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 ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 84 KB, 577x432, TG Strangled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
77359507 No.77359507 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

>Don't kill your players, fudge the dice if you need to
>don't roll random encounters, only do set pieces
>xp by milestones is best
>don't play systems that allow players to jump or fall beyond expected power levels
>nothing should be possible that might interfere with your PLOT
>>no 'derailing', derailing is bad. CAN YOU IMAGINE THE HORROR OF PLAYERS GOING OFF THE RAILS?

every one of those is brought forward in the name of safety from derailing the game, infringing on DM's plans or god forbid someone at the table possibly not enjoying something that happens.
Every one of those is actually aimed to kill emergent gameplay
these mindsets turn games into shitty roller coaster rides, where players get to strap in and just listen, perhaps with a bit of lazy drama club in the middle

ps. if your players aren't showing worried that by end of this session their character might be dead, every single session, your game is shit.

>> No.77359534

>>77359507
Anon I get you, but have you tried not playing DnD?

>> No.77359537

>>77359507
>ps. if your players aren't showing worried that by end of this session their character might be dead, every single session, your game is shit.
I run Ryuutama and Geist: The Sin-Eaters, what the fuck are you talking about?
D&D really rots brains.

>> No.77359566

>>77359507
This is why the OSR movement exists, and why SJWs are so upset it's a thing.

>> No.77359612

>>77359534
I am cursed and perhaps blessed with an obsessive love for 3.5./PF1 crunchiness and system.
i dabbled with others, but they just don't do it for me for various reasons.
so i just try to do my own thing and put quotas on my monthly amount of seething about where d&d went off too
major tease when I see other games with systems I don't enjoy, embrace the playstyle I want

>> No.77359637

>>77359566
having started with 3.5 i can't get into these more simplified systems, but I love that this movement exists. often crawl it for ideas to rip off

>> No.77359650

>>77359507
>ps. if your players aren't showing worried that by end of this session their character might be dead, every single session, your game is shit.
Everything else you said was completely true, but assuming that every game has lethal combat every session is wrong (although since 90% of games are D&D and 90% of the rest are D&D derivatives or CoC, you're not that wrong).

>> No.77359770

>>77359650
the word I missed in my op was 'up'
> if your players aren't showing up, worried
i meant that players should be playing constantly with the mindset of 'if we screw up or get unlucky, this character dies and I can't play it anymore'
doesn't mean that every session will definitely have potentially lethal combat, but players should feel like it might

>> No.77359844

>>77359612
So you are basically same as people who only play 5e and think it's be all, end all system, got it. No offence, but 3,5 is just really really bad version of gurps, already not that impressive game.

>> No.77359876

>>77359507
This isn't new, every one of those things has been happening since at least the dawn of people posting stories about ttrpgs on the internet, and probably the dawn of the hobby.

>> No.77359961

>>77359507
>Don't kill your players, fudge the dice if you need to
You shouldn't be killing your players if they don't expect to die. It's a waste of time and makes them less connected to their character if out of nowhere they randomly have to reroll a new one because they tripped on a tree branch.
>don't roll random encounters, only do set pieces
You shouldn't be doing either if your players don't want it. If they want random encounters then go for it, if they want setpieces then go for it.
>xp by milestones is best
This is inarguable. Milestone skips the stupid XP tracking and prevents metagaming strategies.
>don't play systems that allow players to jump or fall beyond expected power levels
This is true. If you are crafting a game at a specific power level you shouldn't play a system which will suddenly bring you out of bounds of it.
>nothing should be possible that might interfere with your PLOT
Zero people say this
>>no 'derailing', derailing is bad. CAN YOU IMAGINE THE HORROR OF PLAYERS GOING OFF THE RAILS?
Derailing can be frustrating for certain games and in those games players should avoid it.

The tone and feel of a game should be in accordance with the wishes of everyone at the table. If I roll up to a game and don't know what general tone to expect then I'm not going to play for long. A game where I die and didn't know that dying was on the table is just as bad as a game where nothing can kill me yet I expect to die constantly.

>or god forbid someone at the table possibly not enjoying something that happens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdxEUL18ySY

>> No.77360037

>>77359507
>>Don't kill your players, fudge the dice if you need to
Because players are there to PLAY THE GAME and dying prevents you from PLAYING THE GAME
>>don't roll random encounters, only do set pieces
Because random encounters are repetitive, waste time, and often show how pure combat is kind of boring in various systems
>>xp by milestones is best
Because no one wants to be bothered to keep track of XP, especially when XP values reach the thousands and the challenges the game recommends give a few hundred points each
>>don't play systems that allow players to jump or fall beyond expected power levels
Because unbalanced parties are really annoying to play in. Underpowered characters drag everyone else down and overpowered players ruin the challenge for everyone else

>>nothing should be possible that might
interfere with your PLOT
>>>no 'derailing', derailing is bad. CAN YOU IMAGINE THE HORROR OF PLAYERS GOING OFF THE RAILS?
Those are the only actual points you have, and you are still being a huge fag about them

>> No.77360188

>>77359961
>You shouldn't be killing your players if they don't expect to die. It's a waste of time and makes them less connected to their character if out of nowhere they randomly have to reroll a new one because they tripped on a tree branch.
playing any game where players can't lose, is a waste of time to begin with.
no risk, no stake, no one cares.

>his is inarguable. Milestone skips the stupid XP tracking and
'x is stupid' is not an argument in the first place. thanks for sharing your subjective opinion
> prevents metagaming strategies
there are better ways to do that without cutting out a way a consistent reward system for the players. earning XP is fun to most people. That's why most video games have it.
Most metagaming strategies rely on players feeling too safe anyway.

>> No.77360361

>Fuck off fag.
>Yeah, this is better
>EXP is retarded and only still in the game because video games still have it
>I don’t but fuck you, play whatever.
>Your trolling me aren’t you?
>I just got trolled.
Fuck...

>> No.77360388

>>77360037
>Because players are there to PLAY THE GAME and dying prevents you from PLAYING THE GAME
Do you play video games with God-mode on?
If the game is advertising the possibility of your character dying as the main losing condition and in reality that losing condition is absent, than you are not in fact 'playing the game'
>Because no one wants to be bothered to keep track of XP, especially when XP values reach the thousands and the challenges the game recommends give a few hundred points each
what's the bother? literally simple division and addition, takes 10 second with a calculator if you for some reason can't do grade 2 math operations in your head. and every experiment on humans to date confirms that we in fact overwhelmingly love getting consistent smaller rewards through out a game vs. one big reward at the end. there is a reason why all games that try to be addictive are built around the same schema that tracks all kind of experience.

>> No.77360499

>>77359961
>>77360037
>The drones coming out of the woodwork to complain about standard game fare
Not wanting your character to die is retarded. Almost all encounters can be survived by literally just running away, if the players are too stupid to do this then they deserve to die. The corollary of "Your players die if they are reduced to zero hp" is, with a good DM, "You have an almost infinite number of options to avoid this.

How many good fantasy stories involve 0 of the main characters ever dying?

>> No.77360529

>>77359507
>xp by milestones is best
In D&D milestones is far better than xp. With XP you either hand out XP arbitrarily for non-combat encounters effectively turning the game into milestones anyway or you only run dungeon crawls.

>> No.77360555

>>77360188
>playing any game where players can't lose, is a waste of time to begin with.
If they don't care about their characters because they probably won't last long anyway, you have created a game where the players can't lose.

>> No.77360619

>>77359507
>ps. if your players aren't showing worried that by end of this session their character might be dead, every single session, your game is shit.
My party does this random encounter or not, after one character died via falling off a roof into a mass of zombies after being hit in the back with another characters axe(said character was on the ground) I've come to expect they will fuck up in some way.

