Unpopular D&D Opinions

[Pauly]

5e is popular, ubiquitous and also a really good RPG in its own right.

Hit points are a really good damage system, and there's a reason why they endure as RPG's with more "realistic" damage systems come and go.

5e is a great RMG (Resource Management Game) but is kinda sucky at actually role playing.

[KorvinStarmast]

5e is a great RMG (Resource Management Game) but is kinda sucky at actually role playing.

It's the people who role play, not the game.

[Spriteless]

To be fair to large groups, they can work for rotational play. So you'll (almost) never have all nine players in the room, more often it'll just be the four who turned up.

It's not how I like to play, but it's not for me to judge.

Me, I prefer the standard model where you presume that everybody will make the session, although I'm also getting interested in having multiple characters per player. Mostly in the troupe play model where everybody can wear different hats but the GM had the most, but also in other ways (such as Wraith's Shadowguide idea, or having the players all be gentry and a different character's primary servant).

If I could count on everyone showing up every session, I'd only need 3 players. they're at their best when they try to solve problems without having solutions given to them by the system.

[Ignimortis]

Bounded Accuracy sucks. A proper way to implement what Bounded Accuracy does would be to accept that E6 works and make a serious DMG section about how to play that.

People who want to be threatened by goblins should play levels 1-6, not turn the whole 1-20 into the first few levels stretched over the whole progression. I do not want to be threatened by an enemy less than half my level in CR in any serious way after the first 5 levels.

[Anonymouswizard]

Important to note, "not dangerous" = "D&D Heroic" is a fairly new WotC interpretation of D&D Heroic.

Oh, sure. As is the idea that you're supposed to be adventuring past level 10. It was an option on BD&D, but it wasn't the primary one.

If I could count on everyone showing up every session, I'd only need 3 players. they're at their best when they try to solve problems without having solutions given to them by the system.

My experience is that four to six players, including one GM is ideal. But yeah, the kids you can rely on players the larger groups become. Literally every week was possible at uni, now I find myself planning 'every other week with most people' when I can actually play (which is rarely, my friends are all busy).

Bounded Accuracy sucks. A proper way to implement what Bounded Accuracy does would be to accept that E6 works and make a serious DMG section about how to play that.

People who want to be threatened by goblins should play levels 1-6, not turn the whole 1-20 into the first few levels stretched over the whole progression. I do not want to be threatened by an enemy less than half my level in CR in any serious way after the first 5 levels.

The issue is that 5e is trying to have its cake and eat it with regards to power growth. But yeah, I'd say E6 3.X is probably sightly more enjoyable than 5e, although I have no desire to try and hunt down 3.X books.

I think 5e's sweet spot might be levels 5-10, where the numbers are staying to get bigger but really powerful spells haven't come online.

[Draconi Redfir]

this might just be my particular tables but;

Solving new problems immediately is not always the best course of action.

The players i play with at least, have a tendency to want immediate solutions to every problem even when letting the problem sit would be more interesting. Lost an arm in combat? Regenerate spell! Quick! Blinded? Fix that right up! Stuck on a prison with limited access to hygiene? Clean everything up to a shine with Prestidigitation ASAP! Witch wants goods or services worth 1000gp to let you access her magic crystal? Just give her 1000gp!

Now I'm sorry but personally? that sounds really boring. and it IS really boring when it happens! It's not fun to overcome problems when they're not even allowed to BE problems in the first place!

Let me struggle to overcome the lost limb, and maybe find a replacement with time and effort! Let my character flail around blind in combat, learning to hone his senses and gradually get better until he can take the blindsense feat. Let fighting off disease and filth be part of the story of being imprisoned! Let me actually look through my valuables and be forced to sacrifice something I love for the good of the team!

There are just so many stories, twists, and turns that can happen when you allow new problems to tell their tales. But players (or at least the ones I've played with) are too quick to want those problems fixed ASAP that they never allow those problems to actually grow and develop. They never let the characters improvise, adapt, and overcome any new obstacles in their path unless it's part of the main story of the campaign. You could have been known as the ranger who built and programed his own mechanical arm. the Blind Paladin who still delivers justice! or the Barbarian who gave up his first ever magical weapon, one that's served him well over the years, in order to save the world!

Don't drop interesting obstacles with a quick-fix just because it is easy. Sometimes the struggle of overcoming them is the fun part.

