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

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 96 KB, 1191x670, 1470575409575.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49812114 No.49812114 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

> I'm banning materials outside of core, because they're too unbalanced.

>> No.49812144

>>49812114

op being a fag

>> No.49812146

>>49812114
In modern iterations of D&D

>We're rolling stats.

>> No.49812161

>>49812114
That's only a red flag in 3.pf

>> No.49812171

>>49812146
Are you really scared of 4d6 drop lowest

>> No.49812175

>I post on /tg/

>> No.49812194

>>49812146
>We're using point buy
Meh, as long as theres no munchkins, whatever.
>We're rolling stats.
No problem.
>We're rolling stats, in order, with no rerolls.
Nuke that shit from orbit or plan to Old Man Henderson. There is no third option.

>> No.49812232

>>49812171
I got into a game just last week where the DM didn't mention rolling in his add. I show up, roll 4d6 drop lowest and rolled nothing higher than a 13. He says re-roll, and I do it again, that time with three stats below 10.

Fuck rolling in modern D&D where your stats matter quite a bit in the general competence of the character and the game expects your stats to within certain ranges. For instance it is not bad in BECMI as your stats matter quite a bit less than your class, as long as you beat a 9 in a class' prime requisite you can function pretty well in that class, especially if you are a caster as the only spell that has any sort of stat requirement is fucking Wish.

>> No.49812238

>>49812171
b-but RNG is unreliable anon

>> No.49812267

>>49812146
3d6 is horrible, anyone who uses it is retarded
4d6d1 is better, but there's always the potential to get shit like a 3 or 4, no stat higher than 13, or a bunch of 17s and 18s.
Arrays are good, since everyone is under the same standard.
Point buy is the best. Our group uses a modified version, where 14 and 15 don't cost extra points, and the cap of 15 without racial modifiers is removed for monks.

>> No.49812305

>>49812194
Nah, there is the simplest option. Say, "Sorry man, this group isn't right for me, I'm out. Have fun." Then go find another group.

>> No.49812457

>>49812171
When stats are literally everything plust unbalanced as fuck system? yes

>> No.49812472

>>49812194
>as long as theres no munchkins
Define this

>> No.49812558

>we're playing 5e

>> No.49812579

>>49812146
Fair enough. My red-flag is:
>Modern iterations of D&D

>> No.49812591

>>49812472
People who just want to "Win" I suppose, without wanting to actually mesh with the team in a way that leads to good story telling.

>> No.49812601

>>49812146
this is why the 5e rules recommend using their preset stats.

Personally my beef with RPG stat systems is that only min-maxed characters are actually useful to groups. Maybe it is just the RPGs/groups I've seen, but they all seem to have a really strong combat focus with non-combat aspects presented as obstacles to be overcome, preventing players from getting back to more combat.

TTRPG combat is just not that fun.

>> No.49812605

>>49812472
Not that guy but: asshole players who deliberately use out-of-place builds. Everyone seems to have a story of a ruined game because the party line-up was Aragorn-knock-off, Gandalf-knock-off, Gimli-knock-off, and Android Superman.

>> No.49812611

>>49812114
>We're gonna play 3.5/Pathfinder
>I added some house rules to make the game more realistic

>> No.49812628

>>49812611
Holy this, that guy is the fucking worst.

>> No.49812633

>>49812114
>I want to run D&D
Dropped immediately.

>I have done a lot of worldbuilding, here look at this list of gods I made isn't it deep
Fuck off with that trite garbage already.

>> No.49812641
File: 32 KB, 500x281, IMG_2111.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49812641

>>49812114
>we'll be playing my homebrewed version pf 3.5/PF

>> No.49812645 [SPOILER] 
File: 9 KB, 259x194, 1476636765874.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49812645

>>49812558
As bad as 5e was, sixth and seventh were worse...
We're just going to use GURPS instead.

[Spoiler]Honestly, I've done this, but it was with a group who refused to play anything but GURPS.[/spoiler]

>> No.49812698

>>49812645
Lucky you.
How often did they get new debilitating disadvantages from fright checks?

>> No.49812743

>>49812591
>>49812605
Ok.
My personal contact with munchkin/powergamer word is usually "Woah, you bought 16 on Str, 14 on Dex/Wis/Con but have 8 on Int/Cha as a monk? fucking munchkin powergamer!", so a synonim of optimizer and usually related to underpowered classes

>> No.49812750

>session 0 for chargen
>player asks if DnD has blood magic
>wants to roll a blood mage for his Dragonborn
>he says he is CN alignment

>> No.49812775

>>49812743
This reminds me
>No, I don't allow monks on DnD, they don't belong in DnD and are overpowered
>No, I don't allow totem barbarians, they're furry...what do you mean my Kitsune tiefling Paldin Warlock DMPC is a furry mary sue? she isn't

>> No.49812786
File: 47 KB, 620x387, 1472153738067.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49812786

>One player wants to be a sorceress made of blood
>One wants to be a were-panther
>Another is a tiny bird-person
>I can't even complain because my guy is a six-armed lightning crab kung-fu priest
It was actually really fun desu

>> No.49812801

>>49812775
Kitsune aren't furry, lad. If its face is human, it's at worst a monstergirl, otherwise it's kemonomimi.

Remember, ears and tails OKAY, muzzle and snout is OUT.

>> No.49812805

>>49812114
>I'm banning materials outside of core, because they're too unbalanced.
Demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand mechanics of the game and is extremely likely to have all the creativity of a bag of hair. Goodbye, see you in two weeks when your game falls apart again.

>We're rolling stats.
Failure to understand basic game balance and probability. Will likely willfully ignore balance issues and blame players for being "too powerful" when they roll a lucky crit.

>No min/maxing!
>No powergaming!
Wants to write a novel with other people providing the dialogue. Will likely throw a fit if the PCs dare to want to succeed without his mary sue DMPC, or do anything of interest.

>No homebrew!
Creativity is actively discouraged and is unwilling to consider the mechanics of the system beyond what is printed. Game will likely be a series of modules and lock up as soon as someone has a thought not outlined in said module.

>Only recruiting new players.
Barest understanding of the system, but unwillingness to be corrected or questioned. Game will fall apart as soon as anyone asks a question.

>You need to have X pages of backstory
>You must justify every last detail of your character in your backstory
Micromanaging asshole who will require some arbitrary "in character" justification for any and all character advancement. Said justification will always require a set piece the GM controls entirely.

>I run a sandbox world
This is more of a yellow flag, but I've never met anyone who says this and actually runs a good game. I always end up GMing from the other side of the screen and it's boring as shit.

>> No.49812819

>>49812605
>One dude wants to be a mary sue half elf last of his kind king of everything, somehow is ok
>Another dude wants to be a Mary Sue overpowered angel and favoured disciple of the main active god of the setting, somehow is ok
>Another wants to be the scottish and drunkest most overdone dwarf ever, somehow is ok
>Last dude wants to be a LG, kind, generous and mildmanered warforged paladin, somehow is bad
Guys, stop looking, I found that GM

>> No.49812820

>>49812743
...wait so they just optimized stats?

>> No.49812827
File: 46 KB, 800x600, tomino.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49812827

>>49812601
>TTRPG combat is just not that fun

This is why I generally don't like to play combat focused games... at all. If I want something fun and combat centric, video games can stratch that itch without all the actual planning and organizing. But TTRPGs are social and have infinite possibilities of where the stories can go instead of branching paths because of the human element.

>> No.49812840

>>49812819
It's not what you've said, and you know it perfectly well.

>> No.49812851

>>49812820
Yes?, and in all the groups I've been they're called munchkin/powergamers. Never seen a stat optimized full caster though, they just put a 18 on a stat and roll whatever they want according to their background with the rest and GMs clap over how much roleplaying that is

>> No.49812858

>>49812601
Why are you playing dungeons and dragons if you dont like exploring dungeons or fighting dragons?

>> No.49812866

>>49812858
Because he's one of those brain-damaged sods who have been run through the meat grinder that is D&D so much that he can no longer get out of his little skirmish wargaming box, even when he clearly hates it.

>> No.49812874
File: 49 KB, 360x470, 1349771463036.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49812874

>>49812146
>>49812194
>>49812601

You're all such PUSSIES

Roll the stats first, THEN pick the character class based on what you are good at.

It's the only way to fully immerse yourself. Life ain't fair.

>> No.49812884

>>49812786
>Werepanther
>Tiny Bird
Thats just a constant episode of Selvestor and Tweety right there

>> No.49812891
File: 1.85 MB, 250x188, 1461780441198.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49812891

>>49812874
>playing something you're interested in is a blessing, not a right!

>> No.49812924
File: 117 KB, 500x567, Munchkin-Twink.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49812924

>>49812472
I define munchkin in that context to be a minmaxer looking to exploit the system for "game winning" gains, while completely disregarding balance. A shallow example would be a player giving their character exactly 15 STR with the sole purpose of getting full plate at chargen.

Minmaxers arent always munchkins, but munchkins are always minmaxers and it's an early red flag if someone desperately wants point buy over rolling.

>> No.49812938
File: 330 KB, 500x374, 1332546293982.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49812938

>>49812805
>I run a sandbox world
PREACH IT!

>> No.49812955
File: 133 KB, 550x500, 16549681465.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49812955

>>49812874
Please, take your PC, smartphone, tablet, whatever devices you have connected to the internet and dump them into the nearest garbage disposer you can find!

>> No.49812958

>>49812924
Y'know it's funny that I hear "Stormwind Fallacy" all the time, and logically not everyone who knows the rules well abuses that knowledge but...
I mean, almost everyone has run into one of these types, haven't they? SOMETHING is going on!

>> No.49812970

>>49812805

>Wants to write a novel with other people providing the dialogue

This I can't stand. What really blows me is when someone here makes a thread about "what would you guys think of a game where the PCs aren't the actual protagonists but are just helping an NPC" and a bunch of people who've obviously never actually been in a game start gushing over that idea.

>> No.49812979

>>49812305
I wish it was so easy to find groups where I live.

>> No.49812984

>>49812114
>alright, we're going to be using pathfinder...

>> No.49813020

>Here's a small primer for the world I spent years making!

Nope.

>> No.49813026
File: 469 KB, 500x375, judging.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813026

>>49812114
>In my games we roll in the open. Every last one of us, even me as the GM.
Alright, time for me to make a character that I won't ever identify or get myself immersed into or have any emotional attachments to, just a statblock to fight enemies... I see what's going on, you just want our characters to go through a meatgrinder.

>> No.49813034

>>49812698
None.

One developed murophobia as a... sort of Ratman was going to stab and rob her.
Player panicked and looked at his character sheet, "I use Sex Appeal on the monster."
Results were messy.

>> No.49813048

>>49813020

How is this a bad thing? My old GM did this all the time, and I do it msyelf whenever I run games.

As long as it's not some stupid novella-length encyclopedia full of banal shit completely irrelevant to the world then what's the problem? I love getting these as a player because I should have to ask the GM every time I want to know something about my own fucking hometown.

>> No.49813052
File: 1.50 MB, 600x338, 1449029925635.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813052

>>49812805
>You need to have X pages of backstory
Multiple pages is overkill, but I only accept characters who have at least 3 paragraphs discussing their appearance, history, personality, relationships, and goals. I build my campaigns around the goals and motivations of the heroes, and I use their backstory as hooks to get them invested in the adventures laid before them. If you want to make a boring guy with no life goals, you're naturally not going to be as invested in the events that take place.

>>49812874
My compromise is to give characters an attribute array and have them roll to see which stat goes where. For example, if I ran a D&D game you'd pick your race, then roll to see where you assign your 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8 respectively, after which you choose your class. It combines the fairness of equal starting attributes with none of the min-maxing bullshit you get with point-buy, as well as avoiding the 'optimal setup' mentality of standard attribute arrays.

>> No.49813063
File: 24 KB, 500x380, yourebeingnyeive.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813063

>>49813026

>> No.49813070
File: 2.45 MB, 517x400, Iop is confus.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813070

>>49813026
How the fuck did you get that from such text.

>> No.49813084

>>49812874
>>49812955
He has a point, rolling stats can be extremely fun if everyone else is doing it.
It largely depends on the type of game all the players are wanting to play.
For example In one games I played the highest stat I got was DEX and that was at 15 my lowest was 8 which I put into CON.
One player in the game got god rolls nothing bellow 14.
And me and him decided to have a joint backstory. He was going to play a noble knight and I was going to be a rogue and his squire.
Because I had such low stats I was always playing cautious and if ever there was a fight I was more likely to be a coward and run then stand and fight. It was really entertaining from a roleplaying standpoint and I played something I otherwise wouldn't have.

>> No.49813093

>>49813048
No. You use an established setting like a good DM, or you be a DM with worthwhile DMing skills and explain the IMPORTANT CRITICAL POINTS OF INFO

>> No.49813095

>>49813048
Because in an instant you've both implied that you've got the whole story planned out and the player's actions don't really matter, as well as making it pretty damn clear you'd rather be writing a novel.

If you can't condense your game, setting and all, into a brief elevator pitch that's at least a little engaging, then it's not worth a second look.

>> No.49813116

>>49813026

It's just to make sure people don't cheat, you fag.

Even good roleplayers might still be tempted to fudge their dice rolls if they think they can get away with it.

