Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.30811688 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

So tg, just interested in how the world of RPG is doing these days. What's the most popular? What is good? What is up and coming?

Also, what happened to white wolf? I remembered they were supposed to be the next D&D after the 3.5e meltdown. They're barely a speck now, even less popular than deathwatch or something.

This is the rough rankings I've got:

Popular:
1: Pathfinder
2: 4e - really hard to tell, which should be where, but pf seems more popular to me.
3: 40k RPG
4: Call of cthulhu
5: Shadowrun

Good:
1: Call of Cthulhu
2: Shadowrun
3: GURPS
4: 40k
5: ???White Wolf???

>> No.30811729

>>30811688
The Doctor Who RPG by Cubicle 7 is distressingly popular.

As for D&D knockoffs Dungeon World and 13th-Age combined appear to have a larger market share than Pathfinder nowadays.

FFG's Star Wars RPG is also hella popular, as well, and its actually good.

>> No.30811840

>>30811688
WW is just chillin' out with EXALTED and just selling their books. They don't seem to want to be at the top, too many headaches I guess.

>> No.30812074

>>30811688
From my own observations, your list of popular rpgs is pretty spot on. I draw that inference from both my own experience, and the number of threads I see on each rpg here, and on the other sites I frequent )Enworld, GIITP, and Reddit).

However, while those are *the* most popular systems, I'm also seeing a good deal of discussion about Dungeon World, Savage Worlds, Risus, Fate, 13th Age, any and all OSR games, Don't Rest Your Head, ORE... It's actually rather encouraging. Yeah, there's a shortlist of go-to games, but those are the ones that have a fuckton of support, and knowledge that indie options exist is ubiquitous and more content is being generated every day.

It's like, a lot of grognards wax rhapsodic about how before D20 and the OGL players were a lot more willing to branch out, but they seem to forget that all non AD&D options were really overshadowed by AD&D. Yes, the one-system-fits-all mindset hadn't really affected the hobby until 3.x, but AD&D was still the default system that made everything else an also ran. At least that was the status quo in my area.

All in all, I think transmission of ideas allowed by the internet has finally allowed a variety of rule sets to proliferate that rivals or surpasses what was on the market back in the glory days of the hobby. But hey, what can I say, I'm an optimist, at least as I view the state of roleplaying.

As for quality,
>opinions
>opinions
>opinions

>> No.30812136

>>30812074

This.

Well actually I'm not too sure about how Chtulhu is really doing, but whatever.

>> No.30812366

>>30812074
>but they seem to forget that all non AD&D options were really overshadowed by AD&D.
This is one reason I find 2e to be more palatable now, as a retro, niche game, than I did at the time, when it was a juggernaut. That, and the fact that I kind of felt that 2e stuck its head in the sand and refused to really innovate, when other RPGs were advancing. As a retro game, that matters less. Of course, I'm more of an "enhanced" Basic (Basic with select stuff carried over from other versions, particularly 1e) or modernized OSR game guy than an AD&D guy in any case.

>> No.30812413

>>30811729
>The Doctor Who RPG by Cubicle 7 is distressingly popular.
Really, I've never even heard of it. I don't want to be a pedantic dick, but do you have a source for that?

Just because I apologised for it doesn't mean I'm not a pedantic dick.

>> No.30812498

>>30811729
>larger market share
I don't think so...

>> No.30812759

It's collapsing, and it's looking like Paizo will ride out the storm better than WotC will. No one else in the market really matters.

>> No.30812847

>>30812759
Paizo is stuck with a system it can't really reform, because it's landed its fan base on the idea that major changes are a betrayal. This is a serious problem, especially as PF has some significant mechanical issues that are increasingly recognized and seen as less acceptable as more time goes by. Effectively, PF has staked out a hill and barring some sort of brilliant maneuver, it will live or die up there. Meanwhile, the rest of the world continues on, new systems and new editions of existing systems are created, drawing in players that might otherwise play Pathfinder. Short term: who knows? But longer term: it's not a very good place to be. And even if 5e isn't a success for WotC, it's still going to hurt PF.

>> No.30812880

>tfw your players want you to run D&D or a D&D clone

>> No.30812901

>>30812880
I wouldn't want to be forced into it, and I wouldn't want to do it all the time, but a D&D clone can be fun, especially if "D&D" refers to any edition, and "clone" is used loosely and leaves you open to tinkering.

>> No.30812923

>>30812880
>Run an OD&D Castle Greyhawk game
>Never be bothered about running D&D ever again

>> No.30812931

>>30811688
>So tg, just interested in how the world of RPG is doing these days

World of RPGs is one huge disaster area since D&D committed suicide with 4E and everybody else is just stragglers past their best-before date and weird, overly-artsy, borderline unplayable niche-within-a-niche games.

It's basically what you'd get if Magic the Gathering suddenly disappeared from the TCG field. You'd be left with fucking nothing 'cause the big fish in the puddle had already marginalized all the medium-sized fish long ago.

>> No.30812940

>>30812847
>Paizo is stuck with a system it can't really reform, because it's landed its fan base on the idea that major changes are a betrayal. This is a serious problem

Why is it a problem? Call of Cthulhu hasn't changed at all in 30 years and that game's doing fine.

I don 't even understand this idea that an RPG is a failure without bi-yearly rules upheavals. An RPG is a failure without PLAYERS. The rules should preferably stay the same forever and ever.

>> No.30812948

>>30812940

CoC uses a system that, while it has some rough edges, more or less works.

Paizo doesn't, and they inherited a chunk of the fanbase for whom this is a selling point.

>> No.30812959

>>30812931
>World of RPGs is one huge disaster area since D&D committed suicide
I actually really like the effect it's had. The RPG world has become less homogenized. I mean, it's still overwhelmingly D&D-dominated, but to a bit less of a degree, and even there it's divided up between 4e, 3.5 and PF, with some OSR presence. When 5e comes out, I want it to do well, but not too well. I'm hoping that some of the diversification will continue.

>> No.30812963

>>30812901

Anything with a D20 is gaming AIDS.

>> No.30812975

>>30812940
CoC is relatively light in terms of rules, it isn't really about crunch, and it doesn't have the serious issues that Pathfinder has.

>> No.30812983

>>30812963
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a d20 for task resolution. What would you prefer?

>> No.30813060

>>30812759
OP here, please elaborate. What exactly is happening? Are there too many products flooding the market? Is interest in RPG dropping due to competition from boardgames/computer games/etc.

I only play mini wargames btw, I do read RPG books, but have never played, as no ruleset or system has ever engaged me. Just interested in the market.

I feel that the whole industry needs more innovation.

>> No.30813069

>>30812983

Getting my dick jammed in a door, or maybe fucking a lemon filled with razors.

>> No.30813073

>>30813060

It hasn't really shrunk. Its fragmented, because the big dogs have gradually fallen away without anyone replacing them. Where before you'd have two companies owning maybe 70% of the industry, now you need to invoke four or five companies before you even get close to 50%.

>> No.30813074

>>30812931
>'cause the big fish in the puddle had already marginalized all the medium-sized fish long ago.

OP here. I mainly play TT wargames. Would it be comparable to GW disappearing? Its funny, because as GW grows weaker, the entire hobby seems to grow stronger. Interesting how it has the opposite effect in RPG gaming. Why do you think this is so?

>> No.30813082

>>30813069
OP here, what is so bad about D20?

I understand 2d6 or other XdX gives more of a bell curve, but is d20 that bad?

>> No.30813088

>>30813069
A 50% chance of success on a d20 is the same as a 50% chance of success on d% or 3d6, or whatever. And since a d20 isn't a terribly complex thing to work (and you haven't provide an actual argument against it), I really don't see what the issue is.

>> No.30813112

>>30813074

It's because GW has been dicking its customers repeatedly over the last several years and there are now enough other wargames to support them if they make the leap.

>> No.30813116

>>30813082
Bell curves are over-hyped. Compare a d20 to 3d6, for instance.Just use steps twice as large for the d20 (so a +1 bonus on 3d6 is roughly equivalent to a +2 bonus on a d20) and the disparity between the chances of success on the two systems will never get as high as 5 percentiles.

>> No.30813139

Something that should be mentioned is that we are now in the age of Kickstarter, where it's easier for independent tabletop game makers to find the funding and advertising to make what would normally be unmarketably niche games sell. Especially if you pander.

>> No.30813145

>>30811840
White Wolf has been gutted, and mostly licensed off by their Icelandic masters. They're still in the slow-motion suicide they started a decade or more ago.

>>30812847
More and more that's ceasing to be a problem. The old 3.5 fans who went PF have been slowly adapting anyway. They key for a Revised PF would be to not make a game that is no longer recognizable on the other side, ala D&D4.

>>30812940
This is actually how I feel 90% of the time now. Given five editions or more of all of my favorite games, I'd rather have the best written, most supported edition than anything modern gamers would laughably call the most balanced.

The biggest problems I've seen in modern systems and editions seems to stem from this constant desire to print more rules, not more content. This leads to power creep that would make a Rifts fan laugh, and spreads characters and rules out over a small set of encyclopedias.

I used to actually buy rpg sourcebooks to read. They were well written, presented settings, ideas and new concepts in a captivating way, often with stories that I still go back and read or draw inspiration from 20 years later.

>> No.30813182

>>30813145
>The old 3.5 fans who went PF have been slowly adapting anyway.
But that's kind of the point. PF got where it is by drawing on old 3.5 fans, and that's a limited resource. Sure, PF's popularity itself can draw in new people, but it doesn't have the level of brand recognition as D&D, and it's not particularly noob friendly. And with the diminishing flow of players from the d20 system boom, I'm not sure how long it can remain viable.

>They key for a Revised PF would be to not make a game that is no longer recognizable on the other side, ala D&D4.
I think it's going to be hard for Paizo to thread that needle.

>> No.30813189

>>30813073
When I really got into things in the early-mid 90's, there were basically three games that owned the world. AD&D 2e, then Vampire 2e, then Shadowrun 2e.

After that, it really didn't matter, though I think White Wolf actually owned the new two slots as well. It's impossible to project how uncontrollably popular White Wolf's games were prior to Mark Rein-Hagen leaving/being chased out with a shitty mop.

The whole market though felt quite large. That was back when I developed my compulsion for buying up every new system that we could find. My and a few GM's I hung out with had a running competition to see who could "run" the most systems. It really did seem as though you could find a new game system every month.

>> No.30813209

>>30812847
> landed its fan base on the idea that major changes are a betrayal.

OP here

The main problem I can gather with PF is that casters are OP. can't they just nerf casters/buff fighters, especially monks and be done with it? Why is the problem is pervasive?

>> No.30813215

>>30813145

>They key for a Revised PF would be to not make a game that is no longer recognizable on the other side, ala D&D4.

This is a fools errand from the get go. Many of the aspects that make Pathfinder Pathfinder are inherently anathema to fans of 4e and vice-versa. Mixing the two would just piss off both sides. That's why Next is trying to distance itself from both with the occasional throwback, which despite what you think of what they've shown us is a sound enough idea.

>> No.30813241

>>30813209

The problem there is that you CAN'T DO THOSE THINGS because there's such a clear divide that nerfing one or buffing the other will just turn it into, and this is 3.5/PF's fans words here, "4e Videogame Shit"

Basically nerf casters and they'll bitch that casters can't do that one specific thing anymore that they were stupidly attached to for reasons.

Buff fighters and they'll complain about fighters basically being wizards even though being a combat character doesn't and has never meant not being supernatural in any way.

