PDA

View Full Version : Magic vs Mundane (what is mundane?)



Pages : [1] 2

Jakinbandw
2019-06-29, 11:41 AM
So some people really want mundanes to be as strong as people with magic, and I think that's cool! However many of those same people feel that a mundane needs to be limited to feats that a normal person in our world could achieve and don't want them to be 'super human', or 'anime'.

This thread is to help me find the line where someone moves from being a mundane, to being superhuman/anime.

Let's start with strength in 3.5 for example. Players can get massive strength scores, enough to lift anything (one build could even lift a planet). At what strength score does someone become superhuman/anime to you?

Inchhighguy
2019-06-29, 12:33 PM
"Mundane" does float a bit from ''No magic" to "what is really possible in real life".

By defenation, a player character IS allready super human. Player Characters are made to be the ''top 1%".

Strength is just about always considered pure mundane, until you get to silly anime or comic book stuff like picking up a mountain.

It's not so much the Strength score, as it is physics. Just because you can say lift up a castle with one hand by weight, does not translate ito being able to do that in a mundane way. If you did so, the castle would fall apart

Jakinbandw
2019-06-29, 12:46 PM
"Mundane" does float a bit from ''No magic" to "what is really possible in real life".

By defenation, a player character IS allready super human. Player Characters are made to be the ''top 1%".

Strength is just about always considered pure mundane, until you get to silly anime or comic book stuff like picking up a mountain.

It's not so much the Strength score, as it is physics. Just because you can say lift up a castle with one hand by weight, does not translate ito being able to do that in a mundane way. If you did so, the castle would fall apart

Hmm... So as long as it's pure strength and doesn't break physics it's fine? So a (really, like in the hundreds or thousands) high strength character jumping miles or more would be considered mundane as it doesn't do anything impossible?

Morty
2019-06-29, 12:48 PM
Endless threads have been spent on it and the only conclusion is that there's no conclusion that more than three people can agree on.

Inchhighguy
2019-06-29, 01:13 PM
Hmm... So as long as it's pure strength and doesn't break physics it's fine? So a (really, like in the hundreds or thousands) high strength character jumping miles or more would be considered mundane as it doesn't do anything impossible?

Well....I'm pretty sure the ''jumpping miles" is impossible.....without magic.

Unless your counting ''Strgenth" as "everything". "Strgenth" does nothing to a characters bones, for example.....so even if a character did jump a mile, that mile drop to the ground a the end wouls shatter every bone in the body. Even if you can lift 2000 pounds, you can't jump out of an airplane and fall a mile down to the ground and just walk away.

"Strgenth" does not make a characetrs legs ''shock absorbers".

Jakinbandw
2019-06-29, 01:19 PM
Well....I'm pretty sure the ''jumpping miles" is impossible.....without magic.

Unless your counting ''Strength" as "everything". "Strength" does nothing to a characters bones, for example.....so even if a character did jump a mile, that mile drop to the ground a the end wouls shatter every bone in the body. Even if you can lift 2000 pounds, you can't jump out of an airplane and fall a mile down to the ground and just walk away.

"Strgenth" does not make a characetrs legs ''shock absorbers".

Right, so I'm back to how much strength in 3.5 makes you super human? Because strength gets added to your jump check, so the more strength you have, the further you can jump. I'm using this because it's a fairly simple test, but there are other things like this to consider to. For example would having the ability for a smart character to decide retroactively they bought something at the last town to prep for a situation count as magic? In universe it's them being really smart, and it allows players to play characters that are smarter then them. I'm trying to build a few mundane classes for a game, and I'm finding myself unsure of where the limits of mundanes are.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-06-29, 02:55 PM
Anything that's more than like 5% better than what the best human in real life can do is no longer mundane.

Jakinbandw
2019-06-29, 03:35 PM
Anything that's more than like 5% better than what the best human in real life can do is no longer mundane.

So then I should be fine with things like having abilities that allow the character to give orders to others, beat someone down so bad that they either lash out in anger, or are driven to suicide and the like?

Mechalich
2019-06-29, 03:55 PM
Magic can be defined either as 'making that which is explicitly impossible possible' and 'making that which is so statistically improbable as to be effectively impossible possible.' The former case is much more obvious. A human blasting fire from their fingertips, punching through solid steel, or existing unharmed while naked in the vacuum of space are all explicitly impossible things that can be made doable with magic. The second case is harder to define because defining the point at which 'effectively impossible' has been reached in terms of probability is inherently somewhat squishy. Unusual events do occur, the heights of human achievement continue to advance, and the capabilities of nonhuman sophonts are inherently nebulous.

In general, for traits that have a normal distribution, you edge into the 'impossible' zone around 8-9 standard deviations from the mean, and you're quite clearly there at 12+. To use human male height as an example, a 9 ft. tall man is just outside the known range (Robert Wadlow clocked in at 8'11."), but a 10 ft. tall man just isn't going to happen. Likewise, if you consider, say, sprinting, the current 100 meter dash world record is Usain Bolt's 9.59 seconds. Conceivably we could imagine someone one day hitting 9.0, maybe even 8.5 in some sort of miraculous combination of athlete and event (tailwinds, etc.), but someone posting a time of 7 seconds would clearly be fantastical.

As such, the boundary between the 'mundane' and the 'fantastical' isn't a hard barrier, it's much more like a zone, and in fact the modern action thriller is put together with the intention of falling quite firmly within this zone of the just maybe barely possible, and then piling up coincidences within this range that push plausibility on a different scale. For example, a single John Wick fight scene is maybe a thing that could happen and that John Wick could survive, an entire movie's worth is clearly probability-defying fiction.

It also needs to be mentioned that a world in which people can consistently and regularly perform probability-defying feats, even if they avoid stretching into the explicitly fantastic, becomes a world that is clearly not our own. Again, John Wick is a very good example. It contains a whole legion of super-assassin characters who operate in their own secretive world and who are all capable of laughing gleefully at the odds. It's not our world, it's a stylized, fictionalized version of our world, something the directors have actually been very upfront about. This is an impact that can be reflected in RPGs, and in fact if you seriously world-build using a system like FATE this is inevitably what you get because character power actually does vary according to their narrative context because of the predominance of metagame currency. However, games that aren't built like this explicitly reject such ideas and tend to hew hard to the trope of 'like reality unless otherwise noted' in which case characters are no supposed to be able to perform explicitly fantastical feats without tapping into some other explicitly fantastical resource (which means magic, though it may go by any number of other names).

Inchhighguy
2019-06-29, 05:48 PM
Anything that's more than like 5% better than what the best human in real life can do is no longer mundane.

That defination can work.


So then I should be fine with things like having abilities that allow the character to give orders to others, beat someone down so bad that they either lash out in anger, or are driven to suicide and the like?

Maybe?

Most games treat mundane and magic basic effects the same.

KineticDiplomat
2019-06-29, 07:29 PM
So, there's basically two schools of thought I can identify when it comes to this issue:


The Play Balance School

In many systems, particularly mechanic heavy power fantasy like D&D, the goal is to make all characters equally playable. It never quite works out, but that's the goal. Because it is power fantasy, and because it's the mechanics of facepunching that matter above all others, so the theory goes, if you don't keep them at least marginally balanced then you have cut "mundane" content out of your game. Making sense or being "realistic" is less valuable than making sure you can still contribute at all levels. This naturally feels beyond-super-human after the very early game, but if "combat realism" is your watchword, frankly, these are not systems you're going to find it in. The upside, of course, is that players can use all sorts of magic and not require any game format change.

The essential element is the power fantasy. If your players must, by design, eventually become capable of killing the biggest and most terrifying of things, then eventually they must have capabilities that would let them punch out cthulu and therein go beyond human. This is particularly true in deliberately bland combat systems like D&D, where there is no way to out clever a fight martially, there's only punching harder.

The Magic is Rare and Powerful School

You tend to find these in more narrative or specialized games, which fundamentally are not built on the assumption that the players should always win and be presented character-sheet beatable challenges. They simply say, "yep, mages are really powerful. It's a thing. They can warp reality. So treat them accordingly." Often they have either soft limits - "don't forget that mages are hated. And if you cast a spell at the wrong time, your GM has the right to smash you with a small army" - or hard limits - "Every time you cast a spell, roll to make sure you don't explode into gibs." When not every character needs to keep up in scripted "appropriate" fights, there is much more freedom to do this. The downside of course is how to adapt the game to players who want to be magic, and making sure your other players are ok with being outclassed if a magic user is in the party.

The upside is that if you want a game that relies on players surmounting odds rather than characters, taking on a magic user with mundanes can become a fun and challenging task as opposed to grinding to appropriate power, and your "evil sorcerer" can really be just one guy who knows magic and has that advantage.


And a God Are You

These games solve this problem by making you godlike as canon. Sure, you can punch holes in meteors. Whatever. You're a god. It happens. Honestly, these can tip in either direction.

HouseRules
2019-06-29, 09:25 PM
So some people really want mundanes to be as strong as people with magic, and I think that's cool! However many of those same people feel that a mundane needs to be limited to feats that a normal person in our world could achieve and don't want them to be 'super human', or 'anime'.

This thread is to help me find the line where someone moves from being a mundane, to being superhuman/anime.

Let's start with strength in 3.5 for example. Players can get massive strength scores, enough to lift anything (one build could even lift a planet). At what strength score does someone become superhuman/anime to you?

We usually call the ones that are as strong as people with magic as Martial.
And keel the normal people as Mundane.

Cluedrew
2019-06-30, 09:57 AM
Endless threads have been spent on it and the only conclusion is that there's no conclusion that more than three people can agree on.But if we don't keep talking about it then the threads will have come to an end and that will not be true.

So the thing is I think there is a rough scale (it is more than a scale in reality, but I'm just going to put some of the major points on a line) that could separate a mundane from a wizard and where on that scale people draw the line.

Mundane: They have realistic abilities and realistic chances of being able to do things. As a person that actually exists. This is our base point on the scale because I have yet to find anyone who would disagree with this.

Improbable One: They don't do anything impossible, but they do them much more consistently than a person should be able to do them. Alternatively someone who has hit peak human abilities in more areas that you should be able to, because practice takes time and energy. Many action heroes fall into this group.

Super-Human: Exceeds human abilities but in a strictly "extrapolation" sort of way. So they are impossibly strong, but they don't do anything with that strength that actually being that strong wouldn't let you do. I used strength as an example but in my experience strength usually skips over this and goes to the next group. More common are "softer" things like coordination & reflexes, social skills or intelligence (especially through something like a technical skill).

Super-Natural: Has exceeded human abilities in a way that follows from a human ability but not in a way that could ever work. The difference is bridged by some implicate or explicate "magic". Simple example is Superman picking up a building. Building do not have a point that can bare their entire weight and would collapse, but not when Superman carries them.

Magic: This zone could also be called "impossible feats" because it is more than just wizards, it is eye-beam super heroes and time travel technology. It is the difference between painting that looks like a hallway you could walk down and a painting you can step into and walk down.

Wizard: It is magic that maintains the look and feel of magic. In terms of how impossible things are it isn't really an important distinction. I find it useful for talking about high power levels where everyone is breaking reality to keep up, but we can still use the how and why to make them feel distinct.

Anyways, its not a perfect system mostly because it is trying to simplify so much down to a 1 dimensional scale. Point is up until at least super-human, how far down this scale I will go is more a function of power level than how non-magic I want a character to feel. In other words a character has to be at least super-natural before I start wondering if they are a magic user. On the other hand people start raising questions at improbable one and there are people who seem to be fine with super-natural. There might even be someone who argues for the magic category if they are flavoured as a mad inventor or something, not sure if I have met them.

awa
2019-06-30, 11:39 AM
that's a pretty good list, a comment I would make is the way a "supernatural" character breaks the rules can heavily influence the feel of a setting. For instance in western works you often see things like lifting a car by the bumper, while in anime it is very common for a 4ft sword to cut a 20 foot object in half with a single blow (often at a distance).

There both completely unrealistic but they have a different aesthetic and not every one likes mixing them, particularly when said mixing is not well integrated.

on a different note
part of the martial vs mundane problem is not the powers themselves but how their implemented, for instance in the exception based system of dungeons and dragons at lot of the mid level powers are op because of the turn based system allowing the wizards to cast spells stupidly fast, and not allowing a martial to react to them.

Additionally most martial characters need to be hyper specialized to be remotely useful letting them branch out would alleviate the problem somewhat (i mean not in the worst case scenarios, Conan or James bond cant compete with wish but most games don't see that level of play anyhow.)

Pauly
2019-06-30, 10:21 PM
But if we don't keep talking about it then the threads will have come to an end and that will not be true.

So the thing is I think there is a rough scale (it is more than a scale in reality, but I'm just going to put some of the major points on a line) that could separate a mundane from a wizard and where on that scale people draw the line.

Mundane: They have realistic abilities and realistic chances of being able to do things. As a person that actually exists. This is our base point on the scale because I have yet to find anyone who would disagree with this.

Improbable One: They don't do anything impossible, but they do them much more consistently than a person should be able to do them. Alternatively someone who has hit peak human abilities in more areas that you should be able to, because practice takes time and energy. Many action heroes fall into this group.

Super-Human: Exceeds human abilities but in a strictly "extrapolation" sort of way. So they are impossibly strong, but they don't do anything with that strength that actually being that strong wouldn't let you do. I used strength as an example but in my experience strength usually skips over this and goes to the next group. More common are "softer" things like coordination & reflexes, social skills or intelligence (especially through something like a technical skill).

Super-Natural: Has exceeded human abilities in a way that follows from a human ability but not in a way that could ever work. The difference is bridged by some implicate or explicate "magic". Simple example is Superman picking up a building. Building do not have a point that can bare their entire weight and would collapse, but not when Superman carries them.

Magic: This zone could also be called "impossible feats" because it is more than just wizards, it is eye-beam super heroes and time travel technology. It is the difference between painting that looks like a hallway you could walk down and a painting you can step into and walk down.

Wizard: It is magic that maintains the look and feel of magic. In terms of how impossible things are it isn't really an important distinction. I find it useful for talking about high power levels where everyone is breaking reality to keep up, but we can still use the how and why to make them feel distinct.

Anyways, its not a perfect system mostly because it is trying to simplify so much down to a 1 dimensional scale. Point is up until at least super-human, how far down this scale I will go is more a function of power level than how non-magic I want a character to feel. In other words a character has to be at least super-natural before I start wondering if they are a magic user. On the other hand people start raising questions at improbable one and there are people who seem to be fine with super-natural. There might even be someone who argues for the magic category if they are flavoured as a mad inventor or something, not sure if I have met them.

I would agree with this list.

One caveat I would add is that the setting also has an impact on where it falls on the scale.

For example in the DC universe Deadshot makes shots that are beyond the range/accuracy bounds of a gun. However in that universe he is considered to be mundane specifically because in the DC universe he is explained as a highly skilled individual. In a different setting though a “zen archer” archetype making similar kinds of impossible shots is considered supernatural because that archetype gets their power through channeling ki or some other mystical force.

Another example is Hollywood hypnotism. If John Constantine does it in the his universe it is explained explicitly as magical. When The Shadow does it in his universe it is considered mundane because it is explained explicitly as a skill. (Another mundane example is voodoo type Hollywood hypnotism that is explained as being exposed to specific drugs) If you look at the defenses against that type of hypnotism they are different in both universes, The John Constantine universe requires a supernatural Defense, but in The Shadow’s universe there are mundane defenses.

I don’t think you can just say because I think “X” is magic therefore it is magic. You need to look at the setting’s explanation for the power. I mean you have listed time travel technology as magic. Generally I agree, however with the Terminator franchise, especially the first 2 movies, I would be happy to treat that time travel as mundane because of the explicit and implied restrictions on time travel. But the Back to the Future franchise definitely treats time travel as magic.

Mechalich
2019-06-30, 10:54 PM
I don’t think you can just say because I think “X” is magic therefore it is magic. You need to look at the setting’s explanation for the power. I mean you have listed time travel technology as magic. Generally I agree, however with the Terminator franchise, especially the first 2 movies, I would be happy to treat that time travel as mundane because of the explicit and implied restrictions on time travel. But the Back to the Future franchise definitely treats time travel as magic.

Technology is generally different from magic because at least in theory anyone can use a given piece of technology, while magic-based abilities are usually gated in some way, and generally that gateway blocks out the majority of people permanently. Anyone can put on an Iron Man suit, but you have to be born a mutant to shoot lasers from your eyes. Now there are generally practical barriers that prevent just anyone from getting their hands on an Iron Man suit, but once that technology exists, it exists, and other people can access it. Tony Stark has, both in comics and in film, expended vast quantities of effort trying to keep other people from getting a hold of and proliferating his technology. It should be noted that he does this so that Marvel can maintain a modern stasis rather than having to deal with a world where armored exosuits are a widespread technology with ongoing mass production (this, by the way, is one of the ways that narrative drama can cheat compared to RPG settings).

awa
2019-06-30, 11:33 PM
I would agree with this list.

One caveat I would add is that the setting also has an impact on where it falls on the scale.


Im not certain that matters I think about the manga one piece for a moment and flying is something you can learn as a martial art. Shooting blades of wind with a sword is also a common "skill" that can be learned in anime. That list is not about the settings internal definition but (assuming i understand the intent ) to merely give us the terminology to have a discussion because as it is we have no good definition of what is mundane.

Note what allows you to defend against the hypnosis I think would apply, if will power is enough then its probably "supernatural", if only magic can counter it, that would probably fall under "magic"

Mundane: They have realistic abilities and realistic chances of being able to do things. As a person that actually exists. This is our base point on the scale because I have yet to find anyone who would disagree with this.

Improbable One: They don't do anything impossible, but they do them much more consistently than a person should be able to do them. Alternatively someone who has hit peak human abilities in more areas that you should be able to, because practice takes time and energy. Many action heroes fall into this group.

Super-Human: Exceeds human abilities but in a strictly "extrapolation" sort of way. So they are impossibly strong, but they don't do anything with that strength that actually being that strong wouldn't let you do. I used strength as an example but in my experience strength usually skips over this and goes to the next group. More common are "softer" things like coordination & reflexes, social skills or intelligence (especially through something like a technical skill).

Super-Natural: Has exceeded human abilities in a way that follows from a human ability but not in a way that could ever work. The difference is bridged by some implicate or explicate "magic". Simple example is Superman picking up a building. Building do not have a point that can bare their entire weight and would collapse, but not when Superman carries them.

Magic: This zone could also be called "impossible feats" because it is more than just wizards, it is eye-beam super heroes and time travel technology. It is the difference between painting that looks like a hallway you could walk down and a painting you can step into and walk down.

Wizard: It is magic that maintains the look and feel of magic. In terms of how impossible things are it isn't really an important distinction. I find it useful for talking about high power levels where everyone is breaking reality to keep up, but we can still use the how and why to make them feel distinct.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-01, 01:03 AM
Magic, is an ignorant word.

Mundane is everything. If its possible in a given reality, its not magic. This is because anything we can do in our reality isn't magic, therefore anything thats possible in another reality to the inhabitants isn't magic either, the only thing that is magic to those inhabitants are things are not possible.

If it happens, it is mundane. If it never happens, it is magic. This is because what is mundane functions and what is magic does not exist because it never will function. Therefore any ability that functions in a given setting isn't magic, because its a thing that exists, that happens.

We only call all these things magic because they're not possible in ours. However to these inhabitants they clearly know its possible, and see it happening. Therefore by definition are not magic in their reality. Anything that happens and functions is something that can be understood, something that functions in a wider context and therefore cannot possibly be magic.

Magic exists in no reality. All is just different versions of science with varying levels of understanding. Therefore your question is answered.

Pauly
2019-07-01, 03:21 AM
Im not certain that matters I think about the manga one piece for a moment and flying is something you can learn as a martial art. Shooting blades of wind with a sword is also a common "skill" that can be learned in anime. That list is not about the settings internal definition but (assuming i understand the intent ) to merely give us the terminology to have a discussion because as it is we have no good definition of what is mundane.

Note what allows you to defend against the hypnosis I think would apply, if will power is enough then its probably "supernatural", if only magic can counter it, that would probably fall under "magic"

Mundane: They have realistic abilities and realistic chances of being able to do things. As a person that actually exists. This is our base point on the scale because I have yet to find anyone who would disagree with this.

Improbable One: They don't do anything impossible, but they do them much more consistently than a person should be able to do them. Alternatively someone who has hit peak human abilities in more areas that you should be able to, because practice takes time and energy. Many action heroes fall into this group.

Super-Human: Exceeds human abilities but in a strictly "extrapolation" sort of way. So they are impossibly strong, but they don't do anything with that strength that actually being that strong wouldn't let you do. I used strength as an example but in my experience strength usually skips over this and goes to the next group. More common are "softer" things like coordination & reflexes, social skills or intelligence (especially through something like a technical skill).

Super-Natural: Has exceeded human abilities in a way that follows from a human ability but not in a way that could ever work. The difference is bridged by some implicate or explicate "magic". Simple example is Superman picking up a building. Building do not have a point that can bare their entire weight and would collapse, but not when Superman carries them.

Magic: This zone could also be called "impossible feats" because it is more than just wizards, it is eye-beam super heroes and time travel technology. It is the difference between painting that looks like a hallway you could walk down and a painting you can step into and walk down.

Wizard: It is magic that maintains the look and feel of magic. In terms of how impossible things are it isn't really an important distinction. I find it useful for talking about high power levels where everyone is breaking reality to keep up, but we can still use the how and why to make them feel distinct.

I think the “anyone can do it if they take the time to learn it” definitely puts things more to the mundane end of the spectrum than the magical. Obviously some individuals will be more talented than others and the skill of the teacher comes into it as well. If you’re living in the One Piece universe then definitely shooting blades of wind is ho-hum mundane, even if in our universe it would be an impossible feat of magic.

Harry Potter is magical because he exists in our universe. What he and the other wizards do is explicitly magical. However if there was a universe where everyone could cast magic and everyone went to schools like Hogwarts then their magic would become mundane. In the Harry Potter booms the wizards who interact the least with the muggle world are the ones who consider their powers and abilities to be mundane, it’s through Harry’s and Hermione’s eyes that we get see that magic is magical, but through Ron’s eyes magic is mundane.

awa
2019-07-01, 07:08 AM
I believe the intent of the list was descriptive so we in the real world could describe what they mean by mundane vs magic and thus it would not matter if said ability was magic or simple skill in the fictional world we are discussing.

Within the setting that distinction may be important but I dont think it matters for the purpose of the list.

Cluedrew
2019-07-01, 08:03 AM
To awa: Exactly, with the exception of magic vs. wizard I am discussing the literary definition of magic and there I am discussing the thematic view of it. In fact I have four definitions of the world magic I use: the literary definition of magic (something impossible in real life), thematic magic (things that have the look and feel of magic), magic as lack of understandings ("To me math is just magic.") and the real world historic magic (the magic that actually exists, except it largely doesn't).

For this conversation literary magic and thematic magic are the two that are really in consideration here. If you want your mundane (or martial or...) characters to be grounded in reality than you need to worry about the literary definition of magic. If you just want to make sure they are distinct from the casters, then you only need to worry about the thematic view of magic. Or you could frame it a different way if that works better for you.

HouseRules
2019-07-01, 08:04 AM
Real World Fireball.
Pull the pin.
Press the button.
Thrown the Grenade.

Real world counter spell to fireball
Opponent: Pull the pin.
You: Grapple the opponent before they could press the button.
You: Find a pin, or a new pin and place it into the Grenade button safety.

Arbane
2019-07-01, 11:27 AM
"As always, magic is limited by your imagination - if you can imagine it happening, it does. And martial powers are limited by your imagination - if you can imagine a reason why it can't happen, it doesn't." - LightWarden

Talakeal
2019-07-01, 11:37 AM
Are we talking about supernatural or superhuman?

If the latter, the honest answer is, we don't know. World records are being broken all the time, as are new breakthroughs in training and nutrition. We never know when someone is going to hit the genetic jackpot, or exactly how far they could have gone if they applied themselves wholly.

We do not know the true limits of human potential. But even so, D&D and most games like it are so abstract for the purposes of game play that a really fuzzy line is all you should ever need.



Magic, is an ignorant word.

Mundane is everything. If its possible in a given reality, its not magic. This is because anything we can do in our reality isn't magic, therefore anything thats possible in another reality to the inhabitants isn't magic either, the only thing that is magic to those inhabitants are things are not possible.

If it happens, it is mundane. If it never happens, it is magic. This is because what is mundane functions and what is magic does not exist because it never will function. Therefore any ability that functions in a given setting isn't magic, because its a thing that exists, that happens.

We only call all these things magic because they're not possible in ours. However to these inhabitants they clearly know its possible, and see it happening. Therefore by definition are not magic in their reality. Anything that happens and functions is something that can be understood, something that functions in a wider context and therefore cannot possibly be magic.

Magic exists in no reality. All is just different versions of science with varying levels of understanding. Therefore your question is answered.

I don't agree with this.

In our world people believed in all sorts of magic. If it had turned out that, say, witches could really curse people and fly about on brooms by performing certain rituals and saying magic words which invoked otherworldy powers, are you saying that they would have been forced to stop calling their art magic at some point in history?

Man_Over_Game
2019-07-01, 11:43 AM
I don't agree with this.

In our world people believed in all sorts of magic. If it had turned out that, say, witches could really curse people and fly about on brooms by performing certain rituals and saying magic words which invoked otherworldy powers, are you saying that they would have been forced to stop calling their art magic at some point in history?

I work with programs and computers. I've even programmed a few games together when I was younger. It doesn't matter how much you do it, or how technical, precise or predictable it is, it's still magic.

Computers ARE magic, to both people who know them, and people who don't. Being educated on how something works doesn't make it mundane. Understanding "magic" doesn't make it boring. It only makes it "boring" to people who don't understand it (because the reason they consider it fantastical in the first place is for that reason).

Similarly, does understanding the chemical reaction of Fire make it less wondrous to be around?

Jakinbandw
2019-07-01, 11:52 AM
I work with programs and computers. I've even programmed a few games together when I was younger. It doesn't matter how much you do it, or how technical, precise or predictable it is, it's still magic.

Computers ARE magic, to both people who know them, and people who don't. Being educated on how something works doesn't make it mundane. Understanding "magic" doesn't make it boring. It only makes it "boring" to people who don't understand it (because the reason they consider it fantastical in the first place is for that reason).

Similarly, does understanding the chemical reaction of Fire make it less wondrous to be around?

While you do have a solid argument in the abstract, in this case I'm specifically talking about the Magic/Martial divide, and in specific the far end of that that argues Martials must be completely mundane and that things like 'The Book of Weeabo Fighting Magic' shouldn't be allowed. This thread is so I can try to find the breaking point at which a class would no longer appeal to those people. I am building a system, and I have ideas on how to pull it off, but even then there are some areas where at the high end, abilities I give the 'mundane' classes are able to bend reality a bit. The ability to insult someone well enough to drive them to suicide, to retroactively have bought items (for free!), stuff like that.

awa
2019-07-01, 12:27 PM
to retroactively have bought items (for free!), stuff like that.

retroactively doing things is typically a meta ability, it usually falls into a different paradigm then the mundane/magical divide.

I feel the cut off between "anime" and western is as much thematic as actually feat based.

Using the terminology presented above superhuman should be fine for charls atlas superpower types but what people actually do is also important.
Distinctive Moves with special powers often has a very anime feel regardless of what they actually do.

Talakeal
2019-07-01, 12:33 PM
While you do have a solid argument in the abstract, in this case I'm specifically talking about the Magic/Martial divide, and in specific the far end of that that argues Martials must be completely mundane and that things like 'The Book of Weeabo Fighting Magic' shouldn't be allowed. This thread is so I can try to find the breaking point at which a class would no longer appeal to those people. I am building a system, and I have ideas on how to pull it off, but even then there are some areas where at the high end, abilities I give the 'mundane' classes are able to bend reality a bit. The ability to insult someone well enough to drive them to suicide, to retroactively have bought items (for free!), stuff like that.

The line is different for each person. I personally prefer to kust have balanced rules and let everyone imagine the specific details however they like, but this can create the "captain hobo" problem if you have pkayers with wildly different expectations.

Man_Over_Game
2019-07-01, 01:10 PM
While you do have a solid argument in the abstract, in this case I'm specifically talking about the Magic/Martial divide, and in specific the far end of that that argues Martials must be completely mundane and that things like 'The Book of Weeabo Fighting Magic' shouldn't be allowed. This thread is so I can try to find the breaking point at which a class would no longer appeal to those people. I am building a system, and I have ideas on how to pull it off, but even then there are some areas where at the high end, abilities I give the 'mundane' classes are able to bend reality a bit. The ability to insult someone well enough to drive them to suicide, to retroactively have bought items (for free!), stuff like that.

My apologies, I meant that line to be used as support for Talakeal's defense as to why magic isn't consider "mundane", even in a world that's used to magic.

For your explicit question, OP, I think an important question to first answer is, can normal people (us) be considered superhuman? Is someone like Usain Bolt superhuman? Is it superhuman to pull a carrier plane with your own strength?

For the sake of an RPG, I'd set those kinds of people as the most extreme examples. Rather, those people are people who have specialized their training to do those things, and an RPG character has to do MORE than just run or just be strong. As a result, I'd say that it'd be safe to make those kinds of feats impossible in a realistic RPG. Or near-impossible. You are not making an RPG about Olympic athletes, you're making an RPG about heroes in a non-magical world. So have your attributes scale from "Loser" to "Olympic Athlete", with most characters falling somewhere in between.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-01, 01:14 PM
retroactively doing things is typically a meta ability, it usually falls into a different paradigm then the mundane/magical divide.

I feel the cut off between "anime" and western is as much thematic as actually feat based.

Using the terminology presented above superhuman should be fine for charls atlas superpower types but what people actually do is also important.
Distinctive Moves with special powers often has a very anime feel regardless of what they actually do.

I feel that there has to be more to it then that. Fighters in 3.5 got tons of feats, each one essentially acting as it's own special power (just not as good as spells!). In 5E I haven't heard any complaints about the Battlemaster fighter feeling to anime despite having access to maneuvers (unless I missed something).

If I knew the answer though I wouldn't have made this post, and it's entirely possible that my perceptions of what those type of people want are skewed.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-01, 01:22 PM
You are not making an RPG about Olympic athletes, you're making an RPG about heroes in a non-magical world. So have your attributes scale from "Loser" to "Olympic Athlete", with most characters falling somewhere in between.

Oh no, I'm making an rpg in a super magical world! Blade Masters can cut mountains in half, fire sorcerers can nuke cities, and clerics can ascend to become gods. I do have a set of classes I have conceptualized that can keep up with that level of overwhelming power, but play to the idea of someone who gets there with skill, training, and intelligence rather than Ki, Psyonics, or magic.

The trick is actually having those classes appeal to players who want to play as someone mundane. I can easily write up powers for a noble or a soldier (a completely mundane fighter who has armies at his back at higher levels and can retroactively decide when and where those armies are), but if they don't appeal to the people who want to play mundane characters then I'm wasting space with those classes. However since I'm not sure what specifically those people consider 'Mundane' I'm trying to get an idea for it here.

Anymage
2019-07-01, 01:23 PM
While you do have a solid argument in the abstract, in this case I'm specifically talking about the Magic/Martial divide, and in specific the far end of that that argues Martials must be completely mundane and that things like 'The Book of Weeabo Fighting Magic' shouldn't be allowed. This thread is so I can try to find the breaking point at which a class would no longer appeal to those people. I am building a system, and I have ideas on how to pull it off, but even then there are some areas where at the high end, abilities I give the 'mundane' classes are able to bend reality a bit. The ability to insult someone well enough to drive them to suicide, to retroactively have bought items (for free!), stuff like that.

The other half of the issue is what magic can do, especially including things like efficiency and cost. 3.5 style magic seems to be the board baseline, but 4e powers were generally balanced across power sources while rituals were panned for often falling behind skill use.

If you want "gritty" martials who can't go past action hero levels of ability, there are multiple ways to bring magic types down to that level. If you want over the top action, feel free to ignore the people who complain about it being too "anime". Exalted is still a popular system despite leaning into all those stylistic tropes. You're not going to produce a product that makes everybody happy, so don't drive yourself nuts trying.

Edit:

The trick is actually having those classes appeal to players who want to play as someone mundane. I can easily write up powers for a noble or a soldier (a completely mundane fighter who has armies at his back at higher levels and can retroactively decide when and where those armies are), but if they don't appeal to the people who want to play mundane characters then I'm wasting space with those classes. However since I'm not sure what specifically those people consider 'Mundane' I'm trying to get an idea for it here.

I do think that there is space for the sort of mundane-skill-taken-to-mythic-hypercompetence character. Most of it depends on the setting and rules engine. (Again, Exalted has space for being superhumanly skilled at knitting, since individual charms are easy to spin off. D&D has a lot less room for that; spells wind up cherry-picked off a long list, classes take a lot of work to make right, and there's little room in between for awesome knitting powers.) Batman and Sherlock Holmes are that sort of character, and many players would be happy to aim for that. Players who complain about nonmagical archetypes won't be happy, but you shouldn't build around them.

Of course Batman types will tend to be outclassed by someone who can produce nuclear explosions on a whim, so hypercompetent mundanes should be understood to have to "magic up" after a certain tier of play. 5e D&D makes these power brackets an explicit part of the design, and you're similarly free to do so. If the group wants their characters in the magical world to top out at Conan and Batman, they should know what level to calibrate towards.

Man_Over_Game
2019-07-01, 01:39 PM
Oh no, I'm making an rpg in a super magical world! Blade Masters can cut mountains in half, fire sorcerers can nuke cities, and clerics can ascend to become gods. I do have a set of classes I have conceptualized that can keep up with that level of overwhelming power, but play to the idea of someone who gets there with skill, training, and intelligence rather than Ki, Psyonics, or magic.

The trick is actually having those classes appeal to players who want to play as someone mundane. I can easily write up powers for a noble or a soldier (a completely mundane fighter who has armies at his back at higher levels and can retroactively decide when and where those armies are), but if they don't appeal to the people who want to play mundane characters then I'm wasting space with those classes. However since I'm not sure what specifically those people consider 'Mundane' I'm trying to get an idea for it here.

I think you'll have better luck keeping them separate and not including the mundane rules right off the bat. All it'll take is one person at a table to want to play a superhero, and now all the mundanes feel like idiots who can't contribute.

You'll find that, when making a game, the biggest concern for balance isn't actually regarding the players vs. the bad guys, but actually the players vs. themselves. In a multiplayer, cooperative game, everyone needs to be able to contribute, which means that something that's inherently weaker (like a mundane) isn't a realistic pick. You're either not having fun as a mundane, because you can't do anything, or your team isn't able to use half of their features in order to keep the difficulty down to something that you can participate in.

It'd be better to include it as a supplemental. A separate book that players can refer to when they want to play a "mundane" game in a world of heroes (which would be rather interesting. Imagine playing a hit-squad that's trying to take down Superman or Batman!).

awa
2019-07-01, 01:49 PM
I feel that there has to be more to it then that. Fighters in 3.5 got tons of feats, each one essentially acting as it's own special power (just not as good as spells!). In 5E I haven't heard any complaints about the Battlemaster fighter feeling to anime despite having access to maneuvers (unless I missed something).

If I knew the answer though I wouldn't have made this post, and it's entirely possible that my perceptions of what those type of people want are skewed.

I'm more discussing a war-blade where specific moves have very defined abilities.
Feats and battle masters are sufficiently generic that they dont trigger the same problem.
edit
I actually find that if you simply dont include normal people as pc classes it works fine, anime is not bad if that's what you want the problem is mixing the aesthetic haphazardly. Its better for a system to be focused then try and do everything. No game will appeal to everyone. D&Ds problem is they include fighters in their archetypal fiction and then dont allow them to contribute.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-01, 02:11 PM
I do think that there is space for the sort of mundane-skill-taken-to-mythic-hypercompetence character. Most of it depends on the setting and rules engine. (Again, Exalted has space for being superhumanly skilled at knitting, since individual charms are easy to spin off. D&D has a lot less room for that; spells wind up cherry-picked off a long list, classes take a lot of work to make right, and there's little room in between for awesome knitting powers.) Batman and Sherlock Holmes are that sort of character, and many players would be happy to aim for that. Players who complain about nonmagical archetypes won't be happy, but you shouldn't build around them.

Of course Batman types will tend to be outclassed by someone who can produce nuclear explosions on a whim, so hypercompetent mundanes should be understood to have to "magic up" after a certain tier of play. 5e D&D makes these power brackets an explicit part of the design, and you're similarly free to do so. If the group wants their characters in the magical world to top out at Conan and Batman, they should know what level to calibrate towards.


I think you'll have better luck keeping them separate and not including the mundane rules right off the bat. All it'll take is one person at a table to want to play a superhero, and now all the mundanes feel like idiots who can't contribute.

You'll find that, when making a game, the biggest concern for balance isn't actually regarding the players vs. the bad guys, but actually the players vs. themselves. In a multiplayer, cooperative game, everyone needs to be able to contribute, which means that something that's inherently weaker (like a mundane) isn't a realistic pick. You're either not having fun as a mundane, because you can't do anything, or your team isn't able to use half of their features in order to keep the difficulty down to something that you can participate in.

It'd be better to include it as a supplemental. A separate book that players can refer to when they want to play a "mundane" game in a world of heroes (which would be rather interesting. Imagine playing a hit-squad that's trying to take down Superman or Batman!).

Thanks for your comments. Right now I think I have the balance right. Martial have some of the best awareness abilities (soldiers can be aware of anything going on where any of their armies are, no matter how far away, for example, or scout out everything within a quarter mile of where a given army is (and they have an ability to be a squad of soldiers rather than normal, allowing them to count as an army meaning they can use one of their squad to scout a dungeon ahead of time by declaring it retroactively).

I think for example that mundane in my system as stronger than most systems. Sure a fire sorcerer can nuke a city, but it takes a few rounds of doing nothing in combat to prep, and as a single action a Solder can drop an army on them, then send commands to that army allowing them to use the soldiers stats to attack in defend as a group.

In setting its just hyper competence, but it can keep up with high level magic. In just worried players might feel that hyper competence is too fantastical to fulfill their desire to be non magical.

Arbane
2019-07-01, 02:17 PM
I think you'll have better luck keeping them separate and not including the mundane rules right off the bat. All it'll take is one person at a table to want to play a superhero, and now all the mundanes feel like idiots who can't contribute.


IIRC, Savage Rifts explicitly says that playing a skill-based non-supertech non-magic character is Hard Mode. I think that's a good idea.

Cluedrew
2019-07-01, 02:20 PM
I am building a system, and I have ideas on how to pull it off, but even then there are some areas where at the high end, abilities I give the 'mundane' classes are able to bend reality a bit.This comes down to a stylistic choice. I don't know the system you are making but its themes, styles, archetypes and power-level will all effect what the correct answer is. But even then they will not decide what it is, what do you want? To you want your so-called mundane classes to be grounded and realistic? Or to you just want demi-gods whose narrative justification is in some real life skill as opposed to some invented magic system? If I had to guess you are probably somewhere in between.


In a multiplayer, cooperative game, everyone needs to be able to contribute, which means that something that's inherently weaker (like a mundane) isn't a realistic pick.I think there is a way out because generally we are not balancing power so much as this nebulously defined thing I will call impact. For example, if you have less power over all but are the only one who can act in a certain area, that could have a lot of impact. Still there are a lot of systems that don't have any of those (or not enough) so definitely something to watch out for.

Man_Over_Game
2019-07-01, 02:42 PM
I think there is a way out because generally we are not balancing power so much as this nebulously defined thing I will call impact. For example, if you have less power over all but are the only one who can act in a certain area, that could have a lot of impact. Still there are a lot of systems that don't have any of those (or not enough) so definitely something to watch out for.

That's a good point, but I think it's also important to mention that consistency is more important than straight up value.

It doesn't really matter if the useless character has this ability that is game changing in the last encounter, because he's useless the other 95% of the campaign. For characters who have niche abilities, you need to ensure that niche is relevant CONSTANTLY. It doesn't matter how powerful the ability is, only that they feel (even slightly) relevant for every possible scenario. That's why, in DnD 5e, they made everyone capable of dealing damage, period, so that even something like a Druid in a city can contribute.

A good example of what I mean, in terms of skills, is a Pilot. The Pilot's only ever good when using vehicles, and he's amazing with them. He can even patch them enough to get them to a nearby city for extensive repairs. And vehicles in this made-up world are very important (due to toxic gasses, zombies, or something).
Sure, the Pilot is niche, but he's never useless. The trick, then, is to make sure that Vehicles are always relevant, to every table, and almost every session.

Or, put another way, nobody should ever be useless in any session, and allowing that to happen is pretty poor game design (and I've seen it happen a lot, AKA 3.5 Fighters at level 20).

Lord Raziere
2019-07-01, 03:12 PM
I don't agree with this.

In our world people believed in all sorts of magic. If it had turned out that, say, witches could really curse people and fly about on brooms by performing certain rituals and saying magic words which invoked otherworldy powers, are you saying that they would have been forced to stop calling their art magic at some point in history?

is that "magic" or is just super-linguistics, super-chemistry and super-geometry?

spellcasting is just super-communication to the universe
spell books is just super-textbooks
a ritual circle? super geometry
bards are just super-singing
inborn magical bloodlines is just superbirth
divine powers? often run on belief so its just super-subjectivism.
alchemy is just super-chemistry
alignment? angels, demons? just super-morality
monsters? just super-beasts and super-foreigners
wizards? just super-scholars
enchantment? super Programming

everything in fantasy is just an enhanced or powered up version of something we have in ours. thats it. magic is just a bunch of little super-things and knowledge clumped together into a mystical seeming jumble. but as knowledge gets more known, more specialized, more studied, people stop being just a scholar or whatever and start being these specialized fields and branches like we have today of which there are many. back then, people who knew more than others seemed magical and mystical simply because they talked about things outside others experiences and that knowledge wasn't much compared to ours, nowhere near as specialized, it was just a collection of facts that scholars gathered together, the whole concept of a renaissance man who knew all the sciences wouldn't be possible today because the renaissance while a big leap for knowledge was still not much compared to ours.

so yes, they would stop calling it magic, because it wouldn't be specific enough. it would be the field of Super-Geometry: just someone who does ritual circles all day, for a Super-Linguist whose entire job is to get paid to say super-words that the universe listens to, a Super-Chemist who mixes stuff to transmute lead into gold but philosopher stones cost a higher rate, a specialized job for interacting with beings from other worlds with ethics and guidelines, a Super-diplomat who has to treat their summoned things with respect and not order them around but ask or unethical or immoral, things like that.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-01, 03:39 PM
so yes, they would stop calling it magic, because it wouldn't be specific enough. it would be the field of Super-Geometry: just someone who does ritual circles all day, for a Super-Linguist whose entire job is to get paid to say super-words that the universe listens to, a Super-Chemist who mixes stuff to transmute lead into gold but philosopher stones cost a higher rate, a specialized job for interacting with beings from other worlds with ethics and guidelines, a Super-diplomat who has to treat their summoned things with respect and not order them around but ask or unethical or immoral, things like that.

That does assume that magic can be taught as a science. And even then the general public tends to lump many of your examples under the term 'Scientist.' Those that are better educated know the difference, but even then scientist is used as a catch all. Just like Mage, and just like Magic.
Mages are the generalists of magic. They have studied the many different sorceries and have learned to duplicate their effects using mana instead of belief.

In addition they also sometimes branch out and learn other mana based abilities. Despite that, their methods of duplication are often crude and require years of study as the weave is constantly shifting and each spell needs to take into account the individual soul of the user. This limits both how many spells a mage can keep up to date as well as their ability to share spells with other mages.

Because spells are about drawing mana into the soul, then using it to affect the weave, equations that work for one mage will typically take just as long to alter to be usable for another mage as crafting a new spell from scratch. Even then need to have an understanding of the element or magic that the original spell was based on.

Even with these drawbacks mages are unmatched in options and when in a place of their power they can be terrifying to behold as they channel the power into themselves to offset their natural drawbacks.

Cazero
2019-07-04, 02:17 AM
That does assume that magic can be taught as a science.
If magic can't be taught as a science, it follows no laws, wich makes it too random to be deliberately used by anyone and has the side effect of making it impossible to be taught at all.

If you use "magic" to describe a specific subset of the natural laws (such as whatever makes D&D spell work like they do), then magic in itself is not supernatural and opposing it to "mundane" is a category error. "Supernatural vs mundane" would be a question of power amplitude and not power source.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-04, 03:37 AM
If magic can't be taught as a science, it follows no laws, wich makes it too random to be deliberately used by anyone and has the side effect of making it impossible to be taught at all.

If you use "magic" to describe a specific subset of the natural laws (such as whatever makes D&D spell work like they do), then magic in itself is not supernatural and opposing it to "mundane" is a category error. "Supernatural vs mundane" would be a question of power amplitude and not power source.

Exactly.

If we're talking power amplitude, then this binary category does capture power amplitude at all. "supernatural" could mean anything from destroying all of reality to conjuring a small candle flame in your palm that is almost completely useless.

Mundane is obvious, but we need better categories than a singular one to encompass all beyond-mundane abilities.

There are two known ends to the scale of all power:

Mundane, the lowest

Reality Destroyed. the highest.

The problem comes in with describing the nuances and levels between. There is a great gulf between two

So lets take a shortcut: Anything beyond planetary in scope is useless to comprehend or to discuss. We have not the mind to wrap around a galaxy being destroyed, what the effects will be, what that involves and so on. Its all just increasingly large numbers of ridiculous feats that would destroy everything we know about the mundane rules of the universe anyways. If it breaks speed of light, there is no use discussing it.

So lets put all that into a third category: "Beyond Planetary Level."

So we come to something more manageable: Global Level of power.. lets just for a point of reference and convenience, say there is a National Level and a City Level of power, then Small Town Level of Power.

So lets say the levels of power are this:

0-Mundane
1-Small Town Level
2-City Level
3-National Level
4-Global Level
5-Beyond Planetary Level
6-Reality Destroyed Level

beyond this, I'm not sure. these categories aren't really defined well. its a step up, but it doesn't really tell us how this or that compares to something mundane on the same level, There are lot of powers that technically don't even reach small town level of power, yet can do things that are utterly impossible and insane on a personal level.

so how do you measure it? for an explosion, its easy, just look at the crater. but say... the ability to mind control someone is harder to observe by itself, as its inherently something you have to pick up on from the person acting inconsistent with who they usually are. so technically, you can't objectively say something is mind controlled or not. sure you can say there is a fictional method to observe it for sure, but that depends on the DMs or authors rules for what they see, thus setting dependent, thus can't be measured. this is just one example of how problematic of trying to figure out how powerful this or that power is.

I mean lets say you had a power that just replicates a real world mundane capability but without the middleman- does that automatically make you more powerful than everyone else? does that make you stop being mundane? its more convenient yes and a bit unexpected, but depending on what that replicates, it could have all sorts of effects.

Cluedrew
2019-07-04, 07:31 AM
If magic can't be taught as a science, it follows no laws, wich makes it too random to be deliberately used by anyone and has the side effect of making it impossible to be taught at all.

If you use "magic" to describe a specific subset of the natural laws (such as whatever makes D&D spell work like they do), then magic in itself is not supernatural and opposing it to "mundane" is a category error. "Supernatural vs mundane" would be a question of power amplitude and not power source.The one thing people* forget though is just because it follows rules doesn't mean it has to follow rules like physics. (Or chemistry or some other math based science.) Instead it could work like art, where there are rules but it is impossible to quantify every case. I am working on magic system that includes "make a diplomacy check with the supernatural entity."

I guess what I am trying to say is just because magic has rules, doesn't mean it will be the same as other thing that might have very different rules.

* I'm not sure if you (Cazero) have of its just a matter of phrasing but I'll say it anyways.

Talakeal
2019-07-04, 11:44 AM
is that "magic" or is just super-linguistics, super-chemistry and super-geometry?

spellcasting is just super-communication to the universe
spell books is just super-textbooks
a ritual circle? super geometry
bards are just super-singing
inborn magical bloodlines is just superbirth
divine powers? often run on belief so its just super-subjectivism.
alchemy is just super-chemistry
alignment? angels, demons? just super-morality
monsters? just super-beasts and super-foreigners
wizards? just super-scholars
enchantment? super Programming

everything in fantasy is just an enhanced or powered up version of something we have in ours. thats it. magic is just a bunch of little super-things and knowledge clumped together into a mystical seeming jumble. but as knowledge gets more known, more specialized, more studied, people stop being just a scholar or whatever and start being these specialized fields and branches like we have today of which there are many. back then, people who knew more than others seemed magical and mystical simply because they talked about things outside others experiences and that knowledge wasn't much compared to ours, nowhere near as specialized, it was just a collection of facts that scholars gathered together, the whole concept of a renaissance man who knew all the sciences wouldn't be possible today because the renaissance while a big leap for knowledge was still not much compared to ours.

so yes, they would stop calling it magic, because it wouldn't be specific enough. it would be the field of Super-Geometry: just someone who does ritual circles all day, for a Super-Linguist whose entire job is to get paid to say super-words that the universe listens to, a Super-Chemist who mixes stuff to transmute lead into gold but philosopher stones cost a higher rate, a specialized job for interacting with beings from other worlds with ethics and guidelines, a Super-diplomat who has to treat their summoned things with respect and not order them around but ask or unethical or immoral, things like that.

