Author Topic: Is a Pure Mortal viable?  (Read 16737 times)

Offline Da_Gut

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Pure Mortal viable?
« Reply #60 on: July 16, 2010, 07:17:52 PM »
Gritty? Dresden?  :D

Over the top action, but not gritty. Not by a long shot.

Offline Chris M

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Pure Mortal viable?
« Reply #61 on: July 17, 2010, 03:37:26 AM »
Yeah, the premise is those Raymond Carver books, but that's not what they are. And they keep getting further and further away from that, and all for the better.

Offline Wordmaker

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 917
  • Paul Anthony Shortt
    • View Profile
    • Paul Anthony Shortt's Blog
Re: Is a Pure Mortal viable?
« Reply #62 on: July 17, 2010, 10:11:52 AM »
Dresden is pretty far from dark and gritty. It has its dark moments, but at the end of the day, it's about good triumphing over evil.

Realism in games is a pet peeve of mine. I'd personally prefer a game that tries to emulate a particular genre of story rather than keep things as close to reality as possible. That's why mortals can stand side by side with wizards and holy knights. Not because it's realistic, but because it's fun to see an underdog struggle to win and come out on top.

Offline Nomad

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Pure Mortal viable?
« Reply #63 on: July 17, 2010, 11:11:20 AM »
I thimk most people misunderstand the "jack of all trades" aspect of pure mortals. A JoaT character will never be able to hold his ground against specilised chars (Like Bard the seventh character in 6 man group in DnD).

The Humans in DV are jack of all trades because they can specialise in anything, not because they can do it all at the same time. Your average supernatural will try to clean a vamp den with fire and shotguns. Your average mortal will call in support that can range from a SWAT team to a platoon to an airstrike. (Side Note: Why do you think Militaries around the world are so insistent on heavy caliber tank guns and precision bombs? The fact that they can kill other tanks is a side benefit.) to act as bug exterminators armed with holy water and shotguns. (Shotguns rule! Disclaimer: Only in close quarters and up to 10 meters)
« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 11:12:56 AM by Nomad »
Waiting eagerly for the day when Arry will enchant a fluorescent tube lamp and use it as a lightsaber.

Quote from: Archangel62
Magically speaking he may be a thug, but tactically speaking...he's the cast of looney tunes after a few bong hits.

Offline ashern

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Pure Mortal viable?
« Reply #64 on: July 17, 2010, 02:44:16 PM »
Personally, I'd say as far as theme goes, Dresden is gritty up through the first three, mystery oriented for the next three, and wizardly action pretty much past that.  Dead Beat with it's change in feel was were I thought the tone changed to what it is now, supernatural spellslinging and stuff.

Offline CableRouter

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Pure Mortal viable?
« Reply #65 on: July 18, 2010, 11:09:56 PM »
(Shotguns rule! Disclaimer: Only in close quarters and up to 10 meters)
Over 15 meters or so, switch to slugs.

Offline Nomad

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Pure Mortal viable?
« Reply #66 on: July 19, 2010, 01:06:23 AM »
I wonder how hard it would be to make a military character. Someone in field testing that can get hold of flechettes and dragonskin and other high tech stuff legally :D
Waiting eagerly for the day when Arry will enchant a fluorescent tube lamp and use it as a lightsaber.

Quote from: Archangel62
Magically speaking he may be a thug, but tactically speaking...he's the cast of looney tunes after a few bong hits.

Offline toturi

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 734
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Pure Mortal viable?
« Reply #67 on: July 19, 2010, 08:04:40 AM »
I wonder how hard it would be to make a military character. Someone in field testing that can get hold of flechettes and dragonskin and other high tech stuff legally :D
You could make the character from the any of the federal law enforcement/security agencies. If you are playing a character from the US, I would suggest a Secret Service agent. Those guys should have access to best equipment in the US, afterall they are the ones protecting the President. (If I remember correctly, there is legislation that allows them to demand tech from any branch of the federal government.)

