There are other games besides D&D

> it does everything you are asking for

But introduces new problems that makes people just eventually return to D&D.

> it really only does what it's intended for.

This is a marketing lie by people who desperately want to push D&D into a small niche to give room for their own games in the hobby. D&D is actually ridiculously versatile, even before you start homebrewing, and as much as you hate to hear it, it's very easy to modify and homebrew for.

It's a game designed to appeal to as many people as possible, and as such includes plenty of optional rules and supplements to help people tailor their games to their own tastes.

>And they either give me blank looks or humor me without actually considering what I say.

Probably because you don't actually ever listen to what they're asking for or talking about, and are just upset that they like a system that you don't like and don't really understand.

>>54920275
>I want to run a sci-fi game!
>It's easier to homebrew it in DnD than to play an already established sci-fi system.
???

File: better.jpg (219KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1200x1200px

>>54920275
I remember when it was the Pathfinder ponies making these types of arguments instead of the DnDrones. Hopefully this means DnD is on it's way out like Pathfinder was.

My wife calls all tabeltop games "D&D" and for some reason that gripes the hell out of me. She knows for an absolute fact I don't even play D&D.

>>54920275
>D&D IDF spews unsupported claims like everyday

>>54920275

>D&D is ridiculously versatile

Why do fans of the game lie about this when even the game itself and its designers know it's not true?

Fuck, do you not remember the awful clusterfuck that was the 3.5 OGL, and how shitty it was basically every time they tried to take the system out of its comfort zone?

>system war trolls try

It's sad watching you guys crash and burn like this.

>>54920275
D&D was , has, and always will be a niche game. Sure, high fantasy is a big fucking niche, but it's not even close to being universal. The system was never designed to do anything else, and the developers have admitted this undeniable fact. Where is your delusion coming from?

I love it when system war trolls get wrecked so hard and then keep trying to beg for you's.

/thread?

>>54920275
>I want to play a game kinda like the Redwall books, where we're all mice!
>It's easier to homebrew it in DnD than to play Mouseguard

>>54921799

Because D&D's fanbase- Or, specifically, 3.PF's, stopped playing the actual game not long after release.

Faced with a buggy mess of broken mechanics that weren't fit for purpose, they compromised and houseruled and ended up creating what is basically an entirely new system, but they still think of it as D&D.

When other people make factual statements about the design of D&D, its mechanical flaws or the intention behind it, they will outright reject it because, in Their D&D, it isn't true. But they don't realise that the version of D&D they're so obsessed with only exists in their heads and in their gaming groups.

File: O_O.png (13KB, 139x134px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 139x134px

>>54921838
>Mind fucking blown

>>54920213
play paranoia. you get 6 clones so death is cheap
one of my players tried to commit suicide in order to fast travel
another two of them committed a mass shooting then shot themselves to feign victimhood

suicide is a powerful tool in this game, apparently

>>54921838
>Or, specifically, 3.PF's

You know, it actually becomes more accurate if you remove this part, since it applies to all versions of DnD and it's derivatives.

>>54921899
3.5 and Pathfinder are the systems/fanbases where this attitude is most prevalent though. You don't really hear about people who refuse to use anything besides Call of Cthulhu for every single type of game.

>>54921992
5e is just as bad, trust me.

>>54921992
I would argue BRP is a great system one could use for everything. Cthulhu, Fantasy, Sci-Fi

>>54922074
>trust someone on /tg/
fuck off

>>54920166
>"Why don't you try x instead, it does everything you are asking for?" And they either give me blank looks or humor me without actually considering what I say.
It's because whenever you recommend X as though it's better than D&D, it's really just a D&D knockoff with someone's houserules and isn't all that much better than D&D while doing almost nothing interesting with the mechanics it presents, which are all just D&D-lite, and you'd have a much easier and better time just refluffing your current D&D sessions.

The other option I regularly see that you've recommended something that either goes against what they're asking for ("I want to run a modern campaign!" "Here's Shadowrun" "O-oh, thanks") or you're offering a bland, generic system that nobody likes ("Play GURPS!").

The worst faggots are the ones that start presenting systems that are just trying to solve really bizarre problems left in the wake of 3rd edition in an assbackwards way ("I hate how skills are either pass or fail. It's all so binary. I know, here's my narrative system where all results are based on a chart! THIS is how you roleplay!" Meanwhile OSR solved that problem ages ago by just having the DM decide if the task failed or succeed based purely on what was being tried given the time span as opposed to just rolling everything away).

Honestly, after how many times I've asked people to present better systems than D&D and getting these three options, I'm inclined to believe that people who hate D&D are huge, walking red flags.

>>54920166
>Hey guys after this bit fancy taking a break
>I wanna run this setting, with this story, with this system. Here are some pregens or we can build something you want to play.

>>54922135
Please, you didn't need to make this post.
OP is just a troll who's upset and forgot his "D&D is Garbage" image.

>>54921899
>if you remove this part, since it applies to all versions of DnD and it's derivatives.
Perhaps the same could be said of all tabletop rpgs?

>>54922135

...Do you really, honestly believe that no systems exist that aren't D&D ripoffs or generic systems? Are you that ignorant?

>>54922166
>...Do you really, honestly believe that no systems exist that aren't D&D ripoffs or generic systems? Are you that ignorant?
No, of course not.

I don't believe that any such system exists that is good.

Or instead of being incredulous, you could give me a good system that fits my criteria and waste both our time trying to find such a thing.

>>54922176

Define 'good'. Because it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

Also my god that's an incredibly stupid blanket statement to make.

>>54922165
>I have never played anything that wasn't a shitty D20 derivative.

Expand your portfolio, bro.

>>54921838

I feel like I should add to this, or at least clarify something.

I'm not condemning the playstyle at all. Putting in the work and effort to create something your group can enjoy for so many years should be lauded. What annoys me is the misattribution, that so many people congratulate the system when everything they're talking about is things they and their group have achieved, without or even despite of the system they're working with.

It's also worth mentioning that these group-systems aren't usually 'good' games in a general sense. They're very much rooted in the assumptions, culture and playstyle of the group. They work fantastically for them, but when removed from their context will likely fall flat. It's why so many fantasy heartbreakers kinda suck, because outside of their original context they're nothing special.

>>54920275
Doing a lot of things terribly doesn't make a system versatile.

>>54922213
Good is hard to really define, but here are somethings I would qualify as good
>System may be dedicated to one genre, but will not be dedicated to one specific playstyle (example: D&D is dedicated to high fantasy, but you can play dungeon crawler or monster hunter or political intrigue or ocean's 11, etc)
>System will be balanced while allowing a modicum of character building, crunch, and expandable system mechanics.
>Is not point buy (those are all garbage for various reasons)
>Uses a variety of dice and not just focus on one specific type of dice (ie no d6 or d100 systems. Don't mind if it's not focused on d20)
>System discourages rollplaying (ie there are no or few mechanics dedicated to the roleplaying aspect)
I reserve the right to add or modify this list as I please later on as I remember things or refine my thoughts, and this list is not complete by any means.

However, I will promise you that if you mention a good system, I'll praise you for it.

>>54922238
>Implying and projections
Yawn.

>>54922313
Oh, so you're just retarded.

>>54922313
>>Uses a variety of dice and not just focus on one specific type of dice
Ah, so it's autism.

>>54922313

>That definition of good

Yeah, no, fuck it.

Also, how the hell do any editions of D&D actually qualify?

>>54922341
>>54922342
>I have no arguments and I must scream
Sorry you got BTFO'd I guess. I'll keep asking for good systems in anti-D&D threads though, so I hope you come prepared next time.

>>54922344
>Also, how the hell do any editions of D&D actually qualify?
I'm starting to think you might now have read any edition of D&D, because other than the discouragement of rollplaying, I was basically describing D&D to be a cheeky cunt. I didn't think I'd catch you that easily though.

>>54922359

1 and 2 don't apply to any edition of D&D that I know of.

>>54922359
>I was basically describing D&D
>System will be balanced
>D&D

>>54922400
>>54922403

Being fair, 4e was balanced. But he seems like the type who'd say it wasn't real D&D.

>>54922400
1 applies to pretty much every edition of D&D and you're basically not trying hard enough.
2 other than 3.5, most editions of D&D are pretty balanced, especially 4th and 5th.

>>54922410
Actually 4th is my favorite edition to break out when I want to play a more JRPG type game, though I've been recently switching over to FFRPG, which is one of the answers I would have accepted, but of course, anti-D&D shitters literally don't have a clue outside of GURPs and Savage Worlds what other systems are like.

>>54922313
>>Uses a variety of dice and not just focus on one specific type of dice (ie no d6 or d100 systems. Don't mind if it's not focused on d20)

Out of all the silly bullshit you just said, this is the statement I find the most issue with. It's a petty and meaningless complaint. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using one type of dice for a system's resolution mechanic, so long as said resolution mechanic provides clear and quick results.

>>54922451
It's boring and not fun to only use one dice. If I wanted to eliminate the polyhedrals at my table for a consistent gaming experience, I'd play a poker-hand based system instead of using dice at all, which is way more clear and quick than any dice system.

>>54922473
>It's boring and not fun to only use one dice.
That is entirely your own personal opinion which I highly suspect you are fabricating solely to win an internet argument. Using one type of dice is perfectly fine.

>>54922434

Nope. I won't say it's impossible to do political intrigue in D&D, but I don't seen any sense in praising a system for something it has no support for.

D&D, mechanically and narratively, supports games about groups of people who are good at killing monsters, and activities that are adjacent to that. That is the scope and focus of the system.

While you theoretically could do a heist style game in it, or political intrigue, the system is not going to work in your favour. The GM is going to need to put in extra work to get around some default assumptions the rules make that are actively unhelpful for both those premises, and by the point you're actually capable of doing it I feel like the GM deserves the credit there, not the system.

I'm so tired of you faggots constantly spitting on D&D and it's players.

>>54922434
How in the world do you see D&D as good for political intrigue? Its social mechanics are garbage (See: Diplomancer) and the ready availability of spells like Seek Thoughts and Speak with Dead ruin a lot of intrigue storylines.

>>54922587
D&D is fine for doing what it was made for. The issue is when people try to use it for games better run by other systems.

>>54920166
I can't believe that this statement is still true, what with FFg making wildly popular games like EotE.

Come to think of it why don't you just host a game of something other than DnD?

>>54922587
We only spit on you for saying dumb shit. So stop saying dumb shit.

>>54922522
>Using one type of dice is perfectly fine.
It's boring and I'd rather use multiple types of dice for variance than a single type of dice which gets stale and doesn't allow you to control odds that well without nickle and diming people on modifiers (which 5e is amazing about mitigating).

>>54922558
>but I don't seen any sense in praising a system for something it has no support for.
If by support you mean "rollplay" mechanics, then that's actually better than playing games that try to instill those mechanics and turn social interaction into a skill-based chore, to be frank. This is something I don't like about Post-WotC D&D, and never have.

