Looking for a new system. We have a party very fond of fantasy

File: Dreamlands.jpg (5MB, 1728x1152px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 1728x1152px

You might try DCC, it has weird crunch and lots of tables to roll on but still familiar to the d&d player. It's my favorite system right now. Also, leave GURPS alone¡

>>48971868
Give Barbarians of Lemuria a read.

I think you might be focusing too much on system.

It's a bit of a myth that you can just keep going from system to system until you find something that suits everyone, or that the system really matters that much at all.

You're better off actually solving the issues your group has, instead of just hoping and praying that a new system will magically wash away those issues, rather than just masking them and giving them new names.

>and people die a little inside when I suggest GURPS

Every time.

People are scared of GURPS without having ever played it. It's as crunchy as you want it to be, you should give it a chance OP.

RuneQuest is also a valid option. It's more on the crunchy side, but once it clicks it flows very well.

If you want to remain d20, then Fantasy Craft is the best at it.

If all else fails, try giving FATE a try.

>>48972129
We have tried GURPS, I think the issue was that the players hated character creation. Maybe pregend would be better. FATE and Fantasy Craft, thanks.
>>48971967
>>48971981
Thanks, will check these out.
>>48972026
I think its more realistic to try and find a system that accommodates as many of the tastes as possible. I'm not about to say the minmaxer is an issue, nor the thespian or even the casual and the hardcore, it's just a matter of taste. I'm just looking for a decent compromise that fits the group I have, rather than try an uphill battle to force people to change their lifelong habits.

File: So Mad Right Now.gif (1MB, 333x250px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 333x250px

>>48972026

>system doesn't matter, only the people at the table

That's right folks, play FATAL. If you don't enjoy the experience, it's your fault, not the system's. Fix your group and then even a tedious pile of broken horseshit will be a great reason to meet up every week!

>>48972648
If we're talking any of the major games, we're well past the point of systems being worth complaining about. Dragging up FATAL is hardly appropriate.

Though, yes, it is true that with a good group, even FATAL can be a great game.

>>48971868
Do a Mutants and masterminds supervillains game. Encourage the PCs to make the most broken characters possible, then you make the most broken characters possible to oppose them and tell them to take over the world. Make sure you abuse things like devices which can create devices, telekinetics who can target any area they can sense but can't move a muscle and are kept in a bacta tank on the moon, copying powers at a touch, the ability to grant the ability to grant touch ranged power copying to allies, copying those powers to regain the power copying ability and have infinite capabilities to absorb powers permanently, as well as grant them to all their allies. Walking bomb who has cyclops force beams emanating from his body at all times while instantly regenerating all the damage.

Going mad with power is part of the fun.

File: 1471993997797.jpg (43KB, 307x309px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 307x309px

>>48971868
If you want a holy grail, have you tried GURPS?

>>48972758
That actually sounds awesome.
>>48972755
I'm sorry, but no. Stop with this silky bait. FATAL is a warcrime.

>>48972755

The point is that a system colors the gameplay experience. Every rule that you use alters what you get out of it. If the system is not suited to what you want to play, you have to fight it and/or houserule it.
E.G. if you want to play a gritty game of fantasy dirtfarmers who struggle and die, 5e D&D is a terrible choice because players quickly become so powerful that it's very hard to kill them.
Picking the right system for what you intend to play is important.

>>48971868
>we need a system that's crunchy enough for the rules lawyers but simple enough for the thespians
Try D&D 5e.

>>48972885
Is it really that good?
We've not really gone back to D&D after being lukewarm on 4th ed.

>>48971981
Barbarians of Lemuria is great, but he said "crunchy enough for rules lawyers", which it ain't.

>>48972971

Eh, the common saying is that it's everybody's second favorite D&D. It manages to remind everyone of their favorite and attain a nice middle ground between all the other editions.

>>48972648
FATAL isn't a system, because following some of the rules means that you can't follow some of the other rules.

>>48971868
Maybe something in the RuneQuest / Basic Role-Playing family. RQ is on the complicated end, with BRP or something like OpenQuest being more streamlined. (Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer are also in the same line, fyi.) They're all d% skill-based systems.

>>48973073
I may have to give it a look then... How does it handle the linear fighter quadratic wizard quandry?
You aren't about to tell me its balanced are you?

>>48972863
I don't think you've ever played 5e. Or any tabletop game ever.

If you want to make the PCs die easier, send stronger challenges at them. It's all relative, after all.

>>48973122
Are you just a troll, or genuinely stupid?
I think the former, but hope the latter.

>>48973096

It's a system, just an objectively broken one. I used it as an example because if the game you're playing REALLY doesn't matter, then FATAL should be just as grand a time as a good system. But it's not, because the game you're playing does matter.

>>48973122

Nah, it's better about balance than 3e, but not as good as 4e. It kind of takes the TSR view that balance is not very important

>>48973124

In 5e, a "deadly" challenge means that one PC might die. You have to really work to make a TPK possible. It's just not that lethal.

>>48973124
The fact you can hurl a tarrasque at a party at any level doesnt alter the fact that, for example, even the hardiest fighter in a GURPS fantasy setting can be felled by a peasent, a knife and a really lucky roll. D&D Can't do that. Beyond a certain point, you are literally untouchable to a commoner.

>>48973143
Genuinely not up to date with D&D. Our group is a bit hidebound.
>>48973148
Thank you.

File: 1471981966355.gif (628KB, 516x402px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 516x402px

>>48971868

FUCK YOUR D20

3D6 RULES!

>>48973218
I prefer the way 3D6 results work myself, but as a DM I have to consider what my group wants first and foremost. A lot of them like the wildly variable results.

>>48973164
>D&D can't

But it does. There's a 3rd edition variant called e6 that caps most of what makes a person unkillable, and you advance in different ways. Amidst other options, like 5e (That keeps low level monsters more relevant), as well as simply having your campaign geared in the lower levels of any edition.

Basically, if you ever hear yourself trying to argue a roleplaying system can't do something, you might want to stop yourself before you inevitably say something wrong.

>>48973316
>3rd edition variant

This is 5e we're talking about.

And yeah, you can houserule it, but the more and deeper your houserules get, the more likely it is you'd be better off using a different system.

>>48973316
OK then, D&D doesn't by default without needing mitigating circumstances and obscure older rules.

Look, I get you have a hard on for D&D, but if I wanted to run a Jackie Chan film as a tabletop game, I'd use Feng Shui.

I could mangle D&D until it KINDA works for the purpose, or just use a system that works for it totally.

>>48973358
>>48973368

I immediately followed by saying how it works in 5e, or how to do it in any edition, without any need for houserules.

It seems I don't know how to explain this to you in a way where your mental defenses won't initiate, and either ignore or distort what is being said to you.

It's like you don't understand the basics of roleplaying systems, or you don't extend the same concepts that apply from one to the next, completely at the behest of some bizarre underlying, insidious motives.

But, I'll try. I'll pretend you're here for earnest discussion, and I'll explain that the various D&D systems are quite large, with a wealth of material for any tier or style of play, even without having to tap into the bottomless well of homebrew. Even a group of four PC commoners that never level up have plenty to work with, enough to last multiple campaigns.

