What exactly is the "guy at the gym fallacy"?

[Talakeal]

I was planning on making an argument against the guy at the gym fallacy in anither thread and realized I don't know precisely what it means. Going back to the original post, it reads as more of an essay than a fallacy, and I am having trouble picking out what, precisely, the fallacy is.

Anyone able to point me in the right direction?

[tyckspoon]

It's more of a concept than a single formalized thing, as I understand it, but the basic idea is "I can't conceive of the most fit dude at the gym I go to doing this, so (Fighters/'mundane' heroes/anything that isn't explicitly magical) shouldn't be able to do it either." It tends to deny both the possibility of fantastic action by 'normal' characters in a world and the rather extreme things real-life humans actually can do.

[Kyutaru]

It basically means that even Hercules couldn't do it.

There's a limit to Strength training. No matter how strong you are, this isn't possible. That said, D&D lets people fire nine crossbow shots in 6 seconds. Screw physics.

[Grod_The_Giant]

A decent general formulation might be "if a real human can't do it, an RPG character can't do it without magic." It's shorthand for the sort of double standard that gives rise to linear fighters/quadratic wizards-- "mundane" actions are primarily balanced around what's physically possible, while magical effects get to skip that step and go straight to "what's appropriate for this level of the fantasy?"

[JNAProductions]

It also oftentimes underestimates what people are capable of even in the real world.

[Kyutaru]

It also oftentimes underestimates what people are capable of even in the real world.

Remember the dude who pulled an airplane?

[Max_Killjoy]

Remember the dude who pulled an airplane?

The physics make that sort of thing not quite the "feat of epic fantasy" that media coverage makes it out to be. Yeah, it takes a very strong person, but it's not like people pulling airplanes a few meters by hand is proof of possibility for the sorts of blatantly impossible, orders of magnitude more extreme things people want their "no no he's totally mundane no magic or fantastic ability at all" characters to be routinely capable of.

For some reason, the fact that one person once did something seemingly nuts that one time, is taken by some to mean that all "no no he's totally mundane no magic or fantastic ability at all" characters should be capable of doing that thing routinely and reliably.

What I see more often than the "guy at the gym" fallacy is its inverse -- the player who wants his "guy at the gym" character to be able to do things that are simply physically impossible for any (unaugmented) human being who ever lived or will ever live, even at a hypothetical level of achievement, things that would shred muscles and break bones and burst hearts because of the forces involved.

[Kyutaru]

The physics make that sort of thing not quite the "feat of epic fantasy" that media coverage makes it out to be.

Yeah fair enough but then we have the Guinness Book of World Records. Jerry Miculek is a legend and pulled off five revolver shots in half a second. Without missing the target.

Not exactly a feat of strength but I can't think of any records off hand in that area. Looking up Google I can find a guy who deadlifted over 1100 pounds. That's about it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The physics make that sort of thing not quite the "feat of epic fantasy" that media coverage makes it out to be. Yeah, it takes a very strong person, but it's not like people pulling airplanes a few meters by hand is proof of possibility for the sorts of blatantly impossible, orders of magnitude more extreme things people want their "no no he's totally mundane no magic or fantastic ability at all" characters to be routinely capable of.

For some reason, the fact that one person once did something seemingly nuts that one time, is taken by some to mean that all "no no he's totally mundane no magic or fantastic ability at all" characters should be capable of doing that thing routinely and reliably.

What I see more often than the "guy at the gym" fallacy is its inverse -- the player who wants his "guy at the gym" character to be able to do things that are simply physically impossible for any (unaugmented) human being who ever lived or will ever live, even at a hypothetical level of achievement, things that would shred muscles and break bones and burst hearts because of the forces involved.

It's not a problem if the entire game is designed around that level of human ability (say, Apocalypse World). It's also not a problem if the setting says "okay, wizards consciously use magic to cast fireballs, fighters subconsciously magic for super-strength" (say, Exalted). Problems only arise when the game is designed inconsistently, with some characters being sharply limited by physics and biology and others growing to godly power (say, D&D).

[Clistenes]

I would like to point that, in 3.5, a STR 18 guy is as strong as a Heavy Warhorse, a STR 19 guy is as strong as a Black Bear, a STR 21 guy is as strong as a Lion, STR 22 guy is as strong as a Bison, and a STR 23 guy is as strong as a Tiger... that's pretty much superhuman from lvl 1...

D&D stronguys aren't athletic humans, they are more like comic book superheroes...

[Max_Killjoy]

It's not a problem if the entire game is designed around that level of human ability (say, Apocalypse World). It's also not a problem if the setting says "okay, wizards consciously use magic to cast fireballs, fighters subconsciously magic for super-strength" (say, Exalted). Problems only arise when the game is designed inconsistently, with some characters being sharply limited by physics and biology and others growing to godly power (say, D&D).

