5e causes brain damage

As far as I'm aware that doesn't have character creation/skills.

2e seems pretty cool, I'm going to try it out to have an old school fantasy sandbox adventure instead of the boring PF premades my group always plays.

Not that different from carrot, desu. And considering the period, making a fire to cook that parsnip would have been kind of a pain in the ass.

like what?
give me alternatives that are not autistic

>It's fun
>It's easy to learn
>It's easier to get people to play
>It's easy to modify on the fly
>It's honestly a pretty decent system

I'm really not interested in pretending it's some kind of flawless system, and I'm certainly open to ideas about better ones, but while I have my gripes with it, it does its job just fine. What system do you recommend, monk user? I'm not going to argue about it, I'd just like to get your opinion. Since you clearly think 5e doesn't do a very good job, you must have a system or two you consider better.

>1e and 2e are legitimately good "crawl into dark places, kill things, and take their stuff" games.
>4e has the best skirmish combat of any RPG

Really, it's just 3e and 5e that suck. 3e is a dogshit frankenstein of a game that doesn't know what it wants to be or how to do it. 5e is a D&D logo applied to the front of a pile of blank pages.

In Bavaria that's actually quite a common thing to eat with bread and some beer for a snack or as lunch. Usually it's cut into thin slices and salted, then left to rest for a few minutes

that sounds pretty tasty, actually

Popularity is actually a key quality for an RPG. If you have a perfect system and nobody to play it with you're shit outta luck.

2e has its flaws. While I'm generally the first to defend Roleplaying over Rollplaying, 2e (something I'm also typically quick to defend) definitely favoring the former over the later, it sometimes takes this to a point that it attempts to be a simulation instead of a game. Attribute scores above eight but below fifteen generally don't matter in average play (with scores outside that range bringing either meaty bonuses or crippling deficiencies), THAC0 progression means that someone at higher levels who isn't a Fighter will generally need to have enchantments or extremely high (17+) attributes in a static-attribute system to reliably hit non-positive AC scores, health for PCs caps fairly early on while damage from spells and the like only increases (along with frequency of save-or-die effects) to the point that eventually even the fighters get a glass jaw (Been a while but Fighter HP w/o Con Modifiers caps out at either 10d10+30 or 9d10+33, so 82-85 HP on average) emphasizing both the aspects of "Don't get hit" and "Have good saves"…

It's a very fun system all the same IMO, and has a lot of rules for the roleplaying aspects that tend to work without leaving someone too broken / overpowered (it also encourages PCs at lower levels to pick their fights carefully, not just go "WE SEE A WORG KILL IT FAT EXP TIME" or "YOU PICKED THE WRONG PARTY TO ROB PUNKS"), but it's very much a different system from PF. PF is a game focused around Crouching Tigers and Hidden Badasses who quickly start to resemble protagonists from games like Skyrim or Breath of the Wild or the like in their ability to mow through even the toughest foes. By contrast, in 2E you literally might spend your first 2-3 levels fighting nothing more dangerous than rats or isolated Kobolds / Goblins / etcetera with killing a bear without any casualties feeling like an accomplishment.

Going on with what this user said is that if you have a popular system it's extremely easy to find games to play with and you can just drop out of shitty games.
Conversely if you have a not well known perfect system it's extremely hard to find another game if you have a shitty group. Great mechanics a good game do not make

That's only true if you only play with shitters who aren't willing to give games that aren't popular a try.

Of course, since nobody would allow you faggots into their IRL parties, all you are left is roll20, and in that context your point is entirely valid.

>rules for the roleplaying
Can you elaborate on these?
Granted I've only read the 2e PHB so far but all I can think of from it are the rules for non-weapon proficiencies.
Which are somewhat confusing to me in that the are multiple variations provided, all seemingly optional and based heavily on case-by-case DM judgment rather than set DCs.

You're only supposed to use one of the three non-weapon skill systems at a time. No mixing real-world knowledge, Secondary Skills, and NWPs. Unless your DM says it's OK.

He might be referring to the individual XP awards and reaction table.

