Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.41806915 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

How do we remove dice from RPGs?

It is a dated mechanic that impairs enjoyment by relying on the outcome of random shapes and numbers to generate a result you would like but luck may go the other way.

It hinders progression, story, combat, and everything else. The inclusion of modifiers to limit failures isn't enough because that gets to the point of saying 'what you want to happens does, flawlessly, every single time'.

Maybe they should just be removed altogether. If your character's attack is 18, then you will always hit someone with 18 or lower armor. If it is less than 18 then you can never hit someone with 18 or higher armor no matter how hard you swing.

Maybe static figures are the way to go, maybe not, what would you suggest, /tg/?

>> No.41806956

>>41806915
You know, I was gonna say "play a video game" but those use randomization mechanics as well to an equal or greater extend, some rpgs literally rolling virtual dice in the background.

So yeah, dice are fine and if you hate them that much just use cards I guess. Or freeform.

>> No.41806964

>>41806915

Play one of the many extant, well-designed diceless RPGs, instead of trying to build one blind.

>> No.41806972

Might want to find a different hobby.

Cooperative book writing or story telling something that keeps you away from anyone wanting to play a game.

>> No.41806977

Daily reminder freeform is exactly as shit as your shittiest player. If you have a good group, it can be (and is) better than dice.

>> No.41807002

>>41806915
>It hinders progression, story, combat, and everything else.
Explain how it does this.
All random dice do are add a chance of failure, in real life people do not reach a new skill level and suddenly are able to always pick X lock, they improve their knowledge of lockpicking as a whole and as such can apply that knowledge to all locks, and as such they get a bonus when trying to pick all locks. They can still fuck up and break the lock or their lock pick.

>The inclusion of modifiers to limit failures isn't enough because that gets to the point of saying 'what you want to happens does, flawlessly, every single time'.
Your static number system does the same thing, but removes the ability of people to rise above their predetermined skill.
>Jimmy has 10 in attack, a rat has a defense of 11, he has no hope of ever possibly hitting a rat
>Jimmy has +0 to his attack rolls, he as such simply rolls a d20 to attack a rat. He might hit the rat
>Jimmy has 200 in his attack, he will always hit anything ever
>Jimmy has +200 to his attack roll, he will always hit anything ever, unless the system has critical failures or a similar mechanic

>> No.41807003

that D4 looks terrifying to step on...

>> No.41807011

>>41806972

Static numbers make a whole helluva lot more sense than a hobbit killing an orc with a spoon because they rolled a crit or a mighty warlord with years of experience stabbing himself in the gut because he rolled a fumble.

>> No.41807026

>>41807011
The fuck still plays with fumbles? You also playing where a smith can roll a 1 and turn a sword into a cock ring?

>> No.41807042

>>41807002

>Jimmy can never hit the rat

Seems like Jimmy should run, use the environment to his advantage, do something to limit the rats defense rating, etc rather than just trying to beat it with a club because that isn't going to work.

>Jimmy has 200 attack, he will always hit something every time

Like AD&D fighters you mean? Or more specifically, if you are trained to the point that you are basically a god of combat, how can a miss be justified with a straight up basic attack?

>> No.41807050

>>41807011

Static numbers also make the entire thing boring as shit because, eventually, it gets to the point where you'll always succeed.

Not to mention, it encourages min-maxers to dump all their points into one group and limits the usefullness of jack-of-all-trade builds.

>> No.41807051

>>41807011
First of all: the problem you just described is an issue in single die systems, not all dice systems as a whole.
Dice pool systems make a character less and less likely to get the minimum result as they increase their dice pool, meaning they can still fuck up, but the more skilled they are the less likely they are too.
And static numbers mean that nobody slightly less powerful than the mighty warlord can ever do anything to him. Extraordinary events happen in life, friend, people survive getting railroad spikes through their skulls, but can die from falling down a single flight of stairs.

>> No.41807059

>>41806977

Too bad the hobby is populated by /a/utists and tha/tg/uys who'd rather build an OP mary sue than an actual character.

>> No.41807060

>>41807026

>Not using fumbles and crits

Then you may as well stop using dice. The whole point of fumbles and crits is to allow an nearly unbeatable foe the chance to fuck up and not kill everybody or the weak ass adventurer the chance to cut off a dragon's head through sheer luck.

>> No.41807071

>>41807026
Who doesn't play with fumbles? If you can crit then you can fumble. I usually have the player drop their weapon or overshoot and hit something else. Depends on the situation.

A fumble on a craft check might ruin the hammer, for example.

>> No.41807074

>>41807011
>>41807050

You all need to go away, play a game of Amber Diceless/Lords of Gossamer and Shadow, and then come back to this discuss this when you know what you're talking about.
OP wants a thing, and he's trying to make it himself, but has no clue how to go about it.

>> No.41807079

>>41807042
>Seems like Jimmy should run, use the environment to his advantage, do something to limit the rats defense rating, etc
This can be done in either system.
Are you saying people can't have good swings, or bad swings, or off days, or days where they do better?

>Like AD&D fighters you mean?
I was making the argument that your dismissal of modifiers was ridiculous because your static number system does the exact same thing as what you think modifiers do, only more so.

>> No.41807090

>>41807050

>Encourages min-maxers

Group play absolutely should encourage this. You don't need to be kind of skilled in this or that, that's what your buddies are for. Do what you do best and let them do what they do best.

>> No.41807111

>>41806915
I would say the possibility of a failure enriches a story instead of hinders it. If everything you do is based on static numbers with either 100% chance of sucsess/failure then players will just act on calculated choices. They will only attempt tasks they know they will overcome. And no story is interesting where the main character(s) have no possibility of failing. One of the things that randomizers in rpgs excellently is being in-built tension. A complete mook can have a moment of glory and an expert can face a tragic failure. Both are unlikely based on stats which maintain the status quo but knowing its possible makes the story just a little more exciting.

>> No.41807118

>>41807074

I've played in a game that didn't roll die except for damage.

The whole thing was boring as hell because once you dedicated yourself towards a certain path, you'll be able to pull off all but the most impossible actions without even having to spend that many resources.

Just because I disagree with your shitty system preference doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about.

>> No.41807132

>>41807090
Anon, there is a difference between "specialization" and "min-maxing", specialists are good at thing, but they also generally put points into other thing that their character would know about/how to do. With a modifier system, this means they are better than joe blow at secondary thing and have a better chance of being able to do above average thing, and have a chance of doing extraordinary thing.
In the static system the OP proposed, having a few extra points in secondary shit is pointless, because beyond doing some above average stuff, it will quickly become useless in any campaign where the DM scales encounters to any extent, so there's no reason to have a secondary thing, just minmax so your ex-soldier only knows how to swing his sword and has no knowledge of anything else.

>> No.41807153

>>41806915

>> No.41807164

>>41807132

This.

If you're at the point where you're against guys who can only be hit with a 60 in attack, there's no point in distributing those points in anything but your attack.

>> No.41807179

>>41807118

So you played a poorly designed homebrew diceless game one time, and that makes you an expert on diceless games ?

I'll grant it qualifies you to criticize OP's attempt to poorly design a diceless game.

>> No.41807193

>>41807179
I think diceless systems are an interesting concept that could work, just like how freeform can work great, but I think we all agree that OPs attempt is fucking dumb.

>> No.41807199

>>41806915
Step 1: Go find some porn you like.
Step 2: Masturbate to it.

Because that's all that roleplaying without unpredictable elements is.

>> No.41807212

>>41807193

OP here.

>Maybe static figures are the way to go, maybe not, what would you suggest, /tg/?

Post alternatives.

>> No.41807222

It is a dated mechanic that impairs enjoyment by relying on the outcome of random shapes and numbers to generate a result you would like but luck may go the other way.

I rather like the dated mechanic of rolling dice.

>> No.41807224

>>41807199

It's orgasmic without a lot of foreplay and fiddling with cumbersome mechanic (woman)?

