Unpopular opinions go here

[humble minion]

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.

And the writers of the Al-Qadim line largely ignored the settings supposed location in the Realms too, and the material they produced was better for it.

Still didn't make it a good idea in the first place though.

 

[Aldarc]

Fantasy Europe should be retired from RPGs, novels, and media for the next 25 years, at minimum.

I would probably restrict that moratorium to Viking/Norse-inspired fantasy. I'm kinda sick of it.

I would personally like to see more European fantasy, but from periods such as the Early Middle Ages, the late Bronze* or early Iron Ages, etc.

* Most TTRPGs that claim to be "Greek Bronze Age fantasy" actually represent or depict the Greek Classical Period, which is well into the Iron Ages.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

To a point, but only to a point.

I'm not sure if I'm coming at this from anywhere near the same angle as @pemerton but I agree with what seems to be his basic conclusion: mechanical reflection of character differences has gained far too much focus as the editions have rolled on in D&D, at cost of differentiation in roleplayed personality, characterization, quirks, mannerisms, memes, and so forth.

I don't need mechanics in 1e D&D to differentiate these two Fighters at the table. They're the same level, both single-class, with the only real mechanical difference being that one is weapon-spec'ed and the other isn't. I've been playing them both on and off for well over 35 years, and both are still active:

---one is a practical-thinking generalist type, honourable enough not to steal but otherwise a greedy sort, who thinks his way through events as they come, who is fiercely loyal to those who are loyal to him and has no time for those who screw him over, and who - when given the opportunity - at least tries to do the right thing without seeking credit or glory. Currently he is trying to retire to somewhere quiet.
--- the other is a foul-mouthed get-outta-my-way swordsman with the diplomatic skills of a shoe who figures his weapon is the answer to every possible problem, that any sword he sees is his even if it's currently in someone else's scabbard, and that wizards are the scourge of the universe. He likes to be the center of attention. Currently he is trying to retire, build a castle, and make it an adventurers' base.

Even though they're close to mechanically identical, you'd be able to tell them apart within seconds were you at the table when they are in play.

And that's the point: if I can differentiate them that much just by roleplay, why do I need mechanical differences as well?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

If that's the case, maybe they should consider giving the Paladin some Warlord-like abilities.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

It was 3rd Edition. It sounded great in theory, but had a lot of problems in practice. Some people love it, I suppose. I roll my eyes when I hear "My character is a Bard 3 Cleric 4 Fighter 1 Warlock 2!"

 

[Nikosandros]

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.

I think that you raise a fair point, but - to be honest - I actually love those reified and self-referential elements. They are part of the D&D "feeling" for me.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

This feels more like post-hoc reasoning that mostly exists to maintain and rationalize the existing traditions of the status quo rather than question whether they are accurate reflections of the source material or whether we would be better served by modeling these things differently in the mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

I think that you raise a fair point, but - to be honest - I actually love those reified and self-referential elements. They are part of the D&D "feeling" for me.

I did flag it as an unpopular opinion!

 

[pemerton]

This feels more like post-hoc reasoning that mostly exists to maintain and rationalize the existing traditions of the status quo rather than question whether they are accurate reflections of the source material or whether we would be better served by modeling these things differently in the mechanics.

I was tossing up whether or not to post this. Thank you for relieving me of that labour!

 

[Aldarc]

I was tossing up whether or not to post this. Thank you for relieving me of that labour!

You're welcome.

But that's the thing about this. I think that Tolkien, for example, would be appalled that D&D's wizard, which is modeled after Gandalf, Merlin, and other magical characters, would be defined by their Intelligence rather than say their Wisdom, which was often the hallmark characteristic for these sagely figures. They were meant to be the source of wisdom.