Ahh yes DND the system known for its excellent.. roleplay and uh... exploration
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Ahh yes DND the system known for its excellent.. roleplay and uh... exploration
Ahh yes DND the system known for its excellent.. roleplay and uh... exploration
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
More accurately, it's known for its moronic fans changing and adding things, and giving D&D credit for the things they personally altered.
It's how Critical Role and its many imitators marketed D&D.
It's how Stranger Things marketed it.
Even the recent D&D movie couldn't just portray it for what it is, and had to make changes.
People always have to make changes to it, therefore it is the best roleplaying system; because that's totally how quality works.
>moronic anti-D&D trolls repeating the same misinformation
>shitty youtube video
Yep, it's another dumbass troll thread with the same few contrarian morons.
Here's some clues.
>D&D's combat rules are not actually all that long. What's actually long is listing out all the class options.
>Rules for combat in most games end up being a large percentage of their page count. Even Ryuutama, a game primarily about wandering the wilderness and exploring and having cute adventures where everyone holds hands and sings songs, dedicates a solid third of its page count to dealing with combat rules (listing out weapon options, monster combat stats, explaining various combat mechanics, etc.). That's because the main purpose of rules is to help settle disputes at the table, and combat is essentially one big dispute.
>Excessive rules tend to get in the way of npc interaction and exploration.
And, this guy is particularly moronic.
He's been explained hundreds of times why he's so fricking stupid, and yet he persists with "nooooo, if you change 5% of a game, you're not playing the game!"
perhaps its time for a break
Frick off. Trying to spin 5E as an actually well written RPG is also contrarian bullshit. The combat is shallow, and there's almost nothing outside of it so everything has to be houseruled or made up by the GM, and you may as well just play a better game. Rogue Trader, Pendragon and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay come to mind. Shit, didn't even old DnD editions assume that you'll have mercenaries and will be working up to owning a castle or something?
It's a decent game. Far from perfect, but nowhere near as bad as you pretend it must be to justify how much effort you put into trolling about it.
Trying to wage an internet war over it makes you a Ganker homosexual.
You are a basic b***h troll. You go to a board, and complain about whatever happens to be the most popular thing on that board. D&D is your target because it just happens to be the most popular game here.
Don't bother replying. Go and discuss a game you actually play.
Sorry I think you said something wild there.
It's an okay game not decent
Why are you in a thread for saying bad things about D&D? You can just ignore threads you don't like, remember?
He's contractually obligated to defend the product.
I know, but it's fun to catch them on their hypocrisy.
>basic b***h troll
It's funny how much you pretend that your opposition is one person or a small minority when you're LITERALLY the only person that uses this extremely gay terminology. Why are you so defensive? Who cares if someone hates something you like? Why waste so much time and effort defending a massive product that's doing just fine from a financial and cultural standpoint?
Push back on that homosexual hard enough and he retreats to
>it's an okay game, you're all just mean!
>no game is perfect!
>every game is D&D anyways!
>D&D is the biggest game you're not allowed to be mean to it!
He loves talking shit as loudly and aggressively and repeatedly as possible, but he's a fricking simpleton with severe mental illness who has been doing this on /tg/ for closer to a decade than not.
You have a literal, no-meme, clinical delusion if you actually believe the crazy shit you just said. You are not a bloodhound flushing out a single dedicated poster who has been lying about their opinions for a solid decade. You are a lunatic who thinks anyone who doesn't have the same opinions as you is One Guy and not thousands of people you've harassed in paranoid fits. This website is not good for you. You are too fragile to socialize with anonymous posters.
He's not delusional.
You can tell he's delusional by the way he samegays.
I can literally spend 30 seconds on the archive and find him doing this same bit in 2016. Don't.
Watch what happens if you search "D&Dogshit" though.
You get to see a pretty obvious and sad trail of one guy's journey to try and force the dumbest shit.
I don't see how that takes away from my point. Two different people can be autistic.
I see one guy in there who found a new favorite phrase and spammed it over the past few months, yes
but then it goes back into obviously different anons using it as a basic phrase
lol nice try, gay, but no one but you is gay enough to think your forced meme is worth forcing. Might as well be signing your posts.
Same with "d&d brianrot."
You also see some nice trails if you search "containment thread". There's at least one guy who's literally been refreshing the board, looking for any new threads, and spamming that there needs to be D&D containment thread for hours at a time.
Even if it's more than one guy, that's pretty much anathema to the basic spirit of /tg/, and anyone that dumb needs to be booted from this board.
I think I saw him catch a ban earlier today.
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/92209123/#q92209194
I'm actually kind of weirded out how... blatant he's become. I guess multiple years of D&D still being the dominant game here despite all his efforts is really starting to crack him.
That's the problem with our trolls here. They're basically fricked. They have no way of stopping themselves; they've become too invested in their little war, and the only outcome is for them to go insane because people are not going to stop talking about D&D just because some trolls get mad about it. I'd feel bad for them if it wasn't self-inflicted.
I'm sure there's tons of people constantly talking about "/tg/'s worst troll" and "trollspam" every time someone says something negative about D&D, and ONLY in relation to D&D, and replying to dozens of people as if it were one person who is obsessively following him and him alone to annoy him with anti-D&D shitposts.
there's 1, maybe 2 guys who b***h every day about the "worst troll"
there's 1, maybe 2 guys who b***h every day about "HYTNPD&D"
everyone else hates those guys and constantly tell them to shut the frick up
Funny, how if the latter would disappear, all problems would be solved.
it actually wouldn't because the former assumes anyone who doesn't like d&d is the latter
No, it's very easy to both not like D&D and to not be a troll.
One easy way is to avoid discussing D&D, on account that you'd be aware that you have a bias and you naturally will have less experience with the game because you chose to play it less. You could also be aware that it would be very much a matter of opinion and personal preference, and that suggesting a blanket statement like "THE GAME IS BAD STOP PLAYING IT" is a ridiculous statement to make that is inherently inflammatory when talking about something as subjective as the quality of a TTRPG.
You could also try being civil and respecting other people's opinions. Recognize that your opinion belongs to that of a minority, so that by even by raw probability you stand to offends someone if you make a statement like "EVERYONE WHO LIKES D&D IS A homosexual WHO SHOULD DIE."
Of course, it's only too easy to lapse and end up acting like a troll. It's often even fun.
But, it's also kind of shameful to act like a troll and then try to deny it when called out as such. That makes you seem like one of the trolls who's not just in it for the laughs, but is actually loaded with an agenda and is desperate to try and alter people's opinions, no matter how low they need to sink in order to do so.
hytnpdnd is something from the edition wars. It's not recently coined and it's definitely not a One Guy situation.
>every time someone says something negative about D&D
Weird how you're trying to pretend this to be the case, because you need it to be the case to have any kind of argument. Sadly, it's not true.
What is true is that people have noticed your shit spamming. You're not as clever as you imagine yourself to be. You've even left a trail in the archive that a baby could follow. Lots of people complain about D&D all the time, but that doesn't make them trolls in the same way that you're a troll, because you leap to complain about D&D whenever a new thread even remotely related to D&D is made, and it's not subtle at all.
If you don't want people attacking you for being a troll: Stop being a troll. You're clearly motivated by an agenda, and one that you're not even particularly secret about having.
You're doing it again. Assuming it's one guy in every thread, every day, at all hours. You're beyond delusion, homosexual.
You're doing it again. Assuming it's one guy in every thread, every day, at all hours. You're beyond delusion, homosexual.
>If you don't want people attacking you for being a troll: Stop being a troll. You're clearly motivated by an agenda, and one that you're not even particularly secret about having.
This is such a funny thing to post from the guy who just admitted he obsessively stalks anti-D&D threads thinking he's hunting down one troll and calling him out, while pretending to have widespread support for his moronic crusade.
The thing is that you imagine it's just one guy who's noticed. Not only am I not the only guy who's called you out in this thread alone, it's basically impossible to imagine that anyone who's been on this board for longer than a day hasn't figured out your pattern.
Most people don't bother replying to you, and you must be aware of that. That's why you're here, now, because you need this attention so badly.
You can prove that wrong though. Go and discuss a game you actually play.
So you just know that everyone supports you, even though no one says that and calls you a huge homosexual all the time instead?
>I need to lie to make an argument!
Then you have no argument.
Literally happening in this thread right now, homosexual.
>I think I can reframe the thread just by lying!
No wonder you're a troll; You've can't handle reality.
No, you're actually being called a homosexual right now, homosexual. This is really happening and still no one is rushing to agree with you and defend your attempts at witty repartee.
Do you imagine you're on some sort of stage? Do you think this is a performance or something? That there's hundreds, or even dozens of people waiting for each of these posts?
I'm talking to you. Directly. And you are hoping to play some sort of numbers game, because you actually think argumentum ad populum is not just a fallacy.
Stop fricking around, and look at yourself. You're still more concerned with obsessing about a game you don't play, rather than discussing any that you actually do, all while trying to pretend anyone other than a fellow troll would back such a stupid position.
What are you hoping for? Another troll to chime in? That's going to make you somehow less wrong?
Go and discuss a game you actually play. Quit being a cancer.
You are not the discussion police.
I'm laying down a very basic idea that even you can follow.
If you actually hate D&D so much, and want to see people discuss other games more, discuss those other games. All your shitspamming has done nothing to diminish D&D's popularity on this board; all it's done is make most people get wise to your antics and ignore you.
That's why you're here, begging for attention to one of the few people kind enough to still give you any.
Prove me wrong though. Go out and discuss those better games instead of obsessing about one you don't even play.
You're not even replying to the same guy, moron.
If you're so self-assured and unwavering in your belief that 5e is truly that good and beloved by all (whoops, argumentum ad populum much?) then you wouldn't need to waste your time doing this every fricking day. But you do. Because you're insecure and your pooper feels bad when people say mean things about the game system you can't even defend without getting into this whole debate club shtick you think makes you look so smart and cool when you try it in every thread.
Notice how you need to lie and exaggerate and say things no one actually said?
No one said what you're arguing about. No one said 5e is truly that good etc. etc.
All that's been said is the factual statement that it is the most popular game here. It's the most popular RPG without even a close second. And, that's why you troll about it.
You are a very basic troll. We can find your kind on every single board. You come to a board, realize you can get attention by attacking something popular, and decide you're going to make it your personal obsession to wage war on that popular thing because that's the kind of person you are.
Try this. Go to any other board, and you will find your brethren. See what you look like to the rest of /tg/.
You're basically the redditor who comes here to anonymously speak his "opinion" because he knows he'd get banned for trolling like you do on Reddit.
You're not clever, nor subtle, nor is anything you do contrary to what I've described. You're just a very simple troll, and it's insulting to the rest of this board to pretend your antics are in any way not obvious to everyone.
And, you're still here.
I've never been banned for speaking my mind on any RPG on any forum.
Because you do all your shit posting anonymously. You're basically the worst kind of coward.
I don't shitpost. The content of my posts elsewhere is basically the same.
>it's an okay game, you're all just mean!
>no game is perfect!
>every game is D&D anyways!
>D&D is the biggest game you're not allowed to be mean to it!