>> No.49813127
File: 54 KB, 919x720, 1474398928964.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813127

Maybe not a red flag in a traditional sense, but I can't DM groups with female players.

[Spoiler]I'm a recovering sex addict. I don't something to happen out of nowhere.[/spoiler]
[Spoiler]I get so much shit for this preference. Most people don't pick up on the hints I give them.[/spoiler]

>> No.49813133

>>49813026
Holy jumping to conclusions, Batman, how did you even get to this?

>> No.49813138

>>49812805
>>No min/maxing!
>>No powergaming!
Don't follow you here. Granted, I mostly play with friends but when no one does it and the DM is taking that into account, an outsider who's minmaxing will destroy the game balance

>> No.49813139

>>49813048
If they've put so much time and effort into the setting, it probably is very well defined.

If it's well defined, that means there's not that much room to grow.

>> No.49813145

>>49812858
>a linear corridor of fights with a boss at the end is a "dungeon"

>> No.49813154

>>49813026
>maxranksinautism

>> No.49813156

>>49813084
>He has a point, rolling stats can be extremely fun if everyone else is doing it.
"Ha ha Tim. You rolled a gimp! Have fun being totally fucking useless for the next several months to years or until you get 'lucky' enough to fall in a pit trap and die so that you can reroll something new."

Just because life isn't fair doesn't mean that games should not be.

>> No.49813175

>>49812958
What's the stormwind fallacy?

>> No.49813176

>>49813095
>Because in an instant you've both implied that you've got the whole story planned out and the player's actions don't really matter
I don't see where you get that from. A primer is just a small description of the world that's up for the PCs to explore. It's not an instant introduction to railroading

>> No.49813207

>>49813093
>>49813095
>>49813139


>setting primers are somehow worse than reading a dozen splatbooks on the Forgotten Realms
>good DMs don't worldbuild
>giving players access to world facts is writing a novel
>implying an elevator pitch and a setting primer are mutually exclusive
>establishing the state of the world at the start of the game means the game is just a railroad

You all sound like you're absolutely no fun at the tabletop.

Say I'm running a sci fi game about planet-hopping. Why the fuck wouldn't I give players info on the major planets they'll be visiting before the game starts, especially since at least one of the players will play a character who at the very least knows about most of them?

You guys must have had some real shit GMs (or likely never actually played a ttrpg) if you think an established world order somehow means the game is totally inflexible. I guess I should just wing everything and leave my players in the dark about every fact even when that makes no sense.

>> No.49813208
File: 82 KB, 900x507, 1565498151.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813208

>>49813070
I never found a good GM who rolled in the open.

They would also have us encounter random enemies even when we took precautions to avoid that, becaused they rolled a table of random encounter. Then we had a couple of character deaths because we encountered a couple of bandits who got a lucky shot on the sorcerer and the rogue.

After killing the bandits (who only started to run away when we had almost killed all of them and one player asked about how frightened they looked, seeing as how we were killing them all), we encountered the two new character in the fucking wilderness and we joined forces purely because we were going the same fucking way.

But there was no encounter to bond over now, no: we got to our destination and then we had to make up some flimsy excuse for our characters to continue travelling and giving a shit about the two new dudes they found.

This is just one example

tl;dr: GMs who roll in the open are trash, generally. I would relish the chance of meeting one who isn't shit.

>> No.49813214

>>49813156
> Play Star Wars Saga
> A player is playing a jedi - an extremely powerful and OP class only constrained by being somewhat MAD
> Rolls extremely well.
> The entire game is us watching him do awesome things non-stop.

>> No.49813221

>>49813176
If it's such a small description, why doesn't the GM just say it aloud during the first session as an intro type of thing? Oh, wait, I know why, because it's probably boring as shit.

If it were worth reading, you wouldn't have to make your players read it.

>> No.49813226

>>49812641
This

>> No.49813243

>>49813214
> A player is playing a jedi - an extremely powerful and OP class only constrained by being somewhat MAD
> Rolls extremely well.
> The entire game is us watching him do awesome things non-stop.
You have very little understanding of SAGA.

>> No.49813245

>>49813175
The fallacy is that strong characters cannot be roleplayed well. Essentially, that by making a strong character you are somehow neglecting roleplay or that by making a weak character you are enhancing roleplay. The truth is that character power and the quality of roleplay with that character are independent.

>> No.49813251

>>49813156
>bad luck of rolling garbage stats
>group is so cut throat they wont give you a mulligan
Boy, really looking forward to devolving into pvp every time a decent piece of loot drops.

>> No.49813263

>>49812114
>Players character is a remake of one from a previous campaign

At least pretend to be creative.

>> No.49813276

>>49813243
I'll be the judge of that, when you explain where I'm supposedly wrong.

>> No.49813282

>>49812114
>This is a character I've tried to play in every other campaign but never had the chance to.
>Anything involving the words 'Soul Art Online'.

>> No.49813284

>Player wants to play half-(insert monster race here) or wants to play a unusual race.
Character lacks the creativity to make any of the core races interesting and wants to rely on there race to make them unique and special.

>GM allows one player to do this when the rest of the players didn't.
Shows some favoritism on the GM's part.

>Player at any point says any variation of "My character can beat yours" out of character and points out how they could.
Shows a lack of understanding that rpg's do require some amount of team work and the player is just in it for a wank fest power fantasy.

>> No.49813290
File: 128 KB, 500x281, wat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813290

>>49813282
Soul art online?

>> No.49813294
File: 225 KB, 633x758, 1398114531790.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813294

>>49812114
>The group has female players

>> No.49813304

>>49813207
Use a printed setting, someone with actual skill worked hard to make those. Then your shitty homebrew cancer won't kill the industry any more, anon.

Also if you are a poorfag and can't afford all the books, gtfo my table. Preferably via a body bag.

>> No.49813306

>>49813063
>>49813070
>>49813116
>>49813133
>>49813154
It may sound admirable knowing that the GM isn't fudging dice for you, or the enemy's, benefit but in practice it just means that the first five levels are going to end up being a game of Russian roulette, where criticals will murder you before you even have a chance to work out your character's motivations for going into the dungeon in the first place.

Then you're forced to either avoid combat like the plague since it's swingy to the point where initiative is the difference between life and death or accept the dildo lurking somewhere in the shadows and just roll up a character that you have no attachment to so you can at least get some enjoyment from watching them getting fucked by Schrodinger's dildo.

I know many old school GM's who admit to fudging dice every so often to keep shit fair and it seems to only be an issue among people who started with 3.PF who have never actually run a game before.

>> No.49813307

>>49813208
>game-y bullshit breaks immersion
You're playing D&D, what the fuck did you expect?

>> No.49813313
File: 102 KB, 345x230, 126546307.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813313

>>49813307
Do you want an example of a GURPS game perhaps?

>> No.49813315
File: 68 KB, 540x405, Ex Machina.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813315

>>49813282

>This is a character I've tried to play in every other campaign but never had the chance to.

Not necessarily a bad thing, unless the particulars of the character are clearly at odds with what anyone could expect from a normal game.

I've always wanted to play a robot disguised as a human without anyone knowing about it. Am I a That Guy for bringing this up when I finally get to play in a game where that's possible?

The only way I can really see this is as a red flag is it may imply the player is obsessively protective of the character and that always leads to trouble.

>> No.49813323

>>49813276
The top ten builds in SAGA are literally all non-jedi.
Jedi's supposed strength comes either from force powers, which have a measly range and with a little bit of DM preparation will be hard to stick onto enemies, AND run out, and the Talents that allow them to substitute UtF. These are a trap and suck, as a dedicated skill user with talents will blow them outof the water easily.

So either your DM runs only combat encounters with uncreative and too short setups or you guys really don't know how to build characters.

If the Jedi is strong because of another factor, pray tell and I'll debunk that too.

>> No.49813326

>>49813214
>not forking 41,000 credits to get the complete Edge of the Empire's Age of Rebellion, Force and Destiny experience.

>> No.49813334

>>49813243
UTF checks are bullshit and you know it.

>> No.49813337
File: 295 KB, 472x455, This one.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813337

>>49813306

>> No.49813338
File: 138 KB, 500x500, 1362381193630.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813338

>>49813294

>> No.49813343

>>49813306
Or, alternatively, you can use the simple solution and just start at level 3.

>> No.49813353

>>49813290
Oh fuck, I really am that blind.
>>49813315
>The only way I can really see this is as a red flag is it may imply the player is obsessively protective of the character and that always leads to trouble.
Yeah, that's why I mentioned it. Though I suspect my brain isn't at full working speed at the moment, given my mistake earlier.

>> No.49813354

>>49813323
You're not debunking anything. Try actually playing the game.

>> No.49813355

>>49813208
But everything you talked about had nothing to do with open rolling, just being a shitty GM.

I keep a screen to conceal my notes and enemy stats, and roll behind it out of convenience, but I have no issue with players seeing the roll. Often I'll move the screen to show the table a 20 that would lead to a disastrous crit, just so they dont think I'm being a dick.

I will say if you MUST roll concealed as a GM, you are probably not very good at your job.

>> No.49813359

>>49813313
As GURPS doesn't reward or in any way incentivize "encounters" like D&D, the only reason your shitty GM would have for creating random encounters is because he wanted to do D&D with different dice.

Again, the problem is D&D.

>> No.49813368

>>49813334
Prohibit Skill Focus(UtF) until level 10 and they're perfectly cromulent.

>>49813354
I have, extensively. Tell me, why should a Jedi be so overpowered?

>> No.49813377

>>49813359
oldschool D&D didn't incentivize encounters at all. Experience was gained through finding treasure, however it was attained.

>> No.49813381

>>49813276
There's no way that a bit of extra points of modifier make you so awesome in saga. At best you have a slightly better average of succeeding.

>> No.49813403

Many of the posts ITT say a lot more about the posters than about the hypotetical "bad" DMs.
I'm glad I play with real people and not Channers.

>> No.49813404

>>49813377
>muh old time D&D was so good
Still a terrible game which is absolutely unsuited for anything other than mindless, ridiculous "dungeon delving".

>> No.49813405

>>49813221
>If it's such a small description, why doesn't the GM just say it aloud during the first session
He probabably can, but assuming that told in person > written on paper is wrong. In my experience, it's better to let the players have a first feel/experience of the world and then let them ask questions about it. I'm confortable with talking with the players and have correct social skills, but I prefer writing things on paper because I'm sure that most people will understand what I say

Tl;Dr: Different tastes for different people

>> No.49813411

>>49813381
>At best you have a slightly better average of succeeding.
This, he's full of shit. A well built gunner, sniper or heavy beat jedi in combat, and everyone beats them in non-combat.

>> No.49813418
File: 264 KB, 1000x1000, 135468323458.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813418

>>49813355
This thread is about red flags, wether in players or GMs.

When I looked for GMs who rolled in the open and joined their game, I did not have fun. The common thing that shitty GMs had, was the fact that they rolled in the open and basically allowed random death and chance to dictate the fate of the group.

That's why I am posting my bad experience in this thread and telling you guys what, for me, are red flags.

>> No.49813422

>>49813404
I never said it was great, just that not every idea in there was bad

>> No.49813424

>>49813343
Again, the first five levels are going to be swingy to the point where a critical can absolutely murder you before you even know what hit you.

A group of 3-6 enemies focus firing on someone PC will average at least one character death every other session.

>> No.49813425

>>49812114
My group only runs core books to keep overhead down on running the game. You invite more rule lawyer behavior with more rules.

>> No.49813428

>>49812472
15 15 15 8 8 8

>> No.49813440

>>49812146
Rolling stats is pretty fun if you all come in with no idea what to make. If you have an idea for a character already then yeah, it kinda blows.

>> No.49813442

>>49813306
have you tried not playing DnD ?

>> No.49813448

>>49813424
Who regularly fights battles outnumbered 4-to-1 and isn't named Subutai?

>> No.49813449

>>49813306
I always openly tell my players that I fudge there rolls and they are fine with it.
I've only fudged a dice roll to actively hurt another player once and that was a rogue who repeatedly decided to go off on his own despite everyone else telling him not to split the party.
On the fifth time he did this I fudged a roll so a Medusa beat his perception and got behind him.
Players ended up finding a rogue shaped statue further in the dungeon. Gave the players the option to revive him and they decided he was fine like that and now he is a fountain in there keep. Rogue thankfully took it with good humor and rolled up a Cleric and is a lot better about not running off.

>> No.49813450

>>49813428
System?

>> No.49813462

>>49813403

>I'm glad I play with real people and not Channers.

Considering half the people on this board seem to think a mundane, non-genre high school game where you literally just go to high school sounds fun, I'm inclined to agree with you.

>> No.49813463

>>49813354
I have and am currently playing.

My noble is four times as effective in combat, can do most of what the party can better than them and I have paid for all of our resources up to this point. I am only in direct competition with a sneaky character that can auto drop all but the most powerful enemies by three to four steps on the condition tracker a round and by two a shot when not even prepared.

