OK, I am splitting out a particular subtopic from "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:

Valamir wrote: Normal 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.

montag wrote: Consequently, 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.)

John Kim wrote: Do 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.

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.

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.

John Kim wrote:
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.

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).

Caldis wrote: 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.

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...)?

John Kim wrote:
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?

Caldis wrote: 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.

Caldis wrote: 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?

orbsmatt wrote: 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.

orbsmatt wrote: 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).

Rexfelis wrote:

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

Caldis wrote: 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.
...
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?

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.

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.)

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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote: 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).

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.

Valamir wrote: 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 wrote:
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.

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:

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.

* 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.

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".

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 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

M. J. Young wrote:
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

Caldis wrote: 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.

Caldis wrote: 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 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?

John Kim wrote:
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.

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'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?

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

Caldis wrote: 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.

Walt Freitag wrote: 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

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.)

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.

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

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.

Caldis wrote:

John Kim wrote: 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.

Ian Charvill wrote: 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?

Ian Charvill wrote: 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?

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

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.

John Kim wrote:
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.

Caldis wrote:

Ian Charvill wrote:
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.

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.

Hercules never fails a fair contest based on his strength

Ian Charvill wrote:
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?

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.

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.

Walt Freitag wrote:

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

Caldis wrote: 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.

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).

Caldis wrote: 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.

John Kim wrote: 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.

Caldis wrote:

John Kim wrote: 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.

Caldis wrote: 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?

John Kim wrote:
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?

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.

Doesn't Frodo on Mount Doom ask Sam to carry the ring bringing the "I cannot carry the ring master Frodo, but I can carry you" response. Did they invent that for the film? If they did invent that for the film, does that mean in the film Frodo isn't an epic hero?

Re Hercules' labours: twelve is the canonical number, but many of the tales vary the number. Apollodorus - whose account has the Hydra holding fast to Hercules such that he is unable to remove it - has Hercules initially sentenced to ten labours:

And she told him to dwell in Tiryns, serving Eurystheus for twelve years and to perform the ten labours imposed on him, and so, she said, when the tasks were accomplished, he would be immortal.

Ian, I think you're falling into a dangerous trap.

If we're discussing epic heroes in the RPG context, the point is emphatically not to recreate the technical aspects of the epics in all their detail. The point is to recreate our perceptions of epic heroes, and in my perception, Hercules is "the strong guy." Regardless of the details of the stories, I know enough about him to believe that any feat of strength I can think of, he can accomplish.

I won't argue that it's impossible that his strength should fail him, but it seems clear to me that whenever it does, it's not because he's unequal to the task at hand; it's because a storyteller made a conscious choice to make him fail in an interesting way. Which is very hollywood again. But it makes for better epics than, "sometimes, unpredictably, Hercules fails", or, "Hercules doesn't fail at all."

Ian Charvill wrote: Doesn't Frodo on Mount Doom ask Sam to carry the ring bringing the "I cannot carry the ring master Frodo, but I can carry you" response. Did they invent that for the film? If they did invent that for the film, does that mean in the film Frodo isn't an epic hero?

So why did Hercules end up doing twelve? In part because Hercules fails to kill the Hydra single-handed. Furthermore while on the way to the Erymanthian boar he pulls a critical fumble on a bow shot wounding his host Chiron so grievously that the immortal Chiron asks to die. Archery is one of Hercules' things - witness the trickshot used on the Cerynitian hind. It also happens to be one of the things Hercules' is capable of fumbling.

Now, the idea of a hero who cannot fail at their 'thing' is a fine idea. It's very hollywood. Unfortunately, it has little basis in epic poetry.

Ian Charvill wrote: Doesn't Frodo on Mount Doom ask Sam to carry the ring bringing the "I cannot carry the ring master Frodo, but I can carry you" response. Did they invent that for the film? If they did invent that for the film, does that mean in the film Frodo isn't an epic hero?

Caldis wrote: Lets move on to the Lord of The Rings. Frodo Baggins is an epic hero, his quality is his perseverance to the task that has fallen on him. Through all his trials and the tortures he goes through he often wishes he could but he never gives up his quest. In the end he fails because his will is not strong enough to resist the ring but he never gives up, he never cries to Gandalf that he can not go on any longer someone else must do it. Likewise Sam never betrays Frodo, Aragorn never does anything to make him unworthy of kingship. Mechanics that would make any of these three fail in a related task are as destructive to the characters as having Hercules fail when he tries to lift something. Any dice variance that allows that possibility accepts destroying the characters essence in exchange for the challenge of random task resolution.

Walt Freitag wrote: In-game causality cannot account for why Hercules misses one arrow shot and hits another. Predictions of the results of in-game causality (which is what we're usually talking about when we talk of "stats") are simply not applicable when Hercules picks up a bow. High-variance, low-variance, and deterministic predictions will all fall equally short. Conventional stats (character attributes, skills) are neither helpful nor, in themselves, harmful to epic role playing. They're irrelevant.

