We're going to be running Pathfinder

>we're going to be running Pathfinder

>in a low magic setting

>with science fiction elements

>using the rules for firearms

>and I have a few house rules to make the game more realistic

Isn't that a problem with the GM being stupid rather than an issue with the system itself?

>we're going to be making a bait thread

>in the traditional games board

>with D&D/PF complaints

>using an overused meme image

>and I have a few lines of copypasta to make the thread more shitty

>every game has to be by the book, except the parts of the book I don't like

>DnD doesn't run absolutely everything that you throw at it! It only runs stuff that is suited for it, that is, cape-esque high fantasy!
Breaking news, user. Truly shocking.
Just because are people retarded enought to try and shoehorn shit that isn't suitable into DnD framework doesn't mean DnD is a bad game.

In 1990 when I first played WEG Star Wars.

August 19, 2014

This.

>Not even bringing up balance
>It's all DM issues

Senpai, you need to bait harder desu

>this thread
>again

Sorry, I figured "realism" and implicit "I have only ever played D&D but I want to use it to run a different genre other than capeshit fantasy faggotry" was enough

>with science fiction elements

What is "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks" for 200gp, Alex?

As long as I can run as a fighter with cut from the air and smash from the air and i'm down for that

Is there going to be a desert of sand as well?

I think I finally figured it out after about my 10th time seeing this thread. I just couldn't form a negative opinion about something that had brought me such enjoyment over the years until you enlightened geniuses convinced me.

Are these lines of green text supposed to make me feel anything?
Since OP has proven themselves thoroughly unable to generate discussion tell me Veeky Forums what is your favorite relatively rules light game and why?

Mine is Savage Worlds since there is a ton of free material already available and almost anything can be made on the fly and be easily statted.

Problem is that the genre-scope of D&D is still laughably narrow. Which gives birth to two other problems wchich are

1. Overabundance on such genre/themes in gaming at expense of everything else

2. The "retarded enough" people are quite abundant too and are trying to shoehorn shit that isn't suitable for D&D. Hell on this very board there are people continously claiming that D&D is perfectly suitable for most fantasy genres.

Holy, shit, this is too much

>faggot picture
>wants to bump a bait thread with shitty forced discussion
>shills

Put on a trip, because I think you may just be one of the worst posters ever.

1. Well, when your general audience thinks that the works of GRR and JRR encompass the entirety of fantasy, of course there is going to be an overabundance of such themes.

2. This is because they either aren't aware of existence of other systems, or aware, but are unwilling to try. As I said, "retarded enough". Not trying new games that are specifically made for the genre you are trying to emulate and trying to shoehorn shit instead is exactly the sign of retardation.

TSR-era D&D was great, especially. The problems were all with the books and/or the way rules were explained rather than the rules themselves.

If you disagree, I challenge you to name a single major problem (and I don't mean "design choice that I personally don't like" such as classes, but genuine problem) with Swords & Wizardry: Complete.

For reference, S&W: Complete is essentially a rewriting of OD&D plus 90% of the supplements in one book. The rules are almost 100% the same, and it is compatible with every OD&D adventure or module.

If you haven't read the rules to S&W, just imagine what I described above and name a problem that would remain even if the rules were all explained perfectly.

SW is bretty gud.

I like Strike!, because I like me some streamlined mechanics and tactical combat.

OH NO NOT SCI-FI IN D&D!1

>the first ever D&D campaign, run by Arneson, was set in a castle that's part of the Known World setting, which includes a nuke, UFOs, and a physicist who fell through a portal from our world and is worshiped by subterranean elves

WotC D&D is garbage, sure. Try real D&D, before the creators were thrown out, sometime.

>running science fiction with D&D instead of using a good system like the Cypher system by Monte Cook

TSR era D&D is great.

Thieves, primary ability modifier bonuses (as in STR, WIS, INT beyond exp bonus); assassins, monks, paladins, rangers and druids. Supplements were a mistake

>Well, when your general audience thinks that the works of GRR and JRR encompass the entirety of fantasy, of course there is going to be an overabundance of such themes.

>implying D&D has ANYTHING to do with either of those sans several face-value and totally unimportant cosmetic characteristics

"gaming" fantasy and classical literary fantasy, even the most cliche examples, are two extremely different things. And THAT is my main beef with D&D, especially that it is not limited to D&D but also it's vast influence in the genre, within various media from modern fantasy novels to vidya. So you can't really escape from it just by no playing the system itself.

The other beef is how D&D is shit at narration, with gamist mechanics that are way too often very hard to intuitively and seamlessly translate into story terms.

It all boils down to those two.

I hate that its name's been ruined by modern D&D. They're barely the same game. It's true that AD&D 2e and even late 1e started down the cancerous path that 3e gladly followed, but as bad they were, they didn't take it to nearly the same extreme.

