Unpopular D&D Opinions

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean, that's the power fantasy being the BAN. That they ARE more driven/creative/smarter, enough to engage on equal levels with people who have impossible capabilities. This is the "Batman" fantasy.

Also, you're take proposes that all potential Skills/approaches do the exact same thing, which makes sense in some contexts. A person with Super Strength is always going to be able to lift more than a normal person without super strength who does equivalent amounts of training, but the Badass Normal usually works by practicing things that don't take supernatural abilities, while their superpowered teammates focus on their abilities.

Imagine, if you will, two people, one is mute, the other is not. (In this metaphor, speech is the Superpower, and the mute person is our Badass Normal). The Mute Person practices the Violin and becomes a master violinist. The other person trains their voice and becomes an expert singer. Assume all thing are equal such that, had the person who can speak decided to take up the Violin instead of their voice, they would be just as good a violinist as the mute person become.

Would you say that the Singer must be a better musician, because they can do something the violinist cannot? That the only way the Violinist can stand on the same stage and be held in equal regard as the Singer is if the Singer is slacking somewhere?


To put it another way, Batman will never beat Superman or Wonder Woman in a fistfight. He'll never compare to either of them when it comes to punching out Godzilla either. He's doing other stuff, stuff that they didn't train to do because they were practicing their Godzilla punches.

The violinist and the singer aren't comparable in that case. Imagine if you instead had someone who was mute but had trained to become a great violinist and someone who started off a great violinist and also trained to be a singer. Yes, I'd say the latter is much more awesome and that (in a world where music is power) the two can't really play on the same stage any more than BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner can. The more accurate thing is that you have someone who can punch out gods and is super smart compared to someone who can't punch out gods but is super smart. When one person can literally do everything the other person can do as well as a huge chunk of things the other person can't even begin to attempt at, then yes. There's an issue. At least if you're trying to have them work together.

And you haven't even addressed the "it only works if the enemies are stupid and never learn" and "there can only be one BA normal in the entire setting's history, because otherwise it's no longer unexpected" issues. Both of which are even bigger. Or the sheer improbability of someone who can out-think the super-intellects, out-fight the mutant powerhouses, out-last the living rocks...while just being a normal person who works hard. This is literally the absurdity mocked by One Punch Man. And that describes Batman in most of his incarnations. His superpower is his plot armor and the fact that the writers are cheating in his favor. And giving that kind of plot armor and special consideration makes settings fall apart.

And even beyond that, the BA normal trope really only works when the author has full control over what the world does. It's an authored fiction trope that translates really really poorly into a game context. The "normal" members of the Avengers can only hang around because the authors give them plot armor and ways to be useful. It's the same issue that arises with settings that are over-stuffed with epic+ level NPCs, yet...suspiciously, only the party can handle <big world-ending crisis>.

[MoiMagnus]

I mean, that's the power fantasy being the BAN. That they ARE more driven/creative/smarter, enough to engage on equal levels with people who have impossible capabilities. This is the "Batman" fantasy.

Also, you're take proposes that all potential Skills/approaches do the exact same thing, which makes sense in some contexts. A person with Super Strength is always going to be able to lift more than a normal person without super strength who does equivalent amounts of training, but the Badass Normal usually works by practicing things that don't take supernatural abilities, while their superpowered teammates focus on their abilities.

Imagine, if you will, two people, one is mute, the other is not. (In this metaphor, speech is the Superpower, and the mute person is our Badass Normal). The Mute Person practices the Violin and becomes a master violinist. The other person trains their voice and becomes an expert singer. Assume all thing are equal such that, had the person who can speak decided to take up the Violin instead of their voice, they would be just as good a violinist as the mute person become.

Would you say that the Singer must be a better musician, because they can do something the violinist cannot? That the only way the Violinist can stand on the same stage and be held in equal regard as the Singer is if the Singer is slacking somewhere?

To put it another way, Batman will never beat Superman or Wonder Woman in a fistfight. He'll never compare to either of them when it comes to punching out Godzilla either. He's doing other stuff, stuff that they didn't train to do because they were practicing their Godzilla punches.

Though to have the complete picture, you have to compare to the third guy. The non-mute who practices Violin since as young as the Mute, and also became a master violinist.

Which is case of superhero stereotype, would be the hero that look like and behave like a BA normal, except that he also have superpowers, but those are not part of his standard arsenal and he only use those when normal fight is not enough (though he is likely mostly untrained at using those powers).

We end up with the following:

The mute violinist (Batman) is, almost by definition, strictly inferior to the non-mute violinist (Batman with untrained superpowers). Arguably, the difference is minor as long as the character is able to "chose his fights", but the difference is much more notable if the character loses control of the situation.

The non-mute violinist (Batman with untrained superpowers) is either of comparable "strength" or strictly inferior to the singer (Superman). Otherwise, no superhero in their right mind would train their superpower, and they would instead focus on mundane skills.

So given similar opportunities to train (i.e same XP amount), we have
Batman < Batman with untrained superpowers = or < Superman

[A simple solution to this conundrum is to assume that the BA normal has decades of training while the superhero is a random teen that discovered his powers last week, or something along the line. Another solution is to say that untrained superpowers are so dangerous to oneself that a superhero has no choice than to focus on mastering them or else things go very badly.]

[KorvinStarmast]

Another solution is to say that untrained superpowers are so dangerous to oneself that a superhero has no choice than to focus on mastering them or else things go very badly.]

Like Rogue in the first X Men movie.

[icefractal]

Here's my unpopular opinions:
1) Badass Normal is a somewhat incoherent concept.
2) It's inherently tricky to have "underdogs" who repeatedly win, and whatever method you take will cause some people to feel that they aren't in fact underdogs.

For #1, let's look at Batman.
Batman is a ****ing billionaire.
For that reason alone, he is not "normal".
Even his extreme skills (in most versions) derive from that. Yes, it takes immense dedication to master so many fields. But being able to devote yourself to it full-time and travelling around the world to study with various people makes a pretty huge difference too!
Oh, and he also has absurd stats. If you saw Batman's character sheet, you would say he's either cheating or ridiculously lucky.
And he has tech - very advanced tech. Honestly the only difference between Batman and Iron Man in that regard is that Batman's tech tends to be subtler and he doesn't wear a full-face mask.

If you look at Batman vs Daredevil, the latter is about 1000% more "normal" in terms of the problems he faces and the resources he has to deal with them. Despite having a superpower.

