Veeky Forums?

Veeky Forums?

Why do you hate New things?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=CMhaJodxSM4
youtube.com/watch?v=A7pI96Osp9c
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Because people read 1d4chan and think that it's the current state of affairs.

Because most new things are bad.

>D&D 5e ruined D&D
>Delta Green ruined Call of Cthulu
>Age of Sigmar ruined 40k
>GURPS 4e ruined GURPS
>FATE ruined the original FATE which didn't have as much retarded rules bloat

AoS ruined 40k? lolwut.

Do people actually play Delta Green?

No, but that doesn't change the fact that it sucks.

Because it's easier to maintain a hobby than it is to invest in one.

Watching the latest season of an anime is far less trouble than watching 8 seasons of a new one. Same goes for new RPGs, wargames, miniatures, etc.

>GURPS 4e ruined GURPS
It's a major improvement across the board, friend.

>Contrarian the post

>1. D&D was ruined as soon as they decided to move beyond AD&D
>2. Delta green doesn't always suck
>3. Despite being the same type of game, and from the same company, what do those have in common? I assume you mean WHFB.
>4. I never fucking bothered with GURPS
>5. Or FATE
If you hate new things (I hate many new things as well), then just fucking play old things.

Only 3aboos have that problem. Everyone else is capable of liking new games.

>It's a major improvement across the board, friend.
>rules bloat meant the game had to be split into two books
>skills are a straight increase now so that an average person (50 points) can start with a 26 in Rifles skill with ease.

Yeah I don't think so. 4e is broken as fuck.

>Everyone else is capable of liking new games.

So are 3aboos, but 4e and 5e sucked just as much as 3.5 so they stuck with what they were comfortable with. Pathfinder was also objectively worse than 3.5 so again, no reason to switch.

>rules bloat meant the game had to be split into two books
Such as?

>skills are a straight increase now so that an average person (50 points) can start with a 26 in Rifles skill with ease.
So you don't allow it. As the GM. You know, the person responsible for balancing the game they decide to run in GURPS. That's like complaining that a 50 point person can buy Mind Control with ease, because it exists in the system. GURPS doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists in the context of a game. It will directly contradict itself if you use every single rule, because some rules assume a realistic game, while others a cinematic one.

Pretty much this. Part of the reason 3.5 and PF get played so much. People already know what they are doing with the only differenceso being some polish or frill here and there.

Brand new games/overhauls require time as a GM to familiarize yourself with all of the rule facets and also get players to familiarize themselves when they just got the hang of the previous system/version after 5 years of fucking around.

It's an investment of time, money, and effort where people have already invested those things in something that works fine for them.

>So you don't allow it. As the GM.

Sure. I can homebrew to fix 3.5 but that doesn't mean it's a good system. Your argument is invalid.

3.5e is sold as a complete, self-balanced game where all of the options are assumed to be equivalent against each other for a fantasy dungeon-crawling game. GURPS is not.

If you GM allows you to play an organic turret-man whose only skills in life are 50 points in Guns, then that's their problem, not the game's.

Because new things are what we deserve, not what we want.

We also don't know what we want.

>We don't hate new things, new things are shit!
Wew lads.

I'm pretty sure we got consensus on "Genetically engineered catgirls for domestic ownership".

anyone have the doctor assmarbles post, or the loli cumrocket one?

Did we?

I must have missed that one.

Did we also define where "catgirl" ends and "furryshit" begins?

Because new things don't have an established opinion that I can base my own opinion off of yet, so I default to uncertain rage.

Sorry, no. How about this?

what was determined regarding the time needed to reach escape velocity?

Because WotC keeps cocking it up.

It's pretty hard to find games that need a substantial investment of time to at least get into them.

Granted, if you like 800 pages monsters like DND, it's another story. But those are realy the execption.

>If you GM allows you to play an organic turret-man whose only skills in life are 50 points in Guns, then that's their problem, not the game's.

Nope. How about some rules of diminishing returns and escalating costs to increase skills in a game that intends to be "realistic"

Novelty reminds us of the passage of time and the inevitability of death. By imposing patterns on our lives and wallowing in nostalgia and consistency we delude ourselves into thinking we can fall into some sort of Simpsons-esque eternal present and never die.

>I'm not afraid of change, everything unfamiliar just sucks!

Nice opinions friendo

Yes, it is the GM's problem. The GM tells you to make a character. You put 50 points in Guns and go "Hurr durr this game is so easily broken." The GM bans your character because it isn't a character. It's a turret-man whose entire life has been turreting. That isn't a character, it's a nonsensical statblock.

>a game that intends to be "realistic"
The realism comes from the GM, you dimwit. Magic isn't realistic. Buying success with points isn't realistic. Supernatural and cinematic advantages aren't realistic. Does that mean GURPS isn't realistic? No, it means that it can cater to both realistic and unrealistic games.

