These are largely objective complaints about a game

These are either glitches due to unforeseen conflicts in code or from sloppy coding, or balance issues that only became obvious when the code was examined and only really came to light years later due to the intense scrutiny of the game thanks to its popularity and longevity. Some of these do stray into subjective territory, but mostly there are few who would disagree that these are largely unmistakable flaws.

However, having objective faults does not make this game objectively bad. The list makes no such claim. In fact, it's widely considered one of the best games of its time, as well as consistently making it onto "Best" lists even over a decade since its release. It's hard to dismiss the amount of imagination, creativity, and genuine passion that went into the game, but many of its strongest assets fall into very subjective territory, such as notions of character design or depth of content.

It's somewhat difficult to discuss this game with people who hate it, because they can dismiss the more subjective strengths of the game, but you really can't deny the faults that it does have. The discussion can end up being very odd and very draining, where you spend half your time explaining that the faults don't make up the entirety of the game, and the other half wondering why they are so adamant about refusing to acknowledge the game's strengths.

What's worse is when people confuse subjective and objective flaws. A copycat tried to make a similar list of complaints for this game's sequel, but with that game learning from many of its past mistakes (and having more rigorous playtesting) it had very few objective flaws like blatant glitches, resulting in an image of very petty and subjective complaints that ranged from "The monster designs weren't as good" to "There wasn't enough new content," to flat-out lies that could be disproven with even casual knowledge of the game. And yet, unlike this image that simply wanted to point out flaws within a generally well-received and respected game, the copy-cat was hoping to present an argument as to why the sequel was "objectively" terrible.

I'm just glad that no one on Veeky Forums argues about games in such a fashion. Could you imagine if people were that awful here?

This is a really roundabout way to make a pretty dumb point about D&D.

But its pokemon.

Thanks for reading OP's walls for me.

I don't like the implication that Gen I is D&D cause that means Gen II is Pathfinder, and that makes me feel worse than any other possible insult you could make.

Gen II is 5e.

Nah, by his own account Gen II is 4e. An improved game that was blamed for a lot of things already wrong with its predecessor.

It really could be any. It doesn't really matter.

In regards to 3.5 in this clear analogy. It isn't that the game has flaws. The defenders of 3.5 seem,to be content to ignore those and,unable to point to any actual good qualities.

You point to psychic type being busted for a pokemon fan, and they'd probably agree. You point out caster superiority to a 3.5 fan, and they deny it exists

It's also falsely supposing that the primary purpose of mechanical complaints is to say the game is objectively bad, which no matter how much I might dislike 3.5, it isn't. People have had immense amounts of fun in the game, and its success does to a degree attest to that, even if you can also point out a lot of other factors that influenced its success beyond the game itself.

But being successful doesn't mean flawed mechanics aren't bad design. Highlighting them, discussing them and learning from them is a meaningful thing which is, recently, dismissed as trolling whenever it comes up.

It is strange. For years most of Veeky Forums was entirely prepared to accept that D&D had its flaws, but recently ardent defenders who declare any dissenting view trolling seem more and more common.

Yeah. That's where I stand. You can love and play 3.5 as much as you want as long as you don't try and shut down any discussion related to its problems.

Every 3.5 fan acknowledges caster superiority. Stop lying.

We have had dozens of threads recently of people arguing that it either doesn't exist or isn't significant. I'm sure most sane, reasonable 3.PF fans are well aware, but sadly there are idiots and arseholes in every fanbase.

It's less that they deny it exists, and more that they deny it's dramatic enough to ruin the game. And, it really is a case-by-case basis, because caster superiority really only becomes dramatic at higher levels. But, this is a debate that remains contested precisely because some people see it as less of a problem and some people see it more of a problem, and subjectivity and differences in experience and use plays a very large role in this.

>unable to point to any actual good qualities.

With many of these being rather subjective, it ends up being very hard to raise these without people who hate the game dismissing them out-of-hand.

>It is strange. For years most of Veeky Forums was entirely prepared to accept that D&D had its flaws, but recently ardent defenders who declare any dissenting view trolling seem more and more common.

It's largely because of genuine trolls. Some people simply don't like the game or want to discuss it's problems. But, there are also some very obvious people who really just hate the game and don't want it ever spoken about in a positive way here.

It's those guys who spam those "Stop playing D&D" images even when no one's talking about D&D or make those "Why haven't you realized you should hate D&D?" threads. Those are the guys that have made many people start to associate any criticism with trolling, because the people who go out of their way to criticize the game really seem to be acting with an agenda. A rather lame and not particularly serious agenda, but an agenda nonetheless. I wouldn't be surprised if some start appearing in this thread.

I've always found the 'it's only high level' point rather hard to take. I still remember my first ever RPG experience, playing D&D 3.5, where I picked a fighter. I was rendered obsolete by our Cleric, Wizard and Druid, without any of them trying to do so or having any basis for optimising. We were all new to the game, they just picked things that looked cool, and I ended up with a character who could barely contribute to things, despite the GM bending over backwards to try and help me.

There's the odd thing about those threads though. I've posted in them before, speaking in favour of D&D if acknowledging its flaws, and been hounded by people accusing me of being a retarded troll for simply saying I don't think any edition of D&D is perfect or trying to actually talk about the flaws and how significant they are, rather than buying into hyperbole.

I would say the trolling and assholery is roughly evenly distributed, from my experience.

