Tropes that need to die

[Raven Crowking]

Beowulf ripping off Grendel's arm then diving into the sea and spending hours underwater searching for the lair, without ever once using a magic waterbreathing or strength item, without asking a local wizard for help

Because of this thread, I have recently been re-reading Beowulf (in this case the prose translation by David Wright), and there are a few things which might be worth pointing out:

(1) Ripping off Grendel's arm is not a magical ability, nor is it presented as such.

(2) Although we are told that it was half a day before Beowulf saw the lake bottom, we are also told that there was a space down there where he could breathe, and that his total time below the lake was something just over 9 hours......including the time spent where there was air.

(3) Finally, it is not unusual to encounter magical lakes in Anglo Saxon folklore, and this lake is otherwise described as having unusual qualities....such as boiling black with blood. It may well be the setting that is fantastic, and Beowulf survives that long below water not because he can breathe water, but because the lake itself is prepresentative of an "Otherworld" with non-mundane qualities.


RC

 

[Neonchameleon]

Because of this thread, I have recently been re-reading Beowulf (in this case the prose translation by David Wright), and there are a few things which might be worth pointing out:

(1) Ripping off Grendel's arm is not a magical ability, nor is it presented as such.

In which case the argument dissolves. Ripping of the arm of a super-strong monster isn't normal either. But we're off the end of physical human territory and even the "That's unrealistic retort compendium" and into action movie territory. Into "Can regularly hit a moving target through the eye slits" territory. (Which, I would argue, is where Conan is). And the difference between that and ski-jumping with a rocket under each arm is a matter of the DM and plausibility as much as it is rules. You don't have to be magical to do outlandish things - but at high levels you should be implausibly good.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

Personally, I think the trend to try and classify EVERYTHING as a trope is what needs to die. I loathe TV Tropes, which tries to shoehorn every single concept every thought of by man as a 'trope', no matter how much effort it takes to force it in there.

 

[AllisterH]

It should be noted....

I can't actually remember a lot of mythic or literary influences where the wizards/spell slingers were as well, over the top as the typical high level D&D mage.

Fahrd & Grey Mouser certainly had "powerful" patrons but I don't remember them being presented as even co-stars.

I'm trying to think of an influence where you have both magic and muscle in equal limelight showing...

 

[Raven Crowking]

In which case the argument dissolves. Ripping of the arm of a super-strong monster isn't normal either.

No....It is "Fantastic" as I defined it above.....Something we would tend not to credit in the real world, but may well be wrong for that tendency.

We do not know how strong Grendel actually is; although we are told that Beowulf is the strongest human there is, we don't really know how strong that is, either. Nor do we know enough about Grendel's anatomy to know how weak or strong his shoulder joints are. It is indicated, though, that Grendel's attempt to get away, combined with Beowulf's attempt to hold him fast, rip his arm and shoulder off.

Into "Can regularly hit a moving target through the eye slits" territory. (Which, I would argue, is where Conan is).

When Tarzan throws or shoots, he never misses. Conan is less wahoo. I highly recommend reading as many of the original Conan stories as you can....or, for that matter, anything by REH.

You don't have to be magical to do outlandish things - but at high levels you should be implausibly good.

Depending upon the system and the group, of course.

Otherwise, we agree here.


RC

 

[Barastrondo]

For the sake of discussion, I think we might consider coming up with some common definitions. "Mundane", as I am using it, means "not coming from a supernatural source". "Magical" means "coming from a supernatural source". I think we could add a working definition of "Fantastic" (in this context) as "Not considered likely or possible in the real world; that which would tend to confound belief if claimed for the real world".

That's what I'm generally going by, yes.

By these definitions, this thread has already demonstrated (IMHO) that elements which some might find unlikely or impossible in the real world have, indeed, been part and parcel of the real world.

This is true, but -- and this is the sticking point for me personally -- a player should not be beholden to defend non-magical yet fantastic feats by pulling out real-world examples as a matter of course. If that's what a group likes to do, a la Howard, awesome. But it's not a universal feature of fantasy fiction, and it's definitely not a universal feature of the myths and sagas that are often inspirational. I don't think the author of Beowulf looked for a historical example of someone who swam a stormy sea for a week before he attributed a feat like that to Beowulf, and he didn't attribute the task to godly blood or whatnot.