[InvisibleBison]

Solving new problems immediately is not always the best course of action.

I have to disagree with this. As I see it, the thing you're describing is just good roleplaying. If there's a quick and easy solution to a serious problem available, of course the PCs are going to take it. Why would they chose to struggle with being blinded for a long time when they don't have to?

Don't drop interesting obstacles with a quick-fix just because it is easy. Sometimes the struggle of overcoming them is the fun part.

This makes more sense, since you're talking from a GM's or adventure designer's perspective. Introducing a problem that can be easily and immediately solved doesn't make for interesting gameplay, so it's best to not do that.

[Draconi Redfir]

I have to disagree with this. As I see it, the thing you're describing is just good roleplaying. If there's a quick and easy solution to a serious problem available, of course the PCs are going to take it. Why would they chose to struggle with being blinded for a long time when they don't have to?

Because Daredevil would be a really boring story if two minutes after getting blinded, someone just said "Oh! let me fix that for you!" and six seconds later he could see perfectly again and everyone just went on their way.



But that's not what happened, so instead we get a story about Daredevil overcoming hid blindness, adapting to it, spending years living in a world he can't see, and then overcoming the obstacle. He's an Olympic athlete, an acrobat, someone who can sense the heartbeat of someone 40ft away because of super-human hearing senses. He worked hard and overcame his disability, and now he's a superhero because of it. something he never would have done if he hadn't been blind.


In a story, what sounds more interesting to you? A blinded man who focuses his remaining senses, learning how to hear a water drop from a yard away, how to feel vibrations in the ground, and smell even the faintest of scents, allowing them to face an opponent?

Or some guy who got his eyes fixed 0.2 seconds after being blinded and is now just some ordinary guy. "oh look i see him over there!". There was no growth, no change, no development, no story!

Imagine if immediately after meeting Toph in "The Last Airbender", Katara just... made her blindness go away. it wasn't even a problem, barely an inconvenience. Is that right? is that even okay? The appeal of Toph was that she was a badass who knew what she was doing despite her blindness, or even because of her blindness. She revolutionized Earthbending and invented Metal bending because she could sense movement on the ground through earthbending, a skill she only learned because she was blind. Taking that away from her with no cost whatsoever would not just be boring, it would be insulting. Even IF Toph wanted to be able to see, it should be a story arc in of itself to get that. go to a temple, find some old relic, learn that to use it you need to give something up, would being able to see really be worth never being able to laugh again? you can not tell me that Katara saying "Bibbity Blight! you now have sight!" would have made a better story then that.


At minimum, at MINIMUM, solving a problem like a missing limb or blindness should have a cost, something you need to work towards or sacrifice. Getting a new arm to replace your lost one should require building one your own, making a deal with some outsider, stealing one from another guy, paying a few gold pieces and waiting a week to have it made, sacrificing your magic sword to have it turned into your new arm, Needing to survive the rest of the day and a combat or two before the cleric can cast a three-hour ritual spell that will drain them of some of their highest spell slots in order to grow your arm back, SOMETHING. Something more then a 6 second spell that suddenly grows the entire arm back for you and has no price tag whatsoever. that's not fixing a problem that's boring!

[Ignimortis]

Because Daredevil would be a really boring story if two minutes after getting blinded, someone just said "Oh! let me fix that for you!" and six seconds later he could see perfectly again and everyone just went on their way.
*snip*

The thing is...most games don't have tools to facilitate that, and generally treat those injuries as flaws crippling enough that you cannot perform in your old role anymore. I can think of some exceptions, but becoming blind pr losing an arm/leg would end the career of most PCs I've ever seen, unless they could deal with the issue and get their sight/arm/leg back. Games rarely have the space for your character to train to survive and even fight without sight, and that goes double for D&D.

[Draconi Redfir]

then let me FACE that struggle for some time! if you're going to bring my sight back, at least let me experience being blinded for awhile! what's the point of a critical effect or some other source giving me "permanent blindness" if it can be washed away with zero cost and zero time six seconds later?

At minimum i should need to finish the fight we're currently in before getting it fixed. At minimum, getting it fixed should not be trivial. Sacrifice an item for good, pay some gold cost, just don't make it stupidly easy.


