ITT: we talk about the fricking lengths D&D players will go to not try other systems

ITT: we talk about the fricking lengths D&D players will go to not try other systems

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's because they're D&D players.
    If someone tells you 'they're a D&D player.' Not that they're into RPGs, or a tabletop player, or whatever, they probably mean it.
    Identifying with 'playing D&D' is the point. Even if the thing they're doing no longer resembles it in any meaningful way.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, I've got a bit of a theory with that. 5e isn't actually good. Everyone quickly stops playing 5e RAW.
      They either houserule it to try to be a better game, or they just play a better game. (Better means 'more suited to their tastes' here).
      D&D 5e players (ie people who stick with just 5e) aren't interested in TTRPGs, they're not really part of the TTRPG hobby. They are 5e players, and the ones that don't GM, usually, are just interested in 5e as entertainment which is why there's a DM shortage.
      Such people are more interested in the aesthetics of D&D than the actual game.

      I always get RPG related recommendations popping up on my youtube and socials boards, and the frequency with which dedicated D&D channels will make a video titled like "How to FIX D&D combat!" or "Make BETTER BOSSES for your D&D!" is just staggering.
      D&D is a system designed around combat, and treats everything that doesn't happen within combat as an afterthought. And yet whenever I see people online talk about what they like most about D&D they'll say shit like "I can be within a story!" "I can play someone completely different from myself!" "I can participate in a story with absolute freedom!"
      And if they ever have a 'but' about D&D, it's gonna be "but I don't really care about the combat," "but I mostly play for the intrigue and social interactions", "but combat is slow and boring".
      It's infuriating how blind these people are. Or rather, how blind they purposefully and stubbornly choose to be.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think a lot of people with those specific sentiments don't even really like the idea of an RPG at all.
        They like the idea of roleplaying, and an RPG is just the only environment or framework they know of to do it, or one that makes it socially acceptable.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          And yet, they pick the wargame afterbirth as their system, because it has brand recognition.
          Normies man, I just can’t

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >And yet whenever I see people online talk about what they like most about D&D they'll say shit like "I can be within a story!"
        The features of D&D that 5e players like, are features of every TTRPG ever.
        But specifically the "I can be within a story." These people do not want to actually PLAY a role playing GAME. They want to do collaborative storytime hour with their friends. That's what they want.
        And you know what? That'd be fine, I just wish they'd stop squatting in this hobby and declaring that "collaborative storytelling" is what RPGs are.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Honestly I'm not even sure they wouldn't necessarily like the game aspects.
          The thing is, D&D doesn't have a proper game aspect for social interactions, exploration etcetera. You only get mechanics with any depths for combat. For any other kind of situation or interaction, the best D&D has to offer is either a skill with maybe a line of text as a guideline on how to interpret the binary result of its check, and/or a handful of spells to trivialize it.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            I agree with everything you said.
            The reason I hate D&D 5e isn't that it isn't to my tastes. It's that on top of the culture thing I just mentioned, it also poisons players on the 'game' part.
            D&D players think combat is just an extended DPS check where big number wins.
            D&D players think 'options' are just flavour; they don't really do anything, they don't matter Before I realised this was their attitude, I had D&D players get frustrated that just doing "I attack" every round didn't work.
            D&D players think that the way you represent your character in the game terms is to just reflavour existing mechanics that already barely represent anything.

            All of these mentalities can be quite hard to break a D&D player out of, even one who decides they want to try other things. It's so hard to express how toxic this all is, how it'll poison their experience in other games and make them just return to 5e. I'd rather have pathfinder 1e, 3.5e, or 4e D&D players at my table than 5e players. At least the others understand that the game part of the game matters. I've had players who are used to those systems at my table and they've all had a MUCH faster and easier time than 5e players adapting to the systems I run, and they've had a lot of fun.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Character limit lol.
              So yeah

              Honestly I'm not even sure they wouldn't necessarily like the game aspects.
              The thing is, D&D doesn't have a proper game aspect for social interactions, exploration etcetera. You only get mechanics with any depths for combat. For any other kind of situation or interaction, the best D&D has to offer is either a skill with maybe a line of text as a guideline on how to interpret the binary result of its check, and/or a handful of spells to trivialize it.

              , they MIGHT like the game aspects, if they could actually approach the game aspects on their own terms, but they don't. This is what galls me,

              Let me share a story with you.
              I had a table of 5e players. They are good friends. Some more than others started to break out of the 5e mentality.
              One of their foes sent some undead constructs after them. All 3 of these hovered (not fully flying, just floating off the ground)
              Two smaller undead constructs with 3 skulls, each skull shot a different magic ray. They were moderately fast
              And one larger undead construct, a big ball of bones held together with undead goo. It had a mystical shield in its frontal arc, (the system uses facing) and several skulls at the front, each with a different magic ray again. This larger construct was quite slow.

              The mystical shield could only be raised for a few turns at a time, then it'd have to recharge.
              Now, one of the first players hit the big one as it raised its shield, and got a crit. Unfortunately the shield is quite tough and I described how the shield came up, I specifically described how it ONLY covered this thing's frontal arc. I also described how after the player's crit dealt damage the shield deflected it, but flickered and disappeared.

              But to the 5e players? They went "This thing is unbeatable." and just, tried to retreat. Since these things had come to them at night, they should have lost their stuff, since the undead constructs set the building on fire, but I went easy on them and just, let them go back in and grab it.

              But after that I went "oh... I can't have them face any foes that aren't just whack-until-dead". This really sucked, and made the game a LOT less fun for me. Every time I came up with a foe, I was worried; "will this require any tactics from them? Will they just immediately give up when their first 'I attack' doesn't work"?
              They're not stupid people, they play MTG and 3/4 are medical professionals now.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                If your players make incorrect assumptions that make the game worse you should point that out for them.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well that's just it isn't it anon?
                I told them.
                I printed out handouts that had their options on them, that could show them that they had a lot of options at their disposal.
                One of them, the one that was like "oh my crit didn't work this thing can't be hurt by us" actually did engage with the magic system a bit, because presumably she was used to magic actually doing things like it did in 5e.

                Other players, I've told them "combat isn't just a DPS check. Damage number is not all that matters, other factors, like positioning, stealth, and many more matter." They'll nod but they don't GET it. More recently one player (not from that group) finally realized it after fricking, 2 years, and me hammering it in after doing a shittone of thinking on how to explain it.

                Just telling them doesn't work because as the anon I quoted below said; they are TRAINED to see everything as static, and passive. Just telling them doesn't overcome that.

                yeah, unfortunately that game trains a lot of people to just see enemies as static blocks of numbers and passive rules, and to see their own action options the same way - I can only do a thing if I have a rule for it, and only the way the rule describes it, and it's always a straightforward application of the same outcome, and the only determining factors of its effectiveness are whether I rolled high enough and whether the target is always immune to it or not.

                I'm not an OSR fan, but I think putting these people through an OSR-styled run may be the best way to take off their blinkers. Maybe when they're faced with a corridor of deadly trap without being given a trap-disarming skill or spell, and having to rely on sticks and stones that don't have any explicit trap-disarming rules themselves, they'll start seeing things in a different way.

                Potentially could work, that group dissolved because they finished uni and then moved away. but the problems remain. 5e players have fricking brainworms that stop them understanding other games.

                Another way 5e hurts this is because SO MUCH is up to the GM, they get used to GM fiat being god, not the rules being the final word, like if something doesn't work it's because the GM doesn't want it to work. Like they don't understand that engaging with the rules will let them do things because the rules say so.

                >combat in the game is based around reducing HP
                >even a critical hit fails to reduce its HP
                Hardly seems crazy to conclude they can't hurt it.
                >shield only covered front arc
                >shield disappeared
                It wasn't there before the attack, so that doesn't seem strange: it only appears when and where you attack. Nothing about that really suggests it isn't normal behaviour that will continue to block everything.
                You can argue that they gave up too quickly, but apparently they were in a burning building and being shot by three magical lasers, so that doesn't seem strange either.

                The shield came up that turn, I described it materialising, before their attack, not as they attacked. I understand I didn't explain that very well.
                Like the sequence was. It bursts through the door, and raises its shield. same turn, it gets attacked. That happened. But EVEN SO, the fact that it specifically was only in that frontal arc, they didn't even ask "hey did the shield cover it's rear at all?"
                The building was set on fire after they stopped fighting it.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >she
                There's your answer anon.

                Women literally don't have the higher brain function needed to fight because they were never hunters in prehistory.

                They are better suited to tending the hearth.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yet a different female player from a different group, who played a lot of pathfinder and other games such as shadowrun and Anima is the most deadly and combat effective player I've had period. Also the fastest learner. She didn't like 5e, called it boring.
                It's not women that are the problem.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Congrats on spotting the troony

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >she
                There's your answer anon.

                Women literally don't have the higher brain function needed to fight because they were never hunters in prehistory.

                They are better suited to tending the hearth.

                This is some wild shit to type even for Ganker.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Not knowing that /tg/ is under constant "trolling" ops
                Everything makes sense when you know every what's X in your setting,
                Heres your X ,bro elf/goblin/furty/ other freakshit threads all generalizations without saying anything about specific system how do people not see it

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Anyone playing anima is 5 to 10 IQ deviations above the average /tg/ denizen anon, they have fabled intellects only similar to those of the GURPS players, a magical number which the legend say is over 90!

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                dumbest post on tg

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                smartest post on /tg/.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                shitty b8 is shitty

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Epic b8 is epic

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Like the sequence was. It bursts through the door, and raises its shield. same turn, it gets attacked
                Okay, fair enough.
                Did these players ever actually ask for a tactically engaging combat system? Because if not they probably just weren't thinking about the game that way at all. Yes even if you'd told them that's the point. If they don't really care about that then they aren't going to suddenly start just because the system is trying to force them to.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                > Did these players ever actually ask for a tactically engaging combat system?
                No, but then my previous players who had played pathfinder, D&D4e, D&D 3.5, and Pathfinder never asked for that either. Everyone knew that combat was a thing where tactics happened, where tactics mattered. They had fun. I had fun. I really enjoy running combat because I love tactics, I love coming up with cool fights. That example I gave there, when I was coming up with it, I was thinking about how the big necro-ball enemy was this big slow threat that they would flank, and the smaller faster (and more fragile) enemies would try to protect those flanks, creating a tactically interesting scenario. How the players could smash the skulls to disable the attacks (the skulls were not particularly hard to break). I had designed quite an interesting encounter,.

                >Hardly seems crazy to conclude they can't hurt it.
                Honestly, any player with any amount of curiosity and ingenuity would try to figure out why they couldn't hurt it and how to overcome it rather than immediately concluding "I tried ONE thing ONCE and it didn't have the expected outcome right away, so we should give up".
                Even without considering that the thing was described as having a shield that then disappeared, or that said shield was directional, you'd think a player would wonder whether they could attempt other means of incapacitating the construct, using the environment to their advantage, etcetera.

                Though you do have a point that it makes sense to try and get away from what seems to be a complicated fight when you're in a burning building.

