Quote from: Bren;1123574The problem is that unlike the computer, the human being doesn't have a perfect recall of the rules....

Couldn't prove that by some of the players I've played with. :rolleyes: (Heck, I've been one of those types on occasion.)

Indeed, the entire point of complex rule sets is that they attract precisely the sort of player capable of accurately memorizing them in great detail. That was always one of the challenges/rewards of this type of game.

Quote... and as the rules become more and more lengthy that recall is likely to become more, rather than less, problematic. Looking up the rules takes time. And given the lamentable state of the 5E indices, it usually takes more time than it ought.

Well, a badly organized or too-sparse index is a thing worth criticizing on its own, entirely apart from this issue.

But ultimately taxonomy is kind of like alignment: it comes down simply to being able to answer the question, "Does spell/power/ability X work against target/creature Y?"

The problem with using rules of classification rather than GM judgement is that rules can become excessively complex and may not make sense to all players, or may be poorly organized or contain contradictions or gaps the designers didn't catch in playtesting (and which, by virtue of now being "official", may become even more restrictive).

The problem with using GM judgement instead of rules of classification is that GM judgement doesn't always make sense either, is more likely to be inconsistent because a GM is less likely to remember how he ruled two sessions ago, and is prone to being misinterpreted when the GM's necessarily adversarial function is mistaken for actual antagonism.

Which of these seems worse is likely to depend on each group's/player's own experiences.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123534How is that unnatural? It looks like a perfectly natural case of spontaneous generation.

Because roosters don't lay eggs? You can't "naturally" spontaneously generate from something that exists only the imagination, right?

Quote from: Bren;1123532Table to table consistency is predominantly a benefit for some type of organized play. Outside of that, I prefer  having table to table variety. How does your PC know, with absolute precision, whether a hydra is or is not related to a dragon? And I like the notion that the druid can try to turn into any of the creatures you named, but they don't know for certain what will happen (with potentially dangerous consequences for a bad roll on a bad guess). If they want predictability they should stick to truly mundane animals like a stag, boar, or wolf just like Gwydion did in the legends that are the original source material for that particular druid ability.

I tend to agree, however this is more an "old school" vibe. I've found that more modern (younger?) 5th Ed players like to be able to build characters for specific builds, so knowing this sort of thing can be important these days (If your build relies on the fact that druids can turn into giant spiders then you really need to know that before you start play).

Quote from: Zalman;1123728Because roosters don't lay eggs? You can't "naturally" spontaneously generate from something that exists only the imagination, right?

Firstly, the medieval peasants who invented these stories believed roosters could lay eggs. Maybe not often, but enough that it was noted to hatch basilisks. They also believed that mice arose from grain you left out too long. Clearly, they didn't operate under the same line of logic that you do.

Secondly, in fantasyland roosters might very well be able to lay eggs and grain turns into mice.

Thirdly, this is a tangent from the original point about the taxonomy of the basilisk. It's a perfectly natural beast/serpent because that's what the medieval scholars who invented it literally said, and what every fictional and non-fictional book on cryptids has repeated. I can't think of any non-arbitrary reason why it wouldn't.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123734Firstly, the medieval peasants who invented these stories believed roosters could lay eggs. Maybe not often, but enough that it was noted to hatch basilisks. They also believed that mice arose from grain you left out too long. Clearly, they didn't operate under the same line of logic that you do.

Secondly, in fantasyland roosters might very well be able to lay eggs and grain turns into mice.

Thirdly, this is a tangent from the original point about the taxonomy of the basilisk. It's a perfectly natural beast/serpent because that's what the medieval scholars who invented it literally said, and what every fictional and non-fictional book on cryptids has repeated. I can't think of any non-arbitrary reason why it wouldn't.

Hm, well if anything can happen "in fantasyland", then everything is "natural" according to that relativistic approach. Is that your point?

As to the assertion that "medieval peasants who invented these stories believed roosters could lay eggs" ... do you have any evidence of that belief? I find it pretty difficult to swallow that humans hadn't figured out it's the female chickens who lay eggs exclusively, by that time.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123734Firstly, the medieval peasants who invented these stories believed roosters could lay eggs. Maybe not often, but enough that it was noted to hatch basilisks. They also believed that mice arose from grain you left out too long. Clearly, they didn't operate under the same line of logic that you do.

