What exactly is the "guy at the gym fallacy"?

[Rhedyn]

In Savage Worlds, any character with a running start and a lucky athletics roll can jump 24 feet across or 12 feet vertically in the air. This is not special. This is a game with a baseline assumption of Pulpy action heroes.

Meanwhile in some games, a guy who can slay the mightiest demon in 6 seconds and is masterful at jumping may be able to rarely (5%) jump 11ft in the air.

[Max_Killjoy]

Did you actually read what I wrote? I specifically said:


'Mechanism' is very important. Hercules and Achilles are perfectly viable characters, but their power is also directly traceable to a mechanism - they are both part god. Saying 'my character can do all this awesome stuff because reasons' is entirely different. It's an attempt to have one's game design both ways and it doesn't work and trying to make it work makes it worse for everyone else.

If you want a character who can perform feats that are blatantly impossible for any human to achieve without some form of force multiplier then you've decided that your game should function according to the fiat principles of magical realism. That's something you can do, but at that point you might as well be freeform gaming, because the rules are now not helping produce your gaming experience and are in fact actively hindering it.

Demanding a character have powers they cannot mechanically justify is part and parcel of arguing with the GM for special bonuses. The latter happens all the time and is generally recognized as toxic to gameplay. If you take the former and bake it into the system it's toxic to the design.

Yeap -- Hercules and Achilles are both explicitly fantastic characters, different from normal "mundane" people for known reasons.

[Max_Killjoy]

In Savage Worlds, any character with a running start and a lucky athletics roll can jump 24 feet across or 12 feet vertically in the air. This is not special. This is a game with a baseline assumption of Pulpy action heroes.

Are all people able to do that, or just PCs "because heroes" ?

Meanwhile in some games, a guy who can slay the mightiest demon in 6 seconds and is masterful at jumping may be able to rarely (5%) jump 11ft in the air.

Some of that is just more basic mechanical issues with the system, not a deliberate statement about character capability.

[FaerieGodfather]

The solutions for a D&D-like setting and system are... to stop demanding that non-spellcasters be totally not fantastic at all, or to reduce what spellcasters are capable of so that non-fantastic characters can keep up, or to just say "screw worldbuilding" and decide that not-fantastic characters can just somehow do the fantastic things needed to keep up with spellcasters and the like without following through with all the implications that inherently come from that.

This. Pretty much just this, but I can't just post solely to agree with you.

I will point out, instead, that in First Edition AD&D (the one with level titles), the level title for the 8th level Fighter was Superhero. None of the borderline superhuman warrior characters that people are holding up as the pinnacle of non-magical human capability in D&D-- before All-Spellcaster Edition-- would have been written up as higher than 9th level. This is also the level, originally that Paladins and Rangers gained their spellcasting ability.

DM's Option: High Level Camaigns is like the original Epic Level Handbook, except it allows characters to start taking these high-level options starting at 10th or 11th level. Some of these include replacing certain Saving Throws with NWP Checks (for the Warrior and Rogue classes with the best saving throws), evasion and slow fall and water walk for Rogues (and shadow walk and nondetection, too).

Demanding a character have powers they cannot mechanically justify is part and parcel of arguing with the GM for special bonuses. The latter happens all the time and is generally recognized as toxic to gameplay. If you take the former and bake it into the system it's toxic to the design.

Literally nobody is arguing for that. They're arguing that the rules should include more provisions for non-"magical" superhuman abilities and that Idiot DMs should stop nerfing the abilities they already should have, under the rules, to make a game with 9th level spells more realistic.

Yeap -- Hercules and Achilles are both explicitly fantastic characters, different from normal "mundane" people for known reasons.

Well, now all we need is to identify what class and race they are and we can all go home and play that, instead of complaining that our 12th level Human Fighters are Guys at the Gym.

[Rhedyn]

Are all people able to do that, or just PCs "because heroes" ?

PC do it easier but anyone can because movie logic, real world average person jump distances don't look as cool.

[Kurald Galain]

I will point out, instead, that in First Edition AD&D (the one with level titles), the level title for the 8th level Fighter was Superhero. None of the borderline superhuman warrior characters that people are holding up as the pinnacle of non-magical human capability in D&D-- before All-Spellcaster Edition-- would have been written up as higher than 9th level.

So by "superhero", are you referring to Hawkeye, Buffy, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, or Superman? If Hawkeye is level 8, then Heracles or Cuchulainn could conceivably still be level 15.

