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

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

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.56877214 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

ITT: Unpopular opinions

>The amount of prep work doesn't correlate with the quality of sessions.
I was able to run entertaining and memorable sessions both when I had a lot of material gathered through the course of the week, and when I had only a half page of vague obstacle descriptions written for an hour before the game. The amount of work you put in your sessions is simply the matter of what you're comfortable with.

>Roleplaying games should have far less combat and more of an actual roleplaying.
A huge amount of roleplaying games feels obligated to have a developed combat mechanics. I feel that it is a rudimentary habit carried from the wargame roots. Not all games should have a standalone combat system, more of them should support roleplaying aspect instead.

>> No.56877395

>"Anime style" character art is perfectly fine if players aren't retarded about it.
As long as the character has a kind of believable "practicality" to their design, I don't care if it's anime-styled, it's a game of pretend for fucks sake. However, this does NOT mean I'll be OK with lolishit, waifushit, furshit, edgeshit, or "BELTS EVERYWHERE AND CLOWN SHOES AND ORANGE JUMPSUIT NINJA WITH A SWORD BIGGER THAN MY BODY" shit.

>> No.56877427

This isn't an unpopular opinion, /tg/ just likes to make mountains out of molehills.

>> No.56877438

>Magic the Gathering is an okay TCG of middling quality, with an average community

>> No.56877446

>ITT: Unpopular opinions

>Modern anime and manga has done more to preserve and present classic sword and sorcery western fantasy than the west currently has.

Without getting too much into politics, I unironically believe that western fantasy FROM the west has become far too obsessed with subverting tropes they themselves have grown unfamiliar with that playing them straight is welcome at this point. Japan does this beautifully though, they have something akin to the 'founders effect' where their idea of western fantasy is far less corrupted then our own current interpretation.... That and statistically speaking they just produce, produce, produce, SO MUCH MEDIA that even if 70% of their stuff is shit, their 30% is more than our "50% actually good shit".

>> No.56877452

Anime style is fine for your typical Pathfinder game or whatever, but if I'm running some grimdark low fantasy then showing up with anime art shows an inability to understand the concept of tone.

>> No.56877475

Part of the reason roleplaying games, especially DnD and it's derivatives, have so much combat is because "throwaway" encounters are necessary to keep casters from shitting all over the game by bypassing every obstacle with a spell or two. DnD is unironically a much better game if you ban Wizards, as the other casters are at least thematic and have niches instead of being do-everything Batmans. While you're at it, remove all the spells that outright replace skills, shit like Knock and Identify and Create Food and Water.

>> No.56877478

There are some exceptions like Dungeon Meshi but the most popular modern fantasy anime is just awful shit for otaku to self-insert into and jack off to like Re:Zero and Konosuba. It's not the same shit but it's still shit.

>> No.56877483

>Modern anime and manga has done more to preserve and present classic sword and sorcery western fantasy than the west currently has.
Any examples? I have a hard time thinking about Japanese S&S.

>> No.56877493

Powered by the Apocalypse is the best thing that has happened to the tabletop RPG genre

>> No.56877509

>Shitting on Konosuba
You shut your whore mouth, that show is a fucking treasure. Also, wouldn't Re:Zero kinda be a subversion of standard Isekai since the protag is pretty much Kenny from South Park?

>> No.56877534

>4e D&D was the best edition of that game.
>PbtA systems are absolute shit. Especially Dungeon World.

>> No.56877538

This isn't exclusive to fantasy. They've also been putting out better cape content than any of the larger western publishers lately.

Pic related has done a better job of Supermanning than any actual Superman in the last ten years. Shits bonkers.

>> No.56877539

I enjoyed Konosuba, but I'd hardly call it a "treasure". It's a guilty pleasure, like a juicy fast-food hamburger when you're hungry, but in terms of actually telling a good story with real character development and drama, it's nowhere near stuff like Dungeonmeshi, or even some flatout cartoons like Avatar,

>> No.56877544

/tg/ in a fucking nutshell

>> No.56877584

>Rolling in the open does not make you honest, it just allows you to shift blame when the campaign inevitably implodes.
There's a reason why most tabletop games are run by a human as opposed to a machine, and it's because a human will be able to judge when it is or is not appropriate to pretend that they did not see a result and know when it's appropriate to fudge for the sake of everyone's enjoyment at the table.

By rolling in the open, you're just saying "I don't care what happens to my campaign" while assuring yourself that you're being honest, when the reality is that honesty is not always the best policy, especially in the world of entertainment.

>> No.56877608

Only an unpopular opinion here but: 4e was an absolutely shitty game that failed for a reason, and I am baffled by how every thread on /tg/ has someone screaming about how unfair it is.

>> No.56877618

This. The sole reason the DMG recommends 6-8 encounters per day is because that's what's necessary to burn out a caster's spell slots. Nobody actually enjoys that much combat, it adds nothing to the game, and only necessary in DnD-systems because the developers have a fucking hard-on for wizards being demi-gods, but instead of making a balanced game are just like "LOL ATTRITION MAKES THEM BALANCED!"

>> No.56877634

I keep hearing people talk about MHA. Is it really worth the watch? Two of my friends have seen it. One says that it's the best thing since Jojo, the other says it's mediocre and hard to hold interest in. For reference, the one who likes it considers One Piece, Jojo, and MHA to be the greatest anime ever, and the one who doesn't likes Initial D, Haruhi Suzumiya, and FLCL.

>> No.56877636

To be fair, you technically don't need character development if your prerogative is watching these assholes try (and fail) to succeed while watching them squirm.

Also, there are minor moments of character development that happens as they learn how to work more effectively as a group, even if it's something that segues into a joke more often than not.

>> No.56877647

It's not a subversion or satire, it's shonen and cape comics.

>> No.56877653

It's generic battle shounen with Superheros.

>> No.56877656

>There’s nothing wrong with beastfolk. Furries are just an internet meme. It’s cool if you want to play as a snakeman or whatever.

>Sure, you can have a katana. We’re playing D&D, there’s all kinds of wacky shit in this world. Finding an exotic weapon in a market somewhere is not gonna break anyone’s immersion.

>> No.56877662

>there are minor moments of character development that happens as they learn how to work more effectively as a group, even if it's something that segues into a joke more often than not.

Honestly, this is my biggest dissapointment with the show. The part where they segue into jokes instead of following through on the character development. It has the potential to become a compelling story, comes oh so very close, waving it right in front of your face, then just throws it away and thinks it's funny.

>> No.56877664

What makes it even more baffling is how they keep trying to push this model when, after a certain point, the martials will run out of HP before the mages run out of spell slots to use.

Granted, 5e severely cut down on the ways you could work around your limited spell slots through scrolls, wands, orbs, etc. but at the same time, casters are also way more versatile now that they can choose which spell slot to use, especially when certain spells can be stacked without working around the concentration issue.

>> No.56877672

I hate battle-shounens, but I found MHA rather enjoyable. Instead of constant power-level wankery it tries to keep conflicts on a personal level, which it does rather well.

>> No.56877682

>This is why 4e D&D is Best D&D.

>> No.56877686

I might like it then. I got out of capeshit when it seemed like everything was about deconstructing this and reframing that. Shonen can be enjoyable sometimes. I liked JJBA, and parts of Naruto, and Bleach was enjoyable up to a point.

