ITT: Unpopular opinions

>Shitting on Konosuba
You shut your whore mouth, that show is a fucking treasure. Also, wouldn't Re:Zero kinda be a subversion of standard Isekai since the protag is pretty much Kenny from South Park?

>4e D&D was the best edition of that game.
>PbtA systems are absolute shit. Especially Dungeon World.

This isn't exclusive to fantasy. They've also been putting out better cape content than any of the larger western publishers lately.

Pic related has done a better job of Supermanning than any actual Superman in the last ten years. Shits bonkers.

I enjoyed Konosuba, but I'd hardly call it a "treasure". It's a guilty pleasure, like a juicy fast-food hamburger when you're hungry, but in terms of actually telling a good story with real character development and drama, it's nowhere near stuff like Dungeonmeshi, or even some flatout cartoons like Avatar,

Veeky Forums in a fucking nutshell

>Rolling in the open does not make you honest, it just allows you to shift blame when the campaign inevitably implodes.
There's a reason why most tabletop games are run by a human as opposed to a machine, and it's because a human will be able to judge when it is or is not appropriate to pretend that they did not see a result and know when it's appropriate to fudge for the sake of everyone's enjoyment at the table.

By rolling in the open, you're just saying "I don't care what happens to my campaign" while assuring yourself that you're being honest, when the reality is that honesty is not always the best policy, especially in the world of entertainment.

Only an unpopular opinion here but: 4e was an absolutely shitty game that failed for a reason, and I am baffled by how every thread on Veeky Forums has someone screaming about how unfair it is.

This. The sole reason the DMG recommends 6-8 encounters per day is because that's what's necessary to burn out a caster's spell slots. Nobody actually enjoys that much combat, it adds nothing to the game, and only necessary in DnD-systems because the developers have a fucking hard-on for wizards being demi-gods, but instead of making a balanced game are just like "LOL ATTRITION MAKES THEM BALANCED!"

I keep hearing people talk about MHA. Is it really worth the watch? Two of my friends have seen it. One says that it's the best thing since Jojo, the other says it's mediocre and hard to hold interest in. For reference, the one who likes it considers One Piece, Jojo, and MHA to be the greatest anime ever, and the one who doesn't likes Initial D, Haruhi Suzumiya, and FLCL.

To be fair, you technically don't need character development if your prerogative is watching these assholes try (and fail) to succeed while watching them squirm.

Also, there are minor moments of character development that happens as they learn how to work more effectively as a group, even if it's something that segues into a joke more often than not.

It's not a subversion or satire, it's shonen and cape comics.

It's generic battle shounen with Superheros.

>There’s nothing wrong with beastfolk. Furries are just an internet meme. It’s cool if you want to play as a snakeman or whatever.

>Sure, you can have a katana. We’re playing D&D, there’s all kinds of wacky shit in this world. Finding an exotic weapon in a market somewhere is not gonna break anyone’s immersion.

>there are minor moments of character development that happens as they learn how to work more effectively as a group, even if it's something that segues into a joke more often than not.

Honestly, this is my biggest dissapointment with the show. The part where they segue into jokes instead of following through on the character development. It has the potential to become a compelling story, comes oh so very close, waving it right in front of your face, then just throws it away and thinks it's funny.

What makes it even more baffling is how they keep trying to push this model when, after a certain point, the martials will run out of HP before the mages run out of spell slots to use.

Granted, 5e severely cut down on the ways you could work around your limited spell slots through scrolls, wands, orbs, etc. but at the same time, casters are also way more versatile now that they can choose which spell slot to use, especially when certain spells can be stacked without working around the concentration issue.

I hate battle-shounens, but I found MHA rather enjoyable. Instead of constant power-level wankery it tries to keep conflicts on a personal level, which it does rather well.

>This is why 4e D&D is Best D&D.

I might like it then. I got out of capeshit when it seemed like everything was about deconstructing this and reframing that. Shonen can be enjoyable sometimes. I liked JJBA, and parts of Naruto, and Bleach was enjoyable up to a point.

