What opinions do you have that you know /tg/ hates with a passion?
Favorite systems you know are almost unanimously hated here?
Etc.
>>47167466
CthulhuTech. 2e fixed the pokerdice, and the fetish shit isn't required in any setting, so we leave it all out.
I loveFate
>>47167466
It's possible to have fun with Pathfinder if you're not an autistic shitlord and capable of applying common sense fixes when the rules present problems.
rollplay > roleplay
OP here. I like mechanics that help enforce character personality, and I also don't mind a bit of narrative stuff if it helps the system move along quickly.
4e was the best game since B/X.
The only reason caster supremacy is a thing is because of lazy dming
>>47167637
This hurts me. But I'm not here to judge.
I love Meta-Currency, Fate, and EotE.
I like 3.5
also >>47167785
>>47167574
It's possible to have fun, sure (but you can have fun drawing in the dirt with a stick).
The problem with Pathfinder is baked into the system, and you either have to stop using WBL, ban the higher and lower tier classes, unfuck Diplomacy/Persuasion, or you just accept that things are going to get really screwy by the time 5th level rolls around.
And that's just the core book.
Not saying you shouldn't keep playing PF if that's your bag, but as someone who started with 3.0 and saw its evolution every step of the way, I don't think I ever want to go back.
On topic:
I don't find LotFP to be half as edgetastic as /tg/ does. I've read worse in Mage the Ascension supplements, and the Baali Clanbook from the Dark Ages line for Vampire takes the absolute cake.
>>47167466
I enjoy playing elves.
I don't do it because I think they're better than everyone else, and most of the elven PCs I play actually admire other races and lament the kind of conservative disillusioned culture that elves have in most settings.
I like to play casters.
I like to play casters as students, apprentices, and other roles where they're not reality-warping gods who can tear reality asunder.
I will specifically avoid more overpowered spells to do this (especially if I'm not trying to play keep-up with other casters in the party).
I have no problem with beast-races as long as they're not anime girls with cat/fox ears.
Though I rarely play them myself.
I find "low fantasy" and "politics-focused" games to be incredibly boring and would rather play high-fantasy any day.
Despite liking high fantasy, I'd rather characters in the game be pursuing some personal goal rather than saving the world.
Rolling for stats is backwards, especially if you get to choose the order anyway.
Basic stats are the easiest part of a character to choose, most of the exact numbers have little to no impact on how you roleplay the character, and nothing is stopping you from playing a mechanically gimped character on purpose if that's what you want.
What we need is a detailed random chart for backstory and personality.
>>47167785
Or similarly unpopular opinion: 3.5 is shit, and was build on failure of game design.
>>47167749
This.
>>47167904
Rolling for stats was fine up until they made the higher scores outrageously more effective (1e to some extent, but 2e for certain). Before that, ability scores didn't have that much of an effect, and Int was not required to know spells of a certain level. All high scores did was add small modifiers to a few things, and increased XP gain.
It's when the ability scores are more important than your bonuses for your class that it starts to become a problem.
That being said, you should roll them in order, if you're going to roll at all. Otherwise some form of point buy is perfectly fine.
Fate points are fine. Use 'em or don't.
>>47167749
The best game maybe not, but the best D&D for sure, and it still is.
I enjoy dungeon crawling for the sake of dungeon crawling.
>>47167574
>applying common sense fixes when the rules present problems.
Or you could run a system that doesn't require any fixes at all.
>>47167637
Depends on the game.
I'd say that you really need a bit of both.
>>47168065
3.X really screwed up scores by making modifiers bigger.
Narrative indie games are the best thing that's happened to this hobby.
Social combat should be reflected in game mechanics.
All the 40k and pretty much all FFG RPGs are dogshit mechanically.
Specialty dice are fine. Dumbshits are either too cheap or have been doing this too long and forget that all the polyhedrals are specialty dice too.
Gygax's writing is terrible.
LOTFP is overrated as fuck.
MERP was never good.
/tg/ occasionally got shit done and then shit the bed so hard by running off the only people who were creating content that was board relevant and has been rotting with /v/ garbage and e-celebs ever since.
>>47168432
>Or you could run a system that doesn't require any fixes at all.
Literally doesn't exist outside of extreme fanboy biases and blissful dreams.
There are things better than 3.5, don't get me wrong, but a "perfect" system doesn't exist.
People who only play 3.PF and its derivatives are almost entirely separate from the rest of the RPG hobby. They exist in a bizarre bubble of dumb design choices and outmoded design ideas which they've reinforced into holy dogma through marketing, market presence and mass circlejerking.
>>47168463
>Social combat
Wut?
>>47168546
Social conflict. When characters and NPCs argue over important stuff.
>>47168463
>All the 40k and pretty much all FFG RPGs are dogshit mechanically.
>Gygax's writing is terrible.
These are unpopular?
>>47167466
I've been playing Palladium's Ninja Turtles RPG for months, and honestly it's not that bad.
>>47167466
>"I'm bored, let's fight."
The 3.PF system is fine. It's by no means perfect, but its fine. Problems only arise due to lazy DMs who slave themselves to the rules and forget mechanics are merely guidelines.
>>47167466
Blue is my favorite color in MTG because it's the only color that makes me feel like a wizard rather than a middle manager.
>>47167749
Yeah.
>>47167749
I want this ironic contrarianism regarding 4e to go away.
>>47168463
Pretty much nailed it.
I love Numenera. I think Monte Cook is a good designer. Loved Planescape ant I think 3.0 is the best thing ever happened to D&D. I think /tg/ giving crap to his work is just shitposting.
You know it's true.
>>47167466
Ironclaw is baller.
Storyteller dickpunches you by baking setting into the rules too hard, and that wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't always some smegmatic overfiend complaining about nitty gritty shit.
The needs for a good game are
>1. Everyone is on the same page for what it's about plotwise and themewise
>2. Everyone can maintain interest in how shit goes regardless of what happens from the fall of the die
>3. Everyone can keep their douchebaggery under some kind of control
>4. ???
>9001. What system you're using and how you're fucking with the errata or homebrewing
>>47168463
>all FFG RPGs are dogshit mechanically.
Someone hasn't played any of the Star Wars RPGs.
>>47167500
There's a 2e?
>>47168463
>Narrative indie games are the best thing that's happened to this hobby.
>Social combat should be reflected in game mechanics.
I am pretty sure these things cancel each other out.
/tg/ is useful for acquiring the grognard opinion, which can be useful for eliminating biases. However, that doesn't change the fact that /tg/ suffers from a serious superiority complex and everything you get here should be taken with a grain of salt.
>>47167466
40k RPGs are unimaginative pieces of shit and are seldom any fun.
>>47167466
FFG has written better 40K lore than 95% of Black Library and GW itself.
>>47168463
>Narrative indie games are the best thing that's happened to this hobby.
This is true. It opened up the way for a lot of newcomers with its rule light nature and it does what most people came to RPG's for: to tell a story.
I remember my old teacher who loved the concept of Pen and Paper games but was turned off by everyones needless fascination with endless rules on how to do trivial things
I believe 4e is the best direction D&D ever went
I believe 5e is doomed to fail, from game designers both afraid of change, undoing everything that didn't match their own game of yesteryear and somehow thinking internet polls were a good choice for game design.
I think Cthulhutech has potential, if the mechanics weren't so forgettable and the writers didn't fetish fuel the setting.
I think Fantasy Flight makes average games, both restricted by the licenses they work with, whilst at the same time propped up by them.
I think Pathfinder is effectively 3.5, I look at the two as interchangeable no matter how loudly people tell me they're completely different games and one fixes all the problems of the other.
I think a player should feel powerful and important with their character, no matter what class they choose to play or role they choose to fill.
I think games are stronger for defined character roles in games.
I think the roleplaying has nothing to do with the mechanics of a system, unless a system wants to formalise social encounters like combat as a stepping stone from combat to roleplaying for new players.
I prefer weebs to furries, and a combination of both just makes me want to leave the table.
>>47167466
There is absolutely nothing wrong with how D&D and Pathfinder do hit points. Do you really want Players to have their Characters die to a lucky crossbow bolt?
I've been here for years. Been both a GM and a player, played online and in person, and have played most of the common RPGs at one time or another. I still don't know what rollplay vs roleplay means.
>>47169219
Rollplay - Rolling dice at every opportunity and relying on stats to solve problems
Roleplay - Rolling dice infrequently and relying more on players ability to act out their situations.
>>47169266
>Roleplay - Rolling dice infrequently and relying more on players ability to act out their situations.
