Unpopular D&D Opinions

[OldTrees1]

Sounds like an at-will attack, with flavor "opponent flies, flips, or spins through the air" and rider "Push 1 square or is knocked Prone."

I believe their point was there are character concepts where their strongest moves get the "at-will" recharge mechanic because the ludonarrative is the character does not forget or run out of the move.

[kyoryu]

I believe their point was there are character concepts where their strongest moves get the "at-will" recharge mechanic because the ludonarrative is the character does not forget or run out of the move.

But in general that's not his strongest move - it's what he uses to knock out the mooks he runs into.

The "major" opponents are much more involved fights, where he doesn't just "spam" that over and over.

[KorvinStarmast]

But in general that's not his strongest move - it's what he uses to knock out the mooks he runs into.

The "major" opponents are much more involved fights, where he doesn't just "spam" that over and over.

Yes, that's his mookbuster thing, and the "big fights" are far more complex.

[Lord Raziere]

Unpopular Opinion:
I don't like and am tired of people trying to convince me that DnD is like the anime I like. this is not a shot against DnD. I just see the stylistic differences and the fiction portrayed, and the inspirations behind them as way too different to reconcile.

Like your blue paint is great and all, but its not red paint. There is emotional elements and thematic things to the fights that are involved, which a grid-based tactical combat based on caution, paranoia and such and so on get in way of and bring me out of the moment. Its great for tactical combat sure, which is a cousin to strategy games which I like, but I'd never play it for the anime characters I'd like. especially not using something like the barbarian. what its supposed to do which is emulate some pulp-inspired berserker from some tribe, that is what it does well. I wouldn't use it for anything else. you might as well be trying to convince me that night is day if you insist on DnD being like Bleach or Dragonball or whatever. its the same reason I don't go to strategy games to enjoy the rush of a fighting game, because a strategy game can't do that. and DnD is too tactical to me to be used emotionally, it encourages caution too much. the anime stuff I like, and the style of combat DnD goes with just aren't compatible to me, because those are appealing to different parts of my mind, a strategical/tactical fight I find often can't exist in the same headspace as an emotional fight. The Raziere that wants be a general leading armies as a strategical genius methodically planning everything out and the Raziere that wants to go super saiyan and feel a million punches and watch energy blasts go BOOM! while flash-stepping all over the place are two different Razieres, who aren't in the pilot's seat at the same time. DnD is just too far down the blue mana scale to appeal to red mana Raziere, because turn by turn its just too slow, too much waiting, too much time to think. like I've had moments in DnD that appeal to my tactical blue mana side, but to get anime red mana raziere, its not going to work.

[kyoryu]

Unpopular Opinion:
I don't like and am tired of people trying to convince me that DnD is like the anime I like. this is not a shot against DnD. I just see the stylistic differences and the fiction portrayed, and the inspirations behind them as way too different to reconcile.

Unpopular opinion: People liken it to anime because it's the easiest way to reconcile the absurdities of the system.

[BRC]

Unpopular opinion: People liken it to anime because it's the easiest way to reconcile the absurdities of the system.

My conclusion is that D&D is similar to a lot of things on a superficial level, but it isn't really "Like" anything except for things that are specifically modeling themselves after D&D. Especially since 5e draws from such a wide variety of influences.


D&D Isn't like Anime, it can bear some superficial similarities too it, especially with the right classes, but playing D&D isn't going to feel like you're playing through your favorite anime.

D&D Isn't Like LOTR, It CAN be I guess, but it's base assumption is far higher magic than LOTR was. Gandalf isn't a D&D Wizard, and he's a literal divine being (Or something).

D&D isn't like Conan, though it bears some influences. Conan isn't a D&D Barbarian, D&D is higher magic, and the group structure built into the premise means that you won't really get anything that feels like a Conan story.


It bears enough similarity to these things that you can see them reflected in it, but if somebody comes up to you and says "You'll love D&D because you love [X piece of Media]" the answer is you won't.

There are RPGs out there that specifically try to ape the tropes and narrative arcs of different genres. D&D isn't one of them.


Plus, the fact that D&D is a totally different experience than consuming other Media, even things specifically based off of it. Let's say you enjoy the anime Record of the Lodoss War, which is literally based off transcripts of D&D sessions. That doesn't mean that you'll enjoy playing D&D.

[Lord Raziere]

Unpopular opinion: People liken it to anime because it's the easiest way to reconcile the absurdities of the system.

But.....why would anyone want to reconcile it that way? the point is play a western fantasy that has no anime inspirations. So reconciling it that way is missing the point, and doesn't seem like it would help at all and only get farther away from the point, distorting and making it more absurd.

