Unpopular D&D Opinions

[KorvinStarmast]

Does the PHB ever say that Point Buy is meant to be equal to rolling?
If not, then your expectation that it is is unfounded.

Not so. Remember, this game was made to have low barriers to entry and to be easy for beginning players to use. Any new player who has no experience in the system, or the game, is being given an option that is a lesser choice than the basic, with no warning nor caveat. I find your choice to use RAW tunnel vision as a response to be invalid.
Beyond that, those were the only two choices offered to the players in AL from the beginning of the edition.
Is point buy flawed? yes. Is it usable? Certainly. I've made plenty of fun characters with it.
It's the standard array that is a big old bucket of hot feces.

[Cluedrew]

Wow, these replies are going back a lot of pages. Things got busy for me.

It's not… "you" or "me", it's… well, it's "how would I program an AI to parse this?". It's the character, not the player.

OK, I assume by AI you are trying to say someone with no biases (no preferences or strong experiences that would change their view, which does not describe AIs, current ones have to be trained with fake experiences and told what they are supposed to think about those) but I'm saying they wouldn't be able to answer the question based off your definition. Because without experiences, how do we know what helps someone role-play or not?

On the other hand I have only guess work about what do you mean by the character vs. player. Is that important?

So, late answer, but I do think that this is far more reasonable. With D&D being THE entrypoint into the hobby for so many people, [...]

I can actually see a pretty good argument for why the more freeform method would be good as an entry-point. I could also see an argument for a light but also pretty open ended system, but the opposite extreme of focused role-playing rules probably would not a good entry point. Although, that is partially because the role-playing rules tend to work on very focused systems which I have argued is not a great entry-point anyways.

To convince people to try these other systems, I believe, focusing too heavily on the already formed ideas will only make them double down.

I haven't been trying to do that this entire thread. I generally don't try to talk people out of D&D here because by the time you are a regular on Giant in the Playground you are probably not up the wrong creak. They might also enjoy some other systems as well. Branching out can actually be tricky. I want watched someone who obviously only played Dungeons & Dragons before, couldn't get out of that mindset and the result was not pretty.

If your campaign is a kitchen sink fantasy game about going though a hostile environment, AKA a dungeon, to fight some big bad in physical combat, AKA a dragon, then Dungeons & Dragons will do fine.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can actually see a pretty good argument for why the more freeform method would be good as an entry-point. I could also see an argument for a light but also pretty open ended system, but the opposite extreme of focused role-playing rules probably would not a good entry point. Although, that is partially because the role-playing rules tend to work on very focused systems which I have argued is not a great entry-point anyways.

I haven't been trying to do that this entire thread. I generally don't try to talk people out of D&D here because by the time you are a regular on Giant in the Playground you are probably not up the wrong creak. They might also enjoy some other systems as well. Branching out can actually be tricky. I want watched someone who obviously only played Dungeons & Dragons before, couldn't get out of that mindset and the result was not pretty.

If your campaign is a kitchen sink fantasy game about going though a hostile environment, AKA a dungeon, to fight some big bad in physical combat, AKA a dragon, then Dungeons & Dragons will do fine.

As someone who
a) runs D&D 5e (and 4e before that)
b) almost exclusively with new players, most of whom are new to the idea of role-play in a game (ie not even players of CRPGs)
c) doesn't do many dungeons and has had just as many BBEGs defeated by talking as by swords over the years
d) has seen many of my players go on to be DMs themselves, sometimes starting their first campaign after 1-2 sessions

I disagree. I find that rules-light, free-form systems require more effort to learn and get comfortable with for brand new players. And less focused means there's less scaffolding to fall back on when you're not sure. This is especially true for new DMs.

Rules are scaffolding (in the instructional design sense). I've said that before, but I'm going to keep saying it. And scaffolding is a double-edged tool. Pure free-form has limitless possibilities, but that very lack of limits means that you run into the blank-page "writer's block" problem. Restrictions and focus actually help people figure out what they want to do.