>> No.49813467

>>49813323
1) "Top ten builds"
I assume you're referring to gimmicky things like condition track killer. Well, yes, they're good, really good, but there's a catch - they become possible very, very late in the game. None of the games I've been in lasted past level 8, if even that far.
Meanwhile, the jedi who's merely extremely powerful at late levels, is an absolute god before them, since a simple feat Skill Focus (Use the Force) ensures he never, ever fails.
2) "Force powers have measly range"
True, true, force powers are lacking in range compare to, say, a sniper rifle. But here's the question - how often do you see a battle map where you and the enemy start 70 squares away? Now how about 7 squares away? Range of force powers is only "measly" on paper, in practice it's always "good enough". I know this because I've played a sniper.
3) "Those are trap options"
Not really? Jedi don't need much talents to be good, even simply deflect and block will do, also that one talent that allows them to recharge their force powers with a standard action. After that, they're free to pick up anything they want. I know this because I've played a jedi. Also, they don't even always need talents to replace skills with UtF, sometimes a force power (like mind trick) will do just fine.

>> No.49813470

The only way I've found to make rolling for stats workout halfway decently is to add a compensation for whoever rolls lowest.

Everyone rolls stats and adds up their scores as if it were a point buy. Whoever is highest sets the bar, and anyone below the bar gets a number of luck dice based upon how much lower they are. It's not perfect, but the ability to reroll several times a day gives them something in return for lower stats.

Honestly, I prefer pointbuy for reliability, but the luck method is a halfway decent compromise.

>> No.49813477

>Player come here to have fun
I hate his kind so much

>> No.49813484

>>49813442
Doesn't matter what system, if the GM is shitty enough to have random encounters happen in any game and open rolls the attacks of the enemies who have a good chance at hitting and killing the PCs it won't stop him if he uses another system.

>> No.49813490

>>49813304
>shitting on DM's work
Wow. It's like you don't appreaciate all the work and behind the scenes stuff the DM does for you. I mean, I hope you're not friend with the guy, because you're probably even more insufferable irl

>> No.49813494
File: 1.18 MB, 2136x1424, 1470084392068.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813494

>GMPC

>> No.49813499

>>49813462
>Considering half the people on this board seem to think a mundane, non-genre high school game where you literally just go to high school sounds fun, I'm inclined to agree with you.
Are you sure that this doesn't refer to games where fantastic things happen at Weeb High, like with Persona?
Because otherwise we have a new board for that now.

>> No.49813514

>>49813490

He's clearly baiting, anon.

>> No.49813526

>>49813467
>they become possible very, very late in the game
A suppression cone heavy works at level 1, broski

>they become possible very, very late in the game
Since I have two large Chessex Battlemats, quite often.

>Jedi don't need much talents to be good
Deflect does not even hold up on level 1. If your CR 1 encounter with a bunch of Droids focuses your Jedi Deflect wont do shit. If any melee worth a damn attacks a jedi parry wont do shit. Do you guys only fight fodder or what?

Here: any organised opposition against jedi should have this:
http://swse.wikia.com/wiki/Unstoppable_Force

>> No.49813528

>>49813323
>It's a casters aren't OP because you can build encounters solely to beat them episode

>> No.49813530

>>49813514
>clearly
Not on this site, he's not.

>> No.49813540

>>49813484
>if the GM is shitty enough to have random encounters happen in any game and open rolls the attacks of the enemies who have a good chance at hitting and killing the PCs it won't stop him if he uses another system
you apparently asuume that crit = kill or serious wound

>> No.49813547
File: 4 KB, 300x57, image (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813547

>>49813020
>>49813048
I'd do it with "Amnesia heroes" or "otherworlders" that don't know shit about setting but learn that primer piece by piece, asking around, seeing, assuming, etc
Captcha seems to be against that, though...

>> No.49813551

>>49812874
No, no, listen you retard.

Pick your race and class, and then roll your stats.

Are you a wizard with 8 int? Too fucking bad for you, garbagewizard. Guess all those years of studying were for nothing.

>> No.49813554

>>49813528
>This old fallacy

>> No.49813572

>>49813462
While that's true, they are always quite a few anons that do get "fun" on /tg/. I'd play with them anyday

>> No.49813573
File: 48 KB, 344x499, 51+u6mlIyfL._SX342_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813573

>>49813499

>Are you sure that this doesn't refer to games where fantastic things happen at Weeb High, like with Persona?

No, I remember a thread where the OP kept harping on about how he wanted to just run a straight high school game, and I was like the one guy who thought it sounded like an absolute snore.

Like, I just cannot imagine how someone can enjoy a game where the highest stakes is you need to get at least a C in Alegebra II if you want to go to the movies with your friends.

I'd be all over a Buffy style game where you gotta balance teen shit with fighting monsters or something. But 11th Grade Simulator: The Game? Fucking count me out.

>> No.49813574

>>49813526
> Jedi aren't OP, if you build encounters specifically to counter their powers all the time

>> No.49813587

>>49813424
I ran a low level PF game for about a year with weekly sessions. Not a single fudged roll and a grand total of 2 character deaths.

>> No.49813589

>>49813574
>It's unfair and tailor made to fuck the jedi if every encounter is not in a featureless 10m by 10m room

>> No.49813594

>>49813355
Every old school GM that I've played with has admitted on multiple occasions that they've fudged dice just to keep the game fair and the reason why they say that is because they know that D&D is not a game where the RNG benefits the players.

The enemy is both more likely to crit and less likely to suffer terribly from being critted since most monsters aren't designed to survive the encounter they were introduced in.

Meanwhile, a PC has little to no means of affecting the probability of the roll outside of min-maxing and a solid critical can lead to a domino effect where the front-line is downed and the enemy can wipe out the backrow with ease through attrition.

It's why most games have some flavor of fate points to spend to alter the nature of the roll, it's because people realized that if we depend on luck, and only luck, to decide whether you live or die, it basically boils down to rolling craps against the most malevolent house you've ever gambled against.

>> No.49813598

>>49813589
> Giving mooks Unstoppable Force is not tailor made to fuck jedi
Anon, stop making a fool out of yourself.

>> No.49813600

>>49813323
In non super duper uber optimized high level parties Jedi are the boss every fucking time.

>> No.49813603
File: 7 KB, 273x537, 1476481554138.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813603

>>49813323

>> No.49813617

>all this D&D hate

it's not that bad, guys.

>> No.49813620

>>49813598
>Implying it would be out of place on the retinue of an Imperial Inquisitor, or a Mandalorian Jedi-Hunter, etc
>Implying you need to give it to mooks when you can just put them out of charge range instead of setting every encounter in the thunderdome.

>>49813600
You're wrong.

>>49813603
Wrong image?

>> No.49813631

>>49813540
That's generally because a crit does equal a death or serious wound at low levels.

Hell, playing a wizard basically means that if you're hit by someone who rolls above average on most of their weapon rolls, you're screwed.

And it's not like combat becomes easier now that the enemies have less targets to spread the damage around for either.

>> No.49813640
File: 122 KB, 675x426, 1565498142.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813640

>>49813359
>PC noble is sleeping in their fortress, after making a powerful enemy out of a different noble
>the GM rolls to see if the assassin the enemy noble sent blows his cover
>he makes it to the chambers of the PC without being spotted by the extra-alerted guards of the PC
>lockpicks, rolls and passes
>slinks in and sneaks over to the bed where the PC is sleeping
>stealth against perception, barely passes
>cuts the PCs throat in his sleep
>almost gets away but is cornered in the end
>kills himself to avoid torture
>we have to go to war with the other noble
>fight on a war on two fronts
>thanks to some shitty rolls we lose
>killed in battle

He rolled it all openly so the character was definitely dead... then everything went to shit and the campaign ended with an anticlimactic TPK.

>>49813540
I'm not the guy you were responding to before. I said 'hit', not 'crit'. As in: multiple people hit the sorceror with arrows and bolts and he dies.

>> No.49813643

>>49813127
>recovering sex addict
Sex addiction isn't real, anon. There is literally no scientific basis for it. Seriously, the neurological data just isn't there.

>> No.49813650

>>49813600
I'll repeat:
Suppression Cone Heavy works literally at level 1.
As do basic sniper builds.

Are you mentally deficient and can't build characters or something?

>> No.49813652

>>49812641
Every 3.5/pf campaign worth playing in is houseruled to fuck and back with a heavy reliance on 3pp over 1pp, especially in pathfinder where Path of War is basically mandatory.
>3.5/pf campaign
>worth playing in
Most systems have their advantages and disadvantages, go be a memeslinging fuck somewhere else.

>>49813306
Fudging dice is something I do out of necessity every now and again. I want players to have a risk of death, but I'm not going to let them get outright buttfucked by random chance. Crit confirm rules help mitigate this, I don't let the enemy score crits left and right if the dice let that happen, and I don't start the game at any level below 4th to avoid rusty dagger shanktown bullshit.

That being said, I don't softball encounters, and enemies CAN kill players, I'm not going to save a player's life with narrative bullshit if they fuck up from their own choices.

>> No.49813662

>>49813251
Exactly. If the group is shit, you've already lost...

>> No.49813665
File: 7.74 MB, 331x240, druid_monk_multiclassing.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813665

>>49813620
yeah, wrong image, can't find what I was looking for now
Have this as an excuse

>> No.49813669
File: 1.48 MB, 256x192, 126546306.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813669

>>49813652

>> No.49813670

>>49813652
>3pp over 1pp
Dos that mean 3rd party/1st party?

also, 3.5 really does not NEED 3pp, even though path of war is sexy as fuck.

>> No.49813679

>>49813640
That's completely reasonable and good. GURPS is designed to simulate believable worlds. That is a very believable chain of events, completely disconnected from the flaws inherent in randomization/lack of immersion.

>> No.49813681

>>49813640
> I said 'hit', not 'crit'
ah okay. fair enough I guess

>> No.49813698

>>49813284
>>Player wants to play half-(insert monster race here) or wants to play a unusual race.
>Character lacks the creativity to make any of the core races interesting and wants to rely on there race to make them unique and special.
What would I do if I were GMing:
>Ayy, funny creature you got there. I hope having weird appearance isn't the only interesting thing about it, IS IT?

>> No.49813702

>>49813587
Whoop de do for you, your players somehow beat the house and came out ahead.

Conversely, I've been in campaigns where people were dying often enough to where the only characters who were left from the original party were the two sods who stayed at the inn and plotted to overthrow the local apothecary.

We ended up dropping the GM a session later once it was clear that we technically had no reason to do anything since we didn't know anyone and had no plot hooks to bite onto.

>> No.49813707

>>49813670
>also, 3.5 really does not NEED 3pp, even though path of war is sexy as fuck.

3.5 doesn't, PF most definitely does.

>> No.49813711

>>49813650
>As do basic sniper builds.
Not really, they work in theory, in reality not so much, I love snipers, I fuckign love them, everytime I played Saga I played a sniper...and everytime, in 5 different groups, in 3 different cities I couldn't play them well at all, because combats are never set in battlegrounds made for me, that's it, open fields with great distances.

Ask whoever.

>> No.49813715

>>49813573
>and I was like the one guy who thought it sounded like an absolute snore.
I silently agreed with ya and moved on, 'coz it being boring is just too obvious

>> No.49813718

>>49813617
It's not *that* bad, there are games that are so bad they're unplayable.

But it's not good. If I wanted to play tactical minis, I'd just go play tactical minis. If I wanted to lawyer rules or optimize like a motherfucker, I'd play GURPS, because the subsystems are just better designed. And if I wanted to crawl dungeons, I'd play Dungeon World or Torchbearer or Dungeon Crawl Classics, because all of them do the grind better.

I play D&D plenty, but I try not to GM it anymore because there are games that are more fun to run.

>> No.49813722

>>49813698
>broken engrish
>using greentext wrong
>replying to bait
First time here ey ?

>> No.49813741
File: 502 KB, 480x319, tumblr_n2cuk0c0rt1sial0xo1_500.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813741

>>49813306
Open rolling is the only thing that can inspire real fear in players. They need to look death in the eye to wake them up.

Just avoid treating each encounter like it's a round of fucking pokemon. You can easily control the course of events through environmental effects.

It's literally the DM's main job to make sure things don't just turn into a meatgrinder.

>> No.49813744
File: 105 KB, 811x540, 1G8uUslvZIk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813744

>>49813494

>> No.49813752

>>49813587
In my groups rolls are always in the open.

Last PF game (from 1st to 3rd level) 5 PCs died (mine twice), and we played very well (according to the GM), rolls weren't in our favour though.

In a previous PF game I run (from 1st to 5th level), 7 PCs died, and they played pretty well, but for once which coincidentally didn't cause the death of anyone.

>> No.49813754

>>49813711
Then your DMs were idiots, or you did too little to create such a situation. Imagine the opposite, someone complaining about Jedi being underpowered because every time they find an encounter their pilot runs to the ship and nukes it. Not really a system-inherent problem, eh?

>> No.49813755

>>49813679
The difficulty of actually getting to the PC was incredibly high, even for a trained assassin.

After I talked to the GM and told him about how disappointing the TPK had been, he was like
>Yeah, I didn't think that the assassin would actually manage to kill the PC. That was very unexpected.

Because if the PC had not died, the game wouldn't have ended in a TPK and it wouldn't have been so disappointingly bland.

>> No.49813757

>>49812805
>No powergaming
Literally nothing wrong with requesting you don't be a dick-head. I had one player who would only powergame. This became a problem when I had two newbies who knew nothing of the system, and were about as useful as a wet rag when it came to combat, compared to the guy who spent hours finding the "perfect" build.