Literally hit 3 out of 4 with one post.
People say bad things about D&D because they genuinely hate it or have legitimate complaints. That's what happened in this thread. You can't fathom that, because you're moronic, so you concoct this stupid routine you love doing, where you pretend everyone, no waitt, only one guy, is doing it to antagonize you, specifically, because they just want attention, from you I guess, for saying mean things about the game that is popular here, but which any negativity about it is consistently met with you, alone, flailing about, trying to make up excuses for why it's not allowed for people to say 5e is a poorly designed game.
>Literally hit 3 out of 4 with one post.
You mean none.
Holy frick, you're actually insane.
You can't even backpedal and just go "nah, I was just pretending", you literally can't actually see what people are posting and just invent strawmen to attack.
Your ego is that fragile. When you're losing an argument, you invent one that you imagine you can win.
And you're still here.
>I'm gonna get the last word in and that means I win!
We both know that you're going to keep replying to every post thinking it's one guy long after I leave.
You're assblasted that people don't like D&D and feel the need to defend it with the most limp-dicked argumentation, while entertaining some delusional fantasy that you're protecting the board from "trolls"
>People say bad things about D&D because they genuinely hate it or have legitimate complaints. That's what happened in this thread.
"5e bad" is kind of a shallow topic, so instead people delve into meta discussions about strangers online because a corpo made a popular game that nobody has the obligation to play.
>That's what happened in this thread
This troll thread?
This troll thread about a clickbait youtube video?
That's what you're hoping supports your fallacious argument?
It's weird.
Do you want to talk about the "D&Dogshit/containment thread" troll and still pretend he doesn't exist?
No he doesn't want to talk about him, because his argument hinges on their being no trolls on Ganker and what everyone is complaining about is just good honest posters expressing their opinions in good faith and with no agenda.
Really. That's his argument. No trolls on Ganker.
Now who said trolls don't exist when you're right here, homosexual?
>People say bad things about D&D because they genuinely hate it or have legitimate complaints.
Will you backpedal and admit that some of the people who "say bad things" do so because they just are trolls?
Here's the wikipedia definition of a troll.
>In slang, a troll is a person who posts deliberately offensive or provocative messages online[1] (such as in social media, a newsgroup, a forum, a chat room, an online video game) or who performs similar behaviors in real life. The methods and motivations of trolls can range from benign to sadistic. These messages can be inflammatory, insincere, digressive,[2] extraneous, or off-topic, and may have the intent of provoking others into displaying emotional responses,[3] or manipulating others' perception, thus acting as a bully or a provocateur. The behavior is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or purposefully causing confusion or harm to other people.[4]
Deliberately posting provocative and inflammatory messages on a forum in an attempt to manipulate others' perception qualifies as trollling, and that's basically what you're doing, even if you've actually convinced yourself that you "hate" a game.
>Will you backpedal and admit that some of the people who "say bad things" do so because they just are trolls?
People can't voice their genuine opinions without being trolls?
>Deliberately posting provocative and inflammatory messages on a forum in an attempt to manipulate others' perception qualifies as trollling
That makes you a troll, more than anyone who hates D&D. There's no manipulation of perception going on when people say something like "5e is a badly designed game" or "5e has minimal rules for exploration and social interaction" and it's hardly provocative or inflammatory to say as much.
>even if you've actually convinced yourself that you "hate" a game
There you go again, assuming that no one could possibly hate D&D.
>People can't voice their genuine opinions without being trolls?
No one said that. But, the reverse is possible, ie. someone can voice their genuine opinion and be a troll.
I don't like a lot of games. If I made threads just to complain about them, or constantly entered threads about them just to complain about them, or exaggerated my complaints about them, or recycled lies from other trolls and substituting that for any actual experience with the game, I would be a troll.
>There's no manipulation of perception going on
You're actively trying to get people to believe your exaggerated and minority-held contrarian opinions, which you share largely just to try and evoke a response. Because you're a troll.
You want to dance around that fact, but you're still here, and not even talking about a game you don't even play, you're trying to defend trolls who are so obvious that in order for you to defend them, you had to extend reasonable doubt to such limits where you had to pretend there's no trolls on Ganker. For frick's sake.
You've gone in a circle and again arrived at
>>D&D is the biggest game you're not allowed to be mean to it!
People go on Ganker to talk about how new cartoons and comics suck. Ganker talks about how much they hate new video games. Ganker... is a shithole. But /tg/ can't have people saying they hate D&D and think it sucks because it hurts your feelings.
You can keep swinging around the word "troll" like you've done for years, but you've swung so wide that if this were truly about trolling and not just that you've tied up what must be the majority of your self worth in defending D&D, you wouldn't want 99% of posts and threads on this site to exist because people are being mean and sharing contrary opinions and sometimes being a little sarcastic.
>other boards have shitty trolls
>why can't I be a shitty troll on this board?
Because this isn't Ganker or Ganker. Why are you trying to make it like them?
For frick's sake.
Every board has a negative attitude and freely discusses what things they like and dislike and argue about them. But D&D is a special exception to that behavior on Ganker, which had operated like this for 20 years, because it hurts your feelings and you think crying "troll" is a legitimate, rational, well-reasoned argument for why no one should ever say "have you tried not playing D&D?" or dare to suggest that there are problems with D&D as a game.
You're fricking pathetic. And I'm not saying that because I'm trying to trick you. I genuinely, sincerely, honestly believe you are pathetic.
>Every board has a negative attitude
No, not at all. Only the worst boards do, and really only the worst posters on those boards.
People in /toy/ like toys. People in /h/ like hentai. It's only when you get the sort of losers who like to wage wars over things like politics in comics or politics in video games or politics in politics that we see shitheads like you emerge.
And, it's not just D&D that get's complained about here by trolls like yourself. Warhammer and MtG both get their share, and people complain about people trolling about those as well. Popular games get attacked by people like yourself, the kind of contrarian trolls who troll about popular topics because they'd get no attention otherwise.
I'm kind of glad you've moved on to the "Yeah, so I have been trollling, okay, but is trolling even really that bad?!" stage. And, yes, trolling really is that bad.
40k, MtG, and D&D in their current states are pretty shit.
so? go to the associated threads and discuss it if you actually care.
What does the OP thread look like to you?
looks like a troll hate thread instead of a general about the popular topic. do we need 3 extra dnd threads just so you can meta b***h (That is, b***h about you not being able to b***h) about 5e by yourself?
>Only the worst boards do
So every board. Ganker was always cynical and pessimistic.
No.
Not at all.
Hell, it was incredibly optimistic in its early days.
It actually knew how to have fun. Fun!
But, now, we've got plenty of people like you, who instead of having fun, are so miserable you obsess about things you don't even think are fun.
>he thinks /tg/ has never done that
Shit
Twinkie
Contrarian minorities have always existed.
Shitting on 4E was not a minority by any means.
Yeah, it kind of was.
You might still be butthurt about it, but the whole edition war was always only ever between the worst people on /tg/.
Yes, they were loud and awful, but that tends to be how trolls are.
Now that's some serious trolling. 4e hate was off the charts. It made people love 3.5 and Pathfinder more than they ever did before.
Not really. The board (and the general public) was split almost an even 50/50 on 4e, which in part was one of the reasons the Edition War got so out of hand. It was a controversial topic, and trolls love controversial topics.
But, it was still mostly just trolls who engaged in the edition war. Because only trolls engage in that sort of thing to begin with.
Guess you are a troll then.
It really, really was not.
Was mostly shitposting and talking about how much they hate a thing. The difference is people were less serious back then, they actually guidelines for how to deal with troll (which was ignoring them dumbass) and most of our creatives were still around. Literal first post on the entire site was a shitpost.
Ganker was always shit. You’re delusional if you think it was anything else
He sounds like a plebbitor who thinks he's going to get goodboy points to pointing and crying about mean posts
Those horrible redditors and their... desire to make /tg/ a better place. Repugnant.
Looking for posts that criticise D&D just to cry about trolls is not making the board better.
If you think this thread is any indication of that homosexual's sincerely held desire to "make /tg/ a better place" you need to fellate the nearest firearm as soon as possible, my friend.
>It actually knew how to have fun. Fun!
Yeah and then quests got banned because they got in the way of some miserable c**ts system wars and elf slave wat do threads
>It actually knew how to have fun. Fun!
Anon, people were making OF you, not with you. We still are. This haven't changed.
And you chose to be here, trying to have some pseudo-intellectual debate club about the nature of trolling and what people should do to make Ganker a better place... But only for D&D. You don't do this shit in any other thread, do you? Rhetorical question, of course. We know you don't. Which means you're not actually concerned about the quality of the boards or stopping trolling and shitposting. You're no Anonymous saint. You're just a homosexual who gets butt-flustered when people say D&D is a shitty game. Because if you were honest, then you'd have to admit you don't actually have a reason to act the way you do, which is embarrassing and shameful, so you have to couch it in this "trolling" gimmick.
>You don't do this shit in any other thread, do you?
I complain about any terrible troll pretty openly.
Though, you particularly are a pretty terrible and obvious troll.
Also, it's a certainty that you're biased. Not sure we can count on your perception on anything, especially because you're still convinced you're talking with your lone sole nemesis, rather than just one of many people (including several in this very thread) who are just tired of your bullshit.
I don't even really get what you're hoping to do here. You're basically admitting to being a troll, and now you're hoping to try and act like anyone is worse than you are? And, they're worse for telling you what you are?
Do us all a favor. Get a real hobby. Go to any other thread, about any other game, and learn about something so you can start caring about it as much as you seem to do about D&D.
>I'm the same guy who does this shit in every thread
>I'm not one guy who does this in every thread!
You're not very bright, are you?
Trying to tell me what I am and not listening to how wrong you are doesn't make you smart, you know.
No but it makes him less of a homosexual than you
Yes he is a cum guzzling homosexual with no self-awareness. What of it?
You genuinely have no clue you were talking to at minimum three people. This is unbelievable. You need to destroy your computers, man, you've overdosed on Internet and it's made you braindead. You should take up kayaking or something else placid, solitary, and importantly, o u t s i d e.
>verification not required
Damn right.
>If you actually hate D&D so much
You fricked up already.
Yeah, you're doing exactly what you always do. You've humiliated yourself for hours, failed to get even a single positive (You) that validates your insane obsession with suckign WotC wiener, and now you're desperately trying to save face by putting on some big fricking song and dance number after you failed to accurately read and understand anything said to you.
The only thing anyone wants is for you to stop. Just stop being such a huge moronic homosexual. No more "worst troll" posts. No more pretending you're tracking down one guy. No more of your homosexualy little armchair psychology sessions where you just project your deeply rooted insecurities onto random fa/tg/uys. Just stop. You're legitimately the worst person on /tg/ and you know it.
>I need to lie and spin to have any kind of argument!
Then you have no argument.
And you're still here, obsessing about a game you don't play, and getting mad about being called out on it.
Really, it's the funniest thing that you get mad about anyone going "Wow, look at these obvious trolls" and imagining anyone except an obvious troll would get mad about being called out as such.
>where you just project your deeply rooted insecurities onto random fa/tg/uys. Just stop. You're legitimately the worst person on /tg/ and you know it.
