Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

[Lord Raziere]

Not at all -- the options are specifically laid out to NOT presume our universe, which is kinda the whole point.

Only if you want to presume not-our-universe from our universe laws being tampered with.

[Max_Killjoy]

Maybe training now allows to grow twenty times stronger.
Maybe natural talent now plays a twenty times bigger role and it's just a giant lottery.
Maybe you need a bit of both. In a very, very complicated mashup.
The truth is that I don't need to justify it. You asserted that all possibilities must have species-wide consequences due to how humans "are". But since the basic premise is that "humans are different", your assertion is false.

This is a good example of how you're evidently reading for combat, rather than reading for discussion. I did not say that it has to have species-wide consequences because of how real humans are. I said that it will have species-wide consequences because of how you have to change humans to get what you want.

I said that if you're going to have "fighters" in your fictional world doing things that are impossible for real-world humans -- impossible by at least an order of magnitude -- and yet you are determined and unwavering in the idea that these abilities will simply be the peak of human capacity in your setting and be utterly mundane and purely physical and involve nothing beyond "more training", then you need to change something about humans to move that peak upward by at least an order of magnitude. Whether that's changing what humans are made of or changing the properties of what they're made of doesn't matter; what matters is that those changes won't just apply to the very special <1% you're talking about.

And if humans in your setting are different in a way that allows the (physically) very best humans to be, oh, 20 times better than the very vest humans in our reality, and yet somehow this has no effect what so ever on 99% of these other-reality humans? How does that work? What are these humans made of? What gives it such variable properties? If you're refusing to explain how that rather dubious proposition works, then you're firmly in the "I don't care about the setting I'm just following the rule of cool" option.

[Max_Killjoy]

Only if you want to presume not-our-universe from our universe laws being tampered with.

What?

It's not presuming anything, that's why the list in its entirety has to be so open-ended and worded so carefully.

[Talakeal]

The problem is simple. When I want to make a badass normal Fighter, I don't want the DM to tell me "he only uses a sword but he's a wizard".
Not that making a Swordizard is wrong. They can even have the core Fighter mechanics for all I care. But don't pretend a setting specific issue with "realistic" humans demands the removal of badass normal archetypes.

If your fighter is exceeding human limits it is less of a "badass normal" and more of a case of Charles Atlas super powers.

Although I see absolutely no reason why such powers have to be "magical" in nature or come from the same energy source as a wizard.

[Cazero]

This is a good example of how you're evidently reading for combat, rather than reading for discussion.

Is that so?

I did not say that it has to have species-wide consequences because of how real humans are. I said that it will have species-wide consequences because of how you have to change humans to get what you want.

Your counterpoint is that you used "change" to avoid using "are different" when in that context both express the exact same idea (a state of being that isn't quite the same as another state of being used as reference point).
How are you not arguing in bad faith?

[Max_Killjoy]

If your fighter is exceeding human limits it is less of a "badass normal" and more of a case of Charles Atlas super powers.

Although I see absolutely no reason why such powers have to be "magical" in nature or come from the same energy source as a wizard.

Unless you want them to be "it's just how things are", then they need to come from somewhere.

It doesn't have to be the same exact source as wizards or sorcerers, but there is a tradeoff in complexity or Kitchen Sink Syndrome if you start adding on multiple core sources of extranormal energy.

[Max_Killjoy]

Is that so?
Your counterpoint is that you used "change" to avoid using "are different" when in that context both express the exact same idea (a state of being that isn't quite the same as another state of being used as reference point).
How are you not arguing in bad faith?

Again, that's not what was said.

Here's your previous post again, with your false assertion regarding what I said prior to that in bold this time:

Maybe training now allows to grow twenty times stronger.
Maybe natural talent now plays a twenty times bigger role and it's just a giant lottery.
Maybe you need a bit of both. In a very, very complicated mashup.
The truth is that I don't need to justify it. You asserted that all possibilities must have species-wide consequences due to how humans "are". But since the basic premise is that "humans are different", your assertion is false.