>> No.30813256

>>30813215
I think that could have been more clearly worded. I'm not suggesting they make something like 4e, I'm suggesting they need to find a way to update that avoids a shift that is as radical as the one that created 4e.

A Revised Pathfinder still needs to feel and play like Pathfinder. It can certainly gain some more distance from 3.5. If they can make a solid non-Vancian magic system, they might have the problem beat right there.

>> No.30813265

>>30813209

The problem is that not everyone is aware that there is a problem.

There are plenty of people who see their fighter deal 50 damage in one turn and think that wizards are shit tier because they can't make that happen. There are people who think monks are fine because they get a bunch of neat in theory abilities. There are people who don't see why magic is so amazing because they only play blaster wizards.

You can't just buff fighter because no one can agree how to buff it. You will tear your hair out trying to appease fans who want fighters to be completely mundane and "realistc," fans who thinking fixing fighters means more damage, fans who want fighters useful, etc. There are too many splinter groups and no one will ever be happy.

>> No.30813296

>>30813256
But nobody likes Pathfinder because it's good. They like it because it has all the shitty overwrought mechanics LIKE VANCIAN MAGIC that D&D had when they were twelve and staying up late on the weekends.

If you change any of that nostalgia shit they'll piss and moan even if the gameplay is improved. (See 4e, the Tome of Battle, etc.)

>> No.30813310

>>30813265
>>30813241
Counter-Intuitive Tip Number One from the Famous Game Designer School of Game Development.
>Don't listen to the fans.
>Really, don't listen to them.
>This thing of constantly soliciting tongue-baths from your audience at every stage of development is bullshit from the internet age.
>Fuck those guys online.
>If you can't make a good game in the first place, those assholes won't be able to help.
>If they knew shit, they'd be Famous Game Designers and not assholes on the internet.

>> No.30813340

>>30813209
A lot of issues play into the balance problem, and at the end of the day, the gap is wide enough that you'd need to make some pretty big changes that a lot of people wouldn't like. It'd also require a shift in mentality. Either casters would have to be dramatically nerfed (and people would scream about how they ruined casters), or they'd have to boost noncasters up to mythic levels (and people would bitch about how they were unrealistic, superhuman, and/or basically magical). And because of the way PF came about, it's fan base has a disproportionately high percentage of folks who are change averse / set in their ways.

>> No.30813352

It will be interesting to see what the Advanced Class Guide actually looks like since SKR is gone. That's one serious problem gone.

I expect it will make several weaker classes (rogue, monk) superfluous, but they were anyways so that's not a bad thing.

>> No.30813386

>>30813352

I doubt there will be very few significant changes. SKR is just one man, and it's not like he's the only one at Paizo that shares his beliefs.

>> No.30813390

Watch out everybody ultra casual incoming, that said here's my two cents, so I started on 4e which for someone just going into D&D, it was fun pretty straight forward a lot of fighting. After a huge dry spell I was invited to a pathfinder campaign. it was a pretty low loot game, but with open access to all of the pathfinder books It was and still is all I could want. The animosity turned rivalry of my duergar barbarian and my buddies drow rogue gave all the roleplaying opportunities we could want not to mention the dirty looks from towns folks as aour rag tag team walks into town. Anyways running around at 5 hp was a refreshing change of pace, from the alpha strike tactics of 4e. I've only heard legends of theinfamous 1d4 hp wizards of aD&D but to me RPGs aren't to bad right now my TG club at my college is finishing up a pathfinder campaign right now and we're deciding whether to allocate club funds to CoC or Shadowrun or even breaking out the ye olden 1edition or advanced, d&d books

>> No.30813399

>>30813296
4e's gameplay way shit and it moved far, far away from anything like D&D had ever been, including a slew of new furrtastic races, and blowing up a shitload of settings that used to be beloved best-sellers to justify it's rules changes in-world.

>>30813340
>And because of the way PF came about, it's fan base has a disproportionately high percentage of folks who are change averse / set in their ways.

Not as much as I think is often portrayed. They were people who weren't willing to make the shift from 3/3.5 to 4 because they changes to the system and settings were too radical. They still wanted to buy new content, as demonstrated by Pathfinder's enormous sales.

People have stayed behind in every single D&D edition change, even in the old divide between D&D and AD&D. Never before has the resistance to a new edition been enough to stall, and eventually kill that edition, and spawn a competitor that actually eclipsed the new edition of D&D.

This is a gaming constant. Shit, people stay behind in every game that updates to a new edition. This is one of those reasons games do best when they adopt changes slowly, rather than radically changing systems and settings all at once.

>> No.30813409

>>30813390
If you're going old school, you might want to look into a retroclone.

>> No.30813417

>>30813241
>being a combat character doesn't and has never meant not being supernatural in any way.

No, but being a D&D Fighter on the other hand DOES mean you can't be supernatural. A fighter is supposed to be just a guy with a sword and shield and balls of steel. That is his concept, it has ALWAYS been his concept, and to alter that concept is betrayal.

Also I see you're still perpetuating the propagandist fallacy that because 3e/PF fans reject the 4e idea of balance (where every class is turned into the same class), they want wizards to be overpowered. That is just not the case, it's a textbook example of false dichotomy fallacy. The only way to nerf 3e casters is not to turn them into 4e casters, and I can't fathom what sort of mental dysfunction could make you believe so.

>> No.30813422

>>30813399

>4e's gameplay way shit and it moved far, far away from anything like D&D had ever been

That's a lark.

Know what I can do in D&D 4e that I can't do in D&D 3.5? You'll never fucking guess.

I can be a fighter who actually is good at protecting the other squishier classes and taking hits. Which ya know, was what they were intended to do from the beginning .

>> No.30813448

>>30813417

>No, but being a D&D Fighter on the other hand DOES mean you can't be supernatural.

Says who?

> A fighter is supposed to be just a guy with a sword and shield and balls of steel. That is his concept, it has ALWAYS been his concept,

That's the archetype but hardly the set rule.

The wizard in D&D was initially just "the guy who summons fire and lightning" and has since evolved into a world-rending god machine that can destroy and create planes of existence.

Why then is it so crazy that a fighter can channel insane physical ability to go above and beyond mortal assumption?

>> No.30813450

>>30813422
You know what you can't do in 4e?

Tack on your own classes and systems without fucking it all up so badly it's unplayable. Every other game can do that. I do mean EVERY other game.

>> No.30813453

>>30813422

Fighters were not designed to be MMO tanks. The concept of MMO tank didn't even exist then. Fighters were meant to KILL enemies, not soak hits like a sponge.

>> No.30813455

>>30813399
>Shit, people stay behind in every game that updates to a new edition.
Yes. But those people tend to be disproportionately change averse. And you don't normally see a new edition tree-branch directly off that old edition in competition with the new edition or editions that have already come about.

>Never before has the resistance to a new edition been enough to stall, and eventually kill that edition, and spawn a competitor that actually eclipsed the new edition of D&D.
See pic.

>> No.30813458

Sorry, I'm new to tabletops, but what exactly is wrong with 4e? I'm playing it and I'm having a blast.

>> No.30813476

>>30813422
Yeah, you can also not buy new material because the game was dumped from print a few years ago because it was so unpopular.

4e was so good and it's fans so great at telling everyone about it that they've quite possibly killed Dungeons and Dragons.

>>30813458
Nothing if you're having fun with it.

In the larger scheme of things, it proved wildly unpopular with D&D fans and wasn't able to convert enough of them, or attract enough new players to stay in print.

>> No.30813480

>>30813450
>Tack on your own classes and systems without fucking it all up so badly it's unplayable.
To be fair, 3.x is pretty bad at that too. Hell, even the core classes are horrendously balanced. Granted, old school D&D wasn't exactly balanced either, but it was less broken, and since more depended on improvisation, the brokeness mattered less.

>> No.30813488

>>30813476
Fair enough. Was the backlash down to shitty mechanics or shitty DM's?

>> No.30813491

>>30813450

>Tack on your own classes and systems without fucking it all up so badly it's unplayable.

I'm sorry what?

I mean yes it's harder to make a class in 4e than other games but it's not impossible. You might need a calculator and some other classes powers as good reference points but it's not completely impossible.

Also the only reason you can't say that about 3.5 is because it's already so tremendously broken anything you make is literally just pissing into an ocean of proverbial piss.

>>30813453

>Fighters were not designed to be MMO tanks. The concept of MMO tank didn't even exist then

They inspired the idea.

>Fighters were meant to KILL enemies

Which they do. In fact in 4e they can do it a lot more efficiently since Wizards in 4e are only really good at handling large groups of mooks or weaker monsters.

A fighter in 3.5 is statistically way worse at "killing" shit than a good majority of other classes because he goes about doing so in the least efficient way possible. Doing direct physical damage.

>> No.30813494

>>30813458
Nothing unless you feel like doing something other than combat or you want to build something unique-and-useful outside of refluffing. It's a great miniature combat game with roleplay on the side.

>> No.30813503

>>30813448
>Says who?

Says quite a few D&D players it seems.

>The wizard in D&D was initially just "the guy who summons fire and lightning" and has since evolved into a world-rending god machine that can destroy and create planes of existence.
>Why then is it so crazy that a fighter can channel insane physical ability to go above and beyond mortal assumption?

Because one is advancement of the concept and the other is alteration of the concept. Fighters must be nonmagical because fighters must be nonmagical; it's really that tautological.

The main problem with casters in 3e isn't really anything related to their actual abilities as such, but merely the fact that revamping the XP tables turned levels 11-20 from a distant pipedream that one character in a hundred ever reaches, into completely normal and everyday playing turf. In original D&D, 10 was effectively current level 20: game ended there and characters would retire. Balance past that point was a non-issue since so few people ever played past that except as a joke (kind of like how Epic levels are in 3e - nobody expects them to seriously work).

>> No.30813504

>>30813476

>SOMETHING IS UNPOPULAR ERGO IT MUST BE SHIT

That's literally your line of reasoning here.

Do I really need to explain to you why this is a stupid way of thinking?

I MEAN COME ON GUYS IT'S NOT LIKE THE GENERAL PUBLIC HAS NEVER BEEN WRONG OR MISINFORMED ABOUT THINGS!

>> No.30813505

>>30813116
>Bell curves are over-hyped
>Here's how to add a bell curve to d20

>> No.30813508

>>30813458
Zero growth potential. 1-30 is it. Make a new character using the EZ build template system they give you. Wash rinse repeat.

>> No.30813510

>>30813458
It's a different kind of game. It's cool that it's more tactical and balanced, but it can also seem a bit war-gamey. Combat becomes less cinematic and immersive, and more moving guys around on a board and doing cool maneuvers. So it all really depends on what you're looking for.

>> No.30813523

>>30813494
I find that our group handles roleplay quite well.
Hell, I go once a week and we've only had an encounter maybe every second week. We just end up in more roleplay situations than battle ones.

>> No.30813533

>>30813505
>Here's how to add a bell curve to d20
Wait... are you... I can't tell if you're joking. Doubling the modifiers in no way introduces a bell curve. Basically what I'm saying is that a 3d6 functions more like a d10 or even a d8 than a d20.

>> No.30813542

>>30813116
Not bijective, idiot.

>> No.30813544

>>30813523
Different anon, just wondering how have you been handling encounters?

>> No.30813557

>>30813503

>Because one is advancement of the concept and the other is alteration of the concept

Who determines what is considered 'advancement' and 'alteration' here? Isn't 'blaster guy turned into reality-warping god' as much of an alteration as "mundane warrior turned into god-king warrior"?

