What went wrong?

>>49708606
Really very little all things considered. It's a little shallow, but it also does a great job of introducing TTRPGs to new/less autistic people. I also think it's relatively balanced, especially if no one is min-maxing too hard in the group. I'm satisfied with it, but I don't really like playing it that much because it's kind of a boring system.

>>49708606
People. People went wrong. All the people. On both sides.

>>49708606
Three book format.

>>49708606
They finally made a game /tg/ was basically okay with, robbing us of our favorite punching bag.

>>49708630
Elaborate please?

>>49708618
>it's kind of a boring system.
Let me ask you something. What system that involves dice, stats, and math isn't boring? Other than FATE, but FATE uses those just for an extension of playing make-believe.

>>49708685
I just mean because it plays it a little safe, and I don't feel like there's a huge amount of depth to combat.

I'm also not really fond of generic D&D settings anymore, because I've played them so much. Which isn't really a fault of the system in itself, but it plays those pretty much exclusively.

I'd be up for a little more dice and stats, but then it wouldn't be as appealing to new people. Which is fine.

>>49708685
4e

File: not the best but still good.png (832KB, 950x610px)

832KB, 950x610px

>>49708618
This, more or less. It's the sort of game my longtime-tabletop-playing friends find a refreshing break from the optimization-heavy games we've been playing too much of lately, and it's easy enough that I was able to sit down a group of normies whose only fantasy experience was Game of Thrones and The Hobbit and have them make characters AND get them to level 2 in a single session.

Of course, it being so normie-friendly seems like as good a reason as any for the neckbeards to hate it.

My only real complaint isn't really a complaint at all, but something I can imagine other GMs and players might struggle with: to do anything that isn't covered by the rules, everyone has to rely an awful lot on improvisation. The players asks to do something, the DM picks an ability score and maybe a skill to roll, sets a DC, and tells the player to roll it to see if they succeed. I'm happy that all the fiddly little simulationist-but-not-really tables are gone, but I totally understand how some players might be a little shocked by the change from 3.5/PF, which tried to cover every aspect of everything.

What I like best about the game is that it's very difficult to accidentally make a bad character. Sure, there are fewer choices players get to make regarding building their characters, but I think that's a reasonable sacrifice now that they've thrown out the ivory tower design philosophy that dragged down 3e and 3.5 -- that whole "system mastery reward" thing was bad game design and very unfriendly to new players.

>>49708606
Playtesters who were hoping for 3rd Edition Mk.III whined so vocally about the playtests not being close enough to 3.5 that, despite being the minority population overall, they got WotC to backpedal out of some good ideas. Go read the playtests on /5eg/'s mega if you don't have them, you'll see some trends as the samples progress that will show you how any idea that came out of 4e or heaven forbid non-D&D inspirations got shat on even when implemented well.

>>49708713
>I'm also not really fond of generic D&D settings anymore, because I've played them so much. Which isn't really a fault of the system in itself, but it plays those pretty much exclusively.

Yet when they shoe horned in Points of Light in to 4e's standard setting, that turned a good many people off. Yeah plenty of people liked it, and I'm a fan of PoL myself but it was probably not the best move.

ANYWAY. I do agree 5e is good, but it's played a little safe and little boring compared to other systems (D&D or non). But it's still really good and recommendable.

>>49708765
Jesus Fucking Christ, 3tards are such a bunch of whiny fucking babies. They don't need a new edition, they already have 3.5 and Pathfinder. I wish they'd just fuck off.

>>49708606
Nothing went wrong, everything is fine.

>>49708765
Could you throw some highlights out?

That's a lot of samey reading just to find a few differences here and there.

>>49708779
>Such a bunch of whiny fucking babies.
>I wish they'd just fuck off.
>That post.

Please refrain from making further comments for or against anything.

>>49708799
Sorceror was a battle mage, maneuvers like Battlemaster has was a universal system and maneuver choices were just limited by class, and a lot of other things. It was not small differences at all, go read early Fighter for example.

You can see the original playtests in the MM - take a look at the MM gladiator, it is a lot like what the playtest fighter was like but the playtest fighter had a lot of choices beyond shove.

I felt that it was good attempt, but the end result was far too watered down. Character generation was well read and simplistic, which is good for newer players to bite into - but I was left feeling that it was horribly bland. Aside from concepts themselves, low-level characters were inherently the same. I -liked- having a multitude of skills, not the shorthand list provided in 5e. Proficiency bonuses felt tacked on as an afterthought and really didn't impact the games I played in, felt like.

Although I honestly might not have given it enough effort. My dislike carried decent bias as a fan of 3.5, and the GM I was with was honestly shit. Adding to that, it was a low level campaign that dragged on. When I have the free time (being a teacher dominates that, sadly) I'd like to join another campaign as a measure of confirmation.

What I liked about the system were things that didn't impact the games as much, mechanically. I liked the idea of inspiration at least, as well as written traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws. Passive perception was nice, as well.

>>49708799
All martials being able to do maneuvers, with battlemaster being more along the lines of "you do them more often and more reliably while having access to cooler options", for one.

>>49708606
5e is the only TTRPG I like.

>>49708831
Well, am I wrong?

>>49708713
I agree, it's all the settings fault. The system is good. 5E Dark Sun, 5E Pendragon, 5E Historical low fantasy (anything) would be great.

>>49708719
I unironically like this system but loads of people don't, I think it's a little wargamey for them.

>>49708606

It did nothing to unite the community.

It's an evolution of AD&D meant to please AD&D grognards (an a priori failed mission) and DMs. With very little care for 3e and 4e players.

File: kHruzBM.png (174KB, 416x396px)

174KB, 416x396px

>>49708963
>With very little care for 3e [...] players.
You mean before 3aboos fucked over the direction the playtests were going in, right?

