Worlds of Design: Human vs. Superhuman

The second season of The Mandalorian helped me realize that functional versus emotional modeling applies to both Star Wars and tabletop role-playing games.

Photo by Michael Marais on Unsplash
​

“You can't relate to a superhero, to a superman, but you can identify with a real man who in times of crisis draws forth some extraordinary quality from within himself and triumphs but only after a struggle.”—Timothy Dalton​

Functional vs. Emotional Modeling in RPGs​

When you want to model a particular character (in Dungeons & Dragons terms in this example) you can use the functional method or the emotional method.

• The functional method observes what the character can do and chooses D&D character classes and powers that match. So when I wrote my Moria introductory adventure some 40 years ago I made Aragorn a seventh level Ranger and Gandalf an eighth level cleric with a ring of warmth who could use a magic sword. In the very low magic world of Middle-Earth they stood out very strongly at these levels. But I didn’t feel I could make Gandalf higher than eighth level because the ninth level cleric can raise dead (the coolest move in games), beyond Gandalf’s abilities.
• The emotional method positioned Aragorn and Gandalf as near-mythical stature within Middle-Earth and so they needed to stand out in comparison with other D&D characters and monsters: in the upper teens in levels. Those levels don’t work for the functional method because characters that high can do more than anyone other than the Valar themselves can do in Middle-Earth.

Similarly, you can make a movie where the heroes stand out in comparison with typical characters (people) but are not superhuman. Or you can make heroes who do many things that a human could never do. That seems to be how Star Wars works sometimes—Jedi as superheroes rather than as merely human, which is more like a superhero comic book than a novel.

How This Applies to The Mandalorian​

In my opinion, Star Wars has never been particularly realistic. But we’ve become accustomed to the fact that stormtroopers can never hit our heroes (even the very normal-human ones like Han Solo) with their (non-automatic!?) weapons—except when the target wears magic armor, er, Beskar steel, which is impervious to blaster bolts and other energy weapons. Beskar gets hit a lot! Nor does the (non-Beskar) stormtrooper armor ever protect the wearer from either energy bolts or physical attacks, at least not by Our Heroes. And so on.

Jedi do the physically impossible by blocking multiple simultaneous blaster shots. Yet even when they turn around to look elsewhere or say something to someone, they don’t get hit. Functionally, they’re superheroes. Some readers will remember the days of the Comics Code Authority, when virtually no one died in superhero comic books, and of course if a superhero appeared to die, somehow he or she would be back later.

How This Applies to RPGs​

In RPGs we also can consider these two forms in relation to the player characters. Are the player characters extraordinary humans (or whatever species they may be) or are they over-the-top superheroes who can do just about anything without suffering significant harm?

The answer to that question determines the type of game you play. Extraordinary people face tougher struggles and are therefore better modeled by simulationist games. For games where the player characters are truly superhuman, I think narrative and storytelling games do a better job of modeling gameplay.

Your Turn: Which point of view do you prefer as a player? And what do you prefer when you GM?

 

[Scott Christian]

We humans use combat and fighting as one way of creating "drama" for our stories. It's easy, it's exciting, and feel hyper-realistic. But rarely does it seem like that combat is ever treated with any sense of actual humanity. Or at least that's the impression I get from it.

Spot on.

I have often dreamt of a video game that could take you through many interactive "cut scenes" to tell the tale, and then a climactic fight. One in which the violence would feel real.

 

[Shiroiken]

Everyone knows that Gandalf was only a 5th level AD&D Magic-User!

Personally I try to keep the mechanics in mind when considering the aspects of the world. Not every world is equal, as Dalamar the Dark, Highmage of the Conclave can attest after his meetings with Mordenkinen and Elminster.

When it comes to storm troopers and aim, the main scene people think of the Millennium Falcon was supposed to escape. In addition, we don't know the full capabilities of Storm Trooper armor from the movies.