>> No.41807225

>>41807212
I'm not well versed enough in diceless systems to come up with another system, so I won't try, but I'm still qualified to point out problems with your ideas.

>> No.41807232

>>41807179

Diceless games are like freeform.

They only work if you're in a perfect group who won't abuse it.

>> No.41807243

>>41807232

How does a dice based system limit freeform?

>> No.41807244

>>41807212
How about players enhancing their chances by paying from a resource pool? You can keep your static numbers and the game is now a bit more interesting as there is a resource management element to it. It's not that hard to come up with this stuff. Hell I just came up with that on the crapper.

>> No.41807258

>>41807224

It's what people fall back on when they lack the means or the opportunity to achieve their goals without relying on elements beyond their control.

Why do you thinks weebs are excited over VR porn?

>> No.41807273

>>41807212

Google it you dumb fucking nigger.

>> No.41807275

>>41807258
Because lolis are the future.

>> No.41807284

>>41807243

By giving you a defined set of rules that apply to each character while providing an upper limit to how powerful a character can become during certain stages of the game.

Such as what races you can choose from, what abilities you have, what classes you can choose from, etc.

>> No.41807299

>>41807193

Yep, I apparently know more about them than pretty much everyone in this thread, which surprises me since I've only ever sat in on a game once, and OP has no clue what he's doing. It's like watching a man trying to design a regular RPG after only ever hearing a confused story about them one time.

>>41807243

A diceless system removes chance, but not restrictions. You can be fairly sure whether you'll win a conflict or not, it's all about how much of your limited resources you're willing to bring to bear. Strategies involve trying to lure your opponents onto unfavorable ground, or trying to get them to overextend early on so that they end up with too few resources to counter you later on, and things like that.

>> No.41807303

>>41807275

So's prison pedo.

>> No.41807304

>>41807258

Because women aren't worth the time, money, and drama even though people want to bust that nut with a member of the opposite sex. They bring next to nothing to the table the bulk of the time (less money, less possessions, not interested in the hobbies, moody, drama filled, not loyal, victim mentality) and if you fuck up and marry one they will take half your shit straight up after the file for divorce (which they will, almost 65% of the time even if the man did absolutely nothing wrong).

They aren't going to VR porn because they can't get a woman. They are going to VR porn because they don't WANT a woman.

>> No.41807307

>>41807284
To be fair, that isn't something inherent to a dice based system, diceless systems can do that as well.

>> No.41807320

>>41807284

And this cannot be achieved unless dice are used?

>> No.41807322

>>41807304

>>>/r9k/

>> No.41807327

>>41807303
Name one thing morally wrong with masturbating to a drawing of a little girl.

>> No.41807332

>>41807284
>that second half of what you said.

A dice based system can allow players to make whatever just as well as a diceless/freeform can. It just defines the capabilities of said characters on a level playing field.

>> No.41807334

>>41807299

How is anything you just said impossible in a game that uses dice?

The only difference is that luck is involved in one while the other is either a total shutout or shutdown depending on whether you dumped everything but your primary attack and ignored every other aspect of the game.

>> No.41807349

>>41807327

>Name one thing morally wrong with masturbating to a drawing of a little girl.

If you need someone to spell it out for you then you're beyond saving.

>> No.41807350

>>41807334
>How is anything you just said impossible in a game that uses dice?

Who said it was? 'Cause I sure didn't.

>> No.41807352

>>41807060
I think it's less fumbles being a problem in and of themselves, and more bad DMs not knowing how to scale them properly.

The level eleventy-zillion BBEG rolling a 1 probably won't cause him to accidentally drop his sword and impale himself with it, but it might cause him to over/undershoot an attack. Likewise, a level 1 hero probably shouldn't outright decapitate a dragon with a nat 20/whatever the system considers a critical success, but he could nick the enemy's jugular and cause significant bleeding.

But, for whatever reason, bad DMs assume "You roll a nat 20 on a perception check; you can see FOREVER" and other disproportionate effects. Sure, RAW can be boring, but fun should be somewhat logical. Unless you're playing something like Maid RPG, but who gives a shit about that?

>> No.41807363

>>41807304

Wow, I didn't know /r9k/ came onto /tg/.

It actually explains a lot.

>> No.41807366

>>41807307
The vary nature of a system with dice, skills, etc imposes hard rules on play, while freeform is defined by not having those beyond some basic etiquette.

>> No.41807370

>>41806915
With static numbers, you're essentially creating a collaborative storytelling engine. Everybody knows what they can do, so it's purely a matter of creativity in finding out how to put pieces together. If you do this, I would recommend divvying up DM responsibilities among players as well; for example, one guy might control weather, another terrain, and maybe everybody gets a few major world powers. Construct rules for managing these, as well as PCs, and to make it all playable try to make them all as lightweight as possible because you'll have tons of instances to keep track of.

On the other hand, this is /tg/, so I assume you're interested in a game. When you're designing a game, you can have perfect information or perfect freedom of action, but never both. Otherwise there's no challenge to overcome. When designing an RPG, it's usually better to offer freedom of action, because you want players to be able to express their ideas through the mechanics; that is, you want to be able to tell stories, and specifically stories the designer didn't anticipate. We simply can't go the chess route because it's unacceptable to so clearly define the boundaries of the rules.

This forces your hand. Unlike in our first paragraph, when creating a game wasn't a goal, you're now forced to prioritize. Freedom has to take precedence over information. One way of hiding information is to include an element of randomness; this is appealing because it not only serves its primary purpose of creating surprise, it does so in a way that "makes sense". It can be abstracted as modeling luck, as well as features that are "too small" to merit explicit description but can still influence outcomes (the game would grind to a halt if the DM had to describe the position of every puddle of water you could slip in in the Water Dungeon, but if you flub a roll it's easy to explain that that's why).

>cont'd

>> No.41807372

>>41807071

Fumbles are so heavily strawmanned it's not even funny. Someone actually thought Nat 1 meant you stabbed yourself. No., even in RaW you got an agility save or something, and even then it was just dropping a weapon or minor self damage.

Which, if you've ever been in a real swordfight like I have, is quite possible. Even between trained fighters.

>> No.41807382

>>41807349
Child porn is illegal because it involves a party that is far too young to make any sort of informed decision about sex and cannot give consent, and as such the event usually traumatizes the child for the rest of their life.
None of these issues occur in a drawing.

>> No.41807392

>>41807366
Diceless systems can impose hard rules without having dice, dice are not an integral piece of having hard rules.

>> No.41807406

>>41807392
But you cannot have a dice-based system without hard rules, whereas you can have a diceless system without them.

Both are capable of being plenty open, but a dice-based system, like a diceless one with hard rules, cannot be freeform.

>> No.41807411

>>41807304

Completely true, 10/10 anon.

>>41807320

No, it cannot, OP. All dioceses games are shit.

>> No.41807437

>>41807406
Oh, yes, I agree.
Sorry if I got that across with my post, I meant that hard rules are not dependent on having a dice system.
All golden retrievers are dogs, not all dogs are golden retrievers, etc.

>> No.41807485

>>41807370
Dice are a pretty good example of what RPG mechanics need to do, actually. That is, create a gameplay element that somehow models the story, or at least doesn't make it harder. Dice do this extremely well, because if you're doing it right you should be using them as an information source. Yes, they may stop you from telling the exact story you wanted to tell; your responsibility, however, is to take the elements they gave you and try to weave them into an acceptable story anyway. Again, otherwise there's no game.

