The Windstorm Principle

[Bozwevial]

Dude, I don't even know how to parse your post.  What were you trying to argue? 

I don't think anyone has too much of a problem of your elaborate examples of driving Diablo into bankruptcy (for the record, no, the Lord of Terror does not give a fuck about economics).  That's creatively thinking around corners, and really, there isn't a whole lot of heavy lifting that magic is doing there.  For example, substitute "long distance spice trade" for "interplanar" and the same things happen.  The only exception is scry and die and stuff like that.

I think, however, we agree on the main point, which is that the need for truly superhuman (as opposed to the haruchai or Conan, which is perhaps superhuman but not Dragonball Z superhuman) is a product of D&D's mechanics and perhaps the way it conceives of magic and its availability rather than any conceptual issue with magic existing. 

Although, personally, these issues do not come up in any of the games I regularly play in. 

It...got away from me a bit, yeah. But that's essentially it. Magic can exist without completely screwing over those other concepts, but in 3.5 it decidedly does not.

[veekie]

Or you could just take it that Magic =/= Spells, lots of unstructured natural magic out there, without needing to tap into the formalized and direct aspects of it. Heck, you could take the way hp and enormous strength works to be an aspect of that.

[Halinn]

Allow me two examples that may try to illustrate my point.  First, in Diablo II, the fact that the Sorceress has the ability to teleport (something closer to "warp reality" on the spectrum) and the Barbarian can just hit things, doesn't really matter b/c hitting things in large part is why you're there and the Barbarian is really really good at it.

In Diablo II, the only way to take out an enemy is HP damage, with the only variance being in how you deal it. This goes both ways, so you only have to defend against damage as well. The game has been made so that everybody has both adequate ways of dealing damage and both a large enough health pool to survive, as well as defensive measures to make it last longer. In spite of that, one of the best items for any non-sorceress class is an Enigma armor, mainly because it gives one the ability to teleport.
The problem of magic is that you can't add many ways of doing things other than damage/defense without introducing a fighter/caster imbalance.

[caelic]

...which brings us full circle.  D&D 3.5, markets itself as a game of heroic fantasy, and it isn't; it's a game of superheroic fantasy.  Therein lies the problem, because new players are going to come in expecting that a heroic fantasy archetype like Conan or Fafhrd or Holger Carlsen or Aragorn is going to be viable, and they're really not, once you get past a certain point.

If fourth edition did one thing right, it was to explicitly acknowledge the paradigm shifts that occur at certain points in the game.  If they'd just incorporate rules subsystems that allowed you to MAINTAIN a game at a certain power level--like E6--I think the game would be much stronger as a result.

[Unbeliever]

...
The problem of magic is that you can't add many ways of doing things other than damage/defense without introducing a fighter/caster imbalance.

That's exactly what I'm disagreeing with.  Counterexample:  GURPS.  GURPS spellcasting is generally no more powerful than swinging a sword or shooting a gun and no one GURPS wizard can do everything.  The magic does less than it does in D&D, though still quite a lot, and any individual caster is more limited than they are in D&D, barring super high point characters.  Paladium/Rifts would be another one:  magic can do all sorts of things, but its raw power was just so far behind what "mundane" characters could do that it required mages to be sneaky and creative.  They could only rarely engage in a stand up fight, and instead had to exploit various things (though there were a handful of broken spells).  This was true even for "mundane" characters that weren't cyborgs or other non-mundane things.  You're lowly Special Forces character would typically wipe the floor with any mage in a straight-up fight, even if there was a huge disparity in their levels (though level doesn't really mean much in Palladium ...). 

I also don't understand why even the most mundane of fighters would seem to be limited to only doing the equivalent of hp damage.  There are all sorts of things from disarms and trips, to chokeholds and throat punches. 

Even if magic can do lots of things, if the mundane character still has a bailiwick and is still good at that bailiwick -- in this case stabbing people in the face, but sneaking or whatever could be one, too -- then I don't see the obvious point of imbalance.  Mutants and Masterminds does this pretty well.  Due to the way the mechanics work, namely that anyone playing a really flexible character doesn't get a whole set of special mechanics that someone playing a "mundane" character would be barred from. 

Once we abandon the D&D paradigm, and maybe just the 3E paradigm (did AD&D have the same problem?  I can't really recall), this issue seems to me to evaporate. 

If fourth edition did one thing right, it was to explicitly acknowledge the paradigm shifts that occur at certain points in the game.  If they'd just incorporate rules subsystems that allowed you to MAINTAIN a game at a certain power level--like E6--I think the game would be much stronger as a result.

