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

[Anonymouswizard]

Moving what 0CP means does in fact make a big difference in point based games, so I don't know what's up with that 'just' there. The price structure of a point based game is a big deal.

Basically what I'm saying is, access to magic should not be a protected niche any more than walking or hitting things with a stick or talking to NPCs. Someone with no class levels in a casting class but access to the right buffs and assists and such could e.g. Fly or Resurrect or Teleport, it would just require more time and more prep and wouldn't be combat-ready.

Nobilis is even more extreme than Aspect 0 = mortal competence. Any character can fire off a Word of Power to add +8 to one of their stats for 1 action, and those stats are on a 0-9 scale where a 9 on Domain is stuff like 'change anything into a manifestation of my domain' and an Aspect 9 is stuff like swallowing the sun. Very little investment gating to 'I can do it if I pay', mostly investment decides how cheap it gets.

'Just' because it's still point buy.

Also I mostly agree with you, on my hard drive is a 60-80% complete fantasy RPG which lets anybody buy pretty much any spell. If you're not focused on the associated stats it'll take a lot longer to become good at it, but nothing is stopping you.

Plus as I said I don't own Nobilis, so I couldn't comment on the actual power level. But it did and does seem to match the rough setup, so maybe the solution is just not playing D&D.

[Cluedrew]

I mean Dungeons & Dragons is "just" a point buy system with very long chains of prerequisites and large packages. Which is to say, I think something being or not being point-buy is not really the point.

On the other hand increasing the baseline competence of a character is something that I have found to really effect the feel of the game. I can't quite pin down any exact threshold but the transition from "your character must be good at this to have a reasonable chance" to "your character must be bad at this to not have a reasonable chance" really opens up a lot of options. I do prefer that mode of play personally.

If I was redesigning D&D (to WotC: Don't put me in charge of redesigning D&D, you are going to get another 4e schism.) increasing the accessibility of basic options would definitely be on the list. I might make non-magical first aid a viable option for healing as well. Maybe you couldn't use it in combat but you could pretty reliably use it between combat. Stealth would be changed to getting the group through unnoticed so the party can participate even if the rogue is doing the heavy lifting. Pump up what you can do with different "normal" skills generally actually. Try to speed up combat even more. I guess that is my wish-list.

[icefractal]

I definitely fall on the side of 'let everyone do everything' rather than making everyone specialists. It'd take a lot of redesign of the class system, slot system, etc, but something like this for 3.5ed base:

- Spells can be 'free cast' by making a Spellcraft check with a DC of 10+5*Level. This is a standard skill check (no critical success/failure)

...

Everyone can use a weapon, but fighters are better at it. So this makes it symmetric: everyone can use magic, but casters are better at it.

I like this idea! Gives a nice smooth trend from rituals to combat-time casting as well. And it gives a lot more options for what a caster looks like, because you can boost different parts - could have someone who's still not doing much combat-time casting but is excellent at rituals and effectively a strong utility-caster, someone who's a master of a certain type of magic but no better than a rando at others, etc, all in addition to classic-style casters.

As far as it being point-buy ... well, the last sentence says it all, this is only doing for casting how combat maneuvers already work in every edition except 4E. Everyone can do them, but usually not very well, someone with the right training can do them much better. And the lack of that in 4E is a big downside to many people here, to the point of calling it not an RPG at all.

But then you do it with magic and suddenly it's point-buy? Sure, you can trip someone IRL but not cast Fireball, but that's just it ... nobody can cast Fireball IRL, so there's no reason to assume that if people could, then it would be an all-or-nothing thing.

Really, the fact that Wizards learn magic just by studying really hard favors the interpretation that anyone can do a little bit of it if they study: Say being a Wizard is like getting an advanced physics degree. Someone who only knows basic physics (one rank in Spellcraft) could still learn a particular formula and be able to apply it, especially with a printed reference (the scroll), even if it takes them a lot longer than it would an expert.

[Saint-Just]

As far as "0 CP" point goes: it all depends on how free you are to gain negative CP traits. So to use an extreme example if everyone can pick a sword and swing it and you are not allowed to sell back that ability it results in different game. Depending on how many different "swords" you can "swing" by default it may result in substantially different game.