I'd say that if the entire game is built around that level of ability, and the Fighters are using "magic" and doing fantastic things that are impossible for most people... then the Fighter is no longer a "guy at the gym" at all.

[hamishspence]

I would like to point that, in 3.5, a STR 18 guy is as strong as a Heavy Warhorse, a STR 19 guy is as strong as a Black Bear, a STR 21 guy is as strong as a Lion, STR 22 guy is as strong as a Bison, and a STR 23 guy is as strong as a Tiger... that's pretty much superhuman from lvl 1...

Keep in mind that Large creatures, and quadrupeds, get significantly greater lifting power.

For a Heavy Warhorse, 900 lb is maximum Heavy load. For a Medium sized Str 18 Human fighter 300 lb is the maximum Heavy load.

[Kyutaru]

I would like to point that, in 3.5, a STR 18 guy is as strong as a Heavy Warhorse, a STR 19 guy is as strong as a Black Bear, a STR 21 guy is as strong as a Lion, STR 22 guy is as strong as a Bison, and a STR 23 guy is as strong as a Tiger... that's pretty much superhuman from lvl 1...

D&D stronguys aren't athletic humans, they are more like comic book superheroes...

Makes you wonder why my sword attacks aren't throwing kobolds across the room.

I kind of see the old Conan movies and think Fighters must be superhuman in their own regard compared to normal people. Or heck, look at Warhammer 40k and the 10-foot tall genetically enhanced super soldiers that breathe acid and have two hearts. They can punch a daemon's head off and shrug off blows that would vaporize mortal men. Heck, give one a hammer and he can wreck a tank.

[Rhedyn]

It also oftentimes underestimates what people are capable of even in the real world.

Like swimming in armor.

[HouseRules]

That said, D&D lets people fire nine crossbow shots in 6 seconds. Screw physics.

Real Life Archers could do parkour and shoot faster than D&D. It takes 200 milliseconds to complete a single shot for the most experienced archers while doing parkour. They could also shot with both hands switching the bow from hand to hand depending on their position.

[Kyutaru]

Real Life Archers could do parkour and shoot faster than D&D. It takes 200 milliseconds to complete a single shot for the most experienced archers while doing parkour. They could also shot with both hands switching the bow from hand to hand depending on their position.

Right. But this is a crossbow.

[Max_Killjoy]

Right. But this is a crossbow.

I think he's referencing the idiotic trick-shot videos with some Danish goof bouncing off walls while half-drawing a weak bow. It has nothing to do with actual combat, and everything to do with cheap tricks and camera-angle chicanery.

For every misunderstanding of human limits, there are multiple myths about what's "possible" that don't stand up to even the most cursory of empirical examinations.

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/lars-an...ideo-debunked/
https://www.skeptic.com/insight/pull...archery-video/
https://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-a...omment-page-1/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr_1z3GwxQk

[Delta]

Like swimming in armor.

Oh boy, yeah, that's one of the topic where so many people seem to be completely immune to any opinion but "Oh no you're wearing metal armor and touched the water, you drown instantly!!!!", even if you have someone sitting at the table who is neither built like The Rock nor swims like Michael Phelps who can personally attest that, yeah, you can swim in armor, on account of themself personally having done so several times.

[Psyren]

A decent general formulation might be "if a real human can't do it, an RPG character can't do it without magic." It's shorthand for the sort of double standard that gives rise to linear fighters/quadratic wizards-- "mundane" actions are primarily balanced around what's physically possible, while magical effects get to skip that step and go straight to "what's appropriate for this level of the fantasy?"

I agree with this definition - however, it's worth noting that there's another response to the fallacy:

Spoiler

Show

The "without magic" in the definition is often conflated with "without spells" or "without magic items" - things external to the character that they may have to spend build resources on, or that can be separated from them. In reality, a simpler solution might be to give high-level martial characters access to some fantasy-appropriate and thematic abilities in the form of extraordinary, supernatural or, spell-like abilities.

Rogues are a solid example of this. In many fictional high fantasy settings, low-level rogues are pickpockets, alley thugs, cutthroats, second-story-men and the like, while high level rogues are capable of supernatural feats - most of which stem from folklore around ninjas and assassins. They can do things like Batman-vanishing mid-conversation, phasing through solid obstacles or restraints, wearing someone else's face, animating/merging with their shadow, curving thrown projectiles, leaping improbable distances etc. For me personally, abilities like the PF Shadowdancer could be compressed to 5 levels and given to all rogues 12-17 for free.

This is one of the few things I think 4e did correctly, via its Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies - showing clearly how the expected fantasy of the game should evolve naturally at higher levels, for free.

TL;DR: It's not a binary - you can give high-level martial characters "magic" (and thus, fantasy-appropriate abilities) without turning them into casters, keeping their exploits grounded in credibility and able to interact with the rules consistently.

