Roleplaying Games is basically D&D 5E + Pathfinder... and

>>54299992
FATAL

>>54299992

Keep in mind that the results, like those on Roll20, are going to be innately skewed. D&D and Pathfinder are some of the only games that actually require an online tabletop and grid, so other games are going to be underrepresented on those platforms as they simply don't require the features they provide.

D&D and its ephemera is still by far the largest part of the roleplaying industry, but last sales figures I checked had it at about 2/3s of all sales. Still a majority, but actually less market share than it had once upon a time. Indie RPG's seem to be growing faster than D&D is, so we might eventually see an end to D&D's dominance over the hobby.

As for what I'd have dominate in their place, I'd honestly prefer not to have a single dominant product over everything. If it had to be D&D, though, it'd be nice if other games could start learning lessons from how 4e formatted and laid out its books. I don't care for the game, but in terms of presentation and clarity it's one of the greatest ever made.

>>54300043
PF yes, but D&D5 doesn't require a grid and minis. In fact it intentionally turned away from the very structured minis+grid gameplay of 4E. So this isn't really a critique.

Also, 4E had the worst graphic design and layout of any RPG I have seen that wasn't some single-author indie. Whenever I bought the books I was appalled at how bad they looked on the inside.

>>54300111

Can you clarify that? Because they had the greatest clarity and transparency in design, which is what I look for. Conveying me the rules clearly and precisely with no obfuscation or mucking around, clear, understandable and easy to use layouts etc.

>>54300043
>D&D and Pathfinder are some of the only games that actually require an online tabletop and grid

>Indie RPG's seem to be growing faster than D&D is

>we might eventually see an end to D&D's dominance over the hobby.

There's delusional, and then there's whatever this guy is smoking.

>>54300207

Can you explain why you think any of that is wrong?

The vast majority of games aren't built around miniatures and grid combat. It's mostly a trait focused on D&D and games trying to be D&D.

And D&D's market share is shrinking. That is a fact. Ergo, other games are growing faster than D&D is. I don't think the tables are going to turn overnight, but there's more diversity of experiences available in our industry than ever, and that can only be a good thing for the hobby as a whole.

>>54300238
>That is a fact.
Where is that "fact" coming from?

>>54299992
>Roleplaying Games is basically D&D 5E + Pathfinder... and that's pretty much the entire sector.
t. USA

>What game would you like to see dominate the market the way these two giants do?
CoC, Shadowrun, Vampire, GURPS, heck even FATE... literally anything else. anything that shows to normies that RPGs is more than hack and slash.

>>54300207
He's at least right in that OP pic is skewed data.

>>54300238
>And D&D's market share is shrinking.

But it's not. 5e actually was at less than 50% of the market share less than a year ago, but continues to dramatically expand as it draws in new players. 5e gains in a month more players than most other games have.

5e just keeps gaining momentum as it continues to take in pathfinder converts while also being the "go-to" system for new players.

File: 1464283093271.jpg (119KB, 435x435px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 435x435px

>>54300300
You want more CoC, Sparta?

>>54300314
Not as much as he really seems to hope it is.

It being about online games might actually help skew it in the direction of the lesser known games, because it's easier to find a group of people willing to play these more "obscure" titles online.

>>54300299

Because D&D's market share was once 100%. Its position of absolute dominance is getting weaker.

>>54300321

A lot of which it regained from Pathfinder.

I suppose I should clarify. I'm counting D&D, PF and all the psuedo-D&D systems as a single unit with these statements.

>>54300342

But why would they use those services if none of the features add to the experience?

Honestly, I find those and the roll20 results kinda surprising, so many groups using these services without really needing any of the extra features they provide. I still play all my non-D&D online games with an IRC channel and a dicebot, because it's all you really need.

>>54300321
>5e actually was at less than 50% of the market share less than a year ago
I would even dare to guess 5e was at 0% in 2013.

>>54300349
>Because D&D's market share was once 100%. Its position of absolute dominance is getting weaker.
Not only is that retarded logic (counting from OD&D), it's not even true. Even in the 1970s people were playing Blackmoor and Tunnels & Trolls & Traveller etc. D&D's share has never been 100%.

And we're specifically talking about the latest editions, not since the beginning of time. WOTC has confirmed several times that D&D's share fell during 4E and has spiked up dramatically since 5E.

>>54300349
>Because D&D's market share was once 100%

Not really. While D&D was the first published system, there were several contemporaries that were being developed and played in parallel.

>>54299992
Paranoia. I'd love to see someone try to minmax in that and have those egregious stats be their mutant power... and get found out early.

Plus it encourages actual roleplay when played right, or at least creative thought.

>>54300369
They add people, by far the most important part

>>54300314
That's where he was the most wrong tho. You don't need a grid to play either system, and even if you did the idea that there's some huge "shadow demographic" of non-D&D players who are underrepresented in online data because of it is just laughable

>>54300369
To find groups?

>>54299992
>World of darkness - 1053

How the mighty have fallen.

File: 1431548775500.jpg (1MB, 1255x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1255x1600px

>>54299992
>What game would you like to see dominate the market the way these two giants do?

>>54299992
While that chart is certainly indicative of something, the numbers certainly don't provide an accurate representation of what role-playing games are being played. AD&D (is that 1st and/or 2nd edition?) has 1562 games, and Castles & Crusades has 3140 games, while there are 0 games of Basic D&D or any of its derivatives? I here more about Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry than I do about Castles & Crusades. And that's just in the D&D family.

>>54300504

D&D and PF are built around grid combat. That is a fact of their design. You might be able to not do it, but the sheer amount of positional powers in the game makes it ludicrous to say otherwise.

>>54299992
>What game would you like to see dominate the market the way these two giants do?
>runequest isn't even on the chart
Well guess that's a lost cause

>>54299992
Savage Worlds isn't too far behind Pathfinder there.

>>54300540
>If I keep asserting something, eventually it will become true!

I don't want a dominant product. My fantasy is that nerds stop being overly opinionated children who aren't willing to try anything outside of what they define to be THE TRUE RPG.

>>54300573

...What is there to assert? It's a system full of AoE spells and positional flanking rules. It is built with the assumption that you will have a direct way of gauging relative positions and making decisions based on that. The design of the system doesn't make sense otherwise. Even really basic shit like Attacks of Opportunity only makes sense, design wise, if you are assuming the exact representation of position that comes with a grid. Gridless D&D is basically just handwaving all that away, but that doesn't stop it existing in the first place.

>>54300558
>runequest isn't even on the chart
BRP is though. Granted, it's only about a third of a percent, but it's up there. (So is Call of Cthulhu, for that matter, but even if it shares the same basic rule system, it's too much of its own thing for me to really think it counts.)

>>54300573
He's not wrong. Nearly every combat related ability is designed around specific distances that can be applied to grids. You can play without, but its obviously meant to work with

>>54300601
Have you actually played 5e? My group doesn't use a grid and it's been working out great.

>>54300573

It is true though. I mean, you CAN play it without a grid, but eventually there's going to be an argument about where someone is relative to an enemy, or how many enemies they hit with an AOE.

One of the reasons people play crunchy games is for consistency and a grid is always going to be more consistent than a vague sketch of where everyone is. If you're abstracting combat and removing the grid, why even bother playing Pathfinder or DnD? They dont do anything outside of encounters particularly well.

>>54300601
>What is there to assert?
That you need to use a grid to play D&D. You know, that thing you keep asserting. You're acting like I'm talking about getting rid of dice and not the most people use the system in my experience. Again, the idea that this is massively skewing the data is laughable, or at the very least a big claim you haven't come close to proving.

>>54300601
>Attacks of Opportunity only makes sense,
D&D5 doesn't even HAVE AOOs, dumbass. That's why it's stupid to start by saying "D&D is..." because each edition of D&D is almost a different game.

OD&D as played by Gygax didn't use grids with minis. It was Theatre of the Mind with real-world distances (feet and miles) until 3.0 and 4.0 when grids and minis became almost mandatory. With 5E it's mostly mini-less.

>>54300655
My groups played 3.5 and 4e without grids. This means nothing. Imagination can fill in for whatever specifics the game request, but that doesn't mean the game isn't asking for specifics that would be better perceived and tracked with a grid.

>>54300393
That's an infinity percent increase! Give it a couple of years and 3 out of every 2 games being played will be 5e.

>>54300717

http://5e.d20srd.org/srd/combat/MakinganAttack.htm#opportunityAttacks

>>54300683

I'm not saying you need a grid. I'm saying the default design assumption of D&D is that you have a grid. Which is a fact.

>>54300717
Um... AD&D literally measured shit in tabletop inches. Don't get me wrong, my group never used miniatures back in the old days, but it's not like they were alien to the game.

>>54300717
>D&D5 doesn't even HAVE AOOs
When a creature leaves your reach you may make an opportunity attack on it as a reaction
Did your dm hoyuserule this away or something? Are you sure you're playing 5e?

>>54300717
r u dumb?

>>54300349
Not at all true, there was always competitors. If anything DnDs market dominance has grown over time.

>>54300734
Call me crazy, but it sounds like you're admitting that grids help but are not necessary.

>>54300890
...Yes? The game is made for grids, but no game NEEDS to use grids. We can imagine those in our heads like we do with every other aspect.

>>54300561
I wouldn't take FG as an accurate portrait of the market, but it made me smile to see SW right behind PF.

Then frown when I saw WoD.

>>54300510
Turns out vilifying your players isn't a good idea!

HERO and 4th Ed

>>54301021
More like NWoD was a mistake.

>>54300490
I picked up the PDF copy of the latest edition, and it's just lost a lot of the je ne sais quoi that made the XP edition so hilarious. It's not just the change from Communists to Terrorists the computer fears, but in a way, that change is representative of how the new devs don't really understand what's funny.

What can be done to fix this? Other than playing XP, of course?

>>54299992
the FFG star wars/Genesys system. Non numerical take on the dice rolls that I love.

File: 1702587_orig.jpg (671KB, 1200x640px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 1200x640px

Considering Exalted sold a lot of copies, I wonder why it wasn't even listed in the graph?

>>54300592
One can only dream.

>>54299992
Good games. 5e is pretty decent, but 3.PF, CoC, WoD, 40KRP, Shadowrun and Numenera are games that should not be played IMHO.

Give me some Savage Worlds, GURPS, Iron Kingdoms, D&D 4e or DCC and I'd like it a lot more. Well designed, functional games, regardless of what image they provide to the outside, makes the hobby more enjoyable.

>>54301149
>What can be done to fix this? Other than playing XP, of course?
play 2E, you massive pleb

>>54301463
>CoC not well-designed
and then there is this moron. also 40KRP is bretti gud

>b-but muh 5E
kys. seriously. you're a scourge to this hobby.

>>54301463

Despite mostly agreeing with you, I wouldn't say they shouldn't be played. But people who want to play them should be properly informed as to the problems they have and the best ways to work around them, which a lot of system fanboys actively work against by insisting their preferred system is perfect and shouting down any attempt to discuss its flaws.

I love a lot of very flawed games. Hell, even on your 'good' list, the Iron Kingdoms RPG has a lot of issues. I enjoyed my time with it, but I wouldn't recommend the system to anyone without explaining some of the big issues it has, like the whole Warcaster problem.

