Badass Normal

The 'bad-ass normal' characters are even more cancerous than the typical overpowered Mary Sue bullshit that some new players come up with.

I know that these characters are popular on Veeky Forums, and I realize that in every role-player's development there comes a point where they go "You know what would be awesome? If the hero was just some regular joe!" And depending on the player they'll come up with some 'cool' concept like maybe a hapless shepherd boy or a crippled old soldier or whatever happens to catch their fancy. And whatever they come up with, they'll always end up one or two ways:

One, their character sheet reflects their mundane status, rendering them at best a dead weight who contributes nothing (mechanically speaking, at least) to the party. Or two, their character sheet does not reflect their mundane status, making their backstory a farce.

So why, why do I keep running into players who think this is a good idea? As a foreverGM, I dislike turning down characters. Players to put effort into their characters, so if there's something wrong I'd much rather help the player make some minor adjustments than to just throw away al their work. But if the character concept itself is flawed, there's not much to do besides sending them back to the drawing board. And at least Mary Sue bullshit justifies a merciless shutting down, but the bad-ass normal has at least genuinely good, if entirely stupid, intentions.

Of course if the party is expected to be 'normal' then there's no issue, that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about the kind of player who wants to play a flatscan in a game of superheroes, a human in a game of vampire, or a farmer in a game of wizards. They seem to be infatuated with the idea of some nobody showing everyone how it's done, regardless of whether the game actually supports that and oblivious to the fact that if they somehow succeed it's only due to the work of the -actual- heroes who've been carrying his lame ass all the way.

OP, eat a snickers.

>So why, why do I keep running into players who think this is a good idea?
Because the average Joe is relatable, regardless of strength. I think the best recent example of this is One Punch Man. It started out as some shitty web manga that looked like a five year old drew it, yet it grew into an international hit anime with a confirmed second season. Why? Multiple answers are possible, but a large factor is Saitama being so relatable. He wasn't an alien dropped from a planet of space warriors, he wasn't struck by lightning while covered in a questionable concoction of chemicals, he wasn't hit by gamma radiation and he wasn't created by the gods. He's simply an unemployed guy suffering under the recession who decided to do a lot of squats and a lot of oats... and he's still not happy because now nothing can meaningfully challenge him. He's relatable, and therefore automatically easier to like.

Same reason why people have since time immemorial sided with the underdog. The big badass wining is a foregone conclusion, the underdog coming out on top (even if it's through an asspull here or there) makes for the better story. Nobody roots for Goliath, we all want to see David win.

I doubt even a snickers could quench OP's everlasting lust for cocks.

OPM is a parody and partial inversion of the badass normal archetype. There's nothing normal about him, he's grossly overpowered and his backstory is a complete and intentional joke. That's not a valid comparison.

Okay so, if I'm understanding this correctly, a 'badass normal' is someone like Batman or Sagara? A mundane human who works his way around supernatural difficulties without the inhuman powers and abilities of the other characters in the story?

That's almost impossible to make in an TTRPG, from a mechanics standpoint, as things are generally balanced and if you lack in one area your points will go into something else useful. For example, a human in WoD can pick up some nasty Fighting Styles or Hunter pacts that bring them roughly into line mechanically with everyone else, even if everyone else is a vampire.

A human fighter is the very ideal of a badass normal.
OP is complaining about people making unfitting backstories, I guess.

>Okay so, if I'm understanding this correctly, a 'badass normal' is someone like Batman or Sagara? A mundane human who works his way around supernatural difficulties without the inhuman powers and abilities of the other characters in the story?
Exactly.

>That's almost impossible to make in an TTRPG, from a mechanics standpoint
That's my point. Either you use the mechanics properly and end up with a character that, while maybe not optimized, is still cut well above the 'normal' (for example, playing a Fighter in 3.pf isn't optimal in most cases, but you still have a role and a purpose) in which case there's no point in pretending to be normal, or you purposely gimp yourself to fit your 'cool' backstory and become dead weight mechanically.

