Unpopular D&D Opinions

[Tanarii]

The reverse is also true with people complaining healing in D&D is too easy with no consequences to injuries. D&D is not made for that type of game, is not wrong for not being that type of game, and does not have to apologize for it. If for whatever reason someone likes D&D except for that and makes rules changes to get it hooray for them have your fun, but don't resent having to do so. If it's a deal breaker you want to take your ball and go home to play NotD&D that's ok too. You don't have to like D&D, but D&D is not doing it wrong.

It's fine if you have a stable of characters, leveling isn't too fast, and the downtime isn't too long, and adventuring sites are easily accessible.

1 hp/day of healing (D&D and 3e) and lingering injuries that last 6d6 days when long wilderness exploration treks are encouraged (Forbidden Lands) means you need quite a large stable of characters to rotate through.

[Witty Username]

I think this healing and permanent injury discussion touches on one of my unpopular opinions: Resurrection magic is good for the game and shouldn't be restricted.
This is because permanent injuries and long term conditions are almost non-existent. What this means is the only danger to use to create tension with the characters is damage, and damage has the awkward problem of periodically resulting in death. Resurrection shunts the problem towards resources, allowing for short-term tension and long term consequences without wiping out a fun character.

In short, for 5e, resurrection is good.

[Telok]

The reverse is also true with people complaining healing in D&D is too easy with no consequences to injuries. D&D is not made for that type of game, is not wrong for not being that type of game, and does not have to apologize for it. If for whatever reason someone likes D&D except for that and makes rules changes to get it hooray for them have your fun, but don't resent having to do so. If it's a deal breaker you want to take your ball and go home to play NotD&D that's ok too. You don't have to like D&D, but D&D is not doing it wrong.

I'd almost agree but D&D still claims to support that game style with the half ass "gritty realism" and longer rest variant rules.

[MoiMagnus]

I'd almost agree but D&D still claims to support that game style with the half ass "gritty realism" and longer rest variant rules.

Naming the long rest variant "gritty realism" was IMO a mistake. This variant is adequate for slow-paced campaigns (like the ones relying on a lot of scheming, politics, years long wars, etc) where combat is still mostly consequence-free, and doesn't really fix the core issues of the system for campaigns that actually want to be gritty and realistic.

[Anonymouswizard]

I think this healing and permanent injury discussion touches on one of my unpopular opinions: Resurrection magic is good for the game and shouldn't be restricted.
This is because permanent injuries and long term conditions are almost non-existent. What this means is the only danger to use to create tension with the characters is damage, and damage has the awkward problem of periodically resulting in death. Resurrection shunts the problem towards resources, allowing for short-term tension and long term consequences without wiping out a fun character.

In short, for 5e, resurrection is good.

Eh, for 5e it's pretty meaningless. The game's set up so there's no major chance of death units your GM does something stupid, like throw enemies only one party member can do meaningful damage to at you.

Plus let's be honest, resurrection only comes online at the point where the game is ending.

There's also a weird consequence. If the party isn't high enough level to cast the spell themselves, or don't have the components with them (possibly due to having used them earlier) then getting your character rezzed actually has a bigger punishment than creating a new character. Because having to sit out of the game is a punishment for dying.

[Xervous]

Meta currency over resurrections most any day (except for revivify effects that bring characters back in the same scene they died). Rampant resurrection is too much of a worldbuilding constraint.

[Tanarii]

Naming the long rest variant "gritty realism" was IMO a mistake. This variant is adequate for slow-paced campaigns (like the ones relying on a lot of scheming, politics, years long wars, etc) where combat is still mostly consequence-free, and doesn't really fix the core issues of the system for campaigns that actually want to be gritty and realistic.

It'll get pretty gritty pretty fast if the adventuring day goes as a normal encounter pace and the players don't do everything they can to avoid combat. Or at least face significantly easier challenges than their capabilities under normal resting.

[BRC]

Naming the long rest variant "gritty realism" was IMO a mistake. This variant is adequate for slow-paced campaigns (like the ones relying on a lot of scheming, politics, years long wars, etc) where combat is still mostly consequence-free, and doesn't really fix the core issues of the system for campaigns that actually want to be gritty and realistic.

