D&D 5E Is Neil Gaiman Wrong?

[Fenris-77]

Apples or cologate dude.

Zargon the Destroyer eats no apples for breakfast! Faugh on your apples. I feast on grog and the hearts of my enemies!! And maybe a nice muffin if I need some fiber.

 

[Voadam]

I wonder if this is a generational thing as I don't think most of us considered our D&D characters to be superhuman thirty years ago. In the 80s and early 90s, the fact that a level 20 Fighter could survive a fall from any height was often cited as an example of how silly games rules could be. If most players had viewed D&D characters as superhuman I don't think anyone would have poked fun at how the rules worked in this particular case.

My experiences from the 80s are different then as I can see a lot of congruencies. The magic is a big part of it but also themes and plots. A spellcaster flying around and zapping things feels like a powered superhero. Paladins are pretty much billed as superhuman superheros. Fighters and thieves were half way there although fighters did not have the dodging skills of Batman or Green Arrow and thieves just did not have the combat chops (so maybe Robin). A couple magic items with weird powers went a long way to turn someone from a Warhammer rat catcher into the Shadow and by mid level lots of D&D characters had some.

The themes of go out and face weird opponents in combat fits both Super Heroes and D&D. Lots of superheroes face regular combat and not infrequent death traps (see e.g, 1960s Batman TV show). The heroics ethos of superheroes and heroic quest D&D Good fit well together as do the antihero mercenary attitude of Wolverne and such being a decent match for the D&D ethos of looting dungeons for gold and xp. Superhero teams are a lot like D&D parties and the plots can be similar (stop the bad guy, save the world).

In the 80s I had subscriptions to both X-men and Conan comics so maybe that helped in seeing some congruencies.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

It's the same with any given RPG; perhaps you are playing something where everything is measured in hit points, and monsters are just big bags of XP to help PCs level up and provide magic items.

This comment seems unnecessarily dismissive for somebody trying to argue in favor of diversity in RPG styles.

Saying that any given RPG has to function a certain way is the same as saying that all literature would have to function by Chesteron's instructions for fairy tales; I think the world would be a much poorer place. There is room enough for a plethora of different types of play, and I would hate to see it hamstrung by attempts to so limit it.

I haven't seen anyone here trying to limit types of play, least of all myself. The question in the OP is "Is it plausible for dragons to be beatable?" The two possible answers boil down to "yes" and "no". And the "no" answer is more limiting to types of play than the "yes" answer. Our disagreement amounts to a confusion over quantifiers: You think I'm saying "Yes, all stories must have dragons that are beatable", but I'm only saying "Yes, there exist some stories where dragons are beatable."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This comment seems unnecessarily dismissive for somebody trying to argue in favor of diversity in RPG styles.

It shouldn't be. That's a style that I have played, and enjoyed. I would be very sad if that was the only way to play the game, but there's a reason that it is popular!

Does it make you feel warmer inside if I also say, "Or you can play where monsters exist to give you someone to talk about your feelings with."

All good now?

I haven't seen anyone here trying to limit types of play, least of all myself. The question in the OP is "Is it plausible for dragons to be beatable?" The two possible answers boil down to "yes" and "no". And the "no" answer is more limiting to types of play than the "yes" answer. Our disagreement amounts to a confusion over quantifiers: You think I'm saying "Yes, all stories must have dragons that are beatable", but I'm only saying "Yes, there exist some stories where dragons are beatable."

Sure, you could say the OP said that. Or you could quote the title of this thread:
"Is Neil Gaiman Wrong?"

Or you could quote the closing questions in the OP that I answered:
"Is my player right? Or Gaiman/Chesterton are ?
What do you think?"

Finally, you neglected almost the entirely of what I wrote. Luckily, I happened to summarize my response to you in the first sentence.

"It depends on the story, and the audience."

Then again, most of what I wrote wasn't really about your post, it was about the OP.

 

[Umbran]

Does it make you feel warmer inside if I also say, "Or you can play where monsters exist to give you someone to talk about your feelings with."

All good now?

Do you realize that this sounds pretty snarky? If someone has already noted that you are currently coming across to them as dismissive... maybe snarky is not the best approach to continue?

 

[QuentinGeorge]

It depends on the story, and the audience.

Going to the OP, the Gaiman quote in Coraline in the epigraph (not why he wrote Coraline) is:
"Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."

