Unpopular D&D Opinions

[Jophiel]

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.

That's wonderful if the "don't" title is the game you want to play, I guess. Which obviously isn't always the case judging from my bookcase. If I'm not interested in running/playing FATE then how much time FATE takes to learn is 100% irrelevant to my interests or situation.

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.

Sure. Part of the issue may be inertia or mental on the part of the players but that doesn't make it any less of a barrier or make them any less likely to say "Eh, let's just play D&D".

[icefractal]

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.

Oh it's not like it's flat or anything, TBF, it's just flatter than 3E was. And how it compares to 4E depends on the area. Off-hand, I'd say, in terms of "how much difference does being high-level make" ...

Martial Ability: 4E > 3E > 5E
3E and 5E are pretty close when going up against things of your own level, barring serious optimization; it's only when factoring in things like "a 3E high level martial can be pretty much immune to armies" that there's a significant difference.

Skills: 3E > 4E > 5E
In 3E, someone who really masters a skill is immensely beyond Joe Average, and even significantly surpasses their fellow party members. In 4E the former is true but not the latter. In 5E neither is true.

Spells: 3E > 5E > 4E
While putting more limitations on their use, 5E does have spells like Simulacrum and True Polymorph.

Now that said, I am assuming equal GMing for the comparison. If a GM auto-scaled every foe to the party in 3E/4E, but bounded accuracy makes them feel comfortable using a more naturalistic approach in 5E, then (for that GM) 5E effectively has a higher power curve.

[kyoryu]

That's wonderful if the "don't" title is the game you want to play, I guess. Which obviously isn't always the case judging from my bookcase. If I'm not interested in running/playing FATE then how much time FATE takes to learn is 100% irrelevant to my interests or situation.

Kinda shifting the goalposts. Your original point was "players don't want to learn other games because learning other games is an investment."

My counter was "players don't want to learn other games because the perception is that learning other games is an investment, even if it isn't always".

If you just don't want to play game X for other reasons, then that's completely orthogonal to your analogy.

Sure. Part of the issue may be inertia or mental on the part of the players but that doesn't make it any less of a barrier or make them any less likely to say "Eh, let's just play D&D".

Well, yes, that's my point. But that's it's a perception issue (in some cases) rather than an actual issue.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, yes, that's my point. But that's it's a perception issue (in some cases) rather than an actual issue.

In this case, perception issues are actual issues. When you're trying to get someone to do something, perception is large pieces of reality. You either have to provide a very strong incentive independent of perception or change the perception. And most of the ways to provide strong incentives aren't really applicable to "getting people to play a game with you"--threats, monetary incentives (either carrot or stick), *ahem* intimate incentives, even warnings of dire consequences if they don't, etc are all off the table. I'd even say "we can't be friends/hang out if you don't" is an inappropriate incentive.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah, there's actually a large number of systems that are easier to pick up than D&D, the omit one I want to play that might be relatively equal in complexity of Unknown Armies, and if you don't have PC Magicians it might actually come out as simpler desire the Shock Gauges. Many I own are much simpler, and done have incredibly easy character creation.

[kyoryu]

In this case, perception issues are actual issues. When you're trying to get someone to do something, perception is large pieces of reality. You either have to provide a very strong incentive independent of perception or change the perception. And most of the ways to provide strong incentives aren't really applicable to "getting people to play a game with you"--threats, monetary incentives (either carrot or stick), *ahem* intimate incentives, even warnings of dire consequences if they don't, etc are all off the table. I'd even say "we can't be friends/hang out if you don't" is an inappropriate incentive.

I didn't say they weren't? I'm just pointing out that the core of the issue is perception.

It does offer a potential path around the objection, if that's the true objection and not just an excuse. If the actual issue is "I'd rather just play D&D and don't wanna be bothered" then the only answer is "okay, cool". If it really is "You know, I'd be willing to consider that, but I don't want to spend ten hours reading rules just to get started", then you can continue the conversation (unless that really is the case, in which case, again, "okay, cool.")

