D&D General Why the resistance to D&D being a game?

[Warpiglet-7]

So Fafhrd could go up to a line of Buckingham palace guards and incite them to violence with just a few words in a moment? Without showing an immediate threat or touching them? A conclave of wizards would forego all spells and walk up to Fafhrd and engage in fisticuffs instead of just turning him into a toad? They can insult a pack of wolves by telling them their mother was a poodle?

But yes, I do judge what a person can do without magic with at least a baseline in reality. It may likely be feats of strength or skill that is not possible in our world, but it will just be an extension of what a real person could do if they were fast, strong, tough or skilled enough. It's the difference between watching the latest James Bond or even a Fast and Furious movie versus Harry Potter.

It's also just a preference that I have an option to play a mundane character. Even if that "mundane" character does things only Captain America could do.

Your mama is a poodle…

what you are saying is that ignoring context would be supernatural.

I am thinking some powers like compelled duel etc. allow you to supersede context—-which is the province of magic.

 

[FrogReaver]

Right, but now we are all just nitpicking because THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF MAGICAL in my book! Anything that is not natural is SUPERNATURAL and that's 'magic'. It’s not indistinguishable from anything, it IS that thing. Skillfulness cannot defend you against the foot stomp of a 10 ton african bull elephant. It just can't. Maybe you can dodge that, but you cannot survive it. You surely can't survive being mauled by a lion or a bear, except by sheer luck. Anyone who's 'skill level' is high enough to beat these 4-5HD animals, is supernatural. Period.

Well - that’s certainly not my view of supernatural or magical.

I imagine that’s the primary difference. There’s not a lot of disagreement on what’s happening - just a lot on how to categorize it.

But this tangent starting by asking about a PC power that lets them taunt any creature
at any time and force that creature to approach and attack provided it failed a wisdom save.

Such an ability can meet one’s definition of supernatural while the fighters fighting ability simultaneously does not. Or both abilities can be considered supernatural while one is acceptable and the other isn’t.

In any event - arguing about what is supernatural and what isn’t doesn’t actually address the issue.

 

[FrogReaver]

"A sufficiently powerful level of skillfulness is indistinguishable from magic." ?

Depends on the genre and setting. In some extreme skillfulness at fighting would rise to supernatural. In others being skillful at fighting would never rise to the supernatural.

Which is the thing - skill on its own only takes one to the upper limits allowable by skill. It never crossed that threshold.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I have stipulated to your lion facts already; no need for the wall of text. I'm saying if you wanted humans to be both as weak and as awesome as they are in real life, I'm in.

So what can wizards do in that hypothetical? It seems all 3+ spells would be off limit, as would certain level 1-2 spells and certain cantrips.

At that point, why not just play levels 1-3 and buff the monsters.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The Hulk is a supernatural being by anyone's standard. And that's ok.

If we limit our definition of supernatural to "that which exceeds Earthly limitations" then either ..

1. D&D fighters will always wind up "supernatural" by that definition in some way regardless of setting thematics.

2. D&D fighters will be so weak as to be basically unplayable...or

3. The overall tone and scope of the game and settings will have shifted such that is nearly unrecognizable.

The Hulk is a power level reference. How "natural" those powers are in a setting is a setting-specific dial. On Marvel Earth we need gamma rays. In D&D "not Earth", they have the right set of D&D genes/training method/diet/etc.

 

[FrogReaver]

If we limit our definition of supernatural to "that which exceeds Earthly limitations" then either ..

I’d suggest this definition doesn’t really capture what those of us using supernatural as an objection to certain powers use it as.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I’d suggest this definition doesn’t really capture what those of us using supernatural as an objection to certain powers use it as.

If that is the case, then I'd welcome an alternative, though I'd expect it differs from poster to poster.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Is supernatural or preternatural or otherwise not the usual natural ok?

Obviously, we must explore the proper adjectives to use!

Zeno: So, the problem is that you don't want supernatural fighters?

Achilles: Yeah, brah. Don't you go putting your special magic sauce into my Kronan, the Off-Brand Barbarian.

Zeno: Okay ... supernatural might be a little strong. How about we do preternatural? Doesn't Conan have a preternatural sense of the dangers around him?

Achilles: Don't you try and get tricky with me! There's nothing all mysticky about it!

Zeno: Look, can we at least agree that he has an unnatural ability to survive death?

Achilles: Naw. I read at least two Howard stories ... or movies ... before making Kronan. What he does ... no big deal, guys at my high school used to do that all the time.

Zeno: Guys at your .... look. I get it. But you have to admit, all those hits he takes, that has to be nonnatural?

Achilles: That's just a regular lax game, brah! Ogre be hittin' like a long-stick defender.

Zeno: .....I can't even. WILL YOU GIVE ME NOTHING, ACHILLES? AT LONG LAST, WILL YOU GIVE ME NOTHING???

Achilles: Relax. Kronan has totes connatural strength.

Zeno: I don't know whether to cry ... or at least be happy that you finally picked up a thesaurus.

 

[Oofta]

But wouldn't the really powerful anime or demigod fighters not need the wizards cut back as much?

I'm missing what the reason was we need a playable mundane option.

Is it wanting someone more relatable? Is it wanting a Conan or Boromir?

Conan, Bormir, King Arthur, Fafhrd, The Gray Mouser. Going back further Odysseus, but even Hercules still just beat on things with his club. I'd add Tarzan who IIRC took on lions on a fairly regular basis. Then throw in practically every fighter in almost every serious fantasy novel I've ever read not to mention the traditions of nearly half a century of D&D with the exception of 4E until essentials.

I don't want a reality simulator, that would be boring. "Sorry Bob, Ragnar survived the fight but that infection from the wound set in and he's dead." Meanwhile just because fighters can take on a dragon with a sharpened piece of metal doesn't mean they should suddenly become wuxia characters or wizards in all but name. There are plenty of options for characters that use magic.

People have been killing dangerous animals with far less advance gear than the typical fighter has forever. People are quite good at it. I would note that while a T-Rex would have be terrifying, the invulnerability of the animal has been cranked up to 11 in the movies. It's still just a giant chicken with teeth. As far as lions, they have been regularly hunted with a stick that has a sharp pointy thing on the end and no armor to speak of.

When it comes to balance, fighters do just fine contributing over the course of a game session in every 5E game I've ever played, including ones that went up to 20th level. Perhaps supernatural isn't the correct term to use, but a lot of people seem to get caught up in nitpicky details. Could a person take on a lion and win? Of course, it has happened countless times. Should a lion be higher than a CR 1? I think so, unfortunately the design assumptions of D&D don't really reflect how much stronger animals are than humans. A grizzly bear is far, far stronger than any human could ever be.

But I don't let the limitations of the game rules get in the way of the vision and fictional archetype I envision for my fighter. I want a character that straps on armor, grabs their weapons of choice and goes to face down giants. Is that realistic? Well, giants are not physically possible because of the square cube law. On the other hand in the words of Dutch from Predator, "If it bleeds we can kill it".

 

[Umbran]

You surely can't survive being mauled by a lion or a bear, except by sheer luck.

I understand the desire to make incontrovertible arguments. But it leads to entrenched positions that cannot move, and people butting heads. This is not constructive.

This statement, for example, is non-falsifiable. You can eternally retreat into the poorly defined "mauled" and "sheer luck", without ever having to recognize that maybe your position isn't great.

"Oh, that news story about someone surviving being "mauled by a bear".. that wasn't' a real mauling...." and so on.

Why should anyone engage with this argument?