When did you realize D&D was garbage?

GURPS, even if it's not your kind of game it makes for an interesting read

"Bugbears" are simply historical European boogeymen, not an animal hybrid as the name implies. You would know that if you had bothered to maintain your ties to Europe in the face of all this cultural mixing, you degenerative cuck.

Nothing inherently wrong with DND except for the players it attracts.

For that reason alone, I'd rather play anything else though.

>extremely expensive spell to cast
>usually available only when you're getting up there in levels
>finding someone to cast it/the components for it can be plot-points in and of themselves

If you drop a game over a spell that can just be removed if people don't like what it entails, you should just stay in your padded white-wall room so you don't get buttblasted over more serious things.

why do people keep bringing this up?
its an incredibly high level spell, you probably wont reach this level, and it would be difficult to drag a dead body the whole way to look for someone who can cast it

you also cant cast it in the middle of combat, so you cant just undo deaths until afterwards
and if the battle is going poorly, then you might have to leave the bodies behind anyways

the only really bad offender is True Resurrection, but as a level 9 spell, you arguably earned the right to toy with the forces of the universe

also i love playing with the family, i would rather pull out something easily accessible by both kids and adults over super crunchy systems any day

>i would rather pull out something easily accessible by both kids and adults over super crunchy systems any day
D&D fans everyone

But what if I WANT Ursine-arthropod chimeric monstrosities to chuck at my players?! Where exactly am I supposed to find that kind of nightmare fuel if not under the heading "bug bear?"

It took me way too long to realize this is second string Australia posting.

In addition to these, the problem with D&D is how the fanbase treats the game like it's a generic system like FATE or GURPS.

No faggots, it's not a generic system, it can't be used for every fucking style of game under the sun, especially when it can BARELY handle the shit that it was designed to handle in the first place.

What's even worse is when they create house rules to make it more like the game they want to actually play, you stupid bastards aren't game devs and unless you're willing to sink in MONTHS worth of playtesting before using your house rules, you're probably better off either using the base rules or just PLAYING A DIFFERENT SYSTEM HOLY SHIT!

If you wanna be technical, finding all seven Dragon Balls is supposed to be expensive and practically impossible as well, it's just that the main cast have access to ki detection and a radar that can track them down globally.

Also, if you wanna be technical, resurrection is a level 4 spell that druids have access to, so at best, death becomes meaningless as early as level 7-9, BEFORE HP bloat ends up being factored into the mix.

Hell, you practically have to go out of your way to trigger a TPK most of the time.

Really?

Bumping this troll thread with this level of sour grapes?
Can you wear a trip already?

That's reincarnation, and can fuck you backwards because you turn into a random creature. Many people in my games had rejected to be reincarnated, or did and then retired the char because became useless.

I have been reincarnated once, and my TWF, Imp TWF, Double Strike, etc Elf fighter became useless because he was now a troglodite with with -4 to Dex making all my feats non usable

>He doesn't like muh trash system.
>Ergo he's OP bumping his own thread
How 'bout you wear a trip so I can filter your retardation? At least that'd be one less 3aboo to worry about.

Why not just kill yourself and get reincarnated again?

When I saw this idea at a place
>d&d is created and get famous
>its the first rpg so (since its famous) you have all those extreme amount of rpg players with different point of view of how a rpg should be, playing the exact same rpg
>after some amount of time playing some players discover some stuff they think are flaws, while discover some rules they think are really awesome
>because they have very different views on what a rpg should be (despise playing the exact same rpg), what some guy think is a good idea wont be considered a good idea by the other player, what some consider a shitty idea will be considered a good idea by other rpg
>new system is made based at this enviroment, and create a mess of a rpg system.
>many of those players quickly jump into the new system, expecting fixed to what they think are flaws
>because the players have very different opinions on what rpg should be (despise playing the same exact system), 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.
>all those extreme amount of players quickly jumping to this new system, bring new (to rpg) players to the new d&d system
>this make the game have an extreme amount of rpg players with different point of view of how a rpg should be, playing the exact same rpg
>because they have very different views on what a rpg should be (despise playing the exact same rpg), what some guy think is a good idea wont be considered a good idea by the other player, what some consider a shitty idea will be considered a good idea by other rpg
>new system is made based at this enviroment, and create a mess of a rpg system. No one knows what the system/d&d is suposed to be, because it was created based on a mess.
>the story continue ad infinitum

Wow, this troll is PISSED.