>> No.56877696

In my opinion, the comedy in Konosuba is more hit than miss, and I generally don't go into a comedy expecting things like character development either, especially when the joke is that the party is just barely synergized with one another well enough to actually deal with the higher leveled threats around them.

Now, don't get me wrong, if a comedy has these elements, I'm all for it, but I'm not going to dock the fish points from its final grade just because it can't climb a tree as well as the bear, if you know what I'm saying.

>> No.56877700

Ever hear of throwing out the baby with the bath water? 4e fixed one problem with D&D while throwing out everything good about it.

>> No.56877713

Honestly, DnD would be a much better game if the progression for full-casters went from spell levels 1-3 instead of 1-9. The level 3 shit is the kind of hardcore reality warping that can already shit all over a campaign and give a character tons of options and roleplaying agency. This should have been the peak of caster power, instead it's barely the foot of the mountain.

>> No.56877717

I enjoy it because it's cape stuff played straight, and they do a good job of keeping the power levels from becoming rediculous.

The animation is also hype as fuck. If you like high quality animation then you'll love the setpiece fights in MHA.

>> No.56877719


This is why you make your casters a support class. Fixes literally every problem.

>> No.56877738

>PvP is shit and should be avoided at all cost, everytime.
Many people think that PvP can be justified and that groups can survive it. They can, but in my opinion it's better to not risk it and avoid any PvP scenario that involves serious combat between PCs (where both parties *want* to kill each other) at all costs.

>The amount of prep work doesn't correlate with the quality of sessions.
I do not think that this qualifies as an unpopular opinion. Only trolls and idiots think that "prepwork"!="waste of time"

>Roleplaying games should have far less combat and more of an actual roleplaying.
I play with good roleplayers. So when combat occurs, it happens for a good reason. "The GM has hit a snag because we derailed the game and needs some extra-time to fill the session before we continue" is a valid reason, especially if the next session we find cryptic orders on one of the would-be kidnappers/thieves/robbers that targeted us specifically.
In my opinion, in the games I play, there are enough rules for combat to make everything flow very well and for us to enjoy ourselves.

>> No.56877745

The fuck does that even mean? "Support class" fixes nothing when it lets casters throw a dozen different reality warps at every problem while all the martials can do is hit stuff or ATTEMPT to use the horribly-designed 5e-skill system where proficiency doesn't mean jack-shit for most of the game anyway because of how small the bonus is.

>> No.56877749

To be honest, I barely even bother reading anything between 3-9. They just feel like filler levels between the time when you learn to Fly and the time when you learn how to cast Wish.

>> No.56877768

The problem is that mages are already a support class, a support class that gets spells to help out other classes without the classes themselves getting anything that would keep them at even footing.

I mean, a well placed fireball can kill a room of weenies in one burst, maybe more if they spend a higher level slot. By contrast, a Fighter is still stuck swinging at a single target and the mage also has a repertoire of single target spells that can get close to matching the Fighter.

>> No.56877784

I prefer spell casters being on par with non-casters out of the gate, than have to whittle the group away with pointless encounters in order to weaken the casters to the point where the martials seem to no longer suck, and by then everyone is bored.
My players still prefer the system as well.

>> No.56877785

I disagree, the problem with casters isn't so much power as flexibility. Powerful casters are a thing in fiction and should be a thing in the game. Instead casters should be forced to specialize, so they aren't all capital-G gods who always have the spell that solves whatever the problem is. This would also make more interesting characters, you could be the Fire Wizard or the Illusion Wizard or whatever instead of the do-everything wizard.

>> No.56877797

I agree with you, 100%

As a player, I am willing to suspend my disbelief and to get immersed in the campaign the GM throws at me. A cornerstone of any campaign, in any game that is good and memorable see: Zelda, Metal Gear, GTA San Andreas, if we are talking video-games -and I apologize for bringin up videogames- behind those games are two things: gameplay and a story that the player likes and wants to be a part of.

RNG simply doesn't make for as good a story as what my GMs would be able to come up with.

I am okay with my GMs fudging dice, because I know that they are going to make the story more interesting and fun to play. And if I have fun, I will also entertain them more and they will have more fun as a result.

>> No.56877807

Problem with that, you just end up with Conjurers and Transmuters who can do practically anything anyways.

>> No.56877808

Tabletop gaming is more fun in concept than it is in practice. Brewing decks, painting/planning lists, writing characters up, and planning out worlds is always more fun than actually playing the games.

>> No.56877814

This is why E6 is a thing, and the only way we still play Pathfinder.

>> No.56877824

Does it really? What if the art is simply closest to the players idea of the characters appearance but doesn't have a bearing on how they roleplay and act

>> No.56877829

The story shouldn't be written up beforehand, it should develop at the table. If your sacred and inviolable story is so important that you can't have die rolls messing it up write a fucking novel instead.

>> No.56877832

It helps if you play with friends who aren't blatant assholes about stupid bullshit and know how to have fun without taking themselves too seriously.

>> No.56877843

No one ever said we need to keep D&D's mediocre spell schools, and we definitely don't need to keep the retarded, bloated spell list. I personally think something like MtA's spheres/arcana or Ars Magicas verb-noun system would work really well for specializations, and make people casters have to think a bit instead of just picking the universally optimal spells

>> No.56877847

As the guy who originally advocated that anime-styled art was OK, yes, it does matter. If the tone of the game is decidedly gritty realism, don't come to the game with a cartoon character.

That being said, DnD is decidedly unrealistic, and I always assume it to be the topic of discussion when another setting isn't explicitly mentioned.

>> No.56877864

Not that anon, but when I DM, I go for a high-fantasy, swords-and-sorcery feel, and have each PC blessed by a god. That way, even if an open roll would make things less enjoyable, I can justify a reroll/fudge to the players through divine intervention.

>> No.56877871

Well what did you expect? /tg/ is not some one singular neckbearded entity, it's multiple people of varying viewpoints.

>> No.56877880

It's very competent. It's not breaking new grounds but it's really well done and not boring.

>> No.56877881

It'd help if my friends were interested in it at all.

>> No.56877882

>In Tabletop mini wargames: Agree 100%
>In CCGs: Agree 75%
>In RPGs: Agree 50%

If you have a good group of players, you can make RPGs played around a table with friends and family a really fun activity.
If you're playing with shitters on Roll20...
>Agree with 100% and my balls on top.

>> No.56877884

Skub is shit

>> No.56877894

As I said, you rolling in the open does not make you honest, it just means that you can comfortably shift blame without getting called out on for an unsatisfactory ending to your campaign.

Also, if you can't fudge the dice in a way where it's subtle and the group is enjoying a fair level of challenge in spite of it, then you're a shitty GM who either is too inept to understand when to fudge appropriately or a GM who is too weak-willed to trust himself with that much power in the first place.

Protip: every GM fudges; the ones that don't are either new, bad, or liars.

>> No.56877901

I think you are mistaking
>the GM has planned the whole campaign beforehand
>the GM avoids killing the character they *really, really like* and is holding the group together with all their might because a goblin threw a stone at them and killed them with a very lucky hit

There are times in which the dice would make for really bad stories and it wouldn't be fun, not for the player, nor the GM.

You can say it's "cheating" or "dishonest" if the GM rolls a 15 and says "oh, I got a 13. The monster flashes his claws in a terrifying flurry of attacks, which you are only barely able to avoid. His talons miss your eye only by a cat's hair. You're up!" if it will make for a more entertaining game

>> No.56877906

You take that back right now!

