Stats for Epic Heroes

[xiombarg]

Shreyas stole what I was going to say. ;-D

Seriously, do we really doubt that Hercules is going to fail in his tasks? The issue is, as others have said, what the consequences of those tasks are. (Not to mention the character's non-Epic weaknesses, such as Hercules and women...)

Given that, perhaps the best mechanic is for every "epic" stat the PC has, they're assumed to succeed in tasks associated with it -- but dice are rolled and totaled to figure out the fallout from the act in question. Kinda like the "Optional Categories" in Pretender, except the categories aren't optional, and you have to roll them.

(I didn't get much sleep last night, so stop me if I'm not making sense.)

[Shreyas Sampat]

On the subject of nonEpic weaknesses:

I think that's an obvious counter to the "unassailable attribute" issue that some people have raised - Samson might be arbitrarily mighty, but there are some forces that can defuse this, and those forces are never stronger people than him, or things he can't do (that's not epic); they're things that reveal aspects of his character.

[John Kim]

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.  

OK, good to have a concrete example (cf http://gildedmoose.blogs.com/ to download Wyrd, by the way).  So Wyrd matches the suggestion which montag/Markus originally brought up.  i.e. Heroes have no physical or mental stats, only passions.  The chance to overcome any obstacle is based on how passionate they feel about it -- not qualities such as strength or wisdom.  This means that for any given task, any hero -- whether Hercules or Odysseus or Achilles -- has a chance to succeed on it based on how passionate they are about it, regardless of their physical and mental qualities.  

Further, it has a high variance.  The draw mechanic is similar to binary dice pools like Prince Valiant or Hercules & Xena.  As written, accomplishing a "simple task" requires drawing at least 1 heroic stone.  On average, a hero will have 5 heroic stones to distribute among all passions.  So a high passion would be 5, but lesser ones may be 1 or 2.  Unless the hero has a high passion for that task, there is a high failure chance for even a simple task.  With a guiding passion of 1 or 2, there is roughly a 50% or 25% chance (respectively) of being unable to accomplish even a simple task.  So a PC will have trouble accomplishing even simple tasks which he is moderately passionate about.  

Now, technically, a player can avoid this by having only a single passion.  Then regardless of whether the task is covered by that passion, he always draws that number of stones -- because a task which doesn't fall under any listed passion uses the "lowest passion score".  But I think that's clearly a broken point in the system.  One should presumably use a score of 1 if there is no guiding passion, rather than the "lowest passion".  

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).  

Well, I'm familiar with basic Sorcerer but not with Charnel Gods.  Do the stats differ from normal Sorcerer, or is it the same two attributes plus player-defined Cover stat?  I gather that there is an action resolution option so that actions resolved hasten world destruction -- but does this involve the thread topic of PC stats?

[Valamir]

Wyrd is not without its problems, which is why Scott paused development on it.  I wasn't pointing to it as the perfect solution (although it is a pretty damn cool concept) but rather more for the feel it engenders.

Charnal Gods mechanic is pretty stock Sorcerer.  The end of the world is tied into the humanity score.

[John Kim]

Wyrd is not without its problems, which is why Scott paused development on it.  I wasn't pointing to it as the perfect solution (although it is a pretty damn cool concept) but rather more for the feel it engenders.

Charnal Gods mechanic is pretty stock Sorcerer.  The end of the world is tied into the humanity score.

Well, I agree that WYRD has some neat ideas, and it can be good for the rules text to be flavorful and encouraging of narrative ideas.  Having the bag and stones is nice color and very flavorful.  But for analysis, at some point you have to cut through the flavor text and look at what the mechanic functionally does in play.  I realize it can seem harsh to take WYRD and reduce it down to mundane functional analysis of probabilities, but I also think it's necessary.  Taking stock:

* The "no physical stats" approach of WYRD has the problem that Hercules isn't distinguished by his strength from other heroes like Odysseus or Achilles.  Is this surmountable somehow?  It seems like a pretty fundamental problem to me.  

