>5e is the world's best roleplaying game
It's weird how mad that makes some people.
It's a subjective statement, supported by how most subjective statements get resolved. When you ask "Who was the greatest Guitar player?" or "What was the best Album?" or "What was the best Movie?", you do things like make polls, count sales, and aggregate critic reviews. You don't do things like ask nameless nobodies who get mad at tabletop games online.
And, by every actual metric we have that you can actually count, 5e is apparently the world's greatest roleplaying game. It tops most critics' lists, it's won basically every award it could qualify for, it has by far the largest amount of players and has had consistent record breaking sales, and it's at the top of every poll.
You and I can both agree that 5e may not be our personal favorite game. You might not even like it. But, we have to grudgingly accept that people are allowed to have different opinions, especially on something that yields different experiences depending on even something as basic as who is running it, and that among new and old players, idiots and geniuses and everything in between, 5e managed to hit just the right mix of complexity and accessibility to capture a full majority of people who play TTRPGs and introduce a brand new generation into the genre besides.
I don’t get it. I’ve seen Princess Bride, but what does this image mean? OP is in a fake intellectual contest where both answers are wrong (poisoned)?
It's the poison scene. OP tried to be witty with a quote about drinking poison. FPBP was more clever by putting poison in both drinks.
I introduced some newbies into tabletop RPGs using the Dogs in the Vineyard rules. It's working pretty well.
So by your logic, the Big Mac is the world's greatest hamburger. Good going moron.
You're forgetting that we're not just counting sales numbers, but critical opinion, poll data, and so on. Hell, we're not even factoring in that D&D books are more expensive than most, so that they're being purchased at a premium price while still moving more units than every other RPG combined.
It would be like if McDonald's also happened to have 3 Michelin stars, and a Big Mac cost $20 but still outsold every other hamburger combined.
>critical opinion
These people have never made a single coherent criticism in thier life, and do not have the discipline to ever hold one someone else has given to them without fricking up its delivery.
The mass is not a good metric.
Diamonds are the 3rd most common material in the universe, but due to marketing people will go into lifelong debt to put one on the hand of someone who doesnt even like them.
Gem quality diamonds are not the 3rd most common material that can be readily obtained on the surface of this planet though, so whatever point you're trying to make about the corrupt diamond trade really needs to be amended if you want to get anywhere near to actually making a point.
Its carbon.
Diamonds are everywhere.
They paved over entire regions of africa where the surface is littered with diamonds just to keep it "scarce". There are public parks in the US where the public is encouraged to look for them in the topsoil, as long as they don't use motorized machines, at no cost or entry fee.
>gem quality
You are still using the marketing propaganda frame.
Diamonds main value is as an abrasive. The "purity" of the gem is just to make stupid people poorer.
...You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
Not only is Oxygen more common than Carbon making Carbon the 4th most common elementin the universe, Carbon is not the same thing as diamonds. Diamonds are made of carbon, but not all carbon is in the form of diamonds, and the vast, vast, vast majority of it isn't, especially not in the dense, uniform arrangement that we consider gem-quality diamonds.
You're right in that diamonds are much, much more common than most people think, and that a monopoly on mining them artificially raised their prices while an intense marketing push lead to them being seen as far rarer and more valuable than they actually are, but the common diamonds most people find are both very small and the vast majority of them are flawed in such a fashion as to make them effectively worthless in israeliteelry. While diamonds are useful as abrasives, the value of a gemstones has never been tied to their utility, in a similar way to how people don't like gold just because of its excellent electrical conductivity.
Black person you can make them in a lab, they are worthless rocks
diamonds and precious stones are of more concern to israelitelers and faceters.
a rough diamonds doesnt fetch as much as cut and faceted ones.
the same reason you pay premium for diamond rings is the same reason you pay premium for protools like dewalt or milwaukee, or whatever that german brand is.
This post is where you officially crossed the line into total moronation.
>it's good because other people said so
>it's good because polls say so
>it's good because it's just is
>it's good because it's expensive and people are willing to be paypigs
Why even bother trying to engage in an intellectual, good faith conversation when you're going to be so willfully moronic?
>it's bad because I say so
When it comes to subjective topics where no one is right, all that's really left is apparently you just being very wrong.
It's bad because it has the same problems other topics we both acknoweldge is bad has. Otherwise at least one person in the argument is a hypocrite.
Its bad because it's flat wrong about something trivialy known.
It's bad because it completely fails some test of reality.
It's bad because the mass uncritically eats it up. Keyword: uncriticaly. Critical people are only critical because they want it to do better. The mass cares not for quality.
Good faith arguments don't use slimy goalpost moving arguments, or rhetorical ephemeral sweet nothings.
>it's bad because of my subjective opinions
No one asked.
None of those are opinions
>it's subjective
>but all the subjective reasons I've come up with are true and can't be argued against
lmao go troll somewhere else (you) homosexual
>I've come up with
You mean "Any metric (ie. anything you can actually count)," all of which point to the same conclusion?
Like, how would you settle a "Best Dancer" competition? Ask some experts to act as judges and to assign scores? Have the audience submit a vote? Or would you ask some random anonymous loser online what he thinks?
Best dancer is a meaningless, and inherently subjective category, that has no mechanical metric.
Who is the best dancer to a person who loaths dancing?
You can use money, but you must adjust it for power dominance and "inflation" so to speak in every case.
In the end, money has no descriptive power in reverse:
They did X and Y and it made alot of money
VS
It made alot of money, therefore they did X and Y
The first is just an artifact of time, convinently ignoring all the failures by chance of identical action. The second no one even tries to do, or the actions are meta and basicaly irrelevant to the object itself. It got lucky to be first, and suppressed everything that came after.
The first to do a thing is usualy not very impressive, and very clunky, it was just first. The elegant ones come much later and few even know about them.
Geeze what a dumbass.
This is objectively wrong, you are a fricking idiot. You are such a fricking idiot, I'm going to abuse you like the prostituteson you are. I hope you get cancer.
>Sales numbers
Once again, McDonald's
>Critical Opinion
Of who? None of these fricking idiots have ever had an opinion on anything other than "this doesn't have enough Black folk and trannies".
>Poll data
Ask a bunch of D&D players on the D&D twitter what their favorite game is, and a shitload of tourists that watch 'Stranger Things' will say 'D&D'- but can't name a single other RPG.
>So on
Basically nothing, you stupid shit-eating prostituteson. Your uncle raped your mother and made the abomination that is you. I hate you and your whole family.
>D&D books are more expensive
Than what, magazines? Are you fricking moronic? Have you ever seen another RPG? Most of their CORE books cost as much as two D&D books.
No anon the only moron here is you responding to someone who was clearly posting bait and left hours ago
You're a child molester
Oh we’re you just replying to yourself then to bump the thread for (you)’s?
Shut up I wanna be angy
homosexual
Based moron ruining Ganker
It was already ruined when people were allowed to post about games other than D&D.
Least moronic DnDrone
I'm offended that your post somehow crushed the contrarians so badly they could only scream insults and die before it.
Responding to yourself, especially days later, is incredibly embarrassing
>Food analogy
>McDonalds food analogy
Guess how I know you're a fat frick.
You're right, I quoted the wrong guy on accident. Woops.
nonargument, even regular ass people agree mcdonald's isn't that good, however, the actual super popular restaurants are also very expensive so 90% of people can't eat there.
Literal false equivalence
> it's a subjective statement
If you've been alive more than literally 10 years or so then you'd know that nothing makes people more angry than subjective shit. Always been the case.
Objective data that a person disagrees with tends to make certain people far angrier.
Polls are not objective data, moron.
Gluing a bunch of subjective opinions together does not magically make them objective data. They are two completely different categories of object. It's like saying that if I average together the taste ratings of 1,000 apples then I can use it to determine their diameter.
>It popularized the idea of roleplaying games
Black person, the 5 year old child who first picked up a stick and said "Ooga, I am mighty Grug of Redhair tribe, and you are cowardly prairie lion" and proceeded to start chasing his brother around the tribal encampment was the one who popularized roleplaying games. Even the act of roleplaying for adults is not "new", it has existed since the first theater.