[Anonymouswizard]

But.....why would anyone want to reconcile it that way? the point is play a western fantasy that has no anime inspirations. So reconciling it that way is missing the point, and doesn't seem like it would help at all and only get farther away from the point, distorting and making it more absurd.

I'm not sure, have you seen the size of the swords Pathfinder iconics get these days? Seems pretty anime to me.

Okay, that only really applies to Amri AFAIK, and she does have a relatively legitimate reason to have such a big blade (it's not actually designed for humans). But why should I let reality get in the way of a joke?

[PhoenixPhyre]

But.....why would anyone want to reconcile it that way? the point is play a western fantasy that has no anime inspirations. So reconciling it that way is missing the point, and doesn't seem like it would help at all and only get farther away from the point, distorting and making it more absurd.

D&D is, was, and always will be about as pure with its sources of inspiration as the English language is. Ie not at all. D&D cribs from all over and what it cribs from changes with every edition. And anime takes note of D&D and the cycle spins round and round.

D&D isn't anime, but it certainly is influenced by anime. It never has been a western fantasy--it's always been a polyglot anachronistic kitchen sink. Which is one reason I like it.

Personally, the best model I can come up with is yes, martial abilities run off of some "internal energy" or something. Some way that they're stretching the bounds of what is (for the setting) normal. I don't see that D&D (especially modern, 4e and 5e, D&D) really has much concern or consideration for the pure muggle without any fantastic power source. That power source may be a pure Charles Atlas superpower (ie by training and dedication) or it may be tapping into an external power, or something else entirely. But "I'm just a normal person who does things that anyone can do" isn't really a D&D-supported option.

Is this canon? Meh. I could not care less about canon vs non-canon. It's what works for my setting and my games, so that's what matters to me..

[icefractal]

But.....why would anyone want to reconcile it that way? the point is play a western fantasy that has no anime inspirations. So reconciling it that way is missing the point, and doesn't seem like it would help at all and only get farther away from the point, distorting and making it more absurd.

Let me answer this question with an unpopular opinion:

The generic pseudo-medieval setting used for a lot of TTRPGs is tired and stale. A kitchen sink of different influences is an improvement over it.

I think often when people bring up anime, it's in the context that - "I don't care if this element is not part of 'western fantasy', it's interesting and I want to use it. Look, it's not just me being weird, there's an entire medium that embraces this kind of thing."


Other unpopular opinion:
I don't like fighting evil clones / mirror twins. Mechanically speaking it's awkward, narratively speaking it's overdone (at least IME). I'd be fine never encountering this trope again.

[KorvinStarmast]

Other unpopular opinion:
I don't like fighting evil clones / mirror twins. Mechanically speaking it's awkward, narratively speaking it's overdone (at least IME). I'd be fine never encountering this trope again.

Likewise; it's for sure overdone.

[Luccan]

I'd be totally down to do it in the context of a Mirror of Opposition, but I've never run in to one of those. I like it as the sort of trap a D&D wizard would make: any time some low-life adventurer invades your tower, they'll have to contend with whatever power they have first. ~50-50 shot the original loses. Otherwise, yeah, I'm not interested in fighting a clone of my PC and my secret evil twin better have his own personality, not be a literal inverse of me with a surprisingly similar power set.

[Bohandas]

But.....why would anyone want to reconcile it that way? the point is play a western fantasy that has no anime inspirations. So reconciling it that way is missing the point, and doesn't seem like it would help at all and only get farther away from the point, distorting and making it more absurd.

It works better for some playstyles than the alternative way of handling HP, which is for every high level character to essentially be the black knight from Holy Grail dismissing dismemberment as "just a flesh wound". That only works in comedy and horror.

Shounen anime often operates on this logic, the characters "run out of chakra" or have to yell out their move. D&D is very similar if Shounen anime had more strict rules. The barbarian even has main teenage boy protagonist energy, if he gets angry he'll unleash the power which makes him even harder to kill and he just has so much innate power that he can barely control it

Yeah they can run out of energy and be unable to use any more special attacks. That's fine. What taxes suspension of disbelief is that they would run out of one special attack in particular, with the possible exception of their most powerful/costly attack, in which case it would be less a case of being out of that attack and more a case of the remaining energy being less than the cost of that attack. Basically it should use a power point type system if it's going to use any. One and done attacks don;t even make sense for mages - there's only one realtively obscure set of stories that ever did that (except as a joke) - and they definitely don't make sense for warriors

[icefractal]

Eh, it doesn't seem that odd, given how learning abilities works in 4E - except for Wizard dailies/utilities, they're things you learn as part of growth (levels), not easily swappable.

