There are other games besides D&D

I'm so tired of people I see in my real life and online that think D&D is the only ttrpg that exists. Yes, I get that it's the most popular. It's not the only one.

I constantly encounter people complaining about how they wish the system could handle certain things they want to do without them having to homebrew, or how they wish they could play a non fantasy game (but they have no choice besides D&D?).

I say, "Why don't you try x instead, it does everything you are asking for?" And they either give me blank looks or humor me without actually considering what I say.

I don't hate the game, but as a system it really only does what it's intended for. You can support other games people, a lot of them are great. Better, even.

Other urls found in this thread:

d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm
d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

> it does everything you are asking for

But introduces new problems that makes people just eventually return to D&D.

> it really only does what it's intended for.

This is a marketing lie by people who desperately want to push D&D into a small niche to give room for their own games in the hobby. D&D is actually ridiculously versatile, even before you start homebrewing, and as much as you hate to hear it, it's very easy to modify and homebrew for.

It's a game designed to appeal to as many people as possible, and as such includes plenty of optional rules and supplements to help people tailor their games to their own tastes.

>And they either give me blank looks or humor me without actually considering what I say.

Probably because you don't actually ever listen to what they're asking for or talking about, and are just upset that they like a system that you don't like and don't really understand.

>I want to run a sci-fi game!
>It's easier to homebrew it in DnD than to play an already established sci-fi system.
???

I remember when it was the Pathfinder ponies making these types of arguments instead of the DnDrones. Hopefully this means DnD is on it's way out like Pathfinder was.

My wife calls all tabeltop games "D&D" and for some reason that gripes the hell out of me. She knows for an absolute fact I don't even play D&D.

>D&D IDF spews unsupported claims like everyday

>D&D is ridiculously versatile

Why do fans of the game lie about this when even the game itself and its designers know it's not true?

Fuck, do you not remember the awful clusterfuck that was the 3.5 OGL, and how shitty it was basically every time they tried to take the system out of its comfort zone?

>system war trolls try

It's sad watching you guys crash and burn like this.

D&D was , has, and always will be a niche game. Sure, high fantasy is a big fucking niche, but it's not even close to being universal. The system was never designed to do anything else, and the developers have admitted this undeniable fact. Where is your delusion coming from?

I love it when system war trolls get wrecked so hard and then keep trying to beg for you's.

/thread?

>I want to play a game kinda like the Redwall books, where we're all mice!
>It's easier to homebrew it in DnD than to play Mouseguard

Because D&D's fanbase- Or, specifically, 3.PF's, stopped playing the actual game not long after release.

Faced with a buggy mess of broken mechanics that weren't fit for purpose, they compromised and houseruled and ended up creating what is basically an entirely new system, but they still think of it as D&D.

When other people make factual statements about the design of D&D, its mechanical flaws or the intention behind it, they will outright reject it because, in Their D&D, it isn't true. But they don't realise that the version of D&D they're so obsessed with only exists in their heads and in their gaming groups.

>Mind fucking blown

play paranoia. you get 6 clones so death is cheap
one of my players tried to commit suicide in order to fast travel
another two of them committed a mass shooting then shot themselves to feign victimhood

suicide is a powerful tool in this game, apparently

>Or, specifically, 3.PF's

You know, it actually becomes more accurate if you remove this part, since it applies to all versions of DnD and it's derivatives.

3.5 and Pathfinder are the systems/fanbases where this attitude is most prevalent though. You don't really hear about people who refuse to use anything besides Call of Cthulhu for every single type of game.

5e is just as bad, trust me.

I would argue BRP is a great system one could use for everything. Cthulhu, Fantasy, Sci-Fi

>trust someone on Veeky Forums
fuck off

>"Why don't you try x instead, it does everything you are asking for?" And they either give me blank looks or humor me without actually considering what I say.
It's because whenever you recommend X as though it's better than D&D, it's really just a D&D knockoff with someone's houserules and isn't all that much better than D&D while doing almost nothing interesting with the mechanics it presents, which are all just D&D-lite, and you'd have a much easier and better time just refluffing your current D&D sessions.

The other option I regularly see that you've recommended something that either goes against what they're asking for ("I want to run a modern campaign!" "Here's Shadowrun" "O-oh, thanks") or you're offering a bland, generic system that nobody likes ("Play GURPS!").

The worst faggots are the ones that start presenting systems that are just trying to solve really bizarre problems left in the wake of 3rd edition in an assbackwards way ("I hate how skills are either pass or fail. It's all so binary. I know, here's my narrative system where all results are based on a chart! THIS is how you roleplay!" Meanwhile OSR solved that problem ages ago by just having the DM decide if the task failed or succeed based purely on what was being tried given the time span as opposed to just rolling everything away).

