'>>92641213
You seem really good at winning arguments in your head.';

'>>92641213
Can you fucking explain what YOU are mad about without blabbing nonsense about fabricated scenarios? Do you hate people criticising D&D? Make an example and be specific about.';

'>>92641240
You're acting like what those losers do is "arguing" and not just "bitching."
That's a bad show on your part.';

'>>92641254
You sound like you're ramping up and looking for a chance to shitpost about how much you hate a game you don't play. Might be better to go to your containment board.
>/trash/';

'>>92641269
Gotcha, you're the schizophrenic anon going for another round of "le anti-d&d trolls" hunting, i was just trying to make sure of it. Fuck off and die boardshitter.';

'OP, its OK to like meh things. You don't have to get defensive when people point out DnD's flaws. Just say that you find some things positive about it, and get on with your life like a functioning member of society.';

'>>92641254
People criticising games is fine if they're doing it intelligently and fairly. Which is basically the opposite to the antics we see our contrarian trolls get up to here.

They'll complain about every single D&D mechanic. Every single one. Because no mechanic is perfect or flawless, that means any and all can be tossed into the fire that fuels their manufactured butthurt and rage.

The fuck are you even asking for a specific example for. We've got trolls who complain about everything because even an idiot can find something to complain about, regardless of what their target is.';

'>>92641319
The problem isn't pointing out a game's flaws.
It's exaggerating potential or even imaginary drawbacks, ignoring any benefits, and even listing problems with themselves as if they're issues with the mechanics.

it's always funny when shitposters try to justify their shitposting by pretending they're just innocently offering fair and unbiased opinions when asked for them.';

'>>92641213
It's silly to get mad at D&D "mechanics" anyway, because D&D is just a narrative system with detailed suggestions.
Just like it's silly to try to argue with D&D's defenders, because D&D is every good thing that every good DM has done with it and is every good thing everyone has to say about it, but doesn't have anything to do with any of the negatives.';

'>>92641374
Have you ever actually encountered anyone who said "D&D is perfect"?
No need to answer, because it's either going to be the truth and it will sink your own argument, or it's gonna be a lie and no one needs to hear any more from you.';

'>>92641387
Damn son that's cold.';

'What are some genuine awful ttrpg mechanics?
And i don't mean shit thats awfully complicated for shits and giggles, i mean shit that just makes shit boring.
>Adding catatonic state for Aliens thr TTRPG to the table of stress results
Thats my pic.
Basically, during the game there is the chance that you acumulate stress points for different shit you do. The higher your stress, the higher the chances to roll something that fumbles your role instead, and happens something from a table of stressfull actions.
Some are tolerable, like getting stunned for one turn, going berserk and attack the nearest shit to you like a friend or an alien, starting to scream out of nowhere (hilarious if you are sneaking around). And then, there is Catatonic State, which its like loosing a turn but longer, because it uses fucking in game time and can take an unsuffrable amount of time to take off.
And it can happen any time. If you rolled Catatonic state in the middle of combat, you are pretty much instantly down, even before something or someone even tries to kill you. You can't even properly roleplay or do anything at all, you are pretty much not talking to party members for the next half an hour to the next 2 hours until the GM remember you exist again.
Its pretty much a "waste around half the session doing nothing" mechanic.
If timed properly, it can be funny one or 2 times by instantly fainting like a b movie horror faggot witnessing anything, but if it happens to many times its a fucking bore.';

'>>92641426
>What are some genuine awful ttrpg mechanics?
A classic example is in the original Storyteller system, the more skilled you were, the more dice you rolled. And, while that was fine and dandy for the most part because it meant more opportunities to succeed, because of an oversight it also meant you had more opportunities to critically fail, meaning the more skilled you were, the more likely you were to not just fail, but fail catastrophically. This was clearly not intentional, and not just counter-intuitive but straight up illogical.

For the most part, we rarely see mechanics that bad, because they're identified pretty easily through playtesting, and even the Storyteller system fixed that flaw pretty early on.';

'>>92641387
Nobody is going to call anything perfect, especially not on this site where saying such things outs someone as a shill. D&D defenders have to be more sneaky about it by giving it credit for things it doesn't do and talking in circles.
If someone finds something wrong with the product they're expected to pay for, they can just rewrite it. When they rewrite it, their shitty houserules will never compare to the corporate product. Their shitty houserules will never compare to the corporate product they found flaws with that they had to rewrite.
When people say they had fun with D&D at their table, and asked how they got around this or that fault, they'll say that only autists play RAW, and that D&D is good because you rewrite what you don't like but your shitty houserules will never be as good as the corporate product you had to make houserules for to have fun and only autists play as written.
So there's no sense in talking to people who latch themselves onto D&D, because it's every good thing that it doesn't do, while what it doesn't do will never be as good as the product you have to change to have fun with.
It isn't about being perfect, it's about the cyclic logic that gives credit to a product that doesn't do what it's getting credit for and ignores the things that are wrong with it and ignores the bad things that bad people do with it.
So keep up your disingenuous campaign against everyone in this tiny spot on the internet who dares to say anything negative about your precious narrative system. You're really doing great.';

'>>92641521
lol, you are so fucking mad.';

'>>92641213
Kind of sounds like you are just venting your own autism.';

'>>92641521
Funny how you bitch and moan about houserules, and all just because houserules don't let you bitch and moan more.

I'll give you a hint though. People add houserules because TTRPGs are incredibly subjective, and every single system can be modified to be more suited to someone's personal tastes. That shouldn't make you so mad, it's one of the most attractive features of TTRPGs, and D&D goes out of its way to provide advice and tools to help people customize their games.

Jesus Christ you really are just a little bitch.';

'>>92641567
I don't have a horse in this race but
>D&D goes out of its way to provide advice and tools to help people customize their games.
Such as? I don't think D&D is especially geared for this purpose, no more than any other game in existence.';

'>>92641593
Depends on the edition, really. 4e was actually kind of relaxed in terms of providing behind-the-scenes advice and help, but that system itself was also pretty basic so most of the tools were just built in ways for DM's to improvise rules on the fly and advice on how to do so.

3.5 actually had tons and tons of variant rules and "Behind the Curtain" sections that explained everything from how to develop custom material for games to dramatically shifting the genre or tone of the game. Everything from changing out the dice, replacing or adding new stats, wound systems, dice pool systems, point-buy for class building, and even supplementary rules like mass combat rules, reputation trackers, and so on. For the most part, a good amount of that material was actually taken from earlier editions of D&D and even just lifted straight-up from other games.

5e has done a lot towards providing variant rules, but because of its much smaller page count thanks to Hasbro reducing the department to a skeleton crew, it really hasn't come close to the mountain of material available for 3rd edition. They were doing a bunch of variant/additional rule stuff in Unearthed Arcana at first, but that dried up and just became "New PC options" because that's what people kept requesting.';

'>>92641593
D&D has a lot of foundation to work from. Also, incredibly easy math. It's no surprise so many people use it as a base.';

'>>92641567
I'm not bitching and moaning about houserules. Reading the post, instead of getting upset and making a knee-jerk response about a point that wasn't made, reveals that the issue is the cyclic logic that's used to excuse the sale and defense of a low quality product, especially one that touts the title of being the best in its class.
[thing is good] > [but only with alterations] > [but alterations will never be as good as thing] > [which is good because of alterations] > [the alterations that are called out as being shit by comparison to the thing] > [the thing that needs alterations to be good] > [ad infinitum]

That aside, if the things you can do with it can be done with other products of its class, that isn't a point of proof for being better than the rest.
Pointing this out is always met with a snappy "b-but I personally d-don't have to ch-change as much from D&D" which ignores the fact that there are plenty of people who have either needed to overhaul the system with their houserules, or moved away from it to avoid the trouble.
And pointing THIS out always cycles back to "w-well that's n-not unique to D&D" or the more pathetic "n-no system is p-perfect", which means D&D isn't the best.

