Why do the D&D novels ignore the rules?

[Tainted_Scholar]

It seems like a lot of the novels for Dungeons and Dragons tend to ignore the rules which they are based on. I can understand taking some liberties with the rules for the sake of story telling, but it just confuses me when they show complete disregard for well established traits of D&D.

One rather egregious example that I have heard of was when Magic Missile missed it target in one of the novels (I believe it was a Drizzt Novel), despite the fact that Magic Missile auto hitting is one of the spells defining features.

[shuyung]

Because stories have different needs than games. And, frankly, simply because you're an author writing a story for a game novel doesn't actually imply that you have any facility with the game mechanics.

[JoshuaZ]

It seems like a lot of the novels for Dungeons and Dragons tend to ignore the rules which they are based on. I can understand taking some liberties with the rules for the sake of story telling, but it just confuses me when they show complete disregard for well established traits of D&D.

One rather egregious example that I have heard of was when Magic Missile missed it target in one of the novels (I believe it was a Drizzt Novel), despite the fact that Magic Missile auto hitting is one of the spells defining features.

The writers don't always know all the rules, nor do the editors. In general, they have errors in both directions, both in not adhering to the rules, and in doing things that are too close to the rules when the rules could be reasonably treated as approximations. One example of the second is in the Avatar series which moved Forgotten Realms from 2nd to 3.0, assassins stopped being a base class. So rather than just say that the assassins had levels in rogue mainly, they literally killed off all the assassins in the setting. Overly strict adherence to the rule leads to junk like that. And many people reading the novels won't even have played D&D or be that familiar with the rules. And if really strict rule adherence occurred, then for many editions (3.0,3.5 especially) you'd end up with god-wizards pretty much winning always with no interesting non-casting classes.

In general, what makes a good story and what makes a good game mechanic don't always agree.

[hymer]

Not all those books are written by people who play the game, or don't play it much. They may simply not be aware of their mistakes. I seem to recall a comment from someone in the know, who pointed out that sometimes the books would lead to additions or changes to the rules, to allow stuff to happen in the game as they do in the books - which is pretty much the sort of thing the crunch sections of campaign books deal with.

Even so, I think the novels are generally based not necessarily on the rules system, but on the campaign worlds.

[Freed]

Well, because if you read a book where the characters stopped and argued with an invisible force in the sky about the effects of a spell in mid-combat, you'd feel silly wouldn't you?

[Cazero]

The RAW of D&D are filled to the brim with holes, inconsistencies, absurdities and dysfunctions that absolutely requires arbitration from someone. Good thing they're not supposed to be a set of physical laws. The rules are an abstraction for physical laws and following them when not playing the game is just as absurd as forcing real life entrepreneurs to buy four local houses before investing in an hotel.

To answer your example, it has been argued to death that HP are not just meat and can cover stuff like Magic Missile missing even though the RAW seem to contradict it.

[Tainted_Scholar]

The RAW of D&D are filled to the brim with holes, inconsistencies, absurdities and dysfunctions that absolutely requires arbitration from someone. Good thing they're not supposed to be a set of physical laws. The rules are an abstraction for physical laws and following them when not playing the game is just as absurd as forcing real life entrepreneurs to buy four local houses before investing in an hotel.

Abstractions would indubitably have to be made, however the novels should at the very least follow some of the the more definitive rules of the setting even though they often don't.

To answer your example, it has been argued to death that HP are not just meat and can cover stuff like Magic Missile missing even though the RAW seem to contradict it.

Even if we go with the interpretation that HP involves turning aside attacks or blocking to minimize damage (Though I don't think that makes any sense considering you can go several minutes on fire) Magic Missile should have at least grazed the opponent since it always does damage.

Well, because if you read a book where the characters stopped and argued with an invisible force in the sky about the effects of a spell in mid-combat, you'd feel silly wouldn't you?

There are Webcomics based on D&D where that happens.

[JoshuaZ]

Even if we go with the interpretation that HP involves turning aside attacks or blocking to minimize damage (Though I don't think that makes any sense considering you can go several minutes on fire) Magic Missile should have at least grazed the opponent since it always does damage.

