Furthmore, it's dificult to come up with D&D rules that aren't tied to either the specific genre or to some piece of lore: the set of attributes, the set of skills, the set of classes, the races, the (traditional) means of gaining experience, the equipment, the spell list, the fact that there is a spell list...all tied D&D's style and substance. You could strip all that out and be left with "roll a d20, hope to roll high" but even that is kinda tied to the style of game (what with the tradition of "swinginess").
Yeah, I’ve been playing D&D across editions and I have to admit it isn’t the best “game.” It has a huge community appeal so it covers the “social” aspect phenomenally, as does the ease of entry. And it’s an TTRPG, so it’s inclined towards social anyway. And it has numerous settings each with their own narratives and so it covers the “story” part well. Plus it encourages individual settings which leans even more into the story aspect of TTRPGS, but the “game” it has always been rather cumbersome and exclusive. And this is the lightest edition ever rules wise. But I wouldn’t say it’s suited to most genres well. The best you could do would be have everyone play a sidekick and do specialized feats out the wazoo and use the rules for “future weapons” and cross your fingers and hope like heck. You would have to severely limit the spells lists, change stuff around so that spell effects were represented through technology and and switch to spell points and do consider it power cells or something….
Look, this is the Kinda thing I would normally be all about jumpin’ in and helping you figure out, and even I’m like, nah. I would just use a sci-fi game. But my group is will ing to try new games so it’s not a big deal for us. Half of them tolerate D&D, the other half prefer it to anything else. 🤷♂️ Meanwhile I never get to play Shadowrun.
D&D has an extremely large # of rules and mechanics compared to other games. Even Champions only had 80 powers. How many spells are there in D&D, each with its own mini rule set? How many monsters in the game have their own little set of rules just for them - a special ability or feature that only this monster has, and the DM has to learn that feature for just that monster? There are "only" 12 classes but each class now has what, a dozen or more subclasses? Every subclass works a little differently, and has its own unique and special abilities that are different from every other subclass. Just because you've played a transmutation wizard, for instance, doesn't mean you understand those 4 or 5 special abilities of the Bladesinger, which you may never have encountered before, or how those abilities stack with spells you may already be used to. Spells that would have been useless for your transmutation wizard may be key must-haves for a bladesinger -- and this is just 2 different subclasses of a the same class. Let alone if you switch from Wizard to say Druid, and have to learn just about everything from scratch.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing... but the sheer volume of D&D rules is staggering. The entirety of Champions, 4th edition, was about as long as just the Players' Handbook -- and it was the whole game. Savage Worlds is also about 200 pages, and they're small pages (it's a 6x10 or so size book, instead of letter size), and again, it's the whole game. Compared to these games, D&D has a massive number of rules.
I think I have a different view of "rules and mechanics" here, especially of the kind that would get in the way of roleplay. How magic works is one thing, all the different spells is quite another. Same with how monsters work and what each of them can do individually or with classes and individual class abilities. You need to know the former of each those three sets, but from the latter you only need to know what's immediately relevant and even for that small subset it's pretty much ok to look it up as needed or expect the player with those spells on his sheet to know how they work. I don't think anyone assumes those equipment lists should be memorized either, after all. If you're playing a transmuter, it doesn't matter if you don't grok bladesingers and their spell selection. What you need to know are the overall mechanics of classes and magic, and the specifics of the school of transmutation and of your transmuter's spells.
In order to be able to play - properly play at that - probably 80-90% of the PHB can be skipped by players, and DMs don't need to learn a whole lot more than that. I'm sure that's still more than for a lot of other systems, but that doesn't make it a lot. Not a whole lot of it is tied to "lore" either - it's not Star Wars where you're going to want to know about the canon SW universe, it's medieval fantasy where you get to make everything up if you want.
This is the one thing I hammer on every time I talk to someone who wants to play D&D but doesn't know how. They pretty much all think they need to read hundreds of pages and retain as much info as they would for your average university course (ok, that last bit's an exaggeration). They're mistaken. Even leaving aside having a DM and other players help you out whenever you don't recall something or that if you have a good character sheet all the info aside from the bare mechanics of how stuff works is right there for you to look up, even if we assume you want to know all the mechanics of how to play by heart, that can be condensed in less than 10 pages.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Furthmore, it's dificult to come up with D&D rules that aren't tied to either the specific genre or to some piece of lore: the set of attributes, the set of skills, the set of classes, the races, the (traditional) means of gaining experience, the equipment, the spell list, the fact that there is a spell list...all tied D&D's style and substance. You could strip all that out and be left with "roll a d20, hope to roll high" but even that is kinda tied to the style of game (what with the tradition of "swinginess").
