Unpopular D&D Opinions Part 2: Popular To Talk About

[Milodiah]

Intent is an excellent point as well.

If you wan to play a WWII game, you can choose between the Battle of North Africa, Advanced Squad Leader, O Group, and Bolt Action (as well as many others) and all of those games will play very differently!

However, the "highest level of intent" of all of them is to provide some model for playing a WWII game!

Yeah, there's a pretty amorphous set of implied ideas that's often attached to the setting and/or system of a game that people kinda need to be able to identify if they want to be able to compare and contrast things. A d20 Modern WWII game will handle much differently than a GURPS WWII game, even if both of them are literally depicting, ie Staff Sergeant Smith and his squadmates in the exact same French village in the Bocage on June 19th, 1944. They strongly color the way the game will go, and honestly probably color the entirety of the story. Neither system is "best" for said WWII game, it's a matter of what you want out of it. Hell, it'll even be a much different story if you decided that Smith and squad are level 10 versus level 2 in d20, or if they're 100 or 300 point characters in GURPS. There's so many moving parts in RPGs that I try to restrict my critiques to specific things, like "I prefer the verisimilitude of GURPS for this in that taking an 8mm Mauser round center mass drops a dude most of the time, compared to d20 Modern where he's much more likely to survive and probably even be unfazed by it. That way the players roleplay more believably as ordinary soldiers who are very averse to getting shot, instead of being action heroes who shrug off bullets."

Note that I didn't say anywhere that the other as a worse system in generalizing terms, just that in my opinion I prefer the other for (insert reason).

[Quertus]

If you want to roll for something where a natural 1 will destroy your story that you the GM worked on then that is your prerogative. That's what's being discussed here right? When a dice roll can destroy the story then maybe don't call for a roll, unless you want to gamble the story.

But if you do, don't fudge it, roll it openly. And the campaign? If it dies, it dies.

"If you want to roll for something where a natural 1 well destroy your story that you, the players worked on, then…"

I'm seeing this as an argument against dice, or against stories, or against stories fragile enough to be destroyed by a single bad roll, or possibly an argument against work (ah, work, ever the bane of the drinking class), rather than an argument specific to GMs rolling dice.

[Xervous]

Intent is an excellent point as well.

If you wan to play a WWII game, you can choose between the Battle of North Africa, Advanced Squad Leader, O Group, and Bolt Action (as well as many others) and all of those games will play very differently!

However, the "highest level of intent" of all of them is to provide some model for playing a WWII game!

A WWII game? I’ll style it off Catch-22 and run it with the rules of Paranoia. Oh you meant you wanted (wargaming/politics/espionage) and for it to be (realistic/tragic/hopeful)?

This brings me to an interesting thought, how many lines would be generally sufficient for clarifying just what it is a system is trying to provide?

[Easy e]

A WWII game? I’ll style it off Catch-22 and run it with the rules of Paranoia. Oh you meant you wanted (wargaming/politics/espionage) and for it to be (realistic/tragic/hopeful)?

Indeed, the ones a listed are just "Wargame" versions of WWII and I only scratched the surfaced!

This brings me to an interesting thought, how many lines would be generally sufficient for clarifying just what it is a system is trying to provide?

Judging by the threads on this forum..... all the lines.

:)

[Telok]

By a lot. Despite what D&D monster manuals try to tell us, a house cat is not a combat encounter. Even if D&D stats tell us that it is a fearsome predator capable of taking out level 1 wizards without difficulty.

Depends on the cat. Most house cats are probably not. A stray my partner's family adopted a long time ago, with muscles that broke the vet's needles and jumped off the roof to attack large dogs at least twice... Anything about 5+ kilos of angry-angry with claws and/or enough bite/stomp/clobber to break bones is a combat encounter.

Just because D&D can't handle non-lethal combat & fear worth a damn and ditched morale rules isn't a reason for everyone to auto-win bare handed against a pair of angry swans or a zombie rat.

This brings me to an interesting thought, how many lines would be generally sufficient for clarifying just what it is a system is trying to provide?

About half a page for a general high level view if the writer is honest and understands the system's strengths and limits. Add about another page and a half for a more detailed look without getting into specific mechanics or modifications of the base rules.

You can do that at every level. Life, hobby, game, book, chapter, subsystem, and specific rules. But I wouldn't do more than game & subsystem most of the time.