But did they?  It seems to me that the people who would know what animals do would be the very people that have chickens whereas the people who would write down stories about Roosters laying eggs would be the very people who had no idea what a chicken did because eggs just appear magically in the kitchen.

Kinda like the kids who think that milk comes from the Supermarket.

Quote from: Shasarak;1123741But did they?  It seems to me that the people who would know what animals do would be the very people that have chickens whereas the people who would write down stories about Roosters laying eggs would be the very people who had no idea what a chicken did because eggs just appear magically in the kitchen.

Well, OF COURSE that's what the peasants believed. Every elite knows that peasants are ignoramouses because all it takes to farm is putting some seeds in the ground and waiting.

I all but guarantee that whoever came up with the basilisk story was either an aristocrat or clergyman writing a mockery of what they thought peasants believed -or- was recording it because they believed it to be true after a peasant made it up to see just how gullible the elite really was.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123710What are those frames of reference, then? What line of reasoning do they use and how is it not arbitrary?

From an aesthetic perspective, D&Disms feel sterile to me compared to medieval authentic.

Sure, but I'm not asking you to justify your feel, and by the same token you shouldn't need for someone else to justify theirs.  Because we are talking about "feel".  For any "feel", you can find someone else that will find it feels arbitrary.  For most of those things that others feel are arbitrary, they aren't.  They were based on a reason--however thin.

It's the difference between "D&D using armor to avoid getting hit via Armor Class seems arbitrary to me," versus "D&D using armor to avoid getting hit is based on reasons that produce a feel that doesn't work for me."  For the former, someone can explain why D&D using armor that way is in fact, not arbitrary.  Knowing the reason may not change how a person feels about it in play.  

Basically, I'm saying that part of your issue here is that you are asking for logic to understand a thing, when what you need to really understand it is more like empathy.  A person who doesn't like D&D AC even when they know fully well why it is the way it is, can at least grow to appreciate why others don't mind it or even prefer it.

Quote from: Chris24601;1123746Well, OF COURSE that's what the peasants believed. Every elite knows that peasants are ignoramouses because all it takes to farm is putting some seeds in the ground and waiting.

I all but guarantee that whoever came up with the basilisk story was either an aristocrat or clergyman writing a mockery of what they thought peasants believed -or- was recording it because they believed it to be true after a peasant made it up to see just how gullible the elite really was.

Yeah.  Humorous exaggeration and juxtaposition were not first invented during the Enlightenment.   Cast a wide enough net, and you can find people that will believe almost any crazy thing, but if they write about it, it tends to different styles.  Supposedly academic papers?  Sure.  Conspiracy theories?  Absolutely.  Think about what someone 500 years from now might derive about our typical beliefs solely from a casual inspection of popular media.  Then compare that to what people do mostly believe.

Quote from: Chris24601;1123746Well, OF COURSE that's what the peasants believed. Every elite knows that peasants are ignoramouses because all it takes to farm is putting some seeds in the ground and waiting.

I all but guarantee that whoever came up with the basilisk story was either an aristocrat or clergyman writing a mockery of what they thought peasants believed -or- was recording it because they believed it to be true after a peasant made it up to see just how gullible the elite really was.

   My guess would be that it's a Classical legend, folk tale or bit of bizarre humor that the medievals, with their reverence for ancient auctors, took at face value.

Quote from: spon;1123733I tend to agree, however this is more an "old school" vibe. I've found that more modern (younger?) 5th Ed players like to be able to build characters for specific builds, so knowing this sort of thing can be important these days (If your build relies on the fact that druids can turn into giant spiders then you really need to know that before you start play).

I've noticed the same thing. It's one of the aspects of how 5E often is played that I don't particularly enjoy, but have a difficult time escaping.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123710Fair enough. If I use any kind of taxonomy scheme, then I like to use one which feels intuitive. If a dragon is a lizard that has properties lizards don't normally have, then I don't arbitrarily say that X lizard with Y special properties is not a dragon.