In my setting science is understanding and working within the laws of physics, magic is changing the laws of physics. To me that seems to be a pretty fundamental divide between the two.

But even if magic is just a form of science, I see no reason why you can't still apply the word "magic" to it.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-07-04, 12:06 PM
And not everything that has rules has to have mortal-accessible or mortal-comprehensible rules. Or even time-independent, objective, or universal rules.

Heck, even D&D magic makes no claims about having universal rules. There's no indication (in 5e at least) that the components (other than material) are the same for two people casting the same spell. In fact, the default is that identifying a spell being cast is completely up to the DM, and the only variant rules are that it's quite difficult (DC 15+ spell level, IIRC) and requires a Reaction (so no Counterspell if you identify the spell).

Beyond that, there's esoteric knowledge/power needed in D&D. Two people can perform exactly the same motions, say the same words, wave the same material components...and zero, one, or two of them could actually end up producing the results, even if they do things right. And making magic items (in 5e) is completely disconnected from spell-casting capability, except for spell scrolls.

Matinta
2019-07-04, 12:25 PM
That's why MTG is the superior setting.

Everyone has a bit of mana power and magic even the knights and warriors.

This way no one feels left out.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-04, 02:57 PM
In my setting science is understanding and working within the laws of physics, magic is changing the laws of physics. To me that seems to be a pretty fundamental divide between the two.

But even if magic is just a form of science, I see no reason why you can't still apply the word "magic" to it.

Except for magic existing has to be apart of the laws of physics and therefore reality. saying that something isn't apart of reality is saying that something does not exist. the distinction you make only matters to our real world of post-modern meta thinking and by making that distinction in setting its an inherently meta view to take, because its just there for an out of character distinction not an in character one.

like computers, no matter how much someone else in thread considers it magic, it isn't. because it exists, its principles are understood, when it does something we know the causes behind it. its connected to the rest of reality and would not function if it was disconnected. unless one arbitrarily says that anything one doesn't know about is magic which only proves my point about magic being a word of the ignorant. I guess magic can be used as a word of convenience, as shorthand, but not something that any serious user would actually consider accurately identifies what they do.

Talakeal
2019-07-04, 08:40 PM
Except for magic existing has to be apart of the laws of physics and therefore reality. saying that something isn't apart of reality is saying that something does not exist. the distinction you make only matters to our real world of post-modern meta thinking and by making that distinction in setting its an inherently meta view to take, because its just there for an out of character distinction not an in character one.

like computers, no matter how much someone else in thread considers it magic, it isn't. because it exists, its principles are understood, when it does something we know the causes behind it. its connected to the rest of reality and would not function if it was disconnected. unless one arbitrarily says that anything one doesn't know about is magic which only proves my point about magic being a word of the ignorant. I guess magic can be used as a word of convenience, as shorthand, but not something that any serious user would actually consider accurately identifies what they do.

Let me try a hypothetical:

There is an incredibly advanced computer game that contains within it a simulated reality and perfectly models all physics.

Two people are playing this game competitively.

One of them decides to cheat by hacking into the game and changing the games programing so that he can ignore the physics model.

Would you assert that the ability for someone outside of the simulated reality to hack in and violate the rules of the game is, by definition, part of the rules of the game?

Lord Raziere
2019-07-04, 08:58 PM
Let me try a hypothetical:

There is an incredibly advanced computer game that contains within it a simulated reality and perfectly models all physics.

Two people are playing this game competitively.

One of them decides to cheat by hacking into the game and changing the games programing so that he can ignore the physics model.

Would you assert that the ability for someone outside of the simulated reality to hack in and violate the rules of the game is, by definition, part of the rules of the game?

Not applicable

because those are two gods manipulating the world under them. the magic is the magic system designed by the game designers that is apart of the game.

a more accurate example would be one of the npcs suddenly being able to become self aware and access those cheats as in CHIM from Elder Scrolls. that is beyond magic, for that person can manipulate the magic itself. but see, if your manipulating reality, but other people aren't, they aren't aware of it. reality is reality to them and if you change the definition of reality, everyones view points change to match the new reality made.

when that cheating happens, it alters the world so it was ALWAYS like that. cast a fireball and its just another scientific effect to exploit it has a cause and effect behind it, but to make a cheat like that- well, that invincibility just suddenly comes out of nowhere, has no explanation, no magic no mundane explanation behind it. it is beyond even the magic reasoning for it, because if you make yourself invincible with magic, often another magic user can figure out how you became invincible and counter it. but if you make yourself invincible with cheats, not even the magic user has an explanation. your inexplicable, anomalous for even magical energies aren't causing it.

as a vast majority of magic in fiction has a system, energy, methods of doing this or that that are held to and a design behind it, its not always the best design, but its often better than "yeah this guy is suddenly invincible for no reason, we can't figure out why."

Kaptin Keen
2019-07-05, 03:31 AM
I wanted to propose Wolverine. Cannot fly, or teleport, doesn't have mental powers, doesn't shoot rays of energy from his eyes, cannot bend the time/space continuum to his will. He just regenerates. Like a starfish, just .. more. Rather considerably more, but still.

I'd consider Wolverine mundane, and within the confines of what I propose a plain old fighter can potentially do in my games. A good, long way outside of RL human abilities, but not something that you could handwave as 'natural'.


Except for magic existing has to be apart of the laws of physics and therefore reality.

The laws of physics do not define reality. They define physics. So anything specifically defined as metaphysical is not part of that.

In the real world, that's not a question that comes up, since 'metaphysics' are - some might say - imaginary. But in RPG's metaphysics are fact. Just not physics fact.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-05, 03:59 AM
The laws of physics do not define reality. They define physics. So anything specifically defined as metaphysical is not part of that.

In the real world, that's not a question that comes up, since 'metaphysics' are - some might say - imaginary. But in RPG's metaphysics are fact. Just not physics fact.

"some might say" as if there are people to offend by saying something with no proof existing is imaginary.

that aside, lets go with your assumption- so what? such rules are setting dependent. that makes it useless as far as general assessments like this thread go, unless we all agree on a specific metaphysics to discuss.

this whole thing is like comparing a solid cube to a murky bunch of fog. the solid cube of mundanity and science is known and defined quite clearly, but the fog of magic and fantasy presents nothing but unknowns and things up in the air. so its whether one wins or loses depends entirely on the fog and how you shape it. the mundane is already defined, you get no conclusive answer unless you define the fantastic in turn.

ah but of course, defining such a thing involves setting rules and systems, figuring out how it all works, how it functions and so on....until its a science. because knowledge is all about defining and figuring out the shape of the world. and to explain how a metaphysics works to players and people so that they can play in it, requires knowledge of it. funny that.

Kaptin Keen
2019-07-05, 05:21 AM
"some might say" as if there are people to offend by saying something with no proof existing is imaginary.

My mother-in-law. For one. I'm guessing you and I could readily agree that in the real world, there is nothing that isn't governed by the laws of physics - but I have no agenda to force my view on such matters on those who see things differently.


that aside, lets go with your assumption- so what? such rules are setting dependent. that makes it useless as far as general assessments like this thread go, unless we all agree on a specific metaphysics to discuss.

this whole thing is like comparing a solid cube to a murky bunch of fog. the solid cube of mundanity and science is known and defined quite clearly, but the fog of magic and fantasy presents nothing but unknowns and things up in the air. so its whether one wins or loses depends entirely on the fog and how you shape it. the mundane is already defined, you get no conclusive answer unless you define the fantastic in turn.

ah but of course, defining such a thing involves setting rules and systems, figuring out how it all works, how it functions and so on....until its a science. because knowledge is all about defining and figuring out the shape of the world. and to explain how a metaphysics works to players and people so that they can play in it, requires knowledge of it. funny that.

So what? Well, so we're seeking to define the limitations of one vs the other, are we not - or mundane vs arcane. Arcane, by and large, can do anything, while mundane is defined by at least nodding politely towards what is imaginable in the real world. That's why the Wolvering example. Wolverine certainly isn't 'human' as we measure such things. But he also isn't 'arcane' as we measure that. So it's my claim that he's ... a marker, let's say, for what we might consider the outer boundary of Mundane.

Cluedrew
2019-07-05, 06:47 AM
On In-Character Views on Magic: Why does it matter? These are ultimately categories for us I don't see how whether it is still magic from the perspective of someone in setting actually matters.

(I also believe magic actually does/could exist in setting for two definitions of the world magic, would not for one and the others are descriptors which depend on the person so could be used in setting. And that is ignoring that in a different universe the world magic has a different meaning.)

Jakinbandw
2019-07-05, 03:46 PM
If magic can't be taught as a science, it follows no laws, wich makes it too random to be deliberately used by anyone and has the side effect of making it impossible to be taught at all.

If you use "magic" to describe a specific subset of the natural laws (such as whatever makes D&D spell work like they do), then magic in itself is not supernatural and opposing it to "mundane" is a category error. "Supernatural vs mundane" would be a question of power amplitude and not power source.

That's not true at all. In my setting, it follows a set of laws, that are different for each mage, and change slowly enough that spells have to be updated monthly. That's because magic is based on people souls, and every soul is different. Channeling mana through a soul is an art and not a science, but art can be taught. It's like saying that because you can't have a book of laws telling you how to make a perfect painting noone can teach you how to paint.

As to your second paragraph, you are missing the point of my question. My question is what makes people that like mundanes no longer consider martials mundane. For example, you may have heard of the book of Weeabo Fighting Magic? Used as an insult against a book that has a bunch of martials that have more options? The people who insult that book are the people I'm trying to reach, to find out why they don't view martials in that book as mundane, and dislike them so much.

Sure you can be pithy and say "Everything is Mundane" but you don't win any internet cookies for that because it doesn't answer the question put forth.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-05, 04:24 PM
That's not true at all. In my setting, it follows a set of laws, that are different for each mage, and change slowly enough that spells have to be updated monthly. That's because magic is based on people souls, and every soul is different. Channeling mana through a soul is an art and not a science, but art can be taught. It's like saying that because you can't have a book of laws telling you how to make a perfect painting no one can teach you how to paint.

As to your second paragraph, you are missing the point of my question. My question is what makes people that like mundanes no longer consider martials mundane. For example, you may have heard of the book of Weeabo Fighting Magic? Used as an insult against a book that has a bunch of martials that have more options? The people who insult that book are the people I'm trying to reach, to find out why they don't view martials in that book as mundane, and dislike them so much.

Sure you can be pithy and say "Everything is Mundane" but you don't win any internet cookies for that because it doesn't answer the question put forth.

ah so updated monthly, meaning someone with enough papers can just record each spell and find patterns to each update because they inevitability repeat or have similarities within a certain spectrum thus compiling graph or other spreadsheet to show patterns of change over time. and if its based on peoples souls and souls can be directly observed, that means one can figure out what soul-stuff is made of, what the particles of souls are, how they are arranged, and then figure out how to start building souls to certain specifications eventually.

and if souls aren't physical observable things, if its art, well, guess what, there are art styles, commonalities between paintings of the same period. and furthermore, artists often steal their ideas from other artists. they use tropes and established cliches and techniques over time to portray this or that. and furthermore, there is the fields of psychology, sociology, and people are in many ways determined by their environment, the world they grew up in and thus their souls would be determined by those factors as well, and if the souls are in any similar to a mind one can then predict and profile a magic through psychological and sociological methods. its less exact, but its still accurate. congratulations all you did was change this from a hard science to a soft science.

thus some cultures would tend to certain kinds of magic, as well as certain types of psychologies and personalities would tend towards certain other types. Over time, people would figure out what encourages this or that type of magic and start culturally and psychologically engineering people to produce certain kinds of magic to use for certain purposes, magical power enforcing certain kinds of cultures, traditions and psychological states to be favored over others by humanities decision-making.

thus the best possible use of such a magic system is to genetically and psychologically engineer someone to be megalomaniac seeking unlimited power so that they create utopia for all for the greater good and watch the magic granted them spells to be a god that can create a utopia for as long as they rule it then with their unlimited power change magic itself so that it stops changing so that its utopian. only problem is, megalomaniac ruling forever.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-05, 05:35 PM
So many assumptions here, so let's start:


ah so updated monthly, meaning someone with enough papers can just record each spell and find patterns to each update because they inevitability repeat or have similarities within a certain spectrum thus compiling graph or other spreadsheet to show patterns of change over time. and if its based on peoples souls and souls can be directly observed, that means one can figure out what soul-stuff is made of, what the particles of souls are, how they are arranged, and then figure out how to start building souls to certain specifications eventually.


Souls can not be observed. Also, the way spells are cast don't repeat. They are like pi with millions of possible characters for each digit. Mages can get a feel for the shifts, and that allows higher level mages keep more of their spells up to date, but that's about it, there is only feelings, no specific logic.



and if souls aren't physical observable things, if its art, well, guess what, there are art styles, commonalities between paintings of the same period. and furthermore, artists often steal their ideas from other artists. they use tropes and established cliches and techniques over time to portray this or that. and furthermore, there is the fields of psychology, sociology, and people are in many ways determined by their environment, the world they grew up in and thus their souls would be determined by those factors as well, and if the souls are in any similar to a mind one can then predict and profile a magic through psychological and sociological methods. its less exact, but its still accurate. congratulations all you did was change this from a hard science to a soft science.

Ah, but again you are wrong. Souls have nothing to do with where you were raised, your bodytype, or anything like that. The key thing you're missing is that my setting has reincarnation, karmic weight, and memories. Saying that you can psychologically profile a soul is completely wrong. There are no commonalities between how people cast. One person might cast a fireball by channeling the feeling of being cold into the memory of their first cat. Their twin might instead cast a fireball by holding a diagram in their mind and tracing the outline. There are some casting methods that lesson the drain on the mage in one way or another, but in the end the internals are completely explainable.

(also before you call cop out on me saying my setting has reincarnation, one of the classes is specifically a character that can remember their previous reincarnations, and it was about the fourth class conceived)


thus some cultures would tend to certain kinds of magic, as well as certain types of psychologies and personalities would tend towards certain other types. Over time, people would figure out what encourages this or that type of magic and start culturally and psychologically engineering people to produce certain kinds of magic to use for certain purposes, magical power enforcing certain kinds of cultures, traditions and psychological states to be favored over others by humanities decision-making.

Of course this doesn't work because your basic premise is wrong. You are amusingly right however. The entire setting is based around a struggle between light and shadow, where light has won the battle. All churches are to the light, and those with shadow sorcery (which is not magic) are hunted and killed. Since light is order, and unchanging, cultures can't actually shift, ironically locking them into their current way. The setting starts as this dominance breaks, as the emperor is killed and with him the seal barring the shadow from the world breaks. Changes can now happen in the world and monsters and demons are unleashed into a world that is more concerned with succession than the rumors of monsters on the borders.


thus the best possible use of such a magic system is to genetically and psychologically engineer someone to be megalomaniac seeking unlimited power so that they create utopia for all for the greater good and watch the magic granted them spells to be a god that can create a utopia for as long as they rule it then with their unlimited power change magic itself so that it stops changing so that its utopian. only problem is, megalomaniac ruling forever.

Again, since souls are not bound by biology this would never work. That said my system does allow for that level of power to be obtained and used. It sounds like you would like the ritualist, who does manipulate the fundamental elements through actual science and experimentation, with rules and laws that can be understood with much study. Of course ritualists also rely on founts of power to make their changes and there are a limited of those, so those that do understand the science are disincentivized to share their knowledge as the less competition the less likely they are to get shanked for a fount they found.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-05, 06:23 PM
So many assumptions here, so let's start:
Souls can not be observed. Also, the way spells are cast don't repeat. They are like pi with millions of possible characters for each digit. Mages can get a feel for the shifts, and that allows higher level mages keep more of their spells up to date, but that's about it, there is only feelings, no specific logic.

Really?


Ah, but again you are wrong. Souls have nothing to do with where you were raised, your bodytype, or anything like that. The key thing you're missing is that my setting has reincarnation, karmic weight, and memories. Saying that you can psychologically profile a soul is completely wrong. There are no commonalities between how people cast. One person might cast a fireball by channeling the feeling of being cold into the memory of their first cat. Their twin might instead cast a fireball by holding a diagram in their mind and tracing the outline. There are some casting methods that lesson the drain on the mage in one way or another, but in the end the internals are completely explainable.

(also before you call cop out on me saying my setting has reincarnation, one of the classes is specifically a character that can remember their previous reincarnations, and it was about the fourth class conceived)

all that sounds like is same external effects from different internal causes. problem is, there can't have infinite variation. eventually patterns form. so your saying that if you make a clone of somebody, they don't get the same spells because they don't have the same soul. but then how does anyone be sorted into anything resembling an actual magic system, this sounds more like a random superhero setting. and whats preventing any random person just making up whatever spell they want on the fly? if they can just do it because they feel it out, you made magic effortless and everyones a wizard. its not as if anyone can tell the difference after all, given how often magic changes.


Of course this doesn't work because your basic premise is wrong. You are amusingly right however. The entire setting is based around a struggle between light and shadow, where light has won the battle. All churches are to the light, and those with shadow sorcery (which is not magic) are hunted and killed. Since light is order, and unchanging, cultures can't actually shift, ironically locking them into their current way. The setting starts as this dominance breaks, as the emperor is killed and with him the seal barring the shadow from the world breaks. Changes can now happen in the world and monsters and demons are unleashed into a world that is more concerned with succession than the rumors of monsters on the borders.

but if cultures couldn't shift, that would be a massive destruction of free will the soul uniqueness thing wouldn't matter because everyone would be mindwashed to not shift by the light, you contradicted everything you just said. you can't have one part of the setting constantly rolling dice to constantly change things then have another part saying the dice always land snake eyes so that things don't change. that just doesn't work.


Again, since souls are not bound by biology this would never work. That said my system does allow for that level of power to be obtained and used. It sounds like you would like the ritualist, who does manipulate the fundamental elements through actual science and experimentation, with rules and laws that can be understood with much study. Of course ritualists also rely on founts of power to make their changes and there are a limited of those, so those that do understand the science are disincentivized to share their knowledge as the less competition the less likely they are to get shanked for a fount they found.

First logical area of research: figure out how to make more founts, therefore acquire fount to research its structure and how it forms, acquire surplus of founts, give to other ritualists as peace offerings...

Cluedrew
2019-07-05, 09:14 PM
Fun fact everyone, by the definition of magic that people who (way back in the middle ages) thought magic was real, it is real. Not a lot of it. Speaking to the dead and love charms are pretty ineffective at best. But they weren't completely wrong and they got things right on occasion. Some things, like magnetism or how to make "fool's gold" were once thought to be magic. Science has since claimed them but they game from magic practices that just happened to work.

I suspect that some people will not care, but it is a thing people forget that I think it is important to remember "we stand on the shoulders of giants". Even if the earliest of the giants thought it was elemental flame and spirits doing the work.

Cazero
2019-07-06, 01:40 AM
That's not true at all.
I beg to differ !
Science is a method designed for self-correction. Everything it gets right is still held as inaccurate. Every mistake it makes is used as new information to establish a better understanding of reality. That methodology of starting from an inaccurate position and improving upon it allows science to always produce results.
If the laws of physics of the real world were to change, science could figure that out, quantify the change, and make a predictive model of future variations that can be checked against reality. If that model is wrong, the information acquired when checking the model can be used to make a new, better one.
Wether or not we eventualy get a perfectly accurate picture is irrelevant. Science is the path, not the destination.

Even true randomness can be analyzed by science in term of probabilities. Random events have restrictions that form patterns. Any random event that lacks restrictions would threaten to destroy the entire universe at any moment for no reason.
And since we need logical consistancy to actualy use things, a lack of pattern means no deliberate use is possible. So it may not be practical to scientificaly study magic in your setting, but if it's usable at all, science would still function.


In my setting, it follows a set of laws, that are different for each mage, and change slowly enough that spells have to be updated monthly. That's because magic is based on people souls, and every soul is different.
It follows laws, therefore science works. Those laws change constantly, therefore science is harder to perform. It still works. It may be too much of a pain to be practical, but it works. Magic being based on people soul is a scientific fact that can be accounted for. Apparently all it would take to reshape your setting around magic as a science is an accurate soul analyzer.


Channeling mana through a soul is an art and not a science, but art can be taught. It's like saying that because you can't have a book of laws telling you how to make a perfect painting noone can teach you how to paint.
Art can't be taught. You can teach someone how to draw because drawing follow rules, but you can't teach them how to find artistic inspiration.
The day you figure that out, art becomes a science.


Souls can not be observed.
Sure they can. Magic is based on people soul, therefore every magic spell cast provides information about the soul of the caster. That's an observation right there.


Also, the way spells are cast don't repeat. They are like pi with millions of possible characters for each digit.
What I take from that is that the primary issue is a lack of computation power. Computation power is the only thing stopping us from mapping every single digit of pi accurately, and it's infinite (wich incidentally makes the number of possible character per digit irrelevant).


Mages can get a feel for the shifts, and that allows higher level mages keep more of their spells up to date, but that's about it, there is only feelings, no specific logic.
Then a good basis for the soul analyzer I mentioned earlier would be to perfectly understand how those feelings in the brain work at the subatomic level.
Maybe people lack the information required to establish what the "specific logic" is, but by necessity if there wasn't some form of logic at some level magic would be impossible to use deliberately.


Ah, but again you are wrong. Souls have nothing to do with where you were raised, your bodytype, or anything like that. The key thing you're missing is that my setting has reincarnation, karmic weight, and memories.
You say that as if that was an insurmountable obstacle. It's not. Having those extra variables on the pile sure makes computing harder, but it remains possible.


Saying that you can psychologically profile a soul is completely wrong. There are no commonalities between how people cast. One person might cast a fireball by channeling the feeling of being cold into the memory of their first cat. Their twin might instead cast a fireball by holding a diagram in their mind and tracing the outline.
A perfect model would require complete soul profiling. Psychology profile is only a relatively easy to use method of starting that profile. But if psychology is actualy irrelevant, science can figure that out.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-06, 01:00 PM
I beg to differ !
It follows laws, therefore science works. Those laws change constantly, therefore science is harder to perform. It still works. It may be too much of a pain to be practical, but it works.

What I take from that is that the primary issue is a lack of computation power. Computation power is the only thing stopping us from mapping every single digit of pi accurately, and it's infinite (wich incidentally makes the number of possible character per digit irrelevant).

You got me. All you'd need is knowledge, equipment more powerful than anything we have, an understanding of the rest of the laws of the universe that we don't have yet, an understanding of the laws of the setting that they don't have, and of course a break in the low level mind washing that keeps the world from progressing.

With all that it's a wonder it's never been done before!

But seriously, I don't know what you are trying to prove here. I agreed that there were rules for everything in my original post.


Sure you can be pithy and say "Everything is Mundane" but you don't win any internet cookies for that because it doesn't answer the question put forth.
But I disagreed with your idea that it could be taught in the setting that it was a part of. Your premise was:

If magic can't be taught as a science, it follows no laws, wich makes it too random to be deliberately used by anyone and has the side effect of making it impossible to be taught at all.

You're saying that if something can't be taught it doesn't follow any law, which is obviously not true. Quantum Mechanics have always existed (and we know that we are wrong about quantum mechanics, just not how), but that doesn't mean that we couldn't smell things before we understood how quantum mechanics worked. Also even with all that, how would you go about teaching someone how to understand scent even now that we know the underlying ideas of how the brain works, and how quantum mechanics are used to identify scents?

The point is, the basic premise that magic can be taught does not hold true in my setting. If I did a future version of my setting millions of years in the future then it might, but then it would also be a different setting.




problem is, there can't have infinite variation. eventually patterns form.
Tell me what the pattern for the formation of prime numbers is. I'll wait. Also you can win a cool million if you can figure this out. And if you can't do it with access to a computer (something far more powerful than anything in the setting), then how can you expect people in the setting to figure it out?


So your saying that if you make a clone of somebody, they don't get the same spells because they don't have the same soul. but then how does anyone be sorted into anything resembling an actual magic system, this sounds more like a random superhero setting. and whats preventing any random person just making up whatever spell they want on the fly? if they can just do it because they feel it out, you made magic effortless and everyones a wizard. its not as if anyone can tell the difference after all, given how often magic changes.
They get the same spells, they just have to go about casting it in a different way than other mages. Mages are copying the powers of Sorcerers who don't really do magic so much as they are linked to a fundamental concept of the universe. The most common sorcerers are those of the 6 primordial elements (light, fire, air, water, earth, dark), and mages work to duplicate those effects through study. They know what effect they are aiming for, but a perfect understanding of the element (which can be taught!) is necessary to even start to form spells using it. However once they have the basics down, choosing an effect, and then using trial and error slowly allows them to form a new spell they can use. As they are manipulating the weave using mana with their soul as a medium the effectiveness of their spells varies depending on the strength of their soul, and their understanding of their elements. It requires a lot of time, and study to understand an element enough to start forming spells for it, but even then it requires constant experimentation to keep your spells up to date.



but if cultures couldn't shift, that would be a massive destruction of free will the soul uniqueness thing wouldn't matter because everyone would be mindwashed to not shift by the light, you contradicted everything you just said. you can't have one part of the setting constantly rolling dice to constantly change things then have another part saying the dice always land snake eyes so that things don't change. that just doesn't work.
It's almost like the theme of reincarnation, with souls being unable to move on, and new souls not being created links into the theme of an unchanging world. But let's also look at this. You're born into a role, even if you aren't fully aware of it, and the world pushes you to be in that role. If you try to break out things go wrong, and you have a slight mental pressure to make certain decisions. Cool, this means that you, and everyone like you are in the same boat.

Except...

Souls are reincarnated rather haphazardly. One life you are a king, the next a prostitute on the streets. Your soul records all these memories, along with ambient information as well. With the number of different roles, and experiences with in those roles, and the thousands of years that this has been going on... Well, each person may be subtly pushed into a roll, but each soul is very unique.




First logical area of research: figure out how to make more founts, therefore acquire fount to research its structure and how it forms, acquire surplus of founts, give to other ritualists as peace offerings...

Oh, founts are easy! All you have to do is find where two leylines cross! That's it! The type of fount corresponds to the type of leylines that cross. The amount of power you can draw from a leyline is equal to how many different type of founts you have access to. So if you have two Metal founts you can make two level one changes. If you had a metal and life fount however you could make a level 2 change or two level 1 changes. Of course power only flows along leylines so you have to hold onto leylines that are connected to one another to have full use of your powers, and you have to control all founts between any two other founts you control....

Okay, but I know your next question! Why not make new leylines?

Mainly because the leylines are formed from the power of a deity that forms the entire world you are on. She does not like being poked, and she can manifest an avatar to fight you should she wish. Of course you can fight and kill that avatar...

But then you've killed her and everyone who isn't naturally very powerful dies immediately, along with all plant life and all founts.

So maybe you can reason with her?

Sure, if you can get her attention without her anger. Sounds like a possible long term goal for a campaign! After all, you'll want to be able to offer her something in return for her ignoring the mutilation of her body that you're planning right? And have it so that instantly killing you isn't the easier option?

Lord Raziere
2019-07-06, 02:18 PM
@ Jakinbadw: thats an awful lot of trouble to go to when a more efficient and effective way of what your trying to accomplish is just saying to your players "please don't, I can't GM for a world that changes in those ways."

Jakinbandw
2019-07-06, 02:40 PM
@ Jakinbadw: thats an awful lot of trouble to go to when a more efficient and effective way of what your trying to accomplish is just saying to your players "please don't, I can't GM for a world that changes in those ways."

Changes in what ways? Letting the player have tons of power? The world is set up to drive players to seek it out. Change how the setting works on a fundamental level? Sure, go right ahead. On of my play testers pointed out that one of the classes can reveal the moon to be a death star. There is balance and pulling off such actions requires the players to be around level 18ish with infrastructure.

Goodness, one of the classes has the option to allow a player to ascend to become a god at that level. I support power of that level, I just have requirements to stop a player from going punpun.

And I'm building a system, and I see what happens to things like DnD when this stuff isn't properly defined. You get Hulking Hurlers throwing planets before lvl 5 and the like. Having a consistent setting helps allow players and gms get a feeling for what is possible without laying down artificial restrictions like 'Just don't do it.' I prefer a setting that has internal consistent sense and that allow players and GMs to be able to work out what the logical results of an action would be.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-06, 03:05 PM
I'm not talking about that.

people can like technology and science without some megalomaniacal desire for unlimited power or conquering the world, y'know. :smallconfused:

Jakinbandw
2019-07-06, 03:20 PM
I'm not talking about that.

people can like technology and science without some megalomaniacal desire for unlimited power or conquering the world, y'know. :smallconfused:

I never said they couldn't.

Anymage
2019-07-06, 08:30 PM
For the sake of convenience here, we'll use the FR definition. "Magic" is anything that operates through the weave. (Gods and their powers are a separate discussion.) Mortals can understand and interact with these forces, but only about to the same degree that real-world humans can understand and interact with geologic forces; some things are just more complex than your current level of understanding can handle, others are too powerful for you to meaningfully affect, and sometimes you don't have the tools to really get to certain bits of it. It's of the world, it could be perfectly understood and controlled by an arbitrarily advanced society (which our fantasy societies are not), and we can still have meaningful discussions about what people do or do not consider plausible without somebody saying some nonsense words to tap into this weave energy.

Talakeal
2019-07-07, 02:23 PM
The whole debate about whether or not the term "magic" was ever appropriate was semantic to start with, but now that we are seemingly using "science" to mean "anything that we can learn about," it is now almost completely meaningless.

For my part, in my setting I use "science" to explain things that are caused by events within our reality, and magic to refer to external events that influence our reality from the outside, but its all just semantics at this point so whatever.


As to your second paragraph, you are missing the point of my question. My question is what makes people that like mundanes no longer consider martials mundane. For example, you may have heard of the book of Weeabo Fighting Magic? Used as an insult against a book that has a bunch of martials that have more options? The people who insult that book are the people I'm trying to reach, to find out why they don't view martials in that book as mundane, and dislike them so much.

This I can explain, at least for me.

I don't hate the book because it gives martials more options or has an eastern feel to it.

I hate the book because I don't like the idea of "fire and forget" maneuvers or the fact that as you level up you lose access to your previous abilities to pick up knew ones, that simply isn't how human beings work.

I also don't like how the book doesn't fit into the metaphysics of the setting. There are a lot of blatantly supernatural abilities with the EX tag on them, for example the crusader healing because their attacks somehow summon bursts of extra-planar energy, that simply don't fit in with the great wheel cosmology and the because doesn't even bother trying to explain or integrate them.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-08, 10:47 AM
This I can explain, at least for me.

I don't hate the book because it gives martials more options or has an eastern feel to it.

I hate the book because I don't like the idea of "fire and forget" maneuvers or the fact that as you level up you lose access to your previous abilities to pick up knew ones, that simply isn't how human beings work.

I also don't like how the book doesn't fit into the metaphysics of the setting. There are a lot of blatantly supernatural abilities with the EX tag on them, for example the crusader healing because their attacks somehow summon bursts of extra-planar energy, that simply don't fit in with the great wheel cosmology and the because doesn't even bother trying to explain or integrate them.

First of all, thank you!

Second, setting aside the silliness of forgetting abilities to pick up new ones (maybe you just get out of practice? Idk), would better lore help?

For that healing example, would linking it to ki, or to a refusal to die (because as the books say, hp isn't meat) work better for you?

I know it does things like explosions and such to, these could be linked to training with alchemy, or ki again. Something anyone could be taught, but would require a lot of training, relying on yourself instead of the weave, so able to work in places cut off from the weave (antimagic zones).

Segev
2019-07-08, 03:18 PM
On the original topic, I think the point where it really starts to become a problem for me to call it "superlative, but not magical" is the point at which it stops being something that a human could conceivably do if he weren't limited by the material weakness of flesh and bone.

A human isn't going to fly unaided, but if he has unlimited ability to train his body and skills to perfection, he might develop enough strength and precision to twirl a blade in such a way as to generate sufficient downward thrust to lift himself like a helicopter. (Leeway can be given for rule-of-cool for less-probable shapes, like a twirling quarterstaff.) A human isn't going to teleport, but with sufficient strength and force and physical control (and a lack of such petty things as "being turned into a jelly smear by inertia"), he could 'flash step' so fast that no lesser eye could follow the movement. A human isn't going to turn into a badger, but he might be able to grow nails that he can curl into digging claws and use as weapons.

There's also nothing wrong with giving non-spellcasters (Su) and even (Sp) abilities where thematically appropriate. The Bear Warrior who turns into a bear when he rages is cool, even if that does require a Supernatural ability.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-08, 03:23 PM
On the original topic, I think the point where it really starts to become a problem for me to call it "superlative, but not magical" is the point at which it stops being something that a human could conceivably do if he weren't limited by the material weakness of flesh and bone.

A human isn't going to fly unaided, but if he has unlimited ability to train his body and skills to perfection, he might develop enough strength and precision to twirl a blade in such a way as to generate sufficient downward thrust to lift himself like a helicopter. (Leeway can be given for rule-of-cool for less-probable shapes, like a twirling quarterstaff.) A human isn't going to teleport, but with sufficient strength and force and physical control (and a lack of such petty things as "being turned into a jelly smear by inertia"), he could 'flash step' so fast that no lesser eye could follow the movement. A human isn't going to turn into a badger, but he might be able to grow nails that he can curl into digging claws and use as weapons.

There's also nothing wrong with giving non-spellcasters (Su) and even (Sp) abilities where thematically appropriate. The Bear Warrior who turns into a bear when he rages is cool, even if that does require a Supernatural ability.

Yeah but I don't like people putting such things in the same category as bookish wizards and referring to all spellcasters as the same. thats an extreme of umbrella terming that I can't stand.

Tvtyrant
2019-07-08, 04:48 PM
To me the difference between martial and mundane is essentially "can they change the world in a way that a RL entity could not?"

For instance a human in D&D who acts more like a robot, shooting dozens of arrows at a time or swinging a sword once per second strong enough to kill a bear each is fine. Running really fast, jumping high, having perfect hand eye coordination or recall, anything doable in RL by a person or a machine is okay.

When they do things that cannot be done in RL at all it becomes magic. Teleporting, flying without propulsion, shooting fire, mind control, etc.

This means that a mundane has less options then a magic person, they can't make the ground make a castle in minutes or call demons.

In other settings where magic is more unnatural a common solution is that reality doesn't like magic and the caster has to use their willpower to force changes through. A mundane can add their willpower to reality to prevent the changes, blanking the effect. This fixes some problems, but makes the mundane the passive force to the mages active one so it doesn't alter the base problem.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-08, 08:28 PM
When they do things that cannot be done in RL at all it becomes magic. Teleporting, flying without propulsion, shooting fire, mind control, etc.

This means that a mundane has less options then a magic person, they can't make the ground make a castle in minutes or call demons.

I want to look at these if that's okay, and see if I can make mundane versions of these abilities for DnD that you would be willing to accept.

Teleporting I could see happening two ways: In the first way you tell the players that you're going dark, and you remove yourself from the party. Later on, when they get into an encounter you reveal yourself on the map stating that you've snuck inside ahead of time. This obviously needs set up, but allows for a great amount of tactical flexibility when starting combat.
The other way to do it is to have 'Ways' in the setting. Paths that people can walk to reach other planes. Pathways that bend into places they shouldn't. Anyone can walk them, but you as a character have learned them well enough to use them to get where you want, and you recognize the signs that ways are nearby.

Flying is a method of getting around. Would you mind a mundane able to leap up to any point he can see (think Saitama) and use objects in the air such as other people or falling debris to redirect his motion?

Shooting fire should be doable with chemicals, such as alchemist fire. But on an even weaker note, firing a bunch of fire arrows into a group, or tossing bombs seems like a rather mundane option to me.

Mind Control vs Diplomacy. When you can convince fish to buy water with diplomacy, is there anything that mind control can do that diplomacy can't?

And finally, the reason why I wanted to make this list:

Building a Castle in seconds! I feel that based on books, the grand unveiling of something like a castle with only minor build up should totally be a thing. Being able to say you previously spent money on the construction of a castle here, and have say the sides of a nearby hill fall away revealing a castle you have previously hired people to build I think would be a really cool mundane power.

Summoning demons might even work as a mundane. Rather than using a ritual, you've actually run into one in the past and made a deal with it to show up today with your incredible foresight and persuasive skills. Demons do show up in most settings, so saying you ran into one before and made a deal with it shouldn't even be that impossible.


I'm really curious how many of my Mundane versions of those abilities you'd accept as actually mundane.

Cluedrew
2019-07-08, 09:23 PM
To Segev and Tvtyrant: On my chart (see spoiler) would you say that is the super-human to super-natural divide or super-natural to magic divide?


Mundane: They have realistic abilities and realistic chances of being able to do things. As a person that actually exists. This is our base point on the scale because I have yet to find anyone who would disagree with this.

Improbable One: They don't do anything impossible, but they do them much more consistently than a person should be able to do them. Alternatively someone who has hit peak human abilities in more areas that you should be able to, because practice takes time and energy. Many action heroes fall into this group.

Super-Human: Exceeds human abilities but in a strictly "extrapolation" sort of way. So they are impossibly strong, but they don't do anything with that strength that actually being that strong wouldn't let you do. I used strength as an example but in my experience strength usually skips over this and goes to the next group. More common are "softer" things like coordination & reflexes, social skills or intelligence (especially through something like a technical skill).

Super-Natural: Has exceeded human abilities in a way that follows from a human ability but not in a way that could ever work. The difference is bridged by some implicate or explicate "magic". Simple example is Superman picking up a building. Building do not have a point that can bare their entire weight and would collapse, but not when Superman carries them.

Magic: This zone could also be called "impossible feats" because it is more than just wizards, it is eye-beam super heroes and time travel technology. It is the difference between painting that looks like a hallway you could walk down and a painting you can step into and walk down.

Wizard: It is magic that maintains the look and feel of magic. In terms of how impossible things are it isn't really an important distinction. I find it useful for talking about high power levels where everyone is breaking reality to keep up, but we can still use the how and why to make them feel distinct.

Tvtyrant
2019-07-08, 09:23 PM
I want to look at these if that's okay, and see if I can make mundane versions of these abilities for DnD that you would be willing to accept.

Teleporting I could see happening two ways: In the first way you tell the players that you're going dark, and you remove yourself from the party. Later on, when they get into an encounter you reveal yourself on the map stating that you've snuck inside ahead of time. This obviously needs set up, but allows for a great amount of tactical flexibility when starting combat.
The other way to do it is to have 'Ways' in the setting. Paths that people can walk to reach other planes. Pathways that bend into places they shouldn't. Anyone can walk them, but you as a character have learned them well enough to use them to get where you want, and you recognize the signs that ways are nearby.

Flying is a method of getting around. Would you mind a mundane able to leap up to any point he can see (think Saitama) and use objects in the air such as other people or falling debris to redirect his motion?

Shooting fire should be doable with chemicals, such as alchemist fire. But on an even weaker note, firing a bunch of fire arrows into a group, or tossing bombs seems like a rather mundane option to me.

Mind Control vs Diplomacy. When you can convince fish to buy water with diplomacy, is there anything that mind control can do that diplomacy can't?

And finally, the reason why I wanted to make this list:

Building a Castle in seconds! I feel that based on books, the grand unveiling of something like a castle with only minor build up should totally be a thing. Being able to say you previously spent money on the construction of a castle here, and have say the sides of a nearby hill fall away revealing a castle you have previously hired people to build I think would be a really cool mundane power.

Summoning demons might even work as a mundane. Rather than using a ritual, you've actually run into one in the past and made a deal with it to show up today with your incredible foresight and persuasive skills. Demons do show up in most settings, so saying you ran into one before and made a deal with it shouldn't even be that impossible.


I'm really curious how many of my Mundane versions of those abilities you'd accept as actually mundane.

If you can make a generally unified mechanic for it I think it could be super cool.

I've used Reputation similarly before, where you can spend reputation points to get stuff done inmediately. Casters have a much lower reputation score then mundanes inherently.

What I have found is a lot of people who want to play mundanes want them to be simple and limited. They don't want to play Megamind, they want to play The Hound and ignore more then chop and intimidate.

Edit: Supernatural to Magic I think. I had a berzerker player benchpress a tower (really pumped strength score) and no one batted an eye. The tower would not have worked that way in RL.

Talakeal
2019-07-09, 10:30 AM
I want to look at these if that's okay, and see if I can make mundane versions of these abilities for DnD that you would be willing to accept.

Teleporting I could see happening two ways: In the first way you tell the players that you're going dark, and you remove yourself from the party. Later on, when they get into an encounter you reveal yourself on the map stating that you've snuck inside ahead of time. This obviously needs set up, but allows for a great amount of tactical flexibility when starting combat.
The other way to do it is to have 'Ways' in the setting. Paths that people can walk to reach other planes. Pathways that bend into places they shouldn't. Anyone can walk them, but you as a character have learned them well enough to use them to get where you want, and you recognize the signs that ways are nearby.

Flying is a method of getting around. Would you mind a mundane able to leap up to any point he can see (think Saitama) and use objects in the air such as other people or falling debris to redirect his motion?

Shooting fire should be doable with chemicals, such as alchemist fire. But on an even weaker note, firing a bunch of fire arrows into a group, or tossing bombs seems like a rather mundane option to me.

Mind Control vs Diplomacy. When you can convince fish to buy water with diplomacy, is there anything that mind control can do that diplomacy can't?

And finally, the reason why I wanted to make this list:

Building a Castle in seconds! I feel that based on books, the grand unveiling of something like a castle with only minor build up should totally be a thing. Being able to say you previously spent money on the construction of a castle here, and have say the sides of a nearby hill fall away revealing a castle you have previously hired people to build I think would be a really cool mundane power.

Summoning demons might even work as a mundane. Rather than using a ritual, you've actually run into one in the past and made a deal with it to show up today with your incredible foresight and persuasive skills. Demons do show up in most settings, so saying you ran into one before and made a deal with it shouldn't even be that impossible.


I'm really curious how many of my Mundane versions of those abilities you'd accept as actually mundane.

Your unveiling a castle ability is really more of a meta-narrative ability than one that is either magical or mundane as it exists outside the fiction as, presumeably, the castle had already been built in universe using mundane means even if it comes as a suddent surprise to the players at the table.

As for the kunping examlple, I would accept it as a martial ability, but not a mundane one, and you would need to integrate it into the world, either through differentiated physics ala John Carter or Ki ala Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.

But such drastic breaks from the real world will be jarring, and you have to be really careful to maintain immersion and versimilitude in your world building without alienating people.


First of all, thank you!

Second, setting aside the silliness of forgetting abilities to pick up new ones (maybe you just get out of practice? Idk), would better lore help?

For that healing example, would linking it to ki, or to a refusal to die (because as the books say, hp isn't meat) work better for you?

I know it does things like explosions and such to, these could be linked to training with alchemy, or ki again. Something anyone could be taught, but would require a lot of training, relying on yourself instead of the weave, so able to work in places cut off from the weave (antimagic zones).

Yes, it would.

Note that I still wouldn't prefer such a game, I prefer to play Captain America or Batman to Superman or Thor, and for me soul of Dungeons and Dragons will always be the Dragonlance books, but well integrated lore and mechanics would feel a lot better to me than the tacked on messes that late 3.X was filled with.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-09, 10:58 AM
Regarding the "unveil a castle, we've been building it for years!" thing.

Personally, that's a giant red-flag "NO", and goes way beyond any "magic' or "mundane" question or debate.

I have a hard "NO" in place on all "powers" that amount to giving the player an ability to massively retcon their character's actions in the past, especially at the level of "I've been building this castle all along". Won't run games using such a system, won't play in games using such a system.

At least it isn't as bad as FFG Star Wars stuff that amounts to pure meta-narrative powers utterly divorced from the character's actions, such as "that door fails to work properly, to my benefit" thing that has nothing to do with the character, it's just something the player can insert randomly into the "narrative" for raisins. :smallmad:

Jakinbandw
2019-07-09, 11:46 AM
Your unveiling a castle ability is really more of a meta-narrative ability than one that is either magical or mundane as it exists outside the fiction as, presumeably, the castle had already been built in universe using mundane means even if it comes as a suddent surprise to the players at the table.


Regarding the "unveil a castle, we've been building it for years!" thing.

Personally, that's a giant red-flag "NO", and goes way beyond any "magic' or "mundane" question or debate.

I have a hard "NO" in place on all "powers" that amount to giving the player an ability to massively retcon their character's actions in the past, especially at the level of "I've been building this castle all along". Won't run games using such a system, won't play in games using such a system.

At least it isn't as bad as FFG Star Wars stuff that amounts to pure meta-narrative powers utterly divorced from the character's actions, such as "that door fails to work properly, to my benefit" thing that has nothing to do with the character, it's just something the player can insert randomly into the "narrative" for raisins. :smallmad:

I'm honestly a bit surprised by it being called a meta-narritive ability. One of the goals I had for my system was to make it so people could play characters with higher mental stats then they had. One of the ways of implementing this is the ability to allow certain classes to have abilities to change what they've done in the past in limited ways. For example one 'class' I just finished (my system has the player gestalt between 3 classes) was the wealth attribute class. It's all about either having lots of money on hand, or taking over the world through buying or building industries (farming for example counts as an industry). An early level ability allows it to retroactively buy items explicitly with foresight.

The idea was that sometimes players don't think ahead as well as their characters do, because the character is smarter then them. I thought it was a neat way of solving an old problem I hear every now and then that you can't play someone smarter than yourself.

To be clear, the ability to unviel a castle is impressive, but it comes at the end of the game. It's a Divine tier ability, so it comes in around the time that illusionists can make illusions so real they permently change the local area to something new. My goal was to allow money to scale up. As adventures are designed to happen about a month apart, and coincidently that's the time scale that players can use their wealth to change the world a bit, I figured that having wealth have an ability to unviel that they had been working on something secret during the last month was just an upgraded form of one of their earlier abilities. It follows all the same rules as normal building rules, requires the same amount of wealth, can only be done in places that the player has the authority to build, ect. It just comes out over the course of a minute instead of a month. It also can't be used too often because unless they own the world, players will not have enough wealth to spam changes with it.

To be clear, only a few classes that are based around intelligence and planning have such abilities. I just didn't think they'd be so contentous.

Talakeal
2019-07-09, 12:55 PM
I'm honestly a bit surprised by it being called a meta-narritive ability. One of the goals I had for my system was to make it so people could play characters with higher mental stats then they had. One of the ways of implementing this is the ability to allow certain classes to have abilities to change what they've done in the past in limited ways. For example one 'class' I just finished (my system has the player gestalt between 3 classes) was the wealth attribute class. It's all about either having lots of money on hand, or taking over the world through buying or building industries (farming for example counts as an industry). An early level ability allows it to retroactively buy items explicitly with foresight.

The idea was that sometimes players don't think ahead as well as their characters do, because the character is smarter then them. I thought it was a neat way of solving an old problem I hear every now and then that you can't play someone smarter than yourself.

To be clear, the ability to unviel a castle is impressive, but it comes at the end of the game. It's a Divine tier ability, so it comes in around the time that illusionists can make illusions so real they permently change the local area to something new. My goal was to allow money to scale up. As adventures are designed to happen about a month apart, and coincidently that's the time scale that players can use their wealth to change the world a bit, I figured that having wealth have an ability to unviel that they had been working on something secret during the last month was just an upgraded form of one of their earlier abilities. It follows all the same rules as normal building rules, requires the same amount of wealth, can only be done in places that the player has the authority to build, ect. It just comes out over the course of a minute instead of a month. It also can't be used too often because unless they own the world, players will not have enough wealth to spam changes with it.

To be clear, only a few classes that are based around intelligence and planning have such abilities. I just didn't think they'd be so contentous.

Its a narrative ability because it has nothing to do with the characters in universe abilities. In purely setting terms, is there actually any difference between the guy who retroactively built a castle and a guy who built a castle the normal way?

Jakinbandw
2019-07-09, 01:37 PM
Its a narrative ability because it has nothing to do with the characters in universe abilities. In purely setting terms, is there actually any difference between the guy who retroactively built a castle and a guy who built a castle the normal way?

Sure!

The one that builds the castle retroactively is the ultimate master of planning ahead, as well as specializing in keeping projects hidden from prying eyes. The abilities name is even 'Secret Development Program'. A character who has that ability is encouraged through mechanics to play things close to the chest, and only unveil his projects at moments he feels are dramatic.

