>"This campaign will be using the Pathfinder system!"

Not implicitly a bad thing. If you've got a GM who knows their stuff, applies appropriate content restrictions and uses it for an appropriate premise, since D&D and its ephemera never really functions outside its heroic fantasy niche.

If it's one of those idiots trying to use any version of D&D for, I don't know, political intrigue or fucking pokemon, drop that shit hard and fast as you can.

Eh, Pathfinder, D&D, same D20. Same old fantasy that the GM ignores to make his own setting.

I want a group that plays something else entirely, where the existing lore isn't something to be thrown out.

>>53389965
>since D&D and its ephemera never really functions outside its heroic fantasy niche.

I like how idiots try to pretend to be moderate and sensible, and then tie in one of those ridiculously stupid bits of bullshit they always use for system politics to their posts.

The next time you want to try and limit D&D to something, remind yourself that there are more settings for D&D, evoking so many genres and including so many disparate themes as science fiction, fantasy, horror, and even the politics you believe it cannot do, then just about any other brand worth mentioning.

>>53390423

Except all those themes are in addition to the fundamental concept of heroic fantasy. The point stands as a simple statement of fact.

>>53389919
So don't join it?

You have control over your own shit don't you?

>>53390454
Except that saying it never functions out of heroic fantasy niche is flatly not true, since it works well for a variety of fantasy (fantasy horror is not the same thing as heroic fantasy) and extends beyond fantasy to include science fiction and historical campaigns, and has a number or explicitly political campaign settings and adventures, directly refuting your shallow point.

>>53390663

Everything you describe exists within the heroic fantasy umbrella, because D&D is a heroic fantasy game. You literally cannot escape it.

Also, it's entirely possible to make a campaign setting that's completely unsuitable for the premise of the game. Designers can be just as stupid as GMs. A political setting for D&D would still be a bad move, as the systems rules for skill use, social encounters and management are all laughably weak and shallow.

>>53390716
>Everything you describe exists within the heroic fantasy umbrella,

If you don't understand what "heroic fantasy" is, you shouldn't run your mouth about it.

Heroic Fantasy is a subgenre that D&D focuses on, but is not limited to. I've already explained this. And, you also seem to think that social systems need to be more robust than the one's used in D&D, when that is simply a matter of your preference. Most people prefer social systems to be rather light, since heavier systems tend to actually get in the way of actual roleplaying.

If political settings for D&D are a bad move, as you claim them to be, there wouldn't be so many and they wouldn't be so popular. D&D even winds up being preferred for political games to some more politically-minded systems (like the ASoIF system) because people prefer more organic approaches to politics than the cumbersome subsystems that plague those systems.

>the systems rules for skill use, social encounters and management are all laughably weak and shallow.

What's laughable is how detached you are from what people play and what they enjoy. It would do you a world of good to go to a few gaming conventions, speak to a few people, and to get out of your mother's basement for once.

>>53390894
>If political settings for D&D are a bad move, as you claim them to be, there wouldn't be so many and they wouldn't be so popular.

>Everybody's doing it so it must be right!
>Arguing from popularity

I love /tg/.

>>53390922
When the question is something as subjective as "is this fun?", overwhelming popularity tends to be valued more than some random anon's personal emotions.

File: Mr Rage on Gaming.png (16KB, 1641x336px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 1641x336px

>>53391048
But fun is objective anon.

>>53390894

I can't actually think of any popular political settings for D&D. Care to name one?

>>53391048
Fun says nothing on the quality of the game except that it is possible to have fun with it. Good GMs can make bad systems fun. What a surprise.

>>53390894

Wait, so... The reason to run a political game in D&D is because it doesn't have rules for it?

Then why use a system at all?

>>53390922
He continues on to explain why people prefer systems like D&D with lighter social rules for politics over games like ASOIF right after. You can't really cut someone's argument like that.
Have you played the official ASOIF RPG? The books are great for setting reference, but the politics in that game and the system in general are pretty awful.

>>53390894
Heroic fantasy is a large umbrella. A Song of Ice And Fire is heroic fantasy, yet is deeply political in nature. Star Wars is heroic fantasy, while also falling into the science fiction category. You could run either of those in DND, though there would perhaps be better systems to hang your bets on.

What he said about social encounters is true; the rules are barren. Of course, because of this, I know very few people who actually use them in lieu of roleplay, but that brings about its own problems, and doesn't solve the system itself.

DND is, inherently, fantasy. Spelljammer is still heavy on fantasy elements. Heck, the cover of the book has an armored knight and a space-amazon with a regular old hand crossbow! It's possible to go out of your way to exclude orcs, elves, rivals, magic and everything that makes fantasy what it is, but the system is not designed with that sort of game in mind.

And unless you are operating only at very low levels, such as a level 0 or 1 game, it is difficult to run a campaign wherein the PCs, or their adversaries if the PCs are villainous, are not heroes. They will almost invariably outshine the common folk in every way, throw their weight around in a political game, and so forth. They will be the focus of the game, the heroes of the campaign, no matter what it's about. Even if a single fight is never had in the campaign, a level 10 Fighter is still a hero, and everyone should regard them as such.

>>53391170
"Most people prefer social systems to be rather light, since heavier systems tend to actually get in the way of actual roleplaying."
Such as?

>Have you played the official ASOIF RPG?
I have no interest whatsoever in ASOIF. Not sure why I would use a special system for it, either, when Fate'll do the job damn well.

>>53391150
Light rules doesn't mean it doesn't have rules.
Pay attention to what people are saying before you make a fool of yourself.

And, even saying D&D has light rules for politics isn't wholly true. It has a number of subsystems and references to help run large politically-minded campaigns, ranging from country building advice, rules and guidelines for creating and running organizations, mass-combat and siege rules, and adventures that include everything between brokering a peace between two warring nations to arguing a case in a court in Hell.

It doesn't take center-stage, but politics have been a part of D&D all the way back to when Gygax had his players take their high-level characters and act as a council of rulers.

>>53390535
What do you think climbing out the window implies?

>>53391331

...So you were complaining about subsystems in other systems, yet you're praising them in D&D?

At this point it barely seems like you're using D&D anymore. You're just making things up as you go along but praising the system instead of your GM and group managing to make it work. None of this is a trait of D&D, it's something that could equally be applied to any other system on the planet.

>>53391260
Where does the star wars is sci-fi meme comes from?
It's fantasy in space. There is no science fiction in it, like at all.

>>53389919
3.0, 3.5 and PF worked fin for us. For decades.
3.5 up to level 40th.
But we don't play in memes.

>>53390423
All of those settings are a variation of high fantasy. Except maybe Ravenloft, but even that's debatable.

>>53391462

Given how fucking awesome Paladins are in Ravenloft, I'd say its still high fantasy. They might burn out faster, but they burn all the brighter for it.

>>53391260
>DND is, inherently, fantasy.

But not heroic fantasy, and it can be easily reskinned to fit other genres quite well. There's even advice in the DM's guide on how to do so. Proposing it can't do this is just lying through your teeth.

>they will almost invariably outshine the common folk in every way,

Is it really too hard to make the common folk as strong as the PCs? I don't understand why you feel that there is anything barring the PCs from being actually rather weak in the setting if that's your preference. Aside from just adjusting the commoner levels to suit your tastes, there's established settings where the PCs are not quite so heroic. In fact, when you look at Planescape, there's a number of locations deep in the planes where the PCs are so comparatively weak that it fits the tropes of horror more than it does heroic fantasy.

There are plenty of systems, and many of them are great for specific genres. But, doing your best to try to establish fake restrictions in order to pretend that D&D can't do things it's been doing for decades is a really bad joke.

>>53389965
>its heroic fantasy niche.
This is the worst meme that ever happened to D&D. How long has the designers been designing D&D as heroic fantasy? 3E? 2E?
I know higher levels are heroic fantasy, but nowadays players think they are heroic from level one and the 5E DMG pretty much says the same thing, that even from level 1 players are local hero tier.