>D&D, mechanically and narratively, supports games about groups of people who are good at killing monsters, and activities that are adjacent to that.
Actually D&D is just the physics engine of a fantasy world, and many different activities other than killing monsters are supported in the systems both pre and post WotC. Not that you would know that, having clearly never played it outside that one time in college.

>the system is not going to work in your favour.
Why? I and many others have successfully run such campaigns with very little trouble. Only a heads up to the players to make their characters in a way that support this. The only other game I've played that does heists noticeably better is Shadowrun, and the claim about "extra work" is pure nonsense.

>>54922588
>Running diplomancer
>DM allowing a roll to mind control others
>Ever
Stop playing with shit people? Do you really think that this mentality would just change if you switched to a different system?

As for your other points, it's not my fault you're a brainlet who can't think around the concept of spells and magic items in your campaign world.

>>54922680
seriously play EotE! Play The End of the World series! Play Mouseguard! DnD variants are not the only games in town!

>>54922680
>Do you really think that this mentality would just change if you switched to a different system?
Yes, because then the social mechanics wouldn't fucking implode just because it was used. It's not even remotely acceptable to claim that D&D has support for political intrigue while admitting that you're not using the game's mechanics to run it.

>>54921578
3.5 has given a generation actual brain damage. You can't reason with these people, they are not living in the same reality.

>>54922680

Thanks for confirming that, as with the above post, you're not actually playing D&D. You're playing Your D&D, a system you've constructed with your group that only exists in your head and in that context.

I mean, all power to you, play it and enjoy it, but falsely attributing that to the system is dumb.

>>54922651
You guys are like a 12 year old girl. Getting pissy because something is popular and people are playing it instead of your own low quality faggot game.

Do something productive like finding a group to play your game instead of bitching about the people not playing it.

>>54922680
>Actually D&D is just the physics engine of a fantasy world
You are the problem

>>54921578
>Fuck, do you not remember the awful clusterfuck that was the 3.5 OGL,
don't know what OGL stands for or what you are talking about but I have played Star Wars 3.5 (aka: Saga Edition) and it was utter shit.

>>54922795
SWSE isn't that bad even at its worst. Now SWd20, that's a different story.

>>54920870
Surely you realize that Pathfinder is just D&D with another name?

>>54922711
>play EotE!
Personal opinion, I just plain don't like star wars, so I probably wouldn't touch it, but I won't call it shit either. So I'll give you 1 prop for a neutral statement.

EotW is new, so I'll look that up, and frankly, I thought mouseguard was a little gimmicky in it's premise and wasn't too fond of it.

But seriously, good on you for being the only poster in here who mentions actual games.

>>54922726
>because then the social mechanics wouldn't fucking implode just because it was used.
I'm sorry, but this is a DM mentality, not a game mentality that you're discussing. There's no rule in D&D that says that NPCs are just mind controlled, and there's even advice in the DMG that states that NPCs have a reaction level and here are the guidelines for that. Changing system would do little to relieve the inherent player problem.

>>54922771
Please post the specific example of why this is not D&D and isn't supported by the rules in any such way.

>>54922785
Not an argument.

>>54922814
Compared to FFGSW it certainly is.

>>54922784
Or we're playing our game, having a good time, and laughing at you for saying dumb shit at the same time. I mean, shit, it's not that hard to find time for making fun of 3.pf retards, especially when they make it so goddamn easy.

That's the problem with these threads.

Even if everyone knows it just trolls and bait, the trolls will keep bumping these threads until they finally find someone stupid enough to actually bother arguing with them.

It's like this for me and my group, but with VtM. Storyteller is a fucking piece of shit, I hate it.

>>54922864

WoD has always struck me as really weird. It's always made pretentious statements about being all about the story, but the system is a crunchy sack of shit with no real narrativist mechanics to speak of, although I heard that's changed recently.

>>54922877
>wod
>crunchy
What are you smoking?

>>54922846
>but this is a DM mentality,
It's not

You have to disregard the Diplomacy and Bluff rules entirely if you want to get anything even close to an intrigue game because otherwise they fucking destroy any intrigue heavy situation. Even if you ban the epic level uses of those skills it's still disgustingly broken.

>>54922938
>It's not
It is. Please post an example of why it is.

Please be aware that I'm asking out of morbid curiosity because even I won't defend 3.PF.

What are some other fantasy RPGs that have a fair amount of mechanical options? I like the idea of it in most D&D but it's usually skewed towards one playstyle, and other systems I have looked into just don't feel like my choices have impact to my abilities or die rolls. Some system that is mechanically crunchy that doesn't drown the player in bad options or so many options that it becomes GURPS.

>>54922908

WoD is a crunchy system. It has a lot of rules, a lot of dicerolling and a lot of moving parts.

Back in the day it might have been what passed for light, but in the era of PbtA and such, WoD is at best a crunch medium system.

>>54922983

Anima: Beyond Fantasy is... Kind of a thing? I'm not sure if I'd entirely recommend it. It's a really interesting system, and can be fun, but has a lot of flaws.

>>54920275
I think I've seen you in a previous thread, how've you been?

>>54922983
I'm reading Burning Wheel right now, and it has a fair number of options. Very interesting system, I'm digging their Lifepaths method of character creation.

>>54922972
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm

>>54923003
I've looked into it before, and while it seems really fun to play, I have totally seen those flaws. I've heard it's about on par with 3.x on how mechanical it is and how broken it can get.

It's a shame, I don't really like D&D because of a lot of dumb ivory tower designs with 3.5, and the blandness of 5e, but every time I ask around I don't get too many alternate suggestions that are as mechanically crunchy as it, without being just as bad in other ways.

>>54923040
Oh, what's it like? I've only loosely heard of it. It sounds really backstory heavy on the player side, from a quick google search.

>>54923082

It's very different, but Legends of the Wulin might be worth a look. It's a Wuxia system (Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon or Kung fu Hustle shit) with some really interesting mechanics and an amazing combat system, basically an eastern fantasy game.

The issues is the core book and the editing. In actual play, the system runs pretty smoothly, but the process of learning it and figuring it out is an absolute fucking nightmare due to how badly the book is laid out and edited. It's a crying shame.

>>54923074
Yup. You sure posted skills there, buddy.

>>54923117
That'd actually be a nice change of pace from the standard "muh medival euro-fantasy". How would that compare to Legends of the Five Rings? I've got no experience in either but wuxia and old samurai movies sound really fun.

>>54923153
Not him, but I've heard it described like Exalted but better. The guy who runs 8-bit Theater had a fantastic post about it.

>>54923153

Legend of the Five Rings is a lot more grounded, the supernatural elements are present but a lot less prominent and powerful by default.

Qin The Warring States is a chinese fantasy game more on the same level of L5R.

>>54923153

If you're interested in LotW, look up the Half Burnt Manual, a fan supplement and errata book. Also, ask on /tg/ for help with the rules. I think there's also a discord and a channel on the sup/tg/ IRC where people can help explain the rules when the book does a terrible job of it.

>>54923122
Diplomacy bonuses stack up ridiculously fast and the rules give no wiggle room for the DM beyond literally not using the rules. Glibness exists and gives you a bonus that more than counteracts the penalty for the most penalizing Bluff usage outside of epic skill usage.

If you don't understand why being able to turn people who want to kill you indifferent to you in a single round with a DC 35 check is broken when you could easily have that in Diplomacy bonuses by level 5, well, that's on you.

>>54923082
In Burning Wheel, the main mechanical character creation is about picking a race (human, elf, dwarf or orc), and then a series of Lifepaths. GM states how many paths you start with, where 3-4 is baseline, but you can go anywhere from 1-8. Each Lifepath has information on the number of years it takes, the resources and stats it grants, the number of points for skills and traits it grants, and lists of skills and traits which they allow/force you to take. You can only start in one of the ____ Born lifepaths, which are in one of many settings. After each lifepath, you can either take another lifepath in the same setting, or follow one of the Leads listed on the lifepath you just took to another setting, costing an extra year (IE being a guard in the City setting can let you move to the military setting). When you're done, you sum up everything you got, including the total years to determine your age. Each race has a table for starting physical and mental stat pools depending on age.

>>54923291
I mean, a bigger question is why are you acting like Pathfinder is still relevant in a D&D discussion with the new hotness of 5e, the resurgence of OSR, and of course the well balanced 4e which all solve that problem. And I even said to you at the outset that I won't defend 3.PF. So, I have to say, this isn't a particularly interesting line of discussion now that my curiosity has been satisfied.

And yes, playing Pathfinder is in fact a player problem, because you must be mentally ill to continue playing it.

>>54923342
5e has no options though.

>>54922298
Doing a lot of things is the definition of versatile, you dingdong. A multitool pocket knife is versatile, even if it might not be great at being a screwdriver, bottle opener, or knife.

>>54923389

A screwdriver isn't versatile because you can use it as a hammer. Sure, it can do the job in the pinch, but it's a shitty replacement for the proper tool for the job.

D&D was built with a pretty specific premise in mind. That people keep using it to do things it wasn't intended for doesn't make the system itself versatile.

>>54923342
3.PF is the most hated version of DnD, also personally I am not a fan of 5E

File: That's Nice.jpg (30KB, 245x229px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 245x229px

>>54923349
Kay.

>>54923429
It's the truth though, at least with the players handbook

File: Catface fuuka.png (113KB, 266x369px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 266x369px

>>54923457
Sure. Whatever you say.

>>54922983
Runequest is good, Riddle of Steel is pretty okay, and GURPS is realising a standalone version of their D&Dlike with pared down rules to make it less intimidating. There's probably a lot more but that's just off the top of my head.

>>54920275
>Whole thread and not one argument refuting this
Holy shit, y'all got your ass kicked.

>>54923600
There have been multiple examples given of genres of games which D&D handles poorly, and are better handles by other games.

>>54923703
That's does absolutely nothing to refute any of that post even if you weren't relying entirely on unsubstantiated and largely subjective opinions.

>>54922313
Savage Worlds.

>System may be dedicated to one genre, but will not be dedicated to one specific playstyle (example: D&D is dedicated to high fantasy, but you can play dungeon crawler or monster hunter or political intrigue or ocean's 11, etc)
Savage Worlds is dedicated to the Pulp-Adventure Genre but can be used to run basically anything with those trappings.

>System will be balanced while allowing a modicum of character building, crunch, and expandable system mechanics.
Savage Worlds allows for a pretty meaningful amount of character customization without getting bogged down in options.

>Is not point buy (those are all garbage for various reasons)
It's not point buy in any meaningful sense. If you had a really aggressive level of autism, you could just say"Edges, Hindrances, and Stat/Skill ups ARE point buy" but if you're going that far, things like Feats, Multiclassing/Dualclassing, and Attribute Bonuses are, too.

