Why does /tg/ think D&D (any edition) is bad? Can someone

>>53608804
Because people don't like the idea that people can find a game they don't like fun.

That's really about it. There are worse systems, more bloated systems, and certainly more difficult systems to learn and play, but it's the one that has been around the longest and therefore everyone is familiar with it's flaws and shortcomings, whereas the other games get zero talk time on /tg/.

When was the last time you saw a Rolemaster thread? It's worse than D&D in every single way, right up to and including caster supremacy, and yet you don't hear a single complaint about it because no one is playing it since it's a long dead system.

There were no less than 3 threads that were some variation of this in the last 24 hours. Some of them are even up right now.

Go read those. If you didn't get a satisfactory answer, ask /pfg/ (/pgg/ now maybe?).

Stop making bait threads FFS.

>>53608804
For 3.5 and 5e: The system's rules work against the game's premise.
For 4e: The system's presentation is not the same as 3.5's.

>>53609218
>The system's rules work against the game's premise.
How? Is the premise not "cool medieval fantasy adventures"? I don't see how the system would work too against that.

3e's rules don't work, levels are meaningless and there's trap options everywhere.
4e is GNS garbage.
5e is GNS too but not quite as garbage. Still GNS influenced though.

>>53610077

>4e is GNS garbage.

What?

>>53608804
>Can someone explain it to me in a objective manner?
>objective

No.

>>53610112
Why do you think 4e was so different, and played like it did? Because it was heavily influenced by GNS Theory (later known as The Big Model once it was "completed"), which is a really cancerous view of 'assessing' and "constructing" RPGs.

>>53608804
>d&d is created and get famous
>its the first rpg so (since its famous) you have all those extreme amount of rpg players with different point of view of how a rpg should be, playing the exact same rpg
>after some amount of time playing some players discover some stuff they think are flaws, while discover some rules they think are really awesome
>because they have very different views on what a rpg should be (despise playing the exact same rpg), what some guy think is a good idea wont be considered a good idea by the other player, what some consider a shitty idea will be considered a good idea by other rpg
>new system is made based at this enviroment, and create a mess of a rpg system.
>many of those players quickly jump into the new system, expecting fixed to what they think are flaws
>because the players have very different opinions on what rpg should be (despise playing the same exact system), what is a flaw to some is a fix to another, and what is a fix to another is a flaw to someone. So the system CAN'T be fixed.
>all those extreme amount of players quickly jumping to this new system, bring new (to rpg) players to the new d&d system
>this make the game have an extreme amount of rpg players with different point of view of how a rpg should be, playing the exact same rpg
>because they have very different views on what a rpg should be (despise playing the exact same rpg), what some guy think is a good idea wont be considered a good idea by the other player, what some consider a shitty idea will be considered a good idea by other rpg
>new system is made based at this enviroment, and create a mess of a rpg system. No one knows what the system/d&d is suposed to be, because it was created based on a mess.
>the story continue ad infinitum

>>53610238
I think that misses some of the things about how D&D is full of holy cows and certain assumptions that just don't seem to make sense, they just are, and they're kept because that's the way things are.

>>53610238
>what is a flaw to some is a fix to another, and what is a fix to another is a flaw to someone. So the system CAN'T be fixed.

Oh, if only RPGs had the ability to adapt to different groups through optional rules, new material, variants, restrictions, and even houserules.

1/10, for getting me to reply.

>>53610310
>they just are, and they're kept because that's the way things are
Except when they're not and everyone loses their shit.

>>53610191

Then why did 4e play well?

Most people state opinions as facts. Then dumb people get all assmad over that.
In my opinion, dnd focuses too much on stats, numbers, and it bloats the game.
I like light rules to give the role play and character development the place they deserve.

>>53610594
Is this alternate history a part of the alternate reality 4rries live in?

>>53610987

4e did play well, eventually. After the MM3 math fixes (Although RAW still had a better combat dynamic than most iterations of D&D) it's possibly the best tactical combat RPG in existence.

You might not enjoy that style of play, but you not enjoying it doesn't mean it doesn't work.

>>53608804

You already know why. The only reason you're making this thread is to a) troll or b) try to dismiss criticism and act like D&D is perfect.

No system is perfect. Part of appreciating a system is being aware of its flaws and knowing how to work around them to run the best possible experience.

File: li-zi-8.jpg (1MB, 1920x2400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x2400px

>>53608804
Because 3.5. That's all.

AD&D is a system with flaws, but they didn't break the game too much. 5.0 is a huge step in the good direction. 4.0 is not a D&D, but is a decent game in its own right, though a little too video gamey from my own experience. Good if you want to play WoW on tabletop, though.

As to why 3.5 is bad:
>Overcomplicated.
>Full of trap options.
>Really easy to make a broken build, easier to make a useless build.
>Caster supremacy.
>Skill checks are broken.
>Hermetic, esoteric, full of very complex subtleties.
>Feat and spell bloat.
>Crafting is broken.
>Generic. Break if you try to not do generic stuff.

3.5 is an overbloated game who fail to do even the most basic stuff. It has a huge fanbase, but this is mostly for historic reasons.

Strangely, the hermetism of the system is an important explanation as to why people are so attached to it (I was too, years ago): when you need 2 years to understand and assimilate a system, it leaves a trace on you. Many people don't want to admit that their hard earned understanding of d20 is all for nothing. They want bang for their bucks, so to speak.

>>53611121

Literally nothing about 4e is 'videogamey', and I am always confused when people repeat this strange meme.

>>53611121
None of that is objective. You've failed, and you tried really hard.

>>53608804
>b8

>>53611030
>b) try to dismiss criticism and act like D&D is perfect.

I think you mean "To say 'fuck you' to trolls."

Because only trolls like yourself ever claim anyone calls any game perfect. The truth is just that everyone is tired of your relentless bitching about a game you don't like that's nowhere near as bad as you pretend it is.

Everyone knows it's not perfect. But, everyone also knows it's not the worst game ever, or even close to it.

>>53611245
Of course it's not the worst, FATALexists.

But if everyone (in your own opinion) agrees it's a mediocre system, why the fuck make a thread about it? Are you this much of an insecure bitch?

>>53611245

But you are calling it perfect. Or at the very least, making it impossible to discuss criticism, because no matter what anyone says, you'll call them a troll.

>>53611182
It's not an objective question in the first place.

>>53608804
>Think
>Objectively

wew

>>53608846
>thread was solved in the first post
>people are still shitposting
Someday Friend Computer will give us objectively correct opinions and we can end this farce

>>53611182
It's only experience speaking. I have played D&D for fifteen years now. I know the stuff. I know, from personal and repeated experience, that if I don't help and very closely attend to my players, they will create builds that break the game, without even trying. Either that or two or three PCs will sit, absolutely useless, forever.