>Either you use the mechanics properly and end up with a character that, while maybe not optimized, is still cut well above the 'normal'

Batman is well above normal too.

It kinda sounds like, fluffwise at least, you can succeed at making these kinds of characters just by building a fighter or a hunter or whatever. You're still playing the role of a mundane human in a group of magical beings (potentially; the concept of 'badass normal' as you describe it falls apart in something like D&D as soon as someone else players a non-magical class, as now there's nothing distinct about your character), even if you have mechanical boons to offer.

>or you purposely gimp yourself to fit your 'cool' backstory and become dead weight mechanically.

When someone does this, it is your job as GM to just say "No, you'll be dead weight. If you want to play a mundane human with skills make a hunter or select some fighting styles or whatever."

In fact, the decision to do as you say is so adverse to the concept of badass normal as you describe it, that I'm having a hard time believing this is a real problem anyone has ever encountered. Characters like Batman or Moon Knight are defined by their mundane skills, if someone aims to make a character like them they're going to pick skills or classes that allow them to do that stuff.

>I'm talking about the kind of player who wants to play a flatscan in a game of superheroes, a human in a game of vampire, or a farmer in a game of wizards.

It's fine and I will allow it if the rest of the party is OK with it, but there has to be a good in-character reason, and a good out-of-character reason for it. If the whole party agrees that they are OK with playing a game where the wizards secretly carry the farmer to defeat the big bad, that sounds like it could be a lot of fun.

I'm a little bit guilty of this because I tend to make characters that work mechanically but stand out as anomalies in the setting. If it's a doom-and-gloom kind of game, I'll make an optimistic character; if it's a Shadowrun game, I'll make a character with the Technologically Impaired drawback; stuff like that. It usually ends up working since the characters are capable of contributing mechanically and their personalities help drive the roleplay or develop the setting.

>So why, why do I keep running into players who think this is a good idea? As a foreverGM, I dislike turning down characters.
Don't take this the wrong way, but maybe this is just a personal problem? I've not had such experiences and don't know anyone in person who's experienced this. Maybe you're just not lucky here. Have you tried doing group character creation? Like, have the first session just be character creation and backstory writing?

I wouldn't go that far, but I kind of understand where you're coming from.
The everyman underdog hero trope doesn't work without blatant confirmation bias. We tell stories about the inexperienced farmer who defeated a monster with nothing but his own wits and guts, because it gives us hope, but the dozen dead farmers who tried before him are barely mentioned. You can't easily do that in an unscripted game unless there's a quantified plot armor mechanic, such as Dresden Files RPG giving extra fate points to non-magical characters.
Also, speaking purely of my own personal preference, a player who smugly refuses to touch the core concept of a game about superheroes/vampires/wizards/etc. seems like the most special snowflake of all.

If you really have that big a problem with this OP you could give these mundane characters a slightly bigger stat boost while level during the early levels, just enough to bring them in line with the more talented members of the party. This makes sense because the encounters will be harder for this character and they will learn more from it than someone who will have a naturally easier time.

Maybe you're not selling the idea of the core premise of the game well enough.

In the absence of compelling flavor, players will generally do whatever the hell they want to do, and that generally means rehashing things they've seen in media, and badass normals are in fact, all over the place, because everyone likes the underdog.

If you don't want people playing characters with built-in underdogness, you need to give more guidance to people as to what characters are approriate. This generally includes throwing a few sample ideas(You don't even have to go into detail, just give some ideas), or being stricter with what you wanna see out of characters.

Like, it is entirely valid to create a character who STARTS as a badass normal. They don't have to remain one. For instance, a flatscan in a game of superheroes might be the subject of superhero augmentations due to a horrific accident or injury(This is a common origin for superheroes in the bronze age and beyond!), or a character MIGHT have been a normal human until very recently, and now he's the newbie in the group. And a farmer becoming a wizard because three years ago a wandering mage discovered his talent and it turns out he is a prodigy, but hopelessly inexperienced in the finer points of wizardry is ALSO a common trope.