Honestly it starts at glitterdust and just gets worse from there. From that point On, GMs will have to take special care in balancing encounters with wizards present.

This is a lie, though. There has never been a group more aware of their game's flaws than 3.5 supporters.

If they're complaints, they're not objective by their very nature.

Do note that he didn't say the fans or the community, but specifically the defenders. Regrettably, they do exist.

Yes, it's almost like people have a reactionary response to people saying there are things wrong with a game.

That's where the whole subjectivity and personal experience plays a role. From my experience with the game, I've seen casters really struggle at the lower levels because they really needed to ration their spells, and martials like the barbarian and paladins being able to really take control of the game (both are really front-heavy classes). But, it really varies from group to group, and I definitely wouldn't want to say that there's not plenty of circumstances where a caster is not stronger at lower levels.

It's one of those things that's widely agreed upon, but what's taken issue with is when people try to use it as a sign that the game is objectively bad. Many people are willing to argue against caster supremacy precisely because other people are hoping to use it to decry the entire system, and they really shouldn't have to, because caster supremacy is ultimately just a small facet of the much larger game.

Critical hits being based on speed is something of a subjective complaint.
Focus energy reducing your critical hit rate rather than raising it is an objective complaint.

I'm not sure you can really call caster supremacy a small facet. Magic makes up a huge chunk of the system, both in terms of sheer page count and how much the system is used to do in terms of both player and GM options. Given its breadth of application, that magic tends to invalidate or obsolete other mechanics is a pretty significant issue.

But Gen II is literally the best Gen, or, more specifically, the original Crystal is best Gen.
It had shitton of content, fluid animations, some of the most iconic music tracks in the series, and, most importantly, it had the original Pokemon flavor, which all the later games in the series abandoned for more anime-like stylistics.
The difference between Gen I/II and the latter Gens is like the difference between Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow.
And this isn't nostalgia goggles talking, because my first Gen was actually Gen III, which Gen II is objectively superior to.
Granted, I haven't played anything past Diamond and Gold/Silver DS remakes, so I can't say anything about Sun/Moon and Black/White, but judging purely from the reviews, they never did come back to the original Gen I/II Pokemon flavor.

Comparing Gen II to DnD 4e/5e is missing the point, because neither 4e, nor 5e are the original Basic flavor. 4e is the odd one out (Pokemon Mystery Dungeon would be an apt comparison, I guess?), and 5e is closer to 3e than anything else.

>people actually believe this
Pathfinder is trash. The community even more so. But I've got to say, I've never once seen a Pathfinder fan try to convince me that Pathfinder was a good game. They'd acknowledge it's flaws and say that they enjoyed it anyway, but never try to force it down your throat.

I wish I could say the same for 5e. No, every 5e fan I've talked to thinks their game is greatest thing since slice bread, all because their shitty d20 generic fantasy system is better than that other shitty d20 generic fantasy system.

If I had to live in a world where every community/fandom was either like the 5e community or the Pathfinder community, I'd choose Pathfinder community hands down.

>The difference between Gen I/II and the latter Gens is like the difference between Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow.

It really varies though. I honestly don't want to get into an argument with you, but I always just saw it as something that I had to take note of but could easily play around. Also, the page count for magic is largely just a result of spells being rather wordy and there being a lot of them, but their impact on the game really varied. The actual chapter on magic itself was actually pretty short, kind of like how the Dungeon Master's Guide has a lot of it dedicated to just the magic item descriptions but the impact of magical items was really up the DM, including options to eschew items altogether.

I much prefer 4e and 5e's balance between casters and non-casters, but my personal experience with 3e has lead me to consider most of the problem with caster supremacy being that the kind of people who gravitated towards the more complicated classes with more options were the kind of people who would be more readily abusive of the inherent advantage of having more options when building a character. The only grievous personal examples I really have of spellcasters ruining a game were played by people who would also later ruin the game with min-maxed martial classes.

Once again, personal experience, but I have had plenty of groups where caster strength was far from "supremacy", and often even less than a clear advantage.

I like Gen III cause it plays the fastest.

Crystal is Gen II at its most polished. But you sure as fuck are looking at it with nostalgia goggles, and I say this as an asshole who started with Red when I was 10 damn years old. Crystal still had most of the problems that Gold and Silver had, namely the level scaling, poor (but less so than previous games) distribution of of Pokemon, the "Dragon Quest is more sophisticated" story (one thing Crystal arguably did worse than the previous games with its focus on the damn water dog FOR NO REASON), I could go on, especially your claim that "the later games in the series abandoned for more anime-like stylistics" when all the goddamn human characters already looked like cocky DBZ rejects, Crystal especially made the monsters look MORE anime than their original, rougher sprites, and the damn series has been one of the posterchilds of long-running anime.

It was a fun game. I loved it when I was younger. It's a step up from Red/Blue/Yellow. But the best? Not really, no. At the same time, I would agree that you are right that it's not really 4e or 5e. Mechanically they are closest to 3e, with Crystal specifically being 3.5, but not always in a good way. It took some of the super-unbalanced shit from the previous game and made NEW unbalanced shit to pretend it evened out, complicated the rules more in a way that stuck for the rest of the series and guaranteed that later editions would try and make their own changes, and need I bring up the level scaling again?

>(one thing Crystal arguably did worse than the previous games with its focus on the damn water dog FOR NO REASON)

When I first played Silver, I really felt nothing for Suicune. I didn't even catch it, because it was too much of a hassle, it was ugly, and I never really liked water types.

