Iron Man vs. Thor

[Felon]

To answer myself:

I have no problems with any of the movie -- loved every minute of it -- including the individual fights. (Just bought the DVD last night.)

Iron Man vs. Thor -- I would have said Iron Man could not stand up long toe-to-toe against Thor, especially with his hammer. But with Thor's lightning over-charging Stark's armor to 400%, yeah that helped even things up. Plus, at the end, the armor was visibly damaged, but Thor wasn't even winded. If Cap hadn't ended the lunacy, I think Iron Man would have lost just from attrition.

Seems like you've got the general idea. It's not like the armor can absorb that kind of elecrticity all day. Iron Man's a heavy-hitter in the superhero crowd, but Thor in terms of raw poer is in a class only a few can touch. Such has been depicted in Avengers comics time and again.

 

[delericho]

Iron Man vs. Thor -- I would have said Iron Man could not stand up long toe-to-toe against Thor, especially with his hammer. But with Thor's lightning over-charging Stark's armor to 400%, yeah that helped even things up. Plus, at the end, the armor was visibly damaged, but Thor wasn't even winded. If Cap hadn't ended the lunacy, I think Iron Man would have lost just from attrition.

I think the key here is preparation - Iron Man has less raw power, but Tony Stark is considerably smarter than Thor. So, given time to prepare, his intelligence would shift the balance of power somewhat. But placed in an arena situation, or if Stark isn't given time (as in the film), the edge very definitely goes to Thor.

FWIW: I'm not a great reader of comic books, so didn't really have any preconceived notions of how the match-ups would go (beyond having recently seen all the 'feeder' films except "Incredible Hulk"). But I thoroughly enjoyed the film, start to finish.

 

[Umbran]

Comic books (Marvel Comics, in particular) are not written with just a physical simulation of power. As a literature form, it is bound not just by what makes physical sense, but what also makes dramatic sense.

Thus, there are occasions where characters who are in theory physically weaker can still beat the stronger ones. Superheroes can be considered to be able to take power from dramatic appropriateness, moral rectitude, and genre/style adherence. So, if it is a story about how, "With great power comes great responsibility," it doesn't matter who the opponent is, you can expect that eventually, Spider Man will win out - even against heavy-hitters like Hulk or Thor.

It is interesting that most supers games understand this concept in some sense or other, and tend to include some of those dynamics in their mechanics.

 

[Felon]

Thus, there are occasions where characters who are in theory physically weaker can still beat the stronger ones. Superheroes can be considered to be able to take power from dramatic appropriateness, moral rectitude, and genre/style adherence. So, if it is a story about how, "With great power comes great responsibility," it doesn't matter who the opponent is, you can expect that eventually, Spider Man will win out - even against heavy-hitters like Hulk or Thor.

Spider-Man might outwit or outmaneuver the Hulk or Thor, but that's dealing in situational abstractions. Beating the odds. I think it's implicit to the OP that we're talking about winning a knock-down, drag-out, not pulling rabbits out of the hat. Is Iron Man in the same weight class as Thor? No. Can he figure out some tricky way to get the upper hand? Sure. He's the Batman of the MU.

It is interesting that most supers games understand this concept in some sense or other, and tend to include some of those dynamics in their mechanics.

Funny, my general feeling about supers games is that they utterly fail in most aspects of simulating the genre, and in particular they fail at depicting the concept of power discrepency. When I played the Margaret Weiss Marvel game, I was able to beat Sentry with Deadpoot. That wasn't through clever tactics or some gimmick, that was just plain old dice rolls.

 

[Umbran]

I think it's implicit to the OP that we're talking about winning a knock-down, drag-out, not pulling rabbits out of the hat.

Ah. So, conducting a specific kind of fight that plays to the strengths of the tanks, but not others. Gotcha. Me, I figure pulling rabbits out of a hat is itself a superpower, and needs to be considered when discussing conflicts in the genre.

Funny, my general feeling about supers games is that they utterly fail in most aspects of simulating the genre, and in particular they fail at depicting the concept of power discrepency.

The MU is rife with canon examples of someone with little power winning the day against those with nominally far more power. The literature doesn't consistently recognize hard lines of power discrepancy, so I don't see as the game should have to, either.

