Unpopular opinions go here

[MGibster]

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.

I'll agree it's not a consquence of the system, but I won't lay it all on the GM's feet. I've certainly run into situations where as a GM I've had to figure out how to deal with a player character's disruptive actions without making the game less fun for everyone else. It's not always an easy task. Ultimately the only thing you can do is have a heart-to-heart with the player and ask them why they have their characters behave in certain ways.

1. Some players get main character syndrom thinking their characters are immune to consequences beause the plot relies on them. "This is the first adventure, MGibster won't kill me." Narrator, "MGibster did, in fact, kill his character."
2. Some players just like to stir the pot. This isn't necessarily done out of mean spiritedness, but for whatever reason they like the chaos. Some people just want to watch the world burn.
3. Some players are genuinely jerks who derive their fun by disrupting the game for everyone else.

This is all part of the adolscent male power fantasy common in many games. Of course whatever the reason, the only solution is to have a heart-to-heart with the player to see what's going on and get the behavior changed.

 

[Celebrim]

I'll agree it's not a consquence of the system, but I won't lay it all on the GM's feet. I've certainly run into situations where as a GM I've had to figure out how to deal with a player character's disruptive actions without making the game less fun for everyone else. It's not always an easy task.

Oh I agree. The worst thing is when one player starts taking actions that have repercussions not only on themselves but the other players. Dealing with that is extremely challenging.

One problem I have with newer players repeatedly is what I call "scum saving mentality". They are used to playing games without consequences and where they can do over everything. And it sometimes takes me a bit to get them to understand this is the hardest of hardcore. You can't push the red button just to find out what happens. You can't attack the NPC just to find out what happens. Etc.

This is all part of the adolescent male power fantasy common in many games. Of course, whatever the reason, the only solution is to have a heart-to-heart with the player to see what's going on and get the behavior changed.

And I generally agree with that. Younger male players are particularly an issue here. But, what I've never observed is that this has really anything to do with the system. What it might have to do with a lack of system mastery or experience on the part of GM, or it might be a situation where you have an introverted GM who is being bullied in the metagame by an extroverted domineering personality. But what I don't agree with is that a system like D&D results in a situation where the PC's don't have consequences and don't have to fear large organizations on the scale of governments mobilizing against them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What is the intrinsic value of those 10 additional levels?

Vanishingly few things have intrinsic value. The concept, IMO, is not relevant.

Their subjective value is essentially that they are an end in themselves, or rather that 10 levels is too few for certain games and preferences while 20 takes nothing from anyone.

What value do they add to the game experience?

As above, but to be more specific, having more than ten levels, that is points of advancement wherein you gain new abilities or improve existing ones, usually as a group, allows for a longer “zero to hero” campaign, longer “this will take years IRL to complete and when it’s done we will have changed this imaginary world in ways that don’t feel forced or rushed or weird (oh you became an archmage in 3 months…huh), etc

What is lost by compressing those 20 levels into 10 as per SotDL?

All of the above.

And if a game has 10 levels, but then regular intervals at which you can improve things…but doesn’t say they’re levels… just call them levels.

My preference for 5e would be to not have a levelcap, make epic stuff sit to the side of class and normals levels rather than being “epic levels”, bring a lot of the new ability stuff down a few levels at the top end, and past about level 15 you’re improving things or gaining mythic traits with little or nothing to do with your class.

Then make levels ramp up power much more linearly, putting a lot of high level stuff into mythic traits (like the ability to learn and cast 7th+ level spells, and most base class endcap features).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Another.

Most dumping on 5e or D&D in general online is just hipster grousing, and it goes by with little pushback because it’s currently “cool” to dislike 5e D&D.

Yes, even a lot of the dumping that contains genuinely good and useful criticism in amongst the grousing.

5e D&D is more popular than any TTRPG ever made by such an enormous margin (probably bigger than the next 10 biggest combined) because it’s a good game.

5e combat is fun.

If D&D combat is just “I spam my spam button again, without moving” most of the time, that’s on the DM, players, or both. The game mechanics encourage moving around and improvising.

 

[Aldarc]

Vanishingly few things have intrinsic value. The concept, IMO, is not relevant.

Their subjective value is essentially that they are an end in themselves, or rather that 10 levels is too few for certain games and preferences while 20 takes nothing from anyone.

As above, but to be more specific, having more than ten levels, that is points of advancement wherein you gain new abilities or improve existing ones, usually as a group, allows for a longer “zero to hero” campaign, longer “this will take years IRL to complete and when it’s done we will have changed this imaginary world in ways that don’t feel forced or rushed or weird (oh you became an archmage in 3 months…huh), etc

All of the above.

And if a game has 10 levels, but then regular intervals at which you can improve things…but doesn’t say they’re levels… just call them levels.

My preference for 5e would be to not have a levelcap, make epic stuff sit to the side of class and normals levels rather than being “epic levels”, bring a lot of the new ability stuff down a few levels at the top end, and past about level 15 you’re improving things or gaining mythic traits with little or nothing to do with your class.