[Florian]

@Max_Killjoy:

You're constantly repeating your own version of the Guy in the Gym. When you are serious with your world building, none of what happens in our world is really of relevance, even the things that we describe as "humans" in the game bear only a passing semblance to what we will model for the in-game reality based on the altered parameters we will have.

[halfeye]

Those are the canon abilities of the animals in 3.5.

Strength, like all abilites, in an abstraction that encompases stuff like climbing, swimming, grappling and melee fighting... Heavy horses can carry a heavier load than tigers, but tigers are better climbers, grapplers and fighters... hence, superior strength...

The system is far from perfect, but those are the rules...

I don't know the rules, and I'm not interested in them, but I am interested in animals.

Strength is a word about a particular sort of ability (mostly pulling things, pushing things and lifting things). Horses are very strong, elephants are stronger. The word for the ability D&D seems to be misnaming strength is dangerousness. Tigers are much more dangerous to people than horses are, but people are much more dangerous to tigers than people are dangerous to horses, because horses are property. And then, venomous snakes kill more people than tigers do.

[Max_Killjoy]

@Max_Killjoy:

You're constantly repeating your own version of the Guy in the Gym. When you are serious with your world building, none of what happens in our world is really of relevance, even the things that we describe as "humans" in the game bear only a passing semblance to what we will model for the in-game reality based on the altered parameters we will have.

Someone describing other people's mistakes is not "repeating their own version of" those mistakes.

If you're serious about your worldbuilding, then you follow through with the effects of those altered parameters, and you make sure your setting stands on its own independent of "the game".

[Florian]

I don't know the rules, and I'm not interested in them, but I am interested in animals.

Strength is a word about a particular sort of ability (mostly pulling things, pushing things and lifting things). Horses are very strong, elephants are stronger. The word for the ability D&D seems to be misnaming strength is dangerousness. Tigers are much more dangerous to people than horses are, but people are much more dangerous to tigers than people are dangerous to horses, because horses are property. And then, venomous snakes kill more people than tigers do.

It´s basically a modeling error. The STR score governs both, carrying capacity as well as physical damage, while HD and CON govern both, endurance as well as physical robustness.

So they locked themselves in a modeling dead end: For a tiger to take down a gazelle, deer or whatever the way they do, they need extremely high STR score to manage that. In a way, here we´re back again at GatG, as a starting human cannot be as deadly in HtH combat against the same target as the tiger (and then we have druids summoning tigers, while riding a tiger and shapeshifting into a tiger and wondering why their raw performance outshines the fighter. substitute bears if you want).

Someone describing other people's mistakes is not "repeating their own version of" those mistakes.

If you're serious about your worldbuilding, then you follow through with the effects of those altered parameters, and you make sure your setting stands on its own independent of "the game".

Sure, can do. A fun exercise in logic and extrapolation, but more or less absolute unnecessary, especially when it comes to verisimilitude. There're other ways to go about it.

[Frozen_Feet]

So basically it is a fallacy on the part of game designers, house rulers, and GMs making rulings that limits what martial characters can do based on reality?

No. It's on part of the players. Even a GM is just one of the players. It's part of a larger issue: namely, that verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief are highly arbitrary.

GMs and game designers may set up the rules, but it is players who show up to the games with their expectations and preferences, and the games just fail if they walk away. Furthermore, majority of GMs and game designers were players at some point and they design their rules to reflect their own antipathies and preferences.

[Kyutaru]

I will point out, instead, that in First Edition AD&D (the one with level titles), the level title for the 8th level Fighter was Superhero. None of the borderline superhuman warrior characters that people are holding up as the pinnacle of non-magical human capability in D&D-- before All-Spellcaster Edition-- would have been written up as higher than 9th level. This is also the level, originally that Paladins and Rangers gained their spellcasting ability.

Similarly, Gandalf was only a 5th level Wizard and look at how awesome he was. The dude never cast a single spell higher than Fireball yet praise be his name when speaking of spellcasters. Just goes to show you that having an overpowered racial template like half-angel is all anyone needs to be the star of the story. So if you don't like your martial weakness, ask your DM to maybe make him a werewolf.

[Talakeal]

No. It's on part of the players. Even a GM is just one of the players. It's part of a larger issue: namely, that verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief are highly arbitrary.

GMs and game designers may set up the rules, but it is players who show up to the games with their expectations and preferences, and the games just fail if they walk away. Furthermore, majority of GMs and game designers were players at some point and they design their rules to reflect their own antipathies and preferences.

