Humans in rpgs

[number4096]

There is a reason Zhao yun was recorded in history and not whoever knew how to use spear at the time.Or that Oda Nobunaga called Honda Tadakatsu a samurai amongst samurais rather a general amongst generals.If anyone was just as much a capable fighter as Honda Tadakatsu then Honda Tadakatsu would have never been recorded.

Inuits can take out whales shadow of the colossus style with pointy sticks.And the video i showed earlier showed an untrained guy with a tree branch killing a mass of fur,muscles and teeth,called a bear.This happened,recently,if someone else than this guy was there that person would have probably just died.The guy who killed the bear(Which you usually need a gun to kill and even then it is not guaranteed,by the way.And a mama bear at that.)was just that badass.On a statistical scale the bear should have killed the guy and the tree branch would have done nil in front of all that fur and muscles.The guy was just that badass.(Why a tree branch managed to kill something a gun has difficulty killing?Badassness.)

 

[number4096]

You cannot base who wins and who loses solely on statistics.Have you ever fought for real,with your life in peril and you were facing overwhelming odds?

Cavemens did,and there response was to stab stuff until stuff stopped moving.And since you and i are here,we can say that what made them win was the same thing that made a man beat a bear with a tree branch(If someone is as trained as you but bigger than you doesn't mean he will instantly win,he will just have an upper hand,that's all,you will still very likely kick his ass.).

As for why people with guns managed to get killed by bears while another guy killed one with a tree branch,we call that natural selection.Some people are just that badass.

 

[number4096]

It is the same reason not all scientists are Einstein or Tesla and that not all martial artists are Musashi Miyamoto or Bruce Lee.Some people laugh in the face of statistics and get their names recorded over that of other warriors that had the same training and the same equipment and got defeated anyway by them,in numbers.

 

[number4096]

If you base what you are saying around your time when you wielded melee weapons against other people reenacting the martial arts of past ages consider this:

You were not in any real danger,you restrained yourself from killing them because you were not in any real danger.If you tought you were going to die anyway and decided to let loose completely,restraints be damned,you would have left more trained people in pieces than you think.In a real fight,techniques give you an upper hand,they don't mean instant victory.Awesomeness does.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Humans are far from the most specialized animals. Far far from it. Specialization is a limiting factor which inhibits growth, as evidenced by the current population we are far from inhibited. The only thing that we depend on is technology, we need some rudimentary tech to survive anywhere but luckily we all are able to develop tools to at least a limited degree.

 

[Zacharine]

The guy was just that badass.(Why a tree branch managed to kill something a gun has difficulty killing?Badassness.)

No, but because of something else.

It's called... Luck. A statistical anomaly. Or would you be ready to bet that if we put that guy back into the same situation again, he would again win?

I most certainly wouldn't. The one thing you learn about statistics is that there are always data points at the edges of the curve. This is one of those one in a billion cases.

And when you are talking on a species level, we are talking about the survival of the fittest.

Fittest does not mean best fighter. Fitness does not mean strongest. Fitness means: those that survive to reproduce more than others.

There are animals that are faster than us. Stronger than us. Better stalkers than us. That can run farther than us. That have sharper teeth and better claws. That have thicker hides. That have better eyes.

But they all share one common trait: They are specialized creatures. A lion cannot live on berries and leaves, should its hunt go awry. We can. A bear cannot live in warmer climates, we can. A hawk must eat a whole lot more than we do, to have the energy to fly. It can't starve for two days, we can. A gazelle cannot at times of hunger, switch its food source to meat.

And most importantly, they do not have the combination of memory, intelligence, cunning and planning and abstract thinking that we do. They cannot eat both berries and leaves and create trap-pits for animals. They cannot hunt both the gazelle, wild boar and river salmon with equal proficiency. They cannot attack from a hundred paces out, see if the attack hits and then retreat if needed.

They cannot steal the eggs of a bird from its nest, then gather the mushrooms under the tree.

Mammoths did not die out because we hunted them to extinction.

They died out, because they were overspecialized animals that could not adapt to the changed circumstances when their overspecialized environment was no more.

There is a reason Zhao yun was recorded in history and not whoever knew how to use spear at the time.Or that Oda Nobunaga called Honda Tadakatsu a samurai amongst samurais rather a general amongst generals.If anyone was just as much a capable fighter as Honda Tadakatsu then Honda Tadakatsu would have never been recorded.

