Why is old D&D lore so much better than the new shit? It was all developed through real campaigns played by real men...

Why is old D&D lore so much better than the new shit? It was all developed through real campaigns played by real men, not some focus group pushing their glasses up their nose and squinting down at their laptops after taking their anxiety medication. The NPC names were silly and cliche yet ended up being some of the most memorable in the game's history.

ITT: Appreciation of Greyhawk and Blackmoor, post maps post your experiences with old D&D adventures and whatever.

If Gary hated magic-users so much why did he play eight of them?

I mean, this is where our history comes from. Perhaps I should have called it "D&D history thread"

>REAL MEN

Ah yes, the very macho and manly art of playing pretend by way of spreadsheets and math homework.

>40 years of lore vs 3 years
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Because the old lore and the old game was made for and by autist's. In that they were made by people who could spend days, week, months, or years forcing on just one thing. And made for people who could do the same.

Now it's made by diversity hire normes and made to appeal to the millennial "geeks".

What?

I agree, but I don't want to make this a fake geek thread. I want to talk about how cool it would be to have grand campaigns and worlds passed down from father to son. RPG world histories that are real, rather than made up by some guys typing in a google doc. I want to know how to make something like this. I'm working on a new setting and I want it to be something I keep between campaigns, and maybe someday if I have a son I will pass it on to him.

Perhaps that is hopelessly romantic thinking though.

Interesting, I didn't know Bigby was an actual character. I started playing D&D 1st edition way back in the day and thought Bigby was just some random name that happened to have spells named after it.

Yes, that means you have a nice book, but not a very nice world for people to play in.

I think all of the names with spells named after them were characters in early D&D campaigns. Mordenkainen for example was Gygax's own character, Melf was a character whose player saw "M Elf" on the character sheet and thought it was his name, and Rary was part of a pun as the character was very neutral ("medium Rary").

>old D&D lore is better
>>have to rhyme with Bigby so you get Zigby, Rigby, Nigby, Digby etc.
Such good lore.

I briefly corresponded with G. Gygax via email in the early 2000s, what a legend.

Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft were not created in the way OP has outlined and I do like them. Would you like to argue how my completely subjective taste is worse than yours?

>so much better than the new shit
I would agree. Right now however, I am without a gaming group in my area, no competent DM, etc. so I have been looking into the D&D 5e solo adventure game books. The book itself is the DM and you just play through it. The 2nd book is called Tyrant of Zhentil Keep and assumes you are 3rd level by the time you finish the 1st book. What do you guys think of this? (solo adventuring without a DM).

Well, sure. But I want to make it both. I think both is possible. Esp. with the right kind of world that doesn't have loads of kings and superpowerful NPCs....but of course, retired characters that become kings in the setting would be pretty strong.

I'm just sick of each new campaign being a new world that is the character's personal whore to fuck senseless then dump behind utterly ruined by their spergtastic exploits. I want something I can actually be invested in. I don't give a fuck about having Mary Sue NPCs.

if you can post screencaps of the emails, or log back into the account and get some, you would make many of us happy.

If it's set up well, I see no issue. You'll miss out on the fun part of RPGs in my opinion though: roleplaying.

Remember when people on Veeky Forums were more concerned with making threads to show off the cool OC they had created than with making angry threads to complain about things?

I remember quests

>I remember quests
Oh man do I miss those. So much cool OC being churned out. And the drawfags! Some quests had more drawfags than players, it seemed. Good times.

It's because people either don't want to put in the work or will put in the work and then become to attached to their creation(the world). It's far easier to just buy a campaign guide.
I'm personally trying to do just this, though. In an ideal world I'd be able to get a group of gms to do this so there'd be multiple groups contributing to the evolution of the setting.

>It's far easier to just buy a campaign guide.
Was this not the reason to have so many different worlds in the D&D universe? It all seemed like a cash grab. When I first started playing in the mid 80s, it was just the D&D world. Now there are dozens...more?

That shit never happened. People always made far more threads to bitch about shit than anything else. It is kinda like how people say music from X Decade is better than whatever is popular now. All the bad shit gets rightfully forgotten but the good shit is remembered. Slowly only the good shit is remembered and then you get the idea that previous eras were good.

I mean the new lore is made by two guys. Period. Like there’s a couple of freelance writers but two guys oversee all the lore.

And both are old hat in the industry and over 40.

It must be painful to be this wrong sometimes.

Then go to the quest board, you people keep bitching about them not being here when you could just spend half a second clicking a link and be where they are.

I'm actually struggling with the dilemma of whether to use a homebrew setting or a published one, I want the players to have backstories and goals for their characters and it seems like that'd be a lot easier with a setting that's much more fleshed out than my own will ever be.