This is why I bring a boffer sword to every game I'm in. Whenever the GM forces me to rely on my real-world conversational skills to succeed in-game, I start using my real-world GM-bopping skills to hit enemies in-game.
I still roleplay my actions, of course, but in the end it's definitely my character's skills that should determine success, not my own.
My favorite systems are FATE and GUMSHOE, though everything derived from Apocalypse World looks awesome as well.
Unknown Armies is better than either of the Mage games.
Every edition of D&D is absolute shit except 4e, which was an incredible tactical miniatures combat game but an awful roleplaying game. Steal settings from D&D and use them in better systems.
Crunch is anathema. Guve me narrativism or give me bust.
The only good World of Darkness game is Wraith. nWoD/CofD are a complete step up in every way.
I think the industry as a whole needs to work even harder on feminism, diversity, and queer representation in gaming.
>>47167466
>I think OpenSix and its rules-lite cousin MiniSix are literally the best RPGs for doing pretty much anything you want, because they're rules-lite enough and skill-based enough that anyone can learn them and pick it up super-easy, but also well-written, so I'm not tempted to fill in spots on minor stuff that bothers me like I sometimes want to with other rules-lite systems.
>The only "mechanics-heavy," system I like is M&M.
>I have effectively stopped having any kind of real fun with 40k, and can't remember what I saw in it with the exceptions of the ImpGuard's charm and Text-to-Speech.
>I think Numenera is a great idea, but Cook's desperate need to make unique mechanics ruined it because the Cypher System's reliance on basically being a 3.5 alternative makes it shit.
>3.5 and its Pathfinder derivative were doomed to fail because they were based on a style of roleplaying and a reliance on mechanics that really only exists because older grognards had no other options. They are always going to be doomed to fail, and I'm the only person in my circle of friends who feels this way so I can't really bring it up in conversation when games come up. It's almost destroyed my desire to play a game we've had going for a couple years now, and the only reason I stay is because I think our GM is a good storyteller.
>I think dungeon crawling is literally the worst thing to ever happen to gaming. It's a cancerous slaughterer of pacing. Your story grinds to a goddamned halt because you're too busy testing character stats instead of the characters themselves: a sign that you're a horrific GM who focuses more on the character sheets than the stories. It's boring, it relies too much on 3.5-styled grognard gameplay, and it's encouraged so many stereotypical gameplay habits that when our GM tried to do a plot-related dungeon (a mixed bag of successes and failures no matter how good a GM anyone is) a player honestly complained that there was no loot at the end.
>>47167466
Dwarves are boring.
Orcs deserve nothing but death
Elves are neat, and best the closer to Tolkien they get.
Drow are ok so long as they are not Drizzt clones.
Altmer are best mer
>>47167466
Artesia AKW. Many people called it clunky as hell, especially its exp system based on the major Arcana. I learned about Tarot cards before I found out about the comic and RPG. It didn't look so complex to me and I liked it a lot.
>>47169029
Seconding this
>>47169029
True that
Talisman is a fun game.
>>47167466
4e dnd is the most balanced edition of DND and fun to play. If it wasn't for a shitty monetization model and autistic players that hate any changes it would have been the best dnd system.
>>47167466
I like human-only settings. I think focusing on the "fantasy races," or bringing them in at all is basically cancerous to your world-building.
>>47168647
Tell me more pls
>>47169734
I actually agree. I really wish we could get more otherwise European fantasy settings without the mandatory inclusion of Elves and Dwarves.
>>47167466
Start D&D characters at 1st level.also: play D&D
>People mentioning Fate
I was never under the impression it was hated.
>>47169875
This. Probably not the best system for everything, but a fun one for classic fantasy games.
Also you can actually roleplay pretty good, if your DM is not completely brainless.
>>47169734
I approve of this. I think introducing orcs and halflings is usually just a poor substitute or shorthand for interesting plausible cultures.
>>47169648
The copy my friends and I played when I was younger was the one with the four side boards, and the 3D center board that leads to the Crown of Whatever... only it was missing the center board. We had no real end-game, so we ended up just playing it until we got bored and decided to stop. Still some of the most fun I've had with a board game.
>>47167466
/tg/ usually shits on rules-lite, but I don't think games don't need to be any more complicated than a small list of archetypes and a d6. These define your strengths, manage chance, and handle conflict resolution without relying entirely on GM-fiat. Everything beyond that is fluff.
>>47170333
I don't shit on rules-lite systems but their fans are often very obnoxious. They act like fanatics on the eternal crusade to destroy the crunch and punish infidels.
>>47169807
It's pretty simple, really. Some games just give you more concrete rules for running social conflicts. You have initiative and turns just like a normal fight, only you "attack" and "defend" with your social skills...
A good example of this is Mouse Guard (the only version of Burning Wheel I've read). The rules for social conflicts are literally the same as for any other conflict: your side and the opposing side(s) have a Disposition (HP), and you "attack", "defend", "feint", or "maneuver". In a social conflict, you might "attack" by presenting evidence of your claim or insulting an opponent, "defend" by having a counter-example ready or remaining unruffled by insults, "feint" by deliberately baiting your opponent into getting angry or slipping up, and "maneuver" by eliciting the support of onlookers or setting up a point that you'll revisit later. When you succeed at attacks, you reduce the target's Disposition... in a fight, this would be directly harming them or tiring them out, while in a social conflict, it instead represents shaming your opponent, reducing their social standing, or just changing their mind (or the mind of a third party) in a debate.
It's a really interesting take, actually.
>>47170447
Cool. Thank you
>>47167785
Oh fucking really, faggot? Tell us how to avoid it then. I got my card ready.
>>47168885
Its not ironic, and its not contrarian unless you assume asspained grognards are the norm (which, given we are on 4chan is a fair misconception to hold but a misconception nonetheless).
4e was just good. Mechanically it was and still is the best DND, and the only one so far with something approaching real class balance and fun mechanics.
Just dont play with essentials. Fuck essentials.
>>47170608
Come on >>47167785 lets hear it, If I get responding to tone or team game I get a Bingo!
>>47167466
I don't see why Dragonborn catch such hate.
I have them as a core race in my fantasy heartbreaker, even though they're rare in most areas.
Warrior princesses are the shit, and -4 STR is pointless memery in fantasy settings. On the other hand, I don't like fetishy lady knights and 'the lady knight seduces the princess :^)'.
Martials need more nice things, period, and removing universal martial dice from 5e was a fucking travesty. Backgrounds were the best thing to happen to 5e, even though they didn't go far enough.
>>47168432
What setting doesn't require any fixes? I've played a ton and they ALL do.
PbtA is a legitimately interesting system that is infinitely fun to hack and allows for a great introduction to RPG games.
There are great RPGs in english. But european games are way better. French, spanish, german, swedish, finnish, italian... you name it. And you would never knew them but a dozen or so.
Learn some new languages and your options will increase.
>>47168463
>/tg/ occasionally got shit done and then shit the bed so hard by running off the only people who were creating content that was board relevant and has been rotting with /v/ garbage and e-celebs ever since.
/tg/ has e-celebs?
...Who?
Any system that only offers me choices from pre-determined options are just about always shit to me. I don't want to play one of your preconstructed 'archetypes' or read through pages and pages of lists, I'm creative enough to make my own concepts with their own flavor, and not be an overpowering cunt.
I understand the argument that being limited makes you more creative. But you could've had the exact same result without being limited. You're basically using training wheels.
I also understand the argument (which has been made in this thread a couple times actually) that the mechanics of any given system are wholly divorced from roleplay. But if you're using a system at all, then a large part of the expression of your character is in the mechanics, because you're going to spend a lot of the game working with them.
I guess that one's attached to another opinion: the way you interact with the system's mechanics is part of roleplaying. The two are not wholly separated. A luchador is going to express themself through mechanics differently than a wizard. Therefore, it is part of their identity and character.
Narrative and rules light systems are absolute garbage.
>>47171130
Me.
>>47167466
>Vancian casting is a perfectly fine magic system
>Lovecraft mythos is extremely overrated
>Fey are annoying and boring and adding their themes to elves only makes them worse
>I don't like the 3d6 bell curve
>40K is boring
>Warhammer fantasy is a good setting for wargaming but bad for P&P
>Tolkien's worldbuilding is to sterile
>only human settings are bland
>It's fine to call species orks, dwarves or elves even when they (by /tg/s standards) aren't even that concept anymore
>It's fine to have 30 player races, or more.
>Beast races are ok
>>47171130
TwoDee, off the top of my head.
>>47170401
We are just fed up with shit like "eh, they're good only for a single game" m8
TwoDee, Shas'o R'myr and and a few others. I fail to see why popular name-fags are an issue, though, Shadowrun Storytime and Deffwotch were great.