Not really.

Because everytime you get reincarnated you lose a level, when you're level 1 you lose 2 Con instead, if you keep doing it once you reach 0 Con you can never be reincarnated or ressurrected ever again.

Actions>Words.

Your meltdown gave it away.

Well, I'd say D&D at it's core is a game about social interactions.
It has mechanics, it has systems, but really the most important part to the experience are the players & dm. The storytelling, the unexpected things, the arguing, the roleplaying, that's what sets the game appart.
If they just want a rigid system to minmax like it was a videogame, they can play videogames instead, or some eurogame.
I just don't get people who play D&D like it was something else.

>Actions
>On a text based Bosnian knitting forum

>I just don't get people who play D&D like it was something else.
You say that, but then you go on about how D&D is a game about social interactions while most of the rules are dedicated to either combat or spells.

If anything, you're the one playing D&D like it was something else.

Having a meltdown is an action.
Watching you get super pissed is easily more convincing than your attempt to deny it, you silly troll.
Best trip up so you can get banned already for your weakass shitposts.

>claims shitposts are weak
>still gives him (you)'s
Welp, you gets points for trying but there's only so much you can do with 7 INT and 5 WIS.

Wow, this troll really IS pissed as fuck.

If I want to play a game about combat and spells there's a million better options.
The systems are there and are needed, but they are to enable the rest of the game, not to be the end goal.

It's like playing powergrid with the stocks and shares expansion. You're playing a complex game of powergrid, with all the rules and strategy involved, but it just serves to enable the expansion, players can literally end up owning nothing on the main and not playing that part of the game, and still win.

Keep 'em coming sport, someday it might be true.

Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously when all you do is use awkward hyperbole and rely entirely on your own subjective opinion to form all of your arguments?

Anyone can just say "I disagree with your initial opinionated premise" and shatter your entire line of ranting.

>I just don't get people who play D&D like it was something else.

see

There's not much opinion here, it's quite obvious that if you play D&D purely for the game elements and don't care about the social/narrative parts, you're just ignorant of other games you could be playing that are superior mechanically.

This is a very clear argument, I don't know why you're having such difficulty with it.

>i assert that my opinion is fact
>my minority opinion that the majority of roleplayers disagree with

And, discussion ends. You basically just reveal that you are an idiot who can't be reasoned with, ie. a troll just here for the you's.

So, here's a you.

If you play D&D purely for the social/narrative parts, you're just ignorant of other games you could be playing that are superior narratively.

I really can't think of anyone thinking D&D is superior mechanically to many other modern games unless they haven't played any of them. It's been in the market for so long that a million other games have copied it, improved on it, etc.
I think the idiot here is you, just ignorant of what transpired in the over 4 decades since the first edition came out.

Like what? Generally the more narrative games lack the social elements and player interaction, or a base set of mechanics. They become games about creative writing.
And other roleplay games don't do anything narratively superior to D&D as far as I know. Not sure what that would even entail. The setting/campaigns could be different, but D&D itself already has a ton of settings/campaigns you can choose from.

I know this is a b8 thread, but I have to say as someone who's played D&D for about 30+ years, it's a great system if used as intended.
I will say that any d20 style of game is shit. They're all the same mechanics with a bit of setting fluff veneered over it.
BX/1st/2nd editions are where its... 3.pf/4th/5th have gotten progressively worse as each new edition comes out

Explain how this is a bad thing.

>It's been in the market for so long that a million other games have copied it, improved on it, etc.

Like... D&D? You still think people are playing the Original?
You're a pretty dumb troll to not even understand that much.

I think it's less of a bait and more of a parody of the meme. It made me laugh, at least.

That's what you got from that? Are you being purposefully dense.
Yes, we are up to 5th edition, there's been changes, that's not the point.