And here's my response:

I did not say that it has to have species-wide consequences because of how real humans are. I said that it will have species-wide consequences because of how you have to change humans to get what you want.

So to be blunt -- you claimed that I said something that I never said.

And now you're also falsely asserting that my counterpoint is also something that I never actually said. I did not use "change" to avoid using "are different", and nothing in the words on the page allows for that interpretation -- for you to assert that I did requires you to either be mistaken, or lying. I used "change" because you had just falsely asserted that my point was about how humans "are".


And to add to that, if this were actually about how humans are, then what you want would simply be impossible -- rather than possible with caveats -- and that would have been my first comment.

[Cosi]

Although I see absolutely no reason why such powers have to be "magical" in nature or come from the same energy source as a wizard.

Depends what you mean by "magical". Obviously it's not going to be the same thing as the Wizard, because it's a different class. But there's no reason that you can't acknowledge that the Wizard's physics-breaking and the Fighter's physics-breaking are similar just because the Fighter uses a sword.

[Cazero]

@Max_Killjoy :
Whatever the change to humans is, it has been made for the explicit purpose of enabling something that used to be impossible (here, drastic difference in abilities between "the norm" and "the top"), so the very fact of it being impossible after the change is absurd, and asserting it like you do even more so.
I can't make it more explicit.

[Max_Killjoy]

@Max_Killjoy :
Whatever the change to humans is, it has been made for the explicit purpose of enabling something that used to be impossible (here, drastic difference in abilities between "the norm" and "the top"), so the very fact of it being impossible after the change is absurd, and asserting it like you do even more so.
I can't make it more explicit.

Again, you're not responding to the words that are on the screen that I have written.

I did not say that any change to allow that sort of drastic difference would be inherently impossible.

I said that you can't have that change, a purely physical/mundane/unextranormal "explanation" for what's going on to allow that drastic difference, and internally coherent and consistent worldbuilding, all at the time. That's the impossible situation.


And all you'd have to do to prove that assertion wrong -- the actual assertion that I actually made -- is to provide one working solid functional example that really does do all of those things at once.

I'd actually like to see this fictional world that has a purely mundane physical explanation for why a small handful of humans can do things that are at least an order of magnitude beyond what real-world humans can do, and yet most of the humans in this setting aren't capable of any more than the average real-world human is, and follows through with any implications of that explanation for the broader world, and isn't a house of cards that collapses the first time someone breathes on it a bit too hard.

Go ahead. Be my guest.

[Cosi]

I said that you can't have that change, a purely physical/mundane/unextranormal "explanation" for what's going on to allow that drastic difference, and internally coherent and consistent worldbuilding, all at the time. That's the impossible situation.

Again, it depends on what you mean.

On the one hand, yes, you by definition cannot have anything that allows things that are impossible in this world that works solely based on principles from this world.

On the other hand, no, you by definition cannot have a non-physics explanation for anything because physics is just "our model for things" and it must include everything in the world. Or at least it should if you want the model to be any good.

[Cazero]

@Max_Killjoy :
And since all your arguments are based on humans before the change, you provided exactly zero argument to support the idea that the worldbuilding cannot be coherent after it, so I challenge your assertion. You have to prove that it is impossible using logic alone, and anyone can destroy your proof with one counter-example.
Welcome to the world of philosophy, science and hard proof. Good luck. You'll need it.

[Max_Killjoy]

@Max_Killjoy :
And since all your arguments are based on humans before the change, you provided exactly zero argument to support the idea that the worldbuilding cannot be coherent after it, so I challenge your assertion. You have to prove that it is impossible using logic alone, and anyone can destroy your proof with one counter-example.
Welcome to the world of philosophy, science and hard proof. Good luck. You'll need it.

Ah, now you've stopped quoting me. I guess propping up strawmen instead of responding to what people actually say is just too darn hard when their words are right there making your lies too obvious. Crow about "logic" and "science" all you want, you've been arguing in complete bad faith from the moment you started replying to my posts. As for "philosophy", I have no interest in debating whether the chair I'm sitting on is real or not, so don't bother with that tangent.

