Unpopular opinions go here

[aramis erak]

I'm actually not familiar with the mechanics of True20, although I've heard of it of course. Is it an effects-based system?

It's largely d20 SRD 3.x, but without retaining attribute numbers, instead just keeping the zero-normed modifiers as the attributes, and with a rather different resistance roll based damage system, instead of HP.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Looking up rules in session is something which most OSR evangelists consider adjacent to heresy.

Well, I am not among them. Not all OSR games are "rules light".

 

[aramis erak]

I'm going to disagree with the "these days" thing. In D&D is almost never matters whether your character is race X or race Y. Other than maybe the racial antipathy tables in the old 1e PHB, it was never a thing. The whole "Star Wars Cantina" thing has been around for a VERY long time.

It's changed significantly in the last 3 years - they've de-linked the attribute modifiers from race/"ancestry" (~ species) because some find them offensive. While I can understand that very minority PoV, it does make the race/ancestry almost totally mechanically meaningless.

The lack of restrictions on classes by race/ancestry (since D&D 3.0) had very much reduced the impact already, as did the multiclassing rules for 3.x... but taking away the link to different races/ancestries -- which I've always assumed races in D&D were species level differences -- renders the races almost negligible in the mechanics.

If people want to play that way, fine. But it doesn't change that Race in AD&D had significant mechanical impact, and in BX/BECMI/Cyclopedia, even more so (as they were separate tweaked classes).

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's changed significantly in the last 3 years - they've de-linked the attribute modifiers from race/"ancestry" (~ species) because some find them offensive. While I can understand that very minority PoV, it does make the race/ancestry almost totally mechanically meaningless.

The lack of restrictions on classes by race/ancestry (since D&D 3.0) had very much reduced the impact already, as did the multiclassing rules for 3.x... but taking away the link to different races/ancestries -- which I've always assumed races in D&D were species level differences -- renders the races almost negligible in the mechanics.

If people want to play that way, fine. But it doesn't change that Race in AD&D had significant mechanical impact, and in BX/BECMI/Cyclopedia, even more so (as they were separate tweaked classes).

Race and Class functioning the watt hey did we’re pretty essential to the game in my opinion

 

[Jd Smith1]

None of this matters. You roll to win the fight.

And it's telling you're confused if you think DNDs core resolution roll has anything to do with "attacking".

 

[Jd Smith1]

So if the DM wants one thing, and the player wants another, your advice is to do what the player wants?

Screw that. I just booted a prospective player on that very issue. I'm GMing for my own entertainment.

 

[Emberashh]

View attachment 309041

Reminder that when DND explains the core mechanic, no where does it mention its about attacking. Nevermind only attacking.

 

[MGibster]

I'm going to disagree with the "these days" thing. In D&D is almost never matters whether your character is race X or race Y. Other than maybe the racial antipathy tables in the old 1e PHB, it was never a thing. The whole "Star Wars Cantina" thing has been around for a VERY long time.

It matters less these days with floating ASIs and I sometimes wonder if we'll just choose a size category for our PCs. So I can have my medium halfling. Might as well just get rid of species/races in D&D and just tell players to make what they want. Relegate species to campaign specific sourcebooks.

 

[Lanefan]

Looking up rules in session is something which most OSR evangelists consider adjacent to heresy.

Not this one. I'd rather look it up and get it right than not look it up and blow it.

Many others from the first decade of RPGing, myself amongst them, don't like needing reference to a book in play. We do it, but prefer to not need to.

Same here, which in part is why I put a lot of stuff online. Also, that way everyone can access it at once rather than pass a book around the table.

 

[Hussar]

I see your general point, but I'm not inclined to support it. It's not the GM's job to spoon-feed entertainment.

I design the campaign I want to run, and the players can be part of it, or not. Now, I'll throw in tweaks to meet player interests and hopes if they fit, but if someone brings in a pirate into a campaign aimed at land operations, that's his problem.

But you can’t have it both ways.

The character’s race cannot matter if the player is making a character after the campaign is built. Or, rather it’s not going to matter much.

And what you’ve outlined here is how I think most dms build campaigns and it certainly follows the dming advice we see in DnD.