Belief: >If I scare people away from D&D, they'll

>>49766411
>These system rivalry debates are silly.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Why did you still make this silly threaf though

>>49766411
But anon, DnD isn't that great crunch wise

>>49766411
>D&D is an entry game
I haven't met a single player in real life whose first rpg was D&D.

>>49766544
>>49766527
Sssssh, don't contradict him, or he'll tell you how you only hate D&D because it's popular, and only recommend your pet system because you envy D&D's success.

>>49766544
Not everyone lives in Germany.

>>49766544
Do you live in Germany? I'm not a huge D&D fan but it's by a broad margin the largest entry level game in America.

>>49766562
That's weird. It's like you sort of flipped yourself over on your back in your rush to construct a strawman.

>and only recommend your pet system because you envy D&D's success.

Like, what is this? Why even bother typing something as silly as this, even as an attempt to strawman? You've got a weird way of thinking.

Can you put on a trip?

>>49766571
Every European country has a different default RPG. In Germany it's The Dark Eye, in a lot of eastern Europe it's WFRP 2nd edition, in Italy it's OWoD

>>49766602
>default RPG

That's a bit of an exaggeration.

>>49766544
That's because you don't live in autismurica

>>49766600
>Fucking satandubs
holy shit, it's been years since I've seen this combination

Belief:
>If I pretend to be retarded, people will get baited!

Reality:
>If I pretend to be retarded, people will think I'm trolling or retarded

Pretending to be retarded is babbys first troll. If all you want is replies, why would you close the door?

These shitposting rivalries are silly.

>>49766571
So what if he lives in germany?
Case of germany (or most other european countries, really) proves that you perfectly CAN have rpg scene and new players entering without dnd being the "entry" rpg. Which basically proves op wrong.

>>49766568
I GET THIS JOKE AND IM AMERICAN, lolling so hard

>>49766684
>wisdom

>>49766684
There being other entry games doesn't mean D&D isn't an entry game. Or, that D&D isn't the easiest game to get into.

And, that's an indisputable fact. D&D is the game with the overwhelming most players, making it the easiest to find a group and set up a game. Combined with how almost everything is available online and the cost of entry being so low, there's really no way to even debate that D&D isn't an entry game.

>>49766684
What I meant was that D&D is less popular in Germany, a lot of countries have a native RPG or other one that took off big instead of D&D. I know The Dark Eye is the big thing in the Deutschland.

The point is, most people in Yankeeland DO start off in D&D. The broad majority, especially of older players. There are sizable fanbases of Traveller and WoD, but the marketshare is heavily tilted in favor of D&D, as I imagine it is tilted in favor of other games in other countries.

>>49766764
>And, that's an indisputable fact.
Like that's ever stopped /tg/ from disputing before.

I think 3.PF scared more people away from playing RPGs than scaring people away from D&D ever could.

>>49766411
That still doesn't make D&D good.

>>49766970
Which is actually factually wrong. 3rd edition brought in more new players than any game before it, doubling the highest player count from 3 million to over 6 million. The only game that has done more to bring in new players is 5e.

It's silly to even try to argue your opinion, based entirely on your feelings.

>>49767101
Citation fucking needed.

>>49766658
You sound flustered and upset, like your entire world is crashing down around you.

>>49767101
That isn't opposite to what I've said. Bringing in many players doesn't mean you didn't scare away many as well.

File: 1384059422952.jpg (107KB, 580x559px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 580x559px

>Entry game

DnD is the worst system you could ever use when introducing people to gaming. It's also the worst system period, so use something more fun and simpler like PenDragon, Seven Sea or even the broken mess that is Chronicles.

>>49767196

>Seventh Sea

Man, I LOVE that game but I wouldn't call it simpler. It's a mess of game design from it's era. A wonderful mess but a mess.

>>49767203
Isn't there a new one?

>>49767196
Every game is shit. The best game is shit. Nothing you could ever suggest would be not-shit because if you like it it's automatically shit.

>>49766411
D&D really isn't necessary to have as your entry game, I myself was introduced to tabletop RPGs through fend shui and sla industries. However, D&D is what most people think of when they think of tabletop RPGs and 5e is especially good for accomodating new players, which is why I am using it to introduce my current group, made up mostly of new players, to the hobby and I plan on moving onto better system once the current campaign ends.

>>49767210

There is. I'm much less a fan of it and I think it's a terrible first choice for a new GM as it really promotes player VS GM play. But then with Wick at the help it really wasn't going to be otherwise.

>>49767196
Your opinion is noted.
And mostly disregarded.

Starting out with hyperbole makes it hard to take the rest of your post seriously.

>>49767345
This adequately describes the premise of this thread, no?

>>49767152
You're still running entirely on your opinion, and there seems to be a dramatic disconnect between your unsubstantiated opinion that 3rd edition scares players away from the hobby in any significant number and the number of people that it brought into the hobby, especially since it is the game that revitalized the industry and dramatically expanded the player base.

Understand this time?

>>49767359
What part is hyperbole?
Some part that upsets you?

>>49767391
I understood you the first time perfectly.

>>49767404
The part where you think if someone says "lol, D&D sucks, let's play *other game* instead" you think a new player will be like "D&D or nothing! I'd rather play videogames than play another RPG than D&D!"

But you know this. You keep making these stupid arguments because you need something to fill your empty, shallow, joke of a life.

I honestly don't get the rabid hate D&D gets here. Table Top RPGs are ridiculous varied in terms of play by there very nature. If something doesn't fit your needs play something else. D&D fits a lot of peoples needs for fun fantasy adventures, and many are satisfied with that. I don't see the "need" to scare people away from it.

>>49767430
If all you want to do is scare people away from D&D, all you're going to do is scare away new players from the hobby.

People who know the games tend to not listen to your hyperbole, and the new players that do listen often find your exaggerated criticisms in the derrivative games you try to peddle.

Your whole idealogy is silly. Your efforts? All for nothing, and worse still they actually work against you.

And put on a trip already.

>>49767454
It's mostly a handful of bored trolls that made the startling realization that people will argue about something that is popular.

Don't take the trolls seriously.

>>49767519
>If all you want to do is scare people away from D&D, all you're going to do is scare away new players from the hobby.

Is it all I want to do though?

>People who know the games tend to not listen to your hyperbole, and the new players that do listen often find your exaggerated criticisms in the derrivative games you try to peddle.

Do they?

>Your whole idealogy is silly. Your efforts? All for nothing, and worse still they actually work against you.

What ideology? What efforts? How do these things work against me?

>And put on a trip already.

What for? I'm not the one who keeps making shitty strawmen.

>>49767430

Wow that's some nice projection bro. Stay mad k? ;)

>>49766411
D&D has first and foremost created an absolutely toxic atmosphere. It is in my experience not a good entry game and the people that stick with D&D even after their first games are exactly the people you would not want beginners to have as their first impression of the community. It certainly kept me away when I lived in America.

In countries where D&D did not take hold, practically noone plays D&D, and that should tell you something. In a lot of European countries the community is much less grognard and there are both a lot of good crunch and story focused games being played that new players can get exposure through.

Take Germany for example. The Dark Eye community is a lot better in my experience than that of D&D even though for example the 4th edition was just about as badly designed as D&D and was an absolute mess, but the spirit of the game and the main setting created a wholly different community. A lot of people come into the hobby via the Dark Eye and stay with the Dark Eye because of the community and the setting, and since the newest edition is actually pretty good I have no problems with that.

But while it's the biggest entry point, it is by no means the only one. Vampire the Masquerade, nWoD and oWoD are also all big and draw in another audience that they couldn't in D&Distan because they don't get enaugh exposure.

Then there are also quite a lot of people that play stuff like Savage Worlds and FFG Star Wars which are what I got exposed to and were able to overcome my reservations against the mess that I saw was The Dark Eye. If my experience is anything to go by, D&D is a more extreme version of TDE when it comes to leaving a first impression, it scares away a lot of people like me that would have never gotten into the hobby without exposure to more entry friendly stuff.

And then theres the new wave of people that play BEARDS becaus they saw it on TV and thought it looks fun, though I wonder how long until they switch to better systems.

>>49766602
>in Italy it's OWoD
it varies, in at least half the nation it's (still! what's wrong with you people, forget that shit and move on!) d&d, either 3.5 or pathfinder.

>>49767454
People don't hate DnD. They just like other gaming systems more, for plenty of reasons
>>49767545
is the only retard, thinking that people only argue about it because it's popular
It's not in most countries outside murica

>>49767711
>toxic
Opinion discarded. Its too "problematic".

>>49767731
People only shitpost about it because it's popular though.

It's not a bad game, but there's people willing to go ahead and try and treat it like some sort of evil villain stealing and keeping players from all other games.

People just need to stop taking those trolls seriously, and stop treating them like anything other than trolls going for easy bait.

>>49767711
>D&D has first and foremost created an absolutely toxic atmosphere.

And I've had the opposite experience and have come to the opposite conclusions.

Perhaps you are trying to make unsubstantiated claims and then basing bizarre opinions entirely on those unsubstantiated claims?

>>49767711
>In countries where The Dark Eye did not take hold, practically noone plays The Dark Eye, and that should tell you something.

>>49767519
Oh look it's you again.

Seems like you started to sign your posts everywhere, retard. Hope you realize irony in that?

Who am I kidding, of course you don't

>>49767196
It's an entry game because of how accessible the books are, from an availability standpoint.

In the UK you can find copies of the basic rulebooks and the starter sets in most large bookstores, but you'll struggle to find any other system period.

It's not a great system to start on by any means, but it's definitely the best advertised and distributed... at least over here.

>>49768024
Have you put on a trip yet?
That's really the only kind of response you deserve.

File: received_1412506732098613.jpg (21KB, 607x315px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 607x315px

>>49766602
Italy here. Hmm, I think 3.5e players are the majority, but I'm pretty sure OWoD is more played than Pathfinder, so that's not completely wrong.

>>49766411
It's pretty simple. When your normie friends say they want to "play D&D", you say "Okay!" and then run a game in the SJWtumblrnumale system of your choice.

File: 6eQSy.gif (30KB, 125x175px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 125x175px

>>49766411
Belief
>If I start people with a shitty game, they'll eventually play good games!

Reality
>If I start people with a shitty game, they'll leave the hobby

D&D is a bad game. If what you want is more players, why would you put your worst foot forward?

>>49769612
Too bad D&D isn't a bad game though, or you might have had a point.

No, wait, you wouldn't have a point either way.

>>49769638
>D&D isn't a bad game

Have you tried >>>r/RPG? That board might be more your speed

>>49766544
My first system was 5e

>>49769638
>D&D
>not a bad game
You're objectively wrong.

>>49769665
I'm sorry, I just had to crawl past all the D&D threads to get to your post to call you a dumbfag.

D&D is a good brand that most people like. If that upsets you, you might want to try >>>>>disappearingintothewoods

>>49768117
Wow, you're literally pathetic.

>>49769689
>objectively

Silly troll, I've already stopped listening to you.

>>49769701
Where's your trip?

>>49769702
>stopped listening
>still replies

Lolfaggot.

>>49769612
Your train of thought is objectively wrong, that's what. Be it good or bad, dnd has been the first game for countless players who then have proceeded to enjoy other games as well. OP has a point that goes beyond our personal likings: scaring a persin away from their first game is NOT going to make them love your pet game isntead since being new, they can barely tell the difference!

>>49766602
And in the UK it's still D&D. In fact, you're probably not going to find any other rpgs here.

>>49770540
Speaking of objectively wrong...

>>49766411


Unless 100% of players "scared away from D&D" never touch an RPG ever, the "Belief" is objectively true while the "Reality" is objectively false.

Just thought it was funny.

>>49767731
It's the closest an rpg has ever com to being popular and it's the only one normies have heard of.

>>49769612
The reality is that you can't just recruit random people onto the hobby - they have to want to play. And normies have only heard of D&D. They have a vague idea of how to play it from pop culture anyway, so it's easier to teach them how to play improvisational games with it and teach them how to roleplay with a real rpg afterwards.

>>49770698
So how do you think scaring off goes?

As soon as D&D stops being nearly 80 bucks for physical copies, plus dice, plus minis, then I might consider it an entry game.

But when there's other games with better mechanics that cost a third of the price and come with all the rules you need to play in one single book, I just can't see it.

