Stats for Epic Heroes

[Valamir]

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.- Walt

Correct.  But Odysseus is not known as a heroic navigator.  He's known for his cunning and strategy.  

Use of his cunning and strategy finally opened the way into Troy, but it did so in a manner that angered Posiedan.  As you say, failure leads to complication.  

Odysseus failed to come up with a plan that had no down side.  He didn't fail to come up with a plan that would accomplish the goal of defeating Troy.  Using the same logic as my proposed framework above he failed the Conflict, but took the success from his heroic abilities anyway, thus acquiring a point of Tragic Ending...Posiedan's anger.

When sailing home its true that he failed repeatedly to get home.  But the cunning plans for which he is legendary succeeded time and time again, against the Sirens, against the Cyclops, etc.

I don't have the full text of the Odessy in my head...is there an example in the epic of him coming up with a cunning plan that didn't work, not that didn't work without complication, but that just plain didn't work of the "nope you failed" variety.  None come to mind...

[talysman]

I have a couple comments.

first, I'm glad brought up the point that *task* resolution does not work well for epic heroes, while *conflict* resoultion does. I'm also glad Ralph gave the example of Legendary Status/Tragic Ending. really, what is the point of playing an epic hero? it shouldn't be to simulate what an epic hero can do, but should instead be to explore the hero's journey.

second, I think John Kim dismissed montag's approach to playing the passions or moral problems of Hercules or other epic heroes a little too quickly. sure, Hercules solves the labors with strength, but I don't see that the labors themselves need to be played out as opposed to merely narrated freeform or handled with Drama mechanics. the original greek stories didn't go into detail on how close Hercules came to losing in a match of strength; the only details are about his use of cunning (which, although high, doesn't seem to be as sure-fire as his superhuman strength) and his tragic flaw of rage. the twelve labors were a *punishment*, remember. the big issues of the story of Hercules were his rage and the grief it brought him.

as a side note, I am planning an rpg with a D&D-style setting and heroic-to-epic-level characters that I originally called "Level Up", but I'm still looking for a final name. in it, the PCs are reknowned for slaying dragons, routing goblin armies, returning to town festooned with treasure, and so on. the difference is that none of these heroic events are played out: they are bought with experience points as features of the character. the actual play centers on the in-town, between-adventure events and is mostly social -- spreading your reputation, haggling for goods and services, dueling with other adventures, gettng caught up in court intrigue. one of the alternate titles I'm considering is "Barrooms and Braggarts", because it sort of captures the humorous feel I would like for the game.

the point being: if your characters are supposed to be the best of the best in one area (slaying monsters,) it might be more fun to switch the conflict of the game to a different area (dealing with tragic flaws, or switching to a social arena.)

[Ian Charvill]

Hercules isn't being punished for his crimes with the 12 Labours.  Sure they take the form of an atonement but really what is happening is he's being fucked with royally by Hera who sent him mad so that he'd kill his family and in atonement for which he did the big twelve for his cousin Eurystheus a king.  Eurystheus is only king because Hera tricked Zeus into crowning him instead of Hercules.

Zeus is Hercules's father.  Hera is Zeus's wife.  Hera is not Hercules mother.  Do the math.

Anyway the 12

Nemean Lion - cunning and strength
Hydra - cunning and trusty sidekick
Cerynitian Hind - archery
Erymanthian Boar - strength
The Augean Stables - cunning and strength
The Stymphalian Birds - cunning and archery
the Cretan Bull - strength
the Mares of Diomedes - cunning (possibly also sidekick, if we go with the version where Hercules feeds the horse his squire)
Hippolyte's Belt - sex/persuasion plus sidekicks and maybe a little strength
the Cattle of Geryon - stealth (failed) and strength
the Apples of the Hesperides - this is the supports the heavens on a pillar one with Atlas which seems pure strength except Hercules had to get Atlas back under the pillar which he did through the power of lying through his teeth
the Capture of Cerberus - strength and magic item (Nemean Lion, one skin of)

Several of those strengths, thinking about it, are actually wrestling/fighting (all of them except the stables and the apples).

