Why does TG hate dnd?

Familiarity breeds contempt.

>tg

More people on /tg/ like D&D than hate it.

It's just that the people who hate it are the kind of angry contrarians who genuinely think that if they shitpost enough, just like you OP, that they can create an inhospitable environment for discussing the game they hate so much.

So fuck you, OP. And fuck all y'all idiots who waste your time hating on a game that's nowhere near as bad as you want to pretend it is.

Because D&D is the most popular and entry level RPG by far. 4chan needs to be contrarian and a lot of nerds like to be elitists about their nerdiness, so they react bad to something more widespread, labelling it as casual like it's a bad thing.

You must be new here.

-The d20 is swingy as hell, and having critical 5% or more of the time is just silly. And folks using critical failures as if it is a real rule shits that up even further
- Levels are a disparity of quality between characters for player decision and classes; a level 20 wizard is not the same quality as a level 20 fighter by a huge margin (Unless it's 4e, but 4e has a terrible rep)
- 3.0 began this concept of feats and features to increase the ease of character variation, which was inevitably corrupted for power gaming, and sense it has been a horridly universal concept that sticks harder than gum in hair, if not being encouraged simply because it sells books. And to balance that; it takes 5 feats to take a shit and remember to wipe your ass afterwards.
- It is chock full of auxiliary rules that are usually only for one situation at a time, demanding that you know EVERY subsystem of rules if you want to do something neat, rather than having a simple resolution system. Because it's realistic that you roll 1d20+mod to speak to someone no matter what, but it's not realistic to roll 1d20+mod to jump high; here's a calculator.
-Low levels are notoriously deadly in exchange for having nothing interesting to do except for revel in how difficult it is or exploit the above auxiliary rules for anything to do, the game evens out a few levels in, then becomes nigh unplayable after level 10-ish, unless you are VERY familiar with it.
- No matter what you do, unless you 'cheat', your neat bbeg character will always be ganked in three rounds, but the party will die to a hoard of nose picking goblins, because of sheer action economy.

>>55175817
Because ivory tower design and class favoritism is not fun.

>>55176005
Nice job anon. Can we get some confirmation on /thread here?

>>55176005
You must be a dumb faggot.
You just listed nothing but "It's in D&D, so I hate it" with some lukewarm, half-assed justifications.

Get out of here.

>>55176048
>samefagging

Poster count didn't go up, chief.

>>55175817

We don't. I love GURPS, but I like and play d&d as well. All editions except 4th. I just finished a 1st ed campaign and started a 5th a few weeks ago.

Most GURPS fans like a broad range of systems. It's just that we *prefer* GURPS.

GURPS isn't usually an entry point into the hobby. By the time we get to GURPS, we've usually seen many systems and seen the benefits and limitations of each.

>>55175817
>hey a thing is popular
>guess I'll piss off a lot of people if I shit on it
>yesss the sweet taste of (You)s
///
>fuck why no one is playing my Eternal Kikes in Sky Negatokyo RPG must be because D&D took all players fucking D&D
///
>literal autism, as depicted here >>55176005

>>55176080
That's not very nice, nor is it constructive criticism.

>>55175817
First off it depends on the edition, 3.pf gets the biggest shit, people don't really think of 4E as DnD, and most people, even if they don't like 5E like it better than 3.pf, also people don't really talk about the earlier additions in these threads

>>55176159
Editions

Most of D&D hate I've seen here seems to come from people who say it's too crunchy (which I think is ridiculous), so they're definitely not GURPS guys.

File: Screenshot_2017-09-01-16-54-57.png (267KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1080x1920px

>>55176093
>Poster count didn't go up, chief.
Whatever you say, friend!

>>55176175
If anything 5E needs more crunch, character creation and combat are very lacking

>>55175817
>If I shitpost enough, people will surely believe in it

>>55176151
I would play the shit out of Eternal Kikes in Sky Negatokyo RPG

File: complaint department.png (286KB, 640x368px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 640x368px

>>55176005
>-The d20 is swingy as hell, and having critical 5% or more of the time is just silly. And folks using critical failures as if it is a real rule shits that up even further
different strokes for different folks, I too dislike crits doing anything but what's written in the book but eh
>- Levels are a disparity of quality between characters for player decision and classes; a level 20 wizard is not the same quality as a level 20 fighter by a huge margin (Unless it's 4e, but 4e has a terrible rep)
true but few people ever actually play at those levels, and 5e mitigated that somewhat
>- 3.0 began this concept of feats and features ... And to balance that; it takes 5 feats to take a shit and remember to wipe your ass afterwards.
only true in 3.5/pf, only complaint about 5e feats is how different in power they are
>- It is chock full of auxiliary rules that are usually only for one situation at a time, demanding that you know EVERY subsystem of rules if you want to do something neat, rather than having a simple resolution system. Because it's realistic that you roll 1d20+mod to speak to someone no matter what, but it's not realistic to roll 1d20+mod to jump high; here's a calculator.
have you tried not playing third edition?
>-Low levels are notoriously deadly in exchange for having nothing interesting to do except for revel in how difficult it is or exploit the above auxiliary rules for anything to do, the game evens out a few levels in, then becomes nigh unplayable after level 10-ish, unless you are VERY familiar with it.
have you tried not playing third edition?
>- No matter what you do, unless you 'cheat', your neat bbeg character will always be ganked in three rounds, but the party will die to a hoard of nose picking goblins, because of sheer action economy.
yes. Give buddies to the boss.

>>55176199
Usually the hate is directed to 3.x/PF which is far crunchier than 5e, but still it's not very crunchy. It's more like hopelessly bloated than crunchy.

>>55176199
>>55176253

You guys should give Fantasy Craft a go.

>>55175817
/tg/ loves D&D. It's literally the most played game on this board, and has been all the way back since the first /tg/ survey almost a decade ago. It's got two of the fastest generals, and is basically a must-play system in order to even begin to discuss RPGs due to the influence and popularity of mechanics it introduced. It's basically a cornerstone of /tg/, and will be for decades if /tg/ even lasts that long.

We're just dealing with a few system war trolls who get real upset about people playing a game they don't like. Popular things tend to get the most haters, but they're still a tiny minority. Pay them no heed.

I really wish they weren't so obsessed though. They've probably just been kicked off of every other forum and now bitch here rather than just letting go.

Just play GURPS, guys.
The Dungeon Fantasy box finally came out.

I don't know what you're talking about, I love 4E

>>55176158
Your pointless and largely vapid bitching isn't constructive criticism either.

>>55176269
I actually enjoy 3.x and even PF if there's no "character optimizers" fucking around and GM doesn't try to kill players by throwing crazy monsters around. Bloat is pretty easy to ignore and while I don't think system is exactly good (armor class is kind of retarded for example), it gets the job done and is easy to understand (compared to stuff like GURPS that gives me headache), but still providing quite many options.

Having played other systems, I feel like D&D is too focused on mechanics. Everything is built around the dungeon crawl

File: Proof of (You).png (65KB, 1569x338px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1569x338px

>>55176251
Yeah, that's about right actually; perhaps I got a bit more learning to do before I call folks out myself. Thank you for your time.

>>55176371
That's not really my problem with it, if anything the mechanics are too lacking, martials just hit things and expend resources for more damage and minor utility effects

File: Gondola shower.gif (701KB, 736x547px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 736x547px

>>55176341

>>55176294
I wluld gladly do that, but GURPS GMs are ridiculously rare and I'm too retarded for the crunch. Still, I enjoyed those few times I actually got to play even though I didn't understand shit about the rules (GM helped me).

It's the giant in the room.

It's not bad in and of itself, but it naturally is to blame for many other rpgs being pushed to the side in the current rpg zeitgeist

5e is popular and widely credited as the best edition so far so naturally a few "that guy"s have to make a post every day about how bad it is without having read the PHB

>>55176527
4E was better

File: chinese_prank.webm (1MB, 202x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 202x360px

>>55175817
>Massive numbers bloat
>Boring combat mechanics.
>Little punishment for fucking up.
>Terrible balance (3.pf is one of the least balanced games ever made).
>Huge focus on combat with little to do mechanically outside of it.
>Awful fanbase.

DnD is the Overwatch of RPGs. It's not unplayably bad or anything, just a bit basic. Game for casuals.

I blame r/DnD

>>55176527
No, it's widely credited as the second best edition so far, because it was designed to be so inoffensive as to seem better than [edition you hate], but in exchange doesn't quite measure up to [your favorite edition].

>>55176570
>all the idiots who got banned from shitposting in r/DnD now shitpost here
>we have to deal with the idiots that even Reddit rejected

Fuck.

>>55176377
keep on improving yourself

>>55175817
Why should I like it?

I have a rule to dislike things until I have a reason to like them.

>>55175817
Because it's not good at anything. It's too spread-eagled. You want dungeon crawling? Do some OSR or Torchlight. You want political intrigue? Do Song of Swords. You want an epic adventure/narrativist bullshit? Do Burning Wheel. But there's no reason to do D&D.

>>55176626
It's more that r/DnD represents everything wrong with DnD in a nutshel, seriously poke your head in there and even if you like DnD you'll be disappointed

>>55176618
Except that 5e now has achieved a full majority of all roleplayers. More than half of all people playing roleplaying games play 5e. Not D&D, 5e.

It's really become most people's favorite edition, and when it's not that, then it has a very good chance of being their second favorite.

>>55176618
5E is my least favorite edition though

>>55176658
As bad as it may be, it's still a hell of a lot better than the shitposters we have to deal with here.

>>55175860
/thread

After some time it does look boring, although it's not really.

>>55176692
No it isn't.

>all these D&D apologists
wtf I thought you were my circlejerk buddies

guess not

faggots

>>55176692
Other than that one guy who keeps posting the same picture the anti-DnD posters are sincere, I say this as an anti-DnD poster

>>55176722
Bad DnD apologists are part of the circle jerk, the only intelligent people that are pro DnD are hiding in the generals

File: dog rub.webm (475KB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 360x360px

>>55176722
I'll circlejerk you.
D&D sucks almost as hard as what I'm going to do to your penis.

>>55176740
Being sincere doesn't stop them from being shitposters, it actually makes them worse.

It's like you're saying "/pol/ would be better if it had more genuine stormfronters."

What we're dealing with is people who literally can't accept a game being popular, so they need to constantly shitpost about how much they hate it, to the point where most of them have lost any semblance of being able to fairly evaluate a system.

