I also dislike the concept for the same reason I prefer levelling up on milestones - because it can lead to characters of different levels in the same party, which I am very much against. Having some characters more powerful than others almost always leads to unhappy players.
Those are not always the same thing, especially at higher levels.
True, but it’s a matter of degree. Some builds are better than others, some classes are better than others, and some players are better than other, but the DM should still strive to keep them as close to each other as possible in terms of power. Keeping them all the same level is a good start.
At least 3rd edition was better than 2nd, where every class had their own XP progression, and so there were XP totals where the bard was a better wizard than the wizard, and the thief was a better fighter than the fighter.
Not quite, but you could have a Thief two or even three levels higher than the Wizard. (Three only if the wizard was spending xp)
But then that class needed it.
At most the Bard would be one level above the Wizard, and Bards had a slower spell progression.
When I do XP-based campaigns, I avoid this by just giving everyone in the party the same amount of XP at the end of every session.
Yeah, it’s the group that’s overcoming obstacles, even if some characters contributed more to some challenges than others. Just so long as they’re not splitting the party, and don’t do that.
I saw desSerts and wondered what that even would look like! 
Well said!
Did they change in the computer spreadsheet age?
Language! j/k! I keeed!
Yes but now I’m going to struggle with a reference. It also depends what you mean by “woke?” The picture of the orcs from 1E MM compared to pictures of an orc tribe in the 2024 version looks like a different species altogether. Some don’t like that but it could equally be some wanting good and evil and no shades of gray in their RPG. It’s okay to be a murderhobo out for adventure.
Is this a case of old people living to see a language shift and not liking it? I prefer ancestry, ftr.
I see more complaints about how “easy” DND has gotten. As a DM, I think I have had a TPK in all editions. It’s early levels, though. 2014, and those based on it (thinking Level Up) the CR 10+ monsters are severely underpowered. Even accounting for giving the characters too much magic, level eleven characters were easily defeating CR 16+.
This is my big complaint. Wizards don’t feel like the all powerful class that they were in 3E or earlier. The “suffer in the early levels to be awesome in later level” situation is gone. Not just DND. PF2 wizards suck as well, imo. All classes feel too similar instead of having roles in a party.
This is something that I had never considered, so I’m glad to see these ideas, even if I don’t like the implementation. Level Up does Heritage, Backgrounds, and Cultures to allow for a human raised among dwarves having some dwarf like abilities. I like that a lot!
I don’t know if this is a good or bad thing but magic can equalize things. Is that acceptable? What I mean is that I had a group with two humans with dwarves and a halfling, who picked something to gain darkvision. When it was pointed out that the humans needed light, and it would alert the enemies, the group stopped until they could find goggles of darkvision and then kept going. Is that creative or cheating? Should those goggles have existed at all?
Depending on the system, but let’s stick with DND or 5.14 or 5.24, if the thing to overcome the darkness requires attunement, it’s a big deal. I gave out more magic than any version of 5E suggests I should but it balanced out by keeping the attunement rules. The players had to make some tough choices about what magic items to use.
It’s called Shadowdark.
Foundry handles this wonderfully and native. I don’t know Roll20 to say how they do it but in a mixed group of low light, normal vision, and darkvision, all of the players view would look different. In Foundry, Normal is with color, darkvision is black and white, and low light is green toned.
However
As fun as it is to have that realism (Foundry also allowed me to turn off fog of war when they went through a maze so they had to memorize their route), it can also be frustrating. Once again, it’s the difference between what the character could do and what the player can do.
In the end, I would set it up the way the characters would see it, let the group move around a bit, then switch it all back to normal so that the players could see things.
The flip side of this is that darkvision is black and white and I put a riddle in the dungeon that required color vision to solve. I implemented it in Foundry and as soon as they created a light source and saw it, it was obvious. It took a while for them to try that.
What I have also found with Foundry is that it can go too far in making a video game, which is not an rpg. What I mean by that is there are some good RPG computer games that have “grinding” that makes sense and can be fun for a computer game but make no sense in a TTRPG. I’m thinking of WoW and gathering materials to make potions or armor. I have had players track components and look for things, before WoW, and DND the Accounting is not a game my players wanted to play.
