Unpopular D&D Opinions

[Pex]

There's nothing wrong with height, but at some point it's better to just automate that part and focus character customisation on meaningful choices. I like that combat numbers in Pathfinder 2e are almost completely automatic, you just have to make sure your primary stat is up to date and that your hiring your maximum Dex+Armour bonus to AC (of course it also has feat chain issues).

But even in 5e D&D scaling is similar to going from a baseline mortal to a high level Celestial Exalted. And honestly there are fastasy series that gets to similar levels of power even outside of anime. I'd be interested in a version of D&D where you began with the numbers of a 10th-20th level characters and filled out your Feats and Skills and the like as you went along.

People don't mind playing one-shots at high level, but for some reason couldn't/wouldn't start a campaign at that level. It must be first level. That's the beginning. Some are willing to start at 3rd to play the "true" character they want already and/or don't want the warrior to drop because the orc got a lucky crit on the first attack of the combat. I do play in a campaign that started at 6th level, but it is out of the norm. Power level might be a factor, but I think even if unconsciously people really enjoy the process of leveling. Level by level they're getting more power, getting new stuff. They can see it. They can feel it. Getting stuff piece by piece is more fun than having everything already. As Spock said once, "It is not logical, but it is often true."

... assuming you play to Tier 4, or even Tier 3.

Wotc character advancement is too fast. 1 year to go from level 1 to level 20, with even just once a week games. That, and the PHB containing 20 level progression, fosters the expectation that going from minor local hero to effectively demigod is the norm for D&D.

Milestone leveling can slow things down. There are also DMs who are stingy with XP. I play with one, ironically the one where we started at 6th level. I'm not a fan of being stingy, but it doesn't by itself tick off my tyrannical DM button. I would recommend DMs who prefer stingy XP to use milestone leveling instead. It removes the sting of the stingy players might feel because there's no low number to complain about. "We fought that monster, and this is all we get?"

[Cluedrew]

To NichG: I think in a more thread more focused on homebrew there is something to dig into in your post. But for now, I think I'll just say I generally agree, I don't have the energy for another surprise deep dive right now.

Speaking of new threads, this one seems close to the limit. Anybody got a suggestion for the "Mark 2" thread title?

We do have 17 pages left. We could go for Unpopularer D&D Opinions. I'm not suggesting the grammatically correct More Unpopular D&D Opinions.

Worse, my actual definition doesn't actually care so much about either those. Say what?!
[...]
Like I said, it's bloody complicated, which is why I decided I was too lazy to make a thread actually detailing the recipe.

So what you mean to say is the reason we haven't been making any progress because you haven't stated your actual position. I recommend we close this subtopic until you do.

[Tanarii]

Milestone leveling can slow things down. There are also DMs who are stingy with XP. I play with one, ironically the one where we started at 6th level. I'm not a fan of being stingy, but it doesn't by itself tick off my tyrannical DM button. I would recommend DMs who prefer stingy XP to use milestone leveling instead. It removes the sting of the stingy players might feel because there's no low number to complain about. "We fought that monster, and this is all we get?"

I'm used to players that play several times per week. Seeing them hit level 11 a couple of months of real world time may be skewing my judgement.

Regardless, the sacred cow of level 1-20 being in the PHB since AD&D 2e (with 1e having inconsistent charts but including high levels too) definitely skews expectations and perception. I was a huge fan of the BECMI model, and feel that D&D would be helped by bringing something similar back.

[Pex]

I'm used to players that play several times per week. Seeing them hit level 11 a couple of months of real world time may be skewing my judgement.

Regardless, the sacred cow of level 1-20 being in the PHB since AD&D 2e (with 1e having inconsistent charts but including high levels too) definitely skews expectations and perception. I was a huge fan of the BECMI model, and feel that D&D would be helped by bringing something similar back.

Various posters in the various threads have mentioned wanting D&D to lessen the number of levels, but I don't want this level 10 to be the new 20, i.e. a level never reached. If the game stops at 10 I want all games to stop at 10. In addition, I don't want to lose the high power of the lost levels. My genie warlock game the DM said straight up the campaign will end at level 14 or 15. Ok, fine, I'll never cast Wish, but I definitely want that Limited Wish by the campaign end. I'm looking forward to that capstone. Therefore, in this hypothetical new levels 1 to 10, I'd want as a spellcaster at levels 9 and 10 to be casting Holy Aura, Shapechange, Wish, Forcecage, etc. As a Fighter I want to be attacking 4 times. I want my Greater Steed as a Paladin. Level three is the new level 5. Level 5 is the new level 10. I like and want the high level stuff, but I'm fine if that means I see level 7 on my character sheet and not level 17.

