D&D General Why the resistance to D&D being a game?

[pemerton]

We're talking about non-narrativist D&D here

Who's "we"? I'm talking about D&D, in the context of an OP that asks about certain attitudes towards it.

Prince Valiant is not any version of D&D, not even 4e (which is probably closest). In a game with those design parameters, an ability like that is fine. I am not ok with it in D&D because, yes, the fiction is terrible, and to me the fiction should inform the mechanics as much as possible.

I'm not arguing whether or not the ability should be in D&D (that's a commercial decision for WotC), nor whether or not you should "be OK" with it.

I'm arguing that the fact that you (along with whomever else) don't like it, it doesn't follow that it is a supernatural ability.

 

[pemerton]

There are ways in some versions of D&D to mechanically represent severe specific damage by the way.

But how do you know they're really true to D&D? Maybe they're incursions from RuneQuest and Rolemaster!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, I wouldn't say they're models of realism! Nor is any James Bond film ever, or Die Hard, or Batman, or really any action film ever.

That doesn't mean they're films about the supernatural. It just means that they're works of imagination.

Different media can and does follow different rules. My games are not designed as action movies.

 

[Oofta]

I realize it's a very different thing, but I ask to know if I want to set up a follow and if so.whichnibe. How were you about the B/X morale rules?

I never used those, although sometimes if I'm not certain whether or not the NPCs will flee I will make a check. But that's because, as the DM, I'm uncertain how they would react.

Also, are there any combat things (force a retreat, push back) that rely on forcing the defender to make a decision to move back that you are ok with?

I have no idea what you're referring to, sorry.

And finally, I'm pretty sure there are things I can bring up in threads that will make at least 1/3rd of the readers attack. Would it be better if it was some percent of the opponents instead of all? (Assuming appropriate language and they got.appropriate situational bonuses to will saves).

This power would basically be the equivalent of the Command spell for up to 30-40 NPCs depending on how you calculate "within 30 feet". Not only is it supernatural, it's OP. Are there situations where the PC could yell something and I might decide it has a reasonable chance of that PC then being attacked? Sure! But it would have to fit the fiction and the narrative of the moment.

Just one example - the PCs are in a mass combat, a group of enemies have formed a shield wall circle protecting their king. They are loyal and willing to die. Shield walls can be quite effective (in game terms they've all gone full defensive) and they just need to hold out for a few rounds for reinforcements to arrive. The PC uses this ability and suddenly the enemy forgets all about their defense so that they can attack the PC? Presumably break ranks just to get to this one person if they can?

It makes no sense whatsoever as a mundane ability and it would make no sense in the narrative fiction.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Who's "we"? I'm talking about D&D, in the context of an OP that asks about certain attitudes towards it.

I'm not arguing whether or not the ability should be in D&D (that's a commercial decision for WotC), nor whether or not you should "be OK" with it.

I'm arguing that the fact that you (along with whomever else) don't like it, it doesn't follow that it is a supernatural ability.

I don't like it because it looks like a supernatural ability to me, but presents itself as a mundane one. The rule saying it's mundane doesn't make it so, or if it does, it's a badly concepted ability as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But how do you know they're really true to D&D? Maybe they're incursions from RuneQuest and Rolemaster!

Maybe they are. Those are great games D&D can learn from IMO.

 

[Cadence]

Well, I wouldn't say they're models of realism! Nor is any James Bond film ever, or Die Hard, or Batman, or really any action film ever.

That doesn't mean they're films about the supernatural. It just means that they're works of imagination.

Certainly!

But it feels like if one were readings say a pretty straight laced "historical fiction" about the 19x0's that was advertised as such, and everything was plausibly irl realistic, and suddenly something Die Hard or James Bond or Batman-ish happened that it would feel unreal or, maybe supernatural given what the genre was supposed to be.

It feels like the problem here is the individual folks' genre expectations clashing. (Insert something about the game rules or campaign setting fixing those and maybe a dash of something in bad wrong funning).

 

[Oofta]

Sure. But that doesn't mean that you get to decide that the fiction of my game involves supernatural events, when I'm expressly telling you that they're not. They're just circumstances of this person making these other people really angry.

I mean, maybe someone doesn't like Fast and Furious 6 or 7 because they think stopping tanks and planes with cars, using cars to catch people who are flying through the air, parachuting cars onto a mountain highway, or jumping a car from skyscraper to skyscraper, is silly or unrealistic. That doesn't mean that those films are really about magical cars.

The F&F does have magic cars. Much like the old TV shows where they did these amazing jumps and you could see the car frame bend while the camera switches and the drivers just zoom off. The Dukes of Hazard went through hundreds of Dodge Chargers filming stunts that totaled the cars. They were absolutely not depicting normal vehicles.


If you're okay with magic cars, that's fine. After all a lot of people like the Transformer movies as well. Me? The F&F movies got silly and I stopped watching them when they were no longer even borderline plausible. You don't get to tell me that my opinion that something is magic is wrong.

 

[pemerton]

But it feels like if one were readings say a pretty straight laced "historical fiction" about the 19x0's that was advertised as such, and everything was plausibly irl realistic, and suddenly something Die Hard or James Bond or Batman-ish happened that it would feel unreal or, maybe supernatural given what the genre was supposed to be.

I don't think it would feel supernatural at all - why would the supernatural be a component of straight-laced historical fiction? It would just seem poorly written.

Also , I'm not sure if you're intending to compare D&D - the game in which heroes are inspired by REH's Conan and Merlin and the like - to straight laced historical fiction - but that's not a comparison that I personally would go with.

The idea of goading foes into attacking seems quite consistent with the tone and content of D&D! I mean, REH's Conan survives being crucified in the desert (for weeks, I think it is - the story is A Witch Shall Be Born). That doesn't mean that REH really wrote a story about Wolverine!

 

[Micah Sweet]

The F&F does have magic cars. Much like the old TV shows where they did these amazing jumps and you could see the car frame bend while the camera switches and the drivers just zoom off. The Dukes of Hazard went through hundreds of Dodge Chargers filming stunts that totaled the cars. They were absolutely not depicting normal vehicles.


If you're okay with magic cars, that's fine. After all a lot of people like the Transformer movies as well. Me? The F&F movies got silly and I stopped watching them when they were no longer even borderline plausible. You don't get to tell me that my opinion that something is magic is wrong.

Apparently if you say it isn't magic, then that's all there to it.