Jump to content

Raw STR: Marvel


lensman

Recommended Posts

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I thought I got out of this...

 

Originally posted by badger3k

If I made him, I'd agree with a 25 Str - I woulnd't classify him as human, though - again a minor point.

 

For martial arts, he'd probably have some skills, maybe some damage classes. I'd limit them somewhat to prevent their use with the shield, since the shield would get a MP (HA, EB/Stun only for throwing, maybe a KA vs objects only to represent his breaking things ability. Also indirect option, probably reqiring a Dex roll for bouncing).

 

Cap would have combat levels, but no find weakness. I agree with others that he doesn't seem to have that. Having a power that could eliminate half of the hulks defenses isn't in the scale of a low-powered superhuman. To my mind he's never shown anything like Karnak or Karate Kid. I think he might get some extra OCV and maybe damage for some of his surprise attacks, but thats debateable. Going back to the shield, I might agree to a limited AP attack, maybe. I'd have to see how effective he might be.

 

I still don't think he ever did stun to the hulk. The way I see it, anyone hit will react to it. If he got in a few solid blows and the hulk grunted, that can still be a good hit that does no damage. I don't think "Ugh" implies damage. Like I said, if cap routinely ripped apart tanks or armored foes, then maybe. But I haven't seen it in cases other than writer fiat. I don't really buy the wrecking crew one either, by the way, although their power levels have fluctuated immensely throughout time. The current writers of the avengers have got to prove themselves to me, and so far, they're not doing so well, IMO. Look at some martial arts movies - when Professor Toru Tanaka (I believe that's the name) gets hit by Chuck Norris and his head moves, I think that's effect and not stun. His head moves but he takes no damage. I don't see that an attack that does no stun bouncing off like a bullet off superman.

 

I'd probably agree to the 10-12 die range, except that with players starting out at 350 and 14d6 average, he'd have to be moved up that high just to stay current. Of course, if I were running an all-marvel campaign, 10-12 might be considered a high-score. I already said that I don't agree with the push to upgrade characters to match Grond. "Can Thor take Grond" is not a question I have. I'd give the marvel bricks lifting strength like they have been given in the handbook, and give them extra damage dice if they need that. To me this conversion needs a lot of hand-waving and guesses, since there are too many differences between the comics and the game to make a good one-to-one conversion. Just the way I'd do it, and it looks like I'm in the minority on that.

There aren't too many people who respect the OHOTMU Tonnage descriptions. From what I've heard, the writers themselves don't respect those numbers. But your choice to accept OHOTMU tonnage stats explains some of your reluctance concerning Cap's dice. I can't agree with this choice. The mind boggles at the massive numbers of contradictory examples from the comic books to refute the OHOTMU numbers. Frankly, I think they are only useful in determining how Marvel felt there characters ranked in strength versus one another.

 

Based on the comics I've read from every Marvel decade, there's no need to upgrade Thor to take on Grond. Thor has demonstrated far greater strength than Grond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 740
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Kristopher

The records are beaten by razor-thin margins. The weightlifting records I found were all around a decade old. This does not speak favorably towards the notion that there are some unreached levels of human potential. Instead, it indicates that we're near the boundary.

Using the Real World isn't helpful.

 

Originally posted by Kristopher

I find it difficult to believe because in real life, it IS the athletes at the peak levels of human physical performance.

What about those car-lifting grannies we've already talked about?

 

Originally posted by Kristopher

That's not a matter of performance, it's a matter of endurance. I doubt most gymnasts have to put on 8-hour routines.

I bet they don't either but in my experience there is a connection between strength and endurance. When I could bench press almost twice as much as I can now, I could make far more repetitions of the weight that is my max right now. Batman and Cap are the kind of guys who are more acrobatic than gymnasts and stronger than Olympic weightlifters (at least Cap) and they can be acrobatic or lift very heavy objects for far longer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I thought I got out of this...

 

Originally posted by Agent X

There aren't too many people who respect the OHOTMU Tonnage descriptions. From what I've heard, the writers themselves don't respect those numbers. But your choice to accept OHOTMU tonnage stats explains some of your reluctance concerning Cap's dice. I can't agree with this choice. The mind boggles at the massive numbers of contradictory examples from the comic books to refute the OHOTMU numbers. Frankly, I think they are only useful in determining how Marvel felt there characters ranked in strength versus one another.

