Why does Veeky Forums think D&D (any edition) is bad? Can someone explain it to me in a objective manner?

I think that misses some of the things about how D&D is full of holy cows and certain assumptions that just don't seem to make sense, they just are, and they're kept because that's the way things are.

>what is a flaw to some is a fix to another, and what is a fix to another is a flaw to someone. So the system CAN'T be fixed.

Oh, if only RPGs had the ability to adapt to different groups through optional rules, new material, variants, restrictions, and even houserules.

1/10, for getting me to reply.

>they just are, and they're kept because that's the way things are
Except when they're not and everyone loses their shit.

Then why did 4e play well?

Most people state opinions as facts. Then dumb people get all assmad over that.
In my opinion, dnd focuses too much on stats, numbers, and it bloats the game.
I like light rules to give the role play and character development the place they deserve.

Is this alternate history a part of the alternate reality 4rries live in?

4e did play well, eventually. After the MM3 math fixes (Although RAW still had a better combat dynamic than most iterations of D&D) it's possibly the best tactical combat RPG in existence.

You might not enjoy that style of play, but you not enjoying it doesn't mean it doesn't work.

You already know why. The only reason you're making this thread is to a) troll or b) try to dismiss criticism and act like D&D is perfect.

No system is perfect. Part of appreciating a system is being aware of its flaws and knowing how to work around them to run the best possible experience.

Because 3.5. That's all.

AD&D is a system with flaws, but they didn't break the game too much. 5.0 is a huge step in the good direction. 4.0 is not a D&D, but is a decent game in its own right, though a little too video gamey from my own experience. Good if you want to play WoW on tabletop, though.

As to why 3.5 is bad:
>Overcomplicated.
>Full of trap options.
>Really easy to make a broken build, easier to make a useless build.
>Caster supremacy.
>Skill checks are broken.
>Hermetic, esoteric, full of very complex subtleties.
>Feat and spell bloat.
>Crafting is broken.
>Generic. Break if you try to not do generic stuff.

3.5 is an overbloated game who fail to do even the most basic stuff. It has a huge fanbase, but this is mostly for historic reasons.

Strangely, the hermetism of the system is an important explanation as to why people are so attached to it (I was too, years ago): when you need 2 years to understand and assimilate a system, it leaves a trace on you. Many people don't want to admit that their hard earned understanding of d20 is all for nothing. They want bang for their bucks, so to speak.

Literally nothing about 4e is 'videogamey', and I am always confused when people repeat this strange meme.

None of that is objective. You've failed, and you tried really hard.

>b8

>b) try to dismiss criticism and act like D&D is perfect.

I think you mean "To say 'fuck you' to trolls."

Because only trolls like yourself ever claim anyone calls any game perfect. The truth is just that everyone is tired of your relentless bitching about a game you don't like that's nowhere near as bad as you pretend it is.

Everyone knows it's not perfect. But, everyone also knows it's not the worst game ever, or even close to it.

Of course it's not the worst, FATALexists.

But if everyone (in your own opinion) agrees it's a mediocre system, why the fuck make a thread about it? Are you this much of an insecure bitch?

But you are calling it perfect. Or at the very least, making it impossible to discuss criticism, because no matter what anyone says, you'll call them a troll.

It's not an objective question in the first place.

>Think
>Objectively

wew

>thread was solved in the first post
>people are still shitposting
Someday Friend Computer will give us objectively correct opinions and we can end this farce

It's only experience speaking. I have played D&D for fifteen years now. I know the stuff. I know, from personal and repeated experience, that if I don't help and very closely attend to my players, they will create builds that break the game, without even trying. Either that or two or three PCs will sit, absolutely useless, forever.

The amount of delusion 3.5 lovers have is off chart. Yes, caster supremacy is an issue. Play the damn game. Play it, and see for yourself. Yes, it is overcomplicated and esoteric to the absurd. Try to explain it to a newcomer, and see what happens.

If you don't want to play the game, just watch Critical Role. The DM here is trying its best (though he lacks intimate knowledge of 3.5 pitfalls), but the game is still breaking constantly. It's almost funny, in a way.