- W

Shreyas - I think you and I are hitting an agree to differ point, because I see my line of reasoning as one way of avoiding a dangerous trap: the subjectivity trap. To you, Hercules is the 'strong guy'. To me, stories about Hercules wouldn't be worth reading if he was the strong guy. He's a guy on his way to godhood who's mortal life is fubar because daddy dicked around on mummy. It's a complex marriage a fundamentally human qualities - jealousy, rage, lying, cheating, stealing - and way over the top mythic elements. His strength is just colour.

Saying Hercules is the strong guy is like casting Arnold Swartzenegger as Conan.

Epic poetry - at least the translations of it - mostly suck as prose or poetry (there are exceptions - Christopher Logue's gradual, multi-volume, translation of the Iliad, for example) but as story-telling, the stuff sings. It's complex, multi-layered, vivid, bursting with life.

Reductionist models like Hercules is the Strong guy, and he must not fail at being strong because that is his thing, and if he did then he would not be Epic... it's not worth arguing against because it's bad scholarship (which it is) or bad sim (although I think that's a legitimate concern for a certain spectrum of posters). It worth arguing against because it misses everything about the epics that's worth stealing. It takes what could be a phenomenal game and reduces it to a two dimensional superhero with a schtick routine.

Caldis wrote:

John Kim wrote: 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.

For the first part of the question you may have missed it but I suggested that you avoid those problems by tightly defining how the attribute applies. Cu Chulainn or Roland are both unbeatable in single combat but against an army they can lose, they have to use other attributes to bring the situation to a point where their strength applies.

I think, Ian, that I am trying to make the point that there is no such thing as "just colour", and when you devalue Colour you sacrifice a powerful tool. Colour is as essential to Hercules' identity as the thematic elements that you just described; without Colour, he'd just be a guy with a messed-up family, and without the thematic elements, he's just some guy who's strong.

He's not just some guy who's strong.

And he's not just some guy with a messed-up family.

Walt Freitag wrote:

This is an interesting point. But are we talking about stats here, or about circumstantial judgment calls? Can "Never does anything to make him unworthy of kingship" be called a stat? - W

Ian Charvill wrote: Shreyas - I think you and I are hitting an agree to differ point, because I see my line of reasoning as one way of avoiding a dangerous trap: the subjectivity trap. To you, Hercules is the 'strong guy'. To me, stories about Hercules wouldn't be worth reading if he was the strong guy. He's a guy on his way to godhood who's mortal life is fubar because daddy dicked around on mummy. It's a complex marriage a fundamentally human qualities - jealousy, rage, lying, cheating, stealing - and way over the top mythic elements. His strength is just colour.

John Kim wrote: However, people can have different views. I don't see a problem with your approach, but it isn't what I would use for my own games.

Somewhere in this thread (probably the second page) I suggested a bonus on chance of success that was based on whether the task was specifically relevant to the character's status as an epic hero. Thus Robin Hood would get it in archery (and probably swordfighting) situations, Hercules would get it in meeting his tasks, Aragorn would get it if it related to his road to kingship in a meaningful way.

I also suggested that the amount of this bonus could increase as part of play, connected to legendary status--the more legendary the character had already become, the greater the bonus he received on tasks that were related to that legend.

Someone responded that this still allowed the possibility that the hero could fail in relation to a task in which he was legendary, and that this was unacceptable.

I have two responses to this.

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. Let's suppose we have Robin Hood in an archery match in which the chance for an amateur to hit that target is probably about 20% and the chance for an expert is closer to 70%--it's a tough target. Robin Hood is already assumed to be an expert in archery which puts him in the same category as the other expert archers as long as this is not related to his legendary status. However, if his legendary status is now giving him a +30% bonus on all tasks related to his legendary status, and this one is, he is the only archer on the field who cannot miss the target (unless there is another legendary opponent present). It isn't until the chance of success has dropped below this that he has a chance of failure, and as he increases his legendary status that chance of failure is similarly reduced. 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.

That means he can only fail at tasks no one else would be crazy enough to attempt; and that's when we're in legendary territory. He doesn't have to always succeed at those tasks; the fact that he can succeed at all, even if not entirely consistently, when no one else can, increases his status as a legend.

The other response is that I'm not entirely certain that it's a mistake in such play for the character to have failed at something that seems obvious. Let us suppose Robin is shooting against Sir Guy of Gisborne, who is an expert. Let us suppose that Sir Guy, after shooting Robin to a tie thanks to lucky rolls on his part, suggests pushing the target back another fifty feet, which now puts it out there where Robin has a chance to miss. Robin still has a better chance to hit than Sir Guy; but the objection is that given the vagaries of fortune mechanics it is possible for Sir Guy to hit and Robin to miss.

