/tg/? Why do you hate New things?

>>53117231
Because people read 1d4chan and think that it's the current state of affairs.

Because most new things are bad.

>D&D 5e ruined D&D
>Delta Green ruined Call of Cthulu
>Age of Sigmar ruined 40k
>GURPS 4e ruined GURPS
>FATE ruined the original FATE which didn't have as much retarded rules bloat

>>53118829
AoS ruined 40k? lolwut.

>>53118829
Do people actually play Delta Green?

>>53118936
No, but that doesn't change the fact that it sucks.

>>53117231
Because it's easier to maintain a hobby than it is to invest in one.

Watching the latest season of an anime is far less trouble than watching 8 seasons of a new one. Same goes for new RPGs, wargames, miniatures, etc.

>>53118829
>GURPS 4e ruined GURPS
It's a major improvement across the board, friend.

>>53118829
>Contrarian the post

>>53118829
>1. D&D was ruined as soon as they decided to move beyond AD&D
>2. Delta green doesn't always suck
>3. Despite being the same type of game, and from the same company, what do those have in common? I assume you mean WHFB.
>4. I never fucking bothered with GURPS
>5. Or FATE
If you hate new things (I hate many new things as well), then just fucking play old things.

>>53117231
Only 3aboos have that problem. Everyone else is capable of liking new games.

>>53118971
>It's a major improvement across the board, friend.
>rules bloat meant the game had to be split into two books
>skills are a straight increase now so that an average person (50 points) can start with a 26 in Rifles skill with ease.

Yeah I don't think so. 4e is broken as fuck.

>>53118994
>Everyone else is capable of liking new games.

So are 3aboos, but 4e and 5e sucked just as much as 3.5 so they stuck with what they were comfortable with. Pathfinder was also objectively worse than 3.5 so again, no reason to switch.

>>53118996
>rules bloat meant the game had to be split into two books
Such as?

>skills are a straight increase now so that an average person (50 points) can start with a 26 in Rifles skill with ease.
So you don't allow it. As the GM. You know, the person responsible for balancing the game they decide to run in GURPS. That's like complaining that a 50 point person can buy Mind Control with ease, because it exists in the system. GURPS doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists in the context of a game. It will directly contradict itself if you use every single rule, because some rules assume a realistic game, while others a cinematic one.

>>53118959
Pretty much this. Part of the reason 3.5 and PF get played so much. People already know what they are doing with the only differenceso being some polish or frill here and there.

Brand new games/overhauls require time as a GM to familiarize yourself with all of the rule facets and also get players to familiarize themselves when they just got the hang of the previous system/version after 5 years of fucking around.

It's an investment of time, money, and effort where people have already invested those things in something that works fine for them.

>>53119032
>So you don't allow it. As the GM.

Sure. I can homebrew to fix 3.5 but that doesn't mean it's a good system. Your argument is invalid.

>>53119051
3.5e is sold as a complete, self-balanced game where all of the options are assumed to be equivalent against each other for a fantasy dungeon-crawling game. GURPS is not.

If you GM allows you to play an organic turret-man whose only skills in life are 50 points in Guns, then that's their problem, not the game's.

File: 1483804697565.png (278KB, 1078x828px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1078x828px

>>53117231
Because new things are what we deserve, not what we want.

We also don't know what we want.

>We don't hate new things, new things are shit!
Wew lads.

>>53119085
I'm pretty sure we got consensus on "Genetically engineered catgirls for domestic ownership".

>>53119085
anyone have the doctor assmarbles post, or the loli cumrocket one?

File: Sleeping, sleeping during class never changes - 'University' - 14th-Century painting by Laurentius de Voltolina.jpg (127KB, 619x500px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 619x500px

>>53119113
Did we?

I must have missed that one.

Did we also define where "catgirl" ends and "furryshit" begins?

>>53117231
Because new things don't have an established opinion that I can base my own opinion off of yet, so I default to uncertain rage.

File: necrotic bait.png (10KB, 1219x312px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 1219x312px

>>53119142
Sorry, no. How about this?

>>53119085
what was determined regarding the time needed to reach escape velocity?

>>53117231
Because WotC keeps cocking it up.

>>53118959

It's pretty hard to find games that need a substantial investment of time to at least get into them.

