You know all those threads we get on here about "there are other rpgs?"
They are right.
If you came into the hobby any time from 2011-present day, you're likely playing the game wrong.
I mean this in two ways: you're playing sub-optimally AND you're failing to utilize the existing infrastructure in the way it has always been intended.
Let me explain.
So in modern speak, we hear about the "three pillars" of D&D. Combat, exploration and roleplay. The fascinating thing about the rules is that a solid 70% of the rules are dedicated to combat, combat abilities or raw numbers. Another 18% is dedicated to exploration, skills and options.
The remaining 2% of the rules is dedicated to RP. I'm not even joking. Open your 5e DMG and read it cover to cover. There is a small section about what constitutes roleplay and an even smaller section dedicated to mechanical impact and procedures for roleplay.
What does this mean?
Well from a design perspective, it means more than half of the game should be dedicated to combat and abilities, nearly a quarter of the game should be interactive exploration and the smallest tiniest percentage of your time should be dedicated to playing the role of your character.
In short: if you want homosexual cringe theater, there are games that handle it better. D&D has always been a multi-player wargame about killing monsters and getting rich.
I'm not even a grog, I have just...you know...read the fricking books.
If you wanna be cringe, join a larp or play a different game.
>more than half of the game should be dedicated to combat and abilities, nearly a quarter of the game should be interactive exploration and the smallest tiniest percentage of your time should be dedicated to playing the role of your character.
that's what everyone does though
You don't need rules for RP, and if you do you're such an antisocial, sociopathic, autistic moron that you shouldn't be playing a hobby that requires an IRL charisma score above 6.
Anyway frick you, I'll play whatever game I want however I want, homebrew and houserules are the true lifeblood of the hobby and if you don't do either and play everything RAW then you're a tourist homosexual who should leave.
Are you trying to gatekeep me out of a hobby I've been enjoying since before you could read?
I garuntee you're younger than I am, but if you're socially moronic then yes, you nave no place in a hobby built around social interaction with other people.
"Social interaction" and "mincing about like a parody of a two-bit dinner theatre troupe player" are not equivalents you grotesque ponce, you vapid parody of humanity, you fricking spoon.
If you want to have an improv session then frick off to drama college, we're discussing roleplaying *games*, which function according to the stated rules, and "playing your character" is accomplished by making the choices they would make in a given situation within the constraints of those rules, not by putting on a funny voice, flapping your arms like a drag queen, and ad-libbing Marvel quips.
BASED anon is BASED
Said it better than anyone in this thread
this..dont want that nancy queer shit at my table. sit down stop making homosexual voices and roll your dice when its your turn
You have no games and you have never played a TTRPG, just wargames.
>be arneson and co in 1973
>create rpgs
>sell idea to gygax and co
>game is played via dungeon exploration and procedures from 1974 until 1999
>2000s happen
>sell out to make cash but largely stay out of the bastard products produced by the corporate shills your idea belongs to
>die
>fast forward
>now current year
>homosexuals on the internet have bastardized your game
>claim people who play your game the way you designed it 50 years ago are doing it wrong
>roll in your grave
>Dungeon exploration and procedures
Literally a wargame hack. TTRPGs have grown and evolved, and video games do everything the first versions of D&D did 100000000x better now. Roguelikes have supplanted TTRPGs as dungeon crawlers.
Show me an interactive+social video game that captures the magic and terror of crawling around a dungeon with your friends and I'll suck your weiner
Oddly enough, Minecraft SMP is very good at feeling magical and being fricking terrifying.
>implying 5e is an evolution of the hobby and not a gross bastardization, casualization and a clear regression to the lowest common denominator i.e. moron normies who balk at doing 2nd grade math and reading more than a 100-word pamphlet
D&D has become inbred with itself. Current D&D is a bastardized, moronic version of 3.5, which was already drastically off-course from what original versions of D&D were supposed to be.
As for everything else, those are different games. Plain and simple. Games that are not trying to be D&D have no place being compared to D&D. Arneson and Gygax didn't make those games. They weren't trying to make those games. They weren't trying to make the game to end all games, a perfect engine of creativity to fuel the entire hobby forever and embody all aspects of proper and acceptable RPG play. They were making D&D. A somewhat campy, somewhat gritty fantasy RPG about going on dangerous adventures, fighting monsters, and getting loot, heavily inspired by the pulp stories that were popular during their youth.
That said, if Gygax or Arenson were alive today, telling us that we're not allowed to play games in ways that they don't approve, they could go frick themselves, because people are entitled to play with their groups in whatever ways they find most fun. They may not be allowed to call it proper or approved D&D, but who the frick cares? D&D has sucked for 20+ years anyways.
Oh hey I recognize your specific brand of autism from other posts on /tg/
Please keep doing the roleplaying *games* thing so we can ignore your inane opinions before reading your entire post
what if the dm does voices but doesnt force players to do it?
Watching someone prance and dance and make homosexual voice when he can just save everyones valuable time and not do that instead. gonna go with not prave and dance like a theater homosexual seeing fresh penis to suck
What if the dm does the voices but its in an entirely male old west setting where the only voices are tough cowboy and older more grizzled tough cowboy
Then you get the Brokeback Mountain trpg.
Your feeble attempts at proving your point and gradeschool insults are only working to prove him right.
did someone call you a vapid parody of humanity in gradeschool?
>"playing your character" is accomplished by making the choices they would make in a given situation within the constraints of those rules
You literally just described the basic mentality of method acting.
okay fattyboomboom, lose weight
Sam, calm ur breasts
Yes, and he's right.
>You don't need rules, that's sociopathic
>I'll play whatever game I want however I want
Gee anon you sure are good at cherrypicking! Maybe you should grow an orchard instead of playing TTRPGs!
This entire post comes off as bait but I hate to admit that you are right. People are playing a combat heavy game but only go through the combat as a cheap hack N slash arcade game while they want to focus heavily on the roleplay aspect while not only the rules don't support it but violence and raw numbers can get you through anything then actually trying to play things out, let alone how most people play as some quirky ha ha funny character. And the exploration... people just cast good berry and forget to get climbing gear and call it a day.
>You don't need rules for RP, and if you do you're such an antisocial, sociopathic, autistic moron
That's something an antisocial, sociopathic autistic moron will say. Even you and me talking right now has ground rules that have to be followed.
>homebrew and houserules are the true lifeblood of the hobby
Oh so you like to play broken systems, fix them yourselves then proclaim how the system isn't broken?