What of it? The familiar story is that Robin defeats Sir Guy, increasing his legendary status. But we don't have to create "the familiar story"; we have to create an epic story. The dice fall, Robin misses, Sir Guy hits, and the contest shockingly ends in Robin losing--and the realization that he has been cocky, over confident, and has allowed himself to be lured into a contest that truly tested his abilities. It drives him to perfect his skill, and leads us toward that moment in the future when Robin and Sir Guy will face off again--a time when it will count for something more than the best archer trophy, and when Robin will have greater skill and greater epic bonus, and this time will win. Certainly that's a more epic story in some sense than the one in which he never lost an archery match.

So I think the legend bonus is a good idea. Is it the perfect answer for everyone's approach to creating epic play? No, it isn't. But it does fit what John is looking for at the beginning of this thread: a way to do stats for epic characters that makes them clearly better than most people in their important aspects without letting Robin Hood shoot an arrow to the moon or Roland defeat the entire Saracen army one man at a time, and without relying entirely on "you can't do that" as the limit.

--M. J. Young

Shreyas - sure it's the admixture: the mythic elements and the prosaic elements. Abandoning the mythic elements would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. My point would be that Hercules strength is not as important as people are making out and doesn't need protecting in the way people have been suggesting.

'Just colour' is hyperbole, gonna have to cop to that one.

Caldis

The chance of "failure" is important to me for two reasons.

I like fortune resolution because it means until the dice hit the table no one knows what's going to happen. Handled right it's an antidote to railroading and predicatable gaming in general (handled wrong it's a whifftastic fudge-fest but that's neither here nor there).

If there's no chance of failure then there's nothing at stake. The "conflict" is a non-starter and so is fundamentally uninteresting (to me at least).

Now - should Hercules ever fail to lift a 200 lb rock - why would it ever be an issue? Ditto Lancelot and the ordinary knight. Why would we ever have a scene in which that was an issue. Why would such a scene be interesting to play out.

Now, let's say Hercules's player decided to have him try to pick up a 200 lb rock and there was a roll, and he failed. I'm pretty much in the post-facto crowd here. If he fails, we frame it as Hera is messing with him again today, and then that complication reverberates through the remainder of the session. The story becomes, at least in part, The Day Hercules Lost His Strength. If Lacelot loses to an ordinary knight, we determine, retrospectively, that the 'ordinary' knight is Lancelot's illegitimate son. We play out the ramefications.

You see, to me, success in lifting a 200 lb rock is uninteresting; failure is interesting.

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 ;)

M. J. Young wrote:

What of it? The familiar story is that Robin defeats Sir Guy, increasing his legendary status. But we don't have to create "the familiar story"; we have to create an epic story. The dice fall, Robin misses, Sir Guy hits, and the contest shockingly ends in Robin losing--and the realization that he has been cocky, over confident, and has allowed himself to be lured into a contest that truly tested his abilities. It drives him to perfect his skill, and leads us toward that moment in the future when Robin and Sir Guy will face off again--a time when it will count for something more than the best archer trophy, and when Robin will have greater skill and greater epic bonus, and this time will win. Certainly that's a more epic story in some sense than the one in which he never lost an archery match.

So I think the legend bonus is a good idea. Is it the perfect answer for everyone's approach to creating epic play? No, it isn't. But it does fit what John is looking for at the beginning of this thread: a way to do stats for epic characters that makes them clearly better than most people in their important aspects without letting Robin Hood shoot an arrow to the moon or Roland defeat the entire Saracen army one man at a time, and without relying entirely on "you can't do that" as the limit.

Ian Charvill wrote: Now, let's say Hercules's player decided to have him try to pick up a 200 lb rock and there was a roll, and he failed. I'm pretty much in the post-facto crowd here. If he fails, we frame it as Hera is messing with him again today, and then that complication reverberates through the remainder of the session. The story becomes, at least in part, The Day Hercules Lost His Strength. If Lacelot loses to an ordinary knight, we determine, retrospectively, that the 'ordinary' knight is Lancelot's illegitimate son. We play out the ramefications.

MJ Young wrote: 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>

Shreyas wrote: I'm not sure I entirely agree with you, Walt, though I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.

Of course in-game causality can account for why Hercules misses one arrow shot and nails the next, but it's a different kind of causality than the kind that determines whether I burn my omelet this morning; I think it's closer to fairytale causality, where things mean more when they come in threes and sevens, and all things speak that need to be spoken to. A system that succeeds in producing epic-style material will not only produce "Hercules misses", but also, crucially, "and hits Chiron, who begs for the ability to die." I don't think it's impossible or even that difficult to construct a system that does exactly this.

Caldis wrote: 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.

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 ;)

Ian Charvill wrote:
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'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, 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?

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.

Shreyas Sampat wrote:

MJ Young wrote: 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?

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.

M. J. Young wrote: 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.

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.

I think it adds interest to the game if the ability of the character to do yet greater legendary things rises during play.