Now, personally, I agree that dice are a bit outdated. Technically, I'm pretty sure you can approximate any probability curve you wanted to within an arbitrary degree of precision with enough dice rolls, but most of them would require something absurd. Dice pools are actually pretty clever, I have to grant. But there are other ways of generating randomness - a deck of cards, for example, offers a generator that is dependent on previous results. There's surely something you could exploit there. And with modern computer technology, you're not even limited to models that are trivially produced by physical objects; you could construct all sorts of wacky curves (one that I like is a normal distribution, skewed right according to your skill, with an extra hump at very low values to represent crit failures and one at high values to represent crit success). You can even use weird sources of information to alter them; for example, you could have a Paladin sort of class that gets a divinely-inspired (randomly-selected) spell every couple of rounds, only which one is dependent on the distances between the paladin and their enemies or allies, so that one hanging back gets buffing and healing spells to defend their friends and one charging forward gets offensive ones to press the attack.

The question you have to answer is, "Why?" Figure out what you want your game to play like, and why that would be fun to play. What does your RNG offer that dice don't?

>> No.41807509

>>41807003
What D4? I only see some dice and what appears to be a strange form of caltrop.

>> No.41807520

>>41807051
This webm was originally titled "splitting the dice pool."

>> No.41807532

>>41807520
Such is life in Shadowrun.
Want to be a robo-centaur who turns people to goo? Sure.
Want to shoot two guns? Fuck off cunt.

>> No.41807544

>>41806915
well i'm sure if you stuff them all up your butt and grind them to dust with your cheeks, the world will eventually run out. Better get started

>> No.41807565

>>41807304
I guess the Pepe card game you robots made does technically count as a /tg/ but it doesn't mean this kind of shit is welcome here

>> No.41807574

>>41807042
>how can a miss be justified with a straight up basic attack?
Slip. Step badly. Sun in eyes. Rolling a 1 is a miss, it doesn't have to be fate bitch-slaping a person.

>>41807352 This guy gets it.

>> No.41807631

>>41807327
At first I thought bait, but then I saw >>41807382
By indulging in illustrated porn you strengthen the neural broohaha in the brain that enjoys that shit, meaning you are strengthening a character trait that is socially unacceptable. That is why it is wrong.

None of which is on topic, fag.

>>41807532
Never played a dice pool game before, but that video taught me to be careful with my dice.

>> No.41807678

>>41807631
>By indulging in illustrated porn you strengthen the neural broohaha in the brain that enjoys that shit, meaning you are strengthening a character trait that is socially unacceptable. That is why it is wrong.
By indulging in violent video games you strengthen the neural broohaha in the brain that enjoys that shit, meaning you are strengthening a character trait that is socially unacceptable. That is why it is wrong.

>> No.41807686

>>41807631
>enjoys that shit
What? Fapping to an arrangement of pencil lines on your screen? You're too caught up in the witch hunt. It's just a drawing and you're expending a lot of emotional energy hating some guy spending time on exhentai rather than actual child abusers and criminals.

>> No.41807691

>>41807678
Violence is exponentially more socially acceptable than fucking children. Some would even argue it's less harmful to murder the child than it is to fuck it.

>> No.41807710

>>41807691
The point was that playing violent video games doesn't make you any more likely to be a violent person in the same way that fapping to X does not mean you will go out an do X.

>> No.41807758

>>41807686
That's like saying why should we have any issue with guns, they're just mechanisms. It completely ignores how people interact with the item, and also assumes that "some guy spending time on exhentai "will never become "actual child abusers and criminals."

>>41807710
Violent media does desensitize people to the horror of violence and make it easier to deal with the mental pressures of having committed it. I'm sure the same applies to illustrated child fucking.

>> No.41807778

>>41807758
>issue with guns
Oh, you're just some nanny state yuro.

>> No.41807819

>>41807758
>That's like saying why should we have any issue with guns, they're just mechanisms.
Gun ownership has no correlation to homicides or violent crime.
It has a correlation to gun related crime yes, but it doesn't matter how crimes are committed, it matters that they are committed, and the presence of guns has no correlation with a higher crime rate.

>> No.41807848

>>41807758
>Violent media does desensitize people to the horror of violence and make it easier to deal with the mental pressures of having committed it.

Back to the 90's, Jack.

>> No.41807859

>>41807778
I don't even know what that means, but it's a pretty clear attempt to discredit the opponent instead of answer the question, much like "an arrangement of pencil lines on your screen" was an attempt to confuse the topic. Done poorly. So poorly. Just... so poorly.

I like guns. I have guns. I use them responsibly. I trust other people to use theirs responsibly, probably more than I should. That doesn't mean I don't recognize the bad that is in guns. Nothing is completely pure. Yin and yang and all that shit. It's a question of does whatever have more good in it. I see more good than bad in people owning guns. I see more bad than good in drawn child fucking.

You'll notice I've called it "child fucking" this entire time. That's what it is. No one ever wants to call it that, using foreign words or euphemisms to refer to it, but at its core it is the sexualization of children, and that is wrong by every moral compass out there that is even slightly calibrated right.

>> No.41807860

>>41807819

Guns are bad! The Government should have a monopoly on the use of force/guns! Therefor Government is bad!

>> No.41807869

>>41807819
>Gun ownership has no correlation to homicides or violent crime.

So does this mean the claim "guns stop crime" is false?

>> No.41807886

>>41807869

>> No.41807891

>>41807848

That is complete bullshit. It might take some of the edge off but vidya ain't the real world.

I was an USMC Infantryman in Iraq. I joined long before the war started (1998) and played all the violent vidya available and watched all the violent movies.

The first time I saw a dog shot (it attacked one of our K-9s) I thought I was going to be sick. Seeing insurgents shot was less traumatic because they were actively trying to kill us. Seeing innocents getting hurt or killed turns your stomach.

>> No.41807894

>>41807859
>but at its core it is the sexualization of children
Which is different from fucking children.
Yes, it is the sexualization of children.
Now, define to me, for the sake of the argument, what is the moral issue with sexualizing a child, please.

>> No.41807908

>>41807869

Guns don't stop crime either they are merely a tool. But I sure as hell know what tool I want if I am about to get mugged.

>> No.41807915

>>41807859
Maybe we should start calling guns "small penis extensions" and gun owners "non-convicted murderers", because, hey, that's what they are. Lets not hide behind silly notions like "muh 2nd amendment right" and "firearm".

>> No.41807934

>>41807869
Technically based on the chart supplied there is a negative correlation, a very slight one however and as such I'm willing to ignore it.
So yes, let's say guns don't reduce crime. There's still no reason to ban them.

>> No.41807940

>>41807894
>Why are bad things bad?

>> No.41807943

>>41807908
What does it matter what tool it is, if it's not gonna top you from getting mugged?

>> No.41807958

>>41807934
Neither is there a reason to claim they stop crime.

>> No.41807961

>>41807372
I think the best real life fumble I've seen is when a guy hit himself in the head with a sword. accidentally. He was pulling back after a strike and "tried to do something different."

(No injuries.)

>> No.41807966

>>41807894
Why do you want to fuck kids?

>> No.41807974

>>41807869
Actually, that's true. There's not a confirmed correlation.

The absolute, key factors in violent crime are population density, poverty, and culture. The UK has ALWAYS had lower violence than the US, even when our gun laws were comparable. Their pistol ban didn't stop their crime rate from going up, but it didn't make it go up, either.

Russia and Mexico are impoverished with strict gun laws, and they're far more violent than the US. Japan is freaking rich with strict gun laws, and has very little crime - but, due to culture, their suicide rate is through the roof.

And, obviously, cities have FAR higher crime rates than rural areas despite almost universally more strict gun laws - all three factors of population density (high), poverty (high), and culture (thug) play into this.

>> No.41807980

>>41807958
True.
There's still no reason people shouldn't be able to have them, though.

>> No.41807990

>>41807940
>>41807966
>X is bad because X is bad
Flawless logic.
Explain why X is bad.

>> No.41808007

>>41807980
Of course not.