The amount of delusion 3.5 lovers have is off chart. Yes, caster supremacy is an issue. Play the damn game. Play it, and see for yourself. Yes, it is overcomplicated and esoteric to the absurd. Try to explain it to a newcomer, and see what happens.

If you don't want to play the game, just watch Critical Role. The DM here is trying its best (though he lacks intimate knowledge of 3.5 pitfalls), but the game is still breaking constantly. It's almost funny, in a way.

>>53611141

Same. The video game thing always sounds stupid because when you are talking about a thing and you attribute some quality to it, you have to make sure that thing actually has that quality in any way, or whatever you say is going to be incomprehensible.

You might as well say that 4e has a low top speed for a v8 engine, or that it tastes overcooked, or that it doesn't have enough coke. These comments are all nonsense because 4e doesn't have an engine, it's not a pot roast, and it's not a cocktail.

It's obviously an attempt at some kind of a metaphor, but the reason it fails as a metaphor is because metaphors mean something. You might well retort to it by saying "3e and pathfinder are too hitlery" and then just change what that means every time somebody tries to refute it.

>>53608804
What edition is important, though, because while they're not COMPLETELY different games, the changes in rules and concepts can make or break the idea of the edition being good or bad.

>>53608804
> It's had a lot of the same flaws carry over most editions, and Wizards seems incapable or unwilling to address them; they're utterly detached from the fans.
> Lots of stuff in it makes literally no sense, "but that's the way it's always been in D&D."
> Basic/AD&D encounter mechanics are intrinsically repetitive, and rely on a creative; flexible DM to make it fun.
> 3rd Tried to fix this by adding a million options nobody wanted.
> 4E tried to fix this by adding a million options nobody wanted.
> 5E Just went back to the same old issues, because "apparently people want simple."
> 3.5 and 5E are probably the best of modern D&D, but they're still like 6-7/10 at best.

In a word: Bloat.

>>53611272
Why are trolls like yourself only capable of working in hyperbole?

>>53611314
Then why did he try.

File: 1340433133397.jpg (103KB, 384x313px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 384x313px

>>53611462
Fuck man, I don't know.

>>53611182
>Caster supremacy not objective
>The skill system sucking not objective
>Crafting being broken not objective

1/10, got me to reply. Math is the most objective thing there is, and the numbers are very, very easy to run on those things right there.

>>53611488
Don't even try, he'll answer with them being problems is your subjective opinion.

Observe:
>magic is supposed to be powerful
>skill math is perfectly okay, specialists should have 100% chance to succeed, and those who never tried before have 0
>crafting is supposed to be broken because you won't have time to do it anyway.

>>53610077
GNS?

>>53611538
Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist.

A game design theory thing that tries to look at mechanics through the lens of those three things.

It's been misunderstood, misused and rebuilt a bunch of times though, to the point where you can't be really sure the person using it is using it for the same thing you are using/understanding it.

For example >>53610077 is either misusing it, or is a fucking idiot.

>>53611141
Not that guy but
>stricter requirement to hold to and specialize in one of the tank, striker, healer, control roles
>healing surges
>"encounter" as a arbitrary measurement for cool downs
>Action points
>Combat magic and marshal abilities streamlined to function in such a similar way that swapping in/out key words can make a set of both
>Everything to do with DnD essentials pre-builds
Its basically a complaint that 4e while much more balanced then its 3.5e predecessor the abilities done by the various classes feel samey. Especially if they are doing the same raiding role. Like magic no longer feels special now that it follows the same exact ruleset as a rouge spinning around with his daggers really really fast.

>>53611741
>stricter requirement to hold to and specialize in one of the tank, striker, healer, control roles
Strict class roles have been a thing ever since early D&D. 3rd edition just briefly broke free from it.

>>53611751

3e was designed with strict roles in mind, they just fucked it up by only playtesting with blaster wizards and giving clerics a ridiculous number of features because nobody wanted to play a healbot.

>>53611741

How are healing surges videogamey?

What relation does a narrative limiter like 'encounter' have with videogames and their direct, time based limitations?

How the fuck are action points, found in dozens of different systems, videogamey?

Essentials is garbage, sure, but to get to your main point-

The only thing about abilities that is 'samey' is the presentation and the structure. That is literally it. In terms of how they actually function in practice, the 4e equivalents will be more different than the alternatives. All the system does is present you those options in a way that's easier to understand.

>>53611488
>Math is the most objective thing there is

Too bad we're not dealing purely with Math, kiddo.
You can even go far as to say there's no caster supremacy purely by saying Wizards have really shitty style and are not fun to play because magic is icky.

Whether you agree or not is largely irrelevant, because the point is simply that we're discussing something subjective, not objective, regardless of the presence or absence of math.

>>53611812

But at that point you completely destroy the ability to compare and discuss systems, rendering it all meaningless. Also, y'know, being a condescending cunt.

I'd prefer to make some basic assumptions that allow discussion, as opposed to opinions flailing at one another all day every day.

>>53611380
>or that it doesn't have enough coke.

I think we can safely say 5e doesn't have enough coke. The development budget is tiny.

>>53611832
Not at all. I was just demonstrating how retarded you are for trying to include the word "objective" in your subjective argument, you tosser.

>>53611832
>rendering it all meaningless.

I hate to break it to you, but your incessant and one-sided bitching is far more meaningless than any actual fair evaluation of a game.

>>53608804
But anon, I like DnD 3e and 5e, what are you talking about?

>>53611855

But mathematical arguments really can be objective.

If a system says 'A and B can both achieve C, in different but equal ways', mathematically proving that A always has an advantage over B in the pursuit of C is an objective, mathematical flaw in the system.

>>53611335
Which definition of objectively do you mean? The normal one or the 4chan one where it means Subjectively, but the poster will argue autistically about how they're right?

Because honestly, I dread the day where we need to out-source our robotic, angry argumentative statements to computers instead of the average poster.

>>53611751
>>53611788
Don't bother.

The chance of convincing someone online is next to nil.

Hell, the chance of convincing someone IRL is next to nil, after they made up their mind about something that relates to their identity, such as which system he plays.

Some people just need their mechanics obfuscated to make the game world feel more "real". Accept it and move on.

>>53611741
I'm curious, what exactly do you think a healing surge is?

>>53611741
The classes feel samey in the Magic to Martial department, but between Magics they feel much more varied, I'd reckon. A Wizard's spell list doesn't match a Sorcerer's, and a Paladin's spell list is far different from a Shaman's.

