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

[Aenghus]

I saw this back on the first page of the thread, and really, this sums up the entire thing. In a roleplaying game, I personally find the "What makes the world seem more alive?" question more compelling than "What creates an interesting fairy tale?" As [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] said, a "fairy tale" can potentially explore aspects of the characters, but part of my problem with fairy tale logic even in this regard is, if my character doesn't exist within a reality that can be relatable to my own experience, then any exploration of my character is less valuable and impactful. Without a grounded reality surrounding it, discovering things about "honor" and "bravery" and "self-sacrifice" with my characters tend to end up much like a reading of a Grimm's Fairy Tale ---- shallow and unfulfilling.

The historical D&D "drift" into more sim/naturalist directions is an indicator to me that more players than not preferred the first question. Those who preferred the second question probably have found themselves drifting further and further afield from "D&D" the longer the years pass---with Forge-ist narrative games, Fate, Apocalypse Engine, Cinematic Unisystem, Coretex+, et. al.---into something that specifically aims to produce a gameplay experience divergent from D&D.

But from the very start of D&D people have been mutating it to suit their personal needs. My 4e D&D game tends to move from the first question to the second as it moves through the tiers of play. (I realise this is a 5e thread, but seeing as 5e was supposed to be the compromise D&D it should be usable for such purposes as well.)

I don't see D&D ever been purged of playstyles that don't sit well with others. I don't see D&D ever being defined in a universally accepted way so as to exclude those interested in the second question.

 

[Lanefan]

And there is a "due to my character traits, I find all the traps" element to classic D&D - elves find secret doors, dwarves new construction, etc, due to their elvish sight or their dwarvish famlliarity with underground settings.

A nitpick, perhaps, but worth noting: they didn't find "all" the traps/doors/etc.; only some of them. Elvish "spidey sense" for secret doors only worked on a 1/d6. Dwarves had a [nn]%-chance of detecting new construction, where 'nn' is a number I forget at the moment but was certainly less than 100. Suggesting that these things were guaranteed-success is a misrepresentation, I think.

In a roleplaying game, I personally find the "What makes the world seem more alive?" question more compelling than "What creates an interesting fairy tale?" As @Manbearcat said, a "fairy tale" can potentially explore aspects of the characters, but part of my problem with fairy tale logic even in this regard is, if my character doesn't exist within a reality that can be relatable to my own experience, then any exploration of my character is less valuable and impactful.

Put me in this camp as well. As far as possible I prefer to be able to assume (or, if I'm the DM, create) an underlying rationale for the 'physics' of magic and other non-real-world things. This allows the fantastic to also be (admittedly sometimes only vaguely) relatable to my own experience and to the real world in a consistent manner.

Once that's in place, it makes seeing the world from my character's point of view much easier.

Lanefan

 

[innerdude]

I don't see D&D ever been purged of playstyles that don't sit well with others. I don't see D&D ever being defined in a universally accepted way so as to exclude those interested in the second question.

Agreed, nor do I think we should. But on a certain level, every RPG is both inclusionary and exclusionary. It's pretty much common wisdom these days there is some boundary, or limit on how you construct "D&D" (however you define it), beyond which point it morphs into something that is no longer "D&D" but something else (understand that in this context, I'm referring to "D&D" as the actual D&D product and any of its generally recognizable offshoots---Pathfinder, 13th Age, Castles and Crusades, ACKS, DCC, etc.).

I don't think it's insulting to players who are looking for a gameplay style that advocates strongly for "fairy tale logic" to suggest, "You know, truthfully, D&D may not be the best choice for you. Have you considered X, Y, or Z as an alternative?" I'm also not suggesting that something that morphs into "not D&D" is in any way unworthy of our time and energy and passion, it's just that at some point we have to put a hard line on categorizations or else they no longer have any real meaning or serve any useful purpose. (For context, I've played exactly two sessions of an actual "D&D" game in the last five years, compared to nearly a hundred sessions of Savage Worlds, and 20+ sessions of GURPS). Is directing someone to a system that will work better for them "exclusionary" or simply trying to be helpful to the vested party in reaching their play style goals?

Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, @pemerton seems to be defining "fairy tale logic" as, "An internal consistency of events and perceived reality, that when applied to the fictional game world, removes focus from the logical processes underpinning the gameworld, and instead drives focus on the nature of characters' psychological and emotional relationships." And if this is your intent, then I completely agree with @pemerton's premise----achieving the desired "end state" posited by this kind of internal consistency will absolutely require giving some forms of player-centric control over the nature of the reality of the game world. @Manbearcat's explanation in a previous post about what such a "game state" might look like was spot on, in my opinion. The questions and narrative focus(es) in his example was EXACTLY the kind of thing I'd expect to have happening in a certain kind of RPG.

