Unpopular D&D Opinions

[HidesHisEyes]

Unsurprisingly, I agree with this pretty much 100%.

One day we’ll disagree about something.

[MoiMagnus]

I thought this was common.

When the DM asks what I'm doing post combat, bathing, cleaning my armour and washing my cloths is normally the first thing to do. There is no way you could pass the city gates all messed up in with blood in your boots. Regardless of character level.

That's very uncommon in my experience.

The only times in which I've ever seen need for washing/bathing for hygienic purposes mentioned are after "sewer mission" or other similar extreme circumstances.

But I don't remember having a GM or Player mentioning that a PC was dirty or had blood on their cloths after a fight. As far as I know, the campaigns I've been in run on Film logic of "when the camera cuts, the protagonists' cloths are dried and cleaned up, including blood on the cloths and weapons and every minor injuries".

(And if there was a few instances that I forgot, which is likely, that most likely wasn't during D&D sessions)

[BRC]

Sounds like we’re talking about fiction first vs mechanics first. Personally I prefer to get as much fiction up front as we can, so I have plenty to work with when interpreting a dice result. If we stop at the amount of input the player gives in your example then I feel like we’re not engaging with the fiction when they make the roll, because there isn’t much there to engage with. We can still make the roll and then back-fill the fiction - but we don’t have to. The fiction can stay pretty hazy and we just move on taking for granted what “success” or “failure” means in that context. But to me, playing that way feels like playing a dice game that’s disassociated from the fiction, and I don’t like that.

So in that situation I’ll usually try to coax some more fiction from the player:

“I want to convince these people to fight, to stop being bullied.”
“Are you appealing to their sense of courage and dignity?”
“Sort of. I want them to understand that they have the power to resist if they work together.”
“But how are you going about it?”
“Inspiring words. Maybe I tell them the story of the time I did something similar.”
“Great, you’re offering them a story about themselves where they’re not victims. Roll, let’s see how it goes.”

Notice the player doesn’t speak in character at any point, and they certainly don’t need to make an eloquent speech. They just need to give me a tangible detail to work with - what they are offering the NPCs, in this case.

If even that is too much to ask, and you think people should be able to play RPGs with only the absolute bare minimum of actual fiction and role playing, then fair enough. I think it’s reasonable to ask for more though.

So this is a really good system, but it does require some level of expectation setting.

If I'm a tired, grumpy player who doesn't trust my RP skills and is saying "I just want to roll diplomacy", and the GM comes back to me with Questions, I feel like you either need to be expecting the GM to talk you through it like this, or the GM needs to be very good at engaging the player. In my experience, players who say "Just let me roll" don't especially want to be engaged with.

Basically, I'd like some sort of formalized script or something to show players ahead of time for 'Here's how we can handle Diplomacy without RP. I'm going to need you to be able to answer these questions: What are you trying to get them to do? What reason are you giving them to do that?"

[MoiMagnus]

So this is a really good system, but it does require some level of expectation setting.

If I'm a tired, grumpy player who doesn't trust my RP skills and is saying "I just want to roll diplomacy", and the GM comes back to me with Questions, I feel like you either need to be expecting the GM to talk you through it like this, or the GM needs to be very good at engaging the player. In my experience, players who say "Just let me roll" don't especially want to be engaged with.

Basically, I'd like some sort of formalized script or something to show players ahead of time for 'Here's how we can handle Diplomacy without RP. I'm going to need you to be able to answer these questions: What are you trying to get them to do? What reason are you giving them to do that?"

I agree that there are often two situations in which the player would want to "just roll diplomacy":
(1) They want to be done with it, and unless the GM is really good at engaging with disinterested players, they probably should roll with it up until the next bit of the session that interest the players.
(2) They don't really have a clue of how to do it, and would gladly accept the guidance that HidesHisEyes is suggesting to come up with an idea on how to do it.

[NichG]

So this is a really good system, but it does require some level of expectation setting.

If I'm a tired, grumpy player who doesn't trust my RP skills and is saying "I just want to roll diplomacy", and the GM comes back to me with Questions, I feel like you either need to be expecting the GM to talk you through it like this, or the GM needs to be very good at engaging the player. In my experience, players who say "Just let me roll" don't especially want to be engaged with.