How does it come up then? Is it purely fluff? Like If two players are playing by the RAW and one of them imagines their level 20 barbarian as Conan and the other as Hercules, the game will still work fine except for a disconnect in how they fluff their actions and thast starts an argument or what?

[Max_Killjoy]

Similarly, Gandalf was only a 5th level Wizard and look at how awesome he was. The dude never cast a single spell higher than Fireball yet praise be his name when speaking of spellcasters. Just goes to show you that having an overpowered racial template like half-angel is all anyone needs to be the star of the story. So if you don't like your martial weakness, ask your DM to maybe make him a werewolf.

To me, that's more of a problem of trying to use the D&D mechanics to model non-D&D material... and getting strange results.

[Kyutaru]

To me, that's more of a problem of trying to use the D&D mechanics to model non-D&D material... and getting strange results.

Maybe. Or since D&D material is modelled after this material, it's more likely that the setting is extremely mundane. Boromir died to a few arrows. Like... way to crit Lurtz. None of the fellowship does anything drastically impressive that normal humans couldn't do except Gandalf's extremely limited parlor tricks. He fails a saving throw against Hold Person in the battle with Sauron and that's the end of his valor. He fights a balrog with Lightning Bolt while falling eight thousand miles. I swear, the fall damage killed the beast, not the wizard. Aragorn is a ranger with a magic sword that only ever fights ORCS. And Frodo? He has a Ring of Invisibility and a +1 orc bane shortsword.

You can make an epic fantasy story with the most mundane of characters.

[Max_Killjoy]

How does it come up then? Is it purely fluff? Like If two players are playing by the RAW and one of them imagines their level 20 barbarian as Conan and the other as Hercules, the game will still work fine except for a disconnect in how they fluff their actions and thast starts an argument or what?

The other players, GM or otherwise, will try to restrict the level 20 barbarian's actions and abilities to that of a "guy at the gym", because he's not a spellcaster, and therefore they mistakenly believe he's "just a guy without any magic".

Looking at the abilities and class-specific rules for a level 20 barbarian, clearly he's not a "guy at the gym" or "normal person"... he's a fantastic individual who does things that are an order of magnitude beyond possible for "normal people", he has his own "magic" in that setting (not spells, magic, as in something fantastic that sets him apart from "normal people").

In a setting that features D&D-style barbarian characters, and paladin characters, clearly the underlying "magic" of the fictional reality responds to both overwhelming emotion (rage) and fervent dedication (oaths). In the latter case, it's part and parcel of much myth, legend, and fiction that oaths and vows have real power, that something (the very fabric of reality, or the gods, or Fate, or whatever) listens to oaths, rewards those who make and keep them, and punishes those who break them.

[Max_Killjoy]

Maybe. Or since D&D material is modelled after this material, it's more likely that the setting is extremely mundane. Boromir died to a few arrows. Like... way to crit Lurtz. None of the fellowship does anything drastically impressive that normal humans couldn't do except Gandalf's extremely limited parlor tricks. He fails a saving throw against Hold Person in the battle with Sauron and that's the end of his valor. He fights a balrog with Lightning Bolt while falling eight thousand miles. I swear, the fall damage killed the beast, not the wizard. Aragorn is a ranger with a magic sword that only ever fights ORCS. And Frodo? He has a Ring of Invisibility and a +1 orc bane shortsword.

You can make an epic fantasy story with the most mundane of characters.

As much as LOTR is credited as core inspiration for D&D, as much as D&D takes names and basic concepts from LOTR and then makes them something else to fit D&D... the actual thing clearly draws far more widely and deeply from other sources. D&D is simply a bad system for "emulating" LOTR.

Gandolf isn't a D&D wizard, he's Gandolf.
Aragorn isn't a D&D ranger, he's Aragorn.
LOTR orcs really aren't D&D orcs.
LOTR rangers aren't D&D rangers.
LOTR elves really aren't D&D elves.

Etc.

[Friv]

Someone describing other people's mistakes is not "repeating their own version of" those mistakes.

If you're serious about your worldbuilding, then you follow through with the effects of those altered parameters, and you make sure your setting stands on its own independent of "the game".

Someone liking things that are different that the things you like is not a mistake.

[Arbane]

Yeap -- Hercules and Achilles are both explicitly fantastic characters, different from normal "mundane" people for known reasons.