I don't know, I personally don't see much of a difference between letting a player play someone smarter than themselves and someone playing a character stronger than themselves. We don't require players to lift things to prove that their character can lift them for example. On the other hand, I'm seeing some dislike for this mechanic as it seems that some people would rather not have characters that are smarter than their players? Or don't like not knowing all information ahead of time? I'm honestly a bit confused.

I guess when I think meta narrative I think things like changing the setting on a narrative level without actually having the characters interact. Failing forward would be one example, where if you fail to pick a lock you still pick it, but now there are negative consequences. The setting is fluid and changes based on the narrative. I guess I don't see a player choice to use abilities as making the world fluid in the same way. A castle doesn't just suddenly appear, it was under construction, and hidden by a bunch of illusionist mages or whatever. The wealth to make it is still paid, and the fiction of the setting remains constant.

IDK

:smalleek:

Segev
2019-07-09, 01:53 PM
Its a narrative ability because it has nothing to do with the characters in universe abilities. In purely setting terms, is there actually any difference between the guy who retroactively built a castle and a guy who built a castle the normal way?

I think what he's getting at is the same thing that happens in a game where the DM doesn't require an itemized and precise list of everything the PCs happen to be carrying at all times. Have you ever played in a game where a player asked the DM, "Hey, we knew we were coming to explore this dark cave. Of course I assumed my character picked up torches or something back in town!" Or a DM who said, "Do you have rope?" with a leading tone suggesting that the correct answer is, "Yes, of course we do!" regardless of whether you have to furiously scribble it onto your character page to reflect this truth?

There are GMs, games, and players who will hate that kind of thing. The notion that their character would have thought of something ahead of time that the player didn't. Others will say that, of course they would; the character is in the setting and world, seeing far more of what's going on, and actually is experienced at doing things the player - sitting in a comfortable living room with nothing but dice and a character sheet - would flub horribly. So yes, of course they have some basic necessities that would be obvious to the character living and breathing in the world that the player may not have thought to write out in detail on his sheet.

These kinds of "retroactive plan" abilities follow the same thought process. This character is so good at planning ahead that he started this lengthy process and plan a while back, and kept it secret until the opportune moment (now) came up to reveal it. Sure, the PLAYER only just now realized his character had been up to this all along, but the PC was way ahead of everyone, including his own player.

Much as I loathe it when it's so blatantly violating a fair play mystery, Sherlock Holmes gives a good example of this when he reveals that the letter he just received (about 2 pages before the end of the story) is a reply to a letter or series of letters he sent while out of Watson's sight, and contains exactly the informative answers to queries he'd sent in said off-screen letters that enable him to definitivly deduce the doer of the dastardly deed. While, of course, the readers had none of this information and couldn't hope to keep up with Holmes, who is so much smarter than they are for having had the foresight to ask these questions before they even thought to.

Similarly, the PC thought to start training a set of messenger birds to deliver messages in a language only his familiar knows months ago, and is only just now revealing it as he starts receiving messages that are sent by his spy network he'd thought to put in place. Which the player only just now realizes his PC had been doing all along.

The reason, I think, that this strains credulity more than the more mundane "Of COURSE I have rope" is that it's less obvious, and the more...tailor-made...the suddenly-revealed plan is to the specific problem at hand, the more like Xanatos Roulette it seems, rather than a clever gambit.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-09, 02:09 PM
I think what he's getting at is the same thing that happens in a game where the DM doesn't require an itemized and precise list of everything the PCs happen to be carrying at all times. Have you ever played in a game where a player asked the DM, "Hey, we knew we were coming to explore this dark cave. Of course I assumed my character picked up torches or something back in town!" Or a DM who said, "Do you have rope?" with a leading tone suggesting that the correct answer is, "Yes, of course we do!" regardless of whether you have to furiously scribble it onto your character page to reflect this truth?

There are GMs, games, and players who will hate that kind of thing. The notion that their character would have thought of something ahead of time that the player didn't. Others will say that, of course they would; the character is in the setting and world, seeing far more of what's going on, and actually is experienced at doing things the player - sitting in a comfortable living room with nothing but dice and a character sheet - would flub horribly. So yes, of course they have some basic necessities that would be obvious to the character living and breathing in the world that the player may not have thought to write out in detail on his sheet.

These kinds of "retroactive plan" abilities follow the same thought process. This character is so good at planning ahead that he started this lengthy process and plan a while back, and kept it secret until the opportune moment (now) came up to reveal it. Sure, the PLAYER only just now realized his character had been up to this all along, but the PC was way ahead of everyone, including his own player.

Much as I loathe it when it's so blatantly violating a fair play mystery, Sherlock Holmes gives a good example of this when he reveals that the letter he just received (about 2 pages before the end of the story) is a reply to a letter or series of letters he sent while out of Watson's sight, and contains exactly the informative answers to queries he'd sent in said off-screen letters that enable him to definitivly deduce the doer of the dastardly deed. While, of course, the readers had none of this information and couldn't hope to keep up with Holmes, who is so much smarter than they are for having had the foresight to ask these questions before they even thought to.

Similarly, the PC thought to start training a set of messenger birds to deliver messages in a language only his familiar knows months ago, and is only just now revealing it as he starts receiving messages that are sent by his spy network he'd thought to put in place. Which the player only just now realizes his PC had been doing all along.

The reason, I think, that this strains credulity more than the more mundane "Of COURSE I have rope" is that it's less obvious, and the more...tailor-made...the suddenly-revealed plan is to the specific problem at hand, the more like Xanatos Roulette it seems, rather than a clever gambit.

I don't have time right now to "unpack it" in detail, but to me there's just something fundamentally different about writing "dungeoneering kit" on the character sheet and working out what's reasonable along the way, instead of worrying about just how many feet of rope you brought along... and effectively writing "a clever plan long in the execution" the character sheet and then playing that card out of the blue in the "Holmsian" manner you describe when it's convenient later.

Segev
2019-07-09, 02:32 PM
I don't have time right now to "unpack it" in detail, but to me there's just something fundamentally different about writing "dungeoneering kit" on the character sheet and working out what's reasonable along the way, instead of worrying about just how many feet of rope you brought along... and effectively writing "a clever plan long in the execution" the character sheet and then playing that card out of the blue in the "Holmsian" manner you describe when it's convenient later.

I fully understand. In fact, my last paragraph or sentence or so was about acknowledging that there is a matter of degree, at the least, here, which may rub people the wrong way.

A big portion of it is just how...trite...it can come off as.

David Xanatos (after whom the eponymous gambit was named) is such a well-written villain because his "back-up plans" are something you can honestly say, once revealed, that you can see how he would have had them set up in advance. How what he DID overtly do complemented what you now realize he was also up to all along.

Badly-written knock-offs, like Sherlock Holmes (on whom I rag alot; I don't care for those stories by and large because I loathe mysteries that aren't fair-play), tend to do what's oft termed a "Xanatos Roulette." "Aha!" they say, "This is as I planned all along!" To which the audience raises a collective eyebrow and questions, "You planned for the meteor strike to give specific superpowers to specific people?"

Or, in a less abstract way, "You planned for Q to plug your computer into his supercomputer without a firewall or an air gap at exactly the right time for it to let you out of your jail cell in time for the London Underground to be passing by precisely when you'd just blown open a hole in its path on a timer you set up in said virus? Because we all know that the London Underground is precisely on time and that you can predict exactly when Q will plug in your computer, let alone the precise amount of time your virus will take to overcome his security."

I could go into detail on how I'd probably try to design the abstraction level, but I won't, as this is drifting hugely off-topic. In the end, is Serendipity even a magic you see very often outside of characters whose literal superpower is luck?

Talakeal
2019-07-09, 02:55 PM
I didn't say I was against narrative powers on principle.

But I thought the conversation was about what a mundane character should be able to do in the fiction, not how the players resolve his actions around the table.

The players retroactively declaring actions has no more bearing on what capabilities martials have in the setting than if the system uses d20s or d6s.

Segev
2019-07-09, 03:34 PM
I didn't say I was against narrative powers on principle.

But I thought the conversation was about what a mundane character should be able to do in the fiction, not how the players resolve his actions around the table.

The players retroactively declaring actions has no more bearing on what capabilities martials have in the setting than if the system uses d20s or d6s.

Yes and no. "It's a good thing I happened to buy a potion of Illithid Repellant back in town, when we were planning this expedition into the Elemental Plane of Fire. I knew it would come in handy with how frequent Illithid attacks are there!" is hardly...believable. It suggests an almost magical knowledge of what's to come, since the Illithid mastermind running a coup in the City of Brass is hardly something "expected" just on the basis of what typically happens. It only gets worse when your retroactive actions were aimed at achieving a specific, square-peg-square-hole solution that perfectly solves a current problem you could not have foreseen.

There's nothing wrong with using retroactive actions, in my opinion, to simulate a character who thinks ahead better than his player. But there is a line past which it, too, stops believably not involving precognition, i.e. "magic."

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-09, 03:40 PM
Yes and no. "It's a good thing I happened to buy a potion of Illithid Repellant back in town, when we were planning this expedition into the Elemental Plane of Fire. I knew it would come in handy with how frequent Illithid attacks are there!" is hardly...believable. It suggests an almost magical knowledge of what's to come, since the Illithid mastermind running a coup in the City of Brass is hardly something "expected" just on the basis of what typically happens. It only gets worse when your retroactive actions were aimed at achieving a specific, square-peg-square-hole solution that perfectly solves a current problem you could not have foreseen.

There's nothing wrong with using retroactive actions, in my opinion, to simulate a character who thinks ahead better than his player. But there is a line past which it, too, stops believably not involving precognition, i.e. "magic."

See, the Utility Belt, which holds 10 things out of 1000, but the character always "just happens to have" the things he needs for the situation at hand.

"We were captured by Dr Aviary in Kansas, but then traded off the The Hammerhead -- who is supposed to have died a year ago in a failed attempt to take over New Zealand! And now we're about to be dumped in his shark tank death trap! Good thing I put the shark repellent in my trusty utility belt before we left for Kansas!"

What?

I loath contrivance.

Segev
2019-07-09, 03:41 PM
See, the Utility Belt, which holds 10 things out of 1000, but the character always "just happens to have" the things he needs for the situation at hand.

"We were captured by Dr Aviary in Kansas, but then traded off the The Hammerhead -- who is supposed to have died a year ago in a failed attempt to take over New Zealand! And now we're about to be dumped in his shark tank death trap! Good thing I put the shark repellent in my trusty utility belt before we left for Kansas!"

What?

I loath contrivance.

I was, in fact, thinking of Adam West Batman when I said "Illithid Repellant." My favorite ludicrous example is still "Bat Carousel Reversal Spray." Which did exactly as described, and happened to be in Batman's Utility Belt when that was the death trap du jour.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-09, 04:41 PM
I was, in fact, thinking of Adam West Batman when I said "Illithid Repellant." My favorite ludicrous example is still "Bat Carousel Reversal Spray." Which did exactly as described, and happened to be in Batman's Utility Belt when that was the death trap du jour.

I find this fascinating, because often times when there is a talk about martials and mundanes, Batman gets brought up a lot as a gold star of a mundane that can keep up with people who have powers strong enough to shatter the planet. This is the first time I've heard that he is too magical to be a mundane.

I'm learning so much here!

Segev
2019-07-09, 04:46 PM
I find this fascinating, because often times when there is a talk about martials and mundanes, Batman gets brought up a lot as a gold star of a mundane that can keep up with people who have powers strong enough to shatter the planet. This is the first time I've heard that he is too magical to be a mundane.

I'm learning so much here!

Note that I specifically referenced Adam West's Batman. Campy as heck and shamelessly utilized deus ex machina. The "brilliance" was generally that he had the perfect tool for the job no matter how ridiculous it would be that he would know it.

Better renditions of him (in this regard) have him have reason to know what he's going up against and to have the preparations in question, or have more general-purpose tools he's able to bring to bear on the problem at hand. (Adam West Batman is great, but not to be taken seriously.)

Quertus
2019-07-09, 05:27 PM
So, really short version: if you want to make a system every Playgrounder will enjoy, make "my character's smarter than me" a feat / 1-level prestige class, that modifiers other abilities, and expect it to be banned at many of our tables.

If you want to understand what "mundane"-lovers want/hate, consider this good practice.

If you want to help my character seem smart without making me want to flip the table, consider the spectrum between "data" and "wisdom":

The temperature is 77 degrees.

That is hotter than it should be this time of year in this region.

Something must be causing this heat.

Before I investigate, I should… / in order to investigate, I will need…

You could start further down that list when describing the scene to particularly smart (wise) characters, and/or you could help them navigate their way down that list.

Heck, if you wanted to make me believe that my character felt "smart", you could give me extra data (hand me monster Manuel stat blocks), or provide me with wisdom (they seem to be trying to herd you towards that large rock). But when suddenly someone had the perfect thing to counter this specific threat all along? No. Njnhn.

-----

There are two techniques I've used to drive home someone's intellect or expertise.

The first is to describe the scene as pure data to the rest of the party, and get their responses. Then describe to, say, the Ranger how there's deadly nightshade, poison ivy, an owl's nest, a great place for snakes to hide, a place that will flood when it storms tonight, etc. This really drivers home the difference between the trained and untrained eye. All that information was there in your data-level description, as the players can see when you go for "round 2", but the untrained PCs were unable to process it.

The second is to *only* describe the scene to the expert. If Superman is the only one with X-ray vision, then he's the only one who can see what's going on. Same principle. Sometimes, only the doctor will have any chance to recognize those symptoms mean something, only the Monk will recognize that stance means something, etc.

Both techniques should be used sparingly, but, done right, I find them an acceptable way to emphasize intellect, training, and experience.

"Muggles get retcon powers", OTOH, feels like you're saying "muggles are terrible, and cannot possibly contribute fairly, so they get to cheat".

If I cared about muggles, I would feel insulted by your solution. Instead, it's just something that I don't want at my tables. At all.

(EDIT: I agree that "contrivance" is a great word for what I'm hating on.)

Segev
2019-07-09, 05:40 PM
"Muggles get retcon powers", OTOH, feels like you're saying "muggles are terrible, and cannot possibly contribute fairly, so they get to cheat".

If I cared about muggles, I would feel insulted by your solution. Instead, it's just something that I don't want at my tables. At all.

(EDIT: I agree that "contrivance" is a great word for what I'm hating on.)

...why do you assume this is a superpower exclusive to "muggles?" Nothing - save not having appropriate class features or the like - prevents spellcasters from using non-spell means to accomplish things.

Certainly, done poorly, it's stupid, but I can see the reasoning behind it, and the extreme "this is horrible! How insulting to make stupid superpowers!" resposne seems to either be hyperbole, or a demonstration of a lack of understanding of what it's supposed to be representing.

Tvtyrant
2019-07-09, 05:40 PM
Considering 3.5 had that exact mechanic for wizards as a feat set (they could spontaneously cast like a Sorcerer because the Wizard was just that crazy prepared) it is hardly out of the question.

A "xanatos" class would probably let you spend money on goods and services retroactively, playing up the Sherlock Holmes style anticipation. So instead of summons a group of hirelings shows up when you call them from pre-planned ambush, or you have a boat on hand or a magic item you bought off camera.

I would set an amount of gold that can be spent per turn, and an amount per day that scales with level. You could also as easily make it slightly magical by claiming they are an oracle "funny how I always have just the right item."

Quertus
2019-07-09, 05:56 PM
...why do you assume this is a superpower exclusive to "muggles?" Nothing - save not having appropriate class features or the like - prevents spellcasters from using non-spell means to accomplish things.

Certainly, done poorly, it's stupid, but I can see the reasoning behind it, and the extreme "this is horrible! How insulting to make stupid superpowers!" resposne seems to either be hyperbole, or a demonstration of a lack of understanding of what it's supposed to be representing.

Ah. I'm saying two things, and not differentiating well between them.

On the one hand, I'm discussing a class of abilities (retcon powers), and stating my personal hatred of the… contrivance.

On the other hand, when, in the context of this thread, the OP discussed letting muggles retroactively have bought things or built castles, I took those to be intended as muggle super powers. If Wizards could use that same class feature to have retroactively memorized spells, or to have retroactively cast buffs, then it's just… hmmm… an (Ex) super power, rather than a Muggle superpower. I may have misread the intention. OP?

Oh, and that it's apparently a capstone ability makes it no less unpalatable for me. I missed that detail in my first post.

It's not about whether or not it's OP, it's about the feel of it. And that feel is… contrivance.

Tvtyrant
2019-07-09, 06:20 PM
Visually how I think this would look:

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090719.gif

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-09, 06:38 PM
Visually how I think this would look:

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090719.gif

AKA "Gambit Pileup".

Jakinbandw
2019-07-09, 07:18 PM
Considering 3.5 had that exact mechanic for wizards as a feat set (they could spontaneously cast like a Sorcerer because the Wizard was just that crazy prepared) it is hardly out of the question.

A "xanatos" class would probably let you spend money on goods and services retroactively, playing up the Sherlock Holmes style anticipation. So instead of summons a group of hirelings shows up when you call them from pre-planned ambush, or you have a boat on hand or a magic item you bought off camera.

I would set an amount of gold that can be spent per turn, and an amount per day that scales with level. You could also as easily make it slightly magical by claiming they are an oracle "funny how I always have just the right item."

I mean, that's pretty much how it goes. The only two classes I have with super retcon powers are the soldier profession, and the wealth attribute. Both of them have so many people working for them that having an oracle on staff (or even multiples!) wouldn't be unreasonable. On the other hand, I would prefer to leave such details up to the players, as my primary concern is balance.

And as far as the major capstone goes, it does rely on having infrastructure. You need full industries to be under you control to pull it off, and even then you can only pull it off in areas that you control. You can unveil a castle in Morder, but you can unveil a fortification on your side of the border, where your workers could get to. There are reasonable limitations to what you can build, and where you can build it. That said, the issue seems to be the retcon, not the actual logistics of such a thing.


Ah. I'm saying two things, and not differentiating well between them.

On the one hand, I'm discussing a class of abilities (retcon powers), and stating my personal hatred of the… contrivance.

On the other hand, when, in the context of this thread, the OP discussed letting muggles retroactively have bought things or built castles, I took those to be intended as muggle super powers. If Wizards could use that same class feature to have retroactively memorized spells, or to have retroactively cast buffs, then it's just… hmmm… an (Ex) super power, rather than a Muggle superpower. I may have misread the intention. OP?

Oh, and that it's apparently a capstone ability makes it no less unpalatable for me. I missed that detail in my first post.

It's not about whether or not it's OP, it's about the feel of it. And that feel is… contrivance.

I guess to me it feels like the 'a guy at the gym fallacy.' If you can't imagine someone at the gym being able to do it, then a martial shouldn't be able to do it. For example, just because you can't imagine a way that a character could have a contingency in place should something happen, that character can't have a contingency in place.

As for who get's abilities like this, it's really hard to say. The entire system is built around having players gestalt 3 different classes, and I so far I have 16 out of 50 classes written. It sounds like a lot, but I only have half the elemental sorceries written, and the only attribute I have of the main six written up is strength. For example, the class I expect will probably have the most access to this ability would be the Intelligence attribute class, and in that case there are decent arguments for wizards taking it (or at least for some types of character).

The key thing I'm looking at is for people that don't want to play with any 'superpowers' to be able to keep up without needing to rely on magic, superpowers, or other things. I've had to dig deep to allow those characters to pull such things off.

For a quick example of how the soldiers version of retconing looks (though keep in mind that this is an early draft and a few things will need to be reworded a tiny bit):

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.


Now all this said, I'm fine with messing around a bit to have things make a but more sense to players. If people feel they need actual set up ahead of time, rather than fiat, I have no problem doing that, though in return I'd have to increase the scope of powers a bit more to compensate. If it would make certain players happier, I can also easily mark off which classes get access to such abilities, and then they can just get banned from a game. Losing say 8(?) classes out of 50 isn't really going to break the game that much. All it will do is just make it so that players lose access to certain character concepts.

[Edit]
@Quertus I doubt you would be interested in this system. It is meant to allow characters to go from civilians to (sometimes literally) gods that can shape the entire world. It's not set up so that you tell a specific story, because players will tend to have enough options to just bypass any attempts at corralling them. Instead it's about setting up situations in the setting, and then watching the players react to them. From posts I have read from you, you prefer if characters are a lot weaker, and aren't able to turn the world into a paradise, or alter the structure of how physics or magic works in the setting. It's meant for a more sandbox style of play, rather than setpiece play.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-09, 07:26 PM
ah, but....

here is the thing.

Vancian magic is already the meta-narrative contrivance made manifest.

just because its has the excuse of magic, doesn't mean it isn't also the contrivance in effect.

because for those spells to be casted, you have to have that bag of materials that just so happens to have the right ones for you to cast. and most tables just assume that the wizard just has them. in their pouch. and assumes that the wizard has already prepared their spells when they go adventuring.

thing is, you can't possibly have all the possible ingredients for every single spell in that bag. its not magical. magical items specifically cost more, and have explicit rules about how they hold a lot of things and what happens when you put a thing that holds a lot of things inside of another extra-dimensional thing. its not pretty.

so the DnD 3.5 magic this board assumes as default is already committing both violations of mundanity/consistency in one system. vancian magic is already meta-narrative nonsense, all along. it just replaces the tech with arcane trappings.

thats why its so powerful, its both magic AND meta-narrative contrivance in one system, it just tricks you into thinking its not by providing some in-setting stuff for it.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-09, 08:03 PM
ah, but....

here is the thing.

Vancian magic is already the meta-narrative contrivance made manifest.

just because its has the excuse of magic, doesn't mean it isn't also the contrivance in effect.

because for those spells to be casted, you have to have that bag of materials that just so happens to have the right ones for you to cast. and most tables just assume that the wizard just has them. in their pouch. and assumes that the wizard has already prepared their spells when they go adventuring.


That's at the "don't worry if you have 18 feet or 20 feet of rope" level, or the "you wrote climbing gear on your equipment list, of course you have some rope" level, or the "oh for pete's sake no one cares about that list of the 97 things in your purse" level... not at the "my character has been building a castle for the last 2 years" or "I've been in correspondence with an expert for the last week because I suspected this" level.

One is about getting on with the game instead of wasting an hour on pointless details, the other is a blatant exercise in retroactive continuity or player-level narrative-manipulation.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-09, 08:31 PM
That's at the "don't worry if you have 18 feet or 20 feet of rope" level, or the "you wrote climbing gear on your equipment list, of course you have some rope" level, or the "oh for pete's sake no one cares about that list of the 97 things in your purse" level... not at the "my character has been building a castle for the last 2 years" or "I've been in correspondence with an expert for the last week because I suspected this" level.

One is about getting on with the game instead of wasting an hour on pointless details, the other is a blatant exercise in retroactive continuity or player-level narrative-manipulation.

Okay.

so vancian magic has this spell to like, make a mansion right? just out of nowhere.

so if the mundane character pulled out an invention that unfolds into a non-magical castle because he likes to have a castle he can pull out and live in wherever he goes, would that be too much?

and if instead of an expert consultation, say the person just so happens to remember an old fact from their teacher long ago giving them a big general education on this and that, or remembering something mentioned in passing by another student.

would those be too implausible?

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-09, 08:39 PM
Okay.

so vancian magic has this spell to like, make a mansion right? just out of nowhere.

so if the mundane character pulled out an invention that unfolds into a non-magical castle because he likes to have a castle he can pull out and live in wherever he goes, would that be too much?


Compressing a castle into something portable (by weight and volume) is either magic, or "Clark's magic".




and if instead of an expert consultation, say the person just so happens to remember an old fact from their teacher long ago giving them a big general education on this and that, or remembering something mentioned in passing by another student.


Does the character already have a skill or background or whatever, or already-established backstory, that reflects a character history that would make that knowledge or that "old teacher" plausible?

Or is the player just trying to establish retroactive facts on the spur of the moment?

Lord Raziere
2019-07-09, 09:02 PM
Compressing a castle into something portable (by weight and volume) is either magic, or "Clark's magic".

Does the character already have a skill or background or whatever, or already-established backstory, that reflects a character history that would make that knowledge or that "old teacher" plausible?
Or is the player just trying to establish retroactive facts on the spur of the moment?

So your just picky about it then? go complain to your gourmet roleplay chef.

why does that matter? what "skill" is there and what worth is it to everyone to prove they are "skilled" enough to play things the way you want? why do you assume you can have everything you want?

Quertus
2019-07-09, 10:10 PM
ah, but....

here is the thing.

Vancian magic is already the meta-narrative contrivance made manifest.

just because its has the excuse of magic, doesn't mean it isn't also the contrivance in effect.

because for those spells to be casted, you have to have that bag of materials that just so happens to have the right ones for you to cast. and most tables just assume that the wizard just has them. in their pouch. and assumes that the wizard has already prepared their spells when they go adventuring.

That is not the horror of terrible Vancian magic (which is terrible). That is the horror of the 3e Spell Component Pouch.

By RAW, in 2e (and earlier, IIRC), spell components were tracked individually. They even had listed process in 2e.

(EDIT: of course, by RAW, you also had to track food, ammunition, encumbrance, etc. Many tables didn't.)


I mean, that's pretty much how it goes. The only two classes I have with super retcon powers are the soldier profession, and the wealth attribute. Both of them have so many people working for them that having an oracle on staff (or even multiples!) wouldn't be unreasonable. On the other hand, I would prefer to leave such details up to the players, as my primary concern is balance.

And as far as the major capstone goes, it does rely on having infrastructure. You need full industries to be under you control to pull it off, and even then you can only pull it off in areas that you control. You can unveil a castle in Morder, but you can unveil a fortification on your side of the border, where your workers could get to. There are reasonable limitations to what you can build, and where you can build it. That said, the issue seems to be the retcon, not the actual logistics of such a thing.

I can't speak for others, but, for myself, if it's grounded in game physics of "questionable Divinations equal to 'what the player sees as he plays' - yes, skewing what is 'important' that way", then I could accept it. You may want to look into other ways to get equivalent abilities, that wouldn't require "a Wizard did it".


I guess to me it feels like the 'a guy at the gym fallacy.' If you can't imagine someone at the gym being able to do it, then a martial shouldn't be able to do it. For example, just because you can't imagine a way that a character could have a contingency in place should something happen, that character can't have a contingency in place.

No, it's "if you want to have a contingency in place, bloody put one in place". Especially if you're the GM, running an NPC - publish your module to a sealed envelope, that I'll read after the adventure is over.

None of this, "oh, um, he's smart - he would have had a plan for that" - if you're too dumb to make the plan, you're too dumb to make it not feel contrived.

Now, if the group is working together on this style of retcon power, eh, sometimes, some groups can succeed at making something palatable where am individual would fail. But, again, I can't speak for everyone, to know if that could work at any given table.


As for who get's abilities like this, it's really hard to say. The entire system is built around having players gestalt 3 different classes, and I so far I have 16 out of 50 classes written. It sounds like a lot, but I only have half the elemental sorceries written, and the only attribute I have of the main six written up is strength. For example, the class I expect will probably have the most access to this ability would be the Intelligence attribute class, and in that case there are decent arguments for wizards taking it (or at least for some types of character).

Seems more like Wisdom, to me…


The key thing I'm looking at is for people that don't want to play with any 'superpowers' to be able to keep up without needing to rely on magic, superpowers, or other things. I've had to dig deep to allow those characters to pull such things off.

For a quick example of how the soldiers version of retconing looks (though keep in mind that this is an early draft and a few things will need to be reworded a tiny bit):

I think I started describing abilities for a "Muggle" class somewhere… maybe I'll look it up for inspiration for you, at some point.

Admittedly, I didn't get very far, because I am not the target audience ("I play Wizards"), and, thus, a felt it inappropriate for me to try to write a better Muggle.


Now all this said, I'm fine with messing around a bit to have things make a but more sense to players. If people feel they need actual set up ahead of time, rather than fiat, I have no problem doing that, though in return I'd have to increase the scope of powers a bit more to compensate. If it would make certain players happier, I can also easily mark off which classes get access to such abilities, and then they can just get banned from a game. Losing say 8(?) classes out of 50 isn't really going to break the game that much. All it will do is just make it so that players lose access to certain character concepts.

That's a lot of retcon powers.

I mean, if it were me, I might give retcon powers to the Chronomancer, the Diviner, something luck-based, and the "my character is smarter than that" feat. Things that such mechanics would directly make sense for them to have (and the ban-bait feat).

From a… Gamist(?) perspective, I'm really liking the idea of a retcon buff-bot. :smalltongue:


[Edit]
@Quertus I doubt you would be interested in this system. It is meant to allow characters to go from civilians to (sometimes literally) gods that can shape the entire world. It's not set up so that you tell a specific story, because players will tend to have enough options to just bypass any attempts at corralling them. Instead it's about setting up situations in the setting, and then watching the players react to them. From posts I have read from you, you prefer if characters are a lot weaker, and aren't able to turn the world into a paradise, or alter the structure of how physics or magic works in the setting. It's meant for a more sandbox style of play, rather than setpiece play.

Um… I'm honestly not sure how it's possible that this was your takeaway from my posts. I'm not only a "**** story, <3 Sandbox" kind of guy, but I think most games end before we get to the good parts, of actually changing the world - and experiencing the consequences of those changes.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-09, 10:10 PM
So your just picky about it then? go complain to your gourmet roleplay chef.


Yes, that's it, of course, anyone who doesn't share your love of gonzo anything-goes wackadoodle rewl-of-kewl gaming or settings is just "picky". (Description and tone chosen very deliberately to make the point, if one stops to consider what the point actually is.)




why does that matter? what "skill" is there and what worth is it to everyone to prove they are "skilled" enough to play things the way you want? why do you assume you can have everything you want?


Who said anything about player "skill"?

I'm talking about players attempting a blatant ***pull (https://allthetropes.fandom.com/wiki/Ass_Pull) that's not justified by what came before, either in-play or in-background. (Link NSFW for language.)




That is not the horror of terrible Vancian magic (which is terrible). That is the horror of the 3e Spell Component Pouch.

By RAW, in 2e (and earlier, IIRC), spell components were tracked individually. They even had listed process in 2e.


On the other hand, not everyone's gaming enjoyment is enhanced by tracking individual measures of pigeon poop. The "spell component pouch" is a compromise solution to what some consider an onerous and tedious exercise.

(This part not directed at you, Quertus). And no, glossing over the tracking of individual measures of pigeon poop is NOT equivalent to "I started building a castle last year but didn't tell anyone".

Lord Raziere
2019-07-09, 10:51 PM
Yes, that's it, of course, anyone who doesn't share your love of gonzo anything-goes wackadoodle rewl-of-kewl gaming or settings is just "picky". (Description and tone chosen very deliberately to make the point, if one stops to consider what the point actually is.)


Who said anything about player "skill"?

I'm talking about players attempting a blatant ***pull (https://allthetropes.fandom.com/wiki/Ass_Pull) that's not justified by what came before, either in-play or in-background. (Link NSFW for language.)


Ah of course, because anyone who doesn't share your love of ultra-consistency and hyper-realism is blatantly ass-pulling and has no justification for their behavior. (point being made right back at you, I care not for my own preferences at the moment, yours is the only one that matters, and you will not transform this conversation about your flaw into mine to distract the issue here)

awa
2019-07-09, 11:30 PM
now theirs degrees of retro activeness. The castle one is a pretty extreme one because of both the resources and time necessary to pull it off.

Exactly where you draw the line varies but "i have bat poop in my bag" is clearly less of a stretch than "i built an entire castle in secret for just this moment".


I have a home-brew game with an ability that allows people to perform retroactive actions they just have to convince me that they could plausibly thought of the thing they needed to do.

So like in a modern setting retroactively looking up the buildings floor plans would plausible if you knew what building you were going into in advance, if you just randomly chased a guy their it would be implausible.

Now being implausible is fine if you are going for a goofy setting but it will hurt a more serious tone, or strain suspension of disbelief.

So like people have mentioned the problem with bat shark repellent, its not that mundanes should not be able to repel sharks but that its a very specific piece of equipment typical their should be no way of knowing he would need.

Course meta resources like luck and retroactive actions can be a sore point for some people apparently.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-09, 11:54 PM
now theirs degrees of retro activeness. The castle one is a pretty extreme one because of both the resources and time necessary to pull it off.

Exactly where you draw the line varies but "i have bat poop in my bag" is clearly less of a stretch than "i built an entire castle in secret for just this moment".

I have a home-brew game with an ability that allows people to perform retroactive actions they just have to convince me that they could plausibly thought of the thing they needed to do.

So like in a modern setting retroactively looking up the buildings floor plans would plausible if you knew what building you were going into in advance, if you just randomly chased a guy their it would be implausible.

Now being implausible is fine if you are going for a goofy setting but it will hurt a more serious tone, or strain suspension of disbelief.

So like people have mentioned the problem with bat shark repellent, its not that mundanes should not be able to repel sharks but that its a very specific piece of equipment typical their should be no way of knowing he would need.

Course meta resources like luck and retroactive actions can be a sore point for some people apparently.

Heres the thing:

Without the meta, realistically speaking mundane loses against magic a vast majority of the time, if not all the time.

any consistent setting with magic has two states: either the mundane has been crushed, or magic is irrelevant. any attempts at high fantasies "magic is there but is rare but is totally still relevant somehow" has problems explaining why it remains rare and often crushes the mundane anyways. while any setting where magic is irrelevant- well why have magic at all then?

and if expand the definition of magic to include martial arts and meta-narrativity, then there is no mundane hero in any work of fiction at all. since we're playing fictional characters, based on those fictional heroes which often use meta-narrativity even if they don't use martial arts. even action heroes have those moments where the story just decides they don't die even though they should, or pull off incredible stunts.

therefore there is no "mundane" at all, there is only magic vs. less obvious magic. no amtter what, mundanity loses. because if we restrict mundanity so much, make it so real and 1:1 with our real world- it can't do anything against magic. guns? a wizard makes immunity to bullets spell. same with explosives, rockets, acids, gasses, any possible invention we have. not even nukes, because a wizard can just teleport the nuke away. similar thing with superheroes, or meta-narrative reality warpers, whatever you want to call them.

thats the answer, mundane always loses. the only way they win is if arbitrary limits and weaknesses are imposed upon the magic- or when the mundane convinces a magical being to fight for them using mundane talking and treating them like a person- which means the mundanes exist at this magical beings mercy, which is true even if they have been raised to be incredibly merciful. that will always be the answer, unless you expand the definition of mundane.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-09, 11:58 PM
I can't speak for others, but, for myself, if it's grounded in game physics of "questionable Divinations equal to 'what the player sees as he plays' - yes, skewing what is 'important' that way", then I could accept it. You may want to look into other ways to get equivalent abilities, that wouldn't require "a Wizard did it".
As I said, the player fluffs it how they want, just like players get to choose what verbal components they use for spells. My personal preference is for players just being that skilled. I just feel that sometimes mechanics can be fluffed in different ways.



No, it's "if you want to have a contingency in place, bloody put one in place". Especially if you're the GM, running an NPC - publish your module to a sealed envelope, that I'll read after the adventure is over.

None of this, "oh, um, he's smart - he would have had a plan for that" - if you're too dumb to make the plan, you're too dumb to make it not feel contrived.

Now, if the group is working together on this style of retcon power, eh, sometimes, some groups can succeed at making something palatable where am individual would fail. But, again, I can't speak for everyone, to know if that could work at any given table.

Eh, wealth has so much counter play at that level it's stupid. If you're fighting a person with wealth, just blow up their industries till they don't have the money to do anything impressive. If the players aren't doing that, then I would argue it would be the same as fighting a vampire in the dark without a single thing a vampire is weak to. At some point the players are just being foolish.



I think I started describing abilities for a "Muggle" class somewhere… maybe I'll look it up for inspiration for you, at some point.

Admittedly, I didn't get very far, because I am not the target audience ("I play Wizards"), and, thus, a felt it inappropriate for me to try to write a better Muggle.
I'd be interested to see it. I have several muggle classes (One is a noble and has no retcon powers).



That's a lot of retcon powers.

I mean, if it were me, I might give retcon powers to the Chronomancer, the Diviner, something luck-based, and the "my character is smarter than that" feat. Things that such mechanics would directly make sense for them to have (and the ban-bait feat).

From a… Gamist(?) perspective, I'm really liking the idea of a retcon buff-bot. :smalltongue:

Honestly it's not that many abilities. Even wealth only has like 4 or 5 of it's 24 abilities that do recons. The soldier has I think 3.

Also Retcon buff bot sounds really fun. I'll make sure it's possible!



Um… I'm honestly not sure how it's possible that this was your takeaway from my posts. I'm not only a "**** story, <3 Sandbox" kind of guy, but I think most games end before we get to the good parts, of actually changing the world - and experiencing the consequences of those changes.

I guess I just remembered (or misremembered) a post you made about the players doing a game where the world was ending and the players could only try to rescue some people and not try to stop it. I apologize for getting it wrong.

One of the big elements of my game is that players can change the world, and it's one of the reasons I'm working on the system. I hope I can build something you (or someone like you) would like like.

Arbane
2019-07-10, 12:20 AM
Heres the thing:

Without the meta, realistically speaking mundane loses against magic a vast majority of the time, if not all the time.

any consistent setting with magic has two states: either the mundane has been crushed, or magic is irrelevant. any attempts at high fantasies "magic is there but is rare but is totally still relevant somehow" has problems explaining why it remains rare and often crushes the mundane anyways. while any setting where magic is irrelevant- well why have magic at all then?


You're ignoring a lot of possible inbetween states, like "Magic is powerful, but usually more trouble than it's worth" or "Hokey religions and ancient superstitions are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid".

Now, in D&D, specifically, Magic Always Wins, but there's plenty of possible setups where magic isn't that omnipotent, but is still really useful.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-10, 12:24 AM
You're ignoring a lot of possible inbetween states, like "Magic is powerful, but usually more trouble than it's worth" or "Hokey religions and ancient superstitions are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid".

Now, in D&D, specifically, Magic Always Wins, but there's plenty of possible setups where magic isn't that omnipotent, but is still really useful.

So "irrelevant" and "irrelevant". because if magic is only coming out to play during very specific events and then chills so that everyone goes back to status quo isn't a great definition of irrelevant, I don't know what is.

awa
2019-07-10, 07:21 AM
So "irrelevant" and "irrelevant". because if magic is only coming out to play during very specific events and then chills so that everyone goes back to status quo isn't a great definition of irrelevant, I don't know what is.

your making a huge number of assumption on how magic works in a given setting. Yes d&d magic does every thing all the time but were not in the d&d forum. 6 simple examples of how magic could be relevant but not render martial irrelevant.

1) combat magic is good but not better than a gun, so its good for some one who cant get a gun or at least cant bring it to the target, but will lose against a skilled soldier.

2) magic is specialized, magic is extremely effective against lets say demons and ghosts but against humans a skilled warrior with a sword is equal.

3) magic is rare, lets say it needs a non-human assistance of some kind that cant be forced so their is never enough magic to render martial irrelevant.

4) apples to oranges magic does some thing you simply cant do without it like lets say talk to ghosts.

5) magic is hard, it takes years of training a special mental regime and a high natural aptitude, once you have all those things you are equal to the warrior, who spent years training had a special physical regime and a natural aptitude.

6) magic has counters, magic is very powerful but lets say a prepared person can counter it with salt and iron

Not all magic systems are d&d where magic just wins everything all the time
(also if you are explaining meta narrative abilities as magic they are not actually meta narrative there just abilities )

edit a bonus one
magic used to be overpowered but now as technology has improved your starting to see revolutions against the mageocracy. Their still in charge but now a bunch of farmers with guns are starting to get opinions about all the virgins your sacrificing, and while magic is static in power technology is ever growing in power. (assume aptitude for magic is genetic so only certain bloodlines are actually good enough to make learning worth the effort)

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-10, 08:48 AM
(point being made right back at you,

Try getting your racket on the ball first, before you get excited about the "return".

This is just another example of how you routinely dismiss any rubric other than your own as "picky" or a "double standard", while standing on a pile of unspoken assumptions of your own and a ton of false equivalencies and false dichotomies, with a tone somewhere between snide and enraged... and then act like you're shocked and hurt and aggrieved when you get a taste of your own medicine... even when someone openly says "I'm doing this to parrot how you denigrate other people's gaming preferences".

I've lost track of the number of times you've said something that amounts to "No one cares about your preferences, we just want as much awesome as we can get" to another poster on these forums, myself or otherwise. Don't act all innocent and victimized when someone holds up a mirror.




You're ignoring a lot of possible inbetween states, like "Magic is powerful, but usually more trouble than it's worth" or "Hokey religions and ancient superstitions are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid".

Now, in D&D, specifically, Magic Always Wins, but there's plenty of possible setups where magic isn't that omnipotent, but is still really useful.


Or to take a real-world example, consider how long it took the firearm to completely supplant bows, crossbows, pole arms / pikes, shields, swords, knives etc across the whole of military and civilians uses. Just on the battlefield, the overlap of seeing firearms and melee weapons together on the battlefield lasted centuries.

But there will likely always be those who say "the gun immediately made the sword obsolete and armor useless!", just as there will likely always be those who say "Any magic makes all non-magic useless!"




your making a huge number of assumption on how magic works in a given setting. Yes d&d magic does every thing all the time but were not in the d&d forum. 6 simple examples of how magic could be relevant but not render martial irrelevant.

1) combat magic is good but not better than a gun, so its good for some one who cant get a gun or at least cant bring it to the target, but will lose against a skilled soldier.

2) magic is specialized, magic is extremely effective against lets say demons and ghosts but against humans a skilled warrior with a sword is equal.

3) magic is rare, lets say it needs a non-human assistance of some kind that cant be forced so their is never enough magic to render martial irrelevant.

4) apples to oranges magic does some thing you simply cant do without it like lets say talk to ghosts.

5) magic is hard, it takes years of training a special mental regime and a high natural aptitude, once you have all those things you are equal to the warrior, who spent years training had a special physical regime and a natural aptitude.

6) magic has counters, magic is very powerful but lets say a prepared person can counter it with salt and iron

Not all magic systems are d&d where magic just wins everything all the time

(also if you are explaining meta narrative abilities as magic they are not actually meta narrative there just abilities )

edit a bonus one
magic used to be overpowered but now as technology has improved your starting to see revolutions against the mageocracy. Their still in charge but now a bunch of farmers with guns are starting to get opinions about all the virgins your sacrificing, and while magic is static in power technology is ever growing in power. (assume aptitude for magic is genetic so only certain bloodlines are actually good enough to make learning worth the effort)


8) Magic is expensive -- the very wealthiest and/or connected can get magic locks and magic communication and magic food storage and magic healing... everyone else has to make do with less fantastic means of accomplishing the same things.

9) Magic is useful but not overpowering. The smith who can call on spirits of metal and fire can forge a better blade, but that doesn't make blade forged without the spirits useless, nor does it make the smith the best in the world on its own, a mediocre smith with spirit help doesn't automatically trump a master smith who works without the aide of spirits.


And the part I bolded is very important to keep in mind. For example, the ability of the character, within the setting, to actually retroactively alter the past such that "I started building that castle years ago!" becomes literally true opens a giant can of worms... but it's fundamentally different from the player having the rules-granted authority to impose a retroactive change on the established facts, or impose a fact on the world that's utterly disconnected from their character's abilities or actions.


(Also the other part I bolded... that this is not a D&D specific part of the forums... would be nice if more posters remembered that more often.)

Talakeal
2019-07-10, 10:11 AM
any consistent setting with magic has two states: either the mundane has been crushed, or magic is irrelevant. any attempts at high fantasies "magic is there but is rare but is totally still relevant somehow" has problems explaining why it remains rare and often crushes the mundane anyways. while any setting where magic is irrelevant- well why have magic at all then?.

What about a setting where magic is equivelent to a high end skill in the real world?

Brain surgeons, rocket scientists, particle physicists, and nuclear engineers sre all very rare and prestigious positions that are very important for sociaty as a whole and can dramatically change both individual lives and society as a whole.

Yet at the same time, they have very little use in day to day life, and for the vast majority of things that need doing in the real world they would be of very little help at all, certainly not to the point where they make every other profession obsolete.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-10, 10:59 AM
And the part I bolded is very important to keep in mind. For example, the ability of the character, within the setting, to actually retroactively alter the past such that "I started building that castle years ago!" becomes literally true opens a giant can of worms... but it's fundamentally different from the player having the rules-granted authority to impose a retroactive change on the established facts, or impose a fact on the world that's utterly disconnected from their character's abilities or actions.


(Also the other part I bolded... that this is not a D&D specific part of the forums... would be nice if more posters remembered that more often.)

Okay, a few things:

1) the retroactive ability I mentioned can only complete projects that would take up to a month to complete. This is less "I started building a castle years ago" and more, "so you know how we split up for the last month to work on differant projects? This is what I was setting up!"

2) The retroactive part of this is a player action, not a character one.

3) You and others have suggested many neat ways magic could work. Sadly they don't apply to my system. A character with the strength attribute class can pick up a city, or mountain and carry it to a new location, or throw it as a weapon. Magic operates on the same level. Retroactive abilities are one way I can allow more grounded classes able to keep up. I am aware that not everyone likes them, but at the power scale that I'm working at, I can only do so much. I can make it so hints need to be dropped, but not finalized for example. But at the end of the day, I want this to be a very high powered game, and that means mundane classes need to scale to be batman.

4) This isn't martial vs magic. It's mundes vs magic and martial. Matials in my system are decently strong (see the ability to pick up a city).

Segev
2019-07-10, 11:05 AM
And no, glossing over the tracking of individual measures of pigeon poop is NOT equivalent to "I started building a castle last year but didn't tell anyone".

You brought up a good point - perhaps without intending to, I'm not sure - earlier when you called this a donkey-pull. "Not tracking all the bat guano and live spiders I'm carrying around" can come off as just as much of a contrivance if you don't have the spell component pouch to say "I've been carrying this in here" about. The reason it doesn't feel contrived for the wizard to pull out a live spider to eat when he casts spider climb is because he's a wizard. His background, profession, and general behavior suggests that he would, of course, have this.

(Incidental tangent: has anybody ever tried to use "I have this becuase it's a spell component" to have something for a non-spellcasting purpose? Handing the rogue a live spider to plant on the bosom of the ingenue in the knitting circle to create a panic sounds like something that could be situationally fun and useful, for instance.)

Likewise, the guy with a background of "I was a ship's cook before I became an adventurer" arguing that he has a small selection of spices he always carries with him seems quite reasonable. Or the guy who has "cooking supplies" on his inventory saying, "I have plenty of salt to make a ring on the floor with to keep the ghosts and demons out!" doesn't feel like it was pulled out of his hindquarters.

Taking this further, the thief who was raised by the Thieves' Guild suggesting that maybe there's a secret sign he can give to identify his membership and thus find local Guild members to talk to is potentially retconning in the existence of the secret sign, but it's not unreasonable. That same thief, who's established that he keeps stashes of supplies hidden all over the city, deciding that the alley two blocks down from where the party is right now contains one of those stashes may be a retcon, but makes sense. Nobody was tracking precise map locations for his stashes; he just "has them," and while the player has only now decided where one is, it's not unreasonable.

If you extend this to other activities, and the would-be castellan is rich and influential enough to reasonably be putting up secret fortresses in various places, it would not be all that contrived. In fact, it would be more along the lines of "of course you do." Now, "castle" is pretty hard to justify. But anything more mobile or portable than that can be pretty well handled. The inventor who reveals that what he's been working on for the last few months was an A-Team style tank-wagon (even if his player only just now decided it) is not straining credulity too much. He builds weird stuff, and it's often quirky, but useful. So sure, he has a tank-wagon today.

It's all about making sure you have adequate nonsepecific justification. Where is your line drawn on what is too fiddly to track? A Merchant Princess with dozens of business ventures declaring that one of them is a shipping company and that she has a ship coming into harbor within the next week (or even that one has arrived and not yet left) is plausible, even if the player hadn't specified what all her businesses are. Assuming, of course, she has the resources invested to support that kind of thing.

In general, mechanically, it should be something a tier or so higher in terms of resource investment value to have this pool of "contrivance" you can pull from, than any given item in that pool is worth. "A kit of climbing gear" is worth enough more than a particular length of rope that you can just have any reasonable amount of rope as part of it. A class feature is worth more than non-magic items, generally speaking, but can be augmented with more gp thrown at a problem. So a class feature of "always prepared" that allowed you to drop gp on a "stash" of stuff, and not declare what you bought with it until you actually produce it, would be an investment of gp AND a class feature, so would probably be balanced. And it handles with verisimilitude because you do have limits on what you can have on hand, and you're establishing (by the class feature and the gp investment into it) that you go shopping for unspecified items and keep an assortment of oddities on you at all times. You're always overprepared, and everyone knows it.

Anymage
2019-07-10, 11:14 AM
Is this going to derail this back into another discussion about what magic is and whether it is or isn't science?

