Taking D&D literally

Inspired by this very cool and long thread on rpg.net, I'm looking for more ideas in this direction.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=178323&highlight=taking

It's about how a D&D world would be if fx hit points really meant that you could jump off buildings and walk away, and adventurers are beings to be feared since they absorp the power from beings the slay in a 'Highlander' manner etc.

(And I love the part where high-level npcs like Elminster are always on the lookout for adventurers within 8 lvls of themselves because they are the only way to get more xp's!)

Let the idea's flow!

:)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It had never occurred to me that the D&D world was anything other than this. Because regardless of what hit points represent in terms of physical detail, they signify that you can jump off buildings, etc. and live. It accounts, in my view, for why D&D societies are martial societies -- people who go to war a lot are so much harder to kill than those who don't that the societies have no incentive to become more civilized. As with early feudalism, the risk-reward ratio for violence is heavily skewed towards violence.

Now, of course the way around this, if one does not want a totally martial society, is to award experience points under other conditions than killing people/monsters with a CR of 1 or more. But even if one does that, society is still warped by the experience system to make it a gerontocracy; the interaction between the age mechanic and the experience mechanic should create a situation in which the older people get, the more powerful they get right up until the second they suddenly die of old age.

My way around all this: adventuring is a highly stigmatized occupation in worlds I create. It is a job that brings great wealth and power but one that is resorted to by people with a virtual death wish (that danger of death at low level is a pretty significant barrier to entry). Furthermore, there is always the temptation to cash in; one could keep adventuring or one could go home and boss everyone around once you've somehow miraculously lived to 4th level or 5th. And fortunately because pre-modern societies were pretty rotten at responding to concepts like cost-benefit or opportunity cost, I allow social stigma, risk and early gains to keep more people out of adventuring than, realistically, it would if people could see the risk-reward rate. Besides, the risk-reward rate might be pretty terrible, if one assumes that the feature that really distinguishes the PCs from regular people is their seemingly boundless luck.
 

A really weird aspect of falling damage is that in DnD world a big creature, such as an elephant, is good at surviving a fall whereas a small creature, such as a mouse, will invariably die. This is the exact reverse of the situation in our universe.
 

I run my games with the idea in mind that hit points represent your relative skill in martial combat, thus, classes more suited for study and contemplation will have less hit points, as they don't really train for it. With this abstraction in mind, if a PC leaps off a tower, and has enough hit points to survive the fall, odds are they wont. There's no real fight against gravity. :D

Though, if I were running a very cinematic game (like my Planescape game now), I'd probably allow people to hop off buildings and stuff, taking normal damage, because it looks rad.

But it seems like a very interested idea, and I think we should get a big ole' ENWorld team on coming up with a setting with this in mind.
 

[Hijacking]
Any damage that you have no way to resist (falling damage, etc) should be a Fort Save or die mechanic, with the DC based on how far you fall. Using HP to represent 'falling damage' is just plain silly.
[/Hijacking]
 

Insight said:
[Hijacking]
Any damage that you have no way to resist (falling damage, etc) should be a Fort Save or die mechanic, with the DC based on how far you fall. Using HP to represent 'falling damage' is just plain silly.
[/Hijacking]

Also, that creature should get a bonus to the fort save according to size, such as:

Fine +32
Diminutive +16
Tiny +8
Small +4
Med +0
Large -4
Huge -8
Gargantuan -16
Colossal -32

And so on.

---------------

Now, if the world really worked as D&D suggests, the rulers would in actuality be better than the ruled. The world would really be comprised of fascist super-states, but it would be an actual benevolent fascist super-state that its people would gravitate to. If you really ARE smarter/faster/stronger/wiser/more charismatic than me, why WOULDN'T I want you to turn things around and rule us all, and do a good job at it while you're at it? If you and your friends really could single-handedly end hunger, poverty, offer empirical proof at your deity's existance, and inspire us to be better people, why wouldn't I want you to go to it? And worship your deity while I'm at it? It's not just hit points that would change the world status.

