I know we all love to say 'have you tried not playing D&D', but what's the alternative?

I know we all love to say 'have you tried not playing D&D', but what's the alternative?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_role-playing_games_by_genre#Fantasy
mega.nz/#F!Jp4wgAxJ!FhtKlC4HJsqs2eR7kdG7gQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Barbarians of Lemuria
World of Dungeons
Any OSR game

I have never played D&D

Shitposting on Veeky Forums.

Me dad told me about one he used to play a bit before I was born, called Twilight 2000. Found the PDFs for it on Da archive- seems interesting.

Mainly due to the fact that Im sick of fantasy and its more modern-post apocalyptic.

Literally anything else?

My favorite is Ryuutama, sadly not many people in the west play it.

T I M E W I Z A R D S

> what's the alternative?

4e

Fate, GURPS, Savage Worlds, Wild Talents, Fantasycraft... Basically anything except Dungeon World can do fantasy settings pretty well.

GURPS.

>Freeform
Yeah, I went there you nerds.

well typically the next logical step is WoD, but nWoD is pretty damn gay at times.

Go over to the pdf thread, look through shit until you find something that looks cool, and then read it and play it.

It isn't accidentally rocket appliances.

Let's add some more good 'ol systems:

Ars Magica (THE classical trope game)
Burning Wheel (another narrative game, but very different from FAT)E
Legends of Anglerre (FATE fantasy style)
Reign (ORE fantasy game with a focus on politics)
Runequest (classic hardcore mega-dungeon / sandbox game)
Tales From the Floating Vagabond (narrative game with humorous bent)
The Riddle of Steel (HEMA approved)
Empire of the Petal Throne (A setting focused game, heavy in lore)
Tri-Stat (another "universal" system like GURPS)

I wasn't much a fan of Ars Magica, though I admit I never really played a real campaign with it. I didn't like the part where you're supposed to play a half dozen different characters, with your actual 'wizard' not being part of the story 90% of the time.

>Golden Sky Stories
My brother of racoon descent!

7th Sea ((2nd edition))

Never have I had more fun and never have i stolen fro ma system so much.

>I know we all love to say 'have you tried not playing D&D',

Can you stop making these threads where you pretend a few trolls speak for Veeky Forums?

Don't define us by the worst of us.

>Implying that isn't the simplest answer to most of the questions we get

>"Alignment arguments cause interparty conflict, how to fix?"
>"Why are wizards so OP? How can I make things more fair for Fighters?"
>"I don't like how characters take 5 longswords to the face and live. How can I make my game more realistic?"
>"My players refuse to read the rulebook because it's so long!"

The list goes on and on of things that are easily solved by simply realizing D&D 3.5 is not the only game in the universe.

The problem with the "have you tried not playing D&D" is that people use it more often than not when playing a different system wouldn't solve anything.

Few problems discussed on this board can be solved just by switching systems, largely because at the end of the day, the system is actually only a small component to the game that's being run, and that switching systems just leads to a new veneer on the same old problems.

"Try X system" is not always bad advice, but it's not particularly helpful in a thread about problem players, or about story issues, or even alignment arguments, because even in the last case it's just a name (or a different name) for things you'll find in find in almost every other game. Even games "without" alignments still have degrees of morality to them or factions with codes of conduct, and most alignment arguments typically revolve around these two features of alignment.

Does D&D have flaws? Certainly, but most of these are remedied in far less time than it takes to learn a new system, and the idea that you should abandon a system just because something didn't work out is why we find a lot of people hopping through multiple systems hoping that a change of game will solve their problems.

Most of the whole problem with system discussion is that it's actually political in nature. Play X game or play Y game is a tactic to try to garner support for one game or dissuade people from playing another, and is largely dishonest in its lack of transparency. D&D becomes a target not because it's a bad game by any measure, but because it's popularity means people are less inclined to play other games.

As a person who has played his share of everything under the sun and now plays homebrews almost exclusively, I've really gotten tired of people claiming system superiority or inferiority when they're all just talking about the same inferior games just under different disguises.

