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

[el-remmen]

Sometimes a player needs a meta explanation for the game to go smoothly. Not always, but sometimes.

In the first 5e campaign I ran, a PC found himself isolated from the rest of the group (never follow partying hippies to a second location without back up ) and got jumped by a bunch of commoners turned cultists and a thug. The thug kept attacking and then disengaging which I described as him turning away deftly after the attack in a way that fends off the opportunity for a retaliatory strike.

The players were confused. “How can he do that? Disengaging is an Action, you remind us all the time!”

You see there was no rogue in the group and they were all either new to 5e or new to D&D altogether, they did not know that the Cunning Action ability existed. So I simply told them “He has a rogue ability called Cunning Action that let’s him do that.”

Now, I could have simply said “You don’t know how he does that” (which might have been my response for some rare ability not accessible to PCs) but in the moment an explanation felt necessary for the sake of smooth play and transparency.

 

[Mort]

Sometimes a player needs a meta explanation for the game to go smoothly. Not always, but sometimes.

In the first 5e campaign I ran, a PC found himself isolated from the rest of the group (never follow partying hippies to a second location without back up ) and jumped by a bunch of commoners turned cultists and a thug. The thug kept attacking and then disengaging which I described as him turning away deftly after the attack in a way that fends off the opportunity for a retaliatory strike.

The players were confused. “How can he do that? Disengaging is an Action, you remind us all the time!”

You see there was no rogue in the group and they were all either new to 5e or new to D&D altogether, they did not know that the Cunning Action ability existed. So I simply told them “He has a rogue ability called Cunning Action that let’s him do that.”

Now, if I simply said “You don’t know how he does that” (which might have been my response for some rare ability not accessible to PCs) but in the moment an explanation felt necessary for the sake of smooth play and transparency.

Yeah, that's a good approach. I've found it helps keep players engaged. Whereas, answering "you don't know.." too often tends to cause frustration and disengagement at the table (as players start to think asking questions isn't going to get them anywhere).

 

[TwoSix]

You see there was no rogue in the group and they were all either new to 5e or new to D&D altogether, they did not know that the Cunning Action ability existed. So I simply told them “He has a rogue ability called Cunning Action that let’s him do that.”

Now, if I simply said “You don’t know how he does that” (which might have been my response for some rare ability not accessible to PCs) but in the moment an explanation felt necessary for the sake of smooth play and transparency.

Yea, low-level PC abilities like Cunning Action are the ones I hand out to low-level mooks like candy. A small action economy boost that lets the NPC distinguish themselves just a little.

 

[ezo]

Yea, low-level PC abilities like Cunning Action are the ones I hand out to low-level mooks like candy. A small action economy boost that lets the NPC distinguish themselves just a little.

I do the same for mook "leaders".

 

[el-remmen]

for use in a 2-3 round combat

[stat blocks] aren't meant to represent [monsters as a whole] 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).

Leaving aside the matter of what a stat block represents (which. I personally disagree with vehemently but it doesn’t seem much point in arguing it). . .

If you (general you) will indulge me getting on my usual hobby horse for a moment these claims always bug me out because they have never remotely been my experience.

Heck, in my games it might take 1 to 2 rounds just to vie for position, get cover, try to flee, etc.

So if what @Parmandur is claiming is true, that design is failing for me but that’s okay because I don’t want it that way. People used to say the same thing to me about 3e and my experience didn’t match that either

 

[Parmandur]

Leaving aside the matter of what a stat block represents (which. I personally disagree with vehemently but it doesn’t seem much point in arguing it). . .

If you (general you) will indulge me getting on my usual hobby horse for a moment these claims always bug me out because they have never remotely been my experience.

Heck, in my games it might take 1 to 2 rounds just to vie for position, get cover, try to flee, etc.

So if what @Parmandur is claiming is true, that design is failing for me but that’s okay because I don’t want it that way. People used to say the same thing to me about 3e and my experience didn’t match that either

I mean, YMMV, but that ia the design assumption for how combat goes. Drawing it out will have weird effects down the road, and impact CR viability.

 

[Lanefan]

So, it's totally believable that you absolutely cannot kill someone with a sword if they have enough HP? How does one narrate that? Someone is sleeping, totally incapacitated, but, if they have enough HP, you literally, no matter what, cannot ever kill them with a single blow of an axe or sword. And that creates no inconsistencies.

But, a hobgoblin does the same damage as a fighter, and that's totally inconsistent unless we start to build the monster the way that PC's are built.

Here's a hint:

MONSTERS ARE NOT BUILT USING PC RULES IN FIFTH EDITION D&D

Just because 5e does it that way doesn't make it right.

 

[Lanefan]

So, Lanefan the high-level Fighter PC can tell the difference between two humans? One human cannot EVER be killed by a single sword thrust, while the other dies nearly instantly, despite both being identical in every other way - same clothing, equipment, etc. And that's totally believable? No inconsistencies at all?

Same clothing and-or equipment maybe but the experienced fighter is highly likely to move and-or carry herself in a different way than the commoner, same way it's relatively easy in the real world to recognize someone who's been in the military a while due to how they move and-or carry themselves; and if I (in character) can't pick up on that then what have I been doing all these years?

 

[TwoSix]

Same clothing and-or equipment maybe but the experienced fighter is highly likely to move and-or carry herself in a different way than the commoner, same way it's relatively easy in the real world to recognize someone who's been in the military a while due to how they move and-or carry themselves; and if I (in character) can't pick up on that then what have I been doing all these years?

We could have a whole thread topic about how recognizable "class" and "level" are within the fiction.

Heck, I'm sure we probably already have.

 

[Lanefan]

To be honest, it's an element ease of play. How many people want would rather have a hobgoblin attack once for 4d8 damage vs attack four times for 1d8 each? There are advantages for each. But the idea of a DM having to roll 16 attack rolls per round in a fight against four hobgoblins is both time consuming and repetitive (not to mention much more random since there is a higher chance if missing and crits). That's what turns D&D into a slog for combat.

The slog piece is a drawback. The bolded piece is both a feature - combat shouldn't be nearly as predictable as 4e-5e make it - and a bug, in that the randomness will tend to even itself out pretty fast.

To make it more random (or more swingy, depending on how one looks at it), I think the answer is to reduce everyone's* hit points by a third, or maybe even a half, while leaving the rest the same.

* - exception: commoners and other creatures who only have a very few hit points to begin with.