The other big thing is that D&D (5e particularly) is actually a whole lot more flexible than people give it credit for. Sure, it expects that there will be combat. So if you want to do a campaign with little or no combat, there are probably better ones out there. And it expects magic and generally larger-than-life heroes, so if you want a "grounded" or "realistic" game, there are better ones out there. But most of the time (in my experience)? Those are acquired tastes. New people often don't want that sort of thing (again, in my experience working with new people)

High Fantasy Adventure is enduringly popular because (IMO)
a) it's a power fantasy, letting people pretend to be stronger than they are
b) the goals and themes are nearly universally accessible--the clash between good and evil, monsters, powers, etc. It's easy to understand "There's a threat, we can remove the threat with fire and sword"; esoteric or philosophical debates...not so much.
c) it's not real life. A lot of people play this sort of game to escape from reality. In many ways. The shy, tiny 8th grader wants to play something big and fierce. The bullied teen wants to play the hero. The kid who feels he has no control over his life, who feels locked in a cage of other people's wills wants to play the wanderer, able to go anywhere and see anything[1]. They don't have to worry about real-world moral codes or offending real-life people. Nuance and thorny moral debates can receed...as much as the party wants. There actually can be clear-cut villains and monsters. And those monsters can be defeated. It's much harder to slay real-life "demons" of whatever shape they may take.

[1] Note: these are drawn directly from real experiences playing in a high-school club environment. Being able to escape the here and now was a huge reason the club was popular. Being able to play someone else, who doesn't have your limits, in a world and setting where hitting back or standing up for the innocent (or whatever) is actually rewarded was a major draw. Having an escape from the stresses of parental and social pressure, from having to worry about what people thought was a blessed relief. And the same goes for the adults I've played with.

[Faily]

As someone who
a) runs D&D 5e (and 4e before that)
b) almost exclusively with new players, most of whom are new to the idea of role-play in a game (ie not even players of CRPGs)
c) doesn't do many dungeons and has had just as many BBEGs defeated by talking as by swords over the years
d) has seen many of my players go on to be DMs themselves, sometimes starting their first campaign after 1-2 sessions

I disagree. I find that rules-light, free-form systems require more effort to learn and get comfortable with for brand new players. And less focused means there's less scaffolding to fall back on when you're not sure. This is especially true for new DMs.

Rules are scaffolding (in the instructional design sense). I've said that before, but I'm going to keep saying it. And scaffolding is a double-edged tool. Pure free-form has limitless possibilities, but that very lack of limits means that you run into the blank-page "writer's block" problem. Restrictions and focus actually help people figure out what they want to do.

The other big thing is that D&D (5e particularly) is actually a whole lot more flexible than people give it credit for. Sure, it expects that there will be combat. So if you want to do a campaign with little or no combat, there are probably better ones out there. And it expects magic and generally larger-than-life heroes, so if you want a "grounded" or "realistic" game, there are better ones out there. But most of the time (in my experience)? Those are acquired tastes. New people often don't want that sort of thing (again, in my experience working with new people)

High Fantasy Adventure is enduringly popular because (IMO)
a) it's a power fantasy, letting people pretend to be stronger than they are
b) the goals and themes are nearly universally accessible--the clash between good and evil, monsters, powers, etc. It's easy to understand "There's a threat, we can remove the threat with fire and sword"; esoteric or philosophical debates...not so much.
c) it's not real life. A lot of people play this sort of game to escape from reality. In many ways. The shy, tiny 8th grader wants to play something big and fierce. The bullied teen wants to play the hero. The kid who feels he has no control over his life, who feels locked in a cage of other people's wills wants to play the wanderer, able to go anywhere and see anything[1]. They don't have to worry about real-world moral codes or offending real-life people. Nuance and thorny moral debates can receed...as much as the party wants. There actually can be clear-cut villains and monsters. And those monsters can be defeated. It's much harder to slay real-life "demons" of whatever shape they may take.

