I hate 5e

"The World's Greatest Role-playing Game", fucking stuck up cunts. I'm here to play a game—not practice for drama club. I'm here to feel like a tomb-robbing adventurer with his back against a wall—not "roleplay" and play pretend. You Critical Role fuckers are a poison on the hobby, I'm glad independent creators and publishers are going back to B/X and similar solidity.

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    My tastes in systems are similar to OP's, but he's still a >wrongfun gay.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes and I love the culture of play in todays TTRPG scene! My favorite thing to do on Saturdays is walk into my FLGS and play MTG or an Adventurers League game (and nothing else ever!!!!1)

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Shut up, OP, nobody likes your faggy posts.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Caring about the "culture"

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Dude if you're fucking bitter that the bulk of the hobby is 5e then fucking put some skin in the game into cultivating a subculture. For fucks sake!

        You know what I did to get people to play GURPS or VTMB? I spent money on it, couple hundred on books and art supplies and made it work, made people want to get involved. You can't cry that the table isn't set for you at your own goddamn house.

        You gotta sell it to people

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >VTMB
          >B

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe you should stop using College Humor rejects on youtube as a replacement for actually playing the game.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't like 5e either but there's miles better criticism than "durrr storyfagging" and "I don't like gay teenagers playing tieflings". 5e isn't even narrativist, it's a mid tier game with no particular strengths trying to appeal to everyone, and it succeeds (partially due to art quality and brand recognition).

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Play something else then instead of whining like a little gay.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You know that you will never be what you want to be, right?

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >he thinks 5e invented roleplaying in RPGs
    Get the fuck out and go back to whatever pleb shithole you came from, gay. /tg/ is for yesgames only.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >OP cycles his phone to argue with himself

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I like the way we pretend that 5e isn't a mess of way too many dysfunctional and redundant rules so that we can complain about people we are never going to play with anyway. It's not at all disingenuous and totally normal to pretend 5e is something it's not just for the sake of having something to complain about.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      what are some dysfunctional and redundant rules then? you gays complain about bounded accuracy for crying out loud.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >dysfunctional
        The spell See Invisibility does not nullify the advantage granted by the Invisible condition. Most of the really egregious stuff like that is a pretty easy fix and most people don't even realize that they're fixing it because the "correct" reading is so retarded.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          i cannot wrap my head around what you're saying

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anon he can’t fix stupid.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            According to the head rules designer for 5th edition, the two bullet points of the invisible condition are meant to be treated as unrelated, so even if you can see an invisible creature, they still gain the benefits of the 2nd bullet point.
            This is dumb and no reasonable person plays this way.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              you don't think they should have the advantage granted by invisibility if you can see something invisible?

              i mean it makes sense to me that unless you can disband its invisibility it should still have advantage, because isn't that just a +1 on rolls anyway?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                advantage is about a +5
                and the creature is not technically visible, but it is not invisible to a creature that can see it.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              What? That makes no sense. If you have a way of seeing invisible enemies then they're no longer invisible to you, thus negating any advantage that would provide

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That makes no sense.
                And thats why it was brought up as an example of dysfunction.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I mean I'm just baffled such a retard-proof ruling would be... overruled by a person with actual power within the company, is there a source for him saying that?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It was in a podcast. If you google it you'll see this reddit post, but I can't be fucked to find the timestamp in the video right now. https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/pwlomh/so_jc_says_invis_still_gets_advdisadv_against/

