Tell me about when you realized that D&D is a fundamentally

>>55102507
You used wrong image, friend

>>55102507
I made that false conclusion a some years ago before I moved back to 2nd, and onwards to 5e.

>>55102507
When I realized it wasn't gurps

>>55102507
Dnd has it's flaws, but why are so many people parroting this meme, what is your problem with it for instance that is done so much better in other systems?
Is it just bc it is the most normie ttrpg out there?

>>55102628
Nah it's because some games arguably do d&ds thing better.

M&M is really good at fantasy

Gurps: dungeon fantasy is really good.

Risus is fun for light games.

File: garbo.png (44KB, 478x504px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 478x504px

>>55102507
When a friend tried to get me to try 5e after having tried 3.5 and hating it.

Guess what, it's still 300 pages telling you how to do basic fucking roleplay, magic classes shitting on every non-combat obstacle ever (and most combat ones too), and not being allowed to do anything fun ever because the 300+ pages of rules tell you that you can't.

Then again I'm a piece of garbage who's background in RPing comes from Freeform and rules-lite games that are usually less than 50 pages.

>>55102507
>>55102961
Unironically fuck off and die.

>>55102998
Hey it's the d&d defenders

How's it going?

...how many people on this board have even played all five editions? Not read them. Played them.

>>55103051
>*slowly raises hand*

Some of them are ok, others suck.

>>55103069
Which and why?

>>55103011
>oh no, it's /tg/ and they're tired of this repeat troll thread

Please, unironically.

>>55103051
I only didn't played 1ed

>>55103051
I have played all of them, but not all extensively. I loved 2e more than anything, but it might just be nostalgia. The game was filled with mystery to me, and felt more deadly and scary. Plus we just kind of assumed most skills and stuff, so it felt more freeform in some aspects.

>>55103081
1e was kind of dated but works
AD&D and 2e were fun if clunky
3.X is only really fun if you play a caster
4e and 5e both work, but I'm not a fan.

When I realized that cinematic, rules-lite RPGs were way more fun, much more streamlined, and presented significantly better opportunities to RP.

3.5 and 5e just occupy a niche of being too rulebound to view creative maneuvers in combat as anything but unoptimized mistakes (why did you disarm him instead of Power Attacking him a third time) but not complex or tactically satisfying enough to make me wonder why I'm not playing a videogame instead.

>>55103051
its real fucking rare but i have an older friend in his late 40s whos been around to play every edition as well as a myriad of other systems like palladium, traveller, gurps, other ones that he hasnt mentioned but he stands by Dnd as an above average system with a handful of its own flaws. He also was one of the guys to call 5e a streamlined and more freeform 1e.

That said, with all of our experience combined we generally agree that 3e-4e were the worst editions.

File: wizard on the subway.jpg (523KB, 1000x1374px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 1000x1374px

>>55103051

Huh. I've actually played all but first. My buddy's got a redbox we've been meaning to bust out at some point, but we've never gotten around to it.

GET READY FOR SOME PIPING HOT OPINIONS

I'd say AD&D was groundbreaking for its time, but doesn't really hold up. It had lots of good ideas, several bad ones, and overall wasn't well-constructed by modern standards. It's outdated, but we only got where we are because of it. It was ahead of the curve.

3rd and 3.5 were not. They were playable, you could have fun with your friends, but the system would sometimes get in the way of the fun. They frankly weren't as well-designed as other games available at the time. This caused my groups to move away from D&D for years.

4e was well-constructed, almost excessively so. Everything was carefully balanced and standardized, and it was as much a grid-based wargame as an RPG. If that was how you always wanted to play D&D, it was great. If not, it was weird and unpleasant. Had some fun one-shots, but no one wanted a campaign of it.

5e is good. Wizards really learned from their earlier experiments. It's got some of the competent construction of 4e, and some of the looseness and liberty of AD&D. It's easy to teach to new players, the classes are decently balanced without all working the same. It's the first one where we finished one campaign and decided to just run another with the same system (instead of doing a WoD or Dark Heresy campaign or something.) Good job, fun game.

>>55103126
>more deadly and scary
I imagine this is largely due to both players and DMs sucking at using combat properly in later editions. Certain save or suck effects might as well have been save or die, inhaled poisons were really strong because you could stack doses, typeless damage, etc.

>Plus we just kind of assumed most skills and stuff
This is just shit game design by my standards. If you haven't defined central mechanics like skills the game isn't finished.

>>55103160
>3.X is only really fun if you play a caster
Mmm, you just can't go for a straight martial with no prestige class and no monstrous HD or templates. As long as you already have a build planned out you can make pretty much any play style mechanically viable.

>>55103179
>That said, with all of our experience combined we generally agree that 3e-4e were the worst editions.
Why?

>>55103089
>it's the /tg/ is one person episode again

>>55103321
I get repeating memes, thats what makes them memes, but we have this thread literally every day. Everything that can be said has been said. There is no point anymore beyond just wildly shitposting.

File: Love ya, but.gif (676KB, 420x236px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 420x236px

>>55102998
>Come into a thread about how frustrated people are with DnD
>Start shilling/defending it like your empty life depends on it.

