D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

[Mort]

I also love how "d&d has different physics" and "d&d is fantasy" are the mantras up until this debate, and then it suddenly changes to "d&d peasants won't be armed or trained because real world peasants weren't." Despite the fact that d&d monsters would necessitate it since kingdoms couldn't afford a standing army large enough to protect every village and town.

I don't really see the problem?

A D&D town (especially a frontier town) would almost certainly have every possible townsperson trained in basic weaponry, tactics and likely the longbow etc. if possible. After all, the monster attacks are not a myth - they could be a distinct possibility. Such a town would be equiped for orcs, would know what to do with trolls, and could likely take down a group of wyverns and the like.

But an ancient (say) red dragon, if it chose to make an example of the town? It's knows the town is trained, it knows that lucky shots etc. are a problem and it would compensate. If it wanted to take down the town, it would take down the town.

But it probably wouldn't try without some provocation, because it ALSO knows that border towns bring adventurers and other messes and those could be a real pain. Unless it was provoked or otherwise angered, then it might let loose. And that could be the basis for a fun adventure.

 

[Clint_L]

I guess I've just never seen that much of a distinction. There have been plenty of both genres that go either way. Sci-fi or fantasy, it's just a setting for a story. Sci-fi is more likely to have the protagonist be a scientist, but many times they're just doing what I would call magic science. In other words they're throwing around some pseudo-science words but in reality it's no more "real" than casting a spell. Some authors try to base their fiction on science such as Andy Weir, but even then they get a lot wrong while relying on what can be best called speculative science.

Even fiction The Expanse, which gets a lot right such as how to create the sense of gravity by using acceleration or a giant rotating generation ship still has to invent a techno magic propulsion system for people to zip around the solar system. Then of course there's the alien technology that just breaks physics.

But in the end it's still just down to a group of scrappy heroes to save the day and drive the story. Just like in fantasy. The trappings are different but the stories and results bear more similarities than differences.

I deleted my earlier response, but since it's going way off topic anyway: I think there is a MUCH larger distinction between fantasy and science fiction than "just setting." It is obviously true that there can be "science fantasy" (Star Wars; Andor excepted) where the science really is just trappings. But it is also clearly true that the roots of science fiction are extrapolative - asking the question "what if this thing (usually a technology) were to happen - what would that mean for humanity?" Arguably the first science fiction book, Frankenstein, is exactly this sort of narrative, and that "what if?" impulse is deep in the genes of sci-fi. I mean, that question is what lies at the heart of science, as well.

Fantasy is quite different, taking its cues from romance and myth. At its heart, fantasy is backwards looking, not forwards. This doesn't have to, but in practice tends to make it a more reactive and conservative genre, less interested in pushing boundaries. Fantasy tends to avoid asking hard questions about its setting, even when those questions are staring right in your face. Morality is often simplified (good vs. evil! dark lords! alignments!) and conflicts more easily resolvable. Characters tend to be sanitized and de-sexualized, with an over reliance on comfortable assumptions about culture, gender, age, and so on.

I am well aware that there are exceptions, many of them, in both genres, so I am not claiming that "all sci-fi is this" or "all fantasy is that." But there are meaningful distinctions between the genres that go a lot deeper than setting, and fantasy is a much more conservative genre, driven by idealized and romanticized tropes.

This actually does tie around to the topic at hand, because I think part of fantasy's appeal is a kind of wish-fulfillment that has things in common with extreme character optimization and power gaming. The genre tends to be built around super idealized characters, from Conan to Legolas to Harry Potter to John Snow. I think a lot of D&D players are working within fantasy norms by creating as idealized a character as possible. And I know that has a lot of appeal. It's just not my cup of tea.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

...Such a town... would know what to do with trolls...

No... you didn't!

 

[Oofta]

I deleted my earlier response, but since it's going way off topic anyway: I think there is a MUCH larger distinction between fantasy and science fiction than "just setting." It is obviously true that there can be "science fantasy" (Star Wars; Andor excepted) where the science really is just trappings. But it is also clearly true that the roots of science fiction are extrapolative - asking the question "what if this thing (usually a technology) were to happen - what would that mean for humanity?" Arguably the first science fiction book, Frankenstein, is exactly this sort of narrative, and that "what if?" impulse is deep in the genes of sci-fi. I mean, that question is what lies at the heart of science, as well.