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks anon, have a blessed day

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          the condition is a poor rewrite of the unseen attackers and targets rules on page 194. if you can see an invisible target you do not suffer disadvantage, nor does it have advantage against you. it retains those features against other targets that can't see it however, which is why the condition is not cancelled out. the specific rules for see invisible supersede the general rules for invisibility.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the specific rules for see invisible supersede the general rules for invisibility.
            Cool opinion, shame the head rules designer of the game disagrees with you.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              that is because he isn't following the game's basic rules about specific rules overriding general rules. also crawford is a fucking moron.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Here's a few offenders:
        Invisible enemies still have an advantage against you even if you can see them with magic, due to the way in which the effects of the invisibile condition is split in to independent two points.
        Two blindfolded men fight each other as well as if they could see, due to the two halves of the visibility rules cancelling each other out.
        Shooting a man 200 feet away half hidden by a wall is easier than shooting the same man 6 feet away but he is lying down.
        A cloud giant is weaker than the average gymbro while an average commoner is way stronger than an average real life human. In fact all the feats of strength and athleticism are fucked up due to 5e having a series of poorly designed formulas rather than table.
        Helping someone else perform an action provides them the same bonus whether you are an expert or have no idea what you are doing, because the aid another action is both specific about the bonus and extremely vague about everything else.
        Wrestling someone actually does nothing at all to them except preventing them from walking around. If a snake deity is constricting your strength 7 wizard technically all it does is prevent him from walking.
        Due to the way that the rules for spelllcasting foci are split up, it's arguable that a paladin can use a holy symbol on his shield to replace the somatic and material components of a spell that has both of those, but not the somatic components of a spell that has no material components.
        You arguably can't see the sun, but let's not go down that rabbit hole.

        Also the handbook is like 50% spells that mostly don't get used.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Two blindfolded men fight each other as well as if they could see
          i don't understand why that would be a problem, but it seems weird side by side with invisibility rule not being undone

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Compare it to 3E's.
            >Both blind men are flat-footed to each other, getting no dex AC
            >Both blind men take -2 to AC on top of that
            >both blind men get a 50% miss chance against each other
            They have an advantage for fighting another blind man but it's meaningfully different from 2 normal men that are exactly the same as the blind men except for not being blind fighting each other.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              that's a lot of modifiers to tinker with, i can understand why they slimmed it down

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >i can understand why they slimmed it down
                Yeah, to literally nothing at all.
                5e has rules, but sometimes they don't actually do anything at all.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                sometimes it's better to just be given a flavor text or fluff, in lieu of +this +that -this ect

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If only that were what 5e actually did.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                A torch is put out. Two fighters are now facing each other in the darkness incapable of seeing one another
                One is a heavily armoured fighter the other relies on dexterity and agility.
                The heavily armoured fighter is less handicapped as he does not rely on dex. The mobile fighter thus wants to run or turn the lights back on.
                VS
                They both swing normally against each other as it were bright

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                i can see merit in both, you still determine the armor classes individually, but they're both blinded which can mean they both aren't blind, is this really something to be hung up on?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >is this really something to be hung up on?
                Yes and you will never understand why because you are mentally retarded.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                i guess that's good for me, because it literally doesn't matter and comes across as you having some form of OCD

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I dunno, seems like you might just be looking for something to be mad about, rather than having a legitimate complaint.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Advantage being a shit mechanic is a legitimate complaint.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Only in so far that you're legitimately complaining about it. The mechanic is fine, it's just grafted to an overall basic bitch system.

                Yeah it does. You don't have a problem with it because you're fucking stupid and don't see how it could break suspension of disbelief.

                You made the claim first so defend your thesis before you start calling people names, gamelet.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The mechanic is fine
                Not when it's used in the place of circumstantial bonuses.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Given the thread of the conversation runs
                >5e has plenty of rules they are just bad and redundant
                >give some examples
                >Ok here you go
                pointing out that fighting in darkness is technically a multiple step process of applying and then cancelling out advantage is a pretty good demonstration of that. Literally nothing is changing despite several lines of rules being required to establish that.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                the fighting in darkness stuff just doesn't fit the bill of bad or redundant

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah it does. You don't have a problem with it because you're fucking stupid and don't see how it could break suspension of disbelief.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                look you're really anal about this, that's on you, but applying and then cancelling something isn't something you do each time, you're not a robot ai, you're a person, so you remember darkness and you just roll with the end result you learned.
                there's nothing redundant in that, there's nothing bad about that