[Anonymouswizard]

It does offer a potential path around the objection, if that's the true objection and not just an excuse. If the actual issue is "I'd rather just play D&D and don't wanna be bothered" then the only answer is "okay, cool". If it really is "You know, I'd be willing to consider that, but I don't want to spend ten hours reading rules just to get started", then you can continue the conversation (unless that really is the case, in which case, again, "okay, cool.")

And if the issue is 'Anonymouswizard doesn't want to pay D&D' the solution, sadly, seems to be 'Anonymouswizard doesn't get to play'.

So I do have a little bit more annoyance at the situation than most at the moment. Sorry massive that'll change in the new year.

[Xervous]

And if the issue is 'Anonymouswizard doesn't want to pay D&D' the solution, sadly, seems to be 'Anonymouswizard doesn't get to play'.

So I do have a little bit more annoyance at the situation than most at the moment. Sorry massive that'll change in the new year.

Yo ho yo ho...

But on a more serious note, splatbook fatigue & D&D.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yo ho yo ho...

But on a more serious note, splatbook fatigue & D&D.

Hehe, yeah, I meant play, but that actually works.

I've been getting more into Osprey releases as much as Fate, especially due to the 'one and done' aspect. Except for Jackals, because they could probably do with an alternative way to assign beginning skill scores.

[KorvinStarmast]

And if the issue is 'Anonymouswizard doesn't want to pay D&D' the solution, sadly, seems to be 'Anonymouswizard doesn't get to play'.

Expand your social circle. Increase your odds. That's a way to up the odds of another game being the group consensus.

@PhoneixPhyre: Higher levels have more moving parts. Yeah.

The group I sometimes DM for on Wednesdays can barely keep track of their {censored} at level 8.
I am pretty sure that group will be a complete mess at level 12 if my brother has to drop out of DMing and I get stuck being the weekly DM again. My current plan is to transition them to White Plume Mountain (Bro and I have subbed in different items, those sentient items are, IMO, bad design for that level of play) and it will transition into the Against the Giants trilogy since bro gave my concept on what's up with the frost giants up north enough of an open door to lay the foundation. But hopefully, he'll be able to keep DMing.

[Pex]

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.

I'm going a happy dance.

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).

They are welcome to, but that doesn't mean level 20 must therefore not exist for the rest of us who like, want, and do reach level 20.

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.

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.

You can blame Adventurer's League and players playing the same character in multiple games a week for that, but that's not D&D's fault.

[Tanarii]

You can blame Adventurer's League and players playing the same character in multiple games a week for that, but that's not D&D's fault.

Yeah, they probably do need to scale it more for people who do adventure of the week (or less). D&D has moved away from war game clubs with heavily daily participation. I had fun trying to replicate that, but the game isn't really designed for it any more.

[MoiMagnus]

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.

Milestones level up is vert practical to adapt the pacing of the campaign to your group.

However, it can only yet you so far. When you start averaging 2-3 combat encounters per OOC month (because you want the plot to advance, so it's RP heavy sessions, but the less you play combat encounters the slower the players are at resolving their turn) then you start having to battle against the resting system which is not designed around level up that are THAT fast.

[Vahnavoi]

If WotC staff were actually competent, they'd devote 10 to 20 pages to explaining different campaign structures and how to set character advancement rates for them. That way, you would have (*gasp*) codified, explicit and (for those who care) official statement that yes, you can slow down or even halt character progression in D&D for purposes of a campaign, and no, the point of the game isn't to reach top level, it's to achieve campaign goals.

[Mordante]

The zero to hero claim is BS. There is no reason to ever expect your character to become a hero or anyone famous. You can become a level 20 character in complete obscurity.

High level (10+) doesn't mean you are well known/famous/feared/respected etcetera in any way. You can still be a relative nobody. A high level druid can be known in his druidic circle/group but the majority of the world doesn't need to know he exists, if they know druids exist at all. A high level fighter can still be a simple barkeep when not adventuring.

[noob]

5e could get rid of stats and asis without changing much to the game provided you make all checks easier by 5 and lower all monster rolls by 5.
And it would benefit roleplay a lot because people would not feel constrained by the mental stats.