If you can sell back without limits it's just an accounting trick (even if you get less for selling it than you'd normally pay for it it's still the same - you've just made all "default" abilities cheaper plus moved 0 CP point). Most of the point buy games are somewhere in-between: selling back is allowed but is limited, may be subject to diminishing returns etc, which means that the game is still different (just not as different as "no selling stuff back" variant).

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm not arguing that the point you choose for '0CP' doesn't matter. I'm saying that it doesn't stop it from being point buy.

What does, now I've had a day to think about it, is whether or not things have varying costs, and if you can choose what to go for. So yeah, this proposed system could very well be non point buy. That's a mistake on my part

[NichG]

I'm not arguing that the point you choose for '0CP' doesn't matter. I'm saying that it doesn't stop it from being point buy.

What does, now I've had a day to think about it, is whether or not things have varying costs, and if you can choose what to go for. So yeah, this proposed system could very well be non point buy. That's a mistake on my part

Costs would vary only to the extent that e.g. buying a +1 to Will saves costs a different amount if you do it by leveling in Cleric, Paladin, or Fighter (and where that is bundled with a bunch of other things you can't separate). Basically, it's still intended to be a class-based system, it's just that the classes wouldn't gatekeep access to subsystems but rather would primarily modify specific terms of interaction with those subsystems - both scaling numerical things like the casting check and more game-changing class feature-y things like being able to 'hang' a handful of spells which wouldn't require the casting time or casting check to use on the spot or other such things one could come up with to expand on the system in various ways.

I also like this since it explains a bit better 'how would people invent magic in the first place?' Someone of average or above-average intelligence who messes around trying to bring about magical effects could eventually improvise a cantrip on the fly (since that'd just be a DC 20 Int check before something like the Spellcraft skill is understood). Maybe it comes down to some sort of feeling of energy moving or some tension or friction in the air associated with particular movements or gestures, or perhaps it's a more that during certain moments of mathematical or alchemy-style insight someone could notice that there are actually external signs of that process - when someone executes a geometric proof, the moment the proof is sealed the approximate lines of the sketch move across the page into the exact relationships, or whatever. But it'd leave magic as something that could be found in the world and then turned into a formal practice, rather than something which has to jump across the mysterious 'somewhere between Wizard 0 and Wizard 1, you do some bit of training that gives you spell slots and until then you're training blind'.

[vasilidor]

I think tying noncombat skills to your combat ability is a mistake.
Magic, skills and combat ability should all be separate things.
of course this scraps the idea of classes.

[Vahnavoi]

As far as making magic discoverable in the world, I like to do that based on giving magic specific rules which need to be followed, rather than abstracting it away into a die roll. That way, player can try to discover magic based on their own trial and error.

One of the simplest ways is runic magic, where players have to write the spell they want to cast with the runes. Failing to follow proper syntax gets you nothing. Accidentally following proper syntax gets you a surprise spell. Specificity and power of spells is limited by known runes.

[NichG]

As far as making magic discoverable in the world, I like to do that based on giving magic specific rules which need to be followed, rather than abstracting it away into a die roll. That way, player can try to discover magic based on their own trial and error.

One of the simplest ways is runic magic, where players have to write the spell they want to cast with the runes. Failing to follow proper syntax gets you nothing. Accidentally following proper syntax gets you a surprise spell. Specificity and power of spells is limited by known runes.

The campaigns I've been in that did this sort of thing most exhaustively used WoD as the base rather than D&D. It's fun if the players are interested in spending time outside of game thinking through it. There were e.g. different symbols which would do something to a flow of power passing through them - transmit it, change it's nature, express it into the environment or express it into the surface the symbol was on, etc, combined with magical metals that each produced a particular effect when powered. So you could come up with a design for an exploding homing mass driven bullet or an airship or a self-reinforcing seal or whatnot by putting the elements together in different ways.

It feels like it would have been harder in D&D because of the need to be more quantitative in detail though...