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The person calling you names isn't the person who initially called it redundant, I know because I am the latter.
                I called the darkness rules redundant because IN THE MOST COMMON SITUATION in which they could possibly be applied the rules are written in such a way that they cancel themselves out and effectively do not exist at all. The rules do literally nothing unless something else is granting specific exceptions to the situation. There could simply be a dot point somewhere in the attack roll section that says "you have advantage on an attack if you can see the target but they cannot see you", writing mutual advantage and disadvantage that cancel each other out is completely insane.
                If printing rules that do nothing doesn't count as redundant to you I don't know what does.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                but advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out, that's pretty straight forward and not at all redundant

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                well they are only mutual in that context or circumstance. the rules are written in a straightforward way. if you can't see your target, you attack at disadvantage. if the target can't see you, then you have advantage. they are two separate components. that just happen to interact together in a specific circumstance. it isn't redundant. nor is it redundant to apply the rule to every creature that suffers from that condition.

                the rules do something. they tell you when you have advantage to hit and when you disadvantage to hit. and the rules also tell you that having both advantage and disadvantage causes them to cancel, regardless of the number of sources of either.

                both sides being blind in the dark is not the most common situation for darkness, it is probably the least common situation, given the sheer volume of creatures and pc races with darkvision. in fact getting everybody to be blind in darkness takes a bit of work, usually someone casting a level 2 darkness spell. usually the warlock, who then fucks the other side up because he can still see through it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You might actually be retarded if that's a lot of modifiers to you.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                stop being pedantic, 3 is a lot of modifiers to play with in regards to one situation

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >A cloud giant is weaker than the average gymbro
          This is incorrect, strength scores are proportionate to your size rating. Push/Pull/Carry are just seperate from grapples.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >You arguably can't see the sun, but let's not go down that rabbit hole.
          Please do

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's depends how pedantic you are willing to be about this sentence. Frankly I'm not getting involved if this sets off the argument again because dnd rules aren't worth getting mad over.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Now this is a truly new and thought provoking opinion. You even mentioned Critical Role, congrats!

    Have you tried not playing DnD?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      why in the world would you suggest a course of action that OP is already obviously following. he does not play d&d, or any other game for that matter.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Plays a role playing game
    >Seethes about having to role play
    Bruh

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I'm here to play a game—not practice for drama club.
    It really shouldn't surprise anyone that most people would favor the narrative part over mechanics. After all, they don't have to learn or memorize anything for the latter. Real problem lies in not conveying that roleplaying is BOTH fluff and crunch in equal parts.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      if you don't memorize the mechanics, which are the later, rather than the former, then you will have a bad time of the game, no matter how much beer or pretzels you have.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      if i have to voice act to participate im out

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I'm here to feel like a tomb-robbing adventurer with his back against a wall—not "roleplay"
    This is some premium bait. Have another (You).

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I hate people who plays this game and wants it to be played by RAW. Usually ignoring the fact that DM is always above RAW and if DM wants they can overrule whatever RAW says.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      but, the dm overruling RAW is RAW.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >not "roleplay" and play pretend.
    >drama club

    It has been this at the very least since 3rd edition.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Way further than that, story heavy games became popular in the 90s.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Keep on the Borderlands came out in 1979. It was a "module", as in "modular content you could add to your campaign." The expectation was that the group would play out the reason the PCs would be exploring a dungeon, and the trip to the dungeon, and once they got there, you'd have a "module" you could play.

        For example, we played The Temple of Elemental Evil. The paladin in our group looked at the village and decided "this has got to go" so our sessions were split between exploring the temple, scrounging for supplies (lots of negotiation and sneaking into the village) and seeding the destruction of the village.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Way further than that, story heavy games became popular in the 90s.

      Dragonlance.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have a strong disdain for D&D 5e too, and I'm well aware of its numerous flaws.
    Even so, this didn't need a thread.
    Crying is not discussion.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I subscribed to OP's blog, he is responding to an email I sent them asking for his opinion.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that theatrics are not roleplaying. Roleplaying is decision-making based on your character rather than yourself. Using a funny voice does not nullify out-of-character behavior.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody but a few people actually understand this.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >"The World's Greatest Role-playing Game", fucking stuck up cunts
    OP has spent years seething about the product tagline. It reminds me of the joke in Elf where he takes the worlds best cup of coffee sign seriously, except OP is just angry and autistic.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Let's talk about this shit since the jannies nuked the thread for some reason.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The idea of games being "balanced" is lol. He's an autist who feels entitled because he's spent money on books.