>what's the matter kid? Can you even lift the manual?

Planescape, Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Lankhmar, Rokugan, Jakandor, Birthright, Council of Wyrms, Dragon Fist, Kingdoms of Kalamar, etc.
You were saying?

...

Yeah you should have because that isn't lore, it's a meta story. The actual lore of all the old PC characters is pretty garbage because it's just typical long-running campaign wank. But it's still interesting from a perspective of this is what they did and this is how it came into the game.

>If Gary hated magic-users so much why did he play eight of them?
He didn't start playing them until after the game was published. Then he realized they were fun and started playing them exclusively.

It was made with people with various degrees and interests beyond "geek stuff".

When the creators' references are nothing but the last generation of rpgs, it becomes a circlejerk.

This isn't specific to rpgs, btw.

>Nigby

>A different user.
Er, not that there weren't several different worlds in the 80's but you might want to fact check the majority of the ones you've posted.

Why exactly is having a nice book a detriment? Shouldn't you generally end most sessions with a good story to tell? Also, when you consider how many people get their inspiration from TV shows, animes, wikis, etc. why wouldn't any one particular homebrew setting be decent enough for other people to want to base their own campaigns upon?

This user is right
>go to Veeky Forums to see nerds fling feces at each other and generate (you)'s with low effort bait.
>go to /qst/ to actually interact with people who actually participate in tabletop while enjoying OC.
It's the perfect system, I don't know why more people don't do it.

>It was made with people with various degrees and interests beyond "geek stuff".
>When the creators' references are nothing but the last generation of rpgs, it becomes a circlejerk.
This!

Most works being produced nowadays are either paying homage or being made in response to something that came before it, rather than being something that came from a labor of love as the creator hoped to use their experiences to create something new and fresh, rather than just treading the same lines out of tradition or going in the opposite direction out of a desire to be different.

>Kuntz

>Bajeena

That's because Veeky Forums shits all over OC now cause it's not "original" enough. They are cynical about basic fantasy tropes that they have never personally experienced. I bet less than 10% of Veeky Forums has played in a campaign where the BBEG was a lich, yet they will all participate in a thread bitching about one.

>The actual lore of all the old PC characters is pretty garbage because it's just typical long-running campaign wank.
Except that is usually the only lore I enjoy. Not this "lol so original donut steel factions fighting each other" shit they have in Faerun.

I think the main point was there only ever needed to be the D&D universe. Introducing Ravenloft, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and all that other faggotry was specifically for a cash grab. Regular D&D players never asked for it. Why is there a 5th edition? Why are they working on the 6th edition? What was wrong with the previous editions? Why will there eventually be a 7th edition? Money.

>Sigby Griggbyson
>holy shit this is such good lore

3rd edition was made to gather and modernize the disparate rules of 2e AD&D.

And 4e was made to do that but actually be good.

>What was wrong with the previous editions?
Well every edition of D&D does have very serious problems but yeah, no one in charge has any real interest in fixing them so it is just money.

And 5e was made to clean up and modernize the 4e. 6e will be made to modernize 5e and on and on, did you figure this out all by yourself or did you call 1-800-Help-a-faggot

I'm still baffled by Veeky Forums's 4vengers, everyone else has realized the game was shit and moved on. It wasn't made to be good, it was made because WoW was really popular and WotC wanted to get that audience.

Really shit like this is pretty common when you play with the same group for years in the same setting. We've been doing that with my group's homebrew for about nine years now and there's all sorts of lore that came about through player interaction over multiple campaigns.

>And 5e was made to clean up and modernize the 4e
lol no

>did you figure this out all by yourself or did you call 1-800-Help-a-faggot
I'm going to steal this insult.

Oh boy, here we go again.

Because when they try to make something new, people bitch about it not being the classical settings. If they try to put in info about the classical settings, people bitch about them wasting pages on it when they can look it up elsewhere. If they try to change too much about the classical settings, people bitch. And if they just describe those settings and/or add a little to them...people bitch about the old stuff being better.
Nothing they do can lead to anything but relentless complaining.

Everyone else either doesn't care or enjoyed 4e once the math was fixed and the "le 4e was bad" meme stopped being circulated.

If we're being honest here, 3rd edition was only played as long as it was because during its run, there wasn't any mainstream alternatives to dethrone it and by the end of its life, most people got used to the bullshit and came up with their own systems to make it marginally painless, such as Epic 6 or using the tier system.

There's a reason why 5e was able to pull such a sizeable portion of the 3.PF community away once it dropped and began printing out new supplements y'know.

3rd edition is still being played today by a huge number of people. Hard as it may be to believe, there are people out there who like something you don't like.