What I think would be difficult is to make a pure mortal character in a country where privately owned firearms are rare/legal like Japan.
With your laws of magic, wizards would pretty much just be helpless carebears who can only do magic tricks. - BumblingBear

Offline Barrington

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Pure Mortal viable?
« Reply #68 on: July 26, 2010, 05:46:14 AM »
I have something to add to the realism debate. I think when the word "gritty" is used, it is not referring to a dark, cynical point of view. Rather, it is referring to a sense of realism, the feeling that you're actually there in the story. "Gritty" stories are the ones where you're told all about how the hero's feet are sore, intimate areas are chafing, he's dirty and sweaty and aching and tired. In other words, stories where the character has the same problems you would if you stood in a rainy alley for six hours on a stakeout. Stories that aren't gritty would be ones like many of the Silver Age DC comic books, where the dirty details are glossed over in the name of a care-free, fun, purely escapist environment.

But, realizing what people are trying to say when they say gritty, I think we can begin to understand the argument being made here. We are regaled over and over again with how Harry has the some problems as the rest of us. He's often broke. He has trouble managing his schedule. His car never works right, he always has plumbing problems, and he never seems to have enough money or time to fix these issues. In that sense, the series is extremely gritty, and I believe that Butcher applies it to combat rules as well.

Now, understand me here. I'm not saying that my arguments are "Word of Jim." I'm simply sharing the conclusions that I as one individual reader of the Dresden Files series came to, and yours might be different. But as I read the books, I sense that Butcher is very big on following the rules. Rules of physics, rules of how guns work, rules of how cars move and what damage the body REALLY takes when somebody punches you in the head. Murphy is still bound by the real-world consequences of a no-call, no-show at work when she helps Harry out. He also, if you read closely, establishes very firm rules for the wild supernatural stuff. Magic follows strict rules. Supernatural creatures all have things that they can and cannot do. No fae can touch iron, for example, not even the Mothers themselves.

Butcher applies that to guns as well. Harry has never fired more than six shots in a row from his .44 without reloading. Many times throughout the books there are specific mention of how a gun actually works versus how Hollywood and popular culture THINK it works. See the description of how sawed-off shotguns work in . . . White Knight, I believe, or the description of how silenced gunshots are still pretty damn loud in (this one I'm absolutely positive of) Death Masks. Furthermore, we never see, for example, Hendricks using the minigun from Gard's chopper as a man-portable weapon, because it's totally impossible for a creature of human mass to do something like that, regardless of how strong. Butcher has added new rules to his world, because that world contains things that do not exist in ours. But he never flagrantly breaks the already established rules of our world, and he keeps the new rules of his world consistent to each other.

To sum up, the Dresden Files is a very realistic series. Everything in it that is NOT supernatural strictly adheres to real-world limits, and therefore a GM would be very justified in stopping his Pure Mortal player from dual-wielding Desert Eagles.
YOU ARE SO SMALL! IS FUNNY TO ME!

FutureGameDesigner

  • Guest
Re: Is a Pure Mortal viable?
« Reply #69 on: July 26, 2010, 06:00:27 AM »
The problem with realism isn't the balance of powers and skills against one another.  That's about right with a lot of games.  The problem of realism is really about the fact that when it comes to people...some are just better than others, by default.

Some people are good or ok at some things, or awesome at one or two things talent-wise.
Some people are fantastic at everything.
Some people suck at everything.

That's life...survival of the fittest.  The adaptable and exceptionally talented survive, the rest perish.

That's why realism in games is bad.  Incorporating mechanics that properly model physical laws isn't a bad thing at all...difficult, but not a bad thing.  Properly accounting for the chasm of raw capability between any two people is where the breakdown really occurs.  Most people are the "suck at everything" variety...though a sizable percentage are the "ok at some things" type.  A few are awesome at one or two things...and only a tiny tiny few are great at everything (say maybe a few thousand).  So, between the mechanical issues of incorporating a system that offers that range for what amounts in the game to no reason at all; and the rampant fear of inadequacy that permeates modern society in the form of "equality" and the misguided and wholly incorrect notion that anyone can do anything...such a realistic feature is never included in any game.  I don't agree with the second cause at all, but the former reason is eminently practical...because such a model just wouldn't contribute anything worthwhile to an interactive entertainment medium.