Is D&D becoming more fantastical?

[howandwhy99]

3rd edition does seem to assume at least a Very High Magic setting for D&D. Not sure about 4e.

In terms of Fantastical-ness? I guess it's what you mean. IMO, the game has become significantly less realistic. Not that magic needs realism, but the actual reasons why things work like they do in the world are rarely addressed. This makes it VERY hard to understand what is going on in character. Which, in turn, makes it hard to discern it while exploring.

The focus is often just on rules and on thinking in rule terms. Which makes it hard to think in character when anything attached to a rule comes along.

 

[The Shaman]

Perhaps I'm just a fan of having normal people do extraordinary things, although still being normal for their race.

Same here.

I don't agree at all with that assessment. Lets take the dragon. On average, prior to a Con bonus (if any), a 10th level 1e Fighter would have 53 HP or so (with a 16 CON, that'd be 71 HP). With a super generous DM, he might actually 60-70 HP (or 80-90 with a high CON). That 10th level Fighter would get walloped by an Ancient Red Dragon in a handful of rounds, assuming he even made his initial save vs. that 88 HP Breath Weapon - and assuming the dragon didn't have spells. Lets say the fighter has some kind of fire immunity (rare back then, but we'll say it for arguments sake), and the Dragon can't fly and is reduced to melee alone. The dragon's bite alone does 3-30 damage.

Don't forget that the dragon has two claw attacks as well, bumping damage to 5-46.

To take this a little further, let's put a +4 bastard sword in our fighter's 18/51 STR hands, and give him double weapon specialization with it as well. That means he's dealing out 12-26 points of damage with each hit, with a multiple attack opportunity every second round (3/2 attacks per melee round). He'll hit pretty consistently - against AC -1, he needs to roll 13, with a +9 to hit, so that's 85% per attack.

Now let's squeeze our fighter into +4 plate mail and hand him a +3 shield, and assume a middling DEX (no bonus), giving him AC -5 - the dragon will hit on 15 or better, or 75% with each attack, and again, the dragon is attacking three times per round (bite/claw/claw).

So, let's give our lord 80 HP, assuming that generous dungeon master alluded to above, and see what this looks like . . .

Round 1: Fighter hits, does 19 points of damage (dragon drops to 69 HP); dragon hits with all three attacks, does 25 points of damage (fighter drops to 55 HP).

Round 2: Fighter hits with both attacks, does 38 points of damage (dragon drops to 31 HP); dragon hits with both claw attacks but misses with her bite, does 9 points of damage (fighter drops to 46 hit points).

Round 3: Fighter hits again with single attack, does 19 points of damage (dragon drops to 14 HP); dragon hits with all three attacks, does 26 points of damage (fighter drops to 21 hit points.

Round 4: Each can be killed by the other this round - it all comes down to who has initative, our doughty lord or the ancient red dragon, and whether or not the dragon misses with a claw attack or with his bite attack. (In fact I gave the fighter the benefit of the doubt in round 2 and assumed the dragon missed with her bite, rather than a claw attack.)​

A near thing, this fighter and this dragon.

This assumes a toe-to-toe brawl, in which neither combatant is able to maneuver effectively - speaking strictly for myself, when I referee I rarely put dragons in situations where they don't have room to move around, as they are pretty smart as a rule. And it assumes that there are no particularly good or bad die rolls - one misstep by either combatant could seal their fates. And again it assumes no breath weapon, and no magic.

If the dragon has her full array of abilities available to her, my gold pieces are on the dragon every time.

 

[Tharkun]

It strikes me that the concept of being 'human' has changed through the years. The average 'person' in D&D is now a lot more magical, can easily gain supernatural abilities, and can use magic more often. D&D to me appears to be becoming more fantastical.

So in other words more like FR?

 

[Intrope]

I think it's less that D&D is more fantastical, but that Fantasy in general is more fantastic than it used to be. Compare Frodo/Sam/Merry/Pippin as protaganists of the Lord of the Rings to Rand al'Thor (and hanger-ons)!

Of course, a lot of things we mere mortals do these days are quite a bit more fantastic, too! Carry on discussions around the world with thousands of people (that you don't even know!)--virtually free!

