Mundane vs. Fantastical

[I'm A Banana]

But, what does this have to do with the idea of fantastic vs mundane?

Well, I was responding to someone who said that 1st level PC's weren't stronger than a typical guard, mostly by pointing out that there is no such thing as a "typical guard" in 4e.

But, with the ability to blast divine radiance and shoot magical lasers and miss someone and still hurt them and to pop back up from the dead 5% of the time, when most "common folk" don't have those powers, makes the PC's at least one obvious cut above mundane. They are exceptional people, not just "very good," but truly in a class by themselves that no normal farmer can achieve.

For me, a "mundane" campaign depends on PC's being on the same continuum as farmers and town guards and guys who study books in towers. They need to be relatable to your "typical NPC." In 4e, they're really not, because there is no such thing as a "typical NPC." Or, perhaps rather, a "typical NPC" is actually just a plot device without stats, so the PC's already exceed them by virtue of being able to make attack rolls AND being able to be part of the plot.

Are they first-level characters? No. I don't particularly mind that 4E makes starting characters competent by default, but I do mind that they still call this first level, and there's no good way to make a character like Bilbo -- an "everyman" character who is not yet an accomplished adventurer.

Yeah, we get to the same place, even if we start off a little different.

"Unbelievable" can just be fairly subjective, so I was mostly trying to locate it in what NPCs of the world can also do. An everyman character's defining characteristic is that he doesn't do anything, power-wise, that is above and beyond what a "typical NPC" can do. He achieves a level of power no greater than a highly-trained anybody. You could see any Joe Dirtfarm going on this adventure, but for some reason, fates or chance have chosen your PC, perhaps even against his will, and you're thrust into something greater.

 

[Staffan]

Consider Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If you examine the show'ss trappings; SoCal vampires, suburban demons, 98 lbs kung-fu schoolgirls, eventually, robots, it looks like an utter mess.

Eventually robots? I don't think 8 episodes in qualifies as "eventually".

 

[Hussar]

But, with the ability to blast divine radiance and shoot magical lasers and miss someone and still hurt them and to pop back up from the dead 5% of the time, when most "common folk" don't have those powers, makes the PC's at least one obvious cut above mundane. They are exceptional people, not just "very good," but truly in a class by themselves that no normal farmer can achieve.

First level clerics and wizards in 3e can blast away and whatnot. Heck, by 3rd level, a wand of magic missile isn't out of reach for the wizard. My current 2nd level party has a wand of cure light wounds, so, healing is virtually unlimited as it stands.

"Hurt someone on a miss" is not more arcane. More abstract, sure, but, not less mundane.

I guess, I'm just not seeing a huge difference between the editions when it comes to the level of mundane vs fantastic. While the "average town guard" isn't defined by 4e mechanics, that doesn't mean it's not defined by 4e campaigns. Again, making your setting believable is the DM's job, not the job of the mechanics.

 

[AllisterH]

IAre they first-level characters? No. I don't particularly mind that 4E makes starting characters competent by default, but I do mind that they still call this first level, and there's no good way to make a character like Bilbo -- an "everyman" character who is not yet an accomplished adventurer.

Given that even in 2e, Biblo was better represented by a NPC, being able to model Bilbo is NOT soemthing I consider a good design choice for the PCs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Given that even in 2e, Biblo was better represented by a NPC, being able to model Bilbo is NOT soemthing I consider a good design choice for the PCs.

But isn't the point that the game can -- and should -- be designed to cater to more than just your preferences?


RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

First level clerics and wizards in 3e can blast away and whatnot. Heck, by 3rd level, a wand of magic missile isn't out of reach for the wizard. My current 2nd level party has a wand of cure light wounds, so, healing is virtually unlimited as it stands.

And NPC's had these same resources, even in smaller towns, so you weren't of a totally different class of creature. That's one of Eberron's big traits, after all: low-level magic is common, meaning that spellcasters with low-level magic can be "common folk," who have no powers that a typical NPC might not also have.

This facilitates that "everyman" archetype, even if the world is filled with wands of magic missile made by artificers.

I guess, 'm just not seeing a huge difference between the editions when it comes to the level of mundane vs fantastic. While the "average town guard" isn't defined by 4e mechanics, that doesn't mean it's not defined by 4e campaigns. Again, making your setting believable is the DM's job, not the job of the mechanics.

I think that's mostly because you're equating "fantastic" with "magical," but I think they are quite distinct. You can have "mundane" and "magical" co-exist.

And the job of the mechanics *should* be to help create a believable setting, since a believable setting is part and parcel of any D&D game. If the mechanics don't help me do that, the mechanics don't help me make a D&D game.

 

[mmadsen]

Given that even in 2e, Biblo was better represented by a NPC, being able to model Bilbo is NOT soemthing I consider a good design choice for the PCs.

The protagonist of The Hobbit is better represented as an NPC? Why? (Is there something about 2E I don't know?)

 

[RFisher]

But isn't the point that the game can -- and should -- be designed to cater to more than just your preferences?

Generally, I think games should be designed to cater foremost to the designer’s preferences. You do a much better job when creating what you want to create than when trying to please other people.

Although part of me feels that D&D—with its unique position—ought to have other responsibilities. Though, still, being overly broad I don’t think serves those purposes either. Introduce people to the hobby, and then let them find whichever game best fits their preferences.

Instead of one mediocre game, the hobby needs a diversity of focused, passionately-designed games.

 

[billd91]

Generally, I think games should be designed to cater foremost to the designer’s preferences. You do a much better job when creating what you want to create than when trying to please other people.

Although part of me feels that D&D—with its unique position—ought to have other responsibilities. Though, still, being overly broad I don’t think serves those purposes either. Introduce people to the hobby, and then let them find whichever game best fits their preferences.

Instead of one mediocre game, the hobby needs a diversity of focused, passionately-designed games.

That may work for an artist, but how many businesses really want to follow that model? Not all that many. They usually want as broad a market as possible.

 

[RFisher]

That may work for an artist, but how many businesses really want to follow that model? Not all that many. They usually want as broad a market as possible.

Those actually aren’t contradictory. In my experience. The product of one person’s vision often ends up with broad market appeal. Sure, it may be narrower than what the committee was aiming for, but it’s broader than what they hit.

Any success I’ve had in business has been from working for visionaries. The really good ones even make the product marketing guys think that everything is their idea. (^_^)