And this gets into - what does normal even mean? If we have:
* A kid who grew up on the streets, never got any training or help, then one day suddenly awakened their potent Sorcerer abilities.
* A genius who, through years of rigorous study, became a powerful Wizard.
* A trade-prince who controls a vast network of mercenaries and caravans, and personally speaking has both a fortune's worth of items augmenting him and several elite bodyguards. But, he has no inherent abilities beyond a normal person, he's an Aristocrat with average stats.
* A seemingly ordinary farmer who happened to be in the right place at the right time to discover an emperor's deception, prevent the summoning of Demogorgon, survive a hoard of angry demons through sheer luck, pass the divine trials that nobody in 3000 years has survived, and become the official representative of Desna, all just by stumbling into things.

Who is the most normal one here? Who is the underdog?
Personally speaking - none of them are. Power equals power. Once you have enough of it, you're not really "normal", and that's ok, just make sure to have responsibility with how you use it.

[BRC]

The violinist and the singer aren't comparable in that case. Imagine if you instead had someone who was mute but had trained to become a great violinist and someone who started off a great violinist and also trained to be a singer. Yes, I'd say the latter is much more awesome and that (in a world where music is power) the two can't really play on the same stage any more than BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner can. The more accurate thing is that you have someone who can punch out gods and is super smart compared to someone who can't punch out gods but is super smart. When one person can literally do everything the other person can do as well as a huge chunk of things the other person can't even begin to attempt at, then yes. There's an issue. At least if you're trying to have them work together.

First of all, violinists and singers DO perform together, quite frequently.

Your assumption is that all supernatural abilities are fully innate and require no effort put into them to reach their full potential, therefore somebody WITH superpowers might as well just ALSO learn a mundane skill.

Anybody who CAN sing must already be a master singer, so they might as well learn the violin.

A 5th level sorcerer is a 1st level sorcerer who got better at being a sorcerer. Because they were getting better at being a sorcerer, they were not getting better at being a Fighter.

And you haven't even addressed the "it only works if the enemies are stupid and never learn" and "there can only be one BA normal in the entire setting's history, because otherwise it's no longer unexpected" issues. Both of which are even bigger. Or the sheer improbability of someone who can out-think the super-intellects, out-fight the mutant powerhouses, out-last the living rocks...while just being a normal person who works hard. This is literally the absurdity mocked by One Punch Man. And that describes Batman in most of his incarnations. His superpower is his plot armor and the fact that the writers are cheating in his favor. And giving that kind of plot armor and special consideration makes settings fall apart.

You seem to be thinking about things in terms of, like boxing, where everybody is just throwing strength, skill, and speed at each other until one person falls over.
And the only way the person without superpowers can win against superpowers is if they find more hours in the day to train compared to their superpowered colleagues (Are higher leveled), or their opponents just continually underestimate them. And I'd say that's true, if everybody was boxing.

Steve who trains 50 hours a week is never going to beat Zuraxxus the Mighty, who can rip cars in half, take a sledgehammer to the face, and also trains for 50 hours a week.

The point I was trying to make with Singers vs Violinists is that Singers and Violinists do different, but related, things. One of which requires superpowers (Voice), the other of which does not.
Like this:

Though to have the complete picture, you have to compare to the third guy. The non-mute who practices Violin since as young as the Mute, and also became a master violinist.

This is exactly my point.
The non-mute Violinist isn't a Master Singer who can also play violin. They're a Master Violinist who can theoretically sing.
Sure, this might give them a toe up over the equally talented Mute Violinist, but unless they've also trained their voice, the fact that they can theoretically belt out a tune isn't going to be especially relevant. It's not "Unrealistic" to have a Mute Violinist on the same stage as a non-mute violinist and a non-mute singer, because the fact that they can't sing doesn't interfere with what they're here to do: Play Violin.


Alright, if you want to talk about comic books, let's talk about comic books.

Black Widow vs The Hulk.

Black Widow has trained her entire life to be a spy. She has no superpowers, and can hold her own in a brawl against most normal people, but is at her best sneaking around and getting information.
We'll say she is a level 1 Fighter (1 pt training, 0 pts powers) and a level 5 Spy (5 pts training, 0 pts powers).

The Hulk is an 8ft tall indestructible green rage monster who can throw skyscrapers. He has zero espionage training. He is a level 6 fighter (0 pts training) and a level 0 spy (0 pts training)

If Bruce Banner had some of Black Widow's training, he would be a Level 6 fighter and a level 3 spy because being The Hulk doesn't help him do any spy stuff.

So, so long as Spying is still something that needs to be done, Black Widow still has a role in the Avengers, even if they have The Hulk. If Mystique showed up (2 points training as a Spy, 4 points powers as a Spy, for a total spy score of 6) asking for a spot on the team, Black Widow might be in trouble, but the existence of The Hulk doesn't invalidate Black Widow so long as there is spy stuff to do.


Similarly, the existence of Sorcerer's doesn't invalidate Fighters, because sorcerers and fighters do different things, what Sorcerer's do is reliant on Magic, and what fighter's do isn't.

If there was a class like "Fighter+" who had all the features of Fighters but could also cast spells, then yeah, why bother being a Fighter when Fighter+ is on the table.

Edit:
Or, to put it another way

So long as there are different uses for Swords and Fireballs, and there is no magic that makes you better at Sword, then Non-magical swordsmanship will have a place.

Your assumption seems to be that being able to throw fireballs must make you better at sword stuff as well.

[gloryblaze]

First of all, violinists and singers DO perform together, quite frequently.

Your assumption is that all supernatural abilities are fully innate and require no effort put into them to reach their full potential, therefore somebody WITH superpowers might as well just ALSO learn a mundane skill.

Anybody who CAN sing must already be a master singer, so they might as well learn the violin.

A 5th level sorcerer is a 1st level sorcerer who got better at being a sorcerer. Because they were getting better at being a sorcerer, they were not getting better at being a Fighter.



You seem to be thinking about things in terms of, like boxing, where everybody is just throwing strength, skill, and speed at each other until one person falls over.
And the only way the person without superpowers can win against superpowers is if they find more hours in the day to train compared to their superpowered colleagues (Are higher leveled), or their opponents just continually underestimate them. And I'd say that's true, if everybody was boxing.

Steve who trains 50 hours a week is never going to beat Zuraxxus the Mighty, who can rip cars in half, take a sledgehammer to the face, and also trains for 50 hours a week.