>Uses a variety of dice and not just focus on one specific type of dice (ie no d6 or d100 systems. Don't mind if it's not focused on d20)
Uses literally every common die type, from d4 to d100, though it really focuses on d4 through d12.

>System discourages rollplaying (ie there are no or few mechanics dedicated to the roleplaying aspect)
There are Hindrances which are specifically roleplaying related but they are in the minority and many have actual stat penalties attached to them, too.
Also, this is the worst category on your list.

Seriously, though, you've got autism. I like Savage Worlds but it hits every single mark on your list and I really wouldn't call it a "great" system. It's probably better than 3.PF but that's a pretty low bar.

>>54923900

>relying entirely on unsubstantiated and largely subjective opinions.

Man, you did a fantastic job of describing the post itself

>>54923902
>Savage Worlds.
>One of the other requirements anon posted was that it could not be a generic system like GURPS or Savage World

One day, you'll learn to read. One day.

>>54923900
>refute how different people have different interests, goals, desires, etc.
you might actually have autism, 100% serious

>>54923947
>Savage Worlds
>Generic
He said it needed to focus specifically on one Genre. Its specifically, explicitly, meant to support the Pulp Genre.

The fact that people have adapted it to things well outside that scope (Fantasy in particular) is not a fault of the system. If that were the case, we could knock D&D off the list because Spelljammer, Starfinder, and Star Wars: Saga Edition exist.

>What about Deadlands, Weird War, and etc...
All fall within in the "Pulp" Genre, much in the same way Numenera, Dark Sun, and Planescape all fall into the "High Fantasy" genre.

>>54923900
One of the main points of that post was that D&D was flexible enough to handle other genres, countering the idea that D&D is really only good for its niche. The idea that D&D is a better Mouseguard than Mouseguard, a better Shadowrun than Shadowrun, and so forth, is silly. While it's possible to use optional rules to try to cover other cases, it's always going to be clumsier than a system made for it.

Heck, even within medieval fantasy, there are games that do certain focuses better. Playing a gritty, brutal, realistic game is going to be easier and flow better in something like Hackmaster than in D&D. D&D's ready access to healing magic can be fixed by making a low or no-magic game, but the way damage and injury are handled are largely built around this assumption, and it shows.

Everyone would be better off if they just played gurps or risus(evens up)

Both work wonderfully, you only need one type of dice, and if you want to do something not covered by the other then just switch.

I use gurps for all my hardcore stuff(fantasy or police), and risus for all my soft core stuff(four color supers, high fantasy)

Just please

>>54924147

There are qualities of experience that other systems provide that cannot be emulated with a generic system.

>>54924147
Risus and GURPS both are great, but sometimes I want a crunchy system for a game without having to build it myself inside of GURPS. Genre-specific games are better at immediately conveying a sense of tone and atmosphere within their set domain.

>>54924226
I'm not going to argue against that, but if you really like a setting that doesn't have a good game(rifts, traveller, D&D(to a lesser extent), then you can have a better time using the setting in something like gurps.

Gurps is also really fun to home brew, and a ton of settings have built out brews that are actually funner than the game they are built in

>>54922849
None of these systems are WEG D6 though

>>54924296

But there are other generic systems, with different styles and tones and mechanical focuses.

GURPS isn't bad, but it's one of many, not the one and only.

>>54924347
Yea but if you only want to learn one system...

>>54922760

I will vouch for this, as I have had to deprogram my brain from the chucklefuck that was 3.x/PF.

I will however admit I have a soft spot for polyhedral dice over all as far as game mechanics go. Just not the accursed D20 that thing is the bane of my continued existence.

>>54922983
Earthdawn is pretty good for that. The core mechanic is the same across classes, but each class gets lots of nifty pseudo-magical abilities that draw from the power of their archtype. For instance Warriors can harden their bodies to withstand mighty blows or Thieves can turn even the crudest tools into serviceable lockpicks.

>>54924365
Not that guy, and you do you, but that sounds really limiting.

>>54924125
>One of the main points of that post was that D&D was flexible enough to handle other genres,

That's true.

So, that renders the rest of your post moot, because you fail to appreciate that some people would prefer a D&D homebrew version of Mouseguard rather than using Burning Wheel's dice pool, or a return to D&D Shadowrun rather than shelling out $300 in order to afford all the d6's. You might not like D&D and not understand why people prefer D&D's mechanics, but that's really just your personal hangup, not a refutation.

So, yeah. Looks like you've got nothing.

>>54924516

You're wilfully conflating what a system is designed to do and what people use it for. They are completely different things with different implications.

>>54922587
Don't worry. It's not like these contrarians are anything except annoying. No one actually takes them seriously except other people who are already contrarians.

There whole mantra relies on D&D not being good, and it's great. It's really hard to get people to even start to listen to you if you have to start with such an extreme exaggeration.

>>54924516
A D&D Shadowrun doesn't play anything like Shadowrun in any aspect. Some retard that thinks d20 is the best system ever made preferring a shit d20 Shadowrun knockoff to the real deal doesn't change that.

>>54924583

Because the D&D defence force who insist it is perfect and flawless are so much more sincere and intellectually honest, right? Fuck off.

I don't even hate D&D, I just like being able to discuss its flaws without moron fanboys jumping down my throat and claiming I hate the game. Knowing somethings flaws, being able to discuss them and consider them is a part of appreciating something like a mature adult.

>>54924516
Anything is flexible if you homebrew it enough.

Compare gurps basic set with the big 3 dnd books gurps has options for psionics, magic, flight, super strength, brainwashing, conspiracy theories, sci-fi, etc

Dnd has like, 6 classes, only magic, no rules for cops, conspiracies, martial arts, techniques, or making an non-humanoid character.

>>54924112
That was the definition someone asked for good. His original statement was "A game that wasn't a D&D knockoff that was good and not a generic universal system".

You should learn reading. It's actually quite fun.

>>54924551
You're a moron who pretends that the system wasn't designed to be expansive and adaptable.
You think even Gygax did nothing but dungeon crawls? Guy introduced sci-fi and poltiics and horror in his own games, and Arneson and other early contributors were crossing genres and providing stats for just about anything.

You want to keep talking about shit you don't know? Go ahead. You only make yourself out to look like an idiot to try and tell people that your personal limited interpretation of the game is anything near its actuality.

I mean, fuck. It being even a fantasy game was a fluke accident.

>>54924683

>Some people did some things so I'm totally right!
>Despite this contradicting the systems own premise written right there in the fucking book

>>54924662
Dungeon fantasy?

Gurps dungeon fantasy(admitably part of a generic system, but dungeon fantasy is its own thing which isn't generic)

>>54924609
Who's calling it perfect? Who's calling it flawless?

People are just tired of you idiots lying out your ass, and demanding people share your opinions as if your opinions were facts rather than contrarians ideas.

Everyone knows it has flaws. You're problem is you don't actually know what the flaws are, and that you think people correcting you when you say dumb shit is just them blindly defending the game.

You really need to take your head out your ass already.

>>54924713
>Some people did some things so I'm totally right!
Do you even know who Gygax and Arneson are, you dumb fuck?

Also, citation needed for what you think the system's premise is and where it was written.

>Hey guys I'm going to be running an intrigue focused Sci fi / Cyberpunk game with a big focus on character interaction, mystery, investigation and politics.
>What system am I using? Why Pathfinder of course!

Drives me up the fucking wall OP.

>>54924727

You fuckers are calling it flawless by calling literally anyone who says anything bad about D&D a troll. It utterly stifles any ability to actually discuss it, you braindead fucknugget.

If they're actually lies, refute them. If there are actually flaws, discuss them. But you don't, and you won't, because you're an intellectually dishonest asshole only concerned with protecting your emotional investment in a product. It's fucking pathetic.

It is possible for people to disagree with you, to have their own opinions, without liars and trolls. It is possible for multiple people to do so without all of them sharing a single perspective and agenda.

But, of course, actually acknowledging reality would make it harder for you to maintain your safe little bubble. God, why am I even replying to you? A+ trolling I guess.

>>54924727
I actually have played dnd, here's a few flaws.

One d20's are just as likely to roll a 1, as a twenty. Meaning characters are just as likely to fail, than to win. Compare this to 3d6 which strives to 10-11, making characters skill more important than luck.

Two, magic is extremely strong. Monks and fighters are really only played one way. Different fighting styles don't have different rules.

Three, play a humanoid or be screwed. Most monsters aren't playable, and those that are can't survive against humans. Some of the humanoid races are completely useless as well

>>54924769
>It utterly stifles any ability to actually discuss it
To be fair, what is there even left to discuss at this point?

>>54924753

Opened up a random PHB, let's look at the first paragraph-

>This is the Dungeons & Dragons® Roleplaying Game, the game that defines the genre and has set the standard for fantasy roleplaying for more than 30 years.
>D&D® is a game of your imagination in which you participate in thrilling adventures and dangerous quests by taking on the role of a hero—a character you create. Your character might be a strong fighter or a clever rogue, a devout cleric or a powerful wizard. With a few trusted allies at your side, you explore ruins and monster-filled dungeons in search of treasure.

>>54924683
>Guy introduced sci-fi and poltiics and horror in his own games
While not relying on mechanics at all to do so. That's the key difference you're not getting.

>>54924826
Fuck off with that bullshit. The only people who ever say anything like that are people who want to kill discussion.

why do people think D&D is the most versatile, anyway? It's way easier to use the WH40K RPG/CoC standard of 'roll-under using d%'. Like, no stat derivatives to worry about, skills operate the same as attributes, and it's much easier to remember what to roll when.

>>54924769
Nah, you dummy. There's actual trolls here. Not everyone, but there's clear and obvious trolls, and if you want to argue otherwise, you're on fucking 4chan you dipshit.

>If they're actually lies, refute them
Done and done.
Does that matter to you? Of course not. Your entire "argument" is based on your opinions, and as such can't be "refuted" in your eyes. Nothing anyone could ever say can alter your opinion, so welcome to you just being a little bitch on the internet.

Want to discuss the game in a fair and reasonable fashion? Then please, stop approaching everything from a contrarian mindset already, because it stops you from being able to relate to the majority of roleplayers and just makes you sound like a whiny troll asking for attention.

That's all this shit is. Reasonable opinions get ignored, so you got to troll it up a bit in order to get anyone to reply to you.

"D&D is overrated, but okay" wouldn't get a single comment. Nor would "Even though D&D can be adapted to a lot of different styles and some people actually enjoy the process of homebrewing with the system, I encourage people to expand their gaming horizons" is too sensible, especially compared to a firestarter like "Fuck people who use D&D for anything other than dungeon crawls, and fuck the people who use it for dungeon crawls too."

>>54924942
>hurr subjectivism therefore you are wrong
Please stop posting.

