Most if not all your problems with D&D and other such systems

Bump good threads, ignore bad ones. That's all you need to do, New Guy

A better solution would be if Wizards of the Coast went out of business, and if the Critical Roll group all contracted meningitis at the same time, and that D&D was never mentioned on Big Bang Theory or Stranger Things ever again, so that the game would be wiped from the planet after a few years and then actually good games like Dungeon World would start gaining traction instead.

>>54056191
But then we'd have nothing to do, and get absorbed into /lit/

>>54056853
We could... go for a walk?

All the systems I like are dead and any discussion would die out after a few replies.

>>54056827
>dungeon world
>good game
???

>>54056191

Sometimes that isn't the point, though. You can avoid a problem by avoiding it, sure. But if you like everything else the system does, it's just one aspect of it that really creates a lot of trouble for you or your group, bring it up is a very effective way of crowd sourcing a solution. Maybe someone else has had a similar issue and found a fix, maybe it prompts a discussion which brings up some ideas you can make use of, maybe someone will recommend a game that takes what you like from the former system without what you dislike.

These are all useful results, but they only come about if we're able to openly and honestly discuss problems with a system, rather than blindly defending them out of some misplaced brand loyalty. Liking a game doesn't mean you have to insist it's perfect. It's more honest to accept its flaws, to understand what some people might dislike about it even if you disagree, and to use your knowledge of the system to try and help them find a positive solution that will let them have fun with the game.

File: lewd.jpg (55KB, 323x720px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 323x720px

>>54056873
You mean like couples do?

>>54056191
i have the autism please be patient

>>54056933
uhh Dungeon World is one of the best RPGs out there currently. It's 2d6+appropriate mod, 6- = fail with consequences 7-9 = success but with consequences, 10+ = pure success.

Only players roll.

It is one of THE greatest systems I have ever played. The entire dw book is like a manual on how to be a great gm. The only bad advice I found in there was to split up your players as a 'move' you can make. That's always a terrible idea, unless its VERY temporary, like split them up but in the same room, to solve a trap puzzle.

Other than that, no warnings

The system is built to make amazing narrative with very even pacing and lots of interaction.

Let your players make up as much or as little as you like while still having as much control as GM as you want - but if you're stuck for an idea or etc. you can actually ask a player 'what is here?' or 'why is that?' and have what they say become reality.

I know what I'm saying isn't going to make complete sense without having read the rule book but trust me - its worth your time.

The rule book reads pretty bland and unappealing, that's VERY deceptive. I wasn't impressed by the actual book itself -- until I actually TRIED the system.

Blew me away.

I almost feel like I could never go back to a pass-fail dice system ever again. (Like anything d20, or d100.)

Another system I bought where players do all the rolling is cypher system but I haven't tried it yet.

>>54059538
>10+ = pure success.
So even with a +3, which is pretty damn good, you're not even getting pure success 60% of the time. Bullshit. I want to play a competent hero, so let me play one.

>Only players roll.
Not a selling point. GMs like rolling, too.

>Let your players make up as much or as little as you like while still having as much control as GM as you want - but if you're stuck for an idea or etc. you can actually ask a player 'what is here?' or 'why is that?' and have what they say become reality.
You can do that in literally any other system.

Could you please stop? I'm asking nicely. I'd really, honestly, truly appreciate it if you did. I don't need to see 4-5 of these threads all the time, please. Just consider others for a second, I use this website too. Thank you.

>>54056191
>Cancer wouldn't be a problem if people ignored it

>>54059930
Cancer kills you. A system you don't like doesn't.

>>54056191
Well, yes. However, occasional criticism is good and right. That said, your wish is naive: there apparently is such a thing as gaming politics, a fight over public's perception which games are best.

>>54060047

Honestly, I've only ever seen 'gaming politics' used as a shield by people trying to deflect criticism. I don't think it's actually a thing.

>>54060006
My bad, I misread OP and I assumed he meat "ignore the problems and keep playing that will make things better" which doesn't. Any way, yeah, OP is right, don't play flawed as fuck systems

>>54060070
>the troll tries again

Fuck off.

>>54059700
>>Only players roll.
>Not a selling point. GMs like rolling, too.
"only players roll" is a game designer's marketing trick, to make one's own game more distinct. that's all.

>>54060103

Now, using 'troll' as a way of dismissing people without actually considering what they have to say? That seems more and more prominent.

Completely disregarding, y'know, that just calling someone a troll doesn't actually refute their point, even if a lot of people act like it does.

>>54060155
No, fuck off, you obvious troll. I don't even understand how you think anyone could be fooled by your autism.

>>54060070
i dispute the effectiveness of it.there ARE different tastes and most criticisms of D&D, for example, are written by a (genre) simulationist, when the game largely appeals to gamists. as such the anti-D&D propaganda isn't very effective.

t. genre simulationist who occasionally criticizes D&D for its blatant gamism in those threads but doesn't start any such threads

>>54060171

Who's trying to fool anyone? I'm entirely sincere. I think 'system politics' is at best a gross exaggeration and at worse a strange lie that only serves to deflect criticism and stifle conversation and proper system analysis. Either way, I don't think it's a useful concept for anyone involved.

