Unpopular opinions go here

[MGibster]

In the section you quote, I did not include a "contemporaneous" prior to the "primary." As you can no doubt tell from the emphasis in the second paragraph, I am discussing the salient difference in approaches when someone views contemporaneous primary sources as having more value than later-created primary sources.

I couldn't tell what you mean exactly and I don't think others could either.

This is truly such a bizarre conversation I have trouble believing that I am part of it. So ... yeah.

Every time I see a bizarre conversation and you're not in it I think it's weird.

Me: I wish Snarf was here. This is more his thing.
My Boss: You're going to have to go in for a drug screening.

 

[MGibster]

Westerns pretty much suck out of the box, and even modern attempts can't redeem the genre

Yeah, unpopular. The Searchers, High Noon, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Fort Apache, Tombstone, and many more are fantastic movies.

WotC is doing a pretty ok job of keeping D&D alive and thriving, actually

I mean, it's hard to argue with the numbers, right?

Steampunk is hard to make a fun game around

Steampunk is the triumph of aesthetics over substance. It's why I hate it.

 

[Gradine]

In the section you quote, I did not include a "contemporaneous" prior to the "primary." As you can no doubt tell from the emphasis in the second paragraph, I am discussing the salient difference in approaches when someone views contemporaneous primary sources as having more value than later-created primary sources.

It is a truism in historical research that, despite what overgeeked is saying, the general rule with sources (especially primary sources) that the closer in time to an event that the primary source is, the more reliable it is considered to be.

This is truly such a bizarre conversation I have trouble believing that I am part of it. So ... yeah.

Excited for history books in 50 years to have little sidebars with "primary sources" that are just tweets

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Excited for history books in 50 years to have little sidebars with "primary sources" that are just tweets

(Huge issue that only archivists are concerned with at this time - most of the history of the 21st century so far is fungible on the dynamic web)

 

[Reynard]

Steampunk is the triumph of aesthetics over substance. It's why I hate it.

Definitely. The "-punk" in the name is completely meaningless in 99% of steampunk material.

 

[Reynard]

Setting -- as in detailed worldbuilding -- is completely irrelevant and can even be detrimental to fun.

 

[overgeeked]

Setting -- as in detailed worldbuilding -- is completely irrelevant and can even be detrimental to fun.

Depends on what’s fun for you and if you enjoy the world. The worldbuilding of FR, for example, would absolutely be detrimental to me having fun as I can’t stand the setting. Whereas the worldbuilding of settings like Dark Sun, Mystara, Al-Qadim, etc are the whole point of playing in those settings, it’s what makes them fun.

 

[CleverNickName]

In the spirit of the OP,

and in the spirit of my usual thing when coming to a thread and ignoring all but the first page of posts - so apologies if this is a repeat

1) Original Unpopular Opinion
Westerns pretty much suck out of the box, and even modern attempts can't redeem the genre

2) Basic Unpopular Opinion
Forgotten Realms was the right choice to focus the first 10 years of setting on for this version of D&D

3) Advanced Unpopular Opinion
Conan and swords & sandals as a genre is boring

4) Advanced Unpopular Opinion 2e
WotC is doing a pretty ok job of keeping D&D alive and thriving, actually

5) Unpopular Opinion Third Edition
Steampunk is hard to make a fun game around

6) Unpopular Opinion D20 (3.5)
Victorian settings without steam-tech nor magic are even harder to make fun

7) Unpopular Opinion 4th Ed
D&D 4e was a great system

8) Unpopular Opinion 5e
OSR games continue to grow in popularity not in spite of 5e, but because of 5e

9) One-Unpopular Opinion (ie, Onepopular Opinion)
What makes D&D great isn't the rules, but the settings and the player community (ok, this one's probalby not actually unpopular...)

Counterpoint, Eyes of Nine Edition:
1) Sadly, I think you're right. I'll make an exception for the "Weird West" genre, but only in other (non-D&D) products.
2) I don't remember it being much of a choice.
3) I only know one guy who prefers this genre. But he wears socks with his sandals and eats pizza with a fork...I can never take him seriously.
4) It's true. Haters are going to hate, but they're doing a good job.
5, 6) Eberron pulled it off.
7) NV was probably some of the best lore ever written for the game. But little else from 4E was worth keeping or repeating, IMO.
8) It's true. Also, that growth in popularity is greatly exaggerated.
9) I agree. As they stand, the rules encourage creativity and dynamic stories from the community, rather than enforcing a rigid network and strict typecasting upon the community. Whatever else folks think D&D "needs," it isn't more rules.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Westerns pretty much suck out of the box, and even modern attempts can't redeem the genre

Hmmm. We could probably come up with a list of five or so westerns that definitively do not suck but they are probably all meta-commentaries on westerns, like Unforgiven, Lonesome Dove and The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. High Noon, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and even Tombstone are all commenting on the genre as well.

 

[Reynard]

5, 6) Eberron pulled it off.

Eberron isn't steampunk.