TBH I haven't really played enough other RPG systems out there to compare them to D&D (I know it's cliché but I still really love the medieval fantasy aesthetic and associated tropes, so D&D meets most of my needs as a role-player even taking its flaws into account), but I have started exploring other systems more recently out of curiosity (largely as a response to D&D criticism, which got me thinking I might as well check out some of these other systems people seem to prefer). I honestly haven't found one yet that I can say is objectively better than D&D 5e overall, except maybe in certain areas.
I honestly haven't found one yet that I can say is objectively better than D&D 5e overall, except maybe in certain areas.
I don't think it's possible to make an argument that any particular game is objectively better than any others as a general case. You can't say anything else is objectively better than D&D, but you also can't, I presume, objectively say that D&D is better than the other games. Each game is designed to give a different sort of experience, not just "the D&D experience" (well, except for some of the D&D "clones"), and there are things that other games do well that D&D just cannot do, or isn't meant to do.
For example, Champions clearly does the free-wheeling, fly-all-over-the-battlefield, fast-action sort of combat one finds in comic-books or superhero movies. Champions has rules for things like knocking someone back through walls, breaking and destroying objects, picking up and hurling large vehicles at enemies, and so on. D&D really doesn't have a set of rules for that. Call of Cthulhu has a heavily skill-based game with something like 50 different skills -- what D&D calls "persuade" is broken up into multiple skills in CoC (Charm, Fast Talk, Persuade), and it differentiates between History, Archeology, and Library Use (all of which would probably be just "history" in D&D). There is a significant difference among these skills in CoC that does not exist in D&D, because CoC is a lot about investigating ancient ruins from a scholarly perspective, whereas D&D is more often about investigating them to kill zombies and take treasure. D&D is not objectively better, or worse, than Champions or CoC. The games aim to give players a different experience, and it's really all down to what sort of experience you and your friends want to have.
Back in the day, my favorite game was always Champions, from the time I was introduced to it. I like the mechanics of building, of combat, and of just about everything else, better in Champions. I think all of my friends agreed. But, when we wanted to have a dungeon crawling experience, we always switched back to D&D. Why? Because Champions doesn't really do dungeon crawling well... and that is where D&D shines. Similarly, if I wanted to fight atomic monsters that broke out of the lab or save the world from Darkseid, I would use Champions, not D&D, to do that.
I would say -- be open to other games. Don't close them down because they play differently from D&D. Let yourself have a chance to like them -- you never know, you might enjoy another game even more.
One thing I've heard a few people recommend, and I agree with it: if you are very used to D&D and want to try another game, go with a completely different genre from "sword and sorcery". If one tries to go from D&D to, say, Rolemaster or Dungeon Crawl Classics, one may find oneself comparing the game mechanic by mechanic, element by element, to D&D. And even though D&D is not objectively better than these games, they are different from it enough that it can lead one to feeling "fish out of water" and not liking the system. Instead, try a system that is non-fantasy -- Champions (superheroes), Call of Cthulhu (20th century cosmic horror), Savage Worlds ETU (college student horror), Star Trek Adventures, Star Wars, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, etc. These games are different enough from the fantasy setting that our brains do not try to one-to-one compare them to D&D. We can take the system as it is, and enjoy it for what it has to offer.
Then, once one has had some experience and gotten used to other systems, one can go back to the fantasy genre with another game. This is how I came to love Rolemaster... I played D&D for a couple of years, then alternated D&D and Champions (we did a little of Star Frontiers as well but not much), and then having had years to get used to Champions and playing a completely different system, when a friend introduced me to RM, I was ready to do fantasy using a completely different kind of system... and I liked RM much better than AD&D.
Yeah its more about picking things you like about each and hopefully getting something like it in the next iteration.
PF2e nailed it when it comes to character progression and choice. You have skill, ancestry, and class feats that you can pick at alternating levels so you are almost always picking something relevant to your character on each level up and it can drastically change how you play your character.
Initially I had a lot of distrust with the 3 action system but the more I play in it the more it becomes natural.
These are things I think DnD could learn from and implement in future editions to make it better for those who want more choice.
I do not think PF2e is better than 5e....just different in a good way.
Yeah, I didn't mean "objectively" in an absolute sense. Poor choice of words on my part, I admit. I'm absolutely open to getting into other systems, some of the other systems I've tried I certainly like, but I've yet to find one that I want to pour as much time and attention into as D&D (but I also know it could absolutely happen).