This was warhammer 40k, I think Black Crusade

> No homebrew
I ban homebrew since most of the time it leads to one of two scenarios:
1) Someone tries to sneak in something that is more powerful than everyone else.
2) Someone is something completely bonkers, ruining an aspect of the story or trying to push themselves as a special snowflake.

The rest of your list is pretty good.

>>49813208
>Encounter tables
Do people actually use those?

>> No.49813766

>>49813594
That sounds like a hugbox auto-win type of gameplay, where the DM will step in to prevent anything terrible from happening ever. Which I'm not really bashing, some groups like that kind of play, but really if that's what you're going for, just play without dice and make it a completely narrative story.

If PC death is a real possibility, you should be able to play the dice as they lie. If you frequently TPK, you're setting the CR too high. If the players are stomping their way through unchecked, it's too low. You can fudge rolls during battle to maybe salvage the mismatched encounter, but doing so constantly is just being too lazy to fix the balance.

>> No.49813772

>>49813757
>Do people actually use those?
The shitty GMs that roll in the open that I encountered, do.

>> No.49813774

>>49813722
>>broken engrish
pycь лoмaeт oб кoлeнo
>using greentext wrong
huh?
>replying to bait
it's my hobby

>> No.49813775

>>49813754
>5 different groups
>3 different cities
>Your GMs sucked
Well, are you implying I had bad luck with GMs? or is more like that the vast majority of games are like that? You're like the guy who keeps pointing at anti-magic fields everytime someone says Casters aren't broken.

>> No.49813781
File: 260 KB, 358x310, 40k.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813781

>>49813766
>balance.
>in any game with RNG
>mfw

>> No.49813786

>>49813052
That's some fascinating shit bro

>> No.49813787

>>49813775
are*

>> No.49813799

>>49813775
>Well, are you implying I had bad luck with GMs? or is more like that the vast majority of games are like that?
I'm saying that blaming shitty DMing on the system is unwise and intellectually dishonest, especially since anecdotal evidence is among the weakest kind of evidence.

>> No.49813802
File: 155 KB, 920x960, 1406596759147.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813802

>>49813551
That's hardcore, bro. I appreciate that.

>> No.49813804

>>49813052
Oh boy still don't get to play what I want. Get fucked.

>> No.49813808

>>49813052
>roll to see where you assign your 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8 respectively
Wut?

So I have to roll to see if I can put my 15 in str, my 14 in constitution et cetera? Did I get that right?

>> No.49813820

>>49813643
>No such thing as compulsive behaviour
Admittedly, the use of the word "addiction" is technically wrong, but he's a layman explaining his condition to other laypersons.

>> No.49813821

>>49812114
>you aren't allowed to wear clothes to the session

>> No.49813828

>>49813775
Also, Jedi are not DnD Casters, since creating circumstances to slow Jedi down are as mundane as "a few hundred metres" or "an encrypted terminal"

>> No.49813830
File: 386 KB, 640x480, 1450567601749.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813830

>>49812114

In any game ever

>My character is a lesbian

>> No.49813832

>>49813799
But it's how the game works, the vast majority of builds aren't snipers, makes sense that the vast majority of combats aren't meant for snipers (specially because if it were like this PCs will die constatly due enemy snipers), that's why snipers builds don't usually work. The ones that work are short distance builds.

Also, you're using your anecdtal evidence, and yours only against 3-4 guys (including me) tell you things don't work exactly like you say.

>> No.49813837
File: 100 KB, 1093x797, 1451539918821.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813837

>>49812114
>DM points to rolling criticals/things that would severely fuck up a player (Like, "if he only hits me 3 times I'll be ok", then it hits 4 times) with both hands in a "what can you do" type gesture.
>Sometimes makes it even worse on purpose, rolling extra dice for no reason, causing it to effect other characters when it shouldn't by any means, doing the fucking gesture when players roll a crit failure/glitch at any time
After 3 GMs of this shit ruining campaigns, I'm tempted to just quit the moment I see another GM do it.

>> No.49813840
File: 52 KB, 564x564, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813840

>>49812786

>> No.49813847
File: 20 KB, 400x400, 1436751133008.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813847

>>49813766
>assuming that fudging a roll once or twice to avoid killing a PC who is behaving competently and smart is giving him indefinite plot armor
Dude, a bit of fudging is okay as long as the players don't notice and the game is more fun in the long run.

>> No.49813848

>>49813828
a few hundred metres also stops literally 99% of other classes as much as it stops Jedi, anon.

>> No.49813858

Am I, "That Guy" for making my characters horrible in combat but fantastic at the politicking end of things?

Just an example, Convincing a band of Orcs to not only eschew attacking our party but hiring them as temporary body guards and guides though a dangerous stretch of mountains...before tricking them into a Young Dragons den and letting them be eaten so we didn't have to pay them.

>> No.49813861

>>49813804
>>49813808
The numbers are assigned randomly to the stats, yes.

So the stats are random, but their total value is predictable.

THEN pick the god-damn character class.

Honestly, it's entertaining when you get into it. You're character's occupation is nothing more than a means to their goal. If you play D&D because your objective is to unlock abilities, well, I have some bad news for you...

>> No.49813864

>>49813858
Are your games mostly combat wise? then yes.

>> No.49813868

>>49812194
Nothing wrong with 3d6 in order if everyone agrees from the start. If (and it's a big if) you have the right gm/players it can be a very fun way to play.

>> No.49813874

>>49813858
No, that's fine, especially if GM is talkative enough to not force you to roll initiative on sight.

>> No.49813878

>>49813864
GM's not all that good at the extra fluff, he's new so I try to give him a nudge that stab first keep stabbing isn't the only option.

>> No.49813894

>>49813640
Your brief description makes it sound like you Roerk's Drifted yourselves. Make peace with the noble. Surrender when the battle turns against you. Retreat when the rolls go bad. Hell, if you had no exit strategy should battle turn against you, you should have yielded unconditionally when the enemy arrived. You dumb fuck this is all your fault.

>> No.49813897

>>49813858
Depends on the feelings of your GM and fellow players. "That Guy," is relative. Are the others cool with it? Are you being overly disruptive? If no, then you're fine.

>> No.49813898

>>49813861
FUCK YOUR SHIT

Is playing a goddamn fucking barbarian that reasonably good at his fucking job too fucking much to ask for? I don't want to play a faggoty mage or childfucking priest you cockgobbling assmonkey.

>> No.49813910

>>49812114
>Human characters only, no special snowflake races like elves.

>> No.49813914

>>49813861
I don't play D&D or any other RPG for that matter, with characters that don't interest me.

Incidentally, I just got into a WoD game and made myself a pretty nasty-hitting neonate vampire because I like hitting hard and protecting the utility casters of my group.

I want to play something simple.

It wouldn't be entertaining for me if I had to play a vampire who is supposedly very smart and knows a lot of occult stuff that I, as a player, have no clue about.

My point is that I wouldn't find your way of allocating stats very fun. Because then I don't get to play a character I would like to play: at least not in what I would like to be a long-term campaign.

One shots, those are fine.

>> No.49813915
File: 31 KB, 847x215, Range.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813915

>>49813832
>Also, you're using your anecdtal evidence
Where have I ever referred to any experience I myself have made? I argued that Jedi builds are purely mechanically inferior to a lot of other stuff.

>But it's how the game works, the vast majority of builds aren't snipers, makes sense that the vast majority of combats aren't meant for snipers
And that's shitty DMing

>specially because if it were like this PCs will die constatly due enemy snipers
Enemy snipers are incredibly dangerous, but not as common since they are generally special units (which the PCs also are)

>The ones that work are short distance builds
That's complete bullshit. That's like meeting two asian guys named Mike, and concluding that all Asians in fact are named Mike, when the information to disprove that is so easily available. Stop being such a retard.

>>49813848
pic related.

>> No.49813930

>>49813858
You are entirely right.

>>49813864
People need to just stop using D&D as a fight simulator.

>> No.49813933

Rolled 3, 6, 3, 5, 5, 6 = 28 (6d6)

>>49813861
So, if I understand you right:
1= Strength
2= Dex
3=Con
4=Int
5=Wis
6=Cha
First d6 is the 15, second is the 14, and so on. Let's see how this goes.

>> No.49813946
File: 1.52 MB, 160x120, 1399244916989.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813946

>>49813898

>> No.49813952

>>49813915
>Where have I ever referred to any experience I myself have made?
When you said you have two large Chessex Battlemats

>> No.49813960

Rolled 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 6, 3, 4, 1, 6, 6, 2, 5, 2, 4, 2, 4, 1, 3, 2, 6, 5, 6, 4 = 98 (24d6)

>>49813933
I fucked up. I should have used a lot more rolls to account for rerolls. Doing it again.

>> No.49813965

>>49812786
Technically, isn't every human made of blood?

>> No.49813970

>>49813820
more like laidman

>> No.49813972

>>49813847
If the battle should be winnable only by being tactical and smart, then it should be built in a way that the rng odds favor such gameplay. If you cannot build it using the crunch, just ditch the dice and narrate. Why waste time with dice if you're going to guide them to the same outcome anyway?

>> No.49813983

>>49813952
Point taken. I'll rephrase:
DMs that actually set up long range encounters exist, but I would agree to the notion that there are many DMs who suck completely at setting up interesting encounters.

>> No.49813984
File: 14 KB, 687x292, 1565498140.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813984

>>49813894
>Make peace with the noble. Surrender when the battle turns against you.
Not very easy when one of your group has Bad temper, berserk and Bloodlust.

>you should have yielded unconditionally when the enemy arrived.
They would've had us drawn and quartered for a crime we were framed for. It would've ended the same way.

>> No.49813991
File: 739 KB, 500x248, 1437493678541.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49813991

>>49812114
>instant red flags
>OP is an overwatch shitter

>> No.49813998

>>49813652
>Crit confirm helps

Hahahaha no. No, it doesn't, and it never has. If an enemy is enough of a threat that it can eat through a PC's HP in one critical hit, it is enough of a threat that it can get past the PC's AC regularly. It's just an extra roll that does nothing to help.

>> No.49814003

>>49813965
You're not wrong. We just refluffed the slime race, so it was actually pretty easy to pull off.

>> No.49814012

>>49813897
They enjoy it, the rest of the party is trying to get into less combat oriented things while still excelling at smashing faces.

>> No.49814015

>>49813960
Okay, so. 6=15, 5=14, 4=13, 3=12, 1=10, 2=8

Str: 10
Dex: 8
Con: 12
Int: 13
Wis: 14
Cha: 15

Hm.

>> No.49814028

>>49813766
Fudging dice != hugbox auto-win

Fudging dice is there to prevent the game from becoming a game of total luck, where your character's survival is dependent entirely upon the roll of the die rather than the skill of the player.

I've seen many games end on a low note because the GM threw something at us that we could've defeated if we didn't eat a critical at an important moment and were forced to either leave someone behind so that we could escape or eat a TPK in the process of trying to salvage the situation.

Open rolls is great for games where the aim of the game is reaching the end of the dungeon like a tabletop version of "Rogue" or "Nethack" but for games with depth, where a character's existence affects the plot in some, way, shape, or form, open rolling just means that nobody at the table will give a fuck about their stat blocks and even less fucks about the story that's struggling to accommodate all these characters who are unlikely to survive the next 3 sessions.

>> No.49814032

>>49813983
I can't give more evidence that what I have experienced, read in threads like this and ask my friends. So lets agree that we disagree.

Bare in mind I only meant snipers, because that's usually my jam in games with modern-futuristic weapons and is something that I never could fullfil not even at 50% being SAGA or other system

>> No.49814038

>>49813304
Obvious bait, and yet i must you

>> No.49814044
File: 81 KB, 500x375, 135468323456.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49814044

>>49813972
>then it should be built in a way that the rng odds favor such gameplay.
Are you assuming that it isn't? Because it is. But sometimes the dice just want the whole party dead.

>Why waste time with dice if you're going to guide them to the same outcome anyway?
Because based on the dice it might be Jake's character who dies or Pete's. Or maybe Alex'. I will let the dice decide who dies instead.

Or, on the other hand, if the fight is going too well for the players and my big, evil monster who was supposed to be a challenge for them is getting shit on they will then find it way too easy and disappointing when they kill it without any trouble at all. I want to make them sweat, bleed and worry for their characters.

>> No.49814048

>>49813960
>rerolls
Pleb. It's random anyway, so all you need to do is add +1(rolling back to 1) if you get a number you've already rolled.

>> No.49814052

>>49813306
Im with you buddy.
If rolls are taken raw without consulting the narrative, it is pointless to get invested.
At that point it becomes a watered down war game.

>> No.49814055

>>49814032
>Bare in mind I only meant snipers, because that's usually my jam in games with modern-futuristic weapons and is something that I never could fullfil not even at 50% being SAGA or other system

Keep looking for better GMs. Like with anything else, 90% of GMs are shit.

>> No.49814064

>>49813983
People don't understand that good DMs that understand the game they're running are a minority.

>> No.49814075

>>49813861
Get fucked. I didn't come to a game to not play what I want to play. Would you enjoy it if you turned on your game console/PC and tried to run a game, only for it to say "tough shit, you're playing this one instead"? That's you. You're a fucking idiot.

>> No.49814088

>>49814028
No, roll modifiers are there to prevent it from being a game of total luck. The objective of the game is to bank as many modifiers in your favor to overcome the challenge. Even then, it's not a guarantee, just a matter of better odds.