[Batcathat]

The zero to hero claim is BS. There is no reason to ever expect your character to become a hero or anyone famous. You can become a level 20 character in complete obscurity.

High level (10+) doesn't mean you are well known/famous/feared/respected etcetera in any way. You can still be a relative nobody. A high level druid can be known in his druidic circle/group but the majority of the world doesn't need to know he exists, if they know druids exist at all. A high level fighter can still be a simple barkeep when not adventuring.

Even without accounting for the fame that is likely to follow with being one of the most powerful people in the world (though that can vary by setting, sometimes a level 15 fighter is a once per generation master, sometimes it's some random guard) I'd say it's pretty tricky to acquire the amount of experience necessary to reach high level without gaining some sort of reputation. Probably not impossible, but pretty unlikely.

[Mordante]

Even without accounting for the fame that is likely to follow with being one of the most powerful people in the world (though that can vary by setting, sometimes a level 15 fighter is a once per generation master, sometimes it's some random guard) I'd say it's pretty tricky to acquire the amount of experience necessary to reach high level without gaining some sort of reputation. Probably not impossible, but pretty unlikely.

I used to joined the group when they were level 14ish with a druid. But I didn't like that character much. At the time the party was building up to a grand finale (this campaign has been running close to or for over a decade). The back ground of my fighter is that he heard trouble was brewing in this part of the world and it seemed be a good fight. So he picked up his belongings and started walking. Two months later he arrived at the besieged city and started hacking his way towards the center where he met the party. He doesn't own anything he can't carry, his suite of armour and weapon are enchanted so they can be summoned as a free action or dismissed as a free action. His birthname is something he doesn't use and when he meets a new group, settles in a new place a new name can be made up.

[Quertus]

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.

Lol. Well, only 17 pages? Good thing i brought it up. (Grover's voice) "oh, I am so embarrassed"

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.

Maybe? Not exactly? Or "exactly"?

So, "my position" is that 50-post thread I'm too lazy to write. "Nobody commenting until I had managed to actually state my position" - to try to work towards building up the vocabulary, like the first person explaining calculus, or genetics - was my original idea.

But that was maximum effort for minimal gain.

If, instead, I introduce the elephant chopped up bit by chopped up bit, it's easier for my definition to, for example, fail one of Oldtrees1's tests before I invest maximum effort. Or for everyone to drop out, saying "this is too hard".

It's one of those things I usually take a clue-by-four to others for doing, designing their work poorly, such that massive work is wasted when tests could have caught their idiocy earlier if they'd been smarter about how they did their work.

So, instead, I've been presenting a conveyor belt of chopped up elephant bits for people to inspect.

Unfortunately, it's apparently a dark cave, and people keep mistaking the bits for the elephant.

If my definition had already been tested in full, rather than merely the underlying idea having been vetted by a local echo chamber of 4e disappointment, then I might almost consider such a plan of full presentation reasonable, were it not possible for communication of the idea to fail in numerous ways, including misunderstandings regarding individual ingredients, uncertainty regarding individual techniques, or simple lack of stamina to see the recipe through to the end.

So, to recap: "no feedback until I'm done", although my original idea, is dumb, because both my idea, and others ability to follow my idea, should be tested incrementally.

It does require slightly different skills, and a slightly different mindset, to comment on and test components rather than the whole. Not that proper testing isn't itself a rarified skill. But, hopefully, after this explicit discussion, things will be easier, at least.

[Batcathat]

I used to joined the group when they were level 14ish with a druid. But I didn't like that character much. At the time the party was building up to a grand finale (this campaign has been running close to or for over a decade). The back ground of my fighter is that he heard trouble was brewing in this part of the world and it seemed be a good fight. So he picked up his belongings and started walking. Two months later he arrived at the besieged city and started hacking his way towards the center where he met the party. He doesn't own anything he can't carry, his suite of armour and weapon are enchanted so they can be summoned as a free action or dismissed as a free action. His birthname is something he doesn't use and when he meets a new group, settles in a new place a new name can be made up.