Most of that isn't tied to lore you have to learn. There's no established universe in D&D, unless you choose to use one and even then you can alter it as you see fit. It's not Star Wars or Star Trek, where you're expected to stick with official canon. It's not Legend of the Five Rings, where the rules of society really make up a lot of the game.
I also need to bring up that D&D is not particularly swingy. You succeed or you don't, sure, but that's how most systems work and the resolution mechanic (a single d20) doesn't really change a whole lot about that. You could replace it with a percentile die or with dice pools or whatever you want, but at the end of the day you're looking at odds and odds are just that - a likelihood of success. Some other systems might offer explicit means to affect that likelihood, but in practice D&D does that too: players can in many instances choose how they want to go about achieving a goal, and that means choosing an easier approach or a harder one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think this discussion has little to do with why D&D gets hate at this point so I will not speculate on "mechanics" any further.
I'm just saying, "there's too much of it" would be a valid argument if there actually was too much of it. I don't think there is, even if I understand why people might be mistaken about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I haven't really heard that particular criticism before TBH. Of 4e sure, but not so much of 5e. Then again, maybe I'm just not moving in the right circles.
Furthmore, it's dificult to come up with D&D rules that aren't tied to either the specific genre or to some piece of lore: the set of attributes, the set of skills, the set of classes, the races, the (traditional) means of gaining experience, the equipment, the spell list, the fact that there is a spell list...all tied D&D's style and substance. You could strip all that out and be left with "roll a d20, hope to roll high" but even that is kinda tied to the style of game (what with the tradition of "swinginess").
Most of that isn't tied to lore you have to learn. There's no established universe in D&D, unless you choose to use one and even then you can alter it as you see fit. It's not Star Wars or Star Trek, where you're expected to stick with official canon. It's not Legend of the Five Rings, where the rules of society really make up a lot of the game.
Some of it is tied to lore, but mostly it's tied to game style, playstyle, and genre. It's not a good "generic" system at all. That's OK; it doesn't advertise itself as such. I have no desire to run this discussion in circles; someone else brought this up as a (valid) criticism, specifically it is "inflexible and hinder[s] individual fantasy" when adapted to just about any other style of game. That's undeniable.
I also need to bring up that D&D is not particularly swingy. You succeed or you don't, sure, but that's how most systems work and the resolution mechanic (a single d20) doesn't really change a whole lot about that. You could replace it with a percentile die or with dice pools or whatever you want, but at the end of the day you're looking at odds and odds are just that - a likelihood of success. Some other systems might offer explicit means to affect that likelihood, but in practice D&D does that too: players can in many instances choose how they want to go about achieving a goal, and that means choosing an easier approach or a harder one.
(this is an aside, and also a rathole I have no desire to fall into)
Dice pools (3d6 being the common, popular one for this sort of thing) are less "swingy" because the average roll is more likely to happen that extreme rolls. This makes outcomes slightly more predictable and less of a gamble.
The D20 is called "swingy" because very good/bad rolls are just as likely as average rolls. That's just how the math works out --- success and failure are less predictable; competent characters fail more often and incompetent characters succeed more often; the game feels more random --- compared to dice pools.
I also need to bring up that D&D is not particularly swingy. You succeed or you don't, sure, but that's how most systems work and the resolution mechanic (a single d20) doesn't really change a whole lot about that. You could replace it with a percentile die or with dice pools or whatever you want, but at the end of the day you're looking at odds and odds are just that - a likelihood of success. Some other systems might offer explicit means to affect that likelihood, but in practice D&D does that too: players can in many instances choose how they want to go about achieving a goal, and that means choosing an easier approach or a harder one.
(this is an aside, and also a rathole I have no desire to fall into)
Dice pools (3d6 being the common, popular one for this sort of thing) are less "swingy" because the average roll is more likely to happen that extreme rolls. This makes outcomes slightly more predictable and less of a gamble.
The D20 is called "swingy" because very good/bad rolls are just as likely as average rolls. That's just how the math works out --- success and failure are less predictable; competent characters fail more often and incompetent characters succeed more often; the game feels more random --- compared to dice pools.
It's an aside that's a pet peeve of mine. Feel free to ignore.
Average rolls being more likely to happen is of little consequence. The outcome of a roll isn't determined by getting a result that's close to average, the outcome is determined by getting a result that's over a certain threshold. If your chance of success is 60%, it's 60% - whether the outcome statistics map on a flat line, a bell curve or for some reason a sinus curve doesn't matter. It's still 60%. Critical failures or success aside, failing by a lot or failing by a little is the same thing so it doesn't matter if very good or very bad rolls are less, more or as likely as average ones - they're all either successes or failures. A very good roll is no better than a merely good roll if the merely good one succeeds already; an average one isn't better than a poor one if the poor one succeeds, nor is it worse than a good one if the good one fails anyway. That is how the math actually works out.
