Healing surges and other such fail.

[violence in the media]

The agreeance was in relation to the topic of level-appropriate encounters.

As far as gambling is concerned, not participating in the game is the only real penalty there is. Characters can die and lose, but as a player I am going to take actions that keep me involved in the game. The risk and reward is measured against my ability to participate. By extension, anything that results in a TPK is not worth doing. I am willing to sacrifice story and character motivation for playability and participation.

[RandomCasualty2]

Heroes sometimes do lose.

Lose, yes.

Die, very rarely.

When you're doing a one shot session, then it's fine for them to die off, but keep in mind that D&D works on a campaign level, which is more similar to a TV or book series rather than one novel. And in such cases you want recurring characters. You shouldn't have your rules likely to kill off Conan or Elric halfway through book two. When a hero dies, it's almost always something meaningful, and you just aren't going to adequately simulate that with random die rolls.

This doesn't mean you can't have mechanics that do that. Like you could have a heroic death mechanic where a hero chooses to die instead of just get knocked out he can grants bonuses to his allies. This is a nice way to simulate the dramatic death that pushes everyone else forward. But just making the battle random and gritty doesn't do that. It just means that adventuring is a damn deadly profession, and while it's realistic, it's just not heroic fantasy.

Conan really isn't in much danger when he's facing off against some random grunt.

[Elennsar]

As far as gambling is concerned, not participating in the game is the only real penalty there is. Characters can die and lose, but as a player I am going to take actions that keep me involved in the game. The risk and reward is measured against my ability to participate. By extension, anything that results in a TPK is not worth doing. I am willing to sacrifice story and character motivation for playability and participation.

Then congradulations, you are incapable of playing a hero when heroes are forced to choose between nonheroic and nonliving.

You shouldn't have your rules likely to kill off Conan or Elric halfway through book two.

Nor should you have the characters facing things that are likely to kill them other than the Shield of There Will Be Sequels.

If a hero is facing a giant (in a situation where giants kill puny mortals), a hero should not be able to rely on Protection Via The Plot.

Either heroes are supposed to be able to slay giants with some level of confidence, or giants are supposed to be deadly even to the mightiest, but if the latter, the PCs should not be an exception.

Conan really isn't in much danger when he's facing off against some random grunt.

No. But versus the King's picked Royal Guards, he's at least potentially able to get seriously (not critically, necessarily) hurt. And a large number of random grunts is a problem.

Conan does not consider pissing off a king who has sent his army after him to be safe.

He's able to escape, but he does just that...escape.

[angelfromanotherpin]

D&D doesn't support heroic behavior or stories. It never has. It supports wargame behavior and stories. People don't have story-arc-related protection, and you are far more likely to die being punked than you are to have a last stand defending what matters most to you. If those deaths were good enough for Richard I and Alexander the Great, they're good enough for you.

Your character recurs in the narrative as long as your cunning and luck keeps them alive. When they fall, they fall, and the world goes on. And so do you, just with a different character.

[Elennsar]

And since unlike a game that was meant to model Alexander the Pretty Good or King Dick of Merry England being heroic isn't badass and awesome and meaningful even if it does get you killed, you really have no incentive.

Its a wargame. Blegh.

[RandomCasualty2]

If a hero is facing a giant (in a situation where giants kill puny mortals), a hero should not be able to rely on Protection Via The Plot.

Either heroes are supposed to be able to slay giants with some level of confidence, or giants are supposed to be deadly even to the mightiest, but if the latter, the PCs should not be an exception.

First, yes the PCs are an exception and they're special. They're the stars of your story and killing them is bad. You can very well have them get the crap kicked out of them and be put in chains, but a TPK just isn't in the best interest of the story and something your rules should certainly discourage.

Gamist elements probably want to include TPKs as a punishment for making bad choices and otherwise just being stupid. And it is important to maintain the illusion of danger, but numerically that can't be reality.