It's just that I'd very rarely expect those same questions to be asked, and more importantly become the primary focus of the campaign, in a game of D&D.

 

[Aenghus]

Agreed, nor do I think we should. But on a certain level, every ever made RPG is both inclusionary and exclusionary. It's pretty much common wisdom these days there is some boundary, or limit on how you construct "D&D" (however you define it), beyond which point it morphs into something that is no longer "D&D" but something else (understand that in this context, I'm referring to "D&D" as the actual D&D product and any of its generally recognizable offshoots---Pathfinder, 13th Age, Castles and Crusades, ACKS, DCC, etc.).

I don't think it's insulting to players who are looking for a gameplay style that advocates strongly for "fairy tale logic" to suggest, "You know, truthfully, D&D may not be the best choice for you. Have you considered X, Y, or Z as an alternative?" I'm also not suggesting that something that morphs into "not D&D" is any way unworthy of our time and energy and passion, it's just that at some point we have to put a hard line on categorizations or else they no longer have any real meaning or serve any useful purpose. Is directing someone to a system that will work better for them "exclusionary" or simply trying to be helpful to the vested party in reaching their play style goals?

Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, @pemerton seems to be defining "fairy tale logic" as, "An internal consistency of events and perceived reality, that when applied to the fictional game world, removes focus from the logical processes underpinning the gameworld, and instead drives focus on the nature of characters' psychological and emotional relationships." And if this is your intent, then I completely agree with @pemerton's premise----achieving the desired "end state" posited by this kind of internal consistency will absolutely require giving some forms of player-centric control over the nature of the reality of the game world. @Manbearcat's explanation in a previous post about what such a "game state" might look like was spot on, in my opinion. The questions and narrative focus(es) in his example was EXACTLY the kind of thing I'd expect to have happening in a certain kind of RPG.

It's just that I'd very rarely expect those same questions to be asked, and more importantly become the primary focus of the campaign, in a game of D&D.

Often, but not always, high level D&D play involves a change in focus, maybe more than one shift as levels rise. High level D&D can be very different to low level D&D in more ways than just bigger numbers. Epic quests, seeking immortality or demigodhood, destroying a cursed artifact can suggest resolutions that aren't as prosaic as low level play tends to be. It may not be quite "fairy tale logic" but at high levels game reality can become metaphorical rather than literal to some extent.

In my D&D game in 3e and 4e immortality of various sorts involved becoming less literal and more metaphorical, becoming the embodiment of a concept or role. This sort of thing can definitely lead to "fairy tale logic" in a game that wouldn't have made sense at lower levels.

I recognise high level D&D is a minority taste, and running it as something other than a grander dungeon crawl is also a minority taste, but it's still a valid play style with a long history running through the D&D editions.

 

[innerdude]

As far as possible I prefer to be able to assume (or, if I'm the DM, create) an underlying rationale for the 'physics' of magic and other non-real-world things. This allows the fantastic to also be (admittedly sometimes only vaguely) relatable to my own experience and to the real world in a consistent manner.

To go along with my previous point --- that if "character exploration" doesn't have some basis in grounded reality, I don't find it compelling --- I offer up the example of Kvothe in Patrick Rothfuss's Wise Man's Fear when he goes to visit the faerie nymph goddess.

The way it's presented to us in the book is pure "fairy tale logic" --- Felurian, the faerie nymph goddess, simply "exists" in the fictional world, without explanation or rationale; she simply is "there" waiting to be encountered by Kvothe. When he enters the fairy realm, all thoughts of internal "logic" or "consistency" are gone. And because she's a "faerie nymph queen," Kvothe rather naturally, if shamelessly, engages in sexual activity with her.

But for me, the entire sequence was the most maddening waste of time and page space I think I'd ever read. Why? Because there was ZERO context for it. If Kvothe is in a "faerie" realm, is he expected to act logically and in character, or not? Are all senses of morality and personal restraint suddenly gone because we're now in a faerie world and not the real? How are we supposed to view Kvothe's actions in light of his long-standing "love" for the character of Denna? Are we just supposed to throw out all the rules and say (in my best Big Lebowski voice), "It's faerie land, man, just roll with it...."?