 

Based on the comics I've read from every Marvel decade, there's no need to upgrade Thor to take on Grond. Thor has demonstrated far greater strength than Grond.

 

To explain further, then - it's due to the "massive amount of contradictory examples" that a flat baseline is needed. Every character changes within rather large limits depending on who is on the creative team and what the story requires. Trying to justify any of that makes no sense to me. At least, with the handbook, they attempted to place everyone on roughly the same scale. It gives some standard that can apply to everyone. Look at how many incarnations of the hulk there have been. His abilities change more than his skin color (or his mental state). Trying to fit stats to reflect a comic book occurrence is stretching it for me. Let me try to illustrate:

 

The thing and the train example. First, the authors say 30 tons. Well, we know that's false. If we accept the 300 tons that has been suggested, and the thing has demonstrated this many times, then his lifting strength should be about that, right? But, since you're already changing the physics of the world in many ways (the least of which is that the cars stay connected, but also that the locomotive doesn't break apart), then we can assume that something is different about the train also - how do we know what that train weighs. We're attemting to use real world weights, but we know from the arguments that you can't apply the real world to the comics. So, how much does the train weigh if we have no reliable standard? And considering that he's got a rocky skin, we can't see him sweat to see if he's pushing (sure he can say "ugh", but that could be color commentary too, to impress the audience and/or characters in the book).

 

To attempt to translate that directly into game terms assumes that the items in comics are the same as the game. What if we took the Def and Body of items and halved them. At the least, the damage that characters do would go down since it takes less damage to destroy the vault doors (to go back to another example). Double the Def and Body, and the damage that the character needs to do is doubled (or more even). If you assume that objects weigh the same in the game and in the comics, then at least you have some attempt at a standard, but I wouldn't say that it's enough for my tastes. It's like the speed factor - how much time one panel takes is subjective, unless they say something like ("3 seconds later"). Same with the goons (hydra/etc) the heroes fight. For all we know, in the MU, they are 0-point normals, and not 50 point characters (or 100, or whatever). The only reason we tend to make them that way is that's what they are in the game. For all we know, mooks like that could be 200 point characters, and all we're all underpowering the heroes hugely.

 

I know my way is different than most here, but comics are stories and the game is the game. If the character isn't "faithful to the comic", then when the game designers get to right the comics, then I'll worry about being faithful. Hopefully I've finished explaining my philosophy. Still useless to the thread, though, since I don't think I've added anything new beyond it, so I'll probably cede the floor to others who may have more to add to the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I thought I got out of this...

 

Originally posted by badger3k

To explain further, then - it's due to the "massive amount of contradictory examples" that a flat baseline is needed. Every character changes within rather large limits depending on who is on the creative team and what the story requires. Trying to justify any of that makes no sense to me. At least, with the handbook, they attempted to place everyone on roughly the same scale. It gives some standard that can apply to everyone. Look at how many incarnations of the hulk there have been. His abilities change more than his skin color (or his mental state). Trying to fit stats to reflect a comic book occurrence is stretching it for me. Let me try to illustrate:

The problem with the description "massive amount of contradictory examples" is that weight needs to be given with what a character most consistently is shown to be able to do. Top-tier Marvel bricks have consistently shown that they are capable of lifting far more than the tonnage range in OHOTMU. Indeed, other than OHOTMU, there aren't really that many published stories that contradict the trend of Thor, Thing, the Hulk, and the like of being able to lift far more than the OHOTMU suggests. Should I use a tonnage range suggested in a book that is consistently and overwhelmingly contradicted by the comics on ONE side of the scale - that Marvel Bricks tend to be stronger than the OHOTMU suggests?

 

Originally posted by badger3k

The thing and the train example. First, the authors say 30 tons. Well, we know that's false. If we accept the 300 tons that has been suggested, and the thing has demonstrated this many times, then his lifting strength should be about that, right? But, since you're already changing the physics of the world in many ways (the least of which is that the cars stay connected, but also that the locomotive doesn't break apart), then we can assume that something is different about the train also - how do we know what that train weighs. We're attemting to use real world weights, but we know from the arguments that you can't apply the real world to the comics. So, how much does the train weigh if we have no reliable standard? And considering that he's got a rocky skin, we can't see him sweat to see if he's pushing (sure he can say "ugh", but that could be color commentary too, to impress the audience and/or characters in the book).

Just how far do you want to bend physics? There has to be some sort of measurement, true. It seems to me it's a bit more reliable to measure the strength of the characters by what they lift than to measure the weight of the objects lifted by the strength of the character. Do you disagree with that?