[1] Note: these are drawn directly from real experiences playing in a high-school club environment. Being able to escape the here and now was a huge reason the club was popular. Being able to play someone else, who doesn't have your limits, in a world and setting where hitting back or standing up for the innocent (or whatever) is actually rewarded was a major draw. Having an escape from the stresses of parental and social pressure, from having to worry about what people thought was a blessed relief. And the same goes for the adults I've played with.

I agree with all of this.

[HidesHisEyes]

My unpopular opinion: the opinion “D&D doesn’t have to include combat” does not belong in an “unpopular opinions” thread.

[MoiMagnus]

My unpopular opinion: the opinion “D&D doesn’t have to include combat” does not belong in an “unpopular opinions” thread.

"D&D shouldn't have to include combat", I think I might agree.

But with current rulesets from the various edition, if you're planning on not having combat, I don't see why you would ever chose to play D&D rather than free-form or rule-light systems. The non-combat rules for D&D are either broken, inexistent, or "barely working if you have a GM good enough to compensate for them". Most of the rulebooks are about combat, so I'm not taking the time to build a mid/high level D&D character if I don't expect this time to be useful for combat on a regular basis (it's not just the amount of time, which is not that big for 5e, it's also the building expectation of "I selected this power out of many, so I want to have fun using it on a regular basis").

Admittedly, low level 5e is fine if no combats happens. The system is still minimalist at this point, and if everyone already knows the rules, it might be more practical than using a non-D&D system that no one knows.

[Draconi Redfir]

Orcs are Orcs are Orcs.
Dwarves are Dwarves are Dwarves.
Elves are Elves are Elves.
Goblins are Goblins are Goblins.
Centaurs are Centaurs are Centaurs.
Drow are Drow are Drow.
Gnomes are Gnomes are Gnomes.

If you look at a fictional race and see a real-world demographic under a coat of paint, that's not "Coding", that's "Projection". And I think it says a bit more about you then it does about whoever came up with the race in the medium you're observing.

[Xervous]

Orcs are Orcs are Orcs.
Dwarves are Dwarves are Dwarves.
Elves are Elves are Elves.
Goblins are Goblins are Goblins.
Centaurs are Centaurs are Centaurs.
Drow are Drow are Drow.
Gnomes are Gnomes are Gnomes.

If you look at a fictional race and see a real-world demographic under a coat of paint, that's not "Coding", that's "Projection". And I think it says a bit more about you then it does about whoever came up with the race in the medium you're observing.

Unpopular opinion? Maybe if you buy the gaslighting.

[Draconi Redfir]

Unpopular opinion? Maybe if you buy the gaslighting.

maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places then. Or a case of "you only notice things when they upset you".

[Willie the Duck]

My unpopular opinion: the opinion “D&D doesn’t have to include combat” does not belong in an “unpopular opinions” thread.

Eh, happens with every... I guess I'll call it 'appeal to outspoken-ness' thread.

[Anonymouswizard]

Orcs are Orcs are Orcs.
Dwarves are Dwarves are Dwarves.
Elves are Elves are Elves.
Goblins are Goblins are Goblins.
Centaurs are Centaurs are Centaurs.
Drow are Drow are Drow.
Gnomes are Gnomes are Gnomes.

If you look at a fictional race and see a real-world demographic under a coat of paint, that's not "Coding", that's "Projection". And I think it says a bit more about you then it does about whoever came up with the race in the medium you're observing.

Eh, it can be coding. It's not uncommon in homebrew settings to base certain humanoid species on certain human cultural groups, and it happens in published material as well. Warhammer's dwarfs as an example, it even extends to the accent.

Is it an issue? Sometimes. Especially if it's stereotypical or offensive. At the end of the day it's probably better to just split species and culture.

[Tanarii]

Unpopular opinion? Maybe if you buy the gaslighting.

I'm not sure gaslighting is the right term for the online fuss in April 2020 by a specific group of folks (Quinn W-W, Hoffer, plenty of others) who were projecting their own biases by claiming ... well, let's just keep calling it coding. They used a far more direct term.

Gaslighting implies they were trying to convince the rest of us we're crazy while abusing us.

