Magic vs Mundane (what is mundane?)

[Jakinbandw]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

Anything that's more than like 5% better than what the best human in real life can do is no longer mundane.

[Jakinbandw]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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"

Spoiler: descriptive scale copied

Show

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]

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]

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"

Spoiler: descriptive scale copied

Show

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.