>play D&D >one guy says "We should stop playing

>>49039612
Post the list

>>49039612

lol things that never happened

>>49039612
>WHFRP
>"Was this the worst so far?"

Clearly didn't try 2e, so many fun careers so little time.

>>49039626
This
>>49039632
and this.

>>49039612

There's a lot of people who have had this exact experience, though. Our group actually found a few other games we liked pretty well when we were fleeing Pathfinder but 5e was the only one we liked for dungeoneering.

>>49039632
OK.

>>49039612
Try Call of Cthulhu. There's a reason they hardly ever change it.

>>49039612
Have you tried not playing fantasy?

>>49039612
You're allowed to like D&D. No really, it's fine. But if you're going to be passive aggressive when someone wants to play something else and you won't even give it a chance, then you're being an autistic grognard.

>>49040702
>You're allowed to dislike D&D. No really, it's fine. But if you're going to be cunt when someone wants to play D&D and you don't even know them, then you're being an autistic grognard.

>>49040795
>Immediate defense mode

Calm down you dork, I didn't even criticize it. Just saying that if your sole reason behind not liking a system is "it's not muh dee un dee" then you have a problem.

Try Fantasy Craft, it's so good that I shill it here and I don't even get paid.

>>49039649
WHFRP (1st & 2nd) will come across as a terrible system when you approach it like D&D, running head first into the combat will get you killed most of the times, magic has to be used with extreme caution and power level is generally much lower. So I can see how people migrating into it form D&D will suddenly feel they can't make it out of the town because first encounter with anything hostile tears them a new asshole.
3rd is not so cruel but it's more of a boardgame than RPG really.

>>49039612
Maybe you just don't like fantasy P&P games

Assuming that this wasn't made up (Which it likely is), what exactly was your problem with any of those? You should just play Savage Words desu senpai.

>>49040988
You would encounter similar problems with RQ and to lesser extent, GURPS

>>49040908
I was just pointing out there's never really a time to be a cunt, one side or another. Maybe you're just immune to that message.

Why are you so afraid of trying new, less popular things, OP?

>>49041136
Oh get over yourself. Just because you got triggered over someone being a touch mean on the internet doesn't make the criticism any less valid.

>>49041243
>im a cunt watch me cunt

Ha ha, you're a cunt.

>>49039612
>GURPS Fantasy
The GURPS Fantasy is a book to help build worlds, not a setting book.

>>49040986
Listen to this guy. Fantasy Craft is a good game.

>>49041136
Jesus Christ, are you sure you're on the right website?

As someone who really likes FATE you have to a GM who knows what they're doing to make it work or it's going to be fucking awful.

I've seen bad FATE GMs try to cram D&D style combats while giving enemies hugely inflated stat values to try to survive against the PCs, GMs who try to make their own magic system and end up invalidating a shitload of skills because they didn't think things through, GMs who rarely use Compels which made the whole concept of fate points fall apart, etc.

If you know what you're doing FATE can be amazing, but unlike something like D&D where a mediocre to bad GM can still cludge together a decent session using the system, FATE requires your GM to know their shit or things will be awful.

>>49039612
Play Pathfinder

>>49041374
Are you sure you're on the right board? Misclicked /tg/ when you were looking for /r9k/?

>>49041948
RPG.net is just this way, anon.

>>49039612
This is a common problem. D&D really does teach players horrible habits and it it takes a long time for players who learned from D&D to un-learn those habits.

Assuming you're not just trolling, OP your group really needs to change the way they think about storytelling and how story and gameplay interact. D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder are systems that reward Character Optimization over all else, and in a lot of ways, they even penalize tactical thinking. You need to start thinking less like you are playing a Card Game or Board Game and more like you are people in a situation that you need to get out of. Sometimes the best solution is not to charge headlong at your opposition. Sometimes you have to fight smart, use the environment to your advantage, talk your way out of a situation, or find ways to complete your objective while avoiding direct confrontation.

These are all things that are de-emphasized or directly penalized in D&D in favor of building a character with the right class abilities or feats.

>>49041976
Why don't you stay there?

>>49042861
Because I like being a cunt but can't be bothered to be passive-aggressive.

>>49042877
You must be bummed about summer ending.

>>49042891
You must be bummed all summer without ending.

>>49040986
Thirding this.

>>49042700
D&D doesn't teach bad habits.
D&D's just popular, so you get a lot of players, and some of them are bad. That's it, really.

On the other hand, games like Fate teach players horrible habits and it takes a long time for players who learned from Fate to un-learn those habits.

Assuming you're not just trolling, you need to see that groups that play Fate need to change the way they think about storytelling and how story and gameplay interact. Fate is a system that rewards strong-arming a story, they even penalize tactical thinking and reward system abuse. They need to start thinking less like a circle jerk or fanfiction and more like you are people in a situation that need to get out of. Sometime the best solution is not to just force things with arguments about using fate points and charging headlong at your opposition. Sometimes you have to fight smart, use the environment to your advantage, talk your way out etc. etc.

These are all things that are de-emphasized or directly penalized in FATE in favor of playing a system with loose mechanics and story bending abilities.

Really, you can argue any game teaches bad habits, even when right in the rulebooks they tell you how to avoid those bad habits.

>>49043114
Any game teaches habits and mannerisms that don't necessarily translate properly to other systems. Also, intentional or not, different games emphasize different player motivations and aesthethics of play. If you go into one with the wrong expectations, the experience will be lesser for it.

>>49042700
That explains why in OP's (made-up) scenario his party just dropped GURPS without giving any reason, because it's a modular system designed for freedom and it just enables you to do what you want. If they project their moody D&D logic into GURPS and have a bad time, they just blame the system because they don't know any better. I'll have to remember that.

>>49041033
Actually don't like Savage Worlds everyone's too same-y.

>>49043818
Or it's because GURPS is a joke system that doesn't do anything well.

>Saying it's designed for "freedom" when it's a clunky nightmare

>>49043910
>it's a clunky nightmare
It's modular. You're supposed to pick and choose the optional rules you want to use. You could use only GURPS lite and run a campaign if you want.

If you think you're supposed to use every little optional side rule, then you didn't read very carefully when the books tell you to use only what you want from the system. This is why people are so quick to meme it up and call it bad when they're just clueless.

>>49041424
>I've seen bad FATE GMs try to cram D&D style combats while giving enemies hugely inflated stat values to try to survive against the PCs, GMs who try to make their own magic system and end up invalidating a shitload of skills because they didn't think things through, GMs who rarely use Compels which made the whole concept of fate points fall apart, etc.

That's just bad GMing in general. Any GM worth their salt knows the enemies' purpose is to give the players a challenge, not to stall them.

>>49040702
To be fair, the OP's story has them trying a bunch of other systems.

Which is actually what my group did. We've tried GURPS, Dungeon World, Unknown Armies, World of Darkness, Legend of the Five Rings, and even one of the Pokémon tabletop games.