Again, my arguments are not based on humans before the change, they're based on what's entailed in any change necessary to get this "moar training" superhuman fighter you say you want. I've made that quite clear multiple times.


And so far, you haven't bothered offering up that counter-example. I'd say it's an empty threat. Demonstrate otherwise.

[Cluedrew]

What it boils down to is we all have different assumptions about what's normal, and we all have to decide where we're going to draw the line for suspension of disbelief in regards to Mundane, exceptional special (wuxia for example), and clearly magical/superpower/psionic special.

Yeah, and I guess that is why this debate will keeps going on and on. Different solutions for different people. Although for the life of me I'm not sure why some people are so up in arms about other people's solutions. None of them are perfect to be sure, but then none of them are perfect, so the other's are only better if you care about their problems less. Assuming, of course, that my favourite solution isn't perfect and everyone else just hasn't realized it yet.

Amen. Really, just amen. Especially that last bit. It's easy to forget that we're building worlds here for players to have fun in--the fun is the primary (and highly subjective) part. World-building tools are there to support that goal. They're means, not ends.

Well, thank-you, even though you might have put it even better than me.

I am reminded of two things. First is the one time I tried to make "a complete" and consistent magic system. During planning I realized that the first section would both take me years and be followed by re-writing all of physics. I abandoned the project and hand waved the magic system. The second is there is this one story I like with great character development, motivations and interactions. The world building is so bad it makes me want to scream some times. However I silence that voice and continue because the rest of the story is worth it.

To Max_Killjoy: Do you have a particularly extreme example of re-writing rules while still keeping things consistent? I'm just curious about how far it can go with the standards you are using which seem... relatively closed to making changes I must say.

[Cazero]

And so far, you haven't bothered offering up that counter-example. I'd say it's an empty threat. Demonstrate otherwise.

A world without an upper limit on density. Muscle mass and bones can theoriticaly keep strengthening forever. It is possible to become bulletproof if you can afford eating like twenty people to maintain all that extra mass.
Done.

[Lord Raziere]

Depends what you mean by "magical". Obviously it's not going to be the same thing as the Wizard, because it's a different class. But there's no reason that you can't acknowledge that the Wizard's physics-breaking and the Fighter's physics-breaking are similar just because the Fighter uses a sword.

I'm of the opposite mind: there is no reason that two ways of physics breaking need to or have to be similar at all just because they both break physics. After all, they're breaking the rules, and rules makes things the same, but breaking the rules tend to be different depending on which rules broken.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, and I guess that is why this debate will keeps going on and on. Different solutions for different people. Although for the life of me I'm not sure why some people are so up in arms about other people's solutions. None of them are perfect to be sure, but then none of them are perfect, so the other's are only better if you care about their problems less. Assuming, of course, that my favourite solution isn't perfect and everyone else just hasn't realized it yet.

Part of my point all along here has been that none of the solutions are perfect, that there is no solution that gives everyone what they want all at the same time.

To Max_Killjoy: Do you have a particularly extreme example of re-writing rules while still keeping things consistent? I'm just curious about how far it can go with the standards you are using which seem... relatively closed to making changes I must say.

I'll try to think of one.

It's less about being against changes, and more about being against changes for their own sake or changes that are done in isolation and not as part of the interconnected whole.

[Talakeal]

Depends what you mean by "magical". Obviously it's not going to be the same thing as the Wizard, because it's a different class. But there's no reason that you can't acknowledge that the Wizard's physics-breaking and the Fighter's physics-breaking are similar just because the Fighter uses a sword.

You can, yes, but there is no reason to assume you must.

For example in D&D psionics and magic are pretty similar and the game has two ways to handle their interactions, psionic / magic transparency and psionics are different. Neither one is any more correct than the other.

