There are a lot of things nerds have an elitist superiority complex about when they are actually inferior. This is what this topic is about.
>3.X is the most awful edition of DnD the fact that anyone would think this imbalanced tedious RP-lite mess is good is stupid
>AoS is closer to what Warhammer both 40k and Fantasy were in their prime; WHFB was a pathetic watered down wargame at least AoS is bringing back what made Warhammer in general interesting and unique from wargames who had at that point lost popularity post 70s; the people who hate on AoS are the ones who have shit taste wanting their shitty so called "wargame" back and don't know jack shit about Warhammer and wargaming
>Shadowrun is a shitshow and the worst cyberpunk system out there. It still relies on dumb cliches which even WoD has moved on from and also suffers from DnD 3.X's too many rules leading to not actually having enough roleplay options
>nWoD is better than oWoD; the fuckboys that hate on nWoD cuz it doesn't have shitty oWoD metafluff are not creative enough to be in this hobby and should do something else
>>44249601
>3.X is the most awful edition of DnD the fact that anyone would think this imbalanced tedious RP-lite mess is good is stupid
Agreed
>AoS is closer to what Warhammer both 40k and Fantasy were in their prime; WHFB was a pathetic watered down wargame at least AoS is bringing back what made Warhammer in general interesting and unique from wargames who had at that point lost popularity post 70s; the people who hate on AoS are the ones who have shit taste wanting their shitty so called "wargame" back and don't know jack shit about Warhammer and wargaming
Nice meme, but agreed-ish
>nWoD is better than oWoD; the fuckboys that hate on nWoD cuz it doesn't have shitty oWoD metafluff are not creative enough to be in this hobby and should do something else
Never played either and don't know a damn thing about it
>Shadowrun is a shitshow and the worst cyberpunk system out there. It still relies on dumb cliches which even WoD has moved on from and also suffers from DnD 3.X's too many rules leading to not actually having enough roleplay options
Only point I don't really agree on. Every cyberpunk system out there sucks, desu, Shadowrun is just the least bad of the bunch. And I'd say there's still plenty of roleplay options. Hell, no one says GURPS lacks for roleplay options and it's the definition of rules.
>>44249601
First point is true.
Second point is... iffy. Regardless of how WHFB used to be, AoS is pretty much a shit show in many factors. I mean, by 8th WHFB was pretty bad too, so it wasn't much of a drop.
Third point is correct.
Fourth point is also correct, for the most part.
I award you 7/10, good effort.
>>44249601
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
>Fate Core is a perfectly functional, unobtrusive universal ruleset that works incredibly well for cinematic games and groups that don't like crunch.
>Trail of Cthulhu is better than Call of Cthulhu in every single way, but nostalgia makes grognards call it shit.
>Powered by the Apocalypse is a great system.
>"SJW pandering" is good for thr hobby because it helps players into the hobby who never eould've felt welcome before. New players mean new ideas, which leads to a healthier tabletop community.
>nWoD (now CofD) is better than oWoD.
>"Truth"
Time for a bunch of hot opinions.
>>44249993
>"SJW pandering" is good for thr hobby because it helps players into the hobby who never eould've felt welcome before. New players mean new ideas, which leads to a healthier tabletop community.
Oh, you just made all of /tg/ mad.But you're right on all counts. Never could get into Fate, but I acknowledge its quality.
>>44249601
You're totally right. Anyone who believes those things you listed has a total superiority complex about their opinions when in fact they are inferior. Glad someone out there can see straight.
>>44249993
Part of the 'problem' with Fate is that it only truly works when everyone has a very strong idea of how the game concept works in a narrative sense. Everybody has to be familiar with the beats and rhythms of how that sort of story plays out.
I've played Fate three times: once was a near-future sci-fi setting the group made up, partly as we went, and that was a train wreck.
The second was based on the 1990s X-Men cartoon, and that was pretty fun.
The third was a Star Wars campaign, and that was amazing. Everybody involved has a great familiarity with how a Star Wars story is put together, so everybody knows how to spin things off of every development in a way which feels very genuine.
If you're playing a game in a preexisting setting that everybody enjoys and has a firm grasp on, Fate is damn good. It's tricky with things outside of that.
