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

[Remathilis]

Basic was never and is not now an edition of AD&D. 1e was the first edition of AD&D, which 2e-5.5e have followed sequentially.

I'm counting separate versions of the game known as Dungeons and Dragons. Of which there are nine.

 

[Remathilis]

This, I'm in agreement with.

And I think for the DM, 3.X is defined more by what you have to exclude in order to realize a vision, than by grasping at ways to make existing ideas fit.

3.x was a lot like Linux. If you are the kind of person that loved to get info source code, debug your own code and compile it, it was great because you could do anything with it. But if all you want was to sit down and do basic web browsing, it is overcomplicated and has a far steeper learning curve than it needs.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

3.x was a lot like Linux. If you are the kind of person that loved to get info source code, debug your own code and compile it, it was great because you could do anything with it. But if all you want was to sit down and do basic web browsing, it is overcomplicated and has a far steeper learning curve than it needs.

And yet moving away from that model offended mass numbers of players, caused the greatest schism the hobby has ever known, and spawned what remains today the second most popular of all TTRPGs. Moving back towards that model is what returned market share to 5e.

Circling back toward the "ludification" of 4e is NOT good for the game. A lesson the remaining devs seem to have forgotten.

 

[Remathilis]

And yet moving away from that model offended mass numbers of players, caused the greatest schism the hobby has ever known, and spawned what remains today the second most popular of all TTRPGs. Moving back towards that model is what returned market share to 5e.

Circling back toward the "ludification" of 4e is NOT good for the game. A lesson the remaining devs seem to have forgotten.

1. Every edition of D&D has spawned a schism. I was there at the onset of 3e when lots of players who would embrace 3e years later steadfastly refused to move from AD&D (1, 2, or their personal heck).

2. 4e's failure was not due to luditeism, nor do I want to litigate that now.

3. The changes made to 5e are minor when it comes to this, mostly used to increase consistent numbers rather than rely on work-arounds. If this whole debate is a sliding scale with 3e on one end and 4e on the other, 5e remains closer to 3e and has just nudge a small step towards 4e. It's no where near as disassociated as 4e.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

And yet moving away from that model offended mass numbers of players, caused the greatest schism the hobby has ever known, and spawned what remains today the second most popular of all TTRPGs. Moving back towards that model is what returned market share to 5e.

Circling back toward the "ludification" of 4e is NOT good for the game. A lesson the remaining devs seem to have forgotten.

Nah you need a holistic approach to this. You can't just pick an arbitrary quality that some edition had and say that it was because of this quality that this edition was not popular / was popular.

(also 4E is clearly better designed than 5E just saying, flame war ahead etc. etc let's go)

 

[ezo]

I could realize virtually any concept I could imagine without having to settle for kludging something that almost, kinda, maybe fits my vision

Funny... I could do this with B/X and AD&D. Huh...

 

[James Gasik]

Funny... I could do this with B/X and AD&D. Huh...

Let's say that your ideal character is made from a few disparate LEGO's. You want someone like Geralt of Rivia. Ok, so lightly armored, badass swordsman, hunts and tracks monsters, is a walking encyclopedia of supernatural lore, and has access to alchemical buffs (basically potions) that they make themselves.

So a lot of this screams "Ranger", but you don't want actual spells. And being limited to one Favored Enemy or enemies on the "Wandering Encounter-Giants" table doesn't quite suit you. If you have a DM willing to work with you, you could basically build a new class.

Or allow an odd multiclass. Or find a weird class in an issue of Dragon magazine. Or if you're playing 2e, find a neat kit or Mythos Priest.

What 3e does a little differently is that there's a lot more LEGO pieces laying around to potentially use. You still need the DM to be on board, but it's a little easier when you can say "Hey look, I want to use ala carte multiclassing that doesn't limit my race choices to be Class A + Class B + a few levels of Class C, using variant class features D and E, and take Prestige Class X, and Feats 1, 2, and 3, and I'll be able to do everything I want my character to be able to do, and all I need is your approval. No need to build a custom class from scratch."

It's all a matter of preference, of course.

 

[Teemu]

No it is not evident from their stat block. All the stat block gives is the increased damage. You are arguing that because its damage is 3d8, it's evident from the statblock that the reason it does 3d8 is because it does 3d8. That's circular reasoning.

I want a real reason, not a circular one.

That's my point: you are applying circular reasoning as to why the NPCs have certain proficiencies or why they can cast spells or why they have certain ability scores. They just do! It's evident. That's your logic.

And because you're used to that circular logic, you don't bat an eye at it. But when new elements using that very same logic and rationale are introduced, you don't like it. And to me the only explanation as to why you don't like example B of the logic while example A is fine, is because it's change and it's new. Hence my initial argument.

 

[Teemu]

I'm not inconsistent in my desire for explanations of abilities and setting logic.

D&D is one of the worst possible TTRPGs if you want good in-world explanations for how the rules work. It's horrendous for that, and it's been horrendous since the very beginning. AC, hit points, levels, and many saving throws are some of the worst offenders, and they've been at the core of the game since its start.

There are other fantasy TTRPGs whose rules are not as gamey and abstract where using those rules for more tangible in-world explanations makes more sense and you don't quite turn the fictional world into a silly goofy mess like what happens with D&D (all editions) when trying to use the rules as more like physics.

And that ties into my original argument: you're so used to AC and hit points and Reflex/Dex saves/breath weapon saves/spell saves (empty room, fireball, no damage to your clothing/armor = goofy video game logic) that you don't mind them anymore, but if the game changes, yet retains the same gamey logic for its rules, it becomes an issue all of a sudden. It's been that way from the start. Don't play D&D if you want rules that make sense in the world!

 

[ezo]

Let's say that your ideal character is made from a few disparate LEGO's. You want someone like Geralt of Rivia. Ok, so lightly armored, badass swordsman, hunts and tracks monsters, is a walking encyclopedia of supernatural lore, and has access to alchemical buffs (basically potions) that they make themselves.

Not my ideal character. My ideal characters I was always able to make in B/X and AD&D.

Maybe you and others couldn't?

It's all a matter of preference, of course.

Yep.