[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 847 KB, 1920x1080, 1392571100842.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
31886849 No.31886849 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Why do people hate DnD so much? I mean I use it and those things that I see breaking the game I immediately shutdown. For the most part I don't even keep track of the numbers. I just do fake rolls for the obvious fail stuff and unless they roll a natural 20 I say sorry joe try again next time. Since I don't have totally anal players they accept it and move on. The goal is roleplaying right, not leveling up

>> No.31886881


I hate D&D from 3.x and onwards, not because the game itself is bad (even thoiugh it is), but because it's taken a generation of gamers and taught them shitty habits.

>> No.31886891

>The goal is roleplaying right, not leveling up

D&D doesn't make much of an effort to encourage roleplaying though. at its heart it's a game about dungeon crawling, most of the mechanics are oriented toward that purpose and clunky if you try to use them to run a game about anything else.

>> No.31886916

This is a fish

>> No.31886917

I think DnD is a super hero game. But that never acknowledges it is a super hero game. And that makes the rules lacking. Creating unbalance.

>> No.31886949

Because /tg/ is filled with mathemeticians and rollplayers.

>> No.31886950


This. D&D was based off a wargame and it's basically always remained a small-scale wargame with roleplaying elements thrown in.

This is essentially completely backwards to how I want a RPG to work, and thus I don't like D&D.

>> No.31886962

Let me put it this way.

2e: Loved by those who can understand the rules as they are pretty backwards and some mechanics are inconsistent. Hated by those who dislike unconventional and unstreamlined math.

3e: Hated due to extreme imbalance without significant houseruling and banning the entire core book. However it's the most popular but a single minmaxer can completely ruin the entire game.

4e: Loved by those looking for something tight, but hated by people who are easily fed lies and slander. Majority of the content is balanced.

>> No.31886965
File: 137 KB, 1024x768, on your mark.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Any system, or no system at all, can be loads of fun with a good group. Group is always more important than system.

The question is whether the game system is helping the fun, turning up exciting opportunities (creating interesting moments, offering tactically delicious options,) or hurting the fun (constantly needing to be houseruled, broken parts needing to be shut down by the GM, providing "options" that are either stupidly overpowered or absolute shit.)

You're playing with a good group and a bad system, and your're compensating for that correctly: by frequently ignoring and overruling the system. But if you were using a GOOD system, it would actually be adding more fun to the game, instead of needing to be overruled and ignored. But hey, as long as everyone's having fun, good on ya.

>> No.31886988

Let me add something.

Pathfinder: Takes 3e, fixes a few things, breaks everything else. Take its skill list and combat maneuver rules and Penn and Teller the rest.

>> No.31886989

It's a dungeoncrawler. You go into dungeon, kill mob, loot mob, level up, heal, repeat.

>> No.31886993
File: 345 KB, 1848x743, RPGs are like cars.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.31887017


>being this shill

>> No.31887036

OP you're the worst kind of GM, you're a railroading asshole who can't accept that his players have input into the game too. The rules and numbers are there to prevent you from just making the players do whatever you want. If you ignore the rules, you may as well just be playing pretend games on the playground.

>> No.31887043

>I mean I use it and those things that I see breaking the game I immediately shutdown. For the most part I don't even keep track of the numbers. I just do fake rolls for the obvious fail stuff and unless they roll a natural 20 I say sorry joe try again next time

So in other words you DON'T use it.

>> No.31887051

He mentioned three systems that are no longer being supported. Who the hell is he shilling for?

>> No.31887054
File: 145 KB, 945x860, sailing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


...I need to stop tinkering with my car and go on a road trip. Literally and metaphorically. I should visit my old hometown, look up my old friends, and see if we can play a one-shot or something.

>> No.31887055

Because some people get very irrationally upset when they see other people having fun the wrong way.

>> No.31887133


>implying that roleplaying isn't just a formalized version of playing pretend.

Shit man, it's like you think that playing pretend is a bad thing.

>> No.31887206

>having fun the wrong way
This again?

You mean destroying an entire generation of D&D games through pointless min-maxing and bitching about it so much online that the game designers take it to heart and make a "balanced" game instead of a fun game with open ended rules that allow you to try stuff out, so that all class abilities are locked in stone 5/day or encounter or whatever instead of being a consequence of player ingenuity?

It's not that you're "having fun the wrong way" It's that your entire cadre of dumbshits screams and hollers about it online so much that everyone else has stopped playing the system entirely.

Fuck you.

>> No.31887209

>Why do people hate DnD so much?
Because that's in the blood of outcasts to pretend that there's something wrong with people having fun mainstream way.

>> No.31887223

Much like those who vilify the two party system of American voting.

>> No.31887226

Not to mention your retard-tier mary-sue bullshit characters.

>> No.31887253

"Wrong way" was used in sarcastic way.

You're welcome.

>> No.31887424

Sarcasm doesn't translate through text, doofus.

>> No.31887433

That's why you were given an explanation.

No need to thank me.

>> No.31887447

You forgot your /sarcasm tag

>> No.31887531

...And Fedora

>> No.31887544

*tips fedora* m'lad(y)

>> No.31887562
File: 230 KB, 1086x1536, 1372407311796.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Gentleman. *tips top hat*

>> No.31887593
File: 886 KB, 269x199, it has expanded.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I love Dnd.

I see the problems, and find ways around them, and come to an understanding with my friends/players about them.

We have a blast with it.

>> No.31887618
File: 17 KB, 250x377, bullseye.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Wait a minute...

Are you implying that you actually PLAY games, rather than theorize only?

Git outtahere casual!

>> No.31887641
File: 468 KB, 200x200, Mmm yes.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Well yeah. About a month ago we completed an arc that started with a village attack, led to some kobold saving shenanigans, and ended in a fight with a slightly insane and misguided man who was using dragon blood to mutate his followers and himself.

Now, I'm working on a haunted house. Spoooky.

>> No.31887661

Good Lord! Anon, you're a rare kind 'round here.

>> No.31887681

Well nobody else in my gaming group GM's. Hell, we haven't even had a game for like a month or so, since I went through some personal shit.

I wish other people I knew hosted games (that weren't dreadful), because I have a lot of fun ideas for characters.

>> No.31887726

I suspect that the majority of good stories/scenarios start that way - not because of "some ideas" author had, but "that great character I thought about".

Take such bastard, throw him into interesting setting and the story practically writes itself.

>> No.31887763
File: 33 KB, 1081x438, 1393935826305.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>People who have never taken a roadtrip in their lives.jpg

>> No.31887764

Well one of the character is a Drow that hides his appearance with masks, and the other is a changeling. I guess I have a thing for subterfuge.

>> No.31887786

It is if it's not formalized.

>> No.31887792

I think the problem with whatever game you play is more with the group you play with, rather than the game itself.

When I first started with 3.5, I was playing with a bunch of people who were more in it for the game than the potential for roleplay. I was new to the game, so of course I didn't try to max my character's skills. I went fighter just so I could use a pick, because I liked picks. And I was a horrible roleplayer anyway.

I feel like if I'd started with the right group, and had a better sense of what a D&D game would have been like and what I should focus on in a character, I would have had more fun. But as it was, I was along with a group of characters who would nod and agree with any new developments, and one of them was a sneaky dwarf that somehow would sneak attack with a two handed axe.

>> No.31887831

I don't agree with the image, or rather agree with the idea, but not the application.

True - "just make it work" is no good solution, but on the other hand people tend to sperg over tiniest details and call system "broken" because said details don't work as they expect them to...

>> No.31888034

>2e: Loved by those who can understand the rules as they are pretty backwards and some mechanics are inconsistent. Hated by those who dislike unconventional and unstreamlined math.

Is this really mutually exclusive? I can understand 2e's math just fine, but it's still completely retarded.

It's like reading a bad programmer's code. Just because I can figure out what it says doesn't mean that it's not an inelegant abomination to try and use and modify.

>> No.31888077

>I think the problem with whatever food you make is more with the chefs you cook with, rather than the recipe book itself.


Not only is d&d 3.5 onwards a completely broken mess that falls apart the minute you have a fighter and druid in the same party, but the worst thing about it, bar none, is that it trains people to bring a wargaming attitude to pen and paper games.

Ivory tower game design was specifically created to appeal to those types of people, and because d&d was many people's first exposure to roleplaying, influenced them in turn. I wouldn't mind d&d half as much if it literally had not poisoned an entire generation of roleplayers. And before you get pissy about that, recall that to this fucking DAY some people, including not inconsiderable influences in the industry such as Pathfinder devs, will swear up and down that magic users are "supposed to be" more powerful than martial characters, regardless of levels or presentation of them as equal options, is testament to that.

If d&d was merely another niche game and not people's gateway to rpgs, I wouldn't give a shit. But it is literally so bad and despite that so popular that game design TO THIS DAY suffers because of its influence, corrupting otherwise sane developers and roleplayers alike. Again, just look at the Paizo forums and follow some of the responses from devs there.

Aside from all that, though, I also take issue with the idea that a game system is immune to criticism because players are charged with distilling the rules into a serviceable game, because that's stupid. See >>31887763 for an explanation of why.

>> No.31888088

>Not only is d&d 3.5 onwards
D&D 3.5 included?