It's not that D&D can "kinda" work for a purpose, but it can easily mold to just about any shape you try to put it into, not unlike other large systems. If what you want is a system tailored made for an idea, you really don't have to look very far, because almost all of the major systems that people play are so readily adaptable that it hardly takes any special effort to tailor them to your specific needs.

That's kind of what tailoring is all about. Go to a good tailor, have him make clothes that fit you perfectly, rather than always shopping around at random outlets and hoping for a lucky fit.

File: Facepalm-Worf.gif (897KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 300x225px

>>48973654

You know what? I give up.

>>48973654
Yeah, we get it, if you smash a square peg hard enough it will go through the round hole.

But why not just use the round peg?

We're not saying we are against tailoring or house rules, but sometimes its far easier to get a system that does what you want off the bat rather than mangle one until it sort of fits.

I don't really think that's unreasonable a stance to take nor does it make us mentally deficient. Honestly aid argue trying to make D&D fit the themes of anything from a high lethality spy game to a literal omnipotent god sim is silly.

Yes, you COULD do it, no doubt. Much like you could hammer a nail in with a screwdriver. But the hammer is right there, so why not use it?

>>48973771
>a literal omnipotent god sim
Didn't 3e come out 15 years ago?

>>48973793
Kek, but no, I meant more along the lines of something you'd do with minds eye theatre, where you play a literal all powerful pantheon who make the rules, they don't just break them open using charop forums.

>>48973654
There's a difference between having your shirt refitted for you, and having the tailor try to turn your shirt into pants.

>>48973771
>But why not just use the round peg?

Because the pegs are not rigid. They might as well be made of mattress foam. The square peg fits easily in the round hole, and in the square hole, as well as the triangular hole. That seems to be lost on you, or, it seems to be an idea you're particularly evading.

>but sometimes its far easier to get a system that does what you want off the bat rather than mangle one until it sort of fits.

And, more often than not, it's not all that difficult to use a system to match your vision without "mangling," or even going beyond its intended functions.

Hell, you're arguing about the D&D systems, with none having a strictly defined setting or style of play (as is the case of most systems near their size), and were expressly designed to allow people to mold and adapt them to fit a wide variety of playstyles and themes. This is true with even the earliest editions of the game, with Gygax running an enormous politically-themed epic fantasy that often switched between high level wizards and warriors defending the world while their far lower level servants and friends performed tasks more suitable for their abilities, with their deaths being frequent and their struggles much more human.

>I don't really think that's unreasonable a stance to take nor does it make us mentally deficient.
What's unreasonable is your insistence that there's somethings a system can't do, when it can easily do them. Some of the above arguments are like attempting to say that GURPS can't handle Asparagus, when it has an entire splatbook dedicated to it.

>>48973974
If I doubted you were retarded before, the fact you think GURPS Asparagus is a real book confirms it.

This guy >>48973760 had the right idea.

If you honestly don't understand the argument being made, you have my pity.

>>48974022
I'm glad you're just a troll, but it saddens me that you don't even have a sense of humor.

>>48973870
This guy gets it.

>>48973870
Thanks, man. Now you've got me wanting shirt-pants.

>>48973124

Throwing the legions of hell at a level 1 party doesn't change the fact that after a certain threshold, even the legions of hell become a minor inconvenience once you've reached a certain level.

That's the point, the average PC, even the wizard, will have so much HP after a certain point in the game that even a knife to the jugular won't do anything more than annoy them.

D&D is not a very deadly game, unless the DM throws OHKO traps and nigh invulnerable baddies like an off color version of "tomb of horrors," or something.

>>48973974

Wow, I'm surprised you're still on here after you got BTFO'd in this thread >>48957602

I guess retardation never knows when to quit.

>>48973122

It handles it a lot better than in 3.X but not nearly as well as it was handled in 4e.

>>48974032

>if you don't like houseruled d&d for every game, you're a troll
>this is what d&dfags actually believe

>>48975052
>I guess retardation never knows when to quit.

Virtualoptim still posts here, so yeah. Don't believe me, check out his blog

>>48975127

He's arguing against that, dude.

>>48975145

Link?

>>48975145

>he's arguing against that

learn to read nigga

>>48974991
>even the legions of hell become a minor inconvenience once you've reached a certain level.

You might be hypothetically right, but that "certain level" would be around 60. Perhaps 80.
Actually, even a hypothetical 80th level character, which would essentially be a god, would still find plenty of challenges in Hell, since not only do evil deities reside there, but cosmic entities stronger than gods. Strength is always relative, and regardless of how strong you become, there will always be something that can kill you in as little as a single attack, or even no attack at all.

More importantly, if you don't want to play past a certain level, you don't need to play past a certain level. There's variant ways of dealing with experience, and most campaigns don't actually go beyond 4-5 levels anyway.

If you like wizards being killed with a knife to the jugular by an unskilled peasant, you have that option.

>D&D is not a very deadly game

If you don't want it to be, no. But, if you want it to be, it can be quite deadly. Tomb of Horrors is a classic example, but it hardly need be that extreme. Even just a few monsters that hit hard are enough to make a battle turn deadly, and there's no shortage of those.

>>48975165

http://virtualoptim.tumblr.com/post/148356264605/osr-a-shit-just-kidding-also-want-to-make-it

>>48975173

So he is. I don't know who's trolling anymore.

>>48975052
>>48975127
>>48975173

You're really turning up the troll a little. It's kind of sad.

I'm actually ashamed that you think that you want people to treat you seriously anymore, when you just do nothing but repeat the same old oft-refuted lines over and over again.

>>48975287
>>48975332
Jesus H Christ Dude.

I want you to consider something.

You are claiming that there is one and only one person who dislikes D&D and wants to use a different system.

Think about that absurdity.

>>48975368
No, I'm saying you are a troll, who repeats ideas that were refuted ages ago.

What's absurd is you think that people haven't played the game you think you know so much about, and that you can just casually tell people they can't do what people have been doing for decades.

So, you are either a troll or an idiot.
Likely both.

And that's why I'm done talking with you. When you troll this much, it's clear that you're just stuck in a loop, and that it's pointless to even reply to you anymore.

>>48973218
This. Just don't go GURPS deep and the party will love it too.

>>48975411
>you
>repeat
>you
>you
>stuck in a loop
>you
Read this very carefully, you likely autistic man child.

There is more than one person on this site who disagrees with you.

>>48975411
Have you literally only ever played D&D?
You can't seriously tell me its best suited to every game type.

>>48975287

>If you like wizards being killed with a knife to the jugular by an unskilled peasant, you have that option.

An ordinary peasant will only be able to kill a wizard with a knife if the wizard is at level 1 and has shit CON.

Keep in mind, this is against a wizard, the weakest member of the party in terms of health, against any martial character with even average AC, that peasant is just never going to hit or never going to kill before the martial gets their attack roll and instantly gibs the fuck outta them.

>If you don't want it to be, no. But, if you want it to be, it can be quite deadly.

In general, D&D hasn't been deadly since 2e.

If you're a character with a d8 HD, invest in a 14 CON, and wear light armor, you're still more than capable of surviving most blows that would fell the average peasant just because of the way that HP and shit works.