>> No.41808055

>>41807990
Ok so, let's go through this slowly... I guess...
>Sexualizing children leads to fantasizing about children
>Fantasizing about children reinforces the idea of having sex with children
>Reinforcing the idea of having sex with children increases the temptation to have sex with children
>Increasing a temptation makes someone more likely to do it
>Sexualizing children makes people more likely to go out and fuck children
This is kind of basic human behavior for any activity. Indulging in something does not make you less likely to go out and do it, it makes you more. So to whoever earlier said it's better for the sickos to go on the internet and look at child porn rather than go out and fuck kids? That's entirely true, but it's a hell of a lot worse than NOT looking at child porn and still not fucking kids.

>> No.41808060

>>41807990
Having sex with kids is bad. Do you not think that?

>> No.41808089

/tg/ - Child Fuckers

>> No.41808093

Amber Diceless did that.

Notice how it never has any discussion whatsoever?

>> No.41808121

>>41807848
>Sexist media does desensitize people to the horror of sexism and make it easier to deal with the mental pressures of having committed it.
Back to the 2000s, Anita.

>> No.41808128

Daily reminder that /tg/ spends more time talking about diddlers and gun nuts than it talks about tabletop games.

>> No.41808129

>>41808093

It can't be because people tried it and didn't like it. Nobody seems to know anything about it, or to have ever heard of it, apart from you and me.

>> No.41808145

>>41808055
Do you have anything to show to support this simpleminded view on humanity, because pretty sure the same logic has already been tried to prove violent media causes school shootings.

>> No.41808149

>>41808055
>This is kind of basic human behavior for any activity. Indulging in something does not make you less likely to go out and do it, it makes you more.
Playing Doom doesn't mean I am more likely to go out and kill a person, because I can recognize that doom is separate from reality.
In the same vein, somebody fapping to loli porn, or the sexualization of children, is no more likely to go out and do it unless they cannot differentiate between fiction from reality, which is an entirely separate issue.
If somebody only gets sexual satisfaction from kids, their only output for sexual frustration is sexualized children, if there is no drawings available they would end up going to actual child porn instead, or actually seeking out a child instead.

>>41808060
Having sex with children is horrible because of the psychological trauma/inability of the child to give consent.

>>41807966
Also, I don't, my fetishes mostly involve TG stuff, surprisingly I haven't gone out and forcibly had somebody undergo gender reassignment surgery recently.

>> No.41808154

>another "get rid of dice" bait thread
>scroll down to bottom
>talking about fucking kids

>> No.41808165

>>41806915
>Learn Software Development.
>Design a tabletop game that relies on a cellphone /web app that handles your action attempts and tells you the outcome, adding in all of your character statistics etc.

If you can't do it yourself, be prepared to pay 4-12k to get a developer to write you something custom, because he'll be chipping away at it for quite a while if it's any good. (Likely 1-3 months full time work for one guy).

>> No.41808166

>>41807943

A firearm is the only fighting chance I have against a larger and stronger criminal attacker. I have cerebral palsy.

>> No.41808167

>>41808154
See >>41808128

>> No.41808168

>>41808154
At least it's an interesting topic.

>> No.41808169

>>41808154

It's like the dark mirror of one of these old images.

>> No.41808193

>>41806915
I used to think /tg wasn't so self-destructive but then I remembered I'm fucking retarded.

>> No.41808256

>>41806915
if you want to eliminate the arbitrarily random completely, you can go with many of the dice free systems.

You can even shed the system altogether.
I'm thinking you don't want the random, but still want the structure of the system in place.

It would be possible to curtail the worst elements of randomness by picking a dice system that operates on a curve rather than a flat probability chart, or adopting a 'card' based system where you draw a number of cards that represent forms of success or failure and strategically play them during the fight/challenge, higher skill earning a larger choice of cards.
That still feels too random for what your talking about though, even if the arbitrary element is mitigated.

One idea that comes to mind.
Maybe describe the exchange or actions and adopt a voting system, each person at the table using a white or black marker for success or failure and selecting the one they believe is merited.

A higher skill could earn you more "votes", the story teller could also poses more "votes", but the other players present would be the representatives of fate with their respective choices.
Voting could be kept anonymous simply by placing their selected marker in a container, then counting up at the end.

Now, this is just a method of mechanical arbitration I'm suggesting.
It wouldn't be necessary for every action, just those where there is a dramatic need or disagreement.

Frankly, I think if you're going to go so far, she'd the concept of a system with numerics and stay strictly narrative.
Of course you'll deal with the problems other a obs here have highlighted about such play, but it would be a better fit.

>> No.41808264

>>41808256
Dude shut up we're talking about the ethical implications of lolis

>> No.41808281

>>41808145
I really don't understand why I have to prove bad things are bad. I'm not your mother, anon. You live in a society that says it's bad, that should be enough reason for you to sit back and think, "Maybe I'm wrong about this?" I assume you do anyway, maybe you live in an obscure country where marriage to children is a norm. If you do then all porn is bad I think, so same dif, right?

>>41808149
That's saying the material by itself is enough to make people go out and do these things though. Playing Doom isn't going to brainwash you into murdering people, but it does make you more likely to do it. That's how people work. We are exposed to things, we assimilate those things into our experience, and then we form our actions based on those experiences. Before I started browsing 4chan I never used the word fag or faggot; now it floats through my mind a lot more often. I still don't use it, but it's in my thoughts.

>>41808169
I once took a discussion of mage hand and turned it into a debate about the relative ease of use of different siege engines on accident. "I trigger the ballista with mage hand" was such an innocent statement, I thought.

>> No.41808311

>>41808281
>That's saying the material by itself is enough to make people go out and do these things though. Playing Doom isn't going to brainwash you into murdering people, but it does make you more likely to do it. That's how people work. We are exposed to things, we assimilate those things into our experience, and then we form our actions based on those experiences. Before I started browsing 4chan I never used the word fag or faggot; now it floats through my mind a lot more often. I still don't use it, but it's in my thoughts.

Violent video games and hyper violent media has been a part of our culture for decades now and our crime rate keeps dropping and dropping.

>> No.41808314

>>41808281
Also, apparently talking about diceless systems makes people more likely to start shitposting about diddling and gun rights.

Back to /pol/, all of you.

>> No.41808397

>>41808281
Again you assume that people cannot take a step back, look at a situation and say "This would be awful to happen in real life.", almost every person can separate between fantasy and reality, even then their fantasies almost completely ignore any negative consequences that would be present in reality, they still make the conscious assessment that yes, in reality there would be much more severe repercussions to doing this action, so doing this action in real life is bad.

Do you think that people with guro fetishes should be locked up because according to you they are more likely to bathe in the blood of their enemies?
People with fetishes that cause harm to another in reality don't want to act them out in real life because they cause harm, they want to act them out in fantasy where nobody gets hurt.

>Before I started browsing 4chan I never used the word fag or faggot; now it floats through my mind a lot more often. I still don't use it, but it's in my thoughts.
Somebody could just as easily say the same thing for mastrubating to drawn child porn.

Also >>41808311

>> No.41808420

>>41808314
>How do we remove dice from RPGs?
OP's question: "How do we remove dice from RPGs?"
Board's answer: "Play a diceless system."
Really it could've been /thread at any point up until now. And then some shmuck comes along and says >>41807275
So we're not even discussing DRAWN child porn, we're discussing games in which you simulate fucking a child with VR.

>> No.41808434

>>41808420
The best part is that that poster was probably just making a light hearted joke.
Little did he know what horrors he was about to release.

>> No.41808496

>>41808055
Not him, but this is a falacy
It's the same argument people use against furries, saying that since they enjoy anthropomorphic animals, they might enjoy fucking real animals in real life. By this same coin I could say that porn is bad, because if you want to fuck a woman in her 30s that might lead you into younger and younger people.

While I understand why people use those sorts of arguments, it's retarded really and mostly a social stigma I would say, since similarity is not an objective thing.

>> No.41808510

>>41808281
>I really don't understand why I have to prove bad things are bad.
Because you're having a discussion and you need to support your arguments if you want your position to convince anybody.