Literally all D&D did was say "What if we play a squad-based wargame at the same time we roleplay?"
And yet people who have a passing understanding of nerd culture don't say hey are you doing a Grug of Red hair this weekend? They say "are you playing dnd" regardless of what game you're actually playing. The South calls soda Coke, you Google something even if you use bing, and DND is synonymous with TTRPGs.
>And yet people who have a passing understanding of nerd culture
The comment which proves my rule. You don't need a "Passing understanding of nerd culture" if you are a nerd. Therefore, even you subconsciously recognize that D&D is a name because it is associated with nerds, not because there's a wide consensus that D&D is the best TTRPG, and 5e in particular is the best edition.
Yeah, and data that’s NEARLY correct is even more infuriating. D&d is objectively the world’s most *popular RPG, but calling it the greatest from that metric alone is like a moron proudly calling itself “special”.
Its like how the bible is the best selling book of all time. It's not a very good book by any standard besides sales.
It's actually a pretty great book, especially if you decide to look into some Bible commentary, a genre that's existed for hundreds of years, consists of literally thousands of books, and includes some of the legitimately most intelligent writers in history working and competing against each other to help explain what is one of the most difficult and in many eyes most important texts to understand. We're talking about a book genre that in the past was considered one of the most important philosophical and theological endeavors, with many people dedicating their entire lives to the task. In the past, you weren't even allowed to attempt to do so without having a degree in Theology, which for hundreds of years was the most difficult degree to get and required advanced degrees in everything from mathematics to astronomy to music to logic before you could even begin to study it.
As a base book, it might not be to everyone's taste, but this isn't just a simple novel or collection of poetry. We're talking about a holy book, intended to convey wisdom throughout the ages, a text that has been intensely debated over for literally millennia, with every line and even every word carefully examined, and explored not just in the context of how and why it was written, but expanded to see whether any great truths can be discovered within those words.
Also, by most standards, the Bible is a pretty great book. Many editions and translations were actually done by some pretty incredible teams of translators, historians, archeologists, and even poets, working passionately on what they understood to be the Word of God. It's the most quoted book ever written, and includes some of the greatest lines ever written, which have literally inspired and altered the lives of untold billions.
Stuff like-
>For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
Its supposed to be a life guide.
It's severely lacking in some very basic life instruction use cases, and often just dead wrong about things that are directly observable, even before any standardized measurement is considered. It has frivolous irrelevant poetry, fantastical useless mythology, blatantly incorrect just-so stories to explain phenomena one can prove wrong in mere minutes without scientific apparatus, situational economic impositions that haven't been appropriate for millennia(if ever), social advice that has never been useful, genealogies of idiot inbred backwater barbarians, messages hidden behind middle school cyphers, politically correct inferred meanings found in white noise that are out of date in 6 months, superstitious impositions based off the most tenuous abstract connections, and multiple copies of half baked plagiarism from better fictions. It's not very good at all.
You are still dazzled by its scale, not its quality.
Sorry, fedora tipper, but your interpretation of the Bible is largely coming out of ignorance and without a full appreciation of why people study the Bible to begin with. If you think that it's to approach it as some sort of fundamentalist truth tome, you're really no better than those American Protestants which I'm sure you despise.
Also,
>It's severely lacking in some very basic life instruction use cases
Are you a moron? God still loves you if you are.
Hell, most of your criticisms are just... petty ignorant b***hing.
>frivolous irrelevant poetry
I can't even tell if you're being serious or just flexing your "how much of a petty b***h can I be?" muscles. Hell, most of your complaints are directed at the Old Testament, which is pretty fricking funny because most commentators just treat that entire part of the Bible as an interesting collection of historical documents that are really only relevant because Jesus liked to use them to one-up the Pharisees. It's kinda like the Silmarillion, where it's really only relevant for super nerds and is just useful for whipping out cool quotes to style on rules lawyers who thought they knew the book better. I mean, the whole thing about Jesus was him basically arriving to say "Look, let's not lose sight of what actually matters by obsessing about the irrelevant details and being such a petty b***h about them that you've lost their meaning."
Not that anon, but the bible is written in a style that resembles an elementary schooler's story telling. Most of its advice seems to be practical things but since they couldn't explain why things worked better if you did them a certain way, they shrouded the advice in stories and similes that deal with moral or ethical subjects. You're not abstaining from this type of meat because it might make you sick, you are abstaining because of a divine decree or moral obligation. I've read the bible multiple times and it's a complete slog to go through and has me convinced that people who interpret some kind of higher wisdom from these lines beyond what is readily apparent are just grandstanding to justify their own religious beliefs in a world that has no need of the advice it could offer.
Reading the Bible straight through is kind of an empty practice, because no amount of skill in translation could ever convey the historical and cultural importance of any particular line in a sufficient manner. It's nice to do because there's plenty of conventional wisdom that people can just readily understand like "Don't be a dick", but it's really hard to convey just how much someone is missing if they just take the Bible and look at it from a surface level. Footnotes, notes in the margins, guide books, hell, even entire libraries dedicated to the book can really help give a much better understanding of the Book.
I think my favorite example of this, comes at basically what I personally consider the climax of the Bible (I'm wrong, because His resurrection is fundamentally more important, but let's not get into that right now).
Jesus, hanging from the cross. About to die. And he cries out-
>"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
On the surface, it looks like Jesus losing hope and faith in God. Having a moment of doubt and pain, as the Rolling Stones would put it. But, that's failing to understand that Jesus would never lose faith, not even after being horrifically tortured and on the verge of death. But, one might say, it's Jesus literally saying "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"; how could anyone interpret it in any other way?
The thing is that what Jesus is doing is quoting Scripture. No joke. He's hanging from the cross, in total agony and about to die, and the thought that comes to mind is the first line of a Psalm. And, that Psalm was incredibly well known at the time, to the degree that just saying the first line would be instantly recognizable and convey the message of that psalm, in the same way that "Oh say can you see..." immediately conjures up images of American Patriotism and Baseball games or "As I walk through the valley where I harvest my grain..." conjures up images of an Amish Paradise.
Psalm 22, which Jesus is quoting, is a man invoking God in his darkest hour, and then placing his entire trust into him. And, most of his contemporaries would have recognized this, and maybe Jesus would have even continued on with the full Psalm if it wasn't for him immediately dying. Rather than being a moment of doubt, it is actually the exact opposite, a moment where Jesus is placing the entirety of his faith and trust into God's plan. And, he's doing that in typical Jesus fashion, by being an extreme scripture nerd.
A lot of the Bible is like that, where there's many undercurrents of meaning that are not immediately evident. The great religious scholar Mick Jagger interpreted it largely just by looking at the text as is, and decided to think of Jesus having a moment of mortality and humanity: doubt and pain. But, if you look at it from the specific perspective of a religious scholar familiar with Scripture, you end up having the exact opposite meaning: a moment of faith and clarity, strength even in the bleakest possible time.
So, yeah. Bible is a dry frick read, the Old Testament is kinda janky, but if you start getting into Bible commentary you'll start to appreciate the whole thing a lot more because we're talking about a book from centuries ago about a nerd obsessed with books from even centuries beyond that.
Bible commentary is a cope, commentary lifting any source is a fricking cope.
Aslo: By that standard reading the bible is less useful than reading any self help book.
Also also: why do religitards think mentioning thier favorite fiction justifies them writing wall-texts?
Yikes. Imagine being this level of ignorant Fedora. Even your god Dawkins would frown at you.
commentary lifting any source is a fricking cope
It's one of the main fricking critiques of modern fiction. You think your personal favorite deserves some sort of unprincipled exception just like every other fandom for thier respective fictions.
I'm no fedora, I know God exists, I'm going to beat his lazy disobedient ass, to a bloody pulp. His shitty teen poetry is garbage, and so are his fans.
We're talking about a book from centuries ago discussing the most difficult concepts ever put to pen, written by an unknown amount of authors and an unknown amount of editors and translators with centuries of time and culture between them and between us.