Like I said, unless you throw OHKO traps at people, or just throw so many hard hitting enemies that it becomes a game of attrition, you will never kill a PC ever.

And even if you do, you only did so because you stacked the deck so hard against them that their death was practically a foregone conclusion.

*clap* *clap* *clap* congratulations, you won D&D. I hope you're happy because your friends sure aren't.

File: Idon'tevenplaythirdedition.jpg (103KB, 940x394px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 940x394px

>>48975480

This dude doesn't even play D&D.

File: StarChuckle.gif (2MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x281px

>>48971868
> some people die a little bit inside when I suggest GURPS
Step 1: Get a better group.
Step 2: Play Legend of the Five Rings

Step Q: Seriously, who actually things GURPS is complcated? It's 3d6, roll-under. The end. That's like 90% of the gameplay right there. Other games have extensive lists of perks and spells, other games have in-depth secondary stat calculations, so why is it that GURPS gets the shit-end of the meme stick on being "complicated" and a "master of none" game?

>>48975531

Because it was always compared to D&D and 3aboos hate being compared to other games.

>>48975508
Hush little autist don't say a word.

>>48975531
>It's 3d6, roll-under. The end. That's like 90% of the gameplay right there.

You could say basically the same thing for D&D 3e or Shadowrun. Pointing at the core resolution mechanic and going "lol you just roll some dice and read the numbers" is a non-starter.

>>48975508
You can play one of the many variants, including the ones that cap HP. I'm certain this was explained earlier. Also, you seem to be talking about 3rd edition specifically, which isn't every D&D, and more importantly even 3rd edition still has a variety of ways for you to get your weird "I want my PCs to be killed by a random peasant" fixation satisfied.

>Like I said, unless you throw OHKO traps at people, or just throw so many hard hitting enemies that it becomes a game of attrition, you will never kill a PC ever.

It's almost like you've got a rulebook in front of you, but you've never actually played the game.
I think I'm done arguing with you, because If you want to tell me that killing PCs is ever a challenge, I don't even know what kind of games you've played.

>*clap* *clap* *clap* congratulations, you won D&D. I hope you're happy because your friends sure aren't.

Oh, I get it. You're that kind of person. Glad I stopped taking you seriously, because you think you know how all other people play and what their preferences are, even if your hypothetical is needlessly absurd.

>>48975531
It was my own mistake, I started them off with an infitie worlds you can do or be anything campaign. The transition from "pick a feat" to "choose everything" was too much at once. This was admittedly several years ago, so perhaps we can do better with pre written characters.

>>48975605

You already said like seven though.

>>48975645
Drink Bleach you fuckwit or stay out of threads that trigger you.

>>48975682
I mistook you for the other guy. Stop talking to him, he is retarded.

>>48975687
>>48975715
But you're just a troll. Why should anyone ever take you seriously, when all you can do is act like a child who's been spanked too hard too many times?

>>48975620
> being this obtuse
GURPS has no additional mechanics though. It's 100% your skills list, as modified by your advantages/disadvantages. There's no mandatory side-systems or additional mechanics. That is THE mechanic in GURPS. You track your stats and you roll-under with 3d6 and that is the whole fucking game.

>>48975645

>Also, you seem to be talking about 3rd edition specifically, which isn't every D&D,

HP bloat has always been an issue since 3.X though.

It's because you get so much more HP from having a decent CON than you did in OD&D.

>It's almost like you've got a rulebook in front of you, but you've never actually played the game.
>Glad I stopped taking you seriously, because you think you know how all other people play and what their preferences are, even if your hypothetical is needlessly absurd.

>He's dissing my favorite system, it must be because he's misinformed. Whew, at one point I thought I would have to acknowledge the system's faults or something.

People like you are why fans of D&D get a bad rep among the tabletop community.

>>48975531
Not op or anyone else the thread yet, but it is character creation. It's intimidating, especially when the gm does not cut anything down to fit the game. I don't even know what that really means since I have made 3 gurps characters but never with anyone restricting what I can do.

I don't know. I mean I know that the games I played were with inexperienced GM's and I never got a fair shake with the system. Maybe I don't have the proper perspective to comment.

>>48975743
Yes anon, D&D is always perfect for every game, every genre and every group, never let yourself be told otherwise.

Its not as though other systems don't have different dice mechanics to simulate different themes, nah, D&D is always best for every theme too.

>>48975743

"Troll" is not some magic word that allows you to escape criticism being lobbied against you.

At some point, you're going to have to acknowledge that other people's opinions matter just as much as yours.

Legend of the 5 Rings.

Shadowrun

Maybe Dark Heresy/Only War/Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e.

>>48972265
If your players are too impatient to make a simple character sheet, then just have them describe to you what kind of a character they want, then you translate it into a character sheet. Then you explain what you did and how it works to them once you show them their sheets. Easy. Just don't make it a habit.

>>48975878
It wasn't impatience, it was more like an overload of choices compared to pick class and a few feats.

>>48975755
>HP bloat

Man, get over it. You don't understand what HP is, so you have no right to complain about it.

Hell, all of your complaints are literally just you not understanding a system. It's not even my favorite set of systems, but I've at least bothered to read the rulebooks and play a few games before deciding something as ludicrous as the idea that heroic heroes not dying to peasants was a problem rather than a feature.

Hell, there's variant rules with wound systems in every D&D up to 3rd edition, if HP really is just beyond your scope of understanding.

And, the topic isn't what flaws may or may not be in a game, or whether or not they are features. It's whether you can adjust a system to suit your needs, and that doesn't even need to be argued, since it is proven every single day by thousands of groups all playing wildly different games by modifying systems to suit themselves, all to great effect and to great satisfaction. It's not something you can really argue against without relying on needlessly limiting a system in a way that it's not really limited to, or arguing that there's only one way to use a system followed by some bizarre hyperbole.

>>48975795
Man, look at those goalposts hustle!

>>48975751
>There's no mandatory side-systems or additional mechanics
>no mandatory
>mandatory

Of course, because as GURPS fags love to point out, everything is optional. That doesn't mean you get to pretend all that shit doesn't exist and there's nothing to GURPS but a dice mechanic whenever someone says GURPS is complicated.

>>48975909
No one said it was a problem you autistic fuckwit, we are saying that some systems work better for a given type of game than others.

And no one has ever said a system can't be adjusted to suit your needs.

But you seem to be in denial that some systems don't NEED tweaking to be perfect for what you want to run.

>>48975797
True, but he's a troll. There's not no point in arguing with or even addressing him, or validating the idea that his opinions matter. His criticisms are weak, his argument flaccid, and his goals are transparent, pathetic, and frankly idiotic.

He's only here to act like a child, so let him be treated like one.

>>48975901
If they were patient they would be able to learn. If you were smart you would have guided them through it, one on one.

>>48975916
I want to have a different success and failure mechanic that doesn't have a one in twenty super success or super fail.
I want classless, points based and skill driven with no levels.
Can D&D do that easily?
No.
But GURPS can by default.

>>48975998
Forgive me sensei, I will do better at my play pretend game in future... Fucking hell, anything to feel superior...

