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 play D&D, But its the worlds and settings i really love and the system itself i think is serviceable.
With 3.5 my preferred rules set for it.


But i have so many RPGs now, i can play allmost any setting in any rules i want and can get players to try

I like certain rpgs, I like certain genres of ttg.

I absolutely loved cp2020, Paranoia, WEG SW rpg, oWoD and Cthulhu now.

I don't care enough for D&D to hate it. I'm just not into fantasy hackenslash tropes.

But I also tired of playing 40k six years ago. Some of the models still grab my interest, but the mess of the game isn't something I wish to jump back into.

 Jidmah wrote:
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.

that assumes they take the same additude into each game, if a compeitive 40k player goes into a D&D game intent on abusing the system, and 'winning' the game you're absolutely right he'll ruin the D&D game.

I play both 40K and D&D and i absolutely love D&D.

Played 3E 4E and 5E, then sticked with 5E because it is the one that i find more enjoyable.

Tried also many other RPGs, like Chtulhu, Exalted, Sine Requie and more, but in the end everything with a fixed setting just feels too limited and i go back to D&D.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Because I've seen a LOT of ragging on D&D from others in this forum. So I'm curious, is this a common thing? Because at my local GW, the manager runs his own D&D-esque campaign for his friends, the sub manager does too, and I personally really enjoy D&D and other TTRPG games.

Well personally i prefer less focus on combo's and combat in rpg's. D&d feels more like skirmish wargame than rpg.

I'm more for traveller style level of rules than d&d

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I like tabletop RPGs. I dislike D&D specifically because 5e isn't a complete or working tabletop RPG, it's a bland half-assed intro experience nobody seems to want to move beyond into more interesting things. I disliked 3e because while it worked really well it was impossible to get anyone to read enough of to actually use it, and I disliked 4e because it was an overly-abstracted handwavey combat-centric MMO pretending to be an RPG.

If 5e was an intro product and there was an "advanced 5e" game where bonuses/damage didn't scale linearly by level independent of class and where classes didn't shove players into one-dimensional boxes where you have one thing you do every turn, or if 4e had packaged itself as a wargame instead of an RPG, or if 3e had a sensible and easy-to-use tutorial path to make it easier to teach to new people, I'd be happy with D&D, but as-is they're trying to take single-purpose games and sell them as general-purpose RPGs anyone can do anything with, and everyone seems to be lapping it up and refusing to do anything other than D&D in the sphere of tabletop RPGs.

Come to think of it, I dislike D&D for a lot of the same reasons I dislike 40k.

If you don't mind me asking, which tabletop RPGs do you prefer to D&D?

Tbh I haven't seen much negativity about DnD on this forum, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong places!

I play DnD 5ed every Sunday and do enjoy myself.
I think I probably enjoy roleplaying more than I enjoy DnD though, it has too many rules imo.
However, some people in the group enjoy the stats optimisation and character builds side.

 jeff white wrote:
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.

It is not a very good poll for that though, as there are a lot of people who love RPGs but wouldn't touch the D&D with a ten feet pole!

BrianDavion wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
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.

that assumes they take the same additude into each game, if a compeitive 40k player goes into a D&D game intent on abusing the system, and 'winning' the game you're absolutely right he'll ruin the D&D game.

Even if he doesn't try abuse the system, the mindset is still "beating" the DM or "winning" a campaign. In an RPG, the game system is just a means to an end, not the actual game. People switching over from WH40k, MtG or similar games usually don't get that.

On the other side, people trying to "roleplay" in a game 40k will find the game is severely lacking support for that - there is no story told, and the game barely supports telling your own story.

It's not like people only have a singular experience with games. I am sure people were playing Monopoly, Clue, and Risk long before they played 40k or DnD. And I am sure they played some kind of pretend as kids running around at recess. People can play each game with different expectations for what that game is.

Wargammers do not pick up RPGs and think they need to compete and win. And DnD players do not pick up 40k thinking they want a narrative to explain why anyone on the battlefield gives a gak about being there. 1 person can do 2 things.

 Aestas wrote:


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

I mean, yeah, but she'd have to spend all her time faking some weird loyalty to the Emperor and humanity and blahblahblah.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
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.

that assumes they take the same additude into each game, if a compeitive 40k player goes into a D&D game intent on abusing the system, and 'winning' the game you're absolutely right he'll ruin the D&D game.