[Tanarii]

Or level 11-20 could just be in a high level splat supplement (Epic levels) or PHB2.

Like I said, I take my cue from BECMI. Basic 1-3, Advanced 4-14, Epic 15-25 sounds good to me.

[HidesHisEyes]

. I like and want the high level stuff, but I'm fine if that means I see level 7 on my character sheet and not level 17.

Agreed. The next edition should only go up to level 10, but level 10 is equivalent in power to level 20.

Or level 11-20 could just be in a high level splat supplement (Epic levels) or PHB2.

Maybe. I feel like the majority of players then would immediately just think “oh well we have to get that epic levels supplement obviously”. Like how multi-classing, feats and Dragonborn are technically special options and not the normal way of playing, according to the PHB, but they are the normal way of playing for most groups. And in this case it might also cause some resentment because people would have to pay extra for it.

[Tanarii]

Agreed. The next edition should only go up to level 10, but level 10 is equivalent in power to level 20.

That'd just exacerbate the minor hero to demigod problem.

[MoiMagnus]

That'd just exacerbate the minor hero to demigod problem.

Yep.
At the end of the day, you can only pick two of the following:
(1) the story starts with minor heroes, or even regular nobodies.
(2) the story ends with powerful or even godlike heroes, and this state is reachable after a reasonably short amount of time (so that most campaign actually reach it).
(3) the "level up" process is somewhat realistic, smooth and slow paced.

And different peoples will value (2) over (3) or (3) over (2).

[HidesHisEyes]

That'd just exacerbate the minor hero to demigod problem.

I don’t know if I consider it a problem though. I think it’s a feature of D&D. The problem is how long it takes in real life to do that arc.

[MoiMagnus]

Thinking more about it, I wonder how well a "double progression" system would work without being too complex.

By "double progression" I mean the following:

(1) You gain experience and/or gold, which is used to obtain feats and/or magic items to very slightly increase your raw power, but mostly increase your flexibility (and add new domains of specialisation). Most secondary class features (like number of spell known) are reworked into feats and/or magic items, possibly exclusive to those classes.

(2) At milestones, you level up, granting you some significant increase in raw power, and major class features.

=> "How many XP/gold per milestone" can vary from campaign to campaign, allowing for fast paced rise to power (where the characters end up being "high level" but with low number of items and feats, keeping them simple to play) or slow paced progression (where the character slowly build an extensive toolbox to solve any problem they might encounter).

[Anonymouswizard]

Agreed. The next edition should only go up to level 10, but level 10 is equivalent in power to level 20.

To be fair 13th Age did it. It's just a matter of making sure you have a number progression worked out and then putting the 'epic' threats at the top of it.

That'd just exacerbate the minor hero to demigod problem.

You call it a problem, others call it a feature. Honestly I'm fine with it as long as there's significant downtime and travel time, so that it does take in universe years to get there.

But I remember seeing an advert for an RPG cakes Torchbearer out something in a comic or magazine in the noughties. I actually used the fact that it did that in a few sessions instead of several months as a selling point. So there's clearly at least a perceived market for going even more extreme than D&Dv does.

[icefractal]

Opinions (unpopular? maybe) on that -
1) There are rather few games that can do zero-to-hero-to-demigod, meanwhile you can't throw a stick without hitting multiple games that basically stay at the same level of power, or at least a much smaller range.
2) Therefore I wish people would stop trying to make D&D into one of them - it's like if there were 100 pizza places and only one BBQ place in town, and people kept talking about "Why doesn't that BBQ place try serving pizza? I don't even like BBQ."
3) 5E moves in that direction (flattening the power curve considerably) and that annoys me.
4) It annoys me because the common saying about that is wrong: "It's not like WotC will come take your old books away!" Yes, but there are fewer and fewer players for 3.x (even PF1, now) every year. Trends in TTRPG design aren't something that most people can ignore.
5) And regarding speed - a group that plays the same campaign every week or more for a year is pretty uncommon, IME. Most groups I've been in have had one or more of multiple rotating games, shorter campaign lifespans, or less frequent sessions. So I've seldom seen a game go from 1st-20th or even 3rd-17th. Leveling may be too fast IC, but it's never been too fast OOC.

