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

[Hussar]

I did not ask them to, I just asked for them to be consistent when using items PCs can use

But since they don’t use the same rules, there’s no inconsistency. They don’t follow the same rules. So a long sword in the hands of a pc does d8 damage. Those are pc rules.

Those rules do not apply to npcs. There is no inconsistency.

 

[mamba]

But since they don’t use the same rules, there’s no inconsistency.

there is inconsistency, the weapon deals different damage. Not following the same rules only means they can have spells and abilities that are not in the PHB, not that they are essentially an aberration that just happens to look like a humanoid with a sword

When you kill an orc that has a hammer that returns to him when thrown and deals lightning damage and you pick up that hammer, what properties does it have? What if it was a hobgoblin or aarakocra instead?

If you see no inconsistency here, I do not know what to tell you

 

[Maxperson]

But since they don’t use the same rules, there’s no inconsistency. They don’t follow the same rules. So a long sword in the hands of a pc does d8 damage. Those are pc rules.

Those rules do not apply to npcs. There is no inconsistency.

That isn't true. Does not follow the same rules does not equates to has no rules, so you can do whatever you want. They may not follow the same rules, but consistency is a part of the rules that they do follow.

If you make an NPC elf, it's not going to have the head and body of a humanoid elephant, but a loxodon NPC would. If you look that the 5e NPC rules, which are still in full force since WotC said so and backwards compatibility, the methods for creating NPCs contain consistency within them.

 

[Hussar]

That isn't true. Does not follow the same rules does not equates to has no rules, so you can do whatever you want. They may not follow the same rules, but consistency is a part of the rules that they do follow.

If you make an NPC elf, it's not going to have the head and body of a humanoid elephant, but a loxodon NPC would. If you look that the 5e NPC rules, which are still in full force since WotC said so and backwards compatibility, the methods for creating NPCs contain consistency within them.

But I amsolutely make a lockdown using the elf stat block if I choose to. I’m the dm. That’s absolutely my prerogative. And if the npc has a returning hammer that doesn’t function for the pc’s? There’s a million and one reasons I can justify that in game.

But yeah. We’re back to 2008 again and a bunch of people who lost this argument a decade ago suddenly realizing that this is what monsters not following pc rules actually means is becoming less and less my problem.

Add to that the fact that it appears that most of the people complaining aren’t actually playing the game, well, it really is just 2008 all over again.

The arguments are exactly the same they were back then. Then 5e came out and somehow managed to convince people that the things they hated weren’t really in the game. The only thing that’s changed now is WotC has finally decided they don’t have to keep apologizing anymore.

 

[Maxperson]

But I amsolutely make a lockdown using the elf stat block if I choose to. I’m the dm. That’s absolutely my prerogative. And if the npc has a returning hammer that doesn’t function for the pc’s? There’s a million and one reasons I can justify that in game

But yeah. We’re back to 2008 again and a bunch of people who lost this argument a decade ago suddenly realizing that this is what monsters not following pc rules actually means is becoming less and less my problem.

Add to that the fact that it appears that most of the people complaining aren’t actually playing the game, well, it really is just 2008 all over again.

The arguments are exactly the same they were back then. Then 5e came out and somehow managed to convince people that the things they hated weren’t really in the game. The only thing that’s changed now is WotC has finally decided they don’t have to keep apologizing anymore.

100%. I can make a housefly and give it an elephant stat block if I want to. That doesn't mean that there won't be consistency issues with the tiny fly that weighs 12 milligrams, but has a 22 strength, but only a 9 dex. And so on.

Again, consistency is still a part of the NPC creation rules, even if they are different rules than those used to create PCs. Lack of consistency creates problems like the non-magical housefly above that has a 22 strength, but the dex of a stump instead of a fly.

 

[mamba]

But yeah. We’re back to 2008 again and a bunch of people who lost this argument a decade ago suddenly realizing that this is what monsters not following pc rules actually means is becoming less and less my problem.

whether you care is not really what the discussion is about though.

The monsters certainly no longer follow the logic they still had in 2014. If you do not care about them crossing that line, great, some others do, and if this is a repeat of 2008 then maybe that does not bode well for 2024 this time around either, guess we will see

 

[Nadan]

I find it amusing that although WotC have discard the verisimilitude approach since 17 year ago already (when 4e came out), some people here still treat it like just happened yesterday and insist the verisimilitude approach is the one true way.

 

[mamba]

I find it amusing that although WotC have discard the verisimilitude approach since 17 year ago already (when 4e came out), some people here still treat it like just happened yesterday and insist the verisimilitude approach is the one true way.

not really, I am not saying it is the one true way. I am however saying that I do not care for alternatives all that much once they stray too far from it.

There are tons of games I am not interested in, that does not make them inherently better or worse, it just means they are not a good fit for me / my interests.

From my understanding that is what the others on ‘my side’ of the argument are saying as well.

 

[Lanefan]

That's basically the entire design philosophy of 5e: give the DM enough to work with, and trust them to fill in the details to the extent they desire. It's built assuming a significant level of trust and cooperation at the table, and that has obviously worked very well for it. I think that is one of the main ways that it hearkens back to 1e.

Ah, but that's just it: is it giving the DM too much to work with, or not enough, or just right? From what I've seen of both 4e and 5e stat blocks it's a bit of all three, spread out over too much space.

Were it really wanting to hearken back to 1e the stat blocks would take up 1/5 of the space they do. For example, a creature's stats would be listed as "St-14 Dx-12 Co-16 In-11 Wi-12 Ch-6" rather than the space-eating way they are now, with the DM left to figure out the bonus each of those stats represents (which becomes second nature to even a new DM in short order anyway).

 

[Lanefan]

I find it amusing that although WotC have discard the verisimilitude approach since 17 year ago already (when 4e came out), some people here still treat it like just happened yesterday and insist the verisimilitude approach is the one true way.

They chucked that approach 17 years ago but went partway back to it in 2014. In hindsight the 2014 move seems to have worked out fairly well for them where the 2008 move did not, so it's a bit surprising to see them leaning toward chucking it again.