The irony here is... it's beautiful. This is an irony so great and sad that it's actually beautiful. Someone please make an opera out of this homosexual's projection right here, it's on another level.
Why do you try to act like you're not mindlessly b***hing about a game you don't play.
You like to use various lies, exaggerations, and pure bullshit to try and claim some sort of high ground in your little b***h fests, but you're still objectively being nothing but a little b***h.
Go talk about a game you actually play. Oh, wait, but you don't want to do that, because you're a troll.
Go on. Prove me wrong. Run away.
Literally rushing to do exactly what was just described. You obsessively defend D&D in every fricking thread you can find, and when you're outed as acting like a tremendous moronic homosexual, you spaz out and start grasping at straws.
all me btw
Stop replying to the troll.
>Muh console war bullshit
Listen homosexual, people complaining about d&d is due to bullshit like muh "3 pillars" pushed around that aren't simply not true. Old D&D had actual procedures for each of them: social, while not being sophisticated, could rely to properly codified disposition, morale, hirelings management and, to some degrees, dominion rules, exploration had minutiae of particular environmental hazards, telescoped in/out turns (eg: dungeon turns), roles exclusivity (eg: if you're foraging you can't navigate), etc...
Currently you got less than half than that vaguely addressed and most of what remains is reduced to "roll the die to fast forward the scene", stating that social and exploration are pillars in current d&d design is plainly disingenuous.
Procedures suck ass.
Wanting roleplaying to gamify what doesn't need to be gamified is a step backwards, not forwards. People can use their own logic and understanding to determine how interacting with an NPC would work out; they don't need cumbersome rules getting in the way any more than necessary. If I want to intimidate an NPC, I can just say something intimidating, and the DM can figure out how intimidating that would be in a far more nuanced and calculated method than any rule system under a thousand pages could provide.
Similarly, environmental hazards and the like don't need complicated rules. They just need ways for players to interact with them, and the core system provides that. If you want more specifics on more complicated hazards, those don't belong in a core rule book, because core rule books are not supposed to be 5,000 pages long.
Combat tends to need rules because it's not as easy to resolve as simply "Describe what your character does/says, and I'll tell you if it works or not." It tends to even be more complicated than "Describe the action you want to take, and I'll tell you what check you need to make." It's a complicated dispute. Basically every single attack against a player will have the player preferring not to be hit, and the NPC preferring for the attack to hit. The DM is aiming for the battle to deplete some of the party's resources, while the party is trying to reserve as much resources as they can.
It's similar to why games with magic tend to have a lot of rules concerning magic. We don't have real-world equivalences to use as a commonly understood foundation, so any use of magic could be a dispute and discussion as each person has their own ideas and preferences on how it should work.
Rules exist to help solve disputes. They shouldn't exist just to waste time.
>Procedures suck ass
I don't need to read the rest. Listen friend, my point isn't about the goodness or not of procedures but disputing the whole 3 pillars bullshit. I can pick Maids and use it for a dungeon crawl game, does it make dungeon-crawling a Maid pillar? Of course not, because as-is Maid doesn't have a framework specific of that particular endeavour, it's just a situational dressing.
>but disputing the whole 3 pillars bullshit
...THAT'S what you're upset about today?
Another dumb misunderstanding?
Look. Buddy. Pal. Amigo. I want you to understand something basic.
>Rules exist to help solve disputes. They shouldn't exist just to waste time.
Go and read the rest of my post so you can understand why your knickers shouldn't be twisted. You're acting like page count determines how much time is actually spent in the game interacting with the various pillars. If you've ever actually played the game, you'd realize that a conversation with an NPC can take up five minutes without a single roll being made, and exploring a forest could be another five minutes, with only a handful of rolls here and there. But, suddenly, combat, and you're rolling twice a minute for five minutes. These all feel natural, because they each require different amounts of disputes to be settled.
Five minutes each, with different amounts of needed rules. Some sessions might be 80% combat, some might be 60% exploration, and some sessions might have no combat or exploration and just be a group of people negotiating. What you're getting hung up about is some sort of autistic need for worthless rules that slow down the game and are not needed, and acting like the game is unaware that when the players are immersed in a conversation with an NPC, the easiest way to bring them out of it is to start setting up a "procedure" and asking for rolls and using bonuses based on calculated reputation and bonus points for hitting specific checkmarks and other dumb and unnecessary nonsense that beginner designers always try to throw into their budding systems.
Design isn't just about making up rules. It's about refining them. Eliminating the unnecessary.
>worthless rules that slow down the game and are not needed
I, too, wish that D&D 5th ed. combat was more streamlined.
>Look. Buddy. Pal. Amigo. I want you to understand something basic.
Tune down a little the condescending tone, would you?
>Rules exist to help solve disputes. They shouldn't exist just to waste time.
And? Sure. I'm going to cut short here and explain myself a little better. Referring to "procedures" i'm adressing the issue of design intent: ad&d could be a convoluted mess of clunky-ass patched subsystems but ultimately had a sort-of unified design intent (being accidental or not) that could actually be exemplified with the 3 pillars buzzword. Another example: Primetime Adventures, this game is extremely succinct in the actual body of rules and yet is whole framework fits to a T the writing on the tin can. Current d&d simply isn't a game about exploration, social, at leat no more than Maid being a game about dungeon delving.
>Tune down a little the condescending tone, would you?
Listen, my hypocritical friend. I haven't even begun to show 10% of my condescending power.
>Current d&d simply isn't a game about exploration, social
Except it is. Just telling us it's not when the game itself says it is, and has the rules to back it up, puts you at a huge disadvantage.
Remember: There are games that the entirety of their rules exist on a single page. And, D&D has multiple pages dedicated to exploration, social, etc.
You're desperately trying to hold onto a point that doesn't exist. Take the L and move on to your next dumb "thing other trolls have said that I'm going to repeat like the braindead troll that I am."
>And, D&D has multiple pages dedicated to exploration, social, etc
Being? A skill check? Some disjointed codified conditions? Also aren't you the one saying that page count would mean shit? What a buffoon.
>Muh trolls
Oh, you're the schizophrenic frick, that explain the histrionic mannerism.
If you make a table and balance it on 3 legs, but one of the legs is a cinder block, one is a rotten stick your grabbed from your yard, and the other is made up a couple of old soda cans you duct taped together, you're going to have a shitty table. Combat is the cinderblock, social interaction is the stick, and exploration is the couple of cans. They are objectively there and can be used, but try to rely on them and the table collapses. Which is why people have spent the last couple decades trying to come up with replacement systems, because pillars are supposed to equally support the same load, and when they don't you have a frick up on your hands.
D&D is renown for its exploration and combat.
>renown
And yet, combat is a fricking mess, bounded accuracy has shot the game in both knees, dungeons are an afterthought at best, and despite having more money than any other TTRPG in the world, amateurs and part-time hobbyists design better dungeon crawling fantasy adventures for a fraction of the price.
>bounded accuracy has shot the game in both knees
it just makes weaker enemies remain a threat
Bounded accuracy does way more than that.
>Design isn't just about making up rules. It's about refining them. Eliminating the unnecessary.
Yeah, that's why when my baseball group got together to play, we decided trying to hit a ball and running the bases was unnecessary. When we play baseball, we just turn on the television and watch it, and it's still a game because we rewote what we didn't like.
We love to play baseball.
Without rules cor the three pillars, each table could well be playing a very different game. You don't want to gamify part of a game, clues in the name of role-playing don't you think? It's such a narrow minded view, the rules help players know what to expect and a consistency when certain events happen and put much less mental load on the dm, who, by the way is not your babysitter nor ameture dramatics teacher
>the rules help players know what to expect and a consistency when certain events happen
This. And not just that, but arguing that the rules got something wrong when something isn't right is a whole different world from arguing that your DM got something wrong.
>Procedures suck ass
Lol moron. Procedures were absolutely a good thing since they give a solid framework for the players and gms to work with and help support emergent gameplay. Most players aren’t even capable of independent thought and struggle with freeform so having a clear structure to work in would help roleplay not hurt it.
Broadway is thataway
What about domain management, rules for running a business, rules for conducting trade, rules for warfare, and magical research? These are not easily or satisfactorily resolved by the whim of a GM. Rules exist for them, certainly, but not in 5e.
Why would anyone want rules for fantasy tax codes?
You're too stupid to be part of this hobby. Get into TTS and play Gloomhaven instead of vomiting your moronic opinions here.
How many games have you played with other people involving running a fantasy business in your spare time and monitoring fantasy trade policies, vs going dungeon crawling?
Dungeon crawls FUND THINGS like mercantile expeditions, businesses, and realms. To crawl without anything to invest in is an insane and, in ooc terms, VERY BORING experience. It boggles my mind that you are angry that there are systems which actually do encourage and expect players to have serious plans and goals outside of killing the next creature the party runs into.
As I said, go play Gloomhaven you little homosexual.
It boggles the mind that you'd want or need anything more than, "I want to have fun with my buddies and play around as a monk punching monsters and demons to death".
And that it expresses itself as, "I want to larp as a small business owner".
You have a defective personality and a very dull, dim mind. I expect you don't have any friends to play with. I actually run and play games, and have for years.
Why do you care so much?
Clearly you don't, because most players don't care about pretending to be managers of a small pawn shop that sells random dungeon trinkets.
They just want to play a storyline with their buddies and the wanderlust for adventure is more than enough justification, even if they create a sad backstory to give the DM some meat to chew on.
I don't know who you are playing with, but I hope I never have to meet them unless its tax season.
>most players
Are not the people I am playing with. I do not care nor do I desire to modify my game to suit the limited and shallow interests of hypothetical beer and pretzels players. I play with adults, we are all serious people, we do not have any interest in playing out some "storyline", and the emergent narrative of dealing with threats to your realm/business/wizard tower are far more interesting than random monster encounters.
Besides that, for all the whining you're doing about the mere idea of having real answers to the question of taxation and economics, you completely ignored the other aspect of realm management, which is playing out field battles. Your game has no rules to support this, you're just supposed to "wing it", which is completely unsatisfying both to GMs and players. Warfare is an almost unavoidable and inherently interesting aspect of fantasy games, so your casual dismissal of using any kind of rules to arbitrate it is evidence of your insincere position that "lol who even needs more than monster fighting rules", what you're actually doing is mere apologism, because you're deeply mentally ill.
Well if there's no rules for the thing, then yeah wing it. D&D might not be for you.
>heh yeah I just don't need any rules for differentiating mass combat from the skirmishes my PCs get into
>I'm so clever, I just make up a combat encounter with the enemy general and that determines the outcome, the battle and the armies are just meaningless fluff
Mental illness.
It's true though. D&D is about player characters, not armies. I accept your concession.
more like dnd isn't for the majority of contexts it ends up being shoehorned into
thread ended here
Because they want the world to feel like a world and not an artificial construct?
>the DM can figure out how intimidating that would be in a far more nuanced and calculated method than any rule system under a thousand pages could provide
He could, or he could be a dumfrick moron (like yourself) and completely frick it up, which is the point of rules. Also
>Under a thousand pages
If you think you need a thousand pages to somewhere provide some framework for roleplay (or any other game system), you're dreaming. Other editions of the game did it just fine. Other games do it just fine.