>>49708963
>It's an evolution of AD&D meant to please AD&D, 3e, 4e fans (an objectively successful mission) and DMs. With very little care for me.
Fixed your post :^)

>>49708994
As 4e fan I can say they didn't really go to far out of their way to please me. I do find it amusing that the 5e Hit Die does exactly what retards think Healing Surges do and are totally fine with it.

>>49708980

It's superficially close to 3e core, but only because 3e core was superficially close to AD&D. 3e became a completely different (and ever so slightly insane) game over the years.

They had AD&D bloggers as outside consultants, wake up and smell the grog. 5e is a parallel evolutionary path, branching off at AD&D 2e. It's those grogs and DMs which fought any 4e'isms, not 3e players.

You're talking about a game which embraced ToB, Binders, MiC etc etc etc. What do we care about non casters getting options?

>>49708606
A few details but all in all still The Best edition dnd ever had

>>49708685
>but FATE uses those just for an extension of playing make-believe.
As much as I despise FATE, this is true of exactly EVERY RPG EVER PUBLISHED.

>>49708637
To add to this, tradition for the sake of tradition. You can get two of those books (PHB and DMG) rolled into one for the same price if you play Pathfinder, but Wizards knows it can still get away with milking people with their "iconic" 3-book format. And any part of the book that isn't just pandering to tradition is instead going the route of progressiveness (like the whole unnecessary paragraph on "there are no binary genders") in order to draw in the people who have never played D&D before but saw it on Big Bazinga Theory and wanted to try it.

5E is mechanically a decent enough game, but even their art style shows how Wizards is stretched between trying to recapture the old guard's nostalgia and trying to "appeal to a new audience" like they're doing with MtG.

>>49709104
5e still has the basic working day of 4e and with it comes the basic class features supported that way, but it hides it so well 3eaboos can't see it (not a challenge). A lot of the methods to make 5e into 4e-lite are in the DMG.

>>49709209
You are just itching to go full /pol/. Congratulations on the restraint.

>>49709209
3 book format also artifically inflate sales totals.

"Looks, we sold more books than PF did!"
"Isn't that just because you have to buy 3 to get the core books instead of 2?"
"LOOK WE SOLD MORE BOOKS THAN PF DID!"

AKA how 4e pretended to outsell PF at first.

>>49708685
I really like the rogue trader system , it's simple and clean and fun

>>49708606
Virt, the only one who thinks 5e didn't do well was you, and even then, that's within the very narrow focus of "Super-Hardcore-Serious-Tabletop-Gamers" who live for Nostalgia and Save or Die AD&D traps. The game is simple, it's fun, and it's extremely popular. It's basically causing a new age of tabletop gaming, and even if you hate it, it's going to get new people into the hobby, meaning more players available for your groups.

Threads like these really piss me off, mainly because after playing/DM-ing the game for a better part of a year, I've seen the flaws the game actually has, and they're completely different than the ones people actually bring up, meaning that anyone really complaining about the system hasn't really played it thoroughly enough to develop an educated opinion on it.

>>49708905
Not anon but you are hypocritical considering how much people whine about the 3. system

>>49708606

Other than playing 1st edition with a god-tier grandwizard DM when I was younger, I haven't had the chance to play DnD much in my life. I have, however, always wanted to get back into it because of how much fun it was.

Is 5e a good starting point for new players? I'm willing to DM, and my group I'd be playing with would also be pretty much brand new to TTRPGs.

I've read over the Basic Edition players guide and DM guide and it looks pretty good for a total newguy.

>>49709314
Trip-Kun, I was asking what went wrong, what the flaws are. A good calzone can still have issues.

The only two things that bug me about later editions of (A)D&D are
1.) Too rules dense. I don't see the point in defining rigid rules for every possible contingency. A lot of things could be accomplished through simple checks against the player's ability scores, but instead D&D keeps breaking down situations through the management of retarded skill tiers, and that's just a waste of time.
2.) I never liked the multiple rulebook approach. As a result of spanning multiple volumes, the rulebooks tend to get padded with needless verbosity. There's no reason why the player rules, DM rules and bestiary can't all be condensed into a single reference. Rules Cyclopedia did it. Retroclones do it, and have campaign setting information to boot. Non-D&D games do it as well.

>>49709209
>And any part of the book that isn't just pandering to tradition is instead going the route of progressiveness...

Are you actually retarded, or this is a piss poor attempt at trolling /tg/'s sensibilities?

>>49709304
4e was over a year old when Pathfinder was published. No shit 4e "core" books were outselling a game that wasn't even released yet. 4e was outselling Pathfinder with PHB 2 and 3 and splat books.

>>49709314
It's good, but a bit bland for my tastes. Also, while it is good, FUCK can you pull some bullshit in this system. There are some spells that just plain need nerfs.
My absolute biggest complaint is the CR as measured by the MM is useless.

For the most part, 5e is a very solid system. It delivers a good DnD experience without the severe mechanical flaws of 3e or the overemphasis on grid combat of 4e.

That being said, there are three relatively minor elements which I would say are flawed. It doesn't mean the edition is broken, but these are just things that bug me about it.

1) It does absolutely nothing to give noncasters options outside of combat. Casters get more and more toys as they level up to completely transform the game outside of battle, and martials get nothing to keep up. While the system starts out well with rituals requiring time and effort, it breaks down the higher you go in levels (plane shift requiring six seconds, for example). It would have been nice to have some sort of Talent system that give noncasters the ability to do heroic feats of skill as they climb in levels.

2) Disparity of options. There's a weird problem in 5e where the designers have a good idea, but they don't follow through to spread it around. Polearm Master and Crossbow Expert are often debated as overpowered, for example, but the issue is not their level of power. It's the complete lack of feats for swords, axes, blunt weapons, bows, throwing weapons, etc, etc, etc. Likewise, it's rather absurd that some classes get seven or eight subclasses, but many others only get two, one of which is often strictly inferior. They should have slimmed down the amount of spells and devoted more pages to evening out the options for weapon feats and subclasses.