The point I was trying to make with Singers vs Violinists is that Singers and Violinists do different, but related, things. One of which requires superpowers (Voice), the other of which does not.
Like this:


This is exactly my point.
The non-mute Violinist isn't a Master Singer who can also play violin. They're a Master Violinist who can theoretically sing.
Sure, this might give them a toe up over the equally talented Mute Violinist, but unless they've also trained their voice, the fact that they can theoretically belt out a tune isn't going to be especially relevant. It's not "Unrealistic" to have a Mute Violinist on the same stage as a non-mute violinist and a non-mute singer, because the fact that they can't sing doesn't interfere with what they're here to do: Play Violin.


Alright, if you want to talk about comic books, let's talk about comic books.

Black Widow vs The Hulk.

Black Widow has trained her entire life to be a spy. She has no superpowers, and can hold her own in a brawl against most normal people, but is at her best sneaking around and getting information.
We'll say she is a level 1 Fighter (1 pt training, 0 pts powers) and a level 5 Spy (5 pts training, 0 pts powers).

The Hulk is an 8ft tall indestructible green rage monster who can throw skyscrapers. He has zero espionage training. He is a level 6 fighter (0 pts training) and a level 0 spy (0 pts training)

If Bruce Banner had some of Black Widow's training, he would be a Level 6 fighter and a level 3 spy because being The Hulk doesn't help him do any spy stuff.

So, so long as Spying is still something that needs to be done, Black Widow still has a role in the Avengers, even if they have The Hulk. If Mystique showed up (2 points training as a Spy, 4 points powers as a Spy, for a total spy score of 6) asking for a spot on the team, Black Widow might be in trouble, but the existence of The Hulk doesn't invalidate Black Widow so long as there is spy stuff to do.


Similarly, the existence of Sorcerer's doesn't invalidate Fighters, because sorcerers and fighters do different things, what Sorcerer's do is reliant on Magic, and what fighter's do isn't.

If there was a class like "Fighter+" who had all the features of Fighters but could also cast spells, then yeah, why bother being a Fighter when Fighter+ is on the table.

Edit:
Or, to put it another way

So long as there are different uses for Swords and Fireballs, and there is no magic that makes you better at Sword, then Non-magical swordsmanship will have a place.

Your assumption seems to be that being able to throw fireballs must make you better at sword stuff as well.

New to the thread but I've been lurking haha. If I understand PhoenixPhyre's point correctly, it's that the paradigm we use should not be:

Hulk = Sorcerer
Black Widow = Fighter
Mystique = the hypothetical "Fighter +"

Instead, it should be:

Hulk = Sorcerer
Mystique = Fighter
Black Widow = NPC statblock

In other words, all PC classes should be superheros. Maybe the Hulk's powers come from gamma radiation (Arcane power source) while Mystique was born a mutant (Martial power source, but they're both supers.

[BRC]

New to the thread but I've been lurking haha. If I understand PhoenixPhyre's point correctly, it's that the paradigm we use should not be:

Hulk = Sorcerer
Black Widow = Fighter
Mystique = the hypothetical "Fighter +"

Instead, it should be:

Hulk = Sorcerer
Mystique = Fighter
Black Widow = NPC statblock

In other words, all PC classes should be superheros. Maybe the Hulk's powers come from gamma radiation (Arcane power source) while Mystique was born a mutant (Martial power source, but they're both supers.

To bring back the original quote

Having magic (fantastic) powers doesn't mean you got them for free. Someone with powers who works hard and is creative and trains is just going to be flat better than someone without powers who has the same creativity and drive. So for a BA normal to be able to hang with powered people, you have to assume that everyone else is lazy and uncreative. Because that niche has to be reserved for the people who don't have anything else. Beyond that, it seems like having a BA normal (under this meaning) requires that the enemies all hold the Idiot Ball. They're not able to do awesome things because of their own capabilities (which are objectively sub-par), they're only able to do those things because the enemies don't see it coming. Which means that as soon as they can see it coming, the BA normal is up a creek. So to have a BA normal stay effective, the enemies have not not learn.

PP's point seems to me to be as follows

1) Everybody must be assumed to have equivalent levels of training, creativity, ect in all relevant skills unless they are just "lazy". If Batman exists, we must assume that everybody is either Batman or Lazy.
I object to this because a core part of the Badass Normal fantasy is the idea that they DO put in more work than their superpowered colleagues. Batman kind of takes it to an absurd extreme, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Black Widow spends more time at the gym than Bruce Banner does, and that Bruce Banner isn't just too lazy to put in the work.

2) The assumption that all forms of contribution are effectively interchangeable, so if supernatural powers are ever relevant, then non-supernatural approaches must be inherently inferior. This is the argument I was trying to make with the Singer/Violinist bit. Not all forms of contribution are interchangeable, and only for some of them is it more effective to use superpowers than mundane abilities.



I think we're falling into the trap of talking about the Badass Normal trope as used in something like a shonen anime, vs "Is there a place for non-fantastical characters in games where supernatural abilities exist?".

The point of the "Badass Normal" trope as used in something like a martial arts shonen is that the "Normal" character is training harder/fighting smarter than their opponents to make up the gap. It's what's supposed to impress us about the character.
The same way we're supposed to be impressed when Jackie Chan's character beats up 3 goons. "Wow, Jackie is better than those goons that he can win even though there are 3 of them". "Wow, Normie McBadass is so much better than Fire Magicson that he can win this swordfight, even though Fire Magicson has Fire magic!"

A non-fantastical character in a games with supernatural elements is a different story, although it taps into a similar power fantasy. In this case, the fantasy isn't about, specifically, overpowering the supernaturally able, so much as it is being awesome and cool with ordinary talents alone, either because you specifically like the idea of being cool without supernatural powers, or because the types of things you find cool don't rely on any supernatural powers to work.


Black Widow would only be automatically relegated to NPC status if You assume that 1) characters must have equivalent amounts of training, but not equivalent innate abilities (Mystique must be as skilled a spy as Black Widow even before you take her powers into account) and 2) Every relevant task has some supernatural approach that is inherently better than the mundane approach, that, since we're caring about spy work, Mystique Must exist.

[Quertus]

@Cluedrew - somehow I managed not to quote you. Short version is, it feels to me like I'm still serving up chopped up elephant bits, and you're complaining that they aren't an elephant. Like, "elephants aren't feet. You know what has feet? Tables. Tables aren't even alive. So the definition of an elephant can't involve feet."

This piece of the elephant is "map vs territory" (well, it's a bit more than that, but that's a start). That is not the entirety of the elephant, that is not the whole of my definition. It's just one part that one would need to understand in order to understand my definition.