>> No.31888115

>People who have never, ever taken a road trip in those conditions
Stop posting that piece of shit image. It's an insult to anyone who's actually taken a road trip like they describe. If you want an analogy that's mostly on the level, try comparing RPGs to eating out at different restaurants with your friends.

>> No.31888130

>True - "just make it work" is no good solution, but on the other hand people tend to sperg over tiniest details and call system "broken" because said details don't work as they expect them to...

Stop making this conversation about something it's not. We're talking about d&d here. Yes, it is broken. No, it is not beyond criticism just because players are charged with making the book into a game.

>> No.31888155

>3.5 onwards a completely broken mess that falls apart the minute you have a fighter and druid in the same party
I think you mean "3.5" not "3.5 onwards."

>> No.31888161

>Stop making this conversation about something it's not.
Wtf are you asking about, dude? Is it your first time here?

> Yes, it is broken.
Broken is only that game that requires too much effort make it work for the majority of players. If you have no trouble finding people play it and -> ENJOY IT <- then it's not broken, no matter what some guys somewhere there claim.

>> No.31888190


i don't hate d&d, i just play systems that i can work with, not against.

Maybe I'm lazy, but i prefer learning new system to homebrewing fuckton of stuff.

>> No.31888211


..yyyyes? What did you think I was talking about?

I guess I should be specific enough to say d&d 3.5 and pathfinder, though. I mean, 4e is wargamey too, but at least it got its wargameyness down right

>> No.31888244

>What did you think I was talking about?
Oh nothing. I was just confirming your armchair theorist status.

Nothing to see, nothing to worry about, go about your business Citizen...

>> No.31888313

> Wtf are you asking about, dude?

I am referring to your wishy washy words trying to cushon the accusation of "a system" (not even any particular system) being broken, when we are specifically talking about d&d.

> Broken is only that game that requires too much effort make it work for the majority of players.

Before this conversation continues for even one more post, I want you to tell me *exactly* what standards you hold a game system to. Because if the answer is essentially "none," as your previous posts imply, then this discussion is pointless, as you are clearly mentally prepared to absolve any game system of any of its flaws for no reason other than "players can make it good."

I can take any recipe from a cookbook and make it edible, no matter how many ingrediants I have to add or how many instructions I need to disregard. That doesn't make a shitty cookbook good, it means I had the good sense to disregard its advice.

>> No.31888315
File: 434 KB, 1454x969, 1398726768030.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Isn't the point of games like D&D to just have fun? In the beginning of the manual, it talks about how this is just a system that can be fiddled with to work better for your group. It's not that hard. If there's something you don't like, change it or ignore it.

>> No.31888375

Anon, bój się ty Boga!

Plenty of /tg/s have problems with reading and understanding posts they reply to. Do you expect those guys to understand concepts you're talk about?

>> No.31888424

The problem with changing it is that changing it well requires a ton of work and testing. I'd rather play a game that works out of the box and start having fun immediately than play a game that does not work and spend hours fixing it that I could have spent having fun.

>> No.31888432

There's always the hope. If they're not playing for the fun of the game, or at least just being with friends, I don't know why they play.

>> No.31888447

Let's see, speaking for PF:
The game looks like it focuses on the mechanics, however at least 70% of the mechanics are built as "trap options" to reward system mastery (I am not making this up, google Ivory Tower design).
Feats often to do little and often too late (when I first saw the tactical feats from 3.5, I knew how feats really should look like).
The skill system in PF, although heavily condensed, is still large enough that at least 50% will go unused - however, you won't even notice those skills missing, because they're way too specific (why they're "core" skills then is beyond me).
Caster supremacy is definitely a thing. Not in the often drastically dramatized ways /tg/ clamors it to be, but it is definitely there - having access to spells is better than not having access to spells. Additionally, having full casters in your will definitely change the pacing and scope of your campaign at some point.
Combat, which is supposedly another big thing in PF is rather bland and boring unless the GM puts in big amount of work with the rules OR you start disregarding the rules and just follow the narrative.

I could go into more specifics like how the fighter and the rogue are actually NPC classes in disguise or how the monk is only playable if you do some serious dipping into archetypes or how the company that publishes it is made of incompetent hackjobs that go out of their way to nerf cool things for martials but put off important errata or nerfs for spellcaster indefinitely or how it fails at heroic fantasy because of the "you need a CLW wand to continue your adventure" metagame, but I think that's enough for now.

>> No.31888450


Why the fuck should it be incumbent on the consumers of a certain form of entertainment to get things right rather than the makers of said entertainment?

If we took this attitude and transplanted it onto any other form of media, interactive or otherwise, it's patently absurd. It's like saying that some piece of shit movie is actually good if you skip over all the bad sceners, or that a vidya game with some terrible and gamebreaking levels is actually fine because you can use cheat codes to skip those levels.

I mean, sure, that's all technically true, but it misses the larger point completely. If you have to go out of your way to apply a slew of band-aids to something just to get to the level where it doesn't suck completely, then the thing in question is probably just a piece of shit from the get-go and you'd be better off using your time and effort to get something that works as it should in the first place insteade.

>> No.31888484


Problem is that a shitty system actively works against you having fun.

>> No.31888493


I mean, if you want to try to stand here and tell me that a druid *doesn't* overshadow a fighter, a monk *isn't* shit, and a cleric/wizard/druid *doesn't* have to essentially "play nice" and ignore most of their own abilities or turn the game into BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner because it's your favorite system, then sure bro, go ahead. You're wrong, but that's okay, most people are wrong about one thing or another.

>> No.31888500

>If we took this attitude and transplanted it onto any other form of media, interactive or otherwise, it's patently absurd.
This this this this this this this this. This. Fucking this. I don't understand why tabletop shit nerds think that tabletop games exist in this magical dimension where the normal standards by which people judge things totally don't apply.

>> No.31888514
File: 53 KB, 600x720, wh40k_haters ultra.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

> If they're not playing for the fun of the game, or at least just being with friends, I don't know why they play.
They don't. It's simple as that.

Truth is, the moment you're there, with your buddies, everything is fine & dandy, there's a beer, & snacks, everyone has fun, you either forget about all "problems" with system or setting or fix most of them on the fly.

And if it's impossible, you change the game - play with other system in other world, with different people.

No need to run around spitting hateful venom.

BTW, I don't believe that anyone who is that hateful actually CAN play with other people, unless those are same minded haters.

>> No.31888559

> ITT: Anon hurt by role playing game - the one he isn't forced to study or play.

Tell us, how D&D improperly touched your private parts and how that broke your innocence...

>> No.31888560

>Truth is, the moment you're there, with your buddies, everything is fine & dandy, there's a beer, & snacks, everyone has fun
>I like my friends, therefore this set of rules has no flaws

>> No.31888580

Because unlike most other products, a P&P game can be changed on the spot to better fit the people using it. Not saying this excuses the bad parts of systems but it is reasoning behind the "its fun" argument.

>> No.31888603

Did Gygax murder your parents or something?

>> No.31888610

Also don't forget that systems are just a suggestion and are not meant to be the be all and end all of roleplaying.

>> No.31888612
File: 200 KB, 335x530, Darkangel3_zps339f4019.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The thing is that pen and paper RPGs, more than videogames or movies, can be fixed and changed by the players and GM to more fit their views. You can change the rules without having to resort to programming, for instance. And your point assumes that D&D is totally unsalvageable, or would take so much effort to fix that it's not worth it, but I don't think it is that way. I think it's an okay game for what I want to have, if not the absolute best, and can be fixed without much work.

>> No.31888637


What, did I hit too close to home for comfort for you two?

>> No.31888664


The thing is that you aren't supposed to have to fix something if it's actually a quality product.

>> No.31888668
File: 97 KB, 800x442, vikings-rollo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


All games are flawed. But not for everyone and not for same reasons.

You must accept the existence of people who simply don't give a shit about things that get under your skin and prevent you from having fun.

>> No.31888700

And this is where 3.5 went wrong.

Your reminder that the way rpgs started out was that the system was just a suggestion, around which each group then build their own game.

>> No.31888710

There are two options. You can play a game that requires no fixing and have fun immediately, or play a system that requires fixing and spend who knows how much time dicking around, finding things that don't work, and replacing them.

You keep implying that the second option is superior, without actually standing by that opinion or making any arguments in its favor. This is some nonsensical shit.

There's also the issue that your attitude creates a culture where game designers aren't under pressure to do a good job, leading to games being shittier and requiring more fixing.

>> No.31888711

The things that I have to fix are more based around preference, not broken rules.

>> No.31888722

Naw, son. It simply sounds like a great story time - you being raped by the game. Not players, not DMs, but the game itself.

Please, amuse us.

>> No.31888749

>You keep implying that the second option is superior,
When did any of these 3 posts claim that?

>> No.31888780

Uh, when they openly stated that they choose to live by option two over option one in their actual lives? Or do they take actions that they consider to be poor choices for some reason?

>> No.31888798

>If we took this attitude and transplanted it onto any other form of media, interactive or otherwise, it's patently absurd.
But Anons, people buy and tweak things since always.

