Unpopular opinions go here

[Lanefan]

WotC should be held to a higher design standard than 3PP. Not the other way round.

Higher? No.

Different but equal? Yes.

To explain: WotC's design goals are to come up with and then curate a game generic enough to appeal to a broad cross-section of players (including DMs) and further, that can and will serve as the generic entry point into the RPG hobby. Whether intentionally or not, with 5e they seem to have more or less done just that.

The design goals of most other RPG companies are to come up with a game that appeals to a specific niche of players (including GMs), and to cater to the needs and wants of those players. It's not necessarily out to be or become a generic entry point to the RPG hobby.

Thus, the degree of success of WotC's design can be to some extent measured simply by sales numbers; while the degree of success of most other RPG designs is measured more by how well it is received by the players in its intended niche.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My answer to that would definitely be an unpopular opinion...

I'd love to hear it. You're certainly in the right place.

 

[overgeeked]

Because it almost necessarily leads to homogeneity.

That's not true at all.

By chipping away so that two things don’t do more than one another you usually end up with different labels on the same thing (in the worst case) or limit choices in others.

All games by necessity limit choices. You can't start designing a game without deciding what the limits are.

Real differentiation means two things won’t be balanced in all situations

Good thing that's not what balanced means.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've never encountered anyone who claimed it was 3PP being too conservative, rather than WotC.

In any case, the reality is that the ONLY balancing factor worth worrying about as a GM or designer is not breaking bounded accuracy (including action economy). Nothing else in the game is balanced in any way that actually matters. Go nuts.

Have a look at Mage Hand Press. Many, many great ideas, but their mechanics are stymied by feeling they can't really go beyond WotC or they'll be considered OP.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'd love to hear it. You're certainly in the right place.

Okay, but you asked for it.

Its because often the unbalanced option is unbalanced in the favor of whoever is using it a lot of the time.

Yes, that's cynical.

 

[Scribe]

In theory, yes. Try telling that to the people who make 3pp content for 5e and are terrified that anything that even looks like it might be on par with WotC's stuff in power will lead to people running from their "OP" product.

I understand that. I've thought of that myself as I reverse engineer things and take note that...actually theres not a lot to worry about.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

That's not true at all.

All games by necessity limit choices. You can't start designing a game without deciding what the limits are.

Good thing that's not what balanced means.

I will bite. How is this concept being operationalized?

Bonus points for applying to D&D so I can see a concrete example. Not rhetorical request—-genuinely want to see what you mean.

 

[overgeeked]

I will bite. How is this concept being operationalized?

Bonus points for applying to D&D so I can see a concrete example. Not rhetorical request—-genuinely want to see what you mean.

D&D is a fantasy game about traveling murderers killing monsters for gold. It's not, say...a superhero game nor a sci-fi game nor a modern-day spy game. So, by design, the game limits your choices before you even sit down to play. D&D is a class- and level-based game, i.e. you cannot play a concept that is not covered by the class system.

Above you argued that balance leads to homogeneous results. That's demonstrably not true.

Firebolt, 1 action, 120 ft range, 1d10 fire damage, ignites flammable targets.

Eldritch blast, 1 action, 120 ft range, 1d10 force damage.

These are balanced in that they deal the same damage at the same range. They are differentiated in that one deals force damage while the other deals fire damage, including igniting flammable objects.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Then why do so many attempts to balance a concept mechanically lead to that being less fun in play?

Well, if I may be cynical for a moment (I have been for the last 52 years, so IDK what made me ask permission, now), because it's a certain, rather intense, sort of fun to play an imbalanced character and ruin the game for everyone else, at least everyone else who didn't make similar choices.

Which (best case) quickly leads to everyone making similar choices, which, ironically, "homogenizes" the game.

I'd do some kind of [/cynicism] tag, but, really, who would I be fooling?

 

[Gradine]

Balance in a cooperative game is completely unnecessary.