D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[dave2008]

But here is the rub.

How much do we need to call out?

I'm going to go back to One Piece. There is a weird thing that people have noticed about the series. Some people, inexplicably, are BIG.
View attachment 362319
View attachment 362320

There... is no real explanation for this. No real pattern. Sure, there are giants in the series, but none of these characters ever even hint at having Giant blood or being related to giants. They are just... huge people.

And, sure, there are people who investigate, who come up with theories, because there are massive mysteries in the One Piece world and everything seems to be done with purpose and intent... But most of us just accept that these people were just born big. And that if they get old, they will shrink small. Hyogoro the Flower was a massive dude in his youth, shrank down to three feet tall in his old age, then in the final battle flexed and grew to eight feet tall.


And... did Oda NEED to explain any of it? Does the fantasy world break down if we have super tall humans? OR humans who can change their size drastically? I don't think so.

And this is where I come at this from in terms of high level characters performing incredible feats... It kind of doesn't need an explicit explanation that these things are only possible because of [X]. First of all, explicitly making [X] something means it starts cutting out other concepts. We can't have fighters shattering stone because of their fighting spirit if we declare that they do so because they all learn the Iron Bones technique and have reinforced their muscles and skin with magic. I like being able to match the "power source" to the specific character. But also... as long as it isn't a spell, then it doesn't matter. The only thing it is doing is telling people their dragon-slaying, demi-god fighting human fighter isn't like a US Marine and is something more impressive. We... kind of know that. It is a fantasy game, and we are playing fantasy heroes, and even if we are playing human fighters... it seems we kind of accept that they can do some crazy fantasy feats. Without having to define them as "this is a magical training technique" or "this is because of soul refinement" or whatever other explanation we could possibly come up with.

I don't have any issue with One piece as a game setting. I am not looking for in-world / in-fiction justifications. I just want to understand it from a game rules perspective. So it would just be clear that humans in the One Piece setting can be supernaturally big or strong compared to real life humans.

I want:

1. I would prefer the game to have clear game jargon for various different magical or supernatural elements. So rules interactions are clearly understood. Like anti-magic works on magic, but not supernatural things (as an example). What this means for setting could be different from setting to setting.
2. I have had several posts suggest that it is not a fantasy game if my humans can't do amazing unreal physical things (things people can not do in real life). I don't wish to gatekeep. I want to be able to play mundane characters and fantastic characters (and understand the difference) in the same rules (doesn't even have to be the same setting - it is all about clear rules for me).

That is basically what I am asking for, not sure why that is such a no go for some people. I am not trying to prevent people from playing anything. I in fact want everything to possible from playing a normal human to playing a literal deity.

 

[dave2008]

Then why is is forever an uphill battle to unshackle these fantasy worlds from the yoke of the mundane?

Why can't the fantastic actually be allowed to be fantastic without some express magikal faerie bippody boppoity booping it into being? Strong men with mighty thews can't just jump real good, hit real hard, or even just intimidate people without having to produce bonafide proof the pixie dust and unicorn farts to explain how the did a thing a really strong guy can do.

I don't have any issue with fantasy worlds being different from reality, I in fact encourage it. I am not looking for in-world / in-fiction justifications. I just want to understand it from a game rules perspective.

I want:

1. I would prefer the game to have clear game jargon for various different magical or supernatural elements. So rules interactions are clearly understood. Like anti-magic works on magic, but not supernatural things (as an example). What this means for setting could be different from setting to setting.
2. I have had several posts suggest that it is not a fantasy game if my humans can't do amazing unreal physical things (things people can not do in real life). I don't wish to gatekeep. I want to be able to play mundane characters and fantastic characters (and understand the difference) in the same rules (doesn't even have to be the same setting - it is all about clear rules for me).

That is basically what I am asking for, not sure why that is such a no go for some people. I am not trying to prevent people from playing anything. I in fact want everything to possible from playing a normal human to playing a literal deity. I want my fantasy game rules to be all encompassing.

 

[dave2008]

That depends on what your intent is with arguing that it is magic.

I am fine calling whatever magic, if magic is used as to label something that isn't realistic. I am willing to say that an exceptional ability to jump is "magical".

But if your intent with trying to make me argue that it is magical because the effect is, within the context of the RPG itself, magical, then I will disagree.

I am having a hard time understanding the distinction you are trying to make, but...

...I want:

1. I would prefer the game to have clear game jargon for various different magical or supernatural elements. So rules interactions are clearly understood. Like anti-magic works on magic, but not supernatural things (as an example). What this means for setting could be different from setting to setting.
2. I have had several posts suggest that it is not a fantasy game if my humans can't do amazing unreal physical things (things people can not do in real life). I don't wish to gatekeep. I want to be able to play mundane characters and fantastic characters (and understand the difference) in the same rules (doesn't even have to be the same setting - it is all about clear rules for me).