Also… um… this tastes familiar. Did I at some point say I'd try to remember to stop claiming 4e was an RPG, and my senility won out here?

Okay, I think it is time for some non Euclidean Geometry. Those world circles are not "implementation errors". The rules of geometry are just a bit different on a globe than on a flat paper. On the surface of the globe I can draw a triangle with 3 right angles.

I can also share this brainteaser: Sara took a trip one day. She bundled up for the weather and walked South 1 mile, West 1 mile, and North 1 mile to end up where she had started. Her trip could have started at the North Pole, or at infinite points in Antarctica. Where?

These are not implementation errors. Consider the equator. Every point on the equator is the same distance "R" to the north pole (assuming a prefect spherical Earth). The circumference of that circle is 4R. The diameter is 2R. Circumference / Diameter = 2 for that circle.



Thank you. It is nice to be appreciated.

I think most of the potential holes have been checked. There are just 2 left to check and I only feel competence enough to check the first:
1) Non Euclidean geometry is different but we live in a non Euclidean world already. It is easy to overestimate the challenge of mapping a territory to a map without reminders like these.
2) There is a possibility that Quertus' judgement is stricter than Quertus' definition. (This might require 3 way telepathy, and I am no psion).

Please take time to consider/experiment drawing on globes.



Honestly, for communicating with others, the less catchy phrase is better for communication than the more pithy phrase.

This point makes sense.

Assuming C=2πr, C=1 -> r=1/(2π) -> s=1+(1/(2π)). That's the easiest part of this post for me. (Although intuiting the existence of those infinite number of points didn't happen the first time I heard the question, and I had to process for a moment to agree with you that my original answer from however many years / decades ago was incomplete.)

Only 2 major potential holes left? You're a surprisingly easy audience.

It sounds like, hilariously enough, the mapping does map to our conversation in unanticipated ways. Although I'm still working on how…?

For part of your #1, if I rambled about how people told me my experiences were impossible, leading to me referring to my characters by name, leading to confusion around Quertus, leading to "Quertus my signature academia mage for whom this account is named", would you say that that is related, that I may understand what you mean (evidence, not proof), or would it be proof that I misunderstand the nature of #1?

So I'm… struggling to get an unbiased answer from my Evil overlord mandated five-year-old advisor substitutes for the next step - a step which is highly related to your #1. Because, like most people, they don't know how to test. And, if I teach them how to test, it will bias the answer, and make it potentially look unrealistically like my own answer.

And, if I just give my answer… I expect a lot of really… "make me lose my faith in humanity" replies. Nobody else understanding the infinite crit fisher was actually infinite? Nah, I'm fine with that. I don't expect everyone to just intuit that correctly (and I'm terrible at / hate dropping to the detail level of "proving" something… Hmmm…). But this next piece, despite the fact that I know most everyone's instincts will be wrong, I still foolishly *expect* more from people than what I expect (darn fallacy of four parts, using the same words to mean 2 different things) I'll get.

So I don't want to do that. In fact, I might *just* include the answer from my Evil overlord mandated five-year-old advisor substitutes, if I can figure out a way to get a good answer without biasing the results.

And I don't even know how to approach #2.

So I'll stop there for now, and see what my Evil overlord mandated five-year-old advisor substitutes have to say.

[Cluedrew]

But D&D 4e martial dailies weren't presented that way, they were presented closer to "guy at the gym" style that didn't ask for that specific suspension of disbelief.

Were they? I remember a line about them coming from physical training and discipline but nothing about them being grounded. Is this actually just an assumption plus 4e not highlighting a change properly? D&D have never gone into the mechanics behind any special abilities (because they are none) so I wouldn't expect the book to launch into a whole thing about chi or describing how character can become super-human without being super-natural in this setting (fantastic, but not magic).

Like, "elephants aren't feet. You know what has feet? Tables. Tables aren't even alive. So the definition of an elephant can't involve feet." [...] That is not the entirety of the elephant, that is not the whole of my definition. It's just one part that one would need to understand in order to understand my definition. [...] Also... um... this tastes familiar. Did I at some point say I'd try to remember to stop claiming 4e was an RPG, and my senility won out here?

Blarg. You probably did say something about that (also for the record, I don't think you are particularly senile, everyone forget stuff). OK well then back out a few steps, if I examine this description in that new context what do I get? Evaluating this as a "line" instead of the "circle" of an entire definition.

Mostly the same actually. I understand the concept being measured but not how you are measuring it. 4e and other editions have similar levels of M.T.M. (Map vs. Territory Match) to me so... I'm not sure where the line goes. Then going to the concept of a definition: I do believe that definitions should - generally speaking - describe how people use a word. Now exceptions can exist* but without strong reason to do so you shouldn't. And currently the word is used to describe D&D 4e. So do we have a strong reason? I don't think we do. Now I have to turn to my own fallible judgement to compare your best guess with my best guess here; but in the end, I think while M.T.M. is a nice thing to have, it is (like a quad-amputee elephant) not actually necessary.

All the problems I have mentioned with measuring this are true (feels unclear, subjective and there is no cut off), but fundamentally its that if I crank the M.T.M. down and imaging people playing out shallow stereotypes that all act out their character arks with barely a care for what the game says is going on: It is still role-playing. Not to say good role-playing but bad role-playing still counts. While perhaps a useful measure of quality you can't to so badly it stops being an role-playing game (we maybe you can but it will stop being a playable system first).

So in conclusion: Mostly feel the same way even if I try to keep in mind that this is not the entire definition.

* Simple related example: I consider (table-top/pen-and-paper) role-playing games and (computer) RPGs to be two fundamentally different groups even though the same word is used to label both of them. I think that would make them homonyms, even if most people aren't close enough to tell the difference.

[Lord Torath]

I can also share this brainteaser: Sara took a trip one day. She bundled up for the weather and walked South 1 mile, West 1 mile, and North 1 mile to end up where she had started. Her trip could have started at the North Pole, or at infinite points in Antarctica. Where?

Anywhere that is 1+1/(2 pi) miles from the South Pole. If I did my math right.

On other topics: 2E AD&D didn't let you fall from orbit and just take the same damage as falling from 200 ft. Okay, okay, initially it did, but with the introduction of Spelljammer, you starting taking fire damage from falls over... I think it was 1 mile.

Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 both had options for you to 'auto-pause' at the end of each combat round. But spell and missile weapon ranges were, admittedly, much lower than the PHB said.