If you want guarentees, play narrative combat. The whole point of using rng in a game is to present the risk of failure. If you're removing the risk of failure for the benefit of the overall story, save eveyones time and get rid of the rng.

>> No.49814093

>>49813449
I have literally never met anyone who actually goes against fudging rolls.
I only ever hear that fudging is bad from people speaking anonymously on the internet.

>> No.49814101
File: 2.93 MB, 6012x4073, 1466982266032.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49814101

>>49813830

This. If you made a dyke, then take a hike.

>> No.49814115

>>49813830
>>49814101
I'm fully okay with lesbian characters, if "lesbian" is not the first and most important thing the player tells me about his character.

>> No.49814137
File: 3.08 MB, 506x285, 126546310.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49814137

>>49814088
You... you know that you can fudge dice in favor of the monster too, right?

What you are basically saying is
>min-max however you can, people
>the GM is rolling in the open, we have to have as many high numbers as we can so we will survive
Which is fine, for some people. If you're into it: hey, I'm not judging.

But I like my games to have a nice narrative and to be driven by plot. I dislike games parading as roleplaying games when they are just watered-down war-games...

>> No.49814151

>>49813425
This. DnD is a headache to remember already without having to check the balance of a couple dozen splat books.

If my fagot ass players made me run DnD, they're getting core only.

>> No.49814153

>>49813156
Or the gimp player's attempt to gain power (good or bad) could become a central part of the campaign. Fair could be giving benefit of narrative to the weak player or the group working as a team to build him up. There are a lot of ways to deal with stat disparity.

I wouldn't force it on players, but if a group were okay with it more random builds can be fun.

>> No.49814168

>>49814093
Fudging is like railroading - it's basically mandatory sometimes to keep things fun, but it works best when nobody can tell it's happening.

>> No.49814172

>>49814088
Roll modifiers are generally pretty insignificant in gamblinggames like d&d.

D&d pretty much requires fudging for any game to not be a clusterfuck.

>> No.49814193

>>49814044
> I want to make them sweat, bleed and worry for their characters.
>but not actually risk death
Then just make shit up to fit that narrative. Dice are the exact opposite of getting a specific, defined outcome to the battle.

>>49814093
I've heard nothing but rage from people about players being caught fudging their rolls for a better outcome. The only time people are okay with it seems to be when the DM does it to benefit them, because then it's someone else cheating the system and they dont have to feel guilty.

>> No.49814232

>>49814193
Anon, players dont fudge rolls, gms do.
I have never even heard someone refer to players altering their rolls as fudging before. I assume ypu just started using that definition right now for the sake of argument.
And, given the rest of your response, i can only assume you are one of those guys too afraid of the consequences of disputing fudging in person.

>> No.49814245
File: 263 KB, 573x1941, fuck yeah.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49814245

>>49814168
>mfw

>> No.49814254

>>49812874
>>49812194
this though,

My DM became quite enthralled with the idea of straight rolling and I gotta say some of our better times were had because nobody was running with a shitty meme character concept they dreamed up a month earlier without any consideration for in-game application.

>> No.49814260

>>49814232
Honestly, I think the antifudge guys are either cowatds or trolls, because I have similar experiences.

>> No.49814261
File: 70 KB, 243x200, 126546309.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49814261

>>49814193
>but not actually risk death
They aren't going to risk death if my world-ending monstrosity doesn't hit them because of shit rolls. And I do not want all of them to survive the final confrontation.

I am getting annoyed that you're seemingly selectively ignoring what I'm saying to you.

>> No.49814289

>>49814137
I'm not saying games must be highly lethal meat grinders. I too enjoy long lived story driven games. And when I'm handling encounters for such games, I set them up so the PCs have an incredibly low chance of permadeath. But I do that using the system, and have not had to fudge to keep people alive, or make monsters more challenging.

Thinking about it though, it might be difficult if you run a lot of modules, strictly as-written, to get that kinda game. Dunno how I'd call it in that case.

Otherwise, if you're building your own encounters from scratch, it shouldnt be that hard to get the challenge correct.

>>49814172
>insignificant
>odds can change from 5 to 50% depending on modifiers in play
Yeah nah.

>> No.49814293

>>49814254
Well, that's good on you anon. Honestly, just go with what is fun for you and don't mind the rest.

>> No.49814294

>>49814088
>No, roll modifiers are there to prevent it from being a game of total luck.

Roll modifiers can help but only to an extent, and criticals supersede whatever bonuses you had to hit someone with anyways.

>The objective of the game is to bank as many modifiers in your favor to overcome the challenge.

The effectiveness of your character should be a combination of the character being built properly and played effectively.

Otherwise why even describe what you're doing, as opposed to hitting the attack "button" over and over again until everything in your way turns into chunky salsa?

>If you want guarentees, play narrative combat.

You're both assuming that because I recognize the flaws of pure RNG that it means that I see no place for it.

RNG is great but it's like playing roulette, eventually you're going to end up getting fucked by the averages and leaving the table dissatisfied while the house won just enough times to recoup their losses.

>> No.49814300

>>49812805
You're just a complete faggot, so nothing you posted means anything.

Enjoy never enjoying TTRPGs ever again

>> No.49814312

>>49814261
>They aren't going to risk death if my world-ending monstrosity doesn't hit them because of shit rolls. And I do not want all of them to survive the final confrontation.
Then you dont want to play with rng if you want very specific outcomes like that. Just narrate combat, and you'll get the exact outcome you want, every time.

>> No.49814345

>>49813175
>stormwind fallacy
An argument made my munchkins, to prove that they aren't munchkins.

>> No.49814348
File: 32 KB, 505x412, bruce lee be like wtf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49814348

>>49812114
>We're playing D&D

>> No.49814355

>>49814345
Nah, you're just retarded.

>> No.49814367

>>49814348

Honestly at this point I'd have no problem playing D&D if the GM and players were at least decent.

>> No.49814381

>>49814294
>Roll modifiers can help but only to an extent, and criticals supersede whatever bonuses you had to hit someone with anyways.
Crits are 10% odds, applied evenly to both sides. Even less if you use the confirm crit rules. That is paltry in comparison to the way modifiers change the odds, and do a good job of demonstrating how sometimes things happen due to dumb luck.

>The effectiveness of your character should be a combination of the character being built properly and played effectively.
Yeah you pretty much just rephrased the point I was making. Good build + good tactics = banking odds in your favor.

>RNG is great but it's like playing roulette, eventually you're going to end up getting fucked by the averages...
"Random is great because it's random, but sometimes I get random outcomes I don't like"
Right back to hugbox auto-win.

>> No.49814393
File: 557 KB, 1014x3387, 10TGCommandmandmentsForGMS.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49814393

>>49814289
Congratz, you are not me- as in: you are able to roll fairly well in any given situation.

Me? I have rotten fucking luck and I've found myself more than once on either extreme spectrum of
>holy shit, these goblins are going to TPK the party wtf!
and
>hold on ffs! The party is just styling on my main villain. He hasn't even fucking touched one of them, wtf!

>Otherwise, if you're building your own encounters from scratch, it shouldnt be that hard to get the challenge correct.
It happened more than once that minor encounters almost killed half the team, which I really did not want to happen or plan for.

Most groups I have played with do not mind a bit of fudging to keep the game interesting and engaging. If open rolling works for you, good on you.

>>49814312
You keep using the same old tired argument: I won't kill half the party everytime they face an encounter just because I rolled too damn well and drained all their luck, thus killing half the group who now has to re-make characters and then introduce them somehow to the party.

And you still haven't debunked the aspect that, with open rolling, you actually encourage players to play the same-old, bored, tired out of my fucking mind, min-maxed statblocks.

>> No.49814397

>>49814355
lol
Stormwind fallacy is dumb.
Just because being a minmaxer doesn't automatically make you a shitty roleplayer doesn't mean there isn't a very strong correlation between the two.

>> No.49814401

>the OP uses overwatch memes

>> No.49814409

>>49814312
>>49814381
What do you gain from deliberately twisting what people say to you?

You are just blindly repeating an idiotic and provocative strawman instead of respond to what is being said.

>> No.49814438

>>49812924
The funniest part about this is that it's all bullshit, and still inferior to a caster.

>> No.49814446

>>49814312
Nobody fudges dice to make the game more narrative, it's there because any experienced GM who knows how the game works will be able to tell that basing an entire game based around luck only works in games where there's no longevity.

>> No.49814458

>>49812851
One of two things happened
1. Everyone you play with is autistic
OR
2. You're autistic

>> No.49814460

>>49814397
>Just because being a minmaxer doesn't automatically make you a shitty roleplayer doesn't mean there isn't a very strong correlation between the two.
I'd ask for proof, but I think we all know that the only "proof" you have is anecdotes you pulled out of your ass.

>> No.49814467

>>49814393
Well theres a difference between rolling lopsided, and having a lopsided encounter. For example, if the dice you're using for the enemies is constantly coming up 12+, might want to give that bitch a salt bath and see whats up.

If the dice is giving a good array, and still parties are getting wiped, you need to look at the crunch. For some reason you're putting players up against a very risky fight, when you just wanted a mild challenge to roll through.

>And you still haven't debunked the aspect that, with open rolling, you actually encourage players to play the same-old, bored, tired out of my fucking mind, min-maxed statblocks.
I discourage that during chargen when the group decides what level of lethality they want to go up against. If they say they want low danger, that's what I'll give them, and there will be little chance of a kobold getting lucky and stomping through the whole party. Not because I fudged a dangerous encounter to protect sub-optimal builds, but because I built the encounter that way.

>> No.49814515

>>49814409
How am I strawmanning? If you're saying you want a specific, reliable outcome, I'm saying dont use random numbers because they are only good for one thing; randomizing the outcome.

>>49814446
Usually all fudging is for the sake of narrative, since it's hard to tell a long complex story when the cast is constantly changing. So GMs fudge rolls to prevent people from dying so the story can go on.

>> No.49814539

>>49814409
He is a troll, anon.
Nobody says this shit if they cant hide who they are.

>> No.49814568

>>49812786
So you were playing a party of Infernal Exalted?

>> No.49814584
File: 13 KB, 176x200, 135468323457.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49814584

>>49814467
>Well theres a difference between rolling lopsided, and having a lopsided encounter. For example, if the dice you're using for the enemies is constantly coming up 12+, might want to give that bitch a salt bath and see whats up.
Even if it's rolled online? I'm not about to dip my desktop in my bathdub.

>If the dice is giving a good array, and still parties are getting wiped, you need to look at the crunch. For some reason you're putting players up against a very risky fight, when you just wanted a mild challenge to roll through.
>You are too dumb and need to make challenges who are good, tailored for your group
Nigga, I was just finished telling you that I already do that and there are times where that just doesn't work!

>Not because I fudged a dangerous encounter to protect sub-optimal builds, but because I built the encounter that way.
So if the party tells you that they want a game where they can be big heroes, with challenging combat and then you make an encounter who has the potential -you think- of killing a few characters of the party and then drop it on them. You know they aren't using loaded dice but tonight they are rolling -extremely- well. They are curbstomping the main villain's right hand, who was supposed to weaken them for the big reveal of the evil boss.
Since you are open rolling, you let them kill it because their rogue just got a streak of hit-crit-hit in with high sneak attack damage.

Then they are all disappointed and say "Wasn't he supposed to be almost as strong as his boss? He didn't seem so strong to me." "Wait, I have to heal you from the scratch you got while fighting him"

I am fairly sure they would've been fine with you fudging the rules and adding some HP and hitting them harder while fighting that main villain, instead of that shitshow ordained by RNG.

>> No.49814600
File: 149 KB, 839x696, 1476426786796.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49814600

>>49813970
>>49813820
>>49813643
It's still degenerate, and something I'd like to not continue doing.

/tg/ is my outlet for my urges.

>> No.49814616

>>49814515
>Usually all fudging is for the sake of narrative, since it's hard to tell a long complex story when the cast is constantly changing. So GMs fudge rolls to prevent people from dying so the story can go on.
You're only half right.

GM's fudge rolls for the sake of keeping players alive but only when their death causes the game to become unsatisfactory in the long run.

The dice is only there so it's not just the GM arbitrarily deciding whether or not you succeed or not but the importance of rolling dice should only extend as far as the point when the outcome of the roll threatens the enjoyment of everyone involved.

>> No.49814635
File: 156 KB, 576x540, 126546305.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49814635

>>49814515
Try to argue against the 10 tips that STORYTIEM gave here >>49814393

protip: you can't

>> No.49814637

>>49812805
>No min/maxing!
>No powergaming!
>Wants to write a novel with other people providing the dialogue. Will likely throw a fit if the PCs dare to want to succeed without his mary sue DMPC, or do anything of interest.

Powergaming is seriously annoying, though, unless everybody does it. If the whole party builds super-optimized characters, then it's just a matter of the GM tweaking the difficulty level so that the party still faces some challenges. But that's usually not the case. Far more often you end up with a part composed of a fighter, a rogue, a paladin and Godwizard the Omnipotent.

When only one player powergames, he's likely to ruin the fun for everybody else, because either he'll just breeze through every combat encounter, leaving all other players feeling like dead weight (the PCs should ideally be a group of heroes, not "Godwizard the Omnipotent...and those three random dudes following him around"), or all the encounters are tuned to the power level of the strongest party member, providing some challenge but making everything hyper-lethal for all but the minmaxed character.