File: GURPS Nazi.jpg (97KB, 610x458px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 610x458px

>>48975998

>If you don't like GURPS it's a personal failing

>>48975975
Again with this fantasy that there is only one person or a small conspiracy making these threads.

File: 1434053643982.jpg (4KB, 162x164px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 162x164px

>>48976017
>>48976027
Character creation is not that arduous. Don't get nasty just because I suggest that they were turned off because maybe you didn't handle it very well.

I'm just trying to be helpful. People are all too quick to dismiss the system for bogus reasons.

>>48975909

>I've at least bothered to read the rulebooks and play a few games before deciding something as ludicrous as the idea that heroic heroes not dying to peasants was a problem rather than a feature.

Nobody said that that it was a problem, just that it's not something that's suited for a game where the PCs are expected to be less tanky.

In a high fantasy setting where the PCs are heroes who can go toes to toe with demons and horrors, it's fine for what it is.

For a game where PC's are dirt farmers who are expected to somehow survive against these same monsters, it's something that's best left to games where either wounds are more serious, harder to get rid of, in less supply, or a combination thereof.

>It's whether you can adjust a system to suit your needs, and that doesn't even need to be argued, since it is proven every single day by thousands of groups all playing wildly different games by modifying systems to suit themselves, all to great effect and to great satisfaction.

There are also people who have the creativity to convert a pair of denim jeans into a denim vest and a pair of underwear into a lanyard, it doesn't mean that people should be expected to go through the trouble when there are already plenty of places that sell vests and lanyards at affordable prices.

In an age where there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of systems that vary in tone, setting, and mechanics, it's a bit silly to expect one system to perform everything when it was never designed to handle that much of a load.

>>48976113
For a group whose second system ever was GURPS after nothing but D20 you can't see how it would be daunting...?
OK, if you say so.

File: Dr-Seuss-less-subtly-07.jpg (158KB, 354x494px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 354x494px

Try 5e, OP. Just try it; you don't have to keep using it if you don't want to. Even if you don't think it's a keeper, you'll probably find something somewhere that you think is really nice. Its design can be summed up as "A little something for everyone." You have my 99% guarantee that everyone in your group will have something they like about the system, unless somebody in your group just hates all D&D including old editions.

>>48975969
>But you seem to be in denial that some systems don't NEED tweaking to be perfect for what you want to run.

I think I can argue that any system can be tweaked and improved, and that's not something that people should be afraid of. Ultimately, there is no "perfect" system, and that if you want to argue that there is a system out there that is absolutely "perfect" for a game you plan on running, then I can call you out on a technicality. But, in the interest of appearing earnest, I won't fault your language.

It all sounds like you largely agree with me. Some systems work better out of the box, but there's also no reason a system can't be adjusted to suit your needs. The latter part is important.

I think the argument lies partially in that you're exaggerating how difficult it is to work with a system. Adjusting a system, any system, is often just as simple as selecting parts from a list.

Don't like HP bloat? That was a big concern with 4e, which is why you can select the "Easy HP patch", which applies reduced HP and increased damage for early monsters.
Or, if you don't like it in 2e, then you can choose the "Wounds System" that applies a less abstract system.

It's really quite easy, and really don't even require formal rules if the GM doesn't particularly like them.

I don't want to sound like I'm saying to use some D&D for every kind of game if that's not your style, but what I am saying is that it's really not all that hard to do so if that happens to be your fancy. Hell, for every single obstacle you can come up with, I'm certain that you can far more easily come up with a simple solution or alternate rule, even without looking to see if there is an official variant. And, not just for D&D.

Of course, this might just me not recognizing that some people have difficulties working with systems quite so easily, but if you are here willing to argue about the merits of a system, surely you have enough ability to retool one without much difficulty, right?

>>48976203
Too autistic, didn't read.

>>48975975

You seem to be under the impression that only one person, in all of /tg/, could ever possibly hate D&D.

Even in /pfg/, you would be hard pressed to find anyone there who would actually call PF (or 3.X as a whole) good systems. They'll always say something to the effect of "yeah it's shit, but we still like it" and leave it at that.

>>48976004
Actually, yes.
The super success or super fail rules are not official rules, for one thing.

And, aside from their being classless variants of various editions of D&D, you do need to explain what kind of game you're trying to run, and why you think it's so vital for it to be points based. Largely, points and levels are just alternate forms of restriction, not expression.

>>48976203
>Some systems work better out of the box
Is literally all anyone has ever said.
Now shut the fuck up.

>>48976260
D&D is shit and I prefer GURPS.
Can D&D be GURPS?

>93 replies
>20 posters
Shit thread

>>48976147

Different anon here.

If they can handle 3.X's bullshit and juggle the dozen of so supplements made for it to boot, they can handle fucking GURPS.

Even if they can't, there's always GURPS lite.

>>48976203
Triggered retard pls go.

>>48976142
>For a game where PC's are dirt farmers who are expected to somehow survive against these same monsters, it's something that's best left to games where either wounds are more serious, harder to get rid of, in less supply, or a combination thereof.


Like... low level D&D?

>There are also people who have the creativity to convert a pair of denim jeans into a denim vest and a pair of underwear into a lanyard, it doesn't mean that people should be expected to go through the trouble when there are already plenty of places that sell vests and lanyards at affordable prices.

Adjusting a system is less like making underwear or a lanyard and more like sneezing. It's such a natural process, that we all do it, even unwittingly or accidentally. Even something like not using a particular option is technically adjusting the system to suit your game, and for any game longer than ten pages that is an inevitability.

Upon learning any single major system, a person with half a mind can retool the underlying mechanic to suit just about any game. That's even the philosophy behind certain games, including GURPS and D&D, and ultimately is a trend that exists in all of them to some degree.

It's kind of why AD&D saw D&D being used for science-fiction and horror (including cosmic horror), and no one thought this was a crime against humanity.

While there are games that are designed for a specific tone or have supporting mechanics, that's no need to act like it's not often many times easier to just adjust a system you like. If 3d6 suits you better than d%, do what you need to do. While it's not a bad idea to look into some small-time Sailor Moon game written by some randoms when you're planning on running a Sailor Moon campaign, it's also no great crime to stick to the system you like and work from there.

To each their own.

>>48976274
The idea is that statement refers to when both are evaluated "out of the box", not that the adjusted system is inferior to the unadjusted designed system.

A system tailored for a group trumps all, regardless of the starting point. And, for some groups, that means a starting point that doesn't initially match the tone of the game.

There might be a group out there that prefers using the StoryTelling system for running a Call of Cthulu game, rather than using the BRP CoC game. For them, they might just prefer the nine attributes over BRP's seven, and that's perfectly fine.

>>48976513

>Adjusting a system is less like making underwear or a lanyard and more like sneezing.

HAHAHA, no!

>Upon learning any single major system, a person with half a mind can retool the underlying mechanic to suit just about any game.

The thing is, in order to have a better understanding of what you want and how to achieve it, you MUST sample other systems to see how they handle certain scenarios differently.

As someone who is making their own system ATM, I can safely say that my game wouldn't have gotten nearly as good as it has if I just stuck to D&D for my tabletop needs.