Simple. The ease of just jumping in and playing a game then the understanding and dread of the absolute power one is given in the ability to create whatever they can imagine by whatever rules, complex or simple, they wish to implement.
Lest we forget whoever is the referee, Dungeon Master, Game Master, or whatever they wish to be called they are the creator of the universe that is presented and therefore arbitrator of the way that universe works. Mechanics, rules, the whole kit and kabootle is laid upon the back of that individual. They decide how much time and effort is placed on defining that universe. The system rules are nothing more than guidelines to which a decision may be reached when confusion about the interpretation of those rules, mechanics, etc comes into question.
That power is what generates the hate. Players feel it is to much to give just one person, and the person running the game may feel they are "railroading" in their universe making.
I mean...maybe, but the same principle is arguably inherent in many TTRPGs that aren't D&D. Heck, imagination and a willingness to be creative are kind of necessary for tabletop gaming as a whole.
I'm not saying it's not a criticism someone might have put forth, but that person probably isn't a huge fan of TTRPGs in general.
Simple. The ease of just jumping in and playing a game then the understanding and dread of the absolute power one is given in the ability to create whatever they can imagine by whatever rules, complex or simple, they wish to implement.
Lest we forget whoever is the referee, Dungeon Master, Game Master, or whatever they wish to be called they are the creator of the universe that is presented and therefore arbitrator of the way that universe works. Mechanics, rules, the whole kit and kabootle is laid upon the back of that individual. They decide how much time and effort is placed on defining that universe. The system rules are nothing more than guidelines to which a decision may be reached when confusion about the interpretation of those rules, mechanics, etc comes into question.
That power is what generates the hate. Players feel it is to much to give just one person, and the person running the game may feel they are "railroading" in their universe making.
Nah.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It's an aside that's a pet peeve of mine. Feel free to ignore.
Average rolls being more likely to happen is of little consequence. The outcome of a roll isn't determined by getting a result that's close to average, the outcome is determined by getting a result that's over a certain threshold. If your chance of success is 60%, it's 60% - whether the outcome statistics map on a flat line, a bell curve or for some reason a sinus curve doesn't matter. It's still 60%. Critical failures or success aside, failing by a lot or failing by a little is the same thing so it doesn't matter if very good or very bad rolls are less, more or as likely as average ones - they're all either successes or failures. A very good roll is no better than a merely good roll if the merely good one succeeds already; an average one isn't better than a poor one if the poor one succeeds, nor is it worse than a good one if the good one fails anyway. That is how the math actually works out.
Consistency matters to some people. For many, consistency is the most important sign of true mastery. Your argument holds true when overall'd, but a lot of people prefer dice pools and more bell curve-esque results distributions because they feel it more accurately represents how skill actually works. If you're trained enough in something to be called "Proficient" in it, you should be able to count on a minimum level of ability within that thing in almost all situations outside of outlier bad-situation flukes. A 3d6 die distribution mostly accomplishes this - you have roughly half a percent's chance of throwing a "critical failure" (i.e. all 1s on the dice, or The Number of the Beast in roll-low systems like GURPS), which means that when your trained skill does fail you it's generally a Big Deal and something that can make a story beat.
Put another way, a first-level rogue with 16 Dex and Expertise in thieves' tools rolls with a +7 to typical lockpicking attempts. That rogue fails a basic, ordinary, utterly unremarkable DC 10 lock check 10% of the time - and they can crack an exceptionally difficult DC 25 lock 15% of the time despite being a first-level rogue. The mechanic doesn't feel like practiced skill at work, it feels like someone jamming a screwdriver in the lock and hoping they get lucky. The lack of consistency is jarring and frustrating to players for whom consistency is the ultimate mark of skill. 'Outlier' results are so common with a single d20 rolling under bounded accuracy that they aren't even outliers anymore, that's just how physics work in this world. That drives some players batty, and it makes their investment in high skill for certain characters feel underutilized and useless. What's the point in obtaining high skill when the d20 is so swingy and unstable that your skill never really affects the roll? Sure, it can shift the window up or down, but bounded accuracy ensures the window never moves far enough for investment in skill to feel like it pays off. That's as much an issue* with bounded accuracy as with the d20, but I absolutely get where people feel like a dice pool system that mitigates outlier results and provides a more consistent results pattern is more accurate to how training works in reality.
Simple. The ease of just jumping in and playing a game then the understanding and dread of the absolute power one is given in the ability to create whatever they can imagine by whatever rules, complex or simple, they wish to implement.