>>53390423
Regardless of setting, the rules of D&D simply aren't meant to support every possible genre of game. They are generally built for heroic fantasy with a specific focus on combat and dungeon-crawling. If that's not what you're doing, you'll need progressively more houserules to stop it from falling apart.

A simple example is the spells/day on classes. These are balanced with the intention that the party will be getting into about four level-appropriate fights a day, each consuming about 20% of the party's resources. Now, in political games, fights are often few and far between, maybe at most one or two a day if things are busy. This means that spellcasters have proportionally more resources than they are expected to, making them even stronger compared to martials. Not to mention that D&D/PF tend to have very minimalist social systems compared to other games that are actually built for it.

>>53391412
It stems from the fact that Star Wars features space travel, fully functional mechanical limbs, laser swords, artificial intelligence, and all sorts of other future tech. It may not put much focus on many of the elements that typical Sci-fi series do, but Game of Thrones is certainly fantasy despite the fact that there is all of a single good person in its world. It doesn't help that the matter of what forms the basis of a genre is sometimes subjective in the first place, though.

Sure, Star Wars also has ghosts, the force, and other fantastical elements, but those do not remove the sci-fi aspects of the franchise. End of the day, Star Wars takes facets of both genres and can't be accurately described as solely belonging to either, as is the case for many series.

>>53391380
Complaining about subsystems doesn't mean I'm giving D&D the green light. If you used all the political subsystems available for D&D, it would be rather cumbersome, which is why the political subsystems in D&D are largely optional, and most people only use a handful at a time.

>None of this is a trait of D&D, it's something that could equally be applied to any other system on the planet.
Welcome to understanding the flexibility of game systems. You can now graduate to not complaining about pointless things and enjoying actually playing games rather than embedding yourself in system wars.

>>53391646
So you don't know what science fiction means. That explains it, thanks.

>>53391682

So, you'd want to completely destroy any meaningful ability to discuss, criticise or compare game systems? Because that's fucking stupid.

'A system can do x' is a moot point. Sure, it might be able to with enough work from the group and the GM. But the much, much more important question is how much doing that is supported, whether the system actively helps you to do so or hinders you.

This is why D&D is a heroic fantasy game. If you are running heroic fantasy, the system (in general) will support you doing so. If you try to not run heroic fantasy in D&D, you will have to fight against the system to make it work. If you have to fight against the system to make it work, then I find any argument that the system is suitable for it highly suspect.

>>53391606
>A simple example is the spells/day on classes.

There's plenty of classes that don't use them. In some editions, there's even variant casters that use alternate spell casting systems, as well as variant rules that can be applied to all casters.
You seem to forget that even if you only used 5% of what's available for D&D, you still have a giant system to work with. If something doesn't match your vision, no one's forcing you to use it, and there's plenty of non-house rule ways to adapt the game.

It's really a bad joke to come into one of the world's largest games of imagination and to try and pretend that there's walls or limits all over the place, when the game was built to explore just how far the imagination can go.

>>53391755

D&D is not a generic system. D&D is a focused system built for heroic fantasy. That you happen to use it wrong doesn't change anything.

>>53391728
>So, you'd want to completely destroy any meaningful ability to discuss, criticise or compare game systems? Because that's fucking stupid.
Enough of your prancing. Saying D&D doesn't do things it's always done is just being stupid.

>If you try to not run heroic fantasy in D&D, you will have to fight against the system to make it work

The system has advice within itself to explore beyond heroic fantasy. The system is designed to help you with this, and it does a fair job in providing variants and advice in doing so. Stop trying to act like it doesn't just in hopes of shoehorning it into a little niche for the sake of system politics.

>>53391755
Why use DnD then?
It's faster, easier and more enjoyable to learn a new system for whatever the fuck you want to run than it is to try to shoehorn DnD into everything.

>>53391755
>when the game was built to explore just how far the imagination can go.

D&D was never built to do this. It was very specifically created to do one thing and one thing only. And that was to run high fantasy campaigns. It was never meant to be some sort of universal system, and it's never going to be that no matter how much you tweak and twist the mechanics to try and fit it into a mold where it just will not fit.

>>53391783

I await you providing evidence.

Because if you look at the core book, D&D tells you it's a fucking heroic fantasy game, and none of the variants you have mentioned or cited ever take it outside of that space, they just add other elements to it.

>>53391755
>You seem to forget that even if you only used 5% of what's available for D&D, you still have a giant system to work with. If something doesn't match your vision, no one's forcing you to use it, and there's plenty of non-house rule ways to adapt the game.
This.
It's amazing how something so simple passes over people's head so often. You could try, for once, a 1st-6th level adventure with only fighters and rogues. It would play in a completely different way (and need special attention).

>>53391818

And it would still be heroic fantasy. Because it's still D&D.

>>53391804
DnD is to war games what Dotas are to rts games.
You move from controlling an army alone against others you control a hero in a team.

>>53391755
Yes there are variant rules. The fact that you can choose to use the optional sanity mechanic and restrict player classes isn't going to make D&D a better Lovecraft game than Call of Cthulhu which is actually made for it. You could try to come up with a way to balance a bunch of templates and monsters so you could run a supernatural drama with vampire/werewolf/ghoul/slayer love quadrangles, but you're going to still have weird extraneous rules; that sort of game would need minimal combat but lots of social mechanics, which D&D is bad at, but which Monster Hearts is specifically made for. You can play an epic game at stupid power levels to simulate playing god-killing monstrosities, but the numbers just break down at that point, and you really should just play Mythenders.

D&D is not a generic system.

>>53391835
You can keep your definitions, I don't care.
The point is that would play in a completely different way.

>>53391451
>3.0, 3.5 and PF worked fine for us

>>53391559
>But not heroic fantasy

DMG 3.5 chapter 3, The Encounters, page 50 - Most encounters seriously threaten at least one member of the group in some way. These are challenging encounters, about equal in Encounter Level to the party. The average adventuring party group should be able to handle FOUR challenging encounters before they run low on spells, hit points, and other resources.

Lv 20 party. Let us kill 4 Balors before we need to rest. Let us kill 4 wyrm dragons before we take a rest. (also take into account as you gain levels you are more broken so it shouldn’t be hard to kill even bigger number of enemies because developers fucked up the math)

D&D is super-heroic. Higher the level more broken it becomes.You can have an opinion on it but facts are facts.

Now if I have to restrict bunch of stuff from the system so it works that doesn't mean system is good. It means system is butchered from its original shape and form in attempt to run some other game type in it and people being delusional and saying "look. It works fine in d20"

Also there is nothing heroic in beating 4 Balors in one days work.

>>53391867

I don't disagree?

Heroic fantasy is a pretty broad umbrella. You can do a lot of stuff within it. It's just pointing out that D&D doesn't operate well outside of it.

>>53391859
>D&D is not a generic system.
When did D&D try to adapt GURPS' philosophy of modularity and "can do anything"? Did I miss something?

>>53391869
>D&D is super-heroic. Higher the level more broken it becomes.You can have an opinion on it but facts are facts.
You say this as if it's a problem.
I like the fact that at level 1 a strike will down you, and at level 20 you travel planes, talk with gods and slay demonic armies.
If you like just on of these things, just focus on the appropriate level interval.

>>53391893
Some people earlier in the thread were arguing that the quantity of material for D&D meant that it could be effectively played for genres well outside of its intended heroic fantasy focus.

>>53391791
>It's faster, easier and more enjoyable to learn a new system for whatever the fuck you want to run than it is to try to shoehorn DnD into everything.

Because that's not true. At all.
Not only are there far more terrible games than there are good ones, games that are specifically built for certain niches tend to still require further adaptation to suit your specific needs. If you're going to be adapting a game anyway, might as well start with one you already like.

But, you're free to have your preference. I also enjoy looking through and learning new systems, largely because they open up ideas I wouldn't have explored simply by adapting systems I already knew. But, at the same time, I have no problem with other people choosing to use and adapt systems they like to suit their tastes.

I'd hear first what he allows, his insights about the system, his homerules, etc then I'll decide if bailing or not.

