Should DND Have Cinematic Vs. Plausible Optional Rules?

[KarinsDad]

A few years back when Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon came out, some friends and I went to watch it.

As we walked out of the theater, one of my friends quipped "I didn't know that they filmed that on the moon.".

Regardless of whether you are a fan of that type of genre film or not, he had a good point hidden in there.

Different people have different levels of "suspension of belief" when it comes to fantasy (and even science fiction) be it books, films, or roleplaying.

So, should DND have a few generic optional rules which segregate the non-magical portions of the game into Cinematic vs. Plausible?


For example, bonus damage for weapons. A cinematic rule is the current rule where all extra damage is real. A plausible rule might be that bonus damage (outside of strength and magic) is subdual damage. That way, your high level Fighter cannot use feats like Power Attack to break through a stone wall in a matter of 3 or 4 rounds with a sword. That is a cinematic effect, not a plausible one.

Thoughts?

 

[hong]

That would be the logical next step in the creeping HEROization of D&D, but I don't see it happening for a while. Too many people are comfortable with the idea that D&D is a pick-up-and-go sort of game, where you just run the game with the rules that are provided, and never mind angsting about underlying genre assumptions.

That's from WotC's point of view, anyway. Third party publishers can do anything they want; however their impact on the zeitgeist tends to be minimal.

 

[Nifft]

That would be so cool. Another useful axis on which to rate each game, while looking for the perfect group/game match. It would also allow the introduction of some very silly mechanics:

Drama Point: For one minute per point of your Charisma bonus, you may act using rules two steps more Cinematic than the current rules. ("Swashbuckler")

Grim Aura of Pedantry: Realism is enforced on the order of four steps within 30 ft. of you. ("Cinema Forsaker")

-- N

 

[Nifft]

PS: Why not have "cinematic" vs. "plausible" magic rules too? Different -- yet balanced -- takes on the magic system are certainly possible.

-- N

 

[The_Universe]

The reason they don't have the rules divided as such, I believe, is because it would eliminate the presence of a universal base game (or perhaps just base experience) of D&D. D20 and OGL games can mess with that prototypical experience all they want, but if you allow ways to change the basic assumptions of the game within the core rules, you essentially no longer have basic assumptions.

But, as other posters have noted, it can't be hard to do. I bet you could write a decent Dragon article about doing just that.

 

[Umbran]

D20 and OGL games can mess with that prototypical experience all they want...

And the sourcebooks. Don't forget the sourcebooks.

The Book of Iron Might, for example, already includes systems that can deal with such things. I think the Epic Level Handbook does to. As do some of the more "grim and gritty" books out there.

So, the question isn't if the game should have them in general, because it already does. The question is if they should be part of the core rules. My first guess is "no". That's what the OGL and 3rd party publishers are for. A large part fo the point of having the OGL is that WotC doesn't have to do everything that folks might want.