Where we've come out is that 5E D&D is really the best suited to our group and playstyle. The lack of content hasn't really been a problem thus far, and the rules are loose enough in the right places that we don't feel shackled by the system.

>>49043668
This is true. My play group started enjoying Shadowrun a lot more when we realized we were playing it like Pathfinder.

Just remember. If you want to play Pathfinder, play Pathfinder. If you want to play Shadowrun, play Shadowrun. If you want to play Dark Heresy, play Dark Heresy. Because all games have their own feel to them.

>>49043818
desu, GURPS Dungeon Fantasy and its lighter rules have been funnier to me than any D&D version I've played so far.

>>49044059
GURPS works best when you pretend you're going to play GURPS, but you avoid using the system as much as possible.

>>49044356
Again, GURPS is not every single possible rule.

>>49042922
I work retail so yeah.

>>49040986
>fantasycrunch
hell no, the rules aren't even different enough from DnD to warrant that kind of math

>>49039612
have you tried not playing fantasy? Or asking the guy to propose something? Or homebrewing because DnD rules are terible?

File: GURPS.png (17KB, 500x435px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x435px

>>49044059
>You could use only GURPS lite and run a campaign if you want.

>>49044394
It's like every single bad rule possible though. Picking through a bad system just to find something not horrible is sort of why GURPS has avoided widespread appeal.

It's niche as fuck, which is funny because it's tries to be a system for everyone.

File: 1429393036221.png (96KB, 246x432px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 246x432px

>>49044728

>>49044728
You don't need to use the whole book you know. Just pick a couple rules that you like. Why does everyone think that you need to use all of the rules in GURPS when most of them are incompatible, even in the same book? You just pick a couple.

File: 1415282425237.jpg (62KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 550x550px

>>49044728
>seems complicated...
I introduced my friends to GURPS and they learned the system and presented me capable character sheets within a day of being given pdfs.
Stop playing with mouth-breathing burger "people" who get antsy and start tearing up when they're presented something that requires them to open their eyes and read.

>>49044728
Nice dichotomy, jackass.

>>49044161
>Where we've come out is that 5E D&D is really the best suited to our group and playstyle.
What playstyle is that?

>>49041136
Cunt.

>>49044161
Try Hackmaster if you like Fantasy, or Song of Swords if you like medieval combat

don't actually ever play Song of Swords, its combat system will make all other fantasy systems feel retarded, constrictive and nonsensical in comparison

>>49046243
SoS and RoS must be a cursed system I can't get out of it and it's a war to get anyone into it. Like seeing beyond the veil or something.

>>49046243
>Try Hackmaster if you like Fantasy
Yeah, might as well punch yourself in the nuts, if only so as to further appreciate all the times when you're not being punched in the nuts.

>>49039612
>change from D&D to GURPS Fantasy
Oh I am laffin
>RQ6, DW, FATE
All shit
>WHFRP
Did anyone kill themselves?

I don't really believe this story though. Why didn't you post pathfinder as an alternative?

>>49046783
>alternative
Because D&D is not an alternative to D&D

>>49044356
Just like D&Dfinder!

File: 435345.jpg (29KB, 395x382px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 395x382px

>>49046810
>pathfinder is D&D
Okay retard go kill yourself so /tg/ can have less THAT GUY stories you dumbass piece of shit

>>49046866
Do you even see what you type before you click "shitpost"?

>>49039612

I'll take "shit that 3aboos claim, but never happen" for 1000 Alex.

>>49041136

Oh look, it's eternally triggered bitch anon.

Wondering when you'd show your face again 3aboo.

>>49041266

>Wahh, mommy! They said mean things to me again!
>Okay dear, let me change your diaper...

>>49046866

>Pathfinder isn't D&D!
>Uses D&D 3.5 classes, skill rules, feats, prestige classes, monsters, races, etc.
>Tweaks the skill list and skill points
>Adds archetypes (which are reskinned kit classes from AD&D 2e)
>Add CMD and CMB but grappling is still a clusterfuck that requires a flowchart

Yep. Sure isn't D&D 3.5 with a wheelbarrow of houserules, nosirree.

>>49047036
>>49047011
Oh look, it's eternally triggered bitch-anon.

>>49043114

>D&D doesn't teach bad habits.

3rd edition teaches you that the option that grants magic is better than the option that doesn't.

3rd edition teaches you that studying the book, cover to cover, and weeding out the trap options before play is more valuable than actually sitting down and making a character.

3rd edition teaches you that thinking outside the box and using a strategy that isn't covered within the rules or on your character sheet is something that deserves a penalty.

3rd edition teaches you that the optimal strategy to any problem is to optimize yourself to the point where the problem becomes trivial.

3rd edition teaches you that in order to prevent power gaming, the GM has to directly oppose each and every action you make, to the point that the rules are used with the same argumentative attitude as a lawyer.

And lastly, 3rd edition teaches you that the solution to any problem is to patch it up using homebrews and supplements, rather than just trying another system that might already have fixed the issue by design.

I've honestly never found a good fantasy RPG that wasn't super-rules light. So, yeah... sometimes you just gotta bite the bullet and play D&D.

>>49044728

Not everything is all-or-nothing mate.

>>49046866
Bruh...
Pathfinder is my main game and that shit is a D&D 3.5 clone made for people like playing D&D 3.5.

>>49047124

>Come into a thread
>Get triggered and defensive
>YOU'RE THE ONES WHO ARE TRIGGERED REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

>>49047113
IT'S NOT D&DDDDDDDDDDDDD ;.; ;.; ;.; D: D: D: D: ;.; D: D:!! That's like saying Mana Khemia is an Atelier game or that Bravely Default is a Final Fantasy game ;.; D: D: ;.; ;.; D: D:

>>49046866

PF is basically Paizo cashing in during the period when 4e was getting shat on for being too different anon.

The only difference is that Paizo somehow found a way to give more options while restricting martials even moreso than usual.

>>49047164
Nah, that's just you being silly.

In fact, all of what you said is flat out wrong. Like you've never actually read the books. if you had, cover to cover, you'd realize all you're talking about is discussed in the books, and you're just coming from a power-gaming perspective, and that can exist in all games, more or less.

You really need to relax. What's with the bee in your bonnet? It sounds like some DM stole your girlfriend during a game of 3rd edition.

>>49047218
Oh look, it's eternally triggered bitch-anon.

Looks like the trolls are back in force.
Time to watch them open up their assholes and start shitposting, I guess.

>>49046866
Pathfinder is closer to 3.5 and 3e than those two are to any other edition of D&D. It might not be an official D&D brand, but it exists squarely within the D&D continuum. Frankly, if you don't consider Pathfinder as D&D in all but name, you shouldn't consider anything past 2e D&D either (except in name).

File: 1472414057113.gif (942KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

942KB, 640x360px

>>49047314
Does Pathfinder have Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion?