[Vahnavoi]

Quantitative is easy to do. Remember, the way humans do math is by putting weird symbols invented hundreds to thousands of years ago in proper sequence and hoping it spits out a result they can comprehend.

[Quertus]

I’m a fan of the “give everyone all the spells” plan.

. Try to speed up combat even more. I guess that is my wish-list.

But 3e is already rocket tag - what do you want, to have abilities that make your foes die before you encounter them?

As far as making magic discoverable in the world, I like to do that based on giving magic specific rules which need to be followed, rather than abstracting it away into a die roll. That way, player can try to discover magic based on their own trial and error.

One of the simplest ways is runic magic, where players have to write the spell they want to cast with the runes. Failing to follow proper syntax gets you nothing. Accidentally following proper syntax gets you a surprise spell. Specificity and power of spells is limited by known runes.

If I’m the first and only Nekomancer in the world? Then it’s fine that I’m working through new territory, sacrificing catgirls on my quest for catgirls. But it just feels dumb for masters to fail to train their apprentices.

Alternately, I love this sort of thing when it’s an extra added to the characters - I’m already fully competent Jackie Chan, but, due to a freak accident / kissing a goddess / swallowing the Sun / whatever, now I also have the option to add Magic Sun Powers to my actions (often with comic results).

[Cluedrew]

I think tying noncombat skills to your combat ability is a mistake. [...] of course this scraps the idea of classes.

Not necessarily, even if the two picks are completely independent you could just have each character pick one combat and one adventuring class or something like that.

But 3e is already rocket tag - what do you want, to have abilities that make your foes die before you encounter them?

From the blue text you might get this, but I meant having a given combat be faster to resolve. As simple example instead of reducing the number of attacks in a combat, I would rather reduce the amount of time to resolve each attack.

[PhoenixPhyre]

From the blue text you might get this, but I meant having a given combat be faster to resolve. As simple example instead of reducing the number of attacks in a combat, I would rather reduce the amount of time to resolve each attack.

The biggest things I've found that slow down (5e) combat are:
1. (by a lot) people not having decided what they're going to do until it's their initiative. This is the dominant factor in my experience.
1.5 (related to #1) people "playing tactically" and trying to optimize their action economy. Especially when that results in "well, if I move here, then I can do XYZ, but if I move there, I can do X'Y'Z'..."

2. Cross-talk and back-seat playing by other players. Especially with the terminally indecisive players who ask "should I do X or Y or...".

3. Minions (whether those are summoned or just the BBEG's goons or hired people or whatever. Each additional actor is a necessary slowdown on everyone's turn, because there's just more pieces in play. This has to get balanced, on the DM side, against the fact that solo fights aren't so great. The sweet spot for me personally is when NPCs, including player summons ~ 1.25 - 1.75 times the number of PCs.

4. Certain abilities. Prismatic spray, you're a prime offender. Anything that requires a lot of saving throws is (comparatively) slow, especially on half-damage-on-save (because then you have to track two sets of people instead of just applying an effect on fail).
4.5 Another big issue here are interrupt abilities. Reactions and legendary actions are the big ones.

5. (way down at the bottom of the list) most individual actions. If you're just doing "move and 3 attacks", that's fast. Even if you split your move.

[Vahnavoi]

If I’m the first and only Nekomancer in the world? Then it’s fine that I’m working through new territory, sacrificing catgirls on my quest for catgirls. But it just feels dumb for masters to fail to train their apprentices.

You didn't come to the world able to read and write, no need to assume your character did.

[NichG]

Quantitative is easy to do. Remember, the way humans do math is by putting weird symbols invented hundreds to thousands of years ago in proper sequence and hoping it spits out a result they can comprehend.

Alright then, what's the skill check bonus you get from using vernier calipers rather than a ruler when doing metalwork? If I add 10 m/s^2 acceleration towards the target to a bullet in flight, what to-hit bonus is that? Do I get a bigger plus if I upgrade to 20 m/s^2? What if I change the speed of the bullet - do I lose accuracy for damage and at what trade-off? What's the bonus if it accelerates towards where the target will be instead of where the target is?