MUH NOSTALGIA IMPEDES MY RATIONAL JUDGEMENT, IM PROUD OF THIS FACT

>Maid RPG

Surprised it's doing well enough to not get lumped into the other games category.

I understand that you're perpetually asshurt 3aboo who gets defensive whenever someone claims that 3.PF isn't, like, the best shit ever, but even the most contrarian motherfucker would be hard-pressed to say that 3.PF's presence wasn't caused by roll20 having no viable competition during the time of its run.

I mean, more than half of all roll20 games focuses on 5e, with 3.PF following with around 18% between two separate editions.

Now it's not to say that 18% isn't impressive, but 5e's popularity has clearly siphoned a lot of 3.PF's momentum and player base away simply by being an alternative that's fun to play while being free of 3.PF's trappings.

>D&D does have very serious problems
What problems does it have that aren't so hard-baked into the game's identity that fixing them would destroy most of the reason left to play it?

That's the thing, fixing them would destroy its identity, that's why it's such a shit system.

Many of the game's issues are sacred cows thanks to grognards who prefer tradition to progress.

Not him, but D&D as a whole feels like it would be the best system on the market if they had taken just a few more steps forward and realized its full potential.

Look no further than the playtest versions of the Fighter, the Monk, and the Sorcerer class for an example of what I mean.

Don't be silly, Fighters need to be the super super simple class for beginners so that people can graduate to the real classes later! Except shhh, nobody tell the beginners that, so they can flail when they pick Wizard because it sounded cool and have no idea what they're doing.

mmm where i can see those playtest?

I believe they should have based themselves more on a 2e-B/X formula rather than a 3e/4e formula. By that I do not mean to keep outdated mechanics like the old saves and THAC0, I am talking about some core concepts which have changed significantly since then.

>Simple classes that are easy to create and modify (perhaps use kits). They should be more about flavor than pure machanics. Instead we got these overdesigned monsters, with a bajillion of features (which makes it very hard to create additional classes or modify them without breaking the system) and archetypes which are half assed attemps at customization, but end up being more of the same thing with too much mechanical impact and too little on flavor
>Bounded accuracy through lack of scaling. Rolls should be more akin to the old proficiency system of "roll under your ability". Also, proficiency should not be just a mechanical bonus to your roll; it should determine whether you can attempt something or whether you even need to roll. It's fucking stupid for the 6 int barbarian to know some piece of arcane lore the party sage doesn't know.
>Less steep HP scaling. There's an old adventure (In the pits of the demonweb?) where LOLTH has like 68 hit points. Mind you that's a lot already, remember that getting fucking stabbed with a dagger does at most 4 measly points of damage. I just find it ridiculous that some PCs can tank damage without fear for their wellbeing. Note that I'm not against PC survivability (I often implement house rules to improve it in the older editions), but combat should feel dangerous.
>I think feats could have been done better too.

>I understand that you're perpetually asshurt 3aboo who gets defensive whenever someone claims that 3.PF isn't, like, the best shit ever, but even the most contrarian motherfucker would be hard-pressed to say that 3.PF's presence wasn't caused by roll20 having no viable competition during the time of its run.
Then how do you explain the thousands and thousands of people who are still playing it? I'm still playing it, the people I play it with are still playing it, and the reason for this is that we enjoy it. Being unable to understand the concept of other people liking something you don't is Actual Autism.

>Being unable to understand the concept of other people liking something you don't is Actual Autism.

You might want to tell that.

>Look no further than the playtest versions of the Fighter, the Monk, and the Sorcerer class for an example of what I mean.
The "D&D Next" playtest stuff had a bunch of interesting ideas.

And now I'm sad that I remember them.

I wish this was bait but this is literally how retarded children are in the (((current year))).

Spellcasters who can do anything. 3.5 had a good start with the Dread Necromancer and Beguiler, they could've added more such "specialty sorcerers" and gotten rid of the god wizards who always have the spell that solves whatever the problem is. And for the love of God, give martials something to do besides autoattacking every round. Weaboo fightan magic should be core.

>Being unable to understand the concept of other people liking something you don't is Actual Autism.
Tell that to I understand why people like 3.PF but that doesn't mean that a lot of people didn't jump ship the moment they saw a viable alternative in sight.

I keep hearing people recant the martial playtest material like it was written in golden ink and came with free cocaine, but no one ever specifies mechanics. At this point I'm convinced that it was super appealing only to a tiny niche of people who have short term nostalgia goggles on.

Never looked at it but it's got to be better than the shit that is the Champion and Sorcerer ended up.

>Look no further than the playtest versions of the Fighter, the Monk, and the Sorcerer class for an example of what I mean.
Can we get a rundown on these for those of us too lazy to look it up?