It's the "everybody plays a jedi or nobody plays a jedi" thing.

>> No.49814661
File: 76 KB, 831x445, tgcomplaintsdepartment.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49814661

>>49814637


Jokes aside, godwizard the omnipotent is only an issue in pre-4e.

>> No.49814663

>>49814584
>Then they are all disappointed and say "Wasn't he supposed to be almost as strong as his boss? He didn't seem so strong to me." "Wait, I have to heal you from the scratch you got while fighting him"
The players could see their rolls, and knew they were rolling great. They could see my rolls, and new I was rolling shit. Unless they're absolute imbeciles, they should be able to put 2 and 2 together and realize they only got out that good because luck favored them tonight.

If I am with the type of players who are mad at me because they rolled well, I dont know what to do for that.

>> No.49814669

>>49814635
>10 tips that STORYTIEM gave here
>10 shitty tips some random person on the internet shat out of their ass
Why should I care?

>> No.49814693

>>49814663
>If I am with the type of players who are mad at me because they rolled well, I dont know what to do for that.
Murder them.

>> No.49814705

>>49814663
We, as players, can see that the GM rolled like shit but our characters in-game will rationalize it as the right hand man being less than the legend that preceded him.

I mean, if he was as tough as we were led to believe then he wouldn't have gone down so easily.

>> No.49814724

>>49814663
No, anon. I'm not mad. Just disappointed.

And that you feel nothing when your players are disappointed says a lot about you as a person and as a GM.

>>49814669
Because you can't refute that occasionally fudging dice is superior to open rolling.

>> No.49814746

>>49813494
Ya know, I don't do DMPCs but I like to have an NPC that is always with the group and they like to have one because sometimes they get stumped on a part in the campaign and having an NPC to casually slip in hints and ideas helps them a lot.

>> No.49814755

>>49814088

So this is what a reasonable sounding Black and White fallacy looks like.

No, you don't just throw all RNG out the window. The point of having RNG is to have the possibility of failure, yes, but the point of it is not to kill the PCs as hard as possible. Character death should be a narrative issue, or happen when circumstances are heavily stacked against the PCs. But rolling to pick this lock or to make an attack or to scout out enemy territory? RNG is required. Just because a GM doesn't want characters dying from lucky crits or unlucky crit fails does not mean they don't want them failing at doing other things and having to improvise or work around it.

>> No.49814768
File: 986 KB, 500x243, 126546303.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49814768

>>49814746
And that's a good thing. Kudos to you.

>> No.49814772

The main problem with raw rolls in something like d&d is that the strongedt man in the world only has like, 50% greater a chance of success in a test of strength compared to someone who just got out of a coma and has no muscles.

If the modifier were several times the size of the die, so skill and ability mattermore than chance, fudging would not be required.

As it stands, the d20 is way too fucking swingy.

>> No.49814773

>>49814015
Original poster of that concept, yeah that's pretty much the idea. Roll 1d6 to assign your 15, then your 14, and so on disregarding overlapping rolls until you get your stat spread.

Note that this is for RANDOM character creation. Not every player likes this kind of randomness when making their character. I have no problems giving people an attribute array and assigning stats wherever they want. I just like to provide a random attribute determination process that doesn't (statistically) make characters average or slightly above average in every way.

>> No.49814779
File: 583 KB, 350x192, supermanconfirms.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49814779

>>49814705
>Characters also don't understand luck
I mean, you'd have thought you could narrate a scene where the PCs are terrified of this unholy combat monster, there's a million-to-one set of circumstances that utterly wreck the guy's chances, and (assuming your shitty DM doesn't have your enemy retreat to save himself and hit you when you're weaker) have a moment of stunned silence when a stray sling stone hits him square in the glowing blue fuck-me light issued to all boss monsters for massive damage.

Look at the end of Star Wars. Luke doesn't waggle his wings and say "guess it was insignificant... to the power of my DICK!" after he nukes the Death Star. He's relieved, grateful and elated at his good fortune in destroying this thing.

You make me want to die of shame, Anon.

>> No.49814804

>>49814661
Yeah, but it's not like other systems don't have some way to make characters far more powerful than average.

Like how DnD 5th edition still lets you exploit the necromancy school specialisation to build an entire army of skeletons and command them all while also throwisn spells at the enemy (when action economy otherwise was toned down to the point where a ranger can't make his animal companion attack on the same turn he attacks). Or how jedi in Star Wars game or the Chaos Space Marines in Black Crusade tend to end up a lot stronger than regular humans, despite ostensibly balanced (in Black Crusade the difference was mainly surviveability; making a regular human PC that was comparable to Marine PC in damage potential is actually pretty trivial, but the Marine can tank hits that will turn you to chunky salsa).

>> No.49814806

>>49814705
The characters can rationalize it as they functioned flawlessly that day. The team was on point, all the breaks were in their favor, and they managed to walk away making it look easy. Story wise it can be used to prompt them to make an offering to a god/goddess for giving them such luck, or making them anxious and pensive for the next big fight, since they might not get so lucky.

>>49814724
Never had complaints about my combat before. Usually my fuckups are with story arcs, when after completion players tell me what they thought was going on, and I realize that their idea was waaay better than mine.

>> No.49814809

>>49814779
Luck would account for maybe a 10% variation.
Wheras in d&d, luck is almost the entire thing.
Thus requiring fudging to fix the broken system.

>> No.49814812
File: 167 KB, 393x349, 135468323457.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49814812

>>49814779
>implying the GM didn't fudge the dice in favor of Luke who would've otherwise been dead meat

>> No.49814819

>>49814755
If that's your bag (and I don't judge) play FATE. Play Cypher Plus. Play... I don't know, Risus.
Play a system where this is reflected int he rules and makes sense.
Don't play a gamist system like D&D (or a physical simulationist game like full-bore GURPS) then throw out the core resolution mechanic whenever it's inconvenient.

>> No.49814828

>>49814115
This. If your character is a lesbian, fuck off. If your character is a mechanic looking to make money to open her own garage, and just happens to be a lesbian, you're on probation, but you're okay. For now.

>> No.49814848

>>49814804
Skeletons are pretty easy to handle, anon. It's not like previous editions, where you just summon up a jillion things and fling them at your enemy.

Also, revised ranger > phb ranger, because I'm pretty sure revised animal companion can move/attack on its own on your turn.

>> No.49814849

>>49814779
The reason why Luke was relieved was because he a) survived the mission, b) shot the torpedo inside the 1 meter hole using the force effectively, and c) got his ass saved by Han showing the fuck up outta nowhere and blasting Darth Vader.

He didn't just casually stroll up to the death star, drop a nuke down the shaft, and then walk away without looking at the explosion, he succeeded because he somehow managed to beat the odds and successful use something that he only found out about a few days ago.

>> No.49814850

>>49814809
>>49814773
This.
This so much.
D&D is basically a roulette that barely takes into account how good a character is at something.
Even at huge +20 modifiers, lyck is still a full half of any activity, when it really shouldnt be.

>> No.49814851

>>49814806
>Never had complaints about my combat before.
Me neither. And the players don't question me rolling behind the screen.

>> No.49814865

>>49814755
My statement about throwing RNG out revolves around combat, not skill checks. However >>49814772 demonstrates the point that sometimes you still do need to ditch it. In that example, coma boy vs the hulk, there should be no roll involved, fudged or otherwise. There is no way for the strongman to lose, and rolling that would be on par with making athletics checks every time a character walks up the steps.

>> No.49814870

>>49814850
That second quote missed, fuck.

>> No.49814883

>>49814865
So for checks it's okay to throw out the mechanics, while in combat it isn't?

Not the guy you're replying to btw, I'm just curious.

>> No.49814888

>>49814232
Cheating and fudging are the same thing. The only reason why it's acceptable for the GM to do it is because he's expected to sometimes cheat for the sake of 'trying to kill the PCs' and 'trying not to kill the PCs'. I assume that's the other anon's point.

>> No.49814893

>>49814865
There should still be rng there anon. Strong man could slip.

It just should be like a .5% chance of failure. Which d&d refuses to accomodate.

>> No.49814894
File: 28 KB, 960x540, 646500107-olive-branch-olive-leaf-green-olive-scion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49814894

>>49814851
Then why defend so hard? Shit man, it's your game, at the end of the day run it however makes you and your friends happy.

>> No.49814904

>>49814888
Cheating is when players do it.
Fudging is when GMs do it.

It's like fapping for men and schlicking for women. Except that one is frowned upon and the other is acceptable.

>> No.49814910

>>49814849
That is... exactly my point. He was lucky. He knows he was lucky. He accomplished something extremely dangerous because (in part) he was lucky.
PCs can't see the dice and the values thereof, but they know how lucky they're getting from the things they see. And Luke getting out clean from the Death Star trench run is the perfect example of a series of nothing-but-net incredible rolls (plus some botches on the Imperial rolls, and the Han thing).

If you roll really well in a difficult encounter, you should feel like Luke Skywalker, not like... I dunno... some douchebag.

>> No.49814916

>>49814888
It is not cheating if it is explicitly part of the rules for dms to occasionally alter rolls and encounters, anon.
That you think it is indicates you never actually read the rulebook.

>> No.49814917

>>49814806
Even in cases where you perform flawlessly, the big guy is still supposed to land a few hits to show that he was in fact powerful.

Take any action movie ever made, the protagonist is still taking a licking even if they otherwise survive the encounter and them winning is supposed to highlight the fact that they're alive, not that they survived without taking anything beyond superficial damage.

It's the difference between the Neo vs. Agent Smith fights before Neo becomes the One and after Neo becomes the One.

>> No.49814924

>>49814893
If you need another critical failure to confirm, it drops to 0,25%.

>> No.49814928

>>49814883
If there is no reasonable chance of success or failure, then the roll should be thrown out. Rolling should only come into play when you want a random chance of the outcome going either way.

>> No.49814930

>>49814894
>at the end of the day run it however makes you and your friends happy.
I agree.

There are still better reasons to fudge than to roll openly, is all.

>> No.49814934
File: 29 KB, 499x500, is this baka serious.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49814934

>>49814819
>Don't [...] throw out the core resolution mechanic whenever it's inconvenient.

>> No.49814947

>>49814928
That's the spirit! Now we're getting somewhere.

And when things are going well but could go better, that's when fudging comes into play.

>> No.49814948

>>49814924
It would be convenient if the game worked like that.

>> No.49814950

>>49814934
Yes, I'm serious. There's no point modifying your Lamborghini to plough fields. Buy a fucking tractor.

>> No.49814957

>>49814950
Lamborghini makes tractors.

>> No.49814976

>>49814115

Some players just hide it, only to bust out the obnoxiousness as soon as they meet a "waifu".

>> No.49814985

>>49814917
If I want to show the big guy's power while still rolling true, I'd throw in a red shirt for him to make paste out of right when the party arrives. When they see the giant they're about to fight picking chunks of bloody plate armor out of his knuckles, they'll know he was a powerful fucker even if they drop him unscathed.

>> No.49814996

>>49814910
If we stroll up to some asshole who we're led to believe is supposed to be a big baddie and they die without landing significant damage on us, it just sorta deflates the legend and leads to a feeling of anticlimax.

Like shit, maybe we shouldn't have prepped ourselves so well so we could've actually had a good fight.

Luke only succeeded during the climax due to a combination of rebel support and a big damn heroes moment from Han. It's the equivalent of playing a character with low health going for a hail mary shot that only a critical could land and rolling a NAT 20 while scoring just enough damage to beat the baddie, not Luke just riding into combat and styling on Vader because the GM rolled complete shit for the entirety of the encounter.

>> No.49815001
File: 369 KB, 625x454, 126546313.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49815001

>>49814950
You still haven't debunked any of the previous points speaking for fudging rolls in favour or against the party when it's thematically appropriate.

You keep droning on and on about "m-muh chance" and "m-muh RNG"
I'm here to play a storytelling game, not a watered-down war game like first edition D&D

>> No.49815020

>>49812801
Not only are you a furry in denial, you're also a weeaboo.

>> No.49815034

>>49812171
One time when we played 3.5 we had a player roll five 18's in front of everyone. The last roll was a 12.

She played a druid so she ended up being worthless but still if she knew what she was doing...

>> No.49815052

>>49815001
>I'm here to play a storytelling game
Then play a storytelling game and leave the dice in the bag.

>> No.49815073

>>49814985
But even that doesn't work unless the dice themselves allow the big baddie to paste the party with equal efficiency.

It's basically you telling the players "oh boy, you better not fuck with this guy lightly hint hint nudge nudge" rather than showing it by having the boss shave off 50% of the toughest dude in the party's total HP with one punch.

>> No.49815081
File: 86 KB, 1920x1080, go-autistic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49815081

>>49814663
Yea, they sure had a lot of fun with curbstomping an encounter they were hoping would be challenging. Good on you for just mindlessly obeying the rules and sending everyone home with a sense of numb disappointment.

>> No.49815085
File: 41 KB, 625x626, nottrying.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49815085

>>49815052
You're not even trying anymore m8

>> No.49815103

>>49814806
Not sure about everyone else here anon, but I get where you are coming from.