>>55176527
5e is really quite good, and That Guys and retards should really read the PHB and DMG before they start talking shit.

>>55175817

The only edition of D&D that I would be completely comfortable calling a "bad" game is 3.5/Pf. The rest range in quality (and scope), and are different enough from each other that condemning the entire lot is silly. I actually really like B/X and all the OSR clones it's spawned.

3.5/Pf, at its core, isn't even that terrible. Its problem is that it is a game that is boring but serviceable with core-only content and bloated to the point of being near-unplayable with all of its splatbooks, with huge swaths of material that are unplayably bad, trap options so inexplicably useless that they seem designed solely to make the game more player-unfriendly, massive stat-blocks for every monster with conditions and effects that last drastically varying degrees of time requiring a ridiculous amount of bookkeeping on the part of just about everyone involved, rules with either no identifiable point or--just as often--different rules with seemingly conflicting design philosophies, and balance issues so deeply fucked that they stretch the usefulness of "guys, it's a co-op game, remember?"

Even so, the system still does what it (apparently) wants to focus on: provides lots and lots of fiddly bits for players to make characters. I can absolutely understand why a player would want to play 3.5/Pf, even with all of those things above taken into account. It will forever baffle me, however, how a GM could be hoodwinked into running the damn thing.

>>55176781
I don't see that. I only see people who dislike a system, and talk about this. What? Did you think they were going to hide away their dislike?

Of course there are actual shitposters, but they are not sincere.

>>55176781
We shitpost about DnD because it's boring. And shitting on it keeps the redditors out (partially)

>>55176781
Maybe it's because I don't like DnD but you just seem salty that people are criticizing something you like, if someone is bothering you either debate them if they're reasonable or ignore them, don't lose your cool

>>55176781
That's a shitload of projection (and everything is wrong)

>>55176816
It's the only edition that autists love, so that says a lot, they want to master the system and win D&D as a pure numbers game. It's autistic af.

>>55176907
he's still pissed off about the plague of "when did you realize DnD was shit?" threads which is honestly understandable

>>55176978
Not really.

>>55176985
That is, firstly, you shouldn't still be angry about something so small, and secondly, that anger should not be directed at people who genuinely dislike D&D.

>>55176816
>content is bad

3.5 did a surprisingly good job with the sheer scope of its material. When you compare it to other large systems, its actually impressive how much is compatible and how many different styles of play can all come together at the same table.

Some people don't like big games. But, for the people that do, using the term "bloat" is just being needlessly negative, especially because under no circumstance is all of it or even any of it mandatory. The game scales up and down according to how big you want it.

I knew a group that did nothing but the Psionics Handbook for classes. Some people do E6 core only. And I really doubt there's any group that has anyone that purchased every 3.5 book.

It's far from a perfect system, but getting upset because of its overall size is just getting upset about the concept of the system, rather than the actual game and how people played it.

>>55176978
Can you read?

>>55177014
He probably misquoted my dude.

>>55176996
Could you at least try empathize? The quality of conversation would be improved if you didn't piss him off

>>55176827
>I don't see that. I only see people who dislike a system, and talk about this. What? Did you think they were going to hide away their dislike?

Do you like Exalted? Do you daily make threads to complain about Exalted?
What about Fatal? Daily threads to complain about Fatal?

Whenever someone mentions 40k, do you pop into the thread in order to try to derail it by complaining about prices and obnoxious fans?

Everyone has games they don't like. But, you're trying to excuse a really sick sack of shitposters, and all because you think that unproveable sincerity is what separates them from other shitposters.

That's absolutely retarded.

>>55176653
This. D&D 5e works fairly well as an introduction to roleplaying games, and generally handles everything in a way that's good enough to keep a diverse group of players happy. If you've got a group of people who are all really into one particular thing, there's almost certainly a game or two out there that's designed to handle that and does it well.

D&D does enough stuff passably.

>>55177105
>If you've got a group of people who are all really into one particular thing,

Those groups are rather rare, and they still end up with people putting up with focusing on what other people like rather than focusing on what they like.

>>55177010
It's about lethargy. The simple fact is D&D doesn't scale well. It may be broad in scope, but it cannot be focused on any one thing, and nothing it does is done as well as specialised systems. It simply isn't as good as the competition. I understand why you'd like it -- it isn't *bad* -- but you have to understand why other people say they don't.
>>55177050
Empathy doesn't mean sympathy.
>>55177074
So, what, because you dislike a hardened core of (You) farmers who may be sincere (they probably aren't), all people who hate D&D are shitposters?

>>55177130
I have the opposite experience. If you know each other face-to-face, as friends, then it's easy to work something out. If you're recruiting online, well then, only the kind of person who finds your game appealing will apply.

It's a dungeon-crawling system hacked apart and squished into as many different types of campaign as it's possible to think of. It is a square peg, and it has broken the round hole. Damn I'm good.

>>55177135
> It simply isn't as good as the competition.

Only in your utterly-detached-from-reality hypothetical wanderings. You genuinely believed that "focused" games designed to appeal to as small a group as possible are better than games that try to allow a diverse group of players to enjoy a game together. Not everyone has managed to produce a cloning machine and has a group of people with identical tastes, and because of that games that cater to broad tastes allow everyone at the table to enjoy themselves.

Even the people I play with who I believe match my tastes closest end up going through phases of what they like, and the concept of switching systems to match everyone's temporary tastes exactly is borderline ridiculous. It's typically why I end up playing loose, broad systems that cater to wide tastes, and why 5e ends up being the common go-to because it has just such broad appeal.

>>55177242
And because 5e is actually genuinely good.

>>55177242
I believe so. I don't understand why a compromise-system would be considered better than specialised ones, even allowing that it might be easier in some situations to use one. That still means the specialised ones are better. They're just not best for your group (I'd disagree on that point; better to use a better system which you all agree on, and yes, you will agree on something).

But in any case, D&D is NOT that compromise-system. It has not let go of its roots, and it still acts as a gamey turn-based fight-focused system -- as you would expect given its dungeon-crawler roots. But, these systems have been stretched to sort-of allow other campaigns.
>the concept of switching systems to match everyone's temporary tastes exactly is borderline ridiculous
Are you kidding? What do you do? Just play the same system over and over?

>>55177332
You should stop, I think I've seen this guy in these threads and if he's who I think it is you'll get nowhere

>>55177242
how can one man be so frustrated

>>55175817

Because it's tacky and autistic.

op, if you're still here, it might be best to format your own opinions. play a bit, pull the edition books from the Internet, compare them with each other and GURPs and such. Getting a consensus off of 4chan is like herding Beholders. Every person here has their own views, so the conversation isn't going to go anywhere. Good Luck

File: spoop.png (89KB, 557x411px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 557x411px

>>55177445
>Getting a consensus off of 4chan is like herding Beholders
I see what you did there.

>>55177445
In the meantime you seem reasonable, what's your opinion?

>>55177135
>all people who hate D&D are shitposters?

No one said this. What makes someone a shitposter is them spreading needless negativity, exaggerating for the sake of starting and causing arguments, and generally just trying to foster a sick atmosphere. The worst part is, some of these shitposters will gladly admit that their goal is to get people to stop playing D&D as if there was anything wrong with playing it.

It's system politics.

There's plenty of things I don't like about each edition of D&D. I would even genuinely recommend not playing some of them if it sounded like it would be a bad match for someone, like say advising 3.5 to brand new roleplayers. But, at the same time, I recognize the strengths of each edition, and how there's absolutely nothing wrong if a person decides that their group enjoys it.

If you hate D&D to the point where you genuinely believe that everyone should stop playing it, you are an extremist with a ridiculous and largely indefensible stance. While it's fine for you to personally choose other systems, it is absolutely ridiculous for anyone to actively try to stop people from playing it through methods such as spamming, exaggeration, and often outright lies.

D&D is not even close to the worst game available. In fact, it's all too easy to argue it's one of the best. It's a game that people largely don't even have to defend, because no matter what the shitposters say, they end up only complaining with arguments that anyone who's played the game won't be swayed by.

That doesn't stop these shitposters from being annoying, especially because they will actively try to derail any thread that even mentions D&D, and will even make threads if no one falls for their bait, bumping them for days if necessary.

They are sick, and defending them is just enabling them.

>>55175817
3.5's core was so bad that it either brain-damaged or totally traumatized anyone who touched it. These poor individuals came to either worship 3.x (now PF) as the god of systems, or they realized just how horrid it was and never looked at a d20 again, even when there are fine systems using it.

3.5 (again, currently called Pathfinder) still has a lot of the market share because it's both extremely accessible and not at all accessible at the same time. Sure, all the material you require to play a game is up on the SRD site for free, and it's pretty easy to navigate. On the other hand, the rules are a labyrinthine mess, especially when you take it out of book form. You can really only learn 3.PF well from someone who already knows how- And that grognard will either convince you it's the best shit ever, or the experience will turn you off of D&D and related systems for a long time.

>>55177494
>What makes someone a shitposter is them spreading needless negativity, exaggerating for the sake of starting and causing arguments, and generally just trying to foster a sick atmosphere
Yes, I agree. All of these people -- no matter their views on D&D -- are insincere in these posts. They must be; the posts are constructed to cause the effect you describe. Even if they hate the system, their post is still not a true representation of their beliefs. But that's not an important argument.

But you are mistaking genuine opinion for exaggeration and lies. I, myself, think the only reason anyone would/should play D&D is accessibility (everyone knows it, or at least of it; few people know about Song of Swords). And of course I've played the game -- nearly anyone talking about it will have.

Look at statements like
>It's a game that people largely don't even have to defend, because no matter what the shitposters say, they end up only complaining with arguments that anyone who's played the game won't be swayed by.
and you'll see why people say that people only play D&D because they don't know any better.

>>55177332
You might as well say all games have dungeon-crawler roots, or even all games have war game roots, because all games stem from D&D. And, D&D has come very, very far from those dungeon-crawler roots, to the point where it's really only relevant from a examination of the "default" game, a game most people branch out of rather quickly because the systems enable and encourage them to do so.

You really need to stop thinking about the game in the abstract, and to try and understand how people actually play the game.

>Are you kidding? What do you do? Just play the same system over and over?

No, we switch systems to match game themes, not to match attitudes and moods. We generally use flexible systems so that we can match the content of the game to fluctuations like mood, rather than having to switch systems from session to session in a campaign.

