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

[Sepulchrave II]

Depends on the game. Some designers make setting logic more of a priority than others.

It has nothing to do with setting logic.

It is about having a consistent imagined mechanical sub-reality; a common, interoperable design language between PCs and NPCs.

These are not the same thing. Setting logic is always desirable; mechanical transparency between PCs and NPCs is an aesthetic preference.

Some players prioritize the desire for an internally consistent imagined mechanical sub-reality; others do not.

As I have testified on numerous occasions, I share the aesthetic preference of a common design language between PCs and NPCs, but I acknowledge it for what it is. For me, the act of imagining is aided by immersing myself in the possibilities offered by the mechanical sub-reality - and also constrained by it. Sometimes those constraints accord with setting logic; at others they act at odds toward it. But they are not - intrinsically - more aligned with setting logic in general.

 

[Hussar]

Think of I this way.

Pre 3e, DnD had virtually no shared mechanical sub reality. Npcs were in no way designed the same way as pcs. That’s why you had things like ten different kinds of “men” in the monster manual. Npcs had no Dex scores. On and on.

Does that mean that adnd settings had no consistency? That tsr era DnD failed to be consistent? That’s a pretty damning thing to say.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Think of I this way.

Pre 3e, DnD had virtually no shared mechanical sub reality. Npcs were in no way designed the same way as pcs. That’s why you had things like ten different kinds of “men” in the monster manual. Npcs had no Dex scores. On and on.

Does that mean that adnd settings had no consistency? That tsr era DnD failed to be consistent? That’s a pretty damning thing to say.

You can extend it even further: there were very clear, specific ways that PCs-and-allies differed from opponents-and-monsters. Gygax knew this, and occasionally it did cause effects that weren't in line with this "internally-consistent imagined mechanical sub-reality" thing, because it would be a ridiculously overpowered benefit to (say) recruit a couple of orcs and suddenly have reliable darkvision with functionally no downsides. That gave him a game design dilemma: Forbid recruiting monsters, or mechanically alter monsters that get recruited so they don't become an overwhelmingly advantageous thing (and thus rampantly exploited by players, becoming a dominant strategy.*)

D&D has always been a negotiation between several different priorities, none of which fits into a clean, uncomplicated hierarchy of fulfillment. When appropriate, increasing internal consistency for the mechanical sub-reality is definitely desirable and ought to be pursued--but there are times where doing so costs too much somewhere else. When appropriate, aesthetically-pleasing design is obviously preferable to kludgy messes, but that definitely shouldn't be prioritized over everything else. When appropriate, concessions in other desirable things in order to produce the right player experience--well-paced, engaging, diverse, climactic, etc.--or to aid the DM in running the game, but plenty of such concessions are too costly for the benefit. Etc.

Setting consistency is more a matter of theme, tone, and chronology. Internally-consistent imagined mechanical sub-reality is more a matter of getting the player to see or feel a symmetry between the abstraction of the game rules and the theoretical physicality of the world it represents. (Personally, I phrase this as "naturalistic reasoning". It's what most hardcore Sim fans desire: being able to apply reasoning as though one were personally there, with all one's current intuitions and physics knowledge etc., etc., augmented by the established truths of the fictional world, hence "naturalistic" rather than "realistic" thinking, a world where nature is different but still follows natural laws.)

*Note that the proper term here is a degenerate dominant strategy, but the last time I used that term in its mathematical sense, I got frowny faces, so...yeah.

 

[Lanefan]

Think of I this way.

Pre 3e, DnD had virtually no shared mechanical sub reality. Npcs were in no way designed the same way as pcs. That’s why you had things like ten different kinds of “men” in the monster manual. Npcs had no Dex scores. On and on.

Yes, and I (and I don't think I'm alone) generally tossed out that line of thinking 40+ years ago

Does that mean that adnd settings had no consistency? That tsr era DnD failed to be consistent? That’s a pretty damning thing to say.

Damning, perhaps, but also somewhat true. In many cases, with TSR I think it was more a case of omission - they didn't list NPC or monster stats even when they'd be relevant, nor give the monsters the bonuses (or penalties) those stats should provide - than outright intent. The most obvious offender here is that Giants didn't get to-hit or damage bonuses due to their Strength.

And ten different kinds of "men" (and Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, and Gnomes) in the MM was, honestly, a waste of good page count that could have been used on other more interesting creatures; the info for those species should really have been in the PH.

TSR-era NPC design ain't exactly a shining beacon of perfection.