No. But versus the King's picked Royal Guards, he's at least potentially able to get seriously (not critically, necessarily) hurt. And a large number of random grunts is a problem.

Conan does not consider pissing off a king who has sent his army after him to be safe.

He's able to escape, but he does just that...escape.

Sure. And you can have rules that simulate that. But just keep in mind that if Conan is supposed to kill the giant, then he's supposed to kill the fucking giant. If you make the giant some uber badass who Conan is at best 60% against, you have to expect Conan to die a lot. If this is a campaign finale, you may not even care, but if this is just one adventure along the way, running that encounter is not a good idea, for reasons that should be obvious.

Even highly gamist players (the ones most in favor of character death) don't want ultra hard scenarios where even the best of tactics results in a coin flip. This isn't a video game and you can't click load game after you die. You just die.

Game over man. Game over.

[Elennsar]

First, yes the PCs are an exception and they're special. They're the stars of your story and killing them is bad. You can very well have them get the crap kicked out of them and be put in chains, but a TPK just isn't in the best interest of the story and something your rules should certainly discourage.

Gamist elements probably want to include TPKs as a punishment for making bad choices and otherwise just being stupid. And it is important to maintain the illusion of danger, but numerically that can't be reality.

Yes, because of two bullshit concepts.

#1: The stars have things go in their favor for no reason other than stardom.

#2: People are unwilling to play characters who actually say "Yes, I am willing to risk actually getting killed here because it is a dangerous situation, not because I deliberately commited suicide."

Sure. And you can have rules that simulate that. But just keep in mind that if Conan is supposed to kill the giant, then he's supposed to kill the fucking giant. If you make the giant some uber badass who Conan is at best 60% against, you have to expect Conan to die a lot. If this is a campaign finale, you may not even care, but if this is just one adventure along the way, running that encounter is not a good idea, for reasons that should be obvious.

Even highly gamist players (the ones most in favor of character death) don't want ultra hard scenarios where even the best of tactics results in a coin flip. This isn't a video game and you can't click load game after you die. You just die.

And having Conan not die a lot makes the giant go from a challenge to just a roadblock.

50% odds, assuming halfway good mechanics, do not simplify to just a coin flip.

They mean that it is equally likely that you will win/live as die/lose.

Which, for an encounter that is meant to be my equal, is how it should be.

I should win because of my tactics sneaking an advantage out of a balanced fight, not because NPCs arbitrarily are weaker.

See The Duel in Sword and Fist for an example of how an even fight should work.

Not D&D's standard "an npc of your level could probably be your cohort without breaking game balance more than having a cohort does to begin with" bullshit.

A game where people are supposed to say "Damn the Torpedos!" should not ensure that's suicide. Nor should it ensure that it is certain to be risk free.

So the question is...how much are you actually willing to have your characters risk their necks?

You, the person answering.

Enemies incapable of hurting you, barring the ability to do "better" (overkill) than normal, are boring.

Enemies incapable of being hurt by you are unfun.

So. Where do you draw the line between "risky enough to be a real peril" and "can't I just retreat from this"?

[violence in the media]

As far as gambling is concerned, not participating in the game is the only real penalty there is. Characters can die and lose, but as a player I am going to take actions that keep me involved in the game. The risk and reward is measured against my ability to participate. By extension, anything that results in a TPK is not worth doing. I am willing to sacrifice story and character motivation for playability and participation.

Then congradulations, you are incapable of playing a hero when heroes are forced to choose between nonheroic and nonliving.

You seem to be laboring under the erroneous assumption that:

1. Everyone plays these games to portray a Hero.
2. Playing a Hero is an objectively more desirable or morally superior state.

There's no point in having roles in these games if the only role is wandering do-gooder.

[Elennsar]

You seem to be laboring under the erroneous assumption that:

1. Everyone plays these games to portray a Hero.
2. Playing a Hero is an objectively more desirable or morally superior state.

