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

[Charlaquin]

Sorry. This is getting uglier and uglier.
That goes into the territory of just reskinning without any thought to the player rules (I can get behind a d10 longsword when used one handed (flex mastery), even behind a 2d10 longsword)

Lacking a different stat block, I want to modify my hobgoblins. If you want your hobgoblins to be clones of each other all the time, ok. If you like stats and look dissociated, ok.
I and my players did not appreciate that in 4e and I sure don't do it now.
So while you might prefer that, I don't.

I don’t prefer it, but it is literally how the game mechanics function.

They did not work like this in 2014.

They did, actually. Or if they didn’t, prove me wrong. Show me a hobgoblin that wields a greatsword but has an identical stat block to the base hobgoblin.

And most stat blocks make enough sense using that guideline still. AC and hit chance/damage fit the weapon used.
Creatures with finesse weapons use dex. Ranged weapons use dex and so on.
Even the DMG guidelines warn to tinker with str and dex, because it might change CR. Why? Because damage of the weapon attacks change.

Yes, that’s the artifice that reifies the game mechanics to make them feel like they represent real things. Which 2024 has less of.

Nope. It does no such thing. It arbitraily assigns numbers in some cases.

All the numbers are ultimately arbitrary. The descriptive details exist to justify the arbitrary numbers in the context of the fictional world, and reify the things the numbers represent.

Most humanoid or humanoid adjacent statblocks still make sense if you use PHB rules for equippment.

Right, that’s the result of the reification. There’s no reason they need to make sense if you use the PHB rules for equipment, but choosing to build them that way helps make the equipment feel like it could really exist. That’s something 2014 made more of a point of doing than 2024 does.

Some creatures break parts of it. The hobgoblin just does it in too many places at once.

Right, you (and I) prefer the 2014 approach, which goes to greater lengths to reify the game mechanics.

 

[I'm A Banana]

One of the things that seems to be a little...slid over...in conversations like this is how "reifying" game elements helps in game play.

Like, treating a hobgoblin statblock in a baldly mechanical way is like pointing out that Romeo never really drinks poison and doesn't really die on stage and it's all really just artifice made to elicit an emotional response and this is factually correct and then you can see Juliet's decision to drink poison with an analytic distance that allows you to meditate on the themes of tragedy and conflict. It is just a tool, after all. It's not REALLY poison.

But, treating the hobgoblin and the longsword as props helps you to actually feel the tension in the scene and embody the mental state of the characters and feel and react as they would react and to understand how it feels to have your love ripped from this mortal coil by the tragic act of your own deception, how it is to be caught in the crossfire of family rivalries, to imagine what would drive someone to kill themselves after their lover did the same. The poison is real, the love is real, the families are real, the characters are real.

If one of the goals of an RPG is to embody a character in a context and to act as they would act, the latter stance is useful, even if it involves some smoke and mirrors. An analytical perspective on game elements isn't the kind of perspective most characters have, it's a perspective that players have.

To brave knight Lionheart, the hobgoblin wielding a longsword isn't a collection of numbers in an encounter designed to sap 70% of resources. It's a hobgoblin wielding a longsword. And every game element that makes it seem less like a hobgoblin wielding a longsword is eroding (sometimes to a small degree, sometimes to a significant degree) the sense that I am the brave knight Lionheart.

You can get away with some of this - there is some distance between a prop sword and a real sword. We don't ACTUALLY want to kill our actors. But the '24 edition sneaks a little bit farther away from viewing these things as props and a bit closer to that analytical, distant perspective of these things as game mechanics.

 

[Lanefan]

Australian or British? If British, Arsenal, Bristol, or Gloucester?

Does it matter?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don’t prefer it, but it is literally how the game mechanics function.

They did, actually. Or if they didn’t, prove me wrong. Show me a hobgoblin that wields a greatsword but has an identical stat block to the base hobgoblin.

Yes, that’s the artifice that reifies the game mechanics to make them feel like they represent real things. Which 2024 has less of.

All the numbers are ultimately arbitrary. The descriptive details exist to justify the arbitrary numbers in the context of the fictional world, and reify the things the numbers represent.