3) The overreliance on wisdom saves is stupid. It's the most insignificant complaint in the world, but it's really annoying how the designers make 99% of mental saves work on Wisdom by declaring it to be insight, willpower, and general magic resistance all at once. They should use more split saves, such as Intelligence or Wisdom against an illusion to see its flaws or discern that it isn't logical.

>>49708606
The 5th edition was what finally got me into D&D
Loving it
my only complaint is the crafting system, cause I have no idea what the hell I should do with it

>>49708606
Daily reminder that 5e doesn't do anything better than 4e did. It's just a mediocre RPG with design that's 20 years out of date and no rabid internet hatred. 5e was the game we wanted but not the game we deserved.

>>49709533
>out of date
It's weird that you say this when Swords & Wizardry Complete, which is basically a better-written 0e with all the supplements, is the best D&D, followed by 5e.

File: integrity.jpg (48KB, 520x388px)

48KB, 520x388px

>>49709521
Fucking this.
SOME of the new feats were good.
Otherwise, Intelligence is the most useless save outside of the one time you REALLY need it.

>>49709533
> This is what 4fags actually believe.

>>49709533
Eh, it's simpler, with less pointless number inflation.

I'll give you it doesn't do anything else better and that this is subjective though.

>>49709405
>>49709487
Alright, here's 5e's problems, as I've found them:

-Players power level scales faster than the Encounter Creation table suggests. To the point that not even the Official Module writers use it. You'll find that by 5th level, players need bigger and bigger threats thrown at them, or more of them in order for them to actually use up their resources, which can be difficult when you're running a Roleplay focused game. I have found something of a fix for it though, found here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?367697-Encounter-difficulty-how-to-fix-it

>>49709525
-No way to account for magical items. This goes hand in hand with the CR rating, and why Crafting items are shit. This is usually ok for standard fantasy settings, but it kind of ruins more Industrial settings like Eberron, and They've left out any way of taking them into account when building encounters. I've managed to come up with something of a fix by modifying player level by rarity using the table below, when using the system linked above.

Uncommon - 0 levels
Rare - 1/2 levels
Very Rare - 1 levels
Legendary - 2 levels
Artifact - 3 levels

-I would have said Rangers, but the latest fix actually seems to work quite well.

-Moon Druids. Op from 2nd until 5th level, tapers off, then gets nuts back around 18th level. Seriously, you want a completely min-maxed party? Everyone plays moon Druid. They can buff, heal, tank, CC, Utility, and even get Charm spells.

-No defined EXP reward for good roleplaying. I mean, something as simple as a quick reference table for NPCs based on their Wisdom, Int, and Charsima scores and skills would've been sufficient.

>>49709613
-Intelligence is nearly useless. We've worked around this a bit by using an Intelligence point system. You get a number equal to half your Int modifier, rounded up. Each point can be spent to permanently learn a new language, Int - based skill, Musical instrument, or Artisan Tool proficiency.

>>49709389
>is 5e a good starting point for new players?

It's probably the best choice as far as D&D itself goes.

>>49708606
>What went wrong?
They made a rules-medium game rather than the rules-light game it should've been.

>>49709742
For the int system it sounds pretty good, another way you could use it as a currency system to make items with an alchemy kit or increase the effectiveness of musical performances and such, they could refresh at long rests then and it doesnt seem to broken. I might use this system to bolster the kinda non-existent crafting rules

File: 1412549003750.gif (399KB, 500x281px)

399KB, 500x281px

5E played it too safe. It didn't bring anything new to the table and it didn't slaughter any sacred cows. It's okay and with the right GM and group it can still be fun, but it's very run of the mill.

>>49708685
4E is fun because you always have tons of options and large degree of customization for your character.

FFG's SW RPGs are fun because you never know what will happen when you roll the dice - without binary success/failure the game becomes much more unpredictable, and it really gets the players involved.

PbtA games are fun for a similar reason. When the whole group is working together to see what happens instead of relying on scenarios premade by the GM, the twists and turns keep you interested.

Dogs in the Vineyard is fun because betting dice creates a lot of tension, sometimes more than just rolling them.

Mouseguard is fun because you have more complex character backgrounds that come into play more often, encouraging good roleplay.

OSR games are fun because they're dead simple, fast and often plain insane. The same goes for Lasers & Feelings and Lady Blackbird.

Ryuutama is fun because the emphasis is on creating a comfy story as opposed to combat, and the GM gets to play too.

Legends of the Wulin is fun because of the deep core mechanic and good blend of narrative and mechanical conflict resolution.

Blades in the Dark is fun because it offers easy, streamlined mechanics for complex plans and a persistent goal in growing your gang, as well as a relatively novel setting.

5E does none of these things. There is literally nothing new to it beyond advantage/disadvantage which, while appreciated, is really just a solution to a previous edition's problem. The systems I mentioned above tread new ground, maybe not always successfully but they all tried something different. 5E is porridge.

>>49709856
I'll say it again, D&D is the pizza of roleplaying games.
No more, no less.

>>49708685
>Let me ask you something. What system that involves dice, stats, and math isn't boring? Other than FATE, but FATE uses those just for an extension of playing make-believe.
Dark Heresy/WFRP 1E, MERP/Rolemaster, Harnmaster, Shadowrun.

>>49708792
wrong, advantages/disadvantages are bullshit one-size-fits-all modifiers.

>>49709925
but there are modifiers, like skills, proficiency, feats and class specific things.

>>49708606
Absolutely nothing, which is why people are trying to find something wrong with it.

It's a balanced system with enough grit to make it a solid game, but not so many rules as to prevent role-playing.

So, the folks who typically enjoy these kinds of things find it difficult to sling their normal array of hyper-polarized, buzz-word bullshit against it. If you say it's too shallow, someone will fact check you that it really isn't unless you're comparing it to some bloated garbage. If you say it's too deep to allow for role-playing, someone will fact-check your ass out with all the built in components that ensure role-playing has a spotlight.

