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

[James Gasik]

But, there's the rub. See, 5e doesn't actually use 1-2-1 counting. So, you can move diagonally 6 squares on a grid. But, for some bizarre reason, spell effects still use the 1-2-1 counting. Sort of. It's actually the worst of all worlds.

In any case, it's easy to explain why fireballs are square on a grid - ease of play and a gridded map is not, and never has been, a perfect representation, but, rather an abstraction. So, we have square fireballs, because it's a heck of a lot more convenient to play.

edit to add -

Hang on. Neat pixelated cubes? Sorry, that's 3e, not 4e.

I miss Firecubes.

 

[mamba]

You don't? See the reactions to 4e if you want to see what happens when the game gives explanations for how things work.

I don’t think having explanations was all that caused 4e’s failure, or even part of it

Heck, people lose their poop over minor lore changes like name changes. Could you imagine the outcry if WotC said, "Well, fireballs work like X."? The outcry would never end.

I was thinking along the lines of being clearer what HP and other basic principles represent, not details about spells, those are not needed

And for what it is worth, 4e explained absolutely nothing about Fireball

 

[Hussar]

I don’t think having explanations was all that caused 4e’s failure, or even part of it


I was thinking along the lines of being clearer what HP and other basic principles represent, not details about spells, those are not needed

And for what it is worth, 4e explained absolutely nothing about Fireball

Never said it was all that caused 4e’s failure. Was simply pointing out the reaction you get when you add transparency to the game. The fandom has spoken and they absolutely do not want WotC to tell them anything.

Put it this way. 2014 defines hp. It flat out says that hp are not physical. Ten years later, we’re still seeing arguments about hp. Heck freaking Gygax defined hp as non-physical in 1e and people STILL don’t accept that.

You figure WotC can do it now? Good luck with that.

 

[mamba]

Put it this way. 2014 defines hp. It flat out says that hp are not physical. Ten years later, we’re still seeing arguments about hp. Heck freaking Gygax defined hp as non-physical in 1e and people STILL don’t accept that.

You figure WotC can do it now? Good luck with that.

Yeah, they are not entirely physical, but I would have wanted a little more than that as an explanation, that is like explaining red by saying it is not purple... Whether everyone accepts it, no, I assume we have sufficient proof of that, as you pointed out. Having a meaningful guideline to me is better than not having one. I can always deviate from it when I do not like it, but at least if gives me some understanding of how it is meant to be used / work

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, they are not entirely physical, but I would have wanted a little more than that as an explanation, that is like explaining red by saying it is not purple... Whether everyone accepts it, no, I assume we have sufficient proof of that, as you pointed out. Having a meaningful guideline to me is better than not having one. I can always deviate from it when I do not like it, but at least if gives me some understanding of how it is meant to be used / work

But, something like "red" is a perfect example. Everyone agrees what red is, but, no one can actually define it because it's defined by the center and not the edges. And language hates stuff that is defined by the center. For example, define "forest".

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, but the characters would only be wondering "WTF" if they lived in a world in which every person who held a particular occupation learned the exact same skill set in the exact same order. If they live in a world in which every person develops their talents at their own pace, and in their own particular order, then there's no confusion.

Even if they did live in that kind of world, level isn't stamped on the forehead of the enemy spellcaster. They aren't going to know if that half-elven caster should have had 6 slots or 16.

 

[Maxperson]

It's also a catch 22 because while people want explanations, they also don't want lore in the core books. Imagine for a moment you say all martial characters draw on the power of Zangief, God of Muscle Power, and it allows them to transcend the boundaries of mortals. You have a warrior who can match magic in terms of power, you have an explanation for why it happens, but now the anti-lore crowd is crying we've introduced lore that doesn't fit prior settings or their specific vision. So somehow you have to thread a needle that allows martials to transcend mortality, explain how, but not provide a why.

Why does it have to be so specific to be lore? Why can't it just be something like, "Drawing on the power of time..." or "Focusing his mind on the power of the astral sea..."?

 

[Maxperson]

Never said it was all that caused 4e’s failure. Was simply pointing out the reaction you get when you add transparency to the game. The fandom has spoken and they absolutely do not want WotC to tell them anything.

Put it this way. 2014 defines hp. It flat out says that hp are not physical. Ten years later, we’re still seeing arguments about hp. Heck freaking Gygax defined hp as non-physical in 1e and people STILL don’t accept that.

You figure WotC can do it now? Good luck with that.

Gygax did not define hit points as non-physical. He DID define them as both physical and non-physical. 5e does the same for hit points. At 50% you start taking light physical damage, and the hit that takes you to zero does major physical damage.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, they are not entirely physical, but I would have wanted a little more than that as an explanation, that is like explaining red by saying it is not purple... Whether everyone accepts it, no, I assume we have sufficient proof of that, as you pointed out. Having a meaningful guideline to me is better than not having one. I can always deviate from it when I do not like it, but at least if gives me some understanding of how it is meant to be used / work

I've never played 4e, so it may do things differently, but 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e all have hit points being both physical and non-physical.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Never said it was all that caused 4e’s failure. Was simply pointing out the reaction you get when you add transparency to the game. The fandom has spoken and they absolutely do not want WotC to tell them anything.

Put it this way. 2014 defines hp. It flat out says that hp are not physical. Ten years later, we’re still seeing arguments about hp. Heck freaking Gygax defined hp as non-physical in 1e and people STILL don’t accept that.

You figure WotC can do it now? Good luck with that.

Hit points measure nothing but hit points. They are always nebulous with respect to actual effects in the imagined world.

There is no point at which trying to equate hit points with some other phenomenon (wounds, skill, fatigue, luck ... whatever) does not collapse under its own internal inconsistency.