 

Pushing in comics isn't really something you have to wonder whether or not the character is doing. It usually is signalled by the captions or a character soliloquoy either shouted out by the character or in a thought bubble. It's meant to be used in the most dramatic of situations.

 

Originally posted by badger3k

To attempt to translate that directly into game terms assumes that the items in comics are the same as the game. What if we took the Def and Body of items and halved them. At the least, the damage that characters do would go down since it takes less damage to destroy the vault doors (to go back to another example). Double the Def and Body, and the damage that the character needs to do is doubled (or more even). If you assume that objects weigh the same in the game and in the comics, then at least you have some attempt at a standard, but I wouldn't say that it's enough for my tastes. It's like the speed factor - how much time one panel takes is subjective, unless they say something like ("3 seconds later"). Same with the goons (hydra/etc) the heroes fight. For all we know, in the MU, they are 0-point normals, and not 50 point characters (or 100, or whatever). The only reason we tend to make them that way is that's what they are in the game. For all we know, mooks like that could be 200 point characters, and all we're all underpowering the heroes hugely.

Agents can definitely be judgement calls. It's easier to find clues about what the heroes can do because they tend to be the focus of the story.

 

Originally posted by badger3k

I know my way is different than most here, but comics are stories and the game is the game. If the character isn't "faithful to the comic", then when the game designers get to right the comics, then I'll worry about being faithful. Hopefully I've finished explaining my philosophy. Still useless to the thread, though, since I don't think I've added anything new beyond it, so I'll probably cede the floor to others who may have more to add to the conversation.

I don't quite get this.

 

If you are saying that you can't possibly understand the capabilities the character generally possesses, I have to disagree with you. If you are saying that you can't possibly understand the capabilities of the character given a 10 issue run, you may have more of a point. If you are saying that you'd just rather do whatever you feel like, cool. All I'm saying and others are saying is that we can come to a reasonable conclusion, within a range of about 5 strength either way, for many of the Marvel characters based on extensive of knowledge about what the character usually can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Champsguy
Originally posted by Gary

Again, 17d6 pushes would imply that Cap can do body to a vault door, and break it down within a couple of turns. And this is before factoring in any Find Weakness. Nothing in comics suggests that this is even a remote possibility.

 

I've got to disagree with you here. I can see Cap doing this.

 

In Champions terms, Cap has to push each time if he wants to do Body. So that's going to cut his Speed down, because otherwise he'll run out of Endurance fast. Now, my 5th Edition book is out in the car, and it's cold outside, so I'm just going to guesstimate that the door has 15 Body. It could be more, could be less. I remember that it does have 16 Defense.

 

So Cap gets sealed in the vault, with, say, a group of innocents. The air is running out, so Cap needs to get them out of there. I'd give Cap a 20 Rec to simulate his enhanced stamina. If we give him a 7 Speed, then that means he's going to be able to hit the door about 5 times each Turn (since he's got to take Recoveries with some of his phases). That means it should take Cap at least 3 Turns to break out. If you use Long Term Endurance rules, Cap would have to take even longer, and would be completely exhausted by the time he'd finished.

 

Remember, I'm giving vault doors something like 10 points Lack of Weakness, because it's just a big lump of steel.

 

Visually, when Cap attacks the vault door, he's actually slamming his shield into the crack where the door meets the wall. He's attacking the joints. He isn't just hammering through the steel. When Cap successfully "breaks" the door, all he's done is disable the locking mechanism so that he can force it open. He hasn't rended the steel. Special Effects, people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Champsguy

I've got to disagree with you here. I can see Cap doing this.

 

In Champions terms, Cap has to push each time if he wants to do Body. So that's going to cut his Speed down, because otherwise he'll run out of Endurance fast. Now, my 5th Edition book is out in the car, and it's cold outside, so I'm just going to guesstimate that the door has 15 Body. It could be more, could be less. I remember that it does have 16 Defense.

 

So Cap gets sealed in the vault, with, say, a group of innocents. The air is running out, so Cap needs to get them out of there. I'd give Cap a 20 Rec to simulate his enhanced stamina. If we give him a 7 Speed, then that means he's going to be able to hit the door about 5 times each Turn (since he's got to take Recoveries with some of his phases). That means it should take Cap at least 3 Turns to break out. If you use Long Term Endurance rules, Cap would have to take even longer, and would be completely exhausted by the time he'd finished.