>> No.56877920

Most of the people I know only started playing tabletop games within the past year or two, and even then, we've been playing custom systems that we can run with just our smartphones in hand.

Hell, in the age of big bang theory, I'd think that it'd be easy to convince people to give something like 5e a shot before moving on to a rules-lite game.

>> No.56877935

I think it really depends on what we're calling "anime style". Most jrpg or anime MCs are right out, but if you brought me a lot of characters from berserk or early fire emblem or some such, I personally wouldn't have an issue. Pic related is probably about as far as I'd allow

>> No.56877966

There's a difference between having the story prewritten and forcing the players along your rails, and having a general outline of where you expect things to go and plot threads you'd like to introduce

>> No.56877987

FE had some based knights.

>> No.56878040

Based FE fags. I love the FE portraits

>> No.56878084

They could get sort of wacky though.

>> No.56878089

Shame the newer Fire Emblem games have some truly atrocious shit... and by "some" I mean the majority of them. I miss the old stuff.

>> No.56878096

That makes two of us.

>> No.56878121

Same. Though a lot of western fantasy isn't too much better at not having retarded armor designs

>> No.56878135

Wacky isn't necessarily bad.

Marx/Xander has decent design, and if they didn't go for the whole "little sister lusting after older sibling" thing, Eris/Elise could've been decent - her design makes sense as a princess.

That makes three of us.

>> No.56878160

But we have frog helmets!

>> No.56878189

Her design may make sense as a princess, but it's impractical as hell for actually fighting in, let alone adventuring in. It doesn't feel "practical", even in a fakey not-100%-historically-accurate kind of way. Like I can tolerate boobplate and shit, but frills and ribbons and shorty anime skirts, yeah no.

>> No.56878192

>Wacky isn't necessarily bad
It's not, but crab man/medieval grineer is a bit much imho.

I really think a lot of the generic soldier designs wind up being much better than the named characters, especially in the newer ones. This is a somewhat unrealistic but still practical looking set of female armor, which you never fucking see in jFantasy

>> No.56878208

And this is also pretty plausible while still looking both nice and conveying "fantasy"

>> No.56878235

If I recall correctly, she was never technically supposed to end up fighting in the first place. She just ran off haphazardly to look for Corrin - with her retainers having to catch up to her, even.

I agree. Even suspending disbelief, the armor/robe designs are usually more aesthetically appealing.

>> No.56878283

Maybe it's not what you meant, but Dragon's Dogma is an extremely generic fantasy setting played straight, made in Japan.

>> No.56878289

Not to mention that one of the best depictions of medieval warfare I've seen in recent media was in an anime.

>> No.56878319

Thankfully, European game devs are catching up.

>> No.56878427

Man I hope that's actually good. I have much higher hopes than I probably should, considering the track record of nearly every hyped video game ever

>> No.56878745


I should have been more specific. Make casters healers, buffers, and able to cure status effects and include a chance of failure along with some resource management. Personally I think having weaker but more spammable abilities is better for balance. Add side abilities relating to the campign's specific dangers, such as creating light and turning undead for dangerous dungeon crawls, make sea water fresh or make sea creatures friendly for pirate campagins.

You let high level casters have more powerful and long lasting versions of this, but they never get the Uber - powerful batman Wizards of traditional d&d. You let the Rogues or skill classes do their skills and be the only ones able to do it, you let combat remain purely the focus for Fighters and make them the best- if you want to take out a dragon you get a fucking Knight.

It fixes seriously every issue; from class balance to versimiltude to party cohesion. I couldn't recommend it more, I bring it up in every caster v martial thread, but people just don't seem to want to listen.

>> No.56878857


This is not an unpopular opinion. The fact you got so many easy (You)s agreeing with you just goes to show that fact.

>> No.56878882

"Hard" Science Fiction is fucking trash.

Furries are totally fine to add as races in tabletop, and are a million times better then shitty generic elves and dwarves.

>> No.56878901

Sex and lewd is too stigmatized for RPGs. I get that the people making blatant kinks in their universe catering to the DM's desires is fucked up. But at the moment every RPG treats sex like its somehow banished and dosent exist, and its weirding me out.
Let an NPC have an affair as a part of a quest. Make some kind of enchantment have some backstory of its previous wielder being a nympho. Make succubus exist and actually have them harm the people they lure.
Just, anything.

>> No.56878949

It's really well made in practically all aspects of the show. Does little to subvert any capeshit tropes, but executes on them well enough.

>> No.56879024


D&D systems usually have very good ways to regenerate hp, for example 3.5 had cheapass wands of healing, while 5e is a bit more limited.

the main problem is still that playgroups and DM are not interested in stuffing 6 combats into every dungeon and find a compelling reason for the group to not stop and wait one day outside.
how can you even write your own adventure with this stringent restriction? the only thing that works well with the system is "big dungeon with a timer", otherwise wizard and other casters feels god.

it would be a much better game if all the classes had about the same amount of daily powers, possibly 0-10% of class privileges.

>> No.56879040

What if it's grimdark low-fantasy art?

>> No.56879068

>you don't need to roll skill checks
this is popular in OSR and some on /tg/ but all my groups have gone right against it or been straight up confused when I ran a game.

If your character has 'lockpicking proficiency' just assume they can pick the lock unless a)it's masterwork or b)they have crappy tools. Only roll if there are immediate consequences to failing.

You can use checks for stuff like 'can you bribe the guard cheaply' or 'how much do you remember about X topic,' that's fine. For stuff like 'i kick down the door' you gauge stats/skills and answer yes or no. Then, you roll (if necessary) to see if they can do it quickly, quietly, without breaking the door, etc.

>Real unpopular opinion:
Dungeon World had the right idea with that whole "partial success, choose 1" mechanic. Choosing how your PC fails is more fun than the "you miss lol" common to simple combat systems, but easier than a more rules-heavy one.

"I choose to stand up and give away my position in order to land this shot" leads to a different scenario than "I hold my shot for a few seconds to aim and they execute one of the hostages" which again is different to "I miss the first shot and waste another +1 arrow firing a second time." Not saying it's a perfect system, just saying I like that mechanic.

>Prep Work
Yeah, kinda. Some things need prep work to function at all, but as long as you've done the bare minimum then prep work just means 'improv done in advance' instead of 'improv done on the spot.'

>Less combat
I'm turning towards more & more high-lethality systems as I play. Combat is fun, but the real fun is in the choices you make moment-to-moment. The initial choice of "run or shoot" can be more compelling than the 17 skill checks needed to successfuly run or shot.

>> No.56879099


Tolkien might have been a master world-builder but his take on elves and goblins was absolute bullshit.

>> No.56879169

>>you don't need to roll skill checks
My. Nigga.

>> No.56879178

I've been running a single-player campaign with practically no skill checks. The player character has a niche that they will always succeed regardless and the rest is up to the player to explain how they do it.

>> No.56879191

>you don't need to roll skill check

and that's why most d20 systems tells you that if there are no consequences and you have time you can play it as if you rolled a 20.
i never had anyone confused with that, but they still liked to roll it...because they are fucking rollers.

>> No.56879219

I agree with one of these opinions

>> No.56879226

>because they are fucking rollers.
No, because they are fucking stupid.

It's too bad that rolling for simple shit has gotten so popular. It ruined my last Dark Eye session.

>> No.56879272

>i never had anyone confused with that, but they still liked to roll it...because they are fucking rollers.
I'm familiar with that. At the end of my last session one of the players requested to craft a particular item.