[Cluedrew]

2) Therefore I wish people would stop trying to make D&D into one of them - it's like if there were 100 pizza places and only one BBQ place in town, and people kept talking about "Why doesn't that BBQ place try serving pizza? I don't even like BBQ."

Considering how overwhelmingly popular D&D is though it often feels like "but there are a 100 pizza places, two dozen burger joints, all sorts of traditional foods and even a couple of super-vegan eco-food places. Why do we have to keep going to this one BBQ place." Which of course is going to make people wish they could get some pizza at the BBQ place.

D&D is in such a strange place which brings a lot of weird issues.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm used to players that play several times per week. Seeing them hit level 11 a couple of months of real world time may be skewing my judgement.

Yes. Once a week is more common. (If you are fortunate).

I was a huge fan of the BECMI model, and feel that D&D would be helped by bringing something similar back.

Somewhere between levels 13 and 15 the games changes a lot, in my limited experience with high level play.

Or level 11-20 could just be in a high level splat supplement (Epic levels) or PHB2.

Or, a dedicated chapter of the DMG on how to design level 16-20 adventures.

Like I said, I take my cue from BECMI. Basic 1-3, Advanced 4-14, Epic 15-25 sounds good to me.

I'd keep the cap at 20. Beyond that the epic boons thing in the DMG is a good idea. Level 15 to 20 play in a coherent campaign requires, IME, player investment in the game world.

Agreed. The next edition should only go up to level 10, but level 10 is equivalent in power to level 20.

That would not address the problem (13th Age did that, but as I never got to play that beyond the beginning before the game died to RL reasons, I can't otherwise comment).

That'd just exacerbate the minor hero to demigod problem.

Yes, but milestone leveling might mitigate that somewhat. What I'd suggest is, session rhythm wise, one session at level 1, two or three sessions at level 2, three or four sessions at level 5, and then 4 sessions per level after that.
We were doing the XP grind in my Saltmarsh game and given how rarely everyone showed up, and how short the sessions have become (I am lucky to get two hours of play out of one any more, what with peoples' real life schedules and such). In our curse of strahd game, we just had another player drop out (at level 3, nearing 4). His reason was: "Have not played 5e in a while, didn't realize that I didn't like 5e" and yet he built a deliberately gimped character. Variables like that also figure into group cohesion.

1) There are rather few games that can do zero-to-hero-to-demigod, meanwhile you can't throw a stick without hitting multiple games that basically stay at the same level of power, or at least a much smaller range.

Good point.

2) Therefore I wish people would stop trying to make D&D into one of them - it's like if there were 100 pizza places and only one BBQ place in town, and people kept talking about "Why doesn't that BBQ place try serving pizza? I don't even like BBQ."

The DM can stop the campaign when it gets too unwieldy. There is no rule that says a campaign has to go to 20. (Some legendary items, and for sure artifacts, really skew things into PCs being powers within the world. (Staff of the Arch Magi is but one of them).

3) 5E moves in that direction (flattening the power curve considerably) and that annoys me.

?? How much Tier 4 5e have you played.

Trends in TTRPG design aren't something that most people can ignore.

Really? I ignored RPGs entirely for over a decade.

5) And regarding speed - a group that plays the same campaign every week or more for a year is pretty uncommon, IME.

Yep. RL scheduling is a bear. Most groups I've been in have had one or more of multiple rotating games, shorter campaign lifespans, or less frequent sessions.

So I've seldom seen a game go from 1st-20th or even 3rd-17th. Leveling may be too fast IC, but it's never been too fast OOC.

Or giants campaign went from 1 to 15, though there was a 16th level PC (13 swashbuckler 3 Lock) when the campaign went dormant. (And there we were, about to take out the fire giant king ...)

We are at year two in my brother's campaign. Just got the part leader to 10. Most of the rest are at 9. But we can't run every week, and I run adventures in the same world with a different group (same players) when my brother can't prep or gets a little burned out on DMing. That group just hit level 8, and that is in part due to me running published adventures with my own tweaks thrown in, and me leaning into the daily XP budget when I can to stress party resources. Doing that also increases the XP accumulation rate.