A writer who has an agenda to push ("totally new & unique mechanic!" for roll muntiple dice and choose one), hasn't played the rules as presented to new players/DMs ("we use the 'easy' dc for average checks because the 'average' dc is actually hard"), or doesn't understand what the rules do & don't do ("of course the stealth rules let you take a hide action the same turn you cast invisibility with your one action for the turn"), won't give you an effective overview.

[KorvinStarmast]

If the goal is to make a good story, and everyone at the table has even a tiny bit of trust in what others at the table consider a good story, you can throw the dice straight into trash and never pay attention to them again.

The goal is to have a make believe adventure that is worth telling stories about afterwards. That's what I've seen with successfull D&D groups. (Anecdote: An old friend of mine and I still, when we talk on the phone, laugh about the story/adventure we had over 40 years ago that involved a glacier, high winds, my hobbit thief, and a wand of wonder).

the use of dice in D&D does not originate from story games. It originates from wargames, where chaos of physical die rolls was used as simplified model for chaos present on a real battlefield.

Yep.

Offloading some of the world to dice frees up GM mental processing power for other stuff. The dice act as an external inspiration for the GM and players alike, one that can add variety to simple events or suggest a grand turning point the group might not face conceived of on their own. The dice provide a moment of authentic suspense wherein the players generally know their action is possible but the outcome not predetermined.

Seen that on many occasions.

Nah, if I want to play a human-centric grounded world then I will suggest playing a different game, personally.

D&D 5e works extremely well with an all human party. (Which surprised the first group I did this with a few years ago). It did not surprise me since the original game also worked pretty well with all human parties, as did Empire of the Petal Throne )(a close cousin to OD&D).

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's a problem I kinda see a lot in RPG communities, and it cropped up a lot in the last thread. All systems are independent frameworks, and really the only way they can be objectively, inherently "good" or "bad" function-wise is whether or not the framework is internally consistent. It's why I always frame my statements as opinions, since I've developed a hell of a lot of those over the years from playing a lot of different systems but fully concede that those opinions were developed from my own priorities which are different, be it slightly or massively, from other people's. I personally really dislike the "gestalt health" thing that games like Dirty World use, where all "injuries" to your character (physical, mental, social, etc) are tracked on one bar, but there's obviously people out there who enjoy that mechanic, and neither of us can truly say the other is wrong (as much as we want to sometimes).

Agreed. There really only is one definition of objective "good" that works: is it fit for the purpose it declares for itself. Does it do what it says it does. There is also the subjective judgement "is what it says it does (and what it actually does, if those differ) something I want to do."

Hyper-reductionist "RPG is only about can my character do X" thinking is one of many choices. Not a better one or a worse one, just a different choice.

Edit: as to "stories fragile enough to break on a nat 1", I agree that the real answer is stop doing that. Stop designing stories that have to go a certain way; if you do, plan for failure at every step. Build a robust story where no individual event success or failed can ruin things. In my experience, the dice have a sense of dramatic appropriateness. But that's mainly because I'm not trying to create any specific story. Whatever results from their actions, that's the story. I'm there to prune the garden of possibilities so that it's coherent, no matter the outcome of the randomizing elements (ie the players). Player characters are catalysts of change. That's their role in the world; nucleation sites around which events boil. Or freeze, crystalize or erupt. My task is to have a super-saturated world, ready for disruption. And to follow the disruption where it leads.

And if a DM's nat one could ruin a story, I'd be in trouble. My dice hate me and love my players. Seriously.

[Easy e]

Agreed. There really only is one definition of objective "good" that works: is it fit for the purpose it declares for itself. Does it do what it says it does. There is also the subjective judgement "is what it says it does (and what it actually does, if those differ) something I want to do."

Hyper-reductionist "RPG is only about can my character do X" thinking is one of many choices. Not a better one or a worse one, just a different choice.

That is why I really like a game with Designer's Notes where the designer lays out the intentions of the rules.

Some people want the Battle for North Africa where the evaporation rate of a German Jerry Can vs a British Can makes a difference; some people want Bolt Action where a rifle can't shoot across Pegasus Bridge; and some people want something else.

Hence why in the initial post, I said reducing D&D to a system where the DM never roles in such a way would make it NOT D&D anymore. It would be something else entirely.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That is why I really like a game with Designer's Notes where the designer lays out the intentions of the rules.

