In most games, by their end point, the character's base stats are dwarfed by those which are given by what they happen to be wearing or using. (There are exceptions--you could probably make a fairly decent "naked" character in Final Fantasy X, and games based on the old D&D ruleset will improve gear by metrics other than raw stat gain--but this still applies more often than not.) Thus, the individual's physical or mental qualities almost do not matter in the face of what they've been able to acquire. A man with weak knees or a ninety-pound woman would be just as dangerous as a hulking seven-foot-tall monster. All that is required is the persistence to get the items and the will to use them.
What got me thinking about this was a conversation about how silly it was for gnomes--which are usually about three feet tall--to be protection-spec warriors in World of Warcraft. The joke was that even the strongest gnome would likely be punched into the ground like a tent spike as soon as a raid boss looked at him or her. Looking at the way stats work in WoW, though, said gnome's getting a solid 95% or more of his or her stats from their equipment. By the time you're at the endgame, it's not just some dude with a sword and shield anymore; you're inside a tiny little magical suit of power armor. If Voltron was three feet tall, it'd still be Voltron.
Which raises the question: in a setting that's drenched with magic to such an extent that it's that easy to make weapons and armor that actively improve the wearer, how difficult would it be to make things that added to creativity or empathy? Could you put on a hat that made you more diplomatic or sensitive? Is every possible (demi-)human quality subject to improvement, and if so, what does that mean for individual achievement? Would people act to shut that kind of thing down, or deliberately eschew them because their "core" is damaged by resorting to them, or would widespread personal self-programming via magical enhancement just be a thing you did now?
Such a society might develop a set of laws regulating the use of performance-enhancing magic items, not unlike our anti-doping rules in competitive sports.
ReplyDeleteAs for augmented creativity, it stands to reason that some people would embrace it and some wouldn't ("doing it for the art"). Presumably, creative works produced through these means would have a peculiar "feel" all of their own that might either A) clash with the aesthetic sensibilities of the time, or B) come to redefine them.
I'm tempted to draw a parallel with computer-generated 3D animation and the way it has almost completely superseded hand-drawn animation and stop-motion. Still, some stalwart studios cling to the old ways and produce amazing stuff that is so retro it feels fresh.
tl;dr --> Cyberpunk transhumanism by way of D&D? Sign me up. :D
Wandered in here after catching your LJ post. Good to see you're still putting out stuff. (Sorry, I've not caught your game reviews much over the past years.)
ReplyDeleteAs for this post, I imagine it's going to depend on the setting as well as the implementation of the equipment we're looking at to begin with. Just spitballing, it's arguably reasonably straightforward to make magical gear that is just "this is incredibly tough and also makes its wearer's muscles stronger" or whathaveyou. Creativity, on the other hand, can come in a variety of fashions not necessarily encapsulated by a bog standard Wisdom or Intelligence score. Or, I guess, you're now sort of tackling what does an incredibly high Wisdom/Intelligence score really *mean*? Equipment in the vein that you suggest certainly exists in various settings--finding a hat that gives you Charisma or just improves your skill checks, to use D&D as an example, is simple enough.
As for cultural responses, I tend to think a large essence of it would devote to the haves and the have-nots. Assuming these items worked as advertised and without any large drawback, there's no reason not to use them provided you can afford them, assuming you're still capable of functioning without them if necessary. (That raises the interesting question of whether an item that improved your intelligence could have an addictive effect in and of itself.)
-Spectrum
>> in a setting that's drenched with magic to such an extent that it's that easy to make weapons and armor that actively improve the wearer, how difficult would it be to make things that added to creativity or empathy?
ReplyDeleteIt is unclear to me this is fundamentally more "magical" than increasing "strength" or "intelligence," which are already compound skills. Maybe "strength" is somewhat easier because it is basically just # of muscle fibers, but "dexterity" and "intelligence" already have so much built in.
>> and if so, what does that mean for individual achievement? Would people act to shut that kind of thing down,
It's probably similar to the world now, where people who do end up succeeding defend the systems that allow them to succeed ("free enterprise," "consequentialism") and people who don't succeed attack the systems for suppressing them ("privilege," "cheating," ...). (this statement is not meant to support either side more than the other, both sides having some good points)
>> or deliberately eschew them because their "core" is damaged by resorting to them, or would widespread personal self-programming via magical enhancement just be a thing you did now?
I think the kind of people who actually care about the former make up a really small part of the population; the latter seems comparable to performance-enhancing drugs, self-help, or whatever people do these days, so we already have data. :D