[Max_Killjoy]

A world without an upper limit on density. Muscle mass and bones can theoriticaly keep strengthening forever. It is possible to become bulletproof if you can afford eating like twenty people to maintain all that extra mass.
Done.

If you're done, then all you've done is offer up a comic-book superpower explanation.

(This is literally some comic-book character's power, I just can't remember their name or which publisher they belong to.)


How does this actually work? Have you looked into the ramifications of muscle and bone being that dense and what it might do to other parts of the body?


What does it imply or cause in the broader setting?

Why aren't most people eating as much as they can, and therefore significantly stronger and tougher in comparison to the humans of our reality?

How does this change food production?

With a nearly limitless demand for food, do the cultures in this world ever get to the point where there's surplus labor for things other than farming?

Does this make food more valuable than gold?

Etc, etc, etc.


Or you can just go with "eating more makes you denser and therefore stronger and tougher" and ignore all that, I guess.

[Lord Raziere]

If you're done, then all you've done is offer up a comic-book superpower explanation.

Which is all that is needed. Nothing wrong with that kind of explanation. I don't see what weird trait its missing that makes it less legitimate just because it doesn't detail things that have absolutely nothing to do with what they're focusing on and would get in the way of what they want to do if they tried to focus on it.

[Talakeal]

Did you check you're even talking of the same thing as me? I was talking about player conflict of interests, not of what's possible to have in a game.

Or, to use an example, it's not a problem whatsoever to have a game where Batman can have a boxing match with Hulk and then die to a mundane bullet shot by a random mook, the problem is selling this to your player as fair interpretation of the characters involved.

I guess I am not following you then, I went back and read your post and the one you are quoting and it still seems like you are saying that people who want a realistically human character to keep up with impossible bad-asses have "ill-realized or conflicting desires".

If this is not the case I apologize, but I am a bit sore on the subject after having heard numerous people claim that myself and my players are either delusional or just plain stupid for playing and creating tons of games where fantastic monsters and wizards with powers comparable to those in D&D editions (other than high op 3E) are still defeated by or depend on the aid of characters who are firmly in the "bad-ass normal" category.

[Arbane]

If you're done, then all you've done is offer up a comic-book superpower explanation.

And this is a problem WHY, exactly?

Most fantasy RPGs don't even bother altering castle architecture significantly to take into account the occasional attack by giant fire-breathing lizards, but it seems like the instant fighters are offered any abilities more interesting than 'I hit it with my sword', suddenly a level of world-building that would make J. R. R. Tolkien's eyes glaze over is considered mandatory.

[lesser_minion]

If your fighter is exceeding human limits it is less of a "badass normal" and more of a case of Charles Atlas super powers.

Although I see absolutely no reason why such powers have to be "magical" in nature or come from the same energy source as a wizard.

The onus is on the person adding a new setting element to justify its inclusion in the setting, even if only to their own satisfaction.

In the specific case of fighters, arbitrary stipulations that they should not be able to do certain things are exactly the reason why they have so much trouble, especially because the stipulations are seldom things that flow from the concept. Even people who ostensibly want fighters to be competitive refuse to let them have anything other than the scraps left behind by all of the other archetypes.

Particular powers are also special cases. Once you go past a certain limit, super-strength becomes magical whether you like it or not -- although if you're happy to explore the implications, you can change that limit for your setting.

Which is all that is needed. Nothing wrong with that kind of explanation. I don't see what weird trait its missing that makes it less legitimate just because it doesn't detail things that have absolutely nothing to do with what they're focusing on and would get in the way of what they want to do if they tried to focus on it.

It would be absolutely fine if it didn't purport to be anything more than that.

Most fantasy RPGs don't even bother altering castle architecture significantly to take into account the occasional attack by giant fire-breathing lizards, but it seems like the instant fighters are offered any abilities more interesting than 'I hit it with my sword', suddenly a level of world-building that would make J. R. R. Tolkien's eyes glaze over is considered mandatory.

Nobody is trying to deny nice things to the fighter.

