Unpopular opinions go here

[Dannyalcatraz]

Non-Human races are pointless. They just a couple modifiers and an excuse to indulge in lame accents. A few sessions into the campaign they are indistinguishable from other PCs.

I would have to say that is not a universal truth. It certainly doesn’t jibe with the experiences I have had…nor of those who have gamed with me the past couple of decades.

 

[innerdude]

Literally the only RPG system that should be allowed to use "Alliterative noun 1 | Ampersand | Alliterative noun 2" as its title is D&D. All others are poseurs and worthy of disdain for unoriginal naming.

 

[innerdude]

There's absolutely no reason D&D needs its core rules split across 3 books. The "core 3" paradigm could easily be compacted to the "core 1" with some decent editing and reduction of monsters and spells in the core.

Especially since you're going to publish 4 or 5 new monster manuals and spell handbooks for every edition anyway.

 

[overgeeked]

If fantasy was criticized with the rigor science fiction is criticized, it would collapse.

That’s why you split the difference and go with science fantasy. All the cool stuff and none of the rigor.

 

[Maxperson]

There is such a thing as too much balance.

Oh, and I liked the movie Ishtar.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I would have to say that is not a universal truth. It certainly doesn’t jibe with the experiences I have had…nor of those who have gamed with me the past couple of decades.

This is a thread concerning opinions, not universal truths.

And it has been my experience in gaming since '79. Of course, I run long-term campaigns exclusively.

 

[MGibster]

I wouldn’t say that, exactly, but I definitely know players who play humans preferentially, and balk at campaigns and games that exclude them.

I think I'd agree with @Celebrim there, the vast majority of gamers roleplay themselves, or at least a version of themselves as characters tend to share similar values to the player. I know, it's not true for every group, but rarely do I see any player with a character who has a fundamentally different philosophical point of view, in particular when it comes to right and wrong. And I'm not swiping at anyone person or game here, most of us aren't actors trying to get into the headspace of a different character, we're just playing a game and having fun.

I would have to say that is not a universal truth. It certainly doesn’t jibe with the experiences I have had…nor of those who have gamed with me the past couple of decades.

It's not a universal truth, but this is one of those cases where I believe @Jd Smith1 is correct, and it's especially true for D&D. For the vast majority of adventures, at least published adventures, it doesn't matter if the Fighter in the group is a Halfling, Human, Half-Elf, or Half-Orc because the adventure will pretty much play the exact same way no matter what. Especially in recent years, D&D has been steadily moving away from treating any of the species too differently because it appears as though this is what the majority of their fans want. I find it hard to believe those fans treat PCs very differently based on their species.

 

[Gradine]

Gnomes are great; the world could stand to have a lot more whimsy in it

 

[overgeeked]

Nothing is more belly laugh inducing than having adults sitting around a table playing elf games and trying to take themselves and the game super seriously.

 

[Clint_L]

Gnomes are great; the world could stand to have a lot more whimsy in it

If you define great as "better than halflings, at any rate," then I will concur. Goblins are best, though.