So one way to picture this would be a set of metaphysical "vessels" / "mechanisms" that you fill up / charge up with power when resting, and then discharge at some point to use. So there isn't one pool of "power", there are multiple pools which aren't fungible with each-other - which there would already have to be because some recharge in five minutes and some take eight hours.

So it means that certain fiction like "it's a matter of limited stamina" doesn't fit the mechanics well, but it doesn't mean that no fiction will.

[georgie_leech]

Other unpopular opinion:
I don't like fighting evil clones / mirror twins. Mechanically speaking it's awkward, narratively speaking it's overdone (at least IME). I'd be fine never encountering this trope again.

I've seen it done well-ish once, wherein the DM used it to let the party get some PvP out of their systems by letting them control their clones, as long as they weren't directly fighting their other half (it was more of a party vs party set up). Though that was less about "overcome your darker side!" or other such tripe, and more about an excuse to curb some of that "who's actually carrying the party in combat" stuff.

[Witty Username]

I definitely agree that D&D doesn’t map to anime very well, it has borrowed/mutual influence elements but not in any consistent way.
I am not sure 'kitchen sink' is is much of a solution to D&Ds world building issues. Since it ends up with a different kinda samey. At least with the mixing of existing properties and mythology/folklore elements kinda kitchen sink. Your understanding of the term may be broader than mine.

[Thrudd]

The point is, D&D doesn't "map" to any specific genre of fantasy media. It has included disparate elements of many things the designers thought were cool from many different sorts of unrelated media. It isn't purely cinematic, it isn't purely literary or mythical or video game, it isn't purely epic fantasy nor picaresque. It is now just D&D. Since the late 80s at least, other things in different forms of media have copied IT, not the other way around.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The point is, D&D doesn't "map" to any specific genre of fantasy media. It has included disparate elements of many things the designers thought were cool from many different sorts of unrelated media. It isn't purely cinematic, it isn't purely literary or mythical or video game, it isn't purely epic fantasy nor picaresque. It is now just D&D. Since the late 80s at least, other things in different forms of media have copied IT, not the other way around.

Agree. It has been influenced and has influenced many different media. It's not trying to emulate anything; it simply is. Which is both a pro and a con--if your goal is to produce X genre/story type or replicate characters or stories from any media[1], you'll be disappointed. But if you instead lean in to the D&D-ness of things, it's tremendously flexible and freeing. D&D contradicts itself? So what? D&D is large, it contains multitudes. (Apologies to Walt Whitman)

[1] Yes, including D&D fiction. That's the meta part--D&D fiction and D&D games don't always see eye to eye; the games are not trying to replicate the fiction, including video games, nor really vice versa.

[Lord Raziere]

Agree. It has been influenced and has influenced many different media. It's not trying to emulate anything; it simply is. Which is both a pro and a con--if your goal is to produce X genre/story type or replicate characters or stories from any media[1], you'll be disappointed. But if you instead lean in to the D&D-ness of things, it's tremendously flexible and freeing. D&D contradicts itself? So what? D&D is large, it contains multitudes. (Apologies to Walt Whitman)

[1] Yes, including D&D fiction. That's the meta part--D&D fiction and D&D games don't always see eye to eye; the games are not trying to replicate the fiction, including video games, nor really vice versa.

I mean sure, that works if its something you WANT to lean into.

But I guess I'm one of those rare people who just can't compromise and needs their genre emulation to be the exact genre rather than some DnD flavor of that genre that everyone is apparently okay with.

[Pex]

I mean sure, that works if its something you WANT to lean into.

But I guess I'm one of those rare people who just can't compromise and needs their genre emulation to be the exact genre rather than some DnD flavor of that genre that everyone is apparently okay with.

Anyone is welcome to, but it would be unfair for such an anyone to blame D&D for not modeling the genre perfectly when it wasn't meant to model the genre. It may be possible for anyone to make changes to the game so that it fits more into the genre, but it would still be unfair for such an anyone to resent having to do so blaming D&D.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean sure, that works if its something you WANT to lean into.

But I guess I'm one of those rare people who just can't compromise and needs their genre emulation to be the exact genre rather than some DnD flavor of that genre that everyone is apparently okay with.

Using D&D for genre emulation at all is the issue. That's not what it does or even tries to do. So of course it doesn't work all that well.