>>54301021
How so?

>>54300592
Everyone is overly opinionated about something.

Like you, overly opinionated about the overly opinionated.

>>54300369

It's a centralized location to find other players, and it has character sheets for a lot of games. As a DM, I like being able to quickly look at someone else's sheet.

>>54299992
Macho Women With Guns.

>>54300951
>no game NEEDS to use grids.

That's good to know, because the point people were disputing was here>>54300043
>D&D and Pathfinder are some of the only games that actually require an online tabletop and grid

Many 5e groups prefer not to use a grid, my own group included. The game easily facilitates tracking things in the mind.

>>54302520
But D&D "needs" a grid vastly more than say most WoD games.

>>54302520

Can you go into detail on this? I find it hard to think up a more grid reliant game than D&D/PF. There are so many positional abilities that rely on you being engaged with one person or not the other, and the whole AoO system is built around controlling precise positioning.

If you're not using a grid, why use the system at all?

The upcoming 4th edition of WHFRP

File: CtT1yUeUAAAZzrA.png (854KB, 599x674px) Image search: [Google]

854KB, 599x674px

>"It's an anon get's proven wrong and must now move the goal posts episode"

>>54302755
What details do you need that you can't find in the rulebooks? The most important part of positioning in any fight is distance, and it doesn't really take much to remember "They're 60 feet away from you" or to determine how densely packed a group of enemies might be.

When it comes to close quarters, it remains the same sort of thing, where distance relative to the PCs are all that anyone needs to remember, and they for the most part keep track of that individually.

It did take a little time to adjust to not using a grid, but by the end of the first gridless session our group had the hang of it.

>>54300717
>D&D5 doesn't even HAVE AOOs, dumbass.
lmao

get a load of this cuck

>>54299992
Genesys.

But honestly, I'd support ANYTHING that's not DnD. No other games have as much dumb, bad-habit-forming, anachronistic baggage as it and its ilk do.

>>54299992
Holy shit, World of Darkness is that small? That's sad.

Huh, maybe I should look at Savage Worlds.

>>54303501
Keep in mind that this VTT is not very popular. Roll20 stats are more accurate.

>>54299992
>What game would you like to see dominate the market the way these two giants do?

None. The same way I don't want to go into the supermarket and see an entire aisle of corn flakes with only three other cereals. Monopolies are bad for consumers.

>>54303542
Do you have those? I'd be surprised if DnD wasn't still more than half of all the games.

>>54301291
There's really no reason to play it on d20. It uses range bands and stuff like that so literally doing it over discord/skype is just as effective.

>>54303633

From sales figures and stats, I'd say that D&D and Not!D&D systems like Pathfinder make up about 2/3 of the hobby, and that's including the fact that online tabletops are skewed towards games which make use of them.

File: Roll20Q1-2017.png (161KB, 500x730px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 500x730px

>>54303633
Here you go.
http://blog.roll20.net/post/159952619415/the-orr-group-industry-report-q1-2017

>>54303785
Cool. So yeah, it's not that different.

>>54300043

This. I run a wod game in discord and play in a fantasy age game on slack. We don't need roll20 for those. And when we played a Fire Emblem homebrew rpg on roll20 I doubt it was factored in to any charts.

>>54303970
There's a bit less DnD than the other srvice would indicate, which is a positive sign.

>>54301291
>>54303653
Let alone all the dice things you have to do. Re roll this or that number, count this number as 2 success's. No online thing does that well to my knowledge.

>>54304024
Do me a favor, can you dig up the Q1 report for 2016?

>>54304024
>a positive sign.

I didn't realize there were people trying to keep score.

I'll tell you this though. If you're really that upset about a game's popularity, you should plan to remain upset for several decades at least.

>>54304061
I'm upset that a game which ingrains poor behaviors and expectations into players is the main point of entry, and even more unfortunately, the roleplaying graveyard for many.

>>54304061

It's not about the game that is popular, it's that one game dominating the hobby is a bad thing. A monopoly isn't good for anybody except the people holding the monopoly.

>>54299992
>fucking Dungeon Crawl Classics and Castles and Crusades more popular than WoD
>CoC almost 9 times as popular as WoD
This probably isn't that accurate, just saying

>>54299992
>What game would you like to see dominate the market the way these two giants do?
Anima: Beyond Fantasy. Same sort of ridiculous high fantasy world with more options (and more interesting options) that even pathfinder. Also, it doesn't suck to play. If anything had to fill the void of D&D, I definitely think it would be the best option.

It doesn't matter that much, honestly. It'd be great if the hobby became bigger in general and more options became available (I'd kill for a generalist system that wasn't either narrativist fluff or GURPS level of crunch), but nowadays finding a group for almost ANY game isn't an issue

I'd like if OSR became more prominent, though.

>>54304056
http://blog.roll20.net/post/156907010215/the-orr-group-industry-report-q4-2016
http://blog.roll20.net/post/152869666945/the-orr-group-industry-report-q3-2016
http://blog.roll20.net/post/148840854540/the-orr-group-industry-report-q2-2016
http://blog.roll20.net/post/143493281735/the-orr-group-industry-report-q1-2016
http://blog.roll20.net/post/137560897420/the-orr-group-industry-report-q4-2015
http://blog.roll20.net/post/131974066335/the-orr-group-industry-report-q3-2015
http://blog.roll20.net/post/131574182890/for-the-record-orr-group-industry-report-q2-2015
http://blog.roll20.net/post/116828584295/the-orr-group-industry-report-q1-2015
http://blog.roll20.net/post/107957194710/the-orr-group-industry-report-q4-2014

That's all their reports. Someone else can visualize the date if they want.

>>54304157
60% isn't a monopoly.
It's not even that dominant. It's the primary one, but not to the point it can start dictating to other companies.

It's got enough name recognition that it's what people are going to think of and default to when they think of RPGs, and nothings going to replace that. It doesn't mean other games can't be created and succeed.

Band-aid isn't going out of business any time soon, but they don't have a monopoly.

>>54303444
Old World of Darkness and Call of Cthulhu/BRP say hi. Also GURPS.

I've always wondered why Savage Worlds exists.

>>54304157
But it's not a monopoly. Game systems aren't limited resources or restricted business sectors, there's really nothing stopping anyone from learning, teaching, and playing any game aside from the inability to convince other people to play it, and that's not something you can blame the populace for any more than you can blame people for choosing one brand over any other.

More importantly, game systems function something like a language, and it's actually good for there to be a common language.

Should D&D be the only system you know? Of course not. Should everyone know D&D? There's really nothing wrong with that, and it really lends itself to everyone at least sharing certain common understandings and being able to play with generally everyone.

Ignoring the crazy coming from this guy,
>>54304132
D&D has worked to remain modern, adaptable, and versatile, and it serves as both a good introduction into the hobby as well as an enduring system to play for years to come. There's really no reason to get upset about it being as popular as it is.

>>54304429
You are loony if you think any of those approaches the brain-damage-like condition DnD creates in players.

>>54304607
Can you trip up already?

>>54301038
Nwod vastly improved Changeling lore and tone, so there's that at least. It also introduced Promethean, though that could of course have easily been done in owod if that had been the active line at the time. It also managed to avoid the excesses of metaphor owod suffered from. So I wouldn't say it was a complete mistake.

>>54300043
This checks out.
I also run all my games via Discord.

>>54303785
Savage Worlds goes from 3rd biggest in OP to nowhere in the top 8. Also, Pathfinder scores almost a third as high as 5e rather than less than a fifth as high. I like the chart in the OP better.

>>54303785
I'm going to save this for the next time a pathfaggot goes around saying Pathfinder is still the most popular game in the market

>>54304611
Not everybody who disagrees with you is a tripfag boogeyman.

>>54299992
I just want to see ttrpg's get more popular in general. As it stands any single moderately successful video game or movie probably out sells the entire rpg market.

>>54304421
>60% isn't a monopoly.
Not literally, no.

>It's not even that dominant.
Now you're on drugs. For one product to hold more than half of the share in a market crowded with many products is definitely dominant, especially when you consider that's it's just one flavor. Coke is the juggernaut of the soft drink market, but it accounts for only about 1/4 of soft drink sales. Lump it together with other the other products of the Coca-Cola Co. and you still only get to 42%. Lump all the D&Ds in that chart (including Pathfinder) together and you get something like 80%. That's ridiculously dominant.

>>54305012
can D&D and WotC make dictates to other companies? Engage in practices that prevent them from getting their product to consumers?

Can they control stores, conventions, or similar to favor them outside of their capacity to provide product?

You're confusing popular with dominant. D&D cannot determine the course of the market or creation.


Coca-Cola and Pepsi actually does a lot of those things, they make deals that there products are the only soft-drinks sold at various companies and events, or even stores. They aren't just popular, they hold their market share by forcing others out.
Just because Coca-Cola and Pepsi are splitting their dominance does not mean that they aren't pulling off a strategy of market dominance.
D&D isn't behaving in this way.

>>54304942
>HA! It's not the most popular game!
>2nd most popular game

Wow, you tell 'em.

>>54305172
Do people fight about Pathfinder's relationship with any game that isn't D&D? I don't see it compared to literally anything else.

File: 687474703a2f2f7777772e6d69636861656c646173686f772e636f6d2f6172742f77616e646572696e676d6f6e73746572735f6c617267652e6a7067.jpg (558KB, 1200x767px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 1200x767px

>>54300744

If your 5e characters don't play 5e themselves, you're doing it wrong.

Gaming proficiency exists for a reason, people.

>>54305154

There is a quite unique phenomena to D&D, of people who refuse to consider games that are not like D&D.

You get monogamers in other games, sure, but never to the same degree. They might just play one game because it's what they like.

D&D monogamers will claim that nothing else is a real RPG, will use D&D's structure as the model of the only proper way for those games to be, and will insist other games will conform to them. The monstrous clusterfuck of terrible OGL games that only existed to pander to that audience is clear evidence of how harmful that is.

I don't think D&D is a bad game. But I do think that the philosophy held by some of its audience is harmful to the industry as a whole, and we are increasingly better off the more that state of mind is eroded.

>>54304773
That's because Savage Worlds is explicitly supported on FG (and has been for a long time), whereas Roll20 only has community-based support for anything other than 5e and Pathfinder.

>>54305154
>Engage in practices that prevent them from getting their product to consumers?
They probably could; I just don't know that it would be worth the resources. But we're getting sidetracked here. The issue is not that D&D is engaging in unfair market practices. The issue is that four fifths of the market by that chart is playing D&D products, and that means every other RPG in existence is subdividing that last fifth. That means your opportunities to play something other than D&D are much more limited than if D&D products had only a 2/5 market share (which is still a fucking big chunk). Lack of diversity sucks.

>>54305333
>D&D monogamers will claim that nothing else is a real RPG
7+billion people, so sure there are all sorts of assholes.

I'm sure these people exist, but I've never met someone who thinks that games other than D&D aren't rpgs. I don't think they are the level of problem you are casting them to be.

OGL shithole is basically fanfiction being given licencing rights without editorial approval.
Like what happened with Lovecraft's work. Look at the shit that got created out of that.

