When did you realize it was just as bad as 3.PF?

when i looked at the class progression and saw how sparse it was, and when half the book is a bunch of spells in alphabetical order instead of by spell level

but i did like how the feats were more punchy and there is no more negative ability score mods for race, i would have preferred character creation be more about racial and class feat choices that you can use to assemble a character

Isn't great, but is not as bad as 3.PF

>>54972330
>bad
Why do you guys still try to push this meme? It's not bad at all by any reasonable measure.

At best, you can fault it for not being balanced, but it makes up for it by there being plenty of assistance and guides on how to make it balanced.

>>54972358
This is my only real problem with 5e. After you pick your archetype, your customization virtually ends. Unless you're a wizard. I think if there were a lot more feats, and/or feats were easier to get, you could play the same class or even the same archetype over and over and keep it feeling fresh.

>>54972330
I have problems with it, but it's still a million times better than 3.PF.

I like other systems better but it's still decent at doing what it does.

>>54972330
When I realized it wasn't gurps

>>54972901
Not to mention, certain race/class combos have overlapping features, so it's actually a bad idea to play as them.
For instance if you play as a martial dwarf you are wasting the armor proficiancy. Now if there was a list of possible dwarf feats, for instance, one of which was the armor proficiancy, you could choose a different dwarfy thing instead. Same thing for all the races, that way you could play as any combo without being gimped.

>>54972901
The content and the rate they push it out it is pretty sparce sadly. Hasbro just doesn't care enough to invest more.

>>54972330
It's not as bad. It's worse. At least 3.PF isn't this boring.

>>54972998
You jest, but I honestly that the people who play D&D as intended are a small minority, and that a majority of people playing it are doing so simply because it's the first system they learned while what most of them really wants is a generic system that can handle of several different genres. About half of those people, I think, would be far happier playing GURPS, and the other half far happier playing Fate,

>>54973028
Exactly. My dream is for feats for be as numerous and balanced as spells are in this game.

>>54972330
3.5 is ok, but has some flaws. 5E remedies basically all of those flaws.

Pathfinder, on the other hand, is for morons.

>>54972330
When I looked at the cover and it said "Dungeons and Dragons"

>>54973194
It'd be kinda cool if feats and spells would be class specific, so the sorcerer wasn't just a discount wizard.

>>54973184
>majority of people playing it are doing so simply because it's the first system they learned while what most of them really wants is a generic system that can handle of several different genres

It's so sad there's people who honestly believe this.
What most roleplayers want is fighty fantasy. There's very few games that do that better than D&D.

>>54972330
When I realized the "playtest" was actually just a marketing stunt, none of the feedback was being considered, and they were going to double down on making a bland shitty mid-90s RPG in 2013 and then just be like "Eh..." in supporting it.

>>54972330

It's bad, but it's not that bad.

5e works, it's just a bit dull. 3.PF is a mechanically incompetent trainwreck which only gets worse the more content you use.

>>54972330
>When did you realize it was just as bad as 3.PF?

So, not bad at all?

>>54973781
D&D does one particular brand of high fantasy and struggles at anything else, and given the recent popularity with franchises like GoT, I'd say D&D doesn't actually provide the right one.

>>54972330
3.PF was great for it's time, and 5e is one of the best games on the market available right now.

I really wish you'd stop being a contrarian for the sake of it.

>>54973870
>these lies

Okie doke, Mr. Contrarian. You've scared me away with your bitterness, so I'm going to run off to actually have fun while you can continue to lie in hopes to scare people away from games you don't like.

>>54973896

What? He's just repeating a fact the game itself acknowledges. D&D is a system built for a specific kind of fantasy storytelling.

>>54973906
This conversation has happened before, and I remember you getting completely BTFO.

>watch the post count go up
>the poster count stays the same
Someone is a butthurt faggot.

>>54973931

Has it? I'm a bit confused by that. What is there to discuss when it comes to stating a fact?

Can you system war trolls give it a rest?

Most pathetic cunts on /tg/, always complaining about popular games just for a reaction.

>>54973955
>it's a fact

Despite proof like alternate settings for the system?

Get over yourself, you troll.

>>54973151
3.PF is only good for expressing my fetishes.

>>54973972
Yeah. alternate settings that provide the same type of fantasy with a different coat.

>>54973972
>>54974013

This, pretty much.

The most divergent I can think of are Dark Sun and Ravenloft, and even then despite a very different tone they still tell the same kind of stories in line with D&D's limitations as a system.

>>54973972
The alternate settings are in the same genre.
>kill vampires to level up
>kill orcs to level up
>kill genies to level up
>kill space aliens to level up

File: 1393037795868.jpg (63KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 600x600px

>>54973993
A fellow fan of nymphology, I see.

>>54973955
This troll did the same thing before, and basically got shut down because the game itself states that it has no such limitations, and even if it focuses on fantasy it is the archtypical Kitchen Sink fantasy game designed to be able to facilitate a enormous breadth of game styles and tackle diverse genres.

It's just a lie that people try to pass into a meme in order to try and restrict D&D into a narrow niche so as to stop it from competing with so many other systems.

It's all just fear out of D&D increasing in market domination.

>>54972358
This pretty much hits the nail on the head. When ~75% of a generic manual is content only available to a single group of classes, I usually put the book down.

>>54974043

But D&D's market share has been consistently falling. Why would they worry about that?

>>54974026
What about Planescape and SpellJammer? Very, very different tones, and it's also able to handle low fantasy and even mixes in science-fiction every once in awhile.

It really can do just about any type of fantasy, and that's hardly narrow or specific.

>>54974043
D&D is a niche game at best in my country. The few people who do play it are the laughing stock of the RPG community. I don't think I have anything to fear from it.

>>54974043
Suppose I wanted to run a realistic spy game set in the real world, which lots of drama between the characters.
How does the character creation race/class/gear/spells in the Players Handbook help me do that?

>>54974086

No? That's all still within a very specific range. It's all about groups of adventurers going interesting places, killing monsters and such.

Given how large fantasy is, it's pretty accurate to describe that as a narrow niche of storytelling.

>>54973194
+/-50% of those feats would be for spells and casters though.

Also, balanced spells? What the fuck are you smoking?

File: 1500912196637.png (372KB, 270x1920px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 270x1920px

>>54974083
5e is on the rise and finally reached the point where it has a majority of all roleplayers under its belt, with increasing numbers every day.

It's why these guys are now scared of 5e, and are moving on to complain about that edition.

>>54974092
What shithole do you live in, and what's the big game you play?

>>54974119
Oh, look. It's the turbo autist. Eveybody clap your hands.

>>54974136
D&D is a niche rpg outside of the US mate.

>>54974119

But roll20 stats are tuned to games designed for a battle mat, which doesn't go much further than D&D and D&D-like games.

Pathfinder, D&D and its ephemera made up about 2/3 of RPG sales last I checked, which is still a lot but is actually less than it used to be.

>>54974147
>oh no, someone called us out for being terrified of 5e!

Kind of sad that you obsess about what games are more popular than others.

>>54974106
Suppose that for each race, there was a list of about 10 Features, and for each class, there were maybe 6 Basic Features and 6 Advanced features.
So when you make your character, you can select some amount of the Racial Features and Basic Class Features of your choice, then whenever you level up you could eventually get access to the advanced class features.

I think that would be a fun system and allow lots of customization and options. Right now if you pick something like an Orc barbarian you are functionally identical to every other Orc Barbarian in the game.