On the topic of metanarrative abilities, I will say that it works best in heavily narrative systems where every player understands that they have narrative heft beyond dictating their character's actions. Giving metanarrative powers to just a small handful of classes or power trees is really hard to balance. (WoD mage comes immediately to mind, where the open endedness of their power system allowed them to wreck pretty much anything else in anything outside of straight fisticuffs.) It's possible for some players to invest more in metanarrative abilities, usually through spending points towards some sort of luck stat, but the base option should be open to everyone.

Karl Aegis
2019-07-10, 11:19 AM
I ordered pizza. It'll be here in 20-30 minutes. It doesn't matter we're in a dangerous place, I know a guy who delivers.

vs

I had piping hot pizza in my pocket the entire time!

One of these makes more sense than the other.


I've been building a castle for years now, I just didn't tell anyone about it. *wink*

vs

I gathered together millions of punks to build a thriving metropolis out of cardboard overnight just so I, the King of Punks, could fight you in my natural environment!

One of these is more fantastic than the other.

Try to keep things more tame while still being enjoyable. Sure, you can hide an entire regiment of soldiers behind a common streetlight, but having that same regiment appear from under tarps in a place that just suffered an artillery bombardment just doesn't feel right.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-07-10, 11:24 AM
I'm planning on using a limited meta-narrative currency in my 5e D&D games (haven't tested it, but the theory is sound, I think).

Basically, instead of standard inspiration[1], each character will get an Inspiration Point. Those can be used to
a) re-roll any dice roll that directly impacts their character (either outgoing or incoming).
b) declare one fact about the local/immediate scenario, subject to DM veto. In case of a veto, the point isn't spent. I'm imagining things like "sure, I had that" or "I know that..." or "that guard is drunk".

They regain points when
a) the party votes them as having done something awesome or totally in-character, especially if that was mechanically sub-optimal but fit the character.
b) the party takes significant downtime (more than one consecutive long rest with no significant on-camera action) in a safe place such as a city or established base
c) the player accepts a suggested complication based on their character's Bond/Ideal/Flaw that makes the party's life more interesting.

[1] normally can be used to gain advantage on any roll and assigned whenever the DM feels like it, which I usually forget to do and which is weak.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-10, 12:32 PM
@ Max killjoy:
Funny. Holding up a mirror is what I do to all of you, every day. :smallbiggrin: Your no different. Everyone is horrible. No one is an exception. I realized long ago that all perception is flawed, that everyone is what you say I am. everyone points the flaws of others and while denying their own. that they do it to distract from their own flaws, to take the attention off them. offense is the best defense after all. that everyone is isolated in their irreconcilable worlds and bubbles, separated despite the vast connection of media by their life experiences and being unable to imagine in being another shoes. thats just life. people lying to themselves about being better people than they are, trying their best anyways but arguments breaking out because someone else trying their best to be good just as hard doesn't understand them, when we should just acknowledge we're all horrible and thus in humility know we are no different in being horrible and thus work to become better through knowing we are not, rather than becoming worse through the lie that we are.

though your the first person I ever said "picky" to, and thats most out of a food analogy rather than anything to do with me. you seem to be unable to accept any playstyle that isn't your own much like others with strong opinions on these things, perhaps your right and I'm no better, oh well, what else is new?


What about a setting where magic is equivelent to a high end skill in the real world?

Brain surgeons, rocket scientists, particle physicists, and nuclear engineers sre all very rare and prestigious positions that are very important for sociaty as a whole and can dramatically change both individual lives and society as a whole.

Yet at the same time, they have very little use in day to day life, and for the vast majority of things that need doing in the real world they would be of very little help at all, certainly not to the point where they make every other profession obsolete.

well let see, what these four professions done so far?

brain surgeons? I don't recall anything important happening because of them. important to perhaps a couple lives thanks to their surgery, but the world?

rocket scientists? well lets see....I guess they're the reason why we have satellites, but a lot of people aside from the scientists go into that. they're just one piece

particle physicists: these do what exactly? mash protons together in large artificial tunnels to try and see even smaller things? has that affected anything yet? no? Exactly.

nuclear engineers: well I guess they have made the world more terrifying.

I mean I guess its possible, but I don't see the point. the point of these professions is their astoundingly narrow application just so happen to be an important cog in a vast clocktower while magic is inherently flexible and open to many applications in many of its depictions. sure you can come up with a highly specialized form of magic only useful in certain situations equivalent to them, but at that point its nothing you can make an rpg class from or use for a hero in a story, they'd be npcs at best which I guess is good for low fantasy if you like that sort of thing. I don't, so its not really my concern. at best such kind of magic is a plot device while other more common and usable forms of magic exist and are used by the protagonists. much like how there are many more common forms of science that are used as well, and these specialized sciences only exist because other more common ones built up to them.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-10, 12:33 PM
I've been building a castle for years now, I just didn't tell anyone about it. *wink*

vs

I gathered together millions of punks to build a thriving metropolis out of cardboard overnight just so I, the King of Punks, could fight you in my natural environment!

One of these is more fantastic than the other.

Try to keep things more tame while still being enjoyable. Sure, you can hide an entire regiment of soldiers behind a common streetlight, but having that same regiment appear from under tarps in a place that just suffered an artillery bombardment just doesn't feel right.

Fluff it how you want, but at the point where someone is pulling castles out of planning, they can build castles en mass. They have enough wealth, and laborers that they can afford to build a castle ever month. Take a year off, and they can have 12 or more castles up and running. These aren't things that take years to do.

Also, I personally find having been working on a castle for years to be more realistic than building one out of cardboard in a single night.

Even the pizza example I personally find that carrying a pizza into a dungeon is more believable then having someone who could waltz into the tomb of horrors without a problem to deliver it.

But that's the thing fluff it however you want. It's an ability. Have fun fluffing it however you want.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-10, 12:47 PM
@ Max killjoy:
Funny. Holding up a mirror is what I do to all of you, every day. :smallbiggrin: Your no different. Everyone is horrible. No one is an exception. I realized long ago that all perception is flawed, that everyone is what you say I am. everyone points the flaws of others and while denying their own. that they do it to distract from their own flaws, to take the attention off them. offense is the best defense after all.


You're making Freud and Jung's mistake.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-10, 12:50 PM
Don't make Freud's mistake of assuming your personal issues are shared by the rest of humanity.

Of course not. everyone is horrible in their own special way, thats the great thing about individuality.

awa
2019-07-10, 01:20 PM
but at that point its nothing you can make an rpg class from or use for a hero in a story,

I disagree.
Lets take a hypothetical necromancer class in a setting with lots of undead,
1) they can talk to dead bodies useful for information gathering
2) they can repel/ weaken undead en mass (a common threat in the hypothetical setting)
3) lets say they can deaden their body to pain and make it resistant to injury
4) they can kill with a life draining touch
5) there resistant to lets say disease, poison and negative energy

We can say in this hypotetical setting iron interferes with magic
So we have a class that can hold its own both in combat and explorations but because they forced to wield inferior weapons and armor (bronze is both expensive and not as good as steel) they dont overshadow a skilled warrior with a sword.

They are a huge boon when the zombie horde rolls into town or they need to defeat an evil ghost, but he will need the warriors help when gang of deranged murderers comes after them.

There is a difference between being useless on an adventure and being able to do everything all the time. Magic can be useful and powerful with out being the best of everything.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-10, 01:29 PM
I ordered pizza. It'll be here in 20-30 minutes. It doesn't matter we're in a dangerous place, I know a guy who delivers.

vs

I had piping hot pizza in my pocket the entire time!

One of these makes more sense than the other.


I've been building a castle for years now, I just didn't tell anyone about it. *wink*

vs

I gathered together millions of punks to build a thriving metropolis out of cardboard overnight just so I, the King of Punks, could fight you in my natural environment!

One of these is more fantastic than the other.


I don't find either option in either case believable... some of them are outright "absurd comedy" elements.

(Party spends days fighting and clawing and inching their way deep into the underground fortress... and then the pizza guy just shows up? Har har.)




Fluff it how you want, but at the point where someone is pulling castles out of planning, they can build castles en mass. They have enough wealth, and laborers that they can afford to build a castle ever month. Take a year off, and they can have 12 or more castles up and running. These aren't things that take years to do.

Also, I personally find having been working on a castle for years to be more realistic than building one out of cardboard in a single night.

Even the pizza example I personally find that carrying a pizza into a dungeon is more believable then having someone who could waltz into the tomb of horrors without a problem to deliver it.

But that's the thing fluff it however you want. It's an ability. Have fun fluffing it however you want.


To me, IMO, personally, that's exactly backwards -- to the point that I find calling it "fluff" revealing in terms of inverted process and inverted priorities... that sort of dismissive waive of the hand and "oh it's just fluff".

To me, IMO, personally, the "fluff" is the heart of the matter, the thing that comes first, and the abilities and everything else in the campaign first exist at that layer -- then mechanics/rules follow from that as a model of the character, what the character is capable of, how characters interact with each other and the environment, etc.

jintoya
2019-07-10, 01:32 PM
Is this going to derail this back into another discussion about what magic is and whether it is or isn't science?


I suppose it is, but it depends on what you consider science, I know science as "the tools by which we study the observable world around us" it's a tool to help you explain your surroundings.

If I treat it as part of the universe, can observe it, measure it, learn it's functions and record it, explain it's workings and create predictable results consistently... Yes.

If I cannot do those things to it, like dreams etc. then it becomes a pseudo-science or philosophy.
(It's worth noting that philosophers have overlap with scientists historically, but let's not split hairs.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-10, 01:42 PM
I disagree.
Lets take a hypothetical necromancer class in a setting with lots of undead,
1) they can talk to dead bodies useful for information gathering
2) they can repel/ weaken undead en mass (a common threat in the hypothetical setting)
3) lets say they can deaden their body to pain and make it resistant to injury
4) they can kill with a life draining touch
5) there resistant to lets say disease, poison and negative energy

We can say in this hypotetical setting iron interferes with magic
So we have a class that can hold its own both in combat and explorations but because they forced to wield inferior weapons and armor (bronze is both expensive and not as good as steel) they dont overshadow a skilled warrior with a sword.

They are a huge boon when the zombie horde rolls into town or they need to defeat an evil ghost, but he will need the warriors help when gang of deranged murderers comes after them.

There is a difference between being useless on an adventure and being able to do everything all the time. Magic can be useful and powerful with out being the best of everything.

that is not equivalent to any of those four things talakeal mentioned.

talking to the dead is already much more flexible ability than brain surgery, rocket science, particle physics or nuclear physics. with that one ability alone, your already doing something most investigators and detectives would kill to have assuming it needs to stay fresh, if you can do for ancient corpses you got something every archaeologist will consider vital.

if its a common threat, then you probably need a necromancer in every town, that not rare at all.

killing with a life draining touch? now you have something every assassin, conspirator and so on would want simply because its a weapon you can kill with that doesn't have any physical evidence on your person nor physical evidence is left. a hidden dagger can be found, but knowing that spell? doesn't matter.

whats the range of iron interference? touch only? seems to be. if so, any person with a brain is just going to fire iron-tipped arrows/bolts at the necromancer. if the magic is interfered with when it touches them, imagine how much it does so when the iron is inside them! anyone smart is going to make iron crossbowmen a normal part of their guards to kill necromancer assassins.

in short your example is both more common and flexible and less relevant at the same time, because the necromancers are needed in more situations but also have an easy way to disrupt their casting then kill them by anyone with a crossbow

ThatMoonGuy
2019-07-10, 02:02 PM
While magic is a big deal, society doesn't change on the basis of individual power but only on large scale change. If you introduced a few modern firearms into the past, that could give some advantage to the side that has them but wouldn't really change things unless someone reverse engineered it and made those weapons commonplace. It's like computers. They're incredibly useful and we've been able to use them for quite a while but if it cost half a billion dollars to make one, they'd be used by some high end government agencies but wouldn't lead to the information age. The information age was born specifically because digital technologies became commonplace.

Like, imagine that there was someone nowadays that could lift objects with their minds or memorize a whole book in a single second or even that could create fire with their hands. How, exactly, would that person be useful in modern day consumption society? I'd argue that a good programmer would probably be more sought after than a guy who could bend steel with their mind. I think Kara no Kyoukai (a story set in the Nasuverse, same as Tsukihime) has a pretty interesting take on this. The Asakami clan used to be pretty great with their telekinetic powers back in old Japan. They were demon killers and the like. But once modern age arrived and anyone capable of firing a high-powered rifle became capable of killing demons, that skill was no longer useful and was set aside by the clan.

I mean, really, what exactly would anyone do if they could create fire with their hands?

awa
2019-07-10, 02:14 PM
that is not equivalent to any of those four things talakeal mentioned.

talking to the dead is already much more flexible ability than brain surgery, rocket science, particle physics or nuclear physics. with that one ability alone, your already doing something most investigators and detectives would kill to have assuming it needs to stay fresh, if you can do for ancient corpses you got something every archaeologist will consider vital.

if its a common threat, then you probably need a necromancer in every town, that not rare at all.

killing with a life draining touch? now you have something every assassin, conspirator and so on would want simply because its a weapon you can kill with that doesn't have any physical evidence on your person nor physical evidence is left. a hidden dagger can be found, but knowing that spell? doesn't matter.

whats the range of iron interference? touch only? seems to be. if so, any person with a brain is just going to fire iron-tipped arrows/bolts at the necromancer. if the magic is interfered with when it touches them, imagine how much it does so when the iron is inside them! anyone smart is going to make iron crossbowmen a normal part of their guards to kill necromancer assassins.

in short your example is both more common and flexible and less relevant at the same time, because the necromancers are needed in more situations but also have an easy way to disrupt their casting then kill them by anyone with a crossbow

I'm not entirely sure your problem is, of course talking to the dead is a useful abbility its supposed to make casters relevant. In this hypothetical setting necromancers are very relevant but they are also not overpowered, this necromancer could easily join a party with a thief and a warrior and all three would be able to contribute, that's the whole point.

Its an example of a hypothetical caster that is useful in a way that does not render mundanes obsolete. Also you seem real keen on making assumptions (which because I made up the hypothetical caster can simple tell you are wrong) who says iron arrow heads are more disruptive than iron armor certainly not me, who says a life draining touch leaves no traces again not me.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-10, 02:23 PM
I'm not entirely sure your problem is, of course talking to the dead is a useful abbility its supposed to make casters relevant. In this hypothetical setting necromancers are very relevant but they are also not overpowered, this necromancer could easily join a party with a thief and a warrior and all three would be able to contribute, that's the whole point.

Its an example of a hypothetical caster that is useful in a way that does not render mundanes obsolete. Also you seem real keen on making assumptions (which because I made up the hypothetical caster can simple tell you are wrong) who says iron arrow heads are more disruptive than iron armor certainly not me, who says a life draining touch leaves no traces again not me.

yeah but you disagreeing with something I saying to Talakeal who was offering specific examples, and you tried to offer another example that didn't match up. your making a different point than him, not the same one.

you seem real keen moving the goalposts. you didn't specify any of that. any blanks left is fair game for extrapolation. its you who assume that people won't extrapolate and figure out ways to apply what you made in different ways that you don't intend, and assuming that what you made will always turn out how you intend is invalid, as that does not simulate the real world, which is always full of the unintended consequences, since this is a hypothetical you left yourself vulnerable to those extrapolations.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-10, 03:04 PM
To me, IMO, personally, that's exactly backwards -- to the point that I find calling it "fluff" revealing in terms of inverted process and inverted priorities... that sort of dismissive waive of the hand and "oh it's just fluff".

To me, IMO, personally, the "fluff" is the heart of the matter, the thing that comes first, and the abilities and everything else in the campaign first exist at that layer -- then mechanics/rules follow from that as a model of the character, what the character is capable of, how characters interact with each other and the environment, etc.

I mean, to each his own. I prefer a fun game, and balance over strict adherence to a flawed sense of realism. The wealth attribute class is meant to be rich. They are meant to allow the player to have a character that can pull of many of the things that can happen in books or movies. That is the goal of the class. Part of the limitations I've put on myself is to have all 24 abilities of a class fit on a single doublesided sheet of paper so that it's easy for players to print and carry all their character information with them to sessions. This means that classes end up being mechanics first because at the end of the day, that's all I have room for.

I also find it interesting that you don't like things being mechanics first, fluff second.

In every game I've heard about I've never had a player spend time arguing that a wizard can't cast a fireball because the fluff of how the weave worked and interacted with the objects they were using didn't make sense. What does bat poop have to do with fire? What is the narrative reason that it works? Why can't a mundane person just pick up some poop and copy the wizard in dnd? Why can't a first level wizard cast fireball. They know how to cast things, so why can't they just copy what other wizards do?

There are entire areas that fluff just doesn't cover.

But maybe my preference comes from from 5e and all the threads that when asked how to build a certain character a class is suggested and then told to refluff the lore to fit. A preacher class is just a bard with the acolyte background and a bit of fluff for example. From this I've taken that players should be allowed to play the character the way they want to play it without the designer saying that the way they are playing it is badwrong fun.

But hey, a fun balanced system where you can play a character the way you desire might not be your cup of tea. I've realized I can't please everyone, no matter how hard I try.


On another note, there are some really cool magic systems being thrown around, but they sadly don't help with my question. They don't fit in with the 3.5 magic vs martial debate, and are also not relevant to my system as they would limit things to being far weaker than I want them to be. I'm not building a game where the best players can manage is the ability to talk with the dead. I'm building a game where a player can walk into a battlefield and raise everyone who has ever died there back to life, where clerics can ascend to become gods, and where a guy with max wealth (not just the wealth word here, this is something anyone can do) can reshape the entire map of the world, hiring people to do everything from the mass creation of magic items, so building a ship large enough to support a city, to even shaping culture and society so that people are nicer to each other and wars and famine cease.

It's a game where at the end of the game the players are facing setting destroying threats, and shaping the setting as they need and desire. It's meant to become a game of gods with the players on that level.

If your reaction to that is 'Then don't have mundane people,' my answer is 'Then ignore the mundane classes and ask players to only play classes that are magical enough to make you feel comfortable.'

awa
2019-07-10, 03:35 PM
yeah but you disagreeing with something I saying to Talakeal who was offering specific examples, and you tried to offer another example that didn't match up. your making a different point than him, not the same one.

you seem real keen moving the goalposts. you didn't specify any of that. any blanks left is fair game for extrapolation. its you who assume that people won't extrapolate and figure out ways to apply what you made in different ways that you don't intend, and assuming that what you made will always turn out how you intend is invalid, as that does not simulate the real world, which is always full of the unintended consequences, since this is a hypothetical you left yourself vulnerable to those extrapolations.

What actually is your concern? First you say mundanes cant possible compete with magic users so examples were given of mages who did not overshadow them. You then claimed those were so specialized as to be irreverent and if mages were irrelevant why even have them. So I gave an example of a magic users that was strong enough to matter without overshadowing mundanes. So then you claimed that the necromancers were useful without being unbeatable but you said it like that was a problem and not the entire point.

So frankly I literal dont know what your problem is. Its possible to make wizards that can be an integral part of an adventuring party without overshadowing the other classes.

The fact that my class built in less than 5minuites does not explicit state all of its potential limitations and advantages is real neither here nor there and real comes across as you being wildly unwilling to engage fairly. You have decided on something frankly at this point I'm not even certain what and are twisting everything to fit that conclusion.

Karl Aegis
2019-07-10, 03:58 PM
So what resources do we have to work with? I noticed something about Reincarnation, Karmic Weight and Memories. Maybe something that uses those? Like if pieces of Karmic Weight or Memories are left behind during reincarnation and you can dig them up, you plug those fragments into a magic weapon and something happens. It probably wouldn't work at all because of the whole magic is the only thing that changes in the world aspect of the setting.

Wait, new techniques need to be made to remain relevant in a world that never changes? How does one stay the same when the world is constantly changing?

Lord Raziere
2019-07-10, 04:14 PM
What actually is your concern? First you say mundanes cant possible compete with magic users so examples were given of mages who did not overshadow them. You then claimed those were so specialized as to be irreverent and if mages were irrelevant why even have them. So I gave an example of a magic users that was strong enough to matter without overshadowing mundanes. So then you claimed that the necromancers were useful without being unbeatable but you said it like that was a problem and not the entire point.

So frankly I literal dont know what your problem is. Its possible to make wizards that can be an integral part of an adventuring party without overshadowing the other classes.

The fact that my class built in less than 5minuites does not explicit state all of its potential limitations and advantages is real neither here nor there and real comes across as you being wildly unwilling to engage fairly. You have decided on something frankly at this point I'm not even certain what and are twisting everything to fit that conclusion.

I'm trying to think of what conclusion your talking about, and I honestly can't think of any.

I mean each post makes sense to me individually. I just don't see why you put them together as if they're the same thing. oh I get it we're still on my "magic destroys mundane" thing. I had completely changed topics and thought we were talking about something tangential with your necromancer thing, sorry.

these examples......eh. they are examples yes, but if they are so easy to come up with by some random person online, why do we not see them more often in actual media? its possible, but certainly doesn't seem to happen when one talks about any protagonist we can name. and these examples ignore what people want magic, meta-narrative nonsense and such FOR, and that is often to do cool things that you can't do in real life. authors and game designers don't design magic to make sense, the entire point is to ignore sense so that you can blast fire at monsters without some jerk going "but that doesn't make any sense, take that away." just like a heroes design isn't to make sense (I've yet to meet a hero who isn't some form of exceptional to the world they live in) but to exist despite sense saying they should not.

people don't have dreams and passions of flying in the air without a plane or whatever because it makes sense, they want and design ways to do that in fiction because its an experience they believe is exhilarating, and that they can give that experience to the person they are telling the story to. the fact that flying is inherently imbalanced and gives and massively unfair advantage against anyone ground-bound is entirely beside the point and far less important. Thats why even though your examples do make sense and are possible, that magic will always win against mundane, because they miss the point why this is done in the first place: not to make sense by itself, but to be an experience that one considers that feels positive even it it doesn't logically hold up. Therefore people will always design magic in a way to make sure its wondrous first and balanced second (if even that). Because the point is not to make an optimized god caster, not to make an unexciting caster that despite making sense has no wonder to it as you have, but to be wondrous.

of course wonder is subjective, so that depends on how you define it and all that stupid semantic garbage I don't want to get into. leave that to somebody else. I hope that clears things up.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-10, 04:14 PM
So what resources do we have to work with? I noticed something about Reincarnation, Karmic Weight and Memories. Maybe something that uses those? Like if pieces of Karmic Weight or Memories are left behind during reincarnation and you can dig them up, you plug those fragments into a magic weapon and something happens. It probably wouldn't work at all because of the whole magic is the only thing that changes in the world aspect of the setting.

Wait, new techniques need to be made to remain relevant in a world that never changes? How does one stay the same when the world is constantly changing?

I'm sorry, I'm confused by what you're asking.

Karl Aegis
2019-07-10, 04:16 PM
I'm sorry, I'm confused by what you're asking.

What resources do characters have and how long do they remain relevant?

Anymage
2019-07-10, 04:37 PM
Also, I personally find having been working on a castle for years to be more realistic than building one out of cardboard in a single night.

Heh. While this is true, that's precisely why building one overnight is the sort of thing a god-tier character can do. Whether it's a master crafter building a keep into a mountainside with just a weekend and a chisel or a master leader being able to bring on so many people and inspire them to superhuman feats such that your army of mundane soldiers can get it done over a weekend, these sound more mythic than "I'm basically clairvoyant".


I'm building a game where a player can walk into a battlefield and raise everyone who has ever died there back to life, where clerics can ascend to become gods, and where a guy with max wealth (not just the wealth word here, this is something anyone can do) can reshape the entire map of the world, hiring people to do everything from the mass creation of magic items, so building a ship large enough to support a city, to even shaping culture and society so that people are nicer to each other and wars and famine cease.

It's a game where at the end of the game the players are facing setting destroying threats, and shaping the setting as they need and desire. It's meant to become a game of gods with the players on that level.

If your reaction to that is 'Then don't have mundane people,' my answer is 'Then ignore the mundane classes and ask players to only play classes that are magical enough to make you feel comfortable.'

A few thoughts:

-I don't mind a character having the "more money than God" trait. (It might be hard to explain if multiple characters have it, since if one character owns the country that everybody lives in then it's hard for another character to own that same country. That's a fluff thing that can be worked out at the table, though.) Such a character may have a vacation house pretty much everywhere, and that sort of thing is fine to leave undefined until it becomes narratively relevant. What strikes me more is that this supposedly nonmagical character knew exactly what sort of problem would necessitate a castle, knew exactly where the castle should be built, and that there is no narrative sign of the castle before the character springs it on everybody. Still, as mentioned, you have three plausible ways that three different character types could have a castle available on short notice. (Super rich type who has so many real estate holdings that he could reasonably have one just about anywhere, super inspiring type who can gather and encourage followers to do it super fast, super crafty who can just do the whole thing by himself.) They're all mythic, but they're all things that a normal person could do only dialed up to crazy levels.

-"More money than God" is a very open-ended trait. A system with MMTG as a trait shouldn't have "can effectively fly by jumping super hard and redirecting off of raindrops and zephyrs", because "wealth" is a very broad trait while "flight" is much more specific. Super athletics, OTOH, should allow that sort of flight as well as chucking boulders and running super fast. How much you want to focus on broad abilities vs. specific ones is your call, but if you want to get totally gonzo at the top end I suggest that you go for open-ended guidelines.

-"Things humans can do, only freed of real-world limits of biology and physics and allowed to scale as far as you can imagine" is still only a subset of "anything you can imagine". So yes, at some point you do need to become magic. (Some players might also want cool visuals for their super-mundanes as well. I'm thinking Exalted here, where the most powerful character type is basically human potential turned up to a crazy degree, but they get some cool light shows if they throw around too much power too quickly.) Of course, "things you can do with fire", "things you can do through controlling life spirits/the dead" and even "things you can do within your god's purview" are in and of themselves subsets of "anything you can imagine". So while a general purpose mage will have a higher cap than even the most unbound mythic martial, you can still go pretty dang high before you reach that ceiling.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-10, 04:53 PM
I'm trying to think of what conclusion your talking about, and I honestly can't think of any.

I mean each post makes sense to me individually. I just don't see why you put them together as if they're the same thing. oh I get it we're still on my "magic destroys mundane" thing. I had completely changed topics and thought we were talking about something tangential with your necromancer thing, sorry.

these examples......eh. they are examples yes, but if they are so easy to come up with by some random person online, why do we not see them more often in actual media? its possible, but certainly doesn't seem to happen when one talks about any protagonist we can name. and these examples ignore what people want magic, meta-narrative nonsense and such FOR, and that is often to do cool things that you can't do in real life. authors and game designers don't design magic to make sense, the entire point is to ignore sense so that you can blast fire at monsters without some jerk going "but that doesn't make any sense, take that away." just like a heroes design isn't to make sense (I've yet to meet a hero who isn't some form of exceptional to the world they live in) but to exist despite sense saying they should not.

people don't have dreams and passions of flying in the air without a plane or whatever because it makes sense, they want and design ways to do that in fiction because its an experience they believe is exhilarating, and that they can give that experience to the person they are telling the story to. the fact that flying is inherently imbalanced and gives and massively unfair advantage against anyone ground-bound is entirely beside the point and far less important. Thats why even though your examples do make sense and are possible, that magic will always win against mundane, because they miss the point why this is done in the first place: not to make sense by itself, but to be an experience that one considers that feels positive even it it doesn't logically hold up. Therefore people will always design magic in a way to make sure its wondrous first and balanced second (if even that). Because the point is not to make an optimized god caster, not to make an unexciting caster that despite making sense has no wonder to it as you have, but to be wondrous.

of course wonder is subjective, so that depends on how you define it and all that stupid semantic garbage I don't want to get into. leave that to somebody else. I hope that clears things up.

First, the problem here doesn't appear to be that others want things to at least somewhat "make sense", but rather that your concept of "makes sense" is so narrow and constricting that even the slightest deviation from the real world is "OMG this makes no sense", thus leading to both 1) a disdain for any assertion that things might need to make even the slightest sense because "makes sense" is supposedly "constricting" and would prevent any fantastic elements whatsoever, and 2) viewing even small deviations from reality as kicking the door down for all deviations from reality, since they all don't "make sense".

Second, you're assuming a lot about what other people want, and making a lot of absolute assertions. For some people (who aren't you), inconsistencies, incoherence, contrivances, etc, are a direct detriment to their enjoyment even if the fiction or game is otherwise fantastic and "unrealistic". There's no need to "ignore sense" to enjoy fantasy or science fiction games or works. It's not that dragons are impossible in the real world that makes some of us balk, and ruins our engagement with the material, but rather that the material has shown us conflicting things about dragons, has said both X and not!X about dragons and asked us to ignore that both cannot be true of the dragons we've up until that point been engrossed in watching or fighting or whatever. It's not that FTL is "impossible" that ruins a story with FTL in it for someone like me, it's when the FTL in that story is grossly inconsistent, or works exactly as the plot needs it to work at that moment and only at that moment. Don't tell me magic works a certain way, and then violate that just because you want to do something "cool" or "awesome" or whatever.

Third, not all of us are looking for "exhilarating" as you describe it here. We can get plenty of wonder out of the setting itself -- but a setting that falls apart at the slightest examination doesn't provide any wonder.

Overall, this notion that secondary worlds inherently don't "make sense" and cannot "make sense" is your bugbear, not a fact. Not everyone starts from "what's the coolest awesomest thing ever that I could do here!" when they're worldbuilding or designing a system.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-10, 05:07 PM
So your saying I want things to make sense but not make sense? cool argument breh, what next you gonna say that I think day is too bright because of how dark it is?

and this criticism coming from you of all people Max? don't be hypocritical, your the poster child for hyper-consistency and any deviation from reality being nonsensical to someone. if there is anyone I can say wants thing to make sense too much its you, your the first person I think of when I make such arguments, because when I argue this, I set aside my personal interests for the sake of logical discussion of fantasy in general. after all, my personal interests have hardly anything to do with commenting on the state of things in general, why would it? its my internal world and has nothing to do with the external world shared by all. I'm confused to why you think those worlds have anything to do with each other, or why I'd involve this or that. that post was about my observation of others not of myself. to speak of myself would be egotistical and I don't think you want to hear that.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-10, 05:12 PM
What resources do characters have and how long do they remain relevant?

That really depends on the character. Each of the 50 classes in the game has 24 abilities that characters gain access to as they level up. They are broken into 4 tiers of 6, and after you have leveled in a tier for a while you gain the ability to access (usually) all of its abilities without needing to buy them. This is referred to as improvised abilities, and while it costs a bit more, it gives a character access to all options if they need them, with a fairly broad range of abilities.

This, along with the gestating of 3 classes to build a character means that even a starting character has access to 18 abilities they can improvise, as well as 5 or so abilities they can use fairly cheaply. While some abilities overlap a bit between classes, each class individually is designed so that no two abilities overlap the same design space. This means that an early game ability that grants advantage to attacks will not be replaced by a late game ability that does the same thing, or will have a rider on it that keeps it being useful.

For game play resources there are the following:
Effort: This shows how much energy a character is using, and how much they can do before they exhaust themselves. some abilities require you to expend it till your next short rest, or even your next long rest, so different abilities have different flow to them.

Stress: Generally the characters have a single stress box, though some classes allow for the purchase of a second one. You take a hit when you are out of free stress boxes and you get knocked out of the fight and take a wound. Stress clears at the end of a fight, and converts to wounds, so you always go into battle with at essentially full health.

Wounds: Wounds come in different flavors, but generally a character can take 3 or so before they really start to notice the negatives. Each wound gives disadvantage to one of the six attributes so you can drop quite a few before it starts cutting into your combat capability. Some abilities require you to take wounds to to accomplish things.

On top of that, different classes have different mechanics. Touched by Shadow for example has a whole transformation mechanic where they turn more and more into a monster.

Wealth: Not to be confused with money or GP, wealth is a measure of how much industrial production you own. It tracks how many different types of resources you have access to and maxes out at 16. At 16 you'll need to have multiple industries that are able to mass produce magic items, ships, giant robots, and what have you. 16 wealth gives enough ability to make a change that effects the entire setting over the course of a month.

Thaums: A measure of how many and what kind magical founts you control. Similar to wealth in what it can accomplish at high levels with a max amount of thaums also capped at 16. This can be a bit more secretive, but also requires you to take control and hold massive numbers of nodes.

Faith: This is how much faith people have in you, or your ideas. This is currently the least fleshed out because I don't have a class that messes with it too much yet, but it relies on getting people to believe in your ideas. Such belief can be so great it forces things into existence, such as new laws of physics or such.

Political Authority: This is a measure of how much political authority you have. Without holding it in one form or another in an area you can't actually use your wealth to build things as your attempts to do so are blocked.

Magical Authority: This is a measure of how much you control magic in an area. Having the understanding of spirits, and making sure noone else is able to disrupt your changes is what allows you to claim this. Without this it requires a very powerful thaumiturge to make a change in a place.

Spiritual Authority: This is how much you have an uncontested ability to shape peoples beliefs in an area. A measure of how much respect you have, and who people are more likely to listen to if two people disagree.

Money: This is normal money used to buy things. Can be converted as a one time thing into wealth, or if you own at least 2 wealth, you can get a thousand gold a month free. Using it for whatever you want.


There, I think that covers most options that I can think of off the top of my head.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-10, 06:16 PM
So your saying I want things to make sense but not make sense?


Nope.

I'm saying that your comments paint you as someone who rejects any notion of a fantastic world or world that deviates from reality while still also making sense, apparently because your concept of / standard for "makes sense" is narrow and constrained -- that you appear to have a false dichotomy established between "makes sense" and "awesome". Your words keep painting "makes sense" as if it were a synonym for "just like reality" or "utterly devoid of fantastic elements" or "totally drained of all wonder".




and this criticism coming from you of all people Max? don't be hypocritical, your the poster child for hyper-consistency and any deviation from reality being nonsensical to someone. if there is anyone I can say wants thing to make sense too much its you, your the first person I think of when I make such arguments, because when I argue this, I set aside my personal interests for the sake of logical discussion of fantasy in general. after all, my personal interests have hardly anything to do with commenting on the state of things in general, why would it? its my internal world and has nothing to do with the external world shared by all. I'm confused to why you think those worlds have anything to do with each other, or why I'd involve this or that. that post was about my observation of others not of myself. to speak of myself would be egotistical and I don't think you want to hear that.


There's a difference between someone who talks about what they want as what they want, or talks about rubrics and structures and concepts as standalone things without asserting that other people want exactly what that person wants...

...and someone who crosses the big line and says "no one wants that" or "what people really want" or "what people want X for" as if their individual tastes were somehow universal truths.


~~~

The problem is, I'll try to present a deliberate set of choices and decisions that can be made in worldbuilding so that someone can really look at what they like and what they don't, and what kind of world gives them the gaming experience that they want and goes with the sorts of things they like... and a handful of posters can be counted on to rush in and all but scream "You're trying to invalidate my fun!"... and then they'll reliably turn around and venomously belittle anything that doesn't isn't their own personal favorite of "rule of cool" or "the best story" or whatever. No matter how many "IMO" and "to me" and "personally" and "in my experience" qualifiers and limiters I put on my statements, no matter how clear I try to make it that I'm presenting a process, not a conclusion... I'm reliably going to be accused of treating my opinions as fact, and trying to ruin all the fun, and trying to crush what other people like... by the very same posters who will then turn around and tell me that my gaming experiences and preferences are invalid, to the point of accusing me of being delusional if I dare say otherwise.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-10, 07:06 PM
Nope.

I'm saying that your comments paint you as someone who rejects any notion of a fantastic world or world that deviates from reality while still also making sense, apparently because your concept of / standard for "makes sense" is narrow and constrained -- that you appear to have a false dichotomy established between "makes sense" and "awesome". Your words keep painting "makes sense" as if it were a synonym for "just like reality" or "utterly devoid of fantastic elements" or "totally drained of all wonder".

There's a difference between someone who talks about what they want as what they want, or talks about rubrics and structures and concepts as standalone things without asserting that other people want exactly what that person wants...

...and someone who crosses the big line and says "no one wants that" or "what people really want" or "what people want X for" as if their individual tastes were somehow universal truths.

~~~

The problem is, I'll try to present a deliberate set of choices and decisions that can be made in worldbuilding so that someone can really look at what they like and what they don't, and what kind of world gives them the gaming experience that they want and goes with the sorts of things they like... and a handful of posters can be counted on to rush in and all but scream "You're trying to invalidate my fun!"... and then they'll reliably turn around and venomously belittle anything that doesn't isn't their own personal favorite of "rule of cool" or "the best story" or whatever. No matter how many "IMO" and "to me" and "personally" and "in my experience" qualifiers and limiters I put on my statements, no matter how clear I try to make it that I'm presenting a process, not a conclusion... I'm reliably going to be accused of treating my opinions as fact, and trying to ruin all the fun, and trying to crush what other people like... by the very same posters who will then turn around and tell me that my gaming experiences and preferences are invalid, to the point of accusing me of being delusional if I dare say otherwise.