I keep hoping 5E will introduce various options for various types of fantasy games and worlds, all under the heading of action RPG or heroic fantasy or whatever (i.e., more Diablo than Game of Thrones, that's what D&D is made for).  I have no hopes of this actually being the case b/c everything I hear about 5E makes it look like a clusterfuck, but it's what I'd do. 

[hiram09]

Creative role-play comes to mind, - and DM innovation.
The fact is limitations are the artist’s stimulation.
   Being forced to work enclosed
   in arbitrarily imposed
   limitations is supposed
a licence for unique creation.

My message here, for example, - could easy be conveyed
By any dip-shite wanker - who ever role-game played.
   But forced to say it all in verse
   Is more a blessing, less a curse
   it makes me plumb my artist’s purse
and eloquently, point’s been made.

There must be idiot savants - in every race and creed.
Say your Half-Orc sorcerer is one of these indeed.
   He never went outside to play
   He’s getting weaker every day
   But he has charm as sweet as May,
Voila!!  You’ve justified your need!

hiram   

[cvar]

...
The problem of magic is that you can't add many ways of doing things other than damage/defense without introducing a fighter/caster imbalance.

That's exactly what I'm disagreeing with.  Counterexample:  GURPS.  GURPS spellcasting is generally no more powerful than swinging a sword or shooting a gun and no one GURPS wizard can do everything.  The magic does less than it does in D&D, though still quite a lot, and any individual caster is more limited than they are in D&D, barring super high point characters.  Paladium/Rifts would be another one:  magic can do all sorts of things, but its raw power was just so far behind what "mundane" characters could do that it required mages to be sneaky and creative.  They could only rarely engage in a stand up fight, and instead had to exploit various things (though there were a handful of broken spells).  This was true even for "mundane" characters that weren't cyborgs or other non-mundane things.  You're lowly Special Forces character would typically wipe the floor with any mage in a straight-up fight, even if there was a huge disparity in their levels (though level doesn't really mean much in Palladium ...). 

I also don't understand why even the most mundane of fighters would seem to be limited to only doing the equivalent of hp damage.  There are all sorts of things from disarms and trips, to chokeholds and throat punches. 

Even if magic can do lots of things, if the mundane character still has a bailiwick and is still good at that bailiwick -- in this case stabbing people in the face, but sneaking or whatever could be one, too -- then I don't see the obvious point of imbalance.  Mutants and Masterminds does this pretty well.  Due to the way the mechanics work, namely that anyone playing a really flexible character doesn't get a whole set of special mechanics that someone playing a "mundane" character would be barred from. 

Once we abandon the D&D paradigm, and maybe just the 3E paradigm (did AD&D have the same problem?  I can't really recall), this issue seems to me to evaporate.

Not having played GURPS before, bear with me a little.  What they're saying is that once you add in things that AREN'T "hp damage" to magic, you begin to need magic to succeed.  In D2, if the Sorceress had a capstone ability that was "Monster gives you their loot immediately, apologizes and calls their mother." while the Barbarian was left with "SPIN HARDER - THE SPINNING", nobody serious about MFing would use anything but the Sorc.  The Sorc's static field is incredibly powerful for boss running since it takes a flat 1/4 off the monsters HP.  This isn't mandatory for D2 because everybody does billions of damage and the fight will be over soon anyway (slight hyperbole).

The issue only crops up when magic can do things that can't be achieved without magic.  If Barbarians (3.5 now) could rage hard enough that the battlefield rearranged itself or Fighters were unbeatable paragons of combat or Rogues could go anywhere at anytime or just plain old Wizards can't do things that nobody else can, then their wouldn't be an issue.

In Rifts, mages are still ridiculous, it's just that there are other ridiculous things too.  Anything that does M.D. is recockulous in Rifts.  Now, if there was a class(es) that were denied the ability to EVER get M.D. or M.D.C. capabilities, you'd have a 3.5 issue. 

Point buy style games don't have the same issue since they have no classes.  Nobody comes in saying "I want to make a big Robot who defends everybody" and finds themselves directed/drawn to the ROBOT class that is severely incapable of doing anything it's ascribed to do.  They grab a handful of abilities and spend points.  Weaknesses here are caused by not understanding what you're doing (I will spend one point on every ability I want my Robot to have, for all of his career, instead of grabbing a few core ones and then spending experience later to show his modifications/growth). 