>>54974086
Those really aren't that much different than normal d&d, i.e kill and loot

But I've played gurps games without any fighting. You know how political intrigue games stink? I've played a really fun on in gurps. Because gurps has a well thought out social system

>>54974161
The poster count still isn't going up when you post dude. Looks like the only actually defending the game is you.

>>54974158
5e has been the top seller for several years now.

Keep in mind that 2/3rds of all sales means that all the other games are competing for that remaining 1/3rd.

>>54974182
That's a red herring, of course the conversation will be back and forth, don't expect every single post to be a unique person who wanders in.

>>54974040
You know it. If someone could port over all the degeneracy from 3.PF to 5E, then that would be like the philosopher's stone of arousal.

>>54974167
>But I've played gurps games without any fighting

That's because GURPS combat sucks.

And, the social system is one of the most obnoxious I've ever encountered. Some people enjoy actually roleplaying, and GURPS does its best to suck any joy out of interaction with other people.

>>54974098
But only about 5% of players regularly want to experience something other than 'adventurers going interesting places, killing monsters and such'.

>>54974119
I had a feeling that at some point, when the trolls got tired of attacking 3.pf, they'd switch gears to 5e. I didn't expect it to be so soon though.

>>54974201
The poster count didn't move up for any of the pro-D&D posts made in this thread beyond the first.

>>54974119
76.31 of all games on roll are a version of D&D or a close kin of it. Holy shit.

>>54974215
>Gurps combat sucks.
That's false, nothing is better than being grenade dude.
Although it is kind of rocket taggy, but that really changes with the tech level and superpower level.

And the social system is good, if a bit autistic but so is everything else in gurps(it still knocks the socks off of d&d)

>>54974248
Is that really that surprising though? After all, Roll is catered towards games heavy on combat that use maps and miniatures, and it is catered towards people too socially awkward to actually play with real people.

>>54974164
Sounds like what my players and I have been tinkering with.

>Traits and talents specific to species, race, gender, nationality, and a system to create your own from scratch.
>Instead of classes, your character's relationship with the setting determine which traits you have access to.

>>54974236
Nobody is attacking 5e for anything but maybe being a bit bland (and maybe, if you are a turbo autist like me some other minor issues).

3.PF meanwhile is finally being recognized for the huge pile of failure it is. Good riddance, it only took 15 years.

>>54974248
>site is called roll20
>more than 75% of games are d20

what a fucking surprise

>>54973028
To be fair, the specific example you cited may be intentional. Most subraces get +1 to an ability score, but Mountain Dwarves get +2 STR since their proficiency will overlap with any class that's expected to use Strength.

File: IMG_0538.png (5KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 645x773px

>>54974248
>3.67% gurps

>>54974342
I dunno, I don't like it if it's supposed to be wasted.

>>54974098
You can do much more than that with the system. D&D ends up with being rather rules-lite when it comes to social matters because it goes by the philosophy that you don't need extensive rules for those things, and instead has most of its rules centered around combat because they're necessary to determine the outcome of conflicts and it's what most people enjoy.

But, those social rules are still actually fairly robust compared to rules-lite games, which makes it quite easy to switch between killing monsters, negotiating contracts, investigating crime scenes, having elaborate cooking contests, arguing in court, and so on and so forth.

Next to no adventure ever published is entirely about combat, and many actually end up being rather sparse with it, instead focusing on everything from discovering the identity of an assassin at a dinner party to getting an orphanage restored by seeking out wealthy benefactors. With experience obtained not just from killing monsters but accomplishing literally any difficult task, the game actively encourages players to not always seek risky combat as their first solution.

>>54974279
I love how people who are obsessed with how popular games are go through mental gymnastics like these.

>>54974149
It's actually huge just about everywhere. There's only a few countries where it's not the top game, and even then ends up easily in the top 5.

>>54974394
I can't tell if you are an especially persistent fanboy, troll, or an actual paid marketing shill.

Either way, my condolences.

>>54974394
Sure you can talk with NPCs but in every case you are a group of heavily armed mercs with diverse combat skills rolling into town, sure you might "discover secret" or some other plot event but at the end of the day you have to go through the dungeon of traps and monsters and treasure to actually save the day.

>>54974394
>social system-robust
It's roll dice vs target number

That's literally risus

>>54974491
>marketing shill
By now my vote is on this. A particularly incompetent marketing shill.

>>54974454
keep telling yourself that. Sales in USD is not reflective of the number of people actually playing it.

>>54974517
No, RISUS at least modifies your roll by what stuff you chose is applicable, instead of it being either trained or untrained.

>>54974517
Most games can be reduced to one or two Boolean and rng vs tn.

>>54974540
International Amazons all agree that D&D is huge. I don't know how you expect to use anecdotal evidence to compete against data like that.

>>54974557
I've always been confused by the untrained mechanic.

It's like d&d characters don't even have hobbies or something

>>54974612
Again, sales are not reflective of whats actually being played.

>>54974640
They don't, because D&D as a system does not encourage creating characters with meaningful or related depth, if anything it punishes it.

>>54974655
Of course it's not 1-1 reflective, but I'm willing to bet that it does tell us something about the frequency of use.

>>54972330
>ITT: OP doesn't realize it's /tg/ that makes RPGs bad

It's worse

>>54974640
Well, if you have it as a hobby, that would mean you have it trained. That's also what tool proficiencies represent. It's a simple, streamlined system, and it works for what it is, I just don't think claiming that the system is actually robust is anything short of lunacy.

At least in 4e you got better as you leveled, but a level 20 fighter will still have 0 to his arcana skill, despite most likely having spent the last 20 levels fighting magical shit, along with guys who keep flinging magical shit.

>>54974673
Having to represent hobbies by spending skill points I find way more limiting than just saying "Okay, you can cook then" or something.

>>54974640

What do you mean hobbies?

>>54974715
>Craft X
>Reading as a past time turning into X ranks in Knowledge X
etc.

>>54974511
Not at all. Though published adventures tend to try to include at least one dungeon (since that's what's popular and it would also feel sort of bait-and-switchy otherwise), there's really no hard limit or requirements, and the classes are generally flexible enough to handle almost anything outside of combat that you could expect smart/strong/skilled people could take care of.

I've run plenty of game sessions without any combat (or traps), and the system handles it quite well, and in some ways better than many other systems I've used for combat-less sessions.

>>54974612
WotC sold the core books for $20 cheaper on Amazon just so people would buy them there and inflate the ranking.

>>54974708
Skill Points and needing skill points to perform mundane tasks are part of the problem. Add that D&D does not make it clear that you really shouldn't be rolling the dice to do mundane, regular, things and you have a recipe for flat characters.

>>54974655
Anecdotal evidence isn't either.

>oh look, a d20 based game that tries to be everything at once yet fails to do any one thing great sucks
color me surprised

>>54974784
>oh look a butthurt troll whines in a troll thread

What a shock.

>>54974781
neither are anonymous polls, or polls done by a single company in a small geographical area.

so why are we wasting time arguing about something we have no respectable data on?

>>54974854
cause we are /tg/

>>54975018
then how about we set to work making something instead of bickering pointlessly?

>>54974745

So you mean individual skill points?

Well, at least OP isn't using the same copypasta anymore.

>>54975064
That'd be great, if Skill Points weren't used to overcome challenges and thus have to placed optimally. Especially if you're a Fighter.

>>54974854
All data points to D&D being popular in every English-speaking country and also doing well in countries that speak Spanish, French, German, Portuguese Polish, and Italian. And, the English version even sells well in countries that don't speak those languages.

The only country where it's only really done modestly where it has an official translation for is Japan.