>>47172470
Meant to reply to >>47171130
>>47167574
Agreed. If you play with people who don't care too much about optimization it's actually a pretty solid system. On the flip playing with autists/optimizers like all of /tg/ seems to do is a quick way to hate the system.
I still like 5e more though.
>>47167637
You're right, that is unpopular. I'm some cases though, people try to role things that really should be rolled.
>>47167658
Agreed. If you're playing with people who are good at keeping a consistent character, it's not even a problem and makes it just more rewarding.
>>47167900
I like playing elves because (at least in my settings) they're a nice variant on humans. Many things in common, but still fantasy. Elf fighters>all
I also love beast races and hate that they've become so closely intertwined with the furry community. Catfolk and lizardfolk bestfolk. Special mention to rabbit/deerfolk and mothfolk.
>>47167904
Agreed. Rolling stats makes 0 sense from a game balance perspective (especially D&D which is designed around a relatively balanced party).
What IS fun, is to have the whole party roll a pool of stats, and have them take turns distributing them. You get to keep 1 of your rolls no matter what, so if you get an 18 you get to keep it. The fun of random, but balanced.
>>47167785
Agreed.
>>47168144
Agreed.
>>47168414
Fuck yes. Back in high school my band had a a huge megadungeon campaign running for three years. A little but if story here and there tying things together, it was like a whole world of underground adventuring fun.
>>47168463
>good, but not best
>depends on the type of game
>No
>Very much yes
>no
>meh
>meh
>No. /tg/ still gets shit done, just not shit you're interested in
>>47168908
Agreed. Nunenera is weird but it's an absolute blast. A very fun and different sort of fantasy.
>>47168974
Agreed.
>>47169734
Disagreed about nonhumans being bad by default, agreed about human only campaigns being fun.
>>47170333
Agreed.working on homebrew with 4 stats, no skills, no class
>>47170733
Agreed with everything: fantastic post.
>>47171425
Disagree. They're good at what they do; whether or not you like what they do is an entirely different thing.
>>47171466
Agreed with everything except the Warhammer fantasy RPG thing. I think it's a great setting, but then again I've never got to actually play a game set in it.
>>47168919
Everytime someone brings up Ironclaw it make me want sto run a Robin Hood-esque game.
>>47167466
>there's nothing wrong with playing a good Drow
>there's no bad RPG systems, just systems that aren't right for you
>dwarves can be deep, complex characters
>>47170608
What is Schrodinger's Wizard?
>>47168786
Been playing TMNT and Robotech for years. I like them.
>>47170926
Like what for example?
>>47173039
>there's no bad RPG systems, just systems that aren't right for you
FATAL.
>dwarves can be deep, complex characters
The only thing deep and complex about dwarves are their cavernous mountain homes.
>>47173106
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pq1k&page=1?Schrodingers-Wizard
>>47173118
Malefices, Aquelarre, In Nomine Satanis/Magna Veritas (the game that in USA was totally rewriten as In Nomine, the original is a dark humor game), any game by Croc (one of the best game designers in France), Pavillion Noir (great game about pirates).
>>47171466
>It's fine to have 30 player races, or more.
I think when you reach that point you might as well give a list of options for players to create their own races.
The only reason fantasy races are used is because people are uncomfortable assigning objective statistics to human ethnicities.
There is absolutely nothing wrong in playing a stereotype.
>>47168463
>Narrative indie games are the best thing that's happened to this hobby.
They're really not. They're a refreshing change of pace that pushes people who actually make games as opposed to community theater with create-your-own scripts to make better games.
>>47173267
Not only is this stupid, it's also wrong.
They come from the many stories of intelligent beings said to exist in legend.
>>47167466
There is no such thing as a "dumbed down" RPG. If a game has 300 pages of rules, it's a poorly-designed game. End of story.
Heralds of Ruin Kill Team > Standard 40k
I got sick of paying hundreds of dollars for one army, carrying that one army around, and spending a good 15-20 minutes setting up said army before I even got to play. Not to mention the extensive balance issues with 40k.
HoR Kill Team, while not perfect, is still more balanced than standard 40k on average, has a greater emphasis on Your Dudes (a major part of wargames, for me), games tend to only last about an hour, and has a very quick set-up and clean-up. Also, I just prefer small-unit tactics.
On a somewhat similar note, I also enjoy Age of Sigmar because it doesn't require me to intensely study a rulebook. I can build an army I like the look and playstyle of and more or less get a good game in, regardless of size.
However, I also understand the frustrations of former WHFB players to a point. I don't think GW should've tossed away WHFB like they did, and should've made AoS a side game. That said, you all need to get over your butthurt. There are fan-made projects out there to keep WHFB alive, like 9th Age. Play those or get over it.
>>47173394
>300 pages of rules
Usually setting, background and item/spell lists take at least half of these pages
>>47173414
All of this.
>>47171466
What bell curve do you like?
>>47167466
Class balance, focus on crunch over fluff and playing pen and paper role-playing games with any kind of competitive mindset is retarded and missing the point.
The strength of the game type is that you can use your imagination and immerse yourself, people who whine about class balance like they're playing LoL are absolute cancer.
"caster supremacy" in the systems where it exists is not actually proof of a conspiracy by nerds to get back at jocks. Making people who can set things on fire or move them around with the power of their mind more potentially dangerous than people who are really good at punching or chopping is not "poor games design." It's usually just accurately modeling the reality of most settings. Magic is more powerful than a sword. Letting people play casters, on the other hand, is often kinda retarded. More games should limit playable magic classes rather than give silly combat moves with cooldown timers to thugs and knights.
D&D made the hobby what it is, but these days it's woefully out of touch with mainstream fantasy and mostly just pandering to kids who are either already D&D addicts or who play a lot of videogames.
Giving narrative influence to players is a good thing.
Good GMing does not mean always being 100% in control of where the players are headed or what happens every step of the way. That's just what wizards has trained you to believe so they can sell adventure modules. Role-playing is about the characters, not about tricking the characters into your pre-scripted story.
GMs deserve to have fun too. If that includes GM-fiat to stop the lolrandumb asshole from killing the king 4tehlulz or other actions that infringe on player agency, fine.
Actual creative application of mechanics >>>>>>>> free-form "describe what you want if you roll well" bull.
Drinking at the table is only allowed if you're doing boardgames or a system so light it's effectively a boardgame, and even then in moderation. It always slows down play exceptionally, and anyone that's not as sloshed as the heaviest drinker there gets to sit while your pickled brain remembers what you roll to hit. Also, if you can't enjoy yourself unless you're tipsy, get help.
We need more nazimod, starting with the automatic banning on anyone whose post includes the phrase "content creators."
Thread-specific IDs were a great thing and we need them.
/qst/ needs to survive, more quest runners need to stop being such crybabies, and quests that voluntarily made the move over to /qst/ need to be applauded for trying something new rather than digging in for no other reason than spooky change.
>>47169507
>Unknown Armies is better than either of the Mage games
This is unpopular since when?
>>47173430
You can squeeze an enjoyable rpg into 120 pages, including monsters, magic, classes and a starter adventure, and it's usually better off for it.
Dense rules for imaginary adventures is probably what has killed more interest in the hobby than anything, just watch anyone who worked up the enthusiasm to try role-playing games sit down with 3.x or some other monstrosity and watch all that excitement drain away as they realize how much information they have to absorb before they can get to the fun part.
>Yay, I finally figured out how to make a character, here it is!
>No that character is shit, you should pick these options instead because they're BETTER!
>>47169169
I actually prefer furries to weebs. If a furry goes full furfag on me I can go "ah, whatever, that's a furry thing". If a weeb goes full on hyperweeb it's too close and I can partially understand them, and that's way worse.
>>47173751
None comes to mind, but I didn't want to make a sweeping statement.
>>47173826
I disagree. Unknown Armies 3rd edition is hundreds of pages long, but you only need to read about 10 of them to play. The rest of it is fluff and tips for GMs.
>>47167466
I love Rifts. Yes the rules are too complex, but I love the setting.
>>47167565
were you missing an "L" by any chance?
>>47171488
I don't see him that much, but TwoDee is a good dude
Groups that use minis for RPG combat will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Steampunk isn't all that bad, even with cogfops prancing around. /tg/'s resident dieselpunk evangelists are just a bunch of contrarians who needed to piggyback off a community to put together 'cyberpunk + old-timey setting' as an idea.
Dystopian Legions was afunsquad-tactics game before the second version of rules came out.
Vehicle (especially space) combat systems that use absolute instead of relative distancing are shit.
