Unpopular opinions go here

[Micah Sweet]

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.

And if Apocalypse World and its changes to the gaming landscape don't appeal to you, that's not a very convincing argument.

 

[Thomas Shey]

[Bad piece of misattribution, fixed above]

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I'd argue that's because they tried to have it both ways.

Frankly, the limitations and restrictions on old D&D spellcasting were, bluntly, annoying as could be. They were a poor way to balance casters that was done because it was an easy, brute force solution.

But that didn't mean they didn't need something, as the spell list went, and when we got to versions of the game where the upper levels were actually going to get seen more regularly, it was absolutely necessary.

But the way to do that would have been, frankly, to cut back on how well a number of spells worked, and as I've seen over in the Pathfinder community, the resistance to doing that is deep. So instead of fixing things the right way, WOTC did it halfway, making the problems that have existed with caster supremacy were just made much worse.

Essentially, WOTC needed to bite the bullet on both ends, and they weren't.

 

[Gradine]

I don't know how anyone can possibly make the argument that an increase in the diversity of TTRPG design and systems is anything but a net positive.

The Forge can die in a fire, however

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No. It makes it neither pointless, nor requires dropping the fun(rolled stats) out of the game in order to prevent optimizing the fun out of the game.

My group has just established minimums. If you don't roll a minimum total number for stats, then you get to add +1s to the numbers rolled until it hits the minimum, so just as an arbitrary example, if a player rolled.

S:13
D:11
C:15
I:7
W:9
CH: 12

That totals 66. If the number were say 72, the player would roll 6d6 with strength being 1, dex 2, etc. and adding +1s to the appropriate stat. I just rolled 4, 4, 5, 3, 1, 4 which gives me...

S:14
D:11
C:16
I:10
W:10
CH: 12

...as the final numbers. The total can be 70, 72, 76, 99(just kidding) or whatever your group is happy with. This gives rolled stats, uncontrolled numbers, and a fun character to play WITHOUT dropping the fun of rolled stats out of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually self criticism leads to self improvement and is probably the number one most important thing in a make-a-human kit.

Lack of self awareness and consequently self criticism is responsible for pretty much all the evil in the world.

Sure, but there's a difference between being able to accurately see flaws in yourself(and other things) and people who create flaws where there are none/and or blow them out of proportion.

There are a lot of the latter who blow things out of proportion and like to declare things a major issue for everyone who plays the game and requires the "problem" be corrected. I also notice quite often that the "problem" is one created by themselves by not playing the game as written.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Like most things, both of your are off. If you're making a game to play at a convention or game store and there are lots of players, you can take the above view and just axe a player who refuses to accept the concept. However, a lot of us play with friends.

I've bee playing with my current group for a long time. The newest player, the son of the guy I've been gaming with since 1984, joined us 16 years ago. Kicking someone out of the game because a no magic campaign isn't something he would enjoy isn't an option.

If a player came to me wanting to be the last wizard mentioned in @pemerton's post, I'd either scrap the campaign and find something everyone would enjoy, or I would try and come up with a compromise. Perhaps he would be okay playing an eldritch knight or a wizard to a max of 4th level and then multiclass. Then it could be a really low magic campaign and he would have some magic to play.

Going straight to, "Kick the player out and find someone else" will often not be the best answer,

 

[Micah Sweet]

Like most things, both of your are off. If you're making a game to play at a convention or game store and there are lots of players, you can take the above view and just axe a player who refuses to accept the concept. However, a lot of us play with friends.

I've bee playing with my current group for a long time. The newest player, the son of the guy I've been gaming with since 1984, joined us 16 years ago. Kicking someone out of the game because a no magic campaign isn't something he would enjoy isn't an option.

If a player came to me wanting to be the last wizard mentioned in @pemerton's post, I'd either scrap the campaign and find something everyone would enjoy, or I would try and come up with a compromise. Perhaps he would be okay playing an eldritch knight or a wizard to a max of 4th level and then multiclass. Then it could be a really low magic campaign and he would have some magic to play.

Going straight to, "Kick the player out and find someone else" will often not be the best answer,

Sounds good, but what you're also saying is you're never going to play or run what you want, ever, unless everybody else is on board. If one persons objects, that campaign is off the table.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I agree with most of your post, especially that first paragraph. Tradition is not a good argument in and of itself, just like change for the sake of change isn't good in and of itself. Reasons should be had for keeping something the same or changing it. That said I really disagree with some of your last paragraph.

With 3e there were a ton of us who no problems with 3e casters. I felt they were a bit too powerful, but that wasn't an issue or problem for me. There were also a ton of us who did have problems with the 3e casters. What that tells me is that there was no systemic problem with 3e casters. The "problems" were either personal(I don't like this level of power. I don't like these spells) or self-created(My house rule created this issue. I don't run spells the way they are written.).

That didn't mean that there wasn't a problem for those players who had problems, but it did meant that the game shouldn't be the one to fix the problem. The group needed to make changes so that the casters fit better with their desires and/or fix how they ran casters so as not to create the problems mechanically. So yes the problem was real and existed, but it wasn't one that 3e created or had to fix.

On the other hand the 3e treadmill was an issue. You HAD to hand out magic items at certain levels or grant powers of some sort to compensate or the game broke. That eliminated a variety of common campaign styles(low magic, etc.) unless the players fixed the problem. It was the system itself that was responsible for the issue.

 

[Maxperson]

Sounds good, but what you're also saying is you're never going to play or run what you want, ever, unless everybody else is on board. If one persons objects, that campaign is off the table.

I want to run about 10 bazillion different things. Does it matter if my players' desires lower that to 5 bazillion? That's still 4.99999999 bazillion ideas that I won't live long enough to run AND takes everyone into account. I don't see a problem with that.