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

[humble minion]

5E death saves make no sense. There's no narrative justification for the PCs being more immune to death than everyone else.

To be extremely pedantic I'd argue there's a whole lot of narrative justification for this, because the PCs are the main characters of the story, and in heroic/action fantasy stories main characters ARE more immune to death than anyone else while faceless mooks go down when hit and don't get up again. It's entirely in-genre with the fiction, although it certainly might strain ones sense of verisimilitude when you think about it from a real-world physical sense.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Technically, everyone gets death saves. But because having unconscious goblins around puts the players in a not-media-friendly spot as to how to deal with them, it's left up to the GM to apply when it makes sense.


Depends on your definition of hitpoints... on which note!

I think the game world needs to acknowledge that high-level anything people can faceplant from the tallest tower in the land and just dust themselves off after. Similarly, that threatening someone with a dagger at their throat / crossbow at their face is actually really ineffective (especially because there is no condition for being helpless) - you need 10 friends with crossbows with you.

I'd rather just change the rules such that those things do work. Because they should.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To be extremely pedantic I'd argue there's a whole lot of narrative justification for this, because the PCs are the main characters of the story, and in heroic/action fantasy stories main characters ARE more immune to death than anyone else while faceless mooks go down when hit and don't get up again. It's entirely in-genre with the fiction, although it certainly might strain ones sense of verisimilitude when you think about it from a real-world physical sense.

This makes the extremely common error of assuming that all RPGs are about telling a story. Not even all versions of D&D are about that!

 

[humble minion]

This makes the extremely common error of assuming that all RPGs are about telling a story. Not even all versions of D&D are about that!

The use of the word 'narrative' in the post i was responding to unavoidably implies a story, and death saves were being argued against on narrative grounds. And I'll note that the title of this post is all about the fiction.

Like i said, if you don't see D&D as a story-telling medium (i wouldn't use the word 'simulation' to describe what it's trying to do, but I think you get the idea - you may have a term you prefer) then I'd 100% agree that death saves are inconsistent in-world. But they definitely, definitely ARE consistent with the fiction - and fiction is a form of narrative.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is a tangent in another thread, so why not a dedicated thread about it.

So ENWorlders, in what ways do you find the fiction of D&D does not match the mechanics of D&D?

Some top choices are being able to trip a gelatinous cube (whole thread on that, no need to relitigate that here), knocking dragons prone while in flight, the disconnect of AC and what it means to hit something, the difference between hit points as "meat" vs "energy," what damage actually represents, what does it mean to "heal" when hit points are not meat, etc.

So where else does the fiction of D&D not match the mechanics?

The entire Wizard class, basically?

We are sold on a class steeped in hermetic tradition, poring over grimoires, stitching together literally arcane bits of wisdom, taking inscrutable measurements with bizarre instruments, scribbling notes in da Vinci-style code. All to slowly piece together the secret rules that govern how reality works.

What we actually get is serial plagiarists who can summon academic papers out of thin air every so often (read: per level), either specific requests or randomly-sourced (depending on edition.)

The D&D Wizard does not live up to its description. Really, it never has.

 

[Umbran]

So ENWorlders, in what ways do you find the fiction of D&D does not match the mechanics of D&D?

I recognize that many of the mechanics of D&D are abstractions, while the fiction is not. If I use that abstract result as the basis of my narrative, rather than the other way around, I avoid mismatches.

knocking dragons prone while in flight

Works fine if you change one word, and you even get to rhyme with the original when flying. Basically, knocking a flying creature prone is knocking them into a stall, and then...
"A prone creature's only movement option is to fall..."

...the disconnect of AC and what it means to hit something, the difference between hit points as "meat" vs "energy," what damage actually represents, what does it mean to "heal" when hit points are not meat, etc.

None of these have a mismatch problem, for me. The mechanics do not fix what the narrative will be, so I can narrate anything consistent with the mechanical result.

 

[Lanefan]

Related, how big is a 100 gp pearl if you're in the desert? Near the ocean?

The same size it was when you bought it at the coast before coming out here.

 

[Seramus]

Sentinel means even a halfling can stop the biggest creatures in the game from moving.

I mean, I love it, but the narrative image is hilarious.

 

[GMMichael]

Turn-based combat. No, opportunity attacks and readied actions don't fix it.

(Reminds me of a great video. Try searching "viva la dirt league D&D logic." )

 

[Deset Gled]

So where else does the fiction of D&D not match the mechanics?

Leveling doesn't always mesh the two well. For example, an apprentice wizard can spend weeks studying books and never learn any new spells. But if they shoot enough goblins with a crossbow they'll learn a few. Also, there's really not a good reason in most fiction for things like hitpoints, saves, and class skills to all improve at the same time.

In versions that allow item creation, spending XP to craft is always a problem. The wizard was about to learn a new spell, but now they can't because they made a scroll?