And there are systems in play that can let you overcome things like that. Things like the blind-fight feat or the blindsense spell exist. You could work with your DM to put together stats for a mechanical arm or replacement eyes. Maybe you're gaining the use of an arm back by grafting the arm of an enemy to your stump, but you're paying the price of -1 Dexterity. Maybe you get an extra +1 Strength because that arm was particularly buff, or maybe you just gain the benefit of having an arm back, who knows! work with it! your imagination is the only limit!

[Tanarii]

Because Daredevil would be a really boring story if two minutes after getting blinded, someone just said "Oh! let me fix that for you!" and six seconds later he could see perfectly again and everyone just went on their way.

Daredevil is a mutant born with functionally superior vision and doesn't suffer because of being blinded. He had no reason to address it. Everything you listed for the PCs is a penalty or problem and of course they're going to try to address it as quickly as possible through the most direct means. They're things that instantly become priorities, unless for some reason there is an overwhelming greater priority already in place, like a doomsday clock ticking.

[Satinavian]

this might just be my particular tables but;

Solving new problems immediately is not always the best course of action.

Sorry, but if you have a problem that is relevant and an easy fix, you use that easy fix or you are an idiot.

Toph works because she can't be healed. If every waterbender could heal it in seconds and without any risk, then Toph chosing to stay blind just because she likes to experience the struggle of blindness some more, would be quite off-putting to the audience.

Now you could argue for systems where serious injuries can't be healed trivially. Those exist. Lots of them.

[Draconi Redfir]

Toph works because she can't be healed. If every waterbender could heal it in seconds and without any risk, then Toph chosing to stay blind just because she likes to experience the struggle of blindness some more, would be quite off-putting to the audience.

Really? Personally i found it really off-putting and uncomfortable that so many OOTS readers were insisting Durkon's mom gets her arm grown back even when she repeatedly said she didn't want it.

Blind doesn't mean Broken.

[Spriteless]

Because Daredevil would be a really boring story if two minutes after getting blinded, someone just said "Oh! let me fix that for you!" and six seconds later he could see perfectly again and everyone just went on their way.

I gotta say, this is the most unpopular opinion in the last few pages. :P

But, you got a good point. Here's a counter point. Lets say Daredevil gets hit, and bleeds, and continues fighting. Wouldn't it be more of a story if the wound caused an infection, that he had to struggle with, life or death, for weeks? But he has access to a doctor and like, antibiotics, so we don't get that story.

But it might be a neat story nontheles, for a time with lesser medicine, that doesn't have magic that emulates all the modern conveniences.

If you want the kind of story where PCs don't solve problems instantly, then don't give them the power to solve all their problems instantly. Take a break from the big campaign, and have a oneshot or mini-campaign, with characters who can't cast regenerate, in a world where you can't get regenerate without paying a cost. In my experience, if you offer to GM, then you can get players. Just might want to let them know that wounds will matter before hand so they know to struggle instead of whine or re-roll, ha.

Durkon's mom has her reasons. Perhaps she doesn't want to let go of Durkon's dad. Perhaps something else. That's another thing you can do to make people choose to have characters deal with problems over a long time, give them a reason to.

[Satinavian]

The Giant introduced reasons to not grow that arm back. Because it needs reasons to seem even remotely reasonable. And even with those reasons it is not enough for some.

I mean, how would people in our world react to a case of curable blindness assuming no cost issue ? Would they really understand someone who choses to stay blind ?

[Tanarii]

Sorry, but if you have a problem that is relevant and an easy fix, you use that easy fix or you are an idiot.

Toph works because she can't be healed. If every waterbender could heal it in seconds and without any risk, then Toph chosing to stay blind just because she likes to experience the struggle of blindness some more, would be quite off-putting to the audience.

Now you could argue for systems where serious injuries can't be healed trivially. Those exist. Lots of them.

Really? Personally i found it really off-putting and uncomfortable that so many OOTS readers were insisting Durkon's mom gets her arm grown back even when she repeatedly said she didn't want it.

Blind doesn't mean Broken.

Oh, good example proving the point about being off-putting to the audience: Durkon's mom refusing a cost-free regeneration by her son she put tons of time into raising right is mind bogglingly idiotic and off-putting.

OTOH, OOTS dwarves seem to be specialists at coming to idiotic conclusions and then making poor decisions because of it.

[Draconi Redfir]

i mean if someone was born blind, only knew the world AS blind, and was getting along fine... yeah, i could absolutely understand them not wanting to have their blindness cured. why would they? there would be no benefit for them, and they don't know life with sight anyways.

