>Play D&D with my friends and we have a great time with

>>49766798
/tg/ is notoriously retarded and full of elitists and/or hipsters. It's no wonder people disagree with them all the time. Sometimes this board has good criticisms. Most of the time it's full of buttmad whining and tedious autism.

>>49766798
>/tg/ thinks GURPS is one of the best systems ever made
No it doesn't. GURPS has a number of fanatical supporters, but the general opinion is "Too complex, use a dedicated system instead if you can, only use GURPS if you absolutely must".

>>49766798
I play and love 3.5. I love dice systems. I play mtg casually, never go to tournaments, and enjoy collecting the cards just for the sake of collecting. I like the new Magnus mini GW is releasing soon. I like that my SoB army is almost all metal, because I can throw a Sister Superior and knock out my opponent's eyes. I think the Age of Sigmar minis look really cool.

>>49766798
>/tg/ is one person

>>49766894
And to add to this, space wolves are shit, grey knights are shit, and ultramarines are especially shit.

And I like Warcraft and 40k for their lore.

>>49766904

So's your mom.

>>49766798
I like GURPS.

>>49766798
>/tg/ thinks D&D uses a garbage system and is no fun

This isn't true of all editions nor are the too related. 3.PF is garbage _and_ fun, for example.

>>49766856
This

File: 1470847540375.jpg (103KB, 907x718px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 907x718px

>>49766910
You forgot: /tg/ also thinks Dark Angels are shit.

The only two chapters I've never seen hate for is Blood Angels and Imperial Fists. Actually, I've necer heard anyone bitch about Black Templars either, so that's three.

All other chapters are pretty hated.

Elder Scrolls are overrated.

>>49766798

/tg/ thinking DW is ass is just a meme created by virt. Most of /tg/ that aren't mindless memers will at least admit that it's a decent beginners system (if somewhat mechanically flawed once you start pushing the numbers).

Your crew is the biggest memers though. Seriously.

>>49766856

>GURPS is too complex
>Instead learn five to seven different, equally complex systems. That's a lot simpler.

The general opinion doesn't think its opinion through very much.

>>49767342
the problem with GURPS is that ypu might as well learn all those extra systems instead of all the extra source material needed to run GURPS on that specific setting. Also, the core mechanics still stan in all variations, and some people don't like them.

For example I'm not a big fan of 1 second rounds or low success dodge rolls negate all damage. And if I start modifying all those rules then whats the point on playing gurps?

>>49767180
some people do bitch about the black templars, but I have seen it only two or three times on /tg/

>>49767522
>not modifying everything you play
I rarely go with 100% core something, even while counting extensions & stuff

File: IMPERIAL FISTS.jpg (99KB, 906x400px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 906x400px

>>49767180
>imperial fists

>>49766894
>Age of Sigmar minis look really cool
I actually haven't heard much complaining about their appearance, just the rules.

>>49766798
>Play D&D with my friends and we have a great time with it and enjoy the system fine
Having fun with a system =/= the system being good. You can have fun with FATAL.

>>49766798
>/tg/, my favorite board on here by far, but holy shit do we have different opinions on games.

This is why I come here. Same thing.

Fuck hugboxes.

>>49766798
/tg/ is a large number of annons, many with shitty opinions.

Also, goddamn it. I have played a shit ton of cardgames, yet you people keep bringing up more. Is the CoC game similar to necronomicon?

>>49766798

Looks like you've finally learned the true nature of /tg/. Behind all the "epic" storytimes and "getting shit done", /tg/ is actually a shithole full of retards that don't even play any table-top pen & paper games.

>>49766894
>I play and love 3.5.

You are the fucking blight of d&d.

>>49766798
I don't understand why people on teegee seem to exclusively either shit on female paladins/fighters or consider them fetish fuel.
D&D 5E needs some nerfs and alterations but is otherwise good for a basic rpg system.
Certain named forums have their place, even if there are a bunch of inexperienced morons you need to wade through.
/tg/ acts self-superior on a lot of subjects for no damn good reason, like what systems it prefers over others.
Speaking of which, it's really easy for /tg/ers to shit on new content, even if it's not perfect, because it doesn't fit their perfect concept of what fantasy is like. Lighten up. Not everything is made by randumb shitters for the sake of empty novelty.
>>49769956
I'll be honest, we can really be dicks for no reason. I come here to get honest opinions and tabletop ideas without any limitations besides NSFW. I'm sure most of you guys are good players and DMs, but I wouldn't recruit from here.