                As I said above, the enemies set the building on fire after the players stopped fighting 'em, because nothing was stopping them from doing so.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ngl sounds like a shit scenario, the players would have no idea that the shield has any kind of restrictions or rules applied to it since is wholly out of 5e scope, at no point a pc can cast a super shield that eats up an enemy's crit or something like that, so I can totally see them going like, invulnerable enemy the dm wants me to run. Also in between them starting the encounter and leaving the building nobody else attacked the enemies? Or was the shield constantly blocking them?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Being ambushed does kind of suck it's true.
                >Also in between them starting the encounter and leaving the building nobody else attacked the enemies
                The person who delcared them invulnerable was the first player in initative order, and once she declared it nobody else tried, even though she wasn't even the one with highest single hit damage.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                meh, then your players actions would be perfectly reasonable. DnD is not a final fantasy game where you know that the boss is designed to be winnable. If you were in a war in real life and you have machine gun, and the other side has a tank you don't think "surely there must be a way to remove their armor advantage with the things i have here now", you just run. players saying "we have no idea what is going on, let us retreat and ponder a solution while we are not in a battle" is strategic thinking, it was just not what you wanted due to your preconceived idea of how the battle should have played out.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, there is no apparent indication to why a crit failed appart from a flying shield, that rules as written would be a +1 to ac, there is also no indication that the shield couldn't switch sides or that it could have an alternative way of shutting it out, at that point the best tactic is accepting that you aren't prepared to handle that thing and run away.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, there is no apparent indication to why a crit failed appart from a flying shield, that rules as written would be a +1 to ac, there is also no indication that the shield couldn't switch sides or that it could have an alternative way of shutting it out, at that point the best tactic is accepting that you aren't prepared to handle that thing and run away.

                It wasn't D&D. As stated before, it was a system that had facing, tactical depth, armor as damage reduction. It was GURPS

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                it still means nothing, from what you described your players shoot once to a enemy and then said "ok, we can't be bothered to fight this battle, either because we have nothing to gain or because it is too risky.". The problem is not that your players are stupid, stupid players keep fighting until they are all dead. The problem is that the the incentives to make them fight that battle were too low. Next time throw in a ticking timer like "if you don't win the battle in 10 in game minutes, a necromantic bomb is gonna go off and the whole kingdom is dead.", so that they can't run away, and they will have to use their intelligence to formulate a plan now, instead of delaying it until their are safe

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                GURPS has no real depth because its math is awful. Once you cut through the obfusciation, you're left with lots of combat options that require extensive charts and rules governing them, but which 99% of them are so sub-optimal that you'd regret using if you could instantly see how bad it was.

                The worst part is that new players will do things like try to describe their characters' actions in a cinematic fashion, only to be inadvertantly picking some of the worst possible options. It actually punishes players for wanting to do anything but the most boring, rote actions since those are the ones the system's math favors.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Other players, I've told them "combat isn't just a DPS check. Damage number is not all that matters, other factors, like positioning, stealth, and many more matter."

                The issue is that every GM who says this doesn't mean it, they just want to punish players for "doing it wrong" and as soon as the players adapt they change the system on them because the GMs in question get off on telling their players they're doing it wrong.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The issue is that my GM's have all been twats
                Many such cases. My condolences.
                I fricking love it when the players clown on combats with a good plan. What the frick would be the fun of GMing if everything you expected to happen just kept happening? I know it's a tired meme, but I'd just write a book.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I dunno, ask the kinds of GMs who prompted the "local lord" shitposting on here. They want their players to lose, but they don't want them to give up. It's very antisocial; John Wick is a good example of this.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I dunno, I was just assigning character traits to the other guy as it pleased me because I've seen shitposts elsewhere.
                Guy c'mon.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nah, this is really common. People don't want their players to succeed too often.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't say it wasn't common. This guy's got an anecdote and I certainly believe him

                [...]
                I dealt with a DM like that before. I think its just genuine psychopathy and the need to control others thinking it a DM vs Player game even though the house always wins because guess who makes up all the rules and selectively enforces them. The best part is when you had enough of their shit and start ignoring things or wasting his time when he tries to forcibly press you yet again to be in servitude of some self insert edge lord.

                I mean it's dickish to assign that behaviour to some other anon because he told his players 'hey you can and maybe should do things in combat other than attack.'

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                NTA, but I GM and I am often frustrated or confused by my players' lack of initiative, prudence, or creativity in combat.
                If your party stands still during a gunfight, in the open, and they all use their entire turn to make repeated attacks, and then after the fight they talk about how they're too wounded to go on and they want to waste a session by going back to town - that shit makes me want to reach through the internet and slap their phones out of their dumbass hands.
                When I double-check that a player wants to use their entire turn to make attacks while standing still, what I'm really saying is "get your head in the game, you boring frick". Usually one or two other players are doing the heavy lifting entirely by themselves, both in terms of gameplay and narrative.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I remember my first GURPS games where I was one of the two people in the party who had actually figured out how to use any form of attack besides the default, and I was practically screaming at my other party members to use things like targeted attack: neck or all-out-attack. I feel your pain.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I remember my first GURPS games where I was one of the two people in the party who had actually figured out how to use any form of attack besides the default, and I was practically screaming at my other party members to use things like targeted attack: neck or all-out-attack. I feel your pain.

                It boggles my mind people like this exist. Like, I know they do, clearly, it just confuses me.
                I want to credit playing with people with wargaming and historical interests, but I imagine some people with those still don't grok how to do things in an RPG. "Already knows at least some theory of how the frick you fight with a gun," seems like it should be an advantage, in any case.
                I barely have to do anything to get my players going, and they're the sort of people asking about the solidity of cover shit. The only time I've seen anyone pull a 'stand in the open and just shoot dudes,' is if their character had some immense survivability advantage and/or was borderline insane.
                As for second anon's GURPS business, I dunno. I just sat the new people down and had them do some in-character sparring as they prep for the job, or run a killhouse so the employer can assess the new bodies, or something. Walk them through it or let a more veteran player take the lead, and they pick up quick.

                >Better to play a game you hate with people you like yknow?
                No? Thats still a shitty time. If I just want to hang out with them I'd do it elsewhere or just hang out and have coffee with them. Let alone the people gaming with randos online.

                Fortunately my friends are open to trying whatever someone else is willing to run for at least one campaign to see how it goes.

                Have to agree with this take. I've absolutely politely excused myself from games that mechanically sucked with players/GMs I'm otherwise all to happy to play with. It's not a huge deal.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think its usually they just haven't come to grips with the system yet, or haven't actually read the rulebook.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                To a degree, but I think that's what one of the earlier posters was saying about D&D brain.
                There comes a point where something like "Take cover when people are shooting fricking guns at you," shouldn't require looking at the rulebook. That's either total unfamiliarity with RPGs or having only played ones that teach you wrong as a joke, y'know? It requires for some reason thinking that the most common sense of actions in a situation isn't on the table 'because it's a game and I didn't see/know the rules for that.'

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I dunno, ask the kinds of GMs who prompted the "local lord" shitposting on here. They want their players to lose, but they don't want them to give up. It's very antisocial; John Wick is a good example of this.

                I dealt with a DM like that before. I think its just genuine psychopathy and the need to control others thinking it a DM vs Player game even though the house always wins because guess who makes up all the rules and selectively enforces them. The best part is when you had enough of their shit and start ignoring things or wasting his time when he tries to forcibly press you yet again to be in servitude of some self insert edge lord.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                yeah, unfortunately that game trains a lot of people to just see enemies as static blocks of numbers and passive rules, and to see their own action options the same way - I can only do a thing if I have a rule for it, and only the way the rule describes it, and it's always a straightforward application of the same outcome, and the only determining factors of its effectiveness are whether I rolled high enough and whether the target is always immune to it or not.

                I'm not an OSR fan, but I think putting these people through an OSR-styled run may be the best way to take off their blinkers. Maybe when they're faced with a corridor of deadly trap without being given a trap-disarming skill or spell, and having to rely on sticks and stones that don't have any explicit trap-disarming rules themselves, they'll start seeing things in a different way.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >combat in the game is based around reducing HP
                >even a critical hit fails to reduce its HP
                Hardly seems crazy to conclude they can't hurt it.
                >shield only covered front arc
                >shield disappeared
                It wasn't there before the attack, so that doesn't seem strange: it only appears when and where you attack. Nothing about that really suggests it isn't normal behaviour that will continue to block everything.
                You can argue that they gave up too quickly, but apparently they were in a burning building and being shot by three magical lasers, so that doesn't seem strange either.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Hardly seems crazy to conclude they can't hurt it.
                Honestly, any player with any amount of curiosity and ingenuity would try to figure out why they couldn't hurt it and how to overcome it rather than immediately concluding "I tried ONE thing ONCE and it didn't have the expected outcome right away, so we should give up".
                Even without considering that the thing was described as having a shield that then disappeared, or that said shield was directional, you'd think a player would wonder whether they could attempt other means of incapacitating the construct, using the environment to their advantage, etcetera.

                Though you do have a point that it makes sense to try and get away from what seems to be a complicated fight when you're in a burning building.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >They're not stupid people, they play MTG

                Anon...

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Isn't MTG a game where you have to assess different options and come up with solutions while managing resources? I don't actually play it but it seems that being smart and actually engaging with the game mechanics is an asset.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, the real decisions in the game are made when you make the deck, but that decision is taken away with netdecking and in play it is rare that there is much non moron options to pick

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Really somewhat explains why anon's 5e friends were also into it. WotC era D&D is as much about building and netdecking as MtG is.
                As a matter of fact, wasn't making it 'more like MtG' one of the explicit design goals of 3e? I swear I heard that somewhere.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >As a matter of fact, wasn't making it 'more like MtG' one of the explicit design goals of 3e? I swear I heard that somewhere.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >We designed this feat bad on purpose to trick new players
                >We designed our weapons with a meta in mind, that way people feel better about having their options restricted
                What the frick

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                20 years ago maybe. These days. Ehhh.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Every time I see Julius my hatred of fatties grows stronger. The man had faith in humanity and we got to see it crushed on TV, by a two ton tubby claiming weightloss and eating right are unhealthy.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >big, slow monster
                >indestructible shield pops up to stop incoming attack
                Can't blame the party from misunderstanding, especially if the odds were already not looking good: also, if they ran away instead of fighting to the death they're already adapting well to non-DnD systems, in DnD RAW attempting to disengage is almost always suicidal.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, mechanics in fights are always iffy to communicate well. I would suggest visually putting something on the enemy to indicate the mechanic. Like, it comes and raises its shield. Put a piece of paper on the side of the figure where the shield is, or draw a line on the side of the token. If this were a videogame, it would introduce the concept of shielded enemies by having you fight a much weaker one first in a safe environment where you can experiment.

                Or start by introducing the concept positional combat in some way. Lock the players in a square room with a golem that holds a shield and slowly walks towards them. It doesn't attack, but it pushes you and if it pushes you against the wall you take damage. The solution is to attack it from behind. It can only turn or walk forward on its turn, it cannot change direction. I know it sounds idiotic, but you have to somehow show people that your game uses that concept, when nothing else in 5e does that. The direction you attack from doesn't matter.

                Of course, your players might genuinely not have the experience with games to understand what you're doing at all. Especially if they're learning medicine, those people rarely have time to do much gaming on their own. You have to teach your group how to play the game you're making.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do they players have any abilities that make them conditionally invulnerable? Because a lot of people don't treat rpgs like a video game; if they encounter an invincible enemy they go "shit, this guy's invincible" and get out of there, instead of assuming he's a boss with a conditional weakness.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Do they players have any abilities that make them conditionally invulnerable?
                Since Anon was playing gurps, do active defenses count?
                Because my first instinct on hitting a shield or something would be 'oh, it has a shield defense.' or maybe an ablative damage screen, or, any number of things, really.
                Players could easily have access to an identical ability to the one he described, but 'will they,' is an entirely different question.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Play bog standard characters in D&D 5E
              >Get accused of being a power gamer because I didn't choose some dumb combat gimmick for my character
              >Also get accused of being a power gamer because I analyze the situation first and use the tools at my disposal before I even think about opening a door or getting into combat.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        My absolute hatred from 5E players aside from how they act in game is when they say its a great system because you can homebrew everything to fix problems and you are not allowed to criticize the system because of that. By that logic you are not allowed to say that the system is good either especially when they go around changing the core fundamentals of said system and there are better toolboxes out there. It's the equivalent of saying "Skyrim is a good game after I used 30 different mods". But no, we live in an age of toxic positivity where you are not allowed to say something bad about anything anymore. You do not care about TTRPG's, you just care about an easy ride into "nerd culture".

