The Gaming Den

Missed Sig's "Badass Normal" comment.

Wimps =/= Badass.

The Tome Fighter that can solo CR 14 mobs at lvl 11 in a party made up of a Druid, Cleric and Wizard is the "Badass Normal."

They doesn't have anything fancy like turn into a monster or call on Divine power or create fire with their mind, but they've got either tons of training, knowledge, perception and specialized tools to get the job done. Things that are 'possible', but give you an edge enough to keep competing.

Also, Captain America is the equivalent of a Rifts Juicer that can't die of old age (unlike a Juicer who has their life capped at 10 years after they undergo Juicer augmentation). Remember, his body is coursing with epic level combat drugs that neither damage him, nor ever wear out.

Harlune wrote:

sigma999 wrote:TVtropes calls the phenomenon "Badass Normal".
They make the heros look good.

Focus on the wimps is probably overcompensation for Mary Sue(s) in the story.

No, 'Badass Normal' is for the Batman in Justice League, Robin in Teen Titans, Captain America in the Avengers type characters. The human guy that , often despite all logic, kicks just as much ass as the superpowered guys.

This trope is more 'What kind of power is heart anyway?' Which is kind of funny in itself since Heart was actually insanely powerful. In rpg terms, that guy would have been a premade diplomancer character given to the new guy who'd never played before and had no idea what the character could do beside have shitty combat stats.

I found "Badass Normal," but I couldn't find "What kind of power is heart?"

Anyway, I think the trope sigma is talking about probably needs its own name, like "Doctor Watson." I say this because Holmes and Watson have that kind of relationship, except it's about brains instead of combat ability. Supposedly, alumni of the medical college Watson graduated from have an estimated average I.Q. in the 130s, so Watson's a pretty smart guy. The fact that Holmes makes him look like a fool shows you how brilliant Holmes is.

Absentminded_Wizard wrote:I found "Badass Normal," but I couldn't find "What kind of power is heart?"

What Kind Of Lame Power Is Heart Anyway?

Harlune wrote:This trope is more 'What kind of power is heart anyway?' Which is kind of funny in itself since Heart was actually insanely powerful. In rpg terms, that guy would have been a premade diplomancer character given to the new guy who'd never played before and had no idea what the character could do beside have shitty combat stats.

This kind of power.

Talisman > thread.

/discussion

Absentminded_Wizard wrote: Anyway, I think the trope sigma is talking about probably needs its own name, like "Doctor Watson." I say this because Holmes and Watson have that kind of relationship, except it's about brains instead of combat ability. Supposedly, alumni of the medical college Watson graduated from have an estimated average I.Q. in the 130s, so Watson's a pretty smart guy. The fact that Holmes makes him look like a fool shows you how brilliant Holmes is.

Perhaps a correction is in order.
By Badass Normal, I may have been instead thinking of "Potentially Badass Normal".

You know, a character without anything special going on that MIGHT save the day thanks to... well.. heart, or... not.
Either way, they are Normal and on a regular basis can't keep up with the same level of heroics as 'better' heroes.
They wouldn't be without their graces, though.

I liked the other way that DBZ made characters look crazy-powerful, bringing back a bad guy just so that they die really easy (Freiza comes back from the dead and is dispatched with a few punches). It is easy for this example to carry over to DnD: the 4-5 hit-soaking zombie from level 1 are binary at level 5.

Anyway, I think the trope sigma is talking about probably needs its own name, like "Doctor Watson." I say this because Holmes and Watson have that kind of relationship, except it's about brains instead of combat ability. Supposedly, alumni of the medical college Watson graduated from have an estimated average I.Q. in the 130s, so Watson's a pretty smart guy. The fact that Holmes makes him look like a fool shows you how brilliant Holmes is.

Said trope already has a name, it's called The Krillin.

TV tropes hugely underestimates what a bitch the character has become. It's outright pathetic by the Saiyans arc and gets worse from there. But that's beyond the point.

Anyway, quick digression, this is one of the reasons why Naruto is now a pantload and One Piece kicks its ass and makes Kishimoto suck Oda's dick. While Usopp and Nami are permanently behind the rest of the team in the ass-kicking hierarchy, they never become useless. They have some legitimate feats of ass-kicking that weren't (completely) contrived by the plot to them.

Also, Nami is cute and I used her to defeat all challengers that one time I played the One Piece fighting game (that was my only experience with One Piece).

Nami, however, could out-think any of the guys on the ship. She was the Navigator. Only the hands lady could ever best her and that was mostly because she had a higher history roll than Nami did.

Also, I preferred Nu Pogodi.

I think it's more a matter that not all characters need to be good at the combat minigame. That's why I call it the combat minigame...