>>49047371

Yes

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/mage-s-magnificent-mansion

>>49047371
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/mageSMagnificentMansion.html

Famous Wizard names are copyrighted I believe so Mordenkainen and Bigby don't get name dropped in their spells

>>49047421
That's some random mage's mansion, not Mordenkainen's.

You can't hoodwink me.
But really, I'm just joking with you.

>>49047439
It's the same in the SRD, which also omits Mind Flayers and Beholders

>>49047249
>In fact, all of what you said is flat out wrong.
It isn't really though.
Like it was brought up last time these two pomantically entwined bitches went at it like sweaty dung beetles, ivory tower design leads to most, if not all, of those things.

That said, D&D is not just 3.x.
And OP did not mention the edition, probably because they never played any ttrpg.

>>49047371
Does Basic?

>>49047542
I don't think you understand what ivory tower design is or means. I've got a sense you think you do, which is why I'm scared of what else you think you understand.

>>49039612
>no savage worlds

>>49047171
So you don't want to play good games? Because you just implied you had found some but decided to play DnD instead.

>>49047569

Is this the part where people give the correct definition and you sperg and call it flat out wrong or is this the part were people ask you for a definition and you dance around it for five hours because you know that you're wrong?

Because I really want to know what your definition is but I don't feel like seeing you dance around the question for 150+ posts either.

>>49047649

*where people ask you for a definition...

damn auto-correct

>>49047569
Does it not involve intentionally designing elements of the game that are less fun to play with the intention being that a portion the fun of the game would be finding all the best options?

>I'm scared of what else you think you understand.
Don't be scared. It will be alright.

>>49047164
Nice! You hit the nail on the head. I am saving this post. Love it!

>>49039612
OP, I'm about to ask you a question that will COMPLETELY change how believable this story is, and whether it makes sense that you would react this way to other systems:

What edition of D&D do you usually play?

>>49047736

He's not going to answer because it never happened.

>>49040988
Only if you approach it like modern D&D. TSR era D&D varied from "never take part in a fair fight, ever" to halfway between that and modern D&D's "the way to get through a dungeon is to kill all the monsters in it" attitude, depending on edition.

>>49047649
I think it's the part where I say Ivory Tower is pretty simple, and not really as central to the design of the game as you think it is. It's largely just "Provide options without comment or advice", and that largely only true with the core rulebooks, and even in them they often broke that idea, especially in the DM's Guide.

Beyond the core rulebooks, in the various 3rd Edition class focused splats, like Tome and Blood, they actually went in depth into the options and which ones were generally best and which ones were better for more specific circumstances, and just generally gave advice from a "behind the curtain" perspective.

Ivory Tower is a cool sounding title, but it's not really a hard rule that was followed, and almost seems more like just a way to keep the core rulebooks streamlined and efficient, with commentary left to other books, including that weird guidebook "D&D for Dummies" or online guides. It might have been to try and get people to buy more books or to discuss the system more online, but it's not like they were really keeping players in the dark, especially when the assumption was that even without all the assistance provided from secondary books (or websites), players would be smart enough to learn the ins and out of the system themselves, and that the writers should focus more on producing content and providing inspiration instead of having to explain each of their decisions each step of the way.

>>49047834
Let's all point and laugh at the 3aboo

>>49047880
What is wrong with you? I'm a RogueTraderaboo.

>>49047834
Thog edit:
>Ivory Tower not central to design of game
>Is just "Provide options without comment or advice"

File: ivory tower.png (313KB, 1060x1423px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 1060x1423px

>>49047834

Then this is the part where I post the article (pic related) and point out that the design philosophy led to the creation of trap options and the idea that studying the game is more important than actually playing the game.

Then you say "nuh uh," call me names, pretend this isn't the case, and we go back and forth for a few hours or some stupid shit.

>>49039612
>Citing GURPS Fantasy as if it's a seperate game from GURPS.

Fuck outta here.

>>49047936
Then why go on a long chain of posts about something you don't understand, claim you do understand it, and berate others for "not reading the book"?

Why would you feel your 3e knowledge was so crisp and clear when there is no way a "Rogue Traderaboo" would have read them in something like a decade.

>>49048019
Why would this bother you?

>>49044779
Are you legitamately retarded? GURPS says to cherry pick through the rules. If you are playing a super future campaign, you arent going to have to worry about the production rules laid out in GURPS low-tech.

>>49047970
But that's just a small part of the design philosophy, that wasn't strictly adhered to, and was only really conceived six years in hindsight. You could actually argue with Cook that they didn't follow an Ivory Tower design approach for the majority of the system, especially when you have passages in the books like Song and Silence that describe how to build characters for certain ideas and which options are best left for if you're looking for a specific flavor.

The only book that could be argued to really have Ivory Tower design elements would have to be the Player's Handbook, with just about every other book taking many pains to explain ideas in a "behind-the-curtains" approach when they felt it was necessary. In fact, some books actually went quite in depth, with the Faerunian campaign setting including short essays that explained how and why the world was designed the way it was.

Also, I think it can be argued that simply providing the options and not providing commentary immediately in the PH actually diminished the idea that studying the game was more important than playing it. Rather than always calling attention to the strength of abilities, they kept that out to dissuade people from focusing too much on character builds, min-maxing, and worrying too much about balance between characters. You have to remember, this game was being written in a time where randomly rolled stats were not bizarre, unbalanced parties were not strictly avoided, and there was an encouraged idea that certain classes would start out relatively weak, but end up strong as a bit of a trial/reward scenario. Modern games tend to prefer more balanced parties, but fifteen years ago it was more important to make the classes feel unique and thematic than to have them all be equally powerful. I guess they just really liked many of the ideas from earlier editions.

Back to the central topic, I really think you're making a much bigger deal of Ivory Tower design than it was.

>>49048019

>The only book that could be argued to really have Ivory Tower design elements would have to be the Player's Handbook, with just about every other book taking many pains to explain ideas in a "behind-the-curtains" approach when they felt it was necessary.

It's nice that they fixed their mistake later but if you don't have a solid core, anything you add on top of it is just going sag under its own weight.

If there's any book where you'd want shit to be explained, it's the book that the players are going to be reading most often.

>Also, I think it can be argued that simply providing the options and not providing commentary immediately in the PH actually diminished the idea that studying the game was more important than playing it.

It really doesn't, and it doesn't because the PHB is THE most broken part of 3rd edition as a whole.

It's where you find the most useless feats, where you find the most broken (as in both ends of the spectrum) classes in the game, and where you'll find the most broken spells.

Books outside of 3rd edition, even if they're definitely of higher quality, never really addressed problems such as the gap between martials and magic, the shitty math, or even the fact that even in the MM, certain monsters are vastly more powerful than others in spite of being something that's expected to fight characters of a certain level.

>You have to remember, this game was being written in a time where randomly rolled stats were not bizarre, unbalanced parties were not strictly avoided, and there was an encouraged idea that certain classes would start out relatively weak, but end up strong as a bit of a trial/reward scenario.

Playing a mage back then was hard mode; you had no health, you could lose spells from a dart hitting you, some monsters could just outright say "no" to your spells with no way to overcome it, and a lot of spells took a while to actually go off.