Granted, if you like 800 pages monsters like DND, it's another story. But those are realy the execption.

>>53119082
>If you GM allows you to play an organic turret-man whose only skills in life are 50 points in Guns, then that's their problem, not the game's.

Nope. How about some rules of diminishing returns and escalating costs to increase skills in a game that intends to be "realistic"

>>53117231
Novelty reminds us of the passage of time and the inevitability of death. By imposing patterns on our lives and wallowing in nostalgia and consistency we delude ourselves into thinking we can fall into some sort of Simpsons-esque eternal present and never die.

File: 1493378048841.png (438KB, 467x462px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 467x462px

>>53119012
>I'm not afraid of change, everything unfamiliar just sucks!

>>53118829
Nice opinions friendo

>>53119652
Yes, it is the GM's problem. The GM tells you to make a character. You put 50 points in Guns and go "Hurr durr this game is so easily broken." The GM bans your character because it isn't a character. It's a turret-man whose entire life has been turreting. That isn't a character, it's a nonsensical statblock.

>a game that intends to be "realistic"
The realism comes from the GM, you dimwit. Magic isn't realistic. Buying success with points isn't realistic. Supernatural and cinematic advantages aren't realistic. Does that mean GURPS isn't realistic? No, it means that it can cater to both realistic and unrealistic games.

>>53119427
No, you don't understand. Reading the rulebook is the first step to learning the system. Actually running it and learning it is a full-on process that takes several sessions and discussions to really do, and even more so before you can learn the system in order to have the finesse to really run it how you want.

>>53118959
Yup.

Me and my group started on Pathfinder. We all know it pretty well. Here and there, we bump against the rocky patches in the rules, but we have a few ez bans to keep balance ok-ish and everyone is basically competent at character design. From there, it's generic enough to cover most of the middle fantasy games we play at low levels.

Fully admit that high level pathfinder is nearly unusable, particularly without bans.

Balance is unrealistic.

>>53120268
Nonsense.

File: _tg_ - Why in the fuck did _game balance doesn_t matter__1356349419908.png (39KB, 1624x220px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1624x220px

>>53120387
So much this.

>>53118944
>Delta Green
>New

>>53120387
Realism is unfun.

>>53118829
>>Delta Green ruined Call of Cthulu
said no one ever

>>53117231
There is nothing new under the sun.

>>53121021
Fun is unbalanced.

File: dont_be_silly.jpg (19KB, 270x216px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 270x216px

>>53118829

But GURPS 4e is an objective imporvement on 3e. I don't know anyone who says otherwise. Certainly no one in the GURPS general. Who tells you these things, anon?

>>53121125
I too follow the meme that is nihilism

>>53118829
I legitimately don't understand what's so bad about Delta Green

File: z-TIhFrs.jpg (18KB, 249x249px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 249x249px

>>53118829
>Age of Sigmar ruined 40k

>>53117231
>BBEG
Ugh.

>>53117231
Because all the things I loved are stuck in the past and I can't stay with them forever. Everything is moving away from me but I feel like I stayed the same on the inside.

And new things just force me to remember that one day I'll be old and bitter and there won't be a place for me anywhere anymore and all I'll have left to do is wait to die while talking about runescape and adventurequest to kids who can't appreciate what it meant to me because they'll have their own memories to make.

We're dying Anon.

File: [screams_externally].gif (929KB, 264x320px) Image search: [Google]

929KB, 264x320px

>>53122786

We're not on /tg/ to face reality, anon. Start deluding yourself and others immediately, or all your good boy points will be confiscated.

>>53117231
Because change scares me.

>>53117231
They killed my family and burned down our old farmhouse

>>53118924
Shit, this is 2017? Sorry, forget what I said. Fuckin 4D machines...

>>53118829
>>Age of Sigmar ruined 40k
aos is a shitty clone of 40k but it has nothing to do with 40k otherwise.

>>53123245
aside from GW putting AoS rules into 8th edition of course...

>>53123279
GW being retards doesn't really make WH == WH40k

>>53118829
5e is pretty great, even if it's not perfect.
GURPS 4e is much better than GURPS 3e, except for 3es campaign settings.
4e and 5e Shadowrun are also both great.
I ordered the new Conan RPG. Delivery expected this month.
Witcher 2 was better than Witcher 1, Witcher 3 better than Witcher 2.