>The main problem with casters in 3e isn't really anything related to their actual abilities as such, but merely the fact that revamping the XP tables turned levels 11-20 from a distant pipedream that one character in a hundred ever reaches, into completely normal and everyday playing turf. In original D&D, 10 was effectively current level 20: game ended there and characters would retire. Balance past that point was a non-issue since so few people ever played past that except as a joke (kind of like how Epic levels are in 3e - nobody expects them to seriously work).

Which I'd argue is actually a PROBLEM in D&D 2e.

Why are you presenting all these extra levels when you don't expect people to actually FOLLOW them?

I mean yea 3.5 fucked it up by not really understanding what it was doing but why didn't you avoid this shit altogether by saying 'Okay you hit level 9 and character retires! Good game everyone.'

>> No.30813565

>>30813533
Then what exactly is your point? How are your charts proving it?

>> No.30813578

>>30813544
How do you mean? When we fight, as far as I know we use the normal 4e rules. Although recently we've gotten rid of the miniatures in favour of a more 'describe what you are doing' kind of fight.
For everything else It's pretty much just roleplay with a few skill checks here and there to check we can pull stuff off.

>> No.30813579

>>30813542
Yeah, you're going to have to elaborate a little bit there, hoss.

>> No.30813606

>>30813488
It was the radical changes to mechanics and those changes to mechanics also fueled a very foolish round of changes to every established setting which hadn't already been killed off.

The difference between 2e and 3e was nothing to the shifts from 3.5e to 4e. Shit, I think a player who recently traded from 1e AD&D to Pathfinder would not be so lost as 3.5e fans were when they first started reading 4e.

>>30813504
Follow it back a post or two. There I'm just responding to that retarded point about Fighters by rubbing in the fact that 4e was so unpopular that it was yanked out of print and nearly killed the D&D brand.

4e made too many radical changes in the mechanics, and the core races and then went on to do terrible things to the settings. It was too much for D&D fans to accept, and the fourth edition was rejected. Despite the protestations of it's ardent defenders, it became abundantly clear that it was a commercial failure and it was pulled out of print.

If D&D 5e doesn't pull of a miracle, Dungeons and Dragons will be effectively dead. Hilariously, if 5e is also a commercial failure, Paizo may very well end up licensing the rights to D&D from Hasbro, as Hasbro will be looking for some way to make money off of it.

>> No.30813626

>>30813565
My point is that bell curve of 3d6 has a smaller effect on your probabilities of success than most people give it credit for. Even without a bell curve, a d20 gives you approximately the same results once you adjust for scale (in the same way that you would if you were comparing a d10 and a d20, for instance).

>> No.30813636

>>30813145
>I used to actually buy rpg sourcebooks to read. They were well written, presented settings, ideas and new concepts in a captivating way, often with stories that I still go back and read or draw inspiration from 20 years later.
This is something that I really miss. Hell, I practically learned to read picking up my older brothers' D&D books and dragon magazine and whatnot. Very few games give me this kind of feeling anymore, and the last one that did (Battletech) has even managed to shit all over itself to the point that I don't care anymore.

>> No.30813652

>>30813455
The fluff stuff is fucking spot on. I really didn't like the fact that they encouraged you at every fucking step of the way to be a "good" character every step of the way, especially with the divine classes. Like, everything is fucking angelic or good or shit like that and does radiant damage. Honestly, one of my favorite characters was this half-orc cleric of blood that you just couldn't remake without major refluffing of powers.

That, and dragonborn. Fuck dragonborn. They did not deserve to be a core race.

>> No.30813655

>>30813606
Your post is so full of bullshit I dont know where to begin.
Difference from 2e to 3e being smaller than from 3e to 4e? Are you fucking stupid or just trolling?

>> No.30813657

>>30813503
>Fighters must be nonmagical because fighters must be nonmagical; it's really that tautological.

From the SRD:
>Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics.

So yeah, Fighters are, in fact, allowed to break the laws of physics in D&D 3.5

>> No.30813668

As a devotee of the cult of balance but also a simulationist I basically have nothing to play.

>> No.30813672

>>30813448
>Why then is it so crazy that a fighter can channel insane physical ability to go above and beyond mortal assumption?
If I wanted to be a self-buffing wizard with a sword, I'd play a self-buffing wizard with a sword. That's not the same thing as a fighter.

>> No.30813677

>>30813557
Honestly, I've never played 3.5/PF past level 7 or so and it's never been terribly broken.

>> No.30813689

>>30813655
>Difference from 2e to 3e being smaller than from 3e to 4e?
I don't know that I disagree with that. 3e was much more completionist than AD&D, and that and the unified mechanic represented fundamental changes. But 4e's move away from Vancian magic and towards a much more tactical, war-gamey system is huge (not to mention the scale of the fluff changes). So while I don't think you'd have to be crazy to argue either way, I kind of think that 4e is the bigger change.

>> No.30813691

>>30813672
>>Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics.

>> No.30813701

>>30813480
But you can build newclasses that are balanced and capable without fucking he game up so badly you can't play it at all. And you don't have to give said classes 60 new powers to do so. Sure, you can refluff 4e just fine, but that's not the same as being able to build things into the game. And i'm not merely referrign to D&D - you can do this with many, many other games but with 4e it's nearly impossible. The balance is so critically tied to small number adjustments that a +2 or +3 in the wrong place can and has damaged the balance of the game.

That's not good game design. It's a design philosophy meant to sell books.

>> No.30813705

>>30813691
>>30813657
>Fighter breaks conservation of energy
>Saves universe from heat death
>Becomes king of the world
>Brings world peace

>> No.30813711

>>30813672
You mean like Tome of Battle classes?

>> No.30813721

>>30813689
3e was took, much, MUCH more approach to war-gamey aspects and fluff rewriting, the 3e castle ravenloft was pretty much just combat encounters lined up. Not to mention the whole mechanic changes to everything.

>> No.30813727

>>30813701
You can only build new classes in 3.X without breaking the game because the game is so fundamentally broken anything you add is just white noise. Small numbers mattering immensely is the hallmark of a tightly balanced game.

>> No.30813744

>>30813727
Tight balance=lack of player and GM input, which is bad.

>> No.30813747

>>30813701
>The balance is so critically tied to small number adjustments that a +2 or +3 in the wrong place can and has damaged the balance of the game.

Just stop talking already when its clear you dont have any fucking idea what youre talking about.

>> No.30813751

>>30813744
Your "equation" doesn't follow.

>> No.30813761

>>30813747
Considering the designers themselves did that in the first year of it's release multiple times, you should probably shut up.

>> No.30813776

>>30813626
To illustrate, look at how close the chances of success align themselves. The only big difference is at the extremes, where 3d6 attenuates things below 5%. But A) I don't really think that sort of granularity is necessary (especially not since 3d6 is much less granular than a d20 throughout most of its range), and B) it's easy enough to add a mechanic to achieve this on a d20 for the very few occasions when it might actually make a difference (for instance, whenever you roll min/max, roll a d10 and subtract/add it to your roll, treating a result "0" as zero rather than ten).

>> No.30813779

>>30813761
You can play a halfing barbarian and still be relevant even if you dont deal as much damage as a human one. So no, you fuck off.

>> No.30813798

>>30813779
>my balance!
Missing the point. Enjoy your dead system.

>> No.30813811

>>30813798
We are specifically talking about "balance" with designing classes.

>> No.30813814

>>30813798
If Pathfondlers are any indication, 4e will become even more popular now that its dead!

>> No.30813898

>>30813701
You can build a balanced and capable class in 4e just fine, you just need to not suck at game design. I can see how that might be a problem for someone who clearly has paizo's dev team balls deep in them though.

>> No.30813903

>>30812880
>Oh no, people like something that I don't like.

You poor thing, life must be so horrible for you.

>> No.30815050

>>30813241

It's usually:

>nerf casters (and then monsters, plots, settings, items etc etc)

"Videogame shit with no real player agency." 4E did this in a particularly obvious way. Though of course it's not a mandatory outcome.

>buff fighters

"Weeaboo shit. Also, unnecessary, see my proof that Monks don't suck."

More people want the latter than the former, but the designers don't actually understand why or how.

>> No.30815078

>>30813898
>You must be a game designer to successfully add stuff to a game.
Ugh. Next you'll say you can't play them unless you're a game designer too.

>> No.30815207

>>30811688
>what happened to white wolf?
All their games were one trick ponies that managed to ride on the wave of goth subculture in the 90's.

>> No.30815251

>>30815078
>>30815078
If you're designing stuff for a game then aren't you, by definition, a game designer?

Besides, I'd say that the fact that it's harder for shit writers like you to pass off terrible writing is a feature, not a bug.

>> No.30815311

>>30813626

Your point is intrinsically flawed.

Because we aren't comparing 3d6 to 1d20 "with an adjusted scale".

We're comparing 3d6 to 1d20 + modifiers that are not "adjusted to scale".

Altering the way bonuses are added to 1d20 can totally change things. But it also invalidates the comparison, because they are NOT DONE THAT WAY.

>> No.30815344

>>30815251
No, you're a homebrewer.

That's what /tg/ gets it's panties in a bunch about all the time. homebrew bad, game designer good. As long as it proves the other guy wrong.

Nice attempt at semantics though. Kudos for that.

>> No.30815647

>>30811688
If you go by /tg/'s threads, then those numbers are probably vaguely right. If you go to any given game store, it's pretty much just MtG and Pathfinder, all day, every day.

>> No.30815905

>>30815311
>Your point is intrinsically flawed.
No. You just don't know what you're talking about.

>We're comparing 3d6 to 1d20 + modifiers that are not "adjusted to scale".
Are you sure that's what we're doing? Because that would be like saying that my dick is bigger when I measure it in centimeters.

>Altering the way bonuses are added to 1d20 can totally change things. But it also invalidates the comparison, because they are NOT DONE THAT WAY.
Actually, that's the only way the comparison is valid. Otherwise getting a 9 out of 10 on your quiz is the same as getting a 9 on a quiz that's graded on the percentile scale, rather than a 90. Similarly, if you don't adjust for scale, one could argue that, when comparing a d10 to a d% system, the latter is terrible because a +2 bonus does almost nothing. Well, of course it does, because it's a much smaller part of the scale.

When comparing bonuses / steps in different dice systems, you need to calibrate them to the scales you are using. Now obviously, individual systems may have bonuses that are too small or too big, but those are flaws with the systems and not the d20 or 3d6 mechanic, itself.

>> No.30816221

>>30811688
I doubt CoC and Shadowrun are that popular or good

>> No.30816240

>>30813417
>No, but being a D&D Fighter on the other hand DOES mean you can't be supernatural.
This must be why Cu Chulainn is an example fighter in the 2E PHB.

>> No.30816248

>>30815647
LGSes have been dying off for years now. Game stores are not representative of the hobby as a whole.

>> No.30816279

>>30815905

... Actually, that can be a flaw with the mechinic itself.

That's why people don't use d2(coins) to determine most checks success in most RPGs.

You have NO ability to have modifers affect the chance of success in meaningful ways without adding more dice.

>> No.30816300

>>30813606
>The difference between 2e and 3e was nothing to the shifts from 3.5e to 4e.
Bullshit. Utter fucking bullshit. 3E looks like it's AD&D but plays absolutely nothing like it. 4E doesn't look like 3E, but plays closer to 3E than 3E did 2E.

>> No.30816330

>>30816300

Exactly.

