Unpopular opinions go here

[Reynard]

The vast majority of RPG characters are not even well-rounded enough to become two-dimensional, to say nothing of three-dimensional.

A quote from Pulp Hero on the topic that perfectly encapsulates my nearly 40 years of experience gaming.

“Hand-in-hand with the “action” convention is the fact that Pulp characters are shallow, clichéd, and poorly developed. In an action-oriented story, there’s little (if any) time for the hero to ruminate about how he feels, or what the events in the tale mean to him; he’s got things to do! Even the best-known Pulp heroes — characters like the Shadow and Doc Savage about whom hundreds of stories were written — aren’t much more than collections of easily-identifiable personality traits, quirks, mannerisms, and habits, possibly coupled with one or more distinctive elements of appearance that makes them easy to write and read about.

This is the other thing that makes Pulp so wonderfully gameable. The description of Pulp characters given above could apply word-for-word to the vast majority of gaming characters. Most roleplaying games, including the HERO System, require you to create characters through various attributes and traits defined by the rules. It’s a more elaborate, and sometimes “scientific,” process, than how a writer for the pulps worked, but the end result is the same: a character who’s really not a character so much as he is a characterization — a collection of traits that identify him and let him take action, and not much more. In short: RPGs are ideally suited for creating Pulp-style characters.” (Pulp Hero, p10)

RPGs don't have that time constraint. At least, in a campaign they don't. You can spend the time and effort to make characters well rounded, even while delving for loot in monster haunted holes.

 

[Scribe]

Maybe, but people are complex and if we let "strong" be a personality trait, we end up in cardboard cutout character territory pretty quickly. I prefer RPG characters to be as real and three dimensional and human (not necessarily in the species sense) as possible.

Sure, but if we are going to pretend that ones physical/mental attributes do not play a part in our personality? Well, that certainly doesnt fly in my personal (real life) experience.

 

[Reynard]

Sure, but if we are going to pretend that ones physical/mental attributes do not play a part in our personality? Well, that certainly doesnt fly in my personal (real life) experience.

I did not say that. I said that you can't really predict how they will play in. There's no "strong" type.

 

[soviet]

This one continues to baffle me in game design, but is clearly unpopular given the prevalence of things like Commander: symmetrical multiplayer free-for-all combat games are just bad. They devolve into unpleasant, predictable play loops, don't produce interesting board states, and mostly lead to enmity between the players. People are so enamored of the idea of playing together with all their friends that they're routinely willing to forget the actual misery of that act of play.

I would add the reverse to this too, as someone who has played MTG semi-competitively: actual 1 v 1 competitive play (whether at FNM, PTQs, even GPs and PTs) is normally a lot of fun. It sometimes get painted by casuals as desperately cutthroat and unfun but it isn't really like that at all. Trying hard to beat your friends in a game is enjoyable.

 

[Pedantic]

I would add the reverse to this too, as someone who has played MTG semi-competitively: actual 1 v 1 competitive play (whether at FNM, PTQs, even GPs and PTs) is normally a lot of fun. It sometimes get painted by casuals as desperately cutthroat and unfun but it isn't really like that at all. Trying hard to beat your friends in a game is enjoyable.

To be perfectly transparent, I would also contend that MtG isn't particularly good in general, though not for the reasons you're suggesting here. I'd call the general genre of game MtG exists in a "dude-basher" (you try to put dudes on the board and bash them together and against each other's faces, until someone runs out of face) and point to other games as doing it better. A good example is the original World of Warcraft TCG. Competition can absolutely be fun, but the land system is a bad piece of design, the inability to draw cards regularly hurts the game's interactivity, and MtG embraces an unpleasant combination of "take-that" play while also encouraging players to pursue a gameplan independent of their opponent to the best of their ability.

But I played a lot of Netrunner and I'm bitter, so my opinion is both unpopular and not to be trusted.

 

[Gradine]

Either way, I wasn't that impressed to be honest. It's good. I like it. But I've definitely had better at other burger joints.

My emphasis. In-n-Out is great (if not unmatched) for a fast food burger. The local burger joint is not fast food

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If it covers more ailments than viral gastroenteritis and does it well I might actually be interested.

It is a complete resource for characters going to the toilet. (Bad news for players of dwarves, goliaths and orcs ...)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

My emphasis. In-n-Out is great (if not unmatched) for a fast food burger. The local burger joint is not fast food

Exactly. People comparing In-N-Out to burgers that cost two or three times as much, well, yes, I would hope your $15 burger is better than a $5 burger. But it's not exactly some great accomplishment if it is.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

As much as people joke about the Oxford comma, the failure to punctuate correctly has repeatedly cost companies millions of dollars.

Yes, that's an example of a time when A) you should be getting the best, most careful writer in the office to do the work and B) go full belt-and-suspenders mode.

The people who insist that the Oxford comma be used in every Facebook post wishing their grandmother a happy birthday are being unnecessarily pedantic.

 

[overgeeked]

go full belt-and-suspenders mode.

I feel attacked.