>An rpg is, by definition, about creating an interesting character and acting out his decisions in an interesting manner.
>D&D is about creating an optimised character and making tactical decisions from the perspective of an outside force. It was intended to be a skirmish wargame where each player only has 1 character, not an rpg.
>Roleplaying is technically possible only in the same way roleplaying is theoretically possible, and has in fact been done, in 40k.
Why won't this meme die already?
nobody cares mark.
...
Have an incredulous look of disdain.
>why do people still claim the first ever roleplaying game is a roleplaying game?
>the definition of a role playing game is the same as an improve game
>in the only edition of D&D, the third edition published 23 years after the first RPG, optimization against preset rules is the only decision players ever make
>games where you play a role are not roleplaying games
Oh, don't you start with your personal vendetta. You're just as stupid as OP.
Who the fuck is mark? I just wanted to know why people don't see D&D for what it is: an improvisational cooperative wargame with a referee (or DM) who controls the opposition and acts as an impartial arbiter for improvisation. Notice that not only are there no rules for roleplaying other than alignment (which is mostly just to determine effects of certain spells) and remember it only started pretending to be an rpg when TSR noticed they were popular and decided to pretend they'd invented rpgs.
Many people have problems with things like D&D being too combat-heavy and being no good for social interaction, but this comes from treatng it as an rpg, which it isn't. The charisma stat exists so that interaction with NPCs can be handled without roleplaying and more time can be spent on overcoming traps and monsters through improvisation and tactical combat. An rpg would not rely on killng monsters so much.
OP is referencing 3.pf, so why wouldn't I point that obvious flaw out? What other edition could he mean?
D&D was not the first rpg though. It did lay the bridge between wargames and rpgs, but it's more like tabletop mount and blade than an rpg.
that filename was so meta I popped a boner
I'm talking about all editions of D&D, except arguably 2e and 5e, and even then only barely.
No, you utter retard who was probably born in the last twenty years.
You really think optimization was a brand new concept in 3rd edition? When they even had combat tournaments in the first year of the game's publication, a game that ultimately was developed as a combination of a war and theater/storytelling game? Hell, back when 2e was big was when competitive D&D tournaments had their heyday, easily being far more dramatic than what you'd find in later years, so you might as well shut up, because you are literally as clueless as OP is.
If you have an ounce of brain, spend in it on realizing this is a troll thread, and don't bother replying. In fact, this will be my last post in this thread as well, because I can guarantee whatever you hope to respond with, it's going to be even dumber than what you've already posted.
Consider this an arrogant and open dismissal of you, and just be glad you were posting anonymously so you can walk away from your shame without any further words exchanged.
What came first? Some non-commercial historical reinactment with dice?
shut up Mark
Why do people still claim bait are threads?
>A thread is, by definition, about creating an interesting topic and discussing its various pros and cons in an interesting matter.
>Bait is about taking a mundane topic and making it as inflammatory as possible. It is intended to make people mad and reply in a way that gives OP more (You)s.
>Discussion is technically possible only in the same way discussion is technically possible, and has in fact been done, on network television.
Why won't this meme die already?
I'll give (You) a pity sage, that's the best I can do.
I'm not sure, but it was after D&D. Maybe Traveller?
It's all I deserve.
...
becuase OP is a Faggot
By what fucking definition? Who defined it?
>t. John Wick
nice presuming everyone subscribes to your definition of RPG, faggot
>an improvisational cooperative wargame with a referee (or DM) who controls the opposition and acts as an impartial arbiter for improvisation
what happens between combats, faggot? does the GM merely narrate for transition between battles? no. so shut the fuck up.
>Noise
>Why won't this meme die already?
Why won't it die indeed...
Sounds like you're describing 3.5 specifically, OP. That shit was prime for minmaxing. Had to deal with a player who created the most overpowered ranger, and his whole backstory was "He's an elf"
Try 5th Edition, and don't tie yourself down to backgrounds and traits that are straight out of the book. 5e seems to be built specifically on building a character more than stats. Even has a system to reward players for acting in character.
Please, just end yourself and your "People started minmaxing with 3rd edition" bullshit. You've clearly been listening to too many memes and need to stop acting like a parrot.
Not him but most D&D games I've been in were generally combat with some "roleplay" sprinkled in to break the monotony.
Granted, most GMs I've played with were terrible but it does tend to happen more often than not if you're dealing with people who have only played 3rd edition.
Sounds like you're largely conflating skewed personal experiences with any semblance of useful information.
The fact that most non-D&D systems give details on the setting and the tone while most of the PHB is dedicated to giving you mechanical info with nothing related to the setting.