>Muh Lord of the Rings Orcs vs Men with a handful of Elfs and Dorfs ONRY
>Mindflayers and half the shit in every setting's Underground Areas isn't Sci-fi
>Crystal Magic and Psionics is Sci-fi
>Flying a Magic Aurship through the Astral Plane to get to other Plane(et)s isn't Sci-fi
>Lightning Wands and Firebolt Wands are different than Rayguns and Plasma Weapons
>Golems and Clockworks aren't Battledroids and Robots
>the bizzare massive sprawling underground dungeon beneath the city isn't an ancient crashed Spaceship

D- Apply yourself in the future and see me after class.

Context matters just as much as content.

>Low magic setting
Well, you cut the most cancerous part of the game out in the second sentence, so I'd honestly give it a shot.

>And THAT is my main beef with D&D
Your main beef with D&D is that it isn't Tolkien? Its biggest influences were sword-and-sorcery and weird fiction.

>how D&D is shit at narration
It isn't going for narration, though. It's going for internal consistency. If anything, it's on the lighter end of simulationism rather than gamism or narration (problems with GNS theory aside).

Additionally, games designed for narration often require players to make decisions based entirely on out-of-character factors, and even to make decisions about things over which their characters have no control, which can be jarring if your goal is immersion.

The idea of hating a game for not sacrificing immersion for the sake of "story" (which generally means having an end-goal in mind and thus restricting how characters can change and grow as people) is absolutely fucking bonkers.

>"gaming" fantasy and classical literary fantasy, even the most cliche examples, are two extremely different things
You don't know anything about D&D. It was heavily invested in and designed around classic pulp fantasy, Tolkien one of the least pronounced influences of the major names. Appendix D has for a long time stood as an essential canon of the period's most iconic fantasy. Vancian magic alone is enough to stand for the mechanical foundation in its influences, yet the many professionally published settings for the original rules published in the last few years alone like Stars Without Number (space), Yoon Suin (medieval India), LotFP (low fantasy late medieval england) attest to its still relevant variability.

>story terms
what a surprise. A storyfag not knowing what he's talking about.

>I challenge you to name a single major problem with Swords & Wizardry: Complete.

It's not Swords & Wizardry: White Box

Why do you prefer White Box?

I like that it's based just on the LBBs, so it's even more rules-light and very easy playing.

That's fair. I like having as much as possible available to me and have been playing based on the PDF version of Complete, but I'm currently trying to decide which physical book I want to buy. Any advice on that front?

If you're happy with Complete than by all means buy Complete.

>It's going for internal consistency.
That's a laugh.

>Your main beef with D&D is that it isn't Tolkien
That it isn't tolkien, iIsn't gurm, isn't le guin, isn't moorcock, isn't EVEN howard despite all the claims of being based on S&S mostly want a game that ACTUALLY manages to catch the S&S genre and not miss by a mile? Try Barbarians of Lemuria. Or virtually any of those books that got me into the genre and I loved. Instead it's just reskined dc/marvel capeshit. AND because it is popular and influencial, thanks to which most of modern fantasy now is the same lame capeshit.

Second part:
1. I didn't mention "narration" as in GNS sense, I mentioned it in the sense of how easily OOC-mechanical part of the game translates into IC-story layer, without generating awkward things or conflicts. D&D sucks at it hard.
2. Because of the above, all the claims of D&D being "simulationist" and "striving for internal consistency" are utter BS. Unless, we assume that D&D can only take place in worlds ruled by vastly different set of laws at almost every aspect that not only reality but almost any other fictious worlds. Laws that mostly don't make sense because they were designed around gaming terms instead of trying to emulate fluff idea with maximum fidelity.
3. Narrative games that force players to make IC decisions based on OOC considerations are bad games and no one says otherwise. As for games in which players make decisions based on OOC considerations, but those decisions are also OOC, with indirect effect on the outcome (IE using any fate/luck points or anything, among many others), it takes a severe autist to have immersion/continuity problem with that.

>
Idiocy and lack of reading comprehension: the post
1. Read both my post and post i was reffering to, again
2. Try to find out how your response missed the point ALMOST as hard as D&D missed it's claimed sources. You'll most likely fail, but just fucking try.

>Good system
>Cypher

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

All those things are or have been part of D&D though

Sci-fi can go get fucked with a cactus.

Name three things bad about the Cypher system.

My man, not fighter but sohei/enlightened paladin with infinite AoOs and those two feats, fucking awesome

I like OSR and retro-style D&D.
I do think 3e was cancerous and a bad game and that it should be erased from the face of the earth.
I think 5e isn't bad, but since its popular and the current face of D&D, we must endure it.

I do, however think that, if your D&D game isn't good, it's mostly fault of the people playing the game and not the game itself.

I also think that, depending on how good or shit the ruleset is, it helps for easier DMing and better players.

A rules-light but still deep ruleset, such as OD&D, B/X or BECMI is way more manageable than 3e, 4e or even 5e, but good games can be had with every ruleset, it depends on too many variables.

>judging a character by his "build"

that's exactly what you're doing, pretty meta post

>I realized DnD was garbage when my DM tried something different

literally what

His DM tried to run a sci-fi game in a game clearly designed for fantasy. At that point they'd be better off using a different system because it'd probably do it better and without a million house rules