D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[Gammadoodler]

I agree. Give them supernatural abilities. I just see no good reason to pretend that's not what they are.

I mean..pretending is kinda the exact activity folks are signing up for in this hobby.

Like is there a good reason to pretend that they are swinging pretend swords at pretend mythical beasts?

So for me it's a matter of..
Do I expect players to recognize fantasy stuff without being told? (Which I do)

And..

Do I think players need to be coached out of applying a critical eye toward fantasy stuff existing in the fantasy settings of their fantasy roleplaying game? (Which I don't)

 

[CreamCloud0]

Supernatural in comparison to our universe is IMO the relevant perspective.

IMO it's the least relevant perspective, we engage with the work on it's own terms, if the work tells us something isn't supernatural then we must consider it not supernatural.

 

[ezo]

But as long as the characters are not brought into the real world like in the Last Action Hero, the distinction doesn't actually matter, so why worry about it?

Sure it does since we aren't talking only about human characters. Joe Farmer in the fantasy world is not supernatural. He's just human, like I am here. Joe has no supernatural abilities--he is not a PC or DMPC/NPC or a creature with a stat block (other than commoner) which can do supernatural things.

Of course, the DM can make Joe a supernatural being, but then Joe becomes an exception to the general rule: humans are not supernatural.

But frankly, it is nothing I am "worried about" anyway. The discusssion is about some people believing humans are supernatural because of the things their characters can do in the game. My point is it isn't because humans are supernatural, it is because (in those examples) they are characters with classes and levels, feats, etc. which allow them to do supernatural things, sometimes to the point of basically becoming supernatural in ways.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean..pretending is kinda the exact activity folks are signing up for in this hobby.

Like is there a good reason to pretend that they are swinging pretend swords at pretend mythical beasts?

So for me it's a matter of..
Do I expect players to recognize fantasy stuff without being told? (Which I do)

And..

Do I think players need to be coached out of applying a critical eye toward fantasy stuff existing in the fantasy settings of their fantasy roleplaying game? (Which I don't)

Not the same kind of pretending to me, at all. There's a difference between pretending you're a warrior swinging a sword at an ogre and pretending you're a warrior swinging a sword at an ogre from 30 feet away and still hitting them without the sword leaving your hand and without any supernatural aid, because to me that flies in the face of any kind of logic. That is not fun for me, because it is tethered to nothing that makes sense from either a real world or an in-universe perspective. I don't want the answer to any question in my game to simply be "because it's fantasy, so anything goes, whatever".

 

[Micah Sweet]

IMO it's the least relevant perspective, we engage with the work on it's own terms, if the work tells us something isn't supernatural then we must consider it not supernatural.

But the work doesn't tell us that. It doesn't tell us anything.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Not the same kind of pretending to me, at all. There's a difference between pretending you're a warrior swinging a sword at an ogre and pretending you're a warrior swinging a sword at an ogre from 30 feet away and still hitting them without the sword leaving your hand and without any supernatural aid, because to me that flies in the face of any kind of logic. That is not fun for me, because it is tethered to nothing that makes sense from either a real world or an in-universe perspective. I don't want the answer to any question in my game to simply be "because it's fantasy, so anything goes, whatever".

These are at best a difference in degree..not a difference in type.

You signed up to pretend to be a fantasy character who fights pretend fantasy monsters in a pretend fantasy world..

..but you find using pretend fantasy abilities to be galling.

It's completely arbitrary.

 

[Micah Sweet]

These are at best a difference in degree..not a difference in type.

You signed up to pretend to be a fantasy character who fights pretend fantasy monsters in a pretend fantasy world..

..but you find using pretend fantasy abilities to be galling.

It's completely arbitrary.

I simply disagree. I have no problem with pretend fantasy abilities existing, so long as there is a reason in-universe why my pretend character has them. A reason more coherent than "it would be cool if they did". The vast majority of fantasy literature does this. Why shouldn't D&D?

 

[Gammadoodler]

I simply disagree. I have no problem with pretend fantasy abilities existing, so long as there is a reason in-universe why my pretend character has them. A reason more coherent than "it would be cool if they did". The vast majority of fantasy literature does this. Why shouldn't D&D?