But, in Crystal, something resonated. It may have just been because it was a surprise and one of the few really noticeable changes, but going through the whole Suicune business left me with a distinct connection. Even though it was really simple, it really felt like there was someone watching over you.

Pokemon limits itself to what it can do, DnDoesn't. Your argument is invalidated by the idea that's pushed forward that DnD can do more than what its mechanics implicitly support. If DnD stuck to being about Dungeons and Dragons, nobody would smack it down. You don't see pokémon pretending it can be used to play any genre, or even any kind of 'mon idea, the way DnD pretends it can be used to run any kind of fantasy, when it really can't even be used to even run its own.

The thing with pokemon is that, mechanically speaking, regardless of pokemon distribution or design or movepools or map design or story or any of that shit, every single generation is an improvement over the previous generation

Gen 2 fixed most of the major gripes with gen 1, gen 3 fixed most of gen 2's problems such as sleep talk abuse and also introduced double battles and abilities, two elements that greatly benefited the spread of the metagame, gen 4 has the glorious physical/special split, gen 5 introduced hidden abilities and also gave us unlimited tms, gen 6 and 7 have less absolute improvements, as mega evolutions, z-moves and the fairy type are all arguable, but steel not resisting ghost and dark was a distinct change for the better, and I think alolan pokemon have added a nice layer, even if they were kinda pointless

Your attempt at argument really is nonsensical, utterly inaccurate, and only goes to show what lengths you're willing to go to keep trying to hate on a game as willfully as you can.

While he was an asshole about it, modern D&D systems are really only primarily appropriate to a specific kind of high fantasy. That's not a bad thing, it's just an assessment of the capabilities of the system and the intention of their design.

It's true that they've been used more broadly than that, over the years, but that's a factor of D&D's ubiquity as a product, rather than any real mechanical trait of the system.

I always kinda liked it honestly, it felt right that wizards were above regular people, it made magic seem powerful and special. I only ever played martial characters and I liked the challenge of being mortal in a wondrous world. 4ths fightan magic really erked me. Also the art in 3.5 was beautiful, that's why I got into tabletop in the first place, when I picked up a monster manual 3.5.

>and also gave us unlimited tms
The best fucking decision of the series.

Also it made it so you can use a Repel immediately after the last one wears off. No more fucking Zubats.

I never really had any friends to play Pokemon with, because I've lived at a third-world Slavic country at that point, where nobody I've known had a GB/GBA, and even if they did, odds of them owning Pokemon and being willing to trade/battle were scarce at best.

So when people talk about multiplayer balance improvements the later Gens introduced (especially the less noticeable ones), I don't really have anything to say, because my persepective is sadly lacking. I've always judged Pokemon for its single-player experience, so when I say that Crystal is the best Pokemon game in my opinion, I say it from the standpoint of how fun the single-player experience was. And, in my opinion, Crystal is the poster-child for fun single-player Pokemon experience far more than Emerald or D/P.

> Crystal especially made the monsters look MORE anime than their original, rougher sprites, and the damn series has been one of the posterchilds of long-running anime.
"Look"? Maybe. But not "feel".
Back in Gen I/II, there was no real overarching dramatic plot where you have to save the world from an evil organization, there were no typical anime cliches like "childhood friend rival of opposite sex" and shit, no supporting characters with their subplots. The only overarching conflicts were confronting your rival, confronting Team Rocket and beating the Elite Four.
More importantly, Gen II felt more like you were exploring the world and less like you were being led on a plot railroad, even if that wasn't really the case.

>Judging pokemon on single-player experience

I pity you, i pity you greatly

You should try out Pokemon showdown, the people tend to be, well, assholes, but it lets you battle against other people online, and is hella fun for that

> it made magic seem powerful and special

See the problem is that Magic isn't just more powerful and special it's that Magic does SO MUCH MORE AS TO BE ABSURD and your complaints about 'fightan magic' seem to have a bit of cognative dissonance if you ask me.

An optamized fighter in 3.5 can kill a dragon in one turn. That is a "normal human" with a magic sword fucking turning into a whirlwind of death with full attack and murder practically any monster.

The problem is that doing this requires a very narrow build specifications and only one dominating strategy. Charging and full attacking.

In-universe what the fighter's doing isn't any more batshit insane than the wizard it's just the wizard (and especially druid/cleric) is still... better. Because he just has more.

It's like you're Krillin and the other guy's Goku. Yea you're the strongest human around and you're ridiculous but that doesn't matter cause he's GOKU and he has everything you do and THEN some.

That's a pretty terrible statement you just tried to make. It's basically the old stupid "D&D can only do dungeon crawling" lie crafted in hopes of locking D&D down and keeping it from competing with whatever games the crafter is desperately hoping will emerge from its shadow.

>really only primarily appropriate to a specific kind of high fantasy

Provably false, and the statement itself is somewhat contradictory. Trying to say "only" but also saying it's "primarily" already shows that you even recognize that it does much more than just what novices assume is what D&D is "supposed to do," but you're just so committed to the false meme that you feel the need to ignore the versatility inherent in the system which enables it to be a strong secondary (and often even primary) choice in far more than just some vaguely defined "specific" fantasy.