Basically, I'd like some sort of formalized script or something to show players ahead of time for 'Here's how we can handle Diplomacy without RP. I'm going to need you to be able to answer these questions: What are you trying to get them to do? What reason are you giving them to do that?"

I guess this is probably going to be another one of those unpopular opinions, but... I don't think games should be built to chase worst-case scenarios or lowest common denominators of the player base. I'm actually fine with not trying at all to support the desires of a player who actually doesn't want to be engaged with (as opposed to a player who is having difficulty becoming engaged, or a player who just wants to tune out but isn't asking anything in return). Someone who actively doesn't want to get into things and expects others to be brought down to the level of engagement and participation they're willing to offer is starting to cross a line for me.

Like, I'm fine with a player saying 'I don't really like to RP, please don't put me on the spot'. I can work with that and focus RP on other people at the table. And if no one at the table is really interested in RP, fine, I'll run a dungeon crawl or zombie game or something without NPCs at all. But someone who says 'I want to be active during the RP-centric stuff, but I really don't want to RP or allow other players to gain an advantage by RP-ing, please let me cut through the conversation with a roll' is being unreasonable IMO.

[Anonymouswizard]

You could have the characters peace-bond their weapons before accessing certain areas, like a noble's district, or some larger commercial towns.

Effectively it's clearly marking a worn weapon as it's being worn without intention of being used, without taking the weapon away from the character.

In my games it's usually something like a thin mesh and some cheap wax marked with a seal and some ink that "locks" a sword, for example, into it's scabbard. A fighter can easily pull the sword to defend themselves without effort, but doing so destroys the mesh and wax, and more importantly the seal, so any weapon found on a person without this seal immediately places the user under suspicion of either having fought recently or is potentially smuggling the weapon in/out the city.

It's not perfect, but I've found most PCs are amenable to doing so.

The common man is still terrified of engaging a low level Fighter, weapon or not... it just means that he's going to get killed by a bone-crushing haymaker to the jaw followed by a metal boot to the sternum instead of being sword'd. But a peace-bonded Fighter is one who is at least willing to make the attempt to follow the rules, which engenders a certain level of trust.

True, armour's more problematic though. Walking around in mail or plate is a big indication that you're expecting to fight, no matter how restricted your weapons are.

[icefractal]

The issue with disarming / dis-armoring in town (especially leaving their gear in someone else's custody; if the party has a bag of holding that can fit everything this is usually not an issue) is that players tend to be paranoid about things that could leave them vulnerable to ambush and/or loss, and that if anything does happen then it really just kicks the martial classes harder in the groin.

Like, there's a way that would (for almost all players) have them happy to disarm, if as the GM you're willing to restrict yourself that way: Promise OOC that there will be no serious fights, and that their equipment will neither be stolen or be hard to access. Effectively, promise it won't meaningfully matter that they don't have it with them.

But maybe you don't want to make such a sweeping promise. Maybe you did intend a fight, or at least the possibility of one. Maybe most guards aren't corrupt and most cities wouldn't lock up their gear pending investigation of criminal accusations, but you don't want to guarantee that for all cities. Or maybe you're just against OOC stake-setting like that.

The problem then is that it becomes a strategic decision. And "the gear-dependent people stay camped outside the city while those who can operate just fine without weapons/armor go in and conduct business" becomes potentially the best option IC - especially considering that the armor-heavy classes are often not the most socially-adept ones. But OOC, that is boring as hell. Who wants to sit out a session, much less several?

There's also the factor that such a policy only makes sense in a world that's low-magic enough that people who can kill easily with their bare hands, or shoot fire from those hands, or turn into a bear, etc, etc are rare enough to be a non-factor compared to armor-n-weapon-using warriors.

[Batcathat]

The issue with disarming / dis-armoring in town is that players tend to be paranoid about things that could leave them vulnerable to ambush and/or loss, and that if anything does happen then it really just kicks the martial classes harder in the groin.

While it doesn't fix the other potential issues, it does make sense for guards who ask fighters to hand over their swords to also ask wizards to hand over their spellbooks, etc. Otherwise it's like saying "You hand over that handgun but your friend gets to keep his bazooka."