If he says something like core only and I'll give casters a magic item at the start because they have lower HD and that's unfair I'll 360º noscope moonwalk away so hard Michael Jackson will ressurrect immediately

>>53391893
It never did. D&Drones try to use this to justify their shitty way of doing things.

>>53391559
It isn't lying if one believes that DND doesn't handle other genres as well as the systems dedicated to them. That's simply a subjective opinion, as is believing that it can.

As I said, it's certainly possible to remove elements of fantasy, and that goes for heroic elements as well. I, personally, don't much like the idea of everyone in the setting being of equal power to the PCs, because holy hell could you imagine that sort of world, where any random barfight might result in an Earthquake'd town or a Fireball'd barkeep? It'd be fun gimmick, I grant you. If you kept them all as Commoners and simply scaled their levels up, well, that would still leave the PCs heads and shoulders above them.

It's very much true that DND is not inherently heroic in nature, but it's no lie that it's geared towards that style of game. Unless your campaign takes place solely in Lucifer's backyard, chances are a Level 12 Cleric is going to be a big deal. Part of the reason DND has so many over-the-top spells and abilities is because the system is designed to make the players feel like badasses. But heroes are only so because they overcome the challenges thrown at them, not because they're never challenged, which isn't what I meant to imply in my former post.

Horror is actually a genre that DND can handle relatively well, I think. Whether or not the PCs are heroic, they'll still fear Wolves In Sheep's Clothing or other monsters with horrific abilities, or ones that threaten their viability specifically such as Ability Drain. Wearing the characters down over time before fights is highly advised, and that's common in the horror genre as well; the long slog and buildup. It just comes naturally; you don't have to put much focus on it.

I never meant to argue that DND/Pathfinder cannot be used to run other genres, only that it often isn't the best choice for them, in my personal opinion. If it's all you know, and you can't convince anyone to learn Traveller or CoC, it's fine.

>>53391893

It happened when Wizards and every other publisher tried to use d20 for every theme and genre. Just look at d20 Modern, Vampire, Oriental Adventures, Future, Cthulhu, Sci-fi etc.

>>53391905
Broken as in save-or-dies and rocket tag, martial irrelevance, numbers for things like saves/attack/AC diverging so much that rolling is essentially unnecessary, etc. etc.

>>53391907
When that material includes stuff outside of heroic fantasy, it really shoots down any argument that D&D is limited to heroic fantasy.

>>53391919
Wow, you're really justifying the "I use D&D for everything" attitude, aren't you? Because that's what you're doing. You have to have at least a shred of self awareness, right?

>>53391943
Pathfinder tried to add social mechanics with Ultimate Intrigue. Their mechanics sucked. PF is not a social game.

Having rules to support another genre does not make D&D good at that genre, when compared to games which were built for it.

>>53391919
If you exclude d20 variants that is not true at all.

Even then, if you need such a degree of personalization that a game of the same genre is hard to adapt you end faster and easier adapting an appropriate generic game or build your own from scratch than adapting DnD.

>>53391943
Still waiting on that proof, chief.

>>53391941
The only barely valid point is the martial irrelevance, and that's depends from how the casters and martials are build, what's the danger for the caster in the gameworld, the equipment, and how the players interact.
A good number of these must fail to make it not working.

The rest is tastes or just bullshit.

>>53391978
>Their mechanics sucked
Is more that they don't have a strong design team.
I don't exclude the chance of an intrigue ruleset.. just not written by these people.

>>53392007

Ahh, so you're one of those people who've played D&D so much you've lost any ability to actually understand the system. Now it makes sense.

>>53392031
No, you are just one of these butthurt fags that plays in meme.
We bent the system to our will, and played for years.
You have been beaten by the system, but somehow you want to give me lessons.

>>53391928
>It isn't lying if one believes that DND doesn't handle other genres as well as the systems dedicated to them

However, it IS lying if the statement is "D&D and its ephemera never really functions outside its heroic fantasy niche."

Saying D&D might not do Lovecraftian Horror as well as CoC without heavy modifications is fair. But, at the same time, saying D&D can't do Lovecraftian Horror is ignoring that there's a fair amount of assets and material specifically designed so that if the DM is interested, they can readily adapt the standard assumptions of a D&D game and instead use it for Lovecraftian Horror.

D&D is intended to be versatile, and while some people may prefer other options such as using and adapting other systems, there's no reason to assume a group using D&D is somehow "playing it wrong" when they select options that don't match the specific assumed niche heroic fantasy.

Some people just like rolling d20's. Let them roll.

>>53392025
It's certainly /possible/ for a game to have an add-on which successfully adds support for another genre not covered by core. It's just difficult, and increasingly so if the core game is already wedded to a specific genre that it needs to work out of. GURPS is of course the classic example of successful modularity, but it was built with that in mind. Some hard work could get D&D to operate as a passable medieval court drama, but playing Shadowrun in it as successfully as Shadowrun itself is going to be an exercise in futility.

>>53392064

You're someone who, upon being told a wall is not a door, rammed themselves against it until, bloody and battered, they managed to make a hole.

And you're calling other people stupid for just using the fucking door.

>>53392070
>D&D is intended to be versatile
Sweet, when's your Star Trek game? I'm down.

>>53392070
>D&D is intended to be versatile

It's only intended to be versatile within its specific niche. So long as you're running some sort of variant high fantasy game, it does fine. But once you start to stray from that, you have to kludge things together and homebrew out the ass just to get it functioning again.

You can have any color of car, so long as it's black.

>>53392082
I think that, as now, one has to understand the "power level" and just accept that at level 18, your intrigues will be on multiple planes with multiple layers of deceptions and spell use.
You play game of thrones on levels 1-5.

>>53392086
Or you are just too stupid, or did not have enough resources. We had access to many manuals: we played as a team: I banned almost nothing but paid attention to encounters, motivation, and loot; in some are of the world magic did not function properly or gave taint, restricting the player options (not at the point of frustration, but is like a dedicated tripper: if meets an untrippable foe must find a workaround).
And yet, you are disappointed I had so much fun, in many different ways, with such clunky, flawed and beautiful system.
You are "s-stop having fun" tier. Off yourself.

>>53391962
There's really nothing inherently wrong with that attitude though.
You might not like it, but that might just be largely because you hate the system and don't share their opinions.
I mean, what? You really think it's hard for people who've played with a system for years to adapt it to whatever they need?
Give me a year with any system, and I'll be able to turn it into shonen competitive origami folding battle tournament system in a day or less.

>>53392070
I don't think the argument being made is that D&D is incapable of playing other genres, but rather that it will always do so less cleanly/elegantly/smoothly than games designed for it. Even then, you'll always see the traces of the original system underneath. Eldritch horrors aren't really meant to be fought, yet the bulk of D&D is built around fighting things. This is fine if you want to do an Eldritch interlude inside of a regular game, where you embrace that you're going to get a blend of traditional D&D alongside the eldritch horror. If you want a "pure" Cthulhu Mythos experience though, CoC is objectively better for the job.

>>53392070

You can't do Lovecraftian Horror in D&D. And here is why. There are so many elements that protect the character. First when you have 30-40 hitpoints it is hard to die. With high hitpoints and bunch of high saving throws it is hard to feel fear.

Just because you can use a system doesn't mean you should.

>>53390423
You're correct of course. D&D doesn't even function in that niche.

>>53392131
But that's not true. Can you try reading a DMG before opening your mouth again?

>>53392179
Actually, sanity is easy to wreck.

>>53392164

I don't care whether or not you have fun. If it's what you enjoy, go for it.

What I am saying, and have been trying to point out, is the significant difference between 'My group and I managed to do it' and 'The system is actually good for it'.

The only thing D&D is good for is heroic fantasy. If you made it work for other stuff, good for you I guess, but there are other options I'd recommend people look at first rather than going through the effort of kludging it. Because D&D is a heroic fantasy game, built to do heroic fantasy.

>>53392202
But it isn't good for heroic fantasy. D&D isn't good for anything.

>>53391580
What the fuck are you talking about? Please link to me where it says that. Just going by the damn levelling milestones you can easily tell a level 1 character is supposed to be barely above a commoner. Paladins don't have a fighting style or oath, wizards have no spells, druids can't even shapeshift, fighters, rogues, rangers... don't get their archetype yet. These are obviously not heroes, they're not even very good or learned in their chosen "profession".