Also thanks for the recommendations BioWizard, I'll be sure to check them out.
Funny that PF2e should be mentioned. I bought quite a few of their PDFs a while back, but I haven't had an opportunity to play the game as of yet.
I honestly haven't found one yet that I can say is objectively better than D&D 5e overall, except maybe in certain areas.
I don't think it's possible to make an argument that any particular game is objectively better than any others as a general case. You can't say anything else is objectively better than D&D, but you also can't, I presume, objectively say that D&D is better than the other games. Each game is designed to give a different sort of experience, not just "the D&D experience" (well, except for some of the D&D "clones"), and there are things that other games do well that D&D just cannot do, or isn't meant to do.
For example, Champions clearly does the free-wheeling, fly-all-over-the-battlefield, fast-action sort of combat one finds in comic-books or superhero movies. Champions has rules for things like knocking someone back through walls, breaking and destroying objects, picking up and hurling large vehicles at enemies, and so on. D&D really doesn't have a set of rules for that. Call of Cthulhu has a heavily skill-based game with something like 50 different skills -- what D&D calls "persuade" is broken up into multiple skills in CoC (Charm, Fast Talk, Persuade), and it differentiates between History, Archeology, and Library Use (all of which would probably be just "history" in D&D). There is a significant difference among these skills in CoC that does not exist in D&D, because CoC is a lot about investigating ancient ruins from a scholarly perspective, whereas D&D is more often about investigating them to kill zombies and take treasure. D&D is not objectively better, or worse, than Champions or CoC. The games aim to give players a different experience, and it's really all down to what sort of experience you and your friends want to have.
Back in the day, my favorite game was always Champions, from the time I was introduced to it. I like the mechanics of building, of combat, and of just about everything else, better in Champions. I think all of my friends agreed. But, when we wanted to have a dungeon crawling experience, we always switched back to D&D. Why? Because Champions doesn't really do dungeon crawling well... and that is where D&D shines. Similarly, if I wanted to fight atomic monsters that broke out of the lab or save the world from Darkseid, I would use Champions, not D&D, to do that.
I would say -- be open to other games. Don't close them down because they play differently from D&D. Let yourself have a chance to like them -- you never know, you might enjoy another game even more.
One thing I've heard a few people recommend, and I agree with it: if you are very used to D&D and want to try another game, go with a completely different genre from "sword and sorcery". If one tries to go from D&D to, say, Rolemaster or Dungeon Crawl Classics, one may find oneself comparing the game mechanic by mechanic, element by element, to D&D. And even though D&D is not objectively better than these games, they are different from it enough that it can lead one to feeling "fish out of water" and not liking the system. Instead, try a system that is non-fantasy -- Champions (superheroes), Call of Cthulhu (20th century cosmic horror), Savage Worlds ETU (college student horror), Star Trek Adventures, Star Wars, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, etc. These games are different enough from the fantasy setting that our brains do not try to one-to-one compare them to D&D. We can take the system as it is, and enjoy it for what it has to offer.
Then, once one has had some experience and gotten used to other systems, one can go back to the fantasy genre with another game. This is how I came to love Rolemaster... I played D&D for a couple of years, then alternated D&D and Champions (we did a little of Star Frontiers as well but not much), and then having had years to get used to Champions and playing a completely different system, when a friend introduced me to RM, I was ready to do fantasy using a completely different kind of system... and I liked RM much better than AD&D.
Or if you want a really crazy time, as both DM and Player, pick up a copy of Paranoia, read the rule book, and then get executed by the DM in game for knowing the rules :).
Remember a happy citizen is an efficient citizen, happiness is mandatory, if you are not happy please report to a happiness booth for a happiness procedure, Your head will be removed from your body, but that's ok, hopefully your new clone will be happy. Friend computer is always watching.
D&D is best described as adequate, I think. It does what it needs to do well, or very well in particular aspects. To me it just doesn't do anything beyond what it needs to do. That keeps it simple, and that's a quality too, but simplicity isn't really something I look for in an RPG system. Most of the relatively modern ones are more than simple enough. D&D isn't geared towards anything more than beer & pretzels fantasy roleplaying. Beer & pretzels fantasy roleplaying is eminently accessible though, especially since D&D has a bunch of settings ready if you want them but isn't tied to any particular IP or lore that groups have to adhere to (and thus have to be familiar with), and that's worked out well for WotC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeah I've heard good things about Paranoia, certainly interesting things haha.