I mean, you can learn everything you'd need to know about, say, VtM's vampire culture just from reading the CRB but good luck saying the same about literally any edition of D&D.
Traveler was after D&D
My sample size is taken from 9 different GM's who have run 3rd edition/PF/d20 games in the past.
Out of 9 GM's, only 2 are people who I would play a game with if given the chance and both of them have stopped running 3rd edition games years ago.
D&D has multiple settings. Different setting book with generic core rules > FFG Star Wars #7
Ok, sure, I cut my teeth on D&D and discovering other systems was like realizing that there are kinds of food other than bologna on white bread sandwich.
But calling it "Not a roleplaying game" got trollsies is pretty intellectually dishonest.
I mean, you aren't running for president so cut that shit out.
> 5e is built for building a character
> removes all the character options
> hp bloat
> mostly the same as 4e with the once-per-day fighter abilities
Yeah no thanks.
So?
They could've picked any setting to use as a base and released splats concerning the other settings proper. It's not like D&D isn't known for releasing a shitload of splatbooks at overinflated prices and its not like they don't have years worth of stories to draw upon either.
It's because D&D is only interested in being a skirmish game with any setting details being relegated to the equivalent of a gaming manual that most people probably threw away along with the packaging.
What part of that changes that you're largely conflating skewed personal experiences with any semblance of useful information?
Your correlation and causation are also rather hilarious, mostly because your implications are all based largely on just your faulty biases.
>HP bloat
Oh fuck, it's this retarded troll again.
When will you learn?
Apparently never, since it's been explained to you a hundred times how you're a fucking retard.
I'd say that 9 GMs that were largely unrelated to one another is a serviceable sample size.
I mean, how many GM's do you think the average person is going to have throughout the bulk of their RPG career, especially when foreverGMs exist?
>overinflated
lol you're as mad as that 3aboo here:
Not him but it gets kinda silly when you're expected to treat a stab wound with respect when the wizard could take at least five stab wounds to the chest and still be relatively unharmed in terms of his casting ability.
1st and 2nd edition had far less optimization than 3rd forward has had when it came to making and playing a character.
Back then, people played their character.
These days, kids play stats.
And you're all faggots.
Are you implying that the splats aren't overpriced?
How can by far the best selling game have overpriced books? Even the #3 game sells at that price.
>hp damage means physical harm and truama
everytime
What else is HP supposed to represent user?
You don't lose HP if an opponent insults you so it can't be morale. You don't lose HP if a black cat runs by you so it can't be luck. You don't lose HP if your character loses their faith so it can't be divine intervention.
And if HP isn't related to physical harm and trauma then why do you lose HP whenever you get stabbed, sliced, beaten, burned, shocked, etc. by an opponent?
>fags piling on the bait
This thread is an abomination.
If it's not the anti-D&D trolls, it's the ant-3.5 trolls, and they're all just enjoy reinforcing their half-baked complaints with each other, when they're just diving deeper and deeper away from reality.
They honestly don't understand that not only are their different ways to play, but that different people enjoy different ways of playing.
All in all, it's just retarded system politics, roughly akin to what you'll find in /v/ when the topic of what system is best comes up.
>I'd say that 9 GMs that were largely unrelated to one another is a serviceable sample size.
Fucking retard
How many GMs have you played with?
How many GMs do you think the average person will have played with?
>their
This isn't really edition wars though, this is mostly bashing D&D as a whole.
>You don't lose HP if an opponent insults you so it can't be morale
>What's vicious mockery?
>What's vicious mockery?
A spell that deals psychic damage user.
I'm talking about some random jackass running up to you and saying that your wizard robes make you look like a faggot or something. No magic or anything involved, just someone saying something mean that hurts your character's morale or whatever.
Hell, if HP was morale, you'd think that you'd lose HP if a party member died or got knocked out or something too.
>>roleplaying
>>required in a rpg
>>tfw I have no face
It is required if you don't want to sit there in silence listening to the GM talk until being prompted to roll dice.
If you aren't killing something your doing it wrong. Roleplaying gets in the way.
HP is the measure of how close you are to being defeated/knocked out.
Not every game is about combat.
Even then, video games are a better hobby if all you want to do is murder shit.
Points for originality.
Fuck off.
How is that not related to physical harm/trauma?
It is, since it brings you closer to being knocked out. It's just not 1:1, nor is it the only thing.
What other thing is there that isn't just a SoL/SoD spell?
And even if it wasn't a 1:1 deal, you'd think that, I dunno, a longsword would be enough to kill, or at least maim, most creatures. I mean, as a level 5 Fighter, I could just run around the battlefield getting poked, stabbed, and bitten and still be hitting just as hard as I was at full health.