Unironically you're fucking retarded and unhealthily obsessed.

>>55103439
And triggering little sissy faggots like you.
D&D is shit, it must be said as often as possible in case anyone new to rpgs comes now into /tg/ for the first time.

File: 1456309275341.jpg (63KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 720x720px

>>55103439
And yet here you are, feeding the supposed "trolls" while desperately trying to convince yourself DnD isn't dying as real TTRPG players move on to better games and have nothing to say about DnD because there's nothing worth saying about it. Have fun with your normies and Critical Roll episodes.

>>55103500
>haha you responded
>nobody would disagree with me unless they're TRIGGERED SHILLS
Have fun sperging out over something everyone agrees is bad, fuck this garbage thread.

If your whole premise is "I must justify why I hate something not worth hating," it doesn't take long for these guys to fall into deep exaggerations or to otherwise reveal how little they understand games.
These threads are the antithesis of meaningful discussion, while these trolls put no effort in hiding their mindless bias.

>>55102961
I don't even like D&D that much and I think you're fucking lazy and stupid.

>>55103644
Lazy? Yeah, probably? Still, I don't think you should need a 300+ page rulebook to do basic roleplaying though. I wana come up with cool ideas and have simple systems to determine the outcomes of those cool ideas. Instead coming up with a cool idea in DnD means stopping the game for 10 minutes while you look up some set of obscure rules in the horribly formatted rules books, spend another 10 minutes arguing over how to interpret it, and then 9 times out of 10 being told you can't do the thing or it's extremely disadvantageous to even attempt it, so just shut up and spam your full-round attack again.

>>55103051
>five editions
It's actually closer to 10 now. There are substantial difference in the different versions of Basic D&D, Ad&d is up to 5, there's the original chainmail hack and the brown book, ect.
Even if you count Basic as all one edition (and you shouldn't, because the red box and rules cyclopedia are different) and completely discount the original hack, there's 7 different versions of d&d.

>>55103745
Okay, see, your description just sounds like you've played with really horrible people in the past, which is not at all indicative of any sort of system's quality.

And say what you want about D&D, the books are actually very well formatted, and if you think they're bad then you have not genuinely seen a terribly formatted rulebook before. Take a read through Legends of the Wulin sometime, and then come back and say the same thing. I dare you.

File: 1455690822906.jpg (17KB, 680x383px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 680x383px

>>55103885
>Oh boi, it's the "DnD is good if you have a DM who ignores all the actual rules" argument again.

Please, that poor anon has suffered enough, don't make him suffer more.

>>55103964
Who are you quoting? Who said that? Nobody said that anon. Are you alright?

>>55103745
Reminder that DnD started as a war game, and later became a dungeon crawler. It was never meant to be a "roleplaying" game in the sense that you're used to roleplaying games (rules-lite/freeform).

So yeah, it plays like a videogame because it's MEANT to play like a videogame.

Wow, this troll is really desperate for you's.

>>55104186
Which one?
Or do you mean ALL of them?

>>55104258
Don't you know that there is only one guy on tg?

>>55102680
M&M?

>>55103233
>5e is good.
It's not. The ability score cap / increase system is fucked up, chargen is boring as hell, they fixed a lot of things but tacked it on to the most bland boring system ever. It's fun for fucking around with normalfags and hipsters but it's really not fulfilling for a long campaign. Doesn't mean that 3.5 and a shitton of books full of rules is the answer, but neither is 5e. 4th edition is better than both but it also is full of it's own shitty issues like orcs that jump off a building and die instantly.

>>55103500
>D&D is shit, it must be said as often as possible in case anyone new to rpgs comes now into /tg/ for the first time.
Are you kidding? D&D is the containment RPG for newbies. I don't want retarded roasties who have watched The Big Bang Theory trying to join my Savage Worlds game and taking eight months to learn what a d12 is. Fuck off.

DnD is mostly fine, but I fucking hate d20s. If you could replace the d20 with something more balanced, with a bell curve or something, I'd be happy. 2d10, 3d6, something. Anything.

>>55103069
>*slowly emerge from shadows*

>eh...?

>...not bad...

>*inhale cigar*

>*teleport behind you*

>*unsheathe tanto*

>...owari da...

>*slash 666 times*

>omae wa shinderu...

>*exhale cigar*

>*sheathe tanto*

>*look at you being cut in 999 pieces*

>...arigato doeshtet sayonara...

>...

>*teleport away*

>>55103051
The only edition I haven't actually played is OD&D. Everything else I've played at one point or another.

>>55102507
D&D is a heroic fantasy game with a heavy focus on skirmish based combat.

In this sense it's perfectly fine throughout its various editions. It's only when people try to.treat it like something else that issues understandably arise.

>>55106002
>heroic fantasy
It's sword and sorcery you nigger.

>>55103321
Tired malicious shitposting is still shitposting.

>>55102961
Well, you skipped the only good edition. You'd probably still hate it but it doesn't have those problems

>>55103051
I've played original AD&D through to 4th edition and also BECMI, so I guess that's five editions.

Can't say I particularly loved any of them.