>and the DM can figure out how intimidating that would be in a far more nuanced and calculated method than any rule system under a thousand pages could provide.
Or... the DM could frick it up because of the inherent disconnect between the player and the DM's imaginations and start a huge argument at the table. You know, that's an option too.
No player has ever felt their shitty ideas are fricking gold, what are you talking about?
You have to be a no-games to actually think that.
Are you lazily trolling, actually agreeing with my sarcastic statement or just genuinely a brainlet?
>sarcasm
>on the internet
Lack of procedure is why fewer and fewer people want to DM since WotC took over
DnD objectively boomed in population on both sides of the table, after WOTC took over.
Whether you think that was earned or not, doesn't change that it happened.
D&D 5e boomed in popularity, but it didn't boom in DM numbers. The problem is so bad and people are so fricking clueless and afraid of DMing that they'd rather pay other people to do it for them.
>D&D 5e boomed in popularity, but it didn't boom in DM numbers.
It did.
The issue is just that the population exploded too quickly, and it takes far less time to learn how to be a player than it does to be a DM. It's essentially effortless to be a player in 5e. That's not to say it's an enormous challenge to be a DM, but it does take a bit more time and effort than "effortless."
While DM numbers surged as well, boomed if you will, player numbers jumped even further and faster, as you'd naturally expect them to.
>t they'd rather pay other people to do it for them.
I'm actually willing to argue that's less to do with 5e, and more to do with Chaturbate and Onlyfans. People whoring themselves on the internet is it own unique phenomenon, and I'd like you to pay attention to the fact that it's more often DM's advertising their services, rather than players begging for DMs.
Tell me you’ve never DM’d outside of 5e and Pathfinder without telling me you’ve never DM’d outside of 5e and Pathfinder
I'm well aware that other systems suffer from having too many GMs and not enough players, but I think we can all figure out why that's the case.
>Hey guys, check out this game! Want me to run it for you?!
>No, because all you ever do to try and sell us on it is how much you hate D&D and how D&D sucks
>... So you want me to run it for you or not?
>Nah, we'd rather pay some prostitute who actually likes games to run 5e for us, instead of playing with a bitter contrarian who's only motivated by hate.
>While DM numbers surged as well, boomed if you will, player numbers jumped even further and faster, as you'd naturally expect them to.
I feel like this is just saying the same thing in a different way. The ratio of DMs to players is worse than it's ever been and has never really been corrected. The exact reasons can be debated and speculated on, but there's no denying that 5e has a DM shortage.
It absolutely boomed the numbers of both, don't even try this.
5E has been around for quite a while by this point.
DMs-for-hire is just a product of the hobby growing faster than small high school friend groups to play it can be formed.
When people are becoming fans of the game without having an in-road or group of buddies, paying to join a game ran by a DM-for-hire, with others in the same boat, is the standard.
There are of course always a greater number of DM-pro-bono types in this 'market' but there is that inherit perception of value and quality that comes with even a few dollars of pay being sent.
Along with that is the greater expectation for larger fantasy stories and complicated maps and layouts. You can't drop 1970s Greyhawk on people today, the expectations are much higher and so is the time commitment for the average DM. At a certain point, expecting a few bucks for your effort is part of the trade.
>You can't drop 1970s Greyhawk on people today
Cope. İt mogs anything written today. homosexual
>He's been explained hundreds of times why he's so fricking stupid, and yet he persists with "nooooo, if you change 5% of a game, you're not playing the game!"
Way to demonstrate you've never seen a single one of my posts.
Have a nice day.
>"nooooo, if you change 5% of a game, you're not playing the game!"
You're so fricking dense that you've had this discussion dozens of times and still don't understand what people are saying.
>i want to complain about D&D and I hate when people look at my pathetic and petty nitpicks and just say "it's not a big deal, and if you think it is, just change it bro, quit being a homosexual."
It's pretty easy to understand you.
You're doing it again. You are a shining example of D&D brainrot being quite literal, and not just a joke.
If that’s your genuine opinion, then I’d be interested in seeing your opinion of my own game. Would you be up for checking it out?
>That rule problem doesn't happen
>And if it did, it wasn't that bad
>And if it was, it's not a big deal
>And if it is, that's not the designer's fault
>And if it was, it's not intentional
>And if it is, then it's actually a good thing
>And if it's not, just change it yourself
>"it's not a big deal, and if you think it is, just change it bro, quit being a homosexual."
that's the problem, not the solution
Nobody has to houserule chess, or Catan, or carcassonne. 99% of boardgames are played as-is, no changes required. The only reason you have to homebrew so heavily (and I'm not talking about content, I'm talking about systems and fixes) is because it's not a well-made game. I don't think anyone says you're literally not playing dnd if you houserule. The guy you called out, for example, is just saying it's moronic to say DnD is good at exploration when it's actually one of the aspects it fails hardest at, and any time it succeeds it's in spite of the game's actual rules rather than because of them. And he's absolutely right.
Chess has no roleplay.
Catan barely has any.
DnD, Pathfinder, White Wolf, all have roleplay and have to be adjusted on the fly to fit the specific and unique needs and desires of any given group.
You never responded to the post about the definition of “pillar” and “game” so I don’t have much hope for this but in the hopes there’s some good faith left in this thread, what do you think “roleplay” means? So much of these arguments seem to be you and your opponents talking past each other without ever taking the time to sit down and define your terms, standards, and premises.
Hey, i literally tried here
to make him spill his beans but the homosexual evaporated
That was my first post in the thread.
Regardless, roleplay is based around the focus being enacting a fantasy, instead of trying to follow the rules to win based on any objective measure.
Roleplaying in chess is basically impossible, you can play for a certain style. But if the style is inefficient or not useful, you're either going to drop it or just lose the game every time. If you want to fantasize about your knight going on a daring one-man hunt for the enemy queen, you can. But if it is captured in 3 turns, and you still have the rest of the game to play, it will become clear that chess isn't an avenue to express your fantasies.
Basically all TTRPGs are about the roleplaying ahead of any objective measures of success.
The point isn't to max out DPS and HP regeneration spells and grind down raid bosses like it is a video game. Because the game is capricious by nature of having every aspect decided by another human that could just kill you all off in a minute.
Instead, it is all about the communal aspects of working with each other to fulfil those fantasies each player enjoys. And rules are always going to be fudged in any given direction to facilitate that. Maybe you have less time than most groups to play, so HP stats are cut down for most enemies or you're given more spell slots so that combat goes quicker. Whatever.
A somewhat idiosyncratic definition, but we can work with it. So we have a definition of “role playing.” Now how about “game”? Because what you are describing is role playing with the game part vaguely left in the background and without a clear reason to be there. At this point there’s little to distinguish what you’re talking about from LARPing.
A Roleplaying Game, as I think most of the rest of us are defining it, is a set of rules and procedures to adjudicate actions and consequences for characters in an open-ended environment. Remove the open-endedness and it becomes a board game; remove the characters and it becomes a strategy game; remove the rules and it becomes improv or a collaborative narrative.
You obviously aren’t advocating getting rid of rules in TTRPGs, but your focus on the roleplaying to the point that the game portion is diminished leaves you discussing and defending something in a way totally divorced from how it actually exists and why.
The game part gives structure to the larping.
So that you're all on the same page and all understand what you're larping over.
Put a bunch of guys in a room together, all of them trying to share their larping fantasies, and you have a mess.
Give them a game that provides structure, shared topics, and some kinds of limits so you don't have, "I am Sir Ironside, my armor is impenetrable, my mind is incorruptible, I can kill a dragon in a single blow!", type playground bullshit.
It is a narrative being held together in a straitjacket by just enough rules and guidelines about what you can do and how you can do it, that keeps it from falling apart.
That’s not a game, though. Collaborative narrative session, improv, play acting, all these have structure without being games, at least not in the sense that “tabletop role playing game” means. Having a shared topic is only a “rule” in the most general sense of the term and is useless to help understand the genre we are supposed to be discussing.
You are discussing a perfectly fine past time but it is not a role playing game and to the extent you use one to structure this activity, it is utterly pointless. It is the equivalent of treating chess as a free kriegspiel with paintable miniatures. Sure, it can be done, it might even be enjoyable, but why not just use actual miniatures with free kriegspiel rules instead of needlessly using a mostly unrelated game and participating in discussions about it that have little common ground with how you “play chess”?
If you want to be goofy, it is an RPg, where something like a video game like Dark Souls or Baldur's Gate is an rpG.
In DnD or a similar system, the game aspect is there to give direction and purpose to the fantasies. You come with what you want to do, and then the game makes it something that others can relate to and that can be integrated into a collaborative effort with others.
The games rules are to give a method to the madness.
Compare that to a role playing video game, and those are games before they're roleplaying experiences.
Because the rules are set in stone before you ever sat down, the measures of success are objectively established before you ever bought the game, and roleplaying is now about getting to a certain pre-written end, more than just for pure self-satisfaction.
Your description of how DnD is different from a video game like BG3 does nothing to distinguish it from Heroquest or an Improv session. Improv sessions have rules as well, does that make them TTRPGs? Of course not. You are not engaging with the terms, or the genre, or the game, as it is intended, and are instead forcing them to fit into your notion of what a role playing game is despite serious design and intent disconnects.
Improv sessions lack that guiding effort established with DnD.
There are rules to improv, but they're to keep someone from starting to 'improv' about a weird fetish they have or the like. Or start being a prick and going, "no, but", to everything.
Rules in DnD are there to take someone's heroic (or villainous) fantasy and then give it some direction and intelligibility with others.
>oh, you want to be a knight that slays an ogre and saves a princess, join the team
>we got a huntsman that can talk to animals and was raised by wolves, we got a charismatic gentleman thief, we got a devout priest of an earth goddess, and we have an ancient hermit wizard
>we're all going to beat back this fire drake, we can put your ogre quest along the way, sounds cool?
Standard improv sessions basically suck at facilitating mutual roleplaying because too much is committed to pure imagination. Giving all the roleplay the structure of a game, means that you can have people mutually collaborate while understanding what everyone else is doing and who exactly they are.
The intention from extremely early on was for things to be more about the roleplaying than treating it all as a pure game.
You keep saying “D&D does this” and then provide examples that have nothing to do with D&D besides thematic overlap. To return to my earlier example this like saying “I enjoy wargames where you and your opponent can do whatever your units would do and an arbitrator can tell the results. That’s why I love chess, it comes with minis and a board, so you can do that with more structure than what the Prussian Officers that invented Free Kriegspiel were doing. The important thing is to have realistic tactics for your riflemen, that’s a pillar of chess.” It’s almost a non sequitor. I have no doubt you actually play D&D since it is harder every year to find a table that actually understands what the game is meant to do, and you reflect that trend perfectly, but God almighty do I wish you didn’t so your complete and total lack of understanding of what D&D is, what TTRPGs are, and what words mean, would stop making the game even more unbearable than WOTC does.
So tell me what you think the 'correct' way to play a TTRPG is?