Hell, 4e still have Vancian Magic, it just gives it to EVERYONE, and lets recharge times other then going to bed for 8 hours exist (including no recharge, and 5 minutes to catch your breath and meditate)

>> No.30816331

>>30813636
I miss this too.
I'm not really sure who to blame (if there IS anyone to blame), but I think fingers could be pointed at Wizards of the Coast for treating it's new property as another collectible card game in some ways, especially rules-wise, as Monte Cook himself admitted.

>> No.30816361

>>30816221
Shadowrun's usually one of the more popular and well-known games on the market actually.
It helps that Catalyst puts a LOT of books for it, and that it's been around since the late 80's.

>> No.30816424

>>30816279
>That's why people don't use d2(coins) to determine most checks success in most RPGs.
Well that, and rolling a die is a lot quicker and easier than flipping a coin.

>You have NO ability to have modifers affect the chance of success in meaningful ways without adding more dice.
Sure. Your range can lack the granularity necessary to do what you need to do. And on the other end, I guess numbers could get obnoxiously big, making working with them clumsy. But I don't see any such issue with 3d6 or a d20.

>> No.30816441

>>30816221
They're popular and good, actually, yes.

>> No.30816473

>>30813417
>No, but being a D&D Fighter on the other hand DOES mean you can't be supernatural.

nah.

taken to it's logical conclusion, this would prevent you from playing a non-human fighter. tiefling fighter? nope, not normal enough. fighters regularly use magic anyway, in the form of magical items. at one point "hates magic" was actually part of the barbarian's identity, but never the fighter.

a better formulation might be that fighters don't *cast spells*, but that's no reason they can't have some other form of special power (rather like the swordsage).

>> No.30816680

>>30815344
If you design all or parts of a game you are by definition a game designer. "Homebrew" literally just means it's made at home, ie not by a *professional* game designer. In the context of anything other than game design, it's just the same as "hobbyist" - it's not your day job, it's just something you do.

>>30813776
When I first ran across the 3d6 vs d20 discussion, I experimented with it simply because it was an idea that intrigued me - but the difference for me is nothing to do with relative probabilities.
3d6 is a hell of a lot more versatile. I'm a crunch player, my friends are crunch players, and we fucking love it.
>doubles and triples become powerful/dismal and critical orders of success or failure (but don't influence your roll at all - so rolling triples and failing anyway means a critical failure, doubles and failure is dismal, doubles and success is impressive)
>bonuses are 4d6 discard lowest for rank 1 and 4d6 discard any for rank 2 specializations
It's pretty damn sweet how much more variable the game can be with it. Obviously, if you like to roleplay it out more you'd prefer a less complex mechanic and more DM intervention in the results, but to be quite frank none of us are particularly good DMs so we like to make the game interesting instead.

>> No.30817124

>>30813657
>So yeah, Fighters are, in fact, allowed to break the laws of physics in D&D 3.5
Well, let's be honest here. The instant you break open a D&D-book, the laws of physics goes out the cheapest window, along with a good portion common sense.

>> No.30817293

I like pathfinder, I just wish they could tone down tier one classes, they don't have any downfalls.

They should just put in some AD&D drawbacks, would make the game much more palatable.

>> No.30817453

>>30817124
You mean in real life I couldn't become a drownbarian

>> No.30817513

>>30816473
There's no reason a martial class/a class based around fighting can't have special powers, but if you want to play a character without special powers, there should be an option for that. For the first 30 years or so of D&D's life, that was the fighter (or fighting-man). Ignoring >>30817124 and his completely correct comment about D&D's relationship with physics, you don't have to break the laws of physics to be a fighter, and even if you do use a magic item, that's entirely different than actually performing something supernatural yourself.

It ruins the image of the fighter for a lot of people to just say, Okay you can do special fighter-based magical shit now.

>> No.30817562

>>30817513
>It ruins the image of the fighter for a lot of people to just say, Okay you can do special fighter-based magical shit now.
Give me one good reason to give a shit about the opinion of these people when they drag the game down because of it.

>> No.30817633

>>30817513
>that's entirely different than actually performing something supernatural yourself. It ruins the image of the fighter for a lot of people to just say, Okay you can do special fighter-based magical shit now.

SRD:
>Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics.

>> No.30817667

>>30817513
Well there is a difference between the modern interpretation of "Fighter creatures a huge gust of flame with the swing of his blade" and the old days of "Fighter is so fucking boss, he just moved through a room with his sword drawn and 20 people dropped dead."

And let us not forget even 1e books spoke of legendary warriors who pulled off amazing stunts. As I recall there was even an artifact sword in one of the splats that was wielded by a fighter who shattered a sword so fucking hard the shards flew out and killed everyone around him.

>> No.30817681

>>30817667
>Fighter creatures
Fighter creates.

>> No.30817726

>>30817667
>Fighter creatures a huge gust of flame with the swing of his blade
Which you won't find in 4E, and even if you did, it would be a choice. At worst you have early oddities like Come And Get It, which was fixed years ago.

>> No.30818215

>>30813557
>>30811688
is D&D 3.5e shit? I'm new to the world of RPG and if it is that bad, then which game should I play as a beginner? I heard Pathfinder is good but not noob friendly.

>> No.30818266

>>30818215

Pathfinder is almost the same exact thing as D&D 3.5.

Pick either, you'll be happy. People obsess too much over systems.

I prefer 2E, but I'm old.

>> No.30818277

>>30813145
The saddest part with White Wolf is the sheer amount of contractual denial they're doing about the fact whenever it crops up online.

>> No.30818293

>>30811840
Except White Wolf has one full time employee left, doesn't print anymore, and borderline dropped out of Europe (their biggest market in the 90s)

>> No.30818303

>>30818215
>is D&D 3.5e shit?

that's a point of view. it has issues and I wouldn't recommend it to a beginner, though.

4e is easier to get into but some people regard it as too "gamey" (which is really true of D&D in general). if you're more interested in telling a story, you might look into dungeon world.

>> No.30818352

>>30813417
Being a D&D fighter in Advanced meant that you were also, at high levels, supernatural proof with saves that could make most casters cry.

>> No.30818401

>>30818266
I'll take a look at pathfinder. Thanks
>>30818303
The story itself is more important to me than combat and stuff, but maybe 4e is easier and my group will like it more. Thank you

>> No.30818437

>>30813606
I was a teen during the 2e-3e transition and I stuck to 2e except in one online game because fuck learning a whole new headache d&d system when I have auditions for music school and I still had problems figuring it all out until PF1 came out.

I picked up 4e during finals downtime.

>> No.30818585

locally I've got one group who is stuck on 3.5

None of them know the rules though.
I'm talking basic combat.
Motherfuckers don't even know how many actions in a turn and we've been playing for 2 years.

Better off playing videogames together. But that won't happen until I quit GMing for them.

Fuck my stubbornness, it's making me fucking miserable but I refuse to quit.

>> No.30818596

>>30818401
>I'll take a look at pathfinder. Thanks

Welp. Another one lost. Thanks, D&D.

>> No.30818613

>>30818596
lol what game do you sugget then?

>> No.30818643

>>30818613

Dungeon World

>> No.30818658

>>30818613
Risus?

Does it have to be high fantasy?

>> No.30818665

>>30811688
?: Mutant Undergångens Arvtagare
?: Mutant År Noll
?: Symbaroum
?: Trudvang
?: Svavelvinter

But R'lyeh Call of Cthulhu.

Not R'lyeh a RPG: anything D&D and of its ilk.

>> No.30818670

>>30817633
Yes, I saw you quote it the first time too. If you want, you can take that 30, turn it into a 25, and I will remind you that 3E wasn't the first edition of Dungeons and Dragons, and that plenty of people hate both it AND 4E

>> No.30818679

>>30818613

People are making fun of D&D for turning people away from D&D. Don't sweat it. This is D&D's problem, not yours.

Pathfinder is perfectly good. Just about any RPG system is perfectly good; they're just not all necessarily good at all the same things in all the same ways.

People like to gripe about systems for the same reason why people talk about the weather. Pay it no heed.

>> No.30818701

>>30818643

Listen to this man. Just stay away from D&D. Today there are many better systems out there, Dungeon World is one of them.

>> No.30818723

>>30818679
oh lol. Got it. I'm gonna look at Pathfinder and Dungeon world.
>>30818658
High fantasy would be better.

>> No.30818757

>>30818679
>Just about any RPG system is perfectly good; they're just not all necessarily good at all the same things in the same ways.

You know, this actually makes me mad, because you are trying to excuse decades worth of terrible game design with some kind of "every way is the right way" feel-good slogan devoid of any critical thinking.

Like, alright sure fine, to a newbie who doesn't give a shit about well designed systems, just pick up whatever's most popular in your area. Sure, fine, that's good advice. But this sentiment right here? This pisses me off.

>> No.30818773

>>30818679

>pathfinder is perfectly good

No. It really isn't. I'm not joking when I'm saying this. Pathfinder is not perfectly good. It's bad. It's very bad.

All newcomers should just make themselves a service and jump straight past the part where you're endlessly frustrated by how bad D&D is so they can start enjoying proper systems right away instead.

>> No.30818778

>>30816331
White Wolf became notorious for this post-2000 as well.

It's also probably where they began to "learn" that new systems should be totally incompatible with old systems.

See White Wolf'd revised edition was forced into direct competition with it's infinitely better selling 2nd edition, particularly of Vampire. Eventually, it became policy that all new books had to contain new powers, merits and flaws, or the books wouldn't sell, because they were otherwise just rehashes of the material printed in the 90's.

WotC just took this to it's logical conclusion with 3.5, every book was a catalog of new feats, spells, gear, and prestige classes, with almost all the background and setting material boiled out.

>> No.30818788

But no doubt there's a problem with the EPIC scale on the Fantasy side when it comes to RPGs that it has been totaly dominated by D&D (PF/FC, same hing with different titles) for a very long time with no real alternatives (WHFRP, RQ and the other classic Fantasy RPGs where never that epic, rather always more down to earth and gritty with in their own settings).

So for EPIC Fantasy I don't know, are there any decent choises at all out there (that aint in swedish, german, polish, spanish or french only)?

>> No.30818824

>>30818757

You need to be less mad, or find better reasons to get mad.

>> No.30818830

>>30813779
Yes, you'll just be the cause of the half hour long combats turning into hour long combats.

>> No.30818841

>>30818788

Runequest runs epic fantasy just fine.

I'm not sure what you're asking for with epic though? Like, what's epic to you?

Because personally I think LotR was pretty epic and they just spent most of their time complaining about the food when they weren't getting the snot beaten out of them by goblins/orcs/uruk-hai/giant spiders, and that's perfectly possible in Runequest too.

What's your idea of epic fantasy supposed to be?

>> No.30818858

>>30815207
Close, They caused the wave of goth subculture in the 90's. You really had to be there. Those games touched everything. Vampire really can only be second to D&D itself in it's cultural impact.

>> No.30818861

>>30818788

AD&D 2E. Dungeon World. Lots of systems are good. Just pick one.

>> No.30818873

>>30813636
>Very few games give me this kind of feeling anymore

If you're interested in wuxia fiction, or just like the idea of high-powered martial arts in general, I'd read Legends of the Wulin. It's friggin chock full of that stuff. Really cool book

>> No.30818876

>>30818858
>IM-FUCKING-PLYING
No, Vampire did not cause that.

Vampire was popular with that crowd. That is not at all the same thing.

>> No.30818888

>>30818824

I actually think that degeneration of critical thinking is an issue worth being mad about.

