If Dungeons and Dragon is bad, what game DOES Veeky Forums recommend for the kind of classic medieval adventure?

Burning Wheel

Dungeons and Dragons

Dungeons and Dragons.

It's mainstream for a reason.

Play GURPS if you want to play ''Build your own Game''.

Reinhardt had a hard life

Some actual recommendations off the top of my head:

Savage Worlds
Mutants and Masterminds
RISUS
PbtA systems
Legend
FantasyCraft
Fate/FAE
OSR games
Strike!
13th Age

Fuck off, troll.

I'm sorry for implying 3.5 can be good.

ADVANCED Dungeons & Dragons. Either edition is fine, though I prefer the 2nd.

Or you could go even farther back and back to Basic. Moldvay does some good stuff.

Barbarians of Lemuria.

Ultra-light, ultra-focused, excellent design in action. Its the sort of game where they took a step back and examined the function of every aspect, then trimmed it down until it achieved that function perfectly.

I would also say that 5e isnt especially good. There seems to be this mentality that building characters should be challenging, and there are so many excellent games that prove that just isnt the case.

Stop shilling Strike!

Why does Veeky Forums keep shilling Strike!?

Fuck off, troll.

>even farther back
It's more like sideways.

5e is basically "second best" edition. If you don't already have a favorite D&D it's an ok game to play, so it works pretty well as the "face" for D&D.

D&D4E

I would second this.

For me, I didn't get into D&D until the mid 90's, but found the Black Book from '95 and the old Expert Edition, did a fine job of keeping the rules light(er).

GURPS with Low Tech and its companions. That'll give to more than enough material for a classic medieval adventure. Use Dungeon Fantasy if you want to play D&D, but why would you?

>It's mainstream for a reason.
3 reasons actually:
a) brand
b) community size
c) full-on gamism with lots of content
you will note that this makes it not a very good game outside of its (admittedly huge) niche.

Hero System, 5th Edition - Fantasy Hero

The only system you'll ever need

>If Dungeons and Dragon is bad
False premise. D&D 5E is good, not bad.

5e is neither good nor bad. It's "Eh". It's decent, playable, but it's also the boring middleground: whatever the reason you like it, you can probably find one of the earlier editions to fit you better.

5e is alright. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's my personal favourite edition, but it's still a little bland. Most editions of D&D are alright, 3.pf is kinda bad but acceptable if the group is good, 4e is bad if you're running a campaign that isn't full of combat, otherwise it's good.

We are currently mixing 5e with Fate Core's aspect/compel system for cinematic effects and fluidity. So far so good.

Building a 5e character isn't challenging at all though.

5e's my favorite edition of DnD. It's better then all of the other ones, in large part because it's combined the best parts of the older ones.

Have you played all the other editions of D&D?

Because It's actually a good game you piece of shit.

No but I've read all of them.

He's memeing.

So how do you know it's got all the best bits of all of them if you haven't seen them in play? Especially the TSR ones, which contain mechanics that look shit at first glance but are actually an important part of how the game works?

>>I will never declare myself satisfied and I'll contribute destroying the hobby over inconsequential bullshit
Here, look in the mirror.

Why do all the different skills and abilities in 2e use different mechanics? Some are roll under a d20, some are roll with bonus, some are roll over a target number, some are percentile with bonus, and some are 1d6. Why is this important and not a huge mess?

This Replying to him with an emotional charge just makes you (and by extension, the game you like) bad.

You could instead describe why you like it or something.

Because fuck your unbalanced dice, their bias won't save you here.

How does 5e destroy the hobby?

Well, that and 'stop shilling strike,why does Veeky Forums keep shilling strike' is verbatim copypasta.

It's what I played back in the 1960s.

5e is the closest to perfect edition,

Other fun games,
7th Sea 1st or 2nd
WarhammerFRPG 2nd
Zweihander has some nice things but I haven't played it yet
Dresden FATE
Dark Heresy 2nd
Shadowrun (with the right dm/players)
Savage RIFTS (stay away from Palladium though, that way lies darkness)
AFMBE
World of Darkness (but beware edgelords & SJW shit)

Sometimes it's okay for a system to be restrictive, or to have wonkiness because it helps sell the ideas the world has in it. Take 7th Sea 2nd, it has a harsh mechanic for punishing you for doing villainous things simply because that is the kind of heroes you are supposed to be portraying, no "grey morality" edgelords may apply. People shit on D&D for not having "muh medieval realism" completely missing the point that it's more along Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, Dragonlance, & other high fantasy where tech levels usually stay the same for centuries & there are strong good & evils to the world

Technically speaking it's not that important: it was just how things were created initially, when people were still starting this thing and just made shit up as was needed, then wrote it to the book.

>"How does this work?"
>"Eh, roll a d6, 1's a success." *Writes down*

Ironically, 3rd edition trying to deal away with it created an even bigger mess.

It also doesn't help that you can't actually represent an X in 6 chance accurately on any die that's not a multiple of six (unless it's a 3 in 6 chance).

