Design philosophies that make you rage?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:35 pm

The reason that magic is generally more powerful than swinging a sword is multifold.

1. Preconceptions: It's a ball of fire. How can it not be better than stabbing? You're shooting rockets, and the fighter is swinging a sword. Someone with Down Syndrome can swing a sword.

2. Time invested: You have to spend a long time learning magic. You can pick up a sword and swing it right away. If magic sucked, why would anyone bother learning it when they could use a sword more effectively?

3. There was another one here, but now I can't remember it.

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:40 pm

Your first reason is seriously your (unfounded and stupid) opinion. It's literally like me saying "blue is better than red. It just is; how could it not be?"

Your second reason is not true. Really. It's not even true in D&D. Sorcerers get their magic for free. Sylphs are born knowing how to cast spells as well as an experienced Sorcerer. Clerics get magic just from praying.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:44 pm

1. Preconceptions: It's a ball of fire. How can it not be better than stabbing? You're shooting rockets, and the fighter is swinging a sword. Someone with Down Syndrome can swing a sword.

Someone could also throw a molotov cocktails at someone, too. Learning and throwing exploding wine bottles is in fact easier than learning to swing a sword competently.

2. Time invested: You have to spend a long time learning magic. You can pick up a sword and swing it right away. If magic sucked, why would anyone bother learning it when they could use a sword more effectively?

It depends on the setting. Eragon learned how to use magic more easily than he learned to use a sword. In the Narutoverse, it's quite a bit harder to train taijutsu (physical combat) than it is to train ninjutsu (magical spells). Zatanna did not train anywhere near as hard for her magic as Lady Shiva did for her hand-to-hand combat. And how long did it take Harry before he was able to start competentively casting spells in combat? This guy trained subjects that had nothing to do with combat casting and spend most of his time at Hogwarts at a relatively relaxing pace. You do not see Harry Potter regularly doing intense training montages to improve his spellcasting.

Conan spent years pushing around a damn wheel and Kenshiro spend 14 hours of his day starting from age 4 to his early twenties doing nothing but practicing martial arts. The idea of magic being harder to use than swordsmanship is not only against genre, but it's also insulting. As Cielingcat pointed out, most people don't even have to work hard for their magic. The idea of some peasant going sneaking into the library and spending the next ten years of her life studying how to cast a fireball makes wizards an aberration in how people use magic, not the standard.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:51 pm

Cielingcat wrote:Your first reason is seriously your (unfounded and stupid) opinion. It's literally like me saying "blue is better than red. It just is; how could it not be?"

A flamethrower beats a sword. End of story. You are wrong if you think otherwise.

Your second reason is not true. Really. It's not even true in D&D. Sorcerers get their magic for free. Sylphs are born knowing how to cast spells as well as an experienced Sorcerer. Clerics get magic just from praying.

Which is, of course, ignoring that clerics have to devote themselves wholly to a deity to get their powers (and thus a little different than "I JUST HAS IT"), and ignoring that sorcerers are supposed to be rare and special. (As in, the fluff doesn't support "choosing" to be a sorcerer. Because sorcerer fluff is stupid.)

bourdain89 · Post by **bourdain89** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:53 pm

cutting someones head off will kill them quicker than burning to death. you are wrong if you think otherwise

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:58 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Someone could also throw a molotov cocktails at someone, too. Learning and throwing exploding wine bottles is in fact easier than learning to swing a sword competently.

That's ignoring the resources expended when dealing with molotovs. A sword is permanent and there. You have to buy stuff to make molotovs, then make them (not hard, but it still consumes time), then cart them around, and then throw them, all while having the risk of them exploding on you.

It depends on the setting. Eragon learned how to use magic more easily than he learned to use a sword. In the Narutoverse, it's quite a bit harder to train taijutsu (physical combat) than it is to train ninjutsu (magical spells). Zatanna did not train anywhere near as hard for her magic as Lady Shiva did for her hand-to-hand combat. And how long did it take Harry before he was able to start competentively casting spells in combat? This guy trained subjects that had nothing to do with combat casting and spend most of his time at Hogwarts at a relatively relaxing pace. You do not see Harry Potter regularly doing intense training montages to improve his spellcasting.

