Unpopular opinions go here

[DammitVictor]

Meh. Sorry, games are never meant to be frozen in amber. Each game a masterpiece that must never be spoiled or touched by a single new idea.

The fact that any/every game can change, and should change, and must change if it is to remain relevant in the long term really has no bearing whatsoever on whether any specific change or any group of changes is good for the game or even better for the game than the rules they replaced.

Likewise, the short-term popularity of a proposed rule change has little bearing on whether or not those changes are actually good, long-term, for the relevance and the enjoyability of the game.

People complained for years about the harsh limitations and restrictions on spellcasting in AD&D and WotC listened and removed them during the development of 3.0 and even over the course of the publication cycle of 3.0 and 3.X and people applauded each and every single one of those changes as they were unveiled... long past the point they'd turned the game into Caster Edition.

Classic D&D and AD&D needed to evolve, as games, beyond merely the failure of TSR's business practices. But that doesn't mean the directions they've evolved in, under WotC's guidance, have been necessarily good beyond the game itself, in some form, remaining commercially and culturally relevant.

Just because new games are written in response to old problems does not mean they've solved them.

 

[Emberashh]

GNS is literally the worst. Kids with crayons could come up with better theories. The video game industry is right there and has far better design theory, especially the MDA framework.

MDA isn't considered any better. Its about on par with GNS as to its efficacy.

 

[Hussar]

The fact that any/every game can change, and should change, and must change if it is to remain relevant in the long term really has no bearing whatsoever on whether any specific change or any group of changes is good for the game or even better for the game than the rules they replaced.

Likewise, the short-term popularity of a proposed rule change has little bearing on whether or not those changes are actually good, long-term, for the relevance and the enjoyability of the game.

People complained for years about the harsh limitations and restrictions on spellcasting in AD&D and WotC listened and removed them during the development of 3.0 and even over the course of the publication cycle of 3.0 and 3.X and people applauded each and every single one of those changes as they were unveiled... long past the point they'd turned the game into Caster Edition.

Classic D&D and AD&D needed to evolve, as games, beyond merely the failure of TSR's business practices. But that doesn't mean the directions they've evolved in, under WotC's guidance, have been necessarily good beyond the game itself, in some form, remaining commercially and culturally relevant.

Just because new games are written in response to old problems does not mean they've solved them.

But opposing changes simply because they are different from what came before is no better. While 3e went too far in removing caster restrictions, 5e seems to have hit the balance better and made the game playable through all levels instead of just the "sweet spot" levels. I'm sure, ten years from now, they'll adjust again, making the game work more. Note, at no point am I referencing popularity. I'm simply looking at actual play experience.

And the bigger issue is that people think that their particular table is representative of how the game is played. You see this all the time. AD&D was incredibly deadly, goes the refrain. Only, once you start digging a bit deeper, no it wasn't necessarily. This table or that table might have been really deadly, but, these other tables over here weren't. It all depended on so many different factors. And none of us has the time, money or wherewithal to actually take a broader look at how the game is being played. The thing is, WotC does. They have all that information from organized play and D&D Beyond. They have much more information to draw upon that you or I do.

So, complaining about the "caster edition" isn't actually a criticism of the system. It's a criticism of how you play that system. I never actually ever had a caster issue in 3e. Never came up in all the years I played 3e. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Nope. I'm sure that the problem is real and that it does exist. And, I'm also fairly sure that in large ways 5e has resolved most of those issue. Not because it was "popular" but, because the designers are actually doing their jobs. Blowing off experience and testing as simply "popular" isn't a real criticism. It's just sour grapes.

 

[pemerton]

GNS is literally the worst. Kids with crayons could come up with better theories. The video game industry is right there and has far better design theory, especially the MDA framework.

Yet The Forge, including Ron Edwards work on the "big model", gave us Apocalypse World, which seems like it is the most influential RPG design since RuneQuest.

And one obvious difference between video game design and RPG design is that the latter is mostly done for free, or near enough to free, and is not aimed at generating commercial consumption.

