The Forge Archives

OK, I am splitting out a particular subtopic from http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10290">"Epic" and "Saga" roleplaying.  Ralph/Valamir had brought up early on the point about how character stats are handled.  From his latest post, he wrote:

Quote from: ValamirNormal human has strength of 10 or 11.  Hercules...Strength 22.

Sure, the system "handled" Hercules' great strength.  But it handled it by simply putting it on the same scale with every one else.

A bigger number does not an Epic Hero make...yet in a traditional game that is all the game will allow mechanically...is simply to define the Epic Heroes using bigger numbers than every one else.  

OK, this is something that we had touched on earlier in the previous thread, but I think the broad nature of the topic prevented more discussion of it.  Thus, I'm hoping a thread of its own will address this.  So the question is: what is the preferred alternative for this?  Markus/montag had one suggestion,

Quote from: montagConsequently, a good game for epics would be one, where the heroes have enough power to do virtually anything, but are constrained by social, moral and personal issues. A game designed for epic stories should therefore have no need for ability scores, success at mental or physical tasks should be left entirely to the player, but there should be all kinds of stats for the other constraints the epic hero has to deal with. (Conflict resolution mechanics should also deal reasonably well with this, because – given the understanding that there is no match for the hero in terms of abilities – a failure can be explained as the result of inner constraints (e.g. conscience) or the schemings of others.)

Now, as I mentioned, I completely disagree with this approach.  For example, Hercules is incredibly strong, but his physical capability is constantly tested.  The labors of Hercules aren't ethical puzzles -- they're things like killing the Nemean lion, or the Hydra.  Allowing the player to automatically narrate Hercules success over the Nemean lion isn't conducive to the feel of a "Herculean task", in my opinion.  

Now, earlier in the thread, I had commented more about this, saying -

Quote from: John KimDo you want the hero to be loosely defined, so that the participants are never certain at a given point what he is capable of -- thus giving wider options for narration?  Or is it the flavor of those numbers?  Would having a word scale like Fudge or Marvel Superheroes be better (i.e. "*Incredible* Armed Combat"), because it lacks numbers?  Or would a single number (i.e. "Mighty Hero +20") be better?  

Just to compare -- personally, I don't mind numbers as long as they map to something that I can intuitively picture.  So "attacks per round" is a little screwy to me, but a "speed" stat is OK.  For me, D&D3 has a lot of bits that stand out as game artifacts rather than in-game-world qualities (i.e. like "Whirlwind Attack" or "Cleave").  On the other hand, I'm also not fond of "Mighty Hero +20" exactly because it is vague.  As a player I like to have a clear, concrete idea of my PC's abilities in advance.

Just to be clear, obviously I'm not saying that "Strength 22" is sufficient by itself to make a character an epic hero -- but I'm not opposed to such numerical ratings as part of the character.  Anyhow, I'm interested in how other people feel about the various solutions -- or other alternatives that people prefer.

I think I'm with you on this, John. I think that characters need to be defined in terms of limits, one way or another.

Perhaps one thing that could help a bit, though, is to treat superior ability in two ways. For example, if I've got a Multiverser character with amateur level skill in something, I usually make such a character check for ordinary tasks. If it's an amateur level skill in computer programming, any computer program the character wants to write has to be checked as a skill check. On the other hand, if the character reaches professional level, I ignore a lot of checks--there's a sense of, "of course you can do that", and the check is only called if the program is unusual or difficult, or there are extenuating circumstances such as time constraints.

Thus if we're looking at Hercules, we probably don't check to see if he can lift the rock or pull the tree from the ground--we just figure he can do that. We check when he tries to do the extraordinary things, like throw the rock over the wall like a catapult, or use the tree to batter the giant.

So to some degree you have to define the numbers in two ways--both what are the practical limits of this and what are the expected standards.

This works in a lot of ways in play, I think. I don't check whether a character can walk across flat ground under normal conditions. I do check whether an ordinary character can walk across the deck of a ship in rough seas--but not if he's an experienced sailor, because that's something it's assumed he can do.

I'm not sure how much that helps overall, but I think it does help define the hero a bit better if he doesn't have to make checks for all the ordinary things.

--M. J. Young

Here's a thought:

Define heroic ability by its consequences. Hercules didn't just kill whatever random lion, he killed The Nemean Lion, a creature with identity and a name, a significant part of the world. When it dies, he gets:

[*]Fame, and a trophy that's easily recognized; even people who don't know him will say, "Wow, you killed the Lion? You must be a hero."
[*]Historical repercussions; the wasteland that was the lion's territory will once again fill with life.[/list:u] Meanwhile someone non-heroic who kills a lion gets, well, a dead lion. That's it.

This methodology probably requires some serious retconning, or a different method to approach it; perhaps heroic characters can create famous challenges against their heroic attribute, or some such thing.

Quote from: John Kim
Now, as I mentioned, I completely disagree with this approach.  For example, Hercules is incredibly strong, but his physical capability is constantly tested.  The labors of Hercules aren't ethical puzzles -- they're things like killing the Nemean lion, or the Hydra.  Allowing the player to automatically narrate Hercules success over the Nemean lion isn't conducive to the feel of a "Herculean task", in my opinion.  

