D&D General When the fiction doesn't match the mechanics

[Micah Sweet]

I’ve always imagined that the size is in-universe defined with a unit of weight or volume- you need a 5-carat pearl. But for ‘simplicity’ they just tell you how much it costs, since in DnD economics price doesn’t change with location.

Although they really should IMO. My favored OSR has a system for that, to allow for realistic mercantile play and a logical economy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The issue is not with hitpoints but with healing. Its the fact that the standard healing spell is called "cure wounds".

If instead lesser restoration was the name of your "healing spell", and it included a flavor mix of "you nit wounds and restore vitality and stamina to the target....something something". That would fit the narrative of what hitpoints represent a lot better.

Perhaps. You have to wonder why D&D has never described it thus.

 

[James Gasik]

I’ve always imagined that the size is in-universe defined with a unit of weight or volume- you need a 5-carat pearl. But for ‘simplicity’ they just tell you how much it costs, since in DnD economics price doesn’t change with location.

Well they don't by default, but I've played in adventures (the first one that comes to mind is Fighter's Challenge from 2e) where local economies are altered based on circumstances, making things more/less expensive/available for purchase. Although I think someone already added "D&D economics" to this thread.

 

[James Gasik]

Although they really should IMO. My favored OSR has a system for that, to allow for realistic mercantile play and a logical economy.

Say, which one is that, if you don't mind me asking? I've long wanted to play in a game where the economy made sense- I've had this desire to play a merchant for decades, but every time I do, either I break the game's balance by amassing too much money, and/or the underlying flaws of the game's economy are laid bare, which is no fun for anyone.

 

[James Gasik]

Perhaps. You have to wonder why D&D has never described it thus.

I think it was Mayfair Games who coined HTK or "Hits to Kill" instead of hit points, and that's probably a better way to look at it; how many solid blows you can take before going down.

D&D has always suffered from cursed design, as it's made two very different promises to people who want to play it- that it offers strategic, tactical battles and that it's a game for acting in and creating amazing stories.

Some parts of the game are thus very heavy on crunch and abstractions to allow things like "lone warrior in plate standing toe-to-toe with a 20' long dragon". Some parts of the game are flavorful and intended to evoke a feeling that you're playing a person living in a fantasy world, such as spell names being slightly more evocative than "fire attack" and "ice attack".

Never has D&D fully served one of it's two masters; the pendulum swings to and fro with each new iteration over the decades. So while "hit points" and "Armor Class" are abstractions to attempt to simulate a veteran warrior's ability to survive in combat, "cure x wounds" helps serve the narrative; obviously, clerics are calling upon their gods to heal wounded warriors!

Characters in D&D aren't actually wounded in combat until they fall down according to the mechanics...until it's decided that they need healing, and then they are. The narrative thus follows the mechanics.

That has always rubbed some people the wrong way, who think the mechanics should follow the narrative, as again, D&D makes this promise that it's a roleplaying game about interacting with amazing stories of adventure. The game is trying to be different things for different people at the same time, so it simply cannot be fully one or the other, and when it strays a bit too far in one direction, the fanbase splits in half as a consequence.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Say, which one is that, if you don't mind me asking? I've long wanted to play in a game where the economy made sense- I've had this desire to play a merchant for decades, but every time I do, either I break the game's balance by amassing too much money, and/or the underlying flaws of the game's economy are laid bare, which is no fun for anyone.

Adventurer Conquerer King System (ACKS). It's as simulationist as any D&D-derived game can plausibly be, IMO.

 

[billd91]

XP to craft was based on the idea that being able to make your own magic items, even consumables, increases your power. XP already increases your power, by giving you levels, so this way there's a "tax" on other ways to gain power. I first ran into this years ago in an online RPG; to purchase a weapon or armor for my character, I had to pay XP. I balked at it, but it does make sense, if the weapon or armor makes me stronger than I was before.

I would argue it never makes sense from a fictional/narrative or simulative perspective, only ever a game mechanical one. And only then because it's a fairly precious resource the player will think twice about spending and ultimately have to make a hard choice - advance in character level/power as part of the archetype/class they're playing vs gaining a boost in utility/power with an item.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think it was Mayfair Games who coined HTK or "Hits to Kill" instead of hit points, and that's probably a better way to look at it; how many solid blows you can take before going down.

D&D has always suffered from cursed design, as it's made two very different promises to people who want to play it- that it offers strategic, tactical battles and that it's a game for acting in and creating amazing stories.

Some parts of the game are thus very heavy on crunch and abstractions to allow things like "lone warrior in plate standing toe-to-toe with a 20' long dragon". Some parts of the game are flavorful and intended to evoke a feeling that you're playing a person living in a fantasy world, such as spell names being slightly more evocative than "fire attack" and "ice attack".

Never has D&D fully served one of it's two masters; the pendulum swings to and fro with each new iteration over the decades. So while "hit points" and "Armor Class" are abstractions to attempt to simulate a veteran warrior's ability to survive in combat, "cure x wounds" helps serve the narrative; obviously, clerics are calling upon their gods to heal wounded warriors!

Characters in D&D aren't actually wounded in combat until they fall down according to the mechanics...until it's decided that they need healing, and then they are. The narrative thus follows the mechanics.

That has always rubbed some people the wrong way, who think the mechanics should follow the narrative, as again, D&D makes this promise that it's a roleplaying game about interacting with amazing stories of adventure. The game is trying to be different things for different people at the same time, so it simply cannot be fully one or the other, and when it strays a bit too far in one direction, the fanbase splits in half as a consequence.

ACKS has some interesting things to say about damage and healing too.

 

[Laurefindel]

There are different types of narratives, each matching (or not) different rules. With the narratives I like to use, the following are my biggest disconnect...

- Dragons sleeping on mountains of gold. There would be millions(!) of gold pieces in a mound that big. With a few thousand pieces and you get a chestful at best.

- Falling off the fourth floor (taking some damage and continue running with no impairment). It works in a superhero narrative, less so in a narrative based on what we know and experience. It's not about being realistic, it's about being relatable.

- Attack vs AC and hit points as abstractions of wellbeing and combat readiness works just fine in most situations, not so well in dagger-on-throat or surrender at sword's point (or crossbow point) scenarios. Again, depends what type of narrative you're going for.

- As for the prone condition, I just treat it as "unbalanced", which may or may not mean you fell on your butt. At one point combats with a shield-master fighter got to be too comedic for my taste, so I'm ok with dragons being "prone".

 

[Scribe]

Let’s be honest here. Nothing in DnD makes narrative sense if you start picking at it. Character stats make no sense. Nothing does.

For a given value of “makes sense”.

10000% this.