In my opinion, the comedy in Konosuba is more hit than miss, and I generally don't go into a comedy expecting things like character development either, especially when the joke is that the party is just barely synergized with one another well enough to actually deal with the higher leveled threats around them.

Now, don't get me wrong, if a comedy has these elements, I'm all for it, but I'm not going to dock the fish points from its final grade just because it can't climb a tree as well as the bear, if you know what I'm saying.

Ever hear of throwing out the baby with the bath water? 4e fixed one problem with D&D while throwing out everything good about it.

Honestly, DnD would be a much better game if the progression for full-casters went from spell levels 1-3 instead of 1-9. The level 3 shit is the kind of hardcore reality warping that can already shit all over a campaign and give a character tons of options and roleplaying agency. This should have been the peak of caster power, instead it's barely the foot of the mountain.

I enjoy it because it's cape stuff played straight, and they do a good job of keeping the power levels from becoming rediculous.

The animation is also hype as fuck. If you like high quality animation then you'll love the setpiece fights in MHA.

This is why you make your casters a support class. Fixes literally every problem.

>PvP is shit and should be avoided at all cost, everytime.
Many people think that PvP can be justified and that groups can survive it. They can, but in my opinion it's better to not risk it and avoid any PvP scenario that involves serious combat between PCs (where both parties *want* to kill each other) at all costs.

>The amount of prep work doesn't correlate with the quality of sessions.
I do not think that this qualifies as an unpopular opinion. Only trolls and idiots think that "prepwork"!="waste of time"

>Roleplaying games should have far less combat and more of an actual roleplaying.
I play with good roleplayers. So when combat occurs, it happens for a good reason. "The GM has hit a snag because we derailed the game and needs some extra-time to fill the session before we continue" is a valid reason, especially if the next session we find cryptic orders on one of the would-be kidnappers/thieves/robbers that targeted us specifically.
In my opinion, in the games I play, there are enough rules for combat to make everything flow very well and for us to enjoy ourselves.

The fuck does that even mean? "Support class" fixes nothing when it lets casters throw a dozen different reality warps at every problem while all the martials can do is hit stuff or ATTEMPT to use the horribly-designed 5e-skill system where proficiency doesn't mean jack-shit for most of the game anyway because of how small the bonus is.

To be honest, I barely even bother reading anything between 3-9. They just feel like filler levels between the time when you learn to Fly and the time when you learn how to cast Wish.

The problem is that mages are already a support class, a support class that gets spells to help out other classes without the classes themselves getting anything that would keep them at even footing.

I mean, a well placed fireball can kill a room of weenies in one burst, maybe more if they spend a higher level slot. By contrast, a Fighter is still stuck swinging at a single target and the mage also has a repertoire of single target spells that can get close to matching the Fighter.

I prefer spell casters being on par with non-casters out of the gate, than have to whittle the group away with pointless encounters in order to weaken the casters to the point where the martials seem to no longer suck, and by then everyone is bored.
My players still prefer the system as well.

I disagree, the problem with casters isn't so much power as flexibility. Powerful casters are a thing in fiction and should be a thing in the game. Instead casters should be forced to specialize, so they aren't all capital-G gods who always have the spell that solves whatever the problem is. This would also make more interesting characters, you could be the Fire Wizard or the Illusion Wizard or whatever instead of the do-everything wizard.

I agree with you, 100%

As a player, I am willing to suspend my disbelief and to get immersed in the campaign the GM throws at me. A cornerstone of any campaign, in any game that is good and memorable see: Zelda, Metal Gear, GTA San Andreas, if we are talking video-games -and I apologize for bringin up videogames- behind those games are two things: gameplay and a story that the player likes and wants to be a part of.

RNG simply doesn't make for as good a story as what my GMs would be able to come up with.

I am okay with my GMs fudging dice, because I know that they are going to make the story more interesting and fun to play. And if I have fun, I will also entertain them more and they will have more fun as a result.

Problem with that, you just end up with Conjurers and Transmuters who can do practically anything anyways.

Tabletop gaming is more fun in concept than it is in practice. Brewing decks, painting/planning lists, writing characters up, and planning out worlds is always more fun than actually playing the games.