>>53611908
You're kind of stupid, which isn't even cute anymore.
It's still subjective, because there's no mathematical formula so perfect as to account for even a fraction of the infinite possibilities that would render the "objective" argument subjective.

Some things are more objective than others, but at the same time, when discussing something as clearly subjective as "Tastes in Roleplaying Games", even trying to claim objectivity is basically just low-tier trolling.

>>53611876
Same. I really like playing 5e, though the Beastmaster Ranger is a joke and crafting might as well not even exist. Even if you're especially assmad about those you can check out the Unearthed Arcana for revised Ranger and Forge domain clerics. They do a little to alleviate these issues with optional rules.

And frankly, I don't think caster supremacy is actually that bad this edition. I've played with some guys who made really fucking broken martial characters who easily outpaced my caster character's damage output. 5e Barbarians and Fighters pretty much cause monsters to explode into a pink mist when they happen to glance in the monster's general direction.

>>53612277
Damage output had never been a problem.

3.5 has martial builds doing damage in the millions. Even builds that are merely optimized and not minmaxed to hell can break the "thousands" barrier.

The problem people tend to have is the lack of options, which stay constant.

You don't get a title with land and castle and followers anymore, as a fighter. You'll be jumping about 6 feet more at level 20 than you jumped at level 1.

Meanwhile the wizard goes from "can spiderclimb sometimes, and you have a familiar" to flight and simulacra.

>>53612277
You don't understand what caster supremacy is. Martials have always been good at damage output, the problem is wizards are playing a different game where damage output is irrelevant. They're playing a game where they can casually break the laws of reality and banish people to pocket dimensions and teleport themselves leagues and create bridges of force and talk to squirrels and poof five course meals out of thin air in the desert, the rigors fo which they can't feel because they have an automatic comfort cantrip they can cast indefinitely. Martials are just hitting things really hard.

>>53612084

Nope. It's objective. The system lying to you is never, ever a good thing. Mathematical proof that it is is always a negative mark.

>>53612389
>>53612544
Oh, okay. That makes more sense. I'm actually pretty okay with that being the way things are. I rarely get to the levels where wizards get to do crazy godlike shit anyway, and if NPCs with thst type of power are rare it can make for some interesting interactions.

>>53612585
>The system lying to you

Your subjective interpretation of what the game is saying, and your subjective interpretation of whether or not it is lying, are far and away from objective.

Please, stop being stupid already, and fucking learn what "objective" means before you open your mouth again.

>>53612633
Yeah, D&D is usually ok at low levels (once you leave rusty dagger shanktown) and then starts shitting itself at higher levels.

To be fair, I still find the utility of some wizard stuff pretty damn ridiculous at low levels, like familiars (especially considering the non-existent cost to having them).

>>53612636

Nope. This is about literal objectivity.

In many cases I'd agree with you, but there are things that are objective. If a system directly states that something is true, and it is mathematically provable that it is untrue, that is an objective flaw that you cannot handwave away, and this can and does exist.

>>53612670
Well in 5e there is actually a cost to havig a familiar, and their utility is severely reduced compared to previous editions. I mean the cost is 10gp so it quickly becomes basically free, but still. They're not even a default wizard thing anymore, they're a thing you can summon indefinitely until killed if you know the Find Familiar spell.

>>53612789
In 3.PF there are downsides to a familiar getting killed. In 5e there aren't any, except losing out on 10 GP.

Also, as a ritual, they are basically a class feature for the wizard anyway.

Yeah, they can't do a bunch of shit they could in previous editions, but it's still a small, unassuming (often flying) scout you can use the senses of and has absolute loyalty to you.

Oh, and can also fuck off to a pocket dimension if things turn hot.

>>53610457
>Oh, if only RPGs had the ability to adapt to different groups through optional rules, new material, variants, restrictions, and even houserules.

People within the same group will have different opinions of how a rpg should be and will play the same thing despise wanting different things

>>53608804
It is one thing to create a fantastical system with fantasy races and magic, but D&D weapons damage and physical effects are disconnected from physics, physiology and pathophysiology.

Having hit points shifts the objective of the player character optimisation to obtaining high DPS rather than versatility, which will in turn piss off the portion of the player base that does not want to optimize.

It doesn't make D&D a particular bad system though.

All editions are bad except for 4e and you better not say otherwise, or you'll summon the 4EIDF who will go to extreme lengths to inform you that their game is objectively the best edition of D&D ever and that 5e is totally not more successful despite reversing half of the changes that 4e made to the formula.

>>53609300
Then you have much to learn.

>>53613345

Well, this is a bizarre and novel kind of false flagging, especially since I've never seen it actually happen for real.

>>53611335
>muh fpbp
No.

>>53613408
Oh shit, here's one of them now.

Hi there! 4e sure is a great game, huh? I sure do love that soulless turn-based tactical combat g-- I mean, intricate, lovingly made roleplaying game bursting with heart and soul!

>>53613465

What are you trying to do at this point? It's rather confusing.

>>53613524
Just letting you know that we all sure do love 4e, the totally best roleplaying game ever, neighbor! You can move along now, no one talking shit about your objectively best roleplaying game here!

>>53613544

You are a very strange person

>>53613556
No, I just totally love 4e, just like you, 4e friend! 4e sure is great, huh? Let's go talk about it over at /4eg/ instead of here!

>>53613566

As someone who has never played 4e or 5e I think you're kind of retarded.

>>53613582
Oh, in that case, don't sweat it. Just remember to say that 4e is the best edition at all times.

File: bestDnD.jpg (69KB, 734x667px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 734x667px

>>53608804
>D&D (any edition)
No one on /tg/ really shit-talks editions made by TSR except when arguing which one of those was the best. Even then, there doesn't seem to be as much malice as arguing over Wizards editions.

The best edition was AD&D2e, and you can't prove me wrong because this is my opinion.Consensus on /tg/ is that either B/X or BECMI are the best

>>53613680
2e is my jam. Also has a lot of great adventures and settings, and isn't exactly difficult to pick up unless you use Skills & Powers (a mistake), or any of the 2.5 e crap, honestly.

>>53613680
4e is my favorite, but BECMI, B/X and old editions in general are pretty good. The only reason I would not recommend them is because OSR stuff exists now (and even then, you can use them for inspiration).

>>53613680
No one shit-talks them that much because there's almost no one that actually still plays them. They're so awkward and archaic that they're only really good for showing how far we've come.

>Consensus on /tg/ is that either B/X or BECMI are the best

The ten people in the OSR are hardly "/tg/".