When I played the Margaret Weiss Marvel game, I was able to beat Sentry with Deadpoot. That wasn't through clever tactics or some gimmick, that was just plain old dice rolls.

I wasn't there, so I cannot give analysis of that event. But, I note that:

1) any game that uses a randomizer can be subject to luck

2) any game can suffer a failure of the GM to take proper advantage of the mechanics available to them.

3) Some amount of clever tactics and gimmicks are implicit in the dice of that particular game. For example, Captain America doesn't have to explicitly state his clever tactics - if he's working with a team, he just rolls better dice to begin with.

(1) and (2) amount to "a single incident is an anecdote, not a clear sign of design failure".

 

[Ebon Shar]

Comic books (Marvel Comics, in particular) are not written with just a physical simulation of power. As a literature form, it is bound not just by what makes physical sense, but what also makes dramatic sense.

Thus, there are occasions where characters who are in theory physically weaker can still beat the stronger ones. Superheroes can be considered to be able to take power from dramatic appropriateness, moral rectitude, and genre/style adherence. So, if it is a story about how, "With great power comes great responsibility," it doesn't matter who the opponent is, you can expect that eventually, Spider Man will win out - even against heavy-hitters like Hulk or Thor.

It is interesting that most supers games understand this concept in some sense or other, and tend to include some of those dynamics in their mechanics.

Umbran, can you give some examples of the mechanics you mention? I've been out of supers gaming for a while and I'm curious how modern games simulate power discrepency dynamics.

 

[Felon]

Ah. So, conducting a specific kind of fight that plays to the strengths of the tanks, but not others. Gotcha. Me, I figure pulling rabbits out of a hat is itself a superpower, and needs to be considered when discussing conflicts in the genre.



The MU is rife with canon examples of someone with little power winning the day against those with nominally far more power. The literature doesn't consistently recognize hard lines of power discrepancy, so I don't see as the game should have to, either.

For example, Spider-Man fights Juggernaut. His best Sunday punch can't faze him. His webbing doesn't stick to him. He can try to trip him or obscure his vision but these are just delay tactics. Now, he ultimately does triumph by dumping a thousand tons of wet cement on top of him, but that's a pretty situational way to win.

When most folks ask a "who would in a fight" question, they want a "Deadliest Warrior" kind of asset analysis.

Another example closer to the topic would be Iron Man versus Hulk. Iron Man's built a few "hulkbuster" suits of armor for the specific purpose of taking down the green goliath. This is Iron Man trying to go toe-to-toe with someone more powerful than him, and the armors haven't fared well on the whole.

I wasn't there, so I cannot give analysis of that event. But, I note that:

1) any game that uses a randomizer can be subject to luck

2) any game can suffer a failure of the GM to take proper advantage of the mechanics available to them.

3) Some amount of clever tactics and gimmicks are implicit in the dice of that particular game. For example, Captain America doesn't have to explicitly state his clever tactics - if he's working with a team, he just rolls better dice to begin with.

(1) and (2) amount to "a single incident is an anecdote, not a clear sign of design failure".

Patterns are more indicative than single instances, but I doubt anyone's interested in providing nine more examples of similar incidents.

Characters in that particular game are designed to be of a homegeneous power level. The dice everyone rolls are ultimately a wash, so no variation in power level is actually represented. Doesn't matter whether you're Hulk or Hawkeye, Black Widow or Thor. Everyone can hit about as hard as everyone else. Everyone can take a punch about as well as anyone else. And as you touch upon, this homogeneity winds up being rationalized by by proposing that the distinction between finesse and raw power are unimportant.

The bottom line here is that in the comcis, the characters certainly do draw distinctions on power level just as we do. Spider-Man doesn't say to himself "well, this guy may be twenty times stronger and impervious to my attacks, but my knack for outwitting and outmaneuvering makes this an even match". When Count Nefaria is demolishing downtown, the Avengers aren't like "we need someone to get out front and hold the line--Thor or Hawkeye, it doesn't really matter". There are definite powerhouses and underdogs. Teams do have heavy-hitters and flyweights. There's a place for skill, speed, stealth, and precision, but those assets don't serve in the same capacity as raw power, and there doesn't seem to be a supers game so far that gets that.