However, if you were just looking at hit points, Police would not carry guns as a line of defense - they'd carry stun guns almost exclusively, and probably ones with multiple rotating barrels, because no one is going to want to shoot you 40 times to stop you. They'd rather make you fail a save ;)
 

Doug McCrae said:
A really weird aspect of falling damage is that in DnD world a big creature, such as an elephant, is good at surviving a fall whereas a small creature, such as a mouse, will invariably die. This is the exact reverse of the situation in our universe.


Really. Drop a mouse six feet and it is going to be a little surprised by the fall it may be injured.
Drop and elephant six feet and the fellow is going to hardly notice.

Drop either off an eight story rooftop and both are going to have to be cleaned off the sidewalk.
 

One of the problems with taking D&D literally is where to begin.

Most people start D&D with the PHB. So let's try that. (Please note that I am still using the 3.0 PHB, so YMMV)

The first thing we learn is that everyone is measureable in six attributes. This suggests something like IQ tests with six specific categories. People know about their own results and might share them with others, but not necessarily so. We also find that people who have a high Wisdom score are both terribly observant and very much in touch with their gods, which might be an aspect of semi-omniscience. Charisma is a hard statistic to quantify, however -- there are implications that this statistic represents belief in yourself (but Wil saves are made off WIS), a sparkling personality, and the ability to speak well -- one wonders which aspect fuels sorcerous magic. Still, we can put that aside as strictly being mechanics, so let's move on.

The next thing we learn about is a character's race. Now there are several interesting notions spring up from this chapter. First of all, we find that Humans can interbreed with Elves and Orcs, but not with other races, nor are Orcs and Elves apparently able to interbreed with each other. This is rather quizzical. We also learn very quickly that seven different "races" (more correctly "species") live together in multiple communities with very little serious racial tension. Equally, we find out that there is a single language (Common) that almost everyone learns, especially the "core races", thus removing all barriers to basic communications, yet most races retain their own languages as well; why do they do this? Also everyone is literate, a major accomplishment (of course this will be contradicted under Classes, but let's keep that under our hat for the moment). We learn that dwarves are little loved and/or have very dull speech patterns and/or just fail to make a major impression on people (-2 CHA), elves are unhealthy (-2 CON) yet live very long lives (one wonders how), etc. Another question that leaps to mind, however, as all these races live, work, and play together, is what style of housing would come to predominate? You have two exceptionally short races -- this means that the taller races would probably not be able to enter their homes and that the shorter races would have difficulty in most shops run by taller folks. Might this lead to ghettos of Shorts amongst the Talls?

The next point is one's Class is important. There are 11 Classes that people fit into, each attracting different sorts of individuals, sorted by their attributes and desires. (We later find out that there are also NPC classes, but that's not until the DMG.) We find that very strong people would want to be Fighters, very tough people would want to be Barbarians (the only class that is not literate), very quick people gravitate towards being Rogues (all of whom are assassins as they all gain Sneak Attack), very smart people are drawn to being Wizards, very insightful people (and very observant people) feel comfortable as Clerics and very personable individuals (or very egotistical people, or very good talkers) become Sorcerers.

A few wise folks become enamoured with the Druid class, but those who are strong, tough, and wise tend to become Monks. Consider this immediately -- we know that not only is the world of "reality D&D" polytheistic, as shown by the Clerics, but also polyreligious. Druids do not worship the same gods (except in a few cases) that the Clerics do and even when there is a crossover they worship in a different manner.

But let us look at each class and see how it would affect society.

Barbarians would probably not be trusted within cities simply for their tendency to go whacko and start hitting things. Yes, this is a controllable talent and has a limited number of uses, so perhaps there are patrols in town who go around provoking Barbarians until they rage a given number of times per day and then let them go about their business. Barbarians, however, are also notoriously jumpy (Uncanny Dodge) and would probably come off as paranoid. Overall, society would be happiest to keep them far away from other people. And their literacy problem would probably make them objects of derision and scorn in the otherwise literatre world. Top this off with the fact that Barbarians cannot be Lawful (Alignment working as an Absolute), structured societies would again have little reason to trust them.