Honestly, after how many times I've asked people to present better systems than D&D and getting these three options, I'm inclined to believe that people who hate D&D are huge, walking red flags.

>Hey guys after this bit fancy taking a break
>I wanna run this setting, with this story, with this system. Here are some pregens or we can build something you want to play.

Please, you didn't need to make this post.
OP is just a troll who's upset and forgot his "D&D is Garbage" image.

>if you remove this part, since it applies to all versions of DnD and it's derivatives.
Perhaps the same could be said of all tabletop rpgs?

...Do you really, honestly believe that no systems exist that aren't D&D ripoffs or generic systems? Are you that ignorant?

>...Do you really, honestly believe that no systems exist that aren't D&D ripoffs or generic systems? Are you that ignorant?
No, of course not.

I don't believe that any such system exists that is good.

Or instead of being incredulous, you could give me a good system that fits my criteria and waste both our time trying to find such a thing.

Define 'good'. Because it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

Also my god that's an incredibly stupid blanket statement to make.

>I have never played anything that wasn't a shitty D20 derivative.

Expand your portfolio, bro.

I feel like I should add to this, or at least clarify something.

I'm not condemning the playstyle at all. Putting in the work and effort to create something your group can enjoy for so many years should be lauded. What annoys me is the misattribution, that so many people congratulate the system when everything they're talking about is things they and their group have achieved, without or even despite of the system they're working with.

It's also worth mentioning that these group-systems aren't usually 'good' games in a general sense. They're very much rooted in the assumptions, culture and playstyle of the group. They work fantastically for them, but when removed from their context will likely fall flat. It's why so many fantasy heartbreakers kinda suck, because outside of their original context they're nothing special.

Doing a lot of things terribly doesn't make a system versatile.

Good is hard to really define, but here are somethings I would qualify as good
>System may be dedicated to one genre, but will not be dedicated to one specific playstyle (example: D&D is dedicated to high fantasy, but you can play dungeon crawler or monster hunter or political intrigue or ocean's 11, etc)
>System will be balanced while allowing a modicum of character building, crunch, and expandable system mechanics.
>Is not point buy (those are all garbage for various reasons)
>Uses a variety of dice and not just focus on one specific type of dice (ie no d6 or d100 systems. Don't mind if it's not focused on d20)
>System discourages rollplaying (ie there are no or few mechanics dedicated to the roleplaying aspect)
I reserve the right to add or modify this list as I please later on as I remember things or refine my thoughts, and this list is not complete by any means.

However, I will promise you that if you mention a good system, I'll praise you for it.

>Implying and projections
Yawn.

Oh, so you're just retarded.

>>Uses a variety of dice and not just focus on one specific type of dice
Ah, so it's autism.

>That definition of good

Yeah, no, fuck it.

Also, how the hell do any editions of D&D actually qualify?

>I have no arguments and I must scream
Sorry you got BTFO'd I guess. I'll keep asking for good systems in anti-D&D threads though, so I hope you come prepared next time.

>Also, how the hell do any editions of D&D actually qualify?
I'm starting to think you might now have read any edition of D&D, because other than the discouragement of rollplaying, I was basically describing D&D to be a cheeky cunt. I didn't think I'd catch you that easily though.

1 and 2 don't apply to any edition of D&D that I know of.

>I was basically describing D&D
>System will be balanced
>D&D

Being fair, 4e was balanced. But he seems like the type who'd say it wasn't real D&D.

1 applies to pretty much every edition of D&D and you're basically not trying hard enough.
2 other than 3.5, most editions of D&D are pretty balanced, especially 4th and 5th.

Actually 4th is my favorite edition to break out when I want to play a more JRPG type game, though I've been recently switching over to FFRPG, which is one of the answers I would have accepted, but of course, anti-D&D shitters literally don't have a clue outside of GURPs and Savage Worlds what other systems are like.

>>Uses a variety of dice and not just focus on one specific type of dice (ie no d6 or d100 systems. Don't mind if it's not focused on d20)

Out of all the silly bullshit you just said, this is the statement I find the most issue with. It's a petty and meaningless complaint. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using one type of dice for a system's resolution mechanic, so long as said resolution mechanic provides clear and quick results.

It's boring and not fun to only use one dice. If I wanted to eliminate the polyhedrals at my table for a consistent gaming experience, I'd play a poker-hand based system instead of using dice at all, which is way more clear and quick than any dice system.

>It's boring and not fun to only use one dice.
That is entirely your own personal opinion which I highly suspect you are fabricating solely to win an internet argument. Using one type of dice is perfectly fine.