Good luck finding many characters from mythology who AREN'T part-god somewhere in their family tree. Beowulf, maybe?

[Talakeal]

The other players, GM or otherwise, will try to restrict the level 20 barbarian's actions and abilities to that of a "guy at the gym", because he's not a spellcaster, and therefore they mistakenly believe he's "just a guy without any magic".

Looking at the abilities and class-specific rules for a level 20 barbarian, clearly he's not a "guy at the gym" or "normal person"... he's a fantastic individual who does things that are an order of magnitude beyond possible for "normal people", he has his own "magic" in that setting (not spells, magic, as in something fantastic that sets him apart from "normal people").

In a setting that features D&D-style barbarian characters, and paladin characters, clearly the underlying "magic" of the fictional reality responds to both overwhelming emotion (rage) and fervent dedication (oaths). In the latter case, it's part and parcel of much myth, legend, and fiction that oaths and vows have real power, that something (the very fabric of reality, or the gods, or Fate, or whatever) listens to oaths, rewards those who make and keep them, and punishes those who break them.

How the **** does a non-GM player have any business telling another player what they can or cannot do while they are following the rules? And who the hell cares what some busy-body fun police has to say about the matter?

As I specified in an earlier post, I can see how it is a problem with DMs making overly restrictive houserules/rulings, but imo saying "Its a player issue, not a DM issue, because the DM is a type of player" is just trying to confuse the issue with semantic loops that don't add anything to the discussion.

[Kyutaru]

As much as LOTR is credited as core inspiration for D&D, as much as D&D takes names and basic concepts from LOTR and then makes them something else to fit D&D... the actual thing clearly draws far more widely and deeply from other sources. D&D is simply a bad system for "emulating" LOTR.

Gandolf isn't a D&D wizard, he's Gandolf.
Aragorn isn't a D&D ranger, he's Aragorn.
LOTR orcs really aren't D&D orcs.
LOTR rangers aren't D&D rangers.
LOTR elves really aren't D&D elves.

Etc.

And yet it's been LOTR inspired since 1974. Halflings were originally called "hobbits" in the D&D box set first released then. Later printings changed it to "halfling" due to a legal claim in 1976 by the LOTR merchandising crew.

And let's not forget that original D&D has been discussed in this very topic as being extremely low tier. Fighters at lvl 8 were Superheroes. Level 9 was basically Victory conditions and time to retire. Having a party of lvl 2 hobbits, lvl 3 rangers, and a lvl 5 wizard was ENTIRELY NORMAL. It was a theater of the mind game with very few rules and magic that didn't exactly restructure the universe.

What we have since then, and to a degree even in 1st edition, is called Power Creep. People want to pull meteors from the sky and teleport a million miles instead of taking an eagle. They want to summon armies of minions and face literal angels and demons. Some want to challenge the GODS THEMSELVES!

Yet in LOTR, where a CR 5 Troll was a challenging encounter for the party, we were still operating on the early concepts of core D&D where low levels were the norm (few survived past them) and rules/monsters/mechanics/spells were still being developed and added. Gandalf facing a Beholder wouldn't end well.

[Unavenger]

The guy at the gym "Fallacy" is the belief that people who are limited to what can be done in real life are limited to what can be done in real life.

[Max_Killjoy]

Someone liking things that are different that the things you like is not a mistake.

If that's what was going on here, maybe, but it's not.

The "guy at the gym" fallacy is a two-sided thing, and laying out the two different mistakes being made is not a matter of "other people like other things".

The two sides:

1) People who don't recognize that in a fantasy setting there can be more to magic, more to fantastic characters, than just spellcasting, and mistakenly assert that all non-spellcasters should be limited in ways that spellcasters are not. That is, they deny the possibility of fantastic characters who are not spellcasters, and expect non-spellcasters to abide by very strict limits based largely on their own rather limited experiences, popular notions of "what's possible", etc.

2) People who insist that their character should be able to keep with fantastic characters, do fantastic things, etc, while still being utterly purely totally non-fantastic, in a setting where utterly purely totally non-fantastic people are pretty much like real-world people.

On the latter, something has to give. If people are as people in the real world, and the character can do things that are blatantly impossible for real people by an order of magnitude or more, then something is fantastic about the character. There's nothing wrong with that.

Alternatively, the setting can restrain magic in ways that a system and "metasetting" like D&D probably never will, so that characters don't need to be fantastic to keep up with spellcasters as the game gets into mid to high levels. There's nothing wrong with that.