Same. The video game thing always sounds stupid because when you are talking about a thing and you attribute some quality to it, you have to make sure that thing actually has that quality in any way, or whatever you say is going to be incomprehensible.

You might as well say that 4e has a low top speed for a v8 engine, or that it tastes overcooked, or that it doesn't have enough coke. These comments are all nonsense because 4e doesn't have an engine, it's not a pot roast, and it's not a cocktail.

It's obviously an attempt at some kind of a metaphor, but the reason it fails as a metaphor is because metaphors mean something. You might well retort to it by saying "3e and pathfinder are too hitlery" and then just change what that means every time somebody tries to refute it.

What edition is important, though, because while they're not COMPLETELY different games, the changes in rules and concepts can make or break the idea of the edition being good or bad.

> It's had a lot of the same flaws carry over most editions, and Wizards seems incapable or unwilling to address them; they're utterly detached from the fans.
> Lots of stuff in it makes literally no sense, "but that's the way it's always been in D&D."
> Basic/AD&D encounter mechanics are intrinsically repetitive, and rely on a creative; flexible DM to make it fun.
> 3rd Tried to fix this by adding a million options nobody wanted.
> 4E tried to fix this by adding a million options nobody wanted.
> 5E Just went back to the same old issues, because "apparently people want simple."
> 3.5 and 5E are probably the best of modern D&D, but they're still like 6-7/10 at best.

In a word: Bloat.

Why are trolls like yourself only capable of working in hyperbole?

Then why did he try.

Fuck man, I don't know.

>Caster supremacy not objective
>The skill system sucking not objective
>Crafting being broken not objective

1/10, got me to reply. Math is the most objective thing there is, and the numbers are very, very easy to run on those things right there.

Don't even try, he'll answer with them being problems is your subjective opinion.

Observe:
>magic is supposed to be powerful
>skill math is perfectly okay, specialists should have 100% chance to succeed, and those who never tried before have 0
>crafting is supposed to be broken because you won't have time to do it anyway.

GNS?

Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist.

A game design theory thing that tries to look at mechanics through the lens of those three things.

It's been misunderstood, misused and rebuilt a bunch of times though, to the point where you can't be really sure the person using it is using it for the same thing you are using/understanding it.

For example is either misusing it, or is a fucking idiot.

Not that guy but
>stricter requirement to hold to and specialize in one of the tank, striker, healer, control roles
>healing surges
>"encounter" as a arbitrary measurement for cool downs
>Action points
>Combat magic and marshal abilities streamlined to function in such a similar way that swapping in/out key words can make a set of both
>Everything to do with DnD essentials pre-builds
Its basically a complaint that 4e while much more balanced then its 3.5e predecessor the abilities done by the various classes feel samey. Especially if they are doing the same raiding role. Like magic no longer feels special now that it follows the same exact ruleset as a rouge spinning around with his daggers really really fast.

>stricter requirement to hold to and specialize in one of the tank, striker, healer, control roles
Strict class roles have been a thing ever since early D&D. 3rd edition just briefly broke free from it.

3e was designed with strict roles in mind, they just fucked it up by only playtesting with blaster wizards and giving clerics a ridiculous number of features because nobody wanted to play a healbot.

How are healing surges videogamey?

What relation does a narrative limiter like 'encounter' have with videogames and their direct, time based limitations?

How the fuck are action points, found in dozens of different systems, videogamey?

Essentials is garbage, sure, but to get to your main point-

The only thing about abilities that is 'samey' is the presentation and the structure. That is literally it. In terms of how they actually function in practice, the 4e equivalents will be more different than the alternatives. All the system does is present you those options in a way that's easier to understand.

>Math is the most objective thing there is

Too bad we're not dealing purely with Math, kiddo.
You can even go far as to say there's no caster supremacy purely by saying Wizards have really shitty style and are not fun to play because magic is icky.

Whether you agree or not is largely irrelevant, because the point is simply that we're discussing something subjective, not objective, regardless of the presence or absence of math.