Players often just want a grounded point of reference, and it's your job as GM to get them from their rough beginnings to a polished gem of a character.


tl;dr: TALK TO YOUR PLAYERS. NEVER GENERATE CHARACTERS IN A VACUUM.

Enable their ideas, utilize their imaginations. Most concepts are never deep or suitable enough at first glance without some polishing.

I think badass normals work best when they use the fact they are normal as an advantage, rather than a disadvantage.

I've got nothing against the concept but I've seen too many works extolling the virtues of the bad-ass normal only to shoot themselves in the foot by having them match whatever-flavor-of-special is around punch for punch. At that point, they aren't 'normal', but very much special themselves or very late bloomers.

I agree with this. Coming into a party of extraordinary people with some "ordinary" guy is just you trying to be special.

>Batman
>Average normal
The dude has a more powerful reality warping power than Franklyn Richards at his peek, the fuck are you talking?

Are you one of those people who would encourage others to roll a wizard but would bitch about someone picking something from Tome of Battle? Because you sound like one. I don't like you.

A human fighter falls under his first example

>That's almost impossible to make in an TTRPG
Not if you use the right systems. In Mutants and Masterminds Batman's PL would have to be very high if you want to accurately represent him being the world's best martial artist, the world's greatest detective, a scientific supergenius AND a fabulously wealthy businessman with access to high-tech gadgets. In fact, the manual reccomends you make heroes like Batman (unpowered pulpy dudes with a lot of experience) at LEAST PL12, whereas the expected PL of a game is 10.

The 'faggot op' shitposters are even more cancerous than the typical forced meme bullshit that some new anons come up with.

I know that these shitposters are popular on Veeky Forums, and I realize that in every internet user's development there comes a point where they go "You know what would be awesome? If I posted lies, on the internet!" And depending on the user they'll come up with some 'cool' concept like maybe a rare pepe or a big guy for you or whatever happens to catch their fancy. And whatever they come up with, they'll always end up one or two ways:

One, their op reflects their memester status, rendering them at best a hothead who contributes nothing (mechanically speaking, at least) to the plane. Or two, their OP does not reflect their memester status, making their post a forced meme.

So why, why do I keep running into posters who think this is a good idea? As a faggot, I dislike high quality posts. Anons like to put effort into their shitposts, so if there's something wrong I'd much rather help the user make some minor adjustments than to just throw away all their work. But if the meme is unfunny, there's not much to do besides sending them back to the drawing board. And at least copypasta bullshit justifies a merciless shutting down, but the banepost has at least genuinely good, if entirely stupid, intentions.

Of course if the OP is expected to be 'a faggot' then there's no issue, that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about the kind of OP who wants to be CIA in a thread of superheroes, a spurdo in a thread of pepe, or a sportacus in a game of lazytown. They seem to be infatuated with the idea of some nobody showing everyone how it's done, regardless of whether the thread actually supports that and oblivious to the fact that if they somehow succeed it's only due to the work of the -actual- anons who've been carrying his lame ass all the way.

Is OP actually some new pasta, or are you just proving your own point?

sound like you just hate human fighters

Ah, checked in the DC Adventures supplement. Batman is PL12, but uses 283 points, while normal PL12 characters are only allowed 180. You'd need PL19 to get enough points to build him without having to use excessive PP. That would make him borderline cosmic

Most of the characters stats in DC and in any supplement that has NPCs are built using more points than their PL would normally permit
Batman for instance is built with only a 10pp difference between himself Superman and Wonder Woman to reflect the fact that he is part of the Trinity

Also while I agree with OP in general I don't have a problem with non powered characters in a supers game like M&M, because they usually make up for it with gadgets or skills

OPM is a straight man rolling with it in a universe where a man can turn into a monster by shadow-punching the switch string of a lightbulb too many times. That is his schtick.