Nope. I won't say it's impossible to do political intrigue in D&D, but I don't seen any sense in praising a system for something it has no support for.

D&D, mechanically and narratively, supports games about groups of people who are good at killing monsters, and activities that are adjacent to that. That is the scope and focus of the system.

While you theoretically could do a heist style game in it, or political intrigue, the system is not going to work in your favour. The GM is going to need to put in extra work to get around some default assumptions the rules make that are actively unhelpful for both those premises, and by the point you're actually capable of doing it I feel like the GM deserves the credit there, not the system.

I'm so tired of you faggots constantly spitting on D&D and it's players.

How in the world do you see D&D as good for political intrigue? Its social mechanics are garbage (See: Diplomancer) and the ready availability of spells like Seek Thoughts and Speak with Dead ruin a lot of intrigue storylines.

D&D is fine for doing what it was made for. The issue is when people try to use it for games better run by other systems.

I can't believe that this statement is still true, what with FFg making wildly popular games like EotE.

Come to think of it why don't you just host a game of something other than DnD?

We only spit on you for saying dumb shit. So stop saying dumb shit.

>Using one type of dice is perfectly fine.
It's boring and I'd rather use multiple types of dice for variance than a single type of dice which gets stale and doesn't allow you to control odds that well without nickle and diming people on modifiers (which 5e is amazing about mitigating).

>but I don't seen any sense in praising a system for something it has no support for.
If by support you mean "rollplay" mechanics, then that's actually better than playing games that try to instill those mechanics and turn social interaction into a skill-based chore, to be frank. This is something I don't like about Post-WotC D&D, and never have.

>D&D, mechanically and narratively, supports games about groups of people who are good at killing monsters, and activities that are adjacent to that.
Actually D&D is just the physics engine of a fantasy world, and many different activities other than killing monsters are supported in the systems both pre and post WotC. Not that you would know that, having clearly never played it outside that one time in college.

>the system is not going to work in your favour.
Why? I and many others have successfully run such campaigns with very little trouble. Only a heads up to the players to make their characters in a way that support this. The only other game I've played that does heists noticeably better is Shadowrun, and the claim about "extra work" is pure nonsense.

>Running diplomancer
>DM allowing a roll to mind control others
>Ever
Stop playing with shit people? Do you really think that this mentality would just change if you switched to a different system?

As for your other points, it's not my fault you're a brainlet who can't think around the concept of spells and magic items in your campaign world.

seriously play EotE! Play The End of the World series! Play Mouseguard! DnD variants are not the only games in town!

>Do you really think that this mentality would just change if you switched to a different system?
Yes, because then the social mechanics wouldn't fucking implode just because it was used. It's not even remotely acceptable to claim that D&D has support for political intrigue while admitting that you're not using the game's mechanics to run it.

3.5 has given a generation actual brain damage. You can't reason with these people, they are not living in the same reality.

Thanks for confirming that, as with the above post, you're not actually playing D&D. You're playing Your D&D, a system you've constructed with your group that only exists in your head and in that context.

I mean, all power to you, play it and enjoy it, but falsely attributing that to the system is dumb.

You guys are like a 12 year old girl. Getting pissy because something is popular and people are playing it instead of your own low quality faggot game.

Do something productive like finding a group to play your game instead of bitching about the people not playing it.

>Actually D&D is just the physics engine of a fantasy world
You are the problem

>Fuck, do you not remember the awful clusterfuck that was the 3.5 OGL,
don't know what OGL stands for or what you are talking about but I have played Star Wars 3.5 (aka: Saga Edition) and it was utter shit.

SWSE isn't that bad even at its worst. Now SWd20, that's a different story.

Surely you realize that Pathfinder is just D&D with another name?

>play EotE!
Personal opinion, I just plain don't like star wars, so I probably wouldn't touch it, but I won't call it shit either. So I'll give you 1 prop for a neutral statement.

EotW is new, so I'll look that up, and frankly, I thought mouseguard was a little gimmicky in it's premise and wasn't too fond of it.

But seriously, good on you for being the only poster in here who mentions actual games.

>because then the social mechanics wouldn't fucking implode just because it was used.
I'm sorry, but this is a DM mentality, not a game mentality that you're discussing. There's no rule in D&D that says that NPCs are just mind controlled, and there's even advice in the DMG that states that NPCs have a reaction level and here are the guidelines for that. Changing system would do little to relieve the inherent player problem.

Please post the specific example of why this is not D&D and isn't supported by the rules in any such way.

Not an argument.

Compared to FFGSW it certainly is.

