D&D 5E (+)What Ubiquitous DnD Tropes Get It Totally Wrong?

[Neonchameleon]

too much realism hurts gameplay.

So sometimes it has to take the back seat.

Which is why most games use abstract penalties for wounds rather than trying to model them the way e.g. GURPS does. A rule "When you're below 25% hit points attacks against you gain advantage and your attacks and physical skills get disadvantage" makes actual hurt feel real because it impacts the character, and it completely changes the dynamic of when to use healing spells.

If you have no consequences for wounds, unlike almost every other RPG I can think of, then in anything created after about 1980 that's a deliberate design decision and part of your worldbuilding. It means that damage is about as consequential as it is for a protagonist in a Hollywood action movie, and it means that combat is more like paintball than war. This is worldbuilding.

 

[BrokenTwin]

when you give players more penalties, they will just look for a way that they can rest and remove those penalties so they can "be 100% ready".

I dunno. Some of my favorite systems include death spiral mechanics (Savage Worlds being the prime example that comes to mind), and I haven't actually witnessed this behaviour. Do the players act more cautiously when their characters are wounded? Yes, but encouraging players to take their character's well being into consideration and seek nonviolent resolutions is (IMO) the point of death spirals, so I'd argue that's functioning as intended.

 

[greylurk]

Why must a work have a message?

The whole point of a work of writing is to have a message. The question isn't whether it had a message, as that is the intent of writing and communications. We read a work to take in it's primary message, but assenting to the primary message isn't inherently assent or agreement with any secondary messages.

Are they? Can we not guard ourselves? Is there no defense? I'm sure. Some people seem to be more easily influenced than others, which means some people are able to guard themselves - at least to some extent. Alternatively, we could train ourselves to discard emotions. Soldiers seem to be able to do it; military training teaches them to compartmentalize. Navy Seals don't cry when a terrorist goes down, but they do when one of their own takes a bullet. Why not do the same thing with media? Compartmentalize reality and fantasy?

I think it's possible to prime your emotional systems to ignore certain emotional stimuli, especially with rigorous training programs (one might even call it "brainwashing") such as when Jim Jones taught his followers that it would be more merciful for them to poison their own children than to let them then continue living in the United States.

Suppression of emotion isn't inherently a good thing. In service to a specific task, it might sometimes be important, but as a general policy, it's probably not healthy.

 

[Minigiant]

Weapons give no bonus to defense.

Armed with a pike, a sword, or unarmed, neither your AC nor HP change.s

 

[3catcircus]

when you give players more penalties, they will just look for a way that they can rest and remove those penalties so they can "be 100% ready".

Except I'm not talking about between battles. These conditions occur in the middle of combat - no chance of resting while in the middle of dodging a club being swung at your head...

 

[3catcircus]

I dunno. Some of my favorite systems include death spiral mechanics (Savage Worlds being the prime example that comes to mind), and I haven't actually witnessed this behaviour. Do the players act more cautiously when their characters are wounded? Yes, but encouraging players to take their character's well being into consideration and seek nonviolent resolutions is (IMO) the point of death spirals, so I'd argue that's functioning as intended.

I think there are ways to have a happy medium between core D&D mechanics and, say, Phoenix Command's modeling of the physics of each weapon, each location and each effect in excruciating detail.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Static worlds (not 5E trope, but D&D in general).

D&D worlds like the Forgotten Realms have histories spanning centuries, sometimes even millenia, but nothing changes in them. People used the same kind of materials and weapons back then than they are now. There is no form of advancment at all be it scientific, magical or political.

Related to that, dungeons. Somehow there are still dozens of unspoiled dungeons and ruins out there, filled with treasure that no one has bothered to clean out or in the case of ruins deconstructed for building materials.

One big trope D&D has is the "fallen advanced society" which was more advanced than the current nations (even when it existed several centuries before) who made all the artifacts you encounter etc. and was generally better in everything than the current nations.