Unpopular opinion: Spelljammer is awesome! It has flaws (oh so many flaws), but it is still awesome!

[OldTrees1]

Assuming C=2πr, C=1 -> r=1/(2π) -> s=1+(1/(2π)). That's the easiest part of this post for me. (Although intuiting the existence of those infinite number of points didn't happen the first time I heard the question, and I had to process for a moment to agree with you that my original answer from however many years / decades ago was incomplete.)

and

Anywhere that is 1+1/(2 pi) miles from the South Pole. If I did my math right.

What about the infinite other points?
Consider a loop around the south pole that is 1 mile. There are infinite points 1 mile north of that loop. This is the solution you both provided. However there are infinite more points you did not mention. What about a loop that is 1/2 miles? 1/3 miles? 1/n miles?

Only 2 major potential holes left? You're a surprisingly easy audience.

It sounds like, hilariously enough, the mapping does map to our conversation in unanticipated ways. Although I'm still working on how…?

For part of your #1, if I rambled about how people told me my experiences were impossible, leading to me referring to my characters by name, leading to confusion around Quertus, leading to "Quertus my signature academia mage for whom this account is named", would you say that that is related, that I may understand what you mean (evidence, not proof), or would it be proof that I misunderstand the nature of #1?

-snip-

And I don't even know how to approach #2.

So I'll stop there for now, and see what my Evil overlord mandated five-year-old advisor substitutes have to say.

For #1, it would be best to take a step away from your definition and just draw circles in the non Euclidean geometry of drawing on the globe. Let's say the circumference of the globe is 4X. Draw a circle on the surface of the globe with a center at the north pole and a radius of 3X. Be carful to measure the radius so the arc (line on the surface of the globe) from the north pole to the circle edge is 3X. Then measure the circumference of that circle. You should find the circle circumference is much smaller than 6X*3.14159...

I fully expect you to realize C=2πr is a trait of Euclidean geometry. Geometries with positive or negative curvature would have different constants. However doing the exercise might be helpful in that realization.

For #2, I hope you have a good weekend. I don't see a way to check that hole beyond warning you that we have not checked that hole. I am willing to admit I can't help check that hole. So I will stop there.

[Bohandas]

And that describes Batman in most of his incarnations. His superpower is his plot armor and the fact that the writers are cheating in his favor.

And money, don't forget money

Do you mean the originals? I haven't played them, but I've played icewind dale 2 and the Neverwinter Nights games and I am lead to understand it's a similar case of D&D fit to a real time combat system. Which, yeah, makes BG3 the only D&D game I know of to really incorporate the turn-based tactical combat of D&D. Oh, that and the GBA version of Eye of the Beholder. I enjoyed the former two, but I'm really excited for the Baldur's Gate specifically because it does turn-based like regular D&D

The Gold Box games were 100% turn based.

Temple of Elemental Evil was turn-based too. Don't forget Temple of Elemental Evil

[Anonymouswizard]

Temple of Elemental Evil was turn-based too. Don't forget Temple of Elemental Evil

The two Pathfinder games, while defaulting to BG-style combat, have a toggle for turn based that makes them far better.

[Telok]

Unpopular opinion: Spelljammer is awesome! It has flaws (oh so many flaws), but it is still awesome!

Not unpopular. There's a surprisingly large number of us who enjoyed it quite a bit. Enough that it seems to get hints regularly included in a good number of the modules and polls.

Were they? I remember a line about them coming from physical training and discipline but nothing about them being grounded. Is this actually just an assumption plus 4e not highlighting a change properly?

"As with many of 4e's non-mechanical issues I think it was an advertising/presentation issue that created a mismatch between customer expectations and the product."

[Cluedrew]

To Telok: Maybe if I was more up to date with 4e's marketing that would explain everything. However, I'm not. Can you either describe the relevant marketing or point me at a place where I can find it? From there I can try and figure out how much of it was just carried over assumptions.

[Telok]

To Telok: Maybe if I was more up to date with 4e's marketing...

Well thats why its "advertising/presentation". Sort of like I recall 5e initially presented/sold as a "simple base game with additional features and subsystems coming in future releases". I'm sure with an hour or two I could dig up something relevant and link it, but these are how I recall the books & dev mutterings presenting the games to me as a potential buyer and I truely don't care about those editions enough to bother. I could be wrong that it was ever made explicit somewhere that these were actual things. I could have interpreted marketing & tweets wrong. People have been puffing their goods since 4000 B.C.E. and I may have read something into the media that wasn't really there.

For the thread, a couple opinions that are at least unpopular at WotC:

It would be nice if, instead of re-writing the whole game every 5-10 years, they actually did a 'new edition' that was just real improvements & fixes & quality of life enhancements.

It would be nice if, instead of just spamming more feats & subclasses & spells, they actually produced decent subsystems & options that expanded the game. A real ocean/sea adventure system with decent naval combat & weather. An armies & kingdoms rules. A useful subsystem for managing political intrigue and wider social actions beyond "roll charisma against npc #3". Some different magic systems. Some different melee systems. Sure I can make all this stuff up on my own, at which point I start asking "why should I pay people who aren't giving me things I can use?".

[Quertus]

Yeah, basically. Especially since that kind of thing is very internal, so you wouldn't necessarily "see" it. And it's also never really a truly "once per day" thing, even if it is effectively close to it. Like, you'd never say "well, I've used my allotment!" You'd say "ow, that hurt, I'd better be careful not to push that too far from here on out". And yes, you could design a more accurate simulation that took those things into account, but in reality the end result would be fairly close to "dailies".

But, yeah. Like in my "is that a dog?" analogy earlier, if it looks like a pug, someone that's seen a pug will say "that kinda looks like a dog" while someone that hasn't will say "that doesn't look like a dog".

People involved in athletic endeavors have seen more "dogs" than people that aren't. And the more you work with dogs, the more you learn what various things look like dogs, and the more experience you get in really determining things that don't look like dogs.

Anybody can look at a Lab and say "that's a dog". Someone with very limited knowledge of dogs might look at a coyote and say "that looks like a dog", but look at a pug and say "that's not a dog." OTOH, someone with a lot of dog experience would likely look at the coyote and say "that's not a dog" but look at the pug and say "yup, definitely dog."

