Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dungeonman" data-source="post: 6295475" data-attributes="member: 6775975">I realized I "started" this re: 4E martial vs Aragorn's, so I'll try to complete my original point without arguing the minutiae of 4E powers.You brought up Aragorn as one example of martial abilities with magic causation. I agree, or at least I think Aragorn's abilities are the result of extraordinary blood lineage, knowledge of old lore, experience in the wild, and probably a smattering of understanding of subtle magic.We discussed on another thread about dumb action heroes' (lack of) self-awareness, you couldn't ask them why they're doing what they're doing and get a satisfying answer because they wouldn't have the capacity to analyze their own motivations/actions beyond the demands of the genre conventions. That's part of being a Genre Badass.You brought up the example of Punisher. I don't know a whole lot about Punisher in various media, but I presume he's a typical superhero action protaganist who is awesome to the point of stretching or breaking my suspension of disbelief. The justification of sheer will, strength and expertise could probably suspend disbelief for a great deal of his exploits, and being a Genre Badass is the explanation for the rest of the outrageous stunts that Punisher pulls off over and over and over.When I read LoTR way back, I remember feeling that there was either expressed or implied in-fiction causation for what Aragorn could do. For example, if I could ask him how he healed, he could tell me the 'how' -- that lore and experience teaches that this herb cures some affliction. That's why Aragorn seems like a grounded character to me.For me, that "feel" of Aragorn is not reflected in the feel or interpretation of 4E martial powers, and that was my only point, and I wasn't extrapolating beyond that.Since 4E does not provide a clear in-game causation for martial abilities, I wouldn't necessarily know the in-game causation when:- a player uses a martial power and imagines what it means for their PC and doesn't share it and I don't ask- a player uses a martial power and does not imagine what it means and I ask and he's doesn't know- a player uses a martial power and imagines what it means for their PC and does share it and I find it unsatisfying rationally or creativelyI know I'm just generalizing, but for many people, this DOES happen, whether that's:- reading the power description (many people CLEARLY struggle with this frequently)- using a power in gameplay (from posts of people, including experienced DMs/players, who confessed to 'handwaving' away the fictional positioning)Any of that will detract from the feeling of "trusting" there is some satisfying in-game causation for a martial ability. When that feeling happens, we're stretching or breaking the limits of suspension of disbelief, and that once-grounded character becomes just another Genre Badass.Of course, there are probably ways to mitigate it for some people. Of course, this feeling is not universal, nor is it limited to 4E. If a fireball fills a small room, I don't know how a Rogue can twist or leap out of the way without taking damage. That's just the Rogue being a D&D Badass, there's no explanation beyonds the demands of the Rules.Nevertheless, for me, the feeling of Aragorn as extraordinary and simultaneously grounded character is because of suspension of disbelief because of my "trust" that there is in-fiction causation, thanks to Tolkien's rich deep portrayal. If I hadn't felt there was a satisfying in-fiction causation, he would instead feel like a Genre Badass and personally that's not my Aragorn.Does Pathfinder do a better job of modelling the "feel" of a grounded character like Aragorn? I'm not sure, but then "yes" if/when 3.X/PF doesn't feel like it's pushing martial abilities way beyond the point of clear in-game casuation of sheer will, strength and expertise and into unexplainable Genre Badass.I would be more than happy if 4E came up with a subtle magic in-game causation to justify greater martial exploits. But I think there are a couple obstacles: just going by all the controversy, there doesn't seem to be anything in 4E, not in the rules and not in an official setting, that is in fact tuning players' collective focus to martial powers as having magic causation. Also, I understand that some or many players have a concept of a brute badass warrior and refute their warrior (or warlord) being contaminated with magic or divine causation. For those two reasons, I don't believe 4E lends itself to martial powers with magic explanations as a matter of course, which shifts the discontent to those who have lost suspension of disbelief.</blockquote>

Verification