1. How many of those instances are where the main character is speshul and doesn't have to spend time training?

2. The question is: do characters have to spend more time training taijutsu, or do they have to spend more time training taijutsu to keep up with ninjutsu? (I don't know; I've always hated naruto.)

3. The students in HP spent months practicing their magic to defend themselves. Harry might not have, but I know for certain that's a case of "he's magically competent just because."

Conan spent years pushing around a damn wheel and Kenshiro spend 14 hours of his day starting from age 4 to his early twenties doing nothing but practicing martial arts. The idea of magic being harder to use than swordsmanship is not only against genre, but it's also insulting. As Cielingcat pointed out, most people don't even have to work hard for their magic. The idea of some peasant going sneaking into the library and spending the next ten years of her life studying how to cast a fireball makes wizards an aberration in how people use magic, not the standard.

In the D&Dverse, where wizards are automatically older than fighters? No, it's not against genre. In another setting, maybe, but it's not like Moiraine learned to channel in a day.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:01 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:A flamethrower beats a sword. End of story. You are wrong if you think otherwise.

Oh Lord.

Here's a question for you. Why should a flamethrower be superior to a sword... IN A SETTING WITH MADE UP PHYSICS?!

Jesus fucknuts.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:01 pm

bourdain89 wrote:cutting someones head off will kill them quicker than burning to death. you are wrong if you think otherwise

This is very importantly true. Flame throwers take kind of a long time to kill people. Dudes run around screaming with no skin on for a damn long time. Chop a dude's head off and his boy collapses right there.

-Username17

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:01 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:Which is, of course, ignoring that clerics have to devote themselves wholly to a deity to get their powers (and thus a little different than "I JUST HAS IT"), and ignoring that sorcerers are supposed to be rare and special. (As in, the fluff doesn't support "choosing" to be a sorcerer. Because sorcerer fluff is stupid.)

What's your point? You were wrong. You can justify it with "but these people are speshul!" but you were still lying; magic does not necessarily require a huge time investment compared to martial arts, not even in D&D.

Are you going to go and justify magic being stronger than martial arts by citing starting ages or something?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:04 pm

Because some of us like our settings with a shred of verisimilitude. I'm okay with fighters being "above average" humans, but I don't like them doing magic (in name or otherwise) unless they're casting spells.

(Yes, I like a lower-power setting than most of the folks here on the Den. I like lower-magic settings, too.)

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:05 pm

Ok, that's fine. You like settings where warriors are gimped. But you came in here all high and mighty and said that warriors must be gimped in all settings, all the time, and this was an irrefutable truth.

You can even have a balanced game where magic is better than melee. You just can't have people playing as melee in that setting unless they also have magic.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:05 pm

Cielingcat wrote:What's your point? You were wrong. You can justify it with "but these people are speshul!" but you were still lying; magic does not necessarily require a huge time investment compared to martial arts, not even in D&D.

Okay, I should have said wizards spend a lot of time learning magic.

Are you going to go and justify magic being stronger than martial arts by citing starting ages or something?

When that starting age represents the time spent training, yes.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:07 pm

Cielingcat wrote:Ok, that's fine. You like settings where warriors are gimped. But you came in here all high and mighty and said that warriors must be gimped in all settings, all the time, and this was an irrefutable truth.

You can even have a balanced game where magic is better than melee. You just can't have people playing as melee in that setting unless they also have magic.

Yes, because making fighters be somewhat less powerful than wizards = making fighters run with one leg.

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:09 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:
Cielingcat wrote:Ok, that's fine. You like settings where warriors are gimped. But you came in here all high and mighty and said that warriors must be gimped in all settings, all the time, and this was an irrefutable truth.

You can even have a balanced game where magic is better than melee. You just can't have people playing as melee in that setting unless they also have magic.
Yes, because making fighters be somewhat less powerful than wizards = making fighters run with one leg.

What the fuck is your point? If two choices are not mechanically balanced, and you want to present a balanced game, you can't have both of them as choices.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:12 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:Yes, because making fighters be somewhat less powerful than wizards = making fighters run with one leg.

What, and you're going to give players the option of playing both?