No, you don't understand. Reading the rulebook is the first step to learning the system. Actually running it and learning it is a full-on process that takes several sessions and discussions to really do, and even more so before you can learn the system in order to have the finesse to really run it how you want.

Yup.

Me and my group started on Pathfinder. We all know it pretty well. Here and there, we bump against the rocky patches in the rules, but we have a few ez bans to keep balance ok-ish and everyone is basically competent at character design. From there, it's generic enough to cover most of the middle fantasy games we play at low levels.

Fully admit that high level pathfinder is nearly unusable, particularly without bans.

Balance is unrealistic.

Nonsense.

So much this.

>Delta Green
>New

Realism is unfun.

>>Delta Green ruined Call of Cthulu
said no one ever

There is nothing new under the sun.

Fun is unbalanced.

But GURPS 4e is an objective imporvement on 3e. I don't know anyone who says otherwise. Certainly no one in the GURPS general. Who tells you these things, user?

I too follow the meme that is nihilism

I legitimately don't understand what's so bad about Delta Green

>Age of Sigmar ruined 40k

>BBEG
Ugh.

Because all the things I loved are stuck in the past and I can't stay with them forever. Everything is moving away from me but I feel like I stayed the same on the inside.

And new things just force me to remember that one day I'll be old and bitter and there won't be a place for me anywhere anymore and all I'll have left to do is wait to die while talking about runescape and adventurequest to kids who can't appreciate what it meant to me because they'll have their own memories to make.

We're dying user.

We're not on Veeky Forums to face reality, user. Start deluding yourself and others immediately, or all your good boy points will be confiscated.

Because change scares me.

They killed my family and burned down our old farmhouse

Shit, this is 2017? Sorry, forget what I said. Fuckin 4D machines...

>>Age of Sigmar ruined 40k
aos is a shitty clone of 40k but it has nothing to do with 40k otherwise.

aside from GW putting AoS rules into 8th edition of course...

GW being retards doesn't really make WH == WH40k

5e is pretty great, even if it's not perfect.
GURPS 4e is much better than GURPS 3e, except for 3es campaign settings.
4e and 5e Shadowrun are also both great.
I ordered the new Conan RPG. Delivery expected this month.
Witcher 2 was better than Witcher 1, Witcher 3 better than Witcher 2.

Lots of new things are better than older things.

Not true. I Know what I want..just not what I want.

watch this, compare it to his "HARD TIME" video.
that may help you understand

youtube.com/watch?v=CMhaJodxSM4

Veeky Forums is and always will be populated almost exclusively by self-loathing hipsters.

>Buh muh RPEHGUH
It makes ZERO fucking sense to bitch pick about how a player can min max a certain skill, otherwise you end up with everybody playing amorphous blobs of jack of all trades that focus on nothing because doing so offers no benefit compared to how they can pump up a whole new skill.

Fucking diminishing returns doesn't even make sense in a practical sense.

Take guns since it was already brought up. Just because I'm highly competent, at least enough to know that you don't suck start a shotgun, doesn't mean there is a skill cap I can reach. There sort of is one, but with all things, there's so much god damn shit to learn. Yeah, I could become Jerry Mcullic and be the world's fastest six shooter but what about everything else? Medium to long range shooting, shotguns, rifles, semi automatic pistols, full retard funs across the board, and then tactics, such as the HUGE skill set that goes into sniping that takes years to fully learn, breach and clearing buildings which too takes years to learn, stealthy espionage combined with shooting ala Special Forces BS.

That's all off the top of my head. Yes, you're far better making combined rolls to show the diversity of skills needed, but guns as a skill set alone has a basis for not having diminishing returns because of how much there is to learn as a whole.

This. There's even a sidebar explaining that due to the whole 3d6 roll under system, it's better to diversify into related skills and/or buy advantages.

youtube.com/watch?v=A7pI96Osp9c

Because newer does not equal better. This is something you can only learn by experience.

I don't hate new things, I hate new things that are fucking bad. Newness is not an intrinsic positive beyond the implications of having more active support and more players, neither of which is necessarily actually the case.
Look at Civilization VI vs Civilization IV or II. Civ VI is hot fucking garbage that people don't even shit on, people just forgot about it half a year after its release. Civilization IV is still getting new fucking mods over a decade later. Look at Age of Empires III compared to Age of Empires II. One is dead in the water and rubbish in the first place, the other is getting new fucking expansion packs 20 years down the road.

>rules of diminishing returns
3d6 does this.