>>55103233
>I'd say AD&D was groundbreaking for its time, but doesn't really hold up. It had lots of good ideas, several bad ones, and overall wasn't well-constructed by modern standards. It's outdated, but we only got where we are because of it. It was ahead of the curve.

2e AD&D was absolutely not ahead of the curve , it was a creaking dinosaur of a system that the writers kept piling more and more content on.

3e had a lot of problems its designers didn't foresee, but it did at least get D&D on board with what other RPGs had been doing as standard for over a decade, like having a universal resolution system and characters with a variety of skills

>>55104656
Meh. Having to whip out the binomial theorem for dice pools in Shadowrun isn't much fun either. At least D20 makes threshold tests easy to adapt.

>>55109885
There is a middle ground between success based dice pools and a flat d20.

>>55102598
Oh I can relate to this. 5e is basiclly a modernized second with the good ideas of 3.x and 4e thrown in.

>>55110057
I assume you mean more natural distributions like 3d6? Great for modeling randomness, but a flat distribution is nice when you want to just whip up a test with 3:1 or 4:1 odds.

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

>>55102961

>freeform

Just end yourself now, because that is the gayest shit I've ever heard.

Its like acting but without getting paid. You're not even getting money for making a fool of yourself.

Not even being ironic, 4e was the best edition, but people shat on it for being different.

>>55111296
> Its like acting but without getting paid.
Some of us did that for fun back in school, anon. I'd kill for a table of ex-drama goofballs.

So if D&D isn't the best fantasy RPG to start on, what is the top of the heap now for people wanting to run a high fantasy campaign?

>>55103283
>you can make pretty much any play style mechanically viable

... That's not actually a meaningful statement.

>You can play the game if you play it.

Holds just the same amount of weight.

>>55103051
Versions I've played

>B/X
>BECMI
>RC
>AD&D
>AD&D 2e
>3e
>3.5
>4e
>5e

Of those my favorites are BECMI, RC, and 4e with 2e hanging around in the background to steal setting stuff.

File: 1484405959537.jpg (205KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 540x540px

>this thread
>again
>and again
>and again

Please no.

>>55102507
When I saw just how small the modifiers are compared to the fickleness of a d20.
By design a 1 means you're a fucking cuck(no matter how good your character is at a particular skill), and a 20 means you're a god.

It's kinda stupid and leads to retarded situations like the barbarian failing to move the boulder but the wizard getting super lucky and passing the DC.
Or the expert rogue failing to pick a lock but the fucking paladin succeeds. Stupid shit like that

>>55112962
While I agree that the d20 just has too big of a spread to be used as the core die efficiently, even percentiles can have the same silliness you mentioned. For example, bend bars/lift gates in old D&D could see a barbarian fail to bend iron but the wizard could just roll up and get lucky with their puny arms. It all comes down to % likelihood, even a small chance of failure can come up and even a small chance of success can come up.

>>55104490
I think they mean Mutants and Masterminds

>>55112962
>doesn't understand how a binary pass fail system works

Did you really need to bump this thread just to show how stupid you are?

>>55110123
Shame you still basically require feats and the class design isn't as simple as second.

I keep hoping for a truly modernized take on the old school game that isn't something weird like the Black Hack.

File: IMG_4359.jpg (60KB, 468x800px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 468x800px

>>55102507

When I played Tunnels and Trolls

File: 1491832302607.gif (313KB, 300x182px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 300x182px

>>55102507
When 4th fixed everything, and people literally called it "not D&D" because it wasn't broken garbage.

>>55114713
>implying 4e didn't have broken math

>>55114713
4urrie hypocrisy in action folks.

And this is why I only play wargames.

I demand a copypasta be formulated so I know what games people are actually trying to convert me to when they rag on D&D.
It looks like I have the same problems with the system as most people here complain about (percentile windows making stupid shit happen), but I usually took that as a side effect of playing a game where odds are involved in general- otherwise I may as well be bringing in PCs to a freeform RP.

Yell at me and tell me I'm wrong /tg/, I want to know what the ideal tabletop experience is and whom to get it from.

>>55115229
Go play risus or lasers and feelings. (the easiest and shortest I can think of)
Just expose yourself to more games play new thinks and form your own educated opinion on what is a good role-playing game.
Whatching the same movie over and over will teach you a lot about that movie but very little about cinematography. You must watch lots of movies good and bad, so you can know what kind of movie you really like.

>>55111296
Most people don't get paid for their free-time recreation activities, anon. Unless they're video game streamers or something.

>>55111966
This anons' taste is exquisite.

Henceforth, he is to be referred to as my African-American.

>>55115229
Do you want tight, concise rules for everything you could possibly imagine? Do you like bell curves that cause diminishing returns as you reach the bleeding edge of skill, but allow characters with true mastery over a subject to essentially never fail? Do you want material for any possible setting you could want?
>play GURPS
Do you want a lighter system with simple rules where the only real work is making your character? Do you want all of the information you could need during a session to be on your sheet? Do you want easy modularity due to a relatively low level of rules interaction within the same character, allowing really easy home brew?
>play basic role play
Do you want a setting focused,character focused drama centered around supernatural creatures and their social interactions?
>play world of darkness

DnD is really just the white bread of the table top world. It's not offensively bad, it's just incredibly bland, has very little flavor, tris to be good for everything, but just ends up being passable.

