Why play D&D?

Because, as a game, its purpose is to provide entertainment to my friends and I. It does so very well.

>but other systems do X aspect better!
Who gives a fuck? Finding the perfect set of rules really has nothing to do with playing RPGs.

It does not carry solely on its popularity. It started off as this niche little game with these very much so revolutionary ruleset and gameplay, which has now evolved into this international phenomena. Nothing can live this long on popularity alone, it's also just a good tabletop series.

I've always thought that rules would/should be tailored to whatever you're specifically trying to do with a game.

I play the Heroes system when the engineer in me wakes up and I want to design the everliving fuck out of things (powers, gear, etc.) I play Fate for fast and easy gameplay, and I play the Warhammer 40k RPGs when I want to cleanse and purge shit.

>STOP LIKING WHAT I DONT LIKE REEEEEEEEEEEEE

Threads like this should be an instant ban.

Also this.

I agree with you personally, I play a lot of different game for a lot of different purposes, but I realised recently that a surprising number of groups don't actually use the rules in the book. They just improvise on the themes, relying on vaguely remembering what the book said rather than looking things up. For those groups, it makes sense to not look for other systems because there'll be very little practical difference to their experience, since all the books is doing is effectively acting as a story prompt and some very basic mechanics they use the way they feel they should work.

Which is good, if that's what you and your groups enjoy. My group and I have occasionally tried other games, and we have just as much fun playing those. The fact that it's "just as much fun" rather than "so much more fun" is a pretty good reason to stick with AD&D 2e. They're all good, so we picked one we all know and already enjoy. We're all set--no further exploration required.

I never said I didn't like it. I'm just asking questions.
There's a lot of stuff out there. Why D&D?

Because Gurps is a fucking spreadsheet sim

Because its easy to learn and teach others.

Its like 40k, yes there are tons of other wargames out there, but if everyone plays 40k then everyone just plays 40k.

Its all about time management, using the most popular system means that everyone can just jump in and play and knows what the fuck is going on, and the entire game revolves around simple rolls vs checks/opposing rolls.

You ever play any settings? I've always wanted to try Planescape and Dark Sun.

Because it's easy.
There is one core mechanic in the entire game.

>roll a d20
>add your modifiers and penalties
>check if you reached or exceeded the target number

grats, you now know how to play D&D

We have two games running: Dark Sun and Forgotten Realms. Dark Sun is wonderful, particularly if you limit it to the city of Tyr, the original box, and only a couple of supplements. Ignore the prism pentad and pretend the revised setting never happened. It's basically Mad Max D&D. It's an great setting that lost a lot of the uniqueness, due to later additions.

Personally I don't like Planescape, and I haven't been part of a group that tried to run it since the 90s. I know that a lot of people love it after playing Torment, but I still think it's unwieldy and obnoxious. Spelljammer is amazing, though. I'm trying to get a game of that going, if Dark Sun fizzles out (which it has been, just because we're more invested in the FR game so we haven't played it in a while).

>character motivations, group cohesion and all

I'm putting together a game with a table that hasn't played together (and there is only three core). I'm DMing with little exp. One guy is on board 100% with the setting and willing to co-DM, (see how that works) he has large DM experience and is a meticulous guy so I'm looking forward to his tactical awareness on the gridmaps. Other guy is old-school dnd, pot smoker, clever guy that will want to power game but work with the group. We're playing a s&s osr setting with adnd-based rules. I'm getting these guys henchmen right away. I'm thinking we're all mature guys now, we can role play properly. I have my doubts, but high hopes.

Tunnels and Trolls is a much better system than D&D because it takes everything D&D does but simplifys the actions without loosing its affect.

Tunnels and Trolls is a filthy copycat creature of guile and deceit! I spit on it for its flaws and I spit on its flawed accomplishments! Such foul works shall never touch my soft hands!

what I said
I'm using ASSH. It does less of the stuff I don't want,(pc species, high level magic) and more of what I do want, which is that old school logic, wherein with I can flesh out any way I need.

You are just mad you never rolled a WARWIZARD.

Not really that much different from figuring the bonus you get for high INT or STR. And its not like finding the hit location modifiers is all that hard.

If you fully use computer aids, like character sheet programs (GCS for GURPS), getting such numbers is trivial.