There's no point in having roles in these games if the only role is wandering do-gooder.

No, I'm pointing out that if you have the attitude that you don't want to -ever- have TPK or any such fate, then playing a Hero is out.

If you want to play a mercenary or a villain or any of the other sixty

number pulled from the infamous giant invisible hat

points between Hero and Sociopath No One Is Comfortable With Having In Their Game, that's up to you.

But don't claim you want to play heroic fantasy as a Hero if you don't want to take on the perils of the Hero role.

Being an adventurer is dangerous - if it was perfectly safe for anyone sufficiently competent, you'd see a lot more adventurers.

So the question is.

Assuming the following is true - that losing hit points (or whatever) is a bad thing, that there are injuries that heal up fairly quickly, and injuries that take a while to heal...

What methods of patching yourself up should there be?

It seems that no one wants to have a "healbot", so something that anyone can do is needed.

Okay. What? Recover hit points between fights as some sort of "wasn't as bad as it looked"? Healing kits that work like magic (NWN)?

Unless there are fights where people lose 0 hit points, we need some idea how to recover them that works most of the time. Or to get used to people -having- to rest or enter fights injuried.

Its one thing to enter because heroes press on (when they need to) even if injuried.

Its another thing entirely if you carry all injuries with you until you have long term rest.

[Username17]

No, I'm pointing out that if you have the attitude that you don't want to -ever- have TPK or any such fate, then playing a Hero is out.

I worked as an ambulance medic before going to medical school.

We are heroes. We don't -ever- have TPKs, because if we did then we'd have to stop being heroes.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

And having Conan not die a lot makes the giant go from a challenge to just a roadblock.

Not really, because you only run that fight once. And presumably, the DM can keep up the illusion of danger if he's a good storyteller. No one is presuming that Conan walks off without a scratch on him. It should be a tough fight, but it should definitely favor the PCs.

50% odds, assuming halfway good mechanics, do not simplify to just a coin flip.

What?

That's what a coin flip is. 50/50.

I should win because of my tactics sneaking an advantage out of a balanced fight, not because NPCs arbitrarily are weaker.

And your tactics do help you. In a game with dice, sometimes you're going to have bad luck, and using good tactics can nullify some of that bad luck and push the odds further in your favor.

So the question is...how much are you actually willing to have your characters risk their necks?

I'm one of those people who believes that decisions should matter more than dice. If you do something stupid and die, fine. But I don't like the idea of a battle being numerically close and there being nothing you can do about it because you got a little unlucky. If the luck is fantastically against you, then I can live with it, but it shouldn't be a 50/50 situation if you use the right tactics. Otherwise that kind of thing should only happen in the finale of a campaign.

Enemies incapable of hurting you, barring the ability to do "better" (overkill) than normal, are boring.

Yes and no one is saying you can't get hurt, but ultimately you really shouldn't be able to die.

So. Where do you draw the line between "risky enough to be a real peril" and "can't I just retreat from this"?

Most of D&D peril is in the hands of the DM making an encounter feel dangerous. It's much like riding the rollercoaster where you go really fast around corners and are wondering at times if you're going to go flying off the thing to your death. But the chances of that happening are virtually nonexistent, but it creates the illusion of danger.

The same with movies. We know the star isn't going to die halfway through the movie, but the movie still creates the illusion of danger.

But again, that's how cinematic heroes work. What you seem to want to try to do is run a cinematic game under the lens of realism, where you're saying "what if Conan really could die if one of the Royal guard got a lucky blow on him?"

But in an RPG, TPKs and even character death are mostly just a bluff. You don't even really want to use them if you can avoid it, but they make great deterrents to prevent your PCs from doing something stupid and staying on track. While you don't want PCs to feel weak and vulnerable where they constantly rest to full strength, you also don't want them to feel invincible. That's why we need to have rules for character death, but we probably don't want them coming up very often for PCs.