So, what is Hercules thing that we'd be trying to protect?  His strength - hardly ever uses it - his archery, his cunning, his sexual prowess, his bare faced lying, his sidekicks?  Anything he attempts?  How did the failed sneak roll come about (Cattle of Geryon)?  Without his cousin, the Hydra (who to be fair was double teaming him with a giant crab) would have kicked his ass.  How do we account for that?  The text is pretty clear that without the skin of the Nemean Lion Cerberus would have packed him up in a doggy bag.  Are we advocating Epic gaming where if the PC doesn't have the right magic item the player is SOL?

And Ralph - Odysseus is unable to come up with a plan, strategy or other bit of cunning that allows him to find his way home.  If we take Odysseus's own stories about his travels in the court of another king as true, then he's entirely unable to control his crew.  He gets the bag of the four winds to blow him home, his crew steal it while he's asleep and open it.  Despite the fact the Tiresias explicitly says do not touch Helios cattle, while on Helios' Island, what does his crew do while Odysseus is asleep.

Further, Odysseus "rescues" his men from the Laestrygonians by running away and leaving half of them to be eaten.  When the arrive at Circe's island rather than investigating the hut himself, brave Odysseus sends several of his men.  His men are so eager for this they have to draw lots to see who gets to go.  His men aren't stupid, they know this is Red Shirt time.

Their hearts sank as they heard me, for they remembered how they had been treated by the Laestrygonian Antiphates, and by the savage ogre Polyphemus. They wept bitterly in their dismay, but there was nothing to be got by crying, so I divided them into two companies and set a captain over each; I gave one company to Eurylochus, while I took command of the other myself. Then we cast lots in a helmet, and the lot fell upon Eurylochus; so he set out with his twenty-two men, and they wept, as also did we who were left behind.

After half the men are turned into pigs, Odysseus does go and free them.  But not thanks to cunning, thanks to a magical herb given him by Mercury who appears just at the right moment.  There's a reason why deus ex machina is Greek.  He doesn't free his men straight away, he screws Circe first and then starts feeling guilty while Circe's four female handmaidens are bathing him and feeding him and whatnot.  Then he has her turn his men back into men.

All in all we either have (a) Odysseus cunning has a pretty high whiff factor or Odysseus player chooses not to use it most of the time.

[Walt Freitag]

But Odysseus is not known as a heroic navigator.  He's known for his cunning and strategy.

That's debatable (the first clause, that is, not the second). We call heroic feats of navigation "odysseys;" we don't refer to feats of cunning siegecraft that way.

But it doesn't really matter, because we're not really disagreeing. In the navigation we see the same thing as in the cunning strategizing: complications, but never outright failure. The only difference is that in some cases we see immediate success with subsequent complications (the voyage itself being a complication of cracking Troy, through the interpolated causality of angering Poseidon); and in others such as the voyage success is eventual (he does get home), with the complications coming first.

So, what we'd be looking at to mimic these dynamics in an rpg is the ability of a conflict resolution result to generate complications on a large scale. (With the expectation that large-scale complications, when played out, would generate conflicts and further complications of their own.) It would also be fitting if the player could "take complications" on a similarly large scale prior to the roll, keeping a conflict "open" (and "on the books") over an extended period of time. I can envision a player saying "I can't believe I rolled twelve complications," leading to the Twelve Labors of Hercules. I could also envision a player saying, "No, I'm not confident of success on the 'appease Poseidon / get home' roll yet, I'm going to take another complication first -- add a chit to that pool and toss me ashore on another island, please."

The Legendary Status / Tragic Ending system sounds interesting too, as a different approach. The reroll makes it do something similar to what the complications mechanism would do: require players to embellish a heroic success with further details of how the success comes about. But it might not be as conducive to generating large-scale epic plot structures, because rerolls shorten the story (in two different ways: ending the immediate conflict, and bringing the hero closer to his tragic ending) rather than stretching it out.

- Walt

[John Kim]

OK, we're really veering off of character stats into the question of action and/or conflict resolution.  But I guess that's OK since talking about parts of the system in isolation can be difficult.  

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).

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.  
...
(Hercules) is no longer epic if as the strongest man in the world he loses a wrestling match to an ordinary human.