Sometimes people are in the mood for some dungeon crawling. Next session, they want to dabble in village politics. Next session, adventure on the high seas. Next, haunted castle, followed by investigating and discovering the secret of an ancient cult. Journeying through Hell, leading an army, and then hunting some outlaws. And, for some ungodly reason, they want to do all that with the same characters.

For some groups, that means D&D. Other groups prefer a more rules-lite system. Other groups like the taste of GURPS's mechanics more than D&D's. But, at a certain threshold of quality, it really just becomes a matter of taste, and D&D is really pretty high above that threshold.

>>55177620
> I, myself, think the only reason anyone would/should play D&D is accessibility

And you are wrong.

Flat out wrong. I can't even mince those words in an effort to try and be nice, because you are absolutely unwilling to accept that people have different tastes than you. There's hundreds of reasons people might enjoy D&D, and they can be as simple as enjoying the Drizzt books and wanting to play in the world of Faerun, or enjoying the tuned combat mechanics of 4e, or liking what's generally considered to be one of the better designed systems in 5e.

>and you'll see why people say that people only play D&D because they don't know any better.

And you should have enough class to understand that there are plenty of people with experience with many systems who still play D&D. I myself played games of 4e and 5e only a few months ago, and enjoyed them thoroughly.

What you just repeated is basically just a lie that is spread in the hopes of pretending that D&D's overwhelming popularity is some accident and that it is utterly undeserving of it. While I will be the first to rush in and say that the game is overrated, to try and act like the only people who play D&D are those who don't know any other games is absolutely ludicrous when you look at the sheer numbers of people who play D&D. Even if 90% of all D&D players never played any other game and they should be dismissed from any calculations, that would still mean that the most popular games would be editions of D&D.

>>55176816
>with huge swaths of material that are unplayably bad, trap options so inexplicably useless that they seem designed solely to make the game more player-unfriendly

My 2 cents on the matter is that some of that is things that are made as nerf and replace for core class's to change the way the game is played. Wu Jin and the other eastern casters are great examples of it. They are ass bad in a game that has the core full casters but are very playable in a game without those classes.

Or lets take the books like sandstorm or frost burn. If used fully they are great. If not there is like 7 useful feats and 3 Prestige Classes that are useable.

3.x was never made to be 'all books open' but people ran it that way.

>>55175817

D&D has certain built-in problems that it basically can never be rid of without changing so much that its fans will destroy it out of spite. The biggest one is that you pretty much can't emulate anything with it other than D&D. That may sound like a tautology, so I'll try to explain what I mean: Your characters can't be just "fantasy characters", they have to be specifically D&D characters and the things that happen in your game will resemble no fantasy book or movie ever, instead they'll resemble D&D. You can't run a game set in (for example) Middle Earth with D&D because it won't feel like LotR, it'll just feel like D&D. Same for Game or Thrones or whatever else you might feel like playing, it will all turn into D&D. Youll play D&D characters doing things that only make sense in a game of D&D and the events that transpire will only resemble a D&D module.

>>55178281
I'm trying to figure out which particular fallacy you are committing, but I can't figure out if it qualifies as an Appeal to Purity or largely just you failing to recognize that roleplaying games are their own medium.

Have you played the official ASoIF RPG? Your characters end up nothing like the ones in the books, which is funny because the ones in the books are inspired by D&D games and the RPG is likewise heavily influenced by D&D. The political system actually does a fair job of getting in the way of the deep intrigue and clever plotting and disastrous betrayals that take place in the books because they simplified the business into rough mechanics for the sake of making them more accessible to less than brilliant players.

Have you given the LoTR RPG a go? It definitely doesn't feel like the books or the movie. In fact, it feels a lot like playing a roleplaying game, something I think you've just started to call "feels like D&D".

>>55175817

Because every chucklefuck tries to play shit that isn't high fantasy heroics in DnD.

>Hey /tg/ I want to play a horror game, how do I start?
Well, gee anon, maybe look into CoC or some other horror game for that. We've got whole articles on i-
>Oh but I want to play it in Pathfinder, because that's what my group knows

>>55178944
>well, then you'd want to check out Heroes of Horror, a 3.5 supplement that you can adapt to Pathfinder that gives rules and advice on playing Horror games with the system. You might also want to take a look at something like Lamentations of the Fire Princess, which is similar enough to Pathfinder that it wouldn't take your group very long to learn it, but it's definitely more geared towards horror fantasy and has some really great dark adventures written for it.

Now, that wasn't so hard.

>>55175817
Most of the problems with D&D aren't really with D&D itself, honestly.
It's with people trying to make it do things it's not supposed to be. It's with people refusing to try anything else because D&D is Good Enough for them (and/or because they don't want to be bothered with learning a new rules, depending on which version of D&D it is). Things of that nature.
Just because it's a fantasy setting doesn't mean you should run it with D&D necessarily. And you sure as hell shouldn't try running things other than fantasy with D&D.
And there are many, many games out there that are also enjoyable.

>>55178576
>I'm trying to figure out which particular fallacy you are committing

None, however you're committing the strawman fallacy with your
>it feels a lot like playing a roleplaying game, something I think you've just started to call "feels like D&D".

No, I'm not talking about feeling like an RPG. I'm talking about feeling specifically like D&D and no other RPG whatsoever. I have played plenty of other RPGs, unlike you it seems, so I know the fucking difference in basic overall logic and expectations in them. Thanks for being an arrogant shithead though, don't see enough of those online.

>>55176668
I wanna know where you got that data. Please post roll20 data so I can pick on you for not understanding how representative samples work or even what statistics mean.

>>55176294

Way ahead of you. I'll still be playing d&d, but GURPS dungeon crawls will be fun and probably take over when we're up for that kind of game.

>>55179111
The problem with your argument is that it's an argument people have been trying for years, and it doesn't work because D&D is more adaptable than fans of smaller systems are willing to admit.

Yes, people should learn and explore new games.
But, that's rather separate from this notion that D&D should only be used for a certain, specific type of fantasy, or that the underlying core systems of D&D aren't readily adaptable to other genres.
There's nothing fantasy specific about d20+modifiers vs target number.

Most of the problems with D&D? It really just sounds like what you're trying to say is "My main issue with D&D is its popularity," and from there "Most of the problems with D&D's popularity are that people like it and want to use it."

Yes, we all know about that hypothetical grumbler who only played 3.5 and never will play anything else, just like there's those grognards who still swear that AD&D is the best, or the GURPS guys who claim you should run GURPS for everything. But to try and act like those people are a significant issue or even a concern just can't be substantiated by anything except weak personal anecdotes. It's not like they're banging on your door and demanding everyone to play only their system.

What people are arguing are what people have known for decades, with that being that games can be adapted readily and easily. It doesn't require any advanced programming knowledge, it typically only involves the rudimentary math skills of a highschool freshman, and everything beyond that is adapting the game to your own personal needs.

GURPS gurus can be quite wise when they say the S is a misnomer, because it itself isn't really a system, but a toolbox for a GM to build a system out of it. In a similar fashion, D&D isn't just a fantasy system, but a set of rules that can adapted to fit many other genres.

Is it less work to use a prexisting system? Perhaps, but pre-existing systems are less likely to match a person's tastes quite so.

>>55175817
because it's a poorly designed system written by assholes and played by even shittier people who end up driving new blood away.

>>55179025

Makeup on a pig. DnD is not suited for horror. Plain and simple. DnD is not suited for sci-fi, modern, low magic, or high lethality combat.

DnD is fine at what it does. Its a really good tactical dungeon crawler, or high fantasy heroics. But people will continue to try and shoehorn it into things it doesn't do well.

You basically just proved my point. The fans of DnD won't consider a system that is better, and instead will contort into knots trying to make the system fit the genre. Its sad, and just makes other games that much more niche.

>>55175817
/tg/ is not a united community. It has no opinions on anything.

Personally I don't care for any edition of D&D I've played or ran, whether it was 2e 3.pf 4e or 5e, because I've always found them slow, clunky, a pain in the ass to prep for, and easy to derail and sidetrack. These problems rise up regardless of which group I'm playing with, problems that for whatever reason don't occur when we play Burning Wheel, OWoD, M&M, or Savage Worlds.

>>55179614
Are you talking about D&D or Pathfinder?

>>55179650
5e can be good for those things. 5e isn't as much about high fantasy heroics or even much of dungeon crawling any more.

>>55179713
Why don't they occur in the other systems? Personal biases are a thing.

>>55179199
>I have played plenty of other RPGs, unlike you it seems, so I know the fucking difference in basic overall logic and expectations in them.

Have you played ASoIF and the LoTR RPG?

You got real upset, to the point of failing to do anything except show off how upset you are, and you really failed to dodge my main point and just sort of fell apart.

You're really trying to stress the "feel" of D&D as this unique experience that cannot be used to mimic the "feel" of something like Middle Earth or ASoIF, but even the official games of those settings have their own unique experiences that are a departure from their original material.

That's without dismantling your absurd claim that D&D always ends up feeling like D&D. There's absolutely no part of D&D that doesn't have an official variant rule for it. Nothing is sacred. Don't like the d20? There's rules for other dice options, with 3d6 being popular. Don't like classes? There's classless options, and even ability point-buy if that's what you're into. Don't like HP? There's wound systems. Don't like feats? That's actually the default in 5e. And so on and so forth.

With only moderate effort, you could end up with a system that would be more of a departure from "default" D&D than the ASoIF system, which honestly isn't saying much considering how much the ASoIF system was built around D&D.

>>55179650
>Makeup on a pig. DnD is not suited for horror. Plain and simple. DnD is not suited for sci-fi, modern, low magic, or high lethality combat.

I can't agree with you, because I'd have to not only ignore my own experiences, but the experiences of the countless people who readily use D&D beyond your imagined limits. The people who not only write guidebooks, but the people who clearly explain that yes, "default" D&D is suited for certain things more than others, but then proceed to provide you with the tools you need to run great games using the system.

>The fans of DnD won't consider a system that is better,

Because what you call "better" seems to largely just be "anything that's not D&D". It's very hard to take someone like you seriously, which may be the main reason no one actually listens to your game recommendations, rather than some devotion to a particular system.

>>55179726
My experience has been that my friends and players tend to be more invested in other systems. In OWoD and M&M they write they're powers down on flash cards for reference. In all the systems I mentioned they'll actual discuss whether a downtime action or decision is in character. They'll actually approach me with requests for scenes or side quests. They bother shaping actual relationships with each other and NPCs.

And when it comes to over the top dungeon diving heroics, we've yet to play a system as engaging as Savage Worlds. It's just an unpredictable blast.