That's what the data points to. If you want to argue "nuh uh", do you have anything outside of anecdotes and your limited personal experience?

>>54974040
Link me, Cochise? I wanna see how it stacks up versus BoEF.

>>54975064
The system actually discourages hobbies making them cost more.

Compare that to gurps, where if I wanted my sword fighter to learn about history, I pay the same as the mage

>>54975123
http://www.armchairpatriot.com/Encyclopedias/Encyclopaedia.Arcane-Nymphology.pdf

>>54975119
Feel free to link to this data so we can point out how it's all either sales data, "unique" downloads, or polls done by a single company or a shell company.

>>54972330
When I saw the initial release and noticed that every single class in the game was shit compared to what you could do with the same or functionally equivalent class in late 3.5. Or with the full spellcasters, what you could do in core.

File: gelatinous cute.jpg (24KB, 500x342px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x342px

>>54975165
Much obliged. Have a jellycube.

>>54974770

USING ABILITY SCORES
When a player wants to do something, it's often
appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll
or a reference to the character's ability scores. For
example, a character doesn't normally need to make
a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a
Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a
roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.
When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two
questions:
Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that
there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible- such as
hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work?
If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind
of roll is appropriate. The following sections provide
guidance on determining whether to call for an ability
check, attack roll, or saving throw; how to assign DCs;
when to use advantage and disadvantage; and other
related topics.

DMG pg. 237

>>54975119
Define "popular"

Copies sold? Hours played? Number of players by hours played? Number of unique players?

What metric are we using to define popular?

Why does this matter at all?

>>54975217
>Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.
This is the disconnect. Most GMs argue that every failure has a meaningful consequence, especially if the potential consequences are financial or physical.

Sure we don't roll to see if they can read a book, because they have proficiency in the language. But 99% of GM I've met require rolls for something as simple as baking bread. Why? because a load of bread has an ingredient cost and could feed the character/party.

And then you have the kids who make you roll to find the wagon or horse that's clearly in front of you in plain sight.

>>54975241
Better question is: why are you backing down and trying to trivialize the argument upon the realization that you have absolutely no rebuttal, rather than just saying "My bad, I should have done my research"?

>>54975316
Why are you not answering the question?

>>54975316
You could stop trying to wave your little dick around and actually answer this >>54975166

The guy you're responding to is actually trying to be reasonable, and have us be clear on our topic before we start debating/examining things.

But if all you want to do is be a cunt, /b/ is always open to you.

>>54975298
Your bizarre streak of shitty DM's doesn't have anything to do with whether DnD is good or bad

>>54975345
Because I'm not the guy you were arguing with. I'm >>54975123 and >>54975212; just an outside observer pointing out your intellectual dishonesty. I don't have a horse in this race other than the one that's named "don't argue about shit you don't actually have the data to support".

>>54975165
My one complaint about this, and this is largely because it coincides with my own fetishes, is that is says one blue mage cast hold person on villagers and then tickled them until he was satisfied. But the spell description of hold person says that the target is unable to even speak, although they are able to breathe normally, so how are they able to laugh?

>>54975385
>intellectual dishonesty
You're going to say that the guy who's asking for everyone to come to a consensus about what is actually being discussed is being intellectually dishonest?

I need a moment here. Jesus fuck /tg/ this is low, even for you.

>>54975425
Take a deep breath and remember that most of the people here are 12-16 year olds with far too much time on their hands.

>>54975385
>I don't have a horse in this race other than
So if you do have a horse in the race, why start your sentence with a lie?

Why not say, "I don't have multiple horses in this race" or "I only have one horse in this race"

>>54975425
When I see someone vehemently arguing a point, refusing to support said point, and then reverting to "why does this matter" when the opposing point is backed up with easily-verifiable claims, it bugs me a little.

>>54975464
Point taken. I have only one horse in this race.

>>54975385
The guy you're supposedly defending didn't show any data either.

>>54975482
His is Googleable. His opponent's is not. I checked.

>>54975091
I'm guessing he got tired of everyone calling him an idiot troll and using his threads as undeniable proof that there are bitter system war trolls here who can't stand the game they don't like being popular.

>>54975501
I don't know why it's even an issue. Bad things are popular all the time(minions for example)

>>54975476
You don't even know if the person "reverting" to "why does it matter" was even involved in the discussion before that point. For all you know it's someone trying to understand what's being discussed and why. Which is nothing to put down and be an asshole about.

>>54975493
So, since you have the data and "checked" present it. Especially since you obviously have a horse in this race. Like you said.

>>54975553
>You don't even know if the person "reverting" to "why does it matter" was even involved in the discussion before that point.
You're right. I felt it was a safe assumption to make since it's a tactic I've seen before in other 4choms arguments.

>So, since you have the data and "checked" present it.
Like I said, easily Googleable. If I give it to you, it doesn't have the same impact as it does when you search for it yourself, since the act of searching for it yourself is the beginning of a tacit admission that you may be wrong and, without that admission, no data will change your mind anyway. You're asking me to literally waste my time for no benefit.

I don't care which system is more popular. My horse is people who don't research things. Me doing research for them is equivalent to me solving my cousin's math homework rather than teaching him how to calculate.

>>54975493
His opponent's stance of asking him what exactly he means when he says that the system is far more popular than any other?

Look, there's plenty of market reviews out there. All we're asking for is something concrete that we can discuss over. A particular statistical result, or, preferably, several of them measuring different thing. Stating something and then having a, supposedly, entirely different guy come in to defend the position with nothing more than the highly vague statement "it's googleable" when asked what exactly it means doesn't exactly provide trust.

>>54975636
>Dancing around the bush after setting it on fire.
Let me hold the door open for you, so it doesn't hit you.

>>54975534
Yeah, but D&D isn't bad. It's got flaws, but it's still pretty good, and better than most systems.

>>54975708
I agree it's not bad. Just extremely narrow in character progression and the settings you can run with it(two things which mutants and masterminds improved upon)

>>54975708
That would depend on what you're trying to run. If you want to run a war game with dialogue and romance options between fights, then yeah, D&D does the job well.

For the games J run, however. Well, if air were to use D&D for them I'd have to homebrew so much that the system wouldn't even be recognizable as D&D anymore. In fact, it wouldn't even be a better option than simply creating my own system at that point.

>>54975760
But it's not really narrow to be able to run any type of fantasy. You're slapping an innaccurate and pointlessly negative label on the game.
"Narrow" would be something like the Witcher or ASoiF RPGs, which unapologetically are designed with only running those single settings.
Just because D&D isn't billed as a generic game and some people treat it as one doesn't mean you have to dash into the other extreme.

>>54975870
It's basically high fantasy, any attempts to run anything other than high fantasy fail pretty bad.

I mean you can't even run GoT games good

>>54975870
>it's not really narrow to be able to run any type of fantasy
Which D&D isn't able to that.

>>54975937
I disagree, as I have run non-high fantasy game quite easily with the system and quite well with it.

>>54975969
Like what?

>>54974164
Dungeon world?

>>54975672
And yet you still apparently are unable to do a basic internet search for something.

>>54975870
I would argue D&D 5e is not even able to run any type of fantasy effectively. I would not use D&D to run a game set in Garth Nix's Old Kingdom, Tamora Pierce's Tortallan or Emelanese universes, or any setting created by Neil Gaiman. 5e has almost nothing native to it that would be well loaned to any of those settings.

Most older settings, like Conan, Narnia, or LotR, already have great systems dedicated to them, so no reason to use 5e for those either.