[violence in the media]

No, I'm pointing out that if you have the attitude that you don't want to -ever- have TPK or any such fate, then playing a Hero is out.

Heroism is defined by what you did, not what you tried to do. You can be a Magnificent Bastard and still be hailed as a hero because what you accomplished was beneficial and amazing. You can try and do something heroic and fail and die in the process, in which case you're just another dead fool.

Whether or not you would have ditched the princess to save your own skin is irrelevant if it doesn't come down to that.

But don't claim you want to play heroic fantasy as a Hero if you don't want to take on the perils of the Hero role.

Sure you can, you just need to find a way to neuter the perilous parts. Though we're arguing sematics here again: you want to play the Noble Hero, I want to play the Smart Hero (sometimes).

Being an adventurer is dangerous - if it was perfectly safe for anyone sufficiently competent, you'd see a lot more adventurers.

My group tends to support the idea that there are lots and lots of adventurers. It's not an ultra-rare or ultra-special thing. Though you probably do need to be somewhat unhinged.

[Elennsar]

I worked as an ambulance medic before going to medical school.

We are heroes. We don't -ever- have TPKs, because if we did then we'd have to stop being heroes.

Fair enough. But not quite the same kind of situation.

Not really, because you only run that fight once. And presumably, the DM can keep up the illusion of danger if he's a good storyteller. No one is presuming that Conan walks off without a scratch on him. It should be a tough fight, but it should definitely favor the PCs.

"Tough but favoring the PCs." is bordering on oxymoronic.

Define, thusly, "Tough". It taking a long drawn out struggle is "tough". Is that it?

What?

That's what a coin flip is. 50/50.

Right, but having an even chance of ultimate success may mean several exchanges, which are not individually each 50-50.

And your tactics do help you. In a game with dice, sometimes you're going to have bad luck, and using good tactics can nullify some of that bad luck and push the odds further in your favor.

Right, but they're not necessary in order to turn an even fight into a fight in my favor when you gimp NPCs so they're not an even fight to begin with.

I'm one of those people who believes that decisions should matter more than dice. If you do something stupid and die, fine. But I don't like the idea of a battle being numerically close and there being nothing you can do about it because you got a little unlucky.

Agreed. But that's a mechanic I would want to use to ensure neither side (Heroic or villainous, PC or NPC) is gimped by the dice rolling unusually badly for no good reason.

Unusually being the key word. If you want a 0% chance of rolling below a 7, we should use something other than a d20 (or 2d10, or 3d6) to begin with.

But again, that's how cinematic heroes work. What you seem to want to try to do is run a cinematic game under the lens of realism, where you're saying "what if Conan really could die if one of the Royal guard got a lucky blow on him?"

No, what I want to try and do is have Conan actually be risking his neck when facing a competent opponent, instead of protected by "cannot be killed" plot shielding. Because if there is no real peril, there is nothing particularly exciting about him winning. It is BORING when you can win blindfolded in terms of "can I win? Can I make a decision that will win this?"

That's why we need to have rules for character death, but we probably don't want them coming up very often for PCs.

Nor should we say "This is a great challenge!" and then have it be a wimpy opponent which takes an English major to make appear threatening.

Cinematic heroes tend to run into a lot of opponents who are considerably weaker than them (individually, at least), so if you want to mantain the same level of lethality, we need that as a start.

Whether or not you would have ditched the princess to save your own skin is irrelevant if it doesn't come down to that.

Being hailed as a hero =/= being a hero.

Sure you can, you just need to find a way to neuter the perilous parts. Though we're arguing sematics here again: you want to play the Noble Hero, I want to play the Smart Hero (sometimes).

Smart Hero who says "No fucking way! I'll get killed! Screw the princess!" is not heroic.

My group tends to support the idea that there are lots and lots of adventurers. It's not an ultra-rare or ultra-special thing. Though you probably do need to be somewhat unhinged.

