Magic vs Mundane (what is mundane?) [Archive] - Page 2

Jakinbandw

2019-07-17, 02:24 PM

So, here's what being a skilled Muggle means to me, in something resembling your game's parlance:

Cool, let's take a look!

Skilled (supplemental)
Whenever called upon to make a mundane roll (attack, save, skill check, etc) for himself (not for minions), the Muggle has Advantage on the roll. Later, this advances to Super Advantage (3 dice, or two dice if also has Disadvantage).

I've got a few of these, and I could definitely see something like this. Quick note however, instead of super advantage, I'd just have it auto succeed.

Heck'a Quick (supplemental)
Whenever the Muggle could take an action, he can take two mundane actions instead. If these are mundane attacks, he may take 3 attacks with the same weapon instead. Later, this advances to even more attacks, and possibly more of other actions, as well.

It's the actions that are the real boon here. Extra attacks in my system are... less powerful than in other systems for reasons I skip going into here. Extra actions of any type though... That's pretty strong. Of course I'd have to check for combos with other classes, because nothing stops a non mundane class from having a mundane class so... I have to keep an eye on that.

Action Economy (supplemental)
Whenever the Muggle could take an action himself, or through minions, he can choose to both take an action himself and through minions, or he can take an action through each group of applicable minions.

Hmm... This formalizes a mechanic I've been using. I like the idea of formalizing it in my system. Having a noble able to literally be a country would be neat. I'll see about slipping this in to a few classes in the rewrite.

Wise (constant)
When a scene is described to the Muggle, choose one: describe both data and wisdom layers, or allow the Muggle player to ask questions until they reach the wisdom layer.

I don't really like this as an ability. Mainly because breaking the game into those two layers like you mentioned earlier is really awkward to narrate. "the multi-limbed creature moves towards you, one of it's limbs grasping a container filled with a dead and rotten substance. It makes noises at you from an Orifice filled with teeth while waving its appendages at you." vs "The cute girl asks you if you want to share a drink with her and motions you over."

It feels like a way of making people without the ability useless, and I don't want that. An ability where someone can ask questions to better grasp a situation? Sure. But not the point where the GM is spitting out gibberish. Besides, you're all sitting at a table. If the GM describes the 'wisdom layer' to one character, everyone gets the info. I prefer to have active systems where a player is actively getting more info.

Perceptive (constant)
Whenever the Muggle perceives the results of an action, he learns everything about the capabilities and personality of the person performing the action. He may, at any time, for no action, ask any questions about the personality of the individual who performed the action, especially "what would they do if…".

First problem is that this is information overload when you go into a city (the gm describes everything about hundreds of people at a time? What? The entire next few hours are dedicated to describing things!) Make the player at least ask about people they care about. Outside of that, this ability is powerful, in that it allows you to gain a bunch of info quickly, and cheaply. My main concern of the second part is again, slowing down play for half an hour as the player asks a ton of question to the gm while everyone else sits around. I'd probably put an effort limit on it to prevent such an occurrence. Not a high one, but enough to push it into playable territory and not into just sit around and ask questions for hours.

Contingency Plan (supplemental)
Whenever the Muggle takes an action, he also gets to declare a Contingency (which may simply be written on a folded paper in front of him) - an action to take place if a specified Complication arises. If the Complication comes to pass, he may immediately take his Continent action. By expending Effort, the Contingency lasts beyond the current action.

"If i get attacked my friend shots the target to protect me." A month later in a different realm, "Well I got attacked, my friend shoots the target!" "But he's back home and we never brought him with us!" "Doesn't matter, happens anyway!"

This is a straight up retcon ability. I don't have any major problems with it and will probably use it (or something like it) at some point.

Quick Study (action)
By spending an action while with an expert or library or equivalent, the Muggle may temperately gain any mundane skill, talent, etc (of his level or lower?). Every long rest, the Muggle must make (insert roll here) to retain this temporary trait.

So a weaker version of skilled? If it's for grabbing abilities I'm not against the basic idea, but I am against the execution. With literally hundreds of mundane abilities to grab this can be a real world time sink (I have 10 'Profession' classes planned, each with 24 abilities each. That's 240 to have to go through as an action, and that can be used multiple times). It rewards system mastery and goes outside of the idea that you can have all your abilities if you just print up the 3 classes you have.

Mages have a similar system to grabbing magical abilities, and it is fairly regimented to prevent long periods of time looking up the exact wording of abilities.

To be clear, certain classes do have abilities that let them do this, but they tend to require more to swap out the abilities then a single action, just to keep play at the table moving.

Setup (action)
By spending an action now, the Muggle may take a specified action in the future under specified conditions. For example, by hiring guards now, I'll make an attack when attacked; by hiring saboteurs now, I'll start a fire when…

So another retcon ability, weaker than contingency. See contingency to see why I call it a retcon ability.

Socially Adept (constant)
Whenever the Muggle would gain social status points (or whatever your system uses), he gains twice as many instead. This multiplier increases with level. Further, when he would lose points, he loses half as many, save for none.

Financially Adept (constant)
Whenever the Muggle would gain wealth points (or whatever your system uses), he gains twice as many instead. This multiplier increases with level. Further, when he would lose points, he loses half as many, save for none.

Social points don't actually exist in the system, so we'll set aside that. Wealth does exist, but it's more of an ongoing resource than a point system (the most wealth you can ever spend on a project is 16, and if you have 1 wealth and 1 wealth you don't have two wealth). Wealth does have an ability that lets you use your industries to accomplish two things at once though.

Though if you are talking about gold pieces this is again an example of a retcon power, and an easily exploited one.

"So we give bob 10 gold, bob now has 20 gold. Bob gives us 20 gold and we give it back to him and he now has 40 gold." "Where is this money coming from?" "Bob always had it and was keeping it a secret I guess"

Those types of abilities go infinite really fast. Like as soon as a player looks at them. I had to do a lot of work with the wording of wealth to allow players to be able to buy any number of cheap items without having the ability to go infinite through recursion.

Delegate (supplemental / action)
Whenever the Muggle would be required to take a mundane Maintenance action, he may have an official under his command attempt to do so, making a Spirit(?) roll to determine if it was successful. Further, whenever anyone else needs to make a social maintenance action, the Muggle may similarly take an action to pay their maintenance, and make a Spirit(?) roll to handle their maintenance.

And this is a retcon power as well. Mainly because you can use it to have someone you would have no contact with do things for you, and so the only way they could happen is if you sent the orders ahead of time. For example let's say you were trapped in the under dark, but you needed someone to maintain the roads of your kingdom. You use this ability and the roads get maintained. The only way this is possible is if you gave the order ahead of time.

Note the lack of retcon powers.

So, does this not feel mundane to anyone?

So by my count there were 4/11 powers that did retcons. Actually a higher percentage then my own classes I have written up! Overall it had some pretty good ideas.

I probably will steal some of it and use it later, though probably mixed into different classes, as I have 10 (or 8 or 9) non-magic, non-ki, non faith-classes.

What makes the "muggle" better at contingency plans or acting through others or freezing bank accounts than a "non-muggle"?
Thought: Instead of Mundane, maybe I should call them Extraordinary classes. They aren't magic, ki, or faith, they are just Extraordinary!

Segev

2019-07-17, 02:30 PM

OK, fine, but none of that answers my question.

What makes the "muggle" better at contingency plans or acting through others or freezing bank accounts than a "non-muggle"?

I thought I'd specifically answered this question, so, while I'm going to attempt it again, if this still doesn't answer your question, I'm going to have to ask you to explicitly state how my answer fails to be an answer to your question before I can try again meaningfully. I may be misunderstanding your question.

What makes a "muggle" better at, say, contingency plans than a "non-muggle" (if, in fact, that is something he is better at than a "non-muggle") is that he's trained and refined his skills at designing them, and all the other ancillary things that go into making them effective, and the "non-muggle" has (instead) spent the same resources (time, training, money, mental energy, etc.) into his "non-muggle" powers.

If the "non-muggle" is every bit as good at - again, for example - contingency plans as the "muggle," then he either has had more time/energy/money/etc. to throw at it (which would translate to more character-build resources, e.g. being higher level and having spent the same number of levels on the "muggle" class and then one or more on the "non-muggle" class), or he's arguably a "muggle" himself despite any narrative fluff which argues he could have chosen to be a "non-muggle," because he lacks any "non-muggle" powers.

Does that answer your question?

Edit: To turn it around, what stops a "muggle" from using "non-muggle" powers? What actually prevents Xander from borrowing Willow's books on magic and learning to cast spells?

Willie the Duck

2019-07-17, 02:38 PM

OK, fine, but none of that answers my question.

What makes the "muggle" better at contingency plans or acting through others or freezing bank accounts than a "non-muggle"?

You're trying to make "powers" out of every day activities, and then create "balance" by restricting those "powers" to people who aren't "extranormal", even through there's absolutely no reason beyond that game balance that a wizard or vampire or martial arts master couldn't be just as good at those things. (In fact, in Vampire, a lot of a vampire's real power comes from being remarkably good at those every day things, with their supernatural powers best used to augment doing them.)

Okay, I have lost track of what we are trying, specifically, to answer. However, rather than go back through and figure it out, I figure it leaves me in a really good spot to address this sub-point.

Simply put, there isn't. There's no reason why Magic Max should be as good at martial arts and strategic thinking and financial legerdemain as Normal Ned is and also be able to reshape the laws of reality. Except that-- than the fact that Magic Max is better at (for lack of a better general term) overall success at achieving goals is so obvious as to be not worthy of discussion. If one person can do A, B, and C, while the other can do A, B, and C (just as well as the first person) and D... well of course the second guy wins more. That, however, doesn't really prove much about the nature of D. D could be anything. If a character is defined as mundane/muggle/whatever-the-least-baggage-laden-term-is, and they are compared to another guy who is functionally identical, but also has magical powers, well then of course the guy with magical powers has a leg up, and it doesn't really speak to the nature of those magic powers.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-17, 02:40 PM

I thought I'd specifically answered this question, so, while I'm going to attempt it again, if this still doesn't answer your question, I'm going to have to ask you to explicitly state how my answer fails to be an answer to your question before I can try again meaningfully. I may be misunderstanding your question.

What makes a "muggle" better at, say, contingency plans than a "non-muggle" (if, in fact, that is something he is better at than a "non-muggle") is that he's trained and refined his skills at designing them, and all the other ancillary things that go into making them effective, and the "non-muggle" has (instead) spent the same resources (time, training, money, mental energy, etc.) into his "non-muggle" powers.

If the "non-muggle" is every bit as good at - again, for example - contingency plans as the "muggle," then he either has had more time/energy/money/etc. to throw at it (which would translate to more character-build resources, e.g. being higher level and having spent the same number of levels on the "muggle" class and then one or more on the "non-muggle" class), or he's arguably a "muggle" himself despite any narrative fluff which argues he could have chosen to be a "non-muggle," because he lacks any "non-muggle" powers.

Does that answer your question?

Seems to rest on the assumption that all the "extranormal" powers/abilities take a significant personal investment to attain and hone -- and that all these "muggle powers" are also things that take significant personal investment to attain and hone.

Edit: To turn it around, what stops a "muggle" from using "non-muggle" powers? What actually prevents Xander from borrowing Willow's books on magic and learning to cast spells?

I'm not familiar enough with the Buffyverse to say for sure -- is magic something anyone can just pick up the spellbook and use, or is there something more?

Okay, I have lost track of what we are trying, specifically, to answer. However, rather than go back through and figure it out, I figure it leaves me in a really good spot to address this sub-point.

Simply put, there isn't. There's no reason why Magic Max should be as good at martial arts and strategic thinking and financial legerdemain as Normal Ned is and also be able to reshape the laws of reality. Except that-- than the fact that Magic Max is better at (for lack of a better general term) overall success at achieving goals is so obvious as to be not worthy of discussion. If one person can do A, B, and C, while the other can do A, B, and C (just as well as the first person) and D... well of course the second guy wins more. That, however, doesn't really prove much about the nature of D. D could be anything. If a character is defined as mundane/muggle/whatever-the-least-baggage-laden-term-is, and they are compared to another guy who is functionally identical, but also has magical powers, well then of course the guy with magical powers has a leg up, and it doesn't really speak to the nature of those magic powers.

I'm not asking about the nature of the magic powers.

I'm asking why the "muggle" "powers" are even being thought of as "muggle" to begin with, when anyone could do the same things regardless of whether they have "magic" (broad sense) or not.

It's as if someone's saying "What can we give non-extranormal characters that's special to them? Oh, I know, we'll make them really good at balancing checkbooks!" As if someone with superhuman powers wouldn't be able to balance a checkbook just as well and just as easily.

(As an aside, wondering how many readers of this post will have no idea what I mean by "balancing a checkbook".)

Willie the Duck

2019-07-17, 02:58 PM

I'm not asking about the nature of the magic powers.

I'm asking why the "muggle" "powers" are even being thought of as "muggle" to begin with, when anyone could do the same things regardless of whether they have "magic" (broad sense) or not.

I must be missing what the big issue is. Muggle powers are what, as you've pointed out, both muggles and non-muggles can do. They are "muggle" because the muggle can do them, while they can't do what the non-muggle can do. If a muggle and non-muggle (aside:ugh, I don't have the same baggage issues as you, but god is that an ugly word) are in some way on equal footing (in a broad, overall-success metric) it means that the muggle are better at the things either of them can do.

It's as if someone's saying "What can we give non-extranormal characters that's special to them? Oh, I know, we'll make them really good at balancing checkbooks!" As if someone with superhuman powers wouldn't be able to balance a checkbook just as well and just as easily.

It's explicitly not special to them. If they had something special, they would simply be a separate category of non-muggle.

(As an aside, wondering how many readers of this post will have no idea what I mean by "balancing a checkbook".)

I suspect most understand the concept, although they might never had an actual checkbook involved (and a program probably does the math). Everyone has to manage their finances.

Jakinbandw

2019-07-17, 03:03 PM

It's as if someone's saying "What can we give non-extranormal characters that's special to them? Oh, I know, we'll make them really good at balancing checkbooks!" As if someone with superhuman powers wouldn't be able to balance a checkbook just as well and just as easily.

I guess to me this is how the conversation seems:

"Why can't a guy that spends all his time studying magic be as good at accounting as a guy that spends all his time studying accounting?"

"Because he's spending his time studying magic and not accounting"

"Yeah, but why can't he be as good at accounting as the guy who spent his entire life studying accounting?"

"I mean, if he hadn't have spent his while life studying magic, he could have studied accounting and been as good but he didn't"

"But why can't a guy who never studied accounting be as good at accounting as a guy who spent his whole life studying accounting?"

I don't know what more to tell you man. The mage spends his time studying magic, not accounting!

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-17, 03:09 PM

I guess to me this is how the conversation seems:

"Why can't a guy that spends all his time studying magic be as good at accounting as a guy that spends all his time studying accounting?"

"Because he's spending his time studying magic and not accounting"

"Yeah, but why can't he be as good at accounting as the guy who spent his entire life studying accounting?"

"I mean, if he hadn't have spent his while life studying magic, he could have studied accounting and been as good but he didn't"

"But why can't a guy who never studied accounting be as good at accounting as a guy who spent his whole life studying accounting?"

I don't know what more to tell you man. The mage spends his time studying magic, not accounting!

Thus my comment from that same post: Seems to rest on the assumption that all the "extranormal" powers/abilities take a significant personal investment to attain and hone -- and that all these "muggle powers" are also things that take significant personal investment to attain and hone.

As if this is a choice between being a basketball superstar or a theoretical physics guru.

Segev

2019-07-17, 03:10 PM

Seems to rest on the assumption that all the "extranormal" powers/abilities take a significant personal investment to attain and hone -- and that all these "muggle powers" are also things that take significant personal investment to attain and hone. What prevents somebody with the potential to be a starting quarterback for the Greenbay Packers, the New England Patriots, or the Arizona Cardinals from also being really good at optimizing characters for D&D or from working as a rocket scientist for Space-X or NASA?

Sure, if you posit that "extranormal" characters just flat-out have capabilities that need no training and are just free which "normal" characters cannot do with any amount of training, then by definition you've made "normal" characters weaker. But at this point, you're arguing a tautology. "If I design the rules so that Bob is stronger than Alice, Bob is just plain going to be stronger than Alice."

I'm not familiar enough with the Buffyverse to say for sure -- is magic something anyone can just pick up the spellbook and use, or is there something more?Willow started learning magic because she was the party nerd, and they needed somebody other than Giles to cast some spells. She studied and learned how to do it better and better. Technically, the answer to my question would be "Willow's got a higher Int than Xander," which is approximately what stops a 10-int human from being a Wizard when the 16-int human is pretty good at Wizardry.

I'm asking why the "muggle" "powers" are even being thought of as "muggle" to begin with, when anyone could do the same things regardless of whether they have "magic" (broad sense) or not. Because people like to draw a line between "normal" and "extranormal," and have a tendency to base it on "what can a guy do IRL?"

It's as if someone's saying "What can we give non-extranormal characters that's special to them? Oh, I know, we'll make them really good at balancing checkbooks!" As if someone with superhuman powers wouldn't be able to balance a checkbook just as well and just as easily.

(As an aside, wondering how many readers of this post will have no idea what I mean by "balancing a checkbook".)To a degree, it's not that superman can't balance a checkbook. It's that Fenton Crackshell is just that much better at it than he is. Just like nothing stops Fenton Crackshell from lifting things, or jumping off the ground. Superman is just much better at these things than is Fenton.

Now, part of what makes a distinction here is that Fenton literally can't fly under his own power, while Superman can.

But an uncomfortable truth is that, if we don't dive into the realm of "game balance," what you're also asking is, "What can we give parapalegics that is exclusively theirs?" And the answer is, "fewer things related to using their legs to spend their time on, so they probably spend more on things that don't use their legs. ...and on skills that compensate for the lack of such use."

If you go into game balance, the parapalegic probably has bonus points or something equivalent to buy more abilities elsewhere with to make up for this limitation. Fenton Crackshell didn't spend points on being able to fly and being bullet proof, so he has more to spend on being good at balancing checkbooks.

So you can't really answer your question, Max, without making some assumptions about what "magic" is. What does it mean to be a "muggle" or a "wizard?" When you answer those questions, even tacitly, you can start to answer your question. But there's a reason that most games either have a cost to even have the potential to do something, or give that potential to everybody: that's how they balance those who have superpowers against those who do not. (However well or poorly it works in a given system.)

Lord Raziere

2019-07-17, 03:13 PM

Thus my comment from that same post: Seems to rest on the assumption that all the "extranormal" powers/abilities take a significant personal investment to attain and hone -- and that all these "muggle powers" are also things that take significant personal investment to attain and hone.

As if this is a choice between being a basketball superstar or a theoretical physics guru.

Well.

Yeah.

It is.

Got to have a concept to focus on man. sure there is things like multi-classing, hybrid stuff and skill-based and power-point based systems, but not every character is a jack of many trades and I wouldn't want them to be. you can't be everything.

Quertus

2019-07-17, 04:54 PM

Not really, from its origin it carries a lot of unhelpful baggage, and implies a certain relationship between "muggle" and "not muggle" that's only a given within the context of that origin.

OK, fine, but none of that answers my question.

What makes the "muggle" better at contingency plans or acting through others or freezing bank accounts than a "non-muggle"?

You're trying to make "powers" out of every day activities, and then create "balance" by restricting those "powers" to people who aren't "extranormal", even through there's absolutely no reason beyond that game balance that a wizard or vampire or martial arts master couldn't be just as good at those things. (In fact, in Vampire, a lot of a vampire's real power comes from being remarkably good at those every day things, with their supernatural powers best used to augment doing them.)

Shrug. Muggle does not carry any baggage for me. What baggage does it carry for others?

-----

What makes some of us better at typing than others of us? What "special power" do some posters have that make their text so much more readable than others?

The fact is, there is no special sauce. Some people have just trained to be better typists / editors than others.

And that's what my Muggle class attempts to represent.

Admittedly, it's nearly Batman level OP, on purpose, to demonstrate what mastery of purely mundane skills could look like.

Cool, let's take a look!

I've got a few of these, and I could definitely see something like this. Quick note however, instead of super advantage, I'd just have it auto succeed.

Ah. I didn't know your hierarchy.

Still, auto-succeeding all saves against poison and disease? Depends on your audience as to whether they'll accept things like that as "mundane".

It's the actions that are the real boon here. Extra attacks in my system are... less powerful than in other systems for reasons I skip going into here. Extra actions of any type though... That's pretty strong. Of course I'd have to check for combos with other classes, because nothing stops a non mundane class from having a mundane class so... I have to keep an eye on that.

It's not any action - it's only Mundane actions. And, trust me, most of your write-ups aren't Mundane. But the Muggle can have lunch, send orders, and apply a field dressing, all while on the road, because they're just that good.

Hmm... This formalizes a mechanic I've been using. I like the idea of formalizing it in my system. Having a noble able to literally be a country would be neat. I'll see about slipping this in to a few classes in the rewrite.

That's not the direction I was taking it.

Your Noble class has a gamey power that says that troops it commands get its stats.

My point was, a skilled Muggle can command troops (for whatever benefit that gives), while still taking their own action. Or can command multiple units of troops.

I don't really like this as an ability. Mainly because breaking the game into those two layers like you mentioned earlier is really awkward to narrate. "the multi-limbed creature moves towards you, one of it's limbs grasping a container filled with a dead and rotten substance. It makes noises at you from an Orifice filled with teeth while waving its appendages at you." vs "The cute girl asks you if you want to share a drink with her and motions you over."

That's not data vs wisdom - that's bad data vs good data.

Wisdom would be, "you gonna get laid (and probably some diseases)". Or "she's not really into you - she's flirting because she has a job for you". Or "it's a trap!". Or whatever is "really going on".

Pick whatever Sherlock type of baseline, and ask what they could possibly know from reading every clue. That's what the Muggle knows. Tell them that.

Besides, you're all sitting at a table. If the GM describes the 'wisdom layer' to one character, everyone gets the info. I prefer to have active systems where a player is actively getting more info.

This is an issue for any information, not specific to this ability. If you've solved it for your Noble, do the same thing here.

First problem is that this is information overload when you go into a city (the gm describes everything about hundreds of people at a time? What? The entire next few hours are dedicated to describing things!) Make the player at least ask about people they care about. Outside of that, this ability is powerful, in that it allows you to gain a bunch of info quickly, and cheaply. My main concern of the second part is again, slowing down play for half an hour as the player asks a ton of question to the gm while everyone else sits around. I'd probably put an effort limit on it to prevent such an occurrence. Not a high one, but enough to push it into playable territory and not into just sit around and ask questions for hours.

This is another "GM skills" issue. If you can give the Noble sufficient information without losing gameplay, this ability should be much easier to GM.

"If i get attacked my friend shots the target to protect me." A month later in a different realm, "Well I got attacked, my friend shoots the target!" "But he's back home and we never brought him with us!" "Doesn't matter, happens anyway!"

This is a straight up retcon ability. I don't have any major problems with it and will probably use it (or something like it) at some point.

No, not a retcon ability. "In case we encounter Superman, I'm packing kryptonite bullets". "In case there's a fire, the fire department is on standby, and I've got them on speed dial". "In the event of a water landing, my suitcase can be used as a flotation device". "In the event we suddenly lose gravity, I'm prepared to grab onto a load bearing structure". "In the event we get attacked, I put a round through the prisoner's head".

So a weaker version of skilled? If it's for grabbing abilities I'm not against the basic idea, but I am against the execution. With literally hundreds of mundane abilities to grab this can be a real world time sink (I have 10 'Profession' classes planned, each with 24 abilities each. That's 240 to have to go through as an action, and that can be used multiple times). It rewards system mastery and goes outside of the idea that you can have all your abilities if you just print up the 3 classes you have.

Mages have a similar system to grabbing magical abilities, and it is fairly regimented to prevent long periods of time looking up the exact wording of abilities.

To be clear, certain classes do have abilities that let them do this, but they tend to require more to swap out the abilities then a single action, just to keep play at the table moving.

Shrug. Balance & realism. But if the Muggle is going to do X, they can get a crash course on X. Season to taste.

So another retcon ability, weaker than contingency. See contingency to see why I call it a retcon ability.

No, no retcon. It requires maintaining the resource (ie, the guards will only attack is the "guards" object still exists, is there, etc). Just needs a little wording about how objects work (that I assume exists at the system level, but I haven't seen, so my write-ups cannot reference it).

Social points don't actually exist in the system, so we'll set aside that. Wealth does exist, but it's more of an ongoing resource than a point system (the most wealth you can ever spend on a project is 16, and if you have 1 wealth and 1 wealth you don't have two wealth). Wealth does have an ability that lets you use your industries to accomplish two things at once though.

Though if you are talking about gold pieces this is again an example of a retcon power, and an easily exploited one.

"So we give bob 10 gold, bob now has 20 gold. Bob gives us 20 gold and we give it back to him and he now has 40 gold." "Where is this money coming from?" "Bob always had it and was keeping it a secret I guess"

Those types of abilities go infinite really fast. Like as soon as a player looks at them. I had to do a lot of work with the wording of wealth to allow players to be able to buy any number of cheap items without having the ability to go infinite through recursion.

No, it's more "if Bob would earn 20 GP per day from this castle ranch, the Muggle would earn 40. If Bob would create a wealth 2 industry, the Muggle would create two". It was referencing underlying structures that don't exist in your game. But "make a Save to recover from what, for less skilled Muggles, would cause them to lose an industry" still sounds like it would work.

And this is a retcon power as well. Mainly because you can use it to have someone you would have no contact with do things for you, and so the only way they could happen is if you sent the orders ahead of time. For example let's say you were trapped in the under dark, but you needed someone to maintain the roads of your kingdom. You use this ability and the roads get maintained. The only way this is possible is if you gave the order ahead of time.

Why are you wired to see everything as a retcon?

When my manager was suddenly hospitalized, I stepped up, and tried to take over some of his tasks. I never accused him of bending time to make that happen. Same thing here.

Admittedly, it's two things: one, the ability to communicate to an officer to ask them to temporarily take your workload; two, having them do so even when you cannot communicate with them. But the underlying thing that joins both those powers is "you have trained your subordinates, and set up your tasks such that your subordinates can take over for you if necessary.

So by my count there were 4/11 powers that did retcons. Actually a higher percentage then my own classes I have written up! Overall it had some pretty good ideas.

I probably will steal some of it and use it later, though probably mixed into different classes, as I have 10 (or 8 or 9) non-magic, non-ki, non faith-classes.

Thought: Instead of Mundane, maybe I should call them Extraordinary classes. They aren't magic, ki, or faith, they are just Extraordinary!

Shrug. I play Mages. But this is a taste of my idea of what a superlative Muggle should look like. They should be able to do extraordinary things, that map to the fiction, don't require retcons, yet are still amazing.