So, what qualifies as "Fantastic" is, of course, based both upon the individual and the perspective of society at the time. I would agree that a system that models all three of the above must allow non-magical characters to be fantastic, if (and only if) one is prepared to also accept that the real world has contained (and likely contains right now) "Fantastic" people and events.

As long as one isn't limiting "fantastic" to what is provably possible in the real world, sure. Otherwise one is modeling not all three characters, but a certain perception of all three, in much the same way that modeling a scientific interpretation of Beowulf is a slightly separate goal than modeling Beowulf in the spirit of the saga's presentation.

For you, perhaps, but I jumped into this part of the debate in response to some pretty black-and-white statements about what can, and what cannot, be done in a game.

The black-and-white statement was against the idea that fighters have to be mundane and non-fantastic. I would emphasize the wording "have to be". At no point did ProfessorCirno say that fighters cannot be both: only that the idea that they must be is a poor one. I simply agreed: if fighters have to be mundane and non-fantastic, the ability to do a Fafhrd is sharply curtailed, and frequently not nearly as much fun as reading the stories. Or probably not as much fun as Leiber had writing them.

I think the real problem comes from when a trope is adopted into a story or campaign without realizing its context or origins.

Yeah, exactly so. The strength of a trope is familiarity: if dwarves are earthy guys interested in gold and beer, then players don't have to do any homework to figure out how to get on a dwarf's good side, they can act with the confidence that offering gold and beer is a good start. Tropes can make it easier to get to the heart of the fun in a game, get things rolling faster. (Or they can slow it all down: "you have to earn your fun" is a regrettable gaming trope in itself, though thankfully not universal.)

Gaming identifies tropes differently than literature does, as we tend to identify tropes in gaming as things that repeatedly come out in play. The cemetery example is a little tenuous because it's questionable whether the cemetery is the trope, or the cemetery as the source of trouble. I'd guess it's the latter -- that the stereotype comes from the assumption that undead are a common occurrence in cemeteries. And it's just as easy to change the incidence of undead as it would be to get rid of cemeteries as a concept.

Like you say, if you look at any trope long enough you can probably figure out its strengths and weaknesses. Then you can hit the players where they want to be hit, while still being creative.

 

[Nagol]

It should be noted....

I can't actually remember a lot of mythic or literary influences where the wizards/spell slingers were as well, over the top as the typical high level D&D mage.

Fahrd & Grey Mouser certainly had "powerful" patrons but I don't remember them being presented as even co-stars.

I'm trying to think of an influence where you have both magic and muscle in equal limelight showing...

The patrons weren't co-stars not because they weren't powerful enough --they had bigger fish to fry than hang around with a couple of "petty" thieves unless the thieves were being offered a task.

That said, equal limelight can be hard to find.

Zelazny's Dilvish the Damned series has a strong reliance on both arms and magic though magic can (and does) destroy cities.

Glen Cook's fantasy private investgator series relies on arms mostly, but dips into magic. His older Dread Kingdom series has both magical and arms protagonsts though again, magic can perform feats beyond mortal capacity.

 

[Raven Crowking]

a player should not be beholden to defend non-magical yet fantastic feats by pulling out real-world examples as a matter of course.

Depending upon the game, the group, and the system, of course.

I don't think the author of Beowulf looked for a historical example of someone who swam a stormy sea for a week before he attributed a feat like that to Beowulf, and he didn't attribute the task to godly blood or whatnot.

No, he attributed it to the grace of God as well as the swimming prowess of Beowulf. OTOH, he does seem to have a very good working knowledge of history in his region, and alludes to it often for dramatic effect (which means he is able to assume his audience does, as well). It also seems as though the storm occurred while they were at sea, and was not, in fact, "a stormy sea for a week". It was, in fact, a storm occurring after five nights on the sea.

It is also true that we have only Beowulf's description of what happened....although, interestingly enough, that description is given because at least one character had heard differently. So, I would be careful about concluding that Beowulf was superhuman on the basis of this account.

As long as one isn't limiting "fantastic" to what is provably possible in the real world, sure.

There are quite a few things provably possible in the real world that qualify as "Fantastic" as I have defined it. Indeed, this thread demonstrates just that -- things that are provably possible are called "Fantastic" because literary characters perform the actions in question. For example, surviving crucifixion is "Fantastic" when Conan does it, despite the details in Conan's case being taken from a real-world source.