        I started off with TTRPG's with 5E and even after a year I realized that D&D 5E was extremely shallow with no survival elements and that TTRPG's had to be more then people acting like idiots with combat in-between where nobody even gives a shit about the combat other then to look cool and do dumb anime things. They always follow the railroad and never put any effort into anything.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >because you can homebrew everything to fix problems and you are not allowed to criticize the system

          lol, that's not your problem with them at all. Nobody says you can't criticize the system, 5e players do it all the time themselves.

          What you can't do is say the system is shit, and that's what makes you mad. Anytime you finally think you've got something that can "objectively" confirm that the game is bad and no one should play it, people just dismiss your bullshit, tell you it's not important, or simply say that if it bothers you that much, it's optional and can be changed.

          You're mad because you want to be a shitty troll and people are more than savvy enough to see through your bullshit lol.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You want to be a shitty troll by pointing out that the system isn't good.
            >Also I am smart for playing 5E and not thinking its shit

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What you can't do is say the system is shit,
            NTA but 5E is, indeed, shit. I've run many campaigns in it and what you put in to your content is greater than what you get out.

            The HP bloat saps the game of drama. The content is massively over-written, with a strong focus on needless detail and handholding. The over-emphasis on combat balance makes every class feel the same and sucks the fun out of what otherwise might be good mechanics.

            It's a poor system for conveying horror, or suspense, or for including survival mechanics (goodberry lmao). The scaling and bounded accuracy is a half-hearted solution to a problem that the game created for itself in the first place. The game gets worse the more you level up.
            Stat modifiers are arbitrary and unnecessary. The D20 causes the results of skill checks to be swingy and bizarre (when it comes to moving something heavy, random chance is 5x as important as having a +4 str modifier?)
            The classes don't really gel with any setting in particular. Subclasses make character building more about fitting into a specific cliche than about building a character.

            5E is a mediocre tabletop combat system stretched out to 300 pages.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What you can't do is say the system is shit,
            I can and I will. What the frick are you gonna do about it, pussy?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nta but 5e *is* shit. It leaves me all the heavy lifting as GM. Other games handle things for me for consistency or provide specific fun mechanical gameplay. 5e... Exists? But its not providing value as a game system.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            I genuinely cannot understand if your post is in favor of or against D&D. Rephrase it.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Skyrim is an awesome game after 30 mods. It was pretty fun for a single playthrough without mods. Just, minimal replay value without mods.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm also not super into the combat. But I prefer other games, and have a bunch more other games on my bucket list. Normies should consider what they actually want and whether product A really delivers it or maybe they should spend half an hour checking out the compwtition sometime.

  2. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I have identified a fundamental problem with one of the quintessential core mechanics in this system, which other systems do not have!
    >Time to homebrew a shitty and convoluted workaround, that will either require a rewriting of most other content from gear to spells and feats and class features OR just mess them up, rather than trying one of those other systems!

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I had a friend who was trying to rewrite DnD 5e into a star wars game. I practically begged him to download any of the star wars rpgs that have been released. He refused. Really sad.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Star Wars ffg is one of the best systems I've ever played. 5E tards missing the point of it while shoving a handful of d20s up their ass should get bent.

  3. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, I've got a bit of a theory with that. 5e isn't actually good. Everyone quickly stops playing 5e RAW.
    They either houserule it to try to be a better game, or they just play a better game. (Better means 'more suited to their tastes' here).
    D&D 5e players (ie people who stick with just 5e) aren't interested in TTRPGs, they're not really part of the TTRPG hobby. They are 5e players, and the ones that don't GM, usually, are just interested in 5e as entertainment which is why there's a DM shortage.
    Such people are more interested in the aesthetics of D&D than the actual game.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm convinced nearly everyone who 'likes' 5e would either be much happier with ICRPG as a casual party game, or much happier with PF2 as a fiddly grid combat minis game. But as you say, they want the Pinkerton-brand dice game because pointless brand-based identity.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's not just 5e, I was similarly pissed with 3.5 a decade and a half ago and ended up playing GURPS instead.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Frick, are you me?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Everyone quickly stops playing 5e RAW

      To be fair, that's been true of MOST D&D versions. Every table has different tastes and likes/dislikes, so house rules are almost omnipresent in every single group

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      There's a line between house rules and the actual in-practice "playstyle" of ignoring all dice rolls, stats, and rules in the entire game. 5e "players" are not actually playing anything. They really do not use any of those things, I can tell you honestly, I've seen it in practice and there's countless videos where they talk about it. They're just having circlejerks over character backstories or something.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      People are interested in playing TTRPG's, but anyone starting out has no concept of RPG's other than D&D existing.
      And once they've gotten used to 5e, they're afraid to try anything else because 5e is something that needs to be "gotten used to" and they've been gaslit into thinking every other RPG is even worse in that regard.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        This post makes me realize how lucky I am to have started when the dominant games were World of Darkness shit in the late '90s. I don't have any desire to play them again, but they're worth the occasional reread for ideas.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Yeah, I've got a bit of a theory with that. 5e isn't actually good

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I agree, they are here just for the D&D flavour. Like those wha are Star Wars or Lord of the Rings fans but only watched the movies, which is easy, while this requires commitment. The kind of people who buys Funko Pops.

      The damage caused by Stranger Things...

  4. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I had a DnD player try another system (OSR game).
    He then got bored and tried to get the party killed.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      OSR is still dnd though innit

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        That just kind of proves how bad things have gotten. Even another flavour of D&D isn't the right D&D to them.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Are you sure that was the problem?
          Players don't get invested into games for nothing.

  5. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    lol what? It is because if you don't include the word D&D form a youtube video the algorithm will punish you and you will get less views. It is just like minipainters video that all must be named a variation of "is X paint better than GW paints?", "this game blows Warhammer 40k out of the water". I did not saw that video, but i will make the prediction that it says something that reveals they did not give a shit about dnd in particular beside dnd being the most widely played

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      The video is about D&D though. It's not just a namedrop, the actual content of the video is 'advice' on how and why to homebrew D&D to work either without hit points or without armor class.
      The actual advice is terrible by the way, even without getting into how stupid it is to implement that radical a change into a system and how much work you're going to waste on fixing every bit of rules that mentions HP and damage. The suggestion for 'removing HP' was just 'you can take only a fixed number of hits, and crits count double', which the poor moron doesn't seem to understand is exactly the same as having hit points.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        yeah just saw the video, he reinvented hit points and convinced the idea of approximating two dice rolls by rolling a single dice instead.

        I would not say it is someone that wished to play another RPG instead, i would say it is someone that thought could do better than WOTC with a particular mechanic, tried to tune it and miserably failed. The title of the video is just a exaggeration for views.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        So they just copy Savage worlds?
        Savage worlds has wounds, toughness, and parry. With most enemies having just the one wound.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Same as having hp
        AND a fighter nerf since now everyone does the same damage!

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Lol no, I watched the video and it very much is "what if we did fixed damage to a smaller number of things which are functionally hit points" and "what if instead of rolling to hit we just rolled to damage and used armour as DR"

  6. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I've only ever played D&D. Do other systems not have hit points and attack rolls?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dresden Files rpg, based on FATE does not have a direct hit point analog

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        And it's one of the worst RPGs by a long mile.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Some do, some don't.
      Importantly, most of those that have HP don't have the insane bloat that you see in D&D, and/or the aspect of dissonance of your character being able to survive multiple direct hits. Also importantly, some games actually give you disadvantages from being increasingly wounded, rather than just being fully operational to your last HP.

      Part of the problem is that HP as meatpoints are stupid when you have as many (compared to the damage of a direct hit by a supposedly lethal weapon) as in D&D. This is a problem because a good RPG session should have at least some care put into the narration aspect and players' immersion in the fiction, so there's the narrative dissonance of tanking dozens of arrows and axe strikes, as well as the fact that gameplay is slowed down by the aforementioned bloat. Some people say that you should reconcile the narrative dissonance by treating HP as 'luck/skill' points instead of meatpoints (losing HP is mostly using your limited ability to avoid or minimize strikes, so that the axe blow that could had killed you will just scratch you instead). Unfortunately, that is also stupid because it clashes with healing, and with the fact that you already have mechanics to represent being hard to hit and absorbing or reducing damage.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        The problem with DND is that HP is the only real defense of the character, everything else is easily countered and is not reliable. That is, in order to solve the problem, it is necessary to rewrite and make the emphasis on not getting hit in the first place.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Not just that, but to create variable win conditions. 5e has only two (really one); reduce enemy up to 0, and don’t get reduced to 0 no. The options for the first are “attack”. The option for the second are practically nonexistent, so long as we’re whiteboxing.
          I don’t think HP is even the problem here, because you can go a long way with even a faux-2d boardstate. It’s just a lack of interesting options on both sides. How many 5e monsters boil down to “a sack of HP and an #dx damage attack”?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, this exactly. it's a combination of system and culture that make it so 'killing enemies' is identical to 'winning fights.' I was musing on what

            >combat in the game is based around reducing HP
            >even a critical hit fails to reduce its HP
            Hardly seems crazy to conclude they can't hurt it.
            >shield only covered front arc
            >shield disappeared
            It wasn't there before the attack, so that doesn't seem strange: it only appears when and where you attack. Nothing about that really suggests it isn't normal behaviour that will continue to block everything.
            You can argue that they gave up too quickly, but apparently they were in a burning building and being shot by three magical lasers, so that doesn't seem strange either.

            said here;
            >combat in the game is based around reducing HP
            >even a critical hit fails to reduce its HP
            >Hardly seems crazy to conclude they can't hurt it.
            and thinking that from my experiences it does. My usual game has HP, but combat isn't inherently based on it. More often positioning and a sound plan are everything, and most enemies can be intimidated or maneuvered into retreat or submission through it.
            I've won way more fights doing shit like blocking retreats with debris, panicking enemy war animals, or just generally positioning myself and others such that to continue fighitng us would just be suicide, than I have by 'reducing all the enemy's HP to zero.'
            And even when it does come down to direct combat, there's usually a lot more to it than that.

            Like that undead construct above, if I hit that shit and it didn't work, my first instinct would be to play defensive in front of it while someone else tried to circle it, that's just, how you do. But something can't have a 'frontal shield' in D&D. If you d flank it, who's behind it? Can I walk around it? It's all just pure arbitration at that point. Not that that's inherently bad, but it seems to dull people's awareness of the actual fight they're in, as a thing in the fiction, and not just story about this unrelated miniatures combat

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              I agree (and this is exemplified by the fact that d&d has a procedure for starting combat but not ending it lol), but even within the constraints of “kill enemies to win” there’s so many interesting ways to design around that. Like look at Gloomhaven, or Too Many Bones - they’re as basic a premise as most d&d fights, but infinitely more engaging.
              My favourite system, shinobigami, doesn’t even have tactical positioning, but it has such a wealth of depth that a description of it would hit charlimit. And it effectively has HP reduction as the prime win condition.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >so there's the narrative dissonance of tanking dozens of arrows and axe strikes
        No, there isn't. Stop trying to play shitty mudcore "realistic" games in fricking high fantasy dungeon crawlers. There's no dissonance in your barbarian face tanking a hundred arrows and then laughing as someone's sword bounces off his rock hard and, because he's not just a fricking guy at the gym. There's no dissonance in a paladin bracing himself for the full force of a point blank dragon's breath only to shrug it off with a successful save due to his divine aura and then using lay on hands to be good as new.

        Play something else if you want mud core for frick's sake

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >weapons wounding their targets is mudcore

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >every possible wound from a paper cut to a bruise is debilitating and knocks you out of a fight

            Your brain on mudcore

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              >maybe if I take every argument in bad faith and take it to illogical hyperbolic extremes, I can make D&D look good!