Some people want the Battle for North Africa where the evaporation rate of a German Jerry Can vs a British Can makes a difference; some people want Bolt Action where a rifle can't shoot across Pegasus Bridge; and some people want something else.

Hence why in the initial post, I said reducing D&D to a system where the DM never roles in such a way would make it NOT D&D anymore. It would be something else entirely.

I too would like a more clear statement of purpose. I find that in 5e, you can divine the likely intended purpose from the text as well as developer statements, but that isn't crystal clear, nor is it stable. I find that the new material departs from what previously appeared (and was stated) to be the intent in many ways. Which is one reason I'm less and less fond of the new material--I liked the old intent. A lot. The new (presumed) one? Not so much.

[icefractal]

There's a few things being discussed which aren't the same -
1) GM (specifically) doesn't roll dice. This is just a minor mechanical change; I think there's even a rule for it in 3E UA, "Players Roll all the Dice" IIRC.
2) Nobody rolls dice. While this is how freeform works, it's not limited to freeform. Chess, for example, is a game with zero dice that's highly strategic and operates entirely according to the rules.
3) Freeform, or rules which are explicitly secondary to the story.


What role do I consider randomness (typically provided by dice) to serve, personally?
Salt.

In moderation, it can make many aspects of the game better. But relying entirely on it doesn't usually produce a good result. Some of those benefits:
* It moves the story in unexpected directions and can get players (including the GM) out of ruts they subconsciously fall into.
* It's a way to represent a finer level of detail than is practical to simulate. Like, for a gymnast trying to do a difficult stunt at a competition, the observed result is that sometimes they'll succeed and sometimes they won't. This isn't really due to "randomness", but to a bunch of micro-factors that it's impractical to put in the system - how well did they sleep that night, how much adrenaline is running through their bloodstream, how much are their hands sweating, is the equipment aligned the same way as it was when they practiced, etc, etc.
* Tactically, it can make what would otherwise be a "solved" combat situation more interesting by adding an element of risk assessment and requirement of contingency plans. On the other hand, it can also remove tactical complexity (Chess with capturing not guaranteed loses a lot, IME), so for this purpose the right level really depends on the specifics of the system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In moderation, it can make many aspects of the game better. But relying entirely on it doesn't usually produce a good result.

"It" here could also refer to any rule. Rules (of which randomizers are one subset) are the servant, not the master. For some reason, that idea really irks a lot of people

[Batcathat]

What role do I consider randomness (typically provided by dice) to serve, personally?
Salt.

In moderation, it can make many aspects of the game better. But relying entirely on it doesn't usually produce a good result. Some of those benefits:
* It moves the story in unexpected directions and can get players (including the GM) out of ruts they subconsciously fall into.
* It's a way to represent a finer level of detail than is practical to simulate. Like, for a gymnast trying to do a difficult stunt at a competition, the observed result is that sometimes they'll succeed and sometimes they won't. This isn't really due to "randomness", but to a bunch of micro-factors that it's impractical to put in the system - how well did they sleep that night, how much adrenaline is running through their bloodstream, how much are their hands sweating, is the equipment aligned the same way as it was when they practiced, etc, etc.
* Tactically, it can make what would otherwise be a "solved" combat situation more interesting by adding an element of risk assessment and requirement of contingency plans. On the other hand, it can also remove tactical complexity (Chess with capturing not guaranteed loses a lot, IME), so for this purpose the right level really depends on the specifics of the system.

This is a very good way of putting it, I think. I especially like the second point.

[Pex]

Back? Why was it ever gone?

You're reading too literal into it perhaps. The game remains exciting, but as I said, I'm sick and tired of fighting owlbears, trolls, drow, and mindflayers. There's fun to be had in fighting new monsters.

It does rather become interesting to me that many people go out of their way to seek out mechanics that go far beyond "can my character do x", and I don't just mean crunch-favoring systems like GURPS; because at its core GURPS is still trying to answer that question, it's just very fond of detailed breakdowns of the answer.

I'm referring to things like 3.5 and Pathfinder where all the things like feat trees, optimized builds, etc are clearly no longer trying to answer that question, but instead provide an entirely new set of questions to answer. It may have started with things like "is my character good at fighting with a weapon in each hand" to which the answer is "well do you have the Two Weapon Fighting feat?" but it's clearly become far more than just that, especially as Pathfinder picks up where 3.5 left off in terms of feat trees, point pools, and other stuff that's less an abstraction of real-world concepts and more an entirely new set of rules. And though I never played 4th edition, I understand that it rather took that concept to its logical conclusion.