>>47174486
I'd hang you and exile your family and clan for the first two sentences.
>>47169156
You liked padded sumo combat where a fighter can only swing his sword decent 2x a day for ??? reason?
I like some 4e ideas though. AC scaling with level, and how it handled casters. But martials having powers was fucking disgusting. There were better ways to balance martial/caster discrepancy than kludging both onto the same mechanics.
>>47167466
I prefertext-only campaigns because I find that voice chat spoils the immersionI can't understand how people do voice RP without cringing hard enough to pull a muscle. I once had a DM who would try to put on voices for monsters, and the voices would either be shit and/or he'd stutter half way through. I had to leave before I was drowned by spaghetti
>>47174486
What do you have against minis?
I agree with the rest.
>>47174486
>Groups that use minis for RPG combat will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
What if we use minis butno grid.
I enjoy running ERP games (probably because I only play with relatively well adjusted people with actual sexual experience)
Fate point economy isn't any more "meta" than HP or any other abstraction, and people only complain about systems being "meta" because they can't admit they only dislike them because they're different from what they're used to
Which system you use matters very little so long as it's mechanically capable of supporting the kind of game you want to play.
Dice matter even less than system and the only reason people complain about d20s is bandwagon D&D hate. And that's coming from someone whose favorite system is one of the most "bell-curvy" out there.
RPGs aren't competitive, which makes balance irrelevant outside of really extreme examples. If the main selling point of your system is "It's balanced," your system is shit.
People who whine about furries in 2016 are way more pathetic than furries themselves
Oldhammer sucked and the "black humor" was painfully unfunny
>>47174581
This. I'd love to do some text-only RP. Fuck roll20 though. It's a really cool idea but I can't stand it for some reason.
>>47167749
I am still kicking myself for not getting into 4e while it was running and I had groups. Some flaws but it really seems like something my groups would have enjoyed.
That being said, /tg/ overall seems to think 4e is alright.
DnD4e was the best DnD since the Rules Cyclopedia.
Players having narrative influence is cool. Special snowflakes are fine. 'metacurrency' is fine, I don't even get why it's a problem - HP is metacurrency.
Games balance is the game designer's job, not the GMs. All RPGs are games.
>>47174614
>Dice matter even less than system and the only reason people complain about d20s is bandwagon D&D hate.
So when my character with +10 to a skill fucks up jumping a gap but some fag with -3 in heavy armor does it, it's okay?
Fuck you, bell curves for the win. Those tiny +2 and -2 bonuses are fucking worthless as well. d20 completely fails at tight design because the developers have so much space to work with. Make them design a system off of 2d6 and you might get something actually competent.
If you like the number range, fine, but AT LEAST use 2d10.
> RPGs aren't competitive, which makes balance irrelevant outside of really extreme examples. If the main selling point of your system is "It's balanced," your system is shit.
I like 3.5 D&D but your argument is still fucking retarded. If you cannot deal out damage on teh same level as another character in a combat-focused game, you might as well not even be there.
I agree that most complaints about casters having more utility is fucking garbage, but casters should be barely on-par with rogues in combat as a result.
> Which system you use matters very little so long as it's mechanically capable of supporting the kind of game you want to play.
So.... the system matters, and you aren't really saying it does any further than /tg/ would agree.
> People who whine about furries in 2016 are way more pathetic than furries themselves
I think complaining about wanting to fuck a rabbit police officer from a kids movie is a perfectly valid complaint. But that's not really a /tg/ argument is it?
>>47174645
I don't mind roll20 that much.
I do hate voice-required groups. I don't like my voice much and I tend to type faster than I speak.
>>47174687
>HP is metacurrency.
Try playing GURPS.
>>47174614
>ERPing furfag
Opinion discarded. That was easy.
>>47170652
>Mechanically it was and still is the best DND,
Except it was terrible even in that regard, with some downright terrible combat math that made battles a routine chore even after you applied the various fixes to keep your players from falling asleep halfway through any battle.
The abilities were lifeless and dull thanks to their "mechanics first" idealogy, the classes felt too similar because the differences between them were largely superficial and built around a MMORPG model, and the "fix it in post" nonsensical descriptions slapped onto everything made maintaining any immersion next to impossible.
Any other edition of D&D had better mechanics.
>>47174581
You're not alone. I feel like I've grown out of tabletop RPGs because of their limitations. That sounds counter-intuitive at first, but there are several problems that make such games limited in scope despite the "do anything you want" billing of D&D etc.
1) Almost all GMs I've come across do not run sandbox style adventures in the sense of spending several hours pre-game to study an adventure module or create their own world so that the PCs can do whatever they want or go wherever they can survive, within the bounds of the milieu. Instead, the "polite" agreement is that the players will generally try to follow where they think the GM's material leads, even when there is no railroading. To me, this is poor game mastering and bad player metagaming, and in older games like old D&D this is discouraged by giving the DM a huge hex map and entire world fluffed out.
2) Let's face it, it's not hard to find a That Guy in the traditional gaming sphere, and these games require absolute party cooperation. These days I won't even bother playing a tabletop RPG unless it's with people I know and trust to be non-retards, the games just do not work unless all the players are long established friends. The high failure rate of /tg/-organized games on roll20 attests to this.
3) Voice improv is much harder to do in a truly sandbox style adventure, which means it requires a higher caliber GM than most people are willing to become in the 2010s. The relaxed nature of text where you can take a breather before deciding what to do provides a more polished experience for both the game master and players. It also removes the constant verbal shitposting and annoying voices of less-than-ideal party mates when you have to stay IC in the main chat box.
I liked Exalted 2e and 2.5.
I also think putting ERP elements in a campaign is fun.
Maybe these things are related.
>>47174716
DnD has literally never been about immersion. It's a game about going into dangerous locales, overcoming dangerous obstacles, and retrieving loot - and 4e is the best at that.
The right tool for the right job. I'd never use 4e to run a political backstabbing game or a 'high immersion' game, because there are other games for that.
4E is actually still bad. The combat was very long and took forever thanks to damage sponge enemies. Savage Worlds would be the better system overall if you want something simpler with more focus on combat.
Casters, while significantly weaker than their 3.5 equivalents, can still outclass the others by immediately turning into mist at the slightest provocation and doing everything at a safe distance making nothing a threat for them.
The fluff and official adventures for 4e were honestly dogshit. Paizo's setting may be inconsistent and self contradictory, but their official adventures are detailed and have characters with actual motivations.
>>47167466
PCs are best off starting in a militant order of some such sort, especially for new GMs. Railroading is not actually a bad thing when you have a plan from beginning to end that makes the characters feel like they are working toward a goal.
> platoon in an ongoing war seeking to get behind enemy lines and kill enemy commander
is far better than
> lol mismatched adventurers what do?
>>47174590
They restrict options in terms of what players think of during the combat. Whatever's representable on the board is fine, but if you have, say, goblins scrambling around on the ceiling overhead and firing arrows below, it doesn't represent with the map, so players don't often take it into account. Similar for other 3D situations.
>>47174612
Still 2dpd
>>47174614
>What system you use matters very little
>Dice matter even less than system
I've found that depends fairly heavily on how much you're using the system to create results vs. how much you're relying on the GM's decisions. UA does a much better job of integrating the dice, system, and setting than the array of bland Fate Core options out there.
>>47174712
Same with me. I imagine that most speak faster, but I have always been used to RPing in text as I certainly don't sound like Chad Skullcludger, the Babarian, when I speak. For most people I would say that text-RP and voice OOC would be ideal, but I will personally stick with text for everything.
>>47174645
>Fuck roll20 though. It's a really cool idea but I can't stand it for some reason.
Online game finders are like online dating sites: 9 out of 10 people who use them are alone for a reason
>>47174695
>So.... the system matters, and you aren't really saying it does any further than /tg/ would agree.
Are you...? I'm sorry, I'm having trouble coming up with something that would leave you this oblivious but still mentally capable of reading and following a /tg/ post. And I was going to ask if you've never seen an edition wars thread before, but given that the first thing that came to mind when I mentioned system imbalance was 3.5 that's unlikely. I'm not sure what's wrong with you, but it sounds serious.
I was going to respond to the other things you said, but I'm fairly certain this is bait. 8/10 made me respond
>>47174695
>So.... the system matters
I guess what he's trying to say is that as long as the system fits the desired game everything else in not important. If you want high intrigue, low combat games and System A, B and C can do it then it's not that important which one you take
>>47173953
Seconded.
I also unashamedly love Eberron. Especially the 3.5e version with all the clunky bullshit.