>> No.77360639

>>77360188
>playing any game where players can't lose, is a waste of time to begin with.
That's your opinion. Some people want that. My point is simply that the game should be what the players expect. A GM shouldn't be running a game the players don't want and the players shouldn't be playing a game the GM isn't running.
>no risk, no stake, no one cares.
By reducing the value of individual characters to bags of meat that can be discarded at any time you have made the players no longer care about dying. I don't care about death if I can't die but I also don't care about death if I die twice a session.
>thanks for sharing your subjective opinion
The entirety of this board is subjective opinions. Unless you have some statistical evidence to back up the idea that 'X is strangling the hobby' or 'Players have less fun when Z happens' your entire opinion is based on subjective judgement. It is impossible to claim objectivity when dealing with opinions. You need evidence and data otherwise you are dealing with opinion and hypothesis.
>earning XP is fun to most people. That's why most video games have it.
Video games also have linear stories and invisible bounding boxes limiting the play area. I'll include XP if my players want it but otherwise I'm running what I want to run. I don't run D&D anyways though.

>> No.77360821

>>77360529
You shouldn't give players XP for noncombat encounters. Talking the bandits out of stabbing me doesn't make me swing my sword harder. Successful noncombat encounters should give material non-item benefits, but they should not give XP. Wargaming an RPG by saying that everything is about acquiring XP is part of the problem. XP by combat and nothing else.

>> No.77360846
File: 16 KB, 274x284, slapping.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
77360846

>>77360639
>It is impossible to claim objectivity when dealing with opinions. You need evidence and data otherwise you are dealing with opinion and hypothesis.
>t. never heard of logical analysis.
Stop. You are not suddenly smart because you know what statistics are.

>> No.77360877

>>77360388
>what's the bother? literally simple division and addition, takes 10 second with a calculator if you for some reason can't do grade 2 math operations in your head. and every experiment on humans to date confirms that we in fact overwhelmingly love getting consistent smaller rewards through out a game vs. one big reward at the end. there is a reason why all games that try to be addictive are built around the same schema that tracks all kind of experience.
RPGs don't require you to manually write down your exp every time you gain some

>>77360821
>Literally defending murderhobo "killing things makes you more powerful" games

>> No.77360933

>>77360877
I'm not defending it retard. Make noncombat interesting. Encourage players to RP and give them benefits. If you're running BECMI, don't magically give the players a castle out of nowhere at level 9. Make it a prolonged non-combat scenario. People play the game irl without getting magical "irl" XP, so clearly XP gain is not the primary motivation and cause of fun. Just have fun noncombat. Shake things up. Make the players be creative and punish them if they solve noncombat issues with combat. Just saying "Because I successfully convinced the king to give 100 gold I can now bullrush 10% better" is utterly retarded AND YOU KNOW THAT.

>> No.77360957

>>77360821
Based murderhobos are the way you should be playing

>> No.77360976

>>77359507
>Nobody says that, you are free to cite otherwise
>Nobody says that, you are free to cite otherwise
>This is simply preference
>Nobody says that, you are free to cite otherwise
>Nobody says that, you are free to cite otherwise
>Nobody says that, you are free to cite otherwise

>> No.77361017
File: 65 KB, 334x393, 1362405947635.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
77361017

>>77360846
You're making qualitative claims that pertain to statistical facts.
'People feel [emotion] when [event] happens" is primarily a claim about reality. You are attempting to convince me that in real life when X happens Y follows. It is a perfectly logical statement to say that 'When players can't die they don't take the game seriously' but it's just as logical to say "When she wakes up in the morning your mother calls me to have sex". Both are logical statements, but being a logical statement does not make it a factual statement.
If you want me to believe that "Players feel [emotion] about [property of campaign]" then you have to demonstrate that to me with evidence because it is a claim about reality.

>> No.77361065

>>77359507
what if we just agreed that there are different approaches with their own advantages and disadvantages and it's largely a matter of taste? Personally I can enjoy railroaded ones if the script is good enough to be worth the railroading, but freeform is good too. Sometimes I might put a lot of work into a character on the understanding that I won't lose it at the drop of a hat - other times I go in with the expectation that PCs will die and so I prepare accordingly. Sometimes combat is an afterthought compared to the RP, sometimes it's the main purpose of the game.

Why can't we have all of them?

>> No.77361136

>>77359507
>Don't kill your players, fudge the dice if you need to
Nobody should kill any of their players, unless in explicit self-defense; murder is illegal.
>don't play systems that allow players to jump or fall beyond expected power levels
Considering players don't change in "power levels" unless they work out or get severely injured, I have no idea what you're on about. As far as I know, there is no system that accounts for a player's "power."

>> No.77361151

>>77361136
>Nobody should kill any of their players, unless in explicit self-defense; murder is illegal.
It should be legal for players to sign a contract tying their fate to their character's

>> No.77361194

>>77359566
What is the OSR movement? Is it an effort to bring that style back? If so, I'm all for it. I've always liked the idea of mechanics and gameplay being the major focus of a game.

>> No.77361210

>>77359507
>does not adjust any system to their liking anyways
You want to play a videogame without electricity.

>> No.77361213

>>77360037
>pure combat is kind of boring in various systems
If the combat isn't fun, then why run it at all? This is why I only play with wargamers. Specifically the kind that hasn't had their brain fried by "competitive" play. My friends and I always would go back and forth about what our units should be able to do. My rule of thumb is if a players only ever says "i use ability/hit thing" he's not a good fit for my game. Additionally, random encounters don't have to be combat encounters. I had a heated argument with a DM about boars attacking while outnumbered and fighting to the death in a 2e game. Ultimately he disagreed, but it's his game. That game fell apart eventually because nobody was invested in the combat.

>> No.77361226

>>77361017
Except that this just an infinite reduction to a complete inability to say anything, which is why your opinion on it is stupid.
>The best gameplay occurs when players feel real concern about their characters' survival
>Characters never dying prevents the players from feeling concern about their characters' survival
>Therefore characters never dying does not lead to the best gameplay.

Your argument demands a statistical analysis about EVERYTHING to make any statement about it. This is obviously not how reality works and it's not even how YOU operate. Surely you do not have the actuarial tables on survivability of different maneuvers while driving, and yet even though the consequence of bad driving is death or severe injury, you most likely still drive, yes? Therefore it's obvious that simple logical and heuristic analysis is a standard and even acceptable method of deriving conclusions, even though statistical analysis is better in the long run.

So the above statement that "Therefore characters never dying does not lead to the best gameplay" is true, because we all, you included, intuitively know that fun playing games is primarily motivated by a desire to win and fear of losing, and that therefore victory when you cannot lose is utterly meaningless because it was inferred anyway. And yes, I'm aware that the above statement doesn't lead to "Characters dying causes the best gameplay", but it holds that it's still not good to have characters never dying.

I would rather choose the option that on heuristic or logical analysis appears to be the most true and then be proven wrong statistically, than spend months or years waiting for statistics and refusing to make any conclusion

>> No.77361239

>>77361065
>Why can't we have all of them?
Because the most vocal group that D&D changes its books for hate game mechanics, and prefer to have their snowflake self-inserts succeed at everything without earning any of it, just like their current-era Disney movies.

>> No.77361397

>>77361239
why not have different systems for different games? serious question - why not stick with 3.5 for mechanically focused games and let new editions evolve in the narrative direction that seems to have broad appeal?

>> No.77361402

>Men are born for games. Nothing else. Every child knows that play is nobler than work. He knows too that the worth or merit of a game is not inherent in the game itself but rather in the value of that which is put at hazard.
Killing characters occasionally is good, but you have to balance it with getting the players emotionally invested in them. If you don't they'll view them as a stat block. Which is a greater loss: Human Fighter #3 dies at 4th level to a goblin chief, or Lothbard the Mighty is mortally wounded by the foul greenskin he swore to destroy.

>> No.77361404

>>77359507
Yeah, these are all good things and I do run this way, albeit with some tweaks, in my games. Sure it can make it more videogamey feeling, but my players enjoy it so that's where the fun comes from.