But at that point you completely destroy the ability to compare and discuss systems, rendering it all meaningless. Also, y'know, being a condescending cunt.

I'd prefer to make some basic assumptions that allow discussion, as opposed to opinions flailing at one another all day every day.

>or that it doesn't have enough coke.

I think we can safely say 5e doesn't have enough coke. The development budget is tiny.

Not at all. I was just demonstrating how retarded you are for trying to include the word "objective" in your subjective argument, you tosser.

>rendering it all meaningless.

I hate to break it to you, but your incessant and one-sided bitching is far more meaningless than any actual fair evaluation of a game.

But user, I like DnD 3e and 5e, what are you talking about?

But mathematical arguments really can be objective.

If a system says 'A and B can both achieve C, in different but equal ways', mathematically proving that A always has an advantage over B in the pursuit of C is an objective, mathematical flaw in the system.

Which definition of objectively do you mean? The normal one or the Veeky Forums one where it means Subjectively, but the poster will argue autistically about how they're right?

Because honestly, I dread the day where we need to out-source our robotic, angry argumentative statements to computers instead of the average poster.

Don't bother.

The chance of convincing someone online is next to nil.

Hell, the chance of convincing someone IRL is next to nil, after they made up their mind about something that relates to their identity, such as which system he plays.

Some people just need their mechanics obfuscated to make the game world feel more "real". Accept it and move on.

I'm curious, what exactly do you think a healing surge is?

The classes feel samey in the Magic to Martial department, but between Magics they feel much more varied, I'd reckon. A Wizard's spell list doesn't match a Sorcerer's, and a Paladin's spell list is far different from a Shaman's.

You're kind of stupid, which isn't even cute anymore.
It's still subjective, because there's no mathematical formula so perfect as to account for even a fraction of the infinite possibilities that would render the "objective" argument subjective.

Some things are more objective than others, but at the same time, when discussing something as clearly subjective as "Tastes in Roleplaying Games", even trying to claim objectivity is basically just low-tier trolling.

Same. I really like playing 5e, though the Beastmaster Ranger is a joke and crafting might as well not even exist. Even if you're especially assmad about those you can check out the Unearthed Arcana for revised Ranger and Forge domain clerics. They do a little to alleviate these issues with optional rules.

And frankly, I don't think caster supremacy is actually that bad this edition. I've played with some guys who made really fucking broken martial characters who easily outpaced my caster character's damage output. 5e Barbarians and Fighters pretty much cause monsters to explode into a pink mist when they happen to glance in the monster's general direction.

Damage output had never been a problem.

3.5 has martial builds doing damage in the millions. Even builds that are merely optimized and not minmaxed to hell can break the "thousands" barrier.

The problem people tend to have is the lack of options, which stay constant.

You don't get a title with land and castle and followers anymore, as a fighter. You'll be jumping about 6 feet more at level 20 than you jumped at level 1.

Meanwhile the wizard goes from "can spiderclimb sometimes, and you have a familiar" to flight and simulacra.

You don't understand what caster supremacy is. Martials have always been good at damage output, the problem is wizards are playing a different game where damage output is irrelevant. They're playing a game where they can casually break the laws of reality and banish people to pocket dimensions and teleport themselves leagues and create bridges of force and talk to squirrels and poof five course meals out of thin air in the desert, the rigors fo which they can't feel because they have an automatic comfort cantrip they can cast indefinitely. Martials are just hitting things really hard.

Nope. It's objective. The system lying to you is never, ever a good thing. Mathematical proof that it is is always a negative mark.

Oh, okay. That makes more sense. I'm actually pretty okay with that being the way things are. I rarely get to the levels where wizards get to do crazy godlike shit anyway, and if NPCs with thst type of power are rare it can make for some interesting interactions.

>The system lying to you

Your subjective interpretation of what the game is saying, and your subjective interpretation of whether or not it is lying, are far and away from objective.

Please, stop being stupid already, and fucking learn what "objective" means before you open your mouth again.

