this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
144 points (87.1% liked)

RPGMemes

10342 readers
790 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Susaga@ttrpg.network 38 points 1 year ago

"I know. But I would much prefer if I didn't have to change the rules. Unfortunately, I do, because they stink."

[–] Neato@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Complaining about the rules is the only way we as players can effect the change for future editions. Developers listen to communities.

Yes you can homebrew your own solutions and rule changes. But if it was that easy to just create new complex systems, we wouldn't need to pay people to do it. Changing core rules can really bork a game's balance and have huge knock-on effects that aren't foreseen without significant play testing. It's also really hard to know what rules need to be changed and to what without being a game developer.

You can also switch systems. For something like D&D 5e <-> PF2e that's not a huge learning curve. But to other systems or from other systems? It can be a LOT of work on the GM and players part to completely reset their game, learn a new system, buy books, etc. For a lot of tables this might kill a game.

In the end, we should be telling the game's creators what rules are bad and if we can, how we'd like them changed. And we should complain, Loudly, if they ignore a community's feedback or make changes that seem worse. Players don't always know what's best in game design, but they can at the very least tell developers what they don't like. And they should.

[–] Marchioness@ttrpg.network 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We WISH that WotC listened to their community.

[–] SolOrion@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At the very least they used to, which is why there's such a flip between 4e and 5e.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Though ironically there's a lot of stuff people complain about in 5e where the fixes they propose are basically 4e.

[–] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People complain a short rest at one hour is too long. 4e had it at like 5 minutes.

People complain martials mostly just do their basic attack. 4e had every class have cool powers on the same recharge cadence. This also helped address the martial caster divide.

The other day I saw someone iteratively come up with "the attacker should always roll instead of confusingly sometimes the defender rolls. You could figure out like an AC for reflexes and fortitude and roll against that". Which is how I believe 4e worked.

It didn't have bounded accuracy, so changes to that tend to reinvent 4e, 3e, or Pathfinder.

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

[–] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago

That's a good point, and really loved how balanced the three defenses were in D&D 4E, as well!

[–] houselyrander@ttrpg.network 13 points 1 year ago

Time to whip out the Oberani Fallacy again.

Here, take a gander at this forum post from 2002.

This my my [sic] take on the issue.

Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion: "There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."

Several correct replies can be given:

"I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X." "I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X." "I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue." Okay, I hope you're with me so far. There is, however, an incorrect reply:

"There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue." Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."

It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.

Simple enough

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That being said, sometimes the rules just suck and it would be better for everyone involved if they weren't the way they are

[–] TwilightVulpine@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

There's personal preferences, and then there's needlessly complicated or lacking mechanics and poor balance.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This topic is often a good example of how people are more emotional than reasonable.

Someone will complain about all the things they don't like about DND, but when presented with alternatives balk and stick to DND. The devil you know, the comfort of the familiar, whatever.

Which is fine, I guess. We all do that kind of thing. I'm just as emotional as anyone else.

[–] Marchioness@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Inertia is the world's most powerful force.

[–] Halfjack@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Marchioness@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 year ago

That depends on your frame of reference.

[–] Archpawn@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Learning a new RPG system is a big time sink. Maybe if you keep searching you can find one perfect for you, but it's easier to stick with the most famous one that everyone else already knows, and then add in tons of homebrew to fix the flaws.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is kind of a cliché, but the counter argument is that many systems other than DND are easier to learn.

You're not entirely wrong, but you are kind of describing the sunk cost fallacy.

[–] Archpawn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the extra enjoyment of a new RPG isn't worth the cost to learn more systems until you find a better one, it's rational to stick to D&D. Sunk cost fallacy is when you stick to it even though it's not rational.

It's probably worth learning some simple systems, but if you want crunch, is it really worth going through the effort of learning GURPS even though you don't know if you'll enjoy it any more?

Though the biggest problem is finding someone else to play it. Everyone plays D&D, so even if it's not as good they'll stick to that. I could learn a new system and enjoy it, but it's all for naught unless I can find other people to play it with me.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I concede that it's hard to find people to play other systems, but not impossible.

I don't think "I shouldn't read this system because I might like it less" is very sound. If you applied that to everything, no one would try anything new. Why listen to a new band when Mozart is fine?

I will die on the hill that DND 5e is actually pretty bad, though. It's complicated in all the wrong ways, the combat is surprisingly shallow most of the time, the adventuring day tries to force it into very specific cadences, it's shallow in its customization, it has a martial caster divide problem, the math is bad (flat probability can fuck itself), the magic system is incoherent, its support for the non combat "pillars" is lackluster... Pretty much every single part of the game makes me grind my teeth.

The only thing going for it is it's popular, and it's shallow in some ways that sometimes make it hard to make an ineffective character.

[–] mightbejackie@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 year ago

Honestly 5e has a bit of an identity crisis. It's trying to go just there enough to support players who want a more generic fantasy adventuring game, and just trad enough to not scare off the people who want the D&D Experience:tm: as it was in the 80's.

[–] Lazerbeams2@ttrpg.network 5 points 1 year ago

You'd be surprised how fast and easy to learn TTRPGs can be. Compared to what's available, DnD 5e is actually on the crunchier side (upper mid range overall)

[–] totallymojo@ttrpg.network 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is a point where you go "Why did I pay for a book and then just change all the rules? Should just have made my own game."

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 1 points 1 year ago

That's exactly why I used the SRD for years. I only ever bought the books for the lore after seeing them in the store and seeing they had more than just rules in them.

[–] Dee@lemmings.world 6 points 1 year ago

I don't remember the last time I've ran a game RAW. There's always a tweak or two that's useful to customize things for each table.

[–] sirblastalot@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 year ago

Picking a ttrpg system (or a computer game engine) is about finding something that does as much of the work you don't want to do for you. If a system doesn't do much of the stuff you want it to, find a different system. If it does a bunch but has just a few things you don't like, it may still be worth spending some time fixing the parts you don't like. Or if the parts that are bad are also the parts you want to do for yourself anyway, then go for it.

There's arguments about systems because different DMs have different design strengths, weaknesses, and goals, and what you're looking for in a system changes from person to person.

And then the meta-rule for engine selection is, the best system in the world doesn't matter if no one plays your game. So if your party is only interested in D&D or rules light systems or whatever, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 0 points 1 year ago

I don't want to change them. I want to smell the stinkiness. 😤