I know we all love to say 'have you tried not playing D&D',

>>52635645
Barbarians of Lemuria
World of Dungeons
Any OSR game

>>52635645

I have never played D&D

>>52635645
Shitposting on /tg/.

>>52635645
Me dad told me about one he used to play a bit before I was born, called Twilight 2000. Found the PDFs for it on Da archive- seems interesting.

Mainly due to the fact that Im sick of fantasy and its more modern-post apocalyptic.

>>52635645
Literally anything else?

My favorite is Ryuutama, sadly not many people in the west play it.

T I M E W I Z A R D S

File: alternative.png (230KB, 1350x588px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1350x588px

>>52635645
> what's the alternative?

>>52635645
4e

>>52635645
Fate, GURPS, Savage Worlds, Wild Talents, Fantasycraft... Basically anything except Dungeon World can do fantasy settings pretty well.

>>52635645
GURPS.

>Freeform
Yeah, I went there you nerds.

>>52635645
well typically the next logical step is WoD, but nWoD is pretty damn gay at times.

File: Ricky.jpg (61KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1280x720px

>>52635645
Go over to the pdf thread, look through shit until you find something that looks cool, and then read it and play it.

It isn't accidentally rocket appliances.

>>52636013
Let's add some more good 'ol systems:

Ars Magica (THE classical trope game)
Burning Wheel (another narrative game, but very different from FAT)E
Legends of Anglerre (FATE fantasy style)
Reign (ORE fantasy game with a focus on politics)
Runequest (classic hardcore mega-dungeon / sandbox game)
Tales From the Floating Vagabond (narrative game with humorous bent)
The Riddle of Steel (HEMA approved)
Empire of the Petal Throne (A setting focused game, heavy in lore)
Tri-Stat (another "universal" system like GURPS)

>>52636900
I wasn't much a fan of Ars Magica, though I admit I never really played a real campaign with it. I didn't like the part where you're supposed to play a half dozen different characters, with your actual 'wizard' not being part of the story 90% of the time.

>>52635890
>Golden Sky Stories
My brother of racoon descent!

File: 1415153979088.png (157KB, 539x1003px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 539x1003px

>>52635645

7th Sea ((2nd edition))

Never have I had more fun and never have i stolen fro ma system so much.

>>52635645
>I know we all love to say 'have you tried not playing D&D',

Can you stop making these threads where you pretend a few trolls speak for /tg/?

Don't define us by the worst of us.

>>52637005
>Implying that isn't the simplest answer to most of the questions we get

>"Alignment arguments cause interparty conflict, how to fix?"
>"Why are wizards so OP? How can I make things more fair for Fighters?"
>"I don't like how characters take 5 longswords to the face and live. How can I make my game more realistic?"
>"My players refuse to read the rulebook because it's so long!"

The list goes on and on of things that are easily solved by simply realizing D&D 3.5 is not the only game in the universe.

>>52637108
The problem with the "have you tried not playing D&D" is that people use it more often than not when playing a different system wouldn't solve anything.

Few problems discussed on this board can be solved just by switching systems, largely because at the end of the day, the system is actually only a small component to the game that's being run, and that switching systems just leads to a new veneer on the same old problems.

"Try X system" is not always bad advice, but it's not particularly helpful in a thread about problem players, or about story issues, or even alignment arguments, because even in the last case it's just a name (or a different name) for things you'll find in find in almost every other game. Even games "without" alignments still have degrees of morality to them or factions with codes of conduct, and most alignment arguments typically revolve around these two features of alignment.

Does D&D have flaws? Certainly, but most of these are remedied in far less time than it takes to learn a new system, and the idea that you should abandon a system just because something didn't work out is why we find a lot of people hopping through multiple systems hoping that a change of game will solve their problems.

Most of the whole problem with system discussion is that it's actually political in nature. Play X game or play Y game is a tactic to try to garner support for one game or dissuade people from playing another, and is largely dishonest in its lack of transparency. D&D becomes a target not because it's a bad game by any measure, but because it's popularity means people are less inclined to play other games.

As a person who has played his share of everything under the sun and now plays homebrews almost exclusively, I've really gotten tired of people claiming system superiority or inferiority when they're all just talking about the same inferior games just under different disguises.

If only they knew how amazing Duck in the Circle was.

>>52637142
Nice pasta

File: houseruling DnD.jpg (38KB, 520x509px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 520x509px

>>52637142
>Does D&D have flaws? Certainly, but most of these are remedied in far less time than it takes to learn a new system

>>52637169
Ah, it looks like the trolls are raring to go.

Time to watch them continue to be the reason no actual system discussion can ever occur, because they are too obsessed with system wars and figuring out how to complain about the system that they think is the reason no one plays the system they like.

>>52637211
(you)

>>52637211
I see no reason to seriously discuss a system I've long since stopped using.
A system is just a tool that you choose according to the task at hand. And even if we disregard the fact that DnD is not very good at its job, the jobs it does are not particularly appealing to me personally either.
Combining low fantasy, high fantasy, heroic fantasy etc. into one giant kitchen sink is not a great approach to making a good system.
Have a (You), I suppose.

>>52635645
Get real weird with it, OP

1) Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen

2) Microscope

3) Sorcerer

4) Spirit of the Century

>>52637273
>Combining low fantasy, high fantasy, heroic fantasy etc. into one giant kitchen sink is not a great approach to making a good system.
Cool opinion. I guess you can cling to it while the overwhelming majority of players, designers, critics, and just about everyone who matters disagrees with you.
I mean, what? You're going to tell people how right you are, like your complaints mean anything to anyone, when the only people who'll listen to you are your fellow trolls hoping for the day that D&D will stop being a unsurmountable juggernaut, all because you complain about how it appeals to a variety of styles?
I mean, shit. Tell you what. When the game you're shilling for gets a tenth of the amount of players and awards D&D's got, I'll try to take you seriously when you whine next time about how it can't do what it very well does, and does very well. Sound fair?

File: Bandwagon.jpg (39KB, 645x274px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 645x274px

>>52637462
Twilight is shit despite that fact that thousands of teenage girls think it is great.

>>52637462
>ad populum
Hot opinions you got there.
What's next, you're gonna tell me Justin Bieber is great? I mean, he's got the most fans in the world.
Yknow, I'll just stop answering, because it's obvious you're fishing for replies. Ciao.

>>52637525
Twilight isn't considered the fundamental core of modern literature and hasn't reaped up every literary award that was available to be reaped.
This ain't just argumentum ad populum. This is argementum ad absolutum. Every measurable metric you can provide aside from "muh opinion" puts D&D as better than every other game by an overwhelming margin.
Fan polls? Critic awards? Book sales? Player numbers? What? What the fuck have you got except "muh opinion"?
Do you even understand how retarded you need to be to try to be such a contrarian as you are being?
It's one thing to say "I don't like it", it's another to try and say "my personal opinion outweighs that of everyone that matters."

WFRP 2e
no broken casters, power = risk
No 150 hp MMO style tanking bullshit. Use tactics or die from tetanus

>>52635890
>Nasuverse RPG
Does it work well? What for?

>>52636926
I've played a lot of ars magica, and I've observed that most players tend to bring their magi to every adventure just because the magic system is the best part of the game and it's much more fun when you have all those tools at your disposal. It's a real shame that companions aren't more satisfying to play and advance though, because they're a great way into the other great draw of ars magica which is hte historical setting. Lots of players in my troupe would agree that their companion character is conceptually much more interesting, but even so they'll always play the magus if they can get away with it.

>>52635890
Can you upload unknown armies 3rd ed?

>>52637793
No, he is saying people are lazy fucks who rarely spend time to stretch their hand even to second product on the shelf if its cover is a little less flashy than the first.

Problems in a game can be generally divided into 2 parts:

1) Problems with people - DM, players. Retards, bullies, magical realmers and so on.
2) Problems induced by the system

The second set of problems can be much easier remedied by taking another system then trying to repair D&D. Hell, take M&M it could run all your games with less problems, more clear cut rules and pretty good guide for the DM. Want bestiary? Most monsters from D&D were reworked into the system on forums.

>>52635645
What's the genre you want to play? What's the setting? What sort of tone do you want?

>>52638277
>No, he is saying people are lazy fucks who rarely spend time to stretch their hand even to second product on the shelf if its cover is a little less flashy than the first.

And I'm saying that's your opinion. An unsubstantiated one at that.
Now, you've got to show me something that can convince me to take you seriously, or you're just going to have to be content with the idea that you have a minority opinion and it all boils down to your personal tastes which most people don't share.
I mean, I could point out that there are plenty of people who are clearly not lazy fucks and are clearly well-versed in a variety of games, like the critics and designers that have showered D&D with praise, awards, respect, and recognitions, but why even bother?
Really, if your entire argument is "the majority of people are inferior to me because they like a game I don't like," how the hell is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

>>52638444
> I mean, I could point out that there are plenty of people who are clearly not lazy fucks and are clearly well-versed in a variety of games, like the critics and designers that have showered D&D with praise, awards, respect, and recognitions, but why even bother?
No, no, by all means, go, point out those people, the ones who "are clearly not lazy fucks and are clearly well-versed in a variety of games" and who "showered D&D with praise, awards, respect, and recognitions".

You can also mention, let's say, 10 famous RPG designers you know by name and how they are related to DnD. Hell, I'll even give you Monte Cook and Gary Gygax as freebies. Go on, I'll wait.

>>52638444
>Really, if your entire argument is "the majority of people are inferior to me because they like a game I don't like," how the hell is anyone supposed to take you seriously?
Where did I say that I'm exempt from "lazy fucks" definition?