>>53392199

forgot to mention when you have a Call of Cthulhu book that allows you to go from level 1 to level 20 someone clearly missed the point (by a mile) what is the theme of the setting.

>>53391686

SciFi and Fantasy are the same, except in one you can explain away the bullshit with "Magic!" and the other expects you to try and come up with a plausible explanation for the bullshit.

It's all speculative fiction, you autists!

>>53392202
And again, you are the one not getting that you have a toolbox, and you are trying to use all the tools at the same moment and then complain.

>>53392166
Meanwhile, people who aren't fucking stupid could just pick up Shonen Origami Tournament Simulator Plus and have the same game running within a week. You're falling into the sunk cost fallacy. Just because you have years of experience with a system doesn't mean you should use it for everything. I don't care how long you've been swinging a hammer or how experienced you are with using it to do things hammers aren't designed for. If you use a hammer to drive a screw, you're still an idiot.

>>53392177
>>53392179
Not only does Heroes of Horror provide plenty of rules and advice on how to shift the game towards horror, Elder Evils helps provide advice and rules on bringing Eldritch Horrors into your game.

With just those two books, you have all the pieces you need to run a pretty good CoC game, simply by using their variant options and then building appropriate low level characters. You can go ahead and scrap all the "tradtional" D&D trappings, and you're still left with a robust system to run.

And, that's just one of many hundreds of ways you could do it.

>>53392295

But it isn't. It literally isn't. It isn't GURPS.

The system you are talking about only exists in your imagination. You might have ended up using that way, but what you described is not a real thing.

>>53392246
D&D 5E DMG page 36 - 38.
Level 1 - 4: Local Hero
Level 5 -10: Heroes of the Realm
Level 11 - 16: Masters of the Realm
Level 17 - 20: Masters of the World

>>53392246
Right in the DMG for 5e
>Levels 1-4: Local Heroes
>But even 1st level characters are heroes

>>53392194
Why isn't it true?

>>53392297
A day is shorter than a week.

And, there's no guarantee Shonen Origami Tournament Simulator Plus doesn't suck ass.

>>53392312

And it would still be a garbage experience that took more work to do than just using fucking Call of Cthulhu.

Those books are meant for adding horror elements to D&D. And you can do that! Horror flavoured heroic fantasy can be cool. But the core fucking system is heroic fucking fantasy. This is such a fundamental statement of fact I am confused as to why it is so goddamn controversial.

>>53392346
>And it would still be a garbage experience that took more work to do than just using fucking Call of Cthulhu.

I disagree.

>>53392312
>He has to go outside the core rulebook to run CoC
You're proving his point you know. Books that come after the fact to shoehorn in mechanics that weren't present from the beginning and were given no consideration in the initial design p r o b a b l y are going to be garbage, as >>53392346 said.

>>53392340
And a week is shorter than a year. Glad we have that sorted out.

And there's no guarantee that it's awful either. It might even be good. You might even like it. You'll never know because you have your eyes shut, ears plugged, and keep screeching "LALALA CAN"T HEAR YOU LALALA D&D FOREVER LALALA!"

Expand your goddamn horizons.

>>53392297
>If you use a hammer to drive a screw, you're still an idiot.

If you're trying to call something as versatile as an entire tool box just a hammer, you'd be the idiot.

"Stop taking that screwdriver out of that box! You're only allowed to use that tool box like a hammer! Stop it! STOP IT!"

That's you. That's what you sound like.

>>53392391
>And a week is shorter than a year. Glad we have that sorted out.

If I already know the system though, aren't we comparing a week to a only day?

Glad we sorted that out. :)

>>53392179
Of all the arguments against Lovecraft horror in D&D that's the worst.

Make a monster that instakills you, or reduces your ability scores, or infects you, or just let a party of level 1 characters meet an aboleth/purple worm/tarrasque/etc

>>53392251
This is a slightly better argument but it's not that hard to say "ok you can't level past 3 in this campaign".

>>53392414

Except D&D was never intended to be a fucking toolbox.

3.5 might have ended up looking like one, with all the shit they heaped on it, but the system was built with a single, specific thing in mind. This is fact. This is not something you can disagree with because it is fucking true.

>>53392455
Why would a Lovecraft horror game's mechanics focus entirely on combat? Shouldn't it be focused on research, investigation, and chases (where the players are the prey)?

>>53392256

nope.jpg

>>53392455

And the argument that 90% of the mechanics, class abilities and rules in D&D are entirely irrelevant to lovecraftian horror, if not actively opposed to it?

>>53392455

So you have, in fact, missed the point of Lovecraftian horror as well.

>>53392414
You can have the biggest toolbox on the planet, but if all that's in it is a wide variety of hammers then it's not the most versatile toolbox around, is it?

>>53392391
I play more than just D&D, friend. That's why I don't hold it against people when they choose to stick with what they know, regardless of what system they stick to.

It's good to expand your horizons. But, it's also good to run good games, and it's actually really easy to adapt games you are familiar with to a wide variety of genres. Hell, learning new games is actually a good step in the process of adapting the system you like to your needs.

There's no reason to play D&D if you prefer adapting l5r for a medieval fantasy adventure, but it would be good to know D&D for inspiration on how to do so better. It's all just taste in the end.

>>53392566
Glad it's not just filled with hammers.
Are you done making a fool of yourself now?

>>53392570

Or you could just play D&D, because adapting a system to do something it isn't intended to when you've got a perfectly fine system right fucking there is abject idiocy.

>>53392313
>15 of games are only in my imagination
ok buddy whatever
tip: if you fail at something, does not mean necessarily other will.
Others can be, and are, better than you.
I bet not only in /tg/ related stuff.

>>53392448
Not everyone knows the ins and outs of your pet system. And in that case, we're comparing a week to a year.

Glad we sorted that out. ;^)

>>53392589

It's not about success or failure. It never has. It's about the difference between the practical reality and what strange meta-system you've somehow constructed in your head/with the rest of your group.

>>53392589

Being smart enough to know it's not worth bothering is not the same thing as failure. See the above wall/door example.

>>53392478
> but the system was built with a single, specific thing in mind. This is fact.

Then why are there so many rules, variants, and expanded options in the system itself? It almost seems like your "fact" is just a hopeful delusion that someone who hasn't even looked in the DMG has tried to come up, and that's ignoring the multitude of other books.

Can you give up lying already?

>>53392583
Then show me some screwdrivers.

I feel as though this analogy has gotten away from us.

>>53392625
>Then why are there so many rules, variants, and expanded options in the system itself?
Because people, instead of looking for other systems, decided to hack what they wanted into a system that isn't made for it. Duh.

>>53392597
But we're talking about people who know a system and are adapting it.

______:)__________

>>53392608
I always used the rules. You are just bad at this, I am sorry.

>>53392615
I didn't "bother". I had decades of fun with my friends. What about you?

>>53392625

Because all that other bullshit was tacked on after the fact. And even then, the vast vast majority of extra content for the system is still focused on heroic fantasy.

Imagine that I want to play a super hero game using D&D. And that my character moves at mach 3, in which manual are the benefits from movie a mach 3?

>>53392653
>a system that isn't made for it.
Except it is made for it. In fact, most games are incredibly versatile, even those that expressly state they are designed with a single purpose.

Sorry no one is playing whatever game you come to /tg/ to shill for though. I'm glad you're not even hiding that this is all just about system politics.

>>53392674

That's a somewhat bad example because Mutants and Masterminds exists. Although M&M only really got good when it dropped most of its D&D legacy mechanics, and even then it still kinda falls under 'heroic fantasy'.

>>53392679
>Except it is made for it.
It isn't.

>>53392679

'Can be used for it' and 'is made for it' are different things that you continue to confuse.

>>53392656

I'm honestly confused what you're even trying to say at this point

>>53392688
...actually is not an example, more like an actual question, my 3.PF character moves at mach 3 and I want to get some benefit from it beyond go from A to B in less rounds. And according to some people in here DnD has splats for anything but I couldn't find something to help me, so I was asking if someone knew.