Not at my table/with the group I play with.
His futile antics will merely provide the rest of us with hours of amusement. And funny stories years down the road.

One of two things will happen.
1) After a bit of thrashing about he'll adapt to the game he's actually playing & the group he's playing it with.
2) He'll have frustrated himself to the point he drops out.

This of course assumes that he's not enough of an arsehole that we boot him out anyways. But then if he's that bad we likely wouldn't have invited him in the 1st place as our D&D game (wether or not we're actually playing D&D atm) isn't an open invite group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
People switching over from WH40k, MtG or similar games usually don't get that.

Oh BS.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
*puts on big plastic hipster glasses*

I prefer Pathfinder, Numenera, and Shadowrun.

I prefer Pathfinder too. That said, most of my friends prefer 5e because there's too much stuff in Pathfinder to sort through.

That said, fantasy just isn't my thing, so I run Traveller and the FFG 40k RPG's.



40k and D&D are not like each other though, even though tabletop miniatures games, card gamers, and roleplay gamers are generally all lumped into a similar category.
D&D, as a catch-all for RPG's, is about collaborative storytelling and imagination. A group of people work together to confront fun challenges that the GM creates for them and build a story about their characters.
Wargaming involves 2 people, who have showed up with a collection of pieces that will carry out a game against each other that is supposed to provide a balance between competitive balance and representation of actual combat, with the intent of winning and then going home. The storytelling and imagination is entirely separate from anything required for the game, except making you excited about it.

It is not remotely a given that a person who likes RPG's will also like wargaming, because they're basically nothing like each other at all, even though people on the outside categorize everyone who plays at the FLGS in one category.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:


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

I mean, yeah, but she'd have to spend all her time faking some weird loyalty to the Emperor and humanity and blahblahblah.

But doesn't that sound kinda fun? I have had two major inquisitor characters in my RPG days. One who was a doubting, investigative Thorian, a good guy detective, barely holding unto faith and hope, whose biggest flaw was being a regular human in a world of crazy abe s**t deamons and rituals. On the other hand I had Ulysses Confligere. An abe s**t crazy Nietzsche quoting Istvaanist. Maybe slightly overpowered but more or less his own and everybody else's worst enemy. Mustache twirling villain and imperial hero in one. Man he was fun.

ccs wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
People switching over from WH40k, MtG or similar games usually don't get that.

Oh BS.

agreed. People who can't grasp the differance between a RPG and a compeitive game aren't normal. they are, to put bluntly, one of two things 1: COMPLETE IDIOTS. or 2: Sociallyl maladjusted donkey-caves incapable of getting along with people whom use the veneer of "ohh I'm just trying to win man" to cover up for the fact that they're just dicks.

 Aestas wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:


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

I mean, yeah, but she'd have to spend all her time faking some weird loyalty to the Emperor and humanity and blahblahblah.

But doesn't that sound kinda fun? I have had two major inquisitor characters in my RPG days. One who was a doubting, investigative Thorian, a good guy detective, barely holding unto faith and hope, whose biggest flaw was being a regular human in a world of crazy abe s**t deamons and rituals. On the other hand I had Ulysses Confligere. An abe s**t crazy Nietzsche quoting Istvaanist. Maybe slightly overpowered but more or less his own and everybody else's worst enemy. Mustache twirling villain and imperial hero in one. Man he was fun.

Yeah, it could ABSOLUTELY be fun! It's just a Rogue Trader has a lot less limits on what your character can "get away with", since they have a comparable degree of agency as an Inquisitor but don't have a commanding organization breathing down their necks… that gives a bit more freedom to navigate the setting, you know?

Dark Heresy definitely sounds fun, and it's not like you're stuck playing a stuffy, sincere, puritan, but Rogue Trader just sounds a bit more appealing to my own tastes right now. At least as an introduction to roleplaying in the 40k universe.

the inqusition, in fairness doesn't have a controling orginization breathing down it's neck, the inqusition is VEEEEEEEERY losely orginized

I don;t play D&D, but I do love playing other roleplaying games like Prowlers and Paragons, Savage Worlds (in about 5 different sub-settings from fantasy to sci-fi), and several others, including a free Indie D20 game called Heroes Against Darkness, which I much prefer to modern D&D.

The last couple of editions of D&D just didn't appeal to me.