This is why E6 is a thing, and the only way we still play Pathfinder.

Does it really? What if the art is simply closest to the players idea of the characters appearance but doesn't have a bearing on how they roleplay and act

The story shouldn't be written up beforehand, it should develop at the table. If your sacred and inviolable story is so important that you can't have die rolls messing it up write a fucking novel instead.

It helps if you play with friends who aren't blatant assholes about stupid bullshit and know how to have fun without taking themselves too seriously.

No one ever said we need to keep D&D's mediocre spell schools, and we definitely don't need to keep the retarded, bloated spell list. I personally think something like MtA's spheres/arcana or Ars Magicas verb-noun system would work really well for specializations, and make people casters have to think a bit instead of just picking the universally optimal spells

As the guy who originally advocated that anime-styled art was OK, yes, it does matter. If the tone of the game is decidedly gritty realism, don't come to the game with a cartoon character.

That being said, DnD is decidedly unrealistic, and I always assume it to be the topic of discussion when another setting isn't explicitly mentioned.

Not that user, but when I DM, I go for a high-fantasy, swords-and-sorcery feel, and have each PC blessed by a god. That way, even if an open roll would make things less enjoyable, I can justify a reroll/fudge to the players through divine intervention.

Well what did you expect? Veeky Forums is not some one singular neckbearded entity, it's multiple people of varying viewpoints.

It's very competent. It's not breaking new grounds but it's really well done and not boring.

It'd help if my friends were interested in it at all.

>In Tabletop mini wargames: Agree 100%
>In CCGs: Agree 75%
>In RPGs: Agree 50%

If you have a good group of players, you can make RPGs played around a table with friends and family a really fun activity.
If you're playing with shitters on Roll20...
>Agree with 100% and my balls on top.

Skub is shit

As I said, you rolling in the open does not make you honest, it just means that you can comfortably shift blame without getting called out on for an unsatisfactory ending to your campaign.

Also, if you can't fudge the dice in a way where it's subtle and the group is enjoying a fair level of challenge in spite of it, then you're a shitty GM who either is too inept to understand when to fudge appropriately or a GM who is too weak-willed to trust himself with that much power in the first place.

Protip: every GM fudges; the ones that don't are either new, bad, or liars.

I think you are mistaking
>the GM has planned the whole campaign beforehand
with
>the GM avoids killing the character they *really, really like* and is holding the group together with all their might because a goblin threw a stone at them and killed them with a very lucky hit

There are times in which the dice would make for really bad stories and it wouldn't be fun, not for the player, nor the GM.

You can say it's "cheating" or "dishonest" if the GM rolls a 15 and says "oh, I got a 13. The monster flashes his claws in a terrifying flurry of attacks, which you are only barely able to avoid. His talons miss your eye only by a cat's hair. You're up!" if it will make for a more entertaining game

You take that back right now!

Most of the people I know only started playing tabletop games within the past year or two, and even then, we've been playing custom systems that we can run with just our smartphones in hand.

Hell, in the age of big bang theory, I'd think that it'd be easy to convince people to give something like 5e a shot before moving on to a rules-lite game.

I think it really depends on what we're calling "anime style". Most jrpg or anime MCs are right out, but if you brought me a lot of characters from berserk or early fire emblem or some such, I personally wouldn't have an issue. Pic related is probably about as far as I'd allow

There's a difference between having the story prewritten and forcing the players along your rails, and having a general outline of where you expect things to go and plot threads you'd like to introduce

FE had some based knights.

Based FE fags. I love the FE portraits

They could get sort of wacky though.

Shame the newer Fire Emblem games have some truly atrocious shit... and by "some" I mean the majority of them. I miss the old stuff.

That makes two of us.

Same. Though a lot of western fantasy isn't too much better at not having retarded armor designs

Wacky isn't necessarily bad.

Marx/Xander has decent design, and if they didn't go for the whole "little sister lusting after older sibling" thing, Eris/Elise could've been decent - her design makes sense as a princess.

That makes three of us.

But we have frog helmets!