Also note that since we're talking about things like immersion and fun, it really doesn't matter if a "pug" is "really" a "dog". If it blows someone immersion because it doesn't match their idea of what a "dog" looks like, and so they have to start thinking in weird ways about it that don't map to the character, then that's the effect it has. I absolutely, do not dispute in any way that daily martials have that effect on some (many) people. The only thing that I dispute is that they necessarily have that effect on everyone. You know, because they don't have that effect on me, and my thoughts regarding them are more "in character" than my thoughts about hit points.

This is an absolutely excellent explanation of why the effect on the individual, how much it hurts their "immersion", cannot be the primary input to the definition of an RPG.

Blarg. You probably did say something about that (also for the record, I don't think you are particularly senile, everyone forget stuff).

It's… complex to write this honest, so the simple lie (oversimplification?) is, lead has already been identified as an issue.

They say that the caliber of a man can be measured by the number of lies they need to live their life. I haven't researched "reversibility" yet, to know whether or not I'll always be mad as a hatter. … is what I'd say if the above were Truth rather than oversimplification.

OK well then back out a few steps, if I examine this description in that new context what do I get? Evaluating this as a "line" instead of the "circle" of an entire definition.

Mostly the same actually. I understand the concept being measured but not how you are measuring it. 4e and other editions have similar levels of M.T.M. (Map vs. Territory Match) to me so... I'm not sure where the line goes.

You… no, that's fair. A big piece of "how M.T.M. is measured" is in the "next step" I'm dreading.

Then going to the concept of a definition: I do believe that definitions should - generally speaking - describe how people use a word. Now exceptions can exist* but without strong reason to do so you shouldn't. And currently the word is used to describe D&D 4e. So do we have a strong reason? I don't think we do.

Well, the only reason I'm even taking about something so complex, that I know it's human nature to want to reject and oversimplify, is because people saying "4e isn't D&D" forced me to evaluate that, and conclude (that 4e is D&D, and) the meme you hate.

And this is, as much as anything, me defending, "I really do mean that (more or less - where one draws an absolute line is often arbitrary, and my position there is not the only possible valid one)" and "I really have given such concepts a lot of thought, this isn't just a knee jerk reaction".

Plus, it's a topic I'd love to discuss… if, you know, I were less lazy, less senile, and had less human conversational partners.

Well, no - I love *discussing* the topic, but actually *proving* a particular stance is what the previous paragraph is about.

Now I have to turn to my own fallible judgement to compare your best guess with my best guess here; but in the end, I think while M.T.M. is a nice thing to have, it is (like a quad-amputee elephant) not actually necessary.

What is necessary and sufficient?

My Sith Lord spokesperson argues for things neither necessary nor sufficient, because they are easier to understand, and allow people to (hopefully) grok the general shape of these bits.

I've already explained one (well, technically two) of several reasons why anecdotal / experimental / observational evidence of, "I've seen people roleplay with it" is not only not sufficient evidence, but, as I put it, cannot be taken as the primary input.

So… what's your instinct? What do *you* think a scientist would measure were they to try to categorize "role-playing games" from "not role-playing games"? Or to try to measure how "role-playing gamey" something was?

I'm trying to slowly serve up enough elephant pieces that maybe people might be able to see my answer, and understand my reasons for choosing such metrics.

But, hey, I admit I'm able to be wrong, and you thinking about the question seems likely to produce naught but good (not that you can't be wrong, but you *thinking* about a thing always seems good), so… what do you think is the measure of an RPG?

All the problems I have mentioned with measuring this are true (feels unclear, subjective and there is no cut off),

Feels unclear? Absolutely. You've got some feet and a tail. And only my poor communication skills connecting them. If it felt clear, you should probably seek help!

Subjective? *Where* I draw the line might well seem subjective, even when I'm "done". If anything else feels subjective, it's a problem - either one of communication, or an actual error on my part. So… what, very specifically, feels subjective?

There is no cutoff? Did this mean, "you feel it should be a spectrum, rather than a yes/no"?

(Note to self: go reread the previous post)

but fundamentally its that if I crank the M.T.M. down and imaging people playing out shallow stereotypes that all act out their character arks with barely a care for what the game says is going on: It is still role-playing. Not to say good role-playing but bad role-playing still counts. While perhaps a useful measure of quality you can't to so badly it stops being an role-playing game (we maybe you can but it will stop being a playable system first).

Exactly. People roleplay with Chess, but that doesn't make Chess an RPG. Which is why "people roleplay with it" cannot be taken as the primary input to whether or not something is an RPG.

So in conclusion: Mostly feel the same way even if I try to keep in mind that this is not the entire definition.

* Simple related example: I consider (table-top/pen-and-paper) role-playing games and (computer) RPGs to be two fundamentally different groups even though the same word is used to label both of them. I think that would make them homonyms, even if most people aren't close enough to tell the difference.

I mean, I'm grouchy that "he" was used as a masculine and gender-neutral pronoun, and that the same words are used for physical, genetic, and identity gender.

Similarly, I think it confuses the issue and dilutes the term to mislabel so-called "CRPGs".

and

What about the infinite other points?
Consider a loop around the south pole that is 1 mile. There are infinite points 1 mile north of that loop. This is the solution you both provided. However there are infinite more points you did not mention. What about a loop that is 1/2 miles? 1/3 miles? 1/n miles?

Huh. … agreed (mostly) (we may have different cutoffs for acceptable value of n for "pure math" circles vs "walking East/West")

So what did I learn?

1) I'm lazy. Well, I already knew that. I proudly proclaim all good programmers are lazy. Sketchy usage here, most good programmers in most scenarios wouldn't keep writing code once they had code that worked… but… it depends on the question as to whether the code actually works.

2) my intuition isn't infallible. Well, no. Although I already knew that, too. What this actually shows is…

2b) my intuition isn't always complete. Well, I knew that already, too. And, it seems, already covered by "4e could be an RPG, and Quertus not know the evidence" or some such.

3) even knowing that I've failed does not guarantee that I'll show due diligence on my second pass. Eh, I technically already knew that, but… it's always good to be reminded.

4) there can be solutions to problems that aren't obvious to a particular given user. Again, seems a given with, "there can be a solution Quertus doesn't see" tech, but that seems the most relevant, and this problem is a good demonstration of that fact.

For #1, it would be best to take a step away from your definition and just draw circles in the non Euclidean geometry of drawing on the globe. Let's say the circumference of the globe is 4X. Draw a circle on the surface of the globe with a center at the north pole and a radius of 3X. Be carful to measure the radius so the arc (line on the surface of the globe) from the north pole to the circle edge is 3X. Then measure the circumference of that circle. You should find the circle circumference is much smaller than 6X*3.14159...