>>54924942
I have given you my reasons

Tell me about them >>54924820

>>54924942

You are literally saying it's impossible to think D&D is a bad game without being a troll.

That is, straight up, the assertion you are making.

Just... Making sure you're fully aware of that.

>>54924834
You fucking disingenuous piece of shit.

You utter fucking piece of scum, fuck you and fuck your mother.

Finish the fucking paragraph.
Go on. Finish the fucking paragraph.

You know what? Fuck you. Let me finish it for you.

>The game offers endless possibilities and a multitude of choices—more choices than even the most sophisticated computer game, because you can do whatever you can imagine.

You're so fucking low.

>>54925071

...And? Nothing about that makes it a generic system. It's very clearly a fantasy game by its fundamental premise. I just cut that bit out because it wasn't really relevant.

>>54925071
That's every ttrpg ever

That's not unique to dnd.

DnD has even less choices than others simply because it's a fantasy game

>>54924968
Well, to start, you're making the most basic of mistakes. The dice doesn't matter as much as the target numbers in a binary pass/fail system like the one D&D uses. If you set the average DC for a challenge at 10 for a d20 and 12 for a 3d6, characters will be more likely to succeed in the former. If you want it to be harder, raise the average DC; easier, lower it.

The rest of your post is your personal taste, and you're free to hold those opinions. I personally don't consider them to be that dramatic flaws, and actually consider a lot of other flaws in the system to be far more important (such as higher levels falling apart mechanically in most editions and requiring the DM to really be on top of their game to keep a campaign together).

Still, pretty good game altogether.

>>54921799
>D&D was , has, and always will be a niche game. Sure, high fantasy is a big fucking niche, but it's not even close to being universal.
As somebody who has been playing D&D, off and on, for decades, I agree with this. But I would argue that the niche is much narrower than just high fantasy. D&D is really tooled for dungeon delving and wilderness exploration with an emphasis on combat, rule-wise. Resource management tends to be important, though this varies from edition to edition. A drive for advancement (leveling) is central to the game, as is the considerable power arc it produces. Loot, in one form or another, is also foundational. It's class-based, and I can't think of an instance where humanoid monsters aren't key to the setting.

Now, there's nothing wrong with occupying a niche. In fact, it can let you specialize to better deal with the peculiarities of that particular thing, but quality can really suffer when you try to apply it to things it wasn't built to do. The main problem with D&D is people using it for the wrong stuff.

File: duck1.jpg (48KB, 580x387px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 580x387px

D&D is really basic at its core

1.) roll a d20
2.) add applicable bonuses from your stats
3.) add in bonuses from your class

That's really it.
There's nothing inherent to this that makes it good or bad at anything, other than what classes you use.

>>54925100
You mean you cut that line because it directly refuted your assertion, you tool.

Eat a dick and shut the fuck up.

>>54925185

Now I'm just confused.

Do you think literally every RPG system that exists is a generic system?

Because that line, or its equivalent, is in every RPG system ever. It's so ubiquitous I ignored it because it isn't worth mentioning.

It's an acknowledgement of the nature of roleplaying. Not that something was designed as a generic system.

>>54922165
your words are as empty as your soul

>>54925167
The fact that you have to arbitrarily change the DCs to even kind of have a point is telling.

>>54925167
>The dice doesn't matter as much as the target numbers in a binary pass/fail system like the one D&D uses. If you set the average DC for a challenge at 10 for a d20 and 12 for a 3d6, characters will be more likely to succeed in the former. If you want it to be harder, raise the average DC; easier, lower it.
This. The standard deviation for 3d6 is like half that for 1d20, so comparing the two is like comparing 1d10 and 1d20. A +1 does not mean the same thing in those two systems. You have to double the size of the modifier to have the same impact on a d20.

>>54925167
They do matter I have the same 1/20 chance for getting every number on the dice
A 3d6 has a 13% chance of getting a 10 or 11

This means that people typically get the average result and not the abnormal result.

The other two aren't personal preference, having classes in a class based game stronger than other classes is a serious design flaw, the same is with having races in the PHB that no one will ever play because some races are just better then others

>>54925172
As someone with half a brain, you're not only flat out wrong, there's several options, variants, editions, and even base games that directly refute your assertions, including E6 for your notion of leveling being central to the game, the dozens of non-dungeon delving settings and adventures available for your "just high fantasy" line, and the last two editions dismantling your insistence on Loot being foundational.

>>54925244
Getting a 1 and a 9 are no different in a binary pass/fail system if the DC is 10.
Getting numbers near the average value isn't really that important, because what your chances are to succeed are all that matters.
Whether that is 50% of 53.76% is much more significant than how close or far away you were.

Am I making this clear to you? I don't know if I am, because I don't know all the misconceptions you are working under.

>>54925172

Sorry friend. Your rationally considered opinion about a game you clearly have a lot of experience with is unfortunately invalid. D&D's fanboys will now accuse you of being an idiot or a troll for daring to suggest that D&D is not a perfect system and the best system for everything ever.

>>54925254
First, I think you overstate the cases you bring up. E6 is kludgy, ad hoc modification of the underlying level system, and level is still very important until you hit your head on the ceiling.

Second, you'll sometimes see an edition of D&D go light on one particular facet (resource management in 4e is lighter without vancian casting), but those are the facets that underlie D&D in general, and every edition has most of them. And without them, well, you could still call your system D&D, but it really wouldn't be the same game.

>>54925360

Arguably 4e has more resource management than other editions, given that dailies and healing surges give everyone a reason to pace themselves throughout the adventuring day. It's just distributed through the group rather than focused on a specific individual.

>>54920889
It's kinda like calling all soft drinks "coke"

>>54925216
Look, you little shit. This is pathetic. You can backpedal all you want, you can omit passages and apply your own personal interpretations if you think that will help to pretend that the game has limitations that it's never had, but the bottom line remains unchanged.

>you can do whatever you can imagine.

That's why there's so many different types of supplements for D&D, and so many variant ways to play, and so much homebrew and expansions and all that other jazz that basically says to you and your false assertions on what the game's premise is, "Fuck your stupid shit."

So, fuck Your. Stupid. Shit.
Fuck it.

File: Edgy.png (214KB, 601x695px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 601x695px

>>54922983
Fantasycraft is pretty solid.

As a random example, the weapon choices are actually distinct with different qualities and abilities besides damage and crit range. Just as an example.

>>54925336
Oh my goodness the patronizing.

Anyways it is important, see in a game where critical failures and successes are a thing, it would make sense for them to be rare right? Well if I play DnD I have the same chance of getting a 20 as I do getting a 10

This along with the chances of crit failures and successes changing with skill, means that in a game like gurps a well trained soldier has a far higher chance of doing something significant in a fight.

Whereas in dnd a commoner has the same chances of succeeding remarkably as a level 20 fighter.

It also makes enhancements that much more important, as a +1 enchancement raises my chances from 50% to 61.5%

>>54925439

So you really do think that line makes every system a generic system.

Okay.

That actually changes nothing, your argument is still bullshit. As every game includes that line, every game must be as flexible as D&D, so D&D's flexibility isn't actually a trait of the system, it's a trait of roleplaying games as a medium.

Given that you can run any premise in any system, it's still a better idea to look for systems more suited to a specific premise instead of running something in a system not designed for it.

>>54925360
E6 works not only well, it's one of the most popular unofficial variants. There's enough people who play E6 that if it was a stand alone game, it would be in the top 30 of roleplaying games.

>but those are the facets that underlie D&D in general,

Underlie? Go back to saying things like "central" and "foundational" like you honestly think plenty of people don't worry about those features and the game can readily be adapted to not include them.

>>54925439
K is there an official rifts supplement for DnD

Heck can you even play a rifts game with only the big 3?

Do you have rules for psionics in the big 3?

Do you have rules for laser guns in the big three?

Do you have rules for running a martial arts game with different fighting styles and everything?

Can you play a penguin in using the big 3?

Reminder no homebrew allowed, not even stretching

>>54925458
>Whereas in dnd a commoner has the same chances of succeeding remarkably as a level 20 fighter.

Please, actually play the game before trying to talk about it in a hypothetical sense.

>>54925382
I'd argue that it's lighter because you have more shit to fall back on. If you're playing a magic-user in Basic, and you use up all your spells, that's it for you. You're now a warrior with shitty hit points, no armor, shitty weapons, and a shitty chance to hit.

>>54925546
Say im a level one wizard my chances of critically succeeding at a task are .05

Say I'm a level 20 fighter my chances of critically succeeding at a task are .05

See it's not hard

>>54925557

On the individual level, but on the group level you'll still have some party members operating at near peak capacity. In 4e, everyone can get worn down and have very little left, which is potentially more precarious. I guess it's whether you emphasise the personal or the group angle of resource management.

>>54925464
>it's a trait of roleplaying games as a medium.

There are some games that are specifically tailored to a very specific niche.

D&D is not one of them. It's kitchen sink fantasy meant to be adapted to a wide variety of genres within that umbrella, and has also lent itself to be adapted outside of fantasy.

But, even the games tailored to a specific niche could have much of their mechanics refluffed and used for another game.

>Given that you can run any premise in any system, it's still a better idea to look for systems more suited to a specific premise instead of running something in a system not designed for it.

Not if you prefer D&D's mechanics, you fucking moron.

>>54925579
Critical success and failure don't exist for skills.
And, for attacks, a 20 Fighter can potentially crit on a 12 or even lower for an attack.

See? You don't know jack shit.

>>54925615

Okay, but preferring D&D's mechanics has nothing to do with whether or not D&D is a flexible system.

From your earlier assertion, every system is a generic system (because every system includes the line you're obsessing over), so the systems you're describing as being specific don't actually exist.

Given that every system is a generic system, we can subtract that from every system to get a better idea of what the system is focused on.

For D&D... Well. The paragraph I posted in >>54924834 sums it up nicely

D&D is a narrow system. And that isn't a bad thing.

>>54925615
>and has also lent itself to be adapted outside of fantasy.
And the end results are invariably shit if they're not divorced enough from D&D, so maybe it's not as adaptable as you think. d20 Modern is what you get when you do what you're talking about, and guess what? The game is fucking horrible.

>>54925662
You have to roll a 20 to crit, the second roll you don't.

That does mean that a fighter has a higher chance of criting, but a commoner can still hit a knight in full plate armor on a 20 and he has the same chances of doing that as a level 20 fighter

>>54925458
Natural 20s and 1s being significant only count in combat and death saving throws

>>54925726
He has the same chance as "critting", which is doing twice the damage that they normally do, sure. That makes sense, because doubling your usual ability shouldn't necessarily get easier the more capable you get.

>>54925685
>every system isn't narrow
>but D&D is

What? The fuck is wrong with your brain?

Also, stop trying to put words in my mouth. D&D is not a "generic" system, because that's a very specific term. It is, however, flexible and adaptable, and this is evident from people adapting it for a wide variety of games and play styles, and even the opening statement includes a line that says not to impose artificial limitations on what you can do with it.