>>47174838
> savage worlds
> mooks die fast like they should
> party proceeds to mow down a dozen wyverns in a row with muskets because of stupid-ass exploding dice
> larger monsters are all-or-none kills
Savage Worlds is fun for big battles but it's not a solution.
>>47174883
So are you mostly just theater of the mind? I can see why you like it. Minis can't possibly represent every creature in the game unless you print out pogs, and using them for combat takes longer, and theator of the mind encourages imagination. My main gripe with theater of the mind is ambiguity in some systems.
>>47174883
Ah that can happen yeah. I do have issues with that. But then I have difficulty mapping a 3D dungeon on graph paper as well so I feel that it comes to the same.
>>47174828
>and 4e is the best at that.
As far as loot, obstacles, and dangerous locales go, 4e is absolute shit. Really, the only thing it has going for it is it's a skirmish battle game, and it's not even a good one at that.
It just sucks at everything else, so you don't mind it sucking less in combat.
>>47174917
>Online game finders are like online dating sites: 9 out of 10 people who use them are alone for a reason
Top kek. Roll20 is good for playing with friends who have moved away though. Or saving gas if you are a kid with no transport (which I was when I started playing D&D).
> Are you...? I'm sorry, I'm having trouble coming up with something that would leave you this oblivious but still mentally capable of reading and following a /tg/ post.
You said balance was irrelevant outside of really extreme examples. If some characters are useless in the game then they might as well not be there, thus some options become nonoptions and might as well not exist.
You also said as long as a system can run the game you want to run, it works. Pretty much no one on /tg/ disagrees with that. No one here seriously suggests using D&D for lethal detective investigation games.
So I was saying your statement was basically pointless as an unpopular opinion.
I unironically love 3.5 D&D. I know it's a deeply flawed and easily abusable system, but it has so much support and so many options that it's always a blast for me to both play and DM.
>>47174934
>If you want high intrigue, low combat games and System A, B and C can do it then it's not that important which one you take
I agree. That is part of why people need to stop making new RPGs, there are plenty of them.
>>47175011
how to fix any system: don't play with faggots
>>47174746
>MMO logic hurrrr
Nigger, MMOs aped party roles from tabletop. You are bitching about D&D copying ITSELF.
>>47174956
There are people that don't like Eberron? But it's one of the best settings they've ever made. It's great. Right up there with Dark Sun and Planescape. And it has the nice touch that it (unlike the former settings) allows for 'standard' DnD characters without changes.
I wasn't aware any large amount of people actively disliked it.
>>47175011
Me too. I tired the other editions and played loads of other RPGs as well. I want a Pathfinder 2.0 and I want to be head of the design team.
>>47175011
I feel the same way. No other big RPGs have something as generous as OGL and the big community surrounding it. Just look at the d20 systems that aren't considered shit like FantasyCraft and Demon Lord. Imagine if other systems like GURPs or something had the same legal freedom that 3.5 does.
It is nice to see Paizo even using 3rd party material in their official adventures. One of their books even recommends buying a Call of Cthulhu splat for looking up setting information. And of course they put out all the rules for free, and still have the second best selling game on the market, showing that you can in fact still make money by doing so. I can't think of any other big RPG publishers who are that nice.
I still do a little of the ole Star Frontiers rules.
>>47175005
>some characters are useless
>not an extreme example
>You also said as long as a system can run the game you want to run, it works
>Pretty much no one on /tg/ disagrees with that.
>Saying this after I brought up edition wars
Alright, Dr. Anon has made his diagnosis: your problem is that you have some of the worst reading comprehension I've ever seen.
>>47175015
I'm not sure I'd go that far, but there are way too many people out there trying to reinvent the wheel.
>>47171466
you are a good opinion haver
>>47169156
you are mostly a good opinion haver
>47168463
you are a great opinion haver
>>47167466
I confess that I hate wizards. Every single person I played with you chose wizard either played as a social awkward leper or a god-complexity asshole.
Combat is a lot more fun when it's more abstract.
System is (almost) everything.
>>47175095
Nigger, edition wars are a separate issue. D&D is the biggest most heavily contested subject on this website because it has the largest fanbases and it is probably the only game with such a fragmented and schizophrenic identity.
If you say "lol 3.5 is better than 4e that's what I'm using for my campaign" you'll get a 400 post shitstorm
If you say "I'm using GURPS instead of Savage Worlds for my scifi campaign" people will tell you the differences but if the difference in tone is what you want, no one will really care.
> some characters are useless being an extreme example
It was also a hyperbole.
Here's the thing about balance: if one option is better than another, the people who do not choose that option are automatically punished mechanically. You don't need to hypertune everything to make sure it's the same, that's bland as fuck. But if people are doing better with certain builds and my build is objectively worse, why am I playing it? For flavor? Why not buff or nerf the overpowered and underpowered options? As long as you don't stumble into power creepy shit, it's just fine.
I bet you'll accuse me of "moving the goal posts" or "backpedaling" or "damage control" now, which will just confirm you are more interested in starting up shit than having a real discussion.
>>47175095
Not that anon, but edition wars do tend to be about whether or not the game can run what you want it to. I'm not a D&D fan, so I can't speak too well to that, but the differences between Dark Heresy 1e and 2e make for fairly different games at times; the Throne economy and class-restricted-advancement in the first game put a bunch of focus on the inequality of the setting that the second edition doesn't inherently have. It's the difference between playing "Stasi Informants: The RPG" and a 40K version of Men in Black, because of how those two systems inform player decisions.
If a game permits minmaxing, it's garbage. Especially if it's a competitive game.
>>47175064
What I remember of Eberron is that it tries to do interesting things in the most boring way possible.
>>47175273
If minmaxing breaks the game, it's garbage.
>>47175041
Party roles had never been quite as pigeon holed as the "DPS>TANK>HEALER" trinity of the MMORPG.
>>47175064
any time it gets mentioned it seems to be with unstinting praise.
Which was always really baffling to me, but I guess the people that don't like it just don't bring it up, because it's so boring it blends into every other forgettable dnd setting.
>>47175482
>all games are garbage
If you think a game can't be broken, that's only because no one's cared enough about it to try.
I just want to go on a high fantasy adventure. I review social security forums for a living, and when I sit down at the table on Saturday night I want an escapist, indulgent, action-packed fantasy romp with my friends.
I'm so sick of people trying to use D&D as a vehicle for their super-unique fantasy setting. Every attempt to present me with some post-apoc dungeonpunk fantasy where there's no sun anymore or some steampunk cowboy nonsense always screams of trying too hard and its never engaging in the way GMs think it is. I just want to be a knight from the pseudo-netherlands and fight goblins. I don't want to spend the entire game figuring out what the rules of this world are - D&D has these "generic" settings that you hate so much so that the players know what they expect going in.
Please just give me some real dwarves, and some real orcs, and some real elves. Do fun stuff with their cultures, that's fine, but I don't want to have to figure out which role your super original not!elves fish people fall into, or why you're calling the race of golem nomads dwarves. Just let me interact with Dwarves in their cave fortresses and elves in the forests and stop making me figure out what way you reinvented the wheel.
I'm tired of your gritty, low fantasy, dirty, grimdark bullshit. My actual, real-life job is depressing. I get that Game of Thrones is popular and Dark Souls is a fun video game, but when every city is full of oppressed dirty but also racist peasants living under the thumb of cartoonishly petty nobles and every person we meet is an abrasive wife-beating moron and every other village has been sacked by pillaging barbarians and killed to the last man, woman and child, I start questioning what the point of being a hero in this world is.
Will you please just let me be a hero in my make believe games?
For fuck's sake, I decide whether or not people get food stamps in real life. Can I please be a pretend hero, please?
>>47167466
Nechronica is a hell of a lot more fun than most other RPGs I've played.
Anyone who complains about muh gurololi magical realm fetish game can just cry about it while dealing with their hyperpregnancy slug girls and poo succubi
>>47173211
In what way are they superior to eng stuff? Can you give some examples what do you think is better?
>>47169734
Agreed.
While it does include the standard races of Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings, The Witcher's setting pushing them into "outsider" minority status was extremely refreshing and interesting. It made the handful of non-human supporting characters more engaging, and loaned more weight to the differences between the three main human cultures of Nilfgard, The Northern Realms, and the Skellige Isles.
The Mass inclusion of myriad non-human races (particularly) since 3E D&D has added nothing, and really watered down the "specialness" of playing a non-human.
>>47175494
What about how Guild Wars 2 attempts to identify itself? By which I mean, each class is varying mixtures of Damage, Control, & Support.
>>47167785
I don't understand how someone could both read the system material and hold this opinion simultaneously.