>People are playing a combat heavy game but only go through the combat as a cheap hack N slash arcade game while they want to focus heavily on the roleplay aspe
Whether they realize it or not, it's because D&D 5e's combat (and 3.5 by extension) is fricking awful and thoroughly unfun to play, largely because of morons like Mearls and Cook who think that rolling lots of dice is "exciting" and that putting purposefully bad character options in a game is "fun"
People try to make D&D into things it will never be because they are trying to work around the terrible things that D&D actually is: a mediocre, poorly designed game that carries a pop culture legacy which elevates it far beyond its actual quality.
>Even you and me talking right now has ground rules that have to be followed.
That's a false equivalence and you know it you disingenuous homosexual.
>Oh so you like to play broken systems, fix them yourselves then proclaim how the system isn't broken?
There is no system in existence that works RAW. That's the truth to the hobby. Every single system ever made has flaws.
>That's a false equivalence and you know it you disingenuous homosexual.
Not really. There are rules for talking in real life. Plus you are the one here that is being disingenuous this entire thread
>There is no system in existence that works RAW. That's the truth to the hobby. Every single system ever made has flaws.
Yes but there is a difference in doing some tune ups and just fixing core issues like a Bethesda game and saying its good when you and the fans did most of the work.
>Not really. There are rules for talking in real life. Plus you are the one here that is being disingenuous this entire thread
And which book did you get them from?
>And which book did you get them from?
If you mean for table top games I have been posting some this thread. And if you mean for real life there are real books out there that will help improve your speech skills and there are books about how to talk to people from other cultures as not to offend them. Then there is dealing with hostage situations and business deals. All sorts of rules to follow to get the best outcome.
No I mean which book you read that told you exactly how to reply to these messages. Surely you're not *gasp* doing something off script?
Yeah, you don't need rules for roleplay, but you're playing a role playing GAME, where the system, you know, is made of rules. So if you want to just roleplay, you can but don't pretend like it's part of the game, unless it's a game that supports it. I play/run games that actually support roleplaying.
Dialogue rules are fricking gay and drag out what would otherwise be organic social interactions.
Good thing nobody's talking about those Black person.
The idea that only Motivated method acting is roleplaying is a wrong idea but it's extremely common.
Or rather, I guess it's not really wrong if you're looking for that exact experience but in that case, why are you playing an RPG?
Even if you do want a substantive mechanically backed experience, I still see this idea that roleplay and combat (or whatever else) are exclusive domains that don't overlap much.
It's funny because not having rules for RP was one of the big things the anti-4e crowd threw at it.
If you have a decent party of people who want to play the roleplaying game then it isn't an issue. I find that a lot of people who get into the hobby would be happy playing a strictly bear game like 40k I've D&D.
This is a weird thread because you're right on the account of D&D shouldn't be used for anything that we call "roleplaying", but you're an absolute fricking braindead moron that should be drowned in bleach for your reasoning as to why.
The 3 pillars of D&D are just guidelines. They're like bumpers in bowling, optional guiderails you put up to focus the design/play of your campaign in such a way as to be at least somewhat satisfying to the average player.
Badwrongfun was always a fricking garage mentality born from salty neckbeards that are upset that not literally every single fricking second of every single D&D game they're even peripherally aware of is about either killing things, getting loot, or going places to kill things and get loot. The weirdo "thou shalt not" morono bullshit is how you end up with a modern tabletop landscape where a somewhat significant cultural hub in /tg/ has languished and rotted because everything even slightly against the grain is punished with crucifixion.
Playing the same game in different ways is really really really really really important. It's important so new GMs can get their feet wet and learn what does/doesn't work firsthand, It's important for generating new ideas for improving/adjusting existing games, It's important for generating ideas for new games, and it just generally keeps everyone interested in things because you cannot sustain an entire industry/hobby by rotating 1% different variations of the exact same thing over and over and over for 30+ fricking years.
D&D is shit and nobody should play any edition of it because it's all waffling convoluted ineffective garbage but you should be fricking tarred and feathered for being so confidently pants-on-head moronic in a public forum.
Frick you and die. You have the exact same underlying badwrongfun logic as OP and the freeform absolutist crowd is just as fricking cancerous as the goddamn turbovirgins trying to turn D&D into a walled garden.
>Uses the term "badwrongfun logic" as an insult
>Says that you shouldn't use D&D for any type of game ever
lol
Its not "nobody should play it" as in I'm shaming anyone for using it, but in the sense that I think its just a not a good product.
It's like seatbelts. I'm not going to bully anyone for not using them, but I will totally tell you that not using them is very dangerous.
Low self awareness is common among morons. Please understand.
Supreme Based
Not reading the rest of this shit thread
This is shit you'd only say if you hadn't experienced a system which actually has rules to support roleplay.
>70% of the rules are dedicated to combat
>Another 18% is dedicated to exploration
>The remaining 2% of the rules is dedicated to RP
70+18+2 = ???
Typo I meant 12%
>Gets his numbers off by a total of 10%
That's more than just a typo, anon. I think that's proof you have no fricking clue what you're talking about.
If all you want is combat just play a video game anon. It's in the title ROLE PLAYING game. That tells you everything you need to know. Otherwise they wouldve called it a COMBATSIMULATOR game
Read this and get back with me
Also literal gygax quote: "I can say that Jim has been the DM in a number of AD&D game sessions I have played, and his material was indeed high level, but the emphasis was more on exploration and action than on story.
You are correct, amateur theater is not popular with me, as I think that the story in a RPG campaign needs to be outlined by the DM, then "written" by him and the players' characters in interaction with the campaign environment, so that the events that take place are unknown until they have taken place."
Forgot pic. Mobilegayging
>You are correct, amateur theater is not popular with me, as I think that the story in a RPG campaign needs to be outlined by the DM, then "written" by him and the players' characters in interaction with the campaign environment, so that the events that take place are unknown until they have taken place.
So amateur theater? Because that's what /tg/ would call amateur theater, or storyshititng, or whatever dumb buzzwords are being used these days
Gygax and Co were vehemently opposed to the type of shit you see on popular d&d media like critical role or your average adventurer league table.
The voice acting and "my character wouldn't do that" type shit are disgustingly cringeworthy.
Gygax and co were also wargamers, first and foremost. They invented D&D out of a hobby primarily made up of history autists and train autists, who combined their autism for moving around tiny figurines and building scale terrtain dioramas to simulate historical battles.
That's my fricking point
You misunderstand. I'm saying what Gygax and Arneson want from D&D is not what other people should demand from their tables. None of this "Gygax wouldn't do voices!" or "Gygax wouldn't do any roleplay!" doesn't mean shit when everyone who has been playing newer editions of D&D have been playing a game that Gygax never touched and was written entirely by people who had no intention of playing a strict wargame.
