D&D General Self-Defeating Rules in D&D

[Pamphylian]

This is an interesting point. The protagonist picks up an old stick/bone, wraps some cloth around it and has a light source that lasts until it is narratively (in)convenient for it to go out has been a trope since at least the 1930s (as referenced by Indiana Jones). In more modern settings it’s evolved into torch batteries and phone charge. But management has never featured. The light source is either easily available or taken away as the plot requires (oops it got wet).

And, of course, thanks to Tolkien, the trope is if you have a wizard, you never lack light.

However, management is one way you get to that narratively (in)convenient point in a game setting. Yes your DM can also fiat that, though I personally find that much less fun, and I also don't think most torch-management haters would tend to be all that happy about that option either! "Why are you taking away my light arbitrarily?!" And, fiating that with Darkvision havers is even more painful.

So in GoT they are using torches in dark places they know. It’s not a traveling spelunk into unknown regions with danger around every corner. Nor is there any threat of not having a torch or the torch going out. The logistics of dungeon delving are not the same as folks just using torches occasionally in dark places.

Sure, but there isn't a whole lot of dungeon delving in GoT. If there was, I have to imagine they'd be using torches. (see above for the value of the logistics of dungeon delving, I don't think its function in game space would be the same as in a very different medium, even if you might seek some of the same tropes or tensions).

I don’t think we can really know what the designers’ intent was at the outset. All we can do is look back at the rules as they were written and evaluate them through decades of design evolution and changing philosophies. What might have felt innovative or essential in 1974 hasn’t necessarily withstood the test of time, given how many editions have pared, revised, or outright abandoned older ideas in favor of newer lessons.

The real question isn’t what these mechanics once meant, but why some of these subsystems keep coming back when the modern game doesn’t really need them. If survival elements were truly central, we’d see them supported consistently in adventure design, encounter pacing, and advancement structures. Instead, they linger at the margins—present but optional, often undercooked, and rarely reinforced. That looks a lot less like “scaffolding” and a lot more like vestiges of an earlier mode of play.

Yes, as far as what I like at the table, the original designer intent is interesting historically, but I am more interested in what they can offer practically. I have found that the spirit of a lot of the early approaches works in a pretty compelling way a lot of the time at my table, despite requiring some incompetent homebrew on my part. I agree that these days these things definitely don't function as scaffolding, as written.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I admit that I am not particularly attuned to the fantasy aesthetic zeitgeist of the 2020s.

I feel like this is a really common issue on ENworld specifically.

And let me be clear, I'm not just talking about a 2020s aesthetic zeitgeist, it's been increasingly towards lanterns and magic items (often very minor) and non-mundane mundane light sources (like glowing bugs etc.) since like, the '00s or earlier.

There's a real issue where a lot of people on ENworld want to suggest how D&D should be, but they seem to be aiming it solidly at the groggiest grogs who ever grog'd a grog. And you're maybe too young to be a grog (or not, c.f. the "twenty-something Boomer" who is a sadly real thing)

Lanterns can be pretty atmospheric (see figure 3, not helping my 80s case, but see also Morrowind, I guess also not helping my 80s case)! And like torches, you probably have to hold them in your hand, require a resource (oil), etc. And they are going out if you fall into a pit of water, and maybe if you just fall a ways. Bug lanterns might be mundane depending on the setting. I think my contrast here is between the hypothetical where darkness is can be a tangible force in the game to be actively countered, possibly at cost, and possibly a threat if things go bad, at least in the earliest tier of play, and, say, first level darkvision, and the light cantrip, which are (at least in effect), pretty close to darkness-off switches - which is fine, but I suppose why bother at that point, just hand wave it all with everburning wall sconces.

I mean, it's no accident that the vast majority of videogame RPGs do indeed handwave it all with everburning wall sconces. I don't think that's really a big problem. Most actual D&D-D&D games I've played in, in practical terms, the sheer density of PCs with darkvision/infravision, and the ever-presence of effective light sources (spells/cantrips, glowing/flaming magic weapons, etc. etc.) meant that within 60ft it was usually safe to assume the PCs could see something.