Mechalich

2019-07-17, 05:08 PM

To expand a bit, this discussion seems to be about balance via time investment as in the idea that each character has only so much personal energy and only so many hours in the day to devote to things and therefore hours devoted to 'supernatural powers' can't be devoted to anything else. This can work, in theory, but it faces a bunch of barriers.

First, in a situation like this, learning 'magic' has to mean mastering some sort of esoteric BS that has absolutely zero secondary utility, because if it has secondary utility, then you're letting the 'mages' double count. For example, in Mage: the Ascension, Technocratic characters learn magic through mastering science, so even if you take away Death Ray Master Bob's magical powers, he's still a dude with a PhD in engineering and the smarts to use it. In D&D, wizards represent a lot of their magical learning through skills like Spellcraft and Knowledge: Arcana, which turn out to actually be really useful in their own right in gameplay. So, basically, to do this means imposing some kind of fairly blatant point tax for use of supernatural powers - GURPS has one like this, where you have to buy 'magery' before you can start buying spells. You can do that, but it needs to be carefully built into the mechanics and the fluff, and often it's not. In part because such a time based tax prevents anyone from learning how to use their powers during the story, unless the story unfolds over years.

Second, you have to make sure that the 'magical powers' the characters learn aren't able to secondarily overtop the abilities of those who've spent their time learning how to do things the old fashioned way. This is hard to do both mechanically and in the fluff. For example, Star Wars Saga Edition tried to do this, the Jedi class got the least skill points and they had to dump a lot of them into 'Use the Force' in order to use their force powers, unfortunately they then added a bunch of Force Powers that either totally overlapped with existing skills, or they provided feats that allowed characters to roll Use the Force in place of a different skill like Perception. This is really hard to do right, especially the more powerful the mystical abilities become since they have an ever-growing tendency to simply erase non-mystic challenges from the board - the Hulk, for instance, need not worry about picking locks as there is no door in the universe he cannot punch through.

Ultimately this method of balance works only for specific kinds of games where the 'magic' is low in power and deals with highly esoteric things. It probably works best for 'religious magic' type games wherein all magical powers involve mastering some sort complex ritual forms in order to produce fairly limited effects. This is roughly ASOIAF level magic. Anything more than that and it starts to break down fast.

Quertus

2019-07-17, 05:26 PM

Jakinbandw

2019-07-17, 05:39 PM

Ah. I didn't know your hierarchy.

Still, auto-succeeding all saves against poison and disease? Depends on your audience as to whether they'll accept things like that as "mundane". There are differences between saves and skill checks in my system. But, eh, even then I'm generally fine with such things.

It's not any action - it's only Mundane actions. And, trust me, most of your write-ups aren't Mundane. But the Muggle can have lunch, send orders, and apply a field dressing, all while on the road, because they're just that good.
So actions that aren't modified by abilities. That does weaken it quite a bit, so sure, I could have that as a heroic tier ability no problem.

That's not the direction I was taking it.

Your Noble class has a gamey power that says that troops it commands get its stats.

My point was, a skilled Muggle can command troops (for whatever benefit that gives), while still taking their own action. Or can command multiple units of troops.
I understood where you were taking it, it just made me think that I need a better term for such thing other than saying that you can use a mob as a weapon. That said the noble's ability to buff everyone around to his level is a pretty strong nuke. I'm not sure what tier you want these abilities to fall into sometimes.

And yeah, extra actions for stuff like that would be cool, I completely agree!

That's not data vs wisdom - that's bad data vs good data.

Wisdom would be, "you gonna get laid (and probably some diseases)". Or "she's not really into you - she's flirting because she has a job for you". Or "it's a trap!". Or whatever is "really going on".

Pick whatever Sherlock type of baseline, and ask what they could possibly know from reading every clue. That's what the Muggle knows. Tell them that.
Ah, I was going off of you're description of a room earlier, where then you went into actually describing the room.

So, just another information gathering power. I prefer those to be better defined to help gms work stuff like that out. Like 'Exert effort, you learn 3 facts that the GM feels would be most useful to you in your current situation.' or something like that. But that may just be a personal preference.

This is an issue for any information, not specific to this ability. If you've solved it for your Noble, do the same thing here.
I misunderstood what you wanted to do with it. If it's just another gather info ability I have a bunch of those around all the time anyway.

This is another "GM skills" issue. If you can give the Noble sufficient information without losing gameplay, this ability should be much easier to GM.

Honestly I'm not sure that one ability you are referencing will be kept in that state. It originally gave only the top 5 issues and I've been waffling on it. That said, things change slower on a national scale than when you walk through a crowd and see everything.

Saying that GMs need to be better isn't an answer. It needs to be run by GMs that actually exist.

No, not a retcon ability. "In case we encounter Superman, I'm packing kryptonite bullets".

I mean, that's even more retroactive than I thought. Since you do this whenever you take an action, this means that you are conjuring kryptonite bullets out of nothing in the middle of combat.

"I'm going to shoot so and so, and if superman shows up I have kryptonite bullets"

"Where were you carrying them? We lost all our stuff?"

"um... I found some in that pack over there!"

I don't have a problem with retcons, but you have to be aware that what you are suggesting is a retcon ability man!

"In the event of a water landing, my suitcase can be used as a flotation device".

Again, you're doing this as an action in combat. Declaring that you've already done something in the past that will effect the present. That's a retcon.

No, no retcon. It requires maintaining the resource (ie, the guards will only attack is the "guards" object still exists, is there, etc). Just needs a little wording about how objects work (that I assume exists at the system level, but I haven't seen, so my write-ups cannot reference it).
I mean, I can only respond to what you wrote. If it only works if everything is still around, based on what you said, it's basically just getting an extra action, which is... Okay? you spend an action ahead of time to get a chance to have an action later on? Like I'd rate that down at mortal tier, or as a weak heroic gift with a rider to give it some more use. Why use it over just having the ability to take

No, it's more "if Bob would earn 20 GP per day from this castle ranch, the Muggle would earn 40. If Bob would create a wealth 2 industry, the Muggle would create two". It was referencing underlying structures that don't exist in your game. But "make a Save to recover from what, for less skilled Muggles, would cause them to lose an industry" still sounds like it would work.
I see where you're coming from, but it is still weird. Like say a caravan can only afford to spend 20 gp on a guard. Muggle shows up and suddenly they now have 40 gp. It's why it falls under under the retcon ability for me. It's an ability that alters the established world.

As for the second idea, sure, that seems like something I might even work into to wealth on my rewrite.

Why are you wired to see everything as a retcon?

When my manager was suddenly hospitalized, I stepped up, and tried to take over some of his tasks. I never accused him of bending time to make that happen. Same thing here.

Because you are literally taking an action to alter how events played out. If this was written so that you're underling always maintained things, and you didn't need to tell them to do it, that would be one thing, but you're deciding after the fact to have this policy in place.

To put it another way, lets say you were at home, and enjoying yourself. You manager was sick and couldn't make it to work, or contact you. She can then take an action and suddenly you're at work taking over for her. Time has changed to move you from your house, to being at work. If you don't consider that a retcon, then non of my abilities in the noble word are retcons, and none of my wealth abilities are retcons either.

You could rewrite it to make it not a retcon, but at that point it looses most of it's usefulness as anyone could easily do it through roleplay.

Shrug. I play Mages. But this is a taste of my idea of what a superlative Muggle should look like. They should be able to do extraordinary things, that map to the fiction, don't require retcons, yet are still amazing.

I think we disagree on what we call retcons. Going by your examples none of the abilities I have written are retcon abilities. Assuming we have different terminology, it's quite possible we agree and just use different language for it.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-17, 06:37 PM

Really, I don't understand why we're even taking about this - about time to learn stuff. Everyone gets a class - or, in this game, three - and we're balancing the classes. Honestly, I couldn't care less what classes represent - whether they represent training time, or the limits of focus, or whatever.

Now, feel free to make me care. But, to my mind, the question is, what abilities qualify as Muggle abilities? And can we make balanced classes with just those?

And my answer is, "sure - here's my example".

In HERO, there are skills and stuff that every character gets, just because they're from a culture or society in the setting. Every character. They are literally called "Everyman Skills".

And in Champions (the Superheroic genre focus of HERO), the 1000 point omega-class superhuman... if they're from that background... then they get them too. For free. Just like everyone else. Just like the guy on the street with 25 points or less.

You're not talking about special "muggle" abilities that non-"muggles" don't get... you're talking about "everyman" abilities in that setting, and then cranking them up a few notches as if being a "muggle" gives you supercharged "everyman" stuff.

Everyone gets "balance bank account". But this guy without superpowers gets it at +5... and the only reason he gets it is because he doesn't have superpowers?

Jakinbandw

2019-07-17, 07:03 PM

Everyone gets "balance bank account". But this guy without superpowers gets it at +5... and the only reason he gets it is because he doesn't have superpowers?
Okay, switching gears for a second to keep up.

The guy without superpowers gets hacking because instead of going out and fighting super villains and learning how to throw punches instead he spends that time learning how to use computers.

Or do you think that just because using computers is a common skill anyone can hack the us government and use a secret satellite to fire a lazer beam down in the middle of combat?

Like dude, it's like you think that training and practice have no meaning. To you, education, training and hard work don't mean anything at all. You don't think that a wizard has to study, or a fighter has to practice. Because who needs to practice learning to aim a gun right? I'm sure anyone can pick up a gun and be as good as someone who has spent their entire life training.

Like your sig says, that hangs my suspension of disbelief until it's dead. The idea that no hero ever needs to practice and is hyper competent at every skill ever.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-17, 07:24 PM

Jakinbandw

2019-07-17, 07:39 PM

Lord Raziere

2019-07-17, 07:48 PM

Okay, switching gears for a second to keep up.

The guy without superpowers gets hacking because instead of going out and fighting super villains and learning how to throw punches instead he spends that time learning how to use computers.

Or do you think that just because using computers is a common skill anyone can hack the us government and use a secret satellite to fire a lazer beam down in the middle of combat?

Like dude, it's like you think that training and practice have no meaning. To you, education, training and hard work don't mean anything at all. You don't think that a wizard has to study, or a fighter has to practice. Because who needs to practice learning to aim a gun right? I'm sure anyone can pick up a gun and be as good as someone who has spent their entire life training.

Like your sig says, that hangs my suspension of disbelief until it's dead. The idea that no hero ever needs to practice and is hyper competent at every skill ever.

Could not have put it better myself.

Or rather, it's like you think having a superhuman power or a rare ability takes up all your time and prevents you from learning anything else at all, and that there's no such thing as multi-talented individuals, or innate gifts. People who play pro sports have no other interests, no other skills, no other abilities, they're just sport-playing machines. Hackers never learn to paint, mathematicians never learn mountain climbing, master plumbers never take up an instrument or join a band. Cyclops spends all day mastering his optic blasts, he never does anything else... Wolverine spends all day practicing his healing, too. Also, wizards spend all their intellectual capacity on spellcasting, they never study anything else, or take up the sword or the bow to counter all those hours spent sitting or hunched over a lab table... and clerics spend all day praying when they're not out smiting the foes of their faith.

See how that works? It's fun making a stupid caricature out of someone else's position instead of actually engaging with it honestly.

Yes, they do learn other sutff. no one is saying they don't.

but there is something called Major stuff, and Minor Stuff.

Major stuff is like, the stuff someone is all about. minor stuff are like hobbies or things that they do to get away from the Major stuff.

hackers may learn to paint but unless they are some hacker/painter hybrid thing they won't be making the Mona Lisa. mathematicians may learn mountain climbing but unless the concept is all about how that mountain climbing combines with mathematician, the mountain just a footnote they won't be matching Mr. greatest Mountain climber any time soon, master plumbers may play music but they ain't gonna be mozart.

much like how someone with a PH.d in one discipline probably isn't going to get another Ph.d in something completely different unless they spend like ten more years doing that. they might do that, they might have the money and time to waste because they're rich or whatever because education costs money and that level of education probably the most money, but most people aren't those guys and will settle for like, doing it as a hobby but not seriously investing into it.

I don't think I need to be super-exact upon this, I'm pretty sure you know what we're talking about Max, I don't think you needed to do the whole "throw back the point in someones face" routine. kind of unnecessary.

(and yes I've done that kind of thing myself many times before but that is neither here nor there.)

so I think its fair to say while that while people can have more than one skill, they generally aren't equally skilled in all of them, and that if they spend more time on one, they generally will be better at it than one they spend less time on. and that someone who spends MOST of their time doing a thing is going to be much more of a master at it than someone who does it for a couple hours on a weekend.

I may fiddle around with skyrim mods in creation kit here and there but I'm probably not going to be the next EnaiSion anytime soon.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-17, 07:50 PM

Yes, they do learn other sutff. no one is saying they don't.

And no one is saying that every character should learn everything to max mastery, or that there are zero tradeoffs, or that no "normal" was ever better at anything than any "extranormal".

That was kinda the point.

Jakinbandw

2019-07-17, 08:02 PM

And no one is saying that every character should learn everything to max mastery, or that there are zero tradeoffs, or that no "normal" was ever better at anything than any "extranormal".

That was kinda the point.

I'm very confused. :smallconfused:

Is anyone else confused, or am I just too tired to follow along?

Lord Raziere

2019-07-17, 08:09 PM

Karl Aegis

2019-07-17, 08:40 PM

I'm very confused. :smallconfused:

Is anyone else confused, or am I just too tired to follow along?

You're getting the theory of Opportunity Cost thrown at you. It's an accounting/finance thing.

The term "Muggle" specifically refers to one's lineage. No amount of training will change who your parent's parents were. It has nothing to do with capabilities, just how you're perceived in the Wizarding World's society. If your grandparents were muggles, but both your parents were a skilled witch and wizard, you're a muggle. Even if you're one of the top 100 magic users in the setting, pure blood wizards will still refer to you as a muggle.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-17, 08:45 PM

I'm very confused. :smallconfused:

Is anyone else confused, or am I just too tired to follow along?

I to am confused.

Max, this is really unnecessary, we don't know what point your trying to make anymore and it FEELS (keyword here) that your just arguing against for the sake of it rather than engaging honestly. maybe slow down a little, chill out, relax a little?

My position was grossly caricatured.

To convey how horrible that is for the conversation, I grossly caricatured Jakinbandw (and others') position in kind, and then pointed out that I had done so to make it clear I didn't really believe the caricature.

Lord Raziere

2019-07-17, 08:55 PM

My position was grossly caricatured.

To convey how horrible that is for the conversation, I grossly caricatured their position in kind, and then pointed out that I had done so to make it clear I didn't really believe the caricature.

See, I've done that a lot, and let me tell you from experience: that never works. It often flies over peoples head and makes them think I'm just being a jerk for the sake of it. playing the questioning caricature guy to provoke questions and lead people down to the conclusions you want without directly communicating is a thing wannabe-socrates people like me do, not something that actually works to convey the problem that is happening.

while the pointing out part that I don't believe it, is always ignored.

Jakinbandw

2019-07-17, 09:02 PM

My position was grossly caricatured.

To convey how horrible that is for the conversation, I grossly caricatured Jakinbandw (and others') position in kind, and then pointed out that I had done so to make it clear I didn't really believe the caricature.

Being completely honestly I'm not sure how I caricatured you position. I legitimately believed that was the position you were taking. I'm honestly really confused right now what your position is.

Like, if you agree that people have different skills, then I don't even know what your position is.

I legitimately have no idea what you're talking about, what problems you have, or what questions your asking and why you're asking them.

Can you go over your argument from the top so I can understand why you don't like it that people that focus on an area have abilities in that area?

edit: or if I'm misunderstanding even that, go into what your issue actually is?

NichG

2019-07-17, 09:44 PM

Or rather, it's like you think having a superhuman power or a rare ability takes up all your time and prevents you from learning anything else at all, and that there's no such thing as multi-talented individuals, or innate gifts. People who play pro sports have no other interests, no other skills, no other abilities, they're just sport-playing machines. Hackers never learn to paint, mathematicians never learn mountain climbing, master plumbers never take up an instrument or join a band. Cyclops spends all day mastering his optic blasts, he never does anything else... Wolverine spends all day practicing his healing, too. Also, wizards spend all their intellectual capacity on spellcasting, they never study anything else, or take up the sword or the bow to counter all those hours spent sitting or hunched over a lab table... and clerics spend all day praying when they're not out smiting the foes of their faith.

See how that works? It's fun making a stupid caricature out of someone else's position instead of actually engaging with it honestly.

You might have meant this as a caricature, but I think it makes for an entirely reasonable fiction. Most game systems focus on innate greatness - once you have X thing, it's a part of you, its just that you're inherently awesome in that way and we're done questioning it. But it's entirely reasonable to say that the abilities that are really relevant to the narrative don't consist on one-off awesomeness checks, but instead have to do with influences that have been built up over time. All of the 'innate awesomeness' features of the character are then rates of increase of those influences, not flat values.

So in this system, the way being a wizard works is that you have a million different deals going on with a variety of spirits, and if you don't perform the requisite rituals every day at the appropriate times, or do side-jobs fulfilling spirits whims, or things like that - well, your supply of magic is going to be very limited. If you're a politician, your power isn't that you can improvise a brilliantly convincing speech, its that literally you've spent months and years currying favor in that social context - your natural charisma allows favor to accumulate more quickly than someone who was less charismatic, but charisma alone is going to be very underwhelming compared with a politician who has been spending 100% of their free time building a power base. The theoretical physics guru might be able to understand physics and offer off-the-cuff explanations for things, but their real power to advance the story comes from the fact that they have an established lab with students, access to machines and facilities, a network of collaborators, etc that they can actually use to analyze some new phenomenon in a short enough timeframe to be useful. A character with superlative physics knowledge and skill at basketball could exist, but by the time they're getting 'special abilities' its not just about their innate awesomeness, its about how that awesomeness connected them to the surrounding context. Knowing how to paint is one thing, but using your knowledge of how to paint to create an effect that can be mentioned within the same breath as mind control or blowing up a city requires more than just being a good painter - it requires staying immersed in the art community, understanding the current state of culture and the historical contexts of the people you want your painting to influence, getting to know them personally, and then making a piece of artwork that integrates all of these different insights together to have a directed psychological impact against a specific cultural segment or target individual.

(Speaking as a theoretical physicist, its tempting to think you could have an effect on science by sitting at home and working full-bore, then just publishing things randomly on arXiv. In academia, 110% of your time is taken up with things other than doing physics - teaching responsibilities, faculty meetings, grant applications, mentorship, reviewing papers, going to conferences. It's an ongoing problem that the people who are best as physics are Peter-principled into basically becoming middle managers. But scientific impact is actually not carried as much by the initial work or insight as it is by ceaseless promotion of that work at conferences, followup incremental papers, making collaborations with experimental groups to generate separate loci of people using your ideas, and the like. And if the physics you're doing is expensive stuff - particle accelerators, mineral physics at center-of-Earth pressures, large-scale simulation - then that time burned on maintaining academic affiliation can be essential for getting the resources you'd need for that physics knowledge to mean anything at all.

Being someone who is a whiz at physics isn't much of a superpower in the real world. But, it might get you a job that eventually lets you - 10 or 20 years down the line - be in a position to direct billions of dollars of coordinated human effort towards goals and visions that you personally define. And that's definitely a superpower.

If you make a magic system where all someone needs to do is say the right words and twiddle their fingers, you're basically saying 'I want a system that lives in the everyone has magic region of the game space'. If you make a magic system that requires intensive investment and a 'mundane' system where the best results come from intensive investment, then you're saying that you want there to be a dichotomy between supernatural characters and non-supernatural characters.

It's not a property of the individuals, it's a property of their context and how 'high level' effects come about and make sense - what about the environment of that setting allows one to exert true power and influence at scale? If that power can be emplaced solely within yourself, then you'll have characters who just do everything - there's no reason for any character to stay mundane. If that power must be emplaced in built-up structures outside of the self in order to have effects that reach beyond the scale of an individual, then opportunity cost is very real.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-17, 09:46 PM

Being completely honestly I'm not sure how I caricatured you position. I legitimately believed that was the position you were taking. I'm honestly really confused right now what your position is.

Like, if you agree that people have different skills, then I don't even know what your position is.

I legitimately have no idea what you're talking about, what problems you have, or what questions your asking and why you're asking them.

Can you go over your argument from the top so I can understand why you don't like it that people that focus on an area have abilities in that area?

edit: or if I'm misunderstanding even that, go into what your issue actually is?

In order to game-balance "muggles" with "superhumans", it's being suggested that everyday things that anyone can do be given actual write-ups as "not!powers" that are restricted to "muggles" (exactly how depending on the poster).

No actual explanation for these special "muggle skills" being exclusive to "muggles" has been given, other than "to game-balance muggles with superhumans" or "to balance mundane with magic" or similar. No actual reason that the person within the world of the game setting would never learn these interpersonal skills, or to plan ahead, or to have a backup plan, or... whatever.

It's taking everyday literally mundane things that most people can to some degree do, and artificially walling them off as the "powers for the guy with no powers" character class, and offering no explanation as to why one person can do them and the other cannot.

To expand a bit, this discussion seems to be about balance via time investment as in the idea that each character has only so much personal energy and only so many hours in the day to devote to things and therefore hours devoted to 'supernatural powers' can't be devoted to anything else. This can work, in theory, but it faces a bunch of barriers.

First, in a situation like this, learning 'magic' has to mean mastering some sort of esoteric BS that has absolutely zero secondary utility, because if it has secondary utility, then you're letting the 'mages' double count. For example, in Mage: the Ascension, Technocratic characters learn magic through mastering science, so even if you take away Death Ray Master Bob's magical powers, he's still a dude with a PhD in engineering and the smarts to use it. In D&D, wizards represent a lot of their magical learning through skills like Spellcraft and Knowledge: Arcana, which turn out to actually be really useful in their own right in gameplay. So, basically, to do this means imposing some kind of fairly blatant point tax for use of supernatural powers - GURPS has one like this, where you have to buy 'magery' before you can start buying spells. You can do that, but it needs to be carefully built into the mechanics and the fluff, and often it's not. In part because such a time based tax prevents anyone from learning how to use their powers during the story, unless the story unfolds over years.

Second, you have to make sure that the 'magical powers' the characters learn aren't able to secondarily overtop the abilities of those who've spent their time learning how to do things the old fashioned way. This is hard to do both mechanically and in the fluff. For example, Star Wars Saga Edition tried to do this, the Jedi class got the least skill points and they had to dump a lot of them into 'Use the Force' in order to use their force powers, unfortunately they then added a bunch of Force Powers that either totally overlapped with existing skills, or they provided feats that allowed characters to roll Use the Force in place of a different skill like Perception. This is really hard to do right, especially the more powerful the mystical abilities become since they have an ever-growing tendency to simply erase non-mystic challenges from the board - the Hulk, for instance, need not worry about picking locks as there is no door in the universe he cannot punch through.

Ultimately this method of balance works only for specific kinds of games where the 'magic' is low in power and deals with highly esoteric things. It probably works best for 'religious magic' type games wherein all magical powers involve mastering some sort complex ritual forms in order to produce fairly limited effects. This is roughly ASOIAF level magic. Anything more than that and it starts to break down fast.

As you touch on, it gets even stickier if the character's extranormal abilities have a foundation of being massively educated (formal and/or self), or massively charming, or... whatever.

Is the wizard supposed to just lose the effect of their 18 INT as soon as the subject isn't spellcasting?

(Speaking as a theoretical physicist, its tempting to think you could have an effect on science by sitting at home and working full-bore, then just publishing things randomly on arXiv. In academia, 110% of your time is taken up with things other than doing physics - teaching responsibilities, faculty meetings, grant applications, mentorship, reviewing papers, going to conferences. It's an ongoing problem that the people who are best as physics are Peter-principled into basically becoming middle managers. But scientific impact is actually not carried as much by the initial work or insight as it is by ceaseless promotion of that work at conferences, followup incremental papers, making collaborations with experimental groups to generate separate loci of people using your ideas, and the like. And if the physics you're doing is expensive stuff - particle accelerators, mineral physics at center-of-Earth pressures, large-scale simulation - then that time burned on maintaining academic affiliation can be essential for getting the resources you'd need for that physics knowledge to mean anything at all.

Being someone who is a whiz at physics isn't much of a superpower in the real world. But, it might get you a job that eventually lets you - 10 or 20 years down the line - be in a position to direct billions of dollars of coordinated human effort towards goals and visions that you personally define. And that's definitely a superpower.

To narrow in on this... in an RPG of the sort that's apparently being suggested in some posts in this thread, being a world-class physicist would that character's "one main power", everything else, they're just not so good at, because "balance".

Only, to actually be an effective world-class physicist, with perhaps a brilliant combination of imagination and mathematical skill... as you note, there are all these other seemingly unrelated interpersonal and administrative and organizational abilities, along with dogged determination to the point of near-superhuman stubbornness sometimes, that one must possess or self-cultivate.

Jakinbandw

2019-07-17, 11:17 PM

In order to game-balance "muggles" with "superhumans", it's being suggested that everyday things that anyone can do be given actual write-ups as "not!powers" that are restricted to "muggles" (exactly how depending on the poster).
Ah! I think you're confused. I never suggested that and noone else I'm aware of in this thread has suggested that either.

No actual explanation for these special "muggle skills" being exclusive to "muggles" has been given, other than "to game-balance muggles with superhumans" or "to balance mundane with magic" or similar. No actual reason that the person within the world of the game setting would never learn these interpersonal skills, or to plan ahead, or to have a backup plan, or... whatever.

I mean, people have given you answers. Like I'm not sure why you're saying they haven't. Here are a few from the last couple pages:

A 10-year-old who's learned the rules to Chess can, in theory, make all of the same moves that full-grown Bobby Fisher would have in a match Mr. Fisher wins against a grandmaster. But in practice, the 10-year-old wouldn't know to make those moves, and probably thus doesn't beat a grandmaster.

What makes a "muggle" better at, say, contingency plans than a "non-muggle" (if, in fact, that is something he is better at than a "non-muggle") is that he's trained and refined his skills at designing them, and all the other ancillary things that go into making them effective, and the "non-muggle" has (instead) spent the same resources (time, training, money, mental energy, etc.) into his "non-muggle" powers.

To expand a bit, this discussion seems to be about balance via time investment as in the idea that each character has only so much personal energy and only so many hours in the day to devote to things and therefore hours devoted to 'supernatural powers' can't be devoted to anything else.

The guy without superpowers gets hacking because instead of going out and fighting super villains and learning how to throw punches instead he spends that time learning how to use computers.

It's taking everyday literally mundane things that most people can to some degree do, and artificially walling them off as the "powers for the guy with no powers" character class, and offering no explanation as to why one person can do them and the other cannot.

This is a strawman. Noone has suggested taking things anyone can do and walling them off. People have explained why that someone that has spent their life studying physics is better at physics than someone that hasn't. Every single thing you said in this quote is false.