This kind of consistent logic is especially important in a fantasy setting that isn't beholden to real world phylogeny or operates on creationism. If you can arbitrarily create hybrids or transform people into animals, then what is responsible for defining why animals exist and in the ways that they do?

I don't find the idea that a dragon is some type of lizard particularly intuitive or logical.

I don't follow what your concern is in your second paragraph. (I don't mean it as a criticism, I just don't follow what your concern is or what the problem is that you feel needs solving.) Creation of hybrids and transformation of people isn't arbitrary. It may be a natural property of certain beings, based on magical spells or items, a result of godly intervention, or part of some sort of mythological origin story depending on the setting and what sort of change we are talking about. But those reasons are hardly arbitrary.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1123722The problem with using rules of classification rather than GM judgement is that rules can become excessively complex and may not make sense to all players, or may be poorly organized or contain contradictions or gaps the designers didn't catch in playtesting (and which, by virtue of now being "official", may become even more restrictive).

The problem with using GM judgement instead of rules of classification is that GM judgement doesn't always make sense either, is more likely to be inconsistent because a GM is less likely to remember how he ruled two sessions ago, and is prone to being misinterpreted when the GM's necessarily adversarial function is mistaken for actual antagonism.

Which of these seems worse is likely to depend on each group's/player's own experiences.

I mostly agree. Though I will note that in my experience the GM is no more likely (often less likely) to forget their own interpretation than they are to forget a rule written by some third party, especially a rule in a complex system that is infrequently used. And of course GM judgements can be recorded for later recollection making them, in effect, the same as a published rule.

Quote from: Zalman;1123740Hm, well if anything can happen "in fantasyland", then everything is "natural" according to that relativistic approach. Is that your point?

As to the assertion that "medieval peasants who invented these stories believed roosters could lay eggs" ... do you have any evidence of that belief? I find it pretty difficult to swallow that humans hadn't figured out it's the female chickens who lay eggs exclusively, by that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_egg

In any event, IIRC in D&D basilisks reproduce "normally" so the whole story about the cock egg is irrelevant. My point is that D&D's taxonomy of the basilisk is arbitrary. In other settings, like Warcraft, they're beasts.

The only reason I can think of why they're typed as [monstrosity] or whatever is 1) they don't exist in real life, which is an arbitrary distinction that makes no sense for a fantasy planet unrelated to Earth, and 2) you don't want druids to wild shape into them or charm animal them, which is defied anyway by the [beast] type including flying snakes, tressym, and cranium rats by RAW.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1123750Sure, but I'm not asking you to justify your feel, and by the same token you shouldn't need for someone else to justify theirs.  Because we are talking about "feel".  For any "feel", you can find someone else that will find it feels arbitrary.  For most of those things that others feel are arbitrary, they aren't.  They were based on a reason--however thin.

It's the difference between "D&D using armor to avoid getting hit via Armor Class seems arbitrary to me," versus "D&D using armor to avoid getting hit is based on reasons that produce a feel that doesn't work for me."  For the former, someone can explain why D&D using armor that way is in fact, not arbitrary.  Knowing the reason may not change how a person feels about it in play.  

Basically, I'm saying that part of your issue here is that you are asking for logic to understand a thing, when what you need to really understand it is more like empathy.  A person who doesn't like D&D AC even when they know fully well why it is the way it is, can at least grow to appreciate why others don't mind it or even prefer it.

AC is game mechanic, intended to abstract combat. Taxonomy is a world building concern as much as a mechanical concern.

Quote from: Bren;1123793I don't find the idea that a dragon is some type of lizard particularly intuitive or logical.

The most basic definition of a dragon is a mythical reptile with superpowers. They are intuitively linked with other reptiles in the public consciousness. Much like how Garm, Cerberus, etc are intuitively linked with dogs. At least outside of D&D subculture and all its D&Disms.

Quote from: Bren;1123793I don't follow what your concern is in your second paragraph. (I don't mean it as a criticism, I just don't follow what your concern is or what the problem is that you feel needs solving.) Creation of hybrids and transformation of people isn't arbitrary. It may be a natural property of certain beings, based on magical spells or items, a result of godly intervention, or part of some sort of mythological origin story depending on the setting and what sort of change we are talking about. But those reasons are hardly arbitrary.