It's popular, which attracts players, which makes it more likely to be played, which makes it more likely that feedback is generated, which makes it more likely that it is improved, which attracts more players, which.... Etc

Whenever I hear "rules from roleplaying", the GM in me gets exceedingly wary.
From my experience, rules for roleplaying either prescribe a very formulaic approach to rp among pcs and/or npcs, very rarely in a way that is supposed to reflect a ritualized in setting approach, such is in L5R, or outright says to players (and actually to the GM) roll X for Y, or Z against Y, such as in WoD.
While I can live with them, I'd rather there be advice for approaches, rather than hard and fast rules (which open doors to abuse by players/GM).

GURPS.

GURPS, not autistic just not designed for ape-intellect level such as yours.

Inferior in every aspect to GURPS.

I'm sorry you live in an african country.

A mix of that (EXP rewards, simulating morale breaking in combat, reaction table, etc.) and various kits having special abilities that let them do stuff like tell when somebody is lying or determine someone's true origins by watching them passively or the like.

DC in 2E didn't really exist. For the most part you would roll an Attribute check (wherein the goal, instead of beating a set DC, was to roll under your respective attribute) for Proficiencies or attempt to beat your fixed Saving Throw value (sometimes with a modifier) for, well, Saving Throws.

For non-weapon proficiencies a lot of 2E DMs I know just let people apply what would make sense for their character, being more or less generous depending on how much effort the players put into their character's background and meshing with the setting. The "Non-Weapon Proficiencies w/ Level + Bonus Languages for either Languages or Proficiencies" background was the next most common, but mainly in games that CharGen was more forgiving than "3d6 x6 Final Destination" (4d6b3, for example, or even 5d6b3 or 4d6b3 rolled seven times or the like).

Normally I'd agree, but… well, see 3 / 3.PF. The PHB and DMG and whatnot started to break away from as much, which lead to 3 / 3.PF noticeably diverging into spreadsheet combat simulators for veteran players instead of functional roleplaying experiences. In 2E you can say you want to play a Fighter with shaky hands who does some bureaucratic stuff on the side and both DM + Players will probably go "Coo', you'll help if we ever get in trouble with the local law." In 3 / 3.PF you'll barely get "Fighter" out past your lips before you're either (at best) fed suggestions about a class who does their job better or told to re-roll because "I'm not wasting spells / magic items on you just so you can fly and keep up with the party", let alone "Wait you have flaws and a skill focus on something not directly related to your class?"

I didn't understand any of the posts in this thread, except the one about parsnip not being all that different from carrot.

This

GURPS is one of the few systems worse than D&D, both in substance and in fanbase

interesting, will try it out.

Strike!

At what point does the goal of "realism" in a system make having fun less likely?

>In 3 / 3.PF you'll barely get "Fighter" out past your lips before you're either (at best) fed suggestions about a class who does their job better
Be up front about this, people say that not because other classes can do the fighters job better (it's actually quite competent in PF as a damage dealing combatant), people suggest other classes because they can do the combat thing, and something else besides, while the fighter, in 90% of cases, is relegated to combat only, and actually do lose noticeably on their capacity if they diverge from it.
In 2e's case, there was no real rules or numbers for a number of things, so the player needed to work with the GM to come up with something to mutual satisfaction.
Lack of rules means the GM and player must interact, and the player must actively present the thing they want.
See 3.PF.
The "realism" in and of itself is not bad, it's that some people are bound to the realism, and some people are expressly by design not, and reap the benefit of being free of a yoke.

I'd ask for an IQ test but I know you're clinically retarded kid.

Prove GURPS is bad without proving you're retarded, you can't.

5e definitely caused brain damage to you, OP

That beer looks pretty good, and I don't even like beer.

Please support your baseless accusation first.

>Apply what would make sense for their character
I'm definitely going to use this when I try to run it, thanks user! Cutting out extra rules is great and it seems like they have to get their skills from actually writing a backstory.

Is there a resource for common 2e shortcuts like that?

>lazy babby troll counting on getting his shit ruses through during off-peak Veeky Forums hours

KYS. :)

>See 3.PF.

You mean the one where the realism of weapon cords was tested by flipping a mouse around?

:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Mmmm no.

Could be white carrot too. Used to be a lot more common.