You'll also find this with musicians, authors, mangaka, etc. you'll never be a good creator if you don't have a sizable pool to draw inspiration from.

>It's kind of why AD&D saw D&D being used for science-fiction and horror (including cosmic horror), and no one thought this was a crime against humanity.

There's also a difference between introducing said elements in an modules that's divorced from the base setting and expecting the base setting as a whole to handle Star Wars.

Even in modules where you weren't in a fantasy setting anymore, it never stopped being D&D. You were still heroes exploring a dangerous area loaded with deadly monsters in the interest of finding loot, it's just that the setting became Mars or a crashed space ship for the entirety of that module and went back to fantasy once you wanted to go back.

>While there are games that are designed for a specific tone or have supporting mechanics, that's no need to act like it's not often many times easier to just adjust a system you like.

The thing is, it can often be much easier just to to learn a new system.

Sometimes, you can get away with but when it requires much more fiddling to work, like making a DBZ campaign or a DC comic campaign, it's just easier to just learn a new system.

Again, it's silly to only ever stick to one system in an age where we have access to dozens of them.

>>48977086
>Again, it's silly to only ever stick to one system in an age where we have access to dozens of them.

More like hundreds. Even if you have a narrow focus you probably have choices -- there are like five different systems just to do Watership Down with, and probably twice as many if you want to do something more like Redwall. That's how crazy wide your choices are today.

>>48977086
>You were still heroes exploring a dangerous area loaded with deadly monsters in the interest of finding loot,

Except that wasn't the case. Isn't the case. I don't really understand why you believe in this "D&D was only for dungeon crawling" myth.

A module not too long ago has players participating in an Abyssal Court, where they can try to argue with demonic lawyers. Another has villagers fleeing from a terrifying witch that has awakened in the woods, and the theme is horror survival. An old adventure has a dogfight between interstellar spaceships, culminating in either your ship or theirs being boarded and pirated. A very old D&D adventure takes place inside of a barrel that leads to a wonderland filled mostly with oddities and curiosities, with almost no harmful monsters or combat whatsoever (though plenty of deceitful creatures), and was designed specifically as a counter to what was the dungeon-crawling trend that was popular at the time.

D&D is a set of systems so vast, that you could spend years reading through the hundreds of books and still only be grazing a small measure of what the systems have to offer. Though admittedly most do follow a trend of "fight monsters, get loot", there's so much more to them that it's no exaggeration to say you can play great games of D&D without a single attack roll.

You're completely right that sampling other systems is great, especially when designing your own system. For someone who understands the value of research, why not also extend that to a particular system, to see how it handles scenarios differently, or even similarly, even just for the sake of having a frame of reference?

Before someone ever says a system can't do something, at least.

No point in learning about a massive system if you don't like it, but if someone plans on arguing what it is or isn't suited for, they should probably not assume it's not suited for something when there's a fair share of examples to show how versatile it is.

>>48977687

>I don't really understand why you believe in this "D&D was only for dungeon crawling" myth.

Because that's all D&D is generally good for and what it was originally meant to be.

There's a reason why when people think "Dungeons & Dragons," their mind immediately thinks about a Fighter, a Wizard, and maybe a Rogue and/or Cleric delving into a dungeon, avoiding traps, fighting monsters, looting chests, and maybe fighting against a Dragon at the end of the campaign.

>D&D is a set of systems so vast, that you could spend years reading through the hundreds of books and still only be grazing a small measure of what the systems have to offer.

Which is an issue when you have to shift through hundreds of books just to find the rules that would allow you to change it into your preferred setting.

If I'm going to spend years reading through hundreds of books, it's going to be spent reading through hundreds of systems, not on just one.

>For someone who understands the value of research, why not also extend that to a particular system, to see how it handles scenarios differently, or even similarly, even just for the sake of having a frame of reference?

Because performing research on how effectively a screwdriver can hammer a nail into a piece of wood is a waste of time when I already have a hammer that's perfectly capable of performing the job.

When I want generic fantasy with dungeon crawling elements, I'll play to D&D. When I want to play as a down-on-his-luck anarchist who sticks it to the man, I'll play ShadowRun. When I want to play as a dude who struggles between maintaining his humanity while fighting off the pull off the beast inside himself, I'll play Vampire: the Masquerade.

A system doesn't need to do everything and in truth, a system shouldn't try to do everything.

>>48978131
>Because that's all D&D is generally good for and what it was originally meant to be.

That's a gross generalization, and an unfair one.

>Which is an issue when you have to shift through hundreds of books just to find the rules that would allow you to change it into your preferred setting.

That's hardly the case. There's rule compendiums, and aside from those, books specific to themes, and aside from those, campaign setting books. If you have an idea in mind, you typically don't have far to look.

>If I'm going to spend years reading through hundreds of books, it's going to be spent reading through hundreds of systems, not on just one.

It's a different path, but not a dissimilar path. At the end of the day, you're still reading ideas from many different authors attempting a wide variety of things.

But, there is something to caution about being a jack of all trades, and a master of none. I do hope you find a large system you do like, and research deeply how it works with many disconnected themes.

>Because performing research on how effectively a screwdriver can hammer a nail into a piece of wood is a waste of time when I already have a hammer that's perfectly capable of performing the job.

Another gross generalization and misattribution.
If you are unwilling to actually look at the system for what it is, you can't really argue about it in earnest.

>A system doesn't need to do everything and in truth, a system shouldn't try to do everything.

Is that not what attracts people to GURPS and BRP and Tri-Stat and other generic systems? It seems that you don't fault those systems for trying to be broad, yet you're unwilling to recognize just how broad the D&D systems are and what they're capable of.

We're not talking hammers and screwdrivers. These are complex systems with millions of interchangeable parts, that can be easily adapted and adjusted, with endless sources of information and additional material, including ideas taken from other systems.

>>48978421

>That's a gross generalization, and an unfair one.

How am I wrong?

>There's rule compendiums, and aside from those, books specific to themes, and aside from those, campaign setting books. If you have an idea in mind, you typically don't have far to look.

Okay, there are supplements in nWoD that converts it into several different campaign settings such as fantasy and space opera too.

That doesn't mean that I'm going to go to nWoD for all my gaming needs when there are other systems available.

>It's a different path, but not a dissimilar path. At the end of the day, you're still reading ideas from many different authors attempting a wide variety of things.

Except that rather than sampling hundreds of varying systems and settings, you're just focusing all of your energy into reading a hundred of different variants on the exact same shit.

It'd be like reading every single novel written under the Star Wars Expanded universe and claiming to be well read on science fiction.

>If you are unwilling to actually look at the system for what it is, you can't really argue about it in earnest.

But why should I test a screwdriver's ability to be a hammer when I have a toolbox that's already filled with hammers of different types?

>Is that not what attracts people to GURPS and BRP and Tri-Stat and other generic systems?

D&D was designed to be a dungeon crawler where you were rewarded for finding treasure and killing monsters, first and foremost.

GURPS was designed to be a Generic, Universal, Role-Playing System that had no real base identity of its own so that it could be used for any setting, first and foremost.