* The "auto-success within your sphere" approach has the drawback that really any hero has limits (i.e. Cu Chulain can't take on an army head-on).  This can be surmounted by negotiation and communication about what those limits are.  This needn't be numeric, in principle.  So the player has the power to narrate Roland's success, but based on agreement he agrees to narrate Roland's death instead.  

As for Charnel Gods, I think that's just a high-abstraction numeric approach.  So how it differs from (say) Champions as far as stats go is that there are fewer stats and more simply-defined powers.  Right?  On the other hand, there are also many resolution differences such as dice pool, the Humanity system, and GM-granted bonuses.  Maybe these can't be separated per se -- but at least we can say that physical stats and powers can work under some circumstances.

[Caldis]

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.  

How is that any different with a stat or without?  If Hercules is capable of lifting the world on his shoulders then if his stats reflect that he will be able to do ridiculously implausible feats whenever he likes, in that case however the player will have a textual basis for the implausible feat and a basis for rules lawyering.  You either have to choose to neuter Hercules by giving him a stat that rules out the implausible feats as well as the ones he would typically be capable of or define the limits of what is plausible and thereby remove the need for a stat. You create the limits up front.

[Valamir]

But for analysis, at some point you have to cut through the flavor text and look at what the mechanic functionally does in play. I realize it can seem harsh to take WYRD and reduce it down to mundane functional analysis of probabilities, but I also think it's necessary. Taking stock:

Of course.  But you should endeavor to do so accurately.

Further, it has a high variance. The draw mechanic is similar to binary dice pools like Prince Valiant or Hercules & Xena. As written, accomplishing a "simple task" requires drawing at least 1 heroic stone.  With a guiding passion of 1 or 2, there is roughly a 50% or 25% chance (respectively) of being unable to accomplish even a simple task. So a PC will have trouble accomplishing even simple tasks which he is moderately passionate about.

Not true.  First the section on when to make a Rune Casting is pretty clear that you only make one when the heros fate is in question.  Since any obstacle that would put a heros fate into question is clearly not simple, there will never be any call to make a "simple task".  The "simple task" is there for when the player chooses to spend stones on describing his hero accomplishing something simple.

Second, the purpose of spending the heroic stones is to gain the authority to add narrative description to the game.  In that they are similiar to Coins in Universalis, with the additions that the color indicates a positive or negative spin to the narration, and that the magnitude of events is equated to a cost level.  There is much more going on here.

And third, your analysis completely neglects extended Runecasting which allows the player to keep drawing until he's satisfied.  This means that far from having trouble succeeding at simple things, the hero is pretty much guarenteed to succeed at anything the player really wants him to.

Passions then are of only modest importance in determining success or failure, since if you don't have a level 6 passion to draw, you can simply draw twice with your level 3 passion or 3 times with your level 2 passion and get 6 stones anyway.  What passions due is pace your character's fate.  Every draw removes a stone from your bag.  Every time you go through your bag you permanently remove a stone from play.  Run out of stones, meet your doom.

So the benefit of a level 6 Passion is you get 6 stones and only have to remove 1.  If you draw 3 times with a level 2 passion you'll get 6 stones but have to remove 3.  Do that all the time and you burn through your purse 3 times faster.  The character who remains focused on his strongest passions will be able to add more glory to his legend because he can stave off his doom longer than the character who has no strong passion or who shys away from it.  That lesser passionate hero will either have to accept less heroic successes, or burn himself out faster.

* The "no physical stats" approach of WYRD has the problem that Hercules isn't distinguished by his strength from other heroes like Odysseus or Achilles. Is this surmountable somehow? It seems like a pretty fundamental problem to me.

Not seeing a problem.  Wyrd is about Norse legends.  I don't recall many of those which focused on specific areas of physical prowess.  I don't recall a Norse "hercules".  I recall lots of passion about duties to family and hatreds of enemies.  Obviously if you wanted to adapt the rules to Greek tales, you'd have to modify it.

because a task which doesn't fall under any listed passion uses the "lowest passion score". But I think that's clearly a broken point in the system. One should presumably use a score of 1 if there is no guiding passion, rather than the "lowest passion".

What do you want?  Wyrd is essentially at beta level of completeness.  Really I'm not at all sure what the point of this nit picking the mechanics is for, or how its relevant.