For my group the entire point of playing tabletop over video games is the fact that anything can happen. EVEN if by bad luck the end result isn't the best narrative result on paper. And even then, which doesn't happen often either due to setup or dumb luck, we roll with it.

We've had plenty of fun open rolling. Though I will admit this is all anecdotal and your fun may very.

>> No.49815107

>>49815073
The stats allow it, the dice may or may not. The whole idea of the scene is to establish that this guy is brutal, so even if the players ace it, they'll walk away knowing he was a dangerous threat and they just got lucky.

>> No.49815110

>>49815052
I guess this is what giving up looks like.>>49815052
>>49815052

>> No.49815124

>>49815081
>Players do not enjoy winning
Your fucking logic is just all over the map now

>> No.49815145
File: 1.77 MB, 1600x826, comparison.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49815145

>>49815020
I'm not even a monstergirl/kemonomimifag, I just recognize that there is a huge difference between furfaggotry and what amounts to cute anime girls with Halloween costumes on.

>> No.49815152

>>49815110
No, just repeating the same argument over and over because people want to have TOTALLY RANDOM OUTCOME GUISE as long as it fits their very specific narrative, and bend over backwards to justify cheating a system to make it happen, when they could just use a different system as intended and get exactly what they want.

>> No.49815153
File: 26 KB, 403x600, you must be joking.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49815153

>>49815124
What part of "challenging fight" do you not understand?

>> No.49815156

Lesbian PCs are the biggest red flag possible.

>> No.49815162

>>49815152
>cheating a system
Have you ever read a GM handbook?

>> No.49815170

>>49815107
Popping blood balloons doesn't make the big bad any more of a threat knowing that most of the people he fought were most likely commoner tier and just as likely to die to a goblin horde.

Red shirts only worked out so well because they allowed Star Trek to show death without actually killing off anyone important, but even then, we knew that the chances of Kirk or Spock or McCoy dying was slim-to-none since they were actually important to the story.

>> No.49815185
File: 180 KB, 445x290, ASS-U-ME.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49815185

>>49815152
>fits their very specific narrative
>assuming that GMs who occasionally fudge dice are railroading assholes who can't conform to the players taking the reins of the game in a direction different from what they pictured

Please just stop posting

>> No.49815189

>>49814996
>If we stroll up to some asshole who we're led to believe is supposed to be a big baddie and they die without landing significant damage on us, it just sorta deflates the legend and leads to a feeling of anticlimax.
That's your problem. The players can see the stats. They know the rolls. It's up to them to frame what's going on and their play around what the dice are telling them. If you are lucky enough to see a string of rolls (a statistically unlikely one) then you need to all pitch in with what's happening in the game and describe it well. If the string of rolls wasn't that unlikely, or happens a lot, your NPC opposition are badly made compared to your PCs.
>Like shit, maybe we shouldn't have prepped ourselves so well so we could've actually had a good fight.
This sentiment is retarded and I hate you for saying it. 8/10, I mad.
>Luke only succeeded during the climax due to a combination of rebel support and a big damn heroes moment from Han. It's the equivalent of playing a character with low health going for a hail mary shot that only a critical could land and rolling a NAT 20 while scoring just enough damage to beat the baddie, not Luke just riding into combat and styling on Vader because the GM rolled complete shit for the entirety of the encounter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WBG2rJZGW8
Luke is hardly hit. The redshirts take some hits to exemplify the danger, but Luke is unscathed. He crits the initial strafe and never comes close to the turbolasers on approach. Crits his first TIE, locking onto it in about three seconds. He gets a light tap, with cosmetic damage from the second. R2 repairs the damage and it goes unmentioned the rest of the scene. The TIE then never gets another chance to lock before Biggs scratches him.Vader shreds the Gold ships, good for him. He then pastes the other X wings, and the redshirt fluffs the roll to sink his torpedoes.
[to be cont]

>> No.49815194

>>49815124
People want challenge, not to just win.

>> No.49815199

>>49814600
>monk
>writing is clearly in arabic

>> No.49815211

>>49815170
>Red shirts only worked out so well because they allowed Star Trek to show death without actually killing off anyone important, but even then, we knew that the chances of Kirk or Spock or McCoy dying was slim-to-none since they were actually important to the story.
And this is the experience you deliver to your players by not allowing them to risk death, even though the enemy is more than capable of delivering it.

>> No.49815225
File: 35 KB, 600x525, 1565498145.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49815225

>>49815189
>That's your problem
>it's the player's fault that the enemy who was hyped up didn't provide them a good challenge

>> No.49815235

>>49815152
Indeed, people are obsessed with playing D&D despite its incredible and almost total flaws. It's bizarre, but ultimately you won't get through to these addled addicts, so I wouldn't waste time arguing with them. It just puts a lot of negativity in your heart and uses up time you could be spending on having a good day.

>> No.49815254

>>49814819
I do sometimes play Fate. I like it a lot, but the RNG is not the core resolution mechanic. Is player skill involved or isn't it? Are bonuses and penalties in, or aren't they? You keep contradicting yourself, assuming you're the same anon that's been arguing against fudging rolls the entire thread.

The core resolution mechanic is not being thrown out, rule zero is being invoked. Rule zero is mentioned in EVERY SINGLE RPG RULEBOOK, even DnD. Hell, DnD was the first one to include that, IIRC. "The GM is expected to change the rules or ignore them if it would make for a better game". That's a rule. It's in there. Want a page number? The GM is expected to fudge in DnD. They're expected to fudge in Shadowrun. They're expected to fudge because the GM is in charge of everyone's fun at the table. Specifically, that they're having fun. Failing at sneaking into a noble's room, them waking up, and a tense (or wacky) chase scene ending with them escaping or being put in the dungeon and needing rescue is fun. That PC being killed on the spot because an archer half his level got a lucky shot on him is not fun. The PC making a last stand on the roof and dying after managing to warn the party of his failure is fun. The PC dying like a dog and leaving the party utterly fucked because of vengeful noble is not fun.

TL;DR: Fudging the rules is specifically a rule.

>> No.49815257

>>49815189
>That's your problem.
>The players can see the stats.
But the characters can't, which is the reason why the disconnect exists in the first place.

The characters can only see as far as the GM describes and if the enemy goes down without a fight, all most characters are going to think is "man, I'm glad none of us died but I was expecting something more from a dude who turned people inside out like a used condom."

>> No.49815282

>>49815081
Not that guy, but it all depends on your fun. My group literally jumped for joy during a similar situation with open rolling. For us, we have plenty of fun role-playing whatever the dice throw at us.

I will say this isn't for everyone. But I can't see how one is superior to the other. Just your individual preferences

>> No.49815283

>>49815189
Luke flies down the trench, directly towards a heavy gun emplacement, and somehow evades. This is a near-certain death proposition, Luke goes straight on by like he's super fly.
Vader presses in hard with his wingmen. Luke's comrades are forced to pull back, or are killed. Now Luke's alone, pursued by Vader and two cronies. The GM is already anticipating a TPK for the other PCs on in the Rebel Base.
At the last few moments, Ben Kenobi's player gets off his phone to remind Luke's player the Force points he has will provide more bonus than his computer, and they don't stack. The GM, sweating realises he's miscalculated how hard Vader is supposed to be, especially when Vader fluffs his roll to lock weapons, and the Falcon makes a hyperspace navigation roll to arrive on station, nuking a wingman on Vader's side.
Luke nails the last to-hit roll of the adventure with all his unspent Force points, and blows this thing and goes home.

He's in danger the whole time, but never puts a foot wrong, taking one glancing hit from a light weapon and showing no damage after. Vader, the Emperor's right hand, never lands a blow.

>> No.49815299

>>49815211
The difference here though is that at least with fudging, you can alter the outcome in either direction so that the combat remains tense and uncertain, as opposed to rolling openly where if you roll shit for that supposedly big bad antagonist, all the prepwork and hype just ends up being wasted as the PC's go home disappointed at how anticlimactic the showdown turned out being.

>> No.49815301
File: 2.10 MB, 1920x1080, Salty.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49815301

>>49814916
Just because you give them different words doesn't mean they aren't the same thing. Just one is acceptable and the other is not, and some anons do not understand that. I know about rule zero, but congratulations on how knowledgeable you are. You sure showed me.

>> No.49815359

>>49815257
>The characters can only see as far as the GM describes
This is the problem. You need to frame your description (DM and Players alike) to rationalise how this insanely powerful enemy is missing so often, or the PCs are able to consistantly deal damage.

If the results are so freakish that you are unable to do that, then either the system is broken, you're bad at the mechanical side of play, or a trillion-to-one dice outcome has truly descended from heaven and you should begin a greentext storytiem thread immediately.
>>49815254
Player skill in a tactical game is about getting advantages. Be they build advantages, smart tactical choices, smart strategic choices (like picking your allies and battles carefully) or smart use of metagame resources (drama points).
I haven't argued against fudging the whole thread, but it's poor form. It's a band-aid when the mechanics, by fluke or incompetance or abuse, have provided a result that harms the fiction. Sure, if you have no option, change the mechanics, but you should never HAVE to.

>> No.49815367
File: 18 KB, 600x450, hahaha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49815367

>>49815301
Not the guy you're replying to, but they aren't the same.

Fudging dice is when GMs ignore certain rules for the good of the game, so that everyone has fun.
Cheating is when a player is a dick for the good of himself because he's a self-centered asshole.

These two things aren't the same, retard.

>> No.49815411
File: 139 KB, 319x480, 1565498152.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49815411

>>49815359
>if Luke had one-shot Vader when they were fighting thanks to good rolls, it would've been fine because RNG was on his side.thepost

>> No.49815438

>>49815367
So is it okay if a player ignores certain rules or fudges dice, if it's for the good of the game and everyone's enjoyment?

Is cheating with consent still cheating?

>> No.49815443

>>49815359
Until luck decides that all those advantages mean nothing against something the PCs have no business being killed by.

There. It's the only argument in here. Your only recourses are to either address it or ignore it now. I'll wait.

>>49815367

Oh look! I'm on your side! Holy shit, it's almost as if I was trying to illustrate how another anon might be thinking!

Sorry anon, but you are the retard this time.

>> No.49815462

>>49815411
>Play tactical game, win or die
>Play narrative game, construct story in bounded space from thematically appropriate elements with randomisation only of flow and minutiae
Pick only one.

>> No.49815464

>>49815359
If we take on this omnipotent threat and only walk away from the fight with a couple of boo-boos, I'm left with no other rationale than the dude was trash that was riding off of rumors like King from OPM.

But hey, an unsatisfactory session is worth total adherence to the rules, even when the rules themselves negatively impacted our enjoyment of the game as we were looking forward to a challenging fight, only to end up with broken promises.

>> No.49815478

>>49813263
I used to play with a guy who only did this. Same character for 4 campaigns over 5 years. He was actually a good roleplayer, but it got really old by the 2nd year.

>> No.49815490

>>49815152
You should try reading the rulebooks

>> No.49815502

>>49813263
The only time I find this acceptable is if the character is from a previous game that didn't get more than a few sessions in. My experience with the "one character no matter what game" people are that they absolutely suck at playing that character and/or said character has the personality of a dead skunk.

>> No.49815514
File: 15 KB, 200x210, 1565498141.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49815514

>>49815438
The player doesn't know what's good for the game like the GM does so it's not okay if he cheats.

Stop pretending to be retarded faggot

>>49815443
>Sorry anon, but you are the retard this time.
What are you on about?

>> No.49815517

>>49815443
>Until luck decides that all those advantages mean nothing against something the PCs have no business being killed by.
If the game supports it killing you, it had business killing you.
If you disagree either you were playing the wrong game, or playing the game wrong.
That is to say: If you're playing a game in a fictional milieu where death is off the table until the right moment (or until delivered by the appropriate agent) then you should play the game that supports that.
There's a reason they say D&D is like fantasy Vietnam, and that's because in low-level play any greenskin can crit you for (1d12+4)*3 or whatever their greataxe rates, and that's intentional. Not everyone will come back alive.
Don't fudge to make the game behave, play the game that behaves how you want.

>> No.49815526

Anti fudge people, you should try a wargame campaign.
That is what you seem to want.

>> No.49815545

>>49815517
Sorry anon, the books encourage fudging rolls if it leads to a better story. They even come with a screen for easier fudging.

You should try reading them.

>> No.49815553
File: 125 KB, 421x292, 1565498138.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49815553

>>49815517
You do know that Rule 0 is still a thing in D&D right?

>> No.49815558

>>49815443
>Until luck decides that all those advantages mean nothing against something the PCs have no business being killed by.
If there was no chance of them losing, the combat should have been handwaved, and the players asked how badly they want to fuck up this enemy. See also rolling Athletics checks to walk up the steps.

If there was a risk of this enemy killing the party, then make sure the players have some means of knowing this going into the fight, and let the dice and stats decide.

If you want there to be the assumed risk of death, but in no way want actual death, narrate the combat and have the encounter end with a PC victory by the skin of their teeth.

>> No.49815566

>>49815438
The thing is, it's not a player ignoring certain rules and fudging dice, it's the GM.

The GM is given the go-ahead to do so if adherence to the rules would cause the party's enjoyment to suffer and that's because the GM is a human and not a robot that spits out numbers until the session is over.