NichG

2019-07-17, 11:49 PM

To narrow in on this... in an RPG of the sort that's apparently being suggested in some posts in this thread, being a world-class physicist would that character's "one main power", everything else, they're just not so good at, because "balance".

Only, to actually be an effective world-class physicist, with perhaps a brilliant combination of imagination and mathematical skill... as you note, there are all these other seemingly unrelated interpersonal and administrative and organizational abilities, along with dogged determination to the point of near-superhuman stubbornness sometimes, that one must possess or self-cultivate.

To be more concrete, I'm advocating separating one's potential from one's development, and making particular powers and abilities derive from the second rather than the first. A character's potential would then represent the rate at which they can grow their corresponding development and essentially retool their career and habits to be appropriate to that activity.

So your wizard with 18 Intelligence would have great potential as a career physicist, a mage, an author, an accountant, etc. In any of those areas, they can advance their career faster than someone with a 14 Intelligence could. However, the big multiplier on power is time, and building up the head of steam to cast 5th level spells takes 20 years of full-time work even for someone with 18 Intelligence, while building up the credentials to even be eligible to be considered to receive a 100 million dollar grant requires 20 years of full-time work (much of it, not even involving physics) even for a brilliant world-class physicist. So in the end, while in theory the same character had the potential to do either, in practice they're only going to have the resources to do one - even if they're literally the top person in the world in both fields when it comes to potential.

To be fair, this describes a system that would severely punish characters that decided to drop everything and go on wacky adventures. Adventuring has to strictly be a weekend hobby at most in such a game, and people who become 'full-time adventurers' are likely to be weaker in all ways that people who never go on adventures. This is actually IMO more realistic (in the sense of being closer to the way power and agency work in the real world), but it's only well-suited to particular types of tabletop gaming conceits.

Quertus

2019-07-17, 11:50 PM

In HERO, there are skills and stuff that every character gets, just because they're from a culture or society in the setting. Every character. They are literally called "Everyman Skills".

And in Champions (the Superheroic genre focus of HERO), the 1000 point omega-class superhuman... if they're from that background... then they get them too. For free. Just like everyone else. Just like the guy on the street with 25 points or less.

You're not talking about special "muggle" abilities that non-"muggles" don't get... you're talking about "everyman" abilities in that setting, and then cranking them up a few notches as if being a "muggle" gives you supercharged "everyman" stuff.

Everyone gets "balance bank account". But this guy without superpowers gets it at +5... and the only reason he gets it is because he doesn't have superpowers?

I think I see the disconnect. He's getting them because he's Conan, he's Batman, he's the guy who has mastered many mundane arts. This isn't "Everyman skills", this is simply some of what I believe a superlative Muggle can accomplish. In 3e terms, it's the gestalt Fighter/Rogue (not that they're truly mundane, of course), not the zero-level peasant.

So, me writing towards a "Muggle" class is me saying, "what would a truly Mundane class look like, if I wrote it?". This is not "what muggles get", this is a class of strictly Muggle power, to work alongside magical classes.

Saying that GMs need to be better isn't an answer. It needs to be run by GMs that actually exist.

Cars need to be driven be people that actually exist. That's not a reason to let babies drive. Or a reason to believe that one's skills are "good enough" / couldn't be better.

I mean, that's even more retroactive than I thought. Since you do this whenever you take an action, this means that you are conjuring kryptonite bullets out of nothing in the middle of combat.

"I'm going to shoot so and so, and if superman shows up I have kryptonite bullets"

"Where were you carrying them? We lost all our stuff?"

"um... I found some in that pack over there!"

I don't have a problem with retcons, but you have to be aware that what you are suggesting is a retcon ability man!

Huh. Again, not sure how the whole equipment / wealth portions of your system work. But - like everything I wrote - this would tie into "tap the necessary resources", "use this ability only where appropriate goods / services can be purchased", etc.

That said, what's available to everyone is not the same as what's available to the resourceful Muggle.

And, just like IRL, 2 people hired for the same job are not always paid the same.

Again, you're doing this as an action in combat. Declaring that you've already done something in the past that will effect the present. That's a retcon.

Fair. I've been having a little trouble with the granularity of your actions.

It's not "doing something in the past", it's action economy on the "plan plus free related contingency" level. So, at the combat level, it's more like, "I open the door, and am prepared to avert my eyes if it's a Medusa" or "I full defense against his attack, and am prepared to quick-mount if a suitable mount runs past" or "I climb the cliff, and am prepared to grab the cliff face should the rope break / be cut" or "I fire my bow, and am prepared to step off the cliff if the enemy shoots back at me" or the like.

I mean, I can only respond to what you wrote. If it only works if everything is still around, based on what you said, it's basically just getting an extra action, which is... Okay? you spend an action ahead of time to get a chance to have an action later on? Like I'd rate that down at mortal tier, or as a weak heroic gift with a rider to give it some more use. Why use it over just having the ability to take

Yeah, I can see this being pretty weak most of the time. But, sometimes, the action matters more later than it does now. But this move is closer to how I'd simplify to model things like hiring an assassin, hiring guards, setting traps, etc - you spend the effort now, to get the reward later

I see where you're coming from, but it is still weird. Like say a caravan can only afford to spend 20 gp on a guard. Muggle shows up and suddenly they now have 40 gp. It's why it falls under under the retcon ability for me. It's an ability that alters the established world.

It's simple haggling. If they don't have the coin now, they'll figure something out, because they realize that the Muggle is worth it. Maybe they'll fire a costar to pay the Muggle the extra 8 million.

Because you are literally taking an action to alter how events played out. If this was written so that you're underling always maintained things, and you didn't need to tell them to do it, that would be one thing, but you're deciding after the fact to have this policy in place.

No. By taking this trait, you are the type of manager who has those policies (and those underlying structures) in place. So, you send Vinnie to go lean on the police chief in your stead because, thanks to this trait, you've set things up where he can (probably) maintain your grip on the city for you, for a while, at least, if your attention is needed elsewhere.

Taking this trait says that your empire doesn't immediately fall apart without you.

To put it another way, lets say you were at home, and enjoying yourself. You manager was sick and couldn't make it to work, or contact you. She can then take an action and suddenly you're at work taking over for her. Time has changed to move you from your house, to being at work. If you don't consider that a retcon, then non of my abilities in the noble word are retcons, and none of my wealth abilities are retcons either.

You could rewrite it to make it not a retcon, but at that point it looses most of it's usefulness as anyone could easily do it through roleplay.

Muggle abilities… of course anyone could do them - that's the point! But only someone who has the cunning, who has taken this trait, can set things up to be this easy, to work this well.

Try to take over for the Mage dominating the police chief, or the Shapeshifter imitating him? Good luck. Your rolls are much harder, if it's even possible. But Vinnie has no (or little) trouble taking over for the Muggle boss… for a short time, at least.

Sure, Vinnie may be at home when I call him, but he's got me covered this week. He doesn't need to magically teleport to make that happen.

I think we disagree on what we call retcons. Going by your examples none of the abilities I have written are retcon abilities. Assuming we have different terminology, it's quite possible we agree and just use different language for it.

The player chooses at the time what they are doing, not what they have done. That's what makes it not a retcon. My abilities are all intended to be present-based (just worded poorly due to lack tie-ins to wealth, assets/resources/objects, etc). Whereas yours tend towards "my character is smart, so he did this in the past".

Lord Raziere

2019-07-18, 12:01 AM

To narrow in on this... in an RPG of the sort that's apparently being suggested in some posts in this thread, being a world-class physicist would that character's "one main power", everything else, they're just not so good at, because "balance".

Only, to actually be an effective world-class physicist, with perhaps a brilliant combination of imagination and mathematical skill... as you note, there are all these other seemingly unrelated interpersonal and administrative and organizational abilities, along with dogged determination to the point of near-superhuman stubbornness sometimes, that one must possess or self-cultivate.

which is why at some point, you delegate all that into background/merit stuff that is only relevant to the game when it needs to be, or just say they are super-scientist/mad scientist and ignore it.

at some point you got to abstract this stuff out, and some people aren't going to sit through someone elses insistence on roleplaying bureaucracy when they can be doing stuff more interesting to them. there is a reason why most people don't focus on that sort of thing and only mentions it as "paperwork" that people complain about. because 99% of the time, its too long term and boring to ever be important to what people are doing.

its just apart of the ttrpg reality, things are going to be abstracted out to save time and keep things fun rather than get into nitty-gritty that most people do not find interesting or fun, and the mad scientist archetype is more relevant to game settings than actual scientists, and the ideal of a non-magical pulp hero being able to go toe to toe with the supernatural is more important than some reality of mundane people and how their lives are, because its the players that matter most at the end of the day and the setting is just there to entertain them in various ways and if you don't provide enough power for them to be relevant in it, you don't have one people will play unless your playing horror.

your ideals are admirable, I just don't see them working outside of specific groups that really care about the same things you do Max. thats not a negative or anything, thats just the nature of the beast. there are just people you will never reach and you would never WANT to reach, because they will never desire the same thing as you, I'm not trying to caricaturize your position or anything, I'm just at a loss to what could possibly be going through your mind as to be so stubborn about it, because I feel like I'm speaking some pretty common sense stuff now and getting nothing but more of standing your ground on what your trying to say without any progress as to whether your acknowledging the realities of running groups and gaming with people you don't always agree with or making concessions or compromises to playstyles that aren't your own. so what is it that your trying to say that is so important, because I don't see what it is that you'd dig your heels on this so much to be so stubborn.
thats where I'm at right now.

Mechalich

2019-07-18, 12:21 AM

To be more concrete, I'm advocating separating one's potential from one's development, and making particular powers and abilities derive from the second rather than the first. A character's potential would then represent the rate at which they can grow their corresponding development and essentially retool their career and habits to be appropriate to that activity.

So your wizard with 18 Intelligence would have great potential as a career physicist, a mage, an author, an accountant, etc. In any of those areas, they can advance their career faster than someone with a 14 Intelligence could. However, the big multiplier on power is time, and building up the head of steam to cast 5th level spells takes 20 years of full-time work even for someone with 18 Intelligence, while building up the credentials to even be eligible to be considered to receive a 100 million dollar grant requires 20 years of full-time work (much of it, not even involving physics) even for a brilliant world-class physicist. So in the end, while in theory the same character had the potential to do either, in practice they're only going to have the resources to do one - even if they're literally the top person in the world in both fields when it comes to potential.

There's a mechanical issue here in that in order for this sort of balancing to work a character's abilities have to be almost entirely 'skills' rather than innate 'stats' otherwise there's an imbalance because advancing stats might well boost dozens of tests at once while advancing skills only boosts one at a time. You also have to make sure that the outputs of 'being a physicist' and 'being a wizard' end up being roughly equal, which is tricky, especially given how many games struggle with balancing something as seemingly common as 'being a physicist' with 'being a biologist' - the latter often being better because it tends to provide benefits in the form of medicine that other scientists don't get (computer science is another field of study that usually gets ancillary bonuses). This tends to circle back towards a class-based approach wherein you only allow characters to assemble packages that would ultimately be useful for the type of game you're going to run.

It's particularly difficult to handle the fluff for this. A D&D style wizard, for example, is intended to be both powerful and wise - they cast spells but they also know many things, that's the fantasy archetype and it's difficult to break. Even in a setting where there is a lot of justification for mystical training to involve a lot of Zen-style meditation while staring at the wall like Star Wars the fluff tends to be full of ways to convert Jedi Powers into useful practical skills - enhanced reflexes augmenting piloting, to note one that happens to be blatant in the films themselves. To make this work requires some pretty precise tuning of the magic system.

To be fair, this describes a system that would severely punish characters that decided to drop everything and go on wacky adventures. Adventuring has to strictly be a weekend hobby at most in such a game, and people who become 'full-time adventurers' are likely to be weaker in all ways that people who never go on adventures. This is actually IMO more realistic (in the sense of being closer to the way power and agency work in the real world), but it's only well-suited to particular types of tabletop gaming conceits.

This sort of balancing measure works best for systems where the lion's share of a character's abilities will be decided at chargen and there will be only modest changes and advancements thereafter. It's much less effective in zero-to-hero systems. Plenty of games are built this way, and it's actually much more common in systems that are set at modern or futuristic technology levels wherein specialized knowledge is far more likely to actually matter to the story.

Quertus

2019-07-18, 12:26 AM

In order to game-balance "muggles" with "superhumans", it's being suggested that everyday things that anyone can do be given actual write-ups as "not!powers" that are restricted to "muggles" (exactly how depending on the poster).

No actual explanation for these special "muggle skills" being exclusive to "muggles" has been given, other than "to game-balance muggles with superhumans" or "to balance mundane with magic" or similar. No actual reason that the person within the world of the game setting would never learn these interpersonal skills, or to plan ahead, or to have a backup plan, or... whatever.

It's taking everyday literally mundane things that most people can to some degree do, and artificially walling them off as the "powers for the guy with no powers" character class, and offering no explanation as to why one person can do them and the other cannot.

That description misses my point / is an unintended caricature.

My Muggle write-ups… sure, anyone could take an action to make a contingency plan; the Muggle who takes this trait is just so used to doing so, they get one for free with every action. Sure, anyone could attack with a weapon, but the Muggle who takes this trait can attack faster, and more effectively. Sure, anyone can watch what they eat, boost their immune system, and be healthier, but the Muggle who took this trait gets Advantage on all such rolls, without taking any specific actions, because they do so by habit, and they have learned and pay attention to their body's signs (a surprisingly rare skill IRL, IME) take zinc lozenges and Emergent C at the first sign of a cold, whatever.

Yes, anyone could do this. Anyone could spend their actions becoming an Olympic athlete or famous novelist or a billionaire. The Muggle who takes these traits "gets it", and does these things with much greater ease, without having to think about it.

The individual mundane actions are not exclusive to muggles, but class features of the Muggle class represent someone that is more efficient with using their time (surely you've seen people who succeed, and those who fail at that IRL, right?), more skilled at combat, more skilled at finance, or whatever Muggle pursuits it trains at. Call it the "training" class, or the "aptitude" class, or the "Sherlock" class - whatever Muggle "power source" you happen to believe in. I'm not particularly interested in debating why some people can make massive fortunes on multiple successful endeavors, or why some people write much better code than others, or why some people have much greater mastery of chess or sports or driving or combat than others. I don't want to discuss Bruce Lee's special sauce.

I am merely stating that it is believable that some people *are* better in those arenas than the average individual; this is a class for those people, for Conan or Batman to be playable through a(n unbelievable) collection of believable abilities.

Or, given the Tristalt system, also for Wizards and gods who happen to be more… worldly, more mundane… than most of their fellows.

NichG

2019-07-18, 12:48 AM

There's a mechanical issue here in that in order for this sort of balancing to work a character's abilities have to be almost entirely 'skills' rather than innate 'stats' otherwise there's an imbalance because advancing stats might well boost dozens of tests at once while advancing skills only boosts one at a time. You also have to make sure that the outputs of 'being a physicist' and 'being a wizard' end up being roughly equal, which is tricky, especially given how many games struggle with balancing something as seemingly common as 'being a physicist' with 'being a biologist' - the latter often being better because it tends to provide benefits in the form of medicine that other scientists don't get (computer science is another field of study that usually gets ancillary bonuses). This tends to circle back towards a class-based approach wherein you only allow characters to assemble packages that would ultimately be useful for the type of game you're going to run.

It's particularly difficult to handle the fluff for this. A D&D style wizard, for example, is intended to be both powerful and wise - they cast spells but they also know many things, that's the fantasy archetype and it's difficult to break. Even in a setting where there is a lot of justification for mystical training to involve a lot of Zen-style meditation while staring at the wall like Star Wars the fluff tends to be full of ways to convert Jedi Powers into useful practical skills - enhanced reflexes augmenting piloting, to note one that happens to be blatant in the films themselves. To make this work requires some pretty precise tuning of the magic system.

I think you have to go all-in on the concept, and de-emphasize the idea that you gain a metagame currency and spend it to obtain permanent modifications of your abilities. Rather, almost all character advancement should be tied to how in-character resources are allocated from week to week. A character pursuing a path would generally follow a kind of sigmoid curve in their agency deriving from that path - initially, they only gain personal benefits; then, when they become 'competitive' with regards to the average level of development around them in their context, they start to gain access to resources external to themselves; then, when they're far enough ahead of the curve, on average they lose as much development to decay per day as they gain through maintenance activities. Characters with different values of the relevant statistics would cap out at slightly different levels, but a super-high statistic in one thing would be more important in that it frees up extra time to pursue a secondary path, than in that it makes them that much better in the primary path (due to the sigmoidal payout curve).

In such a system, there would be no explicit XP mechanic at all, and characters would have no 'innate' advancement mechanism, period. You might play with certain stages along a path giving some growth of potential in related areas to represent synergies, but that should still be conditional on maintaining a certain level in your path. Alternately, you could have a hierarchical or nested system for paths, where there are some broad categories that you advance by having any sub-category sufficiently advanced. E.g. advacing as a physicist, biologist, computer scientist, neuroscientist, etc all advance your credentials as a 'Scientist' and get you some generic 'Scientist' abilities.

The question then is, where are build choices in such a system? If we go with a hierarchical structure, it makes sense to me that this would be achieved via specialization. Maybe you start by growing your Scientist path, and then at a certain breakpoint you can move all of that into a specific field as a sub-path. You could even get a more zero-to-hero kind of curve if, as long as you maintain a non-zero rating within a sub-path, you can maintain the maximum rating in your super-path with no decay.

So for example, as a generic Scientist you gain Int score per month of invested full-time labor on the Scientist Track, but also lose 10\% of your current rating each month as well. Lets say the 'sufficient' Int for a Scientist is 15 - basically, people with below that Int can't really succeed in this path (but, if they worked more than full-time, they might be able to regardless). Then, once you hit a rating of 150, you unlock your sub-field, which starts at lets say 15 points.

At this point, your sub-field starts at zero but you've got a locked in 150 points of Scientist that don't decay as long as you maintain your subfield above that initial value of 15 points. You gain your Int rating each month in the subfield, but the decay is now 20% per month, so that Int 15 character will go stagnant around a score 75. If someone manages to hit 100 in their sub-field, they might unlock a choice of mastery - some particular aspect of their sub-field that they are a world-renowned expert in - and the cycle repeats, getting harder (or not) each time.

So then your character choices could be, e.g., go Scientist and once you get a sub-field, start studying magic but put in just enough time to maintain a 15 in your sub-field (which would correspond to roughly 20% of your maintenance activities). By changing the % decay, initial threshold, and final thresholds of these nested paths, you could model a wide variety of effort/advancement/maintenance curves.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-18, 09:15 AM

I think I see the disconnect. He's getting them because he's Conan, he's Batman, he's the guy who has mastered many mundane arts. This isn't "Everyman skills", this is simply some of what I believe a superlative Muggle can accomplish. In 3e terms, it's the gestalt Fighter/Rogue (not that they're truly mundane, of course), not the zero-level peasant.

So, me writing towards a "Muggle" class is me saying, "what would a truly Mundane class look like, if I wrote it?". This is not "what muggles get", this is a class of strictly Muggle power, to work alongside magical classes.

And I see this effort caught between two failure points, with little to no middle ground where it works. Either...

1) You're taking things anyone can do and making them "the muggle stuff", walling them off in a way that makes Send A Strongly Worded Complaint a level X "muggle class power", and telling "non-muggles" that they can't send a strongly worded complaint, because they don't have that "power". And that is certainly how some of the suggestions in this thread have read so far, at least to me. You even just said "this is a class of strictly muggle power"... if it's strictly muggle powers, doesn't that mean non-muggles can't do the things that you've made into muggle powers?

-or-

2) You're giving "the muggle class" a souped-up version of these abilities, to the point where they become "not!superpowers" in order to balance with the "not muggles" superpowers, such that "have a backup plan" threatens to become a retroactive continuity supernatural power, for example, and regardless of what you call the class, they're not really a "muggle" any more. (Thus the old snark, "Magic is as magic does" -- it doesn't matter how doggedly someone insists that their character isn't extranormal, if they do things that are effectively extranormal, then they, the character, are extranormal. Or as Segev said up thread, "To put it a bit cheekily: if your only superpower is "being Batman," you still have a superpower.")

Segev

2019-07-18, 09:42 AM

Anybody can learn to pick a lock. 3e Rogues have more skill points to invest in it and still do other things. 5e Rogues have Expertise, giving them twice their proficiency bonus to it. This is a "muggle" skill; rogues just spend the time wizards and sorcerers spent mastering mystical mojo to practice puissant purloinment.

Anybody can write a strongely worded letter. A wizard can cast a spell so that only the intended target perceives the strongly worded letter as what it actually is; everybody else sees it as a billet of vacation photos and photos of his grandkids. A member of the Mark Twain class can use his "Biting Wit" class feature to make a publically posted strongly worded letter which causes people who aren't already Friendly to the target it excoriates have a default reaction of "hostile," whether due to utter mocking scorn or extreme outrage.

Anybody can buy a plane ticket. Superman can choose to fly under his own power. Lex Luthor can use his "money is no object" trait to automatically upgrade himself and all his friends to the best class the airline offers and to get the flight at a moment's notice, or just to have a personal corporate jet to transport himself and his allies to the destination at their convenience and in comfort.

Anybody can ask around for information. The Correspondence Mage can try to scry it out. The Mind Mage can try to read minds until he finds it. The Forces Mage who spent less on his Spheres and stuff but spent points on Contacts can reach out to his network and find people who know what he wants more easily.

Willie the Duck

2019-07-18, 10:16 AM

1) You're taking things anyone can do and making them "the muggle stuff", walling them off in a way that makes Send A Strongly Worded Complaint a level X "muggle class power", and telling "non-muggles" that they can't send a strongly worded complaint, because they don't have that "power". And that is certainly how some of the suggestions in this thread have read so far, at least to me.

This, I believe, is the primary issue of contention. Other people do not think that this is what has been suggested. I'm sure there are some snippets of statements that might suggest it, but I don't think anyone other than you thinks that that is what has been predominantly suggested. If you want to find some of those statements so that the rest of us can judge for ourselves how reasonable we think it is that you ended up with this impression, I for one would appreciate it. Regardless, continuing to attempt to defeat this point, if not defeating a strawman, certain is defeating a point no one else thinks they were making, and certainly don't consider their position.

You even just said "this is a class of strictly muggle power"... if it's strictly muggle powers, doesn't that mean non-muggles can't do the things that you've made into muggle powers?

No. Why would it? It means that this class strictly uses muggle powers and no others, not that other classes (potentially 'non-muggles') can't use said powers. His statement imposes a restriction on the muggle and no one else. It is unclear how it could be read to impose a restriction on other classes.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-18, 10:27 AM

This, I believe, is the primary issue of contention. Other people do not think that this is what has been suggested. I'm sure there are some snippets of statements that might suggest it, but I don't think anyone other than you thinks that that is what has been predominantly suggested. If you want to find some of those statements so that the rest of us can judge for ourselves how reasonable we think it is that you ended up with this impression, I for one would appreciate it. Regardless, continuing to attempt to defeat this point, if not defeating a strawman, certain is defeating a point no one else thinks they were making, and certainly don't consider their position.

No. Why would it? It means that this class strictly uses muggle powers and no others, not that other classes (potentially 'non-muggles') can't use said powers. His statement imposes a restriction on the muggle and no one else. It is unclear how it could be read to impose a restriction on other classes.

You're reading it as "a class strictly made of muggle powers"... my reading was "a class made of powers that are strictly for muggles".

See also "dragon fighter"... is that a fighter who is a dragon, or a fighter who fights dragons?

Willie the Duck

2019-07-18, 10:37 AM

You're reading it as "a class strictly made of muggle powers"... my reading was "a class made of powers that are strictly for muggles".

See also "dragon fighter"... is that a fighter who is a dragon, or a fighter who fights dragons?

And you do not see why this might mean you are thoroughly skewering points people aren't trying to make?

EDIT: and, as I said before, if you want to include some of the other posts that have lead you to your conclusions on other person's arguments, the rest of us can determine how reasonable we find the interpretation.

Segev

2019-07-18, 10:48 AM

You're reading it as "a class strictly made of muggle powers"... my reading was "a class made of powers that are strictly for muggles".

See also "dragon fighter"... is that a fighter who is a dragon, or a fighter who fights dragons?

Not to mention the possibility of a dragon fighter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Pilot:_Hisone_and_Masotan#/media/File:Hisone_to_Masotan_First_Visual.jpg

In case the image isn't coming through, here's a direct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Pilot:_Hisone_and_Masotan#/media/File:Hisone_to_Masotan_First_Visual.jpg

Morty

2019-07-18, 10:57 AM

A lot of this back and forth could've been avoided if the defining fantasy RPG of the past few decades hadn't strenuously avoided asking, much less answering, any of these questions.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-18, 11:09 AM

And you do not see why this might mean you are thoroughly skewering points people aren't trying to make?

I just agreed that in retrospect my reading was not the only reasonable reading -- but to be clear, yes, given that your reading is just as reasonable, I could well have been trying to refute a somewhat or even entirely different point than some posters were attempting to make.

EDIT: and, as I said before, if you want to include some of the other posts that have lead you to your conclusions on other person's arguments, the rest of us can determine how reasonable we find the interpretation.

I'm at work, so my time available to trawl through the thread for the examples is limited to between inventory and transportation history reports today, so I have to ask for your patience on that.

Not to mention the possibility of a dragon fighter:

In case the image isn't coming through, here's a direct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Pilot:_Hisone_and_Masotan#/media/File:Hisone_to_Masotan_First_Visual.jpg

Or this:

The Saab 35 Draken:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/AIRPOWER16_-_Air_to_Air_SK35C_Draken_%28color%29.jpg/300px-AIRPOWER16_-_Air_to_Air_SK35C_Draken_%28color%29.jpg

Segev

2019-07-18, 12:20 PM

A lot of this back and forth could've been avoided if the defining fantasy RPG of the past few decades hadn't strenuously avoided asking, much less answering, any of these questions.

I don't notice any strain on D&D's part to avoid asking or answering it. D&D has its answers, in most editions, in definitions it uses. 3e explicitly spelled out (Ex) vs (Sp) vs (Su) vs spellcasting, and all but the first are negated by AMFs. Anything that isn't said to be one of the latter is generally the first, too, so the bar for "extraordinary" is pretty low and deliberately blurs with "ordinary," I believe, to the point that anything not a core action in the rules (i.e. basic attacking and maneuvers like grapple, skill use, and movement) is an (Ex) ability.

In 5e, they apparently have a fig leaf somewhere about how everything uses ambient magic to some degree or another.

Since D&D tends to also be a posterboy for the "quadratic wizard/linear fighter" problem, which is a different framing of the usual debate in magic v. mundane, I'd say it's safe to say that the way to frame this debate for D&D is actually in "spellcasters vs. nonspellcasters."