Can't we go one day without 3rd grade playground rock-flinging my-game-is-better-than-your-game arguments? Just one day where people play what they like, don't play what they don't like, don't feel the need to inject their vitriolic opinions into everything and just leave each other alone?

No, stop being a baby. I bet you like something shit like Pathfinder.

>Barbarians of Lemuria.
The setting is more ancient than medieval, but you could play it either way. It's a good game, regardless.

D&D's main "issue" is that it has a very particular niche and--partly due to its popularity--people constantly try to use it for shit that lies well outside of that niche. Using D&D as a generic "it's medieval fantasy, so I need a system to use" kind of thing is a mistake. It's really geared towards dungeon (and wilderness) exploration and looting, and combat, with strong class roles, and strongly ramping power levels. Additionally, it contains a fair bit of abstraction (like ballooning hit points). If this is specifically what you're looking for, or if you don't have anything particular in mind and you're just going to go with what the game promotes, that's great. Play D&D. But if you want a gritty, low-magic swords & sorcery campaign, you really should run something else.

Fuck you too. I can find enjoyment out of every game system I've played so far, so sure, Pathfinder is fine and I've had enjoyable 3.pf games. I also like BESM, Maid, GURPS, various pbta games, PTU, DC Universe, Mutants & Masterminds.

We can enjoy things and let other people enjoy things.

>Pathfinder is fine
This is provably false.

>Why do all the different skills and abilities in 2e use different mechanics?
D&D grew organically. It's like one of those old towns with twisty, unplanned streets. 3e consolidating everything with a unified mechanic was actually a good thing. Unfortunately, the folks designing 3e didn't seem to always understand why things had developed the way they had, so they did things that undermined play. Old school saving throws, for instance, got easier and easier to make as you gained levels. This offset the growing power of casters, and paralleled the increase of hit points. One reason (though certainly not the only one) that caster supremacy in 3e was such an issue is that you could target somebody's weak save very effectively even at high levels. So yes, old school D&D's ad hoc saving throw categories were rubbish, but the underlying math worked, while 3e's saving throw categories were easy to grasp, but the underlying math was all kinds of fucked. (Why does the gap between your strong and weak saves get larger?)

>it has a very particular niche
D&D hasn't fit its niche since 1st edition.

And it is demonstrably correct.

3.PF is pretty bad as a system, but just because a system is pretty bad doesn't mean you can't have fun with it.

I believe when someone says "I had fun with 3.PF" because I had fun with it, but I know its pretty flawed.

No.

I'd say it only really left it when Wizards brought in 3e. 2e will still run quite happily in the dungeon crawl niche, you just have to make sure to use the right optional rules.

>just because a system is pretty bad doesn't mean you can't have fun with it.
That doesn't mean it's fine, though.

Yes it does. Fine here means, "playable and 50% enjoyable." Fine us middle of the road. Not great, not terrible, just fine. Pokemon Tabletop United is an example of a bad game: many rules and abilities don't even work or do anything RAW. And if a system work RAW and is playable and enjoyable to some extent, that makes it "Fine".

Are there better choices? Sure. Are there worse choices? Absolutely.

>Fine here means, "playable and 50% enjoyable."
Which does not describe Pathfinder.

Your definition of 'fine' is also shit.

D&D 2e is good but is too "Gygaxian"
D&D 5e is okay but too limited
Fantasy Craft is pretty good on paper, but I have personally never tried it out

but if the system itself isn't adding to the fun then it's not 'fine', if you enjoy Pathfinder 50% of the time but you usually have fun about 70% of the time on average with the same group then Pathfinder is being actively detrimental to your experiance

>is too "Gygaxian"
But that's 1e.

>Pathfinder
>BESM
>Maid

Holy shit you're a fucking weaboo. Go the fuck back to /a/ and stop autistically screeching. Your taste in systems is shit and you're shit for it.

Oh? 50 different fucking tables? The epectation that your level 1-4s won't survive adventure? That massive

>power gap

between you and the monsters at lower levels? The arbitrary restrictions on classes/races/alignments, the weird skill system. As someone earlier in the thread said, one thing that 3.0 did good is that the unified the mechanics. They did so poorly, but I think by 5e they refined it.

>tfw you can't find a Fantasy Craft game

>D&D hasn't fit its niche since 1st edition.
The core design of the game still does, and it operates less well outside of it.

>50 different fucking tables?
>help tables
There is absolutely nothing wrong with tables.

>arbitrary restrictions
It's called balance.

D&D is not a classic medieval adventure. D&D is a generin fantasy adventure. The difference is that D&D is much more similar to a Superhero story than anything else.

>complains about weebs
>on Veeky Forums of all places

Do you even remember where we are?

100% recommend D&D.
Hating on d&d is just a meme. I hate it too, but I love it all the same.

Song of Swords
Riddle of Steel

No, it isn't. The Fighter is generally superior to the Paladin due to the followers and keep (action economy), whereas the Paladin gets some special abilities (some good some eh) but is hampered by alignment.

