Watching Arrowverse crossover, of course.
Among the worst things the Arrowverse ever did was have Barry clean out the League of Assassins HQ in seconds. It drives home how irrelevant the Green Arrow is as a superhero, where being Mayor Handsome with assassin trained employees and whatnot is probably a better night job.
In the beginning (of Flash), effort was made to address this problem, with Barry being the brawn and Oliver being the brains (superhero brains != brains brains). But, Flash progressed. It had original-fake Harrison to provide clever and ruthless. It has scientists for brains brains. Barry does stupid things, but he fights better.
So, Barry can fix Team Arrow’s problems seemingly at will, in that Team Arrow still solves problems by fighting.
To restore balance to the justiceforce, Oliver should be able to solve Team Flash’s problems easily. In last season, maybe nailing Iris would have done something, but that potential shipping seems to have sailed.
Anyway, bigger picture. Brawn wins fights in some pleasing materials. Brains wins fights more often, in superhero stuff and various genres. Then, there’s luck. There are stories aplenty where luck wins. Take a show like Doctor Who, where the Doctor is supposed to outbrain enemies. That happens, so does outlucking, even when given a coating of inspired genius.
So, is one better? Martial arts and animefight often go the route of train to unlock another power level. I’m okay with that, though it does get out of control. Where out of control means that any attempt to scale back the power level just seems ridiculous. “If I can nuke the moon at will, why can’t I deal with someone named after a seasoning plant?”
Not that animefight has a monopoly on such things. Babylon 5 got frustrating to me because I was into the Shadow War and found xenophobia and teeps to be tonal dissonance.
The issue with brains is not just that this is a gaming blog, where being clever in playing a game is harder because you are on the spot with your cleverness rather than having months to rewrite your novel to be more clever, but that brains isn’t always brainy when given N amount of time to consider what the outwitter did.
How satisfying is outlucking? Less satisfying when you think about it. In many cases, it’s not how you win, it’s how the story plays out, so not necessarily always unsatisfying.
That’s in written stories. In gaming? Luck is everywhere. Oh, I wouldn’t say luck is the primary determinant of victory, though let me distinguish between competitive gaming and role-playing games.
RPGs are inclined to a social contract where the PCs are almost always going to win. Now, newer games do try to create a dynamic where you are supposed to lose before the climax, which I have some problems with.
How satisfying is gaming your losses? In something like a sumo tournament, gaming your losses may get your buddy a higher rank without costing you anything. But, as much as a superhero story or a martial arts revenge flick or whatever is structured with the “lose first, murder master later” paradigm, playing that as a game just takes you into the gamist world. It’s like dropping the no-dachi to grapple because this fight is “real”.
I may care more about narrative, but, if you just script the narrative, what are you actually playing?
Losing is such a huge problem in RPGs because players don’t expect it and there are often mechanics that don’t support it, whether the reliance on stuff or because someone should just tanto you in the throat if they beat you. Yeah, A1-4 existed long ago. Know why it gets so much credit? It set a standard for how to do a common trope.
What about competitive games? Is luck a good way to determine victory?
So, you design a CCG. Card draw order is a common feature that institutes luck into the games. Just having the brawn of better cards or the brains of better deck design and better card play, you get some luck to shake things up.
Rolling crappy in Wheel of Time was never supersatisfying. Risk management is a thing that’s not a matter of luck but of better decisionmaking. I’ve lost my share of V:TES games because I didn’t make the good decision but occasionally ousted or survived because of a bad decision. Seems like luck, but I don’t think so. Luck != random nor != two unknowns produce third unknown.
Back to RPGs.
Some of our biggest triumphs in Conan felt like luck triumphing over brawn and our lack of brains.
On the other hand, Princess Police didn’t feel like luck had much impact, at all. We were routinely outbrawning challenges.
A good mix. Is that the point of this post?
There was the lack of GA outwitting Supergirl, which some of us might have enjoyed if it was anywhere near as clever as shooting Barry in the back. Wits is not strong in Invasion!, with “defeat mind control” being about as witty as things have gotten, yet that was also something of a brawn situation, since it involved a particular power.
So, you are the GM or game designer, what do you do to mix things up? When I try to add thinking to RPG sessions, it routinely fails. A lot of cleverness in competitive games has to be something the designer didn’t intend but was emergent intelligence. Brawn can be controlled, but do you unbalance brawn? By that I mean, in a RPG, one ability is just better than another for victory, in a CCG or whatever, one card/component is just better.
I put Fate Points in the title, but are FPs luck or the opposite of luck? For players, they reduce luck, for characters, they are luck. An interesting topic for another times, since this post just meanders all over the place – how does perspective change your perspective? Many say that Arrow was fine focusing on its 100th episode rather than on the crossover because 100th is a thing. Whatever, the series could be worse, much worse, like previous seasons worse.