SNIPPAGE FOR BREVITY

Yes, for some people too many rules is a problem. 3E/Pathfinder has long been derided for their "You need a feat for that" mentality. The issue for any RPG is where to draw the line between having rules to define how something is to be done fairly and keep quiet just let the players play already. Where that line is placed causes its own arguments, such as my infamous angst about the 5E skill system that other people do share even if I'm the most vocal about it. I suppose it's possible for a game to have too many or too few rules where objectively anyone would say "No, that's not good. Have less/more rules.", but generally the controversy, so to speak, can't go away. Some people like lots of crunch. Some people don't. The debate about where the line is placed is going to happen even if you don't like that debate happening at all.

[dafrca]

Yes, for some people too many rules is a problem. 3E/Pathfinder has long been derided for their "You need a feat for that" mentality. The issue for any RPG is where to draw the line between having rules to define how something is to be done fairly and keep quiet just let the players play already. Where that line is placed causes its own arguments, such as my infamous angst about the 5E skill system that other people do share even if I'm the most vocal about it. I suppose it's possible for a game to have too many or too few rules where objectively anyone would say "No, that's not good. Have less/more rules.", but generally the controversy, so to speak, can't go away. Some people like lots of crunch. Some people don't. The debate about where the line is placed is going to happen even if you don't like that debate happening at all.

Well written.

I would also add where the lien of too much or too little is also driven by what crunch I like vs what I don't. By that I mean if I enjoy the wargame feel of combat but hate resource management then I think rule set X needs less resource management crunch but the rules around facing and bonus hitting and attacks is just right or maybe needs more crunch. LOL

[Cluedrew]

IÂ’m sorry but your burrowing magma dragons invalidate this layout for your tectonic plates. This prevents the formation of the mountain range that protects the rainforest where the botanicals for the prophet's favorite gin developed. So dwarves wouldnÂ’t be known for drinking.

Yeah, that will happen sometimes. I'm currently trying to figure out if I can make dwarfs associated with mines or mountains again in my setting. I did drop the drinking thing, or at least soften it up a bit.

Agreed. There really only is one definition of objective "good" that works: is it fit for the purpose it declares for itself. Does it do what it says it does. There is also the subjective judgement "is what it says it does (and what it actually does, if those differ) something I want to do."

And even measuring the first can be tricky sometimes. I actually think 4e has much better design than a lot of people give it credit for (which is relative). It's problems were more about picking the wrong goals (and hence what trade offs it made) than in how it implemented them.

The debate about where the line is placed is going to happen even if you don't like that debate happening at all.

True, and there are advantages and disadvantages and all sorts of trade-offs I love turn over and examine from every angle. But usually the important question is just "Did you have fun?"

[Milodiah]

. I actually think 4e has much better design than a lot of people give it credit for (which is relative). It's problems were more about picking the wrong goals (and hence what trade offs it made) than in how it implemented them.

4e was a pretty good small unit tactics game that, rather unfortunately, got the D&D tag tacked to it to sell more.

[KorvinStarmast]

And if a DM's nat one could ruin a story, I'd be in trouble. My dice hate me and love my players. Seriously.

To rub salt in the wound, Dil just got a dozen roses from one of your dice. And it's not even Valentine's Day!

"It" here could also refer to any rule. Rules (of which randomizers are one subset) are the servant, not the master. For some reason, that idea really irks a lot of people

Yeah, not going down that rat hole.

You're reading too literal into it perhaps. The game remains exciting, but as I said, I'm sick and tired of fighting owlbears, trolls, drow, and mindflayers. There's fun to be had in fighting new monsters.

Big agree.
Recent example:
our group climbed to the top of a local mount a few sessions ago and ran into something none of the other players had ever seen, and that I had only run once about three years ago: galeb duhr. It took me a couple of rounds to realize what we were up against. (And I kept my trap shut). The whole group not knowing about the GD's ability to roll stones at them and some of the quirks of that encounter were very, very enjoyable. After the session I sent my brother (DM) a quick email which was a 'well done on that encounter' since it fit very well into the terrain and the (eventual) discovery by the party of a small, ancient, forgotten shrine to elemental (something?) wherein we fought a few earth elementals (which we had seen before a number of times). The session and the mini scenario really fit together well, but what I recall most was dealing with the galeb duhr and their rolling rocks. (I knocked one of the latter off of the mountain/cliff side with EB/Repelling blast. It landed a few hundred feet below, got up, and started rolling again ... which incited our bard to start singing "Poppa Was a Rolling Stone" by the temptations).

