit points and thus can't be hurt by this goblin." anymore than John McClane is aware of the fact that he has script immunity.

The character is damn well aware that nothing the goblin can do can hurt him when it misses every Emperorless attack (since even if he sits there and lets it "hit" it isn't a hit).

Script immunity says "you have nothing to fear. Anything making you think otherwise is an illusion."

Whether that's "near miss. Again." or superhuman toughness, hit points do a terrible job of making any attack up until 0 something anyone would worry about - whether fighting a goblin at 10th level or an ogre magi.

In other words, there -are- no deadly thrusts for a character to fear until then. Every "hit" is really a miss, or a glancing blow. Even a "crit".

Elennsar wrote: The character is damn well aware that nothing the goblin can do can hurt him when it misses every Emperorless attack (since even if he sits there and lets it "hit" it isn't a hit).

So you think the character isn't fighting for his life during all that and is just standing there Superman style soaking hits? There aren't any parries or dodges in combat?

Sounds like you just had a really shitty DM and no imagination.

The result of a given action may have been written but the execution of the scene, the flavor is variable. A gunman missing in a movie could be done where you've got the protagonist desperately diving for cover and bullets richocheting around him. Or it could be like Star Wars where Luke is standing there out in the open and the stormtroopers just can't hit him.

In both cases, the protagonist has script immunity. The rest is just the flavor you attach.

You can do the same with hit points. If you choose to treat hit points as your hero standing there Superman style soaking hits, then the problem is entirely with your ability to tell good stories.

Script immunity says "you have nothing to fear. Anything making you think otherwise is an illusion."

Right. It does. But John McClane never read the script to Die Hard, Bruce Willis did. Similarly, your D&D characters never read the PHB.

Yet for whatever reason, you want to enforce a double standard for D&D characters and movie/literary protagonists. The only reason I can assume you're doing that is because an author or director can use good storytelling conventions to create the illusion of risk, but you and your DM are incapable of doing that.

If you want your action scenes to seem more tense and dramatic, then you need to describe them that way, instead of just describing your heroes as being invulnerable superman tanks.

So you think the character isn't fighting for his life during all that and is just standing there Superman style soaking hits? There aren't any parries or dodges in combat?

I don't think he has his life on the line until the last hit or two. If he's "hit" he really wasn't hit, and he may well not be "hit" to begin with.

Right. It does. But John McClane never read the script to Die Hard, Bruce Willis did. Similarly, your D&D characters never read the PHB.

And John McClane has nothing to fear unless "can die" is a possible outcome that can occur in his world, same with a D&D PC.

Whether you call it a "parry" or a "soak", losing 13 hit points out of 100 is at most an illusion of danger. The character has nothing to fear if that's all that can be generated until he's down to 0 hit points.

Good description + bad rules =/= swords are scary.

Yet for whatever reason, you want to enforce a double standard for D&D characters and movie/literary protagonists. The only reason I can assume you're doing that is because an author or director can use good storytelling conventions to create the illusion of risk, but you and your DM are incapable of doing that. Because they're the exact same thing.

No, what I want to enforce is that "can die/be in pain/seriously hurt" is an outcome that can be generated. It isn't necessarily the one that is for any given attack, but when it is impossible for Stormtroopers to hit you, then there's no reason to be worried that they're attacking.

None whatsoever.

If you want your action scenes to seem more tense and dramatic, then you need to describe them that way, instead of just describing your heroes as being invulnerable superman tanks.

And of course, option 3) having them BE tense and dramatic is impossible.

Right. Sure. Please play Sword of the Samurai and tell me that tension and drama based on the rules actually making getting hit relate to being hit and being hit being a bad thing is impossible to do without killing characters in their second fight.

Elennsar wrote: I don't think he has his life on the line until the last hit or two. If he's "hit" he really wasn't hit, and he may well not be "hit" to begin with.

Since when has your D&D character read the PHB?

And John McClane has nothing to fear unless "can die" is a possible outcome that can occur in his world, same with a D&D PC.