So here are your options, faggot:
>admit D&D is the garbage that a couple dozen anons in our little corner, out of the millions of people on the internet, say it is
>make the concession that there's no such thing as a good or bad system because they can all be altered, meaning D&D isn't the best anyway
>shut the fuck up and enjoy your glorified narrative system and circlejerk about it in your containment or on Reddit where you belong
But you won't do any of those, because you need to lead your little crusade against a handful of nameless nobodies, some of which probably actually are trolling, just because seeing these things said hurts you somehow for some reason.';

'>>92643919
Or we call you a dumb bitch complaining about nothing.
You can make alterations to things that are perfectly fine to better suit your tastes. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the original or there's anything wrong with liking the original.

How are you so fucking retarded.

It's not "THING ONLY GOOD WITH ALTERATIONS" like your bullshit strawman argument is demanding we accept. It's "Thing is good, but is improved/better suited to our tastes with alterations."

So, stop posting forever.';

'>But you won't do any of those, because you need to lead your little crusade against a handful of nameless nobodies, some of which probably actually are trolling, just because seeing these things said hurts you somehow for some reason.
It sucks being right.';

'>>92641426
Any flat probability curves are incredibly stupid. There's no tension, no play or counterplay, and all results are equally arbitrary. They might as well not exist.';

'>>92641521
This dude sucks corpo dick so bad he forgot what his own mouth tastes like.';

'>>92644190
You're really invested in being a stupid bitch, aren't you? Even to the point where you can see how wrong you are, and have absolutely no way of arguing your way out, and still you try to pretend you can claim victory just by ignoring the post that kills you dead.

Sorry, but you're a corpse. You apparently just refuse to see it.';

'>>92644190
Read the post.

>It's not "THING ONLY GOOD WITH ALTERATIONS" like your bullshit strawman argument is demanding we accept. It's "Thing is good, but is improved/better suited to our tastes with alterations."


Bam. Looks like there's more to this world than your limited imagination and options.';

'>>92643919
How about you take a look at these options:
>discuss games you actually play
>fuck off
You writing paragraphs of why you should be allowed to mindlessly bitch about something you don't understand or care to understand doesn't do anyone any favors.';

'>>92641319
I kind of wish our trolls would settle for D&D being "meh". But, they don't get any attention that way. That's why they need to push it all the way to it being terrible, and why they need to exaggerate and shitpost as much as they do.';

'>>92644203
>lucklet seethe
cry more faggot
luck is a skill';

'>>92644404
You really need to get a new material, shill. You alway make a clown of yourself despite being protected.';

'>>92644422
>shill
Whoa there lad, is that really how you planned on making a post with hopes of contradicting my statement that our trolls always feel the need to exaggerate and shitpost?';

'>>92644305
If the thing itself is good, why does it always come down to "rewrite what you don't like" when anyone brings up a problem?';

'>>92644386
How about you quit deflecting like a cunt or go to a D&D circlejerk?';

'>>92644404
I wish our actual trolls would understand their place here or leave.';

'>>92644708
Everyone aware that you are alone.';

'>>92644822
Because having flaws does not make something bad, you retard; it just makes it not perfect.

And, when a flaw is so minor that people can change it with an afterthought, it really becomes a question of why you feel the need to insist that it's some major catastrophe, except in order to exaggerate and shitpost like a troll.';

'>>92644844
Me too. This is a board for people who play traditional games, not for people who bitch about games they don't play just to get attention.';

'>>92641387
Yes.';

'>>92641426
Miss chance. Crit confirmation. Just resolving high level full attacks in 3.5 takes way too fucking long if you do it as intended and if you don't and instead bundle your attacks together for speed, you're rolling 4 dice for every attack roll.';

'>>92646212
Getting rid of auto hit with increasing bonus damage from AD&D was one of the worst mistakes ever made in WotC-era D&D.';

'>>92641213
>it's impossible to dislike something for more than one reason
at least pretend you aren't committing a basic fallacy';

'>>92641387
>Have you ever actually encountered anyone who said "D&D is perfect"?
yes, on this board in fact';

'>>92646294
>it's impossible to invent a hundred fake reasons when the real reason is just you're looking for something to complain about
You really must be slow if you're that far behind in figuring out what's being discussed.';

'>>92641213
Give a single example.';

'>>92646382
You not liking them doesn't make them fake.';

'>>92646885
Them being fake makes them fake.
Really, let's just look at it from the perspective of people who are aware of where they are.

This is 4chan. You are not expected to give people the benefit of the doubt when they do everything they can to show they don't deserve it. To even ask for that is ridiculous. This is an anonymous message board where there are no shortage of trolls, so the very last thing anyone should ever do is see someone trolling, and then go "Hmm, I wonder if I should extend to them the benefit of the doubt?"

Hell, we're not even talking about particularly clever trolling. The most basic trolling that's done on every single board is to pick a topic that's either popular or controversial on that board, and shitpost about it. That's as basic as it gets. And, on /tg/. the most popular game just happens to be D&D. According to every single survey, every single poll and census, D&D is the most played and most discussed game, so it makes itself quite an ideal target for trolls.

So, why? Why should your empty, braindead, exaggerated complaints that take an average yet popular game and somehow try to transform it into the worst game of all time by taken seriously? What makes you different from the trolls in /v/ who complain about Nintendo or the trolls in /ck/ who complain about coffee? Why should you be treated differently, when you could do what everyone else does, and just stick to discussing games you actually play?

If you wanted your complaints to be taken seriously, you'd have to do it from a stance quite different than that of an attention whore troll. But, instead, you seem to lean into it, and then wonder why you're treated like one.';

'>>92647041
They're not fake. Cry about it.';

'>>92647041
You really couldn't find a D&D thread to do your usual routine so you went and fucking made one? Mister "why aren't you talking about something you like instead of saying mean things about the one game system I care about?!" concern troll? What happened to trying to improve the board?';

'>>92647068
I'm happy for you or sorry that happened, but you failed to make any kind of argument. Nice try at a dodge though.';

'>>92641213
>Player hates mechanic because it is from dnd
>It's from CoC
>Player tries to gaslight you into thinking you didn't get it from CoC and it is a piece of shit mechanic because it is from dnd
>Player changes subject when you offer to quote the book
Why do some people go to such extreme lengths to justify their dislike of things? When was "I don't like this thing just because." not a good enough reason?';

'>>92647338
It absolutely is you and you've never been a huger faggot than you are now.';

'>>92647540
You're still not making any argument how your trolling is somehow different from that of any other of the most trolls you find on other boards.

It seems like you're just getting madder.';

'>>92647586
I can't imagine how sad your life must be';

'>>92647615
>no argument, still mad
Seems like a good time for you to never return to this website.';

'>>92647586
I wasn't even the one arguing with you, but it's really cute how whenever you get called out you resort to this NOT AN ARGUMENT shtick, because you can't respond to anything on its own merit. You have to do this faggy debate club routine while everyone laughs at you.';

'>>92647707
Most people don't care one way or the other.

You're just a basic troll who's just happy that a game he hates happens to still be the most popular game here so he can continue to shitpost about it. I don't understand why you think you'd have a grand audience. Even if anyone cared about watching you get massacred for failing to form any argument as to how you're not just this board's version of a basic bitch troll, it stands to reason it would just be another basic bitch troll.