If only they knew how amazing Duck in the Circle was.

Nice pasta

>Does D&D have flaws? Certainly, but most of these are remedied in far less time than it takes to learn a new system

Ah, it looks like the trolls are raring to go.

Time to watch them continue to be the reason no actual system discussion can ever occur, because they are too obsessed with system wars and figuring out how to complain about the system that they think is the reason no one plays the system they like.

(you)

I see no reason to seriously discuss a system I've long since stopped using.
A system is just a tool that you choose according to the task at hand. And even if we disregard the fact that DnD is not very good at its job, the jobs it does are not particularly appealing to me personally either.
Combining low fantasy, high fantasy, heroic fantasy etc. into one giant kitchen sink is not a great approach to making a good system.
Have a (You), I suppose.

Get real weird with it, OP

1) Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen

2) Microscope

3) Sorcerer

4) Spirit of the Century

>Combining low fantasy, high fantasy, heroic fantasy etc. into one giant kitchen sink is not a great approach to making a good system.
Cool opinion. I guess you can cling to it while the overwhelming majority of players, designers, critics, and just about everyone who matters disagrees with you.
I mean, what? You're going to tell people how right you are, like your complaints mean anything to anyone, when the only people who'll listen to you are your fellow trolls hoping for the day that D&D will stop being a unsurmountable juggernaut, all because you complain about how it appeals to a variety of styles?
I mean, shit. Tell you what. When the game you're shilling for gets a tenth of the amount of players and awards D&D's got, I'll try to take you seriously when you whine next time about how it can't do what it very well does, and does very well. Sound fair?

Twilight is shit despite that fact that thousands of teenage girls think it is great.

>ad populum
Hot opinions you got there.
What's next, you're gonna tell me Justin Bieber is great? I mean, he's got the most fans in the world.
Yknow, I'll just stop answering, because it's obvious you're fishing for replies. Ciao.

Twilight isn't considered the fundamental core of modern literature and hasn't reaped up every literary award that was available to be reaped.
This ain't just argumentum ad populum. This is argementum ad absolutum. Every measurable metric you can provide aside from "muh opinion" puts D&D as better than every other game by an overwhelming margin.
Fan polls? Critic awards? Book sales? Player numbers? What? What the fuck have you got except "muh opinion"?
Do you even understand how retarded you need to be to try to be such a contrarian as you are being?
It's one thing to say "I don't like it", it's another to try and say "my personal opinion outweighs that of everyone that matters."

WFRP 2e
no broken casters, power = risk
No 150 hp MMO style tanking bullshit. Use tactics or die from tetanus

>Nasuverse RPG
Does it work well? What for?

I've played a lot of ars magica, and I've observed that most players tend to bring their magi to every adventure just because the magic system is the best part of the game and it's much more fun when you have all those tools at your disposal. It's a real shame that companions aren't more satisfying to play and advance though, because they're a great way into the other great draw of ars magica which is hte historical setting. Lots of players in my troupe would agree that their companion character is conceptually much more interesting, but even so they'll always play the magus if they can get away with it.

Can you upload unknown armies 3rd ed?

No, he is saying people are lazy fucks who rarely spend time to stretch their hand even to second product on the shelf if its cover is a little less flashy than the first.

Problems in a game can be generally divided into 2 parts:

1) Problems with people - DM, players. Retards, bullies, magical realmers and so on.
2) Problems induced by the system

The second set of problems can be much easier remedied by taking another system then trying to repair D&D. Hell, take M&M it could run all your games with less problems, more clear cut rules and pretty good guide for the DM. Want bestiary? Most monsters from D&D were reworked into the system on forums.

What's the genre you want to play? What's the setting? What sort of tone do you want?

>No, he is saying people are lazy fucks who rarely spend time to stretch their hand even to second product on the shelf if its cover is a little less flashy than the first.