Fantasy is quite different, taking its cues from romance and myth. At its heart, fantasy is backwards looking, not forwards. This doesn't have to, but in practice tends to make it a more reactive and conservative genre, less interested in pushing boundaries. Fantasy tends to avoid asking hard questions about its setting, even when those questions are staring right in your face. Morality is often simplified (good vs. evil! dark lords! alignments!) and conflicts more easily resolvable. Characters tend to be sanitized and de-sexualized, with an over reliance on comfortable assumptions about culture, gender, age, and so on.

I am well aware that there are exceptions, many of them, in both genres, so I am not claiming that "all sci-fi is this" or "all fantasy is that." But there are meaningful distinctions between the genres that go a lot deeper than setting, and fantasy is a much more conservative genre, driven by idealized and romanticized tropes.

This actually does tie around to the topic at hand, because I think part of fantasy's appeal is a kind of wish-fulfillment that has things in common with extreme character optimization and power gaming. The genre tends to be built around super idealized characters, from Conan to Legolas to Harry Potter to John Snow. I think a lot of D&D players are working within fantasy norms by creating as idealized a character as possible. And I know that has a lot of appeal. It's just not my cup of tea.

How much of Star Trek is extrapolative? There are sooo many issues from how teleporters or shields work to half-Vulcans. But like most space based sci-fi things like FTL drives and artificial gravity are just assumed. If not warp drive or n-space or some other excuse then stable worm-holes left by "an ancient civilization" or similar tropes. People go to another planet and can eat the plants and animals to gain nutrition while simultaneously not dying from some virus or bacteria that we would have no resistance to whatsoever.

There is some sci-fi that is more grounded, as well as some fantasy. But the stories we write are still, for the most part, centered around individuals. Those individuals are exceptional, whether because they are just normal individuals thrust into extraordinary situations and rise to the occasion or because they are enhanced somehow.

Related back to D&D, I try to think out the logical consequences of what our world would be like if magic and monsters were real. We can extrapolate how would the supernatural change the world just as much as we can extrapolate how advanced technology can change the world. I don't see that much of a difference.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Could be! It's certainly the easiest early example to come up with, though I suspect there were probably novels or short stories with a similar formula before.

I obviously haven't read all of it, so I may be missing something, but I didn't detect any fairy-tale-ness beyond the fact that a significant proportion of far future/post-apocalyptic SF in the midcentury through mid 1970s had a weirdly fairy-tale-ish vibe at times (c.f. Zardoz for a very obvious example, but a huge amount of it does, even things like The Triffids kind of do), which sometimes seems conscious and sometimes not. I would separate it from, say, The Book of the New Sun series by Gene Wolfe, which has a consciously fairy-tale/morality play approach at times caused by the (deeply unreliable*) narrator choosing to present certain events that way (and is from the '80s, by which point that approach had largely faded).

Yes I very much liked that about 4E too. Fortunately there's no lack of TTRPGs now which can handle that, but it's a pity 5E didn't learn more there.

* = Not going to argue that, Severian contradicts himself a bunch, recontextualizes and revises events, and so on, but I've never come across an unreliable narrator somebody wasn't absolutely certain was utterly reliable and that's a separate discussion lol.

Well, Vance always had a sort of 'just so' kind of thing going on in his work. It isn't just Dying Earth, BTW, his sci-fi and his later fantasy (Maduc et al) have it, often even more explicitly. Its not exactly in the same tone as classic fairy tales, and often the topic material is a bit different, still it has a very fairy tale feeling. Characters tend to have very obvious and heavily explicated character traits for instance (Iocouno the wizard for example is somewhat arrogant and sometimes acts unwisely, Cudgel the Clever is basically anything BUT clever, being inevitably undone by his foolishness, greed, etc.).

 

[Clint_L]

How much of Star Trek is extrapolative? There are sooo many issues from how teleporters or shields work to half-Vulcans. But like most space based sci-fi things like FTL drives and artificial gravity are just assumed. If not warp drive or n-space or some other excuse then stable worm-holes left by "an ancient civilization" or similar tropes. People go to another planet and can eat the plants and animals to gain nutrition while simultaneously not dying from some virus or bacteria that we would have no resistance to whatsoever.