The black-and-white statement was against the idea that fighters have to be mundane and non-fantastic. I would emphasize the wording "have to be". At no point did ProfessorCirno say that fighters cannot be both: only that the idea that they must be is a poor one.

You are either reading different posts than I am, or you are interpetting them very differently.

One that needs to die and thankfully has been dying - the idea that you need magic to do anything, or that not all characters are magical.

One or the other. That's how myth and fantasy work. Either you don't need magic to be fantastic (Beowulf ripping off Grendel's arm then diving into the sea and spending hours underwater searching for the lair, without ever once using a magic waterbreathing or strength item, without asking a local wizard for help) or we admit that everyone is somehow divine or magical (Greek mythology).

This idea that fighters have to be mundane and non-fantastic is such a D&D-ism, and it's the worst kind.

Note that, apart from that "have to be" in the last sentence, this is not a post that suggests that there is anything okay with mundane, non-fantastic fighters. Indeed, that doesn't seem to be what is being said at all. The choice presented is "One or the other....Either you don't need magic to be fantastic.....or we admit that everyone is somehow divine or magical". There is no room in there whatsoever for a mundane, non-fantastic choice.

And when I suggested that a game should be able to support a mundane, non-fantastic choice, ProfessorCirno did not say, "Yes, that is what I meant to imply". He instead said:

DOn't bring up LotR. That's some kind of tabletop fallacy at this point. There was a full webcomic designed to mock the idea of a LotR tabletop game. LotR has never been a tabletop game, it's never been a good idea for a tabletop game, it never will be.

And yes, Conan or Fafrd, I remember those utterly mundane and non-fantastic characters, like the time Conan was dominated and controlled every time he fought a wizard, or the time he was stabbed and then bled out and died.

So, yes, if your point is that a game may have either, or both, mundane/non-fantastic characters and non-mundane/fantastic characters, then I agree with you. I would go so far as to say it is obviously true. Indeed, I have never heard anyone complain that System X has non-mundane/fantastic choices, but only that System X has only non-mundane/fantastic choices.

IOW, "fighters must be mundane and non-fantastic" is a non-trope. It exists nowhere. "Fighters should be able to be mundane and non-fantastic", OTOH, is a real complaint, made about real games, in real time.



RC

 

[Neonchameleon]

No....It is "Fantastic" as I defined it above.....Something we would tend not to credit in the real world, but may well be wrong for that tendency.

We do not know how strong Grendel actually is; although we are told that Beowulf is the strongest human there is, we don't really know how strong that is, either. Nor do we know enough about Grendel's anatomy to know how weak or strong his shoulder joints are. It is indicated, though, that Grendel's attempt to get away, combined with Beowulf's attempt to hold him fast, rip his arm and shoulder off.

The thing is, as I've read Justin Alexander outline in detail, level 5 in 3.X is about the human maximum in the real world. The wizard gains power at a more than linear rate past that point. What do you want the fighter to do? Also in a world as openly magical as most D&D worlds, turning your back on any use of magic is ... of questionable wisdom.

When Tarzan throws or shoots, he never misses. Conan is less wahoo. I highly recommend reading as many of the original Conan stories as you can....or, for that matter, anything by REH.

What's put me off is the reports that all civilisation is evil and only the barbarians are pure and good.

 

[WizarDru]

The patrons weren't co-stars not because they weren't powerful enough --they had bigger fish to fry than hang around with a couple of "petty" thieves unless the thieves were being offered a task.

Equally important is the fact that they were literary characters, just like Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser themselves (who, it should be noted, used magic when it suited them, Mouser having been a Sorceror's apprentice, iirc). They were not balanced on a character sheet, nor were they intended to be (though Lieber was highly influential ON the game itself).

TGlen Cook's fantasy private investgator series relies on arms mostly, but dips into magic. His older Dread Kingdom series has both magical and arms protagonsts though again, magic can perform feats beyond mortal capacity.

Cook's "Black Company" series has very powerful mages...who can still be brought down by force of arms under the right conditions. Although in that series, powerful mages tend to trump each other, cancelling each other out. They also tend to be barking mad, something I asked Cook about when I met him. He said that he hadn't really thought about it, but on reflection that this was the case for most wizards/mages he wrote about. Magic takes a heavy price...and you can STILL get a spear in the gut.