I fully expect you to realize C=2πr is a trait of Euclidean geometry. Geometries with positive or negative curvature would have different constants. However doing the exercise might be helpful in that realization.

For #2, I hope you have a good weekend. I don't see a way to check that hole beyond warning you that we have not checked that hole. I am willing to admit I can't help check that hole. So I will stop there.

I'm… still thinking "user error" in "applying Euclidian geometry to non-Euclidian spaces", or "asking that games model reality instead of their own fiction". Although openly acknowledging that… not "makes my definition more complex", so much as… Hmmm… "increases the number of chopped up elephant bits that I need to serve, and the number that I need to dive further into" (and there's probably an "in order to…" that goes at the end there).

That is, if I don't openly acknowledge that, I could more readily… what was the phrase… keep the level of discrimination lower (you know what I'm referencing, right?), and "sell you on a lie", explaining something seemingly internally consistent, of the ilk that would make the Sith Lords proud.

However, if you make me face this fact, I'll need to explain more of my definition before it seems (but still won't be) complete.

So, if I understand correctly, it's a test that I was hoping to sidestep. Because human nature is to hate complexity, and making my definition pass that test reduces its "adoption" potential.

But (assuming I understand correctly), it's a fair test, and one I believe my definition will pass can pass, if I tailor my detail level of my (incomplete) explanation to the test.

[Pex]

It would be nice if, instead of just spamming more feats & subclasses & spells, they actually produced decent subsystems & options that expanded the game. A real ocean/sea adventure system with decent naval combat & weather. An armies & kingdoms rules. A useful subsystem for managing political intrigue and wider social actions beyond "roll charisma against npc #3". Some different magic systems. Some different melee systems. Sure I can make all this stuff up on my own, at which point I start asking "why should I pay people who aren't giving me things I can use?".

But then you'd have 3E, and they're purposely not doing that. That validates your point, but they're not budging. They actually did try to budge and introduce something new. The Psionic Die. They got yelled at, so you can't blame WOTC for not doing it. However, they're not totally static. Artificer infusions and allowing easy make but limited magic items is new. Having number of uses of things be based on proficiency bonus instead of ability score is new. Druids spending their wild shape on something other than wild shape is new. Warrior subclasses that allow them to buff themselves or do something more than "I attack" is new. Doing something that is completely outside the current 5E chassis they will not do.

[Bohandas]

Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 both had options for you to 'auto-pause' at the end of each combat round.

That's not the same thing

[Telok]

But then you'd have 3E, and they're purposely not doing that. That validates your point, but they're not budging. They actually did try to budge and introduce something new. The Psionic Die. They got yelled at, so you can't blame WOTC for not doing it. However, they're not totally static. Artificer infusions and allowing easy make but limited magic items is new. Having number of uses of things be based on proficiency bonus instead of ability score is new. Druids spending their wild shape on something other than wild shape is new. Warrior subclasses that allow them to buff themselves or do something more than "I attack" is new. Doing something that is completely outside the current 5E chassis they will not do.

Well I did say they needed to be decent subsystems.

More seriously though, its not "going all 3e". Rather its about having more supported choices for game and character styles than eternal dungeon crawls, wandering through wilderness, and caster/battlemaster/monk. The psionic die was about half a subsystem, it never seemed fully realized. The artificer is a half caster with a swappable equipment gimmick and its specific to a particular setting. The other stuff isn't new either, its a half rehash of the old alternate class features and playing with how "x/day" features are written.

Really, better ideas than just spamming more and more subclasses, feats, and spells would be nice. Real support for activities beyond combat would be nice. But you're right, "Doing something that is completely outside the current 5E chassis they will not do." is correct and all I expect to see is more subclasses, more feats, more spells for the 'one true way' magic system. Because that's the whole game & "chassis", a combat engine with one magic system and a lot of feats & subclasses.

[OldTrees1]

4) there can be solutions to problems that aren't obvious to a particular given user. Again, seems a given with, "there can be a solution Quertus doesn't see" tech, but that seems the most relevant, and this problem is a good demonstration of that fact.

This is what I was going for. It was already given from prior statements, but the demonstration might help adjust your prior estimates of: "Probability there is no sufficiently simple solution given I can't see the solution". Given your example of 4E, it sounds like this prior probability was high enough for you to assume there was no solution. This demonstration was one of several to help reevaluate if that prior probability was calibrated correctly. The 3 mile walk was to point out intuition boundaries. The circles on the globe was to point out a different perspective can matter a lot.

After you explained your definition, I would still classify 4E as an RPG because
A: The 4E map already fits my territories closer than it fits yours
B: I expect other people to have territories I would struggle to invent
C: A lot of people are playing 4E as an RPG, that informs me that it is working for them
As a result I evaluate 4E as being better suited for RP than you evaluate it as being.

I don't expect you to change your opinion based on updating this prior probability. The demonstrations were primarily for making things clearer.

I don't see sufficient evidence one way or the other to cause a convincing argument leading to a change in opinion and you are aware of the weaknesses. That is the last I had to say on the topic.

[HidesHisEyes]

Interesting obstacles require creativity or strategy to overcome, a setback that just makes you unable to go on adventures is just a less dramatic form of character death: retirement. When Jaime Lannister lost his hand he stopped being one of the greatest swordsman in the world, his days of adventure had come to an end. When Luke Skywalker lost his hand his future would've been the same if it wasn't for hyper advanced cybernetic prosthetic able to perfectly replicate every function of a hand.
When you have to overcome a disability you either need to end up with your hand back, a super power that is better than a hand, or a new career.

If my character becomes blind and the DM fabricates some reason why they can't get their sight back I'm not going to overcome that, I'll just bring in a new character.

In D&D I’d agree, broadly. There are other games where you can lose a hand and it means you have one hand now, deal with it. But that kind of game works on very different assumptions.

[Anonymouswizard]

In D&D I’d agree, broadly. There are other games where you can lose a hand and it means you have one hand now, deal with it. But that kind of game works on very different assumptions.

Eh, there's some leeway on D&D. If a Fighter losses their off hand and can't get it reverberated they can probably get a prosthetic that allows them to fight as effectively (after an adjustment period). As long as they don't fight with two weapons you can probably pull off a Guts. There's also probably several major injuries a Spellcaster can work through.

Although I believe that Jamie lost his main hand, which is pretty problematic for any character.

Although your point still stands because D&D has terrible rules for crippling injuries, because they're assumed to never come up.