File: IMG_2217.jpg (74KB, 900x700px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 900x700px

>>53389919
>117 replies
God, you people are idiots.

>>53392732

Being fair, it seems like >>53389965 was more bait than the OP itself

>>53392656

Imagine how much fun you could have had in those ten years if you weren't playing D&D.

>>53392719
>>53392785
Your level of self-deception is disconcerting.
Also, after YEARS my player, when we take a beer together, tell that time the epic sorcerer launched a super-duper-metamagic Disintegrate, when the clerics fucked the Lizard race with Fimbulwinter, when the Monk deflected like 30 orbs in one round and then vorpaled a dragon, when the Fighter karmic-striked like 300 HP on the right moment on the boss.
WHY ON HEAVEN AN EARTH I should have used another system for these stunts?

>>53392837

Well, given that your example was heroic fantasy, D&D is appropriate in that specific case.

>>53392837

>Monk and Fighter actually being relevant

So yeah, you don't play D&D, you play whatever houseruled/reinterpreted/kludged game you ended up with after starting with D&D. Makes sense.

>>53392837
Anima does that way better, I know because I played D&D and did pretty similar stuff what you're describing and then played Anima and got mindblown what you can do with actually only ONE book.

>>53392664
The core mechanic is just a versatile action resolution system. Even the heroic fantasy stuff can be called "tacked on after that fact", and can just as easily be dropped in order to free up space for all the rest that was "tacked on after that fact."

Hell, the original core of the system was taken from a fucking tank combat game. It was then adapted to medieval warfare, and only as an afterthought was fantasy mixed in.

>>53392931
1d20+modifiers is a terrible resolution system because of how much luck factors into a person's capabilities, rather than their skill.

>>53391462

It's still pretty high fantasy. It's just Castlevania-style 'Go punch the horror monster in the face' fantasy.

>>53390423
EVERY OFFICIAL D&D SETTING IS A VARIANT OF HEROIC FANTASY AAAAAA

>>53392847
>>53392861
>>53392896
I already explained how and why high level melees were relevant. Reread the post, I hate run in circles.

Also, my players will always remember the infinite turns to down a single Imp at low levels, killing kobolds with slings, their first magic sword (shattered by a destrachan), capturing feys with non-lethal means because of a promise to their queen, how scary was a CR 1,25 templated kobold warrior, and how scary can be a storm or a pack of wolves.

And is all in the same game.
You know, my players were noisy, sometimes rowdy, but by God, I am so happy they were not like you.

>>53392993

Literally everything you're describing is still heroic fantasy

>>53392951
what is taking 10

>>53392993

Link the post then? I saw you attempt to do so poorly, but I didn't see any arguments of actual merit.

>>53393010
Something you can't do in combat.

>>53393007
And? Reread my posts. I said I don't care about definitions, only how the game feels. And at 26th level is not as at 4th.
If you were discussing with another anon about what is HF, answer to him, don't try to move the goalpost.

>>53392993
And Anima will still be able to do that and better with a single book, only one book, while DnD needs 6 at least.

The fact that you also aren't constrained by trees of feats to be able to do something like counter attack or to trip an enemy, the fact that anybody can do magic from the first level, if you spend your points on it, nomatter you're a fighter, a paladin or a wizard, and a long etc. In a single book.

>>53393010
Something you can only do if there's no risk at all, so in many situations you can't take 10.

>>53393021
As if being threatened makes thing difficult and uncertain.
Who could have imagined.
Escape your basement, time to time.
>>53393016
here >>53392007

>>53393026

The whole original point was that D&D, as a system, is designed and intended for heroic fantasy, and that while it's possible to kludge it to do other stuff it's not generally the best idea.

If you've been using it to run heroic fantasy and people are enjoying it, that sounds like doing it right to me.

>>53393053

So you didn't actually deal with the point, you dismissed it out of hand rather than acknowledging the fundamental systemic problem that permeates most modern versions of D&D.

>>53393031
Anima is awfully translated to English though.

>>53391682
So by your logic FATAL is as good as D&D, just as well designed.

File: aggro-gatordotcom90882.jpg (77KB, 500x408px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x408px

>>53391869
>Also there is nothing heroic in beating 4 Balors in one days work.

what are you fucking high? that sounds like great fun, especially to regale low level heroes with

>>53393070
But I was not answering to that. I just answered to the OP, saying that I am fine with 3.X.
The person that answered to m was like
>REEEEE IS HF
and I don't care. So again, tell it to others.

>>53392837
You can slam your dick in a sliding glass door to wake up every morning and by god it'll probably get the job done. That does not mean it's a better solution than a cup of coffee.

>>53393090

It just doesn't lend much weight to the arguments that D&D is a super flexible system if the people saying so fundamentally fail to understand it.

>>53392951
I don't know, it seems to make rolling the dice exciting.
You might just be rolling the dice more often than you should be if you find that it's too swingy. If a person has a reasonable chance of succeeding and they're not stressed, you probably shouldn't be rolling.

Of course, you can just raise the modifiers.

All in all, it's simple, straightforward, and the math is super clear and transparent.

>>53393053
You don't need to be threatened, like in combat, if the situation takes a risk or there's something distracting going on, you can't take a 10.

>>53393108
You can use shitty metaphors to try and exaggerate things, but you could also stop making a fool of yourself.

>>53391559
>But not heroic fantasy, and it can be easily reskinned to fit other genres quite well. There's even advice in the DM's guide on how to do so. Proposing it can't do this is just lying through your teeth.
You can also use a beer bottle to hammer nails, doesn't mean it's well-suited for the task.

>>53393111
>>53393108
But I was not answering to that. Is all in your mind. I was answering to people saying that you cannot play at that level >>53391869
or that is inherently broken.
I said is not, and there are ways to play it, if you don't follow the meme and think with your own brain.
Are you people functionally illiterate or something? No surprise your games fall apart.

So I guess no help for a dude moving at mach 3...damn, this happens me for trying to make a dude with a cool quick that wasn't "I cast spells"

>>53393010
This is fucked up logic. So, out of combat, you automatically succeed or fail at any skill "roll," because you either have a large enough modifier or you don't. The bonus represents your training and skill. And yet, that standard isn't applied to a trained and skilled soldier's ability to fight, because apparently training has an almost inconsequential effect on your ability to fight.

>>53393113
Also fucked up logic. The less you roll, the greater the d20's effect becomes. Do you have any idea how probabilities work? The more you roll, the closer to the "average" you get (which a d20 does not have, as it doesn't have a mode). The less you roll, the more pronounced the swingy nature of the d20 becomes, and overall the more impact luck has on your game. You aren't mitigating luck with multiple rolls.

>>53393200
You are* mitigating luck. What an awful typo.

>>53392070
>But, at the same time, saying D&D can't do Lovecraftian Horror is ignoring that there's a fair amount of assets and material specifically designed so that if the DM is interested, they can readily adapt the standard assumptions of a D&D game and instead use it for Lovecraftian Horror.
And fail terribly with approximately 100% probability, because any GM competent enough to actually manage that is also smart enough to realize that they shouldn't do it when systems like Call of Cthulhu exist.

>>53393200
>This is fucked up logic
The irony.
>So, out of combat, you automatically succeed or fail at any skill "roll,"
No, only the ones at your level of competence. If taking 10 gives a 25, you cannot take 10 and pass a DC 30.
>And yet, that standard isn't applied to a trained and skilled soldier's ability to fight,
Like, uhm, a to-hit roll?
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>53393200
>The less you roll ... the more impact luck has on your game.

Ah. An idiot. I guess I should have guessed by this point.

>>53389965
Why exactly can D&D not be used for political intrigue? That's just role-playing. You could argue that the rules for diplomacy and intimidation and stuff are kind of silly in that context, but you can always just ignore them and freeform it. I can't think of a way that political intrigue would be handled by rules better than just freeform role-playing, but then again I AM pretty dumb.

>>53392322
A local hero is probably the guy who won at caber tossing twice in a row.