That and if the GM is doing his job correctly, you shouldn't even suspect that he's fudging dice in the same way as you shouldn't notice that he's railroading.

>> No.49815582

>>49815553
He does not, because he has not read the rules.

>> No.49815597

>>49815514
Simple. I was telling the other anon, originally, that this was probably how the first anon who posted the crap about cheating and fudging being the same thing was thinking. I don't think cheating and fudging are the same thing, even if they have the same basic idea behind them. Thus, you are fucking retarded because you broke a fundamental rule of anonymous message boards: Never assume the people you're replying to are the same person, or you wind up looking the fool.

Or the retard. Because you're a retard.

>> No.49815601

>>49813052
>I build my campaigns around the goals and motivations of the heroes, and I use their backstory as hooks to get them invested in the adventures laid before them.
I do too, but I don't give a shit how long the backstory is or even how it's presented. You can write three paragraphs, three pages, or three fucking sentences for all I care as long as it conveys the information I need to draw you into the game.

Generally what I do is I have a ten question outline and say "answer as many of these as you can, however you want." The answers tell me what the players find to be important and it generates more than enough initial investment into the game world.

>> No.49815610

>>49815558
What if I want a combat where there is a real possibility that one of the characters dies while the other live? Do I roll one die to see the outcome of who dies, is that it?

>> No.49815626

>>49815517
>Playing wrong

Wow

Someone actually unironically said it! I don't know if I'll ever actually see this again, I better screencap this shit. Also, Rule Zero still exists, please try again.

>> No.49815657

>>49815597
I replied to one person who was arguing that cheating and fudging are the same thing stating that I wasn't the guy he just replied to, basically agreeing with you.

I never mentioned anything about him being someone else

You are making no sense to me, please explain better

>> No.49815680

>>49815545
>>49815553
>>49815582
>>49815626
No, you're ALLOWED to fudge if that fixes a broken outcome. No system is perfect, but this is our equivalent of crash protection in computing.
I'd be a fool to say fudging is worse than a session spinning hopelessly out of control. I simply think the right system and the right person running it is even better still.
Hell, you're ALLOWED to rejig a PC's sheet if they're broken mechanically. You're ALLOWED to put a DMPC in the party. You're ALLOWED to spam high-level encounters until the PCs are all dead. You're ALLOWED to pursue a life of turnip farming instead of following the plot hooks your increasingly desperate GM throws you. You're ALLOWED to take fifteen minutes to decide on your action this turn. I think we all know you can play wrong, and we wouldn't have threads like these if you couldn't.

The DM screen is an optional tool, and what it hides or doesn't is a matter of style. I use mine to hide my notes, and provide more space for reference notes. Your mileage will vary.

>> No.49815696

>>49813138
In general, if a GM is demanding "no powergaming" they have a power level set in their head that you have to guess at. What is "powergaming" or "min/maxing" to this idiot? Am I going to get yelled at for putting my highest stat in Int as a wizard? Am I going to get chewed out for even wanting to play a spellcaster? If I do play a caster, is the DM going to throw a tantrum because my spells aren't burning hands, scorching ray, fireball?

It's a red flag not just because getting pissy over me making a competent character is retarded, but also because it screams of a whole host of other problems that are comorbid with the statement.

>> No.49815715

>>49815610
You want "real possibility", or "someone will fall" type encounter? The latter I'd go with narration to guarantee the death. The former I'd put the group up against something harsh but technically winnable, and combat goes until the first PC drops, or the enemies are dead.

>> No.49815718

>>49814300
>Enjoy never enjoying TTRPGs ever again
He says to the guy currently in three different weekly games.

[email protected]

>> No.49815727
File: 174 KB, 500x282, haha.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49815727

>>49815680
Doesn't change the fact that you unironically said that the people who fudge dice rolls are playing tha game wrong, potentially.

>> No.49815742

>>49815680
Nice backpeddle, anon.
You really need to read the rulebooks.

>> No.49815743

>DMs who ban psionics because they're OP

I get banning them from a flavour perspective, but psionics are not broken. Yes, they have some distinct advantages, and there are some really broken powers, but for every broken power, there's a dozen broken arcane and divine spells. Funny that these DMs never bring up the fact that psicrystals allow for hijinks that can't be replicated by spells and that all powers are essentially still and silent - two of the biggest advantages of powers imo. I mean most of the best powers are just copy pasted spells.

>> No.49815751

>>49815462
Option 3 Master Race
>Play believable simulation, where randomness is appropriate to the internal logic of the setting and there is no winning

>> No.49815758

>>49815727
He literally said they wete cheating.
In the game that explicitly allows it.

>> No.49815759

>>49815715
Former. But I would make it more fair and play it so that if the group isn't careful there might be one or two deaths. If they play it smart, they can even survive, with no PC death.

>> No.49815795

>players who play special snowflake races from obscure splatbooks

I can't imagine any RP reason for wanting to play a race that isn't even established in this setting. The last player I had that pulled this bullshit straight up told me to "figure it out" when I told him that that race didn't exist in this setting and to pick one of the dozen or so that did.

>> No.49815805

>>49815680
What you HAVE been saying, assuming you're the same anon and not a clever troll desperately trying to keep this argument going, is that fudging is not at all acceptable. That you should NEVER fudge because then you're "throwing out core resolution mechanics" and "might as well go play a narrative game and drop the dice entirely". Now you're changing your mind because people keep bringing up Rule Zero. It took you a while, but now you're backpedaling.

Look, if you want to run a game in the open with no hidden rolls, no fudging, nothing, go ahead. Power to you. If your players enjoy that, fine. What I take fucking issue with is that you've been saying the entire thread that, basically (not literally, the typing style of the anon that actually said it is too different from yours), we've been playing the game wrong and should go play something else instead. Play your game your way, but if you want to suggest we are somehow doing it wrong if we fudge rolls, fuck off.

>> No.49815816

>>49815727
I'm pretty sure that was a different anon. The anon that's been arguing the entire thread uses proper line breaks, the one that said "playing it wrong" had a bunch of line breaks, none of them done properly.

They're both wrong, but let's make a distinction between 'idiot' and 'completely retarded'.

>> No.49815829

>>49814568
No, just Fantasy Craft.

>> No.49815867

>>49813757
>Literally nothing wrong with requesting you don't be a dick-head.
So say "don't be a dickhead". Or better yet, say "the other players in this game are new, and these are their characters. Since you have an honorary doctorate in this system, maybe you could be Professor Helpful and impart a fragment of your knowledge on them while playing something that won't overshadow them?" Saying "don't be a powergamer" is as useful as saying "if you roll a nat 20, you're banned!"

>I ban homebrew since most of the time it leads to one of two scenarios:
>1) Someone tries to sneak in something that is more powerful than everyone else.
>2) Someone is something completely bonkers, ruining an aspect of the story or trying to push themselves as a special snowflake.
That's why you read the homebrew first, you goober. I would never expect a DM to just allow anything I think up sight unseen. When I play, I say "I would like to play <concept>. I'm thinking <mechanics>, but with <homebrew>. What do you think?" And then if the DM is worth playing with for any period, the response is a conversation about how to make said homebrew work in the game.

There's a lot of shit out there for every system that has an interesting concept behind it but has some manner of flaw(s) that need correcting. If you think SKR or Monte Cooke are infallible as designers just because they got published in this incredibly cronyism-riddled industry, you're just flat out wrong. Those flaws are what I seek to smooth out with my homebrew 95% of the time.

>> No.49815880

>>49815727
I meant it.
>>49815742
I've been playing for nearly twenty years, I feel my argument is pretty well grounded.
>>49815751
That is indeed the golden ideal. However, 'believable' 'appropriate to the setting' and 'there is no winning' are all complex enough to cause much delicious discussion. I would suggest if you have to ignore what the game tells you is happening, you are not yet living in Option 3 town. What a hell it is, to live in Utopia's shadow.
>>49815758
Not me, I said it was poor form. I'm aware there are explicit callouts to say it's allowed, but I never said or implied it was cheating to fudge rolls. I just think it's a sign your game is working badly.
>>49815805
I think we should AIM never to fudge. I accept that a live session with real humans is an unpredictable place, and Gms are not perfect. I have fudged rolls int he past myself. However, I feel that it's abad move. A desperation play. Every time I've "had" to fudge I've looked at why it happened and fixed (or considered fixing) the thing that lead to it. Sometimes the thing that needed fixing was my perspective, other times, broken rules.
And, in the event that you are fudging a lot (let's say once or more a session), maybe your expectations of what should happen in a session are not being delivered by the game you're using, and a better one is out there?

>> No.49815883

>>49815795
This is why i have players make their own home town.
Not only do they have fun with it, it also forces them to fit their race into the setting somewhat, even if they are introducing new races.

>> No.49815894

Am I the only guy here that makes stat pools where you have one 4d6 drop per stat per player and then have the players divvy up the stats between them? Also forces them to make characters together and intertwine backstories.

>> No.49815896

>>49814637
see
>>49815696

>> No.49815906

>>49815805
Original no-fudge guy here, think there's 2 or 3 others arguing for no-fudge as well.

My original point was that if you're going to fudge, play narrative combat. You can do it in literally any game system, with or without the players knowing.
>Open rolling/no fudge = great
>Narrative combat, with or without player knowledge = cool too
>Rolling dice when they give you the results you want, but ignoring them when they dont = waste of fucking time

Also, I do respect Rule 0, but hold the beleif that it's amateurish to use it over and over again in combat encounters that weren't set up correctly. It's a crutch to get you past unforseen sticking points, not a major gameplay mechanic to rely on.

At the end of the day, it's about what you and your players want to see at the table.

>> No.49815919

>>49815880
No one ever claimed it wasn't a desperation play, you fucking moron. You're still backpedaling furiously.

>> No.49815956

>>49815906
Its pretty amateurish to not acknowledge the incredible swinginess of d&d and fudge appropriately.

If you want a game with no expected fudging, play wargames.

>> No.49815958

>the couple who play characters who are also a couple

I have never seen anyone do this in a way that wasn't completely cringeworthy or just boring.

>> No.49816008
File: 46 KB, 277x354, Stop All This Nonsense.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49816008

>>49815906
Yea, your entire argument hinges on saying "Oh you must have set up the encounter wrong"

No. Sometimes even the perfect encounter spirals out of control because the players keep missing and the kobolds keep critting. It happens. It happens more often than you think, apparently. A well made, balanced encounter designed perfectly for the party you have in mind can still go horribly wrong because, and hold on to your hat, this is going to BLOW YOUR MIND, but...

RNG IS RANDOM YOU STUPID PIECE OF SHIT. Sometimes really bad shit happens that brings the game to a screeching halt, and it is your prerogative, hell, your FUCKING JOB as a GM to say "Hold the phone, that's bullshit." Not doing so means you are, by definition, not following the rules.

Now fuck off.

>> No.49816017

>>49815919
From my consistently stated opinion that fudging is bad and should be avoided, but is marginally better than a player walkout?
>>49815906
My nigger.
>>49815956
I completely accept and embrace the swinginess of D&D. If I want a swingy, crunchy, dungeon-busting game I look no further. If I want a different fantasy experience I PLAY A DIFFERENT FUCKING GAME.
Jesus, what's with kids these days?

>> No.49816026

>>49815958
To be fair, I have yet to see a couple that plays together and isn't irritating as fuck regardless of their characters. I might just have bad luck, though.

>> No.49816042

>>49816017
Kids these days want a swingy game, apparently. Old d&d encouraged screens and fudging.

Darn millenials forgetting the importance of fudged dice and ignoring dm suggestions.

>> No.49816048

>>49816008
No. Stop. Do not pass GO. Do not collect 200gp.
If you cannot accept the possibility, even if it's 500000:1 or less, that the encounter can end up a certain way, either you design it differently or you use different mechanics.
If you're totally sold on the system but want to take (let's say for example) Total Party Kill off the table, you need a resolution for that before play begins.
Moving the goalposts afterwards is fucking amateur hour.

>> No.49816080

>>49816048
So the antifudge people are amateurs now?
I mean, they moved goalposts repeatedly here.

>> No.49816145
File: 44 KB, 500x357, obamaintercedes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
49816145

>>49816080
>A group of people have a variety of opinions

>> No.49816250

>>49816145
>I cannot deal with the consequences of my actions, let me pretend someone else did it

>> No.49816866

This was a good thread.

>> No.49817377

>>49814850
That depends on save dc. A +5 gives 75% success rate for a 10 save.

>> No.49817579

>>49812114
LFG phase
>Needing to be probed for character creation details rather than posting it in the lfg listing
>Rolling for stats
>Restricting stat distribution (seriously, who does this?)
>Using the term min-maxing incorrectly
>Nerfing feats and class features to the point of uselessness instead of just banning the feat/class if the GM hates it so much
>Wants a certain number of females to be in the group

Session 1 phase
>Springs custom mechanics on you at the last minute
>Doesn't have any maps
>Blatantly obvious poor knowledge of game despite advertising himself as very skilled
>ERP at session 1
>Starts boasting about how amazing his setting is before he even gets started
>Mocks other players PCs despite accepting them into the group
>Horrible (poor is passable) grammar and punctuation to the point of literally using "..." as a substitute to all forms of punctuation
>Passes one player a note forcing him to be the traitor who is all but destined to die to the rest of the group and does so at session 1 after backstories have been written

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