>> No.30818899

>>30818858
The hell? The wave of goth subculture came from a bunch of punks getting into nihilism, not some rpg publisher making vampire games.

>> No.30818919

>>30818888

Me too. I like your attitude.

>> No.30818921

>>30816300
>>30816330
Sorry, I made the conversion from 1e AD&D to 2e AD&D to D&D 3e to D&D 3.5e to D&D 4e.

4e was a pretty jarring shift. It's torpedoing of all the existing settings didn't help, nor did it's inclusion of those new fucking awful races in the core.

>> No.30818928

>>30813241
>"4e Videogame Shit"
I find that the people who say this also tend to be the kind of people who only talk about how much damage they can do when asked about their character as if they're playing an MMORPG.

>> No.30818940

>>30818921
>It's torpedoing of all the existing settings didn't help
3E already did that and every setting that got updated for 3E went to shit.
>nor did it's inclusion of those new fucking awful races in the core.
Pretty sure I'd rather have them than gnomes.

>> No.30818959

>>30818437
You're just stupid then. I won't even allow that you're a lying sack of 4e fanwank. You claimed you were too stupid to understand AC being calculated as a postive number and how feats worked, so you are literally retarded.

How are finals at short-bus school?

>> No.30818966

>>30818921
That's easy considering wizards didn't so much torpedo as kill the vast majority of 2ed settings.

>> No.30818990

>>30818959
>You claimed you were too stupid to understand AC being calculated as a postive number and how feats worked, so you are literally retarded.
If you think that's all there is to 3E you're a retarded piece of shit fanboy.

>> No.30819020

ITT: 4th Edition D&D fans continue trying to destroy the entire hobby rather than admit their favorite dead edition of D&D was flawed.

>> No.30819022

>>30818921
>those new fucking awful races in the core
>new races
Name one that wasn't a variation on a concept as old as the franchise.
Also, way to exclude MM1 races from core. You had gnomes. You had half-orcs. Cry some more.

>> No.30819029

>>30818861
>AD&D
Did we say aside from D&D?
>Dungeon World
A very new system and pretty much alone and with a limited scale.

>>30818841
No, RuneQuest don't do epic fine at all. It contains epic stories, but you can always tell an epic story. the mechanics don't do it well enough, there's room for a bit of epic values and scales but it don't immerse you in it.

Stormbringer also do epic but again there's more epic storytelling than epic scales and values.

Ars Magica can do epic very well, but it's a very niched setting and style and hardly what the average dungeon roleplayer would be looking for.

>> No.30819047

>>30819020
ITT: Trolls trying to incite edition wars by lying.

>> No.30819048

>>30811688
why not just setup a strawpoll app and check for real?

>> No.30819049

>>30818888

There is no need to upset.

I have had fun playing a variety of RPG systems. It's easy to have fun when you have (or are) a good GM with good players. The idea that critical thinking would have actually led me to hate those systems is just beyond silly, especially if you're getting *mad* about it. It's like getting mad at me for saying that rugby is about as fun as other sports, depending on what you like to do. Besides, if OP winds up hating Pathfinder (or whatever), it's not as OP isn't aware that other systems exist. You won't know until you check it out. Hell, you could just download a PDF for free and determine right there if it's worth buying into.

Complaining about systems reminds of when people on photography boards spend all their time talking about gear, instead of going out and taking pictures.

>> No.30819063

>>30818990
Yes, of course, I did forget AoO.

>>30819022
Why bother? Your piece of shit edition already got yanked by it's publisher in record time because no one would actually buy the shit. It got roflstomped by a company that got cut loose by WotC in their consolidation efforts for the even worse failure that was the D&D Online resources.

>> No.30819073

>>30818959
No, I hated 4e, but the system was a damn sight easier to go to from 3e than 3e from 2e. Also there were a hell of alot of changes in 3e.

>> No.30819086

>>30819047
Nigger, this has been edition wars since about 12 hours ago. Shit, the most worthwhile note is that the 4e pricks are now the actual grognards here. 3.5/PF is at least still an actual in-print game. 4e has been dead for YEARS.

>> No.30819094

>>30818921

If it bugs you, then don't play 4E, or if you do play 4E, don't use the races you don't like. Done. WOTC is not going to sneak into your house and string you up because you used an old edition, or because you didn't have a Dragonborn in your party.

>> No.30819102

>Call of Cthulhu
>Good
Like any system that relies on a flat die roll the dice decide how you play. Doesn't matter if you have 90 (no character ever gets this) in a skill the dice decide how you play. Now if you're looking for a 'simulation' of people flailing wildly unable to do anything as monsters tear them apart you have something.

>> No.30819122

>>30819086
>Nigger, this has been edition wars since about 12 hours ago.
No, it hasn't. You showed up and started shitposting.

>> No.30819123

>>30819073
>hated
you have issues, you should probably seek counseling for that.

PS. 4e is D&D done almost right (the layout was absolutely horrible though). It's a boargame after all.

>> No.30819157

>>30819102
You do know that dice rolls are just suggestions, just like any other values, for the GM to take into account and derive inspiration from, right? It's kinda the core of BRP/RPGaming.

>> No.30819159

>>30819063
>Why bother?
>Why bother backing up my hate with facts?
>4E is dead so I can lie like a demon about it!
I don't know where to start with you.

>> No.30819215

>>30819029

Can you give an example of an epic mechanic then?

>> No.30819216

>>30819159
If tongue bath it long enough, do you think it will come back to life?

>> No.30819223

>>30819049

You're actively giving bad advice to a newcomer though

>> No.30819271

>>30819049

I've had fun playing 3.5e, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the game, and I have had quite enough of people posting about how it's not a bad system because they played it with people they like. A fun crowd makes anything fun.

I also detest your implication that I don't actually play pen and paper games just because I hate certain terrible systems. It's an entirely baseless assumption made in an attempt to take some kind of moral highground.

Lastly, the idea that advising a newcomer to the hobby shy away from a bloated, needlessly complex, terribly balanced game on the basis that newcomers will find it more difficult to use as a system than better designed systems (such as Dungeon World) is doing them some disservice or evidence of some ranting mindless hatred is intellectually dishonest. In fact, that sums up every post you've made thus far; intellectually dishonest.

I find you repugnant and I do not like you.

>> No.30819313

>>30819216
You're not making any sense. First you claim that the 4E PHB1 contained new races which is provably false, and when called out on that, you change the subject to 4E's financial failure. Typically in a debate when someone calls your bluff and you deliberately avoid answering, that's a point against you and a sign you're full of shit.
Now tell me, please.
WHAT
RACE
IN
THE
4E
PHB1
WAS
NEW?
If your next post is anything but the name of a race, you forfeit.

>> No.30819319

A question to the guys who prefer it when fighters can't do obviously supernatural shit: what sort of abilities would you actually be willing to give them?

The way I see it, to make up for magic while being mundane your average fighter is going to have to be a Fafhrd-like skill monkey, able at virtually any mundane task with higher attributes all around.

>> No.30819330

>>30819223

You are truly the angriest babyfur. The guy can go look at Pathfinder and decide for himself if it seems like something he'd want to play. Pathfinder has apparently killed your family, and now you thirst for vengeance, but for many people, it works just fine.

The best advice of all would be to just join a running group and see how that goes. Until that guy has a point of reference, neither he nor we are going to know what he's going to like and/or dislike about any particular RPG system.

>> No.30819338

>>30819271
>balanced
Don't really matter in a RPG though. What matters is if the mechanics describe the setting well enough and are entertaining to use. Balance should be the GM, not the mechanics.

That said, D&D, not being a RPG, fucking needs balance, it craves it, demands it, screams for it, but just cant.. well I guess 4e did its best (come on admit that youäre a board game already, just do it and be done with it and be the ebst story driven dungeon crawling adventure board game there is).

>> No.30819355

>>30819313
I'm not them, but I thought the Dragonborn were new.
I mean, half-dragons and draconic races are nothing new, but still.

>> No.30819360

>>30819020
I didn't enjoy playing 4th, but it was probably the least mechanically fucked up edition of D&D. I am a wargamer first, and earlier editions of D&D could have easily been penned by Matt Ward and no one would notice the difference.

>> No.30819370

>>30819319
Works just fine in Trudvang, Svavelvinter, Symbaroum.. It's good to be Swedish (though I wish more European games would be translated to English).

>> No.30819374

>>30819313
Dragonborn.
Tiefling also used to be a setting limited race.

>> No.30819379

>>30819355
Dragonborn are not new. They were in 3E and were a million times worse in 3E because they were dragon otherkin.

>> No.30819399

>>30819374
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20060105b

>> No.30819402

>>30819379
Considering 3E and 4e, combined, had less shelf life than 2nd or 1st editions alone, still counts as new.

>>30819360
I would hate if the FFG games played exactly like the wargames.

>> No.30819405

>>30819355
Nope, 3E invented them, and they were a lot more fetishy back then.
Tieflings and superelves are even older.

>> No.30819417

>>30819402
>Considering 3E and 4e, combined, had less shelf life than 2nd or 1st editions alone, still counts as new.
That argument makes no sense whatsoever.

>> No.30819422

>>30819330

Man, you didn't even try to deny PF is bad. Shouldn't that cue you in that you shouldn't be actively promoting it to new people trying to get into the hobby?

Teaching someone to do the wrong thing was an entertaining joke in Kung Pow but doing it to a newby in the real world is just bad.

I'm by the way not the guy lashing out at you earlier so don't bother with the insults.

>> No.30819438

>>30819338
>Don't really matter in a RPG though.

yes, it does. the heart of balance is the idea that all options are worthwhile (within the context of the game). if you're going to introduce an option that isn't worthwhile, what's the point? unless it's supposed to be some kind of joke option, I guess.

>> No.30819457

>>30819338
Don't tell me you don't care about balance. Virtually every character creation system is built around a (usually feeble) attempt to balance the characters. If you truly did not care you would give players varying amounts of resources at char gen virtually at random, or let one start as a dragon and the other as a turnip farmer.

The principles you describe are anathema to any actual game system. Free form might fit your bill better.

>> No.30819460

>>30819399
Yeah, site content. Not at my gaming table.

>>30819417
A new in 3e race is still new, especially when it wasn't core and would likely have been banned on sight by any sane DM

>> No.30819470

>>30819338
>Don't really matter in a RPG though.

Before we go ANY fucking further here, I am going to explain EXACTLY what I goddamn mean by balance.

Each player in a game should exert roughly equal narrative influence. They should each be able to tug the game in a direction of their choosing roughly on par with one another. If that SOUNDS vague, let me boil it down like this; if a Wizard can summon angels, the Fighter should be able to pull off more than rinky dink bicycle tricks. They do not exert the same level of narrative influence. One vastly overshadows the other.

Now if you're going to tell me straight-fucking-faced that you don't actually think that an RPG, THAT IS BEING SOLD FOR FUCKING MONEY I SHALL REMIND YOU, should not, out-of-the-box, come with properly designed mechanics and math that allow for this balance, that you think a GM should just have to pull some bullshit out of his ass to try to make biking as relevant as angel-summoning, I am going to go full on atomic-mad on your retarded ass. Fuck you, fuck your lack of standards, and fuck people like you.

>> No.30819483

>>30819402
They don't have to play the same, but their mechanical components should be fun on their own without relying on the GM to make them work. At that point you might as well just make everything up.

>> No.30819489

>>30813476
>4e was so good and it's fans so great at telling everyone about it that they've quite possibly killed Dungeons and Dragons.