This wouldn't apply to every blind person of course. i'm sure there would be plenty in that exact situation who'd take it. Just like I'm sure there would be plenty of people who would take a free no-risk procedure to be able to read minds and have their mind read. But I'm sure there would be plenty of people who would not want that procedure either.

[Anonymouswizard]

Oh, good example proving the point about being off-putting to the audience: Durkon's mom refusing a cost-free regeneration by her son she put tons of time into raising right is mind bogglingly idiotic and off-putting.

OTOH, OOTS dwarves seem to be specialists at coming to idiotic conclusions and then making poor decisions because of it.

She associates it strongly with her husband and the fact that she tried to save him, has a sense of duty that makes her prefer to solve the problems of others before her own, and doesn't believe that she needs the arm. By my recollection she has had two chances to regain her arm, in the first she decided to pay for five dwarves who died dishonourable deaths to have a second chance, by the time of the second she's had decades to get used to the lack of an arm.

Sounds logical, if sentimental, to me. She might have a (sightly) easier life with both her arms, but she has understandable reasons for why she might not consider this worthwhile.

[Pex]

Players spend real world time and effort to come to the game and play, not sit there doing nothing. It sucks when a Save or Suck effect affects your character and you can't do anything. It's part of the game and you accept it. It's temporary. It's part of the fun, but it still sucks. It loses its fun if because of that Save or Suck you're literally sitting at the game table doing nothing for 20 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour, for whatever in game reason. Maybe you can still do things but game math works against you, such as suffering a level of exhaustion so you're at disadvantage for all skill checks. The entire game session is about traveling through the wilderness. Everyone has to make skill checks for various things. It's fun for everyone else doing the Exploration Pillar, but it absolutely sucks DONKEY for you because you're always taking the low roll and failing more times than you're lucky to succeed anyway and need other players to help you for the whole 4 hour game session. That's why players want quick solutions. Risks and bad fortunes are part of the game. They're acceptable, but it's a waste of your time if that's the only thing you suffer.

[MoiMagnus]

Lost an arm in combat? Regenerate spell! Quick! Blinded? Fix that right up! Stuck on a prison with limited access to hygiene? Clean everything up to a shine with Prestidigitation ASAP! Witch wants goods or services worth 1000gp to let you access her magic crystal? Just give her 1000gp!

[...]

Don't drop interesting obstacles with a quick-fix just because it is easy. Sometimes the struggle of overcoming them is the fun part.

An important note here is that not everyone agrees on that an "interesting obstacle" is. I'm part of the group of peoples that find the first two examples you listed to be "annoyances" rather than "interesting obstacles", hence I am glad those can be removed from the game before they become overly frustrating.

(The magic crystal one looks more interesting to me, and I'd gladly have it linked to a side quest rather than just being a transaction)

It's normal for some specific problems to have immediate solutions. It's a design choice. But I will agree with you that it's not normal if EVERY problems have an immediate solutions.

[Mastikator]

Interesting obstacles require creativity or strategy to overcome, a setback that just makes you unable to go on adventures is just a less dramatic form of character death: retirement. When Jaime Lannister lost his hand he stopped being one of the greatest swordsman in the world, his days of adventure had come to an end. When Luke Skywalker lost his hand his future would've been the same if it wasn't for hyper advanced cybernetic prosthetic able to perfectly replicate every function of a hand.
When you have to overcome a disability you either need to end up with your hand back, a super power that is better than a hand, or a new career.

If my character becomes blind and the DM fabricates some reason why they can't get their sight back I'm not going to overcome that, I'll just bring in a new character.

[Draconi Redfir]

Interesting obstacles require creativity or strategy to overcome, a setback that just makes you unable to go on adventures is just a less dramatic form of character death: retirement. When Jaime Lannister lost his hand he stopped being one of the greatest swordsman in the world, his days of adventure had come to an end. When Luke Skywalker lost his hand his future would've been the same if it wasn't for hyper advanced cybernetic prosthetic able to perfectly replicate every function of a hand.
When you have to overcome a disability you either need to end up with your hand back, a super power that is better than a hand, or a new career.

Spoiler: Image solution

Show

[Mastikator]

Spoiler: Image solution

Show

And if I don't envision my character as an orc with a sword hand?