>>54305389

More accurate data puts D&D, Pathfinder and the ephemera at around two thirds, which I think is a bit more reasonable.

>>54305389
except that the issue you are talking about is availability of the product.
Even leaving aside internet availability, the vast majority of gaming stores will have other games available.

It's about finding players, which is a matter of popularity and your own ability to communicate and generate interest.

D&D having a large market share isn't nearly the impediment to finding people and getting a game as the limited market of RPGs was.
It's not dominant, it's just popular.

You are the impediment to you playing these other games. They're there to buy. Talk to people.

>>54304559
>D&D has worked to remain modern, adaptable, and versatile,
Last time it tried that it failed miserably, and gave birth to a rival that promised to resist modernization of the game. And that's to say nothing of the online component that crashed and burned and killed the company's desire to integrate technology into their product. WotC's own latest attempt is a step backwards design wise in an attempt to be more classic and familiar.

D&D if anything is actually slowing modernization of the hobby.

>>54305504
The success of 5e would suggest that's not actually the case.

>>54305154
Given the changes how rulebooks look like in the last decades, I'm sure that spoony wizard that lives on the coast is trying this sort of thing.
I mean, those days everything is hardcover, full color, glossy and with lots of artwork (compare with ad&d).
This sort of book is expensive to print, even more so to the small name game companies (that don't have a big market and can't enjoy economy of scale). So the small either bumbs the pricetags up or looks cheap and unprofessional

>>54305538

5e is a very successful product. That does not mean it's at all a modern RPG in terms of design.

>>54305333
I've seen way more people that bitch about this than people that do this. Even including shitposters, that's a very small percentage of players.

>>54305500
>except that the issue you are talking about is availability of the product.
>Even leaving aside internet availability, the vast majority of gaming stores will have other games available.
I've seen less specialized stores carry only d&d, perhaps a few books of one or two other games. B&N was one such store.

>>54305333
I have never encountered these people you're describing in real life, and I strongly suspect you are blowing a previous encounter you had out of proportion, or else somehow assuming that someone who likes D&D negatively contrasting, say, GURPS to it, is somehow different from someone who likes GURPS negatively contrasting, say, World of Darkness to it.

>>54305389
Yeah, but that's a result of the other RPGs being unable to get larger portions of the market.

World of Warcraft wasn't the first MMO by any means, but it managed to overtake EverQuest and Ultima Online and such. Perhaps other RPGs should do whatever WoW did if they want to grab larger market shares.

>>54305333
I can create boogeymen too and pretend they're a major concern.
Also, why are you so desperate to play with these "D&D monogamers"? Barring that, it sounds like what game these guys want to play doesn't affect you at all.

More importantly, why do you genuinely believe that this group is so large and powerful that they can impose any real influence on the gaming community?

>The monstrous clusterfuck of terrible OGL games that only existed to pander to that audience is clear evidence of how harmful that is.

You're really making a huge set of logical leaps here.

You're willing to overlook far simpler explanations (the d20 system was popular, and a lot of amateur designers used it as a first step [basically just publishing their heartbreaker]. Most of what the OGL really did was give people who've been homebrewing D&D (something people have been doing since D&D's first printing) the opportunity to use the d20 logo, since it didn't actually provide any additional legal freedom because you couldn't copyright game rules to begin with), all so you can pretend your industry-warping "momogamers" are anything more than a nightmare you've dreamed up, likely from at best one or two cases of anecdotal evidence.

>>54305551
The fuck does "modern" even mean? Why does a game have to be "modern"? Especially if 5e proves that a lack of "modernization" (whatever that means) is not an impediment to success?

>>54305551
But it is a modern RPG in terms of design, regardless of success.

>>54305581
yeah, and not that long ago they didn't carry ANY rpg books.
This isn't a matter of D&D dominating the other stuff out of existence, it's the expanding of the market. That, unsurprisingly, starts with the most popular product.

>>54305538
What does success have to do with modernization? If the difference in success between 4e and 5e is any example the hobby is strongly against that. People want familiar, not new, and because it and games like it consume over half the market, the entire thing could stagnate. D&D clearly has a huge influence, apparently unintentionally at that

>>54305547
God forbid the internet exists.

>>54305581
My local Barnes & Noble carries 5e, Rogue Trader, and Pathfinder.

Back when Boarders was a thing, it carried D&D and World of Darkness, mostly.

>>54305620
>d&d is trying to stay modern
>actually it isn't, it's latest version is shooting to be old school
>but its successful so that can't be the case
>success and modern design do not correlate
>yeah well who gives a shit about modern design
Apparently you did

>>54305632
I can say I've seen B&N carrying several copies of D&D books since 3.5. It's dominance in that chain has not changed since

>>54305714
I didn't say that D&D has been trying to stay modern. I'm asking what "modern" even means in this context. Then I'm observing that, if Anon is right and 5e isn't "modern", that doesn't appear to be an impediment based on available data, so I'm questioning why an RPG needs to be "modern", whatever that's supposed to mean.

Seriously, what does "modern" mean in this context?

>>54305714
The logic of big name developers, ALL OF THEM, goes like this.

>*waddles around like a fat bitch* We ummm cant make risky decisions or we'll go bankwupt

>>54305714
>>actually it isn't, it's latest version is shooting to be old school

You mean taking lessons from the past while incorporating them in a more refined package that removes a fair amount of the archaic and outdated rules and conventions, all while introducing new mechanics and philosophies from current gaming trends, complete with monthly updates to address concerns and introduce ideas to keep the game as fresh and contemporary as feasibly possible?

The fuck isn't modern about that?

>>54305755
that's less than 10 years.
I know you're probably in your early 20's so that seems like forever, but it's a tiny time period.

It's still an expansion of gaming into the mainstream vendors, not smaller games being forced out of those vendors.

>>54305808
They did with 4e. They laid off most of their staff and had to radically alter their production models in their next edition

They were right

>>54305620
5e is an ancient relic dredged up from bottom of the RPG community swamp. It's hilariously obsolete, even anachronistic. No other games apart from DnD and its twins continue with absurd mechanics like alignment and bolted-to-the-track level based progression, tosay nothing of its hideously flawed core mechanic, the d20 roll itself.

I fear a 6e will be out in a few years and you'll have to buy all your books again.

Really though, I find group is more make/break than the system. The right group could possibly make a game in FATAL fun even if it is a shit system. I'm probably prefer something that runs much smoother though.

>>54305500
>except that the issue you are talking about is availability of the product.
No. I'm talking about availability of players. When I first went to college, I was a big metalhead and all anybody around me wanted to listen to was shit like the Grateful Dead. Nobody was forcing them to, and it's not like I couldn't go to the store and buy something else, but it did mean that I could rarely listen to music I liked in mixed company.

>It's about finding players, which is a matter of popularity
Yes. And D&D is overly popular. I don't want to hear another fucking bootleg of Roll Away the Dew or Friend of the Devil. You seem to be fixated on the reason why D&D dominates the market, like it doesn't count unless it's a supple-side issue, and I'm saying it doesn't matter. I think it's good when people are playing a diversity of games, and when people don't use D&D as a synonym for RPG. Mind you, I have nothing in particular against D&D--I've played my fair share of several different editions--but I don't think any one family of systems needs more than a third of the market. 25%, 20%, 15%, 10%, 8%, 6%, 5%, 4%, 3%, 2%... That looks like a much better arrangement to me.

>>54305873
Those are hot opinions. Too bad the overwhelming majority of players disagree with you.

>No other games apart from DnD and its twins continue

Except for this part. That's just factually wrong.
You might have to loosen your hate goggles a little, they're clearly cutting the flow of blood to your brain.

>>54305868

That was more due to Hasbro's utterly unrealistic sales expectations. 4e still sold pretty damn well.

>>54305903
>wow those are some hot opinions, too bad nobody shares em, h-heh everyone likes the big bang theory

>That's just factually wrong.
Name one.

>>54305873
>flawed core mechanic, the d20 roll itself.

So rolling D100 or D12 is so much more exciting? Wait, should we settle everything with coin flips or rock/paper/scissors?

>>54305951
D i c e p o o l s

>>54305873
So...modern means "less randomness"?

Thanks, but no thanks.

>alignment

Is essentially optional in 5e. Also alignment at least *functions*, which is more than I can say for the World of Darkness' morality systems.

Seriously, with WoD, the intent is to represent a slow decline into depravity; the effect is a mechanical point at which your character considers murder a viable solution to problems.

>bolted-to-the-track level based progression

Kits, feats, spell or maneuver selection, and multiclassing apparently aren't a thing.

>>54300010
Fpbp

>>54305845
29 actually, but I see your point. Simply saying what I've observed
>>54305903
>Too bad the overwhelming majority of players disagree with you.
>>54305903
The majority of players are new or converts from previous d&d editions/of. They've never played anything else and seem obsessed with maintaining the d&d "feel" if the play test was any indication. They are not the best judges oif modern game design, or at least don't care

>>54305901
> think it's good when people don't use D&D as a synonym for RPG.
Most people who play RPGs don't.

>Mind you, I have nothing in particular against D&D
Something seems to say otherwise.

You really seem obsessed about what other people play and saying that they need to stop playing one game because it happens to be too popular for your tastes.

I've played my fair of games, and while D&D may not be the best game, there's really no reason to be upset that a lot of people like it.

Perchance do you just lack the personal charisma to convince people to play other games?

>>54306002
>Kits, feats, spell or maneuver selection, and multiclassing apparently aren't a thing.
Pale shadows of what they provided an edition earlier
I would kill to see paragon paths and epic destinies make a comeback

>>54306014
Oh wow, my most humblest and sincerest of apologies, I didn't realize someone appointed YOU as the best judge of modern game design.

Who was it? Some lady in a lake?

>>54306014
>They've never played anything else and seem obsessed with maintaining the d&d "feel" if the play test was any indication.

Well it's like how in /tg/ if you try to talk of a system that isn't one of the core /tg/ talks about you're probably told it's shit. If you breath a mention of Palladium there is some manchild that find the thread and declares you must be on person that posted 5 years ago that he is convinced is the only one that has ever played Palladium.

>>54299992
>tfw your system waifu didn't make the chart
Truly a hidden gem.

>>54306002
>modern means less randomness
To a certain extent, yes, absolutely. Maybe better said, modern game design never incorporates a flat probability curve as its core resolution mechanic.

>alignment doing anything good, ever
>alignment being at all comparable to the various 'morality' mechanics of WoD - which are utterly absent several gamelines to begin with
>all WoD games are revised era Masquerade
Fucking retard.

>blah blah so many options
I feel sorty for you if you think 5e is in any way favorable to character customization. That's some of the good ol DnD-induced brain damage at work.

>>54305901
so I'm going at this from an ecology prospective, because my parents or both ecologist so I kinda default to this.

First: there is this rule that just holds for any ecosystem, and from math and statistics it's basically a thing for any collection.
"The majority of species will always make up the minority of the population".
20%, or even 5% of any population will hold the overwhelming majority of the number of species in that population.

Second: Biodiversity isn't about the presence of the majority species, or even the composition of majority as a one way or multiway split, it's about the existence of that large number species within that minority.