Paranoia is great, even if just for the occasional one shot. You really need to play it as intended, tongue planted firmly in cheek, but yeah, can be really great!
I tend to run extended one shots, 3-4 sessions, but the usual format, pre mission, mission brief, picking up test equipment, do mission, then mission debrief.
Back in the day, my favorite game was always Champions, from the time I was introduced to it. I like the mechanics of building, of combat, and of just about everything else, better in Champions.
This is bringing back memories of my high school gaming club, when some of my friends were playing D&D and I was just hanging out working on a Champions character. For those who never played it, Champions character sheets had a line drawing of a person in some heroic pose on them, so you could design a costume once you'd figured out the stats and powers.
Anyway, I finished the build and got to work on the costume. One of the D&D players looked over and asked, "What are you doing, anyway?"
The DM, without missing a beat, said "Oh, that's Champions. It's the game where you color."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"Some pretty creative world building, if only they weren't so married to mechanics that were basically a half step evolution from AD&D mechanics."
Sadly this was actually a selling point for more than a few players. The rules were familiar enough that it was really easy to jump in and play.
I honestly believe that if a company really wanted to succeed they should take a lot of lessons from D&D instead of reinventing the wheel and trying to "set themselves apart". It has worked really well for Pathfinder. Make a game system that is familiar to what people know but works for the genre you are aiming for (like Starfinder). Once you have built up a following then you can begin to innovate (just like Pathfinder 2nd edition).
I'd argue Pathfinder is more of an example of D&D's iron fist ruling TTRPG land, to be honest (though maybe and hopefully your experiences are different): Pathfinder was a massive success when D&D slumped, being able to gobble up the large part of the 3E player base dissatisfied with 4E, but at least insofar as I can tell Pathfinder 2 is much less successful because of 5E's surge in popularity gobbling up a large part of the Pathfinder player base in turn. Free League Publishing is doing really well, but without treating their (by now many) product lines as vaporware their continued wellbeing seems predicated more on launching more and different RPGs than building an empire on a single one, WotC/D&D style. Turning a new RPG into a lasting cash cow is hard. WotC significantly reduced their release frequency with 5E, yet other TTRPG publishers typically don't match even that frequency for any single product line by a significant margin.
Chiming in on this. According to Paizo's employees on their forum Pathfinder 2 is the financially most successful product they had so far. They're really doing great at the moment. :-)
It's just that they can't match 5e in size. But then again, nobody can.^^
"Some pretty creative world building, if only they weren't so married to mechanics that were basically a half step evolution from AD&D mechanics."
Sadly this was actually a selling point for more than a few players. The rules were familiar enough that it was really easy to jump in and play.
I honestly believe that if a company really wanted to succeed they should take a lot of lessons from D&D instead of reinventing the wheel and trying to "set themselves apart". It has worked really well for Pathfinder. Make a game system that is familiar to what people know but works for the genre you are aiming for (like Starfinder). Once you have built up a following then you can begin to innovate (just like Pathfinder 2nd edition).
I'd argue Pathfinder is more of an example of D&D's iron fist ruling TTRPG land, to be honest (though maybe and hopefully your experiences are different): Pathfinder was a massive success when D&D slumped, being able to gobble up the large part of the 3E player base dissatisfied with 4E, but at least insofar as I can tell Pathfinder 2 is much less successful because of 5E's surge in popularity gobbling up a large part of the Pathfinder player base in turn. Free League Publishing is doing really well, but without treating their (by now many) product lines as vaporware their continued wellbeing seems predicated more on launching more and different RPGs than building an empire on a single one, WotC/D&D style. Turning a new RPG into a lasting cash cow is hard. WotC significantly reduced their release frequency with 5E, yet other TTRPG publishers typically don't match even that frequency for any single product line by a significant margin.
Chiming in on this. According to Paizo's employees on their forum Pathfinder 2 is the financially most successful product they had so far. They're really doing great at the moment. :-)
It's just that they can't match 5e in size. But then again, nobody can.^^
Happy to be corrected, if that's the case. It's good stuff. Just not happening in my neck of the woods, it seems.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Well first, it's almost foolish to ask "Why does XYZ gets hate?" It's the internet man, everything will be hated.