Even then, there are much better systems that you could be using if you're looking for a specific tone or setting, it's just that GURPS gets recommended since it offers the most rules for the most subjects.

That and it pisses off 3aboos when you mention GURPS.

>>48978958
>How am I wrong?

Explicitly.

I've already explained it does more, and it does it arguably well.

The burden of proof falls on you to prove it can't do anything beyond crawling, and since that's already been shattered, let's move on.

>That doesn't mean that I'm going to go to nWoD for all my gaming needs when there are other systems available.

That's your preference.

>Except that rather than sampling hundreds of varying systems and settings, you're just focusing all of your energy into reading a hundred of different variants on the exact same shit.

It can be argued that rather than sampling hundreds of systems with needless variance in base mechanics, you can skip to the important differences that extend beyond the base system. Going through the sixtieth iteration of core stats does get quite tedious, and at least the books from a single system already assume the reader is looking for new and exciting material, hence why they focus on expanding beyond the base system. The appeal of GURPS, is it not?

It's like getting a single ladder to reach your roof, rather than assembling a hundred chairs on your lawn and wondering why you're not getting much higher when you stand upon one.

And no one opinioned to learn only one system. Rather, to at least learn one system well.
Especially if you want to argue about it.

>D&D was designed to be a dungeon crawler where you were rewarded for finding treasure and killing monsters, first and foremost.

It was designed to emulate fantasy novels, and greatly expanded from there. Regardless of its past, it grew well beyond it's humble roots, and it can be argued that all modern systems stem from D&D's model.

I wonder if it irks you for someone to say that GURPS origin lies in a game designed to be dungeon crawler, first and foremost? Probably not, but surely it would irk you if I tried to say that's all it can do.

>>48979225

>The burden of proof falls on you to prove it can't do anything beyond crawling,

Actually, it falls on you since all you've been doing is referencing rules without actually citing them for general review.

Either way, as someone who has played around a dozen systems, some being D&D editions, others being d20 variants, and the rest being their own unique systems, I can safely say that the worse fucking games I've ever been in were games that were based off of 3.X that tried to do more than was expected of the system.

D&D, regardless of how many rules you cite for it, is actually a very rigid system in comparison to most that are available today. It's full of abstractions that break down the more logic that's applied against it, classes tend to become too powerful to make challenges such as an angry mob actually threatening after a certain point, and later editions have severe issues with HP bloat, to the point where a level 5 wizard could survive a ballista bolt to the chest in 3.X in spite of having the least HP.

Sure, there are rules variants that could make the game deadlier or add a dodging stat or whatever but D&D was never meant to be a game where that shit was important. As a hero in D&D, you're expected to survive stupid shit, kill powerful creatures, and get loot for hookers and blow.

If I wanted to play in a deadlier system, I'd just use another system that was already built around being less forgiving if you ever take damage, such as ShadowRun or Savage Worlds.

When D&D tries to go beyond its niche, that's when shit becomes fucking stupid. Saying "oh, well it can do other things" is pointless when it never needed to do other things in the first place.

>It's like getting a single ladder to reach your roof, rather than assembling a hundred chairs on your lawn and wondering why you're not getting much higher when you stand upon one.

This analogy is so stupid, I almost wish you used a food analogy instead.

File: 1385076362002.jpg (567KB, 806x1024px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 806x1024px

>>48971868
> crunchy enough for the rules lawyers but simple enough for the thespians
Oh! Ironclaw 2e. Hands down. Replace the furries if it bothers you --
>savage worlds feels a little too wiff ping in its combat
Oh... nevermind? The damage system is pretty different from Savage Worlds, but the dice are kind of similar and it's typically "short & deadly" encounters like Savage.

>>48979624
>Either way, as someone who has played around a dozen systems, some being D&D editions, others being d20 variants, and the rest being their own unique systems, I can safely say that the worse fucking games I've ever been in were games that were based off of 3.X that tried to do more than was expected of the system.

Similarly, but some of the best games I've ever played were as well. Which is a little odd, because I didn't even play 3rd edition much, relatively speaking.

Well, actually, most of the worst were dumb homebrew games run by shits, typically in their "I hate D&D" phase. God, those games were fucking tragic.

>D&D, regardless of how many rules you cite for it, is actually a very rigid system

Not at all, especially because you can easily remove the parts you consider rigid.

Even replacing those abstractions with variant systems written wright in the rulebooks. You like wound systems? Armor as Damage Reduction? Bell Curve rolls? Try some unearthed arcana.

>but D&D was never meant to be a game where that shit was important.

You are not the one who decides that. That's it really. Hell, just the variant rule systems in unearthed arcana disprove your entire mantra.

>When D&D tries to go beyond its niche, that's when shit becomes fucking stupid.

That's just your opinion, and frankly it's one most people will disagree with, and in fact they do so by easily re-purposing D&D daily without any major issues.

Your basing a lot on your limited personal experience, and I feel like it's time you stepped beyond yourself and realized that people have been adapting D&D to suit their needs largely because you can do that with just about any major system. Sort of why systems go by generic names like BRP or TriStat or StoryTelling. Hell, D&D went so far as to call its base system the d20 system.

And, at least it's better than your "an infinitely complex system is a hammer" analogy. Key is, learning a system well gives you depth.

>>48979887

>Well, actually, most of the worst were dumb homebrew games run by shits, typically in their "I hate D&D" phase. God, those games were fucking tragic.

And the reason why they're terrible is because usually a) they only ever played D&D and b) they're not game designers.

Game design actually takes years and a shitload of patience to produce a solid product, you can't just slap a bunch of elements together and expect shit to work out in the end.

Which is generally why I have a problem with people who claim that D&D can do everything.

>You are not the one who decides that. That's it really. Hell, just the variant rule systems in unearthed arcana disprove your entire mantra.

The fact that those rules are optional and only relevant to the older editions of D&D vilifies my point actually.

If people actually cared about those rules, they would've become the standard for D&D as a whole, but as I said, nobody gave a shit because it wasn't really important to the tone that D&D was trying to show, which is you being a heroic figure taking on monsters and getting loot.

>That's just your opinion, and frankly it's one most people will disagree with,

Your opinion is one that's squarely in the minority, especially among people who play D&D and modify on the daily basis.

Take your arguments to places like /pfg/ and they'll laugh at you and call you a dumbfuck for even bringing it up, and that's because while they could come up with homebrews to satisfy whatever niche they want, they still recognize that there are infinitely better systems out there that are much easier to learn than D&D.

>And, at least it's better than your "an infinitely complex system is a hammer" analogy.

Don't confuse page number for complexity sweetheart.

>Key is, learning a system well gives you depth.

You cannot claim to have depth when you've only examined one thing mate.

Why do you think research papers have multiple works cited?

File: 1455178603861.png (253KB, 679x632px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 679x632px

>>48971868

Sadly, you will not find much help in /tg/ most people here just scream "ANYTHING BUT D&D AND PATHFINDER, GURPS IS GOD, FATE IS GREAT, ANYTHING ELSE IS FUCKING GAY AND STUPID KILL YOURSELF FOR LIKING SHIT SYSTEMS" and go about on a baby man rant.

Really if you want to try new system's dont play D20, try D100 games like Warhammer 40k.

