Magical guy at th gym?

[Tanarii]

Let's say you have a DM that always rules magic in the strictest, most limiting, most nerfing possible interpretation of the rules. Because magic in D&D is too powerful compared to stories, or compared to martials, whatever.

When this is done for the physical, it's usually referred to as "Guy at the Gym".

What's a catchy name for this when it's the magical?

[Batcathat]

"Child's birthday party wizard", maybe?

Making up an equivalent of the "Guy at the gym" might be hard, since the point of that – to my understanding – is "a real person can't do this so a D&D fighter shouldn't be able to do this" but there's not really a comparison like that for wizards, since they aren't real.

[Shinizak]

Physics wizard? He can do magical effects, but only what's plausible for a college chemistry teacher?

IDK. It's a bad concept to translate.

[Kelb_Panthera]

"Stage mage" has a ring to it and the suggestion that his magic is just for show but not any more effective than anything that can be done with muscle and hand tools at getting things done.

"Magician on the Stage" if you want matching phrasing.

[Vahnavoi]

There isn't a catchy name for it because magic "by the rules" is ill-defined. For example, even by the strictest, most limiting, most nerfed interpretation of the rules in AD&D, a magic-user is still killing dudes with magically conjured force every 24 hours.

To elaborate a bit more, the two most common terms for a magician who can't do "real" magic are illusionist and conjurer - which, in D&D and consequently in fantasy RPGs in general, are proper terms for magicians who do specific kinds of magic.

Even worse, being a charlatan or con-artist who uses sleight of hand to convince people you have magic (or other miraculous powers) is a perfectly valid niche for an RPG character. Specifically, it's the Thief's or Rogue's niche.

To get what you're really getting at, you don't want a strawman GM who doesn't let magic work because magic totes isn't real and stuff. You want a GM who is hardcore about real occultism and religion.

"What's that, you can't draw a perfect pentagram with freehand? No summoning circle for you! Oh, and the cleric at the back? If I'm not hearing the Lord's Prayer in authentic 11th century Church Latin, no cure light wounds for you!"

[Xervous]

text cRPG wizard
Zork wizard

Type it just right and it works. Type it wrong and “I don’t know what jmup is”. Extremely narrow predefined use cases for each option.

[OldTrees1]

Let's say you have a DM that always rules magic in the strictest, most limiting, most nerfing possible interpretation of the rules. Because magic in D&D is too powerful compared to stories, or compared to martials, whatever.

When this is done for the physical, it's usually referred to as "Guy at the Gym".

What's a catchy name for this when it's the magical?

That is not why "Guy at the Gym" criticizes. "Guy at the Gym" criticizes a biased double standard where martials (dependant on magical theme) are limited by the GM's expectations of realism in contrast to the other characters being held to the GM's expectations of verisimilitude in a magical world. Although there is also room for the GM to be imperfectly knowledgeable about the real world.

So if the GM is having martials be like Odin but casters be like the local chemical engineer or a non magical stage magician, then that would be comparable to "Guy at the Gym". Using the most nerfing possible interpretation of the magic rules is nowhere near this critique.

Consider Magic Missile. If someone said "Even the most limiting nerfing interpretation is far more than what the local chemist could do, so Wizards can't cast Magic Missile." then that would be the kind of limitation that "Guy at the Gym" is talking about. However Guy at the Gym is not criticizing the limitation, it critiques the double standard. If everyone is being limited to realism (say d20Modern) then that is not Guy at the Gym.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

Let's say you have a DM that always rules magic in the strictest, most limiting, most nerfing possible interpretation of the rules. Because magic in D&D is too powerful compared to stories, or compared to martials, whatever.

When this is done for the physical, it's usually referred to as "Guy at the Gym".

What's a catchy name for this when it's the magical?

Magic is Science i'd say. You may have someone who can cast magic but they are still limited by physical rules of the real world. For instance a Wizard wants to use a fire spell like Burning Hands or something along those lines in a deep cave or dungeon. Okay so does this Wizard have ample supply of oxygen to feed the flames? If so are you sure that you aren't using the same oxygen needed to breath? What is the source and starter needed for combustion to occur?

You can go on with other such examples but that would be the gist of it.