Which fantasy settings does 5e run well?

>>54976001
I read through it and I appreciated that aspect of it, where your characters had a choice of distinctive traits.
I'd like to see that but blown up into the full 5e game mechanics.

>>54976004
Do we have to shut the window too?

>>54975977
Lots of low fantasy, some horror, even a short spelljammer one-shot.

Why? Is it so unbelievable to you for some reason?

>>54976014
Nor would I use D&D to run a game in Hyperborea or the Young Kingdoms, despite those worlds being a clear inspiration to the system. By now it's nothing but an archaic feature in a world that has since long moved on, and it being the biggest name in the industry does nothing but hamper the growth of the industry as a whole.

>>54976027
Still waiting for you to provide any information that isn't just you flapping your jaw.

>>54976067
How did you do low fantasy?


And yes

>>54976014
>no reason to use 5e for those either.

Aside from it being a good system people like.

GO away Nice, yuo stinky bird

>>54976004
>>54976082
Anon, I shitposted in an effort to get people to think rather than just react. For a while there, it looked like it was working. Kindly don't undo my efforts.

>>54976096
>a good system
No.

File: ag.gif (591KB, 270x288px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 270x288px

>>54972330
>"When did you realize D&D was bad?" anon takes on an alternative approach

>>54976082
Oddly enough, we were waiting for you to do the same. Now we don't care about what you have to say, since you've made it clear you have nothing to say. Have a good night anon. It's time for you to move on.

>>54976083
Just explained what my intention was, and the group built low level low magic characters, and we played from there.

What? You're really starting to sound a bit like a troll if you can't have realized this much on your own. Are you just here to bait people into explaining basic things about RPGs to you?

>>54976096
No.

>>54976133
What is this? >>54974119

>>54976148
Did you homebrew anything?

>>54976152
Ha, anti-D&D troll got BTFO and now forced to "nuh uh"ing.

What a fucking loser.

>>54975119
Italy here. Maybe because few other games are actually translated in italian, but the dnd community is huge. The only game brand that is as well known as dnd is OWoD.

>>54976156
A small market not reflective of the entire world. We already established that, now shoo.

>>54976204
Adjusted some guard stats? Does that count? Probably a few other small changes I don't remember.

With low magic, it's less about homebrewing and adding things, and more about selecting the options you want to use.

>>54976208
That's great anon, now go play with your friends.

Buh-bye.

>>54976268
you were just fighters, barbarians, and rogues? Those are the only non magic classes that I know about. Wouldn't that get old real quick?

>>54976233
Way more evidence than you've provided though.

You got anything other than your feelings?

>>54976323
So the only thing you're basing your whole "D&D is the most popular system" statement on is Roll20 statistics? Is that right?

>>54976305
There's like forty different ways you could make a fighter alone. Honestly, there's several thousand possible combinations, but forty reasonably diverse builds, even without adding in the other classes.

Also for low magic rather than no magic, that can basically include any class below 5th level.

>>54976372
That and sales data, which is much more than what you've got, which is your fee-fees;

>>54976372
No, I've found a fair bit of evidence with about 30 seconds of googling.
But given that you have provided no evidence to prove your point, until you provide at least one piece of concrete evidence, I'm going to assume all you can do is flap your gums.

>>54976372
It's better than absolutely nothing, which is what you've offered so far.

>>54976387
Isn't that just E6?

>>54976323
I do not need to provide evidence to refute his claim, that D&D 5e is THE most "popular" (undefined) rpg in the WORLD. He needs to provide evidence that actually supports his statement, and actually be clear in what he's saying.

Meanwhile all you're doing is spreading feces everywhere and trying to start fires>>54976400

O' /tg/ what have you become?

>>54976430
>. He needs to provide evidence that actually supports his statement, and actually be clear in what he's saying.

Which he's offered. And there's no evidence that contradicts that statement.

Your counter statement, "It's not the most popular", needs some evidence to back it. Something. Anything. Anything at all aside from your personal emotions.

>>54976424
Most people are, oddly, afraid of "learning" a new system. Despite the fact that 90% of systems consist of a core mechanic that fits into a single sentence, and that they're going to spend 60-90% of their time reading through the manuals of whatever system they're currently using anyways, to find what X power does again, or if X and Y interact how they think they do.

>>54976018
That's probably one of the best things about DW, every play through a class has the very large chance to play almost completely differently than your previous one.
I guess the good thing about 5e's destinct lack of class based content is that it's really easy to homebrew anything you want.
It really wouldn't be too hard to give 5e character similar options to a DW character, at worst you'd have to re-arrange/create your own line of progression for each class.

>>54976454
He did not provide any evidence support his claim at all. www.roll20.net is not reflective the the global rpg player base.

>>54976424
E6 is a special 3.5 variant that makes it so that after level 6, you gain lateral abilities rather than levelling up, but more importantly that the world itself doesn't scale above level 6.

But, you're right that it's one way to run a low-magic game in D&D that's fairly popular.

>>54976493
So do you have any evidence that refutes the claim that D&D is the most popular, then?
Because anything is still better than nothing.

>>54973906
Nigga you tryin to tell me that Eberron and Dark Sun are the same kind of "specific fantsy storytelling"?

>>54976493
>it's not because I don't want it to be

Roll20 is accessible to anyone around the world. While it's an English Language site, that doesn't stop people running games in other languages on it, which they do.

More importantly, all Amazon sales data correlates with the statement that D&D is the most popular RPG in the world.

Please. Do you have ANYTHING other than a big basket of nuhuh's?

>>54976509
Yeah, its the same kind of sword and sorcery world. One of them encourages you to stay at lower lowers, and the other says that you begin at level 3 by default, and that's about where the differences end.

>>54976509
Yea heroic high fantasy.


Heros fight monsters get loot. The monsters you fight differ but not the type of game.

I wouldn't play a CoC or wod game with 5e

>>54976509
I think they're just trolls. Trolls scared of 5e's growing dominance.

>>54976507
I'm not making any claim. You don't seem to understand that. I'm saying he has not presented enough evidence to support his claim that "D&D 5e is THE mos "popular" (undefined) rpg in the WORLD"

Have you actually been trying to be a part of this when you have no understanding of what is actually being discussed? That is entirely what I was trying to avoid by asking him to be clear with his claims earlier.

>>54976543
You're completely disregarding local markets in favor of easily accessed data. Lazy and shameful.

Do you even have an accurate estimate of the number of rpg players around the world? If so, present that so we can compare the number of players on roll20 to the possible global player base.

>>54976552
>I wouldn't play a CoC or wod game with 5e

I'm going to call both of those games where heroes fight monsters. Occasionally they also get loot.

That's about as fair as what you're trying to do.

>>54976626
>You're completely disregarding local markets in favor of easily accessed data.

You mean not bothering with hypothetical data that's not available?

Shut the fuck up. You got that data? C'mon, you not lazy and not shameful little bitch, go and bring it to us so you can have an arguement and not just be a little nuhuh'ing bitch.

>>54976627
>WoD a game where heroes fight monsters
Fuckin aye, my sides.

>>54976653
My entire point is that the data is inconclusive, but I see now I've surrounded myself with pigeons. Here's your last crumb anon, enjoy.

>>54976669
Antiheroes are still heroes, and fighting yourself still counts.

What? You're making vague, pointless generalizations, so why can't I join in the fun?

>>54976626
>LOL, I'M JUST MAKING AN ARGUMENT GUYS, DON'T BE SO SERIOS!

Why are you so opposed to doing 30 seconds of research yourself then, if you are shaming other about using easily accessible data.