I am talking about a basic ontological problem with D&D world building. What defines what an animal is, what species are, and what qualifies as a hybrid? When you turn someone into an animal, where does the genetic material come from for its new form? Why are some things hybrids but not others? Are species platonic ideals, remembered by morphic fields, or transient like in reality?

For example, settings like Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Dragon Prince take place in worlds where many or most animals are hybrids, but otherwise treated like normal animals. They aren't considered unnatural or alien or whatever. They're considered the norm. This is in contrast to D&D for the most part, not including D&D's inconsistencies.

I don't know how else to articulate it, but D&D seems to run on its own weird arbitrary "logic" (and I say that loosely) that isn't remotely similar to medieval authentic logic or other non-D&D logic.

---

[/HR]
To get back to classifying creatures... in real life naturalists placed creatures into taxonomies based on sets of consistent criteria. That was upended by genetic comparisons which exposed the flaws in purely visual observations, but the general idea is sound if transplanted to a fantasy setting. The D&D taxonomies are largely arbitrary rather than based on sets of consistent criteria.

For example, why are hydras, basilisks, chimeras, behirs, etc not classified as dragons? What list of criteria constitutes a dragon and why don't those monsters meet it?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1123799The most basic definition of a dragon is a mythical reptile with superpowers. They are intuitively linked with other reptiles in the public consciousness. Much like how Garm, Cerberus, etc are intuitively linked with dogs. At least outside of D&D subculture and all its D&Disms.

Have you consider using  a different system and setting?

QuoteI am talking about a basic ontological problem with D&D world building. What defines what an animal is, what species are, and what qualifies as a hybrid? When you turn someone into an animal, where does the genetic material come from for its new form? Why are some things hybrids but not others? Are species platonic ideals, remembered by morphic fields, or transient like in reality?

D&D, as written, is a kitchen sink setting that has grown by accretion over decades. As a system/setting it values inclusion over consistency. You can't get a consistent categorization for D&D because any such categorization will have new objects (monsters, races, items, deities) added from outside the current categorization, thereby invalidating the schema. You can select a subset of D&D creatures and develop a consistent categorization for that subset, but you can't include all the creatures written up in the system.

QuoteFor example, settings like Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Dragon Prince take place in worlds where many or most animals are hybrids, but otherwise treated like normal animals. They aren't considered unnatural or alien or whatever. They're considered the norm. This is in contrast to D&D for the most part, not including D&D's inconsistencies.

They are animals, not hybrids. They appear to be hybrids because the creators have chosen to create and depict the animals in those fictional worlds as a combination of earthly creatures, possibly with more arms, legs, or fins than the earthly models and we, the audience are familiar with our own real world animals. I never got the impression watching the show that a polar-bear-dog was created by someone in the fictional world who magically or scientifically combined the DNA of two existent creatures i.e. of polar bears and dogs. The animals in those settings arbitrarily mix earthly species and classes and arbitrarily vary whether they are quadropeds and or hexapods.

QuoteI don't know how else to articulate it, but D&D seems to run on its own weird arbitrary "logic" (and I say that loosely) that isn't remotely similar to medieval authentic logic or other non-D&D logic.

The supposed characteristics of medieval creatures aren't particularly logical, they like any mythology are a-logical and fairly arbitrary. Like the D&D setting they grow by accretion. D&D seems arbitrary because it isn't focused on setting consistency. It is much more focused on kitchen sink inclusion. A system/setting can include virtually everything or it can be highly consistent. It can't be both.

Quote from: Bren;1123793I don't find the idea that a dragon is some type of lizard particularly intuitive or logical.

For example, in Palladium products, at least RIFTS, I'm not sure about Fantasy, dragons are mammals.

Quote from: Bren;1123809Have you consider using  a different system and setting?

People have suggested this to BoxCrayonTales many times, in other threads. He seems to be more interested in "deconstructing" D&D.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I think keywords are a good idea to settle what is and isn't a giant, for example, for game mechanics purposes.
Taxonomy is the kind of think I can use or discard as needed.