>I mean, I could point out that there are plenty of people who are clearly not lazy fucks and are clearly well-versed in a variety of games, like the critics and designers that have showered D&D with praise, awards, respect, and recognitions, but why even bother?
And? Why would I listen to them if I have seen problems created by D&D in play for years? In this case all their praise and awards only tell me that they either don't care, do it maliciously or just incompetent.

>Now, you've got to show me something that can convince me to take you seriously, or you're just going to have to be content with the idea that you have a minority opinion and it all boils down to your personal tastes which most people don't share.
What do you want me to show you that wasn't shown before? From game logs to math. D&D 3.5 and its derivatives were studied almost under a microscope and the end result was - if everyone in a group spends a shitton of time learning the game it will suck less and can be used without possibility of ruining the game because everyone knows what to can do it.

>>52638562
You do realize that both original D&D and AD&D are Origins Hall of Famers, and each following edition has swept every best roleplaying game award the year it was published outside of the Steve Jackson awards?

And what? You want me to name people like Skip Williams or David Arneson? For what purpose? I'm not the one on trial here, I'm asking for you to show me something that isn't just you and your opinion against an overwhelming tide that says "Maybe your opinion isn't as important as you'd like it to be."

>>52635645
Bunch of stuff, depending on what you want. GURPS, Anima and Fantasy Craft are my go-tos

GURPS
Traveller
anything that is not a fucking tabletop MMO

File: 1443479002458.jpg (30KB, 246x357px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 246x357px

>>52638714
>GURPS
:^)
>Anima
Literally D&D for weebs
>Fantasy Craft
Okay that one's actually good, I'll give you that.

>>52638595
>And? Why would I listen to them if I have seen problems created by D&D in play for years?

Why would anyone listen to you if the problems really aren't as bad as you try to pretend they are?
>What do you want me to show you that wasn't shown before?
Something that manages to overturn to consensus that it's not only a good game, but one of the best. I can tell you right now you're never going to find it, since no amount of personal game logs and skewed math can overturn the overwhelming consensus of the majority of players who fully agree that while D&D has got problems, it's popularity isn't an accident and it has attracted and served as the the effective flagship of roleplaying games in general.
It's THE big game. If most of your complaints always end up being "this game is too big", that basically just means you personally prefer smaller games. Hey, your preference, whatever, but fuck do you whine like you think your little opinion matters.

>>52638769
what's the problem with GURPS?

>>52638778
>Why would anyone listen to you if the problems really aren't as bad as you try to pretend they are?
I don't care if anyone listens to me? I stated what I've experienced. You have a lot of data from other people. You think it's not enough problems? Go on.

GMs who are aware of problems but use D&D due to its popularity are mostly okay. Those who are not aware could be seen pretty easily. And I never will recommend D&D to anyone as a go to game.

>Something that manages to overturn to consensus that it's not only a good game, but one of the best.
I can't kill so many people without nuclear weapons.

>If most of your complaints always end up being "this game is too big", that basically just means you personally prefer smaller games.
My complaints mostly are with the fact that authors could not into basic math and generally just were throwing everything that they thought about at the time into books. Without any care to the results.

>>52638807
A lot of work for GM. Really a lot.

If you are into it it's a good system. But you'll spend a lot of time on mechanical part of game preparation and it will be boring.

>>52638769
>>Anima
>Literally D&D for weebs
Confirmed for never having actually played the fucking game.

Mage: The Awakening

File: Jon.gif (149KB, 256x200px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 256x200px

>>52635890
>unknown armies

MY BLACK FRIEND

>>52638778
>popular game = good game

When you're reduced to this it means you've run out of real arguments but can't bear to admit it.

>>52640914
When you're reduced to pretending your opinion is magically more important than other people's without even the advantage of popular support, that means you're crawling on an even lower level.

It means you're just a whipped dog, howling.

>>52640745
Can someone sell me on Unknown Armies?
I am very much looking to make my group try something other than 3.PF.

>>52640985
>Only popular opinions are worthwhile
I see you are a gentleman of refined taste my dear populist.
Please regale me with a list of other forms of entertainment you enjoy, I could use a chuckle.

>>52640995
Unknown armies is the game where you become so obsessed and your worldview is so warped, you get superpowers.
Unknown armies is the game were if someone fires a gun or swings a bat, everyone has already lost, because everyone, even the people who aren't going to fight, are going to have to make stress checks, and that shit can end badly.
Unknown armies is the game where I had a player make a baby out of rags and gasoline, love that baby, raise it in magic and mysticism to such extent that it became real, and then fed it to a crowd of hungry tourists, screaming and crying, dooming Vegas to another year of prosperity.

>>52641026
>>Only popular opinions are worthwhile

No, it's just that opinions are opinions, and everyone's free to have their own. But, if you're hoping to try and make a claim against the vast majority, you should have something more to substantiate your claims beyond simply more opinions that can be casually brushed aside.

But, since all you've really got is stacked minority opinions stacked on top of even more minority opinions, you're essentially forced to submit to the idea that other people are not only free to enjoy what you dislike, but that newcomers actually have a much higher chance of disagreeing with your personal tastes than agreeing with them. To argue otherwise just sounds like the whining of someone upset about something they dislike being popular, which is one of the more pathetic sorts of jealousy.

>>52640995
Odds are, if your group enjoys Pathfinder, they're not going to like UA very much. It's modern cosmic horror, pretty light (3rd is heavier, for the better), very focused on characters, and the general assumption is high lethality and fairly average-competency characters.

More detail on exacts:
>Percentile roll-under system
>big mechanical draw is the sanity system
>>splits types of shocks into 5 types: Helplessness, Isolation, Self, Unnatural, Violence
>>measures how hard you are to a given shock, and how many times you've failed a given shock
>setting is anthropocentric cosmic horror, pick up 2e core from tha archive and it'll give you the gist of it

If you want something fairly close to 3.X while still broadening horizons, I suggest trying Ars Magica (also in tha archive), since the resolution mechanic is very similar, it has a lot of mechanical complexity (it's just that it's mostly in the magic system), and the setting is still fairly heavily fantasy if you stick to the Hermetic Order.

I'll probably be here to answer questions about either system for a while.

>>52635645
>but what's the alternative?

whateaver the hell you want that is not d&d?

It goes like this:
1-Read rpg 1 (at least part of it)
2-Read rpg 2 (at least part of it)
3-Read rpg 3 (at least part of it)
......
4-Read rpg N (at least part of it)
5-Pick the bests ones and play them

>>52637142
>Does D&D have flaws?

D&D IS UNFIXABLE

>0d&d is made and get famous
>its the first one at the market and all those guys with extremely different views on what a rpg should be (why do you think they have the same view on what rpg should be? Just because they play d&d, what the hell they would be playing at this moment since there is nothing else?) are playing the same thing.
>after some amount of time people discover some stuff they think are flaws, while they also they discover aspects of d&d that are fucking awesome.
>because they have different views on what a rpg should be (despise playing the same game), what is a flaw to some is not a flaw to other, what is worse, sometimes what is a flaw to some is a good thing to other person.
>new d&d edition is released
>people quickly jump into it expecting fixes to the flaw they found
>but what is a flaw to some is not a flaw to others as I said before and so to many players nothing is fixed, the game become worse, while to others the game became better, to others the game became a mess and etc.....
>all those new players quickly jumping to this new rpg bring new (new as in new to rpg) players to d&d
>those new players will play the same thing despise having the same opinions about what a rpg should be
>they have different opinions about what is good or bad in a rpg and etc.....
>new edition is released
>those new players quickly jump into this new system, expecting fixes for their problems and etc... and all those players quickly jumping to it bring new (to rpg) players and etc....
>the story goes on and on, ad infinitum

>>52637793
>I want to read a book about space aliens going to school on a gas planet
>read shakespeare! most books are based on it for a long time and its popular! If you don't like it you're a dumbdumb!

>>52635645
It depends on what you want out of your game.

>>52641140
>newcomers actually have a much higher chance of disagreeing with your personal tastes than agreeing with them.
I can live with that. If someone just starts listening to music they aren't going to like the same bands that I do because they will probably be preoccupied with something easily digestible that was heavily marketed at then. Movies, role-playing games, and numerous other interests suffer the same fate; newcomers in any interest are often ill-equipped to tell the good from the bad because they aren't familiar with the plurality of nuances and options available to them.

Casting /tg/'s (a generally experienced, candid community) well-documented & fairly empirical complaints about D&D as mere "minority opinion" that is trumped by whatever the majority of newcomers gravitate towards is doing yourself an intellectual disservice. I can only imagine you enjoy the role of the fool.

>>52638807
GURPS is not a game system. It's a set of tinker toys for building your own system. The problem with GURPS is that it really likes making one sort of game (the ultra-autistic-super-detailed-realism-simulator kind) and must be dragged kicking and screaming to any other configuration, and the amount of effort you'll put into building your desired game out of GURPS is somewhat comparable to just starting from scratch and building your own system without GURPS.

That and GURPS missionaries are insufferable.

>>52638947
With GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, all the work is done for you.

>>52641141
>>52641112
UA sounds really appealing to me but my group would hate it. I'll also never be able to make any of them read a rulebook so whatever system I end up with I'll have to teach them myself as we play.

How rules heavy/complicated is Ars Magical? It looks great at a glance but I'm not sure I can count on my PCs to give it the level of commitment it requires, or want to play multiple characters at a time.

>>52635645
Not playing anything, at least in my case.

>>52641306
>well-documented & fairly empirical complaints about D&D

You mean mostly bullshit spewed by a few idiots hoping people will take them seriously, when most of their complaints are either just a matter of taste or simply remedied?