The only problems is the three book format like >>49708637 said, but only because it puts the rules out across thee books which makes it easier for ignorant fuccbois to cry because they have misinformation.

5E is a solid game, at least a 7 and arguably an 8 out of 10. It's got enough crunch to give flavor, enough support for the idea of role-playing, and consistent, constant support from the consumerism machine that is Wizards. Arguing that it's bad--as opposed to just admitting it's not something you personally like--is strictly contrarianism.

>>49709270
>>49709475
Not that anon but cry me a river. If you can't take some shitpost about progressives lying down you need to get over yourself.

>>49709314
i haven't played it at all and can see what i don't like: ads/disads instead of precise circumstantial modifiers makes this babby's first system. and the way skills are handled uniformly is atrocious. again: babby's first RPG.
add to that the usual D&D problems (hit point bloat, AC being a combination of avoiding damage and shrugging off damage, etc) and you have a mediocre game.

>>49708942
Primeval Thule is good, though their character options are a little unbalanced. Dark Sun material would be amazing, though.

>>49709475
>simple checks against the player's ability scores, but instead D&D keeps breaking down situations through the management of retarded skill tiers, and that's just a waste of time.
no, it's not you giant douche. skills allow for finer specialization of characters, something you would know if you, like, role-played anything in your life even once. skills allow you to succeed at, say, climbing precisely you wanted to play a character who is an expert climber. this is not comparable to broad categories such as strength or dexterity.

>>49709856
Most of those systems you mentioned are for collaborative storytelling, just like FATE, and not PvE(DM)vP like D&D is.

>>49709969
>If you say it's too shallow, someone will fact check you that it really isn't unless you're comparing it to some bloated garbage.
>your opinion
>fact
nice try, asshole. in the meantime, you can school yourself via >>49710007

File: comfy mario.jpg (7KB, 196x197px)

7KB, 196x197px

>>49708606
Nothing, it's by far the comfiest system for mindless, fun, combat-driven games with any degree of narrative people want, and that should be all that matters

>>49708685
This is so profoundly stupid I want to believe it's bait.

>>49710088
Nice dubs, but this only reinforces my criticism: the "classic" D&D formula has gotten stale and 5E's inability to evolve that formula is proof.

In a sense I think D&D itself has become a heartbreaker because it cannot examine its own core assumptions (or rather it won't after 4E). It's like that dumb shitpost about "the Dark Ages" setting civilization back 1000 years; think of what D&D could become if it weren't held back by 3.5.

There are novel mechanical changes to be made that could reinforce or even revolutionize this formula, but Wizards intentionally chose not to.

>inb4 but look at the sales, normies are loving it!
Sure, but the tabletop market as a whole is not normie driven and is beginning to move more toward narrative games and away from PvDM games. Will D&D be able top adapt, or will 7E just be 3.5's great grandson 20 years from now?

>>49709742
To add to problem 1 on your list; there's a weird difficulty trough in the middle levels where monsters suddenly find it extremely difficult to actually kill anyone. Low level you die to swarms and bosses, high level loads of stuff kills characters straight off if it hits, but in the middle you have to rely on death checks.

>>49710212
You...do realize that the industry is barely above cottage level because it doesn't even try to get normies, and the half-assed narrative push is just echo chamber idiots biting Fate/PbtA because they're the new (six year old) fad, right?

>>49709521

In general they simplified too much and at the same time in some places they didn't go all the way they could.

For example defenses. They added defenses for magic reliant on all main attributes but left only AC for martial characters. Why not go all the way and split them too into [shield block / parry / armor / dodge] with different attacks/kinds of weapons giving advantage/disadvantage over different kinds of defenses.
Combine that with mentioned maneuver system and suddenly martials do have interesting choices to make. It maybe sometimes even better to remove armor against some monsters that get too much bonuses against it.

Also I hate the fact that even one adavantage/disadvantage removes all opposites and returns everything to status quo.

>>49710212
>In a sense I think D&D itself has become a heartbreaker
lol, no. just look at the sales, man.

>move more toward narrative games and away from PvDM games.
fuck you and your wishful thinking

>>49708666
I'm very much not ok with 5e, but it's hard to stir up shit when fans are lukewarm and "haters" just don't care.

>>49709969
I would say 5e's good about putting practically all necessary rules in the PHB. The DMG only has some optional rules and rolls that only the DM should care about.

>>49710226
We use the Massive Damage rules, and the Injury table. Taking you down to half your hit points in one shot forces players to make a con save. On a fail, you immediately start making death saves. Also, adding injuries to the mix makes Players more cautious, and also provides temporary handicaps. Your goal isn't necessarily to kill them out right, it's to make them feel like there's a threat, and believe me, players will care a lot more about their character missing a leg than anything else.

Also, Disintegration completely bypasses Death saves, but it feels cheap as hell.

>>49710278
>>49710293
I don't see why the size of the industry is really relevant. When you look at the games generating buzz within the industry and community, almost all of them are PbtA in some form, even if only vaguely, and it's the core market that drives sales to normies. Normies do not buy things unless there is some kind of image or status associated with it and I guarantee most normie groups have a core market GM.

As for D&D being a heartbreaker, I wasn't referring to sales. Only that it has become constrained by its own assumptions about what D&D (the archetypal TTRPG) is. Case(s) in point: ability scores vs modifiers and Vancian magic.

>>49710293
No, he does have a point. Several good points, actually

>>49708606
The books are poorly laid out and I have to go to the index to find absolutely anything. I love the game but goddamn something went wrong when it came to putting the chapters together.