>WARWIZARD
P-Preposterous! A Wizard for war?! How would any sane mortal with the knowledge of the powers even wish to enter such a sad state of affairs?! It reeks of grime and filth and blood, I declare! Disgusting! (readjusts wizard hat and straightens out robe after outburst)

It is fun. Nostalgia, it's tropes, specific rules such as armour class, ideas such as tieflings, alignment (loving and hating it)... it's like an old friend. That's why I love it anyway. Don't really care about what other people think. Also it is actually fairly flexible so long as you do medieval fantasy you can add basically anything just by adding new creatures and items. If you want to do horror you don't even need to add anything; just use undead, abominations and fiends (maybe get rid of darkvision). If you want to add sci-fi just look at Iron Gods for Pathfinder and do something like that. Pirate campaigns are fun and easy to do. I don't think I'm anywhere close to exhausting the game atm.

There's a difference between just pasting elements onto D&D and running a game in a different genre. You don't get a sci-fi game or a horror game, you get sci-fi or horror themed D&D. Which, if that's what you want, is fine, but it's not the same experience as what a focused system will provide.

>You don't get a sci-fi game or a horror game, you get sci-fi or horror themed D&D. Which, if that's what you want, is fine, but it's not the same experience as what a focused system will provide.

Yeah I know. And that is what I want. Often I find a more specialised system just feels more limited and restrained to me.
Say WoD: VtM for example, I can basically expect to have one grimdark tone throughout the whole game with occasional blips of comedy, tragedy and outright horror. Similar for Call of Cthulhu. And I love those two games but they're not what I want most of the time.

In D&D I can expect a more mixed experience with the tone shifting naturally as the game progresses through scenarios that vary considerably and therefore also continue to seem fresh and new to the players. Also I'm not really a fan of Sci-Fi rpgs as is but Iron Gods is both hilarious and brilliant. The way that fantasy and sci-fi contrast is complimentary in the best way if you ask me.

There is a difference of degree. Setting not so much. Theme like horror? Sure, but only to the degree that the rules facilitate or not a particular style of story-telling. And if you consider the work of learning a new system? Maybe not even saving you any work.

It's in the story-telling. The system isn't that important.

It might be a style thing, but that's not my experience at all. Most systems are easier to learn than D&D, and the more systems you learn the easier it is to learn new ones. Learning a system is also an up front investment for gains over time, as you'll have mechanics that intuitively support the game you're trying to run rather than constantly needing to put that work in yourself as a GM, so you can focus on the other aspects of running the game.

I consider system extremely important, if only in terms of making the GM's job easier.

It hits the sweet spot of genericness. Let's look at some other fantasy systems I've played:
>Legend of the Five Rings
>Exalted
>Tenra Bansho Zero
What do they all have in common? The systems are heavily tied into the settings. You really couldn't use Exalted to run a game in pseudo-Faerûn. There are too many assumptions that you'd have to break down, too much material that you'd have to rewrite. Now, D&D wouldn't be particularly good for running a game in the STYLE of Exalted, but you could slap together a setting that used similar influences and themes.

For a lot of systems, adapting them to a new setting means a hell of a lot of work patching holes. With D&D, it just means having a list of "What does it mean to be a wizard here?" and so on. It's not clean, it's not perfect, and other systems will always run their own settings than D&D does, but, if you're spinning a new setting entirely, there are worse options than D&D.

Which brings us to the elephant in the room.
>GURPS
Yeah, GURPS is going to be better at it than D&D, hands-down. But that's because GURPS is really a set of tools for building your own system. Is it worth the time investment? It totally can be! But, if you're just putting together a campaign to run for your friends, the difference between "getting it right" and "getting it to work" sometimes just isn't as big as people think.

Eh. Systems are easier to learn to a point. The only things that ever trip up anyone is the minutiae anyhow, and there isn't a shortcut to learning minutiae. You just have to sit down, read it and take notes. There is maybe a very low bar of RPG familiarity that "the more you learn the easier it is to learn more" applies to. But if you have to memorize the table for cover ranges and protection percentages? Whether you've read two RPGs or two-hundred, it takes the same amount of flicks back to that page before it's ingrained in your head.