Not really unhinged if there's nothing about it where a sane person would avoid it.

Now here is a question. There are (in Earth's history) people of dubious sanity who went out to do risky things "because they were there".

To what extent do we want to assume adventurers have a dose of that in them?

I'm asking out of curiosity - I personally think they're bad things to have as adventurers because they tend to either make a mockery of the odds (hard to represent in a game without giving numbers where the odds don't exist, which negates the kind of challenge we do want) or get killed by sheer stupidity (which is about as fun to play as any other idiot) without it meaning anything.

[Bigode]

Arguments of the form "it's 50/50 before tactics are factored in" screw PCs more in general. Because as long as the characters in both sides are actually nominally equivalent (i.e. it's not experienced humans vs. unintelligent vermin, or something like that), tactical play tends to be GM-dominated: not only they tend to on average be better at whatever passes for tactics in that game, they also have a forethought advantage. Unless, of course, the argument is "no, only PCs use tactics - the GM's supposed to artificially dumb enemies down", which's a strictly inferior argument to just making the opposition be of actual inferior quality in the first place.

[Elennsar]

If the GM has a forethought advantage, assuming for the sake of arguement that it isn't abusing out of game knowledge in game (seperate discussion), he also has a lot more to think about than this specific encounter and the creature/s.

The point on tactics is that you can see that oh, a Bull Rush would be a good move right here because of where you are and your opponent is, and deny your opponent the ability to do something equivalant to you.

[violence in the media]

Being hailed as a hero =/= being a hero.

It really does. In fact, it's the only measure of "being a hero" that has any meaning.

Smart Hero who says "No fucking way! I'll get killed! Screw the princess!" is not heroic.

Allow me to attempt to make a subtle distinction here with a relevant quote from Shrek:

Princess Fiona: You didn't slay the dragon?
Shrek: It's on my "to do" list. Now come on.
Princess Fiona: But this isn't right. You're meant to charge in, sword drawn, banner flying-that's what all the other knights did.
Shrek: Yeah, right before they burst into flame.

Not really unhinged if there's nothing about it where a sane person would avoid it.

Now here is a question. There are (in Earth's history) people of dubious sanity who went out to do risky things "because they were there".

To what extent do we want to assume adventurers have a dose of that in them?

I imagine that adventurers tend to be thrill-seekers, social climbers, and desperate people. There are exceptions, of course, but they are generally drawn from the ranks of those seeking something more from life and those with nothing left to lose. Besides, perceived risk is subjective. What's a manageable risk for me in one situation might be insanity to you, and vice versa.

[Bigode]

If the GM has a forethought advantage, assuming for the sake of arguement that it isn't abusing out of game knowledge in game (seperate discussion), he also has a lot more to think about than this specific encounter and the creature/s.

A perhaps needed clarification's that I indeed don't assume a GM metagaming with opponents. I assume that the GM knows what both sides of the battle will be in advance, and has some undetachable knowledge about the PCs in the sense that they (likely/ideally) chose those particular opponents knowing their options do work against the PCs As for a lot more to think - they also had lots of extra preparation, and GMs tend to be better at all of that than players.

The point on tactics is that you can see that oh, a Bull Rush would be a good move right here because of where you are and your opponent is, and deny your opponent the ability to do something equivalant to you.

And GM-controlled opponents can't do that since when? As said, I don't care about the nominal CR of a purple worm - the only talk that makes sense's about when the opponent (collectively - not necessarily each individual member) is roughly as tactically versatile too.

[Elennsar]

And GM-controlled opponents can't do that since when? As said, I don't care about the nominal CR of a purple worm - the only talk that makes sense's about when the opponent (collectively - not necessarily each individual member) is roughly as tactically versatile too.

Tactically versatile or not, if I, for instance trip NPC #2, then 2 has to deal with being tripped before he can grapple me.

Of course, the reverse is also true.