By way of comparison, both my parents grew up in houses without phones, at least for some years (here in the good ol'USA!).

 

[Brazeku]

the assumption of the fantastical is probably about the same, I'd say, if more flashy. And I love fantastical elements in my game. The more the merrier, I say.

So, I'm going to:
1)tell you why, and
2)connect the lack of magic to another problem people seem to complain about every so often.

I like introducing magic (or the fantastical, whatever you want to call it) to a campaign because, with those new elements, you get to think about how it would impact the world, change it from the ordinary, make it unique. I'm not interested in playing a game in Medieval Europe that just happens to have the rare wizard or magical sword. The reason why?

Because after your character gets that magic sword once, then the thrill of that is gone, and it is gone more or less forever. The sense of wonder that people complain about missing? You know why it's gone? Because nothing is wondrous in a setting that is gritty with a tiny amount of magic. You face off against one super-rare wizard, you get the singular magical staff, and that's it. The rest of the world is the same. And that sucks.

If you add magical influences, you can introduce the fantastical and permutate the setting to account for it: there will always be a new discovery for the players, new customs based around the magic, literally a new world unfolding with each twist and reality-altering incantation. And that's what I play for.

EDIT: If you're talking about tone, well, the actual trappings of the fantastical can vary. It's completely acceptable to have a fighter with ridiculous strength and verging on supernatural skill, as a more subtle type of fantasy element. Not everything has to be 'whoa cool'.

 

[Thurbane]

D&D is certainly becoming more "high fantasy" than "low fantasy" with each incarnation.

 

[AllisterH]

Now let's squeeze our fighter into +4 plate mail and hand him a +3 shield, and assume a middling DEX (no bonus), giving him AC -5 - the dragon will hit on 15 or better, or 75% with each attack, and again, the dragon is attacking three times per round (bite/claw/claw).

.

You do realize you're actually *HELPING* the otherside, right?

1. If the Dragon needs to hit on a 15 or better, it means he hits only 25%
2. This 1E 10th level fighter actually survives 4 rounds with a Ancient Red Dragon. Want to try the same 10th level fighter in 3.X and see how he does?

 

[Tarek]

15 or better is 30% of the time, not 25%. It's the same as saying "Needs better than a 14".

 

[Mad Mac]

You do realize you're actually *HELPING* the otherside, right?

1. If the Dragon needs to hit on a 15 or better, it means he hits only 25%
2. This 1E 10th level fighter actually survives 4 rounds with a Ancient Red Dragon. Want to try the same 10th level fighter in 3.X and see how he does?

An ancient Red Dragon in 3rd edition is a CR 23 monster with 527 HPS, AC 39 and casts spells as a level 15 wizard. It could probably maul an unbuffed level 20 fighter without much trouble. A 10th level fighter would be an ant.

A 10th level fighter starting with 18 strength (unlikely) who put both level up points into strength and found a Belt of Giant Strength+6, who also happened to be equipped with a +4 Greatsword (one seriously well equipped 10th level fighter), and had weapon focus and specialization...would have an attack bonus of +23/+18, hitting for 2d6+18 damage, average 25. He'd have about a 25% chance of hitting on his first attack, and a 5% chance of hitting on the second. If he managed to hit once every other round, he would need about 42 rounds to take out the dragon.

Of course, he would be dead in a matter of seconds. However, in those few brief seconds before being crushed like a bug, he might have flashy fantastical powers like a trip feat, or maybe do a backflip or something, perhaps even spin a spiked chain around a bit before the dragon bites him in half. Which makes him far more fantastical than the 10th level 1st Edition fighter who's whomping on the mightiest of dragons and actually winning.

Which goes back to the relative power of 1ed PCs vs their actual opponents.

 

[Hairfoot]

I agree with the OP, and I believe that the current trend of D&D toward super-hero-dom and magic saturation is due largely to - brace yourselves - anime and CRPGs.

But, though I might not like it, I have to recognise that if D&D is going to survive, it has to appeal to a new generation of consumers; consumers who watched Dragonball Z as kids, and derived most of their fantasy concepts from online games rather than written fiction.

A grognard like me can always modify the game or use another system entirely, but it won't be fun if there are no players left.