>>54976627
First off, in one of those games(CoC) you play as humans(not heros), and in the other you are a monster.

In dnd you are both above human, and (mostly)not a monster.

And I've never got loot in CoC

>>54976683
Thank god you gave up. Next time, before trying to argue with data, have something to actually support your argument, you little bitch.

Compared to 3.pf it is good. Compared to everything else on the market it really isn't. It ultimately depends on what your group plays.

>>54976684
You weren't joking?

>>54976687
Being human don't stop you from being a hero.
Either way, pointlessly vague generalizations still apply.

>>54976712
I'm illustrating how your vague generalization is vague enough to be slapped even on games you thought were disparately different.

>>54976712
That guy has been around for a good long time now, and he's either an incredibly incompetent shill, and incredibly competent false flag troll, or an incredibly autistic teenager with far too much free time.

>>54976730
Being explicitly a victim of circumstances you have no control over and means of meaningful resisting (CoC) means you're not a hero mate.

>>54976744
Jesus fuck anon, stop. This is 90s sitcom material. Funny but so fucking cringey it hurts.

>>54976765
I mean, you probably couldn't even consider CoC fantasy.

It's pretty much sci-fi

>>54976795
I consider it Horror personally. At least, that's how I've always run/played it.

When it was announced

>>54976765
>Being explicitly a victim of circumstances you have no control over and means of meaningful resisting (CoC) means you're not a hero mate.

But, they do have ways of meaningfully resisting, at least upon the level where meaning applies to humanity. They're still heroic, man, that's what qualifies them as heroes.

Hell, some CoC adventures are basically action pulp.

>>54976856
See the fantasy half of the gets you mate.

CoC is sci-fi horror and wod is more or less gothic alt history(with a bit of horror sprinkled in)

>>54976856
>But, they do have ways of meaningfully resisting
This is fucking gold mate. It's hard to breathe now.

>>54976895
CoC is Horror-Fantasy. The Science fiction part is weak at its best, even though it would technically qualify as such. It's very soft sci-fi.

And, WoD is also fantasy.

Keep in mind that D&D actually had supplements for both Elder Evil style Cthulu-horrors as well as an entire setting dedicated to Gothic Horror and supplements for running Horror Adventures, complete with a ripoff of a sanity system.

>>54976948
Finish reading the rest of the sentence, chucklefuck.

>>54973028
>>54973194
A bunch of UA feats have been released, including a variety which are race-specific, in case you actually weren't aware.

>>54976992
I can't even finish the first half with a straight face.

>>54976948
You don't have many friends do you

>>54977020
Try finishing it with a gay face. Might work better for someone of your calibre.

>>54977020
Are you done? I think you're basically done, if this is your only way to respond.

>>54977043
You would say I'm selective when it comes to who I invite to my home.

>>54977075
Cute.

>>54977095
I think I'm done laughing, yes. You passed the point were you could hold a meaningful discussion a while ago mate, you're too confrontational and unreasonable.

>>54976948
Lets talk about this.

The most common enemies in CoC are ghouls and shoggoths. The thing about those enemies is that they are beatable by normal humans.

Give me a shotgun and I could mess up a shoggoth really bad.

But anything greater than those are so vastly powerful then you might as well not even try.

D&D however has those monsters as beatable, pathfinder legitimently has Cthulhu stated, and a good level 20 character can take out the elder evils.

File: socasual.png (11KB, 259x288px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 259x288px

I just recently finished my first DnD campaign, which I was also DM of, using 5e. Me and my group (all first-timers) honestly had next to no qualms whatsoever with the source material. Yes the nature of the game is that it's weighted towards heroes exploring dungeons and fighting monsters, but a) we often had just as much fun with social roleplaying scenes and b) when you start playing something called "Dungeons and Dragons", you expect a degree of bias toward certain content.

The criticism about about character customisation above a certain level is one that I felt as a usual player of video games, but the UA that's been released including new feats and such definitely offset that. Overall I loved playing the game with the provided rules and building characters with provided system, I found the rules themselves intuitive and easy to understand and appreciated how malleable they were based on my own preferences as DM, and I now feel pretty well-equipped to start creating and running my own campaigns.

Obviously I can't compare 5e to anything else, my sole prior exposure to DnD was through video games (ToEE is still my shit). But as a first time player and DM, I found that as a system it met or exceeded all of my expectations.

>>54977179
Correct, which is why comparing 5e/PF to CoC is silly as their premises don't match at all.

In CoC you're lucky to escape with your life, even better if you manage to get through it with a sound mind. Save someone else to boot? Good on you, you did the best a mortal could do.

5e and PF give entities beyond mortals stats as a way to beckon the players towards becoming more than mortal, and when we use "Heroic" we're referring to heroes of myth that were generally born or rose above mortal men. Jason, Aladdin, Achilles, or King Arthur. Not just people who do good things. This is why 5e and PF are "Heroic" fantasy.

In CoC that isn't possible, which is why it is not "Heroic" It is fantasy, only in the sense that all fiction where the truly impossible happens is fantasy.

>>54977265
It's far more sci-fi(well for love crafts time) than fantasy.

It's just they had a bad sense of science in love crafts time

>>54977343
Science is a method, which is why I find it odd that we define two entire literary genres by it, science fantasy and science fiction. I guess it's enough that it communicates a general sense of the trappings, themes, and aesthetics of the novel they're about to read.

>>54972330
3.5 is perfect reeeEEEEEEEEE

>>54977402
I mean lovecraft had psionics and magic which further confuses things.

I think it's genre is just "lovecraftian"

>>54977447
I would call it "Pulp Horror"

>>54977447
>>54977467
At least we can agree that of all the things d&d doesn't run well, horror is the one it runs the worst

>>54977402
The overall term for those is "Speculative Fiction"

>>54977542
>At least we can agree
Wrong. Doesn't matter the system; horror requires a good GM. Without that, any system is shit, and any decent one can make any system dance like a flesh-puppet.

>>54977590
Yea but my d&d rather incourages strong characters which kind of plays against the horror atmosphere.

I mean compare that to gurps where you still aren't completely safe even if you have a thousand points

>>54977542

Horror is a wide genre and honestly really dependent on the players/GM. There is almost no system that really helps horror too much.

D&D doesn't do 'You are powerless' horror well. Ravenloft's sort of horror (What you are willing to stoop to/justify, what depths you'll go to for what you want) it can do a lot better.

>>54977542
If we're discussing 3.X and later? Absolutely, especially when Horror runs counter to the core themes of those systems.

2e or older? They actively embrace grit and morbid interaction up to a certain level, and can be salvaged for horror with moderate effort.

And no, before someone shits from their mouth, Ravenloft is not actually horror. Even when it was published for AD&D.

>>54977547
I would hesitate to call science fantasy "speculative"

I've yet to meet a single person who faithfully argues that Star Wars is the future of human kind.

>>54977650
>Ravenloft is not actually horror
Explain and justify.

>>54977681
The entire purpose of Ravenloft is to be victorious in the end. In actual horror, the entire point is no matter what you do, you eventually lose.

>>54977265
>Correct, which is why comparing 5e/PF to CoC is silly as their premises don't match at all.

About as silly as comparing Eberron to Ravenloft on account of them both including heroes fighting monsters.

>>54977756
In Ravenloft, you're actually expected to die. Even if you kill one Dark Lord, another Dark Lord will come to kill you.

It's pretty fucking bleak.

>>54977756
nice totally made-up definition of horror, dweeb. the good guys still win in the vast majority of horror fiction, regardless of medium.