>>49771504
especially in the current year.
I think it all went away with the wst.

>>49771504
I know you're being hyperbolic but come on, now. /tg/ is easily one of the best boards on 4chan. Most of the threads I go into have actual discussion for a while before someone decides to shitpost in them. Compare that to /v/, where most threads are immediately destroyed by some dude being a shitter. I don't know about the getting shit done part but this board has been the source of the best content I've found while browsing 4chan.

>>49772046
this. People who complain about /tg/ don't spend time in the right threads. Right now, I can tell there's one original setting being made in one thread, and some anons are talking about a system for a bloodborn based ttrpg.
And that's just from the threads I'm in, which don't even make a tenth of the board

>>49766798

>Fun is fun and friends tend to disagree to have something to pass the time arguing about. Even the cranky one, the ones with BO, and the one who is always off somewhere because girls.

It's all good.

File: khajiit fu.jpg (94KB, 1300x650px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1300x650px

>>49766798
It's perfectly fine to play non-human beast race characters. The thing that makes you a bad player is being an annoying asshole, which can be done with any race.

>>49766798
>/tg/ thinks D&D uses a garbage system and is no fun
oh no. D&D is good for hack & slash fantasy - if for no other reason than the sheer amount of content to explore.

it's just very mediocre (not terribad) beyond that.

>>49766852
>buttmad whining about buttmad whining detected
oh, the irony

>>49766856
is correct, except GURPS is pretty good at simulationist gaming and it has excellent source material.

>>49766798
The most important thing at a table, something /tg/ seems to forget about sometimes, is that everyone is having fun.

>>49767321
but DW is ass

>>49771504
t. retard that doesn't even play any table-top pen & paper games.

>>49772046
>/tg/ is easily one of the best boards on 4chan. M

>>49772903
avoid the generals. we only need 40K and D&D generals for containment. other generals should be b&

Mage Wars is a superior game to Magic the Gathering in every concievable way but it is nowhere near as popular because it is too complex right out the gate.

>>49771605
Not OP, but what's wrong with 3.5? Besides the powergap that wizards create by existing.

>>49766798
>we are all retarded and can't understand basic deck building so we gave up on mtg
Ftfy

>>49776075
Will you be able to afford groceries with the new set coming up? I hear wotc marketers don't make much money.

>>49776131
Lmao am I on /v/?

>You like something! Must be a shill

>>49767342
Yeah, why own more than one board game when you can just use construction paper and pennies?

Right guys?

...right?

>>49766798
>/tg/ thinks D&D uses a garbage system and is no fun
D&D 3.5/Pathfinder _is_ a garbage system. D&D 4e/5e much less so. Not great, but functional.

>/tg/ thinks Dungeon World is ass on all levels
No it doesn't. Virt and a few mouth foaming fanatics hate it and shitpost all over any DW threads, but the system itself is fine and /tg/ likes it okay. It's kind of limited in what you can do with it, but it runs alright for what it aims to be.

>/tg/ thinks GURPS is one of the best systems ever made
No, GURPS is just the easiest answer whenever someone says 'What do I use to run X on the tabletop?' because there guranteed that there is already a few GURPS splats that you can bodge together to approximate whatever it is. That doesn't make it a good system, but it is guaranteed to work.

>/tg/ still jacks their collective dicks over MtG
I like MtG too, but I'm a kitchen table scrub who's been bitched at in MtG threads for complaining about a guy with 20 Mox jewels, so /tg/'s a little off on Magic.

>>49774313
>what's wrong with 3.5?

Biggest issue is Ivory Tower design. The game was literally put together with the design goal that some options would be outright better than others, to sometimes hilarious degrees. This wouldn't be egregious if the options were all sorted and labeled and you could use it to set the power level of the campaign, but it's all left up to an individual's level of system mastery.

Related is how campaign shatteringly powerful casters are over martials. The infamous CoDzilla is from 3.5. Fighters and Monks can suck a big dick, Clerics and Druids are way fucking stronger as combat classes. Wizards can sidestep most combats and have oodles of options for sidestepping their lack of spell slots.

The skill system sucks a big bunch of ass, too.