So please, shut the fuck up and sit down.

>>54925753
I could homebrew fatal to run Star Wars, but that doesn't mean it's flexible.

>>54925702
>opinions

d20 Modern isn't the only d20 adaptation, and it sucked because it went too far from the D&D model, not that it stayed too close.

People complained about shit like it's dumb wealth subsystem, you moron.

>>54925776
So?

We're talking about D&D, which is flexible. Star Wars d20 wasn't even all that bad, and remains one of the few Star Wars RPGs that's actually playable.

>>54925753

Alright, let's consider this.

Why would D&D be adapted to do a lot of different things by a lot of different people?

It could be, as you suggest, due to the fact its mechanics are very flexible and open... But there's evidence against that. D&D experimented extensively with that with the OGL, and products like D20 modern, which were often abandoned or failed quite catastrophically. If it really was such a flexible, easy to adapt system, then surely WotC would have done more to profit from that with official products?

Now, are there any alternate explanations? Perhaps that it's the largest game in the world, and that people are often more comfortable using something they're familiar with, or literally didn't have access to the other options?

I think that rings true. Market dominance, the echoes of the OGL and familiarity incentivising people to use D&D, not because it was the best option, but because it was familiar or the only option they had.

In the latter case, raising the point of not using D&D is valid, because it helps people get out of their comfort zone and, perhaps, discover systems that they will enjoy even more and will better support the games they want to run.

Because D&D is a narrow, specific system. And that isn't a bad thing.

>>54925747
>You have to roll a 20 to crit, the second roll you don't.

What part of "And, for attacks, a 20 Fighter can potentially crit on a 12 or even lower for an attack" didn't you understand? With feats like improved critical and the right weapons, a fighter's crit range can be dramatically expanded.

>>54925795
And how it took D&D combat mechanics and did nothing to make them actually work for firefights beyond a shit version of the massive damage rule. And how the skill system was a broken piece of shit because the mechanics weren't changed, just some skills.

>>54925811
No my friend you are talking about d20 which is flexible.

You claim to be talking about dnd which isn't.

Half life will always be half life but the source engine can be anything you desire.
>>54925747
Critting is an auto hit regardless of armor.

A demon lord with ac: infinity hp:1 has the same chances of dying to a commoner than a level 20 fighter.

Compare that to gurps where the fighter would have ~25% of killing the demon, and the peasant would have less then 1%

>>54925880
Sorry what's your point?

>>54925821
>then surely WotC would have done more to profit from that with official products?

They did. They produced plenty of official products, including Oriental Adventures and d20 Future. But, medieval fantasy has and always has been the most popular genre in roleplaying, hence the focus.

Look, you're being a fucking moron. You're admitting the game is flexible, and adaptable, and that people have adapted it. Now, you're backpedalling, and trying to say that because some other games are more adaptable, that somehow makes D&D a niche game, which it's never been.

So please, stop trying to redefine what "narrow" and "specific" means just so you can call D&D that.

>>54925753

They didn't say everything else was and D&D wasn't.

They said if D&D was, for the reasons you cited, then so was every system. Which means you can discount it, as something that equally applies to everything is a trait of the medium, not the system.

>>54925946
It's not dnd.

dnd isn't great, but d20 can be(mutants and masterminds comes to mind)

All this stupid discussion and you where arguing about a completely different thing

>>54925956

Oriental adventures is just another kind of fantasy adventuring game, and d20 future failed alongside d20 modern.

Why are you so committed to this? You freaked the fuck out over a throwaway line earlier, but even with that, the system quite clearly defined its own premise. Why do you find it so hard to accept what the system itself is telling you?

>>54925880
>Critting is an auto hit regardless of armor.

Wrong. You're talking about a nat 20, which is different from a crit.

And, that doesn't account for additional miss chances from things like being incorporeal.

In general, you have absolutely no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Please, for your own sake, just shut up.

>>54926006
Oh my goodness you are so thick

Of course I was talking about a critical success, that was entirely what my first post was about.

You underestimate me, I spent my first 4 ttrpg years playing 3.5. I know what the heck I'm talking about

>>54925992
d20 Future actually did fairly well, and even d20 Modern did better than many other systems despite being considered not great for being too much of a departure from the D&D model. Yes, that's largely due to D&D's popularity, but the only way you can call them failures is to compare them to how well the D&D books sold, and by that metric every other RPG is a failure.

So, please. Give up. You're trying to call a system narrow and specific when it's really anything but, and its own premise directly refutes you, you little shit.

>>54926060
Your thick for ignoring a fighter's expanded crit range, thinking any crit is an auto hit, assuming that the dice roll is the end-all-be-all, and generally just not understanding the game at all.

All that, plus you don't really have a good grasp of the nature of binary pass/fail systems.

I think the issue is that you are so stupid, you didn't even understand a game you played for 4 years.

>>54926077
You aren't even talking about d&d you are talking about the d20 SYSTEM, which is something completely different.

The system isn't specific or narrow at all, d&d is.

D6 Star Wars is specific, opend6 isnt specific

>>54926077

Except it didn't?

The only line you claim refutes me is something present in every RPG ever made. Otherwise, the system clearly shows that it's designed for fantasy adventuring.

Looking at the products that actually succeeded gives even more weight to this. Star Wars d20 worked pretty well because Star Wars is basically just fantasy in space. Mutants and Masterminds, despite some initial missteps, also became a good system (although it got better the further it got away from D&D) because the idea of a group of powerful heroes fighting monsters/villains made sense.

That something can be adapted does not mean something is adaptable. D&D, yes, has been adapted to many things, and the direct results of that show that it is not, in itself, a good basis for adaptation for things outside of its comfort zone. If you want to fight monsters in a heroic fantasy-ish context, you could do worse than D&D. Because that's what it's designed for. Because D&D is a narrow system. And that isn't a bad thing.

>>54920166

I have the exact same attitude about people who seem to think Karate is the only martial art. Shit drives me bonkers.

>>54926140
>The only line you claim refutes me is something present in every RPG ever made.

Then, by its own premise, it doesn't have the limits that you assert it does.

End of discussion.

>>54926140
>Star Wars d20 worked pretty well because Star Wars is basically just fantasy in space
It was actually pretty fucking awful. SWSE jumping away from the problems it had by not being afraid to diverge further from 3.5 and it was still nowhere near as good as SWd6.

>>54926177
I never liked SWd6. It's one of those systems that works best the more you pretend it's not there.

>>54926167

But in that case every RPG is just as flexible as D&D is, by your assertion, which loops back to the point in >>54925685

If every RPG is that flexible by its own premise, then you can subtract that element from the premise of every RPG to find what it's focused on. As if that adaptability equally applies to all games, then it's a trait of the medium, not the game.

So, subtracting that line and the implications you assert it has from the premise... Leaves us with a very clear statement that D&D is a game made for fantasy adventuring. Which, given it's a subgenre of a genre, is a pretty niche, narrow premise.

But that isn't a bad thing.

>>54926126
>realizes you are losing an argument, so you start insulting the person you are argueing with
Ok m8

But I'm not the one who dragged in the fighters crit range, heck that doesn't even work like critical successes.

And I play GURPS, I totally get binary pass fail systems. I wasn't arguing that a fighter is less skilled than a peasant, I was arguing that the two have the same chance of critically succeeding.

You are the one who took this argument to spookytown

>>54926211
You stupid piece of shit, how many fucking times does someone have to explain the same goddamn thing to you, you unthinking cunt?

1. D&D is adaptable and flexible. This is undeniable fact, as it's been adapted for a wide variety of games and by its raw nature is the poster child of flexible fantasy game. This is without even talking about homebrews, which D&D lends itself to thanks to its simple and popular core mechanic.
2. Its own premise says it is flexible and that it has no limits, killing your assertion that its premise pretends that it is a limited game. It doesn't matter if other games say something similar, D&D flat out, in writing, refutes your assertion that it is limited by anything short of your imagination.
3. It's own creators adapted it for far more than just fantasy adventuring, and it has evolved many times since then, and expanded dramatically as well by both professionals and amateurs.
4. All games have some measure of flexibility. D&D is a large system, with many published variants and several editions, and this makes it more flexible than genuinely narrow games specifically made for a specific niche, a distinction you have continually failed to appreciate.

So please. Shut up with trying to impose your personal limitations on the game onto anyone else. Frankly, I shouldn't have wasted my time explaining this all to you, because regardless of how much you could try and force D&D into a narrow niche, people will continue to adapt the game and expand it from whatever niche you hoped to try and pin it into.

D&D is adaptable.
And you're a dumb cunt.

Posting another introduction to a PHB. Just, y'know, because.

>Imagine a world of bold warriors, mighty wizards, and terrible monsters®
>Imagine a world of ancient ruins, vast caverns, and great wild wastes where only the bravest heroes dare to tread.
>Imagine a world of swords and magic, a world of elves and goblins, a world of giants and dragons.
>This is the world of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Roleplaying Game (also referred to as D&D), the pinnacle of fantasy roleplaying games. You take on the role of a legendary hero—a skilled fighter, a courageous cleric, a deadly rogue, or a spell-hurling wizard. With some willing friends and a little imagination, you strike out on daring missions and epic quests, testing yourself against an array of daunting challenges and bloodthirsty monsters.

>>54926491

You're not actually explaining anything. Your first line is just asserting your premise and ignoring what I pointed out earlier, that something can be adapted does not mean it is adaptable. You've done nothing to show why D&D is more adaptable than any other roleplaying system.

As for your second line, so... D&D saying it is something special and important, but other systems saying it doesn't count? This trait you're trying to attribute to D&D, despite it not being acknowledged by the system itself, is unique, despite the only piece of evidence you've presented so far being something universally applicable?

Again, there is a difference between something that is capable of being adapted, and something that is adaptable. The first advice almost anyone in a homebrew thread is given tends to be 'Don't use d20 as a basis' for a reason.

As for your last point... What? Having more content to suit its specific premise makes it better at doing things outside that premise? How, exactly?

D&D is a game about fantasy adventuring. Using it for that, it's pretty good. It can do a lot of different types of fantasy adventuring, too. But it's still, y'know, a game about fantasy adventuring.

>>54926543
Is that from the edition with Space Elves and notDracula, or the one with Cthulu, Conan, and Elric?

>>54926600
>that something can be adapted does not mean it is adaptable

Done. I'm done with you.

>>54926636

...What? Are you really going to have a strop over that?

Every RPG can be adapted, by the nature of the medium being one of collaborative storytelling where you can do things outside the rules or create your own rules for things that aren't covered.

That doesn't mean every RPG is adaptable. Some systems are a lot more suitable for it than others. And D&D, as has been evidenced, is not generally a suitable system for adaptation outside its core premise.