File: exalted.png (246KB, 1517x548px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1517x548px

>>55102507
Mayne, stop. This board is angry enough without those threads. Be positive. Want to promote non-D&D - do it by some shit like this instead of shitting on D&D

>>55104747
>*it's a hologram*

>>55111914
>what is the top of the heap now for people wanting to run a high fantasy campaign?
Depends on what type of high fantasy we're talking about. Considering, however, that the two fantasy IPs that are most likely to inspire newcomers to the hobby right now are Lord of the Rings and A Song of Ice and Fire (or rather Game of Thrones) I'd probably say people would be far better off trying The One Ring or Green Ronin's ASoIaF RPG (and I say this while not being much of a fan of the latter personally).

>>55116946
How about the GoO Tri-Stat/d20 SIF RPG?

>>55115229
>what games people are actually trying to convert me to when they rag on D&D.
Personally I don't have a single system. I play several different ones and will usually pick one specifically for the type of campaign I want to run. The only exception is when I use a generic system that I think handles things in a fitting manner for the tone I want, such as BRP or Fate. GURPS is also handy but in my eyes, at least, it's less of a system and more like a toolkit for creating your own system. Like, "here are some suggestions for rules you could use for your game, pick the ones you want and tell us how it went" or something. In theory highly practical, but can easily take far too much time for the average game unless you're highly familiar with the system.

>>55111335
This. 4e had a fairly consistent idea of the type of Heroic Fabtasy it wanted, and the mechanics pulled it off. Daily powers worked - within 4e's design. Minions worked - within 4e's design. Even WBL worked - within 4e's design.

The few issues I found in 4e were where a few things didn't quite get utilised as much:

>math fixes ie feat taxes, monster math
>rituals not as efficient as possible, could be made more accessible
>power creep naturally through supplements (minor; a phb1 human fighter is still VERY competent; you have to just about consciously go out of your way to fuck up a character and be dead weight)
>Essentials not being viable after heroic
>Essentials being a giant clusterfuck of misdirected design as failure to understand 4e in general
>runepriest, seeker etc coming too late to have options

>>55117596

Yeah, most of my issues with 4e are mostly 'This could have been done better' rather than 'This is actively broken'.

>>55117607
4e is the only edition with a consistent vision; if you didn't like, say, Fantasy Action Heroes, then you won't like 4e, but at least it did it well. Unlike say 5e, which promises interesting things for Martials and then gives us the Battlemaster.

>>55117637
>4e is the only WotC edition with a consistent vision
FTFY

>>55117637

Mind you, it can do a lot wider things than most people expect if you want to go with more 'Die Hard' action hero. The lingering injury and disease rules are fucking brutal.

>>55117647
I'm not a huge fan of TSR-era 'roll a different table entirely for this resolution mechanic,' and I'm leery of a 'pre-Internet' gaming culture being in any way consistent, but it's still miles ahead of 3.pf so I'll give you that.

I mean as far as I know you Cnr heal someone by drowning them in AD&D.

>>55117695
I think that's a 3rd edition meme.

Unless I misunderstood you and you mean you don't know much about pre-WotC D&D.

Neither do I, I just played BECMI a few times, never even rolled an AD&D characetr

>>55117659
Harsh or not, I still don't think it's entirely possible to overrule how heavily invested 4e is in being Big Damn Heroes; that shit is engrained from the very concept and permeates every mechanic.

I've heard of people using 4e to run stuff like giant mecha or Scott Pilgrim, but those were still heavily themed on being Big Damn Hero (robots/fighters).

>>55114713

>>55114713

4e was a board game not an RPG.

I enjoy 5e a lot. I tried all editions but most of them only for 1-2 adventures, 5e is the one I can get down with hard enough for 1-2 campaigns.

4e is great if you wanna play Descent (the boardgame) and realize Descent (the boardgame) is shit.

3e and 2e are great if you have a computer to do all the shitty stats.

1e is for tourists and historians.

>>55102507

How much do they pay you to make these stupid threads every day? It looks like I'm going to be behind on rent and a little extra cash would do me a world of good.

>>55103051
I've played AD&D 1e, D&D 3.5, D&D 4e, and D&D 5e. Have DMed all but the first one, too. My favorite is still 3.5, followed by 5e.

>>55103233
>They frankly weren't as well-designed as other games available at the time
I'd disagree. 3.5 was probably the best designed game of its time. In fact, it was so fucking good its paradigms are still used, albeit in a more refined form, to this day and dominate the market. Having different ruling systems for different power sources was and is something that lifts DnD above most other RPGs and it's one of the main reasons people are 'uneasy' with 4E.

What 5E did of streamlining the resolution mechanics while retaining mechanical verisimilitude is exactly the sort of natural evolution you see in good systems, and the only other RPGs I can think of that had such impactfull core mechanics are GURPS (which sadly has not continued to evolved and as a result somewhat diminished in exposure) and more recently FATE.

WoD was close, but thanks to the authors not having the slightest clue about math its flaws kept it from spreading.

>>55102507
It wasnt a sudden thing. I tried designing my own systems and every time I tried copying D&D I realized something new just didnt work. After a few years I realized none of it worked.

