Mundane vs. Fantastical

[mmadsen]

In real life, the guy attacking a rhino with a sword gets turned into paste. In D&D, it's just another day at the job.

In real life, ancient soldiers faced angry war elephants, and they learned how to fight them -- namely by getting out of the way and then throwing javelins for the eyes as they charged past.

That's the kind of thing I'd like to see more of in the game -- using the right tactics to defeat a ferocious beast.

If you prefer mythical inspiration, then have your heroic fighter wait in a ditch for the dragon to slither over him. Then he can plunge his sword into the beast's soft underbelly.

That's the kind of "mundane" answer I'd prefer to see, rather than simply giving the hero more hit dice and bigger bonuses, so he can stand toe to toe with a grizzly bear.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

So has D&D drifted too far from mundane into fantastical?

Yes.

The world (or worlds) as described in the DMG of any edition never made any sense to me. I cannot believe any of them would function as they are described – they lack plausibility on almost every level and under any kind of rational examination become down right silly.

 

[Hussar]

In real life, ancient soldiers faced angry war elephants, and they learned how to fight them -- namely by getting out of the way and then throwing javelins for the eyes as they charged past.

That's the kind of thing I'd like to see more of in the game -- using the right tactics to defeat a ferocious beast.

If you prefer mythical inspiration, then have your heroic fighter wait in a ditch for the dragon to slither over him. Then he can plunge his sword into the beast's soft underbelly.

That's the kind of "mundane" answer I'd prefer to see, rather than simply giving the hero more hit dice and bigger bonuses, so he can stand toe to toe with a grizzly bear.

Fair enough. And I agree with this. I'm not sure if D&D is the right vehicle for this though. D&D has never really concerned itself with this sort of thing too terribly much. Other than maybe, "You need a +1 weapon to hit this creature" or some such thing, that's about it.

To me, D&D has always been far more 300 than mundane. Even back in the day, when the kill list was several pages long, I realized that I was playing a game that was pretty darn fantastical. Again, even looking at very elementary encounters, say in Keep on the Borderland, you could send a party in, outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1 and have a reasonable expectation of winning. Sure, a few guys might get smoked, but, by and large, you won.

Real life certainly doesn't work like that. If you fight against 3:1 odds, by and large, you lose. Badly. ((Yes, yes, Battle of Thermopyle and all that, but, for every Thermopyle, you have a LOT more Alamo's))

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

I'd have to say that if my fantastic monsters got taken away and I was mostly fighting humanoid opponents that I'd have to have something like a wuxia movie combat system. Because for me the more real the world seems the less I can personally understand why anyone bothers to be an adventurer: the logic of the "mundane" world intrudes on my imagination.

Fair enough. I have the opposite problem. The more real the world seems the more I can relate to it and the less I can personally understand the inclusion of fantastic monsters. Fortunately, there are enough games out there to keep us both happy.

 

[Fenes]

The more "fantastic" elements you use, the more mundane they become.

 

[amysrevenge]

The more "fantastic" elements you use, the more mundane they become.

And the more "mundane" elements you use, the more... wait, they were already mundane before you started.

 

[Quantarum]

I feel the need to point out that a non-dire bear can break your neck with its paws without even really trying to.

Falling off a step ladder can do the same thing. Falling off a dire step ladder would be brutal.

-Q.

 

[Mallus]

And the more "mundane" elements you use, the more... wait, they were already mundane before you started.

Exactly.

Like I said before, it's not how fantastic (or mundane) something is, it's how well the DM portrays it. The idea that by simply limiting the number of fantasy elements in a campaign, you'll automatically increase the level of 'wonder' is ridiculous. Chances are, your audience has seen it before (out of the game), so mere scarcity isn't going to work. If you want to impress the players with some piece of the fantastic, the onus is on the DM to make it seem fantastic; to describe --and use-- it in a compelling, memorable way.

 

[Imaro]

Exactly.

Like I said before, it's not how fantastic (or mundane) something is, it's how well the DM portrays it. The idea that by simply limiting the number of fantasy elements in a campaign, you'll automatically increase the level of 'wonder' is ridiculous. Chances are, your audience has seen it before (out of the game), so mere scarcity isn't going to work. If you want to impress the players with some piece of the fantastic, the onus is on the DM to make it seem fantastic; to describe --and use-- it in a compelling, memorable way.

I gotta disagree here...the frequency and types of creatures players encounter set their expectations for a particular campaign world. If you encounter Red Dragons that cast spells and shape reality every game session...after about the 5th one you will not be amazed by it, and it will not be something wondrous (no matter how great the DM portrays or describes them)... in fact it will probably take more to amaze you with the overall world, now that this element has become a common occurrence.

On the other hand, if you've never encountered a red dragon, must scale the Razor Peaks, survive deadly traps and battle it's guardians in order to ask it 3 questions...there will be a sense of wonder there (unless the DM shatters it by inappropriately describing or characterizing it.

I kinda understand your point, but I think it doesn't take into consideration with books or an rpg, buy in of the world is created by player expectations, and what the GM/author sets them up to be.

 

[Galloglaich]

I gotta disagree here...the frequency and types of creatures players encounter set their expectations for a particular campaign world. If you encounter Red Dragons that cast spells and shape reality every game session...after about the 5th one you will not be amazed by it, and it will not be something wondrous (no matter how great the DM portrays or describes them)... in fact it will probably take more to amaze you with the overall world, now that this element has become a common occurrence.

On the other hand, if you've never encountered a red dragon, must scale the Razor Peaks, survive deadly traps and battle it's guardians in order to ask it 3 questions...there will be a sense of wonder there (unless the DM shatters it by inappropriately describing or characterizing it.

I kinda understand your point, but I think it doesn't take into consideration with books or an rpg, buy in of the world is created by player expectations, and what the GM/author sets them up to be.

And the greatest amazement and wonder comes from the sharp contrast between the logical and familiar firmament of the realistic and the breaking of these rules by the fantastic. If everything is fantastic there is no contrast.

G.