But, we've gone through this quite a bit, and near as I can tell, all you need is for someone to tell you the ability is beyond earth human.

And my thing is I think you should already know that stuff.

If we compare:
"You gain the ability to fly"
To..
"You gain the supernatural ability to fly"

From a real-world perspective (the one you insist upon using), they should be directly equivalent. No human you know or have ever known has been capable of independent flight. That this ability is supernatural from a real world perspective should be obvious to you and it should be obvious for most people.

It should be obvious in the same way that dragons and ogres and beholders and mages are obviously supernatural from a real world perspective. Yet I haven't seen you insist upon the game coding dragons and ogres and beholders as supernatural.

In addition, I think we differ in opinion on how much fantasy stuff actually gets explained in fantasy literature.

You've pointed to Game of Thrones a few times during these various discussions. How much of the fantasy BS that happens in that series actually gets explained in the books? The red god's deal, the white walkers, the faceless men, wargs, wildlings? It's been a while since I read them, but I don't recall an explanation for any of it.

In point of fact, I'd go far as to say that I think GRRM has made them deliberately mysterious, because I think he is of the opinion that their presence in the setting is more interesting and important than their origins.

I don't think that is uncommon in fantasy literature, and I'd wager that most of the fantasy stuff that exists started with "it'd be cool if.." and then got explained or not depending on how fun or interesting the explanation was.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But, we've gone through this quite a bit, and near as I can tell, all you need is for someone to tell you the ability is beyond earth human.

And my thing is I think you should already know that stuff.

If we compare:
"You gain the ability to fly"
To..
"You gain the supernatural ability to fly"

From a real-world perspective (the one you insist upon using), they should be directly equivalent. No human you know or have ever known has been capable of independent flight. That this ability is supernatural from a real world perspective should be obvious to you and it should be obvious for most people.

It should be obvious in the same way that dragons and ogres and beholders and mages are obviously supernatural from a real world perspective. Yet I haven't seen you insist upon the game coding dragons and ogres and beholders as supernatural.

In addition, I think we differ in opinion on how much fantasy stuff actually gets explained in fantasy literature.

You've pointed to Game of Thrones a few times during these various discussions. How much of the fantasy BS that happens in that series actually gets explained in the books? The red god's deal, the white walkers, the faceless men, wargs, wildlings? It's been a while since I read them, but I don't recall an explanation for any of it.

In point of fact, I'd go far as to say that I think GRRM has made them deliberately mysterious, because I think he is of the opinion that their presence in the setting is more interesting and important than their origins.

I don't think that is uncommon in fantasy literature, and I'd wager that most of the fantasy stuff that exists started with "it'd be cool if.." and then got explained or not depending on how fun or interesting the explanation was.

My issue is with people insisting that obviously supernatural effects aren't supernatural, but just stuff humans can do (but admittedly we've been at this a long time and not every post is perfect or even on-point). In GoT all the examples you gave are crazy supernatural by everyone's standards, in-universe or out, because that story operates on the very common fantasy and science fiction assumption that humans can't do those things without it being very unusual or special in some way, that in fact the world acts like our world unless shown otherwise. Several posters here seem to actively hate that assumption and want it to die.

 

[Gammadoodler]

My issue is with people insisting that obviously supernatural effects aren't supernatural, but just stuff humans can do (but admittedly we've been at this a long time and not every post is perfect or even on-point). In GoT all the examples you gave are crazy supernatural by everyone's standards, in-universe or out, because that story operates on the very common fantasy and science fiction assumption that humans can't do those things without it being very unusual or special in some way, that in fact the world acts like our world unless shown otherwise. Several posters here seem to actively hate that assumption and want it to die.

I think it's the difference in perspective.

The real world perspective you insist on using does not hold any value for us. As demonstrated, coding things using that perspective would only tell us things we already know (and that we think basically everyone should already know).

And..

Simultaneously, where such coding could impact setting functionality from the setting perspective (which we care about), it is intrusive.