>>44249993
>"SJW pandering" is good for thr hobby because it helps players into the hobby who never eould've felt welcome before.
Does it bollocks.
All the pandering does is let them jerk off about their own perceived moral superiority by telling the people who actually have any investment in the hobby shit they already knew a decade ago. And as for drawing new people in?
>we need a publisher to directly tell us that we're allowed to be imaginative for us to feel like we're welcome
That's what they're bringing in. People who need to be told that yes, they are allowed to use their imaginations. And if you need to be told that, then did you really have an imagination to begin with?
>>44249601
>3.X is the most awful edition of DnD the fact that anyone would think this imbalanced tedious RP-lite mess is good is stupid
>imbalanced tedious RP-lite mess is good is stupid
>RP-lite mess
You wat m8? See I was going to give this thread a fair chance, but now looking at this, it looks like a troll thread of the highest caliber.
>>44249993
> FATE
> perfectly functional
Shit functions fine. The question is whether it's good, and FATE's cool ideas get muddled by a shittily organized 200 page book. The only interesting ideas it has are the skill pyramid (which can be replicated with pyrimidal costs) and Aspects, which are a neat idea. The FATE point economy is fucking retarded, however.
>>44249993
>>"SJW pandering" is good for thr hobby because it helps players into the hobby who never eould've felt welcome before. New players mean new ideas, which leads to a healthier tabletop community.
New players =/= new ideas, it just means new players who dilute the identity of RPGs. Yes, there are a few good ideas in there, but those people are generally driven by actual passion for the hobby instead of retarded shit.
And explain one good "pandering" thing that has helped the hobby? RPGs are pretty much the most welcoming hobby on the planet if you don't play with spergs. All this political correctness shit just politicizes it and makes it LESS attractive, if anything.
>>44249993
PbtA is a simple system, not a great one. It has a very simple core mechanic that includes partial success.
Guess what, so does Savage Worlds, FATE, and a shit load of others. The playstyle of PbtA is grim and involves lots of failure and things getting worse: which is great for Apocalypse World but not the kind of catch-all for everything mechanic it wants to be. The character creation is also stilted as fuck.
Apocalypse World is great, because it confines itself to one thing and does it pretty well. All the spin-offs that use it for everything without understanding the mechanics, are retarded. And most of the rulebooks are terrible organized.
>>44249601
>>3.X is the most awful edition of DnD the fact that anyone would think this imbalanced tedious RP-lite mess is good is stupid
You see, this is so badly written and full of unsupported adjectives that even though it might be true it's still impossible to argue against.
That said, 3.x and 4e were where my best RP experiences came from because the game stayed out of the way, and we were roleplaying because we WANTED to, not because our flaws or bonds or other RP mechanics were compelling us.
That said I still enjoy playing it, but I fully understand it's not the best system out there. I just like the shitload of content it has. My dream game would have been:
> only PCs and NPCs get feats: monsters just don't get them, or only get bonus feats.
> 5e proficiency system because it saved having separate numbers for base attack and saves
> skill points, but less gay. start with your intelligence score in skill points so you can't just divide them up evenly and max everything out, then you can increase 2 to 4 different ones per level depending on class, so you get an actual pyramid instead of everyone just maxing out everything
> yes, fewer rules.
5e seems okay but it feels kinda dry and empty to me. I'm sure there are fewer modifiers going around but I don't really like advantage / disadvantage as a catch all, and overall it just doesn't look too interesting.
Can't really comment on the other games because I don't care about them, but they look like an attempt to be counter-culture for bait.
>>44249993
Actually FATE a shit, like everything that uses fudge dice; PBTA a shit even stinkier that only sweaty stinky subhuman manchildren take seriously, and so is everything associated with AW;
SJW pandering in our hobby is activelly turning people away from roleplaying and lowering the number of new players per year. Trail of Cthuluh is a good system; i can't say of it's better than BRP of not because i freely admit my nostalgia google might be rose tinted here.
1/4. Bad job. And you were off with such a good start!
>>44249601
>3.X is the most awful edition of DnD the fact that anyone would think this imbalanced tedious RP-lite mess is good is stupid
True in terms of the core. A tier-restricted game can be fun. Using 'RP-lite' as a criticism is meaningless - you're always RPing in an RPG.