Third: The existance of dominant species (and yeah, that's the term they'd use so I'll accept it), at even 70% isn't the sign of a threat to biodiversity or a sign of an unhealthy ecosystem.

It might mean that the minority species have to put in a little more work to find mates, but they will have adapted ways to survive that.

>>54306115

Eh, I wouldn't be so absolute about it. 4e is an example of modern game design, even with the d20. They just worked around it in ways that made sense, after they figured out the system math tweaks.

>>54306087
>if you try to talk of a system you're probably told it's shit.

Fixed.

>>54306065
Chill, friend. I'm just pointing out the fanbase is clearly more concerned with d&d staying d&d more than anything else.

>>54306115
>I feel sorty for you if you think 5e is in any way favorable to character customization
Found the min-maxxer

>>54306087
>Well it's like how in /tg/ if you try to talk of a system that isn't one of the core /tg/ talks about you're probably told it's shit.
I hate this so much. Any thread about a lesser-known system is bound to have a dedicated autist either vehemently spewing vitriol about how the system burned their house down and raped their mother or spamming a pasta about how the system is utterly broken. Then the thread devolves into arguing with said autist until everyone leaves and it 404s. At least the general threads for the big systems have the momentum for additional discussion, but it's depressing seeing threads utterly filled with pointless arguments and non-discussions because of a single person dedicated to hating every iota of that game.

>>54306087
I've found .tg/ generally assesses lesser talked about systems fairly, its just the thread is guaranteed to die in 10 posts. It's the popular stuff we call shout yet can never shut up about.

Such is the nature of 4chan.

>>54306115
>modern game design never incorporates a flat probability curve as its core resolution mechanic
that's fucking stupid.

Actual intelligent game design thinks about how the probability curve of it's core resolution mechanic effects came play.

Flat probability is fine if you are going for a game in which you want a high degree of unpredictability, or in which you don't want any given roll to have an overwhelming effect on the game.

If you actually paid attention to 5e design, you'd notice that vastly reduced the ability for one roll to have an effect on the game.
Living and dying requires 3 rolls, no save vs die spells anymore. etc etc.

It's not the best design for it's intent, but they're smarter than flatly stating that 'flat probability curve' is always wrong.

Flat probability curve also increases the speed of resolution and the ease for players to determine likelihood of successful resolution, making it better for people less familiar with dice rolling resolution mechanics.

>>54306033
>Most people who play RPGs don't.
A shitload of people who are looking to get into RPGs do. On this very board, they do.

>You really seem obsessed about what other people play and saying that they need to stop playing one game because it happens to be too popular for your tastes.
All I've done is express a preference that not such a large majority of people play one family of RPGs. I'd hardly say that indicates obsession. I would also rather 80% of the television shows that people watch not be crime dramas, because that shit would get really old.

>there's really no reason to be upset that a lot of people like it.
I don't have a problem with it being popular. Shit, it deserves that based on its history alone, but at a certain point, it starts to elbow other shit aside and become the default. And it's "why don't we just play D&D?" when you try to push for something else. And if 4 out of 5 of games played are D&D and you're in a group with 4 other people, chances are that you're outnumbered.

>>54306193
Godbound is a bad game, seriously. I am not the 2hu autist.

>>54306147
No, they're more concerned with the game being good.

Notice how 5e changed a lot of stuff, but people welcomed and accepted those changes? Because they were largely good design decisions?

It's not because they wanted to keep playing 3rd edition forever. That doesn't make any sense.

People want to play good games. They like games like 5e. You disagreeing doesn't make them wrong or make them following some agenda to keep roleplaying games in some eternal stasis. It just means that you don't like what most people like.

So you can go ahead and lob that scimitar right back at that moistened bint.

>>54306186

>Character customisation is about minmaxing

Nope

>>54306238
>All I've done is express a preference that not such a large majority of people play one family of RPGs

Why though? What does it matter to you? Effect you at all? It really doesn't, up until you start hypothesizing up reasons for why you can't convince people to play other games that doesn't involve any personal responsibility on your own part.

>And it's "why don't we just play D&D?" when you try to push for something else.

It's never been a problem for me, and I've played with a wide variety of groups, including being the guy who introduced people who've only ever played D&D to new games. Usually, all it takes is a "Have you played X? It's pretty fun, and I can teach you pretty quickly as we play."

>>54306241

5e is popular because it's bland, safe and familiar. It didn't make good design decisions. It made inoffensive ones. Which is why you're seeing more and more people start getting bored of it. 5e filled the gap by being the safest, most D&D-est game possible without doing anything risky or new, but people are already getting to the limits of what it as a system can provide.

>>54304976
Actually this raises a curiosity question. I know video games for instance are a billion dollar industry at this point, how much money gets thrown around in rpgs these days? Like not counting figures or anything, just books and dice

>>54306116
>70% isn't the sign of a threat to biodiversity or a sign of an unhealthy ecosystem.
If 70% of the television shows out there were gender-changing high school animes, I think you might be changing your tune.

>>54306241
They reject a great del of ideas because it wasn't "dnd" the conversion of wizard to mage, the bundling sorcerer into a magre/wizard subclass, martial dice for all martials, "OP" or "unrealistic" abilities for noncasters, etc. The play test was a shitstrom of people shooting down any idea that deviated too far from the usual dnd traditions. Gods is relative and I won't argue what things were good, but the motivation behind many of 5e decisions was familiarity, not modernization

>>54306341
>video game industry worth a billion dollars
Try GTA V alone.

File: image.jpg (32KB, 752x195px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 752x195px

>>54300111
>>54300158
>>Also, 4E had the worst graphic design and layout of any RPG I have seen that wasn't some single-author indie. Whenever I bought the books I was appalled at how bad they looked on the inside

Are you insane? 4ed had the most easy to read and follow visual grammar of any editon. They *were* best for clarity and transparency.

If you want to see example of bad editing and layout pick up your uncles copy of Advance Dungeons & Dragons sometime and try to keep in mind this is the *revised* edition.

>>54306338
>Which is why you're seeing more and more people start getting bored of it.

You got anything to support that, aside from anecdotal evidence that largely just correlates with standard system fatigue? Because, the numbers seem to indicate that 5e players continues to grow in number and retain those numbers.

5e made a lot of good design decisions. If you can't understand that, you're really just desperately trying to alienate yourself from the opinions of most other roleplayers. For what purpose? So you can continue to not like D&D without having to contend with anything that might challenge that stance?

>>54306375

The Next playtest was when I lost hope in 5e. Every fucking good, interesting idea was ripped out of it in the name of grog appeal.

>>54306395

5e is a successful product that made good decisions in terms of catering to their primary demographic.

I don't believe those decisions directly align with good game design. But, clearly, the D&D audience has shown it doesn't actually care about good game design. It just want things that are the same, but slightly different. And that's what 5e was.

>>54306383
Try the original D&D sometime. I love it but it's a nightmare of wonky editing.
>Some monster entries have AC: 2
>Some monster entries have AC - 2
>No indication whether or not a negative AC value exists

>>54306241
>It's not because they wanted to keep playing 3rd edition forever. That doesn't make any sense.

Of course it makes sense, the OGL and 3e's own stay in the limelight raised an entire generation of gamers to believe that tabletop = d20s and wizards because that was all they experienced, they were never exposed to anything else. That's exactly why they pushed for 5e to be close to 3.5, and ultimately 5e accepted that design goal in spite of having lots of different ideas in early tests. It is exactly because that's what this wave of players believe a tabletop RPG is at its core, something that could be made with the OGL; and if it isn't that, then it doesn't count.

There's no agenda, there's just inertia, and their approval lends no evidence to the argument of a game being good or bad. They're not thinking about it at all, and don't have the capacity to do so.

File: DnD Next.png (263KB, 1432x2040px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1432x2040px

>>54306406

>>54304294
Anima's my favorite tabletop RPG. The barrier of entry is scary, but it's a fun game once you get over that initial hump, and the gameplay is that ridiculous anime bullshit that makes you feel like you're playing a good DMC game or Bayo or something.

>>54306375
Most of those ideas were rejected because they're not popular, not just because they're not D&D. I'm sorry that you disagree with the majority about what is good and what is bad, but what I'm really sorry about is that I'm the one who has to explain something so basic as "Your opinions aren't universally accepted and adhered to as the singular truth."

Hell, I even agree with some of your opinions, but recognize that most people would disagree with us.

>>54306329
>Why though? What does it matter to you? Effect you at all?
Because I have to play games with other people, 4/5 of whom are used to D&D. And it's not just that they're used to; it predominates to the point where it's the "normal" thing to play. And then it's no longer a case of figuring out what game to play, but rather having to come up with a good reason not to play the de facto default. It's like trying to figure out what restaurant to go to when all anybody ever eats is Chinese food and you're starting out in the parking lot of Panda Express.

>It's never been a problem for me, and I've played with a wide variety of groups, including being the guy who introduced people who've only ever played D&D to new games. Usually, all it takes is a "Have you played X? It's pretty fun, and I can teach you pretty quickly as we play."
Then you live in magical fairy land.

>>54306442

>The majority

Hahahahaha. He doesn't know about the rigged polls.

>>54306410
But Negative AC is shown to exist even in the player's handbook. Full Plate + Shield = 0 thus with any Dex mod (which back in those days worked with heavy armor) you'd hit a negative AC value. And as I recall in the DMG it actually capped AC at -10 for mortal creatures, with only a few gods breaking that cap.

>>54306442
>Most of those ideas were rejected because they're not popular, not just because they're not D&D.
Several essay long posts were made about how certain features weren't in the "spirit" of dnd or how x should stay because it's iconic of dnd. It was astounding how many arguments were made with that as their core point, with the actual mechanical competence of a thing was peripheral or not even addressed.

>>54306412
In most ways, it only superficially resembles 3.5.

It's actually more like a polished 2e but with a more robust combat system that takes aspects of 4e while introducing its own unique combat math that ranges somewhere between 2e and 4e's scale, and going nowhere near 3.5's range.

In general, 5e is its own unique system, and lamenting people preferring to retain some things seems to be mostly just you hating D&D and not wanting the system to retain ANYTHING that seemed to harbor that identity.

>>54306458
I'm talking about the OD&D Little Brown Books, not AD&D.

>>54306451
I guess I just have an ounce of charisma. Try to obtain some, and you might be able to perform such a drastically impossible task as getting people to listen to one of your suggestions on what to play.

>It's like trying to figure out what restaurant to go to when all anybody ever eats is Chinese food and you're starting out in the parking lot of Panda Express.

Not really an issue if you're in a parking lot of several restaurants. You really think people who only eat Chinese food would be so resistant to trying something new when it's only a few feet away from the Panda Express?

Welcome to knowing many games and knowing how to teach them. Get a good reputation as a GM, and people will play whatever you want.

>>54306519
>its own unique combat math that ranges somewhere between 2e and 4e's scale, and going nowhere near 3.5's range.
But 4e's combat math was closer to 3.5 than anything else.

