D&D General D&D Assumptions Ain't What They Used To Be

[Reynard]

That line certainly existed. Because in the real world, no matter what, ritual does not produce repeatable results. For those ancient people, they could believe whatever they liked and it made zero difference. Thus we have as many different beliefs and rituals as we have people.

In DnD land, it has quantifiable results.

Evidence strongly suggests that "repeatability" was nowhere near their concerns. You are applying modern, scientific method rationality to people that had no conception of such things. They saw a magical world around them and thus loved that magical world. Belief, as we think of it today, wasn't a factor.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't quite follow. WotC is releasing a product very similar to a novel. One has to either buy the book or participate in a D&D game to unlock the contents of the book. There's no equivalence to plastering something on a billboard. Your argument that it's out in public just doesn't hold water.

I always wonder why people never bother to read the rest of an argument. The difference between a home game and the DnD's public facing material IS facing the public. The book? I covered that in the other part of my post that you seem to have skipped.

"The difference between something being in an novel, and something being in a role-playing game is contribution. In a novel, I sit back and watch how the character reacts. If I disagree with that characters actions, then I can engage in a variety of ways. In a TTRPG I am the one deciding what acts the character takes or doesn't take. Making me responsible for those actions, even if in a small way."

DnD is not like a novel, because participation in a novel is passive. Participation in DnD is active. And the people making the game, putting it out for the public to consume, are not going to know precisely how people are going to use their materials.

But assuming just for a moment your argument had merit, so what? Oh, no. These really evil folk who worship a spider queen keep slaves.


You make a good argument for it being overused.

These two points are not as separate as you seem to think.

 

[Chaosmancer]

To be fair, that wasn't my argument.

So you just want historical realism without the history or the realism? Cause it is kind of hard to have things turn out the same when none of the details, history, events, resources, needs, or anything else are the same.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Evidence strongly suggests that "repeatability" was nowhere near their concerns. You are applying modern, scientific method rationality to people that had no conception of such things. They saw a magical world around them and thus loved that magical world. Belief, as we think of it today, wasn't a factor.

Let us say that someone in the ancient world believed that no one could lie while standing in the sacred circle. Is that the exact same, and going to have the exact same effects, as the fact that Zone of Truth completely prevents someone from lying and tells anyone using it that people are not effected by it?

Let us say that in the ancient world, they believed that if you slept under fern leaves that you would be cured of disease. Is that the exact same, and going to have the exact same effects, as the fact that Lesser Restoration completely purges a body of disease?

I say... no. Because a real effect that really happens as a concrete fact, has more of an effect than people just thinking something works. It doesn't matter how much magical thinking is involved if you can't actually produce results. And if you can actually produce results, those results can change things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you just want historical realism without the history or the realism? Cause it is kind of hard to have things turn out the same when none of the details, history, events, resources, needs, or anything else are the same.

Well, nice to know I'm wrong no matter what I say, so as it doesn't align with your view.

Look, can we just leave it at agree to disagree?

 

[MGibster]

I always wonder why people never bother to read the rest of an argument. The difference between a home game and the DnD's public facing material IS facing the public. The book? I covered that in the other part of my post that you seem to have skipped.

I read the whole thing and I elected to quote the most important part of your argument. D&D's "public" facing in the form of a book is no different than a novel. It isn't plastered where just anyone could see it. You have to either pick up the book or actively participate in a D&D game.

DnD is not like a novel, because participation in a novel is passive. Participation in DnD is active. And the people making the game, putting it out for the public to consume, are not going to know precisely how people are going to use their materials.

None of this has anything to do with D&D being public or private. Who cares if WotC doesn't know how people are going to use their materials? What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Reynard]

Let us say that someone in the ancient world believed that no one could lie while standing in the sacred circle. Is that the exact same, and going to have the exact same effects, as the fact that Zone of Truth completely prevents someone from lying and tells anyone using it that people are not effected by it?

Let us say that in the ancient world, they believed that if you slept under fern leaves that you would be cured of disease. Is that the exact same, and going to have the exact same effects, as the fact that Lesser Restoration completely purges a body of disease?

I say... no. Because a real effect that really happens as a concrete fact, has more of an effect than people just thinking something works. It doesn't matter how much magical thinking is involved if you can't actually produce results. And if you can actually produce results, those results can change things.

You are completely beside the point and arguing something completely different.

In the context of the world, and how people respond to magic, there is no difference between history and D&D. There are people alive today, at this very moment, that believe tornadoes happen because of folks moral failing, or who hunt down and literally stone to death penis stealing sorcerers.

If you want to argue about how many hit points a big tent revival preacher can heal, I can't argue with you, but that number is entirely beside the point for those for whom that magic is real.

 

[Hussar]

Evidence strongly suggests that "repeatability" was nowhere near their concerns. You are applying modern, scientific method rationality to people that had no conception of such things. They saw a magical world around them and thus loved that magical world. Belief, as we think of it today, wasn't a factor.

I’m now completely lost as to what your point is then.

 

[Hussar]

I read the whole thing and I elected to quote the most important part of your argument. D&D's "public" facing in the form of a book is no different than a novel. It isn't plastered where just anyone could see it. You have to either pick up the book or actively participate in a D&D game.


None of this has anything to do with D&D being public or private. Who cares if WotC doesn't know how people are going to use their materials? What does that have to do with anything?

None of this encourages WotC to facilitate things though.

Should the equipment list in the phb include the prices for various slaves?

 

[Mind of tempest]

The difference between including something in your home game and WoTC including it in the official game, is the same difference as hanging a nude portrait of yourself in your bedroom, compared to plastering it on a billboard on the highway.

One is in the privacy of your home, where you have full control over who sees it and how they approach it. The other is out in the public where you have no control over it.

The difference between something being in an novel, and something being in a role-playing game is contribution. In a novel, I sit back and watch how the character reacts. If I disagree with that characters actions, then I can engage in a variety of ways. In a TTRPG I am the one deciding what acts the character takes or doesn't take. Making me responsible for those actions, even if in a small way.



Part of my frustrations with slavery in DnD isn't that it is limited to the bad guys. Because it is, and that is a good thing. No, my issue is that it is ALL of the bad guys. Have you ever taken a moment to see how ubiquitous it is?

Aboleths
Evil humans and ect
Drow
Duergar
Derro
Evil Giants
Yuan-ti
Mind flayers
Kou-toa
Gnolls
Goblinoids
Orcs
Ogres
Oni
Evil Dragons
All Genies
Kraken
Cyclops
Fomorians
Grimlock
Ixitxachitl
Kobold
Morkoth
Vampires
Liches
Neogi
Beholders
Bullywugs
Fiends
Hags
Githyanki
Lamia

Seriously if it is evil and intelligent in DnD the odds are incredibly high it either was a slave, is a slave, or owns slaves.

I wonder if the slaver thing is for two meta reasons a need to justify them being called evil and having a reason to take the player alive if the players lose

What difference does that make? It doesn’t matter how nuanced. The truth is, ritual and magic in DnD worlds have nothing to do with belief. They demonstrably work. And they are repeatable.

The notion of “faith” in a DnD world is very nebulous thing. Is it faith when you know it works? Worship? Oh yeah. Worship is a thing. But faith? The belief that something is true without any evidence? Just doesn’t apply.

People in DnD land know for a fact gods exist. They can meet them. They can literally see them. It’s no more a matter of faith than knowing the sun exists.

I think faith in gods is closer to how people in the real world can trust and have faith in governments, politicians and other institutions whish at least some one on earth is still like that.