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                You really have no right to say anything about bad faith.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              >t. 2023 Strawman wrestling finalist

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              The problem with bloated hp is that eventually, the world stops making sense. If a 5th level pc can survive being hit by 10 arrows it begs the question why the frick anyone still uses bows/how there are any commoners left when killing ratsvin the Innkeeper's basement makes you superhuman. There's something to be had in a system for medieval superheroes, but the majority tries to pretend 5e isn't that.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the world stops making sense. If a 5th level pc can survive being hit by 10 arrows
                Not if you actually understand HP as Gygax defined it since it was more of an abstract "you can keep fighting while you still have this", iirc he explained it in terms of an Erroll Flynn swordfight from the pic related Robin Hood movie where he and Sir Guy go back and forth and even though they don't get direct hits in their HP is "dropping" from all the dodging and deflecting.

                Here's the full fight:

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then it is poorly named and implemented. Sounds like "hit points" don't record getting hit and then when they are gone you magically keel over.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                They record you not getting hit, until you fall to 0, then that blow definitely hit you.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then it is poorly named and implemented. Sounds like "hit points" don't record getting hit and then when they are gone you magically keel over.

                Aren't hit points a mechanic from an older naval war game just like how thac0 was from Chainmail?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Pretty sure you're mixing things up. IIRC it was Chainmail that ripped the Armour Class concept from a naval war game.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                They fall apart when you consider that means swimming through acid only wears away your ability to dodge and other similar situations, like large AOEs. You cant 'get out of the way' when that requires a 30 foot leap or more.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well not strictly since it was arguing as if it was a "fix" rather than the actual original definition of HP in D&D.
                Here's the 1E PHB on the subject: "A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors."
                Can't be arsed to go check the OD&D books to check how it was defined there.

                The problem with this kind of abstraction is that hit points naturally heal at a rate so slow it makes no sense for them to be anything other than physical wounds. If I get "hit" with a sword once at level 10, representing less than 1/10th my hit points, meaning that it should *primarily* represent me dodging the blow and parrying it, why the frick does it take AN ENTIRE WEEK for me to recover my stamina from a one minute duel in which I didn't actually get struck by the sword at all?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >your barbarian face tanking a hundred arrows
          Yeah, the problem is that the elderly wizard and halfling thief can also tank fifty arrows. If you want a system where the barbarian gets to show off his titanium abs, D&D isn't it.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Part of the problem is that HP as meatpoints are stupid
        HP was never "meatpoints". It was an abstract of your ability to go on fighting, dodging etc and once you were out of it you were either unconscious or dead.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          The post you're responding to does address HP as 'miss points' instead of 'meat points' too, so congratulations for outing yourself as unable to read more than two sentences I guess.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well not strictly since it was arguing as if it was a "fix" rather than the actual original definition of HP in D&D.
            Here's the 1E PHB on the subject: "A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors."
            Can't be arsed to go check the OD&D books to check how it was defined there.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Except it's not "miss points" either. Instead if meat points or miss points, it covers glancing blows, scratches, bruises, blood loss, fractures, and eventually severe debilitating injury and unavoidable unconsciousness/death. The important thing is that you're still taking damage, but your HP represents how much you can safely shrug off or adrenaline your way through before you become debilitated. If I get bruised or scraped, it may hurt, but I'd still be moving just fine. Some systems address this even further by having thresholds in HP where you become increasingly debilitated, serving as the breakpoints at which the accumulated injuries begin to actually weigh on you.
            So a Fighter with higher HP is still taking just as much damage as the squishy Wizard, but he can handle the pain better and is less debilitated by cuts and bruises than the Wizard who isn't as tough. Eventually, that Wizard will succumb to minor injuries that stacked up to become severe ones while the Fighter will keep going because he's not as perturbed by them. It's a spin on meat points more than miss points, but it's an explanation that accounts for injury severity and accumulation.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Expanse RPG using the AGE system solves this by making HP narrative sorta. You reduce damage by spending Fortune and only get injured if you aren't willing/able to spend Fortune.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Unfortunately, that is also stupid because it clashes with healing
        It really doesn't if you just shift your perspective and think of 'healing' magic to provide a combination of a restorative, re-invigoration, divine providence and yes accelerated natural healing. It's the word healing that's tripping you up isn't it.
        >and with the fact that you already have mechanics to represent being hard to hit and absorbing or reducing damage.
        They can all contribute to the same narrative effect without getting down to the nitty gritty of what did what and who killed who.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I play a system with neither and it blows 5e out of the water, both in terms of narrative dynamism and tactical depth.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        What system is this?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Pretty sure he means Hârnmaster.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Pretty sure he means Hârnmaster.

          But it could also be some Fatelike storygame at the other extreme.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          It’s still a WIP, but if this seems your jam I’ll link.

          Pretty sure he means Hârnmaster.

          [...]
          But it could also be some Fatelike storygame at the other extreme.

          Closer to Fate than HM, but closer to Sakura Arms than either.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Savage Worlds / Deadlands has attack rolls, but the target is not ac, it's the number 4 for ranged attacks, or against the target's parry score for adjacent attacks.

      If you hit, you roll damage, if you hit by a lot, you add a d6 to the damage roll.

      You roll your damage dice, which for a Pistol is likely 2d6, and compare it to the target's toughness. Toughness is vigor+armor. If your damage roll is higher, you scotye a wound, killing the enemy.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >score a wound
        fat fricking fingers

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      most of the systems i've played in have those, it's just that unlike D&D those other systems don't have bloated HP pools that make HP-as-meatpoints a stumbling block for getting into the game.
      >Shadowrun, specifically 3e
      you have 10 each of stun and physical, with attacks piling into those based on the results of damage resistance checks.
      >Nechronica
      everything active is made of parts, and when things take damage it breaks that many parts
      >Lancer
      you have an HP pool that you can maybe push to 20 if you go all-in, but an enemy doing 5 damage on a hit is a lowball, and emptying your HP just leads to a structure damage check instead of sidelining you outright.

  7. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Seems like the thread to ask, but does anyone have a detailed anecdote, written log or let's play or anything of what they'd call 5e being 'good' in combat?
    I've been asking on and off, with complete sincerity, for like a year, and the only answer I've gotten with any impetus was a link to some guy's solo play podcast in fricking AD&D. Where he narrated attack rolls and HP numbers with sound effects but no real effort.
    And man but I'm really trying to figure out what 'good combat' looks like to people who genuinely like 5e combat, just to try and like, bridge a gulf in understanding here. It's like a fricking anthropological expedition at this point.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      > I actually have detailed logs for 5e combat (legit solo again, but no silly noises in text format)
      > I hate the system
      I think that’s like trying to find a Michelin star review from someone genuinely passionate about burger king.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah. It may be hopeless.
        The only other thing I was linked was one of the last battles in some season of critical role, which I just sighed and watched as much of as I could, but obviously wasn't representative of actual play.
        Or, maybe It was, since it was largely just the DM bloviating about the player's basic b***h actions instead of anyone actually doing anything interesting.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Or, maybe It was, since it was largely just the DM bloviating about the player's basic b***h actions instead of anyone actually doing anything interesting.

          You seem to be confused. You seem to think D&D is supposed to be like a strategy game. It's not. 99% of it or any RPG comes down to GM's descriptions. That's how this genre works. The mechanics usually are and indeed should be very simple, because all the interesting stuff happens outside the mechanics and you don't want the mechanics to distract people from the real game.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, now I'm confused. Because this just seems like you're arguing that the point is solely to listen to the GM talk.
            >Like a strategy game
            If there's a fight, there's strategy. And I'm not even talking about mechanics. When I said 'basic b***h actions' I didn't mean 'the basic game mechanics,' I mean never doing anything but fairly plainly state they're activating those game mechanics.

            I disagree with the mechanics not being part of "The real game." I understand that form of play, but the assertion that it's both inherently and singularly the correct way to engage with the medium is pretentious drivel.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you don't want the mechanics to distract people from the real game.
            And yet, combat takes such a hefty slice out of the rules and sessions that it’s almost like you could argue that it’s the “real game”, and that the rest is fluff. I won’t, because that would be ignoring another significant portion of the experience, and that would be moronic. But you could.

            Bunch of you homosexuals are going "my ebin ttrpg alternative uses no hp and it great" but you give no name for it curious.

            Yeah cuz self promotion is frowned on innit

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            A game should be judged on the basis of what it provides though. If we've come to a point that saying "the mechanics don't really matter anyway" is used as an actual defense for D&D's mechanics, then we're just admitting that D&D is terrible in what it provides to its players.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              It provides you with a lifestyle feeling.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                So do funko pops

                *did

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                And they sold like mad for years.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                > judging RPG’s based on what they provide
                > “they provide picrel”
                Found the corpo plant

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              What if the mechanics matter, just not the ones you laboriously exaggerate your personal negative opinions on?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Enlighten me on which D&D mechanics you consider good, then.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why? So you can bad faith nitpick them?

                Give me a sign a good faith first. Tell me what mechanics you think D&D does well, and if you can actually provide some without just delivering backhanded compliments, I'll consider you as someone who can be reasoned with.

                Ball's in your court.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Dude, you came into this discussion where other people and I have laid out our points of view in extensive detail, which also meant exposing them to rebuttal, be it in good faith or not. You don't get to come in, take a random swing claiming that our arguments are invalid because 'other things are good', and leave your opinion shrouded in vagueness so that it cannot be effectively argued against. The ball has been in my court all along, if you want to make a point you should put literally any argument or weight behind it.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >bad faith through and through
                Just in case you thought anyone was deceived.

                You were given a chance to show you were something more than a troll, but I guess leopard spots.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                The only self-evident bad faith here is yours, darling. I seriously hope you're baiting, because it'd really be tragic if you really were this incapable of self-reflection.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                This is how you thought you could perform damage control?

                Here you go. Last chance. Answer something in good faith, because anything else will just be taken as a raw admission that you just come to this board to be a moronic troll.

                If you want to present yourself as someone that can't be reasoned with, you will be treated as one.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Go back to containment, no games

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                If d&d does one thing good, I’d say it’s the progression. With all it’s bloated, moronic combat mechanics, it does a great job of drip-feeding you just enough options at just the right speed to not get completely bored. That is, as long as you’re playing with XP levelling and not handwaving it. Which makes sense, because if I recall correctly there was a lot of thought put into making the grind palatable.
                Obviously this has frick all to do with combat.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >backhanded compliment
                Whelp, guess your spots can't change.
                I'm out.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah cuz you don’t legitimately have anything good to say about it kek

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                That wasn't me, but if it gets your troll ass out of this discussion, I'm not gonna complain.
                Feel free to come back when YOU will have thought of something good to substantiate your argument, instead of asking us to defend YOUR pet system for you.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                You just have to show a single sign of good faith and you can't?

                How can you actually expect anyone to treat you like anything other than a troll?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                DnD barely has progression. You're locked into a handful of options based on your class, only get them at level ups, and almost every single thing you get is designed only to help in the combat mitigate.