[Lord Raziere]

It's illegitimate because it purports not to be that kind of explanation.

..........and the problem with that is?

I don't really care and don't see why I should be persuaded to care. whether it purports to be this or that really has no bearing on whether I have fun.

[Talakeal]

Once you go past a certain limit, super-strength becomes magical whether you like it or not...

Care to back up that assertion?

[Max_Killjoy]

And this is a problem WHY, exactly?

Most fantasy RPGs don't even bother altering castle architecture significantly to take into account the occasional attack by giant fire-breathing lizards, but it seems like the instant fighters are offered any abilities more interesting than 'I hit it with my sword', suddenly a level of world-building that would make J. R. R. Tolkien's eyes glaze over is considered mandatory.

Actually, that thing about castles is a pretty standard criticism of D&D worldbuilding.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is the sentiment that causes me to keep posting in this thread every time is gets posted. Virtually every game I play and piece of media I consume has characters that are nominally human and still defeat or contribute to the efforts of monsters, wizards, and super humans, and yet this forum insists that it is somehow impossible.

1) In fiction, those characters often contribute in ways that don't involve directly "tanking" the superhuman threat. Research, support, confronting lesser threats to keep them off their heavy-hitters, coming up with novel tactics, etc.

2) In fiction, those characters are protected by and set up for contribution by the absolute control the author has over the events. Sometimes, the author's hand looms large and it's utterly transparent what's going on.

In an RPG, it's not impossible. It takes a player willing to forsake some raw power, and a group that's all on the same page when it comes to running that sort of campaign, to make it work.

One cause of the issue that ends up with those characters coming up over and over in these discussions seems to be the misconception that a character who is "nominally human" but still contributes in a work of fiction despite running with "the big dogs" must have just as much raw power as those "big dogs" when converted to an RPG.

But I suppose it really depends on what you mean by "realistically human."

Which I'd say depends on the context.

In that case I think it meant "realistically human" by real-world metrics.

[Talakeal]

In that case I think it meant "realistically human" by real-world metrics.

Take someone like Batman for example.

Barring some of his utterly impossible feats (because comics run on rule of kewl) he is often depicted as a normal human.

But, he is in the top .000001% when it comes to strength, fitness, agility, intelligence, education, wealth, determination, and natural talent.

No one in the real world has ever been as all around competent as Batman.

But he is still within the potential limits of a real world human. Does that count as "realistic" though?

[Cluedrew]

I'll try to think of [an example].

Great, let me know when you got it. Or actually just post it, I'll probably just see it then.

If you're done, then all you've done is offer up a comic-book superpower explanation.

(This is literally some comic-book character's power, I just can't remember their name or which publisher they belong to.)

... Yes, who could ever hold even the slightest disagreement to this masterpiece of debate. Regardless of the so-so delivery, I see your point and a few years ago I actually created a draft of an role-playing game system where one of the main archetypes actually used something almost just like the "eat to increase density" thing as their power source.

There were a couple of things that purposefully kept it from getting it out of hand, mostly that a normal human's body couldn't do that. It wasn't a special spark or anything, but you needed conditioning to make it work. This a combination of physical exercise and some dietary things (usually going high/low in your intake).

I actually tried the idea else where, where it was part of the explanation why you didn't see "high level adventures" in the civilized area. It was really hard for them to get enough food (at even a semi-reasonable price). The first role-playing game however more changes, in that hunting was still a large industry in the more modern world. Although existence of monsters you can shoot repeatedly and merely annoy is part of that.

suddenly a level of world-building that would make J. R. R. Tolkien's eyes glaze over is considered mandatory.

"You haven't really world-built until you have gotten into protein folding."

A friend of mine, who like Tolkien creates new languages for his stories*, thought I had gone a bit too far when I started describing how the genetic material in this setting was not DNA but- and then he cut me off.

* Well, in some versions Tolkien created stories for his new languages.

[Pex]

I feel like Mrs. White

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg4ksYcFbxg