Either way, I disagree that tactics being decisive give a large advantage to the GM. They can, but it isn't a given.

So here is the question.

The PCs should be able to win any campaign in the genres of heroic fantasy and/or sword and sorcery.

What about their opponents? Is the Dark Lord doomed to be defeated by the heroes, or do the heroes just need a sporting chance?

[Bigode]

Tactically versatile or not, if I, for instance trip NPC #2, then 2 has to deal with being tripped before he can grapple me.

Of course, the reverse is also true.

Thanks for shooting your "own" point down for me. So, they're equivalent so far. Oh, yeah, and people being in fact able to grapple while prone isn't a fantasy or D&D invention ...

Either way, I disagree that tactics being decisive give a large advantage to the GM. They can, but it isn't a given.

And here they'll stop being so. There's a forethought advantage definiotinally present assuming any amount of preparation for session, and most data points to GMs being tactically better than players, aside from the famous example of munchkin exploiting newbie (and the former shouldn't be allowed to play, so I hope they're not being factored in).

Have you noticed that most game descriptions don't say "fight against villains", but "defeat villains"?

[Elennsar]

Thanks for shooting your "own" point down for me. So, they're equivalent so far. Oh, yeah, and people being in fact able to grapple while prone isn't a fantasy or D&D invention ...

Thanks for missing my point. A fifty-fifty fight should be one the PCs can lose. Good tactics can win it by the PCs. They can also lose to enemy good tactics, but that doesn't mean that they can't or won't win.

And agreed, it isn't. But you do have to deal with being prone (-4 to attack rolls, which may include the one to grapple...yes, I am assuming the SRD applies, because I don't have a good revision handy to refer to instead. I know they exist, that's not the point.), which is a bad position to be in, before making your roll to grapple me.

And here they'll stop being so.

Yes, because we ensure that NPCs are incompetent fools who should have known better to cross path with our PCs.

Have you noticed that most game descriptions don't say "fight against villains", but "defeat villains"?

Which is incredibly and painfully stupid and obnoxious.

The Dark Lord threatens the whole world with conquest and despair...until the PCs come along, and then its only a matter of time before he gets his ass kicked.

Wait, what?

[RandomCasualty2]

"Tough but favoring the PCs." is bordering on oxymoronic.

Define, thusly, "Tough". It taking a long drawn out struggle is "tough". Is that it?

Okay.

A tough battle is one in which if the PCs make bad choices they might find themselves TPKed.

Right, but having an even chance of ultimate success may mean several exchanges, which are not individually each 50-50.

But we don't really care about each exchange. We just care about the percentage chance that the PCs die after the fight.

Right, but they're not necessary in order to turn an even fight into a fight in my favor when you gimp NPCs so they're not an even fight to begin with.

NPCs won't be an even fight. That's just part of RPGs. If something is dead even, then the PCs are 50/50 to die, and even if the party survives, many individual PCs are likely going to be dead. A 50/50 chance of TPK is a fucking bloodbath. Now I suppose you can be one of those DMs who uses NPCs with horrible tactics that are 50/50, and let the PCs take them out that way, but most players prefer their opponents appear somewhat competent.

Nor should we say "This is a great challenge!" and then have it be a wimpy opponent which takes an English major to make appear threatening.

Sorry to break this to you, but every badass opponent that you know was beefed up by a storyteller. Every cinematic or literary fantasy hero has 100% odds of winning, if that's what the script demands. And that's a lot better than what RPG heroes get.

The only question is if the fight is a dramatic battle, or if it's over in one shot.

[Elennsar]

But we don't really care about each exchange. We just care about the percentage chance that the PCs die after the fight.

A fifty percent chance of success =/= a fifty percent chance of death.

The idea that all lethal fights (defined as fighting not using nonlethal damage attacks and such) end in death needs to, um, die.

