You don't like it, but it rears its ugly head every so often. It might be a well-regarded component of base systems and settings, or made as a special feature or homebrew, or you're nagged by That Guy to have it houseruled into a campaign, or the game's developer hears a clamoring from its fans for X feature or Y concept regardless of how poor of a fit it seems. And yeah, you might agree that it's "cool" but you just don't get it or it gets on your nerves. Maybe you think that Thing is actually horrible, or you're just sick of seeing it everywhere either in frothing player demand or as a tired and true cliche.
(And if you actually do like Thing, feel free to defend it)
Jackson Walker
OP here: Don't expect an academic discussion from me, though, as I'm not so dedicated to mechanically and historically pick apart my peeves. I would appreciate attempts to help me understand if any points are brought up, though.
First I'll mention whips. Yes, flails and such are included as core rulebook weapons in D&D, but I also used to notice people asking for them in video games occasionally. Style and art issues aside, I just don't get it. They usually don't serve a particular class or archetype offered in most games, and would typically be superfluous in function. I wouldn't specifically blame weebs for the kusari-gama, either, this includes all lashing weapons.
When a character is specifically designed for whips/flail/chain weapons, it can work.
Noah Watson
I hate when people use proxy models in wargames that look nothing like the model they are supposed to represent. No, that chariot is not a dragon, you fucking cheap cunt, if you want the advantage of a dragon, buy the fucking dragon.
Tasteful, thematic proxies are ok though.
Ayden Cooper
Unpopular OPinion time: Bards And yes, I have played Bards pretty often in the past. As someone who likes multi-faceted characters, I enjoy hybrid archetypes like the Bard. But at the same time I can't help but think that they're the product of compulsive needs to 1) have a designated social specialist for the party, and 2) be the designated social specialist, thereby living your popularity power fantasy like the fighter lives his sword-swinging power fantasy and the wizard his intellectual superiority power fantasy.
That's mostly a problem in newer or unfamiliar groups where players absolutely refuse to make interesting characters, figuring that someone else will pick up the slack of doing stuff they themselves didn't optimize for. When everyone commits to playing the characters, and not just the roles, good times are had.
That said, I still find the idea of one guy striking a tune in the middle of the battlefield at least moderately silly.
I knew a kid in high school who xeroxed his Magic cards since those were the days you'd get beat up and have your Magic cards stolen. I'm not sure if people hated him because he used proxies or because they couldn't beat him up and steal his Magic cards.
Jaxon Adams
Speaking of multifaceted: Spellswords/Swordmages Explicitly sought out by players who want to have everything: the majestic muscle of melee combat and the fantastic spectacle of magic spells. While the Bard archetype has over time evolved into skill monkey, pornomancer, and buff/support caster, Swordmages always felt to me like they were overreaching.
I reliably run into gamers, tabletop and otherwise, who attempt to run swordmage setups with varying degrees of success. That said, the formal Swordmages in their original literature seem to operate well enough. The fact is most games put a clear divide between magic and martial arts. Maybe they were just such a revolutionary concept and most game designs had yet to grasp the idea of not perpetuating the false divide of intellect and physicality.
I'll give them one thing, being able to literally teleport behind someone with your katana is pretty OP.
James Jenkins
>Wizards and ONLY wizards can do anything supernatural >Fighters literally cannot make epic magic swords, no only Wizards can make magic items >Magic is only avaliable to supernatural beings, wizards can only manipulate them and don't actually have any powers of their own >People in the setting have no general knowledge of basic monsters and threats despite them being everywhere and eating humans for food
Aiden Taylor
>Get into roleplaying through crappy rules-lite and freefrom text games >Eventually decide I wana move beyond all the asspulls and Mary Sues and people never updating and all the garbage that comes with text stuff and freeform. >Try to learn DnD 5th Edition. >At level 5, a fighter in DnD can hit things harder, meanwhile a wizard can Fly, Turn Invisible, Teleport, and a number of other reality-breaking powers. >DnD fans defend this rabidly as good game design somehow. >Whatever, they can have their fun, I'll just look into other games. >Find out other more sensible well-balanced games basically have no playerbase whatsoever and you will never be able to find a decent campaign for them unless you force people to learn them yourself, and even then they'll constantly wana play DnD instead.
Feels bad man, pic related isn't me, but it sums up my feelings exactly.
Evan Davis
Two words
GOOD NECROMANCERS
This is the most fucking retarded thing in the world to me. In most settings, messing with the natural order of life and death is a crime against nature and existence itself, and doing so requires channeling negative energy that is actively an antithesis to life and causes extremely cruel and unnatural to those it's performed upon, as well as causing them to want to consume life with a insatiable hunger that never ends.
But fuck me if I don't see "Can I play a good necromancer?" shit come up in like every character building topic ever. It's almost as bad as the type of faggot who wants to play a "good" Death Cleric or "good" Oatbreaker Paladin.
Isaiah Murphy
5E is a return to form, you know!
I always figured a part of the ree-ing at 4E was that wizards didn't like having their toys taken away while Martial characters got weeaboo fighting magic as core powers.
Call it cultural relativism. Those people just need a game or setting other than D&D/PF where Necromancy is connected to that strict moral absolute. I could see it working, just not in those systems.
Lucas Murphy
What annoys me is how some GM's try and circumvent the downfalls of D&D which in turn create their own problems. A friend of mine has lots of ideas for possible campaigns but all he wants to use is D&D, which requires him to manhandle certain aspects or houserule half the shit because the mechanics just aren't there for what he wants.
A big one is experience points which in D&D is granted for killing things, which basically turns any kind of problem solving into a fight or the avoidance of a fight through stealth. If the GM grants experience for some good drunk RP with a farmer friend then you'll be getting better at archery or whatever somehow by getting drunk and telling stories.
