D&D 5E Fairy tale logic vs naturalism in fantasy RPGing

[TerraDave]

Naturalistic approach to fairy tales

Not to make this thread to naturalistic (ahm) but by way of background:

In fairy tales: things are what they are and do what they do. There is little overt motivation or exposition. Of course, by their nature all sorts of things are implied.

In modern speculative fiction: 20th century fantasy or sci fi tends to explain. Sometimes briefly, sometimes in many hundreds of pages. In general it is considered bad form for characters to do things without some nod to why and how.

I don't know if this is about realism. Lots of over explained fiction does not feel the least bit real, and the harder the author tries, the worse it gets. The classic fairy tales all have some psychological resonance that maintains their relevance, and sense of "truth".

D&D is very much rooted in the traditions of speculative fiction. Things now have stats, and properties, and some minimal motivation. They draw power from other planes and cast a limited number of spells. They turn experience into power at a proscribed rate.

But some fairy tale can help. Just taking things as they are can help move things along quite nicely. But both players and dms resist, and we are back to looking up explanations in the core rulebooks.

 

[Jester David]

Not all animals and plants were intelligent in the Narnia-verse. The explanation is rather Biblical in reasoning, as I recall.

I believe that was added in a much later book. Likely in response to people wondering on this. So it was really a retcon to explain a logical flaw in the world. A narrative patch.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The OP does describe two distinct approaches that are, in any one particular instance, mutually exclusive.

I don't think either one is more valid or inherently preferable for D&D than the other, and you often need a mix of both in a single campaign, just as JRRT mixed them both in his works. The "naturalism" approach makes things relatable and specific and even more able to be used by players ("okay, well, if the elves have fields somewhere, we can burn them to the ground when the elves don't want to give us help, right?!"). The "phantasm" approach makes things dreamy and fantastic and otherworldly and is firmly in the realm of (typically DM) fiat ("The elves wordlessly provide you with the bounty, though they've no fields to create such a repast").

So, I guess, "yup."

 

[pemerton]

In fairy tales: things are what they are and do what they do. There is little overt motivation or exposition. Of course, by their nature all sorts of things are implied.

In modern speculative fiction: 20th century fantasy or sci fi tends to explain. Sometimes briefly, sometimes in many hundreds of pages. In general it is considered bad form for characters to do things without some nod to why and how.

I don't know if this is about realism. Lots of over explained fiction does not feel the least bit real, and the harder the author tries, the worse it gets. The classic fairy tales all have some psychological resonance that maintains their relevance, and sense of "truth".

But not all modern fantasy-type fiction has explanation. Star Wars doesn't. (The prequels did, but they sucked.) And (as per my OP) LotR mostly doesn't. Dune doesn't either, as best I recall it (it's been a long time) - the stuff about the Spice and the ecology of the sandworms and so on all seemed more like plot device than explanation. (Maybe my memory is wonky? Maybe there's more explanation in subsequent books?)

D&D is very much rooted in the traditions of speculative fiction. Things now have stats, and properties, and some minimal motivation.

But I think you can have stats - what are, in effect, contributing elements to chances of success for player-declared actions - without having to go into the depths of explanation.

 

[pemerton]

The "naturalism" approach makes things relatable and specific and even more able to be used by players ("okay, well, if the elves have fields somewhere, we can burn them to the ground when the elves don't want to give us help, right?!"). The "phantasm" approach makes things dreamy and fantastic and otherworldly and is firmly in the realm of (typically DM) fiat ("The elves wordlessly provide you with the bounty, though they've no fields to create such a repast").

To me it seems to be the opposite of this.

Naturalism shifts much more control to the GM. Eg with your "burn the fields" example, mostly this will be subject almost entirely to GM fiat (in terms of setting checks required, DCs required, determining consequences, etc) - unless you're using something like the 4e skill challenge structure to resolve it.

Whereas fairy tale logic is what allows the trolls to still be in the same place when the PCs come back to loot them; or allows a thief to get lucky and surive a 50' fall or not be seen hiding in the corner of the giant's hall. Because, as [MENTION=22260]TerraDave[/MENTION] put it, "things are what they are and do what they do. There is little overt motivation or exposition," there is no need to worry that the GM's framing, or the outcomes of the players' action resolution, is somehow "unrealistic" or lackingin verisimilitude/causal logic.

(When [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] ran a group of us through a play-by-post of the Chamberlain and the King, rather than conerns over whether or not the Chamberlain would grant us an audience, the Chamberlain turned out to be some sort of golem-thingy under the control of an evil dragon threatening the town. That's fairy tale logic!)

 

[Lanefan]

But not all modern fantasy-type fiction has explanation. Star Wars doesn't. (The prequels did, but they sucked.)

Sucky or not, it *is* still an explanation.

And (as per my OP) LotR mostly doesn't.

With LotR it's very hard to tell, in that sometimes it seems JRRT had an explanation in his own mind for everything in his world/universe; but to put all that explanation into his books would have taken several lifetimes. Were he alive today and someone were to ask him what Dwarves ate and where/how they got their food I'd not at all be surprised if the answer went on for an hour or more.

Can't speak to Dune as I've never read it.

But I think you can have stats - what are, in effect, contributing elements to chances of success for player-declared actions - without having to go into the depths of explanation.

Personally, I prefer that there be at least a vague explanation (even if far-fetched) for pretty much everything at least within my own mind as DM; as even if said explanation never comes up in the run of play it's still there as a foundation. Does that mean I've thought absolutely everything through? Of course not. But the basics, including food? Yep. How and why magic works as a part of natural physics? Yep. Why Elves and Dwarves and Dragons exist on the game worlds but not on our own Earth? Yep.

And now and then these things do come up in the run of play, usually when dealing with either areas of wild magic or no magic. That said, not everything has to be backed up by hard stats. Basic quiding principles will usually do for most things.

In Middle Earth it's obvious (to me, anyway) the Elves get their food both from their own forests (e.g. lembas) and from trade (e.g. the trade between the Wood Elves and Laketown). In D&D Dwarves would also get it via trade, along with eating lots and lots of mushrooms and other things that'll grow underground.

Lan-"or maybe Dwarves just eat rock; it's be a lot simpler that way"-efan

 

[Horwath]

3rd level druid spell. Plant growth. One spell can double the plant yield in a year in 2 sq km or 500 acres in forgotten realms err... units

So, in planting season(lets say 15 days) that is 30 sq km of "super yield" from just one lvl 5 druid.

Also elven rangers are very precise about wild animals and their number and balance, so they hunt just the right amount of just the right type to preserve perfect balance and maximum ofsprings of every species to have max meat harvest.

Add in little magic weather control for perfect amount of rain and sunshine.


There are some studies that minimum one person needs is 0,07 hectare of perfect arable land to live for a year(mostly vegeterian diet). Lets tripple that to 0,2 hectare because forest is not perfect place for food but it is elven magic forest so we double the yield to only 0,1 hectare per elf per year for food. 1 km sq has 100 hectares, so one lvl5 druid with one 3rd level slot can feed about 1000 people(farmers still need to work it to gather food and plant seeds and water the plants, pull weed etc...), with 15 days of spell casting per season in 30 sq km there is enough food for 30000 people.

 

[I'm A Banana]

To me it seems to be the opposite of this.

Naturalism shifts much more control to the GM. Eg with your "burn the fields" example, mostly this will be subject almost entirely to GM fiat (in terms of setting checks required, DCs required, determining consequences, etc) - unless you're using something like the 4e skill challenge structure to resolve it.

Disagree. By saying the elves have a field, it's like saying "a goblin approaches." Now it's up to the players to decide what to do with that information. "The elves get their wheat from a small nearby farm" puts into play a prop that can be used in all manner of ways by a creative party, totally unforseen by the DM. As long as the DM is obeying the general principles of say yes and asking the players what they do, naturalism means the players can make informed decisions about the consequences of their interaction with the world that hold just as true as saying "I swing my sword at it."

There may be DC's involved, if it is a challenge (but if the DM is being naturalistic, those DC's will make sense for the situation and be something you might be able to exert some control over by changing the situation). There may be unforseen wrinkles. But if a DM is DMing according to naturalism, there won't be much in the way of fiat - elves have fields that produce their food. The consequences of that will be fairly natural. If the DM says something like "Uh, elf magic protects the fields and they cannot be burnt!" then either they're violating that naturalism, or the party might consider Dispel Magic because that magic, too, is a prop for them to use as they see fit.

Whereas fairy tale logic is what allows the trolls to still be in the same place when the PCs come back to loot them; or allows a thief to get lucky and surive a 50' fall or not be seen hiding in the corner of the giant's hall. Because, as [MENTION=22260]TerraDave[/MENTION] put it, "things are what they are and do what they do. There is little overt motivation or exposition," there is no need to worry that the GM's framing, or the outcomes of the players' action resolution, is somehow "unrealistic" or lackingin verisimilitude/causal logic.

(When [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] ran a group of us through a play-by-post of the Chamberlain and the King, rather than conerns over whether or not the Chamberlain would grant us an audience, the Chamberlain turned out to be some sort of golem-thingy under the control of an evil dragon threatening the town. That's fairy tale logic!)

"Things are what they are and do what they do" seems to be the opposite of fairy tale logic to me. Wolves don't dress up as your grandma, and aren't especially capable of threatening you, after all. Things in fairy-tale logic are subjective and laden with metaphor. Things are as you see them and do what the story demands.

Meanwhile, trolls preferring to live in swamps and being especially dim and stubborn is perfectly naturalistic. Which also means that these are things that a player can exploit. And, in a world with magic and dragons and trolls, luck giving a hero the ability to survive a 50 ft. fall is easily explicable in terms of how the world functions, if you want it to be.

A chamberlain being a golem-thing under the control of an evil dragon threatening the town can be fairy-tale or it can be fairly naturalistic (this dragon wants to destroy the town and is very cunning and there exists magic by which golems that are indistinguishable from humans can be made). If it's the former, the Chamberlain being a golem or the thing threatening the town being a dragon aren't really functional bits of information ("The forest is filled with wolves" doesn't tell you your grandma is a wolf!). There doesn't have to be anything behind the Chamberlain being a golem in fairy tale logic - if your hero can learn to make one, or can reprogram it, or can make it fall in love with them...totally out of your ability to know as a player. Try it, see how the DM is feeling. In naturalistic logic, the Chamberlain being a golem has meaning and is information that can be used to make some predictions about what might happen. Like, your learned sage of a hero knows that powerful magic is needed to create a golem and so this dragon must have or know someone who has access to such powerful magic (perhaps a powerful wizard works for them). The most powerful magician they know might be able to tell them more - or they might be on the Dragon's side! Or maybe your learned sage can repair the golem and reprogram it to work for you, if they're powerful enough. Being a golem means you can make some educated guesses about what might happen if you interact with it in certain ways as a player.

In this way, naturalism encourages players to interact with objects in the world (even if those objects are golems and dragons and faerie queens and whatnot) and take agency in the narrative. There are consequences for your actions that you might be able to forsee and use to achieve your player's goals. Fairy tale logic...well, Red and the Woodsman (and even the Wolf!) were never more than along for the ride. There's no possibility of Red talking to the Woodsman and realizing that wolves have a propensity for impersonating people and then doing a thorough check outside of her grandmother's house to discover tufts of wolf hair and claw marks on the doorknob. That's just not the story what the story is about - those options aren't available to her as a player.

But, naturalism isn't great for a sense of wonder or surprise, so a healthy dose of fairy tale logic is often needed if you don't want the game world to degenerate into simple props on an imagination-board. If wolves never impersonate your grandma because that's just not wolfy, you can lose a lot of the "anything can happen game of imagination" appeal of D&D.

 

[Aenghus]

To me it seems to be the opposite of this.

Naturalism shifts much more control to the GM. Eg with your "burn the fields" example, mostly this will be subject almost entirely to GM fiat (in terms of setting checks required, DCs required, determining consequences, etc) - unless you're using something like the 4e skill challenge structure to resolve it.

Whereas fairy tale logic is what allows the trolls to still be in the same place when the PCs come back to loot them; or allows a thief to get lucky and surive a 50' fall or not be seen hiding in the corner of the giant's hall. Because, as [MENTION=22260]TerraDave[/MENTION] put it, "things are what they are and do what they do. There is little overt motivation or exposition," there is no need to worry that the GM's framing, or the outcomes of the players' action resolution, is somehow "unrealistic" or lackingin verisimilitude/causal logic.

I don't quite agree as the DM is the one who places (or doesn't place) player accessible handles in their game, and frames the initial situation and exposition. A naturalistic presentation can presented in a way that suggests lots of viable options for the players, making immediate action possible, or a complex situation with no obvious initial approach and lots of dangers suggested for any failure. Hidden backstory generally makes decision making more difficult for players - even when it doesn't exist, the possibility of its existence will often make them less willing to engage for fear of being run over by the plotmonster.

Whereas fairy tale logic can be entirely inaccessible to the players if not explained or illustrated, or if handles for the PCs aren't provided, or if the players reject it. Fairy tales have lots of railroading. It could be a case of making the PCs a powerless audience while they watch the NPCs enact a scene necessary to the story. (That suggests a potentially interesting story where the PCs derail a story and watch the world start to unwind around them, doomed unless they complete the story. Naturally the PCs are trapped in the story so they can't just walk away.)

Or are you conflating the common situation where naturalistic games often don't have any PC script immunity with naturalism itself?

I think it comes down to expectations to some extent. Players desiring naturalism may be upset by fairly tale logic, and vice versa.

(When [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] ran a group of us through a play-by-post of the Chamberlain and the King, rather than conerns over whether or not the Chamberlain would grant us an audience, the Chamberlain turned out to be some sort of golem-thingy under the control of an evil dragon threatening the town. That's fairy tale logic!)

Or action movie logic resolution, depending on how it's framed. Complex talky problems get interrupted/replaced by fight scenes. Faerie tales tend to shorten depictions of violence in favour of dialogue and use lots of plot devices, maguffins and deus ex machinas. The latter are less accessible to PCs due to the problem of handling exposition for them, and getting player buy-in. Faerie-tale foes are often ludicrously powerful, and can only be defeated by exploiting their weakness, which is a dangerous state of affairs when players can refuse to accept the plot devices offered, or fail to use them "correctly". What's crystal clear to the DM can be as opaque as mud to the players.

Fairy tale logic probably needs improvisation techniques to ensure the PCs have some agency and I think PC access to the narrative could help it, given receptive players.

 

[pemerton]

Fairy tales have lots of railroading.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Fairy tales are stories, like anything else. They have protagonists who do things.

If you mean the protagonists in fairy tales are not active, I don't agree. Jack is pretty active in the tale of the beanstalk (trades the cow for the beans, sows the beans, climbs the stalk, steals the gold/goose, kills/runs from the giant, cuts down the beanstalk).

Hansel and Gretel are fairly active also (save breadcrumbs, make a trail, eat from the house, trick the witch about the thinnes of Hansel, shove the witch into the oven, persuade the swan to carry them across the lake, live happily ever after with their money).

And if we turn from fairy tales in the literal sense, to RPGing, I don't see how "You ride for twenty days and come to a castle" is more railroading than "You ride for twenty days and come to the elves tilling their fields."

So, as I said, I'm not really sure what you mean.

In naturalistic logic, the Chamberlain being a golem has meaning and is information that can be used to make some predictions about what might happen. Like, your learned sage of a hero knows that powerful magic is needed to create a golem and so this dragon must have or know someone who has access to such powerful magic

<snip>

In this way, naturalism encourages players to interact with objects in the world (even if those objects are golems and dragons and faerie queens and whatnot) and take agency in the narrative. There are consequences for your actions that you might be able to forsee and use to achieve your player's goals. Fairy tale logic...well, Red and the Woodsman (and even the Wolf!) were never more than along for the ride.

As with Aenghus's remark, I don't follow. All characters in fiction are "along for the ride" - I don't see what makes you think Little Red Riding Hood is in a special category.

When Little Red Riding Hood sees that grandma has big teeth, that is information she can use. When the woodsman tracks the wolf to Grandma's house, he can (as he does!) come in and kill it.

There are consequences for actions in Little Red Riding Hood - by disobeying her mother, Little Red Riding Hood takes a risk! By cutting open the wolf, the woodsman is able to rescue the swallowed victims. (This is a pretty standard D&D trope.)

In the game that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] ran, my Knight Commander of the Iron Tower was able to heal the injured and rouse the frightened by speaking words of prayer and encouragement.

Just because consequences don't have a naturalistic causal logic doesn't mean that players can't engage with them, by activatig the game's mechanics.

A naturalistic presentation can presented in a way that suggests lots of viable options for the players, making immediate action possible

<snip>

Hidden backstory generally makes decision making more difficult for players

The second bit - plus the fact that adjudication, even when it doesn't depend upon secret backstory, will still depend upon a GM's interpretation and application of naturalistic causal logic - tends (in my view) to somewhat negate the first bit.

Disagree. By saying the elves have a field, it's like saying "a goblin approaches." Now it's up to the players to decide what to do with that information.

Elaborating on my reply to Aenghus, I don't think these are very similar. D&D, and many other RPGs that emulate its approach to action resolution pretty closely, give the players a very clear range of options for responding to "a goblin approaches". There are rules for reactions (with CHA mods and/or Diplomacy-type skills); rules for closing the distance or running away; rules for shooting it with arrows; etc.

But (outside of 4e's skill challenges) there aren't rules for scoping out or setting fire to a field.

As long as the DM is obeying the general principles of say yes and asking the players what they do, naturalism means the players can make informed decisions about the consequences of their interaction with the world that hold just as true as saying "I swing my sword at it."

There may be DC's involved, if it is a challenge (but if the DM is being naturalistic, those DC's will make sense for the situation and be something you might be able to exert some control over by changing the situation). There may be unforseen wrinkles. But if a DM is DMing according to naturalism, there won't be much in the way of fiat - elves have fields that produce their food. The consequences of that will be fairly natural. If the DM says something like "Uh, elf magic protects the fields and they cannot be burnt!" then either they're violating that naturalism, or the party might consider Dispel Magic because that magic, too, is a prop for them to use as they see fit.

Well obviously if the GM just says yes to every player action declaration then there won't be any issues - but that will be the case in any situation. Naturalism doesn't make it more likely.

But as soon as there is adjudication, I think it's a different story. Saying there won't be much in the way of fiat doesn't seem plausible to me. For instance - have you ever started a grassfire? Or tried to put one out? I can answer yes to both questions (the events took place in the same order in which I frame the questions), but I wouldn't be confident in generalising my experience to a wheatfield in what is probalby a less arid environment than where I had my personal experience.

I remember in a tournament game years ago when our PCs were trapped in a space-base with a fire, and we started planning actions on the assumption that we had at least minutes to go before our oxygen supplies were threatened, and the GM had us asphyxiating within seconds. The GM thought he was reasoning naturalistically, not by fiat - but the chemical engineer in our group didn't agree!

Whereas fairy tale logic can be entirely inaccessible to the players if not explained or illustrated, or if handles for the PCs aren't provided

I hoped it was clear in my OP what I think those handles are - the game rules and game premise. For instance, AD&D players know that trolls wait in their dens because they've read pp 107-9 of the PHB.

Faerie tales tend to shorten depictions of violence in favour of dialogue and use lots of plot devices, maguffins and deus ex machinas. The latter are less accessible to PCs due to the problem of handling exposition for them

I don't really agree with this either. You seem to be assuming that the fairy tale devices will be deployed by the GM. But in my OP, and in the post you quoted, I hoped I'd made it clear that - in the context of RPGing - the fairy tale logic is what underpins otherwise "unrealistic" scene-framing and resolution.