>> No.31888819

This is not claiming superiority.
Just because I use product XYZ in my actual life, which is inferior to product ABC doesn't mean I claim I XYZ is superior to ABC, just because I use it.

>> No.31888832

If this was a case of "some people like X, some people like Y" I'd be fine. But people in this thread are honest to god asserting that quality doesn't matter. I recommend you reread the thread.

>> No.31888892

I honestly wonder if it'd take more time for someone to fix a system they didn't like, compared to finding one they did like their whole group could agree with.

>> No.31888907

> If this was a case of "some people like X, some people like Y" I'd be fine.
It is. But unfortunately, people ITT can't accept the idea of others having fun the way they do, under the same rules.

I suggest you reread it.

>> No.31888928

People only insist that the existence of tweaks totally cancels out all criticism forever in the magical land of tabletop shit, though.

>> No.31888936

>I honestly wonder if it'd take more time for someone to fix a system they didn't like
But no one does that. The ones that use systems like 3.PF, which need fixing, do it because their group likes the system.
It is already the system the whole group can agree with.

>> No.31889011


And here we see the d&dfag confronted by his most vile foe; logic. Cornered and frightened, he needs a way past his predator if he's going to live to see another day. But he is not without defenses.

Notice how he immediately starts shitposting madly, as if in a frenzy. The attackers are taken aback! Their weapons and sound arguments were ill prepared for this.

The d&dfag sees his chance. Leaping away, he bounds across the praerie to another thread, leaving his attackers confused and disoriented. He needn't concern himself with judgement from his peers for his distasteful tactics, either, for after all, he was only pretending to be retarded.

Run free, noble shitposter.

>> No.31889060

>I see the problems, and find ways around them, and come to an understanding with my friends/players about them.
>If you have no trouble finding people play it and -> ENJOY IT <- then it's not broken, no matter what some guys somewhere there claim.
>Truth is, the moment you're there, with your buddies, everything is fine & dandy, there's a beer, & snacks, everyone has fun, you either forget about all "problems" with system or setting or fix most of them on the fly.
>Also don't forget that systems are just a suggestion and are not meant to be the be all and end all of roleplaying.

All from the thread. All asserting that the quality of the game doesn't matter.

>> No.31889120
File: 130 KB, 800x450, vikings-different-game.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

> all criticism
Not all criticism, Anon. Just pointless one.

If you criticize it with hope to find a solution and play it later, then it's good, please continue to do so, but deliver some solutions for a change instead of throwing accusations only.

If you criticize it and don't plan to play it, then leave it to people who enjoy it, and focus on perfecting the game you chose over it. Because, honestly, no matter how much you'll talk about it, we won't abandon it. It works for us and will continue to do so, which renders your criticism pointless.

>> No.31889184

"Quality" is a buzzword. It means different things for different people - for some it's how the game is written, for others, how good the support is, for others - how mechanics works and for completely different people - it's compared by how good people feel playing it.

Therefore no. Unless it is clear what "quality" you talk about, it really is an irrelevant value.

>> No.31889196

>Im' going to play d&d 3.5 forever, no matter how bad a game it is!

Knock yourself out, champ. Doesn't mean ivory tower game design, the skill system, the class narrative influence disparity, and the CR math all stop being problems, though.

>> No.31889229

Quality is not a buzzword, it has a meaning, it's just subjective.

>> No.31889230
File: 778 KB, 1600x1199, booya khan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You know what is really funny here?

It was me, who started that Attenborough & gorilla.

>> No.31889348

> it has a meaning,
It has many meanings for different people. Or rather "there are different qualities to the product and for one some might be more important than other".

>Im' going to play d&d 3.5 forever, no matter how bad a game it is!
>Im' going to play any game, as long as it delivers fun for me and my buddies, no matter what some Anons think about it!


>> No.31889420

I'm agreeing with you! I'm simply saying that it is NOT a buzzword.

>> No.31889468

Well, let's settle on this, that I misused term "buzzword".

>> No.31889486


>Quality is a buzzword.

And here we fucking go. We've gone full bore "muh feels."

Listen you stupid shit, this isn't rocket science. "Can I crack open this game, follow its instructions, and wind up with an entertaining experience?" This is the measure by which a game's quality is measured, and 3.5e fails that test horribly, as the various issues mentioned in >>31889196 all point out

Please. Tell us all how your Fighter feels after adventuring with a Druid who actually takes advantage of his class's capabilities.

>Well maybe if your players weren't shit, you'd have fun!

Assuming equal quality players, poor mechanics are going to lead to a poorer game experience than good mechanics. This is pure fucking logic, you retard.

And stop trying to distort the criticism by diluting "poor mechanics" criticisms to apply to everything from "I don't like these dice mechanics" to "my class literally does nothing," you disgusting disingenuous intellectually vapid nigger. We are talking about d&d and the issues specific to it, of which many articles have been written detailing exactly why these issues are in fact ISSUES. We are not talking about preferences, we are not talking about whether we fucking prefer dice pools or d20. We are talking about issues that sabotage the goals of the game.

To go to an earlier example, 3.5 is ostensibly a game about teamwork among relative equals. Why, then, is it not an issue that Druids hopelessly outclass Fighters?

>Because you can fix it

Setting aside the issue of giving your consumer your dev's job, and the fact that that is most certainly easier said than done and I guarantee your shitty homebrew won't be up to the task, this does not absolve the system of blame.

>> No.31889588

It's really just because it's the most popular system and sperglords have spent a collective billion years or so figuring out how to break the system and then shared their knowledge with everyone on the internet. Basically, metagaming cockfags and munchkin bullshitery will destroy any system, given enough time, and the popularity of the system gives more metagaming munchkin cockfags exposure to it. That's all, really.

>> No.31889611
File: 510 KB, 645x180, lol.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.31889635

My problem with it, is this indeed. However, whenever the company is greeted with these problems and says "Fix them."

They just shout that the consumers are fucking idiots and don't know anything about anything and then let the problem continue.

It's fucking stupid.

>> No.31889638

Chill Anon. You're more excited over all this than you should.

The answer to what you're trying to say is simple: it really comes down to WHO plays and HOW plays the game rather than to the game itself.

During my whole RPG career I rarely met people who felt abandoned or lacking their place in the group just because they picked class that didn't deliver most/acceptable DPS in comparison to other PCs.

The idea of making everyone equally powerful is a xeno concept for me. And therefore whole "it's broken" seems like total waste of time.

>> No.31889639

Holy shit that self-delusion. No, not every system is as broken as 3.5.

>> No.31889668

If you don't play with munchkin metagaming cockfags the system is just fine. That's the real solution, segregating shitty players. Protip: It's already happened.

>> No.31889690

>If you don't play with munchkin metagaming cockfags the system is just fine.
No it isn't.

See: PFS.

>> No.31889734


The problem here, actually, is that you're not actually disagreeing, you just think you are (for some reason, probably because it's 4chan and fuck yes arguing). No one is saying you can't have fun playing poorly made RPGs. That's utterly possible. They're still poorly made, and still playable.

>> No.31889755

Seconding this.

Segregation, OR making them understand what DM really is capable of pulling out of ass, according to rules they were so eager to break or overuse.

Aka "the Demon of consequences".

>> No.31889766

From what I gather, PFS is the last refuge for shitty metagaming cockfag munchkins to be able to find a game.

>> No.31889775

>If you don't (X) the system is just fine
If you ever have to say this, you just proved yourself wrong.

>> No.31889798

PFS' problems have less to do with the players and more to do with how bad Pathfinder is as a system.

>> No.31889808

Legitimate question, what do you mean by:

Munchkin players

>> No.31889811

Anything you can do, I can do better (and can fudge rolls because, Dungeon Master)

One character always outshines? Have him targeted first for every alpha-strike disabler attack in the book because "his fame has spread far and wide."

It's not fucking rocket science, it's DMing one-oh-fucking-one

>> No.31889827

>They're still poorly made, and still playable.
Anon, there's a big difference between "playable" and "enjoyed by thousands of people all across the globe".

>> No.31889829

Welcome to the next level roleplayer.

>> No.31889849

People who hate d&d are not primarily looking for balance. We are primarily looking for fun, not a boring as pseudocompetitive combat simulator.

>> No.31889851

>No True Scotsman, No True Scotsman everywhere
It's telling that your opinion is based on fallacies.

>> No.31889869

>punishing powerful players
This is wrong. Don't insta-gib the strongest. Boost the weak ones to be on a similar level

>> No.31889872

Also the beat-up piece of shit is the most expensive car.

>> No.31889879

>It's not fucking rocket science, it's DMing one-oh-fucking-one
Also "the obviously alien, impossible to comprehend concept" according to plenty of /tg/ naysayers.

It's not how things look like separated from the rest of world. It really comes down to the situation and circumstances near the table.

>> No.31889886

Company backing is a strong thing. They can afford to advertise themselves, unlike any other company.

Also, it's a board game. I don't care what you want to say. D&D, isn't a TTRPG, it's a board game. So they get advertising bonuses from big business, and the fact that it's a board game.

People don't play other systems besides D&D, because they've never HEARD of other systems. and by the time they do, they're brainwashed by the shitty rules and habits that D&D teaches, that they no longer seek out a different RPG> D&D ruins people. I never wish to play it. It's a broken board game, that poisons it's players.