It's also worth mentioning he was far more enthusiastic and idealistic about being a superhero before he became bullshit-man. He still gets excited when he thinks someone is going to be an actual challenge. His obvious dissapointment and half-hearted compliment when even Boros dies in one punch once he gets serious makes for a nice bit of drama.

Y'all are wrong.

A "badass normal" isn't someone like Batman, and DEFINITELY not someone like Saitama.

It's not about a character who's powerful despite having "no powers", it's about a character who has more balls than power.

You know, like this guy. Or Izuku Midoria from My hero academia BEFORE he was chosen. Which is WHY he was chosen.

A human fighter is a good example only because fighters are often woefully underpowered as shit so to play one and play one successfully you need to be a hero in the first place.

>Badass Normal
>>>/tvtropes/

What about Badass normals that use the fact they are normal, sane, human being in order to do things.

It happens a lot. You always have that one guy who wants to play a normal human in a party of Solar Exalted.

>website tribalism

D&D Fighters are only really bad in some earlier editions, and they definitely are not normal in 5e. Or at least, they are normal in the way an olympic athlete is technically a normal human being. Even a level 1 fighter is supposed to be absolutely exceptional

Yeah sure. I fucking defy you to tell me that Batman is normal or sane. This has been commented on multiple times by his enemies when he successfully withstood brainwashing and/or drugs that should've made his teeth melt.

So, normal, sane, human beings. Fair enough. Still not Batman.

And don't even get me started on Saitama. Dude apparently has impenetrable skin and no upper limit to his strength. That is SO NOT NORMAL.

They are below olympic athletes is some fields though.

elephantiasis
>My mad science laboratory

You have to understand the kind of character Batman draws upon. He's a very idealized form of a renaissance man, as were pulp heroes like Doc Savage. He was never intended to be realistic in any way.

>A human fighter falls under his first example
Ah yes, I forgot that 3.PF is the only system that exists.

>he was never intended to be realistic in any way
so you admit he's not a badass normal because he's not normal

>'badass normal' is someone like Batman
I don't know who that second person is but Batman is distinctly not normal, he just doesn't have an overt superpower. He's in like the top percentile of humanity in both physical and mental ability and has enough money to have a secret cave stocked with cutting edge technology.

In any system where you can play supernatural/superhuman individuals, the "badass normal" will always be mundane to the point of dead weight.

It's why you can't roll up a human fighter in 3.PF, why you can't play a non-hunter human in WoD, why you can't play an ordinary human without augments or matrix bullshit in SR, etc.

It's because if you do decide to do something like that, you're shooting yourself in the foot while everyone else is forced to soldier your weight just to keep you alive when something big shows up and pastes you for being an ordinary human being.

Isn't that the definition of badass normal though? Someone without superpowers that can keep up with them?

Bats definitely has superpowers. To be precise, his power is money; he makes the most money, so the writers let him get away with the most shit.

That's not really an in-universe superpower though.

I already explained this. A badass normal is somebody with more balls than power, not someone who's powerful despite having "no powers".

>why you can't play a non-hunter human in WoD, why you can't play an ordinary human without augments or matrix bullshit in SR
Neither of those things are analogous to a human fighter PC, what you're describing is akin to taking levels in Commoner. By virtue of having player D&D character class levels a character is automatically special and not normal, 3.PF just fails at this because it's a pathetic dumpster fire of a game system.

>shadowrun party has a medic
>like comletely dedicated only to medicine
>no cyberware or magic or even other skills of note
fuck this guy

Maybe not, but he definitely does things that are impossible, and comic book physics can only be stretched so far before. Or to put it another way, Batman's ability to fight for 72 hours is more objectionable than Garp's ability to replace a cannon, so I guess that it's a matter of presentation. Batman is explicitly a normal person, except the part where he explicitly is not.

Depends on the TTRPG really.

For example: in Wild Talents, it's fairly easy to make a Badass Normal: Invest your character points in your physical and mental stats: 2 is an average human, 5 is peak normal human.