>>54977771
Eberron and raven loft are fundementally the same.
They both take place in a fantasy setting where humans can eventually be on equal grounds with monsters.

CoC is a universe where different races have radically different power levels and humans can never reach even close to some of the monsters powers

>>54977823
It's not horror because his entire argument hinges on it not being horror.

>>54977803
In almost all fiction, the hero is eventually expected to die.

That doesn't make it horror.

>>54977823
>good guys still win in horror
It should be illegal to be this funny.

>>54977843
>Eberron and raven loft are fundementally the same.

Then Ravenloft and WoD are fundamentally the same, and CoC and Elder Evils are fundamentally the same.

You fucking tard.

>>54977756

>The entire purpose of Ravenloft is to be victorious in the end.

Not...remotely. Did you ever read a single one of the Ravenloft books? I think like one of them had an actual happy ending and even then Jander Sunstar didn't actually win, he just avoided being destroyed and kept his soul.

>>54977856
Okay, put on a trip already.
Stop tricking people into bothering to argue with you, you empty-headed troll.

I have to say it's been amusing watching the thread swing back and forth between rational discussion and shit flinging.

>>54977803

I wouldn't say you are expected to die. Heck, most dark lords won't even stay dead forever even if you do kill them.

It's very much a setting of 'You can help individual people but changing the setting is near impossible' though. The only way to really 'Win' in normal D&D terms is to either find a way to escape the demiplane or to redeem a Darklord (As doing so would stop them being a darklord/grant freedom). I hear the most effective way to do that is to be the creator of Lord Soth and bitch until TSR gives in.

>>54977895
>rational discussion

I have yet to see anything resembling that.
It's a troll thread from start to finish.

>>54977857
You didn't even read my post you punk.


In ravenloft and elder evils you can beat the villains, in wod and CoC you can't get anywhere near a villain.

You will never beat Cthulhu and if you fight a higher lineage vampire chances are that you are screwed

>>54977904
It's been brief, but it's there.

>>54977856

>It should be illegal to be this funny.

You know Ripley WINS in Alien, right? She kills the monster and heads off home. It wasn't a victory without cost but it was a victory.

>>54977856
hey buddy, i've got a spoiler for you. a few decades old, but still a good one. you know that short story "the call of cthulhu" which led to a bunch of derivative fiction and awful pop culture references? in the end the main character beats cthulhu by driving a boat into its head.

but i guess that's not really horror.

>>54977939
Not him but I would hardy call that a victory, Cthulhu waking up will still completely end the human race, they just slightly changed the status quo

>>54977898
>I wouldn't say you are expected to die.

Not guaranteed, but definitely expected. Most groups had a less than 50% survival rate because Ravenloft adventures were notoriously vicious.

In the right group, it actually switched from Gothic Horror to straight up Grindhouse Gorefest.

>>54977927
>>54977939
Silent hill two(basically the greatest horror media ever) has James "win"

Horror is basically either complete failure(junji ito) or success with a high cost(silent hill)

>>54977927
>Ripley wins

confirmed for not actually paying attention to the film.

>>54977970
been a while since i read it but i'm pretty sure they wake up cthulhu in the story, and the narration of events later in time seems to indicate that the world isn't exactly on the brink of destruction.

>>54977997
The point is that the cost is so high, it's not an actual victory. Sometimes surviving a traumatic is worse than dying. That's horror.

>>54978012
It's more, Cthulhu was sleep walking.

>>54977911
What I'm saying is the lines you are drawing are arbitrary and non-definitive and only are being drawn because your argument is built on them.

It's much easier to say CoC and Elder Evils share more in common than Elder Evils and Spelljammer.

>In ravenloft and elder evils you can beat the villains,

Hypothetically, if you start at or play long enough to reach a high enough level. But, at the same time, if you're playing at a low level, you're basically fucked if you tried to fight an Elder Evil directly, which is why you have to deal with cultists and avoid combat with monsters and basically be scared out of your mind.

>>54978029
Horror just means it has a focus on eliciting fear from the audience. That's it.

So, shaddup.

>>54978056
The entire point that you're willingly ignoring is that in CoC you can never be high enough level. Ever. In D&D you can, unless it's the Lady of Pain.

>>54978093
Then Ravenloft is definitely not horror.

Or is Thomas the Tank Engine horror because it's audience, my niece, is terrified of it?

>>54978056
Yea but being able to catch up to a villain is a pretty major difference


If you bump into Caine you are really screwed, like no chances kind of screwed.

If you bump into Cthulhu you are really screwed

>>54978099
The entire point is that D&D isn't played at all levels simultaneously.

The entire point is that you are coming up with bullshit to try to make a point, complete with the argument that because you can play D&D in one way, that means you can't play it in another way.

>>54978135
>still plugging his ears and refusing to listen

Well, I'm done wasting my time with you. Sleep tight anon.

>>54978135
Yea but under no circumstances can Caine be beaten

In dnd I can beat Atropus if I am level 23

>>54978151
I'm listening, but your stupidity comes from automatically assuming that players can reach any level. That's entirely dependent on the campaign and the DM, and trying to say that Elder Evils aren't scary because players can potentially reach level 26 and fight it is meaningless when the players start at level one and the DM is being stingy with experience.

>>54978169
>In dnd I can beat Atropus if I am level 23

So? That doesn't mean the DM is just going to say "Okay, we're starting at level 20, only a few levels until you can fight an Elder Evil."

>>54978178
Let's put it this way

The similarity between Eberreon and ravenloft is that both players and monsters follow a linear progression, and all points on the progression are eventually reachable by players.

In CoC and wod enemies and players aren't progressed in the same way. Players will never be on the level of certain monsters.

Even if you are stingy with exp, I will eventually reach the point on the scale where Atropus is, I will never catch up to Cthulhu

>>54972358
I actually prefer the simpler base classes. I don't want to read 5 pages of feats and worry about picking the right one to stay competent.

That said, I come from AD&D where there are literally zero class options aside the equipment you're using.

>>54973376
>5E remedies basically all of those flaws.
By lowering the numbers and removing all the content? 5e hardly scratches the surface of 3.pf's problems.

>>54978234
>are eventually reachable by players.

No, you fucking moron. They're not. That's not how games work. You don't start from 1 and get to 30 in every campaign.

If the DM decides to run a campaign designed to start at level 6 and ends at level 10, no matter what the players do, they're not going to reach a higher level than that. They might be able to figure out how to get some bonus experience or the DM might throw a sidequest their way, but that just means the cap changes to 11, not that they are going to wind up as 40th level gods and shoot everything with mind bullets.

So, please, stop acting like the setting with war robots and flying ships is identical to the one where low level players are investigating a group of mad cultists who are trying to summon a being from beyond time and space to end the world, just because they use the same system.

File: Thomas.png (1MB, 1032x1416px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1032x1416px

>>54978120
Aside from you being generally an idiot for not recognizing Ravenloft as Horror, it's also no surprise that your niece is smarter than you.

>>54978029

Heck, Dracula is one of the most classic horror stories ever and it's a hell of a win in the end. Not without cost, no but it's unambiguously a win and a great one.

>>54978234
>In CoC and wod enemies and players aren't progressed in the same way. Players will never be on the level of certain monsters.

You've clearly never heard the Mage wank about how Mages can beat Caine.

>>54978357
Yea the gm has complete power, I could beat Caine if he says so. But that's not how rhe game works.

Under Eberron and ravenloft rules I can and will eventually reach the level of all of the baddies.