Every edition of D&D plays differently than the previous edition, even when comparing different versions of 1e or 3.PF.

It looks like you got a sound rebuttal to your dumb assertion.

Indeed, but they remain similar. Well I can't speak about 1/2nd ed since I never got to play them. Either way, that's mostly irrelevant to the point I was making, which is comparisons between games right now, based on the influence that D&D has had on games in general. It is literally the first commercial rpg game made, and literally spawned a genre.

No, it misunderstood the point of the sentence and tried to be annoying about loose wording. This may be surprising to you but written language atttempts to convey meaning, and is dependant upon both writer and reader.
If you want to "win the argument" instead of have a discussion, sure, feel free to take it as a "victory" and end the conversation, since there's really no point in a discussion with such a premise.

>Indeed, but they remain similar.
The only thing that's similar between editions is the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Humans, Elf, Halfling, and Dwarf.

And even then, a Fighter in 2e is different from a Fighter in 3.PF, which is different from a 4e Fighter for example.

You must be a special kind of stupid to think that 5e is either not a modern game or not a D&D.
The point is that you got BTFO.
Also, quit typing like a prat.

That's not the point. Even the classes were originally just 3 from what I know. If you have 3 or 50 classes, that doesn't change the system, Neither does if the skillset of the fighter is different in each iteration.
I'm talking about the relevant defining mechanics. You have classes, characters have stats, you can move a certain amount in combat, it's turn based with an initiative order, you have spells, items, things have a use range, etc etc.

Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis

This too, but imo it's second place.

Are you the same dumbfuck who thinks that your opinion that classes are bad is somehow a fact?

>You must be a special kind of stupid to think that 5e is either not a modern game or not a D&D.
I didn't say that in any way shape or form.
It seems that you're retarded, both in how you read and how you write.

Nope.

> If you have 3 or 50 classes, that doesn't change the system
Yes it does, because if you have a game where there's a shitload of classes to choose from, the system will have to make sure that each class interacts with the system in unique and impactful ways, otherwise you end up with 3.PF where half the classes are too broken to play while the other half is too broken to function.
>I'm talking about the relevant defining mechanics.
And most of those things are qualities of tabletop RPG's as a whole, not mechanics that define D&D as a whole.

>prat keeps prattling

Look champ. All you've got is your opinion you're really hoping to project, but with most people preferring to play D&D, you're kind of just shooting blanks.

You don't even have an argument. We literally can't start arguing, because all anyone has to do is say "Your opinion is dumb," and it renders your entire argument into a pretty pathetic rant.

Hell, all I can do is insult you until you understand this, while you stupidly think we're actually arguing.

>Opinions are subjective so things can't be discussed
>Also I'm gonna pull some statistics out of my ass and make an ad populum argument
Keep confirming how retarded you are please.

>And most of those things are qualities of tabletop RPG's as a whole, not mechanics that define D&D as a whole.
D&D invented them. That's the point.
And they do define the game to a certain extent where if you remove enough (systems) it's no longer D&D.

>Yes it does, because [...] the balancing and complexity is higher
But that doesn't define the system, that's just an attribute of the system. If you have a class system, it is the same system wether you have 2 or 10, what changes is the data the system handles. Most boardgames try to keep edge cases low so they don't have to alter the system with extra rules.
Also I don't think D&D is generally balanced, mostly because there's so many possibilities and player types and the dm is there, it's simply impossible.

>D&D invented them.
That still doesn't mean that D&D is defined by those mechanics though, you might as well be telling me that having four wheels, a steering wheel, and an engine defines the Model T.
> If you have a class system, it is the same system wether you have 2 or 10,
Not even close. Playing through the same adventure path in Pathfinder with an all-martial party and an all-caster party is a vastly different experience.

Martials cannot handle most threats outside of dealing damage and the result is that an all-martial party will end up in a TPK on the near constant basis. Meanwhile, casters have so many options that they can generally get through most obstacles without losing a single party member, provided of course the people playing them aren't fucking stupid.

Classes can fundamentally change the way that the system works by their inclusion or removal, especially in games where party synergy takes precedent over anything else.

