What are you a minority about?

[NewJeffCT]

as DM, I prefer letting the dice fall as they may - which is usually to my player's delight, as I tend to be awful at rolling "to hit" anything.

I almost always prefer to play a human if I'm a player, though I do make exception for one-shot adventures.

Don't strongly prefer any one edition of D&D over any other. While I tend to play the newest game, I don't feel that strongly about 4E when compared to 3.5 and 3.0, 2E and 1E. All have good points and weaknesses.

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

Some ways in which I'm in the minority

I don't like 4e (It's not D&D just a new frpg that happens to have the D&D name on it).
I love 2e (We never power-gamed it. We house-ruled it when needed. Combat is short but meaningful).
I love Kender from Dragonlance (my brother could always play an awesome kender).
Dragonlance is my favorite setting (this sets me against the grognards who hate it and the 3rd edition era folks who thinks that what WotC and MWP put out was DL).

PCat here. Please don't make this a discussion about editions or make insulting claims about setting/edition hate; for instance, saying that you love kender would be a great minority opinion, but the edition discussion isn't. Thanks!

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Dragonlance is my favorite setting (this sets me against the grognards who hate it and the 3rd edition era folks who thinks that what WotC and MWP put out was DL).

People hate DL? Seriously? I've met people who hate kender, but I've always thought of DL as one of D&D's three 'classic' settings. (The other two being GH and FR.) It's just hard to imagine where the hate would come from, I guess.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's just hard to imagine where the hate would come from, I guess.

You mentioned kender yourself. Also gully dwarves and tinker gnomes, though that hat isn't as strong as it is for kender. The DL series is disliked by many old schoolers for being more story-oriented, perceived railroading and being a Tolkien-esque epic quest rather than a more self contained adventure closer to S&S pulp magazine tales.

 

[Rechan]

You mentioned kender yourself. Also gully dwarves and tinker gnomes, though that hat isn't as strong as it is for kender. The DL series is disliked by many old schoolers for being more story-oriented, perceived railroading and being a Tolkien-esque epic quest rather than a more self contained adventure closer to S&S pulp magazine tales.

As someone who is "New School" and has never looked into a DL product (novel or adventure), I just hate kender because I find them too disrupting. In my experience, the type of people who play kender are doing so just so they have an excuse to derail the adventure/harass PCs/NPCs and/or just be a jerk.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Ah, okay, I can dig that. Ya know, now I kinda want to start a thread about "What setting do you hate?"

 

[Iron Sky]

I'm probably in the minority that I like to run my games as RAW as possible, to the point where, when I house-rule something, my players instantly notice (and often complain about it).

I think the only thing I'm house-ruling in 4e is that I usually use Stalker0's Obsidian skill challenge system instead of the one in the book. Everything else is RAW (or as close as we can interpret it).

Same with most systems I've played. This really exacerbates any game flaws, since I have serious difficulties house-ruling core mechanics - it tends to really bother me. 2e Exalted is a prime example of this. I like some things about the system, but what I don't like (tick initiative system, static defenses) is so built-in that the annoyance that would go along with house-ruling it made me drop the system entirely.

 

[Hussar]

I wonder...

Is preferring short campaigns a minority position? I admit, I've been doing a lot of them of late - mostly 3-6 month runs for the past couple of years and I really like it. I hear about all these long term campaigns that run for dozens of levels and it just isn't me.

 

[awesomeocalypse]

I don't like sandboxes. Some degree of player choice is fun and desirable, but I don't like feeling like the DM hasn't plotted out any sort of story. Above all I want to feel like a protagonist in a fantasy story, not a person who happens to live in a fantasy world.

I don't like houserules. The ones I tolerate are merely the ones that are small enough not to effect the overall structure of the game. Substantial, systematic houseruling ruins a game for me.

Regardless of whether I'm playing or DMing, I don't like it when players don't have control over their characters, including build and equipment. I think the game is most enjoyable and has the highest stakes when players are playing the character they most want to play out of all the characters they could possibly be playing.

I don't like relying on player skill rather than character skill for noncombat portions of the game. If it is possible to play someone stronger or faster than myself, it should be possible to play someone smarter or more charismatic than myself. If I want to play the wizard who is the smartest guy in the room, the system should give me a way to do that other than me actually being the smartest guy in the room.

I don't see "video gamey" as a pejorative. Video games are fun, and if D&D is going to draw inspiration from anywhere, Video games aren't a bad place to look.

I don't think powergaming is bad, except when taken to ridiculous extremes. I'm totally fine with a player trying to play the biggest badass he can. If a character makes combat unplayable, that's a problem. But anything short of that, I'm pretty okay with.

I like the Points of Light setting. Its my generic high fantasy campaign setting of choice, easily trumping Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, etc. for me.

I love minions and use them consistently and in large numbers, even at high levels. I have no problem with PCs mowing through them, given that that's why they exist.

 

[SoldierBlue]

I'm in the minority, at least within my own gaming group, in that:

a) I thought MERP was a mechanically-sound system and an adequate representation of Mr. Tolkien's world.

b) I think that HP Lovecraft is a talentless hack with facist overtones.

The last point almost got me thrown out of the group...