Actually, I'd think the issue there is more the 3.x'ers flaming it. It wasn't what they wanted but it was still good and an improvement but they were the ones that were trying to tell everyone it sucked.

>> No.30819513

>>30819460
>Not at my gaming table.
Nobody gives a fuck about your gaming table.

You were asked to prove that 4E had a new race in its core rulebook - as in something 4E invented.

A race that debuted in 3E is not new.

Stop your retarded fucking mental gymnastics.

>> No.30819515

>>30813476
People have shit taste. What else is new? D&D is the Call of Duty of RPGs.

>> No.30819541

>>30819422

I had already defended PF earlier. I have friends who absolutely love it. Some people dislike it, fine, but you can't know until you look into it.

It seems like you're trying to find a more emotional way to say, "you said that PF could be fine, but I personally don't think PF is fine, and that makes me the second-angriest babyfur". Maybe if you want to steer this guy away from PF, you should explain to *him* exactly what it is that you don't like about it. Other than that, it just comes off as a whole bunch of "STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE."

From my experience with RPG systems, it really is the case that good GMs and players can make any system fun. No system is perfect. The most important part is just playing and having a good time with the team. That's it. I have *my* preferences for systems, but that doesn't mean that your preferences would be the same.

>> No.30819559

>>30819483
Yeah, but you can houserule a hell of a lot more with a tabletop rpg than with a wargame so GM leeway should still be allowed. Even the best systems tend to have lists of common houserules.

>>30819489
AD&D had balance between casters and fighters and it didn't rely on reducing casters to DPS engines. the non-A editions were both utter shit in their own way.

>> No.30819565

>>30819460
>any sane DM
Good thing we have the One True Scotsman here to decide which officially published content doesn't really exist because he doesn't like it! I was worried we might accidentally have badwrongfun for a moment!

>> No.30819575

>>30819565
I know 3rd and 4th edition players like the new style of rules for trying to turn the DMs into carpets for their whims, but seriously no.

>> No.30819577

>>30819541
>it really is the case that good GMs and players can make any system fun.

As with many 3aboos, you cannot seem to grasp that the fact that any game *can* be fun does not mean that every game is *good*.

>> No.30819583

>>30819559
>and it didn't rely on reducing casters to DPS engines.
Good thing 4E didn't do that either, huh?

>> No.30819632

>>30819438
The balance is always in the hand of the GM. It do not matter how much you've spent in your choises and options if the GM do not give you the opportunity for your character to make use of them.

All options should be interesting, they should make sense with in the setting. They do not have to be of equal numerical value or effect.

>> No.30819638

>>30819565

I'm not that guy, but the reference to sane DMs is spot-on. Good DMs are aware that all rules are only ever suggestions, and so they know how to work around each system's quirks. That's why so many of the "OH GOD THIS SYSTEM SUUUUUCKS" complaints just sort of sound like problems with DMing in general. Don't like a part of the system? Ditch it, change it, or just change systems without pretending like you've been grievously wronged.

I feel like these edition wars weren't happening on the internet 15 years ago. Probably just rose-colored glasses...

>> No.30819650

>>30819575
You (or someone else) were asked to name a race from the 4E PHB1 that was new. At this you failed, and said 3E dragonborn doen't count because you would never allow them.
So you essentially put your hands on your ears and screamed "LALALALATHEYWERENTIN3EBECAUSEICANTHEARYOULALALALA" as an argument.

>> No.30819671

>>30819559
Here's the thing: if people were good at making rules they could design the system themselves from the ground up. If a system requires house rules from amateurs who are not qualified game designers then it has failed to provide any value for the money you have paid.

>> No.30819677

>>30819513

>That guy still hasn't replied to this post

>> No.30819686

>>30819457
>Don't tell me you don't care about balance.
I do when it comes to the GM doing his or her "job". I do not if it's just to force arbitrary game mechanical equality in conflict situations, no. Mechanics are there to illustrate the setting and to be entertaining and interesting insipration for roleplaying.

This is by no way anything weird if you just step away from D&D.

>> No.30819699

>>30819638
Because you don't actually need the system once you regularly house rule it! You are just making shit up as you go. Drop the pretense of playing D&D. Stop funding WotC.

>> No.30819705

>>30819638
And what you don't understand is that a DM has to spend their time fixing the game and making houserules. That's time they could spend improving the game instead of time they have to spend making the game work.

But you wouldn't know that because you've never actually played a system where everything works and you don't have to houserule something every five minutes.

>> No.30819708

>>30819650
Who the fuck pays attention to the WotC site?

>> No.30819719

>>30819677
Of course he hasn't. There's nothing to misinterpret whatsoever and any response to it will be either him trolling and admitting he's shitposting or him admitting that he was wrong.

>> No.30819723

>>30819577

So, people who don't instantly fly into a rage at 3.x are "3aboos"? Yumpin' yiminy.

I'm all about the 2E, personally. What's more, I could talk *all day* about 2E's "problems". It doesn't matter. No system is perfect. There are always ways to make things work. The point is to have fun. I can swear on a stack of bibles that you can have a lot of fun with 2E, 3E, 3.5E, 4E, and PF, although each system has its ups and downs.

If you CAN'T have fun with 3.5E, then either it's not being run correctly, or there's something toxic in the group, or maybe you've just committed to the idea that it's bad and you hate it and you will never ever ever be its friend ever.

>> No.30819734

>>30819632
so, do you let your players make any kind of character they want? one person can play a leperous rat, another can be the divine all-father? and as DM, you are happy to find ways for those two characters to feel useful and challenged while they co-exist in the same party going on adventures together?

because anything less is rollplaying gamist bullshit.

>> No.30819735

>>30819470
>Each player in a game should exert roughly equal narrative influence

Yes and that is done by the GM doing his or her "job".

This is roleplaying games, not combat scenario boardgaming.

>a GM should just have to pull some bullshit out of his ass
Welcome to GMing.

Have you tried Descent? It might be more your cup of tea.

>> No.30819736

>>30819708
People who realize that it has usable material on it?

>> No.30819738

>>30819686
Are you kidding? The whole "but with a good GM..!" thing is exclusively the area of D&D and White Wolf fags.

>Mechanics are there to illustrate the setting and to be entertaining and interesting insipration for roleplaying.
You don't need mechanics for that. You can just read the fluff! Or a non-game book! Mechanics are for following. They are the rules of the game portion of the game.

>> No.30819748

>>30819723

>No system is perfect, so we can't expect any of them to be good.

I suppose I shouldn't expect anything less from a D&Der.

>> No.30819761

>>30819719
First quit samefagging, second a minor onsite 3rd edition addition is more new than anything done in 2nd edition been even for 2nd edition. Neither of the past two editions had even a third of 2nd's shelf life so the new comment still works just fine.

If you seriously think disliking 3rd or 4th must be shitposting then the one with issues is you as you're taking it way too personal for what is A GAMING RULES SYSTEM.

>> No.30819774

>>30819705

It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to make things work. I've never had to gut-renovate 2E or 3.5E to make it work. I can barely remember what the house rules for 3.5E had been.

>>30819699

I play 2E, so WotC has nothing to do with it. Even if I were playing 3.5E, it's not as if I'd be gut-renovating it anyway.

It just sounds like you guys are really mad that people like things that you don't like.

>> No.30819809

>>30819761
>Neither of the past two editions had even a third of 2nd's shelf life
Wrong. 2E lasted from 1989 to 1997, when TSR went defunct. That's 8 years. Coincidentally, that's as long as 3E was supported.

1E lasted for 12 years IF you count the PHB alone. If you're going by DMG release, it lasted for 10 years.

>> No.30819810

>>30819734
we all sit down and talk through what style of game we want to play and what ideas we have when we start something new.

but yes if the setting, theme, mood of the setting and game allows for that width then by all means.

This is nothing weird once you get away from the D&D boardgaming influence of the hobby and feel secure in yourself and your fellow players and GM.

It's about placing trust in your fellow gamers, a trust in that they are there to entertain you and you them, instead of everyone being there for their own personal selfish entertainment.

>DM
We don't generally play D&D. There's beter boardgames out there if we want to do that.

>> No.30819811

>>30819735
How about you play something beside Freeform with Dice? Dogs in the Vineyard, Everyone Is John, and The Mountain Witch are not remotely about combat and yet they are all games where you are expected to rigidly follow the rules. This is because their rules were not written by a hack and actually have a purpose. They were carefully designed to evoke a certain style of play. To disregard them would quite probably ruin the experience.

>> No.30819815

>>30819735
>Yes and that is done by the GM doing his or her "job".

So, here's our situation; d&d 3.5e, we have a Fighter, and a Druid. The Druid just got himself Natural Spell, discovered the wonders of Summoning Creatures and the power of a good animal companion, and some good old fashioned Shapeshifting. The Fighter has level-appropriate wealth as described in the Dungeon Master's manual.

These characters are not going to be even remotely equivalent to one another. And you find this okay. Not just okay, but just kind of par for the course, *expected* even. And this is a system you intend to recommend to newbies. To people who are just reading the fucking book, doing what it says, and having to clean up the results because they're garbage.

GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU SELF RIGHTEOUS INTELLECTUALLY BANKRUPT PIECE OF SHIT.

>> No.30819816

>>30819748

You are autistic. Things can be both flawed and good. If running an RPG is too hard for you to enjoy it, then don't run one.

>> No.30819818

>>30819761
>second a minor onsite 3rd edition addition is more new than anything done in 2nd edition been even for 2nd edition.
Nobody. Fucking. Cares.

It was made for 3E.

It is not a 'new race' for 4E.

>> No.30819839

>>30819774
I am not mad at you liking things I don't like. I am mad at you saying you like that thing when you don't actually make use of it. I never enjoyed playing 4e but I can tell it is actually well designed. You know this because the rules can generally be followed verbatim without the game breaking down. On the other side if you have to make shit up all the time you are not actually using the rules.

I could say Monopoly is the greatest roleplaying game known to man because we invented this complex set of rules simulating international economic melodrama which uses the happenings of the game as inspiration, but truth be told, monopoly gets to take no credit in our success.

>> No.30819840

>>30813417
if you don't think conan the barbarian, the feats of ancient heroes like perseus, or the shit that aragon/legolas/gimli do in the lotr movies aren't supernatural than you are retarded.

>> No.30819894

>>30819738
No. No it's not. White Wolf is a decade after I even started RPGaming. I know most peoples references don't go that far back or that most people don't have the luxury to have been brought up in the diverse RPGaming hobby of the early 80's here in Sweden.

You don't need mechanics to illustrate the setting? Are you kidding me? Nothing in Call of Cthulhu is as iconic as its SANity stat and its Myhtos skill (something specificly there for that reason despite otherwise being core BRP). With out them the game would probably never have gained the cult following as it has as a RPG.

>> No.30819935

>>30819735
>Yes and that is done by the GM doing his or her "job".

the job of the GM is to have fun, while making things fun for everybody else. the job of the mechanics is to make that *easy for the GM*.

if the mechanics allow one player to play a cripple and the other player to play a god, the implicit trust in the system is that somehow these characters will be able to naturally contribute and complement each other in a fun way, without the GM having to come up with tons of extremely contrived scenarios where every village requires the urgent help of a quadriplegic. the GM should be able to relax and enjoy themselves telling a story without having to worry that the player of the cripple has no mechanical ability to influence the story or the gameplay, and thus needs constant babysitting. meanwhile, the player of the god is getting bored because 90% of the challenges the GM thinks up are things the god can resolve without the least bit of effort or thought, and the GM has to worry about that too. there are more exciting things he'd rather be doing, but the poor cripple can't keep up.

saying "but the GM can fix it" is pointless, because the GM shouldn't have to fix it. the system exists so you can settle into a game without having to worry whether these problems will crop up.

this scenario might sound fair to you - why did the "cripple" player pick a cripple if he didn't want to be crippled? if the cripple was called something like "monk" or "fighter", the problem becomes clear.

