Unpopular opinions go here

[Maxperson]

Yup. By contrast, I remember the early years of World of Warcraft, where species did matter. There were a few species-specific spells, particularly for priests, and there were some species-specific immunities and party/raid buffs, along with various stat bonuses and penalties. The outcome was that even before beta testing was done, there were essentially obligatory lists of species/class combos for many party and raid roles. And the memory of them being so helpful as to make or break a group’s performance persisted long after they were removed from play. In many cases.

I do not wish to see that in D&D. And when people talk about making the species “interesting” without significant mechanical effects, I genuinely don’t know what they mean. I have yet to see any clear examples. Fortunately for me, I like the combo of appearance and freedom to bring stat significance as I choose it as an individual.

To make race matter and be interesting, yet not create what you describe above, you need detailed world lore on the matter. If tieflings are virtually unknown in the main cities because the few of them that exist are in a secluded mountain valley, how the world responds to tieflings will be interesting and different from lore that says tieflings are the dominant race on the planet and exist everywhere by the millions.

The DM would need to take time to create lore, racial locations within the setting and more, though, for all the races he is including in order to accomplish that. WotC won't make a setting like that, because all they do these days are kitchen sink settings.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, you can run a combat in a game of D&D without using the combat rules, but then you aren't, you know, using the rules. I suppose you're technically correct, but only in a somewhat trivial kind of way IMO. Your contention that the combat mechanics are somehow not rules is nonsensical. It's also not the case that opposed rolls going high is a mechanic of any kind in D&D as written, and it certainly isn't some sort of core foundational mechanic. Whether or not you think the combat rules are necessary has nothing to do with the fact there are combat rules, and that those rules are perhaps the foundational part of how D&D is played, next to the basic skills check mechanic. What you find necessary or interesting or think is needed doesn't change the game rules.

It is certainly true that the same basic d20 mechanic (more or less) is the randomizer at the heart of both general adjudication and combat adjudication. In order for your statement to be accurate you need to remove hit points, initiative, several key parts of various class abilities, the armour class system and a whole bunch of other things. It isn't a contentious or even debatable point that combat is the most detailed part of the mechanical chassis of D&D. You take all that out, which you certainly can, you can still play that RPG, but you aren't playing Dungeons and Dragons anymore. Perhaps that's where you were going? I'm not sure.

The issue here isn't context, it's that your contention about the nature of the rules is one that many people will disagree with for specific and rational reasons. Saying you don't need the D&D combat rules to adjudicate or resolve combat in D&D is nonsensical.

That's not entirely accurate. 5e skill checks involve some opposed rolls where a d20+modifiers is rolled by each side and high roll wins. So it is a mechanic of some kind as written. It's just not one that is used for resolving who wins a combat.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Whoever rolls highest is not always the one who wins in D&D. Tactics matter a great deal for who wins a combat, good tactics can overcome bad rolling and bad tactics can destroy a group even if it rolls well.

I think we are getting lost in the weeds here. A +2 bonus isn't everything, but it can occasionally save the day or mean the difference between winning and losing (if you hit or miss a dangerous monster by 2 or less that only has a few hit points left, that can be very signifiant).

 

[Maxperson]

I think we are getting lost in the weeds here. A +2 bonus isn't everything, but it can occasionally save the day or mean the difference between winning and losing (if you hit or miss a dangerous monster by 2 or less that only has a few hit points left, that can be very signifiant).

Occasionally a +2 bonus matters, but typically you won't even notice that it is there. At low levels that amounts to about 1 extra hit every 3ish fights(assuming 3 round fights, you will see 1 more hit every 10 rolls on average).

Bounded accuracy has made stat bonuses mean very little. You don't need to rush for a 20 when a 16 works very well and you won't typically notice the +2 anyway.

 

[Fenris-77]

That cherry picked statement isn't the whole of my argument and you know it.

Either engage what Ive said or back off.



Again, context. People really need to stop cherry picking statements to attack.

I didn't cherry pick anything. I actually disagree with you. This is part and parcel of posting a public forum. I haven't been rude, I simply disagree, completely and I'll admit, somewhat vehemently. No one's getting attacked and I don't think is super useful to try and make the discussion personal.

 

[Fenris-77]

That's not entirely accurate. 5e skill checks involve some opposed rolls where a d20+modifiers is rolled by each side and high roll wins. So it is a mechanic of some kind as written. It's just not one that is used for resolving who wins a combat.

That's completely true. But it also isn't a 'core' mechanic that somehow defines D&D play at a basic level.

To be clear, and I'm really not tryin to misrepresent your position, you argument is essentially the following? Am I missing something key?

None of that matters. You don't need any of that content to convey the narrative effects they emulate, and the core resolution resolves all questions of what does or doesn't happen.

 

[Emberashh]

It's just not one that is used for resolving who wins a combat.

The actual point was that it can be if one got rid of Combat. Thats the basis for the delineation of Rules vs Content rules.

The game doesn't disappear without the latter.

If one actually reads the full conversation from where it started in post #5,414 (its actually earlier but I don't care to keep going back), you'll find that this is the entire point of what Ive been saying, and it isn't wrong.

Unless one cherry picks and ignores why these things were being said.

I didn't cherry pick anything

Yes, you did. See above.

But it also isn't a 'core' mechanic that somehow defines D&D play at a basic level.

Manifestly wrong indeed. Its literally the first mechanic described in the PHB ffs.

 

[Maxperson]

That's completely true. But it also isn't a 'core' mechanic that somehow defines D&D play at a basic level.

To be clear, and I'm really not tryin to misrepresent your position, you argument is essentially the following? Am I missing something key?

The core resolution mechanic for D&D is 1d20+modifiers and beat the DC/AC/opposed roll. They are just variations of the same thing. DC 17 and 1d20+ modifiers needs to be 17 or higher. AC of 17 and 1d20+ modifiers needs to be 17 or higher. Opposed roll is 17 and 1d20+modiefiers needs to be 18 or higher to win.

 

[Fenris-77]

The actual point was that it can be if one got rid of Combat. Thats the basis for the delineation of Rules vs Content rules.

The game doesn't disappear without the latter.

If one actually reads the full conversation from where it started in post#, you'll find that this is the entire point of what Ive been saying, and it isn't wrong.

Unless one cherry picks and ignores why these things were being said.



Yes, you did. See above.




Manifestly wrong indeed. Its literally the first mechanic described in the PHB ffs.

Opposed d20 rolls aren't even mentioned on the page you quoted. Nor does the description of the core d20 mechanic state or even imply it is the only thing you need to play D&D. They mention attack rolls of course, but that's a reference to the actual combat rules, not something different. I'm not arguing that you can't play an RPG in the way you describe, only that when you take all the rules out a particular game you aren't playing that game any more.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure, you can run a combat in a game of D&D without using the combat rules, but then you aren't, you know, using the rules.

Playing D&D without actually using the rules - substituting rulings, for instance - is hardly unusual.

And, TBH, opposed rolls are a pretty awful mechanic, with the d20 already so "swingy," anyway.