>>49770635
>the "Belief" is objectively true
Actually, no.
If you're playing with absolutes, they apply to both, making both "objectively false when in regards to 100% of circumstances"

>>49766411

You're a retard. An actual retard. We don't want more new players - we want less. Scaring autists, SJWs and other subhumans (who make up the majority of the people trying to get into rpgs) away prevents them trying to play with us. All D&D is good for is as a quarantine for those who still break through.

>>49770660
In the 90s, I'd argue WoD would also be in that pot.
The difference is people heard of D&D due to it's bad press, not due to the spread of the hobby.

>>49770721
Well, I think if you scare them off D&D after they know how to play and, more importantly, after they already know what system they'd rather play, you get more real roleplayers, instead of D&D rollplayers, but if you scare them away beforehand they'll just think all rpgs are as bad as D&D.

>>49770747
Unfortunately, the 90s are over and only members of a specific subculture ever heard of OWoD, even in the 90s.
Anyway, D&D spread via word of mouth scarily fast until the Satanic Panic happened, so that's only partly true.

>>49770742
Not really? If a single person who got scared away decided to play something other than D&D... then surprise, scaring people away does get them to play things other than D&D.

You could debate the effectiveness (oh boy, I can't wait!), but by the rules of logic, it is an objectively true statement.

>>49770725
>As soon as D&D stops being nearly 80 bucks for physical copies, plus dice, plus minis, then I might consider it an entry game.

Starter set is $20 (and you can also find it for cheaper), and comes with physical copy of basic rules, plus dice, plus tokens. Adventure and characters sheets too.

You might want to get some more dice, but with that being only $20 to get more dice than you'll ever need if you buy one of those sacks of them, we're looking at an entry game that's about as cheap as a board game.

And, you could always play completely for free just by downloading the books and having a dice rolling application.

>>49770770
Nono, like, how do you think it happens.

>Hey steve, we wanna play D&D, do you play D&D?
>D&D is shit and I'm not going to offer an alternative... I-it's not like I want you to play one of my pet games, baka!
>Okay then, I guess I'll just play WoW!

Something like that?

>>49770796
If you're playing with absolutes, they apply to both, making both "objectively false when in regards to 100% of circumstances"

And, I'll repeat that a third time, in case you're having trouble understanding.

If you're playing with absolutes, they apply to both, making both "objectively false when in regards to 100% of circumstances"

>>49767711
A whole lot of post to say a whole lot of nothing.
>it's created a toxic atmosphere
But what do you even mean by this? You're just saying that "In places where people don't play D&D, people don't play D&D," as though this were anything more than a tautology.

Why is the Dark Eye community better than that of the D&D community? You can't just say it is and expect people to believe you.

>>49766544
Mine was core only 3.5

>>49766544
mine was AD&D

>>49770825
It's kind of like-

>Steve, let's play D&D
>No, I don't want to play that. It's got [X] problem and [Y] problem and [Z] problem. Let's play [unpopular game] instead!
>Hey Steve, this game also has [Y] problem and [Z] problem, and it also has [A] problem, ]B] problem, and [C] problem!
>But, you're not supposed to be fixated on nothing but [unpopular games]'s flaws! What person lead you be such a dipshit critic who does nothing but complain?
>Whatever, if all roleplaying games are just us complaining about them, I'm going to go play Dance Dance Revolution

>>49770934
What system shares D&D's problems and also has its own unique problems in addition to that?

>>49770934
>Hey Steve, this game also has [Y] problem and [Z] problem, and it also has [A] problem, ]B] problem, and [C] problem!

What if it doesn't though? What if it's like, an OSR clone, so essentially D&D+?

>Whatever, if all roleplaying games are just us complaining about them

I thought he was pretty good at complaining, seeing as he found like twice as many complaints with the second game despite having no frame of reference.

>>49770934
I always feel conflicted in these kinds of threads because my personal experience seems to be a bit of an outlier from everyone else's.

When I started playing D&D, I spent a lot of my first sessions not understanding the rules. It took me a while to get used to them and a lot of the time I was just completely lost as to how the mechanics worked. I brought this up to a group of friends who had never played TRPGs before who wanted me to run D&D for them, but they insisted on D&D, just because of the name recognition.

>>49770934
how exactly does a player newly introduced to the hobby knows flaws of specific systems?
also
>implying all d&d alternatives are even more flawed than d&d
this is what d&drones actually believe

>>49771005
All of them? None of D&D's problems are absolutely unique, and no alteration is immune to being treated as a problem. And, beyond that, with no game being perfect, we have a wide assortment of original problems to deal with.

People having different preferences plays a role in that, along with just how trying to fix a problem like "Too much magic" can lead to a problem like "Too little magic," with people arguing about what amount of magic is "just enough" forever and a day. A great example is how the Fate system is good for groups that don't like heavy-handed mechanics, but is terrible for groups that like firmer crunch.

The idea that something so simple and self-evident eludes you makes me worried about you.

File: 1403172795829.jpg (17KB, 281x440px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 281x440px

>>49771117
>Every game shares D&D's problems
You'd know that this is not the case if you had played anything other than D&D. Fuck off, retard.

>>49771094
Well, in this short little episode, they actually play the game between lines two and three. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

>implying all d&d alternatives are even more flawed than d&d

We can argue about them forever though, with each alternative bringing in its own flavors and ideas that may not appeal to all groups.
You really shouldn't be so quick to discount the idea that people prefer things different from you.

>>49771168
If you're just going to go and strawman a conversation, then we can't have a discussion.

People, why are you replying? It's obvious OP is either retarded or trolling. You can see that whatever you say bounces off of him, as he can't even convince of a game that isn't as flawed as D&D; although of course D&D isn't really flawed, since it all comes down to taste!

Leave and let him rot.

>>49771168
All games share some of D&D's problems.

Not all of them share all of D&D's problems, but there's no problem that D&D has that can't be found in some other game.

And, each game has its own unique problems, with preference and interpretation playing a role in deciding what those problems are.

Please, try to keep up.

D&D being THE entry game is not determined by how good/bad or simple/complex it is, it's because of it's overwhelming popularity, and even where other tabletop games are the most popular entry game, D&D is still known and widely played.

>>49766411

Another of the advantages of not being American.

>>49771207
>reasonable ideas are trolling

Fuck off troll. Just because the rug you troll on is being whipped out from underneath your feet doesn't mean you should shamelessly try to perform damage control like this.

Face it. Your system "debates" are just dumb trolling at this point, because you care less about discussing games and more about furthering stupid agendas.

File: 1442497771937.png (43KB, 162x182px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 162x182px

>>49771189
>no system is perfect
>people can find faults in a system because of their subjective tastes
>therefore, everything shares D&D's problems
What do you expect someone to say to this nonsense? You are literally retarded for thinking this, and I've told you as much.

>>49771229
>there's no problem that D&D has that can't be found in some other game
Prove it.

>>49771289
>>there's no problem that D&D has that can't be found in some other game
>Prove it.

It's pointless to ask him this, since there are an almost infinite number of RPGs.

Fuck, d20 heartbreakers usually share the majority of 3.PF's problems.

>>49771176
except your post impied that alernative will be MORE flawed than D&D and not DIFFERENTLY flawed, or flawed from different point of view.
And in case of "different tastes", there are as big chances that he will not like d&d and quit when you actually let him play d&d as when you show him other game, so that's still BS.
If anything, advocating shoving ONE DEFAULT SYSTEM and, despite its brand recognizability-related popularity, one with VERY specific characteristics, that may be "standard" for average roleplayer but certainly aren't so for a completely new person as entry game into every new player's throat, while being aware of different tastes existing, is what's worrying.
Especially if you take into account that D&D is, in comparision to many other games, rather big effort investment to learn and get into. Even 5E.

>>49771289
>>therefore, everything shares D&D's problems

You're misinterpreting the argument.

It's not that every game shares all of D&D's problems. It's that every game shares some of D&D's problems, varying depending on which game we are talking about, and adds unique ones to the batch as well.

>Prove it.

Name a flaw that D&D has that is absolutely unique.
If you call popularity a flaw, I think we can both agree to call that a concession.

>>49771322
>Fuck, d20 heartbreakers usually share the majority of 3.PF's problems.
That's because they're almost always direct derivatives. You'd be comparing the same system with different houserules.

>>49766544

First for me and all my RL game buddies.

>>49771207
I lurk these threads because sometimes people bring up their favorite alternative systems to D&D, so I look them up and browse their websites for a bit and think gosh, I wouldn't mind giving this a shot and then I leave the tab open for a while until I close it 6 months later

>>49771366
No, the implication is that if someone's introduction to roleplaying games is some guy doing his best to highlight all the flaws in a game while ignoring its merits, than that person is likely to also focus on the flaws in other games as well.

>>49771384
>D&D exclusive flaw
Alignment. Doesn't exist in the overwhelming majority of games, one of D&D's biggest flaws.

Classes/levels. Most systems use XP as progression currency instead, and if classes exist at all they are far less restrictive than D&D.

Vancian magic. Not found outside of D&D.

Just a few of the major ones.

>>49771417
Which implication isn't based on anything but biased speculation and can't be proven in any way

>>49771451
Vancian magic hasn't been a thing since 3.5, though, and Alignment is basically flavor in 5e.
People really need to specify what versions they're talking about, D&D is way too diverse to say "D&D has all these problems" unless you're talking about, I dunno, how swingy rolling a d20 as the central mechanic is

>>49771384
>Name a flaw that D&D has that is absolutely unique.
The design principles behind the Fighter class and everything that stems from it (feat taxes for basic actions, equipment taxes for keeping up with the rest of the non-fighter party). What other system goes to such lengths to make a class obsolete on all stages of the game?

>>49771489
Vancian casting is still present in 5e, what the fuck are you talking about?

Alignment "is just flavor" except that there are still detect alignment magics and still alignment spell descriptors. It is also strictly negative even as "just flavor" because people turn their brains off and think of their characters as RACE/CLASS/ALIGNMENT.

All the problems I mentioned are flaws present in all editions of the game and the majority of its derivatives as well.

>>49771451
>Alignment.

Other games use morality systems/allegiances/codes of conduct. They use different names, but the same "problems" that come out of alignment also occur in other games.

And, alignment is also used flat out in derivative games, which you can find plenty of.

>Classes/levels. Most systems use XP as progression currency instead, and if classes exist at all they are far less restrictive than D&D.

It's your opinion that classes and levels are a problem, and more importantly it's hardly unique to D&D. You're not even trying, are you?

>Vancian magic. Not found outside of D&D.

Even GURPS has an option for it. And, D&D has options for non-Vancian magic.
And, once again, that comes down to your personal interpretation that it is a problem.

Really, let me save you the trouble, and tell you that you're attempting the impossible here.

>>49766544
2E AD&D

>>49771586
>Other games use morality systems/allegiances/codes of conduct. They use different names, but the same "problems" that come out of alignment also occur in other games.
How about some examples?

>>49771503
Is it cheating if I say Numenara?
Honestly, there's plenty of other examples, but since you're just sort of running purely on hyperbole, hopefully your innate Monte Cook hate will just get you to agree and shut up before you say something else that's stupid.

>>49771545
>Vancian casting is still present in 5e, what the fuck are you talking about?
Vancian casting requires you to prepare spells. For most of 5e classes, you don't have to prepare anything, just expend spell slots. I might be a bit foggy on what does or does not constitute "Vancian" magic, but for most classes other than the Wizard I'm pretty sure they've stepped away from Vancian magic.

>>49771619
Everything in World of Darkness, old, new, and 2e new.
Mouseguard.

>>49771619
L5R. Plenty of codes of conduct, plenty of factions and allegiances, and it even has a straight up "evil" realm.

>>49771682
WoD's morality systems are not even remotely similar to D&D's alignment systems.

>>49771657
D&D doesn't actually use Vancian casting, as in Vance's setting, it was more than "spell slots".

>>49766544
Pathfinder, though I was quite a That Guy at the time. Now I'm more mature, and want to DM a game of Paranoia. Problem is, I gave up That Guy-ism for perfectionism: If I don't think I can blow doors off hinges with my session, then I won't do it.

>>49771702
>not even remotely

That's a stretch.
They're different, certainly, but we're not talking the earth and stars here.

>>49766411
but I don't want to scare people away from D&D (and I am one of the regular detractors in those threads). instead, I want there being a wider awareness of other games and/or how other games differ from D&D. the reason is that I think a fair number of people don't like the hack & slash playstyle that D&D excels at and never get deeper into the hobby, not realizing how limited their experience has been. and what RPGs can be beyond that.

if people like D&D, they should play it, fine. it's just not my cup of tea.