Lots of new things are better than older things.

>>53119146
Not true. I Know what I want..just not what I want.

>>53117231
watch this, compare it to his "HARD TIME" video.
that may help you understand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMhaJodxSM4

>>53117231
4chan is and always will be populated almost exclusively by self-loathing hipsters.

>>53119652
>Buh muh RPEHGUH
It makes ZERO fucking sense to bitch pick about how a player can min max a certain skill, otherwise you end up with everybody playing amorphous blobs of jack of all trades that focus on nothing because doing so offers no benefit compared to how they can pump up a whole new skill.

Fucking diminishing returns doesn't even make sense in a practical sense.

Take guns since it was already brought up. Just because I'm highly competent, at least enough to know that you don't suck start a shotgun, doesn't mean there is a skill cap I can reach. There sort of is one, but with all things, there's so much god damn shit to learn. Yeah, I could become Jerry Mcullic and be the world's fastest six shooter but what about everything else? Medium to long range shooting, shotguns, rifles, semi automatic pistols, full retard funs across the board, and then tactics, such as the HUGE skill set that goes into sniping that takes years to fully learn, breach and clearing buildings which too takes years to learn, stealthy espionage combined with shooting ala Special Forces BS.

That's all off the top of my head. Yes, you're far better making combined rolls to show the diversity of skills needed, but guns as a skill set alone has a basis for not having diminishing returns because of how much there is to learn as a whole.

>>53125872
This. There's even a sidebar explaining that due to the whole 3d6 roll under system, it's better to diversify into related skills and/or buy advantages.

File: Cicero talks about tabletop games and their players.jpg (54KB, 500x401px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x401px

>>53122786
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7pI96Osp9c

>>53117231
Because newer does not equal better. This is something you can only learn by experience.

>>53117231
I don't hate new things, I hate new things that are fucking bad. Newness is not an intrinsic positive beyond the implications of having more active support and more players, neither of which is necessarily actually the case.
Look at Civilization VI vs Civilization IV or II. Civ VI is hot fucking garbage that people don't even shit on, people just forgot about it half a year after its release. Civilization IV is still getting new fucking mods over a decade later. Look at Age of Empires III compared to Age of Empires II. One is dead in the water and rubbish in the first place, the other is getting new fucking expansion packs 20 years down the road.

>>53119652
>rules of diminishing returns
3d6 does this.

Also, the rules you miss for skills? Those are really complex, I don't mind so much that they're streamlined because a GM should say "don't fucking do this", or give natural challenges that aren't just solvable with bullets. Someone wi

>>53119051
I think this is bait

I don't.
I just think a lot of older editions of games are more for me.
As far as Dnd goes I can't get past all the extraneous skills and stats in current Dnd.

>>53117231
Anything good will be old by the time you find it, as it takes time for society to filter the wheat from the chaff.
The chances of finding a NEW good thing are incredibly unlikely on a single person timeline.

>>53117231
Becuase 15 times out of 20 new=worse and it's better to be safe then sorry.

>>53117231
I'm used to Old things, which tied into the interests, priorities and references of people my age, either on purpose or by coincidence
Meanwhile, New things appeal to younger people, whose interests, priorities and references are entirely alien to me, when I don't find them utterly despicable
It'll happen to them, too.

>>53117231
When we're young, we have very little context or basis of comparison, so we tend to like anything that is functional on a basic level. To a degree this also applies to any medium we have not experience before, but eventually media themselves fall to this phenonenon as we compare them to each other. Therefore, the less context we have on something, the more likely we are to like it even if it isn't good.

When you are introduced to something new when you have experienced something similar, suddenly you're introduced to flaws that the original lacked (even if it makes improvements in as many or more areas). It's not the thing you fell in love with, and it's probably quantifiably worse in a lot of ways that, since they're the ways the thing you liked before were good, are probably ways that are very important to you.

There's two further factors, however. The first of these is that each time you are "bitten" by something new not being what you expected or hoped for, your trust for new things decreases and you are predisposed to dislike them. This can present in a positive way- lowering your expectations so you actually enjoy new things more- but usually it just conditions you for negativity.