Bards would be welcome many places simply due to their reliance on CHA. On the other hand, their music is of an odd effect. How often is Inspire Courage necessary in a community? Fascinate would lead to questions about business contracts and crimes -- there would undoubtably have to be laws curtailing its use. Conversely Inspire Competence would be loved by all business owners -- I can imagine Bard Muzak being popular for important projects. Suggestion becomes even more notorious -- see Fascinate above, but more so. Inpsire Greatness could be used under very specific circumstances, but on a day-to-day level it would be considered quite dangerous ("What?!? You went to a bar, a brawl broke out, and you started singing?!? Lock him up!"). Bards would also be noted as private eyes, stoolies, spies, and informers, due to their Bardic Knowledge -- useful to specific people at specific times, but the trust might be lacking by their opposite numbers. Again, Bards cannot be Lawful (Alignment as an Absolute), so structured and orderly societies (Lawful) might not fully trust them.

Clerics prove that gods exist. Sort of. On the one hand, they have spells directly from their gods; on the other hand, almost everything they can do, wizards and sorcerers can do. Most people would accept Clerics at face value as absolute proof of the existence of gods, while a few malcontents would seem them strictly as hyperspecialized wizards. On the other hand, Clerics do not have to actually worship a god, they can worship a Principle (Law, Chaos, Good, Evil, either form of Neutral, as well as specific Domains, which some people would say are aspects of gods while others would say are Schools of Magic). They control the undead, either by driving them off or by giving them orders, which suggests, since this is a low-level and easily obtainable power, that a lot of people in the world refuse to stay dead. Reg Shoe, eat your heart out. Clerics are well known as healers and this might or might not lead to healthier communities, depending on how many clerics there are, how willing they are to grant their healing touch, etc. It is also interesting to note that there is a suggestion of strong and open inter-faith conflict in that all Clerics are fairly well versed in the use of arms and armour, not to mention have good hit points. Do religious conflicts happen that often in this world and are they militant rather than intellectual? Good, Evil, Law and Chaos become obvious defined traits here as well, in that many spells are not open to Clerics of differing backgrounds. Alignment, therefore, works as an Absolute.

Druids are like Clerics, but they work more with the natural world. As to Alignment, they "must maintain at least some measure of dispassion" and "must be neutral in some way, if not true neutral". This makes them very cliquish. Druids have a very limited range of weapons they may use as well as an injunction against metal armour (but not metal weapons -- we see the scimitar on the list, as well as other items that are often, though not invariably, made of metal). Yet is not metal derived from nature? An odd injunction that might spur much debate in their communities. That being said, Druids will probably not be found often in cities as they obviously get along well in the wilds -- this suggests that Barbarians, Druids, and Rangers form communities away from city walls. Might segregation then take place due to philosophy and class rather than by ethnicity and religion? In any case, Druids are always followed by at least one wild animal, again not making them overly welcome in cities.

Fighters are fighters are fighters. They are well-trained at a set of skills that are terribly useful, but under very limited circumstances in a Real World society. Still, as we find out in the DMG, there are a lot of Fighters; this suggests that the Monster Manual should be taken very seriously and that the world is far more dangerous than our own. Perhaps this should be balanced with the vision of all those undead that the Clerics need to turn (or control) on such a regular basis.

Monks are odd ducks. They must be Lawful (Alignment as Absolute) and they may not switch to another Class and back again. Once a Monk, always a Monk, or never a Monk again. One wonders if this is because the other Monks refuse to take a slacker back (organization rules of a highly Lawful, thus Orderly, group) or if there is some sort of gene that kicks in that doesn't allow the person to start up again once they have dropped off the path. In any case, many Monks would likely be employed as patrolmen in cities -- they never really need their weapons, they can get to the scene of a crime quickly, and they are inherently Lawful. This sounds like a great combination. Also having high Saving Throws across the board means they are better able to resist almost anything thrown at them.

Paladins are the most restricted, must curtailed class going. They must be Lawful Good (though they do not need to worship a god, even though all their power seems to be religious). Any deviance from the path makes them lose their powers. Unlike Monks, however, Paladins are allowed to multiclass, which suggests that the rules governing groups of Paladins are more open and forgiving. Paladins are going to appeal to a very limited group of individuals, not only due to the Alignment restriction, but also due to the fact that they need decent scores in nearly every Attribute. This suggests that Paladins, rather than being the Best and the Brightest, are more often the Most Consistently Slighty Above Average. Sounds like an odd group for the gods of Law and Good to funnel their powers through, but there it is. Leaders of Society would love these guys as military officers due to their Aura of Courage and not having to provide them with a horse, yet would have problems with them in this role as they would have to justify every single action to them. In the end many people would admire Paladins, while not wishing to copy them.