>These system rivalry debates are silly.
hold on. no, they're not. debating systems goes beyond just the issue of newbies. that is a question of game design, a fave subject of study of mine.

>>49766626
in the case of D&D and DSA, it is a fairly adequate term.

>>49771586
>Other games use morality systems/allegiances/codes of conduct. They use different names, but the same "problems" that come out of alignment also occur in other games.
The only system that has anything resembling alignment that comes to mind is WoD Vampires, with the Humanity mechanic, which is not even close to alignment in any meaningful way (the path of humanity is not declared as objectively correct, it's just what you start on - there are alternatives which declare other forms of morality as correct, and ultimately it's a question of /adherence/ to a particular ethos than a flat out statement that certain things are RIGHT and other things are WRONG - furthermore this mechanic is absent the other WoD gamelines).

WoD is also not the vast majority of games.

Some of the more popular games that have nothing resembling alignment in any way:

GURPS
40k RPG
DoubleCross
FFG Star Wars
Eclipse Phase
Anima

Also
>muh generic D&D ripoff heartbreaker #214 uses alignment
is not an argument in your favor, retard.

>j-just y-your opinion
Yes, everything I declare to be "wrong" is obviously my opinion. There is no objectively incorrect way to play pretend. Congratulations for this 2nd grade-tier revelation.

That doesn't mean your opinions aren't shit, or that mine aren't obviously better.

>Even GURPS has an option for it. And, D&D has options for non-Vancian magic.
Having the option to do something that the system doesn't directly enable you to do is present in every system. It's called ignoring RAW. D&D is a game about Vancian magic. No one, especially the fucking poor newfags your conscripted into your "entry level" game, plays D&D without Vancian magic.

>>49771657
"Extremely Specific Wonder Tricks™ per day" is Vancian magic.

File: Disapproval.jpg (116KB, 313x295px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 313x295px

>>49766571
My first RPG was Song of Swords, Jimmy. I was fourteen, Jimmy.

Posting here isn't against the rules for me any more, Jimmy.

>>49767101
>3rd edition brought in more new players than any game before it, doubling the highest player count from 3 million to over 6 million.
Well, let's call it a combination of very successful CRPGs and a new edition.

>>49771742
They're literally nothing alike. The only similarity is that some alignments might have restrictions to some of the same actions that cause one's Humanity to drop.

>tfw stupid fucks really got themselves grabbed into discussion about if there are flaws in D&D no other game has
>tfw it's completely lacking any bearing
>tfw what would be actually of importance (but still slight) is inverted statement, that is if is there a game that doesn't share any of D&D flaws
>tfw those statements aren't mutually implying each other, but they still produce fuckton of posts on this irrevelant topic

>>49766411
Just because trash-talking D&D is counter-productive doesn't absolve the system of its flaws. I'll grant you that we'll win more converts by talking up systems that we do like, but that doesn't mean that all roleplayers must be first "filtered" through D&D.

>>49771755
Anon, that depends on people, like yourself, bringing up different games to people who want to play.
My first game was 2e D&D, but I started when I was 9, and am 34 now.
I have introduced brand new players to the hobby using Dark Heresy, D&D, NWoD, Paranoia, Mouseguard, and have thrice that many games in my time.
Really, what is important is a willingness to sit down and play new games. Some people, even experienced players, only play the same games, which I don't even begin to understand.
>hold on. no, they're not.
On /tg/ and most online sites, that's exactly what they are, fools masturbating over their favored game and decrying others because they play something else.

>>49771910
>mouseguard
Fuck off and die, furfag

>>49767519
>if you dare to criticize D&D, the hobby will wither and die
lol, i'll take my chances

>>49767711
>D&D vs Dark Eye
D&D is more pastiche. it's the Las Vegas of gaming (at least some settings are): all kinds of BS crammed into it without rhyme or reason.
also: don't forget to mention shadowrun. it's still fairly big here.

>>49771755
>the reason is that I think a fair number of people don't like the hack & slash playstyle that D&D excels at and never get deeper into the hobby,

There's a gap in your logic, because you're assuming three things that are wholely untrue.

1. D&D excels at one thing, which means it can't do anything else
2. D&D isn't flexible, and everyone is only allowed to play RAW
3. People haven't been exploring the depths of what D&D is capable of for decades

D&D has always been more than just hack and slash, and people have always taken the next step with it, all the way back when Gygax was running a heavily political campaign concerned with governance of Greyhawk. At the point where they're familiar enough with roleplaying games to actually feel the limitations of the system that they haven't homebrewed over, that's so far down the path that it would be almost impressive if they haven't tried different games.

While wider awareness of other games is great, there's no reason to try and preface it with "D&D is terrible", especially because most of the discussion ends up revolving around just talking about D&D and back-and-forth between trolls.

I love talking about different games, but the kind of insane lines that these trolls have been trying to propagate have become so distant from anything that can be called meaningful discussion that we might as well stop bothering to rise to their bait and instead just talk about games we like while they wallow in their misguided hatred.

>>49767965
yeah, it tells me that these games' successes are largely based on brand and size of community, not quality. path-dependency and all that crap.

>>49770834
not him but: character optimization/builds is nothing I am familiar with (although I have been out of the DSA loop for a long, long time). PART of the D&D fanbase has an atrocious wargamer mentality. when a new PHB gets released, it (classes, races, etc.) gets analyzed similarly to a 40K codex. for me, this is quite toxic.

>>49771803
>"Extremely Specific Wonder Tricks™ per day" is Vancian magic.
That seems like a very broad definition of the term, but if that's what you call "Vancian casting" I'm alright with it.

So, what other magic systems are used by RPGs? If your definition of "Vancian magic" is "specific tricks, limited roughly by the number you can cast per day or between rests," that doesn't sound to me like it leaves out a whole lot of systems. But, then again, I don't know many magic systems, and I've always been kind of dissatisfied with how limiting the D&D spells feel. So what are some alternative magic systems I should know about?

>>49771925
Mouseguard, furry? It's basically a grimmer Redwall. You're saying Redwall is furry?

>>49770934
don't talk about problems. talk about to what kind of playstyle a system is best suited. and ideally, you agree first on a playstyle you wanna go for. if you don't want to play fantasy superheroes, I wouldn't recommend D&D. not even E6.

>>49771207
>implying there's only OP here who disagrees with your world view
i see what you did there

>>49772088
Most magic systems have a specific mana resource like blood (VtM), quintessence (MtAs), Zeon (Anima), which you expend to cast spells.

The other popular alternative is that magic is a skill check, and usually comes with negative consequences for failure, as in 40k RPG, Eclipse Phase, DoubleCross, and GURPS (though as GURPS is generic it has the resource-based option and even a Vancian variant for the masochists out there).

Vancian magic is basically restricted to that loathsome genre of "fantasy heartbreaker", aka D&D clones.

>>49772068
>1. D&D excels at one thing, which means it can't do anything else
It doesn't excel at the one thing most people would think it excels at, either.

>2. D&D isn't flexible, and everyone is only allowed to play RAW
It is not, in fact, flexible. Houserules are not in fact a testament to a system's flexibility. Adding to that is D&D's complete absence of support for going outside of its rigid ruleset.

>3. People haven't been exploring the depths of what D&D is capable of for decades
They indeed have, and many have stumbled into its vast quantity of problems as a result.

D&D has never been more than just hack and slash; it's just that the people who played it wanted more than hack and slash, so they went out of their way to make something different work under the ruleset they're already familiar with. Unfortunately, it doesn't work well.

>>49771619
Palladium has alignments
and they make damn sense, if not taken too literally

>>49772118
Of course it is you fucking disgusting furfag.

Seriously, fuck you and your perverse fetishism.

Animals are not lovable in any way, least of all in an anthropomorphic sense.`

>>49771803
You're stubborn, but you still haven't found a unique problem.

>only system that has anything resembling alignment that comes to mind

You're really not thinking then.

>is not an argument in your favor, retard.

It kind of is, especially when you factor in how many D&D derivatives there are.

>Having the option to do something that the system doesn't directly enable you to do is present in every system. It's called ignoring RAW.

If the rules are written, right in the books, it's called RAW. And, those options are written, right in those books, whether we're talking Psionics or Unearthed arcana in D&D or the options in Thaumatology for GURPS.

>That doesn't mean your opinions aren't shit, or that mine aren't obviously better.

I think we're done here. Thanks for basically shouting "I'M A DUMB TROLL, ONLY HERE TO ARGUE AND SHITPOST."

>>49772077
>PART of the D&D fanbase has an atrocious wargamer mentality.
So what's wrong with a "wargamer mentality"? I don't really play wargames.
>When a new PHB gets released, it gets analyzed similarly to a 40k codex. For me, this is toxic.
Again, what's wrong with the association with wargames? I have friends who play wargames, although I don't. You could even say that some editions of D&D are very much like wargames, such as 4e, with their mechanical interest in tactics and that kind of thing. I still don't know why that's badong or "toxic" or whatever.

>>49772187
Those are neat opinions. Too bad I disagree, and we're at an impass.

Also,
>D&D has never been more than just hack and slash

I guess the millions who use it for more than just hack and slash, with rulebooks dedicated to expanding the game beyond hack and slash, we must all just disagree with you.

>>49772213
>You're really not thinking then.
Go on then and list one you pathetic troll.

>It kind of is, especially when you factor in how many D&D derivatives there are.
D&D derivatives suffer from D&D's problems because they are derivative of it. How is this possibly something that supports your position?

>If the rules are written, right in the books, it's called RAW. And, those options are written, right in those books, whether we're talking Psionics or Unearthed arcana in D&D or the options in Thaumatology for GURPS.
I don't care that you have some obscure splatbook giving you a (still probably shit) workaround - the way that people play the game is not that way. Arguing about RAW in a generic system such as GURPS is pretty stupid, because there are dozens of entirely valid and oftentimes equally popular ways to play. In D&D this is very clearly not the case.

>>49772179
>Most magic systems have a specific mana resource like blood (VtM), quintessence (MtAs), Zeon (Anima), which you expend to cast spells.
So what are spells like in these games? I've played homebrews with mana systems before, but they were all just listed spells like D&D ones.
Magic as a skill check sounds a little confusing, could you give an example or something of that? Seems kind of abusable if it would work like I think it does.

>>49772196
except mouseguard animals aren't really anthropomorphic

>>49772196
I'm lost. Dude, I'm not even a furry. Ironically, you are being a bit too rabid about this.
>Animals are not lovable in any way, least of all in an anthropomorphic sense.
I mean... are you saying that everyone who has had a dog is a furry? That's kind of insane.

>>49772280
Well, they kind of are, in that they think, speak, and act like humans do. They're not PHYSICALLY anthropomorphic, but that's not the only meaning of the word.

>>49770745
So you admit that you want this hobby to wither and die in obscurity?

>>49766411
>D&D is an entry game.
It's a shitty entry game but the popularity of the brand in the americas gives it a dominating part of the market so one might as well amke the best of it if one is stuck in the american market.

I'm not. Never have been and no one I personally know has ever started playing tabletop RPGs with Dungeons & Dragons.

>>49772264
>Go on then and list one you pathetic troll.
L5R was already mentioned, you pathetic troll.

>How is this possibly something that supports your position?

The position is that D&D doesn't have unique problems. And, if derivative games included those problems, it might be because the designers disagree with you and your belief that they are, in fact, inherently problems.

For example, alignment isn't all bad. It has some good features, like clearly outlining who is friend and foe if you want to keep things simple. Not everyone loves endless gray morality.

> don't care that you have some obscure splatbook giving you a (still probably shit) workaround - the way that people play the game is not that way.

Psionics, Unearthed Arcana, and Thaumatology are hardly obscure. I'm sorry, but you just sound stupid at this point.

>In D&D this is very clearly not the case.

According to who? You? When D&D has dozens of entirely valid and oftentimes equally popular ways to play? If we just diced things up based on popular campaign settings, each with their own individual and entirely valid ways to play, that makes you look pretty stupid, even without talking about popular variant formats seperate from campaign settings like E6 or HoH.

I've told you earlier that you might as well give up, especially because you seem to be so biased as to demand that D&D be treated like a unique system where the only way you're allowed to play is core rules only, by RAW.

>>49772270
>homebrews with mana systems
Yes, I'm sure you've played many D&D derived "fantasy heartbreaker" games. These are not actually different games. They're the pile of shit that is D&D with a coat of mud thrown over-top to cover the smell. Still going to taste like shit, still is shit at its core.