I mean, it's "Gritty realism" in that taking HP damage is a much more serious consequence, since recovery takes much longer so you're less likely to have people just taking arrows because they can walk it off after a quick nap.

But it's really only "realistic" in that "PC's want to get hurt even less because recovering is annoying". It doesn't actually fill any of what people want if they say they want "Gritty Realism" in an RPG, unless you're really good at narrating injury and recovery despite an abstracted HP system, which isn't really any points in the system's favor.

[icefractal]

What do people really want out of "Gritty Realism" anyway?

A) To have PCs be wary of combat and try to avoid it? You don't even need rules-changes for this, just a less pro-combat premise. If the PCs are trying to gain political or economic power in a fairly law-abiding city, they might avoid combat entirely for that campaign, for example.

B) To have the PCs die a lot?

C) To have the PCs get maimed repeatedly and eventually be walking around with a ton of scars / missing parts / etc?

D) Something else? And if so, how does it promote this result? (ex: I've seen "it makes the PCs act smarter", which I'd say is more an effect of higher difficulty than of harsher consequences).

[Xervous]

Gritty realism from the start sounded like some Bethesda game Hardcore mod... and it even fell short of that.

[BRC]

What do people really want out of "Gritty Realism" anyway?

A) To have PCs be wary of combat and try to avoid it? You don't even need rules-changes for this, just a less pro-combat premise. If the PCs are trying to gain political or economic power in a fairly law-abiding city, they might avoid combat entirely for that campaign, for example.

B) To have the PCs die a lot?

C) To have the PCs get maimed repeatedly and eventually be walking around with a ton of scars / missing parts / etc?

D) Something else? And if so, how does it promote this result? (ex: I've seen "it makes the PCs act smarter", which I'd say is more an effect of higher difficulty than of harsher consequences).

As somebody who doesn't enjoy gritty realism, I can't really say. My guess is that it's more about the satisfaction of having the "Gritty Realism" label on your game, implying a higher level of challenge and verisimilitude than any actual mechanical changes, but that's pretty disparaging.

I'd say it's about actions having consequences, and combat feeling like actual life-or-death struggles rather than a sport where you hit each other until one side runs out of points, or any of the other regular criticisms leveled at D&D combat.

Regardless, increasing the time of rests doesn't really achieve anything.

[Anonymouswizard]

What do people really want out of "Gritty Realism" anyway?

To me? Theming and motivations as much as reduced rest capabilities. Honestly you don't even need to model long term injuries, just have characters want to avoid combat and a lot of grey morality.

Also Gritty Realism in 5e, interestingly, seems to still be better natural healing than what 3.X got, with hit dice and everything. And with enough money for potions heading becomes a non issue. What it really impacts is spells.

[Luccan]

Naming the long rest variant "gritty realism" was IMO a mistake. This variant is adequate for slow-paced campaigns (like the ones relying on a lot of scheming, politics, years long wars, etc) where combat is still mostly consequence-free, and doesn't really fix the core issues of the system for campaigns that actually want to be gritty and realistic.

If you're going to play using Gritty Realism (and it's a bad name, regardless of the pros and cons of the actual adjustment), I think you should do it to avoid 5-min adventuring days and to make resource management more impactful. If you're playing a game where you might fast forward that extended rest time regularly, I think you lose the benefits of the variant

[Batcathat]

I can see the appeal of gritty realism, but aiming for it with D&D seems like an odd choice. It'd be like playing a superhero game in D&D, it can be done – maybe it can even be done well – but why bother when there are more suitable options?

[Mordar]

The reverse is also true with people complaining healing in D&D is too easy with no consequences to injuries. D&D is not made for that type of game, is not wrong for not being that type of game, and does not have to apologize for it. If for whatever reason someone likes D&D except for that and makes rules changes to get it hooray for them have your fun, but don't resent having to do so. If it's a deal breaker you want to take your ball and go home to play NotD&D that's ok too. You don't have to like D&D, but D&D is not doing it wrong.