>>49766798
>/tg/ thinks
No it doesn't.
Anons on /tg/ post.
Some of them think.

Honestly perplexed why you would care what anonymous strangers on the internet post about what you wanna discuss.

If you have a thread topic worthy of discussion, make a thread or post in a relevant one.
Avoid saying bait like "There is nothing wrong with D&D." and you won't get raged at ...much.

>What opinions do you have that go against the /tg/ norm?
I like reasonable middle ground between extremes, I prefer communicating issues like an adult, and am not concerned with system mastery.

File: GURPS Skill Levels.jpg (361KB, 477x558px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 477x558px

>>49766798
>/tg/ thinks D&D uses a garbage system and is no fun
3.5e is garbage. PF is garbage. 5e is garbage. That doesn't mean I don't have fun playing 3.5e/PF, because I do. I just play casters so I don't have to deal with system bullshit. 5e is garbage because it's boring.

>/tg/ thinks Dungeon World is ass on all levels
I've never even read Dungeon World. It's probably fine.

>/tg/ thinks GURPS is one of the best systems ever made
I do! I love GURPS! I still play other games, though, because the GURPS community is really small. The only way to get fresh blood is by playing other games.

>/tg/ still jacks their collective dicks over MtG
I really don't like zero-sum games, although I recently got told a neat bit of advice to live vicariously through my opponent. I might find them more fun then. I prefer YGO to MtG, but MtG is way more flavorful.

>/tg/ either hates or doesn't talk about these games
Never heard of 'em.
>What opinions do you have that go against the /tg/ norm?
I really, really don't like 40k. I don't like the systems, I don't like most of the fluff, but above all, I don't like how prolific it is. It doesn't really help if my players meme about 40k stuff, either, since it usually sours my mood, but I try to just let them know that I don't like 40k and I'd appreciate it if they kept the jokes and references to a minimum.

I'd also like to know why anons, on a board dedicated to escapism and fantasy, reply to stories with:
>things that never happened.

Really? Does it matter if it's true or not when it's entertaining? Do you tell people that the show/movie they're watching, or comic/book their reading, or whatever else, never happened? Who cares if it never happened or not? If it's good entertainment, it's justified on that alone. Not everything needs to be a true story.

>>49766798
Guess what? If you care about what strangers on an anonymous vietnamese cave painting board think, you're not off to a good start.
Also, at least two of your opinions are wrong.

>>49767342
I have yet to see a dedicated system that is equally complex to GURPS.

>>49779551
What about "roll 3d6, compare roll to skill/attribute: If you rolled at or below, you succeed. If you rolled above, you failed" is complex?

>/tg/ thinks D&D uses a garbage system and is no fun

Then why is every D&D thread full of people arguing the system is fine/it works?

>>49779577
Oh, you are one of those. Good job on your willful obtusity - when people complain about complexity in GURPS it's not the fucking die roll, it's the hours of work that go into charbuilding.
I only picked up GURPS once, cause I wanted to run a supers game. Turned out I needed four books that cross-referenced each other. In the meantime, M&M has everything in one book. Since I don't have infinite time, I went with the game that required less work for an equally good result.
Also, "just use GURPS lite" is stupid, because it misses the point of using GURPS in the first place.

>>49779600
Stockholm Syndrome.

>>49772046
/tg/ is the one board where, if it went away, there's not really a replacement.

>>49766798
These are all opinions, none are egregious and you are totally allowed to not like things I like, but
>mana flood, mana screw
This is almost certainly a sign that you're building your deck wrong and not assessing how keepable your hand really is properly.

>>49779606
>Oh, you are one of those.
I'd like to think I'm not.

>it's the hours of work that go into charbuilding.
Charbuilding is much easier than putting together a game. The degree of which depends on what you're playing and how you're playing. DF, Monster Hunters, Action, and After the End all have templates you can grab and go with. Supers, as well, has templates that don't really require going outside Basic Set or Supers.

>Turned out I needed four books that cross-referenced each other.
Yeah, that's entirely possible. GURPS' modularization is its own worst enemy, since it fragments the rules across multiple books. I'd say that you can run a good supers game with just Basic Set, although Supers makes that much easier.

>Also, "just use GURPS lite" is stupid, because it misses the point of using GURPS in the first place.
I agree completely. GURPS Lite is something you use for a one-shot to get the bare minimum of familiarity before diving into Basic Set.