But I have also played and painted 40K for 25 years, so I guess I differ from some of the main group. Frankly I have heard 40k players rag on just about anything that's NOT 40K. Lots of claims that other games just "suck", even those with lots of critical acclaim. Even AoS barely gets a pass, if only for being from GW.

BrianDavion wrote:
the inqusition, in fairness doesn't have a controling orginization breathing down it's neck, the inqusition is VEEEEEEEERY losely orginized

Well not as loosely as the rogue traders are!

BrianDavion wrote:
the inqusition, in fairness doesn't have a controling orginization breathing down it's neck, the inqusition is VEEEEEEEERY losely orginized

To be fair, there's limits to even what an Inquisitor can get away with. Like exterminatusing a bunch of planets to divert a Tyranid Hive Fleet, for example.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I don;t play D&D, but I do love playing other roleplaying games like Prowlers and Paragons, Savage Worlds (in about 5 different sub-settings from fantasy to sci-fi), and several others, including a free Indie D20 game called Heroes Against Darkness, which I much prefer to modern D&D.

The last couple of editions of D&D just didn't appeal to me.

But I have also played and painted 40K for 25 years, so I guess I differ from some of the main group. Frankly I have heard 40k players rag on just about anything that's NOT 40K. Lots of claims that other games just "suck", even those with lots of critical acclaim. Even AoS barely gets a pass, if only for being from GW.

Huh, I usually hear the opposite. That whatever it is is vastly better than 40k, and everybody should play it instead, but in the end there's only a small cadre that plays it and everybody keeps playing 40k. There's maybe a dozen people who play Infinity at one of the stores, but otherwise, despite how often some other game is presented, in the end it's basically just 40k.

3.5 ed dnd has so many fricken supplement books and 3rd party books. This causes the hardcore players to mix and match rules that where not intended to be combined to create game breaking characters. Then the dm is forced to throw high level challenge rating monsters because 1 or 2 guys out of the group of 5 players is a power gamer causing the other players to suffer hard hitting monsters or bogus status effects.

Also it some how takes for ever create a scenario and conduct combat or for players to take their turns. Like 3 hours for one or two small combat sessions. Like really, players in my group take forever to decide what to do but always end up deciding to blindly run up to a powerful monster and attempt to hit an impossibly large ac since that monster was intended to go toe to toe with the power gamer's overpowered weeabo fighting magic character that can 6 attacks for 200 dmg at lvl 5.

In 3 hours i can play a 2000pt game of wh40k at a leisurely pace. Who ever goes first gets to destroy half of an army and then from there i just go through the motions of sportsman ship and control the remaining 40% of my army to capture obj since i no longer have the fighting capability. At that point i just make jokes since i already lost game and just have fun rolling saves.

I liked 3.5 Pathfinder. 5th edition is ok but I still prefer 3.5 Pathfinder.

 CadianGateTroll wrote:
3.5 ed dnd has so many fricken supplement books and 3rd party books. This causes the hardcore players to mix and match rules that where not intended to be combined to create game breaking characters. Then the dm is forced to throw high level challenge rating monsters because 1 or 2 guys out of the group of 5 players is a power gamer causing the other players to suffer hard hitting monsters or bogus status effects.

Also it some how takes for ever create a scenario and conduct combat or for players to take their turns. Like 3 hours for one or two small combat sessions. Like really, players in my group take forever to decide what to do but always end up deciding to blindly run up to a powerful monster and attempt to hit an impossibly large ac since that monster was intended to go toe to toe with the power gamer's overpowered weeabo fighting magic character that can 6 attacks for 200 dmg at lvl 5.

In 3 hours i can play a 2000pt game of wh40k at a leisurely pace. Who ever goes first gets to destroy half of an army and then from there i just go through the motions of sportsman ship and control the remaining 40% of my army to capture obj since i no longer have the fighting capability. At that point i just make jokes since i already lost game and just have fun rolling saves.

sounds like you need a DM who can say "no"

D&D experience is all about the DM and what you prefer (Hack and slash vs story development ratio)

Lance845 wrote:It's not like people only have a singular experience with games. I am sure people were playing Monopoly, Clue, and Risk long before they played 40k or DnD. And I am sure they played some kind of pretend as kids running around at recess. People can play each game with different expectations for what that game is.

Wargammers do not pick up RPGs and think they need to compete and win. And DnD players do not pick up 40k thinking they want a narrative to explain why anyone on the battlefield gives a gak about being there. 1 person can do 2 things.