Okay, maybe it is the correct term after all.

[BloodSquirrel]

Rules are scaffolding (in the instructional design sense). I've said that before, but I'm going to keep saying it. And scaffolding is a double-edged tool. Pure free-form has limitless possibilities, but that very lack of limits means that you run into the blank-page "writer's block" problem. Restrictions and focus actually help people figure out what they want to do.

I'd just like to say that I've found this to be true both for the DM and the players, even when they're experienced.

Rules-lite systems can wind up being very reductionist when combat starts, and it can take an active effort on both the DM and the players' part not to fall back on "I hit the monster with my sword" over and over again, because every action they take is dictated by the same die rolls, so they might as well pick their highest stat and go with that. More free-form systems take a lot of effort to keep interesting, and they require that everyone at the table get into the spirit of things and be on the same page about what kind of game they're trying to play.

Meanwhile, with a game like D&D, the DM can always let the players go outside of the rules when they want to. You don't *have* to make the player roll for a skill check if they come up with a workable solution on their own, and if they get lazy you can throw a trap/puzzle at them that they can't just solve with a die roll.

[Draconi Redfir]

Okay, maybe it is the correct term after all.

I've even seen people claim "Coding" on Livestreamed D&D characters that clearly have nothing to do with whatever being's projected onto them. Then people have the gall to get upset when whatever they've projected doesn't come up at all?

I will never understand people

[Xervous]

I'm not sure gaslighting is the right term for the online fuss in April 2020 by a specific group of folks (Quinn W-W, Hoffer, plenty of others) who were projecting their own biases by claiming ... well, let's just keep calling it coding. They used a far more direct term.

Gaslighting implies they were trying to convince the rest of us we're crazy while abusing us.

Okay, maybe it is the correct term after all.

All I know is I detest the arguments due to their form. Either you agree and it’s the correct course of action or you disagree and your vote doesn’t count. except oops they called the global variable instead of the local so all your votes get invalidated.


Swinging the topic in another direction, meters vs feet for grids?

[Anonymouswizard]

Metres. You can pry the SI system out of my cold, dead hands. Especially if we're playing a game set in the modern day or later, but even in fantasy games.

[Asmotherion]

Metres. You can pry the SI system out of my cold, dead hands. Especially if we're playing a game set in the modern day or later, but even in fantasy games.

I agree with this one actually. D&D should be using the Metric system. A good oportunity for those who don't use it to start learning it.

[BRC]

Orcs are Orcs are Orcs.
Dwarves are Dwarves are Dwarves.
Elves are Elves are Elves.
Goblins are Goblins are Goblins.
Centaurs are Centaurs are Centaurs.
Drow are Drow are Drow.
Gnomes are Gnomes are Gnomes.

If you look at a fictional race and see a real-world demographic under a coat of paint, that's not "Coding", that's "Projection". And I think it says a bit more about you then it does about whoever came up with the race in the medium you're observing.

Whether a given fantasy race is a stand-in for a real-world demographic is setting dependent. Sometimes it's pretty obvious (See: The Trolls and Tauren in Warcraft), sometimes you kind of have to squint and say "Huh, the Orcs in this setting kind of seem like a stereotype of X group!".

Other times, it's some aspect that gets picked up on. For example, the Elves in Dragon Age don't neatly map onto any real-world group (And they're not supposed to), but their place in the world shares a lot of similarities with many different groups throughout history (A lot of different groups have been oppressed, and a lot of that oppression looks similar). This can cause people to see Thedas Elves as a stand-in for their particular group, or as a stand-in for marginalized groups in general, and project off of that.

I guess I'm saying it can go both ways?

There's also the deeper issues underlying the whole concept of "Fantasy Races", but that's another story.

I'd just like to say that I've found this to be true both for the DM and the players, even when they're experienced.

