Unpopular opinions go here

[Micah Sweet]

That's because there's a writer that can make it inconvenient for the characters only to the degree it serves the plot, rather than what it will tend to do in the game which is usually a binary between "doesn't matter at all" and "is a constant pain in the behind without adding anything to play".

If a situation can be improved by the application of good worldbuilding and good GM adjudication, I'd rather do that than use a stream-lined "system" designed for simplicity and not having to think about it. Pretty much always.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think the best take on languages for adventure games is Stargate SG-1. Everyone speaks the same language (except for that one society inherited from the movie) old mysterious texts are written in "ancient language" and "ancient languages" can be decoded by "linguists" with some amount of time/effort.

Fundamentally, having a bunch of different languages going around rarely makes for interesting gameplay.

Unless you're interested in playing in a rich imaginary world that has plausible cultures with different languages.

 

[Emberashh]

Is it player skill if you keep getting to respawn and try again with the same character?

(I ask for permission to reserve the right to amend and correct if my impression of video games is multiple decades out of date and incorrect now).

In many games, particularly Souls-like games, dying isn't so much a failstate but a part of becoming skilled. Its a basic tenet of video games taken to its extreme, as death is looped in to greatly emphasize the gameplay loop.

And fwiw, TTRPGs aren't typically any better in this regard. Making new characters equal in power to your now-dead one is usually the go-to, over having to start over properly.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If a situation can be improved by the application of good worldbuilding and good GM adjudication, I'd rather do that than use a stream-lined "system" designed for simplicity and not having to think about it. Pretty much always.

You realize that doesn't actually respond to my statement in any meaningful fashion, right?

 

[Emberashh]

I think the best way to do languages is to focus on dialects.

Ie, you have a few broad languages and many more dialects within those languages.

Done that way, anyone who knows Dwarven can speak to anyone else who knows it and communicate, but if there's a dialect difference than theres something you can gamify.

Different dialects can gate all kinds of interactions beyond rote communication, but the knowledge of the common language means you're not gated out of simple things.

Beyond that, learning dialects is something worthy of a level-up structure. You keep attempting to communicate and eventually, with success, you learn how to speak that dialect, opening up more lines of communication.

And thats just for talking to NPCs. We aren't even getting into stuff like ancient or dead languages and dialects.

This I think also gives way to a more justifiable means of having "Common" as a language, or rather as a representation of conversational multilinguality. We can presume adventurers and certain NPCs would have reason to be able to communicate with virtually anyone they meet, but we can use the same framework to add another level to the languages.

Ie, you can talk to most Dwarves and Elves, but you'll need fluency to have more complicated conversations, and then Dialects are an additional layer on top of that to consider.

And with this, you can also justify having languages that no one would just know; journeying to a lost island and having to learn the language from the ground up is a lot more justifiable when you have these kinds of mechanics backing it up.

 

[BruderStrudel]

Unpopular opinion, I've never felt like playing DnD. Have spent thousands ours on ttrpg, but not one hour on anything DnD-related. I do enjoy watching Critical role, but the second they go to combat I skip that part, it's always the same. Back when The adventure zone played DnD I acutally listened to their combats, somehow they made them a bit more engaging.

 

[Velderan]

Did you miss where I listed the giant's hp? And I'm well aware that few people back then used average hit points the way they do now. From what I recall of modules at the time (at least from Dungeon mag), you were as likely to find a hill giant with 60 hp as it was to find one with 20.

Also, unless you have that super-high Strength, most powerful magical weapon, were at least 7th level, and access to a book that, IIRC, was often considered to be a bit OP at the time, you're not doing anywhere near the amount of damage I mentioned.

So sure, you could bring down an ogre or even a giant in one round... but I doubt that was the norm.

I can't speak to 1e but since @Hussar referenced a 2e fighter having the ability to swing 3 times every other round, I'd also note that the fighter would need to be 13th level to do that so not that shocking a 7HD monster isn't much of a threat. It also seems TSR agreed with @Lanefan that hill giants needed buffing, because in 2e they had 12 HD so unlikely that 13th level fighter is mowing through that in 1 round unless they rolled really well on damage and the DM rolled really poorly for the HD.

 

[Lanefan]

I can't speak to 1e but since @Hussar referenced a 2e fighter having the ability to swing 3 times every other round, I'd also note that the fighter would need to be 13th level to do that

I thought weapon spec. sped that up by quite a lot for that weapon; such that you got 3/2 at 7th (if not sooner!) instead of 13th.

so not that shocking a 7HD monster isn't much of a threat. It also seems TSR agreed with @Lanefan that hill giants needed buffing, because in 2e they had 12 HD so unlikely that 13th level fighter is mowing through that in 1 round unless they rolled really well on damage and the DM rolled really poorly for the HD.

One rather major (but trivially easy!) change which instantly makes 1e monsters more viable is to give them their Con bonuses to their hit points per die. The average constitution of a Giant is going to be a very big number, so.....

 

[Velderan]

I thought weapon spec. sped that up by quite a lot for that weapon; such that you got 3/2 at 7th (if not sooner!) instead of 13th.

One rather major (but trivially easy!) change which instantly makes 1e monsters more viable is to give them their Con bonuses to their hit points per die. The average constitution of a Giant is going to be a very big number, so.....

3/2 was 1 swing round 1, 2 swings round 2. They get 5/2 at level 13.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think the best take on languages for adventure games is Stargate SG-1. Everyone speaks the same language (except for that one society inherited from the movie) old mysterious texts are written in "ancient language" and "ancient languages" can be decoded by "linguists" with some amount of time/effort.

Fundamentally, having a bunch of different languages going around rarely makes for interesting gameplay.

I like and use languages in D&D, but this is a really good approach, especially gating "ancient languages" as a category as a special ability everyone can't get. (It'd be a good exclusive skill for wizards in some systems, for instance.)