Unpopular opinions go here

[Thomas Shey]

I remember EN World being a very unpleasant place during that period of time, mostly due to a small group of very vocal 4E fans who would not abide by any criticism of their chosen edition. The idea that WotC knew best, and that 4E was therefore the superior edition, was held to be axiomatic (reports to the contrary have since come out).

That someone from that camp should now go around saying how they've been "forced out" and "had the door slammed behind them" is, quite frankly, egregious.

This assumes they were in that group. You're not responsible for every person who shares a fandom with your or a preference in game who is a jerk. If you were, everyone on here would need to go hide their head in shame (me included).

 

[overgeeked]

I was going to mention the "digital tools" above when I said:

But it felt like if something had a good open license and was popular that someone would make tools for it if it died. Would 4e have had a Paizo-standin pop-up if it had a decent license?

People have done even without the license.

It's not hard to rebuild 4E from 5E. Most of the widgets just have different names. Encounter power = recharge on short rest. Daily power = recharge on long rest. At-will power = cantrip. The math is more straightforward, +1 per 2 levels instead of 1 +1 per 4 1/3 levels rounded someway...or whatever prof bonus math is for 5E. Bloodied condition is just a 1/2 hp marker that triggers extra effects. Saves vs defenses. Make saves passive. Now you have defenses. Skill challenges are group checks with more skill options. Etc.

At the level of Paizo and Pathfinder, with an open license? Maybe. Matt Colville might have lead that charge personally.

 

[Alzrius]

This assumes they were in that group. You're not responsible for every person who shares a fandom with your or a preference in game who is a jerk. If you were, everyone on here would need to go hide their head in shame (me included).

I agree with your second and third sentences, but as to the first...it wasn't an assumption; I was on here back then, and they were in that group.

 

[Alzrius]

People have done even without the license.

Obligatory plug for Orcus:

D&D 4E - Introducing Orcus -- a 4E retroclone

Last year, I launched a 4E retroclone called Orcus. I've posted about it in a few other places, but never shared it here -- which I wanted to correct now. I'm very open to contributions from others, whether that's homebrew material you've created or proposing balance/gameplay fixes to the...

www.enworld.org

 

[Thomas Shey]

I also love that it has monsters/NPCs not beholden to following the rules players had to follow.

You know, I was really hostile to that when I first saw it; I came from a background of a number of games like RuneQuest and Fantasy Hero where opponents were fundamentally not built any different than PCs (other than the obvious matter of degree in some places).

But D&D, particularly post-3e D&D had too many moving parts to make that possible, especially as you got to advanced opponents for representing them all in the same detail to go well (I saw that at the end of the 3e campaign I ran), and trying to still capture some of the more exotic things required some corner cutting.

I don't still particularly like it, but I understand the virtual necessity.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think a GNS style or Big Model style breakdown is useful or meaningful. Those feel like they're built to tell us a story about what TTRPGs ought to be. They're very is/ought oriented. Doesn't feel useful to me.

Its good to always remember that the GNS's predecessor GDS existed primarily to explain different expectations in gaming. Unfortunately its very hard to put that sort of scheme together in a way that really represents all the stakeholder's perspectives when you do that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Unpopular Opinion: We need even more dragons in D&D.

I guess we need more elven sub-races, then, too

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree with your second and third sentences, but as to the first...it wasn't an assumption; I was on here back then, and they were in that group.

Every single one? If not, perhaps the broad strokes could be cut back a bit.

 

[Pedantic]

You know, I was really hostile to that when I first saw it; I came from a background of a number of games like RuneQuest and Fantasy Hero where opponents were fundamentally not built any different than PCs (other than the obvious matter of degree in some places).

But D&D, particularly post-3e D&D had too many moving parts to make that possible, especially as you got to advanced opponents for representing them all in the same detail to go well (I saw that at the end of the 3e campaign I ran), and trying to still capture some of the more exotic things required some corner cutting.

I don't still particularly like it, but I understand the virtual necessity.

I definitely still find it vaguely offensive. I've become less fussed about process, but I'd still like the result to be understandable in the same terms.

 

[Alzrius]

Every single one? If not, perhaps the broad strokes could be cut back a bit.

I think there's a miscommunication going on; I'm referring to a single individual as having been part of the cadre I outlined previously. (The "they" in my previous post was singular.)