>> No.77361412
File: 155 KB, 352x239, 1586963564724.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
77361412

>>77361226
>statistical analysis about EVERYTHING to make any statement about it
To make a statement? An assumption is fine so long as you say it's an unfounded opinion. To make a claim that a fact is true? Yes, one should provide at least a modicum of evidence.
>you most likely still drive
I avoid it when possible but yes. I don't think doing something yourself requires evidence. Again, it's about making a truth claim. You can do whatever you want on your own. If you want to cut through lanes and you say to yourself that that's the best way you know how to drive then that's on you but if you go to me and say 'I have this really effective driving method, you should do it too' then I'm going to need a bit more substance.
>Therefore it's obvious that simple logical and heuristic analysis is a standard and even acceptable method of deriving conclusions
Yes, for individual decisions. You can run your table how you want. If you want me to run my table your way though then that's a matter of analysis. I'll even take rudimentary analysis of the players of both tables and their reactions over just you saying to me that X is better than Y.
>because we all, you included, intuitively know that fun playing games is primarily motivated by a desire to win and fear of losing
Here's where I disagree though.
For SOME games its about winning and losing. If I get invited to an OSR game then winning is absolutely my primary goal. If I get invited to or run a FATE game then the word "winning" is no longer in my vocabulary since my primary objective is just do whatever seems fun or narratively satisfying/interesting/complex.
So the statement "Therefore characters never dying does not lead to the best gameplay" is only true in circumstances in which winning is a relevant descriptor of the ideal outcome of the game. Even then not always since I'm sure there's at least 4 people that would happily do a dungeon crawl where the end outcome was just them dying in a way that seems neat.

>> No.77361433

>>77361412
>An assumption is fine so long as you say it's an unfounded opinion
Do you have a source for this?

>> No.77361459

>>77361239
You know what you ought to try? Not playing D&D.

>> No.77361472

>>77361412
I still disagree (defaulting to "Well live your life how you want it" when I point out that statistical analysis has both limited availability and utility in making short-term decisions seems cheap tbqh), but your last paragraph is a fair enough point.

>> No.77361512

>>77359566
people you would call SJW make and play OSR stuff, moron. At least look at the thing before talking about it.

>> No.77361607

>>77361194
Look over here
>>77351906

>> No.77361608

>>77361472
I won't deny in any way that it seems very difficult (in my experience) to find data to guide one's day-to-day decision making but I would much prefer we all admit that these are questions without answers until we have the data to do so than we all fight and bicker as if one of us can just logic themselves into discovering the truths of the world. I don't like how much of modern /tg/ is people having verbal bloodsport over what essentially amounts to skub when instead we could all take a skeptical approach and try to test out our hypothesis against the world in a more practical fashion.

>> No.77361656

>>77359650
Combat isn't the only way for characters to die. They can activate a poison trap and fail their saving throw. They can even die from falling off a cliff during a wilderness exploration.

>> No.77361708

>>77360821
>Don't give XP for non-combat encounters
>Wonders why every solution the players choose ends with someone getting murdered.

>> No.77361711

I still don't understand how it's fucking people that so many people on this board automatically equate a roleplaying session to a dungeon crawl. Holy shit. I haven't played a dungeon crawl in 20 years.

>> No.77361755

>>77359566
The osr is primarily driven by incredibly progressive teams, knuckle-dragger

>> No.77361775

>>77361459
>"Gate keeping is the only way to preserve the culture surrounding a game."
And in the same breath
>"HaVe YoU tRiEd StEpPiNg OuTsIdE yOuRe ReTaRd CoNtAiNmEmT?"

>> No.77361802

>>77361708
I have literally never had this issue, even in games where combat directly improves stats. Frankly, I think XP-induced murderhoboing is essentially a boogeyman or a nogames invention. Besides, if the players are murderhoboing in a game where they can die freely, punish them for it.
>Bargle the Sneaky (lvl 4) assassinates the bandit leader from the shadows for 100 XP!
>The next day Bargle the Sneaky is beaten to death by six Italian-accented orcs who pull clubs out of violin cases after cornering him in a bar.

>> No.77361808

>>77360188
>playing any game where players can't lose, is a waste of time to begin with.
There are many more kinds of stakes other than dying

>> No.77361827

>>77361808
>Oh no, my invented fantasy fairyland might be destroyed by the invented fantasy Mr. Lich!

>> No.77361838

>>77359537
>Ryuutama and Geist: The Sin-Eaters
I've never heard of this anime

>> No.77361878

>>77360499
>How many good fantasy stories involve 0 of the main characters ever dying?
All of them? Not much of a story if a main character dies.

>> No.77361884

>>77361827
Yes. Players should have things to care about aside from their characters being alive or dead.

>> No.77361889

>>77361838
>I've never heard of this anime
Retard.

>> No.77361910

>>77361802
>Implying my Rogue isn't rightfully cautious about Orcs, and slipped out of the bar located in a high income neighborhood, so the sound snare drum mumble grunt music bellowing loudly from the squeeling hogs the Orcs road in on wasn't easy to pick up in the distance, giving me ample time to gtfo.

>> No.77361971

>>77360529
>or you only run dungeon crawls.
you can have all kinds of scenarios involving combat outside dungeons.
>XP arbitrarily for non-combat encounters
eww. that just prompts the game to turn into competing drama club. no.

>> No.77362218

>>77361910
That's perfect though
>Player murderbones
>Dramatically changes the story
>Player must improvise increasingly complex solutions to the mob assassins trying to kill him.
>If he fucks up, he dies.

>> No.77362255

>>77361802
>Besides, if the players are murderhoboing in a game where they can die freely, punish them for it.
this.

also there are other rewards beside XP and from those rewards stem other kind of discouragement.

ie. You want to be murderhobos hunting for XP above all?
>fine. you leveled up faster.
>You are hunted in all cities, no respectable merchant will do business with you
>hope you murderhobos invested heavily into Craft because any magic stuff you want to have, you are going to have to make yourself
>oh wait... craft and all the cool spells require materials and regeants...
>which are all sold in big cities
>sucks to be outlaws.jpg

>> No.77362292

>>77361711
Crippling autism and thinking anything fun or enjoyed by the mainstream automatically equals bad. It's the same mentality that fueled Dark Souls, fags jerking themselves off about difficulty and challenge yet there was none beyond rote and metagaming.

>> No.77362399

>>77360976
>>Nobody says that, you are free to cite otherwise
check reddit for mainstream opinions
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/k78qba/is_fudging_a_dice_roll_ok_more_for_newer_dms/
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/9m679d/dms_do_you_fudge_dice_rolls/

By upvotes you may track that majority opinion is for DMs to cheat and hide it from players to prevent death. Second most popular opinion is to twist NPC motivation into not killing player PCs.

>> No.77362692

>>77359507
>Don't kill your players, fudge the dice if you need to
It depends on what kind of game is being run and the circumstances. It's no fun getting killed because I rolled a Nat 20 and max on the damage rolls at level 1 for some random dickhead with an axe. I'll sure as shit DBNO them and maybe take away a Death Save for suspense but often there's enough healing to sort that problem.
>don't roll random encounters, only do set pieces
Random encounters don't work a lot of the time.
>xp by milestones is best
I prefer it in more linear / narrative campaigns where I don't want my players worrying about leveling up or metagaming for xp
>don't play systems that allow players to jump or fall beyond expected power levels
Power gaming is never fun and no one I've met enjoys it who isn't a total sped
>nothing should be possible that might interfere with your PLOT
There's a difference between preventing a player from stabbing out a quest giver integral to the plot because he's LMAO SO RANDOM and preparing for your players to make decisions that throw a monkey wrench into you plan. Never plan further than you have to.
>no 'derailing', derailing is bad. CAN YOU IMAGINE THE HORROR OF PLAYERS GOING OFF THE RAILS?
Depends on what the derailing is. At a certain point it just gets in the way and annoys those at the table who are aware of the tone and style of the campaign.
>ps. if your players aren't showing worried that by end of this session their character might be dead, every single session, your game is shit.
That's only true if your game is centered on the high possibility for character death

>> No.77363016

>>77362399
>Goes to shitty, groupthink website
>Gets shitty, groupthink information
>>HowCouldThisHappen.webm

>> No.77363041
File: 36 KB, 824x688, hm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
77363041

>>77363016
>goes to shitty groupthink media
>gets shitty groupthink articles

>goes to shitty groupthink academia
>gets shitty groupthink studies

>> No.77363111

>>77359507
I agree with OP.