>>49710373
I'd say I agree with you but that I don't know if d&d's hyper traditionalist design style is necessarily a bad thing. 1e, 2e and 5e were all very quaint at the time that they came out design wise, while 3.x and 4e were more getting caught up with where game design was at during that period.
D&d has always used its lack of being current with game design as a bit of a strength. Compare 81' basic to anything else that was big in 81. It's held the test of time better than almost anything else because it wasn't following early 80's design fads. Instead it was using fairly durable and well tested concepts. It boiled things down to the essentials rather than adding or fucking with things.

3rd meanwhile was probably the biggest single leap forward d&d ever made game design wise and a lot of poor choices in design started to get revealed a couple years in. 4e gets really exaggerated in how innovative it was. If you're familiar with the tail end of 3.5, 4e was a boiling down to core concepts and restatement of that design rather than a massively big shift in thinking.

A lot of "innovative new changes" in rpg design have come and gone. The fact that d&d only barely incorporates changes in game design is what's given it more staying power. Imagine if d&d had tried to have 900 pages of rules in the 80's, switched to a dice pool mechanic in the 90's, etc.

>>49710373
>When you look at the games generating buzz within the industry and community, almost all of them are PbtA in some form,
unless you have sales figures to back it up, i consider this post an attempt at promoting pbta. when i look at /tg/, it plays a minor role and has plenty of detractors.

>>49710396
great argument, i am, like, blown away.

>>49710571
>It's held the test of time better than almost anything else because it wasn't following early 80's design fads.
it has a brand attached to it, a brand that was rejuvenated by 3.x and fucking baldur's gate. that's it.

>Imagine if d&d had tried to have 900 pages of rules in the 80's, switched to a dice pool mechanic in the 90's, etc.
which major system has ever done such? in the meantime, if you really want to see solid game design, look at CoC. D&D has been flailing about in comparison.

>>49710373
The reason PbtA games generate buzz is because the market is flooded with them and any hack can make a PbtA hack. In a small market, the same couple of ideas get bounced around ad infinitum and a stagnant consensus is reached.

That talk is meaningless unless it either a) leads to the talked about thing becoming industry standard, which it isn't (brand wise, that's either D&D or FFG Star Wars, mechanics wise that's ripping off Fate Core) or b) reaches crossover markets, which it hasn't (name one "big market" nerd thing that runs or even talks about any PbtA game consistently). Also, how many core GMs are switching over to PbtA games in the first place? How well do these games sell and how many eyes do they get on Google?

>>49710699
>Solid game design
>CoC

If by solid design you mean decades of ossified mind caulk telling you to flat out ignore large chunks of rules that were bad in the 70s, then yes.

The problem with discussing rules and mechanics in TTRPGs is that nobody actually knows or understands them, because doing so is the province of min maxing faggots. Add that to the GM enforcing their vision of the mechanics on each table and the DIY culture of the hobby, and even if people knew the "correct' rules, they wouldn't use them.

>>49710699
CoC was a distillation and restatement of runequest which isn't exactly as well beloved design wise as d&d is. CoC is as well, barely out of the early 80's with its design. It never innovated and instead just polished itself. For over 30 years, there's been barely any substantive changes in the ruleset. So using it as an example would point to following trends being a bad idea.
As far as stupidly complicated games, both rolemaster and palladium games were extremely popular games of the 80's. They were typical of the trends rpg's were having in the early and mid 80's. d&d has held up better precisely because they didn't try to be like those games.

>>49710571
>I don't know if d&d's hyper traditionalist design style is necessarily a bad thing
That's a fair point. I guess I should I don't have a problem with the blend of high fantasy and dungeon crawl D&D has become thematically, but I think there are better ways to support that mechanically. And I wish the big player would actually double down on actual roleplaying as opposed to mechanics-heavy combats.

>A lot of "innovative new changes" in rpg design have come and gone
Also true, but in D&D's case we have markedly better mechanical alternatives to a lot of the sacred cows. In fact I'd say a lot of these features are things that have explicitly not held up against the test of time, most notably Vancian casting.

>>49710651
You're asking me for sales numbers while using /tg/ as a measuring stick? Surely you can admit that that is absurd.

>>49710702
PbtA is the biggest non-D&D at the moment, but there are others. Lots of OSR games, Ryuutama made a splash last year, Burning Wheel and its descendants have made an impact, FFG SW is also pretty popular. Thornwatch is about as far from D&D as you can get and it just had a smash hit Kickstarter.

Of course D&D is going to be king because of brand recognition and marketing dollars. But thanks to Kickstarter, DriveThruRPG and online communities the market is more open to alternatives than ever.

>>49710920
I actually wish d&d would stop pretending to be a generic system and just embrace itself. fantasy craft tripled down on what people liked about 3.x, s&w doubled down on what old school d&d did well, etc. d&d usually does well when it focuses on refining something it already does well rather than trying to innovate into new territories.
The problem with 5e is that d&d doesn't know what kind of game it's meant to be anymore. Hyperfocusing an existing game usually doesn't have any innovation so much as polishing existing design ideas.

>>49710448
If anything is wrong it is the book indexes. Example:

I need to look up rules for jumping, so why don't I look at J for jumping.. Index> Jumping> Please see Ability Checks..
Index> Ability Checks> Jumping> Please see Movement..
Index> Movement> Jumping> Please see Character Movement Options..
Index> Character Movement Options> Jumping> High Jump or Long Jump> Pg 182

WTF? Couldn't you simply list Index> Jumping> Pg 182 and STILL have Index>Movement>Jumping>Pg 182? It takes up less printing resources!

>>49710920
PbtA isn't even the 4th most popular core mechanic.
>d20
>FFG Star Wars
>d6 dice pool
>d100

>>49710767
>ignore large chunks of rules that were bad in the 70s, then yes.
>ignore large chunks of the rules
CoC doesn't have a large chunk of rules to begin with. it's straightforward "roll d100 versus your skill". but go ahead. name the "large chunk of rules that have to be ignored" with any recent edition of CoC. i'm waiting.