>>54060265
>I'm sincerely a troll

Your actions are louder than your words, friendo.

>>54061157

What actions, precisely?

>>54056191
>Prove me wrong.

Used to rate an auto-ban. Standards have slipped these days.

>>54056191
You don't even have to stop playing it, just stop playing it with jerks.

>>54056191
What if I can't find players for other systems?

File: Vasnetsov_samolet.jpg (480KB, 2362x1300px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 2362x1300px

>>54056191
>Most if not all problems with your car can be fixed by using public transport instead.
Sure, man.

>>54056191
My problem with D&D is that it's so popular that it's seen as a sort of default system by most. This means that most people will play D&D as their first RPG, and a lot of them never go beyond that, so it's hard to find groups to play a better system. Additionally its terrible mechanics are so deeply instilled in many people that it actually makes them worse players in games that aren't D&D. So yes, it affects me even if I never play it.

>>54059700
This is a pasta>>54059538

Anyway,
>So even with a +3, which is pretty damn good, you're not even getting pure success 60% of the time. Bullshit. I want to play a competent hero, so let me play one.

There are ways to add bonuses beyond your stat. Also, when you roll it's supposed to be because you face a challenge that's challenging even for a competent hero.

>Not a selling point. GMs like rolling, too.
You can change the game to d6 vs d6 if you want, just subtract 7 from the target numbers (so 10+ becomes 3+).

Also, feel free to use random encounter/random generation tables to roll on.

>>54056827
S H I L L
H
I
L
L

>>54059538
Is this pasta?
It feels like pasta, but I don't think I've read this particular one before.

>>54056827
>Playing dungeon world
>Try to jump over a wall
>Roll a 6
>Lol you fall onto a t-rex
>Okay I try to run away roll defy danger
>Roll a 6
>Lol it rips your arm off.

Height of roleplaying, so modern, so superior to D&D

>>54059538
Ok, here's my complaint. I actually fucking love Apocalypse World systems, but I don't think Dungeon World is a good implementation of the engine.
It clutters shit up with too many inelegent mechanics (why does it need different dice sizes and hit-dice and stuff? Nothing other than to keep familiar terminology). And then it makes some of its moves incredibly vague (roll with any stat to avoid a bad thing? really? That's a move that you bothered naming?).
It doesn't play to AW's strengths. It doesn't create inter-personal conflicts or re-enforce theme through mechanical feedback loops, or any of the cool narrativey stuff good AW games do. It's just DnD done with the 'roll 2d6+mod, fail on 6-, really good on 10+' engine.
There are better alternatives.
Fuck, go play torchbearer if you want a nice dungeon-fantasy storygame, or monsterhearts if you want to see AW actually play to its strengths.

>>54064383
Ironically it fails because even the barest most stripped down , mostly for fluff and nostalgia elements of D&D still shit up the game.

>>54064404
>it fails because even the barest most stripped down , mostly for fluff and nostalgia elements of D&D still shit up the game
nah, it fails because the DnD elements are incompatible with what AW does well.
DnD* /can/ be a fine game if you run it properly and do what it's meant to do; what it's meant to do is be a tactical exploration and challenge-solving game. I've had great fun playing dungeon-crawls and wilderness exploration in b/x and various retroclones. But that's not what AW does well; in fact it's almost diametrically opposed to it, since AW is much more about the GM reacting to player actions to push them into character-focussed feedback loops that create intercharacter tension.
In a good DnD style exploration game, the GM has a mapped out situation that the players methodically explore and overcome, and the mechanics are set up for that style of play. It's why things like encumbrance are in the rules. DnD is fine at this.
If you try to run that style of game in AW, it doesn't work. The system doesn't really handle logistics and problem solving well; the engine is about creating complications and forcing emotionally charged choices. Plus, the GM advice is radically different; it's all about lack of prep, wild improvisation, and making the experience character-focussed.
So yeah, DnD is a fine game IF you use it for what it was written for. AW is a fine system IF you use it for what it's written for.
If you try to smoosh bits of DnD mechanics into an AW game without context, and then try to make AW run a style of game that it's just not suited for, that's NOT a fine game.

*by which I mean early versions of DnD. 3e onwards is just a sort of fractal mess of bad design decisions by people who (ironically) wanted the nostalgia mechanics but didn't use them for what they were meant to do and instead just jammed them into an incompatible frame. It's the same mistake as Dungeon World makes, but with some gurpsy rules nightmare rather than a storygame.

>>54063792
>There are ways to add bonuses beyond your stat. Also, when you roll it's supposed to be because you face a challenge that's challenging even for a competent hero.

wow I don't know how you did it, but I basically hate every single thing about this sentence.

>>54064769
Are you the type who rolls for opening doors or what?

>>54064383
I would honestly like to see an AW hack for fantasy that's not Dungeon World. I know about Fellowship but I wonder if there are any others.

File: MFW.gif (1MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 200x150px

>>54056827
Yes, much like how if EA went out of business, bad video games would no longer exist.

>>54056873
Walking? Dude, do you want bears?

Because that is how you get bears.

>>54065029
https://nerdwerds.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/all-of-playbooks.html
There's a few here; Dark Sol, World of Conan and Thieves Can Too Motherfucker would be the ones I'd look at.