We're not talking about Nancy Drew here. A little commentary goes a long way.
Age and scale does not make thier attempts quality you twit, cuz they fricking ain't very good attenpts.
Hell you can literaly see how mere drawing improved since the ancient times. How the frick can't you see the philosophy has too? Also: the greeks did WAY better philosophy and they did so centuries before your sand Black person barbarians.
>Age and scale does not make thier attempts quality you twit,
No, but they make it far more difficult to convey the same message, hence making commentary extremely beneficial. I feel like you are just the kind of person who struggles to understand what other people are trying to tell you, which makes me wonder why you think people should respect your interpretation of any text.
You don't get to judge the quality of something by what external followup sources say.
You are the one who does not understand.
You don't get to judge something you don't understand.
You might as well tell me your opinion on a foreign film in a language you don't know and the screen turned off.
>understand
Bad faith argument.
I probably understand it better than you, because I don't give it an unprincipled exception, and you never address my actual points with anything but "nuh uh"
All things are judged by all agents of all ability at all times, no exceptions.
You can judge an object correctly without all experience of it (because thats impossible in the first place). You only need true statements, and sound structure.
One of the best quality films I've seen is in Spanish, which I don't and will never speak. It's mostly people talking to each other, and a strong plot i understood through a lamguage barrier, and thats what makes a good story to begin with. I judged it CORRECTLY. You just want your literal incoherent incompetent plagaristic sand Black person philosophy that makes no sense to keep its social standing, that it lost in the 1900s
>I probably understand it better than you
No, it's fairly obvious you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about. We can't even get you to the starting line of this discussion.
It's to the level where I'm not sure I'm allowed to even make fun of you anymore, because I think you might actually be mentally challenged. Like, you're not even at the level of understanding... understanding. You're entirely convinced that as long as you've convinced yourself, that's all that matters, and that's so fricking depressing to see in the wild that I genuinely feel bad for your handlers.
My incredulity is not even referenced.
State mechanicaly measurable facts, state the relationship of 2 things under a single domain. Don't make unprincipled exceptions.
You haven't even done one of those, and have intentionaly violated the last.
I think you're talking to an AI. An AI set on "moron."
Shut up Black person, AI can't say Black person.
Heres a prime example:
>they(scale) make(s) it far more difficult to convey the same message, hence making commentary extremely beneficial
I don't contest this, because I didn't question the utility of commentary to understanding in general.
My point is as yours DEPENDS ON:
makes it far more difficult to convey the same message
Is it's quality better or worse when it tries convey a message if its made more difficult by its scale?
The goal is conveyance, the scale makes it worse by your own statement.
WE don't need to understand the content of the fiction for US to both depend on this flaw, you just try to hand wave it away, while I'm just pointing at the flaw AS MY WHOLE POINT.
Theres nothing subjective about this.
Also you and your god are so weak you need a janny to put me in timeout, while I was posting ontopic about quality control
>the most difficult concepts ever put to pen
>there is no benefit to circumscision but you should do it anyway
>m no fedora, I know God exists, I'm going to beat his lazy disobedient ass,
Settle the frick down Jacob.
which level of non-existant thing are you on?
Why are you bothering, anon? No matter how much effort you put into your posts and how good your arguments are all you're gonna hear back is "lol cope religitard". Very likely the anon you're replying to doesn't actually have an opinion and is just baiting you.
The Old and New Testaments weren't made up by some dude trying to impress his friends, they are the result for both books of a large group of people sitting together and carefully redacting a large amount of oral tradition to create a coherent and meaningful story with very deliberate and careful interpretations that were allowed.
The metaphorical meaning is not some consolation prize for not liking the literal meaning. The literal meaning is a consolation prize for not understanding the metaphorical meaning.
>carefully redacting
cmon the apocrypha were redacted because they muddied their point, like jesus making bird figures from clay on shabbat and when caught using magic to make them come to life and fly away to destroy the evidence. This image of lil jesus as a troublemaker with magical powers didnt fit with what they wanted people to think, so they cut it.
>coherent and meaningful
almost had me there
> they shrouded the advice in stories and similes that deal with moral or ethical subjects
Incidentally, the Bible is a israeli book written by israelites for israelites and israelites call this style of writing pilpul. The New Testament is filled with these when Jesus tells his parables. “Welllll, you can get this out of that story but it also might mean this, who is to say?”
Organic, say do you ever get tired of having to pretend people agree with you?
unironically the most calm and collected, even reasonable. Post I've ever seen, God bless you anon.
>bible
>a good book
I fricking hate Christian’s. The sheer amount of copium you have to inhale just to convince yourself that your volcano demon wrote a cool novel about him terrorizing goyim for millennia is off the charts… much like 5e gays who have never played another edition, let alone another game, and think 5e is the second coming.
And then everyone clapped
5e is mid. It isn't even the best version of DnD, just an OK one. I don't even think there is ONe best, but I'd say depending on the person either Basic, 2e or 3.5e. 5 is fine but lacking.
While true as a game mechanics side, as a casual hobby the sheer level of noobtrap removal thus ease to actually have fun with friends (that cant read unless breasts or monster wiener is flashing her every few minutes) compared to 3e and actually being playable compared to 4e does make it "the best".
>is made with people who can't read in mind
>the best
You literally just wrecked your own argument, dnd 5e is lowest common denominator: the ttrpg
Thank you for proving my argument that the majority of people are incapable of reading without getting distracted or shitting themselves like you just did when the exact point was that its not made for it, but does let even anyone, even morons like you play it without giving the DM more brain damage than a hammer through the skull while also pruning pointless features without falling for complete homogenization and moronation of "cant read cant do math lets 4e".
I don't consider 5E OK. It's hugely inferior to other editions at everything I play D&D for and has problems unique to it that are dealbreakers.
You are like the definition of "no one asked."
who are you?
Frick, you're mad.
No, you are.
Damn you mad.
You're mass replying with one line posts. You have lost so hard and it made you so butthurt that your posts don't look out of place on Ganker.
...You really think saying "You have lost!" means anything when you're this mad?
(You) think saying "(You) mad" over and over is any better? I've seen (Tou) get assblasted before and you always do this to try and save face. Still need those (You)s but (You)'ve got nothing to say after getting shit on for 200 posts again?
I mean, it's clear you're very mad.
both of you morons have lost because you keep replying to each other but
lost worse for mass replying and the only people who mass reply are people who care about someone else's opinion
No one asked.
>No one asked.
sounds like you were asking for it lol
It's like hitting an autism landmine. Telling someone who really cares about their own opinion that no one cares about it is striking a nerve with a hot wire.
do you think that's all one person?
Lol moron. Those are clearly different people.
Too bad.
>sh-shut up
>don't discuss the topic in this thread
>I'm winning!
Lmao ran out of "smug homosexual juice" already, OP?
Noone asked for your thread either, moron. Give useless bullshit, get useless bullshit.
What are some things that make 5e inferior to older editions? Genuinely curious about your opinion. I have some 3.5e source books just for extra reading and flavor (i love bestiaries) and skimming these books shows a hell of a lot more technical complexity than 5e. I wonder if 3.5 combat takes much longer on average or involves more rolling/math, which would be a dealbreaker for me and my tables of newbies. But if there is some good potential there, I'd not mind snagging up some more books.
It's not fast, light, and lethal like TSR D&D and it's not built around the dungeon crawl as the basis for the game, and it either doesn't have the weird and out there content I play these editions for or it watered them down.
It's not intensely detailed with mountains of material and varied subsystems for every other book and it does not even attempt to ground the gameworld in its mechanics. Not a single 5E class is superior to the good 3E classes in design and that level of regression is an unforgivable sin for me by itself without any other issues, I disliked early 4E for that reason among others but 4E came into its own after enough iteration.
4E was better at fantasy Avengers to the point where that's the edition the term was coined for. It has a better skill system and a better tone to mechanics match.