The other is a simple matter of familiarity, and I think this is the cause of a lot of the "second-most-recent thing is best thing, most recent thing is the worst" phenomenon so common. When you are familiar with something but are given something that is similar, yet different enough on every level that you have to relearn it, that is not fun. It's not only work to learn the intricacies of the new thing, it's learning something very similar to what you learned before, so it's boring.

Secret main reason is that new things are usually popular, most 4chan users are hipsters and hipsters "hate" popular things because they want to stand out.

>>53117231
All change should be scrutinized because most change is simply bad or has an agenda behind it.

>>53128769
This omits the big reason of new things not necessarily being good. New things are just that, they're new and nothing else. Whether or not they are good is not related.

>>53128802
No, I addressed that.
>There's two further factors, however. The first of these is that each time you are "bitten" by something new not being what you expected or hoped for, your trust for new things decreases and you are predisposed to dislike them. This can present in a positive way- lowering your expectations so you actually enjoy new things more- but usually it just conditions you for negativity.
This is the only reason to go into something automatically disliking it simply because it is new (and therefore may not be good). Except, of course, for being a contrarian, but that's the spoilered point :^)

>>53128830
'cept my point is that people don't dislike new things, they dislike bad things, and new things are sometimes bad. You don't 'go in' disliking them, you dislike them because you're reading the new rulebook and wtf is this shit.

>>53128846
I see what you mean, but OP is asking why it is a consistent trend that people hate new things. On /tg/ specifically of course, though it certainly doesn't only happen here.

A few years ago everyone shat on 4e and 3.5 was the shit among all the cool and not-edgy oldfags, now 4e is great because 5e is the new scapegoat. It'll be the same when we have 6e, just you wait. Whether it's good or bad actually does not matter at all in this case.

>>53128877
>now 4e is great
4e isn't great, people simply say 4e wasn't as terrible as 5e for a variety of reasons or more generally '4e does X right'. People in PF threads tend to say Cooke is a retard and 5e did feats right for example. Also, you have to remember that 4e had people who shat up threads borderline shilling for the game and also that the game changed over time.

>>53128902
>all these excuses because you won't recognise the phenomenon in yourself
yep everything just happens to get worse and worse over time, anon. Your mentality isn't the problem. That's how it works :^)

>>53128940
Not an actual argument, have you considered that 4e has actually be patched to not be utter shit and that the phenomenon you claim isn't even a thing?

>>53123312
>5e is pretty great, even if it's not perfect.

No. It is flat out worse than 4e and is only better than 3.5 because of a couple of mechanics.

>GURPS 4e is much better than GURPS 3e, except for 3es campaign settings.

No. The 3e rules are better. The only thing better in 4e are the dodge rules

>4e and 5e Shadowrun are also both great.

Shadowrun is a heap of autistic 3aboo-tier complex shit with a retarded kitchen sink setting ripped off from Blade Runner.

>I ordered the new Conan RPG. Delivery expected this month.

So you wasted your money on a game you could run with Barbarians of Lemuria or Dungeon World for free? Guess you have more money than sense.

>Witcher 2 was better than Witcher 1, Witcher 3 better than Witcher 2.

I don't give a fuck about video games, friend.

>>53123312
>Witcher 2 was better than Witcher 1, Witcher 3 better than Witcher 2.
And Civilization V was worse even after its expansion packs than IV although hexes are great, and Civilization VI is worse than Civilization V altogether with zero redeeming qualities, including its graphics, which have somehow regressed.

We hate old things too. Big things, small things, loud things, things no one has ever heard of, things that never existed, jews, pols, women, fags, chads, nerds, ponies, people who hate ponies. Sometimes we talk about an actual game, but mostly we complain about shit that doesn't matter.

>>53129284
all of the stuff you listed matters tho

Alternate hypothesis: instead of pointing to the trend of a long history of people all over the world saying things have gotten worse as a sign that sign that every generation only THINKS things are getting worse, maybe things, in fact, have universally gotten worse in a steady downwards spiral since some undetermined point in the distant past.

>>53129053
have you considered that maybe the problem isn't things being bad, but instead you being a bitter person?

>>53129404
Have you considered that he might be right sometimes

File: gurps book.png (331KB, 706x426px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 706x426px

>>53126178
>>53125872
Bull fucking shit. Yeah you don't need a skill >17.... for a BASIC check. But with modifiers? Uhh... yeah. And by the way you can still diversify easily.