I love it when carefully constructed NPCs die, when players take a random crit and risk being killed.

You need to spice things up and have excitement and unexpected things happening. If it's just a journey from point A to point B where nobody dies except during scripted cinematic moments, it feels lame and sterile.

>> No.77363247

>>77359637
Keep the crunch but just randomize it for character creation.

Epic6 exists to keep 3.5 in its sweet spot of lower level play.

>> No.77363274

>>77359507
RPGs change. Back in the 80's a character was just a collection of numbers that allowed you to get through a dungeon and get the loot.
Nowadays if a GM told you you can't play the character you spent a week working on because the dungeon calls for a rogue and then hands you a halfling with a crossbow you'd be fucking pissed.

In the last few decades RPGs evolved from just being dungeon crawler games on ODnD to being actual roleplaying games, and people attracted to roleplaying games started asking for more role-playing than the game. There's nothing bad in running a classic dungeon crawl game, it's just not the way current people play.

>ps. if your players aren't showing worried that by end of this session their character might be dead, every single session, your game is shit.
If literally all your sessions end up the same you're a shit GM.

>> No.77363362

>>77363247
haven't heard of it. thanks will check it out.

>> No.77363368

>>77359566
the pivot to SJW stuff is a good bait, you almost got me to reply seriously. you earned this (You).

>> No.77363376

>>77363274
Dungeons is just a name for a risk-reward sandbox with limited resources. Where player ingenuity is challenged and rewarded.

Railroad DM's fanfiction with your unkillable PC with a long prewritten backstory isn't roleplaying.

Coming up with the decisions that a person risking their life for treasure would take is roleplaying.

>> No.77363455

>>77363376
you kvetching about plot armor PCs and DM railroad story shitting doesnt change the reality that most people play their games somewhere in the middle.

>> No.77363519

>>77359507
>>Don't kill your players, fudge the dice if you need to
Why in the world would you do this? If you're running a game where PCs won't die just from combat damage, then just say "Hitting 0 HP doesn't mean you die." If you're running a game where combat damage is lethal then let it be lethal.

If you're fudging dice, something has gone wrong somewhere, basically without exception.

>> No.77363539

>>77363376
Correct, but you can have both not every game be a high stakes rollercoaster of emotions with danger at every corner while not being railroady.
That's why people say that "shopping sessions" are good for campaigns. Besides, there are situations where stuff is at stake that doesn't directly involve a PC dying - for example, a social interaction where if the player fucks it up the entire quest becomes harder and the loot gets pushed farther.

Yes, it is true that games nowadays feel less alive, that's mostly because the new people that get into RPGs are introduced by things like podcasts, and are woefully ignorant that GMing actually requires effort and knowing how to improvise on the fly.

People play games because they want to pass the time and have fun, it's okay if you prefer your games to give you that adrenalin hit, but there's also people looking to relax and chill. They're just different play styles.

>> No.77363630

>>77363376
There is a crowd that does exactly what you're talking about. Most OSRs are infamous for being super deadly, first time I played Lamentations of the Flame Princess I went through 4 characters in one session.

>> No.77363633

>>77359844
objectively wrong. GURPS a shit.

>> No.77363926
File: 296 KB, 529x720, Confusion.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
77363926

>>77359507
Jesus fucking Christ, how many of those bait threads you plan to post today?

>> No.77364004

>>77359507
"this is what my character would do" fag after getting shoved out of every table he was in

>> No.77366320

>>77359637
>>77359612
You basically deserve the hell you're in.

>> No.77366492

>>77359507
>Don't kill your players, fudge the dice if you need to
>don't roll random encounters, only do set pieces
Depends on the type of game you want to run.
>xp by milestones is best
Depends on the system and type of game you're playing. Milestones for narrative-driven games, XP for combat-focused games.
>don't play systems that allow players to jump or fall beyond expected power levels
I've never seen this argument, but yeah play the type of system that suits the game you want best.
>nothing should be possible that might interfere with your PLOT
Depends on the kind of game you're running/playing.
>no 'derailing', derailing is bad. CAN YOU IMAGINE THE HORROR OF PLAYERS GOING OFF THE RAILS?
Literally have never seen this argued here.
>god forbid someone at the table possibly not enjoying something that happens.
Yes, everyone at the table should be having fun. That's kind of the point of playing a game together with your friends.
>Every one of those is actually aimed to kill emergent gameplay
Define emergent gameplay, because you can have a narrative-driven game where you never know exactly what's coming next.
>if your players aren't showing worried that by end of this session their character might be dead, every single session, your game is shit.
If death is the only punishment for failure you can come up with, your game is shit. See? I can do this too.

>> No.77366579

>>77360188
>playing any game where players can't lose, is a waste of time to begin with.
Playing any game where the only "loss" state is death is also a waste of time. No stakes because if you kill your players every other second then death becomes an inconvenience at best and an annoyance at worst.
>.'x is stupid' is not an argument in the first place. thanks for sharing your subjective opinion
XP is only useful in certain systems, otherwise it encourages murderhoboing where the players say "i'm going to go out into the woods and genocide the local rabbit population until I'm level 20" like it's an MMO.
>there are better ways to do that without cutting out a way a consistent reward system for the players.
Good players will find that there are rewards that aren't meta like XP and in-character rewards such as allies, resources, weapons, etc.
>earning XP is fun to most people
Maybe if they've only played video games, it's the level-up rewards that are really fun, especially in games like D&D where that's the only way to get new features. XP is means to an end.
>That's why most video games have it.
TTRPGs are not video games, nor should they be.
>Most metagaming strategies rely on players feeling too safe anyway.
They rely on optimizing your character to the point nothing can touch you RAW.

>> No.77366692

>>77361827
If your players aren't acting in-character and having their characters be concerned about things that, to those characters, are very real, your players are dogshit or you're a shit Gm.

>>77360388
>Do you play video games with God-mode on?
No, but in most games you can just reload a save which is effectively immortality.
>what's the bother?
You have to stop everything, break immersion, and count how much XP the rabbit you killed gave. Repeat until all the rabbits in the forest are dead and your players are level 20 gods who curbstomp your entire game because they basically spent the past 10 sessions grinding XP like it's a video game.

>>77360499
>Not wanting your character to die is retarded
I don't see why
>Almost all encounters can be survived by literally just running away,
Then nothing ever goes anywhere and there's no point to the game since you're not even playing the game at that point. At that point, what's the point in combat at all? What's the point in adventuring? If it's too lethal to survive and the answer is "Run away lmao" then there's no game and your players are going to leave you for a GM who knows what the fuck they're doing.
>How many good fantasy stories involve 0 of the main characters ever dying?
Plenty, literally all of them if you count main characters (which the player characters are).

>> No.77369790

>>77359507
this is true only if you believe the ludicrous notion that RPGs have to follow what a few people on Twitter or the forums are talking about.

>>77359534
I play AD&D 1e

>> No.77369918

>>77359507
I can't imagine any situation where it's better to publish an unbalanced game rather than a balanced one. Anyone who wants the players to be balanced will be able to use it as-is. Anyone who wants the players unbalanced can arbitrarily give one class half health and another extra damage and get the clusterfuck they're after.

>> No.77369990

>>77369918
Balance is a bugbear

>> No.77370024

>>77369990
Got it. Please tag your thread with Schizo in the subject line next time

>> No.77370043

>>77369918
Here's the real problem. People don't know balance when they see it.
Look at AD&D 1e. The online complains are in two camps
>"Why do different classes have different X.P. chart to level up?! Why do some races have caps on level?! Why are their attribute and alignment restrictions on classes?! Why are magic-users so limited in the spells that can learn, how they learn them, and how many they can cast?! Take all that stupid shit out!"
and
>"It is totally unbalanced! What? Oh, I took all the stupid shit out, of course!"