>>55102628
A single die roll (D20) is probably its biggest problem. It creates a necessity for HP and AC bloat to prevent a diminishing return, whereas multi-roll systems have inherently increasing returns.

Aside from that the casting system is ass. Class systems are inherently sub par. Not to mention the lack of uniformity in mechanics across different aspects of the system. It all adds up to a game thats a bit of a mess. Not as much as SR, for example, but its a massive machine struggling very hard to do a simple job.

>>55104622
>chargen is boring as hell
there's what, 2 books out? It's certainly not as mechanical as 3.5, but backgrounds and character motivations are a neat tie-in for roleplaying and if you start at high level you can do some ok build crafting as well. And that's fine, we don't need a second 3.5 without the content.

>>55103051
Ive run 2, 3, 4 and 5. As a GM D&D is universally a pain to run.

>>55104656
Check out Splittermond. 2d10 system with integrated gambling mechanic where you can add or remove a die and the initiative system uses time-increments on a track instead of turns.

>>55103233
Its always weird when I see people say that 5e is easy to learn. Its certainly easier than 3.5, but its far harder to learn to play than 4. Im not really a fan of either though.

>>55119376
>Aside from that the casting system is ass
how so?

>Class systems are inherently sub par
Only if you're a power gamer or a freeform faggot.

>Not to mention the lack of uniformity in mechanics across different aspects of the system
fixed in 5E

>>55119412
>but its far harder to learn to play than 4
lolwut?

>people pretending to take this troll seriously.

Stop.

>>55119474
Vancian casting is fucked from so many directions I dont even know where to begin. It lets casters levy nearly unlimited power in a single encounter, and all they need to regenerate it is a rest. Sure you can be a brutal asshole and keep them from resting, but right there the mechanics in the game have forced an antagonistic relationship between the players and the GM, rather than the characters and the world. Any time a system forces you to alter the way you'd normally do things to compensate for player power its a problem.

Class systems are bad. Flat out. If each class is considered a collection of features that are inherently equal as a whole, then problems immediately arise from the mediocre or non-existent balance. In a trait-based system players can build collections of abilities similar to classes and are solely responsible for parity issues. Freeform doesnt even come into it, idiot.

5e fixed some things with regard to uniformity, I agree, but there's still a long way to go for D&D to have anything approaching good design. 5e does a wonderful job salvaging the hallmarks of D&Ds design into something very playable. That said, its not better than any other system at anything other than its weird tonally inconsistent blend of high-ish fantasy.

>>55119474
4e is nothing but unified mechanics. Everything is visual, discrete, and compartmentalized. Id agree that making a character is more complicated than it is in 5e, but actually playing the game is easier to teach. 4e is like a fucking McDonalds cash register. Its dumbed down to the point that as long as you understand the point (kill those guys with your abilities) you can play the game.s

>>55102507
4e is not broken, just boring.
5e is okay.

>>55103164
the whole reason I like dnd is because there are so many rules. specifically 5e, which is designed in a way that makes it easy to create even more rules and subsystems once you dm it enough. rules lite RPGs are for weaboo shit, like if you want to be a heavenly sword wielding cinematic flying fuck nut and don't care about a sense of the world having a sense of immersion and consequence and randomness. it's really a question of whether you care if the world you are playing in is just flimsy backdrop for yr weaboo shit or is a place with certain laws of physics

>>55122924
I honestly think 5e doesn't have enough rules. I've run into situations where I just have to handwave things or come up with shitty rules of my own because I don't exactly know how to implement the things my players want to do. We usually end up finding a ruling on the situation for 3.5. I don't like rules bloat, but WotC haven't been putting out books at all this edition.

>>55122924
>if you want to be a heavenly sword wielding cinematic flying fuck nut
Power fantasies is exactly what most rules light systems don't handle well.

>>55123226
How so? Rules heavy games like GURPS seem to crumple in on themselves if you try to adjust the scale at all.

File: Undying_Rage.png (64KB, 192x192px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 192x192px

I get angrier than I should when someone complains about "caster superiority" in the edition where martials are stronger than they've ever been

>b-but muh level 20 pvp where the wizard has the perfect set of spells prepared and the 50k worth of special items he needs for those spells and muh martials dont have ranged weapons or gear of any kind and can't do anything waaaaah

>>55123117
>I honestly think 5e doesn't have enough rules.

But for what? Please give some examples. My group's getting along fine with the system, although it could just be that we're used to hand waving.

>>55123395
But nobody complains about caster superiority in 4th so what the fuck are you whining about?

>>55123334
Because rules light systems, especially those that are narrative focused, demand that the players moderate themselves and make sub-optimal decisions. If you go into Fate with the goal of being a wuxia badass, then yeah, you're most likely not gonna have a good time. If you're willing to let your character make stupid decisions, or outright fail, when it would clearly be advantageous to not do so because it makes for a better story, however, you and the rest of the table are gonna have a much better time.

Rules light makes it easier to make stuff more cinematic, but that's not the same thing as always winning. Power fantasies are much better served by D&D which for the most part feels more like a math problem to be solved than anything else.