                Good progression is like GURPS or FFG SW, where you buy character features with XP, any feature you want, maybe at a premium if it's out of your career (FFG) or particularly advanced (GURPS), and you get to do this whenever you feel like, provided you have the progression currency.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >combat mitigate
                Combat minigame*

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                you are confusing "abstractedly good" with "earnings maximizing good". DnD level up system is designed to give you a final objective you will never reach and between 2 to 6 choices at every level, which is the amount of cognition almost everyone can handle. If you give a huge table of stuff, a normie gets overwhelmed . DnD design is absolutely intentional, and it is the reason why it is played.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh I didn’t mean to imply that the progression was /good/, just that the pacing was worthy of the best gachas.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Dangerously based.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Tell me what mechanics you think D&D does well
                D&D 3E does zero to hero and character building better than any other game I've ever played. Late 3E class design is also in a class of its own.
                D&D 4E does fantastical tactical combat and teamwork-heavy combat better than any other game I've ever played.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            If purple prose descriptions of epic swordplay do the exact same 1d10+4 damage as grug saying "I attack" with absolutely no difference or mechanical impact then what you're doing is masturbation and not "the entire point of the game"

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Holy frick you could not even possibly be more wrong. Stay the frick away from my games.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            I've played RPGs where combat not only required me to think and strategize about what to do next, but where my character's stats, skills, traits, and overall concept heavily effected what I was going to be good at. If the game was just my GM describing how, for example, my friend attacks the foe with a "flurry of blows, with no regard for his own safety" but mechanically thats not different than a regular attack, then I'd consider that far less interesting than what actually happened: he did an all-out-attack, sacrificing his own safety for better killing power, and sent the enemy flying off a cliff.
            Mechanics and roleplaying are not enemies, as most DnD brained morons seem to think, mechanics AID roleplay when done correctly. The 8 foot tall man with a warhammer all-out-attacks every round because he's a walking tower of anger and has a tough hide that means he isn't at risk. My guy, a wiry old duelist, is not all out attacking, but is going to cautiously poke at the enemies' defenses with his rapier until he gets a chance to score a targeted killing blow, usually to the vitals or eyes. This is roleplay aided by mechanics. It would not be the same if this was all just the DM describing what my character fricking does.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            But moron-kun, my second to second combat decisions matter in GURPS, does that mean it's not a real game?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      5e combat excels when
      >the DM makes an interesting encounter with multiple opponents and environmental hazards
      >ALL the players know the rules well enough to not only have fast turns, but to collaborate on the best use of their turns
      While the first is more likely as it relies on one person, the lack of hate keeping 5e means that 90% of players don’t even know what the players handbook is

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's not 5E's combat excelling. That's the DM doing what makes every game's combat more interesting and player ineptitude not getting in the way.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          I appreciate the feedback, but what you've said is basically just true of RPG combat in general.
          It's the sort of 'but that's just everything' answer I'm used to getting, and why I've been looking for actual play examples.

          What are some other games with wargame-like combat?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            'Wargame like,' is kind of meaningless and broad.
            Do you just mean things with grid tactics at all?
            Do you mean things with extremely strict rules interpretations like a modern miniatures wargame?

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Both of those yeah

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Savage Worlds from what I've read of it, though I've never played.
                Kamigakari and a lot of other weebshit, though many of them get experimental with the 'grid map' part.

                From there my knowledge gets a little vague.
                You could say something like GURPS, which has a lot of autismal rules and grid combat, but in my experience it's much less...restricted? It's not meant to be quite so strictly interpreted.

                I'm mostly used to that these days, and I see a lot of fairly creative solutions and oddball tactics that aren't wed to just using special abilities when I run/play it. And it's exactly that dichotomy with the strict and 'ability-button,' focused way D&D often seems run that I'm trying to get a handle on bridging. As I'd been telling some combat stories and realized I'd never heard anything remotely as tactically interesting from 5e players, and started wondering why, and what a 'good combat,' looks like to them.
                I rather find the different ways people engage with games and what they get out of it interesting, both just as an interest and as information towards how to write, structure, and target rulebooks, etc.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                GURPS is pretty strictly interpreted, at least combat wise. If my character makes a targeted attack to the enemies' eye and hits, then what happens to him isn't up to interpretation.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >wargame-like
            It's called "tactical combat" ignorant, every ttrpg that isn't rulelite theaterkids improv has that.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lancer, it's basically just a small unit tactics wargame stitched on to a bare bone roleplay system. Pretty fun tho
            Captcha:JAWNG

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        I appreciate the feedback, but what you've said is basically just true of RPG combat in general.
        It's the sort of 'but that's just everything' answer I'm used to getting, and why I've been looking for actual play examples.

  8. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I honestly don't understand people who refuse to try other systems. Maybe they tried some narrativist shit like PBTA or Fudge and got burned, but playing a new taditional RPG is a sheer delight to me every time.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Power of brands can't be understated. "If it was better, it would be the more popular one" is frustratingly common mindset.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        And that is such an awful self-fulfilling prophecy too.
        >"Obviously the most popular must be the best, so I shall only engage with the most popular, therefore denying myself the elements of comparison to make an informed decision, therefore contributing to its popularity while allowing it to bypass any process of comparative selection"

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        This is what happens when women get into a hobby.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          I was going to recount the times that women made stupid decisions in my game but then I remembered that the entire group was moronic.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          The market decided the winners and losers and all these ‘better’ systems are clearly losing. Time to take a good hard look at what makes a system objectively good as opposed to your opinion which is clearly incorrect.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just World fallacy

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              You may cope however you wish. The market is an immoral actor and your pet system may not ‘deserve’ to live in obscurity but it has earned it.

              I wish you the best of luck with your shilling.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Still Just World fallacy

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                As I said to your other post, McDonalds is highly profitable. It's not fine dining.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah I guess it’d be up to you to prove that your unknown pet system that nobody plays is ‘fine dining’ in this analogy.

                Pro tip: it’s not. In this analogy your system is like a White Castle or a Krystal and that’s being generous.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I dont need to prove anything about my pet system. Almost every other game has more nuance and game systems that actually handle stuff for you than 5e does, and the few that don't, are much lighter and faster than 5e is instead. It literally doesnt matter what my favorite systems are. The overwhelming majority of them are fine dining compared to 5e. Like. Maybe not Myfarog and FATAL. But everything else.

                But what matters for profit is you dont need to think much during the 'gameplay', and tons of marketing money that a big toy company is willing to spend making sure your brand is everywhere and people hear about it constantly, and eventually it becomes self sustaining.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                The invisible hand of the market does not exist. Say I had the best product that does everything it should and more, costs next to nothing, and is all in all the most superior product on the market. The only thing it costs is, for this example, one Israeli foreskin.
                Al the market pressures and value of the product be damned, the product would be driven totally off the market due to media, banking, and social pressures. The invisible hand of the market? More like the visible nose of the bankers.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                The whole of Israel would be importing people just to skin their dick to keep trade flowing. If such a thing existed. Which it doesn’t of course.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >t. bought real estate in 2006

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What makes a system objectively good.
            Unrelated to what makes it profitable. What makes it profitable is taking no effort to play and a shitton of money spent on marketing. Thats not a mark of high quality. That's McDonalds.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >this is actually how the brains of lolbert spergs work

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            not sales or revenue

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            To be honest, the problem with "better systems" is that the companies are run by neckbeards with 0 social skills. As a result, bad PR and bad business decisions destroy any potential.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah, good game designers are generally not good businesspeople.

              not sales or revenue

              Or marketshare. The most played game is just the best marketed game. It says nothing about the quality of the game itself.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          D&D is the Metallica of RPGs.
          You'll notice that Metallicagays are all dudes.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I've tried a lot of them over the years. A lot of them turned out to be games I wouldnt play again, and now I tend to filter a lot of games after I read how the mechanics work, but I wouldnt be able to if I hadnt played a very wide variety of games first.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      The first game they learn is such an absolute pain in the ass to pick up (some combination of bad central mechanic and poorly executed exception based design) that they imagine every rpg requires a similar investment to play.

  9. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bunch of you homosexuals are going "my ebin ttrpg alternative uses no hp and it great" but you give no name for it curious.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      mouse guard rpg

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hârnmaster you philistine

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't even know what Hârn is, much less why I should master it.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Its sortof like d&d, if it was good.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you had any reading comprehension, it wouldn't had taken you any time at all to understand that this thread isn't about the supposed superiority of some hypotetical no-hp system, but about the stubborness with which D&D player engage in the sisyphean aspiration of homebrewing increasingly convoluted and ridiculous fixes into their precious system rather that admitting it's a bad system and switching to something else.

      But you're probably just a baiting contrarian, with no interest in understanding what you're talking about, engaging in actual discussion, or bothering with intellectual honesty.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        So, no games?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          and this is why no one bothers to actually give any game names to D&Dfinder homosexuals. They will ignore any reply that actually answers their questions and find the one that didn't to reply to.
          If they don't get one of those and have to replay to a post about a game they will either complain that the games given to them are not D&D or are "Daed gaems!" because they don't pump out some shitty adventure every few weeks.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't need to reply to the ones that actually said the name since I can take it from there and to a simple google search, this attempt to soun righteous is quite pathetic lmao. Again no games lol?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Burning Wheel

  10. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >remove hit points and attack rolls
    Kind of stupid, what do you replace it with?
    >Ok so instead of an attack roll, you make a skill check
    >Oh but instantly solving issues or getting destroyed based on a single roll feels kind of bad
    >Maybe some kind of...point system which determines the number of successful attacks before something is disqualified from combat?
    Oh and also the skill check should be modified based on the characteristics of a target, something that is in heavy armor should be harder to beat than something not wearing armor at all

    That said, something like a 4e skill challenge could replace the combat system.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm pretty sure they just move the onus of rolling onto the DM, so you roll AC instead of attack.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Take out attack rolls
      When you attack, you just immediately roll your damage, and defensive abilities subtract from the damage bonus of your opponent, so the only time people "miss" is when the number they rolled for 1d8+3 slashing is so low that the enemies "-4 to all incoming slashing damage" ability reduces the damage number to zero (or one, as the case may be)

      >Take out hit points
      Woundedness bands, adjective adders, consciousness saves, and hit location systems are all considered "not hit points" even though they may have some kind of damage roll threshold or damage dc or some other horseshit going on.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        It makes sense to have a threshold for how bad the wound to your bicep needs to be before it breaks your humerus or severs the limb and makes you a sudden amputee. A punch to the arm is unlikely to do either.

  11. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    TSR = tactical studies rules
    Games rules meant for tactical wargaming.
    If you're not playing first edition using miniatures where the movement rules are in inches on a tabletop environment, you are doing it wrong.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      > movies
      > moving pictures
      If you’re listening to sound while watching one, you’re doing it wrong.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not that anon.
        Half of the actors can't act so talkies are bad. Just give me subtitles and I'll supply the music on the side for myself.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Well I appreciate you sticking to your guns at least.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're acting like 'progress was made' when every edition got worse from 1e. I guarantee you've never played 1e properly or you'd realize how fun it actually is by comparison to all other editions.
        Basically, everything after 1e is for people who don't like miniature wargaming or can't afford it. But 1e is still superior even without minis.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          > other RPGs are just editions of d&d
          Nah fren, you’re definitely the problem.

  12. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    A sincere question - what if replace HP with posture points like in Sekiro? Sounds like fun and something that would require having a plan, not just "I hit". Although forget it, I already understood that dnd autists hate everything that deviates from their favorite activity of grinding the enemy's HP bar.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's what HP effectively is but I fricking hated Sekiro because enemy not-HP felt so bloated.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      nah, it makes one of the two side of the battle functionally immortal once "posture breakers" are removed (unless posture points don't replenish, in that case they are just hp). You can build a cool game out of posture points (i guess Magic is build on the same mechanic, since you heal at the end of the turn), but you can't make a generic fantasy game.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >it makes one of the two side of the battle functionally immortal
        It's just a matter of balance and numbers. In other words, the system can function completely normally, but the problem is that players are too used to the normal system and cannot think outside the HP box.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          maybe we are not saying the same thing. I am saying that if you have stance points that get replenished on their own what happens is at some point one of the two parties get manage to put the opponent in a situation in which not only they can't win, but they can't damage the opponent either. That has the consequence that the only thing that matter when fighting against a opponent is to kill off damage dealers, because they are the only thing that can make you lose. If both parties manage to kill the opponent damage dealer, then they even get in a situation in which neither parties can kill each other. The whole system is much more prone to breaking, while the HP system when it breaks down it simply degrades in a chip taking game, but the game does not stop.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >literally a dnd drone that thinks all rpgs should have damage dealers
            You are the main cancer of this hobby.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              what? i said that if you have automatic replenishing life from one turn to the next, then removing damage dealers makes you functionally immortal. It has nothing to do with DnD and is just a observation about mechanics

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                First - in normal RPGs all characters do damage, just a different type. The second - the posture is not restored in the state of combat, posture can be restored only if both fighters disengaged. And the third - you are a stupid dndron, you got the hell out of the thread.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                > First - in normal RPGs all characters do damage, just a different type.
                not something i argued against, dyslexic frick

                > The second - the posture is not restored in the state of combat, posture can be restored only if both fighters disengaged.
                if by disengaging you mean "between fights", then you just invented hit points. If you mean "when one is in some situations such as away from enemies" then it has the same fricking issue. If you can guarantee that in one turn enemies can't kill you and you can guarantee that you can enter that situation before getting killed, then you can't die. That is: you get disproportionally rewarded by killing the enemies that deal the most damage .

