Unpopular D&D Opinions

[PhoenixPhyre]

Rewriting D&D (5e at least) to not rely on attrition would require rewriting everything. Because everything relies on it. Yes, even warlocks. Monster design is based around the idea that you're fighting more than once in a day at least some of the time[1].

[1] you can have days with one fight, but if every day is that way, bad things happen to the system.

[Mordar]

As a side note D&D could, if it reaches to, move entirely to at-will magic and be balanced. But it would have to give up some of the reliability, power, or safety people have come to expect. But that's a moot point, nobody playing D&D as their first choice realty wants to make that trade.

I played a reasonable amount of 4e (lots of AD&D and 3e as well). I would think the "All At-Will Magic" to be balanced would need to be much less flexible, or be far less specific (e.g. you have 5 tricks you can do, and those are the only 5 you can do...or the powers are much broader in scope and subject to interpretation and adjudication, more like some of the super hero power descriptions from games like "Blast", "Push", or "Illusion").

Does that seem the case, or would there still be a variety of specific "spells" that you'd select from as your abilities, either permanently fixed or substitutable on a schedule?

- M

[Cluedrew]

I watched it, and the argument being made in regards to tomatoes (and even Planets) is bunk.

OTOH the argument being made about Art might be appropriate to the ongoing conversation.

I guess we could have a whole discussion the tomatoes and planets but that doesn't matter for us. If we can just pretend that its true long enough to understand what is being said about art and the pure cultural definitions that is actual take away for this thread.

Because role-playing games are a lot more like art than a tomato. A lot of times, debating what exactly a role-playing game, in general or in the case of a particular example is often missing the point.* The idea that there can be a single complete definition of a role-playing game that we can all turn to in any situation is bordering on absurdity. So I suggest we reign it in a bit and ask ourselves why do we want this definition.

* For example: do we are still remember this is about how "4e is not a role-playing game" comes off like an insult?

(I'm not sure this is really about the quoted post or just more musings as my thoughts on the subject slowly become clearer.)

[Telok]

I played a reasonable amount of 4e (lots of AD&D and 3e as well). I would think the "All At-Will Magic" to be balanced would need to be much less flexible, or be far less specific (e.g. you have 5 tricks you can do, and those are the only 5 you can do...or the powers are much broader in scope and subject to interpretation and adjudication, more like some of the super hero power descriptions from games like "Blast", "Push", or "Illusion").

Does that seem the case, or would there still be a variety of specific "spells" that you'd select from as your abilities, either permanently fixed or substitutable on a schedule?

- M

Gosh, sure would be nice to have options like full Vancian, full at-will, something 4e like, maybe something skill based, maybe some hybrids. Too bad 5e will never use a resource system other than the current spell setup, 'x per long rest', and 'x per short rest'. Lots of design space for interesting & fun optiobs for players.

[Vahnavoi]

*sigh*

Functional definition of a roleplaying game: a rule-based excersice where a player assumes the viewpoint of a character in a staged situation and decides what to do, how and why.

Reasons why a game might not be (*gasp*) a roleplaying game:

1) it doesn't have characters
2) the player doesn't assume a viewpoint beyond their own
3) the situation isn't staged, it's actual or too abstract to be recognized as anything beyond itself
4) the player doesn't make decisions

So on and so forth.

As far as I'm concerned, 4th edition D&D trivially qualifies as a roleplaying game. Despite this, I'm fairly confident another person, such as Quertus, can look at the definition and explain why they feel 4th edition doesn't qualify, or why a given computer game doesn't.

It also explains why abstract strategy games like Chess are not roleplaying games. They do not have characters with defined viewpoints, players do not assume a viewpoint beyond their own to play and their game board is too abstract to count as a staged situations. Saying things like "you can roleplay in Chess" are almost always false - rules of abstract strategy games do not provide the necessary information to do that, to "roleplay in Chess" (etc.) a player has to provide a huge amount of additional information and rules which are nowhere to be found in Chess. The reason why they're not always false is because you can roleplay a different player playing Chess, by mimicking their strategy.

[Anonymouswizard]

I played a reasonable amount of 4e (lots of AD&D and 3e as well). I would think the "All At-Will Magic" to be balanced would need to be much less flexible, or be far less specific (e.g. you have 5 tricks you can do, and those are the only 5 you can do...or the powers are much broader in scope and subject to interpretation and adjudication, more like some of the super hero power descriptions from games like "Blast", "Push", or "Illusion").

