Unpopular opinions go here

[Gradine]

 

[Thomas Shey]

And yet 13th Age is there, doing just fine. One can make a perfectly fine fantasy game that runs similarly to 4E, just using the OGL.

Hmmm. Not sure that argument is all that strong. While 13A certainly has some 4e influence, I'm not sure I'd really characterize it as "running similarly to" 4e. Its really not tactically focused enough and hard coded enough to really be analogous, even if the parts that are there are very similar in some ways. We're talking about a game that doesn't really pay attention to movement or range except in a big, broad range band kind of way, after all.

You really undercut yourself with this. It is fine to not like a style of gameplay, but to insist that said gameplay must be bad, rather than just not being for you, is kind of a stretch.

I have no interest in playing Champions or GURPS, but that doesn't mean that highly granular games are somehow inherently bad.

I think him claiming that for some values they're "bad" is legitimate; I don't think him speculating on the reasons for other's preferences here is well thought through, or trying to universalize it is, however.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Its the "not" that throws in the judgment; it says that the virtuous choice is having human judgment involved is superior to having a rule for many situations.

It really doesn't. The "not" is a descriptor, nothing more. It says that "in this game, lots of situations aren't detailed and the DM is going to have to make decisions on the fly."

That's a value judgment in and of itself; its not objective, and there's no reason someone else should be require to judge it on an objective level to call it good or bad since the position itself is not objective.

None of this is inherent to the phrase in question.

Now, there are absolutely OSR proponents who will assert that "rulings not rules" is inherently superior and that anyone who disagrees should go play a computer game or something. But that's on them and their inability to conduct civil conversations.

The style of game is not inherently saying anything about humans versus rulesets.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The road is long/
With many a winding turn/
That leads us to who knows where/
But I'm strong/
Strong enough to carry him/
He ain't heavy, he's my D&D rules

Probably not a popular or unpopular opinion, but this cover is the best version of the real song:

 

[Tony Vargas]

And yet 13th Age is there, doing just fine. One can make a perfectly fine fantasy game that runs similarly to 4E, just using the OGL.

13th Age is not 4e the way, for instance, PF1 was 3.5 - neither is PF2, for that matter.
"there might be some other OK game out there" doesn't change the qualities of the game in question.

You really undercut yourself with this. It is fine to not like a style of gameplay, but to insist that said gameplay must be bad, rather than just not being for you, is kind of a stretch.

Meh, there's an undercurrent of everything must actually be OK, it's all subjective that is like, if you really believe that, why discuss anything?
There are bad rules. If you're running a game with bad rules, changing, overruling, ignoring, or working around them is likely to be for the better. If you're running a semi-mythical ttrpg with good rules, not so much.

It really doesn't. The "not" is a descriptor, nothing more. It says that "in this game, lots of situations aren't detailed and the DM is going to have to make decisions on the fly."

Rulings not Rules. Roleplay not Rollplay. the appearance of a value judgement is there

It's a value judgement that makes more sense the worse or less complete the rules are.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It really doesn't. The "not" is a descriptor, nothing more. It says that "in this game, lots of situations aren't detailed and the DM is going to have to make decisions on the fly."

I'll be pretty blunt; the way that phrase has been expressed by people does not convince me your read of the intent is correct here.

None of this is inherent to the phrase in question.

Now, there are absolutely OSR proponents who will assert that "rulings not rules" is inherently superior and that anyone who disagrees should go play a computer game or something. But that's on them and their inability to conduct civil conversations.

But the style of game is not inherently saying anything about humans versus rulesets.

Again, if enough people use it that way, I'm going to take them at their word. There are other ways to construct that preference that are less strong; "instead" for example. "Not" is a negation word, and I'm very unsold it wasn't chosen for that reason.

 

[MGibster]

I've been gaming since 1979, and 5e is one of the most rules-bloated systems I've seen. And I played Phoenix Command and Rolemaster for years.

You seem like the type of person who would play Phoenix Command and Rolemaster. I'm honestly not sure if that's a positve, neutral, or hostile statement either. Let's call it netural.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Meh, there's an undercurrent of everything must actually be OK, it's all subjective that is like, if you really believe that, why discuss anything?

If you're not sharing priors with people you're discussing the value of a set of rules with, I'm not sure there is any reason to discuss them. Until you establish those priors you aren't sharing any value for rules that can be usefully debated. You have to step back and do that establishing work, or discuss it with people who already share at least some of them.

As a simple example, you're never going to get anywhere discussing the value of social mechanics with people who don't want mechanics in that area at all and consider them intrusive. Any argument you make will be a waste of time. The most you can do is express why you want them.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'll be pretty blunt; the way that phrase has been expressed by people does not convince me your read of the intent is correct here.

Words have inherent meanings. Who uses them or how doesn't change their meaning.

I'm not defending anyone on any side of this issue being jerks (and being jerks over a game is pretty stupid), but deciding that everyone who says "rules not rulings" must be a jerk as well is pretty problematic as well.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Roleplay not Rollplay. the appearance of a value judgement is there

The word "not" isn't the problem there. The made-up term "rollplay" was coined and is used as an insult (except when it's a typo).

It's a value judgement that makes more sense the worse the rules are.

Is Fiasco a bad game because its rules are so light? Would Dread somehow be a better game if it came with a 300 page rulebook?

A game being heavy or light, or relying on rules or rulings, is independent of whether it succeeds at its design goals and whether players have fun with it.

It's OK to let other people like stuff you don't and it's definitely OK for them to not pick fights with you if you don't find their stuff fun.