Also alternatively, the setting is a gonzo setting that doesn't give a fig, and just operates purely on narrative causality and fiat and just-so stories, with characters' abilities and limits higher than those of other people "because PC" or "because hero" or "because protagonist", with no more reason given or sought. There's nothing wrong with that.


What about that has anything to do with "other people don't have to like what you like"? It's as if I'm saying "I cannot be in Tokyo and London at the same exact instant" or "my car cannot being in reverse and in forward at the same time"... and getting back "shut up that's just your opinion, stop trying to assert your opinion as fact, man".

[Florian]

If that's what was going on here, maybe, but it's not.

The "guy at the gym" fallacy is a two-sided thing, and laying out the two different mistakes being made is not a matter of "other people like other things".

*Snip*

What about that has anything to do with "other people don't have to like what you like"? It's as if I'm saying "I cannot be in Tokyo and London at the same exact instant" or "my car cannot being in reverse and in forward at the same time"... and getting back "shut up that's just your opinion, stop trying to assert your opinion as fact, man".

No, it´s really more a one-sided thing. GatG is mostly used to shut certain things down that someone personally doesn´t like, most likely on the basis that this something is "breaking their immersion".

This is a game, so the only thing that counts are the players participating in that game. Nothing else, no the rules, not the game world, not the imaginary stuff in the game world, least of all immersion. If someone draws the GatG card, it´s always to block the move of a fellow player and then something is wrong with that given table. (and really, you can all of that stuff in a RPG, as long as you manage to warp your head around it or know how to deal with a paradox)

[Talakeal]

If that's what was going on here, maybe, but it's not.

The "guy at the gym" fallacy is a two-sided thing, and laying out the two different mistakes being made is not a matter of "other people like other things".

The two sides:

1) People who don't recognize that in a fantasy setting there can be more to magic, more to fantastic characters, than just spellcasting, and mistakenly assert that all non-spellcasters should be limited in ways that spellcasters are not. That is, they deny the possibility of fantastic characters who are not spellcasters, and expect non-spellcasters to abide by very strict limits based largely on their own rather limited experiences, popular notions of "what's possible", etc.

2) People who insist that their character should be able to keep with fantastic characters, do fantastic things, etc, while still being utterly purely totally non-fantastic, in a setting where utterly purely totally non-fantastic people are pretty much like real-world people.

On the latter, something has to give. If people are as people in the real world, and the character can do things that are blatantly impossible for real people by an order of magnitude or more, then something is fantastic about the character. There's nothing wrong with that.

Alternatively, the setting can restrain magic in ways that a system and "metasetting" like D&D probably never will, so that characters don't need to be fantastic to keep up with spellcasters as the game gets into mid to high levels. There's nothing wrong with that.

Also alternatively, the setting is a gonzo setting that doesn't give a fig, and just operates purely on narrative causality and fiat and just-so stories, with characters' abilities and limits higher than those of other people "because PC" or "because hero" or "because protagonist", with no more reason given or sought. There's nothing wrong with that.


What about that has anything to do with "other people don't have to like what you like"? It's as if I'm saying "I cannot be in Tokyo and London at the same exact instant" or "my car cannot being in reverse and in forward at the same time"... and getting back "shut up that's just your opinion, stop trying to assert your opinion as fact, man".

No, it´s really more a one-sided thing. GatG is mostly used to shut certain things down that someone personally doesn´t like, most likely on the basis that this something is "breaking their immersion".

This is a game, so the only thing that counts are the players participating in that game. Nothing else, no the rules, not the game world, not the imaginary stuff in the game world, least of all immersion. If someone draws the GatG card, it´s always to block the move of a fellow player and then something is wrong with that given table. (and really, you can all of that stuff in a RPG, as long as you manage to warp your head around it or know how to deal with a paradox)

There really do seem to be two very different uses of the fallacy, as Max pointed out, which was kind of why I created this thread.

I do agree that it does mostly come up in forum discussions about someone breaking someone else's immersion though. If one person's fantasy is to be Conan and the others is to be High end Dr. strange but the rules are fairly balanced between barbarians and wizards you essentially get the Captain Hobo problem, the narrative simply does not meet one players requisite power fantasy to be satisfying.

[Florian]

There really do seem to be two very different uses of the fallacy, as Max pointed out, which was kind of why I created this thread.