Like, look at BG3 - early on it kind of makes an effort to have some torches and chandeliers and so on that need lighting, but they keep that up for like, what, a small part of act 1? As soon as things get real, they ditch it. And that's directly based on D&D. The game also quickly highlights how entirely impractical torches or handheld (as opposed to belt-mounted or similar) lanterns are to D&D characters - 80% of D&D characters need both hands:

1) Anyone fighting weapon and shield. (This includes most Clerics/Druids)
2) Anyone fighting with a two-handed weapon.
3) Anyone fighting with a weapon in each hand.
4) Anyone using a bow or crossbow.

That's basically everyone except people willing to solely fight via cantrips and spells. And guess who are very likely to have access to Light or similar? Yeah it's people cantrips and spells!

And in fantasy and adventure literature, light tends to be a temporary and easily-solved problem (as @Paul Farquhar pointed out), in part because "everyone is bumbling around in the dark lol" is not usually a terribly compelling situation - I would argue the same is true in D&D.

And if you really make light sources a huge issue in D&D, guess what? Everyone just bloody plays a race with darkvision! (Or infravision or even ultravision in ye olde dayes).

This is why I'm saying it's not a "fetch" you can make happen in D&D. You can in another game, potentially, like maybe one where tons of PC races don't have an unfortunately well-established ability to see pretty great in total darkness. One where magical solutions to darkness aren't something present from L1 for the last 25 years (the last 50 years if we count L1 spells not just cantrips).

(Aside: the only fantasy videogame I can think of in the modern era which plays with light/lighting significantly is Dragon's Dogma 2 - even there there are magical solutions, but at least you do have to think about light sometimes, and turn your belt lantern on/off occasionally. But guess what? It's intentionally evoking a 1980s fantasy aesthetic!)

(Aside 2: there are absolutely TTRPGs which can and do and should evoke this aesthetic. But D&D is no longer really one of them where it's primary - nothing about Critical Role is like that, nor Baldur's Gate 3, indeed, I struggle to think of a D&D actual play podcast/stream which is like that. There must be one out there - but maybe they're already on to Shadowdark or the like, which is much more into that aesthetic.)

TLDR: Darkness is never going to be a tangible threat in mainline D&D, because to make it into one, you'd have to get rid of darkvision/infravision (or nerf it in a peculiar way where it sucked for PCs but not monsters/enemies), magical light as a cantrip, Continual Light/Flame as a concept, and pretty much lanterns (which are hugely harder to put out than torches).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

However, management is one way you get to that narratively (in)convenient point in a game setting. Yes your DM can also fiat that, though I personally find that much less fun, and I also don't think most torch-management haters would tend to be all that happy about that option either! "Why are you taking away my light arbitrarily?!" And, fiating that with Darkvision havers is even more painful

That’s not really the point I was making. I’m just refuting “the fiction requires it!” argument for why we have to have resource management. Clearly, if you enjoy resource management, you should have it in your game.

As for why it was originally included, like so many things that was down to simulationist thinking. Not “is it fun to play” or “does the fiction need it”, just “it’s realistic”.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I feel like this is a really common issue on ENworld specifically.

And let me be clear, I'm not just talking about a 2020s aesthetic zeitgeist, it's been increasingly towards lanterns and magic items (often very minor) and non-mundane mundane light sources (like glowing bugs etc.) since like, the '00s or earlier.

There's a real issue where a lot of people on ENworld want to suggest how D&D should be, but they seem to be aiming it solidly at the groggiest grogs who ever grog'd a grog. And you're maybe too young to be a grog (or not, c.f. the "twenty-something Boomer" who is a sadly real thing)


I mean, it's no accident that the vast majority of videogame RPGs do indeed handwave it all with everburning wall sconces. I don't think that's really a big problem. Most actual D&D-D&D games I've played in, in practical terms, the sheer density of PCs with darkvision/infravision, and the ever-presence of effective light sources (spells/cantrips, glowing/flaming magic weapons, etc. etc.) meant that within 60ft it was usually safe to assume the PCs could see something.

