The second season of The Mandalorian helped me realize that functional versus emotional modeling applies to both Star Wars and tabletop role-playing games.
Jedi do the physically impossible by blocking multiple simultaneous blaster shots. Yet even when they turn around to look elsewhere or say something to someone, they don’t get hit. Functionally, they’re superheroes. Some readers will remember the days of the Comics Code Authority, when virtually no one died in superhero comic books, and of course if a superhero appeared to die, somehow he or she would be back later.
The answer to that question determines the type of game you play. Extraordinary people face tougher struggles and are therefore better modeled by simulationist games. For games where the player characters are truly superhuman, I think narrative and storytelling games do a better job of modeling gameplay.
Your Turn: Which point of view do you prefer as a player? And what do you prefer when you GM?
Functional vs. Emotional Modeling in RPGs
When you want to model a particular character (in Dungeons & Dragons terms in this example) you can use the functional method or the emotional method.- The functional method observes what the character can do and chooses D&D character classes and powers that match. So when I wrote my Moria introductory adventure some 40 years ago I made Aragorn a seventh level Ranger and Gandalf an eighth level cleric with a ring of warmth who could use a magic sword. In the very low magic world of Middle-Earth they stood out very strongly at these levels. But I didn’t feel I could make Gandalf higher than eighth level because the ninth level cleric can raise dead (the coolest move in games), beyond Gandalf’s abilities.
- The emotional method positioned Aragorn and Gandalf as near-mythical stature within Middle-Earth and so they needed to stand out in comparison with other D&D characters and monsters: in the upper teens in levels. Those levels don’t work for the functional method because characters that high can do more than anyone other than the Valar themselves can do in Middle-Earth.
How This Applies to The Mandalorian
In my opinion, Star Wars has never been particularly realistic. But we’ve become accustomed to the fact that stormtroopers can never hit our heroes (even the very normal-human ones like Han Solo) with their (non-automatic!?) weapons—except when the target wears magic armor, er, Beskar steel, which is impervious to blaster bolts and other energy weapons. Beskar gets hit a lot! Nor does the (non-Beskar) stormtrooper armor ever protect the wearer from either energy bolts or physical attacks, at least not by Our Heroes. And so on.Jedi do the physically impossible by blocking multiple simultaneous blaster shots. Yet even when they turn around to look elsewhere or say something to someone, they don’t get hit. Functionally, they’re superheroes. Some readers will remember the days of the Comics Code Authority, when virtually no one died in superhero comic books, and of course if a superhero appeared to die, somehow he or she would be back later.
How This Applies to RPGs
In RPGs we also can consider these two forms in relation to the player characters. Are the player characters extraordinary humans (or whatever species they may be) or are they over-the-top superheroes who can do just about anything without suffering significant harm?The answer to that question determines the type of game you play. Extraordinary people face tougher struggles and are therefore better modeled by simulationist games. For games where the player characters are truly superhuman, I think narrative and storytelling games do a better job of modeling gameplay.
Your Turn: Which point of view do you prefer as a player? And what do you prefer when you GM?
) would be to actually differentiate between the physical and "other" HPs.