>> No.77370064

>>77370024
1) it isn't my thread
2) I am using 'bugbear' in the non-gaming sense as in 'the focus of unnecessary worry'

>> No.77370138
File: 32 KB, 425x359, 15226296.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
77370138

>>77359507
So I have a question
>Party is exploring long lost tomb
>No one knows they're there
>Tomb has been lost for centuries
>The entrance sealed behind them
>Player dies
>Still lots of dungeon to go
What should I do? I want my friend to be able to keep playing, but how do I introduce a new character when they're going to be in a sealed tomb for the next two or three sessions?

>> No.77370145

>>77366492
This is what I find interesting from people arguing for "narrative" systems. They seem to take the system itself as a blessing and it becomes the sole duty of the players to manipulate it in order to create a specific narrative. It's like they are admitting that you pay money in order to wrangle the system to do what you want.

>> No.77370155

>>77361827
Exactly.
We're playing pretend anon. There are dice and math involved, but its pretend.
If you can't pretend to care about things that don't actually matter the role playing part of the game is sort of irrelevant. If you really want more Game in your rpgs there are board and video game variants that go above and beyond by ripping out a need to care about anything other than losing.

>> No.77370160

>>77366492
>Milestones for narrative-driven games, XP for combat-focused games.
Do you believe this binary exists?

>> No.77370323

>>77370138

I did this to a PC group a few years back. They got sealed in an underground chamber. When party decided they were well and truly stuck, we rolled up a new party as if it were a TPK. Then tracked a "shelter in place" timer secretly based on how long the party could plausibly survive licking cave walls for water, etc.

Harder in your case with a non-TPK scenario. maybe have the disturbance of the tomb have awakened a long dead enemy of whoever the tomb occupant is. Have that person possess the corpse of dead PC temporarily join party and exact revenge on tomb dude.

Or yeetus the magician has sent his faithful manservant new-PC to the tomb to investigate for some reasons using his teleport magic after sensing ripples in the mystic that it had been disturbed.

>> No.77370341

>>77370323
Good ideas, anon. Thanks

>> No.77370363

>>77359507
Everything you listed makes for a boring ass game except for not killing the PCs.
Get fucked.

>> No.77370414

>>77361194
It's small group of nerds trying to bring back the single most boring version of TTRPGs to ever have existed.

>> No.77370838

>>77359961
>This is inarguable.
objective proof anon is retarded

>> No.77370901

>>77361412
Stop sucking yourself off fagboi

>> No.77370915

>>77370414
>unironically uses nerds

>> No.77370922

>>77361194
Originally the OSR movement existed because you couldn't get the originals; OD&D/AD&D/EotPT/etc. were out of print and fucking EXPENSIVE. Then Kenzerco made Hackmaster 4th, people realized that older games had innate value from things contemporary games often lack.
This led to OSRIC (really a 'legal reprint' of AD&D) and a bunch of similar clones.
Now? Now it hs diverged from the actual origianl systems and it is largely an attempt to chase it's own rather nebulous concepts to their ludicrous extremes.
I am GROSSLY simplifying *and* exaggerating, of course. But the guys actually playing Old Style (Jeffro Johnson; James Maliszewski; Rick Stump; etc.) are increasingly separated from the OSR

>> No.77370943

>>77370414
>the best selling RPGs ever were the most boring
Don't fall for the '5e is the most popular RPG evah!' marketing - the fine print is it is the best selling RPG *made by WotC or Hasbro* ever made.
The AD&D PHB alone outsold all of 5e's rulebooks put together 3 times over

>> No.77371000

>>77359507
None of this is a trend and none of this is related, except the "don't kill players, fudge the dice" but it's been a more popular direction for well over a decade now because despite what old guard edgelords have to say about it.

>> No.77371070

>>77371000
>but it's been a more popular direction for well over a decade now because despite what old guard edgelords have to say about it.
You must be 18 to post on any 4chan board.
Fudging dice so PCs don't die is was always so fucking common it was a topic for discussion at GenCon and in the game mags in the late 1970's.

>> No.77371337
File: 176 KB, 1000x750, 1587315012854.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
77371337

>>77370138
Get creative with magic. A new PC could get into the tomb through teleportation, planeswalking, time travel, a potion of shrinking to ant size, whatever you can justify in your world. Also I've invited players behind the GM screen before to play as boss monsters, it's cathartic and hilarious.

>> No.77371416

>>77359507
This is why d20 is better than 3d6, it's true RNG, not some faggoty coward bell curve.

>> No.77371446

>>77359534
D&D is the SOLUTION to this, retard. D&D uses d20, which is real RNG, not some retarded bell curve shit with a predictable range of results. A bell curve is a safety net, grow the fuck up and take off the training wheels.

>> No.77371459

>>77369918
>Design football as a team game where players have different roles and most are protecting the quarterback.
WTF! The classes are unbalanced! Fighters should be the same as Wizards!

>> No.77371461

>>77359961
>You shouldn't be killing your players if they don't expect to die
You're a fucking coward.

>> No.77371478

>>77361889
at least he isn't playing a shit game like that

>> No.77371496

>>77359507
Most people don't kill PCs because it means someone is going to be stuck there with nothing to do for the rest of the session unless they're able to quickly roll up a new character and the DM able to insert said character into the game. Likewise random encounters should be carefully used as they're a metagame element and can easily break a players sense of disbelief and fairness. XP by milestones is personal preference. If your player can jump or fall beyond expected power levels without abusing RAW or RAI then your system is bad. The last two are entirely down to how the group works.

>> No.77371520

>>77359507
>xp by milestones is best
Fuck off, If I determine what encounters are worth, and I determine what encounters there are, then tracking xp is pointless, because you level when I say you level.

>> No.77371521

>>77371337
The latter sounds way better.

>> No.77371760

>>77371496
>Most people don't kill PCs because it means someone is going to be stuck there with nothing to do for the rest of the session unless they're able to quickly roll up a new character and the DM able to insert said character into the game.
This is why traditionally all PCs had henchmen - not just to assist but as 'backups' in case of PC death
>random encounters should be carefully used as they're a metagame element and can easily break a players sense of disbelief and fairness.
Only if everyone is a retard.
>"Wait, there is a grizzly bear in these mountainous woods?! METAGAME BULLSHIT! My sense f disbelief is ruined!"
>"Why the fuck were goblins wandering around in this monster-infested maze? Realistically shouldn't every creature be sitting still in one location waiting for us? Lousy DMing, George"
>If your player can jump beyond expected power levels without abusing RAW or RAI then they are probably inventive and clever, so be prepared for them to outsmart you. But also be ready for them to be dense that night and underperform
edited for accuracy

>> No.77371790

>>77361194
The OSR movement died about 5 years ago. What we are left is zoomers larping as "RPG archeologists", but actually being no-games and edgelords (usually both) wanking to retro-clones delivered by hipsters and pedos (usually both).

>> No.77371889

>>77359844
So this is the kind of person who can believe random headlines without ever even thinking about what it says.

>> No.77371940

>>77371889
>you took the bait

>> No.77372538

>>77359637
Check out Dungeon Crawl Classics and/or the E6 hack. My Terrible Sorcery is Without Equal in the West is a blog that runs E6 in an OSR style.

>> No.77372602

>>77359507
I'm sure you're tired of hearing this by now, but you're an idiot.

>> No.77373637

>>77361397
>why not stick with 3.5 for mechanically focused games and let new editions evolve in the narrative direction that seems to have broad appeal?
Ask everyone who doesn't play 3.5.

>> No.77373647

>>77361459
Me not playing D&D doesn't change other people not playing the games I'd like.

>> No.77373655

>>77359507
>TG
Look, I may agree with the general point, but you need to go back.

>> No.77373675

>>77363016
>"Nobody says that, you are free to cite otherwise"
>*cites otherwise*
>"That's shitty groupthink."
To say nothing about the pockets of shitty groupthink either bleeding onto this site or that existed in the first place.
Want to acknowledge you were wrong, or will you move the goalposts again?

>> No.77373686

>>77370922
This sounds like a good cause. I hope more people support this.