Yes. But just as Julius Caesar was recorded. Just as Alexander the Great was recorded.

Because history remembers leaders of armies, the commanders. Not the individual soldiers. History remembers those who won, instead of those thousands others that lost. Julius Caesar is not remembered because he was a good fighter, he is remembered because he was an exceptional general. Zhao yun is not remembered because he was good with a spear. He was, but that isn't enough. Rather, he is remembered because he was a general during a time of several great battles.

Zhao yun is remembered, because he brought victories to armies. And then he became a legend, because it was decided that dramatizing his life-story, painting him as super-human would make a good drama.

And so the Romance of the Three Kingdoms was written. There is about as much truth in that book as there is in Lord Of The Rings: very little, and buried deep within.

And all later sources, rather than being based upon the historic documents that mention him in a few sentences here and there, they base him upon this overdramatizewd piece of fiction.

And thus a legend is born.

And yet, despite being remembered in written historical records, we have no historically verifiable evidence for their supposedly heroic, inhuman deeds. We have tales of such. We have folklore and legends, word of mouth. Nothing more.

And we all know that those cannot be trusted. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence is required to believe that claim. And I for one refuse to accept that Miyamoto could walk on air, that Achilleus was invulnerable, that Thor could throw lighting from his hammer. Because that is what I would have to believe, should I stop requiring evidence.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Some african tribes could take out lions barehandedly,even today.If our strenght was merely pack hunting we would hardly do any better than any other pack animals.Remember that guns are a recent invention and that experts said that north america was filled up with mammoths,cave lions and short-faced bears before humans came in and destroyed their population.According to them,mammoths would still be their if we didn't over hunted them.If you destroy an entire species,you have to attack more than just the weakened or the isolated,you have to attack the whole thing.

But it is mostly personal experience that prevents me from thinking that humans are glorified punching bags for all other animals,i myself(and my brother)were often attacked by other people at school,10 to 1,and we had no problem taking them all out on our own(We were in different schools,so it was literally 10 to 1 for each of us.).

If you say that,for the people that harassed us,taking on more numerous than themselves would be suicide,however,i would believe you.But my brother met real people who were similarly capable of taking on multiple people at once in real life.I'm not saying that it is usual or that you should count on it when making a strategy.But there is a reason that some warriors had their prowesses recorded while the others were barely even mentioned,not everyone is of the same strenght and therefore you cannot put all humans on the same boat when it comes to martial prowesses.Some people are just that badass.

Most modern paleontologists don't think humans are responsible for the large number of extinctions in that time. They mostly blame changing and an inability to adapt.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

The guy was just that badass.(Why a tree branch managed to kill something a gun has difficulty killing?Badassness.)

No, but because of something else.

It's called... Luck. A statistical anomaly. Or would you be ready to bet that if we put that guy back into the same situation again, he would again win?

I most certainly wouldn't. The one thing you learn about statistics is that there are always data points at the edges of the curve. This is one of those one in a billion cases.

And when you are talking on a species level, we are talking about the survival of the fittest.

Fittest does not mean best fighter. Fitness does not mean strongest. Fitness means: those that survive to reproduce more than others.

There are animals that are faster than us. Stronger than us. Better stalkers than us. That can run farther than us. That have sharper teeth and better claws. That have thicker hides. That have better eyes.

But they all share one common trait: They are specialized creatures. A lion cannot live on berries and leaves, should its hunt go awry. We can. A bear cannot live in warmer climates, we can. A hawk must eat a whole lot more than we do, to have the energy to fly. A gazelle cannot, at times of hunger, switch its food source to animals.

And most importantly, they do not have the combination of memory, intelligence, cunning and planning and abstract thinking that we do. They cannot eat both berries and leaves and create trap-pits for animals. They cannot hunt both the gazelle, wild boar and river salmon with equal proficiency.

They cannot steal the eggs of a bird from its nest, then gather the mushrooms under the tree.

Mammoths did not die out because we hunted them to extinction.

They died out, because they were overspecialized animals that could not adapt to the changed circumstances when their overspecialized environment was no more.

There is a reason Zhao yun was recorded in history and not whoever knew how to use spear at the time.Or that Oda Nobunaga called Honda Tadakatsu a samurai amongst samurais rather a general amongst generals.If anyone was just as much a capable fighter as Honda Tadakatsu then Honda Tadakatsu would have never been recorded.