 

Remember, I'm giving vault doors something like 10 points Lack of Weakness, because it's just a big lump of steel.

 

Visually, when Cap attacks the vault door, he's actually slamming his shield into the crack where the door meets the wall. He's attacking the joints. He isn't just hammering through the steel. When Cap successfully "breaks" the door, all he's done is disable the locking mechanism so that he can force it open. He hasn't rended the steel. Special Effects, people.

 

The large vault door has 9 body, so it would take 2 turns.

 

You obviously don't know how tough a vault door is, even its hinges. Here is a picture of the hinge for a large vault door. It's 15 feet high and weighs 47 tons.

 

attachment.php?s=&postid=257101

 

Now please tell me how you expect Cap to break this thing down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Agent X

Using the Real World isn't helpful.

 

A) I think it is, unless the people depicted in comics are not actually homo sapiens sapiens, but rather some other species of similar appearance.

 

B) I think it is, because the real world gives us something to compare the fictional world to.

 

C) In this case, I was responding to someone else's comments regarding real athletes.

 

What about those car-lifting grannies we've already talked about?

 

They're not actually lifting entire cars, and they're not, as far as I know, doing something that someone far stronger couldn't do...and they'd probably be able to do it without causing themselves permanent injuries, unlike the grannies.

 

I bet they don't either but in my experience there is a connection between strength and endurance. When I could bench press almost twice as much as I can now, I could make far more repetitions of the weight that is my max right now. Batman and Cap are the kind of guys who are more acrobatic than gymnasts and stronger than Olympic weightlifters (at least Cap) and they can be acrobatic or lift very heavy objects for far longer.

 

Which makes them superhuman. Ooops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gary

The large vault door has 9 body, so it would take 2 turns.

 

You obviously don't know how tough a vault door is, even its hinges. Here is a picture of the hinge for a large vault door. It's 15 feet high and weighs 47 tons.

 

attachment.php?s=&postid=257101

 

Now please tell me how you expect Cap to break this thing down?

 

Just the hinge...

 

**twitch**

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Champsguy
Originally posted by Gary

The large vault door has 9 body, so it would take 2 turns.

 

You obviously don't know how tough a vault door is, even its hinges. Here is a picture of the hinge for a large vault door. It's 15 feet high and weighs 47 tons.

 

 

Now please tell me how you expect Cap to break this thing down?

 

I used to work at a bank. The vault door wasn't nearly that big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the things that picture does well is to function as a "smell" test.

 

Could Hulk blast it apart? Absolutely

 

Could Thor blast it apart? Absolutely

 

Could She-Hulk or Rhino blast it apart? Absolutely

 

Could Mr. Hyde do body to it? Maybe

 

Could Spiderman do body to it? Very Doubtful

 

Could Captain America, Batman, Shang Chi, or Black Panther do body to it? Certainly not.

 

Also, it weighs 47 tons, so it's proof that the OHOTMU is flat out wrong with its assessments of lifting capacity. The very top of the Marvel scale according to the handbook would be an item that merely weighs 3 times as much as that hinge. And we've all seen plenty of stuff in the comics where a top brick has lifted way more than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Champsguy
Originally posted by Gary

I think one of the things that picture does well is to function as a "smell" test.

 

Could Hulk blast it apart? Absolutely

 

Could Thor blast it apart? Absolutely

 

Could She-Hulk or Rhino blast it apart? Absolutely

 

Could Mr. Hyde do body to it? Maybe

 

Could Spiderman do body to it? Very Doubtful

 

Okay, we're in agreement here.

 

Could Captain America, Batman, Shang Chi, or Black Panther do body to it? Certainly not.

 

Shang Chi? No. Batman? No. Black Panther? Well, he's got some weird energy knives now, and I'm not sure exactly what they do, so I'll have to reserve judgment. Cap? I'm only letting him do stuff because he's got an Adamantium/Vibranium shield. Now, I'm not saying he'd do a lot of Body. I'm saying that he could probably pound on that thing for a while, swinging his sometimes-razor-edged shield right at the weakest spot he can find. Eventually, he can do enough damage to the hinge so that the door begins to lean. I think Cap could eventually work his way through it.

 

Of course, at this point we're quibbling over 1D6. If you drop his pushed damage from 17D6 to 16D6, you go from taking about 2 turns to taking a whole lot longer. I don't really see it as an issue.