Sorry you didn't have a good first experience with GURPS. Supers is something that's hard to do if you're new to the system, but it's my favorite system for supers because it does the style I want so well (realistic/street-level). As much as I hate to say it, Supers is something you build up competency for if you're not doing Supers' templates (which most people won't want to do).

File: What the actual fuck.jpg (238KB, 1349x386px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1349x386px

>>49776529
Also, this.

>>49767522

>And if I start modifying all those rules then whats the point on playing gurps?

You will be playing GURPS as intended? It is supposed to be modified, constructed and recalibrated. Problem is it's a shitload of work for a DM. That's my biggest gripe with it.

If you are ready for some hard work you can create almost anything from it. But it is really tedious on preparation stage and takes a lot of time.

>>49768223

Or FATAL can have fun with you.

>>49771814

>D&D 5E needs some nerfs and alterations but is otherwise good for a basic rpg system

Yes. If you like diet crackers without anything else. It's too bland.

>>49779735

I'm a lazy and not very emotional person but this image always gets me. I want to get my hands around his throat and squeeze a little.

Probably my biggest unpopular opinion based on what i've read here is that I genuinely enjoy Numenera lore wise. Mechanically its only okay, but the setting really gets me. I'm also a fan of some smaller games that i've basically never heard spoken of here, like the mistborn tabletop game.

I do actually like GURPS but mostly because sometimes i like to do wonky campaigns that dont really fit other systems well. Its a bitch to plan games in though. gotta have like encyclopediac knowledge of everything.

>>49779551
D&D3.5 and PF exist.
More complex, more rules, and even trap options just because fuck you.

>>49779606
>I needed four books
>needed
Top fucking kek mate.

>>49767884
Isn't that oddly symmetrical dwarf from AoS?

>Play PF
>Make a fun ninja character in a mostly eastern setting
>Turns out more than half the enemies are literally immune to all damage and secondary effects that I throw at them
Why create classes thare are useless half of the time?

>>49767321
Nah, there's always been people saying DW is a bad PbtA game. Virt just started as a DW shitposter but frequently praised it in 5eg a few times because he was just a troll.

>>49779819
You must be baffled at D&D ever being popular then.

>>49781648
Next time check the tier system and don't go below tier 4. /pfg/'s tiers are better than other sites IMO since they appropriately shit on Swashbuckler and other sites shit on Cavalier more than Swaskbuckler somehow.

At least Ninja can function as a rogue character unlike... well Rogues.

>>49773426
>oh, the irony

He took my bait
I am pleased

[sspoiler] just wanted my (You)

>>49781832
That still doesn't answer my question

>>49781648
>Why create classes thare are useless half of the time?
Because Paizo's design team are incompetent.

>>49781873
That's because the only answer is that Paizo managed to make a handful of good classes in nearly a decade, and refuses to admit that 3.5 had flaws - see >>49779735

>>49781806

Why?

>>49766997
This. 3.PF is mechanically ass, but if you're willing to all play tier 1 or 2 classes, it's sometimes fun to just slap your wizardly dick all over the game.

>>49781910
>This. 3.PF is mechanically ass
You keep saying that, and yet there is no better system for complex and yet somewhat swift combat.

>>49781937
Do you honestly believe that?

>>49781832
>Next time
This is a mentality that I never understand.
If you play a game and don't have a good time directly because of the system, why play it again?
Give anything a second chance? Okay fine.
And I can maybe see if it was partly the GM's fault and you got a new GM, then sure, give it third chance.
Otherwise, why keep drinking bad milk hoping it got better?

>>49781855
Well, that butchery job of>>49781873
that spoiler earned you one from me.
Damn, son.

>>49781944
Yes.
Can you offer up a example to disprove that?

>>49781961
I could delete and fix that, but the compounding irony is too funny.

>>49781937

It's not so much complex as it is bloated. Actual base rules for combat are simple. But after that all spells and special abilities join the fray.

For complex combat you want something like TRoS.

>>49781961
Ain't mobile great? My phone has a scripting error that occasional likes to duplicate letters.

>>49781980
On the plus side come The Voice capture future almost always work well.

>>49781937
Depending on your definition of "complex" Strike!