>> No.41808558

>>41807304
Just get the fuck out and don't come back you fucking sperglord. I know legit autistic people who are better at life than you.

>> No.41808572

>>41806915
Write a fucking book then, or LARP. Fuck I don't know man just stop with the butthurt over dice as they suit a vital function in tabletop games: Random chance.

>> No.41808614

>>41807011
>I don't like dice because bullshit reason that hasn't been an issue forever.

>> No.41808650

>>41808510
It shouldn't be a discussion at all is my point. I should not need to explain why evil is evil. This isn't a nebulous gray zone of morality. There is less of a consensus on when murder is justified than there is on when child porn is bad. It's a blindingly obvious thing. No one needs convincing other than a select few who could probably be proven to have a mental problem. I'm done explaining that specific point.

>>41808496
Drawn child porn is much closer to actual child porn than fucking anthros is to fucking animals. In terms of morality they're completely different.

As for that weird argument about fucking women of a certain age making you want to fuck women of another age... That's kind of true? If you have sex you're more likely to want to have more sex, and will probably loosen your standards for sexual partners. Loosen, not obliterate. Going from thirty year old adult women to twenty year old adult women is feasible, going from thirty year old adult woman to twenty year old adult women to ten year old children is not.

By the by, morality is not an objective thing since it's a intangible topic.

>> No.41808688

>>41808089
That's a terrible acronym. Surely it should be something more like

>/tg/ - Toddler Gropers

>> No.41808708

>>41808650
> I should not need to explain why evil is evil.
You absolutely do.
Otherwise the only reason something is evil is because it is evil, which is circular logic.

>By the by, morality is not an objective thing since it's a intangible topic.
Then what may be evil to you may not be evil to another since morality is subjective, so you have even more reason to explain why something is evil.

>> No.41808711

>>41808650
>they're completely different.
... for you.

>As for that weird argument about fucking women of a certain age making you want to fuck women of another age...
Weird for you.

>Going from thirty year old adult women to twenty year old adult women is feasible, going from thirty year old adult woman to twenty year old adult women to ten year old children is not.
>Going from A to B is feasible
>But going from A to B and THEN to C? MADNESS
Mhmm...

I wish the average person would grow up already.

>By the by, morality is not an objective thing since it's a intangible topic.
What a very relevant observation. I think I'll give you a gold star for that today.

>> No.41808720

>>41808650
>If you have sex you're more likely to want to have more sex, and will probably loosen your standards for sexual partners.
What the hell am I reading. For fucks sake I don't like drawn or anime kid fucking but you are getting out of your mind now.

Here have a castle.

>> No.41808732

>>41808650
Look man I dislike Loli crap, and that whole fetish. But without some sort of concrete study indicating that viewing loli porn leads to an increase in child fucking you cant really make that argument. You have no actual evidence to back it up, at this point its just your opinion.

>> No.41808764

>>41808708
>Otherwise the only reason something is evil is because it is evil, which is circular logic.
Why's that a problem? I mean, sooner or later, we have to get back to axioms. Surely, circular logic can't be bad because circular logic is bad.

>> No.41808779

>>41808711
Well, a, b, and c are letters. Much like referring to child porn as "pixels on a screen" is inaccurate as fuck, replacing variables with letters is inaccurate.

Basically what I'm seeing from >>41808708 and >>41808711 is that because different people have different morals, fucking children is ok and things that lead to fucking children are ok as well. Awesome. I'll get right on my murder spree since, relative to me, other lives are not important. After all, I don't know the people who my bomb killed and it doesn't impact me in any way except a positive one, so relatively speaking there's no bad to it for me. Good thing morals are subjective, right guys? Enjoy your murder sprees (that don't involve me and thus are relatively ok).

>> No.41808793

>>41808764
because you cant run a rational society on the basis of doing things BECAUSE. That leads to intractable traditions which no one will question and stifles creativity.

>> No.41808794

>>41808650
> I should not need to explain why evil is evil.
Circular reasoning.
>It's a blindingly obvious thing.
Common sense fallacy.
>No one needs convincing other than a select few who could probably be proven to have a mental problem.
Ad Hominem ("Anybody who doesn't agree with me has mental issues!")

>> No.41808818

>>41808779
> things that lead to fucking children are ok as well
Again you've supplied zero evidence for this claim and the post you made about how if somebody does X they will do Y is a textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy.

>> No.41808819

>>41808779
Everyone here agrees that child porn is bad because there's a victim involved.

But if it's drawn there's absolutely no victim. What's morally wrong with a victimless action?

>> No.41808830

>>41808779
If you're seeing that you're wrong. I am not in favor of fucking children because they get hurt. I will however defend your right to get off to any sort of fictional character you want with my life.

And no, 30 20 10 are not diferent from A B C, your argument was purely retarded. Just read it again and see for yourself. It's ridiculous
>You can enjoy 20 yo because you enjoyed 30 yo, but you can't enjoy 10 yo because you enjoyed 20 yo because there's this barrier I just pulled out of my ass.

You better not have any sex or watch any sex, or you might rape someone. Or is that illogical as well?

>> No.41808837

>>41808793
>because you cant run a rational society on the basis of doing things BECAUSE. That leads to intractable traditions which no one will question and stifles creativity.

And doing the opposite leads to intractable arguments as everybody insists on pushing their own personal vision of the rules, stifling functionality.

Maybe we live in a strange and bizarre universe in which some manner of middle ground is required. Perhaps it's acceptable to have arbitrary rules with no particular logical foundation other than, "They've been working for us so far - why do you think they're a problem, exactly?"

>> No.41808844

>>41808764
Circular logic is bad because it makes somebody start their argument already having assumed their conclusion to be true, and use the conclusion in their argument, when the point of an argument is to prove the conclusion to be true, which defeats the point.

>> No.41808879

>>41808837
that is not true though, because if someone pushes a vision of the rules which has no basis in rational logic they are ignored, thus preventing pointless arguments

>> No.41808887

>>41808830
There is an inherent difference between a twenty year old adult and a ten year old child you nitwit, a difference that is not apparent between thirty year old adults and twenty year old adults. Hint hint, it's the fact ten year olds are children.

>> No.41808895

>>41807372
>No., even in RaW you got an agility save or something, and even then it was just dropping a weapon or minor self damage.
Actually, in a lot of systems, it's not even that. RAW, it's just a failure. Nothing special--no dropping or ruining anything.

The most I've seen someone do is that, since a natural 20 on an attack is hitting so well that you deal double damage, a natural 1 is a miss that leaves you open to an opportunity attack. Which isn't actually that bad--it's still a bad thing that happens, but it's not wholly arbitrary and is the sort of thing that you're expecting to happen in combat.

>> No.41808905

>>41808844
I'm honestly not sure if you're trolling, or if presenting a circular argument against circular arguments is the best post in this thread so far.

>Circular logic is bad because it's circular, and logic is bad if it's circular.

>> No.41808912

>>41808281
Faggot, your whole argument is "this thing is bad, because it's bad, and it will lead to bad things because it's bad." You have nothing, you are nothing. Good day to you.

>> No.41808915

>>41808887
There is an inherent difference between a drawn child and a real child you nitwit, Hint hint, it's the fact real children are not fictional characters drawn on a sheet of paper.

>> No.41808923

>>41808879
>if someone pushes a vision of the rules which has no basis in rational logic they are ignored

I see you have never been exposed to Donald Trump's candidacy for President of the United States. You're making a lot of assumptions, here.

>> No.41808926

>>41808887
>There is an inherent difference between a twenty year old adult and a ten year old child you nitwit,
I was afraid you were going to say that. Man, you sure got me.
Oh wait! girls dont suddenly go from 10 to 20, so I can explain it better:
They like 20 and then 19 and then 18 and then 17 and then 16 and then 15 and then 14 and then 13 and then 12 and then 11 and then 10. There, sorry about the missunderstood man.

>> No.41808936

>>41806915
Fuck you and your kind OP seriously. Rolling dice is the main draw.