Does that seem the case, or would there still be a variety of specific "spells" that you'd select from as your abilities, either permanently fixed or substitutable on a schedule?

- M

It depends on how the designers want it to work.

As for how I'd do it, I don't know. Something has to give, and the first thing I'd likely do is remove the raw power of magic, and then make wizards less versatile. But you could build the system from a small number of broad effects or a large number of narrow effects, it's more important to understand the impacts each choice has. I could work with either, although if I was going for many nature effects I'd likely go for Unknown Armies style schools.

[Willie the Duck]

Oh good, we've made Vahnavoi type out the word sigh. Not a perfect measure, but a strong indicator that side of the discussion has hit full stride.

It depends on how the designers want it to work.

As for how I'd do it, I don't know. Something has to give, and the first thing I'd likely do is remove the raw power of magic, and then make wizards less versatile. But you could build the system from a small number of broad effects or a large number of narrow effects, it's more important to understand the impacts each choice has. I could work with either, although if I was going for many nature effects I'd likely go for Unknown Armies style schools.

There are other games (I am thinking Hero System in a fantasy environment) that defaults to close to at-will effects (unless you have an insane amount of END and a abysmal REC, you are going to recover your general resource pool within 5 minutes). In general, I've found that you do need to include limiters if you don't want magic to become a far-and-away preferred option*.
*which is less of a bad thing, since there aren't specific magic and non-magic classes like D&D, but it does make someone wanting to play as a super-normal feel left out (if that's a problem).

[kyoryu]

Functional definition of a roleplaying game: a rule-based excersice where a player assumes the viewpoint of a character in a staged situation and decides what to do, how and why.

I think there's another aspect to it, too. I don't know how to properly say it, but it looks something like:

The game state is not completely encoded within the mechanical bits of the game mechanics. The imagined state of the world informs the mechanics.

This is the "chess isn't an RPG" rule, basically. You can "play as" a knight in Chess or whatever, but whatever you're imagining has zero impact upon the game. The entire game state is contained within the mechanics - anything you imagine has zero impact on the rules.

Some highly crunchy tactical games flirt the edge of this, but even 4e doesn't cross it (and its combat system is heavily rules-forward). (Oddly enough, 4e's non-combat resolution is almost full-on narrative).

[Bohandas]

I think there's another aspect to it, too. I don't know how to properly say it, but it looks something like:

The game state is not completely encoded within the mechanical bits of the game mechanics. The imagined state of the world informs the mechanics.

This is the "chess isn't an RPG" rule, basically. You can "play as" a knight in Chess or whatever, but whatever you're imagining has zero impact upon the game. The entire game state is contained within the mechanics - anything you imagine has zero impact on the rules.

Some highly crunchy tactical games flirt the edge of this, but even 4e doesn't cross it (and its combat system is heavily rules-forward). (Oddly enough, 4e's non-combat resolution is almost full-on narrative).

What about CRPGs?

[kyoryu]

What about CRPGs?

I'm mostly scoping to the TTRPG world.

Whether CRPGs are RPGs is a whooooole other can of worms.

[Lord Raziere]

I think there's another aspect to it, too. I don't know how to properly say it, but it looks something like:

The game state is not completely encoded within the mechanical bits of the game mechanics. The imagined state of the world informs the mechanics.

This is the "chess isn't an RPG" rule, basically. You can "play as" a knight in Chess or whatever, but whatever you're imagining has zero impact upon the game. The entire game state is contained within the mechanics - anything you imagine has zero impact on the rules.

Some highly crunchy tactical games flirt the edge of this, but even 4e doesn't cross it (and its combat system is heavily rules-forward). (Oddly enough, 4e's non-combat resolution is almost full-on narrative).

Honestly the rule is needed or we get the "what is/isn't an rpg" meme picture that starts with Blades in the Dark in top left and ends with DnD on right-bottom and thus becomes impossible to define.

[Mordante]

D&D should get rid of pre made spells. Spells should be more free from with a difficulty/casting modifier for each attribute.

A damage spell standard does 1D6 damage at touch range. If you want to add range to the spell. The spell difficulty increases. You want to add an additional effect (elemental damage, poison, mind affecting etc) the difficulty goes up more. Same for area of effect. This can be applies to all schools of magic. Want to raise a 1HD monster, that's easy. Want to raise a whole army of 10HD monsters well that might be more difficult.