John McClane feels that death may be a possible outcome, even when its written in the script that he survives (which makes death not a possibility).

Had McClane read the script, he might know that he can't die. But he hasn't. So he's afraid.

Whether you call it a "parry" or a "soak", losing 13 hit points out of 100 is at most an illusion of danger. The character has nothing to fear if that's all that can be generated until he's down to 0 hit points.

So your D&D characters have mental knowledge of their current hit points and think entirely in metagame terms? Do you add the PHB as one of their items that they carry around in their backpacks so they know the rules?

By your logic, McClane shouldn't be afraid of death because Bruce Willis has read the script and knows he can't die. Only McClane isn't a metagaming whore.

You could fix your whole issues with this subject by not having your D&D characters be metagame whores.

But you're too wrapped up in winning an argument to even consider that you might be wrong.

You are applying a double standard, and you're too fucking blind to see it.

You are arguing two opposite points. Either actor and character knowledge are separate, and the characters believe they're in danger, or actor and character knowledge is not separate and both of them realize they're in no danger.

You can pick one of those, but you can't argue them both.

I am arguing that the rules create a reality where there is nothing for the characters to be afraid of.

No metagame knowledge necessary. Just experience with ISMA graduates.

Elennsar wrote:I am arguing that the rules create a reality where there is nothing for the characters to be afraid of.

And the rigid rules of a movie script doesn't?

Seriously the fucking script says McClane survives, kills Hans and saves the day.

That is FACT. And the rules of the movie dictate that it absolutely WILL HAPPEN.

McClane's reality does not preclude a script that has "McClane dies" in it.

The fact that the script isn't that doesn't mean it cannot be that.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

Elennsar wrote: I don't think he has his life on the line until the last hit or two. If he's "hit" he really wasn't hit, and he may well not be "hit" to begin with.

Since when has your D&D character read the PHB?

They do in OOTS. It's as obnoxious as all hell.

I assume it's metagame for a PC to think "Oh, it's just a longsword. I can take X number of longsword hits this battle."
It happens, I'm not pleased about it no proud when I do it myself, but there's some portion of mathing in RPGs that must be done for the sake of running a virtual reality. You can't not notice it.

Elennsar wrote:McClane's reality does not preclude a script that has "McClane dies" in it.

The fact that the script isn't that doesn't mean it cannot be that.

You are talking out of your ass.

That's like saying that just because the PHB says longswords do 1d8 damage, that doesn't preclude a reality where they're instantly fatal. But this would no longer be D&D, just like the script where McClane dies would no longer be Die Hard.

Double standard again.

Let me make this simple with a basic logic conclusion.

Premise: If you are watching Die Hard, McClane survives.

Conclusion: If McClane does not survive, you are not watching Die Hard.

That's basic logic.

Do you agree or disagree with that conclusion?

No double standard, just different circumstances.

Basic test: Historically, Hannibal failed to capture Rome. Does that mean that it was impossible to for him to capture Rome?

A given outcome not happening and that being what we see and a given outcome not being possible to begin with are two different things.

Nice try at the dodge.

I'll ask again.

Premise: If you are watching Die Hard, McClane survives.

Conclusion: If McClane does not survive, you are not watching Die Hard.

Do you agree or disagree with either the premise or the conclusion?

Nice "I'm going to miss any point that contradicts mine."

Answer the question.

Agree or disagree?

Since your question is ignoring my point, answering it would do nothing other than indicate that you are incapable of accepting that it is possible to have a different outcome - just that it isn't the outcome that happened.

I don't care what it has to do with your prior post. I just want you to answer that question.

Are you saying you can't?

It's a simple question, you either agree with the statements I made, or you don't.

I am saying that I will not answer a question that has nothing to do with my point or anything related to my point.

Am I sensing fear and reluctance?

Come on Elennsar. It's a simple question. Just answer it.

The only reluctance I have is to humor your pointless question which has nothing to do with whether or not it was inevitable what the script was.