>>53393293

Mathematically that's true. The more you roll, the more things will tend to averages so the less the severe roll to roll variance imposed by the d20 will actually matter.

>>53393293
I'm sorry you don't understand basic statistics.

>>53393295

Because by that logic the system you're using is entirely irrelevant. Whether you use it for that or not isn't based on any existing trait of the system, so it doesn't really make sense to cite it as an aspect of D&D.

>>53393293
>What are averages
If I roll a d20 1000 times I'm probably going to get an average roll of around 10.5, meaning my successes and failures balance themselves out.
If I roll a d20 only 3 times, it could be balanced results, it could be all failure ( which is seriously unfun if you've ever had it happen to you ), or all successes ( less unfun, but it still gets old quickly )
At small roll amounts the law of averages influences the rolls less, making it "swingy"

>>53393335
True, but can you list RPGs that DO have useful and interesting rules for things like political intrigue in particular? They're probably out there, but I don't know much about RPGs that aren't the big popular ones.

>>53393295
The purpose of rolling in every system is to create a framework where-in competence can be quantified, and to create resolution that isn't just eyeballing something and calling it good.

D&D typically doesn't just lack support for political intrigue, but the power behind the system means that in a lot of cases, actively going against political intrigue becomes the best possible way to resolve it. The array of power available in the game might encourage creative thinking, but that'll be best applied in figuring out how you can just dominate an entire court with magic or get the right set up to cut down everyone.

As a comparison, a narrative system that's more rules light than D&D might support political intrigue better on merit of stronger core system rules. In Fate Core, you could spend an entire session gathering information and buttering up courtsmen, and when you make your power play, it'll all be represented mechanically as proper advantages. If you have to debate, the core system runs social combat in a simple way that you'd have a drawn encounter similar to combat out of it. This is speaking only of a system that operates at the bare minimum for everything, before we touch on any systems that might actually support the style of gameplay.

>>53393372

REIGN, Houses of the Blooded, the aforementioned A Song of Ice and Fire RPG... Those are just off the top of my head, and I'm sure there are more.

>>53393351
That's assuming all rolls have equal impact.

>>53393372
I liked green ronin's song of fire and ice mechanic for intrigued

>>53393247
Fighter John has the skill Foo +10 and a To-Hit bonus of +10. Against a DC 15 Foo "check," he never has to roll. Ever. Against AC 15 he has to roll. Every time. For Foo, it means he is always able to make the DC 15 check. For To-Hit against AC 15, he fails 25% of the time, or one out of four rolls. You see the disconnect here, how those two +10's don't mean the same thing?

>>53393372
Legend of the Wulin, Legend of Five Rings. If we're allowed to include systems that don't have political intrigue rules but run it better than D&D with their core rules, Fate, Shadowrun, Dark Heresy.

>>53393321
>>53393327
>>53393351
Can you stop being stupid?
If you feel the game relies too much on luck, reducing the amount you roll reduces the amount of influence luck has.

Please, for fuck's sake, this is just basic logic.
If you got any dumber, I'd have to call you out on being retarded trolls, because no one else could be that dumb.

>>53393429
>Against a DC 15 Foo "check," he never has to roll
That's not how take 10 rules work, though. You can only take 10 if you're not in a stressful situation(such as combat).

>>53393429
To hit is designed for the combat, and combat is stressful.
You are doing a classic apple to orange comparison.

>>53393462
>I don't understand statistics

>>53391686
What does Sci-Fi mean?

>>53393462
Please, please don't drop out of school.
Don't become a statistic.

>>53393429
But Foo and Hitting are not the same thing.
To take 10 you have to be able to take your time.
Oh right, D&D has shitty rules for the elapse of time.
Read http://theangrygm.com/hacking-time-in-dnd/ if you want ideas on how to solve this problem

>>53393514
I think I get him. You people are right, but you assume that the resolution will necessarily be a roll. In that case, yes, more roll flat out.
But if you have the ALTERNATIVE of not rolling, like the now discussed take 10, rolling less, in comparison, will have less resolutions tied to luck.

>>53393551
>To take 10 you have to be able to take your time.

That's take 20, not take 10. Take 10 is just not being stressed.

>>53393514
>I don't understand roleplaying games.

If out of 10 actions, you determine that 5 are automatic successes and require no rolls because they fall within a certain threshold, congrats, you've reduced the overall impact of luck on those 10 actions.

You fucking moron.

>>53393581
Not stressed and be able to take 10, for example by rules you can't take 10 on attack roll even if its a sparring, or to hit a statue/wall/door, etc

>>53393672
>hurr durr I'm retarded
I was talking about rolling, not automatic successes.

>>53393727
And I was talking about how to reduce the impact of rolling, ie. random chance, by rolling less.

You fucking idiot.

>>53391089
Birthright? Planescape also had a lot of politicking going on. I think the original version of the ASOIAF rpg had rules to convert it to d20 as well.

>>53389919
So you're making a That Player and being the first volunteer then?

>>53391893
3e. There were a few elements of it in 2e, but it didn't really take off until d20 launched. it's worth mentioning that 4e and 5e both stepped away from this. 5e has a bunch of variant rules in the DMG for adding sci-fi or horror elements, or for running either more gritty or more mythic types of fantasy, but it's clearly built to do one thing well and a bunch of other things less well. 4e stuck to it's niche.

>>53391978
2e was lright for intrigue and 5e less so. 3e has awful rules for it, just like everything else, and the other editions don't really have anything for it.

>>53393840
>Planescape also had a lot of politicking going on.
And the most the players really participated in that was whether or not to take a certain job of stab and steal depending on who was giving it.

>>53393976
>4e stuck to it's niche.

And was the least popular, most poorly designed, and died the fastest out of any D&D system.

Really made me think.

>>53392179
Make the players level up slower and cap them at level 5 or 6, throw some real nasties at them once they get to level 4 or above. That'll get around your complaints right there, but not nearly as well as just using CoC. The real problem is that you can't really run away in D&D.

>>53394046

It outsold every previous edition, has the best balanced and tightest mechanics, and is still played to this day.

Fuck, it outsold Pathfinder despite people going on about PF killing it. PF only started beating its numbers when 4e stopped producing new books.

>>53394093
>assravaged 4rry detected

You guys have your containment thread. Go back to shitting on the walls there so we don't have to watch.

File: 1486629982661.jpg (40KB, 749x537px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 749x537px

ITT: Autism

>>53392369
CoC is pretty simple. if you're smart enough to understand all the minutiae of D&D and make it into a horror game, you can understand CoC easily, and you'll probably find it's better at horror (partly because going insane or getting killed in a single shot is very easy and partly because running away is a viable strategy, unlike D&D).

D&D can do specific types of horror surprisingly well (gothic horror is pretty easy to do, for example), but actual horror games will always be better for complete horror campaigns (unless the game itself is shit).

>>53394146

Correcting outright lies is a sign of system bias now?

>>53394093
Why was every lead designer fired, every year of 4th edition run time, then?

>>53393802
You realize it's possible to roll less but not decrease the randomness by not giving out automatic successes? Which is what I was talking about.
Dumbass

>>53394146
>You guys have your containment thread.
As do you, so fuck off.

>>53394198
That sounds more like corporate meddling than 4e fault to me.

File: 1376517126105.jpg (479KB, 900x800px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 900x800px

>>53394093
>4e outsold every edition
>4e outsold Pathfinder
>4e was the best system ever
>That's why literally no one plays it now.

>>53389965
Fuck you.

>>53394198

Because Hasbro set completely unrealistic targets. They wanted 4e to accelerate D&D to the level of a MtG tier earner without realising that no RPG could ever achieve that. They put a lot of money, time and resources into it but were continuously unsatisfied with the results.

It's why 5e is such a budget production in comparison. They have a much smaller team and a lot less resources, as unless something is a huge earner Hasbro really doesn't care about it. They just want something to occupy the brand to make sure they hold onto it for future licensing deals that might make them some real money.

>>53394247

Being fair, it's also true that every edition of D&D has outsold all its predecessors, but that's likely just a sign of the growth of the market more than anything else. Beating Pathfinder is factual and relevant though.