Nowadays, there's no reason not to play a mage unless you're a martialfag.

>>49048254
Thog edit:
>That not whole design.
>They not tell people to study options, so they really encourage not study by just provide options that need study to find good and bad.
>This before random stats bizarre and unbalanced parties avoided and when some classes start weak, but end strong, and classes have theme and feel unique
(Thog wonder what happen during time 3e out to change all that. It mystery.)

>>49048548
>If there's any book where you'd want shit to be explained, it's the book that the players are going to be reading most often.

That's kind of what the other books were for. The class specific books, while short on their own, compiled together make for quite a bit of material, even if we're only talking about the parts respective to discussing each class and their options in depth.

>Books outside of 3rd edition, even if they're definitely of higher quality, never really addressed problems such as the gap between martials and magic,

That's not wholly true, especially because most books, when treated as self-contained, had pretty decent balance between the classes and options within them. You could actually organize the books by tiers, with some books working very well together at a high tier of power (Like Psionics and Weaboo Fightan Magic) while others worked better on a low tier (Oriental Adventures and Manual of the Planes).

The classes in the PH sort of act like a scale, with some of the classes suiting one tier, while others falling into the other, with a bit of up and down depending on optimization. Unbalanced, but variety comes as a side effect of that, and a decade ago I don't really think balance was quite so strongly stressed as it is today.

>Nowadays, there's no reason not to play a mage unless you're a martialfag.

Low level casters, while better, are still awful to play. And, while strong, most people don't really find them all that fun to play at higher levels, thanks to all the book-keeping involved. If I ever played 3rd edition again, I doubt I'd play a caster outside of one like a sorcerer or one of the psionics.

>>49044161
>To be fair,
There's that phrase again. Pro tip, if you ever say "to be fair", you're wrong.

>>49048843

>That's kind of what the other books were for.

You're missing the point.

The Core Rule Book is the book that the player is going to read the most. Hell, I've playing 3.X for years and never even seen a splat aside from vile darkness/exalted deeds.

And I imagine most people getting into the hobby aren't going to be aware of the existence of splats either.

>That's not wholly true, especially because most books, when treated as self-contained, had pretty decent balance between the classes and options within them.

Yet at the end of the day, even the strongest option in weaboo fightan magic is significantly stronger than a mage who is somewhat optimized.

>Low level casters, while better, are still awful to play.

Playing a low level caster is still better than playing a Rogue or Monk of any level though.

>And, while strong, most people don't really find them all that fun to play at higher levels, thanks to all the book-keeping involved.

Playing a well optimized Fighter requires just as much bookkeeping as a mage, except you're effectively doing twice the work for maybe half the returns.

I've always wondered how designers get other people interested in their work and contributing. I see these 300+ page tombs and wonder if they are all written by the same author, and if so, how the hell they managed to get the editing, formatting, artwork, ect. all down pat while having only a handful of clerical or grammatical errors.

I mean, who the hell DOES this stuff, anyway? Do they even get paid?

>>49048897
How does that make sense? I'm not that anon, but the post literally said "To be fair, OP's story has them trying a bunch of other systems."

Scroll up. That is correct. OP's story has them trying a bunch of other systems. You can still see the story where they do that.

>>49049033
Its starting to feel like a very exclusive club. I've wanted to work on a project like this my whole life, but for the life of me, I just can't figure out how to approach it as a normal job.

>>49048933
>The Core Rule Book is the book that the player is going to read the most. Hell, I've playing 3.X for years and never even seen a splat aside from vile darkness/exalted deeds.

That's really weird. (as a side note, I think the PH might have actually had advertisements for those splats at some point). But, even if you don't know about the splats, there's always the internet. That might ultimately have been what WotC was kind of hoping for, to make people visit their site and their forums. If that was the idea, it worked.

I also don't really think people "read" the PH so often as they look through it. The PH is the one they're going to carry around the most and reference most often, so it's probably best to keep it as simple as possible, with the information being what people need to know, while any additional commentary can be left to other books.

Ivory Tower Design is a weird idea, and I'm not fond of some of its potential underlying principles, but if they didn't really abide by it, it's a little strange to be too fixated on it.

>Playing a well optimized Fighter requires just as much bookkeeping as a mage, except you're effectively doing twice the work for maybe half the returns.

I don't know about that. Most of it is "go on the internet, pick build, play build," often with pseudo-tutorials on the best way to play them as well. And they don't really have all that much to keep track of during a game, so there's that.

>>49049070
>>49048897
The only meaning I can glean is that anon feels it's wrong to be fair.

>>49049359
There's just some anons that just like to get upset and be triggered.

>>49050106
Eternally, apparently.

>>49041172
But he did.

>>49044728
What about Heroes?

>>49039612
>he hasnt tried FATAL with modifications
>inb4 heresy
Hear me out, if the charactor creation system was redone, a bestiary and better racial perks were added, a more diverse weapon system, a better fighting system, and the removal of rolling for silly things that make no sense, the removal of more hardcore fetishes such as the pedophilia, vomit, scat, etc, the mental chart was completely revamped so as to be more focused on gameplay then edgy offensiveness, it would be an epic game, the magic system needs to get fucked.

The random start generation system can stay
The mutilation and incapacitation system is great
Its good for /d/ms
The combat system isnt entirely broken
The fact that the charactor generation includes randomness is a major addition and really should be more common, when you're born you dont get to choose the maximum circumference of your orifices.
The loot and dungeon systems are good
The main races are neat except Cobalts
The insult system may not be PC but its good
Theres a few other misc things I liked about that game despite it being such a steaming pile of radioactive bullshit.

>>49048113
I think he meant the same as >>49041293

>>49039612
>Runequest 6
>"None of this is fun. Please, let's just go to the next game."
>WHFRP
>"Was this the worst so far?"

Sorry, this is the point where your story loses its credibility.

>>49039612
Com'on, shitposting OP, explain for each game in detail what's so bad about them. Can't? Because you made it all up? I thought so.

>>49039612
DnD has its niche of generic bland high-fantasy.
And, yes, it does it pretty good, even if it has a lot of problems.
But if you try to branch out into different genres - low-fantasy, cosmic horror, cyberpunk etc., DnD should no longer be your system of choice.

File: 1412634475261.jpg (125KB, 665x330px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 665x330px

Reminder that there's only one right way to RPG and its up to you to convert anyone who RPGs differently to the one true way.

File: Morwyn Nerdbane.jpg (37KB, 322x242px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 322x242px

>>49054155
>high-fantasy
Yup D&D has you covered
>low-fantasy
I run a low fantasy Nehwon campaign just fine, thanks
>cosmic horror
No "system" does this well, it's completely up to a GM who's a great storyteller. Otherwise it's just sadistic "torture the doomed PCs" mechanics.
>cyberpunk
Pretentious twaddle that will hopefully die off soon, why would anyone play this? The only thing worse than cyberpunk is cyberpunk with fantasy tropes added to it.

