D&D General When the fiction doesn't match the mechanics

[Lanefan]

I would not consider a scratch a wound unless you’re going for the death by a thousand cuts.

I would, in that it's a visible physical injury.

Why is this important? Because the accumulation of these minor physical injuries provides some guidance as to what condition the foe is in.

And, poison.

 

[billd91]

But … then it is not divorced from narrative. It only gains value insofar as it serves that narrative.

I’m not quite following your point I think.

Well, then, it would certain rise above the level of “filler at best”, wouldn’t it? Your statement would only be true if it could never be closely wedded to the narrative, or that someone trying to do so were pursuing the wrong narrative.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

But when is a good time to level up? In real life, you learn continuously. You don't go back to some class-based home base (a wizard's tower, a fighter 'school'). To me, that form of level up is a cognitive dissonance.

In my experience, that is very much what you do. At least in combat sports. What do think MMA fighters do between matches?

 

[Red Castle]

I would, in that it's a visible physical injury.

Why is this important? Because the accumulation of these minor physical injuries provides some guidance as to what condition the foe is in.

And, poison.

Can’t really argue with you here since I personnally think that HP is a little bit of everything: minor physical wound, stamina, mental exhaustion, etc until the final blow that you fail to parry and knock you uncounscious.

 

[Guest 7042500]

If the fiction doesn't match the mechanics, change the fiction.

 

[cbwjm]

If the fiction doesn't match the mechanics, change the fiction.

Or the mechanics.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If the fiction doesn't match the mechanics, change the fiction.

Honestly, I'm a little surprised to hear that! Such openly gamist approaches tend to be just as openly disliked. As the previous post not so subtly implies.

 

[Aldarc]

Because I have a group full of 5e players, the same reason as everyone who'd rather play something else.

I understand that your preferences lean towards the realistic. I sympathize with the desire to play something else when you are at table playing one game when you would rather be playing something else. However, I'm not sure if trying to force 5e into becoming something else is the best approach to playing the game. I'm not sure how that benefits either you or your players. It seems like there should be some 5e-adjacent games that would do a better job at producing the sort of game that you want that would also scratch the 5e-esque itch for your players.

And where does it say that designers of 5e think realism is the refuge of scoundrels (or words to that effect)? Do you have a statement anywhere from WotC about their design intentions? I know you assume you're right, but I don't.

Maybe not the 5e designers, but there is an article from Gary Gygax in The Dragon #16 (Vol. III, No. 2: July 1978) entitled "Role-Playing: Realism vs. Game Logic; Spell Points, Vanity Press and Rip-offs." Therein, Gary Gygax is quite explicit about this using nearly the same words about realism:

D&D encourages inventiveness and originality within the framework of its rules. Those who insist on altering the framework should design their own game. Who can say that such an effort might not produce a product superior to D&D? Certainly not I. Interestingly, most of the variant systems which purport to “improve” the game are presented under the banner of realism. I have personally come to suspect that this banner is the refuge of scoundrels; whether the last or first refuge is immaterial. “Realism” has become a bugaboo in the hobby, and all too many of the publishers — TSR included —make offerings to this god too frequently. The very definition of a game gives the lie to this false diety. Real implies being true to life, not artificial and related to actuality. A game is real, but its subject matter can, at most, give only a “sense” of what actually took place or exists. Paper maps, cardboard counters, plastic markers, or toy tanks and soldiers are not and never will be the stuff of historical reality. There, real bullets kill and maim actual people. Men, women, and children suffer and die, millions of dollars are spent and destroyed, all for the glory of war. Therefore, those who desire realism in wargames, or simulations of social or political events, or racing, or anything else used as subject material for a game should go and do the actual thing —join the military, enter politics, become a race car driver, and so on. At best a game can give a reflection of reality, and then only if its rules reflect historical actualities and logically proceed from truth and facts.

When fantasy games are criticized for being “unrealistic” — and by fantasy I certainly mean both imaginary “science fiction” games and heroic fantasy —the sheer magnitude of the misconception absolutely astounds me! How can the critic presume that his or her imagined projection of a non-existent world or conjectured future history is any more “real” than another’s?While science fantasy does have some facts and good theories to logically proceed from, so that a semblance of truth can be claimed for those works which attempt to ground themselves on the basis of reality for their future projections, the world of “never-was” has no such shelter. Therefore, the absurdity of a cry for “realism” in a pure fantasy game seems so evident that I am overwhelmed when such confronts me. Yet, there are those persistent few who keep demanding it. The “camel” of working magic, countless pantheons of gods and devils, monsters that turn people to stone or breath fire, and characters that are daily faced with Herculean challenges which they overcome by dint of swordplay and spell casting is gulped down without a qualm. It is the “gnat” of "unrealistic” combat, or “unrealistic” magic systems, or the particular abilities of a class of characters in the game which makes them gag. This becomes hard to cope with, because I am basically a realist.