>>55179795
>my friends and players tend to be more invested in other systems.
That sounds like an issue with them, rather than with the system.

>>55179614
That's funny you should mention that, because 3e and 5e were both responsible for attracting a dramatic amount of new blood into the hobby, to a degree where 3e single-handedly doubled the amount of all roleplayers, a feat that would only later be matched by 5e.

>>55179812
We've found several systems that work for us, and that's what we're sticking with. How is that an issue?

>>55179864
It's not an issue. It's agreeing with your previous statement that you personally don't care for it, a statement somewhat conflated by your insistence that it happens with every group you run the games with.

If anything, it seems like the major issue isn't them, but you.

>>55179795
Then it's issue of personal bias, your friends may be more inclined and invested in the other systems because you don't like D&D and its iterations.

>>55179864
The issue is your experience of D&D as "I've always found them slow, clunky, a pain in the ass to prep for, and easy to derail and sidetrack" isn't a system issue but your own personal biases.

>>55179925
>>55179961
>Since you don't like the system, your opinion isn't valid and you're the problem, not the system.

Have a good night guys.

>>55179795
>In OWoD and M&M they write they're powers down on flash cards for reference
That's your tipoff that they're "more invested"? Sounds more like they just have a harder time remembering.

>they'll actual discuss whether a downtime action or decision is in character
It now sounds like they literally have nothing more interesting to discuss.

>They'll actually approach me with requests for scenes or side quests.
Something to alleviate their boredom...

>They bother shaping actual relationships with each other and NPCs.
Are they stacking their dice during these discussions?

>>55180005
So many assumptions, it physically hurts.

>>55179989
You said yourself it was just your personal opinion. Your attempt to stretch it beyond that started to crack, and now it seems like you're getting upset because people are agreeing that it's your opinion.

No one said your opinion isn't valid. Just that it's your opinion. No reason to get into a huffy fit and storm off.

>>55179989
If you even gave D&D half of a chance then you might even find yourself enjoying it but your own personal biases are ruining any chance of yourself and your players enjoying it.
There's no need to be upset.

>>55179989
There's no need to throw a temper tantrum.

>>55176093

Faulty logic because it could of been a poster from earlier.

>>55180035
You're making a lot of your own assumptions. And, your assumptions seem to carry with them a fair amount of bias. I just wanted to see what it may be like to take what you presented and apply a different kind of bias.

In general, I'm just glad you admit it's all just your personal experiences and solitary opinion. I don't want to sound like I'm demeaning you by reiterating that, just making sure you don't get upset if someone casts a bit of doubt on your ideas. Certainly not physically upset.

>>55180089
your bait's a bit too obvious mate, tone it down a bit.

>>55180100
You sound upset.

>>55180100
Not him, but are you fucking serious?

>>55180119
still too obvious, you'll get it eventually.

>>55175817
I don't give a shit about people playing D&D, but D&D setting tropes like alignment, elves and dwarves, and bag-of-tricks wizards bother the shit out of me in any media, especially D&D.

>>55176377
This shit right here is why I love /tg/.
That, and the fucking threads about shenanigans are amazing.
And also the satire (read: shitposts) about specific concepts tend to be great. The shitposts about general things (game systems, REEE I DON'T LIKE <thing>, and MUH WAIFU/YOURS A SHIT) are par for the course.

>>55180215
>but D&D setting tropes like alignment, elves and dwarves, and bag-of-tricks wizards bother the shit out of me in any media

Yeah, FUCK Wagner. Piece of shit composer.

>>55180255
Don't you dare fucking compare Wagner to D&D's reused and spit out lazy tropes.

>Anon posts about why his group doesn't enjoy D&D
>Well your group is wrong and needs to change

I'd say I'm disappointed, but I honestly expected nothing else. No actual discussion, no attempt to be civil. You're not exactly wearing your best tonight /tg/. Yes this is a bait thread, but I've seen you better than this.

>>55180286
I don't think you realise, but those tropes look all recycled because they've been copied from D&D for the past 43 years.

>>55180286
Hey, I'm agreeing with you. I'm just saying anything with Alignment, elves and dwarves, and bag-of-tricks wizards needs to fucking die, so fuck Wagner and fuck Tolkien and a special fuck you to Berserk.

>>55180341
Yes? And in the process they've been bastardized from edition to edition. D&D was on shaky ground from the start -- it was obvious that Gygax cared more about his Appendix N than actual myth and legend (which is perfectly fine, there's a lot of great novels in there, Dying Earth among them). But once D&D became aware of itself as itself and forgot what inspired it it went to shit fast, like somebody eternally eating their own waste.

>>55180317
Man, you really need to give up if that's your attempt to spin what just happened.

If you're that upset because people are treating your opinions like opinions, you're going to spend all your life upset.

File: InspirationalReading.png (1MB, 1260x1590px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1260x1590px

>>55180374
>But once D&D became aware of itself as itself and forgot what inspired it

I found this in the most recent edition.

>>55180404
That's more or less lip service. 5e's only real inspirations are 2e, 3e, and 4e. 43 fucking years of this shit.

>>55180436
I'm getting more and more of a sense that you are just trying to hate, and hoping to rationalize it later.

>>55180450
Okay? Look at 5e and tell me where you can see those inspirations shine through in a way that wasn't done by a previous edition. Basically every concept in 5e is a remix or recombination of past editions of D&D, there's nothing from those novels that have been introduced or incorporated into D&D, it's entirely references to past editions.

>>55180317
If your response to people reasonably calling out of your personal biases and people reminding you that your experiences are subjective opinion and not objective fact and why it's so is to throw a hissy fit, calling responses to you bait, attempting to troll and appealing to emotion, then I'm sorry your opinion is not valid.

>>55180317
Why are you this upset?
It's also okay to stop acting like an asshole.

>>55180470
Your attempt at an argument relies on trying to force me into a position of proving the unprovable, which is ridiculous especially because of funny things where some of these fantasy books (like GoT) actually admit to taking inspiration from D&D.

Rather, I'm just glad you're being forced into this absurd "They're lying and they've actually forgotten all those things they just listed and devoted an entire page to celebrating", like you think that your whining somehow is more persuasive than the hard evidence that was just provided. It's clear they haven't forgotten, and in general your argument is largely just "I hate it when D&D does it."

>>55179650
I'll fight you on "high lethality", but the other three are definitely out of DnD's scope.

>>55180317
You are the only one who hasn't been civil.

>>55180563
I hate it when D&D does it and I hate it when D&D inspired fantasy does it. I hate elves and dwarves because they've been reduced to one-note stereotypes. I hate alignment because it's the nonsensical stapling of christian morality to moorcockian law vs chaos. There's a reason alignment is the subject of so many arguments: it makes no fucking sense. I hate D&D wizards because they're flavorless and dull generalists (I love the wizards in Dying Earth, because they're vivid and weird in a way D&D wizards are almost never). I hate the weird stapling of medieval aesthetics to an iron age world, basically without thinking.

All of these things are the result of D&D looking only at itself, and they've persisted through pretty much every edition of D&D. I'm not going to ask D&D to change. Market forces are going to ensure it won't. I can't do anything about that. But I can dislike it. These aren't justifications for not liking D&D, these are reasons.

>>55180611
Where has he not been civil? I'm not seeing it.

>>55180317
Is this why your "friends" play the other systems, because you browbeat them with you being overbearing.

>>55180626
By calling responses that he doesn't like bait, by trolling, by twisting words and by outright saying the other posters haven't been civil when it's an outright lie and being disingenuous.

>>55180679
That's what you call uncivil? When others here have been completely dismissive, condescending, calling him a liar, and declaring that not liking D&D is a fault of his?

>>55180616
Oh, god, I forgot the thing I hate the most: the gods. the way they're this weird mush of pagan and christian, the fact that they basically don't function like any actual religion in any capacity makes my fucking skin crawl.

The closest thing you had were things like roman cults (mystery and otherwise) for specific gods but they were structured differently from how D&D presents religion!!! ahhh!!!!!

Really I hate settings without room for diverse religions in general so the way D&D has Objective gods bothers the shit out of me as a GM. It's easy to excise but I hate so many things about the way D&D handles setting and system that it's just easier to play something else. So I do. I don't normally complain about it either, don't worry.

>>55180616
You just hate a single, twisted aspect of those three things, without really accepting that elves and dwarves are not one-note stereotypes (elves have somehow ended up being almost laughably diverse), alignment has clear intended uses and is pretty good if you just read the actual sections describing alignment and not getting too hung up with your personal preconceptions, and realizing that D&D wizards are not the only spellcasters in the game and generalist "wizards" predated D&D by centuries.

It's really, really easy to hate something if you are trying to hate it. And you are literally going out of your way to hate it, to the point where you are asserting incorrect personal interpretations that contradict what the material is trying to express.

You literally, only a few posts ago, in order to maintain your idea that D&D "has forgot what inspired it" (your exact words) dismissed them literally saying "this is what inspired us" as a lie because you are so committed to your hatred.

If you put half as much effort into trying to understand the system as you did in figuring out how to hate it, you might have discovered that alignment serves two main functions (sorting people into allies and enemies, and providing flavor) and it being a source of arguments is mostly a result of people wanting to discuss good and evil in a context rather different than the one D&D presents.

Really, if you put a little effort into it, you might be able to understand the good aspects and to relate with people who enjoy the game.

>>55180750
When have they been doing that? You probably should go reread the responses to him, and if you call his responses, your responses I take it because you're being so remarkably defensive, at no fault then there's really something wrong with you.

>>55180827
>the fact that they basically don't function like any actual religion in any capacity makes my fucking skin crawl.

You'd probably vomit out your organs if you ever read either Fritz Leiber or Pratchett.

>>55180864
>and if you call his responses, your responses
What?

>>55180888
Actually read the entirety of the sentence. And you're being remarkably defensive for an outsider.

>>55180851
I CAN relate to people who enjoy D&D, because I really do like roleplaying games. I've had conversations with people at my school about their campaigns (mostly pathfinder (fucking duh)), and there's a ton of shared ground between the games I play and the games they play. I just don't run or play D&D, because I hate most things about it really.

>>55180904
So do you actually want to have a conversation or are you only interested in proving that someone is same fagging?

>>55175916
>>55175984

Or.

Or.

Or.

It's actually bad.

>>55180930
Uh-oh, now you've gone and made them mad.