Oh no, the mastermind behind quantum ogres and random encounter tables had a particular style of game he enjoyed.
>the "it's not a videogame" argument is unironically spouted in favor of 5e.
>when 5e is the most Diablo-on-paper edition of the game ever.
It's all over, the gates have turned to dust and we are now madmen surrounded by the insane.
Yeah it's weird, basically everyone plays 5e like a fricking MMO, but 4e was criticized for being too MMO like? I don't get it.
How is 5e more Diablo than 4e or the editions that had literal Diablo books?
>let's throw 4e in there because I don't know what the frick I'm talking about. Maybe ppl will just agree with me!
Casters can shoot beams of death at will.
Even more than in past editions, players are encouraged to keep throwing their characters at monsters until the monsters are dead. Monsters are only for killing and looting.
>tfw I mostly play an hyper niche game where I can gatekeep
Sucks to suck D&Drone.
>12% of the rules are for RP
Yeah what do you expect anon? Them to implement a turn system for having a conversation?
He's autistic, he wouldn't know when it's his turn to talk otherwise
Yes, because he's socially moronic and can't hold a natural conversation unless someone or something is holding his hand through the whole thing or he can rely solely on numbers.
That's what systems with "social combat" mechanics are, they're just TTRPGs for autismos.
Can someone give examples of good "role-playing rules"?
I actually enjoy Legend of the Five Ring's rules. It does a thing where social conversations are sort of a combat(They're resolved in many ways just like fighting except ignoring things like positioning and other stuff) but there's also major honor and social rules players have to follow to maintain standing among their peers while also providing roleplay issues because what your character personally wants isn't always exactly what society says you should do(you're in fact highly encouraged to create personal desires that conflict with your social duties).
Riddle of Steel also had a system where you got to add dice to your pool if you were acting for the good of one of your major desires/quests/etc. It's a system you can game, but if players work with it in good spirit, it can add some great tension to a scene where the holy knight gets massive benefits for actively defending a church, for example.
I think good roleplaying rules aren't necessarily roleplay conflict-resolution rules. I've never seen a game that did that in a satisfactory way. It always boils down to a contested roll or a roll against some kind of challenge rating, or several. There's a million different twists to it but that's what it ends up as.
Instead, I think that good roleplaying rules are the ones that incentivize a character to act certain ways. This is what those fluffy story games excel at, because they can generally just straight-up hand your character some kind of metacurrency for fulfilling your whatever-the-term-is. Passions, distinctions, milestones, whatever they're called, they're rules that reward characters for behaving certain ways DURING social encounters, or for engaging with them in the first place, rather than rules for resolving the encounter itself. The social encounters themselves may or may not have rules attached, but these kinds of roleplay-rules inform how each character behaves during them by providing a mechanical incentive. Some systems even go so far as to reward characters specifically when their <insert term here> causes a problem, which encourages players to play out character flaws.
D&D and simulationist games like it don't generally have those rules, and mostly just rely on the players to sort of theater-kid their character however much they feel like. The focus of these games has always been looting dungeons and fighting dragons. That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't roleplay during them, just that you're going to be doing all the heavy lifting: the system isn't going to help you out much, nor will it reward you mechanically except indirectly--e.g. you sweet talk the guard and he lets you into the dungeon or whatever. You talking to the guard wasn't the point, he was just a means to getting to the dungeon. Meanwhile, a story game might reward you directly based on your interaction with the guard, regardless of whether there's a dungeon.
Tpbp
no because different players are going to react differently to any rules, especially those that don't directly feed into a "raid kill level" cycle
here's the basic "dramatic hooks" write up from kult divinity lost. a lot of horror-themed games have something like this. it's an effective mechanical way to make the PCs do things that their players would avoid i.e. walk straight into danger or tell someone to frick off
1. You are not your character.
2. You are not your character.
3. This may come as a shock but you are not your character.
The only three rules you really need. It’s the root of all other problems.
I found this in the Mouseguard game which is based off of the Burning Wheel system (I think?)
The game has this currency called Fate tokens (or something) that you can deploy when you want to give yourself a big advantage in a critical moment. If you want to perform daring tricks and escape nasty situations, it's good to have a lot of these Fate tokens.
One way to get them is to choose to FAIL a skill check because of one of your character flaws. This encourages people to RP having a flawed character by mechanically rewarding them. I think that's neat.
>Them to implement a turn system for having a conversation?
You only play D&D do you?
Why do you need a score to track your reputation? Surely a GM would just be able to, you know, keep track of your reputation just by paying attention.
This is what people are talking about when they say social mechanics are for autists, unnecessarily itemizing something that doesn't need to be said in the first place.
You may as well post page on the rules behind constructing a sentence.
Having structure is what makes a game a game.
Arbitration handled by these types of mechanics is going to be better, more interesting and more satisfying than whatever your hack DM and friends come up with.
Go play a videogame then, the point of playing a game run by a game master is so you can go off the book in the first place. This isn't monopoly.
If you don't want to play a game with rules just say so, I won't hold it against you but what I would hold against you is acting like a know it all that doesn't know a single thing about game design and how game mechanics can set a certain tone and flavor of a game.
>flavor
>dude MUH FLAVOR !! ONG MUH FLAVOR!!
flavor isnt a fricking thing bro have a nice day. frick fluff and flavorgays. dare you to define "flavor"
Your missing my point. If I want to play a fantasy game there better be rules for magic. If I play a cyberpunk game there better be rules for hacking. If a game wants to promote role play and how you can talk things out then there better be at least some mention of it.
Your sort of homosexualy autism is what drives actual homogay homosexuals and trannies to invade this hobby just to spite people like you.
Flavor in the context of TTRPGs refers to the non-mechanical description of something. So long as the actual mechanics of the power, weapon, tool, or other option are unchanged, then reflavoring is just that -changing the non-mechanical description.
For example, calling your Halberd a Naginata in 5e is reflavoring. Calling your sling an Automatic Pistol in 5e is not reflavoring however, because there is a mechanical difference.
It's honestly the superior option to prevent a system from having bloat via a table of weapons 20 pages long where 90% of them are all just reskins.
>Surely a GM would just be able to, you know, keep track of your reputation just by paying attention
If there's no mechanical impact of having a good or bad reputation, then there's no point in tracking it. If there is a mechanical impact, like npcs being more helpful or people giving you gibs, then it should have a numerical value, otherwise it's just about the GM pulling shit out of his ass.
You don't need a rule that dictates that people will be more helpful toward you if you help them, that's just common sense.