D&D is a broad system. It has a lot of pieces that can be switched in and out that aren't necessarily dependent on each other, and its core mechanic is reasonably stripped of most assumptions. This makes it considerably more versatile than systems that are genuinely designed for a single setting/playstyle. It's not a generic system like GURPS or FATE, but trying to say D&D can only do one type of fantasy is just a big, fat, and extremely ugly lie that hopes to sweep aside mountains of evidence, ranging from dozens of published settings, thousands of official variants, and above all else just a basic understanding of what allows games to be versatile.

It is used more broadly because it is designed to be and is expected to be. That's why the six ability scores can be used in just about any setting, why there's so much advice and material (official and unofficial) for adding and removing different components of the game. It's really crazy to even try to argue you've made a fair assessment of its capabilities as a system if you've reached the conclusion that it can't do what it's always done.

All you need to do is read the core book. It tells you what D&D is built for. Everything else I already acknowledged in my former post. I'm quite confused when repeating a systems own statements about itself is now some sort of untruthful meme.

Not the guy you responded to but uh... ok lemme put it like this.

D&D was born from its creators making a hoge-podge of fantasy tropes they liked and then applying that to war games. And even years after supposed gaming evolution THAT'S STILL A HUGE FACTOR.

Because if you REALLY Examine D&D you notice a few things:

1) It's primarily about resource management. Spells are always a number of charges per day and they're a list of canned effects. Why? Couldn't you do them say like, Mage where they're a list of nebulous effects you can perform and tweak and do them regularly but doing so creates narrative consequences that risk you or other players? Or maybe like REIGN where the sorcerey is more like superhuman abilities you learn and can mutate your body in interesting ways? But no they're a list of canned effects with daily charges. Why? Because that's the resource management element and they're designed to be like bullets/arsenal weaponry. At least ideally anyway then you get to when they let you just do skill rolls but better and summon things comparable to other characters.

2) The d20 dice creates a very swingy dice mechanic. The chance of getting a 10 (a middling result) is 5%. The chance of getting a 20 (an epic success) and a 1 (a critical failure) is likewise a 5%. Because these results are so chaotic this leads to silly results and characters failing rolls they're good at as well as succeeding at rolls they're bad at. YES we know that critical failures/successes are an optional rule but well, there's a reason people often use them. Because the game's swingy dice incentivizes that mechanic.

3) There are NUMBEROUS fantasy settings that if I tried to run in D&D would just wind up feeling like D&D. Because D&D is... just D&D. It is an entity onto itself. From the classes to the lore to alignments all of it is based around the CONCEPT of Dungeons and Dragons.

We have had dozens of threads about fantasy races eating dog turds. What's your point?

The weird thing to me of "d&d is designed only for dungeon crawling" is that later editions have largely scrapped the core dungeon exploration mechanics, downplayed most of the resource management, etc. and made it a lot less optimized for dungeon crawl gameplay.

>All you need to do is read the core book

Please, go read them. And don't forget that there isn't a "core book", but "core books", including one that gives advice on how to run very different types of fantasy, and makes sure to phrase everything as a suggestion rather than an ironclad rule (Check out the Word Building chapters in the DMG).

And, also, don't forget to also read the accompanying books of the system, which the DMG just serves as an introduction to. You can't just read half of one book and call it a system, especially when what we're discussing gets instantly and irrevocably refuted by books that explain how to run D&D in low fantasy settings, horror settings, lovecratian-themed adventures, and so on and so forth.

>I'm quite confused when repeating a systems own statements about itself is now some sort of untruthful meme.

Stop being like this. Lying and then lying more is a terrible thing to do.

I'd say 4e does Dungeon Crawling well enough. At least in the sense of strategically witholding daily abilities and healing surges.

I can tell you right there that you are looking through such events with nostalgia goggles. You're thinking more on feelings than objective details. Crystal was the one that DID make an overarching plot with the damn water dog and the loser who interrupted you constantly to ask about the water dog. It WAS fairly railroaded, especially with the Rockets taking over a damn city and broadcasting "WE MISS YOU A LOT, BOSS! COME BACK!" on a radio tower. Oh, and can't forget that fucking bitch Clair who wouldn't give you your damn badge until you undertook a trial to prove your gumption or whatever. The little exploration you were allowed (and believe me, it was a massive step down from Gen I, something that the Gen I remakes actually kept intact) actually harmed the flow of the game. And even further, trying to claim that there were no anime cliches or character subplots in the Gen II games, Crystal especially, can't be further from the truth. This is the same generation that gave you the darker, ediger rival who stole his starter, hates Team Rocket for being "weaklings," and has to get taught to respect the Power of Friendship by the player/protagonist. The very same game who gave you the dude obsessed with water dog and who would interrupt the story to talk to you about water dog. Or how about Lance dragging you through the Lake of Rage event with him?

And my comparison of Gen II and 3e still stands.

My point about fightan magic was more about how the only way they could figure out how to fix fighters was to turn them into demi wizards which cheapened both of them and made it seem like a videogame. I understand your point about balance and though I will say it never really bothered me irl I can see how in more combative groups it could be an issue. Dnd balance never bugged me much and I think that the solutions to the issue of magic have all either diluted or cheapened it. Low magic settings are best anyway. Krillin is a better character than Goku and Boromir and Sam were the best characters in LOTR. There is no way to nerf magic without doing just that, reducing it to a plastic stand in.