Also, 4e is as swift (with the math fixes) and just overall better, and 5e can be retrofitted into 3.5 style combat (all the rules are in the DMG as options), although we'll probably have to wait a few years before we get some cool shit like the warblade.

>>49781963
Anima - Beyond Fantasy
GURPS with Martial Arts and/or Tactical Shooting
Phoenix Command (once you learn where on what table you need to look to get the right result)

>>49781997
>4e is overall better
Opinions and not facts detected.

>>49782057
Are you positing that 3.PF is actually better than 4e in terms of combat mechanics?

I don't agree, but I'm honestly curious what reasons lead you to believe that.

>>49781997
>Also, 4e is as swift (with the math fixes) and just overall better
4e removes the mechanical differences between different character types and as such is more streamlined and less interesting.

>5e can be retrofitted into 3.5 style combat
Haven't read it, but why retrofit when you can just easily fix 3.5s problems and play that? Also, I heard bad things about individualisation in 5.

>Depending on your definition of "complex" Strike!
Mechanically deep. Actual Mechanical differences between different types of character/power/archetype. Lots of different possible actions.

>>49781973
>For complex combat you want something like TRoS.
I like the baase idea of TRoS, but it breaks down in Higher Power Levels and also plays slower

Actually there is one game which does combat better and that is Splittermond, but it's german only so far and it took how many years after 3.5 for it to come out?

>>49782014
>Anima - Beyond Fantasy
Haven't played that one, how does it work?
>GURPS with Martial Arts and/or Tactical Shooting
No. Streamlined mechanics and too much flavortexting.
>Phoenix Command (once you learn where on what table you need to look to get the right result)
Yes, but it's still slower, even if you know the tables.

>>49782069
Other anon here, 3.5 actually makes classes play different.

>>49781937
>there is no better system for complex and yet somewhat swift combat.
What you are really saying here is that you like and prefer the spot it lies at on the combat complexity versus combat speed line.
Anything more complex would be slower and anything faster would be less complex.
They did not achieve the perfect nirvana mix, just one you like.
It's like the skin tone of the black barbie; There is no perfect color that pleases everyone.

>>49782069
Define "better"

>>49782077
>Other anon here, 3.5 actually makes classes play different.
There are 2 types of classes in 3.PF: martials and casters. Martials hit things with their choice of weapons, backed up by feats general or custom to their class. Casters get X spells per day which are custom to each class, with some of them shared or identical in all but name. Sometimes you get watered down casters who can also use a weapon, like Paladins and Magi.

One type of martial plays the same as another type of martial. Barbarian gets rage, Fighter gets extra feats, Rogue gets sneak attack, the mechanics behind fighting something are all the same, only these situational modifiers are different.

One type of caster plays the same as another type of caster. Wizard gets arcane spells, Cleric gets divine spells, the mechanics behind spellcasting are all the same, only the spells are different.

All in all, I don't understand what you mean by this.

>>49771814
>I'll be honest, we can really be dicks for no reason.
>>49769956
>This is why I come here.
>Fuck hugboxes.

Welcome to /tg/!
Your waifu is shit.
Your favorite edition sucks.
Your opinions are objectively wrong.
Enjoy your stay!

>>49782096
More deep, interesting tactical choices for the majority of characters, no (tactically) degenerate instant win buttons, a focus on positioning and team play.

>>49782077
>4e removes the mechanical differences between different character types
Essentials classes play like 3.5 martials, if that satisfies what you are pining for as "different". If that's not what you mean, I'm not sure what to tell you; I have found that two characters of the same class get to play massively different in practice in 4e, especially when I compare them to 3.PF martials (some mid casters are pretty good in PF tho).

>Mechanically deep. Actual Mechanical differences between different types of character/power/archetype. Lots of different possible actions.

Strike! takes the power formula of 4e but twists it apart. Most classes use at-will/encounter setup, but you have shit like the grenadier who is based around combining different ammo with different attacks, the shapeshifter who gets to change his entire power-set when he shifts, or expansion classes like the Dancer who has to move in a certain way to acticate them or the Invoker (I'm not even sure that's the class's actual name... but it's basically the DotA invoker).

I think they did a pretty good job.

>>49781648
Because if that class wasn't shit for half the game then it would be overpowered.