Our third DM is back in player mode, and while I hope he DMs again, he's got a new job and the kids are elementary school aged, so I suspect his DMing time isn't going to manifest.

[HidesHisEyes]

Opinions (unpopular? maybe) on that -
1) There are rather few games that can do zero-to-hero-to-demigod, meanwhile you can't throw a stick without hitting multiple games that basically stay at the same level of power, or at least a much smaller range.
2) Therefore I wish people would stop trying to make D&D into one of them - it's like if there were 100 pizza places and only one BBQ place in town, and people kept talking about "Why doesn't that BBQ place try serving pizza? I don't even like BBQ."
3) 5E moves in that direction (flattening the power curve considerably) and that annoys me.
4) It annoys me because the common saying about that is wrong: "It's not like WotC will come take your old books away!" Yes, but there are fewer and fewer players for 3.x (even PF1, now) every year. Trends in TTRPG design aren't something that most people can ignore.
5) And regarding speed - a group that plays the same campaign every week or more for a year is pretty uncommon, IME. Most groups I've been in have had one or more of multiple rotating games, shorter campaign lifespans, or less frequent sessions. So I've seldom seen a game go from 1st-20th or even 3rd-17th. Leveling may be too fast IC, but it's never been too fast OOC.

True and totally fair. I think there’s a contingent of people who know they want gritty, low-power adventuring, and know that D&D doesn’t cater to this anymore, and are annoyed about it, but don’t want to play a different game. I completely get the preference for low power, but I don’t get the insistence that that preference MUST be catered to forever by the biggest, most popular RPG.

I also don’t think 5E limits the power level that much tbh. You can die easily at low levels sure, and the numbers are generally lower, but that’s just a nuts and bolts thing about how the game works. Characters still become superheroes.

Considering how overwhelmingly popular D&D is though it often feels like "but there are a 100 pizza places, two dozen burger joints, all sorts of traditional foods and even a couple of super-vegan eco-food places. Why do we have to keep going to this one BBQ place." Which of course is going to make people wish they could get some pizza at the BBQ place.

D&D is in such a strange place which brings a lot of weird issues.

Very true. To stretch the analogy almost to breaking point, I think what people like about pizza is it’s very customisable. You can choose exactly what toppings you want, thin crust, deep pan, stuffed crust etc, but the basic form of the food is always the same and that gives a nice comfortable familiarity.

What really irks me is when people want pizza, but they want the pizza to be a Thai curry, but also they still want it to be pizza.

[KorvinStarmast]

I also don’t think 5E limits the power level that much tbh. You can die easily at low levels sure, and the numbers are generally lower, but that’s just a nuts and bolts thing about how the game works. Characters still become superheroes.

Our bladelock has died twice during combat in Tier 3. Lucky for him, our paladin has revivify. (My bard has been dropped to 0 HP with some regularity, but she's not yet died).

What really irks me is when people want pizza, but they want the pizza to be a Thai curry, but also they still want it to be pizza.

I concur, but I am also enough of a grognard, as regards pizza, to prefer appreciate Associazione Verace Pizza Napoletana as a demonstration of "you don't have to be complext to make good pizza, but rather very good at the simple process that makes the best kind." I am sure that the people in Chicago who are fans of the Chicago deep dish style might consider them to be fightin' words!

I won't derail further into a variety of abominations that call themselves pizza - pizza is a big tent food, a very inclusive food thanks to its basic/simple roots - but utterly agree that if I want a nice Thai curry, I'd rather not have it attempted in pizza form.

I've run low power D&D 5e but never past level 7.

[Anonymouswizard]

Considering how overwhelmingly popular D&D is though it often feels like "but there are a 100 pizza places, two dozen burger joints, all sorts of traditional foods and even a couple of super-vegan eco-food places. Why do we have to keep going to this one BBQ place." Which of course is going to make people wish they could get some pizza at the BBQ place.

D&D is in such a strange place which brings a lot of weird issues.

Going with this.

Another analogy that I quite like it's Marvel movies. When I go to the cinema it's entirely possible that there will be two options: whatever Marvel film just got released, and an indie film that's on one screen. The Marvel movie will be big, dumb, and appeal to many people, while I probably don't know anything about the indie film. But I just grow bored of giant blockbusters very quickly now, and if I'm there with people I'll be pushing for whatever indie film we can see because I just don't want to watch an action movie again.