That is not my internal world. that is my commentary on others. I be social by trying to be consistent and engage with others on terms they understand, by engaging this abstract definition of magic people have constructed, when my own is highly different, and personally do not believe the the abstract definition of "magic" that includes meta-narrativity and martial arts and so on, that is an idea I'm going along for the sake of the discussion so that it doesn't go off topic, by arguing for consistency because that is what other people value when arguing this topic. my personal tastes are useless to discuss. what would be gained saying my preferences? nothing therefore I don't. the fact that my favorite color is green is irrelevant to a discussion on the color spectrum and what meaning people gain from one color or another.

~~~

A problem I also frequently encounter. you have my sympathies. that is the nature of the such things and no one ever wins. its why its useless to discuss preference in these things, as it just leaves one open to those preferences being attacked, a vulnerability. when your not ruining their fun, your gaming experiences are not invalid neither are you telling the truth, because the truth is impossible to know, its all narratives and perception which will persist no matter how much sense is applied. I wish I had a solution to the problem of communication and perception, but I can't think of any, its a problem that existentially perplexes me.

Karl Aegis
2019-07-10, 08:55 PM
It looks like most of your resources are independent from whether you are magical or mundane. "Has thaums, but cannot use thaums" seems like a character flaw that shouldn't happen. Ditto for the other resources. While you can try to neglect some aspects of the game, your character would serve themselves better if they had at least some use for everything. Like, if I have so much Faith that I can just tell you, "Your entire body is made of cookies." and your body is now cookies, I don't see why there should be a distinction on whether or not that ability is magical. As far as I can tell, nothing magical happened, you just changed reality by believing.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-10, 10:20 PM
Heh. While this is true, that's precisely why building one overnight is the sort of thing a god-tier character can do. Whether it's a master crafter building a keep into a mountainside with just a weekend and a chisel or a master leader being able to bring on so many people and inspire them to superhuman feats such that your army of mundane soldiers can get it done over a weekend, these sound more mythic than "I'm basically clairvoyant".

Either way it would still be a retroactive ability as the actual change takes place over a few combat rounds. If you want to have done it overnight, or over years, it still is going to likely break the bank for the next month.




A few thoughts:

-I don't mind a character having the "more money than God" trait. (It might be hard to explain if multiple characters have it, since if one character owns the country that everybody lives in then it's hard for another character to own that same country. That's a fluff thing that can be worked out at the table, though.) Such a character may have a vacation house pretty much everywhere, and that sort of thing is fine to leave undefined until it becomes narratively relevant. What strikes me more is that this supposedly nonmagical character knew exactly what sort of problem would necessitate a castle, knew exactly where the castle should be built, and that there is no narrative sign of the castle before the character springs it on everybody. Still, as mentioned, you have three plausible ways that three different character types could have a castle available on short notice. (Super rich type who has so many real estate holdings that he could reasonably have one just about anywhere, super inspiring type who can gather and encourage followers to do it super fast, super crafty who can just do the whole thing by himself.) They're all mythic, but they're all things that a normal person could do only dialed up to crazy levels.

-"More money than God" is a very open-ended trait. A system with MMTG as a trait shouldn't have "can effectively fly by jumping super hard and redirecting off of raindrops and zephyrs", because "wealth" is a very broad trait while "flight" is much more specific. Super athletics, OTOH, should allow that sort of flight as well as chucking boulders and running super fast. How much you want to focus on broad abilities vs. specific ones is your call, but if you want to get totally gonzo at the top end I suggest that you go for open-ended guidelines.

-"Things humans can do, only freed of real-world limits of biology and physics and allowed to scale as far as you can imagine" is still only a subset of "anything you can imagine". So yes, at some point you do need to become magic. (Some players might also want cool visuals for their super-mundanes as well. I'm thinking Exalted here, where the most powerful character type is basically human potential turned up to a crazy degree, but they get some cool light shows if they throw around too much power too quickly.) Of course, "things you can do with fire", "things you can do through controlling life spirits/the dead" and even "things you can do within your god's purview" are in and of themselves subsets of "anything you can imagine". So while a general purpose mage will have a higher cap than even the most unbound mythic martial, you can still go pretty dang high before you reach that ceiling.

That's why these things are classes not just a single ability. If all you had was this one divine tier ability, and nothing else, you wouldn't even be able to use it as you wouldn't have any wealth at all. It's an alternate way of spending wealth and that's it. It's the getting and holding of wealth that makes it a cool ability. The whole wealth game is all about managing supply lines, production, taking out people who would steal from you, navigating politics to not get people mad at you... It's a lot of work, and not just a narrative thing is what I'm saying. Now characters with the wealth attribute class have a head start when messing with it, as they have abilities that let them bend the normal rules, but at the end of the day it supplements a system that's in place, rather than replacing it. Someone with the wealth word is to using wealth to change the world what a mage is to combat.

I mean, I would disagree with that. Martials in my setting are at least as strong as people who use magic, and depending on balance might end up stronger. Sure a fire sorcerer can nuke a city out of existence from a mile away, but a (really) good Blade master can parry the nuke and proceed to jump a few miles over in a round, then cut the mountain the fire sorcerer is on into pieces. Again, martials are able to be cool, I just want a few mundanes that are cool as well.


It looks like most of your resources are independent from whether you are magical or mundane. "Has thaums, but cannot use thaums" seems like a character flaw that shouldn't happen. Ditto for the other resources. While you can try to neglect some aspects of the game, your character would serve themselves better if they had at least some use for everything. Like, if I have so much Faith that I can just tell you, "Your entire body is made of cookies." and your body is now cookies, I don't see why there should be a distinction on whether or not that ability is magical. As far as I can tell, nothing magical happened, you just changed reality by believing.

Eh, using the different systems is just based on if you have a fact or not. Players start with a bunch of facts about their background and stuff, and then can get more with downtime training. If you have access to thaums, or get given some land with farms on it, your only a month away from being able to use it effectively. The classes that specialize in such things however can do a bit more with them. It's like anyone can swing a sword in dnd, even a commoner. A fighter with a sword can make more attacks, and will tend to do more damage than a commoner that is the same level however.

Faith and wealth changes work on a much slower, and much larger scale than what you suggest. The currency of faith represents other people listening to you and believing what you tell them. You'd have to convince a fairly large portion of the setting to do something like that, and even then my prototype rules have ways that would let you turn a city to cookies, but not a single person. As an attack as long as the person would be important enough to count, it likely wouldn't even hurt them.

RazorChain
2019-07-11, 01:07 AM
Fluff it how you want, but at the point where someone is pulling castles out of planning, they can build castles en mass. They have enough wealth, and laborers that they can afford to build a castle ever month. Take a year off, and they can have 12 or more castles up and running. These aren't things that take years to do.

Also, I personally find having been working on a castle for years to be more realistic than building one out of cardboard in a single night.

Even the pizza example I personally find that carrying a pizza into a dungeon is more believable then having someone who could waltz into the tomb of horrors without a problem to deliver it.

But that's the thing fluff it however you want. It's an ability. Have fun fluffing it however you want.


The problem is building a castle takes years and thousands of labourers unless of course you use MAGIC....but then the ability is a mute point because you hired wizards on our building project so the construction was finished by magical means. In that case you could just hire a pet wizard that you tow along on your adventures that uses his portable castle spell when you need it.

https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/castle5.htm


Stabby McSoldier: "Suprise! Look at that huge castle I built in case we needed to repell an Orcish invasion"

Willy the Wizard "Wow, awesomely cool...how long have you been working on it?"

Stabby McSoldier: "Only about ten years or so"

Willy the Wizard: "So you foresaw that Orcish invasion when you were fifteen and just got going....neat!"


I have nothing against meta-narrative powers, there are a number of systems that use them albeit not on such a grand scale as you are planning. The problem though is that they largely rely on "Mother, may I?"

awa
2019-07-11, 07:14 AM
There are a few ways you can use Meta narratives as hard mechanics
I use two in my home-brew

The first a character with perfect plan feat can pick two sets of items which one is the real set of items is determined whenever they want. So if they are not sure if demons or undead they can buy two sets of specialized gear and then just happen to have the correct one.

The second is they may prepare two readied actions say for example to fight defensively or set to receive a charge, allowing them to "predict" their foes actions.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-11, 08:42 AM
I have nothing against meta-narrative powers, there are a number of systems that use them albeit not on such a grand scale as you are planning. The problem though is that they largely rely on "Mother, may I?"

I guess I don't see it as very MMI because it's using established systems. There are already costs and guidelines laid out for building things, and the time a project takes. This just allows you to complete a months worth of work in a few rounds in combat, while having to respect all other restrictions. You just get it first then pay, rather than pay first and then get it.

That said I'm not using real world realistic time frames for building things. My setting does have a decent amount of low level magic around, and I'm using that as justification for why building things using money is a bit faster. Also why things can be built on the scale of something like Aror Londo from dark souls. If you lack wealth you can slow build things, but for the most part building things takes a month or less (more than a month jumps to a year, then to ten years, then a hundred and carries restrictions).

Karl Aegis
2019-07-12, 11:28 AM
I think the difference between magic and mundane is:

If conditions are right, you can accomplish your mundane task.

You can accomplish your magic task unless conditions prevent it.

Segev
2019-07-12, 11:41 AM
I think the difference between magic and mundane is:

If conditions are right, you can accomplish your mundane task.

You can accomplish your magic task unless conditions prevent it.

Not only is this bad design to build towards, but it's not true.

"I need to get through this door!"

The mundane way is to use the key, or lockpicks, or break it down. The magic way is to use knock, or gasseous form, or etherealness, or teleport, or the like.

If you lack the key or the lockpicks or something with which to break it down, the mundane way fails. If you lack the spells, the magic way fails.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-12, 12:17 PM
I think the difference between magic and mundane is:

If conditions are right, you can accomplish your mundane task.

You can accomplish your magic task unless conditions prevent it.


Not only is this bad design to build towards, but it's not true.

"I need to get through this door!"

The mundane way is to use the key, or lockpicks, or break it down. The magic way is to use knock, or gasseous form, or etherealness, or teleport, or the like.

If you lack the key or the lockpicks or something with which to break it down, the mundane way fails. If you lack the spells, the magic way fails.

It's exactly the thing that a lot of posters here complain about on the broader subject of magic in RPGs and fiction, the attitude that "mundane" means only work if working can be explained and justified, but "magic" means work unless not working is explained and justified.

And it's tied in with the idea that "magic" beating "mundane" at all things is a universal truth, when I think we've demonstrated plenty of examples to prove is not actually universally true.

Segev
2019-07-12, 12:49 PM
It's exactly the thing that a lot of posters here complain about on the broader subject of magic in RPGs and fiction, the attitude that "mundane" means only work if working can be explained and justified, but "magic" means work unless not working is explained and justified.

And it's tied in with the idea that "magic" beating "mundane" at all things is a universal truth, when I think we've demonstrated plenty of examples to prove is not actually universally true.

To an extent, this actually falls into Sanderson's Laws of Magic in a way: the reason "magic can do anything!" is so prevalent is that "magic" is rarely defined in a system when discussing it: it's just "anything you can think of."

Take Mistborn. There's magic in that (though Sanderson never calls it that) in the Allomancy and the Feruchemy and all. But all of them have well-defined rules, which means they both have limits of what they can't do as strong as any non-magical tool, and that they can conversely be used to solve problems without it seeming a deus ex machina, because you know the rules being used and the tools going into the problem.

Part of the "magic beats mundanes!" thing in RPGs tends to be that we assign "magic" to anything that exceeds what we think somebody could do IRL. And then we pretend like there's some need to keep a class of characters who never use "magic" in any way.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-12, 12:56 PM
It's exactly the thing that a lot of posters here complain about on the broader subject of magic in RPGs and fiction, the attitude that "mundane" means only work if working can be explained and justified, but "magic" means work unless not working is explained and justified.

And it's tied in with the idea that "magic" beating "mundane" at all things is a universal truth, when I think we've demonstrated plenty of examples to prove is not actually universally true.

I pretty much agree with this after the last few pages. Magic is all the justification magic needs, whereas even being smart isn't seen as a good enough justification for mundanes to pull off cool things.

Honestly I've learned that I'm not going to be able to make people that think that way happy except by removing mundane from the game entirely. So I've decided I'll make that an option in my book, so a table can remove all the things they find break their immersion.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-12, 01:11 PM
To an extent, this actually falls into Sanderson's Laws of Magic in a way: the reason "magic can do anything!" is so prevalent is that "magic" is rarely defined in a system when discussing it: it's just "anything you can think of."

Take Mistborn. There's magic in that (though Sanderson never calls it that) in the Allomancy and the Feruchemy and all. But all of them have well-defined rules, which means they both have limits of what they can't do as strong as any non-magical tool, and that they can conversely be used to solve problems without it seeming a deus ex machina, because you know the rules being used and the tools going into the problem.

Part of the "magic beats mundanes!" thing in RPGs tends to be that we assign "magic" to anything that exceeds what we think somebody could do IRL. And then we pretend like there's some need to keep a class of characters who never use "magic" in any way.


In some cases, that's part of the problem.

It also doesn't help that some try to treat "mundane" and "magic" as universal standards, rather than setting-specific standards. IMO, before anything else on the subject, the worldbuilder needs to decide what's "mundane" and what's "magic" for the world they're building, follow through on the implications of both as they affect the broader world, and so on. If the world being built doesn't mesh with the gameplay wanted, one of them needs to change.




I pretty much agree with this after the last few pages. Magic is all the justification magic needs, whereas even being smart isn't seen as a good enough justification for mundanes to pull off cool things.

Honestly I've learned that I'm not going to be able to make people that think that way happy except by removing mundane from the game entirely. So I've decided I'll make that an option in my book, so a table can remove all the things they find break their immersion.


I think you're conflating several different "objections" into one, here.

There's the objection to the very idea, "magic is all the justification that magic needs", or to the idea that "it's magic" with nothing deeper or more detailed is a panacea explanation that shuts down all inquiry.

There's the objection to the idea that "it's cool" is all the justification that a power needs, regardless of the setting specifics or broader implications of that power or ability.

There's the objection to the idea that a character can both "be mundane" and do things that are orders of magnitude outside the otherwise established "mundane scope" of the setting, without any fiction-layer underpinning.

No one that I've noticed is saying "even being smart is not a justification for doing cool things" -- the objection is to smart characters or anyone else specifically doing "cool things" that require non-linear causality, whether that's trough magic, or through player-level disassociated "player powers". And to such abilities reaching the level of ludicrous contrivance, see the "I brought shark repellent on a mission to Kansas to stop a bird-themed villain, because I'm so smart I knew we'd be facing a shark-themed villain everyone thought died last year" example upthread.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-12, 02:10 PM
No one that I've noticed is saying "even being smart is not a justification for doing cool things" -- the objection is to smart characters or anyone else specifically doing "cool things" that require non-linear causality, whether that's trough magic, or through player-level disassociated "player powers". And to such abilities reaching the level of ludicrous contrivance, see the "I brought shark repellent on a mission to Kansas to stop a bird-themed villain, because I'm so smart I knew we'd be facing a shark-themed villain everyone thought died last year" example upthread.


It's exactly the thing that a lot of posters here complain about on the broader subject of magic in RPGs and fiction, the attitude that "mundane" means only work if working can be explained and justified, but "magic" means work unless not working is explained and justified.

The issue is that I want there to be balance in my game. Now sure, early game abilities are things that can easily imagine. However as far as power level goes, I want a setting that is more magical than just low fantasy, or even high fantasy. A water mage, during a five minute short rest can at will alter their surroundings for a hundred feet in all directions into anything they want. They have the ability to create non-intelligent/non-magical creatures and items. Strength based characters can throw mountains, carry cities, and similar silly feats of strength.

I'm curious how you would have a mundane character keep up with such abilities. What would you give someone who has no super powers, no magic, no magic items, and no way of breaking the rules, that would allow them to keep up with abilities that allow the casual shaping of the world on that level? I am actually pretty curious, as more ideas means that I can give characters greater diversity.

awa
2019-07-12, 02:50 PM
I will point out that low fantasy and high fantasy have nothing to do with the power levels of the individuals involved
lord of the rings is considered the defining high fantasy story and the adventuring party in that is fairly weak compared to many latter fantasy stories.

Not all character types are appropriate to all types of stories, it sounds like the power level you are interested kinda removes normal guy as a viable archetype (assuming a serious tone).

If the game is not serious in tone than have batman pull out that shark repellent its just one more joke.

edit


No one that I've noticed is saying "even being smart is not a justification for doing cool things" -- the objection is to smart characters or anyone else specifically doing "cool things" that require non-linear causality, whether that's trough magic, or through player-level disassociated "player powers". And to such abilities reaching the level of ludicrous contrivance, see the "I brought shark repellent on a mission to Kansas to stop a bird-themed villain, because I'm so smart I knew we'd be facing a shark-themed villain everyone thought died last year" example upthread.

Yes we seem to be using a very particular definition of cool here, mundanes can do plenty of cool things and in many cases its cool because they are limited. Cool and powerful are not the same thing.

When it comes to retroactively doing things imagine you are watching a movie and then its revealed that one of the characters did something off screen now if it doesnt seem like a plot hole stretch your suspension of disbelief than its good for a mundane planner type.

Thinker
2019-07-12, 03:02 PM
The issue is that I want there to be balance in my game. Now sure, early game abilities are things that can easily imagine. However as far as power level goes, I want a setting that is more magical than just low fantasy, or even high fantasy. A water mage, during a five minute short rest can at will alter their surroundings for a hundred feet in all directions into anything they want. They have the ability to create non-intelligent/non-magical creatures and items. Strength based characters can throw mountains, carry cities, and similar silly feats of strength.

I'm curious how you would have a mundane character keep up with such abilities. What would you give someone who has no super powers, no magic, no magic items, and no way of breaking the rules, that would allow them to keep up with abilities that allow the casual shaping of the world on that level? I am actually pretty curious, as more ideas means that I can give characters greater diversity.

I think that would depend on what your game is about. If the players are expected to battle in an open arena 100 feet across, then I would agree that your character without any powers is going to have issues, assuming similar levels of combat training. If the game is about solving mysteries, maybe the mundane has abilities that let them find or analyze clues better or has a better range of contacts to call upon for help. One of my favorite mechanics from Monster of the Week, a narrative game focused on solving Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Supernatural style mysteries and monster hunts, is that of the Mundane, who grants bonus XP to anyone who rescues him and when he gets captured by the monster. He doesn't have the cool abilities of the Chosen One or the combat expertise of the Haunted, but he can cause a mess for the forces of evil just the same.

Alternatively, make all of your characters mundane and give them magical pets like Pokemon.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-12, 03:36 PM
To an extent, this actually falls into Sanderson's Laws of Magic in a way: the reason "magic can do anything!" is so prevalent is that "magic" is rarely defined in a system when discussing it: it's just "anything you can think of."

Take Mistborn. There's magic in that (though Sanderson never calls it that) in the Allomancy and the Feruchemy and all. But all of them have well-defined rules, which means they both have limits of what they can't do as strong as any non-magical tool, and that they can conversely be used to solve problems without it seeming a deus ex machina, because you know the rules being used and the tools going into the problem.

Part of the "magic beats mundanes!" thing in RPGs tends to be that we assign "magic" to anything that exceeds what we think somebody could do IRL. And then we pretend like there's some need to keep a class of characters who never use "magic" in any way.

That is my point, yes.

these terms are nebulous. both Talakeals and Max Killjoys point only work when you define the magic in specific setting terms when this is a general discussion about all magic and all mundane. but since there are different specific settings with different set ups, everyone has inherent unconscious assumptions about what is or isn't magic, how it interacts, how it should interact, and so on.

therefore absence of definition leads to magic doing anything, and magic doing anything wins. the mundane is the real world and therefore inherently defined, because often the people who mundane in other ways are criticized and shouted out for not actually being mundane. therefore while Max Killjoy says that one can determine what "mundane" is in a setting and that its dependent, its actually not, given that other people has to be sold on it being mundane. if people aren't sold on it being mundane they call it magic anyways and therefore it won't.

sure there are set ups, specific set ups, but there is no universal standard which can simplify this discussion so that better points can be had. Magic wins because its limitless or more powerful, magic loses because it doesn't exist and mundane does, neither because you specifically designed the system to be arbitrarily balanced so neither wins for sure, these are the answers the question and since they are all valid, they are all equally useless because its not a question in a set answer, which makes the question near-useless, at best to lead to better questions to answer more clearly.


The issue is that I want there to be balance in my game. Now sure, early game abilities are things that can easily imagine. However as far as power level goes, I want a setting that is more magical than just low fantasy, or even high fantasy. A water mage, during a five minute short rest can at will alter their surroundings for a hundred feet in all directions into anything they want. They have the ability to create non-intelligent/non-magical creatures and items. Strength based characters can throw mountains, carry cities, and similar silly feats of strength.

I'm curious how you would have a mundane character keep up with such abilities. What would you give someone who has no super powers, no magic, no magic items, and no way of breaking the rules, that would allow them to keep up with abilities that allow the casual shaping of the world on that level? I am actually pretty curious, as more ideas means that I can give characters greater diversity.

I would just ignore these people saying that anything beyond real world capabilities is magic and say what mundane is however you want. you already seem to have it worked out, and I personally define magic as a specific force different from martial arts, super-science or whatever else, technically yes they are beyond mundane capabilities, but they all important aesthetic and thematic differences that to me are more important than just shoving them all under an umbrella term of "magic". the only reason to put them all under the same umbrella is to say the distinction is unimportant, when if you want mundane abilities to be different yet balanced with magic, the distinction should be important even if the mundanes are supermen, as in, in a setting where its important, you can't call something magic just because its beyond normal human capability. which means magic has to have a stricter standard of what defines it beyond "a thing that normally isn't possible".

superhero settings grasp this distinction very well: superheroes have tons of abilities they get from accident or whatever. are they magic? No. magic is specifically defined with specific rules and anything outside those rules aren't magic in those settings. Doctor Strange is magical, but no one in setting ever says Spiderman is magical or particularly cares if he is, despite them both being beyond human capability, therefore Spiderman isn't magic. and I am more of the superhero mindset in that than the fantasy mindset, because there is no rule saying that the same force is behind everything in a setting or that its somehow more reasonable to refer to everything as magic just because of the internet dumbing down everything by referring to everything by their memeist most basic concept.

basically I reject referring to all super abilities as magic as its incredibly reductionist to my point of view. magic historically, has had specific thematic and mystical connotations to it beyond simply what it can do, as it there is specifics of how it does it that differs from other methods. this is my real view on the matter, I just didn't want to speak it as I don't think will care and be reductionist anyways.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-12, 04:15 PM
The issue is that I want there to be balance in my game. Now sure, early game abilities are things that can easily imagine. However as far as power level goes, I want a setting that is more magical than just low fantasy, or even high fantasy. A water mage, during a five minute short rest can at will alter their surroundings for a hundred feet in all directions into anything they want. They have the ability to create non-intelligent/non-magical creatures and items. Strength based characters can throw mountains, carry cities, and similar silly feats of strength.

I'm curious how you would have a mundane character keep up with such abilities. What would you give someone who has no super powers, no magic, no magic items, and no way of breaking the rules, that would allow them to keep up with abilities that allow the casual shaping of the world on that level? I am actually pretty curious, as more ideas means that I can give characters greater diversity.


I'm probably not the first person to ask, as mountain-throwing, reality-rewriting, city-carrying, life-creating power levels are not my RPG cup of tea.

But...

Let's set aside the terms "mundane" and "magic" for a moment, to avoid whatever baggage they have here, and use some other terms. We'll try "normal" and "extranormal", hopefully that doesn't trigger anyone. We'll use our world as an example of how to use the terms, but not as a fixed definition of the terms, because they're going to vary based on the setting we're talking about.

In our world, normal would be anything any human being has ever been able to do, including Einstein, Tesla, Usain Bolt, Pavaroti, record weight lifters and endurance runners, and any other example you can think of, with a marginal buffer to account for the little bits that records are broken by over time.

Extranormal would be anything beyond that, but to draw a big bright line, let's stick with anything an order of magnitude greater than any example, or someone who is at the limit across several or all of the categories you can think of.

So, for your setting being discussed here, what is normal for human beings (and other similar humanoid if they exist)?

What are the ways in which a character can exceed that to the degree that they're extranormal?

How does someone get strong enough to lift a mountain? In our world, that's many orders of magnitude beyond normal -- is it also that far into extranormal in your setting? Or is it within the range of "normal"?




I would just ignore these people saying that anything beyond real world capabilities is magic


I missed where someone said that, I think.

Personally, I'm saying that "magic", or "extranormal" to avoid conflation with the specific "spellcasting" subcategory of magic, begins where "normal" for the specific setting in question ends, and that part of working out the worldbuilding is deciding where that line is.

I think it has been said that where the setting is not called out as being different from the real world, it's safest to assume that many readers / viewers / gamers will default to their real world expectations.

And what I have said in the past is "magic is as magic does", which is a rejection of the dodge / fig-leaf of trying to hide clearly extranormal abilities behind a big fat "but it's not spellcasting" or "but it's not mystical" excuse. Spiderman "isn't magic", so therefore he's "mundane" -- no, Spiderman is NOT "mundane", he clearly has superpowers. But, because it's not making funny gestures and chanting and flinging bat poop at targets to make them burst into flame, people use that as "proof" that "mundanes" in settings entirely unrelated to the superheroic genre "should" have superpowers. Or people will claim that 5e Monks are "mundane" because they don't cast spells, they just "perfect their ki"... there aren't enough eye-roll or face-palm emotes for that one.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-12, 05:17 PM
Let's set aside the terms "mundane" and "magic" for a moment, to avoid whatever baggage they have here, and use some other terms. We'll try "normal" and "extranormal", hopefully that doesn't trigger anyone. We'll use our world as an example of how to use the terms, but not as a fixed definition of the terms, because they're going to vary based on the setting we're talking about.

In our world, normal would be anything any human being has ever been able to do, including Einstein, Tesla, Usain Bolt, Pavaroti, record weight lifters and endurance runners, and any other example you can think of, with a marginal buffer to account for the little bits that records are broken by over time.

Extranormal would be anything beyond that, but to draw a big bright line, let's stick with anything an order of magnitude greater than any example, or someone who is at the limit across several or all of the categories you can think of.

So, for your setting being discussed here, what is normal for human beings (and other similar humanoid if they exist)?

Pretty much everything outside of Sorcery and some bloodlines. Mages in my setting are just normal people that work really hard to copy the powers that Sorcerers wield. Nothing is impossible. This is even seen in the system itself where you can pick up extra classes to add to your character later on. Player characters gestalt three classes, but they can increase that number at the cost of ability points.

That said, we are talking about the absolute highest levels of achievement here. Just because in the real world sprinters can run a hundred meter dash in less then 10 seconds doesn't mean most people can. In the same way most people are level 0-3, the Mortal tier. These can still include impressive feats by our standards but are fairly common to see in the setting. The equivalent of Olympic athletes would be around lvl 15. Players Characters can of course go beyond even that, because at the end of the day,

I like it when Player Characters can be the strongest things in the setting. Going past lvl 15 is similar to when Goku goes super saiyan. Its something that there are legends about, but there are no current examples. Still, it's normal according to your definition.


What are the ways in which a character can exceed that to the degree that they're extranormal?

I suppose with a lot of experience and practice. There is no hard line in the sand for the most part, and instead it's a gradient. Is it immediately obvious if someone is smarter than Einstein? If they came up with more and better theories just a bit more often, would that be immediately obvious? Generally, lvl 16+ is just a blooming of the powers that each class gets from the lower tiers. Like before, but even more so is my unofficial motto.


How does someone get strong enough to lift a mountain? In our world, that's many orders of magnitude beyond normal -- is it also that far into extranormal in your setting? Or is it within the range of "normal"?

It's at the very edge of the range of normal. Lifting a hill is more likely. Something with a max diameter of a quarter mile (and it would take a while to do).

At the end of the day, I call classes 'Concepts' for a reason. They are meant to play into tropes that people think about when they want to build a character. Some people enjoy the trope of someone who fits in better with what we call normal in our world but can compete with those much stronger than them. I would point to Batman for an example, or even Iron Man. I want to present options that play to those fantasies. This is why I have a 'Wealth' class. It's there because the idea of playing a rich character is really cool. It's abilities are focused around the idea of 'Cool' and 'Balanced' rather than trying to explain every thing about why a trope like being rich works and where all the money comes from.

I do feel like i'm not doing as well as I had hoped however. I wanted something to fill the fantasy of people like batman, or the nameless soldier that eventually becomes a main character in charge of a massive army, and I think instead I'm pushing the suspension of disbelief to far. I really do need to think on this some more.

Quertus
2019-07-12, 06:04 PM
even being smart isn't seen as a good enough justification for mundanes to pull off cool things.


The issue is that I want there to be balance in my game.

You have created a thread about aesthetics (the aesthetics of being mundane).

You have attempted to create balance, and been called on doing so via a heavily disliked aesthetic (retcon and contrivance).

If you are unable to understand objections to aesthetics, it does not bode well for you achieving your stated purpose with this thread.

Allow me to reiterate my alternate aesthetics of Intellect:



If you want to help my character seem smart without making me want to flip the table, consider the spectrum between "data" and "wisdom":

The temperature is 77 degrees.

That is hotter than it should be this time of year in this region.

Something must be causing this heat.

Before I investigate, I should… / in order to investigate, I will need…

You could start further down that list when describing the scene to particularly smart (wise) characters, and/or you could help them navigate their way down that list.

Heck, if you wanted to make me believe that my character felt "smart", you could give me extra data (hand me monster Manuel stat blocks), or provide me with wisdom (they seem to be trying to herd you towards that large rock).

-----

There are two techniques I've used to drive home someone's intellect or expertise.

The first is to describe the scene as pure data to the rest of the party, and get their responses. Then describe to, say, the Ranger how there's deadly nightshade, poison ivy, an owl's nest, a great place for snakes to hide, a place that will flood when it storms tonight, etc. This really drivers home the difference between the trained and untrained eye. All that information was there in your data-level description, as the players can see when you go for "round 2", but the untrained PCs were unable to process it.

The second is to *only* describe the scene to the expert. If Superman is the only one with X-ray vision, then he's the only one who can see what's going on. Same principle. Sometimes, only the doctor will have any chance to recognize those symptoms mean something, only the Monk will recognize that stance means something, etc.

Both techniques should be used sparingly, but, done right, I find them an acceptable way to emphasize intellect, training, and experience.

Now, that said, you used the keyword "cool" when taking about muggles having nice things. That's tricky, because different people will find different things to be cool. Obviously, many of us find retcon powers decidedly uncool, to the tune of "don't want it in our games". So, what else is "cool" and "clever"?

Hmmm… how about Sherlock Holmes? Being able to observe so many details, that they can answer a number of (yes/no?) questions about a person, a scene, a creature, a dungeon, whatever. As you walk towards the crypt, "Holmes" warns that there's (probably) a Large Green Dragon sleeping nearby. How does he know? Well, the Green Dragon's breath weapon adds these minerals to the soil / had this effect on the plane life. There have been several areas like that - sized in accordance with a Large dragon's breath - nearby, becoming more frequent as we grow closer to the tomb. Etc etc.

What else is cool? Hmmm… inventing custom spells (Quertus), tech (Iron Man), maneuvers (Miyamoto Musashi), etc.

What else? Predicting how your opponent fights, or what powers/talents/whatever they have, from trivial data, like the cut or wear of their clothes, or where their attention is (again, more Holmes-style analysis).

I'm sure there's plenty more ways to make a character seem clever without resorting to contrivance.

Cluedrew
2019-07-12, 06:12 PM
I have lost track of even what we are trying to talk about.

My best guess is: Can a "magic system" exist in a setting so that it both impacts the setting and does not overshadow the rest of it?

Yes, of course. "Magic can do anything" has an often overlooked other side "magic can not do anything". In other-words it can have any limitation or price you an think of as well. For instance a type of telepath popped into my head during this conversation, they had to speak to activate their abilities so they could only transmit sounds they could reproduce to others*. Great, that isn't nearly enough to override the entire postal service as they can't do pictures or objects even if they could speak fast enough.

So if you give magic limits and rules, you can do it quite easily. If you leave magic open ended (a lot of settings in media do, but most aren't about world building) you can end up with magic that overwhelms all other options, but you don't have to do that.

* And there were also limitations on who could receive the message but we will ignore that for now.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-12, 07:35 PM
You have created a thread about aesthetics (the aesthetics of being mundane).

You have attempted to create balance, and been called on doing so via a heavily disliked aesthetic (retcon and contrivance).

If you are unable to understand objections to aesthetics, it does not bode well for you achieving your stated purpose with this thread.
You're saying that contrivance is not the way to go, and I get that. Like you literally ignored my last post where I said:

I wanted something to fill the fantasy of people like batman, or the nameless soldier that eventually becomes a main character in charge of a massive army, and I think instead I'm pushing the suspension of disbelief to far. I really do need to think on this some more.

I don't know why you're misrepresenting what I said, but I find it a bit annoying to be honest.


Now, that said, you used the keyword "cool" when taking about muggles having nice things. That's tricky, because different people will find different things to be cool. Obviously, many of us find retcon powers decidedly uncool, to the tune of "don't want it in our games". So, what else is "cool" and "clever"?

Hmmm… how about Sherlock Holmes? Being able to observe so many details, that they can answer a number of (yes/no?) questions about a person, a scene, a creature, a dungeon, whatever. As you walk towards the crypt, "Holmes" warns that there's (probably) a Large Green Dragon sleeping nearby. How does he know? Well, the Green Dragon's breath weapon adds these minerals to the soil / had this effect on the plane life. There have been several areas like that - sized in accordance with a Large dragon's breath - nearby, becoming more frequent as we grow closer to the tomb. Etc etc.

First of all, yeah, that's already in the game. Many different classes have access to such abilities. But I'll ask you a question. Sherlock Holmes goes up against someone who can move a quarter mile instantaneously, and can spy on him from the other side of the planet, and can nuke him from the other side of the planet. How does Sherlock win? Sherlock is in a crew with people that can throw mountains, create black holes, move miles in an instant, transform into quarter mile sized bosses, become gods and the like. What does Sherlock do that can protect him from that, or have impact on the game that's anywhere near that scale?

This is the part you keep ignoring is the need for balance. The ability to learn facts is cool, but it doesn't really help when someone can scry and fry you from the other side of the world with no warning. It doesn't help you effect the world when your comrades are doing epic battles and you can't even reach the opponents because combat is moving so fast that people are jumping through debris that has been thrown into the air from each explosion. Sure, it's cool, but it's doesn't allow you to contribute to combat, or changing the world, or anything like that.




What else is cool? Hmmm… inventing custom spells (Quertus), tech (Iron Man), maneuvers (Miyamoto Musashi), etc.
All in the game, and available as default options. Spells are not mundane, so we'll ignore that for now. Instead let's focus on maneuvers. So I have right now a class that's all about building custom maneuvers, because as you said that's pretty cool. However the thing is to keep up with other classes these manuvers allow things like cutting mountains in half, or cutting peoples souls in half. If you tried to have it at a 'Mundane' level, or a guy at the gym level, no matter how cool they are, in the end game they would be useless. having a movement speed of 30' and an attack range of 5' is not really useful on battlefields where people are moving a half mile a round and attacking areas that are miles wide. You just lack the speed, range, and strength to keep up.

Now I'm up for ideas, but it needs to have quick effects on large areas with large areas of reach.

I agree with what you are saying is cool, but using it doesn't create characters that are mundane.


What else? Predicting how your opponent fights, or what posts they have, from trivial data, like the cut or wear of their clothes, or where their attention is (again, more Holmes-style analysis).

Again, these are already in the system, as are ways to take advantage of them. I've even prototyped a few ideas for Int character that rely on getting certain things to happen to trigger impressive effects.

But dude, even in dnd, what is a high insight score worth compared to unlimited uses of wish, simulacrum, and contingency? Really?


I'm sure there's plenty more ways to make a character seem clever without resorting to contrivance.

I'd be glad to hear them, considering you haven't listed a single one that I haven't thought of and implemented yet.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-12, 08:50 PM
First of all, yeah, that's already in the game. Many different classes have access to such abilities. But I'll ask you a question. Sherlock Holmes goes up against someone who can move a quarter mile instantaneously, and can spy on him from the other side of the planet, and can nuke him from the other side of the planet. How does Sherlock win? Sherlock is in a crew with people that can throw mountains, create black holes, move miles in an instant, transform into quarter mile sized bosses, become gods and the like. What does Sherlock do that can protect him from that, or have impact on the game that's anywhere near that scale?

This is the part you keep ignoring is the need for balance. The ability to learn facts is cool, but it doesn't really help when someone can scry and fry you from the other side of the world with no warning. It doesn't help you effect the world when your comrades are doing epic battles and you can't even reach the opponents because combat is moving so fast that people are jumping through debris that has been thrown into the air from each explosion. Sure, it's cool, but it's doesn't allow you to contribute to combat, or changing the world, or anything like that.


Honestly, I agree with this notion.

The people arguing against you, I've been doing so for years and honestly? They don't care about what you and I care about, high level power stuff or the balancing it with people who don't have magic.

because I've never seen them provide adequate solutions to this from their perspective. their perspective is that magic is everything high level and that anything standing up to high level magic is also magic.

but lets try and work within these limitations. screw ki, screw magic, screw psionics and so on, what can a mundane person do against high levels?

here is an idea: all this high level power? it has a cost: social skills. all these powerful beings tend not to be good at talking and negotiating, thats why they have fireballs instead. but you can't get everything in life by killing and or mind controlling people. got to know when to leave off or something other people is going to take issue with your lack of social graces and inability to be civilized.

so what can the mundane person do? well, they can convince the high level to not attack in the first place. they can convince them to do other things with logical, reasonable arguments and charisma, like any person can to any other person. and they can become so politically and legally powerful that its a bad idea to kill them even though they can.

now, this doesn't really work on murderhobos who don't care for consequences at all. you have to make sure the group buys in to this level of verisimilitude, that someone can be politically, socially or economically important to not kill or tick off even though they don't have magic themselves, that there are some people who by killing you only make a situation worse rather than better. these mundane politician ruler people, they can do things that no magical person can do, even without retcon powers.

now, theoretically yes, a wizard overlord can go overthrow some some other person and establish themselves as a magical tyrant, but that doesn't give them legitimacy, nor does it give them the knowledge of law, or how to manage a kingdoms finances, the peoples love, or peoples willing to work or negotiate with them, or people to do the paperwork for them, or any else along those lines. magic does not last beyond that overlord. after all, they are singular absolute ruler wizard whose genius isn't replicable, they could seek immortality, make apprentices, but even immortality is delaying it until someone successfully kills you, and apprentices aren't always as bright. whereas a proper mundane ruler establishes cultures and laws that people believe in and agree with, that they pass on to others and start projects that other people continue that anyone can contribute to, they can convince people to shift their cultures in ways that magical superbeings can't, they have the freedom to not be bound by their power, to make this and that happen, because they are simply good enough to convince people to do it, not genius batman ultra good....just.....good. reasonable. logical. sensible.

because maybe the person isn't batman or some messiah, or anything....but as real life shows, you don't have to be such people, to be well loved, to be a good politician or businessman, to be a reasonable human being, to be important enough to be protected, to be a diplomat, to be someone that with their decisions changes the world for better or for worse. all you have to do, is make sure that no amount of magical superpowers can replace or achieve someone being sociable, people-savvy and socially important.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-12, 08:53 PM
because I've never seen them provide adequate solutions to this from their perspective. their perspective is that magic is everything high level and that anything standing up to high level magic is also magic.


That's such a gross misrepresentation of my position that I don't even know where to begin.

Never mind the undounded assumption of "levels".

Jakinbandw
2019-07-12, 09:55 PM
Here is an idea: all this high level power? it has a cost: social skills. all these powerful beings tend not to be good at talking and negotiating, thats why they have fireballs instead. but you can't get everything in life by killing and or mind controlling people. got to know when to leave off or something other people is going to take issue with your lack of social graces and inability to be civilized.

so what can the mundane person do? well, they can convince the high level to not attack in the first place. they can convince them to do other things with logical, reasonable arguments and charisma, like any person can to any other person. and they can become so politically and legally powerful that its a bad idea to kill them even though they can.

This is one of my 3 mundane classes so far actually. Behold the Noble!



Noble


Nobles are land holders, giving them the right of rule over the lands they hold. They have connections to other nobility and the courts where they meet are often places of treachery and backstabbing hidden under a facade of kind words and friendly faces. Wealth rule, and prestige await those lucky enough to be born noble, or rise to nobility through deeds.
Nobles gain +2 to spirit, (This bonus don’t stack with others). They also gain a small mob of loyal level 0 retainers to serve them, cooking for them, setting up resting places, and carrying their supplies for them. If they are taken out you can either have them healed, or recruit more after a long rest. Nobles also set either their Wisdom or Charisma to 16, or 18 if that stat is already 16




Mortal

The Law (Action/Ongoing)
When you speak your words have the weight of law behind them. You may exert effort and make a declaration to any non nobility around. This declaration is treated as if it were a law for the next five minutes. You may sustain effort when you make the declaration to keep the effect going for as long as you sustain it.

Gossip Master (Action)
You may exert effort to immediately learn one fact about a noble, noble held lands, events hosted, or effecting nobles relevant to your current situation as judged by the GM. This does not give you any facts that a noble actually has.

Tear Down (Action)
You use your cutting wit to insult and ridicule a target. Exert effort make a social attack at your target with advantage. This effect is not subtle, but is not considered a violent act.

Public Persona (Constant/Supplemental)
You have a particular way you present yourself to the general public. You may choose if they respect your persona, or fear it. In addition while dealing with those not of a higher tier, who are not noble you may burn effort to receive a favour from them as they do what you ask because of either respect or fear.

Friendly Support (Constant)
During a short rest you may burn effort to heal a willing target of an ego wound they have taken. If they allow this they owe you a favour.

Wealth Befitting the Station (Constant)
As long as you are in a place where your authority as a noble is recognized you have access to a point of wealth during your downtime. This increases to two wealth if you have a heroic ability, three wealth if you have an epic ability, and four wealth if you have a divine ability.




Heroic

Right of Claim (Constant)
If another noble owes you a generic favour you may demand that favour be paid in land. If it is not a small favour the land must be usable, and if you are calling in a major favour you may choose what land to request. If they owe you a life debt you may require they become your vassal, effectively granting you control or all land they own.

Stiff Upper Lip (Instant)
Exert effort to gain advantage on saves against social attacks. In addition you may exert effort when someone tries to learn facts about you. They learn one fewer fact than they normally would if they are higher tier, and learn nothing if they are lower tier.

Wise Rule (Constant)
Places under you authority flourish. If you do not use any wealth from a trade network you control for a month for the next month that trade network gains the ‘Prosperous’ resource and thus produces an extra point of wealth for changes. You may instead pull an extra wealth out of the trade network for a change you would not be able to normally afford by overtaxing it. The trade network gains the ‘Overtaxed’ fact if it doesn’t already have it, and it produces only half as much wealth for the next two months. If you overtax an already overtaxed trade network the duration on overtaxed resets to another two months.

A Warm Smile (Ongoing/Action)
You give others a warm smile and let them know you are their friend. While you sustain effort other nobility will offer you small favours related to friendly conduct as long as they don’t have a reason to dislike you. As an action you may exert effort to open up and share one fact of you choosing with a target willing to engage socially with you. You learn two facts of theirs that the GM judges you would be most interested in.

A Wicked Tongue (Constant/Instant)
You may make up a fake fact about your character. That fact does not benefit you, but whenever someone attempts to use it against you you may exert effort to have them automatically fail on whatever they were using it for. When someone attempts to learn a fact of yours, you may burn effort to have them learn the fake fact instead. If you have an epic ability you may have two fake facts, and if you have a divine ability you may have four fake facts.

A Knife in the Back (Action)
If a noble target likes you and owes you at least a favour you can set them up for a fall. You may burn effort and suggest a ruinous course of action, and if they fail a DC30 fact check to realize the flaw in your suggestion they follow it. In one month they are brought to ruin and they and all under them lose all their wealth, and are removed from the nobility. Even if they pass the fact check they are not aware of your hostile intent, though this does use up the favour they owed you.




Epic

High Value Target (Constant)
You are considered a high value target by any intelligent creatures, either for what you know, or the ransom they could get for you. If possible they will try to subdue you non-lethally and take you captive. This is represented any attack that you would be a target of has disadvantage if made by an intelligent creature. An individual that has a fact about killing instead of capturing may exert effort to ignore this effect.

Above the Law (Supplemental)
Exert effort when you break the law. You are considered to have not broken that law as long as any that would be directly harmed are a lower social standing than you.

House Guard (Constant/Action)
You have small mob of loyal guardsmen that follow you around and protect you from anything that would threaten you harm. They have attack and damage equal to half your level and defense and saves equal to your level. You may use your action to use them as a weapon, attacking with advantage all targets your choose within 100 feet of them using bows if necessary. This attack uses your combat stats for attack and damage and counts as if using a two handed weapon. While you are among them if you would take stress you may instead lose access to this ability until your next long rest, having them take the hit instead of you.

Spy Network (Action)
You have a network of spies at your beck and call. You may burn effort to learn a fact about a location, or to learn up to 3 facts about any individual or organization. If any of the facts are false you learn how many facts you received are false, though not which ones were actually true. You learn the facts that the GM feels would be most useful to your current goals. If you target the same target a second time you learn the same three facts again, unless one has changed.

Persuasive Speech (Supplemental)
If you exert effort while attempting a persuasion attempt the target must make a spirit save against your persuasion attempt with disadvantage. Even if they succeed on their spirit save they you learn what fact they used to resist you and may try a different tact without waiting for them to take a long rest.

Long Term planning (Constant)
With a month of downtime you may spend wealth to create a new industry in land you control. This may be only up to a tier 2 industry, but it ties into the rest of your trade network, permanently increasing the wealth that your trade network generates from then on. If you have a Divine gift you may make up to a tier 4 industry instead.




Divine

Control the Populace (Constant)
Your lands never suffer organized uprisings from militias or armed insurgents. Rabble rousers in you lands will find their attempts to ferment revolt rebuked. This effect is tinged by how your subjects view you. If they like you this effect is because of love and respect. If they dislike you it is because of fear or apathy.

Mass Conscription (Ongoing)
You have weapons and armor enough to equip any number of conscripts ready to go. While you sustain effort you may conscript any population center under your control into an army over the course of a day. They are properly armed with any weapon you wish, and inspired to the point where they count as an army of veterans. If you sustain an additional two effort when you recruit them any loses they would sustain are far less than expected. If you win, then all are raised back to full health in a weeks time, with magic if necessary. If you lose, instead of being wiped out they lose only a fifth of their number and retreat out of danger, dispersing into the surrounding countryside.

Shrewd (Constant/Supplemental)
You know if anyone working for you would be plotting your downfall, or wish you harm. Additionally when interacting with someone socially you may exert effort to know their true intentions for the interaction. Finally you have mastered the art of writing legal documents, and you burn effort whenever one gets discussed at a later date. If you do, the fine print of that contract has it interpreted in the most favorable light for you

Fully Operational Bureaucracy (Action/Constant)
You are always aware of everything important going on in any territory you control. As an action you may exert effort to give an order to any official under your command, no matter where they are, or to know everything they know. The GM advises you of any events or situations that would be important for you to know when you choose this ability, and advises you when they change, end, or new situations arise.

Inspiring Leader (Action/Ongoing)
As an action you may give a speech to any number of mobs that can hear you and sustain effort for each mob you wish to effect. While you sustain effort those mobs have their attacks, damage, defense, and Saves boosted to be equal to yours. While you have a mob boosted in this way you may commit effort to use them as a weapon, dealing damage as a two handed weapon to any targets you choose within their weapon range.

Knives in the Dark (Action)
You call on an assassin to strike down a target silently. An assassin under you command arrives at a location you are aware of and make a standard attack at one target you designate. This counts as you making a magic attack at the target. The attack automatically hits, and the target may not auto succeed on their save. After making this attack the assassin drops back into hiding, waiting to be called on again and escaping unharmed.


I honestly just posted this to give an idea of what a single class looks like. This is the least retconny of all my mundane classes, so it seemed like a decent one to use as an example.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-12, 10:18 PM
This is one of my 3 mundane classes so far actually. Behold the Noble!

I honestly just posted this to give an idea of what a single class looks like. This is the least retconny of all my mundane classes, so it seemed like a decent one to use as an example.

Awesome.

Have you ever tried playing Exalted? this class reminds me very much of the Eclipse Caste Solars in how they work, like many of these are just 1:1 with Eclipse caste charms.

Quertus
2019-07-12, 10:55 PM
You're saying that contrivance is not the way to go, and I get that. Like you literally ignored my last post where I said:


I don't know why you're misrepresenting what I said, but I find it a bit annoying to be honest.

Posting from my phone; posts after 5(ish) didn't exist when I loaded the page for my reply. So, I didn't ignore it - it simply didn't exist.

Now, technically, I'm not calling retcon powers BadWrongFun - I am simply underscoring that the corresponding contrivance doesn't have a place at numerous tables. And asking if the game still stands up without such abilities. For example, if you cannot have "Wealth" without getting retcon powers, you have failed.


First of all, yeah, that's already in the game. Many different classes have access to such abilities. But I'll ask you a question. Sherlock Holmes goes up against someone who can move a quarter mile instantaneously, and can spy on him from the other side of the planet, and can nuke him from the other side of the planet. How does Sherlock win? Sherlock is in a crew with people that can throw mountains, create black holes, move miles in an instant, transform into quarter mile sized bosses, become gods and the like. What does Sherlock do that can protect him from that, or have impact on the game that's anywhere near that scale?

This is the part you keep ignoring is the need for balance. The ability to learn facts is cool, but it doesn't really help when someone can scry and fry you from the other side of the world with no warning.

"No warning? Well, I suppose inferior minds thought that there was 'no warning', but I knew when and where he was going to appear before he did. It would be obvious to anyone with half a clue, once they stopped and thought about it."

Honestly, I've done stuff like this with nothing but player skills, passing notes to the GM telling them what I was preparing for, and eventually the other player(s) came to the obvious forgone conclusion, and fell into my trap.

And, with the right GMs, I've done the same to their NPCs, too, by leaving said note visible on the table, and unfolding and showing it off when the GM had the NPC pull their "unpredictable" "surprise" move.


It doesn't help you effect the world when your comrades are doing epic battles and you can't even reach the opponents because combat is moving so fast that people are jumping through debris that has been thrown into the air from each explosion. Sure, it's cool, but it's doesn't allow you to contribute to combat, or changing the world, or anything like that.

Knowing what people will do, one could emulate Wealth through stock markets / trade / whatever. And wealth allows you to change the world.

More importantly, you can just see how the world will change if no one touched it, how it is changing, how therefore someone must have touched it, therefore who exists that can touch it and change the world (and what their relevant abilities and motivations are), and what you could do to change their focus. Really, there's few better abilities to change the world than simply understanding it.

As for combat… Armus, knowing that he was dealing with such opposition well beyond him, observed the creature's flight, evaluated the terrain, determined where the creature would land, and set an array of invisible, poisonous spikes in the landing zone.