If you stab an npc's wife in front of him but there's no rule that expressly says how he would react to it, what are you going to do? Just have him ignore it?
This isn't a videogame where you need to hardcode rp interactions to make sure shit doesn't fall through the cracks. You're supposed to use your intuition as a game master, that's why there's a game master role at all.
>You don't need a rule that dictates that people will be more helpful toward you if you help them
You do, because it's a game and therefore mechanical benefits must be quantified. Luckily this is something D&D has had since 40 years ago.
Why do mechanical benefits have to be quantified? Why can't a Game master determine the outcome of something completely on their own when that's the sole point of the role?
>Why can't a Game master determine the outcome of something completely on their own when that's the sole point of the role?
What are all these charts about swords and magic for then?
Dude if you're a Free Kriegspiel type that's fine, but most of us aren't and like rules. What you just said only applies to FK games.
The GM makes the rules. In every TTRPG. You can be a rules-lawyering metagaming min-maxing homosexual - or try - all you want, but the GM can shut you down with two letters: NO.
And if you don't like it, you can b***h and whine and moan and leave the table and he'll replace you with someone who isn't a homosexual.
I think you're gravely misunderstanding the points here.
A game requires rules. There's nothing wrong with that.
Nobody is talking about min-maxing or metagaming or whatever. We are talking about the structure of a game.
The structure of dungeons and dragons has ALWAYS been that of an exploration wargame. The rules in no way reward or facilitate improv-acting because that's not what the game was designed to do. It was a game written by wargamers for wargamers.
Gary advanced the style and tone of the game by penning the AD&D DMG and talking about facilitating a campaign world and making that world one which is believable (within the context of a middle to high fantasy setting) and also fun to explore.
He set out guidelines to prevent the power gamey bullshit you're talking about, while making it clear that the purpose of the game is to take on the role of adventurers who are exploring dangerous locations. The stories were meant to write themselves. The game is supposed to be a sandbox. The roleplay in roleplaying game was meant to be the players adopting the position of their character in a world that is meant to be combed through, by them, the people playing the game.
The whole idea of a meta-plot and improv acting and whatever else is BULLSHIT that was devised by Mormons in the 80s to sell dragon books.
It isn't how Dave ran blackmoor. It isn't how Gary or Rob or Mentzer or Cook or Holmes or ANY of the guys who founded this entire hobby ran or played games.
Nobody is suggesting player characters don't interact with NPCs or whatever, but those interactions are meant to serve as a segue into where the game excels, exploration and combat.
This could be true with 3e-5e, but I don't play those systems because they are hollow and corporate, however, as an owner of those books and a speaker of the English language, I'm fairly certain that's where those editions thrive as well.
The fundamental design philosophy doesn't seem to have changed much
Why's there a book then?
>Why do mechanical benefits have to be quantified
Because they're mechanics and not feefees. It's the line that differentiates playing a game from literally just playing pretend.
You do realize the point of a ROLE playing game is to play pretend that you are a character, as in, to play a certain role
>You do realize the point of a ROLE playing game is to play pretend that you are a character
False
The point of a roleplaying game is to explore dungeons, manage encumbrance, and bring gold back to civilization for XP in order to level up
That's your role
Wrong, you're role is the role of your character, everything you just described is gameplay
It's more streamlined, like a video game.
>The point of a roleplaying game is to explore dungeons, manage encumbrance, and bring gold back to civilization for XP in order to level up
you know there are plenty of games that are literally just dice rolling with fantasy dressing, right?
you don't have to play "role playing games" but without the role playing. you're buying a sandwich when you only want bread
This implies that cringe improv is the "meat" which necessarily implies it is good and also substantive, when in reality it is time wasting cancer.
I wanna be a fantasy hero who gets rich by killing shit.
I don't wanna be some cum guzzling purple skinned edgy batman demi-girl bard-lock with an Irish accent
I want to be conan or aragorn, maybe Legolas if I'm feeling particularly homosexual.
>I want to be conan or aragorn, maybe Legolas if I'm feeling particularly homosexual.
You know why those men are based, right? It's not because they kill shit, but because they stay fricking immaculately handsome doing it--after the most badass speech check (roleplay) of all time.
Oh, yeah I'd call the wargame and killing part the meat too, but uh, DnD is mostly teethcracking gristle in that regard, and it's bread, roleplay, is British loaf.
>This implies that cringe improv is the "meat"
not what i meant at all. call it the lettuce if you must
>when in reality it is time wasting cancer.
again, you can just play gloomhaven or some shit if you want to skip all this "gay cringe" narrative and characterization. frick, there's even lord of the rings versions of that so you can skip right to self-inserting as orlando bloom
>tfw no cum guzzling purple skinned edgy batman demi-girl bard-lock with an Irish accent gf (male)
Again, you sound like you only played D&D.
The funny thing is 5e literally has a section that is exactly what you just posted.
>where the system, you know, is made of rules
Yes, and as the GM I can change the rules to be whatever I want. If I want to run 5e and gut all the classes and remake them into whatever I think works better, then I can do that. If I want to let non-casters craft magic items if they have the appropriate training/proficiency/whatever with the right tools for the task, then I can. There are still rules, but they aren't the rules that are in the handbook.
You don't need an autistic set of rules to RP, that's the part of the game that should have the least amount of crunch in ANY system. The most crunchy part of any system should be combat, because it's the most technical bit with the most moving parts and need for clarity. It's why shit like BESM is steaming dogshit, it fails to quantify any of the aspects regarding combat in any meaningful way; things like distance are just like "lol do whatever you think makes sense".
>There are rules for talking in real life.
Laws =/= Rules, and ideally there should be no laws against saying whatever the frick you want. Free speech is a human right and frick anyone who says otherwise.
>Yes but there is a difference in doing some tune ups and just fixing core issues
There is no difference. Every system will always have one thing at minimum that sucks shit and you have to gut and replace wholesale.
D&Drone detected.
D&D is just the most commonly played system on the board. It's an easy point of comparison. If I started going on about the games I ran or played you'd be confused because you've never touched anything that isn't D&D, a clone of D&D, or a garbage generic system like FATE or GURPS.
I just wrapped up the only 5e game I run sunday. I run 4 other game systems (Pokerole, and three homebrew systems, neither of them are d20 or related to D&D in any way, shape or form. One of them is actually close to Exalted, and the others are d10 systems).
You know Exalted has rules for RP right? Ones that are actually fairly decent, at least in concept, right? Almost like these rules can enhance the experience. And that having rules for character interaction makes things easier for the GM. Black person.
>Ones that are actually fairly decent, at least in concept, right?