D&D does D&D, that's all. As it turns out, that's broad enough to help lots of people have fun. But it's not for everyone or everything, and that's fine too. Just don't blame it for not doing something it was never designed to do.

[Quertus]

What if you saw their code and disagreed? Does that mean they would be wrong? Or could they have been holding one of myriad answers that work, but don't work for you.

You use a code analogy later, you probably know that the same bash script can function in one shell and fail in another. In one environment the code matches the pseudocode but in the other it does not. One shell finds a territory : map match, the other does not.

Grrr… 2+2=4, but in base 3 it's 11. So i absolutely hate the fact that I'm ceding that I even need to think about the answer to this question.

There's a reason (OK, other than that I'm a programmer) that I'm talking about it in terms of "code". Because, like code, or math, or logic, it isn't subjective, how it works isn't based on the user.

However, I only know that as Truth intuitively, not as something I've proven. However, the fact that truth tables and basic logic do not function differently based on the user seems strong evidence that I'm not in error

I'll have to give it more thought, but I'm pretty sure that the answer is (barring some strangeness that goes beyond "Bizarro World" and into "no, we're actually not human" levels of possibilities I haven't accounted for) that, if I look at someone's code, and say that it's buggy, the probability that it's buggy is based on the probability of me making an error, not some bizarre "it works for me but not for you" error.

However.

Those exact same words, "it works for me but not for you", but with a different meaning, *do* apply to part of the problem. Senility willing, I'll discuss this (perhaps in terms of HP), maybe even in this post.

In fact, I suspect that the two uses of that phrase (and my own communication skills) are why people seem to believe that I'm making an error that I'm not.

Is your definition about
A) When there exists a territory such that Quertus can map it to the map
B) When there exists a territory such that someone can map it to the map
C) When there exists a territory such that everyone can map it to the map

Most RPGs fail C.
4E fails A as far as we can tell.
4E does not fail B.

Whenever you describe your definition mechanically (not leaving the role-playing-stance) it sounds like B. However you require evidence of A instead of accepting evidence of B.

… no. It is none of A-C.

The inability of the user to express with perfect accuracy "the square root of two" or π is irrelevant.

The ability of someone to know that π is not 3.141593627, or anyone to know that π isn't 7, OTOH, is relevant (kind of).

A Sith Lord would say it's D) when no one cannot, without making an error, agree that it is (not?) the map. (Sith Lords lack the internal self-correction skills necessary to guarantee that they'd use the correct number of negation terms, apparently)

Now, I might be able to *notice* that it doesn't match the map at 7 decimal places for some things, and only 2 significant digits for others. But whether or not π=7 does not factually change based on the skill of the user.

For some users, π=7 might be close enough for their purposes ("positive number >1? 3π>3? That's all I need to know."). But that doesn't affect the truth value of the statement, "π=7".

Now, my actual stance isn't that held by my Sith Lord spokesman. But their stance is much simpler than the truth, and should let you get a good feel for the shape of this piece of the elephant. Once we're all there, we can worry about the complicated extra steps to define the subtleties beyond, "it's like a rope…".

Did you know the level of detailed scrutiny is a configuration? I can dial it down or up. As I tune it up the list of RPGs that I can't map a territory to increases. If I tune it up high enough nothing is an RPG. Or I can tune it down. As I tune it down the list of RPGs I can't map a territory to decreases. If I tune it down low enough I get weird results.

What setting should I use when discussing RPGs? It is an arbitrary level of detailed scrutiny and I am but one of many that practice this hobby. Should I use your definition, but at the level of detailed scrutiny I set?

Again, that's just your ability to *notice*, and quite irrelevant to my definition.

… is what the Sith Lord would say.

In actuality… yes, that's part of my *actual* definition.

So, not that they're supposed to model reality (as @Bohandas put quite succinctly), but let's look at how well certain things match up with reality:

HP

("HP" can mean many things, but… "as implemented in D&D")

HP do *not* encourage you to take a lava bath. At the highest level, HP match up with reality, because under both, taking damage is bad.

HP continue to match reality at the next couple of levels, as well: not all injuries are equal, and injury is not an "infinite" bad, but a "comparable" bad. That is, in order to get, or have a chance to get certain advantages ($1,000,000, "the antidote", whatever it was that they were after in Saw, etc) certain injuries, or the risk of those injuries, might be considered acceptable. And the assessment of what chance of which injuries are worth what chance of which advantages will vary from person to person.

HP do not, as I explained in another thread (senility willing, I'll copy my full reply here), mean that someone can survive having their throat slit. So HP match reality in this commonly-touched edge case, as well.