5e has some weird inspiration from 4e. It's like it's inspired more by the misconceptions than the actual game, and miss the point of the mechanic, thus making it's inclusion pointless. Best example of this is hit die healing and their apparent total misunderstanding of the healing surge mechanic of 4e

>>54306619
>want to play a non d&d system
>only way is to gm it yourself
>now locked into forever gm role, never get to be a player
Life is suffering

>>54306519
NOTHING unique to DnD is good. In fact, all the things it has that nothing else has (aforementioned alignment, class/level paded rooms, and its core d20 mechanic) are in fact unique only because of /how bad/ those features are. No other systems use them because, holy shit, they're painful to experience. They should have died in the 80s, not lived to torture each upcoming generation of gamers into a slavish, lobotomized dependency on wretched game design.

>>54306410
>>54306458
Both THAC0 and AC can go into negative numbers (theoretically maxing out at -10)

>>54306625
> It's more like they took inspiration from misconceptions of the game

I thought they the decided to just ignore everything from 4e. You don't have healing surges anymore at all.

>>54306719

4e's tactical combat was legitimately enjoyable

>>54306719
>NOTHING unique to DnD is good

NOTHING is unique to D&D.

And, for fuck's sake, quit trying to pretend that alignment, classes, or the d20 mechanic are irredeemably bad in any realm except your own head. It's getting tedious to have you try to base your entire argument on your personal opinion, and to have to remind you that most people disagree with you from the start, rendering your entire argument just an upset rant.

>>54306619
>I guess I just have an ounce of charisma.
I'm gonna say something, and I want you to read this as dismissive and not all bent out-of-shape, okay?

Go fuck yourself.

>Try to obtain some
I don't believe I have an issue with charisma. I think the problem is that people are lazy creatures of habits. But its not like somebody can just decide to be charismatic on a whim, so I'm starting to think you're a troll.

>Not really an issue if you're in a parking lot of several restaurants.
But you're not. Being in the parking lot = already knowing the system. And in my experience, getting a big group to agree on a restaurant is tricky enough that something like proximity often becomes the deciding factor.

But really this whole conversation is stupid. That a diverse gaming market is superior should be readily apparent, and that fact that it isn't to you indicates to me that you're either a D&D fanboy, a troll, or an idiot. Or, you know, some combination of three.

File: editions of D&D graphic.png (229KB, 911x1470px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 911x1470px

>>54306458

>>54306798
Wargames deliver deep tactical combat. That's an ancillary purpose of RPGs.

>>54306822
Alignment is completely unique to DnD.

Level/class 'progression' - unlocking +1s and new spells in a completely linear and nearly (and often actually) choiceless fashion is at least something I've never encountered outside of DnD and its unholy spawn.

The d20/flat probability curve is maybe the most insidious element of DnD, as it is mildly prolfic - but in no way is it modern or a first choice for anyone byt delusional OSRdrones.

>>54306741
They snuck in bits and pieces. Though given how badly maybe it actually is just new ideas with a vague resemblance to old ones.

>>54306898

A good combat system in an RPG is very different to a good combat system in a wargame, and they are enjoyed in different ways. 4e had extremely good RPG combat.

>>54306741
You don't have healing surges limiting you healing per day, but you can spend your hit dice to regain health during a short rest. That way while magical healing is highly useful, it's not the only way to heal.

>>54306898

There is nothing wrong with flat probability you moron. I hate most versions of D&D but even I'm aware that the mechanic itself has advantages and disadvantages, it's just a matter of it being applied correctly.

>>54306898
The flat probability curve works exactly as intended. A +1 is a +1. It's fine.

>>54306898
>Alignment is completely unique to DnD.
And effectively removed from the game. I run my game without it, and haven't had to houserule a single thing since even Smiting isn't based on alignment anymore.
>Level/class 'progression' - unlocking +1s and new spells in a completely linear and nearly (and often actually) choiceless fashion is at least something I've never encountered outside of DnD and its unholy spawn.
And you still haven't told us why linear character progression (barring the fact that you choose your ASIs, Feats, Spells, and subclass) is a bad thing.
>The d20/flat probability curve is maybe the most insidious element of DnD, as it is mildly prolfic - but in no way is it modern or a first choice for anyone byt delusional OSRdrones.
And you haven't told us why flat probability curves are a bad thing either. Please, grace us all with your wisdom

>>54306957
Of course there's nothing wrong with it - as a random number generator. But as the core resolution mechanic, it is TERRIBLE unless you want a game to BE random. A d20 gives you a 5% chance of scoring every result, making all your tests unpredictable in a vacuum. A super stronk guy is equally likely as a shrunken midget with Parkinson's to score a critical failure or critical threat on an attack roll. All modifiers do is float you, but never away from 5% *worst thing which could happen does*. Players have no fucking idea what's going to happen when they attack an enemy, and that's REALLY BAD game design.

>>54307054

Nope. You started out okay, and then you lept into stupid assumptions and wild assertions that aren't actually inherent to the idea of flat probability.

>>54306840
>I don't believe I have an issue with charisma.

I'm pretty sure you do, especially if your belief is that if people don't agree with you or follow your suggestions, it's entirely due to flaws in their character.

>Being in the parking lot = already knowing the system.

Okay, the next parking lot over then. It's still not an incredible journey through tundra and desert, because you can teach the basics of even the most difficult RPG in a single session to give the players a taste for it.

My issue with you is that you seem to mistake one game being popular with the gaming market not being diverse, all because you don't want to admit you lack the ability to convince people to try new things.

Also, do you know anyone who eats Chinese food every day? Even Chinese people don't eat Chinese food every day when given the choice. Do you know how easy it is to get people to play new games? I'm actually somewhat mystified by how you want to keep professing your ineptitude and somehow expecting anyone with even an ounce of charisma to sympathize with you.

I am no suave, smooth-talking socialite; I don't even own a tuxedo. But, I've never had an issue getting people to try out new games, especially people who've either played only one or none. Green Eggs and Ham, man.

Here's the bottom line. I agree that people should play lots of different games. Whole-heartedly, to the point where I am a motherfucking game ambassador that has introduced dozens of new games to dozens of groups, all with the intention of helping them learn to love and explore the hobby.

What I disagree with is how you get upset about D&D being statistically popular, like you think this is some war or competition that you are losing every time someone decides to play D&D.

>>54307037
>I ignore this awful part of the game which means it's not bad game design!
>S-so why are choices so good, huh anon? I don't like grapes anyways!
>What's so bad about having no way to reliably play a character to his supposed abilities?!

>>54307054
>remove critical fumbles, a 1 is just a 1
Did I fix it?

>>54307054

>Players have no fucking idea what's going to happen when they attack an enemy, and that's REALLY BAD game design.

It's not hard to go 'I have a 30/70/95% chance of success' with a given role. I mean, that happens with all dice options. It's just that they are less flat. Which can have it's own problems. 2d6 for example vastly increase the value of each +1, making opposition from a position of even a little weakness massively harder.

>>54307096
What? How did he start out "okay"? The whole thing is just a silly rant from a guy who hates anything that is recognizable as part of D&D.

>>54307157
>Of course there's nothing wrong with it

>>54307134
Trip up, please. If you're this stupid, you have a responsibility to warn people.

>>54307054
>But as the core resolution mechanic, it is TERRIBLE unless you want a game to BE random.

You're just complaining about critical fumbles balls right?

>>54307148
>a 1 is just a 1
Except that's still the >>worst possible result<< and you are equally likely at scoring it as >>any other result including the best<<.

>>54307150
With flat probability you actually just have a 5% chance of any particular result. Now you might have a window which operates on skill margins so you can say "I will succeed this check 84% of the time," but functionally you are completely unable to gauge which of those 20 results will pop, because they're still equally likely.

>>54307232

And that isn't a problem for most people.

You're mistaking 'I don't like this' for 'This is a bad mechanic'.

>>54307232
How can you actually be this stupid?

Hold up. Before anyone tears his post apart, let me make some popcorn first.

>>54307250
Fuck, man. Don't do it succinctly like that.

>>54307250
No result being any more common than any other creates an absurd situation for gameplay which requires extensive supplementary mechanics to remotely begin compensating for. Flat probability is good for random generation but it is strictly bad as a core resolution mechanic of any game intent on sensible play.

>>54307232

>but functionally you are completely unable to gauge which of those 20 results will pop

That applies to literally every single game that uses random number generation. While each result is not always equally likely you still get 'I have X chance to fail'.

>>54307298

Nope. You don't like it.

Flat probability is great for systems which don't value reliability. Where those intense highs and lows are part of the experience, and you don't want those middle results to be more common because that would make the game more boring. It makes every roll of the dice exciting and meaningful, as opposed to bell curve systems where tending to an average means that, the majority of the time, the diceroll holds very little tension or risk.

This isn't your preferred style, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.

>>54307301
The difference lies in your and your players' ability to make informed judgements as to the outcome of a test, versus just playing Russian Roulette.

Maybe idiots like
>>54307327
Think Russian Roulette is a good and interesting but that is ultimately just the classic DnD brain damage/Stockholm syndrome talking.

>>54307298
>No result being any more common than any other

Sadly, that's not the case.
You're looking at the dice being rolled without any modifiers, but more importantly, without appreciating the notion of target numbers.

Ignore critical fumbles for a moment, something that only applies to attacks and saves anyway. The rate of pass and success is determined not by the roll, but by the target number assigned to the task.

Whether a person succeeds or fails a task reliably or not depends far more on the choice of the target number than it does on what dice are being rolled. "Reliability" or "Consistent Results" in a binary yes/no pass/fail system like the one used in the majority of D&D has almost nothing to do with how many dice you roll, but the scale of the DCs involved. It's why 5e has attack rolls being more consistent than in previous editions, because the ACs have been reduced to account for a reduction in the number of attacks as well as the general damage output.

What the d20 does is provide DMs and players simple and easy math to wrap their heads around, with increments of 5% that enable them to quickly anticipate how hard something might be. For the most part, the choice of what dice mechanic to use is largely a matter of preference.

>>54307388

This is nothing to do with D&D, and you completely ignored my actual points about why it is a mechanic that can be used to properly support a certain kind of experience. Go fuck yourself.

>>54307518
He's a dimwitted troll. Don't give him the satisfaction of telling him to go fuck himself.

>>54307388

>The difference lies in your and your players' ability to make informed judgements as to the outcome of a test

That's what probability is for and the probability of a d20 is very easy to calculate. If anything it makes informed judgements easier.

>>54306712
See before I left for dinner I was going to make a post suggesting he only ever is a player and doesn't want to GM, thus is expecting people to GM a game they're unfamiliar with to suit his desires.

>>54306898
>Alignment is completely unique to DnD.
Since when? I mean I know from play 2nd there was a lot of things that revolved around alignment and restricted to it, but it's far from the only game with alignments to my knowledge.

>>54302294

Which is why I added "who aren't willing to try anything outside of what they define to be THE TRUE RPG"

Having opinions is fine, having opinions that exclude other options is less fine. I'm never going to tell someone their fun is wrong, but this is about an idealized world, and in my idealized world people are willing to try new things.

>>54307865
Please name another game that uses alignment.

>>54307232
>you actually just have a 5% chance of any particular result.
Every number on a fair d20 has a 5% chance of showing. Unless each number is assigned a completely different result then your actual statement is false. If I have a crit window of 19-20 and need a 10 or higher to hit then I have 10% chance to crit, 45% chance of normal hit, and a 45% chance of missing. 10 through 18 isn't each it's own value of hitting. That's like shitting about damage being too inconsistent because a 1 is less than a 6.