Forget that any other game in existence doesn't arbitrary make your life shit for either the beginning or the end of the campaign for arbitrary reasons and everyone in the party has tools that allow them to contribute to the party dynamic.

No, it's much better to make the martials great in the beginning and mages better towards the end, that way everyone gets bored to tears.

>>49782084
>Anything more complex would be slower and anything faster would be less complex.
As I posted in >>49782077
Splittermond actually beats it, but it has been out for, like one year and still lacks the splat support, but it's getting there.
GURPS actually could hit that spot if you used a different sourcebook for each character archetype, but the cross referencing really fucks that up.

>>49782123
You're greatly understating the impact of core class abilities like rage or sneak attack which direct entirely how you approach combat.

Then you got psions. Then you got Maneuver users from ToB. Then you got the funky casters from Tome of Magic or the cancer mage. You got unique classes like the Spellthief. Hell, a spontaneous caster already plays differently than a Vancian caster.

3.5 presents a lot of mechanical abilities and it seems intellectually dishonest to use only core when talking about it.

>>49782154
>then it would be overpowered.
Pfffahahahahaah, dude, even if I were able to deal sneak attack FOREVER in any attack ever...a barbarian, a fighter, a magus, and literally almost everybody but monk are still outdamaging me

Even as a sap master (which doubles my sneak attack and adds +1 to damage per sneak attack die) I'm tied with the barbarian in my team who deals damage to everybody without caring he's an Undead, an elemental, a plant, etc

So, no, you're wrong as fuck

>>49782077
>I like the baase idea of TRoS, but it breaks down in Higher Power Levels and also plays slower

It doesn't breaks as hard as D&D and takes a little longer to get there. And it's basic combat system is head and shoulders above what D&D has. Blade of the Iron Throne clears some problems with it though not all of them.

And slower is debatable. Especially if we are talking about levels above 7 for D&D.

>GURPS: No. Streamlined mechanics and too much flavortexting.

Did you even ever read Martial Arts or Tactical Shooting? It can basically give you the same level of resolution as TRoS in combat. Especially if you use armor from Low-Tech with all its hit locations.

>>49782150
>Essentials classes play like 3.5 martials, if that satisfies what you are pining for as "different". If that's not what you mean, I'm not sure what to tell you; I have found that two characters of the same class get to play massively different in practice in 4e, especially when I compare them to 3.PF martials (some mid casters are pretty good in PF tho).
Essentially I expect a different kind of combat resource system for each class.
One class throws prepared spells, one has mana points, one uses /encounter powers, one almost only has at wills, one casts from hp etc...

3.5 can deliver here, 4e just gives every class a little bit of everything.

>Strike!
will check it out.

>>49782150
>>your explanation of better
So, about half of that uses subjective opinions and terminology. I'm ok with you and I having differing opinions (I thought combat in 4e was incredibly dull in the few campaigns I played) but please acknowledge that they are your opinions. Do not try to make an objective sounding argument from your opinions. That concept in and of itself is an oxymoron.

>>49782162
>You're greatly understating the impact of core class abilities like rage or sneak attack which direct entirely how you approach combat.

But 4e characters HAVE rage and sneak attack. The barbarian has like 20 different types of rage.

>Psions

Exist in 4e.

>Then you got Maneuver users from ToB.

You mean the book 4e was based on? Gee, I hope 4e has something like that!

>You got unique classes like the Spellthief.

It's literally just the thief with spells. It's also an existing PP if I recall correctly.

> Hell, a spontaneous caster already plays differently than a Vancian caster.

You know wizards still get to choose to prepare different spells and sorcerers don't, right? Except now their spell lists are actually entirely different.

File: 120823472289.png (186KB, 298x423px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 298x423px

>it's the "all classes in 4e are casters" meme

>>49782182
I hope you realize that I was using sarcasm.

Nobody in their right mind would think that Rogues were actually good, let alone broken.

>>49782162
So you a 're asserting that Splittermond is faster and more complex or just one increases while the other one remains the same?

>>49782162
>GURPS actually could hit that spot if you used a different sourcebook for each character archetype, but the cross referencing really fucks that up.

GURPS actually doesn't need it. But not many DMs are insane enough to spread Powers on all the abilities. Too much prep work.

And D&D has more crossreferencing. GURPS rarely uses more than 4-5 books per game.

