Unpopular opinions go here

[Maxperson]

Here's an unpopular opinion: Maybe if D&D isn't what you want you should play some other game instead of trying to change D&D?

That kind of runs contrary to what D&D is, though. D&D over the decades has branded itself as a game that changes. From the optional classes, items, rules, new mechanics, etc. in the Dragon magazines, to supplements that bring in those things, to profoundly changed editions, D&D is a game that embraces change.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, my point was that we cannot have a fighter flavor change because it will never, ever get past the gate keepers. Doesn't matter if it's something they would never use or not. Fighters MUST BE one thing and one thing only and must never, ever be allowed to be anything other than that one thing. Which you have now twice so eloquently illustrated.

Which is generally one of the larger problems with 5e - the fact that any change must run the gauntlet and so, nothing will ever be allowed to change. Good grief, in ten years we got one new class. You think they're going to be allowed to create a new "mythic fighter" class for D&D? Not a chance. There's just no way that it will ever get past those who refuse to allow anything in the game that isn't to their "taste". The One D&D playtest has proven that. Any deviation from the baseline is automatically rejected. Doesn't matter that it might be something that has zero impact on a given game table. Doesn't matter. D&D MUST REMAIN PURE!!!

It's really rather depressing. For all the complaints about how WotC won't innovate or won't do stuff to appeal to this or that idea, the second WotC actually does try to do anything new, they get crucified for it. Good grief, having bright colors on the cover of a module was a major issue for months and sign of how WotC hates D&D and has abandoned gamers.

That's why you need someone else to make the mythic fighter. If people won't accept it because WotC didn't make it? Too bad I say.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here's an unpopular opinion: Maybe if D&D isn't what you want you should play some other game instead of trying to

Define D&D please.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why do you need to take a flavor away from people? Why not just ask for a new flavor? I want a psion. I'm not asking for bards to be taken away from people, even though I dislike the class, especially in the 5e incarnation. I could be arguing to turn bards into psions, which would probably make @Snarf Zagyg happy, but I'm not.

Um, I literally said that you can add a new flavor which would not be to my taste and it was liked by at least one other from my side of things.

Pure...........................or you can just make it impure with a new flavor.

So again, why must innovation come at the expense of something currently existing?

WotC seems to think they're not only making a role-playing game, but a zero-sum game as well.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Shadowrun Anarchy with a few small changes is the best edition of Shadowrun.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Shadowrun Anarchy with a few small changes is the best edition of Shadowrun.

Boimler? Is that you?

 

[DarkCrisis]

Boimler? Is that you?

Resistance is futile.

 

[MGibster]

Are you suggesting that D&D should never change? And if so, which one?

I'm suggesting that if you need to make radical changes to D&D to make it playable then it might not be the game for you. I'm not going to quibble over where that line is though.

 

[MGibster]

Define D&D please.

This changes for me. Lately my definition of D&D is whatever the least favorite version of the person I'm talking to is.

 

[Aldarc]

If playing a game causes someone so much anger that they have to post in discussions of the game about how much they dislike the game, then maybe they shouldn’t play the game or even engage in those discussions but instead they should play something else instead that makes them happy and then post about that! That makes for far better reading on the forum.