Under wod and coc rules I won't get close to some of the enemies

See the similarities and differences?

>>54978430
This thread has been a comedy mine, and this comment is the fucking cherry.

Anyways, wife just brought back a dozen turkey legs from her shift at the ren fest, so you losers have a good night.

>>54978430
I'm fairly certain mages can eventually beat anything.

That and the fact that vampires are a little below mages on the totem pole.

>>54978487
Cain cannot be killed, per the big G, and anything you do to him is done to you sevenfold. This even goes for Mages. At least in OWoD, the only WoD that matters.

>>54978457
What, if any, is your point?

What does that similarity matter, especially since your "will eventually" is not actually true? There's a distinct difference between can and will, and for most players, that "can" is essentially a distant and practically unobtainable hypothetical. For all practical purposes, it has no bearing on their campaign.

The players are not going to be staring at notCthulu, and thinking "Oh, if we kept playing this campaign for three years, I'd totally be able to kick his ass."

>>54978476
The only joke so far has been how absolutely OP and the other trolls have been destroyed in this thread. It's basically been just people tearing them apart with only pathetic whimpers of resistance like your "I've got no argument and am crying inside so I'm gonna say I'm laughing instead" posts.

>>54978457
>Under wod and coc rules I won't get close to some of the enemies

And in a LOT of horror stories...the enemy dies. I mean, there are almost no werewolf stories that don't end with a dead werewolf.

>>54978576
Okay big guy.

>>54978457
>Yea the gm has complete power, I could beat Caine if he says so. But that's not how rhe game works.

Okay,

>Under Eberron and ravenloft rules I can and will eventually reach the level of all of the baddies.

But that's not how rhe game works.
You're not guaranteed to reach that level, any more than you are guaranteed to survive the adventure.

Do you understand this? There's really no point in bringing up that "D&D has rules for reaching level twenty" if we're talking about a campaign that's expected to end before level six.

>>54978634
Cry more for me, little bitch.

>>54978664
Did she hurt you anon?

File: 0b216f265dfbbc90d794630b4adce844.gif (139KB, 352x232px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 352x232px

>these threads

>>54980493
You could have saged.

Why the fuck didn't you sage?

You fucking worthless faggot.

Does anyone still play 4th edition?

>>54978169
>In dnd I can beat Atropus if I am level 23
Best of luck with that. Numbers aren't everything. Not even in Dinduh.

>>54980800

I'm in a pair of games of it. Both are a lot of fun.

>>54978169
>Yea but under no circumstances can Caine be beaten

There's at least one Gehenna scenario in the book of the same name that entirely centers around beating Caine.

>>54976995
Didn't even realize that, thanks.

>>54977214

everyone just gonna ignore this one eh

>>54972330
Aas soon as it was discharged from mearls mangina

>>54980800
I do a regular game twice a month.

>>54983674
What's to ignore? If somebodie's only ever seen a pond how are they suppose to weigh in on a discussion about the ocean?

>>54972991
underrated

>>54978576
>The only joke so far has been how absolutely OP and the other trolls have been destroyed in this thread.
it's not like everybody can claim victory and it means absolutely nothing, baghdad bob.

>>54974708
>At least in 4e you got better as you leveled, but a level 20 fighter will still have 0 to his arcana skill, despite most likely having spent the last 20 levels fighting magical shit, along with guys who keep flinging magical shit.
Actually, he's going to have at least 10 (or 9 if he still have 8 in Intelligence) because of the half-level modifier

>>54984467
>Actually, he's going to have at least 10 (or 9 if he still have 8 in Intelligence) because of the half-level modifier

In 4e, yes.

In 5e, there's no half level modifier.

>>54984467

I think he meant that a 5e fighter won't have any bonus due to the lack of the half-level mod like a 4e fighter would.

>>54984484
>>54984489
Oh, alright,I misread
Why did they remove it? It was a pretty neat idea (needed some tweaks though)

>>54984500
Because "bounded accuracy". They wanted to keep the numbers/bonuses low.

Technically the level scaling still exists in the proficiency bonus (which his about half as much, +1 every 4 levels instead of every 2), what they took away is applying it as the baseline, and training giving a flat +5.

Either way, if I'm in turbo-autist mode, that ties into my main complaint (on a systematic level) about 5e, which is that low numbers on the d20 makes rolls a bit too swingy, especially when comparing character proficincies with skills.

>>54984467
+10, you get a +1 to all stats at levels 11 and 21.

File: top_0070.png (80KB, 400x240px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 400x240px

>>54972330
It's more like I realized that I fundamentally don't like D&D at a base level and that a new edition won't change that for me.

>>54973105
But then when 3.5 shat out book after book after book of crap you guys complained that there was too much content and a competent GM has to disallow most of the material. So. What's the best option.

File: Prime Rib BTFO.jpg (350KB, 842x475px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 842x475px

>>54972330
During the playtest when I realized that the largest segment of the fandom unironically prefers McDoubles to prime rib, and more importantly, that Wizards/Matel would much rather be McDonalds than [insert your location] Five-Star Steakhouse.

>>54984890
5e has a lot problems, but it also has a far more unified mechanics than 3.5, which means it'll actually handle a breadth of different content better.

Like I understand, the golden mean fallacy is a thing and like a major problem with how a lot of people think, but that doesn't mean the only options should be "barley any content is pushed out per year" and "more content than you could ever read in your life and 99% of it is garbage you should never use".

We want Hasbro to put more money into D&D, hire more writers so they can put out out a more steady stream of stuff, but give more quality control than old Wizards did.

>>54984951
I can totally get behind that, but that's an issue with Hasbro, not with D&D itself. Hasbro cares far more about Magic as a moneymaking property, as evidenced by the fact they're going to put out more setting books for MTG for 5e. It's a bad juxtaposition, if you buy a lot of the mediocre 5e material, they get the message that it's okay to put out mediocre material. If you boycott the product entirely, they'll assume it's not a moneymaker and will give it less attention. This is why the Unearthed Arcana surveys were so important, it was tangible feedback for them.

>>54975368
It's not really a "bizarre streak" though, it's a consequence of leaving everything vague enough for DM interpretation when everyone has their own idea for what is or is not appropriate to a given situation.

I've been in games where we touched our dice a handful of times throughout a 4 hour session because we roleplayed and didn't do anything that was outside our niche.

I've been in games where we had to roll perception to find a mountain that was a few miles in the distance as we were climbing it.

I once had to roll a STR check to lift something that was less than 1/4 of my character's Lift and I've been in games where people were allowed to heft boulders as a free action, so long as the boulder was less than their maximum lift.

The point is,iIf you say "meh, do what feels right man" then the results are obviously going to be all over the place because not everyone is going to be reasonable or do shit that's in your best interest.

>>54977075
I don't know what's worse. The fact that the shit that you wrote is the best you could come up with or the fact that you that it was a good zinger to post in the first place.

File: full dummy.jpg (8KB, 239x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 239x250px

>>54976684
>Antiheroes are still heroes, and fighting yourself still counts.

>>54984943
It's hasbro not mattel

t. /toy/

>>54976978
Nothing about those games are fantasy in any way, shape, or form.

If you're stupid enough to think that "magic" is enough to make something fantasy hen I got some terrible news for your.

>>54984152
>>54981829
Man that sounds fun.
I want to go back and try out some of the classes I never got to.

>>54977857
In Ravenloft, you're still Level X adventurers crawling around a demiplane, fighting monsters, collecting loot, and saving people whenever possible. Every Elder Evil can be defeated in some way and magic can cheese the entirety of the campaign if people know that Clerics and Druids are the best class to take into Ravenloft.

