D&D 5E Is Neil Gaiman Wrong?

[Voadam]

After a certain point, something the size of Godzilla is no longer a thing you fight with weapons. It is a force of destruction like a hurricane or volcano given flesh; you don't stop it, you get out of the way. That's not a satisfying story, I know. But some things in life cannot be beaten by a single man. And some things can't be stopped, but can be suppressed. Hurricanes eventually blow out; the dragon isn't going to be up and active long, and then it will sleep for centuries before stirring. Maybe a great ritual can keep it asleep, thus neutralizing it. Maybe a God or some other thing could slay it--Hercules had to use Medusa's gaze--a God-created curse--to kill the Kraken.

A small party of individuals suiting up in armor to fight kaiju hand to hand? I think I've seen that story.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think that kind of demonstrates Gaiman's principle, doesn't it? Regardless of the power and logical capabilities of the adversary, the human beats them, because that's the point of the story.

It depends on the story, and the audience.

Going to the OP, the Gaiman quote in Coraline in the epigraph (not why he wrote Coraline) is:
"Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."

This is a paraphrase of the G.K. Chesterton quote:
"The timidity of the child or the savage is entirely reasonable; they are alarmed at this world, because this world is a very alarming place. They dislike being alone because it is verily and indeed an awful idea to be alone. Barbarians fear the unknown for the same reason that Agnostics worship it—because it is a fact. Fairy tales, then, are not responsible for producing in children fear, or any of the shapes of fear; fairy tales do not give the child the idea of the evil or the ugly; that is in the child already, because it is in the world already. Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon.

Exactly what the fairy tale does is this: it accustoms him for a series of clear pictures to the idea that these limitless terrors had a limit, that these shapeless enemies have enemies in the knights of God, that there is something in the universe more mystical than darkness, and stronger than strong fear."

Setting aside the clear ... let us say point of view that G.K. Chesterton is known for, the thrust of the quote is clear; a fairy tale has an audience (little kids) and a message (that fear, no matter how awful, can and will be overcome). Whether you view this as banal or brilliant depends on you, I suppose. I might also say that this formulation very much depends on the later, more sanitized fairy tales that were circulating by the time Chesterton was writing, but that's a separate issue.

None of this is particularly relevant, in my opinion, to either different types of fiction or, necessarily, to games such as D&D. For example, I doubt very much that H.P. Lovecraft was sitting down at his desk and thinking, "Well, other than including some racism, I need to make absolutely sure that my protagonists can defeat Cthulhu, because I wouldn't want to give the reader the wrong idea!" For that matter, I am fairly certain that Ian McEwan wasn't thinking, while writing Atonement, "Yeah, actions might have consequences, but I have to aim for that happy ending!"

It's the same with any given RPG; perhaps you are playing something where everything is measured in hit points, and monsters are just big bags of XP to help PCs level up and provide magic items. Maybe any given critter can be defeated- but the PCs would need the appropriate power (level) and preparation and, perhaps, a little luck in the form of die rolls. Or maybe there will be scenarios where "winning" is simply choosing the best losing scenario.

Saying that any given RPG has to function a certain way is the same as saying that all literature would have to function by Chesteron's instructions for fairy tales; I think the world would be a much poorer place. There is room enough for a plethora of different types of play, and I would hate to see it hamstrung by attempts to so limit it.

 

[Umbran]

I did include Hawkeye and Black Widow (along with Captain America) as examples of the power level that PCs could achieve back a few posts. I just think the top tier members of the Avengers are far more powerful than any individual PC could ever be. They're certainly far, far stronger.

So, there's a very basic issues - these two genres have different physics. "Powerful" does not translate well across the boundary. To be able to talk about who is more powerful, you have to take some set points, call them equivalent, and work from there.

Sure, a wizard can throw lightning. And the X-Man Storm can throw lightning. But are they the same lightning? Probably not. And so on.

But this is a pointless argument.

Yes, but we should identify the real reason the discussion is pointless - it isn't about "powers", or physical capabilities of characters in the genre. Those physical abilities are a small subset of the genre tropes involved. D&D characters are not superheroes because however similar the power sets may be, D&D characters generally don't follow superhero genre tropes, they follow fantasy tropes. And similarly, superheroes don't follow fantasy tropes.

 

[Fenris-77]

Many cogent and pithy things

Great post. Just to swing by what @TheCosmicKid said for a second...

I think that kind of demonstrates Gaiman's principle, doesn't it? Regardless of the power and logical capabilities of the adversary, the human beats them, because that's the point of the story.

Is that the point of the story though? Rising in the face of terrible odds to challenge the adversary is certainly what we're talking about, but I don't think defeating the adversary is the point. Having the courage to stand in the face of those impossible odds, the courage to risk everything to do so, the fact that it's even possible to make that stand, that, I think is closer to the point. The story is pretty meaningless without risk, and without courage, but it does still carry meaning when the hero fails.

Maybe that seems pedantic to some people, but I think it's an important distinction.

 

[MGibster]

I wonder if this is a generational thing as I don't think most of us considered our D&D characters to be superhuman thirty years ago. In the 80s and early 90s, the fact that a level 20 Fighter could survive a fall from any height was often cited as an example of how silly games rules could be. If most players had viewed D&D characters as superhuman I don't think anyone would have poked fun at how the rules worked in this particular case.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I wonder if this is a generational thing as I don't think most of us considered our D&D characters to be superhuman thirty years ago. In the 80s and early 90s, the fact that a level 20 Fighter could survive a fall from any height was often cited as an example of how silly games rules could be. If most players had viewed D&D characters as superhuman I don't think anyone would have poked fun at how the rules worked in this particular case.

Agreed. People often forget context, as well.

A 20th level fighter in OD&D or 1e was .... well, let's say pretty extreme, when "name level" (the rough equivalent of 17-20 in 5e) for a fighter stated at 9th level.

Other examples were often misconstrued; the fabled "attack a number of times per round as you have levels against critters of less than 1hd" ... that was when a combat round lasted one minute.

It's a lot less impressive when you say, "Yeah, my powerful 9th level fighter can kill 9 kobolds .... in a minute."

 

[Fenris-77]

My 9th level fighter can kill nine kobolds with his morning breath.

 

[Maxperson]

I wonder if this is a generational thing as I don't think most of us considered our D&D characters to be superhuman thirty years ago. In the 80s and early 90s, the fact that a level 20 Fighter could survive a fall from any height was often cited as an example of how silly games rules could be. If most players had viewed D&D characters as superhuman I don't think anyone would have poked fun at how the rules worked in this particular case.

Superhero was literally one of the 1e fighter titles. Hero at 4th level and Superhero at 8th.

 

[Maxperson]

My 9th level fighter can kill nine kobolds with his morning breath.

So can my 6 year old.

 

[jasper]

My 9th level fighter can kill nine kobolds with his morning breath.

Apples or cologate dude.