[Draconi Redfir]

you don't need to be an orc to have a sword hand. you just need to have the right initiative.

Or if not, shield-hand would also work. Or hook-hand, i hear those are popular. Heck, chop the hand off an enemy or fallen ally and use magic to graft it onto your stump, anything is possible with enough imagination and drive! Giving up is just the weakest option.

[Mastikator]

you don't need to be an orc to have a sword hand. you just need to have the right initiative.

Or if not, shield-hand would also work. Or hook-hand, i hear those are popular. Heck, chop the hand off an enemy or fallen ally and use magic to graft it onto your stump, anything is possible with enough imagination and drive! Giving up is just the weakest option.

So I end up being able to do only one single thing with my hand, and whenever that thing isn't what needs to be done my character is automatically relegated to a passive role. I think accepting this outcome isn't strong, it's stubborn. Loss of hand is retirement zone. This is just loss of player autonomy with extra steps. I didn't schedule a game, sit through an hour of public transport only to sit there and not play.

[Draconi Redfir]

... you have two hands you know...

Hell, get swappable parts. Didn't that one guy in "How to train your dragon" have an un-screw-able hand that he could replace with a hammer, tongs, a spatuala, an axe, an oar, a spoon, or just a whole bunch of other things? All you really need is some creativity here.

And again, replacement hands are still options. Magical ones, mechanical ones, ones you steal off dead enemies...


By your logic your hero may as well quit being an adventurer because they stubbed their toe. "It's suddenly mildly inconvenient to walk! Welp, guess it's retirement for me!"


How boring

[Cluedrew]

To Quertus: OK another attempted follow up that I hope will reach you. So I have been mulling it over and I still and not sure what is up with the AI, the emulator and the programmers, but I get the general idea that mechanics should give results similar to the intended fiction. But I think that a bit of fudge factor is fine. This is why D&D's official setting is not the Tippyverse. So what sort of magical threshold does 4e cross and how does one objectively measure it?

Oh, good example proving the point about being off-putting to the audience: Durkon's mom refusing a cost-free regeneration by her son she put tons of time into raising right is mind bogglingly idiotic and off-putting. [...] OOTS dwarves seem to be specialists at coming to idiotic conclusions and then making poor decisions because of it.

As someone who has been presented with a similar situation*, I made the same decision and didn't even realize the confusing part was about getting her arm regenerated until just now. I thought it was just about dad.

* Not exactly the same, notably I was unable to free half a dozen souls from the depths of Hel.

[Pex]

There are players who get their fun in playing characters with a serious flaw. The flaw is not just some game mechanic penalty or disadvantage; it affects their roleplay flavor text too. They want to be dramatic of their condition and remind everyone of their circumstance. They're not necessarily drama queens monopolizing game time, but they never fail to give a performance of overcoming or wallowing in their condition when the opportunity presents itself. If they're truly not monopolizing the game and their flaw is not hurting the party I can tolerate the melodramatics. The one thing they are not is a superior roleplayer. They are not elite, and those of us who prefer not to play with a tragic flaw are not doing it wrong.

[Mastikator]

... you have two hands you know...

Hell, get swappable parts. Didn't that one guy in "How to train your dragon" have an un-screw-able hand that he could replace with a hammer, tongs, a spatuala, an axe, an oar, a spoon, or just a whole bunch of other things? All you really need is some creativity here.

And again, replacement hands are still options. Magical ones, mechanical ones, ones you steal off dead enemies...


By your logic your hero may as well quit being an adventurer because they stubbed their toe. "It's suddenly mildly inconvenient to walk! Welp, guess it's retirement for me!"


How boring

So it's a gold tax then? It's going to require a lot of downtime too, which I may have had better plans for. But now my town time and gold is spent on this BS problem I didn't ask for. What's boring is now instead of fulfilling my plan for my character I have to waste time and energy on a hand.

However if I can just take a dead enemy's hand and magically attach it and call it a day then I don't see how that's any different from just casting regeneration. That's a quick and easy solution which then allows me to enact my real plans.

[Ignimortis]

However if I can just take a dead enemy's hand and magically attach it and call it a day then I don't see how that's any different from just casting regeneration. That's a quick and easy solution which then allows me to enact my real plans.

Unless the hand takes over your mind and makes you believe you're actually the guy you took the hand off. That might be inconvenient.