Or we're playing our game, having a good time, and laughing at you for saying dumb shit at the same time. I mean, shit, it's not that hard to find time for making fun of 3.pf retards, especially when they make it so goddamn easy.

That's the problem with these threads.

Even if everyone knows it just trolls and bait, the trolls will keep bumping these threads until they finally find someone stupid enough to actually bother arguing with them.

It's like this for me and my group, but with VtM. Storyteller is a fucking piece of shit, I hate it.

WoD has always struck me as really weird. It's always made pretentious statements about being all about the story, but the system is a crunchy sack of shit with no real narrativist mechanics to speak of, although I heard that's changed recently.

>wod
>crunchy
What are you smoking?

>but this is a DM mentality,
It's not

You have to disregard the Diplomacy and Bluff rules entirely if you want to get anything even close to an intrigue game because otherwise they fucking destroy any intrigue heavy situation. Even if you ban the epic level uses of those skills it's still disgustingly broken.

>It's not
It is. Please post an example of why it is.

Please be aware that I'm asking out of morbid curiosity because even I won't defend 3.PF.

What are some other fantasy RPGs that have a fair amount of mechanical options? I like the idea of it in most D&D but it's usually skewed towards one playstyle, and other systems I have looked into just don't feel like my choices have impact to my abilities or die rolls. Some system that is mechanically crunchy that doesn't drown the player in bad options or so many options that it becomes GURPS.

WoD is a crunchy system. It has a lot of rules, a lot of dicerolling and a lot of moving parts.

Back in the day it might have been what passed for light, but in the era of PbtA and such, WoD is at best a crunch medium system.

Anima: Beyond Fantasy is... Kind of a thing? I'm not sure if I'd entirely recommend it. It's a really interesting system, and can be fun, but has a lot of flaws.

I think I've seen you in a previous thread, how've you been?

I'm reading Burning Wheel right now, and it has a fair number of options. Very interesting system, I'm digging their Lifepaths method of character creation.

d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm
d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm

I've looked into it before, and while it seems really fun to play, I have totally seen those flaws. I've heard it's about on par with 3.x on how mechanical it is and how broken it can get.

It's a shame, I don't really like D&D because of a lot of dumb ivory tower designs with 3.5, and the blandness of 5e, but every time I ask around I don't get too many alternate suggestions that are as mechanically crunchy as it, without being just as bad in other ways.

Oh, what's it like? I've only loosely heard of it. It sounds really backstory heavy on the player side, from a quick google search.

It's very different, but Legends of the Wulin might be worth a look. It's a Wuxia system (Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon or Kung fu Hustle shit) with some really interesting mechanics and an amazing combat system, basically an eastern fantasy game.

The issues is the core book and the editing. In actual play, the system runs pretty smoothly, but the process of learning it and figuring it out is an absolute fucking nightmare due to how badly the book is laid out and edited. It's a crying shame.

Yup. You sure posted skills there, buddy.

That'd actually be a nice change of pace from the standard "muh medival euro-fantasy". How would that compare to Legends of the Five Rings? I've got no experience in either but wuxia and old samurai movies sound really fun.

Not him, but I've heard it described like Exalted but better. The guy who runs 8-bit Theater had a fantastic post about it.

Legend of the Five Rings is a lot more grounded, the supernatural elements are present but a lot less prominent and powerful by default.

Qin The Warring States is a chinese fantasy game more on the same level of L5R.

If you're interested in LotW, look up the Half Burnt Manual, a fan supplement and errata book. Also, ask on Veeky Forums for help with the rules. I think there's also a discord and a channel on the sup/tg/ IRC where people can help explain the rules when the book does a terrible job of it.

Diplomacy bonuses stack up ridiculously fast and the rules give no wiggle room for the DM beyond literally not using the rules. Glibness exists and gives you a bonus that more than counteracts the penalty for the most penalizing Bluff usage outside of epic skill usage.

If you don't understand why being able to turn people who want to kill you indifferent to you in a single round with a DC 35 check is broken when you could easily have that in Diplomacy bonuses by level 5, well, that's on you.

In Burning Wheel, the main mechanical character creation is about picking a race (human, elf, dwarf or orc), and then a series of Lifepaths. GM states how many paths you start with, where 3-4 is baseline, but you can go anywhere from 1-8. Each Lifepath has information on the number of years it takes, the resources and stats it grants, the number of points for skills and traits it grants, and lists of skills and traits which they allow/force you to take. You can only start in one of the ____ Born lifepaths, which are in one of many settings. After each lifepath, you can either take another lifepath in the same setting, or follow one of the Leads listed on the lifepath you just took to another setting, costing an extra year (IE being a guard in the City setting can let you move to the military setting). When you're done, you sum up everything you got, including the total years to determine your age. Each race has a table for starting physical and mental stat pools depending on age.