>>53608804
I has some odd sacred cows that are carried over from it's wargame origins. They come off as odd since most of the system has tried to modernise.

But it's biggest problem is that it's the most popular game. Very often when talking about fantasy rpgs most people will assume the it's D&D being talked about. Most groups you'll find out there are D&D groups. It's impossible to avoid.
So it's a popular game with some odd rules which are assumed by many to be the default by many. This twists the panties of a lot of players who like other games or have interest in game rules.

None of this is helped by the fact that so many people try to force D&D to work for styles of play it wasn't meant for. This leads to a crazy variety of games of wildly varying quality. There is just so many bad experiences out there it's sometimes hard to remember the fun.

I don't think there is anything objectively wrong with D&D but for the style of play that's been popular for years it's an odd game to be the default.

As games, pre-3E D&D and 4e are mostly fine as long as the edition you choose is suitable to the kind of game that you're trying to play. I mean, they do have some old-school design encumbrances and you should probably consider OSR versions of the ones before 3rd and stuff like that. But they're fine.

3rd edition and the editions descended from it are not good games because on the most fundamental level they don't actually know what kind of game they're trying to be, and so they make a bunch of bizarre decisions trying to combine a bunch of different things in a way that hurts the overall effectiveness of the game. They were sort of trapped in between being a combat game, being a game of resource expenditure and dungeon-crawling, and being a universal role-playing system. And so it completely fails at being a universal role-playing system while also sabotaging its ability to do the other things. Also they made a bunch of decisions about how to modernize the game that turned out to be just like totally incorrect. So for any game that you want to play, there's often going to be a better system for it. Which gets to the other problem with D&D - people have this instinctive desire to play any kind of game using D&D as the system, which is just massively retarded and leads to very unsatisfactory results.

Also, feats are terrible design and they make me really angry.

>>53613680
>Consensus on /tg/ is that either B/X or BECMI are the best

I've never seen this. And the OSR general is more fixated on stupid shit like LotFP and other arguably non-OSR games.

I like AD&D's broader class selection myself, but I do play B/X clones pretty exclusively.

>>53613345
5e is better marketed

>>53608804
Is 3d20 the best way to play?

3d6 was good until you realize there is almost no point in rolling as you start guessing when you will succeed or not.

1d100 is too volatile just like 1d20.

Is 3d20 the future we were waiting for?

>>53613345
Every single edition was more successful than the previous.

5e: boring sluggish "I deal 2d12 damage, he still has 250 HP left" type of combat. Encourages stats and min-maxery over any semblance of roleplaying. Some classes are straight up better than others.

>>53613980
Go home DSA, you're drunk.

>>53613986

Being fair, this is likely more due to the increase in the total market than any real proof of quality of any edition over another, and since 3.5 they have been losing market share, but again that's likely due to the market growing and reaching out to different tastes. D&D is still the top dog, but the general audience for other games seems to be growing faster than the core D&D audience.

>>53613995
>Encourages stats and min-maxery over any semblance of roleplaying.

In all seriousness - which edition is this not true of

>>53613865
Honestly, almost every RPG has an odd rule or two. But you are right about popularity being the main problem. Because it is so popular, every flaw in D&D gets relentlessly analyzed and dissected.

>>53614015
Yeah, sure, I'm not trying to imply that they were each better than the previous, only that it is a trend that probably isn't linked to quality.

>>53614021
Every edition pre-3e?

>>53614021
Original Basic D&D rules.
The first print of the rulebook was basically a guide for role-playing and said "if you want combat simulation, use our other product called Chainmail"

Eventually, TSR just printed those rules in the rulebook every print run after that.

>>53614015
>D&D is still the top dog, but the general audience for other games seems to be growing faster than the core D&D audience.

Actually, 5e D&D is very likely to reach a full 51% majority of all role players in a few months, and is by far the fastest growing RPG in history. There was a brief respite from complete and total D&D dominance during the 4e era, but with 5e, it's getting very close to the tipping point where D&D just completely dominates all over again.

>>53614021
First and second.

>>53614095
Excuse me, I just came back from a 2e D&D tournament. Did you just say something?

>>53614095
They encourage that shit just as hard, especially AD&D.

Complete book of elves anyone? Everyone rolling Clerics with kits for convention play? Fuck, even Monty Haul as a thing originates from AD&D.

>>53614141

The dip wasn't in the 4e era, though. D&D only stopped being comprehensively dominant when 4e stopped printing books, and there was a long lull where there weren't actively supported D&D products on the shelves, which let Paizo fill the gap. 51% is still pretty low for D&D, historically speaking.

>>53613986
Success isn't that easy to measure IMO.

On the one hand, 3.5 was so popular that in a way it became what some people think of when they think of D&D, or even tabletop gaming in general. On the other hand, it fractured into another game that will be competing with every edition they put out going forward.

>>53613383
No, my little sweetie... YOU have much to learn. Every feature of 5e reinforces it's premise.

>>53614198
"Commercially successful" was the phrasing Mearls used I think.

I agree with you, but it's a metric that has the benefit of being measurable.

>>53614095
>>53614160
What specific features do those editions have that encourage roleplaying

>>53614254

None. It's part of the fallacy that less rules = better roleplaying.

ITT: Opinions are facts and every system has to satisfy my arbitrary taste or else it is objectively bad with no relation to my own personal preferences

>>53614272
but surely we can like. say what our preferences are, and then look at how the various editions align with those preferences.

>>53614263
Yeah it's the 'rulings not rules' nonsense. Which when you break it down actively goes against roleplaying because players can't actually make coherent decisions about their characters because anything they do will be arbitrarily ruled in the moment with no consistency.

>>53614298

Yep. I like rules light games, but there's a difference between a game that uses a few minimal rules to achieve a lot and badly designed games that just rely on 'Mother may I?' with the GM.

>>53614298
You can just... keep consistency in your rulings. Probably some guideline to follow would help, admittedly.

>>53614368
But isn't that just... adding more rules?

>>53613980
>Why does /tg/ think D&D (any edition) is bad?
Its not bad, just all editions after the first released edition core books.
The reason is that no one care about talking about this edition, and other assume they are saying all editions sucks

>>53614390
I guess?

You just need to strike an equilibrium where you use the least amount of rules you need to allow you to extrapolate for whatever rulings need to be made.

Theoretically, adding any more rules beyond that just muddles the waters.

Too many scared cows. The mechanics once made sense in context, but now they are just holdovers from the 70's there for no reason by preserving D&D's identity. There are simply better choices for RPGs available.

>>53613383
Then teach me?

>>53614368
This would mean writing down whatever ruling you make as a house rules everytime you do it. Which means you've got a system full of rules...

