Unpopular opinions go here

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

It’s a part of my game…now. It wasn’t always that way. From 1977 to 1989 or do, most of my PCs (in D&D, at least) were pretty stereotypical.

But a group I joined in 1990-91 in Austin profoundly changed my approach to the hobby, mainly because we didn’t stick to one system or genre. We played in dozens of different systems- including a couple of playtests- in several genres, run by different players.

Those years got me out of the stereotypes and changed how I created and ran PCs. I do try to get into their mindset. I don’t always succeed, but when I do, I find I’m having more fun.

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.

Let’s just say it’s at odds with my experience…but also that we may be talking past each other a bit.

To me, the devil is in the details. While a given published adventure may be played to the same conclusion by 85%+ of all groups that play it, how they get there could be wildly different based on characters’ species.*







* especially if the more exotic options are permitted.

 

[aramis erak]

D&D settings are worse when they include humans.

D&D settings are at their worst when they include D&D.

 

[deganawida]

WotC has tried, and failed, for three full editions and two half editions to capture the essence of the ranger class. In one page, Shadowdark utterly nailed it.

 

[Jd Smith1]

“Long-term” is nebulous. Personally, except for campaigns that fizzled, I generally run/participate in campaigns with lifespans measured in years. The longest lasted more than a decade, starting with AD&D, converting over time to 2nd, 3rd and almost to 3.5Ed.

Had a weekly gaming group built around players who were with me from 2002-20.

This is the saddest comparison ever....

 

[Jd Smith1]

The various D&D traditions which people put far too much weight into, as they gaze at their naval.

Ah. I don't play D&D. You guys apparently have strange habits.

 

[Scribe]

Ah. I don't play D&D. You guys apparently have strange habits.

Have you seen some of the TTRPG threads? Its a behavior across all of 'nerdom' I assure you.

 

[Celebrim]

WotC has tried, and failed, for three full editions and two half editions to capture the essence of the ranger class. In one page, Shadowdark utterly nailed it.

LOL. OK. Sure. Takes all kinds I guess. I can definitely see Geralt as a Ranger.

 

[deganawida]

LOL. OK. Sure. Takes all kinds I guess. I can definitely see Geralt as a Ranger.

Um, the Shadowdark ranger has nothing to do with Geralt at all, unless you mean the herbal remedy ability. Are you thinking of some other game?

 

[Celebrim]

Um, the Shadowdark ranger has nothing to do with Geralt at all, unless you mean the herbal remedy ability. Are you thinking of some other game?

The only thing unique about the Shadowdark ranger that captures some flavor that wasn't there before is the ability to combat buff using alchemy to create potions and weapon oils. The sort of combat buffs available are exactly the sort you'd expect for a simplified 'Witcher'. There is even some correspondence to the way Witcher 3 simplified inventory management. It's cute. I like it. But I don't get the derision for past Rangers or why this is suddenly definitive.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Have you seen some of the TTRPG threads? Its a behavior across all of 'nerdom' I assure you.

I've been gaming since '79. Your assurance may be true for you and your circle, perhaps.