(click to show/hide)

Or in my case, coming up with a neat concept, finding there is a power specifically for that concept and then finding out it's incredibly cheesy to the max, especially once you put all your points into it.  Time control is broken.  Time control at will for extended periods of time is campaign ruining.  The entire group of superheroes(almost all of which were long running and had way more points/exp than me) might as well have been BMX Biker Boy to my Angel Summoner.

All of these doors but one have lethal traps behind them, how will you escape now?! hahahaha!
I stop time and open the doors until I find the safe one, then I close the door, tell the party and we leave that way.
CONFOUND YOU TIMESTOP!

Haha!  I've taken hostages to ensure my safety, let me go or they all die!
I stop time, free all the hostages and beat him over the head with a piece of rebar I found.

Oh no Timestop, we need to get to the villians hideout, but he's surely trapped all the entrances!
Truly Giant Robot Man, only your powers can handle this dilemma.  Smash through the wall.  Yes, yes, I'm sure your powers are best suited for this job.  I don't need to stop time and disarm all the traps.

[TSS]

Funny thing. There's an armor called Enigma. It's not that noteworthy... except for allowing any character of any class to Teleport, at their normal casting speed (and Barb cast speed = Sorc cast speed). It's standard equipment for almost every non Amazon character (terrible cast speed) for that reason and that reason alone.

You could not have chosen a worse example if you tried.

In Diablo II, the only way to take out an enemy is HP damage, with the only variance being in how you deal it. This goes both ways, so you only have to defend against damage as well. The game has been made so that everybody has both adequate ways of dealing damage and both a large enough health pool to survive, as well as defensive measures to make it last longer. In spite of that, one of the best items for any non-sorceress class is an Enigma armor, mainly because it gives one the ability to teleport.

I have to wonder if Unbeliever has ever played Diablo 2. The Sorceress is the most common class by far because of the natural ability to Teleport as well as not being particularly item dependent. The Enigma runeword lets other classes do the same thing and is the most commonly used armor for that reason but you also have to buy it first via selling the stuff you find with your Sorceress.

Barbarians are one of the rarest because they're so equipment dependent so as to be almost entirely unplayable without having a stash of good loot waiting for them to meet the stat and level requirements.

Which just goes to show that even in straightforward hack and slash games, he or she that can bypass the usual limitations is the best.

[Halinn]

That's exactly what I'm disagreeing with.  Counterexample:  GURPS.  GURPS spellcasting is generally no more powerful than swinging a sword or shooting a gun and no one GURPS wizard can do everything.  The magic does less than it does in D&D, though still quite a lot, and any individual caster is more limited than they are in D&D, barring super high point characters.

You don't have to go very much up in points before a GURPS wizard becomes better than a GURPS fighter-type. And after that point, you have to play at superhero power levels before non-magic powers are good enough to compete with the versatility of magic.

[SneeR]

Okay, fellows. None of that discussion about how mundanes should be is directly related to the OP's ideas. We already know D&D mundanes can't stack up, and the OP's point has been disproven when he says that a system has failed when unable to support a concept. I am curious about what you have to say, Whisper, in response to our responses.

My opinion is that D&D has failed in many ways once you look under the hood, but it at least attempts to provide boundless versatility. That is not a failure. I have become highly disenchanted by 3.5, but I wouldn't say that the system has failed. After all, a game has not failed as long as it is fun; few would argue that 2E, with the requirements for countless house rules to make anything work, failed outright--many have wildly enjoyable memories of it.

[Whisper]

Okay, fellows. None of that discussion about how mundanes should be is directly related to the OP's ideas. We already know D&D mundanes can't stack up, and the OP's point has been disproven when he says that a system has failed when unable to support a concept.

This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedievere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes!

My opinion is that D&D has failed in many ways once you look under the hood, but it at least attempts to provide boundless versatility. That is not a failure. I have become highly disenchanted by 3.5, but I wouldn't say that the system has failed. After all, a game has not failed as long as it is fun; few would argue that 2E, with the requirements for countless house rules to make anything work, failed outright--many have wildly enjoyable memories of it.

D&D, as a class-based system, provides crap versatility.

But that's not the point.

We all know that some concepts cannot be supported by any system because they are internally inconsistent (armless archer).

We all know that some concepts should not be supported because they break the story (Pun-Pun).

We all know that many, many narratively viable concepts, which are supported by other RPG systems, are not supported by D&D. It fact, we just had pages of discussion where everyone who isn't talking-to-trees-insane agreed upon this point. Somehow, you construe this as proof of the opposite.

Since you completely fail at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

... let me formulate a statement more palatable for tiresome little quibblers.