Why? One can reasonably fluff it as having dodged but doing so was highly straining.

There are Webcomics based on D&D where that happens.

And that sort of thing when it happens is done for comedic effect. A bit harder to do in serious novels.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Why? One can reasonably fluff it as having dodged but doing so was highly straining.

What, you mean they jumped out of the way but pulled a muscle in doing so?

And that sort of thing when it happens is done for comedic effect. A bit harder to do in serious novels.

Why do all novels have to be serious? Plenty of novels include humor. Additionally, most webcomics include both humor and drama, the same is true of novels.

[Kish]

Why? One can reasonably fluff it as having dodged but doing so was highly straining.

Thud the Novice Barbarian, whenever a cleric casts the spell Cure Moderate Wounds on him, is cured of all his damage/strain/whatever.

Thud the Epic Barbarian barely notices the effects of Cure Moderate Wounds anymore. Guess he's been building up nonoptional resistance to magic...

What's that, Thud? Cat's Grace does as much for you as it ever did, it's strictly healing/destraining/whatever-you-call-it magic that does so much less? Then I got nothing.

[Keltest]

Personally ive always been annoyed when a D&D novel will pull something like "were pouring all our healing magic into him, but its only keeping him stable". Like, I can accept that the character needs to be on death's edge for whatever reason, but having clerics and healing magic suddenly be inexplicably useless for this one case seriously rattles my suspension of disbelief. if you MUST stop healing magic, at least have it explicitly be magic stopping magic rather than the priests all just suddenly being 0th level and barely capable of healing a papercut.

[BRC]

The general answer is "Somebody Screwed Up". They used the words "Magic Missiles" because it's iconic, but neither writer nor editor knew or cared enough to change it to a different spell that didn't unerringly strike its target.


Longer answer:
The Rules are a system designed to 1) be fun to play, and 2) re-create a certain genre of Story (High-fantasy heroic adventure).

The Settings (like forgotten realms) are a world designed to facilitate the telling of such stories with those rules. A town is menaced by Yuan-Ti because the book gives you stats for Yuan-Ti. This is the primary purpose of the setting. While it is important that the setting be interesting and coherent, it is MORE important that the setting be a good place to run a campaign in. This is why you can have a thriving town despite the fact that it's small militia is incapable of defending it from the local Ogres. It doesn't make much sense for that town to still be standing, much less thriving, but the point is for a group of adventurers to come by and defeat the ogres.

A Novel, is a high-fantasy heroic adventure story told in that setting. It's the sort of story that the Rules+Setting combo is supposed to help you create around a table. But, the purpose of such a book is first and foremost to tell a good story, not to model the rule system. So, you bring in an author who is good at writing high-fantasy heroic adventure, not one who is a stickler for the rules of the setting. You have the book reviewed by an editor, not the game designer.

This is especially true anywhere the rules exist more to be a fun and functional rule system, than to facilitate the telling of a good story. Magic Missiles always hitting isn't a factor that exists because a high-fantasy heroic adventure needs a spell that always hits, but a game system benefits from an option that deals suboptimal, but reliable damage.

Same with hit-points. A more "Realistic" high-lethality system might tell better stories than one in which a peasant with a knife can stab Thud the Barbarian ten times before Thud notices, but high-lethality gameplay doesn't provide the same Heroic-Fantasy experience as shrugging off abstracted hitpoints.

But, a novel doesn't care about a fun rule system, it cares about a good story.
In game, a peasant with a dagger could be expected to deal at most 10 damage (Max damage crit with +2 strength or dex). Not enough to kill even a 1st level barbarian (With max hit points at first level), much less a higher-level barbarian.

However, in the book, Thud gets stabbed with a knife by Rando the Peasant, and it's a big deal, he can still walk around, but he's bleeding out, and later collapses (Despite D&D having no rules for such things outside special "Bleeding" effects, which a normal dagger wouldn't have), because, at that time, it was a better story for Rando the Peasant to deliver the stab.