Right, that’s the result of the reification. There’s no reason they need to make sense if you use the PHB rules for equipment, but choosing to build them that way helps make the equipment feel like it could really exist. That’s something 2014 made more of a point of doing than 2024 does.

Right, you (and I) prefer the 2014 approach, which goes to greater lengths to reify the game mechanics.

I can agree to those statements.

2014 has more hints why PHB rules are not used (see bugbear stat block).

 

[Lanefan]

The monster stat block vs PC wielding a longsword is better framed as monster vs PC attacking with the weapon. In 2014 5e, you can easily have a PC whose longsword attack doesn't deal 1d8 + Strength mod damage. For example, a battle master fighter will deal more than that with their maneuvers, adding extra dice. A barbarian who rages adds more flat damage. A war cleric can deal 2d8 + Strength mod damage with a longsword. Due to this, it makes perfect sense that a hobgoblin or any other kind of creature could deal more damage with a particular weapon, or even alter the weapon's damage die.

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.

 

[Lanefan]

Also, since they are only going to be up and swinging for 2 or 3 Rounds, it can be interpreted as the Hobgobin nova-ing some theoretical ability on their part.

"Theoretical ability" ain't good enough. Again, show the work - what is this ability, where does it come from, etc.

 

[Charlaquin]

One of the things that seems to be a little...slid over...in conversations like this is how "reifying" game elements helps in game play.

Like, treating a hobgoblin statblock in a baldly mechanical way is like pointing out that Romeo never really drinks poison and doesn't really die on stage and it's all really just artifice made to elicit an emotional response and this is factually correct and then you can see Juliet's decision to drink poison with an analytic distance that allows you to meditate on the themes of tragedy and conflict. It is just a tool, after all. It's not REALLY poison.

Well, see, a lot of experimental theater does do that kind of thing though. Brecht famously loved pointing out the artifice of his own plays within the plays themselves. Threepenny Opera ends with Mac the Knife stopping in the middle of his public execution to directly address the audience and say (paraphrasing, not the actual lines) “we all know in real life, I would just be executed here. But this is a fictional story, and I’m the protagonist, so that would make for a narratively unsatisfying conclusion. So, let’s all forget what we know would really happen and agree to enjoy the ending we want instead, because that’s what theater allows us to do,” and then the play resumes and the execution is halted and Mac gets a full pardon, which the crowd who had gathered to watch him be hanged celebrates quite boisterously. Lots of people hate that Threepenny Opera ends that way. Lots of people love it. It is not inherently good or bad, it’s just a choice, which audiences can and should draw their own conclusions about.

But, treating the hobgoblin and the longsword as props helps you to actually feel the tension in the scene and embody the mental state of the characters and feel and react as they would react and to understand how it feels to have your love ripped from this mortal coil by the tragic act of your own deception, how it is to be caught in the crossfire of family rivalries, to imagine what would drive someone to kill themselves after their lover did the same. The poison is real, the love is real, the families are real, the characters are real.

If one of the goals of an RPG is to embody a character in a context and to act as they would act, the latter stance is useful, even if it involves some smoke and mirrors. An analytical perspective on game elements isn't the kind of perspective most characters have, it's a perspective that players have.

To brave knight Lionheart, the hobgoblin wielding a longsword isn't a collection of numbers in an encounter designed to sap 70% of resources. It's a hobgoblin wielding a longsword. And every game element that makes it seem less like a hobgoblin wielding a longsword is eroding (sometimes to a small degree, sometimes to a significant degree) the sense that I am the brave knight Lionheart.

You can get away with some of this - there is some distance between a prop sword and a real sword. We don't ACTUALLY want to kill our actors. But the '24 edition sneaks a little bit farther away from viewing these things as props and a bit closer to that analytical, distant perspective of these things as game mechanics.

As I’ve been saying, there are benefits and drawbacks to reification. We see in 3e a game that goes to such lengths to reify its mechanics that it becomes cumbersome, and we see in 4e a game that is so transparent about the true ludic nature of its mechanics that many players find it difficult to immerse themselves in. 5e has tended to fall somewhere between those extremes, and seemed to strike a balance that a very large audience found satisfying. With the 2024 revisions, we are seeing a bit of a shift towards less reification, and I think this is the root cause of a lot of the dissatisfaction we’re now seeing from a lot of people who loved early 5e.

