Stats for Epic Heroes

[Ian Charvill]

The problem is that with bad dice rolls the story can end without the character having succeeded at anything meaningful.  As someone pointed out if William Tell misses shooting the apple off his sons head it can still be an interesting story, not an epic one however.   If you let the dice determine the game you have no idea what type of game you will get.

Making the conflict interesting despite the lack of chance of failure is the key, thats why Valamir's idea of tragic ending points seems like a great idea to me.  If you roll badly you can choose to fail or you can win but if you win when you should have lost you will pay for it in the end.  It's certainly better than having a chance of failing on the dice but knowing the DM will throw up some form of safety net to keep the game going so the failure has no real consequence anyways, which happens quite a lot imo.

Actually, I wouldn't put the safety net in the hands of the GM principally, but in the hands of the player of the epic character.  And I wouldn't see it as a safety net but as an opportunity/spur to creativity.  Failure can be meaningful, especially when the failure can be framed post facto.

I cant believe I didn't see this earlier but several recent posts make it clear to me what we are arguing about comes down to GNS preference, Story Now vs. Story if it happens. If that's the case then I dont think we'll ever agree on this but maybe we'll get a chance to see into each others minds, and heck there are a lot of useful game mechanics being thrown around ;)

I'm not sure if I see the GNS angle - maybe it would clarify it if you said which mode you felt different mechanics fell into?

[Caldis]

Actually, I wouldn't put the safety net in the hands of the GM principally, but in the hands of the player of the epic character.  And I wouldn't see it as a safety net but as an opportunity/spur to creativity.  Failure can be meaningful, especially when the failure can be framed post facto.

I think you misunderstood me.  The type of safety net I was thinking of was when the dice have failed a character utterly and should mean the characters death, of course that would pretty much end the game so the gm comes up with something to keep the character alive.  

I'm not sure if I see the GNS angle - maybe it would clarify it if you said which mode you felt different mechanics fell into?

Oh I dont believe the mechanics fall into any mode but some of the stated preferences and goals for a type of epic play were.  The belief that story can be created no matter what happens in the game is very simulationist, letting the dice decide what happens over what the player wants is definitely simulationist.

[M. J. Young]

Caldis, I'm agreeing with Ian on this--what agendum do you see the mechanics supporting as I expressed them? I note that Sorcerer and Legends of Alyria both allow fortune-based failure; in the latter, at least, this does not at all reduce the degree to which the characters and their stories become legendary--it only takes the legend in surprising directions.

Is it possible on this system that Robin would, in order,

[*]Lose the contest with Sir Guy;[*]Fail to avoid capture at the fair;[*]Fail to escape from prison;[*]Fail to escape from the executioner's stand?[/list:u]Bear in mind that we've already given him high chance of success as compared with ordinary people, and we've given him what is at this point a +30 bonus on anything related to his legendary status--not much stretch to say that includes escaping capture, prison, or execution. He's not going to be up against Sir Guy's abilities in all of those situations.

Yes, it is possible. It's not likely, but fortune mechanics do include the possibility that you will roll within the losing 5% several times in a row. Perhaps, though, there has to be more to all this than one mechanic. Should the referee decide that in this situation Marion will suddenly offer to marry Nottingham in exchange for Robin's life? I don't know. That's a separate question, I think.

You say I'm assuming he will come back and beat Sir Guy at some point. I am assuming that the player is actually interested in creating an epic story, and I think any dolt can see that Robin's path now has to bring him back to that lost contest. Since he's going to go back to working on his legendary status, when he gets back to face this opponent again, his bonus will be greater, and he will certainly overmatch Sir Guy, possibly even to the point that he can call for a target that Sir Guy can't hit but Robin can't miss--or even that Robin must make the incredible shot that cuts the rope on the gallows without Sir Guy making the less incredible shot that hits Robin, but because of the distance Sir Guy can't make a killing shot, and Robin can cut the cord.

I don't see creative agenda as necessarily implicated here. I think this is very much consistent with Story Now, if used that way. Unexpected reversals of fortune are a dramatic technique praised by Aristotle; having them appear in our games does not make them cease to be narrativist.