Like, look at BG3 - early on it kind of makes an effort to have some torches and chandeliers and so on that need lighting, but they keep that up for like, what, a small part of act 1? As soon as things get real, they ditch it. And that's directly based on D&D. The game also quickly highlights how entirely impractical torches or handheld (as opposed to belt-mounted or similar) lanterns are to D&D characters - 80% of D&D characters need both hands:

1) Anyone fighting weapon and shield. (This includes most Clerics/Druids)
2) Anyone fighting with a two-handed weapon.
3) Anyone fighting with a weapon in each hand.
4) Anyone using a bow or crossbow.

That's basically everyone except people willing to solely fight via cantrips and spells. And guess who are very likely to have access to Light or similar? Yeah it's people cantrips and spells!

And in fantasy and adventure literature, light tends to be a temporary and easily-solved problem (as @Paul Farquhar pointed out), in part because "everyone is bumbling around in the dark lol" is not usually a terribly compelling situation - I would argue the same is true in D&D.

And if you really make light sources a huge issue in D&D, guess what? Everyone just bloody plays a race with darkvision! (Or infravision or even ultravision in ye olde dayes).

This is why I'm saying it's not a "fetch" you can make happen in D&D. You can in another game, potentially, like maybe one where tons of PC races don't have an unfortunately well-established ability to see pretty great in total darkness. One where magical solutions to darkness aren't something present from L1 for the last 25 years (the last 50 years if we count L1 spells not just cantrips).

(Aside: the only fantasy videogame I can think of in the modern era which plays with light/lighting significantly is Dragon's Dogma 2 - even there there are magical solutions, but at least you do have to think about light sometimes, and turn your belt lantern on/off occasionally. But guess what? It's intentionally evoking a 1980s fantasy aesthetic!)

(Aside 2: there are absolutely TTRPGs which can and do and should evoke this aesthetic. But D&D is no longer really one of them where it's primary - nothing about Critical Role is like that, nor Baldur's Gate 3, indeed, I struggle to think of a D&D actual play podcast/stream which is like that. There must be one out there - but maybe they're already on to Shadowdark or the like, which is much more into that aesthetic.)

TLDR: Darkness is never going to be a tangible threat in mainline D&D, because to make it into one, you'd have to get rid of darkvision/infravision (or nerf it in a peculiar way where it sucked for PCs but not monsters/enemies), magical light as a cantrip, Continual Light/Flame as a concept, and pretty much lanterns (which are hugely harder to put out than torches).

My favorite OSR specifically removes darkvision and the like from PC species, but leaves it for the monsters. Light is everyone's responsibility, and the solution for this is usually henchmen with torches or lanterns.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That’s not really the point I was making. I’m just refuting “the fiction requires it!” argument for why we have to have resource management. Clearly, if you enjoy resource management, you should have it in your game.

As for why it was originally included, like so many things that was down to simulationist thinking. Not “is it fun to play” or “does the fiction need it”, just “it’s realistic”.

Unless simulationist thinking is fun for you and you believe the fiction needs it. The two can go hand in hand.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My favorite OSR specifically removes darkvision and the like from PC species, but leaves it for the monsters. Light is everyone's responsibility, and the solution for this is usually henchmen with torches or lanterns.

Yeah Shadowdark (bought it, still haven't read it, I will eventually!) does this right? It presumably has to in order to make the torch mechanic meaningful.

Daggerheart notably also doesn't include any "darkvision"-type abilities for anyone, PC or otherwise. It doesn't necessarily make darkness/light an issue, because it doesn't have any stated rules for it (IIRC), but it leaves the space open so that you could make it an issue in games you ran if you wanted to, by making DCs higher for PCs trying to do stuff in darkness and so on.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Unless simulationist thinking is fun for you and you believe the fiction needs it. The two can go hand in hand.

