D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[Parmandur]

Which is also not an official. I don't feel like doing the extra typing, or for that matter pretending like D&D wasn't revised. But you know, I figure people can call it what they want. It'll settle out in the end. 5E, as you will recall, wasn't even 5e at one point.

Who is pretending ding the 2024 rules aren't a revision? But they are at least the 17th version of the rules in the past 50 years, so using silly nonsense terms like "6E" or "5.5" aren't going to do nothing other than serve as a distraction.

 

[Stormonu]

Yeah, a lot of what prickles me about the 2024 version is the extra abstraction. Not a fan, and why I've been avoiding it.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, a lot of what prickles me about the 2024 version is the extra abstraction. Not a fan, and why I've been avoiding it.

Every version of D&D has used the extremely game-y abstract systems of AC and HP, among a million others. The 2024 rules don't seem to be any more or less abstract than the 2014 rules.

 

[pawsplay]

Who is pretending ding the 2024 rules aren't a revision? But they are at least the 17th version of the rules in the past 50 years, so using silly nonsense terms like "6E" or "5.5" aren't going to do nothing other than serve as a distraction.

Call it a distraction if you like. The fact is, they didn't give it an official name, and I don't feel like typing out 5e (2024) for the next decade.

 

[Parmandur]

Call it a distraction if you like. The fact is, they didn't give it an official name, and I don't feel like typing out 5e (2024) for the next decade.

And yet here you are, typing out an elaborate explanation of why you used a misnomer. Sure seems to have saved you time and effort.

They have officially named them, incidentally, as the 2024 rules.

 

[pawsplay]

And yet here you are, typing out an elaborate explanation of why you used a misnomer. Sure seems to have saved you time and effort.

They have officially named them, incidentally, as the 2024 rules.

I described it as the revised edition in the third sentence, there is no confusion, just people who either didn't read or are looking to argue over nothing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Folks, do we really need to turn this thread into another pointless argument about what defines an edition instead of engaging with the actual point @pawsplay is trying to make? SMH…

Anyway, I think this is a pretty insightful observation. While I agree with @dave2008 that the conjure spells are maybe not the best example to use to try to illustrate this point, I think it’s accurate to say that the 2024 revisions have shifted things in favor of treating elements as game constructs rather than as objects. The hobgoblin longsword is a great example. Another example is how the new rules for hiding give you the invisible condition, not because you’re supposed to be able to become transparent by hiding behind a tree, but because the invisible condition fulfills the game rules function they wanted to use to represent the effects of hiding. The condition isn’t being treated as a reified thing in the fictional universe, it’s just a package of rules functions.

There are benefits and drawbacks to both reification and “ludification” as it’s being used here, and D&D has always tended to lean more ludic, but there is a noticeable trend of this revision leaning further in that direction than pre-2024 5e did.

 

[Hussar]

By contrast, 6E has moved swiftly into ludification. A lot of things were done to simplify, streamline, and improve the experience as a game. So, one change I noticed is the spell Conjure Animals. Previously, this spell, well, conjured some animals, of a limited Challenge rating. Now, it summons spectral animals, who occupy a Large space and do Force damage. It occupies a sort of mid-point between Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians. But you can't cast the new spell to summon a constrictor snake to constrict someone, or a venomous snake to poison someone, and so forth. You can't even properly summon a seal, only a spectral creature that occupies either the sea or the land. Arguably, this is an improvement for play, since the spell is more consistent, balanced, and future-proofed against bad animal writeups in future books. But I feel like it kind of loses something.

Ok, ignoring the 6e thing.

The only thing that has been lost is the players trying to game the system by choosing the "best" animal (or whatever being summoned). So, now, your summoned animal is a single statblock that prevent cheese weasel power monkeys from using the Monster Manual as a shopping list to eke out every single bonus they can.

IOW, you absolutely can summon a "seal" or whatever animal you like to summon. What you cannot do is abuse the system, just like every other caster, and try to gain advantages over the game.

Fantastic.

 

[Parmandur]

I described it as the revised edition in the third sentence, there is no confusion, just people who either didn't read or are looking to argue over nothing.

You introduced a confusing misnomer of 6E, and said it would have taken too much effort on your part, so here we are spending time clarifying terms. A stitch in time saves nine.

 

[pawsplay]

Like, one striking example of reification for me was when a hobgoblin in 3e always had to have a bunch of class levels, because they were a humanoid with no extra HD. But they also weren't a normal playable race because they were ever so slightly superior to a normal PC race. So if you have a hobgoblin fort, you had a dozen hobgoblin warrior 1s on the walls, a few hobgoblin Warrior 4 guards, some hobgoblin Ranger 2 archers, two hobgoblin Fighter 6 guards, and the chieftain, who was a Fighter 8/Barbarian 1/Blackguard 3. And that's something I don't miss at all.

I was raised on earlier editions of D&D, where there were human "monsters" who obviously resembled members of classes but lacked any details that weren't worth bothering with. Like, the Rules Cyclopedia had Mystics as an encounter, who were equivalent to the Mystic PC class and had Mystic saving throws and so forth, but didn't have laundry lists of abilities, and didn't actually have ability scores apart from Intelligence. That's still slightly more reified than 5e (Mystics are Mystics, after a fashion, and elves are Elves). 5e moved toward the notecard method, very simplified stats for most monsters. Which makes sense for how they are used! But even though the DMG demurely suggests it, it's rare to see an NPC statted up as an actual 7th level Wizard or whatever. So the whole process of giving NPCs appropriate skills isn't as rich, and tools and other proficiencies are mostly glossed over. Late 5e and then 6E goes further by taking a handful of "spells" and simplifying them into one spell attack as an Action. NPCs don't have to follow PC rules, and why should they? That's as old as NPC thieves with full Hit Dice, executioners who could behead you on a nat 20, special dwarf clerics of high level, and "legendary heroes" with illegal multiclasses.