But to the point, whether that criticism is appropriate: I have friends, who love role-play games but do not like DnD. Their argument is, that systems which provide a lot of rules and mechanics, as well as lore defining content, are inflexible and hinder individual fantasy. Sure, there are people out there who play Star Wars Campaigns in DnD but let's be real, DnD5e was written for high fantasy medieval style epic adventures with a light mood. Wandering away from that path takes effort from both DM and players because you have to constantly change rules or write new ones. I personally love this. E.G. my Campaigns in Runeterra (Universe of League of Legends) went really well. However, I get the critique of people saying that they rather take their own small set of rules and focus more on the story/roleplay aspect of the game.
I have friends, who love role-play games but do not like DnD. Their argument is, that systems which provide a lot of rules and mechanics, as well as lore defining content, are inflexible and hinder individual fantasy.
Are those friends talking about the same D&D we are?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
But to the point, whether that criticism is appropriate: I have friends, who love role-play games but do not like DnD. Their argument is, that systems which provide a lot of rules and mechanics, as well as lore defining content, are inflexible and hinder individual fantasy. Sure, there are people out there who play Star Wars Campaigns in DnD but let's be real, DnD5e was written for high fantasy medieval style epic adventures with a light mood. Wandering away from that path takes effort from both DM and players because you have to constantly change rules or write new ones. I personally love this. E.G. my Campaigns in Runeterra (Universe of League of Legends) went really well. However, I get the critique of people saying that they rather take their own small set of rules and focus more on the story/roleplay aspect of the game.
That matches my experience. Personally, I think it's mostly the result of how difficult it is to tack "classes" and "levels" onto other genres and styles --- though those just scratch the surface of D&D's systematic problems.
I can't even say that D&D is particularly good at "high fantasy medieval style epic adventures with a light mood." That's too broad. D&D is good for this very idiosyncratic style called "D&D" and not much else. Lucky for it that's a very popular style of play.
Luck, but also the feedback loop of dominating the market. People like it because it's the first one they learn and imprint on it. It has brand recognizability even outside the rpg world.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
There are those who think that rules and mechanics get in the way of roleplay, and those who think rules and mechanics enhance it. It sounds like the friends are in the former camp.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
There are those who think that rules and mechanics get in the way of roleplay, and those who think rules and mechanics enhance it. It sounds like the friends are in the former camp.
Seems like it, but I just wonder what their frame of reference is if they feel D&D provides "a lot of rules and mechanics, as well as lore defining content".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
D&D has an extremely large # of rules and mechanics compared to other games. Even Champions only had 80 powers. How many spells are there in D&D, each with its own mini rule set? How many monsters in the game have their own little set of rules just for them - a special ability or feature that only this monster has, and the DM has to learn that feature for just that monster? There are "only" 12 classes but each class now has what, a dozen or more subclasses? Every subclass works a little differently, and has its own unique and special abilities that are different from every other subclass. Just because you've played a transmutation wizard, for instance, doesn't mean you understand those 4 or 5 special abilities of the Bladesinger, which you may never have encountered before, or how those abilities stack with spells you may already be used to. Spells that would have been useless for your transmutation wizard may be key must-haves for a bladesinger -- and this is just 2 different subclasses of a the same class. Let alone if you switch from Wizard to say Druid, and have to learn just about everything from scratch.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing... but the sheer volume of D&D rules is staggering. The entirety of Champions, 4th edition, was about as long as just the Players' Handbook -- and it was the whole game. Savage Worlds is also about 200 pages, and they're small pages (it's a 6x10 or so size book, instead of letter size), and again, it's the whole game. Compared to these games, D&D has a massive number of rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
TBH I haven't really played enough other RPG systems out there to compare them to D&D (I know it's cliché but I still really love the medieval fantasy aesthetic and associated tropes, so D&D meets most of my needs as a role-player even taking its flaws into account), but I have started exploring other systems more recently out of curiosity (largely as a response to D&D criticism, which got me thinking I might as well check out some of these other systems people seem to prefer). I honestly haven't found one yet that I can say is objectively better than D&D 5e overall, except maybe in certain areas.
I don't think it's possible to make an argument that any particular game is objectively better than any others as a general case. You can't say anything else is objectively better than D&D, but you also can't, I presume, objectively say that D&D is better than the other games. Each game is designed to give a different sort of experience, not just "the D&D experience" (well, except for some of the D&D "clones"), and there are things that other games do well that D&D just cannot do, or isn't meant to do.