Mechalich

2019-07-18, 12:49 PM

Segev

2019-07-18, 12:53 PM

The problem D&D has is that, while the mechanics provision for this sort of thing, they aren't reflected in the world-building and there's a massive disconnect between the rules and the fluff. If you read D&D fiction you fight that characters designed to represent non-magical classes really are just guys at the gym with some magical gear and maybe a minor trick or two and they simply don't impact the game world in the same fashion as wizards at all, and that's with the remarkably low-op 2e style wizards presented in most D&D fiction. As a result, D&D only works when you play it within a dungeon-shaped box (ideally a literal box to avoid issues with flight, extended range, and so on), and the verisimilitude shatters the minute you try to do anything else with it. And, throughout all of this time, the people running D&D have consistently claimed that this is not true.

Eh... that's because it isn't. I mean, the seeds of what you're saying are there, but you exaggerate the problem. And, again, this remains a "spellcasters vs. nonspellcasters" issue more than a "magic vs. mundane" issue. I do agree that D&D fiction-writers need to be more willing to be inspired by Samson and He-Man when writing D&D fictional "mundanes," but it is there.

I also think that there's an extremely distorted view that assumes high-level characters are far more common than they are when people say the worldbuilding doesn't reflect it. There ARE problems with the worldbuilding, a lot of the time, but that's rarely the biggest one nor as big as people make it out to be. The Tippyverse relies on every city-state having at least one, preferably dozens, of 17th-ish level casters. The numbers of characters, casters or otherwise, who are even 15th level are probably vanishingly small in most settings.

Man_Over_Game

2019-07-18, 12:56 PM

The problem D&D has is that, while the mechanics provision for this sort of thing, they aren't reflected in the world-building and there's a massive disconnect between the rules and the fluff. If you read D&D fiction you fight that characters designed to represent non-magical classes really are just guys at the gym with some magical gear and maybe a minor trick or two and they simply don't impact the game world in the same fashion as wizards at all, and that's with the remarkably low-op 2e style wizards presented in most D&D fiction. As a result, D&D only works when you play it within a dungeon-shaped box (ideally a literal box to avoid issues with flight, extended range, and so on), and the verisimilitude shatters the minute you try to do anything else with it. And, throughout all of this time, the people running D&D have consistently claimed that this is not true.

What's funny about that is that there IS one edition that didn't have those problems:

4th edition.

And it was so different from what people expected from DnD that it was universally hated (mostly by people who never played it) and became the laughingstock of the community. 10 years later, and people still snicker when I bring it up.

For some reason, people like the mundane fighter with few options, to contrast against the wizard that can solve any problem.

The reality is, 5e is the world's most popular tabletop game, and it's not that different from 4e (5e also uses Short Rest and Long Rest powers, with emphasis on short-term decision making vs. long-term preparation). Yet, 5e is more of the same, and 4e tried to be its own game. So, for whatever the reason is, people like the differences between fighters and wizards, if maybe only because it's familiar.

Segev

2019-07-18, 01:01 PM

What's funny about that is that there IS one edition that didn't have those problems:

4th edition.

And it was so different from what people expected from DnD that it was universally hated (mostly by people who never played it) and became the laughingstock of the community. 10 years later, and people still snicker when I bring it up.

For some reason, people like the mundane fighter with few options, to contrast against the wizard that can solve any problem.

4e was, indeed, quite balanced, and avoided this problem. However, the trouble is how it accomplished this: fighters and wizards were both what 3e would term "martial adepts." Everything in 4e was. Sure, there's a little variance in how this manifests, and they chose what maneuvers to give each class to give them different battlefield roles, but every class felt the same.

This may not have been a problem in a wholly new system. It might even have been praised as an ingenious way of doing classes. But when it tried to claim to be D&D....

Well, the best description I've heard, in my opinion, puts it roughly this way: "4e is a perfectly fine and well balanced fantasy combat RPG that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike D&D."

In reality, 5e does a pretty good job of striking a balance. The main offender of "quadratic wizard" tends to be that prepared 5e casters still have a lot more versatility and can cherry-pick day-to-day to have the right power for the day, while non-casters are stuck with their build choices every day. And 9th level spells are at least as powerful as other classes' capstone abilities.

Jakinbandw

2019-07-18, 01:17 PM

Man_Over_Game

2019-07-18, 01:22 PM

4e was, indeed, quite balanced, and avoided this problem. However, the trouble is how it accomplished this: fighters and wizards were both what 3e would term "martial adepts." Everything in 4e was. Sure, there's a little variance in how this manifests, and they chose what maneuvers to give each class to give them different battlefield roles, but every class felt the same.

That's kinda the problem with this debate, hell, this whole thread, isn't it?

If things are different, someone's going to be able to stand above someone else. If things are balanced, things feel the grey and all the same.

See, the thing about 4e classes is that they didn't really all feel the same when you compared them to each other. They only felt the same when you compared them to other editions of DnD. You don't really hear people complaining in 4e about the fact that a Ardent can punch things to make a black hole as a Long Rest feature, but a Wizard can also create a black hole with slightly different mechanics. Nobody cared, except the people who looked in from the outside.

There is a third option, though: Being balanced by being overpowered. Effectively the Rock-Paper-Scissors solution, kinda like how Rifts has a very delicate balance of bazookas, magic, and indestructible robots.
Everything is inherently weak to something else and doesn't stand a chance against that one thing. But the one thing you can do, oh boy, does it tear things up when it's relevant.

This creates "Balance" (That is, everyone is in the same circumstance), yet it's also very colorful with a lot of contracts (a magic-user definitely plays differently than a cyborg, and solves different problems).

Wash out those differences a bit, and you end up with 4e. Try to make it so that the differences are towards specific playstyles, and you end up with 3.5/5e. You gotta sacrifice something.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-18, 01:25 PM

What about things that not everyone can do that aren't super powers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko_TWxRjxqM

Can you do the things done in this video in real life? If not, that's something that would fall into a third category. Something that not everyone can do, but is not a super power.

Also, have you considered that some people want to play batman?

Does being able to do some of those things actually balance a character with someone who can do things that are extravagantly extranormal? (As for me, all I can think watching it is "Ow, my knees", because I have bad knees that would hurt A LOT on the harder landings.) I'd consider what's shown in that video at the high end of "normal" because it's being done by a real person in the real world, where there is no "extranormal" -- the real world is missing that part of the scale, because there ain't no "magic" here.

Have you considered that (in settings using real-world-like scales and limits) Batman and similar are extranormal? Despite all protestations to the contrary, I mean.

Morty

2019-07-18, 01:35 PM

I don't notice any strain on D&D's part to avoid asking or answering it. D&D has its answers, in most editions, in definitions it uses. 3e explicitly spelled out (Ex) vs (Sp) vs (Su) vs spellcasting, and all but the first are negated by AMFs. Anything that isn't said to be one of the latter is generally the first, too, so the bar for "extraordinary" is pretty low and deliberately blurs with "ordinary," I believe, to the point that anything not a core action in the rules (i.e. basic attacking and maneuvers like grapple, skill use, and movement) is an (Ex) ability.

In 5e, they apparently have a fig leaf somewhere about how everything uses ambient magic to some degree or another.

Since D&D tends to also be a posterboy for the "quadratic wizard/linear fighter" problem, which is a different framing of the usual debate in magic v. mundane, I'd say it's safe to say that the way to frame this debate for D&D is actually in "spellcasters vs. nonspellcasters."

D&D gives us a lot of labels and very little in terms of description. I very rarely agree with Mechalich, but they hit the nail on the head. D&D has never had much of a clue what to do with its high-level characters, and non-casters in particular. What's a high-level non-caster like? Are they Gimli? Aragorn? Conan? Heracles? The descriptions run along the lines of "like, really good with weapons, I guess". If it acknowledges their "extranormal" abilities, it fails to draw any sort of line between the low-level mostly-realistic character and the superheroes they become.

The epic-level fighter in 3.5 is described as "More than a mere sword-swinger". Yeah, that ship sailed a while ago. A high-level non-caster may be pathetic compared to casters or even magical monsters, but to most people in the world they're god-like. And yet, does the game acknowledge that? It gets worse when you use ToB, PoW or something else to actually give non-casters some cool abilities. The steep power curve comes in as well. When people complain about martial characters getting powers, it's partly because it's jarring to have Joe the competent soldier advance to Joe the martial demigod just by whacking increasingly strong enemies.

Meanwhile, the game fiction constantly gushes over how amazing and powerful high-level magic-users are, particularly wizards. While still not accounting for just how strong they are, of course. It's very apparent when you read Forgotten Realms setting materials. It's pretty chock-full of high-level characters in general, naturally. But where high-level casters are movers and shakers, it consistently treats high-level non-casters as essentially "street level" superheroes. Any real power they wield is political or due to their fame/infamy.

As I have said before, D&D's balance problems begin at fiction level. The game has never been particularly interested in depicting powerful non-casting characters. 4E being the notable exception, and we know how that ended up. Besides, for all that 4E introduced gameplay balance, its attempts at creating power tiers were half-hearted at best and suffered from their own problems. Either way, it's no surprise that the mechanics don't follow suit if there's no will to present a consistent world or a balanced one in the fiction.

4e was, indeed, quite balanced, and avoided this problem. However, the trouble is how it accomplished this: fighters and wizards were both what 3e would term "martial adepts." Everything in 4e was. Sure, there's a little variance in how this manifests, and they chose what maneuvers to give each class to give them different battlefield roles, but every class felt the same.

This may not have been a problem in a wholly new system. It might even have been praised as an ingenious way of doing classes. But when it tried to claim to be D&D....

Well, the best description I've heard, in my opinion, puts it roughly this way: "4e is a perfectly fine and well balanced fantasy combat RPG that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike D&D."

In reality, 5e does a pretty good job of striking a balance. The main offender of "quadratic wizard" tends to be that prepared 5e casters still have a lot more versatility and can cherry-pick day-to-day to have the right power for the day, while non-casters are stuck with their build choices every day. And 9th level spells are at least as powerful as other classes' capstone abilities.

I really do not understand why people put so much effort into pretending 4E isn't D&D, instead of being honest and saying it's D&D that does things poorly, wrong or simply not to their liking. It smacks of No True Scotsman.

Willie the Duck

2019-07-18, 01:52 PM

D&D gives us a lot of labels and very little in terms of description. I very rarely agree with Mechalich, but they hit the nail on the head. D&D has never had much of a clue what to do with its high-level characters, and non-casters in particular. What's a high-level non-caster like? Are they Gimli? Aragorn? Conan? Heracles? The description run along the lines of "like, really good with weapons, I guess". If it acknowledges their "extranormal" abilities, it fails to draw any sort of line between the low-level mostly-realistic character and the superhero they become.
…
As I have said before, D&D's balance problems begin at fiction level.

Very much, although at the very beginning, particularly if you were using Chainmail as opposed to the alternate combat system, you did end up with level 8+ level fighting men who could just rip their way through armies, were effectively immune to fear, could sense invisible opponents, and otherwise act a little more like Heracles than later edition fighters could.

I think one of the biggest issues that D&D had was the huge lag when most people had decided that a lot of the constraints on casters (ex: AD&D's caster-punishing initiative system that many found positively inscrutable) were untenable, and that certain supposed benefits of high-level fighters (getting to build a keep and start a kingdom) were not to their playstyle, but the powers that be (Gary, and later Lorraine mandating that 2e AD&D be as backwards-compatible as possible) not willing to change the ruleset to match. By the time that someone could do something about high level noncasters, a lot of the player-base's visual conception of what it means to be a non-caster had ossified closer to Gimli than to Heracles.

Jakinbandw

2019-07-18, 01:52 PM

Does being able to do some of those things actually balance a character with someone who can do things that are extravagantly extranormal? (As for me, all I can think watching it is "Ow, my knees", because I have bad knees that would hurt A LOT on the harder landings.) I'd consider what's shown in that video at the high end of "normal" because it's being done by a real person in the real world, where there is no "extranormal" -- the real world is missing that part of the scale, because there ain't no "magic" here.

Depends how extravagant extra normal it is. At mortal tier for my system someone can shoot a bolt of fire a good 60 feet and do damage equivalent to a bow. Upside? You don't need a bow and ammo. Downside? The loss of about 140 feet of range on your attacks. I'd say that yes, the ability to parkour is about equal to that level of extranormal power.

That said...

Have you considered that (in settings using real-world-like scales and limits) Batman and similar are extranormal? Despite all protestations to the contrary, I mean.

Oh, of course they do. But here is the thing, batman fills a specific fantasy. The idea that through training, wits, and knowledge you can keep up with people with super powers while not having any of your own. Of course what batman does is beyond normal, even in the setting itself. If everyone was like him, he couldn't beat up hundred of crooks at a time. The Joker is another example as well of someone who is far beyond normal.

While you are right that they are essentially having super powers of their own, that is not the fantasy they present. In the same way, that is what mundane classes try to represent. That yes, you may have powers, and you may be equivalent to someone who can alter the world on a whim, but at the same time you got there through hard work and training, not through being born lucky, or relying on some weird mumbo jumbo.

At least when I talk about mundane, or normal, or whatever, I'm talking about the fantasy of it, not what happens if you put people into a scientific lab and run experiments on them all day. I thought I'd been up front about that. My noble class I posted literally has a tier of abilities that are rated on the scale of divinities. That's not just for consistency, that's because those powers are literally as strong as what a god gets, just for a different fantasy.

Lord Raziere

2019-07-18, 02:00 PM

In reality, 5e does a pretty good job of striking a balance. The main offender of "quadratic wizard" tends to be that prepared 5e casters still have a lot more versatility and can cherry-pick day-to-day to have the right power for the day, while non-casters are stuck with their build choices every day. And 9th level spells are at least as powerful as other classes' capstone abilities.

See this is where fluff becomes important, because the fluff of a wizard is incredibly generic for a spellcaster. they just.....wield some vague arcane energy that can apparently do anything as long as you do research that the nature of it isn't really specified. so you get someone incredibly powerful simply because what they are do isn't actually that well defined. sure they cast spells and use incantations and read books and sure this has an effect upon the world, but internally its a black box where you input hand signs and silly words and out pops phenomenal cosmic power.

the mechanics emulating fluff, therefore emulate that and you get your godlike or super-flexible wizards as a result. especially without an additional energy limitation or some way to make a caster more thematic or focused.

its why Spheres of Power is a good system, because I'd argue that while it still has some imbalance, there is a guarantee that your spherecaster won't be godlike. if we instead use that model for magic and mundane well....its a lot more even. now its as generic as any DnD class if not more so, but the fluff is something players decide and with that decision helps limit a character by giving them a fluff focus that soft locks them into picking certain choices for certain reasons, sure they can make other choices if they need to, but depending on the character concept, its not going to devolve into "prepare for everything" mode. which I honestly consider a failure state of roleplaying.

with spheres of power, you can choose to be some pure pyromancer character or something and fluff your magic to only wield fire, softlocking what you can do to things that manipulate flame. now of course you say, there is the problem of not being prepared for every possible monster in the monster manual like things that are immune to fire, but if thats thrown at them, thats the fault of the GM not communicating the viability of a pyromancer in their world effectively and/or not making a world where the character is viable. thats why I don't post interest in any campaign I'm not interested in and when I do, its only for when I have an idea that fits specifically for that campaign so that it works. its just that DnD's super-cross over nature and insisting upon tactical combat combined with the attitude of consistency of many players having towards it (I've never actually read a DnD book that talks about world consistency or anything like that, its always been my impression from reading DnD that DnD is relatively shallow in terms of that kind of stuff and largely does not care about the world aside from being a backdrop for the adventurers. Alignment only works as long as you assume that its centered around the PCs for example.) that create this environment where the only viable option is being flexible as possible.

when I think its perfectly possible to have a system and environment where you can just play whatever you want without worrying about having to worry about being the most flexible caster ever and go for something more thematic, more tied to the world and unique. it just requires buy in on the part of the GM to make sure they don't put in a complete "screw you" monster in there. because DnD is full of "screw you" monsters. the rust monster for one. "fighters? screw you, say goodbye to your armor and weapons". or anti magic fields "wizards casting spells? screw you." players prepare and be paranoid because they know "screw you" mechanics are out there, and I'm sure that if they were less so or nonexistent, there wouldn't be as much need for the flexible prep mindset. because putting in stuff to make sure everything about a character is shut down? is a good way to get some people angry in any game, not just roleplaying games.

its quite honestly, bad game design if you want more people than just dark souls-esque hardcore guys to find it fun. and dark souls can be fun, but not every game is fun because its an unfair slanted trap of options that encourage you to play unfair back and use your brain and skill to the fullest figuring out a world with completely consistent rules and how to exploit them, thats not the full scope of gaming and I don't think that should be the full scope of it, not every game designer wants to make that or can make that, because making something full of unfairness but still fun can be more challenging and difficult than something fair and balanced, because if you make it too unfair, there is just no hope of winning or you get something thats very binary where you either don't get the trick and lose a lot, or you get the trick and it gets very easy, which I guess is great if you want that experience and someone is great at designing those experiences, but there will always be those people who find it too hard and turn on the easy/normal mode so that things can be fair instead.
and I can find that hard experience of an unfair world and getting good at it fun while still remaining super-consistent with that world, fun. I play Sekiro and Dark Souls, but I know thats a specific experience that doesn't cover everything I want from roleplaying games or games in general. and some people prefer the mages and warriors, the supers and the batmans, the saiyans and the humans to be on an even playing field rather than on a hill, or in some cases a treacherous rocky mountain. I'm not saying you can't have fun climbing that rocky mountain, you can, but come on, give some credit to running across a savannah.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-18, 02:54 PM

Oh, of course they do. But here is the thing, batman fills a specific fantasy. The idea that through training, wits, and knowledge you can keep up with people with super powers while not having any of your own. Of course what batman does is beyond normal, even in the setting itself. If everyone was like him, he couldn't beat up hundred of crooks at a time. The Joker is another example as well of someone who is far beyond normal.

While you are right that they are essentially having super powers of their own, that is not the fantasy they present. In the same way, that is what mundane classes try to represent. That yes, you may have powers, and you may be equivalent to someone who can alter the world on a whim, but at the same time you got there through hard work and training, not through being born lucky, or relying on some weird mumbo jumbo.

At least when I talk about mundane, or normal, or whatever, I'm talking about the fantasy of it, not what happens if you put people into a scientific lab and run experiments on them all day. I thought I'd been up front about that. My noble class I posted literally has a tier of abilities that are rated on the scale of divinities. That's not just for consistency, that's because those powers are literally as strong as what a god gets, just for a different fantasy.

Beyond any terminology or mechanics disagreement, the root disconnect is probably this -- I do not think of things in terms of what "fantasy", "archetype", or "role" they fulfill, and I do not care about "the narrative". When I talk about "normal vs extranormal" or "mundane vs magic" or whatever, I'm speaking strictly of the power levels, the metaphysics, the specifics of the setting and where the character fits in the setting's framework.

I do find it interesting that spellcasters and other users of magic or ki or whatever often spend decades training for many hours a day, neglecting other paths and other parts of life, honing mind and/or body, to master their abilities... and then are dismissed as being "born lucky or relying on some weird mumbo jumbo".

Jakinbandw

2019-07-18, 02:57 PM

Beyond any terminology or mechanics disagreement, the root disconnect is probably this -- I do not think of things in terms of what "fantasy", "archetype", or "role" they fulfill, and I do not care about "the narrative". When I talk about "normal vs extranormal" or "mundane vs magic" or whatever, I'm speaking strictly of the power levels, the metaphysics, the specifics of the setting and where the character fits in the setting's framework.

Then what do you play RPGs for? With books you don't need to worry about balance between the characters. There is nothing you want to do in rpgs? No character that you want to play?

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-18, 03:02 PM

Then what do you play RPGs for? With books you don't need to worry about balance between the characters. There is nothing you want to do in rpgs? No character that you want to play?

That's just more of the disconnect.

I play the characters I want to play, within the limits of the setting and campaign, which has nothing to do with archetypes or tropes, or expys of existing characters.

Jakinbandw

2019-07-18, 03:04 PM

That's just more of the disconnect.

I play the characters I want to play, within the limits of the setting and campaign, which has nothing to do with archetypes or tropes, or expys of existing characters.

What characters do you want to play?

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-18, 03:15 PM

What characters do you want to play?

I don't have any opportunities or open "time slots" in my life to game right now, so no idea what setting or context, so I couldn't really say.

E: mainly I miss old characters I used to play, at this point

Morty

2019-07-18, 04:28 PM

Very much, although at the very beginning, particularly if you were using Chainmail as opposed to the alternate combat system, you did end up with level 8+ level fighting men who could just rip their way through armies, were effectively immune to fear, could sense invisible opponents, and otherwise act a little more like Heracles than later edition fighters could.

Perhaps so; my knowledge of the earliest editions is limited. One way or the other, D&D's track record with acknowledging that there exist warriors who can rout armies on their own is inconsistent at best. It sometimes acknowledges that archmages and casters of similar scope can do that, especially in Forgotten Realms. Non-casters, not so much. To say nothing of how in 3E at least you hardly need to be level 15 or something to blow through a small army all on your own.

I think one of the biggest issues that D&D had was the huge lag when most people had decided that a lot of the constraints on casters (ex: AD&D's caster-punishing initiative system that many found positively inscrutable) were untenable, and that certain supposed benefits of high-level fighters (getting to build a keep and start a kingdom) were not to their playstyle, but the powers that be (Gary, and later Lorraine mandating that 2e AD&D be as backwards-compatible as possible) not willing to change the ruleset to match. By the time that someone could do something about high level noncasters, a lot of the player-base's visual conception of what it means to be a non-caster had ossified closer to Gimli than to Heracles.

This seems to add up, yes. And let's be fair - the limits on casters in old editions were really annoying and giving all fighters a castle and territory was arbitrary. Removing them without suitable replacements didn't work out so hot, though.

Mechalich

2019-07-18, 05:03 PM

This seems to add up, yes. And let's be fair - the limits on casters in old editions were really annoying and giving all fighters a castle and territory was arbitrary. Removing them without suitable replacements didn't work out so hot, though.

A lot of the old limits on casters also still worked best inside of a box. For instance, interrupting wizards works when you're standing next to them, not when they're 400 ft. up in the air. It's a useful balance mechanic in Baldur's Gate, but one that can be bypassed once the walls are removed.

Many problems of this nature, in both D&D and many other table-top games, is that the game is designed for a situation wherein the inputs and scenarios are tightly controlled: D&D is designed to be played in dungeons, VtM is designed to be played in large cities of 5 million or more with strong civic institutions so you can't have gunfights in the streets at midday, and so on. What designers are seemingly incapable of admitting is that their systems simply weren't designed for play outside of their metaphorical box and that once you remove those implicit controls everything breaks down. This becomes very, very clear when you compare tabletop to video games and look at what the PCs are and are not allowed to do within even the most sandbox-y of scenarios.

A big part of this whole magical vs. mundane discussion comes down to that, while it is entirely possible to redefine base human capabilities, doing so does really weird things to the world building and most people who design a setting, whether for narrative or gaming, want 99% of the population to be more or less ordinary humans with earth-based capabilities, because doing anything else is both alienating to the audience and a massive chore. Consider that, in a game where people are fundamentally different from current Earth standards - like Eclipse Phase with its embedded transhumanism for example - it takes a lot of work just trying to explain what the setting looks like to a potential player and a lot of effort to wrap you head around how all of the new stuff is supposed to work.

It's much easier to build a fictional world where almost everyone is Normals, and some small subset of people are Normals+. However, the consequence of that is either all of the PCs or none of the PCs should be Normals+. Unfortunately, the archetypical structure of classical high fantasy - by far the most popular genre for tabletop - is strongly resistant to this idea (though getting less so).

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-18, 07:02 PM

A lot of the old limits on casters also still worked best inside of a box. For instance, interrupting wizards works when you're standing next to them, not when they're 400 ft. up in the air. It's a useful balance mechanic in Baldur's Gate, but one that can be bypassed once the walls are removed.

Many problems of this nature, in both D&D and many other table-top games, is that the game is designed for a situation wherein the inputs and scenarios are tightly controlled: D&D is designed to be played in dungeons, VtM is designed to be played in large cities of 5 million or more with strong civic institutions so you can't have gunfights in the streets at midday, and so on. What designers are seemingly incapable of admitting is that their systems simply weren't designed for play outside of their metaphorical box and that once you remove those implicit controls everything breaks down. This becomes very, very clear when you compare tabletop to video games and look at what the PCs are and are not allowed to do within even the most sandbox-y of scenarios.

A big part of this whole magical vs. mundane discussion comes down to that, while it is entirely possible to redefine base human capabilities, doing so does really weird things to the world building and most people who design a setting, whether for narrative or gaming, want 99% of the population to be more or less ordinary humans with earth-based capabilities, because doing anything else is both alienating to the audience and a massive chore. Consider that, in a game where people are fundamentally different from current Earth standards - like Eclipse Phase with its embedded transhumanism for example - it takes a lot of work just trying to explain what the setting looks like to a potential player and a lot of effort to wrap you head around how all of the new stuff is supposed to work.

It's much easier to build a fictional world where almost everyone is Normals, and some small subset of people are Normals+. However, the consequence of that is either all of the PCs or none of the PCs should be Normals+. Unfortunately, the archetypical structure of classical high fantasy - by far the most popular genre for tabletop - is strongly resistant to this idea (though getting less so).

There's also some granularity there... you can get away with the right setup of Normals and Normals+, but it's much harder to do Normals and Normals++++, or even Normals+ and Normals++++.

As for fantasy RPGs and this question, I've long had a nagging interest in how well it would work to do "fantasy supers" as an RPG. (Not Exalted, for all the reasons already covered in detail...)

Mechalich

2019-07-18, 07:28 PM

As for fantasy RPGs and this question, I've long had a nagging interest in how well it would work to do "fantasy supers" as an RPG. (Not Exalted, for all the reasons already covered in detail...)

Fantasy supers, and in fact pretty much all 'supers' scenarios outside of the particularities of comic book logic (and even sometimes there) have a tendency to go grimdark hard, simply because of the nature of some group of people randomly being inherently better than everyone else, and without the restraining power of technology it can be particularly grim. Actual mythology tends to outline this fairly well, actually, since a lot of myths, Greek or otherwise, are full of darkness, and many fantasy settings that trend toward supers actually are pretty dark when you peel back the surface even a bit - Wheel of Time absolutely has moments of it, especially during the parts where Rand is being tempted, and something like Stormlight Archive is a mass of grimdark slowly leaking through a thin heroic veneer (and of course there's always Malazan, which makes Exalted look pleasant). I mean, even the Jedi of Star Wars, who aren't all that powerful most of the time (sources vary) and are ultimately re-skinned Shaolin monks, have gotten massively dumped on in the post-prequels era.

Bridging this divide is actually quite difficult, if you're being at all serious about the worldbuilding. Something like Harry Potter only gets away with 'muggles' because it's not at all serious about the worldbuilding.