You hardworking trolls still have decades of work before you in order to do anything except assemble a collection of things most people either don't care about, don't agree with, or choose not to play with. Since most of your arguments end up demanding that people need to play in the worst possible ways in order for them to actually recognize your complaints, your "empirical" complaints are about as useful as a forecast of Antarctica. Yes, it's cold over there, but I'm not exactly planning to visit there any time soon.

>intellectual disservice

An intellectual disservice is assuming that the only way people can enjoy the most popular game is somehow that there must be something fundamentally wrong with them, rather than the game simply not being as bad as you like to pretend it is. An intellectual disservice is ignoring all the good things about a game in order to present a single-sided view in order to further a largely unacademic agenda while pretending to have a scholarly interest. The very definition of intellectual disservice is to see something that works, something that works very well, and to come to the conclusion that the world must be wrong instead of actually trying to understand why it works so well.

Do yourself a favor. Stop working so hard to try and come up with complaints that can be brushed aside by people simply enjoying the game you don't like, and put some effort into seeing things from their perspective. You might realize that no, they're not mindless sheep who are too stupid to know better, but that they see things that you've grown willfully ignorant to in your arrogance.

>>52641458
I'd suggest, if you want to ease them in, start them as companions who have the Gift, but no proper magical training. Then, do a timeskip for their training (use the chargen method rather than the usual advancement mechanics), and walk them through the basics for spell creation and all that. Then do some tribunal politics. My suggestion: grab Houses of Hermes: Societas, run a game set in a Flambeau tournament, add in the plot of your choosing. Plenty of chances to show off and use their new spells, while still reminding them to mind the politics.

As for density: pretty much everything except spell creation and its derivatives are simple enough if they can manage PF. If they don't want to do spell creation, there's a lot of spells in the core, and if you get a handle on the system you can help make spells for them pretty simply if you have the PDF.

>>52641579
Hey I play D&D/PF almost exclusively so I'm not sure if your WotC-sponsored autistic ranting applies to me. I know it has good sides. Doesn't mean I have to conveniently ignore all of its faults.

>If you don't like the nth iteration of D&D you're an internet troll who hates fun and can't even imagine how people can find enjoyment in playing the system
I'm not even sure how to address your points anymore, you're so far divorced from reality...

>>52637142
>>52637142

This is what traditional RPGers actually believe.

It's not their games: it's their gamers that are fucked up beyond redemption.

>>52641811
>Doesn't mean I have to conveniently ignore all of its faults.

No one said that. But, at the same time, no one wants to hear "[Game] is Objectively bad because of my Subjective opinions", especially when it's said purely to flare up system warring and to generate circular discussion that fails to ever move past people complaining and having their complaints shot down only to open up new complaints.
System wars are tedious business, and I've always found more value in listening to people who actually value games and want to explore and fix their issues, rather than people who hate games and simply want to find material to use as ammunition in their tantrums. At the same time, I've also found that occasionally you can get a drop of wisdom out of troll by pressuring them to say something they like about a game they despise, though for the most part they're absolutely devoid of any worthwhile commentary, regardless of what game they're trolling.

>>52635645
Maid RPG

>>52642091
When you see things like Toughness, Samurai, Trunamer you can bet your ass people will start calling devs on their shit. And if you call it a subjective opinion than you are too full of shit and is incapable of adding 2 and 2 together.

File: Your Obliviosness.jpg (21KB, 175x290px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 175x290px

>>52635645
>what's the alternative?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_role-playing_games_by_genre#Fantasy

>>52638714
>>52638769

If you want to like D&D but the power creep and spellcasting/economic derp annoys you, Fantasy Craft is a good choice. It's surprisingly easy to GM too. Also, if you've played a d20 game before, you've already got the basics down.

>>52638277
>Un-ironically suggests M&M.
M&M is one of the most boring RPGs I have ever played. The mechanics are so fucking bland.

I would rather replay the shittiest D&D 3.5 campaign I've ever played with the least balanced party I've ever played with than slog through the mess that is M&M ever again.

I'm not saying D&D is amazing, but I am saying that nearly anything is better than M&M.

The only game I've played that I hated nearly as much is whatever version of Savage worlds was current around 2011.

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

96KB, 246x432px

>>52635645

>>52644829
FC seemed kinda neat, but it lacked some of the critical things I actually play/run dnd for.
>high power level
>official dnd setting compatibility.
>Prebuilt adversaries.
>Prebuilt adventures for when I don't have time to design a Homebrew campaign.

I mean, it looks like it fixes some of my mechanical complaints about 3.x, but it also discards most of what I liked about D&D to begin with.

>>52644931

#1: Between having action dice and vitality/wounds instead of HP you can usually bash your way through a large number of enemies unless you get unlucky. I'm not sure what the problem is there.
#2: Gonna have to work harder if you're going off the reservation, buddy.
#3: It does have those?
#4: You could steal a module from just about any d20 game and drop in FC's enemies and such nearly at will if you've got even a modest amount of analytical skill. It'd certainly be faster than homebrewing your own setting anyway.

>>52635741
Truly, the most traditional of games.

>>52635757
My local group is using the Twilight 2k setting with GURPS rules. We're honestly taking the milsim a little far when it comes to rules, but it's a lot of fun when you get into the nitty-gritty of calling in a mortar strike from that militia that ows you a favour.

>>52635645
I recommend Risus. Maybe not as your primary system because it's a silly thing for pickup games, but more to show what's possible.

(In my actual games I use an unholy amalgam of parts assembled on the fly, usually from pieces of Risus, FATE, D&D 4E, and TVTropes pages.)

The only bad D&D is 3.5/3.PF.

Every single other D&D has SOME saving grace. All 3.PF has is grognards refusing to move on and furry erp.

>>52645615
> Every single other D&D has SOME saving grace

3.5 had the most entertaining character optimization scene.

>>52645708
I honestly think 4e's was better. More useful moving parts, as long as you are only optimizing and not breaking.

>>52635645
Anima - Beyond Fantasy
GURPS Dungeon Fantasy
SenZar

File: 51807a2a67945dafacd96520527d55c6_original.jpg (382KB, 1552x873px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1552x873px

>>52635645
>dat feel I never even played D&D until the 4E

WFRP and TDE were much more popular over here in central Europe.

>>52641458
Well, I would still suggest you to give UA a chance. It has simple rules and the fluff is just awesome. As summarized by a friend of mine and according to 2E lore: "UA is the game where the most powerful wizard is an old alcoholic writer with cirrhosis, where the most wanted artifact a porn tape and where the members of the most powerful cabal spend their time flipping hamburgers under two golden arcs.

>>52638221

If someone has the pdf for the third edition, dump it here

>>52636013
>Dungeon World
>can't do fantasy settings well
When will this meme die?

>>52645907
When DW becomes a decent system and not the worst AW hack ever made.

>>52645895
>If someone has the pdf for the third edition, dump it here
https://mega.nz/#F!Jp4wgAxJ!FhtKlC4HJsqs2eR7kdG7gQ

>>52645907
Oh, I didn't explicitly discount Dungeon World because it's bad at doing fantasy.

I explicitly discounted Dungeon World because it's a bad RPG. They cut out everything good about Apocalypse World, and then didn't even put anything new in, leaving it bland and terrible.

>>52646065
I agree it's nothing compared to AW, they did cut out the best parts.
But I disagree with not putting in anything new.
And the system is very accessible to new players who prefer storytelling over number-crunching.
It might not be the best RPG around, but it's fun.

>>52646242
This.

DW is basically on par with most OSR (no matter how the grogs keep screeching about storygames not being real games autistically, WHEN THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT OF OSR IS THAT YOU CAN FREEFORM MORE BECAUSE LESS RULES).

File: only group around plays Pathfinder.jpg (575KB, 644x1009px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 644x1009px

>>52635645
There is none. You know it. Nobody's going to try the other stuff.

>>52643714
>nitpicking

You're going to try and condemn an entire game on a few niggling flaws? So far, you've listed about .0000000000000000001% of the game. You're going to need to reach at least 2% before your complaint changes from "this game is very big" to "this game is bad."

>>52646903
Thank you anon, I love your writing style. If I ever decide to write a book and need a character that only exists to piss off the reader, I will write every line of his the way you do yours.

I think D&D is average at best but I really don't care what the "majority of players" thinks about it; the only critics that matter to me are my gaming group.

Just wanted to say this, please don't aim your autism cannons at me because I simply don't care.

>>52635645
Barbarians of Lemuria
-Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, 2nd Edition
-Savage Worlds
-GURPS
-Runequest
-FATE

etc, etc

>>52646903
>You're going to try and condemn an entire game on a few niggling flaws?
Not that Anon, but my issue with D&D is specifically that it IS very big, for no particular reason. The game (and all its bastard offspring) are just drowning in crunch... they've forgotten that the rules are a tool, not an end unto themselves.

I get why the devs and publishers do it - more splatbooks and new editions and expansions means more material means more revenue. But we're not compelled to play along.

The fact of the matter is all you need for a good RPG campaign is a robust resolution mechanic, some agreement on the setting, and a decent DM.

>>52635645
The alternative doesn't matter because as soon as you say anything the reply is "Well it's not D&D so it must suck nanananananananana I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Point is it depends.

Point is D&D is a game with heavy, or at best mid-heavy (latest edition) crunch, leaning heavily towards gamist mindset, sacrificing many potential qualities on the other fields to be primarily a GAME. Additionaly tied heavily to kitchen sink high fantasy and hard to translate to other kinds of settings.

It is probably good at that. Depending on edition.

Point is there is no way that such majority of people that play RPGs who play D&D actually enjoy this sort of stuff the most. It's simply improbable. Which means they're playing system ill-suited for their needs and get suboptimal results. As well as there are certainly people who are put off by RPGs because they don't like what D&D is and have no idea it could also be something different, and enjoyable for them.