>> No.31889894

But Pathfinder is free

>> No.31889899


Are you really falling back on the popular = good defense? Because that quite literally is the last refuge for the man with no actual arguments.

>> No.31889914

Money is not the only thing you have to spend.

>> No.31889917


Confirmed for zero clue what you're talking about.


You will notice that these tiers are not sorted by "DEEPS," but by levels of narrative influence. How they can realistically solve problems.

I genuinely despise people like you. You try to deflect issues at every turn by distorting the subject matter. Critics flaming 3.5 for failing to meet its design goals? Well, quality is, like, subjective, man. Class balance is an issue because some classes can literally do everything while some classes can do maybe one thing not completely horribly? He's just worked up because Fights don't have the DEEPS Wizards do.

You are intellectually bankrupt and your existence literally brings down the level of discourse on any subject matter you involve yourself with. I hope you die in a fire.

>> No.31889918

What is good isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always good.


>> No.31889919

> I never wish to play it
Have you ever played it? Because now you sound like a parrot.

A parrot with a good argument. But still a parrot

>> No.31889938

I more meant "Run it".
I played it once with some friends. Never again. I'm a foreverGM now. and I refuse to touch those books after being a player for it.

>> No.31889946

>However it's the most popular but a single minmaxer can completely ruin the entire game.

Nigger your DMs girlfriend can ruin the entire game by accident because she wants to play fluffy animal loving druid.

Fuck, I hate edition wars arguments on /tg/ now because people just repeat what they've heard people say on /tg/ without actually figuring out the rationale behind it.

You're right, but for the wrong fucking reasons.

>> No.31889956

My Oma who lived in Hitler era Germany isn't too fond of people shit talking him.

I ain't using my soul anyway

>> No.31889969

What happened if you don't mind sharing

>> No.31889971

There are many ways to take someone temporarily out of a fight in D&D that doesn't kill the character.

>> No.31889994

Disabling for the length of a fight is effectively killing them until the fight is over.

Having a player sit around and do nothing is not the way to go. Be it by not helping the fighter or raping the wizard

>> No.31890006

Advertisement can impact your willingness to try some game.

But advertisement alone can't force you to stay with it, especially since:
- plenty of CHEAPER alternatives
- plenty of FREE alternatives
- plenty of societies/players playing different games

You forget that we're talking about luxury product, that has no other purpose than delivering fun.

Anon, chill. Go to sleep. Think about your emotions tomorrow. Think what kind of potential players they make you.

>> No.31890010


Oh good, are we bringing up save-or-lose spells as well? More evidence of awful game design.

>> No.31890019

Well, I sort of felt getting into it might be difficult, but I stuck with it and put my chin up high! I was ready for this.

The character creation alone confused me. I went with the bard because I've always loved the bard in games I've heard before.

However, getting into the creation I didn't realize how complicated and convoluted setting up all of the stats and scares and systems and skills, and stunts would be.

But we got past it, we got into the game.

The casters. ALWAYS outranked the fighters. and I never understood why. I personally favor physical conflict over magical. but it seems that a wizard could shit all over a fighter all day all night.

What is the purpose of that? WHy are there levels? Why are their fighters? Why isn't this Wizard Quest: THE GAME. It was so ridicuously unfair. and the DM was reveling in it! As though he ENJOYED to see the fighter get his ass kicked because casters were just... objectively better.

The community is terrible, the game is broken, and the players of their broken game DON'T CARE that it's broken! I won't support it. I won't play it, and I hate that it's the most popular, simply because no one has ever heard of anything else.

I've been GMing FATE for a while now. Feels good man.

>> No.31890025

>Never again.
It was addressed earlier ITT, Anon. Here: >>31889120

It's really THAT simple.

>> No.31890052

But again building on the "Poisons players" thing. I get people in my group all the time who previously played D&D and quit. and they're fucking awful. they have all of these things that make no goddamn sense engraved into their subconscious because D&D /put them there/. It poisons a players mind, and when they decide they want to branch out, they're terrible because D&D has ruined their preconception of what it's like for other games.

>> No.31890066

>Anon, chill.

I'm not seeing any dispution of my logic or arguments. If anyone has been arguing based on "muh feels," it has been you.

Don't confuse my intense hatred for your callous disregard for critical thinking as some mad rantings because you are both too stupid and too lazy to understand why you are not only wrong, but actively dumbing down discourse for everyone involved.

>> No.31890073

I want to draw everyone's attention to this insane fucking link because it is non stop hilarity forever.

>> No.31890074

It can if it remains the only thing you know...

I've spoken to avid D&D players who didn't know "Other systems" were a thing.

>> No.31890098

Not to mention, because it's heavily advertised, there's a feeling of superiority. As though other systems have no competition with it because "It's just third party trash" it forms this kind of elitism that is just pig disgusting.

Advertising is HUGE. advertising makes ALL the difference.

>> No.31890113

there ain't no cure for stupid.

Theoretically, everybody should have an imagination, but in practice not everybody does.

>> No.31890154

Thing is, I've had fun playing d&d. It's just that in d&d whenever I wwas having fun the system was not being used.

Once I actually had to roll dice or use skills or whatever, I had less fun. In an enjoyable system the system makes the game more fun.

D&d sucks the life out of the game once you have to actually use the system

>> No.31890160

D&D teaches them that don't need an imagination.

When we play FATE, and he says he fires a magic missle and I go" Cool, what does that look like? How did you do it?"

He looks DUMBFOUNDED. Like that question just totally fucking stumped him. it ruins players. the simplest concepts, they don't understand because D&D has fucking ruined them, and their sense of creativity.

>> No.31890182

So much fucking:

>> No.31890197

But the truth is you can't solve every situation using your imagination, a fight is a fight, and the system is there to provide an element of real danger.

>> No.31890221


... that's just a class of people who aren't imaginative, and given that 3.x didn't really try to force any imagination, and spread really far and wide, the chances are, if you have a player who pulls that shit, they were brought in by D&D, but it doesn't actually mean D&D can't be played in such a way that people don't bother to fluff their shit.

>> No.31890229
File: 11 KB, 744x520, ௵.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I play 3.5 with my friends. All books allowed, no rules changed or altered. The only houserule we've ever had was adapting the thrown weapon rule to allow characters to throw things like potions to each other.

We all have fun, have never had any issues or anyone not having fun. The GM is smart enough to come up with scenarios that challenge all the characters, spellcasters and melee alike. Roleplaying hasn't suffered a shred, we've had a few sessions where the dice weren't even rolled.

D&D is fine, you're all just spergs.

>> No.31890260

>I have never played with a Druid
>I have never seen someone cast Polymorph
Yeah, go fuck yourself.

>> No.31890264

I suppose this could be true. I guess it's just that consistently. Every D&D player who ever joined us was a fucking idiot in terms of Creativity that I just stopped allowing people to join us if they had years of D&D under their belt.

>I have NEVER received a competent player that previously played D&D.

>> No.31890268
File: 33 KB, 720x480, 1004685_558611180884932_1285215277_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It's because they are used to a system where there is a mechanic for everything. When a Fate GM asks that sort of stuff they're more stumped as to how to describe it to get the greatest effect.

D&D players are incapable of playing Fate. I've discovered this.

>> No.31890278

>tfw I describe every spell my character uses in detail playing Pathfinder

It's a mindset, it has nothing to do with the game. If someone is an uncreative block, they will be the same way in any game.

>> No.31890301

>implying I don't have a shifter druid or a sorcerer who uses an obscure splatbook that allows for instantaneous free metamagic who just loooves polymorph
so fucking what?

>> No.31890311


Not that guy, but do you only ever play with guys who try to crash the campaign with munchkin prowess?
Druids are without a doubt the strongest, but they can't solve every problem unless you allow munchkinry in general.

How about finding players who aren't assholes? I let my party make three martials (fighter, monk, and barbarian) with one caster, the caster twinked out like a god.. but only for support style effects, letting the martials kick the shit out of everything and everyone have fun. Because sometimes players like having fun.

>> No.31890316

Have you tried to be descriptive before in any D&D derived game? Half the table starts to slam you for trying to break the mechanics by saying "that isn't how the spell works" and the other half thinks you're trying to hog the spotlight as A: You're a spellcaster and B: You're OP as is.

>> No.31890324

I understand what you're saying. But D&D tries not at all to ENCOURAGE this kind of behavior, which is what gives it a boardgame like feel. Other systems encourage the fuck out of describing what and how you do things, but D&D just doesn't care. so it feels more like a baord game than a TTRPG. And considering it adopts new players, then teaches them NOTHING of role-playing. They are left witless when they approach OTHER games in the genre.

>> No.31890334

>But again building on the "Poisons players" thing.
Hmmmmmm... Are you SURE it's the game what's most responsible rather than them having ThatGuyism in the blood?

I met people in the past, who were simply AWFUL and they played different games, some had no knowledge bout any d20 based systems at all..

Anon, sorry to break it for you, but... You're not very special. I had that conversation a few times in the past and I suspect it's not the last either, which means that there's no need to waste time on this one - I'll find better disputants in the future, those matching my criteria of "fun".