>>55180927
Do you want to actually have a conversation or are you content to snidely dismiss all attempts to call your out behavior as unreasonable?
You're behaving extremely unreasonably.

>>55180930
>>55180956

>trolls have self-destructed

Hurrah! These system war trolls are finally just gone straight to pure shitposting! Thank god they dropped the pretenses.

>>55180905
Can you read the rest of that post, you dolt?

>>55180997
I read the rest of your post. Alignment is nonsensical. The descriptions of what each alignment does are clear, but none of the describe the moralities of actual human beings, and they make it very easy to turn your character into a stereotype. I know world-shaping generalist wizards existed before D&D. I read Dying Earth, I've mentioned this countless times, and D&D wizards are a pale reflection of them at best. And I've never strayed from D&D forgetting its inspirations. Putting the burden of proof on you to prove that D&D only references itself isn't fair, but I'm sure as shit not going to devote the time to combing through 5e core and finding all the concepts in it that weren't from some previous edition. Fuck that, dude, unless you want me to dump an essay straight into this thread.

>>55180470
>in a way that wasn't done by a previous edition.
Are you aware of the purpose of new editions of rulesets? Hint, it isn't to turf out everything from the last edition and start over.
Even if WotC seem to think it is.

>>55180827
>hey basically don't function like any actual religion in any capacity
Did you know that fantasy doesn't have to be like the real world?

>>55181124
Yes. It wouldn't be a wise choice to throw everything about previous editions out, but it's nice to at least introduce new concepts or re-examine old assumptions. Sometimes it's a good move to. (Sometimes it's a fucking terrible idea (fuck everything about 4e)). DESU 5e is one of the editions of D&D I hate the least, but I still don't want to like... actively play it.

>>55181146
Yes? But I'm more interested in fantasy settings that explore matters of worship, belief and myth than those that halfass it.

>>55176366
>and even PF if there's no "character optimizers"
Define "character optimisers", because that's commonly used as a buzzword by fags that gets upset that their poorly built Core Monk is getting btfo'd by a Human Barbarian with Power Attack and Furious Focus

>>55181041
You're not impressing anyone by showing how much you can hate.

It's very easy to hate. I could write a book about how awful the avocado is, and I actually like avocados.

Want me to explain, in tedious fashion, about all the evils of long-distance refrigerated transport, severe wounds that are a result of the commonly shown "heel of the knife into the pit" trick, or how people don't read the nutrition facts and fail to appreciate just how much fat they contain? You want an essay?

What I'm telling you is that I can agree with some of your opinions. What I don't agree with is your method, your bias, and your conclusions.

Alignment is has purpose and a fair amount of sense to it. D&D has not forgotten its inspirations and continues to expand those inspirations. Dying Earth Wizards are a bit too powerful for a game like D&D until the extreme upper levels.

The issue I have is that this is all stuff you would know on your own just by actually reading the books, except you are resistant to genuinely reading and prone to only reading in a fashion that helps add more fuel to your hatred.

It's the kind of thing where "I love you" can sound like the most terrible thing a person can say if you've convinced yourself that they're only lying to you.

>>55181213
I've read most 3.5 sourcebooks multiple times. Well, if it helps any, 3.5 is the only edition of D&D I've read in depth, and 4e is the only one I've played extensively (all that time wasted that could have been spent on a better RPG) so I'm mostly talking about those. Ehehehehe. Anyway, I'm not playing 5e for as long as monks suck.

>>55181260
Ah, besides things like the RC and AD&D 1e, I've run several games of 1e and D&D basic, which were really fun, honestly.

>>55181260
>I've read most 3.5 sourcebooks multiple times.

The issue I have is that this is all stuff you would know on your own just by actually reading the books, except you are resistant to genuinely reading and prone to only reading in a fashion that helps add more fuel to your hatred.

I hate DnD because it's the first system anyone learns, but it's really a niche system meant for a very specific kind of play.

So when people get bored and want something else, they try to torture DnD rules to fit that instead of using a niche system built for it, or a general system which is easier to adapt. Then it sucks because its a shit ton of work. So people tend to stay in the typical DnD mindset, because that's the games that have worked for them.

For comparison's sake, go look at the Savage Worlds General. One GM is adapting Splatoon. Another had his players play sentient orcas, using sonar rolls to navigate. And two other fags are arguing about whether the range of shotguns are accurate. There are official settings for the Wild West and Space Marines and Ragnarok.

Rather than continue trying to make DnD into something it's not, find something that already is, or switch to Savage Worlds. Or FATE. Or, yes, GURPS, if you find someone willing to put up with it. Adapting the system to what you want will be so much easier.

>>55181372
>but it's really a niche system meant for a very specific kind of play.

Maybe you'd be able to forego your irrational hatred if you stopped clinging to this lie?
Of course, that's the reverse of what you're trying to do, because you're only clinging to that lie to try and justify your irrational hatred.

>>55181297
Nah, I read the 3.5 sourcebooks when I was a kid and loved them. I ran 1e and Basic as my very first games. I've been over D&D, I've tried it, and I don't really hate it, that was just bait, but I don't have any interest in it at this point in my life, and I don't like it. I do *hate* the influence it's had on fantasy media in particular, though. God, especially video games.

>>55181408
Not him, but I think it's sad that so many DnDfags react in the same childish way that you do. They can never make any defence that has any substance, it's always lashing out with full force butthurt.

Sacred cows are the reason for me. The rules are holdovers from the 80's, which no longer make sense in context anymore. While I can understand that they want to preserve their identity, I would much rather play a game with more modern design, or go the other way and play D&D Basic.

There are worse games on the market (I am looking at you Fantasy AGE/Everything by White Wolf), so the rest of the hate is largely because D&D is popular.

>>55181408
Accept the truth, anon.

I'm assuming you're the person who posted all of the ways DnD could be altered earlier. But the thing is, I played DnD for years, and never once did we do any of those. Never once did I encounter a group that did any of those. Never once did I convince my own groups to try any of those.

But I learned Savage Worlds, and now I've got one group where I'm a retired European monster hunter/opium addict slumming it in 19th century Arizona, and another where I'm a knight riding a dinosaur.

There are worlds beyond worlds waiting for you, anon. If you would but cast off your comfort system and join us.

>>55181435
>They can never make any criticism hat has any substance, it's always lashing out with full force butthurt.

Right back at you. Saying "D&D can't exist outside a specific niche" is a bold lie that is destroyed just by looking at all the published material. You then need to assert your opinions that D&D is bad when taken out of its "Default" as fact in hopes of continuing with your hopeless argument.

So, quit being so butthurt, and abandon your irrational hatred of a fucking game.
You could be devoting your hatred to something deserving of it, but instead, here you are.

File: 1351436033472.jpg (72KB, 452x600px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 452x600px

>>55181486
>So, quit being so butthurt

I think it's pretty clear whose jimmies are rustled here.

>>55181486
Can I ask how you equate a dislike for a system, or a preference for other systems, as a hatred?

>>55181475
You typed a lot of dumb shit. I hope you don't think that counts as anything resembling an argument.

I've played Savage Worlds, and was dramatically unimpressed. It's not bad, but it's not my preferred generic system of choice because I prefer using extremely lite systems if I'm doing anything sufficient to call for a generic system.

And none of that has anything to do with D&D being versatile. I'm glad you had enough sense to not even attempt to argue otherwise.

>>55181540
When they literally say "I hate D&D"...?

>>55181372

It's literally the first three words of the post.

>>55181543
>You typed a lot of dumb shit.
What was the point of that sentence? Could you stop being so needlessly confrontational?

>>55181510
>says the guy who spends a portion of his finite worldly hate on a roleplaying game

>>55181543
>You typed a lot of dumb shit.
Hey, I'm just trying to keep up with you.

You know what, nevermind all that second star to the right stuff. I think DnD is just the system for you. You enjoy it, buddy.

>>55181572
To stop you from going on another sidelong journey. So, if you plan to continue down that route and get more upset in order to avoid the core of the conversation, consider yourself basically forfeiting.

>>55181552
You don't even realize you've been talking to a different person than >>55181372 ?

>>55181576
It's sad, because you're doling out a compliment while believing you're delivering an insult.

I'll take it, even though D&D isn't even my main system of choice.

>>55181589
Oh, I see, for you this isn't about coming to any kind of mutual understanding.

This is about "winning" by "proving" the opinions and preferences of others as "wrong"

Well, take your little victory then. And please, stick to D&D.

>>55181595
Can you actually try to follow the line of the conversation? If you don't hate D&D, then don't get upset when someone dismantles why a particular person's hatred for it is irrational.

If D&D killed your parents, that's a separate matter, but I doubt we've got anyone like that here.

>>55181617
It's more of just getting you to shut up and let people play without being a whiny shit.

If that's winning and you losing, by all means, go get yourself lost.

>>55181486
>if there is published material for DnD, it's automatically good and therefore the system works excellently outside of its narrow dungeon crawler niche

No. From shit like this and your other posts to the other anon, I legit think you are deranged. Probably drunk or high in the wee hours. Either way you're talking drivel, and without any substance either.

>>55181630
It seems you can't even follow it yourself.

>>55181604
It's sad, because your ego is so fragile you're trying to deflect an insult like this while still not having made a single valid argument in the entire thread.

Enjoy your shit.

>>55181630
Please be b8. You can't legit be this stupid.

>>55181641
We're not stopping you from playing. We're just sharing why we don't play D&D, and play other systems instead.

I'm sorry that hurts you, but hey, you need to learn to live with it.

>>55181642
>if I bitch enough, people will believe me

No, you ape. You can't say shit like "D&D can't do horror" and then try to silence everyone who says "Yeah, I had a great time running a horror game."

You can't then try to go "but you would have had more fun playing this other game" because you're just making baseless assertions all to try and move your fucking goal posts.

So, quit strawmanning, quit exaggerating, and generally quit being a contrarian hater.

>>55181656
>get destroyed

Good night. Looks like you didn't know when to quit, and you finally made a post pathetic enough for me to call out pure victory and not even care if you complain about my arrogance for doing so.

>>55181710
>get destroyed

are you fucking 12 mate? am I somehow browsing PSN?

>>55180930
Or.

Or.

Or.

You could give a reason why it's bad beyond vague shitposting. Name a rule, give a page number.

>>55181878
It's bad because my group doesn't want to play it any more. That simple.

>>55181982
That's completely subjective and not because the system is itself bad.

>>55182042
Whether or not a system is bad is subjective. I thought you'd have figured that out by now bub.