Its character building is horrendous compared to both 3E and 4E and my ability to build the character I want as opposed to some shit approximation is seriously hampered. The combat is even worse off because it's neither lethal and impactful with multiple layers like 3E's nor is it detailed and tactical like 4E's where the party comes up with plans that go six different triggers deep on the regular. It's some unholy mid point between all the editions there where it's intentionally simplified and made less lethal at its core but the options that make it more detailed are shitty mockeries of 3E and 4E options that were much better.
And most importantly, unless you're a spellcaster it doesn't have that sense of progression D&D always had up to it because of bounded accuracy. You don't get kitted out to the point where a nearly arbitrary number of enemies that used to challenge you can no longer touch you because the game was designed around the idea that low level enemies are always a threat.
lol I knew you'd be completely wrong about everything. You're even sucking a chode for "lethal" like you think that isn't all up to the GM anyway.
A GM deviating from the baseline does not imply that there isn't a baseline in existence. I'm also right about every single point.
If your personal tastes deviate from the baseline, you adjust.
Fricking moron nogame.
Nice non-sequitur.
Oh wow, you are actually such a moron you don't understand the very basics of how games work.
Christ, and you waste your time trying to convince people online you've ever played a game. ChatGPT would be more convincing.
No, you don't, because you don't understand who adjusts the game and that they have to adjust from something.
> don't understand who adjusts the game
The GM, who will be adjusting/selecting options in every aspect of the game anyway? Do you actually imagine that your idea of a "baseline" isn't a fuzzy, subjective, and wide range of options that no one could possibly strictly adhere to because the game goes out of its way to explain that you should "make it your own" and provides enough options that cannot be used simultaneously so as to make your entire outlook on the game tragically narrow?
moron.
Why are you still engaging with him.
>The GM
And that leaves N-1 people who are not adjusting the game at every table.
>Do you actually imagine that your idea of a "baseline"
Yes, and you are going to fail at discussing RPGs every single time if you disagree.
>And that leaves N-1 people who are not adjusting the game at every table.
You do realize the GM is adjusting the game to attempt to satisfy the tastes of the players, right? Right? Holy frick please tell me you're just being an argumentative ass caught in your own bullshit logic and doubling down because you're a piece of shit, and not that you are actually so fricking dumb you've never considered what the basic responsibilities of a GM are.
And what happens when those players have incompatible tastes? A GM will NEVER rewrite an entire game for anyone's tastes but their own. It doesn't happen and you are either delusional or not engaging with the game aspect at all if you disagree.
>And what happens when those players have incompatible tastes?
I feel like you don't understand.... people, let alone games. Hell, you don't even understand basic logic.
If two people have incompatible tastes and are at the same table, what do you expect will happen, regardless of GM or game system? For frick's sake, think even for a second before you open your dumb fricking mouth.
Considering you rejected the idea that incompatible tastes were even possible before, that's progress, even if you were too stupid to understand the implied 'if catered to'.
Nice deflection
No, it's a pretty shitty deflection.
It's not a deflection at all.
You didn’t answer the question tho
It's a pointless question because the argument wasn't understood and if you wanted to point out deflection, go back and point out the guy who ignored an entire post to focus on lethality.
Hey look another deflection
Do you understand what a deflection is?
Yes are you gonna keep responding even though it’s clear I’m shitposting and the guy you were failing to convince has long left you to my whims?
If you're going to shitpost at least make it funny.
Your moron flailing has been hilarious.
Well you’ve given up the narrative entirely now
You're dealing with a troll invested in fighting against a corporation by shitposting on an anime website.
You're not going to convince him of anything, nor will any of this conversation do anything be give him a chance to spew more nonsense he's copy and pasted from other trolls. Asking him for his opinion to begin with was a mistake, one that no one should ever repeat.
Stop replying to yourself.
>If your personal tastes deviate from the baseline, you adjust.
So you can't possibly ever judge anything in his default and inherent state? I fricking hate you Black person 5egays because you always revert to this absolutely asinine retort to any criticism "lol if you don't like something change it", like, Black person, you are just proving his critique right.
The Oberoni Fallacy rears its head once again, and once again it's right.
The pepperoni bullshit is only for homosexuals who want to invent an imaginary default state that they can then pretend other GMs must follow, while also all discussion must be based around this imaginary default state that doesn't even reflect how people actually play.
It's basically just a brainless troll tactic to try and say "The game is flawed because it doesn't match my exact personal tastes", and then acting insulted when you explain that games are inherently malleable and the intent behind the design is to enable specific groups to alter the game to match their personal tastes, negating the complaint in its entirety.
The pepperoni bullshit has always just been trolls being mad that they can't force people to respect their empty complaints, all while pretending that they're encouraging discourse by trying to force people to accept their personal visions of what the nebulous "default" state of a game may be.
Everything you said is wrong.
Nah.
Yeah. Completely wrong. You don't know because you don't make or playtest games.
>Rulesystem A is enough flexible and scalable to handle transparently unforseen rules adjudications
>Rulesystem B is rigid and monolithic, everything within the framework works smoothly like a well oiled machine but the moment the GM has to make a ruling for an unexpected scenario all the rulesystem moving parts start clashing one another
So based on your reasoning both rulesystem are interchangeable because "U cAn juSt cHaNGe wHateVEr"? Frick off.
The frick are you even on about. No one said all games are equal.
It's the logical conclusion of your argument.
Slipper Slope, Strawman... you trying to commit as many fallacies as you can or something?
Applying your """""logic""""" in a simple, straightforward manner is neither a slippery slope nor a strawman.
But the moment someone states a judgement about a rulesystem it's suddenly "lol rule zero exist so your opinion is invalid", right?
>But the moment someone states a judgement
Well, la dee da, Mr. Magnate, swing your gavel whydoncha.
What you meant to say is-
>the moment some pissant b***hes
I accept your concession.
Lol, that's one way for you to give up.
Point still stands. Demanding people take your b***hing seriously doesn't really work, especially when you do dumb shit like demand people take your pepperoni bullshit seriously.
No amount of "RESPECT MY JUDGEMENT" will ever be able to stop people from making their own assessments, and more importantly demanding they treat a game and evaluate it under your biased criteria just makes you look like an insane man wearing rags and a tinfoil crown.
The irony.
...you a moron or something?
Games are inherently subjective. If you want to be taken seriously, you can't deny that and then attempt to have people believe that what you personally outline as being objective is all that matters, in no small part because your deliberately distancing yourself away from reality.
It's why there's no universally accepted standard metric for game quality. If there was, people would just build games to match those standards and no one would be playing their hand at internet tribal warfare.
>You can't express opinions on a game. Ever.
That's basically your point. I'll make the argument more clear: Mearls once stated that one of the main goal design for 5e was to have characters hitting more often because "hitting more is fun" but in order to regulate challenges with this premise in mind npc and monsters HP had to be accordingly increased. Now i think that Mearls premise is asinine because his solution to the problem was under a false premise: hitting more often isn't the only way available to make combat engaging. Thus i think there's an issue in the rulesystem the fixing of which requires me to take into consideration a wide array of consequences (damage scaling, designing new rules to compliment variegated situations beyond "hitting more often" and so).
Or i could just say "5e is shit because combat i's just pounding a big sack of hp for an hour or more" and mean the fricking same as above.
...5e has low HP though. Most groups chew through equivalent CR encounters in only a few rounds, with some builds being able to kill every monster in their CR reliably in one round or less.
If your complaint is "I suck at this game", that's you being bad at this game, not the game being bad.
Then why one of the usual criticism against reducing accordingly the HP value is "muh rocket tag"?
...Because the HP is already low?
Are you actually moronic?
I said "accordingly" so taking damage scaling into consideration.
>Most groups chew through equivalent CR encounters in only a few rounds,
Slower than they do in other editions, and with equivalent CR encounters being less of a threat.
>with some builds being able to kill every monster in their CR reliably in one round or less.
Only while going nova and leaning on either very questionable rules interpretations or a setup that makes them implausible at best in reality. This is not the same as an Ubercharger deleting every single enemy it can hit while expending nothing every single round it is not directly shut down, forever, completely RAI and practical.