There is some sci-fi that is more grounded, as well as some fantasy. But the stories we write are still, for the most part, centered around individuals. Those individuals are exceptional, whether because they are just normal individuals thrust into extraordinary situations and rise to the occasion or because they are enhanced somehow.

Related back to D&D, I try to think out the logical consequences of what our world would be like if magic and monsters were real. We can extrapolate how would the supernatural change the world just as much as we can extrapolate how advanced technology can change the world. I don't see that much of a difference.

Well, I just think you're wrong about this. Let's look at Star Trek. Although far from hard sci-fi, it still has used its platform to explore issues of how humanity would interact with alien species, the implications of artificial intelligence, whether emotion or reason-based decision making is superior...I could go on and on. Plenty of Star Trek episodes are extrapolative.

Fantasy just doesn't tend to do that. Fantasy comes from romance, tales of knights on supernatural quests, and from (more interestingly, IMO) foundational myths. Although both genres can feature heroic, idealized characters, fantasy has a tendency to present characters that are "chosen one" type figures in the Arthurian (or Jesus) mode. And fantasy looks backwards for inspiration, to quasi-medieval settings with kings and queens.

There are some writers who use fantasy to explore interesting themes. In a novel like Tigana, Guy Gabriel Kay subverts the trope of the Dark Lord by humanizing the villain and telling half the story from his perspective. Game of Thrones is still backwards looking but combines fantasy tropes with historical inspiration to explore the darker sides of human motivations and ambitions. But both those authors are consciously working against standard fantasy tropes, to some extent.

As a genre, sci-fi allows the scope for authors to take chances. I had to think hard to come up with examples of fantasy novels that challenged my preconceptions. I could give you a list a mile long of science fiction novels. As I wrote earlier, challenging our preconceptions is at the heart of science-fiction; it's sci-fi's original raison d'être. That is just not the case for fantasy as a genre. It is an overwhelmingly safe genre, full of benevolent kings and righteous causes.

Fantasy at its most powerful focuses on those hero's journey tropes, on the common myths and aspirations of humanity. That's what Tolkien does so well; that's what George Lucas does too. I would argue that Westerns tend to fall into this category as well. I argue that science fiction is more naturally aligned with horror, as a genre that aims to subvert and unsettle. That's why I think the difference between science fiction and fantasy is foundational.

I don't like power-gaming precisely because it feels like that kind of Patrick Rothfuss-style fantasy where the protagonist is a prodigy at everything. I just don't enjoy that. I think that only works if it is executed by a talent in the league of Tolkien, who is work at the level of myth. But I can't get any kind of relatable or interesting characters from that. I enjoy the trappings of fantasy, but I want the characters to be believable, imperfect, and just trying to do their best. That's why I won't touch alignments with a ten foot pole - I think the whole concept is fantasy morality on steroids. That's why I hate when players start from "what would be an optimal character" and insist that they start with "what is an interesting want, need, and flaw?"

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That is also an elegant solution to the same issues that minion rules solved, but isn't it just easier to say that they die after 1 hit?

I think this solution is better because otherwise minions are more easily killed with twf than great weapons. Also area damage is better handled.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Animals. Not dragons.

Yes, but there are no real world dragons to compare with.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So now dragons have to hide in darkness out of fear of the peasants? Some "mighty" dragon that is.

I did not say or imply that.
I just adviced against attacking an armed city on daylight.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For me, that last "I try . . ." makes no sense. If magic and dragons were real, what basis would there be for extrapolation? Because all the common sense and technical knowledge that guide extrapolation are already ruled out of bounds by the supposition that magic and dragons are real!

And this then is where I traditionally step in and state the obvious corollary, which is that since GMs are NOT extrapolating (even if they pretend they are) then what are they doing? IMHO they are carrying out some sort of agenda, maybe gamist (IE what sort of imagining creates the 'best' game scenario) or some sort of 'sim' agenda (IE what conforms best to some genre and/or premise). Now, its also possible to imagine doing these, or a story focused agenda WITHOUT pretending to extrapolate (or at least with the understanding that any such extrapolation is purely an exercise in promoting suspension of disbelief) though I don't think you can both think you are strictly extrapolating AND do something like a Story Now style of game. I say this because IME Story Now needs to extrapolate consequences from character intent, and only secondarily from fiction. And when it comes to something like a Dragon, in a game like Dungeon World, THE ONLY constraint on a dragon is genre trope, pure and simple.