Unpopular opinions go here

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In the Before Times, that is before MMORPGS, a Fighter type was described as a tank or a brick. The tank, or brick, was typically a tough fighter/brawler who could dish out a lot of punishment and in return take a lot of punishment in return. But there wasn't an expectation that the Fighter would get punched in the face while everyone else in the party remained safe from attack. Sure, my Fighter would certainly try to protect the Magic-User, but he wouldn't be expected to maintain aggro or something like that.

Back in the day, you got the enemy's attention by being the biggest threat in the room.

 

[MGibster]

Unpopular opinion. Unless you’re the world’s best referee (and you are not) you cannot reasonably expect 100% attention from your players for 4-6 hours. Also note, things like ADHD exist and there’s a good chance someone in your group has it…if not multiple people. Their brain is literally incapable of giving you 100% attention for 4-6 hours.

It's only a problem for me when I ask a player a question and they don't respond because they're so engrossed in whatever is is that's on their phone.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's only a problem for me when I ask a player a question and they don't respond because they're so engrossed in whatever is is that's on their phone.

Phones kill engagement in just about any activity. I even see people not engaging a movie because they are checking emails on the phone. I run a lot of online RPG sessions and that is where it gets really tricky because everyone can surf the internet and the only way to tell is if someone looks distracted or starts typing.

I will say, I think generally if people agree to not check the phone or use the internet on their laptop/computer, things work better, but one hidden benefit I have found with this temptation being present is it is a useful barometer for the GM in terms of finding ways to know when you are losing players attention or gaining it

 

[MGibster]

I've never understood the 'tank' role. Why would enemies not flank him to get to the tender spellcasters beyond?

It works just fine for a video game when you've got a group of 5-40 people trying to get through a dungeon or a raid. It's not necessary or even desirable for an RPG in my opinion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I will say, I think generally if people agree to not check the phone or use the internet on their laptop/computer, things work better, but one hidden benefit I have found with this temptation being present is it is a useful barometer for the GM in terms of finding ways to know when you are losing players attention or gaining it

These days, barring the use of mobile devices at the gaming table would be a problem for me, because I use them to enhance my gaming participation.

Even without using the internet, my character sheets (and my GM notes, FWIW) have all been on mobile devices since I got a Palm Tungsten. When I replaced that with an iPod Touch and assorted iPhones and iPads, it all got stored on the cloud in my Notes app and/or emails (shared with the GM).

If I have access to the Internet, I’ll have browser tabs open to powers/spells/abilities I intend to use imminently or frequently used sections of a game’s SRD, etc., because it’s rare that we have a 1:1 ratio of gamers to books being used at the table.

Bonus: texting your GM is a great way to secretly communicate with him, and vice versa.

Bonus bonus: this also matters if the party has a plan they’re trying to conceal from the GM…

 

[MGibster]

Bonus bonus: this also matters if the party has a plan they’re trying to conceal from the GM…

Aw, man. If the players are trying to hide their plans from me it's a sign that we don't have a healthy gaming relationship.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Aw, man. If the players are trying to hide their plans from me it's a sign that we don't have a healthy gaming relationship.

I wouldn’t go that far.

In my case, at least, the players wanted to see the look on my face if/when their plan worked.

(Apparently, it was priceless.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

. In 1e Dwarves had infravision, good underground but not great outdoors; while Elves had ultravision, great outdoors but nigh-useless underground.

I'm not trying to show you up or anything, it's just that lately there's been talk about the history of the game, and how back in the day, everyone ran it differently from everyone else, and what we remember isn't always what was in the rules.

I too vividly remember elves getting ultravision instead of infravision.
My memory is of a dragon magazine article. Which suggested that, and, possibly trance, as well. Maybe those changes also appeared in a later supplement, maybe even UA or 2e?
By 3e elves had 'low light' vision. that's easy to find thanks to the SRD.

I changed Infra- & ultravision into 'darksight' and 'nightvision' for my AD&D campaign and gave elves the latter. The one player with the elf PC, tho, would keep asking about heat signatures for years.

 

[Older Beholder]

I never did get the argument that floating ASI's makes all species the same.

A Tortle has an AC 17, and can go prone in shell to raise this to 21.
A Tabaxi can double it's speed each turn in combat as long as they didn't move in their previous turn.

These are far more interesting, fun and flavourful than +1, +2

 

[AnotherGuy]

I never did get the argument that floating ASI's makes all species the same.

A Tortle has an AC 17, and can go prone in shell to raise this to 21.
A Tabaxi can double it's speed each turn in combat as long as they didn't move in their previous turn.

These are far more interesting, fun and flavourful than +1, +2

Agree, there are far better methods IMO to reflect races with obvious physical or mental advantages or weaknesses in certain areas.