>>53614593
The assumption is that you would not need it too often.

>>53611121
>overcomplicated
Literally nothing about the game is overcomplicated. Even grappling isn't that complicated, 5e made it overpowered if anything. No you cannot just grapple someone wielding a sword that easily, but because of "muh cool buildz" they made grappling uberpowerful.

>Hermetic, esoteric, full of very complex subtleties.

What is wrong with that?

>Feat and spell bloat.

"Wah wah wah the game has too much content, better go play 5e where I have no fucking character choices"

Yeah kill yourself.

>>53611432
>content==bloat
>nobody wants options because I don't
>I am a boring fuck

This is all that I got from your post. Sorry. Try telling us what game you like and maybe we can help you.

>>53614610

A catch-all rule that encompasses every possible human or non-human interaction is much easier said than done.
The more freedom players have to act in various ways, and the closer the rules of the game are supposed to be to emulating physics, psychology, sociology, economics, biology, etc. the more exceptions and special cases you're going to end up with,

>>53608804
Old D&D - The actual rules in the book are hot garbage, but everyone is playing by house rules. The actual rules are only used as a lingua franca for moving content between house rules. This barely matters because the actual fun of the game has more to do with a shared cultural understanding of how to play than the actual book.

AD&D - Everything has been codified but in different ways, and it sprawls across dozens of books. Even playing by the book is essentially house rules because you're doing the GURPS-esque "first choose what rules you're using" thing, except it won't admit it.

3.0 / 3.5 - AD&D has been hammered into a uniform system. This actually includes a shockingly large number of rules (try advancing a monster). It's not clear what these rules are supposed to actually accomplish because the game has no sense of balance at all. But the rules allow so many niche combinations of things that we can have content bloat, which turns out to be popular and sell books.

4E - Well-designed, relatively simple rules actually allow combat balance and interesting tactics and everything should finally be okay. However they design it so character classes require an unprecedented amount of content bloat, making reading a character design a slog. They also critically fail at naming things, using out-of-genre terms like "powers" and "healing surges" and terrible portmontueverber names like "steel serpent strike," which pisses people off. Also they fuck the math up on the first few tries. Also the skill system is an afterthought and doesn't really function.

5E - It's 3.5 again, mostly. It's slightly less rules-heavy, which is nice, but has exactly the same balance problems. But it has less stuff in it and having a gigantic pile of character options was the only thing 3.5 actually did well.

>>53614885
>Also the skill system is an afterthought and doesn't really function.

They could have definitely did a better job with skills, but I'm not sure how it's non-functional.

> It's slightly less rules-heavy, which is nice, but has exactly the same balance problems

Eh, it keeps up the appearances of being balanced a lot better for a lot longer, and it cuts down on numbers bloat as well as the complexity.

>>53614885
>The actual rules in the book are hot garbage

I think it does a lot of things right actually. The split between roll under skills and the more flat bonuses to combat stuff from stats for example helps differentiate character capabilities without compromising combat effectiveness when rolling randomly, while also keeping the numbers low and the system simple.

If it wasn't intentional it's a fucking miracle how good that works.

>>53608846

Rolemaster requires (required) that the GM put in a ridiculous amount of work to balance things out. Without it, players would (and did) show up with some by-the-rules character that completely destroyed the game.

That said, once you locked down what you wanted in your game, it was far better than the other offerings of the time. The only real exceptions being an equally micro-managed RuneQuest or Harn game.

I think Rolemaster is great but, wow, so much effort for a few hours of game play.

>>53610191
WotC was trying to expand its consumer base by appealing to the MMO crowd. While it is covered by GNS theory, the likely driving force was the potential profit margins.

>>53614021
Pretty much none of them. Outside of things like reaction rolls, skills, and backgrounds, D&D has generally tried to get rules out of the way in favor of player interaction.

>>53608804
D&D is the most popular and most successful roleplaying game. If I sit around criticizing it that makes me a better game designer than the people who made the world's most popular and successful roleplaying game.

>>53615761
>D&D has generally tried to get rules out of the way in favor of player interaction
On its way to 3.5, D&D has put progressively more rules in the way of player interaction.

>>53615761
So - to be clear - the argument that we're making is that the proper way for D&D to incentivize roleplaying is to not have rules?

>>53608804
It's "cool and hip" to hate on the king of the mountain.

4e > BECMI/RC > B/X > 2e > Basic > 1e > LBB >>>>>>>>>>> 3e > 3.5

>>53611741
>play average narrative RPG
>have several things that are based on "scenes"
>nobody gives a shit
>use the word "encounter" instead of scene
>everyone loses their shit

things I will never understand

>>53617446
... why would you put 3e over 3.5?

3.5 was an improvement in most ways.

Maybe if you really like some 3.0 splats (oriental adventures?) andreally hate ToB I could see that, but you rated 4e high so...

>>53617080
That's just been the opinion of the developers.

>>53617604

Depending on what you like about 3 and 3.5 that can make some sense. I wouldn't call 3 balanced as far as I remember, but the stuff that's total crap is maybe only mostly crap if you exclude all the splatbook and cheesiness 3.5 picked up over time. Some of the stuff that's just never worth it in 3.5 might be interesting if still bad in 3.

>>53608804
Because its almost everyones first tabletop rpg, so everyone has played the fuck out of it and is bored of it. We have also played it so much that its flaws become very obvious. Being that this is the internet and you can either love something or hate it, people choose hate. It is also the ttrpg with the most normies, so contrarians hate it for that.

>>53610191
>Why do you think 4e was so different, and played like it did? Because it was heavily influenced by GNS Theory
bwahahahaha, you gotta see it to believe it

>>53611636
a lot of GNS is garbage but the core 3 modes are very useful. the only problem with those is that genre simulation is often confused with narrativism.

>For example >>53610077 is either misusing it, or is a fucking idiot.
he's trolling, m8.

>>53617479
understand the 3 modes of GNS and you will understand this. protipp: G/N are pretty similar/compatible, S is the odd man out

/tg/'s understanding of GNS is about as good as /pol/'s understanding of marxism.

>>53620116
it's better than yours

The opinion thread.

File: gentleman.jpg (182KB, 736x754px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 736x754px

>>53608804
>3.5/PF
A system designed with trap options, with an enormous overbloat of additional sourcebook making the number of options available, as well as the number of traps, enormous.

A system where despite levels being a discrete, gamist way of measuring power, two characters of the same level can have a VAST gulf in power because of the skew toward casters.

This edition normalized the idea that casters were simply better than fighters and rightfully should always be for an entire generation.