Me? I like random tables. Anything that prompts me for adventure-building makes it easier and rules can fuck off anyhow.

Except for all the RPG's that don't have cover ranges and protection percentages?

Like most of them?

The games I'm familiar with basically never require me to reference the book these days, and I can reach that point with a new system generally in less than a month.

>But, if you're just putting together a campaign to run for your friends, the difference between "getting it right" and "getting it to work" sometimes just isn't as big as people think.

Then you must not have read many games. I can't think of a single one that doesn't have tables you have to reference, that I have played. West End anything, Amber Diceless, Fate, BESM, Palladium, Talislanta, oWoD and nWoD, SWN, Traveller, Earthdawn, Exalted... hell, even Mouseguard.

I honestly can't come up with one single game where it's not "twenty minutes learning the basics, six sessions locating all the minutiae."

At this point I have no idea what you're talking about, because some of those games definitely don't have those things and don't work in the way you're describing. Fuck, FATE has basically no minutiae to speak of.

You know actually while I said I don't generally like Sci-fi rpgs I love Rogue Trader and Dark Heresy: Black Crusade just on concept and setting alone.

the first rpg i played was dnd and then exalted

dnd was a breeze compared to those, with easy to grok and understand archetypes

i play 4e mostly now bc i enjoy DMing combat encounters and watching teamwork focused abilities play out

I've been GMing a wide variety of games for just over 16 years now and though it's not my favourite system I still run D&D (4e and 5e). I think it's good for newbies, a good starter game to teach mechanics on (like the Carcassonne and Catan of the RPG world), and other stuff, but this post is just about the GMing aspect:

1) D&D is one of very few games that actually gives you a ballpark estimate of how tough an encounter will be. Challenge Rating isn't always correct (especially when you have monsters that can summon, spawn, or sire more of themselves) but it's a damn far sight better than the big ol' nothing that Exalted, Shadowrun, and World of Darkness give you.

2) Everyone contributes in D&D. If you've run Exalted or SR or WoD long enough you'll have encountered PCs who are super strong in one aspect (Social) and have just enough to get by in other aspects (Combat). Then because of the way combat works anything that can challenge someone built for combat (Dawn-caste with a weapon ability Supernal) will absolutely paste the social-focused characters. This isn't even talking about min-maxers, just well-intentioned players who want to be a brawlers so they throw all their Dots / Karma / Points at it encounter this issue. In D&D everyone is expected to fight and be able to delve a dungeon.

I think that Veeky Forums is a very vocal minority of players and GMs and don't often reflect the wants and play-styles of the average person who only even plays D&D because their nerdier friend suggested it. We aren't the person that goes and enjoys a hockey game from time to time, we're the person who complains about bad trades (who actually knows when trades happen!) and knows various players' career stats.

The d20 Conan RPG is really great too.
d20 games are quick and simple-ish enough for newbie gamers, which, let's be real, are going to be most of your new prospective ttrpg virgins.
though I think OSR is better at getting new blood in...

It's a good first tabletop game because it has mechanics we've seen and operated by in vidya. Popularity isn't the only thing it has (binary outcomes, "simplicity" compared to some other games, modular enough (but not based on modularity), but I'd be lying if popularity wasn't a really strong trait and a gamechanger here.
Everyone knows D&D and has played it at some point in their ttrpg hobby; getting a group is easier, inside jokes, stories can be retold with ease, was used in video games, has D&D podcasts, has 30+ years of history and other people's creations to pick from, modules up the wazoo, even Pathfinder ones.

It's the english language of RPGs.

Archaic, inconvenient, not fit for purpose in many ways and only prevalent due to an overwhelming presence that meant noone else could compete?

Sounds about right.

Pondering it further, the analogy works really well. English is a notoriously hard language to learn due to the sheer number of exceptions, inconsistent rules and other idiosyncrasies that, while unnoticeable to native speakers, makes it a fucking nightmare for people getting into it. Although that part is most appropriate for comparisons to 3.PF.

But to top it all off it's the most ubiquitous language.

Jap is still a harder language to learn.
Seriously, fuck Jap and fuck Keigo in particular.
(I still want honorifics in my fucking anime though god dammit)

Because other people play it. It's perpetuated by it's own popularity.