In many ways, I think that actually speaks to the inherent paradox of the magic vs. mundane issue. People are ultimately away that they don't actually have superpowers and they never will, so they want their escapist fantasy universe to pretend that people who are ordinary, and don't have any powers still matter, even when this is manifestly untrue. We want Conan to be able to beat the wizard through his indomitable will and the strength of his 'mighty thews,' we don't want the wizard to combo-cast stoneskin and death spell and summarily snuff the hero out. It's a very natural impulse, but unfortunately, once you crank the power curve up far enough it simply doesn't work. And it seems many people would rather accept systems and settings that fundamentally do not work than confront the consequences of this disparity head on. Now, I'm all for playing in settings that fundamentally do not work, this is an escapist hobby, prioritize what you want. I just wish the designers wouldn't keep spouting a line of garbage about what their systems are intended to do versus what they're actually capable of achieving, because when you hit a fundamental mismatch point in the course of a campaign and everything breaks down and everyone around the table starts going 'really?' that just sucks.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-18, 07:59 PM

Fantasy supers, and in fact pretty much all 'supers' scenarios outside of the particularities of comic book logic (and even sometimes there) have a tendency to go grimdark hard, simply because of the nature of some group of people randomly being inherently better than everyone else, and without the restraining power of technology it can be particularly grim. Actual mythology tends to outline this fairly well, actually, since a lot of myths, Greek or otherwise, are full of darkness, and many fantasy settings that trend toward supers actually are pretty dark when you peel back the surface even a bit - Wheel of Time absolutely has moments of it, especially during the parts where Rand is being tempted, and something like Stormlight Archive is a mass of grimdark slowly leaking through a thin heroic veneer (and of course there's always Malazan, which makes Exalted look pleasant). I mean, even the Jedi of Star Wars, who aren't all that powerful most of the time (sources vary) and are ultimately re-skinned Shaolin monks, have gotten massively dumped on in the post-prequels era.

Bridging this divide is actually quite difficult, if you're being at all serious about the worldbuilding. Something like Harry Potter only gets away with 'muggles' because it's not at all serious about the worldbuilding.

In many ways, I think that actually speaks to the inherent paradox of the magic vs. mundane issue. People are ultimately away that they don't actually have superpowers and they never will, so they want their escapist fantasy universe to pretend that people who are ordinary, and don't have any powers still matter, even when this is manifestly untrue. We want Conan to be able to beat the wizard through his indomitable will and the strength of his 'mighty thews,' we don't want the wizard to combo-cast stoneskin and death spell and summarily snuff the hero out. It's a very natural impulse, but unfortunately, once you crank the power curve up far enough it simply doesn't work. And it seems many people would rather accept systems and settings that fundamentally do not work than confront the consequences of this disparity head on. Now, I'm all for playing in settings that fundamentally do not work, this is an escapist hobby, prioritize what you want. I just wish the designers wouldn't keep spouting a line of garbage about what their systems are intended to do versus what they're actually capable of achieving, because when you hit a fundamental mismatch point in the course of a campaign and everything breaks down and everyone around the table starts going 'really?' that just sucks.

Conan's antagonist sorcerers also aren't anything near as powerful as even mid-level D&D magic users of any type, though, and their limitations provide openings for a "ultraheroic normal" like Conan to best them. Likewise many of the other "steel, grit, thews, and wit" protagonists of sword and sworcery. But in part because systems like D&D have tried so hard to mash Howard and Leiber with Lovecraft with Vance and Tolkein, and in part because "wizard is wizard, what do you mean degrees of power?", you end up with the players who expect the "steel, grit, thews, and wit" characters to be on par with wizards who would give Gandalf and Saruman cold sweats, and send the demigods of Greek myth running in terror.

Quertus

2019-07-19, 08:25 AM

And I see this effort caught between two failure points, with little to no middle ground where it works. Either...

1) You're taking things anyone can do and making them "the muggle stuff", walling them off in a way that makes Send A Strongly Worded Complaint a level X "muggle class power", and telling "non-muggles" that they can't send a strongly worded complaint, because they don't have that "power". And that is certainly how some of the suggestions in this thread have read so far, at least to me. You even just said "this is a class of strictly muggle power"... if it's strictly muggle powers, doesn't that mean non-muggles can't do the things that you've made into muggle powers?

-or-

2) You're giving "the muggle class" a souped-up version of these abilities, to the point where they become "not!superpowers" in order to balance with the "not muggles" superpowers, such that "have a backup plan" threatens to become a retroactive continuity supernatural power, for example, and regardless of what you call the class, they're not really a "muggle" any more. (Thus the old snark, "Magic is as magic does" -- it doesn't matter how doggedly someone insists that their character isn't extranormal, if they do things that are effectively extranormal, then they, the character, are extranormal. Or as Segev said up thread, "To put it a bit cheekily: if your only superpower is "being Batman," you still have a superpower.")

I think most of this has been covered. Absolutely Batman is Magic / superpowered / whatever. That's why I, personally, hate Batman - he pretends to be a muggle, a mere mortal, but he's not.

However, my Muggle write-up was intended to convey how some people are better at mundane capabilities than others, and say, "if you're one of those people, you took this class, same as 'if you can cast spells, you took the Wizard class'". It's abilities that (while I doubt one individual could realistically have them all) I feel are all attainable by purely mundane muggles. Yes, the class only contains mundane abilities, not the way you read it. As I said, some people have "clarity" as a super power - anyone theoretically *could* write clear text, but we don't all do so, as my write-up clearly demonstrates. :smallfrown:

As to #2 - the 2e Wizard gets one attack at BAB=1/3 level; the Fighter gets up to 2.5+1 attacks at full BAB. Yes, the muggle Fighter has a souped-up version of the same ability. This is absolutely nothing new. This is how the trained / skilled / talented / whatever mundane power source you believe in Muggle can / should keep up with the Master of Magic for longer than most RPGs admit / pull off without them becoming magical.

Anybody can learn to pick a lock. 3e Rogues have more skill points to invest in it and still do other things. 5e Rogues have Expertise, giving them twice their proficiency bonus to it. This is a "muggle" skill; rogues just spend the time wizards and sorcerers spent mastering mystical mojo to practice puissant purloinment.

Anybody can write a strongely worded letter. A wizard can cast a spell so that only the intended target perceives the strongly worded letter as what it actually is; everybody else sees it as a billet of vacation photos and photos of his grandkids. A member of the Mark Twain class can use his "Biting Wit" class feature to make a publically posted strongly worded letter which causes people who aren't already Friendly to the target it excoriates have a default reaction of "hostile," whether due to utter mocking scorn or extreme outrage.

Anybody can buy a plane ticket. Superman can choose to fly under his own power. Lex Luthor can use his "money is no object" trait to automatically upgrade himself and all his friends to the best class the airline offers and to get the flight at a moment's notice, or just to have a personal corporate jet to transport himself and his allies to the destination at their convenience and in comfort.

Anybody can ask around for information. The Correspondence Mage can try to scry it out. The Mind Mage can try to read minds until he finds it. The Forces Mage who spent less on his Spheres and stuff but spent points on Contacts can reach out to his network and find people who know what he wants more easily.

Just wanted to say, you've been spot on this whole thread. Kudos!

You're reading it as "a class strictly made of muggle powers"... my reading was "a class made of powers that are strictly for muggles".

See also "dragon fighter"... is that a fighter who is a dragon, or a fighter who fights dragons?

Yeah, I clearly never took the "clarity" Muggle class feature.

That's kinda the problem with this debate, hell, this whole thread, isn't it?

If things are different, someone's going to be able to stand above someone else. If things are balanced, things feel the grey and all the same.

Disagree. "Grey and samey" is not an inherent requirement for "balanced". For example, if I had played Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, as sightly less tactically inept, or had he faced foes where his powers had been more needed (and couldn't have been replaced with a bag of flour), then he might have been balanced with the party Fighter and Monk, without the party feeling at all samey.

Does a bloodstained monk in rags, a phasing masked not-chain-tripper, Sleepy the dripping great sword wielder who cuts through walls of force, a duelist / cunning linguist, a shell shocked elven archer, and a potty-mouth AoE SoL caster sound samey? Now, I'll admit, the BDH party actually played somewhat samey (go first, hit for massive damage, profit) - the most samey of any 3e party I've been in - but even they had more diversity than I ever felt out of 4e.

See, the thing about 4e classes is that they didn't really all feel the same when you compared them to each other. They only felt the same when you compared them to other editions of DnD. You don't really hear people complaining in 4e about the fact that a Ardent can punch things to make a black hole as a Long Rest feature, but a Wizard can also create a black hole with slightly different mechanics. Nobody cared, except the people who looked in from the outside.

Care to try to sell me on "4e classes aren't samey"? Or is that a bigger thing, that should be it's own thread?

There is a third option, though: Being balanced by being overpowered. Effectively the Rock-Paper-Scissors solution, kinda like how Rifts has a very delicate balance of bazookas, magic, and indestructible robots.

Wait, what? What wins against what there? Haven't played much Rifts, wouldn't say I've "seen the elephant" for Rifts tactics.

Everything is inherently weak to something else and doesn't stand a chance against that one thing. But the one thing you can do, oh boy, does it tear things up when it's relevant.

This creates "Balance" (That is, everyone is in the same circumstance), yet it's also very colorful with a lot of contracts (a magic-user definitely plays differently than a cyborg, and solves different problems).

So is this just ShadowRun "twiddle your thumbs" time?

Wash out those differences a bit, and you end up with 4e. Try to make it so that the differences are towards specific playstyles, and you end up with 3.5/5e. You gotta sacrifice something.

Can you elaborate on what you feel ends up with 3e/5e? Sounds like it might be important…

Segev

2019-07-19, 09:59 AM

When people complain about martial characters getting powers, it's partly because it's jarring to have Joe the competent soldier advance to Joe the martial demigod just by whacking increasingly strong enemies.This is another of those points that makes little sense, since it's no different for casters than non-casters: casters also get mysteriously better at memorizing magic and commanding mystical forces by beating things in the face with spells and crossbow bolts.

In fact, it makes more sense for the "martial" character to get better this way than it does for the spellcaster: the martial character is learning to do new fighting techniques by fighting increasingly difficult foes.

Meanwhile, the game fiction constantly gushes over how amazing and powerful high-level magic-users are, particularly wizards. While still not accounting for just how strong they are, of course. It's very apparent when you read Forgotten Realms setting materials. It's pretty chock-full of high-level characters in general, naturally. But where high-level casters are movers and shakers, it consistently treats high-level non-casters as essentially "street level" superheroes. Any real power they wield is political or due to their fame/infamy. This tends to be true of the casters, too: most of their world-impact comes from people fearing or respecting their power and accomplishments enough to give them political sway. In fact, in the Forgotten Realms, one could argue from observation that non-casters tend towards more practical power for anybody who doesn't like extreme isolation and long, long months of metaphysical stress as one faces off thanklessly with eldrich horrors that are (Nick Cage voice) scratching. at. the door!

As I have said before, D&D's balance problems begin at fiction level. The game has never been particularly interested in depicting powerful non-casting characters. 4E being the notable exception, and we know how that ended up. Besides, for all that 4E introduced gameplay balance, its attempts at creating power tiers were half-hearted at best and suffered from their own problems. Either way, it's no surprise that the mechanics don't follow suit if there's no will to present a consistent world or a balanced one in the fiction.I think this a bit unfair. D&D has always been interested in it; it just has arguably been BAD at it. And even that was more true in 3e than in earlier editions. In 1e and 2e, it was actually quite possible for fighters to be the most powerful members of the party. Yes, it was because they were item-dependent, but they also had exclusive access to magic swords, which tended to be the most powerful items in the game. Wizards just couldn't use them, even if they made them, so that sentient sword that casts high-level spells at will was keeping the fighter more than merely relevant compared to the wizard.

(You can make verisimilitude arguments questioning why this was, but it was what it was.)

4e's problem isn't that they made non-casters more powerful. It's that they made caster mechanics the same as non-caster mechanics.

I really do not understand why people put so much effort into pretending 4E isn't D&D, instead of being honest and saying it's D&D that does things poorly, wrong or simply not to their liking. It smacks of No True Scotsman.Why do people put so much effort into pretending that J.J. Abrams's Star Trek movies aren't Star Trek? Why do people put so much effort into pretending that The Last Jedi isn't Star Wars?

Why do people put so much effort into pretending that Zelda 2 isn't Zelda, or that there was no second or third Matrix movie?

In my case, 4e just doesn't feel like D&D. You can try to claim I'm engaging in "no true Scottsman," here, but I will reject that because I'm not denying that it bears the official name of "D&D," and if that is your definition, then it qualifies. When I make general agreement with the notion that it is "almost, but not quite, entirely unlike D&D," I am speaking to specific aspects and to its overall feel. It feels no more like D&D to me than does Paladium. It's certainly better-balanced and more tightly designed than Paladium, but if Paladium claimed to be D&D, I would likely have less fun playing it because it wouldn't deliver what I wanted.

There is also just something...lacking...in 4e, or at least in my experiences playing it, that I find enjoyable in 5e or 3e. I can't even put my finger on it, other than perhaps that I was expecting something different than what 4e delivered. I never felt I could build the character I wanted to play in it, because I was always building a martial adept and I didn't want to play a martial adept.

But no, it's not that 4e tried to elevate non-casters. It's that 4e essentially eliminated casters. It called some classes by the names of casting classes, but there was nothing "wizardly" about the use of Encounter Powers that was less "wizardly" when a rogue or ranger did it. Especially since non-casters could also do elemental damage and the like.

It wasn't a bad system, objectively. But it wasn't what I want from D&D. And its unified mechanic is a big part of that problem. I like the myriad subsystems; they're fun and make things feel different.

I approved of 3e's efforts to elevate non-casters with their own subsystems. ToB was a good first effort. It wasn't perfect, but it was a good try. I am very much in the camp of wanting to give non-casters "superpowers" that let them keep up with casters. But without making them spellcasters.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-19, 10:50 AM

I approved of 3e's efforts to elevate non-casters with their own subsystems. ToB was a good first effort. It wasn't perfect, but it was a good try. I am very much in the camp of wanting to give non-casters "superpowers" that let them keep up with casters. But without making them spellcasters.

And part of the problem in these debates has consistently been that some participants will insist, beyond all explanation otherwise, that if you want to make non-casters able to keep up with spellcasters, then you're trying to make them spellcasters too, as if all "extranormal" has to be spellcasting or very much like spellcasting.

Lord Raziere

2019-07-19, 11:39 AM

Segev

2019-07-19, 12:26 PM

Morty

2019-07-19, 12:26 PM

This is another of those points that makes little sense, since it's no different for casters than non-casters: casters also get mysteriously better at memorizing magic and commanding mystical forces by beating things in the face with spells and crossbow bolts.

In fact, it makes more sense for the "martial" character to get better this way than it does for the spellcaster: the martial character is learning to do new fighting techniques by fighting increasingly difficult foes.

I absolutely agree that the D&D power curve is pretty absurd in general and the root cause for many of the franchise's problems. But it's arguable at best whether it affects casters more. Yes, becoming an archmage by fighting increasingly difficult foes is pretty silly. But even the 1st level wizard already has magic, and thus became "extranormal" as some here would put it. They know weak spells, then they learn stronger ones.

A low-level non-caster, meanwhile, is more or less normal. Then they might learn abilities that aren't normal, but the game rarely if ever deigns to explain how. Now, it's not a problem to everyone - but it is a problem to enough people that you see complaints about how high-level non-casters shouldn't do this or that.

This tends to be true of the casters, too: most of their world-impact comes from people fearing or respecting their power and accomplishments enough to give them political sway. In fact, in the Forgotten Realms, one could argue from observation that non-casters tend towards more practical power for anybody who doesn't like extreme isolation and long, long months of metaphysical stress as one faces off thanklessly with eldrich horrors that are (Nick Cage voice) scratching. at. the door!

Of course it's true of the casters - again, D&D doesn't take the power of high-level characters into account in general, and FR is a crowning example because of just how many of them it has. But not only are casters arguably more prominent even in political positions, but their power outside them is acknowledged - within limits of what designers at the time thought it was. References to archmages routing armies and all that are made. Non-casters? Again, low-key superheoes on a good day.

I think this a bit unfair. D&D has always been interested in it; it just has arguably been BAD at it. And even that was more true in 3e than in earlier editions. In 1e and 2e, it was actually quite possible for fighters to be the most powerful members of the party. Yes, it was because they were item-dependent, but they also had exclusive access to magic swords, which tended to be the most powerful items in the game. Wizards just couldn't use them, even if they made them, so that sentient sword that casts high-level spells at will was keeping the fighter more than merely relevant compared to the wizard.

(You can make verisimilitude arguments questioning why this was, but it was what it was.)

Right, so the best idea D&D had before ToB rolled around was to give non-casters magic items to make sure they have enough magic. But magic, as the system defined it, was still the only path to power past a certain point, and those characters had no magical or even "extranormal" abilities in their own right. The idea that magic-users/mages/wizards struggle early on but become powerhouses later is pretty old as well.

4e's problem isn't that they made non-casters more powerful. It's that they made caster mechanics the same as non-caster mechanics.

And I've seen people argue the exact opposite - that playing a warlock was fun, but that playing a rogue felt "too much like a caster". Go figure.

Why do people put so much effort into pretending that J.J. Abrams's Star Trek movies aren't Star Trek? Why do people put so much effort into pretending that The Last Jedi isn't Star Wars?

Why do people put so much effort into pretending that Zelda 2 isn't Zelda, or that there was no second or third Matrix movie?

Because they're using needlessly confrontational hyperbole? :smallconfused: I don't take those arguments seriously.

In my case, 4e just doesn't feel like D&D. You can try to claim I'm engaging in "no true Scottsman," here, but I will reject that because I'm not denying that it bears the official name of "D&D," and if that is your definition, then it qualifies. When I make general agreement with the notion that it is "almost, but not quite, entirely unlike D&D," I am speaking to specific aspects and to its overall feel. It feels no more like D&D to me than does Paladium. It's certainly better-balanced and more tightly designed than Paladium, but if Paladium claimed to be D&D, I would likely have less fun playing it because it wouldn't deliver what I wanted.

There is also just something...lacking...in 4e, or at least in my experiences playing it, that I find enjoyable in 5e or 3e. I can't even put my finger on it, other than perhaps that I was expecting something different than what 4e delivered. I never felt I could build the character I wanted to play in it, because I was always building a martial adept and I didn't want to play a martial adept.

But no, it's not that 4e tried to elevate non-casters. It's that 4e essentially eliminated casters. It called some classes by the names of casting classes, but there was nothing "wizardly" about the use of Encounter Powers that was less "wizardly" when a rogue or ranger did it. Especially since non-casters could also do elemental damage and the like.

It wasn't a bad system, objectively. But it wasn't what I want from D&D. And its unified mechanic is a big part of that problem. I like the myriad subsystems; they're fun and make things feel different.

Okay, so 4E didn't "feel" like D&D because it didn't have some very specific things that you like. Meanwhile, here's what it does have: classes, races, levels. Fighters, rogues, wizards, clerics. Small teams of heroes having adventures, fighting monsters and finding treasure. Getting XP for individual monsters until you've gathered enough to go up a level. Alignment, demons and devils. All of those are things you don't find often, if ever, outside the D&D franchise. Certainly not all of them.

4E grew out of a particular way of thinking about D&D that came around in 3E's later years. It was different than its predecessors, but the same was true for every edition before that, and people had made "this doesn't feel like D&D anymore" arguments about 3E too. Or other games, for that matter - except hilariously enough, "this feels like D&D!" is a favourite condemnation among some other systems' fans.

So yeah, I'm not seeing it. Now obviously one doesn't have to enjoy it or think it's a worthwhile game - I don't like it that much myself. But to say it's "not D&D" just doesn't seem to serve any purpose except to shut down discussion.

I approved of 3e's efforts to elevate non-casters with their own subsystems. ToB was a good first effort. It wasn't perfect, but it was a good try. I am very much in the camp of wanting to give non-casters "superpowers" that let them keep up with casters. But without making them spellcasters.

Funny you should mention that, because ToB was accused of making martial characters like magic, anime, overpowered and more since Day One. And also denounced as "not true D&D". I've said all that and more myself, before changing my mind and revising my opinions pretty much entirely. How are those arguments less valid than claims that 4E isn't D&D?

Segev

2019-07-19, 12:56 PM

I absolutely agree that the D&D power curve is pretty absurd in general and the root cause for many of the franchise's problems. But it's arguable at best whether it affects casters more. Yes, becoming an archmage by fighting increasingly difficult foes is pretty silly. But even the 1st level wizard already has magic, and thus became "extranormal" as some here would put it. They know weak spells, then they learn stronger ones.

A low-level non-caster, meanwhile, is more or less normal. Then they might learn abilities that aren't normal, but the game rarely if ever deigns to explain how. Now, it's not a problem to everyone - but it is a problem to enough people that you see complaints about how high-level non-casters shouldn't do this or that.You've missed much of my point throughout the thread, I think. The line between "normal" and "extranormal" is fuzzy and broad. One could argue that a first level fighter is already extranormal based on the skill he shows in fighting compared to a first level warrior. Just by having a FEAT he might be "extranormal."

And those "extranormal" powers they develop aren't mysterious in terms of how they learn them: leveling up represents learning new things. These are new techniques they've mastered. They're "Extranormal" because they're just that much more than "normal." And they get moreso as you get deeper into the power curve.

Right, so the best idea D&D had before ToB rolled around was to give non-casters magic items to make sure they have enough magic. But magic, as the system defined it, was still the only path to power past a certain point, and those characters had no magical or even "extranormal" abilities in their own right. The idea that magic-users/mages/wizards struggle early on but become powerhouses later is pretty old as well.You say that like it's making some sort of point. YEs, magic is how D&D does world-changing magical power. It's practically a tautology.

My whole point is that being extranormal may or may not require having magic. The fighter in 2e was already extranormal for being able to wield magic swords that no other characters could handle.

And I've seen people argue the exact opposite - that playing a warlock was fun, but that playing a rogue felt "too much like a caster". Go figure.In 4e? Not surprising; they made casters feel like everyone else, and everyone else feel like what they made casters into. Of course it feels like being a caster if you look at what casters are doing and see that the mechanics are similar. When spellcasting is being a martial adept, and everyone's a martial adept, everyone feels like that editions "caster."

Because they're using needlessly confrontational hyperbole? :smallconfused: I don't take those arguments seriously.It depends on your defintions, really. Do you define it as, "The owners of the trademark have applied their title to it?" Then there's no argument; you're right. Do you expect there to be a certain quality and feel to a franchise? Then there's argument to be had over what, to each person, that quality and feel really is.

Dismissing it as "no true Scottsman" is to ignore what they're saying and simply call them "wrong" for not liking what you like, and trying to tell you what they don't like about it.

Okay, so 4E didn't "feel" like D&D because it didn't have some very specific things that you like.It lacked some very key structures and versatilities that typify D&D's differences in classes.

Meanwhile, here's what it does have: classes,Debatable.

races, levels. Fighters, rogues, wizards, clerics. Small teams of heroes having adventures, fighting monsters and finding treasure. Getting XP for individual monsters until you've gathered enough to go up a level. Alignment, demons and devils. All of those are things you don't find often, if ever, outside the D&D franchise. Certainly not all of them.So does Paladium. Does that make Paladium D&D?

4e had some neat innovations and ideas. I liked a lot of the core rules changes. 4e's problem is entirely in its class design. In its choice to make all classes use the same mechanical subsystem for class features.

4E grew out of a particular way of thinking about D&D that came around in 3E's later years. It was different than its predecessors, but the same was true for every edition before that, and people had made "this doesn't feel like D&D anymore" arguments about 3E too. Or other games, for that matter - except hilariously enough, "this feels like D&D!" is a favourite condemnation among some other systems' fans.When people say this, I question their understanding of the history of D&D editions.

OD&D and D&D Basic were almost, but not quite, two different games. They had as much difference between them as D&D and most fantasy heartbreakers. AD&D (1e) was an evolution of one of those (I forget which), and codified most of what we expect from D&D these days (races and classes being distinct things, for instance). 2e AD&D wasn't actually all that different from 1e; it was practically Pathfinder to 1e AD&D's 3.5, and was highly backwards compatible. But as 2e progressed, a lot of subsystems were introduced and proposed. But, unlike 3e, they were more Unearthed Arcana style replacement subsystems. "Do this instead of spellcasting" or "do that instead of THAC0."

3.0 was the first real effort to completely redesign the system while keeping the core conceits, and overall, it did a pretty good job. It had a lot of people mad, because "they changed it; now it sucks," but most of those were won over because the changes were largely to the core and in INVENTING new subsystems. Vancian magic was still there, but they added sorcery. Feats and skills were evolutions of the highly popular nonweapon proficiencies, providing two avenues for improvement in things that always felt weird to be isolated to particular classes. (This had some negative effect on the Rogue, but at the time was a clever attempt.)

3.5 was a bigger revamp of 3e than 2e was of 1e, but made people mad because it came a bit too early. It still was adopted pretty quickly and painlessly, though, because it was highly recognizable as the same game, just with some different classes and a few "outside" mechanics worked into the core rules (like "swift actions").

The trouble with 4e is that it was as big a revamp to 3.5 as 3.0 was to 2e, but it threw out all the uniqueness between classes in terms of subsystem. It abandoned class-based structure in all but name and made a semi-points-based build system with weird prerequisite trees, without acknowledging that that's what it'd done. It did this in the name of Game Balance, and was practically written with the loudest voices on the charop boards as the primary audience. It was an audience that WotC overestimated the size of.

This is why PF was such a successful split-off.

Note that PF, like 3.5, came out over the years with many, many variations on classes and new and different subsystems baked into some classes (and as frameworks for clusters of other classes). This is what makes class-based structure, particularly in D&D, so intriguing to so many. This is what I say gives D&D its unique, D&D feel.

5e recaptured that. Ironically, there's a "sameness" to some degree in that every class has "class + subclass" structure to it, but the actual subsystems used vary from class to class. Spellcasting is its own thing. Most other classes have basically their own set of subsystems that make up their subclasses, or they have subclasses that let you pick subsystems to toy with in your build.

5e is as different from 3e and 4e as 4e was from 3e and 3e was from 2e, and yet 5e and 3e share the same "D&Dness" that was present in 2e. It is something 4e lacked.

This still doesn't make 4e a bad system. It just makes it stand out as the Zelda 2 of D&D editions. Obviously not...quite...fitting in on some level.

So yeah, I'm not seeing it. Now obviously one doesn't have to enjoy it or think it's a worthwhile game - I don't like it that much myself. But to say it's "not D&D" just doesn't seem to serve any purpose except to shut down discussion.I hardly see it as shutting down discussion; I mean, just look at the discussion we're having right now. It is a useful thing to say because it explains part of WHY so many dislike it. If you can't grasp what it is that is meant by people saying that, then...I fear it's a problem of comprehension on your part, because too many people light up and agree, "Yeah, that's exactly it!" even when they couldn't spell out specifics as to why.

