Recurring comment about Marvel Heroic RP that seems wrong to me

[Thomas Shey]

I have no special insight into @pemerton which others lack, as far as I know. In a sense I can agree with @Thomas Shey in that it may be a fact that many people, using some quite faulty logic reject the existence of a thing because they don't find it to be to their taste. That is a kind of explanation, in some sense, but it simply begs us to ask the question again in the form of "why do people use such faulty logic?"

Its only faulty if they're starting with the same premises you are. You can argue, instead, that their premises seem dubious (which I believe is what Pemerton is doing), but once you start with those premises, those conclusions don't seem particular faulty.

(Also, again, I suspect a lot of people were not saying modelling wasn't in the rules; I certainly never claimed that. They just denied that it was functionally a character creation system. I understand people disagree with that, but again, see my note about premises).

 

[Blue]

I have no issue with hearing the word substitution you just used, even if I disagree with it, and I certainly wouldn't be insulted by it. Why is it so important that people who don't like what you like legitimize your preferences in this way? Cant we just agree to disagree?

Facts aren't preferences. We agree or disagree with opinions and preferences. With facts, we are correct or wrong.

There is a system written in the book. Pemerton quoted the pages, and the English definition of system which it meet. Just because a subset of people won't legitimize it because they don't like the subjective measure of some steps doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some people believe the Earth is flat, that in no way stops it from being roughly spherical. Same here - some people not accepting a system does not mean that it doesn't exist.

And I'm fine with them not liking it - absolutely their preference. But it's not a "preference" of mine that the character creation system is in the book. Some may feel it is flawed, incomplete, subjective, or not in a form they expect, but it is there. And it can be used to create characters, so we know it is a real, actual character creation system.

Please, stop with rhetoric of trying to turn this into a soft opinion piece and then chiding that those who disagree with you are unrelenting. This is a simple factual question, which has a straightforward answer.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Facts aren't preferences. We agree or disagree with opinions and preferences. With facts, we are correct or wrong.

There is a system written in the book. Pemerton quoted the pages, and the English definition of system which it meet. Just because a subset of people won't legitimize it because they don't like the subjective measure of some steps doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some people believe the Earth is flat, that in no way stops it from being roughly spherical. Same here - some people not accepting a system does not mean that it doesn't exist.

And I'm fine with them not liking it - absolutely their preference. But it's not a "preference" of mine that the character creation system is in the book. Some may feel it is flawed, incomplete, subjective, or not in a form they expect, but it is there. And it can be used to create characters, so we know it is a real, actual character creation system.

Please, stop with rhetoric of trying to turn this into a soft opinion piece and then chiding that those who disagree with you are unrelenting. This is a simple factual question, which has a straightforward answer.

Again, as I've noted, only if you consider modelling a system. As long as that's not a given to people, you can repeat this until the cows come home, and it doesn't mean a thing. As I've noted, I can use modelling in every game ever to produce characters; that doesn't mean its a system in those, and the fact MHR authorized only makes it a system in the way Rule Zero is a system in a lot of games--which is to say only by how its defined there.

 

[Arilyn]

We made characters for the system. Characters were used successfully in the game, therefore, the game has a character creation system. I like it because you can make what you want, but I understand why it's not a popular system. It can be daunting! You also need players who will work together to make sure things are roughly on a level playing field.

In terms of play, you can't have players trying to "game" the system. You need to approach the super heroics with the right spirit. If players do that, it's a ton of fun.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Its only faulty if they're starting with the same premises you are. You can argue, instead, that their premises seem dubious (which I believe is what Pemerton is doing), but once you start with those premises, those conclusions don't seem particular faulty.

(Also, again, I suspect a lot of people were not saying modelling wasn't in the rules; I certainly never claimed that. They just denied that it was functionally a character creation system. I understand people disagree with that, but again, see my note about premises).