>4e
A system which is an excellent, cleanly presented game. However, a lack of any sufficiently deep descriptions of background and fluff make little in it jog the imagination. Contrary to popular memery, it plays nothing like an MMO, but it's a very particular sort of grid-based tactical battle system. It plays very much like FF Tactics or Wakfu.

Math errors in calcing early monster statblocks made for unfun and grindy fights since most monsters in the first two books had too much HP.

>5e
An attempt to return to gritty dungeon crawling. It does not have the breadth of options available to 3.X or 4e, and retains a slight edge for casters over martials, but is not as severe as 3.X.

File: Pipe gentleman.jpg (156KB, 324x370px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 324x370px

>>53621826

>All editions
All editions of D&D use a simplistic 'meat point' measure of health, and increases your meat points at every level, occasionally resulting in silliness like characters easily able to survive swimming in lava or orbital drops not from any special skill or spell but simply because they've been adventuring long enough to have more meat. Additionally your meat points don't measure injury at all. You swing your sword as hard at 1HP as you do at 200HP, but at 0 HP you are immediately rendered unconscious. Many other games have much more varied health systems, with maiming, HP that does not scale, wound/penalty tracks, etc.

All editions of D&D are built around a core of 'kill stuff to get stronger to kill more things to get more stuff and get stronger.' It is contributory to the murderhobo mindset, and cancerous when attempting to run any other genre than dungeon crawling, even within the medieval milieu. They are overfocused on combat to a relatively high degree, which calcifies in many players heads where they thing combat is the majority or even whole of the game. See the design choices which led to 4e. All editions of D&D separate the combat system and the skills system. Is combat not a skill? This isn't necessarily an inherent flaw, but shows the focus the system places on combat.

>>53608804
>Why does /tg/ think D&D (any edition) is bad? Can someone explain it to me in a objective manner?

Rather than have a focus on retaining current players and bringing new ones in simultaneously , some editions are purposefully aimed at attracting new players while disregarding the wants of current players.

Or an edition has desirable/common information spread over several books it necessitates the purchasing of far more than should be necessary in order to enjoy a game.

>>53621938
>All editions of D&D use a simplistic 'meat point' measure of health
No they don't, fucktard.

>>53623390

Being fair, D&D itself is inconsistent on this.

It says it uses abstract HP, then has a lot of things which treat it as if it's meatpoints, but then also has things which treat it as an abstraction, which leads to idiocy like the 'martial healing means shouting hands back on' thing.

>>53623390
[citation needed]

>>53608804
Because they don't like running the dungeoncrawls that the game was designed around and try to use it for other shit

>>53608846
>There are worse systems,
Fair
>more bloated systems
Fucking name them. I literally cannot think of any

>>53623644
World Of Darkness is probably more bloated. It's fewer books, but it takes a LOT of them to cover, "You're vampires. You need to eat, angst, and suck up to older vampires." Something like 3.5 is at least trying to cover every permutation of high fantasy pulp character that has ever been attempted.

(Similarly GURPS has more books than D&D but it's not particularly bloated because it's trying to cover everything that anyone has ever written a story about.)

>>53623513
Source: The fucking book.

>>53623845
So... why is it that barbarians have more HP than rogues?

>>53623499
It's not inconsistent. It straight up tells you it can be all of those things, not none of them.

>>53623873
>why does a berserker have more HP than a rogue
duh i don't fuckin know

>>53623890
It makes sense of HP represents meat. It doesn't make sense if it represents your reserves of luck and skill that prevent you from actually getting harmed.

>>53623885
>>53623912

The point is that it's both, but the system seems to forget that at points, as do the designers.

File: 1442967570731.png (968KB, 1172x1080px) Image search: [Google]

968KB, 1172x1080px

>>53623912
>It doesn't make sense if it represents your reserves of luck and skill
Which a barbarian could never have. Of course.

File: 1492897590094.jpg (44KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x450px

i like 2e because shit can get crazy in all sorts of ways

>>53623977
Fucking barbarian/rogue disparity, I tell ya

>>53608804
autism

>>53621826
>it plays nothing like an MMO, but it's a very particular sort of grid-based tactical battle system. It plays very much like FF Tactics or Wakfu.

Wakfu is a MMO, you absolute moron. You double moron. You limitless, boundless, infinite retard.

>>53614628
>>Hermetic, esoteric, full of very complex subtleties.
>What is wrong with that?

The very fact that you do not understand why a game should be comprehensible speaks league about you and your mindset.

Protip: a game should be comprehensible.

Why? You'll undoubtedly ask?

Well, take a guess, you can probably do it. Or not. You don't seem too bright honestly.

For my curiosity, what's your age? You have the incoherent, malformed mental structure of a 15 years old (or a very bright 13). Don't answer if you don't want, I'm just curious.

>>53623845
damn, lern2quoteproperly, fagit

>>53608804
Because most of us experienced third edition in some shape or form. And it really gives D&D a bad name.

File: 1431466235415.jpg (80KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 625x626px

>>53608804

File: 1449172832393.gif (207KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 500x282px

It's a trap. It's the default. It's what every group does.

Sure, you found that sweet new RPG that just hit the shelves. The concept sounds awesome. The art is fantastic. The mechanics are new but intuitive. The lore is really well fleshed out. You're totally psyched to run it, and hope one day to be able to play it, too...

...and then you show it to your players
>We have to READ?
>I want to play an elven mage. Why can't I play an elven mage?
>D20 or it's garbage, fgt.

So it sits on your shelf, teasing you with the prospect of being able to play so many fantastic games, but knowing that you're surrounded by shitheads who want more of the same - and will never be able to find better.

Enjoy your D&D.

>>53608804
I play BX and love it. Enough rules to set a frame work, if something comes up that isn't in those two books you make it up and roll on.

File: 1372223824315.jpg (25KB, 397x520px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 397x520px

>>53627998
I'm definitely of something close to this opinion. Maybe D&D is fine at being D&D. But sometimes I don't want to play a sword and sorcery adventure. But D&D traps people, it's habit forming, they forget that other games could exist and become overly attached to it.

The D&D monopoly needs to die so that a new pantheon can be born based on the actual merit and use case of the systems rather than horrifyingly robust sociological inertia.

People play D&D because it is D&D, and it's what they know. People who have played other things have experienced playing more than one system and understand that sometimes if you want to do a certain thing you should change systems to something that does that thing better, rather than hacking together some new hellish d20 abomination so that you don't have to ever change core rule systems.

>>53608804
I only played 3.5, 4e and 5e.

