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

[Hussar]

Most imaginary worlds I'm familiar with are like the real world, plus explicit supernatural stuff. Those are the worlds I make for my games, and the ones I prefer to play in, and almost all the worlds I've ever even seen.

No. They really aren’t. Most, if not all, of the imaginary worlds you are familiar with were created for the express purpose of supporting a specific narrative.

None of them were created with the idea of being a “real” world in any meaningful sense. They are built and powered by narrative.

 

[James Gasik]

The Forgotten Realms might not have healing air, but it does have plenty of odd things- in the jungle lands south of Kara-Tur, one can find large edible insects that make a satisfying crunch when bitten...and reward you with a burst of magical healing!

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

If you try to slit the throat of a helpless creature, you have to make an attack roll... and the best outcome is a critical hit.

Do you? We only call for rolls when the outcome is undetermined

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. They really aren’t. Most, if not all, of the imaginary worlds you are familiar with were created for the express purpose of supporting a specific narrative.

None of them were created with the idea of being a “real” world in any meaningful sense. They are built and powered by narrative.

You're welcome to see them that way.

 

[Hussar]

I find the flat out refusal to recognize that setting in a fictional work serves a specific purpose and is never meant to do anything other than serve that narrative is the root cause of all these mismatches.

Hp don’t match up to the fiction because there is no benefit in the fiction in doing so. In more gritty system hp serve the narrative - long term injury, death spirals, etc.

Every single element in a game is serving whatever narrative that game is trying to produce. They are not trying to create “believable worlds”.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I find the flat out refusal to recognize that setting in a fictional work serves a specific purpose and is never meant to do anything other than serve that narrative is the root cause of all these mismatches.

Hp don’t match up to the fiction because there is no benefit in the fiction in doing so. In more gritty system hp serve the narrative - long term injury, death spirals, etc.

Every single element in a game is serving whatever narrative that game is trying to produce. They are not trying to create “believable worlds”.

Really? I have several RPG core books and supplements that say otherwise. I don't buy it.

 

[Retros_x]

The argument comes mostly from the fact that people don't know how much physical damage was sustained, as players continue to function without impediment until they don't.

I liken hit points to the durability of action movie heroes. They're constantly taking minor wounds and only occasionally pause for minor first aid. But even action heroes can be slowed down to at least demonstrate they aren't invulnerable. Leaving blood trails behind, limping, getting slower to recover- none of this happens mechanically.

We're told, of course, that this is occurring in the narrative, but since the mechanics and the narrative aren't 1:1, it leads to disputes. Did get stabbed by a goblin's spear leave a gaping wound gushing blood everywhere when it does 9 damage? Or can you take another 9 such hits without really noticing?

It all depends on who the person being stabbed is. The level 1 Wizard, taking 9 damage, is likely on death's door. The level 17 Barbarian barely notices.

The same level 1 Cure Wounds spell cast by the same Cleric heals the same damage, but the Wizard is suddenly completely revitalized from dying and the Barbarian is like "huh, shouldn't have wasted your God's power on a papercut."

None of this need to happen mechanically. In the end even the hurt action hero defeats the baddies without being hindered by his wound. In most games I played the players roleplay it by themselves without any needed mechanic that they are hurt when they are. The mechanics say: "You are on low HP. The enemy too. Your attack hits, enemy HP go to 0" The fiction says: "I stumble bloodied and slay down the orc with my last remaining power". If you would add a mechanic here it would only add to the mechanic, the fiction stays the same, so why add it? Not for narrative reasons, only to have more crunchy, complex mechanics.

The barbarian is Schwarzenegger-like, standing with dozens of bloody flesh wounds, while the small wizard goes down after one good cut. Cure Wounds closes the wound. Wizard has no wound left, Barbarian has dozens - 1 wounds left. I dunno it doesn't feel that complicated to me.

I categorically refuse to accept any explanation of "magical air" that exists in no source other than the DMs rationalizing mind.

You can accept or refuse anything you want, I am just saying that it easy to justify fast healing in a high-fantasy world - if you want too. Be it magical air, the gods favouring the heros, insects that burp healing liquid in wounds, whatever you can think of. You call it rationalizing, but its just creating fiction. If you care about that, you can also just ignore and accept the mechanics. But I am annoyed to hear "the mechanics of healing doesn't match the fiction" because no? There is no fiction stating that wounds behave realistically and the mechanics definitely say otherwise, so its easy to assume in the fiction it is also not realistic.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As I said in the OP, there's a thread for that.

That answers a different question from what I asked, but I’ll read it as “I’m not interested in the question” and move on.

5E death saves make no sense. There's no narrative justification for the PCs being more immune to death than everyone else.

5E over-night full heals make no sense. There's no narrative justification for the PCs having superhuman healing powers.

For the mechanics and narrative to match up, you'd need something in-fiction to justify these things. Like the PCs are demigods or the chosen ones or favored by some entity that fights to keep them alive and endlessly pump magical healing into their bodies at night.

The death saves, is left to a DM ruling with some intentionally soft-worded advice on a good norm for ease of play. The reality in game is that everyone dies the same, because the actual rules have everyone make death saves, and advise DMs to skip them for unimportant enemies.

The healing makes sense as long as you follow the rules as to what HP is, and understand them as not injuries.

What doesn’t make sense, and makes these things weird, is too much HP for PCs and enemies.

The entire Wizard class, basically?

We are sold on a class steeped in hermetic tradition, poring over grimoires, stitching together literally arcane bits of wisdom, taking inscrutable measurements with bizarre instruments, scribbling notes in da Vinci-style code. All to slowly piece together the secret rules that govern how reality works.

What we actually get is serial plagiarists who can summon academic papers out of thin air every so often (read: per level), either specific requests or randomly-sourced (depending on edition.)

The D&D Wizard does not live up to its description. Really, it never has.

1000% this.

This is a big part of the frustration that caused me to spend so much time thinking about how to do learned magic better that I ended up making a new game. Ie, in Crossroads magic is skills, and spells are magic techniques you have invented or learned from someone else, and ritual magic is even more open ended but time consuming. Like making potions, you need a base (circle), catalyst (primary sigil), secondary elements tied to desired effects (the name of the creature you’re evoking into the circle, runes for things the being represents and for binding and truth to make it speak truth), and tools and space to work and concentrate.

Creating a new spell is a mix of ritual magic and a Downtime Endeavor (usually research, training, etc) based on what you are creating or training.

Because all actions have the same success ladder, and there is a system of equating a given level of success and a given number of Atribute Points to a number of dice of effect, the GM can really relax and just be a fan of the PC.

 

[Mallus]

You're welcome to see them that way.

Hussar does have the advantage in that he’s accurately describing how fiction works.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

This too.

Too many HP to match inflated damage, and holdover names that we’d be better off without.