Although HP in the most general sense do not preclude subsystems to handle such, HP (as generally implemented, and as I consider them) fails to match reality at the layer of "injuries are disadvantageous / debilitating", and "different types of injuries take different amounts of time to heal" and "often don't heal completely". Among other places. So, yes, eventually HP fail to match a reality that they weren't really intended to emulate in the first place. But, all in all, they hold up pretty good (and better than any other system, IMO - but that requires "advanced elephant details" to explain, so we're nowhere near there yet).

Counting failures

4e Group skill checks encourage only the strongest person to pull in the rope in tug of war / to help lift the heavy object. At the highest level, it still fails to produce the world it intended, let alone match this reality.

They fall at the next level, too: if my bonus to Philosophy is better than my bonus to lift things, I'll contribute more by convincing the rock that it doesn't exist than by physically helping lift the rock. (Silly example of general principle, don't pick the example apart, it's silly on purpose, K?)

And, at the next layer, we also see failure: I cannot use my pathetic management skills to direct the group - doing so increases our chances of failure. Better for everyone to lift in different directions, completely undirected, than for me / anyone to make that bad roll.

And, for a final failure to match reality, if lifting is Strength based, it doesn't matter how clumsy I am, or how much more the group will struggle with my erratic movements, when determining the effect of me aiding in lifting.

Daily abilities

Yeah. No match found. (With the possible exception of "getting really drunk")

π=7

π=7 is such nonsense that I'll either have a fully operational TARDIS yesterday, or "bigger on the inside" XD space tomorrow.

Score

HP: do you want damage, is all damage equal, will you accept damage for…, would everyone make the same choice, are injuries disadvantageous / debilitating, the common edge case if having your throat slit, do injuries heal, do all injuries heal equally

Counting failures: do you want help, is all help equal, are all approaches equal, how should you approach a given problem, should everyone approach a problem the same way, does having even a mediocre plan help, the common edge case of the "not so helpful" help.

Daily abilities: ---

π=7: is a circle of diameter X smaller than a square of side length X?

HP is the only one of these to make it through several layers of abstraction before the map fails, and passes 6/9 of its basic tests, as opposed to 3/7 passes for counting failures, 0/mu for daily abilities, and… can I give a negative score to π=7?

What if the ability to map maps to territory (and vice versa) is not limited to a single dimension. Honestly I have an easier time mapping D&D than I do mapping Dread. And that is hilariously backwards.

Curious what you mean here.

It's not a matter of matching the real world, it's a matter of matching fiction and cinema.

I like it.

I guess I'd say, D&D isn't supposed to match reality, it's supposed to match D&D. But yours is better for the general case.

It's hard to say if it's even a disconnect, because for characters who have "special" abilities, it's usually not specified why they're only used relatively infrequently. Like, nothing contradicts that they're 1/day, but nothing implies it either. So it's only a mismatch if you decide on fiction where they're unlimited.

The question, for me, is how difficult it is to write that fiction to be internally consistent (or whether it's even possible to do so).

That's an odd way to split it up,

Not at all! It splits it into two pieces, so it's even, not odd.

The full definition (of this piece) is complicated. We're not there yet.

But… caring about the solution means caring about how much effort it takes to make a character, how much effort it takes to be able to roleplay (if it's even possible in the system).

and a hard one to measure.

Not at all / possibly / yes, depending on your PoV.

The world-building for a cardboard cutout backdrop orc village that the PCs will murderhobo their way through necessary to keep them from noticing anything is wrong is different from the world-building necessary for an island village I teleport a Playgrounder to for a year.

Building off of kyoryu's example I do find HP to be one of those things I have to modify the inputs for to keep the world making sense. Now you could say that icefractal's solution (one of them) is simple fix and is minimal change. But is it? Lore and flavour text is all build around this one assumption and its not handled by the new assumption. So how do you measure that?

Measuring disconnect is also hard, but when someone says "that felt like a huge disconnect" I know roughly what you are talking about. I can't say that for "the code to fix the simulation would be huge and complicated".

The only thing here that's easy for me to grab onto, oddly enough, is the phrase "flavor text". D&D HP damage isn't debilitating. But I sometimes forget this when the GM's flavor text does not match HP reality.

The level of matching (or mismatching) in 4e is on par with that 3.5e and other editions I have played. So, unless you want to defend the VERY unpopular opinion of 3.5e is not a role-playing game I am going to say that would let 4e qualify as well.

4e is the only "not an RPG" of the P&P RPGs I've played. CRPGs are also not RPGs.

Will my definition ever be complete enough to lead inexorably to this conclusion? Honestly, it may well be complete enough already.