As for some examples, let's take Anima as an example for a system which uses spell resource (Zeon). Instead of "Bigby's Big Magic Dick the Level 6 Arcane Spell which does 1 very specific thing", you have spells like "Inorganic Modification" which allows the caster to "alter the form and nature of an inorganic object, transforming it into a completely different thing of similar spiritual power."

Typically spells, when defined in other systems, are similarly broad in their functionality, and magic is almost /never/ limited to the spell list that comes with the system.

As for how it works with a skill check, take 40k RPG as an example. A psyker aims to roll under his Willpower on a d100. Over the threshold, he fails, and a higher degree of failure has more serious consequences, while a higher degree of success means a more powerful version of the power. If he gets doubles, regardless of whether he succeeds or fails, he manifests a warp phenomenon. There is no resource for the power, except that using it is typically dangerous for the caster, and what you're able to do with the "magic" is quite limited unless you're using it in a ritualistic format.

File: thingken.png (33KB, 192x264px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 192x264px

>>49770745
If you value isolation in your hobby more than you do accessibility, why do you still play the industry's most popular brand name instead of something more obscure that newcomers won't be as interested in?

It really doesn't make any sense when you think about it. D&D is the most popular label, but you're arguing that D&D should be harder to get into. Wouldn't it be more wiser and internally consistent to play some other RPG that's less well-known if you don't want newcomers to RPGs, who will most likely only heard of D&D? It's a bit like living in a great big impressive house with a big flag next to a major trade route instead of building your own keep in a remote valley. Why?

>>49772346
Are you German?
I want to know if all the shitposters are Germans.

>49772450
L5R is a derivative game. It also doesn't have alignment. Characters have allegiances to their houses, but they do not have an "objective" moral code, and they are not supernaturally punished for behaving contrarily to their allegiance, but instead may face very real and expected consequences for betrayal.

>Not everyone loves endless gray morality.
Alright, you're clearly a troll. I'm not going to respond further. Please kill yourself.

>>49771803
>The only system that has anything resembling alignment that comes to mind is WoD Vampires
to reiterate it: all Palladium games have the following alignments (yes, that's what they are called)
Principled: Lawful Good-equivalent
Scrupulous: charles bronson, other vigilantes; fight for the good but be not too picky about means
Unprincipled: han solo; leans towards selfishness but has a soft, good heart.
Anarchist: selfish but shies away from outright evil deeds
Aberrant: evil but not towards friends. honor among thieves type.
Miscreant: evil selfishness
Diabolic: pure evil

>>49766602
>>49767713
>>49768144
>Kata Kumbas isn't the default RPG in Italy
TRAGEDY

>>49772246
it feeds players they should be optimizing or else they are not playing right or in an unintelligent manner.

also, me, not leaning towards gamist playstyle, take the liberty to consider this gamist atmosphere toxic for the playstyles i prefer.

>>49772256
>I guess the millions who use it for more than just hack and slash
doubt

>>49772515
>derivative game

We can actually argue all tabletop roleplaying games are derivative of D&D. We can even extend that to include all video game roleplaying games. Hell, Final Fantasy started with Vancian magic.

Also, L5R has objective evil. It even has an objectively evil plane, Jigoku.
I don't know if you're just stupid or trying to be stupid.

>Alright, you're clearly a troll. I'm not going to respond further. Please kill yourself.

Apparently both. You're a horrible combination of natural stupidity combined with the effort to be stupid.

>>49772467
protip: they're all american

>>49772088
No spell-list system

"Freeform casting", aka: you can do anythinv you want, just ask the GM how hard it will be. Characters usually get skills to make specific types of magic easier. So, the fire mage gets to roll an extra dice whenever they cast a fire-based spell. Mage is the most popular freeform magic system. Dungeon World uses this for "rituals".

"Power words" or "verb/noun" magic is another alternative. Characters learn magic words and can combine them to create spells. "Fire" + "Inflict" = fireball spell. "Fire" + "Protect" = wall of flames. Ars Magica is probably the most popular system. GURPS also has this as an option in GURPS Thaumaturgy, I think.
No "per-day" limits:

"Ritual magic": spells can be used an unlimited number of times, but require expensive/rare materials, and a lot of preparation.

"Mana points": using spells costs a limited resource, either somethibg abstract like mana/ki/qi, or something with pysical effects like hitpoints/stamina/exhaustion. Bigger spells cost more mana. Mana might regen by resting, automatically recover slowly, or might require specific actions (making offerings to gods, huffing quicksilver, drinking magic tea, etc.)

"Dangerous magic": No limits on spell use, but casting has a chance of harming your character. Health damage, sanity damage, ongoing debuffs, etc. Often used in horror systems, where magic slowly drives you insane and probably kills you eventually.

You can also combine any style of "effect" with a different "cost". Vancian "power words per day", or JRPG "power words cost mana", or Cthulhu "power words make you insane".

>>49766544
Red Box Basic D&D for me. back in like, 1983

File: oh no ilis.jpg (191KB, 789x588px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 789x588px

>>49766544
d20 modern was my first system and it's an adoption of 3.autism
Mostly playing savage worlds and 40krpgs
>>49767310
>Wick
>pic related

>>49769692
>ppeople like it, that means it isn't shit!

Looks like I was mistaken. >>>/tumblr/ might be more your speed

>>49768033
In the US they sell shadowrun at barnes and noble, and all of the starwars games too

>>49766544
hello. that would be me and my friends. its only like 5 people out of all of america but, putting my 2 cents down.

>>49775320
>I don't like it, that means it's shit
>but wait, listen to my complaints that no one cares about

It looks like >>>>throwyourselfdownahole Is your best option.

what's so bad about new people starting with D&D anyways

>>49772673
Nah, DSA fags are just as horrible, if not more. It's literally as if someone sucked all the fun out of DnD.

>>49772695
And all of those are horrible for a game that actually wants to run somewhat swift and yet deep combat.

>>49775422
The freeform faggots dont like it. That's literally it.

>>49775422
It's a shit system and locks people into certain genres.

>>49776089
Ah, the old "gun against their head" fallacy.
You shitposters need some new material that hasn't been torn apart.

>>49776108
You haven't torn anything apart. You've just stuck your fingers in your head and screamed "No, you!"

>>49776161
You really want to be taken seriously, don't you?

You're going to have to do better than repeating dumb myths ad nauseum.

>>49776089
Perhaps the same could be said of all systems!

>>49775410
>I've been BTFO, but I'll post the same thing again!

Ok, I finally figured it out. >>>/suicide/

File: large.gif (476KB, 500x253px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 500x253px

>>49776351

File: 1472861599630.jpg (42KB, 425x640px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 425x640px

I have complete and utter apathy towards D&D anymore. I used to hate the system. I used to hate that it is the most popular. I used to hate that is the first RPG that most people play. I used to hate how it influences how they play other RPG's when IF they ever decide to branch out.

Now I just feel nothing. It's like people that listen to Top 40 music. They may be plebs, but it's not worth getting angry about. Just enjoy what you enjoy.

>>49776473
Maybe you wouldn't be dead inside if you realized a lot earlier how stupid your hatred was. It's also a damn shame that you still carry that stupid hate with you to this day.

Though, it's good that your walking corpse can serve as an example for the other faggots.

>>49766411
It's not the 1970s anymore. People know about role playing games and thanks to the internet, they can look up which RPG is best for them. Maybe they don't want a fantasy experience but would rather do something sci-fi, or horror, or contemporary? Hell, thanks to the internet, chances are they don't even need to find a gaming group in real life.

Anyway, I've played about a dozen systems throughout my time playing roleplaying games and only with my last campaign did I play Dungeons and Dragons and a fantasy campaign. It's not what I'd like to play, but I'm playing with friends.

>>49776520
Why do you feel the need to defend a shit, watered down RPG?

>>49776520
I mean it's not like I haven't played my fair share of D&D, Anon. I have given the system a chance and it falls flat for anything but
>MUH TACTICAL GRID BATTLES.

Which is not what I think RPG's should be about. That's just my opinion.

>>49776531
Defend what?
I'm talking about fags who do stuff like hate popular game systems.

Chalk it up with the kind of guys who complain about the Beatles.
We get it. Revolution #9 is awful.
But she loves me (yeah yeah yeah) is pretty catchy.

>>49776561
It sounds like you're the kind of guy that's dumber than a ten-year-old though,
Ten-year-olds use D&D for more than tactical grid battles. Doesn't seem all that hard.

I guess being dumb comes in a lot of ways, and you're just RPG-tarded. Don't feel too bad though, not everyone has to be good at everything.

File: 1462870302375.jpg (107KB, 437x437px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 437x437px

>>49776599
But Anon I play Vampire the Masquerade regularly, so I certainly don't hate D&D just because it's popular. I hate that it's popular because it's just a garbage system, and I wish more people were playing better ones. (Not that I think VtM is a good system, it's just my weakness)

>>49776666
Just because a good GM can turn a shit system into a good time, doesn't make it not a shit system. A vast majority of GM's are not that great, so having a better system to make up for that would be better for the overall RPG playing populace. Or people that have to put up with shit GM's.

>>49776677
>it's just a garbage system,
>I play Vampire the Masquerade regularly

Good job at discrediting yours-

>(Not that I think VtM is a good system, it's just my weakness)

Nice catch.
Still can't really take your opinion all that seriously though.

>>49776707
Well to be fair, I run Runequest for my fantasy needs. I think BRP is a fantastic system. So I'm not a fucking pleb, unlike yourself.

>>49776698
You're going to have to stop veering off the side of the discussion like that.

We're not even talking about magically good DM's that repurpose an entire system to suit their needs. We're talking ten-year-olds opening the box and having a good time, (alongside octogenarians overseeing intense political struggles over the course of decades' long campaigns).

It's a good RPG. There's no need to argue about it being the best, even though it would win every poll in that regard and critics have awarded it that title just about every time it was available. That might just be the power of the brand, but it's not like people are absolute idiots and the game has no merits whatsoever, or it would have been superseded long ago.

You've got different preferences, and even I have other games I prefer over the various editions of D&D, but I think what separates me from you is that I never felt a need to hate a popular system, and if I wanted people to learn about other systems I just played them with them instead of trying to convert them to some sort of system cult.

>>49776746
>runequest

Your stock just plummeted even further, y'know.

What edition? 6? The one where the tone revs up from "pastorally boring" all the way up to "mildly dull"?

And BRP has its share of dumb sacred cows and bad design decisions, though I definitely prefer the BRP versions of Stormbringer over the Runequest one.

>>49775571

D&D combat is neither swift nor deep.

Even when we ran a game with only two people, the combat lasted at least three rounds and the most optimum strategy was just to hit something until it died.

>>49776940
It sounds like you're the kind of guy that's dumber than a ten-year-old though.
Even ten-year-old's know how to make combat swift and deep. It's not particularly hard or a well-kept secret.

If you're struggling with D&D, a game even small children play, you might just not be as smart as you think you are.

>>49776812

>That might just be the power of the brand, but it's not like people are absolute idiots and the game has no merits whatsoever, or it would have been superseded long ago.

We're talking about a world in which the PS4 managed to sell millions of units opening day with literally no games (except for bloodborne).

Do not underestimate how much bullshit people are willing to stomach just because it seems familiar to them.

>I think what separates me from you is that I never felt a need to hate a popular system, and if I wanted people to learn about other systems I just played them with them instead of trying to convert them to some sort of system cult.

D&D shouldn't be an entry level game because of some prescribed hatred that you feel all the haters have, it shouldn't be entry level because it requires much more dedication to learn in comparison to systems like Paranoia, CoC, or Apocalypse World.

If you want to get someone into the game, rules-lite is the way to go.

File: tumblr_nm8tg0JhDF1u3quaso6_1280.png (310KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1280x720px

>tfw starting with DnD
>tfw finding it fun
>tfw DMing it now with some light homebrews and taking into account OSR philosophy

This is how it starts, right? I go from DnD to some other grognard system that no one plays. And I'll be in this thread.

Shitposting.

About Badwrongfun.

>>49777063
I wish. It's harder than that to find other people willing to even try stuff that they're not familiar with.

>>49777063
Nah, just be aware of your nerdish tendencies.

>>49777073
I'll bring it up to them.

Ultimate goal is to get a successful small campaign going, and then ask if they want to try 0e or a 0e spinoff, and then go further from there.