[Tainted_Scholar]

The general answer is "Somebody Screwed Up". They used the words "Magic Missiles" because it's iconic, but neither writer nor editor knew or cared enough to change it to a different spell that didn't unerringly strike its target.


Longer answer:
The Rules are a system designed to 1) be fun to play, and 2) re-create a certain genre of Story (High-fantasy heroic adventure).

The Settings (like forgotten realms) are a world designed to facilitate the telling of such stories with those rules. A town is menaced by Yuan-Ti because the book gives you stats for Yuan-Ti. This is the primary purpose of the setting. While it is important that the setting be interesting and coherent, it is MORE important that the setting be a good place to run a campaign in. This is why you can have a thriving town despite the fact that it's small militia is incapable of defending it from the local Ogres. It doesn't make much sense for that town to still be standing, much less thriving, but the point is for a group of adventurers to come by and defeat the ogres.

A Novel, is a high-fantasy heroic adventure story told in that setting. It's the sort of story that the Rules+Setting combo is supposed to help you create around a table. But, the purpose of such a book is first and foremost to tell a good story, not to model the rule system. So, you bring in an author who is good at writing high-fantasy heroic adventure, not one who is a stickler for the rules of the setting. You have the book reviewed by an editor, not the game designer.

This is especially true anywhere the rules exist more to be a fun and functional rule system, than to facilitate the telling of a good story. Magic Missiles always hitting isn't a factor that exists because a high-fantasy heroic adventure needs a spell that always hits, but a game system benefits from an option that deals suboptimal, but reliable damage.

Same with hit-points. A more "Realistic" high-lethality system might tell better stories than one in which a peasant with a knife can stab Thud the Barbarian ten times before Thud notices, but high-lethality gameplay doesn't provide the same Heroic-Fantasy experience as shrugging off abstracted hitpoints.

But, a novel doesn't care about a fun rule system, it cares about a good story.
In game, a peasant with a dagger could be expected to deal at most 10 damage (Max damage crit with +2 strength or dex). Not enough to kill even a 1st level barbarian (With max hit points at first level), much less a higher-level barbarian.

However, in the book, Thud gets stabbed with a knife by Rando the Peasant, and it's a big deal, he can still walk around, but he's bleeding out, and later collapses (Despite D&D having no rules for such things outside special "Bleeding" effects, which a normal dagger wouldn't have), because, at that time, it was a better story for Rando the Peasant to deliver the stab.

I understand what you're saying, however when things like this happen I wonder, Why are they telling a D&D story then? If the novel is based off of D&D then shouldn't at least try to resemble D&D? If D&D's rules don't work for the story you're trying to tell then why are you using D&D?

And if the author isn't familiar with the D&D's rules, again, why are they writing a story about it? It would be like asking someone who knew absolutely nothing about Superman to write a movie/book/show/etc. about Superman.

[Segev]

I'll just toss in a couple cents' worth of support for "the magic missile visibly missed, but the luck the target expended in it doing so is part of his finite pool of 'not dying' that hit points represent. Throw enough magic missiles at him, and he'll run out of that luck and take a lethal wound from them."

[Deophaun]

I'll just toss in a couple cents' worth of support for "the magic missile visibly missed, but the luck the target expended in it doing so is part of his finite pool of 'not dying' that hit points represent. Throw enough magic missiles at him, and he'll run out of that luck and take a lethal wound from them."

Yup, like the target saw the missile coming for him and pulled a silver platter off the table just in the nick of time to block it = HP loss.

The problem is later writers for splatbooks think "Wouldn't it be cool if we had a feat/ability/skill for pulling things off of tables to block attacks?" forgetting that the system is supposed to be abstract and that stuff is already considered to be happening. So now the abstract system becomes very, very specific in strange circumstances, leading to confusion as to what is actually happening.

[Douglas]

Besides rules issues, I've also been annoyed a time or two at egregiously poor tactics. I remember one scene where two high level wizards fight, each of them capable of 9th level spells, and one of them casts Globe of Invulnerability. The other responds by (duh) casting a spell high enough level to ignore the Globe... which the Globe caster really should have seen coming and known better than to bother wasting his time on it.