You're lying through your teeth. Those are worst rules of the game
>The funny thing is 5e literally has a section that is exactly what you just posted.
if there is nobody ever uses it and I have been posting a lot more social examples than that one AND for D&D 5E it will just be advantage and disadvantage, where one will cancel out the other for a flat roll and that is the end of that
>Laws =/= Rules
I never said that or implied that.
>There is no difference in a small tune up for a weapon VS a overhaul of a core mechanic
And you say I am the disingenuous one. You must be real fun at game night.
>it will just be advantage and disadvantage
It's a whole table that describes 3 tiers of NPC attitude with a wide array of values as well as how players can shift the attitude of an NPC by roleplaying well (making good arguments and the like) to get better results from the DC of the check.
>I never said that or implied that.
They're the only ones that matter.
>You must be real fun at game night.
Yeah, because I'm willing to gut a system to make it more fun for my players. It's why I mostly run my own homebrew systems at this point. My players love them so much they straight-up volunteer to run them for me. More than I can say about you, nogames.
NTA, but...
What makes the reward significant or not?
What defines the risk of harm as low or high?
Do the rules explicitly define "obviously lethal?"
Outgunned?
Unless all of these conditions are precisely determined by the rules, then the gm must use his common sense. Which he could have used in the first place to know it'd be harder or easier for someone to obey you under these conditions.
Yes, its the umpires job, referee or DM to make calls on what is acceptable or not in sports and can possibly make a bad call. These have existed in games and in sports since forever. Just because somebody has to make a call doesn't mean those rules shouldn't exist, and when they do make a call then that rules is official in that group.
Now you are just seething and wasting my time.
If you find joy in doing complete system overhauls and still wanting to say its the same system you do you.
>Now you are just seething and wasting my time.
Which manual did you get that line from? Did you have to roll your d6 to determine what phrase you were going use? How did our relationship score factor into it?
>is wrong and moronic
>gets called out for being wrong and moronic
>n-no YOU'RE t-the one who's seething!
You must be acoustic
>needing rules for RP
RP is at the foundation of all tabletop games. It's in the fricking name, "roleplaying game". It's not called autistic turn based combat simulator. It's a roleplaying game, where you play roles.
Rules only hinder RP. Anyone with the slightest bit of social intelligence can RP without a fricking rulebook. The reason why there are three pillars is to remind autismos like you what the ideal tabletop experience is like-- not heavily weighted towards any one pillar.
If you think playing a role = improv acting, you're the moron here.
You're talking about storygames, and I think about metacurrencies are like a cop out. Now they're not invalid, sure, but they're story games, and you're playing the role more like a director than getting into the role as the character.
There ARE games that incentive characters to act a certain way but D&D isn't one of them, because it has the trappings of a simulationist game but it's fricking dogshit at it, it's simulation isn't representing the fiction.
> mostly just rely on the players to sort of theater-kid their character however much they feel like
Yeah, I agree, see above. But you're basically saying that the only simulationist type games you've played are D&D or D&D derivatives.
> Rules only hinder combat. Anyone with the slightest bit of physical intelligence can describe a fight without a fricking rule book.
D&d is supposed to be two parts freeform roleplay, one part game - but in practice it’s more like half game, and that game is all focused around combat. So, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.
>Anyone with the slightest bit of physical intelligence can describe a fight without a fricking rule book.
Except they can't? The ability to abstract combat into a turn based system is not something everyone can do, much more do convincingly. Not to mention there's the issue of having established rules before playing. If it were easy, then game design wouldn't be as hard as it is.
Proper RP doesn't have game mechanics by the way. Literally all it takes is knowing how to hold a conversation and get in character. No set of rules will ever be able to govern RP interactions for the same reason you can't follow a manual to talk to someone, autismo.
I fundamentally agree with your thesis: People are trying to make D&D do things it either does very poorly or is not meant to support. However, I'd also argue that in spite of D&D having such a large portion of its written material dedicated to how to fight, things to fight, and ways to fight them, it still does all of those things poorly. Yes, D&D is a dungeon crawling, skirmish wargame, but it is not a GOOD one, and many of its attempts to improve its combat have led to the game becoming worse and less playable.
The most streamline edition yet and people are still having single encounters that take 2-3 hours to resolve, and that's because WotC is trying to sell you a card game without cards, where the mechanics are atomized across entire books and you are expected to recall or look up those rules constantly, over and over throughout every session. And memorizing them isn't truly that hard, but at the same time, why the frick should the game be so clunky and counterintuitive that you are required to commit dozens of pages of content to memory just to play such a clunky, poorly designed game with any sort of ease?
Guess what dude games evolve. Gygax was a wargamer so of course he had that mindset but that wasnt the true appeal of the game. It actually never was. BECOMING the character is the biggest draw to dnd. Outside of rpgs there aren't any other games where you are embodying the character rather than just pushing a game piece around on a baord
Okay, so play a game where the draw and purpose is to become the character or whatever
Leave D&D alone.
You're moronic thats what dnd is for most people now. Its roleplaying. Halfway between larp and wargaming. If you want a wargame play 40k dude.
If you're a dm then just tell your players there will be no roleplaying at your table, you're allowed to have a different dm style. Otherwise stfu
Most people aren't playing D&D
They are giving wizards of the cucks lots of money and making silly voices and calling it D&D.
You don't get to decide what D&D is or isnt for other people. Unless you're Gary Gygax himself or the Ceo of Hasbro you have no say and your opinion is worthless
>be me
>read the players handbook and DMG cover to cover
>have a full understanding of what D&D is
>recognize other people either have not read those books or don't care about the contents within
>point this irrefutable fact out
>get told D&D is a social construct despite the game having tangible rules anybody can access
>hasthagNoTruDND.jpeg
Gatekeep the gatekeepers
You know it says in the books that you're supposed ro adjust the rules right.
Irrelevant. Who cares if you turn it into something different? The ship of theseus is still a ship even after all parts are replaced.
The point's are:
>you've now spent money (probably?) on a product
>A different product could have been easier to work with and retool, or have needed much less retooling for your needs
>You also could have just made-your-own-system-tm
The implication is that DnD needs A LOT of rules changes to work in ways people want to use it, we're not talking tiny homebrews.
A reasonable homebrew is changing 5e's opportunity attack rules to allow for grappling in place of the attack. A Big homebrew that makes no sense is trying to make it work for Cyberpunk settings, because why not just use a fricking Cyberpunk system?