>>49777035
>literally
>http://www.ign.com/wikis/playstation-4/PlayStation_4_Launch_Titles

I don't know what to tell you other than that your example isn't that poignant, and your misuse of "literally" is a count against you. It also sounds like you're upset about PS4 sales for some reason.

Is that what this is all about? Trying to buffer up system wars like console wars, just to enjoy meaningless shitflinging?

>If you want to get someone into the game, rules-lite is the way to go.

I'd actually argue the opposite. Rule-lite tends to work better with more experienced players, since those systems tend to rely a lot on cooperative interpretation that takes some time to really develop. New players need structure, and while too much reading can be quite off-putting and games that require a degree of system mastery are obviously poor choices for new players, games that are not necessarily "rules-lite" can provide a broad foundation for new roleplayers and help guide them through what would otherwise be early debates and headaches.

Even so, on the argument of rules-lite, each of the D&D editions has "rules-lite" introduction with a reduced number of classes and other rules in order to keep the game simple for first timers.

Other games are also good as introductory games, but D&D does a fair job.

>>49777165

>Is that what this is all about? Trying to buffer up system wars like console wars, just to enjoy meaningless shitflinging?

The point I was making is that people will support a brand no matter its actual quality.

I mean, I'm sure that there are people who line up to play knack or killzone or Angry Birds Star Wars but I can't think of anyone who would purchase any of those games over games like Bloodborne but I digress.

>Rule-lite tends to work better with more experienced players, since those systems tend to rely a lot on cooperative interpretation that takes some time to really develop.

The thing is, you're not going to develop cooperative interpretation unless you actually sit those players down and explain how the game works.

1/?

>>49777306
You know, if you didn't space

like

this

you wouldn't need to make two posts. Christ's sake that's obnoxious

>>49777165

>New players need structure, and while too much reading can be quite off-putting and games that require a degree of system mastery are obviously poor choices for new players, games that are not necessarily "rules-lite" can provide a broad foundation for new roleplayers and help guide them through what would otherwise be early debates and headaches.

In a rules-lite game, you're encouraged to focus more on the roleplay than on the rollplay, the rules are simpler so it means less time going back and explaining the basic rules of the game over and over again, and it encourages creativity since you don't really get much just by attacking until the enemy is dead.

This isn't to say that crunchier games are bad or anything, it's just that if you can't trust someone to not be a shitter in a rules-lite system, a game with more rules will just give them license to become worse since they're likely the type to go only and research different ways to break the system.

>>49777395

Why

Do

You

Care?

Can you actually engage the argument?

Also, I wouldn't need to make 2 posts if you didn't write a paragraph of text for me to quote in the first place.

>>49777403
>In a rules-lite game, you're encouraged to focus more on the roleplay than on the rollplay

Which is fine up until an inevitable conflict arises. That's when rules-lite systems are stress tested, and most tend to fall apart with brand new players coming from different backgrounds.

> and it encourages creativity since you don't really get much just by attacking until the enemy is dead.

And I've seen it discourage creativity, because descriptions without mechanical weight simply become tedious. You don't really get much just by describing different ways of swinging your sword until the enemy is dead, compared to a rule-heavier system that provides options and mechanical weight to those descriptions.

>it's just that if you can't trust someone to not be a shitter in a rules-lite system, a game with more rules will just give them license to become worse since they're likely the type to go only and research different ways to break the system.

We're not talking about shitters, we're talking about people with different perceptions, expectations, and even just different tastes. New players tend to have widely different ideas of what to expect in a game and what they and their characters are or should be capable of, and that's why games with that go on the heavy side in order to try and make sure the rules are as clear and explicit as they can be work well for groups of new players.

>>49777421
>I wouldn't need to make 2 posts if you didn't write a paragraph of text for me to quote in the first place.
I'm not the fellow you're responding to, which is why I didn't touch your argument. I didn't read it.
It's just, you really didn't need all that space. You wrote all of three sentences there. As for why I care, well, it's just annoying to read it like that. Style is important to me, and I'm using "style" in this case as it appears in phrases like "the AP style guide," not as in your word choice or anything. I mean, it's the same reason we put spaces between our words, because it's more readable. Itwouldstillbelegible to write without spaces, but it's annoying to read words like that. refusing to use capital letters is the same. in english, they're helpful markers of when sentences start. when they're not there, it's just a bit harder to tell, and that's inconvenient. I won't fuck around with punctuation, but I think you see my point anyway.
Writing with improper, imprecise, or inconsistent style makes you look less put-together, irritates whoever you're talking to, and in this specific instance all the negative space makes it seem like you don't really have much to say.
Well, you asked.

>>49777306
>The point I was making is that people will support a brand no matter its actual quality.

And you failed to make that point.
It sounds like you have some sort of brand hatred thing going for you, like it's a defining aspect of your personality.

>The thing is, you're not going to develop cooperative interpretation unless you actually sit those players down and explain how the game works.

Explain and debate about it, as compared to games where the rules are more explicit.

>>49777639

>Which is fine up until an inevitable conflict arises. That's when rules-lite systems are stress tested, and most tend to fall apart with brand new players coming from different backgrounds.

If the conflict is honestly that bad to where you cannot solve it just by being level-headed adults then the game was going to fail anyways, rules or no rules.

>And I've seen it discourage creativity, because descriptions without mechanical weight simply become tedious. You don't really get much just by describing different ways of swinging your sword until the enemy is dead, compared to a rule-heavier system that provides options and mechanical weight to those descriptions.

Relatively few systems can actually simulate the feel of actual, meaty combat and its ultimately up the GM to make it feel as though your descriptions actually matter, whether it's through a bonus here or there or through vivid description that hooks the player in.

>>49777073
Is it? I've found it's more an issue when you have a Forever GM who refuses to let go of a system. It wasn't until our group got fed up with our Forever GM (3.5/PF) turning his last campaign into "PC vs. GM, GM gotta win!" and the subsequent character roulette every week that we decided fuck it, walked away from the table and just started GMing games for ourselves.

Our group of 5 was actually excited to try something different for a change. We each picked a system, learned it, taught the rest of the group how to play it and make characters, then ran it for a month. We're on our last month of a new system, then we're rotating back to what we started with and doing it all over. Gives each person more than enough time to plan out an adventure that'll last a month, while letting everyone play as a PC.

>>49766544

I find this incredibly surprising because everyone I personally know has either had DnD or Pathfinder as their first system.

>>49777639

>We're not talking about shitters, we're talking about people with different perceptions, expectations, and even just different tastes.

Before you even sit down to do character creation, everyone involved should be able to agree on what sort of campaign they're looking forward to.

At the very least, it gives people the chance to opt out if the GM is planning on running something that they aren't looking forward to.

>New players tend to have widely different ideas of what to expect in a game and what they and their characters are or should be capable of, and that's why games with that go on the heavy side in order to try and make sure the rules are as clear and explicit as they can be work well for groups of new players.

The rules, in and of themselves, have never stopped a terrible player from coming in with a min-maxed mary sue piece of shit that clashes with the rest of the party.

The only one who can set the expectations of the setting and the PC's is the GM.

>>49777767
>If the conflict is honestly that bad to where you cannot solve it just by being level-headed adults then the game was going to fail anyways, rules or no rules.

It's still needless argumentation, level-headed or not. Ultimately, what ends up happening with rules-light systems is that a set of unwritten rules ends up developing within groups to settle particular resolutions, and this takes time to build up, especially with new players who are arguing about rules without having a large frame of reference or experience.

It's easy to play rules-light systems, just like it's easy to play freeform. However, it's ironically hard to play those kinds of systems well.

>Relatively few systems can actually simulate the feel of actual, meaty combat

One issue is that some people don't want the feel of actual, meaty combat. With new players, it's unreasonable to expect everyone to be on the same page, and while one person is describing elaborate, historically accurate parries, another player may be flipping around, trying to cut people in half with somersault slashes. It takes time for players to learn how to act cohesively, as well as for a GM to determine what degree of realism they want for their game. With heavier rule sets, many of the decisions and distinctions are already made, allowing the players an easier time of understanding their characters and the world.

>>49777718
>And you failed to make that point.
I disagree, mainly because all you've been focusing on the fact that I don't share your opinion more than you've actually been engaging the argument.

If you don't believe that people will buy schlock based off of brand recognition then I don't know what to tell you besides the fact that you're a national treasure whose smile should be protected, you delicate little flower you.

>Explain and debate about it, as compared to games where the rules are more explicit.

People will debate any fucking thing if they believe that it will give them the advantage, especially in a game where the rules are more explicit.

Think about it, think about any situation where you've had to deal with a rules-lawyer who wasted everyone's time debating the GM over some stupid ruling that probably won't ever come up again.

>>49777916
>Ultimately, what ends up happening with rules-light systems is that a set of unwritten rules ends up developing within groups to settle particular resolutions, and this takes time to build up, especially with new players who are arguing about rules without having a large frame of reference or experience.

Which is why the GM is the one who acts as the frame of reference for what is or is not possible within the campaign.

I also don't see how all these arguments would crop up during the game like you claim unless you're dealing with fucktards who engage in PvP just for the sake of measuring cocks against one another.

>With heavier rule sets, many of the decisions and distinctions are already made, allowing the players an easier time of understanding their characters and the world.

You put an unhealthy amount of faith in the rules considering that the game cannot be played with the GM.

Are you sure video games aren't more your speed?

>>49777812
>Before you even sit down to do character creation, everyone involved should be able to agree on what sort of campaign they're looking forward to.

There are so many nuances, especially ones that most people don't even consider until they come up during a game.

Two people can run very different Star Wars games, for example. Two very different "everyone's a jedi" games as well. Even two very different "everyone's a jedi, the story is dark, no non-humans, no relation to any canon characters, before the prequels, etc. etc." games.

>
The rules, in and of themselves, have never stopped a terrible player from coming in with a min-maxed mary sue piece of shit that clashes with the rest of the party.

And, I'm not talking about shitters/terrible players, I'm talking about new players, players who may need some guidance and a firm rule set in order to have a better understanding of what they are capable of.

>>49777929
>If you don't believe that people will buy schlock based off of brand recognition then I don't know what to tell you besides the fact that you're a national treasure whose smile should be protected, you delicate little flower you.

Your point is getting weaker and weaker, especially because you're at the point where you are hoping that if you make vague generalizations, I will have to agree with you.

D&D isn't Sony. And, you didn't even manage to prove any point about Sony. I suggest that whatever you were hoping to argue, you might as well give up.

>Think about it, think about any situation where you've had to deal with a rules-lawyer who wasted everyone's time debating the GM over some stupid ruling that probably won't ever come up again.

Those are for situations either not covered in the rules or that run contrary to them.
With rules-light systems, what's not covered in the rules is far more expansive, and with less frames of reference, the arguments and rule discussions are an unavoidable aspect of those games, even among experienced players.

>>49766411
/tg/ is a primary example of why more people playing rpgs is bad

trash breeds trash.

>>49778007
You're starting to really break down.

What are you even arguing at this point? Are you even discussing the same thing I am?

The GM is not a psychic emitter. He can't immediately convey his expectations and his frame of reference to the players. Discussions, arguments, explanations, conversations, and all the rest are necessary to get that information across, and that's time spent on communicating about the rules and determining their various nuances, rather than playing the game. With games that have these "unwritten" rules written for you, that helps everyone to be on the same page, even before the game begins.

>You put an unhealthy amount of faith in the rules

We're talking about new players. The rules they're expected to encounter hardly need be esoteric. they simply need to be clear. For some groups, few rules work fine. But, for most, a degree of explanation and constraint is necessary.

>>49778009

>And, I'm not talking about shitters/terrible players, I'm talking about new players, players who may need some guidance and a firm rule set in order to have a better understanding of what they are capable of.

The issues isn't that newbies don't know what they're capable of, it's that newbies don't understand the concept of boundaries and self-containment.

If your only interaction with tabletop RPGs are from stories like Old Man Henderson or some shit, you're going to go in as some min-maxed piece of shit whose only goal is to derail the campaign and go out like a "badass"

No rulebook will ever teach newbies how to play more effectively than a GM who knows what he's doing. However, since most GM's are awful, you just end up in this vicious cycle where bad GM's beget bad players who become bad GM's who beget more bad players.

Most of my current circle of RPG playing friends I got into the hobby with either Dark Heresy or some version of World of Darkness.