Maybe these can't be separated per se -- but at least we can say that physical stats and powers can work under some circumstances.

I never said otherwise.  The key is in defining stats that are important and not chaining down epic heroes with a laundry list of irrelevancies or in trying to assign some unnecessary metric to the numbers.

[M. J. Young]

I just had a thought as I was reading the recent posts here; it's sort of turning something on its head that I happen to be doing right now.

I'm running a horror scenario in an ongoing Multiverser campaign. The player doesn't know it, but one of the features of the world is that any time a skill check really matters to his character, it takes a -20% penalty on success. The idea is to enhance the feeling of hopelessness by making failure more likely when success is important.

I can easily see using a similar concept in a heroic scenario. (This is undoubtedly comparable to SAs in tRoS, but I'll defend myself by saying it's suggested briefly in Multiverser's rules.) Give the character a legendary concept, and then stipulate that any act which would significantly contribute to his legendary status gets a significant bonus on the chance of success.

We'll assume that Robin Hood is an expert archer with a superb ranged strike value; he never misses at point blank range, period, and at short range he's very near 100% on his shots. That's just his ordinary ability. Now, he sees the sheriff way off in the distance. This shot will contribute to his status as a legend, if he makes it. We apply the penalties for such an incredible distance, and then we add the bonus. It might well be that he's got a slim chance of hitting the sheriff from here--probably not killing him, but hitting him, sending the man a message that he's not safe if he leaves his castle. The chance of pinning his foot to the ground, though, is much slimmer--the defined target is smaller, there's a penalty for that.

The size of the bonus would determine the degree to which legendary actions were encouraged (it would also help if building legendary status meant something--in fact, you could link the two, such that legendary status was a score which determined the size of the bonus, possibly creating a possibility for loss of such status on failures). A character with a +20% bonus would try things that were very unlikely; a character with a +100% bonus would try things which were impossible for ordinary people, because when other people hit 0% chance of success he would be at automatic, and only as the chance of success dropped from there would he have any chance to fail at all.

By limiting the bonus to 1) situations which fit the legendary category of the character and 2) those which if successful would contribute to the legendary status of the individual, you prevent the character from being entirely invincible. By using it as a bonus, you automatically define what is reasonable for the hero to attempt (since hitting the sheriff's foot from a mile away is going to have penalties in excess of -100% right up front). By linking the bonus to the status earned by success, you incentivize making such heroic actions and cause the character effectiveness to grow during play.

Anyway, it's a thought.

--M. J. Young

[Caldis]

We'll assume that Robin Hood is an expert archer with a superb ranged strike value; he never misses at point blank range, period, and at short range he's very near 100% on his shots. That's just his ordinary ability. Now, he sees the sheriff way off in the distance. This shot will contribute to his status as a legend, if he makes it. We apply the penalties for such an incredible distance, and then we add the bonus. It might well be that he's got a slim chance of hitting the sheriff from here--probably not killing him, but hitting him, sending the man a message that he's not safe if he leaves his castle. The chance of pinning his foot to the ground, though, is much slimmer--the defined target is smaller, there's a penalty for that.

--M. J. Young

The problem with this is that if you are rolling against his stat and he has bad luck on the dice role he still fails and is no longer the legendary epic character he once was.  Robin Hood goes to the tournament disguised as a peasant, he will become incredibly famous if he wins the tournament so your rule comes into affect.  Bad dice rolls on his part and lucky rolls on the part of his opponent cause him to lose the tournament, Robin is no longer the greatest archer in England.

The way I would prefer to run that scene is to define the characters actual goal; he wants to win the golden arrow, the kiss from maid Marion, and have another chance of rubbing Prince John's face in it.   Once you've determined the goal you roll to determine the outcome, does Robin succeed and accomplish everything or does he fail and get capture by Prince John.  He will always win the archery contest the question is will he succeed in what he was actually attempting to do.

Similarly Roland against the Saracen Horde or Cuchulainn against an army If you define the hero as unbeatable in one on one combat then you dont have a problem if he comes into conflict with a massive force.  He can still lose when taking on an army but he will never be beaten by a single foe (save by some form of trick or treachery).  