>>49043877
>Actually don't like Savage Worlds everyone's too same-y.

Then stop making your characters near identical.

>>49039612
I really don't get why people think narrativist is "masturbatory."

Seriously, explain this shit OP. I know you're a troll but at least be a committed troll.

>>49041424
The players need to get in on it, too, which doesn't help with a new group. Players should suggest Compels to each other or at least work with the GM to come up with them for their own characters. I GM FATE, and while I try to Compel PCs, I always appreciate it when they come up with their own ideas too because any party more than three or so characters and it's just impractical for the GM to creatively think up individual items for all of them all on his own.

FATE expects the group to collaborate, and most RPG players seem to passively wait for the GM to come up with things for them because they're used to D&D.

>>49040582
Long shot I know, but I used to have a link to the basic form of CoC's system, Chaosium, I think it was?

Anyone got a link to that? It seems like it might be a good baseline to work from for building a world/setting around the system.

File: rap card.jpg (55KB, 480x720px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 480x720px

>>49049216
>I also don't really think people "read" the PH so often as they look through it.
what kind of flimsy ass statement is that, you are wrong

>>49039626
Fpbp

>>49054837
This. Best Fate sessions I've run or been in were ones where the players were Compelling each other like crazy.

>>49054806
I think it's because they equate narrativist rules to freeform and freeform tends to get masturbatory. Its clear that a lot of people who shitpost about these systems haven't never played them

>>49054430
D&D is generally subpar for fantasy settings outside of magic-spamming, monster-slaying, treasure-hunting high adventure campaigns.

For true low fantasy, Harnmaster is strictly superior. If you want Tolkienesque fantasy, you have The One Ring. For Dark Fantasy, WFRP 2E does it better.

>>49055018
>and freeform tends to get masturbatory
I feel like it gets a bad rap. There is nothing about the mere concept of freeform that automatically makes it more or less of a mental wank than any other tabletop game. It's usually associated with lousy public forum games but just like literally any other game out there it depends on who you play it with. Garbage in, garbage out.

Maybe I just have a soft spot because it got me into more structured TTRPGs and I still play some forum games in private forums with good people that are more like exercises in collaborative writing than a shitty game of one-upsmanship.

The thing about freeform though is i's not easier than a game with more written rules, it's harder - because it damn well requires everyone in the game to be a good roleplayer and have a sense of fairness and honesty.

>>49047970

New player enters the game:

I'm not sure we've proven that Ivory Tower options are necessarily "traps," depending on definition. The problem with Ivory Tower is that it doesn't explain what you're supposed to figure out, thus risking that some options with legitimate reasons may well be turned into traps by poor usage arising from over-complicated systems.

For example, you could have one feat that gave +4 to a stat and another feat, with a different name, that gave +3. Obviously the +4 feat is better and the +3 feat is worse *unless* there is a rule against taking identically-named feats in which case this actually makes the +3 useful in one case: I desire to trade 2 feat slots for a +7. I wouldn't call the +3 a trap, under those circumstances, but I would probably push for a cleaner design, either by making it an explicit featchain (boo) or by creating a template where some feats are re-selectable for diminishing returns (yay.) (Note to self: you could hybrid this by making feat chains just sub-feats to an existing feat. Further study.)

If, however, there's no rule that says you can't just stack one feat as much as you'd like than the +3 actually is a trap. Assuming "avoid the trap options" isn't a spoken goal of the game, it should just be dropped entirely.

What I'm less sure of is where to file multiple-dependency feats. For example, a build (boo) that uses a 2-feat chain, a specific weapon made of a specific metal in order to outperform standard members of that class, but each individual part greatly lags in performance unless part of the whole. These "Voltron traps" as I've taken to calling them are probably the biggest actual problem with Ivory Tower game design. Not just because they litter the game with rules that will rarely come up and almost always be detrimental when they do, but also because they teach players to always be trying to find the hidden "wombo combo" in each rule, leading to play-by-exploit.

>>49039612
>WHFRP
>Not WFRP

There's your problem.

>>49047164
3e is cancer though. 5e is chemo.

>>49047171
There are no good rpgs. All rpgs are horribly flawed. This is our own fault for not getting out while we could.

>>49056135
3e just triggers some autists right now.
It's hardly as bad as autists like you pretend it is, because you have fun being triggered.

>>49047267
Oh look, it's eternally retarded faggot-anon.

>>49056145
Perhaps we should alter our definitions to be useful, rather than using definitions that just enable people to shitpost about everything.

Recommending Warrior, Rogue and Mage (WRM)

Y'know, despite a lot of people in this thread outright disbelieving OP, he's right.

Do I know if his story, in particular, is true? No way to prove it either way. But the experience described is my experience as well. /tg/ loves recommending games, and I've played a few of them, and ultimately my group and I keep returning to /tg/'s most hated game: Dungeons and Dragons 3.5.

I've come to see /tg/'s recommendations in the same light as some of the people in this thread treat OP: "Is he even telling the truth? Did they even PLAY this shit game?"

>>49041033
Savage Worlds has a lot of problems of its own, though, and the "monsters are so tough you can't injure them without a double ace" thing is pure stupidity.

>>49043668
Yes, but even if you are in for some ERP and try FATAL, you will realize the game is just rewarding many horribly wrong things at the end of a rape tunnel.

>>49056356
> to /tg/'s most hated game: Dungeons and Dragons 3.5.

That would be F.A.T.A.L.

3.5 just exists right now in a sweet spot, where it's good enough to be popular, but old and with some well-known flaws so that even baby trolls can shitpost about it.

>>49056505
No.
/tg/ doesn't care or hate FATAL, because FATAL is treated as a joke.
3.5 and PF are definitely the top 1 and 2 hated systems on /tg/, not sure in which order. Probably PF first, since 3.5 at least evolved into 4e and later 5e, while PF never changed and never got better.

>>49055019
>it's a "guy who never played any edition of D&D besides 3.5 makes sweeping generalizations" episode

This programme sucks.

>>49056542
That's only if you treat autists seriously. Considering that the PF general is one of the most populous and people make multiple 3.5 threads daily, it's more that 3.PF gets on a few people's nerves, while most people either don't care or even like the system.

It's kind of like how it was before with 4e, with people just using that system as an excuse to shitpost, because they knew they'd always be able to get a lengthy feral argument out of it, and that they had deluded themselves into thinking they were doing something good by keeping people from being able to to discuss 4e.

It's less that 3.pf is the most hated, and more that it's the system trolls enjoy to shitpost the most about. Especially since they don't have to be overly clever, and can just repeat what the other trolls say.

>>49056816
>it's a person making sweeping generalizations hypocritically episode

The "it's a ... episode" meme sucks.

>>49056871
>it's a "I don't like that meme" episode

Damned Zombie 4chan. The old seasons used to be so much better, where did it all go wrong?