There's barely any point to even getting a weapon since wands, scrolls, staves, and orbs exist. The only thing that sucks worse than using a weapon is trying to kill shit unarmed.
A single attack roll is not a single attack. A hit is not equivalent to being skewered (unless it's a killing blow).
I'm too tired for this, but some user will surely take over.
Even if what you're saying was true, why does it have no effect beyond losing meat points?
Because I don't know about you but the average person would've probably flee long before they get bloodied just because "ouch, getting sliced with a dagger fucking hurts."
>There's barely any point to even getting a weapon since wands, scrolls, staves, and orbs exist. The only thing that sucks worse than using a weapon is trying to kill shit unarmed.
Actually direct damage spells suck shit and the most efficient way to kill shit as a wizard is just buff up the fighter to insane levels.
>A single attack roll is not a single attack. A hit is not equivalent to being skewered (unless it's a killing blow).
A single attack roll is a single attack
But getting hit isn't the same as getting skewed, it's more like getting a puncture wound or a scrape. Hurts like hell but won't take you down.
>but my realism. Muh death spirals
No, I'm pretty sure most people already recognize this troll and know that he hasn't even read the system he hates so much. If he had, he wouldn't be coming up with these ass-backwards attempts at arguments.
>why does it have no effect beyond losing meat points
Because D&D doesn't simulate the wear and tear of combat realistically, and does not really try to. Many games don't.
>Because I don't know about you but the average person would've probably flee long before they get bloodied just because "ouch, getting sliced with a dagger fucking hurts."
Adventures and monsters aren't "the average person" and many editions(literal all of them) encourage RPing monsters as actually having self preservation instincts.
>Actually direct damage spells suck shit and the most efficient way to kill shit as a wizard is just buff up the fighter to insane levels.
If we're going off pure damage potential, the Fighter would invest in a wands and staves and shit that deal damage to a larger area.
The wizard isn't going to be dealing damage, and they sure as shit ain't going to buff dead weight either if they're smart about it.
>But getting hit isn't the same as getting skewed, it's more like getting a puncture wound or a scrape. Hurts like hell but won't take you down.
I don't know about you, but I don't feel like fighting anymore once someone sticks a knife in my chest and I certainly wouldn't feel too keen on doing anything strenous either.
And I'm not asking for death spirals here, just lower the HP totals so a longsword actually means something when it hits someone.
>If we're going off pure damage potential, the Fighter would invest in a wands and staves and shit that deal damage to a larger area.
Except blasting spells suck at dealing lots of damage in most cases.
>Because D&D doesn't simulate the wear and tear of combat realistically, and does not really try to. Many games don't.
But then why give everyone so much HP?
Why is a wizard capable of surviving a stab wound from a dagger if they invest in having above average CON?
>Adventures and monsters aren't "the average person" and many editions(literal all of them) encourage RPing monsters as actually having self preservation instincts.
But what's the point of practicing self-preservation if the numbers don't actually mean anything?
If I was someone who knew that the only HP that mattered was the last one, you think I'd run knowing that me and my buddies were killing the dude we focus fired on for the last 15 seconds?
It's still more damage than the Fighter's going to be dealing with their shitty weapons.
That and wands can hold spells like "enlarge person" and "bull's strength" as well.
Go away, Ron
>But then why give everyone so much HP?
Because they don't want to simulate something realistic? Because you got hit, you die. Isn't very fun?I don't understand your point.
>Why is a wizard capable of surviving a stab wound from a dagger if they invest in having above average CON?
Because plenty of people do everyday.
Because there a things that determine toughness and durability aside from straight CON?
>But what's the point of practicing self-preservation if the numbers don't actually mean anything?
They do. Fighting at Low hitpoitnts means that enemies stand a higher chance of scoring a crit against you and outright killing you instead of just knocking you out.
It's like that one game designer that Veeky Forums likes to hate is posting here.
>It's still more damage than the Fighter's going to be dealing with their shitty weapons.
It literally isn't. Blasting spells are quickly outpaced by full attacking very, very quickly. There are only a few VERY VERY specific cases that change that and none of them can be replicated with just a wand.
You don't know what your talking about.
>That and wands can hold spells like "enlarge person" and "bull's strength" as well.
Yes. It is generally a good idea for people to have buffs.
>Because they don't want to simulate something realistic? Because you got hit, you die. Isn't very fun?I don't understand your point.
My point is, everyone gets so much HP that combat becomes fucking boring as shit.
>Because there a things that determine toughness and durability aside from straight CON?
Like what?
>They do.
They really don't.
Unless you're chewing through 20-40 HP per swing that is, but then the Fighter has bigger things to worry about since you're probably something that's carrying spells and damage resistance.