And the massive split of the market share with Pathfinder when 4e came out is the sign that it isn't just grognards saying that it sucks because it's different. There is genuinely something that 4e...lost...from 3e that made fans seek alternatives in numbers that were unprecedented.

Funny you should mention that, because ToB was accused of making martial characters like magic, anime, overpowered and more since Day One. And also denounced as "not true D&D". I've said all that and more myself, before changing my mind and revising my opinions pretty much entirely. How are those arguments less valid than claims that 4E isn't D&D?I haven't seen anybody accuse it of "not true D&D," and think that the complaints about it being "too anime" or "overpowered" are exactly the topic we're discussing in this thread: the fact that some people think that you MUST be a spellcaster to be extranormal, whereas my position is that you can have extranormal without being a spellcaster, but you have to think of it as "spellcasters" and "non-spellcasters" rather than "magic" and "mundane." Because we want nonspellcasters to have awesome, mighty, extranormal abilities that keep them in the same ballpark as spellcasters, and that means we can't insist that nonspellcasters also can't have anything we can't imagine a normal person IRL doing.

Willie the Duck

2019-07-19, 12:58 PM

Okay, so 4E didn't "feel" like D&D because it didn't have some very specific things that you like. Meanwhile, here's what it does have: classes, races, levels. Fighters, rogues, wizards, clerics. Small teams of heroes having adventures, fighting monsters and finding treasure. Getting XP for individual monsters until you've gathered enough to go up a level. Alignment, demons and devils. All of those are things you don't find often, if ever, outside the D&D franchise. Certainly not all of them.

4E grew out of a particular way of thinking about D&D that came around in 3E's later years. It was different than its predecessors, but the same was true for every edition before that, and people had made "this doesn't feel like D&D anymore" arguments about 3E too. Or other games, for that matter - except hilariously enough, "this feels like D&D!" is a favourite condemnation among some other systems' fans.

So yeah, I'm not seeing it. Now obviously one doesn't have to enjoy it or think it's a worthwhile game - I don't like it that much myself. But to say it's "not D&D" just doesn't seem to serve any purpose except to shut down discussion.

Which is exactly what you are doing in the opposite direction. You are declaring someone else's feelings about the game invalid because you're 'not seeing it.' And you're trying to logic away the idea that 4E didn't feel like D&D to Segev, as if that would change how it felt to him.

Look, there's nothing to be had from this. The people that said that 4e wasn't D&D were obviously being hyperbolic and needlessly confrontational. And the defenders of 4e routinely couldn't accept that people genuinely didn't find 4e to be enough like the game they wanted and that that is a legitimate way to feel. There were all sorts of things alongside this (like a piss poor marketing campaign and people not really being done with 3e despite not purchasing much for it anymore), but the long and short is it was a fine product that wasn't what the base wanted and we can keep regrinding those axes as long as we want and it will not change anything.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-19, 01:15 PM

And part of the problem in these debates has consistently been that some participants will insist, beyond all explanation otherwise, that if you want to make non-casters able to keep up with spellcasters, then you're trying to make them spellcasters too, as if all "extranormal" has to be spellcasting or very much like spellcasting.

Yeah, I don't like that. I really don't. I fully agree with you on how those people, its kind of the problem I was trying to work against with my insistence that such "extranormal" stuff ISN'T magic because spellcasting and magic are almost practically interchangeable as terms, these same people have a tendency to call everything a spell and shout "I CAST FIST!!" its really annoying. I blame memes for this.

Yeah, this is why, in this thread, I codified that I think the real divide is between spellcasters and non-spellcasters, because while most of us don't want Conan, He-Man, Rocket Raccoon, or Goku to be spellcasters, few of us will balk at the notion that they are "extranormal" in their powers and prowess.

I definitely want non-spellcasting 20th level fighter-types, rogue-types, etc., but I also want those 20th level characters to be doing "extranormal" things. They just aren't casting spells to do it. This makes them not wizards, sorcerers, clerics, etc.

Then you get the other layer, the gamer who insists that their Fighter or other "martial" character must not be "extranormal" in any way, he's just a "normal guy" who is working hard and working smart and overcoming spellcasters by the sweat of his brow and the edge of his sword.

It's the inverse "guy at the gym" -- instead of "all non-spellcaster characters are limited to what I think a guy in the gym could do" it's "my character can punch out reality-warping city-melting spellcasters but I insist he's just a guy at the gym, nothing extranormal about him".

Morty

2019-07-19, 01:22 PM

Which is exactly what you are doing in the opposite direction. You are declaring someone else's feelings about the game invalid because you're 'not seeing it.' And you're trying to logic away the idea that 4E didn't feel like D&D to Segev, as if that would change how it felt to him.

Look, there's nothing to be had from this. The people that said that 4e wasn't D&D were obviously being hyperbolic and needlessly confrontational. And the defenders of 4e routinely couldn't accept that people genuinely didn't find 4e to be enough like the game they wanted and that that is a legitimate way to feel. There were all sorts of things alongside this (like a piss poor marketing campaign and people not really being done with 3e despite not purchasing much for it anymore), but the long and short is it was a fine product that wasn't what the base wanted and we can keep regrinding those axes as long as we want and it will not change anything.

I guess it probably is best to drop it; it's my fault for going off on this tangent to begin with.

You've missed much of my point throughout the thread, I think. The line between "normal" and "extranormal" is fuzzy and broad. One could argue that a first level fighter is already extranormal based on the skill he shows in fighting compared to a first level warrior. Just by having a FEAT he might be "extranormal."

And those "extranormal" powers they develop aren't mysterious in terms of how they learn them: leveling up represents learning new things. These are new techniques they've mastered. They're "Extranormal" because they're just that much more than "normal." And they get moreso as you get deeper into the power curve.

And my point throughout this thread (or the last two pages, anyway), is that D&D has always had a lot of trouble actually treating non-casters as being as magical, as extraordinary and as special as casters, on fiction level in addition to the mechanical level. Or rather, that it starts with the fiction level and the mechanics follow suit. High-level wizards are described as masters of the arcane arts, et cetera; descriptions of high level non-casters struggle beyond describing them as really good at what they could already do on level one. It's not just a failure of mechanics to represent the goals of the game - the goals are skewed to begin with. Or, perhaps, it's working as intended, if the superiority of casters is the goal.

The line between "normal" and "extranormal" being fuzzy is precisely the problem. There's no distinct line of when, exactly, a fighter (or any other class without spells) becomes truly larger than life.

Segev

2019-07-19, 01:37 PM

Then you get the other layer, the gamer who insists that their Fighter or other "martial" character must not be "extranormal" in any way, he's just a "normal guy" who is working hard and working smart and overcoming spellcasters by the sweat of his brow and the edge of his sword.

It's the inverse "guy at the gym" -- instead of "all non-spellcaster characters are limited to what I think a guy in the gym could do" it's "my character can punch out reality-warping city-melting spellcasters but I insist he's just a guy at the gym, nothing extranormal about him".Oddly, I think the way to cater to them is to give them extranormal characters and carefully point out that their extranormality doesn't use "magic." But that they're obviously superspecialawesome mortals who are smarter and cleverer and harder-working than other, lesser mortals.

Because the truth is, "I want to punch out Cthulhu without being a cheaty mage or superhero," is just another kind of wanting to be somebody special. "My character is so smart/clever/awesome at life that he beat the bad guy with both arms tied behind his back!"

Look to Dark Souls and playing as...I think it's the "Deprived?"...and never picking up an item or leveling up.

And my point throughout this thread (or the last two pages, anyway), is that D&D has always had a lot of trouble actually treating non-casters as being as magical, as extraordinary and as special as casters, on fiction level in addition to the mechanical level. Or rather, that it starts with the fiction level and the mechanics follow suit. High-level wizards are described as masters of the arcane arts, et cetera; descriptions of high level non-casters struggle beyond describing them as really good at what they could already do on level one. It's not just a failure of mechanics to represent the goals of the game - the goals are skewed to begin with. Or, perhaps, it's working as intended, if the superiority of casters is the goal.

The line between "normal" and "extranormal" being fuzzy is precisely the problem. There's no distinct line of when, exactly, a fighter (or any other class without spells) becomes truly larger than life.
The "fiction level" of D&D has always been secondary. The game is a game first, and fiction is written around the mechanics, except where the DM decides to just fiat things to suit his narrative.

Settings are established to provide backdrops for adventuring; their sensibility to us is going to vary and be limited. That said, most writers have gone out of their way to at least explain the most obvious ones. The world is as it is because the powerful characters like it that way, or they're distracted by "more important" things that mean the PCs have to solve "more trivial" problems.

Kraynic

2019-07-19, 02:18 PM

I've been lurking on these forums for some months, but this is one of the threads that caused me to go ahead and be able to post.

If the only thing you have ever played is D&D and very closely tied spin-offs, then all this debate about where the line between normal and "extranormal" falls makes sense. You have to have your normal melee, ranged, or sneaky types be demi-gods to compete with magic. You have to have the rest of the inhabitants of the world be dust beneath your feet (aside from specific allies/enemies), because that is what makes things "heroic". That is the way things are in D&D. But that isn't the way things have to be. Which is why I will play, but just refuse to run games in that system anymore.

For fantasy, I still run games in the old Palladium Fantasy system. I've no argument with the hate some people have for the layout of the books or the legal aggressiveness of the publisher, but the game does give you competent "normal" characters that are just as useful withing the game world as any of the magic classes. Magic can be powerful, but is still limited in such a way that it has the chance of being countered. And that system has been out of print for 25 years, so it isn't like the magic/mundane divide was just out of control in every game system ever.

But then, I prefer a game that isn't bordering on superheros in a fantasy setting. I much prefer reading fantasy novels of normal people that manage to navigate "interesting times" and live to tell the tale while gaining in skill and wisdom along the way. I prefer my characters being grounded in and among the common folk of the land. This is actually pretty difficult to make truly believable in some rpg systems. It seems that this type of thought and style of play is not appreciated among some people that have been posting here, and that is fine. Just don't assume that those of us that appreciate that style of story and play are thrilled about giving it up no matter how pretty the packaging of game system that does away with it.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-19, 02:20 PM

Oddly, I think the way to cater to them is to give them extranormal characters and carefully point out that their extranormality doesn't use "magic." But that they're obviously superspecialawesome mortals who are smarter and cleverer and harder-working than other, lesser mortals.

Because the truth is, "I want to punch out Cthulhu without being a cheaty mage or superhero," is just another kind of wanting to be somebody special. "My character is so smart/clever/awesome at life that he beat the bad guy with both arms tied behind his back!"

Look to Dark Souls and playing as...I think it's the "Deprived?"...and never picking up an item or leveling up.

That's where I came to "magic is as magic does". Which is not an assertion that all extranormal powers are magic -- it is my snarky way of saying that "but I'm not a spellcaster", the whole "spellcaster not spellcaster divide", is pretty much meaningless when it comes to discussing whether a character is "extranormal" or not.

In the context of your post, it would be "special is as special does". I don't care if the character is a spellcaster, a gunslinger, or an action-movie fist-master... if they can "punch out Cthulhu", then they're extranormal, and no amount of protestation to the contrary "because fantasy" will change that they are extranormal (settings in which normal people can punch out Cthulhu, and the typical lack of worldbuilding follow-through from that monumental tidbit, aside).

Segev

2019-07-19, 02:33 PM

That's where I came to "magic is as magic does". Which is not an assertion that all extranormal powers are magic -- it is my snarky way of saying that "but I'm not a spellcaster", the whole "spellcaster not spellcaster divide", is pretty much meaningless when it comes to discussing whether a character is "extranormal" or not.

In the context of your post, it would be "special is as special does". I don't care if the character is a spellcaster, a gunslinger, or an action-movie fist-master... if they can "punch out Cthulhu", then they're extranormal, and no amount of protestation to the contrary "because fantasy" will change that they are extranormal (settings in which normal people can punch out Cthulhu, and the typical lack of worldbuilding follow-through from that monumental tidbit, aside).

Right. Batman IS exceptional. Memetic Batman especially so. No, he doesn't have defined, take-away-with-a-genoshan-collar "superpowers," but anybody who claims Batman is not extraordinary is lying to themselves. If he weren't, then he wouldn't be the singular expression of awesomeness that stands out above the other wackos who put on masks, cowls, and capes.

I have in the distant past of one of my settings a time when humans were put on the world to scourge the other races, and were expressly given the ability to cast wish as a standard action and limited wish as a swift action at will. The world was rocked by this, for obvious reasons, until the same gods that caused this revoked the powers, because humanity had achieved their goal of forcing an end to the wars between the other races. This led to a crippled, helpless humanity with no concept of how to do things without free supermagic being beaten into the stone age and to near extinction, taking so long to "come back" that other races' forgot about them then rediscovered them as primitive, stone-age savages with nothing special to elevate them much above other beasts.

This actually came up only as "interesting history" except for the tombs of a few ancient human leaders where the spirits of the world still clung to the old permissions...which meant the human PCs in the party could use the above-mentioned powers at will while in said tomb. It was interesting to see just how scared this made the players, and they very carefully didn't make too many wishes. Even the powergamer only wished for his best stat to go up by 1, not by 5.

Morty

2019-07-19, 02:36 PM

The "fiction level" of D&D has always been secondary. The game is a game first, and fiction is written around the mechanics, except where the DM decides to just fiat things to suit his narrative.

Settings are established to provide backdrops for adventuring; their sensibility to us is going to vary and be limited. That said, most writers have gone out of their way to at least explain the most obvious ones. The world is as it is because the powerful characters like it that way, or they're distracted by "more important" things that mean the PCs have to solve "more trivial" problems.

Fiction isn't just the setting. It's all the flavor text surrounding the mechanics. Such as class descriptions - it's the first thing many players will see, when they set out to make a character. D&D has always certainly had an odd relationship to its fiction. It's not a truly universal system, like FATE or GURPS, but it's not tied to a particular setting.

Considering the regularity with which the question from this thread comes up, and the way people keep talking past each other every time, I'm inclined to think this approach isn't working too well. Consider also the strong resistance against the very notion of "martial superpowers" and the people for whom the superiority of casters is a feature, not a bug.

Segev

2019-07-19, 02:54 PM

Considering the regularity with which the question from this thread comes up, and the way people keep talking past each other every time, I'm inclined to think this approach isn't working too well. Consider also the strong resistance against the very notion of "martial superpowers" and the people for whom the superiority of casters is a feature, not a bug.

I've seen the strong resistance to giving extranormal powers to noncasters, but I haven't seen anybody claiming that the disparity is a feature. Usually, the debate comes down to whether you want to nerf casters or buff noncasters, and the former side gets upset at the idea of doing the latter on the basis that "martial superpowers" are "not realistic" or somesuch.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-19, 03:13 PM

Fiction isn't just the setting. It's all the flavor text surrounding the mechanics. Such as class descriptions - it's the first thing many players will see, when they set out to make a character. D&D has always certainly had an odd relationship to its fiction. It's not a truly universal system, like FATE or GURPS, but it's not tied to a particular setting.

Considering the regularity with which the question from this thread comes up, and the way people keep talking past each other every time, I'm inclined to think this approach isn't working too well. Consider also the strong resistance against the very notion of "martial superpowers" and the people for whom the superiority of casters is a feature, not a bug.

The relationship between D&D, the "fluff", and the playerbase, has long been odd.

For example, in the 5e subforum, I've been told both, "use warlock to build that character, don't worry about the class fluff" and "your warlock has to have a patron, it's core to the archetype"... and occasionally it even seems like I get both sorts of comments from the same poster at different points in a thread. :smalleek:

Morty

2019-07-19, 04:04 PM

I've seen the strong resistance to giving extranormal powers to noncasters, but I haven't seen anybody claiming that the disparity is a feature. Usually, the debate comes down to whether you want to nerf casters or buff noncasters, and the former side gets upset at the idea of doing the latter on the basis that "martial superpowers" are "not realistic" or somesuch.

I've seen this sentiment, here and elsewhere. Either as "that's the way it should be" or "that's just how it is, nothing to be done about it".

The relationship between D&D, the "fluff", and the playerbase, has long been odd.

For example, in the 5e subforum, I've been told both, "use warlock to build that character, don't worry about the class fluff" and "your warlock has to have a patron, it's core to the archetype"... and occasionally it even seems like I get both sorts of comments from the same poster at different points in a thread. :smalleek:

If the game can't stay consistent on it, neither will the players.

Segev

2019-07-19, 04:44 PM

The relationship between D&D, the "fluff", and the playerbase, has long been odd.

For example, in the 5e subforum, I've been told both, "use warlock to build that character, don't worry about the class fluff" and "your warlock has to have a patron, it's core to the archetype"... and occasionally it even seems like I get both sorts of comments from the same poster at different points in a thread. :smalleek:

Well, mechanically, "Patron" is a class feature, though how you fluff it? That's between you and your DM.

I played, very briefly, a GOO Warlock who was his own patron. Specifically, he was once a human, got lost in the Far Realms, grew and adapted to survive there and got quite potent, and was trying to find his way home to visit...and found he didn't fit anymore. Not just "didn't fit in," but literally had too many dimensions. The human warlock was the projection of his body he could squeeze in, roughly akin to peering through a peep-hole and wiggling in a few fingers when trying to work in a doll house sized for D&D minis, with walls on all sides so you have to work through windows. More or less all of his powers were manifestations of him poking and proding at things from "outside," and his increasing levels would've represented getting better at working through that limited interface and/or squeezing more of himself in.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-21, 09:45 AM

Well, mechanically, "Patron" is a class feature, though how you fluff it? That's between you and your DM.

I played, very briefly, a GOO Warlock who was his own patron. Specifically, he was once a human, got lost in the Far Realms, grew and adapted to survive there and got quite potent, and was trying to find his way home to visit...and found he didn't fit anymore. Not just "didn't fit in," but literally had too many dimensions. The human warlock was the projection of his body he could squeeze in, roughly akin to peering through a peep-hole and wiggling in a few fingers when trying to work in a doll house sized for D&D minis, with walls on all sides so you have to work through windows. More or less all of his powers were manifestations of him poking and proding at things from "outside," and his increasing levels would've represented getting better at working through that limited interface and/or squeezing more of himself in.

I've seen quite a few posts asserting that the mechanics filed under "Patron" are a class feature, but that the actual patron is utterly unnecessary depending on how one skins the thing.

Quertus

2019-07-21, 12:12 PM

Okay, so 4E didn't "feel" like D&D because it didn't have some very specific things that you like.

4E grew out of a particular way of thinking about D&D

But to say it's "not D&D" just doesn't seem to serve any purpose except to shut down discussion.

How are those arguments less valid than claims that 4E isn't D&D?

I'll do you one better (why is Gamora?): Personally, I have difficulty viewing 4e as an RPG, let alone as D&D. I view 4e as a "D&D-inspired war game".

Quertus

2019-07-21, 12:27 PM

My Muggle class, take 2:

Skilled (supplemental)
Whenever called upon to make a mundane roll (attack, save, skill check, etc) for himself (not for minions), the Muggle has Advantage on the roll. Later, this advances to Super Advantage (3 dice, or two dice if also has Disadvantage). {I'm still not sold that "auto-success" feels mundane; also, it makes "opposed rolls" (does your system have those?) rather difficult}

Heck'a Quick (supplemental)
Whenever the Muggle could take an action, he can take two Mundane actions instead. Both must be legal actions, and the Muggle incurs all costs (except action costs) for those actions. If these are Mundane attacks, he may take 3 attacks with the same weapon instead. Later, this advances to even more attacks, and possibly more of other actions, as well. {Referenced cost, made Mundane more obviously a keyword}

Action Economy (supplemental)
Whenever the Muggle could take an action himself, or through minions, he can choose to both take an action himself and through minions, or he can take an action through each group of applicable minions.

Wise (constant)
When a scene is described to the Muggle, choose one: describe both data and wisdom layers, or allow the Muggle player to ask questions until they reach the wisdom layer.

Perceptive (constant)
Whenever the Muggle perceives the results of an action, he learns everything about the capabilities and personality of the person performing the action. He may, at any time, for no action, ask any questions about the personality of the individual who performed the action, especially "what would they do if…".

Contingency Plan (supplemental)
Whenever the Muggle takes an action, he also gets to declare a Contingency (which may simply be written on a folded paper in front of him) - an action related to their primary action, that takes place if a specified Complication arises. The action must be legal, and the Muggle incurs all costs of the continent action, except action costs. If the Complication comes to pass, he may immediately take his Continent action. By expending Effort, the Contingency lasts beyond the current action. For example, if the Muggle books a trip, he may, as a continent action, make his luggage function as a flotation device for the duration of the trip. Or, if he were climbing a cliff, her could have a contingency action to grab the cliff face should he start falling, to catch falling objects, to ignite a smoke grenade if anyone starts shooting, etc.

Quick Study (action)
By spending an action while with an expert or library or equivalent, the Muggle may temperately gain any Mundane skill, talent, etc (of his level or lower?). Every long rest, the Muggle must make (insert roll here) to retain this temporary trait.

Setup (action)
By spending an action now, the Muggle may take a specified action in the future under specified conditions. For example, by hiring guards now, I'll make an attack when attacked; by hiring saboteurs now, I'll start a fire when… This action must be legal, and is tied to the continued existence and presence of the corresponding object (ie, the guards cannot make the attack if they are waiting outside, for example).

Socially Adept (constant)
Whenever the Muggle would gain social status points (or whatever your system uses), he gains twice as many instead. This multiplier increases with level. Further, when he would lose points, he loses half as many, save for none.

Financially Adept (constant)
Whenever the Muggle would gain wealth points (or whatever your system uses), he gains twice as many instead. This multiplier increases with level. Further, when he would lose points, he loses half as many, save for none.

Delegate (supplemental / action)
Whenever the Muggle would be required to take a mundane Maintenance action, he may have an official under his command attempt to do so, making a Spirit(?) roll to determine if it was successful. Further, whenever anyone else needs to make a social maintenance action, the Muggle may similarly take an action to pay their maintenance, and make a Spirit(?) roll to handle their maintenance. For example, if the Muggle needs to lean on the Mayor to continue to have him in his pocket, he may instead contact his "official", Vinnie, to act as his proxy, maintaining control of the mayor while he is on vacation. This represents how the Muggle has structured his network to be more easily maintained than most. At higher levels, this represents how Vinnie, too, has been trained to act proactively - whenever the Muggle fails to pay the upkeep, an officer under his command will step up to attempt to do so.

So, does anyone feel that these abilities are not mundane, or sound like retcon powers?

Morty

2019-07-21, 06:51 PM

D&D spell-casting is, at the end of the day, pretty difficult to make to coexist with other sources of power without overshadowing them. For a long time, it was the only source of power that mattered, past a certain point. So when ToB came around and tried to change it, people said "this looks like spells". Because what else could it look like? Spells are how you get things done. Otherwise you just roll and hope for the best. The interaction between magic and non-magic has generally been one-way. You can remove mundane obstacles with magic easily, but (depending on the edition) a lot of magic requires magic to deal with, period. So ToB gave non-casters their own abilities that mechanically worked like spells.

Spell-casting is just too powerful, too convenient and too easy, so when it does run into some limitations, they tend to just flat-out negate it - like simply not having the right spell prepared or known. Or spell resistance/immunity. Or anti-magic fields, but those are really unlikely to actually come up without GM fiat. The problem with the Knock spell is really overblown, but it serves as a pretty good illustration. It's easier and quicker than simply trying to pick it, and the real limit is that the wizard/sorcerer might not have the spell or be conserving spell slots. Because the spell slots are the actually important resource. 5E added a loud noise that makes it inconvenient for stealth missions. That's a far better direction than Vancian casting, but it would be even better if it wasn't "spend a slot to make the problem go away".

But the Vancian casting is here to stay, otherwise people would protest. D&D needs to have spell preparation and daily spells and that's that. Sadly, daily spells work poorly as a limiting mechanic, because they depend so much on the pace of the game. In a traditional dungeon crawl, the GM can control it by not letting the players sleep whenever they want and sapping their resources (which is to say, spells, for the most part) with encounters. But once you step outside the dungeon, it gets harder. Not only may the GM be unable to enforce strict pacing, they might be unwilling to. Because the story they want to tell doesn't really fit four encounters a day.

Tome of Battle, Path of War and similar methods can play catch-up, but they can never quite get there, not without some silly levels of rocket-tag. The new editions of the game - 5E and PF2E - seem willing to reduce the power and versatility of spells. But both of them largely reject the idea of "martial superpowers", as some put it. 5E relegated them to the Battlemaster subclass. PF2E seems to have some will to introduce them... as long as they're feats and usable at will. It took the previously-existing limited-use non-casting abilities, like barbarian rage or monk's stunning fist and made them at-will. And generally scrapped most resources that aren't daily.

By and large, the idea of "martial powers" has lost. Maybe most players simply don't want them. But either way, the designers either don't put them in (5E) or are cagey about it (PF2E). It's a focus on form versus function, really. 5E's state of balance - where casters' spells aren't as powerful as in 3E and non-casters are reasonably competent at doing the same thing form level 1 to level 20 - might be the best D&D is ever going to get.

Mechalich

2019-07-21, 07:42 PM

In a traditional dungeon crawl, the GM can control it by not letting the players sleep whenever they want and sapping their resources (which is to say, spells, for the most part) with encounters. But once you step outside the dungeon, it gets harder. Not only may the GM be unable to enforce strict pacing, they might be unwilling to. Because the story they want to tell doesn't really fit four encounters a day.

In a traditional dungeon crawl the GM can also throw in a bunch of piddly little encounters that would require too many spells to burn through to eliminate even though they are only a minor threat and thereby allow the 'all-day' aspect of the mundane characters to actually shine. A lot of D&D video games do this a lot because producing such encounters doesn't impose the same kind of resource demands that it does in live play. Baldur's Gate II in particular is positively filled with encounters you steamroll without ever casting a spell.

This sort of management also worked better in earlier editions when casters had less spells overall and SoS and SoD spells were quite likely to do nothing whatsoever do to the nature of the saving throw and magic resistance systems. 5e gets back to that, in part, which makes this sort of active management work better in dungeons.

But outside the dungeon, yeah, strict pacing not only hurts the story, it simply isn't fun. Video game RPGs with time limits - like Pathfinder Kingmaker - get ragged on for having such limits all the time. Controlling pacing outside of the strict 'mission' context, which is what a dungeon ultimately is, doesn't work well as a management device.

Segev

2019-07-22, 10:05 AM

I've seen quite a few posts asserting that the mechanics filed under "Patron" are a class feature, but that the actual patron is utterly unnecessary depending on how one skins the thing.I suppose that's a possible argument, but when you start making that argument, you're also arguing that you can refluff flavor elements of other classes away entirely. I am actually a proponent of that if you have a really cool character concept and want to play something arguably balanced in the rules that doesn't exist in the fluff, but that's definitely into homebrew that just happens to use extant mechanics.