>> No.77374362

>>77359507
>>xp by milestones is best
I agree with the rest but not this one, getting xp only from combat is gay and it rewards murderhobos. XP by gold is okay, but anything other than 'monsters give a set amount of xp'.

>> No.77374375

>>77359507
>>don't roll random encounters, only do set pieces
This is the only one I do. You can more easily control the difficulty of encounters and keep in theme more often. Most of the ones I run are considered Medium to Hard anyway.

>> No.77375557

>>77370145
>Pay money
I have never once paid for any system, narrative or otherwise, mainly because most of the systems I play don't cost money in the first place and still managed to be better than D&D/PF, which given the context of OP's post I assumed we were talking about D&D and its clones where XP is just a number that records how long it takes to get to the next level rather than something good like a metacurrency for spending on stats.

>>77370160
That's why I used the term focused, it implies that you favor one over the other but both still exist. If you're going to be running more combat in your game with less of a narrative drive (i.e. dungeon crawls or sandbox games) XP is the better option. If you're going to be running a game where most of the game is roleplaying and non-combat encounters it's better to use milestones. Of course, D&D is the only one that uses both and I assume that's what we're talking about. If not, there are systems that treat XP as metacurrency to boost stats with instead of a counter to raise your level (since they lack levels entirely) and those games are fine for using XP, Star Wars D6 arguably does it the best because it makes the XP - Character Points - not only require in-character action to spend on skills and stats, but it also uses them as a way for players to alter rolls. If only the PHB wasn't written by a schizophrenic, Star Wars D6 would unironically be one of the best TTRPGs I've ever run.

>> No.77375576

>>77370138
this is one of those issues that should be arranged with players at beginning of campaign
solution1: early editions heavily encouraged use of hirelings, squires, etc. Party brings these mooks with them to watch camp, watch their back etc.. if a player's char gets dead, player temporarily takes over one or more of the mooks until there is a suitable way to have another heroic character join them. (sometimes players get attached to mooks and the mooks evolve into heroic characters)
solution 2: have more than one party in play, meta game a bit, have first party contact the second for help. Maybe have pre-arranged arrangement of mutual help or something.
solution 3: which is used in DnD 99% of the time "wizard placed another PC in stasis imprisonment in there'.
First 2 solutions are better because they forewarn and prep. players for potential death.

>> No.77375637

>>77371416
1d20, completely broken 'people' become very normal in the setting. makes for a silly world and silly parties

>> No.77375760

>>77359507
>Don't kill your players, fudge the dice if you need to
Unless you played with completely open information (no screen, being allowed to check the monsters stats at any point), I have some bad news. Your DM was ALWAYS fudging things. Maybe your specific DM didn't fudge things to keep you alive, but the die rolls were always being fudged.

>don't roll random encounters, only do set pieces
Depends on what sort of game you're wanting to run. If you want that wilderness survival aspect, yeah, random encounters are important. If you're going for a story-driven or "cinematic" kind of story, you're not going to pause the plot so the heroes can fuck up an angry bear.

>xp by milestones is best
It fundamentally is.

>don't play systems that allow players to jump or fall beyond expected power levels
You're talking about 5th edition, let's be honest, and for this I'm really god damn confused because 5th edition's flattened stats lets players punch WAY above their weight class compared to other versions of D&D.

>nothing should be possible that might interfere with your PLOT
Bruh bad novelist GMs have existed since the dawn of time.

>>no 'derailing', derailing is bad. CAN YOU IMAGINE THE HORROR OF PLAYERS GOING OFF THE RAILS?
And here is where we get what I think is actually going on here. You and your friends (okay let's be real you don't have friends and you're a nogamer but let's PRETEND you've got friends and a game) all decided that you were going to play a certain sort of game. Then part way through session one you decide it'd be JUST SO COOL to just veer off in a random direction just because. And when no one else wants to go along with you, you get pissy about it. You and your friends agreed to go on a road trip to Vegas, and you're getting mad that ten miles out no one wants to change course and go to Nowhere, Idaho instead.

>> No.77376322

>>77359507
Have you tried not reading twitter and tumblr, and not letting SJWs into your games?

>> No.77376434

>>77374375
Because everyone knows that in Real Life you never have anything unexpected happen, or run into someone most richer/poorer than you, etc. so....

>> No.77376440

>>77375576
yup
see
>>77371760

>> No.77376587

>>77359507
I know its about rpgs but im so happy the last few boardgames i found werent so rng dependant. Its nice to see my different strategies play out instead of waiting for the eight diceroll.
In example, everdell has random elements, but every turn you can get an action in atleast which is nice since waiting to play isnt relly playing

>> No.77376838

>>77374375
So you condition your players so that they never run away?

>> No.77376901

>>77376838
...or his players are too dim to run on their own

>> No.77377078

>>77359507
wtf is this bullshit? Nobody says so, and if by chance you find somebody who does why would you listen? You are retarded anon, retarded łóew IQ nignog fucker. Shitheads like you destroy this hobby, please kill yourself

>> No.77377780

>>77359961
>You shouldn't be killing your players if they don't expect to die.
People like you ruined this fucking hobby

>> No.77377940

>>77359961
>You shouldn't be killing your players if they don't expect to die
Mine expect to risk death.
Why?
Because they're going deep under the earth to fight monsters, of course. Why the fuck would that be safe?!

>> No.77378468

>>77376838
This feels a bit circular, especially for overland random encounters.
>Nothing
>Nothing
>Nothing
>Nothing
>Bear
We run away.
>Nothing
>Nothing
>Nothing
>Time to set up camp
Wow. Much was added. Definitely worth the time at the table.
It's just like the XP tracking thing: it's not really difficult, it's not even that slow, but it's superfluous. It's minutes or seconds of dead session time interrupting the actual content.

>> No.77378469
File: 227 KB, 2518x1200, 1608154628734.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
77378469

>>77371416
Factually incorrect

>> No.77378555

>>77374375
Its pretty easy to set up a random encounter table with a curve and scale encounters to be a range of what you want.
The issue here I think is that you want a different sort of game than what random encounters were originally designed for.
OSR style is hype at the moment, but actual osr play is necessarily going to be a smaller niche than 3pf onward dopamine loop gameplay.

>> No.77378592

>>77361608
you can't quantify those things with data

>> No.77378652

>>77359507
Most D&D players really just want HeroQuest.

>> No.77378688
File: 30 KB, 462x239, dark_dungeons.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
77378688

>>77361151

>> No.77379372

>>77378468
Overland should be treated different then dungeons.

>> No.77379465

>>77378688
This was a lot funnier when it displayed a clueless lack of understanding of your average player instead of being fucking spot on.

>> No.77379874

>>77359537
>i run gook shit for smoothbrains and poseur goth amdram shit for my fellow cockswallowing liberal arts castrati

consider voluntarily failing a save vs death

>> No.77379914

>>77359961
>You shouldn't be killing your players if they don't expect to die.

Bullshit.

If you aren't trying to kill your players you are ngmi. I recommend poison.

>> No.77380167

>>77360821
lmao, get your head out of your ass

>> No.77380311

>>77359507
Dont play with Retards, case closed. You play with randoms you get what you fucking deserve.

>> No.77380342

>>77371446
Quite a lot of games don't use 3d6, it's not just D&D using d20, so I don't see how D&D is the "solution" to this. Plus there is nothing inherent to 3d6 that makes it safer or easier for players, that depends entirely on the game, and some d6-based games have some pretty fucking lethal combat rules.

>>77371446
All d6 systems do is make rolls results more regular and predictable (though wild die/exploding die mechanic can spice things up a bit), but that by itself doesn't mean the game becomes easy because that also depends on encounter design and all the other game mechanics that accompany encounters. With 3d6 it's perfectly possible for your party to encounter an enemy that they just aren't capable of beating by normal means at all and would be required to strategize if they want to stand a chance, whereas d20 would level your party's chances of defeating that guy in comparison.

>> No.77380461

>>77380342
3d6 with a binary pass/fail is just a probability question. Its only more useful then D20 if you want percents between 0-5% and 95-100%.

