ITT: Post an unpopular opinion you have about Veeky Forums related things

ITT: Post an unpopular opinion you have about Veeky Forums related things

I hate aliens in science fiction
I hate magic in science fiction
I hate teleports in science fiction
I hate FTL in science fiction
I hate AI in science fiction
I like science fiction

Being critical of games you like is a sign of actually understanding them. Zealous fanboyism and defence of your preferred games just makes you seem pathetic and childish.

You like your idea of what sci fi should be, but not what sci fi is.

I really do think quests should be allowed on Veeky Forumsagain.

Shadowrun has too many things throwed into the setting for it own good. A real-world cyberpunk with magic and fantasy races? Thanks, I'll pass. I hardly see any difference between it and CthulhuTech, setting-wise.

/thread

I think a system should have ease of homebrew as one of it's core design philosophies.

>Zealous fanboyism and defence of your preferred games just makes you seem pathetic and childish.
...and does a great disservice to your preferred games and their creators in many cases.

We should have the same attitude to RPGs that we have to BGs. Which also means that yes, most games CAN have an "objective" value (or lack thereof), aside from personal preferences.

GM is everything but a god. Everyone should use more GM-less games, actually.

There is still a severe lack of "realistic" (no magic, no fantasy) settings, tough it's not really a RPG problem.

The focus on combat is a cancer in... well, not any RPG, but most of them.

L5R is beyond terrible. An insult to the intelligence of whoever plays it and has a cursory understanding of what it tries to emulate.

I agree.

He said Veeky Forums related things, quests aren't Veeky Forums related.

3.x is the worst version D&D.
BECMI is the best version of D&D
Race as class is fine
40k (both the setting and game) is shit

Classes are a gameplay abstraction
A multiclassed character isn't literally a Fighter who then spent 2 years in college to become a wizard, and then 4 years at a monastery to become a Monk; he's an adventurer whose abilities have manifested in a way that makes him somewhere between a Fighter, wizard and monk.

It's depressing that's unpopular as it is. It isn't really an opinion, either. It's a rational way of interpreting the abstraction a class based system presents.

Sadly, a lot of people are really, really bad at handling abstraction. Just look at all the idiots who insist HP is meat points.

>The focus on combat is a cancer in... well, not any RPG, but most of them.
Not focusing on some specific asset is escapism and there's not a single reason to support a hobby for a bunch of omega-males and otherkins just how it always ment to be, "thank you" "nerdirasasion"

i hate xp points

everyone treats like they're fucking silver coins or some shit that you character can just aquire and is totally aware of this abstract representation of character growth

What is constitution, then?

Add some.

Classes are a fake necessity for bainlets without creativity. Races, even more, tough for other reasons.

Randomizers aren't that necessary either.

Worldbuilding in the vast, vast majority of cases is better when done at the table.

Cyberpunk, played straight, makes no sense in 2017. Zero, nada, nihil.

Call of Chtulhu has zero connection to HPL or to decent games.

Generally in a party is a good idea to have a woman at least.

What?

>quests aren't Veeky Forums related
Hi newfag
Bye newfag

>3.x is the worst version D&D.
>Unpopular
Nigga that is the most popular opinion of all time on Veeky Forums

I have met exactly two people who roleplay, and everyone else is playing an elaborate board game.

An abstractws value of your general physical fitness and endurance?

I think that different roleplaying games often necessarily require different approaches and playstyles, and not there is no single universally correct way to play RPGs.

Just because Dungeon World's backpack works for Dungeon World doesn't mean that every game should do it, and likewise just because it wouldn't work in your favorite game doesn't make it a bad concept.

I hate when players in the middle of a scenario start rising shit from 0, "because I have spare points".
GMs who allow this shit should stop running games.

How the fuck you suddenly learned "Lore: Legends (2)", aside the fact you had 30 spare points, so decided to learn the skill out of the blue, sensing legends might be useful in a campaign about fighting local ancient evil?!

I fucking hate beyond all measure how people use magic as a fixall.
>Moral ambiguity? Magic!
>My waifu is an embodiment of evil? Magic!
>Physical limitations? Magic!
>Plot hole? Magic!
>I should be able to study magic and do anything without any limits and do things better than the person who trained to do them because MAGIIIIC
Fucking end me.

And you know what is REALLY unpopular?

Saying that the game makes the roleplayer. Well, nudges toward a certain direction.

I never met a releplayer, period.

Maybe that comes from lack of experience (playing for just 3 years, two of which with the same grouo of people), but in all the following groups nobody roleplays either. It completely blocks me, because nobody cares when I even try and they actively give me shit for "wasting time".
Feels bad, man.

>fitness and endurance
So,abstract meat points.

There is value in classes, IMO, but it's one most systems fail to make use of.

A class lets you define the parameters an ability or effect exists within, creating a closed system where you can be relatively certain of the relevant stat values and ability synergies.

This lets you give classes effects and abilities that, in a classless system, would require specific rulings that you can't combine x with y and various other unintuitive things, to the point that a lot of systems rightly avoid doing so.