For example, "Yeah, I took a level of dragon sorcerer for extra cantrips, to represent my wizard studying more fundamentals than most. My scales are actually a mage armor spell I keep active at all times, and I just happen to always prepare a couple of spells as my signature spells; like I said, practiced the fundamentals 'til they're rote." The only mechanical hitch here is that the sorc spells would use Cha instead of Int for the DC, but otherwise, this would be a total refluff of the Sorcerer to fit a particular concept, and would need DM permission, but I'd find it acceptable.

But it's DEFINITELY refluffing.

I haven't actually seen people arguing to do away with the Patron entirely; what have they proposed as alternate fluff?

The new editions of the game - 5E and PF2E - seem willing to reduce the power and versatility of spells. But both of them largely reject the idea of "martial superpowers", as some put it. 5E relegated them to the Battlemaster subclass.

You're getting hung up on form factor, here. The Battlemaster is recognizably the ToB-inspired subclass, but its features feel far less like spells due to how they're organized and paid for. I do think it could use some massive expansion and adaptation as subclasses for other classes, but it's also not the only place 5e has stepped up and given classes things that are beyond "normal." Barbarians have some massive "martial superpowers" as well as outright supernatural tricks available to them. The zealot's "ribbon" of not needing material components to be resurrected is amazing, considering how expensive those can be. It reduces the cost to a cleric's spell slot, and lets them tank with minimal fear of death. They also have class features that make killing them way harder. The totem barbarian has outright supernatural abilities, only one of which (beast speech) is specified as "ritual spellcasting" or in any way takes the form-factor of spell-like abilities.

The monk has massively refactored spellcasting in at least two of its subclasses, using ki points like pp or sp to cast spells. And the sun soul monk subclass has blatantly supernatural powers that don't use any spellcasting at all, unless you want to lump every obviously magical ranged attack as being "spellcasting by another name."

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-22, 10:23 AM

I suppose that's a possible argument, but when you start making that argument, you're also arguing that you can refluff flavor elements of other classes away entirely. I am actually a proponent of that if you have a really cool character concept and want to play something arguably balanced in the rules that doesn't exist in the fluff, but that's definitely into homebrew that just happens to use extant mechanics.

For example, "Yeah, I took a level of dragon sorcerer for extra cantrips, to represent my wizard studying more fundamentals than most. My scales are actually a mage armor spell I keep active at all times, and I just happen to always prepare a couple of spells as my signature spells; like I said, practiced the fundamentals 'til they're rote." The only mechanical hitch here is that the sorc spells would use Cha instead of Int for the DC, but otherwise, this would be a total refluff of the Sorcerer to fit a particular concept, and would need DM permission, but I'd find it acceptable.

But it's DEFINITELY refluffing.

I haven't actually seen people arguing to do away with the Patron entirely; what have they proposed as alternate fluff?

In the printed text itself, it's mentioned that a character might have been exposed to something, even a "patron", and gained power without the "patron" or source even realizing anything happened. There's also a hint of suggestions about those who delve too far into things best left alone and unlock power through knowledge instead of through being gifted by another being. Then there's the patron who gives the power and then says "have fun with that" and is never heard from again. And confusing things with the Sorcerer, the Warlock who inherits the power in their bloodline, also half-stated in the text.

Beyond that, had a character I was using as example of not working in D&D, and someone suggested using the Warlock class but making the character her own patron because of the nature of her power (it's the character I mention from time to time who has a near-bottomless mote of the "infinite darkness that came before" for a "soul" in setting where most living things have a tiny spark of the divine light).

Segev

2019-07-22, 10:52 AM

In the printed text itself, it's mentioned that a character might have been exposed to something, even a "patron", and gained power without the "patron" or source even realizing anything happened. There's also a hint of suggestions about those who delve too far into things best left alone and unlock power through knowledge instead of through being gifted by another being. Then there's the patron who gives the power and then says "have fun with that" and is never heard from again. And confusing things with the Sorcerer, the Warlock who inherits the power in their bloodline, also half-stated in the text. Sure. I don't see why this is problematic. Though the line between Warlock and Sorcerer tends to be whether the magical progenitor actively gifted you with something, or you just inherited some of their power. And if you're playing something with that blurred a line, multiclassing a sorlock makes a lot of sense.

It is deliberately customizable. The key point of a Patron being that your power isn't just you mastering the secrets of the cosmos, but it also isn't you worshipping and receiving active and continuous divine favor from a godly being. Warlocks are weird.

Beyond that, had a character I was using as example of not working in D&D, and someone suggested using the Warlock class but making the character her own patron because of the nature of her power (it's the character I mention from time to time who has a near-bottomless mote of the "infinite darkness that came before" for a "soul" in setting where most living things have a tiny spark of the divine light).That's a warlock-or-sorcerer origin, yeah. Whether she's "her own" Patron or she just has a unique one in the form of the terrible source of the spark of her soul is a matter of question. She could also have the power inborn; with the "darkness" theme I think I'd go for taht "shadow sorcerer" subclass, though I don't know the subclass nor the full details on the nature of this "primordial darkness" you've conceived to be certain it's a good fit.

Jakinbandw

2019-07-22, 02:15 PM

My Muggle class, take 2:

So, does anyone feel that these abilities are not mundane, or sound like retcon powers?

I'm sorry @Quertus, I've been trying to get my game into a playable state with a full set of playtest rules. As soon as I have the playtest rules down I'll go over this, I promise!

I'm looking forward to working with you to try to try to have as few of my abilities be retcons as possible. Hopefully we can work out something that we can agree on. For now though, I have one question:

Never Alone (Action)
During a long rest you may send any number of mobs into Special Operations. While in Special Operations they exist in a state of uncertainty. As an action you may commit effort for the day to have any number of mobs that were in Special Operations arrive at a location you or a mob you have communication with can perceive. You may choose the manner of their arrival, some examples being emerging through the Ways, or having been hiding in the area in advance. You and your allies may use this ability, though you may not use offensive abilities while using it, and Perception Abilities can counter it, forcing you to appear at a valid location of your choosing.

Am I right in assuming that you would not consider this a retcon ability?

Quertus

2019-07-22, 03:44 PM

For now though, I have one question:

Never Alone (Action)
During a long rest you may send any number of mobs into Special Operations. While in Special Operations they exist in a state of uncertainty. As an action you may commit effort for the day to have any number of mobs that were in Special Operations arrive at a location you or a mob you have communication with can perceive. You may choose the manner of their arrival, some examples being emerging through the Ways, or having been hiding in the area in advance. You and your allies may use this ability, though you may not use offensive abilities while using it, and Perception Abilities can counter it, forcing you to appear at a valid location of your choosing.

Am I right in assuming that you would not consider this a retcon ability?

It depends a bit on the mechanics of the system, but, in general, this is choosing later what some resource had been doing, rather than choosing when you assign the resource. So, I would generally consider it a retcon power. The line, "While in Special Operations they exist in a state of uncertainty" is one red flag, but the tense of "or having been hiding in the area in advance" is a clear issue.

If, OTOH, it were, say,

Magical Recall (Action)
During a long rest you may send any number of mobs into Special Operations with a recall token. As an action you may commit effort for the day to have any number of mobs that were in Special Operations arrive at a location you or a mob possessing a homing token can perceive. You may choose the manner of their arrival, some examples being emerging through the Ways, or teleporting to your location. You and your allies may use this ability, though you may not use offensive abilities while using it, and appropriate anti-Ways abilities can counter it, forcing the teleporter to appear at a valid location of your choosing.

Note the differences. First, sure, mine is magical. Let's get that out of the way right now. But it's all "I take this action now, and it alters things moving forward", not "I take this action now, and I write how we got to that point". EDIT: whenever you use "special operations" as "I'll define what they were doing later", it's a retcon ability.

Jakinbandw

2019-07-22, 04:00 PM

It depends a bit on the mechanics of the system, but, in general, this is choosing later what some resource had been doing, rather than choosing when you assign the resource. So, I would generally consider it a retcon power. The line, "While in Special Operations they exist in a state of uncertainty" is one red flag, but the tense of "or having been hiding in the area in advance" is a clear issue.

If, OTOH, it were, say,

Magical Recall (Action)
During a long rest you may send any number of mobs into Special Operations with a recall token. As an action you may commit effort for the day to have any number of mobs that were in Special Operations arrive at a location you or a mob possessing a homing token can perceive. You may choose the manner of their arrival, some examples being emerging through the Ways, or teleporting to your location. You and your allies may use this ability, though you may not use offensive abilities while using it, and appropriate anti-Ways abilities can counter it, forcing the teleporter to appear at a valid location of your choosing.

Note the differences. First, sure, mine is magical. Let's get that out of the way right now. But it's all "I take this action now, and it alters things moving forward", not "I take this action now, and I write how we got to that point".

That's fair. I guess I might as well just embrace retroactive abilities then. Trying to remove them pushes the fantasy of the setting into places I don't want it to be. I was thinking of trying to remove them, but at this point I think it's probably better to just embrace them fully. I can't make the game I want without them.

Quertus

2019-07-22, 04:31 PM

That's fair. I guess I might as well just embrace retroactive abilities then. Trying to remove them pushes the fantasy of the setting into places I don't want it to be. I was thinking of trying to remove them, but at this point I think it's probably better to just embrace them fully. I can't make the game I want without them.

Why not? What kind of game do you want? (EDIT: also, note my edit on the last post).

Jakinbandw

2019-07-22, 05:20 PM

Why not? What kind of game do you want? (EDIT: also, note my edit on the last post).

A game without magical supremacy. A game where a person without powers is able to stand beside those with and shape the world. A game where you can be born special, or be born common and yet still achieve the same scale and scope of power.

Also a game which allows for a broad array of concepts to be fairly simply expressed.

I started work on this game after running into dissatisfaction with how high powered games model high power combat. From there I picked up the idea of Tristalting and using that to allow very personalized characters while still offering guidance and inspiration. In the end, that's what I'm going for. A system that isn't just a toolbox to build powers, but instead allows for a vast variety of character archetypes without needing to spend hours trying to figure out if you should take +1 damage on a power over +10 feet of range. A halfway point between Mutants and Masterminds and 5E.

The idea that unless you use magic, you are far more limited is antithetical to the purpose of the system. Sure, I want there to be different mechanics so that not every class feels the same, but in the end I want to give each of the archetypes ways to play that are easy to pick up and use. Sure I could build a very complex system for giving powers that require the player to plan and set everything up ahead of time (and I definitely will!), but I also want a game for someone that wants to play batman with the same amount of investment that someone who is playing a fire sorcerer has. Something that is ready to go out of the package without needing tons of prep work.

For that I need retcon abilities or magic. And saying that you can't be cool without magic is against the whole point of the system. Therefore retcon abilities are my only resort.

To be clear Quertus: I like your ideas. I am probably going to work a bunch of them into the intelligence attribute class. But I desire different play styles for 'Muggles'. Ones that require set up, and ones that are able to play off the cuff. And without retcon abilities, I don't ever see that happening.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-22, 06:35 PM

Jakinbandw

2019-07-22, 09:57 PM

(Sorry if you answered one or both before, the thread has moved fast.)
No worries!:smallsmile:

Two thoughts here.

1) Have you considered a lower-magic setting and system, such that magic is a different way of doing things, not an all-encompassing better way of doing the "impossible" -- so that those without magic don't need these sorts of abilities to keep up?
No. There are enough low powered fantasy games out there already. I can only think of a couple that allow for the level of power I am aiming for, and of those I think that mine might fill a niche of being fairly easy to play, and not forcing you to play a specific type of character (A Godbound, An Exalted, Ect). Low magic games grow on trees. I don't need to make a new system for it.

2) If it were something other than magic, say power armor and pulse rifles and computer jacking in a science fiction setting, would you consider it unfair or imbalanced that an unskilled character walking around in swim trunks would be at a disadvantage against someone with all the right training and gear?
No. However I would consider it unfair if someone who was a Captain of a space ship, a politician, a soldier, an ESPer and a scientist weren't balanced against one another. I have classes to fill archetypes, you want classes to be balanced. Being 'an unskilled character walking around in swim trunks' is not an archetype of science fiction, but if it was, then yes, I would want it to be a balanced option so that players that chose it would be able to play the game and have fun.

Honestly, what I see from this question bothers me a bit. It's the idea that only mages matter in fantasy games and that all other classes are only there to show how awesome magic is. To you, a fighter, a classic trope in fantasy (just look at art) is equivalent to someone without training, equipment, and completely out of place.

I don't like that thinking.

I believe that if people want to play a classic archetype, a system shouldn't tell them that they can't, or make it so that no matter what they do, they are, as you say, like a "an unskilled character walking around in swim trunks." I know you like simulationism quite a bit MKJ, but to me, it's secondary to allowing a balanced game where all character archetypes are able to function.

I'm honestly curious if you like games with Classes in them as opposed to something like GURPS. Each one imposes limits on characters that you seem to strongly be opposed to. My system sticks within the same area as DnD. At the end of the day, it's a class based system, even if it's set up to allow more freedom for character creation.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-22, 10:29 PM

No worries!:smallsmile:

No. There are enough low powered fantasy games out there already. I can only think of a couple that allow for the level of power I am aiming for, and of those I think that mine might fill a niche of being fairly easy to play, and not forcing you to play a specific type of character (A Godbound, An Exalted, Ect). Low magic games grow on trees. I don't need to make a new system for it.

Well we can eliminate that then, and move on to other things. :smallsmile:

No. However I would consider it unfair if someone who was a Captain of a space ship, a politician, a soldier, an ESPer and a scientist weren't balanced against one another. I have classes to fill archetypes, you want classes to be balanced. Being 'an unskilled character walking around in swim trunks' is not an archetype of science fiction, but if it was, then yes, I would want it to be a balanced option so that players that chose it would be able to play the game and have fun.

Honestly, what I see from this question bothers me a bit. It's the idea that only mages matter in fantasy games and that all other classes are only there to show how awesome magic is. To you, a fighter, a classic trope in fantasy (just look at art) is equivalent to someone without training, equipment, and completely out of place.

I don't like that thinking.

I believe that if people want to play a classic archetype, a system shouldn't tell them that they can't, or make it so that no matter what they do, they are, as you say, like a "an unskilled character walking around in swim trunks." I know you like simulationism quite a bit MKJ, but to me, it's secondary to allowing a balanced game where all character archetypes are able to function.

OK. I wasn't trying to make a universal point about characters without magic across all settings that have magic or poo-poo on all such characters as useless. There's no intended parallel there other than strictly "doesn't have magic in a world full of magic" and "doesn't have future-tech in a world full of future-tech".

I was trying to draw the starkest picture possible to untangle one sort of huge advantage from another sort of huge advantage, because I was curious if it was the source or the degree that of advantage that bothers you.

Try not to assume too much from the questions, they're (usually) not a setup or trap, or meant to lead you to a point.

I'm honestly curious if you like games with Classes in them as opposed to something like GURPS. Each one imposes limits on characters that you seem to strongly be opposed to. My system sticks within the same area as DnD. At the end of the day, it's a class based system, even if it's set up to allow more freedom for character creation.

I'm not a fan of character classes, or archetype-based character creation, or steep vertical character progression.

(See also, the thread about sci-fi RPGs and classes going on here presently.)

Jakinbandw

2019-07-23, 02:13 AM

Try not to assume too much from the questions, they're (usually) not a setup or trap, or meant to lead you to a point.
I humbly apologize.

I'm not a fan of character classes, or archetype-based character creation, or steep vertical character progression.

And my game has both those things in spades. I suspect the type of game I'm making might not be for you. :smalltongue:

Talakeal

2019-07-23, 07:41 AM

Being 'an unskilled character walking around in swim trunks' is not an archetype of science fiction, but if it was, then yes, I would want it to be a balanced option so that players that chose it would be able to play the game and have fun.

Swim trunks, no. A dressing gown on the other hand...

Quertus

2019-07-23, 08:17 AM

A game without magical supremacy. A game where a person without powers is able to stand beside those with and shape the world. A game where you can be born special, or be born common and yet still achieve the same scale and scope of power.

Also a game which allows for a broad array of concepts to be fairly simply expressed.

I started work on this game after running into dissatisfaction with how high powered games model high power combat. From there I picked up the idea of Tristalting and using that to allow very personalized characters while still offering guidance and inspiration. In the end, that's what I'm going for. A system that isn't just a toolbox to build powers, but instead allows for a vast variety of character archetypes without needing to spend hours trying to figure out if you should take +1 damage on a power over +10 feet of range. A halfway point between Mutants and Masterminds and 5E.

The idea that unless you use magic, you are far more limited is antithetical to the purpose of the system. Sure, I want there to be different mechanics so that not every class feels the same, but in the end I want to give each of the archetypes ways to play that are easy to pick up and use. Sure I could build a very complex system for giving powers that require the player to plan and set everything up ahead of time (and I definitely will!), but I also want a game for someone that wants to play batman with the same amount of investment that someone who is playing a fire sorcerer has. Something that is ready to go out of the package without needing tons of prep work.

For that I need retcon abilities or magic. And saying that you can't be cool without magic is against the whole point of the system. Therefore retcon abilities are my only resort.

To be clear Quertus: I like your ideas. I am probably going to work a bunch of them into the intelligence attribute class. But I desire different play styles for 'Muggles'. Ones that require set up, and ones that are able to play off the cuff. And without retcon abilities, I don't ever see that happening.

2) If it were something other than magic, say power armor and pulse rifles and computer jacking in a science fiction setting, would you consider it unfair or imbalanced that an unskilled character walking around in swim trunks would be at a disadvantage against someone with all the right training and gear?

So, I was going to say, "none of that requires retcon powers". But, on a second read through, I tried to narrow down the pain points:

"but I also want a game for someone that wants to play batman with the same amount of investment that someone who is playing a fire sorcerer has. Something that is ready to go out of the package without needing tons of prep work.

For that I need retcon abilities or magic

But I desire different play styles for 'Muggles'. Ones that require set up, and ones that are able to play off the cuff. And without retcon abilities, I don't ever see that happening"

So, let's ignore magic, your RPG, everything but these bits.

Let me make a parallel, and you tell me if it's fair:

"I want to make a chess game. Some classes get extra pieces, or can make different moves, or can resurrect pieces.

But I also want a tactician class, to represent people with skill who just play the game better. I cannot see how to do that without retcon powers."

To my mind, the fundamental problem is that everyone has to play the game, unless they're supposed to be good at the game.

Now, if this game were HP, then I'd agree - D&D Fighters should be hitting for status effects with every swing of their sword (something I didn't know how to do in your system, else the Muggle would have gotten that, too).

But when the game that they don't have to play is thinking, is *your game*? That just doesn't sit right.

So, how does one make brainless abilities for a smart character, that can be played "off the cuff"? Hmmm… how about… better bonuses for mobs
Bonuses for non-mob allies
Information-gathering abilities
"Are you sure" - Not quite retcon abilities where the GM points out when the player declares a dumb action, and why it is dumb.
Knowledge (yes, even in D&D, knowledge skills are annoying boarding retcon abilities, but, thanks to D&D, you probably won't list most people over this one)
And we don't need to stop at "smart" for Muggle power, so let's add Bonuses when creating wealth
Ability to avoid losses of wealth
Bonuses in social situations / ability to avoid social losses
Bonuses in political, reputation, fame, trust/faith … and ability to avoid losses
Fast recovery of stress / ability to avoid losses
Extra actions
Free contingency plans on every action
Better access to purchase things (black market connections, Amazon, whatever)
Psychology (ability to understand the motives of others)
Viral memes (catch all for ability to heal or attack various pools indirectly)

Segev

2019-07-23, 10:14 AM

One thing the "tactician" class in this hypothetical RPG where all characters play chess could do is have "read your opponent." They might be able to ask, perhaps once per turn, "If I made this move, how would you respond?" demonstrate the move, and then the opponent must make the move they said they would if the tactician chooses to make the move he asked about.

It's not very powerful, as it's only a minor one-turn-look-ahead, and it could be annoying in real play, but it wouldn't be a retcon power since it's looking ahead rather than using hindsight.

Another thing a Tactician might be able to do is effectively hand out idiot balls. It's often called out when done obviously in fiction, but it's inevitable that the way you show a character's brilliance is by showing him in comparison to those who are less brilliant. The author must think of anything any of his characters do, so the author is inherently choosing to have his less-brilliant characters "fall" for the brilliant character's moves. When the "brilliant" character's moves seem too obvious to the audience, it can seem like the other characters are just being really stupid in order to make the one character seem like a genius. "WHAT!? He's using WATER on our FIRE MAGIC? Who ever would have thought to use our one weakness against us!?"

In this vein, a Tactician class in chess might have "bait the trap," which allows them to declare that a particular piece of theirs must be captured, if possible, on their opponent's turn. Or, if that's too much (because you could use this to insist they take a pawn rather than your queen, which seems pretty dumb), "If you can capture a piece on your next turn, you must, O noble opponent." Thus, using this technique can force a sub-optimal move, likely one that pushes him out of position or exposes another piece to a trap. What it's simulating is the brilliant tactician leaving a cunning trap for which the foe has fallen, even though the other player wouldn't really have fallen for it because they have metaknowledge or the tactician's player isn't as cunning as his tactician character.

Jakinbandw

2019-07-23, 11:29 AM

"I want to make a chess game. Some classes get extra pieces, or can make different moves, or can resurrect pieces.
Sure!

But I also want a tactician class, to represent people with skill who just play the game better. I cannot see how to do that without retcon powers."
And this is where you mistake my intentions. Let's see if I can explain my point of view in this hypothetical chess game below:

I want to make a chess game. Some classes get extra pieces, or can make different moves, or can resurrect pieces. I also want a few classes that work with nothing but pawns, and some that have no pawns at all. Pawn classes would have the ability to designate pawns that can move in ways that are like what rooks, bishops, queens, and knights do. Some have more abilities that let them designate pawns to move like this, others just have more pawns, still others have the ability to place a pawn at there end of the board every time they lose a pawn.

What I feel like your saying is this:

Pawns can't move like rooks, and letting them move that way doesn't sit right with me. Pawns should only be ever able to move like pawns. The other things look fine though.

This finally came to me when I linked the ability that allows for the movement of armies. You didn't have a problem with the effects of the ability, what you had a problem with was that it was being done without magic. You wrote up a perfectly fine magical version of the ability, but that ability did the exact same thing as retcon one. You don't want a pawn moving like a rook. Another example: a divine tier ritualist can build a ritual to change the entire world over the course of a few minutes. This is mirrored by what wealth does, though wealth has some limitations and can only alter areas they control. In return however the wealth version can't be stopped and doesn't stop the wealth character from taking actions while the change is happening. Both can make massive changes, but one is a pawn moving like a queen, and one is a queen.

So, how does one make brainless abilities for a smart character, that can be played "off the cuff"? Hmmm… how about… better bonuses for mobs
Bonuses for non-mob allies
Information-gathering abilities
"Are you sure" - Not quite retcon abilities where the GM points out when the player declares a dumb action, and why it is dumb.
Knowledge (yes, even in D&D, knowledge skills are annoying boarding retcon abilities, but, thanks to D&D, you probably won't list most people over this one)
And we don't need to stop at "smart" for Muggle power, so let's add Bonuses when creating wealth
Ability to avoid losses of wealth
Bonuses in social situations / ability to avoid social losses
Bonuses in political, reputation, fame, trust/faith … and ability to avoid losses
Fast recovery of stress / ability to avoid losses
Extra actions
Free contingency plans on every action
Better access to purchase things (black market connections, Amazon, whatever)
Psychology (ability to understand the motives of others)
Viral memes (catch all for ability to heal or attack various pools indirectly)

I really need to work poisons into the various rouge classes when I get around to them.

In this vein, a Tactician class in chess might have "bait the trap," which allows them to declare that a particular piece of theirs must be captured, if possible, on their opponent's turn. Or, if that's too much (because you could use this to insist they take a pawn rather than your queen, which seems pretty dumb), "If you can capture a piece on your next turn, you must, O noble opponent." Thus, using this technique can force a sub-optimal move, likely one that pushes him out of position or exposes another piece to a trap. What it's simulating is the brilliant tactician leaving a cunning trap for which the foe has fallen, even though the other player wouldn't really have fallen for it because they have metaknowledge or the tactician's player isn't as cunning as his tactician character.

I'm planning to base intelligence heavily around mechanics like this. Basically the ability to call out moves by your opponent, allies, and self, and if you get them right, you counter them for massive damage or something similar. Basically something of a combo system. I'm looking forward to writing it up, but I'm bogged down on character creation right now. Character Sheets are annoying to design for me.

Karl Aegis

2019-07-23, 11:37 AM

Segev

2019-07-23, 11:45 AM

Which Batman are you talking about? The Batman I know couldn't beat Bane in a fair fight, resorting to three consecutive Flying Crotch moves because he simply had no other techniques before he finally figured he would pull the plug on Bane. Bane eventually kills that Batman at the end of the season.

There's also the Batman that walks into the hideout of Bane, The Riddler and The Mad Hatter, falls for all the Riddler's traps, overpowers Bane without unjuicing him and chases down The Mad Hatter, all so Robin could ask The Mad Hatter a question. Batman walks out unscathed.

So which Batman is being discussed? The Batman that has to exploit weaknesses just to survive, or the Batman that simply overpowers villains with his brute strength and speed? For the former Batman to exist, there needs to be weaknesses to be exploited. The latter is just Superman in another costume. Do classes have weaknesses built-in?

I feel like you're asking leading questions here, especially with your second "Batman" that doesn't sound like Batman at all.

Also, I quibble over your notion of a "fair fight." What makes playing to Bane's strengths "fair?" "You can't beat me in a fair fight" is code for "I can't beat you unless you let me dictate how you're going to fight me."

But on the second "Batman," what's the point you're trying to make or question you're trying to ask? To what does that "Batman" analogize in the rest of this thread? Because I'm really not sure how it maps.

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-23, 12:16 PM

Which Batman are you talking about? The Batman I know couldn't beat Bane in a fair fight, resorting to three consecutive Flying Crotch moves because he simply had no other techniques before he finally figured he would pull the plug on Bane. Bane eventually kills that Batman at the end of the season.

There's also the Batman that walks into the hideout of Bane, The Riddler and The Mad Hatter, falls for all the Riddler's traps, overpowers Bane without unjuicing him and chases down The Mad Hatter, all so Robin could ask The Mad Hatter a question. Batman walks out unscathed.

So which Batman is being discussed? The Batman that has to exploit weaknesses just to survive, or the Batman that simply overpowers villains with his brute strength and speed? For the former Batman to exist, there needs to be weaknesses to be exploited. The latter is just Superman in another costume. Do classes have weaknesses built-in?