And I'm saying that's your opinion. An unsubstantiated one at that.
Now, you've got to show me something that can convince me to take you seriously, or you're just going to have to be content with the idea that you have a minority opinion and it all boils down to your personal tastes which most people don't share.
I mean, I could point out that there are plenty of people who are clearly not lazy fucks and are clearly well-versed in a variety of games, like the critics and designers that have showered D&D with praise, awards, respect, and recognitions, but why even bother?
Really, if your entire argument is "the majority of people are inferior to me because they like a game I don't like," how the hell is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

> I mean, I could point out that there are plenty of people who are clearly not lazy fucks and are clearly well-versed in a variety of games, like the critics and designers that have showered D&D with praise, awards, respect, and recognitions, but why even bother?
No, no, by all means, go, point out those people, the ones who "are clearly not lazy fucks and are clearly well-versed in a variety of games" and who "showered D&D with praise, awards, respect, and recognitions".

You can also mention, let's say, 10 famous RPG designers you know by name and how they are related to DnD. Hell, I'll even give you Monte Cook and Gary Gygax as freebies. Go on, I'll wait.

>Really, if your entire argument is "the majority of people are inferior to me because they like a game I don't like," how the hell is anyone supposed to take you seriously?
Where did I say that I'm exempt from "lazy fucks" definition?

>I mean, I could point out that there are plenty of people who are clearly not lazy fucks and are clearly well-versed in a variety of games, like the critics and designers that have showered D&D with praise, awards, respect, and recognitions, but why even bother?
And? Why would I listen to them if I have seen problems created by D&D in play for years? In this case all their praise and awards only tell me that they either don't care, do it maliciously or just incompetent.

>Now, you've got to show me something that can convince me to take you seriously, or you're just going to have to be content with the idea that you have a minority opinion and it all boils down to your personal tastes which most people don't share.
What do you want me to show you that wasn't shown before? From game logs to math. D&D 3.5 and its derivatives were studied almost under a microscope and the end result was - if everyone in a group spends a shitton of time learning the game it will suck less and can be used without possibility of ruining the game because everyone knows what to can do it.

You do realize that both original D&D and AD&D are Origins Hall of Famers, and each following edition has swept every best roleplaying game award the year it was published outside of the Steve Jackson awards?

And what? You want me to name people like Skip Williams or David Arneson? For what purpose? I'm not the one on trial here, I'm asking for you to show me something that isn't just you and your opinion against an overwhelming tide that says "Maybe your opinion isn't as important as you'd like it to be."

Bunch of stuff, depending on what you want. GURPS, Anima and Fantasy Craft are my go-tos

GURPS
Traveller
anything that is not a fucking tabletop MMO

>GURPS
:^)
>Anima
Literally D&D for weebs
>Fantasy Craft
Okay that one's actually good, I'll give you that.

>And? Why would I listen to them if I have seen problems created by D&D in play for years?

Why would anyone listen to you if the problems really aren't as bad as you try to pretend they are?
>What do you want me to show you that wasn't shown before?
Something that manages to overturn to consensus that it's not only a good game, but one of the best. I can tell you right now you're never going to find it, since no amount of personal game logs and skewed math can overturn the overwhelming consensus of the majority of players who fully agree that while D&D has got problems, it's popularity isn't an accident and it has attracted and served as the the effective flagship of roleplaying games in general.
It's THE big game. If most of your complaints always end up being "this game is too big", that basically just means you personally prefer smaller games. Hey, your preference, whatever, but fuck do you whine like you think your little opinion matters.

what's the problem with GURPS?

>Why would anyone listen to you if the problems really aren't as bad as you try to pretend they are?
I don't care if anyone listens to me? I stated what I've experienced. You have a lot of data from other people. You think it's not enough problems? Go on.

GMs who are aware of problems but use D&D due to its popularity are mostly okay. Those who are not aware could be seen pretty easily. And I never will recommend D&D to anyone as a go to game.