>>54308038
Everything Palladium has printed.

If a truly superior system existed, it would eat into D&D's market share. The reality is that every RPG geek has some beef with D&D rules, and some of said geeks have a different system that they like. But those systems also have major flaws, it's just that said flaws don't get much attention because the games aren't notable in the first place.

>>54308080

Not really, because the success of a product is determined by a whole slew of factors. Marketing, having the right idea at the right time, having the right connections, etc.

Just look at Beats headphones. They're overpriced plastic garbage, and any rational customer could buy a better product for half the price from another brand. They sold like hotcakes though, because celebrities wore them, and because they kept appearing in music videos.

D&D has had the benefit of being the definitive roleplaying game due to decades of media and culture. Even people who have never played a role playing game have heard about D&D because writers are lazy. When lazy TV writers want to show us some hardcore nerds, they're sitting around a table playing D&D or making jokes that are clearly a reference to D&D.

The conventions laid out by D&D and other early RPGs also bled off into video games and started to define the genre, so people who play video games often find themselves playing D&D.

>>54308676
If this was /v/ you'd essentially be saying some crappy MMO isn't crappy, WoW is crappy, but your crappy MMO didn't have enough marketing to kill it even though it should have. It's not admitting most declared "WoW killers" were shit and didn't bring anything truly new to the table. That or you're being a full autist and being like Tales of Tails when they had their twitter meltdown when they went bankrupt.

>>54308742

What are you even talking about?

>>54308749
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad.

>>54299992
Shadowrun.

>>54308757

It's not even my argument, I just had no idea what the fuck you were saying or how it linked to the post you replied to.

>>54308742

What are you talking about?

I never said D&D was bad, I said you shouldn't assume that something dominates the market because it's objectively good. Great products often fail because of poor marketing. That's why marketing exists. Having a good product isn't enough, you have to get it out there.

D&D is owned by WotC, does it really surprise you that a multi-million dollar company with an entire building outside of Seattle as its headquarters is outcompeting a bunch of smaller games? They have enough money to move large prints, distribute them to stores, run promotional events, create online tools, etc. All of that stuff keeps D&D cemented in our culture.

I'm saying that culture and marketing matter, calm your tits.

File: esteren_ks_sepcial_edition_560.jpg (122KB, 560x781px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 560x781px

>>54299992
>Shadows of Esteren not even on the graph

I wish more people played. Its one of my favorite games.

>>54308759
Love the setting and lore they made but holy shit the mechanics are some of the worst I can recall.

>To attack roll 20 dice
>Now roll 15 defence dice
>Now roll 10 dice to see how much damage you take

Those are the regular rolls, not even starting what happens when you get a decker involved.
They should really streamline this somewhat.

>>54308916
>Great products often fail because of poor marketing.

Actually, that's rather rare and an exception to the rule, especially in the age where word of mouth can reach millions of people.

Can you provide some recent examples?

>>54309112

It's kinda Heresy to say it but I really like the PBTA system Sprawl for that sort of stuff. It's Clocks system (Where a threat like getting noticed by a corp is represented on a clock counting to midnight) is a really good visual way for players to know how close to a fuckup/success something is going and something I'm tempted to use when I next run Shadowrun rather than leaving it quite so nebulous.

>>54309238
>Actually, that's rather rare and an exception to the rule, especially in the age where word of mouth can reach millions of people.
I'm not the person you're responding to, but we can't even agree on facts and science these days. I think the idea that free dissemination of information will automatically lead to enlightenment has gone out the window.

>>54308916
Just as the other posted mentioned in his analogy, what you're neglecting here is the quality of the competition. Everyone who has a pet system has an interest in criticizing D&D, yet when it comes to talking about a replacement there's a dozen different answers. If there were an objectively better system, it would become the dominant answer.

Many of the gripes about D&D are totally subjective, and even when two people agree on a particular problem they may each like completely different solutions. So in this situation everyone criticizes the popular system, pushing their own pet system, but none of the systems are actually better for the majority.

Also, you mention that WotC has a ton of money and organizational structure to market their games, but you neglect that they also have a lot of resources to test and improve games. It's easy to stand back and say the smaller games are better when nobody is talking about their flaws.

The biggest problem with the anti-D&D crap is that the follow-up recommendation is "play anything but D&D", which just goes to show that /tg/ can't agree on what's good.

>>54308080
Isn't this whole thread people arguing that popularity and quality don't equate?

>>54309576

Betamax

>>54309593
You can claim that something is quality all you want, but if nobody else agrees with you then you can't really claim objective quality. It's a lot easier to "attack the leader" than to defend that position.

>>54309238

Fail was too strong of a word, I should have been more concise. Great products often get minimal attention, because they aren't as marketable or because they don't have the privilege of being part of an established brand.

>Ipods vs everything else.
There are plenty of options, many of which are cheaper.

>iPhones and other apple products.
Same thing.

>Beats headphones
Already mentioned these. When beats hit the market they were EVERYWHERE. People who once scoffed at the idea of spending more than a hundred bucks on a pair of headphones were buying them.

>Clothing.
There are a ton of brands where the price is not an indicator of quality at all, and you essentially turn yourself into a billboard for the company while wearing it. You pay someone to advertise for them.

>Multiple startups, tech in general.
It doesn't matter how good your product is if people simply aren't ready for it or don't have access to it. Ride sharing wouldn't work without smartphones. Did Uber do things better than their competitors? Sure, but at the same time they came in at the right time. Too early, and the idea of ridesharing would have been weird (and there were earlier attempts) Too late, and the market would have been saturated.

>>54309635
I can hazard a guess at your meaning but if I'm correct then you're responding to the wrong post. I can also debate the point I think you're trying to make. But seriously anon, use your words and explain your argument so we can have an actual conversation.

>>54309786

An objectively superior product that failed against an objectively inferior competitor due to marketing.

>>54309593
>Isn't this whole thread people arguing that popularity and quality don't equate?
It seems to me that this whole thread is people arguing over whether popularity and quality equate. Which, to me, is astoundingly stupid. Certainly, quality is a positive factor when it comes to popularity, but it's frequently not even close to being the most important one.

>>54309817
Right, so first of all that has nothing to do with my post because I'm not debating the fact that marketing matters. Reread the post if you like. Marketing may play a big part in why D&D is popular, but I'm not talking about D&D so much as the lack of an agreed-upon alternative (which I assert is due to a lack of universally-appreciated quality).

As for Betamax, Sony has always pushed its proprietary formats to the detriment of the industry at large. Even if the Betamax technology itself was superior, that doesn't mean that embracing it was in the best interests of consumers and most industry participants.

>>54307298
>No result being any more common than any other

On a flat 1d20 roll, no result is any more common than any other, but a d20 roll in D&D is almost never flat; furthermore, remember that you're trying to get *at least* a given number, not any specific number. This means that while your odds of rolling any one given number are essentially the same as rolling any other, the odds of rolling a given number *or greater* are not.

In the case of 1d20+5 against a DC 15, for example, your chances of rolling a number that lets you hit that DC is 50%. Your chances of hitting a DC 20 are 30%.

>The difference lies in your and your players' ability to make informed judgements

I really don't understand this. While humans are in general bad at understanding probability, even middle school students have an easy time grasping the mechanics of the d20 system, because it's so simple and east to understand. "Roll a d20, add X, you're trying to get at least Y."

>>54307506
>something that only applies to attacks and saves anyway

Actually properly speaking in 5e it doesn't even apply to saves anymore. Just attacks.

>>54309983

It still contradicts one of your most flawed points-

>If there were an objectively better system, it would become the dominant answer.

People are not perfectly rational beings. Personally I don't believe there is a single ideal system, not because they're all bad but because playstyles differ so much that different games are necessary to support them.

However, even presupposing that an objectively superior system to D&D did exist, there is no rational basis for saying that it would take its place on quality alone.

>>54310029
Certainly not, but at the very least if there were a superior answer then enthusiasts would be able to figure it out. Betamax vs VHS is actually a great example of what ISN'T happening. Instead we have D&D and dozens of alternatives. If there is no other system that's strictly better at doing what D&D does, then you can't say D&D is a bad system.

>>54309983
To jump into this conversation, let me say that I agree that there isn't a clear agreed-upon alternative to D&D, but I don't think that's really what (most) people were talking about. It's merely that D&D is popular in large part due to its branding / name recognition. I can't speak for other people, but while I'd like it if D&D had a smaller share of the market, I specifically don't want some other game to take its place. I'd like to see the difference split between multiple products.

>>54308038
Games including an alignment system (in the sense of "a shorthand for a given character's (or religion's, society's, organization's, etc.) moral/ethical outlook on life, the universe and everything) include but are not limited to:

- D&D (the classic 9-point alignment system)
- d20 Modern (allegiances)
- GURPS Powers (Lawful, Chaotic, Good, Evil)
- GURPS Thaumatology ("ethical magic")
- The Witcher: Game of Imagination (Honor/Reputation/Adventure triangle)
- Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (Lawful, Good, Neutral, Evil, Chaotic)
- Palladium Books system
- FATAL (Ethical/Moral)
- Magic: the Gathering (The Color Pie, which if anything is even more draconian than the D&D alignments)
- Monsterpocalypse (Agendas)

>>54310145
I think there's utility in having one dominant system so that lots of different people can expect to play together without having to learn new rules.

>>54304658
An incomplete mistake is still a mistake. I would have much rather they spent time and money try blew on NWoD on expanding and enriching OWoD. Plus most of the new clans, tribes, courts and so on could have simply been added to OWoD with some tweaking.

I agree Promethean was nice, but like you said, it could have been an OWoD product.

I also wish they'd expanded on Dark Ages, because despite its massive shortcomings it's one of my favorite settings.

>>54310104

The problem there is that D&D itself doesn't do one thing. It's a somewhat unfocused system that is used by a lot of people to do a lot of different things that it was never intended to do. It's a unique position derived from its historical place within the industry and it isn't something any new system can approach in the same way.

>>54309817
Betamax didn't fail because of marketing. Betamax failed because no matter how superior it was, a single Betamax tape at the time of release couldn't record an entire football game, and by the time Betamax tapes that could record the entire game were released, VHS had already dominated the market AND improved in quality such that the differences between the two had become essentially nil.

>>54310104
>If there is no other system that's strictly better at doing what D&D does, then you can't say D&D is a bad system.
There are other systems that are better at what D&D's often being used for. D&D is a relatively niche product, at least when it comes to what it does well. And that's fine. I appreciate a specialized tool. And given its influence, D&D has actually made that niche more popular, which increases is applicability. But it's often used as the generic system for fantasy of any kind, or worse, for any setting at all (thanks, OGL). So I guess my issue is that D&D is like a screwdriver that's gotten so popular that people are using it to do shit like hammer in nails, which drives me crazy.

>>54310191
>I think there's utility in having one dominant system so that lots of different people can expect to play together without having to learn new rules.
I think there's danger in this as people expect to never have to learn new rules, and get stuck on the system. Plus, if there's going to be a dominant system, I'd much rather it be a more flexible one, like Savage Worlds or BRP.