For example, Champions clearly does the free-wheeling, fly-all-over-the-battlefield, fast-action sort of combat one finds in comic-books or superhero movies. Champions has rules for things like knocking someone back through walls, breaking and destroying objects, picking up and hurling large vehicles at enemies, and so on. D&D really doesn't have a set of rules for that. Call of Cthulhu has a heavily skill-based game with something like 50 different skills -- what D&D calls "persuade" is broken up into multiple skills in CoC (Charm, Fast Talk, Persuade), and it differentiates between History, Archeology, and Library Use (all of which would probably be just "history" in D&D). There is a significant difference among these skills in CoC that does not exist in D&D, because CoC is a lot about investigating ancient ruins from a scholarly perspective, whereas D&D is more often about investigating them to kill zombies and take treasure. D&D is not objectively better, or worse, than Champions or CoC. The games aim to give players a different experience, and it's really all down to what sort of experience you and your friends want to have.
Back in the day, my favorite game was always Champions, from the time I was introduced to it. I like the mechanics of building, of combat, and of just about everything else, better in Champions. I think all of my friends agreed. But, when we wanted to have a dungeon crawling experience, we always switched back to D&D. Why? Because Champions doesn't really do dungeon crawling well... and that is where D&D shines. Similarly, if I wanted to fight atomic monsters that broke out of the lab or save the world from Darkseid, I would use Champions, not D&D, to do that.
I would say -- be open to other games. Don't close them down because they play differently from D&D. Let yourself have a chance to like them -- you never know, you might enjoy another game even more.
One thing I've heard a few people recommend, and I agree with it: if you are very used to D&D and want to try another game, go with a completely different genre from "sword and sorcery". If one tries to go from D&D to, say, Rolemaster or Dungeon Crawl Classics, one may find oneself comparing the game mechanic by mechanic, element by element, to D&D. And even though D&D is not objectively better than these games, they are different from it enough that it can lead one to feeling "fish out of water" and not liking the system. Instead, try a system that is non-fantasy -- Champions (superheroes), Call of Cthulhu (20th century cosmic horror), Savage Worlds ETU (college student horror), Star Trek Adventures, Star Wars, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, etc. These games are different enough from the fantasy setting that our brains do not try to one-to-one compare them to D&D. We can take the system as it is, and enjoy it for what it has to offer.
Then, once one has had some experience and gotten used to other systems, one can go back to the fantasy genre with another game. This is how I came to love Rolemaster... I played D&D for a couple of years, then alternated D&D and Champions (we did a little of Star Frontiers as well but not much), and then having had years to get used to Champions and playing a completely different system, when a friend introduced me to RM, I was ready to do fantasy using a completely different kind of system... and I liked RM much better than AD&D.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Yeah its more about picking things you like about each and hopefully getting something like it in the next iteration.
PF2e nailed it when it comes to character progression and choice. You have skill, ancestry, and class feats that you can pick at alternating levels so you are almost always picking something relevant to your character on each level up and it can drastically change how you play your character.
Initially I had a lot of distrust with the 3 action system but the more I play in it the more it becomes natural.
These are things I think DnD could learn from and implement in future editions to make it better for those who want more choice.
I do not think PF2e is better than 5e....just different in a good way.
Yeah, I didn't mean "objectively" in an absolute sense. Poor choice of words on my part, I admit. I'm absolutely open to getting into other systems, some of the other systems I've tried I certainly like, but I've yet to find one that I want to pour as much time and attention into as D&D (but I also know it could absolutely happen).
Also thanks for the recommendations BioWizard, I'll be sure to check them out.
Funny that PF2e should be mentioned. I bought quite a few of their PDFs a while back, but I haven't had an opportunity to play the game as of yet.
Or if you want a really crazy time, as both DM and Player, pick up a copy of Paranoia, read the rule book, and then get executed by the DM in game for knowing the rules :).
Remember a happy citizen is an efficient citizen, happiness is mandatory, if you are not happy please report to a happiness booth for a happiness procedure, Your head will be removed from your body, but that's ok, hopefully your new clone will be happy. Friend computer is always watching.
Yeah I've heard good things about Paranoia, certainly interesting things haha.