1. Depends on the campaign.
2. Depends on the average DC in a binary pass/fail system. Stop only looking at one part of the equation, this is a long-dead topic.
3. Depends on you. Really, I'm surprised you'd admit to your own failing and then pretend other people must fail just because you have.
Hell, I can't even play with two different DM's trying to run a game in Faerun without both running the games to feel dramatically different.

>1. Depends on the campaign.

??? No??? It doesn't??? I literally described how magic works IN THE ENTIRE GAME. The game and a good solid chunk of its classes is PREDICATED around that system. Changing how spells function may as well mean you're making an entirely new system.

>2. Depends on the average DC in a binary pass/fail system. Stop only looking at one part of the equation, this is a long-dead topic.

Except it doesn't? I said before that while yes crit-successes and fails are an 'optional' rule most GM's implement them because the d20 likes to give out wonky results. That's a literal fact of the dice and human condition right there.

>3. Depends on you. Really, I'm surprised you'd admit to your own failing and then pretend other people must fail just because you have.
Hell, I can't even play with two different DM's trying to run a game in Faerun without both running the games to feel dramatically different.

... what? Okay first of all you say this is a failing because apparently I can't run say, Berserk's setting in D&D. Despite the fact that's NEVER WORKED because Golden Age LACKS MAGIC which is an integral part of the system and the binary HP system means wounds and biological complications are just there for flavour or require an ad-hoc system that might not actually work with the game as is and the system of magic beyond the Golden Age has no relevancy on days or scrolls or whatever.

And now you're saying that this isn't true because two GM's can run Faerun, a D&D setting, differently.

I'm not saying D&D doesn't allow for different tones (in fact I'd argue there's a bizarre tonal dissonance in the game) I'm just saying D&D has a precedent for how it functions.

1 Some campaigns don't even include any magic, many use little magic. D&D is such a stupidly big game, you can cut out the majority of the content and still be left with a system with more material than most other complete systems.

>IN THE ENTIRE GAME.
You really have a bizzarre understanding of what the game is. It's like you read half the PH and then said "The entire game is nothing but this but also all of this."

2. A d20's flat distribution isn't what makes a game "swingy", it's what the average DC is set at. The dice roll ends up being an almost negligible component of the equation.

To illustrate, 5e made the game considerably less swingy by lowering the average DC from earlier assumptions of 10 or higher to roughly 6 or higher (which can be done with any edition with some simple blanket math), since that makes successes considerably more consistent. It also introduced curves with the A/D system, but that's another matter.

Also, you really don't appreciate what a 5% chance is, and how crits are only for attacks and saves, and that the dice are only supposed to be rolled when they're necessary. Really, this topic is so dead and buried it's silly you think it's worth bringing up.

3. >I can't run say, Berserk's setting in D&D. Despite the fact that's NEVER WORKED because Golden Age LACKS MAGIC which is an integral part of the system and the binary HP system means wounds and biological complications are just there for flavour or require an ad-hoc system that might not actually work with the game as is and the system of magic beyond the Golden Age has no relevancy on days or scrolls or whatever.

You're kind of dumb. Read Unearthed Arcana sometime. And stop putting weird limitations on the game that the designers never did. No wonder you can't do anything with the system, because you genuinely think it stops working if it doesn't have magic.

>I'm just saying D&D has a precedent for how it functions.

That's a tame statement.

please enlighten me as to why a complaint is not objective by its very nature. what is it about the nature of a complaint that renders it not objective?

>having objective faults does not make this game objectively bad

Having enough of them does. You can't just ignore a game's objective faults because you find it "hard to dismiss the amount of... passion" that went into it. That's asinine, you're doing the same thing you're accusing others of doing by hand-waving away its faults while creating virtues, and furthermore your whole post is fucking dumb. You could have said what you wanted to say more clearly and with half the word count and saved the people in this thread some time before they called you an idiot.

But gen1 pokemon is bad

Not overall, but certainly when compared to all other Pokemon generations

That requires you ignore literal decades of D&D history. OD&D is Gen I. The AD&D and Basic lines are Gen 2. 3.PF wouldn't come until gen 3.

You're not helping your case by pointing him towards UA. UA is chock full of shit variant rules and the ones you want him to look at are especially bad.

Hahahha, holy shit. It's been almost 10 years since 4e, and you are STILL blaming it for your own game and fan base being shit.

It's like you won the elections but then you keep putting all the blame on the other guy, who didn't even win and is entirely irrelevant now, because it's easier than owning up to your own shit.

This is some Twilight Zone tier shit.

>2) The d20 dice creates a very swingy dice mechanic. The chance of getting a 10 (a middling result) is 5%. The chance of getting a 20 (an epic success) and a 1 (a critical failure) is likewise a 5%. Because these results are so chaotic this leads to silly results and characters failing rolls they're good at as well as succeeding at rolls they're bad at. YES we know that critical failures/successes are an optional rule but well, there's a reason people often use them. Because the game's swingy dice incentivizes that mechanic.
Nothing you've implied is true.

>Gen 1 too old with lots of weird design decisions. Why play 1 when 2 is better.
>Gen 2 still the favorite of many grogs. Praised for how it fixed things and variety of content. Everything went downhill from here.
>Gen 3 had huge influx of fans who separated themselves from previous Gens. Repeatedly criticized for the same few problems to the point hey became memes. By far the most hacked.
>Gen 4 adored by some and hated by others. Major emphasis on core balance. Pacing is too slow, but fixed in later iteration.
>Gen 5 generally liked by most, revitalizes IP. Callbacks to its history. Provides easy customization.