Lest we forget whoever is the referee, Dungeon Master, Game Master, or whatever they wish to be called they are the creator of the universe that is presented and therefore arbitrator of the way that universe works. Mechanics, rules, the whole kit and kabootle is laid upon the back of that individual. They decide how much time and effort is placed on defining that universe. The system rules are nothing more than guidelines to which a decision may be reached when confusion about the interpretation of those rules, mechanics, etc comes into question.
That power is what generates the hate. Players feel it is to much to give just one person, and the person running the game may feel they are "railroading" in their universe making.
I hate to break it to you, but every TTRPG pretty much works the exact same way.
It's an aside that's a pet peeve of mine. Feel free to ignore.
Average rolls being more likely to happen is of little consequence. The outcome of a roll isn't determined by getting a result that's close to average, the outcome is determined by getting a result that's over a certain threshold. If your chance of success is 60%, it's 60% - whether the outcome statistics map on a flat line, a bell curve or for some reason a sinus curve doesn't matter. It's still 60%. Critical failures or success aside, failing by a lot or failing by a little is the same thing so it doesn't matter if very good or very bad rolls are less, more or as likely as average ones - they're all either successes or failures. A very good roll is no better than a merely good roll if the merely good one succeeds already; an average one isn't better than a poor one if the poor one succeeds, nor is it worse than a good one if the good one fails anyway. That is how the math actually works out.
Consistency matters to some people. For many, consistency is the most important sign of true mastery. Your argument holds true when overall'd, but a lot of people prefer dice pools and more bell curve-esque results distributions because they feel it more accurately represents how skill actually works. If you're trained enough in something to be called "Proficient" in it, you should be able to count on a minimum level of ability within that thing in almost all situations outside of outlier bad-situation flukes. A 3d6 die distribution mostly accomplishes this - you have roughly half a percent's chance of throwing a "critical failure" (i.e. all 1s on the dice, or The Number of the Beast in roll-low systems like GURPS), which means that when your trained skill does fail you it's generally a Big Deal and something that can make a story beat.
Put another way, a first-level rogue with 16 Dex and Expertise in thieves' tools rolls with a +7 to typical lockpicking attempts. That rogue fails a basic, ordinary, utterly unremarkable DC 10 lock check 10% of the time - and they can crack an exceptionally difficult DC 25 lock 15% of the time despite being a first-level rogue. The mechanic doesn't feel like practiced skill at work, it feels like someone jamming a screwdriver in the lock and hoping they get lucky. The lack of consistency is jarring and frustrating to players for whom consistency is the ultimate mark of skill. 'Outlier' results are so common with a single d20 rolling under bounded accuracy that they aren't even outliers anymore, that's just how physics work in this world. That drives some players batty, and it makes their investment in high skill for certain characters feel underutilized and useless. What's the point in obtaining high skill when the d20 is so swingy and unstable that your skill never really affects the roll? Sure, it can shift the window up or down, but bounded accuracy ensures the window never moves far enough for investment in skill to feel like it pays off. That's as much an issue* with bounded accuracy as with the d20, but I absolutely get where people feel like a dice pool system that mitigates outlier results and provides a more consistent results pattern is more accurate to how training works in reality.
Meh. :p
Your argument has some merit, Rei, but my pet peeve is with this incorrect notion: "That's just how the math works out --- success and failure are less predictable; competent characters fail more often and incompetent characters succeed more often; the game feels more random --- compared to dice pools." It's a pet peeve because that's just not how the math checks out. Moreover, your outlier examples have as much or more to do with DCs than with how rolls are generated, and DMs are free (even encouraged) not to ask for checks if the chances of either success or failure are very slim. Or you can go back to 3rd editions 'take 10/20' mechanics. It's not the dice. It's not the math. It's a subjective response. Which anyone can and is allowed to have, but that doesn't make it mathematically valid.
That said, proficiency actually matters. Even your basic first level +2 from proficiency increases your chance of success by 10%. That's nothing to sneeze at. Also, as you know, crit fails don't exist outside attack rolls and death saves.
...but my pet peeve is with this incorrect notion: "That's just how the math works out --- success and failure are less predictable; competent characters fail more often and incompetent characters succeed more often; the game feels more random --- compared to dice pools." It's a pet peeve because that's just not how the math checks out.
Moreover, your outlier examples have as much or more to do with DCs than with how rolls are generated, and DMs are free (even encouraged) not to ask for checks if the chances of either success or failure are very slim. Or you can go back to 3rd editions 'take 10/20' mechanics. It's not the dice. It's not the math. It's a subjective response. Which anyone can and is allowed to have, but that doesn't make it mathematically valid.
As the person who wrote that quote, I will defend it.