>>52645011
>1. FC lacks D&Ds high magic style powerlevel. It's a lower powered game. I'm not referring to how many hits you can take. I'm referring to power in the area of reality bending effects.
>2. One of the main reasons to play dnd is the convenience of having like a dozen prebuilt detailed worlds to choose from, a wide variety of Bestiaries, and compatible prebuilt adventures including the relevant adversaries, and you plug them in and go.
>3. Not in any real number. But yes, it has some. FC never got a proper Bestiary, just like it never got that magic book.
>4. Reading the book (I've only read it haven't played it) I got the impression that FC enemies work very differently than dnd enemies. Is it easier to convert and use dnd enemies in FC than I thought?

For a lower powered more sword and sorcery d20 game, I'm more inclined towards d20 Conan.

For a D&D replacement, I'm gonna want higher powered magic than FC has, and either a wide variety of dnd style Bestiaries, or enough compatibility that I can pick up D&D adventures and Bestiaries and use them as is.

IE a dnd clone, if they're not going to put out lots of material for it, needs to be compatible with monsters and adventures for 2e or 3e or 4e or 5e.

Fc may be an alright game, but for that variety of fantasy I lean much more towards d20 conan, GURPS (fantasy + ritual path magic, but dungeon fantasy or monster hunters + fantasy would also work), or Cinematic Unisystem (probably with ghosts of Albion as my core book, and then make supplemental use of Buffy and angel supplements, as well as grab some stuff from CJ Carella's witchcraft, and maybe dungeons and zombies, to taste - you could just do it with ghosts of albion) if you wanted something simple in one book).

>>52647590
>for no particular reason.

Stretch your imagination a little and try to see if you can figure out a reason that isn't "These guys are IDIOTS because they didn't make the exact kind of specific game I personally like!"

>I get why the devs and publishers do it

No, apparently you don't. Really, try to look outside of yourself for a brief second.

>>52647590
A lot of the dnd books are to save the dm work.

Like, if I'm to run D&D, I have a ton of:
>Published adventures.
>Published worlds.
>Published collections of monsters (wish there were more published NPCs, but there are some).
>Books about running urban/seafaring/desert/dungeoncrawling campaigns.

Though many others are adding more options to character creation.

I do agree, that a more robust character creation system, with a powers creation system built into it, is a better idea, and then you can still sell prebuilt stuff using those mechanics, for convenience.

But instead they only make the highly specific prebuilt options,which requires lots of books, and gives you much less flexibility in characters.

>>52647788
I do hate when people try to use an edition of dnd for a task it's bad at and then have bad results.

Even If they tell you about it in advance they still ignore your warnings and do it anyways, and then come whine about how it didn't work.

>>52650932
>"I'm gonna use dnd 3.5."
>"No WBL, rare magic items, running a published adventure for plot and monsters, all books except Bo9S, and the party is a druid, a war cleric, a monk, and a rogue."
Good luck. Tell me how the Trainwreck goes.

>>52650893
>I do agree, that a more robust character creation system, with a powers creation system built into it, is a better idea,

Except that all available examples are so broken and unwieldy as to require a GM to basically handhold the player throughout the entire process. And, after that, it still ends up being a game of "Mother-May-I" with the GM having to carefully permit what powers can do during the game.

If that's your cup of tea, that's fine, but it really doesn't serve for a game intended for mass appeal and collaboration, because it makes it decisively a "my own backyard" type deal, with each GM running a dramatically different game.

>But instead they only make the highly specific prebuilt options,which requires lots of books, and gives you much less flexibility in characters.

Guides for building custom stuff are in the DM's guide as well as in various splatbooks and sections intended for the DM. This ranges from everything from custom items to customs spells, feats, classes, class abilities, prestige classes, monsters, just about everything you can name. Basically, since they're the one's who are going to have final approval, they put it behind the curtain so that players won't jump the gun.

There's a ton of prebuilt stuff, but at no point should there be any attempt to establish a mythology that D&D ONLY allows prebuilt stuff, when you can barely stumble a few paces through any of the books without the game reminding you that there are plenty of variants to choose from and you're free to change anything you wish to suit your games.

>>52635645
Nothing. DnD is fine.

>>52635645
13th Age. I like 13th Age.

>>52651043
I am the only gm I have met in 15 years who allows and encourages non published options in D&D - I frequently Homebrew stuff for my players, and Homebrew stuff for my settings whilst disallowing some of the standard stuff. It's doable, but requires a great deal of system mastery (and a good understanding of the math in the system) for the Homebrew to not be complete shit.

But "Build your own powers rules" is, imo, the only way you can make a decent game with supernatural things with only a couple books.

>>52647788
>Point is D&D is a game with heavy, or at best mid-heavy (latest edition) crunch,

Game can be boiled down to its core mechanic, d20+modifiers vs. DC. in fact, this is so simple and prevalent, that 3rd edition on D&D is one of the easiest and most rewarding systems to design material for. It's culminated in 5e, which is the best selling and most popular RPG of all time, despite plenty of non-D&D competitors.

Calling it crunch heavy is just pretending that there's rules forcing you to use all the material, when even 5% of the game leaves you with more material to work with than most games. It's an incredibly versatile system, and this "D&D can only do one thing well" is ignoring the countless games built around the system and the myriad of settings designed with it.

It really just sounds like the sort of tagline someone hoping to steer people away from D&D mutters in hope of getting people to play his more specific RPG, though it usually ends up with people not liking his specific RPG's core mechanic and returning back to D&D. D&D's core mechanic is simple, intuitive, polished, easily understood and worked with, and is the undisguised foundation of most other games. If you're having trouble running a D&D game, when even small children are able to easily adapt the system to their exact needs, then it sounds like you simply have more mental blocks keeping you from seeing very simple truths.

>>52651319
Ntgb

3e has serious balance issues in the way of trap options and chasm degrees of class versatility disparity.

It can be a fun game despite that, if the group has high system mastery. But the system mastery component makes 3.x a complex game.

5e is better balanced, and much easier to learn, even though I think adv/dis is not granular enough, think proficiency of +2-+6 is not nearly enough difference between incompetents and experts, and (particularly for skills) think the dice matter too much for skill checks, and would prefer to assign my skill improvements level by level instead of using a unified proficiency bonus.

I have gripes with both games, but 5e is definitely simpler.

>>52651319
>game can be boiled down to its core mechanic, d20+modifiers vs. DC
Like almost any game that wasn't developed before the 00s. Save some shitty heartbreakers

Point is that around this simple mechanic there is fuckton of damn variations built, even in core alone.
Difficulty in learning D&D isn't like difficulty of learning maths, it's like a difficulty in learning biology. You don't need to grasp understanding on some elusive concepts, you just need to bluntly memorize lot of material.
Besides, learning is one thing. How much of the session is hogged by mechanical shit is another. Even if everyone at the table already knows game well, D&D still is cloggy roll-play game.

>"D&D can only do one thing well" is ignoring the countless games built around the system and the myriad of settings
Most of them shit and forgotten, with few exceptions still getting any recognition mostly because of either no/weak alternatives within relevant genre/IP or purely by the popularity of the mother game, or both.

>D&D's core mechanic is simple, intuitive, polished, easily understood and worked with
There is no problem with this "core mechanic". No actual problems with D&D stem from it. But there isn't anything special with that, as well. Neither even D&D 3E invented it as you're trying to imply. Randomly picked modern RPG will have equally simplistic and streamlined "core mechanic". Either way pretending that "It all boils to the core roll, guise, everything else is unimportant" is some special kind of retarded.

>though it usually ends up with people not liking his specific RPG's core mechanic and returning back to D&D
Nice anecdotal evidence faggot, "look i know this one guy, he played D&D and decided it's SHit then got back to D&D". I could counter it with a opposite story but it would be as wothless piece of text that proves nothing as your bit.

Tl;DR "core mechanic" doesn't mean shit.

>>52646903
I'm not going to scour the books for the N-th time just for you. There is enough 3.5 dissections online to satisfy anyone who cares about learning the system.

You are not one of them.

>>52637005
Enjoying the wonders of anonymity yet?

>>52635645
There are thousands of different games in all different settings.

>>52650873
Played D&D for years, I'm well aware of its virtues and flaws. I understand the appeal as a player and dm to buy up new content, but experience has proven it's usually a hollow sort of satisfaction and ultimately a lot of wasted money and time. There are a lot of alternatives that do a great deal more with far less material.

>A lot of the dnd books are to save the dm work.
Sure, and this kinda gets at the heart of my gripe with the system. It's a ton of work for the DM, both prep and in-session, and a fair bit of work for the players learning the system and during character creation. The fact that you as a dm feel the need to have all the reference material is, in my opinion, a symptom of the deeper problem.

Contrast that with a relatively lightweight system like Fate - you'd never bother having something like a encyclopedia of monsters for a game like that, because you can stat up monsters and NPC's on the fly in less time than it takes you to come up with a name for them. The end result is that my prep time as a DM is short - usually much less than the length of the session I'm prepping for. That's not something I could ever have said for D&D.

>>52651998
>anyone who cares about learning the system

There's a wide difference between learning about the system, and just learning how to complain about it.
You seem only keen on the latter, and that prevents you from seeing how the game is actually played by most people.

And, more importantly, people have been bitching about 3rd edition online even before the system was released. Good to know that some of you grognards are still bitter, but that didn't really do much to stop it from being the game that revolutionized and ultimately saved the industry.

>>52652655
>revolutionized and ultimately saved the industry.

The industry would have been fine without 3e.

In fact, its domineering presence because of the OGL almost choked the life out of everything.