Here's a 100 points GURPS character for GURPS 4e. I think 100 points is a fair baseline for an adventurer.

ST 10, DX 10, IQ 10, HT 10
Don't even bother with advantages and disadvantages for now.

Set aside 20 points for side skills. This gives you 80 points to put into the guns skill of your choice. Pick rifles because they deal the most damage: you can just use defaults for the others, it won't matter because your skill will be so fucking high anyway. Guns is an Easy skill, so you can get it to 15 for 16 points. Another 16 will get it to 19, another 16 will get it to 23, another 16 will get it to 27, another 16 will get it to 31. There. You have put 80 points into your Rifles skill and now have a 31.

Now you can spread those other 20 points around into minor skills such as Armoury, First Aid, Stealth, et cetera. Sure you won't be good at them, but you're not the skill monkey. So who cares? You can headshot motorcycle gangs with lateral speed of 20 m/s from a half-mile. Oh, and if really want, take just 20 points of disadvantages and you can bump that rifles skill up to 36.

So what can you do with a 36 in Rifles? Well, lets take a look at the range / movement table. This is without taking a 1-second round to aim, by the way.

> you can easily score a headshot (-7) on a running target (-2) at 100 yards (-10). You're rolling against a 17 there, so you've got a 99% chance of success.
>If we extrapolate the range table, you could reliably hit someone at 1 mile distant who is running (-2) and be rolling against like a 17 or something.
>God forbid someone arms you with a Gauss rifle or even a .338. The former has Acc7+2, so with three seconds of aiming you could have an effective Rifle skill of 45.

GURPS 4e is broken.

>>53129404
>anon is just a meanie for not liking my favorite game, let's take a discussion about games and turn it around on HIM lol

Nice ad hominem. It's invalid, sorry.

File: whoisthisnigga.gif (1021KB, 421x389px) Image search: [Google]

1021KB, 421x389px

>>53129053
>Worse than 4e
>WORSE THAN 4E
>ANY EDITION IS SOMEHOW WORSE THAN 4E

If anything this is just reinforcing my opinion that 5e is fine if that's the kind of shit grognards say about it. 4e was an absolute disaster of a system.

>>53129420
Sure, sometimes, but if that's the case all the time then you risk ending up like /v/ who still find ways to be really angry about video games in spite of the first half of 2017 having produced some of the highest quality video games in recent memory in a level of rapid succession unprecedented since over a decade ago

>>53129461
Now to be fair, the thing about 4e is that it's so fucking different from every other D&D after 2e that it seems almost meaningless to try for a direct comparison, it's like comparing GURPS and 5e. You might think one is better but comparisons don't work.

>>53129471
/v/ isn't angry about NieR or the new Link game or Persona V though? /v/ (was) angry about Civilization VI (because nobody, not even civ4xg, cares about it anymore), they were angry about Mass Assbrap: AndroMEDIA, and so on.

>>53129461
>4e was an absolute disaster of a system.

It was some shitty ideas that were well-executed. It works within its own autistic assumptions but said assumptions are what most people have a problem with.

At least 4e understood that if attack bonuses escalate, so should AC after a point. It makes no fucking sense that a fighter never gets better at parrying or dodging at all throughout 20 levels of experience, and his "skill" at parrying is instead represented by his increasing hit points. Which are based on Constitution not dexterity. So basically, dex doesn't matter defensively, only Con

File: imagemacro (15).jpg (85KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 500x500px

>>53129053
>5e
>worse than 4e
>better than 3.5

>>53129053
>5e is worse than 4e
>but it's better than 3.5e
>which also means that 4e is better than 3.5e
>so 4e is literally the best system since AD&D
u fucking wot

>>53117249
I don't think anyone reads 1d4chan.

>>53129332
lol

>>53130043
Yep. You got it right! Good job on achieving third-grade-level reading comprehension!

>>53129890
I mean, you do get better at dodging and parrying. Attribute Bonuses.

>>53118829
I like 5e and play it frequently with my friends. We usually have a great time. Does this make you angry?

>>53120217
damn, that's some weak argument, son. a good chargen system indeed makes it more costly to buy higher skill levels. if you want an otherwise ordinary moral with rifle 25, then your character points level should reflect that.