                > And the third - you are a stupid dndron, you got the hell out of the thread.
                i played dnd 5th edition maybe 4 sessions in my whole life.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I kind of like this idea. People saying "it's functionally HP" misunderstand the potential benefits. Switching it from health to a tactical value allows for
      A) Narrative flow that by default isn't soaking physical damage
      B) Alternate actions to apply to the fight in a measureable way rather than abstractly benefiting damaging actions
      Now a feint can apply directly instead of boosting an attack. Now you could logically sacrifice posture to allow more effective strikes.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I kind of like this idea. People saying "it's functionally HP" misunderstand the potential benefits. Switching it from health to a tactical value allows for
      A) Narrative flow that by default isn't soaking physical damage
      B) Alternate actions to apply to the fight in a measureable way rather than abstractly benefiting damaging actions
      Now a feint can apply directly instead of boosting an attack. Now you could logically sacrifice posture to allow more effective strikes.

      My only problem with this is, how does one understand the effect a fireball has on someone else's posture?
      Both systems overlaid could work together; HP becomes meat points, with martials incidentally doing damage to the health bar while working towards the enemy's posture bar(grazing blows) , while mages work the opposite way, hitting the meat points and grazing the posture bar.
      This could have a number of interactions between classes and the damage types they don't normally touch, and already gives a few neat ideas for how such a system could be used in the story; imagine a duel where the first person to break posture is the one who loses, and drawing blood is banned.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        It would take some work to build a cogent system, but a fireball could deal posture damage as the target must dodge or jump to safety. The real question is how armor affects it. Would you allow some attacks to strike directly to save your posture? Would unseen strikes ignore posture so armor protects against them?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Just exactly how does one jump to safety in the middle of a large AOE blast, without making a 30ft leap to one side?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            If its a heavily armored character with a shield, its pretty easy to RP it as them dropping to a knee/Defensive stance and assuming a form where their most heavily shielded areas are aimed towards the central epicenter that the fireball is coming from in order to safely defend against it.
            Think of how space marine armor technically has weakspots but the rest of it is highly impervious.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Okay. If your armor is good enough, or you have haloesque energy shields or something, sure. Half the party does not have such an excuse.

              And there are still other some unusual questions regarding a 5e coup de grace against an unconscious opponent or why magic gets worse at healing your superficial scrapes and bruises as you level up.

              "hp are glancing blow points" is frequently not at all how the game treats them, in any edition I've played.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Half the party does not have such an excuse.
                And that's why you should have a tank with a big shield. It's amazing how the real need to work as a team makes dndrons go bald from the rage.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If you have a tank with a big shield in the party, it will make perfect sense how the squishy bard in a leather jacket "dodges" a 40 foot wide fireball that exploded an inch from his face, and how that same bard swims across the HCl lake with 25% of his HP left makes HP as glancing blow justifications make *perfect* sense.
                Honest to frick. The state of d&d hp apologists.

                Try again. Your hp rules are complete gibberish if interpreted as anything other than "combat practice grants superhuman durability".

                Tell me again why the knocked out, stripped, and restrained, naked (no magic forcefield items), level 10 fighter doesnt instantly die when an npc equivalent to a level 5 fighter slams a battleaxe down on his unmoving neck, if he's not superhumanly durable, and it "just does crit damage" which won't be nearly enough to disable him let alone kill him. Go on, I'll wait. Defend the game design if its so perfect and sensible.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >how the squishy bard in a leather jacket "dodges" a 40 foot wide fireball
                >hiding behind a companion's shield is not an option
                Dnd brain rot in the nutshell. And there are also option that mage should dispel, or simply not to go in the radius of the spell if he knows that you cannot defend yourself, but this is all too much brain work, too much to demand from the mental capabilities of dndrons.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                NTA but are you schizophrenic? He's arguing that the way D&D treats HP is incoherent and you're... yelling about player tactics? Or are you saying that it makes total sense for HP loss to somehow be an abstract representation of retroactively not being in the general vicinity of an attack?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                The d&dtard is deflecting because he has no actual argument, so he's hoping I'll let him change the topic and... Try to defend why all players are not simultaneously behind the heavy armored guy with a shield at all times?

                I suppose the fighter also serves as a boat for all his allies in an acid lake, and his armor defends him for several hits when hes not wearing it while npcs try to decapitate him too.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                The d&dtard is deflecting because he has no actual argument, so he's hoping I'll let him change the topic and... Try to defend why all players are not simultaneously behind the heavy armored guy with a shield at all times?

                I suppose the fighter also serves as a boat for all his allies in an acid lake, and his armor defends him for several hits when hes not wearing it while npcs try to decapitate him too.

                I'm the one who suggested the posture system, you idiots.

                >Behind the fighter!
                So in all instances you and the fighter will share a square, or the fighter will always be close enough for all other characters to take covwr behind him (simultaneously), and the enemy can't simply target a space behind or beside the fighter such that the fighter is too far away to use as any kind of "cover"?

                You still havent explained naked restrained fighter being immune to decapitation unless the lower level npc sits there hacking away at him all day, or the bard who can survive several rounds in an acid pool with only "superficial" injuries.

                Your game design is moronic, d&dtard. "HP as glancing blow" is an empty justification. Thats not how the game behaves. D&D is a bad capeshit game. Deal with it.

                >a square
                moronic dnd system, I don't use it, and everyone who uses deserves euthanasia.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                How are your houserules a rebuttal to me criticizing the bullshit in the books exactly, D&Dtard?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Mearls' work is perfect and can't be criticized because you can houserule it all away!
                This is what 5e does to your brain, kids.

                I don't play Dnd, you morons. And my post was in response to dndron's statements that the system will not work because of fireballs. Also, my answer have the following words
                >It's amazing how the real need to work as a team makes dndrons go bald from the rage.
                so I accept your confession you blind morons.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm sorry dude but

                >Half the party does not have such an excuse.
                And that's why you should have a tank with a big shield. It's amazing how the real need to work as a team makes dndrons go bald from the rage.

                and

                >how the squishy bard in a leather jacket "dodges" a 40 foot wide fireball
                >hiding behind a companion's shield is not an option
                Dnd brain rot in the nutshell. And there are also option that mage should dispel, or simply not to go in the radius of the spell if he knows that you cannot defend yourself, but this is all too much brain work, too much to demand from the mental capabilities of dndrons.

                are just bizarre responses. I think I can figure out what you meant there, like I'm reading tea leaves, but it doesn't help that the content of your responses has little to no relation to what they're responding to

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Okay. If your armor is good enough, or you have haloesque energy shields or something, sure. Half the party does not have such an excuse.
                >And that's why you should have a tank with a big shield. It's amazing how the real need to work as a team makes dndrons go bald from the rage.
                Ok moron.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Just so we're clear, you were trying to say that in your system, the halfing rogue would actually be fairly fragile, and would have to rely on a tank to draw enemy attacks instead of just having their own pile of HP, right? Because you trudging forward and totally ignoring the (supposed) fact you were being wildly misinterpreted really didn't do a good job at selling it.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                The first is that the system and the characters should be separated, trying to play everything with one system is a dnd brain rot, you can't have one and the same system for realism and superhero fantasy. And the second thing is that I showed how can be solve the problem with squishy characters in the party, not my problems that you have brain rot and you think in terms of game mechanics first, instead of understanding what you want and then making mechanics for it. Stop thinking in terms of dnd, drone.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, nevermind, you actually were that braindead and not just a bad communicator. That's disappointing

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't play Dnd, you morons.
                Then why do you feel a need to defend its rules?

                >my post was in response to dndron's statements that the system will not work because of fireballs.
                No. You responded to a post where I pointed out how AOEs are one of many areas where the "DnD hP aRe gLaNcInG bLoWs aNd MiNor sCraTChEs" horseshit doesnt make any sense. Then you leapt in to defend your pet system you dont even play, for some bizarre fricking reason, trying to explain why it makes sense because everyone is always standing beside cover, or a heavily armored player who is that cover, and teamwork!
                >The nonsense rules make sense if the players teamwork hard enough dndron!
                >Stop giving reasons why you prefer other games, d&dron! You can't criticize d&d!
                You're some kind of special, I'll tell you what.

                >Also, my answer have the following words
                >It's amazing how the real need to work as a team makes dndrons go bald from the rage.
                I saw those words. And I replied to them in context of my post you replied to. Your bizarre teamwork segue doesnt make d&d hp rules make sense. You acted like a moron so I responded to your moronic argument. And its followups.

                >so I accept your confession you blind morons.
                You're the one who jumped into a discussion about D&D hp being nonsense to pick a fight screeching about d&dron teamwork.

                You still havent justified how d&d's hp make perfect sense. Continue to ignore the other examples for a moment, little d&defending b***h. Stick a bard in an empty room. He has no cover. The other party members aren't glued to his fricking hip. A 40ft fireball explodes next to his face. Tell me how the hp damage he takes is just a glancing blow unless it drops him to 0, and hp arent super toughness, d&dtard. Please, do go on.

                Try to be a bit more coherent this time.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >does not understand that it is logical when a large shield blocks aoe
                >could not read the post to the end
                >rrrrrrrrrrrrEEEEEEEE
                Ok idiot, I wash my hands from talking to you. Enjoy your dnd sessions because this is the only system you can understand.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Tell me how there is always a shield in miraculously in position to tank every aoe, dumbass. Your argument for defensing d&d collapses under all but that one niche fricking cornercase.

                >Enjoy your dnd sessions.
                *GURPS, Hârn, and Rolemaster.
                And I will. I accept your concession, moron d&defender.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Tell me how there is always a shield in miraculously in position to tank every aoe
                Because the shield is wielded by an experienced user. Because magic. Because there are 1000 and 1 ways to figure out how to deal with this situation in fantasy, it's not my problem that you have brain cancer and you can't think outside the box of rules. I recommend taking a break from games and start consuming more other content.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >My position is actually that I like when the rules are not coherent and youre a big bad dumdum if you want rules that make sense!
                >If you want the rules to make sense dont play games where they do, stay away from games!
                Ohhhhhh. You're like some kind of a fate storyshittind d&defendtard! You could have just said you like nonsense mechanics upfront rather than trying to claim they "actually they all always make sense because there are occasional cornercases where they're not moronic".

                Nah. If the game mechanics are nonsense then theyre nonsense. I just happen to prefer games where they aren't nonsense.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I just happen to prefer games where they aren't nonsense.
                >GURPS, Hârn, and Rolemaster.
                Megakek. Specialy GURPS, the blind sniper will forever remain a supermeme.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm unfamiliar with that one, but I use it for low tech historical games, I'm not really into modern soldier games. I'm not claiming GURPS is *perfect*. Just that its normal mechanics usually make sense, and you can generally assume the GM will apply common sense. Unlike d&d. The bard by himself next to a fireball is still supposedly only lightly grazed by the damage according to what they say d&d hp mean, even if he's got no logical means of making that make sense.

                >Blind sniper
                Leaving aside the fact that no GURPS GM with half a brain would allow that character concept, what are you talking about? Google turns up nothing. And when I search the archives for 'gurps blind sniper' I only got this post and two complaining about fate. Are you talking about some sort of sniper with blindsight or something? Its not any meme I can find.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's not even ambiguously RAW. Unless you have both superhuman hearing and godlike skill, I guess, but imagine being a D&D player and thinking that's beyond the pale

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah. Im familiar with 'blindness'. I just dont know what sort of 'blind sniper' nonsense he's ranting about as to why the d&d rules somehow either make *more* sense than the gurps ones, or at least are not *more* nonsense.
                It seems an indefensible position either way. I think he might have taken too much LSD.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why do you feel like you have to do these mental gymnastics when you could just accept that yeah, hit points are meat points, all PCs and many NPCs are just supernaturally durable punching bags. "There are 1000 and 1 ways" to explain it, but apparently not the one that every single player of any RPG, tabletop or not, intuitively understands.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                The rules make sense because the fighter will take the brunt of the fireball with his armor for him d&dron! Nevermind that he might not be in position to do that, or that the fighter might be some kind of half naked barbarian! Tactics make it make sense! I dont have to say how!

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Mearls' work is perfect and can't be criticized because you can houserule it all away!
                This is what 5e does to your brain, kids.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Behind the fighter!
                So in all instances you and the fighter will share a square, or the fighter will always be close enough for all other characters to take covwr behind him (simultaneously), and the enemy can't simply target a space behind or beside the fighter such that the fighter is too far away to use as any kind of "cover"?

                You still havent explained naked restrained fighter being immune to decapitation unless the lower level npc sits there hacking away at him all day, or the bard who can survive several rounds in an acid pool with only "superficial" injuries.

                Your game design is moronic, d&dtard. "HP as glancing blow" is an empty justification. Thats not how the game behaves. D&D is a bad capeshit game. Deal with it.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Duck and cover? It's just flames, not a concussive burst or sticky napalm.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Isnt fireball something like the whole area being superheated to like a thousand degrees for 6 seconds?

              "Glancing blow points" hp strain credulity in a variety of ways for how the mechanics work. More than "hp = cultivated superhuman durability" does if youre willing to accept d&d as behaving like some kind of western xianxia.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                If that were the case it would insantly kill everything in the area and wouldn't have a dex save

  13. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Literally just started playing 5e as my first expierence in ttrpgs.

    Most people like me literally just started playing TTRPGs. As a functioning adult, maybe you average 0.7 games per week. Thats a best case scenario of managing to get yourself and 4 other adults in one room without scheduling conflict. Realistically it'll take at least 1 or 2 campaigns to have the whole group want to try something else with that kind of time commitment. I'm already curious to try PE2 and might go to a one shot. But I've already made friends in one 5e group. I see some things already I don't love about 5e. Namely it's seem damn near impossible to die unless your DM is really swinging some big hit around and you don't have a healer.

    I'm already having fun and the only real incentive for me to find time to try another system is grognard internet brownie points and the chance to play with a bunch of shrieking grognards projecting onto new players a constant stream of "back in my day.... I liked it before it was cool... blah blah my hyper low fantasy world #59823". In short there is really almost no incentive. It was already tough enough getting a group of 5e players togther that I liked. To get a PE2 group together I'd have to draw from a smaller player pool of people who are in general more sweaty and autistic, who probably will want to constantly whine about the latest drawing on a magic card, and I'd have to make time in my schedule. Or I could simply wait until my current group expresses enough interest in trying PE2 or something else. That may take years, but I simply don't give enough of a shit and am happy with my current group.

    Tldr: There's no incentive. Just your internet brownie points. If you're some lay-about neet you've got all the time in the world to fiddle around with systems. 5e gets new players up and running fast.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't think anyone's problem is new players, necessarily
      It's people like in OP's video who've clearly been running the game forever, and will go to any lengths to modify and rewrite instead of just...trying something else.
      >Tldr: There's no incentive.
      That's the biggest difference I think. It used to be the incentive was 'learning new games is fun,' but with every year newer players increasingly seem to view it as an arduous price of entry.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        IMO, it's because 5e is so awful to learn and create characters for that they assume any other system is going to require a similar level of effort. When someone says
        >Hey, try this game instead
        what they hear is
        >take 3 hours of player time and a week of GM time learning a new system
        but in reality it's more like 30 minutes of player time and 4 hours of GM time, because most systems are significantly easier to grok than 5e. The only reason people like

        Literally just started playing 5e as my first expierence in ttrpgs.

        Most people like me literally just started playing TTRPGs. As a functioning adult, maybe you average 0.7 games per week. Thats a best case scenario of managing to get yourself and 4 other adults in one room without scheduling conflict. Realistically it'll take at least 1 or 2 campaigns to have the whole group want to try something else with that kind of time commitment. I'm already curious to try PE2 and might go to a one shot. But I've already made friends in one 5e group. I see some things already I don't love about 5e. Namely it's seem damn near impossible to die unless your DM is really swinging some big hit around and you don't have a healer.

        I'm already having fun and the only real incentive for me to find time to try another system is grognard internet brownie points and the chance to play with a bunch of shrieking grognards projecting onto new players a constant stream of "back in my day.... I liked it before it was cool... blah blah my hyper low fantasy world #59823". In short there is really almost no incentive. It was already tough enough getting a group of 5e players togther that I liked. To get a PE2 group together I'd have to draw from a smaller player pool of people who are in general more sweaty and autistic, who probably will want to constantly whine about the latest drawing on a magic card, and I'd have to make time in my schedule. Or I could simply wait until my current group expresses enough interest in trying PE2 or something else. That may take years, but I simply don't give enough of a shit and am happy with my current group.

        Tldr: There's no incentive. Just your internet brownie points. If you're some lay-about neet you've got all the time in the world to fiddle around with systems. 5e gets new players up and running fast.

        think it "gets new players up and running fast" is because everyone else at the table already knows 5e and even with handholding, it's still a huge time sink to onboard new people.

        I think a lot of people with those specific sentiments don't even really like the idea of an RPG at all.
        They like the idea of roleplaying, and an RPG is just the only environment or framework they know of to do it, or one that makes it socially acceptable.

        They'd have a lot more fun with a PBTA-style system then, where roleplay is the focus and the crunch is just a suggestion. Even an OSR system would be better for what they want, because at least those don't have 15 class, subclass and racial combat abilities spread out over 8 pages and 3 books.

        Bunch of you homosexuals are going "my ebin ttrpg alternative uses no hp and it great" but you give no name for it curious.

        BitD, GUN, and most PBTA variants all use conditions instead of HP.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >with every year newer players increasingly seem to view it as an arduous price of entry.
        We've been doing this song and dance now for something like 15-20 years

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      you are so wrong, and you have no idea how or why you're wrong, but you're still confident that you have a unique insight and are correct. It's truly infuriating.

      Let me tell you something: the ONLY reason you're still playing is because your GM hasn't burned out on 5E yet. They've probably wanted to "play d&d" this for a while and have a deep well of inspiration and ideas that they want to try. This passion will slowly be sucked dry with each new session your GM designs.
      Running 5E sucks. It's a fricking drag. 5E will eventually kill your campaign.

      >Literally just started playing 5e as my first expierence in ttrpgs.
      >5e gets new players up and running fast.
      No it doesn't. It's one of the slowest system to get new players started with. How the frick would you even know?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Then again like I said. There's still no current incentive for me to drag the group into something else. I can express interest, but if everyone is happy, there's no point as of yet. If the DM isn't burnt out, he isn't burnt out. Practically the whole point of my post is that nobody but grognards are in this race to find the best most special version of ttprg some niche target system. Unless you are playing on the daily or something, and in like 3-4 campaigns at once, then it's going to be a long time period before there's some kind of breaking point.

        For my current group that's is a mix of new and old players, I am the only driving force towards trying a new system. Right now my interest level after 5 months of 5e is at "maybe I'll try a one shot, if that's fun maybe I'll grab the core book and start reading it". From now until have first bought the book that's at fastest maybe within the next 2 months. Ontop of that, I haven't even tried DMing yet. So maybe you're looking at a timeline one 1 - 2 years before a group of adults moves on from the system it began with. Even then, there is no guarantee the group will like PE2 or whatever system. If they do like it, maybe it's another few months before it sticks.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah. I mean. I played a few dozen systems in university, but we were fitting in like 3 sessions a week, and every couple months would be a weekend of 6 oneshots. But outside of "my college social life largely revolves around people in the ttrpg club" youre not going to play that many games. I certainly dont get that many games in anymore.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          if by PE2 you mean PF2 - Pathfinder 2 - then you should know that that system is redundant with 5E and there's no reason to move from one to the other.

          >Practically the whole point of my post is that nobody but grognards are in this race to find the best most special version of ttprg some niche target system.
          Again - you've never GMed, and you've never played any system whatesoever apart from 5E. On what fricking experience are you basing any of these assertions?
          I could explain that an hour of session prep in 5E only takes ten minutes in other systems, or that in other systems you can actually have a riveting fight for survival where you count down the minutes until your last torch goes dark purely as a result of the game mechanics, or that in other systems players don't need to spend an hour with their nose in the book just to pick a feat when they level up, or that in other systems players don't need to hem and haw over what spell they're going to cast next turn - but what would be the point?
          if you love checkers to the point that you flock to its defense whenever it's criticized, I'm not going to tell you why you should try chess.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            It has more fiddly grid combat. 4e fans were all about fiddly grid combat. 5e cares less about those details. Thats a difference, no?

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              adjusting grid fiddlyness by 10% isn't going to make a difference. What's better is trying out a system with no combat grid whatsoever.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I mean. Sure. I wasn't saying *I* want to play pf2, just pointing out a way it's meaningfully different. I like old games and obscure games and translated-from-german games.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >system with caster supremacy issues vs system with martial supremacy issues
            oh, but 5e and pf2 are exactly the same system.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              >gamified kitchen-sink-setting high fantasy gruel with design issues, that primarily targets popculture expectations of tabletop gaming
              split hairs all you want, but PF is the Pepsi to D&D's Coke.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, but saying '5e and PF2 are the same' is like saying '5e and 4e are the same'. They're not. Mechanically, they're vastly different systems. You're throwing a lot of nuance right out the window. Sure, they both use similar settings, roll d20s for their chance system, and have design issues; that's about where the similarities end.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'll say it: 5e and 4e are the same. 4e assumes grid combat with lots of movement effects, and has more elaborate combat options that are in line with its simplified magic system, but it's still the same core game. 4e and 5e are infinitely more similar to each other than either is to, say, GURPS or WoD

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >gamified kitchen-sink-setting high fantasy gruel with design issues, that primarily targets popculture expectations of tabletop gaming
            split hairs all you want, but PF is the Pepsi to D&D's Coke.

            I'm not a 2egay but you clearly haven't run 2e

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              well, you're right there. the last Paizo game I ever played was Starfinder and it was the worst system I've ever played.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          As I said, you play for social reasons. That is why you are repeating your point about D&D, then starting to give a plan and timetable for the move to another system, slowly giving in to our social pressure.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >5e gets new players up and running fast.
      WHEEZE

      The absolute confidence that bullshit is delivered with is staggering. You genuinely believe it’s correct. It’s like an AI firmly issuing that Napoleon was the third president of the United States - so divorced from reality, so alienated in its little world. Amazing, I really have to thank you I haven’t laughed that hard in a while.

      Dangerously based.