 

Also, it weighs 47 tons, so it's proof that the OHOTMU is flat out wrong with its assessments of lifting capacity. The very top of the Marvel scale according to the handbook would be an item that merely weighs 3 times as much as that hinge. And we've all seen plenty of stuff in the comics where a top brick has lifted way more than that.

 

We definitely agree here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Champsguy

Adamantium/Vibranium shield. Now, I'm not saying he'd do a lot of Body. I'm saying that he could probably pound on that thing for a while, swinging his sometimes-razor-edged shield right at the weakest spot he can find. Eventually, he can do enough damage to the hinge so that the door begins to lean. I think Cap could eventually work his way through it.

 

Here's where we disagree. I think Cap could keep hitting at that sucker for a century without denting it. I haven't seen anything in the comics to suggest that Cap has any chance of doing body to something like that. If you can point to an issue where Cap does something like that without being juiced up at the time, let me know and I might change my mind.

 

Originally posted by Champsguy

Of course, at this point we're quibbling over 1D6. If you drop his pushed damage from 17D6 to 16D6, you go from taking about 2 turns to taking a whole lot longer. I don't really see it as an issue.

 

Cut the Offensive Strike push to 14 or 15d6 and I'm willing to agree. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Champsguy
Originally posted by Gary

Here's where we disagree. I think Cap could keep hitting at that sucker for a century without denting it. I haven't seen anything in the comics to suggest that Cap has any chance of doing body to something like that. If you can point to an issue where Cap does something like that without being juiced up at the time, let me know and I might change my mind.

 

 

Cut the Offensive Strike push to 14 or 15d6 and I'm willing to agree. ;)

 

Well, I've seen him snap chains that were drawn as if they were two inches thick. But sure, I've got no problem droppng a Damage Class. That would give Cap 30 Str, 2DCs, Offensive Strike, and 2D6 from the shield. Then he's got his Find Weakness, though it won't be useful against the door.

 

Before people get hung up on Cap having FW, I've glanced through Conquerors, Killers, and Crooks. Armadillo has 11- FW defined as "Tactical Computer". Fiacho has 12- FW. Blowtorch has 11- FW defined as "Flamethrower mastery". Shadowdragon has 11- FW with his kick. I may have missed one. Now, I saw only two pure martial artists in that book, and both had FW. Admittedly, it's not that common, but if Blowtorch can get it from shooting a flamethrower good, I don't see a problem with Cap having it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimate Captain America is superhuman in strength.

 

He grabbed onto, and hung onto, a ballistic missile in flight.

 

He punched out ( CON STUN!! ) the Hulk.

 

He has repeatedly demonstrated durability in a range not associated with merely human levels of strength.

 

Edit: He also severed a really frickin' strong chain ( as in, hold up a dozen tons of metal or concrete pipes ) with a thrown pulley wheel from about a hundred feet away, minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kristopher

Which makes them superhuman. Ooops.

Which makes them superhuman in the real world.

 

Comic books ask and answer the question, "What if human beings possess much greater potential than is realized in our experience?" That is one of the basic premises of comic books. Trying to pin down Cap and Batman to be close to Real World maxima completely misses the point about what standard four-color comics presuppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Agent X

Which makes them superhuman in the real world.

 

Comic books ask and answer the question, "What if human beings possess much greater potential than is realized in our experience?" That is one of the basic premises of comic books. Trying to pin down Cap and Batman to be close to Real World maxima completely misses the point about what standard four-color comics presuppose.

 

That hasn't been "the question" since the pulp age ended.

 

And do you give the majority of people writing comic books credit for deliberately depicting characters like Batman doing things that are blatantly impossible for someone who is not superhuman, as opposed to simply depicting whatever they felt would be neat at the time? Given the other faults of the writing in comic books, I would tend to go with the latter explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kristopher

That hasn't been "the question" since the pulp age ended.

I said one of the premises. I think it has been one of "the questions" and continues to be. Look at the popularity of Batman.

 

Originally posted by Kristopher

And do you give the majority of people writing comic books credit for deliberately depicting characters like Batman doing things that are blatantly impossible for someone who is not superhuman, as opposed to simply depicting whatever they felt would be neat at the time? Given the other faults of the writing in comic books, I would tend to go with the latter explanation.

