Too Many Swords

[Ninja-Bear]

No attack is useless in a fight, but some of them are not going to serve you very well against any sort of skilled combatant. The problem with combat simulation and movies etc is that things go wrong. Your foot slips. You get a catch in your side. You get an eyelash in your eye. Your opponent surprises you by doing something you were completely unready for. Someone gets distracted. Your clothing binds up and restricts your movement. Real life us messy and ugly, and the best fighter in the world can lose against a complete amateur just because of something stupid.

You missed my point.

[bigbywolfe]

Which proves you know of an anomaly?

I can point out how many of our football stars cannot complete an elementry education yet they make millions. Does that prove the sterotype?

No, it doesn't.

1.2 million kids drop out of high school every year. Many of them cannot read at an elementary level and we're just pushed through the system. Many more can barely read at an 8th grade level yet manage to graduate, mostly because they get pushed through the system to keep the school's numbers up. A tiny fraction of a percent of those people get sports scholarships and an even smaller percent of them make it into the NFL.

All of that proves that there are massive flaws in the US education system, corruption in the university sports system, and that we really need a minor league for football instead expecting colleges to provide it for free.

What it doesn't prove is the nerd/jock stereotype, because those football players are very much the exception to the rule. Most of the over million+ kids a year who are just as uneducated are not sports stars.

[Markdoc]

Which proves you know of an anomaly?

I can point out how many of our football stars cannot complete an elementry education yet they make millions. Does that prove the sterotype?

 

If it was one or two, it would be an anomaly. When it reaches 50% or more of the study population it ceases to be an anomaly, and is, in fact, the norm. In the two schools noted, around half the star athletes were also star academics.

 

So the point, which has been made over and over is that it's not an anomaly. So you could point out how many of your football stars could not complete an elementary education .... but you'd prove my point if you tried.

 

Because around half of them are college graduates (and almost every single one of them attended college). Nearly 10 percent of NFL players have postgraduate degrees - a higher percentage than the number who didn't graduate high school. So .... more postgraduates than non-high school graduates? Yer kind of making my argument for me, tiger.

 

Still if you really want to do the math, here it is: for a recent representative season, out of 1,947 NFL players ..... drumroll please! ... precisely 1 (one) or 0.05% did not attend college. So who's the anomaly here? The one guy who did not attend college, of the 1,946 who did? If you want to search the whole league (you can do it here http://www.pro-football-reference.com/schools/) I can find 2 active players who did not attend college, which means the chance of an elementary school dropout making it into the NFL is about the same as their chance of winning the lottery.

 

Now to be perfectly fair, the NFL is a terrible pick to argue this point anyway, since they recruit primarily from their own farm system and that system runs through the colleges. You can find more guys in the NHL and NBA who didn't attend college, but even there, the players are overwhelmingly college attendees, and those with degrees still far outnumber the high school dropouts. 

 

So, yeah. I think this particular horse has been beaten to death.

 

cheers, Mark

[Kesedrith]

I think some are also missing the point that mages that go out adventuring are definitely NOT the Einsteins, or shouldn't be.  Those guys ARE poring through the tomes and searching for lost or new knowledge.  They send their apprentices and allow others to delve for the items buried in forgotten tombs.  The ones who go out adventuring are the ones who've practiced and prepared for just that.  Most of my "combat mages" have specialized in spells that buff their attributes, CV, defenses, or attacks.  One even had a spell that produced "arrows of magical energy" that he shot from his bow so that he didn't have to worry about, or carry much, ammo for the bow.  Others had the D&D equivalent of "Shocking Grasp" type spells that allowed them to deliver extra damage through their weapon or to always have a weapon at hand.  Certainly they didn't have the "kendo" to go with that sword, but they didn't need it to match what the straight fighters could do.  Their spells easily made up any gap, and sometimes allowed them to do things that the fighters wished they could pull off.

[massey]

Well, just to fully explore this subject, since the discussion has gone this way and has been going for a while now, I don't think people who grew up outside of the United States high school system necessarily have the best perspective on this subject.  I'm not saying that your experiences aren't valid to some degree, but we all have to understand that we grew up in very specific circumstances, which have shaped our perspectives and what we perceive to be "normal".