>Slower than they do in other editions,
The sheer range of speeds available in the various editions make your blanket statement so fricking dumb I want you to stop for a moment and remember 4e existed.
More importantly, while older edition COULD be faster, the general pace depended heavily on what builds were there, and often the game would drag to a stop as the most powerful classes also played the slowest. For 5e, it's practically the opposite, with some of the most powerful builds being borderline auto-run.
>Only while going nova
Lol, you're like a decade behind in terms of how far people have pushed the game. One great thing about 5e is that it threw out most of the limitations and requirements for multiclassing, and with classes so front-loaded it makes things like Sorlocks, Paladorcs, Sorcadins, Barbarogues, Rogue/Rangers, and so on are able to pull "nova" turns 10 times before a short rest (if they even need a short rest, which most of the latter cases don't). And those aren't even the strongest builds in the game, just ones that turn the old idea of "nova" rounds into something more akin to a fireworks show.
You mean the 4E that had about as many combat rounds as 5E does and did so because it wanted to lean on tactical combat? Less if the 4E party has its shit together?
And not a single one of those builds goes nova hard enough to delete every equal CR monster in one round reliably.
>You mean the 4E that had about as many combat rounds as 5E does
Pre-fix 4e is about as close to being a lumberjack simulator as any game has ever been, even more than Logs & Lumberjacks. Chopping at monsters for twenty rounds just to get them bloodied was the expectation, not the exception.
Pre-fix 4E also had some of the most broken shit imaginable at the same time so it was a matter of which options were used. In 2008, Fighter/Ranger/Warlord/Wizard is stronger than it is now and can easily rocket tag a solo out of existence in a round or two.
>5e is faster and leaner than B/X, has more content and subsystems than 3.X, has more interparty reliance than 4E, has more involved character building than 3.X or 4E, has more detailed combat than 3.X, has more tactically involved combat than 4E, and doesn't have bounded accuracy
How many drugs are you on?
Your insistence that it not sharing the same highs as other systems makes it a bad system, despite it also not sharing the same lows as those systems, really just paints you as a dumb homosexual who doesn't understand things like 'tradeoffs."
Actually, it just paints you as a dumb homosexual who wants to complain and does so by merely focusing on negatives while ignoring any positives. That's basically as disingenuous as you can get.
You're right. Instead 5E has different, even worse lows than other editions of D&D! Great tradeoff.
Cool opinion that isn't shared by an overwhelming majority of people who've actually played the game, bruh.
The opinion of the majority is irrelevant in a discussion about how a game suits an individual.
Your opinion is such an extreme outlier that it's incredibly hard to treat you as anything but an anomaly, a broken person who's opinions are so inherently twisted and flawed that there are severe doubts that you're not just intensely biased or otherwise incapable of offering a worthwhile opinion.
You don't need to match the opinion of the majority on everything, but when your opinion is so far removed from the vast majority that it might as well just be intentional contrarianism, all we're left with is you saying nonsense and justifying it with further nonsense.
Hell, look at your moronic, broken logic. You imagine that there are worse lows than other editions, but you fail to appreciate that the worst lows of each edition come as a direct trade-off from their greatest strengths. I'm actually kind of amazed you're dumb enough to think you could fool anyone into taking you seriously, but I guess that just goes hand in hand with you being dumb enough to be such an extreme contrarian and to rush headlong down that ravine without pausing to actually think about what you're doing.
tl;dr, You're only using your brain to make yourself dumber, not smarter. Quit it.
>but you fail to appreciate that the worst lows of each edition come as a direct trade-off from their greatest strengths.
Nope. They come from completely arbitrary rules, shit balancing efforts, and a math mistake that was corrected and then later intentionally deviating from the game's structure to the detriment of the game. Not a single one of those were inherent to those games' focus.
Don't get stuck on the word "inferior", you like what you like
It's not a threat to you that people don't play 5e
Counterpoint: So what?
Is this leading somewhere, or is this just argumentum ad populum?
>so what?
Don't be mad?
Or in your case, don't be a prissy b***h?
This is Ganker, bucko. Everyone's always mad here.
You're thinking of wonderland.
>subjective statement
>validated with objective qualitiative data
We get mad because you speak authoritatively but clearly never got further than highschool
>validated
There's a difference between supported and validated.
Nice non-reply
>buddhism
>taking advice from a fatso
lol
roflmao even
>holding onto anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die
Funny enough, history tells us that if you try hard enough, that can actually work.
There was a sect of assassins in ancient India made up of girls who gradually drank ever larger quantities of poison until they not only developed immunity to the poison, but their bodily fluids became toxic. They would then have sex with their target, who would be poisoned through physical contact with the girl.
thats actually true?
i thought that was just ninja scroll
Yup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishakanya
Alright.
"Holding onto anger is like eating poison and expecting the other person to die without fricking them."
Better?
You ARE moronic.
5e isn't even in the running for the best ttrpg.
While we can't decide objectively which one kiss the best game, we can easily see which ones are at the top, and which ones are at the bottom.
5e has the level best marketing by a wide margin, but the quality, it's easy to see, isn't there.
You've actually gotten the quote wrong.
>5e is the worlds greatest roleplaying game
is the actual quote. It's done this way because it is empirically true. It is the largest roleplaying game.
so greatest in the sense of most popular? then the tagline would be misleading as it implies being objectively of the highest quality in content. which then would lead to questions about those qualities.
in the end we arrive at matter of taste because some people don't like gamism or fantasy or any other aspect you might bring forth
it's a meaningless and/or misleading claim
>>5e is the world's best roleplaying game
DND is the subjective best roleplaying game. That's why 5e is the fifth edition of the world best roleplaying game.
DND as a concept is revolutionary. It popularized the idea of roleplaying games. Depending on the edition, you can do a variety of different things. OSRgays have their niche, the builders have 3.5. The tactically minded have 4e. 5e gets the noobs and the people who don't particularly want to think too hard. I don't know what 2e does better than the others.
That's not to mention everything that was inspired by DND. It was the genesis of Final fantasy and the modern JRPG genre.
Sorry anon but since D&D is now popular we must hate it
Being contrarian homosexuals is our only character trait and we made it into a personality
Look man, I just find 5e to be mid at best. Most RPGs published are just full of unadulterated autism anyway. So it isn't the fact it's janky mehanics or even the fact it's the only shit normies know because let's face it, I'd rather they go on and on about a mid AF game than something that is just trash.
But it's the fact wotc proclaims themselves to be these woke socialists when in fact they're a cut throat hyper capitalist too FASCIST yes actual fascism, not make believe pol fascism because they say the word israelite
And I'm just supposed to ignore that. Like I know school shooters browse Ganker, why don't you suicidal motherfrickers go killing in the name of wotc? Makes them get sued, I have a good time finally, youre gonna die anyway, so what's the difference? Just say the new edition of D&D groomed you into doing it.
Because any company thats gonna sit there and proclaim itself to be do UwU liberal does not get to produce mtg arena where its literally "only winners get anything. Didn't win a match? Frick you. No gold for you. Even though a booster costs like a thousand gold anyway." So if I wanna see any sort of new content, I gotta not only grind, I gotta be winning while I grind. Aka: cheating
But OHHHHH CHEATINGS BAAAAD, REPORT DUH CHEATERS
Frick you. I hope your kids school is the one shot up
5e is popular because of critical role, not because of any made up excuses you came up with.
And it has no balance between complexity and accessibility because it isn't complex. There's the inherent unbalanced base classes and then there's "builds" which aren't builds because they're just different skins of SS/GWM with maybe a dip in Warlock or Cleric.
It's not popular because it is good. It is popular because it strikes at the lowest common denominator with its soulless setting and near zero tactical options.
Critic opinions are irrelevant. There is no actual industry for TTRPG critics, only TTRPG content creators
Once dug a bit class balance is (compared to every prior D&D) very good. Subclass less so due to monk (and later additions to wizard and xanathars on sorc); its ditch is more in that mid range of "i want to optimize, but not to schizo levels" or with DMs that ignore the rules the classes were made for without compensating for the ones whose relevant rules were ignored.