[Xervous]

4e was a pretty good small unit tactics game that, rather unfortunately, got the D&D tag tacked to it to sell more.

And to this day I’d still play it over 5e.
4e is about the only D&D game I’d consider playing a character with the class Fighter. I’d play fighters in certain styles of 1-2e because toons are disposable.

[Glorthindel]

4e was a pretty good small unit tactics game that, rather unfortunately, got the D&D tag tacked to it to sell more.

I have long held the stance that if they had simply called it "Dungeons and Dragons : Tactics", they'd have got away with it.

[Tanarii]

4e is about the only D&D game I’d consider playing a character with the class Fighter. I’d play fighters in certain styles of 1-2e because toons are disposable.

Yeah, 4e Fighters specifically and "I attack" classes in general were far superior under the AEDU system. Best implementation of them I've experienced. Rolling them back to "I attack" in 4e Essentials, which was explicitly in his own words as his test bed for ideas for the next edition, was Mearl's greatest Sin.

Caveat: I never experienced ToB

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, 4e Fighters specifically and "I attack" classes in general were far superior under the AEDU system.

At will, Encounter, Daily ... what's U?

[JNAProductions]

At will, Encounter, Daily ... what's U?

Utility Powers.

[KorvinStarmast]

Utility Powers.

Yes, the public utility provides power to your neighborhood.

Can you offer an example? I didn't do 4e, wasn't D&Ding for a while.

[Luccan]

Forgotten Realms biggest problem as a playable setting is giving characters really stupid names, not the special NPCs. In actuality the likes of Elminster or Drizzt rarely need to be accounted for, despite their power and seeming ubiquity. But some random schmuck named something like Boblen Purglespud will inevitably end up central to part of the adventure. It's not so much that silly names are bad, it's that 1. It clashes with the more normal names that also show up 2. It's rarely actually humorous, just silly 3. It ruins any serious tone you're building up. Humor is part of D&D, but it should compliment the game and not rear its head every time you mention an NPCs name.

I say this is unpopular because, at least at the moment, I genuinely think the fact I have to rename NPCs in prewritten adventures to not sound like clowns is a bigger issue than the fact somebody's pet character is somewhere in the setting. And people love to complain about that dark elf ranger

[Quertus]

Forgotten Realms biggest problem as a playable setting is giving characters really stupid names,

I have to rename NPCs in prewritten adventures

That's what you think is FR's biggest problem? Even in the context of modules? Ho boy.

Let's look at my current kicking ____: "Halls of the High King", by Ed Greenwood.

Per my "worst module" thread,

The module is chock full of errors at all levels, and, going through the module, I filled up nearly a page of text just *describing* the errors for each page of the module. Those errors… eh, I'll spoil this "brief" overview (divided/ordered by roughly what level of "annoying" I found them) both for length, and just in case anyone actually plays 2e modules / converts them to newer systems anymore.

Spoiler: Level 1 - eye roll logic / typos

Show

Sure, there's typos, like the monster that deals "6.24” damage instead of 6-24 damage.

Sure, you are given the quest by someone twice your level, with a bodyguard twice *his* level.

Sure, "if the PCs don't do it, it doesn't get done (regardless of how many Uber competent beings *could* (and, often, *should*) have done these things)" is a common theme.

I can accept all that with little more than an eye roll.

Spoiler: Level 2 - NPC personalities

Show

One of the big draws of FR modules is, supposedly, the quirky NPCs. That's not exactly big for me, so I'll accept that I might not appreciate the NPCs as much as some, but…

The quest-giver is a total fanboy stalker… and a strange combination of honest and conniving.

Flamsterd is… what's the name for an OP female total ***** who, incongruously, all of the NPCs totally adore? Flamsterd is a male one of those, a total may Sue, stepping on sleeping PCs, and cursing them to have their weapons *automatically break* *for months* for the audacity of a low-level party having the gaul to reject his generous offer of 0 GP to go to a foreign land to fight minions of a dark god that are steadily overwhelming said land (a wealthy militarized nation that has just commissioned the crafting of over 1,000 additional swords, the delivery of which is the initial focus of chapter 1). Yeah, it's really easy to see why all the NPCs think he's such a great guy.