Her design may make sense as a princess, but it's impractical as hell for actually fighting in, let alone adventuring in. It doesn't feel "practical", even in a fakey not-100%-historically-accurate kind of way. Like I can tolerate boobplate and shit, but frills and ribbons and shorty anime skirts, yeah no.

>Wacky isn't necessarily bad
It's not, but crab man/medieval grineer is a bit much imho.

I really think a lot of the generic soldier designs wind up being much better than the named characters, especially in the newer ones. This is a somewhat unrealistic but still practical looking set of female armor, which you never fucking see in jFantasy

And this is also pretty plausible while still looking both nice and conveying "fantasy"

If I recall correctly, she was never technically supposed to end up fighting in the first place. She just ran off haphazardly to look for Corrin - with her retainers having to catch up to her, even.

I agree. Even suspending disbelief, the armor/robe designs are usually more aesthetically appealing.

Maybe it's not what you meant, but Dragon's Dogma is an extremely generic fantasy setting played straight, made in Japan.

Not to mention that one of the best depictions of medieval warfare I've seen in recent media was in an anime.

Thankfully, European game devs are catching up.

Man I hope that's actually good. I have much higher hopes than I probably should, considering the track record of nearly every hyped video game ever

I should have been more specific. Make casters healers, buffers, and able to cure status effects and include a chance of failure along with some resource management. Personally I think having weaker but more spammable abilities is better for balance. Add side abilities relating to the campign's specific dangers, such as creating light and turning undead for dangerous dungeon crawls, make sea water fresh or make sea creatures friendly for pirate campagins.

You let high level casters have more powerful and long lasting versions of this, but they never get the Uber - powerful batman Wizards of traditional d&d. You let the Rogues or skill classes do their skills and be the only ones able to do it, you let combat remain purely the focus for Fighters and make them the best- if you want to take out a dragon you get a fucking Knight.

It fixes seriously every issue; from class balance to versimiltude to party cohesion. I couldn't recommend it more, I bring it up in every caster v martial thread, but people just don't seem to want to listen.

This is not an unpopular opinion. The fact you got so many easy (You)s agreeing with you just goes to show that fact.

"Hard" Science Fiction is fucking trash.

Furries are totally fine to add as races in tabletop, and are a million times better then shitty generic elves and dwarves.

Sex and lewd is too stigmatized for RPGs. I get that the people making blatant kinks in their universe catering to the DM's desires is fucked up. But at the moment every RPG treats sex like its somehow banished and dosent exist, and its weirding me out.
Let an NPC have an affair as a part of a quest. Make some kind of enchantment have some backstory of its previous wielder being a nympho. Make succubus exist and actually have them harm the people they lure.
Just, anything.

It's really well made in practically all aspects of the show. Does little to subvert any capeshit tropes, but executes on them well enough.

D&D systems usually have very good ways to regenerate hp, for example 3.5 had cheapass wands of healing, while 5e is a bit more limited.

the main problem is still that playgroups and DM are not interested in stuffing 6 combats into every dungeon and find a compelling reason for the group to not stop and wait one day outside.
how can you even write your own adventure with this stringent restriction? the only thing that works well with the system is "big dungeon with a timer", otherwise wizard and other casters feels god.

it would be a much better game if all the classes had about the same amount of daily powers, possibly 0-10% of class privileges.

What if it's grimdark low-fantasy art?

>you don't need to roll skill checks
this is popular in OSR and some on Veeky Forums but all my groups have gone right against it or been straight up confused when I ran a game.

If your character has 'lockpicking proficiency' just assume they can pick the lock unless a)it's masterwork or b)they have crappy tools. Only roll if there are immediate consequences to failing.

You can use checks for stuff like 'can you bribe the guard cheaply' or 'how much do you remember about X topic,' that's fine. For stuff like 'i kick down the door' you gauge stats/skills and answer yes or no. Then, you roll (if necessary) to see if they can do it quickly, quietly, without breaking the door, etc.

>Real unpopular opinion:
Dungeon World had the right idea with that whole "partial success, choose 1" mechanic. Choosing how your PC fails is more fun than the "you miss lol" common to simple combat systems, but easier than a more rules-heavy one.