In a dice pool, the dice rolls are more predictable --- average totals are more likely than extreme (low or high) totals. That is a statistical fact, and you are completely wrong to dismiss it. As a result of the dice being more predictable, roll modifiers (attribute modifiers, proficiency modifiers, equipment, advantage, situational modifiers, whatever) matter more, up until they have diminishing returns. This tends to put more "control" in the hands of the player, and make their character "compentency" matter more.
With a single die (like a d20), comparatively, the die matters more and the modifiers matter less. "Extreme" results, meaning very high or very low rolls, are more likely, and the roll itself is less predictable.
I'll even quote the old d20 SRD on this:
Metagame Analysis: The Bell Curve
In general, this variant leads to a grittier d20 game, because there will be far fewer very good or very bad rolls. Not only can you no longer roll 1, 2, 19 or 20, but most rolls will be clustered around the average of 10.5. With a d20, every result is equally likely; you have a 5% chance of rolling an 18 and a 5% chance of rolling a 10. With 3d6, there’s only one possible combination of dice that results in an 18 (three sixes, obviously), but there are twenty-four combinations that result in a 10. Players used to the thrill of rolling high and the agony of a natural 1 will get that feeling less often—but it may be more meaningful when it does happen. Good die rolls are a fundamental reward of the game, and it changes the character of the game when the rewards are somewhat stronger but less frequent.
Game balance shifts subtly when you use the bell curve variant. Rolling 3d6 gives you a lot more average rolls, which favors the stronger side in combat. And in the d20 game, that’s almost always the PCs. Many monsters—especially low-CR monsters encountered in groups—rely heavily on a lucky shot to damage PCs. When rolling 3d6, those lucky shots are fewer and farther between. In a fair fight when everyone rolls a 10, the PCs should win almost every time. The bell curve variant adheres more tightly to that average (which is the reason behind the reduction in CR for monsters encountered in groups).
Another subtle change to the game is that the bell curve variant awards bonuses relatively more and the die roll relatively less, simply because the die roll is almost always within a few points of 10. A character’s skill ranks, ability scores, and gear have a much bigger impact on success and failure than they do in the standard d20 rules.
Simple. The ease of just jumping in and playing a game then the understanding and dread of the absolute power one is given in the ability to create whatever they can imagine by whatever rules, complex or simple, they wish to implement.
Lest we forget whoever is the referee, Dungeon Master, Game Master, or whatever they wish to be called they are the creator of the universe that is presented and therefore arbitrator of the way that universe works. Mechanics, rules, the whole kit and kabootle is laid upon the back of that individual. They decide how much time and effort is placed on defining that universe. The system rules are nothing more than guidelines to which a decision may be reached when confusion about the interpretation of those rules, mechanics, etc comes into question.
That power is what generates the hate. Players feel it is to much to give just one person, and the person running the game may feel they are "railroading" in their universe making.
I hate to break it to you, but every TTRPG pretty much works the exact same way.
Yeah that was my point exactly. I mean there are more collaborative TTRPGs out there that don't have a designated DM/GM and so avoid giving the majority of the creative power to just one player, but they'd still have most of these same issues to a greater or lesser extent (if they're even issues, I think said "issues" are what make TTRPGs awesome to begin with).
In general, this variant leads to a grittier d20 game, because there will be far fewer very good or very bad rolls. Not only can you no longer roll 1, 2, 19 or 20, but most rolls will be clustered around the average of 10.5. With a d20, every result is equally likely; you have a 5% chance of rolling an 18 and a 5% chance of rolling a 10. With 3d6, there’s only one possible combination of dice that results in an 18 (three sixes, obviously), but there are twenty-four combinations that result in a 10. Players used to the thrill of rolling high and the agony of a natural 1 will get that feeling less often—but it may be more meaningful when it does happen. Good die rolls are a fundamental reward of the game, and it changes the character of the game when the rewards are somewhat stronger but less frequent.
Game balance shifts subtly when you use the bell curve variant. Rolling 3d6 gives you a lot more average rolls, which favors the stronger side in combat. And in the d20 game, that’s almost always the PCs. Many monsters—especially low-CR monsters encountered in groups—rely heavily on a lucky shot to damage PCs. When rolling 3d6, those lucky shots are fewer and farther between. In a fair fight when everyone rolls a 10, the PCs should win almost every time. The bell curve variant adheres more tightly to that average (which is the reason behind the reduction in CR for monsters encountered in groups).
Another subtle change to the game is that the bell curve variant awards bonuses relatively more and the die roll relatively less, simply because the die roll is almost always within a few points of 10. A character’s skill ranks, ability scores, and gear have a much bigger impact on success and failure than they do in the standard d20 rules.