After that, just augment your peak human abilities with skills to further increase your dice pool. For example, a Body 5 human with 5 ranks in Brawl is rolling the same size die pool as a superhuman talent with 10 dice in body.

You can also upgrade regular dice to "expert" dice, which give your hero more control over their abilities, or even Wiggle Dice, which can be representative of being able to adapt as situations change.

So, while Player X might be able to shoot lasers form his hands, Player Y, the badass normal, might just be able to pick a fly out from between it;s wings with any handheld firearm.

Sure, There's a lot to be said for the versatility of being able to teleport, fly, magnetize people or objects, create spirit photography, whatever. But frequently, i find that the supers with a power will stop thinking outside of that power, while the badass normal frequently has abilities that cover a wider variety of situations than their powered allies.

Except that really doesn't seem to be the common definition. The usual usage of it is 'Guy without in-universe superpowers'.

Not in the sense that OP is talking about. Batman doesn't technically have any superpowers but no normal human could ever reach the level Batman is sitting at.

It's usually someone without powers that uses their skills to outwit far superior foes. Batman only fits in the strictest definition, because throughout his runs he's also the world's best athlete, martial artist, detective, and is a super genius that has plans for everything. In any other setting Batman's mastery of every human skill that exists would be considered a superpower, in addition to his use of high-tech or outright magical gear.

A Badass Normal cannot "keep up with" superpowers. He finds ways to avoid direct engagements or changes the game so he doesn't have to keep up. Batman typically does not do this.

If they're only good at medicine than that means that they have no apparent means of defending themselves from an enemy. Also, they won't be able to use their medical skills during combat because, surprise surprise, it's a bit difficult to patch a bullet wound while you're in the middle of gunfight with limited cover. Lastly, the other PC's would have to protect them from harm while they cannot to anything to impact the battlefield beyond triage after the fight's over, which means that if everyone else is downed, it's a TPK because they cannot do anything.

So thanks for proving my point, wasted trips.

>In a World... with supernatural dealings or superpowers, this character is the one who is able to keep being useful through intellect, martial arts abilities, general ruthlessness, or just being Crazy-Prepared.

It seems like the idea behind it very much is 'Can keep up'.

Except that's not his power, his power is basically plot armor

He can redirect plasma and electric rays with a random toilet mirror he picked from the ground

He can withstand an explosion 400x stronger than Hiroshima's nuke with his face

He can react in less time that it takes light to move 1 cm

He can pack a "punch" with his finger with more force than the Sun can generate in 1 year

Etc

Btw, all this actually happened in comics

Human Fighters are commoners in disguise user, it's why they only receive feats while everyone else receives rage powers, uncanny dodge, and animal companions to name a few.

The most impressive part about Fighters mostly comes from the fact that they can survive the most damage than anyone else, with only the Barbarian beating them out in HD. However, since everyone is able to take punishment and handle themselves during combat, the Fighter just kinda ends up being superfluous and mundane in comparison.

Don't forget the time he shot Darkseid with a gun, and the bullet reached and killed him before the Omega Sanction could close in on Bats, and IIRC, DS' doom lasers do indeed move at light speed, whereas bullets do not.

That's wrong you idiot. A Badass Normal is someone who is able to keep up with superhumans despite possessing no superpowers.

YOU are talking about a "Fearless Fool", someone who, despite having NO business being in a fight, is right there on the frontlines.

A Badass Normal is legitimately badass. a fearless fool *thinks* they are.

Not only that, he also had time to say some quippy shit and even drop the gun like it was a mic, all in the lapse of fucking light traveling 2 meters.

You're still just talking about 3.PF.

It's less plot armor and more that his superpower is having hack writers.

>misusing "cancerous"
Stopped reading there.

There is nothing a Fighter can do that another class cannot do better.

Rangers are better archers, Paladins are better tanks, Barbarians deal more damage, Rogues deal better debuffs, and Monks are better at unarmed fighting.