>>54926636
Just because you can homebrew something, doesn't make it adaptable.

I could home brew a sit com with 40k rules, but that doesn't mean it's good at that

>>54920166
>All those words
So everyone on /tg/ isn't fully retarded. Great to know in fact.

>You can support other games people
Rambling onto something off-topic:
Vast majority of our hobby is high-school to college age. Even thou there are plenty of ol timers like myself. and most (Most not all) barely buy those PDFs they have, so they aren't supporting anything.

I wonder what the percentage of RPG player to RPG players that pay really is.

>>54920870
>like Pathfinder was.
Pathfinder is on it's way out?

>>54926600
>You've done nothing to show why D&D is more adaptable than any other roleplaying system.
He doesn't really have to. OP's issue was that he thinks D&D wasn't adaptable, but it's really impossible to argue that D&D isn't adaptable. How adaptable is it? That's really a matter of opinion and open to debate, but I'd say it's fairly up there, because it has a lot of supplements to expand the game, such as leading it into different genres like Horror or including optional rules for expanding non-combat encounters. Sadly, most of the published stuff outside of Fantasy isn't great, but that's mostly a result of just little interest in non-fantasy roleplaying in general. More than 80% of all roleplayers play fantasy games, and the reason why non-D&D, non-fantasy games do relatively well compared to non-D&D fantasy games is because they cater to what has effectively become a niche in roleplaying games without facing major competition.
The argument that D&D is narrow because it focuses on Fantasy Adventuring is an odd one, because that's the widest and most popular category of roleplaying games available. Still, I'd say that focusing on Fantasy Adventuring isn't the same as being limited to it, and despite failures such as d20 Modern there have been a plethora of games to come from the D&D genetics, including red-headed stepchildren like Strike! that traces most of its combat mechanics to D&D 4e. In fact, you could actually reasonably argue that all roleplaying tabletop games to some degree are descendants from D&D.
But, I think that this guy said it best.
>>54925174
Defining D&D gets a little shaky, because there's multiple editions, authors, and companies. Even just within an edition we get a lot of diversity, such as 3rd edition being essentially split into a variety of d20 games alongside things like Pathfinder and unofficial variants like e6 or official variants like using Gestalts.
If that's not variety and adaptability, what is?

>>54927147

D&D being influential isn't the same as D&D being adaptable

>>54923947
So wait, you like that D&D is "versatile" and can be used for an Ocean's 11 or sci fi game, but you don't want a "generic" system? Don't you realize you are full of contradictions?

Also, imagine I want to play a christmas game with my nephews and nieces, and don't want a complicated game or a HP system. D&D is better than The Secret Lives of Gingerbread Men?

I like D&D, specifically AD&D and 5e, especially 5e since it is starting to cast away all that is shit in the system; but you can't reasonably argue that D&D is the best system for everything.

Also disregarding your weirdly entirely subjective arguments like the variety of dice. Also d20 is too random IMO.

Anyway now I'm convinced you're just a troll.

>>54923703
Retard anon, why are you confusing setting and system?

>>54924516
And you fail to appreciate that a lot of people don't like D&D that much or the D20 that is too random, or the 6 attributes that only recently (5e) are starting to make more sense, or that D&D is actually expensive.

Basically any of your refutations can be thrown back at you. I'm not saying they can't be valid, but that you show a deep lack of retrospective capability and probably general empathy. You sound autistic as fuck.

I lost track of the convo, but can the guy/gal defending D&D in this "argument" answer this:

Are you american?

I'm just really curious.

Hey I think I know what's your problem, talking to the two guys insulting each other. D&D is versatile and adaptable to many genres, mainly because of its popularity though but still, you can't deny it. It can't do everything of course, but I'm sure that other autistic guy accepts it. However some people actually want a variety in GAMEPLAY, a game isn't just the setting or the genre, sometimes it is fun to discover new mechanics or just have something more random, more/less crunchy etc. However D&D guy seems to have an autistic hard on for that system but fair enough, the other autist seems incapable of coming to terms with it lol

File: 1453155265106.png (752KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

752KB, 1920x1080px

>>54920166
>I'm so tired of people I see in my real life and online that think D&D is the only ttrpg that exists. Yes, I get that it's the most popular. It's not the only one.

You're right. There's also Pathfinder.

>see thread in the catalog, wanted to try and talk about a system I like
>enter thread, it's full of troglodytes insisting D&D can and should do anything and everything
>exit thread

>>54926846

In the sense that Starfinder sold out in a single hour and will probably be the new hotness from paizo...

>I dont like DnD
>gm suggests numenera
>initially hate it, worst system ever, fuck you monte cook
>two years into a campaign, it's not honestly too terrible. I like being a jack

I dont really know what happened but I think it's because our group is fucking awesome and we come up with amazing character dynamics no matter what system we play. We did 4e as evil people and it worked out fucking great.

Then we played traumatized Hunters in the Vigil.

I think our best campaign was our Dark Sun campaign where our DM ran the shitty metaplot adventures where the PCs stand around and gawk at the book NPCs while they accomplish stuff, but we basically played it and rewrote it so it was like that scene in the boondocks where Rosa Parks steals all of the credit for sitting at the front of the bus.

>join in on trying to kill hammanu
>at the end, npcs get btfo and get the fuck out of dodge
>hammanu pats us on the head and tells us to stay out of trouble with a chuckle and a wink

great times

>>54925821
This.

>>54923600
It's a waste of time trying to refute insanity, anon.

>>54931256
Can do is undebateable fact.
Should do is personal preference.

Some people actually enjoy homebrewing, and would rather refluff a system they know then use another system that they would also have to retool to suit their preferences. This isn't just true for D&D.

Also, homebrewing D&D was actually the start for most professional designers.

>>54934285
>Can do is undebateable fact.
No. D&D can't do cinematic games, it can't do gritty games, it can't do heavy intrigue games, and it can't do a host of other things. Not without intense homebrewing, at which point it's not D&D.

The only "undebateable" fact here is that some people will TRY to make D&D do things it can't do instead of looking for a better system.

>>54921881
This is a way old post by now but Paranoia is THE best game, imo, to get semi-new tabletop players out of the "D&D is the only tabletop RPG" mindset. The completely different setting, the Antics, and having to wrangle with the Computer forces their brains to completely remold. I've had much better luck introducing players to more unusual settings after forcing them to do a few Paranoia missions.

>>54922113
BRP is more than just CoC.
It's also shitty for supers.

>>54920166
>You can support other games people, a lot of them are great. Better, even.

I had a two and half year phase of only playing games other then D&D. Shadowrun 4th and 5th ed, World of darkness of a great many types, dead lands, the warhammer RPGs, etc.

D&D has a intended type of game play but it is better at going outside that intended type of game play then any other system that is not a tool box system. That is the truth as far as I see. Tool box systems have there own set of issues btw which is why they are not the most commonly used type of TRPG.

>"Why don't you try x instead, it does everything you are asking for?" And they either give me blank looks or humor me without actually considering what I say.

For a GM to run a different system they have to get the players to read the new system. For some groups that is a not small issue.

File: Cover-548x359.jpg (51KB, 548x359px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 548x359px

>>54920314
>It's easier to homebrew it in DnD than to play an already established sci-fi system.

Do you know just how ass bad most sci-fi systems are? Even if the game works the system ends up being full scale word soup. See pic for example.

>>54934413
>No. D&D can't do cinematic games, it can't do gritty games, it can't do heavy intrigue games,

Yes, yes it can. It has, and continues to be able to do those. It even has official material specifically for those, and popular adventures centered around those themes. It's actually funny that you mentioned heavy intrigue, because I finished an adventure a few weeks back that was centered around discovering the identity of a king's assassin, which is practically cliche as far as D&D adventures go.

>Not without intense homebrewing, at which point it's not D&D.

No, you don't really need intense homebrewing. You are exaggerating quite a bit, and doing so doesn't help your argument.

Also, your personal definition of what D&D is contradicts reality. Modified D&D is still D&D.
But, fine, if it appeases your autism and puts you to rest, let's talk about "D&D+", which is D&D with homebrew. Most people just call it D&D, but there's your special term just for you.

D&D+ can do anything, and is arguably the best system ever. I'm not going to personally argue that it is, but if that happened to be someone's opinion, than aside from encouraging them to explore new games even just for the sake of expanding their toolset for homebrewing, I would find no reason to criticize their decision or preference if they chose to play D&D+ over a different game. It's what they like.

>>54934544
Unisystem (Buffy, Angel, Witchcraft, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Etc) is far more flexible than D&D, and isn't really what I'd call a "toolbox" system like GURPS is.

I wouldn't use it for capeshit because it lacks rules for designing powers, but it's good for basically anything else, from star wars to lotr to historical campaigns.

I wouldnt use it for a published D&D setting because of the convenience of already having everything built, but I'd pick it over D&D for any other purpose.

>>54920166
What gets me is that some people can't stand that you might have fun playing a game they don't like.
Like it causes brain damage to enjoy something they don't enjoy. How they can't seem to parse that fun is subjective and not objective. Yeah, those people really bother me, because they have this judgmental attitude that they're so much smarter and more capable than you are because you make a choice they don't like.

>>54934560
FFG Star Wars?
d6 Space?
WEG d6 Star Wars?
BRP?

There's some pretty simple scifi systems out there, and I don't even play a lot of scifi games.

>>54934566
>It's still D&D even if it has >300 pages of houserules!
No man, no it's not.

>>54934571
>Unisystem
That's literally billed as a generic system.
Also, personally, I find it to suffer all the issues of more stripped down narrative games (bad combat/conflict resolution being its chief problem) while also including a lot of needless charts and fidgety rules best left ignored.
But, if that's your jam, great. I just personally wouldn't recommend it compared to other generic systems.

>>54934591
If you can't accept the common understanding of what D&D is, and are forced to exaggerate and strawman, then by all means, let's discuss D&D+. It's basically the same conversation, except with an extra character to appease your autism.

>>54926846
>>54931808

Starfinder is a test bed for Pathfinder 2nd ed. The writing is in the wall for everyone to see. It will likely dethrone 5th ed D&D as the most played system.

WoD is having a another round of developer hell.
Shadowrun 5th has giant issues and is just worst then Shadowrun 4th.
The 40k RPG had a licensing issue.I have hope in the new people who have it but it is a long way off.
The next ed of L5r is coming but is a even longer way off.
Other systems are just to rare to matter

>>54934591
>300
How many pages of homebrew before it stops being D&D? One? Ten? Twenty?
Because, even five pages is more than enough to dramatically alter and refluff the game.

>>54934638
It's going to take a lot of fucking houserules for D&D to run a gritty realistic space opera. And I have seen people who had over a hundred pages of houserules.

>>54934619
Generic System, yes, but not toolbox system. It's not a generic book they require you to cherrypick subsystems from, it's a series of cross-compatible prebuilt games that just run, fairly smoothly. It's combat mechanics aren't amazing, but they're no worse than the ones in NWOD, and people seem to love NWOD.