>>53394046
I thought you wanted D&D to stick to heroic fantasy? 4e did that more than any other edition.

>>53394241
>>53394250
>>53394277
I don't see that much data backing this up.
I do wonder if there is some simpler explanation

>>53394043
That was mostly because of the shitty metaplot. OWOD had the same problem at one time.

>>53394198
It should be mentioned there were a lot of issues 4e had that had little to do with the game itself. Two in particular.

First
>>53394250
This. For 3.x, when came time for Wizards to present their total profits to their Overlord Hasbro, they were able to lump the total profits D&D and Magic the Gathering made together. Starting with 4e, Hasbro wanted the two groups done separately, AND expected D&D to make Magic level sales. Which no edition of D&D has ever done, much less any TTRPG.

Second, was the murder/suicide that killed the planned online features, which were supposed to be hugely important to the system. When the lead developer killed himself and his spouse, it basically killed the entire project.

I feel like there was something else that happened, but I can't quite remember.

Anywho, in short, D&D 4e made lots of money compared to past editions(and even it's current competitors), but got fucked over by outside circumstances that had nothing to do with the game itself.

>>53394225
>You realize it's possible to roll less but not decrease the randomness by not giving out automatic successes?

No, I don't realize that.
Because, if you are not dealing out automatic successes/failures for actions, the only way you reduce rolls is by reducing actions, which is so far and away from what we are discussing that you couldn't even be said to be grasping for straws, all that can be said is that you are desperately trying to save face despite knowing how wrong you are.

If you could get any dumber, we'd have to send you into the lab so scientists could study the first creature that succeeded in typing a sentence but completely circumvented developing any basic sense of logic.

You're a fucking miracle of stupidity.

>>53394315
Yeah no. I want heroic fantasy, not stupid superhero everyone is wizard's with epic cool magic spells like I cast melee basic attack.

>>53394374
>the only way you reduce rolls is by reducing actions,
Nope.
Read some /osrg/ to enlighten yourself.
You don't need to roll for everything, even if the game design pressures you into thinking it's necessary.
And before you start yapping about "automatic success", it's not the same thing. There is a difference between "I take 10 on my spot traps roll" and actually roleplaying searching for the trap.

>>53394367
>compared to past editions(and even it's current competitors)
do we have source on this? and if it's true, why wotc did not go on?
If the expectation were low and the management pissed, they would have just ditched DnD.
Instead, we have 5e that is closer to 3rd (but yes, has elements of many edition included 4th).
Sorry but it doesn't add up.

>>53394396

>I want heroic fantasy!
>But martial characters aren't allowed cool things, magic users only!

>>53394448

Just look at the 5e release schedule. It has less books releasing less often than 4e or 3.5 ever had. They're just given a token budget to occupy the license so Hasbro can hold onto it for potential video game or movie deals.

>>53394465
4th is the opposite. Is more, everyone is tuned down.
Which is a perfectly reasonable design goal, just not what many people want.

>>53394480
This is reasonable for the 5th edition, but why make it more like 3rd?
And are we sure 4th outsold PF and 3rd? Do we have the data, barring some initial, muddy statement about the core rules?

>>53394448
>they would have just ditched DnD.

Because the game itself is pretty irrelevant at this point. D&D is still THE TTRPG right now. Everyone knows what Dungeons and Dragons is. That by itself makes it worth keeping a stranglehold on the rights.

>>53394491

I dunno, Martials in 4e are pretty tuned up from previous editions.

It's more of a middle ground. Martials tuned up, Spellcasters tuned down to put them in a similar area.

>>53394367
Got a source on the murder-suicide?

>>53394518

Hasbro don't care about the game itself. They just set the budget.

The limited release schedule and the design traits of the system aren't really connected. The latter is due to the design team including a lot of people who were part of the aggressive, angry response against 4e. Although it wasn't as widespread as you might think, it's just that the people who hated it were really, really loud about doing so.

>>53394518
>but why make it more like 3rd?

Because the lead developer despises 4e, and was the one who spearheaded the whole Essentials thing which was an attempt to bring the 3.x crowd away from Pathfinder. Which ended up being a waste of everyone's time since 3.x players weren't going to play 4e anyways, and the 4e players hated Essentials.

>>53394491
In addition to that though, Wizards got an actual niche to base their design around.

And not a half-assed niche like "Casts magic" which ends up turning into "Can do everything."

>>53394548
Is a matter of taste, but in 4th martial do more or less the same things, just need no specific skill in building the PC, stuff auto-scale (great!) but cannot one-shot enemies bugs excluded (if this is a bug or a feature is up to you).
But their power level is not upped in the slightest, is just less frustrating to make them do, what you expect from them.

>>53394396
That's still heroic fantasy. It's about heroes defeating their enemies through superior strength/heroism. It's just higher power level heroic fantasy. Early editions were more like Swords and Sorcery (lower power level, more morally ambiguous 'heroes', less heroic in general) and all other editions from 2e onwards tried to be versatile for other things. 4e didn't.

>>53394529
>>53394570
Fine, but I still cannot see why, even if they only keep 5th for the IP, they went "back" in its design, and I don't see 4th being so successful back then.
I want to see the data, because anything ELSE points elsewhere.

>>53394631
>But their power level is not upped in the slightest

I'd argue things like Fighters did get their power tuned up, but mostly to the point of "They are now actually capable of doing the thing they've been supposed to be able to do." Ie Defend their squishier allies, instead of just punching people as they run by him once.

>>53394582
>Because the lead developer despises 4e
If you are talking about Mearls, it's a suspicious statement.
I remember lurking in ENworld back then and reading all his bullshit. He looked quit enthusiastic and justified a lot of the wonky 4th mechanics.

>>53394631
>But their power level is not upped in the slightest, is just less frustrating to make them do, what you expect from them.

I dunno, they actually have a role/can manipulate the battlefield. They've definitely expanded in possibilities.

>>53394670
2 main reasons they went back to 3.x style design.

1. The lead developer hates 4e and has a raging hard-on for 3rd edition. Incidentally the worst parts that people hated about 4e can usually be attributed back to him, namely Essentials and the AEDU system. he's also someone who's gone on record as to believing that stupid "Warlords literally shout limbs back together" meme.

2. They took in a lot of fan feedback about a number of design choices. Mainly 3.x fans.

>>53394741

They pretended to take feedback. The Next playtest was a clusterfuck.

There were numerous occasions of poll results mysteriously changing, of the site going down and coming back up with completely different numbers, or the polls simply being ignored.

It's such a shame. The Next playtest had so many good ideas, but they were all bled out of it before 5e came to be. The resulting system isn't Bad, but it could have been so much more.

>>53394766
>They pretended to take feedback.
Also true, I was trying to be optimistic.

The playtest was such a fucking mess. I still miss the martial dice fighter and the playtest Dragon Sorcerer.

>>53394680
>>53394722
You could do that before, in 4th is just less frustrating. But their ability to influence the gameworld is the same (arguably lessened, in 3rd you can one-shot a sensible - plotwise- target with a bit of luck).
Meanwhile, casters and UMD users have been neutered. A paradise for railroading GMs, I geuss.

>>53394701
>I remember lurking in ENworld back then and reading all his bullshit. He looked quit enthusiastic and justified a lot of the wonky 4th mechanics.
Seeing as he was the lead developer, being(or at least faking convincingly) enthusiastic about it was kind of part of his job.

>>53394799

>But their ability to influence the gameworld is the same (arguably lessened, in 3rd you can one-shot a sensible - plotwise- target with a bit of luck).

Not really? The ability for fighters in 3.5 to actually defend allies was kinda crap.

>>53394741
>>53394766
I am sorry people but what I read from the thread is something that look almost like a conspiracy against 4th.
Couldn't be simpler that, you know, just 4th did not have that success you keep repeating it had?

>>53394810
>Seeing as he was the lead developer, being(or at least faking convincingly) enthusiastic about it was kind of part of his job.
Definitely this. Badmouthing or risking bad press when you're in charge of selling a game is really bad for business.