 

Markdoc, you mentioned earlier that you grew up attending English public schools, and how most kids were expected to participate in as many activities as they could.  Womble, in the post before yours, talked about how 50% of the kids in his school were jocks (out of 60 kids in his age group, 29 were on a team).  To put this in perspective, my high school had over 1500 students, grades 10 - 12.  It is not a particularly large high school by US standards.  Maybe 200 or so were involved in athletics.  But that's including anybody who joined a team, and it's probably being quite generous with the numbers.  Being a bench-warmer doesn't make you a jock.  Of those 200 students, I'd say maybe 40 or 50 of them were actually any good.

 

If you're attending a school where 50% of the students are involved in athletics, you're really getting a different type of team than one where only 12% or so of students are involved in it.  When you say "jock" you're really talking about an entirely different person than when I say "jock".  You're talking about half your class.  I'm talking about 3 or 4%.  You're laughing at Ogre because it's a stereotype.  I'm laughing at Ogre because I knew that guy.  Now that's not to say that there aren't smart jocks.  I knew some.  But there aren't as many smart jocks as there are just regular intelligence jocks.

 

So let's translate this to D&D terms.  Most of your population is made up of people with stats in the 8-12 range.  And they aren't wizards or fighters or anything like that.  They're farmers.  Adventuring classes are statistical outliers.  They're a lot closer to that 3 or 4% that I saw growing up than they are to your 50% participation rate in athletics.  Adventurers are guys who are generally at the extremes of the bell curve.  And it's rare to be at the extreme ends of multiple bell curves.

[massey]

Looking at examples in modern day society isn't necessarily helpful, because you've got all the sociological issues that come with it, and things that are specific to our culture today.  Yes, it's true that people who are financially successful are more likely to be in better physical shape than people who aren't financially successful.  However this doesn't translate to "more likely to be a wizard equals more athletic".  It's just that people who have more money are able to live healthier lives.  Generally they have a better education, they have access to better health care (which means less chance of a debilitating injury or illness that causes them to have significant downtime and loss of mobility), less physically strenuous jobs, better nutrition, etc.  It has nothing to do with D&D "stats".  It's not even an indication that these people are more intelligent.  They just have more money.

 

So let's take a set of D&D stats.

 

Str 10

Dex 10

Con 10

Int 12

Wis 10

Cha 14

 

This guy is moderately intelligent, kind of charming, and physically unremarkable.  He could be very wealthy.  He could be very successful in his business.  He doesn't have to be brilliant to do that.  Let's say he's 40 years old, and he is active and plays tennis, and golfs regularly, and doesn't eat at McDonald's, etc.  He's got money so it's easier for him to set his own schedule and include regular physical exercise in his routine.  But he's not a genius or anything, and while he's in "good shape" he's not Michael Jordan.  Now let's look at the guy he went to high school with.

 

Str 16

Dex 14

Con 16

Int 10

Wis 10

Cha 10

 

This guy was the star athlete in high school.  He also is not a genius.  But he's much more athletically gifted than our guy before.  Unfortunately, he busted his knee in high school playing football, and so didn't get a scholarship to college.  Instead he got a job at the local pizza place and just stayed in his hometown.  He married his high school sweetheart, and they had 3 or 4 kids.  He manages the pizza place now, but he's not rich by any means.  He weighs about 280 lbs because he eats unhealthy, and doesn't get much physical exercise anymore.  He stands all day at the pizza place, and that's bad on his knee and his back, and so he's got some chronic health problems that make it harder for him to jog or run.  He works a lot of overtime to pay for his 4 kids, and doesn't have the money to go join a gym or anything like that to lose the extra weight.

 

Now, physically, our second guy can still beat the crap out of our first guy.  He's bigger and stronger, even if he's in poor health.  He probably can't keep up with him in a race or a tennis game, because of his bad knee and bad back, and the extra weight, but in just a straight up punching contest, he probably wins.  He is closer to the D&D concept of a "fighter" than the first guy, even if the first guy is closer to our modern day ideal of a successful person.

[Markdoc]

So let's translate this to D&D terms.  Most of your population is made up of people with stats in the 8-12 range.  And they aren't wizards or fighters or anything like that.  They're farmers.  Adventuring classes are statistical outliers.  They're a lot closer to that 3 or 4% that I saw growing up than they are to your 50% participation rate in athletics.  Adventurers are guys who are generally at the extremes of the bell curve.  And it's rare to be at the extreme ends of multiple bell curves.