>Something that manages to overturn to consensus that it's not only a good game, but one of the best.
I can't kill so many people without nuclear weapons.

>If most of your complaints always end up being "this game is too big", that basically just means you personally prefer smaller games.
My complaints mostly are with the fact that authors could not into basic math and generally just were throwing everything that they thought about at the time into books. Without any care to the results.

A lot of work for GM. Really a lot.

If you are into it it's a good system. But you'll spend a lot of time on mechanical part of game preparation and it will be boring.

>>Anima
>Literally D&D for weebs
Confirmed for never having actually played the fucking game.

Mage: The Awakening

>unknown armies

MY BLACK FRIEND

>popular game = good game

When you're reduced to this it means you've run out of real arguments but can't bear to admit it.

When you're reduced to pretending your opinion is magically more important than other people's without even the advantage of popular support, that means you're crawling on an even lower level.

It means you're just a whipped dog, howling.

Can someone sell me on Unknown Armies?
I am very much looking to make my group try something other than 3.PF.

>Only popular opinions are worthwhile
I see you are a gentleman of refined taste my dear populist.
Please regale me with a list of other forms of entertainment you enjoy, I could use a chuckle.

Unknown armies is the game where you become so obsessed and your worldview is so warped, you get superpowers.
Unknown armies is the game were if someone fires a gun or swings a bat, everyone has already lost, because everyone, even the people who aren't going to fight, are going to have to make stress checks, and that shit can end badly.
Unknown armies is the game where I had a player make a baby out of rags and gasoline, love that baby, raise it in magic and mysticism to such extent that it became real, and then fed it to a crowd of hungry tourists, screaming and crying, dooming Vegas to another year of prosperity.

>>Only popular opinions are worthwhile

No, it's just that opinions are opinions, and everyone's free to have their own. But, if you're hoping to try and make a claim against the vast majority, you should have something more to substantiate your claims beyond simply more opinions that can be casually brushed aside.

But, since all you've really got is stacked minority opinions stacked on top of even more minority opinions, you're essentially forced to submit to the idea that other people are not only free to enjoy what you dislike, but that newcomers actually have a much higher chance of disagreeing with your personal tastes than agreeing with them. To argue otherwise just sounds like the whining of someone upset about something they dislike being popular, which is one of the more pathetic sorts of jealousy.

Odds are, if your group enjoys Pathfinder, they're not going to like UA very much. It's modern cosmic horror, pretty light (3rd is heavier, for the better), very focused on characters, and the general assumption is high lethality and fairly average-competency characters.

More detail on exacts:
>Percentile roll-under system
>big mechanical draw is the sanity system
>>splits types of shocks into 5 types: Helplessness, Isolation, Self, Unnatural, Violence
>>measures how hard you are to a given shock, and how many times you've failed a given shock
>setting is anthropocentric cosmic horror, pick up 2e core from tha archive and it'll give you the gist of it

If you want something fairly close to 3.X while still broadening horizons, I suggest trying Ars Magica (also in tha archive), since the resolution mechanic is very similar, it has a lot of mechanical complexity (it's just that it's mostly in the magic system), and the setting is still fairly heavily fantasy if you stick to the Hermetic Order.

I'll probably be here to answer questions about either system for a while.

>but what's the alternative?

whateaver the hell you want that is not d&d?

It goes like this:
1-Read rpg 1 (at least part of it)
2-Read rpg 2 (at least part of it)
3-Read rpg 3 (at least part of it)
......
4-Read rpg N (at least part of it)
5-Pick the bests ones and play them

>Does D&D have flaws?