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:I think it's more a matter that not all characters need to be good at the combat minigame. That's why I call it the combat minigame...

And then you're wrong with regards to the use most others seem to make: a minigame's a section of the game large enough (that's why it's called a game in itself, however "mini-") that everyone must be good at it.

Maybe the game is built wrong, then.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:Maybe the game is built wrong, then.

Thanks for the usual clarity.

Look, if you have an archer, and you end up fighting closet trolls, he's gonna be no good. If you have the hulking warrior and you end up fighting swarms, he's gonna suck.

So you're gonna have your suck characters if the story (no matter the game) doesn't turn about and hit the interactions they're good at. Which is the point: People only have to be good enough at stuff to feel good.

In 3e, Fighter was a one-minigame guy. A minigame he eventually didn't even win, but that's another thing entirely. I don't think the game should encourage 'only healing' or 'only fighting' or 'only talking' - but if there's more than one minigame, there shouldn't be a requirement that you're good in all of them, all the time.

That clear enough for you?

-Crissa

I'd disagree for a level based system. The benefit of levels is that its easier to make everyone be similarly powered in combat, if you're not going for that then I'd suggest not using levels at all.

For something more like Shadowrun/White Wolf there should really be a minimum competency at each minigame. That would let some characters be the talking guy or the combat guy but wouldn't let people make characters who may as well sit out some of the minigames.

Crissa wrote:Look, if you have an archer, and you end up fighting closet trolls, he's gonna be no good. If you have the hulking warrior and you end up fighting swarms, he's gonna suck.

Gotta tell. Have you heard of the Same Game Challenge?

Crissa wrote:In 3e, Fighter was a one-minigame guy. A minigame he eventually didn't even win, but that's another thing entirely. I don't think the game should encourage 'only healing' or 'only fighting' or 'only talking' - but if there's more than one minigame, there shouldn't be a requirement that you're good in all of them, all the time.

See Draco.

Crissa wrote:That clear enough for you?

More like me and everyone who still attempts to communicate with you, which might be idiocy in itself.

Draco_Argentum wrote: For something more like Shadowrun/White Wolf there should really be a minimum competency at each minigame. That would let some characters be the talking guy or the combat guy but wouldn't let people make characters who may as well sit out some of the minigames.

But doesn't Shadowrun have minigames that are only accessible to certain special characters (e.g., the Matrix)?

Bigode, you're an ass. I'm not even going to answer your idiotic comments.

Draco: As soon as you have someone who works better in a scene than someone else, that someone else might as well sit out. So it doesn't matter if there's a minimum competence (which I'd encourage) or not.

Level based combat is also irrelevent to the topic of 'why are some characters stronger/weaker' or 'why do stories have wimps'. Some games have it, some games do not.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:As soon as you have someone who works better in a scene than someone else, that someone else might as well sit out.

There's lots of ways of combining results from several people all working towards the same goal. Some of those ways make it worthless (e.g. "best effort") or even detrimental (e.g. "weakest link") to try to help if you're not as good as the person who's already working. Others (e.g. "sum of efforts") make it quite helpful.

Unfortunately, I hear bad relations with Crissa are cool nowadays - damn, I'm getting into fashion!

Crissa wrote: Level based combat is also irrelevent to the topic of 'why are some characters stronger/weaker' or 'why do stories have wimps'. Some games have it, some games do not.

Only when level based combat is done wrong.

Ideally in a level based system, two characters of the same level should be equal on average in combat. Sure, depending on terrain one may be better than another in certain situations. Clerics may do really well against undead for instance, but that's supposed to balance out over time, so there is no "team wimp."

Absentminded_Wizard wrote:But doesn't Shadowrun have minigames that are only accessible to certain special characters (e.g., the Matrix)?

Which is why I said like Shadowrun/White Wolf. Neither has competency minimums and Shadowrun had minigames you can't play without the right abilities. I meant them as examples of level-less systems where the characters are expected to specialise in different minigames.

Bigode wrote:Unfortunately, I hear bad relations with Crissa are cool nowadays - damn, I'm getting into fashion!

I had bad relations with Crissa before having bad relations with Crissa was cool.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Only when level based combat is done wrong.

Either your next paragraph is level based combat's answer - which is no answer at all - or level based combat really has nothing to do with why fiction has characters who are clearly better or worse in various situations.

Not everything is level based. Not everything is D&D.

Sometimes one character really is better than another. It makes a bad game, but a great story.

-Crissa

[The Associate Fence Builder Speaks]

Let's make sure we stay on topic and not slam one another pointlessly.

[/The Associate Fence Builder Speaks]