>Okay, add it to your inventory.
>Wait, do I need to roll?
>Character has a plenty of time to do it, and he is proficient enough. No need to roll.
>I still want to roll. I like rolling.
>*Fails roll*

>> No.56879385

>Unpopular opinion: Healers = Bad.
Not in all cases, but in a lot of them. Who the fuck wants to play a class (in an RPG) whose entire gimmick is "give up my turn and resources to undo the last mistake the paladin made?"

Sadly most games seem to make healing an expected mechanic & balance encounters around it rather than simply doing things to make the game fun.

>> No.56879427

desu being a healer can be fun if a game does it right.
Like short temporary buffs, or even as ive seen, some kind of way to use healing to charge a damage shot by yourself.

>> No.56879476

Guilty pleasure is for bad things you enjoy despite the badness. Konosuba is a good comedy, even if it's light on character development (though the currently unadapted books have a little more of that stuff).

>> No.56879493

>Primary healing class is, instead of a priest, a time mage
>Basic healing spell rewrites the moment to remove the injury
>More advanced healing spells can undo "critical moments" such as death
>Some of the effectiveness of the spell can be diverted to alter the past further, changing who or what was affected by the injury
>In doing so, damage can be "transferred" from an ally to an enemy

>> No.56879525

Is that pic related to your post? Because I'm down for that, even if I'm not sure exactly how it would work.

>> No.56879754

In a hobby dominated by people who know no stops when it comes to lewd, I think it's better to have none in my games than to have it way too much.

>> No.56879979

>Choosing how your PC fails is more fun than the "you miss lol" common to simple combat systems, but easier than a more rules-heavy one.
Ooooohhhh this gives me an idea. There's this coop boardgame level7 invasion that has a phase that is "everyone draw a card and pick what you think is the least shitty option, with no communication allowed between players" and then the cards all activate and fuck the players shit up.
When a player gets a crit fail you give them two options, but that player must make their decision entirely alone with no communication. If they take too long or someone breaks the no communicating rule the GM picks a third worse option.
"You feel yourself overextend your attack and see your weapon head towards [tank]. You can either hit him or let go of your weapon before it connects."
"Bob you shit I saw that miming. You let go of the weapon too early and the weapon flies at [bob's squishy player]/flies well over the enemies and clatters a few squares behind them."

>> No.56880020

Better to be celibate then to have that guy dig too deep into his rape fetish. Or to give me the leeway to shit up the session with my lesbo ERP

>> No.56880049

>>The amount of prep work doesn't correlate with the quality of sessions.
ON AVERAGE, you moron. ON AVERAGE. Do you think the quality of novels that writers have worked on for years are ON AVERAGE merely as good as cheap pulp stories that another (equally talented) author publishes weekly?

>> No.56880054

>4e threw out everything good about D&D
Which in your opinion is what exactly?

>> No.56880056


>> No.56880068

>as long as you've done the bare minimum then prep work just means 'improv done in advance' instead of 'improv done on the spot.
If I can reconsider it, it's not improv, dumbass. The nature of improv is vomitting your thoughts out with little time for reflection/reconsideration.

>ITT: filthy casuals trying to rationalize their laziness

>> No.56880077

The 5e DMG says a group "can handle" 6-8 encounters in a day. It doesn't "recommend" it or say that should happen every day.

>> No.56880088

Taking well-worn tropes and executing them well while adding depth is the best way to worldbuild. The "actually, my dwarves are sea-dwelling, three story-tall humanoid mantises whose culture is based on medieval Kazakhstan" way that /tg/ loves so much might sound good in your head but it actually gets boring really fast in practice. Tropes exist for a purpose

Boobplate is fine in moderation. People sometimes sacrifice rationality for fashion. Really, it's harder to justify it from the "would my medieval feudal society see prominent, outlined breasts as a desirable fashion accessory?" angle. But if it's one of those high-fantasy settings with liberal approaches to sexuality it's fine.

>> No.56880179

What is Epic 6

>> No.56880194

That thing that's boring as fuck in 5e because most class archetype features don't come online that early, unfortunately.

>> No.56880205

3.5 where your progression is capped at 6th level and after that you only gain an occasional feat

>> No.56880218

Sure, it's only designed around that recommendation, but since proper communication is anathema to the writers, it's not actually spelled out.

>> No.56880232

Cool, so to challenge the casters I need to throw 8+ encounters at the party.

The fact that it's a "recommendation" doesn't change that fact.

>> No.56880260

There's a lot of other ways to fudge than dice results.

>> No.56880286

THIS. Dragon's Dogma was so fucking good. It was pretty generic, but the gameplay is so god damn fun it's hard to care.

>> No.56880309

Daily powers don't make any sense. Instead, give everyone a pool of stamina that they can spend to do special shit.

>> No.56880322

Mostly because this fixes nothing. Not the main issue, but a BIG issue with caster/martial disparity isn't the POWER LEVEL, since a martial can still technically do more damage than a wizard anyway if built right, it's the VARIETY. The Wizard has spells that can do almost anything and the Fighter can... Swing a sword. Depending on the edition of DnD, sometimes four times a round with or without penalties, or sometimes with a special effect that barely matters when you could just kill the target instead of using status effects.

And keep in mind that some of the most powerful stuff Wizards can do don't really SEEM that broken to begin with. A lot of people ignore Sleep because "it doesn't hurt the enemy lol" but it's actually a devastating spell that is capable of completely locking down lower level encounters. Knock? "All if does is open stuff lol" Oh wait I just realized you no longer need a Rogue for unlocking doors or chests! Oops.

The issue isn't that casters are straight up better in every way (though they are), the issue is that they can do so many things, even the little things, that martials are not allowed to do for any reason or it's 'weeb shit'.

>> No.56880357

Games aren't fucking novels, that's the point.

>> No.56880389

Not that many that I can think of. Paladin aura. Cleric smite/potent cantrip. EK war magic. Druid flying wildshapes.

How about E8?

>> No.56880398

Here is a little sad truth. Long time spent on doing a thing doesn't automatically makes it good. You can work for years on a setting, filling it with lots of details, developing long history, mapping every inch, etc., yet it may not be as good as a creation some rando did during the week.
What matters is not the amount of work you produce, but its foundation and structure. This skeleton doesn't really require a lot of preparation if you know your thing. If you have to spend more than an hour to write a material for the five-hour session, then you either preparing a first session, do not have a lot of experience or simply writing a flavor text for the sake of it.

>Do you think the quality of novels that writers have worked on for years are ON AVERAGE merely as good as cheap pulp stories that another (equally talented) author publishes weekly?
Conan Doyle is known for his stories about Sherlock Holmes. He wrote them for a quick buck and got popular. His more "serious" work, however, isn't praised that much.
Beethoven worked hard on every piece of music he created, yet Mozart was capable of writing music while playing a game in a courtyard.
Two hack frauds: George Martin and Stephen King. One cannot finish a book he's writing for a long time, while the other one is publishing every year and gets nominated for almost every book he writes.

>> No.56880458

At this point, you might as well play something other than D&D.

All your problems are inherent in D&D. Because D&D does not treat them as problems, it is simply the power level of the game, which stupendously high.

I too didn't like it. So I switched over to a different game.