I would argue that the addition of the word "modern" or "current" in from of your first "D&D" improves the point. I remember a much more dangerous version of (A)D&D...and it was certainly made to be that way. Over time it has taken on more of an insta-heal feel, perhaps one of the more jarring changes for some players from days past.

I'd almost agree but D&D still claims to support that game style with the half ass "gritty realism" and longer rest variant rules.

...and I wonder if this is because of those players from the beforetime, or the NotD&D games that developed both back then and recur sporadically. Maybe trying to be something it isn't to attract people who don't really want you anyway?

What do people really want out of "Gritty Realism" anyway?

A) To have PCs be wary of combat and try to avoid it? You don't even need rules-changes for this, just a less pro-combat premise. If the PCs are trying to gain political or economic power in a fairly law-abiding city, they might avoid combat entirely for that campaign, for example.

B) To have the PCs die a lot?

C) To have the PCs get maimed repeatedly and eventually be walking around with a ton of scars / missing parts / etc?

D) Something else? And if so, how does it promote this result? (ex: I've seen "it makes the PCs act smarter", which I'd say is more an effect of higher difficulty than of harsher consequences).

Maybe A & D? With some fear of B thrown in? In my mind "A" isn't solved by the premise alone, but I see where you are going (applying consequences beyond the actual combat). That may fit too small a fraction of games...and not all of the games that could benefit from "scary combat". [Hey, maybe that's a better term for what I want than Gritty Realism.]

One of my favorite other games is Call of C'thulhu. Done right, it is very enjoyably tense. You fear outcomes of dice rolls, you protect your character as best you can while still trying to save the world, and frequently worry about the outcome because it is truly in doubt. Insta-heal countered only by Save-or-Die effects? No tension or fear. Coming into it with the Paranoia mindset (play it for the yuks because every character dies or goes insane in the first hour)? No tension or fear.

So if you want a game that has tension and fear, but want D&D rules/monsters/ease of access, what can you do? Well, one way they solved that was to port characters beyond the mists into Ravenloft. Other than that, get some buy-in from the players and hack some rules.

I can see the appeal of gritty realism, but aiming for it with D&D seems like an odd choice. It'd be like playing a superhero game in D&D, it can be done – maybe it can even be done well – but why bother when there are more suitable options?

Maybe because sometimes you want to play street-level superheroes and not cosmic entities. Superman isn't a higher-level Green Arrow...but perhaps both can live in the same universe.

See also: ease of access. Lots of people familiar with D&D. Lots less familiar with Champions/M&M, Marvel FASERIP, etc.

- M

[Telok]

Gritty realism from the start sounded like some Bethesda game Hardcore mod... and it even fell short of that.

Dude, tone down the burn! Global warming is bad enough already. [/humor]

[Batcathat]

Maybe because sometimes you want to play street-level superheroes and not cosmic entities. Superman isn't a higher-level Green Arrow...but perhaps both can live in the same universe.

See also: ease of access. Lots of people familiar with D&D. Lots less familiar with Champions/M&M, Marvel FASERIP, etc.

I'm not sure what your first point is. I don't think D&D is the best choice for Superman or Green Arrow. Again, I'm not saying it can't be done, but I don't think it's a good fit for any level of superhero.

I suppose there's some merit to the second argument, though I don't really see it being benefit enough to be worth the trouble. Learning a new system isn't that hard most of the time and if I have to choose between pushing a triangle piece into a square hole or learning how square pieces work...

[Mordar]

I can see the appeal of gritty realism, but aiming for it with D&D seems like an odd choice. It'd be like playing a superhero game in D&D, it can be done – maybe it can even be done well – but why bother when there are more suitable options?

I'm not sure what your first point is. I don't think D&D is the best choice for Superman or Green Arrow. Again, I'm not saying it can't be done, but I don't think it's a good fit for any level of superhero.

I suppose there's some merit to the second argument, though I don't really see it being benefit enough to be worth the trouble. Learning a new system isn't that hard most of the time and if I have to choose between pushing a triangle piece into a square hole or learning how triangle pieces work...