Even though its a system largely sustained by its own popularity, I legitimately and unironically also just think that 5e has a very solid and accessible ruleset

. Fun. More fun than any other game could ever hope to bring to the table.

I still like Faerun.

Because it's fun. Also depending on edition it has far more content than any other RPG I'm aware of, I like having a lot of classes and monsters to choose from.

Japanese is the Synnibar of languages.

Fenya is FATAL.

To be honest all gook languages are this fucking hard.

GOD DAMN GOOKS!

You can do a lot with the settings imo
I don't think the combat mechanics are really that great or even fun but its overall very neutral tone combined with the variety it presents makes it pretty easy to do just about anything with it. It also has in-depth spell lists and can get pretty deep with implicit splatbook philosophies.

I also really like the cosmology, too. Actually that's probably my favorite aspect of it. D&D really shines with the extraplanar shit.

>D&D players are stealing the standard defense of GURPS

I'm just surprised it didn't happen sooner.

If you run Planescape as "it's D&D but with more places to adventure in and loot it's great, but for some reason you get this crowd that wants to treat it as World of Darkness with elves.

Japanese is significantly easier than most, because most are tonal languages, and tonal languages are a bitch to learn if you haven't spent a lifetime using one

Except Indonesian, Indonesian for some reason is super simple

World of Darkness with elves is Ravenloft, and Ravenloft is kind of great.

Nah. That's just a spooky setting, but still basically just D&D (if anything it could be likened to Call of Cthulhu). I mean that Planescape attracts this weird wannabe method actor style of player that insists their setting us more complex and of a higher caliber.

>best option for a combat focused fantasy RPG with an emphasis on teamwork and tactical combat

you mean besides gurps right?

GURPS is not a combat focused fantasy RPG with an emphasis on teamwork and tactical combat.

It can be made to emulate one, but it will still play very differently and the changes to the combat dynamic and experience are not ones I prefer. I consider GURPS an inferior option to most specific systems.

its a combat focused/team work/fantasy/sci-fi/horror/superhero/gritty/narrative system.

each and every part of the system is built like a specific system. It is ok to dislike gurps, but simply implying that it is worse than a dedicated system simply by being generic and adaptable is a weak argument. if anything the fighting and team-work parts of the system work a bunch better than the similar mechanics in 4e, and i'm speaking as someone who has but hundreds of hours into both systems.

A generic system is fundamentally limited by being generic. In supporting everything it is incapable of building the fundamental assumptions of the system around supporting a specific genre, because doing so would compromise its nature as a generic system.

A generic system is better than a specific system only if the specific system is badly designed. But that in itself is a mostly meaningless statement, boiling down to 'good systems are better than bad systems'.

All things being equal, a specific system will better support its premise than a generic system attempting to emulate it would, by virtue of being specifically designed to do so and not having to make compromises in the name of broader compatibility.

>GURPS player incapable of resisting urge to push his choice of system.

Shocking.

that's actually a fallacy, author intent doesn't make a system better or worse.

whether or not a system is built for a setting means nothing. if a generic system and specific system can do the same thing then the generic system is better because it can go above and beyond that scope.

They are the consolefags of TTRPGs.

Authorial intent has nothing to do with it. It's about the systemic properties of an RPG. When you build for a specific premise, those assumptions will be incorporated into the mechanics at a fundamental level, implicitly conveying the intended theme and tone of the game all the way down to the core mechanic. This is not possible in a generic system.

Being able to do everything is not always an advantage. That a game is focused on supporting its specific premise, and makes no pretense at dealing with things outside of it, is a strength, not a weakness. It conveys to the players and GM what the focus of the system is, strongly incentivizing action within the theme and tone of the genre. Many games have been harmed by attempting to include things beyond their intended scope, adding little of worth to the game and only serving to make it a more bloated and confusing system to actually use.

being built for a specific task is great. but GURPS is built for a specific task, to do anything!

it is the exact same as 4e, but runs any setting rather than a few specific one.

At this point it's clear you're just being intentionally obtuse. Midgrade trolling, got a few sincere replies out of me.

>makes a point
>must be trolling

wow, you must be fun at parties.

your whole argument is that having walls improves a system. whereas i believe a system should be able to solve any problem that it comes across.