DnD deliberately facilitates basically all of what I'm discussing by design. And regularly has rule books and expansions released that cover more and more content to allow for Referees to better handle different roleplaying efforts by players. Showing that accounting for all of this, rather than trying to legislate rules for the players to follow and shutting out wacky fantasies, is the intention of DnD. And that has been the case for a very long time.
So please share what you see as the correct method to play DnD or a similar system.
You play it by identifying the core gameplay loop and making decisions within that loop that your character would make. Thats it. By relegating the rules to a vague, handwavey “structure”, you leave out the core gameplay loop and thus turn the game into something it was never designed to be.
5e is a bad game because it doesn’t have a single clear core gameplay loop. It claims to have three, invests the vast majority of its mechanical depth in a character building mini game, and then builds the rest of the system like a tactical skirmish combat game. The right way to play it is to fight monsters to earn xp, use that to level up your character sheet, and use the new abilities to fight monsters and earn more xp. Ideally you realize pathfinder does this better and go play that instead.
Personally, I prefer a core gameplay loop of “explore the environment (usually a dungeon), collect treasure, return to town, buy better equipment, and use that to explore the environment.” The OSR games and early editions of D&D contain great mechanical systems to support me making decisions that my character would within this gameplay loop. I play those games because the right way to play them is the way I want to play.
I don’t have experience with PbtA, Fate, or Dungeon World, but I’m told that those games contain great rules for collaborative storytelling without saddling players with 500 pages of monster statistics, character subclasses, and magic weapons that don’t contribute to the core loop of “tell a story, yes and the developments, tell the next part of the story.”
>and then builds the rest of the system like a tactical skirmish combat game.
That's intentionally shallow, mind you, so it doesn't even appeal to players who like this.
>Ideally you realize pathfinder does this better and go play that instead.
or you just play D&D, because it's designed to do this well.
Gameplay loops are for video games. They don't have a lot of place in a freeform experience like a TTRPG or any real life game that isn't built around programmed mechanics that have to engage with your effort-reward centers to be entertaining in absence of other means.
Just play Dark Souls if you don't care about roleplaying or collaborate storytelling much, and just want to fight mobs and level up.
>Gameplay loops are for video games.
Wrong.
The ignorance of game design in this post is absolutely stunning. Genuinely baffling that someone can play TTRPGs and believe this. I don’t even know how to begin telling you that you’re wrong. It’s like someone saying words have no place in a diary because words are pre-defined and diaries are meant to be freeform.
Any well written game will have a core gameplay loop because it will invest its mechanical economy into that loop, and the very existence of structures for that loop will incentivize players to engage with it. Not having one simply means there is no economy of rules and no design intent, which makes the game pointless. It ceases to provide actual structure and is just a mass of rules without context or clearly defined purpose.
The game is pointless.
It is a set of guidelines and rules for the players and the referee to create purpose in.
Stat tables and combat/level rules give no purpose unless you like seeing numbers on a spreadsheet go up.
>it's pointless
>and here's the point
amazing
Don't argue with him.
He is the dreaded hyper troll, evolving and mutating to ever increasingly autistic and asinine copes. Logic and reason are beyond this fiend for it knows not that it is a troll, many have tried to fight it yet they return either baffled or overwhelmed by the force of its schizophrenia and same homosexualry.
I warn thee away, abandon this thread and any other which its tard rage contaminates, for it is lost.
No. D&D had a loop from day one. Explore stuff to get loot so you use that loot to explore more dangerous stuff to get better loot.
Gameplay loop are a universal game design thing. Every functional game has a loop or multiple loops built-in whether on purpose or by accident.
Are you too stupid to read what I said?
I read what you said, and you're clearly wrong. You want pillar to be about something else.
Are you an AI? I refuse to believe a person could miss the point of what I said here
that hard.
respond to this
I addressed that dumbass. You are arguing fundamentally different axioms, you do know what an axiom is right?
When did you address it?
was it here
?
saying it's not a pillar does not make it not a pillar. How's that, feels good doesn't it?
You are arguing different axioms. Black person, what do you think an axiom is? You are both asserting fundamentally different ideas of what a pillar is. Both of which are valid but ultimately pointless arguments.
He is very clear about what he thinks a pillar is, stating it needs enough rules to support it to be a pillar which is a perfectly fine declaration and not at all incorrect. However it runs into the question of how many rules are needed?
You think the pillars are what people play D&D for. Which is arguably also true but does have its own issues mainly that it’s very shaky ground to begin with.
Understand? There’s a reason I asserted discussing whether D&D is even a good roleplaying would be better.
I've seen it before a couple of times. The shill just start to answer a word salat like that to avoid any real conversation. The state of /tg/ in 2024.
"True Dungeons and Dragons has yet to be tried."
We're still not going to play your obscure jank, Ted.
>obscure bad
Then stop making it obscure, mf
You don't have to play what I make, because I make it for myself.
I'll be honest senpai. I've never played or ran a vanilla ttrpg once in my life. On God.
Lmao it's literally make-believe games senpai. They all get edited senpai. Run a game senpai.
Literally shit disparaging baka. 5E is kind of shite, but saying homebrewing doesn't count is fricking laughable dude. Homebrew is the fire core of this hobby.
Why are you booing him? He's right!
It's the same reason why people think Skyrim or Fallout 4 is a great game yet none of them will dare to play it vanilla.
Survival mode is in vanilla. What mod would I even use, honestly.
When the "three pillars™" bullshit was slapped on d&d for the first time? It's a 5e thing? At least for older editions there were some procedures for social (morale, hirelings) and exploration (hexcrawl, survival).
->
5e codified it as being a thing while doing the least to actually support it.
AD&D has better support for all three pillars purely due to things like reaction rolls and dungeon turns.
There is supposed to be a prerelease final draft of the 5E core book with the exploration chapter in it.
Never been able to find it but it apparently showed up here once.
It's funny how DnDogshit pretends to have "three pillars" when 98% of the rules are combat and character building. DnDogshit is NOT a roleplsying game or exploration game, it is a skirmish combat simulator. To say it's anything else is just delusional moronation.
D&D is nothing on its own.
What people say "it is" is acutually just the personal changes they or their daddy DM made to it.
The vast majority of the book is taken up by tactical combat rules
>but spells-
Are 90% combat oriented.
>there's nothing in the book
>"b-but the s-spells are t-tactical"
Oh wow.
Such content.
So vast.
>D&Dogshit
Post your system so I can laugh at you
Runequest
Ha
>laughing at someone who spends every day being bullied
You're mean.
Why are there three heads? DnD (5e) literally has almost zero rules for exploration or social roleplay other than Persuasion and Survival existing as literal one-sentence skills.
Because morons unironically think pic related, due to false but effective marketing.
Somewhere in there there are rules about needing to eat, but rations are so dirt cheap (and moronic shit like goodberry exists) that players never actually have to worry about survival during exploration at all. Most DMs don't even bother because it's just meaningless bookwork. If you want a real exploration/survival experience you are a hundred times better off playing something like Ryuutama or Five Torches Deep.
Yeah but even ryuutama and stuff like TOR are the travel equivalent of 5e combat, mostly busywork with the illusion of depth. If you want good travel, you have to look to board games.
Could also try Forbidden Lands. Got to steal your own pigs if you want a consistent supply.
Honestly, I think for good exploration you don't need a good system, you need a good GM. That's what my experience with The Dark Eye tells me anyway.
A good GM still benefits from having a good ruleset and the quality of the GM is totally separate from the system itself. Having the best GM making up bespoke rulesets and procedures and supplementing the severe weaknesses of the other two pillars is not a feature of D&D and what's actually quite worse is that 5e, specifically, does very little to help teach newer players and GMs how to become that guy. So it's not even like you could say playing enough 5e will eventually make people into the good GMs the system sorely needs in order to make it a complete system.
And this goes for players, also. Bunch of replies in this thread have tried to shrug off the faults of the system by saying it's not that 5e is bad and combat is slow (it is and it is), but that it's the players' fault for not learning the system better and knowing how to play faster. The system does very little, if anything, to teach or present itself in a way that makes it smooth to run and play. Even just a slightly different character sheet design or a couple more pages on combat procedures would do wonders, but 10 years later and they couldn't even do that.
>slow
>faster
This hobby isn't ABOUT going quickly, it's about long campaigns for years.
Yes, but 90% of that time shouldn't be fiddling with the minutia of combat. When people say combat is slow, they aren't complaining that they've been playing the same campaign for months. They're bored because an encounter with 10 goblins took 3 and a half hours of their 4 hour session.
What reason would there be to have faster combat, to make it to another combat?
Whatever the frick it is you think you're doing, you're really only reinforcing the point that's been made in this thread repeatedly. The only thing with any mechanical depth that 5e has is combat, and it's not even that good.
That’s because you don’t need mechanic depth to navigate talking to others. One would assume because you do it every day you know how to talk to others and how it works. Adding in luck dice, special feats, and tokens to make your talking more mechanically rich still doesn’t divorce the mechanic from the fact that you’re just talking with another.
How many different mechanics do you think you needed in this conversation with strangers online?
Roll to see if you've made him mad.
I did lol, no roll required. This is an example of not requiring mechanics
Because talking to another person has some mechanical depth when it comes to making them do something they might not usually do (see dmg for rules) but you haven’t used any mechanics yet for talking with us so why would we need it for the game? If you can’t figure out why combat would be different you’re too stupid to make the claim that you need mechanics for talking
No a pillar is just an important part of the game, why would you need rules for simulating talking when it’s already clear how taking works?
>a pillar is just an important part of the game
>a game is a set of rules
It stands to reason then that pillars are important parts of the rules, no? The argument here isn’t over whether social encounter rules and procedures are needed but over whether the lack of them means they aren’t part of the game.
*Sorry, aren’t “pillars” of the game, I mistyped
>why would you need rules for simulating talking when it’s already clear how taking works?
It's amazing seeing you post shit like this while demonstrating how fricking bad you are at reading and comprehending what's being said to you.
>ad hom
Thanks for the victory loser. I win this argument. Try again next thread
5e is verbose ye, its like 9 pages worth for combat
You claim talking and social interaction is so easy as to not need rules while trying to invoked plebbit debate club homosexualry and you can't even use the fallacies correctly while you're doing it. Couldn't be more self-defeating than that.
Take the L and hold it
He’s right. You absolutely are using a procedure in the way you debate which does defeat your own argument. You are asserting you don’t need procedure when talking while using procedure when talking.
Actually it proves my point that requiring codified rules is fricking moronic because we’ve been doing this since the ancient Greeks.
L. Next you’ll have me rolling the dice to see if I can breathe air or if I can eat food lol
>L. Next you’ll have me rolling the dice to see if I can breathe air or if I can eat food lol
I sincerely wonder if you're actually able to accomplish that unaided, given how poorly you understand every other basic human behavior.
NTA, but your insult is hardly as clever as you imagined it must be. It's like a halfwit's version of "too dumb to walk and chew gum at the same time," but with none of the punch.
…are you stupid or something? You also don’t even know what an adhom which means you acting like a pigeon playing chess.
Esl?
Adhom is a type of fallacy that’s a shorthand of describing resorting to name calling without addressing the argument.