>But it makes things more reliable!
No it doesn't. If you want something to be 85% reliable design it so it succeeds with a roll of 4 or higher on a D20.

>> No.77380473
File: 488 KB, 687x518, Look at this loser.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
77380473

>>77359507
As I read through the thread, it became increasingly clear to me that OP was a tremendous faggot.

>> No.77380480

>>77359507
A very hard pill to swallow for this community is that this game is made for 8 yr olds.

>> No.77382073

>>77375557
>you favor one over the other
So you genuinely believe that all games should be measured on a slider of combat vs narrative and that somehow there is value in this metric?

>> No.77382272

>>77359566
No, this is not why the OSR movement exists.
It exists because sick people got together to stroke their egos, swap their homebrews and tell each other tall tales of a past they never experienced.
It's not better than the 5e rot.

>> No.77384823

>>77359537
Ryuutama models hard journeys. If you only cross plains you're playing it wrong

>> No.77385281

>>77382272
not completely wrong.
All of the greybeards I know that *actually* played in the '70's never call themselves OSR

>> No.77385305

>>77378468
You know you can condense this to 5-15 seconds of real time, right?
And it is a great way to avoid being predictable

>> No.77385541

>>77375760
You write like a tumblr user, impressive since there aren't any anymore for a few years now. I can't tell you to go back I guess, but go away is good enough

>> No.77385664

>>77384823
>Ryuutama models hard journeys. If you only cross plains you're playing it wrong
Yes it does but that's different from only being allowed to run Death Frost Doom-style murder gauntlets. In Ryuus you break your everything if you fail a travel check but things are rather relaxed otherwise.
>>77379874
GTSE is the furthest thing away from goth possible.
>>77361838
>I've never heard of this anime
...what?

>> No.77386536

>>77371070
Then what is the problem OP is talking about? I'm fully aware that most of that dumb shit is just idiots faking being oldfag old guard as an excuse to post shit like what OP is saying, but I wasn't just going to come out and say that.

Fudging dice has always been a thing, high fatality type games have been out of style for almost 20 years. Point by point OP's shit has either been a thing for decades, always been a thing, or isn't actually a thing outside of paranoid rant posts.

High fatality games is old guard style, not a dead trend but it hasn't been popular in ages. Dice fudging has always been around. XP by milestone being popular correlates to the rise of video games that count xp for you being a thing, because when you're adding every bit of xp on a notepad you only think "why am I not just playing a fucking video game". His bit about derailing is literal nonsense, maybe just his own regular DM's autism.

>> No.77386622

>>77359961
You are what's wrong with this hobby.

>> No.77386643

>>77360037
I don't think you want to play a game. I think you want to be read a story.

>> No.77388347

>>77380342
>All d6 systems do is make rolls results more regular and predictable
Which is the problem.
>but that by itself doesn't mean the game becomes easy
Predictable dice rolls don't make the game easy? Do tell.
>d20 would level your party's chances of defeating that guy in comparison.
I can tell you don't play much D&D, but how is having a slight chance to win any fight a bad thing? I'll take that over being able to predict the results of any roll.

>> No.77388365

>>77378469
You're a fool and a coward, afraid of random chance, you need the security blanket of a bell curve. Grow up.

>> No.77388407

>>77378652
No they want D&D, you need to get past this autistic rage when people "have fun wrong."

>> No.77388509

>>77378469
"result less immediately apparent"
>BAD
"takes slightly longer to read"
>GOOD
hmmmmmmmmmmm

>> No.77389002

>>77360037
I'm happy I don't play games with you.

>> No.77389034

>>77360821
You reward what you want to encourage. Reward XP only for combat and violence will be your players' first and only solution to every problem.

>> No.77389163
File: 413 KB, 850x690, 1332408438620.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
77389163

As a DM:
I used to railroad, but then I stopped.
I used to think I had to actively fuck over the characters as relentlessly and as creatively as possible, but then I stopped.
I used to think that being a DM was an exercise in psychological warfare against my players and it was my job to break their souls and crush their spirits. But then I stopped.
I used to think I had to kill player characters often or else my players would be lulled into a sense of complacency, but then I stopped.

You don't have to be edgy
you don't have to fuck over your players
you don't have to actively try to kill their characters all the fucking time
it's okay to let them go off and do whatever the fuck they want.

learn to build a module, a campaign, a mission, a run, whatever- and then be prepared to throw it out the window.

>> No.77389427

>>77359566

This. Until corona I was in a seven year OSR game with a bunch of left-anarchist types.

>> No.77389861

>>77388347
You can predict the result of any roll with any dice if you're not mentally deficient. The difference is that with d20, you know your stats do not matter.

>> No.77390137

>>77361512
FOEGYG!

>> No.77390467

>>77359566
>muh sjw boogeyman
i'm giving you another (you) so that I can call you a dumbass

dumbass

>> No.77392024

>>77370138
>Warforged/golem/undead that's gone a bit peculiar after he was switched on by mistake and left in place for hundreds of years
>Kobold that got a very much lost and is willing to turn aside it's revulsion for the tall folk just to have some form of comraderie and a hope of survival
>A ghost who perished in the tomb previously and is doomed to haunt it but has over time forgotten that, or never realized his death and is under the belief he's simply trapped

>> No.77392500

>>77371520
The fact you're planning everything out ahead of time and know what will happen is exactly the problem. It's like if you've decided how much gold they will get from the dungeon, instead of allowing them to miss or skip things. Leveling up should feel like a reward, not just something that happens to keep the game balanced with new enemies. If you need the characters to be the right level at the right moment, then maybe you're over-curating the experience.

And even on a more meta level than that, the point of even having progression, loot or levels or character personal goals, is to make people more invested in continue playing. If you get rewards too fast, you run out of things to play for. If you get rewards too slow, you don't feel like you're making progress. I'm not convinced any DM or published adventure based on milestones actually knows how to dole out levels in a way that achieves that goal better than giving numerical xp as a reward. I also have a feeling milestone xp almost invariably leads to much faster leveling than what it should be.

>>77371496
The point of random encounter tables, and all random tables in general, is induce creativity. It's not "there's a mind flayer in this orc dungeon because random chance," it's "I rolled mind flayer on this chart. Why might he be in this orc dungeon? Is he working with the orcs? Is he working against them? How will this effect his interactions with the players? Ah, fuck it, I can't think of anything good, I'll roll again."

>> No.77392543

>>77378468
You ran away from the bear, but you could have fought it, or you could have tried to give it some food to make friends with it. It could've come back and helped you later after you got attacked by something else.

Those are things that could have happened that would definitely never happened if your DM decided ahead of time that random encounters were pointless and that he would decide everything that would happen.

>>77375760
>Bruh bad novelist GMs have existed since the dawn of time.
And they were just as bad back then. The only difference is now there's a lot of people who want story games instead of roleplaying games.
>And here is where...
I think this is just a reiteration of the previous point.

>>77371416
Real life random distributions usually curved but ok.

>> No.77392558

>>77388509
Are you telling me the Chad vs Virgin meme is based on absurdities and not a serious argument?

>> No.77394922

>>77378652
Which one?

>> No.77395401

>>77380461
>No it doesn't. If you want something to be 85% reliable design it so it succeeds with a roll of 4 or higher on a D20.
Lol no, d20 is a flat probability, you are no more likely to get a 1, 2, or 3 than a 16, 19, or 20. The swinginess of the d20 and complete lack of granularity is just bad, outdated game design. Nothing is better by using a d20. If you want swingy dice use 2d10/1d100 and actually do the awkward percentile thing. But good games have dice pools, because they are actually designed with a rudimentary awareness of probability and the idea that GMs and players should have a genuine idea of the likelihood of a certain outcome.

>> No.77395746

>>77361194
OSR is an attempt to recreate the feel old old D&D editions. Problem is they don't understand 5E or those previous editions. So they are trying to copy what they saw previous editions without hoping to recapture the magic. They are a cargo cult.
They have stuff like 3d6 roll down the line without swapping for stats, Level caps of 7-10, fewer classes, high lethality, and weaker magic.
Some of the stuff it good, but it also comes with a lot of bad.
The real problem with system shifting towards "safety" is because building characters has become time consuming and complex. There are actually tons of really good games bucking this trend. Stuff like Alien RPG or Blades in the dark. Characters are quick to create, simpler, and don't level. They get minor progression. They are meant to die.
D&D as a system tries to do it all and ends up weaker as a result.