 

This is the key, and the point I keep trying to make. There are only a small number of people who have the physical capacity to be your standard fightin' adventurer. But the distribution of mental capacity in that group is likely to be pretty much the same as in the general population. So among your really strong types, some will be smart, some will be dumb, and most will be inbetween.

 

And the flipside is true as well. In a fantasy world, assuming brains are necessary for spell use, the same sort of distribution of muscle to smarts will apply. In other words, among those smart enough to be magic users, some will be really strong, some will be feeble and some will be inbetween. 

 

So yeah, people who are both really smart and physically really strong are going to be a minority ... just like in real life. But there is nothing to suggest that the smart people (or wizards, if you like) are going to inherently be any less likely to be strong ... again, just like in real life. Put another way, not every wizard has to be buff ... but not every buff guy has to be dumb, either. 

 

To use the NFL example, you can find guys like Michael Lewis, who graduated High School and worked as truck driver before going pro, and you can find guys like Myron Rolle, who did pre-med. got a Rhodes Scholarship and a graduate degree from Oxford before going pro. Both of them are extremes - but in the NFL, the high school guy is not more common than the academic whiz.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Looking at examples in modern day society isn't necessarily helpful, because you've got all the sociological issues that come with it, and things that are specific to our culture today.  Yes, it's true that people who are financially successful are more likely to be in better physical shape than people who aren't financially successful.  However this doesn't translate to "more likely to be a wizard equals more athletic".  It's just that people who have more money are able to live healthier lives.  Generally they have a better education, they have access to better health care (which means less chance of a debilitating injury or illness that causes them to have significant downtime and loss of mobility), less physically strenuous jobs, better nutrition, etc.  It has nothing to do with D&D "stats".  It's not even an indication that these people are more intelligent.  They just have more money.

 

So let's take a set of D&D stats.

 

Str 10

Dex 10

Con 10

Int 12

Wis 10

Cha 14

 

This guy is moderately intelligent, kind of charming, and physically unremarkable.  He could be very wealthy.  He could be very successful in his business.  He doesn't have to be brilliant to do that.  Let's say he's 40 years old, and he is active and plays tennis, and golfs regularly, and doesn't eat at McDonald's, etc.  He's got money so it's easier for him to set his own schedule and include regular physical exercise in his routine.  But he's not a genius or anything, and while he's in "good shape" he's not Michael Jordan.  Now let's look at the guy he went to high school with.

 

Str 16

Dex 14

Con 16

Int 10

Wis 10

Cha 10

 

This guy was the star athlete in high school.  He also is not a genius.  But he's much more athletically gifted than our guy before.  Unfortunately, he busted his knee in high school playing football, and so didn't get a scholarship to college.  Instead he got a job at the local pizza place and just stayed in his hometown.  He married his high school sweetheart, and they had 3 or 4 kids.  He manages the pizza place now, but he's not rich by any means.  He weighs about 280 lbs because he eats unhealthy, and doesn't get much physical exercise anymore.  He stands all day at the pizza place, and that's bad on his knee and his back, and so he's got some chronic health problems that make it harder for him to jog or run.  He works a lot of overtime to pay for his 4 kids, and doesn't have the money to go join a gym or anything like that to lose the extra weight.

 

Now, physically, our second guy can still beat the crap out of our first guy.  He's bigger and stronger, even if he's in poor health.  He probably can't keep up with him in a race or a tennis game, because of his bad knee and bad back, and the extra weight, but in just a straight up punching contest, he probably wins.  He is closer to the D&D concept of a "fighter" than the first guy, even if the first guy is closer to our modern day ideal of a successful person.

 

The catch with this, is that in real life you don't get a certain number of points to distribute, and in Hero system, although you do, the amount of points you have typically significantly exceeds the amount you spend on characteristics. So in a heroic level game, it's not normally a limiting factor on your stat.s. 

 

Which is why, as I noted, in practice, I haven't seen a great deal of difference in physical stat.s between combat magic users and mundane fighters in our games.

 

cheers, Mark

[massey]

This is the key, and the point I keep trying to make. There are only a small number of people who have the physical capacity to be your standard fightin' adventurer. But the distribution of mental capacity in that group is likely to be pretty much the same as in the general population. So among your really strong types, some will be smart, some will be dumb, and most will be inbetween.