D&D is best described as adequate, I think. It does what it needs to do well, or very well in particular aspects. To me it just doesn't do anything beyond what it needs to do. That keeps it simple, and that's a quality too, but simplicity isn't really something I look for in an RPG system. Most of the relatively modern ones are more than simple enough. D&D isn't geared towards anything more than beer & pretzels fantasy roleplaying. Beer & pretzels fantasy roleplaying is eminently accessible though, especially since D&D has a bunch of settings ready if you want them but isn't tied to any particular IP or lore that groups have to adhere to (and thus have to be familiar with), and that's worked out well for WotC.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I tend to run extended one shots, 3-4 sessions, but the usual format, pre mission, mission brief, picking up test equipment, do mission, then mission debrief.
This is bringing back memories of my high school gaming club, when some of my friends were playing D&D and I was just hanging out working on a Champions character. For those who never played it, Champions character sheets had a line drawing of a person in some heroic pose on them, so you could design a costume once you'd figured out the stats and powers.
Anyway, I finished the build and got to work on the costume. One of the D&D players looked over and asked, "What are you doing, anyway?"
The DM, without missing a beat, said "Oh, that's Champions. It's the game where you color."
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'd have shot back, "That's right, as opposed to D&D, which takes place in blue and white."
Old schoolers will know what that means. :)
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Chiming in on this. According to Paizo's employees on their forum Pathfinder 2 is the financially most successful product they had so far. They're really doing great at the moment. :-)
It's just that they can't match 5e in size. But then again, nobody can.^^
Happy to be corrected, if that's the case. It's good stuff. Just not happening in my neck of the woods, it seems.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Well first, it's almost foolish to ask "Why does XYZ gets hate?" It's the internet man, everything will be hated.
But to the point, whether that criticism is appropriate: I have friends, who love role-play games but do not like DnD. Their argument is, that systems which provide a lot of rules and mechanics, as well as lore defining content, are inflexible and hinder individual fantasy. Sure, there are people out there who play Star Wars Campaigns in DnD but let's be real, DnD5e was written for high fantasy medieval style epic adventures with a light mood. Wandering away from that path takes effort from both DM and players because you have to constantly change rules or write new ones. I personally love this. E.G. my Campaigns in Runeterra (Universe of League of Legends) went really well. However, I get the critique of people saying that they rather take their own small set of rules and focus more on the story/roleplay aspect of the game.
Are those friends talking about the same D&D we are?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That matches my experience. Personally, I think it's mostly the result of how difficult it is to tack "classes" and "levels" onto other genres and styles --- though those just scratch the surface of D&D's systematic problems.
I can't even say that D&D is particularly good at "high fantasy medieval style epic adventures with a light mood." That's too broad. D&D is good for this very idiosyncratic style called "D&D" and not much else. Lucky for it that's a very popular style of play.
Luck, but also the feedback loop of dominating the market. People like it because it's the first one they learn and imprint on it. It has brand recognizability even outside the rpg world.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I did consider putting "Lucky" in scare quotes ;)
There are those who think that rules and mechanics get in the way of roleplay, and those who think rules and mechanics enhance it. It sounds like the friends are in the former camp.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Seems like it, but I just wonder what their frame of reference is if they feel D&D provides "a lot of rules and mechanics, as well as lore defining content".
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
D&D has an extremely large # of rules and mechanics compared to other games. Even Champions only had 80 powers. How many spells are there in D&D, each with its own mini rule set? How many monsters in the game have their own little set of rules just for them - a special ability or feature that only this monster has, and the DM has to learn that feature for just that monster? There are "only" 12 classes but each class now has what, a dozen or more subclasses? Every subclass works a little differently, and has its own unique and special abilities that are different from every other subclass. Just because you've played a transmutation wizard, for instance, doesn't mean you understand those 4 or 5 special abilities of the Bladesinger, which you may never have encountered before, or how those abilities stack with spells you may already be used to. Spells that would have been useless for your transmutation wizard may be key must-haves for a bladesinger -- and this is just 2 different subclasses of a the same class. Let alone if you switch from Wizard to say Druid, and have to learn just about everything from scratch.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing... but the sheer volume of D&D rules is staggering. The entirety of Champions, 4th edition, was about as long as just the Players' Handbook -- and it was the whole game. Savage Worlds is also about 200 pages, and they're small pages (it's a 6x10 or so size book, instead of letter size), and again, it's the whole game. Compared to these games, D&D has a massive number of rules.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.