Will my writing ever convince you to adopt my definitions? Almost certainly not, sadly. But maybe they'll contain (or force us to develop) tools for having discussions about the nature of role-playing, or otherwise expand our knowledge.

Plus it doesn't strike me as a very useful definition because no one (except you) seems to be able to use it and no one (except you) seems to agree with the things it includes or excludes.

That makes it the most useful definition there is. Because it helps with communication and learning. Which is far more useful than pedestrian "functionality" or "adoption".

And… perhaps inaccurately, but I'll claim most anyone could use my definitions - if, you know, a less senile and more ambitious me could post them. Using them isn't nearly so hard as all the background to understand them in the first place.

I know more people who call 4e an role-playing game - even amongst those who hate it - than not so you need a really strong argument to change my mind on that. I'm not expecting that but I have been surprised before and... I have enough confidence in you that there is probably some grain of wisdom in their even if it isn't entirely correct. Like the tier debate if you remember that.

I vaguely remember several tier debates. Hopefully my growing senility will allow me to merit your continued confidence for some time, and hopefully you'll be brutally honest with me once my senility wins.

"Everyone thinks you're wrong" is a terribly unconvincing argument to use on me. I'm a(n uncharismatic) genius, I'm used to being right and no one else being able to see it. As demonstrably happened on the Playground with the infinite crit fisher (and more subtly with several other things).

Not that I'm always right, of course. Far from it. And I prefer it that way, because, when I'm wrong, I get to learn. But… no one has contended that my basic / fundamental / foundational thought process is wrong, and no one has been able to provide a territory that matches 4e's map. The form of the arguments people have been making actually suggest I'm right, by virtue of what they're attacking (usually, their misunderstandings, my communication, and the "elephant description" map), and what they're supporting (notedly, what's not attempted, including the impossible territory that I explicitly called out as sufficient to disprove my stance on 4e, but also numerous "out of scope" elements). Of course, it better proves that I'm bad at communication than that I'm right, so technically there's still hope I might get to improve myself by continuing this line of conversation.

But, senility willing, I'll keep posting random bits of the poor chopped up elephant, and maybe something will stick out as valuable to you.

I hope that all came out right.

I think so. Certainly clearer than I've been.

On another note, I always wonder if this part of the reason for the emotion (almost anger sometimes) in the role-playing is not storytelling arguments. That and pushback against people going "oh, the systems you like are relics of the past and aren't 'real' role-playing".

I don't think so.

I think it's more, "back in my day, we threw lawn darts off the back of moving trucks at our friends with no helmets on motorcycles, and we loved it! Now people are trying to make our fun extinct (with boldface lies about what RPGs are), and, unlike seatbelt laws, maybe if I yell loudly enough about people trying to make these changes, maybe I can save at least one thing I love".

[Anonymouswizard]

I am not sure 'kitchen sink' is is much of a solution to D&Ds world building issues. Since it ends up with a different kinda samey. At least with the mixing of existing properties and mythology/folklore elements kinda kitchen sink. Your understanding of the term may be broader than mine.

Kitchen sink is fine as long as the person running the game/creating the setting realises that they don't have to put all the contents of the sink into their pot. Literally my first piece of advice to be GMs is 'don't let players pick from the entire class list, get used to how the game find before letting the more niche classes in'. Yes even for 5e, I recommend leaving at least the Wizard and Druid out for first campaigns.

But D&D isn't quite a kitchen sink. By default it changes some elements to specific and relatively unique interpretations, and relived everything that didn't fit a late medieval/early renaissance tech level somewhere along the line. Which isn't bad, as had been said D&D being D&D is enough for many groups.

Plus the folklore can be really, really bad. Why has a fairy women who watches over a family and screams when she foresees their deaths become a ghost who kills by screaming?

[Hytheter]

Unpopular Opinion:
I don't like and am tired of people trying to convince me that DnD is like the anime I like. this is not a shot against DnD. I just see the stylistic differences and the fiction portrayed, and the inspirations behind them as way too different to reconcile.

Out of curiosity, what would you want to see in a game geared for anime-style play?

[Lord Raziere]

Out of curiosity, what would you want to see in a game geared for anime-style play?

I mean...I already have more than a few. there are some already made by actual companies if you know where to look. problem is, I haven't really been able to play any of them yet to see what I like about them. I just hope that one day I'll be able to play Tenra Bansho Zero, or OVA or Shonen Final Burst, or BESM 3e and or 4e, things like that.

