Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6381995" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Thanks.I think that a couple things have happened here to break down our communication.  Somehow I've had a position attributed to me that I don't take.  Throughout the entirety of my posting on this subject (on this thread and many others), I've held consistently to several positions:1)  Magic isn't magic because of differing resolution mechanics.  2)  The physics of the D&D world (gravity, atmospheric friction, et al)  that should bind/constrain the mundane kinesiology of all creatures uniformly does not do so.  It arbitrarily constrains fantasy martial heroes to at or below our real world standards (of which I'm intimately familiar with) while simultaneously relaxing or outright ignoring those physical constraints on fantasy antagonists (dragons, giants, and our many arthropods - umber hulks, giant spiders, etc).  Their physiology meeting real world physics should render their locomotion and/or their mere existence (large arthropods) an utter impossibility.  Yet they persist.  We look the other way the same way we do as HPs.  Because D&D.  But we don't admit this absurd double standard.  If the standard was uniformly applied then we would have to let our fantasy martial heroes do things that physically we cannot relate to (such as vertical and horizontal leaps that are far beyond human excellence).3)  So how do we square the circle of 2?  Well, we can unify the noncombat resolution mechanics into a singular conflict resolution framework with transparent, balanced math for each archetype and strong, clear GMing principles (this would be my choice).  Wizards are rolling "cast a spell" checks the same as Fighters are rolling "the weight of my stare" checks the same as Rogues are rolling "there's always an out" checks.  You can have your mundane classes stay mundane.  You can have Batman fighting alongside Supes.  You just can't have Batman fighting alongside his supernatural superior if the math and the resolution mechanics flat out say that one guy is A ball and the other guy is in the big leagues.This is where "show me, don't tell me" comes into play.  The easiest way to deprotagonize a martial hero is for the math and the resolution mechanics (and/or the rulings) to be off.  You're GMing for Pat and Pat is stoked about his Batman Rogue archetype.  He tells you all about this guy.  Always has the right gadget for the job.  Always has an off screen trump card that the bad guys couldn't possibly know about.  Mixed martial artist badassery.  Secret identity that lets him carouse with various power brokers and gather intel.  The works.  Well, these are all things that Pat "says" about his guy.  But does this guy work out in play like that?  In a task resolution system, with binary pass/fail, whereby he's failing even 1/4 of his checks (that is a better clip than 5e) and no narrative fiat (eg - legitimate trump card or "ace in the hole"), "show me" doesn't "show up."  Batman may fail, as plot device, now and again in a, non-seminal, conflict.  However, that is only in order to show his amazing resiliency or how "it was all a part of his plan."  Further, in the "everyday doings of being Batman", he's basically "in the zone" non-stop.  That is how he survives (thrives actually) and becomes legend in a universe filled with supercharged, over-the-top heroes.  If you're playing Batman in D&D, you better have lots of narrative fiat abilities, and/or a whole lot of failing forward in a conflict resolution system.  In a binary, pass/fail, task resolution system where failure is even as low as 25% and the stakes are high, he ceases to become the legendary caped crusader and proceeds directly to the bumbling stain on the ground with the Benny Hill theme playing in the background. So have your Boromir et al.  Just make sure that the math and resolution mechanics "show" the hero and don't end up deprotagonizing the heroic (but mundane) archetype you're going for.</blockquote>

Verification