 

And the flipside is true as well. In a fantasy world, assuming brains are necessary for spell use, the same sort of distribution of muscle to smarts will apply. In other words, among those smart enough to be magic users, some will be really strong, some will be feeble and some will be inbetween. 

 

So yeah, people who are both really smart and physically really strong are going to be a minority ... just like in real life. But there is nothing to suggest that the smart people (or wizards, if you like) are going to inherently be any less likely to be strong ... again, just like in real life. Put another way, not every wizard has to be buff ... but not every buff guy has to be dumb, either. 

 

To use the NFL example, you can find guys like Michael Lewis, who graduated High School and worked as truck driver before going pro, and you can find guys like Myron Rolle, who did pre-med. got a Rhodes Scholarship and a graduate degree from Oxford before going pro. Both of them are extremes - but in the NFL, the high school guy is not more common than the academic whiz.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Oh I definitely agree with that.  Big strong guys don't have to be dumb.  I remember when Myron Rolle was graduating from high school (I followed college football recruiting very closely back then), quite an impressive young man.  Of course, he was an average defensive back at Florida State when he was in college.  And his career in the NFL lasted for a blink of an eye.  Very smart and talented, but in the end he just wasn't a good enough player to make it.  Professional sports is a hyper-specialized world.  The guys who play at that level are the very strongest and the very fastest.  They are not selecting for brains.  You don't have to be dumb, but you definitely don't have to be smart either.

 

In Hero, a guy who is specialized as a fighter is going to be better at it than a guy who spends his points on other stuff.

[massey]

To wrap this all up, modern concepts of fantasy differ from the 1970s and early 1980s concepts that defined D&D.  There's a lot more anime inspiration today, and so it's more common to have other character archetypes.  You can have the anime swordsman with long silver hair, who wears armor and a cape, and casts spells, and leaps from rooftop to rooftop.  That's acceptable, I guess, if that's the type of fantasy campaign you want to play in.  It's certainly not my cup of tea.  In a traditional D&D style fantasy game, it is probably not appropriate.  In Hero, you aren't limited to traditional D&D fantasy.  You can have whatever kind of campaign you like.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Definitions are sliding a bit.  We're not talking "smart" we're talking "top of their field genius."  We're not talking "fit and healthy" we're talking "toughest guy on the battlefield that soaks up damage and laughs."  That front line warrior with the plate armor who can take the big hits isn't just fit.  The thief type is fit.  The Ranger is fit.  The mage can be fit.  He's a brick.

[Markdoc]

Definitions are sliding a bit.  We're not talking "smart" we're talking "top of their field genius."  We're not talking "fit and healthy" we're talking "toughest guy on the battlefield that soaks up damage and laughs."  That front line warrior with the plate armor who can take the big hits isn't just fit.  The thief type is fit.  The Ranger is fit.  The mage can be fit.  He's a brick.

 

There's a problem with that definition though: in standard Hero system games it's very, very, difficult to build a mundane brick, because defences tend to be lower relative to attacks, than in Superheroes, and most games have some sort of cap on characteristics. I've had multiple players try to build mundane brick fighters and they all end up serving mostly as difficult terrain. We had one in the last campaign, and he ended up being retired as a frontline fighter: the other PCs (including the mages) were simply better in hand to hand combat. Ironically, the best way to build a "brick fighter" is with a mage, where you are not limited by conventional armour.

 

It can be done (indeed, in our campaigns it was done once, long ago: that brings us back to the mighty Ke'eel., and I have done it once myself) but you have to move your game quite a long way from the conventional fantasy space to make it possible.

 

As for the sliding definitions, most mages in games I have seen are not "top of their field genius"  but simply smart. Most fighters are not huge hulking brutes (for the reasons I listed above) but instead are fit and strong. In actual games, I have run and played in, we end up back where we started: that physically mages and mundane fighters tend to fall into the 13-18 range for STR, CON and BOD ... ie: they're much the same, physically In terms of INT, wizardly characters often fall into the 15-18 range ... but so do quite a lot of mundane fighters. Published characters tend to be much the same. This is why I responded to the initial comments that fighters can better take a hit - theorycrafting aside, in real life games, that absolutely hasn't been my experience.