And even the nameless NPCs metagame assume that everyone but the PCs are incapable of doing anything useful, prompting the (low-level) PCs with lines along the lines of, "when are y'all gonna fix all of our problems for us?"

And… that's all that really stand out in my mind.

Spoiler: Level 3 - all the NPCs are better than you

Show

Now, this is Forgotten Realms - I expect that there's epic Archmagi running around. And that's fine. I'm not complaining about that.

I'm not even complaining about there being powerful NPCs involved in the storyline, on both sides. That's fine, too.

No, my complaints (and, yes, that's plural, as there are several) are separate from my acceptance of that setup.

One (actually rather mild) complaint is that there's a definite "haves and have nots" vibe, as some of the NPCs are just *way* better equipped than the PCs likely are or will be, even after completing the module - and that's not counting the NPCs whose equipment is "make it up".

To add to the "have nots" vibe, many NPCs have gear that cannot be stolen, and spellbooks that cannot be looted (since they hid them away, far away from the adventure). Because, apparently, it's important that NPCs always remain better than the PCs can ever be.

But most telling of all are the base NPC stat blocks. If it's a major NPC, expect something close to straight 18's (I think several NPCs are in "lowest stat is a 14" territory (actually, make that 6 of the NPCs just in chapter 1 with "no stat lower than a 14" - and several of the "lesser" chapter 1 NPCs are set up with their lowest stat as a 13)).

And it's not just the named NPCs - the PCs would be better off handing their gear to a random nameless NPC, because even those guys have better listed stats (also "no stat lower than a 13", BTW - they just cap out at 16 instead of 18) than the PCs are likely sporting. Baring some extreme luck / munchkinry, the PCs are literally the worst people in the world!

Spoiler: Level 4 - Schrödinger's Wizard has nothing on these guys; consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

Show

Apropos to the comment that part of the value of modules is having statted NPCs, a lot of the NPCs in this module have stat blocks of, "eh, make something up".

As if that weren't bad enough, a lot of these unstatted NPCs have "Lady of Pain" style text along the lines of, "assume that their defenses defeat anything that the PCs attempt to do".

And as if *that* weren't bad enough, check this out: one of the antagonists in chapter 1 (who actually got one of the more complete write-ups) explicitly has no magic items, no spellbook, no applicable memorized spells, and the text, "His defenses will prevent PCs from reading his mind or detecting his alignment". Um… how, exactly?

-----

EDIT: now, some of you will doubtless be irritated that I include this, because it's a valid playstyle, but it irritates me, so I'm including it. What is this "it"? That there is (IMO) an overabundance of random encounters, but the GM is encouraged to simply ignore them if they "hamper the pace or enjoyment of play". The Plot is railroaded (even if ignoring it would make for a better story); the physics are not.

Spoiler: Level 5 - does the author even know how D&D works?

Show

Just to name a few (and to pick on the Wizards), you've got Wizards…

Casting spells beyond their capabilities.

Casting spells that aren't in their "spells memorized" (which is full, I checked - so it's not just "they cast that spell, and their memorized spells are what they have left").

Casting Time Stop… just to Teleport away… instead of just teleporting.

Casting Invisibility… just to Teleport away… instead of just teleporting.

Casting spells which don't do what the module has them do.

Spoiler: Level 5½ - the rails are beyond lunacy prequel: spellbooks

Show

When I say that the rails are "beyond lunacy", I want you to understand exactly what I mean. So let's start with spellbooks - and, more importantly, the background to understand just *why* this is beyond lunacy.

In 3e, PCs get loot, which they convert to GP value, and use to purchase magical items to increase their power.

Spellbooks are a *big deal* for Wizards, being an expensive magical item that is highly vulnerable, and without which they are simply a glorified Commoner.

Now let's look at 2e.

In 2e, Wizards are still glorified Commoners without their spellbooks (ignoring that the "Commoner" class didn't exist in 2e). And spellbooks are still vulnerable (arguably even moreso than in 3e). But everything else is different.

There is no assumption of magic item shops - items can be purchased rarely to never. So what do characters do with the actual "gold and gems" portion of their loot? Drink, buy castles, hire retainers, bribe magistrates - mundane stuff.

Now, here's the big one: spellbooks are just mundane books. They're just recipe cookbooks for "how to make gunpowder" (or the spell equivalent).

