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

[Lanefan]

I assume you weren't a big fan of when all weapons did 1d6 damage either?

Never had to worry about that as it was before my time in this arena.

 

[Lanefan]

And it’s 2008 again and everyone is up in arms about presentation and not substance.

Personally, I don't really give a flip about the presentation as long as it's vaguely readable. But if the substance isn't there - or is there but is done wrong - then the manner of presentation becomes irrelevant.

Good grief, if you want the stat blocks to be broken down to that degree (generic you), then you do the work. Stop forcing your preferences on me.

Holy crap. You folks dominated the game for a decade. Is it too much to ask for a bit, just a slice of simplicity in the game to sped things up for those of us who have zero interest in how the sausage is made?

It's not so much a question of how the sausage is made, though. It's a question of if-when-how-why the ingredients of said sausage are going to interact with all the rest of the meal, and what happens when they do.

To wit: if a monster or NPC has an ability that, say, gives it extra damage but doesn't say where that damage comes from or how the monster/NPC gets it, there's no way for the DM to narrate anything to the players nor for the players to potentially counteract or avoid it.

Is the extra damage due to sheer strength? If yes, the DM can narrate it that way and the players can then consider using attacks or effects that weaken the foe. Is the extra damage due to the creature's skill at arms? If yes, the DM can narrate it that way, on which the players might conclude non-melee options are the way to go. Is the extra damage due to the foe's equipment? If yes, the DM can narrate appropriately and the PCs can - assuming they win the fight - then scoop up said equipment and use it themselves. Etc., etc. The point is, the DM shouldn't be stuck having to make this stuff up on the fly every damn time.

 

[GobHag]

As an advocate for someone on the extreme end: Don't waste my time and your page space with such things. Just give me the stat immediately, don't bother justifying it--very few of my players would care and I've gone from apathy to antipathy with such things for a long time(especially in DnD where a lot of those details are such a bore)

The best thing with Hobgoblin with 2d6 attacks is that I can just replace that 'S' with "B' and hve them be Hobgoblin bruisers/monks. @Lanefan believes that giving such details is meant to make a GM's life easier, I disagree; they make Monster making a pain in the ass in having to justify why they have 2d6 damage.

 

[Lanefan]

The best thing with Hobgoblin with 2d6 attacks is that I can just replace that 'S' with "B' and hve them be Hobgoblin bruisers/monks. @Lanefan believes that giving such details is meant to make a GM's life easier, I disagree; they make Monster making a pain in the ass in having to justify why they have 2d6 damage.

Depends whether one wants the PITA to occur during prep (opponent creation) or during play (how do I narrate this), I guess.

 

[GobHag]

Yeah, and effort in narration is minuscule IME.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, and effort in narration is minuscule IME.

Fair enough, but that ain't true for all of us.

 

[James Gasik]

Personally, I don't really give a flip about the presentation as long as it's vaguely readable. But if the substance isn't there - or is there but is done wrong - then the manner of presentation becomes irrelevant.

It's not so much a question of how the sausage is made, though. It's a question of if-when-how-why the ingredients of said sausage are going to interact with all the rest of the meal, and what happens when they do.

To wit: if a monster or NPC has an ability that, say, gives it extra damage but doesn't say where that damage comes from or how the monster/NPC gets it, there's no way for the DM to narrate anything to the players nor for the players to potentially counteract or avoid it.

Is the extra damage due to sheer strength? If yes, the DM can narrate it that way and the players can then consider using attacks or effects that weaken the foe. Is the extra damage due to the creature's skill at arms? If yes, the DM can narrate it that way, on which the players might conclude non-melee options are the way to go. Is the extra damage due to the foe's equipment? If yes, the DM can narrate appropriately and the PCs can - assuming they win the fight - then scoop up said equipment and use it themselves. Etc., etc. The point is, the DM shouldn't be stuck having to make this stuff up on the fly every damn time.

Sure but let's look at the Gladiator again.

Brute: A melee weapon deals one extra die of its damage when the gladiator hits with it (included in the attack).

What is the DM going to narrate to the players? That the Gladiator is a big mean bully and so does extra damage? What could the players do to counteract and avoid it? Not get hit?

The end result is pretty much the same- this guy is doing more damage because the game says so. The explanation doesn't really matter.