Therefore pardon me, but for you and your excessive emotions it means "bye".

>> No.31890353

If you can't roleplay without the game system shoving it up your butt that's your failing

>> No.31890358

I've never had anyone slam me for doing any of that, mostly because I intentionally use spells in a way that does not outshine the rest of the party but instead make them more powerful. I occasionally use a big blast or battlefield control spell, but I play sorcerers and wizards because I want to play a caster, not because I want to break the game.

>> No.31890359

My experience is the same as this, 3.5, all books excluding setting books and I've only had one problem player ever and even that was just being a bit powerful as opposed to game breaking.
I purposefully avoid most discussions of 3.5 on tg because it will devolve into a spergfest of people telling other people their fun is wrong.

If 3.5 works in your play group, that's just jolly, carry on. If not, play something else.

>> No.31890363

Sounds, like most complaints, like a player problem.

>> No.31890392

"encouraging" and "Shoving it up your butt" are two entirely different things sir.

One is saying: "Try to get the players to describe how they do things as actions."

And the other is "FORCE THEM TO ROLE-PLAY."

I think you're supremely missing the point.

>> No.31890414

Pathfinder was my first RPG, it didn't "poison" me against roleplaying.

I think the issue is with younger players who are obsessed with "winning" what is, at its core, a cooperative storytelling game with no win condition. These people would be awful at any TTRPG, and would be better off playing video games.

But those of you who have made up your mind to turn 3.5/PF into the /tg/ bogeyman will not understand this. Every PF thread must become "muh druids."

>> No.31890433
File: 54 KB, 303x700, aviatrix_by_tghermit-d4jgxn5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Trust me, I have. and even outside of D&D. All because people think if you start describing details you gotta roll some sort of skill or something to justify your flourish, and some sort of mechanical thing to said flourish.

D&D spawned players don't know the concept of fluff and it really trips them out when my current DM allows us to fluff what we do (and the particularly creative get bonuses). Breath of fucking fresh air...

>> No.31890435


>> No.31890460
File: 6 KB, 788x75, quote_have you played DD.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>It can if it remains the only thing you know...
Anon, we're talking about hobby that relies heavily on knowing things, learning about things, studying things. If one is above simple google query, especially if the game he plays seems somewhat broken, then sorry, but such people are beyond any redemption.

I don't believe that people will spend time playing something that doesn't deliver fun for them, BUT makes them feel superior. Come on.

> D&d sucks the life out of the game once you have to actually use the system
It reminds me of an old conversation I witnessed around here - pic related.

>> No.31890471

the point is it doesn't matter. Some people will enjoy making their own descriptions while some are content to rely on the descriptions provided in the book. Neither one is "better" roleplaying, one is just better acting.

>> No.31890492

>How about finding players who aren't assholes?
How about stop trying to defend a shitty, broken system?

>> No.31890518

lol, how about stop blaming a game system for shitty, broken players?

>> No.31890566

Or, get this: I can keep blaming the system for being a broken piece of shit, since it doesn't take a player trying to break the system to make it break. How about that?

>> No.31890587

well you're free to be an idiot all you like, just keep your nonsense to yourself.

>> No.31890601

>if you play a druid having no knowledge about what they are capable of and use the class features that they automatically get you are a shitty player
Look at you.

>> No.31890605

> Therefore pardon me, but for you and your excessive emotions it means "bye".

I can't say that it surprises me that when provided direct evidence against "dps" being the issue you are quick to bow out after trying to turn the discussion into some smear campaign by disregarding arguments because I insulted you while making them. I only hope that casual readers will also recognize you for the dullard you are.

>> No.31890616


>> No.31890630

So wait a moment...
You're seeking a system that will allow you to play with shitty people, those who are above quick "fix" and who enjoy breaking the rules?

This is getting more and more hilarious.

>> No.31890646

So, do you object to the idea that a standard druid outshines a ton of classes without attempting to do so, or the idea that outshining classes is bad?

>> No.31890650

I completely agree. What I was getting at was that d&d fights are not fun or exciting. Most of the time they are slow and posses no feeling of real risk.

No resources are permanently expended, getting hit just means hit point go lower for a while.

Usually there is no reason to take proper risks since fight has only one strategy that clearly dominates others.

>> No.31890705

What you don't understand is that YOU are the one who is choosing to approach all challenges in the way that makes the numbers work the best and poses the least risk.

YOU need a numbers/EXP/some sort of incentive to roleplay.

>> No.31890721

>YOU are the one who is choosing to approach all challenges in the way that makes the numbers work the best and poses the least risk.
That's basic strategy. Why would you not do that?

>> No.31890724

I'm so glad that my first time back to /tg/ (I was going to ask for a pdf but found it before I posted) in a year or two and this is front page.

"/tg/ can't be trolled" they used to say.


>> No.31890774

Well, I'm on 4chan reading your posts.

It isn't fun, but boy, do I feel superior!

>> No.31890778

And you are the same as the person earlier saying that the wargaming mindset is bad for TTRPGs?

>> No.31890791
File: 37 KB, 555x448, Nice Things Cat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

That used to be the case, then the spergs and questfags took over.

>> No.31890795

It's not a wargaming mindset, you fucking retard, that's a basic problem solving mindset.

>> No.31890796

I feel that as a system it encourages the kind of competitive behaviour akin to computer games.

I suspect it is because 90% of the game is about what your character does in combat, but I could be wrong.

>> No.31890835

/tg/ always lied to itself about that
For every troll thread that fa/tg/uys turned on its head there were far, far more that they fell for hook, line, and sinker.

>> No.31890867


Sorry hoss, this is bullshit. You're the one who demands that certain playstyles should be off limits, yet you're defending the system that incentivizes these playstyles. You shouldn't have to deliberately play the game wrong in order for it to work well, that's just another example of shoddy-ass design making players jump through hoops that shouldn't be there in the first place.

>> No.31890898

I'd say "how right you are"

but I remember /tg/ was trollable long before questfags

"2e is diablo"

he he he

>> No.31890901

Yes, but you COULD participate in different threads. You picked this one and are still here for a reason...

>> No.31890914

never more has anything more true been said

could /tg/ truly heal?

I'm laughing at all the personal attacks made on various editions of D&D.

It's like watching grade school children bicker about which flavour of dunkaroos is the best.

>> No.31890931

No I don't. In and outside of combat I roleplay as much as I can because that is where I find the fun. Problem is that the system slow me down and limits me.

I don't expect reward, I just want to tell a good story and d&d system gets in the way. I want a system and a DM supports creation of a good story.

>> No.31890940

Look at this dickbag, hahahaha

>> No.31890943

>I'm laughing at all the personal attacks made on various editions of D&D.
Then it's "fun", right?

>> No.31891029

>without attempting to do so

This is the problem.
A druid has to take deliberate action to outshine people.
Sure, you could wildshape into a bear and be a better fighter than Fighters. Or you could wildshape into a wolf and assist your party members with their Trip instead of being an asshole and taking all the thunder.
You won't outshine people "by accident". It's your own choices.

>> No.31891048
File: 215 KB, 1275x1650, grapple_flow_chart-01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Yes, how on earth could someone think D&D contains stupidly complicated rules.

Oh! And here's something fun to think about. A wizard casts Disintegrate on the Tarrasque. How many rolls will it take to figure out what it does?

>> No.31891066
File: 38 KB, 500x550, Someone-is-wrong-on-internet.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Mostly because DnD threads are full of idiots I can feel smugly superior to. It's not fun. It's something my mind is wired to do.

Idiots defending 3.5 and PF's very real failings with every fallacy under the sun is the ultimate bait for me.

>> No.31891075

Having a DM that supports the creation of a good story is VASTLY more important than having a system that does.

Although I agree that there are systems that are better, for some reason I still prefer pathfinder. I even play martial characters more than half the time.

>> No.31891080

>A druid has to take deliberate action to outshine people.
The fact that they can do it at all is a mark against the system and your argument is ignoring people that like bears can break the system without intending to.

It's also ignoring that someone who likes Zorro and wants to play Zorro is automatically shit when playing 3.5. Why is that acceptable?

>> No.31891082

How's thinking "bears are cooler than wolves" and then turning into a bear not accidentally outshining the fighter?

>> No.31891093
File: 70 KB, 729x520, Idiocracy is Edition Wars.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I just want to step into the thread and back-up that I am 100% on anon's side.

The reason I get kicked out of every game isn't because of any possible fault of mine. Those two dozen games were all the systems fault.

Hell, if you didn't count sessions less than an hour you could say I've never played, but I've sure read a Brilliant Gameologist thread or 400 while I'm not playing.

Just like him I am a superb role-player just being held back by the simpletons brainwashed by DnD.

Every problem my group had where I was kicked out was due to the system's poor design forcing all of them to not Role-play and convincing them to kick out the real super-genius, me.

If only you plebs would understand, it's really so sad and pathetic how you can't.

>> No.31891117

Let's start with the fact that you believe DPS matters. Let's... let's just start there. This is a long, magical journey through the land of Oz, and "DPS matters" is just meeting the Munchkins.

>> No.31891118

>I'm laughing at all the personal attacks made on various editions of D&D.