Replacing a spellbook (or creating a backup copy) is as trivial as buying some blank paper, getting out (perfectly mundane) quill and ink, and writing.

Yet, despite this, and despite how ridiculously much trouble it should cause the NPCs (one of whom crafts reams of scrolls for their buff routines instead of carrying a spell book… for reasons…) the NPC Wizards seem allergic to their spellbooks, hiding them as far away from themselves as possible, not even carrying small partial copies ("travel spellbooks") with them.

I mean, we all know that (enemy) NPCs only live for one encounter, and so all they need is a spell loadout, as they will never actually *use" their spellbook on camera, but geez! The "cardboard cutout" nature of the backdrop is really showing here.

And why? Why go through all the effort to ensure that the PCs never get ahold of an NPC spellbook? What's the payoff? Best guess? To make Flamsterd's offer of "one spell, each" seem very generous.

Spoiler: Level 6 - the rails are beyond lunacy

Show

OK, real quick, here's just a few examples, starting with one that I have mentioned before:

"His defenses will prevent PCs from reading his mind or detecting his alignment". Even ignoring how, why? There is absolutely no reason for this. Yes, ganking him the moment you meet him will mean that you don't have a rather dumb encounter later (but certainly not the dumbest in the module), but... so what? Absolutely nothing in the module is dependent upon that encounter, nothing (other than "this is dumb") is learned from that encounter (that couldn't be learned - and, IMO, learned "better" - by reading his mind), there is afaict no point to that encounter, and the module would actually be *better* if the PCs realistically detected and ganked this guy, or, alternately, realistically *didn't* detect and/or chose not to gank him.

"Start this encounter when there is at least one PC on deck [at night]”. And, if that never happens (because, say, the PCs choose to actually sleep at night)?

"When… traveling anywhere overland… they will hurl spears from thickets and overhanging tree branches". So, when the party decides to follow the coastline, and there's nothing but sand…

"Regardless of which direction the party takes [they come to a grove]" - ignoring the questionable grammar, do note that this includes *backtracking*. "Huh, this grove wasn't here before…”

(If I were going beyond chapter 1, I would talk about how there are no boats… until the plot demands that there's a boat…)

And I was going to say, "and that's all just in the 1st chapter", but I see that I've strayed into chapter 2. Oops.

As a final irritant, the author spends an undue amount of time and ink gushing over certain NPCs and detailing the customs of the clergy of Bane (like, exactly what each level of Cleric is allowed to wear to what function), while spending almost no time actually describing the scenes, or giving details to handle anything off the rails beyond, "if the PCs attempt to kill this NPC".

EDIT: adding in Flamsterd stuff, just to have it all in one place next time I search for it.

Spoiler: Flamsterd

Show

This "gentle" "polite" and "kindly" man will "step on anyone's who's sleeping", kill "those who thwart his will" "ask the corpse questions" and "apologize the the remains is he's made a mistake".

What qualifies as "thwarting his will"? Unknown. But this "gentle" "polite" and "kindly" man will curse any of the (low-level) PCs who have the gall to reject his generous offer of 0 GP¹ to go to a foreign land to fight minions of a dark god that are steadily overwhelming said land (a wealthy militarized nation that has just commissioned the crafting of over 1,000 additional swords, the delivery of which is the initial focus of chapter 1 of the module), cursing them to have their weapons *automatically break* *for months*.

He casts invisibility, "to protect the presence of another person"… before Teleporting them *both* away.

(EDIT: oh, and let's not forget that Flamsterd thinks that it's a good idea to goad people into attacking him, so that he can learn their "bad tactics", when his own tactics are (as listed above, and) authorial fiat: assume that he is immune to anything anyone tries.)

So… do you *really* still think that the NPC names are the worst part of Forgotten Realms modules?

[KorvinStarmast]

Forgotten Realms biggest problem as a playable setting is giving characters really stupid names, not the special NPCs. In actuality the likes of Elminster or Drizzt rarely need to be accounted for, despite their power and seeming ubiquity.
But some random schmuck named something like Boblen Purglespud will inevitably end up central to part of the adventure. It's not so much that silly names are bad, it's that 1. It clashes with the more normal names that also show up 2. It's rarely actually humorous, just silly 3. It ruins any serious tone you're building up. Humor is part of D&D, but it should compliment the game and not rear its head every time you mention an NPCs name.

Yeah, and the current WoTC team ain't helping.