Strongest caster, martial and gish combos (and yes, its still the phb sorcadin) are all from the first 2 releases even before hexblade pumped in and made it easy for anyone and peace to let even absolute morons give massive team support.
And you actually have diversity beyond whats just 2-3 classes unlike basic and 4e.
>When you ask "Who was the greatest Guitar player?" or "What was the best Album?" or "What was the best Movie?", you do things like make polls, count sales, and aggregate critic reviews. You don't do things like ask nameless nobodies who get mad at tabletop games online.
No I don't.
1. Estas Tonne
2. Greatest Hits, Queen (if you're the kind of dork who insists compilation albums can't count, get out)
3. Casablanca
You're free to argue with me because that's your right. You'll still be wrong.
Are you over 60 year of age?
No. Worse. I'm a film buff.
>Film Buff.
>3. Casablanca
You couldn't be. You'd need to be the most basic b***h of a human if you considered yourself a film buff and picked Casablanca. Might as well have said Citizen Kane. Great movies, but probably wouldn't even hit the top 25 of anyone who's seen at least a thousand films.
nta but Casablanca is definitely one of the best films of all time. You have garbage taste
One of the best, sure, but THE best?
THE best will depend on taste. If you like clever dialogue then I'd put Casablanca at the very top. If you're looking more for action, meaningful themes, or something else I could see it not being the best for you
As I noted, you're still going to be wrong.
Unlike most Americans I've seen Mulholland Drive. I consider it an excellent film. It's in my top 25. I really enjoy Vertigo, it's superb (noir is one of my favorite genres, though). I actually don't enjoy Citizen Kane all that much. I recognize all of the new techniques it handed filmmakers, though. The Empire Strikes Back is a personal favorite, but it's still kiddie stuff.
It's worth noting that polls or critical reviews of "best" films change quite a bit as new generations rise in voting power/critical reach. Which is why these are commonly accepted to be subjective measures regardless of whatever concrete data are available.
But Casablanca is the best film. It's irrefutable.
>The Empire Strikes Back is a personal favorite,
This is about all I needed to confirm what I already knew.
>But Casablanca is the best film. It's irrefutable.
It's the kind of robotic idea that someone who prefers ESB over the original would have.
>I can't state my own opinions, only criticize yours -- forget about defending mine
And I'm the problem?
Vertigo is dogshit nonsense, where the characters' actions only make sense if they are trying to trick the audience.
Your opinions don't matter.
>Base a video game on 5e's rules
>10 million units sold
Anyone who says the mechanics aren't good at this point is a contrarian moron.
sure, the mechanics are good for a video game (with some tweaks, BG3 isn't exact 1:1 with tabletop rules)
Most tables don't use 1:1 5e rules.
BG3 combat is shit tho. Solasta had 5e combat and it didn't sell nearly as much. Your argument is moronic and falls immediately flat
>BG3 combat is shit tho
Sold pretty well for a game with such shit combat lmao. I think that's just your opinion and you're confusing it with a fact.
Games don't need good combat to sell well anon. Skyrim had shit combat and sold like crazy, plus people actually talked about it irl.
>Games don't need good combat to sell well anon
Ah right my mistake. I assumed the gameplay was the most important part of a video game. How naive of me. I think I found a picture of you on the internet.
>I assumed the gameplay was the most important part of a video game.
It should be, it isn't. Its about sales.
>How naive of me
Yes
Never reply to a frogspammer.
Starfield has better combat than BG3, confirmed.
Yes, it is your mistake for being so dumb
Fricking walking games sell well.
Literally idle games sell well.
You need to reevaluate whatever process you use to come to a conclusion, because what you're currently doing ain't it
>thinks the transformers movies are good
>things communism is good
I'm sure something being popular means it's good, anon.
I found one of the contrarian morons.
>contrarian because he hates communism
Tell me why Transformers is better than Arcane.
Anger is useful though it's a great lesson using your anger and rage and righteous fear to destroy your enemies based off what happened to you as a person is actually a good thing it's actually very useful anger is very useful it Spurs you out of apathy not. A Zen state is not always useful sometimes anger is useful you should be willing to use all of your emotions from all sides of your personality and not just be a blank slate so being Zen and peaceful is is useful for sheep but at the end of the day sometimes anger is very useful for fighting and engaging overcoming All odds overcoming obstacles so you should be willing to use any of the human emotions all human emotions can be weaponized and be willing to use all of them when needed. Anger and rage are just tools in a toolbox to use. Being zin n is nice for quality of life. All the emotions are all tools to use.
Anon if you are not on methamphetamine right now you need to take lithium STAT.
5e is definitely one of the easiest to learn and teach crunch systems. It just gets old fast as hell and has pretty rigid growth compared to previous editions.
It's pretty glaring that Savage Worlds has more legs. Mainly because it has a lot of settings. 5e has pretty much the stock setting and never released straight up setting books outside of the core dramatically moroning it's lifespan compared to even 4e.
>moroning it's lifespan compared to even 4e
4e was released in 2008. 5e was released in 2014. That's 6 years that 4e was the newest edition. While 5e already has been the newest edition for 9 years. Clearly 5e's lifespan has already surpassed 4e so your argument completely falls apart.
No it doesn't. Actual players get bored with it faster than 4e or 3e or PF. It is selling well and promoted well and popular for the reasons I listed PLUS more social exposure from CR and Stranger Things. You are confusing popularity and longevity with a good product. Monopoly is the best board game ever made by your metric.
Your argument was that 4e's lifespan was longer than 5e's because 5e hasn't released enough settings. When 5e has already outlasted 4e by 50%. Now you're spouting the usual talking points without any evidence that people get bored of it quick based on anecdotal evidence. You got btfo.
This may shock you but you can actually use any D&D setting in 5e. Yes really! For example you can take a 2e setting and use that in your 5e game. Amazing I know.
Lifespan isn't how long the current system is being used, it is how much a group can get out of the current system before getting sick of it. 5e has a shit shelflife for a D&D edition in that regard
Prove it homosexual. In my experience 5e has lasted longer than any other edition or system for my group. The only other game that came close was Dark Heresy.
>try to prove something to someone on Ganker who’s acting this abrasive.
I’m sorry I’m not a masochist looking to waste my time
What's with this whole "If I select a single metric, I can make an awkward analogy" business?
I don't remember Monopoly being a critical darling that consistently outsold ever other board game every single year it's been available, nor it attracting the largest amount of players every year to the tune of having a full majority of them. Hell, I don't even remember anyone ever leaving a game of Monopoly and saying "We should play this again."
First past the post, and market dominance it wont give up willingly.
Monopoly is literal shit.
5e isn't easy to teach or learn. People only think so because it's the first one they learn, most of the time.
>It's a subjective statement
So it is mine telling that 5e is the shittiest rulesystem ever, am i allowed to voice my reasons or only wotc has to get get a pass in writing bullshits on the cover of their products?
Are you actually giving a fair assessment?
It kind of seems like you can't be, and are just using hyperbole for attention.
>Are you actually giving a fair assessment?
No, i made a specific question, now answer it.
Two wrongs don't make a right, and trying to lie to counter a lie has a tendency to backfire when your lie doesn't hold up and you end up just reinforcing the original lie. Also, shitposting on an Argentinian llama shaving forum doesn't do much to change an advertising slogan on a product. Are you in Ganker right now telling everyone Oreos are not America's favorite cookie?
And, anyone can provide "reasons" for why anything is the shittiest thing ever, largely because nothing is perfect and even if something was you could always just lie and exaggerate until you had a list of flaws.
I'm surprised you'd need such basic things explained to you.
>Two wrongs don't make a right,
So are you implying that the original assessment is potentially wrong or just mine or both?
>and trying to lie to counter a lie has a tendency to backfire
Both parts may be sincere but unaware of being wrong, or just one of the two.
>Also, shitposting on an Argentinian llama shaving forum doesn't do much to change an advertising slogan on a product.
Who said that's the purpose? Why can't be just stirring shit for conversation purposes?