I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, it is possible for a character to be completely unknown regardless of their level (it's up to the GM, after all). You could be a nobody at level 20 or world-famous at level 1 but it's very likely that a high level character has some fame to go with it.

A good comparison in real life might be having lots of money — there are unknown billionaires but if you go from broke to one of the world's wealthiest, it's pretty likely people are gonna know about you.

[Mordante]

I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, it is possible for a character to be completely unknown regardless of their level (it's up to the GM, after all). You could be a nobody at level 20 or world-famous at level 1 but it's very likely that a high level character has some fame to go with it.

A good comparison in real life might be having lots of money — there are unknown billionaires but if you go from broke to one of the world's wealthiest, it's pretty likely people are gonna know about you.

You said that it was near impossible to be high level without fame or infamy. But it really depends on how you play your character and the back ground story. On a more personal level I would not like it when a GM would force me to play someone famous.

In all the RPG I play I try to avoid becoming a well known person. Regardless of power level. Being famous limits your freedom.

[Vahnavoi]

In BECMI and 1st Edition AD&D, a character gained fame and retainers as they reached name levels, and some classes (like the druid) were outright kept from leveling if they didn't also progress in the organization they were part of. It was either 2nd Edition AD&D or 3rd Edition which disassociated leveling from fame and followers, and the game became worse for it.

[Mordante]

In BECMI and 1st Edition AD&D, a character gained fame and retainers as they reached name levels, and some classes (like the druid) were outright kept from leveling if they didn't also progress in the organization they were part of. It was either 2nd Edition AD&D or 3rd Edition which disassociated leveling from fame and followers, and the game became worse for it.

Why do you feel it became worse because of that?

[Cluedrew]

So, to recap: "no feedback until I'm done", although my original idea, is dumb, because both my idea, and others ability to follow my idea, should be tested incrementally.

I would like to point out the first fragment has failed on multiple levels and many of your defences are contingent on adding things to it. A prime example is the lack of an objective measure on the MTM (which predates me making up the label "MTM"). You have stated that there is theoretical some objective truth out there, but still how to quantity and measure it is still unknown. And its been weeks.

[Xervous]

If WotC staff were actually competent, they'd devote 10 to 20 pages to explaining different __________ and how to ______ ... for purposes of a campaign,

It’s depressing that there’s a lot of things you can fill into these blanks.

[Anonymouswizard]

Expand your social circle. Increase your odds. That's a way to up the odds of another game being the group consensus.

Been somewhat difficult these past few years sadly. Things might be changing in the new year though.

If WotC staff were actually competent, they'd devote 10 to 20 pages to explaining different campaign structures and how to set character advancement rates for them. That way, you would have (*gasp*) codified, explicit and (for those who care) official statement that yes, you can slow down or even halt character progression in D&D for purposes of a campaign, and no, the point of the game isn't to reach top level, it's to achieve campaign goals.

If the staff was competent they wouldn't have stripped out all the noncombat times and carried it 'times medium'. Or included actual discussion of how the mechanics are meant to work, my favourite part of Fate Core is that it's only about one fifth rules, with a lot of word count given over to how to use them.

Still could use more actual advice on placing milestones, but 'every couple of sessions Street a 'big thing' happens is pretty chart as to the intent. I'd kind of just like to know what campaign length they're assuming.

[Batcathat]

You said that it was near impossible to be high level without fame or infamy. But it really depends on how you play your character and the back ground story. On a more personal level I would not like it when a GM would force me to play someone famous.

Sure, it's probably possible if a character goes out of their way to stay unknown, but at some point it will become more and more tricky under most circumstances. Compare it to real life criminals, a lot of them would love to stay hidden (even if some probably enjoy the infamy) but that doesn't mean it's always possible. Reaching high levels should require some pretty remarkable deeds and those usually (but yes, not always) bring a remarkable reputation.

[Vahnavoi]

Why do you feel it became worse because of that?

The lack of those rules means more people play characters as eternal vagrants who, despite amassing wealth to rival kings, somehow fail to develop lasting ties to their surroundings or even acquire permanent place of residence.