That means any caster can cast try to cast a spell of any difficulty. But the chance for a success become less and less.

[Xervous]

D&D should get rid of pre made spells. Spells should be more free from with a difficulty/casting modifier for each attribute.

A damage spell standard does 1D6 damage at touch range. If you want to add range to the spell. The spell difficulty increases. You want to add an additional effect (elemental damage, poison, mind affecting etc) the difficulty goes up more. Same for area of effect. This can be applies to all schools of magic. Want to raise a 1HD monster, that's easy. Want to raise a whole army of 10HD monsters well that might be more difficult.

That means any caster can cast try to cast a spell of any difficulty. But the chance for a success become less and less.

And what’s to stop the enemy wizard for betting on the 1/10 shot of pulling a massive fireball out of his behind when it’s clear that’s his only chance at living?

I mean it’s perfectly appropriate for the genre, but I really don’t want to play in a game where any caster can decide they want to roll for the 1/100 chance of a vorpal blowout and the players just have to roll like gods or reroll.

[kyoryu]

Honestly the rule is needed or we get the "what is/isn't an rpg" meme picture that starts with Blades in the Dark in top left and ends with DnD on right-bottom and thus becomes impossible to define.

Not sure I get what you're saying? BitD and D&D both seem like RPGs by any reasonable definition I can think of. I don't think I've seen the meme so I'm likely missing the point you're making.

This rule wouldn't really invalidate either - but it would invalidate chess as an RPG. It also says that Descent and Gloomhaven aren't RPGs. Which.... I'm okay with. I don't think they're RPGs, I think they're boardgames that are RPG-adjacent.

[PhoenixPhyre]

D&D should get rid of pre made spells. Spells should be more free from with a difficulty/casting modifier for each attribute.

A damage spell standard does 1D6 damage at touch range. If you want to add range to the spell. The spell difficulty increases. You want to add an additional effect (elemental damage, poison, mind affecting etc) the difficulty goes up more. Same for area of effect. This can be applies to all schools of magic. Want to raise a 1HD monster, that's easy. Want to raise a whole army of 10HD monsters well that might be more difficult.

That means any caster can cast try to cast a spell of any difficulty. But the chance for a success become less and less.

This is a fine idea for a game. I'd hesitate to say that it's a fine idea for D&D, because it would require a massive overhaul of, well, just about everything. And massive rewrites of core traditional systems rarely go over well, from a business perspective. Same goes for using a wound system instead of straight HP, switching the core resolution mechanic to a dice pool, and many other changes people frequently suggest.

----

Unpopular opinion: D&D should stay D&D, instead of trying to be a different game with different mechanics and thematics. There is space for many games to exist.

Second unpopular opinion: The existence of a popular game such as D&D does not detract from other games; in fact, without a front-runner that is efficient in gathering new people to the hobby, those other games would be even worse off. Because it seems they draw mostly from people already inside the hobby, with only weak ability to pull in new blood on their own.

[Lord Raziere]

Not sure I get what you're saying? BitD and D&D both seem like RPGs by any reasonable definition I can think of.

This rule wouldn't really invalidate either - but it would invalidate chess as an RPG.

I'm referring to this memechart picture:

Spoiler: What is a ttrpg

Show

[Mordante]

And what’s to stop the enemy wizard for betting on the 1/10 shot of pulling a massive fireball out of his behind when it’s clear that’s his only chance at living?

I mean it’s perfectly appropriate for the genre, but I really don’t want to play in a game where any caster can decide they want to roll for the 1/100 chance of a vorpal blowout and the players just have to roll like gods or reroll.

Skill checks can't crit. So if you have a skill of 5 your max results with a D20 would be 25. If the spell requires a roll of 50 to succeed he will never be able to cast the spell but he did lose a spell slot.

[kyoryu]

I'm referring to this memechart picture:

Spoiler: What is a trrpg

Show

Ah, yes. Interaction with the fictional environment neatly nukes most of those strawmen. Though perhaps "there is a fictional environment" is also necessary?

[kyoryu]

Unpopular opinion: D&D should stay D&D, instead of trying to be a different game with different mechanics and thematics. There is space for many games to exist.

If that's unpopular, it shouldn't be.

Second unpopular opinion: The existence of a popular game such as D&D does not detract from other games; in fact, without a front-runner that is efficient in gathering new people to the hobby, those other games would be even worse off. Because it seems they draw mostly from people already inside the hobby, with only weak ability to pull in new blood on their own.

