Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I voted 5/5. Long time D&D player, and I think 5e is the best version of the game. I don't get the gripes about it being a "closed" system, but maybe that's just the experience others have had with it. Over the 20 years I've played, I've had some groups that just suck, so I can relate, but I've also played in some amazing games. So, I think (like 40k), what you get out of D&D is equivalent to what you put into it (and the types of folks you play with). It doesn't matter what game you try (40k, D&D, WoD, Monopoly, etc), if you're entire experience is centered around one or more people trying to "one-up" everyone else, or their goal is to "win" at all costs, you're probably not gonna have a good time with it.

Unless that's what you're into, and in that case you might wanna consider playing a single-player videogame.

I like my RPGs like I like my relationships... overly complicated, full of darkness and rife with unnecessary drama...

 Aestas wrote:
I like my RPGs like I like my relationships... overly complicated, full of darkness and rife with unnecessary drama...

"SWF, 35, seeks Vampire: The Masquerade for friendship, intimacy, possibly more. Serious inquiries only."

 Lance845 wrote:

 redux wrote:
My issue with DnD is it gives your "friends" a proxy for their poor social skills. eg, my character is an ass hat so I am juuuuuust acting out their ass hattery.

My issue with 40K is it gives your "friends" a rule set for their poor social skills. eg, the rule says I can F you so I'm going to F you.

You should get better friends.

I highly prefer table top rpgs over 40k. But I greatly dislike DnD itself for a number of reasons I have talked about in other places on DakkaDakka. DnD is pretty comparable to 40k in that they are both big name heavy hitters in their field but both, mechanically, pretty handily fail to do the things they are supposed to do well. Both are super entrenched in old mechanics from decades ago and refuse to grow up with later editions to newer and better design philosophies. At least in the rpg market there are so many options and getting your friends to play is as easy as saying "I want to run a game of X. Whos in?"

With games like 40k, it's heaps of time and money just to get the first game going.

Hence the quotation marks.

Edited out the Call of Cthulhu reference? That game doesn't get enough love.

Side note: one of my current characters is based on 40k Orkz. He's a Half-Orc Barbarian from the giant raft cities of the pirating sea Orcs. He wields an anchor in combat, but isn't afraid to go bare knuckle if he needs to.

So, basically, your game of D&D is only as restrictive as you and your group lets it be.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:
I like my RPGs like I like my relationships... overly complicated, full of darkness and rife with unnecessary drama...

"SWF, 35, seeks Vampire: The Masquerade for friendship, intimacy, possibly more. Serious inquiries only."

Exactly

 flandarz wrote:
Edited out the Call of Cthulhu reference? That game doesn't get enough love.

I just decided Vampire was a better choice for the "unnecessary drama" part of the joke.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
Edited out the Call of Cthulhu reference? That game doesn't get enough love.

I just decided Vampire was a better choice for the "unnecessary drama" part of the joke.

I definately would prefer dating a vampire... although I think unnecessary drama would be a pretty inherent part of dating an eldritch horror, although for very different reasons...

Now, I get you can of course do what you like with D&D, but I find it easier to get to an equal understanding from a more grimdark starting point.

If you're looking for grimdark in D&D, check out Curse of Strahd. I don't wanna get into any spoilers, but it's pretty dang dark.

That said, I also enjoy VtM (and other WW games), CoC, DH, and pretty much any other system I can get my hands on. Cuz, honestly, the system matters a whole lot less than just having a good time with your pals.

I've been playing D&D and other table top rpgs for far longer than 40k, and I do rpg stuff far more often than 40k (once a week, barring incidents/schedule conflicts vs once every 3-6 months). The fun you get out of D&D and other tabletop games are highly dependent on your group makeup and the type of game everyone wants to play - if you get a group of hard core role players and a murderhobo together, or a vice versa, etc, the game could become boring to one or more of the players which could cause issues. So long as everyone is on board for what the game is going to be run as, or flexible enough so that everyone gets a little something, things usually go off without a hitch.

I do prefer game systems without levels though - like the old Star Wars d6, or Dark Heresy, etc, where players can specialize and spread out their roles outside of set classes. That said, so long as I have a good time, I'm willing to work with most systems (except "roll for anal circumference" Fatal and the like).