>THAC0 progression means that someone at higher levels who isn't a Fighter will generally need to have enchantments or extremely high (17+) attributes in a static-attribute system to reliably hit non-positive AC scores
How many monsters does this honestly apply to? Looking through my Monstrous Manual I can find most of them are campaign ending boss monsters with impressive spellcasting powers to boot.
>Pit Fiend
>Most adult dragons
>Storm Giants and Fire Giants in battle armor

Other more common monsters occasionally dip into negatives, but never too far, or are the sorts of creatures players aren't really meant to fight.
>Galeb Duhr
>Green Hags
>The armored part of a Bulette
>Ki-Rin
>Rakshasa
>Some sphinxes
>The armored part of a zaratan

That's it. That's every 2e monster in the base book with a negative armor class. Also, keep in mind that because most characters don't have notable (or any!) attribute bonuses to their combat scores most characters won't lag too far behind the warriors due to lack of strength. A level 13 priest has THAC0 12, a rogue has 14, a warrior has 8, and a wizard has a 16. Even the wizard can hit an AC -2 creature without needing to roll a natural 20 and rogues and priests will hit reliably enough.

I hate 3.PF.

I hate the 3.PF devs (well, most of them) with a burning passion.

But if you don't get that that was a (shitty) joke, you are a fucking autist.

Troll post but a decent topic. 5e system isn't perfect, but it knows well enough not to bother trying. The strength of 5e is that it dials itself back to the d20+mod vs target logic in most circumstances, and gives a lot of flexibility with the advantage system.

It's easy to house rule, there aren't endless charts for everything ala gurps, and the math either stays simple or gets out of the way. Whenever I need to dictate anything on the fly, I can usually think up something on the spot that makes sense with the rest of the rules, and the players are happy. The players get a sense of how the rules consistently behave and that sense is never broken.

I've run 5e for a couple years now and the game has rarely been fragile enough to cause problems. I've had to tweak a few things, but there's never going to be a set of rules that fits everything perfectly. If the math is light, adaptable, and predictable, the system is doing its job for all parties.

You mean where the "quest for realism" makes the game less fun?
It is exactly what was asked for, I never said it did it well, and there are far more blatant issues.

Also, you no longer need to juggle DC to make the party relevant.
>The rogue can pick locks with a +20 so DC35 to make it interesting but no one has athletics so the chasm must be along DC15 and...
In the end, it was more than "kind of" patchwork.

Realism is harmful when it's unequally or thoughtlessly applied.

Not all games need to be realistic. For some genres and themes it is an asset, but for others it is a detriment. Knowing the experience you want to convey and how much realism is appropriate is a key part of design.

In terms of unequal realism, the caster/martial double standard is the classic example. The idea that while magic users can be ridiculously powerful, martial characters must adhere absolutely to the laws of reality. It's a situation that simply can't function as a rational basis for design without causing no end of problems down the line. If you have high fantasy spellcasters, you should have epic, heroic martial fighters who are unrestricted by the laws of our reality in what they can achieve. Likewise, if you have mundane, realistic martial combatants, magic users must be similarly restricted in order for anything to make sense. That doesn't necessarily mean 'no magic', but their capabilities need to be weighted against the mundane to ensure that they aren't overly strong, and given appropriate costs for the advantages they present.

4e's solution (which was the same, but different math) was more fitting for d20s number range, but yeah, it helps.

NO. I REFUSE. I WILL NEVER PLAY YOUR SYSTEM. EVER. I DON'T CARE HOW EASILY REFLUFFABLE IT IS.

SEARCH YOUR FEELINGS

YOU KNOW IT TO BE TRUE!

I don't get this image. Someone who is baiting is trying to get (you)s. They aren't handing them out as part of the bait.

In the fish hook metaphor, the fish is the (you).

Yeah, 5e made several improvements to deal with power inflation, both numerically, and with casters. Tying active magics to concentration, and spell mechanics to spell level instead of caster level, have both improved the state of balance a lot.

I'm not quite certain they hit the mark with skills. The difference between skilled and unskilled is small, to the point where it doesn't feel like a character with acrobatics (for example) is acrobatic, unless it's a higher level rogue focused on it. The difference should be definitive, but not overpowering. That's my largest complaint with the system right now. I've personally 'fixed' it with house rules, but I'm hoping that whenever 6e comes out there's some thought put into it.