Yes, but, again, faulty logic. Its a system, I think @pemerton has sufficiently demonstrated it would require doing savage violence to the English Language to state otherwise, and he's also demonstrated that the purpose and outcomes of using said system is the creation of new, de novo, characters. So any logic which says otherwise is ipso facto defective in some way. So I cannot really reconcile your statement with reality. Their premises are not faulty, their grasp of factual reality is faulty! That lack of grasp may, as I speculate, be a matter of a style of rhetoric which abandons logic in favor of wish fulfillment, but its STILL FAULTY! And for the record I am starting with NO PREMISES AT ALL except reading the actual rulebook! I mean, I could quote you the entire chapter, but I assume that isn't necessary. It isn't important if you call it 'modeling' or not, its a system, and its operation produces characters, so it is a 'character generation system'. Its operating principles are not even relevant! To say otherwise is like saying "I don't care for the Ford Mustang, therefor it isn't a car."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Again, as I've noted, only if you consider modelling a system. As long as that's not a given to people, you can repeat this until the cows come home, and it doesn't mean a thing. As I've noted, I can use modelling in every game ever to produce characters; that doesn't mean its a system in those, and the fact MHR authorized only makes it a system in the way Rule Zero is a system in a lot of games--which is to say only by how its defined there.

So, basically language means whatever the heck someone's motivated reasoning needs it to look like and all attempts at any objective description of the world is simply a form of propaganda or rhetoric. I think there's literally nothing left to discuss. In fact I begin to wonder if intelligent discussion is even possible anymore.

 

[Blue]

Again, as I've noted, only if you consider modelling a system. As long as that's not a given to people, you can repeat this until the cows come home, and it doesn't mean a thing. As I've noted, I can use modelling in every game ever to produce characters; that doesn't mean its a system in those, and the fact MHR authorized only makes it a system in the way Rule Zero is a system in a lot of games--which is to say only by how its defined there.

Can you create characters with it? YES. Pemerton has done so.

Does it meet the definition of a system: YES. The widely accepted real world defintiion from an accepted authority has it meet the criteria. Regardless if some people don't.

Therefore it's a working character creation system like labeled by the designers.

Some people believing the earth is flat does not change any facts about it's actual shape. It meets all the criteria. You can (and I believe did) say you don't accept the Oxford dictionary as an authority of what a word means. Just like some people not accepting modelling, acceptance of the definition of what a system is doesn't change the meaning of the term.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Facts aren't preferences. We agree or disagree with opinions and preferences. With facts, we are correct or wrong.

There is a system written in the book. Pemerton quoted the pages, and the English definition of system which it meet. Just because a subset of people won't legitimize it because they don't like the subjective measure of some steps doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some people believe the Earth is flat, that in no way stops it from being roughly spherical. Same here - some people not accepting a system does not mean that it doesn't exist.

And I'm fine with them not liking it - absolutely their preference. But it's not a "preference" of mine that the character creation system is in the book. Some may feel it is flawed, incomplete, subjective, or not in a form they expect, but it is there. And it can be used to create characters, so we know it is a real, actual character creation system.

Please, stop with rhetoric of trying to turn this into a soft opinion piece and then chiding that those who disagree with you are unrelenting. This is a simple factual question, which has a straightforward answer.

Then there's no reason for the OP to post anything past #1. Since that didn't happen, I have to assume there's more discussion to be had here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Facts aren't preferences. We agree or disagree with opinions and preferences. With facts, we are correct or wrong.

There is a system written in the book. Pemerton quoted the pages, and the English definition of system which it meet. Just because a subset of people won't legitimize it because they don't like the subjective measure of some steps doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some people believe the Earth is flat, that in no way stops it from being roughly spherical. Same here - some people not accepting a system does not mean that it doesn't exist.

And I'm fine with them not liking it - absolutely their preference. But it's not a "preference" of mine that the character creation system is in the book. Some may feel it is flawed, incomplete, subjective, or not in a form they expect, but it is there. And it can be used to create characters, so we know it is a real, actual character creation system.

Please, stop with rhetoric of trying to turn this into a soft opinion piece and then chiding that those who disagree with you are unrelenting. This is a simple factual question, which has a straightforward answer.

You and others seem to be expecting raw facts to trump people's feelings and opinions on a subject with emotional resonance. You may be in for a long wait on that.

 

[Blue]

Then there's no reason for the OP to post anything past #1. Since that didn't happen, I have to assume there's more discussion to be had here.

Completely agree. We had a lot about why some people don't think there's a system, we had people asking why some don't think there's a system. We talked about expectations people have for a system. We could talk about playing established Marvel heroes to have the rich tapestry of connections to others in the world vs. making up new heroes and designer expectations. We could talk about how because the system pays little attention to character balance* so it doesn't need anything more rigorous.

Lots to talk about.

*Thor and Hawkeye could have a buddy night out with Loki providing mischief and both players would have fun even though the power levers were way different.