 

If you guys have different experiences in your game, by all means share it. I'd be interested to hear.

 

But GMs who plan on the assumption that mages will be physically less capable than most warriors, are in for some nasty surprises. I still recall with amusement the GM's stunned reaction to my fightin' mage who was supposed to be challenged by a tough warrior: instead of casting, I simply grabbed him, lifted him over my head, and threw him off the staircase where we were fighting. It was a long, long way down, and he couldn't fly ...

 

cheers, Mark

[bluesguy]

Brick Fighters
 
In my Valdorian age campaign one player had a dwarf fighter (the only dwarf anyone had ever seen - made for some interesting interactions).  He was a classic tank of a fighter.  In my game I allowed dwarves to max STR, CON, and Body all at 23.  Also I allowed a much higher PD/ED, Stun and Recovery than human characters.  He had less running and max SPD was 3.  His favorite technique was to use a modified francisca and throw it at his nearest opponents shield.  More often than not he would destroy his opponents shield.  Then he would quick draw his sword and cut his foe down.  Between his strength, weapon and martial maneuvers I think he could max out with a 4d6 HKA.  He was often surrounded and would just soak up any hits that got landed.
 
In my current campaign, Nyonia, there are two 'brick like' characters.  One is modeled after a Viking shield maiden and the other is a warrior-mage.  He is pretty brick like but a lot of what makes him so tough is his magic.  The Viking is tough plus she can go berserk which has been interesting.  Fortunately she hasn't gone after anyone in the party by accident.  There were a couple of close calls though.
 
Mages
As a GM I don't like the 'generalist' wizard who can cast any spell in the book (aka D&D model).  In my campaigns magic is specialized and unique.  In Nyonia each race/culture has its own kind of magic.  Once you learn one kind you can't learn another.  The in game explanation is that everyone who has tried to combine types of magic has been killed in the attempt and quite a few 'experiments' have lead to world-wide cataclysmic events.  Also to be a powerful mage you need to put a bunch of points into a VPP and your skill roll.  Most mages in my game stay out of melee combat - although there are a few types of magic that work for warriors.

[Markdoc]

Brick Fighters

 

In my Valdorian age campaign one player had a dwarf fighter (the only dwarf anyone had ever seen - made for some interesting interactions).  He was a classic tank of a fighter.  In my game I allowed dwarves to max STR, CON, and Body all at 23.  Also I allowed a much higher PD/ED, Stun and Recovery than human characters.  He had less running and max SPD was 3.  His favorite technique was to use a modified francisca and throw it at his nearest opponents shield.  More often than not he would destroy his opponents shield.  Then he would quick draw his sword and cut his foe down.  Between his strength, weapon and martial maneuvers I think he could max out with a 4d6 HKA.  He was often surrounded and would just soak up any hits that got landed.

 

In my current campaign, Nyonia, there are two 'brick like' characters.  One is modeled after a Viking shield maiden and the other is a warrior-mage.  He is pretty brick like but a lot of what makes him so tough is his magic.  The Viking is tough plus she can go berserk which has been interesting.  Fortunately she hasn't gone after anyone in the party by accident.  There were a couple of close calls though.

 

Yeah, as I noted, you can make brick fighters if you go a bit outside the norms for most fantasy games. The one time I did it for my own PC, I was playing a half-troll character. Like your dwarf, he stacked a higher-than-human PD, with a very high CON and Damage reduction (plus regeneration). Given higher than human STR, and a greataxe, he had the same kind of damage output, too. He was tanky as all get out, but he was also not what I'd regard as a 'normal fantasy character': as you note with your own character, to get a functional brick without magic, you need to push outside what are typically considered human norms (and it costs a lot of points to get there, if you are not employing magic).

 

Interestingly, the one effective tank I referred to in my own games was also a  berserker. As GM, I let him buy automaton powers to represent his berserk state (it was a ritual possession, rather than a "normal rage") but with the caveat that since (in the rules at that time) automaton powers were not for PCs, when he fell into a rage, he would be handled as an NPC. The PC got used to waking up after a rage, covered in blood, with no idea of what had just happened and what he had just done. Amusingly, it got to the point that if a fight looked like it was looming, the other PCs would taunt and bully him to trigger a rage, and then just flee and let him carry the fight. Eventually, of course it got him killed, but he was a highly feared fighter while it lasted. The party was also shunned because of their violent, dangerous and highly unpredictable berserker!