Everyone else is busy talking about games they actually play. Try it sometime.';

'>>92641213
Did you make an entire thread to complain about this schizo rambling instead of posting about games you like?';

'>>92647772
Most people who are long enough on the boar already have learned what kind of schizo you are and what's your shtick. Do you honestly not realize that repeating over and over a couple of batshit insane but worded in the same manner things make you clearly visible despite being on the AIB?';

'>>92649455
You act like your repetitive trolling is invisible.

And, you still have zero argument. Weird how you keep dodging, keep trying to point a finger at anyone else, and still can't come up with a single reason why you're not the most basic bitch of basic bitch trolls.';

'>>92641345
This. It's dishonest and unobjective criticism.

To get another example it's like how most video game (((reviewers))) remain unethical and opposed to the idea of objective judgment of a game.';

'>>92641493
That's... That's not how storyteller worked. Are you retarded or just a nogames?';

'>>92641593
>Such as?
Such as nothing. The closest you'll get is that some editions boiled down monster design to pure mathematics of meat points and DPR to tell you what level you should throw something at the party.';

'>>92649892
Yes it was. Rolling a 1 subtracted a success. TN 10 checks did not care about your dice pool size because of it.';

'>>92649892
There's more than one storyteller system. Every oWoD book was basically its own core system, revising and changing how the game worked, often dramatically.

Rolling 1's contributed to critical failures. You do need to not roll enough hits for them to matter (though some versions also make 1's subtract from your total hits), but rolling more dice still gives you a higher chance of rolling more 1's. That means that even though a more skilled person did have a higher chance of succeeding a roll, it also meant that when they did fail, they had a higher chance for it to be a critical failure.';

'>>92649959
>TN 10 checks did not care about your dice pool size because of it.
I'm not going to teach you how to do math, I'm just going to call you a dumb nigger for not knowing that TN 10 isn't even a thing.

>>92649977
Correct, but you still do have a much higher chance of success with more dice. If you read the post I'm replying to, it clearly says your chances of failing go up.';

'>>92649899
There's guides on how to build not just new spells but spell lists, feats, even entire classes, including chopping up the existing classes into a pseudo-point buy system. There's 3.0-3.5 variant rules that replaced the d20 with 3d6, 2d10, a very wonky "dice pool" that wasn't really a dice pool, and the original D&D even came with a Chit System because getting d20's was actually pretty difficult back then. There's wound systems with wound locations, called shots, various damage thresholds, and various restrictions or augmentations of the HP system to do everything from making D&D hyper-lethal to making it literally impossible to die.

There's even things like full page essays in the Rules Compendium dedicated to discussing how often rules should be used and what considerations a DM should make when electing to add or ignore rules.

A lot of the advice/options/variants are scattered, especially in AD&D and 3rd edition with their hundreds of books and variant options being presented even in adventures, but we're still looking at a literal mountain of them that enables radical transformations of the game.';

'>>92650114
>Third party guides that suck ass and tell you to follow a mathematical formula
*Yawn.*
Yknow what results in really radical transformations of the games you run? Using different rulesets. Infact, every successful DM I've ever seen does this.';

'>>92650034
>it clearly says your chances of failing go up.
It says your chances of not just failing, but failing critically go up.';

'>>92650127
The first part claiming that your chances of failing go up, which is simply not true.';

'>>92650126
...We're talking 1st party books and advice/variants that are even in the DMGs. If we wanted to include 3rd party material, or even just 1st party material that was published on the D&D Website or Dragon/Dungeon magazines, we're talking about so fucking much that it's actually overwhelming.

Hell, just looking at Dragon magazine alone gives us so many variant rules and guides that it's outright silly. 430 issues, before moving on and becoming Dragon+ for a further 40 issues.';

'>>92650136
A quirk of English.
It could be rephrased as "your chances of failing critically go up rather than your chances of simply failing do.';

'>>92650186
>It could be rephrased as
No, it would just have a totally different meaning.
Not so much a quirk of English as a skill issue with English.';

'>>92650173
>Starts claiming it's 1st party
>Immediately starts talking about 3rd party material as a source
Why are D&Drones so embarrassing? Your game sucks my guy, nobody who actually cares about ttrpgs bothers with the fast food equivalent of them.';

'>>92650191
Your problem was just some ambiguity in how the word "just" was being used and possibly not reading the entire sentence. If you follow the full sentence, you can see that it begins with "it meant more opportunities to succeed." If you understand that it's an inherent contradiction for both to have more opportunities to succeed and to have your chances of failing go up (since those are dichotomous), it becomes clear that the word "just" is being used not to indicate that you were not more likely to both fail AND fail critically, but more likely to not simply fail but fail spectacularly.

Let's look at the full sentence again.

>And, while that was fine and dandy for the most part because it meant more opportunities to succeed, because of an oversight it also meant you had more opportunities to critically fail, meaning the more skilled you were, the more likely you were to not just fail, but fail catastrophically.

If you only take the last part and ignore everything else, it's easy to see where you got confused. But, if you look at the entire sentence, you'll see that the last part is just clarifying what "critically failing" was.';

'>>92650200
Are you a retard?';

'>>92650261
>Your problem was just some ambiguity
Anon, I don't know how to explain this in a more simple way, but there's no ambiguity there. Your quote, in English, does directly say that your odds of failure (as well as catastrophic failure) increase with skill.
The rest of your post is an attempt to construct a context where it could mean something else, but that's still not what it actually means, and assumes more leaps in logic and filling in gaps of failed English, than just taking the actual meaning of what was said.
So TL;DR, you don't have a solid grasp over English, and couldn't convey what you wanted to convey. That's on you and nobody else.';

'>>92650034
>I'm not going to teach you how to do math
Good because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
>that TN 10 isn't even a thing.
Yes it was. There's even a section in V20 telling you not to use it.';

'>>92650323
>>Yes it was. There's even a section in V20 telling you not to use it.
>Telling you not to use it
>Not
>To
>Use
>It';

'>>92650312
I just explained how it doesn't.
I'm sorry, but while you're right that it could have been worded in a way to eliminate all confusion, your confusion largely stems just from a reading failure.

>Your quote, in English, does directly say that your odds of failure (as well as catastrophic failure) increase with skill.
No, it says that your odds of not "just failing" did not increase, but rather that "failing catastrophically" did. Go on, read the full sentence again.
No need to make as big a deal out of it as you have been, it was an easy mistake on your part to make.';

'>>92650272
Are you mad, samefag?';

'>>92650336
>in V20
I wonder why a version of the game released 20 years later would tell you to avoid a known pitfall with the original that it never did.';

'>>92650353
>I just explained how it doesn't.
I can't make it any simpler than: You are and were wrong. Sorry, but go learn English.';

'>>92650354
>jumps into a thread
>makes a retarded post
>gets called a retard
>"U MAD?!"

No, simply baffled.';

'>>92650360
>TN 10 is a thing!
>My proof?
>Well, the rulebook tells you not to use it!
Could you try being less of a dumb nigger?';

'>>92650370
You're nearly half of the posts in this thread, samefag. You're absolutely fuming with rage, and I'm just going to laugh at you as I go about my day.';

'>>92650376
A reprinting of AD&D 2E telling you not to use THAC0 doesn't negate the existence of THAC0, retard.';

'>>92650365
I've now explained thrice to you your mistake. I'm at least glad you've given up on trying to defend yourself and have just dropped down to "Nuh uh, you're wrong."

Once again, you're right that it could have been phrased in a way to avoid confusion and isn't the clearest bit of writing ever found on this Tibetian Oragami Construction Image Exchange, but it's still a lapse in your reading that ignored the majority of the sentence and just took the last part out of context.

When you take a phrase out of context and only address that, that's a failure on your part.';

'>>92650385
Is this even trolling at this part? It's too blatant and mindless even for trolling. It's like you're ironically trolling and doing your best to eliminate any doubt that you're genuinely a retard, but I have no idea why.