Yeah, stormtroopers got a bad rap, mostly thanks to a single actor. When the stromtroopers on the Death Star bust into the communications room with R2 and 3PO, one of the actors bumps his helmet on the way in. Since the helmets didn't actually fit right (you couldn't see out them if worn properly), he didn't even notice. No one did, until it was released and he looked comical. This was then followed by the stormtroopers "missing" everyone when they were supposed to escape, and so they became a joke. So much so that in the home release of the movie, they added a "konk" sound when he hits his "head". Everyone forgets Obi-Wan pointed out that "only imperial stormtroopers are that precise" at the jawa slaughter.

As for their armor... there's a webshow called Because Science that goes into it. Likely they're just designed to deal with simple attacks, like claws or knives from local thugs. Spending too much on replaceable soldiers isn't cost effective.

 

[Krachek]

What is really transforming PC into superhuman is the balanced encounter concept.
Yes hit point, overnight healing can give a feeling of something, but how can a bunch of PC manage to pass multiple threat and survive every time make them a kind of superhuman or supernatural.
The real surhuman power of PC is to get challenge in order, orc, ogre, troll, fire giant, Balor,
while any other Npc can face them in any order during their progression.

 

[Aaron L]

There's a reason why boxers and MMA fighters go months between fights. Because the training and recovery after one of them is that grueling. And yet in all these fictions, characters get into essentially an MMA fight, get up, brush themselves off, and then quite possibly get into another MMA fight tomorrow or even later that day. No concussions, no loss of faculty, no fear of getting hurt like that again, not a single normal human response to having been kicked in the face seventeen times in a matter of minutes.

This is why I immensely prefer the way healing was handled in the 1st and 2nd Editions of D&D to how it is handled in 5th Edition. PCs healed only 1 Hit Point per day of bedrest, and got to add their Constitution bonus at the end of a full week. Nothing like 5th Edition's complete regaining of all Hit Points after a single night's sleep.

I kind of hate that.

Back in our 1E games our high level PCs would take weeks of rest to recover from a big fight, often times even with Clerical healing assistance. It was also great because it was an enforced cooldown and waiting period that expanded the game-timespan between adventures and prevented PCs from progressing from 1st to 15th level over the course of just a few months, as usually happens in 5E... which is another thing I kind of hate.

(Now don't get me wrong; I absolutely adore 5th Edition D&D... I just wish it handled normal healing and over-fast character level progression better.)

 

[tetrasodium]

This is why I immensely prefer the way healing was handled the 1st and 2nd Editions of D&D to how it is handled in 5th Edition. PCs healed only 1 Hit Point per day of bedrest, and got to add their Constitution bonus at the end of a full week. Nothing like 5th Edition's complete regaining of all Hit Points after a single night's sleep.

I kind of hate that.

Back in our 1E games our high level PCs would take weeks of rest to recover from a big fight, often times even with Clerical healing assistance. It was also great because it was an enforced cooldown and waiting period that expanded the game-timespan between adventures and prevented PCs from progressing from 1st to 15th level over the course of just a few months, as usually happens in 5E... which is another thing I kind of hate.

3.x was similar but th other nice thing it did was that there was enough time passing if the party had to come back for whatever reason that you could justify changes more significant than a makeshift reinforced door without straining credibility.

 

[Aaron L]

3.x was similar but th other nice thing it did was that there was enough time passing if the party had to come back for whatever reason that you could justify changes more significant than a makeshift reinforced door without straining credibility.

Yeah 3E was pretty good, healing at 1 x level per day.

 

[Oofta]

This is why I immensely prefer the way healing was handled in the 1st and 2nd Editions of D&D to how it is handled in 5th Edition. PCs healed only 1 Hit Point per day of bedrest, and got to add their Constitution bonus at the end of a full week. Nothing like 5th Edition's complete regaining of all Hit Points after a single night's sleep.

I kind of hate that.

