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

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. It's a half edition. It's not a new edition, nor is it the same edition. Just like 3.5e, essentials, and skills and powers.

I disagree on Essentials, since it didn't replace anything, but I'm with you on the others.

Even 3.5 and Skills & Powers didn't change the lore though, so 5.5's more of an edition change in that way.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No. You might have a point if the abilities granted had nothing to do with the races in question, but they do have something to do with the races. Non-brutish races/professions don't get brute. Small races don't get brawny. They BIG ones do. And so on.

If you are looking at a creature and reasoning out something they might have that fits with the creature's theme, there's no circular logic going on. Circular logic is asking why a race has X ability and saying, because they have X ability. That's circular.

Example 1: "Why do goliaths have brawny? Because they are a larger than average race and brawny fits their theme." - Not circular.

Example 2: "Why do halflings have brawny? Because they have brawny they must be brawny creatures, so they have brawny." - circular.

 

[Remathilis]

I disagree on Essentials, since it didn't replace anything, but I'm with you on the others.

Even 3.5 and Skills & Powers didn't change the lore though, so 5.5's more of an edition change in that way.

Version change. We just agreed on this.
There is 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e. Those are your editions. Basic isa separate branching game and OD&D is a proto-edition. (Hence 0e).

Because by any other measure, we're at 9e.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree on Essentials, since it didn't replace anything, but I'm with you on the others.

Fair enough. Like I said, I didn't play essentials. I've just seen folks who did say it was 4e's half edition change.

Even 3.5 and Skills & Powers didn't change the lore though, so 5.5's more of an edition change in that way.

See, lore to me isn't really what makes an edition the edition. Changes to the rules are what makes an edition an edition. Drastic enough changes and you have an entirely new edition. We could have had nearly identical lore throughout all of the editions, with the only necessary differences being when new classes and such came into being.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Version change. We just agreed on this.
There is 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e. Those are your editions. Basic isa separate branching game and OD&D is a proto-edition. (Hence 0e).

Because by any other measure, we're at 9e.

Half edition is a thing too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Fair enough. Like I said, I didn't play essentials. I've just seen folks who did say it was 4e's half edition change.

See, lore to me isn't really what makes an edition the edition. Changes to the rules are what makes an edition an edition. Drastic enough changes and you have an entirely new edition. We could have had nearly identical lore throughout all of the editions, with the only necessary differences being when new classes and such came into being.

You could have nearly identical lore, but we don't, and changes to lore almost never come within an "official" edition. Until 5.5.

 

[ezo]

That's a character concept. That's how it was mapped out. The rules don't let you do it without the DM's permission. Does that mean that the concept is invalid?

You could make it as a character, but what you posted was a creature--not a PC.

Not with any sort of mechanical support for most of the concepts.

That's kind of my point. You play the character as you wanted to play them. You didn't need mechanical support. (Well, maybe you did? I didn't).

I played dozens of Fighters over the years with AD&D, for example. Mechanically, they're all identical of course because the class is what the class is. That doesn't change my concepts or how I play them.

I get why people like "features" and "options" if they feel they need them to flesh out their PCs, I'm just saying I don't. I'd be perfectly happy with 5E without subclasses, some of the classes, most of the races, and so forth. That's for me, anyway. You do you.

 

[James Gasik]

Fair enough. Like I said, I didn't play essentials. I've just seen folks who did say it was 4e's half edition change.

See, lore to me isn't really what makes an edition the edition. Changes to the rules are what makes an edition an edition. Drastic enough changes and you have an entirely new edition. We could have had nearly identical lore throughout all of the editions, with the only necessary differences being when new classes and such came into being.

For the most part, yes. If you'll allow me to expand the point, the issues come when the lore =/= the mechanics. It creates a mental disconnect. And to be sure, often the lore has not lined up with the mechanics, throughout D&D's history. They've certainly tried to do so, or at least tried to make justifications for the shift (see Time of Troubles, Spellplague, etc.), but you're always going to be left with things that just make no sense from a lore, in-universe standpoint.

Now you can build a game where it's rules and lore are closely associated with one another. Earthdawn is one of my favorites for this, where if you told an NPC that someone is a Fourth Circle Warrior, they'd very likely understand what you're talking about (unlike in D&D, where if I told someone that a guy was a Fourth Level Fighter, I'd get funny looks).

But because D&D has evolved in such a way that it is meant to be usable with different settings and lore, you run into problems. AD&D tried to make such adjustments, with things like Oriental Adventures and Dragonlance Adventures with special rules and custom character options, and we still see a little of that to this day (like with the MtG setting books), but modern D&D has become a more generic system, where it's intended to plug and play into many possible settings, but there will be cases where it's a square peg being driven into a round hole.

Dark Sun was written with 2e Psionics in mind- it feels very different without those rules. Eberron was written with 3e rules in mind- and again, it feels very different in other editions as a result.

For example, 2e Tieflings were part human and part "something else" (where the "something else" was assumed to be Lower Planar in origin) and thus could have wildly different appearances, and, eventually, abilities. By 4e, Tieflings had a default appearance, later retconned as due to meddling by Asmodeus.

Today, Tieflings are organized into major "bloodlines".

Halflings used to be Hobbits with the serial numbers filed off. 3e made them slighter and longer limbed, 4e introduced lore making them nomads who travel in caravans or along rivers. 5e went backwards a bit, but also introduced the "top heavy" Halflings.

Someone who wishes to bring their Halfling Fighter/Thief from 1e Forgotten Realms to another edition may start to wonder who the heck these pretender Halflings are, wearing shoes and such, not to mention having their abilities drastically altered! "What do you mean I lose my infravision! I have Stout blood, you know!".

Generally, we're supposed to not dwell on such things- treating them as if they always were the way they are now, unless otherwise specified. Having devoured a lot of Faerun lore in my AD&D years, it's often surprising what's been changed and what's been forgotten.

I remember playing a 4e FR adventure in Encounters that took place in the same geographical location as the Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance video game, yet nothing about it was the same. When I asked the adventure's author on the forums, he was completely surprised- as far as he'd known, it was basically an undeveloped space he could easily drop his adventure into!

We might like lore to line up with the game mechanics, but not only has that ship sailed, D&D has become a veritable Ship of Theseus. It still has the same general shape, but very few of the original parts.

Yet, at least from one subjective point of view, it's still Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[James Gasik]

You could make it as a character, but what you posted was a creature--not a PC.

Fine, fine, you don't like my example, how about:

 

[ezo]

Fine, fine, you don't like my example, how about:

View attachment 397085

So.... you want a Conan character? That's easy enough obviously. But frankly, I'm really tired of this.