It's a consequence of their niche being "dude who fights best" when every dude in the party can fight, including the mages.

Do you know anything about GURPS? How about FATE? FUDGE? Any of those? Do you?
I'm asking, for all our sakes Virt.

Still. talking. about. three. dot. pee. eff.

>and Monks are better at unarmed fighting
The mother of misconceptions, they have bigger die, they're pretty bad at it. You can make a fighter be a better unarmed combatant than a monk pretty easily.

Every comic book hero in existence has the power of hack writers.

The only difference between Batman and Naruto is that Naruto's power levels are consistently shit while Batman power level varies from writer to writer.

Fighters are the king of lockdown in 4e. They get up in your face and make you miserable while they protect their allies.

This is true for every edition from 3.PF on user.

4e Fighters are the best all-around defenders in the game.

Too bad nobody acknowledges 4e. Even WotC silently discontinued it once it became clear that PF was kicking its corpse down towards the river.

I wasn't even arguing he was a badass normal, I was arguing he was never even intended to be normal in any way. He just gained that trait over time as more overtly superhuman heroes became the rule

see

>fighters are shit
>no they weren't, here's a version on which they were good
>WHO CARES LMAO

Batman is on the low end of human potential.

Pic related is an example of a meme that defies the false dichotomy OP presents. Don't know if there's a TV Tropes or Encyclopedia Dramatica page for the concept, but Levi is what happens when you put enough humans into a meat grinder. Eventually one of the thousands or millions survives long enough to become monstrously skilled.

I agree with OP somewhat.
If you want to be a "normal joe turned hero", you need one of a few things.
You could gimp your stats to those of a commoner/human/muggle, and then try to play the game. That's an issue because you will normally either die without support or bog down the rest of the party's resources to protect you; and while some groups are fine with someone who doesn't contribute as much mechanically and are willing to support a player "mascot", many are not, especially without prior counsel.

The second option would be to play a normal basic fighter or whatever and either refluff actual skills as luck or accept that they're already above and beyond despite humble background.

The issue with the latter approach is that a player might feel that it's "cheating" or "not real" because the character isn't a dead fish statistically, however, the only potential way for the first approach to pan out as a hero fantasy is to be incredibly lucky- and while one could recreate "luck" with fluff or certain mechanics to bring the character in balance with the changes, they shouldn't complain that they failed to be legitimately lucky in the clutch of time every time they need it should they refuse that balance.

Pic potentially related- minimal skill investment, but a power that allows coping with much larger scale challenges, though it'd be very impractical to try and use in a tabletop.

We never even get hit, he gets paid for nothing

You don't wear a helmet to get hit in the head.
You wear a helmet so that if you DO get hit in the head, you don't die.
Same for having a health insurance. You don't get that planning to get sick.
You get it in order to be safe if you DO get sick.

That doesn't stop it existing/being true.

*or* you could play Feng Shui, where there is a goddamn literal playable character archetype called "Everyman Hero". He has knowledge ranks in local sports teams and stadium rock ballads.

>the only potential way for the first approach to pan out as a hero fantasy is to be incredibly lucky-
Or, not to be stupid.
There are plenty of games that intentionally start you off on a reasonably "normal" level and where you don't ascend to Godhood within a few months.
Even if you don't want to play one of those games, you and your group can agree on playing a group of normal schmucks. Everybody gimps their stats, and the GM sets the difficulty rating of your adventures accordingly.

>Pic potentially related-
A guy who got pretty much everything handed to him. He was on a first-name basis with some of the most powerful creatures of the universe from day one. His accomplishments amount to him pointing the heroes in the direction of the villains. Oh well.

Had a guy like this some time ago, always wanted to do something retarded like play an librarian or carpenter. The correct answer is to have them roll a real charecter, give it leadership, and then they can play the follower outside of combat if they insist on being utter fucking beta fags even in their fantasies. bonus cuck points if the real charecter is a sexy badass chick they just m'lady around the countryside for.

average dude dealing with average threats isn't what were discussing here

>carpenter with leadership skills
I can't see that sitting well with the authorities. Died they crucify you?