>> No.56880472

I like your idea in theory, but it wouldn't mash well with the whole Dungeon Crawl aspect of D&D.
(In my opinion the only reason to play that game)

>> No.56880508

There are games with power levels much higher than D&D that do not have this problem. They just make both martials and casters god-level instead of arbitrarily deciding that martials need to abide by realism while wizards don't.

>> No.56880509

>The amount of prep work doesn't correlate with the quality of sessions.
While it's possible this was true for you, I am just going to assume you are like all the other GMs I have met you say they are just as good, sometimes even better, when they don't do prep. They are wrong.

>Roleplaying games should have far less combat and more of an actual roleplaying.
You're definitely right about that.

>> No.56880560

I wasn't talking about balance, I was talking about power level which is the main point of the >>56877475

>> No.56880583

Anime shit doesn't belong in traditional RPG games and I'd annoying as shit every player of mine that's been a weeb has ruined it for everyone involved with their bullshit characters, annoying backstory, or absolutely sociopathic character personality that has something to do with X anime. If not a blatant ripoff of some character. They're never interesting, and despite having no interest but role playing, are generally the most annoying at it.

>> No.56880603

What's up with all the anime hating newfags? Didn't they read that you have to be 18 or more to post on 4chan?

>> No.56880637

I use E8 when running Pathfinder because every class has gotten all their individual abilities by then. Six is a dead level for some classes in PF, but level eight is either their last new ability or a power - up for an old one.

>> No.56880663

Poster above you, not new, it's just something that typically invades my group. It's not inherently bad, it just is typically obnoxious in RPG sessions.

>> No.56880685

I don't care for your anecdotal evidence, newfag. You're just as obnoxious as "no GOTfags in my games allowed" or "all sandboxes suck!!1!11!" faggots

>> No.56880728


In D&D at least, and in most games, taking damage isn't really much of a "mistake", it's an inevitable part of the adventure. Being able to sustain longer is a legitimate party role, as resource management and healing is one of those core things you are doing in pretty much every session and every game. And besides, you aren't just "healing" every turn in a fight. You can still attack, cast a buff, undo or counter an enemy's curse or spell, and so on.

>This fixes nothing
>Proceeds to list a problem which this fixes

You literally spent your entire post attacking a strawman. Support casters can HEAL they can BUFF, and they can reduce or counter specific dangers. Rogues, who in most games are going to be the best at agility based challenges, sneaking, and unlocking locks/disarming traps have just as many if not more things they can do then the support caster. I never said give them sleep. I never said give them knock. You literally did not read my post, or you refused to actually understand anything of my idea. Get a grip.

>At this point, you might as well play something other than D&D

This game has a problem. Here's how to fix it. Oh you can't do that, you should just play something else. What the fuck are you talking about? Some people like D&D's core systems and the ease of homebrewing and finding published material that support it, but they want to fix the gameplay. The entire point about my support caster concept is to FIX D&D.


I disagree. I developed the concept specifically for dungeon crawling OSR-ish gameplay. Having support abilities is a core pillar of the game (dealing with health loss, resources like light, countering negative status effects), but with a chance to fail and a limited amount you can do means that the support classses help you stay in the dungeon longer, but can't tackle it head on like Rogues and Fighters. It creates a far more balanced and interesting party.

>> No.56880742



>> No.56880777


>> No.56880803

> A focus on "Realistic" designs, settings, or weapons don't add anything valuable to a game.

Usually it's just HEMAfags or even worse, someone that's surfing youtube videos on it, and they feel a sense of dumb elitism towards anything else.

>> No.56880835

Wanting to run a realistic down-to-earth game is fine, if a little overrated around these parts. It definitely has its merits.

It's when people get obnoxious about it, insisting that anything but dirt-farming human-only realism is shit and nit-picking at anything whimsical with a smug sense of fedora-tipping superiority, then they become the most insufferable kind of "person" in this hobby.

>> No.56880918

Well casters are never getting toned down (can't say the n e r f word now, can I) so you might as well buckle the fuck up and settle for making noncasters as viable in the broadest sense

>> No.56880927


>whose entire gimmick is "give up my turn and resources to undo the last mistake the paladin made?"

Healing is more impressive than anything any other magic user can do. In our world a guy who could cast fifth level cleric spells was widely regarded to be the son of god. if you can heal you should be treated like this too.

this is why healing is often best in lower magic worlds. healing has immense lore and roleplaying potential if there aren't readily available sources of healing.

Clerics aren't just regular priests. they should be treated like the prophets they are. they should be revered and hated not just treated like ordinary members of the clergy.

essentially they should be treated like christians say jesus was treated like. the sick and poor should beg your cleric for healing and blessings and the ordinary unpowered members of the church should hate them or see them as a great teacher of the faith.

>> No.56880991

>healing wounds is more impressive than creating demiplanes

>> No.56880992


None of these are unpopular opinions here.

You're trying to hugbox. Fuck off.

>> No.56881002

The posts with fewer replies are the real unpopular opinions

>> No.56881003

What does your gay little demiplane do for the common man?

>> No.56881025

>It creates a far more balanced and interesting party.
Maybe the former, but i doubt the later honestly.
In my opinion you are going at it the wrong way: Instead of increasing the flexibility of some classes you are restricting others.
I'd argue that Fighters (and Rogues, too) should be brought up in flexibility instead of tying casters down as much as you suggest.
And i'm not advocating for the Mages as-is either, i think they should be brought down a bit. My solution would be force them to specialise into certain spheres instead of turning them into worse Clerics. So you could have (for example) have a purely DMG based Fire Mage, or a DMG+debuff Ice Mage, a CC Illusionist, instead of the Batman we have right now.

>> No.56881045

IMHO it's because D&D has an identity crisis. It doesn't know whether it wants to be heroic fantasy, swords and sorcery, or capeshit with a fantasy veneer. Unfortunately, the different genre expectations aren't applied evenly and somewhere along the way someone decided that the fighter and pals must be and must remain heroic but mortl

>> No.56881057


> the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the demiplane and it's splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” 10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Badass Healing Clerics, and serve him only.

>> No.56881100

>Parity between player options is good, not for the players' sake, but for the GM's
>The vast majority of rpg devs are shitlords who just so happened to put out a decent product once or twice

>> No.56881124

GLoG and DCC are OSR

>> No.56881134

>And i'm not advocating for the Mages as-is either, i think they should be brought down a bit. My solution would be force them to specialise into certain spheres instead of turning them into worse Clerics. So you could have (for example) have a purely DMG based Fire Mage, or a DMG+debuff Ice Mage, a CC Illusionist, instead of the Batman we have right now.

I'd agree with you for the kind of game with a zillion different specific classes with lots of specialty.

The support caster thing was more for a "pure" game with just 3 primary classes. As general as you can make them while still being distinct essentially.

>> No.56881201

You pretty much ignored what he said.

I don't get how you don't understand this. If you're incapable of GMing a game where the plot can't be ruined by a few dice rolls, then you're a bad GM. Relying on fudging dice rolls just hides your incompetence, it doesn't negate it.

>> No.56881204

My point exactly.

Every GM, on some level, fudge.

>> No.56881252

I mean i guess, but then you are so far away from D&D that you might as well opt for better core mechanics

>> No.56881259

Replied to the wrong poster mate

>> No.56881320

4e does solve that by making healing domething you can do alongside attacking, and more often than not the attacks are less about you and more about your allies, such as granting them attacks, repositioning the battlefield or causing swaths of vulnerability.