We seem to have some basic disconnect in meaning here here.  A low-variance system means that Hercules has zero chance of losing to an ordinary human.  He doesn't have to roll -- you are mechanically assured that regardless of what the dice say, he will always win using the mechanics as written.  The mechanics are still relevant since he does have a chance of losing a wrestling match with, say, Atlas or with the dragon Ladon (which guards the Apples of the Hesperides).  Also, the degree of success may be important.  For example, this often comes up in my James Bond campaign.  Being double-oh agents, the PCs often have over 100% chance of success, but we roll to check on the degree of success.  

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?

I didn't say that it was a factor unique to epics -- sure, other types of fiction also benefit from low-variance.  But no, I don't think this is true for all fiction.  For example, Over the Edge is a high-variance system, and I think that fits well with the bizarre events of the fiction it is emulating such a Burroughs.  It's often fine for horror, in my opinion: Unknown Armies and Call of Cthulhu are both high-variance and benefit from it.  Genres where the hero often take a beating along the way are generally fine -- like much of Jackie Chan and many superhero comics.  (Incidentally, Dirty Harry fails plenty of times, particularly in Magnum Force.)  Basically, the more predictable the genre is, the more appropriate low variance is.  Conversely, genres which like having surprises and jumps are probably better off using medium or high variance.  

The argument that "writers don't roll dice" is an old argument for Amber and Theatrix, and also a silly one in my opinion.  It applies equally to all other distinct methods of RPGs (i.e. writers don't role-play).  One of the things Theatrix did well, though, was to emphasize the importance of how a character fails.  Too often, a bad die roll is taken to mean that the character shows zero skill for no reason.  What it comes down to is that interpreting die rolls is a skill and takes some imagination.  If a high-skill person get a very low roll, the interpreter needs to come up with a reason for failure.  

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?  

I think you're equating "low-variance" with "never fails", which isn't true.  Low variance just means that there is a narrower range of results.  In a low-variance system, the epic hero will automatically succeed at mundane tasks, have a chance of failure at high-end epic tasks, and automatically fail at tasks beyond even his great powers.  Low variance can work equally well for less powerful characters, though, with just a different range of difficulties.

[Caldis]

Does Achilles cease to be an epic hero when he's killed by a mere arrow?

A mere arrow aimed by a god, that hits his one weak spot and fulfills his prophesied death that he brought on himself by seeking vengeance for his fallen comrade.  That arrow wasnt exactly random and couldnt have come about by a simple dice roll.  I think Valamir's suggested mechanic would work great for such an example as this.

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.

These arent simply things that the hero is good at they are things the epic hero is beyond human at they are the characteristic that defines the character.  Hercules never fails a fair contest based on his strength, neither does Samson.  Lancelot is never beaten in a fair battle.  If they fail it is due to a trick, an act of the gods, or because the task is not based on their defining characteristic.

We seem to have some basic disconnect in meaning here here. A low-variance system means that Hercules has zero chance of losing to an ordinary human. He doesn't have to roll -- you are mechanically assured that regardless of what the dice say, he will always win using the mechanics as written. The mechanics are still relevant since he does have a chance of losing a wrestling match with, say, Atlas or with the dragon Ladon (which guards the Apples of the Hesperides). Also, the degree of success may be important. For example, this often comes up in my James Bond campaign. Being double-oh agents, the PCs often have over 100% chance of success, but we roll to check on the degree of success.

Fair enough, I admit I was not catching what you were saying and that the disconnect was likely my fault due to lack of experience with the terminology.  That system would work much better than a high-variance system especially with degree of success taken into account however I still think it no better than the alternative.  It's my belief that Hercules would destroy Ladon if he could get close enough to wrestle it, it's sharp teeth prevented that so he came up with another plan using the poisoned arrow.   Atlas on the other hand could possibly beat Hercules but the important thing about that situation is that they never could wrestle because one of them have to be holding up the heavens.

I guess what my point really has been is that the epic feel of the hero is defined by certain characteristics that set him above the rest of humanity.  To maintain that epic feel you should not put him in a contest where what is making him unique comes into question.  Hercules should not be in a wrestling match with the second strongest being in the world where he stands the chance of losing and thereby not seeming all that unique anymore.  Give him challenges where his strength is not going to win the day not ones where if his strength fails him he loses.