We're not comparing medical treatments. We're comparing the most insignificant hobbies in the world.

>>55182070
No shit whether a system is bad or not is subjective, why are you acting this upset and autistic?

Your tangent is meaningless and irrelevant.

>>55182102
¿Qué?

>>55176113
Indeed! Gurps is my "backup" and "experimental" rulesystem: if i can't find a better system suitable for the task then Gurps it is. On the other hand if i want to go for a dungeoncrawl, torchbearer, vancian sorcery, action fantasy game whats better than d&d?

>>55178281
So "D&D Fantasy" is at this point its own genre, completely distinct from the source genres that it originated from?

>>55175817
>Only answer I've ever seen is "because it's not GURPS."
Hello and welcome to /tg/. It's nice to see a new face around here.

>>55175817
I've only played DnD and I like it but the official FR setting is really boring after a while with some ultra-magical-deity-tier shit coming around every corner of the world. Also the mechanics are a bit like a PC rpg.

>>55184784
Well I myself found long ago that it's better to make your own world and play it and you don't need to go too complex, start small and build from there.

>>55182208
____GURPS____ is better for that than D&D, though.

2e is fun because it's a great dungeon-crawl simulator that emphasizes the danger of combat and the importance of teamwork

3.5 is fun because quantity is a quality of it's own, and no other game offers quite the same breadth of optimization options for various levels of play

4e is fun because it's a damn solid tactical battle game, taking the combat-heavy nature of 3.5 and combining it with the teamwork-heavy gameplay of 2e. It's also the only D&D edition that gets abstraction of mechanics right

5e is ok

>>55176377
Oh my good lord did someone in 4chan actually just act like an adult?

Anon, wow. Well done dude. I'm gobsmacked.

>>55176005
>It is chock full of auxiliary rules that are usually only for one situation at a time, demanding that you know EVERY subsystem of rules if you want to do something neat, rather than having a simple resolution system. Because it's realistic that you roll 1d20+mod to speak to someone no matter what, but it's not realistic to roll 1d20+mod to jump high; here's a calculator.

But that's literally fucking wrong. You don't have to know or use all the subsystems to play, or even play fairly, and the core resolution system is extremely simple. The subsystems and intricacies are there if you feel you need them.

This is a common complaint, especially with 3.5e, and it is easily fixed by not being a gigantic fucking autist.

>>55185154
Why did you forget AD&D 1e?

>>55185434
Because unfortunately I have never had a chance to play it

Nor have I had a chance to play OD&D

>>55176005
>it takes 5 feats to take a shit
Assuming we're talking 3.5, this is literally the only complaint you had that is actually valid. Everything else is way too subjective, makes perfect sense and is exactly as it should be, or is complete horseshit.

3.5 would've benefitted from handing out more feats and more specific feats in general (rather than just "any" feat, which would lead to complete cherry-picking, and thus do fuckall to help the issue).

>>55185422
>But that's literally fucking wrong. You don't have to know or use all the subsystems to play, or even play fairly, and the core resolution system is extremely simple. The subsystems and intricacies are there if you feel you need them.
>
>This is a common complaint, especially with GURPS, and it is easily fixed by not being a gigantic fucking autist.

>>55185154
>5e is ok
5e doesn't grip me. In 3.5e, I can immediately open up pretty much any book, and within minutes, I'll be playing around with ideas and concepts, to see if I can make them work (without homebrewing or talking to the GM).

"Can I make X work and do something fun with it?"
"Can I do Y with Z, without it completely sucking?"
"Can I make use of A, B, C, without wasting class features 1 & 2?"

Does it always work out? No. Far from it. But during that process, I often end up with something that does work and that would be fun to play. The sheer amount of content also makes it easy to find precedents for homebrewing and arguing with a GM on what would be considered reasonable, even though a lot of GM:s don't take the spirit of the game to heart (such as the advice to make your own prestige classes to fit you, and so on; most people just use the stuff handed to you by the books and that's it, unless you want something radically different).

5e, though, doesn't do that at all. I look at a race or a class, I look over the feats, and I just.. I can't think of anything fun that I'd like to do. It has NOTHING to do with balance or viability, it's just that nothing looks interesting to me, it's just shallow stat blocks with a poor amount of options. It's like they took zero cues from Pathfinder, such as alternate racials or class archetypes.

It feels like I just make picks A, B, C and then I'm done. No plans or inspiration, no mechanics-narrative connection, no "Ooh, that feat could be cool to do X with, if I combine it with Y racial.." or "Hol' on, I wonder if I could ask my GM to tweak PrC Z to work for this race..". Sure, I COULD take a Fighter and just call it a Samurai, and I could play it that way, but 5e just doesn't activate my almonds.

>>55185509
GURPS seem to rely a lot more on it's subsystems, though, which is part of the issue with a setting-neutral system. It's hard to account for reasonable adjudication without a given context, so it comes to rely on subsystems related to each setting and situation, which you feel like you really should be using in order for things to make a semblance of sense.

That's just my impression, though, I haven't played GURPS, nor have I taken the time to ever shit on it. You're probably right, for the most part.

>>55185583
Yep

But that doesn't make it bad, it just makes it uninteresting

I agree 100%, I would pick 2e, 3.5, or 4e over 5e, but thing about 5e is that I wouldn't turn down a spot in a 5e game if it was offered to me, and I think this applies to everyone. It's so lukewarm, so masterfully inoffensive by sheer nature of it's own lack of innovation or interesting design, that it fits perfectly into the role of the generic game, nobody's favourite, but nobody's least favourite

>>55185583
Can confirm. Tried to work out a concept for a dex-based tiefling paladin (spell-less) the other day. Ended up with a tiefling fighter (kensai) kensai/duelist.

It all came down to my reluctance to waste class features. 3.5e has this oddity where you're honestly not meant to not go into prestige classes at around lvl 5 and stay there. Later 3.5e material and pathfinder massively deviates from this, for better or worse. Makes it hard to work with lackluster base classes that depend on their class features scaling.

>>55185632
>and I think this applies to everyone.
You wish, I would never accept a spot in a 5E game without extensive houserules to the whole game and nobody will ever do that. I've had to tell people to fuck off because they wouldn't stop trying to recruit me for a 5E game.

>>55185760
That works really well in 5e though

A dex-based paladin who only uses spells for smites is entirely viable

>>55185790
Yeah, sure, I get that part of it. But on the other hand, I have to deal with being a massive fucking half-demon, and I still feel like I can't do anything interesting. I would never have ended up with the fighter (kensai) kensai/duelist in 5e, and forget about interesting prestige classes that would work with it all.

Don't get me wrong, not everything is awful in 5e, or anything. There's things I want from 5e, just like there's things I want from PF. The issue really is that I'd have to basically homebrew everything just to get the pieces I want and make it work with all the pre-existing choices, and at that point, it sorta defeats the point of using a system at all.

>>55185415
No, he just decided to specify his silly hatred towards one edition, and remains equally wrong and ridiculous.

>>55185828
AI think I see where you're coming from, but by "can't do anything interesting", do you actually mean "had nothing interesting to do during character building"?

A 5e paladin and a 3.5 Kensai do pretty much the same amount of stuff in-game, but the kensai is sure as hell more complicated and interesting to put together

>>55185760
Isn't that mostly because the only class scaling that matters in 3.5e are bab and caster levels and there area million and three different ways to keep them scaling up, while in 5e they decided that proficiency always scales and everything else strictly scales?

Reading this thread it seems like the idea is
>1e if you like dungeon crawls
>2e if you like dungeon crawls and also knowing if your nose hairs have any bonuses to sniffing
>3e if you like toy stores and just want and endless supply of toys, even if most of them are inherently inferior compared to others
>4e if you want to play a tactical board game
>5e if you like toys, but prefer them all to work consistently even if that means you get far fewer of them

>>55185970
You probably shouldn't try to get your understanding of the editions from troll threads.

>>55185970
>even if most of them are inherently inferior compared to others
Balance in 3.5e aren't half as bad as people who are just doing theoretical constructs without ever actually playing will have you believe.

In play, unless you're actively building shit for the purpose of optimizing and somehow "winning the game", "balance" issues rarely crop up. It's actually a bigger issue that 3.5e conveys the idea of using subsystems for basically everything, but then combat options boils down to "I hit it with my sword".

Of course, if you actually break that mould *like you're fucking supposed to*, it becomes a lot less of an issue. But some people can't think unless there's a subsystem for it.

>>55186583
For the most part you're right, a sorcerer and fighter can usually operate just fine in the same party

But druids are far, far too easy to break the game with, and monks are dogshit by default. The balance issues do pp up even in low optimization

And this brings up another issue, if you aren't optimizing, why the flying fuck are you playing 3.5? Crazy builds are what make the game, without crazy optimization you might as well just play 5e

>>55185886
Yeah, pretty much. It doesn't matter if 5e is streamlined to hell and back and is easier to play and better balanced and still have basically the same stuff to do in play unless it actually makes me want to do those things.

And it just doesn't. I realize it's fucking vague and maybe it's just me being crotchity and contrarian or a hipster or I-don't-fucking-know, maybe it's REALLY just that I want to hate it because I hate the aesthetics and tone, and it's interfering with my ability to come up with fun shit that I genuinely WANT to play, not because of the mechanics, but because it conveys a cool concept to me. I don't know.

I can just say that when I open the book, when I look at the options, I simply cannot dredge enough care from Lake Giveafuck to activate my almonds and get my noggin jogging. It all stands out as a gigantic "Meh" to me and I just can't get excited.

>>55186689
Aesthetics and tone aren't what changed, what changed was the puzzle you were presented with.

3.5 treats character creation like a game in of itself, it really does work a lot like Magic: The Gathering, where half the game is deckbuilding, so it makes it work like a logic puzzle, getting the pieces to fit together to get the results you want. 5e treats character creation like a chore, something to get over and done with as quickly as possible so you can get to the game, and as such it contains nothing interesting, there are no tricks beyond finding where the writers fucked up their wording like in the crossbow master feat.

>>55186637
>But druids are far, far too easy to break the game with, and monks are dogshit by default.
Druids CAN be insane, sure, but it's not going to instantly break your game or render the rest of the party irrelevant unless you actually try to do that, in which case you're a shit player. Monks, however, I agree with, simply because they don't have a whole lot going for them, even considering their already narrow focus.