      I suppose he is somewhat right about far-reaching effects. They're something to watch out for. DnD's rules and tropes don't make sense outside of a high-fantasy world.

      Which incidentally is why I advocate for systems designed to do a specific style of game and setting instead of hacking DnD. Like you could try to make an ancient Greek DnD campaign or dead magic world or horror in the early-modern era but why write a giant list of spells that aren't allowed or deal with players bitching about wanting to be tiefling sorcerors? Just save yourself the headache.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You don't advocate for shit because you have no public voice and you haven't created anything that people are consuming.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        half the fun of RPGs is hacky homebrew though

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Let's talk about this shit since the jannies nuked the thread for some reason.

        Keep in mind, the gay who wrote this drivel thinks that one shitty DM denying a saving throw in one instance has ripped the entire game asunder, spilling all the math out onto the floor and created a massive mechanical disaster that no DM could possibly fix... Because one DM really wanted to hit one player with one Lightning Bolt Spell. That's the basis of his whole obnoxious whining tantrum about how *YOU* are not good enough to supersede the rules of the glorious geniuses at WotC and their (in his estimation) literally infinite wisdom.

        This isn't like "oh, if you give out too many free feats you're going to break the delicate power curve and now this CR10 creature is only somewhat challenging instead of being only kinda challenging! Now I have to recalculate enemy HP for hours and figure out how to give them a .03333333333 bonus to their damage to offset the game breaking houserules you've suggested!!" It's that he's such a retarded piece of shit that he can't fathom temporarily fudging the rules without breaking the game, even though that's specifically what he suggests doing in his style of running RAW D&D

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What's the sauce on this faglord?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            purerawdnd.com
            Some Canadian gay who claims 40 years of D&D experience and claims to run perfect RAW D&D because that's the most superior, fastest, best way to paly D&D 5e, which he insists is the best version of D&D ever made by WotC's genies professional game designers... and the cherry on top is that he makes people pay him 10$ per player per session to have the joy of having some cock-eyed retard run straight out of a campaign book like Curse of Strahd.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >the chance he's just saying that shit to auto-ban any costum build

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Well he's right, saves are a core mechanic and you can't just arbitrarily remove them,
          He's just using an obviously bad example instead of someone trying to fix the shit in

          Here's a few offenders:
          Invisible enemies still have an advantage against you even if you can see them with magic, due to the way in which the effects of the invisibile condition is split in to independent two points.
          Two blindfolded men fight each other as well as if they could see, due to the two halves of the visibility rules cancelling each other out.
          Shooting a man 200 feet away half hidden by a wall is easier than shooting the same man 6 feet away but he is lying down.
          A cloud giant is weaker than the average gymbro while an average commoner is way stronger than an average real life human. In fact all the feats of strength and athleticism are fucked up due to 5e having a series of poorly designed formulas rather than table.
          Helping someone else perform an action provides them the same bonus whether you are an expert or have no idea what you are doing, because the aid another action is both specific about the bonus and extremely vague about everything else.
          Wrestling someone actually does nothing at all to them except preventing them from walking around. If a snake deity is constricting your strength 7 wizard technically all it does is prevent him from walking.
          Due to the way that the rules for spelllcasting foci are split up, it's arguable that a paladin can use a holy symbol on his shield to replace the somatic and material components of a spell that has both of those, but not the somatic components of a spell that has no material components.
          You arguably can't see the sun, but let's not go down that rabbit hole.

          Also the handbook is like 50% spells that mostly don't get used.

          purerawdnd.com
          Some Canadian gay who claims 40 years of D&D experience and claims to run perfect RAW D&D because that's the most superior, fastest, best way to paly D&D 5e, which he insists is the best version of D&D ever made by WotC's genies professional game designers... and the cherry on top is that he makes people pay him 10$ per player per session to have the joy of having some cock-eyed retard run straight out of a campaign book like Curse of Strahd.