I think the people who enjoy miniature-based tabletop wargaming would probably enjoy miniature-based roleplaying and vice versa if they played with the same gaming groups they enjoy.

 flandarz wrote:
If you're looking for grimdark in D&D, check out Curse of Strahd. I don't wanna get into any spoilers, but it's pretty dang dark.

That said, I also enjoy VtM (and other WW games), CoC, DH, and pretty much any other system I can get my hands on. Cuz, honestly, the system matters a whole lot less than just having a good time with your pals.

Haha you enjoy getting your hands on CoC.

Not able to partake in D&D as I do 40K, but do admire it. For a decent experience, roleplay games tend to need a group whereas a wargame only two people, so its mostly wargaming or Castle Ravenloft.

I play D&D when I can, and I'd like to try other RPGs like Star Wars, Shadowrun and even 40k if there's a good one out there. I dislike 5th ed. D&D immensely for dumbing down the granularity in player actions and in the ability to build a unique character, to fine-tune their skills, and what they don't do so well.

I want more narrative and immersion in my 40k, too, but I still want to be playing a tactical war-game of 40k, not a confused pseudo-war-rpg-dice rolling simulator-thing.

I've enjoyed every version of D&D except 4th. Wanted to even work as an adventure designer back in the 90's, and actually got a module published in Dungeon magazine.

But, like 40K, no game is perfect and D&D is no exception. But I'm having plenty of fun with 5E and my Ghosts of Saltmarsh campaign (not so much the Tomb of Annihilation game I'm participating in).

Overall I like D&D and so does most of my group of friends who play 40k. I am not a big fan of the newest edition, feels to dumbed down.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
No one really "likes" DnD. It's the 40k of PnP RPGs.A game that's "fun" but has incredibly lackluster rules, that's so massive and has so much support that it's easier to bare with the rough system and play it then try to play something with better rules but a tenth of the playerbase.

I dunno, I think it's more the oppisite of 40K.

people mostly find 40K appealing for the setting. we'll slog through the rules to play in the world.

D&D has no single setting, it's a "create yuour own world" deal (granted yes you can play in pre-genned stuff but I suspect on average most odn't) but it's a universal rules set everyone knows and can count on everyone knowing.

 redux wrote:
My issue with DnD is it gives your "friends" a proxy for their poor social skills. eg, my character is an ass hat so I am juuuuuust acting out their ass hattery.

My issue with 40K is it gives your "friends" a rule set for their poor social skills. eg, the rule says I can F you so I'm going to F you.

Your issue is that you aren't playing either of these games with friends.

ccs wrote:

 redux wrote:
My issue with DnD is it gives your "friends" a proxy for their poor social skills. eg, my character is an ass hat so I am juuuuuust acting out their ass hattery.

My issue with 40K is it gives your "friends" a rule set for their poor social skills. eg, the rule says I can F you so I'm going to F you.

Your issue is that you aren't playing either of these games with friends.

agreed. D&D and 40k are games designed with the assumption of a social contract. if your "Friends" don't wanna follow said social contract well... don't play 40k and d&d with them

I find it okay, but it's far from my favourite rpg. 4e suffered from trying to be "table top world of warcraft" and 5e is better but not better enough in my mind.

Actually, I'm a pretty big fan of the 40k rpgs - there's a lot of good stuff in them (I sort of bundle inquisitor in as more rpg than war game, but I'm primarily thinking dark heresy and spin-offs, and the newer wrath and glory).

It's a somewhat different experience to D&D, though - one thing to bear in mind is that a mid level character in Dark Heresy aspires to be one of the five point bonus wounds you buy the inquisitors in your table top army. "Oh sh**, he's got a lasgun" is a real thing because whilst we rag on it on the table top, it's still a bloody assault rifle......

locarno24 wrote:
Actually, I'm a pretty big fan of the 40k rpgs - there's a lot of good stuff in them (I sort of bundle inquisitor in as more rpg than war game, but I'm primarily thinking dark heresy and spin-offs, and the newer wrath and glory).

It's a somewhat different experience to D&D, though - one thing to bear in mind is that a mid level character in Dark Heresy aspires to be one of the five point bonus wounds you buy the inquisitors in your table top army. "Oh sh**, he's got a lasgun" is a real thing because whilst we rag on it on the table top, it's still a bloody assault rifle......

True dat, to all points, also about Inquisitor (what a game) and the lasgun. Reading about its intended effect on anything not wearing power armour is quite nerve wrecking.

 Stux wrote:

D&D is in many ways very poorly balanced, but in the right group that doesnt really matter as it's all about how the DM leads the story, and the rules are just one tool in doing that.

A lot of people forget the Role-play part of Role-play games. So many RPGs just turn into a series of battles in which the players murder-hobo their way across the land. Either because the players are so combat focused OR The GM does a poor job of creating a campaign where role-play is encouraged. Which to be fair is a very difficult thing.

RPGs don't NEED to be as finely balanced as wargames do. Its ok if certain classes are 'weaker' since you have concerns other than DPS'ing in combat. RPGs get into trouble if their design focuses too much on combat OR the group ends up focusing too much on combat.

Not that there is anything wrong with people wanting to play a straight up combat DnD campaign. Its just that that by default leaves certain builds out of contention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aestas wrote:

locarno24 wrote:
Actually, I'm a pretty big fan of the 40k rpgs - there's a lot of good stuff in them (I sort of bundle inquisitor in as more rpg than war game, but I'm primarily thinking dark heresy and spin-offs, and the newer wrath and glory).

It's a somewhat different experience to D&D, though - one thing to bear in mind is that a mid level character in Dark Heresy aspires to be one of the five point bonus wounds you buy the inquisitors in your table top army. "Oh sh**, he's got a lasgun" is a real thing because whilst we rag on it on the table top, it's still a bloody assault rifle......

True dat, to all points, also about Inquisitor (what a game) and the lasgun. Reading about its intended effect on anything not wearing power armour is quite nerve wrecking.

Pretty much all weapons in the FFG warhammer RPGs are dangerous.

Which is one reason I think they are an excellent set of RPGs, both Fantasy and 40k. They have a grittiness that lends some excitement. Its nice to have an RPG where even the most trash of enemies can be a threat to even high level characters, unlike DnD where level 1 foes are quite literally no threat to characters who have made it past level 5.

FFG's Old World and 40k. RPGs are also just excellently written. I think the fantasy battle ones have given me the most immersive campaigns I ever played.

Is the Rogue Trader RPG from FFG really as bad, system-wise, as people make it out to be?

The concept of it - playing a rogue trader and the most trusted members of their crew - is INCREDIBLY appealing to me. All the agency and much of the power of an Inquisitor, but without any overarching moral imperative, and room to be a completely self-serving b***h!

But I keep hearing the rules are really, really, really bad and it's better to just transpose the setting, characters, adventures, etc into a different game system.

Thoughts on that?

P.S. I can't believe people are complaining about balance even here in a thread on cooperative TTRPGs...

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Is the Rogue Trader RPG from FFG really as bad, system-wise, as people make it out to be?

The concept of it - playing a rogue trader and the most trusted members of their crew - is INCREDIBLY appealing to me. All the agency and much of the power of an Inquisitor, but without any overarching moral imperative, and room to be a completely self-serving b***h!

But I keep hearing the rules are really, really, really bad and it's better to just transpose the setting, characters, adventures, etc into a different game system.

Thoughts on that?

P.S. I can't believe people are complaining about balance even here in a thread on cooperative TTRPGs...

Funnily enough, at the moment my extremely infrequent RPG group are playing a 40K campaign where we are members of an inquisitor's retinue. The DM has cobbled it together from the Call Of Cthulhu rule set, but honestly there's not a lot of looking up rules going on. Having a damn good time.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Stux wrote:

D&D is in many ways very poorly balanced, but in the right group that doesnt really matter as it's all about how the DM leads the story, and the rules are just one tool in doing that.

A lot of people forget the Role-play part of Role-play games. So many RPGs just turn into a series of battles in which the players murder-hobo their way across the land. Either because the players are so combat focused OR The GM does a poor job of creating a campaign where role-play is encouraged. Which to be fair is a very difficult thing.