>The problem with discussing rules and mechanics in TTRPGs is that nobody actually knows or understands them
>you don't agree with me because you don't understand the rules
fuck you, asshole

>>49710843
>CoC is as well, barely out of the early 80's with its design. It never innovated
because it never had to

>For over 30 years, there's been barely any substantive changes in the ruleset. So using it as an example would point to following trends being a bad idea.
indeed.

>d&d has held up better precisely because they didn't try to be like those games.
not really. for rolemaster, it faded when ICE lost the MERP license. palladium had the same issues as AD&D: messy ruleset. the 90s weren't good for either system with Vampire and Shadowrun, etc going on. all that changed for D&D when baldur's gate hit and D&D 3E came out.

>>49710920
>You're asking me for sales numbers while using /tg/ as a measuring stick? Surely you can admit that that is absurd.
I have provided indication that your claim might be wrong, only adding to your need to back up your statements.

>PbtA is the biggest non-D&D at the moment, but there are others.
Excuse me but I am pretty sure that FFG's main RPG lines are bigger, as is Shadowrun. PbtA doesn't even have a working general on /tg/. PbtA is anything but core RPGing, it's one of those a storytelling RPGs, a fringe/niche section of the market.
Fucking PbtA shills.

>>49708606
>Abysmal artwork.
>Dragonborn and Teiflings in core.
>Default setting is typical Hasbro yawner.
>Monsters are BEYOND bland, almost all of them are a sack of HP with multiattack and some pointless useless action.
>Lack of customization of weapons.
>Magic Items from the DMG are really crufty and lame.

>>49711154
Dude, CoC is BRP + different GM advice. You might as well be saying that Pathfinder is the definitive RPG game. You can't ignore that most of CoC's goodness is borrowed from an entirely different game - even now.

I would also say that RuneQuest 6/Mythras is the best example of the BRP rules - especially as a more generic RPG system.

>>49708606
Putting Mike Mearls in charge of design. Virtually every other problem is a result of this.

>>49711213
And now for the Good:

>easy to make characters
>backgrounds are excellent aspect, turns (Race/Class) into (Race/Class/Background) which is perfect.
>easy for the DM to make monsters
>if you study the power levels it's not too hard to invent feats and spells that seem appropriate
>default setting is easy to replace with whatever the DM can imagine

>>49708963
If anything it just fractured it further.

It basically did exactly what that one XKCD comic said.

>there are 6 competing standards
>let's make one that can work for all 6 groups
>later
>there are 7competing standards

>>49708606
Nothing.

>>49711241
>le ebin Mike Mearls is bad at game design maymay
He's a huge part of the reason 4e was the way it was, why ToB exists, and why 5e is popular even if it is dull.

>>49708606
Not enough extra splats released even years later. Three book format. Sorcerers and Warlocks kind of suck butt.

Martials are somewhat okay, and the Monk is actually competitive.

It clings to the sacred cows of D&D and in no way advances its mechanics. There are a bunch of fantasy RPGs with simply better rules, and 5E only rides on brand recognition and production values.

>>49711301
Yes, he's responsible for all the shit parts in 4e, like essentials.

He killed that game with his shitty products just so he could get 5e out sooner, because he wanted to be in charge right from the beginning.

>>49711049
That too, what the hell was their process with those index references?

>>49711355
>worked as a big influence on 4e from before its launch
>killed 4e early

>>49711461
It's almost like their only editing team is a handful of game designers...

Actually on one of the podcasts they alluded to the index being a big problem and was made that way because 5e barely launched on time so the index lumped everything into as few page number references as possible.

>>49711286

But they never tried to make anything which worked for all groups, they tried to make a throw back. A redo of the "failed" 3e, while pretty much erasing 4e from their minds.

It would have been so fucking easy for them to throw 4e players some bone. How could they not have the Warlord in PHB? The definitive iconic class from 4e. Why did they copy PF's shitty no-fun restrictive archetypes when the paragon paths and epic destinies from 4e were perfectly functional?

>>49708668
What I'm trying to say is WotC is incompetent, but people who play TTRPGs are dumb beasts endlessly screeching about people (liking what they don't like/not liking what they like) just like everyone else who posts about their interests online. Case in point: >>/tg/

>>49711684
The only thing Mearls contributed to early 4e was forcing every class to use AEDU system instead of reach class having variants of it, like power points later on.

>>49708685
So wait, let me guess this straight. You PLAYED something that had a boring system ?
I mean, I never played/Gm'd something that was a classic but I think that the best way to have fun is... to have fun. And complicated maths kinda go against that
I won't say go freeform and do lolsrandumb, but it should be a GM principle to always homebrew at least parts of a system for whatever reasons he wants. Players are here to roleplay, not make builds or some shit

>>49708994
>4e fans (an objectively successful mission)

Uh, no.

>>49714013

While I don't necessarily disagree with what you're putting down, some players actually have fun with complicated math. A GM should be accommodating his players, whether they be storygamers, powergamers, or a mix of both.

File: Volos_Header_0.jpg (520KB, 1920x600px)

520KB, 1920x600px

This is now a Volo's hype thread.

>>49714116
I completely agree. I just wanted to say that people that like math don't make the biggest part of the community (at least in my area, I know that it's different in the US)

>>49714167

Yeah it definitely varies by group. My 4e/40kRPG group has a powergamer who loves numbers in all their various forms (but loves them enough to tone it down when required) and two serious roleplayers. DM'ing for both has taught me a lot.

>>49714026
>I'm the only 4e fan there is

File: original.jpg (25KB, 600x375px)

25KB, 600x375px

>>49709314
>causing a new age of tabletop gaming

>>49713406
They insist the Battlemaster Fighter is the 4e Warlord addition.

Which is pretty insulting.

>>49715089
I think what he means is that it's easy to get into so people are using it as a gateway system so there's more people getting involved in the general thing

>>49715931
D&D has always been the gateway system.