[Saint-Just]

Magic is Science i'd say. You may have someone who can cast magic but they are still limited by physical rules of the real world. For instance a Wizard wants to use a fire spell like Burning Hands or something along those lines in a deep cave or dungeon. Okay so does this Wizard have ample supply of oxygen to feed the flames? If so are you sure that you aren't using the same oxygen needed to breath? What is the source and starter needed for combustion to occur?

You can go on with other such examples but that would be the gist of it.

I think that this mixes up two very different ideas. Thinking about physical consequences of spells as written (raging fire in a contained environment consumes oxygen) is one thing. Altering spell effects (you can expand a fire on the tip of the match into a firestorm, but you cannot create a firestorm when there was no fire at all) is entirely different. Unless you are ok with the answer "magic is the starter" in which case it should not affect gameplay at all.

[Vahnavoi]

To elaborate a bit on what OldTrees1 said, the reason for why there isn't a catchy name for the reverse double standard is because it doesn't exist as a distinct trope on the tabletop. And where something like it does exist in fiction, few people complain about it.

[Talakeal]

Guy at the library.
Guy in the top hat.
Guy in a bath robe.
Guy with a beard.

[MoiMagnus]

I suggest "Scholar on the battlefield"
=> The spell was designed by peoples that never left their ivory towers, so will be absolutely unpractical in every situation outside other than a white-room, and the PC never tried to find ways to adapt the spell in ways that are more compatible with the dangers they encounter every single day.
(E.g peoples getting immediatly angry at you when you cast charm person at them, creatures guessing that your illusions are illusions without a check just because that's a guess are allowed to make, suggestion always failing because every request is unreasonable, etc)

[icefractal]

"Selective nitpicking" is what I'd call it. It's not really the same as "guy at a the gym" because being pseudo-realistic isn't part of it, it's just unevenly interpreting the rules for 'balance'.

That last one is in quotes because IME, when GMs do this its as likely to be in service of personal favoritism as any kind of objective balance. Such as, players they like more get relaxed rules, others get strict. Or, the rules are specifically stricter on things that would make railroad-jumping too easy.

[NichG]

I don't see this so much in games, but in books and other media there are often ideas like equivalent exchange. The extreme version of equivalent exchange would be something like, whenever you solve a problem with magic it has to be strictly worse than if you had just used the right non-magical way to solve that problem, so magic users should always regret casting a spell in ultimate retrospect.

That's the closest thing I can think of to the magical equivalent of guy at the gym: a magic user should never be able to get ahead by involving magic. I don't have a catchy phrase for it though.

[Tanarii]

"Stage mage" has a ring to it and the suggestion that his magic is just for show but not any more effective than anything that can be done with muscle and hand tools at getting things done.

"Magician on the Stage" if you want matching phrasing.

Thats not bad. It fairly well captures when "push magic button get effect" is so totally constrained and "roll check to do anything" is totally unrestrained.

[Spriteless]

Closest I've seen is the RAW philosophy for 4th edition. The spell does what it says, not the flavor text. You might have a spell that is described as psychically destroying your foe, but it's effect are push 1 and stun. It's no good for interrogation. You can't light grease conjured by Grease on fire. Godwin's Law in this form right?

I mean, I have heard of the DM who only allows fighters and rogues in his games because magic breaks his immersion. I don't think it's what you were looking for.

[Batcathat]

I mean, I have heard of the DM who only allows fighters and rogues in his games because magic breaks his immersion. I don't think it's what you were looking for.

D&D feels like an odd choice for someone like that. I wonder if they just call it D&...

[Mechalich]

The thing about the 'Guy at the Gym' is that it's built around the interaction between game rules and the physical laws of known reality (or really, the intuitive perception of those laws and some common, often misinterpreted simplified calculations) with the idea that a character ability that does not include any sort of supernatural explanation of any kind should not allow that character to violate physical limits.

This doesn't happen with magic because magic is an arbitrary construct of the fictional setting. It does whatever the author says it does and it's limits are what the author says they are.

The rough equivalent of the 'guy at the gym' standard for magic, in shared world fiction and game construction, is essentially forbidding all innovation within previously established constraints by an earlier author or authors. This is the reasoning behind stands like 'no new Force powers.' 2e AD&D actually had rules on this, which basically amounted to 'you can't design a new spell more powerful than Wish' which of course didn't last and things like 10th level magic showed up anyway.