[icefractal]

While it doesn't fix the other potential issues, it does make sense for guards who ask fighters to hand over their swords to also ask wizards to hand over their spellbooks, etc. Otherwise it's like saying "You hand over that handgun but your friend gets to keep his bazooka."

Yeah, but that's even worse IC. Imagine you have a laptop that contains not only all the research/writing you've done personally (over the course of years or decades), but also data that's needed for you to keep your job, and there are no backups of any of this. To visit Exampletopia, you would need to surrender this laptop to border agents for the duration of your stay. Do you ever visit Exampletopia if you don't have to? Because I sure as hell don't. If my friends were visiting for a few days, I'd just stay in a hotel outside the border and wait for them.

Oh, and also, taking a spellbook doesn't "disarm" the Wizard, it just limits their ability to "reload". It's like taking away someone's bag of spare ammunition, but letting them keep their loaded pistol.

[Lord Raziere]

While it doesn't fix the other potential issues, it does make sense for guards who ask fighters to hand over their swords to also ask wizards to hand over their spellbooks, etc.

Wow, thats remarkably pacifistic for a society that supposedly is conflict with a whole bunch of monsters out in the wilderness and are pawns in an eternal cosmic conflict, and probably also interacts with warrior cultures valuing glory in battle that give rise to classes like the barbarian.

[oxybe]

Have you seen the going prices of full plate?

the 5e full plate is like 25 months worth of rent alone, of a comfortable lifestyle.

the 2nd ed full plate? ballpark 200-500 months of common housing or inn room rental.

these aren't cheap and were likely paid from out of my own pocket and unless Townsburgh is the safest city ever with a crime rate of 0, you bet your damn skippy brand peanut butter i'm taking my armour and weapons, the tools i use for my job, with me in town in some form.

especially the magic ones that are even harder or impossible to replace.

If all adventurers are going about town effectively naked, a rogue with a chef's knife is going to make bank.

[Batcathat]

Oh, and also, taking a spellbook doesn't "disarm" the Wizard, it just limits their ability to "reload". It's like taking away someone's bag of spare ammunition, but letting them keep their loaded pistol.

Sure, it's not ideal, but it's better than nothing. I suppose more extreme places could demand a wizard to "unload" before entering (is there a way to check that?).

As for your first point, it's entirely true. I imagine cities would have to weigh increased security against wizard tourism and there could probably be some sort of compromise (maybe it's just until you show you're trustworthy?).

But yeah, there are loads of problems with the idea. My point was just that it seems weird that guards would care so much about the sharp pieces of metal and not bother with the stuff that could level city blocks.

[Anonymouswizard]

You know, a lot of these issues are solved by the PCs having a home base where they can leave stuff.

Imagine your stereotypical space opera game, but the PCs wear their power armour and carry their multilasers into civilian areas instead of leaving them on the ship. Maybe in Fantasyland the PCs can agree to be escorted to their estate so they can leave the magic items inside a well protected vault?

[icefractal]

See, this is why some adventurers are anti-social murderhobos who try to avoid interacting with anyone who could plausibly exert authority on them. It's all stick! Even if nothing bad does happen, it's all tension and potential problems in exchange for abstract benefits which the tension is tainting your enjoyment of. If you were trying to write an anarcho-libertarian propaganda TTRPG, you wouldn't have to change much.

Edit: But yes, having a secure place to put your stuff does help. Or, not needing stuff. Although if the PCs truly don't need stuff to operate well, then taking it away is just security-theatre.

[dafrca]

You know, a lot of these issues are solved by the PCs having a home base where they can leave stuff.

Imagine your stereotypical space opera game, but the PCs wear their power armour and carry their multilasers into civilian areas instead of leaving them on the ship. Maybe in Fantasyland the PCs can agree to be escorted to their estate so they can leave the magic items inside a well protected vault?

I played in one game where the party was "based" in a skyship. Having the exact situation you describe but with a fantasy setting. Dock to one of the sky ports, leave the ship in the capable hands of some of the party and crew and the rest goes into town etcetera.

[HidesHisEyes]

So this is a really good system, but it does require some level of expectation setting.