Furthermore, it obfuscates the purpose of leveling. Those social ties and a place of your own? They were part of the reward of reaching name level. They were those campaign goals for which gold and experience points were instruments for achieving. If you didn't want any of that - if you really wanted to remain a vagrant - you stopped leveling. Oh yes, that was a feature too. Characters didn't automatically level up, they had to spend gold and time to train. That's relevant to the other discussion point too, because it gave another way for a game master to control rate of advancement AND gave players the option to stay at a level they were comfortable at. You didn't go from zero to hero if you didn't actually want to be a hero.

[kyoryu]

The zero to hero claim is BS. There is no reason to ever expect your character to become a hero or anyone famous. You can become a level 20 character in complete obscurity.

High level (10+) doesn't mean you are well known/famous/feared/respected etcetera in any way. You can still be a relative nobody. A high level druid can be known in his druidic circle/group but the majority of the world doesn't need to know he exists, if they know druids exist at all. A high level fighter can still be a simple barkeep when not adventuring.

For some people (I don't know how many, but I know I'm one of them), "zero to hero" isn't about fame. It's about power progression.

It's about starting off having rats be valid threats, and ending up face-tanking a dragon.

my favourite part of Fate Core is that it's only about one fifth rules, with a lot of word count given over to how to use them.

And still managed to create misconceptions that had to be cleared up, repeatedly, for years. Fortunately, Condensed is a lot better with the clarity.

[KorvinStarmast]

They are welcome to, but that doesn't mean level 20 must therefore not exist for the rest of us who like, want, and do reach level 20.

Given that I didn't say that, where is this coming from? If your DM will keep running the game as they progress to 20, that's great. A friend of mine took a dwarf vengeance paladin from 1 to 20 and loved the campaign. (Pre Covid). He's shared a few of his experiences with me (he took mounted combatant and pole arm master among other feats, and boosted Cha. Never boosted STR).

You can blame Adventurer's League and players playing the same character in multiple games a week for that, but that's not D&D's fault.

I wish. Lucky them.

If WotC staff were actually competent, they'd devote 10 to 20 pages to explaining different campaign structures and how to set character advancement rates for them. That way, you would have (*gasp*) codified, explicit and (for those who care) official statement that yes, you can slow down or even halt character progression in D&D for purposes of a campaign, and no, the point of the game isn't to reach top level, it's to achieve campaign goals.

Isn't that what milestone leveling is? Won't disagree that a little more guidance to new DM's would help.

5e could get rid of stats and asis without changing much to the game provided you make all checks easier by 5 and lower all monster rolls by 5.

Unsupported assertion is unsupported.

In BECMI and 1st Edition AD&D, a character gained fame and retainers as they reached name levels, and some classes (like the druid) were outright kept from leveling if they didn't also progress in the organization they were part of. It was either 2nd Edition AD&D or 3rd Edition which disassociated leveling from fame and followers, and the game became worse for it.

Why do you feel it became worse because of that?

I'd say "it became different" but to answer one of your questions: one of the things that "get a stronghold and retainers at name level" did was to get the players invested in the game world. (Well, that was my experience for the various campaigns that got that far). I suspect that V experienced something similar.

Been somewhat difficult these past few years sadly. Things might be changing in the new year though.

Fingers crossed, hope it works out.

For some people (I don't know how many, but I know I'm one of them), "zero to hero" isn't about fame. It's about power progression. It's about starting off having rats be valid threats, and ending up face-tanking a dragon.

This was nicely modeled in Diablo (the original one) CRPG dungeon crawl.

Our level 18 group has gone from battling with an ogre and hobgoblins in a cave to fighting a kraken and an archduke of hell. (With a lot of stuff in between). QUite a bit of what we've done has promoted the DM's world building efforts, and we have (as players) invested in the campaign world.
We run a commercial shipping line, built a bastion in the halfling homeland, and prevented a coup against the queen (she was a dragonborn).

It's a lot of fun when all of the players choose to engage with the setting.
It's, for me, less fun when the players don't (as both player and DM).