Interestingly, there is actually competition to be that indie movie, because the creators know that 'didn't want to see the new overblown major release' is a viable demographic. Sadly D&D's biggest competitor is 'D&D with the serial numbers filed off', which is I suspect why games like Fate and PbtA systems hey so much push from certain areas of the RPG fanbase.

[HidesHisEyes]

Going with this.

Another analogy that I quite like it's Marvel movies. When I go to the cinema it's entirely possible that there will be two options: whatever Marvel film just got released, and an indie film that's on one screen. The Marvel movie will be big, dumb, and appeal to many people, while I probably don't know anything about the indie film. But I just grow bored of giant blockbusters very quickly now, and if I'm there with people I'll be pushing for whatever indie film we can see because I just don't want to watch an action movie again.

Interestingly, there is actually competition to be that indie movie, because the creators know that 'didn't want to see the new overblown major release' is a viable demographic. Sadly D&D's biggest competitor is 'D&D with the serial numbers filed off', which is I suspect why games like Fate and PbtA systems hey so much push from certain areas of the RPG fanbase.

Also a good analogy, and… yeah it’s not not why I frequently extol the virtues of Dungeon World and PbtA generally on these boards.

[Mordante]

... assuming you play to Tier 4, or even Tier 3.

Wotc character advancement is too fast. 1 year to go from level 1 to level 20, with even just once a week games. That, and the PHB containing 20 level progression, fosters the expectation that going from minor local hero to effectively demigod is the norm for D&D.

That is just not true. It's up to the the GM how fast you level. I know one party that has been active for over a decade and they are level 16 now.

[Xervous]

If capping the game to level 10 and releasing 11-20 as an epic levels handbook means we get an admission from WotC that Normal Dude is either not a valid epic concept OR he gets actual supporting features I’m all for the cap.

[Telok]

Also a good analogy, and… yeah it’s not not why I frequently extol the virtues of Dungeon World and PbtA generally on these boards.

Here's an interesting one, although probably distinctly American: What's the difference between these two phrases?

1) "Make a xerox of a character sheet."
2) "Make a photocopy of a character sheet."

In common parlance there is no difference, people will know what you mean. But 'Xerox' is the name of a company. Its useage as a verb comes from that company's early dominance of the photocopier market.

Now us? We're like a obsessive photocopier fan club. We care about the details, but leave our little clique where people care about the difference between "photocopy" and "xerox" and you're back to those words being "equal". Yes, outside the rpg clique the phrase "I play role-playing games" and the phrase "I play D&D" are the same thing. And its not because D&D is somehow magically better & more awesome than all the other rpgs put together. Its because D&D is the Xerox of rpgs.

[kyoryu]

Here's an interesting one, although probably distinctly American: What's the difference between these two phrases?

1) "Make a xerox of a character sheet."
2) "Make a photocopy of a character sheet."

In common parlance there is no difference, people will know what you mean. But 'Xerox' is the name of a company. Its useage as a verb comes from that company's early dominance of the photocopier market.

Now us? We're like a obsessive photocopier fan club. We care about the details, but leave our little clique where people care about the difference between "photocopy" and "xerox" and you're back to those words being "equal". Yes, outside the rpg clique the phrase "I play role-playing games" and the phrase "I play D&D" are the same thing. And its not because D&D is somehow magically better & more awesome than all the other rpgs put together. Its because D&D is the Xerox of rpgs.

That's partially true, but not entirely. Because it really is true in this case that

A) there are differences between "photocopiers". Some are significantly better for some things than others are.
B) there are a significant number of people that really really will only use "Xerox" and won't budge from it.

So while to some extent it's true that "play D&D" is equivalent to many people to "play roleplaying games", it's also often that way because the only game they are willing to play is D&D.

In other words, the issue isn't just the genericization of the term.

Also a good analogy, and… yeah it’s not not why I frequently extol the virtues of Dungeon World and PbtA generally on these boards.

As a fan of both PbtA and Fate - I just think they're good "systems" (quotes specifically for PbtA).

I recommend them for situations where they're good fits. And recommend them for different things. And for things where they're not really a good solution? I suggest other games that I think would be good solutions.

I think a good 95% of my "Fate evangelism" is really around correcting misconceptions of the game...