>Are you in Ganker right now telling everyone Oreos are not America's favorite cookie?
I may
>And, anyone can provide "reasons" for why anything is the shittiest thing ever,
Yes, also the contrary
>largely because nothing is perfect
More to discuss about
>and even if something was you could always just lie and exaggerate until you had a list of flaws.
But won't hold to scrutiny
>I'm surprised you'd need such basic things explained to you.
Do you have any form of self awareness within yourself or are you just a disingenuous c**t?
>But won't hold to scrutiny
...I don't think you understand how shitposting works. Actually, you do, but you're pretending not to for some reason.
Shitposting often involves just repeating things, over and over again, with little regard for accuracy. If ever subjected to scrutiny, further lies and exaggerations could be laid on top, up until the moment where the shitposter gets bored and disappears back into anonymity, only to resurface later with the same initial shitposting.
If you're at the point where you're arguing that should be shitposting that a game is the worst game of all time because a corporation claims it's the best, you're effectively arguing for one of the flimsiest and most pathetic excuses to shitpost, an entirely backwards attempted justification that's more likely rooted in just being a contrarian and an asshat. There really is never a good reason to shitpost, and roleplaying like some sort of anti-corporate vigilante punishing the evil corpo for its hubris by complaining about their product in a place where people are more likely to pirate it anyway is fairly nonsensical. It's borderline magical thinking at that level, and largely just annoying.
>...I don't think you understand how shitposting works.
Yes i do, it's you the one to be so bothered by it to the point of making a whole thread trying to sound reasonable to shitposters
>Actually, you do, but you're pretending not to for some reason.
More disingenuous assessments
>Shitposting often involves just repeating things, over and over again, with little regard for accuracy.
No it involves making extremely low quality, usually short, posts which includes but it's not limited by your definition
>If ever subjected to scrutiny, further lies and exaggerations could be laid on top, up until the moment where the shitposter gets bored and disappears back into anonymity,
You made perfectly evident that you don't understand the notion of not feeding the troll. Shitpost get fostered by response and may actually diminish if ignored but you can be 100% sure it will continue if you interct with it.
>only to resurface later with the same initial shitposting.
Yes that's how low effort trolling works
>If you're at the point where you're arguing that should be shitposting that a game is the worst game of all time because a corporation claims it's the best,
No i'm arguing you can't stop someone to voice his opinion whatever sincere or not, low quality or not, correct or not may be. You can't also take the moral high ground by assuming the motive of you interlocutor a priori.
>you're effectively arguing for one of the flimsiest and most pathetic excuses to shitpost,
Shitpost doesn't need excuses
>an entirely backwards attempted justification
Facts are just facts not justifications, learn the difference. People will keep (shit)posting for whatever reason.
Yeah you clearly understand how shitposting works..
>Passive aggressive short non-response
Cleal sample of shitposting, bravo.
Anon we’er in a thread that started out as generic 5e hate, and turned into generic Christianity bashing, maybe have some self awareness and think WHY would anyone take this seriously
I'm pretty sure this thread has helped prove that both 5e hate and Christianity bashing are pretty dumb.
We didn’t need a thread to prove that giben it’s been done for the last 10 and 2000 years respectively
>WHY would anyone take this seriously
You shouldn't, one of my points exactly. Why (assuming you're OP) did you start this thread then?
I’m insulted that you’d think I’d start this garbage
>just using hyperbole for attention.
Fortunately a major corporation would never engage in hyperbole for attention or marketing purposes, because as we all know, corporations never lie. Especially not when they would profit from doing so.
>Trollhunter schizo has been so mindbroken after months of arguing that he's been reduce to making the most obtuse, incomprehensible arguments about the subjective nature of quality
lmao
This Black person really made an entire thread to vent about people not liking 5e. I wonder if he even uses the 5e general.
Reminder that the same person who gets asshurt over complaints about 5E is also the person who spams shitty threads on his quest to kill every general. This guy is legit autistic and a lolcow.
>roleplaying
Do people actually role-play with 5e?
All I see is PCs with Good alignment, but doing anything but.
>game
Do people actually play games with 5e?
All I see is storytelling/fake games for control freaks who not only want OP snowflakes, but write backstories intended to script an outcome.
To see both clearly, watch Critical Role
Why are you using Critical Role as an example of anything.
Do you use porn as an example of how siblings act?
>Shitposting often involves just repeating things, over and over again, with little regard for accuracy.
World's Greatest Roleplaying Game (TM)
Repeatedly demanding basic things to be explained to you is another form of shitposting.
>Repeatedly demanding basic things to be explained to you is another form of shitposting.
Right. So can anyone tell me why D&D is not the world's greatest roleplaying game? Like literally name one flaw. You can't. And if you can, it doesn't count.
You really are determined to provide basic shitposting examples
Poor balance. Limited function. Watered down. It's designed for entry-level... and that's it. Not to mention, it's introductory quests are shit-balanced and much of its content is made by people with zero experience.
Is that enough reasons for you? How about this one:
You will never be a woman.
Your picture is stupid. The purpose of anger isn't to kill, it's to prevent despair long enough to do something about it.
Imagine being such a little b***h that you need anger to ward off despair.
"Most popular" and "best" are not the same. By this logic, McDonald's is the best food in the world.
McDonald's doesn't have a majority of popular opinion and critical reviews saying it's the best food in the world though.
It's really hard to find a proper analogy for just how thoroughly dominant D&D is, and just picking one of the metrics it completely dominates in only tells one small part of the picture. It'd be like if McDonald's, a 3 Star Michelin Restaurant, Costco, and Inn-and-out had a lovechild.
It’s because no one else bothers to try, definitely not after DnD took over, probably either not wanting to bother with the eventual insane corporate duckers from WotC trying to frick them over or just because they just want to be creative and shit and are happy as is
It's largely due to market size. For most people, D&D is literally synonymous with tabletop RPGs, assuming they're even aware of tabletop RPGs as a concept. It's closer to a Walmart in a small town. Is Walmart the best store? To the people in that town, it is, because they're not driving for hours to reach another town where there might be a better store, because they've never even heard of a store other than Walmart.
And then that person in a small town goes online and sees reviews like
>I had a bad experience at Walmart and never want to go back
>Walmart is terrible and overworks their employees
But to the person in the small town, this is inconceivable. Nothing like that has happened at their Walmart, and Walmart is the best store they know.
Therefore, all of these online reviews must be lying, or exaggerating. If they aren't still going to Walmart due to a lack of options, then they must be going to other smaller stores that are probably have just as many problems.
But the only point this would become a problem is if somebody dedicated themselves to policing online opinions about Walmart because they just hate the idea of people not liking to shop at the same store as they do.
>bad experience
How disingenuous. It's more like someone spamming "I HATE WALMART" in every thread that mentions anything to do with either shopping or something that could be purchased in a store, and when told to frick off he tries to tell you he's on a crusade to take down the evil corporation.
If you think these thread are genuine you’re either op or exceptionally moronic
How's your war going?
Took down WotC yet?
Or have you finally realized you don't b***h with any purpose, you just happen to be a b***h?
Jesus you are moronic, I’m sorry
No they are but you still have to be impressively stupid to think these threads are anything more than out rage bait
*arent
>i got called out for being a b***h so I'm gonna b***h more
Hot damn you can't stop can you.
Ok your clearly just thirsty for (you)s, last one my special needs friend
Those two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Sounds like the best thing to do would be to report it and move on with your day then, instead of taking a crazy person ranting about Walmart seriously.
>report
Lmao the only threads mod delete these days are on topic ones or threads that DARE insult them/the site/goo moot
Well then, I suppose one could either simply ignore it, or continue to hold onto the anger towards something that they clearly don't think is a serious complaint.
I’m sorry to tell you anon but people here are either too absorbed in themselves to care if something is obviously bait. A large population has replaced their personalities with products and political stances and cannot let things sit as it is seen as a personal attack. That and people are also just exceptionally stupid or disingenuous
Nta but how anything you stated contradics that anon advice?
Why should I care is a better question.