[KorvinStarmast]

The point is, D&D doesn't "map" to any specific genre of fantasy media. It has included disparate elements of many things the designers thought were cool from many different sorts of unrelated media. It isn't purely cinematic, it isn't purely literary or mythical or video game, it isn't purely epic fantasy nor picaresque. It is now just D&D. Since the late 80s at least, other things in different forms of media have copied IT, not the other way around.

Recursion, of a sort. (TSR started as a games publishing company, and they decided to publish books too, and a magazine ...)

It's not trying to emulate anything; it simply is. Which is both a pro and a con--

Which upsets indies, apparently, who forget that when TSR started this game in 1974 they were an indie. The big dogs were companies like Parker Brothers and Milton Bradley - in the wargaming niche the big dog was Avalon Hill. (But compared to the other two AH wasn't that big of a company).

That's the meta part--D&D fiction and D&D games don't always see eye to eye; the games are not trying to replicate the fiction, including video games, nor really vice versa.

Andre Norton was already an established Sci Fi writer when she wrote Quag Keep. (And I think I have a copy of that somewhere in the attic, which I bought when it first came out).

Kitchen sink is fine as long as the person running the game/creating the setting realises that they don't have to put all the contents of the sink into their pot. Literally my first piece of advice to be GMs is 'don't let players pick from the entire class list, get used to how the game find before letting the more niche classes in'. Yes even for 5e, I recommend leaving at least the Wizard and Druid out for first campaigns.

Good advice; full prepared casters are higher complexity for a new player, that's for sure.

Plus the folklore can be really, really bad. Why has a fairy women who watches over a family and screams when she foresees their deaths become a ghost who kills by screaming?

Because making the characters fear death is a part of the genre that the game serves.

[Hytheter]

I mean...I already have more than a few. there are some already made by actual companies if you know where to look. problem is, I haven't really been able to play any of them yet to see what I like about them. I just hope that one day I'll be able to play Tenra Bansho Zero, or OVA or Shonen Final Burst, or BESM 3e and or 4e, things like that.

I know that such games exist, but whether they actually hit the right notes and how they do so is another matter.

[Anonymouswizard]

Good advice; full prepared casters are higher complexity for a new player, that's for sure.

It's also easier on the GM if they don't have to be familiar with every class. But yes, I'm annoyed that 5e's spontaneous support caster is the bard, although I suppose you could flip Clerics out of being prepared casters relatively easily.

Although my personal move back into D&D is through Pathfinder 2e, so I'm going to have to do some thinking about the classes I'll allow (Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue are definitely in, Champion likely is as well, the Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard are waiting until I get ahold of the Advanced Players Guide and compare them to the Oracle and Witch).

Because making the characters fear death is a part of the genre that the game serves.

Sure. And there's nothing wrong with the D&D Banshee. I'm unlikely to use one, but I don't actually have an issue with it. It's just a really good example.

Although I am suspicious that the transition happened before D&D, in witch case they can get away with it unless they put something like 'based on British folklore' on the cover. Which last time I checked they don't.

[OldTrees1]

Grrr… 2+2=4, but in base 3 it's 11. So i absolutely hate the fact that I'm ceding that I even need to think about the answer to this question.

There's a reason (OK, other than that I'm a programmer) that I'm talking about it in terms of "code". Because, like code, or math, or logic, it isn't subjective, how it works isn't based on the user.

However, I only know that as Truth intuitively, not as something I've proven. However, the fact that truth tables and basic logic do not function differently based on the user seems strong evidence that I'm not in error

You are a programmer. You can write a bash script. It can run fine on your computer. However if someone on a different operating system tries it, the script could behave differently due to those external factors. For example I have a script in front of me right now that runs in a bash shell but fails in z shell. (Aside: This problem in programming is part of the reason for cloud containers). The environment is an input to the code even if it is not an explicit parameter.

Is a group an input into how well the group's territory matches the system's map if we are measuring if the group stays in roleplaying mode?

Those exact same words, "it works for me but not for you", but with a different meaning, *do* apply to part of the problem. Senility willing, I'll discuss this (perhaps in terms of HP), maybe even in this post.

In fact, I suspect that the two uses of that phrase (and my own communication skills) are why people seem to believe that I'm making an error that I'm not.

The main reason I suspect an error is I see people playing 4E as an RPG. I see people with a territory that matches the map in the environment of their playgroup. However your definition seems to reject those experiences and ignore those environments. I suspect this is because you are requiring their solution to also work for you but I am not requiring their solution to also work for me. I am not them, and thus what disrupts the RPG for me might not disrupt it for them, and vice versa. (See Dread below)

… no. It is none of A-C.