Rules-lite systems can wind up being very reductionist when combat starts, and it can take an active effort on both the DM and the players' part not to fall back on "I hit the monster with my sword" over and over again, because every action they take is dictated by the same die rolls, so they might as well pick their highest stat and go with that. More free-form systems take a lot of effort to keep interesting, and they require that everyone at the table get into the spirit of things and be on the same page about what kind of game they're trying to play.

Meanwhile, with a game like D&D, the DM can always let the players go outside of the rules when they want to. You don't *have* to make the player roll for a skill check if they come up with a workable solution on their own, and if they get lazy you can throw a trap/puzzle at them that they can't just solve with a die roll.

The more that is defined, the more HOW you do things matters.

Consider, D&D has 3 stats for "Persuasion", "Deception" and "Intimidation", representing three modes of social interaction.


Call of Cthulu has "Charm" "Fast Talk" "Intimidate" "Persuade"

Splitting the simple "Diplomacy" into "Charm" and "Persuade" means that HOW you are trying to get somebody to do something becomes relevant. Whether you are trying to convince them with reason, or just get them to like you and do you a favor.

I'd argue this makes Call of Cthulu better than D&D at modeling social interactions, since there are more mechanical "Hooks" to differentiate different approaches, vs D&D, where it mostly just comes down to "Make a Persuasion Roll".


The same principle applies for Rules Light vs Rules Heavy systems. Crunchier systems have their downsides, and maybe have the ability to model fewer total actions, but they can meaningfully engage with more things.

[BloodSquirrel]

The same principle applies for Rules Light vs Rules Heavy systems. Crunchier systems have their downsides, and maybe have the ability to model fewer total actions, but they can meaningfully engage with more things.

They also do a better job of making different actions feel different. In Fate, punching someone feels exactly like fixing your car. In Shadowrun, hacking feels nothing like shooting somebody. It's a distinct rule-set with its own systems and trade-offs.

Pushing everything into a single framework makes it easier to learn, but it also sucks the flavor out of everything.

[BRC]

They also do a better job of making different actions feel different. In Fate, punching someone feels exactly like fixing your car. In Shadowrun, hacking feels nothing like shooting somebody. It's a distinct rule-set with its own systems and trade-offs.

Pushing everything into a single framework makes it easier to learn, but it also sucks the flavor out of everything.

That's kind of what I meant by "Meaningfully Engage", but yeah.

Admittedly, part of this is that most rules-light games are supposed to be engaged with in a different way, and trying to map a playstyle from one system onto another is a good way to have things not work.

Consider Combat. D&D works by modeling each punch as a distinct roll. A more rules-light system might be designed to model combat in a more abstracted way, you make a single "Combat" roll to achieve some goal you are pursuing via violence. Rather than a roll modeling "Hit them with a sword", it models the wider goal of "Drive off these bandits", and so the more simplistic system works, because you're not supposed to spend a long time on Combat.

This falls apart when you try to use the simpler system in the "Blow-by-Blow" style. When you try to do D&D style combat, but your system only has one "Combat" roll, you just end up making the Combat roll over and over again.

[Lord Raziere]

They also do a better job of making different actions feel different. In Fate, punching someone feels exactly like fixing your car.

Yeah it feels consistently good, unlike DnD, where DnD out of combat has a constant chance of cartoonish failure while DnD Combat due to having more rolls has an even higher chance of cartoonish failure because DMs insist on natural 1's being their opportunity to make character looks like clowns for the sake of cheap laughs like its some Fantasy Pratfall Simulator.

[kyoryu]

They also do a better job of making different actions feel different. In Fate, punching someone feels exactly like fixing your car. In Shadowrun, hacking feels nothing like shooting somebody. It's a distinct rule-set with its own systems and trade-offs.

Pushing everything into a single framework makes it easier to learn, but it also sucks the flavor out of everything.

Mechanically, that's true. I think the point with games like Fate is that the "meaning" and "interest" should get pushed to the level of plot and the effects/side effects/etc. IOW, the point isn't that it's mechanically different and more interesting - it's that punching someone is a different action and has different and interesting results in comparison to fixing a car.