Back in our 1E games our high level PCs would take weeks of rest to recover from a big fight, often times even with Clerical healing assistance. It was also great because it was an enforced cooldown and waiting period that expanded the game-timespan between adventures and prevented PCs from progressing from 1st to 15th level over the course of just a few months, as usually happens in 5E... which is another thing I kind of hate.

(Now don't get me wrong; I absolutely adore 5th Edition D&D... I just wish it handled normal healing and over-fast character level progression better.)

Goes to show different people played with different expectations. We always had a cleric either as a PC or hired/hireling spend a day or two just healing. Oftentimes we just kind of hand waved it.

Now I just use the alternate rest rules from the DMG. It's easy to adjust the game that way.

 

[RareBreed]

This article motivated me to write my first ever post on this site, and indeed my first post on an RPG site in probably around 18 years.

I have been a lurker in the RPG scene for close to 30 years, not having played a session since the early 90s. The last games I played were Twilight 2000 (2.0) and Ars Magica (2nd ed). I started role-playing at the ripe old age of 8 in 1980, so my role-playing "career" was only about 12 years long, mostly through the 80s.

However, I always kept in touch with role-playing even if I didn't play anymore. I often bought games from the late 90s until now, just to see how rules system, genres, and role-playing itself had advanced. The trend I have noticed even more in the last 30 years or so, is moving characters from "heroes" to "superheroes" as you put it. Growing up, my favorite games included the following:

• Twilight 2000
• Justice Inc
• Traveller (more 2300 than classic)
• Phoenix Command (yes, that Phoenix Command, running a Vietnam campaign I GM'ed)
• RPG (from RPG Inc, and the 2nd ed from Palladium)
• Living Steel
• Top Secret
• MERP (1st edition)
• Champions (1st through 4th ed)

We occasionally played some other games (Paranoia, Superworld, Runequest, Chill, CoC, Ghostbusters come to mind), but the above were the games we played the most. Perhaps you noticed a common theme in the above games (other than the obvious lack of D&D)?

With the exception of Champions, pretty much all those games were about regular Joes facing extraordinary situations. Yes, MERP was fantasy, but it was low powered fantasy (especially the way we played it). And yes, Traveller and Living Steel had "powers" in the form of high technology, but I enjoyed playing on low-tech worlds, or in the apocalyptic setting of Rhand.

As Timothy Dalton's quote you mentioned says, it's easier to relate to a hero than a super hero. It's something we as players can actually aspire to. My favorite campaign of all time was the one I ran using Phoenix Command for a Vietnam War setting. Phoenix Command has a reputation for being insanely hard, with too much emphases on game mechanics, and perhaps not enough in roleplaying. My experience was just the opposite. Because combat was so deadly, the players (and their characters) were extremely reluctant to engage in combat. This meant more role-playing opportunities instead of mad minute sessions all the time. Every child who ran up to them became a life and death decision for them. The fear of death, and of causing death (including friendly fire), was what made the campaign so memorable to me.

There were no fireballs. No magic armor to save you. No healing spells. No first aid kits to get you back on your feet in no time flat. Every decision counted, and had consequences. This provided very memorably experiences which I found lacking when I played in super-powered settings, whether those powers came from magical, technological, or comic book sources.

I have noticed the trend today is towards playing super characters. When I read other posts about this topic, I invariably hear someone say "But I want to escape from reality. That's why I play RPG's". I am curious if these people have ever actually played in a setting with just regular Joes in extraordinary circumstances? I feel like in the last 15-20 years, there are very few games where you even can play a regular human (the few I can think of are horror games which explicitly do this to make the characters feel vulnerable and powerless, like CoC, or Outbreak).

I have long felt that role-playing can (and should) be about more than just entertainment. It can be a way to (safely) explore choices, decisions and possible consequences. I would argue that Documentary shows are not "fun" and neither are they entertaining, but they can be enjoyable, because they help us learn.