I mean, a bigger question is why are you acting like Pathfinder is still relevant in a D&D discussion with the new hotness of 5e, the resurgence of OSR, and of course the well balanced 4e which all solve that problem. And I even said to you at the outset that I won't defend 3.PF. So, I have to say, this isn't a particularly interesting line of discussion now that my curiosity has been satisfied.

And yes, playing Pathfinder is in fact a player problem, because you must be mentally ill to continue playing it.

5e has no options though.

Doing a lot of things is the definition of versatile, you dingdong. A multitool pocket knife is versatile, even if it might not be great at being a screwdriver, bottle opener, or knife.

A screwdriver isn't versatile because you can use it as a hammer. Sure, it can do the job in the pinch, but it's a shitty replacement for the proper tool for the job.

D&D was built with a pretty specific premise in mind. That people keep using it to do things it wasn't intended for doesn't make the system itself versatile.

3.PF is the most hated version of DnD, also personally I am not a fan of 5E

Kay.

It's the truth though, at least with the players handbook

Sure. Whatever you say.

Runequest is good, Riddle of Steel is pretty okay, and GURPS is realising a standalone version of their D&Dlike with pared down rules to make it less intimidating. There's probably a lot more but that's just off the top of my head.

>Whole thread and not one argument refuting this
Holy shit, y'all got your ass kicked.

There have been multiple examples given of genres of games which D&D handles poorly, and are better handles by other games.

That's does absolutely nothing to refute any of that post even if you weren't relying entirely on unsubstantiated and largely subjective opinions.

Savage Worlds.

>System may be dedicated to one genre, but will not be dedicated to one specific playstyle (example: D&D is dedicated to high fantasy, but you can play dungeon crawler or monster hunter or political intrigue or ocean's 11, etc)
Savage Worlds is dedicated to the Pulp-Adventure Genre but can be used to run basically anything with those trappings.

>System will be balanced while allowing a modicum of character building, crunch, and expandable system mechanics.
Savage Worlds allows for a pretty meaningful amount of character customization without getting bogged down in options.

>Is not point buy (those are all garbage for various reasons)
It's not point buy in any meaningful sense. If you had a really aggressive level of autism, you could just say"Edges, Hindrances, and Stat/Skill ups ARE point buy" but if you're going that far, things like Feats, Multiclassing/Dualclassing, and Attribute Bonuses are, too.

>Uses a variety of dice and not just focus on one specific type of dice (ie no d6 or d100 systems. Don't mind if it's not focused on d20)
Uses literally every common die type, from d4 to d100, though it really focuses on d4 through d12.

>System discourages rollplaying (ie there are no or few mechanics dedicated to the roleplaying aspect)
There are Hindrances which are specifically roleplaying related but they are in the minority and many have actual stat penalties attached to them, too.
Also, this is the worst category on your list.

Seriously, though, you've got autism. I like Savage Worlds but it hits every single mark on your list and I really wouldn't call it a "great" system. It's probably better than 3.PF but that's a pretty low bar.

>relying entirely on unsubstantiated and largely subjective opinions.

Man, you did a fantastic job of describing the post itself

>Savage Worlds.
>One of the other requirements user posted was that it could not be a generic system like GURPS or Savage World

One day, you'll learn to read. One day.

>refute how different people have different interests, goals, desires, etc.
you might actually have autism, 100% serious

>Savage Worlds
>Generic
He said it needed to focus specifically on one Genre. Its specifically, explicitly, meant to support the Pulp Genre.

The fact that people have adapted it to things well outside that scope (Fantasy in particular) is not a fault of the system. If that were the case, we could knock D&D off the list because Spelljammer, Starfinder, and Star Wars: Saga Edition exist.

>What about Deadlands, Weird War, and etc...
All fall within in the "Pulp" Genre, much in the same way Numenera, Dark Sun, and Planescape all fall into the "High Fantasy" genre.

One of the main points of that post was that D&D was flexible enough to handle other genres, countering the idea that D&D is really only good for its niche. The idea that D&D is a better Mouseguard than Mouseguard, a better Shadowrun than Shadowrun, and so forth, is silly. While it's possible to use optional rules to try to cover other cases, it's always going to be clumsier than a system made for it.

Heck, even within medieval fantasy, there are games that do certain focuses better. Playing a gritty, brutal, realistic game is going to be easier and flow better in something like Hackmaster than in D&D. D&D's ready access to healing magic can be fixed by making a low or no-magic game, but the way damage and injury are handled are largely built around this assumption, and it shows.