>> No.30819938

>>30819811
the excistence of perceived balance in mechanics don't mean there have to be balance in mechanics.

the mechanics are again there to illustrate the setting and its paradigms, not to force and constrain, but to inspire and suggest.

>> No.30819953

>>30819894
You don't need the mechanics if you are not going to follow them. A rule is only useful if it always applicable. Otherwise you are moved from the seat of a player to the seat of a designer, and then you effectively just paid someone for a half-baked set of mechanics left for you to fix. Once that is the case building the whole thing from the ground up is easier than fixing the mess the guy you paid left for you.

You being an old school gamer makes a lot of sense. Game design has advanced by leaps and bounds in the last decade. I suggest you read some of Ron Edward's articles. The guy is an insufferable ass but he is very insightful.

>> No.30819973

>>30819938
Why would you need pages upon pages of concrete rules spelled out in legalese if their purpose is to inspire and suggest? Wouldn't prose be better for that?

>> No.30820018

Shadowrun is a mess. Minmaxing is pretty much the point of the system, certain ideas (a Mage trying to kill shit with magic?) are plain bad, some options are clearly worse than others, mechanics are broken and giant chunks are horribly clunky subsystems (everything astral and hacking) that are ignored by a lot of people since it's not a lot of fun for the rest of the group to watch the hacker do his thing for an hour straight.

On top of that there's the horrible politics of Catalyst that just throw out supplements that upset the balance even more and leave doing erratas to the German publisher.

>> No.30820020

>>30819935
Yes! To make it easy by giving inspiration and
suggestion to the GM. Not by forcing balance.

Can there be a perceived balance? Course there can. But that sense of balance can also mean nothing if the GM don't give each players character their time to shine with in their chosen area of expertise (or just chosen story elements).

Balance don't come from the mechanics, but from the attention given, the chances given to shine or even dwell in the characters misery and failures, if that is what that player and group feels entertained by.

>> No.30820081

>>30812931
>4e was a suicide
>Despite being financially successful

Look, 4e wasn't a company-wide suicide.

It only killed two people.

>> No.30820127

>>30818773
As a newcomer I hate people like you. all you do is say how bad something is, not why. the least you could do is give an alternative systems.

>> No.30820151

>>30820127
>the least you could do is give an alternative systems.

Not that guy, but Dungeon World, Fantasycraft, 13th Age, really anything that's not F.A.T.A.L. is better than Pathfinder.

>> No.30820157

>>30820127
Well, what are you looking for? Do you want concrete mechanics or something a bit more cinematic where the narrative is just as important as the mechanical effect?

Are you specifically looking for high fantasy?

>> No.30820197

>>30820127
>the least you could do is give an alternative systems.
Dungeon World
Call of Cthulhu
GURPS
Savage Worlds
Runequest
FATE
7th Sea
Shadowrun
Laundry Files
In no particular order.

>> No.30820228

>>30813458

Nothing. Some people just don't want you to have badwrongfun.

>> No.30820233

>people ITT saying World of Darkness is dead
>Onyx Path putting out 26 books this year, doing monthly kickstarters, hiring freelancers like crazy

What

>> No.30820249

>>30820233

Every system that's not Pathfinder is dead.

>> No.30820268

>>30820249
If true, pic related. But why do you say that?

>> No.30820288

>>30820268

Not enough rules, too many funky-shaped dice

>> No.30820306

>>30820288
>funky dice
>WoD runs on d10s and nothing else

>> No.30820334

>>30818613
Try 13th Age.

>> No.30820388

>>30819460
Just to nitpick/clarify, 3E Dragonborn were not "site content", That link is to a preview. Dragonborn were published in Races of the Dragon.

>> No.30820427

>>30820388
Was gonna say this. I was reading the book earlier this week.

>> No.30820503

>>30820427
It's a decent read. I liked how they did kobold society and half dragons. I especially liked how they made kobolds nice to other kobolds but evil to everything else due to worshipping a xenophobic god. So they aren't really evil except for this one aspect of being incredibly racist.

>> No.30820526

>>30820503
>>30820427
>>30820388
But you don't understand. Anything introduced in either 3E or 4E makes the transition from 3E to 4E more complicated.

>> No.30820531

>>30819638

Not rose-colored glasses--3rd edition hadn't been released yet. All of the older arguments had fizzed out long ago.

>> No.30820565

>>30820526
>Anything introduced in either 3E or 4E makes the transition from 3E to 4E more complicated.

..What.

>> No.30820566

>>30820503
>Kobolds
>Adorable little asshole monsters
>I'm now picturing them as INCREDIBLY RACIST caricatures

>> No.30820616

>>30820565
They are responding to a troll that was asserting that earlier.

>> No.30820644

>>30819708
Keep digging yourself deeper, I'm enjoying this.

>> No.30820977 [DELETED] 

>>30819953
>You don't need the mechanics if you are not going to follow them.
Course you do - inspiration.

> A rule is only useful if it always applicable.
There's only one rule in RPGaming - The GM is always right (not the books, not the mechanics, not the dice).

>>30820020
>crippled
As I said. The mechanics are there to illustrate the settings paradigms. If the warriors in the setting are cripples, then so be it. If not then the mechanics failed in illustrating the setting. It has nothing to do with group balance.

>30819973
Why would you need pages of pages of setting background or even published material at all to play pretend? For the inspiration. Or do you expect the players to get sheets of prewritten dialog with their characters as well?

>> No.30820989

>>30820503

Yeah, I already liked kobolds but the book made me really wanna roll one and play one in a game. It's a fun book.

My group (well, one guy in it) want me to make my paladin into a dragonborn but I'm kinda not sure if want over here.

>> No.30821014 [DELETED] 

>>30819953
>You don't need the mechanics if you are not going to follow them.
Course you do - inspiration.

> A rule is only useful if it always applicable.
There's only one rule in RPGaming - The GM is always right (not the books, not the mechanics, not the dice).

>>30820020
>crippled
As I said. The mechanics are there to illustrate the settings paradigms. If the warriors in the setting are cripples, then so be it. If not then the mechanics failed in illustrating the setting. It has nothing to do with group balance.

>30819973
Why would you need pages of pages of setting background or even published material at all to play pretend? For the inspiration. Or do you expect the players to get sheets of prewritten dialog with their characters as well?

>> No.30821052

>>30819953
>You don't need the mechanics if you are not going to follow them.
Course you do - inspiration.

>A rule is only useful if it always applicable.
There's only one rule in RPGaming - The GM is always right (not the books, not the mechanics, not the dice).

>>30819935
>crippled
As I said. The mechanics are there to illustrate the settings paradigms. If the warriors in the setting are cripples, then so be it. If not then the mechanics failed in illustrating the setting. It has nothing to do with group balance.

>30819973
Why would you need pages of pages of setting background or even published material at all to play pretend? For the inspiration. Or do you expect the players to get sheets of prewritten dialog with their characters as well?

>> No.30821067

>>30820977
God I hate this argument. People don't need rules to play pretend, but rules can make it more fun. Freeform roleplaying is basically the same as writing or imporv acting, rule systems, even the ones that are more improv and fiction based like Dungeon World or Fiasco, make it easier and more fun, more game-like, than if you just sit there and make shit up without restrictions.
It's not that people need rules, it that they want them, because roleplaying is more fun with them than without them.
You're either a troll or beyond reason at this point, but I just felt like saying my piece.

>> No.30821288

>>30821052
>There's only one rule in RPGaming - The GM is always right (not the books, not the mechanics, not the dice).
You are a caricature.

>> No.30821599

>>30821052
>There's only one rule in RPGaming - The GM is always right (not the books, not the mechanics, not the dice).
Nope. The one rule of RPG's is 'This is a game. If it's not fun, stop playing.' The GM isn't always right, as the thousands upon thousands of 'THAT GM' stories dumped on this board attest to. The GM is just as human as everyone else, and can be wrong.

The one rule is 'Everybody should be having fun.'

>> No.30822395

>>30821599
Which still makes the GM right, just not fun or good. No one forces you to keep suffering a bad experience.

But if you chose to partake then the GM is always right (which don't mean you cant suggest and have conversations about how things can get beter, more fun and more interesting for everyone involved, but the GM decides, just as everyone decides if they want to play or not).

With decent human beings as players and GM thsi rarely becomes an issue, and why would play with arseholes?

But again, if you so chose to play know that the GM is always right (not the books, mechanics or even the dice).

>> No.30822413

RPGs have the weird effect of causing near religious devotion to them. There's no real arguing between editions, just like there's no real arguing between atheists and faithful. It's just people yelling for the sake of yelling.

>> No.30822985

>>30822395
You are fucking mental, mate. You know there are actually RPGs where there is no one GM. Not to mention the fact that pretty much all games in the fucking history of the world have managed pretty well without one. You need your head checked.

>> No.30823020

>>30822413
Except that mature and adult people can and do discuss religion. And rpgs. Pleas don't tar all of humanity with he same brush, just because idiots on the internet will argue endlessly about all things. It's the people, not the topic, that's at fault.

>> No.30823045

>>30822413

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

I will never understand people who feel as if $GAME_VERSION is some personal affront to them. if you don't like it, tweak it or move on. There are more than enough game systems out there. If you can't have fun with any of them, then either homebrew your own, or get a new hobby.

>> No.30824072

>>30813073

OP here. isn't having more products on the market better? How is this killing the RPG scene? Are people moving to wargames, PC games, golf, or just quitting and doing nothing? What's turning them off?

From what I gather, unlike wargaming, a RPG group doesn't need for everyone to have the rulebook, other than the DM. The rest just have to somehow get the system eventually. Of course knowing it is a boon, but not compulsory?

The tt wargames scene can't wait till the day GW dies. It'll be interesting to see if its death will shatter the market, the way D&D did.

>> No.30825003

>>30822985
No, there's RPGs where the GM is a collective (the players). And what other games (story games with out any GMs) are don't matter, this is about RPGs. So what is your point exactly now again?

>> No.30825390

>>30824072
>D&D
You're talking about a very insular market. Get outside the US and the D&D dominance aint that big, or not event dominant at all. For example here in scandinavia the RPG market is very diverse. There's no one single game that's being played far beyond others. RPGamers are not playing just one system and setting, they're playing several diverse ones, constantly changing as the mood of the moment fits them and to be honest I actualy get a bit surprised when a friend tells me he's in a group that is actualy playing D&D. It's a rare thing to hear and it's pretty much always been that (even if AD&D was pretty big back in the days).

Course now publishers are trying to trick or force you to stay in house for all related material be it funky weird dice, weird booster pack bonus cards and other odd features (D&D did this brilliantly with out the odd bits, just by force of its own mechanics). I feel its very underhanded and dirty, but then again operhaps smart business.

>> No.30825922

>>30824072
>>Isn't having more products on the market better?
No, especially not when they are for the same system. There is no point in having “all the books” when you play casually or are simply trying to find a game or rule system you like.

How is this killing the RPG scene?

In the early 80’s, entry cost to play game: B/X D&D Box set was a 64pg rule book, adventure module and 6 dice for about $12.00. Call of Cthulhu 1st edition box was $20. AD&D was $12 for the Players Handbook & MM and the DMG was $15. Add dice, and you have everything you needed to play.

