Unpopular opinions go here

[Thomas Shey]

That's just it: any concept has to be discardable if the dice don't deliver, or malleable if they only deliver partway.

Or, you don't play a game that demands you set up your attributes with dice.

Coming in to roll-up with a locked-in idea as to what you character will be is IMO the wrong way to go about it. The PH fails to make this anywhere near as clear as it should.

Or, you don't play the game that demands you generate your attributes with dice.

Oddly enough, these have worked like a charm.

 

[DammitVictor]

So you agree Mutually Assured Destruction is overblown?

that is the point, yes

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or, you don't play a game that demands you set up your attributes with dice.



Or, you don't play the game that demands you generate your attributes with dice.

Oddly enough, these have worked like a charm.

I agree. Plenty of games don't even have rolling as an option.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not what Jeremy and Chris said to me at our pow wow last night.

Alignment languages confirmed!

 

[pemerton]

Also by "talking to your friends" are you referring to me, pemerton, talking to my friends around the table? Or are you referring to my PC, Thurgon, talking to his travelling companion Aramina?

These are the same thing.

Not really. One is an actual event. The other is purely imaginary.

 

[Hussar]

"Play what you rolled" still doesn't prevent a player from running a character into the ground, or finding a good in-game reason for it to retire.

And a DM who won't allow a player to retire a character is a poor DM.

Hey, I'm with you on this. But, again, it's not a stretch to find MANY DM's who will disagree with you on this.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree. Plenty of games don't even have rolling as an option.

I'm actually a believer in setting up a game so it can go either way when practical. Some times it isn't practical for one reason or another in either direction.

 

[Faolyn]

Sure. I'm just saying it isn't important to me. For example, I don't care that the reason a wealthy person gives millions to charity is because it gets them a tax break and improves their reputation. I just care that they gave millions to charity.

Yeah, but we're talking about potential sexism here, not giving money to charity. The way I see it, if you do something for sexist reasons, then there's a good chance you--consciously or unconsciously--do or think other sexist things, simply because it's ingrained in them. Why hold doors open for women but not for men? Whatever the reason, it's not particularly great.

So just hold doors for everyone.

(Edit: We really don't need to talk about this anymore.)

 

[Cadence]

If someone clearly and correctly points out you are factually wrong and brings reciepts, it's ok to acknowledge that. Don't be like OP in...

"Pizza Hut has never had pepperoni on the menu!"
-Insert copy of menu from three different decades.-
<crickets>

And if you meant something different than what you originally said, it's ok to point out you should have been clearer...

"Pizza Hut has always had tuna on the menu!"
-Insert copy of menu from three different decades in the US.-
"Sorry, I meant in Germany, I should have clarified."

And if you assumed something you-centric, it's ok to get admit what you did....

"Pizza Hut has never had tuna on the menu!"
-Insert copies of the menus from Germany over several decades-
"Doh! I was assuming US, my bad."

Although if the post is tagged "Pizza in Germany" or "Pizza in the US", then the above two might change a bit depending on which one.

 

[overgeeked]

"Play what you rolled" still doesn't prevent a player from running a character into the ground, or finding a good in-game reason for it to retire.

And a DM who won't allow a player to retire a character is a poor DM.

Yep. And that makes rolling for stats pointless because the players can just cycle through an endless string of PCs until they get a set of stats they like. So, to prevent the players from optimizing the fun out of the game, simply drop rolled stats.