D&D 5E Thoughts on Divorcing D&D From [EDIT: Medievalishness], Mechanically Speaking.

[Reynard]

Yeah, that conceit ("magic is rare and mysterious unless you're a PC, in which case it is exactly the opposite") always annoyed me. It perpetuates what I see as the myth of PC specialness. Don't make PCs the exception to worldbuilding, I say, otherwise you're basically telling them the world doesn't matter as far as they're concerned.

I don't know how you get from here to there. Making PCs special has no impact on whether the world matters. The world matters when you make it responsive to the PCs, regardless of whether they are special or common. I mean, are you saying you can't have an urban fantasy or superhero campaign, or one where the PCs are angels and demons or the bastard offspring of Zeus? I know you prefer more down to earth settings, but to suggest that if they aren't, "the world doesn't matter" is a step too far.

I, for one, like it when the PCs are both special and deeply human.

 

[Reynard]

That's a great question. I don't know that I have an answer really.

Personally, I think it'd be kind of weird to venture into these explicitly exotic locations and fail to encounter exotic creatures, but that might just be me.

I don't understand why you think the PCs wouldn't encounter such creatures just because they got a Unarmed Defense bonus equal to their PB instead of having to wear chainmail or whatever.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's a great question. I don't know that I have an answer really.

Personally, I think it'd be kind of weird to venture into these explicitly exotic locations and fail to encounter exotic creatures, but that might just be me.

You said yourself: Indiana Jones rarely if ever encountered monsters, and he went to all sorts of exotic locations.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know how you get from here to there. Making PCs special has no impact on whether the world matters. The world matters when you make it responsive to the PCs, regardless of whether they are special or common. I mean, are you saying you can't have an urban fantasy or superhero campaign, or one where the PCs are angels and demons or the bastard offspring of Zeus? I know you prefer more down to earth settings, but to suggest that if they aren't, "the world doesn't matter" is a step too far.

I, for one, like it when the PCs are both special and deeply human.

Not at all. I just don't think that PCs should be separated from the natural order and thus be capable of things no other members of their own cultures are capable of. If you're a human from the Frigid Northlands, being a PC, by itself, does not make you more capable of anything than any other human from the Frigid Northlands would be. Anyone with the time, talent, and training should be capable of anything another person with those same things is capable of. To say otherwise puts narrative conceit over setting and the verisimilitude thereof, and that's not how I roll.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't understand why you think the PCs wouldn't encounter such creatures just because they got a Unarmed Defense bonus equal to their PB instead of having to wear chainmail or whatever.

I think @Gammadoodler is thinking about the lack of logic in not wearing armor in situations when doing so would make more sense than otherwise.

 

[Reynard]

Not at all. I just don't think that PCs should be separated from the natural order and thus be capable of things no other members of their own cultures are capable of. If you're a human from the Frigid Northlands, being a PC, by itself, does not make you more capable of anything than any other human from the Frigid Northlands would be. Anyone with the time, talent, and training should be capable of anything another person with those same things is capable of. To say otherwise puts narrative conceit over setting and the verisimilitude thereof, and that's not how I roll.

Not if the PCs are special, within the context of the setting.

Are you also suggesting that everyone in the world of the game has the same inherent capacity? that is, Conan is not stronger and tougher and more cunning than most Cimmerians? Because that doesn't track with reality or fiction.

 

[Reynard]

I think @Gammadoodler is thinking about the lack of logic in not wearing armor in situations when doing so would make more sense than otherwise.

That would be weird, since I have explained multiple times that it is an issue of aesthetics rather than realism.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I think maybe we are having a difference in definition of what a D&D adventure looks like and that is coloring the conversation.

For the record, when i say "D&D adventures" I do not mean something akin to old school dungeon crawling. I mean shorter crawls with setpiece encounters and pulp action. I mean adventures in a more modern sense. I don't think a shift to ranged combat (using firearms) significantly changes that, other than maybe making flying opponents less difficult to deal with. I am not suggesting big rules changes that alter the way 5E plays -- hence the thought of a universal unarmored defense to keep the numbers essentially where they are in vanilla D&D without folks walking around in armor.

It does seem that there is a bit of separation there.

Ultimately, for me the question is "what kinds of threats should the PCs face, and under what circumstances?"

From the answers to those questions, I'd expect the setting to have offensive and defensive responses to those threats and/or circumstances, whatever they are.

That the offensive response could be firearms is fine. It makes just as much sense as bows and arrows.

For the defensive response, maybe it's more runes and talismans than physical armor. It just seems to me that physical armor is a simple, direct, and proven response to the risk of being bitten, clawed, and stabbed, and there are a lot of critters that do exactly that.

Could be that armor is effective defensively (except against firearms) but there are significant enough drawbacks to using it that you'd only bring it for ideal-case usage.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not if the PCs are special, within the context of the setting.

Are you also suggesting that everyone in the world of the game has the same inherent capacity? that is, Conan is not stronger and tougher and more cunning than most Cimmerians? Because that doesn't track with reality or fiction.

No. As I said, anyone with the same talent, time, and training should be capable of the same things, although random chance is always a factor.

 

[Reynard]

It does seem that there is a bit of separation there.

Ultimately, for me the question is "what kinds of threats should the PCs face, and under what circumstances?"

From the answers to those questions, I'd expect the setting to have offensive and defensive responses to those threats and/or circumstances, whatever they are.

That the offensive response could be firearms is fine. It makes just as much sense as bows and arrows.

For the defensive response, maybe it's more runes and talismans than physical armor. It just seems to me that physical armor is a simple, direct, and proven response to the risk of being bitten, clawed, and stabbed, and there are a lot of critters that do exactly that.

Could be that armor is effective defensively (except against firearms) but there are significant enough drawbacks to using it that you'd only bring it for ideal-case usage.

It sounds like you want an in-fiction explanation, which is cool, but not really what I am concerned about. I want the style and some mechanics to back it up. That's just the way the world is and the way it "looks on the screen." The aesthetic sets the perameters, not the other way around.