Amusingly enough, I got into Fate because I expressed some of those same misconceptions on this very board and somebody pointed out how inaccurate they were.

[Tanarii]

The main problem is default XP award/advancement is too fast for official play (AL) and other open tables where folks are likely to play more than one session a week. Advancing every 2.4 sessions during the slowest of leveling "sweet spot" (5-10, 17+), and every 1.5 in the fastest (levels 1-4 and 11-16), is ridiculous. Especially since in a normal game world that works out to becoming a demigod in less than a year, even with a little bit of downtime between adventures.

And since it's easier to give more than take away, they need to slow down the default speed, and then add in something in the DMG about multiplying XP rewards based on frequency of play (1/week, 1/month).

The zero to demigod thing wasn't a huge problem in AD&D, because you either had to invest years in it properly developing the characters place in the game world. Or Monty haul DM. Or you just skipped ahead. It's when WotC started speeding up leveling that it became a problem.

True and totally fair. I think there’s a contingent of people who know they want gritty, low-power adventuring, and know that D&D doesn’t cater to this anymore, and are annoyed about it, but don’t want to play a different game. I completely get the preference for low power, but I don’t get the insistence that that preference MUST be catered to forever by the biggest, most popular RPG.

Yeah. God forbid we want D&D to be more like D&D, instead of this thing it has become.

This thing that used to just be a perception issue is slowing moving into the category of actual issue. It's only there so far for official play and open tables and those that don't want a character to become a demigod in less than a in-game year with reasonable in-character breaks. But that's already a lot of folks.

[Jophiel]

True and totally fair. I think there’s a contingent of people who know they want gritty, low-power adventuring, and know that D&D doesn’t cater to this anymore, and are annoyed about it, but don’t want to play a different game.

I think a lot of that is the barrier to getting 4-5 other people also invested in learning a new system, buying new books, etc for an untested (to them) system when you could just be playing D&D.

To beat the pizza analogy into the ground, you have 100 other restaurants but they're all up on steep hills and people roll garbage cans down at you as you try to climb up. Meanwhile D&D Pizza is next door to the house. You might find yourself settling for pizza consistently rather than convincing your dinner party to Donkey Kong their way uphill to see if the BBQ place is any good for a change. That's not any intentional decision of the other games who I'm sure would love to be purchased and played and shared, it's just the side effect of the behemoth status of D&D. Including the side effect of a lot of other games being kind of janky because they don't have the same budgets and mass playtesting behind them which goes back to the difficulty in getting four other people interested, yadda yadda.

[kyoryu]

I think a lot of that is the barrier to getting 4-5 other people also invested in learning a new system, buying new books, etc for an untested (to them) system when you could just be playing D&D.

To beat the pizza analogy into the ground, you have 100 other restaurants but they're all up on steep hills and people roll garbage cans down at you as you try to climb up. Meanwhile D&D Pizza is next door to the house. You might find yourself settling for pizza consistently rather than convincing your dinner party to Donkey Kong their way uphill to see if the BBQ place is any good for a change. That's not any intentional decision of the other games who I'm sure would love to be purchased and played and shared, it's just the side effect of the behemoth status of D&D. Including the side effect of a lot of other games being kind of janky because they don't have the same budgets and mass playtesting behind them which goes back to the difficulty in getting four other people interested, yadda yadda.

I think there's an error in that analogy, actually. I think that basically, to be more accurate, the people at BB would have had to have to overcome a lot of issues in figuring out how to get BBQ - how to read the menu, how to navigate the problems getting to the place, etc. And so, they presume that getting to another restaurant would have the same issues in investment. And maybe they tried another restaurant, and that was true. But it's also not true for a lot of restaurants, but that perception remains a barrier to even trying them.

[Lord Raziere]

I think there's an error in that analogy, actually. I think that basically, to be more accurate, the people at BB would have had to have to overcome a lot of issues in figuring out how to get BBQ - how to read the menu, how to navigate the problems getting to the place, etc. And so, they presume that getting to another restaurant would have the same issues in investment. And maybe they tried another restaurant, and that was true. But it's also not true for a lot of restaurants, but that perception remains a barrier to even trying them.