I remember all of the internet arguments about whether falling damage should be linear or quadratic going on for years...

It's just something with D&D where it asks you for very fine-grained determinations of abstract things. That's not bad, but it makes experimental gameplay have a feel of wanting more modular encapsulated mechanics.

[Pex]

The biggest things I've found that slow down (5e) combat are:
1. (by a lot) people not having decided what they're going to do until it's their initiative. This is the dominant factor in my experience.
1.5 (related to #1) people "playing tactically" and trying to optimize their action economy. Especially when that results in "well, if I move here, then I can do XYZ, but if I move there, I can do X'Y'Z'..."

2. Cross-talk and back-seat playing by other players. Especially with the terminally indecisive players who ask "should I do X or Y or...".

3. Minions (whether those are summoned or just the BBEG's goons or hired people or whatever. Each additional actor is a necessary slowdown on everyone's turn, because there's just more pieces in play. This has to get balanced, on the DM side, against the fact that solo fights aren't so great. The sweet spot for me personally is when NPCs, including player summons ~ 1.25 - 1.75 times the number of PCs.

4. Certain abilities. Prismatic spray, you're a prime offender. Anything that requires a lot of saving throws is (comparatively) slow, especially on half-damage-on-save (because then you have to track two sets of people instead of just applying an effect on fail).
4.5 Another big issue here are interrupt abilities. Reactions and legendary actions are the big ones.

5. (way down at the bottom of the list) most individual actions. If you're just doing "move and 3 attacks", that's fast. Even if you split your move.

I don't see these things as bad.

1) I agree players should learn to plan ahead, but sometimes what you want to do no longer applies because the situation changes. Your target dies before your turn. A condition was placed on the battlefield - either in terrain or a creature condition. Creatures and party members moved so that the thing you wanted to do won't work, will hurt party members, or maybe suddenly something else you can do will work better. 1.5) Ultimately players want to bring the dead condition upon their enemies with as minimal damage to themselves and the party as possible. It is in everyone's interest to get the most advantage in a combat situation as possible. Analysis paralysis is a thing to be avoided, but I'll take real world time of optimal play over shorter time PCs are very injured if not dropped any day.

2) The bad guys have an inherent advantage. They all coordinate together at the speed of DM thought. They don't need to talk to each other because the DM just thinks it and it's done. Also, in encounter design the DM more often knows a combat will happen at a particular place and time. He already knows what the bad guys will do the first round of combat. He set up the encounter. Players needs to talk to each other for coordination. They are a party, not a group of individuals who just happen to be attacking the same foe. More experienced players who played together for years may not need to talk, but when you're new to the game or joined a group with people you haven't met before, communication is key. It's also just a game. People do need to learn the rules and know what their characters can do, but they're not required to be tactical geniuses. Talking to each other is part of the teamwork.

3) I agree this can be a problem. It is prudent for a player to have creature statistics in view. I support the current trend of summoning one creature spells with specific abilities for those who like to play Pokemon D&D.

4) That's the game mechanics. They do what they do and have reasons for doing so. It takes time to resolve things.

5) Some things are faster than others. Some classes are built simple, like the Champion. People exist who like that. Others prefer more complex classes. The more complex the more time it takes. The playing of it is the fun. However, being a simple class doesn't have to mean "I attack" and that's it. It goes back to optimization in play. Your position on the battlefield might matter. Maybe you need to something else besides "I attack". Maybe "I attack" is all you really need to do this battle or this turn to save your more complex things for later.

[Vahnavoi]

Alright then, what's the skill check bonus you get from using vernier calipers rather than a ruler when doing metalwork? If I add 10 m/s^2 acceleration towards the target to a bullet in flight, what to-hit bonus is that? Do I get a bigger plus if I upgrade to 20 m/s^2? What if I change the speed of the bullet - do I lose accuracy for damage and at what trade-off? What's the bonus if it accelerates towards where the target will be instead of where the target is?

I remember all of the internet arguments about whether falling damage should be linear or quadratic going on for years...