>nWoD is better than oWoD; the fuckboys that hate on nWoD cuz it doesn't have shitty oWoD metafluff are not creative enough to be in this hobby and should do something else
This is true.
>>44249993
>Fate Core is a perfectly functional, unobtrusive universal ruleset that works incredibly well for cinematic games and groups that don't like crunch.
It has its issues but it's absolutely a medium-crunch game, not a rules-light one. I like it.
>Powered by the Apocalypse is a great system.
It's good for Apocalypse World and Monsterhearts. It works awkwardly for Dungeon World, and shouldn't be shoehorned into that. If the game is not an escalating/spiraling dramatic situation, then it should not use the ApocWorld system.
>nWoD (now CofD) is better than oWoD.
Still true, do people seriously still argue against this?
>"SJW pandering" is good for thr hobby because it helps players into the hobby who never eould've felt welcome before. New players mean new ideas, which leads to a healthier tabletop community.
I'm not going to say anything about this directly, but holy LOL at the person who said it "dilutes the hobby" as if there's something like "TRUE ROLEPLAYER" out there.
>>44250655
>If the game is not an escalating/spiraling dramatic situation, then it should not use the ApocWorld system.
This. The mechanic is great for Apocalypse. Or something like Walking Dead, actually, where shit needs to get worse to make the story interesting. In fact I use this in my Savage Worlds game: a non-raise success is a partial success (7-9) and a raise is needed for 10+, to reflect the grim and grittiness of the world. A complete failure means, oops you made a ton of noise and attracted zombies, or the bandits are even more pissed off now, or something else.
>>44249601
>Your opinions are not right. Your tastes are not superior. Your preferences are not better. These are subjective things.
>Acting otherwise, even ironically, is the sort of thing that helps keep most of the /tg/ userbase unfuckable and friendless.
>>44250407
This desu senpai
How can forced change ever be good for a hobby?
The people who like it, like it because of what it is. Any change will likley move it away from what it is that we like. Change should be assumed to be a negative thing unless we have reason to believe otherwise.
"game devs who want to make money by releasing a new version that the nerds will like more" gives me reason to believe the changes will be good.
"players expand the system with new rules and mechanics that better suit their wants" gives me reason to believe that the change is good - if I happen to enjoy the same thing as that particular group of players,
"game devs release a new system with changes to appeal to people who are not currently interested in the product" actually gives me an active reaston to believe the change is bad because they're looking to appeal to people who evidently don't like the same things as I do
baka
>>44250655
>I'm not going to say anything about this directly, but holy LOL at the person who said it "dilutes the hobby" as if there's something like "TRUE ROLEPLAYER" out there.
But it does dilute the hobby.
Think back to the 1980s when people were playing in basements and slogging through the AD&D rules. Even a simple RPG has a lot for a beginner to deal with. There was no fucking Dungeon World back then for them to start with. They had to pick up the rulebook and learn it, teach it to friends. Same with 3.x and all that overcomplicated shit. It required passion to learn those rules. I'm not advocating for overcomplicated systems, I'm just saying, the people in RPGs were in it because they were passionate about creating stories and worlds. Or about smashing goblin skulls.
Now we've got idiots who DO NOT CARE about that stuff. They are in this for control, or some stupid political reason, I don't care one way or the other. It's either that or dumb-ass third-wave "nurd cultshur" crap that any human being with self-consciousness cringes at.
I don't mind new comers. I LOVE introducing people to RPGs. But dumbing them down, or doing some stupid political pandering thing, to attract new players, is just stupid. And most importantly, we do not need an influx of new players. The hobby has been chugging along steadily for over 30 years now. It's been thriving.
And please tell me ONE SINGLE GOOD NEW IDEA that this influx has brought to the hobby. Just one. That's all I need. And don't use FATE or Apocalypse World, those were written by old-ass grognards who wanted to try something new.
>>44250756
>"game devs release a new system with changes to appeal to people who are not currently interested in the product" actually gives me an active reaston to believe the change is bad because they're looking to appeal to people who evidently don't like the same things as I do
I very much agree with this. It's like making basketball into some kind of dance sport to get a different demographic interested in it. Why bother? It's stupid to get people who aren't genuinely interested in roleplaying, into roleplaying. If they want to come in and play shallow characters and throw dice, that's fine as well.