>>54299992
traveller

>>54310303
>There are other systems that are better at what D&D's often being used for.

But apparently they're either not actually better, not much better, actually better but notably worse in other areas, or actually just better but don't have nearly the financial backing necessary to make any meaningful inroads into D&D's market share.

No matter what, they come up short.

>D&D is a relatively niche product

It's...I was gonna say "cute that you think that", but actually it's just weird. I mean, yeah, D&D is a niche product in general, but given the context it sounds like you're trying to say "among players of high fantasy tabletop RPGs, D&D is niche".

That's just wrong, dude.

>>54310361
>and get stuck on the system

But if they're having fun, why does that matter?

"Fun" is a buzzword in 3...2...1...

>>54310400

Because they might have more fun with less issues if they were using a system designed to be appropriate rather than bodging it with a system that isn't out of familiarity.

>>54310380

>don't have nearly the financial backing necessary to make any meaningful inroads into D&D's market share.

So, literally every non-D&D RPG could be objectively better at doing some or all of what D&D does, but because WotC's marketing is so huge and powerful none of it would matter. Thanks for agreeing with us.

>>54310303
>>54310210
I can't keep talking at the moment, but I'll part with this: What do you see as the main roles that D&D fills and what are the best systems for those roles? If a consensus can be reached on (say) 3 systems that are definitely better than D&D and are good recommendations, then that's a starting point. I feel like there will be a lot of potential criticisms to be leveled at whichever systems get named.

>>54310409
Are you certain they're having issues, though? I never had issues with d20 Modern, for example.

>>54310423
I offered it as one out of four possible options. Note that they're not all of them mutually exclusive, either.

For the most part, I actually think that what it is, is that D&D gets just enough right and not quite enough wrong that it tends to be, overall, the best. Most attempts at creating fantasy RPGs that are "better" than D&D end up only being better in one specific area, if that, and then worse in all the others. Often they're just entirely worse in every way (FATAL, natch). D&D might not do everything perfect, but it does everything good enough that it has broad appeal even leaving aside its massive market share. It's traded specialization for generalization.

But it ALSO has massive market share. But then again, to get this massive market share it must necessarily have been generally good enough to begin with, both to get players and to keep them. Likewise the huge player base allows the makers of D&D - first TSR, then WotC - to collect much more data on what their players want, and then implement them.

D&D is basically a perpetual motion machine for multiple reasons. It makes a lot of money, which means it can be marketed to a huge number of people, which means a huge number of people can play it, which means a huge amount of data can be collected on what those players want, which means that it can make and release what those players want, which means it can make a huge amount of money, etc.

No, it doesn't satisfy EVERYONE, but that's part of its generalist strategy. It's better to be good enough everywhere than to be the best in one or two places.

>>54310570

>to get this massive market share it must necessarily have been generally good enough to begin with

Your arguments just keep coming back to assuming quality by virtue of popularity

>>54310654
>Your arguments just keep coming back to assuming quality by virtue of popularity
But aren't you kinda assuming that something popular is thus of lower quality? It's like kids that watched South Park until it was popular then always said it was crap.

>>54310400
Because it will frustrate the shit out of people who don't want to play in the sort of setting it's good for, or who want to play a variety of games. And because it tends to encourage stagnation.

>>54310380
>No matter what, they come up short.
If your argument is that other games haven't had the right combination of factors to become as popular as D&D, I'd be inclined to agree with you seeing as they haven't become as popular as D&D.

>but given the context it sounds like you're trying to say "among players of high fantasy tabletop RPGs, D&D is niche".
D&D, though its influence, has distorted high fantasy role-play towards what it does. And I mean that in a neutral way; it's shaped the contours of the landscape. (And before I go on, I'd like to point out that medieval-ish high fantasy is but a niche of fantasy.) D&D is geared towards dungeon crawling for loot. It's exploration and combat-based, with the majority of the rules revolving around the latter. It has rigid classes, some of which may not work very well if you change what the game's about (a fighter in a game with very little combat, for instance). It is fairly abstracted with the way hit points, armor, and levels and such work. And there is a steep climb in power as characters level, making it impossible to have a relatively static environment when it comes to challenges and dangers, at least not if you want such things to be appropriate to the party's capabilities. Oh, and vancian magic is not how most people instinctively think of magic (and it makes magic a matter of resource management, and falls apart as a limiter of power if your adventures aren't arranged in such a way that endurance isn't a factor -- if you're able to sleep and meditate between each usage of spells, for instance).

None of this is wrong, but it's all... particular. And people go into D&D thinking about Conan or even Lord of the Rings, and that's really not what D&D does, at least not long term.

>>54310713

No? When was that ever said?

>>54306395
Not him but my group is burnt out on 5E already. A big factor in it is the lack of restrictions to character creation, especially for casters. Spell choice uniformity, awkward and laborious encounter planning, and being clumsier than OSR games without much to show for it hasn't aged well.

>>54310719
>D&D, though its influence,
*through its influence

>>54309720
You seem to have shown me examples of decent products excelling thanks to good marketing.

You have, however, failed to provide an example of a "great" product not doing well.

Sure, they exist, but they tend to be a rarity, which is the initial point, to a degree where it's actually fair to say that there is a strong correlation between popularity and quality, even if its not exact.

>>54310654
The thing is that something that is good, tends to be popular. For the most part whether or not you or I consider something to be good is entirely subjective, but you can make a pretty good guess about something being good if it is popular and, more importantly, popular *over time* - that is, it's not just a flash-in-the-pan popularity, but rather it can create and sustain popularity over years or even decades.

A good example of this? Ask someone in Herman Melville's lifetime what the best books he wrote were, and they'd probably say either Omoo or Typee. You've never heard of either of those books. What you have heard of is his last book, which was a dismal failure at the time of its release: Moby-Dick.

Likewise in his lifetime the composer Anotnio Salieri was considered one of the best in Europe, but these days most of his stuff is considered rather obscure - but that of his contemporary, Mozart, certainly isn't.

By the way, note I said popularity *over time*, so don't try bringing up Twilight. Get back to me in 10 years. If people are still talking about Twilight and making Twilight-related things and it's still bringing in money, then it's probably considered good by a majority of people; else, why would people still be buying it?

>>54310893

I watched that video too. Bonus points for taking the argument wonderfully out of context.

>>54310826
>You have, however, failed to provide an example of a "great" product not doing well.
I think it's difficult to call something great until it has excelled. Not because it has to excel to be great, but because it never had the opportunity to fly and be fully tested. Also, we're now having to try to remember obscure shit that not that many people were probably exposed to because it never got popular.

The Intellivision system was better than the Atari 2600, but it was also more expensive, so things become more clear cut. I do remember, however, that all the kids wanted an Atari over an Intellivision, and they sure as hell weren't concerned about the price, so there was a band wagon effect going on.

Entertainment comes down to subjective taste a lot more, but I'd point you in the direction of Firefly, which got cancelled after 13 episodes after getting fucked in the ass on scheduling, episode order, and promotion. Now, it got big after the fact (which is the reason I can bring it up now and have everybody know what I'm talking about) and even got a movie, but I think its cancellation still proves my point.

>>54310921
...what video?

>>54311002

I honestly can't remember, I just distinctly remember hearing this exact example in a video on Youtube some time over the past few days. Almost verbatim.

>A good example of this? Ask someone in Herman Melville's lifetime what the best books he wrote were, and they'd probably say either Omoo or Typee. You've never heard of either of those books. What you have heard of is his last book, which was a dismal failure at the time of its release: Moby-Dick.

>>54301527
What warcaster problem? I've run it a few times and we've never had issues with the warcasters.

>>54310724
The assumption that less popular systems are doing it better despite being less popular?

>>54311148

Who is making that?

>>54311106

Warcasters are more powerful than other characters, in basically every way. Even without warjacks, they're decent fighters and casters, with them they have supercharged statblocks with bonus action economy. Similar for Warlocks.

In a mixed group, the most important thing in any combat becomes 'keep the Warcaster alive'. While this works well in the wargame, in an RPG it's a bit weird to have one character who is just objectively more important and powerful than everyone else, whom combat will always revolve around.

With the right group it can work, sure, but with a lot of groups it doesn't, and the only real fixes are either everyone plays warnouns, which turns the combat system into a total clusterfuck given how many actions your side needs to take, or to have nobody play them and miss out on one of the most fun and iconic parts of the system.

>>54311030
Well, it's been an example I've been using for months at least now.

>>54311214

They really needed to hand out more of the warnoun stuff (Boosting/buying attacks) to other archetypes. After all, the TT models are not accurate representations of people, with non-warcasters able to match up with warcasters (Haley nearly got her ass handed to her by a nameless satyxis for example)

But the RPG just copies 1:1 wherever it can.

>>54309576
>The biggest problem with the anti-D&D crap is that the follow-up recommendation is "play anything but D&D", which just goes to show that /tg/ can't agree on what's good.

Because everyone on /tg/ secretly plays D&D, anon. We are tsundere for it.

File: 1433251233192.gif (2MB, 245x276px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 245x276px

>>54299992
>Separating 3e and PF into separate categories.

Personally, 4e is my favorite, but I actually prefer to DM, so finding a group isn't a problem for me: the players come to me. Though it would be nice if they were a little more familiar with the system, so some expanded 4e share would be nifty, but I don't really care.

>>54310209
by early 2000s owod was a mess, too many conflicting lore points between games or between versions sometimes even between books of same versions of the same game.

Nwod butchered the lore, I doubt many people would be angry about the rule/system changes as they were angry about the lore. And this was 2004 mind you, when Bloodlines was out, while not totally sensetional at strat, through patches etc it was moving to the cult status it currently is. Too many people I know have jumped to WoD ship through that game, for a good reason.

They could have just create a 4th edition core + LA by night post lacroix era, and It would have been very succesfull. Insted they shot themselves on foot. 20th is nice and all but the ship is sailed for most part. Many people I know either left for more greener pastures or continued to play owod between 2004-2011.

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

27KB, 566x242px

>>54306519
>In most ways, it only superficially resembles 3.5
>It's actually more like a polished 2e

hahaha.. no. If you'd ever actually gamed in the 90's you'd know how bullshit that is. It is 3.5 in all but name, with a little bit of tweaking. All the tweaks were positive, but they were just tweaks.

The only way in which it resembles 2e is it resembles the fictitious version of 2e viewed only through the eyes of 3e children reading the rants of 2e grognards in the early days of internet ubiquity, carefully filtered through the lens of cognitive dissonance and selective memory to justify 3e being "real roleplaying."

File: 1414544613269.gif (73KB, 140x140px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 140x140px

>>54306395
>For what purpose? So you can continue to not like D&D without having to contend with anything that might challenge that stance?
I love D&D. In my experience, the two most "D&D" games are 2e and 4e. I started with 2e, so that colored what feels like "true D&D" to me, much the way 3e flavored the children of the 00's. 3e felt like anime-diablo-wizardsofthecoast-mtg bullshit, 4e scratched the same itch that 2e did, and 5e.... honestly I can't tell the difference between 3 and 5, save for the fact that 3 has more material. I know that if I played either more than what I need to know I don't like it, I'd eventually be able to make out the differences, but why waste my time doing that.... it'd be like slowly acclimating myself to shitty beer to learn to differentiate between brands

File: Bash from GLOW.jpg (206KB, 1447x767px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1447x767px

>>54306406
>clearly, the D&D audience has shown it... just want things that are the same, but slightly different. And that's what 5e was.