It seems meant to indicate that the baiter has responded to the baitee's original post.
Not really applicable here.

*autistic screeching*

5e's skill system can be pretty broken, when you consider that they didn't actually get rid of stacking skill bonuses, they just reduced their number. Thanks to bounded accuracy, every skill bonus is much more powerful, and you get character builds like the "unbeatable grapple check".

>Can't prove me wrong
>I-I BETTER TELL HIM TO KYS HIMSELF!!!!
hahaha thanks for proving how much of a brainlet you're.

>D&D causes braindamage

FTFY. Just ask anyone who has tried to get 3.x faggots to play anything that isn't 3.x or derivative.

Expertise was a mistake, it should only have given advantage

Expertise should have been available to everyone, and given a flat +5, Saga edition style.

Here's your (you)

One of the few things I think should be global is ID's. Would really cut down on the shitposts if we could just go
>One post by this ID

That's in stark opposition with the whole "anonimity" thing.

>>It's easy to modify on the fly
I wish more people recognized this. 5e is meant to be modified for your group, but the second you discuss potential modifications on any discussion forum meant for 5e, people jump down your throat for violating their sacred cows.

>One of the few things I think should be global is ID's
Then you should probably leave chans entirely and go to reddit or some place else.

What are some good modifications to do to 5e?

Anonymity is the only reason this site has value. Remove that and it's just another shitty forum where everything is decided by hierarchy and reputation. Anonymity has its own problems, but that you have to take people based on what they say, here and now, rather than the accumulation of reputation, and that you can't just filter people who disagree with you away is what gives the conversation here its unique qualities.

What

3e and 5e are popular, therefore they are bad

This is actually kind of true. If you're not there for the roleplaying elements, and minmaxing for combat your basically just playing a wargame, where the GM has the option of fudging things in your favor.

I know this is throwing pasta into the river, but it seems basically legit.

Upvoted

Nah.

3e's badness is unrelated to its popularity. It popularity just means its faults are more exposed and so magnified online.

The same is true for 5e except its faults are actually pretty minor, all things considered.

You know, I was thinking this was bait, but... actually, I played with people like that.

When it's applied to the wrong genre or applied haphazardly and then not counteracted by the rest of the game.

I'm wondering if this is actually a problem.
I've got one player in our group that does this. He min-maxes for combat, and generally has little to no character background and generally doesn't participate much in social encounters.

He might be a "bad" player but he's not disruptive.

I think he just wants to beat up fictional characters in his free time to blow off steam.

It might be a little boring. But is it something worth booting from a game for? Or should it just be a "don't invite invite him back" sort of thing.

That's a shitty, retarded post from someone who's never actually done anything like that. I have, and it turns out that a 2000 mile drive with no AC in summer heat is absolutely fucking miserable. You'd have to pay me to make me even consider doing it again.

There is no hard point. Some people like much more simulationist games.

Some people love minutia and calculating things like damaged based on acceleration due to gravity. Other players like rules light games to the point of not using dice.

Def not a thing to kick people out for. Probably a good idea to talk to people about themes, types f play, what everyone's into, etc. before you start a campaign, or when you're putting together a group though.

As someone who has, I've got to disagree. It's much more about what happened and who you were with than what system you played. If you have a group of friends you like be be around, you can have fun drinking and playing shoots and ladders.

Fun stories often have a lot to do with the fucked up bad things that happened along the way rather than "everything went smoothly the end"

I feel like you aren't exactly disagreeing with each other, or the post itself.

Even the post directly says that you might have a better time with a better car/system. It's not about excusing bad design or pretending it isn't a factor. But it also acknowledges that people can and do have fun with flawed systems. Knowing their flaws, and being able to frankly and openly discuss them is only an advantage for other people who might want to play them. Knowing ahead of time how to make the car you're stuck with work best will make the journey go smoother, you know? Although it also might make you choose a different car, if the steps you'd have to go to to make it work are just too much bother.

I also disagree with that because I've had bad systems ruin games by frustrating the GM or a player into no longer having fun.