 

[Lanefan]

You can extend it even further: there were very clear, specific ways that PCs-and-allies differed from opponents-and-monsters. Gygax knew this, and occasionally it did cause effects that weren't in line with this "internally-consistent imagined mechanical sub-reality" thing, because it would be a ridiculously overpowered benefit to (say) recruit a couple of orcs and suddenly have reliable darkvision with functionally no downsides. That gave him a game design dilemma: Forbid recruiting monsters, or mechanically alter monsters that get recruited so they don't become an overwhelmingly advantageous thing (and thus rampantly exploited by players, becoming a dominant strategy.*)

Perhaps there's other examples that better back your point, but I think Orc darkvision in 1e was the same as Dwarf darkvision (i.e. 60' infravision); so while recruiting a couple of Orcs might prove useful it'd be functionally the same as recruiting a couple of Dwarves, except Dwarves had better underground skills and knowledge and were also often considerably more intelligent.

I fail to see how this is overpowered.

D&D has always been a negotiation between several different priorities, none of which fits into a clean, uncomplicated hierarchy of fulfillment. When appropriate, increasing internal consistency for the mechanical sub-reality is definitely desirable and ought to be pursued--but there are times where doing so costs too much somewhere else. When appropriate, aesthetically-pleasing design is obviously preferable to kludgy messes, but that definitely shouldn't be prioritized over everything else. When appropriate, concessions in other desirable things in order to produce the right player experience--well-paced, engaging, diverse, climactic, etc.--or to aid the DM in running the game, but plenty of such concessions are too costly for the benefit. Etc.

In principle, this is well put.

Every one of us, however, will have a different opinion on where to draw the various lines noted here, and that's where many of these discussions find their roots.

Setting consistency is more a matter of theme, tone, and chronology. Internally-consistent imagined mechanical sub-reality is more a matter of getting the player to see or feel a symmetry between the abstraction of the game rules and the theoretical physicality of the world it represents. (Personally, I phrase this as "naturalistic reasoning". It's what most hardcore Sim fans desire: being able to apply reasoning as though one were personally there, with all one's current intuitions and physics knowledge etc., etc., augmented by the established truths of the fictional world, hence "naturalistic" rather than "realistic" thinking, a world where nature is different but still follows natural laws.)

Indeed.

It's the old question of whether the fiction comes first* and the mechanics are there merely to abstract it when-where required (which agrees with what you say here), or whether the mechanics come first* and the fiction is assumed to bend to suit those mechanics.

* - where possible; knowing full well there's going to be (hopefully not too many) times when such just can't work.

*Note that the proper term here is a degenerate dominant strategy, but the last time I used that term in its mathematical sense, I got frowny faces, so...yeah.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Think of I this way.

Pre 3e, DnD had virtually no shared mechanical sub reality. Npcs were in no way designed the same way as pcs. .

I think that experience may have been table-dependent or group-dependent; I knew a lot of DMs in the 1E era who meticulously detailed NPCs according to the same rules as PCs.

Official products were certainly erratic and inconsistent. Maybe those of us who drew inspiration heavily from products like the Rogues Gallery developed a different set of expectations.

 

[CreamCloud0]

the hobgoblin longsword issue just tells me that 5e/5.5e needs a larger selection of weapons and/or weapon traits and properties, i'd be down for an 'expert' tier of weapons above the current martial category.

 

[James Gasik]

the hobgoblin longsword issue just tells me that 5e/5.5e needs a larger selection of weapons and/or weapon traits and properties, i'd be down for an 'expert' tier of weapons above the current martial category.

I'd be down with the return of Superior Weapons. I miss the Craghammer, Mordenkrad, Fullblade, and Superior Crossbow!

 

[Micah Sweet]

the hobgoblin longsword issue just tells me that 5e/5.5e needs a larger selection of weapons and/or weapon traits and properties, i'd be down for an 'expert' tier of weapons above the current martial category.

I use a much larger selection of weapons and weapon properties in my homebrew, drawn from many sources and adjusted as needed to suit my and my table's preferences.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'd be down with the return of Superior Weapons. I miss the Craghammer, Mordenkrad, Fullblade, and Superior Crossbow!

You'd like the...roughly 85% finished custom weapon rules I've written up.

They were designed to work with 4e rules, but should be compatible with 5.0 and 5.5e as well*, and they include Simple, Martial, and Superior weapons (including double weapons). The greatest difficulties with the system were that some weapons were just massively underpowered relative to others of their same category, which made it a lot harder to see the underlying pattern. Simple weapons and double weapons had the most outlier cases. Martial and Superior were, by comparison, almost perfectly uniform once I had worked out some early issues. The only remaining thing was the rather late realization that some properties would be free as a rider on top of some other valuable property.

I was pretty pleased with the end result, I just want to add like two or three more interesting properties (in part inspired by BG3!) before I "publish" so to speak.

*As always, testing, testing, testing. You must test to see if it will truly work out or not. It almost certainly wouldn't be a problem in 4e, but in 5e (and particularly 5.5e with its new weapon masteries and such) I cannot guarantee that there isn't some weird charop nightmare that becomes stupid if this is permitted...but I find it somewhat unlikely.