You dont build William Tell up as the best marksman in the land and then put an apple on his sons head and hope he doesnt blow the roll and kill his son instead of splitting the apple.

[Ben Lehman]

Does Achilles cease to be an epic hero when he's killed by a mere arrow?

A mere arrow aimed by a god, that hits his one weak spot and fulfills his prophesied death that he brought on himself by seeking vengeance for his fallen comrade.  That arrow wasnt exactly random and couldnt have come about by a simple dice roll.  I think Valamir's suggested mechanic would work great for such an example as this.

BL>  I'd like to note that there is *no reason* that a fortune system can't support this.  What does "critical hit w/ instant death" *mean* in a greek setting?  Divine intervention, or a spell, or a specific doom.

It isn't "joe shmoe archer" gets lucky.  Things can be defined after the die rolls, too.

You dont build William Tell up as the best marksman in the land and then put an apple on his sons head and hope he doesnt blow the roll and kill his son instead of splitting the apple.

BL>  I would like to note that William Tell failing that shot is *also* a very interesting story (see Wm. Burroughs).

 To me, this is the key to a fortune-based epic RPG -- it is not a matter constant success, it is a matter of interpretating what a failure means in an appropriate manner.

yrs--
--Ben

[Ian Charvill]

Hercules never fails a fair contest based on his strength

Except to the Hydra which holds him imobilised and helpless until his cousin comes to his aid.

And also see above - Hercules strength is used less often than his cunning in the twelve tasks so why are we so obsessed with the whole Hercules = strength thing when the Epic poetry that we're trying to emulate isn't?

[Caldis]

And also see above - Hercules strength is used less often than his cunning in the twelve tasks so why are we so obsessed with the whole Hercules = strength thing when the Epic poetry that we're trying to emulate isn't?

Because that is what defines him as epic, above the rest of humanity the fact that strength doesnt solve all of his problems is exactly the point.  He can be all powerfully strong and still have problems the he has to struggle to overcome.  The story's I've read of the Hydra dont have him pinned to the ground by the Hydra physically unable to beat it, he's unable to beat it by wrestling because while he wrestles one head the others would come in and tear him to pieces.

BL> I'd like to note that there is *no reason* that a fortune system can't support this. What does "critical hit w/ instant death" *mean* in a greek setting? Divine intervention, or a spell, or a specific doom.

It isn't "joe shmoe archer" gets lucky. Things can be defined after the die rolls, too.  

Except a random dice roll will still destroy the epic flavor of the character and the story.  If Achilles was killed by a bad dice roll (or divine intervention) as soon as he shows up at the Trojan war than he isnt much of an epic hero.  They dont write epics about that guy who never did anything except get zapped by a lightning bolt from Zeus.  

Sure low variance can make this only happen in important battles but that still isnt epic.  Achilles doesnt die fighting Hector as he tries to get revenge for Patroclus's death, he dies after he has pissed the gods off by dragging the body around behind his chariot.  Hercules doesnt die while trying to complete his twelve tasks, he is poisoned by a jealous wife instructed by a Centaur he had pissed off.  

Script immunity is absolutely necessary if the character is to achieve epic status.  However I wonder if you could combine Valamir's suggestion with a form of low variance.  As your tragic ending total increases you actually have to start rolling dice.  The farther you get up the scale the more often you have to roll until eventually you have to roll for even mundane tasks and at the end if you even fail a task it's an instant death critical failure.

To me, this is the key to a fortune-based epic RPG -- it is not a matter constant success, it is a matter of interpretating what a failure means in an appropriate manner.

How can you interpret Hercules failing a strength check when he's lifting up the heavens for Atlas?  Some really nasty god has decided to wipe out life on the planet?

[Caldis]

So, what we'd be looking at to mimic these dynamics in an rpg is the ability of a conflict resolution result to generate complications on a large scale. (With the expectation that large-scale complications, when played out, would generate conflicts and further complications of their own.) It would also be fitting if the player could "take complications" on a similarly large scale prior to the roll, keeping a conflict "open" (and "on the books") over an extended period of time. I can envision a player saying "I can't believe I rolled twelve complications," leading to the Twelve Labors of Hercules. I could also envision a player saying, "No, I'm not confident of success on the 'appease Poseidon / get home' roll yet, I'm going to take another complication first -- add a chit to that pool and toss me ashore on another island, please."