Also, the rules you miss for skills? Those are really complex, I don't mind so much that they're streamlined because a GM should say "don't fucking do this", or give natural challenges that aren't just solvable with bullets. Someone wi

I think this is bait

I don't.
I just think a lot of older editions of games are more for me.
As far as Dnd goes I can't get past all the extraneous skills and stats in current Dnd.

Anything good will be old by the time you find it, as it takes time for society to filter the wheat from the chaff.
The chances of finding a NEW good thing are incredibly unlikely on a single person timeline.

Becuase 15 times out of 20 new=worse and it's better to be safe then sorry.

I'm used to Old things, which tied into the interests, priorities and references of people my age, either on purpose or by coincidence
Meanwhile, New things appeal to younger people, whose interests, priorities and references are entirely alien to me, when I don't find them utterly despicable
It'll happen to them, too.

When we're young, we have very little context or basis of comparison, so we tend to like anything that is functional on a basic level. To a degree this also applies to any medium we have not experience before, but eventually media themselves fall to this phenonenon as we compare them to each other. Therefore, the less context we have on something, the more likely we are to like it even if it isn't good.

When you are introduced to something new when you have experienced something similar, suddenly you're introduced to flaws that the original lacked (even if it makes improvements in as many or more areas). It's not the thing you fell in love with, and it's probably quantifiably worse in a lot of ways that, since they're the ways the thing you liked before were good, are probably ways that are very important to you.

There's two further factors, however. The first of these is that each time you are "bitten" by something new not being what you expected or hoped for, your trust for new things decreases and you are predisposed to dislike them. This can present in a positive way- lowering your expectations so you actually enjoy new things more- but usually it just conditions you for negativity.

The other is a simple matter of familiarity, and I think this is the cause of a lot of the "second-most-recent thing is best thing, most recent thing is the worst" phenomenon so common. When you are familiar with something but are given something that is similar, yet different enough on every level that you have to relearn it, that is not fun. It's not only work to learn the intricacies of the new thing, it's learning something very similar to what you learned before, so it's boring.

Secret main reason is that new things are usually popular, most Veeky Forums users are hipsters and hipsters "hate" popular things because they want to stand out.

All change should be scrutinized because most change is simply bad or has an agenda behind it.

This omits the big reason of new things not necessarily being good. New things are just that, they're new and nothing else. Whether or not they are good is not related.

No, I addressed that.
>There's two further factors, however. The first of these is that each time you are "bitten" by something new not being what you expected or hoped for, your trust for new things decreases and you are predisposed to dislike them. This can present in a positive way- lowering your expectations so you actually enjoy new things more- but usually it just conditions you for negativity.
This is the only reason to go into something automatically disliking it simply because it is new (and therefore may not be good). Except, of course, for being a contrarian, but that's the spoilered point :^)

'cept my point is that people don't dislike new things, they dislike bad things, and new things are sometimes bad. You don't 'go in' disliking them, you dislike them because you're reading the new rulebook and wtf is this shit.

I see what you mean, but OP is asking why it is a consistent trend that people hate new things. On Veeky Forums specifically of course, though it certainly doesn't only happen here.

A few years ago everyone shat on 4e and 3.5 was the shit among all the cool and not-edgy oldfags, now 4e is great because 5e is the new scapegoat. It'll be the same when we have 6e, just you wait. Whether it's good or bad actually does not matter at all in this case.

>now 4e is great
4e isn't great, people simply say 4e wasn't as terrible as 5e for a variety of reasons or more generally '4e does X right'. People in PF threads tend to say Cooke is a retard and 5e did feats right for example. Also, you have to remember that 4e had people who shat up threads borderline shilling for the game and also that the game changed over time.

>all these excuses because you won't recognise the phenomenon in yourself
yep everything just happens to get worse and worse over time, user. Your mentality isn't the problem. That's how it works :^)

Not an actual argument, have you considered that 4e has actually be patched to not be utter shit and that the phenomenon you claim isn't even a thing?

>5e is pretty great, even if it's not perfect.

No. It is flat out worse than 4e and is only better than 3.5 because of a couple of mechanics.

>GURPS 4e is much better than GURPS 3e, except for 3es campaign settings.

No. The 3e rules are better. The only thing better in 4e are the dodge rules

>4e and 5e Shadowrun are also both great.

Shadowrun is a heap of autistic 3aboo-tier complex shit with a retarded kitchen sink setting ripped off from Blade Runner.

>I ordered the new Conan RPG. Delivery expected this month.

So you wasted your money on a game you could run with Barbarians of Lemuria or Dungeon World for free? Guess you have more money than sense.

>Witcher 2 was better than Witcher 1, Witcher 3 better than Witcher 2.

I don't give a fuck about video games, friend.

>Witcher 2 was better than Witcher 1, Witcher 3 better than Witcher 2.
And Civilization V was worse even after its expansion packs than IV although hexes are great, and Civilization VI is worse than Civilization V altogether with zero redeeming qualities, including its graphics, which have somehow regressed.