My experience with a 3.5 was a disaster. It was my first taste of RPG, and it was awful. I played a monk, and I had the pleasure to see how much useless I was every session. Alignement was the next step, because then everyone played some kind of stereotype because "well, that's my alignement!" "well, you can't do that anon, you're a monk so you must be lawful or lose your powers"

Years after, I tried 5e. I honestly liked it, it was simple and nice. My group then played other games, and I realized that 5e was very limited if you want to play something else than a spellcaster, and the combat wasn't very interesting. And for the roleplay, everything you do in 5e you an do in other system, so it's a non issue.

We ditched 5e now, and my group is very happy for it. And we started playing 4e some months ago, and, well, it's the best D&D edition I have played. The combat is interesting and well balanced, and from the first levels the group can try to be strategic in fight.

>inb4 you don't care about roleplay you just want combat
I don't need rules in my Call of Cthulhu games for roleplaying, because I'm actually roleplaying. For 4e and all the others system, it's the exact same.

>>53628135
Please, You and I both know it'll just get absorbed by the same shit. Pathfinder just stepped in when D&D tried to get out of the hole it trapped itself in, and people ate that shit up until it's just as pervasive as 3.x before it was.

If D&D died today, there'd still be people for decades that insist that the same old busted systems are the best available systems.

>>53623513
The existence of "psychic damage" in 4e and 5e, a damage type that specifically exist to reflect demoralization, fear and other mental effects

>>53628164

This echoes my experiences. 3.PF is a clusterfuck, 5e is kinda dull but functional, 4e works great.

Having said that, it's also clear why some people aren't into it, I wouldn't call 4e a game for everybody, but the sheer degree of vitriol leveraged against it is still weird to me.

>>53613383
Please elaborate

>>53630068
3.5 pretends to be a game that you can use to play any kind of game, even though it's actually aggressively not

4 bites the bullet and basically tries to be a specific kind of game. And it's really good at being that kind of game! But every nerd who wanted it to be some other kind of game hated it for that. Because even though 3.5 was super bad at actually doing those things, and even though trying to do those things made it a much worse game overall, it pretended it could do them, which mattered a lot to nerds.

>>53608804
3.5 attracts min-maxing powergaming faggots and my favorite classes are essentially useless when the cleric/wizard/druid can 1shot everything in the first round of combat.

>>53614885
Best post this thread.

>>53608804
They're all boring

>>53631556
For one thing, in a medieval fantasy adventure, a knight tends to actually be useful.

And the less said about martial artists, the better.

>>53627016
It's not what most people consider when they hear 'MMO' though. Most people think something like WoW.

>>53623390
Half-right.

In 3.PF, hit points are abstract, but most healing is in the "stitching wounds and flesh back together" variety, and in 5e as well I believe, but I haven't played that system much after that godawful abortion of a playtest.

Whereas in 4e, you have things like Warlord "inspirational healing" to make it more abstract.

>>53628251
"Psychic" damage existed in 3.PF as well, I believe it was Phantasmal Killer does damage if you resist the instant death effect, and it's explicitly just out of fear rather than physical wounds.

>>53630068
Part of the issue was 4e had a bit of a hostile marketing aimed at 3.5, with a lot of it being along the lines of "4e is the new best edition and if you still like the old editions you can go fuck yourself."

>>53613680
2e with 1e DMG, my man

And, of course, houserules to taste

>>53611008

4e is literally their worst selling edition, it changed a lot of things.

>>53636526
>4e is literally their worst selling edition
Untrue.
>it changed a lot of things.
True, but unrelated.

>>53634669

and it effectively ruined the fluff it came into contact with despite system nerds wanting better combat, Fluff matters to a lot of people.

>>53636802
It only "ruined" FR.

And I say "ruined" because it's already a jank ass setting.

Everything else is either on par or better than it was.

File: 1435695785432.gif (342KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 400x400px

>>53611741
>stricter requirement to hold to and specialize in one of the tank, striker, healer, control roles
Being honest about class roles and letting everyone have them doesn't mean they didn't exist before, just that they were imballanced and obfuscated
>healing surges
I literally don't understand why that's video-gamey or bad/
>"encounter" as a arbitrary measurement for cool downs
"encounter" powers recharged after 5 minutes of downtime for those obsessed with simulationism
>Action points
I don't understand why this is video-gamey or bad
>Combat magic and marshal abilities streamlined to function in such a similar way that swapping in/out key words can make a set of both
If anything, this is a feature that allows theoretically infinite character concepts to be viable via refluff, in a way that those character concepts have never been possible or viable before.
>Everything to do with DnD essentials pre-builds
I will give you that essentials is garbage. If I could I would take a few feats from essentials, and erase the rest from existence.... wait I'm the DM... I CAN do that

>>53634669
I will grant you that it was a bit antagonistic towards OGLD20.... granted, in 2008, I hated OGLD20 just about as much as they did to the point that I'd stopped playing non-2e D&D entirely, so it worked GREAT on me.

>>53634669
What was the hostile marketing? I was pretty deeply involved in the character optimization boards and read all the design articles leading into 4E, but somehow missed whatever that was.

File: catsup.jpg (27KB, 566x242px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 566x242px

>>53608804
The only editions I'd call "bad" are 3e, 3.PF and 5e, but I wouldn't exactly call them "editions" so much as "slightly different iterations of the same edition." Neither of those three is different enough from the others to qualify as its own edition truly. Perhaps that's why I found 5e so insulting: after 15 years, they haven't innovated the game in any meaningful way, save to bring it back to the state it was when the internet first came out, and thus edition-nostalgia was the most sticky, yet keep it JUUUUST different enough that they can no longer be legally under the umbrella of their own OGL.

File: 1419629331077.jpg (69KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x640px

>>53614885
This is basically what I wanted to post before I got embroiled in replying to shit, save you managed to come off more objective than I probably would have (I happen to like what OD&D/AD&D/4E do and not what 3.PF/5E do but that really is a matter of taste.)

>>53637383

Being fair, as someone who doesn't particularly like 5e, I can't deny it's a successful product. It works better than 3.PF and despite being bland and boring compared to the breadth of games that exist, apparently that's what a significant part of their core demographic wanted. A system that successfully created the 'feel' of D&D with an inoffensive and generally functional set of mechanics to back it up.

I wish it had innovation and actual ideas like what we were shown in the playtests, but at this point it's pretty clear those aren't things the core D&D demographic care about.

>>53621938

>Not using the milestone system to level up

...

>>53634629
>>53623390
>>53621938
Even old editions made it clear that hit points were not meat points. The meat points fallacy came from the players, not the game.

>>53636526
So far every edition has sold better than the one before.
The only thing that changed is that they reached critical mass with how saturated each edition is expected to be, and we're seeing a product of that with 5e's very relaxed content schedule.