If I'm a tired, grumpy player who doesn't trust my RP skills and is saying "I just want to roll diplomacy", and the GM comes back to me with Questions, I feel like you either need to be expecting the GM to talk you through it like this, or the GM needs to be very good at engaging the player. In my experience, players who say "Just let me roll" don't especially want to be engaged with.

Basically, I'd like some sort of formalized script or something to show players ahead of time for 'Here's how we can handle Diplomacy without RP. I'm going to need you to be able to answer these questions: What are you trying to get them to do? What reason are you giving them to do that?"

I should point out that this is the way I play with everything, not just diplomacy. So it’s not a special system. In my preferred play style this is just how an RPG works: talking through an imaginary situation together, rolling dice when necessary, and always making sure we all understand the stakes when we do roll dice. I am pretty up front about this on the meta level and the “script”, although it isn’t made fully explicit anywhere, becomes clear pretty quickly through play, I think.

If a player doesn’t want to be engaged with, to me that means they don’t want to play an RPG. And that’s fine, I also have sessions where I’m not feeling it. We can muddle through and accept that it won’t be the best session, or we can call it early. It’s not a reflection on anyone’s character. But if I never wanted to engage with other human beings in the act of shared organic narrative, then I simply wouldn’t be interested in this hobby, pretty much by definition. I realise not everyone sees it this way though.

I guess this is probably going to be another one of those unpopular opinions, but... I don't think games should be built to chase worst-case scenarios or lowest common denominators of the player base. I'm actually fine with not trying at all to support the desires of a player who actually doesn't want to be engaged with (as opposed to a player who is having difficulty becoming engaged, or a player who just wants to tune out but isn't asking anything in return). Someone who actively doesn't want to get into things and expects others to be brought down to the level of engagement and participation they're willing to offer is starting to cross a line for me.

Like, I'm fine with a player saying 'I don't really like to RP, please don't put me on the spot'. I can work with that and focus RP on other people at the table. And if no one at the table is really interested in RP, fine, I'll run a dungeon crawl or zombie game or something without NPCs at all. But someone who says 'I want to be active during the RP-centric stuff, but I really don't want to RP or allow other players to gain an advantage by RP-ing, please let me cut through the conversation with a roll' is being unreasonable IMO.

I’d probably go a step further and say where you distinguish between “roleplay centric stuff” and other stuff, I apply this logic to every part of the game. Because in a roleplaying game it’s all roleplay stuff, again definitionally. And people can be tired or not up for it and that’s fine, they can stay quiet and not contribute that much, or they can take a back seat in combat and come to life in negotiation scenes and vice versa. It’s not about having a standard for what a “good player” is, it’s just the basic facts of what an RPG is and how it works.

In short, the game is roleplaying all the way through, and you can play it with more or less energy and commitment, but you can’t make the dice system play it for you.

[Pex]

So give that benefit of the doubt to NPCs too - discuss with them, treat them such that you consider their opinions seriously and address their concerns, etc. That's how to have a net positive social interaction rather than a zero-sum one.

NPCs don't have free will. The DM has to remain neutral. Sometimes it can be an autosuccess or autofail depending on circumstances, but when there is doubt that's when there's a roll.

"Dungeon master has final say over what happens in a game" is a conflict resolution mechanic and trumps the numerical rules and dice in all sane editions of D&D. A dungeon master is a referee role (and was explicitly called such in early days of the game), the buck stops with them. If you aren't willing to accept that, don't sit down and play. If the referee is bullying you, leave the game, find another referee - and a referee simply saying "no, Pex, you didn't get the shot in, it's you who died" does not constitute bullying.

If you want to prevent bullying, the kinds of rules and advice you want to give a dungeon master are not game mechanics, they're explanations of the real law of the land, real rules of the event venue and real instructions on handling social situations - the kind of instructions you might learn during a sports refereeing course or a find in a scoutmaster's manual.



Why it doesn't work? If the referee says "no" to everything, you accept that you have no game and go play with someone else. The literal kids at the playground, the sort who actually play Mother May I, have this figured out by age 7, age 4 if they're smart.

The DM has to remain neutral on NPC responses. Ultimately he adjudicates. His own biases can never be eliminated entirely and perhaps shouldn't because that's a computer. When an outcome has more than one option, that's what the dice are for. That's the game.