This describes few of the d&d campaigns I've ever played or run.
Typically the roleplay and exploration portion makes up at least half the time.
nice quads. doesnt mean D&D isnt an RPG though
It's the fact that you're capable of dealing damage to a large portion of the enemy forces before they get into melee with you.
A fireball is enough to destroy most swarms of weenies in one cast and that's fewer enemies that you're dividing your attention between.
Why do people claim FATE is an RPG? Instead of being focused on making decisions from your character's perspective, much of the game is focused on making decisions from the outside perspective of an author co-writing a story.
As for d&d being divorced from the roleplay to count, I'm inclined to agree in the case of 4e.
>My point is, everyone gets so much HP that combat becomes fucking boring as shit.
That's literally an opinion. D&D is pretty rocket taggy throughout play.
>levels
>Unless you're chewing through 20-40 HP per swing that is
If a fighter can't do that by level 5 he should probably hang himself in shame, because that is trivially easy to get to.
jesus, deendeefags can't really comprehend that more than one person can have an issue with that. it's like you're legally retarded. and, no, your non-explanation did not explain anything away.
>they're just diving deeper and deeper away from reality.
>hey, it's not me who is delusional, it's the people who disagree with me!
okay
but i am defending D&D from OP. i just think that HP bloat is but one of the reasons why D&D excels at hack & slash but is subpar at other play styles.
so HP is nothing really. it does not relate to any particular game world concept, it's just some game number for GAMIST purposes. thank you. that's what I suspected all along.
which brings me back to my point: D&D excels at hack & slash. for other types of fantasy it is at best okayish.
>An rpg is, by definition,
Start again, this time with feeling
It's amazing what mental gymnastics you'll perform in hopes of proving a point, but just revealing to everyone you are being stupid on purpose.
Can you put on a trip? It would be nice to warn people beforehand before they bother talking to you.
Are you really that uncreative that you cant roleplay in d&d? Its piss easy and fun if you get imaginative.
>D&D is pretty rocket taggy throughout play.
Only because most spells end combat the turn they're successfully cast.
Well, when it takes a Fighter 4 rounds to kill a Balor 1v1 and when you roll it back a couple editions it takes a Warblade one...
No. A decent martial should be killing at least a foe around assuming luck isn't fucking them.
Saying that someone is wrong is not the same actually proving that they're wrong.
And nothing that you've said actually paints HP as anything more than a gamist mechanic that serves no purpose beyond what could also be found in a video game.
> Fighter 4 rounds to kill a Balor 1v1 and when you roll it back a couple editions it takes a Warblade one...
That because Warblade is a good class and 3.5 fighter is LITERALLY a glorified class for NPC's.
Also there are fighter builds that can easily one round Balors. Shock Trooper muthafucka.
It would help if D&D actually simulated half the bullshit it talks about through its mechanics.
Because honestly, if D&D was written like OotS, in that it didn't take itself seriously and treated its mechanics as an actual effect on the world, I'd be more inclined to forgive it and would probably run it as a comedy game.
Why does anyone think this depends on the game, rather than the players?
Not if the dude they're fighting has damage reduction, spells, and high enough AC and HP to chuckle at your damage output.
By contrast, spell resistance is a bit easier to work around since a lot of spells do ignore that while preventing a will save.
>Not if the dude they're fighting has damage reduction, spells, and high enough AC and HP to chuckle at your damage output.
No even with all of that a martial should be killing or at least getting any CR appropriate foe down to near 0.
Because then we would have nothing to shitpost about.
>I don't understand the concept of sample size or why it's important at a very basic level
>I don't know what an anecdote is
Please tell me you're trolling
What hinders you from implementing or simulating these mechanics then?
Because the way the game presents its mechanics and its world is what inspires a certain type of play.
ShadowRun wouldn't be nearly as good as it is if it was written like D&D and spent the bulk of the CRB dealing with pure mechanical info. The sections on how life is like in the 6th world, the section detailing the history of SR, and the section on just how badly the world got fucked by pollution and magic is what sells ShadowRun to a lot of people and what gets you into the mindset of a dude who is risking his life just because they're tired of getting buttfucked by the system.
By contrast, the only thing you really get from the CRB in D&D is what your class can do, what your race can do, and what your spells/equipment can do, which reads less like a CRB that's supposed to give you information on the world of D&D and more like an instruction manual you'd find in an old video game like Ultima or Wizards and Warriors.
Not really, and if they are its usually because they're taking advantage of a specific ability that allows them to buttfuck one specific type of creature and nothing else, like the Ranger's favored enemy or the Paladin's Smite.
Barbarians are the only martials I've seen where they actually deal decent damage to every opponent they fight consistently.