>> No.41808945

>>41808923
come back when he actually gets elected (which will not happen)

>> No.41808975

>>41808905
thats not what he said at all, he said that having an argument which cites its own conclusion as proof of its correctness is a flawed argument. I cant argue that purple is a bad color, because purple is a bad color, i need to form some sort of evidence supporting purple being bad that doesnt contain purple already being bad.

>> No.41809042

>>41806915
Freebooter's Fate uses a deck of numbered cards.

>> No.41809046

>>41808975
>an argument which cites its own conclusion as proof of its correctness is a flawed argument

And why is it a flawed argument?

>> No.41809053

This thread is fucking hilarious.

>> No.41809063

>>41808945
He doesn't have to get elected. He's already clearly not being ignored. Pic related.

>>41808975
No, it is what he said. He said that having an argument which cites its own conclusion as proof of its correctness is a flawed argument, and his argument for that conclusion is that correct arguments do not do that. That's pretty circular!

>> No.41809076

>>41809046
Because it is an axiom of logic.
Yes, you need some axioms, but in an ideal world you want to minimize them.
Logic as we know it is a way to argue with a very small amount of axioms and ones that make sense, so we use it.

>> No.41809090

>>41808975
Let's say in this funky ass society purple is associated with the holocaust. All the Nazis wore purple, they painted everything purple, Jews were killed by being lowered into boiling purple water, whatever- FOR SOME REASON purple is heavily associated with an atrocity. You could argue that sure, purple itself is not evil. No one ever suffered at the hands of the color purple. Wearing purple clothing is a victimless crime. No one gets hurt by you wearing purple. But, based on the society you live in, anything that relates to the atrocity, including the color purple, is bad and outlawed.

This is why loli is bad. Loli, while victimless (ignoring how it could trigger people in a PTSD way), is related to a heinous act and completely representative of the act. It generates no victims, but it glorifies the act which does.

>> No.41809100

>>41809053
I gotta say, we turned a pretty mediocre thread into a pretty cool thread.

Altho people like you
>>41808887
Are just behiond repair. It's just futile and so very very frustrating to try to make you see. It's like talking to christian fags why their beliefs are fucking retarded.

Society makes me sick sometimes.

>> No.41809102

>>41809076

I know, I know. I just can't stop laughing at "circular logic is bad because it's circular and logic that is circular is bad."

>> No.41809135

>>41809090
And here's our first comparison to Nazis. I'm surprised we lasted this long.

>> No.41809136

Use a deck of cards

>> No.41809156

>>41809090
I will accept that argument then as it presents a valid line of reasoning
>>41809063
Because as >>41809076 stated people got together back in the day and decided that circular arguments were bad because they cannot be argued against, it is impossible to prove or disprove a circular argument, hence making it bad as Arguments must be provable

>> No.41809160

>>41809076
Except this isn't pure logic. Logic comes with a set of self-defining axioms, yes, but in order to apply it to any domain of discourse you need additional axioms to define the subject matter, otherwise your system won't even know what a child is, much less why you should or should not engage in furious sexual relations with it. And, for a lot of us, it seems that "Don't fuck children" is a perfectly acceptable moral axiom, from which further generalizations, such as "Don't fuck animals, because their state of ability-to-consent is analogous to a child's and that's what we've decided is important", can be drawn. Notice that while we're still constructing that additional notion of consent, there, it's used only for defining the structure of the situation, and doesn't get imbued with moral value until it gets linked back to the original "don't fuck kids" rule.

>> No.41809181

>>41809160
>Don't fuck animals, because their state of ability-to-consent is analogous to a child's and that's what we've decided is important"
Then the axiom is "Don't fuck things that cannot give consent", and "Don't fuck kids" is drawn from that.

>> No.41809225

>>41809181
Rather, I should say, "Don't fuck things that can't give consent" would be a more useful axiom, since the idea of "don't fuck kids" "don't fuck animals" "don't rape" etc can be drawn from it.

>> No.41809236

>>41809225
If I want to fuck a melon I warmed in the microwave you can't stop me!

>> No.41809266

>>41809090
Only depicting things relating to the holocaust are perfectly legal in our society, unless you live in Germany.

>> No.41809272

>>41809225
Technically speaking animals can give consent. Otherwise every time they are mating it would be rape, wouldn't it?

>> No.41809275

>>41809236
Oh I'll stop you alright.
By fucking that melon first.

>> No.41809292

>>41809275
Sloppy seconds?
Sweet!

>> No.41809309

>>41809272

Peter Singer pls go. Heh.

>> No.41809327

>>41809225
How about corpses? Especially if they give consent while still alive?

>> No.41809343

>>41809272
all mating is rape anyways, didnt you get the memo

>> No.41809353

/tg/ - Axioms, Lolis, and Fruit-fucking.

>> No.41809369

>>41809181

>>41809160
>Notice that while we're still constructing that additional notion of consent, there, it's used only for defining the structure of the situation, and doesn't get imbued with moral value until it gets linked back to the original "don't fuck kids" rule.

Allow me to be clearer.
Rule 1: You start with an arbitrary set of axioms in your head, the products of natural evolution and of socialization during your development.
Rule 2: You can add and remove any set of axioms from the ones in your head, but each addition or subtraction is costly and so you should perform either operation as rarely as possible.

Step 0: At some point in the past, the axiom that "Consent is the morally important aspect of sexual relationships" has been set up. You cannot simply skip straight to your desired conclusion, because you would permit arguments for rape that make competing claims that ignore consent, for instance that it feels good, maximizing pleasure is the highest good, and because solipsism is rational you need not consider anybody else's pleasure. This axiom is necessary to establish the exclusive salience of consent.
Step 1: Because this axiom does not yet supply a useful rule, you must either add an extra axiom, "Consent is required for a sexual act to be moral", or derive it somehow. The latter is preferable.
Step 2: You search your existing set of axioms and known facts, and discover (for example) that children cannot give consent, and you know you are not supposed to fuck children. You are therefore able to derive, "Do not fuck things with consent values like those of children", because you know that consent is the quality of children you must examine (step 0), and you know what conclusion you are supposed to draw from it.

>> No.41809396

>>41809327
>>41809292
>>41809275
>>41809272
>>41809236
Okay, "Don't fuck living things without consent" and "To give consent, something must be of the same development/intelligence of an 18 year old human"

>> No.41809404

>>41809343
I think mating is a hot word for getting it on
just thought you wanted to know.

>> No.41809409

>>41809396
What if I want to fuck a tree? It's alive.

>> No.41809433

>>41809404
I prefer rutting. It's so delightfully animalistic and wild!

>> No.41809444

>>41809396
Age of consent is 16 in UK. It's 12 in some parts of the world, I hear. Don't know if that's just ridiculous stereotyping though.

>> No.41809451

>>41809396
>"To give consent, something must be of the same development/intelligence of an 18 year old human"
Aw fuck you too. 16 years old is where it is.

>> No.41809456

>>41809444
people always say this, but never cite an actual place, just i heard it was 12 somewhere, dunno where.

>> No.41809474

>>41809451
>16 years old is where it is.
Or maybe it's a much blurrier transition taking place over many years and completed at different ages for different people, depending on their personal circumstances, all of which a law can't be assed to handle in each case.

>> No.41809483

>>41809396
So corpse-fucking is ok?

>> No.41809485

>>41809369
Could you not use step 0 and 1 to come up with "Don't fuck children, as they cannot give consent and a sexual replationship without consent is not moral.", "Don't fuck animals, as they cannot give consent and a sexual relationship without consent is not moral.", and "Don't rape somebody because if it is rape they have not given consent and consent is necessary for a sexual relationship to be moral" completely independent of each other?

>> No.41809489

>>41809433
Ohh anon
Mating is so full of love though

>> No.41809503

>>41809444
It's 14 in some states in the USA.

>> No.41809510

>>41809483
I like where this thread is going!