>makes a point

Is that what you call pushing your game where it wasn't asked for or wanted? Not him either, btw.

he said that 4e is the best tactical team work fantasy game.

I disagree.

what? are we not allowed to have disagreements now?

You're in a thread about D&D pushing GURPS.

Don't feed the troll. He's proven willing to ignore or wilfully misinterpret posts just to bait for replies.

At least, I hope that's the case. The alternative is that he's actually incredibly stupid, which would just be a little bit depressing. Either way, it's not worth it.

it's about "why are you playing d&d?"

he made a point about why he is playing d&d, based on it having the best combat/teamwork/fantasy stuff.

i pointed out that gurps has better combat/teamwork/fantasy stuff.

how is that pushing a game?

To crush your enemies, see you driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

>misinterpret

you say that quality specific systems are better than quality specific systems based on mechanics.

until you can prove this, then it is a moot point based on preference only. you however present that specific systems are better based on "something" that cannot actually be shown to exist.

i can actually prove that gurps is better, as it can run quality games of any genre without any twisting. 4e cannot do that without homebrew.

What sort of great teamwork mechanics does GURPS have?

oh you know.
>people can gain points for being loyal to teammates
>you can buy npc teammates for gold and points
>people can help people on rolls
>support is a highly supported pathway
>you can buy hordes of allies for gold and points
>you can have the ability to personalize buffs per teammate and get point discounts for this

oh you know, everything 4e can do and more.

So it's literally just 'there are buff spells' and 'you can buy followers'

Please stop replying. He's either trolling or stupid, and neither is worth your time.

and help teammates, and get supports for teams that don't use support people.

what can 4e do that isn't "help rolls" and "buff people"

I was actually genuinely curious what GURPS offered in that department. But yeah, it doesn't seem like he understands the concept of tactics or teamwork if he thinks that just being able to toss an extra damage effect on someone applies.

Oddly enough, it's another place where 'walls' add something to the game, because having one character who can do anything means that you don't need to rely on other players in the same way.

Yeah. That you can't build a self sufficient character in 4e is one of the most obvious ways you can see how the systems fundamental design philosophy affects how it works in practice.

I can actually find players.

oh you are talking about tactics.

well then what about the fact that flanking and rear attacks provide bonuses. or positioning with teammates matter.

gurps characters don't have the ability to anything. they have the potential to do anything. people who put points into being independent lose points that he could put to combat or social effectiveness. its up to the player, meaning someone can opt out of teamwork if they want, but they may suffer for it.

You can't optimize in GURPS as readily and playing any game in it requires you to tie a hand behind your back because you can break the game by looking at it funny.

These questions have all been asked and answered before.

>What can you get from D&D that you can't get anywhere else?
This puts it best.
What does D&D do better than anything else?
Be D&D.

>Why would anyone play D&D?
Because they want D&D.

>What, if any, appeal does it carry for you?
It is D&D.

Nothing else is as good at providing the D&D experience as D&D does.
Other anons have said it better, but there it is.

Also this.
pic related

You can build a self-sufficient character in GURPS.

Therefore, it's less teamwork focused than 4e.

Because the picaresque dungeon crawling format, especially in older editions, allows me to invite anyone at any time, no matter how much or how little they know about D&D or RPGs in general to the table

You can build self-sufficient characters in 4e

You can't build every class as a self-sufficient character, and you generally don't want to build self-sufficient characters because you're in a group and a group-focused character is usually much better, but that doesn't mean you can't do it.

So you are saying that having more options for character creation is a bad thing? Let alone the fact that gurps has the same or more teamwork options, but players can choose to opt out of them because gurps builds characters, not walking wargame pieces with slight differences.

whatever you say user?

Having less options is a good thing, yes. That's what I've been trying to tell you all this time.

You can't build a non-combat character in 4e. And this is a good thing.

If you don't understand how having more options can ultimately lead to a detrimental experience when a game is after a specific goal or idea in terms of how it plays, you're an idiot.

You realize that gurps does that as well?

There's this thing called gurps dungeon fantasy, which makes it class based and focused on teamwork based combat in a fantasy setting.

Heck you can even do it in normal GURPS, as GURPS straight up says limit options according to the game state you are going for. The big deal is that when you need those options, you have access to them.

>Why play D&D
Because someone forces you to at gun point.