- Walt

Wow I love that idea and your second point works well with the first.  Hercules originally was only given 10 tasks but ended up getting two more thrown in because he tried to get paid for cleaning the stables and because he had help in defeating the hydra.

I think it can also work with the reroll idea in determining the ending of the story, a kind of victory condition.  If you've managed to complete the task without using too many rerolls you can succeed and live happily ever after (Odysseus, Robin Hood)  if you've pushed that tragic ending stat through the roof not so happy (Achilles, Lancelot).  If the legendary status is high enough you can even ascend to immortality even though you died tragically (Hercules).

[John Kim]

Except a random dice roll will still destroy the epic flavor of the character and the story.  If Achilles was killed by a bad dice roll (or divine intervention) as soon as he shows up at the Trojan war than he isnt much of an epic hero.  They dont write epics about that guy who never did anything except get zapped by a lightning bolt from Zeus.  

Sure low variance can make this only happen in important battles but that still isnt epic.  Achilles doesnt die fighting Hector as he tries to get revenge for Patroclus's death, he dies after he has pissed the gods off by dragging the body around behind his chariot.  Hercules doesnt die while trying to complete his twelve tasks, he is poisoned by a jealous wife instructed by a Centaur he had pissed off.  

Script immunity is absolutely necessary if the character is to achieve epic status.  However I wonder if you could combine Valamir's suggestion with a form of low variance.  As your tragic ending total increases you actually have to start rolling dice.  The farther you get up the scale the more often you have to roll until eventually you have to roll for even mundane tasks and at the end if you even fail a task it's an instant death critical failure.  

Well, sure.  That's why I suggested "resource-spending" hand-in-hand with my suggestion of "low-variance".  The most common pattern is hero points as pioneered by James Bond 007, variants of which are extremely common in today's RPGs.  This gives limited script immunity so that the hero can assuredly reach some sort of epic status, but there is still a time when his luck may run out.  

Now, Valamir's suggestion is gaining negative "tragic" points -- rather than using up positive "hero" points.  I'm still mulling over the differences in function and color.  Spending positive points means that there is a natural breakpoint at zero, while accumulating negative points gives more impression of steadily growing badness.  On the other hand, the natural breakpoint can be good -- i.e. there is a sharp line between tragedy (hero dies) and heroic triumph by a thin margin.  Arguably, this isn't well represented by accumulating 19 tragedy points vs 21.

[Valamir]

I think it can also work with the reroll idea in determining the ending of the story, a kind of victory condition. If you've managed to complete the task without using too many rerolls you can succeed and live happily ever after (Odysseus, Robin Hood) if you've pushed that tragic ending stat through the roof not so happy (Achilles, Lancelot). If the legendary status is high enough you can even ascend to immortality even though you died tragically (Hercules).

While certainly not a complete mechanic, and no doubt not without flaws, this is precisely the range of possibilities I was attempting to cover with the idea.

In fact, that is exactly how I'd characterize Odysseus, and why (in game terms) his player allowed him to fail rather frequently.  Going for the "happy ending" was more important than going for the "become immortal" ending.

[Jason Lee]

Script immunity is absolutely necessary if the character is to achieve epic status.  However I wonder if you could combine Valamir's suggestion with a form of low variance.  As your tragic ending total increases you actually have to start rolling dice.  The farther you get up the scale the more often you have to roll until eventually you have to roll for even mundane tasks and at the end if you even fail a task it's an instant death critical failure.

Hmmm....  if you took this idea and Ralph's idea, and went with complications as failure...

Heroic -> Tragedy (A bar 5 long)
Resolution:  Trait + 1d4 (Heroic end point of bar, lowest variance)

Each point you get closer to Tragedy, you subtract 1 from all traits and increase the resolution die by a step.  So, when you're at the Tragedy end point, resolution is Trait - 4 + 1d12 (highest variance).

What causes the bar to move towards Tragedy would have to be something that brings the story closer to climax, as, in theory, the closer you are to tragedy the more complications you'd get.