And while I agree with your principles, that's not quite the spirit of the discussion; how many rules must one change to make the game they want? At what point does this game even resemble the system you purchased, and if one feels they must adjust so many rules, was it worth the purchase in the first place? Inb4 "helps as a foundation", other games could have provided better foundation for one's chimerastein of a game, and I am all for chimerasteins, but if DnD 5e is the opposite of what you want, why not use something else as a base and make it easier for yourself?
And let's not forget that people don't have time to make their own system form scratch, HELL THEY WONT EVEN HAVE TIME TO READ THIS POST! And those who like roleplay over rollplay are going to take less interest in the depth of the rules, and therefore are more dependant on the rules to guide them.
the bigsmart play is to have many system rules and make a new one with ideas from them all.
>Purchasing
Hey now, just because I play some 5e doesn't mean I'd do something as reprehensible as giving money to californians.
if a 5e player can repent for the sin of being a 5e player, it's by not giving money to californians. good man.
Legally, it is probably the same, though laws differ by area. Otherwise, it doesn't matter unless you have an autistic fixation with labels. If the ability to change the rules is written in the rules, then you, as the person who wishes to ignore this, are the person who has failed to comprehend them.
Being called a gatekeeper implies that you keep people out of the community. When you behave this way, though, you put yourself at odds with it. Better terms for you include, outcast, outsider, and reject.
>irrefutable fact
it's too late, you're fully committed to this whole "I'm a moron" thing. better bail and let the thread die.
>Okay, so play a game where the draw and purpose is to become the character or whatever
Yeah like D&D5e
On the other hand if you want a tactical wargame, play D&D4E
If you want high fantasy adventure, play AD&D2E
If you want dungeon-mapping-crawling-looting adventures, play Basic
No one should ever have to play the burning trash pile of autism and shit design that is 3/3.5 though
D&D allows me to roleplay, so I'll use it to roleplay as much as possible. I don't care about the rules or you.
That literally doesn't make sense.
>people who play RPGs play D&D
>no other RPGs are played at all in my area
>to get roleplay, use D&D group
seems simple to me
This probably isn't the hobby for you, then. Stick to crossword puzzles or something. Something less open-ended that you can comprehend.
>D&D allows me to roleplay
So does just about every other table top ROLEPLAYING game out there and they do it better.
>I don't care about the rules or you.
Spoken like a true D&D player.
Ooh, I like this arbitrary definition system, especially since the fifth edition dungeon master's guide is legitimately one of the worst trpg-related pieces of media ever printed. For the sake of supporting this argument, here's some other ways you're playing the game wrong!
For the sake of our math, I'm only counting 278 pages out of the DMG's total 320, since 42 of those pages are devoted to the table of contents, appendices, glossary, and introduction. So, HERE'S how anon says you should be playing your game:
~11% of your game should be devoted to worldbuilding
~9% of your game should be devoted to the existence of the Forgotten Realms's multiverse
~9% should be devoted to creating the adventure
~8% should be devoted to the setting of your game
~2% should be devoted to your games downtime
~38% of your game should be devoted to treasure (mostly magical items)
~9% of your game should be devoted to actually running the game
of this 9%:
>6% is devoted to the rules
>24% is rolling dice
>8% is devoted to exploration (mostly art)
>8% is devoted to roleplaying
>2% is devoted to objects (mostly breaking them)
>20% is devoted to combat
>10% is devoted to chases
>4% is devoted to siege weapons
>4% is devoted to diseases
>6% is devoted to poisons
>4% is devoted to madness
>4% is devoted to giving out experience points
well that's rather interesting, actually
anyway, back to the topic of your game at large (not just the stupid parts were people play)
9% is devoted to homebrew
and finally, 5% of your game should be devoted to art
at the end of the day, the 5e dmg is actually /tg/'s perfect book: it's barely about playing any fricking games at all.
I don't play 5e or participate in the 5e community for this very reason.
The best modern approximation of what D&D is supposed to be can only be found in the OSR, primary sources from the 70s and 80s or simulation games like torchbearer
I know you are trying to be a fricking smart ass but this is fairly accurate with how most of my D&D games go.
The treasure section should be mostly made up of shopping and inventory management instead of magic items, but otherwise yeah.
>24% is rolling dice
Still lower than WoD.
As a newbie who's only ever played 5e D&D and 5E Shadowrun, whats wrong with the gamemaster and other elements? the big issue I find with D5E is the lack of customization options for your character and on a mechanical level alot of characters en2ydddd up being samey
>check my homebrew
>0% role-playing rules/mechanics
Seriously, what are you people even talking about? I wanna know so I can implement some. Unless you just mean giving brownie points for players that let their characters "bee themselves" instead of metagaming.
For me roleplaying rules is how NPC's will react to you depending on your race, class ect and how that will affect the outcome or roll, what kind of clothes or how dirty it is and how people perceive you, how famous you are and other general social notes. Some games have it where you can earn bonus XP if you live up to a prophecy or being friends with an NPC will give you bonuses to talking to them.
>For me roleplaying rules is how NPC's will react to you depending on your race, class ect and how that will affect the outcome or roll
Like charisma modifiers to reaction rolls
>Well from a design perspective, it means more than half of the game should be dedicated to combat and abilities
By your own logic it literally just means that roleplay is less regulated, moron. There is no argument in your post for or against how much time or effort should be dedicated to one "pillar" or another.
K
imagine thinking d&d is a competent wargame
I know this is bait. But everything OP said is technically correct.
Not even remotely. In what world does complexity of rules indicate amount of time you’re “meant” to spend on something? It only indicates complexity of that one particular function.
Is it really surprising that it developed this way though? If all you want is a relatively straightforward dungeon/hexcrawler vidya has been doing it better for decades at this point. For better or worse TTRPGs, including D&D, have been evolving (both mechanically and in terms of what people actually do with them) to lean into the advantages over computer games they do have, most of which come down to "storyshitting." Expect to see more of it, until people just give up on it because running it is too much work for not enough return (as I did) or projects like AI dungeon get functional enough to replace the GM entirely, at which point /tg/ people will probably go back to old school boardgames and nu-D&D will be a niche historical curiosity just like OSR material is now.
Back in my day you'd lose all of your levels for acting outside of your alignment.
Including in combat.
But you got into the game through 3.5 so you don't know what D&D actually is anyway.
I started with B/X. I got the red box set in '83 for my 11th birthday and 'graduated' to AD&D in '85.
This post is critiquing 5aggots
I still play AD&D to this day, as well as a continuing Castles and Crusades game with my son, his wife and their sons.
I played -one- session of 3.5 and despised it.
I've played and run plenty of 5e, but felt like I needed to gut the game and gave up on it after I realized how much the player base made me cringe.
>D&D is mostly about combat
Okay, is that combat meant to be shit?