>>47170680
I will go through entire 3.x campaigns without one enemy who will try to counter spell me, gms often ignore touch attack rolls and some out right forget about spell slots all together, also it should be common knowledge is more setting that mages are more vulnerable than other classes.
>>47175574
>For fuck's sake, I decide whether or not people get food stamps in real life. Can I please be a pretend hero, please?
Damn, posts like these remind me to not getting so wrapped up in things that it causes more problems than it solves.
>>47168463
>Narrative indie games are the best thing that's happened to this hobby.
I wouldn't go that far but they are a nice addition
>Social combat should be reflected in game mechanics.
Fuck no, I can do that shit perfectly well with minimal rules. Bundles of mechanics break up the natural flow and fail to represent proper social interaction.
>All the 40k and pretty much all FFG RPGs are dogshit mechanically.
They are far from perfect but absolutly playable. The 40k line actually do a pretty good job of capturing the style of the universe in the rules which is a rare thing.
>Specialty dice are fine. Dumbshits are either too cheap or have been doing this too long and forget that all the polyhedrals are specialty dice too.
Sure
>Gygax's writing is terrible.
Gygax's writing is pretty enjoyable to read but not the best for explaining the game. His obsession with crunch is pretty terrible but occasionally results in kick-ass tables.
>LOTFP is overrated as fuck.
It really is but that doesn';t mean it isn't a very solid OSR rule set
>MERP was never good.
If you mean Middle Earth Role Playing then you can suck a cock
>/tg/ occasionally got shit done and then shit the bed so hard by running off the only people who were creating content that was board relevant and has been rotting with /v/ garbage and e-celebs ever since.
Maybe. But whining about board culture is going to do shit. 4chan's real cancer is it's obsession with board and site identity. Every post about /tg/ is one that isn't about traditional games.
>>47168933
No, those are shit too. I'm really shocked so few people let so much slide just because nearly all Star Wars systems suck. The math sucks, the combat sucks, and the only good thing - the equipment - is hamstringed by price and rarity to the point that most is just a GM gimme.
>>47174574
>But martials having powers was fucking disgusting. There were better ways to balance martial/caster discrepancy than kludging both onto the same mechanics.
Elaborate, I'm genuinely interested.
>>47175811
>nearly all Star Wars systems suck
I certainly hope you're implication of the "nearly," there is that there's a good system, friendo. And I sure as shit hope it isn't the d20 abomination when the WEGd6 is so good at being a high-space adventures system while also being properly cinematic and adaptable that I have, and will continue to, use it for a few of my generic space opera games.
>>47173394
>Most games are poorly designed
I'm always curious what people actually play when they say stupid shit like this.
>>47175973
Nailed it, bro.
I also like the RuneQuest 6 fan made supplement. 47 pages that turns a great low-fantasy RPG into a great science fantasy system that uses pretty much only the original trilogy as a source.
I've not enjoied GMing the FFG star wars games.
>>47175973
>tfw can't stand Star Wars Revised but your group wants you to run a legacy campaign for their old characters from a Pre-You campaign
Just because it's "a long time ago" doesn't mean we have to use an outdated system, dammit.
I do Shadowrun-esque heist campaigns set in Ebberon using a modded 4th Ed D&D math, so combat is much more fast and deadly, fixing the main problem of combing being too slow.
>>47167637
Yep. Games are games.
I'm tired of this idea that being good at games makes you a poorer roleplayer. It's possible to do both equally well.
>>47173766
>The strength of the game type is that you can use your imagination and immerse yourself, people who whine about class balance like they're playing LoL are absolute cancer.
Yeah, a game is so fun when you can do literally nothing and someone else can use a class feature to make you pointless.
The part of the game where we simulate skirmish combat with our characters against NPC enemies is always more fun than the part of the game where we roleplay our characters and pretend we're paying attention to what the different funny accents the GM puts on are motivated by.
>>47175912
short version is that martials had special attacks and whatnot that basicaly functioned the same as spells.
It's better than nothing but it always bugs me when martial powers that are supposedly purely physical effort are put into slots like D&D spells, like I can buy a spell needing to be prepard in advance like in older editions or just needing time to "replenish the expent arcane energy" or however the recahrge time for Encounter Spells in 4e is fluffed, but with a fighter you get situations like "gosh I don't have the energy to do another Passing Attack, but I can still do Brute Strike...even though Brute Strike is far more taxing to do....."
>>47173766
I hate this faggot
>doesn't know classes are the problem
>doesn't know levels are the problem
>again, classes are the problem
>grognards out
>giving narrative influence to players is a good thing, but caster supremacy isn't real
>thinks this is an unpopular opinion and not 99% of what people recommend to all GMs on this board.
5e is significantly less fun than any other edition of D&D so far.
>>47167466
In a custom setting it's better to let the players to dictate what they want to play before ironing out any setting and story details. They have more to contribute to the setting than you alone.
I like puzzle dungeons.
>>47169734
I don't like the idea of including elves or dwarves or other standard fantasy races just because they are indeed "standard".
I'd definitely much prefer a world where they don't exist to one where they exist solely because they're expected to. If they have an interesting role and good reason to be there it's fine.
>>47177328
Thas rite, I got humans, crab people, and earth elementals as my big three races in the world and it's more than enough. I mean, look how adventurous earth turned out with only one player character race.
I like Eclipse Phase for its insistence on presenting alternate economic and political systems as both viable and potentially better than neoliberalism.
>>47177423
Technically speaking Earth started out with several playable races, but those all died out. We used to have hobbits, neanderthals, sapiens sapiens, and denisovians.
>>47177539
Yeah but they haven't released that setting splatbook yet, it's just lore that's been hinted at.
>>47168940
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/156677/CthulhuTech-V2-The-Shadow-War-Open-Beta
Apparently so.
>This edition is very different from the original. We've listened to our fans throughout the years.
>More focused material
>More accessible
>Revised and streamlined rules, backed up by careful mathematical analysis
>Greatly expanded Character options
>Customizable Tagers
>None of that stuff that made people cringe from the first edition
Honestly this sounds perfect.
eberron is shit
>>47173766
>Making people who can set things on fire or move them around with the power of their mind more potentially dangerous than people who are really good at punching or chopping is not "poor games design." It's usually just accurately modeling the reality of most settings. Magic is more powerful than a sword.
This is indeed how magic works in a lot of settings but it doesn't have to be.
Practitioners of most real historical magical traditions, assuming their magic worked, probably wouldn't be very handy in a fight because they can't fart lightning or summon terrifying demons in a matter of seconds like wizards in a lot of games can. But they could place a curse of misfortune on their enemies and their descendant for generations to come.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that kind of magic, I just hate the argument that designers HAVE to make magic more powerful or more applicable to all situations than any mundane ability.
As you said, that just reflects the reality of how magic works in most settings, but those settings don't need to be written that way.
And don't get me wrong, you don't need to go too far in the other direction and make all magic incredibly subtle shaman-type shit, but you can make it powerful and destructive while still designing it with limiting factors.
>>47167466
Pathfinder is deeply flawed, but it's still the best game you can actually find a group for.
>>47178050
Is that really an unpopular opinion, though? Most of us KNOW it's the best game to find groups for. Doesn't mean those groups will be good. They'll be shit, because the game is shit.
>>47178136
Well, it seems like every thread about it has someone saying "have you tried not playing D&D/PF" as if that's a thing you can do, and 5anboys REEEing over someone liking something they don't like.
>>47167574
I had a really fun campaign in 3.5. But most people that I find (yes, small sample sizes) that play 3.PF are shit bags that just want to build numbers or are autismos that don't care about anything they just need a die to be rolled.
I probably just have bad luck, but it's really turned me off of 3.PF.
>>47175806
>>All the 40k and pretty much all FFG RPGs are dogshit mechanically.
>They are far from perfect but absolutly playable. The 40k line actually do a pretty good job of capturing the style of the universe in the rules which is a rare thing.
Not the guy you were replying to but I agree with 1st poster. Mechanically only Dark Heresy corebook is somewhat coherent (Reason being that FFG didn't write it, just publish it. Written by Black Library).
FFG made 40k into D&D in space. With every splatbook they made tons of "new" weapons. 50 versions of a bolter with +5-10% skill bonus difference against something. Because players need loot every so often.
Secondly, every game line had a problem where enemies would follow you in "power level". So if you were playing Space Marines everything got a boost in stats. For example in Black Crusade: Imperium Inquisitor has more hit points than a Chaos Space Marine, Chosen of Nurgle (who also had to start with max roll for health and who had taken every hit point advancement perk).