I feel like you're kind of just spam shitposting now to try and have everyone ignore that you imagined that Dragon magazine wasn't a 1st party publication.';

'>>92649892
That's...that's literally how Storyteller used to work, and they had to patch in a rules fix for it.

Are...are you retarded?';

'>>92641374
If DnD is a narrative system, then what is an actual gamist system?';

'>>92641261
Yeah, it's really sad when some retard decides to waste his life getting angry at pointless bullshit.

On an unrelated note, how's your crusade against trolls going?';

'>>92654680
I watched a troll shrivel and die after he realized he had just become /tg/'s version of a basic bitch troll. Was fucking awesome.
Hopefully the rest follow suite.';

'>>92655939
>look mom I won an internet argument!!
Everyone is just tired of your shtick, retard. You have impressed no one and only beclowned yourself.';

'>>92655939
this is really sad and schizo of you';

'>>92655939
Have you tried not playing D&D?';

'>>92654060
>DnD is a narrative system
I saw this argument recently. Apparently because it barely gives you rules for non-combat things it is totally an open narrative system capable of everything.';

'>>92656959
But don't narrativist sysyems usually have more mechanics for non-combat interactions?';

'>>92656959
>All rule-lite implementations are narrativist
I don't even know where to begin to correct this implied statement.';

'>>92655939
And then everyone clapped';

'>>92641213
You're confusing cause and effect. Those mechanics aren't bad because they're in D&D. D&D is bad because it has those mechanics.';

'>>92658702
But D&D is good enough to be the most popular game on this board. It's the most played TTRPG without even a close second. Even 5e alone gets played more than all other non-D&D games COMBINED.

D&D might not be perfect, but /tg/ definitely thinks its good. At least, the people who play games think it is.';

'>>92643437
Man the cope is palpable. They literally hide their mathematics behind an overly complex facade to discourage people from using anything but the “official” version. W about it for a minute, actuslly use your brain and ask why the fuck WotC would want people to be in reliant on their product.';

'>>92641322
People that complain hard about D&D mechanics almost always bring up imaginary scenarios that makes something broken in a very case specific way and EVEN THEN they aren't using the RAW that outright shutdown what they are trying to accomplish.
The biggest beef I got with them is "Caster Supremacy" complaints where, for some god damn reason, it is assumed a spell caster can use every single spell, all the time, no resting to recharge is required, no concentration checks are required, and a laundry list of other shit that is used to keep caster Supremacy from being a big problem until way late game (level 15ish onward).';

'>>92660275
I play 5e, and I think it is the most passionately mediocre game I've ever played. It aspires to be nothing besides inoffensive, and makes no attempt to justify itself over other systems in any way besides "it is DnD" (true, kinda) and "it is accessible" (debatable).
>>92660611
Here's the funny thing you would know if you actually played 5e - the system assumes that the party is fighting 6-8 encounters per day with 2-3 short rests, but the system also does jack shit to enforce this highly specific encounter pace. And enforcing it narratively is difficult at the best of times, because frankly what sort of situation even has you fighting half a dozen different times in a day with plenty of uninterrupted rest time but not too much rest time or else the party gets too many short rests (or god help you a long rest) and balance falls apart.

In practice, what this means is that full adventuring days are very rare, and GMs generally just opt for a smaller number of more difficult encounters. And with the 15 minute adventuring day back in full force, casters care much less about their endurance because past the first few levels they literally can't burn through spells fast enough to run out through combat alone. So the assumption that casters have spare slots available is often completely true, although there's a lot of nuance to why that is generally the case.';

'>>92660275
There was a thread a couple weeks ago where people were discussing their favorite systems to play and not a single person said 5e. Only mentions of it were about being unable to get their groups to play anything but 5e.';

'>>92660743
There's a daily thread with hundreds of people actively discussing playing the game.';

'>>92660743
Game doesn't have to be your favorite to be good. Your pitiful anecdotal evidence aside, it's actually sad that your cope doesn't even do that much to support whatever argument you were hoping to make.';

'>>92660792
>hundreds
When we had IP counts, the D&D General would get around 50-75 IPs on an especially good thread, which still was noticeably lower than many other generals.

>>92660802
>Game doesn't have to be your favorite to be good.
Didn't say otherwise, but 5e isn't good, so it's a retarded bit of debate club faggotry to bring up.

>anecdotal evidence
The point is that when asked what systems people like or want to play, no one said 5e. Whenever anyone makes a thread to complain about 5e, you show up and insist that everyone is just lying to "troll" /tg/ by saying mean things about /tg/'s most favorite and beloved game. /tg/ has more threads and posts about 5e being a bad system you shouldn't play and that people don't want to play, than anything supporting the "most popular system" claim, let alone the "/tg/ definitely thinks its good" assertion.

But don't believe your lying eyes. I know you're only here every single day, seething whenever anyone dares to claim 5e isn't good, shouldn't be played, or that some people genuine, sincerely don't like 5e.';

'>>92660743
That's actually kind of cute.

Sure, we have had D&D as the most popular, most played, most favorited game in every single census conducted on this board, all the way back to 2009. Sure, there's no TRPG that even comes close, to the point where even if you gave a 20% margin of error in both directions D&D would still comfortably be on top. Sure, there's multiple daily D&D threads and even multiple active D&D generals, presumably filled with people who enjoy the game.

But you go on clinging to that presumably non-imaginary thread, I guess. I mean, you'd have to discount that D&D is so stupidly popular that most people don't even feel the need to share that they enjoy it, since that's information that can generally be assumed in no small part because the data overwhelmingly supports that. It's such a common sentiment that it's actually kind of boring, like saying your favorite ice cream is vanilla.

Sure, vanilla is great. But there's a reason it's become synonomous with "boring" and "default", and it's not because it's a bad flavor by any measure. It's because it's the most popular flavor, one you can find in every place that sells ice cream, and is beloved by millions around the world. As great of a flavor as it is though, putting it as your favorite is offering no real information about yourself, because yeah, everyone loves vanilla. Not much of a conversation starter like Moosetracks or TuttiFrutti.';

'>>92660849
>than many other generals.
And how many of those generals linger for days because they can't hit the bump limit in less than 24 hours? Getting 100 IP's after seven days is hardly something to celebrate.

5e is one of the fastest generals on this board, with sometimes multiple editions in a day. If people are actually having an active discussion, you're going to see the user count be around what the 5e was, which was typically in the 1XX range.';

'>>92660849
>The point is that when asked what systems people like or want to play, no one said 5e.

Which is funny because you're still trying to invent that without any real proof. I saw a thread today, and yesterday, and the day before that, filled with people who love the game, and you want me to instead believe the board hates it because you saw a thread, weeks ago, where people didn't feel the need to mention how much they love the most popular game on this board, and this presumed ommission somehow is supposed to support your clearly biased and untrustworthy interpretation of that presumably real thread?

Holy fucking hell you're one hell of a cope artist. Come back when you have numbers and not feelings.';

'>>92660708
think it's really an issue of pacing, everything's a dungeon, if you could replace a short rest with narratively, 8 hours of rest in a cramped dungeon, with people taking turns to keep watch, where a long rest is 9 hours of an uninterrupted comfy snoozefest, like you'd get at a tavern where you can really relax and heal up.';

'>>92641213
So exactly the same thing you are doing right now?';

'>>92660849
You have a link to the thread?';

'>>92661014
>PROOF?! SOURCE?!
https://desuarchive.org/tg/thread/92444698

>I saw a thread today, and yesterday, and the day before that, filled with people who love the game
You saw a general thread made for talking about 5e full of people talking about it and projected your undying love for the taste of WotC's cock onto them. People play it because it's ubiquitous, not because they love it and believe it is a great system, which was already explained to you. You would see kids lining up at the school cafeteria and think that the cafeteria slop must be super popular and beloved by all the students.