>>54934591
>It's still D&D even if it has >300 pages of houserules!
>No man, no it's not.

I run with 3 and half pages of houserules and it is just fine. Most of that is just old rulings on"so how does this work?".

>>54934676
>It's going to take a lot of fucking houserules for D&D to run a gritty realistic space opera.

Not really. You can treat the core mechanic of D&D as the central component and keep it as a light system. Unless your argument is that not including rules also counts towards the page count somehow.

>>54934676
>Generic System, yes, but not toolbox system.

Way to fucking split hairs.

>but they're no worse than the ones in NWOD, and people seem to love NWOD.

They definitely don't love NWOD for its combat.

>>54934769
Not him.

But if you literally only use "roll d20 and add modifiers against arbitrary number" then I'd be really hard pressed to call that D&D. That's, at best, the d20 system.

>>54934644
> It will likely dethrone 5th ed D&D as the most played system.
There's pretty much no way this is going to happen for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is "market inertia" and the second-biggest of which is "most normal people don't want character creation to replace their day job."

>>54934804
>That's, at best, the d20 system.

Whatever you want to call it then.
The point still stands that it would work even with that extreme example.

>>54934825
Okay.

If your argument is that you can use the d20 system for things that's fine.

Calling it D&D is stupid though.

>>54934676
>I don't know what Spelljammers is

>>54934858
Calling it d20 is stupid too, because that's specifically a 3rd edition thing and wouldn't apply to someone using a stripped down version of 5e.

It's much simpler to just use the blanket term "D&D" and not get autistic about it.

>>54934873
No? D&D 3.5 is a d20 system, but calling the d20 system D&D is confusing, as evidenced by this thread.

Also, 5e isn't different enough that if you say "d20 system" someone will be like "do you mean 3.5-type d20 or 5e type?" because literally both are "roll a d20 and add mods", so the... I don't know the right word for this, severity? of when a mixup happens is way less.

>>54934902
The d20 system is the specifically the stripped down framework of 3rd edition D&D, and doesn't apply to any other of the underlying frameworks of previous or latter editions. It's also pretty easy to distinguish between a d20 system and a stripped down version of 5e's core, thanks to things like different saves, dramatically different scaling values, and the implementation of the advantage system.

Really though, we're just arguing semantics. If you want to call anything D&Dish d20, fine, but that's no more accurate than just calling it D&D, and in many cases would be less accurate.

>>54934952
D&D name implies D&D-isms like wizards, fighters, vancian casting, whatever.

d20 implies... using a fucking d20 + modifiers rollover vs DCs. Having different scaling is such a minor thing and is ALSO ambiguous when you just say "D&D" anyway, since, you know, 3.5 and 5e are both D&D.

Basically using D&D as a shorthand for d20 systems has no upsides, aside from getting a lot of (you) and then acting smug about it.

>>54934952
>>54934993
i think the point of confusion is:

- "D&D" is a specific d20-based system
- "d20 systems" is a term for all d20-based systems
- "The D20 System" is a specific d20-based system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D20_System

so yes, "systems that use d20s" are d20 systems, but there's also a D20 System out there to further confuse the issuo

>>54922313
>I reserve the right to add or modify this list as I please later on as I remember things or refine my thoughts, and this list is not complete by any means.

Nigger do you think you're in a debate in fucking supreme court or something you fucking autismo

>>54934993
>Basically using D&D as a shorthand for d20 systems has no upsides,

Common parlance frequently has little inconveniences, but that's no reason to not acknowledge common parlance. Some people call ALL RPGs "D&D", and while they are blatantly incorrect, it's not unreasonable to understand their intention from their context. In a fashion though, they're not wholly incorrect, because all modern TTRPGS do have their roots in D&D.

If someone says "I'm using a stripped down version of D&D to run a rules-lite Sci-fi game", do you really need to chime in with "ACTUALLY, I'd say that would be designated as a d20 system, rather than accepting your accurate yet mildly offensive to my personal sensibilities designation as a stripped down D&D system"?

>>54934566

So why didn't that plot point get solved by casting a single divination spell?

>>54922864
>>54922877
>>54922908
He's talking about oWoD, not nWoD.

nWoD is for me fairly high up on the stakes of "Runs anything kinda badly, easily". If I'm ever totally fucking lost for what I could run something in and I just have no fucking clue how to get it to work, I use nWoD because at the very least it's a crunch medium system that a fucking child could operate and everyone I know can build and operate a character in under 10 minutes, which leaves space to include whatever bullshit extras I want for the current foray.

That said, it has so many totally fucking obvious downsides as a system that if getting away from it is an option, I will always do so.

In that sense I don't think it's that unhealthy to be the default game for my group because you would need to have brain damage to not understand how shit it is at some very fundamental things like having dynamic combats for instance. I've experimented a little and I can definitely make interesting fights but only by completely bullshitting, and even then it's HARD, I don't have a good success rate. Running it out of the box would be fucking awful and the books barely explain how anything *needs* to work.

That said, it's yards better than Dindy if only for allowing everything to be resolved quickly. You have to be pretty serious autismos, or playing Mage, to get bogged down in arguments or indecision over how shit works.

>>54935546
Because divination spells don't work the way you think they do.

>>54934823
> the biggest of which is "market inertia"

Market inertia how being over come before, and not that long ago. Pathfinder dethroned 4e D&D and 5e dethroned Pathfinder inside the last 7 years. WoD dethroned 2nd D&D during the late 90s.

For a system to keep itself on top in needs more product to come out that people like. 5e D&D has being releasing very little product but most of it has is remakes of old classic modules that people do want a play thru of. That was a smart move, however I think they are running low on classic modules that people care about to remake.

>the second-biggest of which is "most normal people don't want character creation to replace their day job."

The rise of 5e on Roll20 has been linked to 3.5 growing over four fold on that site. It is now the 3rd most active system that site, right behind pathfinder. It looks like the draw of 3.5 to those newer players, many of which that is the second system they are trying, is the large number of prestige classes. So level of effort in character creation is not a real turn off among new-ish players.

And yes, I do think that this is a corruption of innocent that happening with new players going into 3.5. I may like pathfinder, but I know it has not small flaws. I also view it as a not small improvement over 3.5.

At first I thought this thread was full of trolls, but god damn if these are trolls then they're dedicated as hell.

>>54935886

PF dethroning 4e is a meme. While both games were in production, 4e sold better, but the game was intentionally sabotaged and killed off early with the Essentials product line. Pathfinder is more successful, sure, but only because it wasn't strangled in its prime.

>>54936079
Dear God

>>54922313
>point buy is bad
Neck yourself, cancer.

>>54936096

What? It's the truth. 4e was still a very successful product, it was just mismanaged to all hell and subjected to ludicrous sales expectations by Hasbro, who didn't understand that an RPG couldn't make money at the same rate as MtG.

Paizo, on the other hand, understood the RPG space a lot better. Rather than Hasbro's boom and bust approach, a huge investment in 4e, then giving up and having 5e on a shoestring budget, Paizo have continuously invested in their brand and product line long term, leading to a significantly longer period of successful returns.

I'm not saying Pathfinder isn't more successful than 4e, because it clearly is. But there's a lot more to it than one product 'dethroning' the other.

>>54936128
To this day, nobody has any idea how much money D&D Insider made.

>>54936203

A fair point. This is mostly based on book sales and whispers of internal stuff that have filtered out over the years.

File: 1480264510430.jpg (117KB, 717x373px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 717x373px

>>54920275
>This is a marketing lie by people who desperately want to push D&D into a small niche to give room for their own games in the hobby. D&D is actually ridiculously versatile, even before you start homebrewing, and as much as you hate to hear it, it's very easy to modify and homebrew for.
No, it's not.

List of terrible things that are almost completely unique to DnD and its ilk:

>Alignment
>Characters and progression are entirely focused on killing
>Class/level based progression
>XP from killing or 'looting'
>Utter lack of interesting non-combat mechanics
>Vancian magic
>The absolute blunder of a die: d20

DnD does one thing, and it does it poorly, in a clearly obsolete way. 5e recognized that half of the game's core mechanics were loathesome dinosaurs but also realized how heavily brain damaged most DnD-drones are, so it included some of them as 'optional'. DnD is a genuine failure of a game which is unsuited for absolutely everything but 'ha le beer and pretzels kill monsters loot dungeon bros'.

>>54936079
4E Essentials was intentionally sabotage. I mean it was bad, but intentionally so? Details please.

I want to know. I need to know.

>4e sold better

Yes, when it was in like its first two years. My understanding is that it had started to flag before then. 4e came out summer of 2008 and pathfinder came out august of 2009. Its first full years of sells was in 2010 which was the same year as Essentials came out. Seeing as that Paizo was damn well a nobody in the industry at the time it likely took some time for people to hear about it.

>>54936315

Intentional sabotage is likely an overstatement, but it was clearly a bad move and given how much the person behind it hated 4e, I can see the line failing not being a bad thing in his mind.

>>54936309
I was waiting for this post.
This is the prophesized Most Retarded Post on 4chan.

It would literally take weeks to explain in full detail everything wrong with what this idiot managed to squeeze into less than 2000 characters.

>>54936407

Nah, he pretty much nailed it. If it was so clearly wrong, you'd actually have an argument rather than spinning bullshit around it.

>>54936309
I don't think this is really accurate. Plenty of games give you XP for murder, plenty have (subjectively) boring combat, plenty use d20s.
5e has been a real improvement over pathfinder / 3.5 in my eyes. Sidelining alignment, switching to skill proficiencies, making feats big and rare, moving away from bonus stacking, advantage (honestly one of the more elegant mechanics I've seen recently), stuff like that.
I still don't massively enjoy its game design, caster supremacy, or focus on murder, but it's much better than it used to be. It does one thing, but it does it well enough imo.

>>54936407
not much point responding if you have nothing to say, dude.

>>54936427
Nice try, samefag. You really expect anyone to believe that there's two idiots who think any of those things are exclusive to D&D, that D&D can be called a failure by any practical measure?

What a lark.

>>54936444

>D&D and its ilk

Reading comprehension is fun!

>>54936461
So, you mean RPGs.
God, what a fucking moron you must be.

>>54936432
>Plenty of games give you XP for murder
I've played over two dozen games, including all of the most popular ones (by Roll20 stats, at least). Not a single one gives XP for killing except DnD and its ilk.

>plenty have (subjectively) boring combat
Uh, sure, but where was that a complaint I raised about DnD? (though it is true) DnD only has mechanics for combat. Outside of that, it has flat d20 skill checks which are influenced chiefly by level, another flat characteristic which revolves around killing.

>5e has been a real improvement over pathfinder / 3.5 in my eyes
Sure, but a pile of shit being better than a pile of flaming shit isn't really much to brag about.

