For the last few years I have been running a PBM heroic RPG mainly for members of this club. I have recently been considering what the main difference is between this type of game and other RPGs.

Some people might argue that the difference is the setting, since many other games take place in different times or on other worlds. Others might state that it is because the players normally role-play super-human individuals that makes the game different. All would be wrong.

A heroic game does not have to take place in the present; my heroes recently ended a stint of time travel where they were almost 300 years in the future. Not all heroes heave "super powers" or inhuman abilities, though many do seem to prefer them. No, the main difference is one of attitude.

Let us take a common fantasy RPG. In such a game there is nothing wrong with a character, even one considered of lawful or good alignment, who kills without attempting first to negotiate and then take goods from defeated enemies. In fact, most games will reward them for such actions with experience points.

A hero requires a different attitude. Heroic games are based on the world of comic books, not the real world. A true hero will not only refuse a chance to kill a villain, but will frequently put their own life on the line to save that of their worst enemy. Heroes rarely accept rewards for their work, although most have multiple motives for that. Even devices captured from villains are almost never used later by the hero, though they are frequently kept in a trophy room.

Heros are a breed apart: not only are they exceptional in ability, but also in dedication to a cause. Admittedly not all heroes have the same cause. Some, usually the "best" of them, strive to both obey the law and uphold the common good, even when the two are in conflict. Others, usually considered vigilantes, seek to enforce justice, even though they may have to defy the law for the greater good.

There are those who are considered villains, many of whom act from the most noble of intentions, but whose means are questionable. The Vigilante who kills without compassion, the Conqueror who seeks to bring peace by force, the Ecoterrorist who seeks to end pollution by punishing the polluter, all are villains who have heroic aspects.

Part of what makes playing a hero interesting is when the GM pits a hero against one of these villains, or others who are victims of circumstance. Last year a handful of heroes in my game attempted to track down a killer vigilante. They faced the hard choice of whether or not to chase him in the first place since his victims were drug dealers and middlemen. When they caught him, they had to decide whether to stop him or try to prevent the destruction he caused. When finally cornered, he fought with deadly force and they had to decide whether or not to use such force in response. After they captured him and turned him over to the police, he escaped and fled the country.

The point of. the matter was that the heroes acted like heroes throughout. They tracked down the killer, saved what lives they could, and brought him in to face the law, all with no thought of reward.

One of my newer players recently displayed a properly heroic attitude. When on the way home from putting out a very dangerous fire, the hero was attacked by a known villain. He did not make his character immediately counterattack, but instead tried to convince the villain that there was no reason to fight. I applauded the solution, the villain in question was a victim of circumstances, forced into a life of crime by a situation beyond his control. The hero arranged for the villain to work for the government, using his powers for the good of mankind.

While I considered this a truly excellent solution, I was unable to reward him as highly as I liked and stay within the rules. Unfortunately, even heroic games are often written by persons who do not understand the heroic attitudes.

One thing that often puzzles new players about heroes is why they have secret identities. As it happens there is a reason based on logic, and one based on attitude. The logical reason states that no hero, no matter how powerful, can be everywhere at once, therefore their loved ones would be in danger when they were busy elsewhere if their identity became public knowledge. The attitude argument says that a hero is more free to act the part when he is in a mask and costume, and also is free not to act heroic when out of it.

Let me give an example. The recently deceased hero Darkshade was only moderately powerful, but he had the right attitude: when in costume he would do impossible things regularly and place his life on the line without hesitation, even for villains. He was always responsible for all his actions, any mistake that he made, he corrected personally. That was what killed him, he made a mistake that could cost lives and was determined that the only life lost would be his own. He fixed the problem, but died.

That is an example of the difference in attitude. In other games a character who makes a mistake that can 6e corrected only at the cost of their own life is not expected to sacrifice it, at least not often. It is almost a requirement of the genre that a hero never makes mistakes, or if they do they have to correct them.

In conclusion, I think it is safe to say the heroic games are totally different in style from most other games. Still, the main point remains the same in all games, to have fun. I hope that this article shows a few of you who are considering joining a heroic game how to handle the characters properly. The point is not to play the most powerful hero in the game, but is to have the right attitude to do the best you can with what you have. O

This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com