Yeah I can't seriously buy the notion that all the other systems designed to be simpler and lighter with less pages to play is somehow just as hard to figure out all the ins and outs of an rpg with a history rivalling comic books.

especially when many of the players start going "oh you can just refluff DnD to-" for everything, when thats just the default mode of some of these lighter systems! you need more mastery to get to the point where other rpgs just start at.

like I can't buy the "abstraction is harder" argument because its hard to refluff DnD. you have all these very specific archetypes and labels that don't leave a lot of room to be something else. even something like wizard is incredibly specific and limiting, simply because its called a wizard and given the default fluff of a wizard. it takes more mental power to ignore than something like Fate where you just put in what you want. and the concreteness of DnD makes it hard to refluff because there is no guidelines for making outside of its concrete design. there is no instructions for how to modify any of this so that its something you want, your just told you CAN but not HOW (except for anything in genre because DnD is not a universal system no matter how much people want it to be), which I can't do anything with and is forever a black mark in my book. that just leads to inconsistency, homebrew that either reinvents the wheel or doesn't know what its doing, all of it untested and without proper mapping, which from my experience of viewing dnd homebrew is exactly what occurs and ends just being random stuff no one uses most of the time.

[Jophiel]

Yeah I can't seriously buy the notion that all the other systems designed to be simpler and lighter with less pages to play is somehow just as hard to figure out all the ins and outs of an rpg with a history rivalling comic books.

(a) The issue isn't just the GM learning a system, it's the GM getting a table of other people away from D&D to learn the system. This involves a certain degree of time, money and credibility.
(b) The question wasn't really "D&D vs Rules-Lite system". I own a bunch of non-D&D RPGs with a hardback (or two or three) full of crunchy rules. Getting a table full of people to play them represents a fairly significant time investment on their part to learn enough to make characters and be able to play the basics. This assumes they also have open access to the rules on their own schedule which isn't always a given (assuming you respect your RPG of choice enough to keep things on the up-and-up).
(c) Most of D&Ds history is irrelevant to anyone playing 5e aside from stuff for nerds and grognards to wax poetic about.

This obviously isn't impossible since other games do exist. Some people are fortunate enough to know a bunch of people ready and willing to dive into their next new RPG experience. Other people know folks who say "Eh, I only have four hours a week to play and would rather not spend them muddling through this" and so eventually the GM says say "Ok, it's 5e in a post-WWIII world" rather than trying to convince them to learn Twilight:2000.

[kyoryu]

(b) The question wasn't really "D&D vs Rules-Lite system". I own a bunch of non-D&D RPGs with a hardback (or two or three) full of crunchy rules. Getting a table full of people to play them represents a fairly significant time investment on their part to learn enough to make characters and be able to play the basics. This assumes they also have open access to the rules on their own schedule which isn't always a given (assuming you respect your RPG of choice enough to keep things on the up-and-up).

No it doesn't. At least not universally. While some systems (I'm looking at you, GURPS), do require that level of investment, others don't. I can get people playing Fate in five minutes. (For a whole table doing it, it'll take the GM a bit more time, granted). PbtA games are probably closer to 20 minutes from "sitting down" to "playing", but the GM also requires a lot less learning time. Other games require even less.

That's why the analogy is flawed - if all games had the same level of adoption cost as D&D, it would be a very valid analogy. The issue is that it's not true, but people with one (or a few, with the others supporting the point) points of data presume that that high level of time investment is, in fact, true for all games.

Especially with adults, convincing people "yes, you should spend ten hours learning the basics of a game" is, understandably, a non-starter. The issue is that there are many, many games where that is unnecessary.

[NichG]

Might be time to revive the 'fluff should have teeth' discussion then. It can be easy to fluff or refluff something, but difficult to do so in a way such that the concept behind the fluff feels like it has real weight in the game world. Especially if its ambiguous where responsibility for that concept lies. E.g. the player had an idea in their head, asked the GM if that fluff would be allowed, GM said yes but then does not actually enforce the fluff working that way in the same way that the player was imagining. Or the GM fluffs something but then when it comes down to problem solving time, the players aren't sure in the absence of a written rule whether some parts of the fluff are tendencies or whether they indicate unspoken rules.

Rules-light games rely more on fluff being given teeth by the people at the table rather than via mechanical connections, so they depend a lot more on the GM's inclinations and willingness to treat fluff as if it were rules text. Differences in preference may connect to differences in experience with GM willingness to do that kind of thing.