          >Some Canadian gay who claims 40 years of D&D experience
          You gotta realize these people might as well be saying they've watched TV for 40 years.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >saves are a core mechanic and you can't just arbitrarily remove them
            You absolutely can, It's just a dick move. One instance of not letting the player roll a d20 doesn't cause the game to become unplayable. It's not a houserule or homebrew, either. It's bad DMing. Nothing to do with thinking you're "fixing" the game or undermining Mike Mearls and his flawless game design, as this brain damaged RAWfag insists.

            >the chance he's just saying that shit to auto-ban any costum build

            Read his manifesto again. The guy unironically thinks D&D is perfect and his autism make him believe that it's an offense to 5e's brilliant designers who were paid to write this mediocre pile of bullshit. His whole shtick is that following the rules to the letter and never deviating or making up a rule is the only true way to play D&D, and then right next to that is his rules for playing RAW which includes
            >Players must allow rulings on the fly that run counter to RAW

            The guy is a brainlet who wants to suck off Mike Mearls while pretending he's achieved some sort of expert, high level D&D playing because he can read from a campaign book.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >following the rules to the letter and never deviating or making up a rule is the only true way to play D&D
              lol that's the most untrue way to play
              his life is a life actually

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          well, i mean sure he broke all tanking classes everywhere always, if every enemy has this handy 5th level lightning spell, and no one can ever do anything about it. i mean it isn't like resistance or immunity to lightning damage exists in the game for christ's sake.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's an example of bad DMing exaggerated into a "this is what happens if you don't follow RAW as the word of God" story that is so fucking retarded, I can't understand why he'd put it on the front page of his gay little site.

            >If you try running a game for the first time and immediately find yourself wondering, "What the fuck am I supposed to do?" that's a problem with the game
            This was me reading the 4e starter set and trying to figure it out. I was probably also being stupid, but I kept wondering where the roleplay was at. All I saw was long texts describing line of sight and combat options.

            This particular dead horse has been beaten to death, but I've seen it still come up today, literally today, where people who learn the rules for D&D still need to be pointed at "How do I DM?" videos and other resources, because you can read the PHB as a player, and the DMG as the DM, cover to cover, and still not have a clear idea of what a session of D&D is supposed to look like. So you have to go elsewhere and ask other people and see other people do it or tell you how to go about it, because the actual concept of playing a RPG is just not in the RPG book.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That is some condescending bullshit right there.
      The gay who wrote that needs to learn that appeal to authority and "muh effort" are not arguments.
      People making products doesn't automatically make the products flawless or even just good and the customer can often times know better, because he is the one spending time actually playing the game.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >mentions dunning kruger
      Oh the projection.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Actually the most balanced was 4e. He'd know this if he wasn't stupid himself.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Rarely do I encounter tabletop gamers who take it upon themselves to make house-rule changes to [...] Magic: The Gathering
      So is he just completely unaware of the fact that the most popular format is a set of houserules that throw away a lot of what makes the normal game balanced?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      yes, the dm does in fact know better. after all he is running the game at his table, often for his players, and has figured out what both he and his players both want and expect out of the game. it is the fundamental reason the professional game developers with their thousands of hours of experience keep putting rule zero in the book. amazingly ttrpgs are not in fact one-size-fits-all games, and the developers know this. in fact many developers use homebrew at their own table, because the game they want to play is not quit the same as the one created by a committee of thousands, nor do they actually agree with the focus groups. 5e is not a game, so much as a product, designed for the greatest appeal and ease of use. it is a lot like a chef's knife, a good all purpose utility knife, but if you want to fillet something, or pare an apple, or de-bone a rack of lamb, you do not use a chef's knife.

      as to why you never see the house rules of games, you don't play them. at least not at the tables where they use the house rules. official tourneys don't use house rules, well no shit, obviously.

      i too have been playing since red box basic, and i can tell you 5e is not the most balanced rule set in the d&d line, unless you mean to put the books on a scale or something.

