Unpopular opinions go here

[Tony Vargas]

I dunno. There’s a rather large forum that refused to acknowledge 3e as part of DnD. Largely for the same sort of reasons for rejecting 4e.

Is it still around?

The question of why would any deny DnD is an rpg is pretty easy to answer, regardless of whether it’s one specific edition or DnD as a whole - to gatekeep the hobby and declare your preferred game/edition/whatever to be the superior.

D&D is already a de-facto gatekeeper of sorts. Probably a reason why dictating terms to the current (next) ed, even if it means nerdraging enough to damage the IP, is so tempting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I await the day when your preferred edition is no longer the new hotness and your desire for new content is described as whining.

Too bad your screen name isn't Travis, because you're years to late.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I believe that was "4e D&D isn't D&D"

"D&D isn't a TTRPG" OTOH, that's an unpopular opinion (at least, here at ENWorld, which, we recall, started as a news site for the upcoming, brand-new, 3rd edition of D&D). And, the point? Liberation? Thinking outside the Red Box? trying something new & better... well, less than 45 years old & better? Imagining the hobby without D&D?

What's the point of posting an unpopular opinion, anyway?

What's the opposite of schadenfreude?

 

[Tony Vargas]

What's the opposite of schadenfreude

Well, Joy at the Good Fortune of others would be Empathy?
...unhappiness at the good fortune of others would be, well, Envy

 

[MGibster]

I dunno. There’s a rather large forum that refused to acknowledge 3e as part of DnD. Largely for the same sort of reasons for rejecting 4e.

Eh. I didn't like 4E, but I don't see how anyone could say it wasn't D&D. It had D&D plastered all over the cover.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ironically, Gamma World had D&D plastered on the cover.... I guess someone was like, D&D Sells! slap it on there! ... in 2010

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ironically, Gamma World had D&D plastered on the cover.... I guess someone was like, D&D Sells! slap it on there! ... in 2010

View attachment 296332

I still have that box.

 

[Thomas Shey]

For what it was worth, there were innovations later on which helped with that, at least in part. While I could swear I saw a prior take on it somewhere, Pathfinder's simple class templates, for instance, helped to offload some of the issues with adding PC abilities to monsters.

That wouldn't have mattered much; a lot of it was just managing basic traits of opponents at those levels: high level fighters with feats, wizards with spells, dragons who would have spells, feats and special abilities. And every one was a special case. Its why I used to laugh at people calling the Hero System complicated.

 

[Hussar]

Eh. I didn't like 4E, but I don't see how anyone could say it wasn't D&D. It had D&D plastered all over the cover.

See this? This is groovy. Not liking an edition is groovy. I’ll be the first to admit I’d never play 1e again. Like you, I’d never try to claim it wasn’t DnD or an rpg.

Anytime you see anyone claim that X isn’t part of Y, you can guarantee that all they are doing is gatekeeping.

 

[Hussar]

My personal unpopular opinion about how to define an RPG.

An RPG is not a complete game. It is a tool that we use to create games with. Each game created by an rpg will be idiosyncratic to that particular time and group of people and cannot ever be recreated.

In a non rpg, you can read the rule book which will specify how to set up the game and then you can play. An rpg does not work like that. There is always an intermediate step between the rules and actual play where someone will create the game that will be played. The rules of the rpg generally give some loose guidance on how to use the rules to create a game but beyond that, every game will be unique and much of game play will fall under emergent properties and cannot be predicted with any real accuracy.

That’s my take anyway. Which nicely encompasses rpgs while excluding virtually anything else.