Truth is that if you want to get people playing lesser known games, introduce them to them and show how much fun they are as opposed to DnD with its inability to let go of 30 years old sacred cows.

>>49778189
>If your only interaction with tabletop RPGs are from stories like Old Man Henderson or some shit, you're going to go in as some min-maxed piece of shit whose only goal is to derail the campaign and go out like a "badass"

Any player who tries to be Henderson is in for an immediate rude awakening the moment they pick up a rulebook and realize that the Henderson story was absolute bullshit, and wouldn't have worked even with a helpful GM, let alone an antagonistic one.

>No rulebook will ever teach newbies how to play more effectively than a GM who knows what he's doing.

True, but the rulebooks are still helpful, especially for groups that entirely consist of new people, including the GM.

>>49778193
>its inability to let go of 30 years old sacred cows.

Speaking of Dark Heresy and World of Darkness...

>>49766411
Let me fix this for you, OP

Belief:
>If I scare people away from [Entry Game], they'll play these lesser known games!

Reality:
>If I scare people away from [Entry Game], they'll just end up playing video games or board games instead of playing shadows and reflections of what they're now afraid of

[Entry Game] is an entry game. If all you want is more players, why would you close the door?

These system rivalry debates are silly.

>>49767345
Believe it or not we're not to invested in trying to convince you of your positions. A lecture on "how to persuade special little me" does no good.

>>49778070
>Those are for situations either not covered in the rules or that run contrary to them.

Which is going to happen no matter how many rules you have. In fact, the more rules you add, the higher the chance of your rules having an exploit that leads to some weird interaction that you didn't account for.

>With rules-light systems, what's not covered in the rules is far more expansive, and with less frames of reference, the arguments and rule discussions are an unavoidable aspect of those games, even among experienced players.

That's actually a common misconception.

Rules-lite doesn't mean that there aren't rules, it means that the rules that's covered within the book only gives you enough context to make an informed decision upon without needing every minute detail cataloged somewhere in depth.

If a player says "I want to smash him with a brick" then the GM should have enough common sense to say "okay, roll strength to see how badly you damage him" or something.

>>49778155
>But, for most, a degree of explanation and constraint is necessary.

Then you have the people who see constraint as a challenge to see how far they can go without actually going over the edge for no reason than to say they could.

It's bad enough teaching a room of newbies how shit like AC or prepared spells work without the resident power-gamer coming in with a build that's technically legal but so far ahead of the pack that nobody else knows how to deal with the game anymore.

It's easier to constrain someone in a rules-lite because GM's discretion is ultimately there specifically to set the pace for how the actual game will go.

FFS, it's one of the reasons why Paranoia works so well as a system.

>>49778312
We're familiar with what Rules-lite means.

The issue with Rules-lite and new players is that with the GM's "common sense" being a more prominent feature than in heavier games, the game becomes more akin to "Mother May I", since the new players are all acting under quite different frames of reference that have yet to be unified.

The player does not know what they're capable of until they ask the GM, which can be quite a problem when trying to form plans more complex than "I want to smash him with a brick."

>>49778231

>Any player who tries to be Henderson is in for an immediate rude awakening the moment they pick up a rulebook and realize that the Henderson story was absolute bullshit, and wouldn't have worked even with a helpful GM, let alone an antagonistic one.

I know that and you know that but the average newbie who learned about tabletop from reddit or /tg/ isn't going to know that those stories were made in jest.

>True, but the rulebooks are still helpful, especially for groups that entirely consist of new people, including the GM.

Rulebooks are as helpful in teaching tabletop as textbooks are at teaching information.

You technically have everything that you need but without proper context it's all just meaningless words in a .pdf.

Plus, having someone explain to you why an idea doesn't work does more in teaching good habits than just letting everyone learn from a CRB without any idea of what they're doing.

>>49778389
>It's easier to constrain someone in a rules-lite because GM's discretion is ultimately there specifically to set the pace for how the actual game will go.

It's no different in a rules-heavy game, except that the rules form a broader base of initial reference. At the end of the day, what the GM says goes.

Also, there are power gamers in every style of game, including those who play freeform, as silly as that sounds. And, that's still all mostly just a side note about players who are bad because of their personality, rather than players who are unfamiliar with what they can do because they are new to the game.

>>49778399

>The issue with Rules-lite and new players is that with the GM's "common sense" being a more prominent feature than in heavier games, the game becomes more akin to "Mother May I", since the new players are all acting under quite different frames of reference that have yet to be unified.

I hate the term "mother may I" specifically because it makes it seem as though asking questions is a bad thing.

People should be asking questions and getting an idea for what is or is not possible, especially if they're fucking new and most likely haven't read the CRB in as much depth as the GM had.

>The player does not know what they're capable of until they ask the GM, which can be quite a problem when trying to form plans more complex than "I want to smash him with a brick."

I've never dealt with a question that couldn't answered in either "yes" or "yes, but."

Unless you're playing with some sort of moron who is trying to channel some chess master or some shit.

>>49778463
>I hate the term "mother may I" specifically because it makes it seem as though asking questions is a bad thing.

It's less about it being about asking questions, and more about how the game ends up revolving around persuading a single person as the most important facet of play.

It's a cosmic dance of bursting decadence and withheld permissions, twisting all our arms collectively.

But, if sweetness can win, and it can, then I'll still be here tomorrow to high-five you yesterday my friend. Peace.

>>49778443
>It's no different in a rules-heavy game, except that the rules form a broader base of initial reference.
Which is a much bigger deal when teaching someone who has no idea of how to play tabletop.

Compare a game like 3.PF which offers a shitload of character options at the cost of many of its rules being poorly defined vs. 5e where there are less options but is also much easier to explain to a new player.

You don't just throw someone off a cliff and expect them to fly on their own, you gotta ease them into it, otherwise you risk setting a bad precedent for how all tabletop games play out.

Like how some people stick to 3.PF because they think that all RPGs demand that same level of dedication to master.

>>49778521
>It's less about it being about asking questions, and more about how the game ends up revolving around persuading a single person as the most important facet of play.

That's how any tabletop RPG works though, you can't just throw shit against the wall and expect it to stick just because you succeeded on the roll, otherwise why even have a GM in the first place?

>>49778541
>You don't just throw someone off a cliff and expect them to fly on their own, you gotta ease them into it

Kind of why the original starter set for 3rd edition had 4 classes, 4 races, 8 skills, and two levels. Even compared to rules-light games that's pretty light.

The 4e and 5e starter sets also have similar limitations and simplifications. After learning those simpler systems, there was a bigger, broader system right behind it. And that's a pretty big strength, being able to scale up and down how many rules are in play according to the needs of the group.

>>49777639
>And I've seen it discourage creativity, because descriptions without mechanical weight simply become tedious. You don't really get much just by describing different ways of swinging your sword until the enemy is dead, compared to a rule-heavier system that provides options and mechanical weight to those descriptions
Describing every single weapon strike in combat in detail and considering it pivotal to quality roleplaying.
Okay... man your games must be boring to death.

>>49778541
>Like how some people stick to 3.PF because they think that all RPGs demand that same level of dedication to master.

That's unlikely the main reason, or even a major reason, people stuck to 3.PF. Familiarity may play a role, but there's plenty of people who returned back to 3.PF after learning new systems. It's probably largely because other systems tend to fall into less popular niches, with fantasy roleplaying remaining excedingly dominant outside of D&D and a handful of liscensed series.

>>49778607
A casual understanding of human nature might lead you to think that, but the rules are also in place to help the GM limit their own power for the sake of the game. While the GM is still ultimately the final say, he relinquishes some of his control in order to prevent the game from simply being a story the GM tells the players while the players posture and pray for his favors.

The GM does this through the dice. They also partially do this through the rules, enabling them to act as an impartial document that should only be amended when necessary. To what degree they relinquish control is up to each GM, but the key idea is that unless you're doing diceless freeform, the GM is willing to partially submit his own will to that of another power, all for the sake of providing drama and excitement to a game.

>otherwise why even have a GM in the first place?

There's a lot more to the GM's job than just being an arbiter.

>>49775571
nah, deendeefags with their character optimization is the worst
also:
what do you consider swift and deep combat?

>>49775422
nothing per se. as long as new gamers are aware that D&D just covers a niche (hack & slash, level & loot) in role-playing, i'm good.

>>49776161
>>49776216
neither of you are bringing anything to the table, you are both just claiming to be right.

>>49776521
people (and I would posit: especially females) are way more reluctant to play an obscure RPG (like shadowrun) than a game that is a household name like D&D. heck, some normies just want to give a try playing D&D because they "want to have played D&D". they can then tell their other normie friends that they are going to play D&D on friday or report back on their experience. for more obscure games, the barrier is higher.

my concern is that these normies leave roleplaying behind them based on an experience that just covers a (prominent) niche of the hobby.

that is why i wish we had at least 2 more household names in RPGs. say, CoC for horror and Star Wars RPG for sci-fi. or shadowrun. or TOR for different fantasy. or whatever!

>>49779391
I wouldn't call Shadowrun "obscure." It has plenty of video games for it, and the concept isn't hard to understand in the least. Its not hard for normies to understand at all.

>>49776812
>shilling that hard
>referencing sales and (paid?) critics
look, we can never know how much of its sales is based on brand versus its actual appeal. we can look at outside the US, where D&D's standing is arguably less prominent. it is still successful there but not nearly as dominant in as the US.

i would take from that that people love fantasy gaming and within fantasy gaming hack & slash, level & loot is most popular. D&D covers that niche well, except where other games (like DSA, WFRP) have covered that territory instead.

so it is the most successful game in the biggest niche in the hobby.

i just question how good it is outside that niche. and if there is sufficient awareness among normies about RPGing outside of D&D.

>>49779440
The thing you have to remember about D&D that sets it above 99% of other RPGs: it provides real guidelines for the DM.

It provides real guidelines for the DM.

It provides real, fucking, guidelines, for the DM. Guidelines that are actually useful to new and old DMs alike.

In the vast VAST majority of RPGs, they may give airy fairy mission statements to the GM, but they do not take it seriously.

They usually give an estimate on how much XP to give to players after such and such long, possibly based off player participation or just attendance.

They do not usually give any sort of guideline as far as combat difficulty, or how much wealth or items (if any), etc.

More often they arrogantly decree themselves "above" such concerns, and then wonder why they aren't becoming popular. They begin with the assumption that those who are after an acquisition based experience are bad people, and just assume the GM will wing it.

Artsy fartsy elitist indie RPG faggots have extreme contempt for their audience, and it shows.

>>49777639
>Which is fine up until an inevitable conflict arises. That's when rules-lite systems are stress tested, and most tend to fall apart with brand new players coming from different backgrounds.
you know that is bullshit. as a german, i was raised on DSA 1E. which is rules light by any standards. Just attributes, hit points, attack and defense value. nothing fell apart because of the system and we had to teach ourselves what roleplaying is. if anything, things fell apart because we had rotating GMs and some guys were handing out cash and magic items like crazy.

>And I've seen it discourage creativity, because descriptions without mechanical weight simply become tedious.
new gamers don't need tactical options. combats are generally exciting by themselves for newbies. tactical options are important for more experienced/jaded/bored gamers.

personally, i would consider CoC optimal for new gamers (systemwise) - it's just that the setting is probably not the best for many newbies. and then there is runequest but i am not entirely sure if BRP's strengths translate well to fantasy, particular to the hack & slash type fantasy that is so popular.

>>49777718
>And you failed to make that point.
yeah, i dont think we can agree on you being qualified enough to judge that

>Explain and debate about it, as compared to games where the rules are more explicit.
And D&D was always rules-heavy? How did RPGing in the 70s work, hmmm?

>>49779513
D&D was definitely rules heavy in the past, just in terms of playing it vs generating chars.

>>49779491
>
They do not usually give any sort of guideline as far as combat difficulty, or how much wealth or items (if any), etc.

>More often they arrogantly decree themselves "above" such concerns, and then wonder why they aren't becoming popular. They begin with the assumption that those who are after an acquisition based experience are bad people, and just assume the GM will wing it.

this is a point i take seriously. but it just underlines my POV: D&D excels in its niche - hack & slash, level & loot play. nobody is going to dethrone it there. plus, this niche is by far the biggest niche in the hobby, assuring D&Ds market position.

i will argue, however, that D&D is not great outside of that.

>>49779536
>D&D excels in its niche - hack & slash, level & loot play.

See, that's the problem. When you begin with the assumption that those with different tastes from you are intellectually inferior, it makes you unable to learn from them.