>>54936472

>D&D and D&D clones are the only RPGs that exist

Okay

>>54936432
The issue isn't that those things aren't unique, it's that most of them are hardly terrible, most are exaggerations or downright blatant falsehoods, and the rest are really up to opinion.

It's literally "I hate anything that reminds me of D&D."

>>54936472
there's pretty clearly a subset of RPGs that are either D&D or D&D accessories. Things like Pathfinder and 13th Age surely count.

>>54936485
My bad, I misread "lack of interesting non-combat mechanics." I agree entirely there.
I do agree that there's a lot of RPGs I'd rather play than D&D 5e, but it's a long way from the bottom of the list too.

>>54936522
>there's pretty clearly a subset of RPGs that are either D&D or D&D accessories.

Yes, but there's plenty of games outside that subset that include what this idiot thinks is unique to those games.

>>54936309
>half of the game's core mechanics were loathesome dinosaurs

You think D&D is the only system with multiple editions to have this or is the worst offender?

Shadowrun 5e has a bit fewer members of the Cretaceous period walking around but the ones it has are even more jarring. The 40k RPGs are WAY worst then D&D on that subject then though it is newer. Keep in mind that it has had 7 core rule books in a rather short period of time. OWoD has outright bad wrong design element that have not been touch since the early 1990s. This is with the community actively asking them to fix those things in the 20th anniversary.

>>54936544
No, that's true, but then I didn't list obsoleted game design as something unique to DnD.

>>54923457
But 3.PF is a fucking minefield with all the traps and fucking useless options...

>>54936619
Then why were you putting foreword obsoleted game design as meaningful criticism?

Criticizing something over a bad element is only meaningful if that bad element is not common among the grouping the item is part of or if that bad element is rather strong by the standards of that grouping. Among system that are based on past iterations D&D is not unique for having obsoleted game design nor is it uniquely troubled by it. Not to say it is not troubled by it however.

Btw what is you system of choice friend?

>>54936848
>Then why were you putting foreword obsoleted game design as meaningful criticism?
My mention of DnD's obsoleteness refers to its overall ancient design philosophy rather than its little edition wars. Yes, 5e did obsolete parts of its core mechanics, but 5e is itself obsolete by the standards of modern roleplaying games.

>Btw what is you system of choice friend?
My favorite system is FFG Star Wars, but I like and play many systems such as Anima, GURPS, Apocalypse World, Eclipse Phase, World of Darkness (old and new), and DoubleCross, to name a few.

>>54936848
Why are you giving this guy (you)'s?

He's just one of those types of guys that you find on /mu/ who hate popular things to the point where they hate anything that even reminds them of those popular things.

He's even got an issue with d20's.

>>54936896
>My mention of DnD's obsoleteness refers to its overall ancient design philosophy rather than its little edition wars
>its little edition wars

Calling D&D's edition wars little is like saying WWI was soccer hooligans rioting. It caused the end of larger TTRPG communities then /TG.

>standards of modern roleplaying games.

Would say that being released after the 3.5 bubble would be a good standard for a "modern roleplaying game". It did change the market a not small amount. Because HD came out 10 December 2007 and is after that bubble collapsed.

>My favorite system is FFG Star Wars
A man of taste I see

>>54936933
I mean I disagree with him but having been enjoy talking with him. Is it wrong to have a enjoyable argument without shit posting or name calling?

>He's even got an issue with d20's.

I mean I do a issue with d20s as a physical item. A lot of them are badly unbalanced even when new. As a game design element I am fine with them.

>>54936407
Lol still waiting for your arguments. Looks like someone got his ass kicked

File: tumblr_inline_ooxlo2Dwas1tmt2jn_500.png (161KB, 500x730px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 500x730px

>>54922623
>wildly popular

The problem with people homebrewing D&D to fit things isn't that they're adapting the d20 system to something else, these are not Mutants and Masterminds, or Spycraft, or even Starfinder level projects we're talking here, it's that (in my experience) they typically slap on a few bits of extra gear, and then use the rest of the fucking system to try and run the game of choice, and then try to fix it mid way through the game when it inevitably falls flat.

At at that point, learning a simple generic system would have been less work.

>>54938482
Here's your complimentary (you).
You deserve that much, because you can't really be trolling. You need to be genuinely stupid.

Also, take note of the several posts further down the thread that tear that post apart, several that not only refute it fully, but have no way of being refuted. You need to go back up and take care of those first before you claim anything.

Don't worry, everyone already knows you can't, so go on. Try to convince yourself that you're right again.

Why are people so fucking butthurt in his thread? Especially the D&D defenders. You're top of the fucking market, what do you have to be so angry about criticism over?

>>54938770
Lol oh really? What about alignment, the limits and retardation of class/level progression, the non combat mechanics i.e. skill checks with a list of skill tries to cover everything but fails, fucking vancian magic, and the probabilities of tje d20? Yea thats what I thought, have nothing to say lol but I understand you trying to save face by avoiding these questions, getting your ass kicked must hurt so bad lol

>>54938917
>what about things I don't understand and hate because I don't understand them?

You really want someone to lead you through a full course on game design just to get to the point where you're dumb enough to even realize why you're so stupid?

Hell, even explaining alignment alone to you and to chop through all your misconceptions about it would probably take the better part of a day, especially because it's clear you don't actually want to learn anything, you just want to hate and be stupid.

>>54938713
This. Spycraft and M&M are fine. The devs understand, or at least from M&M 2E onwards understood, that they couldn't just slap shitty houserules onto a foundation that didn't work, they had to overhaul the whole system and strip out everything that didn't work for their genre. Most homebrew developers don't do that, let alone spend over a year developing a game and playtesting it. This is why you get utter shit like d20 Modern and Naruto d20 from lazy fuckers who don't want to do the work.

>>54939039
Ouch your ass still hurts I see :) unlike your arguments, still nowhere to be seen. Ohhh maybe it is because you don't have any? I'll leave you to your "game design" big boy lol

>>54938713
I think it's about time I just made a simple version of D&D called d20-lite, with the goal of keeping it to under 15 pages.

>>54939500
https://microlite20.org/

>>54938910
It's half trolls and the other half are that guy. I can literally picture the greasy guy at my gaming store spouting these arguments trying to righteously defend DnD from legit criticism.

>all this arguing about how D&D is/n't a flexible system
>no one bothers to designate, and maintain clearly, which version of D&D is being discussed
>no one seems to understand te difference between a system and its fluff.

Well, at least you chumps got my sides going at 8km/s

Well done.

>>54939794
And then when he's done calling you a retard, he asks you if you can give him a ride home because his mom dropped him off. You don't even know him, you just stopped in to buy a pack of magic cards.

>>54939798
This all applies to all editions and most clones:

>>54936309

>>54939641
>https://microlite20.org/
Neat. I'll definitely read this through.

>>54939854
It's also just about as close to being entirely wrong as it can get without all the letters just being placed randomly.

>>54940008
Nice argument, dumbass.

>>54940169
Listing several non-exclusive things that you think are exclusive, including several that are not actually part of the system, and calling them terrible because you don't understand them isn't an argument either.

It's just a long whine, like someone slowly letting the air out of a balloon.

>>54940268
Name an example of any of that.

>>54938910
>Why are people so fucking butthurt in his thread?
Sunk cost.

>>54940008
What specifically is wrong about it? Alignments are ass that do nothing but serve as argument fodder. The character classes are pretty much entirely structured around killing. Class/level based progression has a bunch of problems (artificially cordoning off certain skills for no reason but role protection, large lumps of power in character advancement), XP for killing has been a thing since at least second edition and XP for looting has been a thing since the beginning, there are basically nothing for non-combat mechanics in most editions (even 3.5's skill checks were just a binary pass/fail that introduced more problems than it solved), Vancian magic is the root of the 15 minute workday, the way they've used the d20 in basically every edition has been terrible (you start out completely inept, but eventually wind up at a point where rolling is pointless; the exception to this being 4th, where you slowly wound up less capable in this regard relative to appropriate challenges due to a fuckup in the math that was patched over with the expertise feats).

>D&D is actually ridiculously versatile, even before you start homebrewing

Even just looking at races and classes and equipment shows that D&D is pretty solidly in the "Medieval Magical Fantasy Adventure" genre, that's not versatile at all.

File: 209208.jpg (26KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 300x450px

is there solo ttrpgs? everyone i know plays war games. is that retarded? am i retarded?

>>54942480
The closest you'll get are either CYOA books like Fighting Fantasy, or RPG-like board games that can handle a single player.

>>54934769
You're describing something like "Microlite", like this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B13LZLqcglVgajVPcDNUQjF1Tzg/view

At that point it may be a similar system, but it's hardly D&D anymore.

>>54934783
A toolbox system takes a whole lot of work to configure it for the campaign you need, like GURPS. A Generic system you just pick up and go. The work configuring a toolbox system for your campaign is the biggest downside to that type of system, so the distinction is relevant, as Unisystem doesn't have that problem.

>>54935689
If you're not using it for the NWoD system, NWoD is just a shitty version of unisystem. the nWoD LARP mechanic is basically a variant of Unisystem's core mechanic, even.

>>54942031
I predict he'll either ignore your post or insult you and tell you that you don't understand what you're talking about. It's like talking to a wall. I and many others agree with every single point you just made.

Reminder for everyone else that he did not create the thread, i.e. he does not wish to discuss. He's a D&D autistic fanboy which I thought was a troll at first, but everything about him screams of genuine nerd elitist retarded rage. The worst is, most of us actually like at least one version of D&D anyway. We're just not full autismo like him.

>>54944145
>but everything about him screams of genuine nerd elitist retarded rage
I'm still on the fence about it. He could very well be a turbo autist, but he could just as well be an incredibly false flag troll trying to give D&D players a bad rep, or an actual employee of WotC doing an incredibly poor job of defending his product.

>>54944776
If he is a troll, I still consider him full autismo, even sociopathic. I do enjoy trolling time to time (not on here though) but he's taking it to a whole other level.

If it's a WotC rep guy, then it's hilarious lol. And I doubt anyone would try to give D&D a bad rep on /tg/, it is a pretty insignificant place and it would serve no other purpose than reducing the number of D&D threads or this annoying thing when people just assume every open subject is actuallt about D&D

>>54944145
Wow, you're one heck of a try-hard. Upset because you got btfo and your bait don't work?

>>54944145
Already several people disagreed with his points and dismantled them several posts ago. You can't just lie about something when the evidence is a few posts above you.

>>54942480
Why not video games?

>>54942437
Have you tried refluffing? That's basically the secret to adapting anything.

The classes are built from certain vague archetypes, and you can actually see echoes of them in many sci-fi games.

>>54945384
Who and where did that happen?

>>54946675
Hell, even the second reply tore it apart.

>>54947541
Uh, no.
>>54936485