Unpopular opinions go here

[Aldarc]

Gaining nothing for most groups, and being to the detriment of the groups that use all 20 levels.

Additionally, did you know that WotC reduced levels from 30 (4e) to 20 (5e)? Did that do nothing for most groups? Was that to the detriment of groups that used all 30 levels in 4e?

 

[Celebrim]

Of course not. I run a PC-driven campaign. However, it prevents murder hoboes, because unlike D&D & like-minded systems, there are groups/governments who have the capability to deliver real consequences for PC actions.

Not having consequences for PC actions is a DMing choice, not a consequence of the system. Also, you aren't convincing me that you just like having guard rails. Plenty of murder hobos have existed and do exist in the real world. Whether or not groups or governments have the capacity to inflict harm on them rarely has anything to do with whether murder hobos exist. A PC driven campaign that gives a hard "no" to you can be bandits or pirates or whatever doesn't seem very PC driven. In the real world, while pirates and bandits often do come to a bad end, their careers often last longer than campaigns do.

I have to ask: where, or from what, does one 'pull out' a heavy crossbow?

Bartender pulls it out from under the counter is the stereotype I was going for here, but the other stereotype is 10 guards show up with heavy crossbows and say, "Surrender now! You are under arrest."

I've always let the dice fall as they may, and now playing online, all my combat rolls are public.

I don't see how this comment has anything to do with anything. What results the dice have is part of the game, not the metagame.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

All seven of them.

Laugh emojis aside, we both know it’s more than that, especially when we add in people who “only” use 15 or so levels, who thus still need those levels you’d be compressing down into ten.

But Doctorbadwolf, I will say that that there are D&D-esque games out there that condense the 20 level experience of D&D down to ten levels, with the possibility to extend play beyond that. I have Shadow of the Demon Lord/Weird Wizard in mind here in particular.

Sure, you can build a game with only 5 levels, or none. The fact you can do it doesn’t mean every game should do it.

Additionally, did you know that WotC reduced levels from 30 (4e) to 20 (5e)? Did that do nothing for most groups? Was that to the detriment of groups that used all 30 levels in 4e?

Having played 4e extensively, yes. To all three questions.

 

[Reynard]

ENWorld is not reddit.

 

[Faolyn]

Additionally, did you know that WotC reduced levels from 30 (4e) to 20 (5e)? Did that do nothing for most groups? Was that to the detriment of groups that used all 30 levels in 4e?

Since D&D had used 20 levels for nearly every edition, and 4e was so different than every other edition, I imagine the thought process was that people would see it as going back to normal.

 

[Aldarc]

Laugh emojis aside, we both know it’s more than that, especially when we add in people who “only” use 15 or so levels, who thus still need those levels you’d be compressing down into ten.

Sure, you can build a game with only 5 levels, or none. The fact you can do it doesn’t mean every game should do it.

Having played 4e extensively, yes. To all three questions.

What is the intrinsic value of those 10 additional levels? What value do they add to the game experience? What is lost by compressing those 20 levels into 10 as per SotDL?

Since D&D had used 20 levels for nearly every edition, and 4e was so different than every other edition, I imagine the thought process was that people would see it as going back to normal.

From what I recall, that was only true for 3e D&D, which I believe standardized it across the board.

Edit: When people keep arguing that having 20 levels is important or useful for those who use them, I keep thinking about the below conversation:

 

[payn]

ENWorld is not reddit.

or Facebook.

 

[Autumnal]

ENWorld is not reddit.

or Facebook.

You lie. You both lie like a rug from Roscoe’s. It is intolerable and therefore false.

 

[Aldarc]

or Facebook.

If we are just listing all the things that ENWorld is not, then we'll be here all day.

 

[J.Quondam]

ENWorld should rebrand as "X" because that would be edgy and cool.