An RPG system where having a character concept inhibits optimization is failed system.

or better yet:

An RPG system fails to the degree that character concept inhibits character optimization.

Thus, in a well-designed system, concept and mechanical optimization are closer to orthogonal. The desire to explore a certain type of narrative, rather than the desire to optimize, controls at least major character choices.

Narrative consistency and common sense still constrain what is optimal... unless your campaign is very silly indeed, it is right and proper that Bonzo the Master Toothpick Wielder isn't going to fare well against the Hahne-Kedar 3000 Series Military-Grade Security Bot (Antipersonnel Loadout).

But indeed, a truly superior system would flexible enough that you (the GM) could decide to be just that silly. Modular systems like the HERO system approached that goal much more closely than D&D, although still with significant problems, like the way that a baby can throw a football 80 yards.

There is no narrative reason why two-weapon fighting should suck in D&D. There is no narrative reason why everyone in GURPS 3rd edition was running around with a pick instead of a sword or axe. These are mechanical failures.

Mechanics are there to determine story outcomes, not story preconditions.

[weenog]

The principle of charity doesn't protect you from saying stupid stuff, which you're doing.  Stop bringing it up as if it makes the whole world wrong for disagreeing with your foolishness.  You can't make broad blanket statements like you're doing without being wrong, because a single counterexample ruins the whole point.  Some players are jackasses, others are stupid, and all of us have seen plenty of really crazy shit in fantasy which the system can't (and shouldn't) support, despite making as much narrative sense in its context as two-weapon fighting does in any context (it's not a good idea, at best you can get away with using an offhand weapon as an improvised shield of sorts).

Doing the impossible with no more effort nor explanation than failure to realize it's impossible, can't and shouldn't work in D&D.  You can use unknowing reality warper as character flavor, sure, but you're still bound by the same rules as everyone else.  Achievements in Ignorance are non-starters, as they should be.  Power Born of Madness doesn't work either, and before you point out barbarian rage let me remind you that's not taking the limiter off, that's just temporarily using a different limiter, and it's a very small difference.

What about breaking mind control curses with the power of friendship?  No extra Will save allowed, no end of duration in sight, but you just love 'em so hard, they're just so loyal, and your plea so impassioned, that they shrug off the magic and turn on their controller anyway.  It's a fine idea, and a common one, but it's not supported.  Nor should it be, there's no point even having mind control abilities if people can just ignore them whenever the hell they feel like it.

Consider physical attacks taken so far over the top that they act magical in nonsensical but somewhat believable ways.  Striking things that don't tangibly exist or have physical structures to disrupt.  Kazuma Kuwabara sticking his sword out of one dimension and into another to open an escape portal, for example, or Hulk punching a crack into an armor-shaped psionic wall of force.  How well are these supported?  Can they be supported, without kicking the legs out from underneath other concepts?

How about the super likeable, super agreeable character?  They're so adorable and sweet, no one would dare to hurt them.  Mindless and ice-hearted foes seem to exist only to be melted by this individual.  Even if something does threaten them, all they gotta do is hit 'em with the big eyes and the attacker just can't bring themselves to go through with it.  Villains, golems, zombies, bears, trolls, dragons, demons... they're all just friends that don't know it yet.  Of course they can always talk anyone into going along with what they want, and they make it look easy.  Fanfic Mary Sues, cartoon toddlers, cats (especially kittens) for a lot of people, certain religious figures, etc, there are lots of folks that seem to enjoy and want to use this idea.  How well is it supported in the RPG system?  Even if you're willing to stoop to taking active measures like epic Diplomacy abuse instead of having it be a constant passive effect, that fails on anything immune to mind-affecting effects.  Should it work in a RPG system?

[SneeR]

Hey, don't be a jerk, Whisper. Stop bringing up that stupid link. I am not following your words to an illogical conclusion, and I honestly don't care about the Windstorm "Principle." It is not a principle because it is not a fact; only your opinion. You can argue it, but you can also argue just what the alignment system means.

I brought to you an informed rebuttal to what you said regarding your Stormfront Fallacy. Please respond to it without malice or sarcasm. That is what I take true issue at.

[RedWarlock]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like this is evolving into an argument about 'realism'/verisimilitude, vs narrative presence. Simulationism vs narrativism. I side with narrativism, m'self.

What about breaking mind control curses with the power of friendship?  No extra Will save allowed, no end of duration in sight, but you just love 'em so hard, they're just so loyal, and your plea so impassioned, that they shrug off the magic and turn on their controller anyway.  It's a fine idea, and a common one, but it's not supported.  Nor should it be, there's no point even having mind control abilities if people can just ignore them whenever the hell they feel like it.