GURPS is generally grittier, but if you want your players to be more powerful then you just increase the character creation points.

>>55102507
and? what is the point of this bait

>>55123518
This is dumb. In Fate you have a mechanical incentive to make dumb choices that fit your character, you actually gain character resources for doing so, so you're not expected to hobble yourself just for the hell of it, and the predictable dice mechanic means that you'll basically always feel exceptional at the things you're exceptional at (especially if you're spending a fate point to adjust a roll).

I'm not going to deny that later editions of D&D are awesome for power fantasies.

GURPS shits the bed when you add too many character points. For instance doing a supers game past street level is going to require a very skilled GM keeping a very careful eye on the player's characters.

>>55123395
They're stronger than they've ever been, but that doesnt stop casters from still being all around better.

>>55122924
What rules light systems have you run?

>>55123736
at utility sure which is how its meant to be
rogues are still the best at skills and traps
barbs and fighters are still unkillable and have higher DPS

>>55123845
They're strong at utility AND combat though. If mages were all utility, this wouldnt be a problem. However, they've nerfed some older utility spells for some reason. While I agree things are better, its hardly in ways WotC intended, and still far from a good state of affairs.

>>55123726
Gurps is the best for low-point games

I mean it can run everything, it's just things are better run in a high-power level game(M&M)

>>55123726
Just as an aside, 5e has that too now.

>>55102507
>hasn't played a game in at least a decade
>won't shut up about it
You will be altogether happier if you talk about the things you DO like instead. You talk about this thing like you're trying to escape it, but you're holding yourself hostage here for no reason.

And the worst part is that it's seemingly made you into a ginormous prat.

>>55124024
Part of the reason people bash D&D is to get people to play other things, so that its easier to find a group to play things you enjoy.

File: intredasting.jpg (5KB, 170x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 170x200px

>>55124145
Wouldn't it be a better strategy to tout the merits of your own campaign, instead of badmouthing what others play?

Players get lots of health the higher they level. Damage output does not scale anywhere near the same. Combats just get longer and longer.

New topic:
Name me a single system that not one person on /tg/ will tell you is garbage while another tells you is amazing.
Hard mode: No F.A.T.A.L.

>>55123435
Shit. I remember feeling that way when we were running 5e but now can only remember that I couldn't find rules for called shots. I definitely know there were more, but since I can't remember what they were I withdraw my complaint for now. Sorry anons.

>>55124225
How about you just let the troll bump his thread alone, instead of trying to help add to his post count?

Just report and ignore.

>>55124177
Sure. Its a push-pull thing though. Often if somebody is open to playing something they dont need convincing, but there's a pretty big contingent of actual factual sheep who fall in love with whatever WotC comes out with. I shit you not, Ive got some old friends who have shit on every previous edition as soon as the new one comes out and loved the new edition to death, going so far as to say they are perfect. So it was from A to 3, from 3 to 4, and now 4 to 5.

>>55124278
>Whoever doesn't share my opinions is a troll
>There is only one person who disagrees with me
That are whole lot of assumptions in just one post anon

>>55124225
I was gonna say Rifts, but the checkmark guy might still be out there.

It's not fundamentally broken, just a different sort of game. It only works with a very specific playstyle, and if you like that playstyle then good on you.

>>55124255
It's fine.

Depending on what you want to archieve, called shots are kind of in as Feats - the Sharpshooter Feat alllows you to take -5 to the roll for +10 damage, and various versions of the Fighter Battlemaster Maneuvers alllow you to do a lot of stuff you'd do with a called shot.

If you're looking for rules for called shots, they're indeed missing, but you can just take the rules for the Battlemaster maneuvers (for example Disarming Attack). The Battlemaster Maneuvers are still stronger because they enable you to do damage AND cause save-or-disarm.

>>55119621
man I really hate how D&D's design is so centred around the players running out of stuff. Every spell, ability, and power has some limit to it that means you will at some point run out of it, and in the case of low-level casters that usually means you don't get to use your low-level casting more than a handful of times a day.
I'm so tired of reading "you can only use this X times per [short / long] rest." I assume the idea is that your abilities tire you out, but it just turns the whole thing into a weird video game instead of a roleplaying experience.

I further detest that spells have to be yelled while you wave your arms about like an idiot. You can't do a cool cinematic thing unless you're a sorcerer, because you have to sit there doing the macarena yelling "LIGHTNING BOLT."

And then there's the ultimate D&D caster problem: once they reach around level 4, they can pretty much cheese their way through any problem you throw at them, because creative (and sometimes uncreative) spell use will let them shrink doors out of their hinges, destroy that pool of electrified water, fly over that huge gap, or use the force to activate everything they come across so they don't risk traps.
Meanwhile fighters can hit goblins very hard.

5e is probably my favourite D&D so far, but it's still fundamentally crooked and I don't care for it.

>>55124427
Thanks. That's actually pretty helpful. My players just kept trying them and I couldn't really find a way to make them work well. I specifically remember an incident with a beholder and trying to take out different eye stalks, and whatever rule I invented on the spot to fix this was pretty unsatisfying.

>>55124436
God forbid you get to level 8. Thats the point at which all versions of D&D break.