Yeah, D&D is usually ok at low levels (once you leave rusty dagger shanktown) and then starts shitting itself at higher levels.

To be fair, I still find the utility of some wizard stuff pretty damn ridiculous at low levels, like familiars (especially considering the non-existent cost to having them).

Nope. This is about literal objectivity.

In many cases I'd agree with you, but there are things that are objective. If a system directly states that something is true, and it is mathematically provable that it is untrue, that is an objective flaw that you cannot handwave away, and this can and does exist.

Well in 5e there is actually a cost to havig a familiar, and their utility is severely reduced compared to previous editions. I mean the cost is 10gp so it quickly becomes basically free, but still. They're not even a default wizard thing anymore, they're a thing you can summon indefinitely until killed if you know the Find Familiar spell.

In 3.PF there are downsides to a familiar getting killed. In 5e there aren't any, except losing out on 10 GP.

Also, as a ritual, they are basically a class feature for the wizard anyway.

Yeah, they can't do a bunch of shit they could in previous editions, but it's still a small, unassuming (often flying) scout you can use the senses of and has absolute loyalty to you.

Oh, and can also fuck off to a pocket dimension if things turn hot.

>Oh, if only RPGs had the ability to adapt to different groups through optional rules, new material, variants, restrictions, and even houserules.

People within the same group will have different opinions of how a rpg should be and will play the same thing despise wanting different things

It is one thing to create a fantastical system with fantasy races and magic, but D&D weapons damage and physical effects are disconnected from physics, physiology and pathophysiology.

Having hit points shifts the objective of the player character optimisation to obtaining high DPS rather than versatility, which will in turn piss off the portion of the player base that does not want to optimize.

It doesn't make D&D a particular bad system though.

All editions are bad except for 4e and you better not say otherwise, or you'll summon the 4EIDF who will go to extreme lengths to inform you that their game is objectively the best edition of D&D ever and that 5e is totally not more successful despite reversing half of the changes that 4e made to the formula.

Then you have much to learn.

Well, this is a bizarre and novel kind of false flagging, especially since I've never seen it actually happen for real.

>muh fpbp
No.

Oh shit, here's one of them now.

Hi there! 4e sure is a great game, huh? I sure do love that soulless turn-based tactical combat g-- I mean, intricate, lovingly made roleplaying game bursting with heart and soul!

What are you trying to do at this point? It's rather confusing.

Just letting you know that we all sure do love 4e, the totally best roleplaying game ever, neighbor! You can move along now, no one talking shit about your objectively best roleplaying game here!

You are a very strange person

No, I just totally love 4e, just like you, 4e friend! 4e sure is great, huh? Let's go talk about it over at /4eg/ instead of here!

As someone who has never played 4e or 5e I think you're kind of retarded.

Oh, in that case, don't sweat it. Just remember to say that 4e is the best edition at all times.

>D&D (any edition)
No one on Veeky Forums really shit-talks editions made by TSR except when arguing which one of those was the best. Even then, there doesn't seem to be as much malice as arguing over Wizards editions.

The best edition was AD&D2e, and you can't prove me wrong because this is my opinion.Consensus on Veeky Forums is that either B/X or BECMI are the best

2e is my jam. Also has a lot of great adventures and settings, and isn't exactly difficult to pick up unless you use Skills & Powers (a mistake), or any of the 2.5 e crap, honestly.

4e is my favorite, but BECMI, B/X and old editions in general are pretty good. The only reason I would not recommend them is because OSR stuff exists now (and even then, you can use them for inspiration).

No one shit-talks them that much because there's almost no one that actually still plays them. They're so awkward and archaic that they're only really good for showing how far we've come.

>Consensus on Veeky Forums is that either B/X or BECMI are the best

The ten people in the OSR are hardly "Veeky Forums".

I has some odd sacred cows that are carried over from it's wargame origins. They come off as odd since most of the system has tried to modernise.

But it's biggest problem is that it's the most popular game. Very often when talking about fantasy rpgs most people will assume the it's D&D being talked about. Most groups you'll find out there are D&D groups. It's impossible to avoid.
So it's a popular game with some odd rules which are assumed by many to be the default by many. This twists the panties of a lot of players who like other games or have interest in game rules.