Other games have had similar concepts. In the original version of Vampire: the Masquerade all the cool vampire powers were based on things Dracula could do - primarily in the eponymous Bram Stoker novel - with the idea that if got all the dots in everything you'd be Dracula. There were distinct flaws with this setup, and of course they quickly started to add powers that Dracula never had when new clans started to show up, but that was the idea.

A 'guy at the gym' type of problem can arise for magical systems when the logical underpinnings of a magical system suggest something should be possible, but the setting rules dictate that you're not allowed to do that for seemingly arbitrary reasons. A common example is the Reed Richards is Useless trope in which super science or industrialized magic is never allowed to change the status quo of society. Some D&D specific scenarios that involve this kind of tweaking are things like the Wightocalypse and the classic Tippyverse.

[Ajustusdaniel]

Other users have covered why the "Guy at the gym," formulation doesn't especially apply to this, but it looks like you might still be in search of a snappy way to describe what your GM is doing.

The general case of depowering a specific class, feat, beast, etc, is nerfing, but I see from the OP you're already familiar with that and, given the existence of this thread, find it insufficient. Likewise, it seems unlikely that you'd find "enforcing a low-magic setting," a satisfactory description.

You mention two justifications the GM gives for their treatment of casters, rebalancing them against martials, and rebalancing them to fit the magic of some other setting.

For the first, you might call this "Martial Supremacy," or "437ing."

For the latter, just throw an -izing on the end of the author or material he's citing. (Tolkienizing, Martinizing, what have you).

For a final option, if this is a behavior you've noted specifically in one DM, and that DM's name is Derrick, you could call this behavior "Derricking," or "Pulling a Derrick," as in, "Man, I was going to play a Sorcerous Adept, but my GM really Derricked that class to hell."

Actually, you know what, go ahead and call it Derricking even if you DM's name isn't Derrick. If he asks what Derricking is, tell him it's the gerund form of the verb Derrick, defined as follows

Derrick (verb) transitive To rule on magic classes, abilities, or spells in a tabletop RPG in the strictest, most limiting, most nerfing possible interpretation of the rules.

If he expresses any confusion over the origins of the term, direct him to this post.

[Tanarii]

This doesn't happen with magic because magic is an arbitrary construct of the fictional setting. It does whatever the author says it does and it's limits are what the author says they are.

Magic does what the rules say it does. And depending on the DM, it does no more. Push button, get an exact and precise and as limited as possible effect. No extrapolation, no extension by physics-in-magic. Just the strictest possible constraints.

Conversely open ended skill checks can be interpreted in the opposed of "Guy at the Gym", that a check can do things far outside of what's physically possible, due to "skill" or "training".

So while it's far more common to have Guy at the Gym Martials and Quadratic Wizards, it's entirely possible to instead have Wushu Martials and ... Stage Magicians? Vancian Wizards?

[Xervous]

Derrick (verb) transitive To rule on magic classes, abilities, or spells in a tabletop RPG in the strictest, most limiting, most nerfing possible interpretation of the rules.

I do find some irony in a derrick also being a ‘lift things up and put them down’ piece of machinery given we got here from guy at the gym.

[Willie the Duck]

Magic does what the rules say it does. And depending on the DM, it does no more. Push button, get an exact and precise and as limited as possible effect. No extrapolation, no extension by physics-in-magic. Just the strictest possible constraints.

Conversely open ended skill checks can be interpreted in the opposed of "Guy at the Gym", that a check can do things far outside of what's physically possible, due to "skill" or "training".

So while it's far more common to have Guy at the Gym Martials and Quadratic Wizards, it's entirely possible to instead have Wushu Martials and ... Stage Magicians? Vancian Wizards?

I might call this concept the 'Literalist-DM Wizard.'

We could also discuss the DM who always interprets Wishes to go wrong, never lets the creative uses of Illusions work out, has Charm effects net no positive benefit, etc. That might be the 'DM-screwover Wizard.'

[Max_Killjoy]

Closest I've seen is the RAW philosophy for 4th edition. The spell does what it says, not the flavor text. You might have a spell that is described as psychically destroying your foe, but it's effect are push 1 and stun. It's no good for interrogation. You can't light grease conjured by Grease on fire.

Which is part of why people describe 4E as a "tabletop MMO" -- instead of pretty graphics wrapped around numerical effects that are 100% free of any implied fiction-layer effects, doing only what they do mechanically within the code of the game, it's "fluff" wrapped around those numerical effects.