You can discuss opinions.
What mistake you are making is hoping to base your entire argument on your opinions.

Basically, just give up. You're free to like and dislike whatever you want, but if you're hoping to present an argument that relies entirely on people agreeing with you from the start, you're basically just flapping your gums.

And, claiming ad populum doesn't work when we're discussing opinions. When the majority of people disagree with you, that makes you holding onto a minority opinion, which is very far removed from anything resembling a fact.

And, let's not get started on how much of a minority opinion it is that you hold. You're only going to make even more of a fool of yourself if you don't want to walk away now, because the statistics are particularly damning.

So, take my advice. Let go of your boiling hatred, and enjoy your Saturday.

>That still doesn't mean that D&D is defined by those mechanics though, you might as well be telling me that having four wheels, a steering wheel, and an engine defines the Model T.
Obviously the exact set of parts that define the whole is a difficulty subject, but I ask the same question as before, how many would you need to remove for it to stop being D&D?

>Playing through the same adventure path in Pathfinder with an all-martial party and an all-caster party is a vastly different experience.
It is, but what we were discussing was what defines the game system, not the game experience or the game design.

>Classes can fundamentally change the way that the system works by their inclusion or removal
I'd say they can fundamentally change the game design, but they don't change the system unless specific rules are added to account for specific things.

Game systems (sets of rules) are separate from game data (the content).

>You can discuss opinions
>What mistake you are making is hoping to base your entire argument on your opinions
The constructs upon which opinions are formed have no intrinsic value, so I don't see what you suggest. Not once have I been asked for actual concrete examples of games that are mechanically superior, you guys have been arguing about absolutely fucking nothing since there's no objective measurement possible without a specific game cited. You can't come at me with "but where's the non subjective part" if you have no interest in it either.

>When the majority of people disagree with you
Two posters is the majority of people?
Do you even have a dataset of people who have played both D&D and the games I would suggest as mechanical improvements over it? I seriously doubt it, mostly because KDM between the lot is fucking expensive.

>So, take my advice. Let go of your boiling hatred, and enjoy your Saturday.
I have no hatred, you're the ones who got triggered by someone suggesting that there's better games at the game mechanic level, assuming that social and narrative interactions are irrelevant.

>how many would you need to remove for it to stop being D&D?
Nobody's talking about removal of anything, I'm just saying that most of the shit that D&D invented are no longer unique to D&D, but tabletop RPG's as a whole. The only thing that's D&D about D&D anymore is settings, like Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, and Ravenloft.
>It is, but what we were discussing was what defines the game system, not the game experience or the game design.
How exactly does game experience or game design not define the game system?
>Game systems (sets of rules) are separate from game data (the content).
Ah, you're an idiot, my mistake.

Any non shit alternative for dnd? Preferentially something with straighfoward rules.

>Not once have I been asked for actual concrete examples of games that are mechanically superior

Probably because no one cares about some silly troll's opinions?
What? You're surprised by that?

Also,
>concrete

You're a funny little troll, aintcha?

Looks like you don't like good advice, so I'm gonna have to help you out by just not replying to you anymore. Your hatred is gonna burn out one way or another in the end anyway.

> I'm just saying that most of the shit that D&D invented are no longer unique to D&D, but tabletop RPG's as a whole.
Irrelevant. I'm not talking about defining the game as "what sets it apart", I'm talking about "this is D&D"

>Implying
The idiot is you, for this is as factual as it gets. The system is the rules, not the content. The system is "attacks miss if they roll lower than AC" not "this guy has an AC of 15". If you have 40 guys all with different acs, the game system is the exact same. What can change is the game design or the game experience as the content interacts with each other as defined by the system.

>NOBODY CARES, YOU'RE A TROLL
>NO, YOU'RE MAD
You're a baby.

If this is what you've been reduced to, I'm glad to say there really is absolutely no reasons left to reply to you.

Here's a last one though, just in case you were about to walk away and think anyone was fooled and that you're not the most obvious troll on Veeky Forums.

> I'm not talking about defining the game as "what sets it apart", I'm talking about "this is D&D"
Well I got news for you, the only thing that sets D&D apart from other games is that it came out first during an era where there wasn't a huge amount of tabletop games to play on the market.