None of this is helped by the fact that so many people try to force D&D to work for styles of play it wasn't meant for. This leads to a crazy variety of games of wildly varying quality. There is just so many bad experiences out there it's sometimes hard to remember the fun.

I don't think there is anything objectively wrong with D&D but for the style of play that's been popular for years it's an odd game to be the default.

As games, pre-3E D&D and 4e are mostly fine as long as the edition you choose is suitable to the kind of game that you're trying to play. I mean, they do have some old-school design encumbrances and you should probably consider OSR versions of the ones before 3rd and stuff like that. But they're fine.

3rd edition and the editions descended from it are not good games because on the most fundamental level they don't actually know what kind of game they're trying to be, and so they make a bunch of bizarre decisions trying to combine a bunch of different things in a way that hurts the overall effectiveness of the game. They were sort of trapped in between being a combat game, being a game of resource expenditure and dungeon-crawling, and being a universal role-playing system. And so it completely fails at being a universal role-playing system while also sabotaging its ability to do the other things. Also they made a bunch of decisions about how to modernize the game that turned out to be just like totally incorrect. So for any game that you want to play, there's often going to be a better system for it. Which gets to the other problem with D&D - people have this instinctive desire to play any kind of game using D&D as the system, which is just massively retarded and leads to very unsatisfactory results.

Also, feats are terrible design and they make me really angry.

>Consensus on Veeky Forums is that either B/X or BECMI are the best

I've never seen this. And the OSR general is more fixated on stupid shit like LotFP and other arguably non-OSR games.

I like AD&D's broader class selection myself, but I do play B/X clones pretty exclusively.

5e is better marketed

Is 3d20 the best way to play?

3d6 was good until you realize there is almost no point in rolling as you start guessing when you will succeed or not.

1d100 is too volatile just like 1d20.

Is 3d20 the future we were waiting for?

Every single edition was more successful than the previous.

5e: boring sluggish "I deal 2d12 damage, he still has 250 HP left" type of combat. Encourages stats and min-maxery over any semblance of roleplaying. Some classes are straight up better than others.

Go home DSA, you're drunk.

Being fair, this is likely more due to the increase in the total market than any real proof of quality of any edition over another, and since 3.5 they have been losing market share, but again that's likely due to the market growing and reaching out to different tastes. D&D is still the top dog, but the general audience for other games seems to be growing faster than the core D&D audience.

>Encourages stats and min-maxery over any semblance of roleplaying.

In all seriousness - which edition is this not true of

Honestly, almost every RPG has an odd rule or two. But you are right about popularity being the main problem. Because it is so popular, every flaw in D&D gets relentlessly analyzed and dissected.

Yeah, sure, I'm not trying to imply that they were each better than the previous, only that it is a trend that probably isn't linked to quality.

Every edition pre-3e?

Original Basic D&D rules.
The first print of the rulebook was basically a guide for role-playing and said "if you want combat simulation, use our other product called Chainmail"

Eventually, TSR just printed those rules in the rulebook every print run after that.

>D&D is still the top dog, but the general audience for other games seems to be growing faster than the core D&D audience.

Actually, 5e D&D is very likely to reach a full 51% majority of all role players in a few months, and is by far the fastest growing RPG in history. There was a brief respite from complete and total D&D dominance during the 4e era, but with 5e, it's getting very close to the tipping point where D&D just completely dominates all over again.

First and second.

Excuse me, I just came back from a 2e D&D tournament. Did you just say something?

They encourage that shit just as hard, especially AD&D.

Complete book of elves anyone? Everyone rolling Clerics with kits for convention play? Fuck, even Monty Haul as a thing originates from AD&D.

The dip wasn't in the 4e era, though. D&D only stopped being comprehensively dominant when 4e stopped printing books, and there was a long lull where there weren't actively supported D&D products on the shelves, which let Paizo fill the gap. 51% is still pretty low for D&D, historically speaking.