The pigeons playing chess is a reference to how stupid people act: “Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.“
You act exactly as the quote describes though it’s clearly more out of ignorance than just sheer stupidity.
I’d like to point out I’m the kind of guy who’d play Traveller or Ars Magica if presented the chance to and those games are just a step away from that. There is absolutely a market for a game about filling fantasy tax forms though it would probably be better as a video game in a similar vein of Papers Please.
You would benefit deeply from spending some time during your D&D sessions practicing healthy social interaction instead of only running tedious combat over and over. Trying to insist upon your own intelligence and skill is just pitiful.
>why would you need rules for simulating talking when it’s already clear how taking works
Why would you need rules for simulating combat then, it's also very clear how combat works, just get up and beat each other.
Rules make it so sperg players can roleplay high-charisma beasts in social situations, without spaghetti falling out of their pockets. The whole d20 attribute system is designed so you can bypass your real-world limitations with one of the attributes, so I could play a high WIS character and be knowledgeable about the world without having previous experience with the system, or have my high STR character lift boulders I couldn't dream of.
The point of it is that if you don't have rules, then the game is just very geared towards people who have high charisma in real life. Now, it's understandable that you don't get this problem right away, maybe you never gave it much thought, maybe you love watching celebs (high CHA people IRL) playing dnd on youtube and their gameplay doesn't evidence it (like when it looks easy to box because you're a layman watching two high-level boxers), but the lack of a more intrincate system of social altercation akes social situations feel unfun to anyone not already charismatic IRL. With combat you have a more detailed ruleset of how to use your combat stats to overcome a challenge, but that challenge is set in various turns, with varying degrees of success, a myriad of courses of action with tactical differences.
Combat is an entire different game from the rest of dnd, one that stands on it's own legs because it was a game called chainmail before dnd existed. The rest of dnd doesn't stand by itself as a game if you remove combat, because they were just a bunch of mismatched mechanics, that eventually became one dice roll in 3e.
It's nice that you use a strawmann, it makes it easy to disregard you without being required to read that awfully formatted paragraph.
It makes sense that you'd find it easier to not read, considering your poor use of fallacy arguments (btw, you're using fallacy fallacy, checkmate pidgeon, you can shit on the board now). It also makes sense you don't understand the mechanical implications of dnd's rules, since you can't even read that meme fallacy chart correctly.
the schizo actually got me thinking, it'd be fun to create a "fallacy chart" like system where social situations are resolved like the ygo game he seems to be playing with words.
I mean it sounds like be more akin to Burning Wheel’s duel of wits though the point of such a thing would be more to convince the audience during the debate than to convince the opponent.
There’s actually more than one person callin you out for shit arguments. Keep with the poop rhetoric though it’s working
You equated dialogue in-game, with combat. You sought a defeatist argument. Now you're going to make it clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Reaching for some point. When it's pointless to even read more of what you type.
I’d argue that D&D would be better served with a roleplaying system like Dramasystem instead of just letting it devolve into a comedic mess.
Inspiration is all it needs.
Why do you need mechanical depth to navigate fighting monsters? Why do you need pages and pages of combat options when you can just say "I kill the monster"? Why does everything that isn't combat get flattened down to incredibly simplistic handwavery or "have your DM make something up"?
Hand-holding isn't teaching, and the fact that you think people running through the same campaign books over and over again means they've learned how to run the game and plan their own adventures or even how to structure a session. 5e only works because it rightfully assumed there would be a contingent of older players around to run the game for the newer players who would struggle to play on their own... and to this day, the DM to Player ratio is worse than its ever been because of it.
I can't take you seriously. You're not even attempting to look like a rational person with any experience. The way you need to use hyperbole to try and make a point really just defeats your entire post.
If you need to exaggerate to make a point, you don't actually have a point.
Scaffolding is literally the majority of what teaching is. You do not know what teaching involves at even the most rudimentary level.
Most of this thread is morons arguing with morons over a shitty system.
Running Curse of Strahd over and over isn't scaffolding and teaching involves so much more than scaffolding. If you tell a child to keep writing down 2+2=4 that doesn't mean they've learned math. They need to learn the underlying logic and procedure and 5e does very little to teach new players beyond giving them a set of steps to follow. It heavily relies on the assumption that someone else will have already exposed them to the basic concepts of an RPG somewhere else or someone else at the table will do all the explaining for them.
I would assume repetition to be of high value when teaching kids math because of our pattern recognition skills. Like when you had to do pages of times tables in school to get them built into your mind
Most experts agree that the way math is taught is ineffective and even counterproductive. This isn't the argument you think you're making.
Do you have any idea how many games manage to have simpler yet more deep combat systems than D&D? D&D feels the need to spend hundreds of overcomplicating what other systems can do in a couple pages. Do you not see any problem here?
>combat is bad because......I cannot quickly get to another combat!
put down the crack pipe
You are answering to a corporate shill that pretend to not understand the obvious. He will ignore even the most direct answer.
Frick off, troll.
It doesn't work when a gay like you tries to do it.
You don't belong of Ganker.
>The system does very little, if anything, to teach or present itself in a way that makes it smooth to run and play.
You're kidding, right?
Have you picked up the starter adventure? It's like an entire evening of hand-holding for morons to teach them the game. Hell, pick up the Beyond App and let it guide you through every step of character creation and give you a character sheet that explains every option with a tap.
5e being so accessible is one of the reasons it's the most popular game by a country mile. Not only did it convert a lot of old players, it brought swarms of new ones into the fold. That's an objective fact.
You can complain about a lot, but pretending it's not beginner friendly is ridiculous. If you want to talk about unfriendly, look at GURPS, WFRP, or even Pathfinder, and then compare how 5e throws so many tools and aids at beginners, even without talking about 3rd parties (which there are thousands, ranging from instructional youtube videos to SRD websites to session recordings).
I don't even get your angle. Is this just you trying out a new complaint, without even thinking about it for half a second?
This, but less buttholey. They make a product to get people into the game, they had two different starter sets, and an essentials kit. Perfect for a newcomer.
Dnd5e even has learning aids for children in school to get them playing the game and materials for teachers to get them playing and dming.
I've never seen a system other than D&D do exploration well. All players do in the game is explore and adventure.
the LOTR rpg by C7 was pretty good at it, I think they later converted the system to D&D when they lost the lotr lisence
>I've never seen a system other than D&D do exploration well
I don't know about third part content but as is 5e doesn't have anything substantial about. If you're speaking about older editions i may agree.
All players do in the game is explore and adventure. So I have no clue why everyone ITT is so dismissive.
You can't call a "pillar" something that isn't mechanically reinforced by the game itself, it's just situational dressing the presence of which is functionally irrelevant to the whole game framework.
You're being pedantic. All D&D is is exploration and fighting. Everyone roleplays whenever it comes up too. Call them "pillars" if you want, it's just a buzzword. I'm getting the feeling everyone is either unfamiliar with D&D (SOMEHOW) or they're just overtly negative.
>All D&D is is exploration and fighting
No it isn't, different editions span more or less out of the combat section of the game having ad&d 1e with the most procedures for out-of-combat situations and 4e being the one with less having anything significant out of combat reduced to a skill challenge intermission. Roleplay is independent of this contentious, i'm talking about gamefied aspects.
>muh procedures that nobody used
have a nice day nogame fake grog
>Namecalling hissy fit
Thanks for your concession, being a little more gracious about wouldn't hurt but, hey, that's the best i could expect from an underage twat.
concede weight you fat frick
>gamefied aspects
reads like a buzzword, what does this mean when you say it?
D&D has the right amount of those "pillars" and it doesn't need hard rules for something like roleplaying, it happens naturally in-game.
>D&D has the right amount of those "pillars" and it doesn't need hard rules for something like roleplaying, it happens naturally in-game.
Utterly delusional opinion. Combat gets hundreds of pages of what kind of killer you are, how you kill, what sort of special killing skills you get, hundreds of spells for killing, and a handful for instantly skipping over various less developed mechanics, while exploration and socialization get "I dunno roll a d20 and have you DM make something up"
>while exploration and socialization
Exploration is laid out by a DM, and the DM Manual does definitely have tools for making the content for players. Likewise, social interactions with NPCs are also handled there. This seems like you don't know what you're talking about. Saying combat gets a lot of material in the Player Manual, well duh of course it does there. Try the DM Manual for the other stuff, dummy.
>reads like a buzzword, what does this mean when you say it?
Having game loops and properly codified procedures
>D&D has the right amount of those "pillars"
No, it has one: combat. Exploration is fragmented into different sections of the manuals (something in skill section l, something in travel, something in conditions) without a unified procedure, the DM just pick and applies what situationally deem appropriate to the scenario. This is no different than using Maid rules in the context of a survival scenario, you can totally do that but you're making on the spot a framework to work with in that contextual dressing hence not a pillar (something prime the game is designed around).
Gurps has a section about environmental hazards and travel, does this make exploration a gurps pillar? If yes how many pillars gurps has? Do you see how ridiculous the notion is?
>and it doesn't need hard rules for something like roleplaying, it happens naturally in-game
Not for roleplaying but social. Old d&d had social procedures: you could break encounter morale, you had to regulate hirelings fellowship, you had to manage relationships with other regional powers in the dominion phase. Currently all it is left is descriptive dispositions the DM is supposed to pick situationally (again you get 1 vague tool, not a complete framework structurally part of the game).
Also here's a sexy Lidda to bring back the thread in his rails after the autistic explosion of the schizo anon.
5e makes rangers and similar characters good at outdoor survival by fricking removing the entire mechanic. moronic design. If I want my character to be good at something, I want to interact with the mechanics. Instead it's, "You're good at outdoor, so you never worry about it 🙂 now go fight some dragons buddy!!"
Exactly. Out-of-combat rule interactions with scenarios are at best for skipping the scene altogether not to interact with it. This cannot be defined as a "pillar" of a game in any form or measure.
>Having game loops and properly codified procedures
D&D excels in central gameplay. You're baffling me by claiming it doesn't.
Players explore, they fight, and they roleplay. That's all players do in D&D.
>No, it has one: combat.
then how the frick could players do all three on a routine basis? Literally How??
>you could break encounter morale, you had to regulate hirelings fellowship, you had to manage relationships with other regional powers in the dominion phase.
the DM could handle this if the players actually wanted them. PCs are more powerful than previous editions, there's no need to break morale and disband enemy encounters. All the other stuff is handled when it comes up through roleplaying.
>Missing the point again.
Let's try another approach and see if i can cram the notion through your skull, answer this question from my previous post:
>Gurps has a section about environmental hazards and travel, does this make exploration a gurps pillar?
Does it make it a "pillar" in Gurps? you tell me, if you're just going to ignore what I've said repeatedly.
Answer the question, then i will address your points
You tell me, you clearly don't want to have a conversation. You just want to talk over me.
Clearly i am, i'm literally waiting for your answer to further define the contentious in question. Now, would you please?
People do these things by handwaving away what happens. “Resolving through roleplay” is not gaming, it is improv and collaborative story telling. Those can happen, and be fun, but that is because of the people doing it not the rules of the game. You seem to be conflating how the game is played and how the game is written - the two are very different.