Both sides have pros and cons. Mechanical interest is useful in a lot of situations where the players have less overall agency, but can often require more prep and can have spots that aren't well supported. By pushing the decision-making into "how do I do X?" the players can engage more heavily at that level, and the overall structure of the game can be less important. The Fate approach is more useful in cases where players have higher levels of agency and so there's a greater ability to focus on the impacts of hte actions, and a higher chance of needing to do unexpected actions. Heavier and crunchier systems can be more unwieldy if you can't prep in advance.

Neither is objectively better. That's why examples of each thrive and have strong adherents.

[Easy e]

D&D focuses on failure more than it does success.

[Imbalance]

...meters vs feet for grids?

Neither. Just count squares.

[Lord Raziere]

D&D focuses on failure more than it does success.

Indeed, its that focus on failure that I find its a detriment to roleplaying because I can't pull my all into any of my actions. any action could lead to failure my character looking foolish or worse. so I find myself being cautious and holding back my character for the "smart/cautious" decision and instead of playing them more naturally. now you can argue that it means that this IS proper roleplaying because the characters are "SUPPOSED" to have that mindset, but it doesn't really work for a reckless barbarian who flies into rages or a bold and adventurous bard or whatever.

[KorvinStarmast]

I agree with this one actually. D&D should be using the Metric system.

Which was adopted after the Enlightenment, right?

*“Timeline of Important Dates In The History Of The Metric System– 1670: Gabriel Mouton proposed his decimal system of measurement based on a fraction of the Earth’s circumference.
– 1671: Jean Picard proposed the swinging pendulum as a measure of length.
– 1790: The National Assembly of France asked the French Academy of Sciences to create a standard system of weights and measures.
– 1795: France adopted the metric system.
– 1840: French government required all Frenchmen to convert to the metric system.
– 1866: Congress legalized the use of the metric system in the United States. However, its use was not required.
– 1875: The Treaty of the Meter was signed at the close of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures conference.
– 1957: The U.S. Army and Marine Corps adopted the metric system. Used as the basis for their weapons and equipment.
– 1965: Great Britain began adopting the metric system.

History of the Metric System

The French are widely credited with the originating the metric system of measurement. The French government officially adopted the system in 1795, but only after more than a century of sometimes contentious bickering over its value and suspicion surrounding the intent of metric proponents.

D&D is set in Medieval/Feudal/Renaissance era.
You might want to note the relationship between the Pound, The Livre, and the Lire (among other coinage standards) which are contemporary to the Feudal/Medieval setting that is the notional basis for the game.

Foot-Pound System is a rational basis for a game written in the English language about the Medieval/Feudal Period.
Might be better to keep the politics of the metric system out of it, since that position is based on an anachronism. (Can you play it in metric? Sure. You can play it in cubits if you want to go back to ancient measuring systems).

[Xervous]

Neither. Just count squares.

The two squares who didn’t show up at start time? How is that relevant to the width of a hex?

[Tanarii]

Metres. You can pry the SI system out of my cold, dead hands. Especially if we're playing a game set in the modern day or later, but even in fantasy games.

I agree with this one actually. D&D should be using the Metric system. A good oportunity for those who don't use it to start learning it.

I'll grudgingly cede any sci-fi should use SI. But base 10 / decimal in a fantasy system always seems out of place. Even D&Ds coinage doesn't feel right.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'll grudgingly cede any sci-fi should use SI. But base 10 / decimal in a fantasy system always seems out of place. Even D&Ds coinage doesn't feel right.

And you have to go and change your post before I can make s joke about having I Strength? Spoilsport

In the last Warhammer campaign I played in the Empire declared the foot an instrument of Chaos and switched to the metric system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll grudgingly cede any sci-fi should use SI. But base 10 / decimal in a fantasy system always seems out of place. Even D&Ds coinage doesn't feel right.

I agree, although I don't really care about the coinage. But (even as a PhD in a hard science) I still prefer feet and lbs for most things. Having to deal with decimals is obnoxious, and having to translate both ways (because I and my players think mostly in feet) is annoying.