>>49709874
Because it's delivered to your house in a cardboard box?
Because the price keeps going up as the size keeps going down?
Because traditional is better than modern?
Because it's sliced into 8 pieces?
Because pineapple doesn't belong on it?

Keep on sayin what you're sayin brah. Your crazy chicken clucking don't make no sense anyhow.

>>49709270
/k/ here

If you think that's someone trying to avoid going /pol/, I have some bad news for you...

File: monk.jpg (17KB, 300x441px)

17KB, 300x441px

>>49708765
I still don't get why people love 3E/3.5E/3.PF so much. It's a fairly solid system overall, but it suffers from horrible balance issues (CoDzilla, spellcasting in general) and is focused pretty much exclusively on combat, to the point where taking non-combat skills and feats actively penalizes you, especially as a Martial class.

Plus, grappling. Fuck grappling, and fuck anyone who initiates a grapple attack. Fuck you, Tyrone.

>>49708606
Lack of good epic level options and, so far, no mention of Spelljammer...

>>49717128
Also the Ranger class. It just doesn't feel right.

So far, what I'm getting from this thread is that 5E's got several flaws but is still otherwise a simple and solid system.

That about right?

>>49716731

Most people who know 3.5/PF good enough don't love it per se. It's more like hate fueled sex with an eldritch abomination. You know where all the pincers and spikes are and all the things that you like. And you know that system will try to murder your game. So playing becomes a dance around these ridiculous things which inevitably will crop up. In that moment everyone laughs.

Like that one time I built a fighter in E6 that broke castle walls during siege with his bare hands.
Or a wizard destroying an army on level 10 because master forgot about caster support.
Or an elf on a gryphon shooting arrows to the horizon and hitting his targets for 5-7 damage.
And so on.

>>49717250

Yeah. It works. It's just bland. Like a diet cracker without salt.

>>49717351
Yeah, that's about the feel I got from it. Needs more... stuff.

>>49708606
Nothing. But nothing went right. It didn't have any new ideas and it was too afraid to chose which previous edition it wanted to be. So it ended up without the dumb fun or zaniness of 1 and 2e, without the crazy options and character building fun of 3.x, without the smooth and balanced combat of 4e, and with precisely nothing of its own. The end result was just a bland, soulless dnd clone only useful for introducing new people to the game.

>>49715951
in the USA

>>49708606
It reminds me of the aD&D days, but with unified mechanics. I love it and I still play crunchier systems, but crunchier systems that don't focus that crunch solely on combat.

People criticized 4e for this, but 3.x also feeds the "grid" mentality, and that overly abstract and numerous combat abilities tend to take away from improvisation and problem solving in my experience, you definitely have more of a game, but less roleplaying as a consequence.

>>49717710
I'd still like to see a new original campaign setting released for 5e... In a box like the old days.

>>49708637
This matters less considering they uploaded them for free on their website

>>49708606
Nothing. Wizards stopped being assholes and gave their audience what they had wanted all along IE an updated 3.5.

I applaud Wizards for realizing that they cannot just release almost the same game as Paizo and compete with them. In fact, Wizards seem to have paid careful attention to the primary gripes people have with Mathfinder and made a game that addresses those gripes.

All of you, get the fuck outside and do something normal for once.

>>49708994
Nah, I don't hate 5e, but I still vastly prefer 4e

5e is at least more balanced than 3.5. But it is severely lacking in character options beyond spells, and we're back to spellcasters being crazy and martials being normal, instead of everybody being crazy

Does PbtA stand for Pleb Tier Action?

>>49719593
yes

>>49714834
I'm another who doesn't think 5e is an improvement over 4e.

I will say though that 5e is a much more *casual* game than 4e is, which helps it a lot. This is not an inherently bad thing.

There is always a level of crunch that people want from their games and it is different for everyone. Nothing wrong with that. There needs to be games with different levels of crunch to suit different people. Several folk I played with found 4e too complicated for their tastes.

>>49720073
>found 4e complicated
Are they legitimately retarded?

>>49720092
Complicated for their tastes. Just because I can do calculus doesn't meant I want to (not that 4e is as complicated as calculus, but maybe, when you get down to it, some people just want to roll dice and not think about dozens of modifiers, interrupt actions, and just tactics in general).

I'm saying this as someone who really likes 4e.

>>49720092
I don't understand it myself, but there are people who just want to show up and play and not have to do a little thinking of picking powers between sessions or remembering what they do during them.

"Beer & Pretzels Players" they used to be called, more there for the social than the game. I get it, different strokes and all.

>>49720141
>>49720160
But your powers/abilities/etc are literally spelt out for you on flash cards.
It's only complicated if you can't read.

Why couldn't they of kept the Monster and encounter design from 4e?

It was the only time in the whole of D&D they could mathematically create (MM3 that is) monsters and encounters which could match a party without some hideously overpowered or under-powered creature.

>>49720431
Printing out those cards to hang on to is too much work for some people.

You're preaching to the choir here, 4e is not complicated or hard at all. Yet still some people don't want to put that much effort in. It's frustrating, but they're otherwise fun and good players, just don't like rules, heh.

>>49709304
But they released the free basic rules and then the whole SRD for free...?

*flips thru photocopies*

>>49720475
Yeah, damn straight, brah. To those players, at least put a modicum of brain power into the mix, it's not that difficult.

As an aside, these kinds of players will have their brains break so bad if they even flip through a 3.x/PF rulebook.

>>49720514
Interestingly, that group went back to playing Pathfinder because 4e was too much for them.

This is the one thing that may make me admit, as much love as I have for them, they may be a little retarded.


On the topic of effort, there are two types of games: "Beer & Pretzels" where you just show up and play a light game of D&D instead of a board game or something, and "serious" games. If you're going to play "serious" I feel you should, as a player, you should be able to put a few hours a week between sessions to put some effort on the game: posts on a forum, level up your character, so on.

>>49720557
I'm sorry, why? My brain can't handle how stupid that reverse transition is.