In a pure fantasy game, one based on myth, mythos, and its own unique make-believe, realism (as a reflection of the actual) and logic can not be defined in terms conventional to other game forms. Realism in such a game can only be judged by the participants acceptance of the fantasy milieu invoked by the game. If this make-believe world is widely and readily accepted, if players fully agree to suspend their disbelief when playing it, the game has reality for them. Involvement and enjoyment indicate acceptance of a game reality, and the game becomes realistic thereby. Game logic in such a fantasy can only follow the basic tenets of the game, logical or illogical. If the basic precepts of the fantasy follow the imprimus, it has its own logic. Just as the fantasy must be accepted to achieve the game reality, so must the underlying principle of the game system be understood to follow its logic. D&D is a make-believe game. It is designed, however, to facilitate close personal involvement in all aspects of play; this makes suspension of disbelief easier for those who can initially accept a game form which does not relate to any reality except a few tenuous areas, ‘viz. actual kinds of weapons from the medieval period are generally named, as are actual types of armor, and the social order of medieval Europe (and occasionally the Middle East and elsewhere in the world) is mentioned as bases for the game, to state the most obvious factual sources for D&D. It is a game for the imaginative and fanciful, and perhaps for those who dream of adventure and derring-do in a world all too mundane. As a game must first and foremost be fun, it needs no claim to “realism” to justify its existence. D&D exists as a game because thousands of people enjoy playing it. As its rules were specifically designed to make it fun and enjoyable, and the consensus of opinion is that D&D is so, does it need to have logical justification of any or all of its rules? Because logic does not necessarily create an enjoyable game form, the reply must be generally negative. Logic, even game logic, must be transcended in the interest of the overall game. If an illogical or inconsistent part fits with the others to form a superior whole, then its very illogicalness and inconsistence are logical and consistent within the framework of the game, for the rules exist for the play of the game, although all too often it seems that the game is designed for the use of the rules in many of today’s products. When questioned about the whys and wherefores of D&D I sometimes rationalize the matter and give “realistic” and “logical” reasons. The truth of the matter is that D&D was written principally as a game — perhaps I used game realism and game logic consciously or unconsciously when I did so, but that is begging the question. Enjoyment is the real reason for D&D being created, written, and published.

...

In general, the enjoyment of D&D is the fantasy: identification with a supernormal character, the challenges presented to this character as he or she seeks to gain gold and glory (experience levels and magical items), the images conjured up in participants’ minds as they explore weird labyrinths underground and foresaken wildernesses above, and of course the satisfaction of defeating opponents and gaining some fabulous treasure. This is the stuff of which D&D is made. Protracted combat situations which stress “realism” will destroy the popularity of the game as surely as would the inclusion of creatures which will always slay any characters they fight. The players desire action, but all but the odd few will readily tell you that endless die rolling to determine where a hit lands, having to specify what sort of attack is being made, how their character will defend against an attack, and so on are the opposite of action; they are tedious. Furthermore, such systems are totally extraneous to the D&D system. Although they might not ruin the game for a particular group of players, general inclusion in the published rules would certainly turn off the majority of enthusiasts. It would turn me to other pursuits, for if I was interested in that sort of game I would be playing a simulation of something historical, not a fantasy game.

There is a lot more to this article. He is also ranting a lot in this article about heartbreakers and other derivative roleplaying games along with things like spell points. I wonder if RuneQuest is on his mind when ranting about some of these things, since Chaosium published the game in 1978.

 

[Hussar]

I would, in that it's a visible physical injury.

Why is this important? Because the accumulation of these minor physical injuries provides some guidance as to what condition the foe is in.

And, poison.

NOt really though.

I have a scratch on my arm from a cat. It's visible, but, it in no way indicates anything about my condition. And that's, at most, what HP loss is. A couple of bruises. Maybe a fat lip? At least until that attack kills the PC, THEN that's a visible wound.

Otherwise, it makes no sense. If those minor physical injuries actually gave some guidance as to what condition the foe is in, then those physical injuries would impact the foe in some way. But they don't. They never have. Not in D&D anyway. I can't believe after all the years of this being shown over and over again, people still want to insist that HP=some sort of meat. They don't. Heck, in 5e, until you lose 50% of your HP, you do not have so much as a scratch on you, and that's straight from the rules.

Never minding things like short rests, where I can rest for an hour, and be restored to full HP, all without a single spell. What, do those physical injuries seal up and go away in an hour?

People keep trying to force narrative onto the mechanics that just isn't supported.

 

[Hussar]

Well, then, it would certain rise above the level of “filler at best”, wouldn’t it? Your statement would only be true if it could never be closely wedded to the narrative, or that someone trying to do so were pursuing the wrong narrative.

The overwhelming majority of setting lore is "filler at best". That was the point I was making earlier. I'll bet dollars to donuts that all those people who have talked about owning Faiths and Avatars and Powers and Pantheons haven't used more than 10% of the material in those books. And that's pretty much true for every setting book. 10% use at a given table. At best. Probably a lot less.

Compare to an Adventure Path (presuming you actually play through it). Where 75% or more of the book is used. THAT'S what supplements should be. These are game supplements. They aren't novels. They aren't for light reading. They are meant to be used. They have a purpose and that purpose is to be used at the table.

Take FRCS and Shining South. Just as two fairly recent FOrgotten Realms examples. There's what, about 500 pages of material between the two of them? How many tables do you figure used more than 50 of those pages? How many actually managed to include 30% of the material in a game? And that's just two FR books.

These setting books are the biggest waste of paper in the hobby. They serve little practical purpose and are largely there for reading material. Which people then use to bludgeon other people over the head in proper gate keeping style, ensuring that the setting stays "pure" for those that actually bother to read these books.