Agreed.
I blame it on the false historical trope of the Dark Ages as “the thousand year long Medieval period had no advancement and Rome was just better”.

No. The Medieval period was an age of advancement, even in Europe.

The idea that the Middle Ages were a miasma of cultural and scientific darkness rescued by the advent of the renaissance, when the Italians rediscovered classical art and philosophy and made good stuff again, has too much influence on D&D and other fantasy works.

 

[Charlaquin]

What does scientific (human) racism have to do with dwarves? Furthermore, no one can provide an accepted definition of what a race is scientifically.

The scientific community actually does now agree on what race is scientifically: nothing. It doesn’t exist. The very concept is scientifically bunk. Race exists only as a social construct.

How can scientific racism exist as an except when we don't even know what a race is? The whole thing is a little confusing to me. If scientific racism can't stand on its own two feet as a theory, why should we care if it influences anything?

Because despite having been discredited, the misconception of race as a biological distinction between humans persists. And not just among bigots who cling to outdated theories of race to justify their worldviews (though there are plenty of those) but ordinary, well-meaning but misguided people. There’s an example for you of people’s worldviews being informed by more than pure logic and evidence right there.

What does it have to do with dwarves in a fantasy setting? Because almost all of fantasy media continues to propegate the myth of biological race. People are constantly and uncritically exposed to the concept in media they enjoy, normalizing it and making it easier to accept.

Why must a work have a message?

Because that’s how communication works. All communication expresses meaning, whether we intend it to or not. Better to be conscious and purposeful with the messages we put out into the world than try to pretend we can tell stories that have no meaning.

If a work does have a message, isn't consuming said media consent to allow that piece of media to influence you?

Why yes, which is why critical analysis is important. We are all influenced by the media we consume, but if we are critical of that media, we have more control over how we are influenced by it.

Are they? Can we not guard ourselves? Is there no defense?

Yes, it’s called critical analysis.

I'm sure. Some people seem to be more easily influenced than others, which means some people are able to guard themselves - at least to some extent.

You know what the difference is? The people who are more easily influenced are the ones without conscious awareness of the messages in their media. That’s why it’s important to acknowledge these things when we see them.

Alternatively, we could train ourselves to discard emotions. Soldiers seem to be able to do it; military training teaches them to compartmentalize. Navy Seals don't cry when a terrorist goes down, but they do when one of their own takes a bullet.

And it is deeply, horrendously psychologically damaging.

Why not do the same thing with media? Compartmentalize reality and fantasy?

We can. But it’s difficult to compartmentalize a facet of a work that you aren’t consciously aware of. So we analyze our media, we identify the messages they express, and we critique the messages we find to be harmful.

 

[Charlaquin]

This made me laugh, as the way it's worded tells me critics are generally unable to agree as to whether any given author is alive or dead.

Or undead?

Both, until observed. Shrodinger’s author.

 

[Tonguez]

Static worlds (not 5E trope, but D&D in general).

D&D worlds like the Forgotten Realms have histories spanning centuries, sometimes even millenia, but nothing changes in them. People used the same kind of materials and weapons back then than they are now. There is no form of advancment at all be it scientific, magical or political.

Related to that, dungeons. Somehow there are still dozens of unspoiled dungeons and ruins out there, filled with treasure that no one has bothered to clean out or in the case of ruins deconstructed for building materials.

One big trope D&D has is the "fallen advanced society" which was more advanced than the current nations (even when it existed several centuries before) who made all the artifacts you encounter etc. and was generally better in everything than the current nations.

These arent DnD tropes though, theyre tropes across ALL fiction

Atlantis was a fallen advanced society, Indiana Jones and Tarzan were exploring all kinds of lost dungeons and well Fairytales are all set in the same “Once upon a time in a land far far away”.

And Dungeons in DnD worlds actually do make a kind of sense - commoners arent going to be keen to strip building materials from a haunted ruin when theres a real chance of being killed or eaten by monsters.