Honestly, monks should never have been their own class, they should've just been an Archetype (to use PF terminology) or an alternate class feature. But as much as I see no inherent value in "balance" and as much as I like a lot about 3.5e, I can't pretend like there's not shit issues. The worst thing is that many of them could've been fixed with a good errata, because it's sometimes clear that RAW probably wasn't RAI, and some things were quite simply not playtested (Samurai & Truenamer comes to mind).

>if you aren't optimizing, why the flying fuck are you playing 3.5?
..because I like it? I like the options, I like the tone, I like taking odd concepts that aren't strictly optimized and then making them work? Even right fucking now, I'm playing a Cloistered Cleric with Spontaneous Divine Casting (WITHOUT default Healing Domain, no less), and I even fucking asked for it because I think it makes more sense than Vancian for priests and such, and it's still going to be built around slaying undead (and eventually, I hope, healing, if I ever get the Healing Domain, which will require lubing the DM).

>>55186637
>Crazy builds are what make the game
Crazy builds ≠ optimization. I'm actually playing this roleplaying game to roleplay, and I make my character to fit that, mechanically and narratively. I'm extremely light on the optimization - I mostly optimize in order to make stuff work, rather than to actually make it optimal. This particular character is a seer type of character, so it's going to be a Cloistered Cleric with Divine Oracle, Radiant Servant, Morninglord, and Contemplative. Will it be optimal? Fuck no. But it'll be lots of fun, and I had to do some theoretical optimization to make that work, but it all fits the character, which was the point of it all.

>without crazy optimization you might as well just play 5e
I don't get that mind-set at all. A lot of options and potential builds and shit is what gets me going, to be able to represent a character concept and make it relevant mechanically and then participate with that in the story is what gets me going - not that it's optimized or not. A lack of optimization is definitely not a problem in 5e - the ceiling and ease of optimization actually appear to be fairly simple and straight-forward.

Which is part of why it seems boring, I guess. Which is by far the bigger issue.

>>55185583
The only time 5e fired my almonds was with Sun Soul Monk and Scourge Aasimar, it had little synergy here and there plus the flavour was pretty cool.

>>55186967
Oh, and also melee Paladin/Undying light Warlock/Draconic Sorcerer, another build with synergy and flavour

>>55186918
I still see that as optimizing

Making a functional monk is optimizing, it's optimizing with limitations, but it's still, at it's heart, playing the optimization game.

So you are optimizing, you're just doing it the fun way, as opposed to just being a fucking wizard and imprisoning everything in walls of stone or whatever.

>>55186929
You on the other hand I don't understand.

3.5 is really, really bad at realizing fluffy character concepts in ways that aren't total garbage. It's great for having a mechanical concept and figuring out the fluff for why it all works, but terrible for the inverse because of the sheer mechanical weight of character building

>>55180930
Better than GURPS, it's actually possible to have FUN with D&D. Only spreadsheet fetishists enjoy GURPS.

>>55175817
It's not my favourite.
But I don't hate it.
Greater internal consistency and transparency would be nice.
The current edition has a solid chassis, but many peripherals are either poorly implemented or overtly cumbersome.

As an intro game, it is far too clunky.

>>55175817
Because there is a generation of manchildren who spend hours poring over the eleven billion pages of completely unnecessary bloat specifically to create game-breaking characters.

It's not D&D's fault in particular, that's just what they attached themselves to and I have to hate it by association.

>>55187032
Both responses are to the same guy.

>>55185828
What do you mean by having to deal with being a massive fucking half-demon? You wanted to play a tiefling, which you would surely know is not half-demon but of demon blood, maybe even only slight demon blood.

You can still play your concept in 5e and play it remarkably well, you can just forego casting spells, are there other paladins in the other editions that are also spell-less?
They did redesigns around the paladin, making it actually viable and less MAD, actually made them less Lawful Stupid and actually made them a fun class to play. Your oaths, and your bonds, flaws, ideals define your character.
If you actually gave 5e and the other classes a chance, you'd find this out but it does seem you are being contrarian and crotchity.

Also, you and others need to approach 5e with a different mindset than the other editions.

>>55193102
>>55185760
Also Dexterity builds are amazing in 5e.

>>55193102
I did give 5E a shot and was pretty much immediately confronted with how shit it was to play. I don't know what more you want.

>>55193175
What made you think it was shit to play?
Immediately confronted with how shit it was to play sounds like you didn't even give it a chance.

>>55193210
Skill system was swingy trash, Battlemaster was absolute shit and I got baited into playing it, combat was boring and felt like a bad retread of 4E because it was either dealing with low tier enemy spam or padded monster HP without a fraction of the tactical combat 4E had, 1 hour short rests are shit and make dungeon crawls make even less sense than they normally do. I was unimpressed with the game on every single level.

>>55193292
not the anon you replied to but

>Skill system was swingy trash

that could be said of every edition of D&D because of the nature of basing your system off of a d20.

>>55193292
The skill system actually works, but if you had widely unpredictable results that's a symptom of it being a d20 system.
The battlemaster is a good class, what level did you play it until? The battlemaster has its maneuvers, which is kinda like playing the ToB classes. And what do you mean by baited? Surely you're not weakwilled and idiotic?

The combat of 5e is not the best aspect of the system but is also good, especially because you were playing a tactical class in the battlemaster. Did you play via theatre of the mind or on a grid?

The DM could've given you the option of 5 minute rests, but it sounds like you went into 5e with the expectations of 4e when you should've went in with a different mindset. That's not the system's fault.

>>55193292
The skill system in all d20 systems in swingy trash. Sounds like you're just being contrarian and crotchity.
Next time choose a class you actually want to play, build your tielfing paladin again.

>>55193409
>what level did you play it until?
About 5. After everyone got fed up with it we did a quick oneshot with the same characters at level 15 to see if high level play was any better. Still had the same issues.with it.
>And what do you mean by baited?
"The Fighter's good in 5E again, check it out dude." It wasn't.
>Did you play via theatre of the mind or on a grid?
Grid
> but it sounds like you went into 5e with the expectations of 4e
My expectations were that it would at least be better than any edition of D&D at something, not that it would be 4E. I wasn't just wrong, I was horribly wrong.

>>55193513
>About 5. After everyone got fed up with it we did a quick oneshot with the same characters at level 15 to see if high level play was any better. Still had the same issues.with it.
What issues? Did you actually play with your maneuvers? Did you actually play with all the things the battlemaster and fighter class chassis gets at 15th?

The fighter actually works this edition. Did you actually play the champion and not the battlemaster?

>My expectations were that it would at least be better than any edition of D&D at something, not that it would be 4E. I wasn't just wrong, I was horribly wrong.
5e is quite good, better by far than 3.xe/PF and the classes are actually different enough from what the classes get in 4e. Again, you did go in with a 4e mindset, but the premises and expectations and assumptions of the two are completely different. Next time if there is a next time go into 5e without a previous edition's mindset.

File: 1504125268767.jpg (30KB, 655x500px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 655x500px

>>55180005
>That's your tipoff that they're "more invested"? Sounds more like they just have a harder time remembering.
As opposed to not remembering at all and digging through rule books for five minutes to figure out what a feat or spell allows?

>It now sounds like they literally have nothing more interesting to discuss.
Fucking kill yourself

>Something to alleviate their boredom...
Really, lynch yourself you massive faggot

>Are they stacking their dice during these discussions?
Do you not understand what roleplaying fucking entails you inbred sack of horseshit?

Shit players like you are why any game would suck absolute ass. Do us all a favor and down to weedkiller next chance you get.

>>55193610
>Did you actually play with your maneuvers?
Yes. Didn't stop them from being the most underwhelming maneuver list I've ever seen. Battlemaster may be the best of the 5E Fighters but if 3.0 didn't exist it would be my least favorite Fighter of any edition.
>Did you actually play with all the things the battlemaster and fighter class chassis gets at 15th?
Also yes.
>Again, you did go in with a 4e mindset
No, I didn't. I would've been completely fine with an OSR-esque game.

>>55193708
And before you faggots jump in with >lol y so mad bro?

Faggot sacks of festering piss like this turd have ruined game after fucking game for me. CoS? destroyed by the fatass manbaby who never wanted to interact with NPCs outside of dicerolls and demanded to jump from plot point to plot point. Spelljammer? Fucking ruined by a cunt of a land whale who spent 90% of the time on her phone and refused to remember or at least take fucking notes on what exactly her twinkle bitch of a sorcerer could do. Dragonlance? Lolsorandum kender that only wanted to rip and tear and stab his way to the next boss or treasure chest despite being "good"

Faggots like you are not a credit to D&D and need to be fucking purged like the worthless little turds you are.

>>55193760
>Yes. Didn't stop them from being the most underwhelming maneuver list I've ever seen. Battlemaster may be the best of the 5E Fighters but if 3.0 didn't exist it would be my least favorite Fighter of any edition.
Did you actually play with them? The battlemaster has some good maneuvers. Also it's arguable if the battlemaster is the best of the 5e fighters as EK is up there too.

And if you did play with all of your toys, why do you still consider it be to lackluster?

Yes you did go in with another editions' mindset when you made direct comparisons to 4e.

>>55193866
>Doubt
>Needless inquisition
>Condescending dismissal

You must be a fun guy.

>>55193708
That really sounds like the people you were playing with and not at all the system's fault. Surely you can recognize that?
Also, why are you upset? Holy shit.

>>55193931
See >>55193812
I'm not blaming the system you little retard, I'm blaming faggot ass cock sipping paddies like Sir gaping asshole up there. Learn to fucking read before you open you mouth.

>>55193897
Wat? Are you fucking serious? I'm just getting a feel and asking legitimate questions.

This reaction you're having says volumes however. If your tale is unraveling just say so.

>>55193988
Did you misquote or are you samefagging?

>>55194036
Are you fucking retarded? Read what I fucking quoted you brain dead piss ant.

>>55193897
>having a persecutory complex
>bring this delusional
>having an autism fit
You must be a fun guy.

>>55193866
>Did you actually play with them?
Yes.
>why do you still consider it be to lackluster?
Because the maneuvers are really, really shitty and dice are too limited in supply to make up for that so I'm stuck with a Fighter that hits like a wet noodle and has shitty unimpressive effects that are worse than similar things printed 24+ years ago. Already had my fill of that back in 3.0, thanks.

>>55194084
You should take a deep breath, it's not healthy being as angry and as severely autistic as you are.

>>55194139
Kill yourself kike.