File: official-15th-level-wizard.png (150KB, 490x864px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 490x864px

I've been contemplating D&D 5E a bit, and how to make it more old school, while retaining the easy mechanics.

As
>>49040988
>>49047820
points out, I'd really like to try out something that isn't a hack-and-slash.

Contemplating just using NPC classes from the back of the DMG as PCs - Pick anything worth 50xp or less, and play as that.
Adding levels (hit dice) would be easy, even for spellcasters.

A simple Dire Wolf (CR1, 200xp) would turn into a truly frightening encounter - and even a small pack of Giant Rats (CR1/8, 25xp) could wipe the party.

Obviously, the challenges the PCs can overcome is much smaller, but it might integrate into the game world much better.

FantasyCraft is definitely a good option. Only downsides are the fuck of a layout and magic is fucked since Spellbound(soonTM) was supposed to be released shortly after the core book

>>49044454
>Has never actually played FC

>>49056542

I think the real problem is that there's no Pathfinder 2.

A lot of 5e fans, me included, think of it as the "fix" to the problems of 3 coupled with an effort to return to its roots. The result is that we're viewing a lot of 3.PF discussion as people discussing known problems with an outdated and no longer supported edition and trying to get them to update to the new version where they won't have that problem anymore.

Which they view as a betrayal because they think of us as a bunch of current-year import drivers and they're in the 60's muscle cars. Or Apple vs. Linux. Or treadmill walkers versus hikers. nd to a degree they're right.

Which is why I don't go into the 3.PF threads. It doesn't interest me but I don't begrudge people the right to work on "classics" as a hobby. I *do* go into the OSR threads because they're chock full of stuff I can use, though.

But I do tend to pick on 3aboos in non-3.PF specific threads when I feel like they're confusing "classic" with "unpatched." The answer to "are Paladins alignment-locked?" is now "not anymore," the basic game is now free, and the company now recommends base 3 plus 1 splat plus 1 module, maximum.

If that doesn't appeal to someone, if they want alignment-locked pallys and maximum splatbook coverage, I encourage them, seriously, to look into 3.PF.

But as far as the contingent of 3aboos chanting "3 was perfect and 5 is boring" in every thread? They can fuck right off.

>>49056856
Have you ever read the PF general? They're well aware their system is dogshit.

Also, we repeat the problems of the system because shitheads like you just try and brush them off, try to defend them.

>>49056856
>the PF general
70% of posting is about waifus and wanting to fuck monstergirls. 20% is shilling DSP. The remaining 10% is composed of people actually talking about the game.

>>49057505
It's weird, because they're aware the system has problems, but they still enjoy playing it. Talking about it. Caring about it.

It's almost like they really just brush off the problems of the system. Like they care about what they like about the system more than they care about what you obsess about.

And it also like you're really just trying to be angry. Don't worry, no one's forcing you to enjoy the system, you autist.

>>49057663
Fuck no, you don't know what you're talking about.

>>49057663
>they still enjoy playing it
Is that why they're always complaining about it?

>>49057663
Yeah, like I said: Actually go fucking talk to them, because they're goddamn well aware its stockholm. You're talking out your ass.

>>49057728
This. PF's problems aren't brushed off like that fucking retard thinks they are, they're repeatedly brought up and people give detailed suggestions to deal with them or, if it's an idiot trying to use PF for a type of game PF sucks at running, suggest other systems instead.

>>49057669
>>49057702
>>49057728
You guys can believe whatever you want, but the bottom line is they like the system and enjoy talking about it and playing it.

You can say "but they complain (like people who play any game don't complain about it)" or "STOLKHOLM" or do all sorts of other mental gymnastics to try and convince me that they somehow don't REALLY like the system, but end of day, they're playing, they're enjoying, and you're weirdly bitter about that.

File: 1463063616079.png (737KB, 700x990px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 700x990px

>>49057505
>Have you ever read the PF general?

You mean /bisexual monsterpeople and kitsune fetishes general/?

>>49057783
They can't help it. Badwrongfun is so ingrained into their mentality they can't cope with a concept such as "enjoyment", "amusement", "fun", or "moving beyond the flaws to the parts you enjoy".

If they could, they'd be complaining in Rifts threads instead of focusing solely on PF as their targets of dislike. Because in comparison, Rifts is so much worse of a system.

>>49057811
Implying /tg/ hasn't been that since it's inception.

Which begs the question of how /tg/ is fleeing into the last bastion of creativity and friendly argument rather than avoiding it.

>>49057852
That's really just more mental gymnastics, and not particularly good ones.

In fact, it only works if you assume they're all insane people, like sincerely and severely mentally disturbed to the point where we're not just "ha ha" joking about it, rather than they're just people who enjoy a game for reasons you don't agree with.

Occom's razor at play, the latter is far more reasonable.

>>49057783
GO. TALK. TO. THEM. YOU. FUCKING. DIPSHIT.

YOU ARE WRONG.

Three people in a fucking row tell you something, and you just ignore it because YOU are the one with the head up your ass about it.

Why is the monk objectively worse then a cleric, shithead?

>>49057952
I've talked with them though. While some repeat your ideas, most just like the game. They largely don't even care if people like you complain about it, and spend more time discussing the system rather than arguing about how good it is.

"It's good enough" seems to be the common answer.

>>49058010
>spend more time discussing the system rather than arguing about how good it is.
This is how I know you're lying about having gone into any of the threads.

>>49057952

Different anon, PF player here.. The answer to your Monk question is "it just is" and the answer to the implied question is "we do not care if the Monk is objectively worse than the Cleric".

Because we really don't, you know? Just because the Monk is in the book doesn't mean you have to play it. There's enough in Pathfinder that we can have a good game without the Monk class.

>>49058067
Waifu discussion comes first, of course, but really, if you think they spend more time arguing about the system instead of just talking about it, that might be because your personal focus and agenda.

It's no big secret you obsess about how much you hate the system.

But really, the point stands. The general consensus is that "it's not a perfect game, might not even be a great game, but it's good enough."

>>49058067

PF anon here, I have the PF thread open. I'm seeing a whole lot of game discussion and zero arguing over how good it is. Could you point me to the parts that I am missing, or are you just hallucinating all over the place?

>>49057051
At that point, play OD&D. Players will need to run from shit on the regular, and combat is generally a last resort unless you have a serious tactical advantage.

>>49058113
Or maybe, just maybe it's the truth and you are projecting like a motherfucker.

Also, you claim anyone that expresses any dislike of 3.PF obsesses about the system, you jackass. Which is fucking rich as hell coming from a guy that claims to not even like it, but will shitpost for HOURS defending it.

>>49058161
>Or maybe, just maybe it's the truth and you are projecting like a motherfucker.

Or maybe, just maybe, you're a little crazy, and your worldview only works if you assume that everyone who has a different opinion than you is crazy.

No one's forcing them to play or discuss the game. They're doing it because they enjoy it, because there's things they like about it. Because it's good enough for what they want to do, and what they want to do is play that game. If that seems too bizarre and unreasonable to you, I guess that's just you and your intense system hate clouding your better reason.