The thing about the 'Herculean tasks' though is there was no question that Hercules was strong enough to do them.  He cant hurt the Nemean lion with weapons so he has to figure out that the only way to beat it is to wrestle with it, once it gets down to the wrestling Hercules wins.   Likewise there's no doubt he can hold up the heavens when Atlas rests them on his shoulders.

Conversely I think the epic feel would be lost if while Hercules was able to hold up the heavens he could lose a wrestling match to joe average due to bizarre dice rolls.

I also agree with the stats approach and limiting what the heroes can do.  Giving Hercules a Strength of 22 is very appropriate considering how strong he is compared to humans.  There is no problem in scaling it against humans, as that's what we naturally do.

Now, it is true that strength or intelligence alone doesn't define a hero, so perhaps another "stat" such as Status or Fame could be used.  The GM would award the PC points in these areas as he accomplishes feats (not just killing monsters, but doing other Hero-like things).

Quote from: CaldisThe thing about the 'Herculean tasks' though is there was no question that Hercules was strong enough to do them.  He cant hurt the Nemean lion with weapons so he has to figure out that the only way to beat it is to wrestle with it, once it gets down to the wrestling Hercules wins.   Likewise there's no doubt he can hold up the heavens when Atlas rests them on his shoulders.

Conversely I think the epic feel would be lost if while Hercules was able to hold up the heavens he could lose a wrestling match to joe average due to bizarre dice rolls.  

MJ had a similar comment about needing to skip die rolls.  As I see it, many games have essentially insane variance on die rolls, but this isn't inherent to using dice or stats.  i.e. As I recall, in DC Heroes if you got everyone in the country to try jumping, one of them would jump to the moon.  But low-variance systems like CORPS handle automatic success very smoothly.  So if you have sufficient ability, you can rely on the die roll to always give you success.  

Also, a resource such as Hero Points (a la James Bond 007) can make sure that the heroes succeed -- the question is how well and at what cost.  

As for the inevitability, I'm not sure what approach you favor.  Are you in favor of no stat, and the player automatically gets to narrate success for appropriate tasks?  If so, how would you handle a situation like Roland being attacked by the Saracen horde?

Perhaps a combination of the two?  The GM could decide if the feat would be easy enough to achieve for the hero without rolling dice, and if there is any question it could be resolved using stats and dice.

For example, no matter how bad at shooting guns I am, if I hold one to your head while you're asleep and pull the trigger, should there really be a chance for a critical failure (besides the gun backfiring maybe...)?

Quote from: John Kim
As for the inevitability, I'm not sure what approach you favor.  Are you in favor of no stat, and the player automatically gets to narrate success for appropriate tasks?  If so, how would you handle a situation like Roland being attacked by the Saracen horde?

For epic heros and mythical figures I think the best approach would be to limit them to one area where they are supreme.  Hercules is amazingly strong, Robin Hood is the best shot in the land, Lancelot is unbeatable in battle.  Their area of supremacy allows them to never fail when that attribute is called into play however most situations, like Hercules tasks, should not play entirely to their strength.  

I'm not all that familiar with Roland's tale I'm afraid but from what I recall he's similar to Lancelot, a knight with no equal.  In the case where he comes up against the Saracen Horde you allow him to be unbeatable, however the entire horde is not going to concentrate on him they will be focused on other things that will be important to Roland.  If he tries to fight them all single handedly the vast majority swarm past him and kill his companions, swarm the castle, capture the maiden he's protecting etc.

So while he's invincible he can win every battle and still lose the war.

Oh and yes on your first point there are ways to guarantee success with huge stats or with karma points, but if you are going to go to all that trouble why not just say that the character cant fail when that stat comes into question?

Quote from: CaldisThe thing about the 'Herculean tasks' though is there was no question that Hercules was strong enough to do them.  He cant hurt the Nemean lion with weapons so he has to figure out that the only way to beat it is to wrestle with it, once it gets down to the wrestling Hercules wins.   Likewise there's no doubt he can hold up the heavens when Atlas rests them on his shoulders.

Conversely I think the epic feel would be lost if while Hercules was able to hold up the heavens he could lose a wrestling match to joe average due to bizarre dice rolls.

I'm inclined to agree. The implication seems to be that an epic game should favor Karma over Fortune.

An open question is the role of Drama in an epic rpg resolution mechanic.

Rexfelis

Quote from: CaldisOh and yes on your first point there are ways to guarantee success with huge stats or with karma points, but if you are going to go to all that trouble why not just say that the character cant fail when that stat comes into question?

That might be too extreme. Even if Hercules is the strongest man alive, that doesn't mean his strength is infinite; it just means that he has a higher "strength score" than every other human.

In other words, having numerical ability ratings might be fine for an epic game, if the resolution were more Karma (and/or Drama) than Fortune.

Rexfelis

Quote from: orbsmattPerhaps a combination of the two?  The GM could decide if the feat would be easy enough to achieve for the hero without rolling dice, and if there is any question it could be resolved using stats and dice.