That second Batman... wasn't Batman. Literally wasn't Batman. It actually was Superman in Batman's costume.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsz1p7R5CQA

Karl Aegis

2019-07-23, 01:45 PM

Who Batman is changes with who wears the costume. Slade Wilson/Deathstroke is probably a better milestone than Thomas Wayne/Bruce Wayne/**** Grayson/Deathstroke/Clark Kent/whoever Batman/Green Lantern/whatever power he wants that day. Being the president has it's perks, and Deathstroke has killed the supernatural being Ra'as al Ghul at least once.

Jakinbandw

2019-07-23, 02:11 PM

Which Batman are you talking about?
This batman: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Batman_(Post-Crisis)

Do classes have weaknesses built-in?
Somewhat. Mundanes tend to lack the extreme mobility, and mass area of effect powers. Mages run out of resources really fast. That said players can mitigate this by picking Classes that cover each others weaknesses. Since this is a tristalt system, it gives characters a decent amount of freedom when designing what they want their character to be.

Segev

2019-07-23, 02:25 PM

That second Batman... wasn't Batman. Literally wasn't Batman. It actually was Superman in Batman's costume.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsz1p7R5CQA

Y'know, I specifically thought about that exact episode wrt that "batman," but didn't think he was going for "not really batman, superman in disguise." Hence my confusion. I made too much assumption about what he was talking about.

(Also, Superman-as-Batman falling for the Riddler's traps still only makes sense if you realize that, as Superman, it's faster to spring them and let them break against him; the man has X-ray vision, superhearing, microscopic and telescopic sight, and generally doesn't miss things if he doesn't want to.)

Karl Aegis

2019-07-23, 06:18 PM

Oh, the Batman that can build duplicates of the Justice League, has a mech that can beat up Superman, use magic, and has basically whatever powers the plot demands he has. Batman has every class. Batman is not a good example.

Jakinbandw

2019-07-23, 06:46 PM

goodpeople25

2019-07-23, 07:12 PM

Well duh, murder hoboing is a D&D tradition of course they want to be the Gosh-Darned Batman. :smallbiggrin:

Quertus

2019-07-23, 07:50 PM

Sure!

And this is where you mistake my intentions. Let's see if I can explain my point of view in this hypothetical chess game below:

I want to make a chess game. Some classes get extra pieces, or can make different moves, or can resurrect pieces. I also want a few classes that work with nothing but pawns, and some that have no pawns at all. Pawn classes would have the ability to designate pawns that can move in ways that are like what rooks, bishops, queens, and knights do. Some have more abilities that let them designate pawns to move like this, others just have more pawns, still others have the ability to place a pawn at there end of the board every time they lose a pawn.

What I feel like your saying is this:

Pawns can't move like rooks, and letting them move that way doesn't sit right with me. Pawns should only be ever able to move like pawns. The other things look fine though.

This finally came to me when I linked the ability that allows for the movement of armies. You didn't have a problem with the effects of the ability, what you had a problem with was that it was being done without magic. You wrote up a perfectly fine magical version of the ability, but that ability did the exact same thing as retcon one. You don't want a pawn moving like a rook. Another example: a divine tier ritualist can build a ritual to change the entire world over the course of a few minutes. This is mirrored by what wealth does, though wealth has some limitations and can only alter areas they control. In return however the wealth version can't be stopped and doesn't stop the wealth character from taking actions while the change is happening. Both can make massive changes, but one is a pawn moving like a queen, and one is a queen.

I really need to work poisons into the various rouge classes when I get around to them.

I'm planning to base intelligence heavily around mechanics like this. Basically the ability to call out moves by your opponent, allies, and self, and if you get them right, you counter them for massive damage or something similar. Basically something of a combo system. I'm looking forward to writing it up, but I'm bogged down on character creation right now. Character Sheets are annoying to design for me.

I'm glad you liked some of my idea, sad you don't get my commentary on retcon powers.

I don't like or dislike the effect "move troops"; I dislike the underlying mechanics (retcon, beaten by perception).

If you want to give people mundane abilities, make them mundane. If you want to give people specific abilities, make the underlying mechanics match, to actually grant that ability.

I don't want to be told that the arguably least mundane ability of all (retcon - the ability to retroactively make choices / take actions) is mundane. If you're gonna hand me a rook, call it a rook. Don't **** on me, and tell me it's raining.

That's my stance on retcon powers.

Karl Aegis

2019-07-23, 08:12 PM

And yet people want to play as batman.

Then just allow them to take all the classes and call it a day. Batman is talented, after all.

Jakinbandw

2019-07-23, 08:48 PM

I'm glad you liked some of my idea, sad you don't get my commentary on retcon powers.

I don't like or dislike the effect "move troops"; I dislike the underlying mechanics (retcon, beaten by perception).

I considered arguing about mechanics here, but I think that would just be a little pedantic. I personally consider the mechanics to be the movement of the troops, and the fluff to be how the game says that is accomplished.

My feeling is this. If I have a +3 sword in dnd that is a mechanical +3 to hit and to damage. That's mechanics. If that +3 comes from great craftsmanship, being blessed by a god, or forged from a dragon scales it doesn't really matter mechanically as that is all fluff. Like I said though, that's just my point of view.

If you want to give people mundane abilities, make them mundane. If you want to give people specific abilities, make the underlying mechanics match, to actually grant that ability.

I don't want to be told that the arguably least mundane ability of all (retcon - the ability to retroactively make choices / take actions) is mundane.
I guess for me, retcons are a completely non-magical power. Similar effects achieved through magic are generally called time travel or future sight.

If you're gonna hand me a rook, call it a rook.
I see where you're coming from. To you, pawns should only be pawns on the board. A player who wants to play with them should be playing with them because they enjoy the mechanics of the pawns. I'm on the other side of that belief. I think players should be able to play the game with the aesthetics they want as long as everything is balanced. For me, a well balanced game, that allows players to choose their aesthetics and play style is what I want to create

Because some people like having a miriad of options, but want to play using a sword and shield. Dnd tells them to either play a caster or nothing at all. I personally view that as a flaw.

And I guess that's where I come from. The idea that player choice is more important than adhering to a perfect emulation of physics. At the end of the day, magic, ki, psionics all break physics anyway, so it's fine for there to be one more way of doing so as long as it brings something fun to the table, and I believe it does.

Now hey, I may be wrong. Maybe people who want choices all are happy playing wizards, and people play fighters only want to roll a d20 and have no other options. Maybe people that play fighters are fine with lacking options to affect anything, even how fights play out. But as DnD 3.5 already exists, and does high level fantasy for casters while telling anyone who isn't a caster that they are useless, I don't need to build such a system. It already exists.

Maybe my system is just for me and my friends, and we will be the only ones to enjoy having parity between the different aesthetics of play.

And if that's true...
...Then it'll still be worth it to me.

Segev

2019-07-24, 03:18 PM

I don't want to be told that the arguably least mundane ability of all (retcon - the ability to retroactively make choices / take actions) is mundane.

You're confusing retcon within the fiction with retcon within the metanarrative. Imagine you were reading an ongoing story, perhaps something serially published online, and were at this great cliffhanger. Then, the story stalled out for weeks. Eventually the author came to the comments to eventually confess that he'd written himself into a corner, and wasn't sure how to resolve the situation.

A reader posts a suggestion, recalling something that he'd been sure was brilliant foreshadowing and made him positive X was going to be the solution to the current situation. The author says, "That's brilliant!" and goes and writes a chapter that's out the next day, using exactly that idea.

It's clear that the author hadn't thought of that happening, not when he was writing the lead-up to it. But it is something that made sense, and COULD have been happening all along. In-story, that big reveal of a thing that the reader didn't know was happening until it came along to resolve the situation is still a thing that was always happening. It's retroactively what was always happening. A retcon, in the original sense of the word.

That doesn't mean magic was happening to make X happen. X can have been entirely non-magical.

"Retcon powers" are this sort of thing. The super boy scout had stashes of supplies all over the city, and had invested money and time in setting them up, but the fact that he has the perfect item over here behind this dumpster in a nearby alley is something his player decided just now. He's deducting the cost from his "supply stash" gp investment. But in-character, in-story, the boy scout had prepared ahead of time with the foresight to have this here. Nothing magical about that.

Pedantic

2019-07-24, 03:46 PM

"Retcon powers" are this sort of thing. The super boy scout had stashes of supplies all over the city, and had invested money and time in setting them up, but the fact that he has the perfect item over here behind this dumpster in a nearby alley is something his player decided just now. He's deducting the cost from his "supply stash" gp investment. But in-character, in-story, the boy scout had prepared ahead of time with the foresight to have this here. Nothing magical about that.

I've never found them to work especially well within the structure of D&D campaigns though. That sort of ability requires your character have a lot of unaccounted for free time, which isn't necessarily a reasonable stance in many adventure stories. Worse, those abilities make less sense the wider your power scale is with levels. It's not unreasonable for characters to go from level 1-10 within a couple months of in-game time. That can lead to weird strains if your mastermind character starts tapping into political contacts he's been "cultivating for years" and just activated as a level 8 ability. That only really works if the ability wouldn't have been valuable before level 8.

Which is not to say one can't use those powers, but that they have adventure design implications if you aren't going to invalidate them, or undermine the suspension of disbelief. You need a more episodic campaign structure and/or limited character scaling to make them work. Plus, certain adventure topics like "exploring an unknown region" or "navigating a foreign court" don't work.

That sort of incompatible adventure topic isn't necessarily new to D&D (think of all the problems with prison break scenarios) but retcon powers create a unique set of limitations you need to account for well ahead of time, and warn DMs about ahead of time. If you're not planning to implement those limitations, or don't build your adventures/narratives around them...well, then you are using more explicitly narrative breaking "the past is different than it was" retcon powers, and that's a whole different choice.

Anymage

2019-07-24, 05:04 PM

I've never found them to work especially well within the structure of D&D campaigns though. That sort of ability requires your character have a lot of unaccounted for free time, which isn't necessarily a reasonable stance in many adventure stories. Worse, those abilities make less sense the wider your power scale is with levels. It's not unreasonable for characters to go from level 1-10 within a couple months of in-game time. That can lead to weird strains if your mastermind character starts tapping into political contacts he's been "cultivating for years" and just activated as a level 8 ability. That only really works if the ability wouldn't have been valuable before level 8.

Which is not to say one can't use those powers, but that they have adventure design implications if you aren't going to invalidate them, or undermine the suspension of disbelief. You need a more episodic campaign structure and/or limited character scaling to make them work. Plus, certain adventure topics like "exploring an unknown region" or "navigating a foreign court" don't work.

That sort of incompatible adventure topic isn't necessarily new to D&D (think of all the problems with prison break scenarios) but retcon powers create a unique set of limitations you need to account for well ahead of time, and warn DMs about ahead of time. If you're not planning to implement those limitations, or don't build your adventures/narratives around them...well, then you are using more explicitly narrative breaking "the past is different than it was" retcon powers, and that's a whole different choice.

D&D doesn't really have much room for retcon powers, beyond the occasional "on second thought..." after the DM asks if you really want to do that. That's more about D&D than it is about powers in general. D&D is also really weak on mechanics for long-term projects, while other games have more involved downtime mechanics.

Since OP is trying to create his own system where being smart enough and prepared enough is a listed character power, I don't see how the limits of D&D apply here.

Pedantic

2019-07-24, 05:14 PM

D&D doesn't really have much room for retcon powers, beyond the occasional "on second thought..." after the DM asks if you really want to do that. That's more about D&D than it is about powers in general. D&D is also really weak on mechanics for long-term projects, while other games have more involved downtime mechanics.

Since OP is trying to create his own system where being smart enough and prepared enough is a listed character power, I don't see how the limits of D&D apply here.

Yeah, clearly you can get around those things in a new and unique system, but my point is that using retcon powers has design implications, and particularly design implications on what you can do narratively. Plus, we're explicitly talking about a class-based leveling system, which means one needs to be careful about character growth, if you want to avoid literally rewriting the past with such abilities.

Jakinbandw

2019-07-24, 06:21 PM

Yeah, clearly you can get around those things in a new and unique system, but my point is that using retcon powers has design implications, and particularly design implications on what you can do narratively. Plus, we're explicitly talking about a class-based leveling system, which means one needs to be careful about character growth, if you want to avoid literally rewriting the past with such abilities.

My current design has a month in between each session as a built in assumption. Long(ish) term projects are a key part of the system to the point where I can't release my playtest document without them. Retcon powers also have a max time limit of a month, so hopefully everything should hold together. A lot of them even require a bit of set up, choosing when the project got started, even if details can be left vague and later filled in.

Right now my setting is based in a world where a cultural stasis was just lifted so the world suddenly going from stagnant to massively shifting is sort of built in to the concept itself. I'm trying to decide how I want leveling to work, but my gut feeling is that it should take 2 sessions per level. That's 6 months in game time to progress from a normal person to transition to a hero.

Going from level 1 to 20 would take just of three years in game time. Fast, but at least there is a progressing world.

Karl Aegis

2019-07-25, 01:16 AM

Max_Killjoy

2019-07-25, 08:12 AM

Y'know, this whole conversation would be much easier if you separated "magic" from the "mage" archetype.

I've been trying to do that for ~2 years, but for some reason every time this comes up we get a few responses that amount to "stop trying to make fighters into spellcasters".

PhoenixPhyre

2019-07-25, 08:40 AM

Y'know, this whole conversation would be much easier if you separated "magic" from the "mage" archetype. This allows traditionally martial classes to have some abilities reserved for "magic" such as a Fire Ninja able to use tools to create a small burst of fire damage similar to a Fireball spell or the Wind Fighter able to create bursts of wind by spinning hard enough like in Dragonquest VII. I mean, you have three classes, you can just be a fire warrior, fire ninja, fire mage and just do everything fire related. Wait, why does Fire Mage have nuclear bomb? That sounds like it's a Fire Ninja ability. Like Karate Missiles.

I've been trying to do that for ~2 years, but for some reason every time this comes up we get a few responses that amount to "stop trying to make fighters into spellcasters".

I agree that this is key. Admittedly, the system and setting designers don't help much. "Magic" is way too overloaded a word. I've switched to calling "magical" => "fantastic" and referring to spell-casting as "coherent magic" or something similar.

Jakinbandw

2019-07-25, 08:52 AM

Y'know, this whole conversation would be much easier if you separated "magic" from the "mage" archetype. This allows traditionally martial classes to have some abilities reserved for "magic" such as a Fire Ninja able to use tools to create a small burst of fire damage similar to a Fireball spell or the Wind Fighter able to create bursts of wind by spinning hard enough like in Dragonquest VII. I mean, you have three classes, you can just be a fire warrior, fire ninja, fire mage and just do everything fire related. Wait, why does Fire Mage have nuclear bomb? That sounds like it's a Fire Ninja ability. Like Karate Missiles.

Honestly lack the energy to build classes that specialized. I'm looking at 50 classes, and that's with dropping down to what I feel is the bare minimum.

That said fire sorcery isnt really a mage achtype thing. It represents a connection to the concept of fire. If someone wants a fire Ninja they just grab fire and fire and shadow dancer (and maybe blade master for more fun).

Also, blade masters can cut mountains in half, and the ki attribute class can use a Spirit bomb like effect so.

The mage class is more about being able to draw from multiple sorceries at once, though with downsides.

Karl Aegis

2019-07-26, 12:01 AM

Traditional ninjas are about using tools. A fire ninja would use smoke bombs, grenades, and good old torches to get things done. Gunpowder bombs would be under their set of skills. Burning stuff. Mundane uses of fire and explosives. Metal ninjas are the ones who use swords, karate, caltrops, shuriken, tripwires, garrote lines and (possibly) mirrors. Mirrors might be under the common skills all ninja learn, like stealth, acrobatics, disguise and weighing under 40 kg so wooden beams don't creak when you hide on top of them. Batman would probably be a metal ninja scaled up to include tasers, weighted capes, robots and hacking. He would need a different class for anti-magic field spell, hypnosis, banishing dudes to another dimension, seeing the future and generally having infinite funds.

Jakinbandw

2019-07-26, 12:52 AM

Lord Raziere

2019-07-26, 03:39 AM

I'm sorry, but for a base book, those are both too niche.

Question, at 24 abilities over 4 tiers, why not combine them? They honestly don't seem different enough to be worth separating.

Yeah, pretty much what my logic would be to. both archetypes sound pretty niche and Some Assembly Required as far as archetypes and useful abilities go. like maybe that set up works in real life because real life ninjas were all complex and separated into clans with secrets and so on, but in game being that limited tends to be boring at best and a good way to get killed at worst. unless your playing a pure ninja game in a world of nothing but ninjas where your ninja needs something to stand out, but thats different.

in a wider world, such as the wide-ranging melange of a DnD or superhero world, such limited abilities simply won't be enough. much like a DnD wizard doesn't actually have any equivalents in old stories as far as flexibility goes, there are bits and pieces of wizardly magic you can point to, that add up to a the modern idea of a wizard when taken all together, but nothing that really matches it. just like how there are a bunch of bit and pieces of historical ninja that add up to the modern idea in some way, but has no actual point where you point to where some old ninja became the modern ninja. this holds true for pretty much every fantasy concept ever, there is no actual one source they are all bits and pieces that are mixed together to form our modern ideas of it, and when taken all together these versions are more powerful because they are us combining them all into one and refusing to differentiate between them.

this is why magic is so powerful, because in this very discussion we don't bother to differentiate between one type of fantastic force from another and lump into all the same thing, making magic seem all powerful, so any hero has to be very flexible to stand up to them in response. much like how Batman is technically every pulp hero ever mixed into one person with a dark costume on top. the more you abstract and combine as our culture does, the more powerful such heroes get, forming a Globalist Fantasy.

for example, say we restricted the archetypes to ninjas as above. suddenly it becomes a lot less powerful, because you have a narrow range of inspiration to draw from, your limited to Japanese Mythology, folklore, culture and tales and such and so on. these have specific rules and limitations to them that can't be found elsewhere, lots of limitations that enforce a natural kind of internal consistency and what a ninja is become highly specific.
but lets say that your a ninja in a globalist fantasy or superhero world. suddenly the definition of ninja isn't as specific, because there are tons of people across the globe who have done similar sneaky spy-like things as ninjas, have similarities and you have to ask yourself if they count, how much does the ninja umbrella fit, and how wide you stretch it until the ninja label loses all meaning? and when it has access all these feats other "ninjas" have done, suddenly what a ninja is, is a lot more powerful because of the wide array of sources it can draw upon.

much like how say, in Vs. fights, comic book superheroes win a lot because they have a big varied history and thus a lot of stories to draw feats from. the hero archetypes becoming more powerful over time is just that on a wider scale, having a more wide global source to draw upon to make what people consider a "ninja", until it becomes a meme where it reaches the height of what an archetypes power can be, through people making jokes of ridiculous ninja feats and that meme becoming embedded in peoples subconscious and thus becomes a new normal for what counts as "ninja".

so such limited inspiration is actively crippling their power compared to any hypothetical other class that has more flexible inspiration. there is a bit of a double standard to this, because whenever someone else does something ridiculous, people start calling them a wizard, but no one calls a wizard other things when they start acting like a warrior or whatever. thus a wizard gets a lions share of inspiration that outweighs others, unfairly so in fact.

Karl Aegis

2019-07-29, 12:52 AM

I'm sorry, but for a base book, those are both too niche.

Question, at 24 abilities over 4 tiers, why not combine them? They honestly don't seem different enough to be worth separating.

I don't know how your game is set up, but generic "tool user" as a class doesn't really capture the essence of the plan, preparation, execution, finisher, cool down cycle of a ninja battle. I'd probably also play up the angle that your rebirth as a ninja and being haunted by an ancient ninja spirit quickly erodes your sanity and memories until only the trauma that triggered your death and rebirth remains. Because, y'know, most ninja bloodlines would have died out with years of no innovation.

Jakinbandw

2019-07-29, 01:36 PM

I don't know how your game is set up, but generic "tool user" as a class doesn't really capture the essence of the plan, preparation, execution, finisher, cool down cycle of a ninja battle.

Of course not, I'm not suggesting a generic "Tool User" class though. I'm suggesting building a bunch of ninja tropes into a single class (such as stealth, martial arts, and the like), then sprinkle in some abilities to allow you use tools to pull of some cool effects, such as using wire as a weapon, or firebombs or the like.

I'd probably also play up the angle that your rebirth as a ninja and being haunted by an ancient ninja spirit quickly erodes your sanity and memories until only the trauma that triggered your death and rebirth remains. Because, y'know, most ninja bloodlines would have died out with years of no innovation.

I mean, in an unchanging world they couldn't die out entirely, because that would be a change to the world. Still sounds like a neat idea for a character though.

Karl Aegis

2019-07-29, 03:42 PM

Jakinbandw

2019-07-29, 04:54 PM

Lord Raziere

2019-07-29, 05:00 PM

The thing is, if you just combine all the ninja tropes together you end up with all ninjas being the same. There's nothing to differentiate ninjas from each other. The psychic ninja that doesn't know the basics of karate, but uses origami to attack and defend plays exactly the same as the big ninja whose Harley gets stuck in traffic because they're the size of a house. Everyone would have the same strengths and weaknesses even though some skills are useless for certain ninjas. Like a big ninja wouldn't need to learn stealth and disguise because they're the size of a house and a water ninja wouldn't need to learn how to play the flute. What elements are you even using, anyways?

first "big ninja" is a contradiction in terms, ninjas are supposed to be small, if you can't be small, you just can't be a ninja, period. no really, they had weight requirements and if your too big and heavy, they didn't let you in.

it feels as if your the one making ninja meaningless, because your the one stretching the definition to include someone that would never be a ninja no matter how much they wanted to.

now whether psychic ninja, water ninjas or whatever exist, those don't sound like a class. the class is NINJA. whether your psychic, use water magic or flute magic, those are optional things. your assuming that everything has to be a non-optional class feature when classes have been for the long time been more than just the uniting set in stone class features, they are gateways to various more options beyond just class, like feats or spells, or powers, or skills, or whatever else. thats why you have choices beyond the class, because a class is just the first choice of many and recognizing that a psychic ninja and water ninjas are just subsets of the ninja class isn't unreasonable. its why you have builds and such, because if race and class were your only two choices, every one would be the same.

thats why wizards have their schools, tome of battles classes have their disciplines, clerics their domains and so on. so that your not locked in when you pick a class, they are many choices beyond that.

Karl Aegis

2019-08-01, 12:36 AM

Jakinbandw

2019-08-01, 02:03 PM

I can see some room for redundancy in a few areas. You can just give mundane characters mundane options for seemingly magical effects. The example will be: Invisibility.

Light Magic: You bend the light around you to seem invisible or reflect the light of things around you. I'm pretty sure the monster in an M. Night Shamalayan movie did this.

Mind Magic/Psychic Power: You alter the mind of someone around you to just not notice you are there.

Mundane Option: You control your breathing so that alert people close to you won't notice your movements until you're about to make contact with them.

The theory behind the mundane option is the human eye/brain combo filters out unnecessary information when the human is in a fight or flight mode so that it notices dangerous things coming at them and ignores things that aren't necessary to survive. So you trick your opponent's brain into thinking it doesn't need to be aware of you. When it does realize you are actually important, it looks like you go from a standing position across the room to a slicing stance in their face images of what you did between those moments as their brain begins to process what you've been doing. They believe you've just moved as fast as lightning or suddenly appeared when you were just employing a trick.

So the game I'm making has it's core in godbound, a game about playing gods. I'm taking it a bit further than that, but I think godbound sums up my feeling on making classes in this quote (not words are like classes, and just like my system players start with 3):

Any divine portfolio could conceivably serve as the seed for a new
Word. Even very specific purviews can serve as the basis for a Word,
such as the tutelary god of a particular city, or the patron deity of a
particular type of art. Alternately, a Word might focus on a particular
mode of some larger power, such as the god of sea travel rather than
one of the general Sea.

There is no “niche protection” in Words. Just because one of them
allows certain tricks doesn’t mean that no other Word should be able
to do the same thing, albeit perhaps in a different way. Don’t worry
about overlap in abilities.

Instead, make sure that the Word isn’t too general in its application.
It should be about something, and that something should be specific
enough that a single Word can’t accomplish everything that the hero
might possibly want to do. For example, the Word of Command is
extremely flexible about controlling the minds of other beings. It is
unable to affect inanimate objects, however. A clever player’s suggestion
that they should be able to “command” these things by way of
metaphor should be firmly denied, because that’s just beyond the
Word’s purview and makes it too generally useful.

Psyren

2019-08-02, 11:41 AM

You're confusing retcon within the fiction with retcon within the metanarrative. Imagine you were reading an ongoing story, perhaps something serially published online, and were at this great cliffhanger. Then, the story stalled out for weeks. Eventually the author came to the comments to eventually confess that he'd written himself into a corner, and wasn't sure how to resolve the situation.

A reader posts a suggestion, recalling something that he'd been sure was brilliant foreshadowing and made him positive X was going to be the solution to the current situation. The author says, "That's brilliant!" and goes and writes a chapter that's out the next day, using exactly that idea.

It's clear that the author hadn't thought of that happening, not when he was writing the lead-up to it. But it is something that made sense, and COULD have been happening all along. In-story, that big reveal of a thing that the reader didn't know was happening until it came along to resolve the situation is still a thing that was always happening. It's retroactively what was always happening. A retcon, in the original sense of the word.

That doesn't mean magic was happening to make X happen. X can have been entirely non-magical.

"Retcon powers" are this sort of thing. The super boy scout had stashes of supplies all over the city, and had invested money and time in setting them up, but the fact that he has the perfect item over here behind this dumpster in a nearby alley is something his player decided just now. He's deducting the cost from his "supply stash" gp investment. But in-character, in-story, the boy scout had prepared ahead of time with the foresight to have this here. Nothing magical about that.

D&D doesn't really have much room for retcon powers, beyond the occasional "on second thought..." after the DM asks if you really want to do that. That's more about D&D than it is about powers in general. D&D is also really weak on mechanics for long-term projects, while other games have more involved downtime mechanics.

Since OP is trying to create his own system where being smart enough and prepared enough is a listed character power, I don't see how the limits of D&D apply here.

Starfinder is pretty close to D&D and has retcon powers. The Operative specialization "Thief" from core gets the following power for example:

Contingency Plan (Ex): At 11th level, you’ve performed enough heists to realize that things never go exactly as you had planned. When something unexpected happens during a heist or infiltration, you can spend 2 Resolve Points and specify a contingency plan that you had set up in advance for this eventuality, either having the right prop (such as an ID or a computer file, but not a particularly valuable item), having the right information, or having hired a confederate to perform a single task at the right time. You then attempt a skill check. The appropriate skill and the DC are at the GM’s discretion, with a higher DC for a more elaborate or unlikely contingency (see Skill DCs on page 392 for more information on setting skill DCs). If you succeed, you have the item or knowledge, or the confederate performs the task as specified. If you fail, either you don’t have what you need or your plan fails.