I thought this was common.

When the DM asks what I'm doing post combat, bathing, cleaning my armour and washing my cloths is normally the first thing to do. There is no way you could pass the city gates all messed up in with blood in your boots. Regardless of character level.

Unfortunately I have played with a DM or two who was that ornery that if you don't say it you didn't do it and not just be joking about it. The minutiae was paramount. Those campaigns did not last long. Maybe it's foggy glasses since it was long ago for me, but my impression is it was the DMs' themselves who ended the games due to "burnout" or otherwise just not having fun with the game. They could never feel satisfied because they cared too much about details and realism. The rules and just playing kept getting in the way.

[icefractal]

NPCs don't have free will. The DM has to remain neutral.

PCs don't have free will either. The players do, but shouldn't they "remain neutral" too then?

Basically I reject that there's a total fundamental difference between PCs and all NPCs. Some NPCs are just minor background characters, sure, and you might as well roll or flip a coin for their actions because they have nothing established about them. Others aren't, and may have as much thought put in about their personality as the PCs do.

And "the GM has infinite NPCs"? Yeah, so do the players. You can always say your PC wanders off to retire and start playing a new one.

[Anonymouswizard]

I played in one game where the party was "based" in a skyship. Having the exact situation you describe but with a fantasy setting. Dock to one of the sky ports, leave the ship in the capable hands of some of the party and crew and the rest goes into town etcetera.

You could do the same with almost any mode of transport, and if a game is centred on a single town or city a building. Not much of an issue for me, I like games that stay in one place.

I might also be willing to let some weapons and armour, but it'll vary based on the location. Nobody can stop you wearing plate in a village, but carrying a halberd or casting spells in the capital will reveal that they do have the ability to stop high level characters,even if it isn't easy.

[NichG]

NPCs don't have free will. The DM has to remain neutral. Sometimes it can be an autosuccess or autofail depending on circumstances, but when there is doubt that's when there's a roll.

NPCs are portrayals of characters in a fiction where the only thing that makes the fiction of interacting with them meaningful is the consideration of their will. Otherwise you might as well not have NPCs.

[Chauncymancer]

So this is a really good system, but it does require some level of expectation setting.

If I'm a tired, grumpy player who doesn't trust my RP skills and is saying "I just want to roll diplomacy", and the GM comes back to me with Questions, I feel like you either need to be expecting the GM to talk you through it like this, or the GM needs to be very good at engaging the player. In my experience, players who say "Just let me roll" don't especially want to be engaged with.

Basically, I'd like some sort of formalized script or something to show players ahead of time for 'Here's how we can handle Diplomacy without RP. I'm going to need you to be able to answer these questions: What are you trying to get them to do? What reason are you giving them to do that?"

I think that playing and running GURPS has affected my point of view on this position. GURPS (for those who don't know) has about 12 different social skills, and unarmed attacks that use kicks have a different to hit and damage dice than unarmed attacks that use punches or headbutts. So in GURPS, this level of detail is just necessary: Your Threaten(Physical Harm) modifier and your Threaten (Financial Security) modifier are different, so I need to know more than just "I threaten him." And even though other games don't require those details, I'm now just in the habit of setting up those clarifications in the description.

[PhoenixPhyre]

NPCs are portrayals of characters in a fiction where the only thing that makes the fiction of interacting with them meaningful is the consideration of their will. Otherwise you might as well not have NPCs.

Agreed. Beyond that, I question the very possibility of neutrality, let alone the utility of neutrality. I'm not a fan of Apocalypse World, but "Be a fan of the characters" is good advice, and inconsistent with neutrality. I do extend it beyond just the player characters, though. As a DM, I'm interested (in many ways) in how PCs and NPCs interact. It's part of my desire to have a coherent world that's more than just a backdrop for PCs. The DM has agency just like players do. Just in different ways.

[Cluedrew]

I’d probably go a step further and say where you distinguish between “roleplay centric stuff” and other stuff, I apply this logic to every part of the game. Because in a roleplaying game it’s all roleplay stuff, again definitionally.