In theory I agree with this. But if I had the opportunity to green field pick which game it would be, it wouldn't be D&D. Not because D&D is a bad game. But because I think it sets expectations that aren't really all that useful.

[Xervous]

I'm referring to this memechart picture:

Spoiler: What is a ttrpg

Show

Ah yes, a narrative fetishist meme. Storytelling is a subset of all possible RPG functions.

Skill checks can't crit. So if you have a skill of 5 your max results with a D20 would be 25. If the spell requires a roll of 50 to succeed he will never be able to cast the spell but he did lose a spell slot.

So it sounds like you get +piddly bonus for risking failure at which point most people simply aren’t going to bother, and it just becomes ranked function progression with a forgotten “chance to waste your action” mechanic.

[dafrca]

I'm referring to this memechart picture:

Spoiler: What is a ttrpg

Show

Thanks for posting the meme you were referring to. I had never seen that one so it was nice to see and thus understand your comment better.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I
In theory I agree with this. But if I had the opportunity to green field pick which game it would be, it wouldn't be D&D. Not because D&D is a bad game. But because I think it sets expectations that aren't really all that useful.

Sure. That's a fine opinion. I'm just looking at what is, not what ought to be. Because I can't go back and change all of history (well...the last few dozen years).

Further, I'd say that in my experience, the fact seems to be[1] that D&D has the necessary internal structures to be appealing to new players and to keep them in the hobby. 5e, especially, is a really good gateway drug. We've seen that many other games don't work for that purpose. When 4e made D&D fall off the proverbial cliff, what picked up the slack? Mostly nothing. PF kept the old-guard D&D players around, but overall there wasn't another game that stepped up and picked up the slack. The industry as a whole coasted on its existing player-base (or even shrunk). As soon as 5e came out, things exploded again and new players started flooding in.

In my experience, 5e D&D does a few things well for new players:
1) the game is quite approachable and presents itself as being easy to learn[2]
2) the game is quite tolerant of ignoring rules[3]
3) there's lots of content in the core books, plus adventure modules
4) more importantly, it covers terrain (heroic fantasy adventures) that is conceptually easy to get into and doesn't require much sophistication to enjoy. Precisely because it doesn't have the deep layering of themes or deeply-encrusted worlds and doesn't attempt to do high concepts or high art or to "provoke deep thoughts and philosophical encounters".
5) the game is quite accepting of adding your own content.
6) There's lots of nostalgia and history (which is important for parents to allow kids to play).

[1] note the qualifiers here--this is my own opinion, not a claim of objective fact.
[2] even if there are deep wrinkles that are obtruse. CF footnote 3
[3] This is a good thing--games that fall apart if you don't follow every rule are hard for beginners. In 5e, you can basically ignore everything but the most basic stuff and add in things as you go. And those basic rules are pretty darn clear--it's the more edge cases that cause internet fights. And really, you can choose either direction for the edge cases and the game works fine.

[dafrca]

Ah, yes. Interaction with the fictional environment neatly nukes most of those strawmen. Though perhaps "there is a fictional environment" is also necessary?

But I must admit the meme does have a level of humor to it. I know it made me laugh.

And yes, your added rule idea would make a difference.

[Anonymouswizard]

There are other games (I am thinking Hero System in a fantasy environment) that defaults to close to at-will effects (unless you have an insane amount of END and a abysmal REC, you are going to recover your general resource pool within 5 minutes). In general, I've found that you do need to include limiters if you don't want magic to become a far-and-away preferred option*.
*which is less of a bad thing, since there aren't specific magic and non-magic classes like D&D, but it does make someone wanting to play as a super-normal feel left out (if that's a problem).

Oh, I'm not arguing against placing limiters in magic. I'm saying you could, if you wanted, Twitter D&D magic to remove this specific limiter.

D&D should get rid of pre made spells. Spells should be more free from with a difficulty/casting modifier for each attribute.

A damage spell standard does 1D6 damage at touch range. If you want to add range to the spell. The spell difficulty increases. You want to add an additional effect (elemental damage, poison, mind affecting etc) the difficulty goes up more. Same for area of effect. This can be applies to all schools of magic. Want to raise a 1HD monster, that's easy. Want to raise a whole army of 10HD monsters well that might be more difficult.

That means any caster can cast try to cast a spell of any difficulty. But the chance for a success become less and less.