6e will have a lot of hype and theming, but lack in substance once the honeymoon is over.
7e will be pretty popular in the mainstream and try to shake up one of the core concepts, but eventually suffer the same as 6e.
8e will be entirely virtual and finally take advantage of increased computational power.

Skill Challenges were also a pretty good thing for that. Which is what they recommended in the DMG2. The skill challenge isn't about getting the lock open (You'll likely succeed given enough time), it's about doing it fast enough to slip through before any patrols happen.

>Gen 5 generally liked by most, revitalizes IP. Callbacks to its history. Provides easy customization.

Something I've really noticed with 5e is a lot of people LIKE it...but almost no one loves it. It doesn't quite have the fanatical 'This is my favourite RPG' that most other editions ended up with. I wonder if that's just due to lack of time or due to how safe they played with the IP.

>4e is all wargame combat dur dur

>the edition that consolidated skill lists, gave every class utility abilities, and canonized non-combat encounters

I never understood this meme.

I really like the gen 7 metagame, but god I hate the single-player

Giving us a taste of the dexnav with ORAS, then removing it was a giant dick move, and just the latest in a long line of awesome and beloved mechanics removed for no good reason

You're jsut proving the first guy right. DnD tries to bite more than it can chew, all the time. Pokemon doesn't, it sticks to its lane. They're not comparable.

DnD doesn't have any business trying to houserule its way into all of fantasy and beyond just because spergs like you think it's good. There's design space for other games, for other mechanics, for other assumptions about how a game should run, and DnD eclipses all of that and pisses people off by pretending to be more than what it is, so it deserves all the shit it gets and more.

But you're just looping back to what I said in my original post.

D&D is a decently specialised system, suited for high fantasy, and the core books- Which are a meaningful thing to comment upon- reinforce this notion. They talk about running different flavours of high fantasy, but they remain rooted in high fantasy.

Has D&D been used for a greater breadth than that? Of course. But that doesn't mean that D&D is implicitly an adaptable system or a good basis for other types of games. For the longest time, it has been the biggest game on the market, and the only game some people has access to. RPG's are innately adaptable, but that's such a broad thing it doesn't really need mentioning.

When you boil it down to what the mechanics are most directly appropriate for, D&D is a high fantasy system. And that's fine.

>Has D&D been used for a greater breadth than that? Of course.

So you finally-

>But that doesn't mean that D&D is implicitly an adaptable system or a good basis for other types of games.

For fuck's sake. You are making a pretty simple and basic mistake, again and again and again, and not listening to not just what I'm saying, but what you are saying as well.

D&D's "default" is essentially kitchensink (a phrase that means everything thrown in together) fantasy that also includes sci-fi and horror elements. It is a gigantic system, with very few games coming even close to its size. While at first glance this may look like a single, sprawling setting or a singular type of game, it's actually a wide collection of interconnecting themes and playstyles that can be transitioned between. But, if that's not what the group wants, they can instead focus on one of these themes and playstyles, which include low fantasy, horror, and so on. How can half your brain understand this, but your other half doesn't?

>RPG's are innately adaptable,

To different degrees, some moreso than others. D&D isn't a Generic System, but it's a large system with modular components built around a simple core mechanic designed explicitly to be added or removed at the DM's discretion. Compared to games that are actually built around a single focused, specific genre, it's really easy to tell the difference, and yet you have avoided this point again and again just to keep harping about how D&D can't do what it's always done, by your own admission.

Hell, even if we just take your statement of RPG's are innately adaptable, it doesn't really matter if it's more or less adaptable than others. By your own admission you agree that D&D is adaptable.

And yet, half your brain is still trying to argue.

D&D is well suited for more than just High Fantasy. This is an undeniable fact you agree with, but you're trying to say that what it's best at is what it's limited to, and that's flat out wrong.

You're the person misunderstanding me. Go back and read my original post

D&D is not a particularly flexible or adaptable system, by default. Assessing the core mechanics, it's about baseline for an RPG, and I wouldn't call it a good basis for adaptation for most styles of game entirely on the merits of its ruleset.

The reason D&D is used for a broader scope is not a trait of D&D as a system of mechanics. It is a trait of D&D as a dominant product. Any similar base system that was given the same amount of content that D&D has would have been put to a similar scope of use, regardless of how appropriate it was. D&D's market presence is why it has been used broadly. This doesn't change the fundamental nature of D&D's ruleset.

No he's not

He's saying that D&D is best suited to high fantasy and not as well suited for anything else

You CAN use it to run other types of games, but you SHOULDN'T because almost invariably you can find another system specialised in doing whatever it is that you want to do, and if you can't, a system designed to be generic is superior to one that isn't for.

Pokemon sucks and is for lazy retarded idiots and children. Sorry, Mike.

>D&D is not a particularly flexible or adaptable system

Except it is. That's one of the reasons people adapt it. It being a dominant product is one thing, but people recognizing that it's intended for a wide audience and to cater to many different types of groups is why the game goes out of its way to make itself readily adaptable and to provide options for it to be adapted.

>Assessing the core mechanics, it's about baseline for an RPG,

Baseline for something innately adaptable?
Listen to yourself. You're agreeing with me, but still trying to argue because you hate admitting what you are agreeing with.