Rangers, like Druids and Barbarians, would not often be seen in cities. Why bother then all of their skills are focused on being outdoors. Many people would also look upon Rangers as rather psychotic -- why do they have such deep-seated hatred against broad categories of creatures? If the Favoured Enemy were Animals, this might simply suggest being good hunters, but what of Abberations or Goblinoids? Many Rangers seem to have a chip on their shoulders the size of a Sequoia. Of course the other answer might be simpler -- through Fighters and Clerics we have already seen that this world is inherently and highly dangerous, so maybe having specialist snipers as a first line of defence is necessary. In any case, they can find their "prey" (enemy, an odd choice of terms) more easily than most and then dispatch them relatively quickly. The interesting thought is the continual training process for Rangers as they learn about more and more Favoured Enemies -- is there a school that teaches where to shoot a Beholder or stab an Ochre Jelly?

Rogues, as noted before, are probably not the most trustworthy folks in society. First of all, each one of them is an assassin -- they all gain Sneak Attack, and this only gets worse as they get higher. Like the Barbarian they tend to be jumpy and nerous (Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, etc.). We can also see that there must be a fair number of locks and cunning traps set up in this world as they Rogue is there to frustrate them (and, as we see from the DMG, there are a lot of Rogues in society). So security measures are fairly prevalent, but did that come about because of the Rogues, or vice versa? Hard to tell. In any case, unlike pretty much anyone else, Rogues can find and remove traps; this suggests also that Rogues also work in security (Set a thief to catch a thief). Another interesting aspect of Rogues is that they are so talented, having large numbers of skill points. Might a great number of them be craftsmen and various other types of professionals? Indeed, might not the best merchant in the world be a fully trained Rogue, thus making you suspect traveling salesmen even more? ("You sure you're not an encyclopedia salesman?" "No, ma'am, I'm just a burglar.")

Sorcerers are an odd lot. First of all, most people can't help but like and trust them, due to their high Charisma, but on the other hand have all that magic. They are usually identifiable due to having an animal tagging along after them and, unlike Druids, they do not necessarily look like they've been sleeping in the outdoors. This is especially notable since Sorcerers are so fragile. These are not creatures who go wandering around without bodyguards (thus suggesting the reason adventuring parties form in the first place is often because a Wizard or Sorcerer wants to go someplace dangerous and has the need of meatshields). Of course someone this popular will have no proble gaining guards. Sorcerers would be quickly summed up by the local constabulary depending on the type of magic they can cast. Are they Wandering Weapons Platforms? Watch 'em close or lock 'em up. Are they Support Spell Casters? Watch them somewhat less carefully. Are they the type that chooses inoffensive, though potentially amusing, spells? Fine, let 'em go.

Wizards are less well liked then Sorcerers, but are probably admired for their deep intellect, much like physicists are admired at a distance. Like the Sorcerers, Wizards are usually followed by an animal. Also like the Sorcerer, Wizards do not go wandering in the Great Outdoors without a bodyguard, thus suggesting the reason that adventuring parties might form.

So what do we see here? A society where racial tensions are less important than religious tensions, as well as a strong split between City and Country. We see a highly dangerous world with a good amount of undead. We see a society that will probably have a fair little constabulary to watch over the doings of the "classed characters". And we see cities where there are interesting divisions based on size.

More to come? Who knows...
 

Wombat said:
One of the problems with taking D&D literally is where to begin.

>snip<

More to come? Who knows...

This is great stuff. Here's a few quotes from the rpg.net thread that I found especially thought-provoking:

poster on rgp.net said:
I'm curious about the social dynamics of knowing that you absolutely cannot kill Grognard the Hero with one well placed sword thrust or crossbow bolt, no matter how well placed. Assassins would just flat out refuse certain jobs.

Armies would refuse to charge a single high level fighter. In our world, the first guy at least can hope he might get lucky. In literal-D&D-world, he knows he's dead, period.