D&D isn't even 1% limited to hack & slash, level & loot. However, it offers a fallback position for the DM, and it offers an image of what the "Default" RPG should be. 99% of non D&D RPGs offer no such guidelines, and no concrete indication of what the game "should" be about or how it should be played.

Don't get me wrong, other RPGs offer fake guidelines like "This isn't a game about bean counting or killing orcs, its much deeper than that... you probably wouldn't understand. This game is a versimilitudinous milieu examining the deeper aspects of the human psyche... a way to mingle the past and future possibilities of deep worlds that have never been conceived before! Leave your expectations behind..."

They generally pride themselves upon not testing the math of their game, because analyzing the rules is minmaxing, and you shouldn't think too hard about stuff like "rules." This is a game of the imagination! You shouldn't think too hard about the items and loot you assign, because, like, the things you own, start to own you, dude. Woa...

Other RPGs tend to get the "Player's Handbook" (the easiest part) part of their game down pat, and may or may not get the "Monster Manual" part out of the way (though stuff like Exalted has yet to make a remotely useful Monster Manual yet), but the whole concept of a "Dungeon Master's Guide" part of the trinity is either beyond most of their abilities or, to them, the hallmark of an inferior intellect and worthy only of scorn.

>>49766544

Maybe because the last time you went out of your basement was the day you dropped highschool ?

>>49779646
>When you begin with the assumption that those with different tastes from you are intellectually inferior,
See that's problem - the rest of your post betrays this statement of yours as projection, as you go on raging about the pretense and idiocy of other games. Which in turn makes me question your intelligence.

>muh DMG
how is it possible that people in countires where D&D is less popular can run games and have fun? are people in such countries more intelligent for figuring things out without the guidelines of a DMG-equivalent?

but you know what? I'll break down the latest DMG in a seperate post. just for (You)

>>49766411
>I haven't met a single player in real life
ftfy

>>49779704
>as you go on raging about the pretense and idiocy of other games. Which in turn makes me question your intelligence.

I'm not raging about anything, merely laughing at the way that poor shepherds blame the flock.

>I'll break down the latest DMG in a seperate post

I'd rather you break down 4e DMG 1 and 1e AD&D. 5e aint my thing (while I acknowledge it to look okay ish) and the 2e DMG seems intended for someone who is already a DM.

>people STILL falling for Richard Petty

>>49779646
>DMG analysis
>part 1 worldbuilding
completely useless to a new GM. it's an exercise no one should have tried without being familiar with at least 5 different settings. and when you are familiar with 5 different settings, you just compare what each does and what things they describe.

so: part 1 - pretty much useless. (don't get me started on the random tables)

>part 2
>adventure design
yeah, random tables to create a narrative. wow. that is bound to result in a greta gaming experience. oh, and adventures have "beginning", a "middle" and an "ending". those paragraphs dedicated to each are surely invaluable help to gamers.

>balancing encoutners
this indeed would be useful. if there was a system that would lead to balanced encounters. unfortunately such systems generally do not work well. they are a rough guideline only and if the GM wants to have balanced encoutners, he has no choice but to study the sheets of his PCs and compare with the stats of the monsters. literally the best advice for any GM. CR goes out the window.

>npcs, locations
more useless random tables for adventure design. i will grant, however, that the section about wilderness survival is useful for new GMs, as an introduction of simulationist elements into an otherwise gamist RPG. also, the random elements for location are kinda useful for a sandbox-ish style of game or simulating a journey between locations/scenarios. whereas random tables for plot elements are useless, random tables for simulationist aspects of the game world are just fine.

>treasures, traps, downtime between adventures
some useful stuff too. BUT - it's not like other games don't have such things either.
HOWEVER: 100 pages spent on treasure!!! 80 pages on fucking magic items!!! compare that to the amount spent on adventure narrative and you know what kind of game D&D is meant to be: hack & slash, level & loot.

>>49779646
>DMG (5E) analysis part 2
>running the game
all standard stuff. these things exist in pretty much other major game too.

>rules options
neat to have customizing the ruleset. nothing more, nothing less

>appendices
>random tables, maps, etc.
well, yeah. okay. i suppose it's not bad for running a rudimentary sandbox between adventures, so i dont have too much issue with such game information.

>OVERALL
adventure/world design is better learned by buying 5 different adventures/setting books and comparing. encounter balancing is inevitably sth every GM has to do by hand. treasure/magic item spam reveals what the game is designed to be.

what's most useful is what i mentioned above: information to run a simple sandbox between (published) adventures. that includes wilderness survival, creating random villages, maybe a random dungeon, downtime elements, healing, etc. stuff that can be used to tie adventures together.

>>49779927
Sarcasm isn't a valid substitute for an opinion. Try again champ.

>>49779995
solid counterargument, this should sway the crowd. i am impressed.

>>49766411
The thing I really don't get is why people should fare about games played at tables that aren't their own.

>>49766411

My first was D&D 4th edition. Though we kinda grew tired of encounters lasting 6 hours and ending up spamming at-wills, I find it a shame the math sucked so hard. While nowadays think trying to design an RPG like a videogame is a terrible flaw, it helped my younger me wrap my mind around the concept, as I had only played vidya until then.

What redeeming qualities does DND have aside from its popularity?

>>49780146
Depends on the edition. I'm GMing for a group of mostly newbie players, and some, while great roleplayers, are fucking bad at anything involving dice of mechanics. If I weren't using 5e, it'd be a fucking nightmare for me to explain rules over and over.

/tg/ is filled with /v/ tier elitist that care way more about what system you're playing and do not realize in the end the GM that will make a difference on whether you're having fun or not.

>>49780119
But 4e math worked, you faggots.

>>49780174
Only after the mathfixes.

Sounds like >>49780119 played with PHB1/MM1, which was pretty bad, especially if the DM liked Elites and Solos.

>>49780146
D&D focuses on the whole of the campaign rather than just what you need to play a character.

>>49780196
Faggot, I've been playing 4e since day 1. "Pretty bad" in the context of PHB1 means "on average non-strikers fall behind 1 or 2 points of attack bonus before counting in powers". Most complaints come from 3.5 fags who never even read the game.

>>49780549
What did you mean by this?

>>49780683
MM1 solos had 2-4 higher defenses en-bloc than they should have. Add that to the non-strikers being behind by 1-2, and in extreme cases you can get shit like a paladin (who were pretty shitty in core) missing more than half of his attacks.

If they were playing epic (I mean, I don't think they were but they might have) that shit could be seriously frustrating.

Not that I don't agree with you on the complaints.

>>49780726
D&D provides a host of metrics and compasses for how you could structure your campaign, balance encounters, handle rewards, etc. etc.

>anti-D&D trolls getting BTFO

Love this thread.

>all these salty elitism complaining about d&d endlessly and how nobody in their right minds should play it
>yet in almost every single story or greentext on /tg/ it's obvious the people are playing d&d.

I wish armchair gamers would shut up and just play a game instead.

>>49781011
>all these salty elitism
yes
>complaining about d&d endlessly
yes
>yet in almost every single story or greentext on /tg/ it's obvious the people are playing d&d
and ? Does that makes DnD a good game ? The answer is no. Now, it doesn't mean that it's bad either, just that some like it and others don't. Both are fine really, and arguing about either is retarded

>>49780042
As a member of the crowd, I find your analysis pretty awful on just about every point, largely because you sound like you are striving to form any criticism you can, and most are pretty weak or simply flat-out untrue.

Like, having a lot of treasure ideas is bad for some reason. Who are you even trying to convince, especially when a fair amount of that treasure is clearly contrary to "hack-and-slash," like the Philter of Love, Helm of Comprehending Languages, or Hat of Disguise.

Each of your points is weak, but that particular leap in logic was particularly offensive.

>>49779646
>D&D isn't even 1% limited to hack & slash, level & loot
It isn't limited but it isn't really good at anything else either. And it still treats this as a default gamestyle

>However, it offers a fallback position for the DM, and it offers an image of what the "Default" RPG should be.
...which you are perfectly aware i see. But thinking that it should be "default" gamestyle for rpgs in general makes you a huge faggot.

>99% of non D&D RPGs offer no such guidelines, and no concrete indication of what the game "should" be about or how it should be played.
Kek. Most of them do that. But when it isn't dungeon crawl, it doesn'r count, huh?

>This isn't a game about bean counting or killing orcs, its much deeper than that... you probably wouldn't understand. This game is a versimilitudinous milieu examining the deeper aspects of the human psyche... a way to mingle the past and future possibilities of deep worlds that have never been conceived before! Leave your expectations behind..."
Nice square-powered strawman you've got here.

>Unironically thinking that rules and math gameplay are objectively important part of RPGs
>Unironically defending division of core into three books, with one being basically a splat with fuckton of monsters while you can perfectly run a game with 5% of that (which would perfectly fit into the corebook), and the third one in case of D&D is full of toxic shit that a newbie DM shouldn't be exposed to. That is, in part that are actually meant for DM, and not being basically ANOTHER portion of the crunch for everyone, like magic items lists or PrCs

>>49781351
>>Unironically thinking that rules and math gameplay are objectively important part of RPGs
>unironically suggesting that rules and math aren't important in an RPG
Back to Gaia with you.

>>49781075

>The answer is no.

And yet its playable, which is more that can be said for the brands of indie garbage being hailed as superior in this thread.

>>49781351

>It isn't limited but it isn't really good at anything else either.

Its plenty good. You having bias does not mean others are as bad at D&D as you are.

>And it still treats this as a default gamestyle

Irrelevant.

>But thinking that it should be "default" gamestyle for rpgs in general makes you a huge faggot.

And yet other RPGs do not offer their own vision of a default game style, consigning them to the abyss. Why? Because their designers are almost always too arrogant to bother with anything more than the player end of the spectrum.

Then instead of making an actually good game, their proponents whine, bitch and cry online about how no one, not even themselves, play their game.

>>Unironically thinking that rules and math gameplay are objectively important part of RPGs

Yes, what is being paid for is the rules, you fucking simpleton.

>Unironically defending division of core into three books,

I guess it flew over your head, huh? They don't have to be separated into 3 books, I'm pointing out how indie shitfests ignorantly forget, or far more often, arrogantly dismiss the premade antagonist portion of the game and the referee support portion of the game.

Then you wonder why no one is actually playing your games. Grow some self awareness.

>>49781351
>It isn't limited but it isn't really good at anything else either

This an oft-repeated myth that doesn't even make sense. Some people try to claim that because it doesn't have extensive "social combat" rules that it can't do anything aside from combat, but the game simply recognizes that "social combat" rules often detract more than they add. But, beyond that there actually are plenty of rules and guidelines for what happens beyond a dungeon, there are plenty of optional rules that include heavy degrees of guidelines for social interaction, alongside rules for running games in the genres of Horror, Political Intrigue, or even playing as Gods managing mortals.

You can argue that it's not good for those, but that argument gets weaker and weaker when you're forced to realize that D&D really is far broader than you're willing to admit, especially with ports of other games into the various D&D editions. Simply running through the catalog of available books puts your back against a wall, and that's all without mentioning how it's a system with a fair degree of ease of use thanks to its simple and transparent core mechanic that lets people readily adapt it.

It's about time you stopped hoping to dismiss all the people who do more with D&D than just hack-and-slash as if they're using the system wrong, and just accept that you're hoping to pigeonhole the systems just for the sake of argument, and possibly to try and force D&D into a niche in order to keep it from being the automatic answer to "What game should we play?"

>the rest of your post

And, poof. Your entire argument falls apart with its only pillar removed.

>>49781463
Are you really using the hordes of shitty d20 adaptations of things as an example of 'things D&D is good at'?

>>49781485

Reread the post, but slower.

>>49781444
>Its plenty good. You having bias does not mean others are as bad at D&D as you are.
My "bias" stems directly from observing others and how they play. Which is easy because thankfully I live in a country where D&D is just "one of the popular games" and not the default holy cow.
>Irrelevant
Yes. What game teaches new players as a default is totally irrevelant.

>And yet other RPGs do not offer their own vision of a default game style, consigning them to the abyss
Of course they do, but if it doesn't involve massive amounts of math and dice rolls it doesn't count, huh?