And again: You're here every day, every week, every month, every year, getting into arguments with people who say they don't like 5e, with no one but yourself insisting /tg/ loves 5e while everyone bored enough to reply to you is calling you a retard.';

'>>92661164
It's weird how that thread has plenty of mentions of games no one plays or even discusses.';

'>>92641213
Nice strawman, retard.';

'>>92641292
>Fuck off and die boardshitter.
I'm sure its the same guy making a hundred of the same threads per week also.';

'>>92661230
cuz unlike you they're all too busy playing games, faggot.';

'>>92661164
>thread up for a full seven days
>only 150 replies

It seems like most of /tg/ avoided that thread. Avoided it like the plague, and for good reason. It reads like some losers just listing games they've played, like college kids listing off what drinks they've had that night.';

'>>92661357
I fail to see how that proves your "actually /tg/ LOVE 5e" assertion. It's a neutral thread with no hostility or bait. Where's the hundreds of 5e players who exist on /tg/ who love 5e and think it's a great system? It's the most popular system on /tg/, isn't it? They even had a whole week to reply to the thread and even just say that they like 5e and enjoy playing it. What would possess them to avoid the thread and stay silent?';

'>>92661164
I think another reason why people only play D&D is an attachment to the lore';

'>>92661417
>It's a neutral thread with no hostility or bait.
It has nothing. It's a dead thread that someone kept bumping for a full week despite there being no discussion, no interesting information, nothing.

It's no wonder most of /tg/ avoided it, it reeks of a strange desperation, and seeing as how you were in that thread, it's now starting to become clear why.';

'>>92661417
>Where's the hundreds of 5e players who exist on /tg/ who love 5e and think it's a great system?
Have you looked at any /tg/ census?';

'>>92661417
Strange. There's even posts attacking 5e, presumably from you, and they're getting no replies, even when they're begging for 'shills' to rush in to defend the system. It's almost like it was a thread that most of /tg/ saw no value in, instinctively avoided, and didn't even get a full hundred replies of people saying their favorite games. The 5e general sees more activity in a day than it got in a week.

I'm actually trying to figure out why. You're right that it's definitely trying to present itself as neutral, but it's almost like that comes off as being deliberate and suspicious in itself. I'm actually curious what other threads were going around at that time that would have made /tg/ so wary/averse to posting in it. Maybe it was the continuous bumping that arroused people's suspicion, because the replies dried up considerably after that first day.

It may just be that it quickly assumed a role as the Island of Misfit toys, a pseudo-general for all the games no one plays, leading the vast majority of /tg/ to ignore it.';

'>>92661468
>It's a dead thread that someone kept bumping for a full week despite there being no discussion, no interesting information, nothing.
Did you just find /tg/ today, or what? That describes 90% of threads on this board and most others.

>It's no wonder most of /tg/ avoided it
The massive crowd of 5e loving anons only exists in your head. That's the real answer to the question of "If /tg/ loves 5e so much, where are all the 5e players saying they actually like the game?"

>>92661648
I've got nothing to say about this post that your obscene levels of paranoia don't say for me. Your desperate samefagging is noted, though.';

'I cannot fathom how miserable someone's life has to be in order to get so upset about people on the internet making fun of DnD.';

'>>92661648
>bumpfag is also the one who schizo posts about D&D

That explains a lot on why he is trying to kill this board.';

'>>92641213
Vancian casting is shit because it is never narratively justified despite being completely at odds with fantasy norms and the expectations of 99% of the general public, in addition to being unintuitive and fundamentally less interesting than any other magic system I've used. Spells should not be magic bullets you have to load and expend through some game-y process of temporary memorization, they should be exertions of cosmic will which use ritual and symbolism to reorder the universe in accordance with the intentions of the caster. Magic doesn't work in DnD like it does in essentially any other fantasy setting, nor does it align with real world magical traditions, it's a niche choice made to suit the personal preferences of one guy that has nearly zero thought or rationale behind it.';

'>>92661672
>If /tg/ loves 5e so much, where are all the 5e players saying they actually like the game?"
In other threads, actually discussing games, and avoiding you?

I'm actually kind of amazed, because it's seems like /tg/ is actually getting quite good at detecting and avoiding you. That's why you're here, trying to get attention from the last few people willing to give you it.';

'>>92661697
>to suit the personal preferences of one guy that has nearly zero thought or rationale behind it.
It's because Gygax always hated the idea of players using magic';

'>>92661672
>The massive crowd of 5e loving anons only exists in your head.
Weird, because the censuses say otherwise. Literally every census. Hell, even the 5e general's popularity compared to every other TTRPG is an incredible amount of supporting evidence that you seem oddly insistent in trying to dismiss.

There's literally a crowd we can point to, and you're asking where it is.';

'>>92661710
Which threads? You can try to invent a boogeyman, but /tg/ is well aware of the schizo trollhunter. There is no singular dedicated anti 5e shitposter.

>>92661474
>>92661747
>Muh census
Census proves people play 5e, not that they love it or care enough to defend it's obvious faults like you do every day of your sad little life.';

'This dnd shill is a fucking psycho, holy shit, clearly a troon too, seems like the type to hurt children. Nobody of sound mind would ever be such a belligerent freak, especially to defend corporate goyslop like dndogshit, it's clear he's incorporated the game as part of his identity, so typical for those hideous crossdressing faggots.';

'>>92661793
le funi falseflag';

'>>92661793
I know you're being deliberately provocative but you're not off-base, that faggot writing style is so historic is painful to read, the fact he doesn't even realise how transparent looks is pitiful.';

'>>92661894
Give it a moment. He's about to drop another obnoxious wall of text after trying the short reply samefag tactic didn't work out.';

'>>92661648
It's really weird. Only one post in that thread had 5e listed, and even then squeezed in among half a dozen games. 3.5 got more mentions than 5e did. Hell, 4e got more. No matter how you do the math, neither of those two should be getting more mentions than 5e.

>>92660950 might have a point with the vanilla analogy, but even by just raw probability, out of 100 posts you'd expect to see more than one post with 5e. Half the people on this board who play TTRPGs play 5e, so it getting mentioned only 1% is just bizarre to the point where its genuinely baffling.

I vaguelly remember that thread floating around, and I'm trying to figure out why I myself didn't post in it, because maybe that's why so few people did, and why the posts are so heavily skewed towards games that are rarely/never discussed here. Maybe it's just something about the OP?

I don't know, but seeing this anon put so much stake into presenting it as being representative of /tg/ has actually got me curious of why it is so vastly different from what was reported in the census or even just what gets discussed here.';

'>>92661894
>historic
*histrionic
Phone autocorrect fucked me';

'>>92661710
>I'm actually kind of amazed, because it's seems like /tg/ is actually getting quite good at detecting and avoiding you.
I think it's more that /tg/ is just dying. There's not enough people to give even our worst trolls enough attention to satiate them.';

'>>92662019
>I vaguelly remember that thread floating around, and I'm trying to figure out why I myself didn't post in it,
Better question is why no one from the 5e general did. You've got to expect there's more than one person in there, unless the one guy who likes 5e on this board is really putting on a show. It's a really weird thread that raises a lot more questions than it gives answers.';

'>>92662019
The thread itself is unimportant and your hyperfocus on it, like you're going to deduce some secret scheme to lie to the naive and gullible fa/tg/uys is just tedious. It's simply illustrating a point. Retard schizo insists /tg/ loves 5e and that only "our worst troll" ever has anything bad to say about it, despite it being the best and most beloved game on /tg/ that people always talk about how much they love in countless threads. Excluding the 5e general, which is not a thread of gushing praise and love for 5e, the majority of threads that bring it up are negative or otherwise suggesting people not play it or avoid it, because they see it as a containment game for shitters.