I don't have time for an in-depth reply right now, but I do want to point out this stems from a time where crit fishing (and ending up with 25% chance of a crit if you built towards it) was a viable strategy. In that case it matters (which resulted in theoretical 2d10 systems getting recalculated threat ranges, etc), but it's not inherent to bell curves vs flat lines.
What you're talking about isn't merely bell curves rolling closer to average, you're assuming average rolls equal successes. That's not determined by how your roll results though, but by the standards you set for success vs failure. I suspect that if ACs and DCs were such that average rolls failed - again, not a function of the number of dice you roll but a function of how the system sets target numbers - you wouldn't be in favour of bell curves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I hate to break it to you, but every TTRPG pretty much works the exact same way.
Yeah that was my point exactly. I mean there are more collaborative TTRPGs out there that don't have a designated DM/GM and so avoid giving the majority of the creative power to just one player, but they'd still have most of these same issues to a greater or lesser extent (if they're even issues, I think said "issues" are what make TTRPGs awesome to begin with).
So... your argument for why D&D gets more hate than other systems is that it's just like other systems?
Might want to think that one through.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Furthmore, it's dificult to come up with D&D rules that aren't tied to either the specific genre or to some piece of lore: the set of attributes, the set of skills, the set of classes, the races, the (traditional) means of gaining experience, the equipment, the spell list, the fact that there is a spell list...all tied D&D's style and substance. You could strip all that out and be left with "roll a d20, hope to roll high" but even that is kinda tied to the style of game (what with the tradition of "swinginess").
Yeah, I’ve been playing D&D across editions and I have to admit it isn’t the best “game.” It has a huge community appeal so it covers the “social” aspect phenomenally, as does the ease of entry. And it’s an TTRPG, so it’s inclined towards social anyway. And it has numerous settings each with their own narratives and so it covers the “story” part well. Plus it encourages individual settings which leans even more into the story aspect of TTRPGS, but the “game” it has always been rather cumbersome and exclusive. And this is the lightest edition ever rules wise. But I wouldn’t say it’s suited to most genres well. The best you could do would be have everyone play a sidekick and do specialized feats out the wazoo and use the rules for “future weapons” and cross your fingers and hope like heck. You would have to severely limit the spells lists, change stuff around so that spell effects were represented through technology and and switch to spell points and do consider it power cells or something….
Look, this is the Kinda thing I would normally be all about jumpin’ in and helping you figure out, and even I’m like, nah. I would just use a sci-fi game. But my group is will ing to try new games so it’s not a big deal for us. Half of them tolerate D&D, the other half prefer it to anything else. 🤷♂️ Meanwhile I never get to play Shadowrun.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think I have a different view of "rules and mechanics" here, especially of the kind that would get in the way of roleplay. How magic works is one thing, all the different spells is quite another. Same with how monsters work and what each of them can do individually or with classes and individual class abilities. You need to know the former of each those three sets, but from the latter you only need to know what's immediately relevant and even for that small subset it's pretty much ok to look it up as needed or expect the player with those spells on his sheet to know how they work. I don't think anyone assumes those equipment lists should be memorized either, after all. If you're playing a transmuter, it doesn't matter if you don't grok bladesingers and their spell selection. What you need to know are the overall mechanics of classes and magic, and the specifics of the school of transmutation and of your transmuter's spells.
In order to be able to play - properly play at that - probably 80-90% of the PHB can be skipped by players, and DMs don't need to learn a whole lot more than that. I'm sure that's still more than for a lot of other systems, but that doesn't make it a lot. Not a whole lot of it is tied to "lore" either - it's not Star Wars where you're going to want to know about the canon SW universe, it's medieval fantasy where you get to make everything up if you want.
This is the one thing I hammer on every time I talk to someone who wants to play D&D but doesn't know how. They pretty much all think they need to read hundreds of pages and retain as much info as they would for your average university course (ok, that last bit's an exaggeration). They're mistaken. Even leaving aside having a DM and other players help you out whenever you don't recall something or that if you have a good character sheet all the info aside from the bare mechanics of how stuff works is right there for you to look up, even if we assume you want to know all the mechanics of how to play by heart, that can be condensed in less than 10 pages.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Most of that isn't tied to lore you have to learn. There's no established universe in D&D, unless you choose to use one and even then you can alter it as you see fit. It's not Star Wars or Star Trek, where you're expected to stick with official canon. It's not Legend of the Five Rings, where the rules of society really make up a lot of the game.