 

cheers, Mark

[Alcamtar]

If they came to Hero from D&D or some rules light game, it may simply be that Hero finally lets them do the fighter concept justice. Fighters are boring in many editions of D&D. Hero makes them cool and interesting. Maybe it's only an expression of pent-up fighter envy.

 

Some thoughts on what you could do to encourage diversity in fighter PCs:

• Give them foes that are hazardous to get close to. Encourage development of some archer types.
• Give them some politics or sneaky type challenge, where barging in with sword flashing is a really stupid and unproductive plan. Encourage sneaky thiefy skills.
• Give them opponents who are swift and swashbuckly, to encourage light fighters.
• Give them scary undead or demons that are mostly immune to hacking but vulnerable to "holy" powers. Encourage paladins and templars.
• Show, don't tell. Create interesting NPC thieves, paladins, etc with interesting and effective abilities and tactics. Clearly these players enjoy fighter types which is cool, but they may not have considered the diversity available. How about a diablo paladin with a freeze ability, or a barbarian with a paralyzing war cry? Simple and hackneyed but fun. Listen to their after game chatter, listen to what shows and characters they talk about, and then put these in the game as NPCs or opponents. Make the players hungry again by tempting them.

 

These options are to meant to encourage diversification and specialization. Lots of fighters is cool as long as they are unique and interesting. I prefer more fighters than mages, but monotony is not a good thing. Uniformity only makes me think "expendable."

 

You could consider upping the lethality of the game. Do it gradually so everyone has a choice in how to react. One response to lethality is to rely more on diplomacy or stealth. Another is to develop ranged attacks. But some will brashly charge ahead because they value action more than self-preservation, or possibly because they are not so attached to their characters. If one or a few die, you have scored a huge win in dramatic tension, because everyone knows there is no immunity. but also, those that die will make new characters. They may be fighters or they may not. Some folks, like me, enjoy playing different characters each time. Maybe they started playing a fighter and the only reason they are still doing so is that they have not died, they don't have an "out".

 

I have used near-death experience to give a divine vision and offer healing in exchange for service as a paladin. That would both add diversity AND relieve the healing issue.

 

For the mages, obviously you don't want to be unfair, consistently tilting the playing field to favor mages. But what are some ways to add some variety into the mix and give the wizards an occasional moment in the spotlight?

 

• You could create some opponents that are only defeated by magic, so that it is important that they not waste their powers on supporting roles but they are needed to win the day. The fighters need to protect the mages from then army of ten thousand skeletons, but cannot take out the big bad guy.
• You could create a battlefield (cursed shrine?) that suppresses healing powers. This will challenge the fighters and give the mages a refreshing breather.
• Alternately make healing easy: sprinkle in some healing potions as treasure, or a ring of regeneration, etc. Place a healing pool. Have a demon curse the mage and destroy his healing ability for a time. This will limit the fighters, but then again you're not short of replacement muscle!
• A vampiric monster that feeds on strength, starting with the most hearty characters (i.e. fighters)

[Vondy]

I favor fighters, or martially inclined rogues. I make a point of creating fleshed out characters with personalities and hooks the GM can pull the character into their story and world with. If I were told I had to play a spell caster I'd probably decline to play. Those classes have seldom spoken to me and I've only had one spell caster I ever enjoyed playing. Most of my experiences with magely type characters have been lackluster. Not every player is suired to every charactrr or game. I game to have fun. If I'm not having fun, why bother?

[Mister E]

On stereotypes:

 

Stereotypes are not just wrong, they are dangerous lies that carry no water & ought not be promoted.

 

No one person represents an entire group of people.

 

Rubber & glue. Anything a person says or does is an extention of that person & nobody else.

 

A person can have solidarity or rivalries with others for any reason.

 

Reason is the weakest link in knowledge after both truth & mere belief (the two together constituting mere faith).

 

Nothing supports reason.

 

The elusiveness of reason is that people fight & die for reasons that are never in any danger.

 

[Love] Incorporating the transcendence of others' into one's own transcendence is superior to attempting to transcend others' transcendences [hate].

 

Actual people are prior to potential people.

 

We are all more alike than different.