But this "oh let me bring my girlfriend and dudebro friends, and lets make the system pander to them and what they want" shit is absolutely stupid. and the WotC shilling to attract new people, is NOT them trying to get more people in the hobby, it's Hasbro thinking D&D should be a fucking money machine. That is so much not what RPGs are, it's hilarious, and their lack of understanding is 90% of the problem.
I don't mind new players, I mind changing what we have to fit people who aren't even interested in RPGs, because some stupid company said so.
>>44249601
>OP is a fag
>>44250793
All I'm really getting from this post is that you hate simple RPG systems.
People play games for lots of reasons. Sometimes it's a power fantasy - "I want to be a cool rogue, because I'm not one in real life." Sometimes it's to explore an idea, or a world, or a genre. Sometimes it's to tell a story together.
Nobody actually plays an RPG for a 'political reason' unless you're playing The Trial of Poland or Grey Ranks or something like that.
Using complex rules as a 'barrier to entry' to 'weed out the people who don't really care' is incredibly bizarre. No product works like this.
In the end there haven't been 'great new ideas', no. There's just been... people who saw DnD on Community or Futurama or whatever and said "that looks fun, I wanna play that and smash some goblins". Same as back in the 80s.
>>44249601
>AoS is closer to what Warhammer both 40k and Fantasy were in their prime;
I think 6th/7th at least in terms of core rules (to say nothing of Lore or Army Book imbalances) was the prime of WHFB. AoS doesn't hold my interest in nearly the same way those did. That's the main problem with it. It's a boring game. Star Wars Armada is scratching that itch way better even though there's only two factions.
>>44250945
>Using complex rules as a 'barrier to entry' to 'weed out the people who don't really care' is incredibly bizarre.
I'm not even that guy, but that's clearly not his point.
>>44250793
> I'm not advocating for overcomplicated systems,
I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the point is that any "weeding" system is going to improve anything you do. If you're playing basketball, and you change the point scoring mechanism to "just get the ball on this side of the court" is going to create an environment where people who aren't that good at basketball are going to have a chance to make a difference for their team.
Unfortunately, lack commitment to the skill of getting the ball in the hole means that even people who aren't good at it are going to get bored quickly and leave.
Obliging the players to commit, on some level, to the thing they are doing makes the game better for everyone.
>>44251140
>I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the point is that any "weeding" system is going to improve anything you do.
Or maybe just kick out shit players to begin with and remember not to let them back in when you start a new game.
Problem solved. You don't need the rules to do this.
Also your analogy is so loaded with logical fallacies it's insane.
>>44251140
>Obliging the players to commit, on some level, to the thing they are doing makes the game better for everyone.
I agree with this but it's not related to the complexity of the system.
This is actually why I hate people saying "but we need a simple fighter option" in DnD. Fuck you, right from session one full of newbies you're going to end up with a wizard and a druid or paladin or something. You don't need a simple fighter. Everyone should be committed to learning the game.
But that's irrelevant to a system's complexity as a whole. People want to play a game that's easy, let them.
I play games with poor college students. They don't have tablets. They're not shelling out for a $40 book to read in their own time.
I wanna play a damn game, so I'm gonna do what I can to get that game off the ground as soon as possible.
Nice arguments faggot.
>>44251013
You are ignoring a big part then in terms of army book at that point which are what serve as the main reasons for army imbalance.
>>44251335
There is litteraly nothing in common between AoS and WHFB 6e. Not the game feel, not the balance, nothing.
>>44251299
I disagree. There is nothing wrong with using a system as a filter
Also. Any system will bring out its qualities in people. Humans tend to favor the path of least resistance and do no more effort than they are conditioned to
>>44249601
>AoS is closer to what Warhammer Fantasy was in its prime
No. The only thing that AoS carried from WHFB is that the close combat is a boring endless grinder. And that is a 8th edition thing, far from the prime.
>>44251537
Do all card games need to be Bridge or else they only attract casual card gamers? Or am I allowed to play some Blackjack?