D&D IS UNFIXABLE

>0d&d is made and get famous
>its the first one at the market and all those guys with extremely different views on what a rpg should be (why do you think they have the same view on what rpg should be? Just because they play d&d, what the hell they would be playing at this moment since there is nothing else?) are playing the same thing.
>after some amount of time people discover some stuff they think are flaws, while they also they discover aspects of d&d that are fucking awesome.
>because they have different views on what a rpg should be (despise playing the same game), what is a flaw to some is not a flaw to other, what is worse, sometimes what is a flaw to some is a good thing to other person.
>new d&d edition is released
>people quickly jump into it expecting fixes to the flaw they found
>but what is a flaw to some is not a flaw to others as I said before and so to many players nothing is fixed, the game become worse, while to others the game became better, to others the game became a mess and etc.....
>all those new players quickly jumping to this new rpg bring new (new as in new to rpg) players to d&d
>those new players will play the same thing despise having the same opinions about what a rpg should be
>they have different opinions about what is good or bad in a rpg and etc.....
>new edition is released
>those new players quickly jump into this new system, expecting fixes for their problems and etc... and all those players quickly jumping to it bring new (to rpg) players and etc....
>the story goes on and on, ad infinitum

>I want to read a book about space aliens going to school on a gas planet
>read shakespeare! most books are based on it for a long time and its popular! If you don't like it you're a dumbdumb!

It depends on what you want out of your game.

>newcomers actually have a much higher chance of disagreeing with your personal tastes than agreeing with them.
I can live with that. If someone just starts listening to music they aren't going to like the same bands that I do because they will probably be preoccupied with something easily digestible that was heavily marketed at then. Movies, role-playing games, and numerous other interests suffer the same fate; newcomers in any interest are often ill-equipped to tell the good from the bad because they aren't familiar with the plurality of nuances and options available to them.

Casting Veeky Forums's (a generally experienced, candid community) well-documented & fairly empirical complaints about D&D as mere "minority opinion" that is trumped by whatever the majority of newcomers gravitate towards is doing yourself an intellectual disservice. I can only imagine you enjoy the role of the fool.

GURPS is not a game system. It's a set of tinker toys for building your own system. The problem with GURPS is that it really likes making one sort of game (the ultra-autistic-super-detailed-realism-simulator kind) and must be dragged kicking and screaming to any other configuration, and the amount of effort you'll put into building your desired game out of GURPS is somewhat comparable to just starting from scratch and building your own system without GURPS.

That and GURPS missionaries are insufferable.

With GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, all the work is done for you.

UA sounds really appealing to me but my group would hate it. I'll also never be able to make any of them read a rulebook so whatever system I end up with I'll have to teach them myself as we play.

How rules heavy/complicated is Ars Magical? It looks great at a glance but I'm not sure I can count on my PCs to give it the level of commitment it requires, or want to play multiple characters at a time.

Not playing anything, at least in my case.

>well-documented & fairly empirical complaints about D&D

You mean mostly bullshit spewed by a few idiots hoping people will take them seriously, when most of their complaints are either just a matter of taste or simply remedied?

You hardworking trolls still have decades of work before you in order to do anything except assemble a collection of things most people either don't care about, don't agree with, or choose not to play with. Since most of your arguments end up demanding that people need to play in the worst possible ways in order for them to actually recognize your complaints, your "empirical" complaints are about as useful as a forecast of Antarctica. Yes, it's cold over there, but I'm not exactly planning to visit there any time soon.

>intellectual disservice

An intellectual disservice is assuming that the only way people can enjoy the most popular game is somehow that there must be something fundamentally wrong with them, rather than the game simply not being as bad as you like to pretend it is. An intellectual disservice is ignoring all the good things about a game in order to present a single-sided view in order to further a largely unacademic agenda while pretending to have a scholarly interest. The very definition of intellectual disservice is to see something that works, something that works very well, and to come to the conclusion that the world must be wrong instead of actually trying to understand why it works so well.

Do yourself a favor. Stop working so hard to try and come up with complaints that can be brushed aside by people simply enjoying the game you don't like, and put some effort into seeing things from their perspective. You might realize that no, they're not mindless sheep who are too stupid to know better, but that they see things that you've grown willfully ignorant to in your arrogance.