[HouseRules]

The record jabs per minute is 805, but those are Jabs, not Straights or Crosses. A Jab is a short range punch where your arm is mostly extended forward. A Straight is the longest punch you could make when your shoulders are perpendicular to the target before you punch forward. A Cross is when you pull your arm all the way back to get more force. Your punching shoulder starts farther away from the target before the punch.

Shooting a bow is more like a Cross then a Jab, so the number of attacks per second is much less.

Gym Fallacy is if someone cannot do something in a Gym, then a Mundane cannot do it in a fantasy world. Martial Characters may be able to do whatever that is, but Mundanes cannot.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'd say that if the entire game is built around that level of ability, and the Fighters are using "magic" and doing fantastic things that are impossible for most people... then the Fighter is no longer a "guy at the gym" at all.

Well, yeah-- that's why its a fallacy and not a principle of game design or something. Either everyone (at a given level/xp total/whatever) has to be a guy at the gym, or no-one can be. (Or you're doing an intentionally asymmetrical game, which is fine but not common)

TL;DR: It's not a binary - you can give high-level martial characters "magic" (and thus, fantasy-appropriate abilities) without turning them into casters, keeping their exploits grounded in credibility and able to interact with the rules consistently.

Oh, I one hundred percent agree with you.

[Rhedyn]

Oh boy, yeah, that's one of the topic where so many people seem to be completely immune to any opinion but "Oh no you're wearing metal armor and touched the water, you drown instantly!!!!", even if you have someone sitting at the table who is neither built like The Rock nor swims like Michael Phelps who can personally attest that, yeah, you can swim in armor, on account of themself personally having done so several times.

Turns out objective reality and evidence backed facts are very much a topic of debate.

People don't think things be like it is but it do.

[Psyren]

Gym Fallacy is if someone cannot do something in a Gym, then a Mundane cannot do it in a fantasy world. Martial Characters may be able to do whatever that is, but Mundanes cannot.

"Mundanes" not being able to do something extraordinary isn't fallacious though. Rather, the idea is that nobody past a certain level in a high-fantasy game should be "mundane."

This is why I avoid the term mundane and instead use martial, because mundane isn't just a function of class or role, it's a function of level.

[LudicSavant]

Like swimming in armor.

Great example.

[Frozen_Feet]

It's an informal fallacy, grounded in limited perception: "if I can't imagine a guy at the gym doing it, it can't be done", sometimes with "without magic" clause added as noted above.

The reason why it's so insidious is because a lot of players aren't particularly familiar with the sort of stuff their characters are supposed to be doing. The players haven't climbed walls or ropes, they haven't fired guns or swung swords, haven't tried to run while in full combat gear, so on and so forth. So, their imagination is bounded by limited understanding, with pop culture representations filling in the gaps.

This leads to silly things like no-one questioning how you can kill an elephant with a sword, but then crying foul when someone tries swimming in armor. Or reverse, no-one questioning how a Fighter is unable to do half of what's expected of a competent soldier, while complaining how he bench presses too much.

[Psyren]

Great example.

But D&D does let you swim in armor. The difficulty of doing so is modeled by the armor check penalty applying to your swim check, but in no way is it forbidden. So I'm not sure that one is representative of GatG.

[gkathellar]

But D&D does let you swim in armor. The difficulty of doing so is modeled by the armor check penalty applying to your swim check, but in no way is it forbidden. So I'm not sure that one is representative of GatG.

Well. Depending on the edition we’re talking about, some or all armor-related check penalties are excessive in a way that suggests the GatG fallacy on the part of the designers. This is especially true of 3.5, in which armor check penalties are out of touch with reality.

But more broadly, the informal fallacy describes something that happens at tables and in discussion, as much as something that can be manifest in design.

[Arbane]

"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

[Particle_Man]

My favourite is that you cannot tumble in heavy armour . . . unless, of course, you are a dwarf!

[Psyren]

Well. Depending on the edition we’re talking about, some or all armor-related check penalties are excessive in a way that suggests the GatG fallacy on the part of the designers. This is especially true of 3.5, in which armor check penalties are out of touch with reality.

But more broadly, the informal fallacy describes something that happens at tables and in discussion, as much as something that can be manifest in design.

Agreed, if that check is too onerous/the penalty too high then it's effectively a soft ban. I don't think that's the case though (at least in 3e, can't speak for other editions.)

My favourite is that you cannot tumble in heavy armour . . . unless, of course, you are a dwarf!

This is a good point - sometimes a system will let you do something but not right away, or only if you pay a tax for it. This is another GatG manifestation. So you have the PF fighter able to tumble in heavy armor, but not until level 7, and other classes cannot tumble in medium armor (without being dwarves etc.)