Yanno, it's pretty fucking telling when you identify with your favorite system to the degree that cirticism of the system is a matter of personal attacks all of a sudden.

Seriously bub, you're quite literally whiteknighting a RPG system, and if that isn't the depth of patheticness then I don't know what is.

>> No.31891126
File: 30 KB, 315x332, 1386874916576 (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

That's an ironic picture when nearly every "argument" getting "defeated" in this thread wasn't actually stated by any person who said "But I and thousands of people play it and role play with no problems?"

It just got straw-manned into something actually attackable.

I imagine some of the more veteran people feel a little smug looking at you when you can't see both sides..

>> No.31891145

Quick, imagine a monster that'd make a good challenge for your players. Now stat it up in Pathfinder.

Okay, now stat it up in a better system.

Which one took longer? Which one was easier? Which one would you be more willing to do over and over?

>> No.31891170

Ooh ooh, the second one!

And I'm one of the Pathfinder supporters.

Now explain your point.

>> No.31891206

It's that there are better systems in the world, like saying chicken sucks and no one should eat chicken because beef is better.

>> No.31891207

...good point, making custom monsters in pathfinder takes like 15-20 minutes per, longer if I'm designing 'boss' encounters.

>> No.31891221

>It's not fun.
Anon, do you know what "opportunity cost" (microeconomics) is?

Allow me to answer with pic related. >>31888668

Anon, it might not be a pinnacle of elegance & intuition, but so what? It's not rocket physics either + you don't really spend all the time grappling. It's not uncommon to have TEs where opponents die before reaching the PCs.

Or vice-versa, unfortunately.

> A wizard casts Disintegrate on the Tarrasque
Good to have him in party then, I suppose? BTW, if I'd be that DM, I wouldn't summon Tarrasque to fight someone who can easily get rid of him...

>> No.31891242

>eating beef over chicken

Do you even lift?

>> No.31891255

>Eating Chicken over Fish

>> No.31891273

Chicken breast has more protein per calorie, although fish is also pretty good.

>> No.31891284
File: 62 KB, 580x750, 1367382333836.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Actually there are better systems in the world. And we all know what the worst system is. I won't mention it's name here for the sake of sanity and avoiding triggers.

>> No.31891304

>"But I and thousands of people play it and role play with no problems?"

Yeah, that's actually a fallacy in itself. Actually it's at least two, one for equating your own subjective perception (what you find fun) to an objective quality of the game (it being badly designed/broken), and two, for Argumentum ad populum, thinking that because thousands of people are making the same mistake, you are right.

Could also possibly be confirmation bias and no true scottsman at work, if I squint really hard at it. Also the rest of your post could be possibly considered fallacy fallacy, as even if we agree that the positions that are attacked are strawmen (I don't think so, but I'm rolling with it) this doesn't mean that the attacks are not valid, as the game does have these faults (even if you didn't defend those; and I can see that you did not, since you keep shifting goalposts like it's your fucking dayjob). i.e. even if you didn't say "well, caster supremacy didn't exist", people saying "full casters are broken as fuck" are no less right in asserting it as a reason for the game being a piece of shit.

>> No.31891320




>> No.31891329

Look, for a junkie, shooting up is not fun.

It's like that. I'm compelled. I'm an autistic man child.

Doesn't make me wrong though.

>> No.31891341

They're not making it as a statement to support an argument that Pathfinder is good.

They're using it to point out that Pathfinder isn't unplayable or "unfun".

You don't even understand their basic premise.

>> No.31891356

Actually, they're not making the argument for that, they're just getting attacked for that by people looking for easy straw mans.

>> No.31891379


>"But I and thousands of people play it and role play with no problems?"

It's because the people who say that aren't even discussing the topic at hand. This thread is discussing a group of RPG systems, those people are talking about their personal games. There things aren't necessarily related, as it is possible to have a fun game with a bad system. This doesn't make the bad system good, however.

Now, can we finally lay down this whole dumb line of misdirection to rest?

>> No.31891383

It's saying that yes, the system matters to the GM. It makes a difference in the amount of prep time, and any GM willing to put forth the effort to make original content for his/her games is going to need prep time. If (s)he's putting in an hour, with which system is the group going to get a better-prepared experience?

And how many original facets does said creature have?

That doesn't even save you on time. It just means you're using computer paper instead of lined paper.

>> No.31891385

>Look, for a junkie, shooting up is not fun.
Ask a junkie about that. Ones who live near me claim otherwise.

> It's like that. I'm compelled. I'm an autistic man child. Doesn't make me wrong though.

It does. By making your "proof" irrelevant. If you're "an autistic man child" then you're not a very good example for people we discuss here.

>> No.31891398
File: 97 KB, 882x681, 1245912879674.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Shifting goal-posts? I just came started posting, it took a long time and a lot of laughter to read all the posts..

Are you saying that because those arguments can be made, that it's okay for people to attribute it to other anon's and attack them saying all their points are wrong?

What is this, highschool debate club?

>> No.31891416

All unique abilities, customized immunities, and a general battle strategy

>> No.31891431

>BTW, if I'd be that DM, I wouldn't summon Tarrasque to fight someone who can easily get rid of him...

Well that is the mark of a great game if ever I heard one. The ultimate scourge of the land is outclassed by a single otherwise unremarkable player.

>> No.31891444

>That doesn't even save you on time.
It does. 3-4 clicks and I have monster fully stated, ready to be deployed to the battlefield.

> It just means you're using computer paper instead of lined paper.
It means that it took me 10 secs to come up with a solution to the challenge.

BTW, I have plenty of other generators ready.

>> No.31891473
File: 541 KB, 612x2550, 20130606.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Now, can we finally lay down this whole dumb line of misdirection to rest?
This please

>> No.31891500

>Well that is the mark of a great game if ever I heard one.
Not really. It'd reduce gargantuan Hate Engine to "just another tactical encounter".

In situation like this, I'd rather choose Tucker's Kobolds.

>> No.31891501
File: 149 KB, 800x800, 1947451_908316712531116_1508980563_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Actually using fallacies in a debate makes you look like a moron on any logical discernment of your argument.

It's a legit consideration when making a point, otherwise it degrades into a schoolyard argument, which we're seeing right here in this thread.

>> No.31891521

>ultimate scourge of the land
>some generic creature the devs made

>> No.31891566
File: 26 KB, 362x360, 20100512after.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Oh, got it, your argument was legitimate because, oh wait.

I can argue that 4chan is a website on the internet, it's not what you were talking about, but your argument is stupid because I made an argument tangentially related because we're on 4chan.

>> No.31891576

>This thread is discussing a group of RPG systems, those people are talking about their personal games.
And they are claiming that the game/s is/are objectively bad, flawed and people shouldn't play it.

To which "thousands of people enjoy it" is actually quite ok argument.

>> No.31891603

You don't know what Tarrasque is and was in the past, do you?

>> No.31891605

Eh, close `nuff

>> No.31891631

...a creature created by D&D developers?

>> No.31891661

I'm not asking how it was made and by whom, but WHAT it stands and stood for, but ok, you gave me all answers I sought.

>> No.31891671

A sort of dragon with a lion's head, six short legs like a bear's, an ox-like body covered with a turtle shell, and a scaly tail that ended in a scorpion's sting?

>> No.31891677


No, it isn't as that answer is discussing a related yet separate subject. It isn't pertaining to whether D&D as a system is bad or not, just the mere possibility of having a fun time while playing D&D.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anybody has claimed that it is literally impossible tfor anyone to have fun while also playing D&D. Now, can we finally lay down this whole dumb line of misdirection to rest?

>> No.31891681

But the prep time only helps if the players are doing what you expect them to do.

If the player decide to do something unexpected you either need to railroad them, make up something that may not work at all, or take time out of playing.

Besides I would rather my GM spend his time on making up cool characters, events and setting than statting some monsters

>> No.31891687

It doesn't stand for anything, it was just a nigh unkillable stat block for use in the setting bundled with the D&D rulebooks.

>> No.31891716

4th Option, follow with unexpected path, make world react in believable way.

>> No.31891786

You're not making any sense.

>> No.31891815
File: 44 KB, 407x510, 1395443154670.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Says he doesn't believe he's using Strawmen

>Goes on to say that attributing different arguments to people and asserting them to be false and stupid is "no less right"

>> No.31891838

My point was that it is difficult to do that fast and easy in D&D, while maintaining appropriate challenge level.

I may be wrong, maybe good DMs can stat a fight in a minute or two using D&D,

>> No.31891841

> No, it isn't as that answer is discussing a related yet separate subject.
It is, THE answer Anon. So it happens that it is the answer to ALL problems anybody has with any game, no matter what they could be. Fix it or leave it to people who won't mind, or won't need to do that.

>And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anybody has claimed that it is literally impossible tfor anyone to have fun while also playing D&D.
Yep, there was some Anons ITT that claimed that people play popular systems (D&D included) only because they were forced to to that courtesy of advertising. And the argument "there's no fun in it" was used.

>> No.31891908

me too.. been the GM/DM for whatever my group has played for 12 years. 12 years. 12 years since i got a chance to play a single PC instead of everyone else in the entire world. i need a vacation

>> No.31891914

More than likely with experience, though I'm sure many who spend a hell of a lot of time playing just know how to make the DC's work because they have a good math-mind.