NPCs won't be an even fight. That's just part of RPGs. If something is dead even, then the PCs are 50/50 to die, and even if the party survives, many individual PCs are likely going to be dead. A 50/50 chance of TPK is a fucking bloodbath. Now I suppose you can be one of those DMs who uses NPCs with horrible tactics that are 50/50, and let the PCs take them out that way, but most players prefer their opponents appear somewhat competent.

Then they had better deal with the fact that "somewhat competent" and "able to hurt you badly enough for you to care." are related.

As for 50/50 to die, see above. A bloodbath is what happens when people scream for having PCs that are able to kill anything in their path (except for encounters that are supposed to be played with the other guy avoiding actually taking out the PCs).

If you don't want to risk TPK from 50-50, then take prisoners.

Sorry to break this to you, but every badass opponent that you know was beefed up by a storyteller. Every cinematic or literary fantasy hero has 100% odds of winning, if that's what the script demands. And that's a lot better than what RPG heroes get. The only question is if the fight is a dramatic battle, or if it's over in one shot.

Sorry to break this to you, but having a fight with someone who you have a 100% chance of beating, barring some cool things about overkill (if there's no visible difference, either IC or OOC, it doesn't matter), is boring.

And insisting that a really creative DM can make a boring encounter exciting by making it look like the enemy might actually hurt you is where it woudl take an expert storyteller.

"And so the dragon...missed again!"

[Talisman]

Being hailed as a hero =/= being a hero.

It really does. In fact, it's the only measure of "being a hero" that has any meaning.

My God...that's perhaps the most cynical thing I've seen on this very cynical board.

So saving a child's life isn't heroic unless it earns you a parade?

That's truly sickening.

Smart Hero who says "No fucking way! I'll get killed! Screw the princess!" is not heroic.

Allow me to attempt to make a subtle distinction here with a relevant quote from Shrek:

Princess Fiona: You didn't slay the dragon?
Shrek: It's on my "to do" list. Now come on.
Princess Fiona: But this isn't right. You're meant to charge in, sword drawn, banner flying-that's what all the other knights did.
Shrek: Yeah, right before they burst into flame.

Yeah, but the difference is: Shrek took the risk anyway. He did it smart, but he didn't say "Dragon? Screw that! The princess can go save herself."

This is an example of Intelligence AND Heroics. No one said heroes couldn't be smart or tactically savvy.

[violence in the media]

My God...that's perhaps the most cynical thing I've seen on this very cynical board.

My first superlative!

So saving a child's life isn't heroic unless it earns you a parade?

That's truly sickening.

I'm going to move beyond your attempt at character assassination here and ask you this: would you term someone else a hero with no knowledge of whether or not they had actually done anything you'd call heroic? Would attempting, and failing, to save a child's life make someone a hero? Is performing an expected function heroic?

I am saying that the recognition of your actions as heroic by other people is what makes a hero. And that is entirely independent of performing a morally correct action.

Yeah, but the difference is: Shrek took the risk anyway. He did it smart, but he didn't say "Dragon? Screw that! The princess can go save herself."

He did his best to avoid the risk in the first place. Even then, the only reason he shouldered the quest to begin with was a selfish one. Is he less heroic because of that? Or is he still a hero because he freed the people from Farquad's rule? Does it matter?

[Roog]

A fifty-fifty fight should be one the PCs can lose. Good tactics can win it by the PCs. They can also lose to enemy good tactics, but that doesn't mean that they can't or won't win.

Thats not a fifty-fifty fight.

A fifty-fifty fight would be one where a well informed estimate of the PCs chance of sucess is 50%.

If good PC tactics will mean that the PCs have a 95% chance of vicory, and the PCs have a record of using good tactics, then that is a 1.05 to one odds, not a fifty-fifty fight.

If good enemy tactics will mean that the enemy has a 95% chance of victory (taking the PCs record of tactics effectiveness into account), and the GM uses good tactics in the fight, then that is twenty to one odds, not a fifty-fifty fight.