>> No.56881370

>just as good, sometimes even better, when they don't do prep.
I didn't say I don't need any prep. I'm still doing 2-3 pages of notes plus some maps and printed handouts every session. It's relatively light-prep, but it's still a prep.
I simply feel that when I've got the "skeleton" right, the amount of material I produce afterwards is merely the way to reduce improvisation, but even then I still might change some parts during the play just because I felt so. Because of that, I'd rather prepare some basic stuff instead of overpreparing.

>> No.56881401

Shitposting about herp durp rolling and trying to foist an argument that wasn't even made?
How droll.

>> No.56881431

>you can't make a character more nuanced by spending more time thinking about him

>Here is a little sad truth. Long time spent on doing a thing doesn't automatically makes it good.

>Here is a little sad truth. Long time spent on doing a thing doesn't automatically makes it good.
I said: it makes it better on average.

Anon, please.

>> No.56881529

This is probably the stupidest post in this thread. Tell your mum she shouldn't have got drunk when she was pregnant.

>> No.56881934

Let them heal, infinitely, basically for all time? Remember that resting heals.

>> No.56882008

>I said: it makes it better on average.
It's somewhat true, but statistics is a tricky thing. One man eats meat at the dinner, another one eats cabbage. Statistics says they're eating cabbage rolls.
I believe that as long as you've got the foundation right, everything else is just for flavor. Sometimes this flavor becomes handy, but most of the times it's just for the GM or the especially engaged players.
Most of the time I prepare until I understand the environment and basic logic behind the driving forces. It's clear, it's minimal, it works. Most intricacies are better be left until the further engagement.

>Anon, please.
When I did say hack frauds I mean exactly that.

>> No.56882025

Being video game-like is not the inherent negative a lot of people like to paint it as. I know the implication is that you could just be playing a video game and that RPGs do things video games can't, but that doesn't mean anything that even sort of resembles a video game is to be thrown out.

Worst of all are the people who call certain games "tabletop MMOs". MMO means "massively multiplayer online", and while tabletop RPGs are multiplayer and potentially online, but calling any of them an MMO is dishonest and people should say what they really mean: discrete abilities that aren't spells piss them off. Also, it's definitely no coincidence that people who love the "tabletop MMO" phrase leave off the "RPG" part of "MMORPG". It's because when you ignore the parts of "MMORPG" that don't actually apply to the game, "RPG" is all you're left with, which would be a huge self-own.

>> No.56882085

I think what most people mean is highly gamist and build obsessed, with a strong disconnect between mechanics and fluff. Something like 4e or strike or something.

>> No.56882181

Then why MMORPGs? Why not, you know, any game ever that isn't an RPG? It's because WoW was popular and people with really really strong opinions about The Correct Way for RPGs to Be see popularity as a boogeyman. The only reason D&D doesn't resemble a video game more is because it came out when video games were in their infancy as a medium and grognards hate change.

>> No.56882331

>Relying on fudging dice rolls just hides your incompetence, it doesn't negate it.
I don't rely on fudging, it's merely an option, just like everything else.

>> No.56882344

>This is probably the stupidest post in this thread.
Pretty sure you still hold the championship belt in that division champ.

>> No.56882364

>Getting mad about opinions in an unpopular opinion thread
You know what you were getting into, dummies.

>> No.56882394

>Bonus XP for roleplaying is ineffectual at encouraging roleplay of value.
>New players/GMs shouldn't start with babbies first newbie friendly rpg. A more complex system will build better habits in the long run. And they should get the best system for their genre interests right away without having to make a detour.

>> No.56882428

What if the best system for the genre isn't complex?

>> No.56882449

Then all the better, as long as it isn't D&D.

>> No.56882497

>Bonus XP for roleplaying is ineffectual at encouraging roleplay of value.

It's a good idea in theory but in practice, the people who were already receptive to roleplaying will be largely unaffected while the people who aren't receptive will take it obnoxious levels just because they think "hey, if I'm in the spotlight 24/7, I can earn twice as much EXP."

>> No.56882585

I like 5e's inspiration. It's a one-use thing you can't hoard more than one of, not permanent like XP. I also think it and other RP-based rewards are best given out when a character does something actively detrimental based on their character's morals or flaws, because no one who isn't already a disruptive player is going to intentionally do harmful things repeatedly just for the small carrot of advantage on one roll. It's essentially karma making up for that bad thing happening.

>> No.56882760

I too agree with one of these opinions

The second. At least beast races/furry races are distinct enough from humans.

>> No.56882774

That is also the one I agree with. Low effort cosplay races are boring, and beast races can at least justify significant mechanical differences. Plus, they're rad when done right.

>> No.56882806

I think it also works really well for encouraging players to be more interactive and descriptive about their actions. An Exalted-style stunt system works wonders to help players who tend to just say "I roll to attack, I roll to jump, etc etc" get into the action and do cool shit

>> No.56883075


Don't make it fun to play.

>> No.56883142

Reminds me of what one of my friends said about the almost-human races (elves, ect)

Suppose you're an alien and you land in a fantasy world. Upon arriving, you are greeted by a white human, a black human and an elf, and you've never heard of people like these before. You are told the white guy is a human, and one of the other two is a human. You'd probably guess the elf over the black guy.

>> No.56883479

It can’t be any less fun to play than anything else because it’s still “use your character’s abilities to let you roll dice and make a thing happen” like everything else in the game. Maybe if you’re a broke brained weirdo who can only enjoy that if it’s making numbers go down and not up, I guess?

>> No.56883512


Agree strongly.

>> No.56883574

Yeah I give it a 4 on bgg just for the combined probabilities of mana screw/flood and the game of Chicken (Game Theory) that is the combat system. If you're a woman, the community can be less than average. Otherwise agreed

>> No.56883699

>but if I'm running some grimdark low fantasy then
Then you've fucking lost me.

'Low fantasy' to me means 'I can't balance magic so you can't have it'.

>> No.56883782

>I keep hearing people talk about MHA. Is it really worth the watch?
It is DEFINITELY worth watching. It's well written, the art is good, and the dub was fairly good too.
> Greatest thing ever
It's good, but it's not THAT good. Definitely gave me a bunch of ideas, though.

You're just too lazy.to run combat properly.

You're too lazy to balance your encounters so mages don't dominate.

>> No.56883796

MHAfags confirmed for retarded I guess.

>> No.56883948

On an unrelated note, are the new, non-mobage games any good? Last one I enjoyed was Radiant Dawn, and I was really disappointed by Awakening.

>> No.56884251

People need to quit acting like Session Zero is the answer to every problem because it doesn't work. I tried it in my last campaign, told all my players that they'd be creating their characters together, they all showed up with their character sheets already made anyway. Then I tried to get them to each create a location using the system from Beyond the Wall, all but one pretended not to hear me. It's a nice idea in theory but it doesn't work because of the way players are.

>> No.56884257

>A more complex system will build better habits in the long run
I can't particularly support this, as complex systems are easier to fuck up, require more investiture, and so create a mindset.
If you said "New players/GMs should be exposed to a variety of systems and resolution mechanics to encourage flexibility and discourage poor habits", I'd agree.
Many of the better players I have known and GM'd for had experiences of at least 4+ different games, and the worst devoted themselves to 1 or 2.