I do agree that it does mostly come up in forum discussions about someone breaking someone else's immersion though. If one person's fantasy is to be Conan and the others is to be High end Dr. strange but the rules are fairly balanced between barbarians and wizards you essentially get the Captain Hobo problem, the narrative simply does not meet one players requisite power fantasy to be satisfying.

The interesting point how it came to the later? What original bias / preconception did that player have that he expects this difference between the two equally valid choices of Barbarian and Wizard? I mean, we can see it in game system like Fate Core that it works and people can have fun together, despite the narrative / fluff of the actions having more or less the same level of impact in between the players.

[Max_Killjoy]

No, it´s really more a one-sided thing. GatG is mostly used to shut certain things down that someone personally doesn´t like, most likely on the basis that this something is "breaking their immersion".

That might be your experience overall, but on these forums we've seen several posters push some variant of the inverse GatG fallacy ("I want my character to be a utterly not-fantastic/not-magic/not-supernatural/not-superhuman and yet still able to beat D&D-style high-level spellcasters", #2 on my list) repeatedly since I first started reading posts here, and I've run into it in real life repeatedly as well.

This is a game, so the only thing that counts are the players participating in that game. Nothing else, no the rules, not the game world, not the imaginary stuff in the game world, least of all immersion.

For someone who is quick to accuse others of trying to enshrine subjective opinion, you're also quick to make this sort of assertion about what matters and doesn't matter for an RPG.

Personally, if I wanted "only a game" I'd be playing something besides an RPG... those other elements are just as important to what gives an RPG any sort of appeal at all. And once the fiction layer has been introduced, IMO it needs to live up to a certain standard of pre-campaign and ongoing worldbuilding in the same way that authorial fiction should...

IME it's just as unenjoyable and unsatisfying to have a nonsensical setting for an RPG campaign as it is for a work of fiction, and I've thrown books across the room in disgust for worldbuilding errors that people here would apparently suggest are "just fine" for an RPG setting.

I won't tell people they shouldn't enjoy games with gonzo, or nonsensical, or "just so" settings, that's where the matter of opinion and preference and subjectivity lies. But in turn they don't get to tell me that I can't look for something different.

But whether a setting is gonzo, or nonsensical, or "just so" pure fiat... those aren't purely matters of opinion, inherent contradictions objectively happen, for starters.

If someone draws the GatG card, it's always to block the move of a fellow player and then something is wrong with that given table.

Again, might be your experience, but I've seen both GatG and inverse-GatG at actual gaming tables.

(and really, you can all of that stuff in a RPG, as long as you manage to warp your head around it or know how to deal with a paradox)

Barring some fantastic power or fantastic setting element specifically included... not really. Well, they can happen without, if you're willing to accept a warped setting full of paradoxes.

[Max_Killjoy]

There really do seem to be two very different uses of the fallacy, as Max pointed out, which was kind of why I created this thread.

I do agree that it does mostly come up in forum discussions about someone breaking someone else's immersion though. If one person's fantasy is to be Conan and the others is to be High end Dr. strange but the rules are fairly balanced between barbarians and wizards you essentially get the Captain Hobo problem, the narrative simply does not meet one players requisite power fantasy to be satisfying.

The interesting point how it came to the later? What original bias / preconception did that player have that he expects this difference between the two equally valid choices of Barbarian and Wizard? I mean, we can see it in game system like Fate Core that it works and people can have fun together, despite the narrative / fluff of the actions having more or less the same level of impact in between the players.

And then the third player says "Wait, what?" in response to Conan (as written by Howard) and Dr Strange (high-end) getting the same results despite utterly discordant "fluff".

[Arbane]

The guy at the gym "Fallacy" is the belief that people who are limited to what can be done in real life are limited to what can be done in real life.

More like 'people who are limited to what can be done in real life are limited to a BORING subset of what people have done in real life'. Real life includes people falling out of airplanes without parachutes and surviving, drinking wine on a tightrope halfway across Niagra Falls, stealing a professional stage-magician's pen from his shirt pocket and putting it back, and many other things any sane GM would veto immediately as 'unrealistic', because RPGs are supposed to make sense - unlike real life.

[Florian]

And then the third player says "Wait, what?" in response to Conan (as written by Howard) and Dr Strange (high-end) getting the same results despite utterly discordant "fluff".

Then you take that player aside and explain to him that this system models results, not actions. Declare intentions > Roll Dice > look up results > Describe the whole thing that just happened. A, say, Melee roll has nothing to do with "I try to hit him with my fist", but describes a whole combat sequence.