>>55124491
That's when your DM takes you aside to teach you the "real magic."

>>55124436
Execept the resource consumption the other problems don't apply to 4e

>>55124469
Ah well you're cursed with creative players, there is no cure for that.

In my experience you can solve A LOT of these situations with Advantage/Disadvantage (like for example they get disadvantage to hit since the eye stalks are so small) and conditions.

>>55124356
>whoever keeps spamming these "PLEASE STOP LIKING D&D" threads isn't a troll with a vendetta against a system

Fuck off already.

>>55124554
PS: While "Give them Disadvantage" sounds harsh at first, after a while with the system you realize it's only a problem if they can't also get Advantage and turn this back into a regular roll - which shouldn't be a problem for creative players if they realize you're expecting them to do that.

>>55124526
I always wanted to play it but fate seems determined to keep me away.

>>55124469
You'll learn to anticipate things like that. A good way to let your players target finicky stuff is to make them roll normal AC and apply rolled to represent how hard it is to hit properly. In the case of a beholder's eye stalks Id probably give it DR2D6 and say they lop off one stalk per 2 or 3 damage dealt. Its not perfect but its fast, and rolling dice lends it some legitimacy and fairness.

>>55124762
>>55124469
*Apply rolled damage reduction. I am an idiot.

>>55111296
>>55108108
>>55103644
He is right about this though:
" magic classes shitting on every non-combat obstacle ever (and most combat ones too), and not being allowed to do anything fun ever because the 300+ pages of rules tell you that you can't."

Casters do make everyone feel useless, since the only way to circumvent the rules in the game is with spells. Most DMs don't understand that martial characters should be able to pull off crazy martial things.

>>55119406
Is there a translation, or will I have to learn german?

>>55119406
That certainly sounds german.

>>55124894
Far as I know you'd have to learn German.

>>55111949
>Martial characters are mechanically viable in 3.5
ONLY ones from the Tome of Battle, and 3aboos shit themselves over that because it makes it so that people can play things other than casters and contribute in combat.

>>55124555
>there is only one person who doesn't like DnD, I swear it guys, you must believe me.

>>55124700
That is good for you, for it is the only version of DnD I actually enjoyed playing, although for different reasons than my usual narrative games

>>55119082
In what way? Because it didn't "feel" like the OGL?

When it became less about fantastic adventures in quasi-medieval landscapes and more about who can build the most broken character.

>>55102507
Tell me when you realized this thread is garbage?

>>55119376
The first point you make about how the D20 causes HP and AC to bloat is really interesting to me.

Can you elaborate more on why that is and maybe give some examples of games that don't use a D20 so don't have that same issue?

>>55128274
If you use 2d6 each point you have is more important than the last, since its on a curve. On a flat single-die range each point is actually worth less because you're relative improvement is constantly decreasing. The result is the constant need for higher and higher numbers because you are not increasing the likelihood of rolling in a high range, you are just shifting everything up linearly.

In a 2d6 system you can peg success at a 9 +/-2 based on difficulty and you wont need to change it. If you want bigger numbers use bigger dice.

>>55129730
Forgive spelling errors. Im phoneposting while driving.

>>55102507
I found enlightenment with realization that using single character war-game for roleplaying isn't the brightest idea.

>>55129730
>If you use 2d6 each point you have is more important than the last, since its on a curve. On a flat single-die range each point is actually worth less because you're relative improvement is constantly decreasing. The result is the constant need for higher and higher numbers because you are not increasing the likelihood of rolling in a high range, you are just shifting everything up linearly.

That's not only backwards, it's also flat out wrong. On a 2d6 a +1s value is entirely dependent on what you are rolling against, and higher numbers will invariably be less useful. If you want to roll more than 7 on a 2d6... you know what, here, just have an anydice

http://anydice.com/program/cb53

Curves aren't some magical math fixing tool, that somehow make everything work out better. They are good when you want smaller numbers to count for more t o dissuade bonus stacking inherently, but a linear distribution is way more easy to calculate with.

You could easily do a d20 game where your "simple" DC is 2-3, meaning that you got a 90% success rate on it, if yo uare really bothered by characters failing. Scaling modifiers after that is optional, and you can work around it by frontloading the math like The Black Hack does.

This doesn't even touch on how HP/damage isn't even rolled on a d20, so there's no reason using a d20 system leads to HP bloat.

>>55129730
What >>55132921 said.


Now, what a curve does offer is a greater likelihood of rolling the median number, which is great for someone like me who has a long and storied history of getting boned by dice. I've lost more characters to bad rolls than everything else combined over the years.

Especially D20s.

I fucking HATE D20s.

>>55135759
>necroing this shit thread

What a faggot.

>>55132921
>They are good when you want smaller numbers to count for more t o dissuade bonus stacking inherently
They're also good for when you want penalties to be part of the game regularly, whether it's for fueling special actions like called shots or when you want to take into account environmental factors all the time, in which case each point *is* more important than the last because high skill levels allow you to take penalties without flinching.

>>55102628
It's because most of the people on here don't actually game. They just want reactions, so they post single-sentence opinions that they've seen people react to before.

>>55103051
I've played six of the seven. I've never played Basic, but I did play the revised Basic they released during second edition.