If you read official adventures you will see that all the npc have superior stats in comparison to PCs. Even random, non-combat npc. it wouldn't be a problem if the game didn't state on every fucking corner that pc-s are best of the best. Deathwatch 1st company veteran psyker had psy rating 3. Chaos APPRENTICE had psy rating 6 (+3 when he pushes, for a total of 9).
Space marine armor is useless. Almost everything just bypasses your armor and you could almost go around naked because almost nothing bypasses your Toughness. When we played we told our GM to stop telling us armor penetration because it usually didn't fucking matter and just proceed to dmg dealt to see how much we could reduce with our Toughness.
>>47175811
I'm having a hard time believing anyone who has actually played the games could hold that opinion.
I play online using roll20 so I actually like magical realm campaigns and am currently looking for one using cyberpunk2020 or similar.
>>47167749
>>47169156
I love 4e.
>>47168885
It's not contrarian, we genuinely love it.
>>47175077
Star Frontiers is fantastic.
>>47176433
>but with a fighter you get situations like "gosh I don't have the energy to do another Passing Attack, but I can still do Brute Strike...even though Brute Strike is far more taxing to do....."
I always thought of it as "opportunities in combat are limited, and a single trick is unlikely to work twice. However, having the DM 100% in control of when opportunities for particular tricks would be too much pressure on the DM and too mother-may-I, and having an opportunities table to roll on would just be clunky and silly. Leaving the PLAYER (mind, you not the Character) in control of when narrative opportunities for their distinctive tricks (or perhaps broad category of tricks that accomplish largely the same outcome as the case may be,) happen. It's elegant in its simplicity if you can step outside the umbrella of the mechanics needing to directly represent the world.
Had 4E had about six more months for the math to cook, and released with a name like "DragonStrike: Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying" it would have been hailed as a revolution in cinematic roleplaying.
4E was a good game. However, it had to be both a great game and a successor to the heritage of D&D, and decidedly chose not to even try to do the latter while only kinda coming close to being the former. This is why 4E failed. Not because it's math was a little off, or that it had the core books were filled with the WoW SHOULDER PADS aesthetic. It simply failed to be D&D.
>>47167466
I deeply hate 5e. 2e was borderline unplayable, but had character. 3e (including 2.5 and PF because they are the same game) was broken, but so broken that it was good for an over the top laugh, and made character-building into an incredibly fun game that's actually more fun than playing 3e... seriously, learning to build a broken character gives you the same sense of satisfaction as building a top tier CCG deck, and can be quite addicting. 4e was beautifully balanced, elegant, and made combat into an independently fun minigame.
5e... does nothing distincting, makes every safe choice, and accomplishes nothing that another edition doesn't already do better. It avoids many of the glaring faults, but in doing so it loses everything that could have made it distinctively good at.... anything. It has no reason to exist other than to get stubborn curmudgeons who like disparate editions to play in the same game.
>>47169029
I'll be fourthing this one.
>>47169507
ARE YOU ME?
>>47169029
Ayup. Truth.
>>47169507
I think 4ed problem biggest problem was formatting. What differentiates 3ed and 4th edition is amount of flavor text. Stat blocks are almost identical.
If the 4th had more flavor text it would feel so sterile to fans of the older editions. Especially with the formatting of powers (encounter, daily, utility) which gave the game the feeling of mmo quickbar slot.
Although I don't like dnd and its derivatives any longer if I were to introduce a new player to rpgs I would use the 4th edition if only for a reason that he will be able to make any class without being bogged down with the rules. I know that in 3rd edition new players were usually recommended to play fighter, barbarian or ranger because they were rules light and easy to grasp.
>>47169029
>>47169507
>thinks hating on D&D is unpopular
>thinks hating WoD is unpopular
>tripfag
Retardation of the highest order.
>>47175041
And that? That right there? There's the real bullshit.
The idea of there being roles is something terrible autistic assholes (y'know, like this website) brought to the game. But, to be fair, it didn't come from 4E - it came from 3E.
On the surface, 3E was fine. But as its lifespan went on, it bloated up more and more, and became more and more unusable - except to people who NEED to fine-tune their characters to ridiculous degrees. Y'know, linear/quadratic, and all that other bullshit that comes from interacting with your character as numbers first. THAT is when tabletop started thinking of the roles in MMO-similar terms - prior to this, your more murderhobo-style teams might talk about needing a thief or a healer, but that's it as far as 'roles' go.
4E is a logical extension of all the terrible ideas from 3E. It *does* mark the point where we nakedly start referring to this stuff in MMO terms - Arcane and Divine are just flavor, because all that matters is Tank or DP...sorry, 'Striker'. Pathfinder? That just exists because WotC got greedy and cut Paizo out of the new edition - if that hadn't happened, they'd still be churning out Dungeon and Dragon magazines, making the same shitty adventures with the same shitty aesthetics, but it'd be under 4th. In the 'war' between those two systems, the only losers were people like me who'd grown to hate the direction dnd went in.
D&D's biggest fault is that it has absolutely no established tone, power level, setting or theme. The closest it comes to any of these is "fantasy" but fantasy to what extent?
Is it hard line action fantasy with cinematic combat? Hard grim fantasy where death and disease plague people? Comedic over the top silly fantasy? Gonzo power levels battle fantasy? Why is it denouncing "fantasy" as being explicitly elves, dwarves, dragons and basically Gary Gygax's little twists on a bunch of pulp stories he read?
D&D attempts to encompass all of these things at once but it can't successfully pull any of them off and so it's completely mediocre for all of them. The only edition where this isn't true is 4e because that game actually had a design goal that it met and semi accomplished.
>>47169507
>I think the industry as a whole needs to work even harder on feminism, diversity, and queer representation in gaming.
This one is the hardest. Reason being that it is usually represented in a "Look at me, I'm a special snowflake, bask in my greatness"
if someone has different sexual orientation or different skin color just to be different... that is shitty way of writing. Especially because it is showed down your throat.
Recently there is a tv series, Damien. There is a detective character. He is hardcase, by the book, grizzled, tough as nails etc. and you see him only doing cop stuff. after few episodes for a first time you see him in his house with his family. His son and his husband. And it doesn't feel forced. Because him being gay isn't he most important part of his character and doesn't change anything about him.
P.S. fuck feminism.
I think 5e is the best D&D system. Not rpg, mind you, but D&D? Yeah. 3.5 is a terribly balanced numbers game, and 4e tried to hard to be a video game.
>>47173139
That's the charm of dorfs - simple'n'sturdy like rocks themselves
>>47169507
Of course the tripfag drags politics kicking and screaming into the hobby, yet again.
Go back to /pol/ or rpg.net or wherever your brand of insufferable cunt comes from.
>>47169156
I've only skimmed CthulhuTech, what's fetishy about it?
>>47176711
You're entitled to your opinion, but I respectfully disagree. 4e was just a combat game, 3.5 is completely broken, and before that, the games are exceptionally dated. I do love me some second edition though.
>>47179149
OD&D is basically prog-rock conquistadors. It's original focus was deadly labyrinths and hordes of bizarre, gribbly monsters. It was relatively low powered and focused on managing expeditions to dangerous places.
A light-hearted trip to the Mountains of Madness
Or a venture to R'lin K'ren A'a
Of course dungeon/wilderness crawling is so common a concept now that it's hard to see the original flavour. But OD&D still has the most mechanical and thematic focus on it I'v seen.
Later additions went much more heavily into the "use it for anything category," particularly 3e which went in a million directions. It's a shame too because HP, spell slots and the class structure work great for resource managing, risk/reward play crawls but lose a lot when transferred to any other style of play.no matter what those grogs say, OD&D RAW is not good for Conan style high adventure. Conan is about many things but resource management is not one of them
>tl;dr
CONQUISTADORS vs. BEASTS OF MYTH AND IMAGINATION
or capitalism in the worlds of the DM's imagination
>>47168472
>but a "perfect" system doesn't exist.
That's incorrect. There are plenty of systems out there that exist without any flaws in their ruleset. The real problem is that a lot of people assume that a "perfect" system has mean that its "universally appealing to all tastes and playstyles", or even "can be used for any and all types of gameplay".
Really, we should be abolishing this idiotic use of the word "perfect" that seems to have evolved past the concept and into a weird philosophical tangent.
>>47169603
I want to have your rape babies.
>Unpopular opinion.
I genuinely think the stormwind fallacy is a load of bullshit. It's just a very neautral argument reminding people that "not ALL cases of x are true", even though a very large majority of powergamers either can't or won't roleplay at all, and this is through years of experience dealing with randos at FLGSs, Roll20, personal friends, and conventions.