>>49720597
My guess is that after like 10 years playing it, 3.PF is just comfortable. Plus, if you pick martials, your battle plan becomes "I hit it with a stick" 90% of the time.

>>49720597
I don't understand it either. It may make sense if they only did a few sessions of 4e, but they were playing for a few years at this point, then just gave up on it all and went back to Pathfinder.

I guess they just kinda didn't get 4e?

>>49720610
These guys converted to 4e shortly after it came out, only playing Pathfinder at the Pathfinder Society stuff I think.

>>49720514
>>49720557
>>49720597
>>49720610
>>49720627
I think PF players actually suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, or view everything about it with rose-tainted glasses.

File: 1475674945944.jpg (280KB, 612x1270px)

280KB, 612x1270px

>this thread
>pic related

The hell is pbta anyway? I have literally never heard of this thing.

>>49720646
It's >>49719593
>>49720060

>>49720646
Powered by the Apocalypse, A.k.a. Designed around the same base system as Apocalypse World.
http://apocalypse-world.com/AW-basicplaybooks-legal.pdf

Games which are ptba tend to be focused on attributes, moves, and a simple 2d6 tiers of success system, with the idea of picking up a playbook, making a few choices and being ready to go. There also tends to be dedicated space, at the very least, for noting/tracking party relationships.

For some games, the format works fine. The term has a stigma around it (and in my opinion, rightfully so) because there is way too many hacks than what the system is actually good for - kind of like d20 syndrome but with a much lighter system.

>>49709104

>4e
>healing surges
>fuck magic missile so much that fans remind them D&D has goddamn lore to follow
>Daily vs encounter vs misc powers
>Like variety and multiclassing, like what you see in the novels? NOPE FUCK YOU YOU GET MULTIFLAVOR THAT'S ALL

Seriously, this structural and narrative shitting all over what players invested their time in is what alienated any 3e and holdover 2e players so badly that Wizards had to go back to the drawing board. And any attempts to regurgitate 4e shit gets rightly slapped down.

>>49709856

>4E is fun because you always have tons of options and large degree of customization for your character.

Versus 3/3.5/PF? Categorically false. All you can go is freaking dip your toes in other classes via feats or hope to level up to a flavor of paragon path that resembles it.

If you want variety, you may as well be in 3/3.5/PF/5e where you can actually choose different classes and whatever they come with.

>>49708606

Nothing, really. Nice reboot, plus 2nd and 3rd ed misc modules can be ported over on the fly once you get the hang of the rules.

>>49720777
He meant in the actual game, not in the separate minigame of character building (that is the only thing 3.PF does well). The classes each offer more choice per level than most 3.PF/5e class even then.

And just for the character building maniacs, you still have hybrids.

>>49708606
The only major problem it has is the one problem basically all of dnd has, it's very singular in focus. If you want to run anything other than a dungeon crawl with a series of combat encounters youre kind of out of luck.

>>49720777
Sounds like you never heard of hybrids anon

>>49708606
The binding in the first round of PHBs was defective, apparently. WotC will send you a new one if it collapses and you kept the receipt.

>>49713514
Why are you even here?

>>49720475
so what? if they are otherwise fun players, the other players will help them out during play and the GM will drop helpful hints when leveling up.

>>49723442
he think he fisherman

>>49708606
If you're talking about your bait, nothing. You are truly a great shitposter, capable of inspiring rage with nothing more than a picture of some books and three words. Have a (you), and may you become as legendary as the great shitposters of old.

>>49709389
Grandwizard? Like the Klan?

>>49709389
5e is arguably one of the best places to start, especially with new players.

>>49723442
He wants to feel superior over you.

>>49723442
You mean special interest boards are for posting about things you LIKE? God damn it, I knew I shouldn't have trusted that little bird!

>>49720962
/thread

>>49726189
You shouldn't /thread your own posts.

>>49726584
>there cannot be more than one person in this world who disagrees with me

>>49708606
>What went wrong?

Instead of moving forward, they did a complete reverse. Sure they kept a few little bits of 4E but for the most part, they did a complete 180 and went back to older styles of D&D.

>>49720760
>Seriously, this structural and narrative shitting all over what players invested their time in is what alienated any 3e and holdover 2e players so badly that Wizards had to go back to the drawing board. And any attempts to regurgitate 4e shit gets rightly slapped down.
Behold, the rare 3e-striped grognard is his natural habitat. Observe as he performs his mating dance.

>>49709742
>Seriously, you want a completely min-maxed party? Everyone plays moon Druid. They can buff, heal, tank, CC, Utility, and even get Charm spells.
moon druids have no AoE damage, they're poor damage dealers in general, and they lose their HP pools almost instantly because they have no AC in beast form

>>49728951
>they have no AC in beast form
Wait, what? Why the fuck not? I don't see anything that mentions that in the PHB. Beasts have AC normally, don't they?

>>49729130
Most beast type creatures have about 11 or 12 AC tops. The highest AC beast off the top of my head is the Giant Scorpion at 15 and you can't wildshape into that until 9th level.

>>49729130
He's saying beast have low AC

Inspiration, Bonds, Flaws, Ideals, and especially Backgrounds are complete and utter trash

>>49729487
Why's that? Too much role-playing in your role-playing games?

>>49708606
I forgot that I needed a copy of the player's handbook and blew all my store credit on the fifty cent Magic box.

>>49710571
I like having the generic setting to come back to every new edition, feels like home. Then I figure things out from there and build on it. If you need everything pre designed for you, you picked the wrong hobby.

>>49714152
I'm way more excited than I thought I'd be.

>>49710699
>that was rejuvenated by 3.x and fucking baldur's gate
he said basic, not 2e. fyi 2e is mostly hated in the osr.

>>49728467
That might have had something to do with the fact that 4e was an unworkable mess that put them back into the bad old days when Vampire was drinking their milkshake.

Only this time around, it was pathfinder.