Then make levels ramp up power much more linearly, putting a lot of high level stuff into mythic traits (like the ability to learn and cast 7th+ level spells, and most base class endcap features).

I disagree, but I doubt arguing with you about it will get anywhere good for either of us.

 

[Pedantic]

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?

It really depends what you mean by "compress." I don't see any intrinsic problem...but generally attempts to limit the level range usually end up meaning "removing that pesky top end that we never playtest and play patterns from earlier levels break down."

I'm less sympathetic to that. I'd prefer significant scaling in level based systems in both magnitude and kind: not only the scope of challenges, but the kind of challenges (and player problem solving tools) should expand as levels grow. Not "jumping pits" to "jumping chasms" but "swimming" to "surviving in a full vacuum that's inexplicable also on fire."

 

[Jd Smith1]

To clarify how the system affects PCs, I'll use a classic example: a PC is being disruptive in town.Three guards turn out and point crossbows at him. The player knows that three crossbow bolts, even at max damage, will not put his PC down. Therefore, the guards have no restraining effect on him.

Now switch to the system I currently use. The PC is being a jerk, and one watchman shows up, armed with a shotgun. The player knows that there's a better than even chance the NPC can hit him, and since armor is prohibited in town, there is a chance he'll be killed outright, regardless of his level, and a very good chance he will suffer an injury that will require either scarce medical resources, or an extended period of less-than-full-abilities.

When NPCs have the ability to inflict serious harm, NPCs are treated better. It places a realistic caution on PCs without requiring the GM to take direct action.

 

[Reynard]

To clarify how the system affects PCs, I'll use a classic example: a PC is being disruptive in town.Three guards turn out and point crossbows at him. The player knows that three crossbow bolts, even at max damage, will not put his PC down. Therefore, the guards have no restraining effect on him.

Now switch to the system I currently use. The PC is being a jerk, and one watchman shows up, armed with a shotgun. The player knows that there's a better than even chance the NPC can hit him, and since armor is prohibited in town, there is a chance he'll be killed outright, regardless of his level, and a very good chance he will suffer an injury that will require either scarce medical resources, or an extended period of less-than-full-abilities.

When NPCs have the ability to inflict serious harm, NPCs are treated better. It places a realistic caution on PCs without requiring the GM to take direct action.

Emphasis mine.

I understand what you are aiming for and I think you probably achieve it using this system. So I am not disagreeing, but I do want to suggest an alternative, even if you allow PCs to be super-heroes* that can take three crossbow bolts to the chest. (* Note: Sometime I like treating D&D PCs like heroes from myth and literature, like Achilles or Beowulf or whatever.)

Characters living in the world should be as cognizant of and worried about the consequences of their actions as real people are. The PCs might be able to shrug off these guards' attacks and kill them handily, but those characters will then have to deal with the fact that they just murdered a bunch of town guards. If the PCs want to engage with society, they have to act like members of it.

One of the things that I think unintentionally encourages murderhoboism is the tendency to handwave all the "boring" stuff. You don't have to roleplay every shopping trip or night at the tavern, but if you engage with some of these non-threatening and mundane activities, the players will feel like their characters are part of a more real world and will probably do less flagrant idiocy while in town. Probably.

 

[overgeeked]

5e D&D is more popular than any TTRPG ever made by such an enormous margin (probably bigger than the next 10 biggest combined) because it’s a good game.

Popularity is not connected to quality in any meaningful way. Low quality stuff is popular; high quality stuff is niche. There's no real correlation between popularity and quality.

5e combat is fun.

Maybe for you. A lot of people find it boring.

If D&D combat is just “I spam my spam button again, without moving” most of the time, that’s on the DM, players, or both.

Typically the players, in my experience. I'm a fan of pulp action-adventure and 4E D&D so I present set-piece encounters that are dynamic with multiple types of enemies, alternate win conditions, areas filled with stuff that can potentially be used, environmental factors, etc. I have the monsters do all the cool stuff I wish my players would do. Swing from chandeliers, throw bowls of hot soup, sand in eyes, etc. And still the players simply walk up to an enemy and pound on it until it's dead, then move on to the next one. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

The game mechanics encourage moving around and improvising.

They really, really don't. Opportunity attacks really discourage moving during combat. Any improving by the players is limited by their desire to min-max. If they have a cantrip they know works they will literally never attempt anything that is riskier or potentially deals less damage. Because improving is suboptimal.

 

[Lanefan]

1. Some players just like to stir the pot. This isn't necessarily done out of mean spiritedness, but for whatever reason they like the chaos. Some people just want to watch the world burn.

This is all part of the adolscent male power fantasy common in many games. Of course whatever the reason, the only solution is to have a heart-to-heart with the player to see what's going on and get the behavior changed.

Why would you ever want to change this type of player? Those are flat-out the best type of players to have in a game, and I say that in all seriousness.

You want fun? Entertainment? Laughter? Twists and turns you never saw coming? Then the pot-stirring player - or better yet, a whole table of them - is exactly what you need.