      the only hubris and dunning-kriger on display here is the author's.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >what is rule zero
      >muh professional game designers
      trash opinion, why did you save it?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well for whatever my two cents are worth
      I feel like one should always whenever trying out a new system/edition play it RAW just to experience the author's intentions
      but once you've tried it as intended I feel homebrewing a little is good so long as the rest of the group agrees too it

      honestly that's the main reason I love ttrpgs is that you can do add or subtract as desired
      if I wanted a completely controlled experience I'd just go play vidya, and hell even they haves fan made mods you can download to change the experience
      although I don't understand the whole "balanced" part like its an cooperative game with pencil and paper who cares if its balanced or not, I'd even go as far to say that's part of the fun is seeing how you can break the game

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I feel like one should always whenever trying out a new system/edition play it RAW just to experience the author's intentions
        The biggest problem I've encountered with many RPG systems is that the creators intentions are often not clear, and you can trace that particular problem back to D&D 3.5's influence, which spent more pages explaining line of sight than it did explaining the basic flow and beats of a typical game session.

        If you try running a game for the first time and immediately find yourself wondering, "What the fuck am I supposed to do?" that's a problem with the game, and it's a problem that D&D has unless you buy an extra book that tells you "read this paragraph out loud to your players, and then put out this map, and then tell them which NPCs and buildings are around."

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >If you try running a game for the first time and immediately find yourself wondering, "What the fuck am I supposed to do?" that's a problem with the game
          This was me reading the 4e starter set and trying to figure it out. I was probably also being stupid, but I kept wondering where the roleplay was at. All I saw was long texts describing line of sight and combat options.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Play tesed by a very large and smart development team.
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA

      Actually the most balanced was 4e. He'd know this if he wasn't stupid himself.

      I mean yeah it was but it still had issues here and there. Especially at higher levels.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This person would be right if they were talking about a good, well-designed game. Those don’t need DM fiat or house rules because they work.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Well-designed games can accommodate houserules and on-the-fly adjustments without turning into a catastrophically broken game, but we're also reading something from a hypocrite who is trying to hype up running straight out of a campaign book without players being able to argue with him as some kind of ideal gaming experience. He has to do the most minimal amount of planning and work and the players get the privilege of paying him to read a campaign book to them, as Mearls intended

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Always loved this shit
    >"The world's greatest roleplaying game"
    >no rules on rp
    >basically just a shoddy combat system that doesnt even work the way it is intended

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I'm here to feel like a tomb-robbing adventurer with his back against a wall—not "roleplay" and play pretend.

    Why not just install Diablo or Torchlight on your PC if you just want to bash monsters and pick up loot? The whole point of going to an insensely social experience and having a narrator/referee is that you can act out your character and go off the rails.

    Critical Role is great. It's brought so many women and normal people who know how to apply deodorant into the hobby. Die mad.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Critical Role is great. It's brought so many women and normal people who know how to apply deodorant into the hobby. Die mad.
      I'm an actual doctor with a normie girlfriend and a slew of normie friends. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about; either you're a normalfag of the worst sort or you worship them, which is arguably worse.
      It's like that post that drunk dude made about women and his fatass friend, you know the one. Or you don't because you're a retard who actually values shit like using deodorant and the presence of women over people that actually enjoy and engage in a hobby.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I can’t wait to be a physician too so I can write shit like this and feel smug. I’m saying that without an ounce of irony or sarcasm. You are my inspiration anon.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm an actual doctor with a normie girlfriend and a slew of normie friends
        same and you sound like a worse fucking gay than the poster you replied to

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        you know what they call the guy who just barely passed med school, the one at the bottom of the rankings. the one who graduated dead last. you guessed it, doctor.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You are lgbt

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You will never be a real woman

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Is that a CRITICAL ROLE reference

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I honestly don’t understand how soiboys even open their mouths that wide. It’s like they have the extra muscles exclusively just to soi out.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I've heard it's a YT algorithm thing.
        >People watching YT are (according to the algorithm) more likely to click on a video if the thumbnail has a face with an open mouth vs a closed mouth
        >Lots of Youtubers use open-mouth thumbnails for this reason
        >People who watch too much YT emulate the expression without realising it

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That crying Star Wars gay makes me irrationally angry. I don't even know who the fuck he is, but crying from excitement over watching a trailer is the very height of pathetic loser retardation and I can't even put into words the profound loathing I feel every time his stupid fucking face appears.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        monkeys do the same thing but to show they are a threat and are about to attack.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Especially crying over the sequel to Soi Bois - The Last White Man...