[Tanarii]

I might call this concept the 'Literalist-DM Wizard.'

We could also discuss the DM who always interprets Wishes to go wrong, never lets the creative uses of Illusions work out, has Charm effects net no positive benefit, etc. That might be the 'DM-screwover Wizard.'

I'm definitely thinking of some degree of that last one. Provided it's within bounds of a reasonable interpretation. Reasonable as in possible to read it that way without significantly bending the brain, not reasonable as is "doesn't screw over the Wizard".

Because that's what the worst of the "Guy at the Gym" does. It's actually worse than what real-life folks can do, it screws over by any reasonable not-screwing over standard, but sounds reasonable to the non-gym-going DM.

[AntiAuthority]

The Magician On the Stage Fallacy? AKA The Charlatan on the Street AKA Why Spellcasters Can't Have Nice Things. See, magic users are held to the same standards as real life magicians, so they're held to the standards of what David Copperfield/Houdini/Chris Angel are capable of.

Evocations? Really just home made fireworks that don't actually hurt the opponent. Maybe a firework here or there.

Summons? Actually just small animals the magician stuffed into their clothes. Anything larger than a pigeon isn't allowed.

Illusions? Smoke and mirrors baby. Ghost sound? Haven't you ever heard of throwing your voice?

Telekinesis? Really just strings that had to be set up ahead of time.

Familiars? Those are really just well trained pets that respond to verbal commands and body language.

Astral Projection? You mean lucid dreaming, people can't travel outside their bodies or anything, grow up.

Invisibility? Dude, camo. You just can't move too fast or the enemies will notice you.

Teleportation? Bro, no no no. Real people can't teleport. You just... Throw down a smoke screen and take a secret passage to appear in another spot

Beast Shape and spells like it? Bruh, people can't turn into real or imaginary animals by saying some funny words, those are really just elaborate costumes backed up by smoke and mirrors.

What's that? You want to be Odin? Dude, Odin was a GOD, what's your power source? Reading? Inherent bloodlines? Power from a deity? Grow up. You do get a bunch of assistants and fans though, isn't that enough for you? What's the matter? You wonder why Fighter McFightertan over there is cutting holes in reality, rearranging the landscape with a sword and soloing armies? Simple because he put on the gainz bruh. Levels aren't a general indicator of power, they're a relative level of power in your own class. This is a team game, you shouldn't be jealous of your teammate's inherent awesomeness because they were smart enough to pick a martial class. I mean, you sit in a lab and study books, this guy is a trained killer taught to survive in a world full of inhumanly powerful monsters, why shouldn't he be the absolute best at killing things ever? Why would anyone bother learning how to use swords and stuff if it wasn't the best option evah? Makes it more realistic. Bruh, who cares if he can bench press a continent, you have MAGIC.

Signed, NotBiasedGymBro4life /s

... I had way too much fun typing this out. But yeah... The Magician on Stage or the Charlatan On The Street fit well for me.

[OldTrees1]

The Magician On the Stage Fallacy? AKA The Charlatan on the Street AKA Why Spellcasters Can't Have Nice Things. See, magic users are held to the same standards as real life magicians, so they're held to the standards of what David Copperfield/Houdini/Chris Angel are capable of.

What's that? You want to be Odin? Dude, Odin was a GOD, what's your power source? Reading? Inherent bloodlines? Power from a deity? Grow up. You do get a bunch of assistants and fans though, isn't that enough for you? What's the matter? You wonder why Fighter McFightertan over there is cutting holes in reality, rearranging the landscape with a sword and soloing armies? Simple because he put on the gainz bruh. Levels aren't a general indicator of power, they're a relative level of power in your own class. This is a team game, you shouldn't be jealous of your teammate's inherent awesomeness because they were smart enough to pick a martial class. I mean, you sit in a lab and study books, this guy is a trained killer taught to survive in a world full of inhumanly powerful monsters, why shouldn't the be the absolute best at killing things ever? Why would anyone bother learning how to use swords and stuff if it wasn't the best option evah? Makes it more realistic. Bruh, who cares if he can bench press a continent, you have MAGIC.

Really nice write up for Magician on Stage or the Charlatan On The Street!

Bolded keywords & phrases that make this comparable to guy at the gym.