I also need to bring up that D&D is not particularly swingy. You succeed or you don't, sure, but that's how most systems work and the resolution mechanic (a single d20) doesn't really change a whole lot about that. You could replace it with a percentile die or with dice pools or whatever you want, but at the end of the day you're looking at odds and odds are just that - a likelihood of success. Some other systems might offer explicit means to affect that likelihood, but in practice D&D does that too: players can in many instances choose how they want to go about achieving a goal, and that means choosing an easier approach or a harder one.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think this discussion has little to do with why D&D gets hate at this point so I will not speculate on "mechanics" any further.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'm just saying, "there's too much of it" would be a valid argument if there actually was too much of it. I don't think there is, even if I understand why people might be mistaken about it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I haven't really heard that particular criticism before TBH. Of 4e sure, but not so much of 5e. Then again, maybe I'm just not moving in the right circles.
Some of it is tied to lore, but mostly it's tied to game style, playstyle, and genre. It's not a good "generic" system at all. That's OK; it doesn't advertise itself as such. I have no desire to run this discussion in circles; someone else brought this up as a (valid) criticism, specifically it is "inflexible and hinder[s] individual fantasy" when adapted to just about any other style of game. That's undeniable.
(this is an aside, and also a rathole I have no desire to fall into)
Dice pools (3d6 being the common, popular one for this sort of thing) are less "swingy" because the average roll is more likely to happen that extreme rolls. This makes outcomes slightly more predictable and less of a gamble.
The D20 is called "swingy" because very good/bad rolls are just as likely as average rolls. That's just how the math works out --- success and failure are less predictable; competent characters fail more often and incompetent characters succeed more often; the game feels more random --- compared to dice pools.
It's an aside that's a pet peeve of mine. Feel free to ignore.
Average rolls being more likely to happen is of little consequence. The outcome of a roll isn't determined by getting a result that's close to average, the outcome is determined by getting a result that's over a certain threshold. If your chance of success is 60%, it's 60% - whether the outcome statistics map on a flat line, a bell curve or for some reason a sinus curve doesn't matter. It's still 60%. Critical failures or success aside, failing by a lot or failing by a little is the same thing so it doesn't matter if very good or very bad rolls are less, more or as likely as average ones - they're all either successes or failures. A very good roll is no better than a merely good roll if the merely good one succeeds already; an average one isn't better than a poor one if the poor one succeeds, nor is it worse than a good one if the good one fails anyway. That is how the math actually works out.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Why does the D&D system get so much hate?
Simple. The ease of just jumping in and playing a game then the understanding and dread of the absolute power one is given in the ability to create whatever they can imagine by whatever rules, complex or simple, they wish to implement.
Lest we forget whoever is the referee, Dungeon Master, Game Master, or whatever they wish to be called they are the creator of the universe that is presented and therefore arbitrator of the way that universe works. Mechanics, rules, the whole kit and kabootle is laid upon the back of that individual. They decide how much time and effort is placed on defining that universe. The system rules are nothing more than guidelines to which a decision may be reached when confusion about the interpretation of those rules, mechanics, etc comes into question.
That power is what generates the hate. Players feel it is to much to give just one person, and the person running the game may feel they are "railroading" in their universe making.
I mean...maybe, but the same principle is arguably inherent in many TTRPGs that aren't D&D. Heck, imagination and a willingness to be creative are kind of necessary for tabletop gaming as a whole.
I'm not saying it's not a criticism someone might have put forth, but that person probably isn't a huge fan of TTRPGs in general.
Nah.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Consistency matters to some people. For many, consistency is the most important sign of true mastery. Your argument holds true when overall'd, but a lot of people prefer dice pools and more bell curve-esque results distributions because they feel it more accurately represents how skill actually works. If you're trained enough in something to be called "Proficient" in it, you should be able to count on a minimum level of ability within that thing in almost all situations outside of outlier bad-situation flukes. A 3d6 die distribution mostly accomplishes this - you have roughly half a percent's chance of throwing a "critical failure" (i.e. all 1s on the dice, or The Number of the Beast in roll-low systems like GURPS), which means that when your trained skill does fail you it's generally a Big Deal and something that can make a story beat.
Put another way, a first-level rogue with 16 Dex and Expertise in thieves' tools rolls with a +7 to typical lockpicking attempts. That rogue fails a basic, ordinary, utterly unremarkable DC 10 lock check 10% of the time - and they can crack an exceptionally difficult DC 25 lock 15% of the time despite being a first-level rogue. The mechanic doesn't feel like practiced skill at work, it feels like someone jamming a screwdriver in the lock and hoping they get lucky. The lack of consistency is jarring and frustrating to players for whom consistency is the ultimate mark of skill. 'Outlier' results are so common with a single d20 rolling under bounded accuracy that they aren't even outliers anymore, that's just how physics work in this world. That drives some players batty, and it makes their investment in high skill for certain characters feel underutilized and useless. What's the point in obtaining high skill when the d20 is so swingy and unstable that your skill never really affects the roll? Sure, it can shift the window up or down, but bounded accuracy ensures the window never moves far enough for investment in skill to feel like it pays off. That's as much an issue* with bounded accuracy as with the d20, but I absolutely get where people feel like a dice pool system that mitigates outlier results and provides a more consistent results pattern is more accurate to how training works in reality.