Which was the goal. WotC made 3e becaue White Wolf was starting to muscle into the RPG turf (and to flex the IP muscle they got). 3e was the answer.

But you probably already know this, you can't troll these boards 24/7 without picking up at least some of the history.

>>52652655
You mean where they blindly trudge through the game and system stumbling over things like Toughness, Monkey Grip and so on? I have seen how DMs who didn't knew the system good enough were losing it over PCs rolling over their encounters and bosses, and I've seen PCs losing any interest in the game because they chose shitty options that sounded nice. Both can happen easily if DM and players don't spend a couple of years playing it.

>>52651970
I actually have problems with D&D's core mechanic. Problems which are worse in 5e.
>No matter how skilled you are, there is a variance of 20.
>At low levels your bonuses are so small you basically can't be good at anything.

At around level 10ish (3.x) the math finally starts to work out that your bonuses are big enough you no longer have to roll for dumb shit (take 10) and even when forced to roll, your odds of success are good.

5e takes my problems with low level dnds math (particularly where skills are concerned) and makes them worse by making the whole game have low numbers and high variance.

So, d20+low numbers is not ideal. d20 plus high numbers is better but still not great.

If I were to overhaul it, it would involve higher bonuses overall, even at level 1, and as you improve, you'd get both increasing bonuses, and decreasing variance (either smaller dice, or rerolling anything below an increasing minimum until you could switch to smaller dice).

>>52652785
Your example GMs and players need to be pointed at game guides for 3.x.

They'd likely be fine in 5e though. It lacks the massive optimization spectrum.

>>52652926
If 5e used 4e scaling, it'd have been good.

If 5e was just 4.5e, it'd have been the best.

>>52652926
Point is "core mechanic" anon defined it just as "d20+modifiers vs DC". Becase it's all that matters! Actual modifier ranges and exact DC values aren't part of core mechanic, they don't count and are as unimportant as everything else in the system besides that bit of text in quotes. Kek.

>>52644890
That's funny, the worst M&M campaign I played in was still miles better than the best 3.5 campaign I played in.

>>52635645
Twilight:2000 1e

>>52652956
>5e Proficiency bonus is 1+1/4 level (round up)
>Attribute bonus is 0-5
>No take 10, or take20.

The end result is the whole game is just way to swingy and feels like:
>Everything comes down to dumb luck.
>Nobody feels competent at anything out of combat.
>you have decent chances of failing at even trivial tasks, because there's no point that's "anybody with training can do this as easily as tying their shoes, but people without training might fail it." - an aspect which is a definite step down from 3.5.

>>52653306
Clearly tastes vary widely.

I hated m&m so much I told the gm he could have my books so long as he promised we would never play m&m again in our gaming group.

>>52652949
It also lacks everything else.

Someone up there called M&M bland. 5e is much worse.

>>52653574
I called mnm bland.

I was referring to the sameness of the combat mechanics, and the nontactical combat.

Just recently got 5e. Haven't tried it yet. Character creation does seem kindof bland. Is combat also bland?

>>52653633
>Character creation does seem kindof bland. Is combat also bland?
Yes. Magic is somewhat bearable but martials while getting upped in comparative power level got really bland. You can do more in 6 level of 3.5 than characters get to do in 20 levels of 5e.

>>52653789
What makes 5e so bland? Is it just the smaller number of class features? Is it the combat rules as a whole?

>>52635645
The Dark Eye

>>52653836
Everything is watered down from 3.5.

>>52653836
Low number of features is a problem. But I'd say the biggest culprit is the "advantage-disadvantage" rule.

Any number of advantages can be removed by one disadvantage and vice versa. Considering that around middle levels all classes get some way of reliably acquiring advantage when they need it tactics whimpers and dies. There is almost no reason to move around because if you have advantage no matter what happens (well unless you die or fall unconscious) you will get your rolls without penalties.

>>52653984
I understand wanting to move away from 3.5 mess of multiple conditions and situational modifiers but everything being boiled down to advantage disadvantage is too far in the other direction.

>>52653484
4e scaling is basically double that.

That's why I said it would have worked out better.

>>52638025
>no broken casters, power = risk
Casters are still broken, and the risk is minimal if you're wizard. Well, they're "broken" in the sense that they're better than everyone else, on account of actually having options.

Even a simple 'Drop' spell will completely cripple any melee foe, not to mention Sleep. If you use the Sorcery book, Fire Wizards have a mind control spell with unlimited range that they can spam infinitely to more or less guarantee a kill on anyone in the universe they have ever heard of.

>>52653984
What about combat maneuvers? How are they in 5e? Cover?

Yeah, I can see that. Adv/dis seemed like it was too far in the other direction. Have you seen any good houserules that make tactics matter and make things more interesting?

>>52654140
Combat maneuvers don't go far enough, and it's relatively difficult to get any.
Cover is one of the more decent adaptations, IMO.
For A/D, I propose the following shitty homerule:
>As normal for first advantage
>+2 flat for each additional advantage
>Subtract -2 for each disadvantage
>Opposite for disadvantage
>Equal amounts cancel
I'd have to give it more thought to really fix it, though.

>>52654140
>What about combat maneuvers? How are they in 5e? Cover?
Cover is advantage.

Maneuvers can be done either through feats or battlemaster fighter. Charge is a feat.

>>52654250
Or at least change it to "if you have more advantages than disadvantages you roll two dice and take best, if you have more disadvantages you roll two dice and take worst"

>>52654258
>Cover is advantage
It's +2/+5 to AC and Dex saves from the other side. Total cover doesn't let you target.
Unless you mean attacking from where the foe can't see you (concealment) then yes.

>>52654076
Yeah. My memories of 4e are fuzzy, but I recall a lot of things having "half level" added to them.

It's better than 1/4, but I still really don't think it goes far enough, unless DCs are reduced.

Competence is what tasks you're basically guaranteed to succeed at (either because of 3es take 10 rule or because you can only fail on a 1) that someone untrained in the task would have to roll for, with a significant chance of failure.

If common tasks have a DC 15, Competence requires like a +14 between skill+ability score.

>>52654250
Advantage is more like a +3.32 though., In terms of average bonus.

But (advantage count - disadvantage count)*2, and using them as bonuses may well work. You'd probably need to run the numbers and look for undesirable corner cases though to be 100% sure.

>>52654295
This seems reasonable, at the bare minimum.

>>52654314
This is what I meant when I asked about cover, not attacking from concealment.

>>52654258
>Maneuvers require feats.
Ugh. That's obnoxious. I was really hoping for "maneuvers are universally accessible and are an effective use of a turn, and whether you're better off doing a maneuver or attacking is entirely a matter of circumstance".

>>52654359
Here's the thing with that: That blows up bounded accuracy, one of 5e's biggest restraints.
By requiring the rolls to remain within a certain range and having a large portion of that range be randomized (and very swingy), they sort of shot themselves in the foot when it came to seperating excellence and luck.
There's a reason Lucky is an S-tier feat, and it's not the flavor.

>>52654359
The "base" bonus to trained skills in 4e was also +5. And you usually start with 18-20 in your main stat. And you can get a +2 from race/background. So a 4e any character's main skill at 1st level will be at least around 10, up to 16-ish if he really, absolutely twinks it, compared to the paltry 5 (10 with expertise, more if you rolled for stats possibly).

And then you could have skill powers to fall back on if you roll badly or need a boost.

>>52654571
Bounded accuracy was a terrible idea.
>Let's carefully choose what our bonuses are.
Good.
>Let's make the range in numbers increased from leveling up be small.
Potentially good.
>Let's keep the fact that low leveled characters are incompetent nincompoops incombustible with slow scaling.
Fucking terrible.

You want the bonuses to only scale by 1/4 the size of the randomizer? That's fine. In 3e you're not really competent in any skills until around level 10ish when other issues outside of skills start cropping up.

Start proficiency (at least for skills) start at like +11, and have it scale to +20.

Bounded accuracy may have its benefits for Attack Rolls and AC, but for skills it's terrible.

>>52654815
Sorry, scale to +15. Editing error.

>>52654601
Yeah, that's some better skill math than 5e.

>>52635645

There's like a thousand RPGs out there, you're not exactly short on options. If you're the GM and have players willing to try out new things, of course.

How does OpenD6 stack up? I'm looking for options.
I heard the magic sucks, but I'll just cut it out if need be.
>>52654815
Here's an idea. What about rolling 3d6 instead of 1d20?
Anyone with any proficiency at all always hits 5+, a DC 30 is a godly feat, and you can change advantage disadvantage to modify one d6 at a time, so triple advantage means the person making the check has all the resources they need.

>>52655029
3d6's swing is too little imo, use 2d10 (yeah, I know, it's 0.5 bigger on average, deal with it).

But yes, small modifiers fit bell curves better.

Do note that your plate+shield+defensive style fighter will be hit fucking never.

>>52655097
Fair enough. That leaves it open to a 1% blunder on part of a +2 fellow making a DC 5 check. And it leaves the skill check maker able to benefit from two advantages.
>Do note that your plate+shield+defensive style fighter will be hit fucking never.
>Red Sun intensifies

>>52654554
The easiest way to 'fix' martials would be to give them all maneuver feats without the feat taxes at all. If you have it, and you have the prereqs (such as BAB or feats) then you can do it.

Then you get a bonus of half your fighter level to the grapple/disarm/whatever check.

Then, finally, alter the spell system so that a spell- at least, ones that can immediately end a fight- take multiple rounds to cast. The more powerful the spell, the more rounds it takes. Maybe give a wizard or sorcerer the ability to throw out minor effects like a few points of damage, or a weak 5-foot shove as free actions once a round while casting.