Do you want fights to happen at the game table? Do you want people to resent other party members? This is what fucking happens when you intentionally introduce options you know ahead of time are not equal. Where the fuck have you been for the entirety of 3rd Edition?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:20 pm

Jesus Christ, it's like I'm having a conversation with a seventh-grader. Do I have to write "FALSE DICHOTOMY" in bold print to get you to shut up and listen for two seconds?

Mechanics that are not 100% equal != the caster-fighter disparity in 3e. If a fireball does an extra 2d6 of damage than the fighter, then the fireball is better, all other things being equal. That means that a fireball is more powerful than a fighter swinging his sword. This does not mean that the game is going to fucking break in half and the fighters are going to protest until I nerf fireballs.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:21 pm

In the D&Dverse, where wizards are automatically older than fighters? No, it's not against genre. In another setting, maybe, but it's not like Moiraine learned to channel in a day.

Wizards being older than fighters are there solely to support D&D's masturbatory nerd fantasies of 'crycrycrywhine being better than the jocks once I get my college degree fapfapfapSPLURRRT'. It has nothing to do with how long their training it.

In non-The Jocks Made Me Feel Bad!!!! settings like Harry Potter and Shadowrun, people get good enough with their magic to go on adventures with it about the same time they're going through or almost done with puberty. That's something completely different than 'magic is harder to learn than swords!'

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:25 pm

Don't bother, because you don't know what a fucking false dichotomy is in the first place.

You only gave two alternatives. Take a lot at what you put:

Mechanics that are not 100% equal != the caster-fighter disparity in 3e. If a fireball does an extra 2d6 of damage than the fighter, then the fireball is better, all other things being equal. That means that a fireball is more powerful than a fighter swinging his sword. This does not mean that the game is going to fucking break in half and the fighters are going to protest until I nerf fireballs.

You gave people the choice of 'attack that does more damage' and 'attack that does less damage'. If what people wanted to do is 'damage the enemy the hardest' then they're always going to pick the attack that does more damage.

So why, exactly, would someone in your system pick the sword? Why wouldn't everyone be wizards?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:27 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:Because some of us like our settings with a shred of verisimilitude. I'm okay with fighters being "above average" humans, but I don't like them doing magic (in name or otherwise) unless they're casting spells.

(Yes, I like a lower-power setting than most of the folks here on the Den. I like lower-magic settings, too.)

What the fucking hell is this supposed to mean?

Seriously. Take a step back and ruminate on how completely retarded that statement is. Let's break it down into pieces:

Psychic Robot Thinks that Fire > Weapon. Well, leaving aside the fact that as many people have noted it isn't (to the point that most military weapons stab people with iron rather than setting them on fire), that's still irrelevant in the absence of knowing other parameters. A fire that is ten times better than swinging a sword and takes twenty times longer to call into being has its uses, but in most battlefield situations is pretty much worthless.

Pyschic Robot thinks that "Fighters" shouldn't use "Magic" unless they are "Casting Spells" Wat.
I'm at my wits end here, because that's so circular that it is literally drinking its own jizm out of its own asshole. First of all, "Fighter," "Magic," and "Spells" are all undefined. And secondly, if you were going to define those terms you'd probably define them as something like:
- Magic: One of the power sources in the game.
- Spell: a distinct use of Magic
- Fighter: a character who doesn't use Magic with his abilities.
Psychic Robot thinks his personal preferences for a game have any bearing on abstract game design principals. Wrong.

In conclusion, that's stupid, and you should feel stupid. The world actually got dumber when you made that argument.

It is entirely possible to kill someone faster with a knife than with an open flame. The ability to generate an open flame by any means therefore very definitely does not inherently make obsolete any skill or facility you happen to have with stabbing people in the face. Defining a character as not being a guy who generates an open flame therefore doesn't obviate them as a balanced character. A character doing something that is as good as generating an open flame does not require them to make use of any specific special power sources your setting has access to. And saying that someone shouldn't be using your setting's special power sources without using the special power sources doesn't need saying. So much so that if you say it anyway you make the world a stupider place.