Yes. But just as Julius Caesar was recorded. Just as Alexander the Great was recorded.

Because history remembers leaders of armies, the commanders. Not the individual soldiers. History remembers those who won, instead of those thousands others that lost.

And yet, despite being remembered in written historical records, we have no historically verifiable evidence for their supposedly heroic, inhuman deeds. We have tales of such. We have folklore and legends, word of mouth. Nothing more.

And we all know that those cannot be trusted. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence is required to believe that claim. And I for one refuse to accept that Miyamoto could walk on air, that Achilleus was invulnerable, that Thor could throw lighting from his hammer. Because that is what I would have to believe, should I stop requiring evidence.

Thor likely never existed. He isn't a historical figure he is an Aesir or god. There is no evidence he was ever an actual person.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Even though most games fixate on english culture(You oftenly play a knight,which is specific to england.),They almost never get it right.

you carry armor even when drinking at a tavern,you never take care of it or make sure it doesn't rust,knights are shown as well washed and cultured while in reality they were uneducated mercenaries who pooped in their own armors(The squires had to clean it up.),and you carry all that armor on foot,while in reality this much armor was useful only on horseback,since you could barely even move with a full plate armor.

They could at least call the knights something else or use a different culture altogether.

Knights in reality were always of noble descent, never peasants. They weren't uneducated by their standards at all.

 

[number4096]

SakSak,i really liked what you said in your last post.I tought about it myself for a long time:

If strenght was everything,dinosaurs would still be there and would probably dominate(Until we came around and started to claim names,anyway.).We are too awesome to limitate our strenght to brutal force.This is why we rule on a mountain of badass.

I will let you read my other posts(I've typed many.)and wait for your responses,but i really liked what you said about the survival of the fittest.If you are Godzilla but live in a desert planet with no food,your strenght in battle will not save you.

 

[Zacharine]

Thor likely never existed. He isn't a historical figure he is an Aesir or god. There is no evidence he was ever an actual person.

Actually it is possible that Thor was one of the extremely early viking leaders. A man of impressive statue, wielding an impressive weapon, who then acted as the basis for the mythology.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Thor likely never existed. He isn't a historical figure he is an Aesir or god. There is no evidence he was ever an actual person.

Actually it is possible that Thor was one of the extremely early viking leaders. A man of impressive statue, wielding an impressive weapon, who then acted as the basis for the mythology.

Possible but not very likely. But historical records from the period are full of holes at best thanks to the treacherous Christians.

 

[Zacharine]

snip.

For the last time, get the idea of man being super anything out of your head.

Zhao Yun is remembered, because he brought victories to armies. And then he became a hero, because it was decided that dramatizing his life-story, painting him as super-human would make a good drama.

And so the Romance of the Three Kingdoms was written. There is about as much truth in that book as there is in Lord Of The Rings: very little, and buried deep within.

And all later sources, rather than being based upon the historic documents that mention him in a few sentences here and there, they base him upon this overdramatized piece of fiction.

And thus a legend was born.

This is how history works. Let us take Jesus for now. Do you know from what time period and and how long is the first extra-biblical mention of Jesus Of Nasareth that is not contested for authenticity by historical scholars?

It was written by the Roman historian Tacitus around the year 116 AD and reads:

auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat

13 words, roughly translated: A person, called Christus by some, was convicted by governor Pontius Pilate during Tiberius' reign.

That's it. Nothing of his age. Nothing of his birth town. Nothing of his travels.

Regarding Zhao Yun, the original records are a couple of hundred words long.

Exactly how much detail do you think there are in those few hundred words, when so much of them are used to simply name the rules he served under or the battles he fought in? And how much of what is currently 'known' of him is simply exaggeration, dramatization, fiction and folklore?

Think about it.

 

[Zacharine]

Thor likely never existed. He isn't a historical figure he is an Aesir or god. There is no evidence he was ever an actual person.

Actually it is possible that Thor was one of the extremely early viking leaders. A man of impressive statue, wielding an impressive weapon, who then acted as the basis for the mythology.

