Unpopular opinions go here

[Thomas Shey]

I am not concerned with mobile device use at the table, but I think players should be expected to pay attention and like actively appreciate the parts of the game where the spotlight is on other player characters. Part of that might involve us all working on creating characters we all find interesting and building in relevant connections between the characters, but if your eyes glaze over when its someone else's turn to speak there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

I think that's a fair position, but I also think the latter situation is close to endemic in my experience.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Not quite: The old pattern is a subset of the new one - you can construct the traditional characters from the new pattern. The reverse is not true - so there is asymmetry, not equivalence.

If we do not see any balance issues from the new pattern, it makes sense to have the more general form be the standard, and allow folks to restrict if they want, rather than keep the specific form standard, and have people have to figure out the generalization on their own.

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.

 

[Emberashh]

Its also that by giving names to these things people tend to think that should actually mean something. Being an Elf should have meaning, and if it doesn't, it shouldn't matter mechanically, and as such any question of character race should actually vanish from the rulebooks.

Nobody likes to be told to just play pretend when thats what they're already doing. Those kinds of workarounds aren't constructive and aren't satisfactory to resolve the desires involved when these things exist in a given system but either aren't good, comprehensive, or too prescriptive.

The Ranger problem is a perrenial example in the Class design side of things. Playing a Fighter with an Outlander background isn't a satisfactory nor constructive answer to the desire to want to play a Ranger that doesn't use magic. A Ranger is more than that, and that should be reflected in the design of the class by way of allowing both rather than forcing it one way or the other, or having people come in with shoddy, unsatisfying workarounds that are often just barely hiding the dismissiveness they have for the desire.

 

[Umbran]

Because it is a better design choice

Not objectively so. This would have to be justified in terms of some design goal you share with the publishers in order to actually be clearly a better choice.

For all the rest of these with "I think" and "I want", they are fine rationales for doing what you want at your own table. For rules used by millions, "I want" doesn't really cut it. Lots of people want lots of things.

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

My table is working fine under Tasha's rules, thank you very much.

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

If you want consistency of experience, watch Game of Thrones, or play Settlers of Catan. D&D is where we make our own, idiosyncratic stories and engage in individual creativity, not where we play for consistent experiences.

There is no significant value to me if my table is consistent with tables I don't play at.

At the moment, in the D&D game I run, there are no PCs of PHB races. I am playing in a Humblewood game, which has its own races - your games and mine are thus inconsistent, yes?

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

If "what dwarves are" breaks over ASIs, then what dwarves were was fragile to begin with. Poor, breakable dwarves!

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"

If the customizable case is what the players prefer broadly, I'm okay with that. Sorry.

Because it overcomplicates the racial portion of character creation

This is no more complicated than choosing which score goes into which stat, which players already do anyway.

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.

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

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

Okay. I accept it isn't tyranny. In suggesting it, you score at least slightly above violently despotic dictators. Bit of a low bar for acceptance, if you ask me...

Since I don't think anyone actually said it was tyranny, this seems to be refuting a point that nobody made, though.

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

Likely less than you think. I operate in an environment of diversity - when I switch tables, I am typically switching entire game systems. Changing these ASIs from one table to the next is trivial, by comparison.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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."

Except for the use of the word 'stupid,' that's perfectly reasonable.
In fact, you could have the features that build said old fighter all packaged and ready to go with a single point cost, just like the class.
Ok, they'd have some points left over, since there'd presumably also be a much more expensive package for a trad Cleric and wizard and whatnot, but, whatever... y'know, sorry you can have more stuff, but you don't technically need to spend those points....

 

[Umbran]

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.

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.

Edit to add: Indeed, my post accounted for this - I noted that this was if we don't see a balance issue with the floating ASI. Meanwhile, entire point-buy systems are usually rife with balance issues. So...

The argument proves too much.

The argument was not intended (and certainly not stated) to apply to every case imaginable. Arguments can be local to specific questions.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Likely less than you think. I operate in an environment of diversity - when I switch tables, I am typically switching entire game systems. Changing these ASIs from one table to the next is trivial, by comparison.

I mostly don't play D&D. I used to play it a lot, among other games. So I think I operate in an environment of diversity as well. But when I do play D&D, I want it to do the things that I think make D&D work as a game, and make it discernibly D&D. Race and class functioning the way they have, to me that is a very important aspect of what makes D&D work as a game

 

[Lanefan]

But why wouldn't magic aging be proportionate?

Indeed. This is a change I put in ages ago; that most aging effects work in what I call Human-Years Equivalent (HYE), and each species has a HYE number based on its average expected lifespan. So, if something would age you 10 years if you were Human, but you're a Dwarf and your HYE is something like 4.5, then it'll age you 45 years instead.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Okay. I accept it isn't tyranny. In suggesting it, you score at least slightly above violently despotic dictators. Bit of a low bar for acceptance, if you ask me...

Since I don't think anyone actually said it was tyranny, this seems to be refuting a point that nobody made, though.

The language used was forcing other people to play the way I want. They didn't use tyranny. I employed the term to make a point

 

[Lanefan]

Only Deep Gnomes (Svirfneblin) have ultravision, of the UA-legal demihumans.

Ultravision isn't something our lot would have dreamed up out of nothing, and we had it for Elves long before UA came out (and before I even started playing). Must have come from a Dragon artivle or something.