The first is that as the bonus grows it can be designed to quickly overcome any possibility of being defeated by any non-legendary character. <snip> Reach a high enough status, and anything that anyone else has any chance to do is for the hero automatic, because the bonus will always put him over the top. <snip>

I think that the method you detailed here is some kind of elaborate Sim-style smokescreening that's trying to conceal a very simple Drama mechanic - "I can't fail trivially (by which I mean "fail to create story") at any task relevant to my legendary status." Am I just filtering your point through Torchbearer-consciousness (where that mechanic is explicit rather than derived), or is that what's going on?

I see what you're saying, but I think it's more complex than that, and meaningfully so.

Fairly early on, Robin can't miss a target within normal range for contests if it matters to his legendary status. It doesn't take too great a bonus for that to be so. Thus he can't fail at trivial tasks related to his legendary status (if such an expression is not an oxymoron in itself). However, what the increasing bonus does from here includes that it gradually raises the bar below which the character can't fail, while at the same time bringing in the ability to succeed at greater tasks.

In that really terrible rendition of Robin Hood, we come to the moment where Robin has to shoot the rope to save the boy. I don't even remember whether that shot was successful; but for the moment, we'll suppose it was. He makes the shot. No one else alive could have made that shot; he did it.

What if he failed? Someone would have had to do something else. I don't think this would have been a no-fail situation, or it would lose a lot of its tension. However, I do think that from the perspective of Robin Hood as a legend, we have two choices which are equally valid:

[*]He could have made that shot at any time, anywhere, from the moment he set foot back on English soil, but the situation never arose; or[*]As he grew into the legend that he now is, he came to a point where a shot like that which would have been impossible for him a few years before is something he can now do.[/list:u]I think it adds interest to the game if the ability of the character to do yet greater legendary things rises during play.

I don't see the drama mechanic doing that as well; at least, with the drama mechanic someone has to be making some very subjective judgments about when the character can do the things he couldn't do before. This mechanic provides the yardstick for just what can be done.

Is that clear?

--M. J. Young

[Ian Charvill]

Caldis

You're right in that I hadn't grapsed your position.  Maybe I've been playing 7th Sea for too long, but there's nothing about a fortune based system that suggests anyone can ever die (although player characters can be rendered unconscious in 7th Sea, pc death can only occur through a player initiated drama mechanic).

M.J. has already covered the point that if stringently applied fortune mechanics affecting story outcomes is definitely simulationist then Sorceror is simulationist.

[Caldis]

Caldis, I'm agreeing with Ian on this--what agendum do you see the mechanics supporting as I expressed them? I note that Sorcerer and Legends of Alyria both allow fortune-based failure; in the latter, at least, this does not at all reduce the degree to which the characters and their stories become legendary--it only takes the legend in surprising directions.

The mechanics are not at all in question here it's what we are trying to achieve with the mechanics that are.  Several recent posts have seemed to suggest that people want to model the real world or present challenge as a need in the game.  They have a different vision of what they are after in a game then I do.  I'm trying to ask the question what is worth risking your happy outcome?  Use the power if you want to win now but you may lose later, is getting x really worth it?  Different goals of design making it hard to agree on what we want the mechanics to do.  

I admit I may have misread others motives, if so then this is a red herring please disregard.

However, I do think that from the perspective of Robin Hood as a legend, we have two choices which are equally valid:

[*]He could have made that shot at any time, anywhere, from the moment he set foot back on English soil, but the situation never arose; or[*]As he grew into the legend that he now is, he came to a point where a shot like that which would have been impossible for him a few years before is something he can now do.[/list:u]I think it adds interest to the game if the ability of the character to do yet greater legendary things rises during play.

That's where we disagree.  Robin Hood winning the archery tournament happens early in the story and he never pulls off a greater display of archery later.  The drama does not flow from his abilities it flows from what is happening in the story not his ability to deal with it.  To me it becomes anticlimactic if he can easily succeed late in the game and it's just a cake walk to the finish.  You had risk in the game earlier but now you are just spouting off your lines, what is going to happen cant be changed.   You can combat that by making it a challenge but then you have the problem of bad dice rolls turning it into another failure and you end up in a whirlpool of escalating ability scores and new attempts to finally succeed until the dice finally allow you to win.

The drama mechanic as presented here coupled with the tragic ending score allows for the story to flow at all points.  The hero can win easily at the beginning middle or end of the story but if he does so then there is always a risk.  Robin Hood can live happily ever after  with Marion if he didnt use his epic ability trump card too often or he can tragically die just as he restores Richard to the throne if he used it too much.