Classes can also let you create complex, flavourful and fun sets of mechanics all designed to work together, as opposed to classless systems where, generally, you need to design with open synergy in mind.

I enjoy both, although as I said very, very few games actually make use of the advantages classes can provide.

...No?

I think that you don't have to be some obsessed method actor or purposefully make suboptimal choices to be considered a "roleplayer"; simply making decisions for your character is enough.

I can't even tell what you wrote, let alone what you meant.

But that's a widely accepted stance for past 20 years, user. 90s and goth fad are over for quite a while.

No, no, I'm not saying classes are a bad idea per se. Hell, I'm a PBTA fanboy.

I'm saying that if you as a player need classes stereotypes everytime... there is a problem.

>and in general people should really play more diverse games in this regard, for example games where there are no real mechanical choices to do at character building

See I like you, you get my frustration with this asinine bullshit, its like that one skeleton Resurrection-crushing machine thing from that one supplement i can never remember the name of it just pisses me off thinking about it.

hurr durr xp points generator by turning a fucking crank on a box

fucking too right mate, Limit your god damn magic otherwise there is no point to be anything but a fucking wizard

You can't have a good session without the DM as an adversarial player. There's a place for neutral GM referees too, but without that pressure the potential/weakness|peak/trough archetypes shit all over both the consistent archetypes and the game itself, you may as well do improv theater.

This board was better when it had Quests and Weekend Smut Threads/ Erotic Fiction General.

I'm not sure what you meant to say there.

4e is my favourite system of all time and pretty much everyone I've ever played a TTRPG with thinks I'm a retard because of it.

They're not wrong but they won't even hear me out about why I enjoy it.

I hope no one says that they like FATAL. Also, Drizzt needs more stories.

It's just a generic 'My way of playing is the one true way' bullshit statement.

Consider spending your time on ESL classes rather than Veeky Forums.

>20 years of "no we're not like Basic D&D this is collaborative storytelling remember you're there to adjucate and not hurt player fee-fees!" Ironclad Rules in manuals
"eh just an opinion"
>marginal disagreement
"YOU ABSOLUTIST REEEEEEEEEEE"

>t. power-fantasy snowflake

> Drizzt needs more stories.

I won't argue with this, but at the same time I worry it might lead to a resurgence in Drizzt clones.

damned if you do...damned if you don't user

also fuck it, if people want to play drizzit well by all means let them play. if they are not being insufferable douche canoes about it then whats the problem?

my nigga

It's been so long that coldsteel and sephiroth have surely saturated the niche?

>I really do think quests should be allowed on Veeky Forums again.

That's a pretty popular opinion, though.

>I hate AI in science fiction
This seems out of place

Anime characters are often a pretty good concept, and people should fuss way less about them.
>tough there are problems like originality and powers, but not as many with mary sues and magical realms

Speaking of Japan, it's a country with a good number of decent+ games, but you generally need to check out the most unusual ones.

Scifi is an sorry state in RPGs. Too many generalistic bullshit space opera that don't really even go to the origins of the thing.
>there are many good scifi rpgs, but not played that much

Erotic themes in RPG can be done well.

I played not only many games without "villains", but tons of GMless games, actually. And oddly enough, proper improv theater. Zero connection.

I dunno. Drizzt at this point is kinda of a thing of the past. Problem is he paved the way to the subversion of evil races as a good concept of a character per se, that might return, I guess.
>mfw I actually like the orcs as PCs in 5th, the idea that they kinda have a voice in their head prompting them to be savages

Sup gramps. How was your hibernation for past 40 years?

...

Exactly. Sometimes I think RPGS are actively designed to make roleplay difficult, as you are replaying a few pieces of fiction over and over again.

...What?

You aren't playing a role though, you are playing a game at that point.

You can do both. They're called Roleplaying Games.

What are some Japanese games that you recommend?

Blissfully "oh no casters are dominant because we hand out a full rest after every encounter, how do we fix this? I guess our only option is to make everyone a caster"-free. How about yours? Oh, full of that? That's too bad.

Rolling for social interactions without even trying to roleplay through them and expecting from GM to flat-out cut the chase and just give you all the important details OoC is a huge neon sign saying "I don't really care about the scenario or the game itself".

I love 4e, it is a great tabletop game and much more honest with its goals than most fantasy rpgs. It us kind of the Star craft 2 of board games, all of the focus was on balance and a clear aesthetic but it never really took off wits the imagination.

STOP MAKING ME ROLE WHEN WE ARE NOT IN A STRESSFUL SITUATION

Wow. You really are just all the cliches, huh?

>psionics or any sort of psychic ability have no place in a fantasy setting

The fuck you are even writing about?

oh lord that brings out all of my HATE I can not stand people who do that.

>i clicked an "unpopular opinions" thread
>REEEEEEEEE SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH MY POWER FANTASY TIME TO WHINE

Most RPGs are designed around fulfilling a few basic archetypes, and the prole I play with never get beyond them. One guy is always a sorcerer, another is always a fighter, and another is always a rogue. In sci-find you get the same "we are playing Dune, Star Wars or Star Trek" with no deviation.