There are games that work like that, including both versions of Mage. Each system I own that does it has some quirks about exactly what is possible and how finely magic is divided, and that's before they even try to bring in rules for magical styles.

On the other hand it can be very messy, because you're trying to balance having a guidelines for easy balance and few enough that play doesn't grind to a halt. In general the more complicated spells are the more time they eat up at the table, which tends to lead to magic being very powerful as spells are made as simple as possible. But when they work they can be very fun.

[Vahnavoi]

I think there's another aspect to it, too. I don't know how to properly say it, but it looks something like:

The game state is not completely encoded within the mechanical bits of the game mechanics. The imagined state of the world informs the mechanics.

This is the "chess isn't an RPG" rule, basically. You can "play as" a knight in Chess or whatever, but whatever you're imagining has zero impact upon the game. The entire game state is contained within the mechanics - anything you imagine has zero impact on the rules.

Some highly crunchy tactical games flirt the edge of this, but even 4e doesn't cross it (and its combat system is heavily rules-forward). (Oddly enough, 4e's non-combat resolution is almost full-on narrative).

You are simply defining an incomplete game. I see no reason to bake incompleteness into definition of roleplaying games, because incompleteness has zilch to do with what players actually do in a roleplaying game. Roleplaying games are also not unique in being incomplete (virtually all children's games and most physical sports are also incomplete), so this addition does not delineate roleplaying games from other types of games nearly as strongly as you seem to think. You also don't need it to exclude abstract strategy games like Chess, because those games are already disqualified for other reasons.

What about CRPGs?

I'm mostly scoping to the TTRPG world.

Whether CRPGs are RPGs is a whooooole other can of worms.

No, it isn't. It's the same can of worms and by the definition I just gave, plenty of computer games trivially qualify, even while others fail. Even if you add in incompleteness into the definition of roleplaying games, multiplayer computer roleplaying games which allow players to communicate using a natural language can still qualify (for an example), because rules for natural language communication are not encoded in game source code.

Seriously, you can just take any real computer game and test it against the definition.

[KorvinStarmast]

Travel time, night watch rotations, and random encounters are burdensome and take up too much time leading to campaign fatigue as they do not move you closer to the campaign's objective*.

The number of imbedded assumptions in that sentence that need to be unpacked is considerable.

Spoiler: My suggestion, if you are interested in one

Show

What that sentiment does, though, is speak to me, and leads me to suggest that you you spend more time as DM/GM, and less as a complaining player.

Campaigns with an explicit objective is a sub set of campaigns, and not necessarily a large one.

Whether CRPGs are RPGs is a whooooole other can of worms.

Darnit, I just drew blood from biting my lip.

5e, especially, is a really good gateway drug.

Yep.

We've seen that many other games don't work for that purpose. When 4e made D&D fall off the proverbial cliff, what picked up the slack? Mostly nothing. PF kept the old-guard D&D players around, but overall there wasn't another game that stepped up and picked up the slack. The industry as a whole coasted on its existing player-base (or even shrunk). As soon as 5e came out, things exploded again and new players started flooding in.

And other games benefit from that, as do kickstarters for new/indie games.

In my experience, 5e D&D does a few things well for new players:
1) the game is quite approachable and presents itself as being easy to learn[2]
2) the game is quite tolerant of ignoring rules[3]
3) there's lots of content in the core books, plus adventure modules
4) more importantly, it covers terrain (heroic fantasy adventures) that is conceptually easy to get into and doesn't require much sophistication to enjoy. Precisely because it doesn't have the deep layering of themes or deeply-encrusted worlds and doesn't attempt to do high concepts or high art or to "provoke deep thoughts and philosophical encounters".
5) the game is quite accepting of adding your own content.
6) There's lots of nostalgia and history (which is important for parents to allow kids to play).

5e does enough things well that doing everything, or one thing, perfectly doesn't matter. (On the balance).

[kyoryu]

Sure. That's a fine opinion. I'm just looking at what is, not what ought to be. Because I can't go back and change all of history (well...the last few dozen years).

Agreed.

Further, I'd say that in my experience, the fact seems to be[1] that D&D has the necessary internal structures to be appealing to new players and to keep them in the hobby.

Mostly agreed.

5e, especially, is a really good gateway drug.

This is where I don't agree. I know more people that are straight up 5e players and don't want to move to anything else.