>>49782186
>One class throws prepared spells, one has mana points, one uses /encounter powers, one almost only has at wills, one casts from hp etc...

The issue there is that it makes balance play utter hell. All at-wills means that you'll be underpowered until everyone else starts running out for example so your balance is entirely dependent on 'How little time the GM gives to rest'

>>49782186
>One class throws prepared spells, one has mana points, one uses /encounter powers, one almost only has at wills, one casts from hp etc...

In GURPS you can do all of that from Basic Set alone.

>>49782197
How's more choices subjective?

How's instant win buttons not a degenerate strategy?

How's 4e's focus on positioning team play an opinion?

No, seriously, I'd love to hear you explain that.

>>49782210
>GURPS actually doesn't need it.
Need what exactly?

>>49782225
If it wasn't just your opinion, 4e would be popular.

>>49782186
>One class throws prepared spells

Are prepared spells daily only? I think one of the essentials wizards is like that, though not sure.

>one has mana points

Psions.

>, one uses /encounter powers, one almost only has at wills

Essentials classes.

> one casts from hp etc...

Okay, that one's tough... warlocks can regain spells for HP in limited conditions, the Blackguard gets some abilities that are fueled by HP, and the Vampire is all about jokey-ing surges (essentially HP), plus there's the Despoiler, but it's not as 1:1.

>>49782243
Not really. Crunch heavy tactical combat is an acquired taste. I prefer lighter stuff nowdays as well.

>>49782225
"More deep", "interesting", and "degenerate" are all words/phrases that can be argued based on opinion or perspective. Only "a focus on positioning and team play" is an objective reasoning. And even then, it can be argued. Though there is more likely to be a factually true or false answer.

>>49782277
"Degenerate" is an official term with actual meaning in game design, not a value judgement. A strategy is degenerate if it is the only viable one at high levels of play.

You could say more interesting as a value judgement, but depth is also objective; if there are more viable options it is more deep, and 4e has more viable options.

I got a game coming up in 10, but if you want to discuss nomenclature in game design I'll be up in 5-6 hours, so feel free to keep on going.

>>49782301
Nah, I'm pretty sure this will go nowhere, since about half of what you said is wrong. I don't want to bother getting into another system debate, since it all boils down to what an individual personally enjoys.

it's fairly simple, vastly different opinions are a lot easier to notice that opinions that you agree with, even if only one in three holds a different opinions so, in the long run, will it seem that the vast majority hold opinions different from you, but in reality, there is a huge mixture of opinions.

>>49766798
Fucking Dwarfaboos...Just about as worse as Elfaboos, but I'm starting to hate the Elfaboos less, only because I don't see them as often.

>>49766798
5E is godawful and I would literally play any other edition of D&D over it, even 3.5 or Pathfinder, and I hate both of those games.

I still like the short lived Guardians ccg.

>3.5 babbies arrive
>Thread turns to shit

Another victory for the best game folks!

>>49782315
Are you really that afraid of being wrong?

>>49781950
Because it's easy to find a group for D&D, not so easy for other games.

>>49782912
I'm going to have to agree. I don't mind elves because there's one for every flavor and preference under the sun, but generally Dwarves are always the same surly alcohol drinking, mountain-dwelling, bearded, not!viking folk in every goddamn setting, with little deviation from this core concept.

Then of course you have dwarf players who always make the most stereotypical Dwarf ever. Mind you, this wouldn't be a terribly big deal if they didn't also act like a slightly less noisy version of HFY autists.

>>49783109
What is there to hate about it? Not trying to be caustic, just new to other systems

>>49783213
Yes, it's easier to find a game you don't want to play.
But...

>>49783409
It's supposedly a 'throwback to AD&D' but it missed the point of half of AD&D's mechanics and plays nothing like it, it keeps a ton of bad ideas from games like 3.5 and 4E while having almost none of the good, bounded accuracy is a fucking awful concept that is inherently at odds with D&D and caused a lot more problems than it solved, damage vs HP takes after 4E instead of AD&D without understanding that 4E had that to facilitate tactical combat while 5E deliberately strangled tactical combat and thus taking after AD&D would have been a much better idea, and so on. It was so bad to the point where I was thinking "why the fuck am I even playing this game?" nonstop while desperately trying to enjoy 5E's shitty, watered down version of one of my favorite classes from 3.5.