>>53125872
>otherwise you end up with everybody playing amorphous blobs of jack of all trades that focus on nothing because doing so offers no benefit compared to how they can pump up a whole new skill.
that's not how it works in chargen systems with escalating costs though (see Shadowrun). the increasing costs keep players from minmaxing too hard or if they still do, they pay a hefty price in general incompetence, which is fine.

>>53129284
and we complain about complainers. don't leave that out, you massive faggot.

>>53129537
>it's like comparing GURPS and 5e. You might think one is better but comparisons don't work.
but you can compare, you just need to address playstyles. D&D is about gamism, GURPS about simulationism. so if someone prefers one over the other, you know which direction to point them.

>>53130947
Right but it's not directly analagous. Like for 5e I can point directly to nerfing fullcasters, because in 3.5e casters were overpowered, as good or bad. I can't do the same to GURPS because fullcasters there are a different concept.

>>53117231
Because
1. It requires me to analyze something to find if it's worth shit.
2. People tend to fuck up when they make the New Thing
3. An extension of "it ain't broke don't fix it"

>>53131255
People have this weird tendency to fix problems then fuck up shit that worked. I mean I guess it kind of makes money - you can't sell a new edition as just patches unless it's like 3.5

>>53130050
what is wrong with 1d4chan?

>>53117231
Because 'new things' are usually just very slight variations on old things that are promoted as a cash grab. Or kikestarter projects that under deliver or just disappear.

Or in the case of Shadowrun, a 40 dollar book that half of which should be free errata to compensate for the clusterfuck that is the core rulebook.

>>53129053
>4e is best d&d
5e is better than 3e.
4e was worse than 3e. They took the worst aspects of D&D (sonsensical gamey mechanics) and built an entire edition out of them. It was a balanced skirmish tactics game, but I hated it as an RPG. 5e is indeed less good for balance, it's martials are worse than casters again, but not to the 3xt3nt they were in 3.x. but it's better than 4e in basically every other respect. It still has some garbage nonsense boardgamey dissociative mechanics, but it's not literally every character ability like it was in 4e.

>GURPS
GURPS 4e has better magic systems in the form of Sorcery and RPM. I've only played a bit of 3e, but the main difference seemed to be that 3e was more poorly organized, but had more setting books. Why do you think GURPS 3e is better?

>Shadowrun
Well, like what you like dude. I enjoy the shit out of the two most recent editions of Shadowrun.

>Conan RPG
>You could use a different system.
I could. But the playtest looked pretty good, and it was pretty cheap because Kickstarter. It also came with all the Mongoose Conan PDFs, including some I couldn't find pirated copies of. Mongoose Conan is one of the better sword and sorcery systems I have tried, with an interesting magic system, and it had excellent setting books on the hyborian age (but the world maps are all wrong). My next hyborian game will either use modiphius' rules +, or GURPS rules, plus modiphius'&mongoose's setting books.

BoL didn't really appeal to me, and Dungeon World is just a crappy AW, and Im not that into AW either.

>>53129082
I didn't say new things are always better, I just said sometimes they are better, and unlike what OP implies, newer is not always worse.

>>53131328
shitty tvtropes wannabe

>>53132804
5e is worse because the powerlevels became low enough that advancement feels boring. I want to play a superhero or stuff, not a strongman.

>>53130725
>Does this make you angry?

No, just kinda sad that you are willing to play such garbage system out of habit and sunk cost fallacy.

>>53130640
Yeah and those cap with your armor dumb fuck.

>>53132804
4e also has the obnoxious forced assumption that even at level 1, you're a giant in a world of ants, and the obnoxious requirement of starting everything in relation to the party instead of in relation to the world.

In other editions you can avoid that assumption by running a high powered world like Faerun, or by running low level campaigns.

>>53132952
This problem only exists with skill DCs. You still quickly have a bajillion health and do a quadrillion damage, and can use magic to rewrite reality.

>>53131328
It's severely outdated, and filled with general misinformation. Shit man, it still has memes that were old in 2010.

>>53133034
5e is the best edition of D&D in terms of gameplay.
Its balance isn't the best that dnd has had, but it's gameplay is better than the only one with more balance.
Its character customization isn't the best dnd has had, but its balance and gameplay are (generally) better than 3.x.
It has decent published adventures.
It's simple to teach to newbies.
It's good for beer and pretzels gaming (which is generally what dnd is good for).