What I meant to say is "People switching over from WH40k, MtG or similar games usually don't get that in the beginning".

However, that transition needs to be made. Monopoly, Clue, Risk and 40k all share one common thing - the entire game is in the rules and the objective is to win that game, either by getting all the money, guessing who murdered whom where first, capturing continents and amassing armies or by scoring victory points and destroying enemy units.
It's only natural when you introduce someone from such a background to an P&P RPG that they assume that the game is about optimizing builds, dealing/tanking/healing as much damage as possible to eventually defeat the final boss and win the campaign - just like they would when playing a RPG like Diablo, Divinity, World of Warcraft, Dragon Age, Witcher or Pillars of Eternity. I even have experienced this more often in D&D than in any other system since D&D is the foundation for many games which people have played and they assume playing it with dice at a table is the same as playing it on their PC/console.
There even are groups who keep playing this way and are having fun - they just keep buying dungeons/adventure books and beating those with their highly optimized characters.
Many people adapt to their groups eventually, but others don't. It's also a piece of work to get people used to optimization to drop that behavior, in the group im DM'ing it took one of my players 9 years to play his first non-min/maxed character.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:40k and D&D are not like each other though, even though tabletop miniatures games, card gamers, and roleplay gamers are generally all lumped into a similar category.
D&D, as a catch-all for RPG's, is about collaborative storytelling and imagination. A group of people work together to confront fun challenges that the GM creates for them and build a story about their characters.
Wargaming involves 2 people, who have showed up with a collection of pieces that will carry out a game against each other that is supposed to provide a balance between competitive balance and representation of actual combat, with the intent of winning and then going home. The storytelling and imagination is entirely separate from anything required for the game, except making you excited about it.

It is not remotely a given that a person who likes RPG's will also like wargaming, because they're basically nothing like each other at all, even though people on the outside categorize everyone who plays at the FLGS in one category.

This, so much. I couldn't have said it better

I am not certain why 40k cannot be about collaborative storytelling and imagination. A pair (or group) of people work together to confront fun challenges that they create for themselves and build a story about their characters and armies.

People talk like you can't use 40k battles to tell stories.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am not certain why 40k cannot be about collaborative storytelling and imagination. A pair (or group) of people work together to confront fun challenges that they create for themselves and build a story about their characters and armies.

People talk like you can't use 40k battles to tell stories.

Anyone who buys a 40k starter box or looks through a codex finds little to no rules support for doing so. They find rules for setting up and completeing a fight where one player beats the other.

Yeah, you can give every model a name and story. But when reading the rules why would you?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am not certain why 40k cannot be about collaborative storytelling and imagination. A pair (or group) of people work together to confront fun challenges that they create for themselves and build a story about their characters and armies.

People talk like you can't use 40k battles to tell stories.

Anyone who buys a 40k starter box or looks through a codex finds little to no rules support for doing so. They find rules for setting up and completeing a fight where one player beats the other.

Yeah, you can give every model a name and story. But when reading the rules why would you?

Because lore is why you got into the game? Because lore is what helped you pick your faction?

40k is a pretty shoddy game as far as actual gameplay goes, so if you were playing it just for the sheer game-ness, I can think of tons of other, much better, miniature wargames. Even from GW

Edit:
I contest that they find little to no rules for doing so. I am in a campaign right now that uses CA2018's campaign experience gain rules, for example. There are rules supporting map campaigns, naming charts for your characters to find out names if you can't be bothered, etc. These are all pretty available, if you care to use them.

I very much enjoy DND. The 3/3.5 rule set is fundamentally simple. Roll a d20, add modifiers, did you roll high enough?

As my group’s primary DM, I had some asshat friends that wanted to play. And I’d invite them to short-term adventures, or to actively silly games (Kobolds ate my Baby!). But for the real gritty, serious, or survival horror games, I was picky about who I played with.

In that situation, you’re an author without control of the heroes. If your players are trying to sabotage the story, it’s a battle, not a game. In that regard, it doesn’t really matter what system you play. D20 plus modifier is just a simple means of resolving the unknown.

It’s a very poor combat simulator, but it’s not actively trying to be that. It’s giving a framework to the players and GM to avoid arbitrary decisions about hitting or missing... and how many time you need to hit the stone golem before it falls down.

That’s my take, anyhow.