That is basically what I am asking for, not sure why that is such a no go for some people. I am not trying to prevent people from playing anything. I in fact want everything to possible from playing a normal human to playing a literal deity.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Ok, a friend of mine finally explained to me what the heck One Piece is. My take-away is that it is a rather silly story that doesn't take itself at all seriously where many characters have ridiculous superpowers that basically runs on "Rule of Cool". Is that what you've been wanting this whole time? That style would and has driven me nuts; I actually kind of hate it.

it really doesn't run on any more 'rule of cool' than any other shounen series, sure it might have a goofy tone but that doesn't mean it doesn't take itself or it's worldbuilding any less seriously, the various powers exist and they have their set rules, but the people in the world are also just stronger than any 'realworld' person is, like most every DnD world, and it goes without any mention on being weird because it is fantasy,

honestly i think it's most it's apparent in the first few arcs when things are happening fairly back-to-back where zoro is fighting his swordfights while still recovering from injuries from the last battles and he tanks enough damage that probably should've killed him several times over, even just after the first fight if he were a 'normal' human, but he doesn't die, because that's not how these things go.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I want:

1. I would prefer the game to have clear game jargon for various different magical or supernatural elements. So rules interactions are clearly understood. Like anti-magic works on magic, but not supernatural things (as an example). What this means for setting could be different from setting to setting.
2. I have had several posts suggest that it is not a fantasy game if my humans can't do amazing unreal physical things (things people can not do in real life). I don't wish to gatekeep. I want to be able to play mundane characters and fantastic characters (and understand the difference) in the same rules (doesn't even have to be the same setting - it is all about clear rules for me).

That is basically what I am asking for, not sure why that is such a no go for some people. I am not trying to prevent people from playing anything. I in fact want everything to possible from playing a normal human to playing a literal deity.

...so, question, uh...what compelled you to post this block of text 4 or 5 times in a row instead of just...quoting everyone you wanted to see it in one message and posting it once?

 

[dave2008]

OK, I thought up a little example that I think illustrates what I want (but I am probably wrong). I am using Frank Castle (the Punisher) and Lobo as to extremes of the broadly similar fictional martial antihero spectrum. Castle is supposed to be like a RL human and Lobo superhuman, but are otherwise very similar (aka the same class) in my example. The both fight hand to hand and with weapons, but no "magic" per se.

To me, and for this example, these characters are both the same class. I want the game rules to be able to support both characters. I want it to be able to play a full game as Frank Castle and to be able to fantasy that I can do things at the limits of RL skill and ability. I also want to be able to play Lobo and be able to punch a god in the face. I want both. I also want to be clear, from a rules perspective (but not necessarily in the setting / fiction) that Lobo's great strength is supernatural (and what that means). Why you ask? So that when my player has his wizard character cast dispel magic (or anti-magic) on Lobo he isn't confused why it doesn't work. Lobo is just that strong. My player needs a frame of reference to understand how magic works (and doesn't work) in the game rules.

I hope that is clear, but probably not. It is late and my dog woke me up to go to the bathroom so I am not my best self at the moment.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I am having a hard time understanding the distinction you are trying to make, but...

...I want:

1. I would prefer the game to have clear game jargon for various different magical or supernatural elements. So rules interactions are clearly understood. Like anti-magic works on magic, but not supernatural things (as an example). What this means for setting could be different from setting to setting.
2. I have had several posts suggest that it is not a fantasy game if my humans can't do amazing unreal physical things (things people can not do in real life). I don't wish to gatekeep. I want to be able to play mundane characters and fantastic characters (and understand the difference) in the same rules (doesn't even have to be the same setting - it is all about clear rules for me).

That is basically what I am asking for, not sure why that is such a no go for some people. I am not trying to prevent people from playing anything. I in fact want everything to possible from playing a normal human to playing a literal deity.

I am fine with calling anything "unrealistic" that happens in this setting magic

I am not fine with calling that thing magic if a requirement of me calling it magical is that I must accept that the thing is subjected to whatever rules there are in the setting that governs magic.

That is: If we have a monk that can jump supernaturally high I am fine with calling that magical, but I am not fine with having that affected by antimagic field. Because antimagic field is something specific to the magic of the setting, the arcane arts, whatever you want to call it.

This is why I prefer the term supernatural. Because supernatural is not tied in to the concept of magic in D&D and has no particular association with any particular deities, for example. D&D has a goddess of magic and everything supernatural does not belong to her domain.

 

[dave2008]

...so, question, uh...what compelled you to post this block of text 4 or 5 times in a row instead of just...quoting everyone you wanted to see it in one message and posting it once?

What you suggesting was indeed my original intent., it just didn't work out that way when I sat down. Not sure why.

I am responding to this now because my dog woke me up to go the bathroom and I couldn't immediately go back to sleep. I am not really my best self at the moment.

 

[dave2008]

I am fine with calling anything "unrealistic" that happens in this setting magic

I am not fine with calling that thing magic if a requirement of me calling it magical is that I must accept that the thing is subjected to whatever rules there are in the setting that governs magic.

That is: If we have a monk that can jump supernaturally high I am fine with calling that magical, but I am not fine with having that affected by antimagic field. Because antimagic field is something specific to the magic of the setting, the arcane arts, whatever you want to call it.

This is why I prefer the term supernatural. Because supernatural is not tied in to the concept of magic in D&D and has no particular association with any particular deities, for example. D&D has a goddess of magic and everything supernatural does not belong to her domain.

We are on the same page. That it how I feel as well. However, to be clear I am almost never talking about settings, simply game rules.

 

[dave2008]

it really doesn't run on any more 'rule of cool' than any other shounen series,...

So you think someone who doesn't know One Piece knows what a shounen series is?