Armies might become obsolete altogether - seriously, what army would go up against a group of 20 mid to high level adventurers? It'd be like medieval soldiers charging a Panzer division.

High-HP people could get away with just damn near anything in town. How many city guards will be willing to sacrifice themselves in order to wear Grognard down enough for the Nth guy to kill him?

poster on rgp.net said:
Making Adventures seem like a crazy-dangerous elite to the people of the settings. That'd be damn cool.

That's how I play D&D, anyway.

What are adventurers? Adventurers are best understood as a form of natural disaster, like a tornado or earthquake. Their lives are whirling clouds of intrigue and violence, and normal people who value life stay as far away from these passive-aggressive psychotics as they can.

The best of them are paranoid, touchy, greedy, and bloodthirsty; they are likely to respond to nearly any challenge or obstacle with immediate and overwhelming force. Even "good" ones are killers, grave robbers, and notorious lechers. The worst of them are mass murderers, thieves, and extortionists. No matter how grim the situation you find yourself in, they will take action only for money, and will always want more than you and your village are prepared to pay.

Despite their greed, they have wealth beyond imagination- the equivalent of the wages of several lifetimes of skilled labor- all invested in armor, weapons, and other various and sundry nastiness. Sane people, upon becoming this wealthy, would buy a large estate and mansion and retire. These lunatics buy bigger weapons and go after more money- your money. They earn this money in ways which boggle the mind and churn the stomach.

They think nothing of walking into lethal situations normal and sane people shun. They impassively face armies of well-armed and-equipped humanoids, the risen dead, and demons from the pits. The most hideous and unnerving monstrosities are slain without even a hiccup, without a blink, twitch, or grunt to betray any kind of emotion. Adventurers are beyond brave, beyond fearless, beyond impassive. They are simply incapable of normal, human fear. Death has no meaning for them. It is simply another annoying obstacle.

If their own life means little, the lives of those around them mean even less. They will kill without compunction, or even a moment's thought. They treat everyone as if they were a potential enemy and treat every situation as if violence could break out at any moment.

Buy their services, if you must, but don't expect gratitude or loyalty. They will try to take whatever isn't nailed down, and try to nail anyone who catches their fancy. Don't expect grace, courtliness, manners, or for that matter even barest civility. Adventurers act like- and apparently believe- that they are the most important people in the world.

Your laws and mores matter nothing to them. Most don't even remember such concepts exist, and upon being reminded of them react with extreme annoyance. This usually equates to extreme violence.

If they are welcome, it is only because things have gone very badly and they are moderately less dangerous than whatever supernatural evil is about. Once they have done whatever it is you need, reward them with gold (of course, try getting them to act without it) and invite them to leave, immediately if not sooner. Asking them to stay is a recipe for disaster.

poster on rgp.net said:
But the Captain of the Town Guard is, more than likely, another Grognard--only working for the town. His sergeants may be within a few levels of him, and looking to level up, the better to defend their homes. To them, Grognard isn't a menace: he's an opportunity - XP on the hoof.

poster on rgp.net said:
There's an additional idea if we're going with 3.x XP rules. As others have said, since you only get XP for challenges within 5 (IIRC) points of your own level, high-level characters would seek each other out Highlander-style. But what happens when there's only one left?

If he's 5 levels above anyone else, he's got no means of advancing nor incentive to fight. The closest thing to a living god would be a jaded, bored adventurer who has seen it all and is just waiting (years? centuries?) for another contender to emerge.

Heck, he might go so far as to secretly groom high level adventurers, plotting to send them against each other and directing them to dungeons of the exact appropriate level...

This invisible overlord might also explain the weird metagaming effect by which low-level parties never enter high-level dungeons and vice-versa.

poster on rgp.net said:
His name is Elminster.

EDIT: actually there's something very Lovecraftian about that idea. If there was such a powerful being then people would want to stay at least 6 levels below him, otherwise they'd get greedily snacked on. People wouldn't get want to get too powerful, lest they attract the attention of the Hungry God.


what you think?

:)
 

Well, I guess this solves the question of "Why did the mad archmage create this silly dungeon stocked with monsters and treasure?" It's to get lower level adventurers up to a challenging level for the archmage.

Quasqueton
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top