>> No.56884295

Right, in order:
>Shadow Dragon - alright remake, artstyle is weird to "nope, this didn't age well", very barebones gameplay but on the other hand it's really well executed
>New Mystery: somehow fucking up the story of a remake, but has the best gameplay out of all games so far - seriously, the gameplay in this thing is fantastic and refined to a T
>Awakening is an alright game that you can see the game tearing apart at the seams because holy fuck it's so rushed past the first third of the game but at the same time it feels very very honest and genuine, also the soundtrack and the UI are great; it's a game where the game part itself is broken beyond relief but the non-game part manages to make it alright or at least palatable
>Fates - three versions, awful story in all three, the UI is overcluttered, the gameplay is actually decent to great but at the same time it's brought down by the game's non-game things being downright awful
>Shadows of Valentia is a remake of Gaiden and it's fucking glorious, though it still keeps a fair bit of Gaiden in it so expect weird design choices, but honestly out of the three for the 3DS it's the best one

>> No.56884298

You need to have the adventuring day spread over multiple sessions. Not all of the encounters have to be combat as well. Do this, and the system runs well.

It is annoying when you need to come up reasons the players can't rest though.

>> No.56884301

That's says more about your players, and your unwillingness to enforce your decrees, than anything else.
If they showed up with full characters written out despite you telling them to make them together, why didn't you scrap them and start fresh?

>> No.56884426

They walked over you like you were a doormat

>> No.56884432

Glad to hear that. I'll give nu-Gaiden a shot then.

>> No.56884449

yeah it's definitely not the answer to your crippling social anxiety and your players being a bunch of uninterested dicks, for sure

>> No.56884485

That is basically Virion's designs, and most of the Pegasus Knight's designs make sense (even if does get a bit too fanservice-y), mostly due to the fact that they're very lightly armored horse-with-wings riders. Awakening had really good designs, all things considered, even with all the weird things abound. Fates was the low point in terms of allied designs (even if some had good to great designs, Silas being a particular example), but Shadows of Valentia has shown an upward trend in design, so hopefully more designs in the future will follow that path.

>> No.56884794

I'm not a fan of dwarves. A whole race of absolutely boring Gimli-clones that /tg/ loves because they're also fat neckbearded manlets with no social skills.

>> No.56884827

No /tg/ loves them because dwarves are rambunctious angry drunkards who happen to be good at a mechanically-minded craft (tech support = repairs, PC assembly = blacksmithing).

Also because there are no women.

And their beards are outrageous.

I'm just saying, y'know.

>> No.56885189

>/tg/ wants their characters to represent them
>/tg/ does identity politics

>session zero doesn't work because fucking muh players are that guys lololol

Pbta successfully disentangles RPGs from their wargaming roots and allows for roleplaying for roleplaying's sake.
Dungeon world is not a true Pbta game

>> No.56885284

I understand what you're saying, but I kinda have to disagree. Off the top of my head, the only japanese stuff that really keeps in spirit with traditional western fantasy is Dragons Dogma, Dark souls and Dungeon Meshi.

>> No.56885322

Oh, it's super generic, but that's a part of what makes it great. It's not subverting tropes or doing anything new and amazing, it's taking years old Shounen troupes and polishing to a mirrors sheen. If you like Shounen or superheroes, check it out. If you don't like either, this is not going to convince you

>> No.56885393

I don't think that it's so much that people hate it, it's just that some DM's make it weird. You can have succubuses, and nymphos or whatever, just don't make me roleplay a scene where that nympho tries to rape me or something

>> No.56885448

>implying I want a scene where the GM decides that my PC is seduced by some whore
No thanks. Go fuck your mother.

>> No.56885598

I consider 4E the worst edition of all, and my opinion is less popular than yours.

>> No.56885650

>Make a will save to not be seduced

>> No.56885671

When did I say anything about making roll saves? I just don't want to roleplay sloppy sex with my fat nerdy friend

>> No.56885706

He was referring to >>56885448 I think

>> No.56885785

>Basing your societies on Medieval Europe is highly overrated
It's fun for some games, but fantasy != Europe but with wizards. I run a lot of games in settings where democracies are common, there's large private corporations that occasionally do sketchy things, and the populace is generally well-educated. I do have slightly bullshitty magitech to make this plausible, but my players have mostly enjoyed it, and it lets you tell more interesting and varied stories.

>Most people "avoid railroading" in ways that game the game's story worse

I've been in a number of games where the premise is "you are a member of this guild, pick from job X, Y, or Z." I really dislike this style of gameplay. I prefer games where there's an over-arcing goal (or several with one leading into another) and steps to achieve it. Occasionally having a juncture where there's two binary choices is nice, but having the plot slowly revealed via a plot-tree just reminds me of Shadow the Hedgehog. Plus, it feels very realistic that we always have a few equally-viable options to work towards defeating a necromancer at every given moment.

>There's nothing wrong with "snowflake" races in most cases
Your players are supposed to stand out and be weird. They're the protagonists. Snowflakes are only bad because they attract shitty Mary Sue type characters with dumb, tired backstories. Having a Teifling Rogue or something in your party isn't inherently bad just because he'll stand out. The group of people working to kill the necromancer already stand out.

>Your players shouldn't make CHA checks on each other
Let them fucking talk it out as a party! There's not much reason for me to play if you can rule that my character is totally okay with a plan that goes against their entire worldview of the world because the bard crit.

(This is tied into >>56885393, since the last time that happened my former-child-prostitute character was convinced to go out with obvious prostitutes who then tried to rape him)

>> No.56885802

FATAL is an interesting and well-designed
game whose deep mechanics lend characters and actions a weight and legitimacy not found in more rules-light and fluffy games.

if you excuse me I'll just be off to hang myself now

>> No.56885826

hands above the covers, anon

>> No.56885833

Been gaming for 15 years. Never saw a more reliable red flag than overly sexual material in GM prepped stuff.
Well, there's a minimum bound in the existence of sexual reproduction, off hand mention of red light districts, or the word "concubine." But any of the stuff you mentioned has been like the litmus paper of shit gaming since I can remember.
Sorry, anon, we just can't have nice things.

>> No.56885939

40k is the dumbest shit and holy fuck how are there so many people that take it seriously

>> No.56885973

No one takes it seriously anymore except for fat virgins, many many people have fun with it, and like poking fun at it.

>> No.56885992


It's the most miserable setting in all of fiction, as far as I can tell, and yet it doesn't actually say anything interesting or important. It's just unpleasant for no reason.

>> No.56886009

I think games as a whole need to give everyone options in terms of what they can do in any sort of scenario. And players probably should know what their character will do.

>> No.56886324

>It's just unpleasant for no reason.

>> No.56886446

>It's just unpleasant for no reason.
Did you live thru the 90s, anon?
I wager not, if the tone of what you know of 40k (it's 90s grimdark phase) surprises you.

>> No.56886543

I was pretty young in the 90s. Born in '96.

Most of the people I know who are really into 40K don't seem to get enjoyment from those aspects. They see it as a cool story about badass space marines fighting evil.

>> No.56886572

During the 90s, EVERYTHING was going grimdark.
Now, people don't derive enjoyment from that merely, as you said, it simply provides background to big battles and contests.

>> No.56886659

>if I'm running some grimdark low fantasy
So Berserk?

>> No.56886674

>Most of the people I know who are really into 40K don't seem to get enjoyment from those aspects. They see it as a cool story about badass space marines fighting evil.
The people you know who are really into 40k are dogshit people, then.
I'm sorry, anon. Maybe they'll die.