No one takes the ranters seriously, yet that doesn't stop them.
Not at all, you just have to be terminally moronic to see this and think it’s serious or be exceptionally new or disingenuous
>counting sales as a metric of quality
Only israelites do this.
Most popular? Best sold? Most profitable? Yes.
Greatest? No, obviously that's literally a subject opinion and/or marketing strategy.
That's like saying "McDonald's is the greatest food ever made" because it's the largest fast food chain.
"This is the greatest thing ever created and will ever be created" is just cringe, it's just more of this attitude of declaring "D&D is the only tabletop roleplaying game worth playing, everything else isn't"
You're pulling the video gamer argument where anything that isn't some over hyped AAA game is bad-wrong-fun and isn't worth playing "If it doesn't have a 90% on Metacritic then it's not worth playing" because playing anything other than the "best" is bad.
This dogmatic loyalty to something being the "Objectively best thing ever" is just cope that stifles innovation or experimentation, it puts D&D above criticism because you're not allowed to criticize the "world's best roleplaying game" because it's already the "world's best"
You can't just say
>You and I can both agree that 5e may not be our personal favorite game
But then throw statements that literally contradict it
>by every metic 5e is apparently the world's greatest roleplaying game
How can it not be your favorite game if you LITERALLY declared it to be the greatest roleplaying game, whenever I talk about D&D I say "The world's most popular" or "The world's biggest"
My biggest criticism out of all of this is that you need to work on your English skills, statements like "Greatest of all Time" and "World's best" are usually metaphorical, it's braggadocios, it's a declarative statement meant to be self-congratulatory on some esteemed quality. Not something that should be taken at literal face value and not questioned.
>If it doesn't have a 90% on Metacritic then it's not worth playing
This but unironically.
Who the frick still cares about game reviews? No fricking seriously how is this still a thing? It was a self aware joke back in the 90’s who the frick still does this shit?
You're arguing on a level that a normal person could understand, but for OP, who is a razing schizoid, anything short of sobbing and apologizing to him for insulting D&D, the greatest and best and most popular game, is a valid response.
>we have to grudgingly accept that people are allowed to have different opinions,
The hell I do. You're wrong, they're wrong, and D&D is shit and always has been shit. Play GURPS or don't play games at all
Frick you I’ll play wam ham fantasy and enjoy rping as a shit eating rat catcher
>But, we have to grudgingly accept that people are allowed to have different opinions,
Except you can't do that.
>best =/= most consumed
Buddha didn't say that. It's from New Thought leader Emmet Fox via Alcoholics Anonymous.
he did say something to that effect tho
5e is shit and all it did is poison the water for the rest of us
I don't care what 5e babies are thinking
Attacking the topic of 5e being the best game is just stabbing at shadows.
The real opponent is WotC/Hasbro poisoning tabletop games with their shit marketing and half baked products. Half written Spelljammer shit. One D&D being a fricking mess. The new starter sets that doesn't even have seven dice or a map or DM screen. The big push for subscriptions and vtt shit.
Stop attacking the 5e argument. It's just marketing.
Christ even BG3 was half assed
I think Act 1 and 2 were fully baked. They do a lot more than most modern RPGs. But yea, they fumbled the whole "Baldur's Gate" part.
Up until thar point, it's the first good 5e product in years, though.
Act two felt kinda shallow to me, and honestly I’m just sick of playing good guys, and this was disgusting with how much it was clear you weren’t supposed to be a baddie
>real opponent
The "real opponents" are not gonna be fought with shitposting on an anime website.
Whoa, looks like someone is super mad that their anti-5e b***hing is getting called out as petty b***hing, yikes.
When you attack someone's entire identity like that, of course they're going to flip out. Especially when their entire identity is flipping out and being a little b***h.
The best part is that he thinks he can just scream "I'm not mad you're mad!" and not look totally insecure lol.
>someone
>it's just all us cool /tg/ guys all agreeing together, like we always do, against this one (1) singular troll that we all know and hate!
It's funny because it's true and the person /tg/ universally hates is you, schizo.
If 5E wasn't a bad game I would have had a good time with it.
Some people are just poison.
Yeah, 5E players are poison.
Whoa you took what I was implying and pretended to fail to understand it and instead inverted it aren't you clever.
>Being moronic makes people angry
Yes, your point?
Statements that are obviously untrue can be damaging to a non-initiated and objectively better games, and would raise little objection if it included an "IMHO".
Stop lying and you stop the sperging.
>objectively
So this is what someone looks like when they've inserted their entire head up their anus. Huh.
I just hope you are replying to yourself because if you seriously just sit here all day waiting for the moment somebody says something you don't like you got issues.
>>5e is the world's best roleplaying game
But warhammer fantasy roleplay doesn't have a 5th edition.
Then why are you so angry that other are angry?
>UUUUUUUUUUU QUALITY IS RELATIVE
Didn't read the rest, proud of you for getting this many replies but I'll give you one more: Anyone who even responds to relativistic arguments with anything but the back of their hand is a cuckold.
The correct response if at all is to note whoever made the statement, move them into Nonhuman category, and to forever after treat them like a non-person. You exist for sex, exploitation, and my pleasure. Nothing else. I will not feel bad cheating you, I will not feel bad lying to you or robbing you, or killing you if that is my desire. You're not a person. You have no claim to rights or life--you don't believe in either of those things.
Everything is up to interpretation? Very well, you are not a person. Nothing you say has or can have meaning. You likely believe that the truth is relative as well so you have no reason to speak the truth, you have no reason to be intellectually honest. You have no reason to treat me like a person. Your arguments are by definition in bad faith, because you have no faith. You cannot make promises or swear an oath, because you do not believe in God. You swear by nothing--or yourself, which is worth less than nothing because you are not a person.
Nonman.
That's nice, dear. Adults are talking, though. You can be seen, but we don't need to hear from you.
5e is an objectively terrible and shoddy product but TTRPG has always been an obscure niche hobby, even today. Most 5e players are there because of pulp culture references to D&D, video games, and of course the D&D podcasts/shows. They don't actually want to play the game, they want to recreate that thing they saw from that product. They have no interest in actually researching TTRPGs or being a good player, they simply are consooming the product because they liked the references to it in other products they consoomed. Therefore all their opinions and reviews of the system are invalid.
You couldn't even get five words in before proving yourself to be objectively a moron.
I can understand that, but if people manage to find the perfect balance of nutrients and flavour to eat shit, i'll still make fun of them for eating shit.
>best RPG
m80 u need to elaborate on best. best in what way? and no, overall doesnt cut it u need to be more specific
It's the world's most popular, moron. Popularity isn't the only metric of quality.
the world's best handjob isn't automatically from the world's most used prostitute
It's pretty simple. You could say the best roleplaying game is the one that, if everyone tried it, was most liked. But pretending like the thing everyone says they liked is automatically the best possible thing is fricking braindead.
The invention of the wheel would have been bad by your logic, since it started off only being known by the inventor, so everyone else must have agreed that walking is better.
If you want to piss around this board with metrics, you will have to compare the amount of people who played a system to the average amount of points that they'd give it compared to other systems they know. Which make it just about impossible to determine a "best" roleplaying game, since there's probably thousands with so little players that you are unaware of them.
It never ceases to amaze me how people who know so little about statistics and have thought their argument through so little and tested it with literally nobody write it up in a big thread of which the text can be summarized as "You only disagree if you're irrational or dumb".
I love how reasonable discussion has literally become trolling. Great job mods. Real fun "community" you run here.
>But, we have to grudgingly accept that people are allowed to have different opinions
If the last 10 years have taught us anything, it's that this sentiment is absolutely not true in the slightest.
True, you could spend your life seething about the opinions of people you will never see irl, that is an option. You can cut your own dick off too if you want.
What a fricking boring thread. All the contrarians came out of the woodwork to try and demonstrate why, "Heh, actually constructive discussion is bad and here's why." And then you spent hours getting shrekt over and over and over by simple and reasonable arguments. Why do you people bother?
>op pic
Haha, today I learned that Buddhism is fake and gay.