There is no real holy grail to game system's, it's all about preference to games itself. Some will say dice pools are god and say Shadowrun. Some will say I wanna be a weeabo shit lord and play FATE, some will say Homebrew forever and go GURPS.

Find what you love most in a system, and narrow it down. But in all honesty just go nuts, torrent some rule books, play with a system and just find your connection.

>>48980208
>And the reason why they're terrible is-

No, it's because they make bad decisions based on emulating other systems just to get as far away from D&D, instead of just trying to make a good game.

>Which is generally why I have a problem with people who claim that D&D can do everything.

You can't really go from your second statement to this. That's a logical leap, and if the source of your hatred is believing that anyone who adjusts a game to their liking is insane and has no idea what they're doing, then I guess we're just about done here.

>The fact that those rules are optional and only relevant to the older editions of D&D vilifies my point actually.

What do you mean? There's unearthed arcana for 3rd edition, which I think is your major complaint.

Oh fuck, don't tell me you didn't even know that. Please, for the life of me, don't tell me I've been arguing with someone that clueless.

>If people actually cared about those rules, they would've become the standard for D&D as a whole

Unless it's a matter of preference.

>take your arguments to places like /pfg/ and they'll laugh at you and call you a dumbfuck for even bringing it up,

That's a bold faced lie. More importantly, /pfg/ isn't a hivemind, nor the mouthpiece for all the players of the various D&D editions.

In general, the opinion they disagree with is your insistence that D&D can only do dungeon crawl, which the various authors and players of the non dungeon-crawl settings will call you an idiot for even suggesting.

>they still recognize that there are infinitely better systems out there that are much easier to learn than D&D.

You're breaking down finally. This is just senseless projection on your part.

>Don't confuse page number for complexity sweetheart.

Don't confuse being dumb and snide with making an argument.

>You cannot claim to have depth when you've only examined one thing mate.

No one said only.

And, I think that about wraps it up. G'night.

>>48980261
>most people

It's just a few, very dedicated trolls.
It think they might live in the GURPS general.

OP here, having gone to sleep and returnees to this thread I'm bewildered.

It's a few years since I was last on /tg/, but I really don't remember this level of autism defending D&D as the one system to rule them all. That's crazy.

But thank you to everyone who contributed who has that shared understanding that systems are tools with different niches. I'm sure I'll find some inspiration among them.

>>48971868
Dark Heresy.

>>48982358
Are there any "unflavoured" versions of DH? Because, Heresy I know, most of my group aren't actually fans of 40K.

>>48975311
who cares? he's just an attention whore.

>>48982412
If you don't like 40K, consider WFRP 2E. It's kinda crunchy but then again your PCs might start out as Rat Catchers or other riff-raff and that often gives occasion to great role-playing moments.

>>48982462
>If you don't like 40k, try Warhammer
Its not a binary position anon, most of them aren't fans of the GW properties at all. One played a little back in the era when it was still tongue in cheek, but even they feel like they've outgrown it.

A lot of them are JRPG fans, but I can't bring myself to run a grind of that magnitude.

>>48972781
Why for the love of God must GURPS sound like somebody vomiting as they belch? I swear it's why nobody wants to try it but everybody rips it off

>>48982714
>Pronouncing it as a word
Just call it GEE YOU ARE PEE ESS.

>>48982412
I'm in a Mafia game using a Dark Heresy 2e as base, it works surprisingly well considering.

>>48982729
JIZZ YOUR PISS ASS.

Seriously. They should have hired me to do the marketing:

Generisystem
Generiplaying
GenRPG
Universystem
UniRPG

There you go. No more gross name, people might actually use it!

75% of the reason people embrace Dungeons & Dragons is because the name is so solid.

>>48982767
I can't deny the GURPS name is ass, whichever way you say it. But most of those are pretty bad too.

They would have been better off just calling it Infinite Worlds.

>>48980383

>No, it's because they make bad decisions based on emulating other systems just to get as far away from D&D, instead of just trying to make a good game.

Generally, people who make homebrews that are "anti-D&D" are people who only played D&D, heard about [system X] that did [cool thing] and try to emulate [cool thing] without knowing the context of why [cool thing] worked so well within the system.

>You can't really go from your second statement to this.

Of course I can, because most homebrews are terrible and come from people who have only ever played D&D but want it to play completely differently so that they aren't just playing D&D.

>What do you mean? There's unearthed arcana for 3rd edition, which I think is your major complaint.

Unearthed Arcana is still an optional splat floating amidst an ocean of splats that vary in quality from great to okay to outright unplayable.

What I'm saying is, if enough people out there honestly cared about AC and HP being shitty abstractions, they would've used those rules in unearthed arcana and made them the standard, similarly to how WotC made 5e more safe after 4e got panned for being too different from the established D&D system.

>That's a bold faced lie.

No, it really isn't.

>More importantly, /pfg/ isn't a hivemind, nor the mouthpiece for all the players of the various D&D editions.

/pfg/ was just an example. Generally, if you go onto a forum that's dedicated to 3.X homebrews, most of the sane members of the forum will basically tell you "yeah, it's shit and we know there's better shit out there but dammit, we love our shit too much to let it go."

>This is just senseless projection on your part.

Y'know what, there's no saving 3aboos this far up their own colon.

>No one said only.

Except that's what your entire argument was practically based around.

>>48982347

Nowadays, some rabid 3aboo will come into threads and shit it all up if anybody claims that 3.X isn't perfect and can do everything and anything you want it to.

He's basically virtualoptim except he doesn't wear a trip so you can't filter his retardation.

>>48982767

>This thing is trash, let me suggest even worse sounding names because I'm a fucking spastic.

>>48983212
It probably doesn't help that this new version of /tg/ seems to try and argue with them rather than just ignore them.

>>48982347
>It's a few years since I was last on /tg/, but I really don't remember this level of autism defending D&D as the one system to rule them all. That's crazy.

No one's arguing that.
What your mental issue seems to be is to assume limitations where there are none.

>>48983190
>Generally, people who make homebrews that are "anti-D&D"

Please, enough with your empty generalizations.

>Of course I can,

Like this one.

>No, it really isn't.

Or that one.

>/pfg/ was just an example. Generally,

Or this one.

All you have is empty generalizations, with no evidence, and enormous leaps in logic that demand assumptions built on assumptions.

You are arguing that everyone who homebrews 3.X does so because they recognize it's bad but can't let go anyway, which I'm going to tell you again is just you projecting. If you pop into the /pfg/ right now, you'll find people homebrewing up all sorts of crazy ideas, and it's not because they have no better system to use, but because they prefer working with pathfinder.

You are consumed by your opinions, and have gone so far from understanding why people play a game that you assume that because you think the game is bad, everyone must agree with you, but play it because they're trapped somehow.

You are insane.

>shitty abstractions

Like this. You honestly think your opinions on AC and HP are universal, when the majority of roleplayers disagree with you and perfectly enjoy these abstractions. They simplify combat into digestible pieces, and the players want to play heroic fantasy and not a reality simulator.

