Unpopular opinions go here

[overgeeked]

The two most common and most pernicious cognitive biases are “I like it therefore it’s objectively good” and “I don’t like it therefore it’s objectively bad.” When people like a thing they will justify it to no end. Ignore its flaws, accentuate its advantages. And when they dislike a thing they’ll do the reverse.

You get a particular glimpse behind the curtain when a new edition of D&D arrives. After grieving, people will be more honest about what they like and don’t like about the game. While descending armor class and THAC0 were the only options they were fine. People grumbled but dealt with it. Once ascending armor class and attack bonuses were a thing, suddenly “everyone always” hated the old way. And now there’s a whole resurgence of people loving and playing the old way. I’ve watched people I play with both attack and defend things like this depending on what the newest edition says is right and good.

To dislodge the notion of popularity equating to quality you only have to look at the New York Times bestseller list and the pulp magazines of the 1920s through 1940s. I absolutely adore the pulps. They were the single most popular form of entertainment for a few decades, but anyone who’s read them—even hardcore fans such as myself—would be quick to tell you they’re not exactly the most masterfully executed writing…even for their time. High popularity, fairly low quality.

People are weird in that they feel the need to justify and defend the things they like and attack the things they dislike.

The most unpopular opinion of all: it’s okay to like trash. Given Sturgeon’s law, you already do.

 

[MGibster]

Why would you ever want to change this type of player? Those are flat-out the best type of players to have in a game, and I say that in all seriousness.

You want fun? Entertainment? Laughter? Twists and turns you never saw coming? Then the pot-stirring player - or better yet, a whole table of them - is exactly what you need.

Because more often than not what they do isn't entertaining, doesn't lead to laughter, and the twists & turns they take us on aren't fun. It's just stupid bull$%@! like slapping the vampire prince with a fish or shooting a prisoner after the party captured him. Like you, I'm generally delighted when players do something unexpected or when they make things happen.

 

[Celebrim]

Why would you ever want to change this type of player? Those are flat-out the best type of players to have in a game, and I say that in all seriousness.

You want fun? Entertainment? Laughter? Twists and turns you never saw coming? Then the pot-stirring player - or better yet, a whole table of them - is exactly what you need.

As long as they work for the mirth and merriment of all, then I don't mind. But too often the pot-stirring types make mischief not for the amusement of others, but solely for themselves and seek to enlarge their part in the story at the expense of others. I think it those sorts that give all the rest a bad name.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It really depends what you mean by "compress." I don't see any intrinsic problem...but generally attempts to limit the level range usually end up meaning "removing that pesky top end that we never playtest and play patterns from earlier levels break down."

I'm less sympathetic to that. I'd prefer significant scaling in level based systems in both magnitude and kind: not only the scope of challenges, but the kind of challenges (and player problem solving tools) should expand as levels grow. Not "jumping pits" to "jumping chasms" but "swimming" to "surviving in a full vacuum that's inexplicable also on fire."

See I’d rather have them chill out on the huge expansion of scale, but I know I’m in the minority there.

But for my dragons, I’d have the power increase from 10-15 be the same rate of increase as 5-10. 1-4 should be steep, sure, but if anything I’d slow down 11+ a little, and make a PC progression that can be played as non-mythic all the way to level 20. Then, you’d use the optional Mythic Destiny rules to make PCs be the sort of people who fight gods in the fire vacuum plane or whatever.

 

[MGibster]

There are times when the GM needs to stop the game, ask the player what they're trying to accomplish, and explain to them the ramifications of what they're about to do just so everyone's on the same page.

 

[Autumnal]

Star Wars changed my mind about Basic Roleplaying recently.

Like many folks, I’ve griped a lot about too-low skill levels in BRP-based games. But a few weeks ago I rewatched Star Wars, the original one, for the first time in ages. And just look at our heroes! They screw up right, left, and center! Many of the movie‘s best lines come from our heroes screwing up, and they screw up a lot. The only modification BRP needs to get the whole thing perfectly is some kind of hero points, earned on screwups and spendable on bonuses to crucial roles later. It’s just a matter of the right frame of reference.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

To dislodge the notion of popularity equating to quality you only have to look at the New York Times bestseller list and the pulp magazines of the 1920s through 1940s. I absolutely adore the pulps. They were the single most popular form of entertainment for a few decades, but anyone who’s read them—even hardcore fans such as myself—would be quick to tell you they’re not exactly the most masterfully executed writing…even for their time. High popularity, fairly low quality.

IMO, you’re defining quality wrong, if the best of the pulps don’t qualify.

It’s certainly a bit odd to try to claim that something that is many times more popular than anything else in its industry has ever been, more popular than several of the rest of the top works in that field combined, isn’t popular due to some qualities that can be understood as “good”. Like…not to your taste, fine, but to act like it’s low quality “empty calories” or whatever is just…I’m sorry but it’s laughable.

It’s also implicitly indicative of a very elitist mindset toward what is popular and what “the masses” enjoy, which is just as strong a bias as the two you cited in the post I’m quoting.

 

[Jd Smith1]

There are times when the GM needs to stop the game, ask the player what they're trying to accomplish, and explain to them the ramifications of what they're about to do just so everyone's on the same page.

So very true.

 

[Celebrim]

There are times when the GM needs to stop the game, ask the player what they're trying to accomplish, and explain to them the ramifications of what they're about to do just so everyone's on the same page.

This is usually the correct thing to do with a player that is new to your table. The more experience the player gets, the more this risks railroading the player via metagame director stance. You need to avoid the temptation to interrogate a player every time they are making a decision you don't feel is the right choice.

 

[MGibster]

This is usually the correct thing to do with a player that is new to your table. The more experience the player gets, the more this risks railroading the player via metagame director stance. You need to avoid the temptation to interrogate a player every time they are making a decision you don't feel is the right choice.

There have been numerous times over the years my fear of railroading has led to me keeping my mouth shut to the detriment of everyone at the table. These days my desire to make sure everyone is having fun outweighs fear of railroading.