>>55194129
The maneuvers aren't actually lackluster, sorry you feel this way. What fighting style did you take if you don't mind me asking?
The fighter also gets multi attacks and action surge, you wouldn't hit like a wet noodle.

>>55194197
>What fighting style did you take if you don't mind me asking?
Greatweapon
>you wouldn't hit like a wet noodle.
2d6+5 vs hundreds of HP is going to feel like that no matter what. You'd have to be insane to think otherwise.

some people dont like high fantasy or messing with systems alot to make it something else. Or just generally hate the d20

>>55194272
He's going to keep saying you're wrong, you actually don't feel like that, you didn't play the game right, it's an issue with you and your mindset, etc.

I'd stop wasting your time.

>>55194272
GWF is good.
You're getting extra attacks and action surge though, which by level 15 is at least 2d6+5 x4, and you're rerolling 1s and 2s on damage. This is also complemented with you having the maneuvers and having the martial archetype features.
You'd be insane to think you hit like a wet noodle.

>>55194324
Thinking you're this persecuted and being this delusional can't be good for you.

>>55194340
Action Surge is hardly able to be used every encounter, maneuvers aren't best spent on raw damage, and doing 2d6+5 4 times a round(if you beat AC, which is not a foregone conclusion) is still papercut-tier damage against enemies with hundreds of HP.

I don't know why you expect me to be happy with one of the shittiest Fighters I've ever played in an edition that did nothing for me.

File: 1448857277492.jpg (144KB, 900x693px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 900x693px

>>55175817
I hate it because its detracting from my favorite and therefore the best TTRPG, Dungeon: The Dragoning 40k 7th Sea Edition

>>55194356
You're depressingly dumb and antagonizing. Why?

>>55194390
You can use it in encounters provided you get a short rest and it's dependant on your DM not being stingy with rests, which is to do with the DM's personal style and not the system.
So you still have x3 attacks, playing in 5e the PCs are better equipped to breach ACs because of bounded accuracy. By that stage you'd more than likely hit than not.
What are you versing that have hundreds of hp?

You use your maneuvers to trip opponents or using a reaction to hit them back or any number of things. To set up the others in your party.

Because you seem to have made up your mind up about the system long before you played it.

>>55194417
The same can be said of your responses.

>>55194464
>playing in 5e the PCs are better equipped to breach ACs because of bounded accuracy.
This is a blatant fucking lie, PCs in every other edition of D&D but 4E would overrun AC so hard that if they weren't fighting the biggest, toughest monsters they'd be hitting on 2s.

>>55194390
You were being disingenuous in saying you hit like a wet noodle.

>>55194482
So it's because you get some smug satisfaction out of it. Sad.

>>55194492
You can consistently hit ACs at every level and for all enemies because of the bounded accuracy. This is a good thing.

>>55194500
No I wasn't.

>>55194546
With your available class features and the fact bounded accuracy is a thing, you can't hit like a wet noodle.

>>55194569
Yes you can.

People hate 3.PF more than they hate D&D. The reason that they hate it so much is that they're full of trap options, there's a huge intentional power gap between certain classes, and the feat tax issue.
4e & 5e did a lot to fix these problems, so they're not as fun to complain about.

>>55194569
Wow, I can burn Action Surge(to papercut an enemy twice as many times) and use my highly limited dice like a total retard and not help the party at all with them to... still be behind any other Fighter not out of 4E in RTK and burn myself out for the next encounter or two.

>>55194631
Have you checked what you can do with the manuveres?
What enemies were you facing that had hundreds of hp?

You continue to make direct comparisons to 4e when you should've gone in with a different mindset, with you protesting you did. It's you being disingenuous again. You realize 5e is lower powered overall? The hard stat cap and bounded accuracy should've tipped you off.

>>55194701
>Have you checked what you can do with the manuveres?
Why yes. It's almost like I used them because they're the core of the battlemaster archetype or something.
>What enemies were you facing that had hundreds of hp?
Fucking anything CR12+ has that.
>You realize 5e is lower powered overall?
You know what it's not lower powered than? BECMI, a game I specifically referenced but you latched on to 4E for some reason. And yet the entire battle master maneuver list is complete fucking shit compared to the weapon mastery table. Complete fucking shit.

File: F6E0SQ5.gif (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>55194701

>>55194631
I've pretty routinely seen fighters output 100+ damage in a round, which doesn't sound much like a wet noodle to me.

>>55195017
I've pretty routinely see fighters put out zero damage in a round. Anecdotes are fun!

>>55195017
Yeah, which is okay until you consider that's what they're doing blowing everything they've got all at once. Now consider that a couple editions ago the Fighter was easily hitting for 50 HP per swing against monsters with the same HP you'd see in 5E, hitting more often, and wasn't blowing their load to do it, they were just fucking doing it, and Fighter is still one of the worst martials in 3.5 for many reasons. In 2E, a Fighter around the same level with high STR and a basic magic weapon might be bouncing between 30 and 40 damage per round with their 2 1/2 swings a round, which seems like a downgrade until you look at how much lower monster HP is. Treasure tables are probably going to get them more than that, too.

>>55194788
>Why yes. It's almost like I used them because they're the core of the battlemaster archetype or something.
Yet you keep calling them lackluster, it's almost like you dismiss them out of hand and aren't actually aware of what they can actually do.

>Fucking anything CR12+ has that.
Oh, does the bone devil have hundreds of hp? Does the ice devil? What about the others? How many even have 200+ hp? You're being disingenuous again.

Maybe because you keep referencing 4e, you fucking retard.

>>55195165
someone's getting upset.

>>55195182
Your most reasonable response is to be treasured down the ages.

>>55195165
different anon here, (one that actively plays 5e with some pals) you're bein a bit of a mega autist here. The man didnt like it, was dissapointed with battlemaster after trying it and doesn't really enjoy 5e. And I mean he does have a bit of a point about hp. An allosaurus is like 2 or 3 cr and has 60 hp. Not necessarily hard but my friends barbarian didnt really put a dent in it while my cleric rolled him over with inflict wounds.

>>55195229
Stay butthurt anon. It builds character.

>>55195165
>it's almost like you dismiss them out of hand
More like it's almost like I looked at them, saw that the majority of them were shitty, sometimes even worse than what a level 1 character could do all the time in other editions, noticed the amount of dice I got per short rest, noticed shorts rests were a FUCKING HOUR LONG and so weren't going to happen in any kind of dungeon or situation where we were on the clock, sighed, pushed on hoping I was wrong about this, and got every single one of my gut reactions proven right by actual play.

I would have probably hated the game even if I never touched any other edition of D&D.

>>55195238
It's fine he didn't like it, also good he didn't like it, everyone has subjective tastes but to continue to bullshit and be disingenuous is behind.

The comparisons to hp are different because apparently he's being fighting creatures with hundreds of hp when it's being disingenuous.

>>55195459
>apparently he's being fighting creatures with hundreds of hp
...are you not at level 15?

>>55195471
Yet they don't have hundreds of hp.

>>55195321
>More like it's almost like I looked at them, saw that the majority of them were shitty, sometimes even worse than what a level 1 character could do all the time in other editions,
So you had no idea what you were talking about. You actually needed to play through their mechanics rather than eyeballing, that's idiotic.
And yes, the short rests are 1 hour long, your DM could've given you the option of them being like 4e short rests.

If you already had presumptions towards the system by eyeballing and instead of actually playing it, that's your own issue and not the system's.

>>55195877
Honest question, how much is WotC paying you for all this?

>>55195877
>So you had no idea what you were talking about
Commander's Strike.

>>55195877
>wow you had to play through the game to see what something really played like wut r u casul? Not like 3E made it a point to have this happen over and over or anything amirite
>2 sentences later: why are you eyeballing the game instead of playing it
Holy shit you are a such a fucking faggot.

>>55194625
>memeing this hard

3.PF still remains the second most played game and is well-loved by everyone except silly contrartians who swallowed too many hate memes.

>>55195908
WotC has every past edition for sale digitally so they actually will make *more* money if there are old-system diehards. And not to mention that they'd have to go out of their way to make 5e start waning. No way in hell would they bother spending the money (and taking the risk ) to astroturf.

>>55176048
Looks good to me, but the real cincher was the three frantic butthurt replies of preteen intelligence, desperately trying to keep the thread alive for whatever reason.

I'd add that the monetary cost is a bit ridiculous at this point.

File: ackgh5Z.jpg (173KB, 827x1058px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 827x1058px

>>55175817
Then you need to either head back to >>>r/rpgs or lurk more before you post shit threads

>>55195908
If you aren't a fucking retard you'd realize this.

>>55196084
If you used commander's strike then you'd realize you're giving up your action to enable someone else to act.

>>55196125
No shit if you don't actually play it and continue to eyeball it and sprout shit you'd look completely idiotic and autistic. Just eyeballing it is useless because your expectation may not play out like it would in actual play.

>>55175817
don't hate but it's a clearly gamist design when not everyone here is a gamist. it's pretty decent at being hack & slash fantasy. it's not a simulationist's system though, not even genre simulationist.

Why are people comparing the 5e fighter to the 3.5 Fighter?

That's stupid, compare the 5e fighter to the 3.5 warblade

>>55179546
>D&D is more adaptable than fans of smaller systems are willing to admit.
D&D is as adaptable as any other game out there. No more, no less.

>>55185583
so D&D 3.X onwards is all about finding cool combinations of powers and that's it? this sounds more like 40K army-building than an RPG desu.

>>55179546
>but a set of rules that can adapted to fit many other genres.
From my experience the reason why this is false is that unlike GURPS which has no preconcieved notions of classes or setting. D20 systems are tied too having to explain character options in terms of classes. So in order to make D20 work you have to be able to reflect character growth in terms of class options and feats. Which is made harder because you don't get that toolkit setup like with the GURPS CRBs or even their splats.

If you just want to use d20+modifier than you're not necessarily using Dungeons and Dragons for the same reason that 3d6 doesn't automatically make any system that does so GURPS.

So the difference between a Generic system like GURPS or FATE or whatever you find is that they leave character creation and progression far more unbounded by not using classes, and the rulebooks just provide you lists of tools to use. Hacking 3.5 or any D&D source book by comparison becomes problematic the minute you jump to a genre where clerics and fighters aren't commonplace. Even stuff like X-Crawl is stretching those class definitions. And asking a DM to make up new classes and balance them around feats that don't exist in the system is going to limit how far they will actually deviate from the core.

>>55177074
>Everyone has games they don't like.
And everyone bitches about them whenever and wherever they come up.