I mean, you're arguing right now that people who like something and say they like it can't REALLY like it, as if it were intrinsically unlikable or something. Just relax, recognize how silly you are being, and move on.

>>49058141
Then you're not paying attention or don't know what to look for. Arguing with other people over trap options or having to ask whether a PrC is good or not is a direct consequence of 3.PF's flaws.

>>49057921
Yes, but the former is really what happens c.f. this very thread.

>>49058259
>i'm crazy
They're discussing options.
More importantly, every game has flaws, and you seem to think that just because people don't really care so much about balance as they do about mechanical diversity that they must be crazy.

You're kind of silly, but not in a funny way.
Just let it go. A lot of people like something you dislike. That's not the end of the world.

>>49058341
You're talking to more then one person here, shithead.

And a lot of people dislike a thing you like, and like to warn other people of the flaws in the system before they get too far into it that the sunk fallacy cost kicks in hard.

It's not the end of the world, just let it go.

File: 2884954207_09f48632c9.jpg (82KB, 500x250px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 500x250px

Man, OP, I feel you.

I haven't met anyone in Real Life who bashes D&D, but on /tg/ that's basically what people do. The list is pretty short though, since it all comes down to just two things: "it is unbalanced" and "it has too many rules." The former is greatly exaggerated both in scale and importance, the latter is a subjective opinion.

Sometimes I wonder why I still come to this board.

>>49058366
Oh, so you actually think your shitposting is helping people?

Maybe if you actually had good arguments instead of just "YOU NEED TO PLAY MONK", we could believe you, but it really just seems like you're frustrated and impotent, so you make up for lack of good arguments with pure volume and ferocity.

Hell, there's worse games you could be saving people from, but it's really only 3.PF that gets you all riled up.

That's kind of why you're a joke. That, and most of your arguments relying on everyone else in the world being crazy.

And please, don't use this as an opportunity to start spamming more of your dumb arguments. No one except the people who already hate 3.PF ever bother to read them anyway.

>>49058366
>sunk cost

It is literally free. You can go to their website, get all the rules... for free. Which is how most people play it.

There's no sunk cost to speak of.

>>49058432
It's helping people to know not to get into your shitpile of a game, yes. But keep crying about it.

>>49058446
Time is an opportunity cost, but I'd not expect you to actually be able to think things through fully.

3.PF is a convoluted mess of rules that isn't easy to learn. So, once people DO learn it, they oft don't want to learn another ruleset, out of fear that it will be just as hard, and take just as long to learn.

THAT is the sunk cost here.

>>49058366
>sunk cost fallacy
I wish people would stop using this ridiculous fallacy as an argument. No one feels obligated to use books they don't actually like, ever. Especially gaming books. Anyone who buys gaming books is perfectly happy to use others and play other games and just read the others on occasion for inspiration.

>>49058492
>it's helping people because I don't like people liking something I don't like

It's really not as bad as you pretend it is. That's why people can't take you seriously, and why you're basically just a shitposter.

>>49058492
>I hate this game so much I have to literally make up shit to drive people away from it to protect them from themselves!!!!!

Do you understand how insane you sound right now?

>>49058492
>3.PF is a convoluted mess of rules that isn't easy to learn.

Kids learn the basics in as little as one session. It's hardly rocket surgery. Your exaggerations are really just working against you at this point.

>>49058492
>3.PF is a convoluted mess of rules that isn't easy to learn. So, once people DO learn it, they oft don't want to learn another ruleset, out of fear that it will be just as hard, and take just as long to learn. THAT is the sunk cost here.

THAT is a lie. You know how long it took me to learn to play 3.5? Under an hour. You know how long it took to comprehend the changes in PF? Five minutes. What you are describing is not only untrue, it is preposterous.

And I play other games. I play Eclipse Phase and Dark Heresy, for example. My learning 3.5 and Pathfinder has not stopped me from learning other systems: the reason I play PF instead of [your favourite system] is because I like PF more.

You are a liar.

>>49058542
>>49058571
>Learn the basics

Learning the basics is not learning the system, anon, and THAT is the legacy of Ivory Tower design. It may take five minutes to learn how to learn the basic process of building a character and then playing, them, but it takes far longer to develop the system mastery that lets you play effectively-- a problem which trap options exacerbate, whether you believe they're an intrinsic part of Ivory Tower design or only incidental to it.

It takes five minutes to figure out how to roll a monk, but it can months or even years to figure out that you shouldn't bother. That's the time that is being sunk.

>>49058733
I wouldn't bother. They have their heads shoved so far up their asses they'll never see daylight again. Can't allow ANYONE to insult the waifu.

>>49058733
Please go up and read about Ivory Tower design. It's actually well explained in this thread, and it's hardly as important as you want to pretend it is, either to the overall design of the game or its impact.

Really, you're just being sort of a little bitch, to be frank.

>>49058733

I was aware that the monk was not as good as the Cleric before I even started playing. The only legacy of Ivory Tower is that the explanatory text is on the Internet instead of the Player's Handbook. That's all Ivory Tower is, by the way: a lack of explanatory text.

So, you're still wrong. You substitute your imagined reality for what has really occurred, ignoring what the players of the game actually say.

Is the Monk being shitty a bad thing? Sure. It is also so insignificant as to have no effect on play, because your much-vaunted "system mastery" is already complete and available online, summarized and easy-to-read. We still get new PF players, and guess what? They have a good time.

>>49058733
>>49058768
Oh look, it's eternally triggered bitch-anon.

>>49058886
Cue accusations of brain damage and stockholm syndrome.

The people you are arguing with are so delusional they literally cannot believe anyone would like a game they hate so much for any reason other than insanity.

Naturally they have to pointedly disregard that this resembles nothing less than PTSD and OCD to a degree medication is required.

>>49058886
It's not just online, but in a variety of helpful splats, with even some recommendations in the DMG.

Ivory Tower is just something Monte Cook came up with six years after they had designed the system, and it's not even really that adhered to or that important. But it sounds important, so people like to talk about it.

>>49044848
>Gm has to build the system with nothing but literally thousands of loose legos someone put in the freezer and no instructions.
Guys ITS SO FUCKING SIMPLE

>>49058965

Dude, Legos are awesome. If you're going to criticize GURPS, you'd need something more negative than the most successful children's toy of all time.

>>49059011
ok, thousands of frosty duplo blocks.

>>49059025

Duplo is just bigger Lego designed for toddlers. You were going for the "gurps is HAARD" angle, toys that literal two-year-olds play with do not work for that.

>>49059112
K'nex someone spilled melted butter on?

>>49059176

That's better. But the fact that it took three tries means that the thread's GURPSfag is probably laughing too hard, and agrees that yes, GURPS is too hard. For you. You poor, poor thing.

>>49059216
Literally welding pieces of slightly rusty sheet metal together?
(as for it being too hard, I wasn't the gm (who barely skimmed the system and thought that an anything allowed from every book shit tons of points char gen was an ok thing), I was the only player who actually made a character.)