Every analogy breaks down eventually.

that protagonist has shit trigger discipline

The problem is that it's downplaying just how bad of an experience a shitty car can make an extended road trip. Dealing with California summer heat with no AC is shit and no amount of "but what REALLY mattered is who you were with at the time :))))))" will make it not have ruined the experience.

How do you make 5e less bland? Like it feels like the system doesn't do anything unique and I havent been here long enough to be a grog and Ive been here too long to be a newb so the nostaliga or newess dosent really work for me.

ROLEPLAY group:
>hahaah see what i did guise? so funney
>and then I try to fuck the innkeepers wife
>*indescribably tortured in-character voices*
>you can't kill my chara tho
>murderhobo

ROLLPLAY group
>okay, so when I break down the door you'll be ready to throw in the torch and our mage will have a spell ready to attack if we see anybody
>Does anybody have a 10ft pole?
>wow, the DM really kicked our ass with that dungeon. We should try it again next week

5e causes brain damage

I think (hope) that he means something more like pol, where the ID is thread based, and after the thread is gone so is the ID

Third party content? Even if the first party stuff is light, I know a shitload of people have been trying to jump on the bandwagon, to varying success.

Other than that... People say it's easy to improvise and make stuff for?

Honestly, 5e's lack of content or particular novelty is its biggest weakness. It's a very bare bones, basic product.

Can't comment about AC.
But one of the road trips I remember most fondly was objectively pretty awful.

>Friend works late nights as a janitor
>Accidentally spills what's essentially garage juice on himself
>Too tired to shower passes out
>We arrive at his door for the road trip, but he hasn't showered yet and we've got to leave 15 minutes ago
>the smell is so bad it's like walking into purple tinged brick wall
>It starts to pour torrentialy
>We've got hours of a Sophie's choice between opening the windows to freezing rain and the bog of eternal stench.
>Finally arrive
>Smell is so bad host tells us not to walk on the carpets and avoid the other customers.

>wargames that have [...] a campaign system
What does this even mean? How does that work?

That has nothing to do with the car, though. You and I both know your trip would've gotten a whole lot shittier if your car broke down when you were halfway there and left you stranded in the middle of nowhere.

Which has also happened to me, and surprise surprise, being stuck on the side of the road for ages ruined the return trip.

See that's why I use that post to explain "System matters, but not as much as people act like". Because cool people make the trip worth it but that stretch through the desert with no AC is gonna suck either way.

ROLLPLAY group
>No DM, you HAVE to let me use this obscure limited edition splatbook they gave out free at a con seven years ago, my broken as fuck build depends on it
>I roll Bluff to convince the Orcs to cut their own throats
>Hold on guys, I'm just calculating the optimal attack configuration for this turn, it'll only take another 15 minutes
>But there CAN'T be manticores in this part of the forest, the random encounter table doesn't include them! No fair!
>wow, the DM really kicked our ass with that dungeon. He must have fudged the dice in his favour. Let's cheat next week.

ROLEPLAY group
>I could just ask to roll INT to figure out who the culprit is, but let's try to gather clues instead and solve it the fun way
>First I'm going to casually remind the Baron that my father faithfully served his father for twenty years, then I'm going to flatter the Baron about his recent victory, and then I'm going to raise the possibility of an advance on our pay so we can buy supplies.
>Does anybody have a 10ft pole?
How it's done properly, grasshopper. :^)

It's not his fault that he has never ROLEPLAYed with anyone but Munchkins. Sad.

Usually you've got some sort of war-band and get to add points to it as time goes on. Usually with bonuses for winning. Characters that die in game, have a chance of staying dead.

I've seen other's that had a map with territory you fought over. Certain territories, like a space port or supply dumb, gave in game bonuses.

Why do people perpetuate the false dichotomy?

I play roleplaying games for the characters and the stories their actions create, but I can also appreciate and enjoy interacting with an engaging, well designed set of mechanics alongside that.

Prove GURPS is good without proving you're retarded, you can't.

>>I could just ask to roll INT to figure out who the culprit is
A good roleplayer wouldn't even bring it up as a possibility.

Fuck this kind of purist bullshit. Skill checks exist for a reason.

If you can figure it out yourself, sure. But if people are getting stuck or can't figure something out, there's nothing wrong with letting them roll for some hints or just to keep the game moving.