Well, that's inherently handled by a low-variance system -- which is another way of putting Rexfelis' point of "less Fortune, more Karma".  In a low-variance system, the GM assigns a difficulty to the task, and if the hero has enough skill, he automatically succeeds.  i.e. It doesn't matter what the die roll is, he always succeeds.  For example, in CORPS if I have a skill of 7, I will automatically succeed at a difficulty 7 task -- which is completely impossible for an untrained person.  

The problem is that in a high-variance system, the difficulty has to be ridiculously low and/or the skill ridiculously high to be assured of success.  For some open-ended systems, you can never be sure.  Other systems have an enormous chance of automatic failure (like 1 in 20 or more).  An interesting twist on a low-variance system is http://www.auroragames.com/">Aurora, where the player can choose the level of variance in dice.  

The down side (if you consider it that) is that low-variance systems don't generate interesting critical successes or failures.

(Edited to correct attribution)

Quote from: orbsmattNow, it is true that strength or intelligence alone doesn't define a hero, so perhaps another "stat" such as Status or Fame could be used.  The GM would award the PC points in these areas as he accomplishes feats (not just killing monsters, but doing other Hero-like things).

This might be a good idea. In many epics, heroes are very concerned at winning fame by their deeds. In the Germanic tradition in particular, fame was viewed as sort of a second-best substitute for immortality. As in, everyone dies, but if you risk your life and do great things, your deeds may be remembered.

By modern standards, the degree to which some of these heroes are concerned with the reputation they will have after their death strikes one as rather odd. But that's a part of the nebulous "tone" of epics.

Rexfelis

Quote from: Rexfelis

That might be too extreme. Even if Hercules is the strongest man alive, that doesn't mean his strength is infinite; it just means that he has a higher "strength score" than every other human.

In other words, having numerical ability ratings might be fine for an epic game, if the resolution were more Karma (and/or Drama) than Fortune.

Rexfelis

That can work but is it really different than what I suggested?  If you have a number to mark what your ability is then you also have to define the scale.  What does 22 strength mean?  Is it enough to hold the heavens on your shoulders, which Hercules does, if so how does that relate to how far he can throw a boulder or how much equipment he can carry?  It all comes down to a judgement call and if you want to restrict Hercules to semi-realistic feats of strength then you can do it just as easily without a number for the stat as you can with one.

Quote from: CaldisFor epic heros and mythical figures I think the best approach would be to limit them to one area where they are supreme.  Hercules is amazingly strong, Robin Hood is the best shot in the land, Lancelot is unbeatable in battle.  Their area of supremacy allows them to never fail when that attribute is called into play however most situations, like Hercules tasks, should not play entirely to their strength.  
...
Oh and yes on your first point there are ways to guarantee success with huge stats or with karma points, but if you are going to go to all that trouble why not just say that the character cant fail when that stat comes into question?  

Well, because even for great heroes there are always limits.  Robin Hood isn't ever going to fail to be a great archer, but there are still limits to what he can accomplish.  So he can't, say, see the Sherriff a mile away and shoot an arrow to pin his foot to the floor.  You might say "Oh, well, we'll just rule out the implausible cases" -- but where do you draw that line?  Everyone may have different ideas about just how far the limits go.  Incidentally, Roland is one such case.  He was indeed a knight unparalleled within all of Charlemagne's realm, but when he was attacked by the Saracen horde he was eventually killed, overwhelmed by their numbers.  

Cu Chulain was devastating in battle, but when he was stuck fighting on his own against the army, he harried them by ambushing stragglers and the edges.  He didn't simply wade in and take the army head-on.

Absolutely correct John.  That's why right from the beginning I said the challenge for Epic play was to find a way to not put un-epic-like restrictions on the heroes heroic abilities, while still finding a way to deliver meaningfull challenge to the character.

I think the only thing you and I really disagree on is how to do that.  

I think we're in agreement that the system can impact the tone of the game.  The process that the player has to go through to determine what the character's limits are or ability to overcome an obstacle are is going to determine a big part of whether the game feels epic...i.e gives the same sense of tone and wonder as reading the great epics...or not.  

I remember the game Wyrd that Scott Knipe was working on and for some reason stopped when it was about 80% finished.  That game I think maintained the feel of the norse sagas because the primary mechanic wasn't about measuring how much you could lift, or how far you could run before being tired, it left those things to player narration providing only a simple pass fail ruling.  The thing it didn't leave to player narration, was that ultimate limit that even the greatest norse heroes couldn't overcome, the inevitable progress towards their doom.  

Scott's other game Charnal Gods I think captured this in a different way.  The game uses Sorcerer mechanics to set fairly mundane type limits.  But the power of the fell weapons that the characters wield place them well above the power of mere mortals.  But no matter how powerful they are, they can't escape from or prevent the ultimate destruction of the world.  In fact, in true tragic hero fashion, their actions actually hasten the destruction of the world.

Both of those, to me, do a pretty good job of providing play with an epic feel (in a certain tradition).  And a big part of the reason why, I think, is what the game chooses to stat out, and what it doesn't.