 

[Emberashh]

Yet The Forge, including Ron Edwards work on the "big model", gave us Apocalypse World, which seems like it is the most influential RPG design since RuneQuest.

And one obvious difference between video game design and RPG design is that the latter is mostly done for free, or near enough to free, and is not aimed at generating commercial consumption.

Some would argue Ron Edwards and the Consequences of his Rants have been disastrous for RPGs.

because the designers are actually doing their jobs.

This is the right topic for that particular nugget, to be sure.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The whole "my world concept is special and precious and overrides everything" thing does not work for me!

No, before the game starts you've got a player already showing unwillingness to play the game as presented.

I’m somewhat betwixt & between, as both a player and a GM. As a player, I have asked to play the “only”/“first”/“last” of _________. Sometimes it gets allowed, sometimes it’s denied. As a GM, I’ve permitted and barred such things.

The deciding factor was always “how disruptive” _________ would be, both in terms of tweaking things at the beginning and as an ongoing issue within the campaign.

Using the “No Magic” campaign @pemerton posited, I’d probably be loath to permit a PC using magic at the beginning if the campaign was about returning magic to the world, but might let the “magic-user” operate without magic until magic is restored. Once that goal is reached, then the PC would have access to some magic. (FWIW, I might use Niven’s take on it, were I to do this.)

OTOH, if magic is well and truly gone or never existed, then a magic user with real magic isn’t going to be allowed at all. The best I can do is an illusionist like Penn & Teller or Piff the Dragon- IOW, a master of prestidigitations and sleight of hand.

If access to magic has been lost simply because the lore of how to do it has been lost, then a genuine “first”/“last”/“only” magic-using PC might fly. But in the interest of fairness, if I permitted a magic-using PC for one player, I’d want to make that option available to all players in the campaign in the interests of fairness. And that could be an ongoing issue, depending on how it skews things.

I witnessed something along those lines as a player in a Stormbringer campaign. In the original incarnation of the game, magic was exceedingly rare (but powerful) and pretty much only Melniboneans and Pan Tangians could use it. Instead of letting everyone pick one of those and running powerful sorcerers, characters’ race/origin was randomly determined. There was a 1% chance of being of the more powerful Melnibonean race, and a 10% chance of being a Pan Tangian. In the group of 6, I and one other player rolled a 1%, and a third rolled a 7%. With the magic at our disposal, we pretty much rolled every encounter with alarming ease.

 

[DammitVictor]

edit: Just because I'm right doesn't mean saying it is the right thing to do.

 

[payn]

But opposing changes simply because they are different from what came before is no better. While 3e went too far in removing caster restrictions, 5e seems to have hit the balance better and made the game playable through all levels instead of just the "sweet spot" levels. I'm sure, ten years from now, they'll adjust again, making the game work more. Note, at no point am I referencing popularity. I'm simply looking at actual play experience.

And the bigger issue is that people think that their particular table is representative of how the game is played. You see this all the time. AD&D was incredibly deadly, goes the refrain. Only, once you start digging a bit deeper, no it wasn't necessarily. This table or that table might have been really deadly, but, these other tables over here weren't. It all depended on so many different factors. And none of us has the time, money or wherewithal to actually take a broader look at how the game is being played. The thing is, WotC does. They have all that information from organized play and D&D Beyond. They have much more information to draw upon that you or I do.

So, complaining about the "caster edition" isn't actually a criticism of the system. It's a criticism of how you play that system. I never actually ever had a caster issue in 3e. Never came up in all the years I played 3e. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Nope. I'm sure that the problem is real and that it does exist. And, I'm also fairly sure that in large ways 5e has resolved most of those issue. Not because it was "popular" but, because the designers are actually doing their jobs. Blowing off experience and testing as simply "popular" isn't a real criticism. It's just sour grapes.

Hear, hear.

 

[Hussar]

edit: Just because I'm right doesn't mean saying it is the right thing to do.

Heh. Did you fail a Wisdom save then burn an inspiration point for a reroll?

Been there. Totally done that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

MDA isn't considered any better. Its about on par with GNS as to its efficacy.

Is MDA radically biased in favor of narrativism, because that's what it was invented to support?