It's just something with D&D where it asks you for very fine-grained determinations of abstract things. That's not bad, but it makes experimental gameplay have a feel of wanting more modular encapsulated mechanics.

If I'm going to do a calculation at that detail, it no longer makes sense to go back to using abstract modifiers in the first place. This is pretty far for what I was going for, so let me explain:

If you are writing spells in a runes... and the question arises "so how much X should this add to Y?"... you write it in runes in the spell.

If you're using abstracted measures, then the runes should deal with those measures. So if your system uses "+x to hit" instead of proper ballistics, your runes deal with "+x to hit" instead of dealing with proper ballistic parameters.

The corollary to that is that runes don't have to be open-ended. They use your system's language to capture effects desired by the system and nothing else. The experiment exists for the players because they don't know all the meanings of the runes, nor all the valid combinations, from the start.

[Milodiah]

Its an interesting thought, because it kind of parallels what we do. We're constantly trying to determine the optimal combination of feats, multiclassing, magic items, etc that give us the most +x, and this combines that activity in both in and out of game at once.

[Tanarii]

The biggest things I've found that slow down (5e) combat are:
1. (by a lot) people not having decided what they're going to do until it's their initiative. This is the dominant factor in my experience.
1.5 (related to #1) people "playing tactically" and trying to optimize their action economy. Especially when that results in "well, if I move here, then I can do XYZ, but if I move there, I can do X'Y'Z'..."

Agreed these generally eat up the most time, but ...

2. Cross-talk and back-seat playing by other players. Especially with the terminally indecisive players who ask "should I do X or Y or...".

This one I consider a cardinal TTRPG sin ... uh, thing that makes you start seeing your character as a playing piece instead of you, the character. As such, this one is an easy immersion breaker to address. If your character can't be discussing something in universe, and it's something that would require them to talk about it, you shouldn't be doing it at the table either. Ditto for "ooc" conversations when an NPC is standing right there. If you say something that could only be communicated from character to character to have the intended in game result by the other character, the NPC heard your character say it and reacts accordingly.

For the combat thing, I know some people like to skip the research/scouting and advanced planning and just allow table talk as a substitute, but that approach is still an immersion breaker, because it still feels like "playing piece".

[Milodiah]

I mean, the design of most D&D games (compared to some other tabletops) tend to encourage the need for such lengthy out-of-character discussion, especially for newer (or rather, anyone other than seasoned) players who haven't quite internalized the full meanings and applications of all these spells, feats, class abilities, etc. Either your character is a one trick pony and you know exactly what you're going to do next turn because it's what 6ou do every turn (I use Trip, I cast Magic Missile, I sneak attack), or you'll need to evaluate your multiple options to decide which one is best in this specific situation (which isn't necessarily identical to the situation that was in place at the top of the initiative order this turn).

And it's kinda disproportionately harsh to new players to get mad at them for not having an answer. Since tabletop gaming's been my Main Hobby for over a decade I could probably be handed a character sheet for any game I'm proficient in, study it for ten minutes or so, then be reasonably able to use them in in depth combat after consulting a few things i don't recognize. But we forget thats a learned skill.

Hell, even right now I'm making the change from 4e to 5e shadowrun for a new group, and I'll admit I don't know all the New Stuff yet. Matrix changed quite a bit, I'd need to look over stuff before I made any decisions.


But there's definitely a difference between "hey should I use Cleave this round or one of my spells" and "hey should we lie to the Grand Vizier and say we didn't find the amulet or should we tell the truth and give it to him", when your characters are very much standing in front of the Grand Vizier. To combat this, I usually make point of no return announcements before "scene changes", like "is there anything you guys wanna discuss amongst yourselves or do before you approach the Grand Vizier?" If nobody says anything, then ok, you're in front of the Grand Vizier, and if you wanna communicate amongst yourselves without the Grand Vizier hearing you then you better get creative, and keep in mind the Grand Vizier is a pretty sharp dude himself.

And yes, I do like saying Grand Vizier. It's a great sounding title that doesn't get used enough.

[Tanarii]

New players taking their time to decide which of their new abilities to use is fine.

