D&D and the Implied Setting

[Gold Roger]

Once again I have top look at the idea of a power struggle between players and DM. Seriously, no RPG can work that way no matter the version or system.

How is the idea that the DM should accomodate the players wishes "putting the power into the player's hands", rather than just simple good old cooperative gaming?

 

[Tagnik]

If you say so Kae'yoss. Your loss.

You guys both just made me sick. Keep it civil next time, good lord.

 

[Tagnik]

Eberron is proof that you don't need to use the Implied Setting.. hell, Spycraft is proof enough.

You can totally rearrange that system.

 

[fusangite]

I dunno, fusangite. I would call your "standard" D&D the epitome of the traditional Xian faith system. Evil is real, just as real in people as the demons that tempt them. Paladins are youor Holy Crusaders against all that is evil. You can simply drop all the "Pagan" D&D Gods and have one main all-Good

I understand that D&D is allusive to Christianity but that does not mean you can actually represent Christian worlds in it.

and all-Evil deity, then have Clerics of aspects of said deity, or have them worshipping Angels of said aspects.

But the problem is not the number of gods. You can easily reduce D&D to a system with very few gods. The problem is that the way alignment is structured is antithetical to orthodox (small-o) Christian understandings of evil. Making Satan a god and evil an active principle is contrary to basic teachings of all mainline churches. That's why D&D is not adaptable to Christianity.

BTB I realize you're only illustrating an example, but I just wanted to point out that the inability to adapt a setting to the rules isn't necessarily the rules' fault.

The religion you described above is Manicheism. Manicheans were persecuted by Christians in ages past because of their unorthodox ideas about evil. The Presbyterian Church of Canada has, in the past taken a position that D&D is a good game for people to play, provided they excise the alignment system because of exactly this problem. Unfortunately, the structure of D&D is such that its theory of evil is so deeply embedded that you cannot produce a D20 product without including it; SRD-derived games lacking the D&D theory of evil have to be produced as OGL not D20.

Sure they could. Otherwise, how did the NPC get hamstrung?

Exactly. It is impossible for this to happen under D&D's damage mechanic. That's the point I'm making.

You seem to take the position that anything can happen in D&D even if the rules can neither explain nor replicate it. I take a different view.

Rogue rolls to attack, gets his "sneak attack" off, declares a trip, and *paf* it's now a "hamstring" attack.

No. It's not. the rogue cannot inflict permanent injuries that disable someone by making them unable to walk. There is nothing in those extra D6s of damage that are any different mechanically than any other damage inflicted.

I do get the fact that a realistic hamstring would cause permanent maiming, whereas the generic damage mechanic does not allow for such. So, it is up to your DM to find an in-game way to represent the damage.

The point I am making is that without radical alterations to the mechanic, he can't.

The point I am making is that as above, without fundamentally rewriting the rules to the point where the game could not longer be published under the D20 license, the above two things can't happen.

Your response is "there's gotta be a way!" No offense but that's not good enough. I have demonstrated something isn't possible. You have argued that it is possible based on nothing.

I would give the character a Flaw (from the Unearthed Arcana, I believe) and then work from there.

So, under what conditions should rogues be able to yoke UA flaws to the damage they inflict? What other classes should be able to do this? Should the rogue get to pick a new flaw he can inflict every time he delivers a sneak attack? Do you see the temporary, ad hoc and unbalancing effects of your proposal? There is no way to systematically integrate locational damage into the D20 hit point mechanic.

If you want more examples, I've got legions of them. The D20 mechanic cannot be used to represent all possible fantasy worlds. It can't be used to represent most possible fantasy worlds. That's why there's more than one FRP system in the world.

All in all, though, It's all about creative interpreation and creative storytelling, AND about how liberal the players and DM agree upon to be.

No. It's about picking a game system that reinforces the kind of story you want to tell instead of undermining it.

 

[fusangite]

Eberron is proof that you don't need to use the Implied Setting..

Eberron shares many characteristics with the implied setting, as do all D20 products. There are many settings D&D can generate but they will all have certain things in common, like the D&D theory of evil. Why? Because these characteristics are hard-wired into the rules of the game and the terms of the D20 license.

 

[Odysseus]

One of the key things to opening my mind to possibilities. Was Paul Kemps shadow series of books. Which is very FR D&D.

 

[Lucias]

Eberron is proof that you don't need to use the Implied Setting.. hell, Spycraft is proof enough.

You can totally rearrange that system.

Eberron fully embraces the implied setting, I don't see how it's not needed. Eberron is what happens when the implied setting is allowed to evolve and grow, actually.

Spycraft is OGL. You can't do Spycraft with D&D because the implied setting is completely contradictory to the game setting. So they got rid of the implied setting by going OGL.

 

[Mallus]

The problem is that the way alignment is structured is antithetical to orthodox (small-o) Christian understandings of evil.

Sure, but a lot of people just ditch alignment-as-written, or treat it as a purely descriptive system, or remove it completely from their games (as done in both my campaings with a minimum of effort or fuss).

The ease with which you can alter the aligment system depends a lot on the demands placed on it by each gaming group. Mine make few demands along those lines...

Unfortunately, the structure of D&D is such that its theory of evil is so deeply embedded that you cannot produce a D20 product without including it; SRD-derived games lacking the D&D theory of evil have to be produced as OGL not D20.

What do the rules governing publishing materials have to do with the changes a group implements for their weekend game? Again, the groups I've played in had no signifigant problem disentangling the alignment system from the rest of the game.

It is impossible for this to happen under D&D's damage mechanic. That's the point I'm making.

But hamstringing a foe is easy to describe using standand d20 mechanics, even if the offical rules don't provide for it. Are you really saying your group couldn't agree on a way to model it?

Using your original example, I'd rule hamstringing a captured foe (outside of combat) would result in said foe having his movement rate reduced to a Crawl (5ft), and suffer a -2 circumstance penalty to any physical activity they could still perform. There... easy-peasy (I can't believe I just typed that...).

Hamstringing during combat is a lot trickier, and also outside the scope of your initial example. Even so, a hamstring could replace a coup-de-grace, it could require a crit + use of the some kind of narrative-altering resource (like action/hero/conviction points, if used), etc. None of that is core, but its all easily rendered in close-to-core terms. Its hardly a rewrite of the whole combat resolution system.

Perhaps we just disgree on what constitutes 'radical alterations to the mechanic'.

And can't some rule modifications be ad-hoc and single-use-only?

The D20 mechanic cannot be used to represent all possible fantasy worlds.

I don't think anyone said it could.

As to how useful a tool it is to model a wide variety of fantasy worlds, I still think that's best framed as a social issue, a matter of the expectations and agreements between players.

You expect a rules set to provide "the physics of the game world", where I expect them to provide a rough modelling tool.

 

[Hjorimir]

Eberron is proof that you don't need to use the Implied Setting.

Okay, that made me laugh out loud.

 

[Hjorimir]

2. "If/When I run again, I'll be eliminating somwhere around 90% of the PrCs. Those that do make it will probably be tied to some level of an affiliation." No offense, Lucias, but this is not good DM'ing. Any DM'ing advice anywhere will tell you its better to let the PC's imaginations run wild and adapt your campaign world to fit, whenever possible. It also demonstrates a view of DM'ing DnD that looks for frustration in situations where there need not be any. I agree with Andor that most PrC's can be explained or re-explained as individual style adaption or personal growth adapted by individuals rather than organizationally taught.

I disagree on so many levels with this statement.

1) A supplement is balanced against itself and the core books, which means that a supplement is not necessarily balanced against another supplement. If you let the "PC's imaginations run wild" you can get some game-breaking PCs. Just take a stroll over to the WotC boards and see some of the monsters - oopse, I mean characters - they slap together over there.

2) A good campaign can be defined as much by what it doesn't allow as much as it is defined by what it adds. In the first part of your post you were validating that you can modify D&D any way you like and that it is fine to only contradict yourself by saying limitations are indicative of bad DMing. So, which is it? You cannot have both.

3) If a DM can run a game outside the implied setting that has to mean that the DM should feel free to strip away PrCs and even - gasp - core classes in order to create the setting and verisimilitude he or she desires. You say a good DM allows anything and everything and I say a good player can find an exciting character that works within the context of the DM's setting.

"No, Bob, you cannot run an Aztec Warrior that sailed to Japan and became a ninja. This is Middle Earth and I need you to select something in line with that world."