Actually, that's an awesome one, one that needs mechanical support because it is so intrinsic to the concept. it's not the character ignoring whatever they want, it's a concerted effort by one or more of the character's allies to break the mind-effect, as surely as if they'd cast Break Enchantment. If the game is using narrative points like Action Points, Now's the time to spend one or more, by the controlled player or the allies, to allow a reroll (w/bonus!). And/or, if one of the players performs a sacrificial act, like standing flat-footed before the mind-controlled character's charge, with or without deathblow (depending on level of angst intended), re-awakening the character's mind.

How about the super likeable, super agreeable character?  They're so adorable and sweet, no one would dare to hurt them.  Mindless and ice-hearted foes seem to exist only to be melted by this individual.  Even if something does threaten them, all they gotta do is hit 'em with the big eyes and the attacker just can't bring themselves to go through with it.  Villains, golems, zombies, bears, trolls, dragons, demons... they're all just friends that don't know it yet.  Of course they can always talk anyone into going along with what they want, and they make it look easy.  Fanfic Mary Sues, cartoon toddlers, cats (especially kittens) for a lot of people, certain religious figures, etc, there are lots of folks that seem to enjoy and want to use this idea.  How well is it supported in the RPG system?  Even if you're willing to stoop to taking active measures like epic Diplomacy abuse instead of having it be a constant passive effect, that fails on anything immune to mind-affecting effects.  Should it work in a RPG system?

That's a good one too, tho more comedic. The dramatic counterpart is the incorruptibly-good pacifist martyr, who has practically no place in the frenzy of combat (and could be struck down at random), but if given time and exposure, such as by being a prisoner of the bad guys, wins them over to her side. The Healer seems tailor-made to this kind of role, but lacks the coercive elements (which really should be there! homebrew idea there...), leaving the class to just the practical healing power, which isn't really much of a concept to base a whole class on.

[weenog]

Turn those ideas around and see if you still think they're good ones.  "Sorry, you can't bring yourself to do anything to stop this villain.  Sure she's about to kill thousands of people, but she genuinely believes she's acting for the good, and she's just so damn cute.  There's no way you could physically intervene.  If you try to talk her down, you find yourself agreeing and wanting to side with her.  No saving throw.  Mind blank doesn't apply."

[RedWarlock]

Turn those ideas around and see if you still think they're good ones.  "Sorry, you can't bring yourself to do anything to stop this villain.  Sure she's about to kill thousands of people, but she genuinely believes she's acting for the good, and she's just so damn cute.  There's no way you could physically intervene.  If you try to talk her down, you find yourself agreeing and wanting to side with her.  No saving throw.  Mind blank doesn't apply."

Nah, doesn't fly. The 'about to kill thousands' outweighs the rest, and negates the whole effect. I never said it was a perfect no-save system, just a good idea to work into the game.

[weenog]

Nah, about to kill thousands really doesn't.  Malice would, it would kill the whole innocence thing, but people can easily make mistakes, be zealous true believers in a bad idea, try to help and fail spectacularly, or just be playing and not care about the consequences.  Look at any young child, and some developmentally disabled people.  How well do you think they'd mix with magic and traps sufficiently powerful to serve as weapons of mass destruction, AND a defense like that?

I think what you actually want is players to get the option to break the rules in entertaining ways, but only players.

[RedWarlock]

No, I still don't see a problem with it. Truth of a situation like that is what makes it easy to overcome.  They could have absolute conviction, but if they're wrong then they're still wrong, and the coercive power wouldn't work. (If the players don't know the truth of the matter, then that's a whole other kettle of fish, and more of a plot-trap that is unfair for the DM to play.)

That applies to the players, too, because such a martyr character could try the effect on a rampaging villain, only for it to fail because the unknown motivations of the 'villain' are actually entirely justified.

[SneeR]

RedWarlock, you don't see a problem with the players' inability to strike down the BBEG beause she is so damn kawaii?

Whisper's Stormfront Fallacy actually argues that verisimilitude is bad. He's saying that the rules supporting in-game archetypes is inherently wrong.

I am eager to hear his opinion on my rebuttal which I presented earlier.

[weenog]

RedWarlock, you don't see a problem with the players' inability to strike down the BBEG beause she is so damn kawaii?

As far as I can tell, he thinks it's alignment-based rather than charisma-, demeanor- and appearance-based.  And relies on outcome rather than intent.  Which isn't really the concept I was talking about at all, I'm not sure why he latched onto it.