Unpopular opinions go here

[FitzTheRuke]

I think the explanation is pretty clear. I wasn’t making it up.

View attachment 291614

You're right, of course, but I think you hit the wrong quote button!

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

It's a shame they were so afraid of the "WotC is turning D&D into MtG" outcry that they didn't start doing this until this edition.

Fear does stun creativity. It pretty bad, knowing fear is created by the same consumer base that yearn for ''good, balanced design'' but oppose any experimentation.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Whether that is true or not, I am sure that someone who wants to make a lot of microtransaction dollars is going to get into the field and cause irreparable harm.

Fantasy Grounds is trying to sell me marginally more interesting dice than the default. Microtransactions are already here.

 

[Reynard]

Fantasy Grounds is trying to sell me marginally more interesting dice than the default. Microtransactions are already here.

This is neither here nor there, but: there is a seller on there that has animated tokens up, but nowhere -- not in the FG store, not on YouTube, not on their own website -- can you see what the animation is. It boggles.

 

[FrogReaver]

Old Hotness: That's not a pizza because you don't put THAT on a pizza.

New Hotness: That's not a burger because you don't put THAT on a burger.

Sounds like a Hardee’s Commercial.

 

[payn]

Im still very happy with my single 50 dollar investment in Foundry. Are there things I wish I had? Sure, but I usually figure out how to add myself, and if that fails, find a module somebody made.

 

[Autumnal]

Hell, with the DMs Guild, just make the old stuff available and open it up to the community. There will be a 500 page Dark Sun 5E book in about a month, probably of higher quality than the official team would put out.

I am constantly amazed and delighted at how darned good the top end of the DM’s Guild and Storyteller’s Vault are. My expectations pre-launch weren’t nearly high enough and I love the ongoing refutation of my doubts.

The latter is fair, but the idea its new was what I was taking issue with. By 1990 I probably could have named at least a hundred game systems I knew of out there, and once you get to that, it doesn't matter if its a hundred or a thousand, because most of them are going to be obscure anyway.

Probably could do that by 1980. Most RPGs fade over time and only a handful of nerds remember or know about Superhero 2044, Star Probe and Star Empire, and so many others.

Some of these strong opinions about solo RPGs look suspiciously like they come from people who've never played a solo RPG.

I was going to say. Neither my journaling play nor my Ironforged/Starsworn and Mythic GME okay is at all similar to choose-your-own books. Which is good, since I don’t like CYOA (no knock on them, just not my thing). And as someone whose million and a half published words includes four novels and sundry shorter pieces, I also like them because they don’t work at all like fiction writing, for me. They’re most like, um, roleplaying games, oddly enough, just with a bunch of distinctive gestures because of being solo.

 

[Aldarc]

I think the explanation is pretty clear. I wasn’t making it up.

View attachment 291614

[Edited: For the right quote!

Guess what? I read that same definition, The Sword. It does not say what you think it does. You say it's pretty clear but conveniently ignore the whole part where it says "even when it is clear." That does not mean that it is or must be clear that abandoning the course of action would be beneficial. That is an aside. Not the main point of the definition.

And here is another brief explanation:

The Sunk Cost Fallacy describes our tendency to follow through on an endeavor if we have already invested time, effort, or money into it, whether or not the current costs outweigh the benefits.

People demonstrate "a greater tendency to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made".[17][18] This is the sunk cost fallacy, and such behavior may be described as "throwing good money after bad",[19][14] while refusing to succumb to what may be described as "cutting one's losses".[14] People can remain in failing relationships because they "have already invested too much to leave".

The sunk cost fallacy does not require recognizing that it would be more beneficial to end a course of action. The sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy of rationalizing the continued course of action due to the amount of time, money, or effort already expended into an endeavor.

 

[TheSword]

Guess what? I read that same definition, The Sword. It does not say what you think it does. You say it's pretty clear but conveniently ignore the whole part where it says "even when it is clear." That does not mean that it is or must be clear that abandoning the course of action would be beneficial. That is an aside. Not the main point of the definition.

And here is another brief explanation:


The sunk cost fallacy does not require recognizing that it would be more beneficial to end a course of action. The sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy of rationalizing the continued course of action due to the amount of time, money, or effort already expended into an endeavor.

I get what you’re saying but all those quotes reinforce the point that for it to be a fallacy - sticking with the sunk cost/path needs to be a suboptimal choice.

I don’t read ‘even when’ as optional. The whole description is part of the fallacy.

For the fallacy to work, the idea of sticking with the path because it’s a good choice in its own right has to be incorrect. Otherwise spending the money/time/effort was a good idea. For it to work your decision needs to fly in the face of logic.

The other quotes support that. Throwing good money after bad, presumes what you’ve spent on the money is a bad idea.

 

[CleverNickName]

Warning: Dangerously Unpopular opinions below:
Star Wars is an excellent franchise and sci-fi universe. I mean it no disrespect.

And Star Trek is even better than Star Wars.