Don't even get me started on some of the kits. "Amazon: +1 to hit, +3 to damage on anyone who is not familiar with her combat style" and the tradeoff is a "-3 social penalty," which doesn't matter, because chances are the party is going to have a face anyway.

Do you know you need to go back?

Veeky Forums is my home board. I've never even looked at /a/. There's no other place to go back to.

>which doesn't matter
>what is the reaction roll
>what is the morale and loyalty of your followers and henchmen
It will if your GM's not shit.

Kit balance is fucked due to non-existent playtesting during the 90s

But you're presumably the asshole who plays PF, BESM, and Maid, therefore you're a weeb, therefore you need to go back.

Unless you're not that guy and I'm insulting someone who doesn't deserve to be insulted, in which case I'm also not sorry, because we all have our sins, including you.

I am that guy and I'm just saying the phrase, "go back" doesn't work if I've never been somewhere.

Also, I like weeb things. It brings me joy and happiness. And it's okay that you don't, you can like/not like things, and that's okay and I respect that. I also believe that in another time and place, we could be friends and enjoy whatever game you like.

But I hate enjoying things. My friends revolve around shared animosities. Like whenever we get together, we usually talk about how much we hate stuff or about how much better stuff used to be when we were younger.

Hackmaster 5th Edition, literally the best system on the market atm

>3.5 /3.PF
>Savage Worlds
>Mutants and Masterminds
>RISUS
>Legend
>FantasyCraft
>Fate/FAE
>Strike!
>13th Age
>AD&D 2e
>Barbarians of Lemuria
>D&D4E
>7th Sea 1st or 2nd
>WarhammerFRPG 2nd
>Zweihander
>Dresden FATE
>Dark Heresy 2nd
>Shadowrun
>RIFTS
>AFMBE
>World of Darkness

5e is better than these games

5e is only better than the first one on that list. The rest are not comparable anyway because they serve an entirely different niche as what 5e does. But they're still better games than it.

4.76% correct

I love 5e, I find no fault in it besides wanting more player options, but I understand & support them taking their time with it because I like what I see in the UA updates & love how they listen & adjust to their player base. So it's a non issue for me.

But saying these others I posted are inferior is asinine because most of them have vastly different settings & tones, it's far easier to run zombie western with sci-fi elements in AFMBE than 5e, doesn't mean 5e is bad. They are all great games

13th Age. It's D&D with all the stupid tossed out.

>The Riddle of Steel isn't on the list
At least you got this part right

& it's own cup of stupid thrown in with its relationship Icons mechanic

5e is distinctly inferior to to most of the games on that list, which considering it includes Shadowrun, Rifts, FantasyCraft, and World of Darkness, that's saying something.

Couldn't tell you about RISUS, Legend, or Zweihander because I've never played them, and I'm not sure what AFMBE is.

But everything else on there is superior, with the obvious exception of 3.5/3.PF.

It works perfectly for what it is trying to be.

If you use death to ability scores/defenses and some homebrew classes it's a bretty good game.

The Icon relationships are, ironically, a way of enforcing GM planning. As long as your players are rolling Icon dice, things have to happen behind the scenes.

With that said, many people find more comfort making Icon rolls at the end of a session, or once per 2-3 session arc, and even simply granting narrative fiat to the player instead of trying to work things out on their own.

None of these are bad.

The game is, on the whole, the closest thing we have to AD&D with quality of life improvements.

>Shadowrun, Rifts, FantasyCraft, and World of Darkness

I'd put most of those under 5e actually. SR and Rifts mechanically are pretty fucking trash.

>AFMBE

All Flesh Must Be Eaten.

>I'd put most of those under 5e actually. SR and Rifts mechanically are pretty fucking trash.
I think Shadowrun and Rifts are mechanically trash as well, but the settings are better. Which again is really saying something, because they're out kitchen-sinking the kitchensinkiest D&D setting.

I also think WoD is mechanically trash, and FantasyCraft is like an excellent example of how to make a fantasy heartbreaker with worse mechanical rigor than D&D.

But for whatever reason FantasyCraft seems to play better than 5e. And obviously WoD does too.

Sooo 3.5?

Eh, judging D&D based on setting is pretty stupid, especially if you have access to all the settings that came in previous editions. D&D setting just isn't as rigid as Rifts and SR.

But I guess there isn't really a universal way to judge overall goodness of a game so, whatever floats your bloat.

>5e is better than these games

D&D 5e's setting default is Forgotten Realms.

I think it's completely fair to judge the game by its setting.

Points of Light was, without a doubt, a superior setting to Forgotten Realms.

Nice bait

>I think it's completely fair to judge the game by its setting.

I disagree, because it really doesn't "lock you in". PHB really isn't world specific, except maybe from some deities (are deities even in PHB? I don't even remember).

It's just not a big deal, especially when material from previous editions exist.

If this was like that shitty WoD monster book, where the world was ingrained into the mechanics, I'd agree with you, but D&D is not like that.

>Points of Light was, without a doubt, a superior setting to Forgotten Realms.

For sure, you won't find me disagreeing with that.