>Yes, what is being paid for is the rules, you fucking simpleton.
Rules are tools. Not goal. I'd rather buy a tool that is simple, yet comfortable to use and fully adequate than overbloated set of toy-tools that are crafted in a way that playing with them obscures the real goal

>They don't have to be separated into 3 books, I'm pointing out how indie shitfests ignorantly forget, or far more often, arrogantly dismiss the premade antagonist portion of the game and the referee support portion of the game.
>Implying non-D&D games don't usually involve a brief bestiary (because you don't really need 300 monsters with quarter-page statblock each to run a fucking game) and chapter dedicated specifically for gamemaster. Or two chapters. Or three. Which usually contain more sensible information and advice than toxic shit from D&D DMG. So quit your ass-pulled projections.

>>49781485
I'm using them as part of a show of versatility and adaptability.

But really, focus on the main point, instead of hoping to dodge past it by vaguely referencing a few sour third-party books.

>>49781500
>My "bias" stems directly from observing others and how they play.

Cool anecdote brah.

>What game teaches new players as a default is totally irrevelant.

Mmm, no. An RPG having a default style does not make other RPGs better suited for other styles. Other RPGs being better suited for other styles makes other RPGs better suited for other styles.

>but if it doesn't involve massive amounts of math and dice rolls it doesn't count, huh?

The "amount" of math is not important, what is important is that the developers show some awareness of what the math of the game is attempting to do.

>Rules are tools. Not goal.

The goal of obtaining a ruleset is very obviously the rules, genius.

>I'd rather buy a tool that is simple

Yes, I'm glad we agree that the rules are the whole point of the exercise (of debating which rules are better).

>yet comfortable to use and fully adequate than overbloated set of toy-tools that are crafted in a way that playing with them obscures the real goal

Glad we agree.

>Which usually contain more sensible information and advice than toxic shit from D&D DMG.

They don't.

>>49781500
>My "bias" stems directly from observing others and how they play.

Your bias is still just a bias.
Thank you for basically saying "I know my opinions are just opinions, disregard them at your leisure."

>>49781463
It is not good at everything else because d20 has one chief illness, which is being crunchy and direct enough to give you detailed resolutions, yet fails to make those resolutions believable. In anything, from combat and being able to withstand horrendous amounts hits from an weapons because hp bloat, through breaking doors, where character with 20 Str can fail thrice in a row and then character with 10 suceeds in his first attempt thanks to d20 swingness, to skill uses based on premade modifiers and not DMs judgement which also allow to pass for heavily suspension of disbelief breaking resolutions.
In short, d20 rules are neither enough vague to give freedom to interpret the results (and pick believable interpretation), nor the detailed resolutions they provide are of quality in story terms.
Which isn't bad if you try to play it like a GAME, so basically an tactical tabletop. But is bad at anything else. Unless you use rule 0 all the time when unbelievable shit happens, but then, why bother using crunchy game?

And remember, the thread is really about D&D as thing for new players. So the way how it's presented by default is as important, if not more, than what you can actually do with it.

>>49781503
>I'm using them as part of a show of versatility and adaptability.
And undermining your own point as you do so, because most of those adaptations were fucking terrible.

>>49781582
Accusations of HP bloat really shows your age.

>and not DMs judgement

Of course you can just resort to GM's judgment in -any fucking RPG-.

deendee is simply trash, and the "people" that play it nothing more than human refuse.

Those attracted to the hobby through this disgusting cesspit are doomed to suffer the permanent brain damage that comes with it, akin to a lobotomy in many ways, and remain unfit for play in a real game.

>>49781582
>which is being crunchy and direct enough to give you detailed resolutions, yet fails to make those resolutions believable.

I don't know how stupid you are, but this is one hell of a stupid statement. In every possible aspect of you making it.

>HP bloat

Oh, it's this guy. The guy who doesn't understand HP because it's different from the game he likes.

>heavily suspension of disbelief breaking resolutions.

I'm sorry, but this is your mental issue, not the games. I'm pretty sure this was explained to you, countless times before, but it seems you are just incurably stupid.

Please, do yourself a favor, and read the rules instead of running about creating a mythology just for the sake of arguing how much you hate a game you don't understand even on its simplest level.

>>49781589
Those adaptations are bad because of bad designers, and not because of the system. There's plenty of good adaptations, from a variety of genres, and that once again puts your back up against the wall.

We can argue about which adaptations are good and which ones are bad, but I honestly don't think your opinions about them would be particularly worth listening to.

>>49781608
>Anti-D&D troll buttflustered

I love your tears.

>>49781624
>There's plenty of good adaptations
Like what?

>>49778308
Not that anon, but he was right.

Fuck you and your dumb opinion. Next time, don't post.

>>49781631
Is this the part where I say anything, and you say "PSSSSH"?

>>49781604
>>49781610
MUH HP AREN'T MEAT POINTS THEY ARE MIXTURE OF TOUGHNESS LUCK AND ABILITY TO AVOID SERIOUS HITS
this was proven wrong long ago by the sheer amount of rules that basically contradict this view, from healing to environmental damage, among other things, but ok. And it was a problem at least since AD&D

>I don't know how stupid you are, but this is one hell of a stupid statement
>I'm sorry, but this is your mental issue, not the games
What part of "I fall into 20 meter deep pit with a spiked floor but I don't die or even get incapacitated, just lose some hp because the game is about playing through dungeons and not telling a collaborative story" don't you understand?
And the way it translates to other games? Man, being able to take multiple HITS from lightsaber while wearing plain robes sure is rad.

>Of course you can just resort to GM's judgment in -any fucking RPG-.
>Unless you use rule 0 all the time when unbelievable shit happens, but then, why bother using crunchy game?

>>49781695
No you stupid nigger, this is the part where you support your claim with facts.

The obvious one to say would have been Mutants and Masterminds, though I suppose it doesn't help that that system gets better the more D&D it removes from its mechanics.

>>49781704
>this was proven wrong long ago

Not at all. You've convinced only yourself.

>>49781704
>MUH HP AREN'T MEAT POINTS THEY ARE MIXTURE OF TOUGHNESS LUCK AND ABILITY TO AVOID SERIOUS HITS

Nice actual strawman.

>>49781713
Or it is you who convinced yourself otherwise.
Well I guess ability of self-deceit is vital skill when it comes to playing D&D and enjoying it.

>>49781704
>"I fall into 20 meter deep pit with a spiked floor but I don't die or even get incapacitated, just lose some hp because the game is about playing through dungeons and not telling a collaborative story"

Dying isn't exactly conductive to "telling a collaborative story," genius.

>Man, being able to take multiple HITS from lightsaber while wearing plain robes sure is rad.

Yeah, the way wookies can shrug off blaster bolts and lightsaber hits, potentially indefinitely, is very rad. Assuming you're talking about SW d6, the one that doesn't have HP.

>>49781710
>No you stupid nigger, this is the part where you support your claim with facts.

Its the part where any system he mentions is responded with a chorus of ITS SHIIIIIIT

I notice you don't try to sell anyone on your preferred system either, hypocrite.

>>49781762
>your preferred system
I didn't realise I'd mentioned one.

>>49781772
Yep.

>>49781752
>Dying isn't exactly conductive to "telling a collaborative story," genius.
Except it is, when character dying is the only viable and logical consequence of his actions.
Of course if you don't want for charactersd to die you simply don't impose death-threatening challenges on them. But this was only an example. It is how D&D believability just is in multitude of situations, no matter if they are life-or-death situations or not.

>Yeah, the way wookies can shrug off blaster bolts and lightsaber hits, potentially indefinitely, is very rad. Assuming you're talking about SW d6, the one that doesn't have HP.
Oh, yeah, so existence of another bad game absolves D&D from it sins.

>>49781784
Where was this?

>>49781795
>Except it is, when character dying is the only viable and logical consequence of his actions.

You didn't object on grounds of realism, you objected on grounds of "telling a collaborative story," which is a completely different issue and discussion.

I get the feeling that you're just bitching for the sake of bitching, which is why you're not making the least effort to put forth internally consistent positions. But if you're actually here to debate and not to simply cry, this is a passingly interesting topic...

Anyway, with the story caveat, the discussion isn't whether HPs are too much or too little, its that they're binary. You're either fine or you're dead, basically.

Being damaged but not impaired in any way isn't helpful for a story at all, and neither is being killed quickly outright; the ideal system would reflect that an injury is a plot element in its own right, but a complication.

>Oh, yeah, so existence of another bad game absolves D&D from it sins.

You conflate "whining about damage systems not being Dwarf Fortress tier in all situations" with "bad games."

>>49781797
The post I agreed with you was in this thread.

>>49781917
What post number was it?

>>49767711
Oh! I see the problem here; you think 3.PF is the current and only edition of D&D ever.

It isn't.

>>49770619
Shit you can get dnd? all i can find is spess muhrine and wargaming

>>49781932
Thank god.

OP can rage all he wants, but pointing people away from 3.PF (even if it's another D&D) can only result in the overall betterment of the species.

>>49781940
At least you're not in New Zealand.
>live in capital
>the used-book store has more RPGs than all the LGS's combined

Oh look another "your system a shit" thread without providing reasonable alternatives

Let's just say "other RPGs exist!" and have free reign to hurl shit

>>49781908
>You didn't object on grounds of realism, you objected on grounds of "telling a collaborative story," which is a completely different issue and discussion.
No it isn't. Firstly, I'm not talking about realism but basic believability, which are simmilar, but operate on completely different levels.
Secondly, you need to uphold this basic believability to tell a story that makes sense.

>You conflate "whining about damage systems not being Dwarf Fortress tier in all situations" with "bad games."
There are multitude of approaches of solving the problem, not only crunch-heavy, but also crunch-lite, which instead give just basic and vague description of resolution to make thing push forward, while leaving the specific for open interpretation. And even in case of crunch-heavy approach, again, you don't need full realism mode, you just need to find the spot where resolution doesn't immediately ring the "no, that's bullshit" ring. RuneQuest is a game that does exactly that - it isn't a full on simulator and it's crunch is actually, volume-wise, lighter than D&D, and silly situations still can happen, they are of way lower degree and less frequent.

>>49770619
I've found a lot of Pathfinder holdouts (West Midlands here); but I run Rune Quest and COC.

I hate how 3eaboos forced 4e into obscurity by bitching about it nonstop for the sole reason that it wasn't 3.pf.

>>49781928
You seem to be gathering the opposite implication from my post as I intended.

>>49781958
Shit, i've been trying to get my brother into rpgs but he's over in new zealand too, i checked for any groups nearby and the closest was like a city away

>>49781986

Your post could be more quickly summarized as "lets quibble about the exact amount of hit points PCs should have."

Falling damage is obviously inexcusable due to stupid people slavishly following the editing mistake.

For most other topics that don't boil down to variations of "different people having different ideas on what 20d6 damage is," ie things that don't reflect automatic damage, that's more of an issue that stems from the vast majority of RPG combat systems being adapted from a system for naval combat.

>>49782161
>lets quibble about the exact amount of hit points PCs should have
Partially, it could. Thing is, D&D has the amounts of HP it has, and nothing will change it.
Besides, HPs are just ONE of thing that cause lack of believability in D&D. Everything that involves stat rolls is anoher issue (because of disparity between the difference between attribute score 20 and 10 being completely out of proportions from difference +5 to a roll makes on d20), and many other things.

>different people having different ideas on what 20d6 damage is
45 damage is maximum damage a quite strong (16 STR) guy with no experience (and experience should affect the chance to hit, not after-hit effects) with a greataxe can deal, when getting lucky and hitting an vital spot. No matter if the target is armored or not. Under meatpoints HP interpretation this is unquestionable, and the other interpretation for me meets too many contradictions to be valid.

>>49782249
>Thing is, D&D has the amounts of HP it has, and nothing will change it.

Makes no sense to me since the amount of HP characters have varies wildly. In AD&D etc. PCs hit a hit point road block at around level 9 or 10, and setting a loose ceiling on hit points seems worthwhile, though I would prefer it to also have a floor.

>and experience should affect the chance to hit, not after-hit effects

That would be very damaging to verisimilitude. Why the hell would you want that? An experienced person is, realistically speaking, most definitely is the better killer, even if you're just performing a critical hit.

>No matter if the target is armored or not.

It would stretch disbelief pretty thin for armor to matter on a critical hit, since I'm not sure what a critical hit represents if not hitting the enemy in the most critical spot.

>>49782072
>sole reason
If your hatred is based entirely on hyperbole, it's you who is at fault.

>>49781741
The only ability you're missing is literacy.
If you could actually read, you'd have learned long ago just how silly your niggling complaints are, because they're all explained away in the books you hate too much to bother looking through.