Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
I just a thought, we seem to be talking a lot about whether it would be called magic or not, if this should be considered world building or not. But is there any actual disagreements, major statements about the guy at the gym fallacy? Or does anyone disagree with the following statement.

Regardless of a character's archetype or skill set, all characters and character abilities should be given the same standards of plausibility.

At least in broad strokes, I can think of one corner case where it doesn't apply (which is to say when the implausible powers are so weak normal abilities can over power them) and I'm sure particular setting concepts might want to go against this. But is there anyone who thinks that this is not a good guide line or starting point?
Pretty much this. The core of GATGF is basically "Magic can do anything and it needs no explanation as to why, while non-magic (even superhuman) characters must be forced to adhere to their limitations at all times".

And no, having to follow three laws of magic or whatever isn't the same as having to follow the "IRL realism".