That's it.
>The system is the rules, not the content.
Wow, you're even dumber than I expected.

He's probably the one who makes these shitty threads, how else can the same dumbass be one of the first people in a thread every time they crop up?

Reduced to what? You made absolutely 0 arguments, I literally quoted the summary of your post in green.

>Well I got news for you
Ok, cool, but, that's not what we were discussing.

>You dumb
Ah, so you're retarded. I make games for a living, that you don't understand what a "game system" is is just you being stupid. This is really basic stuff.

>Hell, you practically have to go out of your way to trigger a TPK most of the time.

>I make games for a living
Oh boy, I can't wait to see how you worm your way out of not showing us any of your games.

After level 5, you basically have to throw an enemy at the party that's CR+2 in order to even have a chance of them actually suffering a TPK, let alone a casualty.

>I make games for a living

Here's my amazing action to weasel away from it:
I'm not an idiot.

>I make games for a living
>I'm not going to post my portfolio or anything to prove that I'm telling the truth
>You should just take my word on it though.
Protip: If you have no published games, you're not making games for a living.

Welcome to Veeky Forums, where posting is anonymous and only an idiot would mix their professional life with what they post out of their PR persona.

Why take the bait?

>Welcome to Veeky Forums, where posting is anonymous
>Proceeds to leak details about his personal life anyways as if it added anything to his argument.
Listen moron, you already fucked up, you might as well go the extra mile and post some published works so we can all laugh at how shitty your games are.

Then again, that's assuming you aren't just blowing smoke up our asses in some pathetic attempt to pull rank in an internet argument.

show something, like a documentation page or paragraph

He can't show anything if it doesn't exist.

You deserve to be fired for not only browsing Veeky Forums, but being dumb enough to low-key dox yourself in the process.

Please tell me you're doing this on company time so you can get fired for being a low-functioning autistic.

he is literally posting in a Saturday night.

Come on user, no one works on weekends

t. NEET

>Fired for browsing Veeky Forums during the weekend
Kek
>Doxing myself
>Have posted no personal information
Ah, so you're retarded.

>You posted anonymously, you fucked up! Now proceed to actually fuck up!
Top kek.

You are among friends, show us

Read
>low-key doxed yourself
We knew nothing about you before you started posting, and now you're being a chickenshit when people ask you to put your money where your mouth was.

What did you hope to accomplish here? What was your end-game strategy for this?

A game where you spend so much time on stats, numbers and optimization is more a tabletop game than a role-playing game.
I know you can ignore the whole "numbers and spreadsheets" part of the game but at this point there are much better systems.
>retards' faces when they still think the linkin park of TTRPG is still better than other systems

While I agree with you I think the argument can be made on a happy medium. Because mechanics allow reasson and justification for actions, so while something like 3.5 is cumbersome it allowd justification and reason for all you do. Compared to say Dungeon World where everything comes out of your ass.

Call it one of these then
>bogeyman (or bugaboo or babau

You insisted so much I have to comply, here is the project I'm most proud of, please don't tell my boss.

That's not doxing of any kind, the word doesn't mean whatever you want it to.
>You're scared! What was your plan?
Kek, I have no intention of proving anything like an idiot would. I was just annoyed that some person was arguing with me about terms that I use every day, out of his own misunderstanding of how games are constructed.

>he is a valvecuck
lmao I thought you made real games, not fucking videogames hahaha

>Kek, I have no intention of proving anything
Ah, so you were just another retard with an over inflated ego talking about shit he doesn't actually understand.

We all have seen films, read books and have been told stories that sets the mold for a what should be the logical consequence for an action.
So I consider not being in need of walls of rules to imagine the consequences of my players' acts. You hit someone with your sword ? He goes "ouch", bleeds and can't use his arm properly. Add a LITTLE randomness with dice which only counts for marginal adjustment and you're set. Some scribbles on my notes to keep everything up to date and we can move on.
Reason and justification are non-problems because you went for the most logical consequence without much detail, the player knows what happens and we go on.