This is how I handle it. They can have unlimited normal ammo. I don’t care about that nor want them to track it. It’s the special ammo I want them to track.
My groups vary on this. Overall, either is fine with milestone leveling. (I finished two year long PF2 games and am sick of rules over rulings games, so we are now playing Daggerheart and it is milestone.) It’s also interesting what systems do. I had tried to do a silver based system in DND but that required a brand new price sheet. It’s one of the few things that PF2 does well, having more of a silver standard in prices but giving out gold to players.
I threw that out quickly for many reasons back in 3E. I hated that for the reasons Alessan says. They finally create a system where the party can make their magic items, or improve ones they find, and then tack on something that makes it so the wizard, or other spell casting classes, won’t do it. They didn’t want to be behind because with RAW rules for putting spells into spellbooks, the wizards were already making the fighters bored. And the wizards were always broke.
My apologies to any who commented on these things and I didn’t quote since I’m behind.
Thanks for the discussion
I haven’t gotten that obsessive.
Not at my table, ever, but whatever floats other groups’ boats, I guess..
Hey, it’s not “murder” if you defend yourself after being attacked without provocation.*
*okay so one can claim we were trespassing upon/ “invading” someone’s territory; they still over-reacted.
This brings up an interesting point. Again, I’m reminded of it by MrDibble’s comment but this is not directed at him.
A YouTuber was discussing the question of “are you playing DND wrong?” They were saying something I have thought about on this topic and agree with them. Any game can be a role playing game. Monopoly or Risk can be role playing games if each player thinks of themselves as a CEO or general. The game rules of Monopoly or Risk don’t support it but it can be done. Everyone creates some house rules DND is a combat simulator, imo and the YouTuber. Not having combat in a game of DND was playing it wrong. It doesn’t mean it’s not fun or entertaining. It means that there is probably another RPG out there for you if combat isn’t the group’s thing.
Look at Vampire the Masquerade before V5. That’s a nighttime superhero simulator, at least on a poll I conducted on the Onyx Path forums. No one thought anything of blood other than mana. They all started every night at full blood pool. Even though the tagline of VtM was “A beast I am lest a beast I become.” The idea was to fight those impulses but the rules didn’t support that. It could still be done that way but not via RAW.
Several of my players have the “we are on a mission from god” attitude, regardless if that is true, and will get annoyed to the point of insulted when they are trying to save the world and some guard is worrying about the toll for the road.
Thanks for the discussion!
It’s not okay to physically attack someone just because they said mean things to you but it IS okay to physically defend yourself from attack. So get some verbal taunt ability and go to town with a clean conscience 
In our first 5E campaign, I played a bard, and, of course, my most useful cantrip was Vicious Mockery. I’d ad-lib insults as I used it, and the GM would lean into it: “You see the goblin’s eyes go wide, and a single tear rolls down his cheek, before he dies.”
Creative.
Or a spell- 2nd level.
Yep.
I do not care for that term- I once played with two true murderhoboes- they killed an old man at a crossroads, leaning on a staff- just for kicks and giggles. I wont play with that mentality. In all my 40 years + of playing, we wont play and never had (other than that exception) any “murder hoboes”. We had adventures, mostly Good aligned, that wouldnt think of killing innocents just for fun. Bandits, Goblin raiders, monsters in dungeons- sure.
No, because we now have a definition of a “role playing game” and it isnt just a game, where you roleplay. (We did that sometimes in miniature wargames. The difference is like a “girlfriend” and a “girl, who is your friend”. Roleplaying games have stats, and some sort of advancement.
I have a faint memory of being on a mission to destroy an evil altar (back in a campaign in the 1980s). We were caught by guards sneaking into the area, and the DM asked (as one of the guards) if we were there to worship at the altar. “Yes, in our own way.” was my answer, which was true, in a manner of speaking.
Hard disagree. Very hard disagree.
By that definition, the Diablo games are roleplaying games.
Diablo is an action role-playing dungeon crawler video game series
Wow. I agree with the first half very much - the level of interaction between players is strictly formulaic in Monopoly no matter how much the players are pretending to be real-estate mavens.
But stats and advancement don’t seem to me to be a crucial part of what makes a game a role-playing game - playing a role, and improvisionally creating a sequence of events through a colloboration with your party and the GM makes it a role-playing game.