Everyone needs to start somewhere.
After mastering average threats, you move on to the challenging ones.

>beta cuck fags
Easy there Jimbo. I warned you those roids would shrink your balls but you chose to take them anyway. No need to project your impotence on men with normal size testicles for not living up to your He-Man sexual fantasies.

It's you isn't it, Johnathan? Ugh, I thought you would have sperged your way into a seizure in traffic by now.

>Everybody gimps their stats
We're not comparing a game of normal people accomplishing normal things. We're talking about "normal" people who manage to do extraordinary things, in the context of games where the players are generally extraordinary themselves.

And pic is related. It's a guy who sucks at fighting and has no useful knowledge skills, but works together with extraordinary and powerful people. However, the methods by which he makes himself useful are rather impractical to try and use in a game with multiple players.

...

Or you could just roleplay

I could make a rogue that roughly has the personality of Bilbo Baggins at the beginning of The Hobbit. He'd avoid unecessary conflict, be generally uncomfortable with any sort of violence, resort to trickery when possible, and otherwise behave like a slightly neurotic, stuffy, sheltered british gentleman. I don't need to gimp him mechanically or make some kind of paradox where he inexplicably turns into a complete action hero badass when he has to actually use his skills - just to delineate he's very naive, somewhat out of his element while in tense situations despite being able to function as apart of the party, and that 9 times out of 10 he'd rather be reading while sitting on a comfortable chair back at home.

As a side note, this would obviously get nonsensical on high-power games, but I don't think you should allow Bilbo Baggins on a game where people are crushing dragon skulls with one hand and fingerbanging goddesses with another, on any case. But even on a game like that you could simply make a very down-to-earth character who doesn't like flaunting his power.

t. Butturt Troper

You can be a reluctant adventurer from a small background. But once again, if you're not going to reduce your power level, then you've got to accept that your character is of extraordinary strength, even if your character does not acknowledge it and acts accordingly cautiously. That's a fine thing to do, it can lend some real gravitas and wisdom or sensible cowardice to someone.
However, some people would still complain about having to play an "on curb" character, especially if they're trying to emulate a "badass normal" character from something by suddenly becoming useful despite being shit.

Actually, I think you're right. The problem isn't with the trope, it's with bad players who want to recreate shallow aspects of a trope without paying attention to what the system or their party aught to handle or the underlying aspects of said trope.

Really I'm just tired of the smugness I've seen that seems to be associated with badass normals.

It's the same sort of smug that dorfwankers or HFYfags where they have to brag about how mundane they are to make them feel like they're better roleplayers, but there's also this strange need to weaponize it into some sort of reverse special snowflake power.

The Ackerman bloodline has actual superpowers though, which are unlocked through extreme trauma/fear and implied to come from the same source as the Titans.

Though since these powers are "remain calm under pressure" and "use 100% of your body's potential", just think about how Attack on Titan characters would react to what Batman can do.

Ah yes, I forgot that the Anima mundane classes were totally useless.

>why you can't play a non-hunter human in WoD
On the other hand, nWoD hunters pretty much are normal humans, at least when they begin. And there is a template literally made so you can play a competent mortal

Isn't that nWoD core, Mortals?

Besides the stuff in Mortals, there's Extraordinary Mortals from Mirrors

Average Joe is relatable but it leads me to a different conclusion. Look at at archetypical staring character of world of darkness games. He's an average jerk-off who has magic powers with a bunch of drawbacks thrust upon him and he's trying to deal with all those changes happening in his life. That's relatable. A badass normal character who's on the same power-level as a newbie vampire would be some sort of elite special ops guy on the run from cia. That's less relatable to an average player. To reiterate a powered character like Spiderman - relatable. An unpowered character who's on the same level like Batman, a playboy billionaire who trained with ninjas all around the world - less relatable.