Unpopular opinions go here

[Jd Smith1]

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."

No, its just an opinion; unpopular with you, and probably others. None of those listed were particularly innovative, or IMO, interesting.

Spelljammer was just vikings in space.
Planescape was just the old 'different planes' from AD&D taken a step further.
Athas is a stock setting, saved by the incredible quality and detail of its maps.
Barsaive (or whatever Earthdawn’s was called) was a completely standard Euro-setting, with a post-apoc vibe. Besides decent art, its only stand-out was the fairies, or pixies, or whatever they were called. That was something I wish we saw more of (a race incapable of melee or physical ranged combat).

 

[MGibster]

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.

I agree with this, but it doesn't quite explain D&D's continued success for nearly five decades under two separate companies.

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

I believe this is a false premise. Rather than being a static product set into stone in 1974, D&D has changed frequently over the years as it's been adapted to meet the needs of an ever-changing audience. Being the first doesn't even explain why D&D's popularity exploded in the 70s let alone its continued success.

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.

Sure, you're right, it doesn't prove it. Unfortunately when it comes to history, you can't run experiements to test your theories out. I asked the ethics board, but they won't return my calls anymore.

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.

Whether D&D gives people exactly the experience they want isn't relevant. The fact that it's good enough to provide people with a positive gaming experience is pretty much the only thing that matters.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

But from where I sit, mechanical stuff--which expresses how they play--matters. They're not just naked mechanics. The effect how things play out.

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.

Well, my own feeling is if mechanics aren't reflecting the in-game reality, they were poorly chosen in the first place. And if they are reflecting that, then that feedback is entirely appropriate.

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.

Well, that's where I say "if they're just gameplay overlays, and don't do at least a competent job of representing the in-game realities, they're bad mechanics." But then, the disconnect between mechanics in D&D and setting reality in the games its used for have never been something I'd be in a big hurry to compliment.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree with this, but it doesn't quite explain D&D's continued success for nearly five decades under two separate companies.

I don't believe it needs much else. And I can point at probably a half dozen perennial front-runners in other industries that I think supports my position.

I believe this is a false premise. Rather than being a static product set into stone in 1974, D&D has changed frequently over the years as it's been adapted to meet the needs of an ever-changing audience. Being the first doesn't even explain why D&D's popularity exploded in the 70s let alone its continued success.

I believe it mostly does in the 70's. It was steam engine time. As I said, all it needed to be was competent. And after that, someone was going to have to do heavy lifting to displace it. All it had to do was not trip heavily, and it only came close to that once.

Sure, you're right, it doesn't prove it. Unfortunately when it comes to history, you can't run experiements to test your theories out. I asked the ethics board, but they won't return my calls anymore.


Whether D&D gives people exactly the experience they want isn't relevant. The fact that it's good enough to provide people with a positive gaming experience is pretty much the only thing that matters.

Which is what I've said. The argument I've made is there's a big difference between "good" and "good enough". I'd never deny that to most D&D players its always been "good enough". I think claiming its "good" however, requires more information than we have, or can have.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ditch multiclassing, or do some feat based system to make it more limited.

THEM’S FIGHTIN’ WORDS!

 

[MGibster]

Crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentation of their women really is what's best in life.

 

[humble minion]

Zakhara, Kara-Tur, and even Maztica would have been better settings if they hadn't been shoehorned into the Forgotten Realms. The latter, too, Forgotten Realms would have been better without its reality-warping attempt to do a Very Special Episode about colonialism.

I don't think that's ever been an UNPOPULAR opinion. People hated it back in the day too.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I haven't played D&D since the AD&D days, but I remember multi-class with fondness. That was probably the biggest choice back then: straight class or multi; slow growth with broader skills.

Later, I read that I think it was 4th Ed that allowed you to add individual class levels to your PC, and I thought that that was a pretty good idea.

 

[Aldarc]

There's nothing wrong with the answer being on your character sheet.

 

[MGibster]

I don't think that's ever been an UNPOPULAR opinion. People hated it back in the day too.

I bought someone Maztica for their birthday and after reading it apologized for the crummy gift. Maztica was just horrible, but I don't think being in Forgotten Realms was the main problem.