Something being a “pillar” of the *game* means that robust mechanical procedures exist to simulate what happens and its consequences. It does not mean that people do it a lot through spontaneous role play improv. That can be fun - I am in a 5e game which is fun because of that - but it is separate from whether it is truly a well supported system. 5e does not have a codified turn system for exploration, it does not have a tracking system for avoiding starvation on the road (“I cast goodberry” is not a robust system), it does not have a morale system for social encounters.
Yes, these things are done at actual tables, yes they can be resolved through role play, yes it can be fun - but without the rules for them they cannot be considered pillars of the system, just accidents of the play culture.
>You seem to be conflating how the game is played and how the game is written - the two are very different.
I'm really not interested in you defining roleplaying as non-gaming. What does that solve, when you really think about it?
>Something being a “pillar” of the *game* means that robust mechanical procedures exist
This isn't the case though. The concept of these three pillars of D&D is that they are the three core aspects of D&D. So it makes no sense to try and redefine them in a way in which they're no longer that. Because that's what they were made to do in the first place.
The three core "pillars" of D&D are exploration, combat, and roleplaying. They are because they are. No one would refer to the "pillars" of D&D if they weren't the "pillars of D&D". You can try to talk your way around or past this, but it's completely redundant. There's more fruitful ways to stoke your ego.
I’m sorry to tell you this but when WotC tells you those are the three pillars, they are lying. It is a marketing tactic that is not reflected in the rules. It helps players without exposure to systems that actually do these things believe the system is more robust than it actually is.
As far as understanding that role playing is not in and of itself gaming, we can understand when something is a TTRPG and when it isn’t, what standards are for good TTRPGs, and whether or not a TTRPG is what it claims to be. If role playing is gaming than no game can truly be bad since all that is required is good players; but if it isn’t, if it is just part of the experience that is a TTRPG, then we can say whether the game as written is a good one and whether it contains the tools needed to facilitate effective roleplay.
>when WotC tells you those are the three pillars
It's a community thing, I don't think WotC has ever used the terminology.
it's on page 8 of the phb numbskull
Doesn't appear to be a marketing tactic, it's right there in the rulebook.
Interesting how that anon is wrong about exploration not being a pillar of D&D. Says it right there in the rulebook, how quaint.
I say you're a homosexual, and since it's now written in this post that makes it truth.
there are in fact
>rules about creating, personifying and developing a character role, and interacting with other characters
>rules about exploring by land and sea, with a special focus on exploring dungeons
The rules are there, that does not make them pillars. They are pillars when they are robust, fleshed out mechanical procedures that support a core gameplay loop. In 5e they are short, simple rules largely ignored because they contribute little if anything to the core gameplay loop (if we admit such a thing even exists in that game).
You’re just argument semantics btw, that’s why nobody seems to give a shit because it’s just word choice that you disagree with
>exploration and social are two of the pillars of DnD
>no they aren’t, here’s what that word means and why that statement is definitionally incorrect
>your just arguing semantics
Maybe don’t make an argument based on the meaning of a word if that’s just “semantics” to you
Nta but you're clearly on damage control now.
It's already been said in this thread, but it's baffling how someone can see these concept described as pillars, identifying them as the 3 most important and central types of play, and then accept that having any rules at all means they are equally important and given the same weight and consideration by the game as a whole. And it's not like it hasn't been pointed out that these rules are anemic and minimalist at best, especially when compared to the exhaustive, ever-bloating list of combat options.
How do you play a social interaction character? What classes grant you bonuses and unique abilities or utilities for engaging with the social interaction system? You pick and alignment and a background and get traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws... and literally no other fricking part of the game engages with those except maybe alignment, sometimes.
What about exploration? Play a Ranger or play a wizard so you can negate or trivialize an entire "pillar" of gameplay. The game doesn't need a spell-list equivalent of social maneuvers and hiking procedures, but it needs something more than calling for an attribute of skill check and maybe handing out some fatigue conditions. Inventory management? Supply tracking? When it's not handwaved out of most games outright, the best you get is some blank notebook lines on the corner of your character sheet.
And this isn't to say that everyone playing D&D should be fully engaged with deep crunch for every possible aspect of gameplay at all times... but goddamn, there should be SOMETHING there for people to use and sink their teeth into if they want to get deeper into it, instead of just assuming that no one cares and that no one will use them, so shut up and go back to your 8 encounters per adventuring day slog through the woods, but don't waste too much time on travel or exploration because there's more COMBAT waiting for you.
>How do you play a social interaction character?
Maybe you can't. Perhaps everyone is already a social interaction character.
A stunningly moronic observation. Why roll for combat when you can just gang up on the DM as a table and beat the shit out of him until he says you win?
So this strawmann again? social interaction =/= combat. I mean obvious, right? So why would you argue the opposite. We can just dismiss what you've said. Try not calling others moron if you're just going in circles like this.
Personal ability =/= in game ability either, homosexual.
You were equating combat and social interaction, and then arguing against combat. This is a strawmann.
No, it's just that I think you're fricking moronic and have missed the point repeatedly because you think being able to speak is the same thing as having meaningful social interaction mechanics and refuse to acknowledge the ways in which that logic falls apart when applied to anything else in the game, where dice rolls, mechanics, and rules systems dictate everything else.
So when does it fall apart? The DM handles social interactions, it doesn't need dice rolls. Lets skip you pretending to have had a point, and get to the part where you rephrase something more concisely. There's no dice roll to save you in our interactions, ya dig?
>The DM handles social interactions, it doesn't need dice rolls
The fact that Deception, Insight, Intimidation, and Persuasion are there on the skill list means I get to call you a moronic homosexual who is talking out of his ass. There are rules for social interaction in 5e, but they are limited and undercooked. Trying to pass off a major aspect of the game as just talking is not only missing the entire discussion being had, but it's wrong too.
And if anything like this situation you've insisted on creating happened in a game, any DM worth a shit would start asking for rolls instead of letting you jack yourself off about how witty and clever you think you are and how that means you get your way, even though you've failed to do anything beyond acting like a pretentious homosexual.
You're talking to deaf ears at this point, critical role fans are always like this, they don't even understand the game they're playing.
They seem to be pillars, my guy:
The issue here is you two are arguing completely different axioms.
One is arguing “you needs rules something to be core part of a game.” The other is arguing that “people play D&D for roleplay thus is a core part of D&D.” Both arguments are valid but are ultimately pointless schematics.
The better point to argue whether it’s a good ROLEPLAYING system (I sure as hell don’t think so) but whatever.
Eww.
no, he was arguing that a pillar of D&D was not a pillar of D&D. you seem to have missed that somehow.
Saying “this is a pillar” does not make it a pillar. Providing rules for it does not make it a pillar. Providing robust mechanical procedures for it makes it a pillar, but those are absent, leaving us only with empty words and anemic skill checks.
It says it's a pillar, right there in the rulebook.
And it is lying, like you are fishing for (You)s by being obtuse and obnoxious in defending D&D both for being something it says it isn’t, and also for being nothing in particular.
>the rules are lying
and supposedly I'm the obtuse and obnoxious one, lmao
dnd is at its core a spelunking wargame built around combat, and the only thing it really excels at is combat, its exploration and roleplay are practically freeform, whenever you see someone with an opinion like this it's clear that they really don't want to be playing dnd
Yeah, I've seen some videos of that guy and it's pretty clear he just doesn't like D&D and tries to convince people that D&D sucks without outright saying it.
>its exploration and roleplay are practically freeform
Good, those things are the parts that need the least amount of mechanical support. Any system with 30-40 pages of rules for roleplaying are dogshit.
Quick, explain then why you need more codified rules for combat.
Answer the question homosexual.
keep dancing around the issue homosexual
Combat is full of needless autistic shit, why do you need to bean-count hp? Why i have to look at reach?! A grid? Wtf! That's my argument. I'm calling you an autistic mongoloid for enjoying that convoluted mess when all you need is to roleplay the action sequence and roll the combat skill vs the DC adjudicated by the DM. Clean and simple.
Argue your case. Go.
have a nice day nogames
As expected, glad you finally exposed yourself for being an hypocritical little shit. Feels better? Now go kys, i assure you will feel even more liberated.
>what's 2+2? and don't say 4!
liberate yourself from life
>2+2=22
There, now it's your turn
>*2+2=2^2
There are literally games like that you moron. That's his point. Fricking D&Donlies.
keep replying to me you dumb b***h
>why do you need to bean-count hp?
You don't, but systems that don't have HP instead have Wounds or something similar (i.e. Mutants and Masterminds). You need some measure of the limitations of success and failure in combat, whereas in roleplaying speech checks are generally one and done (social combat is cancer btw)
>Why i have to look at reach
So the GM doesn't have to do any guesswork as to whether you can hit the target or not, moron, and so that the combat makes fricking sense.
>A grid
Easy way for players to analyze the battlefield and make tactical decisions, which isn't present in social roleplay.
>all you need is to roleplay the action sequence and roll the combat skill vs the DC adjudicated by the DM
Yeah but that's incredibly boring and leaves no room for tactics,skill, clever ideas, etc. And before you whine about me saying you don't need more than a skill check for social roleplay being the same, it isn't. Apples to oranges. Social roleplay equivalents to tactics is just about more social roleplay or the third branch, exploration, to find out information to gain an edge. For example, you can't blackmail a corrupt noble without evidence and knowledge of his misdeeds, just like you can't take cover if there's no cover to hind behind.
Smoothbrained takes. Combat needs codified rules because it's the most mechanically intensive part of a system. Things like action limits, cover, range, damage, accuracy, ammunition, elevation, movement distances, all of these are essential to combat running smoothly.
Conversely, roleplaying can be handled with either the player acting as their character or paraphrasing the gist of their argument followed by a skill check (with degrees of success of course). Granted, combat can be handled in this way too, and some systems do this to great effect (having attack vs defense be contested skill checks), but unlike roleplaying - which is 99% the players acting as their characters and 1% skill checks (which might not even be needed) combat requires more mechanical complexity unless you and your players are actual IRL combat experts (you aren't).
And before you say WELL WE ARENT GOOD AT SOCIAL ACTIVITY EITHER, skill issue, TTRPGs are a social hobby and people lacking IRL charisma full of autism dont' belong at a table.
See
and
what's your game of choices rules for fricking a dragon like in shrek? its a fantasy game and you'd assume that if the game was better than 5e it'd have rules for fricking a dragon and making horrible donkey x dragon hybrids right?
One of Gurp's pillars is fricking dragons.
NTA (actually think he's a frickin tard) but I'm working on a modern fantasy system and RAW players can play a hybrid of any two species available to the players with rules for it. Draconic is its own, separate subspecies. So you'd pick the non-dragon parent's Species and the Draconic Subspecies.
>Combat needs codified rules because it's the most mechanically intensive part of a system.
Doesn't need to be moron. It's a matter of focus, apparently this notion escapes you d&dtards.
by that logic nothing needs mechanical support so you don't need a system
I have a feeling these people just want to play 13th Age but don't know of its existence.