The inability of the user to express with perfect accuracy "the square root of two" or π is irrelevant.

The ability of someone to know that π is not 3.141593627, or anyone to know that π isn't 7, OTOH, is relevant (kind of).

Okay, so if there exists an operating system on which the code matches the psuedocode, within a configured degree of tolerance, then it passes Quertus' test regardless of whether any operating system (playgroup) is aware of the code (territory) that matches the pseudocode (map).

The important part is this clarifies Quertus is not a required component.

Again, that's just your ability to *notice*, and quite irrelevant to my definition.

… is what the Sith Lord would say.

In actuality… yes, that's part of my *actual* definition.

Thankfully it is part of your definition, otherwise I might accidentally convince you RPGs can't exist.

So, not that they're supposed to model reality (as @Bohandas put quite succinctly), but let's look at how well certain things match up with reality:

Noted, the territory does not have to match reality. We can RP in strange realities.

Oh before we continue here is a territory : map patch that will help: Only use the skill resolution mechanic that makes sense for the situation. 4E has multiple skill resolution systems, it is not always a skill challenge. For the purposes of this discussion it is reasonable to assume a skill challenge is only used when it is the best skill resolution system to model that part of the territory. Also skill challenges don't grant free reign to any skill. Only skills that could contribute and make sense to apply as part of a skill challenge would be allowed in the skill challenge.

For example:
The party wants the Duke's hat. Negotiations are a situation where multiple people can contribute but more negotiators is not inherently better. The Bard starts off the negotiation, since they are the best negotiator the group does not want to get in the way. However partway through the negotiations the Wizard realizes clarifying how the magic hat works might be beneficial. However after that they return to letting the Bard handle it. So far the skill challenge is 2 diplomacy checks, a bluff check, and an arcane check. The negotiation is going great. Unfortunately the Barbarian is getting bored. They decide to skip the negotiation and just demand the hat now or else. They make an intimidate check outside of the skill challenge. The Duke calls for their guards and flees out of the room. As they do the Rogue makes a quick check to snatch the hat without the Duke noticing.

However this is nothing new to 4E. 4E understands that skill challenges are not the only type of skill check. So we already have a territory : map match here.

Daily abilities

Yeah. No match found. (With the possible exception of "getting really drunk")

π=7

π=7 is such nonsense that I'll either have a fully operational TARDIS yesterday, or "bigger on the inside" XD space tomorrow.

Daily abilities like Vancian magic can exist in some territories. The ludonarrative is that these abilities have some in fiction limitation to their frequency of use. So you just need a territory with those in fiction limitations. I prefer martials and mages with at-will abilities but the infinite stamina ludonarrative is not as appealing to those that want a finite stamina ludonarrative (ToB or Daily depending on the stamina). Different recharge mechanics fit different territories and players prefer different territories. So the fact we don't like Daily abilities is not relevant. 1/1

π=7? I thought it was π=4. Also I thought it was π=π but circles are not desired nor used. If my opponents all organized on a grid (possibly due to a formation tradition) then I would focus on improving my diagonal reach over my orthogonal reach (especially for effects with longer reach like a blast of fire). 1/1

Curious what you mean here.

Dread uses a jenga tower. Any risky action/choice requires you to pull out a block. The tension of the block being pulled out is the map to the territory of the risky action. However for me those won't map because jenga is not as invisible as dice to me so I don't get the free abstraction. If I had started with Dread instead of D&D then I would probably have the reverse reaction.

You have described this as a threshold of inability to notice the imperfections in the matching of the territory with the map. However I still get to play D&D as an RPG because I can stay in the roleplaying mode.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, & walks like a duck, it is probably a mimic but I can use it as a duck. 4E can be used as an RPG. Not by everyone, just like 3E can't be used by everyone, but we have concrete evidence that people do use it as an RPG.

[KorvinStarmast]

Although I am suspicious that the transition happened before D&D, in witch case they can get away with it unless they put something like 'based on British folklore' on the cover. Which last time I checked they don't.

Before the AD&D 1e MM, which was the first AD&D book to hit the streets, three was something published (Either Gregg Stafford or Steve Jackson Steve Perrin) called "All the World's Monsters" that added a whole bunch of monsters from various folk lores all over the world and put it into a book, and I think made up some of its own. I don't think that my copy survived the various moves that the Navy put me through ... and for some reason I think I saw banshee in there. The AD&D 1e banshee for sure got our attention when she showed up!

OK, Chaosium ends up with 3 volumes. I had only recalled 2.