Hmmm... you might need two more points on the bar (7 is a nicer number anyway), and maybe it should be a 'Hero's Journey' bar instead.  One end point is Journey's Start, where resolution is Trait + Nothing, and Journey's End, where resolution is Trait - 5 + 1d20, with a natural 1 on the d20 being a tragic ending and a natural 20 being a happy ending.

Just a random idea.

[Caldis]

Well, sure.  That's why I suggested "resource-spending" hand-in-hand with my suggestion of "low-variance".  The most common pattern is hero points as pioneered by James Bond 007, variants of which are extremely common in today's RPGs.  This gives limited script immunity so that the hero can assuredly reach some sort of epic status, but there is still a time when his luck may run out.  

I think the important thing to maintain the epic feel is that the character is using that defining characteristic in which they are unbeatable.  It's his trump card, pull out the invulnerability/superhuman strength/cunning to overcome the foe and wham thats your hero point.

There may be some hero/drama point scheme that worked in a similar fashion in a game out there but I've never seen it.  All that I have seen treat the points as fire and forget, get em, use em, worry bout getting more.  They are a limited resource that has no consequence for being used save in a resource management sense in that you may not have enough left when you need them.  Having an unlimited usage but with a cost for that usage turns the idea on it's head.  For me at least it works better to represent the epic Hero than a mecahnism that can run out and allow a hero to fail when he shouldnt.

Now, Valamir's suggestion is gaining negative "tragic" points -- rather than using up positive "hero" points.  I'm still mulling over the differences in function and color.  Spending positive points means that there is a natural breakpoint at zero, while accumulating negative points gives more impression of steadily growing badness.  On the other hand, the natural breakpoint can be good -- i.e. there is a sharp line between tragedy (hero dies) and heroic triumph by a thin margin.  Arguably, this isn't well represented by accumulating 19 tragedy points vs 21.

Not sure what exactly you mean by a break point, are you using the hero points to determine victory conditions in that they need at least one remaining to survive or am i misreading you?  

Lots of great ideas bouncing around in this thread, certainly many ideas for homebrew mechanics that I'll have to ponder hope you dont mind if I steal some of them for my own use.

[John Kim]

Well, sure.  That's why I suggested "resource-spending" hand-in-hand with my suggestion of "low-variance".  The most common pattern is hero points as pioneered by James Bond 007, variants of which are extremely common in today's RPGs.  This gives limited script immunity so that the hero can assuredly reach some sort of epic status, but there is still a time when his luck may run out.  

I think the important thing to maintain the epic feel is that the character is using that defining characteristic in which they are unbeatable.  It's his trump card, pull out the invulnerability/superhuman strength/cunning to overcome the foe and wham thats your hero point.

How do you address the problems mentioned?  i.e. That even epic heroes have their limits -- such that Cu Chulain ambushes stragglers and skirmishes rather than riding head-on into the opposing army by himself.  Roland is killed by a horde of Saracens.  And so forth.  It also suggests that all heroes should be specialists (i.e. Hercules = strength, Achilles = invulnerability).  But a lot of epic heroes aren't specialized.  The Norse epic heroes are almost all well-rounded, for example.  

Just to clarify, my suggestion is that this is addressed by having super-high stats and a low-variance system.  Now, I know the response will be (roughly): "Just a high stat?  That doesn't *feel* epic."  But I think that functionally it does what you say.  A mighty warrior can brush aside foes without rolling, a trickster can automatically mislead a mark, and so forth.  A very high stat still gives automatic success but also conveys that there is *some* limit to capability.  On the other hand, the issue of feel is important.  Would having special "named" levels of epic stats be useful, rather than just numbers?  

Not sure what exactly you mean by a break point, are you using the hero points to determine victory conditions in that they need at least one remaining to survive or am i misreading you?  

No, I just meant that if you are using up positive "hero points" then intuitively something should happen when you get to zero.  Either you just can't spend any more or perhaps you have to "go into debt" -- sacrificing something each time.  That's what intuitively should happen, I think, although the rules don't have to stick to the intuitive model.  If you are accumulating negative tragedy points, then there isn't an intuitive break point for how many is too many.