Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The double standard for magical and mundane abilities
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6353978" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>I particularly loved 4e's resolution by way of this:</p><p></p><p>- Sub Arcana for this skill because you're a Wizard and the associated narrative to the resolution is you Wizarding the problem solved.</p><p> </p><p>but also</p><p></p><p>- Sub Streetwise for this skill because you're a Rogue and the associated narrative to the resolution is you Roguing the problem solved.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Absolutely. I've brought this precise point up before. With respect to those who are ok with that double standard, it didn't get much traction from them in terms of an explanation. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We aren't "the usual suspects" decrying that "magic can do magic things and non-magic can't so there is a problem." The problem is a lot deeper than that. Give us a little more credit for nuanced positions than that. They've been explained dozens of times in dozens of directions.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This was indeed the case for the combat mechanics of spellcasting but this isn't quite what I was trying to capture. I was mostly trying to capture the (seemingly to me) inescapable reality that there are several component parts of the art of spellcasting that are mundane (but not unexceptional). These would be all the stuff I mentioned in my posts (and the stuff pemerton has outlined below) and compared it to a mundane craft with a healthy margin of error (75 % success for a proficient, free-throw-shooting craftsman). These aren't supernatural and they have real world analogues (the same means that GMs use to apply double standards when adjudicating mundane hero's contests/trials). Why do we grant Wizards outright mechanical fiat in each and every one of the extremely difficult (presumably so or Wizarding would be extremely pervasive), mundane component parts of spellcraft, but fightercraft and roguecraft (et al) each need to be put through the ringer?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It would be nice to have a sufficient answer or a "well crap" by folks who are good with this paradigm.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is it. 100 % it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, the supernatural components are not explained, this is true. But the natural, mundane components of spellcraft and Wizarding:</p><p></p><p>(a) are both intuitive and easy to extrapolate the difficulty/margin-of-error due to real world analogues.</p><p></p><p>(b) have various aspects of the craft which have actually had tests for success throughout the editions (there just isn't coherent follow-through..."because game" and "because different designers").</p><p></p><p> (c) must require an extraordinarily honed acumen such that the club is exclusive in the extreme. if it didn't require extensive training to yield that acumen in each mundane component part and/or if it didn't have any real margin-of-error, then wizards would be more common than Starbucks baristas in our present world (imagine that!).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6353978, member: 6696971"] I particularly loved 4e's resolution by way of this: - Sub Arcana for this skill because you're a Wizard and the associated narrative to the resolution is you Wizarding the problem solved. but also - Sub Streetwise for this skill because you're a Rogue and the associated narrative to the resolution is you Roguing the problem solved. Absolutely. I've brought this precise point up before. With respect to those who are ok with that double standard, it didn't get much traction from them in terms of an explanation. We aren't "the usual suspects" decrying that "magic can do magic things and non-magic can't so there is a problem." The problem is a lot deeper than that. Give us a little more credit for nuanced positions than that. They've been explained dozens of times in dozens of directions. This was indeed the case for the combat mechanics of spellcasting but this isn't quite what I was trying to capture. I was mostly trying to capture the (seemingly to me) inescapable reality that there are several component parts of the art of spellcasting that are mundane (but not unexceptional). These would be all the stuff I mentioned in my posts (and the stuff pemerton has outlined below) and compared it to a mundane craft with a healthy margin of error (75 % success for a proficient, free-throw-shooting craftsman). These aren't supernatural and they have real world analogues (the same means that GMs use to apply double standards when adjudicating mundane hero's contests/trials). Why do we grant Wizards outright mechanical fiat in each and every one of the extremely difficult (presumably so or Wizarding would be extremely pervasive), mundane component parts of spellcraft, but fightercraft and roguecraft (et al) each need to be put through the ringer? It would be nice to have a sufficient answer or a "well crap" by folks who are good with this paradigm. This is it. 100 % it. No, the supernatural components are not explained, this is true. But the natural, mundane components of spellcraft and Wizarding: (a) are both intuitive and easy to extrapolate the difficulty/margin-of-error due to real world analogues. (b) have various aspects of the craft which have actually had tests for success throughout the editions (there just isn't coherent follow-through..."because game" and "because different designers"). (c) must require an extraordinarily honed acumen such that the club is exclusive in the extreme. if it didn't require extensive training to yield that acumen in each mundane component part and/or if it didn't have any real margin-of-error, then wizards would be more common than Starbucks baristas in our present world (imagine that!). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The double standard for magical and mundane abilities
Top