Does every board game need to be as complex as Twilight Imperium to filter out people? Or can I just play some Checkers or Ticket to Ride?
When I introduce someone to some video games I like does it need to be as complex as Starcraft or Civ 5 or Dwarf Fortress? Or can I just play some TF2 or Super Mario?
No? Then why does an RPG need to be complex? They're all just games.
>>44251537
"You can't get people into sports with basketball! They'll dilute the sports community and never learn to play American Football and Cricket!"
>>44252040
>as complex as Starcraft or Civ 5
>Civ 5
>complex
Is that some hardcore trolling or what ?
>>44249601
>3.X is the most awful edition of DnD the fact that anyone would think this imbalanced tedious RP-lite mess is good is stupid
Sorta new, only ever played pathfinder.
Which DnD version should I play?
>>44252160
>Which DnD version should I play?
The one you and your buddies prefer.
OP is a faggot.
>if you were not doing x by y, you suck and never knew what z was truly about
>>44252156
it's less confusing in the interface than, say, Civ2, but there is still a lot going on in that game. If someone had never even seen a Civ game before they would find it complex and confusing for sure.
I mean, I can't really imagine what sort of person has never played a civilization game beyond like a Papua-New Guinean but I think the point still stands.
>>44252638
To get back to your example, I'd say that Civ5 (vanilla) is less complex than TF2. Literally.
Even Starcraft is pretty easy at the core, no more no less than a Age of Empire. Those games aren't hard to grasp, play and even win at. Take civ5: there isn't that much different mechanics, stuff gets important slowly as you progress into the game and you have advisors and tutorials to help you. What's hard in Civ is to win at Divinity level, or in multi.
I'd go as far as saying that Civ5 has the dubious honour to serve alongside with Call of Duty, Skyrim and Sim City whatever the new one is called as the entry-level game for its category.
Not saying it's not an enjoyable game, however.
>>44252175
>The one you and your buddies prefer
A rare nugget of wisdom. The system doesn't matter quite so much if everyone agrees on it. Rules are made to be ignored and all that.
>>44252638
>>44252914
>>44252156
I was considering using Dwarf Fortress as an example but I wanted to be as mainstream as possible.
>>44252160
Games that are still 'fantasy dungeon crawling' but are better than Pathfinder for various reasons:
- 13th Age - basically 'better DnD5e' in terms of balance and design. Has a free SRD, just like Pathfinder, here : http://www.13thagesrd.com/
- Shadow of the Demon Lord - the 'gritty' compared to 13th Age's 'heroic'. Also has horror influences, and influences from Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying.
- Dungeon World: free SRD at http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/ . The system is kind of a mishmash of two different tastes that taste weird together, but it's a good newbie introduction to RPGs.
- DnD4e - the best version of DnD in terms of game design. Actually lighter than Pathfinder if people actually read the rules. Requires a battlemat (just like Pathfinder).
Pathfinder is actually better than DnD5e though, since the wealth of classes means it's easier for the DM to say "ok guys, tier 3 and 4 only" and have a balanced game.
>>44251386
Yeah. There's a lot in common with AoS and 1st, 2nd, 3rd edition Fantasy and 1st edition 40k though. Again, the prime time of Warhammer. Back when Warhammer was actually unique among wargames.
>>44250407
>the identity of RPGs
Question.
How do you define that term? What, exactly, is the identity of RPGs and why do new players (or, what you seem to be saying, the wrong SORT of new players) dilute it?
>>44250655
>It works awkwardly for Dungeon World, and shouldn't be shoehorned into that. If the game is not an escalating/spiraling dramatic situation, then it should not use the ApocWorld system.
But that's exactly what makes Dungeon World great; the way it makes your dungeon crawling begin to spin wildly out of control, leaving you trying desperately to stop the slide towards certain doom. The AW system lets you feel like a confident badass one moment, then feel butt-clenching terror the next when things suddenly start to go south.
It gets a lot of the old school feel I like, but that veering between feeling powerful and powerless makes it different from actual old school games -- you tend to get in trouble and die a lot in each, but in old school games you die abruptly and feeling a bit like you were incompetent. DW makes you watch your death coming at you step by step.