-Username17

bourdain89 · Post by **bourdain89** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:34 pm

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:49 pm

Yeah PR is being crazy here. This is probably the least intelligent argument I've seen him make.

A "fireball" is pretty much entirely arbitrary. We don't really even know how hot it is. And that's a really big variable. A quick explosion of moderate heat may leave you with lots of bad burns, but it's probably not going to kill you. In fact, a sword will almost certainly be more deadly.

How dangerous a fireball is completely arbitrary. It's magical fire, and who the fuck knows how hot it is. In fact, rogues can be caught in the dead center of and escape unscathed without leaving that area, so that tells me that it can't be some kind of impossible to escape inferno of death.

violence in the media · Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:52 pm

Something I always wonder about is why does magical fire have to be any better than normal fire? Can't it all just be fire? At least as far as damage is concerned?

Maybe instead of doing extra damage for being "magic" the fire gets to do other things? Like burn underwater, or in a vacuum, or move via your commands?

bourdain89 · Post by **bourdain89** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:01 pm

i guess being able to summon a fireball into your hands and hurtle it at someone fifty feet away isnt enough for some people. its gotta be better than normal fire too

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:09 pm

Basically, Psychic Robot is being an idiot and will soon be defending himself with "lulz guys im only trollin' u!"

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:46 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:So why, exactly, would someone in your system pick the sword? Why wouldn't everyone be wizards?

Because not everyone's character concept is do the most fucking damage.

FrankTrollman wrote:What the fucking hell is this supposed to mean?

Seriously. Take a step back and ruminate on how completely retarded that statement is. Let's break it down into pieces:
Psychic Robot Thinks that Fire > Weapon. Well, leaving aside the fact that as many people have noted it isn't (to the point that most military weapons stab people with iron rather than setting them on fire), that's still irrelevant in the absence of knowing other parameters. A fire that is ten times better than swinging a sword and takes twenty times longer to call into being has its uses, but in most battlefield situations is pretty much worthless.

Huge fucking fail. That's pretty much intellectual dishonesty. Quick, Frank, how many people in the Middle Ages had M-16s? Oh, wait, so you're telling me that fire would be better in a world where you don't have tanks or bombs? Holy shit.

Pyschic Robot thinks that "Fighters" shouldn't use "Magic" unless they are "Casting Spells" Wat.
I'm at my wits end here, because that's so circular that it is literally drinking its own jizm out of its own asshole. First of all, "Fighter," "Magic," and "Spells" are all undefined. And secondly, if you were going to define those terms you'd probably define them as something like:

Note that I said magic in name or otherwise, which means fighters throwing fireballs with their swords. Are you trying to lie, here, or is it just happening?

Psychic Robot thinks his personal preferences for a game have any bearing on abstract game design principals. Wrong. [/list]

In conclusion, that's stupid, and you should feel stupid. The world actually got dumber when you made that argument.

If you want to rape verisimilitude so that fire sucks nuts in comparison to swinging a club, go right ahead. I'm sorry that flamethrowers in the Middle Ages automatically win, but that's just how it fucking is. And if you really want to get into a fucking shitfest, the wizard won't fireball anything. He'll fly around (assuming the non-4e fly rape). Game over for balance. He can fly. That means automatically escaping in many cases, automatically scaling the castle walls, automatically overcoming melees. HOLY SHIT BETTER NERF IT DOWN.

Or we won't, because making wizards not fly is stupid.

It is entirely possible to kill someone faster with a knife than with an open flame. The ability to generate an open flame by any means therefore very definitely does not inherently make obsolete any skill or facility you happen to have with stabbing people in the face. Defining a character as not being a guy who generates an open flame therefore doesn't obviate them as a balanced character. A character doing something that is as good as generating an open flame does not require them to make use of any specific special power sources your setting has access to. And saying that someone shouldn't be using your setting's special power sources without using the special power sources doesn't need saying. So much so that if you say it anyway you make the world a stupider place.

-Username17

A flamethrower beats a knife in most cases. If the knifer sneaks up on the flamer, the knifer wins. If the knifer can close the distance between the flamer and himself without getting torched. If the knifer can negate the fire damage, the knifer wins. In most every other case, the flamer wins, because fire fucking burns.