And people love to complain about that dark elf ranger

There's a think about taking a trope inversion too far. Well, they did it. It became a parody of itself. (Props to Rob Salvatore, though, for getting some D&D novels onto the New York Times best seller list. That was quite unusual when it happened, not sure if he was the first).

[Pex]

Forgotten Realms biggest problem as a playable setting is giving characters really stupid names, not the special NPCs. In actuality the likes of Elminster or Drizzt rarely need to be accounted for, despite their power and seeming ubiquity. But some random schmuck named something like Boblen Purglespud will inevitably end up central to part of the adventure. It's not so much that silly names are bad, it's that 1. It clashes with the more normal names that also show up 2. It's rarely actually humorous, just silly 3. It ruins any serious tone you're building up. Humor is part of D&D, but it should compliment the game and not rear its head every time you mention an NPCs name.

I say this is unpopular because, at least at the moment, I genuinely think the fact I have to rename NPCs in prewritten adventures to not sound like clowns is a bigger issue than the fact somebody's pet character is somewhere in the setting. And people love to complain about that dark elf ranger

Heh

In my homebrew world beholders have names - Joe, Bob, Fred, Tom, etc.

SNIPPAGE FOR BREVITY

And I was going to say, "and that's all just in the 1st chapter", but I see that I've strayed into chapter 2. Oops.

As a final irritant, the author spends an undue amount of time and ink gushing over certain NPCs and detailing the customs of the clergy of Bane (like, exactly what each level of Cleric is allowed to wear to what function), while spending almost no time actually describing the scenes, or giving details to handle anything off the rails beyond, "if the PCs attempt to kill this NPC".

So… do you *really* still think that the NPC names are the worst part of Forgotten Realms modules?

hahaha

I would say it's more a problem of 2E modules in general. 2E was notorious for monsters and NPCs breaking the rules and outright cheating in having stuff no PC could ever have or do. That's what I liked about 3E. The bad guys followed the same rules as PCs, but at the cost of complexity for the DM to create his own NPCs. 5E went back to monsters and NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs. I was worried it meant back to the horror of 2E, but that's not what happened. They took care in creating monsters and NPCs their strengths and weakness are comparable to PCs. I'm aware people do complain about 5E CR. I can say for me I'm not bothered. There are dangerous monsters, as there should be, but they aren't outrageous compared to PCs of equivalent power. I accept the unique iconic uberBBEG being a bit more.

[Cluedrew]

4e was a pretty good small unit tactics game that, rather unfortunately, got the D&D tag tacked to it to sell more.

I have long held the stance that if they had simply called it "Dungeons and Dragons : Tactics", they'd have got away with it.

Here is the thing though, I think that they thought it was the next natural step for D&D. After all the theoretical optimization talk of 3.5 I see where they were coming from. History has showed they were wrong, but I can give them that small piece of credit.

[Pex]

Here is the thing though, I think that they thought it was the next natural step for D&D. After all the theoretical optimization talk of 3.5 I see where they were coming from. History has showed they were wrong, but I can give them that small piece of credit.

I don't see it as lean to optimization but an overreaction of people yelling about how powerful and unbalancing magic was in 3E. They didn't get rid of magic completely, but to me they did. People said they made martials into spellcasters giving them powers, but I see it as the reverse. They made spellcasters into martials giving them attacks. 4E magic didn't feel magical to me. Also, they were so intent on everything being balanced they took it too literal. Instead of balance of comparable power they went balance of everyone doing the same thing. Different labels, colors, and flavor texts, but basically the same thing. The "sameyness".

[icefractal]

Thing is, they had a good solution to non-combat magic - rituals. But they were way too cautious with them.

In concept, rituals are great. The kind of resource management that works well for combat abilities doesn't work well for a lot of the non-combat ones. Action economy isn't a thing, even uses/day might not matter. So, separate out those to a different system where you can give them relevant costs. And by making it a separate system, people with non-caster classes can access it too, which removes the "some PCs get plot-level abilities, others don't" problem.

In practice, the costs were too high, there weren't enough rituals, and most of them were too anemic. But if they'd done it better and not been afraid of having powerful ones, it would be a superior system to how they're handled in other editions.

Some spells effectively do function like that - the cost of Simulacrum is not the 7th level slot, it's the fact that it's expensive and takes 12 hours. The slot's only real meaning is that you need to be 13th+ level to do it, in most cases, which could be done equally by a required number of ranks in Spellcraft (or whatever skill).