Yes, that's the flavour of D&D.
Obvious bait but I haven't seen this one before so here's your (you).
RP doesnt need rules moron. Your inference that mechanic complexity should linearly translate into % of gameplay is the most mouth breather thing I've ever read on Ganker. I'm amazed it's on a blue background.
Didn't read, I'm having fun, so are my friends.
I have no clue if I agree with you or not, but that doesn't matter
I enjoy story but I hate that even the more dedicated people in the hobby will care almost nothing for the rules. Keeping track of my character's encumbrance, movement, rest, food contributes to the feel of the game a lot but you can only find it in OSR.
And I believe that OSR is fun but everyone runs it super fricking dry. I think OSR has become a refuge for bad DMs who try to cope with the fact that they can't actually set up an interesting scenario with muh old school. They read a module in front of the players and that's it.
Im going to be running a 5th edition (help) and I plan on house ruling a bunch of old stuff from men & magic and chainmail into game. Also digging into some 1st/2nd edition stuff to also houserule in. mechanics are fun. conversion is annoying for some stuff but having a buch of pre 3rd edition to go thru reminds me just how much stuff has been taken from us.
god damn I love me some spacejammer
why don't you just run OSE advanced or something like that?
Not that anon but because OSE advanced has exactly 0% of the cruftiness that makes those old books so appealing. No mass battle rules in oldschool essentials either unless they cloned the becmi ones which were shit. Advanced Labyrinth Lord is a little more faithful considering how botched the OSE Advanced ones are but also has none of the crufty shit like the 1e DMG has.
Houseruling in OD&D/AD&D stuff sounds like way too much work and would probably turn players accustomed to the newer systems off. Like sure, removing Skills and Feats is a great idea honestly, but they probably won't like it. Changing Saves back to how they used with the same values they were back in the day to be would make more sense, but they definitely wouldn't like it. You could have some fun inserting the optional weapon speed rules or changing Monk back into their OD&D or AD&D form, but there'd probably be a ton of resistance. Actually on that note what ARE you going to bring in from 1e/2e?
>Changing Saves back to how they used with the same values they were back in the day to be would make more sense, but they definitely wouldn't like it.
How the frick are saves against
>Death Ray or Poison
>Magic Wands
>Paralysis or Turn to Stone
>Dragon Breath
>Rods, Staves, or Spells
more intuitive than Fort/Ref/Will or saving throws using your six attributes
Fortitude being a sole measure of Constitution, utilizing your Reflexes to minimize damage being a sole measure of Dexterity, and Will being a sole measure of Wisdom instead of Charisma being a factor (force of personality, turn undead using Charisma, Paladins were the class with the most drive written in and required a 17 Charisma, etc.) doesn't really make much sense. Now you'd think individual stat saves would be better, but now you're running into an issue where you get proficiency with 2 saves and those are the only ones that scale. So the Nimble Fighter they want to make available, the same Fighter who they allow you to use Dexterity instead of Strength to meet the requirements for, the same Fighter who is given multiple Fighting Styles that aren't just brute strength or taking punishment never actually improves his ability to utilize Dexterity to succeed a Saving Throw. Again, kinda strange.
This is as opposed to the old table we listed, which covered most scenarios you saved for, had an order of priority, and were valued based almost entirely on what Class you were and what levels you had in that Class. Being constructed this way also made it an implicit penalty to multiclassing.
Ah, the days when class mattered. I miss them so. Now if every class can’t do at least 1d8 damage per round, people shit their pants.
Just play Castles and Crusades. It's the perfect blending point between streamlined modern stuff and the good old stuff
Yeah. There's a lot of fun to be had with managing your equipment, health, food and all that while also roleplaying. I might be pretty lazy but I'd love to try and run such a game someday.
I've ran many a game in OD&D but in a not 100% OSR style. Works fine, it is super fun, you just gotta be good at make interesting quest scenarios and npcs. Not having autistic players also helps.
Most of my players are fine, but the bookkeeping is pretty hard for me.
My notes are usually very scattered and chaotic because I never truly needed them in school, instead remembering things based on hearing them, so I never learned how to make good notes that make sense.
I should try and work on that before I start my next campaign.
>You've been playing D&D wrong
But I never played DnD in the first place
You know what else D&D doesn't teach you? Math. English.
Also everyone and I do mean EVERYONE already knows how to play make believe. You don't need rules for it.
So that's why the books don't go over it, not because D&D isn't about roleplaying but because everyone already knows how to play pretend.
It would not be so bad if the Wargame part was anywhere close to good.
> DnD 3.5
The 70% of the rules got the game to break by lvl 6 without even trying.
> DnD 4th
The 70% of the rules got the game degrade into HP bloat piñatas and Daily Power Bukkakkes.
> D&D 5
I will admit I have not a lot of experience with DnD 5, but 70% of the rules still produced Save-or-Sucks with no alternative and no luck stat, and Wizard still offering class fixes because of how useless Ranger is... and I presume Monk as well.
>the book didn't tell me to use my imagination so I guess I don't need it
you're the exact kind of spoonfed moron dumbing down the hobby for the rest of us. can't you get bored and take your parasitism to another fad hobby already?
> Well from a design perspective, it means more than half of the game should be dedicated to combat and abilities, nearly a quarter of the game should be interactive exploration and the smallest tiniest percentage of your time should be dedicated to playing the role of your character.
Totally wrong. The reason why 70% of the books are devoted to combat, combat abilities and raw numbers is because that’s the easiest thing to create and make supplements for. That’s the easiest thing to codify. You’ll notice very few guidelines, if any, on how to create your own abilities for your own games. Also, non combat abilities don’t need to be codified so much. Skill name + bonus vs difficulty or opposed roll. And roleplaying mechanics lead to the opposite of roleplaying. Dingus.
You sound like someone who came into the hobby in 2010.
Go read B/X, and go read about how people used to play the game. Because B/X was so rules lite, tables homebrewed all sorts of stuff. The only reason we have these 3-volume basic rule tomes for every edition is because of AD&D, and Gygax wrote such thorough rules because tournament play was such a huge thing then and gameplay needed to be adjudicated fairly down to the smallest detail. Now that people don’t play in tournaments anymore, we don’t need these $150 sets of utter garbage.
>makes thread with nothing but a screenshot of some lame Twitter bimbo posting shit takes
>"muh clearpilled"
>it gets removed as it should
>hides the same bs in a wall of text
>jannies don't do shit
kys Julio
Stop making players sit through your shit fanfiction with 200000 hours of pre-planned dialouge and world building. Go make an Ao3 account and write your little heart out.