>> No.41809526

>>41809483
Under that axiom, yeah, but when combined with another, for example "Causing others emotional harm is morally wrong" (yeah, it's extremely simplistic and is it's own can of worms but hey), fucking the corpse of somebody else's mum would be not-ok if it would cause them emotional harm, if they are a-ok with it, whynot.jpg

>> No.41809548

This is simultaneously the worst and best thread I have seen on /tg/ in a month.

>> No.41809566

>>41806915
Things don't always go the way you plan it.

Hence: dice.

>> No.41809572

>>41809409

Well, consent is needed because of the implications of the act. It may burden the other person with secondary effects, like pregnancy, feelings of guilt, shame, etc.
Trees don't have any of that to worry about. They're sexually mature, they can't get pregnant from it, it won't bother them if you rub your squishy mammal bits against them for a time period similar to the blink of an eye from their POV, they're not going to be called tree sluts by their tree friends and have to go to tree counseling to deal with their shame. It really doesn't place them in any risk, affect them, or hurt them in any way.
I'd say you're in the clear, anon. But you're still a dirty elf.

>> No.41809583

>>41809566
That boat has sailed my friend.

>> No.41809602

>>41809572
>similar to the blink of an eye from their POV,
>tfw can't please tree GF because too quick

>> No.41809619

>>41809444
A quick search reveals Angola as just such a country.

>> No.41809632

>>41809485
You could use that "Consent must be given" axiom to do that, yes, but you can reach the same conclusion without that axiom in the way I've outlined in Step 2.

If, however, you never did wind up with an axiom to the effect of "Don't fuck kids" or "Don't fuck animals" or any other sort of rule like that, then yes, you do need to add that Step 1 axiom I discarded. What's the most efficient path to the conclusion depends on who you are, really.

For a lot of people, though, "Don't fuck kids" is a perfectly sensible axiom that can wind up being a dependency of lots of other rules in their moral structure, which is why they get so pissy about it and refuse to try and defend it. Because to them it's satisfactory to reduce a behavior to being analogous to child fucking in order to demonstrate that behavior as evil.

>> No.41809635

>>41809526
>fucking the corpse of somebody else's mum would be not-ok if it would cause them emotional harm
Fucking someone's mum might cause them emotional harm even if she is alive and into that!

>> No.41809664

>>41809602
>tfw no qt3.14 tree gf to reasure you and confort you after sex because you think you didn't last long enough to please her.

why liver?

>> No.41809667

>>41809635
What, exactly, is wrong with fucking the sewn-together corpses of a sibling and pet hamster?

>> No.41809689

>>41809667
Nothing...?
I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement that that's hot as fuck.

>> No.41809692

>>41809526
What if said corpse is a John Doe without any known family? Is that ok?

>> No.41809716

>>41809692
Is it hurting someone? If not it's OK. There, that's all the moral values you need. See that watermelon? You can fuck it IF nobody is hoping to eat it.

>> No.41809740

>>41809716
>You can fuck it IF nobody is hoping to eat it.
I want to make love to that watermelon! I think it's more important than someone eating it. Would you leave your loved one because some cannibal wants to eat them?

>> No.41809763

>>41809740
Look, it's a bit more complicated than that, for now just fuck the watermelon, but warn others, ok?

>> No.41809797

>>41809763
"ATTENTION, CITIZENS OF HAMLETVILLE, I, WATERMELON WILLY, AM GOING TO FUCK THIS WATERMELON, IF ANYBODY HAS ANY OBJECTIONS, SPEAK NOW, OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE. THIS HAS BEEN AN OFFICIAL WARNING."

>> No.41809817

>>41809797

And thus the legend of Watermelon Willy was born.

>> No.41809821

>>41809797
That's my piece keeper!

>> No.41809844

>>41809817
I imagine a society based upon that founding rule would develop extremely advanced communication and monitoring systems akin to 1984, not for any form of control or malicious intent, but to simply inform everybody in the world whenever somebody is about to fuck a watermelon.
It's like a paperclip accumulator AI, but for watermelon-dicking-warnings.

>> No.41809890

You've done it again, /tg/.

>> No.41809894

>>41809716
>You can fuck it IF nobody is hoping to eat it.
What if I find the most delicious watermelon to be one dick-pulped in the rind and mixed with neckbeard jizz? I'm sure that's somebody's fetish. Certainly not mine. Obviously.

>> No.41809919

>>41809890
>imortalized
MOM, GET THE CAMERA!

>> No.41809936

>>41809890
It really is the dark mirror of threads like pic related.

>> No.41809946

>>41809763
>Look, it's a bit more complicated than that, for now just fuck the watermelon, but warn others, ok?
Do you ever just stop and think that maybe when you read or hear a phrase that it's the first time in human history that anybody has ever written down or said that phrase? Because I'm hard pressed to think of a situation where somebody wrote down or said "Look, it's a bit more complicated than that, for now just fuck the watermelon, but warn others, ok?"

>> No.41809979

>>41809946

Well, they say /tg/ produces original content, and they're right!

>> No.41809988

>>41809946
Fortunately, Markov chains will soon render that feeling obsolete, as unthinking machines will have generated even the least sensible sentences.

Of course, you'll still have dibs on having found a use for it. It'll be rather like Graham's number - sure, you can always find a bigger one by adding 1, but if it's not useful for something who cares?

>> No.41810015

>>41809936
>You're MISSING THE POINT
God that line makes me lose my shit every fucking time.

>> No.41810092

>>41806915
I connected four keyboard to my laptop which tracks their inputs.

Casting a spell? Type out the spell, higher skill in the area gives you more time to cast and allows more mistakes. Tougher spells have longer phrases.

Lock picking? Hold down the key for 2.3 second, then 4.1 second. Higher skill allows for greater margin of error.

Even though I have the system down, I now need to create a way to create the stuff that surrounds the system (classes, damage, gear, etc).

>> No.41810105

>>41807631
>By indulging in illustrated porn you strengthen the neural broohaha in the brain that enjoys that shit, meaning you are strengthening a character trait that is socially unacceptable.

http://cbldf.org/2012/07/danish-report-discredits-link-between-cartoons-and-child-sex-abuse/

>> No.41810116

>>41807859
>lolis are children
>seeing loli stuff will make you rape kiddies
>muh desensitized people

>> No.41810354

>>41809225
>"Don't fuck things that can't give consent"
Fuck, I was really looking forward to sexbots.

>> No.41810715

>>41807060
>weak ass adventurer the chance to cut off a dragon's head through sheer luck.
Why are you sending players against something they cannot defeat outside of luck?
Also luck makes perfect sense in RPGs. Lets say you pull out a gun, aim for the heart of a guy and fire. General body movement, wind, or the target's movement might mess up your aim slightly so you aim a bit to the left, the bullet hits a rib, breaking the rib and causing the bullet to yaw within the body. This yawing decreases the momentum of the bullet much more rapidly causing hydrostatic shock and a larger wound channel. This is for all intents and purposes pure chance, otherwise it would end up.
>Shoot gun
>Look at gun skill
>Look at target
>Causes X damage
It ignores chances that outcomes may be better or worse, maybe the bullet hits the guy in the gut and goes right through him with minimal hydrostatic shock, barely staggering him, maybe the bullet hits him right in the heart and he collapses and will bleed out in a minute, maybe it hits his body at an angle so the bullet is deflected by his armour.

>> No.41810783

>>41809664
>why liver?
do i really have to ex-spleen it to you?

>> No.41810825

>>41810783
Anon please, I can't stomach these puns.

>> No.41810839

>>41810354
what if they are programmed to give consent?

>> No.41810851

>>41810105
>ignoring the 2014 study linking the child abuse porn rings in Japan with the proliferation of loli media

One study does not make a consensus.

>> No.41810965

>>41810839
What if it's not actually sentient yet it's programed to act like if it's being raped?