When attacking the army you define the situation first, why are you fighting the Saracen Horde, what do you hope to achieve, and what methods you are using.  You then roll to determine the outcome, possibly a system like what Trollbabes uses where you can reroll failures but that ups the stakes.  You then determine the outcome which will either be a success or failure.

[John Kim]

The problem with this is that if you are rolling against his stat and he has bad luck on the dice role he still fails and is no longer the legendary epic character he once was.  Robin Hood goes to the tournament disguised as a peasant, he will become incredibly famous if he wins the tournament so your rule comes into affect.  Bad dice rolls on his part and lucky rolls on the part of his opponent cause him to lose the tournament, Robin is no longer the greatest archer in England.  

Well, but this just goes back to what Rexfelis and I both said: that high Fortune variance is bad for epic feel.  The problem disappears if the system has more consistent results, and possibly resource spending (such as hero points).  Low variance means that if the hero fails, it is because the difficulty is incredible -- not because the die roll was bad.  Resource spending can mean that the string of failures doesn't occur, but still has some cost.  

The way I would prefer to run that scene is to define the characters actual goal; he wants to win the golden arrow, the kiss from maid Marion, and have another chance of rubbing Prince John's face in it.   Once you've determined the goal you roll to determine the outcome, does Robin succeed and accomplish everything or does he fail and get capture by Prince John.  He will always win the archery contest the question is will he succeed in what he was actually attempting to do.  

I guess your point is going to a higher level of abstraction: i.e. conflict resolution instead of action resolution.  That may have some advantage here, but I don't think it addresses the original problem.  If the hero loses conflict after conflict due to bad dice rolls, is that really any better than losing a string of actions?  It seems to me that you still have the same basic problem that a string of failures makes the character less epic.  Of course, it can be addressed in the same manner as that expressed above.

[Ian Charvill]

I don't think there's anything specific about Epics which fobids high fortune variance.  That rule equally covers all literature and drama too.  Fortune isn't a factor in books because authors don't sit there with their d20s rolling to see whether their hero makes it out of the latest scrape.  Do we expect Hercules to fail?  Do we expect Robin Hood to fail at archery?  Dirty Harry?  Do we expect Bugs Bunny to fail at a quick change disguise?  Is Bugs an epic hero?  Is Dirty Harry?

Epic heroes do fail of course - even Hercules in the Argonautika.  The protagonist of Paradise Lost is the quintessential failure - his only successes are when others fail.  Dune is consciously epic in scope - "Atriedes" is no coincidence - but it's characters fail all the time - outside of the Maudib.

So, by Epic Hero who cannot fail do we mean the usually single protagonist and not the supporting cast?  If we do, do we need two or more types of character a la Ars Magica.  Epic Heroes and their side kicks (which raises an interesting high-fortune epic game - last guy to fumble gets to be the epic hero).  Do we need two separate resolution mechanics?

[Caldis]

Well, but this just goes back to what Rexfelis and I both said: that high Fortune variance is bad for epic feel.  The problem disappears if the system has more consistent results, and possibly resource spending (such as hero points).  Low variance means that if the hero fails, it is because the difficulty is incredible -- not because the die roll was bad.  Resource spending can mean that the string of failures doesn't occur, but still has some cost.

Sure but if you have a roll to determine if the task is successful there always has to be the chance of failure.  Even if you have fate points to buy a success you run the risk of running out of points and then having the hero fail.  I dont think an epic hero should fail when the element that makes him epic comes into play.  If you devise a complicated system that makes it virtually implossible for the hero to fail why not just say he cant fail and not worry about all the dice rolls and the point totals?  Spend that time coming up with situations that test something other than his epic quality.

I guess your point is going to a higher level of abstraction: i.e. conflict resolution instead of action resolution.  That may have some advantage here, but I don't think it addresses the original problem.  If the hero loses conflict after conflict due to bad dice rolls, is that really any better than losing a string of actions?  It seems to me that you still have the same basic problem that a string of failures makes the character less epic.  Of course, it can be addressed in the same manner as that expressed above.