Is experienced players using their phone until their turn, or even intentionally waiting until the last second to start making decisions because they want all available information, that raise an eyebrow.

And experienced players table talking is its own separate thing. And of course there's the other common aspect of it, doing it to play another (sometimes new sometimes experienced) player's character as "helpful suggestions". It's D&D, not Pandemic.

[Milodiah]

I'll also add that some systems do have actual provisions for mental communication, and the way I see it if you allow too much PC Hivemind talk, you invalidate those. They're great tools, though, and I usually encourage players to pick them up whenever they can so I don't have to worry about putting a kibosh on stuff. Shadowrun, of course, has all manner of tacnet, be it through direct neural stuff going between your commlinks or whatever, the mind link spells, etc. D&D 3.5 has some sort of ring for that whose name I forget in the Magic Item Compendium, etc etc. Usually if there's some exterior force throwing these idiots heroes together, like an adventurers guild or other employer, it's part of the standard kit.

Since its something inside the game, it can be interacted with to throw the players a curveball. Sure, your tacnet's pretty ironclad, but maybe one run a really gifted, really suspicious security spider picks up a highly encrypted encrypted multi party comcall between multiple strangers in his building on his net, and decides he's gonna try to slip in to listen, mostly because he's bored as hell and this is the first moderately intriguing thing that's happened all shift.

Or maybe the artificer who crafted those magic rings actually has a backdoor built into the adventurers guild magic rings, to scoop information and sell it to the highest bidder.

[Tanarii]

5e has Rary's Telepathic Bond as a Wizard (or Tomelock) ritual, same concept as a tacnet. It's available at 9th level (5th level spell). And of course, characters shouting at each other is a time honored way to communicate in battle, but it can be overheard. It's at length OOC games rules tactical talk, usually in regards to a battle grid, that doesn't have an in-game equivalent mid battle, especially in 2e Combat and Tactics or WotC versions of D&D where a round is 6-10 second.

[NichG]

If I'm going to do a calculation at that detail, it no longer makes sense to go back to using abstract modifiers in the first place. This is pretty far for what I was going for, so let me explain:

If you are writing spells in a runes... and the question arises "so how much X should this add to Y?"... you write it in runes in the spell.

If you're using abstracted measures, then the runes should deal with those measures. So if your system uses "+x to hit" instead of proper ballistics, your runes deal with "+x to hit" instead of dealing with proper ballistic parameters.

The corollary to that is that runes don't have to be open-ended. They use your system's language to capture effects desired by the system and nothing else. The experiment exists for the players because they don't know all the meanings of the runes, nor all the valid combinations, from the start.

I guess this is sort of my observation, that D&D has things which make open-ended exploratory systems feel different than other systems which are less mechanically detailed. Same DM but with a D&D campaign had a combinatorial exploration system but each combination resulted in a distinct packet of mechanics. But with the WoD base it was a lot more freeform and as such felt more like you could actually invent something rather than just discovering something. I don't think it absolutely has to be that way, more that the base system imparts a certain flavor that you can work with or which you might have to work against.

In the WoD game, we e.g. had a magical metal that would change in mass when you fed in aetheric current, and symbols could be used to regulate aetheric current, so we put the metal on a spinning wheel and toggled whether the current was on or off in different directions to produce thrust. I don't see that level of thing as working as well with a D&D base.

[Jedaii]

Unpopular opinion: The differing play-styles among RPG players and referees creates ridiculous debates about "best practices".

MOST of the threads I've read here boil down to "I play RPGs like THIS" and others react by posting "No I play RPGs like that". It's like watching birds pick food from trash. Very discriminate and to the layman watching from a distance it's just nothing. But you talk about birds because it's what you can see.

Few introduce the ideology of using something other than dice to resolve actions. Few talk about the questionable value of Ability scores. Few talk about transforming RPGs into something faster more emotional and far more satisfying and still be called a "game".

Consider a hybrid of FATE and GURPS. This is a very real construct. Consider a new game that replaces D&D by filling all the gaps TSR's old game can't. A game that like Pathfinder did years ago challenges D&D for the title of "800-pound gorilla in the shop".