>>49059436
That's...one way to put it.

>>49058886
>Is the Monk being shitty a bad thing?
Why would it be a good thing?

File: c77.jpg (29KB, 300x260px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 300x260px

>>49058070

>>49054430
>Pretentious twaddle that will hopefully die off soon, why would anyone play this?
Jesus did cyberpunk kill your dad or something?

>>49058886
>They have a good time.
With all the shitty martials that game has? man, what do you do to them? drug them?
My younger brother started playing PF, and after 4 months of campaign he quit, he told me that his Samurai couldn't do shit (I told him to not go non-caster) and that the druid with 4 spinosaurs was shitting on the Barbarian's turd like nothing.

PF is aweful, and monk is not the only shitty class, see Rogue, see Swashbuckler, see Gunslinger, see Samurai, etc

>>49056161
But anon, why are we here if not to shitpost?

>>49064826

For those that played martials, we used DSP classes and Tome of Battle classes. Which we knew to do before the game started, because the information is freely available.

I was using the Monk only as an example, and if you weren't completely thick you would have already gotten the point: the existence of the Monk, or the Rogue or Swashbuckler or Samurai, literally does not matter to our games. It cannot be used as an argument for saying we're playing the wrong game, because we do not play those classes. Neither did any of the new players, because unlike your brother and all his kin, we are capable of using a tier list.

To you, Pathfinder is awful because it contains classes that you already know not to play. This is madness. To us, Pathfinder is wonderful because it contains classes we know are fun to play. This is common sense.

>>49053135
>Hear me out, if the charactor creation system was redone, a bestiary and better racial perks were added, a more diverse weapon system, a better fighting system, and the removal of rolling for silly things that make no sense, the removal of more hardcore fetishes such as the pedophilia, vomit, scat, etc, the mental chart was completely revamped so as to be more focused on gameplay then edgy offensiveness, it would be an epic game, the magic system needs to get fucked.


You would need to have an extreme amount of changes to do that.
And this comes from a guy that actually tried to fix fatal.
I started to read it from the start writing what each page had (to them put the information into an decent order, unlike fatal where generating a char is equivalent to creating a vehicle in gurps vehicle) and also started to write what I would remove and change from each page.

My idea of fix was to make the game mythically, historically and scientifically realistic, those are the design goals of the game, other design goals including the game being "hard fun" and every player having the same chance, but I decided to not focus on that since they contradict with the first 3 design goals.

When I was reading page 100 or something like that, I decided to stop, I knew I saw I didnt had enought scienfitical, historical and mythical skills to spot every single flaw there that was not an obvious one.


I think I even have the wip somewhere.

Honestly my answer to the ENDLESS "have you tried not playing DnD?" post is always the same.

Yes, and we had fun.....then we went back because we also have fun there. Me and my group can actually be bothered to play more than one game, we don't have to pick one and then play nothing but that for 8 years. Maybe your group is just shit.

>>49065189
To me PF is awful because you and people like you are 0.00001%, I played 3.PF in three different countries and in 7 different cities, in all of them all the people I found and played with though Monk=Druid, why? because that's what the game tells you and that's why people believe.

And the same can be said for all the people I know. Those who understood the problems stopped, like me, playing that game.

>>49065278
>Maybe your group is just shit
No, yours is an odd case. Shitty systems will create shitty groups, that's why 3.PF has this incredible amount of that guys and that GMs, is not a coincidence.

>>49065357

Yeah, and 99% of statistics are pulled out of one's ass on the spot. On every forum, including Paizo's own, people are aware of the differing tiers. I have yet to encounter a single player who was not aware. Thus, unless you're just making it up (and I strongly suspect you are), the common denominator for all those idiots was not that they played Pathfinder, but that they played with you.

Like attracts like, it seems.

>>49039612
>not playing Tavern Tales
>Not running freeform

>>49065548
People are aware of tiers, great majority just don't believe in them or just go "white room theorycrafting!". Dude, there're people out there that still think casters=turd because they have lower HD and BaB.

>You're the problem
Last paragraph, anon, read it, I wasn't the only one who faced this problem, I stopped playing a long time ago, friends and family kept, and eventually stopped because, oh surprise, understood why I left, game is an unbalanced mess.

>>49053135
>The fact that the charactor generation includes randomness is a major addition and really should be more common, when you're born you dont get to choose the maximum circumference of your orifices.
I honestly don't mind this especially with so many race, sex, and build bonuses and malluses but FATAL just does it so poorly.
>Playing an old midget
>Playing an infant with really great breasts

I honestly would like a system that was like
>Roll race
>Roll sex
>Age
>Roll height and weight
>Roll social standing
>Roll upbringing
>Choose a job/class
With each of those changes effecting in game performance which might pressure you down a specific role. You don't roll stats, you roll your body and background which generate all your stats for you. But FATAL does a crappy job of that since your characters tend to default towards being borderline mutants.

Using DnD as an example because it is familiar to myself and others (although I think a D100 system would be best for this minor improvement system style) you might end up with something like
>Rolled race and got a high elf (Str:8 Dex:12 Con:9 Int:11 Wis:10 Cha:10)
>Rolled sex and got female (-1 strength, -1 constitution, +1 dexterity +1 charisma)
>Rolled age and she is fairly old for an elf (-1 strength, -1 constitution, +1 wisdom, +1 intelligence)
>Rolled height, got a fairly tall character (+1 charisma, -1 dexterity) more intimidating and imposing but probably a bit clumsier
>Rolled weight, got a fairly skinny character for her height (+1 dexterity, -1 constitution)
>Rolled social standing, she is a noblewoman (+1 charisma, learn another language and two skills from a list or just three skills from a list)
>Rolled upbringing. got priestess training she has religion and arcana as skills as well as +4 wisdom and +2 intelligence
From that you can decide what class you want (probably not a fighter or barbarian, just saying)

I play Anima BF, I like Anima BF, but will never say the game is perfect (till Ki exxet it had noticeable balance problems), or even worse, simple. Is unnecessarily complex (though I like cruch) that will drive crazy any beginner and even some experienced gamers. Dunno why people get all beligerant when people points out the problems on 3e and Pathfinder

>>49065737
Role-playing games, by and large, are unbalanced messes. Balance is not a thing that designers pull off or even try to do, a lot of the time.. Even for games that aren't dissected to death like 3.X, there are failure points and unbalanced options.

The difference between 3.X and other games is there's actual documentation on the bugs and competence is cast in incredibly stark relief depending on player knowledge. It's why the game is considered a CharOp delight, even though oWoD was much "better" for that.

It all comes down to what your group's tolerance for bullshit is.

File: coolio.jpg (205KB, 1349x386px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1349x386px

>>49065883
3.5 is balanced on purpose, read ivory tower. And PF is balanced on purpose read this.

>>49065993
Jesus fucking christ in a hat.

>>49065993
unbalanced*