Lower the Gladiator's Strength by attacking him with a Shadow, subject him to a Slow spell, blind him, or affect him with fear, every time he makes a weapon attack, he does bonus damage. It's a "black box" with one moving part and no conditions attached to it.

The DM could change this, but they could also come up with an explanation on their own that makes more sense than "uh, well, he's a Brute".

So again, what's really new or changed about this? I suppose if you wish to say "I didn't really care for the lack of explanation in 2014", sure, I'll grant that. But it's not like there's fundamentally much difference between "the monster does the damage listed in it's stat block" and "the monster does extra damage because we gave him the ability to do so without a real explanation", so you're mostly complaining about something that happened a decade ago, nothing really new.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

What is the hobgoblin longsword?

 

[Pedantic]

So again, what's really new or changed about this? I suppose if you wish to say "I didn't really care for the lack of explanation in 2014", sure, I'll grant that. But it's not like there's fundamentally much difference between "the monster does the damage listed in it's stat block" and "the monster does extra damage because we gave him the ability to do so without a real explanation", so you're mostly complaining about something that happened a decade ago, nothing really new.

Oh for sure this is a position already on retreating footing, but you know, better longswords than nothing.

 

[Teemu]

Except that those are presented as understandable mechanics that allow you to see why the damage is different. No context is provided for the 2024 change; it’s just “because.”

Sure, but in 2014 a monster with a feature like this that modified the damage it does with a longsword attack would have listed that feature and how exactly it works in the stat block. This was of course ultimately artificial, as the OP pointed out - the monster was always going to do the damage the rules needed it to do. But, the act of writing out features that explained how the monster got from the consistent base damage of its weapon to the damage the rules needed it to do helped to reify the weapon. It was part of the structure maintaining the illusion of the “longsword” game construct as a real object.

This isn’t really a matter of if things make sense. It’s a game of make-believe, everything makes as much sense as the participants are willing to believe it does. But, it is a different approach to how much care the game puts into artificially maintaining a consistency to the behavior of its individual constructs across different contexts. That’s why the term being used here is reification as opposed to “simulation” or “verisimilitude.” Nothing is being simulated and verisimilitude is subjective. But, there is an observable difference in how willing the game is to use different rules to represent the same objects in different contexts.

In that case, though, why not show the work that gets things from A to B? If a stock longsword does d8 damage and your design wants Hobgoblins to do d10+3 with one, what's wrong with saying Hobgoblins get a species-based bonus of +5 on longsword damage and leaving the root damage at d8? That way you get the extra damage for Hobs AND keep longsword damage consistent with itself.

On the PC side the work is already shown, in that we know how things like the Battlemaster's extra damage is calculated.

To me this whole point boils down to this: We got used to a certain thing, and now there's a change and it feels wrong.

The reason for my argument is that the change to the creature's stat block is no different from omitting the reason why the creature has its ability scores or saving throws or skill bonuses. 2014 never showed the work as to why a certain ability score total was assigned, why a stat block received double proficiency to a skill, or why they're proficient with a particular type of weapon or armor. Because they never showed the work for these sections, we got used to it. Now there's a slight change and it feels wrong.

If the 2014 stat blocks included traits such as, "Spy Training: The Spy is proficient in the following skills: ... ; it is proficient with shortswords and hand crossbows. It receives the Regular Humanoid ability score array, and the Tier 1 Elite Humanoid HD (6 HD)," you might be arguing that the 2024 doesn't show the work anymore when WotC decided to omit the reified traits that made the NPC feel more real and part of the world.

2014 5e didn't show the work. It has invisible, unnamed traits that decide the creature's stats. But we don't complain about their omission in the new version because we never missed them. It's kind of like how we just take the ultra gamey AC and HP mechanics for granted because they've been in the game since the very beginning.

@Lanefan The PC sheets cannot represent the whole creature either. If they do, you're making the world into a silly topsy-turvy video game. Think about it: All PCs, whether they're 3'2 or 6'5 have the exact same melee reach. The tiny little halfling with nothing but their fist and the big burly barbarian with a greatsword both have exactly 5 feet of melee reach. A 5'2 human commoner and the 6'4 level 15 fighter both have the same identical movement speed of 30 ft. How could that possibly be the whole truth as they exist in the world, and not just a gamey abstraction?