Back in the day, you didn't need to invest in *yet another* book in order to continue to play the game. Rules revisions now negate whole books and inevitably systems 2E AD&D —> 4E. There was also a lot more distinct RPG systems than now, where everything now tends to be nothing more than elaborate house rules = new system.

>>Are people moving to wargames, PC games, golf, or just quitting and doing nothing? What's turning them off?

The start-up cost of games, the time it takes to learn, the price of supplemental materials and the inability to have a house rule without seriously breaking gameplay.

From what I gather, unlike wargaming, a RPG group doesn't need for everyone to have the rulebook, other than the DM. The rest just have to somehow get the system eventually. Of course knowing it is a boon, but not compulsory?

Rules heavy systems require more rulebooks at the table.

>> No.30826245

>>30825922
>AD&D was $12 for the Players Handbook & MM and the DMG was $15.
In 1980, $12 was worth approximately what $34 are worth today. Just something to keep in mind.

>> No.30826315

>>30824072

Its not from the POV of anyone working in the industry - with the demise of the big dogs so went the idea of being an industry professional on any real level. Now the biggest companies are a couple of in-house names and whatever freelancers they can wrangle.

Which flows on into what gets produced - the fragmentation of the market, lowered overall sales, loss of permanent staff, it all affects what you can reliably bring to market. Unless you're WW and riding off a decade of nostalgia and good will (or Paizo/WOTC), you just can't do the big projects any more.

>> No.30826567

>>30813652
What's wrong with Dragonborn? They were a cool Persian theme group, or I just assumed they were persian to Tifling's Rome.
Any every edition of D&D has some idiot even in the originals who want to play a dragon, now there's a way in the rules to play a weaker but less munchiny way of doing that.

>> No.30826632

>>30826245
True, but my point is you really didn't need to spend anything else except for maybe character sheets or another PHB or photocopies of them.

Pathfinder is kind of the same, but I'm no fan of the feat/ability rules bloat that most PF books consist of. 4E was the worst for that.

>> No.30826668

>>30826632
>4E was the worst for that.
I don't know if I would say it is worse than 3.5 (it certainly is not better, I say perhaps about the same). But I would say that 4e was much more blatant about it.

>> No.30826705

>>30826567
>>Any every edition of D&D has some idiot even in the originals who want to play a dragon, now there's a way in the rules to play a weaker but less munchiny way of doing that.

Less munchkiny is still munchkiny.

Why would you want to play a game system that actively encourages that behaviour?

>> No.30826761

>>30826668
Yeah, 15 years of AD&D and not playing 3/3.5 before, the whole 4e PHB 1-2-3 was a WTF realization for me.

>> No.30827046

>>30818888
Maybe you should stop wasting your time on fucking role playing games, then.

>> No.30827337

>>30820081
Yea, I wonder what it would be like if theat hadn't happened?

>> No.30827376

>>30827337
Just as shit but maybe as popular as Pathfinder, play Runequest faggots, better than anything else.

>> No.30827672

>>30819938

sounds like you'll love *World games.

>> No.30828074

>>30827376
Ain't that the gay one with everyone having magic and pussy shit like that.

>> No.30828105

>>30828074
Nah, everyone just some dumb forest loser who worship retards.

>> No.30828111

>>30828074
>>30828105
Hating on Runequest, you have top tastes.

>> No.30828130

>>30828111
Yeah fuck Runequest, CoC and all those other pretentious crap Chaosium made. Runequest Coc and Pendragon Hate Thread Go!

>> No.30828320

>>30827046

>Hurr, he has a hobby, that must be all he does with his life

You're retarded.

>> No.30828392

>>30828130
Pendrgon's virtues/vice system is retarded, we should just be able to roleplay our moral, otherwise were just like shitty pathfinder.

>> No.30828408

>>30827672
WHAT? Dungeon World is 10000% about rigidly following the rules. The book even spells it out to the DM.

>> No.30828423

>>30826567
I thought they were Rome to Teifling's ahistorical celtic empire. But that's just based on the Tifling's name and the Dragonborn had legions. Alternitively they could be Greece and persia.

>> No.30828437

>>30828392
Runequest doesn't even explain the most important part of its setting Heroquests. We just got a shittier game as a substitute for it.

>> No.30828464

>There are people in this thread, right now, who are talking shit about Glorantha

>> No.30828536

>>30828408
Actually, you follow the fiction and the rules facilitate that.

>> No.30828591

>>30828408

and DW rules incorporate fiction into them, with mechanics being there only to measure fairness of certain specific interactions and provide GM with possible interactions.

>> No.30828607

>>30828591
Emphasis on the latter. The GM can't do anything the rules don't allow him to.

>> No.30828633

>>30828607
And what the rules "allow" him is everything he needs.

>> No.30828678

>>30828130
>Yeah fuck Runequest, CoC and all those other pretentious crap Chaosium made.
How the fuck is RQ or CoC pretentious? The Basic Role-Playing system is pretty simple and straightforward. Granted, the games can make things more complicated than they need to be at times (separate armor and hit points for individual body locations in RQ, for instance), but the core of the system is pretty elegant.

>> No.30828687

>>30828607

he doesn't really need anything else.

>> No.30828743

>>30828607
The thing with DW (and all Apocalypse World based games) is that it does one play style really really well, teaching you how to play and GM that play style super easily. But a lot of people see this as being constrictive because it's in stark contrast with how most games have done it over the years, which is to pretend that they can do multiple play styles, when in reality they're just an unfinished half a game that the GM has to finish designing.
Personally, I prefer a game that does one thing well and lets a GM just run the game, as opposed to one that needs the GM to finish designing it before anyone can play.

>> No.30828757

>>30828743
Same here, which is exactly why you can't say the rules are there to "inspire" you. They are functional. You can follow them and if you do you get a fun game. Deviate from them and you are likely to fuck everything up.

>> No.30828788

>>30828743
This actually. And this is coming from someones who actually enjoys rules.
After having played PF for quite some time and having gotten quite intimate with the rules, I've come to the realization that the rules are just shit and that I'm better off ignoring them.
On the other hand Apoc World and Dogs in the Vineyard made me become fascinated with rules again. They don't get in the way and are so easy to grasp, it's exhilarating.

>> No.30828886

>>30813069
I know it's tough champ but just count on all your fingers twice and you'll get the hang of it eventually.

>> No.30829207

>>30828757
Yeah, I'm not the one who was saying rules are just inspiration. I hate when people say that. I love the rules of DW and AW, or any well designed game. I wouldn't play them otherwise. The whole points of rules is that they're more fun than playing without them.
Far as I can see, the person saying that the GM is the law and the rules are just suggestions is someone who has bought into the marketing of badly designed games, and interpreted the necessity for the GM to finish building the game as a feature instead of the bug that it is.

>> No.30829839

>>30829207
>Far as I can see, the person saying that the GM is the law and the rules are just suggestions is someone who has bought into the marketing of badly designed games, and interpreted the necessity for the GM to finish building the game as a feature instead of the bug that it is.
While I certainly don't accept the notion that all systems are equally valid because the GM can work around any rough spots, I do see the rules as a tool for the GM to use when helpful, and to ignore when they are not. I believe that he human mind can come up with better things when it's not bound by hard and fast rules. Rules are great to provide structure, but you should never let them be a cage.

>> No.30830222

>>30829839
The thing is, it was a human mind that made up the rules. And I generally trust Vincent Baker's or Kenneth Hite's design skills more than a random GM's.
Additionally, a well designed game takes into consideration the ability of players and GM to improv and incorporates it into the rules. That's what AW/DW does. You do not have to break or ignore the rules of a game to avoid them being a cage, they can just be designed to not be a cage in the first place.
A good game has no unhelpful rules to start with and so does not need the gm to decide whether or not to ignore them.
Learn the rules of a game, see that they are good rules for the play style you desire, play the game as written. That should be the experience. Not learn rules, see that they are bad or incomplete for the play style you desire, spend time and energy finishing/modifying the game until it becomes barely functional for the play style you desire, then play your mutant offspring of the original game.

>> No.30830308

>>30830222
To elaborate a little further, if you want to play chess you do not start with scrabble and try to house rule it to be more like chess, you simply play chess.

>> No.30830679

>>30826705
How is it "munchkiny" if the race in question is mechanically balanced and part of the default setting? Munchkins generally don't care about what their character looks like or how it fits the established world as long as it gives them the most pluses.

>> No.30830741

> Back in the day, you didn't need to invest in *yet another* book in order to continue to play the game.

You never need to do this even now. You can play whatever game you want, whenever you want to. You don't need to play a new system, just because a new system exists.

> Rules revisions now negate whole books and inevitably systems 2E AD&D —> 4E.

2E to 4E is a funny comparison. 2E was notoriously nebulous with its rules, as you had the DMG/PHB, but you also had the various supplements, of varying canonicity. This made it daunting for new players. While AD&D was always playable with just the three core books, the surfeit of blue books created an impression that playing the game required a ton of research and sifting.

Say what one will about 3E as a system unto itself, but it was smart to have a clean break and a more markedly standardized system under the hood.

IMO the big mistake was to launch 4E as the fourth version of D&D, as opposed to a branded variant. People get het up when you change D&D itself. People get annoyed when you present too many rule options, without a clear structure so that people know what options are needed when and for what reason.

However, people could have been more open to the idea of a new, self-contained system from the same company. I ran a 4E campaign once - very reluctantly - but I was surprised at how smoothly it ran. I wouldn't want to marry it, but if it had an especially amazing campaign setting, I would have stuck with it.

> There was also a lot more distinct RPG systems than now, where everything now tends to be nothing more than elaborate house rules = new system.

As a grognard, I couldn't disagree more with this. We currently live in an era with a teeming abundance of distinct systems. Back in the day, it was far more difficult to get the word out about new and smaller systems. Yes, there have always been vibrant alternatives to D&D, but there are so many more nowadays, with healthier ecosystems.

>> No.30831262

>>30830741
>IMO the big mistake was to launch 4E as the fourth version of D&D, as opposed to a branded variant.
I kind of agree with this. I think that DnD shouldn't confine itself to one game. DnD could easily be half a dozen different games, all great for their particular play style, but instead we get one game that either sacrifices all play styles but one (4E) or futilely tries to appeal to everyone by pretending it can do more than it can (ADnD, 3E, pretty much all RPGs made before the mid-naughties.)
The thing with DnD is that it was originally intended as one thing, but once it was released into the wild people started using it for far more play styles than it was built for. So there is no One True DnD. The publishers don't want to lose any customers by focusing on doing one play style well, so they're stuck with a fools errand of making a single game that can please everyone. That's where the modular guff about Next comes from.
They really should just make DnD a line of games, instead of a single one.

>> No.30831306

>>30827672
I don't even know what you're trying to say or mean with that. I like RPGs. I'm not sure what these "world" games you mention are?

>> No.30831374

>>30830308
Chess is not a RPG and has no GM feature at its very core of the entire indea of the hobby. Try again.

>> No.30831424

>>30831306
It's one of the ways of referring to games that are based on Apocalypse World by Vincent Baker. One such game is Dungeon World. There's a whole bunch of them, though most of them don't actually have World in the title. They're also known by the Powered by the Apocalypse label, or PbtA for short.

>> No.30831487

>>30831374
It's an analogy mate, and if you don't see how it applies then you're being pretty dense.

>> No.30831753

>>30831487
Oh, so that's what it was? That's not what my hayfever is telling me.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action