>> No.77395855

>>77370138
Go big dick DM. Have him roll up a replacement character and brazenly drop him in. Do so in a way that makes no sense. They find a treasure chest in the middle of the next room and his new character is in it. Leave it up to the players to explain it. They'll probably find it hilarious.

>> No.77396017

>>77359566
All you gotta do is type “SJW” in a post and the insecure types will respond. Every angry reply you give him is why he posted. He’s laughing at you.

>> No.77396076

>>77359507
>Game culture moving away from chance
Yeah, sure.
That's why you have all these "epic natural 1/20" stories.

>> No.77396206

>>77359507
You're uncreative
The thing about combat is rationally you would only fight something on par with yourself

Too weak, why would you even bother?
Too strong...why would you even bother?
And evenly matched means there's a good chance you could die. Meaning in most instances you'd avoid it. At least direct combat.

The problem with most rpgs is they fail to comprehend existential horror. Even so called horror games.

D&D is someone points a gun to your head and you are either immune to bullets or you're not.
Call Of Cthulu is there's someone out there who wants to point a gun at your head and you KNOW you're not immune to bullets.
Vampire: The Masquerade is someone points a gun at your head and you know they only have X amount of rounds.

But what if the enemy himself doesn't even know how many rounds are in the chamber?
Russian roulette is not the same without a gun.

>> No.77398664

>>77359507
Up

>> No.77398678

>>77359507
Wait, this thread is still going? I was sure it was pruned yesterday

>> No.77398696
File: 11 KB, 261x191, 5f0c3e22.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
77398696

>>77398664
Oh, you.
Of course.
That explains why this shit is still around

>> No.77399029

>>77359961
You are part of the problem

>> No.77399078

>>77359507
>Don't kill your players, fudge the dice if you need to
Purposefully killing players is retarded, but if they die, they die.
>don't roll random encounters, only do set pieces
Random encounters are cancer. Combat is best when there's more to it than killing x goblins that jump you for no reason at all.
>xp by milestones is best
True, it is.
>don't play systems that allow players to jump or fall beyond expected power levels
The fuck does this even mean
>nothing should be possible that might interfere with your PLOT
Nice bait

>> No.77399304

>>77359507
different playstyles suit different groups. Nothing stopping you from finding people who want to play a harder game

>> No.77399340

>>77361210
good point

>> No.77401421

>>77359507
>nothing should be possible that might interfere with your PLOT
Waiiiiiit a second, this smells like something that PbtA faggot might say, is this a stealth storyshitting thread?

>> No.77401469

>>77390467
>boogieman
gee i wonder who might be behind this post.

>> No.77402477

>>77395401
Probability is probability baby brain.

As long as its just success / fail, it doesn't matter what dice or how many dice you use if you know the percentage of hitting above a certain number.

>> No.77402579

>>77360037
>>77359961
You both should literally get cancer. I mean this unironically.

>> No.77402607

>>77361755
lol no it's not those are bandwagoners.

>> No.77402619

>>77362399
this. Redditors ruined RPGs and /tg/ fed into it by spreading stupid sir bearington memes to make D&D look like a joke

>> No.77402646

>>77359507
>don't roll random encounters, only do set pieces
There is literally nothing wrong with this. Randomly rolling for encounters is some trash tier vidya shit.

>> No.77402673

>>77402619
>y-you RUINED it by laughing at a joke a decade ago!

>> No.77402696

>>77359961
Everything this anon wrote is correct. I also 100% agree with milestone leveling. I give extra loot to compensate for players who attend every session vs people who miss a couple.

I've played in games with level differentials of 5+ and it's a miserable experience. I would never impose that on my players.

>> No.77402917

>>77402673
Y-yes. S-saying s-something b-but p-putting a-a s-stutter i-in f-front o-of i-it d-does n-not m-make i-it f-false.

>> No.77403526

>>77402477
Except that isn't how games actually work. GMs have to make dozens of judgement calls every hour and doing mental math to calculate probability on the fly based on your party's stats is unfeasible. So in actuality we just use a flat TN of some kind because it sort of sounds good in our heads. But of course because DnD has flat probability that doesn't really mean anything, there will be 1 roll made with equal 5% chance to hit any number 1-20, making DCs very arbitrary. Compare that to GURPS, where difficulty is just priced into the probability curve and the GM has to have no consideration of his player's skill ratings in order to properly simulate the world. No guessing needs to happen, no estimation of PC skills vs TN vs d20 result, it's just, things are what they are, everyone knows innately the odds, informed decisions can be made.

>> No.77406297

>>77361838

While I appreciate the humor; his point is that both Geist and Ryuutama have no death mechanics. Ryuutama is kinda supposed to be you telling stories about your travels (You know, the ones you aren't dead in), and in Geist, if you die, you revive moments later, with someone else dying in your stead. It's the central conceit of the system and integral to the humanity system thereof.

>> No.77406656

>>77382272
>>77385281
You're dumb, we have accounts of people who actually played in the 70s publicly available
People who played in the 70's weren't necessarily playing the game correctly. How do you think modern D&D got to be the way it is?

>> No.77406796

>>77395401
>But good games have dice pools, because they are actually designed with a rudimentary awareness of probability and the idea that GMs and players should have a genuine idea of the likelihood of a certain outcome.
Wait what, calculating the odds of an outcome with a dice pool is *way* harder and having an idea of the likelihood of success of attempting something is something I've struggled with.


>If you want swingy dice use 2d10/1d100 and actually do the awkward percentile thing
Why? You outright admit it's more awkward than just rolling a d20, and what significant difference does the ability to make the odds 58% rather than 55% or 60% make?

(Following the chain back, this stuff is kinda incidental to the main topic you're talking about, but I'll post it anyway)

>>77403526
>But of course because DnD has flat probability that doesn't really mean anything, there will be 1 roll made with equal 5% chance to hit any number 1-20, making DCs very arbitrary.
I mean, no, it means that if they set a DC that's beyond the range of the player's stat+20, then it's impossible, and then for each number below that they set it to, it becomes 5% more likely that the player can succeed.

>> No.77407108

>>77373675
/tg/ has had a majority of people on it support fudging and roleplaying over roll playing since the day it was created.

>> No.77407153

>>77386643
You don't play RPGs. Why would I play an RPG if there wasn't a story going on? If I wanted to roll dice and see numbers go up, I could make an excel chart.

>> No.77407175

>>77402917
No, but saying something false, and might I add absolutely stupid, does.

>> No.77408094

>>77407108
This would be defined as "shitty groupthink that existed in the first place," in case you're having trouble understanding words.

>> No.77409252

>>77366492
I think this anon has a worthwhile question, and I wonder what your answer is
>>77370160
>>77382073
In my experience the dichotomy you present doesn't match reality. Having mechanics primarily focused on combat, dungeoncrawling, and exploration just means we're free to roleplay how we feel our characters would act instead of having mechanics tell us what to do. There's still plenty of narrative to our games even without rules to tell us to do it. I don't think narrative system vs combat system a valuable dichotomy. But do you?

>> No.77409684

>>77395401
Do you realize that's what the percentage is for? It doesn't matter what chance of rolling a specific specific number you have. While you only have 5% chance to roll any specific value on d20, if you need to roll 4 or more, you have 85% chance.

>>77403526
The difference is that the curve of 3d6 more often get you median values. But if I want anyone without modifier to have a 50% chance to succeed, I set up the TN as 11 in both systems, and in both systems, their propability of success will be the same.

>> No.77410130

People have it completely backwards. You're not supposed to fudge dangerous rolls to appease casuals, you're supposed to add extra rolls to filter them out.
To quote someone in my group: "If you're not rolling dice you're just jerking off while telling a story"

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