RPGs don't NEED to be as finely balanced as wargames do. Its ok if certain classes are 'weaker' since you have concerns other than DPS'ing in combat. RPGs get into trouble if their design focuses too much on combat OR the group ends up focusing too much on combat.

Not that there is anything wrong with people wanting to play a straight up combat DnD campaign. Its just that that by default leaves certain builds out of contention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aestas wrote:

locarno24 wrote:
Actually, I'm a pretty big fan of the 40k rpgs - there's a lot of good stuff in them (I sort of bundle inquisitor in as more rpg than war game, but I'm primarily thinking dark heresy and spin-offs, and the newer wrath and glory).

It's a somewhat different experience to D&D, though - one thing to bear in mind is that a mid level character in Dark Heresy aspires to be one of the five point bonus wounds you buy the inquisitors in your table top army. "Oh sh**, he's got a lasgun" is a real thing because whilst we rag on it on the table top, it's still a bloody assault rifle......

True dat, to all points, also about Inquisitor (what a game) and the lasgun. Reading about its intended effect on anything not wearing power armour is quite nerve wrecking.

Pretty much all weapons in the FFG warhammer RPGs are dangerous.

Which is one reason I think they are an excellent set of RPGs, both Fantasy and 40k. They have a grittiness that lends some excitement. Its nice to have an RPG where even the most trash of enemies can be a threat to even high level characters, unlike DnD where level 1 foes are quite literally no threat to characters who have made it past level 5.

some of my favorite D&D ahs been playing a bard, I was anything but a combat machine but I was the life of all the parties we got invited too. I was quite often opening doors. "ohh you're in town master bard? you must simply play for the count!"

I voted 5 as i love DnD conceptually. Like 40k there are a few fframeworks available to provide a commonground to work with and plenty of additional material to serve as inspiration to tweak that framework in any way you require (whether RAI or houserule).

Personally i enjoy most the incestigating characters/following leads/exploring cool locations parts of the game to the actual cut and thrust of combat, so perhaps the rules are largely irrelevant for me?

I like both. However, both games fall apart when their crowds mix. When a competitive 40k player tries to play D&D or when a full blooded D&D roleplayer tries to play 40k it usually ends in disaster for all involved (as shown by multiple posts on this thread). Both games seem to have something in common, but they really don't.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Is the Rogue Trader RPG from FFG really as bad, system-wise, as people make it out to be?

The concept of it - playing a rogue trader and the most trusted members of their crew - is INCREDIBLY appealing to me. All the agency and much of the power of an Inquisitor, but without any overarching moral imperative, and room to be a completely self-serving b***h!

But I keep hearing the rules are really, really, really bad and it's better to just transpose the setting, characters, adventures, etc into a different game system.

Thoughts on that?

P.S. I can't believe people are complaining about balance even here in a thread on cooperative TTRPGs...

I think they generally did way better with the Fantasy Battle IP than the 40k. one, oddly enough. Man, maybe I should bring some books home for the holidays and see if I can guilt trip my siblings into venturing into Sylvania or something

Rogue Trader has a system for naval combat, which I think might not translate as easily into other systems as the rest of the gameplay. I think I would go with whatever other game system you prefer from somewhere else and fit in the story, characters etc. It has been a while tho. Maybe it is not so bad/way worse than I remember. Last FFG 40k. I played was Dark Heresy, which is fine.

Yes, For the Throne. Just change it if you don't like it people. What are GMs for if not for exactly that?

EDIT: You can't play an Inquisitor as a complete self-serving b***h???

Played AD&D in school back in the 80s along with some tabletop Chainmail (puts on own hipster glasses). I got back into D&D for 5e and have enjoyed it when I can. I find that RPGs require a certain level of time commitment that I have difficulty making. My work takes me odd places at odd times outside of my control. I can miss a Saturday with the 40k group without causing a headache, but an RPG group requires more consistency than I can provide.

There is an element of role play in tabletop wargames, at least for me. It's not the same as a true RPG, but it's there.

I took the poll to be less an invitation to criticize rules and more a test to see if 40k hobbyists enjoy RPGs. I answered in the absolute affirmative.