Does that mean I am against super powers or super heroes? Not at all. I collected or read comics since I was 11, and was absorbed in what these super heroes could do. But there was a difference. When I read comics, I never put myself in Thor's shoes, or even Iron Man's. I lived vicariously through their exploits as a spectator, but never really asked "what would I do in that situation"? It was more about me learning how these superheroes acted, or wonder about the amazing feats and situations that they were presented with.

To illustrate, one of my favorite TV shows of all time is now Wanda Vision. (Spoiler Alert coming!!)

One of the most intriguing things to me about the show, was "what really is the Vision?" (and yeah, I read the original Avengers comics this story arc was gleaned from). When Wanda's Vision faced the "real" Vision, and they pontificated on the Ship of Thucydides, this was pure genius. But the line that got me was when the Vision asked Wanda, "What am I?" and later said, "what will I become next?".

These are deep philosophical questions that are most easily presented in a supermundane setting. The Matrix was brilliant for example, because it allowed us to view "the brain in a jar" question but in a cool sci-fi setting. The question that Vision posed about what his nature was, and who the real self is, is most easily done in a setting where the fantastic is possible.

So, to answer your question, which do I prefer, heroic or superheroic?

For active storytelling (i.e, role-playing), I think heroic systems are most to my liking, both as a player and as a GM. I think they are more relatable and can teach us more human stories. But for passive non-interactive storytelling, I prefer the superheroic, because it can present us with allegories and metaphors in a more interesting way than our real world can. I feel that from a role-playing perspective, where neither the player nor the GM can fully control the narrative, I feel that superheroic settings are not as powerful for storytelling (or at least are much more difficult to do correctly). YMMV of course.

The trend in RPG settings towards the superheroic is one reason I have never really gotten back into active role-playing.

 

[Minigiant]

Everyone forgets Obi-Wan pointed out that "only imperial stormtroopers are that precise" at the jawa slaughter.

As for their armor... there's a webshow called Because Science that goes into it. Likely they're just designed to deal with simple attacks, like claws or knives from local thugs. Spending too much on replaceable soldiers isn't cost effective.

One thing about Star Wars is that the Clonetroopers and Stormtroopers were leagues away from each other in competency. Clonetroopers being factory leveled clones of a high rolled humaniod and Stormtroopers being any old humaniod desperate enough to take an international security guard job.

 

[Arilyn]

This article motivated me to write my first ever post on this site, and indeed my first post on an RPG site in probably around 18 years.

I have been a lurker in the RPG scene for close to 30 years, not having played a session since the early 90s. The last games I played were Twilight 2000 (2.0) and Ars Magica (2nd ed). I started role-playing at the ripe old age of 8 in 1980, so my role-playing "career" was only about 12 years long, mostly through the 80s.

However, I always kept in touch with role-playing even if I didn't play anymore. I often bought games from the late 90s until now, just to see how rules system, genres, and role-playing itself had advanced. The trend I have noticed even more in the last 30 years or so, is moving characters from "heroes" to "superheroes" as you put it. Growing up, my favorite games included the following:

• Twilight 2000
• Justice Inc
• Traveller (more 2300 than classic)
• Phoenix Command (yes, that Phoenix Command, running a Vietnam campaign I GM'ed)
• RPG (from RPG Inc, and the 2nd ed from Palladium)
• Living Steel
• Top Secret
• MERP (1st edition)
• Champions (1st through 4th ed)

We occasionally played some other games (Paranoia, Superworld, Runequest, Chill, CoC, Ghostbusters come to mind), but the above were the games we played the most. Perhaps you noticed a common theme in the above games (other than the obvious lack of D&D)?

With the exception of Champions, pretty much all those games were about regular Joes facing extraordinary situations. Yes, MERP was fantasy, but it was low powered fantasy (especially the way we played it). And yes, Traveller and Living Steel had "powers" in the form of high technology, but I enjoyed playing on low-tech worlds, or in the apocalyptic setting of Rhand.

