Unpopular opinions go here

[MGibster]

Well, that just gets back to the old chicken-and-egg question of whether D&D is so popular because its actively what everyone who plays it wants, or its popularity has made it the easiest game to find and thus the one people have gotten so used to. Its a question that's essentially impossible to answer in either direction.

I would humbly submit that D&D became so popular because it was a good game that provided players with a positive gaming experience. It continues to dominate because it continues to offer a positive gaming experience to many, many people. Being the biggest kid on the block has it's advantages, but if D&D wasn't giving people what they wanted they wouldn't continue to dominate.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Here's where I think we differ - a cleric can heal with a touch, detect evil, and conjure a circle of protection. It wouldn't be wild for a cleric to be able to pray for an intelligent heavy warhorse.

But it wasn't something they could do in OD&D. Nor could they detect evil steady-state.

That was the gig with a lot of custom classes you saw years ago; sometimes there were sort-of ways to emulate them, but the moment you got fussy about them, you probably were going to need to do something from the ground up. In concept a a paladin isn't much different from a fighter/cleric, but it is in execution, and sometimes that matters to people.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I would humbly submit that D&D became so popular because it was a good game that provided players with a positive gaming experience.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to stand by my ground on my past opinion here: D&D got so popular because it was a relatively new idea that landed at the right time historically and was good enough.

With first-entry benefit, that's all that's ever needed, because something needs to be overwhelmingly better, and overcome established habit.

To make it clear, that does not mean you couldn't be right. But the fact its popular does not actually prove that. To determine that would require a game of at least competence that started at virtually the same time but was not as successful.

It continues to dominate because it continues to offer a positive gaming experience to many, many people. Being the biggest kid on the block has it's advantages, but if D&D wasn't giving people what they wanted they wouldn't continue to dominate.

And we're back to chicken-and-egg. Does it give them what they want because at the root its exactly what they want, or have they come to expect what it gives them because its very likely what they hit first? I'm going to stick to saying no one can say. The most I'll acknowledge is its good enough not to drive many people to look for something else, but that's not the same statement.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I would humbly submit that D&D became so popular because it was a good game that provided players with a positive gaming experience. It continues to dominate because it continues to offer a positive gaming experience to many, many people. Being the biggest kid on the block has it's advantages, but if D&D wasn't giving people what they wanted they wouldn't continue to dominate.

Sad, but true.

 

[Emberashh]

My spicy opinion is that people are over obsessive with telling stories in TTRPGs and try way too hard.

 

[Lanefan]

A character without a goal is a waste of paper.

Two goals and three assists would be even better.

 

[Lanefan]

Here's where I think we differ - a cleric can heal with a touch, detect evil, and conjure a circle of protection. It wouldn't be wild for a cleric to be able to pray for an intelligent heavy warhorse.

The biggest difference between Paladins and Clerics is that the Paladin is first and foremost intended to be an Inspiring Leader of People, hence the stupendous Charisma requirement while needing only enough Int and Wis to get by. Clerics, on the other hand, are intended to be the voice of wise reason* and act as support crew and diviners - Wisdom is their prime stat and they don't need much Charisma at all.

Put another way, a Paladin leads from the front while a Cleric supports from the middle or rear, and the mechanics kinda reflect that.

* - in theory. Mileage may vary considerably in practice.

 

[pemerton]

In concept a a paladin isn't much different from a fighter/cleric, but it is in execution, and sometimes that matters to people.

I consider this very close to my they're the same in archetype, with the differences being purely mechanical.

And here's my unpopular opinion: the mechanical fiddliness of D&D leads to mechanical differentiation becoming "reified" as an end in itself, and feeding back into the fictional elements in a way that makes those elements weirdly self-referential and disconnected from the more fundamental ideas that were the point of the original, inspirational source material.

The paladin/cleric issue is one example. The obsession with particular ways of parcelling out usage and recharge and so on, as if these are more than just gameplay overlays, is another.

 

[Reynard]

Man, those are some truly awful, predictable settings.

That is just obvious silliness. You are working to get a reaction t that point. It's fine that you have this mythical idea of a setting that no one could ever achieve, but it is silly to pretend that some of the most innovative settings were "predictable."

 

[overgeeked]

Two goals and three assists would be even better.

Hat trick for the win.