>> No.41810974

>>41806977
Daily reminder that some people like playing games.

>> No.41810999

>>41810851
Unless it would prove that jacking off to kiddie porn is alright?

>> No.41811279

>>41810965
>The chinese rape argument

>> No.41811323

>>41810851
Link?

>> No.41811589

>>41810825
Just take a while to fully digest them and you'll be fine.

>> No.41811692

>>41811323
Please, anon. We all know he has nothing. If he had, he would have plastered them all over the thread.

>> No.41811808

>>41810092
That sounds pretty awesome, especially if it takes time spent typing into consideration. Spells still take just the one action or whatever, but speed of input could be a factor just like accuracy.

>> No.41811816

>>41811589
These puns are awful, but at least you're putting your heart into them.

>> No.41811876

>>41811279
>>41810965
>>41810839
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQcNYb3DydA

>> No.41811903

>>41811816
eyes see what you did there.

>> No.41811937

>>41811903
Anon, please stop this.
There's no need to pointlessly elungate the suffering of poor anons.

>> No.41811941

>>41811816
I just like to toe the line.

>> No.41811955

>>41806977
Daily reminder that these posts are subjective.

>> No.41811962

>>41811941
I'm actually running out of pun ideas here, care to lend a hand?

>> No.41811989

>>41811962
Oh come now anon, that's not putting your best foot forward.

>> No.41812016

>>41811989
Hey, I just don't have the creativity to keep up with this pun-arms race.

>> No.41812045

>>41812016
your lack of vocabulary must be your Achilles heel.

>> No.41812078

>>41812045
Maybe we could make more puns with a joint effort?

>> No.41812116

>>41812078
let's not get aHead of ourselves. First I think we should just get a thesaurus.

>> No.41812140

>>41812116
I agree, but with if some of the other punsters find us muscling in on their turf?

>> No.41812190

>>41812140
I think we can HANDle it.

>> No.41812209

I'd suggest a resource management scheme. Perhaps you have to allocate points to attack and defense each round.

>> No.41812216

>>41812190
Anon, if we're reusing body parts this early we won't have a leg to stand on when we get to the big leagues!

>> No.41812242

>>41812216
I suppose. It's a hairy situation we are in.

>> No.41812254

>>41812242
Well, I'm sure with our nerves of steel we'll be able to make it through.

>> No.41812288

>>41812254
Are you sure we aren't aSKINg too much?

>> No.41812302

>>41812288
Absolutely, I always trust my gut feeling in times like this, and it's saying we're gonna make it.

>> No.41812360

>>41812302
Thanks for the reassurance, I have a tendon-cy to overthink things.

>> No.41812371

>>41812360
No worries, we just need to pick each others brains and come up with some great material.

>> No.41812379

>>41812371
we'll just keep climbing that pun b-ladder till we reach the top!

>> No.41812389

>>41812379
>>41812371

We shall scalp our creativity into the stones of success my friends.

>> No.41812397

>>41812379
That's the spirit!
We just kneed to keep thinking positive!

>> No.41812398

>>41812371
Canine join in?

>> No.41812408

>>41812389
I always wondered why puns hurt, but then I remembered; the penis mightier than the sword.

>> No.41812429

>>41812389
>>41812397
Who nose what heights we can reach!

>> No.41812431

>>41812398
Depends, do you have the skulls to keep up with us?

>> No.41812452

>>41812431
The gall of that statement!

>> No.41812471

>>41812452
Such nerve. That skeleton thinks he's one funny bone, doesn't he!

>> No.41812478

>>41812452
It's was just some harmless ribbing, friend, everybody is welcome!

>> No.41812494

>>41812471
he certainly thinks he's humerus.

>> No.41812573

>>41812494
With an attitude like that, he'll certainly get the cold shoulder from the rest of us.

>> No.41812590

>>41812471
>>41812478
I dna think I can actually stay, I've gotta get to work!

Laterall, anatomyous!

>> No.41812609

>>41812573
true. We shall convene and decide if we shall let him in.
The ruling is tibia-nnounced at a later date.

>> No.41812678

>>41812609
Oh please, we all know when we convene everybody just gives the others lip service and nothing gets done.

>> No.41812734

>>41812678
That's because Nostrildamus never shuts the hell up about his damn prophecies!

>> No.41812748

>>41812734
Oh quit pointing fingers, you're guilty of the same thing!

>> No.41812817

>>41806915
>How do we remove dice from RPGs?

Well this person sure sounds like a huge faggot. Let's read the next sentence too to make sure (wouldn't want to file in a false positive).

>It is a dated mechanic that impairs enjoyment

Aaaaand confirmed.

>> No.41812895

>>41812748
How dare you! Nostrildamus jaws on for so long, Eye wish we could have him iris-ted.

>> No.41813105

>>41806915
Have you tried 3D6 as opposed to D20's? Reduces the randomness while allowing for super cool/stupid things to occur.

>> No.41813829

>>41806915
>*unsheathes katana*
>*teleports behind you*

>> No.41813862

>>41813829
>it was a hologram
>*unzips dick*

>> No.41813907

>>41809890
I've been in a couple of threads like this. Weird things man.

>> No.41813940

>>41813862
>*activates everything-proof shield that I got fron my moon goddess waifu WHO IS NOT BASED OFF THAT ONE GIRL I HAVE A CRUSH ON BUT AM TOO SCARED TO TALK TO! SHUT UP!!!!*

>> No.41814341

>>41806915
Have a system where the dice only affect the outcome slightly.
I tend to find that d100 systems usually work great with this.
Or play with a more narrative style, working together to make an enjoyable story.

>> No.41814414

>>41806915

>getting rid of dice

Only when you pry them from my greasy, cheeto dust stained hands you son of a bitch.

>> No.41814799

>>41808149
>I haven't gone out and forcibly had somebody undergo gender reassignment surgery recently.
>recently

>> No.41814835

>>41806915
>give dice up
The cheeto dust and dried buffalo sauce encrusting my fingers will fall off long before I do that. Diceless/freeform games are almost never anything even remotely resembling "decent."

>> No.41814880

>>41814341
>>41814414
>>41814835

Why the fuck are you idiots talking about dice in this thread? This is Puns and Melonfucking General.

>> No.41814910

>>41814880
why did the melonfuckers have a huge wedding? Because they Cantaloupe!

>> No.41814933

>>41814910

>> No.41814971

>>41806915
>How do we remove dice from RPGs?
Cards

>> No.41814974

>>41814910

>> No.41815069

>>41806915
You have points per stat and skill.
How likely you are to do something relates to the amount of poitns you have.
When a new situation that need a stat X occur you get more points. And you must use them to do the action, or fail less. Not used points are saved for later time.

>> No.41815075

>>41814933
>>41814974

>> No.41815306

>>41807244
Our Group played a system that worked kinda like this. It was a homebrew in the style of V:tM Setting wise. Every player had a point pool: Vampires had blood points, Werewolves Meat points, etc. Whenever you want to do an action you had to give points(which we represented as baubles. The DM didn't tell how much was needed so you had to guess. If you gave too few you fail or at least don't fully succeed. If you overpay you make it but lose all baubles you gave. You have ways to replenish them based on your race(Vampire: drinking blood;Werewolf: eating people/animals,...)

>> No.41815439

>>41814880
>Puns and Melonfucking General

Could have sworn it was the Pedofinder Genera. See, OP, this is why you mark your threads clearly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCywGhHQMEw

>> No.41815661

>no dice
Okay sound nea-
>Pedos
Uh thats a bit weir-
>Melon fucking
See image

>> No.41815717

>> No.41816192

>>41815661

>> No.41816456

>>41807485
>that gif
>Not this gif, which is objectively funnier.

>> No.41817460

>>41816456
The gif alone is funnier, but the filename+gif combination of mine is funnier than the filename+gif combination of yours.

>> No.41820008

>>41806915

>Dice

>Dated

Get off of my table you hipster freak.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action