When asked directly what games posters on /tg/ like, no one said 5e and some admitted to playing it, but not enjoying it, and wanting to play something else if they could. I could go digging for the hundreds of other threads where anti-5e discussion has gone on for hundreds of posts, up to and past autosage, including many where our resident schizo threw a tantrum for days, and the overwhelming attitude you can glean from those discussions is that when asked about 5e, the majority of posters here tolerate it, at best and never want to play it again because they hate it, at worst.';

'>>92662102
> It's simply illustrating a point.
No, it's really not.
Aside from you hoping to say that a game needs to be someone's favorite in order to not be bad is still pretty much just a huge leap, the real issue is that your sample doesn't reflect the reality of /tg/ at all to the point where it's not unreasonable to be concerned about what happened with that particular sample.

Even someone like you, who lives only to shitpost how much he hates 5e, would not have wagered that only 1 out of 100 replies would mention 5e among their favorites. Even you, who consistently shitposts about your belief that WotC has paid shills, would have wagered at least more than one paid shill would have posted in that thread.

But, it didn't happen. That thread doesn't simply not reflect the reality of /tg/, it's almost like an inversion of it, and how that happened is definitely an interesting mystery that might shed some light on why this board has been losing people so rapidly in recent years. If we can figure out why people went into that thread to just list their favorite games which they never actually discuss on this board, but only one single person listed the most played/favorited/discussed game, maybe that will help us to understand how to get those people with less popular games learn to actually discuss them here. What was it about that thread that attracted them, but repelled everyone else?';

'>>92662513
Where are all the 5e fans on /tg/ then?';

'>>92662098
>It's a really weird thread that raises a lot more questions than it gives answers.
It gets even weirder when you compare it to census/data threads. This one is one of the more recent, even if it's not one of the "official" ones from Censusanon.
>https://desuarchive.org/tg/thread/89401795/#89401795

Almost immediately we see a big difference. Hell, the first post has 5e listed. All in all, this thread has 5e closer to 10%, which is still less than the expected number we'd see from the last "official" 2021 Census. Though we can expect some decline in 5e as a favorite system, going from 30% to 1% is three years is just not very likely.';

'>>92662704
It's funny seeing how many mentions of 5e fall under people's shelved games and how some of them specify that they are playing reluctantly or for lack of any other choice. Gimme 5 minutes so I can crunch the 5e mentions in that thread.';

'>>92662704
Do you have the 2021 Census data?
The most recent I have is 2017, and seven years is a long time.
Though, 5e was at 32.80% for the question "What is your all time favourite roleplaying system/systems?", which puts it as 4x as popular as 2nd place just for perspective. Hard to imagine /tg/ changing that dramatically to the point where all of that evaporated.';

'>>92662776
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12jWcbxApQaYJzVtPjKw7_oPxn_rMtzhoNcz7ygMnkr8/edit#gid=228512001
There's no favorite category, but there is a "Of roleplaying games you have played, which do you enjoy?" category, and 5e is fairly well represented, though that may largely be thanks to just it being overwhelmingly the most played game.';

'>>92662704
>178 recorded IPs
>39 mentions of 5e in the thread
>9 are actually "3.5e"
>2 are mentions of "Shadowrun 5e"
>16 mentions of 5e as their "game of choice" (including vague answers)
>7 mentions of 5e as their shelved game
>1 single mention of loving 5e';

'>>92662824
>16 mentions of 5e as their "game of choice" (including vague answers)
I guess we can put your nonsense to bed then. Goodnight.';

'>>92662824
Wow, looks like 5e's pretty popular. Most games only have 3-6 mentions altogether.';

'>>92662864
>16 out of 178 recorded IP's';

'>>92662864
Too bad those 16 people aren't here right now tonguing your sore asshole.

>>92662883
It certainly is a game that some people play.';

'>>92662886
That's close to 10%. That's higher than just about every other game.
If /tg/ hates 5e, my god it must REALLY hate every other game even moreso.';

'>>92662899
>It certainly is a game that some people play.
Yep, as "Their game of choice."

Wait till you look at some of these stats though.
>>92662776
>>92662801

In any case, go to bed.';

'>>92662938
>Inb4 ignoring other general threads like Warhammer or WoD
lol
lmao
I think somebody is jealous.';

'>>92662950
Wow, a hundred or so people said 5e was their favorite game. Wonder where they are now, because they don't seem to be here backing up your claim that /tg/ loves 5e. They're certainly not in the 5e general or in any other threads going 24/7 on /tg/.';

'>>92662989
Who's ignoring those?
Count them in that thread yourself and see if you reach 16.';

'>>92663018
>They're certainly not in the 5e general or in any other threads going 24/7 on /tg/.
Why not?';

'>>92663033
I think your programing is starting to malfunction.';

'>>92663060
Are you stupid or something?
Are you even aware of what's being discussed?';

'>>92663070
Are you aware of what I am talking about?';

'>>92663083
I feel like you're just trying to run away from the fact that 16 is pretty high.';

'>>92663055
/5eg/ rarely broke 100 IPs and none of the IPs in those threads were guaranteed to be people who consider 5e their favorite system, let alone a system they'd defend as /tg/'s favorite. They are also not especially fond of WotC as a general rule either.';

'>>92663121
>/5eg/ rarely broke 100 IPs
This was already addressed.
>>92660974';

'>>92663121
>none of the IPs in those threads were guaranteed to be people who consider 5e their favorite system,
Guaranteed? That's how you're hoping to weasel your way around this?

Sad.';

'>>92663114
>16
>Out of 178 which may possibly be phone posters
And I am talking about the generals on this board, your autism is hyper fixating on the thread';

'>>92663191
A thread being active because a few people are having an ongoing discussion isn't something special and it's not representative of the majority of /tg/'s users all being in that thread, and again, does not signal unconditional support and praise of 5e as /tg/'s favorite system. And still.. If there's so many 5e lovers on /tg/, where the fuck are they on the rest of the board, defending 5e's honor alongside your schizoid crusade?';

'>>92663199
>people post in /5eg/
>that means 5e is popular and /tg/ loves 5e
Awfully greasy reasoning';

'>>92663210
10% is higher than just about every other game. I've tried counting several popular games, and most barely got five or six mentions.

And, go on. Look at those generals. Don't make the mistake of thinking the 40k general is for Warhammer Roleplay discussion, as that actually gets its own general and usually doesn't even hit the bump limit after a week.
Go on, compare the 5e thread to the WoD thread. It's almost twice the speed so I don't know what you were hoping with that.';

'>>92663245
>people post in /5eg/ a lot, making it the fastest RPG general
>that means 5e is popular and /tg/ loves 5e

I mean, yeah? As far as TTRPGs go, it's basically the undisputed king, You know this already, which is why you spend so much time being upset.';

'>>92663280
I thought it was "almost 10%"?
>Those generals don't count because... they just don't, ok?
You need a break, buddy.';

'>>92663313
>Im just shitposting at this point because I can't argue against your hard facts

Nice look.';

'>>92663323
>Hard facts
>No source';

'Sorry, your post is too dumb to even warrant a (you).';

'>>92641426
I don't like berserk either. It makes no sense. I'm in a stressful dangerous situation and I start attacking my allies who can help me survive? I'd restrict berserk to attacking the nearest enemy, not just nearest person';

'>>92641521
>Nobody is going to call anything perfect

The MCDM RPG is shaping up to be close to perfect desu. Matt Colville is seriously a genius';

'>>92663292
By that metric, there's threads on /trash/ that are more popular than /tg/ as a whole. Nevermind that this thread is more active with more posters than the 5eg right now. Shitposting at you must be the most popular game on /tg/. Beloved by all.';

'>>92663476
>Shitposting at you must be the most popular game on /tg/. Beloved by all.
Kick the autistic is back in style!';

'>>92663476
Why are you comparing trash threads to RPG generals and hoping you've made a point.

