this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
263 points (96.1% liked)
Casual Conversation
3148 readers
273 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
DND is not a good universal game system. It's pretty good at being DND, but that's a particular beast that's mostly about resource management.
You can definitely use it for a game about social intrigue, or horror, or modern day anything, but it's not really good at any of that. Like using a hammer to put screws in, you'll probably get something done, and if you're hanging with your friends you'll probably have a good time. But it's a weird tool to reach for.
Personally, I don't think the core of the rules system is very good at all. Flat probability feels weird. Armor as all-or-nothing is weird. Hit and damage being split into two rolls is slow and weird. In the latest edition, making very few choices about your character often feels bad. Levels are a very coarse unit of growth. The magic system somehow manages to make magic not feel like magic- no wonder, no mystery, it's just safe and standardized. I could go on.
But it's mega popular and people are emotionally invested, so there's not much to be done about it. There are dozens of people playing the thousands of other games out there.
Also a lot of people have never played anything else, so their analysis and defense of it is often lacking. Like if I've only ever played baseball, and never even watched any other sports, I wouldn't feel qualified to talk about bowling. But you get people saying like "no you need to wear cleats that's a universal property of sports" when bowling comes up. Like, not every game has six stats. Not every game has attributes like that at all.
And again, if you're having fun with dnd then that's the primary goal achieved. We don't need to maximize fun and efficiency in all things all times. I just think that it would be a good experience to branch out more, even if it's scary, because that will lead to a richer experience overall.
I generally agree. For one shots, there are much slimmer systems out there.
I'm not sure I agree about splitting hit and damage feeling weird, but it definitely is slow. But overall, yeah. DnD is generally one of my least favorite systems to play in.
It feels weird to me when you roll a really big number to hit their AC, and then roll the minimum for damage. Or the other way, where you just barely roll their AC and then roll max damage. There are narrative ways you could justify it, but I don't see why you would want to. It's not adding anything worth having to the experience, imo. The game doesn't care if you beat the check by 0 or 20. It's just an extra step and the information is discarded.
I think pf2e fixes this.
Forgot in my original: DND 5e barely has a concept of degree of success
I completely agree with that sentiment. I think the d20 itself is flawed in that it provides linear probability. I'm more a fan of 3d6 for the bell curve it provides.
When it comes to the damage, I can agree that a degree of success should play into it. I do like how white wolf systems carried the success level over into the damage roll.