I'd suggest, if you want to ease them in, start them as companions who have the Gift, but no proper magical training. Then, do a timeskip for their training (use the chargen method rather than the usual advancement mechanics), and walk them through the basics for spell creation and all that. Then do some tribunal politics. My suggestion: grab Houses of Hermes: Societas, run a game set in a Flambeau tournament, add in the plot of your choosing. Plenty of chances to show off and use their new spells, while still reminding them to mind the politics.

As for density: pretty much everything except spell creation and its derivatives are simple enough if they can manage PF. If they don't want to do spell creation, there's a lot of spells in the core, and if you get a handle on the system you can help make spells for them pretty simply if you have the PDF.

Hey I play D&D/PF almost exclusively so I'm not sure if your WotC-sponsored autistic ranting applies to me. I know it has good sides. Doesn't mean I have to conveniently ignore all of its faults.

>If you don't like the nth iteration of D&D you're an internet troll who hates fun and can't even imagine how people can find enjoyment in playing the system
I'm not even sure how to address your points anymore, you're so far divorced from reality...

This is what traditional RPGers actually believe.

It's not their games: it's their gamers that are fucked up beyond redemption.

>Doesn't mean I have to conveniently ignore all of its faults.

No one said that. But, at the same time, no one wants to hear "[Game] is Objectively bad because of my Subjective opinions", especially when it's said purely to flare up system warring and to generate circular discussion that fails to ever move past people complaining and having their complaints shot down only to open up new complaints.
System wars are tedious business, and I've always found more value in listening to people who actually value games and want to explore and fix their issues, rather than people who hate games and simply want to find material to use as ammunition in their tantrums. At the same time, I've also found that occasionally you can get a drop of wisdom out of troll by pressuring them to say something they like about a game they despise, though for the most part they're absolutely devoid of any worthwhile commentary, regardless of what game they're trolling.

Maid RPG

When you see things like Toughness, Samurai, Trunamer you can bet your ass people will start calling devs on their shit. And if you call it a subjective opinion than you are too full of shit and is incapable of adding 2 and 2 together.

>what's the alternative?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_role-playing_games_by_genre#Fantasy

If you want to like D&D but the power creep and spellcasting/economic derp annoys you, Fantasy Craft is a good choice. It's surprisingly easy to GM too. Also, if you've played a d20 game before, you've already got the basics down.

>Un-ironically suggests M&M.
M&M is one of the most boring RPGs I have ever played. The mechanics are so fucking bland.

I would rather replay the shittiest D&D 3.5 campaign I've ever played with the least balanced party I've ever played with than slog through the mess that is M&M ever again.

I'm not saying D&D is amazing, but I am saying that nearly anything is better than M&M.

The only game I've played that I hated nearly as much is whatever version of Savage worlds was current around 2011.

...

FC seemed kinda neat, but it lacked some of the critical things I actually play/run dnd for.
>high power level
>official dnd setting compatibility.
>Prebuilt adversaries.
>Prebuilt adventures for when I don't have time to design a Homebrew campaign.

I mean, it looks like it fixes some of my mechanical complaints about 3.x, but it also discards most of what I liked about D&D to begin with.

#1: Between having action dice and vitality/wounds instead of HP you can usually bash your way through a large number of enemies unless you get unlucky. I'm not sure what the problem is there.
#2: Gonna have to work harder if you're going off the reservation, buddy.
#3: It does have those?
#4: You could steal a module from just about any d20 game and drop in FC's enemies and such nearly at will if you've got even a modest amount of analytical skill. It'd certainly be faster than homebrewing your own setting anyway.

Truly, the most traditional of games.

My local group is using the Twilight 2k setting with GURPS rules. We're honestly taking the milsim a little far when it comes to rules, but it's a lot of fun when you get into the nitty-gritty of calling in a mortar strike from that militia that ows you a favour.

I recommend Risus. Maybe not as your primary system because it's a silly thing for pickup games, but more to show what's possible.

(In my actual games I use an unholy amalgam of parts assembled on the fly, usually from pieces of Risus, FATE, D&D 4E, and TVTropes pages.)