Those are two separate issues though. The fiction can need it in a non-simulationist game (indeed I'd argue Shadowdark is primarily gamist, particularly the default torch mechanic as I understand it), or you can have a simulationist game where this isn't a particularly important or interesting element to simulate, because it's not important to the verisimilitude of the thing being simulated.

They can align, but they must be analyzed and understood separately in order to determine if they do align, rather than any assumptions being made.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Those are two separate issues though. The fiction can need it in a non-simulationist game (indeed I'd argue Shadowdark is primarily gamist, particularly the default torch mechanic as I understand it), or you can have a simulationist game where this isn't a particularly important or interesting element to simulate, because it's not important to the verisimilitude of the thing being simulated.

They can align, but they must be analyzed and understood separately in order to determine if they do align, rather than any assumptions being made.

I don't make assumptions about the system's intentions. I take one that's close and make it more like what I want (generally, more sim, to whatever the practical limit of the table is).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't make assumptions about the system's intentions. I take one that's close and make it more like what I want (generally, more sim, to whatever the practical limit of the table is).

Oh I was talking from a designer perspective primarily. A designer should understand what they're doing and why re: fiction and simulation and so on. When playing/running whilst it helps to understand the designer intentions you can often just go with the vibe as you say.

 

[Pamphylian]

I feel like this is a really common issue on ENworld specifically.

And let me be clear, I'm not just talking about a 2020s aesthetic zeitgeist, it's been increasingly towards lanterns and magic items (often very minor) and non-mundane mundane light sources (like glowing bugs etc.) since like, the '00s or earlier.

There's a real issue where a lot of people on ENworld want to suggest how D&D should be, but they seem to be aiming it solidly at the groggiest grogs who ever grog'd a grog. And you're maybe too young to be a grog (or not, c.f. the "twenty-something Boomer" who is a sadly real thing)

Well, fair enough! I am always open to specific horizon-broadening suggestions. I don't think I am a spiritual boomer, though I'll admit the pillars of my fantasy aesthetic preferences are not far from some combination of 70/80s scifi/fantasy book covers and 19th century romanticist illustration.

Anyway the tropiness or lack thereof of torches in fantasy was a bit tangential to my main points, but if tropiness is the measure, they can't be that well bested by Darkvision/Light Cantrip analogues, even in 2025, surely! Like if I sat down to introduce D&D with friends whose fantasy awareness is around that of the average person, they'd probably kind of expect or feel at home with something like torches and lanterns, but I'd bet they wouldn't see Darkvision coming.

I mean, it's no accident that the vast majority of videogame RPGs do indeed handwave it all with everburning wall sconces. I don't think that's really a big problem.

Me neither!

Most actual D&D-D&D games I've played in, in practical terms, the sheer density of PCs with darkvision/infravision, and the ever-presence of effective light sources (spells/cantrips, glowing/flaming magic weapons, etc. etc.) meant that within 60ft it was usually safe to assume the PCs could see something.

Well let me ask you this way: with this in mind, in terms of gameplay enjoyment and general verisimilitude, how important are the mechanics of Darkvision/Light cantrips to you, versus the alternative of just saying or leaving unstated but assuming the fact that in this dungeon/location you can basically see at least 60 feet no problem? If your answer is "not that much", your preferences will be perfectly well accommodated when I am made D&D czar of 7e. If your answer is "very important," I think we will still reach a pretty decent accommodation through the rules variant option I will call "Classic/Retro (Early 21st century) Darkvision and Light Sources", which will be included in the core rule books.

All this to say that if I did not care to deal with darkness and light sources as a DM or player with a low level party (not infrequent!), the idea of carefully adjudicating the mechanical impact of some PCs having darkvision, some not, plus a wizard with the light cantrip, seems like a logistical and bookkeeping headache that makes torch and ration counting seem as second nature as breathing, all to just essentially get back to the conclusion that "yeah you can basically all see 60ft no problem", for (to me) no increase in verisimilitude. Versus just rolling with that assumption upfront, I know what I'd choose.