If I'm running D&D, I'm 4unning 5e.
If I'm playing D&D, I'm playing either 5e, or Pathfinder.
Both are better than 4e.

If I'm going to play a better game than PF/5e, that means not playing D&D.

>>53133181
>5e is the best edition of D&D in terms of gameplay.

No it's not.

>Its balance isn't the best that dnd has had, but it's gameplay is better than the only one with more balance.

It's balance is shit, only 3.5 is more unbalanced.

>Its character customization isn't the best dnd has had, but its balance and gameplay are (generally) better than 3.x.

It has basically zero character customization.

>It has decent published adventures.

So did 3.5, 4e, and AD&D. Most of the 5e adventures are reprints. You are a fucking retard if you did not recognize this.

>It's simple to teach to newbies.

So is Dungeon World.

>It's good for beer and pretzels gaming (which is generally what dnd is good for).

Beer and pretzels gaming is for the kind of fags who should not be in RPGs in the first place, so again, not a plus. Everyone is John is good for "beer and pretzels" gaming and that game is cancer too.

>If I'm playing D&D, I'm playing either 5e, or Pathfinder.

So you're too much of a pussy to run Pathfinder, but you're okay with playing it? Fuckin hypocrite. Your post is full of assertions with no arguments to back them up. Explain to me why 5e is so enamored with instant gratification that it gives +2 ASIs to everything, making the 3-18 scale entirely vestigial, then capping them at 20 because they are too retarded to come up with an ASI system that makes sense? And thanks to that if you roll an 18 in your stat, it's meaningless because literally any other character can get to that by level 5.

>>53130749
It is more costly to buy higher skill levels. One point for the first level, another point (two total) for the second, two more (four total) for the third, then four more (eight total) for the fourth, then four more for every subsequent level. You wouldn't be an otherwise ordinary mortal if you dumped 56 points into a Guns skill to get a skill level of 25. You have no hobbies, know almost nothing about where you live, can barely open Internet Explorer, have no idea what's going on in the world, can't talk to people, can't understand people, can't clean or cook for yourself, can barely drive down an empty neighborhood street, you have no job skills. You can't do anything if you dump all of your points into guns.

If you brought it down to a more reasonable 18 or 20? Then you'd actually be capable of building a functioning human being. 18 or 20 isn't an unreasonable amount. It's high, but such people do exist.

>>53133331
Are you retarded? It's a straight 4 CP for skills past a certain point. The costs don't escalate faggot. At least not in 4e.

>>53133358
Yes, it's a flat cost after a certain point. It wouldn't be worth investing in skills otherwise. You'd just raise your attributes instead, and that definitely leads to unrealistic characters.

>>53133428
But you only need 20 points of skills to be a functioning human. You still have 80 you could put into your Rifles skill to get it into the 30s.

>>53133456
There's no default point total, anon. GURPS doesn't work like that. The GM decides the point total, the context of the game, and what characters are acceptable. It isn't something standalone that you can use in a vacuum, like D&D. There's no context in GURPS by default.

You can build your 100-point human with 80 points spent in Guns (Rifle), but how did that person come to exist? What's their backstory for having a skill level that surpasses human limits? And if you brought it back down to 25 or so, what's the backstory for having a skill level that is the best among masters?

>>53117249
the real is real

>>53133326
>Too much of a pussy to run Pathfinder.
Ran PF from 2009 to 2015. It's simply too tedious building NPCs/Monsters under any of its method, more so for NPCs than monsters, and I favor running campaigns with mostly humanoid adversaries.

The 5e NPC building rules are also a little tedious. The monster building rules were the best part of 4e. I just hated the gameplay as a player, and so did the rest of my group.

>5e has basically 0 character customization
Yeah, race, multiclass, background, class, archetype, and a feat or two isn't that much. I agree. It could really use a big book of ACFs.

4es adventures were awful last time I checked on them, but they might have gotten better. The later 3.5 ones weren't so hot either. But sure, there were good ones for 3.x and Pathfinder.

>Reprints
There's a bunch of original adventures for 5e, not just reprints. For instance, out of the abyss.