Possible but not very likely. But historical records from the period are full of holes at best thanks to the treacherous Christians.

well if he have a good idea who Freyja and Odin historically were, we might also assume Thor-legends might be built from one man. Indeed, the records are spotty.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Thor likely never existed. He isn't a historical figure he is an Aesir or god. There is no evidence he was ever an actual person.

Actually it is possible that Thor was one of the extremely early viking leaders. A man of impressive statue, wielding an impressive weapon, who then acted as the basis for the mythology.

Possible but not very likely. But historical records from the period are full of holes at best thanks to the treacherous Christians.

well if he have a good idea who Freyja and Odin historically were, we might also assume Thor-legends might be built from one man. Indeed, the records are spotty.

My working theory is that it was originally just a story, not unlike the odyssey, that eventually became a religion. Possibly influenced by real people at one point.

 

[Zacharine]

Thor likely never existed. He isn't a historical figure he is an Aesir or god. There is no evidence he was ever an actual person.

Actually it is possible that Thor was one of the extremely early viking leaders. A man of impressive statue, wielding an impressive weapon, who then acted as the basis for the mythology.

Possible but not very likely. But historical records from the period are full of holes at best thanks to the treacherous Christians.

well if he have a good idea who Freyja and Odin historically were, we might also assume Thor-legends might be built from one man. Indeed, the records are spotty.

My working theory is that it was originally just a story, not unlike the odyssey, that eventually became a religion. Possibly influenced by real people at one point.

Exactly. I was simply trying to point out that there might have very well been an impressive man named Thor, who was nothing more. And then the legends and myths slowly began to gather and focus around this person someone grandparent had heard of being talked about as a child.

That how myths usually go. Word of mouth twist almost everything, until only the name and general appearance at best remain even somewhat truthful.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Thor likely never existed. He isn't a historical figure he is an Aesir or god. There is no evidence he was ever an actual person.

Actually it is possible that Thor was one of the extremely early viking leaders. A man of impressive statue, wielding an impressive weapon, who then acted as the basis for the mythology.

Possible but not very likely. But historical records from the period are full of holes at best thanks to the treacherous Christians.

well if he have a good idea who Freyja and Odin historically were, we might also assume Thor-legends might be built from one man. Indeed, the records are spotty.

My working theory is that it was originally just a story, not unlike the odyssey, that eventually became a religion. Possibly influenced by real people at one point.

Exactly. I was simply trying to point out that there might have very well been an impressive man named Thor, who was nothing more. And then the legends and myths slowly began to gather and focus around this person someone grandparent had heard of being talked about as a child.

That how myths usually go. Word of mouth twist almost everything, until only the name and general appearance at best remain even somewhat truthful.

Well I'm still not sure how much if at all it was actually influenced by living people. It's just a possibility.

 

[Zacharine]

Well I'm still not sure how much if at all it was actually influenced by living people. It's just a possibility.

Well, I can accept that. It's just, with very few written records we cannot be sure of much of writing were about these people and the myths, at the time, and how large a portion of them was carried on by word of mouth. Word of mouth, accompanied by human error and prepensity for the supernatural, simply seems to explain thing a lot easier.

But in these cases when records are as spotty as they are, it's more a matter of preference, I can give that.

 

[number4096]

SakSak,since there are factors you skipped over in what i said.Instead,i want you to review this sword-to-sword fight:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xabp3c_final-fantasy-vii-advent-children-c_videogames

It is in french,but i doubt it should prevent you from understanding what is going on.

Your toughts?

 

[Zacharine]

SakSak,since there are factors you skipped over in what i said.Instead,i want you to review this sword-to-sword fight:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xabp3c_final-fantasy-vii-advent-children-c_videogames

It is in french,but i doubt it should prevent you from understanding what is going on.

Your toughts?

You know by now what I think. When it comes down to anime, I absolutely refuse to apply real-world anything to them. Come on, its Advent Children! The main plot is about a dude swinging a sword as long and thick as he is, against a guy who can fly and wields a twin-bladed katana that is twice as long as him and want's to turn the planet into a spaceship using the life-energy of it as fuel!

What exactly gives you the impression that it has real anything? The name gives it out for fraks sake. Final Fantasy!

Now, please stop pestering me about real-world physics and fighting in anime and Japanese fantasy-games. If I wanted to tear their flimsy grasp on reality apart, I would have made myself a laughingstock (because who expects reality from those?) already by doing it somewhere other than this thread.