What it means to be a Hero.

There are a few different trends that I notice in modern games (and fantasy fiction) as to the nature of heroes, and their place in the world. These different views are something that a good DM must be aware of, and decide for themselves where their game will stand on what I call the hero spectrum.

At one end of the spectrum is what I call the Superhero. This is a particular focus of a number of modern games, most notably 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons. The Superhero is known by his powers. Often he will have a number of different abilities and be very difficult to kill, due to those abilities and large pools of Hit Points. It is also likely that the rules support this, by setting up rules for building encounters that always favor the Heroes. While this type of game can be fun in the short term, the lack of any meaningful challenge for the characters can take away the feeling of heroic adventure after a time.

The next step down is what I call the Adventurer. This is the type of hero one can find in 2nd edition Dungeons & Dragons. The Adventurer has a few abilities, but must also rely on the intelligence of the player in order to survive. The rules of such games give the Adventurer and even break, but death is possibly for the unweary or unlucky. I personally prefer this type of game, as it allows the players to feel that their characters are heroes, by giving them difficult challenges to over come. The threat of death or failure makes the success all the more sweeter, in my opinion.

The step below that is the Emo Guy. This type of hero was once only common in games like White Wolf's Vampire: the Masquerade, but sadly has begun to spread into other games and literature as well. We are supposed to believe that the Emo Guy is cursed in some manner, usually with undeath or some horrible ancient power that makes his life a living hell. However, if looked at a little more closely, we see that the abilities that this curse gives rivals those of the Superhero. This makes a game where the characters are nearly incapable of failure, but generally whine about their "tortured" existence, or the "dark roads" they must travel. In many ways this also strips the game of any sort of true conflict, beyond the players attempted to outdo each other in nihlism.

The last step is what I call the Doomed Hero. This type of hero can be found in games like Call of Cthulhu, or Hackmaster. The Doomed hero is simply going to fail. Compared to those he faces, his powers are insignificant. Try as he might, his only reward for fighting against the forces of evil are death and madness. In these games, one cannot triumph against evil, one can only hold out against it for another day. In my opinion, the level of fatalism in these sorts of games is what removes the sense of true heroism from it. Not to mention if you are having to make a new character every other session, there is no real time or reason to flesh out their personalities or to delve into them from a roleplaying perspective.

One of the most important responsibilities of a DM is presenting a campaign world in which the players can be the heroes. (Whether these heroes will be morally or ethically just is a different argument for a different post, but...) The DM must decide what sort of place in the world that heroes have, and should communicate this to the players early on in the game. A miscommunication here can cause a lot of difficulty in the long run, due to different expectations between the players and the DM. I recommend that any DM setting up a new campaign world decide what type of heroes are most appropriate for that world. In doing so, you give the players a solid understanding of the type of stories you wish to tell, and allow them to find their place within the campaign world.