>Beer and pretzels is bad and you should feel bad for liking it.
I've got a group of GMs as my group, we each run something, and alternate sessions. Not everything has to be super deep roleplaying. Once in a while you just have a dumb actions campaign with lots of joking around.

>ASIs are bad!
Thats a math decision they made. I'm not too keen on it, actually. But I think the reason for the max 20 is so they can assume 20 in your main stats and go from there.

I'd actually much prefer a more generous initial stat generation, and just give feats instead. If ASIs are given at all, give them in a much more limited capacity.

>>53120253

Bullshit. A good game is to be run after a simple reading.

Case in point: modern boardgames.

It RPGs fail on that aspect, it's their problem.

>>53120268
Nonsense.

If we choose to play Pathfinder, we're choosing it to play a high magic campaign starting at level 8 or 9.

>>53133689
Another reason for when I run 5e is for people new to RPGs PFs chargen seems to be too difficult for a lot of them.

And I'm not a fan of how long it takes to design a character in Pathfinder, because of the hassle of coordinating prerequisites and such, so you need to plan your character several levels ahead.

>>53133737
>Case in point: modern boardgames.
Then why don't you go play Snakes and Ladders instead?

>>53133737
There is no decent RPG that matches your definition of a good game. The RPGs that are simple enough to play well after just skimming the rules are crap.

>>53133521
>but how did that person come to exist?

Practice.

>>53135602
What drove him to practice so much? How hasn't he broken down from doing nothing but practice guns outside of his job for years? Why does he practice guns? How is he affording all of this practice?

>>53117231
I like new things! Don't shoehorn me you fuck! Just two days ago I started playing WOD with a lovely bunch of lads.

>>53118936
Yes. It's good.

>>53118944
>>53120800
20 years is not fucking new.

>>53129461
Essentials was basically 4.5e and it was terrible.

>>53139577
One year is, though.

File: Plas.png (260KB, 693x413px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 693x413px

>>53119143
It ends and begins at the boundaries of your wallet, friend

>>53119012
im a 3.5 fag and i have no issue with path finder and i actually like 5th after reading the two main rule books. I just find 3.5 my preferred system. i don't nay say 5th. i will trash talk 4th until I'm blue in the fucking face tho 4th edition was wet diarrhea squirting of game design

>>53119012
Pathfinder is strictly better than 3.5.

The classes are actually supported, and you don't have to go through a mess of multiclassing just to build something interesting.

>>53140624

Yeah, you just have to minmax because 99% of the content will leave you worthless a few levels in. Much better.

>>53140656
3.5 is just as bad for trap options.

File: Gorilla.jpg (167KB, 955x505px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 955x505px

>>53126669
>Look at Civilization VI vs Civilization IV or II.
Ah, I see you’re a man of culture as well.

>>53142438
I'm just not terminally retarded
Nobody even cares about Civ VI anymore, that's how bad it was.

>>53129082
>VI worse in all ways
It's better than V was at release. Reintroducing health/happiness was a good move (even if it's weirdly named) and the cultural tree is a cool idea, if poorly implemented. After a couple expansions, it might even be the 3rd best Civ in the series, returning to the rule that even numbered civ titles are better than odd numbered titles.

>>53142514
>It's better than V was at release
Which means shit-all. 1UPT still exists, cultural tree is trash, civics are unusable garbage, city sprawl means maps feel three times smaller while actually being smaller to begin with, navies are STILL worthless shite, half of the wonders are wastes of time and tiles if you got them for free, scaling worker costs is stupid, commerce still isn't back, trade is still retarded and there's wasn't a building queue last I checked, quotes are arse and religious battles are even worse while diplomacy is nonextant. It's fucking shit, there is no reason to play it over Civ IV except for hexes.

>>53142535
I was comparing it to V, since the phase was worse than V in all ways. It's clearly worse than IV. That should go without saying.

>>53128790
>[...] all [...] because most [...]
that's not the way humanity developed all the stuff you like today.
thinking like this is only a mental construct to make up for one's own lack of understanding of an individual thing in all its aspects, as does the opposite methodic of accepting all change with open arms

>>53142464
My dad bought it and still hasn't got to play it because his video card isn't good enough and to upgrade it he'd have to buy a whole new computer because his is like 5 years old.

>>53130899
Hey fuck you, you don't like complainers don't be one. I fucking hate complainers.