"I choose to stand up and give away my position in order to land this shot" leads to a different scenario than "I hold my shot for a few seconds to aim and they execute one of the hostages" which again is different to "I miss the first shot and waste another +1 arrow firing a second time." Not saying it's a perfect system, just saying I like that mechanic.

>Prep Work
Yeah, kinda. Some things need prep work to function at all, but as long as you've done the bare minimum then prep work just means 'improv done in advance' instead of 'improv done on the spot.'

>Less combat
I'm turning towards more & more high-lethality systems as I play. Combat is fun, but the real fun is in the choices you make moment-to-moment. The initial choice of "run or shoot" can be more compelling than the 17 skill checks needed to successfuly run or shot.

Tolkien might have been a master world-builder but his take on elves and goblins was absolute bullshit.

>>you don't need to roll skill checks
My. Nigga.

I've been running a single-player campaign with practically no skill checks. The player character has a niche that they will always succeed regardless and the rest is up to the player to explain how they do it.

>you don't need to roll skill check

and that's why most d20 systems tells you that if there are no consequences and you have time you can play it as if you rolled a 20.
i never had anyone confused with that, but they still liked to roll it...because they are fucking rollers.

I agree with one of these opinions

>because they are fucking rollers.
No, because they are fucking stupid.

It's too bad that rolling for simple shit has gotten so popular. It ruined my last Dark Eye session.

>i never had anyone confused with that, but they still liked to roll it...because they are fucking rollers.
I'm familiar with that. At the end of my last session one of the players requested to craft a particular item.

>Okay, add it to your inventory.
>Wait, do I need to roll?
>Character has a plenty of time to do it, and he is proficient enough. No need to roll.
>I still want to roll. I like rolling.
>*Fails roll*

>Unpopular opinion: Healers = Bad.
Not in all cases, but in a lot of them. Who the fuck wants to play a class (in an RPG) whose entire gimmick is "give up my turn and resources to undo the last mistake the paladin made?"

Sadly most games seem to make healing an expected mechanic & balance encounters around it rather than simply doing things to make the game fun.

desu being a healer can be fun if a game does it right.
Like short temporary buffs, or even as ive seen, some kind of way to use healing to charge a damage shot by yourself.

Guilty pleasure is for bad things you enjoy despite the badness. Konosuba is a good comedy, even if it's light on character development (though the currently unadapted books have a little more of that stuff).

>Primary healing class is, instead of a priest, a time mage
>Basic healing spell rewrites the moment to remove the injury
>More advanced healing spells can undo "critical moments" such as death
>Some of the effectiveness of the spell can be diverted to alter the past further, changing who or what was affected by the injury
>In doing so, damage can be "transferred" from an ally to an enemy

Is that pic related to your post? Because I'm down for that, even if I'm not sure exactly how it would work.

In a hobby dominated by people who know no stops when it comes to lewd, I think it's better to have none in my games than to have it way too much.

>Choosing how your PC fails is more fun than the "you miss lol" common to simple combat systems, but easier than a more rules-heavy one.
Ooooohhhh this gives me an idea. There's this coop boardgame level7 invasion that has a phase that is "everyone draw a card and pick what you think is the least shitty option, with no communication allowed between players" and then the cards all activate and fuck the players shit up.
When a player gets a crit fail you give them two options, but that player must make their decision entirely alone with no communication. If they take too long or someone breaks the no communicating rule the GM picks a third worse option.
"You feel yourself overextend your attack and see your weapon head towards [tank]. You can either hit him or let go of your weapon before it connects."
"Bob you shit I saw that miming. You let go of the weapon too early and the weapon flies at [bob's squishy player]/flies well over the enemies and clatters a few squares behind them."

Better to be celibate then to have that guy dig too deep into his rape fetish. Or to give me the leeway to shit up the session with my lesbo ERP

>>The amount of prep work doesn't correlate with the quality of sessions.
ON AVERAGE, you moron. ON AVERAGE. Do you think the quality of novels that writers have worked on for years are ON AVERAGE merely as good as cheap pulp stories that another (equally talented) author publishes weekly?