Y'know, quarter-stat, that kind of stuff.

>> No.31891937

>I may be wrong, maybe good DMs can stat a fight in a minute or two using D&D,
People playing RPGs usually have libraries of stuff ready to be used in times of need. Monsters, encounters, places, NPCs, whole subquests.

Because of that, the argument "do it quick" is irrelevant unless we're talking about total newbies...

>> No.31891939
File: 65 KB, 675x456, Make a Wish, Link.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I'ma a perma-GM by choice, going on.. only 3 years? Couldn't be happier.

Everyone's different, though.

>> No.31891987


Shit on a stick, dude. I can't make it any clearer than it already is. Claims made about a system can't be answered with claims made about a game being fun as that is the end result between the interactions of players, GM and system. The process itself matters so much that your outcome in an isolated case can't be used as an determinant of the quality of the system itself.

It's like hearing someone say that the water in a well tastes bad and you answering that no, you took some of that water, filtered and boiled it and made tea out of it and the tea tasted good. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever and is just a misdirection away from discussing the system itself on its own merits.

>> No.31891999

I wonder if it would blow your mind to play something old school like Rappan Athuk for S&W where one encounter might feel easy and the next is unbeatable if you don't run..

>> No.31892043 [DELETED] 

>Has the opinion that the system interacting with the GM and players can't be accounted for, a good opinion.
>States it as fact.

Opinion discarded.

>> No.31892187
File: 3.53 MB, 640x360, 1390680413325.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Any good system does not get in the way of the story at the table. It's only there when absolutely necessary.

Sadly D&D is very poor at doing this, as it is designed to force rules into every interaction the players have with the world. Yet all new players I've seen start out in the D&D paradigm.

It's hard for them to go from a Gamist system to a Narrativist system without them either trying to break the game for an advantage or try to justify everything on their sheet with mechanics and not fluff.

Pic: That one zone? You're in it.

>> No.31892195

> Claims made about a system can't be answered with claims made about a game being fun as that is the end result between the interactions of players, GM and system.
But we can, Anon. And we will. It's not a fallacy. It's a reality check - the one that makes you ask yourself if the game is really broken, or if it simply doesn't match your tastes and needs.

Mostly, "that game is shit" threads rely on this kind of logic. "It doesn't work for me, I find the rule stupid/flawed" -> therefore it must be wrong, bad, flawed, broken, imperfect and crap.

But it's not. And people playing it, having fun with it and not complaining on parts some other people complain to are all the proof we need.

You might argue it's a different problem, but it is not. Really.

> Fix it, abandon it, both are acceptable, just don't pretend it's a bad game, because it doesn't work for you.

>> No.31892225

Some people like their game to be rules heavy and tell them what they can do in all instances.

See: Fantasy Craft/Pathfinder/Gurps/Descent 2e

But.. but.. Badwrongfun!

>> No.31892264

I just wanted to note, some of my most arduous D&D problems have centered around classes people do not feel are very powerful, but with the wrong player, believe me they dominate the game.

It can be very difficult to set the bar for a party when one person is just tearing through everything.

My main goal when i am running a game is to make the players feel like their characters are being challenged and facing real danger. Making encounters, I really try and focus on enough danger that some characters may die, but a good team would not.

I've had these same problems pop up in other systems. I say it is really about your players and not the system.

>> No.31892307

>Inquisitors/Factotum equivalent

I know what you mean, the ability to dominate every variance of encounter whether social, skill, or battle...

If it's backed up by a party member who just crafts for them, it's pretty ugly..

>> No.31892387

>But.. but.. Badwrongfun!
Ah yes, the ultimate argument.

>> No.31892389


Nope, son. That popularity equals quality is and always has been bullshit.

>> No.31892402

>implying people don't use "b-but modding!" to justify not caling shitty vidya gaems shitty

Unfortunaely, the fallacy you oppose is not as limited to tabletoppers as you think.

>> No.31892446

Once again, not an argument for quality, it's an argument that the people saying it's objectively bad and not fun and unplayable have demonstrable proof otherwise.

Of course, just pick a different argument and stick to it.

>Calling Dark Souls shitty
Fuck you!

>> No.31892520

>dark souls didn't ruin demon's souls



>> No.31892530
File: 50 KB, 550x550, thumb up woody.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Naw son, it is not, when the GAMES or similar product that serve no other purpose than having fun are discussed. You know, those that you have no trouble finding alternatives too...


> ad nausea...

>> No.31892550


>> No.31892564

>implying I was talking about Dark Souls

I was more thinking of every Bethesda game ever. Especially Oblivion.

Also, Dark Souls was a shitty PORT of a superb GAME. Even the guys who did the porting admit that the port was shit.

>> No.31892579
File: 149 KB, 768x900, 1382935220960.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I can think of a game that gives me personally more fun than Pathfinder, therefore Pathfinder is an opportunity cost, waste of time, and no fun for everyone else.

>> No.31892584

>it is not, when the GAMES or similar product that serve no other purpose than having fun are discussed

And this is why Monopoly is one of the bestselling games of all time.

>> No.31892601

Wait, are you saying 4e > Pathfinder?

>> No.31892628

No, I'm saying Pathfinder>3.5e DnD

>> No.31892647

Depends, I'd say it's more like this:

Pathfinder without guns > 3.5 > Pathfinder with guns

>> No.31892648

It DID pretty much fix everything about 3.5

>> No.31892674

>This is what retards actually believe
Dazing Spell.

>> No.31892692


>> No.31892703

Ok so you STRONGLY believe that 3.5 is better than pathfinder, but why?

>> No.31892725

What's up with guns anyways?

Barbarians do way more damage and have a much larger attack bonus that nearly matches a gunslingers ability to ignore DR/Armor.

And a lot more damage to boot.

>> No.31892730

In no way did pathfinder fix everything wrong with 3.5 and there are plenty of changes it did that were bad choices mechanicly.

I am not saying Pathfinder is worse, but it certainly is no better by any great leaps or bounds.

I would play either with a group no matter what classes or races they chose as long as I HAD FUN.

>> No.31892738

Man, a ton of people have fucking flat out stated that "D&D is impossible to have fun with" and "D&D has flaws when you hold it to reasonable standards that you would judge any game by" are not the same statement. We can't make this shit any clearer.

>> No.31892742

Ah, you're the guy who refused to answer that earlier.

Actually no, Anon. Opportunity Cost doesn't work that way. In that case, OC is the game you'd wish to play, but can't.

> /tg/ teaches economics

>> No.31892765

>Ok so you STRONGLY believe that 3.5 is better than pathfinder, but why?
Binder, ToB, 3.5 Bard, 3.5 Warlock, Dragonfire Adept, Psychic Rogue, Factotum, Dread Necromancer, Wildshape Ranger.

All of those are reasonably balanced classes that Pathfinder doesn't have a good answer for.

>> No.31892767

That's why playing pathfinder with guns is objectively bad.

They don't fit into the setting, they don't fit into the rules, they just muck things up and look stupid.

>> No.31892786

That's cool, now stop switching arguments in your emotional war against Pathfinder

>> No.31892788

Uh 3.5 bard doesn't do anything...

Like it's a dead class. If by balanced you mean "this is a trap choice that can't do anything" then yeah it's balanced

>> No.31892805

Yeah, no, the 3.5 Bard kicks the shit out of the Pathfinder Bard.

>> No.31892811
File: 60 KB, 392x404, opinion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.31892824
File: 1.28 MB, 500x281, 73890-hell-yeah-motherfucker-gif-ani-ynsk.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I'm just happy this thread is posting itself into auto-sage. Very, very satisfied.

I'm just amazed how the /tg/ of 2014 is into self-immolation. Must be summer early this year.

>> No.31892835
File: 1.65 MB, 741x2096, theory_pfrpg summoners.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>All of those are reasonably balanced classes that Pathfinder doesn't have a good answer for.
> Implying we need any other class than pic related

>> No.31892869

Ok play with your reality breaking toy guns that do less damage than someone with an axe.

No really, keep doing that, I'll just remember to never play with you because you think that little pissy guns which don't make sense are ok

>> No.31892885

We're not even auto-saging yet...

They're just old musket guns, and they can bunch through adamantine.

>> No.31892906

Yet, you'll come to any other discussion featuring people arguing over D&D/PFRPG and you'll use same arguments...

That's actually what makes summer a good thing - among same threads not very relevant to /t/g there will be also a small group of people, who will deliver interesting, original arguments rather than same old, boring stuff...

>> No.31892916
File: 621 KB, 697x400, 1395348864559.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Oh? We're almost there. Every post brings it closer to oblivion.

>> No.31892933

Thanks for allowing me to do that the way I want. Much appreciations Anon-kun.

>> No.31892985

Making an argument and then asking the person listening to you to actually pay attention isn't switching arguments.

>> No.31893013

They're only original if you're brand new..

No, but switching the argument when one person says they weren't making the argument you were asserting they were is.

Secretly, I long for the oblivion.

>> No.31893063

>people are saying it's objectively bad and fun and unplayable
>no they aren't
>stop switching arguments lol

>> No.31893079

>They're only original if you're brand new..
...still more original than what this thread deliver.