Ah, I understand the disconnect. I have frequently seen (including in this thread) people stating the opinion that D&D *is* a superhero game. Not a four-color, spandex tights kind of superhero game, but a game in which all of the characters have "powers" that exceed anything mere mortals can achieve. So when I saw your comment, I took it in that vein. The point of the Green Arrow/Superman comparison was to suggest we could have a game/campaign where the characters never achieve near-godlike power and, using the same system, one in which they do using references that show the scale only. Limiting the level range, limiting classes, limiting spells...all could achieve that goal in 3e D&D.

As far as using the system to actually do spandex-clad supers? Yeah...no.

I had the fortune to come to RPGs in an era where there were a lot of game companies making a lot of games in very different systems, and lots of people in the (small) player pool played a lot of different systems without complaint. Many of us saw it as a benefit - playing games in their "native" systems allowed us to better "feel" the designers intent. A system made for horror feels different than one made for 4-color heroes feels different than one made for the space navy...and even if the cro magnons of the role playing game development world didn't have all the game design theory and ability to objectively rate their systems, they often tailored their rules to the spirit and feel of their genre. As such, I agree with you 100%. Sadly, it seems we might be in the minority, and that's this idea was the first Unpopular Opinion I posted in the thread.

- M

[BRC]

Ah, I understand the disconnect. I have frequently seen (including in this thread) people stating the opinion that D&D *is* a superhero game. Not a four-color, spandex tights kind of superhero game, but a game in which all of the characters have "powers" that exceed anything mere mortals can achieve. So when I saw your comment, I took it in that vein. The point of the Green Arrow/Superman comparison was to suggest we could have a game/campaign where the characters never achieve near-godlike power and, using the same system, one in which they do using references that show the scale only. Limiting the level range, limiting classes, limiting spells...all could achieve that goal in 3e D&D.

As far as using the system to actually do spandex-clad supers? Yeah...no.

I had the fortune to come to RPGs in an era where there were a lot of game companies making a lot of games in very different systems, and lots of people in the (small) player pool played a lot of different systems without complaint. Many of us saw it as a benefit - playing games in their "native" systems allowed us to better "feel" the designers intent. A system made for horror feels different than one made for 4-color heroes feels different than one made for the space navy...and even if the cro magnons of the role playing game development world didn't have all the game design theory and ability to objectively rate their systems, they often tailored their rules to the spirit and feel of their genre. As such, I agree with you 100%. Sadly, it seems we might be in the minority, and that's this idea was the first Unpopular Opinion I posted in the thread.

- M

I'm no expert, I wasn't there in the early days of D&D, but I'm kind of curious how much this has to do with the expected method of engagement with an RPG as regards long form campaigns vs a more episodic approach.

My understanding is that in the early days, D&D was generally built around a much shorter format than we're used to. You would go through an "Adventure' that would be roughly 1-3 sessions, based largely around delving some dungeon or other location. Then when that was done, you might start another with the same characters (Plus any treasures or level ups). But the focus was a lot more episodic, the idea of spending a year or more on a single "Campaign" with an overarching goal, going from level 1 to 20 as a single cohesive story wasn't really the expectation. You played through a series of discrete adventures. Once you escape from the Castle of the Frost King or whatever, that story was ended. If you started up a new Adventure, it was a different story, just starring characters who happened to have stormed the Frost King's Castle.

If I'm right, I wonder if that approach was more conducive to players getting familiar with a wider variety of discrete systems. Once you wrapped up the module or adventure or whatever, you might as well go take a turn in Call of Cthulu or HERO or whatever until you felt like playing D&D again without feeling like you were pausing a movie in the middle to go watch a different movie. Similarly, since campaigns were not expected to last so long, bouncing between systems became a much lower investment prospect. You'd only be expecting to play for a few sessions until the story wrapped up, and then you could decide if you wanted to keep going, not necessarily signing up for a whole new hobby.

[Tanarii]

If you're going to play using Gritty Realism (and it's a bad name, regardless of the pros and cons of the actual adjustment), I think you should do it to avoid 5-min adventuring days and to make resource management more impactful. If you're playing a game where you might fast forward that extended rest time regularly, I think you lose the benefits of the variant

A common use of the variant is when you expect the normal "adventuring day" of encounters spaced out over several days to a week, followed by a longer rest in town. In other words, it's for in-universe time pacing reasons, not to actually make things any more gritty.