 

[Lanefan]

What's missing is transparency- an answer for "why is this the way that it is" if you care about such things. And there isn't one.

Magic missiles deal d4+1 damage because that's what was decided decades ago, back when enemies had a lot less hit points than they do now. Once upon a time, all weapons did d6 damage.

We rarely get any real explanation as to why things change. Why do Wizards have d6 hit dice instead of d4? The people making the game felt like doing it. The same reason why Fireball does 8d6 at 5th level instead of 5d6.

Point is there should always be one, and that there isn't is a flaw rather than a feature. Sometimes it's fairly easy to extrapolate the reason - they jumped Wizards up to d6 hit dice from d4 because they were seen as too squishy - but other times, such as your fireball example, it's just wtf.

Years ago on these boards, I had an interesting argument with someone about a 4e monster that they put up as their example of why they hated 4e monsters.

The creature was a zombie that dealt damage to you at the start of your turn for being near it. Despite the fact that there were any number of reasons why this was happening, their point of contention was that the game element didn't explain which of these reasons it was.

Does the zombie have an aura of entropy? Does it claw and bite so ferociously that just being near it exposes you to harm? They didn't know, and it didn't make sense to them without an explanation.

Here I think the game absolutely needs to explain what the cause of that damage is for the very simple reason that a PC might have some defense against it e.g. if it's specifically necrotic-aura damage and the PC somehow has resistance or immunity to such, as opposed to fist-and-claw damage where such resistance wouldn't help.

However, if I cast a spell and say "a 20-foot-radius sphere of blackness and bitter cold appears, centered on a point within range and lasting for the duration. This void is filled with a cacophony of soft whispers and slurping noises that can be heard up to 30 feet away. No light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area, and creatures fully within the area are blinded.

The void creates a warp in the fabric of space, and the area is difficult terrain. Any creature that starts its turn in the area takes 2d6 cold damage. Any creature that ends its turn in the area must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 2d6 acid damage as milky, otherworldly tentacles rub against it.", how important is it to also explain that this is the result of I "open a gateway to the dark between the stars, a region infested with unknown horrors"?

Some would say it's extremely important. Others will shrug and say "eh, it's magic, it does weird stuff all the time."

Again, that explanation is important in case it matters to a PC beyond just "Ewww, icky!", for example if someone can sense the presence of planar gates (e.g. is under the 1e Reveal spell) or if the caster is in a place were planar gates cannot be opened.

 

[pawsplay]

You can get away with some of this - there is some distance between a prop sword and a real sword. We don't ACTUALLY want to kill our actors. But the '24 edition sneaks a little bit farther away from viewing these things as props and a bit closer to that analytical, distant perspective of these things as game mechanics.

What you are saying is very close to my own feelings. However, I recognize they are just my feelings. And to acknowledge the other end of things, there is a lot to be said for getting on with the game, so all those imaginative elements can play out. I mean, when 3.5 came out, I liked a lot of things about. One of the things I liked was regularizing feats and skill ranks between monster HD and classes.

Now, I hate that. It's just a bunch of math, often meaningless, or even an obstacle to presenting a monster in a certain way. And it leads to philosophical questions, like, does Toughness affect a monster's CR, and if it does, why does Toughness affect it and Power Attack doesn't? I don't want to have to pick 7 feats just because it's a 20 HD dinosaur, and it certainly doesn't need +17 Spot. And then there's figuring out CR, which could also necessitate some tweaks to the design.

Ultimately, people have similar goals: fight the bad guys, slay the monster, get the treasure, gain power. It's just a matter of what tools to reach those goals. To some extent it comes down purely to personal preference, but there are also situations where one approach or the other is more obviously useful or interesting. I would say that my tendency, when splitting the difference, is to round toward reification.

 

[Parmandur]

"Theoretical ability" ain't good enough. Again, show the work - what is this ability, where does it come from, etc.

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.