File: 1380164636494.gif (32KB, 204x200px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 204x200px

>>52645241
As a GURPS player in a game based off being mercenaries in Africa, those types of feelings are the best.

>mfw calling in a favor from some Russians we saved and a fucking Hind shows up

I have actually briefly considered that idea.

It gives you more rare moments of luck, and (uses anydice and does some math) ~90% of your rolls are between 6 and 15 (as opposed to 50% on a d20). (Effectively reducing the size of your randomizer).

It increases the importance of modifiers, which is good, but you'd still need a +11 before you've only got a negligible failure chance on dc 15 tasks.

It makes incompetents more likely to fail hard stuff, makes easy stuff easier, and DC 10 about the same, but doesn't (by itself) make skilled characters actually feel skilled.

But if you combined 3d6, with add an additional +5 to proficiency bonus up front, that would probably do it.

Though if you're looking to have skills and everything else continue to use the *same proficiency bonus, you'd need to evaluate the other types of rolls and make adjustments to make it work out.

>>52652757
>In fact, its domineering presence because of the OGL almost choked the life out of everything.

What.

>WotC made 3e becaue White Wolf was starting to muscle into the RPG turf (and to flex the IP muscle they got). 3e was the answer.

Holy shit, you're serious.
I've read some stupid things, but pretending White Wolf was anything but a low key player and that 3e was made to try and squash it is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

I've heard some genuinely stupid things, but this is easily the dumbest thing I've heard someone say in a discussion about games. Hats off to you.

>>52655377
If you're going with 3d6, I'd suggest half-level rounded up plus two.
That creates a +9 gap between level 1 and level 19.

>>52635645
Stormbringer and Hawkmoon for us oldfags.

Also, RQ III

Not Palladium, though. It's...not very good.

>>52655555
I don't have a problem with a +5 gap over 17 levels.

I have a problem with characters still needing to roll for shit that should be trivial for them because of their training and expertise.

But reducing the randomizer is nice for other reasons.

>>52653836
>What makes 5e so bland? Is it just the smaller number of class features? Is it the combat rules as a whole?
Hard to quantify, but I'd guess that it was them keeping all the stuff from 3.5 they thought was important, and removing/simplifying all the stuff that actually added depth & interest.

Sometimes RPG developers forget they're making a game and start thinking of it like a simulation instead. And the result is usually shit. D&D's been stumbling into that pitfall on and off for the last 30 years. Prettymuch all the good releases / stuff you actually remember was by writers who focused on game-first.

>>52655097
>Do note that your plate+shield+defensive style fighter will be hit fucking never.
If you change the core resolution mechanic, it's a given that some other shit will also need to be tweaked. That doesn't make it a bad idea.

>>52655621
Sure. 5e would need some heavy adjustments to really make it work (Bards), but it could be done.

>>52655621
>I have a problem with characters still needing to roll for shit that should be trivial for them because of their training and expertise.
Some of that is just shit DMing... shouldn't be asking for rolls on anything that's trivial unless there's some hidden reason that failure would be cool.

But you're right that the system shouldn't reinforce the mistake.

>>52655455
>pretending White Wolf was anything but a low key player and that 3e was made to try and squash it is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Well, you're probably right about White Wolf. But there's no doubt that 3E, d20 and the OGL were a coordinated power play by Wizards. They'd just spent a mint to acquire a juggernaut of an IP, and the relaunch was designed to make sure that investment paid dividends. And as we all know it worked far better than anybody could have hoped.

>>52655593
I'm amazed the thread's gone this long without anyone mentioning Amber Diceless. Probably one of the more interesting "alternate" systems from high-concept point of view.

>>52655794
Is Amber any good? The fact that nobody else plays it turned me off of trying it.

>>52641440
GURPS works really well for lite shit. I mean there's a difficulty table" that goes from +10 to -10 (from "Automatic" to Impossible) The GM could just take a look at the table, say "ah yeah that seems pretty hard. -5." and roll with it.


For example, if you were a performer and you were wanting to juggle knives. Well that's a hard task no matter what and you're at a -4, and I wager -6 if they were *big* knives.

Basic Set combat rules are pretty light, even if you're using hit location and tactical combat. Ranged combat can be a drag if you aren't accustomed to using the Speed/Range table, so you could opt for the range band system introduced in Action. Basically Close is 0, Short (handguns) is -3, Medium (Shotguns and SMGs) is -7, Long (Rifles) is -11, and Extreme (sniper rifles) is -15.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that there are sourcebooks that provide inspiration for quick and dirty gameplay, and judging by the number of books in that category (about 15 Dungeon Fantasy books, 4 Action books, and the 2 After the End books), it's a well supported style of play.

>>52655686
Some of it's "DMing".

"What do you mean mounting my horse is DC25!?"
It certainly doesn't help the DM that there's not a really benchmarks to compare against. Like, what's a solid example for a DC 25 Survival check? (Repeat for each multiple of 5 DC and each type of check).

But some of it is also:
If the fighter wants to do tracking and lacks the relevant skills, he should have to roll for it. But if the ranger wants to do the same, unless it's very difficult conditions, he shouldn't need to roll at all, it's all very obvious to him because of his training.

The combination of "slow advancement" and "limited 1st level effectiveness" leads to "universal incompetence" if the DCs are set on the high end, or "universal hyperconfidence" if everyone can reliably do everything. Neither is desirable, imo.

>>52655794
>>52655852

I'm surprised anyone even remembers the books.

Jokes aside, I played quite a lot of it about 15 years ago.

It took a while to adjust to the mechanics but with a good GM it can be very nice.

It's not without it's flaws but I'd still recommend giving it a shot.

>>52655763
>But there's no doubt that 3E, d20 and the OGL were a coordinated power play by Wizards.

What.

Look. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but 3rd Edition's success isn't some marketing conspiracy. It took an already good game and modernized the shit out of it, making it considerably more accessible and appealing. In hindsight, it may be easier to think of 3rd edition as impossible to fail, but it's still a stretch to think that anyone could have predicted it to be as popular as it was. It had unprecedented popularity, more than doubling the amount of players from the previous edition, during a time when the demand for RPG's was falling. It single-handedly resurrected an industry where even the best selling RPG's were struggling to turn a profit.

Better than anybody could have hoped? It set new standards for RPG's and literally revolutionized the industry. As much as some people may want to try and hate it now, everyone who plays RPGs today owes a debt to 3rd edition in some form or another. Even the grognards who still cling to older editions of D&D owe 3rd edition from keeping the industry from petering to a standstill like so many other hobbies.

While these may seem like grandiose claims, I can at least say this much. Nothing White Wolf was going to publish was going to get RPGs out of the rut it had slowly dug itself into.

>>52655852
It's got its problems, but actual play experience depends a lot on the DM and group. It's usually considered to be very hard to DM well. Traditionally people coming from games like D&D and jumping directly into it struggle and crash hard because it's so philosophically different, in both method and goals. It is super interesting as a thought exercise, however.

Essentially, setup allows no two players to be equal in a stat, everybody is in competition on some level, and you automatically lose in a head-to-head confrontation with someone if their stat is higher than yours... the result of course is that nobody ever gets in a head-to-head confrontation in something they'd lose, if they can possibly help it. The result, when it's run well, is a narrative, political play-counterplay type of dynamic.

It should be required reading for any experienced DM, and playing it will probably make you better at running other games. It makes you very aware when you're running another game of all the cool shit it's possible to do without ever picking up a die, and you find yourself crutching on flat success/failure rolls less.

>>52655852
Amber is wonderful. If you:
A. Love the Amber series
B. Don't think fanfic is such a bad thing
C. Want to write fanfic but then cede control of everything that happens in it
D. Don't mind rules that are convoluted as fuck
E. Like the idea that your characters will lose, hands down, with no contest
F. Think RPGs should move away from having "adventures"
G. Think RPG would be more fun if it had less to do with the G.

But what's even better? Lords of Gossamer and Shadow. Because you can get away from the part where you and friends are essentially brainstorming a fanfic, so you'll still be able to turn your nose up at Kevin J Anderson novels, next Tuesday.

>>52635890

>being Russian
>playing Shadowrun 5e

WHY

>>52656054
100% agree. One of the problems with 5e is it doesn't really help the DM with these sorts of determinations... which is part of why I hate it.

The way I see it, the whole system (any RPG system) is just a tool to make the DM's life easier, which in turn makes the players lives easier too. A hypothetical perfect DM would need no system at all - they could just do everything on the fly, and rule all resolution by fiat, and they'd always be right and everything would be awesome all the time. You can see a little of that with really skilled/experienced DMs, where they "lean" on the system much less often than their less able peers.

Bottom line - if something in the system doesn't make your life easier, WTF is it doing there? Scrap it. In this particular case, I'd refer to two of my favorite takeaways from playing Fate that I tend to use in every system (1) If your players ask for something, either allow it or ask for a roll, and (2) If you're going to ask for a roll, make sure both success and failure are interesting outcomes.

>>52655455
Do you know how many companies went under during the d20 glut? Off the top of my head, FASA, WEG, ICE, Guardians of Order and Chaosium. Many of the survivors barely made it, for instance Steve Jackson went almost exclusively to pdfs for RPGs.

And so many in-house systems jumped to d20 and were far worse for it. Examples of this terrible trend include Legend of the Five Rings, 7th Sea, Call of Cthulhu, and BESM. It wasn't until close to the end of the 3.x's dark reign that some came back.

Then on top of it all it spawned a generation of gamers who knew nothing else and expect every game to act like 3.x. The worst of which are the ones that enable Pathfinder to exist.