What if you dove into RPG theory deep enough to create the next great tabletop RPG? What if getting to it required you to drop all your perceptions of what a traditional RPGs is and build a new model?

Stop talking about what you don't like and just make that ideal RPG.

[Cluedrew]

This one I consider a cardinal TTRPG sin ... uh, thing that makes you start seeing your character as a playing piece instead of you, the character. [...] because it still feels like "playing piece".

This is that tactical combat stuff I was talking about. Tactical combat mini-games turn characters into pieces and can really shut-down role-playing. You can keep at it if you try but I find the system really doesn't encourage it.

Stop talking about what you don't like and just make that ideal RPG.

If there is one thing I learned in all of these discussions it is there is no ideal system. In fact, there isn't even my ideal system. What I want from a system changes with my mood, and the campaign premise and so on.

Plus I have actually homebrewed multiple systems from the ground up. One for half a decade or so until some people moved, my pool of play-testers went down and I stopped. Although reflecting on it since I have realised some of the core issues that I would have probably go back to square one to fix. So yeah, making your own system is a long winding road.

[Tanarii]

This is that tactical combat stuff I was talking about. Tactical combat mini-games turn characters into pieces and can really shut-down role-playing. You can keep at it if you try but I find the system really doesn't encourage it.

I'm not a fan of battlemats and minis for the same reason.

OTOH trying just theatre of the mind in D&D 5e (specifically), I found I often needed at least some whiteboard diagrams. I ended up purchasing two different sized ones for that purpose. I never had that issue in BECMI, or 2e prior to Combat and Tactica. But full battlemats and minis (or at least tokens) were pretty much required to play properly in 2e C&T, 3e, and 4e.

[Anonymouswizard]

Unpopular experience: I've never seen players slowing down combat due to tactical decision making. I've seen it from newbies, but never people who have

I suspect part of it has to do with not playing with military personnel, serious wargamers, or other people who actually care about tactics. Optimising our gear and bluff/fast talk generally took a more important place than us than optimising tactics.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Unpopular experience: I've never seen players slowing down combat due to tactical decision making. I've seen it from newbies, but never people who have

I suspect part of it has to do with not playing with military personnel, serious wargamers, or other people who actually care about tactics. Optimising our gear and bluff/fast talk generally took a more important place than us than optimising tactics.

I've seen people slow it down by trying to be tactical. Usually badly, and almost always without cause.

For me, the whole "combat turns into a board game with playing pieces, killing roleplay" has only happened when people cranked the difficulty up and/or focused on "challenge via combat" as a primary avenue of play. When every action has to be optimal or near optimal from a pure tactical perspective or the risk of failure and death skyrockets, of course that mode takes over.

5e, in particular, runs just fine without that. It does mean you end up playing differently and building different characters as a result, but I happen to personally prefer it tremendously even though you give up "tactical" combat and challenge as a motivating factor in the process.

[Pex]

I've seen people slow it down by trying to be tactical. Usually badly, and almost always without cause.

For me, the whole "combat turns into a board game with playing pieces, killing roleplay" has only happened when people cranked the difficulty up and/or focused on "challenge via combat" as a primary avenue of play. When every action has to be optimal or near optimal from a pure tactical perspective or the risk of failure and death skyrockets, of course that mode takes over.

5e, in particular, runs just fine without that. It does mean you end up playing differently and building different characters as a result, but I happen to personally prefer it tremendously even though you give up "tactical" combat and challenge as a motivating factor in the process.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. I have joked to myself at least that D&D combat is glorified Chess, but I'm ok with that. The game mechanics, the tactics, that is the game fun. Dramatic acting of roleplaying isn't required nor needed. Roleplaying can come in. There's the occasional offer to have the bad guy surrender or choosing not to pursue a lackey minion who runs away. Sometimes I feel sorry for the bad guys as I mentioned in another thread. Immersion is overrated. Enjoy the story, sure, but the story isn't ruined when I move my miniature 6 squares and cast Fireball at the precise spot where it hits four bad guys and just misses the paladin in the adjacent square.