This is a paraphrase of the G.K. Chesterton quote:
"The timidity of the child or the savage is entirely reasonable; they are alarmed at this world, because this world is a very alarming place. They dislike being alone because it is verily and indeed an awful idea to be alone. Barbarians fear the unknown for the same reason that Agnostics worship it—because it is a fact. Fairy tales, then, are not responsible for producing in children fear, or any of the shapes of fear; fairy tales do not give the child the idea of the evil or the ugly; that is in the child already, because it is in the world already. Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon.

Exactly what the fairy tale does is this: it accustoms him for a series of clear pictures to the idea that these limitless terrors had a limit, that these shapeless enemies have enemies in the knights of God, that there is something in the universe more mystical than darkness, and stronger than strong fear."

Setting aside the clear ... let us say point of view that G.K. Chesterton is known for, the thrust of the quote is clear; a fairy tale has an audience (little kids) and a message (that fear, no matter how awful, can and will be overcome). Whether you view this as banal or brilliant depends on you, I suppose. I might also say that this formulation very much depends on the later, more sanitized fairy tales that were circulating by the time Chesterton was writing, but that's a separate issue.

None of this is particularly relevant, in my opinion, to either different types of fiction or, necessarily, to games such as D&D. For example, I doubt very much that H.P. Lovecraft was sitting down at his desk and thinking, "Well, other than including some racism, I need to make absolutely sure that my protagonists can defeat Cthulhu, because I wouldn't want to give the reader the wrong idea!" For that matter, I am fairly certain that Ian McEwan wasn't thinking, while writing Atonement, "Yeah, actions might have consequences, but I have to aim for that happy ending!"

It's the same with any given RPG; perhaps you are playing something where everything is measured in hit points, and monsters are just big bags of XP to help PCs level up and provide magic items. Maybe any given critter can be defeated- but the PCs would need the appropriate power (level) and preparation and, perhaps, a little luck in the form of die rolls. Or maybe there will be scenarios where "winning" is simply choosing the best losing scenario.

Saying that any given RPG has to function a certain way is the same as saying that all literature would have to function by Chesteron's instructions for fairy tales; I think the world would be a much poorer place. There is room enough for a plethora of different types of play, and I would hate to see it hamstrung by attempts to so limit it.

Just a minor point, I think Lovecraft was aiming for the exact opposite, since one of the main themes of his work was the insignificance of mankind's morals, beliefs and civilisation, and place in existence. That's why you can't kill Cthulhu, no more than the elephant is troubled by the ant under its foot.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Finally, you neglected almost the entirely of what I wrote.

I identified the fundamental point of miscommunication. Anything I wrote in response to your discussions of Chesterton and Lovecraft and McEwan would have been repeated variations on the theme of "Not all stories have to have beatable dragons but some do". But if you like:

Neil Gaiman and G. K. Chesterton are right because they identify a particular genre of story, the fairy tale, in which the objective is to slay the dragon (more or less). Very few people would call The Call of Cthulhu or Atonement "fairy tales"; they are different kinds of stories with very different purposes. The OP's player is wrong in arguing (apparently; I always hesitate to criticize secondhand positions) that dragons should not be beatable for reasons of plausibility. D&D is designed first and foremost to be a fairy tale simulator, so beatable dragons should at the very least be allowed in the narrative possibilities. A DM can always throw an ancient red dragon at a level 5 party if they want to create a Cthulhuesque experience, but if the Monster Manual flat-out said "PCs can't kill dragons because that's stupid", as this player (reportedly) wants, the game would fail to meet a key design goal of enabling that particular genre of story identified by Chesterton and Gaiman.

Or in other words: not all stories have to have beatable dragons but some do.

Luckily, I happened to summarize my response to you in the first sentence.

"It depends on the story, and the audience."

I don't disagree with that. Nothing I wrote indicates that I disagree with that. We are on the same page here, so let's not fight about it.

 

[MGibster]

My experiences from the 80s are different then as I can see a lot of congruencies. The magic is a big part of it but also themes and plots. A spellcaster flying around and zapping things feels like a powered superhero. Paladins are pretty much billed as superhuman superheros.

I can see that point of view. Spider-Man 2 was a super hero movie but if you frame it differently it could be a horror movie. Heck, the hospital scene where they tried to remove Dr. Octopus' tentacles is practically a straight up Raimi horror scene.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Do you realize that this sounds pretty snarky? If someone has already noted that you are currently coming across to them as dismissive... maybe snarky is not the best approach to continue?

You are correct; I should not continue with that person Lesson learned.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

You are correct; I should not continue with that person Lesson learned.

I am unhappy with the implication in this politician's apology that your only mistake was engaging with mean old me. That was not the lesson to be learned here.