I know you have a poor opinion of comic books but your low opinion of comic book creators isn't necessary. I have met quite a few of them. They aren't slow, stupid morons who do things because they are neato without any comprehension of the implications. They are aware that what Batman is doing is beyond the capabilities of real human beings and still choose to claim he is human, because they can, because it is fiction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Agent X

I said one of the premises. I think it has been one of "the questions" and continues to be. Look at the popularity of Batman.

 

I know you have a poor opinion of comic books but your low opinion of comic book creators isn't necessary. I have met quite a few of them. They aren't slow, stupid morons who do things because they are neato without any comprehension of the implications. They are aware that what Batman is doing is beyond the capabilities of real human beings and still choose to claim he is human, because they can, because it is fiction.

 

On the former: I don't think Batman's popularity has anything to do with the potential disconnect between his concept and his abilities.

 

On the latter: I only have what's printed to go on, and what's printed depicts a world in which characters who are said to not be superhuman do things that would, by any realistic measure, be quite superhuman, and yet there seem to be no other consequences of this serious increase in human potential depicted in the material.

 

This doesn't require the writers to be stupid. It could mean that they haven't done their homework regarding what people actually are capable of, how much things really weigh, how real objects behave under stresses, etc. It could mean that they don't care. It could just mean that they're sloppy. It could mean that they don't want to bother with solid worldbuilding for whatever reason.

 

I don't dislike all comic books. I do dislike anything that's poorly written.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kristopher

On the former: I don't think Batman's popularity has anything to do with the potential disconnect between his concept and his abilities.

 

On the latter: I only have what's printed to go on, and what's printed depicts a world in which characters who are said to not be superhuman do things that would, by any realistic measure, be quite superhuman, and yet there seem to be no other consequences of this serious increase in human potential depicted in the material.

 

This doesn't require the writers to be stupid. It could mean that they haven't done their homework regarding what people actually are capable of, how much things really weigh, how real objects behave under stresses, etc. It could mean that they don't care. It could just mean that they're sloppy. It could mean that they don't want to bother with solid worldbuilding for whatever reason.

 

I don't dislike all comic books. I do dislike anything that's poorly written.

I know you want to use a realistic measure to what is and isn't superhuman but that doesn't mean that Marvel does. It doesn't mean that anyone else does for that matter.

 

And there doesn't need to be any consequences to the serious increase in human potential in most superhero comic books because comic books aren't generally about anything but superheroes. The writers aren't stupid. They don't care because it isn't considered that important. They understand the genre rules when they play for Marvel or DC. Their view of "solid worldbuilding" doesn't have to include Real World standards.

 

I assume your idea of a poorly written comic is one that doesn't use Real World standards. That's an awful lot of comics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Agent X

I know you want to use a realistic measure to what is and isn't superhuman but that doesn't mean that Marvel does. It doesn't mean that anyone else does for that matter.

 

Then Marvel needs to show a world in which that measure has changed. But they don't, and sometimes they even show us a world in which it obviously has not changed.

 

What I want is a consistent and well-thought-out standard.

 

And there doesn't need to be any consequences to the serious increase in human potential in most superhero comic books because comic books aren't generally about anything but superheroes. The writers aren't stupid. They don't care because it isn't considered that important. They understand the genre rules when they play for Marvel or DC. Their view of "solid worldbuilding" doesn't have to include Real World standards.

 

No, but solid worldbuilding does have to include a thorough understanding of how the world you're working with differs from the real world, and what all of the consequences of those differences are. Furthermore, those differences must in some way be depicted and/or explained in the work itself, so that the reader has the opportunity to, in some way, realize how the world differs.

 

To use the subject at hand as an example: certain characters do things that are obviously beyond even the potential ability of human beings, and yet they are refered to as non-superhumans. This is explained by claiming that human potential in the worlds those characters inhabit is greater than in our world. However, nothing else is ever depicted that would somehow indicate this difference to the reader -- no athletic feats greater than those known in the real world are ever depicted, for example.

 

Someone then attempts to explain this by asserting that in the fictional setting, people who can attain that greater level don't become athletes, and athletes don't attain that level of performance. However, this gives us more questions than answers, as such a situation is a serious departure from human nature as we know it.

 

I have yet to see anyone explain this serious difference in human nature.

 

This is what I'm talking about. Most comic books show absolutely no sign that the writers have gone through this kind of thought process.

 

I assume your idea of a poorly written comic is one that doesn't use Real World standards. That's an awful lot of comics.

 

You would assume wrong, and your assumption also indicates that you are still mistaken as to my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...