See the Josh Trank thing before Fant4stic released, where he was shit-talking the movie before release and was promptly slapped with a lawsuit by Fox(on top of making it more difficult to get hired by anyone else).

>>53394816
Influence the gameworld goes well beyond that.
You could do that in 3.5, but I will not argue against that because still, in 4th is like, 10000 times easier to do it out of the box, not with obscure feat X and combo Y.
Many did not care and just killed the threat.

>>53394826

Who was talking about a conspiracy?

It was a combination of a few major fuckups (bad monster math on release, shitty marketing campaign), some incredibly bad luck (murder suicide) and corporate meddling.

But the numbers don't lie. 4e did make money, just not enough. If it had been an absolute failure, Hasbro might have shitcanned the whole thing, or gone for an even more bare bones version just to occupy the brand.

>>53394858
>But the numbers don't lie
which numbers? this is my question.
The "conspiracy" was hyperbolic, in the sense that it looks like a lot of complicated explanation for something that can be explained just with "it did not sell well"

>>53394973
I mean..they aren't wrong. It did sell well compared to other editions of D&D, there were just other things that popped up that were fucking it over.

>>53395019
>It did sell well compared to other editions of D&D
again, data pls

>>53389965

>not implicitly a bad thing

Yes it is. If you weren't a fucking shitmonger, you'd know this.

>>53391755

Invoking Rule 0 and changing the rules is bad game design.

>>53394423
None of that has any relevance to what we're talking about. In fact, you're at the point where you are just so stupid, you're agreeing with me and then just coming up with some random shit no one cares about at the moment just to keep trying to save face.

>You don't need to roll for everything,

That's the advice I gave earlier. Now, shut up.

>>53395106
Using variant options present in the rules and not using every single rule simultaneously isn't rule 0.

>>53393391

I keep trying to find a Houses of the Blooded game.

>>53395152
You are arguing with more than one person.
I only called you out for being retarded and saying "less rolls is less random"

>>53395180

Except those variants weren't present when Pathfinder was broken from the start. I mean, at this point, yes, you can use enough alternate rules to make it not be a fucking shitshow.

But at the time of release, Pathfinder was broken af and there were no "official" rule-fixes yet.

>>53395286
But NOW there is a fix. You talked about rule 0 and you were wrong. You are moving the goalpost.

>>53395286
>I mean, at this point, yes, you can use enough alternate rules to make it not be a fucking shitshow.
No you fucking can't. Unless by variant rules you actually mean "throw out half the paizo content and replace with 3pp"

>>53393031
Anima still has best paladins and martial artists.

>So you want to play a talky fighter who can sometimes unsummon stuff... Or an intimidating talky fighter-dominator?

>>53395204
Less rolls is less random, you fucking idiot.

>>53395786
Less rolls is more random.
Less rolls is less random *when you have means of resolving actions beyond rolls* is what you mean dumbass. They are not the same thing.

>>53395783
>>So you want to play a talky fighter who can sometimes unsummon stuff... Or an intimidating talky fighter-dominator?
is this supposed to make me curious about the game?

>>53395837
>Less rolls is more random.

I can't believe you're honestly this stupid.
>when you have means of resolving actions beyond rolls

What did you think we were talking about? Craps? Yahtzee?

>>53396305
The average roll on 2d6 is 7 over an arbitrarily large sample size. I just rolled 2d6 now and got 10. 10 is nowhere near the average. That's why less rolls are more random.

>>53396426
You're not tracking the average when you measure randomness, idiot.

>>53396426
I rolled a 7, as I had a high chance to do so. What does that do to your argument?

Look. Here's the basic thing you need to understand. More rolls and less rolls are statistically identical. It's human error to assume that if you roll a die 20 times, you'll see a perfect range of 1-20 and an exact average of 10.5. If you roll only once and get a 20, or you roll once and get a 1, that's irrelevant to this discussion, just as irrelevant as it is if you rolled a 10 or 11, because you're discussing hypotheticals of no significance.

What matters is that if the question is how often you succeed (or fail, but let's focus on success for now) is determined less often by how you roll, then you are removing a degree of randomness from the equation. This is basic.

Yes, leaving a campaign because you don't care for the choice of system is an entirely legitimate course of action. Who the fuck takes offense at this notion?

>>53396791
Mostly angry 4rries that are all anally devastated that people like things they don't.

Their autism causing edition fights in threads the second anyone even implies pathfinder ous involved somehow.

>>53397159
I am still waiting for reliable data about 4th outselling other gams.

>>53390716
You don't need game systems for politics or drama.

Saying a particular thing to a particular person should make sense. You don't need to roll dice to rollplay.

You need rules in combat, but not talking.

>>53392861
madcuzbad?

>>53397763

Then why is Charisma a stat, and Diplomacy a skill?

>>53397798
Not him but my guess would be when you're opposed while "talking".

For example you and an "opponent" are both trying to intimidate a goblin to do your bidding. The Goblin has to decide who's worse, and you both make opposing Intimidate checks or something.

Or you're trying to barter something from the magic sword guy, your opponent wants that sword too though. You make opposed offers with a diplomacy check, etc

>>53397798
Because that way it is not solely up to the DM wether you were convincing enough. Personally I run it as if you can make a good argument no roll needed, if it's kinda meh or the guy already doesn't like you then there's a roll but still rping out the conversation can help with that roll.

>>53397763
>>53397876

I'm never sure why people assume it has different rules to anything else.

You fluff what you're doing, and you roll the check. Good fluff- Like proper RP- gets a bonus. But I'm not going to let you automatically succeed at a complex negotiation if you have no social stats whatsoever.

Something a prior GM of mine said, which I agree with, is that a players stats and skills should act as a lens through which you interpret their actions.

Someone can give the most amazing speech possible, but if they don't have the stats to back it up, then there's no guarantee the character nailed it as well as the player did. Conversely, even if a guy is having trouble, as long as he makes an effort and you understand what he's trying to accomplish and the general method, appropriate stats should oblige you to give him the benefit of the doubt.

>>53391378
Having joined without a premise and then leaving once the whole thing is told instead of not even joining the game before hearing what system it uses, what the premise is and who are your coplayers?

>>53397982
Sounds more rollplay than roleplay to me, "proper RP" is too subjective.

>>53396791
The same people that tilt over someone calling their sacred calf flawed.

>>53390423
D&D only supports highly unrealistic heroic fantasy. It's shit for everything else, especially once ballistics get involved.

GURPs is the only RPG that covers everything.

>>53402397

FATE covers as much as GURPS does.

>>53402511
GURPS can cover Fate decently well (Wildcard Skills/Powers, Wildcard/Impulse Points), while Fate can't cover GURPS. GURPS, of course, loses out when you flex Fate's muscles in terms of what does it better, or simply easier.

>>53402397
>>53402614
See now, this is the problem. GURPS can do everything, but if you have a niche need, there is almost assuredly already a system that does it the way that you want it better than how GURPS can do it.

>>53403285
I keep seeing this meme. What do you even mean by niche? How broad or narrow can a niche be? Is dungeoncrawling a small enough niche? GURPS does that better than any D&D or OSR game. Cyberpunk is in the same boat, because everyone knows Shadowrun and Cyberpunk 2020 are awful messes. It blows the pants off of games like TRoS/SoS that are about dueling. Don't even try to meme about military games, because GURPS excels with anything related to guns. Anything. Action movies like the A-Team? GURPS has an entire product line covering exactly that, and it has some of the best chase rules I've ever seen. Post-apocalypse? Again, GURPS corners the market.

There are systems out there that do their niche better than GURPS, and there are systems that offer alternate styles of play easier than how GURPS does it, but it is by no means a rule.

>>53402397

And yet GURPS remains very niche with a tiny market.

>>53394169
I agree with >>53392369 because getting a D&Dfinder to play anything else no matter how simple was almost one of Hercules tasks, but he would have failed

>>53389919
Seriously, don't you faggots have better things to do? Pathfinder does what it does, people like it, it's one of the most popular systems get over it, if you don't like it don't play it.

>>53391686
educate us then