(As a side note: I've never, EVER had the urge to physically throw a book across the room in disgust other than when I read Wise Man's Fear. I've never really forgiven Rothfuss for the abomination that is that book, to the point that I doubt I'll ever finish the series, when he finally decides to finish writing it sometime in the year 2030.)

 

[pemerton]

In a roleplaying game, I personally find the "What makes the world seem more alive?" question more compelling than "What creates an interesting fairy tale?"

<snip>

if my character doesn't exist within a reality that can be relatable to my own experience, then any exploration of my character is less valuable and impactful.

I think that the contrast you frame in the first quoted sentence is open to question - LotR is a fairy tale, but to many readers the world also seems alive. Films like Excalibur and Ahses of Time, in my view, are also examples of this.

The relatability to personal experience is also tricky. As a matter of historical sociology, there seems to be an increase in widespread alienation with the increase in scientific knowledge, not a decrease (see eg Weber's brilliant essay on Science as a Vocation). And speaking purely personally, I find an "Advanced Squad Leader" style of play - which is one upshot of "naturalism" in dungeon-style contexts - completely unrelatable to my personal experience, in part because the characters become purged of all the emotional life that, for me, seems to be part and parcel of human reality.

pemerton seems to be defining "fairy tale logic" as, "An internal consistency of events and perceived reality, that when applied to the fictional game world, removes focus from the logical processes underpinning the gameworld, and instead drives focus on the nature of characters' psychological and emotional relationships."

That's narrower than what I had in mind.

Classic dungeon exploratoin is not about character's emotions/psychology - its focus is almost entirely external, on beating the dungeon. But I think in its origins it rested on a fairy tale logic - of evil things in dark holes waiting to be found - and when it got naturalised it started to break down. For a practical example, look at Gygax's advice to players on p 107-9 of his PHB, then look at his advice to GMs (pp 104-5 of the DMG, written a year or so later) about "dynamic" dungeons. If a GM takes that latter advice to heart, and runs dungeons "naturalistically", then implementing Gygax's player advice becomes almost impossible, because the idea of "scout, while dealing with wandering monsters by flight or quick dispatch; then raid" won't work if the environment keeps changing in response to PC incursions.

Roger Musson's "Dungeon Architect" series in very early 80s White Dwarf brings out a similar tension. He wants the dungeon to have a veneer of narrative and verisimilitude to it, but also wants it to be a largely static place where dungeoneering of the classic sort is feasibl. Here are two example problems he poses, that illustrate some issues that "naturalism" can cause, but also show how far the gap is between his conception of a dungeon and modern sensibilities:

(1) In addressing the question "What happens if the PCs try to enter an as-yet undetailed part of a dungeon level" - and he is envisaging big levels, of 200-ish rooms - he suggests 15 ogres in the corridor having an impromptu union meeting, which will dissuade the PCs from continuing down it. But then he worries "What if the players think that the 15 ogres are a permanent feature, and hence never come back that way?" For most modern GMs, I don't think that is the first worry they would have about such a scenario!

(2) In discussing "dynamic" dungeons, he wonders, "What happens if the PCs come back to the room where the ogre is torturing the kobold? Is it still going on?" These days, no one would set up a static "freeze frame" room - and so the question wouldn't need to be asked.

The move from "fairy tale" - ogres having impromptu union meetings, a veneer of dynamism via "freeze frame" rooms - to genuinely naturalistic/dynamic dungeons, is the end of dungeoneering in the classic sense.

if there's "fairy tale" logic to D&D at all, it arises from this third impulse---the need to create a suitable challenge to be defeated. It's not really about any sort of impulse, or drive to give players "narrative control." Fairy tale logic simply makes it easier to craft appropriate challenges, because you don't have to "logic" your way in to why a particular challenge exists.

I did make this point in the OP, yes. And obviously have just elaborated it above.

I'm trying to think of an example where the reverse of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s original hypothesis is true----where "fairy tale" logic actually increases GM fiat, or GM control, rather than giving more narrative control to the players.

One area that seems to be the case is the creation of "McGuffins." In literature, McGuffins are part and parcel of "fairy tale" logic---that one ring you've heard of, that one witch's brew, that one strand of magical hair, that one lamp that releases the djinni . . . . Anything that symbolizes, "You can defeat the enemy that troubles you, but first you must find/collect/restore/destroy the Ancient Artifact of Mythic Properties!"

Yet McGuffins inherently play against player narrative control

I think this is not universally true.

In my BW game, the wizard PC wants items to defeat his brother, who is possessed by a balrog. The player decided what the items were. And the logic of BW's GMing and resolution guidelines means that he will get a chance to find them.

they assume that the characters in the game world, as expressed by the game's mechanics, will be incapable of defeating/destroying the antagonist. In early D&D, especially BECMI, this was probably true. (Prior to 3e, the only D&D I had ever played was BECMI). I doubt a 9th-level party of the "classic" 4 BECMI character classes would have a realistic shot at defeating a BECMI red dragon.

This can be equally true in a "naturalistic" game. One of the triggers for this thread was discussions, in some other threads, where posters are defending "unbeatable" encounters as part of the GM's repertoire for ensuring a "living, breathing" world.

The issues of mechanical degrees of challenge, and of McGuffins, I think are orthogonal to narration vs naturalism (the latter can have McGuffins too - eg we need a +1 weapon to fight the gargoyle) and more about GM techniques and how they relate to player cues.

 

[Manbearcat]

There have been some posts positioning "fairy tale logic" as being unintuitive or a barrier to sensible player action declaration by inference (and therefore injurious to certain folks ability to immerse). That may be the case for some players, I do not doubt, but I know for a fact that the genre logic of fairy tales (a) is intuitive to some players who are invested in them and (b) enhances immersion to those same players.

So I went back real quick to "the chamberlain, the king and the dragon" to take a look at a particular fairy tale component of the game. After Thurgon and Theren make the great leap across the recently ruined breezeway to the king's chambers (courtesy of a catapulted boulder from the active city siege), the climax takes place where the dark fey forces possessing the absent king are cast out and defeated. We were one bad roll from failure so it was pretty tight!

Roughly abridged below:

Originally Posted by Manbearcat
The double doors are slightly ajar when you approach them. Entering the room is the simple matter of swiveling one of the doors on its hinges. Slipping into the room you witness a spartan scene before you. This is no king of a lavish life. The furnishings are simple rather than grandiose. The pelts covering the stone floor and lying on the bed were probably wrought by the hand of the man prostrate in the large bed before you. His sick wheezing is the foreground noise to the background vocals of the chill wind rusling the ample curtains over the large picture windows cut into the stone. There is no queen in sight. Not here. Nor in the secondary chamber. Only the King. Looking at him, he is an aged man but there is a fierceness to his presence, even in his ghastly state. He appears to be dreaming...of something terrible. He shudders every few moments, soft moan escaping his lips, fighting a demon or horde that you cannot see. Though he bears no visible wound nor sign of pestilence, his life is clearly ebbing from him as you look upon him.

The players move to him to ascertain the nature of his ailment/haunting. Pemerton's Paladin (intuitively) lays his divine hands upon his beloved king, casting out the possessing entity.

Originally Posted by Manbearcat
The King gasps (!), sucking in air as a man returned from the depths of the sea. He sits upright at your Divine touch and transferrence of your life-force to him. Simultaneous to that action, he scrunches up his face and lets out a primal scream. When he does so, a disembodied spectre, a thousand ethereal tendrils, exits his body and reforms at his feet next to you. You both behold the graceful visage of the aged, beauty unravaged by time, queen (in facade only!). Knowing that there is no explaining this, the Night Hag immediately shifts to its normal disturbing presence; purple-hued, mottled skin...eyes as black as night...hands finished with trembling, terrible claws...black, oily hair disappearing into the darkness around it. It immediately attempts to assault you all with torturous visions (perhaps your deaths, that of loved ones, or causes lost) but specifically focuses her attention on destroying the near death King!

Night Hag's are, of course, shapeshifters who mentally assail you, haunt your dreams and waste you away in the process (eg Grima Wormtongue on Theoden). The 4e version has a Shapeshifting Utility, a Claw attack, a Wave of Sleep attack that renders dazed then unconscious, and then the following:

Dream Haunting (psychic) At-Will

Attack: Melee 1 (one stunned or unconscious creature); +18 vs. Will

Hit: 3d6 + 4 psychic damage, and the hag disappears into the target’s mind. While in this state, the hag is removed from play and does nothing on subsequent turns but deal 3d6 + 4 psychic damage to the target (no attack roll required). When the target is no longer stunned or unconscious, or when the target dies, the hag reappears adjacent to the target and is insubstantial until the start of its next turn.