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >not "roleplay" and play pretend.
    Then Why The Fuck are you playing an RPG?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Another case of OP would have more fun in a wargame

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    While I agree 5e sucks, some people like different styles of roleplay
    You clearly enjoy more OSR styled stuff
    I enjoy narrative games
    Some enjoy simulationist
    etc
    It's all different and it's all fine

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It's all different and it's all fine
      It's not and your fun is wrong.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    There are many reasons why I colelcted EVERY 1e and 2e (and even 2.5e) PDF, every issue of Dragon prior to WotC, and every Dungeon magazine, and Osric, and continue to collect the books and boxed sets prior to WotC, and will probably never play Baldur's Gate 3...

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I forgot to add: WotC art is fucking trash compared to TSR art. Cartoony, silly, World of Warcraft/Diablo III looking fucking shit... I take Tunnels & Trolls more seriously than I do WotC woketarded, wheelchair-accessible dungeon fucking shit.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    My gripe with 5e is combat takes far too long. It's frequently the LEAST interesting thing in the RPG for me. Even with players who know what they're going to do when it's finally their turn...

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >NOOO I WANT TO PLAY A GAME!!!!
    Wrong board
    Then gay.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    agreed op, ive never met a person that plays this game that isnt a complete and total fucking waste of skin. im glad your out too man. this shits gone to the dogs.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >5e is the worst I hate 5e!
    >talks about 5e constantly
    /tg/ is a massive tsundere

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Then go play a game you enjoy and promote it instead of bitching about things you don't like. If you want players to try new things, you need to invite people to try them and you don't get players to join you and see your interests if you act like a cunt and only shit on something you don't like. Be the fucking change you want to see.

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    > The World's Greatest Role-playing Game
    > Really means The World’s Best Known And Only Known Role-Playing Game, Fuck You And Your Shitty Dinky-Ass-Never-Heard-Of-It-Only-Two-People-Play-It-Which-Are-OP-And-OP’s-Imaginary-Friend Stupid Gamelet.
    > Nobody wants to play Realms of Evernever, OP.

    >Captcha doesn’t lie: DANK 4R

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >bitching about 5e and the term "roleplaying game"
    >even though 5e's god awful rules do nothing to actually encourage or support roleplay in any meaningful or rewarding way
    >thinking you're superior for wanting to play slow-motion diablo loot-and-scoot adventures with dice and not engage with some hollywood queer's podcast stream
    OP, you're a gay.

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    i have no problem with D&D itself, i find it mediocre, but i have given up talking to people who are fans of the game, most of them are retarded
    imho ofc

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Go play One Deck Dungeon, then.

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is an altered copypasta but people take the bait here like fucking fish.

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I’m here to feel like a tomb-robbing adventurer with his back against the wall— not “roleplay” and play pretend
    I know this is a bait thread but you literally just contradicted yourself lol

  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I guarantee you most of posters here play 5E. I also guarantee most are players and hate a system despite not ever running anything ever. 5E has a lot of inconsistencies and holes, but most complaints here come from a very player specific perspective (i.e., how combat works, how character creation works, etc.). It just comes off as players who aren't willing to step up and GM their own stuff and also not willing to try and build or find mechanics for their GM.

    DESU, as a perma GM, the system is pretty far down on my list of things to worry about. I'll also always pick a system that my players all know over a new system anyday, because being a GM means having to know the rules better than the players (for a new game at least). It's just not worth the effort of prep unless the game is easy or I know it backwards and forwards.

    If my players want something new and interesting, that's fine, they can run it, I'll happily play and learn the rules and once I feel comfortable run it, but I do not run games I'm unfamiliar with tbh.

  38. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I actually agree. It's like the Saint's Row reboot, where the new cast constantly states that they're socially-conscious 'good guys'. The old Saints were amoral criminals who were only in it for money and power - I want to be a desperate, greed-crazed reaver.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *