What does heart breaker game system mean? I have heard some conflicting information.

You're THIS level of simple-minded?
You've settled on a single idea, are literally demanding everyone treat it like an objective truth, and now want to pretend you can be taken seriously?

moron. Dexterity could be one, two, or split into three stats. It could be combined with strength or constitution or even int/cha/wis. There are so many different ways you can play around with stats, and you think you have any room to claim some sort of objective singular best way?

Frick off. Seriously. You played your hand, and you revealed you've got nothing. Nothing but an incredibly skewed, biased, and demented understanding of RPGs.

I would rather combine DEX and WIS together, I think it makes sense for monks.

You're discounting the fact that Dex saves come up more often than Con saves. A shit load of spells are "dex save for half half damage."

Y'know there was actually a funny thing to the save or suck dilemma. Since Dex could be easily "dumped" (Relatively speaking) even back then, there was one spell that kind of breaks the game because it just 3d6 Dex damage on a hit. Which will instantly defeat most big monsters and even many a PC.

>Recognizing that adaptation takes work
No one argued otherwise.
But you're exaggerating the effort involved because you, you personally, are an idiot who struggles with incredibly simple math and no special language skills beyond basic literacy.

I'd hate to imagine what kind of meltdown you'd have if you ever looked into video games. You'd probably go into hysterics and claim it's all witchcraft.

moron.

Why are you talking to this insane bastard, he is saying dnd rules are not bad because you can change them and cant see how that makes it so dnd is just as shit or good as any other game.

I'd disagree on that given the amount of effort that would need to go into balancing a whole new game, coming up with a whole new resolution mechanic, etc. I just don't see it, or any d20 System game, as distinct enough from D&D 3.X to really count it as a whole new game. Not until you get to the incredibly drastic differences present in Star Wars Saga Edition, anyway.

But otherwise at the end of the day you've still got races, classes, skills points, feat progression, Fortitude/Reflex/Will saves, XP charts, etc., all of it advancing in the same way. You can literally take a SpyCraft 1.0 character or a Star Wars Revised Jedi Consular or a the like, and run them essentially mechanically unchanged through Red Hand of Doom, if you wanted. When you have that level of cross-compatibility it becomes difficult to really think of it as a different game.

Yes, but Anon, the difference between the characters essentially boils down to terminology. I can take a otyugh from D&D 3.5 and run it essentially unchanged against a group consisting of a Wheelman from SpyCraft, a Strong Hero from d20 Modern, a Fringer from Star Wars, and a Scientist from FarScape.

You're right that I can't just say that magic missile is a dart gun. But I need to change absolutely nothing about the spell to figure out what happens if I aim it at Darth Vader or Scorpius or Blofeld.

Anon, you are actually fricking moronic since I spelled out the difference between simply changing a name but otherwise being able to run a character as-is because the underlying mechanics are identical, verses trying to do something that a system just has no way of interpreting no matter how many times you change its name.

Like, legitimately, you cannot possibly walk and chew gum at the same time. If you looked up when it was raining, you'd start drowning. You couldn't pour water out of a boot if the instructions were on the heel. There is no possible way you're trusted with scissors. Who's using the family brain cell today, because it ain't you. The eyes are open, the fingers type, but Mr. Brain has long since departed. There's a whistling sound from your head during a cross-wind. Your mother is probably also your sister. Remember that big building they sent you to every day as a kid? Did you ever stop to wonder what the adult at the front of the room was up to?

>A shared resolution mechanic does not mean the systems are identical
But it's not just a shared resolution mechanic, is it? 5e D&D and Essence 20 have a shared resolution mechanic, but they are otherwise fundamentally different games in a huge number of ways. I can't take Optimus Prime and slap him down in front of a D&D group, because he has stats that don't exist in D&D and lacks stats that do exist in D&D, and they have no obvious way of translating to one another. Like sure, with a fair amount of effort I might be able to convert Prime to D&D - or, vice-versa, convert a D&D character to Essence 20 - but it would involve a lot of guesswork and flat-out making stuff up. The differences go beyond simply terminology and into the core mechanical way that the games are run.

Buuuut not with Star Wars d20 or SpyCraft d20 or FarScape d20 or the like. All of those involve creating characters that, aside from the specific terms used, are mechanically identical and compatible with one another. The dice aren't just being rolled under similar circumstances, they're being rolled in the same way, making the same calculations, to achieve the same end result.

This isn't me putting a Honda insignia on a Ferrari and calling them the same. This is you looking at a red car and blue car and calling them totally different because of the paint job despite the fact that under the paint, they're the same exact model of car.

>You cannot, infact, put the level 20 fighter from 3.X into d20 Cthulhu unchanged, in part because many of the rules used by the former don't exist or are different in the latter.
I don't think that's true, I think you'd just have to calculate the fighter's sanity. You don't run into any problems until later, when the fighter says "can I take ranks in driving" and the investigators says "can I wear magic items", but if characters from both books showed up at the entrance to the same dungeon they'd play fine together.

>I don't think that's true, I think you'd just have to calculate the fighter's sanity.
Then it's already true.
You will also be missing all of the fighter's feats, and unless all of his magic items also exist in spycraft's rulebooks then he'll have to ditch those too.

>What? Why?
They're not in the rulebook.
>They're just a collection of stats.
Okay? They're still not in the rulebook.
>What about a +1 longsword do you think Cthulhu d20 isn't capable of handling?
It's not in the rulebook, also what level 20 fighter has only a +1 longsword you dumb nogames?
>The entire fricking point I'm making is that the various d20 games are cross-compatible the point where you don't need to make any mechanical adjustments.
Adding new rules is mechanical adjustments, therefore you would be wrong.

>They're not in the core rulebook
They're not in ANY spycraft rulebooks, period.
>You're not adding new rules
Yes you are.

I am gonna get an aneurysm because of you moron.
Me: dnd cant be used outside high fantasy
You: yes it can
Me: lies
You: yeah i ran a spycraft game.

Just call everything dnd why dont you? Where are the dungeons and dragons? Can i just call cyberpunk2020 dnd? After all it has classes (roles), attributes, and skills.

Lol i am getting too pissed am just gonna get off this board for a while and talk to real sane people

The second you change an actual part of the system instead of just a character option

Example: you can play dnd3.5e with a complete custom roster of classes, spells, and equipment. However, the second you add VP/WP system its no longer 3.5e

Does this make sense? Genuinely i thought this was an agreed upon idea, sorry for earlier outburst.

>Does this make sense?

No. It doesn't. Because, within the system itself, it goes beyond just giving advice and rules on crafting your own material, but provides optional/variant rules to add or subtract huge parts of the game and otherwise make large changes to the system. in 3.5, there's even official variants for replacing the d20 with 3d6, wound systems, adding new ability scores, and many other drastic changes that challenge how to even define what a D&D game is, let alone what a 3.5 game is.

Within the system itself is the mechanisms to radically alter it from any concept of a "Default" way to play, and an expressed statement from the designers to never feel limited in how you choose to exercise your imagination. Just by using official options, you can end up with a game far different from the imaginary and ever-shifting "default" version that only seems to exist in internet arguments.

Even adhering as strictly to the rules as possible is a dramatic alteration of the game, with RAW ironically going against RAW. The rules as written empower the DM to change anything and everything and encourage them to use their best judgement. Treating the rules as immutable laws that have no possible exceptions is ironically going against the rules.

There is no true "Default" way to play, and seeking some sort of objective standard is ridiculous. In any discussion of RPGs, everyone must argue with full awareness of just how subjective the medium is, and anyone who attempts to establish rules of discussion that ignore or even denounce that fact is nothing more than someone arguing from a purely hypothetical position that can largely be ignored.

>best game
Do you believe that? That's your opinion. And, most importantly, that's JUST your opinion.

Welcome to a subjective topic, one where even just who is running the game can have a dramatic impact on the end result to such a degree that the only "real" best game is whatever happens to be best for the GM/Group.

Maybe now you can stop hating and grow up a little.

>Great, so people are free to share their negative opinions on D&D
As long as they're not trolling.

But, when someone just arrives to shout "D&D IS SHIT KILL EVERYONE WHO PLAYS IT", it really doesn't matter if that's their honest opinion, it's nothing more than trolling. You can hate a game without obsessing about it to the point where you need to constantly complain about it on a board where it happens to be the most popular game.

And, above all else, there's really little value in listening to someone complain about a game they don't play. If you really hate a game, you should stick to discussing games you actually like, instead of demonstrating to everyone what happens when a person gets so fully fricked in the head that they become addicted to being a bitter c**t.

>it sounds like you should take your own advice there.

I've played and play plenty of hearbreakers. What the frick are you trying to even say.
Better yet, just shut the frick up.

>Where are you reading anything close to that?
You want something close?

Trying to "fix" DnD is like trying to fix a decapitation wound with duct tape. Yeah, maybe the corpse looks better afterwards, but it's still a fricking corpse.

The only worthwhile fix to DnD is to stop playing DnD.

Sure, it's not "kill everyone who plays it", but it's "Playing D&D is like fricking a corpse stop playing it stop it stop it wah wah." I'd argue that's pretty close.

Child, stop trying to conflate things together.
It's one thing to answer OP's question.

Real answer: it's derived from two essays Ron Edwards wrote in 2002.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/10/

Edwards describes the games discussed as heartbreaking because they're usually labours of love and typically have one or maybe two actually innovative ideas but are so trapped in the tractor beam of D&D that they inevitably fail both from a game design perspective and a market one.

Basically did that. Nothing really needs to be said aside from that post; this thread is basically over.

But, hark, an RPG thread? On /tg/? Surely another prime excuse to shitpost, right? It's almost like there's someone with a deep obsession that prohibits them from missing any opportunity to shitpost and spread as much biased misinformation as they can.

And, lo and behold, we have several who don't understand what a heartbreaker actually is, but are oddly electing to take the chance to complain about not just people playing D&D, but complaining about the manner in which RPGs are adaptable, because it means less of a reason for people to stop playing D&D.

It's not a normal insanity.

I like heartbreakers though?

If anything,

>essays
Blog posts.
The issue is that while Edwards does describe them, and does call them heartbreaking, he doesn't make it particularly clear what the connection is between those two things. From what he writes I see three obvious possibilities:
>It's heartbreaking that people put in so much effort and still produce bad games
>It's heartbreaking that the good ideas these games have don't really shine because they're too bogged down in D&D's basic design
>It's heartbreaking that people have put in a lot of effort and included at least some good ideas but are doomed to be die forgotten in D&D's shadow
Or to be less generous to him, lines like
>not one of them demonstrates a shred of critical perspective regarding role-playing techniques
suggest what he actually means is, "None of them designed their games around my ego". Which of course he finds heartbreaking.

helps illustrate why Edwards is kind of a frickhead, and

It was coined by a guy named Ron Edwards about 22 years ago. I’ve never read the article that it originated from, but the Alexandrian’s definition of it stuck with me from Alexandrian’s review of playtesting 4th Edition back in 2008.

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2008/roleplaying-games/playtesting-4th-edition

>Back in 2002, Ron Edwards coined the term “fantasy heartbreaker”. He used it to refer to all of those games which are the result of their creators believing that they’ve taken the mousetrap (i.e. D&D) and made it a little bit better. In some cases they may be right and in some cases they may be wrong but, as Edwards pointed out, they were all doomed to failure. Why? Well, here Edwards goes off into an ideological rant that I think rather misses the point. But, in my opinion, the primary reason can be boiled down to this:

>If I wanted to be play a game like this, I might as well be playing D&D.

>There are many reasons for that sentiment to hold true, but I think there are two major ones:
>(1) It’s much easier to find a group playing D&D than it is to find a group playing any other RPG.
>(2) Most roleplaying gamers are already familiar with D&D — they’ve already learned the game.

>So why would you go to the effort of learning a new game and then convincing other people to learn a new game in order to achieve an experience that you can already largely accomplish with a game you know and for which it’s easy to find experienced players?

“If I wanted to play a game like this, I might as well play D&D”.

in general helps clear up the matter a bit and helps explain Heartbreakers from a slightly more neutral point of view.

The term has value, since it's good to help encourage beginning designers to explore well beyond the shadow of D&D. But, it's also too easy to go too far, and to fail to appreciate the mechanics of D&D that are excellent.

That's largely the singular message I want to spread. The D&Ds are not perfect, but they're also not terrible to the point where we have people wasting their lives discouraging everyone who's dumb enough to listen to them from playing it. While making yet another D&D clone/heartbreaker is not a great idea, it's also a bad idea to dismiss all of D&D's various mechanics and only learn the lessons of a bitter contrarian from the game.

Moderation. That's all.
I'm tired of this "You either play D&D or you don't" false dichotomy the trolls need to encourage in order to keep this fake conflict going. You can play D&D AND other games; you don't need to define yourself as a D&D player or hater.

The more you do this, the more pathetic you become.

>And you're right. GURPS is better than D&D (imo) for the reasons you stated.

Why do you try to put words in other people's mouths? Is this some sort of EPICXD form of trolling? It's pretty dumb.

>Genuinely i thought this was an agreed upon idea
I dont know what to tell you, I've always understood people homebrew new mechanics all the time. It's what everyone does. Is no one playing D&D ?

Have you heard the term "Rules as Written" (RAW)

Yes your homebrew rules are not dnd, what kinda moronic question is this?

>drows live underground
That's not strictly true even in standard D&D. In the Forgotten Realms, at various points there were drow who worship Eilistraee and Vhaeraun who tend to live on the surface (in the latter case there's notably two branches of them living in Cormanthor forest, the Auzkovyn and House Jaelre), and the entire nation of Dambrath was humans ruled by drow and half-drow who lived on the surface (admittedly on behalf of Lolthites living beneath the surface). And then of course there's the Eberron setting, where drow live in the jungles of Xen'drick.

Perhaps D&D has always been far, far more than you gave it credit for.

I think the fundamental problem is that when I hear "D&D can't do X", it's usually said in such a way as to suggest what's intended is, "D&D is mechanically incapable of doing X, and it's a waste of time to even try and you're a bad person for trying". And if you're very lucky you might get "play Y instead".

Like, "D&D can't do sci-fi, play Traveller instead". I hear that, and meanwhile on my bookshelf are several Star Wars d20 books that use, at a mechanical level, the exact same system as D&D, to the point where I don't even need to modify stat blocks beyond changing some terms if I want to run them in a D&D game.

D&D absolutely CAN do sci-fi, at a base mechanical level. It did sci-fi (soft sci-fi granted, but sci-fi nonetheless) successfully for years and only stopped because WotC lost the license.

It's not that I don't want to learn Traveller because of D&D brainrot; I would, in fact, like to play Traveller at some point.

But I resent the implication - no, sorry, the outright declaration - that I NEED to use Traveller because D&D somehow can't handle sci-fi components being added onto it.

In the same way you can play anything with FUDGE or FATE and just handwave your way through things, D&D can be used for all kinds of things, but it shouldn't, and an unwillingness to even look at other systems because you think it's better to just awkwardly hodgepodge together some houserules is not a benefit of D&D. All systems can do that. D&D is not uniquely equipped to be half-assedly hammered into holes it's not shaped to fit through.

What is notable, however, is that the things D&D does emphasize as it's strengths, combat and pretty much nothing else, is still inferior and something so intensely disliked by so many people that it has spawned countless people who will try and fail to fix it (heartbreakers), people who will harken back to older editions in an attempt to reverse course to the good ol' days (OSR), or try tacking on so many new shiny bells and whistles that the worst parts of the system are overwritten by enough new good to overlook the old bad (Pathfinder, Fantasycraft, etc).

And at the end of the day, I and many others don't want to be stuck with the class structure, bounded accuracy, and age old martial-caster divide that has plagued D&D quite badly for decades. I don't want to run some gonzo space adventure and get stuck dealing with the same old action economy problems because using the guidelines from 5e makes nothing but awful, boring, unfun battles that take too long.

At any rate, do whatever you fricking want and have fun doing it, but don't expect everyone else to give you a handjob because you decided to go about it in the dumbest way possible.

>and an unwillingness to even look at other systems
No one here has expressed an unwillingness to look at other systems. Outside of d20 systems, I myself in this thread have stated that I've played the Cypher System, Tails of Equestria, and Vampire: the Masquerade. I'm making a Caitiff clanbook splat for V20 for Chrissake. I've also played Maximum Apocalypse and Star Trek Adventures, and next year once the current 5e campaign run by someone else wraps up and then I run an E20 Transformers game I'm gonna be playing Call of Cthulhu 7e. I also expressed an interest in Traveller in the very post you responded to.

(Benefit of playing with the same group of people for going on 20 years: you can anticipate campaigns years in advance).

So, please, for the love of God, get it through your meters-thick skull that just because someone plays D&D, and just because someone is capable of adapting D&D to genres that you can't conceive of it being used for, it doesn't mean that they play ONLY D&D. Because like half of your talking points are based on that, and it's not so much a straw man as a single stick that you've held up and is claiming is a straw man.

D&D is the most popular, I can upsell way way more players into a zombie apocalypse setting if I don't have to walk them through learning a new system. Admit It.

>Only brainless homosexuals struggle to learn a new system.
So you think most people are brainless homosexuals. I don't entirely disagree, but I think the distinction that you're talking about is less about brainless vs brainful and more about game-obsessed vs non-game-obsessed. Most people don't play a lot of games, learning a new game is work whereas playing a game that they already know is fun and relaxing, and they'll probably never get tired of the games that they already know.

>Learning a new system is surprisingly easy and always has been.
But it is time consuming. It takes *time*, Anon, and not everyone has the spare time to learn an entirely new system, especially not on a regular basis.

>5e is just a lousy system
No, that's your mom. 5e is a perfectly fine system. It has bad parts, it has good parts, but no more nor less than any other system.

Also I think you might be moronic, because I have never met someone who needs months to learn 5e.

>The problem is that 5e gives new players paranoia that they can pick the wrong options and be suboptimal
That literally can't happen in 5e, but thanks for coming out and admitting you've never played it. In 5e it is all but mathematically impossible to build a suboptimal character. As long as you've got your best stat in your main attack stat, you're good to go. Even a core-only Beastmaster Ranger is mechanically capable of keeping up with the published monsters and the monster creation rules in the DMG, it's just boring to play.

>If it weren't popular, it would just be a bad system no one would talk about.
It's good though. "It's popular" isn't a legitimate criticism and never will be. Monosystem players are normal, game nerds are the exception, that's hard to get used to because game nerds used to be the only people who played anything.

You're losing the high ground here bub.

>You can't just say something stupid, be objectively called out on how moronic you are, and then hope to save face with whatever nonsense your post was trying to be.
The irony.

lol you are officially having a melty
I'm

>If it weren't popular, it would just be a bad system no one would talk about.
It's good though. "It's popular" isn't a legitimate criticism and never will be. Monosystem players are normal, game nerds are the exception, that's hard to get used to because game nerds used to be the only people who played anything.

, I was on your side until 5 minutes ago

Your own words, returned to you.

>That's why everyone spends so much time painstakingly ripping it to pieces and homebrewing entire mechanics that the game lacks
True and difficult to argue with. If 5e was high quality, it would not need extensive fixing and homebrewing from every GM, and there wouldn't be more tweets from Crawford about its rules than actual rules written for it.

>You're giving comparative examples but nothing concretely stating what the cut off is
I'm not the one claiming there IS a cutoff, Anon, you are. Try not to fall behind your on your own claims; we all know you're moronic, and you know you're moronic, but there's no reason to flaunt that fact.

I'm only pointing off that if there IS a cutoff, it seems absurd to place it where the only difference is one of simply terminology. At that point you might as well say that the phoenix isn't really D&D because it's in the Monster Manual II.

>I'm not the one claiming there IS a cutoff
Every system is therefore GURPS. You are not playing 5e, you are playing a modified GURPS system. Also Red, Blue, and Yellow don't exist, they are just different shades of black.
Your logic here is fine and perfectly consistent, but also makes you easy to ignore for being ridiculous.

>If it weren't popular, it would just be a bad system no one would talk about.
It's good though. "It's popular" isn't a legitimate criticism and never will be. Monosystem players are normal, game nerds are the exception, that's hard to get used to because game nerds used to be the only people who played anything.

>It's good though.
Why?
>"It's popular" isn't a legitimate criticism and never will be.
Then neither is it a legitimate defense.
>Monosystem players are normal, game nerds are the exception
True. That's perfectly fine though, and imho monosystem normies should stick to whatever they find fun. I do believe anyone with an interest in systems should broaden their horizons as much as they can though, because tabletop system design is as wide as the ocean but as shallow as a kitty pool.

>that's why everyone spends so much time painstakingly ripping it to pieces

When did a handful of contrarian trolls become everyone?
Holy shit, you dumb frick. You literally just tried to project your miserable personal crusade on literally everyone.

I actually think you may be so fricking braindead you're not even actually aware that 5e is the most played and popular game, even as its popularity is the sole reason you have such a crippling obsession with shitposting about it. You are like a living absence of logic, more paradox than person.

Delusional beliefs followed by rabid insults. Are you the same moron that made a 300 post thread arguing about "calling out da trollz!" a few days ago?

people homebrew new mechanics because they like the system and want a new mechanic in addition to the rest of the system

You're stupid, you're insipid, you're a sniveling little fricking coward that hides behind words because you can't stand in the light of truth. Go frick yourself and swallow a thousand needles and die, you piece of baby shit.

Frick you, you actual subhuman rat. I hope a cat rips your stupid little rat head off slowly and shits you out on my lawn so I can watch you get chopped up by a lawnmower and flung everywhere. It would be the least you deserve you thread ruining garbage "human" "being"

I don't think it's reasonable to blame 5e for any of the things that you're blaming 5e for, most other TTRPGs are less elegant and less forgiving, you're just blaming 5e for being popular.
You can make a case for other TTRPGs that might do better with normies (if they had more publicity), and I'll often agree but I think it's debatable, publicity isn't the only reason why D&D is popular.

>and yet somehow also finds itself riddled with ambiguous wording and rulings
Let me introduce you to a game called GURPS.

> they'll probably never get tired of the games that they already know.
Didn't 5e lose 30% of its playerbase last year?

now what could have happened last year that caused it.... I cannot remember..

Good for you, you are irrelevant when discussing systems, dont discuss them. I also play homebrew dnd, i just dont bring up my group's "5e" dnd when discussing dnd game design

I think the fundamental problem is that when I hear "D&D can't do X", it's usually said in such a way as to suggest what's intended is, "D&D is mechanically incapable of doing X, and it's a waste of time to even try and you're a bad person for trying". And if you're very lucky you might get "play Y instead".

Like, "D&D can't do sci-fi, play Traveller instead". I hear that, and meanwhile on my bookshelf are several Star Wars d20 books that use, at a mechanical level, the exact same system as D&D, to the point where I don't even need to modify stat blocks beyond changing some terms if I want to run them in a D&D game.

D&D absolutely CAN do sci-fi, at a base mechanical level. It did sci-fi (soft sci-fi granted, but sci-fi nonetheless) successfully for years and only stopped because WotC lost the license.

It's not that I don't want to learn Traveller because of D&D brainrot; I would, in fact, like to play Traveller at some point.

But I resent the implication - no, sorry, the outright declaration - that I NEED to use Traveller because D&D somehow can't handle sci-fi components being added onto it.

Sure if i remove everything from dnd except its fundamental structure and add in some stuff it can work pretty ok for sci fi. This is irrelevant to discussing system design.

What both of you are saying is normal, DnD CAN be made to do whatever you want, it will take work and how well it can do it is completely dependant on the person developing the homebrew. Which is the main fricking problem. i dont know your homebrew, i cant judge how good it is. Therefor saying "dnd can do X as good as Y" when referring to homebrew IS MEANINGLESS because it is completely dependant on something that I DONT KNOW and CANT JUDGE.

How is this hard to understand? The only dnd i can judge is the one that is printed, and that is unfit for anything except heroic high fantasy.

Food Analogy: you told me you made a big mac, i told you big mac is disgusting, you told me your big mac is different and tastes better and demand i change my opinion. How the frick am i supposed to judge your big mac without tasting it? I am going to judge the big mac that mcdonalds made.

I literally homebrew a victorian game with demons using cyberpunk. I wouldnt dare call it cyberpunk, it doesnt even have cyber.
This is common.

The only people who do this shit where they make a completely different game and act like that is within the scope of the game are dnd players.

Using your Lego example, you get a car lego set, and make an airplane, then insist its a fricking car.

Using the same food analogy, you made a chicken sandwich and insist its a big mac because you used the bread.

AGAIN, THE PROBLEM ISNT YOUR HOMEBREW, ITS THE FACT YOU CALL IT DND AND TRY TO ACT LIKE NORMAL DND CAN DO WHAT YOUR HOMEBREW CAN

No you homosexual, it isnt, if it is "ran differently" its not dnd, its a homebrew which again is not dnd, so it doesnt have any effect when discussing dnd.

For the sake of discussing system strengths and weaknesses? Yes this would be hard to describe as "dnd 3.5e" you would have to clarify the changes (mainly honour and taint). It is obviously still dnd as it is part of the official dnd release (i assume). But describing it as just 3.5e would be dishonest.

for some reason that anon is so moronic he thinks RAW is the only D&D there is.....despite no table ever doing that I've ever seen.

>Is it D&D?
Yes, as far as the brand name is concerned.
>Is it 3.X D&D?
Yes, as far as being broadly contained within the rules of all 3.X systems are concerned.
>Is it 3.0 D&D?
No, it cuts out much of the rules and adds additional ones beyond what "3.0 D&D" is concerned with describing.
>Is it Oriental Adventures 3.0 D&D with variant rules and strict class and race limits?
Yes.

Every single game will have differences. Clarifying differences when relevant is important if something is going to be used as an example or as evidence.
"You can Homebrew" does not suffice as a defense for rules being broken however, nor is it relevant to the discussion of whether rules are bad, good, broken, or whatever else.
Discussion over.

This. How are overlapping definitions and narrowing categories so hard for spergs to understand?

>And you told that person that they weren't a problem in your campaign, you wouldn't actually be helping the discussion, because you disallowed those classes as an option?
Yes you would. You would be showing them how to fix the problem? Like, I get you trolls don't play games, but you can just fix the system if something isn't working because you have a skill issue.

Yes feel free to homebrew dnd. DO NOT come here and act like dnd doesnt have problems because you homebrewed them. For the sake of discussing game design and systems homebrew is irrelevant.

Also i homebrew out the rules that tell me to homebrew. Hows that for a paradox. 😛

>No you homosexual, it isnt, if it is "ran differently" its not dnd,

Here's something you may not understand.
No GM runs any system identically with another GM. Each will be forced to make decisions that alter the experience, and many will interpret the rules in unorthodox ways or even simply make mistakes or omissions.

Even two GMs, doing their best to play in an identical fashion will end up running the games in vastly different manners unless they laboriously work together to outline everything they plan to do, identify every possible player decision and agree to follow strict and extensive guidelines that anticipate every possible contingency. And, even then, one GM may still end up paying less attention to how long certain actions take or the duration of certain equipment, one GM may be interpreting a rule differently than the other, and so on.

>The system where See Invisibility does not negate Invisibility's benefits is a bad system.
Anon, that's from a podcast, not an official rules errata.

>Simply choose a pure martial.
A pure martial using the Default Array will have, by level, assuming their best score is in their primary attack stat:
1st level: +5 to attack
4th: +6
5th: +7
8th: +8
9th: +9
13th: +10
17th: +11
This progression is exactly what is needed to keep up with the AC bonus such that they will always have a 60-70% chance to hit their target, which is exactly what the system expects them to have and where monsters of that CR will be. They will also consistently have the damage output to meaningfully deal damage to a targeted creature due to class and subclass features.

Spellcasters will be able to do more. But a party consisting of a berserker barbarian, champion fighter, open hand monk, and thief rogue will be able to deal with any appropriate-CR monster they come across assuming that the DM has been making the expected number of rolls on the magic item tables.

>Anon, that's from a podcast, not an official rules errata.
No actually, that's RAW in core. The lead developer then clarified that it's also RAI.
>Describes bare minimum to win 50% of fights
That's suboptimal, therefore you were wrong.

>Every system is therefore GURPS.
I mean if that's the claim you want to make. Go make a GURPS thread and see how far you get with that, though.

It's the claim you wanted to make. Prove it wrong or don't, I'll accept your concession eitherway.

>t's literally as nonsensical to me as saying that if I take a LEGO set and build something other than what's pictured in the instructions, it's not really LEGO anymore.
bingo, you nailed it

I don't understand what you're trying to say here - that Rogue Trader could be used for stuff other than 40K? Because I'm not going to disagree with that.

>Heartbreakers exist because the original game has some deep flaws

That's pure nonsense. Heartbreakers exist not because of "deep flaws," but because people have differences in opinion, different ideas, and naturally want to experiment and modify things.

What the frick is wrong with you.

...
Your personal definition of "critical flaw" is worthless.
If people can play and enjoy games with not just one critical flaw, but at minimum two, then those flaws are not just far from critical, they're essentially non-issues.

AD&D and later editions are all playable without extensive houserules.

>Industry reports say it did.
You're talking about D&D Beyond subscriptions, they didn't stop playing 5e.

Hey.
Hey.
You're done.
Finished.

>No, because that would just be a matter of homebrew.
You're aware that almost all "heartbreakers" are essentially "D&D but with homebrew", right? Where the designer thought they were making huge sweeping changes, but didn't actually move the needle all that much? With that being their essential defining quality, right?

Right?
Please, for frick's sake, don't argue on this like you've been trying to argue on every other point, you moron. I'm telling you, right now, flat out, that if you even attempt one word in the contrary, your game will be revealed where all you are is a troll desperate to fight about every little thing.

Balls in your court, let's see what you do.

Change something. not necessarily "fix".

No.

Change something. not necessarily "fix".

Imitation is necessarily flattery. Deviation is necessarily criticism. They're both true. Just saying.

>Not so.
Why?
>If you choose chocolate, and I choose vanilla
That's not deviation. If you give me chocolate and I sprinkle vanilla on it, that is innately a criticism because I am deviating from your design.

>You're saying it should include playable cats.
No, it shouldn't, because in its original form its very important that it only include dogs. When I'm in the mood to play original Dogs&Dogpounds, I appreciate it for what it is.

But, I was inspired to make Cradle of Cats because I really liked D&D and saw that it could be potentially adapted to also include Cats, though it would need quite a few changes. CoC is its own thing, and D&D is its own thing, and I can enjoy both and respect both without feeling the need to criticize D&D for its lack of cats, and I can play both without needing to feed into any sort of tribalism mentality that demands I can only like a single game.

>Yet you made a system with playable cats?
Yes?
So?
Wait.

Are you such a fricking moron that you can't comprehend that a person can play more than one game? That there doesn't need to be a single, perfect system that includes every possible desire while eliminating any possible conflict?

Frick.
You're actually moronic.

>No, it shouldn't, because in its original form its very important that it only include dogs.
You aren't modifying its original form and can't do so anyways. You can only create something new and use critique to create something new/different.
So yes, this is necessarily criticism. You're probably just a moron who conflates "hurts mah feefees" with "criticism".

>Yet you made a system with playable cats?
Yes?
So?
Wait.

Are you such a fricking moron that you can't comprehend that a person can play more than one game? That there doesn't need to be a single, perfect system that includes every possible desire while eliminating any possible conflict?

Frick.
You're actually moronic.

>Yes?
That's necessarily a criticism. End of discussion.

>No it's not.
Yes, it is.
>You can like more than one thing
Nobody has said otherwise.
>and recognize the best circumstances
>best circumstances
Best inherently implies superiority.
>D&D is dogs only and is set up so that is ideal.
>CoC includes cats, and is set up so that is ideal.
Ideal by what measure? Your personal preference, again, does not negate criticism, which is subjective in the first place.
>CoC is not a criticism of D&D
It necessarily is since it says "D&D can't do this the way I want it to, I will therefore change it!"
If there was no perceived fault in D&D, then this should not be necessary.

>Circumstantial superiority is
Still superiority.
>That's on the level of saying "Chocolate does not taste like vanilla, so chocolate is flawed."
While I believe that you are stupid enough to say this, no. It's saying
>I dislike chocolate and would prefer vanilla
Which is, again, still a criticism.

>But that's not what's being said.
Explain why you wanted vanilla?
>I like both chocolate and vanilla
Yet you clearly wanted vanilla more? Clearly one like is superior to the other. The timeline of this preference is irrelevant, one was clearly superior to the other, and a critique was a necessary part of it.
>a dichotomy
There's a word you still don't understand. You really ARE a highschool dropout, huh?

>You're giving comparative examples but nothing concretely stating what the cut off is
I'm not the one claiming there IS a cutoff, Anon, you are. Try not to fall behind your on your own claims; we all know you're moronic, and you know you're moronic, but there's no reason to flaunt that fact.

I'm only pointing off that if there IS a cutoff, it seems absurd to place it where the only difference is one of simply terminology. At that point you might as well say that the phoenix isn't really D&D because it's in the Monster Manual II.

>but still leaves lots of room for non D&D games to exist.
I mean I don't personally deny that at all. I've played non-d20 systems like Vampire: the Masquerade, Cypher System, Tails of Equestria, and others, and had fun with them.

I'm not saying that other games shouldn't exist. I'm saying that the idea that D&D can strictly, only be used for heroic anachro-Medieval fantasy adventures is patently false because the fundamental rules can be and have been adapted into a lot of other genres. And those games ran perfectly fine. Call of Cthulhu 7e is a perfectly fine game, but so is Call of Cthulhu d20. I'm sure a lot of people have fun with Legend of the 5 Rings' own system, but you can have plenty of legitimate fun with Oriental Adventures and Rokugan 3e as well.

>It's exactly like McDonald's
The common comparison is McDonald's, it's more like Applebees or TGI Fridays or Uno's or IHOP. It's not just accessible, it's *actually good*. Now YOU, personally, might not like it, but dimes to dollars it's not due to a bad system, just a bad experience. The single worst breakfast I have ever had was at Denny's. That doesn't mean that Dennys is bad at breakfast.

>which is why the system is called "Spycraft"
The *game* is called SpyCraft. The *system* is called the d20 System, and it's the fundamental mechanical basis for D&D, Star Wars, SpyCraft, d20 Modern, and a bunch of other games. Each is basically an expansion to the base d20 game.

>And no, you can't actually just shove any given D&D monster into it and have it work
You know what, I'm willing to take that challenge. Do you want to roll up a SpyCraft 1.0 character and I'll run a D&D monster against it, or vice versa?

>time consuming
For FATAL, maybe. For most other systems, absolutely not.

>5e is good actually!
That's why everyone spends so much time painstakingly ripping it to pieces and homebrewing entire mechanics that the game lacks, and why "just have your DM make something up" is the official ruling from WotC.

>I have never met someone who needs months to learn 5e.
I've known people who have played 5e for years and either can't make a character without D&D beyond, can't remember what they are supposed to roll when it's their turn to do the one thing their class does, or both.

>mathematically impossible to build a suboptimal character
Lol
lmao
That's cute. A whole decade of 5e minmaxing build autism, following in the long legacy of WotC D&D build autism argues otherwise, moron.

[...]
If it weren't popular, it would just be a bad system no one would talk about. The fact that it's popular and it causes these problems is a legitimate criticism, especially when it seems to lead to mono-system players who think it will take weeks to learn a system that can be taught in 15 minutes.

>For most other systems
Even just a few hours can be more than some players can actually spare, Anon, when they have other stuff they need to do like work, family, etc.

>That's why everyone
Who's "everyone"?

>I've known people who have played 5e for years and either can't make a character without D&D beyond
And absolutely no one like that exists for World of Darkness? Call of Cthulhu? Legend of the 5 Rings? Pendragon? Shadowrun? It is *soley* D&D that has players that lack system mastery?

>A whole decade of 5e minmaxing build autism
Do you...
...do you not even comprehend that you don't need to min-max a character to play the game?
Do you not even comprehend that just because people DO try and build optimal characters, it doesn't mean that you NEED to?

Okay, gimme a second. Remember, in case you've misunderstood, that we are not trying to demonstrate that a SpyCraft character is necessarily capable of keeping pace with a D&D monster. We're simply trying to demonstrate that it's a trivially easy matter - simply swapping around some terms - to have a SpyCraft character fight a D&D monster and vice-versa.

Though that being said if you're following D&D rules then a Challenging encounter for a single character of level X is X-4. I plan on making a 7th level character so that means a CR 3 creature.

Specifically I'm putting together a D-4 Soldier character using the Default Array, max VP at 1st level, and average (6.5) VP 2nd level and each level thereafter.

>we are not trying to demonstrate that a SpyCraft character is necessarily capable of keeping pace with a D&D monster.
If they can't or the monster can't then it won't exactly be interchangeable?
There might be limited interchangeability for certain examples, but I'd also bet you that I can take any simple D&D monster and plop it into my custom dicepool system and make it work just fine with "trivial" effort.

No there aren't? Have you never played 3.5e?

NTA but
>Even just a few hours can be more than some players can actually spare, Anon
There's not anybody in serious quantity who engages in tabletop games and yet also has only a handful of hours to spare on a weekly basis.

>And absolutely no one like that exists for World of Darkness? Call of Cthulhu? Legend of the 5 Rings? Pendragon? Shadowrun?
Don't think D&D beyond is needed or even helpful for making a character in any of those, so no.

>you don't need to min-max a character to play the game
You said you can't make a suboptimal character, not sub-playable.

>broadly everything d20 adjacent is D&D
that's kind of what I meant when I said game consoles are Nintendos, NTA btw

It kind of goes beyond "slapping a sticker" on when you can run a character essentially unchanged except for some terminology.

If I sit down at a game of Monopoly, roll my dice, and then say "I think it was the Thimble at Oriental Avenue with the Revolver", the game's mechanics have absolutely no idea what the frick I'm talking about and have no way of even beginning to figure it out because there is no way to convert Clue to Monopoly without entirely rewriting major mechanical components of the game.

If I sat down at a Vampire: the Masquerade table with a Rogue and said "okay I make an attack with my shortbow, I rolled a 17, do I hit? Also I was in stealth so I get Sneak Attack, right?" There is no possible way to translate that into Vampire because even though Vampire does have shortbows and attack rolls and sneak attacks, all of them are calculated in a fundamentally different way from in D&D. My Rogue character would have to be ground-up rebuilt in every single aspect.

But if I sit down at a 3.5 table with a Jedi Knight character and was facing against an Otyugh, I can absolutely say,
>"I spend 6 HP and gain a Dark Side point to use Force Lightning. I rolled a 17. The Otyugh needs to make a DC 20 Reflex save or take 3d8 energy damage, half on a success."
And the DM responds with,
>"The Otyugh rolled a 12, so it takes full damage. Remind me what Dark Side points do?"
And I respond with
>"If they're equal to 1/2 my Wisdom, rounded down, then I get a +2 bonus to Dark Side skill checks but a -4 with Light Side skill checks. Also at that point every time I gain one I need to make a Wisdom check with a DC of 10 + my Dark Side points. If I fail or if my Dark Side Points equal my Wisdom score, the bonus and penalty becomes +4 and -8 respectively. There's also a bunch of other stuff like losing points from physical scores as I gain levels."

And the DM understands everything I'm talking about because of the total rules compatibility.

I genuinely think that poster may actually be moronic.

Pepperoni fallacy, Stop Playing D&D Trollspam, and even "It's not possible for you to have had fun with the game I've wasted my life hating so you must be lying."

He might be the dumbest frick alive.

That's just a matter of taste.

>Well you're not accepting anecdotes
Every DnD game I've played has been garbage. Every GURPS game I've played has been amazing.
DnD is therefore objectively bad and GURPS is objectively amazing.

>you're not accepting officially published variants and splats published for them
lrn2read.

I would pity him, I can't though. He derailed my earnest thread in a vain attempt at arguing nothingness.

I would pity him, I can't though. He derailed my earnest thread in a vain attempt at arguing nothingness.

Incredibly obvious samegayging wew. Could you imagine being such a mental wimp that you need to pretend to have someone on your side on Ganker, of all places?

It's an informal fallacy due to the inherent contradiction of going
>Red cars? Red cars are good, there's no problem because you can just paint it green.
(If there's no problem, there'd be no proposed solution.)

>But, red cars ARE good. There is no problem, you just need [Solution for problem that allegedly doesn't exist].
Inherently contradictory.

>I thought I explained things clearly
Repeating yourself doesn't make you more clear, it just makes you juvenile and low IQ.
>We're not even really talking about a "problem."
Yes we are. Red cars have a problem. You claim they don't because there exists a solution for a non-existent problem, but for a problem to be solved it must be extant, therefore it has a problem.
So what you stated was inherently contradictory. That's what a logical fallacy is, kiddo.

>Allow me to remedy the statement then.
I accept your concession, but all you did was repeat yourself and think that changed anything. Sorry anon, but painting the red car green, still does not mean red cars are good, let alone flawless.

That's not what any of that means.
>the supposed problem may simply be a statistical correlation without any real causation.

In the case of "police stop more red ferarris than any other color", it may actually be not because they are attracted to the color or more enticed to stop ferarris of that color, but simply a matter that the vast majority of ferarris happen to be red, and thus will result in more red ferarris being pulled over even if its in the same proportions as all the other colors. There can even be other factors, such as people who choose red being more inclined to speed, rather than police specifically targeting red cars or red cars being more likely to draw their attention.

It's not a "there is no problem because you can solve the problem", it's simply "there is possibly no real problem."

It's kind of like trying to say "you shouldn't eat red meat because it has a lot of iron, and that will make you more likely to be struck by lightning." Regardless of whether this is true or not or even if the logic is sound, it's laughable to call that a problem of any significance even if we could all agree that the problem technically "exists."

I'm claiming the problem is insignificant.

Do you avoid any iron in your diet out of fear that it will make you more likely to be struck by lightning?

Not at all. A problem can exist but be so irrelevant that no one even thinks about it, let alone allow it to impact their decisions.
Do you avoid any iron in your diet out of fear that it will make you more likely to be struck by lightning?

>I'm claiming the problem is insignificant.
Qualitatively no different from claiming it does not exist. You must implement a solution for it, therefore it exists.
>Do you avoid any iron in your diet out of fear that it will make you more likely to be struck by lightning?
Non-sequitur and false equivalency.

I'm demonstrating that the existence of a problem can mean nothing if the problem is insignificant.
Do you avoid any iron in your diet out of fear that it will make you more likely to be struck by lightning?

>Not at all.
Yes at all.
>A problem can exist but be so irrelevant that no one even thinks about it
Then this doesn't apply to this conversation at all, obviously.
>Do you avoid any iron in your diet out of fear
False equivalency.
Again, you're inherently contradictory.

>I'm claiming the problem is insignificant.
Qualitatively no different from claiming it does not exist. You must implement a solution for it, therefore it exists.
>Do you avoid any iron in your diet out of fear that it will make you more likely to be struck by lightning?
Non-sequitur and false equivalency.

>And also just not true.

Iron is a conductive element, and a higher proportion of iron in your body will make you more conductive. The more conductive something is, the more likely they are to be struck by lightning.

It actually works very much that way. It's a simplified version, but having proportionally more iron in your body will increase your conductivity. It's significantly outweighed by much more important considerations, such as how hydrated you are and how much calcium/sodium/potassium you have, but iron will affect how conductive you are, and this will affect how likely you are to be struck by lightning.

>Rather infinitesimally, however.
But, we're still talking about a problem that "exists."

At the point where you are able to say "That is a small problem of little concern" is the point where I can go "Yes, problems like those exist, so is there really a point in demanding respect for a problem solely because of its mere existence?"

That's all the pepperoni fallacy provides. It demands that a problem, not matter how infinitesimally small it may be, be recognized as existing. And, that's all it can do.

It's a tool for nitpickers hoping to disguise their arguments; to turn molehills into mountains. That's why it needs a gay name and formal language and people desperately clinging to it, because it's just smoke and mirrors hoping to put undue importance on problems for merely existing, even if those problems are minor or easily adjusted.

>the problem with your logic is that you believe any problem with a solution is insignificant and might as well not exist.

Nope.
Only that some problems have easy solutions.

Ta dah. Funny how you need to work with absolutes and that just ends up biting you in the ass.

>especially when you were trying to defend 3.5, the edition where D&D lost most of its popularity and almost got actually usurped by a heartfixer.

wut

He's almost right. 3.5 was the edition that came closest to killing D&D on its own merits, rather than business frickery like with AD&D. It was one failed pitch for 4E away from getting D&D put away for decades.

Wrong. Late 3E sales cratered to the point where WotC couldn't hold up its own team, which is exactly what it was expected to do when divorced from MtG money because of a change in how it was handled internally. We got 4E because it was a pitch that could have brought in the money Hasbro was expecting. The alternative was nothing.

All of this is completely irrelevant to the part where 3.5 was one pitch for an entirely different game away from killing D&D right then and there.

It's meaningful if you aren't dumb. No.

You don't understand. Wizards of the Coast was not given credit for video game revenue from licensing. Hasbro is. How Hasbro valued D&D(in 2006) and how Hasbro treated WotC(in 2006) are not the same. As D&D was an under-$100m property, it was told to fend for itself. It couldn't.

>You're right. Your logic doesn't make any sense to me.
It's not logic you find issues with, but basic facts.

>Companies understand that certain departments may operate in the red but still provide value to the company.
D&D is not a department.

Please get a job someday, anon.

Yeah, sure, like I'm gonna believe some random guy online about all of this. If it's as "publically knowledged" as you want to claim, why don't you post up with some receipts? I know you're full of it already but go on, amuse me.

Glad I asked for what? Receipts? Because you still haven't posted any.

A guy who got laid off in 2002 rambling about a whole lot of nothing-that-agrees-with-you.

Nothing changed. Maybe you should get yours checked, or maybe act like an adult instead of trying to source troll me?

Yep, okay, fine anon, okay, I deny he laid out any of that nonsense you posted.
Now?
What?
Gonna post some actual receipts?

Oh did you? Did you weely? Let's check what you said real quick since I think you're full of shit.

>especially because the idea of WotC possibly just abandoning D&D because of low book sales is a ridiculous idea
It's not ridiculous when you understand how Hasbro operates. Here, D&D is no longer a core brand. It doesn't get funded from the outside, it has to sink or swim on its own merits and fund itself... except the money for licensed merchandise and properties don't go towards counting for this, and instead go into Hasbro's pocket. D&D, at the time this happened, could not sustain its operating costs.

The entire D&D team was in jeopardy because 3.5 couldn't cut it and the D&D team responded with what they thought could take D&D up to the point where it would satisfy the execs - a subscription service and a game built around synergy with it. That's how we got 4E and DDI.

This isn't controversial, it's not new knowledge, it's all publically acknowledged by insiders and a former WotC CEO.

>it's all publically acknowledged by insiders and a former WotC CEO.
The former "CEO" was fired in 2002, before any of this happened, and it's just him. No "insiders". I bet you saved this in a thread three years ago and thought it was just a silver bullet to win any argument, didn't you?

>Somewhere around 2005ish, Hasbro made an internal decision to divide its businesses into two categories. Core brands, which had more than $50 million in annual sales, and had a growth path towards $100 million annual sales, and Non-Core brands, which didn't.
Strike 1
>Magic has no problem hitting the "Core" brand bar, but D&D does. It's really a $25-30 million business, especially since Wizards isn't given credit for the licensing revenue of the D&D computer games.
Strike 2
>There's no way that the D&D business circa 2006 could have supported the kind of staff and overhead that it was used to. Best case would have been a very small staff dedicated to just managing the brand and maybe handling some freelance pool doing minimal adventure content. So this was an existential issue (like "do we exist or not") for the part of Wizards that was connected to D&D. That's something between 50 and 75 people.
Strike 3
>Sometime around 2006, the D&D team made a big presentation to the Hasbro senior management on how they could take D&D up to the $50 million level and potentially keep growing it. The core of that plan was a synergistic relationship between the tabletop game and what came to be known as DDI.
And 4 just for good measure.

It's still largely hypothetical to a certain degree.

Even

Glad you asked.

only says "It would have been very easy for Goldner et al to tell Wizards 'you're done with D&D', ec.", which is fairly ambiguous and closer to hearsay than actual reporting. Ultimately, it's extremely unlikely they would have just shelved it for a decade when the brand name itself was still making plenty of money.

What likely could have happened is that 4e would have came out in a different form, and they just wouldn't have wasted so much money on its promotion. Man, did they burn through a ton of money advertising 4e, and all of it pretty much worthless because D&D has always relied more on word-of-mouth advertising all the way back to its earliest days.

I actually remember all the convention promotional material for 4e, and that was an extreme waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars. If WotC had been smart, they would have recognized that they didn't really need to try and make D&D a $100 million franchise with an near-unlimited operating budget. They could have just rode the brand name with mild success, up and down on the waves of the market,

>when the brand name itself was still making plenty of money.
For Hasbro. Hasbro and WotC are separate entities. Guess what happens when that money doesn't flow back down to WotC and you try to pitch senior management on something without the expectation of big payoffs when their business model is to tell you to frick off and pay for it yourself if there are no big payoffs involved?

No, that's what an independent company does. Under those restrictions, your team gets fired en masse and at best you have a skeleton crew managing a dead game. What's a great position for D&D in a vacuum isn't a great position for D&D as a brand managed by Wizards of the Coast with restrictions placed upon them by Hasbro, and at the end of the day, it was 3.X that had a real chance of killing the game for good.

Because D&D is valued for its merchandise and liscensing and it's silly to think they'd let those fields lay fallow?

I don't think what Dancy said makes all that much sense either, particularly the note about Wizards not getting any credit for its video game liscenses. Even if it's not included in the books, no one running a business would fail to recognize a tabletop game being at least partly responsible for the success of any video games that uses an adaptation of its system and even bares its name.

No, I understood you fine, I'm just doubting Dancey's claims because he was fired way back in 2002 and is telling a story that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Even if parts of it are true, there's also parts that don't make a lick of sense.

As in you are doubting me, and I am also doubting, but in my case I'm doubting Dancey, a guy who was pretty far removed from a fly-on-the-wall during any of this. We're not talking about an insider, we're talking about someone fired half a decade before any of this happened.

Seems like a lot of reasons to not take him entirely on his word and be careful about where the truth might end. It's a lot easier to sell lies if you sprinkle it with truths, and even someone trying their best to tell the truth may still just be presenting half a story and inventing the rest. Kinda like how you're trying to take what Dancey said and spin it into "3.5 nearly killed D&D."

(Cont'd)
The assertion that "3.5 nearly killed D&D" is a strong statement, but it can be backed by specific points that Dancey and others present have raised:
1. The release of numerous supplements and splatbooks during the 3.5 era led to market saturation. This made it difficult for both new and existing players to keep up with the vast array of content, potentially alienating the customer base.

2. The rise of competing RPG systems and the division within the D&D community itself may have contributed to a perceived decline. Players and Dungeon Masters were often split between editions and alternative systems, weakening the cohesive player base D&D needed.

3. Reports and analyses from that period indicate financial challenges faced by Wizards of the Coast, which were partly attributed to the costs associated with producing and supporting the 3.5 line.

4. The decision to move to 4th Edition was partly driven by the need to address the issues that arose during the 3.5 era. This strategic shift indicates that there were significant concerns about the sustainability and future of the game under the 3.5 framework.

In summary, while skepticism is healthy, dismissing Dancey's statements without considering the full context and corroborating evidence undermines a balanced understanding of the situation. The claim that "3.5 nearly killed D&D" is not an unfounded exaggeration but rather a reflection of documented challenges and strategic decisions made during that time.

>As in you are doubting me, and I am also doubting
That makes no sense in English. Are you ESL?
>but in my case I'm doubting Dancey, a guy who was pretty far removed from a fly-on-the-wall during any of this.
You're more of one so this doesn't support your argument whatsoever.
Dancey would still have contacts and obvious industry know-how, and demonstrates much of that in the thread. He has also never been disputed by anyone else with more or equivalent status.

I understand that, but that's not even the most complicate diagram and we're not just talking money, but multimedia brand recognition.

>Under those restrictions, your team gets fired en masse and at best you have a skeleton crew managing a dead game.

No, you have a "skeleton" crew (or, more accurately, simply an appropriate sized group for managing an RPG rather than the mass of people they thought could build D&D into a $100 brand) managing a game that has always been a community-oriented affair that's basically impossible to kill. The worst thing WotC could do is allow a competitor to replace D&D by carrying on its legacy without its brand name, something Pathfinder came quite close to doing.

3.5 was far, far from killing D&D, to the point it's own heartbreaker was almost succesful enough to threaten 4e.

Wasn't pathfinder over D&D's sales for like 3 years straight?

The industry reports say it did.
The only thing I've ever seen contradicting the claim were a few WotC employees who would've never had access to sales records in the first place, though.

And more, but that's pretty representative of overall market interests.

Amazon actually did list Pathfinder higher up on best sellers than any D&D stuff.
>retailers that carry RPG books, direct PDF sales, bookstore sales
Paizo likely had an advantage in pdf sales tbh, so it would only skew the results of industry reports further towards DnD instead of away from it.

>And even in 2011 that was where most of the sales were happening.
Two of the four are going to be more favorable to PF than retail. For the others: Proof they were in favor of DnD?

>No, only PDF sales would be
No, Amazon and PDF sales were directly in favor of Paizo. The former is a given fact by the best seller results over its period of popularity, and the latter is moronicly obvious.
>Wizards did something moronic and killed their PDF sales because they were angry at literally Touhougay
Elaborate.

Alright.
Wait, is that it?

Oh. You think actual WotC employees even knew Ganker existed let alone cared about what went on here. Got it.

Uhuh.

Oh, my bad, D&D 4E pirates sued. That way you don't get a wall of unrelated articles.

The funny thing is that you think I'm making shit up and this didn't happen. You can hit up the archives too and verify it.

Not my problem you're a lazy fricker doing it wrong. It's still there on RPG.net to this day.

Maybe if you weren't incompetent at using search engines you'd figure it out. I tracked it down first try then found the source article on archive.org, why can't you?

Because doxxing is a bannable offense?

It is when it has a poster's name in it, dumbass.

Actually it says exactly what I'm telling you it does but you're too incompetent to find it. Article is still on CBS, by the way.

>In the fricking news
You ARE an ESL lmao

Seems like a lot of reasons to not take him entirely on his word and be careful about where the truth might end. It's a lot easier to sell lies if you sprinkle it with truths, and even someone trying their best to tell the truth may still just be presenting half a story and inventing the rest. Kinda like how you're trying to take what Dancey said and spin it into "3.5 nearly killed D&D."

>He predicted everything with 5e, had contacts inside WotC, and showed no signs of deception?
>Well that's why you shouldn't trust him!

>But he didn't.
Proof?
>Hell, he probably didn't even predict getting fired.
Proof?
>Saying things that don't really make sense
Everything he said made perfect sense. You should stop coping.

>An enormous amount didn't
Did to me.
>including the oversimplification of Hasbro's structure
Give me objective evidence demonstrating that this makes no sense.

Touhougay getting busted for posting pdfs here? No, that never happened.
There WAS an instance back in 2009 where WotC sued like ten people for posting pdfs, on scribd. None of them were touhougay, but people joked that one of them was, even though he denied it.
Which of course made it even funnier to say it was him.

>Everything he said made perfect sense.
An enormous amount didn't, including the oversimplification of Hasbro's structure and the obvious guesswork he's performing.

>including the oversimplification of Hasbro's structure and the obvious guesswork he's performing.
What he described is how pretty much every brand-focused corporation works. You've chosen to demonstrate your own ignorance rather than Dancey's.

I'm not joking or meming around or fricking with you in any way. He really was one of the defendants sued by WotC. He posted threads about it here when it happened.

I'm not joking or meming around or fricking with you in any way. He really was one of the defendants sued by WotC. He posted threads about it here when it happened.

Sorry newfren, but you have no idea of what you're talking about.

Look man, I'm sure you believe what you've heard but don't tell me an obvious lie. There's nobody older than 14 who thinks posting articles here is the same as doxing.

Again, that's simply not how it works. You might believe it does, but nobody who has been here before 2021 would seriously think that way.

No, you weren't, and I know you weren't because the entire thing you claim happened, didn't. You can just look back at the archive and see how like most rumors, it's riddled with inconsistencies and made up bullshit ranging from "moot himself got contacted" to "they couldn't even prosecute" and "it was because he posted on Ganker!"
The actual lawsuit was over scribd and as far as anyone knows, unrelated to here.
You can also see a 10 year gap between today and the last post on the subject because it was obvious bullshit that only a few morons repeated as time went on and it became less funny. Congrats on keeping up an old tradition, moron.

>I was.
No, you weren't.
>Sure.
Nah, too late to change your story now after you got caught lying newbie. Now you will provide proof or shut up.

Still waiting on proof.

No, you provide it or you concede.

Your consent is not needed for your concession. Your inability to post any supporting evidence is all that's needed.

It's not an inability, it's a refusal to spoonfeed you the post I am looking at literally right this second when I gave you everything you needed to verify. You've gotta grow up and stop being afraid of being wrong at some point, anon.

What more do you want me to do, give you the thread it's in? I'm telling you full stop that by his own admission he was one of the defendants.

Posted the thread already.
>Defendant X here. [irrelevant rest of post]

Pretty sure I did. Even told you which site it's on. Up to you to do something with it.

Here you go

What more do you want me to do, give you the thread it's in? I'm telling you full stop that by his own admission he was one of the defendants.

>Defendant X here.
Notice how nobody quoted or acknowledged him because it was fake lol

'Cept he's not, if anything he was just good at deluding himself with his own lies. He regularly used to lie when he'd spam threads here with his obnoxious, moronic buttholery.

That was my first post in the thread but ok, be angry I suppose.

Dude, nobody cares.

No, I did try to figure out what you were trying to say, and it's still just gibberish.

I don't think you even understand how Hasbro values D&D. They have never really cared about book sales, because they make most of their money off the game via merchandise and licensing. The only reason they keep releasing editions is because of the prestige the game has as "Whatever slogan they slapped right onto the cover of 5e".

>Calling others ESL when you fail a basic reading comprehension check
Your writing style is too repetitive and your ability to think too limited. Dropout?

>I don't think you even understand how Hasbro values D&D. They have never really cared about book sales
Confirmed no idea of what you're talking about. D&D, especially pre-4th, LIVED and died off retail sales. Retaining popularity so new releases would continue to sell well was paramount.

There wasn't a decline in book quality. The worst crap in 3.5 was almost universally 2003-2004 content or 3.0 holdovers that were even worse. What you're seeing is that 3.5's business model wasn't sustainable and that the game fricking blew at converting enough new players into repeat players while problems ran off medium-term players. Pathfinder ran into the same problem.

Stout reasoning. D&D is great at introducing people and getting them into the swing, but it has big issues with retaining people.
3.X style D&D simply had massive issues with getting new people into it at all though. The burdensome nature of it makes it almost better as a crunchier alternative to 5e, though it's missing a ton of 5e's qualities too. I guess that's why it's mostly dead nowadays in favor of pathfinder.

At their peaks. But even Pathfinder at its peak couldn't hold up 3.5's weight like it was expected to.

I dunno about that, Pathfinder had totally overshadowed D&D altogether where I lived. It was probably more popular overall in the 2010-2011 period tbh.

The early books of 3rd edition are excellent, and it wasn't long before the designers really hit their stride. The first three years saw some amazing releases, and it went downhill after that.

>There wasn't a decline in book quality.
2003-2004 was three years after the game came out, and while there were some stinkers during that period, including the worst book of all time (Book of Exalted Deeds). the books continued to decline. It's actually almost painful to compare the Book of Vile Darkness against the Fiendish Codex books, and Elder Evils was such a massive disappointment particularly because there were such high hopes for it.

>2003-2004 was three years after the game came out
Three years is now more than a decade.

>Psionics Handbook was one of the earliest books printed for 3.0 and it's the worst book ever made for either edition.
It wasn't good, but it was deeply experimental and I want to give it some credit for that. Kind of like how I want to give some credit to the Book of Weaboo Fighting Magic for taking risks even though i've never liked it.

>Monster Manual II
You should complain about earlier designers, because it's their stuff that they tried to translate into 3rd edition. As wonky as the book was, the original monsters were even wonkier and were from editions that had nothing near the level of structure that 3rd edition have, and from what they were working with it's amazing the book doesn't just implode on itself.

It's not easy when the original monsters were mathematically fricked up and came from systems that were even more mathematically fricked up.

Yes, they could have done a much better job, and no, most of the old monsters weren't even that great, but they were doing something a lot more difficult than just creating monsters from scratch;they were trying to be faithful to the original creatures, in no small part because many of these monsters had roles in old adventures that might likewise be updated and released and needed to remain relatively intact.

MM1 is many leagues better than MM2, but MM2 does have a lot going for it that makes it interesting beyond its surface value as a new collection of monsters. It's a weird piece of D&D history, and it's kind of a shame that neither 4e nor 5e made anywhere near the same kind of efforts to keep the lesser-known undercurrents of the game continuing to flow. 4e basically cut them off entirely, while 5e only seems to care about the most popular aspects of D&D's past, with far less attention paid to the weird, half-forgotten stuff that feels as rough and experimental as it was.

You can see this drop off in popularity reflected on Google Trends, funny enough. There's a steep decline in the 3.5e era which dwindled further in 4e and didn't climb back until 5th edition's era.

>Unnecessary verbosity is associated with impaired intelligence.
By whom?

[...]
I did, here: [...]. That was about half an hour ago, not two hours.
Are YOU braindead or illiterate, Anon?

[...]
And yet, like I pointed out, 3.5 remained popular enough that it was able to serve as the basis for D&D's main rival from 2007 thru to today. Pathfinder heavily marketed itself as the successor to 3.5; pic related was a launch poster, for example.

Clearly, people still wanted to play 3.5, they just weren't interested in the late-edition books that WotC was putting out.

>By whom?
You, moron.

>I did, here
Nah, read your post a bit more for the phrase "Oberoni Fallacy", dipshit. You're more obvious than you think you are.

>and is down by 30%.
Down 30% from what, Anon? And how does its new total stack up against its competitors?

Again go argue with the industry report, not me.

>Unstopping autism for 6 years straight
He'll slow down and take a week off here and there, but eventually he gets bored and when there's not an argument about 5e to be had, he'll start one himself and then pretend to be nobly protecting /tg/ from trolls and liars while cultivating a thread of a dozen or so anons arguing with him while he pretends to courageously do battle with all replies as if they were just one guy that he unerringly hunts down with flawless accuracy every time. The man is undeniably schizophrenic.

You ever feel bad for him?

>Explain why you believe it was fine for the game to have been printed without any rules on falling speed
Because situations where it's necessary are very rare. Between 2005 and 2015 the house rule I made probably came up two or three times, max. It's uncommon enough that I don't actually know of any major tabletop RPG with a core rulebook that outlines fall speed; do you?

>Because situations where it's necessary are very rare.
Why does this make it fine, however?

>I don't actually know of any major tabletop RPG with a core rulebook that outlines fall speed; do you?
Yes.

Pathfinder at its peak had maybe an eighth of the base 3.5 did.

Do you mean at their respective peaks? Because if so D&D had a pretty sharp fall from its peak by the time Pathfinder was a thing.

We're about of a mind there then.
I think he'd be more tolerable if the arguments he made were novel, but it's literally just him repeating himself over and over again before falling to childish insults when that invariably fails.
It's like a talking doll where to pull the string, you just have to say "DnD is bad."

> You, moron.
Yes, but in what way? How have you reached the conclusion that a large vocabulary or tendency to be long winded with denote a low intelligence? You need to explain your reasoning and back it up.

> You're more obvious than you think you are.
Hmm. You know, your obsession with - oh, by the way, yes, I’m now being as long winded as possible on purpose, to mock you - but anyway, your obsession with preciseness and inability to understand casual speech might seriously be an indicator of autism. You should get that checked out.

> Again go argue with the industry report, not me.
I’m not arguing here. I’m asking you, down 30% from what? One million players? Ten million players? Four hundred eighty seven billion players? Percentages aren’t useful without context. You could, at the least, provide a link to the industry report you’re claiming spells doom for a 50 year old brand that has literally never been outsold in the English-language market save perhaps one quarter of 2013 where it was outsold by a virtual clone of its own previous edition.

> Why does this make it fine, however?
Because the problem had been fixed. That doesn’t mean the problem didn’t exist, it just meant that its former existence was no longer relevant for games I was actually playing.

>Yes.
…and would you like to share any with the class? Hang on, before going on, let me draw attention to the fact that in that post I specified “major” tabletop RPG and also specified its “core rulebook”. Let’s define “major” as “has had at least 5 physically published splat books for a single edition”.

At your leisure, then.

>Funny how you need to work with absolutes and that just ends up biting you in the ass.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Anon is revealing himself to be the bad guy.

>I was not phoneposting!!!!
That's why all the ones I tagged have the same typing patterns and I got only one reply to my post, eh?
You can always spot a true phonegay by how they're slow to respond to call outs. Real anons that are actively posting just reply to an incorrect call out immediately one after the other.

You know what? I want you to keep believing this going forward and to bring this up in future dumbass arguments you get into just to make yourself seem like more of an argument. So yeah, sure, why not. I was phoneposting. From a Nokia why not. I will concede that specific point. You win on that specific point. Please, keep using that logic in the future, O Master Debator you.

He's almost right. 3.5 was the edition that came closest to killing D&D on its own merits, rather than business frickery like with AD&D. It was one failed pitch for 4E away from getting D&D put away for decades.

>3.5 was the edition that came closest to killing D&D on its own merits
I'm reasonably certain that 3.5 was wildly successful. In fact it had a solid enough fanbase that a minor retooling of it was capable of becoming Pathfinder and being D&D's main rival, at least in the English-language market, from 2007 to I think this day.

What reality do you live in?

See but it's also a rule of the internet that if someone keeps insisting that someone else is mad, it's because he himself is furious.

So where does that leave us, then?

>serious criticisms
You mean old troll complaints that have no real weight behind them?
They're just masquerading as serious criticisms. Falling for that rhetoric is a bad joke.

Hell, the d20 being "too swing" is one of the best examples of people failing an understanding of basic algebra and the basic nature of equations. The target number in a binary pass/fail system is considerably more important than what dice are being used. The "d20 is too swingy" argument largely comes from people who want to argue about some inherent superiority of 3d6, without really appreciating that the full equation needs to be examined, and what "swingy" actually refers to.

"Swingy" is less about consistent values and more about consistent results. In a binary pass/fail system, rolling a 1 or a 10 when the DC is 11 doesn't matter, you fail either way.
Take an average DC of 11. Both 1d20 and 3d6 will fail roughly half the time. However, if you have the DC dropped for the 1d20 game to 9, that makes the 1d20 provide considerably more consistent successes than the 3d6. The d20, thanks to the lowered DC, now has more consistent successes, ie consistent results, than the 3d6.

3d6 does have an inherent curve and produces a more consistent set of values. But, this ends up just being one part of the equation, and the system surrounding the dice is far more important than the actual dice themselves.

>You mean old troll complaints that have no real weight behind them?
Well, yes, but at least they're more substantive than "D&D has problems and therefore no one should play it". It actually goes into specifics.

No, it's a tool to tell people to frick off when they're trying to discuss a game.

>Salami fallacy, pepperoni fallacy
Y'know what's really funny is you can actually track this autist and his exact style of posting all the way back to 2018. He has seriously been malding about DnD for a full 6+ years.

>Salami fallacy, pepperoni fallacy
Y'know what's really funny is you can actually track this autist and his exact style of posting all the way back to 2018. He has seriously been malding about DnD for a full 6+ years.

>Check the 2018 thread next
>He's ALSO SAMEgayGING THERE
6 Years of the same stuff day in day out. Some people are just too moronic to learn huh...

It's July in the image, not June, so almost. Just one month until the spergiversary.

You know, if you were the typing style guru you think you were, you would have noticed that of the people disagreeing with you, one consistently calls it the Pepperoni fallacy while the other has consistently called it the Oberoni fallacy.

>and is down by 30%.
Down 30% from what, Anon? And how does its new total stack up against its competitors?

>The pepperoni fallacy fails because it doesn't understand something as simple as "Choices are not black and white" or "How easy something is to change matters,"
The Oberoni Fallacy is, like most fallacies, a logical fallacy. What's failed here is your own logic. Neither of those considerations matter one bit, because the fallacious approach you've gone with is claiming that a problem does not exist because it can be solved.
But, a problem to be solved, it must exist. Therefore, a problem still exist.

What's truly juvenile is your language and way of arguing.

>You are hoping that the mere existence of something that can be construed as a problem somehow means that the supposed "problem" is meaningful.
Irrelevant. The problem exists, claiming there is a solution does not negate its existence and does not negate critiques of the problem.
You tried to claim the problem did not exist, contradicting yourself. You likely did this because you're moronic and can't imagine how real games play.

>Hardly.
Very.
The attempts to minimize the problem fall into the exact same fallacy. A solution existing does not negate the problem nor criticisms based upon the problem. You have no actual refutation for this.

Only after the solution is implemented.

If I replace the tires it means I'm able to drive my car, which is the only thing that actually matters vis-a-vis owning a car.

My ability to drive my car now, with its new tires, means that the fact that the tires were popped in the past does not matter. The previously popped tires have no impact on my current driving of the car.

If that's how you're choosing to interpret it, fine. Either way I'm driving the car and getting where I need to go, which is the only reason the car exists at all.

Can't hear you. Driving my car, having fun.

Why would I need other people to agree that I'm having fun, when I'm having fun?

>you're posting here angrily insisting you're having fun
I'm not angry. Not the least of which because it amuses me that

[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
>Obvious phonegay getting mad
Why is it ONLY D&D trolls who engage in this behavior? Does anybody on this board actually even play the game?

thinks I was phoneposting, and also highlighted three replies that weren't even mine. The angry gesticulation is hilarious.

>over the criticism of tabletop games.
I have barely seen any criticism of D&D in this thread beyond "it has problems", which is too vague to be a useful criticism. Upthread we almost got started on serious criticisms with 5e when someone brought up martial-verses-casters and the d20 being "too swingy", but before any actual discussion could start y'all just started shit-slinging.

>Yes you are
I'm longwinded anyway. I'm a verbose bastard by nature, the fact that I'm making longwinded posts proves nothing. I make longwinded posts when I'm happy, too.

>and need to samegay
I don't think it counts as "samegayging" when you delete your own post in order to post a virtually identical but grammatically corrected one, and immediately own up to being the person who posted both posts.

Maybe you should lurk more to pick up the lingo of the board. The lexicon, the jive, what the French call...I don't know what.

>I'm longwinded anyway. I'm a verbose bastard by nature
Unnecessary verbosity is associated with impaired intelligence.

>the problem with your logic is that you believe any problem with a solution is insignificant and might as well not exist.

Nope.
Only that some problems have easy solutions.

Ta dah. Funny how you need to work with absolutes and that just ends up biting you in the ass.

>especially when you were trying to defend 3.5, the edition where D&D lost most of its popularity and almost got actually usurped by a heartfixer.

wut

>Only that some problems have easy solutions.
"Make sweeping changes to the basic eco and progression of the game. Overhaul character creation entirely. Adopt a completely new dice system and fix the mathematics for every stat and statblock. Basically scrap everything beyond core because it's not gonna work."
"See? It's PERFECT and always was!"

>I was not phoneposting!!!!
That's why all the ones I tagged have the same typing patterns and I got only one reply to my post, eh?
You can always spot a true phonegay by how they're slow to respond to call outs. Real anons that are actively posting just reply to an incorrect call out immediately one after the other.

He was doing it earlier and it was amusing then, too. He really has no fricking clue how easy it is to spot, 'specially when the dumb Black person has 'tism and uses the same phrases over and over and over again.

He's almost right. 3.5 was the edition that came closest to killing D&D on its own merits, rather than business frickery like with AD&D. It was one failed pitch for 4E away from getting D&D put away for decades.

It's a bit muddled on how it happened. People blame 4e for it but 3.5e was falling off in popularity for years leading up to 4e. We might even see a small repeat with 6e or whatever the frick crawford is preparing to slop out.
Whatever the case, any company with a 5.5e of their own to drop afterwards is gonna have a good time.

Pathfinder at its peak had maybe an eighth of the base 3.5 did.

>serious criticisms
You mean old troll complaints that have no real weight behind them?
They're just masquerading as serious criticisms. Falling for that rhetoric is a bad joke.

Hell, the d20 being "too swing" is one of the best examples of people failing an understanding of basic algebra and the basic nature of equations. The target number in a binary pass/fail system is considerably more important than what dice are being used. The "d20 is too swingy" argument largely comes from people who want to argue about some inherent superiority of 3d6, without really appreciating that the full equation needs to be examined, and what "swingy" actually refers to.

"Swingy" is less about consistent values and more about consistent results. In a binary pass/fail system, rolling a 1 or a 10 when the DC is 11 doesn't matter, you fail either way.
Take an average DC of 11. Both 1d20 and 3d6 will fail roughly half the time. However, if you have the DC dropped for the 1d20 game to 9, that makes the 1d20 provide considerably more consistent successes than the 3d6. The d20, thanks to the lowered DC, now has more consistent successes, ie consistent results, than the 3d6.

3d6 does have an inherent curve and produces a more consistent set of values. But, this ends up just being one part of the equation, and the system surrounding the dice is far more important than the actual dice themselves.

>You have no actual refutation for this.
no way to refute a solved problem? you need to touch grass, go outside, stop typing paragraphs of drivel. you've been here for hours doing this. you need a life

>and this will affect how likely you are to be struck by lightning.
Rather infinitesimally, however. If the "problems" of D&D affect it in roughly the same way that having a high iron blood content increases your chances of being struck by lightning, then they certainly aren't problems worth taking into consideration.

[...]

Can't hear you. Driving my car, having fun.

It actually works very much that way. It's a simplified version, but having proportionally more iron in your body will increase your conductivity. It's significantly outweighed by much more important considerations, such as how hydrated you are and how much calcium/sodium/potassium you have, but iron will affect how conductive you are, and this will affect how likely you are to be struck by lightning.

>Obvious phonegay getting mad
Why is it ONLY D&D trolls who engage in this behavior? Does anybody on this board actually even play the game?

Already been refuted.

>Not at all.
Yes it was.

>Nope.
Yep.

>the fact is red cars still have problems.
The question is how important are those problems, not whether they exist.

>You've been denying they exist

You are hoping that the mere existence of something that can be construed as a problem somehow means that the supposed "problem" is meaningful.

The pepperoni fallacy is incredibly weak, because, at best, all it can do is say "The problem exists." That's nothing, especially when it's supposed to be a direct response to "It's not a significant problem since you can easily change it if you have an issue with it." Hell, it's countered by the exact thing it was hoping to counter.

It is only possibly useful in an argument against someone hoping to claim a system is unpologetically perfect and flawless, and is utterly worthless in any other argument. The mere accepted existence of a flaw doesn't really mean anything except that what we're talking about isn't flawless, a forgone conclusion in any serious discussion.

[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
Gary Gygax Rolled a Nat 20 deception check on us all, picrel.

/thread TPK

Can you shut the frick up and have a nice day already? The next time you post one of these stupid troll threads I'll burn it down too.

>no way to refute
A logical fallacy. Your own logic is quite self defeating and it's been obvious throughout this thread, which is why you've exclusively been the subject of one-sided mockery.

>Your logic vis-a-vis D&D seems to be "it has problems, therefore no one should play it".
Can you quote the post where I said this?

>But GURPS has problems, Call of Cthulhu has problems, Vampire has problems, literally every single RPG has problems.
Correct.
>By your logic, no one should be playing any tabletop RPG
You won't be able to fulfill the formermost request since it's a strawman argument, so this is already refuted, as is your entitled manbaby rant that followed.

>Not definitively, this is an Anonymous board. I have no idea which posts are yours beyond this one that I'm replying to. But SOMEONE brought up Oberoni
Okay, so you can't point any place where I said what you think I said. Your arguments have been refuted.
>Idle curiosity, which manbaby rant was that?
Yours? Maybe learn to read, it would probably help you actually play games.

>Yes, but,
Learn to read?
>Blah blah blah
Nah, I think it's clear you're just very upset since you needed to samegay.

Why are you trying to exclude D&D from RPGs.
D&D is not all RPGs, but it certainly is an RPG, you frickwit.

Thanks! I do know the Pushing your Roll mechanic, but as for running investigation and mysteries, my library is lacking such resources.

>Unstopping autism for 6 years straight
He'll slow down and take a week off here and there, but eventually he gets bored and when there's not an argument about 5e to be had, he'll start one himself and then pretend to be nobly protecting /tg/ from trolls and liars while cultivating a thread of a dozen or so anons arguing with him while he pretends to courageously do battle with all replies as if they were just one guy that he unerringly hunts down with flawless accuracy every time. The man is undeniably schizophrenic.