E.g. Anonymouswizard said earlier that if they were running Fate, they would absolutely take an Aspect to imply things like immunity to fire, not just a +1 when making a roll that would determine if the character suffers some harm from fire. Or that a Magnetic Boots aspect would automatically imply that climbing a vertical metallic wall becomes just a thing you do rather than something you might have to roll for. Another GM running Fate might not commit to such strongly-binding Aspects. For example in my case I had a character in a Fate game with the Aspect 'has a genie in a bottle' where instead of running it as being able to negotiate with the genie and getting an absolute effect even if not the one I directly intended to get, it was just ruled as applying the standard +1.

It'd be great if everyone ran games the way Anonymouswizard suggested they should be run, but probably a lot of the disagreement with people over which games are easy or hard to get the experience they want in comes down to these uncontrolled factors, and the sort of prior expectations people have about how a potential GM might choose to run it.

Or to put it another way, the 'climbing up the hill' needn't be learning the system, it could be as much about getting a GM who would run the game in a way that the player thinks they'd enjoy.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Might be time to revive the 'fluff should have teeth' discussion then. It can be easy to fluff or refluff something, but difficult to do so in a way such that the concept behind the fluff feels like it has real weight in the game world. Especially if its ambiguous where responsibility for that concept lies. E.g. the player had an idea in their head, asked the GM if that fluff would be allowed, GM said yes but then does not actually enforce the fluff working that way in the same way that the player was imagining. Or the GM fluffs something but then when it comes down to problem solving time, the players aren't sure in the absence of a written rule whether some parts of the fluff are tendencies or whether they indicate unspoken rules.

Rules-light games rely more on fluff being given teeth by the people at the table rather than via mechanical connections, so they depend a lot more on the GM's inclinations and willingness to treat fluff as if it were rules text. Differences in preference may connect to differences in experience with GM willingness to do that kind of thing.

E.g. Anonymouswizard said earlier that if they were running Fate, they would absolutely take an Aspect to imply things like immunity to fire, not just a +1 when making a roll that would determine if the character suffers some harm from fire. Or that a Magnetic Boots aspect would automatically imply that climbing a vertical metallic wall becomes just a thing you do rather than something you might have to roll for. Another GM running Fate might not commit to such strongly-binding Aspects. For example in my case I had a character in a Fate game with the Aspect 'has a genie in a bottle' where instead of running it as being able to negotiate with the genie and getting an absolute effect even if not the one I directly intended to get, it was just ruled as applying the standard +1.

It'd be great if everyone ran games the way Anonymouswizard suggested they should be run, but probably a lot of the disagreement with people over which games are easy or hard to get the experience they want in comes down to these uncontrolled factors, and the sort of prior expectations people have about how a potential GM might choose to run it.

Or to put it another way, the 'climbing up the hill' needn't be learning the system, it could be as much about getting a GM who would run the game in a way that the player thinks they'd enjoy.

I agree. Rules are scaffolding. They assist groups in handling issues by restricting the scope of possibilities, creating a shared language, and providing mechanical, pre-computed aids. For good or for ill. As you move toward free-form, those tasks need to shift to the group as a whole. Which requires at least three things to pull off successfully:

a) an understanding of the tasks that the rule system was handling for you and that now must be performed ad hoc
b) emotional and communicational maturity
c) alignment on what the intended fiction is on a case-by-case basis as well as globally

For many people who just want entertainment, that's a lot of work. And you have to have a fairly good understanding of what you want out of a game to really be able to handle that. Sure, you can go along for the ride, but that just increases the work on the other members of the group and the chances of something going wrong. Rules-light games work best if everyone is actively sharing the load in creating a shared fiction, while more "crunchy" games reduce that load by entrusting some of it to the mechanical bits.

Note: this isn't to say that crunchier games are always easier. There's a very strong "U-shaped" curve here, with the exact details depending on the individual(s) playing the game. Too much crunch can bog things down or produce glaring discrepancies. Too little crunch requires the players to fill it in themselves. Where the sweet spot is is a matter of taste and group preference. As with most things, there is no clear-cut answer; it's all tradeoffs.

I find (after working with new players almost exclusively) that 5e D&D is in my sweet spot. Especially since they can learn it incrementally as they go and nothing really suffers if you pare down the player-facing rules to the minimum necessary and build from there. Starting at low levels helps there; higher levels have more moving parts.