In WoD, the premise has you turning from normal humans into beings that decidedly...aren't. It's also much more roleplay heavy with an emphasis on politics since the various creatures of the night have to basically work together while also keeping an ace up their sleeves in case someone in a rival court/clan/trod/etc. decides to take your weakness as an opportunity to boost their own standing.

>>54978404
Shitty meme bro. Thomas is not horror despite you tumblrites spreading that everywhere.

I also agree with anon, Ravenloft is not horror, it's an action/adventure game with Draculas face stapled on. Like Castlevania.

>>54977981
>>54977898
My group played Curse of Strahd and we only had two casualties.

One character died because the player willingly walked them into a trap in hopes of killing them and the other died because he thought that Strahd was an illusion and ended up getting drained to death.

Thanks to HP bloat, there were few situations where we were in danger of dying and it's the same shit throughout 5e in general.

>>54987483
Anyone that claims "system x is more roleplay heavy than system y," is a fucking mong. System doesnt dictate rp, group does. You could have a cotier of vampire murderhoboes just as easily as you could have a dinner party with strahd.

Pull your fucking head out of your ass.

>>54977927
Ripley doesn't win anything, she just gets the good fortune of living long enough to see all her friends dying horribly around her.

>>54978194
If you weren't expected to beat them then they wouldn't have been statted.

There's a reason why in CoC, Cthulhu is unbeatable by RAW and kills like 1d6 investigators per attack.

Nothing is out of reach for a PC who has a few years of time to grind out enough levels, which plays into the heroid fantasy angle but makes it shit when using it for anything outside its fairly narrow niche.

Heh it's the same guy that sperged out in the "no one wants to try something else than dnd" thread like two days ago.
Do you have no life, or is your life getting paid to post here?

>>54987378
>It's hasbro not mattel
Then it's Burger King instead of McDonalds, or Mitsuhama instead of Aztechnology. Does it really make any noticeable difference?

It's still the exact same 3.PF OGLd20 schlock that the plebs have been gobbling up since 2001

>>54978576
What's the point of getting gold if you got it from placing first in the special olympics?

Imagine being so pathetic in life that you brag about how many internet arguments you've won.

>>54984500
>>54984484
It became a bard class feature, they're the jacks of all trades so they get that sort of benefit. If you want a skill in 5e you better fucking know it from level 1, perhaps even pre-1 in your background. You'll never learn anything ever again (multiclass is variant ruleset)

>>54981660
>Numbers aren't everything.
You're right, magic is where it's at.

>ITT
>Grimdark = Horror!
>Cherry picked infographs are reflective of global society
>Mechanics have no impact of RP or player base!
>If I call you a shitposter, I win!
>D&D is the most versatile system ever!

I weep for /tg/

>>54987513
>System doesnt dictate rp, group does.
That's where you're wrong kiddo.

Games that have a greater emphasis on mechanical proficiency tend to facilitate games where players are more focused on what they can do, rather than who their characters actually are.

Games that have a greater emphais on roleplay however tend to facilitate games where players are more focused on the setting and where their character fits in within the relative space of the world around you while also discouraging mechanical proficiency since everything around you is just as strong as you at the lowest end of the totem pole.

So with this in mind, D&D focuses on mechanical proficiency, so the focus of most games will be on what your character do in terms of combat and exploration while WoD focuses on roleplay because your standing within your community can be the difference between jolly cooperation and an early and well deserved death.

>>54987691
It's almost like good mechanics put emphasis on the themes of the game, and different themes and mechanics attract different kinds of players.

What a wonderful world we live in.

>>54987630
Please leave then, you shitposting troll.

When they ported in healing surges badly.

... And use CR.

Enemies can't just be intended level range, unless you for some reason don't want to have party vs. Big huge dragon fighters.

>>54987725
>If I call you a shitposter, I win!
Low energy.

>>54984545

Having the difference in trained vs. untrained get higher as levels increase, but not actually represent any character resources get spent bothers the hell out of me.

Having the meat head fighters do a desperation Arcana check shouldn't become pointless as the party reachs level 20.

File: 1435021138347.png (290KB, 468x392px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 468x392px

>>54987691
>Games that have a greater emphais on roleplay however tend to facilitate games where players are more focused on the setting and where their character fits in within the relative space of the world around you while also discouraging mechanical proficiency since everything around you is just as strong as you at the lowest end of the totem pole.

>So with this in mind, D&D focuses on mechanical proficiency, so the focus of most games will be on what your character do in terms of combat and exploration while WoD focuses on roleplay because your standing within your community can be the difference between jolly cooperation and an early and well deserved death.

If anything I've actually found the opposite to be true. Giving more mechanical focus to non-combat role-playing aspects of the game tends to narrow the band of archetypes that characters feel comfortable role-playing, if for no other reason than certain archetypes inevitably getting "better" rules for those types of scenes, and the behavior of characters in those scenes will again be dictated by mechanically optimal choices rather than... you know... role-play.

Crunch is for combat. Role-play is best left as free-form as possible. I currently run a 4e game where, like most tables, we've trashed what semblance of non-combat rules were present in favor of "you DO know how to role play right? well do that." Sessions frequently occur without combat, and they go swimmingly, and the players make decisions based off of their internal character motivations rather than the "optimal" choice for social crunch. When combat happens, we know it's going to be fun and balanced because the system used all its crunch and playtesting there.

Inversely, in games like WoD (old or new really) social scenes are tricky, because players' role play options are limited by what is mechanically optimal in the "social combat" rules, and when combat DOES come up, it's clunky and boring.

>>54987719
>It's almost like good mechanics put emphasis on the themes of the game, and different themes and mechanics attract different kinds of players.
At the same time though, it's much harder to play games that emphasis specific playstyles if they don't align with the game's mechanics.

It's downright impossible to play a political game in D&D because so many spells allow you to sidestep roleplay opportunities with Mind-Altering effects like Dominate, and Zone of Truth.

It's downright impossible to run a combat focused game of WoD as well, since the premise runs counter to the idea of gaining EXP, gaining power, and fighting bigger and tougher enemies since the more power you gain, the more weaknesses you gain since you're steadily losing your humanity in exchange for embracing your monstrous nature.

>>54987906

....

4e has neither of those spells as trivial effects, for the most part.

>>54987876
Do you honestly believe the shit you just wrote or are you just shitting in the river for (you)'s?

>>54987906
Mind control effects are mostly leashed in 5E by making them completely blatant. There's like 2 minor effects that can be landed where the target DOESNT completely realize what's going on. There's also a couple ways to bypass the zone of truth sorts of things, too.

The obvious answer is to ban wizards.

>>54987936
4e isn't real D&D though mainly because it's a well designed system.

>>54987946
>The obvious answer is to ban wizards.
Too bad nobody will play in a game without magic in them. Besides, Clerics and Druids are better magic users anyway.

File: 1410511418260.jpg (165KB, 640x828px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 640x828px

>>54987944
I'm genuinely sorry you need mechanics to know how to role-play.

And yeah, crunch is sort of necessary for combat, unless you want to run around in a forest with boffers, but unless it's necessary, I don't want any fucking dice or complex-tables getting in the way of me or my players role-playing.

Rules for combat are necessary. Rules for social interaction only serve to turn conversations into rolls.

>>54988030
>Rules for social interaction only serve to turn conversations into rolls.

You have no idea how humorous this is out of the context of the current discussion.

>>54972330
Is like they took one large step towards fantasy craft, then stopped.