All in the game, and available as default options. Spells are not mundane, so we'll ignore that for now. Instead let's focus on maneuvers. So I have right now a class that's all about building custom maneuvers, because as you said that's pretty cool.

It is cool. However, it is the… hmmm… intersection of the "Innovation" class and the <whatever other talent> that should produce new things. Wizards don't make new spells - innovative Wizards do.

So, a class that just "makes new maneuvers", independent of Intellect or Innovation, IMO cheapens the Crafty classes. Or it may, depending on the implementation.


However the thing is to keep up with other classes these manuvers allow things like cutting mountains in half, or cutting peoples souls in half.

Egads. Armus just needed poison, some spikes, and a way to spam invisibility (or naturally invisible spikes, or self-invisibling spikes).

Perhaps you should look at what (the less campy versions of) Batman, or Sherlock Holmes, or that guy who outsmarted Dr. Manhattan, actually needed in order to be major players.


If you tried to have it at a 'Mundane' level, or a guy at the gym level, no matter how cool they are, in the end game they would be useless. having a movement speed of 30' and an attack range of 5' is not really useful on battlefields where people are moving a half mile a round and attacking areas that are miles wide. You just lack the speed, range, and strength to keep up.

So you make them come to you. Or have already predicted where they will be. Or the battle is simply a distraction, to allow you to accomplish your real goal. Or… etc etc.


Now I'm up for ideas, but it needs to have quick effects on large areas with large areas of reach.

I agree with what you are saying is cool, but using it doesn't create characters that are mundane.



Again, these are already in the system, as are ways to take advantage of them. I've even prototyped a few ideas for Int character that rely on getting certain things to happen to trigger impressive effects.

I may need to go back for context here.


But dude, even in dnd, what is a high insight score worth compared to unlimited uses of wish, simulacrum, and contingency? Really?

Armus has accomplished more in combat by moving to protect someone with better defenses (better AC, more HP), than Quertus has with his functionally unlimited casting of free 2e Simulacrum.


I'd be glad to hear them, considering you haven't listed a single one that I haven't thought of and implemented yet.

Context… more ideas? Ah. Hmmm… let's just say that I'm not the "friendly testers" (who were killed by project ducky) when it comes to the details of how you (may have) implemented said ideas. So, while you may have implemented them already, that doesn't mean that they are implemented well, let alone optimally.

The more details you give me, the more I can be a ****, and bash on your ideas, so that you can think about how to improve the game. (EDIT - and I see that you've posted a sample class. I suppose I'll look at that for my next post)

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-12, 11:06 PM
Pretty much everything outside of Sorcery and some bloodlines. Mages in my setting are just normal people that work really hard to copy the powers that Sorcerers wield. Nothing is impossible. This is even seen in the system itself where you can pick up extra classes to add to your character later on. Player characters gestalt three classes, but they can increase that number at the cost of ability points.

That said, we are talking about the absolute highest levels of achievement here. Just because in the real world sprinters can run a hundred meter dash in less then 10 seconds doesn't mean most people can. In the same way most people are level 0-3, the Mortal tier. These can still include impressive feats by our standards but are fairly common to see in the setting. The equivalent of Olympic athletes would be around lvl 15. Players Characters can of course go beyond even that, because at the end of the day,

I like it when Player Characters can be the strongest things in the setting. Going past lvl 15 is similar to when Goku goes super saiyan. Its something that there are legends about, but there are no current examples. Still, it's normal according to your definition.



I suppose with a lot of experience and practice. There is no hard line in the sand for the most part, and instead it's a gradient. Is it immediately obvious if someone is smarter than Einstein? If they came up with more and better theories just a bit more often, would that be immediately obvious? Generally, lvl 16+ is just a blooming of the powers that each class gets from the lower tiers. Like before, but even more so is my unofficial motto.



It's at the very edge of the range of normal. Lifting a hill is more likely. Something with a max diameter of a quarter mile (and it would take a while to do).

At the end of the day, I call classes 'Concepts' for a reason. They are meant to play into tropes that people think about when they want to build a character. Some people enjoy the trope of someone who fits in better with what we call normal in our world but can compete with those much stronger than them. I would point to Batman for an example, or even Iron Man. I want to present options that play to those fantasies. This is why I have a 'Wealth' class. It's there because the idea of playing a rich character is really cool. It's abilities are focused around the idea of 'Cool' and 'Balanced' rather than trying to explain every thing about why a trope like being rich works and where all the money comes from.

I do feel like i'm not doing as well as I had hoped however. I wanted something to fill the fantasy of people like batman, or the nameless soldier that eventually becomes a main character in charge of a massive army, and I think instead I'm pushing the suspension of disbelief to far. I really do need to think on this some more.


The part I bolded is why parts of my feedback won't be super useful for you -- I'm intensely interested in and concerned with things like "where all that money comes from", and when there is no answer, or the answer is contradictory with other facts or answers of the setting, or the implications of the answer are not followed through with... it ruins the game or the work of fiction for me.

As an example, the sprinter -- compare typical good times for high school sprinters to the world record.... it's not that far off, and there are 1000s and 1000s of kids running track in high school who can run a good 100 meter time. It's not orders of magnitude between "world's best" and "thousands of high school kids". So when you say "this character can run 10x faster for 10x longer than Usain Bolt", that doesn't strike me as "he just trained harder", that strikes me as saying there's something fundamentally different about the people of your fictional world... and my brain expects to see the follow through, and keeps coming back to that if the follow-through isn't there, instead of getting engrossed in the game or in the work of fiction.

Don't show me a quasi-Eurasian medievaloid setting that looks pretty much like Earth in that general span of time and space, with people who look and act and show capabilities just like the people who lived in that span of time and space... and then tell me that population somehow produces these people who just somehow blow all the implied limits to smithereens "just because".

I'm not saying you have to build your world around that, or structure your system around it, or play your game based on it... but that's where some of the posters here are coming from.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-12, 11:45 PM
Well, thats the unanswerable question of such "just that good" characters, Max.

because the entire point of such a character....is to NOT answer the question of where that broken limit comes from. let me explain:
Saitama. The One Punch Man. somehow inexplicably becomes godlike unbeatable through a normal workout of 100 pushups, sit ups and running five miles or so. doesn't make sense. but it works. do we dwell on where it comes from? No.

because the entire point of such power is in the achievement of it. that from nothing, they became something. that the built themselves from normality to something that can affect things without some outside force saying they can. why is this so important?

because Goku. why is Goku important to this? because originally, he was human who just so happened to turn into a monkey at the full moon and it was fine, because other human characters could still contribute, but then it was revealed he was a saiyan. that he had this advantageous alien biology that just made sure he surpasses his friends forever and suddenly all the humans fell by the wayside for saiyans and their bull supersaiyan powers. and as Z and Super keep going on, the more clear it becomes that humans just can't catch up no matter how much they train. this is saddening, because they are there....but they don't contribute even though they're characters and friends with the protagonist, the whole thing devolves into the Goku and Vegeta Show. same with the Naruto and Sasuke Show, starring two guys who are rivals, featuring arc villains who don't last and guest-starring all their friends from time to time. this because they kept giving these two guys power up after power up like a special eye or a demon inside him.
so of course, anyone without special eyes or demons can't contribute. hm.

as soon as you put something like that into a setting, you make people assume that its needed to be an important person to the plot. and when such powers become the signifier of PC-Hood, suddenly anyone without it isn't important. all because these upgrades were introduced to explain WHY these people what they do so that other people CAN'T.

when said achievement has an explanation, suddenly no other character can do it, because then you require everyone to have that explanation to do it again.

contrast that, with Batman. there is no explanation for all that does, he just....does it. so when Robin and such so on do similar things thanks to his teachings...its not a surprise or inconsistent. of course someone trained by Batman can do that if Batman does it. they're Batman. if you say Batman needs more of a reason to be achieve all the things he does as batman, like super-genetics, or some cybernetic enhancement or whatever....suddenly all the Robins, Bat girls, and so on would need the same thing just to stay relevant. but with Just That Good? nah, you don't need to make sure everyone has this stupid super-special upgrade. people can just be awesome because they worked for it, because they tried their hardest and it paid off, because its something that can be passed on and make more heroes out of it, forging a legacy and being more fair to the other characters. to the point where it wouldn't be surprising if Batman adopted five moody kids to teach as a premise for a roleplaying game and they were all Batkids fighting crime, but its far more implausible if five kryptonians somehow survived krypton and much more implausible that would know to find Superman to learn how to hold back their powers, if they know they have them at all, given how kryptonian powers work.

the entire point of such characters is not to say "why can he achieve that?" because that inevitably leads to the character being ruined by their abilities being explained some force that is probably magical and suddenly they're no longer an inspiration about what someone can achieve through hard work. by explaining it, you take away the achievement. and the achievement of it is the entire point. because then its no longer about their skill and will, their human ability and their determination to achieve it, but some invisible hidden force propping them up and making them believe its all their own doing when its not. because anyone can pick up and be a swordmaster if the magical sword is making you better at swording, but if its all you? thats something far more special and meaningful. the question that is asked instead by the character is "Why not?"

Anymage
2019-07-12, 11:45 PM
But I'll ask you a question. Sherlock Holmes goes up against someone who can move a quarter mile instantaneously, and can spy on him from the other side of the planet, and can nuke him from the other side of the planet. How does Sherlock win? Sherlock is in a crew with people that can throw mountains, create black holes, move miles in an instant, transform into quarter mile sized bosses, become gods and the like. What does Sherlock do that can protect him from that, or have impact on the game that's anywhere near that scale?

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Tony Stark can survive super-level conflicts because of his suit, but having a super suit is more a gadgeteer thing than an epic mundane thing. Doctor Doom can "survive" by sending robots in his stead, but again that doesn't seem like an epic mundane's shtick.

I get the character type you're going for. Havelock Vetinari and John Marcone are extraordinarily competent, clever, and connected while still within the limits of human potential. However, the latter rarely gets into scrapes, while the former never does. They survive by trying to be well away from any major confrontation. And while I'm sure there are ways that you could institute a "clever escape" sort of power that lets super influential but physically mundane types be far away from the battlefield, running the influence game while staying well away from any active adventures sounds like it'd be a drag at the table.

Games with point-based character generation will often mention that everybody should have some baseline combat competence, because fights have a way of happening in games having your character bleed out in the first session isn't much fun. It's up to you whether you want to technically allow Vetinari and just warn people that playing him might well require sitting out of the active bits of the story, or just flat-out acknowledge that archetype is better suited to NPCs and insist that PC types have some ability to handle themselves when it's time to throw down.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-13, 01:55 AM
Awesome.

Have you ever tried playing Exalted? this class reminds me very much of the Eclipse Caste Solars in how they work, like many of these are just 1:1 with Eclipse caste charms.

I did once. I had a bad GM for the game. That said, this aims to be a game that is a bit simpler to build characters for, and a bit faster for combat resolution. Also aims to have systems for changing the entire world.


Posting from my phone; posts after 5(ish) didn't exist when I loaded the page for my reply. So, I didn't ignore it - it simply didn't exist.

Now, technically, I'm not calling retcon powers BadWrongFun - I am simply underscoring that the corresponding contrivance doesn't have a place at numerous tables. And asking if the game still stands up without such abilities. For example, if you cannot have "Wealth" without getting retcon powers, you have failed.

You can have wealth without retcon powers. It's just loses out on some of its big nukes so to



"No warning? Well, I suppose inferior minds thought that there was 'no warning', but I knew when and where he was going to appear before he did. It would be obvious to anyone with half a clue, once they stopped and thought about it."

Honestly, I've done stuff like this with nothing but player skills, passing notes to the GM telling them what I was preparing for, and eventually the other player(s) came to the obvious forgone conclusion, and fell into my trap.

And, with the right GMs, I've done the same to their NPCs, too, by leaving said note visible on the table, and unfolding and showing it off when the GM had the NPC pull their "unpredictable" "surprise" move.

Cool, and how do you let the dumbest person you've ever seen at the table play at that level?

Sure knowledge is good, but it doesn't help if you can't fight someone. I know you like traps, but retconning a trap into existence is still a retcon. And if you think it's easy to do, then what about people that don't have to come to you to fight? What about the guy who throws a mountain at you? He's not coming to your trap, he's fighting you from his place of power. I don't think it's as easy as you think it is to make people that can fly, and jump stupid distances land in the exact spot you want them to.


Knowing what people will do, one could emulate Wealth through stock markets / trade / whatever. And wealth allows you to change the world.

More importantly, you can just see how the world will change if no one touched it, how it is changing, how therefore someone must have touched it, therefore who exists that can touch it and change the world (and what their relevant abilities and motivations are), and what you could do to change their focus. Really, there's few better abilities to change the world than simply understanding it.

This is a neat idea I might nick. I've used similar abilities in other places, but not for wealth. (Though I disagree that there are few better abilities to change the world then to understand it).


As for combat… Armus, knowing that he was dealing with such opposition well beyond him, observed the creature's flight, evaluated the terrain, determined where the creature would land, and set an array of invisible, poisonous spikes in the landing zone.

So using magic. Also how did he move the half mile or more away to set the trap? We are talking high tier here, not low level stuff. This is where battles tend to happen over long distances of around a mile or so. What happens if an ally gets knocked into the spikes instead?




It is cool. However, it is the… hmmm… intersection of the "Innovation" class and the <whatever other talent> that should produce new things. Wizards don't make new spells - innovative Wizards do.

So, a class that just "makes new maneuvers", independent of Intellect or Innovation, IMO cheapens the Crafty classes. Or it may, depending on the implementation.

I'm putting in rules for Improvised Abilities. They're a set of guidelines for doing things that are outside the preset abilities. It's for handling edge cases, but it also can be used to design new abilities if the GM allows.

That said, the blade master class has a whole subsystem of building a bunch of special attacks, and unlocking new upgrades and such for them, so it is literally about building custom sword strikes, stances, and similar things.


Egads. Armus just needed poison, some spikes, and a way to spam invisibility (or naturally invisible spikes, or self-invisibling spikes). I don't think you really understand the scale of the combat and the capabilities of characters in the setting. What do your invisible spikes do against a literal god who manifests avatars? What do you do against someone who can fly? What do you do about a character that can put a magic change over the entire setting while sitting at his house (I presume you have some way to get around the world in a round or two as a normal person right?) What do you do about someone nearby nuking the town you are in?


Perhaps you should look at what (the less campy versions of) Batman, or Sherlock Holmes, or that guy who outsmarted Dr. Manhattan, actually needed in order to be major players. I did, and I came to the conclusion that most of them use plot contrivance. Consider the Dark Knight. In a single scene batman builds a tracking array over the entire city that allows him to find every single person in it. He does that as a retroactive thing that we have no knowledge of ahead of time until he unveils it. Or how about Arkham Knight? In it he reveals that he has new equipment as he needs it, and even randomly decides that he'll have a base built under the island.

It's all retroactive stuff that doesn't show up till after he needs it and then is just conveniently there. Sometime its better written, but then sometimes I'm sure players will give exact reasoning on how they new that they would need to have a way across the northern border to protect against a sudden invasion of goblins (oh, one of my men caught one last month so I started this in secret).




So you make them come to you. Or have already predicted where they will be. Or the battle is simply a distraction, to allow you to accomplish your real goal. Or… etc etc. So something that can be fairly impossible, something that works with retconning, something that ends with you dead, or with you retconning ect. The setting isn't built to wait for the players to come to it. It's built as a moving place, with civil wars, the church hunting heretics and demons, and gods of shadow and light looking to destroy the entire setting for completely different reasons. It's not going to wait for you to bait a trap, it's going to be destroying nations, and even the physics of reality itself.



Armus has accomplished more in combat by moving to protect someone with better defenses (better AC, more HP), than Quertus has with his functionally unlimited casting of free 2e Simulacrum. Cool, what about mass use of wish, and contingency? But even then, how do you Armus to move a quarter mile to protect someone when his movement rate is only 30'? Assuming that he has ways of protecting others, but honestly martials would do much better at protecting other people then mundanes. For example a Blade Master can protect their entire party from long range bombardment as long as they stick together by parrying all incoming attacks. That's not a mundane ability however.

Like sure, protect people, but how are you doing that when your movement speed is 30' and everyone else has a movement speed of a quarter mile, and attack ranges of a mile or more? What do you do when someone is knocked a hundred feet away from you, or a nuke is dropped on you from a nearby mountain? It's easy to say move around, but without martial powers or magic you'll be stuck functionally not moving at all.


Context… more ideas? Ah. Hmmm… let's just say that I'm not the "friendly testers" (who were killed by project ducky) when it comes to the details of how you (may have) implemented said ideas. So, while you may have implemented them already, that doesn't mean that they are implemented well, let alone optimally.

The more details you give me, the more I can be a ****, and bash on your ideas, so that you can think about how to improve the game. (EDIT - and I see that you've posted a sample class. I suppose I'll look at that for my next post)

As I said, I'm up for ideas, and you've even given me some. I just feel that you're dismissing a large part of the issue of trying to build characters that are effective on nationwide scales in their battles.


I get the character type you're going for. Havelock Vetinari and John Marcone are extraordinarily competent, clever, and connected while still within the limits of human potential. However, the latter rarely gets into scrapes, while the former never does. They survive by trying to be well away from any major confrontation. And while I'm sure there are ways that you could institute a "clever escape" sort of power that lets super influential but physically mundane types be far away from the battlefield, running the influence game while staying well away from any active adventures sounds like it'd be a drag at the table.

Games with point-based character generation will often mention that everybody should have some baseline combat competence, because fights have a way of happening in games having your character bleed out in the first session isn't much fun. It's up to you whether you want to technically allow Vetinari and just warn people that playing him might well require sitting out of the active bits of the story, or just flat-out acknowledge that archetype is better suited to NPCs and insist that PC types have some ability to handle themselves when it's time to throw down.

First of all, damage, attack, health and such all scale for all characters with their level. This might lead to some silliness where a king is also a great fighter, but I don't necessary consider that a drawback. Damage, and stuff like that aren't what make combat classes effective anyway, it's their mobility, range and special defenses that really tip the scale. I am planning on dropping some things about how you have 3 classes, so choosing at least one that is good at fighting is a good idea. But even then I like the idea of mundane characters that do cool things, so I'm going to push to make that dream a reality!

Lord Raziere
2019-07-13, 02:39 AM
I did once. I had a bad GM for the game. That said, this aims to be a game that is a bit simpler to build characters for, and a bit faster for combat resolution. Also aims to have systems for changing the entire world.


Thats fair I guess, I personally want to play Exalted with a lighter system myself, so I can play any Exalted without needing an entire sourcebook, I just can't find any group for that. Just know that its one of the better rpgs about balancing magic and mundane, because even mortals can be important in that world, as long as they have the money and influence and be smart about interacting with Exalts and gods. The Guild wouldn't exist otherwise.

goodpeople25
2019-07-13, 02:55 AM
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Tony Stark can survive super-level conflicts because of his suit, but having a super suit is more a gadgeteer thing than an epic mundane thing. Doctor Doom can "survive" by sending robots in his stead, but again that doesn't seem like an epic mundane's shtick.

I get the character type you're going for. Havelock Vetinari and John Marcone are extraordinarily competent, clever, and connected while still within the limits of human potential. However, the latter rarely gets into scrapes, while the former never does. They survive by trying to be well away from any major confrontation. And while I'm sure there are ways that you could institute a "clever escape" sort of power that lets super influential but physically mundane types be far away from the battlefield, running the influence game while staying well away from any active adventures sounds like it'd be a drag at the table.

Games with point-based character generation will often mention that everybody should have some baseline combat competence, because fights have a way of happening in games having your character bleed out in the first session isn't much fun. It's up to you whether you want to technically allow Vetinari and just warn people that playing him might well require sitting out of the active bits of the story, or just flat-out acknowledge that archetype is better suited to NPCs and insist that PC types have some ability to handle themselves when it's time to throw down.
Are you saying that Vetinari can't handle a fight/doesn't have at least baseline combat competence (ect) or just that one of his strengths is typically avoiding that type of thing?

Anymage
2019-07-13, 10:27 AM
Are you saying that Vetinari can't handle a fight/doesn't have at least baseline combat competence (ect) or just that one of his strengths is typically avoiding that type of thing?

Against your average human or the lowest end of supernatural threat? Both Vetinari and Marcone have the odds in their favor. They still avoid the situation because it would suck if their opponent got lucky, but they can handle themselves all the way through "extraordinary mortal" territory.

Against ever mid-tier supernaturals, both would need to lean heavily on traps, allies, and specialized equipment. Those tend to mean that they're on the defensive on their home ground. Stripped of those advantages, Vetinari would have trouble with something as common as an angry troll. And that's to say nothing of the literally divine tier beings in both settings, the likes of which jakinbandw wants to make playable.

Segev
2019-07-13, 10:30 AM
Against your average human or the lowest end of supernatural threat? Both Vetinari and Marcone have the odds in their favor. They still avoid the situation because it would suck if their opponent got lucky, but they can handle themselves all the way through "extraordinary mortal" territory.

Against ever mid-tier supernaturals, both would need to lean heavily on traps, allies, and specialized equipment. Those tend to mean that they're on the defensive on their home ground. Stripped of those advantages, Vetinari would have trouble with something as common as an angry troll. And that's to say nothing of the literally divine tier beings in both settings, the likes of which jakinbandw wants to make playable.

I'm pretty sure Vetinari would have the angry troll working for him and pointing its anger at Vetinari's enemies before the troll finished closing the distance to punch Vetinari.

awa
2019-07-13, 11:56 AM
true but disk worlds a comedy, what works in a comedy wont work in a more serious setting.

goodpeople25
2019-07-13, 12:03 PM
Then he'd likely be able to just stab the troll in it's weakpoint for massive damage and be done with it.

Anymage
2019-07-13, 12:17 PM
I'm pretty sure Vetinari would have the angry troll working for him and pointing its anger at Vetinari's enemies before the troll finished closing the distance to punch Vetinari.

And if knowing someone's psychological pressure points and figuring out how to get them on your side counts as a win, jakinbandw can use that to help cover how his "god tier mundane" could be relevant without immediately dying. I mostly wanted to put a few names to the archetypes he seemed to want to enable.

jintoya
2019-07-13, 12:34 PM
I was kinda under the impression that everything in D&D (I know this is the roleplaying board, but this is usually where the topic of balancing magic comes up.) was inerrantly magic, if you roll a high enough balance, you literally walk on clouds or water, if you get good enough at sneaking you can stand right infront of someone and not get seen etc.
That all sounds magical to me, as for other settings, I think that if it's modeled after D&D then it's probably similar in those ways also.

If it isn't like D&D... And magic is still OP, then maybe just do what I do and give players a "magical aptitude" score, if you score too low, no spellcasting and put penalties in place for casting, something I did was gave my players a golden d20 to roll concentrations with any time they cast a spell, write the penalty in the corner of the sheet for them. That seemed to level it out and kept them from overshadowing everyone.

Quertus
2019-07-13, 04:48 PM
OK, so maybe my next post won't be commentary on the sample class.


Havelock Vetinari and John Marcone… survive by trying to be well away from any major confrontation.

running the influence game while staying well away from any active adventures sounds like it'd be a drag at the table.

allow Vetinari and just warn people that playing him might well require sitting out of the active bits of the story, or just flat-out acknowledge that archetype is better suited to NPCs and insist that PC types have some ability to handle themselves when it's time to throw down.

The bolded bit has the right of it. I've played that character several times - it's one of my preferred archetypes. Although I can also play characters like Armus, who can be not just active but a rockstar, despite bringing limited "buttons" to the table.


You can have wealth without retcon powers. It's just loses out on some of its big nukes so to

So that would be a "no, you baked retcon powers into Wealth, *and* made them a major part of its move set"? Sadness.


Cool, and how do you let the dumbest person you've ever seen at the table play at that level?

I don't. Of course, the "dumbest person I've ever seen" also would both have no interest in or even concept of that character.

How might you do it? I've already answered that: give them more / better information. Get them to the point where they can play that game.


Sure knowledge is good, but it doesn't help if you can't fight someone. I know you like traps, but retconning a trap into existence is still a retcon. And if you think it's easy to do, then what about people that don't have to come to you to fight? What about the guy who throws a mountain at you? He's not coming to your trap, he's fighting you from his place of power. I don't think it's as easy as you think it is to make people that can fly, and jump stupid distances land in the exact spot you want them to.

Where does he need to stand to lift that mountain (if his target stands here)? My trap is there. And I put it there, in character (no retcon powers) months ago, having predicted this confrontation.

This is a really easy game to play, and I've played it many times.


This is a neat idea I might nick. I've used similar abilities in other places, but not for wealth. (Though I disagree that there are few better abilities to change the world then to understand it).

Ah, yes, correct, this is not a Wealth power, it's a Crafty power.

So, tell me: what powers are better than "whenever someone uses an ability to influence an area you can perceive, a) you become aware of that ability; b) you become aware of the person using that ability; c) you gain insight into their powers and motivations"?

As described above, when you learn that someone can throw mountains, you set the stage for them to fall into your trap should they oppose you.


So using magic. Also how did he move the half mile or more away to set the trap? We are talking high tier here, not low level stuff. This is where battles tend to happen over long distances of around a mile or so. What happens if an ally gets knocked into the spikes instead?

Well, yes, Armus' specific implementation (as "a Commoner with items") involved magic; however, had he the skills / someone with the skills could have implemented it in a purely mundane manner simply by concealing the spikes.

Armus didn't need to move: he analyzed the terrain, and pulled a "make him come to me" card (well, technically, he set that up even before deciding to engage/kill the epic threat, and after fleeing from a threat that the party then soundly defeated, but let's not complicate matters).



I don't think you really understand the scale of the combat and the capabilities of characters in the setting. What do your invisible spikes do against a literal god who manifests avatars?

They would annoy him, and modify his behavior. Armus would only do it if that change would be beneficial. Or if his followers would lose Faith, seeing him be bested / humiliated by "a Commoner with items".


What do you do against someone who can fly?

Uh, well, there was this one time, where Armus used spikes, poison, and invisibility…


What do you do about a character that can put a magic change over the entire setting while sitting at his house (I presume you have some way to get around the world in a round or two as a normal person right?)

Well, thanks to Armus' Polyhedron Gateway (a custom 12-sided Cubic Gate), Armus technically could get there in a round. :smallwink:

However, a pure muggle, with no items? If the character in question has ever touched the world / an area the Muggle could "see" before (ie, if their vast intellect had ever perceived evidence of a change that they had made), the Crafty Muggle would already know their capabilities and motivation, and could have chosen accordingly during the previous rounds, months, or years. They could potentially knock on their door a few rounds before they take the action, no retcon required.


What do you do about someone nearby nuking the town you are in?

Die. Or, again, know that it was coming, because prediction is easy.


I did, and I came to the conclusion that most of them use plot contrivance. Consider the Dark Knight. In a single scene batman builds a tracking array over the entire city that allows him to find every single person in it. He does that as a retroactive thing that we have no knowledge of ahead of time until he unveils it.

I've done exactly that in a game, no retcon required. It's only contrivance if you don't watch the groundwork. Eh, that didn't come out right. Let me try again.

In a movie, it can be contrivance, sure. Or it can *look like* contrivance, because they want the audience to be surpassed. But in an RPG? In an RPG, such contrivance and surprise is… hmmm… often considered bad? And completely unnecessary. Sure, you can use my secret notes technique to achieve similar effects of surprise, without contrivance.


Or how about Arkham Knight? In it he reveals that he has new equipment as he needs it, and even randomly decides that he'll have a base built under the island.

It's all retroactive stuff that doesn't show up till after he needs it and then is just conveniently there. Sometime its better written, but then sometimes I'm sure players will give exact reasoning on how they new that they would need to have a way across the northern border to protect against a sudden invasion of goblins (oh, one of my men caught one last month so I started this in secret).

Have you considered giving the characters the tools (knowledge, wealth, etc) to do this kind of thing in character, without retcon? Because I've done things like this in RPGs without retcon numerous times


So something that can be fairly impossible, something that works with retconning, something that ends with you dead, or with you retconning ect.

Sounds important, missing context. May come back for it later.


The setting isn't built to wait for the players to come to it. It's built as a moving place, with civil wars, the church hunting heretics and demons, and gods of shadow and light looking to destroy the entire setting for completely different reasons. It's not going to wait for you to bait a trap, it's going to be destroying nations, and even the physics of reality itself.

Sure. And the Wise? They know how it will all play out if they don't get involved. And how various actions they could take would affect that outcome.


Cool, what about mass use of wish, and contingency? But even then, how do you Armus to move a quarter mile to protect someone when his movement rate is only 30'? Assuming that he has ways of protecting others, but honestly martials would do much better at protecting other people then mundanes. For example a Blade Master can protect their entire party from long range bombardment as long as they stick together by parrying all incoming attacks. That's not a mundane ability however.

Armus… has no such abilities.

How could an epic Muggle protect people? But warning then that the nuke will come, that the wine is poisoned, that the prince will backstab you if he gets a chance. Or whatever else the player chooses to do with that information (build a fallout shelter, pack radiation suits, spill the wine, concoct antidote, prepare contingencies beyond "curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal", etc).


Like sure, protect people, but how are you doing that when your movement speed is 30' and everyone else has a movement speed of a quarter mile, and attack ranges of a mile or more? What do you do when someone is knocked a hundred feet away from you, or a nuke is dropped on you from a nearby mountain? It's easy to say move around, but without martial powers or magic you'll be stuck functionally not moving at all.

Oh, Armus can't really protect people. And that's not a Muggle power. But I've detailed epic Muggle defenses above.


As I said, I'm up for ideas, and you've even given me some. I just feel that you're dismissing a large part of the issue of trying to build characters that are effective on nationwide scales in their battles.

This bit sounds important. What do you think I'm dismissing?


First of all, damage, attack, health and such all scale for all characters with their level. This might lead to some silliness where a king is also a great fighter, but I don't necessary consider that a drawback. Damage, and stuff like that aren't what make combat classes effective anyway, it's their mobility, range and special defenses that really tip the scale. I am planning on dropping some things about how you have 3 classes, so choosing at least one that is good at fighting is a good idea. But even then I like the idea of mundane characters that do cool things, so I'm going to push to make that dream a reality!

I play Mages / Wizards / etc. But I, too, like the idea of mundane characters that do cool things.

Everything scales by level

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-13, 05:35 PM
I was kinda under the impression that everything in D&D (I know this is the roleplaying board, but this is usually where the topic of balancing magic comes up.) was inerrantly magic,


It can be, if that's what someone wants from the setting.

But some gamers vehemently reject that possibility, and further insist that the utterly-not-magic character be able to keep up with the reality-bending characters all the way to level 20... but when asked how, it's just "for raisins".

Lord Raziere
2019-07-13, 08:02 PM
It can be, if that's what someone wants from the setting.

But some gamers vehemently reject that possibility, and further insist that the utterly-not-magic character be able to keep up with the reality-bending characters all the way to level 20... but when asked how, it's just "for raisins".

I already said that was an unanswerable question! any explanation I or any person could possibly provide to you would be labeled magic anyways. and then they're no longer achieving what they do without magic, or without being born special or some other hax power makes everything utterly unfair and unfun and stupid, like sharingan or killing things in one hit/punch, or some other method of making honest effort useless? how can you possibly be so uncaring about such characters and consequently their players being given a bad deal?

if they can't keep up or compromise the characters core concept for some needless desire for a magical explanation, they might as well name their character Yamcha and roleplay how they die to a saibaman for all the good it does them. no amount of sensible explanation is worth losing a player who can make a game more fun. at the end of day, the sensible explanation is static only serves to block these players and the player can contribute far more than that with the character they want.

because I cannot possibly think of any other reason to ask the question "of where does this normal guy keeping up with reality warpers get it from?" other than to block that kind of player. if there is another use for it, it eludes me. the entire setup of defining any force beyond mundanity as magic makes playing such characters a losing proposition either way for the players who want to play some relatively normal person using their wits, skills and determination to beat people far beyond their weight class. either they can't provide a reason you'll accept, or they do provide one and it destroys the characters entire point. stop locking them into that.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-13, 09:44 PM
I already said that was an unanswerable question!


Yes, I noticed, and you keep acting like that's just going to silence the conversation, that it's going to stop anyone from saying otherwise.

Perhaps a better way to phrase your position would be "I don't want to answer that question, because I don't like the fallout from doing so". Which is fine, and cool, it's your game when you're gaming, but it's not the same thing as "that's not an answerable question".




any explanation I or any person could possibly provide to you would be labeled magic anyways. and then they're no longer achieving what they do without magic, or without being born special or some other hax power makes everything utterly unfair and unfun and stupid, like sharingan or killing things in one hit/punch, or some other method of making honest effort useless? how can you possibly be so uncaring about such characters and consequently their players being given a bad deal?

if they can't keep up or compromise the characters core concept for some needless desire for a magical explanation, they might as well name their character Yamcha and roleplay how they die to a saibaman for all the good it does them. no amount of sensible explanation is worth losing a player who can make a game more fun. at the end of day, the sensible explanation is static only serves to block these players and the player can contribute far more than that with the character they want.

because I cannot possibly think of any other reason to ask the question "of where does this normal guy keeping up with reality warpers get it from?" other than to block that kind of player. if there is another use for it, it eludes me. the entire setup of defining any force beyond mundanity as magic makes playing such characters a losing proposition either way for the players who want to play some relatively normal person using their wits, skills and determination to beat people far beyond their weight class. either they can't provide a reason you'll accept, or they do provide one and it destroys the characters entire point. stop locking them into that.



It's like I never offered to use other terms, and never repeatedly clarified that the line between "normal" and "extranormal" is entirely setting specific, and never said that you aren't required to ask the question if you don't want to, you can just build your setting as a series of "just so" elements, and fastidiously ignore all the disconnects and un-followed implications and "wait a second..." non-sequiturs in favor of just whatever you think is cool.

You're right, though, I don't care about characters who don't fit. I have no regard for the token incompetent, or the token "normal joe", or the comic relief, or the plucky hanger-on in authorial fiction where they at least "nominally" work because they have massive amounts of plot armor or authorial fiat keeping them from getting themselves killed every time they do something ignorant to create a complication.

In an RPG, they're even worse, and only work with total player buy-in by all involved, that said character is going to not be able to carry their weight on a regular basis.

In Champions, your precious 50-point normal can't hang in combat with the 500-point veteran superhumans. That's just the way it is.

Jimmy Olsen, stay home, you're nothing but a liability.

In an RPG, not every character fits every setting. Some player's pet psionic doesn't fit a game with no psionics. I can't play a shadow-magic character in the ye olde Forgotten Realms because shadow-magic equals corrupted evil, and probably a slave to a goddess of lies, in that setting.

In a game where combat will be a regular feature, the character who refuses to learn to be useful in a fight is just a liability, and the player is just being selfish by trying to force that character on the rest of the players / the party.

In a game where interpersonal drama is the whole point, a character who is a quiet loner and never engages with anyone outside of fights and stuff, is kinda dead weight, and if a player isn't interested in a lot of drama, maybe they should bow out of that game (and to be clear, I dislike drama for the sake of drama, and I have said "no thank you" to a campaign that was going to be mainly interpersonal drama before.)

There's a reason a Mage campaign is usually all Mages... you need to be a Mage to do mage stuff, and the "normal joe" will routinely be a dead weight the rest of the party has to drag along. "But he can do other stuff"... great, so can any of the Mages, they can all learn that other stuff too, and trying to carve out and cram in a very special niche for the "normal joe" is a narrative contrivance, nothing more. I never actually played Mage, because I find the entire premise of "subjective reality shaped by warring secret cabals" to be pretty much "sophomore year philosophy, edgelord focus, the game" -- and I didn't want to ruin the game for those who enjoy it.

And in a campaign where everyone has actual superpowers, refusing to play someone who has any superpowers, or super power armor, or super gadgets, or super magic, or super something... just runs a high risk of being a jerk.


Hawkeye has a superpower -- he does impossible things with arrows, and multiplies the effectiveness of that superskill with supertech gadget arrowheads.

Which brings us back to "magic is as magic does"... in a setting and campaign where superpowers are the "magic", then guess what, Hawkeye has his "magic" too. I've said that the "magic" in that phrase does not have to be literal spell-casting powered-by-eldtrich-forces magic, repeatedly, to the point where I can't find a way to give you the benefit of the doubt on ignoring that clarification.


If you still want to play the guy who gets by on his "wits, skill, and determination", fine. But if your "wits" or "skill" or "determination" is the equivalent of other characters' superpowers, of their wall-crushing car-throwing strength or their laser-dodging agility, then guess what -- YOUR CHARACTER HAS A SUPERPOWER, TOO. They have super-wits, or super-determination, or super-skills.

And if you refuse even that, if you insist that your character is just a normal guy, that there's nothing super about him, then, at least in any campaign I run featuring that sort of power level... you can just deal with the consequences of running around the battlefield effectively naked. If I'm running a game, I expect your character to fit the world and fit the campaign, as a simple courtesy to your fellow players, so we can get on with the damn thing.


In a fantasy setting (that's not "anything goes gonzo coolness"), the guy doing extranormal things has "magic". Somehow, he's doing things an order of magnitude or more beyond what the "normal" people can do. (And so I don't have to go back and clarify it again, under that terminology, in our real actual world, Usain Bolt and Einstein and anyone else you can think of is on the "normal" side of the line.)


Why do I want an explanation for it? Why do I want to know how that character is capable of cutting down mighty oaks with a single sword-stroke, of leaping over the town wall with ease? Why do I need an explanation for his fantastic abilities beyond "but wouldn't it be cool if..."?

Because if I don't know, I can't consistently represent his abilities, I can't make sure the system implementation accurately reflects what he can do, and I can't fairly adjudicate the edge cases and the interactions with other character's abilities. Because if I don't know, I don't know what to expect the character to be able to accomplish, I can't anticipate his limits, I can't understand how he fits into the rest of the world and interacts with it.


I've tried to explain this, and it just doesn't seem to click for you and a few others. So I'll lay it out in very blunt words. Everything you show me about the setting of an RPG campaign or a work of fiction, tells me something about that world. Everything you show me about a character in that world, from the ditch digger to the fighter pilot to the king to the thief, about their beliefs and thoughts and attitudes and histories, tells me something about that world. Every event that occurs in that world, everything the characters say about their world, everything that happens in the game or in the fiction, tells me something about that world. And in an RPG, the system and rules and mechanics tell me things about that world.

And when you start telling me things about that world that don't add up, that conflict with each other, that don't jive with the other things you tell me... I'm not going to be engrossed in the game any more, I'm going to be trying to figure out what the heck is going on.

RazorChain
2019-07-13, 10:17 PM
I already said that was an unanswerable question! any explanation I or any person could possibly provide to you would be labeled magic anyways. and then they're no longer achieving what they do without magic, or without being born special or some other hax power makes everything utterly unfair and unfun and stupid, like sharingan or killing things in one hit/punch, or some other method of making honest effort useless? how can you possibly be so uncaring about such characters and consequently their players being given a bad deal?

if they can't keep up or compromise the characters core concept for some needless desire for a magical explanation, they might as well name their character Yamcha and roleplay how they die to a saibaman for all the good it does them. no amount of sensible explanation is worth losing a player who can make a game more fun. at the end of day, the sensible explanation is static only serves to block these players and the player can contribute far more than that with the character they want.

because I cannot possibly think of any other reason to ask the question "of where does this normal guy keeping up with reality warpers get it from?" other than to block that kind of player. if there is another use for it, it eludes me. the entire setup of defining any force beyond mundanity as magic makes playing such characters a losing proposition either way for the players who want to play some relatively normal person using their wits, skills and determination to beat people far beyond their weight class. either they can't provide a reason you'll accept, or they do provide one and it destroys the characters entire point. stop locking them into that.

So you are saying we should allow players to play a normal, everyday, unremarkable character with superpowers while they pretend their character is mundane?

Lord Raziere
2019-07-13, 11:59 PM
So you are saying we should allow players to play a normal, everyday, unremarkable character with superpowers while they pretend their character is mundane?

Yes? its not as if its a rare archetype or anything (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassNormal). its as old as myth, its prevalent across so many forms of media, to the point where there is at least one in many superhero teams, and have made so many great characters from it, there are many who would not exist without it! and all of them would not be who they are, if they had magical backup. the "every super-normal character is actually magic" is an internet meme, born of sardonic over-analyzation. its not good faith interpretation. its not engaging with the world as they present themselves. the job of games or stories or whatever is not to make sense, its to have fun. and a Badass Normal can be fun, its not mundane, but neither is it magic. they are defined by Not Being Magic. if you can't accept that fantasy and the real world nuance of it being a fantasy that has no logical reason behind it, but its a fantasy so it okay if it doesn't make 100% sense, thats a failure of your own imagination, not of someone failing to give a reason for it, because the point of that fantasy is to DEFY the very thing your trying to impose upon them. you might as well say a superman player can't fly without using a plane, because the entire point of designing a superman-like character is to fly without one.

@Max Killjoy:
Okay. yes it does. that is indeed your mindset.

Guess what? let me tell you something about all those worlds: they don't exist. your discovering nothing. the consistency is a lie. an illusion. we are not people looking into a worlds window and finding something equivalent to us. we're creating something that ourselves define, and you just stubbornly refusing to let someone define their character how they want for your own personal issues. all settings have inconsistencies, because they are made for a story, for our amusement and use, that is the most consistent and true thing about all these worlds one can realize, and no matter how much you seek it, it won't ever be complete, it won't ever truly fully make sense, we simply do not have the time to do something so useless as make sure a game world is 100% consistent no matter what happens, because even if it was possible- it would take too much time for someone to come up with that, too much time to invest for what will accomplish absolutely nothing that can't be achieved by acknowledging "yeah there are some things we just can't fully think out and not everyone cares about thinking all this out, and not everyone has the time to learn all this completely to make sure they maintain it". what you want is a pipe dream, potentially to the detriment of other peoples enjoyment.

and maybe your both lucky and have gotten people who agree with you and your stances, and thats fine. have fun with them I wish you the best of times.

but you cannot seriously expect everyone to like that consistency, to follow that consistency and need reasons for everything behind everything as you, and there is at least one archetype where the reasons behind why someone is so badass, is best left unsaid. because what is fascinating for you, can be constricting to others. and if your going to deny the badass normal archetype completely, cut out the fighter and rogue classes from your DnD games entirely and replace with explicitly magical versions, or your misleading whatever players are coming in.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-14, 12:42 AM
So you are saying we should allow players to play a normal, everyday, unremarkable character with superpowers while they pretend their character is mundane?

As far as I can tell, it amounts to "My Fighter can reload and fire a siege crossbow 6 times in 6 seconds because my Fighter can reload and fire a siege crossbow 6 times in 6 seconds, and because it's cool, and because it's balanced, and anyone who asks for more explanation that that is trying to block my character and ruin my fun."

Jakinbandw
2019-07-14, 12:48 AM
OK, so maybe my next post won't be commentary on the sample class.
Aw... Would have helped give context to the rest of the discussion. I did post it for a reason.


So that would be a "no, you baked retcon powers into Wealth, *and* made them a major part of its move set"? Sadness.
I mean, if that's how you want to see it. I personally could get a lot of use out of it without retcon powers, but I would probably need to supplement it with another class for combat and such.


Where does he need to stand to lift that mountain (if his target stands here)? My trap is there. And I put it there, in character (no retcon powers) months ago, having predicted this confrontation.

This is a really easy game to play, and I've played it many times.


So you build massive walls of spikes for miles around all mountains nearby. I don't limit where you can stand to lift things, so... Like that means you cover everything in spikes. Months ahead of time...

And he comes and sees the dead animals and.... Still lands in them? No, lets get back to this later.



Ah, yes, correct, this is not a Wealth power, it's a Crafty power.

So, tell me: what powers are better than "whenever someone uses an ability to influence an area you can perceive, a) you become aware of that ability; b) you become aware of the person using that ability; c) you gain insight into their powers and motivations"?

Change how reality works over the entire world with no limitations? Become a god that is neigh unkillable, and can manifest avatars anywhere any worshiper of their are? Taking an attack or damage that would hurt you and redirecting it to any target you are aware of?



Well, thanks to Armus' Polyhedron Gateway (a custom 12-sided Cubic Gate), Armus technically could get there in a round. :smallwink:

However, a pure muggle, with no items? If the character in question has ever touched the world / an area the Muggle could "see" before (ie, if their vast intellect had ever perceived evidence of a change that they had made), the Crafty Muggle would already know their capabilities and motivation, and could have chosen accordingly during the previous rounds, months, or years. They could potentially knock on their door a few rounds before they take the action, no retcon required.

First of all, magic, second of all... Let's come back to this later.


Have you considered giving the characters the tools (knowledge, wealth, etc) to do this kind of thing in character, without retcon? Because I've done things like this in RPGs without retcon numerous times
Ah, here we are, the crux of the issue. The place where I strongly disagree with you. I was wondering what you were talking about earlier, what with being able to do things with information and not needing retcons, and here is where I finally realized what you meant.

Where to begin.

Agency I think is the best starting place. You want to be able to rob characters of their agency. That whole thing about knowing where someone was going to land is a perfect example of this. Let's say that I make a power that does that. You can know something that specific about the future. So the player spends time building a spike trap. The fight happens and... Another character wins initiative and attacks, knocking the foe a mile away. Another player goes and the fight goes on over there. The GM gave a firm prediction, so now, instead of having options, the foe has to move back, and land on that spot even though it makes no sense in character. He might not even make it there.

But it gets even worse. What if it's a player that gets locked in with such an ability. That is the worst kind of railroading where a player can't choose what action to take because they must stick to a script written by someone else. And in this case, the script is for them to die.

But if you know enough about a character you can know ever single thing they'll do! (I hear you typing)

So this also remove agency because people can react to other peoples actions. In your example about leading people out of a town that would be nuked why wouldn't the nuker just change the target? Again, it assumes that only one character in the setting is allowed to have agency at a given time. Others aren't allowed to change their plans based on what others do. For example, showing up at a ritualist that is about to change the entire world a few rounds before he does it sounds good. But in actuality it's pretty terrible because it means that the ritualist can't have effective defenses. Can't receive warning that the party that is moving toward him and pull it off sooner, or move somewhere else an pull it off later. It makes it so that they loose all ability to react to the party. And again, that's the best side of it.

And you might say that a sufficiently smart GM can predict everything that will happen, and I would argue that the only way a majority of GMs can do such a thing is by railroading, and a system has to be able to be run by a majority of GMs. You can't just rely on yourself for an example, you also have to consider the average GM here and the effect such rules will have.


Sure. And the Wise? They know how it will all play out if they don't get involved. And how various actions they could take would affect that outcome.
Sure you can know the overall setting, but you forget that my setting is made to change with player action and npc action. It's not meant to be a railroad that a player can read about ahead of time to know they should open door X to get sword Y, and that if they talk to NPC A they will help them in situation B. You're acting like no one has any agency in games.



This bit sounds important. What do you think I'm dismissing?
I was going to say the ability to deal with the large amount of abilities characters are able to bring to combat. With divine tier characters having access to between 24 and 72 (or more) abilities, characters at that level tend to have a lot of options. This isn't including the other options such as wealth, thaums and faith for changing the world. Like characters have a lot of ways to try to accomplish goals.

Of course now I feel that you dismiss character agency, so you know... [/QUOTE]

Talakeal
2019-07-14, 09:09 AM
Honestly, at the power level you are going for I really don't think you should be bothering with mundane characters.

It can be made to work, but only if you are going with reasonable interpretations of supers vs top end interpretations of the mundane. For example, most Superman comics are pretty poorly written as they constantly power him up, but never make use of his powers. If you have a top tier Superman, the guy who can move so fast the rest of the world is frozen, who can casually toss about planets or even galaxies, is smarter than a super computer, and so tough that he can survive black holes or planets made of kryptonite, there is no conceivable way Batman or Lex Luther can beat him without some sort of Deus ex Machina, and even in isolation that Superman should be able to change the world with trivial ease.

If you have the more traditional Superman; faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, can leap tall buildings in a single bound, then yeah, I can see an especially clever / determined / skilled / lucky mundane getting the better of him in the right situation. But that really doesn't seem to be what you are going for.

Here is the thing about magic (or other fantastical abilities); it isn't real, and you can make it as weak or as powerful as you want. If you want to make it weak, strong, or balanced, you can. The tough (but not impossible!) part is making it simultaneously impressive, but with enough limits that it doesn't overshadow everything else.




@Lord Raziere:

I was merely trying to use analogies of how in the real world you can have important skills that are still not ubiquitous and don't render mundane stuff irrelevant to make a counter to your statement that magic was either OP or useless with no middle ground. However, you appear to have such a different world view than I do that trying to actually debate specific points when dealing with an ultimately subjective question (what is important?) is more or less impossible.




Also, I am really curious about how clerics becoming gods works out. Do they actually become full capital G gods, or do they become something equivalent to saints or divine servitors? Because it seems really weird to me at face value that someone who devoted their life the service of a divine being would one day become a potential rival / usurper to the former object of their worship.

Quertus
2019-07-14, 12:46 PM
the job of games or stories or whatever is not to make sense, its to have fun.

That's… an interesting focus. Why can't games be fun *and* make sense? Why can't food be healthy, and delicious? In what way does things being consistent detract from fun?


if you can't accept that fantasy and the real world nuance of it being a fantasy that has no logical reason behind it, but its a fantasy so it okay if it doesn't make 100% sense, thats a failure of your own imagination, not of someone failing to give a reason for it,

Um, some of us enjoy engaging our brains, too, not just our imaginations.

This is where things like Dr. Who - and many RPGs / GMs - fail us, by providing fun that needs a "turn your brain off" warning.


because the point of that fantasy is to DEFY the very thing your trying to impose upon them.

No, I don't think that it's fair to call that the "point" of fantasy.


all settings have inconsistencies, because they are made for a story, for our amusement and use,

I don't think that's cause and effect. In fact, quite the opposite should be true: if it were made for Max's fun, it would be as consistent as possible.


that is the most consistent and true thing about all these worlds one can realize, and no matter how much you seek it, it won't ever be complete, it won't ever truly fully make sense, we simply do not have the time to do something so useless as make sure a game world is 100% consistent no matter what happens, because even if it was possible- it would take too much time for someone to come up with that, too much time to invest for what will accomplish absolutely nothing that can't be achieved by acknowledging "yeah there are some things we just can't fully think out and not everyone cares about thinking all this out, and not everyone has the time to learn all this completely to make sure they maintain it". what you want is a pipe dream, potentially to the detriment of other peoples enjoyment.

Have you heard the phrase, "the perfect is the enemy of the good"?

Also, again, why do you think consistency is antithetical to fun?


but you cannot seriously expect everyone to like that consistency,

Sure. But to not dislike consistency?


because what is fascinating for you, can be constricting to others.

Ah, the reason. Because it is "constricting".

I don't get it.

So, one muggle can one-shot kill you, NSJD, because he's that skilled, and hit a vital spot, like the heart or brain. Another, because he used poison. A third, because he sharpened special wood / reeds (I forget the 2e specifics) to the point where they decapitate you. A fourth, because he's just that scary.

It would seem that there being a method to the madness would liberate the Muggle's player, allowing them to have more versions of the same thing, because the underlying mechanics are different.

So, in your whole huge post, you've only spent one word - "constricting" - actually explaining your position. Care to elaborate?


Aw... Would have helped give context to the rest of the discussion. I did post it for a reason.

Maybe soon. Depends in how many *other* things I have to reply to. You seem rather adept at giving me material to reply to. :smallwink:


I mean, if that's how you want to see it. I personally could get a lot of use out of it without retcon powers, but I would probably need to supplement it with another class for combat and such.

Tables that ban classes with retcon powers cannot take your Wealth class.

So I am suggesting that you divorce "retcon powers" from classes where that is not thematically necessary (Chronomancer, Diviner, etc and questioning whether it's really necessary there, either).


So you build massive walls of spikes for miles around all mountains nearby. I don't limit where you can stand to lift things, so... Like that means you cover everything in spikes. Months ahead of time...

Missed the mark completely. Let me try again.

I learn someone can throw mountains, and that their personality makes them likely to come into conflict with me. So, I figure where that conflict might occur, and where I'll want to be when it does. I look at the nearby mountains. And I plant a tree. I change LoS, footing, civilian locations, whatever will affect his choices until I know where he will have to stand to get a good shot of at me (or whoever his target will be - perhaps a double for me, my champion, whatever). And that is where I place the one and only remote-operated hidden poison spike trap / mountain-throwing-strength-draining flower / collapsed-by-the-weight-of-a-mountain death blade pit trap / whatever. And, if I'm truly smart, I prepare contingencies, in case I'm wrong. But I'm never wrong.


And he comes and sees the dead animals and.... Still lands in them? No, lets get back to this later.

… what dead animals? You… really aren't a fan of smart characters, are you?


Change how reality works over the entire world with no limitations? Become a god that is neigh unkillable, and can manifest avatars anywhere any worshiper of their are? Taking an attack or damage that would hurt you and redirecting it to any target you are aware of?

Those aren't bad, but I'll take mine, thanks. Or, better yet, mine, plus two other capstones. With your Tristalt system, I could finally literally play a character who was Smart *and* Powerful. :smallwink:


First of all, magic, second of all... Let's come back to this later.

I think you really ought to focus on "how to give your players information, so that they don't need retcon powers to appear smart, but instead can actually be smart" sooner rather than later.


Ah, here we are, the crux of the issue. The place where I strongly disagree with you. I was wondering what you were talking about earlier, what with being able to do things with information and not needing retcons, and here is where I finally realized what you meant.

Where to begin.

Agency I think is the best starting place. You want to be able to rob characters of their agency. That whole thing about knowing where someone was going to land is a perfect example of this. Let's say that I make a power that does that. You can know something that specific about the future. So the player spends time building a spike trap. The fight happens and... Another character wins initiative and attacks, knocking the foe a mile away. Another player goes and the fight goes on over there. The GM gave a firm prediction, so now, instead of having options, the foe has to move back, and land on that spot even though it makes no sense in character. He might not even make it there.

But it gets even worse. What if it's a player that gets locked in with such an ability. That is the worst kind of railroading where a player can't choose what action to take because they must stick to a script written by someone else. And in this case, the script is for them to die.

But if you know enough about a character you can know ever single thing they'll do! (I hear you typing)

So this also remove agency because people can react to other peoples actions. In your example about leading people out of a town that would be nuked why wouldn't the nuker just change the target? Again, it assumes that only one character in the setting is allowed to have agency at a given time. Others aren't allowed to change their plans based on what others do. For example, showing up at a ritualist that is about to change the entire world a few rounds before he does it sounds good. But in actuality it's pretty terrible because it means that the ritualist can't have effective defenses. Can't receive warning that the party that is moving toward him and pull it off sooner, or move somewhere else an pull it off later. It makes it so that they loose all ability to react to the party. And again, that's the best side of it.

And you might say that a sufficiently smart GM can predict everything that will happen, and I would argue that the only way a majority of GMs can do such a thing is by railroading, and a system has to be able to be run by a majority of GMs. You can't just rely on yourself for an example, you also have to consider the average GM here and the effect such rules will have.


Sure you can know the overall setting, but you forget that my setting is made to change with player action and npc action. It's not meant to be a railroad that a player can read about ahead of time to know they should open door X to get sword Y, and that if they talk to NPC A they will help them in situation B. You're acting like no one has any agency in games.

Where to begin indeed.

I'm talking about things I've done, in an RPG, in character, using nothing but player skills. Without removing anyone's agency.

I think you need to understand how this is possible - how intelligence is possible - in order to understand how to help your players emulate that.


I was going to say the ability to deal with the large amount of abilities characters are able to bring to combat. With divine tier characters having access to between 24 and 72 (or more) abilities, characters at that level tend to have a lot of options. This isn't including the other options such as wealth, thaums and faith for changing the world. Like characters have a lot of ways to try to accomplish goals.

Of course now I feel that you dismiss character agency, so you know...

I'm kinda the Avatar of player agency, so very wrong read on me again. :smallfrown:

EDIT:
Also, I am really curious about how clerics becoming gods works out. Do they actually become full capital G gods, or do they become something equivalent to saints or divine servitors? Because it seems really weird to me at face value that someone who devoted their life the service of a divine being would one day become a potential rival / usurper to the former object of their worship.

Agreed. This does feel an odd place for this capstone.

That said, where *would* one put it? Because it… is a weird case. The god of, eh, fighting, should probably be good at fighting. But, if godhood isn't the end goal for everyone after level x, then the path that allows ascention has to be the *least* important component of one's divine identity.

So, Cleric is… follower, training to become leader? There's certainly precedent for that line of thought.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-14, 01:15 PM
Here is the thing about magic (or other fantastical abilities); it isn't real, and you can make it as weak or as powerful as you want. If you want to make it weak, strong, or balanced, you can. The tough (but not impossible!) part is making it simultaneously impressive, but with enough limits that it doesn't overshadow everything else.

Also, I am really curious about how clerics becoming gods works out. Do they actually become full capital G gods, or do they become something equivalent to saints or divine servitors? Because it seems really weird to me at face value that someone who devoted their life the service of a divine being would one day become a potential rival / usurper to the former object of their worship.

1. Yeah but that sentiment works in reverse: the mundane characters aren't actually real either. they can break as many rules of mundanity and still be mundane as they want, because thats the fantasy of such characters, that you can be powerful without becoming inhuman, transhuman or posthuman. because such logic of becoming transhuman through such superpowers I'd argue is too much real world logic for a fantasy world.

2. actually in real ancient times, roman emperors, egyptian pharoahs and so on were all worshipped as gods. a ruler in ancient times was often not just a political leader, but a religious leader as well, being a combination of king, high priest and divinity. this was to give the ruler more legitimacy in the eyes of others. and even in medieval european times, a king is said to have a divine right, while chinese emperors that ruled had something called The Mandate of Heaven. So there is a lot of evidence that the political rulers used to be also divine ones and worshipped as gods that are extensions to other gods.

and polytheists were not shy about making tons of gods, despite believing that gods need not just prayer but offerings to live. the idea of a rival/usurper causing trouble because of scarcity is again, a modern idea. we don't know how much energy a god needs to do this or that, and how much energy is provided per prayer after all.
(I mean I guess you could say for prayer-eating gods is that prayers provide too little amounts of energy to answer every single prayer and thats why they don't solve everything, but I'm specifically explaining how a worshiper of a god could become a god themselves and not be a rival or anything)

however not all religions believe a gods power increases in proportion to their number of worshipers. its not universal, so if the gods don't actually need prayer to live and become more powerful, it can work because prayer can be less food and more of a request for assistance and such assistance takes energy to do, which makes more sense to me: if a gods power isn't dependent on belief that means that their energy source is tied to something else and therefore cannot answer every prayer because if every prayer provides enough energy for the god to answer that prayer, why doesn't every prayer eventually make the god into an unstoppable juggernaut who can solve everything? this can lead to a situation where a god has lots of followers but not enough energy to answer every prayer themselves, and one could see you'd make a holy saint/messiah or new god to help them with that. I mean we have christianity were there is one god but tons of saints and angels under him, so why not?

so there is in fact a lot of possibility here, and evidence for the idea that not only a divine leader can be a political one in such a fantasy world, but be considered a god themselves while still walking among people and ruling as king. after all, separating politics from religion and mortal from divine are modern ideas that a fantasy setting does not have to include.

Edit:

That's… an interesting focus. Why can't games be fun *and* make sense? Why can't food be healthy, and delicious? In what way does things being consistent detract from fun?

answer me this first, because you never have: Why can't they be both fun and balanced? I am arguing for healthiness. balance is more healthy than consistency.



Um, some of us enjoy engaging our brains, too, not just our imaginations.

This is where things like Dr. Who - and many RPGs / GMs - fail us, by providing fun that needs a "turn your brain off" warning.

No, I don't think that it's fair to call that the "point" of fantasy.

and this is where you miss the point by assuming i'm talking about ALL fantasy. you made a grave mistake. I'm talking about, a highly specific fantasy that isn't the entire genre of fantasy. because fantasy does not mean the genre. it means something more basic and wide, when I say for example a space fantasy, that is not a medieval fantasy.

I'm talking about quite specifically, for the sake of convenience The Human Fantasy. Which is not- also for the sake of convenience- The Magic Fantasy. The Magic Fantasy is the wizardly idea that anything can be solved with magic, spells are cool, use your brain and such and so on, awesomesauce lets make a tippyverse. its not every fantasy, its a specific one, for wizards from Harry Potter to Gandalf to every Lich player who wants to just be evil because they can, or any other archmage.

The Human Fantasy is not magic. its entire idea is that humans inhabit a world of supernatural creatures and things that believe that are more powerful than humanity of various inherent advantages and other unfair things.....but that humans can prove them wrong through their own hard work and determination, using only their skills, their wits, their determination to make whatever solution they can even when they don't have magic at all. that magic is not as important as your brain, your willpower, your own creativity, because to this fantasy, magic is not the point. its just a tool and an inhuman one that distracts from the real power within someone that has nothing to do with mystical forces, because its a more human and relatable story. that these characters aren't who they are because of a magical gimmick, but some undefinable humanity inside themselves that magic would only alter, or distract from. The entire point is so that a protagonist, the hero can go forth and prove every single person who thinks humanity is weak or beneath them wrong, prove everyone that thinks you need some gimmick magic to be relevant, wrong.
Because to this fantasy? thats all magic is: a gimmick. an unneeded gimmick, despite how powerful it seems. the real power is your humanity to this fantasy, and its not the same as the Magic Fantasy above, because the Magic Fantasy as shown in this threads, rejects the person "just being that good" and is thus trying to find the gimmick that makes it work, when there is none.



Have you heard the phrase, "the perfect is the enemy of the good"?

Have you? Your the one who can't accept something outside your paradigm.


Also, again, why do you think consistency is antithetical to fun?
Why do you think its linked? Lots of people have fun without consistency, they don't seem less "healthy" for it, and accepting that not everything can be explained fully is not an unhealthy attitude to have.


Sure. But to not dislike consistency?
i can say the same thing for balance.


Ah, the reason. Because it is "constricting".

I don't get it.

So, one muggle can one-shot kill you, NSJD, because he's that skilled, and hit a vital spot, like the heart or brain. Another, because he used poison. A third, because he sharpened special wood / reeds (I forget the 2e specifics) to the point where they decapitate you. A fourth, because he's just that scary.

It would seem that there being a method to the madness would liberate the Muggle's player, allowing them to have more versions of the same thing, because the underlying mechanics are different.

So, in your whole huge post, you've only spent one word - "constricting" - actually explaining your position. Care to elaborate?
I would think it obvious. a badass normal has there reasons why they are awesome, you just don't accept them and need the magical fairy wand to arbitrarily say they are awesome, when they don't need any magical being, force or explanation turning them into a supernatural being which destroys all their accomplishment through achievement. all your doing is making them jump through an extra hoop to satisfy your self, and constricting them from being what they truly are: human awesome in its purest form without magic ruining their humanity, skill and wit. their lack of upper limitation is not a bug, its a feature, because the theme of such characters is that humans can do anything if they put their minds to it.


I'm kinda the Avatar of player agency, so very wrong read on me again. :smallfrown:

No one cares about your egotistical self image. other players can be just as restricting to player agency as GMs.

RazorChain
2019-07-14, 03:03 PM
Yes? its not as if its a rare archetype or anything (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassNormal). its as old as myth, its prevalent across so many forms of media, to the point where there is at least one in many superhero teams, and have made so many great characters from it, there are many who would not exist without it! and all of them would not be who they are, if they had magical backup. the "every super-normal character is actually magic" is an internet meme, born of sardonic over-analyzation. its not good faith interpretation. its not engaging with the world as they present themselves. the job of games or stories or whatever is not to make sense, its to have fun. and a Badass Normal can be fun, its not mundane, but neither is it magic. they are defined by Not Being Magic. if you can't accept that fantasy and the real world nuance of it being a fantasy that has no logical reason behind it, but its a fantasy so it okay if it doesn't make 100% sense, thats a failure of your own imagination, not of someone failing to give a reason for it, because the point of that fantasy is to DEFY the very thing your trying to impose upon them. you might as well say a superman player can't fly without using a plane, because the entire point of designing a superman-like character is to fly without one.




Yeah I get that but when characters can do things that surpasses the mundane then they are hardly mundane anymore regardless of why they can do it.

If you can lift a mountain because you "just trained so hard" then we would expect that everybody who trains that hard can lift a mountain. Lifting a mountain then falls into what a normal person can do if he/she trains hard.

I mean most super teams have supertrained individuals like Hawkeye or Black Widow but they aren't balanced against Thor/Ironman/Hulk but it doesn't matter because of their narrative role.


But a character like Saitama it doesn't matter where he get his superpowers, he is definitely not mundane.


The problem the OP is facing is that he wants to have a normal, unremarkable, everyday person balanced against beings of godly power. It's like he want to take my gumshoe detective and try to balance it against a character from nobilis while still tellimg me that I'm just playing a normal gumshoe detective.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-14, 07:56 PM
Yeah I get that but when characters can do things that surpasses the mundane then they are hardly mundane anymore regardless of why they can do it.

If you can lift a mountain because you "just trained so hard" then we would expect that everybody who trains that hard can lift a mountain. Lifting a mountain then falls into what a normal person can do if he/she trains hard.

I mean most super teams have supertrained individuals like Hawkeye or Black Widow but they aren't balanced against Thor/Ironman/Hulk but it doesn't matter because of their narrative role.


But a character like Saitama it doesn't matter where he get his superpowers, he is definitely not mundane.


The problem the OP is facing is that he wants to have a normal, unremarkable, everyday person balanced against beings of godly power. It's like he want to take my gumshoe detective and try to balance it against a character from nobilis while still tellimg me that I'm just playing a normal gumshoe detective.

But does that matter?

Consider Lord of the Rings. who ultimately saves the day?

1: Mr. angelic wizard of great wisdom
2: Mr. superbow elf
3: Mr. axekill dwarf
4: King Aragorn with his ghost army
5: Merry and Pippin and their tree giant friends
6: Samwise Gamgee and Frodo with their knives

thats right, its number 6. now any hobbit could in theory have taken the same journey and saved the day. but they didn't. they weren't given the opportunity. and we don't name people heroes or competent for things they hypothetically could have done. Merry and Pippin don't get any credit fro helping them through the two other legs of their journey, despite being in the fellowship.

and ultimately, theoretically everyone can go find a martial arts master and train to break hard stuff with their hands. its a real thing we can actually do! just as one can theoretically, learn to paint the mona lisa, or play ode to joy on the violin, or paint the sistene chapel, or learn how to be an ice-skating ballerina, or be great acrobat, or calculate their exact position on earth just from looking at the sky and doing a few measurements, or learn quantum physics, or to be more dark, learn how to make incredibly dangerous chemicals with common household cleaning materials. did you know that you to can make an incredibly deadly gas just by combining two common cleaning chemicals together? or how about even more basic: anyone can start a fire and burn a house down, you don't need fireballs for that. or even just picking up say an axe made for chopping wood and killing someone with it, or running over someone with a car, thats something a normal person can possibly do!

do YOU feel like doing all these completely possible non-magical things yet? I just listed them, they're possible, some of them don't even need hard training! some people even burn down houses by accident or mix said chemicals together to try and clean stuff faster,not realizing they making something deadly. so not only can a normal person be deadly with hard training, they can be deadly through their ignorance their lack of knowing or hard training! or just not stopping in time on the road, so not even by accident, but through negligence. so its possible for a normal person, to kill someone without even trying! its not as if an orc or dwarf would experience much different results on the receiving end, given most if not, all depictions.

or is something as basic as fire too "magical" for you to manage? Yes I know burning down houses and creating deadly gasses and running people over with cars is immoral, thats my point.

RazorChain
2019-07-14, 11:01 PM
But does that matter?

Consider Lord of the Rings. who ultimately saves the day?

1: Mr. angelic wizard of great wisdom
2: Mr. superbow elf
3: Mr. axekill dwarf
4: King Aragorn with his ghost army
5: Merry and Pippin and their tree giant friends
6: Samwise Gamgee and Frodo with their knives

thats right, its number 6. now any hobbit could in theory have taken the same journey and saved the day. but they didn't. they weren't given the opportunity. and we don't name people heroes or competent for things they hypothetically could have done. Merry and Pippin don't get any credit fro helping them through the two other legs of their journey, despite being in the fellowship.

and ultimately, theoretically everyone can go find a martial arts master and train to break hard stuff with their hands. its a real thing we can actually do! just as one can theoretically, learn to paint the mona lisa, or play ode to joy on the violin, or paint the sistene chapel, or learn how to be an ice-skating ballerina, or be great acrobat, or calculate their exact position on earth just from looking at the sky and doing a few measurements, or learn quantum physics, or to be more dark, learn how to make incredibly dangerous chemicals with common household cleaning materials. did you know that you to can make an incredibly deadly gas just by combining two common cleaning chemicals together? or how about even more basic: anyone can start a fire and burn a house down, you don't need fireballs for that. or even just picking up say an axe made for chopping wood and killing someone with it, or running over someone with a car, thats something a normal person can possibly do!

do YOU feel like doing all these completely possible non-magical things yet? I just listed them, they're possible, some of them don't even need hard training! some people even burn down houses by accident or mix said chemicals together to try and clean stuff faster,not realizing they making something deadly. so not only can a normal person be deadly with hard training, they can be deadly through their ignorance their lack of knowing or hard training! or just not stopping in time on the road, so not even by accident, but through negligence. so its possible for a normal person, to kill someone without even trying! its not as if an orc or dwarf would experience much different results on the receiving end, given most if not, all depictions.

or is something as basic as fire too "magical" for you to manage? Yes I know burning down houses and creating deadly gasses and running people over with cars is immoral, thats my point.

Who saves the day is up to the author, fiction is not a game.

I have nothing against magic or other sources of power. I have nothing against playing characters that surpass human limitation. All I'm saying is when you surpass human limitations then you become superhuman. When you are superhuman then you aren't mundane anymore.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-14, 11:11 PM
Who saves the day is up to the author, fiction is not a game.

I have nothing against magic or other sources of power. I have nothing against playing characters that surpass human limitation. All I'm saying is when you surpass human limitations then you become superhuman. When you are superhuman then you aren't mundane anymore.

True.

Here is the important question though: But are you magic? Can you be superhuman without being magic?

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-14, 11:14 PM
Yeah I get that but when characters can do things that surpasses the mundane then they are hardly mundane anymore regardless of why they can do it.


Thus that phrase "magic is as magic does". It's not an assertion that all extranormal abilities are magic (despite one poster's repeated accusations to the contrary), it's an observation that if a character can do extranormal things, then they have an extranormal ability. And those trying to claim otherwise because a character doesn't have spelly trappings are just engaged in special pleading.




If you can lift a mountain because you "just trained so hard" then we would expect that everybody who trains that hard can lift a mountain. Lifting a mountain then falls into what a normal person can do if he/she trains hard.

I mean most super teams have supertrained individuals like Hawkeye or Black Widow but they aren't balanced against Thor/Ironman/Hulk but it doesn't matter because of their narrative role.


But a character like Saitama it doesn't matter where he get his superpowers, he is definitely not mundane.


The problem the OP is facing is that he wants to have a normal, unremarkable, everyday person balanced against beings of godly power. It's like he want to take my gumshoe detective and try to balance it against a character from nobilis while still tellimg me that I'm just playing a normal gumshoe detective.


Yeap, they want two mutually exclusive things to be true simultaneously.



True.

Here is the important question though: But are you magic? Can you be superhuman without being magic?

Depends on the setting details.

But that's also the wrong question, to the point of being a red herring.

The question is "Can you do superhuman things while being fastidiously utterly not superhuman and having no superhuman abilities?"

Lord Raziere
2019-07-14, 11:43 PM
Thus that phrase "magic is as magic does". It's not an assertion that all extranormal abilities are magic (despite one poster's repeated accusations to the contrary), it's an observation that if a character can do extranormal things, then they have an extranormal ability. And those trying to claim otherwise because a character doesn't have spelly trappings are just engaged in special pleading.

Yeap, they want two mutually exclusive things to be true simultaneously.

your still trying to impose one fantasy upon anothers fantasy. just because you don't get it doesn't mean its less valid. the badass normal archetype is not for your to revise into being something thats not a badass normal. thats a narrative that transcends your individual hang ups. because not everyone WANTS the persons capabilities to be turned into what you want to turn into to satisfy yourself.

sure, what Batman does probably can't be done by most actual people. but if you were say to Batman fans that he has some force making him better in skill or whatever, you'd get rejected by his fans hard, because the entire point of Batman is that he is fully human, that whatever is going on with him, doesn't take away from the fact he worked to become the peak-human prodigy that he is, because thats his narrative. anything that makes it easier diminishes the achievement aspect, anything that makes him less human, doesn't work.

because the entire point of such human characters is the exceptional nature of them. that what they achieve through their hard work is stuff they achieve alone though that hard work. and to suggest that hard work isn't what allowed that to happen goes against that, to suggest that its so easily replicated that this some weird implications for humanity when the other player isn't okay with you making those implications, is honestly being a jerk to them, your making assumptions that there are implications to get at all. sometimes an exception is just an exception, and no amount of in game reasoning compares to just talking to that person out of character at the start and determining whether they can play in your game at all if you can't accept exceptions like that.

Mechalich
2019-07-15, 01:43 AM
sure, what Batman does probably can't be done by most actual people. but if you were say to Batman fans that he has some force making him better in skill or whatever, you'd get rejected by his fans hard, because the entire point of Batman is that he is fully human, that whatever is going on with him, doesn't take away from the fact he worked to become the peak-human prodigy that he is, because thats his narrative. anything that makes it easier diminishes the achievement aspect, anything that makes him less human, doesn't work.

What Batman does, represented as a complete body of capabilities in any specific career (say, Batman: the Animated Series), cannot be done by any actual person. The chances of someone going through such a sequence of scenarios and surviving is so close to zero that I'd run out of characters before I could represent it as a probability in this post. Batman does have a force making him better than there's any reasonable expectation of what he could accomplish: it's called the plot, and if Batman's fans reject the idea that he has plot armor and a bunch of related tropes protecting him they are wrong, in an objectively recognizable way. That doesn't make the story wrong, it's just part of the suspension of disbelief required to accept and enjoy stories about Batman - and it's been deployed to better or worse affect at times throughout Batman's many varied presentations.

The key here is a fundamental difference between a narrative and a game. In narrative a given character can bend or occasionally outright break the rules for the purpose of telling a better story and that's fine, because the narrative is fundamentally controlled and if the author fudges the rules here or there but frames it properly the audience simply won't care. In a game, if a player fudges the rules or seizes on some unearned advantage that's called cheating.

There are plenty of systems that can stat both a human being at peak physical and mental condition and an overpowering god-entity that can break planets with their fist. If the latter punches that former and the former doesn't get reduced to a fine red mist, then some sort of extraordinary ability is involved and in an RPG that ability had better be on the character sheet somewhere.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-15, 03:19 AM
There are plenty of systems that can stat both a human being at peak physical and mental condition and an overpowering god-entity that can break planets with their fist. If the latter punches that former and the former doesn't get reduced to a fine red mist, then some sort of extraordinary ability is involved and in an RPG that ability had better be on the character sheet somewhere.

Is there a point where I said that it wouldn't be? This seem to be an odd thing to specify. Did you somehow think I was advocating for not writing the abilities down on a sheet? That I was advocating for cheating? Where did you get that from, thats so random.

Of course it would be on the sheet. No one said we start cheating. Thats all you bringing that up.

and yes there are a bunch of systems that can stat such things. are we talking about specific system that can't all of a sudden? this isn't a DnD specific topic, nor a DnD specific section of these forums. we were all talking about the setting and I was talking about a specific narrative and not any specific mechanics as far as I can tell. Where did I give this impression? I deny ever intending this.

Because I don't remember talking about mechanics, its character archetypes I'm talking about and why they're important and why people would want to play them. whether or not such archetypes are mechanically supported is a completely different discussion.

why do people want to play wizards? its fulfills a certain fantasy. you get your spellbook, you learn cool spells, you use your smarts to figure out a world of magic around you, sometimes for scholarly pursuits, sometimes for phenomenal cosmic power and sometimes because you like to blow things up by wiggling your fingers.

why do people want to play a bard? so they can sing and cast magic from that singing, so they can seduce the opposite sex and be a jack of all trades with a thousand stories from far off lands, a roguish wink and a dashing smile, a rapier sheathed at their hip to draw and buckle that swash in combat, to be the one that melts hearts and turns enemies into allies with your voice and charm alone.

why do people want to play a badass normal? so they can say that they did it without magic. that they were the underdog in a world full of the reality-altering power, that they did it, because they WEREN'T some dragon, or alien or robot, or wizard or any other nonsense, but because they were THEM, because they had skill, wit, preparation, pragmatism and so on to do it, the will to do it when others did not, that what separated them from the rest of the people around them wasn't some form of birth, or arbitrary physical or magical requirement or anything- that above all they Chose this. Chose to prove how great they can be by themselves, not because some mystical force handed it to them.

The only concern I have mechanically speaking is whether that last archetype of the three is supported or not. if its not, well thats your game. I can't do anything about that. It is leaving out a fantasy that you don't understand, and as long as you cling to inflexible paradigm of "no there HAS to have something more to this." you never will. A Badass Normal's beauty is in the fact that there IS nothing more, that they are, the way they are because the person achieving it, is who they are: the achievement defines them and they define the achievement as their own. They are their own source of awesome. anything else is just a middleman, and unneeded. They are their own reason for being awesome. and if it IS mechanically supported....Okay. just don't be a jerk and demand your player to define it in roleplay terms more than what they're comfortable with.

Anymage
2019-07-15, 10:17 AM
The problem the OP is facing is that he wants to have a normal, unremarkable, everyday person balanced against beings of godly power. It's like he want to take my gumshoe detective and try to balance it against a character from nobilis while still tellimg me that I'm just playing a normal gumshoe detective.

Badass mundanes are not "normal, unremarkable, everyday people". They are exceptional on multiple levels. There is a limit to just how far you can scale up until they need to tap into some other power source to stay relevant, but that ceiling does go pretty high.

Which leaves me curious here. How high up the power scale do people think a setting can go before Batman and his ilk need to tap into some other power source or become totally irrelevant?


What Batman does, represented as a complete body of capabilities in any specific career (say, Batman: the Animated Series), cannot be done by any actual person. The chances of someone going through such a sequence of scenarios and surviving...

What individual actions that Batman takes cross the threshold of what's plausible for an exceptionally competent human? All characters in fiction have some sort of narrative hand at their back, no matter how mundane the story is, and even characters in nonfiction have survivorship bias on their side.

Quertus
2019-07-15, 10:34 AM
They are their own reason for being awesome. and if it IS mechanically supported....Okay. just don't be a jerk and demand your player to define it in roleplay terms more than what they're comfortable with.

And what about asking the *system* to define it?

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-15, 10:57 AM
Badass mundanes are not "normal, unremarkable, everyday people". They are exceptional on multiple levels. There is a limit to just how far you can scale up until they need to tap into some other power source to stay relevant, but that ceiling does go pretty high.


IF your line for splitting normal vs extranormal is based on the real world (IF), then Batman is probably already into the "extranormal" range. As much as we end up referencing them, comic books are often a bad baseline for this discussion. Comic book writers are really, really bad about saying someone is "peak human" and then showing them do things that are well past even the optimistic hypothetical limits of the human body.




Which leaves me curious here. How high up the power scale do people think a setting can go before Batman and his ilk need to tap into some other power source or become totally irrelevant?


It doesn't even have to an external source that's tapped into, the origin of the ability can be entirely internal.

But if Batman is "peak human", then he lives in a world where "peak human" means something very different from what it does in our world. And from what I've seen, the DC universe doesn't appear to follow through on the implications of that change, the people mainly seem like real-world people in terms of their capabilities and limits. The typical comic book universe is not an example of good worldbuilding, however -- it's pretty much a modern faerie tale, with a bottomless pile of just-so stories that "explain" all the abilities powers. Nothing we're shown is intended to tell us anything beyond the immediate moment and immediate character, and it all comes down to the authors implicitly saying "because we said so".




What individual actions that Batman takes cross the threshold of what's plausible for an exceptionally competent human? All characters in fiction have some sort of narrative hand at their back, no matter how mundane the story is, and even characters in nonfiction have survivorship bias on their side.


What matters is what we're shown, and "the narrative hand" making a character precisely as X as they need to be in that moment to keep them from dying or failing and "ruining" the story can only makes things worse in that regard.

And more importantly, an RPG campaign or session is not authorial fiction; trying to emulate the effects of the author, or set character competence based on the inconsistencies of poor writing, is counter-productive.



your still trying to impose one fantasy upon anothers fantasy. just because you don't get it doesn't mean its less valid. the badass normal archetype is not for your to revise into being something thats not a badass normal. thats a narrative that transcends your individual hang ups. because not everyone WANTS the persons capabilities to be turned into what you want to turn into to satisfy yourself.

sure, what Batman does probably can't be done by most actual people. but if you were say to Batman fans that he has some force making him better in skill or whatever, you'd get rejected by his fans hard, because the entire point of Batman is that he is fully human, that whatever is going on with him, doesn't take away from the fact he worked to become the peak-human prodigy that he is, because thats his narrative. anything that makes it easier diminishes the achievement aspect, anything that makes him less human, doesn't work.

because the entire point of such human characters is the exceptional nature of them. that what they achieve through their hard work is stuff they achieve alone though that hard work. and to suggest that hard work isn't what allowed that to happen goes against that, to suggest that its so easily replicated that this some weird implications for humanity when the other player isn't okay with you making those implications, is honestly being a jerk to them, your making assumptions that there are implications to get at all. sometimes an exception is just an exception, and no amount of in game reasoning compares to just talking to that person out of character at the start and determining whether they can play in your game at all if you can't accept exceptions like that.

When a setting establishes "human limits in real life" as the general standard for "normal", and "100+ times what a real life person could ever do" as "badass"... then a character cannot be both "badass" and "normal".

I don't give a fig about "narrative". I don't give a fig about "archetypes".

If the entire point of Batman is that he's "fully human" and "normal" (in the context of this discussion) person who is exceptionally driven and trained to the 99.999th percentile across a wide range of abilities, that's fine. That's not a problem and not something I have a problem with or would try to take away from the character.

The core problem is in expecting "Batman" and "Superman" to be balanced in an RPG, in expecting the "fully human" guy to be on the same scale as omega-level superhumans "because he trained hard". At least Tony Stark has power armor. At least in the Batman/Superman movie, as iffy as it was, Batman put on power armor when trying to fight Superman, at least Batman himself was aware of the vast gulf in physical power involved there, even if some gamers want to pretend it's not there "because hard work".




why do people want to play a badass normal? so they can say that they did it without magic. that they were the underdog in a world full of the reality-altering power, that they did it, because they WEREN'T some dragon, or alien or robot, or wizard or any other nonsense, but because they were THEM, because they had skill, wit, preparation, pragmatism and so on to do it, the will to do it when others did not, that what separated them from the rest of the people around them wasn't some form of birth, or arbitrary physical or magical requirement or anything- that above all they Chose this. Chose to prove how great they can be by themselves, not because some mystical force handed it to them.

The only concern I have mechanically speaking is whether that last archetype of the three is supported or not. if its not, well thats your game. I can't do anything about that. It is leaving out a fantasy that you don't understand, and as long as you cling to inflexible paradigm of "no there HAS to have something more to this." you never will. A Badass Normal's beauty is in the fact that there IS nothing more, that they are, the way they are because the person achieving it, is who they are: the achievement defines them and they define the achievement as their own. They are their own source of awesome. anything else is just a middleman, and unneeded. They are their own reason for being awesome. and if it IS mechanically supported....Okay. just don't be a jerk and demand your player to define it in roleplay terms more than what they're comfortable with.


(Since we're talking about an RPG, we've always been talking about mechanics to some degree, implicitly.)


No one said that a mystical force just handed it to those other characters, that's entirely a false dichotomy between "fully human person who trained really hard" and "had it handed to them by an external force with no effort" of your own creation.

A wizard (in D&D terminology) is a guy who "trained really hard", and in doing so, learned how to bend the underlying forces of the universe to his will and do things that are otherwise impossible. He's an actual spellcaster literally using magic, the guy that "magic" gets conflated to mean in these discussions, but still nothing was "just handed to him".


Guess what -- there has to be something more to this. Skill, wit, preparation, pragmatism, and so on, won't do a thing to protect a "fully human" / "normal" person against a planet-shattering punch. One can bend it to mean "he has a plan to not be on the planet when it happens", but that's entirely outside what we're talking about here and everyone involved in this discussion knows that.

(Unless you're a character in a setting where they do allow a "normal" "fully human" person to survive planet-shattering punches, and then we have a lot to discuss about that setting as very different from what most people expect for their fantasy genre gaming, full of people who'd be superhuman in the real world or in most fantasy settings... or in most settings.)


At least in part this seems to come down to that old problem of conflating different definitions. The use of "fantasy" in "fantasy literature" or a "fantasy genre RPG" is not the meaning of "fantasy" you're invoking in your comments, of "fulfilling someone's fantasy".

Jakinbandw
2019-07-15, 11:38 AM
Also, I am really curious about how clerics becoming gods works out. Do they actually become full capital G gods, or do they become something equivalent to saints or divine servitors? Because it seems really weird to me at face value that someone who devoted their life the service of a divine being would one day become a potential rival / usurper to the former object of their worship.



Agreed. This does feel an odd place for this capstone.

That said, where *would* one put it? Because it… is a weird case. The god of, eh, fighting, should probably be good at fighting. But, if godhood isn't the end goal for everyone after level x, then the path that allows ascention has to be the *least* important component of one's divine identity.

So, Cleric is… follower, training to become leader? There's certainly precedent for that line of thought.

@Quertus: I'll reply to the rest of your comment later, but for now I'm just going to quickly bang out an answer to this question!

Clerics becoming a god was a decision I made because I wanted each class to have the option to be entirely self dependent at the end of the game. There are some weird things in dnd where a cleric can become stronger than their patron god which I always found kinda odd.

So first the relevant text:

You channel the powers of a greater power, using Faith as a medium for that energy. As you channel it, it changes you, but you also change it to fit your beliefs. There are tales of both the channeler and the power they were channeling merging to become a being of great power.

Channeler is just a fancy word for cleric honestly. This is from the quick intro to the class. As with my last class I don't have room to go into all the detail I would like sometimes and that means the rest of the class has to sort of speak through its abilities. So this is where it goes into more detail.


Apotheosis (Constant/Ongoing)

You merge with the being of your worship as those following you come to view the two of you as the same being. Purchasing this ability requires you to have at least 13 faith. You become a god, though your patron can choose if you merge with them, or become a new god instead by linking you to formless energy.

As a god your default state is one that is formless, though you can create an avatar over a short rest at any location you are aware of and maintain it by sustaining effort. The avatar uses your attributes and you control it as if it were you, and all non physical wounds and stress it takes are shared with you.

The avatar takes a short rest to dismiss. If it is killed you take a spiritual wound, and you may not reform it till you have at least 13 faith.

You are aware of your followers needs and learn the most pressing issue affecting each of your temples.

While sustaining effort you can view any location in areas where you have divine authority, or any area where one of your worshipers is. You can use this to see multiple areas at once.

Willie the Duck
2019-07-15, 12:05 PM
The key here is a fundamental difference between a narrative and a game. In narrative a given character can bend or occasionally outright break the rules for the purpose of telling a better story and that's fine, because the narrative is fundamentally controlled and if the author fudges the rules here or there but frames it properly the audience simply won't care. In a game, if a player fudges the rules or seizes on some unearned advantage that's called cheating.


Is there a point where I said that it wouldn't be? This seem to be an odd thing to specify. Did you somehow think I was advocating for not writing the abilities down on a sheet? That I was advocating for cheating? Where did you get that from, thats so random.

Of course it would be on the sheet. No one said we start cheating. Thats all you bringing that up.

For the sake of this conversation, I don't think the term cheating adds everything. Everyone has been speaking from the perspective of everyone agreeing to a type of play before sitting down to game. So if the character can break of break the rules of the game, it is because they have been given a 'break the (otherwise extant) rules' special ability as part of their ability package.

Segev
2019-07-15, 12:08 PM
As far as I can tell, it amounts to "My Fighter can reload and fire a siege crossbow 6 times in 6 seconds because my Fighter can reload and fire a siege crossbow 6 times in 6 seconds, and because it's cool, and because it's balanced, and anyone who asks for more explanation that that is trying to block my character and ruin my fun."

My answer to this is, "Anybody who trains hard enough to be that skilled can do it, in a D&D world." It may or may not be "extranormal," but it is just an expression of being THAT GOOD with that skill, and is within the capacities of people of that setting.

Maybe - probably - not everybody. I mean, if we look at feats that likely go into it, we probably have defined Ability Score minima they must meet. And maybe other things (though a lot of those are, again, training). Maybe they're "secret techinques," a la martial arts schools. But anybody who can pull of the physical training can learn to do it.

And I'm okay with that level of explanation, because it gives something internally consistent. I also reject any scoffing that says, "well, harumph, that's not really a human anymore." Because that's essentially the no true scottsman fallacy.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-15, 12:14 PM
My answer to this is, "Anybody who trains hard enough to be that skilled can do it, in a D&D world." It may or may not be "extranormal," but it is just an expression of being THAT GOOD with that skill, and is within the capacities of people of that setting.

Maybe - probably - not everybody. I mean, if we look at feats that likely go into it, we probably have defined Ability Score minima they must meet. And maybe other things (though a lot of those are, again, training). Maybe they're "secret techinques," a la martial arts schools. But anybody who can pull of the physical training can learn to do it.

And I'm okay with that level of explanation, because it gives something internally consistent. I also reject any scoffing that says, "well, harumph, that's not really a human anymore." Because that's essentially the no true scottsman fallacy.

The question isn't whether it's universally human any more, the question is whether it's human for that setting.

If it's not, then the character is extranormal in the context of that setting.

If it is human for that setting, then we've learned something important about that setting, and we should expect other elements and events we're shown about that setting to align with it.

HouseRules
2019-07-15, 12:15 PM
My answer to this is, "Anybody who trains hard enough to be that skilled can do it, in a D&D world." It may or may not be "extranormal," but it is just an expression of being THAT GOOD with that skill, and is within the capacities of people of that setting.

Maybe - probably - not everybody. I mean, if we look at feats that likely go into it, we probably have defined Ability Score minima they must meet. And maybe other things (though a lot of those are, again, training). Maybe they're "secret techinques," a la martial arts schools. But anybody who can pull of the physical training can learn to do it.

And I'm okay with that level of explanation, because it gives something internally consistent. I also reject any scoffing that says, "well, harumph, that's not really a human anymore." Because that's essentially the no true scottsman fallacy.

I still want to do my 100th iterative attack, but how do I do so when 3E is limited to 4 iterative attacks and 8 with perfect two-weapon fighting?

Lord Raziere
2019-07-15, 12:42 PM
I don't give a fig about "narrative". I don't give a fig about "archetypes".


Too bad. other people will.

All the justifications are irrelevant to the fact that if you can't work with someone who believes things you don't give a fig about, your just an unsociable inflexible jerk. Thats just how being sociable works, and your failing it because you think holding to some complicated internal logic you have pre-decided in your head is more important than just being friendly and getting on with the game, so that people can have fun.

which really is the ultimate failing of all these game philosophies being thrown about: in real games none of this stuff matters as much as the person across from you and having a good time with them, this whole debate is supplemental. at best. there'd be more use in discussing how to be flexible and NOT hold someone to your own preferences constantly, because the more you do, the more you railroad. I doubt any GM's world is ever the perfect one they want, after all PCs are in them.

Segev
2019-07-15, 12:48 PM
The question isn't whether it's universally human any more, the question is whether it's human for that setting.

If it's not, then the character is extranormal in the context of that setting.

If it is human for that setting, then we've learned something important about that setting, and we should expect other elements and events we're shown about that setting to align with it.

Both are valid. And yes, you do learn something about the setting. I think where you and I differ are in how we expect the setting to warp due to it. I can accept a setting where these rare specimins are at least as rare as olympic athletes.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-15, 12:55 PM
The question isn't whether it's universally human any more, the question is whether it's human for that setting.

If it's not, then the character is extranormal in the context of that setting.

If it is human for that setting, then we've learned something important about that setting, and we should expect other elements and events we're shown about that setting to align with it.

So I think I understand a bit about your position that was confusing me before. For you, normal humans in 3.5 can cast wish. This is because anyone can become a wizard, and with enough training they can cast wish. To you casting wish is mundane.

I personally think this point of view is pretty far off from what people normally view mundanes in fantasy settings to the point where I question it's usefulness as a metric.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-15, 12:59 PM
Too bad. other people will.

All the justifications are irrelevant to the fact that if you can't work with someone who believes things you don't give a fig about, your just an unsociable inflexible jerk. Thats just how being sociable works, and your failing it because you think holding to some complicated internal logic you have pre-decided in your head is more important than just being friendly and getting on with the game, so that people can have fun.

which really is the ultimate failing of all these game philosophies being thrown about: in real games none of this stuff matters as much as the person across from you and having a good time with them, this whole debate is supplemental. at best. there'd be more use in discussing how to be flexible and NOT hold someone to your own preferences constantly, because the more you do, the more you railroad. I doubt any GM's world is ever the perfect one they want, after all PCs are in them.

Yeah, everyone else are the "unsociable jerks" for questioning the insistence that "but I want to" and "awesome is the reason for awesome" are functional justifications for trying to cram characters into campaigns and settings they don't really match up with... and sure, it's everyone else trying to "ruin your fun" and "being selfish" because they have the gall and daring to not cater to one player's personal fantasies at the expense of all their own experiences.

And now it's "railroading" if a GM says "that character really doesn't fit this setting" or "that character won't work in this campaign".

:confused:

It's pretty clear what's actually at the core of this.

Segev
2019-07-15, 01:02 PM
So I think I understand a bit about your position that was confusing me before. For you, normal humans in 3.5 can cast wish. This is because anyone can become a wizard, and with enough training they can cast wish. To you casting wish is mundane.

I personally think this point of view is pretty far off from what people normally view mundanes in fantasy settings to the point where I question it's usefulness as a metric.

Max's position, insofar as I understand it (and he's welcome to correct me), agrees with mine, more or less, here. The core point being that, in D&D, delineating mundane from magic in a fashion that says "because you're casting spells, you can do anything we want to write a spell to do, but if you're not, then you can't do amazing feats because a guy at the gym can't do them IRL" is doomed to enforce the idea that magic just wins. The solution is to allow for extraordinary abilities on "mundane" characters which can do things that keep up with spellcasters.

In other words, "superpowers" are something anybody of sufficient level can have. This is one reason Max, I think, tries to pull away from using the term "magic," becuase it's double-laden in a lot of cases.

In D&D, "magic" actually means "anything that can be shut down in an AMF." There's plenty of fantastic stuff that is impossible IRL in D&D which is not magical. Most of it gets tagged "Ex" for "Extroardinary Ability."

In D&D, "magic" is Mundane by the definition being discussed, because anybody can theoretically learn to cast spells and thus do "magic." Conversely, if you want to avoid the "Wizards always win" problem, you have to allow in your design space for games like D&D that those who are not spellcasters can also do things that are equally fantastic. Whether you call it "magic" or not.

HouseRules
2019-07-15, 01:09 PM
Extraordinary means impossible for mortals, but possible for machines IRL.

Supernatural means impossible IRL.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-15, 01:13 PM
So I think I understand a bit about your position that was confusing me before. For you, normal humans in 3.5 can cast wish. This is because anyone can become a wizard, and with enough training they can cast wish. To you casting wish is mundane.

I personally think this point of view is pretty far off from what people normally view mundanes in fantasy settings to the point where I question it's usefulness as a metric.

No, it's not mundane, and it's not normal. The wizard, through training (that is, learning), crossed over into the possession of extranormal abilities.

The point is that "but it's just really hard training" doesn't prevent something from crossing over into the extranormal, that there's nothing special about "this guy can leap over the town wall with ease, and cut through an oak with a swing of his sword, and fire 6 shots in an instant" that makes it less extranormal than "this guy can throw a fireball".




Max's position, insofar as I understand it (and he's welcome to correct me), agrees with mine, more or less, here. The core point being that, in D&D, delineating mundane from magic in a fashion that says "because you're casting spells, you can do anything we want to write a spell to do, but if you're not, then you can't do amazing feats because a guy at the gym can't do them IRL" is doomed to enforce the idea that magic just wins. The solution is to allow for extraordinary abilities on "mundane" characters which can do things that keep up with spellcasters.

In other words, "superpowers" are something anybody of sufficient level can have. This is one reason Max, I think, tries to pull away from using the term "magic," becuase it's double-laden in a lot of cases.

In D&D, "magic" actually means "anything that can be shut down in an AMF." There's plenty of fantastic stuff that is impossible IRL in D&D which is not magical. Most of it gets tagged "Ex" for "Extroardinary Ability."

In D&D, "magic" is Mundane by the definition being discussed, because anybody can theoretically learn to cast spells and thus do "magic." Conversely, if you want to avoid the "Wizards always win" problem, you have to allow in your design space for games like D&D that those who are not spellcasters can also do things that are equally fantastic. Whether you call it "magic" or not.


I've tried to pull away from using "magic" because no matter how hard I try to explain otherwise, people take it to mean "D&D spellcasting" -- so they grossly misread comments like "magic is as magic does", which means almost the opposite, nothing more or less than that if your abilities are extranormal, then they're extranormal, it doesn't matter if you're casting spells or not.

The problem we're discussing in this thread only arises when someone isn't willing to sacrifice something -- and it only needs to be one of these, using a D&D-like fantasy setting with magic as the example.

"Magic" as in spellcasting is incredibly powerful.
Non-spellcasting characters are limited to IRL limits no matter what.
Spellcasters and non-spelllcasters are balanced.
The setting is internally coherent.


If you tone down spellcasting, or allow non-spellcasters to be "magic" (in the broad sense, as in extranormal), or give up on playing both together (the Vampire/Mage/Werewolf solution), or just admit up from that your setting is a collection of "just so" elements that can't be reconciled, then everyone can be on the same page, and those who prefer to not take part in the campaign or the system can just not do so because it's not to their tastes.

But when we run into that gamer who demands being able to play a "badass normal" in a Vampire campaign, who can outfight elder vampires because he's "just that awesome", and who accuses the GM and the rest of the players of "being jerks" when they dare to question this.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-15, 01:15 PM
Yeah, everyone else are the "unsociable jerks" for questioning the insistence that "but I want to" and "awesome is the reason for awesome" are functional justifications for trying to cram characters into campaigns and settings they don't really match up with... and sure, it's everyone else trying to "ruin your fun" and "being selfish" because they have the gall and daring to not cater to one player's personal fantasies at the expense of all their own experiences.

And now it's "railroading" if a GM says "that character really doesn't fit this setting" or "that character won't work in this campaign".

:confused:

It's pretty clear what's actually at the core of this.

I don't recall at any point advocating cramming characters into setting where they don't match up. you made that up in your head.

and no, you don't get to pull the "I pretend as if I'm speaking for more than myself" bull. your not everyone here. stop acting like it. your are not "everyone else". don't be egotistical in assuming everyone is a clone of you.

and how dare they not cater to YOUR personal fantasies ether! how dare they not be as consistent. how dare they have different standards and be other people that aren't you, y'know those things that exist outside your head. its almost as if they are individuals or something who will never match up to the high standards you set and you will always kick out a new player to play with your old ones with the attitude you have. you don't speak for anyone but yourself.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-07-15, 01:16 PM
Max's position, insofar as I understand it (and he's welcome to correct me), agrees with mine, more or less, here. The core point being that, in D&D, delineating mundane from magic in a fashion that says "because you're casting spells, you can do anything we want to write a spell to do, but if you're not, then you can't do amazing feats because a guy at the gym can't do them IRL" is doomed to enforce the idea that magic just wins. The solution is to allow for extraordinary abilities on "mundane" characters which can do things that keep up with spellcasters.

In other words, "superpowers" are something anybody of sufficient level can have. This is one reason Max, I think, tries to pull away from using the term "magic," becuase it's double-laden in a lot of cases.

In D&D, "magic" actually means "anything that can be shut down in an AMF." There's plenty of fantastic stuff that is impossible IRL in D&D which is not magical. Most of it gets tagged "Ex" for "Extroardinary Ability."

In D&D, "magic" is Mundane by the definition being discussed, because anybody can theoretically learn to cast spells and thus do "magic." Conversely, if you want to avoid the "Wizards always win" problem, you have to allow in your design space for games like D&D that those who are not spellcasters can also do things that are equally fantastic. Whether you call it "magic" or not.

Those are very 3e-specific D&D definitions. Not all editions (and not all magic) is that way.

5e, for instance defines everything as partaking of the background magic of the setting, but only spells (and other specifically patterned uses of an interface layer to this background magic) as being disrupted by dispel magic, counterspell, AMF and the like. 5e also makes no separation between EX, SU, SL, and anything else. Dragon's flight? Uses background magic (is magical), but isn't a spell and thus not disrupted. Barbarian's rage? Same.

Edit: and it makes no claim that everyone can theoretically learn to cast spells, even wizard spells. It leaves that open to interpretation, but the fiction makes clear that many, if not most, simply lack the frame of mind and the innate talent for wizardry (or the connection to the divine for clerical magic, etc). Not all musicians are bards, no matter how they practice and read spell books.

This is why I use the term "fantastic" for any such beyond-real-world-possibility actions/behaviors/etc.

Edit 2: I agree with your general point, though. "magic" is too broad, too laden with other meanings to serve well here.

Willie the Duck
2019-07-15, 01:24 PM
which really is the ultimate failing of all these game philosophies being thrown about: in real games none of this stuff matters as much as the person across from you and having a good time with them, this whole debate is supplemental. at best. there'd be more use in discussing how to be flexible and NOT hold someone to your own preferences constantly, because the more you do, the more you railroad. I doubt any GM's world is ever the perfect one they want, after all PCs are in them.

In real games, people sit down and negotiate with each other over what type of game they want to get involved with. This is all 'in theory' discussions about preferences. We could all remind ourselves of that -- this is a discussion about what people think would (in their view, and to their own preference) make for the best game.


It's pretty clear what's actually at the core of this.

That another poster has decided somehow that you are a mustachio-twirling cartoon villain?


This is why I use the term "fantastic" for any such beyond-real-world-possibility actions/behaviors/etc.

'not really possible, but coded as merely extraordinary' and 'coded as magical' and 'explicitly spellcasting' are also helpful terms and distinctions.
However, there simply aren't enough universally agreed upon terms, particularly since the game uses real world terms as in-game jargon. Max Wilson used to have a talking point about how he wished that they had started working on a trend of making jargon be bolded or given a different color or the like, to distinguish between magic and magic.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-15, 01:26 PM
No, it's not mundane, and it's not normal. The wizard, through training (that is, learning), crossed over into the possession of extranormal abilities.