      I wasn’t that anon, I was just a rando weighing in with my own opinion.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        See this is just what I mean. You really just can't help yourself but to try and push in esoteric system #50694. Did you stop to consider that part of getting people up and running is the shear logistics? That you're going to easily find people with "I always wanted to try dnd" in their heads, and you're going to have to scrap the barrel for interest in "this sheet I just xeroxed". It may well be a good system. But where are the players?

        if by PE2 you mean PF2 - Pathfinder 2 - then you should know that that system is redundant with 5E and there's no reason to move from one to the other.

        >Practically the whole point of my post is that nobody but grognards are in this race to find the best most special version of ttprg some niche target system.
        Again - you've never GMed, and you've never played any system whatesoever apart from 5E. On what fricking experience are you basing any of these assertions?
        I could explain that an hour of session prep in 5E only takes ten minutes in other systems, or that in other systems you can actually have a riveting fight for survival where you count down the minutes until your last torch goes dark purely as a result of the game mechanics, or that in other systems players don't need to spend an hour with their nose in the book just to pick a feat when they level up, or that in other systems players don't need to hem and haw over what spell they're going to cast next turn - but what would be the point?
        if you love checkers to the point that you flock to its defense whenever it's criticized, I'm not going to tell you why you should try chess.

        Again dude, my post isn't that much about comparing systems and this is the trap you guys fall into. You're evangelical for the systems you like and that's all well and good. What I'm saying is, like others have posted, for a group of 30 somethings already settled into one system, that's where they'll most likely stay. It isn't about a having the best system. In the same way you might prefer a certain game console or bar, but your friends have all pretty much settled at another bar. I may prefer the bar down the street by a long shot, but it just isn't that big of a deal to me as I'm already hanging with my friends at this inferior bar. Maybe we will get to that other bar eventually an they'll like it. But maybe I'm the only one in the group who prefers it.

        I'm trying to clarify that the mentality that 5e players are committed to one system is a moronic projection of cope. It's a stupid "kids these days/not a true scotsman" mentality. Most groups are not going to spend every session essentially slogging through the tutorial to fi d "the very best ttrpg that ever lived and the very best version of it". They will probably just mix and match what they already know.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          If you want to only ever play one system for the rest of your life, regardless of setting, and have it be a good one, play GURPS. Its a lot easier to learn than some autists make it out to be. We don't laugh at you for choosing one RPG because you don't have time to learn 50 new ones a week, we laugh at you for choosing the absolute worst one and then sticking to it. There are systems that provide what you are looking for, but you haven't looked.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Immediately blown the frick out by

            I remember my first GURPS games where I was one of the two people in the party who had actually figured out how to use any form of attack besides the default, and I was practically screaming at my other party members to use things like targeted attack: neck or all-out-attack. I feel your pain.

            . Sad. Many such cases.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Those are both me, and learning how to all-out-attack took them a single session.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, no that’s not what you meant; because you’re talking about getting NEW players up and running. New players, who couldn’t tell you the difference between DCC and Dungeon World. New players, who WILL NOT touch a college-textbook-sized reference manual to create the mechanical side of their character (as opposed to a 1-2 page playbook). They come to the table with critical role or stranger things in mind; Sitting around a table with your mates, pretending to be elves and rolling dice. Not fantasy football spreadsheet simulator.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Did you stop to consider that part of getting people up and running is the shear logistics?
          5E is annoying to run and create content for
          5E is annoying to create characters for

          There are systems out there which can be played with a book the size of a microwave manual, with character creation that takes five minutes at most, that can cover vast narrative ground in very little time. If your chief complaint is that you can't get people inspired, and that people don't have much time to spare, that's all the more reason to look elsewhere.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            What he means, but is too dumb to say, is
            >Did you stop to consider the question of how a group of people with no idea that other games than D&D even exist is going to find out what the play implications for different systems' mechanical changes are without either playing a dozen of them of spending several dozen hours learning to separate hyperbolic edition war shit flinging from serious criticism?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Better to play a game you hate with people you like yknow?
          No? Thats still a shitty time. If I just want to hang out with them I'd do it elsewhere or just hang out and have coffee with them. Let alone the people gaming with randos online.

          Fortunately my friends are open to trying whatever someone else is willing to run for at least one campaign to see how it goes.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          If my friends tried to force me to go to a shit bar where I have personal bad blood with the owners I would tell them to frick off until they pull their head out of their ass.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      You play for social and identity reasons and do not have a strong interest in role playing games.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >As a functioning adult, maybe you average 0.7 games per week. Thats a best case scenario
      I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
      One thing is certain - you are not a functioning adult.

  14. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    To be fair, isn't it interesting to take a given system and just tweak one fundamental rule to see how it impacts actual play? That's probably the only practical way you *test* rule ideas too, rather than rewrite an entire system around it every time. I for one would be curious how the homebrew in OP plays (but not curious enough to play it myself).

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      But we already know how DND works without hitpoints because it's how original DND was before the optional variable hit points rule was added (so a 2hd fighting man was 2 Hits to Die) etc and most people agreed that hit points were better

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        ODnD had hitpoints, almost nobody ever played DnD without hitpoints. Anyway the point surely isn't to have instant death instead, which I suppose is what they had in those prepublication Chainmail eons, but some kind of wound system.

  15. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly, trash mobs only need 2HP and a damage threshold. You beat the threshold or land a crit, it's 2 damage, otherwise it's reduced to 1. It's either fine, wounded, or off the table.

  16. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm so fricking tired of seeing this and similar threads.
    There is precisely ONE (1) reason for this behavior. Read carefully.
    About 90% of the people who play D&D, specifically 5e, are not people who play other tabletop games. They are either normals or tourists from other hobbies who are dipping their toes into tabletop, and by and large have a good time. More importantly, some of these people are GMs, who have tried and failed to get players to try out another system or game entirely, but fail due to lack of interest. The only good game is one you can get players for.
    It is 1000x easier to recruit normalgay players for a game they already know how to play rather than a new game entirely. So what this means is that if anyone at the table wants to try new things, they disguise it as homebrew, which is much more digestible. It feels new and unique. I have been doing this for ages to trick my players into doing non-D&D things.
    Can we stop having these threads now?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      The irony is of course other systems are a lot more easier to learn then D&D 5E.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        The fundamental difference is that they have already sunk the time into learning D&D, so the time to continue playing 5e is zero, where as the time to learn anything else is greater than zero.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The only good game is one you can get players for.
      I have to disagree as a mostly-solo player, but I do get that a lot of people hold that view.

      Nice advice tho

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The only good game is one you can get players for.
      Just because I could find 5e players does not mean I would have fun running it. If I dislike baseball but I enjoy tennis (both true statements), whether I can find other people to play baseball with more easily is irrelevant. I'm gonna advertise that I'm looking for someone to play tennis with, not join a baseball league.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The only good game is one you can get players for.
      the last time I played 5E, I realized I genuinely wasn't having any fun.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        I always have fun as a player because the groups I play with are good, but it's not a game I want to run.

  17. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    If most other systems were actual games, with an actual expected playstyle, instead of narrative excercises that don't even help you run the setting they're trying to sell I might be more interested.
    As-is I have AD&D 1E for fantasy (with some rule variants like Hyperborea), Traveller/Cepheus for SF, a select few systems I intend to run like Aces & Eights and GURPS for random shit I want to try and build-up but will never end-up running.
    Even less interested by newly made systems since they don't even bother with underlying mechanics beyond shit in the vein of PbtA, never make anything actually gameable but just shit out read-only stuff and offload all the actual work on you as the GM and that's when they're not ranting at the reader about american political shit I could never in a million years care about.
    The most recently published game I even considered running is from 2015, Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate, and it was an outlier even then.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      what the frick does any of that have to do with the thread?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's a direct response to why people won't "try other systems".
        Because they're fricking garbage. They were 20 years ago too but at least they had something to bring to the table unlike all of the new shit.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          5e isnt bringing anything to the table either though. Unlike a lot if old systems.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      moronic OSRBlack person proves yet again that OSRBlack folk are moronic

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Righteous blood ruthless blades is a spiritual successor to Ogre gate, based on older, less flashy wuxia films, and polished based on what he found ogre gate should do better after a few years playing it, made by the same designer. Just so you know.

  18. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I am shocked that there are people who wish to expend neither the time nor attention required to learn a new ttrpg system when there are so many 3rd party and homebrew modifications available for the game they are comfortable with.

    Truly shocked.

  19. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's much simpler than you think.
    People who want to play something else just homebrew whatever is most popular (inevitably the latest version of D&D) into being what they want to run in order to get an endless supply of players.
    It has nothing to do with the actual game or D&D players not being willing to play something else. They're just going to where the largest available playerbase is.

  20. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Made me go and look.

  21. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Unless it's 1.0, you're not playing DnD. Sorry zoomers.

  22. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    It extremely pisses me off whenever I spot an LFG for a 5e homebrew for a setting that literally has their own official RPG system already. Star Wars, Fallout, etc.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Relatable. It extremely pisses me off whenever I spot an ad for a 5e adaptation of a different fricking system.

  23. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >cucks ITT thinking 3.5 is a good system with all their hearts
    >me being an oWoD chad

  24. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >we talk about the fricking lengths D&D players will go to not try other systems
    Why does what people do as hobbies in their spare time, who you do not have even the slightest familiarity with, concern you so much op?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      read the sticky

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Okay and? They want to play D&D...but with house rules. This may be a new concept for you as the newcomer you clearly are and house rules are not quite as old as the invention of the wheel but they've been pretty well established within the game for a long time.

  25. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't understand, what is the benefit of removing those from a game?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      It makes games quicker.

  26. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    My hatred has grown more abstract and all-encompassing over the years. Initially it was just fatigue from playing too much D&D and watching people mindlessly try to smash a square peg in a round hole as they attempted to retool 3.5 and 5e for other settings. Then it became an acute awareness that WotC's D&D, specifically, is quite bad at even being a basic fantasy game. It's riddled with problems that contradict it's stated goals.

    I dabbled with complaining about the balance and the caster supremacy, which is no doubt a problem, but that was hardly the limit of WotC's D&D problems. Entire classes are useless. Subsystems left half-baked for a decade. The "just homebrew it" or "just ask your DM" mentality got worse as the years went on.
    >Look! It's so "good" that people have been trying to make content to unfrick it for 20+ years!

    And then there's the homosexuals who insist that you can play RAW and the game works great. As if the true problem is that we've all just been playing wrong. That's we're not good enough at playing WotC D&D wrongly, and that a "skilled" group can enjoy the game better than all the haters because they built good characters or rolled the dice better than you do. Or they use some obtuse rules interpretation that makes the provably broken and incorrect CR rules function as intended, even though the designers made a ton of moronic decisions to make the game less fun, because they thought tedious, drawn-out battles with HP bloated monsters were somehow the most fun a D&D player could have.

    But it's not really just that... It's the whole concept of "builds" and optimized play and the idea that D&D can be a balanced combat simulator at all. The homosexuals have been at it so long that people think the war gaming roots are supposed to mean that autistic combat rules and rules lawyering is what the system is supposed to be. It's not. The whole damned premise is wrong. Frick your builds. Frick your level-appropriate encounters.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >provably broken [] CR rules
      The *admittedly incorrect CR rules. They use a different system for internal balancing.
      Why not release it to the public, you ask? Haha! That’s a damn good question, my friend. A damn good question.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't think it would matter even if we did know how to properly balance encounters. The CR system is fricking stupid and the idea that you just need to play the correct way that meshes with their ill-conceived power curve where you always fight things that are supposedly tailored to a hypothetical average party playing exactly as expected, only getting hit an average amount of time, and doing a consistently average amount of damage... and somehow the game still isn't balanced for any one player being attacked a dozen times by 6 average enemies, because the only thing 90% of the monster manual has for any of its monsters is extra attacks.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          It’s a game built for combat-as-war trying desperately to be combat-as-sport.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

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