The players stand in defense of the king to mentally shield him (This was with achieved with a successful Group Endurance Check...basically the equivalent of the Defend Move using hold to * Redirect an attack from the thing you defend to yourself.), taking the blow. Within the fiction, their consciousness is rent into a terrible disturbing dream.

Originally Posted by Manbearcat
Thurgon finds himself on a battlefield. You appear to be a battle captain in the King's army, embedded in viscious hand to hand combat with a terrible foe. You see the King leading the charge on your flank...but something is...off. Something is terribly wrong here and the battle isn't going in the direction it should be...or some important detail is slightly askew. What is this battle? What is wrong? Why is it so afoul of the real world account? The King is being pressed on all sides. The answer must come and come quickly.

The response?

Originally Posted by pemerton
This battle isn't a real battle. It's a battle of the heart. (Like when Lancelot stabs himself while sleeping in John Boorman's Excalibur. Or when Jean Grey "timeslips" under Mastermind's influence.)

This dark fey is trying to change our hopes and memories. Instead of remembering the king's successful charge against the armies of chaos (can they be gnoll armies? I like the idea of this king as a version of Elidyr of Nerath) - which kept the city and its homeland free even though Adir and other marchertowns had fallen - the enemies now want us to remember the Battle of Nine Sons as a defeat. To believe that there never was a time when righteous strength had triumphed.

Luckily my memory is sound. I have the advantage of having heard the old men of the court - who rode alongside the then-young king, and his 8 brothers - speak of the battle when I was a boy. And later I read the chronicles that were preserved in the Iron Tower. I still remember the description of the the bold knights forming a wedge and riding their magnificent chargers through the unruly ranks, driving deep to reach its monstrous heart. [Thanks Robert J Schwalb, Dragon Magazine Annual p 11.]

If I now am living the experience of one of those old men, and facing a great demon before me as I lead my cohort of knights and sergeants in the charge towards the heart of the gnoll army, I will recall those accounts I heard and read and live the truth, not some lie. (History check: +13 skill, +16 on the d20, for 29 vs Easy (? for advantage) DC.) With Honour and Glory (+2 power bonus to attack rolls of adj allies) my men and I will defeat this demon, who was not there when this battle really happened (NB those who flank it with me also gain a +1 power bonus to attack it as I Draw the Eye of Friend and Foe). And having defeated it, we will take our places next to the king and continue on to victory.

Assuming that my History check is successful, I then want to use my Religion check from earlier, if it's still "alive", to try and cut off the Night Hag's access to these chaotic phantasms, and force her to confront us in the flesh. The Lord of Battles favours open confrontation and scorns those who rely upon subterfuge.

The Night Hag is shunted from the minds of the heroes and left with the dim prospects of physical confrontation. Her(insufficient) claws are not up to the task and she is quickly slain. The king is saved, but the kingdom is far from it.

That exchange is mostly underwritten by fairy tale and romantic fantasy logic, yet the players were able to intuit/deduce sensible action declarations and mechanically imprint genre coherent results upon the fiction. If they failed, then it would be my opportunity to change things adversely using fairy tale/romantic fantasy logic (or close the scene with the king's death and attendant fallout should it be the final failure of the challenge).

 

[Lanefan]

(1) In addressing the question "What happens if the PCs try to enter an as-yet undetailed part of a dungeon level" - and he is envisaging big levels, of 200-ish rooms - he suggests 15 ogres in the corridor having an impromptu union meeting, which will dissuade the PCs from continuing down it. But then he worries "What if the players think that the 15 ogres are a permanent feature, and hence never come back that way?" For most modern GMs, I don't think that is the first worry they would have about such a scenario!

Why not? Maybe they're not a permanent feature of that particular hallway, but somewhere down that way are 15 Ogres that'll have to be dealt with at some point; and if the party's just not up to it...well...they probably ain't going back that way anytime soon, assuming reasonable wisdom.

The move from "fairy tale" - ogres having impromptu union meetings, a veneer of dynamism via "freeze frame" rooms - to genuinely naturalistic/dynamic dungeons, is the end of dungeoneering in the classic sense.

It's a development in dungeoneering, but not the end of it.

I mean, look at real life. It's naturalistic, it's dynamic, and yet scouting still holds some value in any military operation (even if done by satellite or other remote device, it's still scouting). The only real difference between this and "classic" dungeon crawling is the length of time the gathered information is likely to be useful for.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] - thanks for that! Memories come flooding back.

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] - thanks for that! Memories come flooding back.

No problem mate. That was over 3 years ago!