The point is that "but it's just really hard training" doesn't prevent something from crossing over into the extranormal, that there's nothing special about "this guy can leap over the town wall with ease, and cut through an oak with a swing of his sword, and fire 6 shots in an instant" that makes it less extranormal than "this guy can throw a fireball".

Then what makes someone 'extra normal'? Are Olympic gold medalists 'extra normal'?

Because if your definition of extra normal is that low, then honestly any first level character in dnd is 'extra normal'. And it's certainly true for my system. As early as level 4 in my system you can start picking up abilities that are beyond what 'normal' people can access.

It's why I'm using Mundane instead of Normal. Mundane generally means 'Non-Magical' and I'm looking to support archtypes that don't use magic. I'm not saying those archtypes aren't special. Normal people don't have enough money to buy whatever they want, but someone lucky enough to be really rich and have the wealth class can.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-07-15, 01:36 PM
It's why I'm using Mundane instead of Normal. Mundane generally means 'Non-Magical' and I'm looking to support archtypes that don't use magic. I'm not saying those archtypes aren't special. Normal people don't have enough money to buy whatever they want, but someone lucky enough to be really rich and have the wealth class can.

Mundane and normal are synonyms. Very strong ones, with mundane being even more boring than normal. Your "mundane job" is not your "non-magical" job, it's your normal, (presumedly) boring job that doesn't bring excitement.

Mundane is a seriously loaded word, with strongly negative connotations (to me, anyway).

If you want non-magical, say exactly that. But everything you've said about those classes and their top-tier abilities? That's fantastic (in the beyond-real-world-capabilities sense). NO non-fantastic person can do those things, or keep up with a fantastic person at that level. It beggars belief, and destroys any credibility the system has (to me at least)--it's a bold-faced lie. "I pinky-swear that I'm not fantastic, but <can do fantastic things anyway>! Really! I'm not fantastic!"

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-15, 01:44 PM
I don't recall at any point advocating cramming characters into setting where they don't match up. you made that up in your head.


Bull. You've been doing it this entire thread.

What do you think it is when someone says that a "totally not fantastic I swear, don't you dare say otherwise" character who does actually blatantly fantastic things doesn't fit in a campaign or a setting, and your response is "you're just being a picky selfish jerk who's trying to ruin other gamers' fun"?




and no, you don't get to pull the "I pretend as if I'm speaking for more than myself" bull. your not everyone here.


https://www.potterybarn.com/pbimgs/rk/images/dp/wcm/201913/0009/brussels-round-mirror-o.jpg

Segev
2019-07-15, 01:50 PM
If you want non-magical, say exactly that. But everything you've said about those classes and their top-tier abilities? That's fantastic (in the beyond-real-world-capabilities sense). NO non-fantastic person can do those things, or keep up with a fantastic person at that level. It beggars belief, and destroys any credibility the system has (to me at least)--it's a bold-faced lie. "I pinky-swear that I'm not fantastic, but <can do fantastic things anyway>! Really! I'm not fantastic!"

As you noted, some settings (e.g. 5e) talk about it in terms of "partaking of the background magic of the setting" to achieve these feats. Which is really just another way, to me, of saying that the laws of physics/reality are different there and thus different things are possible.

But it also raises the question: in a setting where these things are possible, where do you draw the line of "extra-normal?" Particularly, agian, in-setting, where they don't have our world as a point of reference. In Hunter x Hunter and DBZ, nen/chi is kind-of the dividing line. Anything you need to study a particular extra energy source to accomplish qualifies as "magic" (even if they don't use that word) or at least "extra-normal." But what if everything uses it to some extent, instinctively? What if just being ALIVE is a manifestation of the same energy - call it "positive energy" - that (say) a ki-user is actually channelling in greater proportion...but which all higher-level characters are also using to fuel their greater hp and stats and stuff?

I'm not even really trying to argue here, so much as encourage a different way of looking at things. For a given setting, what IS "normal?" And why is it normal? Is it "normal" because it's what "most people" can do, or at least what "most people" will have at least one dude in their hometown who is the best at this kind of thing be able to do? (e.g. Big Tom is the strongman of Little Junction, and he can lift an oxcart off the ground with one hand and replace the wheel with the other; every town has somebody more or less like that, though maybe not in strength.) Is "abnormal" or "extra-normal" or "magical" just "these feats are rarer to find those able to perform them," the way, say, olympic athletes IRL who showed up to compete at a college intramural would seem impossibly good?

Or does "extra-normal" or "magical" mean they're doing something that not just anybody can learn? That they're doing something fundamentally different than what most highly skilled/trained/talented people are doing? The difference between the Flash using the Speed Force and Usain Bolt training his legs off?

The answer to these questions tells you, as Max_Killjoy says, something about the setting. If it's the Speed Force making the Flash super-fast, then it's a far different thing to try to match him than it is if it really is just that he ran 10km each day, did 10,000 situps each morning, 10,000 push ups each evening, until all his hair fell out and he could run faster than you can blink.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-07-15, 01:57 PM
As you noted, some settings (e.g. 5e) talk about it in terms of "partaking of the background magic of the setting" to achieve these feats. Which is really just another way, to me, of saying that the laws of physics/reality are different there and thus different things are possible.

But it also raises the question: in a setting where these things are possible, where do you draw the line of "extra-normal?" Particularly, agian, in-setting, where they don't have our world as a point of reference. In Hunter x Hunter and DBZ, nen/chi is kind-of the dividing line. Anything you need to study a particular extra energy source to accomplish qualifies as "magic" (even if they don't use that word) or at least "extra-normal." But what if everything uses it to some extent, instinctively? What if just being ALIVE is a manifestation of the same energy - call it "positive energy" - that (say) a ki-user is actually channelling in greater proportion...but which all higher-level characters are also using to fuel their greater hp and stats and stuff?

I'm not even really trying to argue here, so much as encourage a different way of looking at things. For a given setting, what IS "normal?" And why is it normal? Is it "normal" because it's what "most people" can do, or at least what "most people" will have at least one dude in their hometown who is the best at this kind of thing be able to do? (e.g. Big Tom is the strongman of Little Junction, and he can lift an oxcart off the ground with one hand and replace the wheel with the other; every town has somebody more or less like that, though maybe not in strength.) Is "abnormal" or "extra-normal" or "magical" just "these feats are rarer to find those able to perform them," the way, say, olympic athletes IRL who showed up to compete at a college intramural would seem impossibly good?

Or does "extra-normal" or "magical" mean they're doing something that not just anybody can learn? That they're doing something fundamentally different than what most highly skilled/trained/talented people are doing? The difference between the Flash using the Speed Force and Usain Bolt training his legs off?

The answer to these questions tells you, as Max_Killjoy says, something about the setting. If it's the Speed Force making the Flash super-fast, then it's a far different thing to try to match him than it is if it really is just that he ran 10km each day, did 10,000 situps each morning, 10,000 push ups each evening, until all his hair fell out and he could run faster than you can blink.

I only ever worry about what's normal/not-normal for us. Everything else (everything from an in-setting point of view, gets calibrated separately). Some things that are both fantastic to us would be mixed. And it's not even about power levels there--there are things that are amazingly powerful (to us) that are normal[1] to them, and things that are meh to us but are totally beyond-the-norm[2] to them.

I'm a very strong proponent of the idea that everyone that matters, everyone beyond the commoners of the setting (and even them to some degree) are fantastic. There is no normal. And different people have different, mostly-innate potential. We follow the PCs because they're part of the subset with indeterminate potential for growth. Most aren't that way--they cap out pretty close to what an earth person would consider normal (at the macro level, anyway, the details of how that's achieved are very different).

[1] Example from my setting--I embrace the HP = meat paradigm and so everyone has what seems to be supernatural healing power. For a bit, anyway. But some have way more of it than others. That level 20 bear-totem barbarian? Yes, he just tanked a dragon's breath to the face with nothing other than his muscles (which are enhanced by his connection to primal anima through his emotional state) and wasn't more than scorched and will be better with a bit of rest.

[2] Electrical lighting. That's only possible in-setting using magic items, because electricity doesn't work that way in setting. You'd need to channel light-aspected anima through channels, and without a source of power such as a soul reactor or a special location, it's going to suck the locality dry of ambient anima if you try to light a city with such lights.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-15, 02:06 PM
Then what makes someone 'extra normal'? Are Olympic gold medalists 'extra normal'?

Because if your definition of extra normal is that low, then honestly any first level character in dnd is 'extra normal'. And it's certainly true for my system. As early as level 4 in my system you can start picking up abilities that are beyond what 'normal' people can access.


Nope, in the context of the real world, gold metal athletes are normal. In the context of the real world, EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is normal -- there are no extranormal people or abilities or powers in the real world.

If you had a setting for your game/system where the physical abilities of normal people were the same as in the real world, then physically "extranormal" would start roughly at 50% higher than the current world records (seriously, this isn't just made up, there are limits to even hypothetical human performance based on where muscles simply start to tear themselves apart, ligaments rip off bones, bones start to crack, etc)... or you could just say "double" to draw a really bright clear line between normal and extranormal... and this becomes more blatant when the character is out past those lines in multiple ways.

Several characters are training, running at the facility track. One of them is at a light sprint, lapping the others repeatedly, while carrying 20 kg dumbell in each hand... that's the superhuman character, even though they're only "just a little past peak human" in speed, endurance, strength, etc.




Mundane and normal are synonyms. Very strong ones, with mundane being even more boring than normal. Your "mundane job" is not your "non-magical" job, it's your normal, (presumedly) boring job that doesn't bring excitement.

Mundane is a seriously loaded word, with strongly negative connotations (to me, anyway).

If you want non-magical, say exactly that. But everything you've said about those classes and their top-tier abilities? That's fantastic (in the beyond-real-world-capabilities sense). NO non-fantastic person can do those things, or keep up with a fantastic person at that level. It beggars belief, and destroys any credibility the system has (to me at least)--it's a bold-faced lie. "I pinky-swear that I'm not fantastic, but <can do fantastic things anyway>! Really! I'm not fantastic!"


Exactly the disconnect -- the character who is "not fantastic in any way I swear don't you dare say otherwise" while doing blatantly fantastic things.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-15, 02:11 PM
Nope, in the context of the real world, gold metal athletes are normal. In the context of the real world, EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is normal -- there are no extranormal people or abilities or powers in the real world.

If you had a setting for your game/system where the physical abilities of normal people were the same as in the real world, then physically "extranormal" would start roughly at 50% higher than the current world records (seriously, this isn't just made up, there are limits to even hypothetical human performance based on where muscles simply start to tear themselves apart, ligaments rip off bones, bones start to crack, etc)... or you could just say "double" to draw a really bright clear line between normal and extranormal... and this becomes more blatant when the character is out past those lines in multiple ways.

Several characters are training, running at the facility track. One of them is at a light sprint, lapping the others repeatedly, while carrying 20 kg dumbell in each hand... that's the superhuman character, even though they're only "just a little past peak human" in speed, endurance, strength, etc.

So why is a mage in 3.5 extra normal and a Gold Medal Olympic sprinter not extra normal. More characters in dnd are mages then there are Gold Medalists. If training can make you Extra Normal, why aren't Gold Medalists extra normal?

I'm very confused by your definitions.

Segev
2019-07-15, 02:12 PM
Exactly the disconnect -- the character who is "not fantastic in any way I swear don't you dare say otherwise" while doing blatantly fantastic things.

To put it a bit cheekily: if your only superpower is "being Batman," you still have a superpower.

Karl Aegis
2019-07-15, 02:14 PM
I think the question trying to be asked is, "What can a guy whose skillset is politician, landholder, or evangelist do versus a sentient tornado that shoots plasma out of its eyes or a walking volcano that spits dragons at you without resorting to magic?" The answer is probably, "You can't come here without a passport. Move along." as some kind of ability.

Quertus
2019-07-15, 02:15 PM
Too bad. other people will.

All the justifications are irrelevant to the fact that if you can't work with someone who believes things you don't give a fig about, your just an unsociable inflexible jerk. Thats just how being sociable works, and your failing it because you think holding to some complicated internal logic you have pre-decided in your head is more important than just being friendly and getting on with the game, so that people can have fun.

which really is the ultimate failing of all these game philosophies being thrown about: in real games none of this stuff matters as much as the person across from you and having a good time with them, this whole debate is supplemental. at best. there'd be more use in discussing how to be flexible and NOT hold someone to your own preferences constantly, because the more you do, the more you railroad. I doubt any GM's world is ever the perfect one they want, after all PCs are in them.

In a good group, yes, everyone would care about each other having fun. But I'm pretty sure, if you were in a game with Max, that would include you caring about Max's fun, and therefore caring about consistency.

Segev
2019-07-15, 02:22 PM
I think the question trying to be asked is, "What can a guy whose skillset is politician, landholder, or evangelist do versus a sentient tornado that shoots plasma out of its eyes or a walking volcano that spits dragons at you without resorting to magic?" The answer is probably, "You can't come here without a passport. Move along." as some kind of ability.

If these living environmental disasters are unrooted to anything and are as unaffected by material and societal concerns as unsentient natural disasters, then the politician/landholder/evangelist's powers are the same against them that they are against a tornado ripping through his territory or a volcano erupting in his neighbor's back yard: evacuation, relief, and rebuilding prowess. Manning logistics, saving lives through organizing the emergency services, ensuring that everything anybody needs is on hand when they need it. If "the real heroes" are the emergency workers and first responders, then he's the Charlie to the first responders' Charlie's Angels.

If these living environmental disasters are also Frank and Bob, who have families and friends and like to go to the movies or the theme park and/or were hoping their rampage would earn them enough ransom/stolen money to live high on the hog, then his powers are to interdict their finances, to track them to their homes, to force them to uproot and lose access to social structures as they find every hand turned against them. Sure, they can turn violent, but his power is to limit their options to that, and make the expected return on violence next to nothing. Their choices become "give up, pay your debt to society for whate you've done so far, and get your life back," or "become nothing but the lonely and poverty-stricken living natural disaster."

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-15, 02:25 PM
As you noted, some settings (e.g. 5e) talk about it in terms of "partaking of the background magic of the setting" to achieve these feats. Which is really just another way, to me, of saying that the laws of physics/reality are different there and thus different things are possible.

But it also raises the question: in a setting where these things are possible, where do you draw the line of "extra-normal?" Particularly, agian, in-setting, where they don't have our world as a point of reference. In Hunter x Hunter and DBZ, nen/chi is kind-of the dividing line. Anything you need to study a particular extra energy source to accomplish qualifies as "magic" (even if they don't use that word) or at least "extra-normal." But what if everything uses it to some extent, instinctively? What if just being ALIVE is a manifestation of the same energy - call it "positive energy" - that (say) a ki-user is actually channelling in greater proportion...but which all higher-level characters are also using to fuel their greater hp and stats and stuff?

I'm not even really trying to argue here, so much as encourage a different way of looking at things. For a given setting, what IS "normal?" And why is it normal? Is it "normal" because it's what "most people" can do, or at least what "most people" will have at least one dude in their hometown who is the best at this kind of thing be able to do? (e.g. Big Tom is the strongman of Little Junction, and he can lift an oxcart off the ground with one hand and replace the wheel with the other; every town has somebody more or less like that, though maybe not in strength.) Is "abnormal" or "extra-normal" or "magical" just "these feats are rarer to find those able to perform them," the way, say, olympic athletes IRL who showed up to compete at a college intramural would seem impossibly good?

Or does "extra-normal" or "magical" mean they're doing something that not just anybody can learn? That they're doing something fundamentally different than what most highly skilled/trained/talented people are doing? The difference between the Flash using the Speed Force and Usain Bolt training his legs off?

The answer to these questions tells you, as Max_Killjoy says, something about the setting. If it's the Speed Force making the Flash super-fast, then it's a far different thing to try to match him than it is if it really is just that he ran 10km each day, did 10,000 situps each morning, 10,000 push ups each evening, until all his hair fell out and he could run faster than you can blink.


And something I want to make clear, as I've tried to make it clear before.

The point is not that there is one right way to answer these questions, or that my preferred sort of answers for my settings are objectively right.

No, the objective fact here is that the person designing the setting, the system, the campaign, etc, needs to think about these questions and answer them, hopefully in a way that produces the sort of gaming they want, and that the players they're playing with want. Where the answers contradict, or produce contradictory results, that needs to be resolved.

Sometimes, something has to give, and you can't get everything that everyone wants out of the same setting, or system, or campaign. Answering the questions and working out the contradictions puts that up front, where everyone can make an honest informed decision.

And as Rush put it, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. If someone decides they're going to refuse to answer those questions, they're still creating a game that some gamers aren't going to enjoy gaming in.



So why is a mage in 3.5 extra normal and a Gold Medal Olympic sprinter not extra normal. More characters in dnd are mages then there are Gold Medalists. If training can make you Extra Normal, why aren't Gold Medalists extra normal?

I'm very confused by your definitions.

Not "extra normal", extranormal. As in beyond normal. See also, fantastic, superhuman, or the broadest sense of "magic".

A mage in 3.5 (implied default / typical settings at least) is extranormal because he's tapping into eldritch forces that the vast majority of people simply cannot, to do things that are otherwise impossible in that setting.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-15, 02:41 PM
Not "extra normal", extranormal. As in beyond normal. See also, fantastic, superhuman, or the broadest sense of "magic".

A mage in 3.5 (implied default / typical settings at least) is extranormal because he's tapping into eldritch forces that the vast majority of people simply cannot, to do things that are otherwise impossible in that setting.

As far as I was aware in 3.5 anyone who studied long enough could be a wizard. I apologize if I am mistaken on that, and It might be where I was getting confused.

So someone in a setting who is in the 1 billionth percentile of strength can lift a mountain, and that's not extra normal, it would be just like someone who wins the Gold medal (only one person wins out of 7 billion people).

Err... But...

Okay, first of all. What do you consider normal in a setting? If only 1 in a million people can get there, and that is still normal to you, what pushes hard work and training into 'extra-normal'? Just because a Gold Medal athlete can run at a certain speed doesn't mean anyone else can. So wouldn't that mean anything that can be gained through training and talent would count as normal, even if no one else could match it?

Sorry to be a bit pedantic about this, but I need to understand where you are coming from to understand the context of what you are saying. Right now I'm pretty sure I am misinterpreting you, and I'm trying to correct that.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-15, 02:59 PM
As far as I was aware in 3.5 anyone who studied long enough could be a wizard. I apologize if I am mistaken on that, and It might be where I was getting confused.

So someone in a setting who is in the 1 billionth percentile of strength can lift a mountain, and that's not extra normal, it would be just like someone who wins the Gold medal (only one person wins out of 7 billion people).

Err... But...

Okay, first of all. What do you consider normal in a setting? If only 1 in a million people can get there, and that is still normal to you, what pushes hard work and training into 'extra-normal'? Just because a Gold Medal athlete can run at a certain speed doesn't mean anyone else can. So wouldn't that mean anything that can be gained through training and talent would count as normal, even if no one else could match it?

Sorry to be a bit pedantic about this, but I need to understand where you are coming from to understand the context of what you are saying. Right now I'm pretty sure I am misinterpreting you, and I'm trying to correct that.


A LOT of the specific answers you want are setting-specific, genre-specific, preference-specific -- I'm trying to explain the process, not the result.

One thing to consider is that the population isn't really divided into "the one guy who won a gold medal" and then "everyone else who didn't". The margins for most medal-winning performances are vanishingly thin, follow very closely by the other medal winners, the other competitors, the other people who didn't quite make the Olympics in their national trials by the thinnest of margins, and so on, down to the people doing the same events at the high school or juniors level.

Look up the percentage margin between Usain Bolt's 100m, and the times from 50 years ago, and the times from this year's high school competitions across the US. Notice that they're not REALLY that far apart... the differences are nothing like the astronomical gap between "carries his tools to go off to work" and "lifts a mountain" as measures of strength. There are a lot of people almost as fast as Usain Bolt.


If you want a setting where "it's just training" can take performances way way into the "what would be superhuman in our world" range, and that sort of ability is still in your "normal" range, then do that. But understand that this has big implied consequences for the rest of your setting, and that other non-PC characters can also train just as hard, and reach just as far, and that this will change the world away from the sort of "just like real life at some place and time in history, but..." settings that are common in fantasy gaming and literature.

And understand that if you don't follow through with those implied consequences, that's ALSO going to have an effect that makes it less fun for some gamers, even if it looks like it avoids cutting back options from the list of "everything". It's always a trade-off on which gamers you're making the game for.




To put it a bit cheekily: if your only superpower is "being Batman," you still have a superpower.


Yeap.

If you're so determined that you can fight superpowered people and come out on top because you just don't give up no matter what and even injuries don't stop you, then your superpower is your superhuman determination. If your willpower is so mighty that mystics and telepaths cannot read your mind or control your thoughts, then your superpower is your superhuman willpower. Etc, lather rinse repeat.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-15, 04:56 PM
Look up the percentage margin between Usain Bolt's 100m, and the times from 50 years ago, and the times from this year's high school competitions across the US. Notice that they're not REALLY that far apart... the differences are nothing like the astronomical gap between "carries his tools to go off to work" and "lifts a mountain" as measures of strength. There are a lot of people almost as fast as Usain Bolt.



Yeap.

If you're so determined that you can fight superpowered people and come out on top because you just don't give up no matter what and even injuries don't stop you, then your superpower is your superhuman determination. If your willpower is so mighty that mystics and telepaths cannot read your mind or control your thoughts, then your superpower is your superhuman willpower. Etc, lather rinse repeat.

I think I finally get where you're coming from. Roughly anyone that is less than twice the power of those within two standard deviations above the mean of the population is normal.

Using that as a baseline for my system, then yeah. It's why my first tier is called 'Mortal' and my second 'Heroic.' Even having access to a single Heroic ability makes you well outside the norm.

That said I do feel there is a difference in character theming between someone like Hulk, and someone like Batman. One can cause earthquakes with punches and throw buildings. The other is just as capable, but in more subtle ways. All I'm trying to do is allow the batman archtype to shine. I know batman is extraordinary, but at least to me, his powers are subtle enough that he isn't using blatent magic, or such to break the laws of physics.

That said I could probably write up a set of lore about the 6 different types of energy in the setting people draw on, from mana to ki to conceptual pieces of the universe. That way players can have an idea of how things work. I probably would not write down what each and every single class uses though. Sometimes decisions like that can be cool for the player. I could include rules on how to style different abilities in different ways though. How an ability powered by fate can seem like incredibly good luck and such. How using ki to power a defense means attacks tend to deflect away just before hitting the character or just hit and do nothing.

If a player didn't want to use any of them to explain their character they could choose to have their abilities unexplained. Maybe they are just that good, or maybe their tapping into some unknown force or whatever.

Do you think such a thing would have value to you, to help you make sense of what such a system allows characters to do?

Quertus
2019-07-15, 04:59 PM
The problem we're discussing in this thread only arises when someone isn't willing to sacrifice something -- and it only needs to be one of these, using a D&D-like fantasy setting with magic as the example.

"Magic" as in spellcasting is incredibly powerful.
Non-spellcasting characters are limited to IRL limits no matter what.
Spellcasters and non-spelllcasters are balanced.
The setting is internally coherent.


If you tone down spellcasting, or allow non-spellcasters to be "magic" (in the broad sense, as in extranormal), or give up on playing both together (the Vampire/Mage/Werewolf solution), or just admit up from that your setting is a collection of "just so" elements that can't be reconciled, then everyone can be on the same page, and those who prefer to not take part in the campaign or the system can just not do so because it's not to their tastes.

But when we run into that gamer who demands being able to play a "badass normal" in a Vampire campaign, who can outfight elder vampires because he's "just that awesome", and who accuses the GM and the rest of the players of "being jerks" when they dare to question this.


If these living environmental disasters are unrooted to anything and are as unaffected by material and societal concerns as unsentient natural disasters, then the politician/landholder/evangelist's powers are the same against them that they are against a tornado ripping through his territory or a volcano erupting in his neighbor's back yard: evacuation, relief, and rebuilding prowess. Manning logistics, saving lives through organizing the emergency services, ensuring that everything anybody needs is on hand when they need it. If "the real heroes" are the emergency workers and first responders, then he's the Charlie to the first responders' Charlie's Angels.

If these living environmental disasters are also Frank and Bob, who have families and friends and like to go to the movies or the theme park and/or were hoping their rampage would earn them enough ransom/stolen money to live high on the hog, then his powers are to interdict their finances, to track them to their homes, to force them to uproot and lose access to social structures as they find every hand turned against them. Sure, they can turn violent, but his power is to limit their options to that, and make the expected return on violence next to nothing. Their choices become "give up, pay your debt to society for whate you've done so far, and get your life back," or "become nothing but the lonely and poverty-stricken living natural disaster."

That… sounds to me like a Muggle besting a super powered being, in a believable way.

While I generally agree that most "non-powered beings" - especially Batman - aren't at all actually mundane, I don't believe that actual Muggles are quite so inherently incapable of "playing the game" as some believe.

That said, a) there's a difference between "playing the game" and "balance"; b) I am accustomed to using player skills, not game mechanics, to achieve *approximate* narrative balance between characters of disparate mechanical power, as c) existing systems don't exactly achieve "equal button power for both powerful and weak characters" (and that seems inherently paradoxical - moreso, to my mind, than Max's list).

Still, this sounds like one of the better examples of "button power" for a character who is not physically powerful, and still a muggle, yet still is able to contribute - strongly - against powerful challenges.

Lord Raziere
2019-07-15, 05:10 PM
Bull. You've been doing it this entire thread.

What do you think it is when someone says that a "totally not fantastic I swear, don't you dare say otherwise" character who does actually blatantly fantastic things doesn't fit in a campaign or a setting, and your response is "you're just being a picky selfish jerk who's trying to ruin other gamers' fun"?

Fit WHAT campaign or setting?

we aren't talking about a specific setting, there is nothing to fit TO. we are speaking in general terms. magic and mundane just so happen to be incredibly broad descriptors, and therefore no assumptions can be made as to what either of those things ARE. you seem to be thinking that we're talking about something specific that just so happens to disallow whatever you specifically want. awfully convenient that. awfully convenient that whatever setting your assuming is supposedly being talked about, somehow doesn't jive with me speaking in general terms about a fantasy that has been in humanities minds since the dawn of time and made sure every hero we've ever known or seen exist at all.

the only setting so far, has been Jakinbandw's. and he clearly wants something different than you. so its not for you to define whether or not it fits, because he clearly wants it to fit, because of his own reasons. and I do not see why he has to appeal to people he never met and will probably never play his game with it with changing a part of it, given that there is no guarantee that the person will be of the same mindset as you. you claim that this high-powered stuff isn't your cup of tea, so be consistent with your own freaking claim about yourself and get out.

Personally I don't see why jakin has to keep justifying himself and cave in to a bunch of people demanding this. There is no benefit to tacking on some explanation to it other than appeasing a certain random group of people, who are probably more comfortable playing wizards anyways, so why not just go back to your wizards, play them and let the person beside you or at least people at other tables play their badass normal? you don't have to turn off your brain, but would it kill you to recognize that your not entitled to an explanation for anything? there is nothing saying that your entitled to know how this or that works, nothing saying that someone HAS to provide something to satisfy you. its not a hard requirement.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-15, 06:14 PM
That… sounds to me like a Muggle besting a super powered being, in a believable way.

While I generally agree that most "non-powered beings" - especially Batman - aren't at all actually mundane, I don't believe that actual Muggles are quite so inherently incapable of "playing the game" as some believe.

That said, a) there's a difference between "playing the game" and "balance"; b) I am accustomed to using player skills, not game mechanics, to achieve *approximate* narrative balance between characters of disparate mechanical power, as c) existing systems don't exactly achieve "equal button power for both powerful and weak characters" (and that seems inherently paradoxical - moreso, to my mind, than Max's list).

Still, this sounds like one of the better examples of "button power" for a character who is not physically powerful, and still a muggle, yet still is able to contribute - strongly - against powerful challenges.

OK, great, but can you really make someone's level 11 power "freeze bank accounts"?

And that's what I see some gamers asking for when they say "make normals balanced with extranormals", and what I see certain systems try to do.

Mechalich
2019-07-15, 07:06 PM
OK, great, but can you really make someone's level 11 power "freeze bank accounts"?

And that's what I see some gamers asking for when they say "make normals balanced with extranormals", and what I see certain systems try to do.

It's very difficult to balance powers that are dependent upon position within a societal system - whatever that system happens to be - with powers that are inherently personal, for a long list of reasons, and this is a fairly broad game design problem that extends beyond magic vs. mundane.

One of the reasons for this is that certain supernatural abilities - mind control being the most obvious - make it trivially easy to acquire vast society-based resources. Yes, the Police Commissioner in a big city has a lot of power the average worker doesn't, but if said worker dominates the Commissioner, suddenly they have all those resources for their own use. Likewise, such superpowers are also trivially easy to lose. Tony Stark has effectively infinite money, but he can't use any of it when he gets lost in space. This is even a thing, to a lesser degree, in D&D, in that fighters and other martial classes are generally significantly more equipment dependent than spellcasters, with significant gameplay impacts.

Additionally, the capacity of systems that lack any fantastical or superhuman abilities to contain those individuals that do is heavily dependent upon technological level, and the lower the technological level in place, the less power they are able to contain. A mid-tier superhero like Captain America has lots of counters in a modern world filled with machine guns, missiles, and tanks (heck even during WWII there were real limits on how much he could handle by himself), but if you drop him into the Roman Era, well, he's nigh invincible at that point.

Quertus
2019-07-15, 07:33 PM
OK, great, but can you really make someone's level 11 power "freeze bank accounts"?

And that's what I see some gamers asking for when they say "make normals balanced with extranormals", and what I see certain systems try to do.


It's very difficult to balance powers that are dependent upon position within a societal system - whatever that system happens to be - with powers that are inherently personal, for a long list of reasons, and this is a fairly broad game design problem that extends beyond magic vs. mundane.

One of the reasons for this is that certain supernatural abilities - mind control being the most obvious - make it trivially easy to acquire vast society-based resources. Yes, the Police Commissioner in a big city has a lot of power the average worker doesn't, but if said worker dominates the Commissioner, suddenly they have all those resources for their own use. Likewise, such superpowers are also trivially easy to lose. Tony Stark has effectively infinite money, but he can't use any of it when he gets lost in space. This is even a thing, to a lesser degree, in D&D, in that fighters and other martial classes are generally significantly more equipment dependent than spellcasters, with significant gameplay impacts.

Additionally, the capacity of systems that lack any fantastical or superhuman abilities to contain those individuals that do is heavily dependent upon technological level, and the lower the technological level in place, the less power they are able to contain. A mid-tier superhero like Captain America has lots of counters in a modern world filled with machine guns, missiles, and tanks (heck even during WWII there were real limits on how much he could handle by himself), but if you drop him into the Roman Era, well, he's nigh invincible at that point.

While I personally think "has awesome magic sword" or "has whole golf cart full of cool magic toys/weapons" is cool, many Muggle players complain that it's not personal power.

So, you have to make it personal power, not societal power.

Muggle doesn't have "freeze bank accounts" - a certain social standing has that. Muggle has "charismatic: instead of the usual 100 quanta necessary climb a social rank, the Muggle only requires 10. This decreases to 1 at level 20.”

This way, the button can be pushed by anyone who achieves the correct social rank, or anyone who has influence over anyone with said social rank (through Friendship, Favors, Blackmail, Mind Control, etc). But the Muggle has the personal power (Charismatic) to allow them to make that climb much faster. And, you know, also has advantageous versions of the Friendship, Favors, and Blackmail moves and/or their prerequisites.

Sound reasonable?

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-15, 07:46 PM
It's very difficult to balance powers that are dependent upon position within a societal system - whatever that system happens to be - with powers that are inherently personal, for a long list of reasons, and this is a fairly broad game design problem that extends beyond magic vs. mundane.

One of the reasons for this is that certain supernatural abilities - mind control being the most obvious - make it trivially easy to acquire vast society-based resources. Yes, the Police Commissioner in a big city has a lot of power the average worker doesn't, but if said worker dominates the Commissioner, suddenly they have all those resources for their own use. Likewise, such superpowers are also trivially easy to lose. Tony Stark has effectively infinite money, but he can't use any of it when he gets lost in space. This is even a thing, to a lesser degree, in D&D, in that fighters and other martial classes are generally significantly more equipment dependent than spellcasters, with significant gameplay impacts.


That divergence in ease of denial causes all sorts of headaches.

Effectively all of Tony Stark's powers can be taken away -- and at least in authorial fiction (the comic books) "take away all of Iron Man or Batman's stuff" has become a cliche, and is inversely almost always a transparent setup to show how awesome the character is without his stuff. :smallconfused:

In a game like Champions (HERO system), there are Limitations applied to Powers, and one of them is Focus (magic amulet, power armor, multi-gun, whatever), and a Focus can be taken away (the focus can be obvious, inobvious, accessibly, or inaccessible). Some GMs are notorious for constantly taking away Focuses, and some GMs are notorious for never taking away Focuses. Likewise, some GMs are notorious for letting wealth do anything, and some for no-selling every attempt to use wealth to solve problems.




Additionally, the capacity of systems that lack any fantastical or superhuman abilities to contain those individuals that do is heavily dependent upon technological level, and the lower the technological level in place, the less power they are able to contain. A mid-tier superhero like Captain America has lots of counters in a modern world filled with machine guns, missiles, and tanks (heck even during WWII there were real limits on how much he could handle by himself), but if you drop him into the Roman Era, well, he's nigh invincible at that point.


And this is one of the reasons that context is so important in this discussion, and why I try to present the process, the questions to ask, the parts that are independent of the context, so that if others want to go through the same questions about their settings they can apply them to the realities of their reality.




While I personally think "has awesome magic sword" or "has whole golf cart full of cool magic toys/weapons" is cool, many Muggle players complain that it's not personal power.

So, you have to make it personal power, not societal power.

Muggle doesn't have "freeze bank accounts" - a certain social standing has that. Muggle has "charismatic: instead of the usual 100 quanta necessary climb a social rank, the Muggle only requires 10. This decreases to 1 at level 20.”

This way, the button can be pushed by anyone who achieves the correct social rank, or anyone who has influence over anyone with said social rank (through Friendship, Favors, Blackmail, Mind Control, etc). But the Muggle has the personal power (Charismatic) to allow them to make that climb much faster. And, you know, also has advantageous versions of the Friendship, Favors, and Blackmail moves and/or their prerequisites.

Sound reasonable?


What stops the extranormal character from pushing the same social buttons as the normal character?

What limits all those social "powers" to someone without inherent powers?

Karl Aegis
2019-07-15, 09:06 PM
They aren't limited to normal folks. They're normal people powers. If you dedicate one of your three classes to a suite of normal person powers you still have two classes to dedicate to throwing things or running fast or creating holes or whatever.

NichG
2019-07-15, 10:03 PM
To balance things, I'd just design the system so that all significant abilities - personal or distributed - require constant investment of downtime maintenance, and are recovered if lost in much the same way.

Someone who mind-controls the police commissioner gets to take a week's worth of social actions with his social powers, but finds that to maintain the facade would involve spending all of his time fulfilling the commissioner's professional, social, and political obligations, or risk their mind control being detected (and thereby zeroing such powers immediately). Meaning that if they go that route long-term, their mind control powers (which demand 40 hours a week of communing with the collective unconsciousness of human kind) would fade.

As long as nothing in the system is entirely about what you are rather than what you do, then anyone can be separated from the bulk of their powers

RazorChain
2019-07-15, 10:31 PM
Mundane and normal are synonyms. Very strong ones, with mundane being even more boring than normal. Your "mundane job" is not your "non-magical" job, it's your normal, (presumedly) boring job that doesn't bring excitement.

Mundane is a seriously loaded word, with strongly negative connotations (to me, anyway).



This is exactly what I read into the word mundane....normal, everyday, unremarkable, commonplace, regular. And that's exactly what the word means but the second meaning is also of this world, terrestrial, secular, material, non spiritual.


If the OP is using it just to mean non magical well then we have a whole range of new possibilites. People bitten by radioactive spiders or born with a mutant gene or had a gamma ray accident or even a powerful telekinetic that can drop a mountain on a city at a whim. In that case mundane doesn't in fact mean jack poop in this discussion, it would have been better to use Magic vs Non-Magic

This quote explains why Batman isn't mundane

Lex Luthor: "What makes you think you can kill Superman when you can't even handle a mere mortal in a Halloween costume?"
The Joker: "There's nothing "mere" about that mortal."

Quertus
2019-07-16, 05:10 PM
This is one of my 3 mundane classes so far actually. Behold the Noble!











I honestly just posted this to give an idea of what a single class looks like. This is the least retconny of all my mundane classes, so it seemed like a decent one to use as an example.

Huh. Since it was inside a QUOTE, the details of the class did not copy over. Well, copy & paste to the rescue.

"Knives in the Dark (Action)
You call on an assassin to strike down a target silently. An assassin under you command arrives at a location you are aware of and make a standard attack at one target you designate. This counts as you making a magic attack at the target. The attack automatically hits, and the target may not auto succeed on their save. After making this attack the assassin drops back into hiding, waiting to be called on again and escaping unharmed."

This is a highly abstract power, that explicitly doesn't interact/play well with others. Nor do the rules match the fiction.

To my mind, you get in touch with an assassin, give them the information about the target, specifics of the death, discuss payment, perhaps reject the Assassin (costs too much, cannot perform the intended attack, etc) and then the Assassin goes and tries to (find if necessary, and) kill the target.

So, there might be… discretion vs watched to determine change to blackmail pool & reputation ratings. Consumption of time & wealth. Delay. Rolls based on assassins stats & kill method vs target/security to determine if the target dies / for the assassin to be noticed, die or even be captured. Investigation into death.

Whereas this is some sort of "always hit, no auto save" attack power, "because assassins". Oh, and the attack is Magical, because reasons.

And… this is a class feature of the nobility? Anyone can hire an assassin, so… maybe this is meant to represent having assassins on staff? OK, but then this power should be area-dependent - the noble cannot use it in space, for example.

Also, forget the Noble - is there an Assassin class, with passive abilities including "always hits", "never detected", "always escapes", "magical attacks", and "foes cannot auto-save"? Because those sound like they would make awesome combos with other classes!

Quertus
2019-07-16, 05:23 PM
Brief comments on a few more abilities:

"Shrewd (Constant/Supplemental)
You know if anyone working for you would be plotting your downfall, or wish you harm. Additionally when interacting with someone socially you may exert effort to know their true intentions for the interaction. Finally you have mastered the art of writing legal documents, and you burn effort whenever one gets discussed at a later date. If you do, the fine print of that contract has it interpreted in the most favorable light for you"

You failed to explicitly point out the awesome superpower here: you automatically know whenever anyone is discussing one of your legal documents. Presumably, you also know the details of the discussion, so that you can intelligently choose whether or not to expend effort.

"Fully Operational Bureaucracy (Action/Constant)
You are always aware of everything important going on in any territory you control. As an action you may exert effort to give an order to any official under your command, no matter where they are, or to know everything they know. The GM advises you of any events or situations that would be important for you to know when you choose this ability, and advises you when they change, end, or new situations arise. "

Well, if that doesn't provide sufficient omniscience (because, trust me, anyone having the plague, or acting or plotting against me, or anything that would harm one of my people, is definitely "important"), make sure to give status to other flavors of omniscient characters, to learn "everything that they know". Bonus points if they're a Diviner or Chronomancer or some such.

"Persuasive Speech (Supplemental)
If you exert effort while attempting a persuasion attempt the target must make a spirit save against your persuasion attempt with disadvantage. Even if they succeed on their spirit save they you learn what fact they used to resist you and may try a different tact without waiting for them to take a long rest."

Usually, IME, persuasive speakers are the *least* likely to have a clue why/how someone resisted their persuasion attempt. I'm curious how others' experience stacks up in comparison.

Jakinbandw
2019-07-16, 08:15 PM
Huh. Since it was inside a QUOTE, the details of the class did not copy over. Well, copy & paste to the rescue.

"Knives in the Dark (Action)
You call on an assassin to strike down a target silently. An assassin under you command arrives at a location you are aware of and make a standard attack at one target you designate. This counts as you making a magic attack at the target. The attack automatically hits, and the target may not auto succeed on their save. After making this attack the assassin drops back into hiding, waiting to be called on again and escaping unharmed."

This is a highly abstract power, that explicitly doesn't interact/play well with others. Nor do the rules match the fiction.

To my mind, you get in touch with an assassin, give them the information about the target, specifics of the death, discuss payment, perhaps reject the Assassin (costs too much, cannot perform the intended attack, etc) and then the Assassin goes and tries to (find if necessary, and) kill the target.

So, there might be… discretion vs watched to determine change to blackmail pool & reputation ratings. Consumption of time & wealth. Delay. Rolls based on assassins stats & kill method vs target/security to determine if the target dies / for the assassin to be noticed, die or even be captured. Investigation into death.

Whereas this is some sort of "always hit, no auto save" attack power, "because assassins". Oh, and the attack is Magical, because reasons.

And… this is a class feature of the nobility? Anyone can hire an assassin, so… maybe this is meant to represent having assassins on staff? OK, but then this power should be area-dependent - the noble cannot use it in space, for example.

Also, forget the Noble - is there an Assassin class, with passive abilities including "always hits", "never detected", "always escapes", "magical attacks", and "foes cannot auto-save"? Because those sound like they would make awesome combos with other classes!

I probably should rewrite that. It's more that you set up the hit ahead of time. I'll rewrite this to make it more clear. As for your other questions, yes, many of those show up at lower tiers. I have two classes that are different takes on assassin planned out, and even without them I could build a character that can do all that. (Though I will note that the magical damage side of things just means damage keys off of your spirit rather than your toughness or reflex attributes). Actually I think touched by dark could almost pull this off without needing other classes. It's just a decent long range attack that nobles can do. Picking up a phone (or getting someone else to send a message or having it set up ahead of time) and having someone half way around the world killed feels a bit like what rulers of nations should be able to do. I think this quote (not about assassination) sums up how I view it.


"Do it? Dan, I'm not a Republic Serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago."

This is an ability that sort of builds off the Spy Network ability, but since with my design ethos I want every ability to stand on it's own without players needing to have bought any other ability it's split off here.

The big reason that this is an attack power without any thing you listed as happening is what you describe is something anyone can do. It's not worth being an ability, let alone one at divine tier. If you want to hire an assassin you can, nothing stops you. If you want to have an assassin that is super skilled, uses your stats to attack, and has already been dispatched to take out a target ahead of time, then you want this power. As it is, this is a middling attack ability for divine tier in my opinion.




Brief comments on a few more abilities:

"Shrewd (Constant/Supplemental)
You know if anyone working for you would be plotting your downfall, or wish you harm. Additionally when interacting with someone socially you may exert effort to know their true intentions for the interaction. Finally you have mastered the art of writing legal documents, and you burn effort whenever one gets discussed at a later date. If you do, the fine print of that contract has it interpreted in the most favorable light for you"

You failed to explicitly point out the awesome superpower here: you automatically know whenever anyone is discussing one of your legal documents. Presumably, you also know the details of the discussion, so that you can intelligently choose whether or not to expend effort.

I mean, sure. It's a divine tier power, it's meant to be useful.


"Fully Operational Bureaucracy (Action/Constant)
You are always aware of everything important going on in any territory you control. As an action you may exert effort to give an order to any official under your command, no matter where they are, or to know everything they know. The GM advises you of any events or situations that would be important for you to know when you choose this ability, and advises you when they change, end, or new situations arise. "

Well, if that doesn't provide sufficient omniscience (because, trust me, anyone having the plague, or acting or plotting against me, or anything that would harm one of my people, is definitely "important"), make sure to give status to other flavors of omniscient characters, to learn "everything that they know". Bonus points if they're a Diviner or Chronomancer or some such.

I mean, at this point, you should be the strongest thing on your side. Sadly this only works in areas you own, so you better start expanding to gather more land. You kept mentioning that characters should have knowledge abilities, and I was like 'But they do! Just look at something like Fully Opperational Bureaucracy, how much more knowledge do you even want???'


"Persuasive Speech (Supplemental)
If you exert effort while attempting a persuasion attempt the target must make a spirit save against your persuasion attempt with disadvantage. Even if they succeed on their spirit save they you learn what fact they used to resist you and may try a different tact without waiting for them to take a long rest."

Usually, IME, persuasive speakers are the *least* likely to have a clue why/how someone resisted their persuasion attempt. I'm curious how others' experience stacks up in comparison.

If you have an idea for something you would prefer for it to be called, sure, but nobles (at least in my system) are pretty good masters of social abilities. Planning, deceiving, backstabbing, convincing... It's kinda their thing.

Also, I think you might get a kick out of some of the lower tier abilities. There are some neat combos there that allow you to literally topple kings from within.

Cluedrew
2019-07-16, 09:33 PM
To put it a bit cheekily: if your only superpower is "being Batman," you still have a superpower.{Laughter}

I had almost given up on this thread, and might anyways, but I am glad I stuck around long enough for this line. Its good.

From what I can follow my opinion is, doing something impossible for us does not make in extraordinary in setting, doing something extraordinary in setting does not make you a wizard. The other direction usually applies.

Ignimortis
2019-07-16, 10:20 PM
Max's position, insofar as I understand it (and he's welcome to correct me), agrees with mine, more or less, here. The core point being that, in D&D, delineating mundane from magic in a fashion that says "because you're casting spells, you can do anything we want to write a spell to do, but if you're not, then you can't do amazing feats because a guy at the gym can't do them IRL" is doomed to enforce the idea that magic just wins. The solution is to allow for extraordinary abilities on "mundane" characters which can do things that keep up with spellcasters.

In other words, "superpowers" are something anybody of sufficient level can have. This is one reason Max, I think, tries to pull away from using the term "magic," becuase it's double-laden in a lot of cases.

In D&D, "magic" actually means "anything that can be shut down in an AMF." There's plenty of fantastic stuff that is impossible IRL in D&D which is not magical. Most of it gets tagged "Ex" for "Extroardinary Ability."

In D&D, "magic" is Mundane by the definition being discussed, because anybody can theoretically learn to cast spells and thus do "magic." Conversely, if you want to avoid the "Wizards always win" problem, you have to allow in your design space for games like D&D that those who are not spellcasters can also do things that are equally fantastic. Whether you call it "magic" or not.

I like this. This is pretty much how I view it. However, some people bring up things like "but Ex can't be actually that good, look at what it does in-game" and Ex does kinda stop at Rage/HiPS/Evasion. Are there more fantastical abilities tagged as Ex in 3.5?

Karl Aegis
2019-07-16, 11:15 PM
I like this. This is pretty much how I view it. However, some people bring up things like "but Ex can't be actually that good, look at what it does in-game" and Ex does kinda stop at Rage/HiPS/Evasion. Are there more fantastical abilities tagged as Ex in 3.5?

Ki Blast: You create an orb of pure force that you can throw at enemies. As a force effect, it deals damage to incorporeal or ethereal entities reliably. You don't particularly need hands to do this, so go ahead and fluff it as laser eye beams destroying magical hitman ghosts.

deuterio12
2019-07-16, 11:35 PM
I like this. This is pretty much how I view it. However, some people bring up things like "but Ex can't be actually that good, look at what it does in-game" and Ex does kinda stop at Rage/HiPS/Evasion. Are there more fantastical abilities tagged as Ex in 3.5?

Tome of Battle has plenty of cool Ex effects including outright Ex teleportation and Iron Heart Surge that could instantly destroy the sun if you're playing a light-vulnerable character.

In the other hand 3.5 has "sing well enough to motivate people" tagged as a Su ability of of all things. So yeah teleporting and thus laughing at the laws of physics can be Ex, but singing really well is only in the realm of Su abilities.

Although thinking about it, non-spellcasters can still learn Su abilities, so you don't need to limit yourself to Ex abilities only.

Ignimortis
2019-07-17, 06:34 AM
Tome of Battle has plenty of cool Ex effects including outright Ex teleportation and Iron Heart Surge that could instantly destroy the sun if you're playing a light-vulnerable character.

In the other hand 3.5 has "sing well enough to motivate people" tagged as a Su ability of of all things. So yeah teleporting and thus laughing at the laws of physics can be Ex, but singing really well is only in the realm of Su abilities.

Although thinking about it, non-spellcasters can still learn Su abilities, so you don't need to limit yourself to Ex abilities only.

I think ToB teleports were still (Su), as most of the Shadow Hand maneuvers and so on. Actually, (Ex) teleportation seems to raise a lot of questions from this kind of people.

deuterio12
2019-07-17, 08:51 AM
You can check it in the free web enhancment. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a)

https://i.imgsafe.org/f2/f2693e1d90.png

As you can see out of six random Shadow Hand maneuvers, only one is supernatural (Obscuring Shadow Veil), while the three teleportation ones are Ex by default (all maneuvers are Ex unless noted otherwise, with only Obscuring Shadow Veil of those six having the Su clause). And heck there's also One with Shadow that makes you ethereal and is still Ex. So there's WotC themselves giving the blessing on "Ex abilities can have nice things too".

Quertus
2019-07-17, 09:01 AM
So, here's what being a skilled Muggle means to me, in something resembling your game's parlance:

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).

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.

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 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.

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…

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.

Note the lack of retcon powers.

So, does this not feel mundane to anyone?

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-17, 09:13 AM
One, I still hate the use of "muggle" outside of the actual Harry Potter context.

Two, what stops any "non-muggle" from doing these things? I mean, at the fiction level, not the mechanics or game-balance level.

Segev
2019-07-17, 09:36 AM
One, I still hate the use of "muggle" outside of the actual Harry Potter context.

Two, what stops any "non-muggle" from doing these things? I mean, at the fiction level, not the mechanics or game-balance level.

Assuming, on the mechanical level, these abilities cost build resources (class levels, character points, etc.) of some sort, "training" would be the most obvious reason a "non-muggle" wouldn't do them. If a "non-muggle" is doing them, he's probably not as good at "not being a muggle" as his fellow "non-muggles" who don't have the training to do those "muggle" things. And also probably does fewer of the "muggle" things than full "muggles" who spend all their character resources on doing more of them, or on doing them better.

I know you asked "in the fiction layer," but this is actually one of the things that most mechanical systems model pretty well in their mechanics, because they're so core to game balance: by gating these as things you have to buy with class levels or CP or the like, you're saying they take training or other valuable resources that people who spend those levels, CP, or whatever on (say) spellcasting don't have.

Put another way, sure, the wizard could theoretically walk into a room, pose and posture and speak the same way as the highly-skilled socialite whose pose, posture, presence, and prose persuade powerful people to perform as he desires. So, too, could the socialite theoretically forge pacts or move magically-significant rocks and gesticulate while uttering syllables of power to cast spells.

But they really can't, because both take skills (or other things) that the respective characters lack.

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.

Quertus
2019-07-17, 01:54 PM
One, I still hate the use of "muggle" outside of the actual Harry Potter context.

Two, what stops any "non-muggle" from doing these things? I mean, at the fiction level, not the mechanics or game-balance level.

1) it still seems the optimal word.

2) what keeps a Wizard from having full BAB, d10 HP, etc? The point is that someone who is trained/skilled will do better than someone who… isn't. In theory, anyone could try to achieve political office, or make money, or convince people, but some people are better at it than others. These are all Muggle skills - mundane skills.

Someone who is "only" a master of everything mundane could easily be OP compared to a Wizard or Psychic or whatnot. It's not like it's hard to write a Muggle who is useful, instead of the waste of space that shows up in many systems (like 3e). Yes, even if you don't give them retcon powers, or things that don't map to the fiction. You just have to write into the rules the very concrete ways in which they're better. And they will be.

(Or what Segev said)

EDIT - note that there's pretty much nothing in my Muggle class that anyone cannot do - the Muggle can simply do it better. More actions, more gain / less loss in political/financial ventures, better odds of success, better understanding.

Sure, at the fiction level, anyone *could* train to win an Olympic gold, anyone *could* have created atomic bombs, anyone *could* have started a fortune 500 company or become president. But the Muggle is the one you see lining up, and instinctively put your money on.

Max_Killjoy
2019-07-17, 02:13 PM
1) it still seems the optimal word.


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.




2) what keeps a Wizard from having full BAB, d10 HP, etc? The point is that someone who is trained/skilled will do better than someone who… isn't. In theory, anyone could try to achieve political office, or make money, or convince people, but some people are better at it than others. These are all Muggle skills - mundane skills.

Someone who is "only" a master of everything mundane could easily be OP compared to a Wizard or Psychic or whatnot. It's not like it's hard to write a Muggle who is useful, instead of the waste of space that shows up in many systems (like 3e). Yes, even if you don't give them retcon powers, or things that don't map to the fiction. You just have to write into the rules the very concrete ways in which they're better. And they will be.

(Or what Segev said)

EDIT - note that there's pretty much nothing in my Muggle class that anyone cannot do - the Muggle can simply do it better. More actions, more gain / less loss in political/financial ventures, better odds of success, better understanding.

Sure, at the fiction level, anyone *could* train to win an Olympic gold, anyone *could* have created atomic bombs, anyone *could* have started a fortune 500 company or become president. But the Muggle is the one you see lining up, and instinctively put your money on.


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.)