I hope you actually understood how retarded you are being before I pointed it out. Can you confirm so I understand you're just trolling and not actually a retard?';

'>>92663546
Because the /trash/ is where your threads and posts belong.';

'>>92663546
Because you think a general thread, of all things, a place where multiple topics, discussions, and posts are funneled into as long as they fall into a broad topic, is the same thing as having a highly active userbase of people who all love and are willing to defend that topic.';

'>>92663628
Is the topic being attacked? By any degree of effectiveness that would warrant a response?

At best we have you limp dick trolls who get caught up trying to convince everyone that generals are only for people who hate the game.

5e is still the most popular/played/beloved TTRPG here by a wide, wide mile. There's not even a close 2nd place. No amount of your shitposting changes that, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself of that. Hell, the vast majority of people don't even care how popular an RPG happens to be, as opposed to your obsession with the game and its popularity.

People don't need to defend 5e from you. What people need to do is get you to quit being a basic bitch troll.';

'>>92663699
>5e is still the most popular/played/beloved TTRPG here by a wide, wide mile.
Popular, yes. Beloved, no. But you can go back to crying about trolls because you don't like that reality disagrees with your schizo delusions.';

'>>92663729
>Beloved, no
Sorry, but just look at these.

>>92662801
>>92662776
>>92662704

No game is as favorited, chosen as game of choice, or listed as "game you enjoy" more.

If you can find a game that is, than you can go ahead and tell everyone it's the most beloved game instead. But, even then, you're going to have to admit that 5e is quite the little darling on this website.';

'>>92663839
>60-70%+ of /tg/ loves other games more
This is like babby's first attempt to fudge data to push a narrative';

'>>92663729
>Popular, yes. Beloved, no
Wat
You know popular things are beloved, right?
Or are you actually trying to split hairs that much, you dumb fag?';

'>>92663852
There is no TTRPG more beloved on /tg/.

By your own metric, what do you think about games where 96-99% of /tg/ loves other games more than them? Because that's the majority of games.';

'>>92663855
>>92663871
It's a game people play. It doesn't mean they all love it or think it's the best game, which has been the argument this entire time. People who play 5e because it's the only game they know, it's the only game they can find other people to play with, or because they can't get their group to agree to play anything else.

Don't be a fag and whine about splitting hairs while you attempt to redefine words and shift goalposts. 5e is not a game widely loved by /tg/. Ask /tg/ it's opinions about 5e and whether it's a good game they'd intentionally choose to play over anything else and they'd tell you it sucks and list all the games they'd play instead if they had a regular group for it.';

'>>92663855
Not him but no, popular adoption doesn't automatically equate with love. Things can get popular out of convenience, eg: i'm old enough to remember the browsers war, IE5-IE6 was pretty much the most utilized browser ever but that was out of being the default one and because of the majority of websites built to function with IE first and foremost if not exclusively.';

'>>92663916
>It doesn't mean they all love
Literally look at the data, you dumbass. It's not just "what game you're playing". Hell, the 2017 Census literally has "Favourite Game of All Time" in case you think there's any wiggle room around that.

Are you actually retarded?';

'>>92663920
>Not him but no, popular adoption doesn't automatically equate with love

Yeah, but people saying it's their favorite game of all time does. Or what game they enjoy. Or what their game of choice is.

Did you even look at what was presented?';

'>>92641322
>They'll complain about every single D&D mechanic
Okay but like almost so of dnd's mechanics are bad.
Levels are bad.
Classes are bad.
D20, as implemented, is bad.
Alignments are bad.
HP, as implemented, is bad.
After that there isn't much left to talk about.';

'>>92641387
>"D&D is perfect"?
I haven't but I've seen a few on this board that claim is that best.';

'>>92663955
I don't have a horse in this race, i want to just clarify that. Regarding the discussion topic there are lots of people that obviously don't have a strong opinion about 5e one way or another and just default to it because of convenience, others that express a preference for anything else that is not 5e will have their front obviously fragmented since personal tastes need to be specific enough in order to branch off from the de-facto default.';

'>>92663937
>>92663937
>Hell, the 2017 Census literally has "Favourite Game of All Time" in case you think there's any wiggle room around that.
Tons of wiggle room. Watch this:
>Has the respondent played other games?
>How long has the respondent been playing 5e?
>Has the respondent actually played 5e or are they just a fan of it in concept? (podcast listeners)
>Is the respondent referring to the system itself, generally, or the specific fun they've had with friends?
>Have they actually read, played, or even heard of other systems?
>Does the respondent actually use /tg/ regularly at all?
>Does the actual survey have a sample size that is appropriately reflective of the actual number of users regularly using /tg/ and 4chan (300-500 votes on a site with millions of active users on average)';

'>>92663976
And without fail they will fall back on kike metrics like sales to justify that idea. Nobody ever actually has anything to say about superior mechanics or lore.';

'>>92664004
>there are lots of people that obviously don't have a strong opinion about 5e one way or another and just default to it because of convenience,
Yes, but there's also, apparently, people who listed the game as their favorite of all time. In much, much higher numbers than any other game.

Even if we took-
>>92664025
And pretended anything he said mattered in the slightest, and assigned a margin of error as ridiculously high as 20% (remember most assigned margins of error rarely exceed 3%), 5e is still comfortably on top. Not even just in the category of most played, but most favorited/enjoyed.';

'>>92664056
Largely because arguing about subjective topics with clearly antagonistic individuals is a bad time for most people.';

'>>92664091
And despite that popularity, as we've gone over repeatedly in this thread alone, you're alone here trying to justify your undying love for 5e and asserting that no one actually disliked 5e and that /tg/ is overwhelmingly frequented by people who consider 5e their favorite game and cannot or refuse to defend it against the constant criticisms.

You can believe that a random group of a few hundred faggots saying they like 5e means anything, but in practice the results are always clear: Given the chance, people will shit on 5e without hesitation and espouse how much they don't like it, no longer wish to play it, and/or will never play it again. The data is effectively meaningless when it doesn't actually reflect the way /tg/ actually functions on a day to day basis. You retreat to the data because you think it gives you authority over the topic. The reality of /tg/ is that your beliefs about 5e's reputation are both wrong and irrelevant.';

'>>92664141
>you're alone here trying to justify your undying love for 5e

When did I ever say I love 5e?
If you could quote the post please, thanks.';

'What compels someone psychologically to obsess over people who don't like DnD? Is it autism or something else? I'm curious as to how the schizo-shill's mind operates.';

'>>92664141
No one's here arguing you about how much they love 5e because no one sees a need to. Not me, not anyone else, in no small part because you're kind of just a dumb troll and no amount of people posting "I like 5e" here will sway you if entire documents filled with people calling 5e their favorite game of all time isn't enough to sway you.

The argument is about how off base you are, and your mental gymnastics to try and justify your warped and twisted world view. I don't know whether it's your love of trolling or your hatred of the game that takes precedence, but the argument has never been about how much one individual loves the game because that little statistic is as insignificant as your intense hatred of it.';

'>>92664171
He's an addict and consumption is his biggest addiction. He identifies with a brand on a personal and psychological level, same reason why it's easy to tell he's a sexual deviant by his histrionic writing, it's all about lack of impulse control and willpower. Instead of having a personality he has his addictions and the justifications for those addictions as socially normative, that's all that stops him from roping.';

'>>92664171
>what would compel anyone who has seen people lower the level of discourse on a board by trolling to call out those trolls?
>why would someone be upset by biased lies and exaggerations that come out of contrarian trolls who are more interested in shitposting than discussing any game they actually play?