Pokemon is a game with no peers

This does not mean it is good, it just means that no other games really do the same thing. It's a team-building-focused turn-based competitive RPG, it has more in common with Magic: The Gathering than it does with Dragon Quest

>but people recognizing that it's intended for a wide audience and to cater to many different types of groups is why the game goes out of its way to make itself readily adaptable and to provide options for it to be adapted.

It... doesn't really do this

Not since the bad old days of the god awful OGL

I wouldn't use the term 'Shouldn't'. People are free to do what they wish, and if they enjoy it more power to them. But I wouldn't call it an ideal choice.

Yes, baseline for something innately adaptable. D&D is about as adaptable as I would expect for an RPG. Therefore, it is not particularly noteworthy for being adaptable, so I will refer to it as a specialised system because that is what it is most appropriate for.

>it has more in common with Magic: The Gathering than it does with Dragon Quest
I hate both so w/e.

to each their own

>It's been almost 15 years and people still can't contain their butthurt over the objectively good 3.5 steamrolling their shitty pet-games
kek

His comments mostly seem rooted in 3.PF and the OGL. No other edition of D&D has pretended to be a generic system.

This isn't true, and certainly not invariably.

Many games built specifically for something are just plain shit, and are inferior to other rule sets on the basis of things like awkward and limited core mechanics or clumsy hyper-specific tailored rules, usually because they make strong assumptions on exactly the type of game you SHOULD be playing, which may not mesh with the type of game you actually want to play. It's why things like generic systems exist.

But, same goes with generic systems, in that they can end up just being plain shit, except that's because they end up bland and indistinct because they need to potentially combine many disparate themes and playstyles under one system.

Ultimately, it comes down to a matter of preference. D&D is a game that's built as a crowd pleaser, and recognizes that it needs broad appeal in order to retain its popularity, and a key component of broad appeal is versatility and adaptability, which D&D has gone far and out of its way to display and encourage.

d20 is a generic system. That's undeniable fact.

D&D is not, and no one is arguing it is. It's just a lot broader than the single niche that idiots are desperately hoping to cram it into.

So point me to something in a recent D&D core book that says so. Glancing at the 4e one, it doesn't contain a word of that.

So now we're talking about the d20 system? Up until now we were talking about D&D. And when it comes to D&D, still applies

>D&D is about as adaptable as I would expect for an RPG. Therefore, it is not particularly noteworthy for being adaptable, so I will refer to it as a specialised system because that is what it is most appropriate for.

D&D's modular nature and robust core mechanics mean houseruling it into very different genres is easy as shit. Which is also why it's so fucking popular, it has one of the best core systems of all games on the market.

Plenty of games in this niche, dude, it's just pokemon is the biggest fish in that pond.

>D&D is about as adaptable as I would expect for an RPG.

But not as limited as an actual specialized system.

You're really just being stupid right now. You agree that it's adaptable, to the degree where you are putting it in the middle of RPGs, and yet you're hoping to call it a specialized system, which is at the low end of adaptability in RPGs.

No one's saying it's a generic system, which sits at the high end. But, it's very, very far from just being a single-niche game designed around a narrow focus.

You didn't even get one right.

So what systems have better core mechanics than DnD? I'm curios what the tards play nowadays.

But D&D is designed around a specific focus. A lot of its mechanics, like spell slots, are built around very specific assumptions of the adventuring day, and the further you move from that the more warped the systems have become. This is just one example.

For me, 'specialised' is the baseline. It's the category most RPG's fall into. Some specialised RPG's are more adaptable, some are less, and D&D is roughly middle of the road. Its adaptability isn't noteworthy, outside the breadth of content, which is a trait of it as a product, not a ruleset.

You don't understand tabletops at all. All those specialized games are specialized games because they say so. Their mechanics are just as applicable to other genres as DnD's, and in fact you would not be able to tell what genre the game was, in most cases, if all you had were the mechanics. DnD is the exact same kind of specialized system, except it says it isn't, and apparently that's enough to convince someone like you that it's true.

>muh opinion

Man, give up already. Just because you simply don't like a game doesn't mean we need to treat your opinions as important.

Not really sure either but...yeah, skill challenges were a good framework (Though if a GM just announces 'I'm doing a skill challenge!' he's like a stage magician yelling 'I'm slipping the rabbit through the hidden door!') for adding a bit more structure to a scene. As a lot of new GMs can often flounder with 'So how do I keep a scene flowing/get everyone involved?'.

That and it's easy to write up how you'd do a scene mechanics-wise and just refer to it whenever you need to do the behind the scenes parts. Like, let's go with a hypothetical one. You need to get yourself into a vault but there are patrols going past, so you need to do it before they get suspicious. It's tricky and you need to work hard to deal with the fact that the guards won't take much before they come down on your head.

Get Into the Vault (5 success before 2 failures, DC 20):

Success Skills: Athletics, Dungeoneering, History, Perception, Thievery.
Minimum Successes: Athletics, Dungeoneering or Thievery - 3
Support Skills(Maximum 1 each): Bluff, Stealth (Negate a failed roll)
Non-Skill Options: Bribery (500 GP, negate a failed roll), Take Out a Guard (-1 Healing Surge, Negate a Failure), Go Loud (Do 15 or more damage to the vault door, +1 Success, +1 Failure)

It's a quick, simple framework (This is actually a rather complex one) to help the GM keep track of stuff without it all being on a single roll.

>Let me drag you into a completely pointless conversation where I can use my brain damage as a weapon
No.