D&D as a game makes certain assumptions that don't match "fiction" in general (which is, like it or not, where most people get their touchstones). It is kind of built around a heavy combat focus, it has the zero-to-superhero advancement curve, it has a heavy focus on gear, etc. These are things that don't match the expectations I think that most people have (CRPG players are an exception), and clash heavily with I'd say the majority of the hobby. Also, as a fairly heavy system, D&D creates a perception of "I already learned that, I don't want to go through it again" where a lot of other systems require less investment and don't create the perception that learning a new system is a burdensome process.

IOW, my issue with D&D isn't that it's a bad game or even a bad intro game. It really boils down to two (somewhat related) things.

1) It's a bad match for anything that's not D&D
2) Since most other games don't do D&D, it sets expectations in a way that makes it harder to move to other games.

D&D is a great intro game to get people playing D&D.

[PhoenixPhyre]

5e does enough things well that doing everything, or one thing, perfectly doesn't matter. (On the balance).

Agreed. I don't move to other systems because
1) 5e D&D does 90% of what I want acceptably well already, and the rest can be added without breaking things. That's mostly because my wants happen to coincide with what it offers.
2) Other systems may each do 10% of what I want and do it better than 5e does that same slice...but then I need 10 systems. Even if each one is individually better in its niche, being second-best at everything means you're actually a better system for anyone who doesn't want that small niche.

This is where I don't agree. I know more people that are straight up 5e players and don't want to move to anything else.

D&D as a game makes certain assumptions that don't match "fiction" in general (which is, like it or not, where most people get their touchstones). It is kind of built around a heavy combat focus, it has the zero-to-superhero advancement curve, it has a heavy focus on gear, etc. These are things that don't match the expectations I think that most people have (CRPG players are an exception), and clash heavily with I'd say the majority of the hobby. Also, as a fairly heavy system, D&D creates a perception of "I already learned that, I don't want to go through it again" where a lot of other systems require less investment and don't create the perception that learning a new system is a burdensome process.

Spoiler: my own experience with new players and their touchstones

Show

Have you considered that, for many people, not wanting to move to other things isn't a bug? If 5e meets their needs, there's no need to move on. And, in general, those assumptions match what people want. I've played almost exclusively with new or almost-new players for the last 6-7 years. As it turns out, those fictional touchstones? Aren't that big an influence. I've had more people come from
a) Skyrim (which matches nearly 1:1 as far as expectations)
b) no fictional background at all (not even CRPGs)
c) MMOs (which again, are basically a 1:1 fit)
than I have who have cared about any of the "fictional touchstones" I keep hearing about. Because I've met...one player (maybe?) that wanted those other things. New players (to the hobby) want a strong mix of combat and non-combat[1], they want the high-power curve, the fancy gear, etc. So giving them what they want is a sign that 5e is doing something right. And that the hobby, in general, is wrapped up in its own form of navel gazing and elitist gate-keeping in a way that's inhibiting its ability to draw in new blood. I'd say that the hobby's current trends are, in fact, hostile to new players. They assume a deep background in the hobby itself and very specific desires. Most new players? Don't have the idea "I want to explore X concept". Because they don't even have an idea of what the scope of concepts could be. D&D hits the parts that are easy to conceptualize, and does so with enough depth of mechanics to grab people, but while remaining newbie-friendly enough not to scare people away.

Those who do want other things generally branch out pretty quick. And if 5e brings in 1000 new people[2] per year and 10% branch out, but other systems collectively bring in 50 new people per year and all of them stay, 5e is still a better gateway to the hobby than all other systems combined. And yes, I'm fairly sure that the relative magnitudes here are roughly correct even though the numbers themselves are made up.

[2] numbers pulled from the same internet data source as all other numbers--ie thin air.

[Anonymouswizard]

Meanwhile to me D&D doesn't come anywhere near second best for about 90% of what I want to do. GURPS does, but GURPS has it's own issues. But that's also because I don't want to do what D&D does, and GURPS sourcebooks are useful no matter what system I'm using.

[Lord Raziere]

Meanwhile to me D&D doesn't come anywhere near second best for about 90% of what I want to do. GURPS does, but GURPS has it's own issues. But that's also because I don't want to do what D&D does, and GURPS sourcebooks are useful no matter what system I'm using.

Agreed. To me DnD's combat is way too restricted in movement, too chessboard-like for my liking, and prefer systems with more freedom and flow to how they fight.

and the whole "DnD is good enough for me" attitude really doesn't give off a good positive vibe, because it implies a certain callousness to people for who it isn't to me.