Counter-point: No edition of D&D has ever been entirely about role-playing. From the dungeon crawl of early editions, through the optimization games and tactical combat, perhaps peeking in 4th but always present. In fact most of the D&D role-playing focused discussion I have seen* is based on alignment, for all the hate it gets. Most of it is about optimization and how powerful certain options are. Which is part of why I don't like D&D as much as many other systems, but one of the pillars of the game is still getting into character and role-playing them, just not the only one.

* Beyond general role-playing advice which can be used in any system.

[Pex]

PCs don't have free will either. The players do, but shouldn't they "remain neutral" too then?

Basically I reject that there's a total fundamental difference between PCs and all NPCs. Some NPCs are just minor background characters, sure, and you might as well roll or flip a coin for their actions because they have nothing established about them. Others aren't, and may have as much thought put in about their personality as the PCs do.

And "the GM has infinite NPCs"? Yeah, so do the players. You can always say your PC wanders off to retire and start playing a new one.

When the PCs don't have free will that's when the DM should stop the game and write his novel already, and don't be pedantic between "PC" and "player".

[Cluedrew]

To Pex: Then why is the division between "NPC" and "GM"? Just assuming that the GM has free will.

[PhoenixPhyre]

When the PCs don't have free will that's when the DM should stop the game and write his novel already, and don't be pedantic between "PC" and "player".

When the NPCs doesn't have any agency, that's when the DM should stop the game and tell the players to go play their video game.

Both PCs and NPCs have agency if either one does.

[Pex]

To Pex: Then why is the division between "NPC" and "GM"? Just assuming that the GM has free will.

Because the DM is not the NPCs. He runs them, but they are not his characters. When the players need to convince the king to send reinforcements to defend the orcs from the hobgoblins they are trying to convince the king, not the DM. When the players are fireballing goblins they are attacking the goblins, not the DM. When the players are pickpocketing the noble they are stealing from the noble, not the DM.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Because the DM is not the NPCs. He runs them, but they are not his characters. When the players need to convince the king to send reinforcements to defend the orcs from the hobgoblins they are trying to convince the king, not the DM. When the players are fireballing goblins they are attacking the goblins, not the DM. When the players are pickpocketing the noble they are stealing from the noble, not the DM.

And this is different from the PC-Player relationship...how? When the goblins shoot arrows at the PCs...they're not shooting them at the players. When the noble is lying to the PCs, they're not lying to the players. Etc.

And I'd disagree with the "runs them but not his characters"--they're just as much his characters as the PCs are the players. Partially. Both belong to the shared world.

More importantly the DM has agency. The idea of a totally neutral DM? That's a myth and an impossibility. And should be. It's demeaning to say that the DM exists only to help the players have fun--he gets to have fun as well. All real people have agency at the table, none of the characters do (independently of the real people).

[HidesHisEyes]

Counter-point: No edition of D&D has ever been entirely about role-playing. From the dungeon crawl of early editions, through the optimization games and tactical combat, perhaps peeking in 4th but always present. In fact most of the D&D role-playing focused discussion I have seen* is based on alignment, for all the hate it gets. Most of it is about optimization and how powerful certain options are. Which is part of why I don't like D&D as much as many other systems, but one of the pillars of the game is still getting into character and role-playing them, just not the only one.

* Beyond general role-playing advice which can be used in any system.

Well yeah it’s part of why I’ve moved away from D&D as well. It certainly emphasises those additional aspects of tactical combat, crunchy character building etc. But I would still say the core of any roleplaying game is making decisions about what your character does, and what’s roleplaying if not that? And it happens in combat, diplomacy, exploration and every other kind of situation.

[Hytheter]

Oh, and also, taking a spellbook doesn't "disarm" the Wizard, it just limits their ability to "reload". It's like taking away someone's bag of spare ammunition, but letting them keep their loaded pistol.

You can take away his spell focus, but that's not a sure thing either.

Though that does remind me of an opinion of mine, though I can't speak to its popularity: spell components should be standardised. Having spells with different combinations of somatic, material and verbal components is tedious, and frankly I'd prefer if taking away a wizard's spell focus was (normally) a sure way of preventing him from casting. You can build in exceptions as features (e.g. Subtle Spell) but on a base level I think it would be cleaner if things were more uniform.