...

Yeah, back when nerds were MEN!

Now excuse me while I overcompensate for my comically small penis.

Not him but some things I remembered from the playtest.
>Fighters got superiority dice that refreshed after each round, as opposed after each short rest.
>Monks started off with a d8 for their unarmed damage.
>Sorcerers would develop claws and scales the less spell slots they had, turning them from arcane casters to front-line fighters as they used more spells.

how small is your penis?

I didn't see the combat maneuvers in there. Have it separate?

...

>hp/damage bloat in D&D is so severe and power creep has gone so far that classes need a flat damage bonus which will promote even more hp bloat to compensate
Why....

>Weaboo fightan magic should be core.
No. "Interesting fighters" does not mean "lol 1/day maneuvers." What a fucking load of dumb shit.

>if I'm a fanboy then why am I associating myself with the thing I'm a fanboy of, checkmate atheists

>only wizards can get tired

>I have no idea how Tome of Battle works but I'm going to make assumptions and post about it

Hi ((((((((((/pol/))))))))))

It's a lot like inbreeding when you think about it

Well, unless I'm missing something, they don't get extra attacks at all, so getting bonus damage instead would mean they're doing LESS damage overall - it's just in one big swing. Which goes faster.

Starfinder and Pathfinder are the best tabletop games period.

>best tabletop games period.
I would make the comparison to shit, but I guess equating the mess that is Pathfinder to menstrual waste is also valid.

>hating fun this much

There was a guy who claimed that his campaigns were a hand-me down one. Something along the lines of
>Dad played OD&D
>Older brother played 1e with Dad
>Dad DM'd games for him and his brother in Rules Cyclopedia, gave them a goofy Skeletor bbeg
>Brother and he player 2e with brother's friends
>Brother goes to college znd hands over the old game to him when 3e
>plays 3.5 with his own friends
>Soldiers on with only half the crew into 4e
>Brother and Dad come back for 5e with thier old 1e characters

The transition from 3.5 to 4e was explained by thr bbeg from Basic actually winning and 4e to 5e being something crazy like, the dad's character's last spell from Basic finally went off, waking up all thr old gods and them fixing the world.

Rose-colored glasses. You're only remembering the good lore that has also had time to settle.
You're forgetting things like piles of clothes that ambush people in their homes or monstrous living tree stumps that have unconvincing fake rabbits sitting on them.

>tfw you play in a campaign where, the older something is, it operates off of a previous edition's rules
>every real year prior to when we started cpunts as 100 years
>OD&D happened 4100 years ago
>Fought Hercules at one point
>DM is laughing his ass off as none of our attack are working
>Eventually explains that it's 2e Herc, and since none of us are rolling for Thac0, we aren't hitting him
>Since none of us are using anything resembling the tactics from over 1000 years ago, we NEVER COULD

Fuck this asshole, but it was a good way to keep the "one day, I'll wrestle control of the Underdark from Lolth with my barehands!" newbie cunts in line.

So that's how they named the Regular Show protagonists.

Oh god

That is onw of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

None of the 4e maneuvers are based on getting tired. If they were, they would be based on Constitution. There is no other explanation. A person with higher Constitution takes longer to get tired than a person with lower Constitution. Hence why, in 3.5, wizards with higher Intelligence could cast more spells per day (even though it was handled horribly).

Except when people say "weeaboo fightan magic" what they really mean is 4e.

That sounds cool.
I wouldn't switch systems though.
Hence my dilemma.... I like 5e, but I have the most material for 3.5 and I like the monsters and classes in it.... so when I make my world I am not sure whether to make it for 3.5 or 5e.... and there are very different powerlevels involved. I like 5e's power level more in some ways, and 3.5's more in others... 3.5 would be easier to houserule given that most of it would be taking stuff away rather than adding it.

>Except when people say "weeaboo fightan magic" what they really mean is 4e.
No, what they mean is 3.5's Tome of Battle and Pathfinder's Path of War. 4e is just garbage all around.

>Fuck this asshole, but it was a good way to keep the "one day, I'll wrestle control of the Underdark from Lolth with my barehands!" newbie cunts in line.
Lolth was statted up in an early edition and has 66 hp, so wresting control from her should be doable.

3.5 had the right idea with fighters getting access to special feats that let them do cool situational maneuvers. The only problem was that it made all the options shit and overly situational. That said, shit like Shock Trooper and Combat Brute are part of some of the most meta martial builds in the game.

1e, in fact, but I can see why the DM would change it from "nuh-uh; you can't kill her because that's stupid" to "anyway to harm these beings have been lost to time". It's like finding an animal that can only being killed SPECIFICALLY by Greek Fire.