[BRC]

I understand what you're saying, however when things like this happen I wonder, Why are they telling a D&D story then? If the novel is based off of D&D then shouldn't at least try to resemble D&D? If D&D's rules don't work for the story you're trying to tell then why are you using D&D?

And if the author isn't familiar with the D&D's rules, again, why are they writing a story about it? It would be like asking someone who knew absolutely nothing about Superman to write a movie/book/show/etc. about Superman.

Because Franchises Sell.

In this case, the Novel is not based off D&D, it's probably based off one of D&D's Settings, like Forgotten Realms.

Somebody likes Forgotten Realms as a setting, so they're more likely to be interested in a book using that setting.

But, what they love about Forgotten Realms is probably the locations, characters, monsters, ect, NOT the exact rules that underline the system the setting is designed for. I don't see anybody picking up a Drizzt book and saying "Oh Boy, I can't wait to read about these wizards casting their unerringly accurate magic missiles!"

People are attracted to familiarity. "If you like X, you'll probably also like Y". "If you like Dungeons and Dragons, then you probably like high-fantasy heroic adventure, and THIS BOOK is a high-fantasy heroic adventure, which you know because we put Dungeons and Dragons on the cover! It will have the sort of Dragons you like, and the heroes you like!"

The Author isn't writing a story about the D&D Rules (Usually, OoTS and similar fare does draw stuff from it), they're writing a story about the Setting, or they're writing the sort of story that D&D is supposed to simulate. The Magic Missile example just means that nobody cared to catch that particular error and change "Magic missiles" to Firebolt or whatever, but there are countless rules in D&D that any author worth their salt would throw out in order to tell a good story.

[Segev]

Besides rules issues, I've also been annoyed a time or two at egregiously poor tactics. I remember one scene where two high level wizards fight, each of them capable of 9th level spells, and one of them casts Globe of Invulnerability. The other responds by (duh) casting a spell high enough level to ignore the Globe... which the Globe caster really should have seen coming and known better than to bother wasting his time on it.

Actually, unless he seemed surprised by this, it may have been according to his plan: by having globe of invulnerability up, he's forcing his foe to use up higher-level spell slots. He could, in the meantime, keep casting spells of any level.

[Tanarii]

Because RPG Games in general, and D&D rules in particular, are not about writing stories. They are about two things:
an exciting team-based game;
playing the role of someone experiencing a fantasy world and adventure, and making in-character decisions for them. (Also known as role-playing.)

The version of the former D&D aims for has little to do with stories.

The latter, like living life, is actively anti-story while you're doing it. Although like life, it can be selectively edited later on and you can sometimes make a good story out of it.

[Tiadoppler]

In a game of D&D, the rules are there to provide a structure for the plot. If you had a Superman tabletop RPG, he would have defined powers with limitations on them, so the game would be able to provide the necessary structure.

In a novel about the characters and settings of D&D, the story has the structure, and it makes sense for the rules to warp as necessary to tell the story the author is trying to tell. A comic book about Superman might even introduce a new power, or new limitation that has never been seen before!








Also, *cough* Magic Missile could miss for a couple years at the beginning of 4e.

[Psyren]

Why do all novels have to be serious? Plenty of novels include humor. Additionally, most webcomics include both humor and drama, the same is true of novels.

They don't all have to be, but some do. Not everyone wants or needs to write OotS-style "lol @ ludonarratie dissonance."

[Freed]

There are Webcomics based on D&D where that happens.

Well, those are mainly comedies, Aren't we talking about Drizzt?

[LibraryOgre]

An old DM of mine claims that, at a con appearance, RA Salvatore claimed that he put at least one rules-improbable situation in every book, just so no one could say "Well, they did it in Book X!"

[JoshuaZ]

Thud the Novice Barbarian, whenever a cleric casts the spell Cure Moderate Wounds on him, is cured of all his damage/strain/whatever.

Thud the Epic Barbarian barely notices the effects of Cure Moderate Wounds anymore. Guess he's been building up nonoptional resistance to magic...