>>53637989
>apparently that's what a significant part of their core demographic wanted
I have a hunch that some of the poll results were disregarded due to internal politics as well as certain vocal minorities. It's been a while and I don't care anymore, but what we got didn't match what most public forums liked.

>>53639258

Here's the thing though-

You're right, the polls were fucked with, but the parts of the fanbase vocal and engaged enough to playtest the system aren't actually the largest part of their audience. We're probably the minority. And given how much sales success they had, it might be that what we think just doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

>>53639120
>The meat points fallacy came from the players, not the game.
Then explain healing spells such as "Cure Wounds"?
If HP isn't meatpoints then how does Cure Wounds even work?

>>53611348
current campaign is level 43, no problems with martial / caster balance, game isn't broken or boring

maybe you should just learn how to play

>>53611380
nah it's too video gamey

>>53611488
I play a monk and have no problems keeping up with our batman wizard

>>53611832
I'm condescending to you because I'm better than you. Improve yourself if you don't like it.

>>53639313
The differences wouldn't matter to most, who wouldn't even know what they were. I'm going to assume it's like any other focus test in a cottage industry and say that it was the combination of some special snowflake focus group a designer's friends and some asshole pulling rank. Or they failed whatever test Wizards uses to determine if an autistic child can interpret the rules, which always sucks the fun out of any game.

>>53611918
My opinions ARE objectively correct, retard.

>>53612084
My taste are right and yours are wrong. See, objective.

>>53639488

Then your GM is working his fucking ass off to enable you to do so

>>53612389
>You don't get a title with land and castle and followers anymore, as a fighter.
yeah you do

>>53612544
And they can still be killed in their sleep with a dagger. Woopty shit.

>>53639399

Cure wounds revitalizes the person. It heals damage, but also restores vitality and the will to fight. More experienced adventurers' bodies have just built up a tolerance to healing and potions over time, so they need more healing spells to get the same effect.

>>53612636
my opinions are objectively correct

>>53639607
we all take turns GM-ing and it makes no difference, maybe you should just learn how to play martials effectively lmao

>>53639633
no, it just restores hitpoints
read the fucking book

>>53610191
The differences were attempts to resolve problems in 3.5 and it plays like D&D. I don't think you know what bs you're spouting.
>>53611121
>WoW on tabletop,
>>53611741
>stricter requirement to hold to roles.
Roles are only what you should expect this class to be capable of, instead of shoveling out classes that aren't capable of a single useful thing. They are not restrictions on players.
>Encounters
It means 5 minutes/short rest recharge. It's not arbitrary any more than fast forwarding through a night's sleep. It's just shorthand for a concept. Keywords do come across a little gamey though I prefer the clarity.
>>53612389
>simulacra
Copying yourself is the very definition of more of the same abilities. This example always amuses me.
>>53615460
>appealing to the MMO crowd
In what way?
>>53627016
>There is, maybe, a french mmo that plays like 4e therefore 4e=WoW.
>>53639534
>they failed whatever test Wizards uses to determine if an autistic child can interpret the rules,
To be fair, the final product often fails this test anyway.

>>53639439
Someone who felt the need to could instantly implode that game with epic spellcasting. It gets really, really, REALLY fucked up if you know how to mitigate the Spellcraft DCs.

>>53639439

this is like saying that cars aren't better than horses because you can wilfully cap a car's speed out to about 20 mph to keep pace with a horse.

In other words it's fucking dumb.

>>53641903
>>53641950

I'm pretty sure they're just trolling.

>>53608804
DnD is just fundamentally flawed. It's feels too much like a board game to really allow satisfying and comprehensive role playing, but is also way too unbalanced to be a fun dungeon crawler. For me personally, dungeons and dragons occupies a small niche somewhere between GURPS and Savage Worlds that I don't find totally satisfying for very long. I want either rules light, highly abstracted, or comprehensive and complex. DnD fills neither niche.

>>53632173
And fancy that, D&D is played mostly by nerds

YOU HEAR ME?

YOURE ALL NEEEEEEERDS

>>53613615
stop playing paranoia on tg. you'll get us all killed.
friend computer is watching.

>>53615197
Any system that requires the GM to balance the game for the publisher is a shit system.

>>53643578
I don't think you really understand how games work.

>>53643594

Nope, he understands exactly how games work.

You should be able to expect a minimal level of functional balance from an RPG system. Perfection is impossible, but all available options should exist within a narrow band to ensure they're all compatible and function properly together. Anything less is bad design and excusing it is nothing more than letting lazy devs get away with peddling shitty products.

A game being seriously unbalanced doesn't mean it's unplayable or that you shouldn't play it, but it should always be held as a black mark against the game and its designers.

>>53643691
>but all available options should exist within a narrow band to ensure they're all compatible and function properly together

Sorry, but that's how you end up with a boring shit system where the mechanics don't really mean anything.

What's your favorite game? Something pointlessly narrative?

>>53643724

Nope. I enjoy crunch, I just want it to be good crunch. If a designer can't create interesting, distinct and enjoyable mechanics which are also decently well balanced, they're a shitty designer.

>>53643809
If a designer can make a game that can't be unbalanced by a willful individual, he has made a game empty of mechanical weight.

But, what's your favorite game?

>>53643845
That's not what anyone's talking about. He's talking about a system that's unbalanced even when the average group plays it.

>>53643891
What's your favorite game.

>>53643845

You're an idiot.

This isn't about the optimisation ceiling and floor, those are a symptom, not a cause.

Balance means that, if two options a PC can access cost the same amount of resources, they should provide roughly equivalent benefits. It's impossible to be exact but you need to keep the range narrow enough that none of the options are outright bad, even if some are better. If an option is outright bad, then it needs to cost less or do more, otherwise there's no point in it existing.

Even in the most balanced system, it'll be possible to optimise. Someone who always picks the top end of every narrow band will likely end up ahead.

But in a well balanced system, greater mechanical competence won't mean they end up playing a completely different game, vis the classic D&D caster supremacy thing.

>>53643913
What's yours?

>>53643922
Hey.
What's your favorite game.

>>53643845
>>53643913

Being so blatant about wanting to turn it into a system argument rather than actually discussing ideas just makes you seem pathetic.

>>53643934
Why so defensive. Just let me know what game you like so I understand your tastes and where you are coming from.

>>53643925
>>53643932
making pointless posts on image boards

>>53623817
White Wolf/Onyx Path in general is bad at this. I've been playing Exalted with lore-hounds for years, and still have no fucking idea what's going on half the time.

>>53643951

All D&D simultaneously.

>>53643263
underrated

>>53644669
Okay.