First and second are excellent. There's a lot of outdated game design, but they're still quite playable. Basic is just stripped down 1 and 2, so nothing to say there. I could never really get into third, not sure why. I did play the hell out of Mutants and Masterminds, though. Fourth was mostly fun, but really could drag on a lot. Fifth is probably my favorite so far, although I'm still pretty new to it so it might just be that I'm in the honeymoon phase.

>>55103051
I have played every edition including every form of basic, I've also GMed every one of them. If I had to rate them all it would look like this; both from a player's perspective and a DMs perspective. I'm omitting Holmes/BECMI/RC because they share too many similarities to other numbered editions or to B/X.

As a player

B/X > OD&D > 5e > 1e > 4e > 2e > 3.0 > 3.5

As a GM

B/X >5e > 2e > 3.5 > 3.0 > 4e > OD&D > 1e

>>55102507

That's why I play pathfinder instead

>>55137070
As a GM, 4e had better encounter designs than any other edition.

D&D5e is pracical but it's also very lazy and lacking. I mean, is it too fucking much to ask the writers to actually put some work into pricing items and doing other tedious tasks like that? That's why people buy rule books in the first place.

>>55102507
Like most people, I "realized" it was shit when I went on to play other games for the first time. Grass is greener and all that. Then after I grew a brain, a dick, and a heart, I realized that most game systems are just what you make of them, and the real problems are the socially inept neckbeards in the games, not the actual game itself.

That's why I choose to play it and actually finish games now. It's also why I don't play online with randos anymore. Normies are just plain better at games, and since they mostly play DnD...

>>55114753
>Dismissing an entire edition because of -1/-2 needs to be done to MM1-2, "oh dear no!, so hard"

>>55132921
Your entire argument is based on a moving target, while most multi-die systems have stat target ranges.

>>55132921
Using a D20 may not lead to HP bloat, but using linear hit-scaling necessitates it to offset potential constant-hitters.

>>55142136
>normies are better at games because they play DnD

Explain that.

Please, just ignore these trolls. Please. They're literally just saying anything in order to keep bumping their thread, no matter how stupid they need to get in order to keep their sham conversation going.

These arguments are absolutely pathetic. I don't even want to give them the (you)'s they so desperately are craving.

>>55119338
>3.5 was probably the best designed game of its time. I
this much revisionism of history is cracking me up. 3.x merely D&D up to times after AD&D had fallen behind recent developments. D&D had ceased to be cutting edge somewhere in the 80s.

>>55124014
yeah, true to form, D&D does not invent. which is totally fine. the problem is that some deendeefags keep portraying it as being so modern and cutting edge when it just keeps plodding along with general developments

>>55143350
Pretty easy man. Normies don't have subculture baggage. Normies also generally have basic respect for other people. Normies can accept the premise of a game, or decide not to play, instead of grudgingly playing anyways just to sabotage the game.

Normies are better players, and more normies play dnd than any other rpg so if you want a successful game, play dnd with normies not neckbeards.

>>55143371
the only one sounding desperate here is you, senpai. i mean you're literally begging here.

>>55143546
>t. D&D normie
D R O P P E D

>>55143546
I find most normies have problems understanding things like tone and characterization though.

Im sure those things may not matter to all GMs, but they matter to me.

I see your point though, and Id agree that normies are preferable to neckbeards.

>>55143586
It's easier to train normies to learn about tone and characterization than it is to unfuck some neckbeards years of stupidity and erroneous assumptions about games.

>>55143626
Agreed. However, its easier still to train people with a proven track record of obsession with weird shit. See: regular nerds.

Trekies, LARPrs, LotR fanatics, etc.

>>55143553
Not really. At this point, it's just trolls trolling trolls and trolls having their own little pity conversations.

You seem to have confused my exasperation with your own desperation.

>>55143751
>Please, just ignore these trolls. Please.
i'm not the one begging, dude

You're as desperate for you's as OP is, and OP is committed to keep bumping this thread until it reaches the sage limit.

Do you understand how sad that is?

>>55143716
I don't agree entirely- I think those obsessions blind them to any variance in the material for the most part. They tend to have very hard ideas about what something "ought to be", especially if they form an emotional attachment to it.

Working with people who love a thing is similar to working with people who hate it, in my experience. There isn't much room to move. Maybe you've found less staunch nerdy-types than I have, though.

>>55144034
The solution is simple: dont play with those people in their preferred setting.

>>55144034
you're advocating playing with passionless casuals? okay.

>>55144164
That is definitely without equivocation what I said.

2 and 5 are pretty fun
1 is just silly and, for lack of a better word, immaturein the sense that it's very much a game from when rpgs hadn't been explored well enough for logical design patterns to emerge fully.
3 and 4 have serious issues overall with rules getting in the way of, rather than facilitating game play

>>55103051
I've played them all, although my experience with 1e was a simple one shot. Still, of all of them, the only edition I didn't really like was 3.5. Even putting the balance and complexity issues aside, I find it tends to just not play well with the level of detail it puts to everything.

Of course, that's not to say you couldn't have fun with 3.5, but out of all of them it requires the most work out of the box.