>> No.31893101
File: 7 KB, 205x204, Das it Mane.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Why do people hate DnD so much?
Well think about fried chicken. Picture it in your mind. that's what you eat. Every meal. Every day. Every week. Every month. Year after year after year. Forever.

It doesn't matter if you like fried chicken or you don't. You're gonna get sick of it real fucking fast if it's the only thing you ever get to eat.

>> No.31893191
File: 457 KB, 660x600, 1219200376767[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Never been to America, have you?

>> No.31893233

Uh dude, I eat fried chicken all the freaking time and I never get tired of it. I'm completely okay with eating it every single day.

>> No.31893261
File: 734 KB, 684x2616, TG trying to play games with human beings.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I know, the picture doesn't fit.

It has someone using good, sound argument.

>> No.31893275

And people like you are why the rest of us are sick of DnD.

>> No.31893319

Holy shit I was seething at the level of idiocy in this thread, but you saved it with this. Please keep posting. It truly appalls me that, in defense of D&D 3.PF, people are writing off any flaw in ANYTHING as "that's just, like, your opinion, man"

>> No.31893331

>Stop liking what I don't like

>> No.31893358

>Actually being so stupid he can dismiss every thing contrary to his opinion as people just dismissing arguments as opinions.

>> No.31893421

My opinions ARE facts.

`nuff said

>> No.31893564

Please refer to >>31889060
It's not really a stretch at all to sum up this bullshit as "I don't care about the list of what makes this game confusing, unbalanced, and much more difficult to use than countless other systems, I'm still going to assert that it's a quality game and deflect any criticism of it as a completely subjective opinion with no meaning!".

>> No.31893597

Stupid people gettin` their rustles jimmied by intelligent people not sharing their opinions.

I'm shocked!

>> No.31893633

So one anon makes the (reasonable if faulty) argument that the game works for a shit-ton of people and has since the year 2000.

That means every argument made by everyone else is right, hallelujah for you.

>> No.31893667

Never true. Even back in the vaunted Golden Days before the Mods we got constantly trolled. "elf slave; wat do?", "why is /tg/ so athiest?", and half dozen or so variants would regularly show up and hit the bump limit and start a fresh thread two or times a night.

>> No.31893736

You could try asserting a nice list about what makes the game confusing, unbalanced, and much more difficult to use than countless other systems.

Or even just one example of all three of those.

Or even one example of someone asserting it's a quality game in this thread.

Or any actual criticism.

Shit, anything at all?

>> No.31893826

Your stupid, all of that was already said and I can't be bothered to repeat it.

>> No.31893875

Have you even read this thread?

>> No.31893914

Ha, beat you too it.

>> No.31893986
File: 68 KB, 576x440, 1398489654346.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.31894019

I know this is a troll, but I think it's hilarious that this post asserts that I didn't read the thread even though every single one of those things was covered in previous posts. Some humorous shit, thanks for the laugh

>> No.31894075
File: 49 KB, 704x441, 1386215936866.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Going to say, I've started a lot of threads down this path. (The easiest way is 3.5 vs Pathfinder)

There's a big group of people who love to concern troll and pretend for both sides on IRC.

This one has by far the most few anti-Pathfinder arguments, and also more REALLY weak Pro-Pathfinder arguments compared to any in the past couple months.

However, the anti-PF arguments are getting worse, which implies the intelligent anons are getting tired enough to hide the threads instead of waste time.

This thread seemed to have quite a few more pro-PF anon's than normal. Which implies either more reasonable people are speaking up, or more people who actually play are posting.

I'll need to get some of the long-time veterans to participate next time.

>> No.31894103
File: 1.10 MB, 270x287, 1332801221027.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.31894287

>or more people who actually play are posting.
I've played Pathfinder and every single negative opinion I have of the game - from shitty combat maneuvers that are impossible to pull off without specializing in them alone, to clunky mechanics, to class and build imbalance, to retarded bullshit like Dazing Spell - comes from seeing all of these things happen in play with a DM who stayed close to the rules.

You can pretend all you want that the people who don't like Pathfinder have never played it, but that's not true.

>> No.31894501
File: 477 KB, 695x559, 1365148143667.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Never played it
Sorry, I used "actually play" not, "have ever played for a half-hour before getting kicked out"

Just because you've played once with a shitty DM (Not even the Pathfinder term) doesn't make your non-existant argument more than fluff.

Besides, if you re-read my post I'll mention that many intelligent anon make arguments that seem superficially like yours, just that they have substance.

I believe a different anon in the thread already said "They keep thinking the right thing, but their conclusions are fucking wrong"

>> No.31894542
File: 178 KB, 625x790, cad-20100702-55f6d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

No one was brave enough to take this argument on, apparently, but I remembered it from earlier.

>> No.31894581

You're projecting hard.

>> No.31894619

Ooh, a tough argument, just about par for the thread.

I'll file that one under doodoo-head and cry myself to sleep.

>> No.31894668
File: 450 KB, 1434x1920, 1384053568632.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Shit, bringing out the big guns now.

>> No.31894684

Uh, are we in the same thread? The anti arguments consist of demonstrating how the game breaks, and the pro arguments consist of denying that it matters if the game breaks.

>> No.31894697

I'm not sure what else he was supposed to respond with to your accusations that he had never played "actually" the game. With a fucking manifest of his playtime?

It's pretty hard to carry on a rational argument when your testimony is responded to with, and only with
>You're a liar and also wrong

>> No.31894703

No, you just see it that way because your bias is so strong.

There are basically no pro arguments in the entire thread and the anti-arguments are shouting at thin air about what upsets them.

>> No.31894726

>Rational argument

Oh man, what was your argument even? I was pretty sure it was >>31893826

>> No.31894760

Not even that guy.

But you haven't 'actually' gone and read the perfectly valid point made, then?

>> No.31894788

>No, you just see it that way because your bias is so strong.
Listing broken mechanics is not biased in any way you trolling faggot.

>> No.31894794

Better than the one you're swinging around, Mr. >implying you've ever played Pathfinder for realsies

>> No.31894805

Except that in this very thread "the druid replaces the fighter by being a better hitter/tank than the fighter while also being able to cast spells" has been posted multiple times, and the response has been that the pro people don't care because they had fun once.

I really suggest that you read the thread.

>> No.31894839

WTF is with all the same-fagging.

The thread is autosaging, if you have N argument make it.

>> No.31894841

That's why no one can say it, right?
Because it was said before, and just it's too obvious.

>Listing broken mechanics because my opinion that they're broken is objective fact

>Not even having a point to back up.

>> No.31894852

I played a pathfinder game once. I made a finesse fighter. I got outclassed by the druid's animal companion.

But since that doesn't happen, I guess we weren't really playing pathfinder, and I wasn't really having a bad time?

>> No.31894867

>Listing broken mechanics because my opinion that they're broken is objective fact
'Crossbows are underpowered compared to throwing water balloons' is not an opinion and it's perfectly broken. Are you SKR?

>> No.31894894

>my opinion that they're broken is objective fact
If they aren't broken, why hasn't the pro side, you know, made that argument? They never start talking about math or what the fighter has that the druid doesn't, it's always "I like my friends so the brokenness doesn't matter."

>> No.31894927

What IS my argument?

I thought it was a simple observation on the thread's arguments, but apparently you're projecting pro-Pathfinder onto me?

What hilarious emotional bias.

was completely unrelated to my point, he just said "Never" which was something I didn't say in my post so I took it out on the stupid cunt.

>> No.31894953

Point in fact

>no pro arguments in the entire thread

>> No.31894963

>which was something I didn't say in my pos
"People who actually play Pathfinder" is a pretty clear indication of what you meant.

>> No.31894980

Right. Because arguments against the druid outclassing the fighter do not exist. This is why the imbalance is a fact, not a baseless opinion.

>> No.31895069
File: 126 KB, 300x169, 1382847962367.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Is it? Even when coupled with
>However, the anti-PF arguments are getting worse, which implies the intelligent anons are getting tired enough to hide the threads instead of waste time.

Sure, out of context, faggot

>Muh opinions are facts

>> No.31895107

>Muh opinions are facts
Druid > Fighter isn't an opinion no matter how hard you want to believe it is.

>> No.31895125

I explained why they are facts. Your response is, apparently, to say "no" without actually addressing anything anyone has said. Great job. A+.

>> No.31895179

Oh, you laid it out, please link the post.

I refuted it 100%, you must have missed it.

>> No.31895238


>> No.31895266

So your agument is "It's been posted many times and doesn't bear repeating"

Didn't someone already point this out?


>> No.31895291

Sorry, I meant your evidence. The argument is just restating opinion as fact.

>> No.31895559

Trollable Guys

>> No.31895564
File: 72 KB, 451x268, 1389904286160.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Sound of anons desperately digging through the thread for a place where their argument was made against someone asserting the opposite.

>My face as their minds grow in creativity as it develops new ways to maintain their imagined feelings of competence.

>> No.31898036

I don't hate the game, I just hate the players.
Wimpy little fuckers who think having an evil alignment is "cool" and lets them do whatever they want.
And pretty much any buttfucker from rpg net.
Primadonna fucks.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.