As Timothy Dalton's quote you mentioned says, it's easier to relate to a hero than a super hero. It's something we as players can actually aspire to. My favorite campaign of all time was the one I ran using Phoenix Command for a Vietnam War setting. Phoenix Command has a reputation for being insanely hard, with too much emphases on game mechanics, and perhaps not enough in roleplaying. My experience was just the opposite. Because combat was so deadly, the players (and their characters) were extremely reluctant to engage in combat. This meant more role-playing opportunities instead of mad minute sessions all the time. Every child who ran up to them became a life and death decision for them. The fear of death, and of causing death (including friendly fire), was what made the campaign so memorable to me.

There were no fireballs. No magic armor to save you. No healing spells. No first aid kits to get you back on your feet in no time flat. Every decision counted, and had consequences. This provided very memorably experiences which I found lacking when I played in super-powered settings, whether those powers came from magical, technological, or comic book sources.

I have noticed the trend today is towards playing super characters. When I read other posts about this topic, I invariably hear someone say "But I want to escape from reality. That's why I play RPG's". I am curious if these people have ever actually played in a setting with just regular Joes in extraordinary circumstances? I feel like in the last 15-20 years, there are very few games where you even can play a regular human (the few I can think of are horror games which explicitly do this to make the characters feel vulnerable and powerless, like CoC, or Outbreak).

I have long felt that role-playing can (and should) be about more than just entertainment. It can be a way to (safely) explore choices, decisions and possible consequences. I would argue that Documentary shows are not "fun" and neither are they entertaining, but they can be enjoyable, because they help us learn.

Does that mean I am against super powers or super heroes? Not at all. I collected or read comics since I was 11, and was absorbed in what these super heroes could do. But there was a difference. When I read comics, I never put myself in Thor's shoes, or even Iron Man's. I lived vicariously through their exploits as a spectator, but never really asked "what would I do in that situation"? It was more about me learning how these superheroes acted, or wonder about the amazing feats and situations that they were presented with.

To illustrate, one of my favorite TV shows of all time is now Wanda Vision. (Spoiler Alert coming!!)

One of the most intriguing things to me about the show, was "what really is the Vision?" (and yeah, I read the original Avengers comics this story arc was gleaned from). When Wanda's Vision faced the "real" Vision, and they pontificated on the Ship of Thucydides, this was pure genius. But the line that got me was when the Vision asked Wanda, "What am I?" and later said, "what will I become next?".

These are deep philosophical questions that are most easily presented in a supermundane setting. The Matrix was brilliant for example, because it allowed us to view "the brain in a jar" question but in a cool sci-fi setting. The question that Vision posed about what his nature was, and who the real self is, is most easily done in a setting where the fantastic is possible.

So, to answer your question, which do I prefer, heroic or superheroic?

For active storytelling (i.e, role-playing), I think heroic systems are most to my liking, both as a player and as a GM. I think they are more relatable and can teach us more human stories. But for passive non-interactive storytelling, I prefer the superheroic, because it can present us with allegories and metaphors in a more interesting way than our real world can. I feel that from a role-playing perspective, where neither the player nor the GM can fully control the narrative, I feel that superheroic settings are not as powerful for storytelling (or at least are much more difficult to do correctly). YMMV of course.

The trend in RPG settings towards the superheroic is one reason I have never really gotten back into active role-playing.

There's a lot of games and settings that aren't skewed toward the super-heroic.
Fate and Cortex Prime both have a variety of setting examples that span from ordinary people to super heroic, as the rules are flexible enough to handle this. Other examples: Vaesen, Liminal, Cthulhu Dark, some of the Gumshoe games, Aliens (I assume. Haven't read it), The Expanse, Traveller, the Jane Austen style game (name escapes me at the moment), and plenty more I'm sure.

Also, God-like characters can still have challenges, loss, and struggles with moral quandaries. In Nomine has this in spades.

In terms of D&D, I think playing at the really high levels requires a change in style and stakes. If this isn't appealing to the players and/or DM, then back to first level with new characters.