I dont think it does if you chose the right situation to put the hero in.  Hercules remains epic even if he cant figure out how to get rid of the Stymphalian birds on his own and has to resort to getting help from Athena, he is no longer epic if as the strongest man in the world he loses a wrestling match to an ordinary human.

[Valamir]

I'm going to brainstorm a little half baked idea here.

Suppose every hero has 2 meta stats:  Legendary Status, and Tragic Ending.

We then engage in conflict resolution.  If the hero wins the conflict, Legendary Status goes up by one.

If the hero loses the conflict, they get a "reroll" as in Troll babe where they call upon one of their epic qualities.  Maybe this is an actual roll, maybe its just an auto success.  Either way, success increases their Legendary Status, but resorting to the reroll gives them a point of Tragic Ending.

So a hero who relies on his heroic abilities to solve every conflict will eventually end tragically (or rather, end tragically faster); but relying on those heroic abilities will bring the hero great success and great Legendary Status.


This allows for Hercules to lose the discus contest to the young kid in the Argonautica despite his great strength.  Because he lost the conflict (which likely would have been rolled against "wits" due to the nature of the kids ploy) but chose not to move a step closer to tragedy to call upon a reroll.


Does that seem like a workable framework?

[Walt Freitag]

Focusing on probabilities of failure (or the variances of these probabilities over a range of stat differentials) is missing the point. Epic heroes fail all the time. The Odyssey is one failure after another. Every time Odysseus puts to sea, he's trying to get home, not to reach another shore or island with another bizarre hazard. Again and again, he fails to do so.

Epic heroes embody a principle of protagonism that was much discussed at the Forge a year ago and seems to have slipped into the background: failure means complication. Hercules swings at one of the Hydra's necks. Hercules-player rolls low. Whiff? Of course not. He's Hercules! He slices the head cleanly off. Only... complication! Two heads grow back!

Note that this works only if the exact nature of the Hydra is not fixed going in. The monster's head-regrowth power arises as a complication of Hercules' failure. This is incompatible with the head-regrowth power being an already established fact about Hydras, and it's incompatible with the head-regrowth power being a surprise pre-planned by the GM for the player (though there's no particular harm in the GM planning possibilities in advance, as in, "if there's a failure here, here's what the complication might be...").

What does this have to do with character stats? Almost nothing. Which is the whole point. Character stats like strength and skills are all about in-game-world causality. In-game-world causality will not yield epic outcomes. Period. Wrong tool for the job. It's like asking, what's the best kind of ink for making the music you're writing more baroque?

That doesn't mean that ability stats prevent epic-ness either. It means they're irrelevant one way or the other, except indirectly. Epic heroes do things that armies and administrations and mobs either cannot or will not do. That suggests that they will have unusual skills or characteristics. But this doesn't necessarily translate into unusual stats. The unusual characteristic can be the unusual decisions they make. Does Frodo's resistance to the Ring require a Fortitude stat to make it plausible in the shared imagined space? That seems to me a matter of taste.

You could, of course, have stats with metagame meanings that indicate the relative degree to which characters' failures are effected as complications. It might be fun to mix characters with different degrees of such a variable. There might be good practical reasons why heroes have sidekicks who just whiff, who don't reveal hitherto unknown powers of the monster when they miss.

- Walt

[Ian Charvill]

I dont think it does if you chose the right situation to put the hero in.  Hercules remains epic even if he cant figure out how to get rid of the Stymphalian birds on his own and has to resort to getting help from Athena, he is no longer epic if as the strongest man in the world he loses a wrestling match to an ordinary human.

What about throwing a discus?

[Hercules is a bit of an awkward, licensed-property, divers hand, kind of a creation - I'm not sure he's the best exempler of an epic hero.  Which Hercules are we talking about here, whose?  He's not real so which of the many fictional variants on Hercules are we arguing over?]

Does Achilles cease to be an epic hero when he's killed by a mere arrow?
Does Satan cease to be an epic (anti-)hero when his evil is resisted by mere men?

Some epic heroes lose some of the time.  They even lose the the things they're good at, if it's dramatically appropriate.  The idea that they never lose - or never lose at what they're good at - simply isn't born out by the texts of actual epics.