I think a large part of it is that the Stormwind fallacy assumes that any move to make a character slightly better mechanical-wise than it was before is "optimization", like moving that high intelligence stat into the wizard's intellect. As opposed to the actual meaning of a min-maxer, which is someone who stats out their character build from start to finish with 12 different multiclass abilities without considering where or how it fits into the story.
Wulin is a crappy system with too many clunky rules and convoluted crap layered over a threadbare gimmick of which the bad editing only makes it worse. The fact that it's uncritically recommended only speaks as to how little games are for the genre it seeks to emulate.
Exalted will never be any good until it ditches charms.
>>47179594
Classes are a game abstraction, not an in world concept. They don't have a story.
Nobody says, in-world, "I'm a fighter" or "I'm a rogue" and the same applies to "I'm a warlock" or "I'm a sorcerer".
You might know that someone is a bookish spellcaster, but in character they could be a wizard, a book warlock, a knowledge cleric, a lore bard...
Rabid multiclassing is a symptom, not a problem. It means that the classes were poorly designed.
>>47174486
>not using minis but banning any measuring or grided table
>>47179696
Classes are just a set of skills that fulfills a role in an average adventuring party, and the levels dictate difference in power between those of the same class.
A class is really just a pre-selected set of skills, mechanically designed to give a character a sense of focused training and to also prevent the player from doing something they could easily do in a classless system, such as create a literally useless character.
Calling it poorly designed is just plain ignorant of game design mechanics.
>>47175077
Love the setting, not so wild about the rules.
>>47173348
If it's wrong then show me a system that assigns different characteristics to different human ethnicities
>>47179829
The d20 Iron kingdoms did.
>>47167466
time to get it off my chest
>i don't care what system my group plays
>i like my players being broken classes and having a good time feeling powerful in my games
>i like fun
>>47179594
>without considering where or how it fits into the story
This rustles my jimmies something fierce as a GM. You want a game that's meaningful, with a story that makes sense, full of roleplaying and character growth. But you want said character growth to not be reflected mechanically, as you've got your character planned out to the 50th level, with a list of magic items your build needs, and so on.
I'm sure that powergamers and roleplaying aren't mutually exclusive, but pretty much every decision I've seen powergamers make actively erodes the importance of roleplaying and the narrative of the game. Powergaming feels like such a fucking stupid idea in an actual game anyways - you want your GM to give you a challenge, and it doesn't matter whether you make an optimised, top-of-the-line character or a pitchfork wielding mud-caked peasant, the GM is going to challenge your characters. There's no fucking way to circumvent that shit, because "challenge the player characters" is pretty much central to the whole game you're playing. And if you're wanting to get into a dick-waving competition with the GM in a game of make-believe where the GM has absolute control of the world, guess what, that's not going to be a game you're going to win either.
>>47179756
I'm not saying classes are poorly designed! I think classes are great! I agree sign your definitions - except that I think levels should be irrespective of class. Two characters of equal level should be equally competent, regardless of what their classes are.
The problem is that classes themselves are often poorly designed. See DnD3 and 5.
Well designed classes, like in 4e (mostly...) and Apocalypse World don't have these problems.
>>47179829
I'm not a part of this argument or invested in its outcome, but Stormbringer. I'd be willing to bet some Conan game does it. Barbarians of Lemuria gives you boons accordingly.
>>47179988
Have you tried not playing DnD3e?
Pretty much every other edition doesn't have this problem. You can 'optimise' in 4e and 5e but the most it gives you is a decent edge, assuming the nonoptimisers are still making intelligent decisions (e.g not being a wizard with 10INT) . Only in 3E can you have two characters of equal level, and even class, and one is a demigod and the other is a drooling retard.
>>47180044
>Two characters of equal level should be equally competent, regardless of what their classes are.
I don't agree with that, but I know why you would suggest that. Most people tend to forget that prior to 3.PF mucking things up, XP tables were actually different per class.
A level 10 thief is in no way comparable to a level 10 fighter or magic-user, but the thief class requires less XP to level up between level, meaning that by the time the fighter is level 10, the thief would be rocking levels 15, 16, maybe even 17, while that magic-user might still be sitting at around level 6. It was a balance which worked out, but is largely forgotten as 3rd tried to make multiclassing even and balanced even if it killed them.
Okay, I always see a lot of hate for Pathfinder and 3.5e, but I've always played them an enjoyed them. What other systems should I try out?
>>47173139
>>there's no bad RPG systems, just systems that aren't right for you
>FATAL.
Pretty good example
>>47180473
I'm aware of that, but these days more games exist than DnD, and level is a useful measure of challenge.
>>47180514
>What other systems should I try out?
OH BOY WATCH EVERYONE RECOMMEND THEIR FAVOURITE SYSTEM.
Fate Core and Fate Accelerated are both free, and you can get them here http://www.evilhat.com/home/fate-core-downloads/ . They're very much not DnD, but the 'sample characters' in Fate Core are playing a DnDish campaign, so it's a place to start.
Dungeon World is not free, but it does have a free SRD . http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/
It's basically 'what you thought DnD would be when you first heard about it'. Technically it's a worse-designed game overall than the game it's based on, Apocalypse World, but it does have the benefits of clearer language and not being R-Rated.
Savage Worlds is a semi-popular system these days with a free 'Test Drive' at https://www.peginc.com/product-category/savage-worlds/
Basically if you go anywhere and say "what system should I use for Concept X" you'll get roughly equal numbers of people saying Fate Core or Savage Worlds. They're different games, but they can both tackle a wide range of ideas, they just do it through different lenses.
None of the above are My Favourite Game, for what it's worth, but they're a pretty gentle ease into various other semi-popular RPGs.
>>47178942
>2e was borderline unplayable
What?
>>47179506
>CONQUISTADORS vs. BEASTS OF MYTH AND IMAGINATION
Didn't 2e have a setting like that? Or two?
>>47180514
Well, depends on what you want to play.
>>47180473
The xp differentials were nowhere near that extreme. ~3 level difference at most between the quickest leveling and the slowest.
>>47180473
>A level 10 thief is in no way comparable to a level 10 fighter or magic-user, but the thief class requires less XP to level up between level, meaning that by the time the fighter is level 10, the thief would be rocking levels 15, 16, maybe even 17, while that magic-user might still be sitting at around level 6.
In what edition? In Basic, Fighters require 360k XP to get to level 10. Thieves only require 280k but aren't yet to level 11, which costs 400k. So Thieves are 2/3 of a level ahead of Fighters at that point. (At 360k, a Magic-User is still 9th level, and lagging somewhat more than a full level behind a Thief.)
In AD&D, a Fighter requires 500k XP to reach level 10, which puts Thief a little bit into 12th level (a Magic-User will be partway into level 11, and only becomes more expensive than the Fighter [again: it flutuates] somewhere around level 17, I think). The gap between Thieves and Magic-Users is not insignificant, but it's not gigantic, and it only gets that wide once you hit high levels (a 7th level Fighter requires 70k XP, exactly the same amount that a Thief requires to hit level 8).
The balancing effects of differentiated XP progression is frequently overstated and you could easily compensate balance things out in other ways, by powering up or down class features a bit. Thieves could have attacks like Fighters, hit dice like Clerics, better saving throws, improved thieving skills, larger backstab multipliers, new class powers, etc.
>>47180596
>>CONQUISTADORS vs. BEASTS OF MYTH AND IMAGINATION
I think Maztica was explicitly that
>>47180649
>In what edition? I
I was exaggerating numbers to not bother with the math.
>>47180634
I want to play a generic fantasy rule system that can easily adapt to any number of settings and plots. I prefer social encounters over combat, though a system that could do both would be preferred.
The way I currently run Pathfinder is typically very rules and combat light, focusing more on the roleplaying and storytelling aspects. I've always found my player enjoy those more.
>>47180690
I'd suggest OpenSix Fantasy or MiniSix. They both sound like they fit the bill, and Md6 is a better rules-lite document of less than 40-pages. About half of which are example settings to play in.
Fuck it, here's the book. Hope it helps.
>>47180690
Aside from Dungeon World I'd suggest Chronicles of Skin
>>47180690
Here's some options based on that:
Fate Core and Savage Worlds, as mentioned above.
Reign if you want a low-fantasyish game with a focus on controlling organisations, from street gangs to empires.
Burning Wheel can probably do it but has a reputation as a 'weirdo hipster' game, because it doesn't neatly fit into any specific 'school' of game design.
Games to AVOID:
I love both Shadow of the Demon Lord, and 13th Age, but both are explicitly combat-focused just like DnD and Pathfinder.
They're great if you DO want a DnD-like game though.