We hate old things too. Big things, small things, loud things, things no one has ever heard of, things that never existed, jews, pols, women, fags, chads, nerds, ponies, people who hate ponies. Sometimes we talk about an actual game, but mostly we complain about shit that doesn't matter.

all of the stuff you listed matters tho

Alternate hypothesis: instead of pointing to the trend of a long history of people all over the world saying things have gotten worse as a sign that sign that every generation only THINKS things are getting worse, maybe things, in fact, have universally gotten worse in a steady downwards spiral since some undetermined point in the distant past.

have you considered that maybe the problem isn't things being bad, but instead you being a bitter person?

Have you considered that he might be right sometimes

Bull fucking shit. Yeah you don't need a skill >17.... for a BASIC check. But with modifiers? Uhh... yeah. And by the way you can still diversify easily.

Here's a 100 points GURPS character for GURPS 4e. I think 100 points is a fair baseline for an adventurer.

ST 10, DX 10, IQ 10, HT 10
Don't even bother with advantages and disadvantages for now.

Set aside 20 points for side skills. This gives you 80 points to put into the guns skill of your choice. Pick rifles because they deal the most damage: you can just use defaults for the others, it won't matter because your skill will be so fucking high anyway. Guns is an Easy skill, so you can get it to 15 for 16 points. Another 16 will get it to 19, another 16 will get it to 23, another 16 will get it to 27, another 16 will get it to 31. There. You have put 80 points into your Rifles skill and now have a 31.

Now you can spread those other 20 points around into minor skills such as Armoury, First Aid, Stealth, et cetera. Sure you won't be good at them, but you're not the skill monkey. So who cares? You can headshot motorcycle gangs with lateral speed of 20 m/s from a half-mile. Oh, and if really want, take just 20 points of disadvantages and you can bump that rifles skill up to 36.

So what can you do with a 36 in Rifles? Well, lets take a look at the range / movement table. This is without taking a 1-second round to aim, by the way.

> you can easily score a headshot (-7) on a running target (-2) at 100 yards (-10). You're rolling against a 17 there, so you've got a 99% chance of success.
>If we extrapolate the range table, you could reliably hit someone at 1 mile distant who is running (-2) and be rolling against like a 17 or something.
>God forbid someone arms you with a Gauss rifle or even a .338. The former has Acc7+2, so with three seconds of aiming you could have an effective Rifle skill of 45.

GURPS 4e is broken.

>user is just a meanie for not liking my favorite game, let's take a discussion about games and turn it around on HIM lol

Nice ad hominem. It's invalid, sorry.

>Worse than 4e
>WORSE THAN 4E
>ANY EDITION IS SOMEHOW WORSE THAN 4E

If anything this is just reinforcing my opinion that 5e is fine if that's the kind of shit grognards say about it. 4e was an absolute disaster of a system.

Sure, sometimes, but if that's the case all the time then you risk ending up like /v/ who still find ways to be really angry about video games in spite of the first half of 2017 having produced some of the highest quality video games in recent memory in a level of rapid succession unprecedented since over a decade ago

Now to be fair, the thing about 4e is that it's so fucking different from every other D&D after 2e that it seems almost meaningless to try for a direct comparison, it's like comparing GURPS and 5e. You might think one is better but comparisons don't work.

/v/ isn't angry about NieR or the new Link game or Persona V though? /v/ (was) angry about Civilization VI (because nobody, not even civ4xg, cares about it anymore), they were angry about Mass Assbrap: AndroMEDIA, and so on.

>4e was an absolute disaster of a system.

It was some shitty ideas that were well-executed. It works within its own autistic assumptions but said assumptions are what most people have a problem with.

At least 4e understood that if attack bonuses escalate, so should AC after a point. It makes no fucking sense that a fighter never gets better at parrying or dodging at all throughout 20 levels of experience, and his "skill" at parrying is instead represented by his increasing hit points. Which are based on Constitution not dexterity. So basically, dex doesn't matter defensively, only Con

>5e
>worse than 4e
>better than 3.5

>5e is worse than 4e
>but it's better than 3.5e
>which also means that 4e is better than 3.5e
>so 4e is literally the best system since AD&D
u fucking wot

I don't think anyone reads 1d4chan.

lol

Yep. You got it right! Good job on achieving third-grade-level reading comprehension!

I mean, you do get better at dodging and parrying. Attribute Bonuses.

I like 5e and play it frequently with my friends. We usually have a great time. Does this make you angry?

damn, that's some weak argument, son. a good chargen system indeed makes it more costly to buy higher skill levels. if you want an otherwise ordinary moral with rifle 25, then your character points level should reflect that.