I wonder?';

'>>92664171
Lots of people don't like D&D, but don't feel a need to shitpost about it.

No one has a problem with those people. The only people being attacked here are the shitposters who can't stop obsessing about D&D and are doing everything they can to try and convince people that they should hate D&D as much as they do. It's like they have an illness, and rather than seeking a cure, they try to spread the disease as much as they can.

Obsessing about games you don't play? Not healthy.
Hell, it's not even a matter of you learning not to dislike games. It's fine to dislike games, as many games as you like.
But when you let yourself turn into a basic bitch troll? That's when you really need to look at yourself and ask "How am I any different than that dumb spammer on /ck/ who's always mad that other people drink coffee?"';

'>>92664229
>biased
That's the key issue. Actually, it's what kills the troll; identifying just how biased they are and how little respect anyone should have for their opinions.

The only people who listen to trolls is other trolls. Everyone else sees their bias and just calls them idiots.';

'>>92664211
>No one's here arguing you about how much they love 5e because no one sees a need to
You literally do exactly that at least once a week.';

'>>92664362
Can you point to any post in this thread that say "I love D&D" or similar?';

'>>92664362
You can't just have kneejerk reaction to the start of a sentence and ignore the rest of the post because all that does is make me have to encourage you to read the post in its entirety.';

'>>92641213
>>92641269
>>92646148
>>92644404
>>92641387
We need more people like you. unironically. 4chan has gotten so stale with pre programmed opinions. This used to be a place for people thinking outside the box but somehow normgroid zoomers just keep posting according to tried templates.
You can always see them completely defeated when someone with a reasonable and genuine opinion comes along. They're so caught up in memes and appearing as inflammatory as possible that their programming breaks when you don't play their stupid games of slinging one liner buzzword greentexts back and forth.

But I also agree with you on the D&D haters. Exactly because they're aforementioned NPCgroids that just want to fit in.';

'>>92664415
>They're so caught up in memes
>Has a meme as their picture
>aforementioned NPCgroids that just want to fit in
>It's the normgroid zoomers who like D&D and defend D&D';

'>>92664381
You start arguments and run through hundreds of posts seething about /tg/'s worst troll at least once a week because you can't accept that anyone has anything negative to say about DND 5e. Why read one your gay little manifestos when you've been sputtering for days in this thread you made for your one man war with your own mental illness?';

'>>92664503
People saying negative things about 5e is fine. It's not perfect, after all.
But that's not what your braindead trolling is, you basic bitch troll.';

'>>92664911
If it really was fine you wouldnt have autistic meltdowns every week about people not liking dnd. Everyone who says something bad about dnd is your boogeyman because the only criticism you allow is "its not perfect" because thats harmless and applies to everything ever made by man.
Not everyone loves dnd as much as you. Get over it.';

'>>92664911
Ok, what would be valid criticism then?';

'>>92662704
3.5+Pathfinder have more presence in that thread than 5E. Significantly more.';

'>>92665154
>Valid criticism
"I personally believe that Legendary Resistance is a terrible mechanic that attempts to act as a bandage over the inherent imbalance of multiple people with multiple actions facing off against a single enemy. Legendary Resistance exists solely to extend the life of "Boss" encounters that could potentially otherwise be steamrolled if the players got lucky, but it does it in the least fun way imaginable; three opportunities to just say 'no' to any failed save. It's an extremely meta mechanic, there's no way to bypass it, it can be largely indiscernible from the enemy just making the save normally or using an ability that isn't just a pure and simple 'no', and forces players to try and burn through lesser abilities just so they can actually start pressuring the enemy later.

It's a mechanic with dozens of fixes shared online, including several from designers of the edition, and largely it just feels like a rushed mechanic that wasn't fully playtested. I would earnestly recommend that if you are a DM and are planning on using a creature with Legendary Resistance, you look into potential alternatives, including simple options like limiting Legendary Resistance to only apply to certain kinds of thematically-appropriate saves, or creating some secondary penalty for every time the creature uses that ability. Even something like giving the creature extra HP, but having each activation of Legendary Resistance make the creature lose HP at least allows players to still feel like they're contributing towards victory even when a monster elects to simply ignore their best abilities. There's bigger and better fixes for the mechanic out there, so its worth exploring and testing out different ones to see which one suits your group or even just the encounter best.';

'>>92665665
In short, it's a mechanic that does everything wrong. It limits interaction, is a meta-mechanic that upheaves the standard rules of the game and encourages players to make meta-considerations, and it does not make an enemy feel powerful so much as it makes them feel cheap and dirty. From both the perspective of a DM and a player, I strongly encourage looking at alternatives to the mechanic, and to generally think twice about using mechanics that feel less like an integrated part of the system and more like the game is giving you permission to cheat.

It's the kind of mechanic that feels like a crutch of new DM's just learning the game, and while it may help them from time to time, I think everyone would be better off learning to avoid the mechanic and go for a more natural style of play and a less meta-defined one. Ultimately that's just my personal taste though, but I can say that in my experience I simply stopped using LR after some time, and I think the games improved as a result."

>shitposting
"5e is dogshit I hate classes and I hate HP and any game that uses them is terrrible please pay attention to me please please"';

'>>92665665
>>92665674
>Two long posts
Jesus Christ';

'>>92665749
Observe how the troll reels away in the face of a valid criticism.
See how he recoils.';

'>>92665819
Now imagine if you listened to the things other people have complained about instead of aggressively strawmanning them. You might come to the conclusion that 5e is kind of a badly designed game that even its own creators has spent a decade trying to fix and houserule and optional mechanic into a better game.';

'>>92665848
See, this is why no one wants to talk to you and you're so lonely that you're begging me for attention.
No one wants to hear your biased opinions that try to piggyback off of a single criticism in an attempt to condemn an entire system. It's fucking pathetic.

Basically, you're a dumb basic bitch, and also a dumb basic bitch troll.';

'>>92665915
You think everyone is one guy and then cry about it. You're not even convinced enough to know not to respond to that one troll you are so eager to rant about.';

'>>92665980
Don't confuse my kindness as a lack of conviction.
If you're not careful, I'll cut you off.';

'>>92665665
Legendary Resistance is bad not because of what it is in 5E, but because it's an inferior solution compared to older ones and exists to solve self-created problems.';

'>>92666019
Serious question, how fat are you?';

'>>92664229
See, this kind of post is exactly what I'm talking about. He is genuinely upset that there are people out there being negative towards dnd, like there is some grand smear campaign against it and he is the only one who can defend it.dnd has legitimately warped his brain.';

'>>92665665
>>92665674
>massive wall of text that still sucks off dndogshit
>the shitpost example is genuinely better criticism
Irony.wav';

'anon, you are jerking off to scenarios in your head.
But i will be nice to you, how about we both say what we like about d&d? would that make you happier? i will start.

1- Started the entirety of the TTRPG hobby, which is a hobby i love.
2- Very popular, which means its easy to convince people to play it.

How about you? what thing is special about D&D, and makes you appreciate it when compared to the massive archives of ttrpg games?';

'>>92665915
>biased opinion
>BIASED
>OPINION
oh no, its retarded';

'Damn, this nigga THIRSTY.';

'>>92662776
>only 1 percent admit to not playing games
this data is not reliable';

'>>92670521
2017 was a different time.';

'>>92677237
2017 was already about a dozen happenings deep and most recently dealing with the longterm effects of 2016 election tourism, which flooded the site with redditors and content scrapers.';