Suffice to say the mechanics behind DnD are not robust, they're hokey and overcomplicated (two rolls in an attack, multiple damage dice, HP) or stupid simple to the point of being shit (all skill checks outside of combat are the same and you may as well be playing freeform with a skill list).

Those mechanics aren't robust and modular, they're flat and uninteresting, just generic and bland enough that you can, yes, change the skill list, and make a bland and generic attempt at another genre.

None of these things are the reason DnD is popular. DnD is popular because it came first, and because it's the name of the hobby. You only sit here preaching its church's edicts because you've never looked at anything else.

Well, personally I'm very fond of L5R's system

the 4th edition one, not FFGs snowflake dice one

Shadowrun has a cool system that I kind of wish was used for more than just Shadowrun, FATE has a lovely generic system that I tend to default to if I can't find a more specific system for what I want to run, the old Warhammer system lends strongly towards harsh, lethal games, but is still a very effective basic system for any game where you want your players to feel really weak to begin with

D&D actually has a pretty shit basic system, what makes it good is how clever it is at using that system

>A lot of its mechanics, like spell slots, are built around very specific assumptions of the adventuring day, and the further you move from that the more warped the systems have become. This is just one example.
It's pretty much the only example. Nothing else in DnD requires adventuring days,except the odd /day feature here and there, which are literally minutiae of the content and have nothing to do with how the game is built.

DnD's core is a linear die which is the broadest possible choice. DnD's setting assumptions in core mechanics are either directly common sense, such as 'there's stuff everybody can do more or less, therefore we'll have skills' or are derived from genre cliches that are so general they fit basically everything, such as the setup of ability scores being 'Str,Dex,Con,Int,Wis,Cha'.

Thinking DnD is chained to one single genre prerogative because of content (!) that not even every class uses (!!) is retarded.

>use brain damage as a weapon
Interesting, because that's exactly what you seem to be doing.

You're flat out wrong about the stuff you argue. How the fuck is HP overcomplicated? Are you mentally deficient and cant coun't down numbers or something?

>None of these things are the reason DnD is popular. DnD is popular because it came first, and because it's the name of the hobby. You only sit here preaching its church's edicts because you've never looked at anything else.
You're projecting your jumping on the Hate-train onto me there, son.

>A lot of its mechanics, like spell slots, are built around very specific assumptions of the adventuring day, and the further you move from that the more warped the systems have become.

You can play entirely without spell slots. This doesn't warp the system, because the system expects some people to not play that way and helps offer the tools and advice in order to do so. This seems to be a case where it's not the game that needs to expand, it's your appreciation and understanding of it.

D&D is designed with a broad focus. "Just about every kind of fantasy" is much, much broader than trying to create or recreate a specific setting. That's why it includes variant rules and has such a ridiculously wide scope, and enables people to cut out large portions of the game and still have a considerable amount of material to work with that's comparable to some entire systems.

So, please. You already agree with me, but are still hoping to try and argue through semantics.

>Its adaptability isn't noteworthy, outside the breadth of content, which is a trait of it as a product, not a ruleset.

You're hoping to split it cleanly in a way that suits you, but its ruleset is partly responsible for its adaptability (which you are trying to dismiss as not being noteworthy while agreeing it is more adaptable than many other games) and also hoping to dismiss breadth of content as not being a part of the ruleset.

What's your goal? Why are you trying to deny basic, common understanding of D&D and to try and pigeonhole it in a way that's it's never fit? Why try to force this meme that tries to deny fact, dismiss logic, and redefine what a game can or cannot do when its proven without a shadow of a doubt that it is not just a toolset for a single type of game?

What's pushing you to so adamantly refuse the half of your brain that understands what I'm explaining to you?

Magic is the largest part of the system by pagecount, and its presence is assumed in a lot of the rules.

And if you remove it, you don't have much of value left anyhow. The non-magic based mechanics in D&D are as bland and baseline as you can get. I guess if that's what you want as a basis for adaptation, it makes sense, but I'd prefer to find a system with mechanics that were actually good for what I was trying to adapt it to, rather than being the lowest common denominator.

Because all I'm doing is repeating the games on design focus back to you. That you've built up this bizarre pedestal for D&D to rest on is none of my concern.

D&D is not a particularly adaptable RPG. RPG's are innately adaptable but, even by those standards, D&D doesn't really have anything going for it.

Also

>You can play entirely without spell slots. This doesn't warp the system, because the system expects some people to not play that way and helps offer the tools and advice in order to do so.

Citation fucking needed. Are you really trying to say that the system was built around the idea of ignoring the largest chunk of its page count? Because I'm pretty sure it isn't, and if it was then whoever designed it is fucking insane.

Only ever the the L5R cardgame so can't comment on that.

Shadowrun is terrible and every roll takes forever to resolve.
FATE is great, but lacks the granularity you require for more simulationist approaches or even represent different power scales in one setting. When implementing different genres in a system granularity is often important to hold up the differentiations the system demands. Also, narrative systems require more work during the game, so FATE is decidedly

Warhammer is basically 'DnD: deadly D100' edition, how the fuck is it better than DnD?

>When implementing different genres in a system granularity is often important to hold up the differentiations the system demands

...You need granularity for genre simulation? What?

FATE is built around genre emulation. It does it through narrative mechanics and supporting the tropes and themes. Granularity is entirely a matter of taste.