Stop making your dm/gm and fellow players sit through your 10000 hour dialouge backstory. If I wanted to listen to an audio book of every edgy fanfiction ever I could easy find that on Amazon or YouTube. I came here to roll dice and kill monsters, shut the frick up and play the game.
The best characters and stories in D&D are the ones we meet along the way ^-^
collaborative writing is fun
D&D is not writing
how about i just fricking kill you how about that
No I do not consent. X card X card
this might be the dumbest thread on the whole website right now.
children larping as grognards, disingenuously arguing with people over problems they made up in their heads.
honestly I'd take goblin coomb8 threads over this kind of low-effort shit-flinging.
I smell a troll post. Go get him, guys!
That's because you're a nogames degenerate. By all means, please go to a wanker thread. While you're at it, get into autoerotic asphyxiation, and thus grant us a reasonable possibility that we might be spared of your moronation forever.
true
I played DnD prior to 2011.
It was shit then too.
Everything beyond B/X is shit.
AD&D: Let’s sperg over minute details of everything.
2e: Ha ha, went a bit too far there. How about we try an awkward balancing act between wargaming and roleplaying
3e: I don’t remember this one too well but they came out with 3.5 2 seconds after they released it so it must have been shit
3.5: Build an optimal character! Plan everything out before the campaign starts! Frick roleplaying, I’ve got feats to manage!
4e: Nerds like WoW, right? Let’s make it WoW. Oh shit, the vital online component that we were planning this around has tanked because the one guy in charge of it murdercided himself.
5e: An okay system before you factor in all the bloaty supplements. It’s the player base that’s shitty. And they make the games shitty, so you can’t play a non-shitty game of 5e.
5e: A Marvel Supers game set in fairytale land
I started with 3.5, so it's got some nostalgia fuel for me, but it was still a shitty game.
I've tried some of the older stuff, but they were worse to me. A weird mix of rules lite and rules heavy.
Yeah. I started with 2e and it has the nostalgia factor too but looking back over the rules I don’t feel so warm and fuzzy about it now.
There are lots of dnd clones of every edition. Pathfinder is the famous one for 3.5, but there are lots for every edition and they can be lots of fun. Hackmaster is one for adnd I've always wanted to play.
For sure. I’m partial to Lion & Dragon but it’s difficult to find TTRPGers who can handle low fantasy.
So to all the people saying something along the lines of "what kind of idiot needs a rulebook to tell them how to roleplay?" Well id like to ask why pay 30 bucks a book (if im being generous, ive seen some places sell them for up to 60) for a role-playing game that you dont need for role-playing? Remember, you need 3 books, so someone in the group needs to pay near 100 bucks to play. Especially when there are literally thousands of alternatives, and hundreds of them are free?
A week ago i bought an entirely new system for 20 dollars. Everything needed besides dices, 20 bucks, and it does have rules for rp. Not telling me how to rp, but my character has abilities that aid in rp situations despite being a fighter.
You pay for the high end core rule book sets so that you can prove you’re in the club and are qualified to run a roleplaying game. I’m being sarcastic. There is no really good reason to pay for them.
What system did you get?
Roots, saw a system with cute animals in the game store and wife had to have it. It actually looks like a lot of fun, plays a bit like a "powered by the apocalypse" games if you have heard of them but apparently isnt affiliated with them? Its also based on a risk clone board game.
>sounds familiar
oh snap, is there a ROOT RPG now?
I want to be a dashing trash panda rogue who gets constantly run out of mouse villages for seducing the villager's wives
BTW ROOT is great for getting your dad who plays nothing but old Parker Brothers games to try something new.
>root art
>PBTA
I threw up in my mouth a little.
Bet root is a good game
We're arguing over the inteinsic quality of systems, not a quality to cost ratio. The quality to cost ratio for all systems is infinity, unless you're a moron
Intrinsic, rather
I mainly play for the combat, the roleplaying is secondary.
namegay namehomosexualry checks out
get drunk and play in traffic OP
You are the reason abortions should be legal
>D&D has always been a multi-player wargame about killing monsters and getting rich.
Duh?
My friends and I just play my grandpas old copies of men and magic/chainmail and we just house rule some of the newer rules we like from newer editions so it flows. conversions from new to old can be annoying tho.
It's been a while since I saw an OP so confident get btfo so hard.
>RP, what's that?
I have the feeling Gygax would slap you if he could. Sure it started as just a mod for chainmail, but quickly grew to include roleplaying, even buy the guy who invented it. Said person was also a writer and even co-produced that old D&D cartoon series. Hell early on Gygax would receive personal calls over questions about how the game was "supposed" to be played and his general response was "what ever you find fun".
>tfw you've never read anything gygax wrote
Gygax wrote that manual to facilitate tournament play. In his personal games he didn’t play the AD&D that he wrote.
you sat in on the sessions and were there to know how he played? or you've watched the footage of all his sessions he recorded and have crucial experience in his playstyle thru that?
admit it anon you dont know what he did because you werent there and thus are making up head cannon to support your narrative.
Funny thing, people who played with him tell stories about what it was like. I know, super weird. But it happened. I guess people don’t talk to you, or else you’d be able to understand how humans pass along information.
This is a bait thread but in old-school stuff like Age of Worms isn't there unironically less of a focus on RP and more of a focus on dungeon crawling?
Based, most of the combat should also be spell based.
They made this game, it was called 4e and 13th age
aside from Pathfinder 1e are there any other games out there with adventure / modules that are easily converted to 3.5 d20 system?
This is unironically one of the single worst threads I've ever had the misfortune of witnessing on /tg/ and I sincerely wish for horrible things to happen to every single person involved in it.
Cope harder newbie
Wow at this thread
yeah everyone got baited hard
>Wow
But this isn't a 4E thread
5e was the real 4e all along
>defining standards by 5E rulebook.
Idiot
hold the phone, pal. You're missing the point. The purpose of having more combat rules than anything else is just because it's the crunchiest phase of play. Your logic about how the most time should be spent in combat because of mechanical density is flawed, at best.
It would only work if every rule is used with the same frequency, like people are taking the dash action just as often as grappling. The reason there are so many rules is because people want to RP IN combat, sure if I want to play a charming cutpurse I can just take fighter with the criminal background and get whichever proficiencies, or I can revolve my crunch around my fluff.
ITT: seething autists angry they cannot force others to play the way they want
really honoring gaygag's legacy after all i must say.
Man, all that discussion over D&D. Imagine if it was good.
Oh god it’s the return of the Forgeites.
Go frick off and die, nobody likes your shitty theories.
Are you trying to revive the cringey "nu-fun" meme?