Unpopular opinions go here

[Bedrockgames]

but then insist that I MUST play the way you want to play or you won't enjoy the game. If that's what we lost? Well? Good. That wasn't worth keeping anyway.

you can extend the logic of this argument to any part of the game where the system limits choice.

 

[Maxperson]

I've found that, as both player and GM, antithetical to enjoyable gaming.

Random GM whims generally are bad in my experience. Few GM's house rules are well thought out, and most I've heard of result in breaking things elsewhere.

Nobody said anything about random whim, which is redundant by the way. DM fiat is used with reason when used correctly. Apparently you've only experienced it misused as both a player and a DM, and yes, a tool that is misused reduces fun.

Totally freeform? you're no longer playing a game... you are playing, but it's no longer a game. Nor is it D&D anymore.... but it might be Kriegspiel...

Wait, what?! Now you've gone off the rails of misunderstanding and into the weeds of a rather massive Strawman.

DM Fiat is simply the DM using his authority to do something that the rules don't cover and/or alter a rule on the fly when it wouldn't make sense and/or hinder the game. Nobody said or even came remotely close to implying that the game should be totally freeform.

For example, in my game we use the long rest every 7 days variant. There have been times when I'm DMing that the PCs have entered a magically peaceful realm and I've use DM Fiat to decide that the magical peace and calm would give the PCs an early long rest.

As you can see, there was a reason(invalidating your very incorrect assumption that it is random or a whim) for my use of DM Fiat. Further, you'd have a fairly impossible time successfully arguing that what I did rendered the game "totally freeform."

 

[Emberashh]

I think the quoted the wrong post, but here I will say reasons are going to vary.

I don’t know. Moderation in all things I think. If you aren’t engaging enough as a GM, distractions can arise and that is instructive. But people are also human so there will be moments in games where, if you are playing online, some might succumb to a temptation to check e-mail or something (it need not be combat, it could be the party splitting up or anything that gives other players reason to not pay attention to what is happening). I don’t think playing D&D or D&D like games is the issue. I play lots of different games and there will always be moments where someone isn’t as focused as others. The real issue is if this becomes a problem that affects the game. My view is, I am not here to tell people how to conduct themselves. If someone has a habit that gets annoying there may be a conversation at some point of course but otherwise being a bit tolerant of normal distractions arising during a game is more a sign of maturity to me than overreacting to someone checking a text from their wife or having to check on something in the other room. One side effect of playing online is people are in their homes still available to the people they live with and all that is more important than a game. When people take the game too seriously, that is a bigger indication of emotional immaturity

Oh yeah don't get me wrong, I'm pretty permissive as far as this goes. Not only because as a teacher I actually find the prejudice against cell phone use to be ridiculous (even for children there to learn), but also because I trust my friends to not abuse that.

There are times when you just won't be engaging the whole table, and getting pissy if someone hops on their phone for a bit is uncalled for in those instances.

 

[Umbran]

But making it customizable just means it’s a choice, not something that comes with the choice to be that race.

In your game, you can totally say, "these are the races in my game", they have these stat adjustments and abilities, which are the pre-Tasha's ones.

Why do you need the entire game, for everyone to fit the old pattern?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

In your game, you can totally say, "these are the races in my game", they have these stat adjustments and abilities, which are the pre-Tasha's ones.

Why do you need the entire game, for everyone to fit the old pattern?

To be fair, it's because there's one dominant game, and people are expressing their preferences through it.

It's just as easy to turn that around and say, "Look, the game has these stats and adjustments. But you can always just use floating ASIs."

In other words, why do other people need the entire game, for everyone, to fit the new pattern?

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In your game, you can totally say, "these are the races in my game", they have these stat adjustments and abilities, which are the pre-Tasha's ones.

Why do you need the entire game, for everyone to fit the old pattern?

To be fair, one could just as easily argue the other way.

Why do you need the entire game, for everyone to change to a new pattern?

Edit: ninja'd!

 

[Emberashh]

Personally on the race topic Ive taken a real shine to how Dungeon World introduced race-based Class abilities. If there's something that makes not abstracting Race into a ribbon worthwhile, its something like that.

But ultimately, I am ever in the camp that says integration matters, and ribbons by definition aren't integrated because they're mechanically meaningless.

I think if anything the reason people keep floating towards a preference for abstracting Race into a ribbon is just because the game we're all talking about (but not directly) is just bad and doesn't have well designed Races nor Race mechanics.

Which tracks. Pretty much everything people keep trying to abstract into something simpler in DND is all rooted with terrible game design.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In your game, you can totally say, "these are the races in my game", they have these stat adjustments and abilities, which are the pre-Tasha's ones.

Why do you need the entire game, for everyone to fit the old pattern?

Because it is a better design choice

Because I think D&D doesn't work when it is that customizable.

And I want a consistent experience of a core element like that from table to table.

I like having a shared sense in a game of 'this is what dwarves are'

Because making it customizable like that is going to make it that much harder for the GM to say "This is how these bonuses work in my game"

Because it overcomplicates the racial portion of character creation

I don't mind people home brewing or whatever, but if home brewing this is the default, it feels like it is just going to be a mess to me.

People don't have to agree. But it isn't tryanny to like limits placed on this.

I am sure there are parts of the game you also want to be consistent

 

[deganawida]

Because for a lot of people what makes races and classes work is they function the same for everyone at the table. If people are just customizing this stuff, then that bonus is the choice, the choice isn't about the race (the racial choice becomes less meaningful). Again, I get why you wouldn't want the approach I am advocating. There is nothing wrong with wanting more choice. But I think some people in this thread have a blind spot for why others might want more restrictions around how racial bonuses are handed out. It isn't a win-win. Not everyone has to like the same things you like in a game.

They’d be better at divorcing the ASId completely from race and just putting it under ability score generation section. So long as it’s part of race, this will continue to be an issue.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

They’d be better at divorcing the ASId completely from race and just putting it under ability score generation section. So long as it’s part of race, this will continue to be an issue.

Why not background?

(Personally, I do not much care for floating ASIs, but only because I think that they actually reduce meaningful choice. But I'm also not a huge fan of racial ASIs, either.)