Unpopular opinions go here

[Bedrockgames]

So, let's try this one out.

Person A proposes that D&D completely ditch classes, and instead just let people "point buy" features at each level.

Person B complains, because they like a class-based system.

Person A then states, "Look, the old way is just a subset of the new way. If you want your stupid old fighter, just point buy those features. Don't you dare harsh my mellow by telling me that I can't have everything I want!"

The argument proves too much. Some people like one thing, some people like another thing. If you take the net away in tennis, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to tell people that they can still play tennis, and just play as if the net was still there.

This. I get some point want to effectively make the options in Race independent options. Point buy can work as a term here I think. And further, some people might want to have class opened up into point buy was well. I think D&D is a class based game, with race functioning as just one additional layer of class (at least in AD&D). And it is that simplicity of choice which makes it work and gives it a consistent feel. Others don't have to like it, but I am a bit puzzled by the reaction to this very normal, very standard point of view among D&D players, as if we were rejecting the wheel or something. Not all games have to be about open options. Sometimes it is better to not have them be that way

 

[Lanefan]

I have avoided ADHD gamers, F2F and online.

I have found that using a VTT helps keep gamers focused, as the video gaming conditioning kicks in.

As a player, for me it's quite the opposite: I get way more distracted way more easily sitting in front of my computer than I do at a live table.

I don't use video when gaming online because I find it distracting, and my gamers are all ugly and the wrong gender.

We don't use video because our tech would choke on it. It barely handles running the VTT as it is.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The case of deciding where a +2 and a +1 go in stat generation is not even vaguely the same as the case of the entire system being point buy. In cranking up the scope, you implicitly include many more concerns, so that the cases fail to be analogous.

Because it doesn't matter ... to you. But it's exactly the same argument.

"Why do you care about this change if you can just 're-create' it in some way?"

And the answer is that ... well, people have all sorts of reasons! Personally, I'm not a big fan of racial ASIs, but I also understand why people want them (or don't want floating ASIs) in the game.

Constraints- whether it's from a class choice, or from choosing a race, or any one of a number of decision points, can be interesting to people.

When we are discussing something that comes down to personal preferences, it's best not be dismissive. You might think this is completely different ... but why should you complain about getting rid of the class system?

After all, you can just re-create the old class that you wanted. Right?

You don't have to agree with someone's position- but being dismissive of different preferences is never a great look.


(Except bard lovers. Those people know who they are, and that they deserve to suffer all the indignities and calumnies foisted upon them).

 

[MGibster]

(Except bard lovers. Those people know who they are, and that they deserve to suffer all the indignities and calumnies foisted upon them).

I tried playing a Bard last year for the first time since 2nd edition. He died the very first adventure.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I tried playing a Bard last year for the first time since 2nd edition. He died the very first adventure.

That is the correct way to play 2nd edition

 

[Umbran]

Except human nature tends to resent restriction.

I find that to be a feature, not a bug. GMs should choose their restrictions with care.

Of course, I'm sure you'll respond with,"Well, I guess that means they weren't on board with what you want anyway!"

Not quite.

A restriction should have a payoff. If, for a given group of players, a restriction doesn't have sufficient payoff to justify it, it should probably be discarded. A small number of effective restrictions is better than a heap of ineffective ones.

sarcastic chuckle optional but common

Sarcasm typically serves ego more than it does communication.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sarcasm typically serves ego more than it does communication.

Isn't that what I said - we lost the ability to force our preferences on other people? That, as you say, for "a lot of people" they can only enjoy the game if other people are forced to play the way they want.​

What?​

When?​

Whose we? DMs?​

I tried playing a Bard last year for the first time since 2nd edition. He died the very first adventure.​

5e, capturing the feel of the classic game!​

 

[Lanefan]

Isn't that what I said - we lost the ability to force our preferences on other people?

More that the game intentionally (and IMO stupidly) gave away its ability to suggest* preferences and class-species archetypes in favour of an everyone-can-be-everything-equally stance.

* - suggest, not force: you could always play against type and it's often fun to do so, but with the clear knowlege that you are playing against type and thus the odds are a bit stacked against you.

That, as you say, for "a lot of people" they can only enjoy the game if other people are forced to play the way they want.

I have pretty much zero sympathy for those people. I'm sorry, but, I just don't care. Forcing other people to play a certain way so that I can enjoy the game is pretty much the opposite of everything I want out of a game.

No-one says you have to play that game.

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.

If the game aligns with what I want to play I'll play it. If it doesn't, I'll play something else.

But the game (as opposed to any specific person within the game) should retain some say over how it is played, and what its players can expect. In the case of species, when a player sees "Elf", that should come with some hard-coded expectations of what makes an Elf tick i.e. good with magic, dextrous, spindly, smart. Then, the mechanics should back up those expectations (favoured class MU, bonus to dex and int, penalty to con).

 

[Lanefan]

This isn't home brewing. This is shifting ASIs from being a definition of the race, to instead being definition of the individual PC.

And the species should be an important part (if not the dominant part) of what defines that PC, and stat adjustments are a key differentiator between species.

That 5e has watered them down to near pointlessness is a big step toward homogenizing the various species, wich defeats the purpose of having them in the first place.

 

[overgeeked]

If a player wants to build a traditional elf, they still can with floating ASI.

The player who wants to play a non-traditional elf shouldn't be forced to play a traditional elf.

This whole thing gets way, way too close to racial essentialism. It's kinda gross.