Notice the double standard where group A is held down to realism but group B is allowed to break realism while staying within verisimilitude. That is the key fallacious logic being critiqued in guy at the gym.

@Tanarii the issue you had in the opening post is different from the criticism of guy at the gym because it does not hit these key points. The opening post issue is more about "Buffing the weak with more flexibility and nerfing the strong by being less flexible." (which is not enough to be fallacious on its own without further context but can be with fallacious premises about what is balanced).

[Tanarii]

... I had way too much fun typing this out.

And I had so much fun reading it. Thank you!

[HumanFighter]

Hobo wizard. I recently played a Hobo Wizard in a D&D game. He had a plethora of weak spells that mainly focused on trickery and he was ass in combat. Ended up getting impaled by a demon's flaming cleaver, then grabbed by the neck by said demon. Then the fighter stabbed the demon right through the back, they both fell down off a ledge, unconscious, right into a pool of chaos energy and died instantly. It was great fun.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The Magician On the Stage Fallacy? AKA The Charlatan on the Street AKA Why Spellcasters Can't Have Nice Things. See, magic users are held to the same standards as real life magicians, so they're held to the standards of what David Copperfield/Houdini/Chris Angel are capable of.

Evocations? Really just home made fireworks that don't actually hurt the opponent. Maybe a firework here or there.

Summons? Actually just small animals the magician stuffed into their clothes. Anything larger than a pigeon isn't allowed.

Illusions? Smoke and mirrors baby. Ghost sound? Haven't you ever heard of throwing your voice?

Telekinesis? Really just strings that had to be set up ahead of time.

Familiars? Those are really just well trained pets that respond to verbal commands and body language.

Astral Projection? You mean lucid dreaming, people can't travel outside their bodies or anything, grow up.

Invisibility? Dude, camo. You just can't move too fast or the enemies will notice you.

Teleportation? Bro, no no no. Real people can't teleport. You just... Throw down a smoke screen and take a secret passage to appear in another spot

Beast Shape and spells like it? Bruh, people can't turn into real or imaginary animals by saying some funny words, those are really just elaborate costumes backed up by smoke and mirrors.

What's that? You want to be Odin? Dude, Odin was a GOD, what's your power source? Reading? Inherent bloodlines? Power from a deity? Grow up. You do get a bunch of assistants and fans though, isn't that enough for you? What's the matter? You wonder why Fighter McFightertan over there is cutting holes in reality, rearranging the landscape with a sword and soloing armies? Simple because he put on the gainz bruh. Levels aren't a general indicator of power, they're a relative level of power in your own class. This is a team game, you shouldn't be jealous of your teammate's inherent awesomeness because they were smart enough to pick a martial class. I mean, you sit in a lab and study books, this guy is a trained killer taught to survive in a world full of inhumanly powerful monsters, why shouldn't he be the absolute best at killing things ever? Why would anyone bother learning how to use swords and stuff if it wasn't the best option evah? Makes it more realistic. Bruh, who cares if he can bench press a continent, you have MAGIC.

Signed, NotBiasedGymBro4life /s

... I had way too much fun typing this out. But yeah... The Magician on Stage or the Charlatan On The Street fit well for me.

Digging that you're on the same phrase as me for the idea. Feeling the 180 on the usual mage/ warrior dichotomy in my freakin' soul. Great write-up, my dude.

[Telok]

Which is part of why people describe 4E as a "tabletop MMO" -- instead of pretty graphics wrapped around numerical effects that are 100% free of any implied fiction-layer effects, doing only what they do mechanically within the code of the game, it's "fluff" wrapped around those numerical effects.

Ah, there we go. MMO Mage. Your spells are buttons that you push and they have a precise, strictly defined, effect that doesn't interact with anything it isn't stated as affecting.

You can't cast your Zap spell because it targets an enemy creature and you haven't selected a legal target. You can't burn things with fire magic because it doesn't say it affects anything but creatures. You can't chill a drink with a cold spell because even if you could target a liquid it does "cold damage" and doesn't actually have any physical effects. You can only cast a buff spell on party members because it only works on "allies". You can target something if you can see any part of it, a sword tip or the toe of a boot is enough, the part doesn't matter, it doesn't even matter if you can identify it.

MMO magic. Click your pixel to target something. Push the button to cast it. It does exactly the minimum of what it says, no more, no less.