>>52656326
Some quibbles:

>A good GM doesn't need a system at all.
I strongly disagree. The players and the GM both need to know what to expect. A system makes sure they're on the same page. A game is much worse if one side or the other has different expectations, or doesn't understand the mechanics.

You need codified mechanics, and everyone needs to know what they are.

>Experienced DMs don't need to lean on RAW.
This is true. After a while, if a system has gaps, unless the Gap is pointed out to you, you don't notice it. You're reading one RPG system, and where a novice would freak out because of missing mechanics, the experienced GM will not notice them because his brain will just fill them in using mechanics from a similar game.

That doesn't work so well for target numbers, in a game where the math is different.

>If the system isn't making your life easier, scrap/change it.
Yeah, I suspect my next 5e game may end up using proficiency bonuses and dis/adv rather differently than RAW.

Time for me to critically examine the things in 5e that don't work so well for me, and see what I can come up with to improve it without unintended consequences.

>If a player wants to do something allow it or ask for a roll.
>If asking for a roll, there should be meaningful consequences for success and failure.

Something I've been thinking of recently, that I've noticed most games don't have:

Say You're attempting something, that there's no consequences for failure. You can just try again. The player just rolls over and over until they succeed, or you just give it to them.

Why is there not a decent mechanic to somehow "roll to see how long it takes"?

Like, it's a difficult lock. You can only do it on a 20. You're not likely to succeed in 1 round, but given enough time, you'll get it.

What if you need to get it before the guards come back and you have say, 1 minute (12 rounds)? Why do we have to have you roll every round until one of the two things happens?

>>52656575
There should be a good "roll to see how long this will take you", mechanic.

If it would take too long, consequences!

>>52656359
>Do you know how many companies went under during the d20 glut?

RPG companies going under is nothing special. More importantly, preceding 3rd edition's release nearly everyone went under. Even TSR died, though that was largely because of mismanagement, but the shrinking of the industry over the last decade was felt everywhere.

RPGs were literally on death's door, and if D&D didn't get on base at the next at bat, it could have been the blow that set back the industry for decades. Instead, 3rd edition knocked the ball out of the park, and just about everyone else got a free ride home.

Calling it a "dark reign" when it was an era of new prosperity is just being upset that your favorite game wasn't the one that rose up to be the hero that everyone needed.

>>52656359
ICE came back.
Chaositech didn't go under and continues to make books.

Pathfinder isn't terrible (though I hate GMing it unless I'm running an adventure path, and I *do* tier restricting, because it's been an issue in the past).

>>52639907
99% of people disliking anima never have played it all.

>>52656625
Chaosium* fucking autocorrect.

>>52656575
>Like, it's a difficult lock. You can only do it on a 20. You're not likely to succeed in 1 round, but given enough time, you'll get it.
Are you retarded? Who the fuck would ever make a player roll for "given enough time, you can complete it. Ok, you have enough time. So roll."

>>52656655
>No reading comprehension whatsoever.
Feel bad for you dude.

No.

>"We know If you have enough time, you can complete it, but how long will it take you?"

This would be a useful mechanic for the following:
>"They're beheading prisoners one at a time. Every 2 rounds they kill one. You need to save as many as you can. If it takes you a 12 rounds they'll all be dead."

IE:
>It's a given that you *can* do the task in a vacuum, eventually. Nobody questions that. But how long it takes you, has consequences, so we're rolling to see how quickly you can do it.

Make sense now?

>>52635890
My god, your windows is written in runes, IN RUNES!

>>52657005
...
That's just the Cyrillic alphabet. Russian is a language whose writing system is based on the Greek alphabet instead of the Latin one.

Mongolian also uses Cyrillic these days (though traditional Mongolian script looks much cooler imo). Several other languages also use Cyrillic.

>>52656921
NWoD has something like that.

You need to collect a certain number of successes to complete the job, requiring several rolls, tallying progress.

D&D could very much use the same.

>>52635890
Yo, can you upload the nasuverse rpg corebook, my brother of northern European descent?

>>52656620
It was more the OGL that revived the industry than 3.5 itself. And the new wave of designers and smalltime publishers can be directly attributed to people going "man, D&D has turned to shit/doesn't cover this niche I like, let's make a better game!"

>>52657333
I think I'm done talking to you. Your hate boner is the sort of thing where you're going to keep trying to spin facts in order to try and say "everyone who liked this popular thing must have either been delusional or an idiot", and that's just you largely being blind and angry.

You act like D&D got away with a magical heist, rather than just being a good product that grew popular through its accesibility. It may have aged and be largely replaced by 5e, but you shouldn't act like there was a conspiracy behind pushing a bad game to dominate the market just because you personally don't like it.

>>52657509
I'm not the person you were arguing with previously.

But you clearly don't care, everyone who disagrees with you is just a troll right
Going back and reading your other posts I realize now you're just a moron and posting was a mistake, so I'm going to duck out of the thread now.

>>52654081

>Drop

I'm a bit late, but Drop is an Average Willpower test, meaning it doesn't scale well at all into the late game or against any foes immune to Willpower testing effects. It affects ONE target. It also doesn't work on any foes who either A) Don't have melee weapons, or B) use natural weapons. It's a really good spell early game, but it does not scale well at all into the later game.

>Sleep

Touch spell. Which means a wizard has to score a hit with his ASS Weapon Skill (even with Fast Hands) AND be in range of potential ass-rape retribution. It is also an average Willpower test, meaning it suffers from the same restrictions and later game fall-off as Drop does.

>>52656575
Some valid quibbles. I think we're mostly on the same page. Just a few thoughts / arguments / counter examples:

>System as a basis for setting expectations
Agree that setting expectations is important, but I don't think it necessarily needs to be done mechanically (although it can). You can accomplish something similar with the setting, e.g. you say "this campaign will take place in Middle Earth". Provided everybody has read / seen LotR, they're going to have a reasonable expectation of what types of characters they can be and what sorts of things they can get away with. As long as the DM is fair and consistent, you can leave behind a lot of mechanical baggage.

>Setting target numbers on the fly / rolling to see how long stuff takes
I mentioned the Fate system up above - strongly recommend checking out one of the simpler implementations and running a one-off session or two. It's not a perfect system, but there's a lot of really cool ideas in there that can be ported to other systems.

One of the main ones, and something you're touching on here, is having rolls not be binary. As the DM, you basically have this behind-the-screen process when a player wants to do something (Fate makes it explicit, but you can use the same techniques in 5e):
1) It's something trivial and within their ability - just let it happen; "you open the door"
2) You have a cool automatic result in mind that you don't want to leave to chance; "suddenly there's an explosion"
3) Let them roll for it, and base the result on how much they succeed or fail by "you kick the door open with such stupendous force that it flies off its hinges and hits an orc in the face", "you manage to pick the lock, but you took so long that the guards noticed something is up"

In Fate, it gauges by how much you beat (or miss) the TN by, and the DM is free to equate that to passive bonuses, time taken, or whatever makes sense. Same can be done on D20.

>>52635890
>Ops and Tactics

Holy fuck people read my shit.

File: fate-timetaken.jpg (111KB, 1027x495px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1027x495px

>>52656575
>>52656593
This is what I was thinking of. Taken from spirit of the century.

Example was "thief trying to pick a lock". Let's a say he's a mid-level thief - assume he can pick the lock in "half a minute". It's a decent lock - TN 12 and let's say he's got a +5 modifier to pick it.

If he blows the roll, say only gets a 5 (misses by two), as the DM instead of just saying "oh, you can't pick it. bummer.", it might be more interesting to use the +2 "deficit" on the roll to bump the effect up two steps on the time-taken ladder. "You still got the lock open, but it took 'a few minutes' - crap, here come the guards".

>>52652956
Start with 4E.

Powers scale instead of having the power reselection treadmill. You can select a wider variety at the start
Axe daily powers entirely (except see wizards below)
Most classes get encounter powers back via use unique power recovery mechanics, like Book Of Nine Swords stuff, instead of generic short rest.
Wizards have a huge pile of spells-per-day, but can only cast 4 spells in a row before sitting down and having a think (ie: they're per-encounter in practice but flavored as per-day)

Then we stop calling things "powers" and "healing surges" and ridiculous Nounverber Portmanteaucrusher names, and just find the closest thing we can find from the oldest D&D we can find. (Renaming healing surges to hit dice was the smartest thing 5E did.)

And finally: get the encounter math right on the first try this time.

>>52658970
That came from the SotC OGL reference document, by the way, in case you want to check it out:
http://faterpg.com/dl/sotc_srd.pdf

And the free downloads for the more recent Fate Core are here:
http://www.evilhat.com/home/fate-core-downloads/

>>52635890
>MAID RPG
kek. Is it any good?

>>52659609
It's good for short games, but it gets overly zany if you keep it going too long.

>>52659995
Do you know of anything else that's similar? I love this kind of stuff.

>>52660072
Golden Sky Stories is in the same tradition. But things that are similar are similar in different ways, really.

>>52659059
>Start with 4E.
Please don't.

>
Then we stop calling things "powers" and "healing surges" and ridiculous Nounverber Portmanteaucrusher names, and just find the closest thing we can find from the oldest D&D we can find. (Renaming healing surges to hit dice was the smartest thing 5E did.)
OK, with you there. But what are you going to rename to "THAC0"?

>>52658970
>>52659082
Yeah, I like nonbinary rolls. I would prefer to have hard rules than just improvise though, same with TN benchmarks. It increases world consistency.

>>52660339
> Please don't start with 4E.
What I really mean is, use 4E's combat chapter, use the awesome monster design. Use the power block format, but embed it in some descriptive text so you understand what it's doing instead of just a stats reference.

And then build something that isn't dogshit on top of that.

