Unpopular opinions go here

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think any modern version of WotC D&D has even tried to give the pillars equal mechanical weight (ignoring that they weren't formalized until the current edition).

No edition has ever come close (I've heard like, Birthright, Immortals, and some other setting... council of wyrms? ... had more significant high order diplomacy?). TSR D&D barely had mechanics for social at all - reaction roles, loyalty base - and dumping CHA was notorious. 2e added optional NWPs, but I don't recall social skills figuring into it (I could've paid more attention to 2e ). 3e added skills and feats, but combat (and magic) still loomed much much larger - though there was the Diplomancer OP build that could obviate not only the social pillar, but any combat with enemies you could talk to...not mechanical weight, but damn. 4e broke out rituals from combat resources, and was the only edition to give non-combat a mechanical structure, including guidelines for making them challenging, with exp value comparable to combat based on that challenge - but it didn't do it well, especially at first, and it was still no where near the mechanical weight of combat. 5e does give combat shorter shrift than any edition in a long while - 'fast combat' was a major goal of Next - but it's non-combat mechanics are little more than skills (like combat, BA-restricted) and kept ritual casting not competing for slots (tho it competes for spells known or prepped).

Whether you think of it in terms of "combat" vs "non-combat" or "Three Pillars," D&D has always given more mechanical weight to combat (but, incidentally, the most mechanical weight to magic).
Combat is life or death and, if one side is ruthless enough, any social interaction can turn into combat.
The alternative to mechanics to model combat is, like, SCA combat or boffers or something, but the alternative to social mechanics is just forgetting the abilities of the characters and talking it through, player-to-DM.
Exploration can be life-or-death, but probably not every exploration challenge is likely to be, and you can model tackling exploration without mechanics by describing how you sneak and search and so forth in excruciating detail, or substitute solving a puzzle for disarming a trap or the like.
And, of course, D&D started out as a wargame, and wargames are notoriously focused on combat. (tho, really, diplomacy and logistics should be a big deal, too).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I know you are talking about making races stand out, and imma let you finish, but super strength is still the worst way to do it.

Why?

If I am playing an ogre, I think them being stronger than humans is quite important and helpful to making them stand out. To the other posters point, Spock’s strength was highly effective because it was an interesting contrast to his logic and often had a shocking effect because you realized a race that doesn’t present itself as strong, actually is (and again just a helpful reminder that there is a different physiology)

 

[Micah Sweet]

I know you are talking about making races stand out, and imma let you finish, but super strength is still the worst way to do it.

I agree with other posters here. Vulcans without super strength aren't Vulcans.

 

[payn]

I should have known better, I am not engaging in your conversations specifically, I'm saying generally, super strength is a weak differentiator.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I should have known better, I am not engaging in your conversations specifically, I'm saying generally, super strength is a weak differentiator.

The popularity of Superman, Wonder Woman, Thor, the Hulk, and the presumptive ancient popularity of Heracles or Gilgamesh, etc, not withstanding. Because, ad populum, of course.

But STR still seems something worth modeling in almost any RPG. I'm not convinced race is any more worth hard-coding than class, tho. In a genre where individuals can be wildly diverse, including literally unique ("I am Corum Jhaelen Irsei, the Prince in the Scarlet Robe, and I am the last of my kind"), like fantasy, sci-fi, or superheroes, leaving it the player seems fine.

 

[payn]

The popularity of Superman, Wonder Woman, Thor, the Hulk, and the presumptive ancient popularity of Heracles or Gilgamesh, etc, not withstanding. Because, ad populum, of course.

But STR still seems something worth modeling in almost any RPG.

Sure, modeling in an RPG is one thing, im talking about narratives for characters in stories. Super strength is the least interesting thing about any of the aforementioned characters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure, modeling in an RPG is one thing,

It's kinda the topic - should races have ability mods - right?

im talking about narratives for characters in stories. Super strength is the least interesting thing about any of the aforementioned characters.

Extreme strength is power, and how you use power seems a key factor in many heroic narratives. That latter may be the more interesting part, but the former is foundational. You could as easily tell a similar story about a king or politician or mage or gunfighter as a superhumanly strong hero, but they need something...

 

[payn]

It's kinda the topic - should races have ability mods - right?

I was making a tangent unpopular opinion declaration. I apologize for not being much clearer about that.

Extreme strength is power, and how you use power seems a key factor in many heroic narratives. That latter may be the more interesting part, but the former is foundational. You could as easily tell a similar story about a king or politician or mage or gunfighter as a superhumanly strong hero, but they need something...

The latter part indeed, super strength power is so low context in relation to the subject of power that it makes it uninteresting and very overused. YMMV.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I was making a tangent unpopular opinion declaration. I apologize for not being much clearer about that.

The latter part indeed, super strength power is so low context in relation to the subject of power that it makes it uninteresting and very overused. YMMV.

I think something being "overused" is very subjective and not a valid metric to include or exclude anything on any basis other than individual taste.

 

[payn]

I think something being "overused" is very subjective and not a valid metric to include or exclude anything on any basis other than individual taste.

Sounds like an opinion.