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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6986489" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I'm not sure what you mean by this. Fairy tales are stories, like anything else. They have protagonists who do things.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p>So, as I said, I'm not really sure what you mean.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.)</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>But (outside of 4e's skill challenges) there aren't rules for scoping out or setting fire to a field.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6986489, member: 42582"] 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. 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. 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. 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. 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! 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Fairy tale logic vs naturalism in fantasy RPGing
Top