What's that, Thud? Cat's Grace does as much for you as it ever did, it's strictly healing/destraining/whatever-you-call-it magic that does so much less? Then I got nothing.

Yeah, it really does only go so far. It isn't at all a perfect interpretation of what is going on.

[Darth Ultron]

I understand what you're saying, however when things like this happen I wonder, Why are they telling a D&D story then? If the novel is based off of D&D then shouldn't at least try to resemble D&D? If D&D's rules don't work for the story you're trying to tell then why are you using D&D?

And if the author isn't familiar with the D&D's rules, again, why are they writing a story about it? It would be like asking someone who knew absolutely nothing about Superman to write a movie/book/show/etc. about Superman.

A novel is not ''about'' D&D at all really, as you can't tell a dramatic story about game mechanics. A novel is just a story, and at best, it is ''based off the fluff'' of D&D...but not the rules.

The average writer hates the very idea of ''rules'': they want to write whatever they want to write any way or shape or from they want. No writer wants to be told they ''can't'' write something because of a rule someone else made.

An author is someone with the right skill set who can write a book. They may or may not be a gamer. Though ''most'' D&D authors will no doubt say or have said that they at least causally have ''played the game''. Though ''having played a game '' does not exactly mean you know the rules.

Though, of course, it should be mentioned that there is the way books are made. The author writes the book and then hands it over the the publisher. Then an editor goes through and edits the book....and it's more then just spellchecking. And it is almost a given that the editor is not a gamer. So they are making changes based on the ''rules of editing'', not D&D. So the original text might say something 100% rules legal for D&D, but it gets changed in editing to make the story better.

[Cluedrew]

My theory: The stories are told from an in universe perspective at a level of detail where the mechanical abstractions we use to play the game would break down. So they are discarded and only the lore they are supposed to represent is used.

... And some times not even that. I have seen all of one reference to the spell preparation system in all the D&D books I have read. And that was not the preparation system. I still hold that is a pretty flavourless mechanic.

[Lord Raziere]

Look:
The only time in all of DnD I can honestly see a DnD book referencing anything remotely close to the rules, is when Raistlin explains how his magic is basically vancian casting in more flowery fantasy terms that make it sound mystical and whatnot.

DnD IC =/= DnD Rules.

If a writer thinks the story of an Orc Wizard, Halfling berserker, vampire paladin, and a succubus who somehow only casts lightning magic is one worth telling, they're not going to bother with a rulebook that'll probably say a bunch a stuff about how thats not possible and you should feel bad for breaking the rules. They don't care about Tippyverse, they just want to write what they want to write. fans can clamor but writers are not required to pander to fans and rules stuff, especially if their heart is not in it.

If I were writing a DnD novel, I'd honestly ignore the rules to. I'd just go full on "screw that, I'm telling the tale of this good orc, and I'm going to write it better than Drizz't." because I can, and if anyone didn't like it....well there are a lot of other fantasy books out there on the market, yes?

I'd recommend Brandon Sanderson if you want books that adhere strongly to their own magical rules with very little exception.

[Max_Killjoy]

It seems like a lot of the novels for Dungeons and Dragons tend to ignore the rules which they are based on. I can understand taking some liberties with the rules for the sake of story telling, but it just confuses me when they show complete disregard for well established traits of D&D.

Because even a mediocre fictional story requires more verisimilitude than the rules of D&D would create... or that the rules of D&D would ever permit.

Look:
DnD IC =/= DnD Rules.

And there's that... D&D rules are too abstracted and disassociated to treat them as a true representation of how the fictional world actually works.

[Lappy9001]

It only really bothers me when it reaches a ridiculous level of shenanigans *cough*Cadderly*cough*Cleric Quintet*cough*

[Tainted_Scholar]

Because even a mediocre fictional story requires more verisimilitude than the rules of D&D would create... or that the rules of D&D would ever permit.




And there's that... D&D rules are too abstracted and disassociated to treat them as a true representation of how the fictional world actually works.

Umm, Order of the Stick?

No, the rules aren't "Too abstract" or "Not realistic enough" to tell a story with. The second doubly doesn't make sense considering that writer very rarely give a blame about realism.