Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Fairy tale logic vs naturalism in fantasy RPGing
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6986438" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>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 <em>manner</em> 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." </p><p></p><p>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, <em>or</em> the party might consider <em>Dispel Magic</em> because that magic, too, is a prop for them to use as they see fit.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>hero</em> the ability to survive a 50 ft. fall is easily explicable in terms of how the world functions, if you want it to be.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>functional</em> 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. </p><p></p><p>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 <em>about</em> - those options aren't available to her as a player.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>wolfy</em>, you can lose a lot of the "anything can happen game of imagination" appeal of D&D.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6986438, member: 2067"] 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 [I]manner[/I] 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, [I]or[/I] the party might consider [I]Dispel Magic[/I] because that magic, too, is a prop for them to use as they see fit. "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 [I]hero[/I] 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 [I]functional[/I] 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 [I]about[/I] - 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 [I]wolfy[/I], you can lose a lot of the "anything can happen game of imagination" appeal of D&D. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Fairy tale logic vs naturalism in fantasy RPGing
Top