That makes me think of that line from GLOW
>"You said you wanted something different, and that's what I wrote."
>"I meant different in the same way that Ms Pac-Man is different from Pac-Man, as in exactly the fucking same but with a bow."

>>54311665
You tell people D&D has problems here and here, and here, please consider them if we are going to play. They say "No man, there are no problems". Ok, let's play. You create a character that can hit all the aforementioned problems during play and show how they are problems that can mess with the game.

I only need to check myself not to overdo it. Though I still need to make a rapid tree planting elf. For science reasons.

Does anyone else hate the fighting/combat tendency of the dnd games but like the lore/settings etc?
Newbie gm here, I rarely go into combat in dnd as a dm but it seem to me the game is spesifically designed for combat/loot/dungeon clearing and moving on to the bigger monster/dungeon/loot

>D&D has problems

So does Windows. You're more than likely still using a windows computer.

Transition to XP solely from monster kills and towards "narrative" "save the world" was when d&d lost its way. Everything else can be traced to this and it's why other games do the job better.

>>54299992
That chart really shows how bad White Wolf screwed up.

File: 1472705962445.png (787KB, 677x604px) Image search: [Google]

787KB, 677x604px

>>54312737
>"narrative" "save the world" was when d&d lost its way.
What are you talking about? IDK about you, but back in the early 90's, when my friends and I got into the game as kids, we did so so we could emulate the fantasy novels, movies, and series that we loved. We were immediately confronted with rules that actively fought against our intentions. We fought tooth and nail to house-rule 2e into a game that actually felt like we were the chosen heroes fighting against the end of the world, and eventually it worked. With every new edition-change, it became easier, and required fewer house-rules to make the game feel like the source-material that inspired it in the first place.... until 5e, 5e seems to actively resist our intents even more than 2e did. Whatever. We just don't play it as a result.

>>54312525
And at the end of the day, that's the problem: what "feels like D&D" is what you played when you were twelve. That can't be captured in mechanics, only in tone and overtures because it's a completely irrational feely thing. Which is why the smartest thing WotC did is get a bunch of celebrity nerds to pimp their new thing while making it simple and not actively pissing off their base like the 3e/4e shift.

New players and the inertia of role-playing in the D&D brand will sell better than trying to bring back you, me, or anyone. Yeah, they made overtures to the OSR crowd, but the OSR crowd are lifers and they have kids who can be brought up on D&D.

>>54312898
I'm pretty sure they're still selling well enough, if the six digit numbers they rack in on any given kickstarter are the way any new releases top the drivethrurpg's best selling page for months on end are any indication.

File: Power Shrug.gif (428KB, 200x183px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 200x183px

>>54312935
I was about to respond to
>not actively pissing off their base
but you sort of beat me to it
>Yeah, they made overtures to the OSR crowd, but the OSR crowd are lifers and they have kids who can be brought up on D&D.
Yeah. 5e did indeed piss me off, but I'm an old 2e grog with a job and responsibilities who's probably going to download any game I want unless I feel ethically compelled to patronize the author (protip: I will never feel ethically compelled to patronize Wizards.) I may be a "lifer" but I'm not "their base."

Fortunately, AD&D2e, OSR, and 4e all still exist, so the much like them not needing me, I no longer need them.

>>54312908
And that has no business being built upon classic d&d. You would be and would have been better served playing something built from the ground up on the idea of narrative play. By your own admission the game has at this point clearly moved in "that direction" and yet holds on to vestigial components of a site-based adventure game where treasure provided a significant amount of XP and overall incentive. The only reason to keep this Frankenstein walking is a financial one. The game is scizophrenic and tries to be everything to everyone and never will be.

everyone says 5e has "boring" mechanics

what exactly about it is boring?
what makes a system not boring?
if it is so boring, why do people stick with it for so long, it seems weird that so many people would stick to something they hate

if its boring why do i have fun with it

>>54313264
>boring
Lack of meaningful choices and constraints. All casters end up with the same handful of spells used in the same sort of ways because of a lack of magical school conflicts. Advantage being used almost everywhere as the only complicating mechanic means expression is limited.

>so long
It hasn't even been out for 3 years. Might seem long for you but comparatively it's nothing.

>fun
Probably has nothing to do with the system. Good friends can have a good time with a bad game, I know I have.

File: 1437576535744.jpg (72KB, 600x992px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x992px

>>54313165
>System inspired by Tolkien, Vance, Wagner, and Howard
>Should not try to recreate the feel of Tolkien, Vance, Wagner, and Howard
WHAT?
There is nothing unnatural about a system continuing to do a better and better job of emulating the source material that inspired it in the first place.
>By your own admission the game has at this point clearly moved in "that direction"
... in the direction of continuing to do its originally stated intent better, especially considering how poorly it did so to begin with?
> treasure provided a significant amount of XP and overall incentive
EH, I never liked monster XP or Treasure XP. In our middle-school house-ruling, we quickly realized that simply having a party XP-total that grows ad the story moves forwards works best. It took some time to streamline, but we realized that the most efficient way to do it was at the end of the session, the DM would say "okay, your party XP total is now #" That way, rather than being incentivized to act like low-class tomb-raiders, or being incentivized to act like murderhobos, they were incentivized to role-play their characters and help drive the story forward. With the switch-over to normalized XP-Level-Requirements, this made it even easier.
> You would be and would have been better served playing something built from the ground up on the idea of narrative play.
In middle school? Yeah, not so much. Also, they did that, it's called 4e, and it does an amazing job at what it's designed for, which is the style of play it had been trying (and failing) to hit for decades. It was only people's attachment to the previous failures that they had learned to love that prevented people from being able to appreciate it.

>>54313359
>I'm going to advocate for why I like a system by talking about how I had to houserule the most important rules in the game (character progression and incentives)

It's not about the fantasy setting, I didn't always play dungeons in my youth but I'm not going to pretend the current game makes any sense.

Games designed around narrative focus are just better for playing narrative based games. Whether you use it or not the modern iterationa of D&D are based solely around a monster XP only model and when you succeed using them its probably more to do with your roleplay and your friends than because of the game mechanics. I will play and enjoy flawed games but I'm not going to cheer for them when they stumble.

>>54306356
I want to live in that universe.

>>54313264
>if its boring why do i have fun with it

dawg I had four years of fun playing RIFTS and that shit is terrible

bad games can be fun

>>54313472
Okay, there's rather a lot to digest here, so I'll go bit by bit with paraphrases (let me know if I'm misinterpreting
>advocating a system by talking about the houserules
I was advocating the fact that each new iteration of D&D has required fewer and fewer house rules to simulate its original source-inspiration, save 5e which is bland milktoast with margarine instead of butter.
>XP is the most important mechanic in the game
... no.... no it isn't? I honestly don't know how to argue against that save that I happen to disagree. It feels like more of an afterthought.
>Games designed around narrative focus are just better for playing narrative based games.
Yes, and D&D got better and better at it with each iteration, until it hit 4e, which did fantasy-novel-action OOTB.... yay

I feel like you're realy hung up on XP mechanics. They are literally the easiest thing to change, and hell most DM's I've met change them to what I propose simply because it makes bookkeeping easier, freeing up time to prepare more fun adventures. Party-level is almost so ubiquitous in the local play environment of my city, I was almost surprised to find out that some people still track individual XP for individual achievements.

XP is a small part of the game, and the easiest thing to change.

>>54313472
Y'know, I've played D&D for about 20 years or so now, and every single campaign I've been in or ran has been story-driven, not random encounter/dungeon crawl driven, and not once when playing 3e, 4e, or 5e did I feel like the system was in any way inadequate or fighting against me.

The very first D&D campaign I ever ran was an Oriental Adventures game in what amounted to not!Rokugan where the plot involved one player, a not!Phoenix shugenja, having to cross not!Rokugan in order to marry a not!Scorpion bride in order to cement an alliance between the two Clans. The whole thing was set against a backdrop of a brewing major civil war as the Emperor tried to take more direct control over the country. It ran fine.

D&D does narrative adventure just fine. Always has, always will.

>the modern iterationa of D&D are based solely around a monster XP only model

False. Both 3e and 5e can and do reward XP for completing story-based events; take a gander at Curse of Strahd or, indeed, any of the published adventures for 5e (except Tales from the Yawning Portal, which is specifically re-makes of classic dungeons, and even then some of the dungeons award story XP), if you don't believe me. And if my recent argument over on /5eg/ is any indication a lot of 5e fans even like the...ugh...milestone method of leveling up, wherein XP isn't even given out and instead characters simply automatically level up when they've achieved certain major story objectives.

I really do hate that system, personally.

> I will play and enjoy flawed games but I'm not going to cheer for them when they stumble.

But that's just it. D&D never stumbles when portraying a narrative rather than dungeon crawling.

>>54312435
I dunno...I've said it before and I'll say it again: 5e feels like the AD&D 3rd Edition we would have gotten if the folks at WotC had already learned all the lessons of 3e and 4e back in 2000. Or 1999, I suppose, would be when the bulk of the design and development was done.

>>54313588
>bad games can be fun
If you can have fun with a game, how is it "bad"?

Sure games has flaws. RIFTS has numerous, every edition of D&D has had it's own brand of issues, and FATAL is legendarily flawed... but if someone has fun with it why go about telling them how shit their system is?

>>54313708
>Both 3e and 5e can and do reward XP for completing story-based events
4e has this too. So yeah, the modern versions of D&D.

>But that's just it. D&D never stumbles when portraying a narrative rather than dungeon crawling.
Gonna have to disagree with you on this though. The game's daily resources (spells, etc.) are balanced around 4-5 encounters a day. That's excellent for dungeon crawling, not so much for more narrative games where combat is a rarity. Now, this isn't a huge slight against the system, and it can be remedied in several ways with just a bit of legwork, but it's definitely "stumbling."

>>54313851
>The game's daily resources (spells, etc.) are balanced around 4-5 encounters a day.

Depending on how you define "encounter", that's probably all you'll need for a narrative game as well.

This also ignores that 5e has cantrips usable at-will, several classes get their resources back on short (1-hour) rests rather than long rests, and that skills have no limitation on how often they can be used.

>>54313980
>Depending on how you define "encounter", that's probably all you'll need for a narrative game as well.
A fight, roughly 5-7 rounds long, sometimes less, commonly against enemies of the same level and number as the party. It's anecdotal, but I've never, ever seen a game billed as "narrative" break two fights a day.

>This also ignores that 5e has cantrips usable at-will, several classes get their resources back on short (1-hour) rests rather than long rests, and that skills have no limitation on how often they can be used.
I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say with this. It sounds like you're implying classes with daily abilities using their dailies every fight is balanced because classes without dailies can use their at-wills every fight. Except that doesn't make any sense.

>>54313708
That's funny because I've played D&D just as long and have always felt like the system is fighting against what I want to do - with the exception of very late 3.5 and all of 4E but its initial release.

i just wish there would be someone out there willing to play in the shadowrun setting but with dark eye rules