If only more people got this.

>Complains about REEEE replies
>By making constant REEEE posts

>potential/weakness|peak/trough
This isn't english, user.

And you just happen to be playing the role of the nerdy kid playing a game.

I think some people need to chill out.

I agree. I rarely looked at quest threads, but I never understood why people hated them or why they didn't belong.

Tenra, Golden Sky Stories. Maid and Witch Quest possibly but I didn't play them.

>on the contrary I'm astonished by how Veeky Forums seems to like Ryuutama. Seems really overbloated and unoriginal. I don't think Kamigakari seems that great either but I didn't even read it

It depends on the game tough (no, not on the setting, on the game). It's not really that hard do space opera with original motivations for the characters, for example.

>Playing DnD this hard.

There's nothing inherently desirable about a bell curve, nor about having high-granularity for determining probabilities.

I wish people here were more chill or just aloof instead of the endless chorus of autistic sperging that's everywhere these days.

Fuck coasters.

>1986+31
>Still playing D&D at all

I agree on all points except AI, but I absolutely hate the AI turning evil and trying to kill humanity.

I really don't like liches. I feel like they're overused, probably because they are NEETs of the undead world, so naturally Veeky Forums identifies with them.

I hate games that are just dungeons and dragons with different aesthetics. They claim to be a one setting, but once you start it is the same old shit you've seen a hundred times with all the flavor and uniqueness of the setting drowned out. And in a lot of cases, they are the only version of that setting anyone ever wants to play.

Deadlands
Gamma World
and chief among them, Shadowrun

I loathe these games, because they take a genre I love and drain everything I like out of it to be replaced with DnD crap.

We we take Constitution to its most literal definition, "the stuff you're made of", it can easily be interpreted to mean meat, but I like to think that definition also encompasses mettle.

I prefer AoS to WHFB...

...How is Shadowrun anything like D&D, beyond aesthetic? Like, there are surface level similarities, but in terms of how things actually work and relate to each other, as well as the intended role and playstyle of the PCs, is completely different.

I'd offer a second, related point: whinging endlessly about a minor issue in a game makes you look like a childish dipshit.

I unironically thing the fuss about the sexualization of gaming images is mostly right. Hell, I even think it means that it's difficult to portrary "evil" sex (which is a pretty huge thematic in fantasy)

This I can't believe.

I always pictured liches having an intense unlife of studying, honestly.

This. Tough it's more an inherent problem with mechanics.

I remember when I heard about Deadlands for the first time. Then I've started playing it. Then to my horror I've realised it's D&D, but with different names and set in the Wild West. Never felt this level of disappointment when it comes to TTRPG.

Me too user, me too.

With a proper degrees of success/failure system, combat can and should be boiled down to a single roll and then just treated as another obstacle. This would clear out he most cancerous segment of gaming and make the notion of some people being good at combat and others not an acceptable option.

But that's so subjective it provides no real value or basis for action, beyond giving people an easy way to dismiss criticism without actually addressing it.

If you read his post carefully, you would realise his entire points is about aesthetics

I think it's really rare for the right note (all archetypes need love, and tiddy is also an archetype) to be hit. The rest on all sides is "only what I like is good" autism, from any direction.

old people, hipsters, and the people conditioned to agree with them make up enough of the tabletop RPG players that their collective "worse is better" mentality are the cause of the decrease in RPG publications.

Also, the effect that the above has can be described in a nutshell by the entire pathfinder development process.

But that's my point. He claims Shadowrun is D&D with a different aesthetic, but the only similarity I can see is aspects of the aesthetic.

This is just as dumb as the comment earlier. Badwrongfun arguments are always bad.

Having a playstyle and preference is fine, acting as though having one makes you better than people who disagree with you just makes you an asshole.

What do you mean?

You play a group of species-mixed misfits, including a fighter, a specialist or two, and a magic user and enter what is effectively a dungeon full of traps and monsters to beat or sneak your way through it with the purpose of gaining treasure that you'll spend on better loot to do the same thing over again.

Imagine a D&D campaign where you're raiding noble villas and temples and such rather than shit out in the wilderness.

A sandbox is not necessarily the opposite of a railroad, and exists based on whether or not the PCs are primarily active as opposed to reactive, not how much choice the GM gives them. It is theoretically possible (albeit stupid) to have a sandbox-railroad game.

What is the worse is better mentality?

Also, are wer sure there are less publications now?

I actually agree with this. I particularly like the good ol' d20 or d100 because you can go way above or below what you 'should', which makes for interesting situations, be it great success or an unexpected challenge.

Life is full of subjectivity and uncertainty, being able to handle that is part of being an adult.

A person that criticizes their game is in the right, a guy that starts shit over minor points rather than actually trying to improve a game is an asshole.

...And none of that is anything to do with why the two games are completely different?

You don't have to agree with me, but it'd be nice if we can at least understand each other.

3.X and 5e are practically indistinguishable from each other they're so similar.