The only bad D&D is 3.5/3.PF.

Every single other D&D has SOME saving grace. All 3.PF has is grognards refusing to move on and furry erp.

> Every single other D&D has SOME saving grace

3.5 had the most entertaining character optimization scene.

I honestly think 4e's was better. More useful moving parts, as long as you are only optimizing and not breaking.

Anima - Beyond Fantasy
GURPS Dungeon Fantasy
SenZar

>dat feel I never even played D&D until the 4E

WFRP and TDE were much more popular over here in central Europe.

Well, I would still suggest you to give UA a chance. It has simple rules and the fluff is just awesome. As summarized by a friend of mine and according to 2E lore: "UA is the game where the most powerful wizard is an old alcoholic writer with cirrhosis, where the most wanted artifact a porn tape and where the members of the most powerful cabal spend their time flipping hamburgers under two golden arcs.

If someone has the pdf for the third edition, dump it here

>Dungeon World
>can't do fantasy settings well
When will this meme die?

When DW becomes a decent system and not the worst AW hack ever made.

>If someone has the pdf for the third edition, dump it here
mega.nz/#F!Jp4wgAxJ!FhtKlC4HJsqs2eR7kdG7gQ

Oh, I didn't explicitly discount Dungeon World because it's bad at doing fantasy.

I explicitly discounted Dungeon World because it's a bad RPG. They cut out everything good about Apocalypse World, and then didn't even put anything new in, leaving it bland and terrible.

I agree it's nothing compared to AW, they did cut out the best parts.
But I disagree with not putting in anything new.
And the system is very accessible to new players who prefer storytelling over number-crunching.
It might not be the best RPG around, but it's fun.

This.

DW is basically on par with most OSR (no matter how the grogs keep screeching about storygames not being real games autistically, WHEN THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT OF OSR IS THAT YOU CAN FREEFORM MORE BECAUSE LESS RULES).

There is none. You know it. Nobody's going to try the other stuff.

>nitpicking

You're going to try and condemn an entire game on a few niggling flaws? So far, you've listed about .0000000000000000001% of the game. You're going to need to reach at least 2% before your complaint changes from "this game is very big" to "this game is bad."

Thank you user, I love your writing style. If I ever decide to write a book and need a character that only exists to piss off the reader, I will write every line of his the way you do yours.

I think D&D is average at best but I really don't care what the "majority of players" thinks about it; the only critics that matter to me are my gaming group.

Just wanted to say this, please don't aim your autism cannons at me because I simply don't care.

Barbarians of Lemuria
-Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, 2nd Edition
-Savage Worlds
-GURPS
-Runequest
-FATE

etc, etc

>You're going to try and condemn an entire game on a few niggling flaws?
Not that user, but my issue with D&D is specifically that it IS very big, for no particular reason. The game (and all its bastard offspring) are just drowning in crunch... they've forgotten that the rules are a tool, not an end unto themselves.

I get why the devs and publishers do it - more splatbooks and new editions and expansions means more material means more revenue. But we're not compelled to play along.

The fact of the matter is all you need for a good RPG campaign is a robust resolution mechanic, some agreement on the setting, and a decent DM.

The alternative doesn't matter because as soon as you say anything the reply is "Well it's not D&D so it must suck nanananananananana I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Point is it depends.

Point is D&D is a game with heavy, or at best mid-heavy (latest edition) crunch, leaning heavily towards gamist mindset, sacrificing many potential qualities on the other fields to be primarily a GAME. Additionaly tied heavily to kitchen sink high fantasy and hard to translate to other kinds of settings.

It is probably good at that. Depending on edition.

Point is there is no way that such majority of people that play RPGs who play D&D actually enjoy this sort of stuff the most. It's simply improbable. Which means they're playing system ill-suited for their needs and get suboptimal results. As well as there are certainly people who are put off by RPGs because they don't like what D&D is and have no idea it could also be something different, and enjoyable for them.