> What are you going to rename to "THAC0"?
I can't think of a good answer, so: the half level scaling bonus.

>>52652956
But Essentials was 4.5E and it was utter shit.

>>52635758
just grabbed it. loving the art style, very FF tactics and if a 4.9* rating means anything, i hope it'll be good.

>>52636054
If you don't play Werewolves of Cronicles of Faggotry - it's pretty OK.

>>52636978
And if I ask you what anime to watch you will offer Boku no Pico i guess?

>>52635645
DtD

>>52660935
Not really. Essentials was just shoddily made 4e, made by a hack who hated 4e. It didn't have enough updates to earn the .5 (considering it was compatible with all the previous stuff without any need for conversion).

But sure, make it 4.75 then. Just something that doesn't eliminate all the good shit from 4e.

>>52655593
Pallidium... Ah. With a few tweaks the system can be pretty good but it's so all over the place and kitchen sink-ish I can't even get into it.

>>52635645
Running house ruled pathfinder in a combat heavy resource bleed style. Work well, players are having a blast. The thing about 3.x D&D is that it lies to you: that it is a generic fantasy system. It does not cope well with low fantasy past a point, nor does work well with very high fantasy (think WoW). Also it was back in its early R&D balanced around 4 combats a day with the same happening the day after. Failing to understand that makes resource management class's much stronger than they already are.


the house rules are

1. 15% discount on weapon and armor enchant
2. wizard are NPC only ( PF wizard school bonuses are that silly)
3. Inquisitors get full BAB
4. Paladins get held to Cleric standards on ethics
5. Common is not a thing
6. the 3.5 PHB II spell to move enchantments is ported over.


Numbers 1 and 6 greatly improve the gold efficiency of non-casters.

>>52635645
I'm re-hashing/revamping Fallout PnP (in its entirety, not just some half-arsed attempt) and it's proving to be a fruitful venture.
Amazing what you can add to the PnP experience with a nifty spreadsheet.

>>52660625
>Yeah, I like nonbinary rolls. I would prefer to have hard rules than just improvise though, same with TN benchmarks. It increases world consistency.
Right. Fate is handy because it quantifies that... there are charts that coordinate degrees of success/failure with decreased/increased time, cost, consequences, or whatever makes sense for the test being made. And you can pretty easily port them to other systems, which is what I do.

Something that's worth noting with that is their charts are all (approximately) logarithmic, not linear. You can see it in the Time Taken one above. It's not just "it takes three rounds longer per point you miss the TN by". Each step on the ladder is a real qualitative difference for the narrative. Missing a roll by 4 and having a task that should have taken a few minutes take a few hours instead has a big impact.

>4E is the most mechanically balanced DND has ever been, with the best combat
>4E was by far the worst DND in every other aspect

To this day, it haunts me.

>>52635645
Don't play 3.PF

>>52668423
It's hilarious how much hypocrisy was present in the 4e fandom.

>>52668455

4E, to me, feels like it was very clearly designed by a bunch of people who played World of Warcraft.

I still call it the DND Tabletop MMO Edition.

It may have dropped the ball on everything else that DND and TTRPGs were supposed to do, but by god I'll grant that it fucking nailed combat and class balance in a way DND never did before.

>>52637142
>Even games "without" alignments still have degrees of morality to them or factions with codes of conduct
No. Apart from D&D and WoD, I've never played a game that has this.

>>52637462
>designers, critics
Literally who?

>>52637462
>>52637793
>>52638444
>D&D has awards, so it is good.
The only reason D&D gets awards is that WotC has more money than most rpg companies can even dream of, and there's no industry watchdog against bribery for rpgs. Most rpg forums don't even allow people to criticise D&D (or any rpg) any more, because the edition wars were supposedly making the forums toxic, so nazimods and censorship are used to 'prevent edition warring'.In reality, it's a scam to get more money from advertising (which functions better when it's illegal to mention the product's flaws). The reason /tg/ is the only major anti-D&D rpg site is that it's the only major rpg site that doesn't use extensive censorship to 'create a more positve atmosphere', so people can actually see how awful D&D is.

>>52668628
RuneQuest
Talislaanta
LotR
Rolemaster
etc. etc.etc.
RIFTS
Palladium

I'm pretty sure you're a fucking liar.

>>52635645
There are literally thousands of alternatives for fantasy games alone.

Riddle of Steel, Barbarians of Lemuria, Wild Talents, Fantasycraft, Savage Worlds, GURPS, Fate, Iron Kingdoms RPG, Ars Magica, Tri-Stat, Burning Wheel, 4e, aka the best edition of D&D, etc etc etc.

>>52642091
When the 'subjective' opinions are from intelligent, honest conservatives in a sea of populist, lying libtards and furries, I'd say they're closer to objective, since all the intelligent people recognise that they're true.

>>52657005
whoa
I didn't even notice it

>>52656575
>Like, it's a difficult lock. You can only do it on a 20. You're not likely to succeed in 1 round, but given enough time, you'll get it.
>What if you need to get it before the guards come back and you have say, 1 minute (12 rounds)? Why do we have to have you roll every round until one of the two things happens?
You have two options:
1) Generally, the odds of succeeding are

>{[(odds of success)^(number of trials)]*[(1-odds of success)^(number of trials-number of successes)]}*(number of trials; number of successes)

Here, the odds are that you unlock the lock on one of your attempts about 46% of the time, or on a flat 1d20 roll of 12 and up. That's complicated though, and you can't do that quickly.

2) You can just take (12 rounds)*(1/20 chance of success) and get 12/20 success, or a flat 1d20 roll that happens to be 9 (1-8 is your 8/20 chance of failure). You'll be close to the actual odds most of the time, but you'll usually make it easier for the players with this simplified rule. Maybe make players roll these kinds of checks at disadvantage to compensate. EZPZ.

Of course, a good DM would build suspense for the players by forcing the rogue to try the lock while the guards shout down the halls and threaten to jail the party. :^)

>>52668521
You would clearly enjoy the Disgaea franchise

>>52669046
Eh. Tg exaggerates the negative in everything.

But when I am looking for a list of criticisms, this is where I come to get it, because here I can expect the most brutal critical review possible of everything that has played.

It's good for getting real criticisms. People here don't gloss over the problems.

>>52669533
Tg reviews have helped me avoid wasting money on products I would not have liked.

I get ask for the tg criticisms, then go look for regular product reviews and then come back to a list of everything dthe product did wrong, along with seeing reviews that show what people like about it.

Then pros and cons list, vaguely decide how fun it looks for the price, and purchase or not purchase.

>>52668521
>4E, to me, feels like it was very clearly designed by a bunch of people who played World of Warcraft.

I honestly don't get this complaint.

It gave you special actions you could do. Hundreds of other games do this, and it's much more interesting than "I advance and make an attack."

I get the impression that people only have a problem with the powers in 4e because they're called 'powers', and not class-specific stuff like spells or, uh, talents, or something like that.

I don't think 4e really dropped the ball anywhere else either. It's not like there were no mechanics for stuff outside combat. There were actually some pretty good mechanics that people constantly forget to mention, either out of bias or because they didn't read the rules properly. If I had to say one thing that 4e got wrong, it's that that everything could do with having a little HP shaved away, and magic items could stand to have a bit more heft. Things that you can solve easily by being a good DM.

>>52669110
No, I've never bothered playing any of those systems.

File: gamble all.png (74KB, 231x230px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 231x230px

>>52635645

>>52660339
>Renaming healing surges to hit dice was the smartest thing 5E did
Boy, you are stupid.

is it hard to learn 4e?

>>52669046
>The reason /tg/ is the only major anti-D&D rpg site

Don't exaggerate a few trolls. /tg/ is mostly D&D positive, and the game is the most popular one on this board. /tg/'s just a site that allows trolls to go unchecked, so we get a lot of anti- everything sentiment.

>>52673541
No.

Material here: https://pastebin.com/85Hm56k5

Read the PHB, maybe read up on things on funin.space, and use CBLoader for character generation. You are basically set to play.

>>52635645
I'm a big fan of most onyx path stuff.

>>52673607
>everyone who doesnt like what i like is a troll
sure buddy. sure thing

>>52669132
Oh, /TG... you always know how to make me smile

>>52673324
That wasn't actually even my post, just F'd up the greentext. I mean, I'm probably stupid anyway, just, y'know... because of other things.

>>52669132
>intelligent, honest conservatives
Silly anon, everybody knows people like that don't post on 4chan!

>>52656054
>It certainly doesn't help the DM that there's not a really benchmarks to compare against.

To be fair, they did originally have benchmark examples in the 5e playtest.

They were just fucking awful, and listed stuff like breaking iron chains or climbing slippery ropes as having DCs high enough where even literal gods were incapable of accomplishing them.

>>52680402
>They were just fucking awful, and listed stuff like breaking iron chains or climbing slippery ropes as having DCs high enough where even literal gods were incapable of accomplishing them.

This is the results of bounded accuracy.

You can't put the DCs of impressive stuff too low (i.e. breaking chains at 20) because a peasant could succeed at it with enough tries.

You can't put them too high (26 if it's an STR check, 32 of it's an athletics) because then a 20th level fighter with max STR can never succeed at it.

And even putting it in the 20-32 window means that a character who really should be able to do this shit can only do it about 20-60% of the time.

Basically, the only people capable of interacting at that scale are rogues/bards and level 20 barbarians.

>>52635890
Do you have Кpacнaя Зeмля for Savage Worlds?

File: 9-47312.jpg (23KB, 350x262px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 350x262px

>>52644904

>>52673624
I'm waiting for trinity/scion. Their modern stuff is pretty okay so here's hoping it turns out well. Itd be nice to have a decent modern action/urban fantasy thing.