Please do not contact or message me.
But this isn’t reality, it’s D&D. If folks hate the d20 system that much, there are other games with pools of d6s that can be used instead of D&D.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I hate to break it to you, but every TTRPG pretty much works the exact same way.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Meh. :p
Your argument has some merit, Rei, but my pet peeve is with this incorrect notion: "That's just how the math works out --- success and failure are less predictable; competent characters fail more often and incompetent characters succeed more often; the game feels more random --- compared to dice pools." It's a pet peeve because that's just not how the math checks out.
Moreover, your outlier examples have as much or more to do with DCs than with how rolls are generated, and DMs are free (even encouraged) not to ask for checks if the chances of either success or failure are very slim. Or you can go back to 3rd editions 'take 10/20' mechanics. It's not the dice. It's not the math. It's a subjective response. Which anyone can and is allowed to have, but that doesn't make it mathematically valid.
That said, proficiency actually matters. Even your basic first level +2 from proficiency increases your chance of success by 10%. That's nothing to sneeze at. Also, as you know, crit fails don't exist outside attack rolls and death saves.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As the person who wrote that quote, I will defend it.
In a dice pool, the dice rolls are more predictable --- average totals are more likely than extreme (low or high) totals. That is a statistical fact, and you are completely wrong to dismiss it. As a result of the dice being more predictable, roll modifiers (attribute modifiers, proficiency modifiers, equipment, advantage, situational modifiers, whatever) matter more, up until they have diminishing returns. This tends to put more "control" in the hands of the player, and make their character "compentency" matter more.
With a single die (like a d20), comparatively, the die matters more and the modifiers matter less. "Extreme" results, meaning very high or very low rolls, are more likely, and the roll itself is less predictable.
I'll even quote the old d20 SRD on this:
Metagame Analysis: The Bell Curve
In general, this variant leads to a grittier d20 game, because there will be far fewer very good or very bad rolls. Not only can you no longer roll 1, 2, 19 or 20, but most rolls will be clustered around the average of 10.5. With a d20, every result is equally likely; you have a 5% chance of rolling an 18 and a 5% chance of rolling a 10. With 3d6, there’s only one possible combination of dice that results in an 18 (three sixes, obviously), but there are twenty-four combinations that result in a 10. Players used to the thrill of rolling high and the agony of a natural 1 will get that feeling less often—but it may be more meaningful when it does happen. Good die rolls are a fundamental reward of the game, and it changes the character of the game when the rewards are somewhat stronger but less frequent.
Game balance shifts subtly when you use the bell curve variant. Rolling 3d6 gives you a lot more average rolls, which favors the stronger side in combat. And in the d20 game, that’s almost always the PCs. Many monsters—especially low-CR monsters encountered in groups—rely heavily on a lucky shot to damage PCs. When rolling 3d6, those lucky shots are fewer and farther between. In a fair fight when everyone rolls a 10, the PCs should win almost every time. The bell curve variant adheres more tightly to that average (which is the reason behind the reduction in CR for monsters encountered in groups).
Another subtle change to the game is that the bell curve variant awards bonuses relatively more and the die roll relatively less, simply because the die roll is almost always within a few points of 10. A character’s skill ranks, ability scores, and gear have a much bigger impact on success and failure than they do in the standard d20 rules.
Yeah that was my point exactly. I mean there are more collaborative TTRPGs out there that don't have a designated DM/GM and so avoid giving the majority of the creative power to just one player, but they'd still have most of these same issues to a greater or lesser extent (if they're even issues, I think said "issues" are what make TTRPGs awesome to begin with).
I don't have time for an in-depth reply right now, but I do want to point out this stems from a time where crit fishing (and ending up with 25% chance of a crit if you built towards it) was a viable strategy. In that case it matters (which resulted in theoretical 2d10 systems getting recalculated threat ranges, etc), but it's not inherent to bell curves vs flat lines.
What you're talking about isn't merely bell curves rolling closer to average, you're assuming average rolls equal successes. That's not determined by how your roll results though, but by the standards you set for success vs failure. I suspect that if ACs and DCs were such that average rolls failed - again, not a function of the number of dice you roll but a function of how the system sets target numbers - you wouldn't be in favour of bell curves.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So... your argument for why D&D gets more hate than other systems is that it's just like other systems?
Might want to think that one through.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)