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

[Lanefan]

It comes from the CR, simple as. It's a Monster stat block for use in a 2-3 round combat, not part if a whole-world simulation.

If the monster stat blocks are intended to be representative of those monsters as a whole then they are part of a whole-world simulation. And if they're not intended to be representative of all then tell us up front that these particular stat blocks only apply to those individuals and then give us properly representative stat blocks we can use for other things than just this one combat.

 

[Charlaquin]

The idea that everything in the stat block must be rationalized and explained is how we got 3e's monsters built like PCs problem.

Sure, but there’s a lot of daylight between monsters built like PCs and monster damage being completely unrelated to the weapons they use (or more accurately, monster equipment being completely unrelated to the damage they deal, since ultimately they’re always going to deal whatever damage their CR needs them to deal). Where the sweet spot between those extremes lies will vary from player to player, but I think it’s clear that a lot of people who found early 5e to strike a satisfying balance are not finding that the 2024 monster manual strikes that same balance for them. I think that’s quite interesting.

 

[Lanefan]

I remember a long time ago a discussion about an alternative way to handle weapon proficiency in A/D&D. The idea was any class could use any weapon, but the damage dice of the weapon was tied to the user, not the weapon. So a fighter, a thief and a magic user could all use a longsword, but the fighter did d8 with the weapon (he is a master of weapons), the thief a d6 (some training, but not an expert) and a magic-user a d4 (he can swing it around and hurt someone, but isn't nearly as good as the fighter or thief.

That was considered a viable mechanical option at the time. Same longsword, different damage depending on who was using it. If that was an acceptable mechanic then, I fail to see why a PC and NPC doing different damage is unacceptable now.

I vaguely recall such discussions, and didn't agree with the premise then either.

 

[Lanefan]

The idea that everything in the stat block must be rationalized and explained is how we got 3e's monsters built like PCs problem.

Monsters are a different issue, but NPCs and PCs of the same species working the same in terms of game mechanics is a feature, not a bug. 3e got this bang-on correct; its flaw lay in making the whole character-build piece far too complex.

 

[Parmandur]

If the monster stat blocks are intended to be representative of those monsters as a whole then they are part of a whole-world simulation. And if they're not intended to be representative of all then tell us up front that these particular stat blocks only apply to those individuals and then give us properly representative stat blocks we can use for other things than just this one combat.

That's the thing, they aren't meant to represent that at all, they are combat mathematical constructs designed to provide 2-3 rounds of CR appropriate gameplay (since all 5E combats should be done in 2, maybe 3 Rounds).

 

[Charlaquin]

I remember a long time ago a discussion about an alternative way to handle weapon proficiency in A/D&D. The idea was any class could use any weapon, but the damage dice of the weapon was tied to the user, not the weapon. So a fighter, a thief and a magic user could all use a longsword, but the fighter did d8 with the weapon (he is a master of weapons), the thief a d6 (some training, but not an expert) and a magic-user a d4 (he can swing it around and hurt someone, but isn't nearly as good as the fighter or thief.

13th Age does this, it’s pretty cool. I think Dungeon World might too, though I don’t remember for sure.

That was considered a viable mechanical option at the time. Same longsword, different damage depending on who was using it. If that was an acceptable mechanic then, I fail to see why a PC and NPC doing different damage is unacceptable now.

Well, I’m sure it wasn’t acceptable to all players then, and it wouldn’t be now either. Different people have different preferences in this regard. But I’ll say for me, the 13th Age approach represents something different than the D&D approach. In 13th age, the damage die represents the martial skill of the weapon’s wielder. In D&D, the damage die represents the lethality of the weapon. Both are acceptable approaches, but I would prefer a system to pick one approach and use it consistently. I would find it weird if weapons always used the same damage die in PC hands but different dice in different monster hands, or vice versa.

 

[Lanefan]

That's the thing, they aren't meant to represent that at all, they are combat mathematical constructs designed to provide 2-3 rounds of CR appropriate gameplay (since all 5E combats should be done in 2, maybe 3 Rounds).

Which is fine for specific-encounter statblocks that are given in an adventure module. However that isn't - and never has been - what the MM is for; its purpose is to give representative generic-to-species stat blocks that can be used or modified for a specific combat AND can be used in worldbuilding and-or adventure design.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm okay with non-PCs not necessarily equating to PC building blocks on a one-to-one basis.

However, all things being equal, I do prefer the ability to view the situation from my character's perspective and understand what is going on in a way that makes sense and us internally-consistent some manner of in-game-world logic.

What was my 4E character seeing when a high level ooze had a Charisma score higher than the bard?

Were the gurgles and slurgles of it oozing around done in a way that seemed especially majestic or seductive?

I can (and do) play games in which I need to turn that part of my brain off and accept more abstraction and game-ification. I enjoy those games too, but they aren't my preferred rpg experience.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, but...that is not really how the game works.

That’s fine, but there are still a lot of people who strongly prefer when the game pretends it works that way.

 

[Parmandur]

Which is fine for specific-encounter statblocks that are given in an adventure module. However that isn't - and never has been - what the MM is for; its purpose is to give representative generic-to-species stat blocks that can be used or modified for a specific combat AND can be used in worldbuilding and-or adventure design.

Is it?