I'm interested in running Heirs of Heresy at some point, it just came up this week and I can see situations where many characters might take a crippled limb over bleeding. Plus characters could be taking crippling injuries over combat and listing most of them after, which will make those that stick around interesting.

[Tanarii]

Although your point still stands because D&D has terrible rules for crippling injuries, because they're assumed to never come up.

That's because the rules take you from full effectiveness to dead, instead of a death spiral.

Conversely in Warhammer, my experience was that your characters often retire after running out of wounds and receiving a crippling critical hit that didn't outright kill them.

That's not as likely in forbidden lands by free league, since it has less permanently crippling injury results on the critical hit table. But during my playtest it I still had several characters effectively retired because the downtime time for healing was so long, and the player just shrugged and rolled someone new.

[Mordar]

The Gold Box games were 100% turn based.

And also the best.

Oh wait, this is for unpopular opinions.

- M

[Anonymouswizard]

That's because the rules take you from full effectiveness to dead, instead of a death spiral.

Conversely in Warhammer, my experience was that your characters often retire after running out of wounds and receiving a crippling critical hit that didn't outright kill them.

That's not as likely in forbidden lands by free league, since it has less permanently crippling injury results on the critical hit table. But during my playtest it I still had several characters effectively retired because the downtime time for healing was so long, and the player just shrugged and rolled someone new.

Oh sure, Warhammer probably goes to the opposite extreme than D&D. I need to find people to give Heirs to Heresy a test run, I feel like crippled limb might be too easy to heal while dying might be too hard.

Honestly I feel like D&D could do with stating a death s at roughly half your hp lost. But I guess that's another sacred cow.

[Telok]

One of the things that seems to get lost in translation is that the games with long healing times for serious injuries are written with an assumption that the characters get those downtimes. A lot of the old AD&D stuff like research & magic item creation shared that same assumption. They thought the characters would go on an adventure or two each year and having weeks in between dungeon delves would be the usual.

But the current D&D paradigm is this super hardcore thing with the party clearing a new dungeon or 12-24 fight mini-arc every couple days and having just a day or two between them. This means when players take current D&D assumptions into games that aren't based on those sorts of unwritten rules it seems like those other games don't work somehow. So that whole "retire a wounded character because healing is slow" is like retiring your D&D wizard and bringing in a new one once you're out of spells for the day.

Of course now I kind of want to play that for the absurdity & laughs.

[Pex]

One of the things that seems to get lost in translation is that the games with long healing times for serious injuries are written with an assumption that the characters get those downtimes. A lot of the old AD&D stuff like research & magic item creation shared that same assumption. They thought the characters would go on an adventure or two each year and having weeks in between dungeon delves would be the usual.

But the current D&D paradigm is this super hardcore thing with the party clearing a new dungeon or 12-24 fight mini-arc every couple days and having just a day or two between them. This means when players take current D&D assumptions into games that aren't based on those sorts of unwritten rules it seems like those other games don't work somehow. So that whole "retire a wounded character because healing is slow" is like retiring your D&D wizard and bringing in a new one once you're out of spells for the day.

Of course now I kind of want to play that for the absurdity & laughs.

The reverse is also true with people complaining healing in D&D is too easy with no consequences to injuries. D&D is not made for that type of game, is not wrong for not being that type of game, and does not have to apologize for it. If for whatever reason someone likes D&D except for that and makes rules changes to get it hooray for them have your fun, but don't resent having to do so. If it's a deal breaker you want to take your ball and go home to play NotD&D that's ok too. You don't have to like D&D, but D&D is not doing it wrong.

[Cluedrew]

You... no, that's fair. A big piece of "how M.T.M. is measured" is in the "next step" I'm dreading.

And I think the more interesting discussion rather than trying to contort it into a definition. Well not the measurement itself, although that would be a useful tool, but the strategies to help improve the matching.

So... what's your instinct? What do *you* think a scientist would measure were they to try to categorize "role-playing games" from "not role-playing games"? Or to try to measure how "role-playing gamey" something was?

I don't think that is even science. I'm not certain, it might be under sociology or something, but role-playing games aren't a phenomena that exists out in the world to be analyzed. It is a construct people created to describe a bunch of things they felt were similar. I could ask, but honestly I doubt any actual researcher would actually spend time defining it because... why would they? If you are researching something about how people who something express themselves in role-playing games and then the go to freeform play-by-post and someone argues that doesn't count as a role-playing game there response is probably: "I don't care it has all the features of a role-playing game my research cares about." On the opposite extreme a different researcher would discard actual role-playing games that are not relevant to their research even if they are truly role-playing games. So why would they refine it beyond the fuzzy day-to-day definition we use?

And the fuzzy definition works. Outside of this "is 4e a role-playing game?" thing you have started I have seen exactly one time there was a serious question about whether or not something was actually an role-playing game. And it was such a terrible game no one would every play it and no one bothered to figure it out (and before someone makes a joke about 4e: If you think this is as bad as it gets, no it gets worse).

So, if you asked a random person (who understands the question) "Is system X a role-playing game" and you get a consistent answer, then that answer is right because that is actually how language works. If you don't get a consistent answer then maybe it is worth going further, but you are the only person I have ever seen who even has a question about whether or not 4e is a role-playing game so I think it is consistent.

There is no cutoff? Did this mean, "you feel it should be a spectrum, rather than a yes/no"?

Yes, I think M.T.M. is not a yes/no thing. In fact a single number might not be sufficient to measure it, but could be created by loosely averaging instances of mismatch, if we could definitively quantify their severity and frequency. Really hard to do but I can see how it would work. On the other hand I don't see any system getting a perfect or completely wrong score so how do you turn it into yes/no? Just pick the line that your favourites are over? Don't do that.

Exactly. People roleplay with Chess, but that doesn't make Chess an RPG. Which is why "people roleplay with it" cannot be taken as the primary input to whether or not something is an RPG.

Do they? At the very least that isn't the majority of chess players. Or even a significant minority of them. Or a significant minority role-players for that matter. Not that I disagree, at most you could say "chess could be used as a role-playing game" and I'm not sure that is true either.

[Bohandas]

If Bruce Banner had some of Black Widow's training, he would be a Level 6 fighter and a level 3 spy because being The Hulk doesn't help him do any spy stuff.

Well not unless he gets caught

"Do you expect me to talk?"
"No mister Banner, I expect you to die"
"Your condescesion is making me angry, you wouldn't lime me when I'm angry HULK SMASH GOLDFINGER"

And also the best.

Second best. After Temple of Elemental Evil