[Anonymouswizard]

I suppose there's some merit to the second argument, though I don't really see it being benefit enough to be worth the trouble. Learning a new system isn't that hard most of the time and if I have to choose between pushing a triangle piece into a square hole or learning how square pieces work...

It's pretty well known that the jump to the second system is the hardest. After that most people understand that picking up a new system isn't that hard and are willing to give something else a shot. But it's that first move, getting people to pay Those Dark Places or Paleomythic instead of D&D, that people are resistant to.

And honestly, now we're back into 'D&Dify everything' it might be even harder. Which is a shame, as I've really got into the Osprey RPGs recently and likely won't get the chance to run them. Witch is a shame, as several of them feel designed around the fact that most of the group might not own the book (unlike D&D's Simpson that everybody does, which in my experience has never been true).

[dafrca]

My understanding is that in the early days, D&D was generally built around a much shorter format than we're used to. You would go through an "Adventure' that would be roughly 1-3 sessions, based largely around delving some dungeon or other location. Then when that was done, you might start another with the same characters (Plus any treasures or level ups). But the focus was a lot more episodic, the idea of spending a year or more on a single "Campaign" with an overarching goal, going from level 1 to 20 as a single cohesive story wasn't really the expectation. You played through a series of discrete adventures. Once you escape from the Castle of the Frost King or whatever, that story was ended. If you started up a new Adventure, it was a different story, just starring characters who happened to have stormed the Frost King's Castle.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I started to play back in the late 70's and early 80's this was for sure the case. We often had several characters and would switch back and forth as each "adventure" came to an end. Mixed and matched parties, sometimes with different levels with in reason, and play another adventure.

I do remember when the idea of year long games with the same character first started to become more and more the norm. I remember the first time I ran into a group with generational characters. Retire one and the "kids" of those characters would take up the adventuring mantel.

The first time I realized what Paizo was trying to do with their Adventure Path line was like the next stage in the shift. Six books intended to each take a month and when played from start to finish would take your character from level 1 to level 20 or close to it. Start over and repeat with the next path.


I am not against or for any of these styles, just was interesting to watch the shift over the years.

[Cluedrew]

What do *you* think a scientist would measure were they to try to categorize "role-playing games" from "not role-playing games"? Or to try to measure how "role-playing gamey" something was?

You know what, I've been thinking this a bit more and might have a better answer. I stand by I don't think they would for its own sake, so then it would come down to why they want to examine that. So why would we want to pin it down (if not for fun) then why would we need a definition? Best I got is, if you enjoy one role-playing game you want to know that that role-playing gameyness transfers to other systems so you are more likely to like those. (I ended up just running with that one, but there might be others.)

Which actually be why the distinction between role-playing games and story-telling games has always confused me. Because the core appeal that brings me to role-playing games is also present (to some degree) in story-telling games so there is no drastic shift for me. But for some people its a big deal and... well I don't know how to objectively measure it so I can't say what the actual difference is. On the other hand, you might enjoy 3.5e for its complex and detailed character creation mini-game and in that case you might not enjoy Lady Blackbird where all characters are premade. And both of those are widely considered role-playing games (if you know Lady Blackbird exists) so the character creation thing doesn't seem like a fundamental property. Or maybe it is an RPGish quality and on a different system it could make the difference between a game being a role-playing game or not.

Its not quite there, maybe it will need a third post to flush it out. But hopefully that at least isn't avoiding your question.

What do people really want out of "Gritty Realism" anyway?

I don't actually know what other people want but I think of gritty realism I think of dealing with the little problems. Like the "grit" (dirt/mud) itself, cleaning and maintaining your gear. I suppose it might relate to slow healing in that you have to deal with your injuries more? I like a bit of this because - if done well - in helps ground the world and characters into feeling real as opposed to feeling like just something just being projected onto the world, like a computer game so something.

However, I'm not sure how close this is to how most people use it.

[Pex]

There are encounters where it's obvious not supposed to be a combat. When the adult red dragon lands in front of the 3rd level party he wants to talk and you will listen. There are encounters where it could have been a combat, but the players decide otherwise. They tried talking first, and it worked. They choose not to encounter the potential hostiles they noticed in the distance by hiding, moving in a different direction, or waiting until they move along in what ever direction they were heading that was not towards the party. All hunky dory well and good. However, if the intent of your D&D campaign is to have little combat as possible, using gritty realism as a means to enforce it, to make players not want to engage in combat, D&D is not the proper game system for that campaign. I love those all roleplaying game sessions where barely a die is rolled players talking to NPCs, to each other, enjoying the festival or whatever. They're fun to play in pretend and great stress relievers. However, not every session. There will be combat. There will be encounters meant to be combat. It is an integral part of the game. It is its own fun as part of playing D&D. Players are supposed to use their stuff and get it back. As much as people complain about warrior classes having little to no out of combat stuff, people who play the warrior classes want the combat. If you want a combat light campaign it's not fair to blame the warrior classes, meant for combat, for being "useless". Other game systems are more suitable for your preference.

[Mordar]

I'm no expert, I wasn't there in the early days of D&D, but I'm kind of curious how much this has to do with the expected method of engagement with an RPG as regards long form campaigns vs a more episodic approach.

My understanding is that in the early days, D&D was generally built around a much shorter format than we're used to. You would go through an "Adventure' that would be roughly 1-3 sessions, based largely around delving some dungeon or other location. Then when that was done, you might start another with the same characters (Plus any treasures or level ups). But the focus was a lot more episodic, the idea of spending a year or more on a single "Campaign" with an overarching goal, going from level 1 to 20 as a single cohesive story wasn't really the expectation. You played through a series of discrete adventures. Once you escape from the Castle of the Frost King or whatever, that story was ended. If you started up a new Adventure, it was a different story, just starring characters who happened to have stormed the Frost King's Castle.

If I'm right, I wonder if that approach was more conducive to players getting familiar with a wider variety of discrete systems. Once you wrapped up the module or adventure or whatever, you might as well go take a turn in Call of Cthulu or HERO or whatever until you felt like playing D&D again without feeling like you were pausing a movie in the middle to go watch a different movie. Similarly, since campaigns were not expected to last so long, bouncing between systems became a much lower investment prospect. You'd only be expecting to play for a few sessions until the story wrapped up, and then you could decide if you wanted to keep going, not necessarily signing up for a whole new hobby.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I started to play back in the late 70's and early 80's this was for sure the case. We often had several characters and would switch back and forth as each "adventure" came to an end. Mixed and matched parties, sometimes with different levels with in reason, and play another adventure.

I do remember when the idea of year long games with the same character first started to become more and more the norm. I remember the first time I ran into a group with generational characters. Retire one and the "kids" of those characters would take up the adventuring mantel.

The first time I realized what Paizo was trying to do with their Adventure Path line was like the next stage in the shift. Six books intended to each take a month and when played from start to finish would take your character from level 1 to level 20 or close to it. Start over and repeat with the next path.

I think this is fair to a certain degree...and to a high degree if we just keep with the spirit of your point. We wouldn't retire characters so much as "change channels" for a couple weeks. Our AD&D party played out a scenario...than went to Star Frontiers. Finish that job, and bounce to Call of C'thulhu. Once that story finished, back to our AD&D characters. It was often two different games a week in the summer as well, weaving in and out of the different games.

It wasn't until we all hit college - we were all within 4 year age range - and when the younger 2 of us hit college we dropped most of the games and just played RoleMaster.

Before that, though...we didn't know we were supposed to be concerned about different systems. All of our board games had different systems. We (almost) all played multiple sports as well. None of our recreation has a unified system, so it just made sense RPGs wouldn't either.

- M

[Quertus]

Have I given my unpopular D&D opinions yet that 2e was the height of D&D for fun; 3e was where fun began to decline as it took second place to "balance". 3e was the height of D&D for rules, balance, the build minigame, and winning or losing the game during the build minigame.

Second best. After Temple of Elemental Evil

In addition to being great, the gold box series had an editor (albeit a bad one), so you could roll your own.

My brother complained that ToEE let him choose polearms specialization, and let him craft magical weapons… then never gave him the opportunity to find or buy any magical or even masterwork polearms.

So… what about ToEE makes you feel that it can compete with gold box for the title of #1?

So, if you asked a random person (who understands the question) "Is system X a role-playing game" and you get a consistent answer, then that answer is right because that is actually how language works.

Turns out, if you say it enough times, maybe eventually I'll get what you mean.

And, being me, I'll disagree.

That is, it doesn't matter to me how many people call a sponge or coral a plant, or a spider an insect, they're still wrong. So long as "plant" and "animal" , "insect" and "arachnoid", continue to hold their RAI meaning.

So, if "role-playing game" is anything other than a meaningless label, if it actually holds meaning, then people can be right or wrong in labeling something an RPG.

And I hold that people are dead wrong in calling things CRPGs. And a little less so for that other thing.

Do they? At the very least that isn't the majority of chess players. Or even a significant minority of them. Or a significant minority role-players for that matter. Not that I disagree, at most you could say "chess could be used as a role-playing game" and I'm not sure that is true either.

Funny thing, the vast majority of people I've played Chess with recently do attempt role-playing with the pieces.

Another funny thing, they're among the closest "apples to apples" comparison, age wise, to the war gamers who didn't roleplay in RPGs.

From this limited data, I could infer the hypothesis that Chess is more suited to role-playing for that age group than many RPGs are.

Actually… this might not be a completely unreasonable (if very unpopular) opinion, that Chess is more suitable for role-playing than D&D, under certain conditions.

I'll have to give this more thought.

[KorvinStarmast]

My understanding is that in the early days, D&D was generally built around a much shorter format than we're used to. You would go through an "Adventure' that would be roughly 1-3 sessions, based largely around delving some dungeon or other location. Then when that was done, you might start another with the same characters (Plus any treasures or level ups). But the focus was a lot more episodic, the idea of spending a year or more on a single "Campaign" with an overarching goal, going from level 1 to 20 as a single cohesive story wasn't really the expectation. You played through a series of discrete adventures. Once you escape from the Castle of the Frost King or whatever, that story was ended. If you started up a new Adventure, it was a different story, just starring characters who happened to have stormed the Frost King's Castle.

Most campaigns 'grew in the telling' as the characters who survived began to become more noteworthy. DM's would then come up with new stuff or have an idea, and then some new adventures/threats would arise.
A lot of us didn't have/use modules then; DM workload was heavy, and very few DM's were interested in trying to frame a narrative arc.
The narrative arc was the result of what had happened during play. All that the DM's did was present different or new threats/treasures/quests to the players. The campaigns varied in texture, though, by a lot. There was no standardization and home brew was the norm, not the exception.

[Anonymouswizard]

Bah, some of us newbies still don't use modules!

But yeah, from what I can tell even after drop in games stopped being the standard assumed way old D&D still mostly assumed that each adventure was independent. I remember reading the 2e DMG for the first time, and having started in the 2000s I surprised that the book talked about bringing characters from another group as if it was a totally normal thing. My experience was that even if you brought the character they'd still be rebuilt to fit in with the new game (which the book suggests, but only in terms of removing overpowered items or abilities).

So even though I'm one of those GMs who has traditionally done the heavy lifting (although I'm considering using an AP for my first Pathfinder 2e game), there are other elements to how D&D assumed it would be run that just don't fit with how I've seen RPGs posted venue.

[Tanarii]

Running and playing in official play gives you a lot of that feeling. Running your own home brew open table does a little, although I didn't allow characters from other campaigns. It does take a lot of work to set up though.

I used the Alexandrian as a heavy inspiration. Recently I was re-digging through his older stuff, and found out where his inspiration had come from: remembering the way he used to play in school: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress...our-game-table

I never played that way myself. I started in the 80s and it was considered far too nerdy, not enough people were willing to play. Instead all the pick-up games during breaks were Hearts.

[LibraryOgre]

Second best. After Temple of Elemental Evil

Wasn't that more or less unplayable without mods?

To say nothing of the gap in reasonable encounters between the Moathouse and going to Nulb?