Your opinions are not universal, and are even a minority, but you are so far gone that you can't even understand that people disagreeing with you is their right and preference. There's plenty of good reasons to use HP and AC over other systems, and you being unable to recognize WHY, outside of crazy talk about "we like bad things", is why you are limited from a design perspective, and generally limited as a human being.

>>48983691
>No one is arguing that the system is the one system to rule them all
>We are arguing it has no limitations

Seek help for your autism pal. You sound like the same triggered moron from last night.

>>48983852
Jesus fucking Christ, REALLY?
YOU ARE BACK?!
WHY?!!

OK dude, we get it, you love D&D

I started this thread looking for alternative systems. If you can't deal with that, fuck off.

You have said at length that D&D is your suggestion, great, wonderful, fantastic. Now for the love of god just fuck off and learn to accept people exist with different opinions on your pet game.

>>48983190
>Except that's what your entire argument was practically based around.

Don't strawman. The argument, from the start, is not that you should only learn a single system, but that any major system can be readily adapted to suit a wide variety of games, and that includes editions of D&D which you continue to attempt to argue have limitations they don't have.

If your argument is "Only use D&D for dungeon crawls", you have no argument, because even Gygax didn't just use D&D for dungeon crawls.

Basically, the undercurrent of your argument is "I don't like D&D, no one else should like it either, the only people who play it are people who are crazy because they know they are wrong but still do wrong things and the game is wrong."

That's not even in the realm of what we're discussing, and is largely just you soapboxing about how upset you are about a particular game that you don't like.

We get it, you don't like a game. You don't like people experimenting with it, you don't like people working with it, you just generally don't like it. But, your opinions are only that, and every day people disprove you by using the system in ways you say they can't, and they do so well and happily.

There's nothing left to argue, except for you to provide more of your offbeat generalizations that are essentially bold faced lies.

>>48983904
What we are discussing are alternatives from D&D for a group bored of it.

Saying D&D is an alternative to D&D is inherently fucking wrong.

If you can't deal with that then please fuck off.

>>48983883
I haven't even suggested using D&D. In fact, I'm not even recommending it.

What I am recommending is that you actually look at the core of your problems, and realize that your complaints and desires so far are really not system specific.

More importantly, the topic has shifted away from the idea that "let's find alternate systems that can solve everything!", and become a discussion that includes the option of adapting the system you are using, whether it is D&D or not. It revolving around D&D is largely because people are claiming it has limitations it does not have, that no major system does, and to hop from system to system with that belief is just ignoring the core of the problem.

You want recommendations? Balancing the spotlight with your group. If you want to satisfy rules lawyers and thespians, the only way you can do that is by rotating your attentions, and that's true regardless of what system you're running. People will differ in opinion regardless of what you present them, so your best bet is to just pay attention to your group.

Simple enough.

>>48983960
Now you've said your piece, shut the fuck up.

>>48983960
>Your problems aren't system specific
We want a system that isn't D&D.
That's system specific.

>>48983920
>bored of it.

Bored of what though? What specifically? What specifically can't be altered or changed?
Also, in the OP, it's not about boredom, but catering to differing opinions.

And, it sounds like you've been trying different systems, only to find new or old problems, and I can guarantee you that that will be the case regardless of what system you try as long as you don't actually look at the root of your problems.

>>48983980
We're bored of D&D and want something else.
How is this concept beyond your grasp?

>>48983978
You've already tried systems that "were not D&D." If that was your search criteria, you needn't have made this thread, because the answer is simply [any game that isn't D&D].

So, you recognize that your problems are not system specific.

>>48984000
Please fuck off you god damned AUTIST.

People have given suggestions that I want to look into. Unless you have a specific suggestion then you are contributing nothing to the thread.

>INB4 your group needs counselling to better appreciate the majesty of D20
Fine, I'll look into that too. But not here and not now.

>>48983986
Because you've tried non-D&D's already.

Really, do you not understand what I'm asking you? You're saying you're bored, but you think it's about the system, when it's clear at this point that it's less about system and more about you not being able to adapt to differences in taste within your group.

That's why I'm recommending looking at the uncomfortable truth that the problem might lie with you, instead of hoping that rotating systems will solve all your problems.

>>48984022
OK, fine Dr Fuck. I'll seek psychological help for my incapacity to love D20.

NOW THAT IS DONE

Do you have any system recommendations except D20?

>>48984021
My specific suggestion is to look into yourself, and stop worrying so much about the system.

You even asked in the OP if you were chasing a holy grail system, and I'm telling you your search is in vain, because your issues are not system dependent.

I'm not stopping anyone from recommending other systems. I am however saying that you are too fixated on system, and it might be best to actually look at and address the actual problems you have, even if you are using other systems.

>>48984048
OK. Now fuck off.

>>48984039
No need to strawman.

I was genuinely asking what specific issues you had, and since you apparently can't think of any aside from "not-D&D", there's no way to help you aside from "my recommendation is playing something other than d20."

If that's the answer you're looking for, you already have it. But, that's not the answer to your problems, hence my recommendation.

If D&D upsets you so much, play GURPS. Or Fate. Or follow this guy's advice. >>48980261

But, when playing those other systems, don't forget to actually look at your real issues, or you'll just end up repeating old mistakes while making new ones.

Thank You to every non autistic contributor so far.

>>48984101
You are welcome, at least I think I posted here...

>>48975901
There are a bunch of books with templates (basically pre-made characters still leaving you a lot of choice). I don't know what you tried running, but there were probably appropriate templates. Without checking, I can tell you there's all kind of sci-fi characters, d&d-tier fantasy, post-apoc, modern day monster hunters and modern day investigators of all kind (including That Darn Kid).
There are way too few premade adventures, though. That's a problem. I get most people who play GURPS use it to run whatever the fuck they want that probably doesn't exist elsewhere, but some premade adventures starting from GURPS Lite and adding/mentioning new and optional rules coming with new encounters'd be nice. Like I don't know, talking about a shield's HP, weapon breakage or mounted combat with the dark knight encounter or something.

>>48982767
GURPS was a temporary name, they didn't find better. An early release of the barebone combat system with low fantasy rules was "Man to Man", I'm not sure it's better.

>>48982799
Oh Infinite Worlds. That's nice now.

>>48984943
Infinite Worlds is the default GURPS setting. They could have called 4e Infinite Worlds by default to try and get more interest.

>>48985372
Send them an email, maybe they'll use it for 5e, if they ever make one. Or for a rewritten and reorganized Basic Set, maybe. They did have a couple versions of the 3e one after all, right?

>>48985463
I think GURPS is always going to be a niche among niches.

>>48973654
you're that fucker that told me the only way to make large monsters seem large is to pump up their hp and damage aren't you?

>>48973073

This is true. I like 3.5 best and 5e second best, though with sone changes 5e would easily beat 3.5 hands down.

>>48975648
Yeah, GURPs only really shines when the GM very intentionally picks out the rules he'll use, and makes the campaign concepts clear. All those dozens of sourcebooks aren't meant to be "splats" that you just bolt onto the core game.

>>48975648
>>48987520
desu "Infinite Worlds tiem guys, you can be A-NY-THING!" can and does work for first timers, but it really relies on the GM making up the characters from descriptions given by the players.