5e combat is slow and fiddly. With 4e, positioning matters. In 3.PF, offense outpaces defense such that that combats feel tense. In TSR D&D combat is fast.
5e is complex, damage often feels like wifflebats, and everything boils down to a binary of advantage or disadvantage. It's on average the least fun I've had in D&D combat.
>damage often feels like wifflebats,
That's often a DM issue rather than a system issue. 5e combat could be super quick and deadly, but most DMs don't like combat that ends in 1-2 rounds, and err on the side of longer battles because the system has enough depth to support them. Some DMs push it too far though, and ultimately it comes down to a matter of personal preference.
TSR combat is fast because by the third round you've generally seen everything. DMs don't build encounters to last much longer than that because it can get pretty tedious. A lot of other "deadly" games have a similar scheme, where the combat is fairly basic (often no more than a game of rocket tag) so they need battles to end quickly before they outstay their welcome.
4e had a lot of tactical depth, and the designers wanted to show it off, so they erred on the side of making the combat math very spongy. Problem is, they went overboard with that at first, and battles could really drag until they fixed the combat math with later books.
>TSR combat is fast because by the third round you've generally seen everything. DMs don't build encounters to last much longer than that because it can get pretty tedious.
That's fine. The adventure pacing is why I like it. 5e combines a similar level of blandness with enough procedural steps and laundry lists of class features to slow things down to 80% of 3e or 4e slowness.
5e's concept of bounded accuracy is literally based on the idea that "stronger" doesn't mean "hits harder" or "hits more often", but merely "can take more damage" which leads to the boffer tag combat problems.
>That's often a DM issue rather than a system issue.
It's not though.
5e is slow because you're always playing with beginners and beer and pretzel players mouthing off every 10 seconds. Just saying 'X, you're up next, get ready' halves the length of any combat.
I've noticed this. Especially DMs extending the health bar of monsters because 'they died too quick'.
The random encounter charts have stuff like 1d6 goblins, a fight that will take around 2 rounds to finish and should take 10 minutes to complete. Yet I've seen basic ass combats drag on for hours.
>5e is slow because
of its mechanics. Full stop. Players can make it worse by being inept but it's not fast.
>of its mechanics. Full stop. Players can make it worse by being inept but it's not fast.
Ehhh. While combat in D&D has never exactly been lightning-quick, IME like 90% of hideously prolonged combats are due squarely to the players and/or DM The situation isn't helped by the rules often being convoluted but most players have a mind like a fricking sieve and end up doing everything on their own turn as opposed to working it out while other people are going and then just executing.
You're reading it wrong. It's not about the system, it's about how it feels to play. Yes, there's little system support for exploration or roleplay, but in actual play those end up being fun. Judging by how poor the rules for combat are, exploration and roleplay in 5e are so fun specifically because they don't have the same amount of "support".
Imagine if ten minutes of dungeoneering required more than twenty rolls that can trigger other rolls on success. Or if you had to wait for your initiative step to greet the Duke. Remember to add one Charm Die (2 dice you recover after a long rest), this is an important roll. I'll use my reaction to expend one use of Jubilation of Thumx-Deran so you get advantage on your greeting roll.
Well, what happened last time they made combat good?
>4e good
lol
I agree, Grug. 4e was a good stable ruleset for tactical, small unit, high fantasy combat encounters.
Just rewrite what you don't like.
Or do you need a book to hold your hand for you?
A polished turd is still a turd
Yet that doesn't apply to 5e when morons spout those same "arguments".
Huh.
D&D is really mostly known for exploration (of dungeons). However it's rules are almost entirely about combat.
what rules for exploration do you even need? are you moronic?
just say "I go here" and then the GM tells you what happens, if anything
5e does have rules for generating dungeons and exterior landmarks/ events, and for traversal. there are explicit rules for e.g. marching order and how to implement a hex map
what rules for combat do you even need? are you moronic?
just say "I fight the monster" and then the GM tells you what happens, if anything
What point are you helplessly trying to make here, what exploration rules would there be? some character stats? some dice rolls? do you roll to determine which direction you search in? do you roll to determine which town to travel to? what fricking exploration rules do you need?
Your opinion on combat doesn't matter if you can't do basic math quickly or remember the game rules between each session. Your opinion on exploration and roleplay doesn't matter if you think the system you play is actually relevant to these things.
But most importantly, your opinion on TTRPGs in general doesn't matter if you struggle to interpret the wacky Genesys dice.
Yeah, exactly my thoughts when I saw it in my feed. The fricking anecdote.
>still replying to the trollschizo
Don't bother, his brain is terminally rotted by years of playing D&D. There's no cure.
Man this board went to absolute dogshit. What is this Ganker ass thread?
This is what happens when the West stops being able to produce good videogames. All these fricking console war homosexuals show up to the hobby because it's a final bastion and bring all their smelly habits with them.
Like it feels like every 5 threads on this board is this same shit. No one cares, people on tg play more than 5E, no one cares that you hate it or are regurgitating the same complaints that have existed since day one. It's a dead conversation.
You're wasting your creative energy on anger. Go prep your games losers.
Ah it’s a tourist.
Holy shit just end yourselves. You insects are why /tg/ will never be good
>"Another 5e bait thread, Master Wayne?"
He got banned again, judging from the deafening silence of this thread. Lmao
>i need to lie and bullshit
That's why you're a troll. Here's some of that attention you're so desperately after.
You do realize this is charity, right? Well that, and you're one of those trolls that actually gets worse the more people ignore you. Here's hoping you don't actually have a nice day.
>he spent five and a half hour defending the product
I hope they at least pay him something
D&D is to TTRPGs is what Skyrim is to WRPGs
It's not really good at anything, but it's popular and people homebrew a lot for it.
What do players even "explore" in DnD? Each other's dicks?
Good settings and lore, shit game system.
Just convert everything to GURPS.
Get quest - social
Go to quest location - exploration
Fight monsters - combat
Repeat
>Get quest - social
"Roll persuasion" (if needed)
>Go to quest location - exploration
"Roll survival" (if needed), apply this condition (maybe)
>Fight monsters - combat
Positioning, reach, range, per-day abilities, ammo, hp tracking, conditions, grid.
>Repeat
Frick off.
Your table sounds boring as shit.
That’s actually how it goes most of the time in D&D
Frequency doesn’t have anything to do with entertainment, but sure lots of people also run 1-2 encounters per day and fudge monster hp so that the combat ends at a reasonable and narratively good place.
>[Rolled a total of 3 on intimidation]
"You stutter and remain paralysed afterwards for 2 seconds like a cornered rabbit, the foe isn't impressed."
>Making Only Fans of him
but for why
>coomer
I feel like I've gained a new appreciation for how dumb the average loyal D&D fanboy is from reading this thread.
>nooooo i need rules for walking around!!!
>D&D is built on exploration, social interaction, and combat
>"lol why do you think D&D needs exploration and social interaction rules????"
>no you don't understand i NEED the rules for walking from place to place
Filename
And this killed the troll.
In a thread full of people talking about how fricking bad 5e is at teaching people the rules and how players don't actually learn anything by behind handheld through the game by a DM following instructions out of a campaign book, we unironically had several morons running to prove they don't know or even understand the basics of RPGs, but will still argue with you about them anyways.
Looks like D&D has the exploration rules covered after all.
>I know how many squares i can move my mini on the grid
>This solves exploration!
Frick off.
>This solves exploration!
Correct. If you need anything else, you're a lobotomite. Try video games.
Answer this question smartass
Beg for it.
Got a mood kiddo? Nobody is going to remove your favorite toy, you just need to learn what a pillar is. Repeat with me "the d&d 3 pillar definition is nonsense"
You do need rules to run mass combat, why don't you talk about those? Surely 5e has a system for arbitrating the kind of field battles that are ubiquitous throughout fantasy fiction, right? They wouldn't be so lazy as to ignore it and tell you to slap some shit together yourself, right? I mean, good systems DON'T do that so I can't imagine the industry leading super popular game would make such a basic and critical error.
>You do need rules to run mass combat, why don't you talk about those?
>Surely 5e has a system for arbitrating the kind of field battles that are ubiquitous throughout fantasy fiction, right?
Who cares about 5e? Take your meds. Also mass combat is the realm of wargames, TTRPGs should not have or even include mass combat because that expands beyond the realm of the most important part of the game - the party.
>I mean, good systems DON'T do that so I can't imagine the industry leading super popular game would make such a basic and critical error.
Good TTRPGs ignore mass combat entirely, and focus on smaller encounters where the Player Characters - the focus of the narrative told by the game - can shine.
>What about domain management
Also not something that belongs in TTRPGs. Yes, I'm saying B/X isn't a real TTRPG (it isn't, no edition of D&D is, they're all wargames with tacked on rules for anything else pretending to be RPGs).
>rules for conducting trade
Even 5e has these, through Xanathar's guide and the DMG's list of trade goods, but again rules for this shit are supurfluous because who the frick needs 300 pages of rules on selling shit?
>rules for warfare
Should not be in a TTRPG. That is the realm of the Wargame.
>magical research
Who needs 300 pages of shit when a couple of skill checks would do? Again, even 5e has this you lying sack of dogshit.
>These are not easily or satisfactorily resolved by the whim of a GM
They really are, GM sets a DR and player rolls against it. Maybe they have to make a few checks, but I refuse to acknowledge any system where you have to do calculus just to learn that the stick you have is a staff of sticks to snakes or some other mundane bullshit.
TLDR, you're both nogames homosexuals who haven't even read the rules you're whining about, let alone any other TTRPGs. Go crawlback to your warshitter 40kuck threads you rejects.
>nooooo i need rules for swinging a stick!
This thread was fricking awful from start to finish and all because someone brought up the "Three Pillars" concept and some youtuber said D&D's combat is bad.
Well, I mean, that's the OP.
>muh exploration is a gurps pillar
>n-no it's not a pillar, I'm being pedantic! pedantic!
>thread archives
>point 404 not found
Nice try homosexual. You not answering just shows that you're an hypocritical little shit
Just before the thread gets archived here's the point:
If you say that exploration is also a gurps pillar then your swallow definition of it could include literally ANYTHING that is written in the rulebook: magic is a pillar of d&d, crafting is a d&d pillar, etc... Then why the book points specifically to exploration and social avoiding the rest? It's the same rule quantity expressed after all.
If you say that exploration isn't a gurps pillar than that negates also d&d having exploration as one.
And if you say "it's a pillar because you're expected to play that way" you're wrong again. Multiple people in this thread and others have stated that they simply skip this part of the game because it is rulewise insignificant or just, quoting you, pedantic.
oh no, my swallow definition.
At least i offered one and i'm willing to argue about, you're just an hypocritical shill here to smear shit on a thread you lost the grip of in the very inception of it.
Your point was dogshit the whole time, and I had fun mocking you.
>if exploration isn't a pillar in gurps then....uhhh.. it's not one in D&D somehow!
yeah no, you should feel bad.
Not a retort, you expressed nothing other than being a shit smearer. Enjoy your L shaped price.
>this desperate to get the last word in
seething
I have some time to kill and it's glaring that you would offer nothing substantial anyway as retort. Want to race to the end of the thread?
>an hypocritical
ESL