>> No.56886692

>'Low fantasy' to me means 'I can't balance magic so you can't have it'.
To me it means "magic is rare and mysterious." While I wouldn't say it is inherently better than high fantasy, low fantasy makes magic seem more like actual magic. The evil wizard being able to make stone golems, shoot lightning from his hands, or turn you into a frog by pointing his finger is a lot more mesmerizing and scary when 3/4ths of your party can't do those same exact things.

>> No.56886733

I kind of hope so for some of them, to be honest.

I know the 90s were pretty dark, but I'm a bit confused as to why people still like it now that that collective delusion is over.

>> No.56886765

t. Waste of bandwidth.

>all but one pretended not to hear me
Sounds like the problem is you, not the system. Have you tried being less beta?

>subverting tropes or doing anything new and amazing
This is the mindset that gave us Neon Genesis Evangelion, grunge, and hipsters.
Fuck you.

>> No.56886785

>I'm a bit confused as to why people still like it now that that collective delusion is over.
As am I, and I was born in 82.
What I wager is that people have rose tinted goggles about their youth, while I had enough frame of mind to grimace about it.
>Neon Genesis Evangelion, grunge, and goths
Fixed. Even Eva came about as a pity project, more born from the mind of a depressed man than a sign of the times. That he is actively ruining it shows it wasn't his genius behind it.

>> No.56886845

I praised it for not doing that dude

>> No.56886885

It's good, but some like to overhype it like Sword Art. Get ready for weird superpowers as well.

>> No.56886941

>Pbta successfully disentangles RPGs from their wargaming roots
Yeah, the lack of any situational modifiers certainly does wonders in creating immersive gameplay. It's truly the apex of modern game design.

>> No.56886993

Yeah, you don't get to decide on everything that your character does. You get to decide what the rational side of him wants to do, at a minimum. But when you fail a Fear test and the GM tells you that your character flees in panic? Totally valid.

>> No.56887045

I do get to decide wether my character feels attracted to someone else or other, thank you very much.

Unless you disagree, in which case you are a shit GM and I hope that you will never have the opportunity to go on the internet to spread your filthy magical realm ever again.

>> No.56887049

>herp durp
Thank you for your opinion.

>> No.56887067

>wanting to drag your players into your shit fetishes of succubi and other ERP shit
Your opinion a shit

>> No.56887105

>Basing your societies on Medieval Europe is highly overrated
Actually, running a gonzo fantasy setting which has only loose connections with medieval europe is dime-a-dozen, especially in american fantasy. As a europoor, I don't like it.
Compare D&D artwork and "The Shannara Chronicles" versus Warhammer Fantasy or DSA/The Dark Eye. It's terrible.

>> No.56887144

>I do get to decide wether my character feels attracted to someone else or other, thank you very much.
As a long term relationship? Alright, I'll grant you that. Short-term sexual attraction? No, you don't. If you disagree, please leave my gaming table and don't come back. Impulse control lies within the realm of GM fiat/Game Mechanics, this is non-negotiable.

>> No.56887208

The world can affect your pc as you affect the world. It need not be long term, tho, and it is actually easy to resolve via most standing mechanics.
Just because your pc finds a serving maid attractive doesn't mean you need to go talk to her.

>> No.56887232

Everybody make way here comes the worst player in existence

>> No.56887243

I wager it's less what you are talking about, and more players/gms getting mad that their knowledge of European history doesn't apply to the game setting, and is therefore "wrong".

>> No.56887274

Except That guy talks about impulse control, which implies that a PC would go bang said maid apparently.

Which is bullshit, because the GM did not ask wether the character in question is sexually attracted to maids and characters of the same sex as her in the first place.

Bullshit excuses for bullshit GMs

>> No.56887284

Lol do you just stop the game when you introduce a new character.

"The sorceress appears and uhh... by the way jim you really want to fuck her."

>> No.56887308

>no u reply from a magical realm-pulling shitter
I expected nothing less

>> No.56887462

>implying gamers have an understanding of medieval europe
The reason people run gonzo fantasy is because they're filthy casuals and that way they can insert democracy or a pizza delivery service into their fantasy. Or whatever other shit they know from their own, modern lives.

For me, it just limits the degree of escapism.

>> No.56887523

I have to remind you that the origin of this was the scenario of a succubus with supernatural power. But, yeah, I could see that with a mundane mortal woman too, except that it would be a bit more elaborate process than
>you see her
>you fail your resistance against seduction
>you need to fuck her

Again, it sounds ridiculous because you're not making it more involved than that. Get the characters to talk with each other first. Also, you would make that seduction resistance test only, if there was a potentially interesting sideplot developing that way. Maybe the wife of the quest-giver. Or the daughter of the BBEG.

>seduction rolls are magical realm
For you.

>> No.56887580

>railroading players by rolling a few dice and saying that they feel a certain way instead of Roleplaying
Uh-huh. Hey, tell me again how much of a good roleplayer you are, why don't you?

>> No.56887628

>For you.
For most good roleplayers too. No one wants to listen to you rant about how big that maid's boobs are and how fat her ass looks or how dick-sucking her lips look.

>> No.56887711

You can't really "decide" how attracted a character would feel to a certain individual or not. This isn't predictable in real life and therefore must be subject to randomization in RPGs. At best, you can decide jointly if this would be narratively interesting, if you're bent this way.

Because seduction scenes in movies are only about fetishes, amirite?

>be shitty roleplayer
>call other roleplayers bad
The absolute state of /tg/.

>> No.56887782

Not him, but I feel uncomfortable and awkward roleplaying romance. if I make an asexual character, that's okay right?

>> No.56887823

>Because seduction scenes in movies are only about fetishes, amirite?
>movies and roleplaying are the same thing
I have to listen to your faggot-ass ranting about how sexy someone is, it really breaks immersion. Go fuck a cactus

>> No.56887855

No, if you're anything but heterosexual you're a special little snowflake

>> No.56887872


>> No.56888048

Don't cry anon, I'll give you a hug

only if ur a girl tho

>> No.56889290

Yeah this.
I'm playing a wizard in my current dnd campaign.
Social encounters are boring, I cast a spell and solve it.
Combat encounters are shit, especially if the DM stonewalls you from long resting.
Run out of spell slots and become useless vs solving everything with a handful of spells and long resting to do it all over again with almost no in-between.
D&D really needs to go back to straight dungeon crawling and stop pretending to be a real role playing system.

>> No.56889377

>Your players are supposed to stand out and be weird. They're the protagonists.
I disagree and you're retarded.
Players aren't protagonists. Players shouldn't be protagonists. This leads to bullshit like Skyrim where you are the leader of every guild.
It's called role playing. Just because you are playing a role doesn't mean the role you are playing must be particularly special.
It's this attitude why most players are fucking awful.
If a player decides they want to be a farmer, does that mean they have to be a special farmer just because a player is controlling the farmer? Imagine if people who wrote literature had this mindset. Disgusting.
If you are incapable of imagining yourself as Average McFuck who-stumbled-upon-the-magic-treasure then you are trash.

>> No.56889541

>Roleplaying -> combat v roleplaying
As a corollary to that, the rules which support roleplaying should have as much potential or be paid comparable amounts of attention as the combat rules. They don't need to be as fiddly, or as detailed, but definitely more than "lol just rp it".

>> No.56889596

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

>> No.56889598

On the note of your second point OP, I couldn't agree more. I wish combat was just an assisted skill check with an appropriate degrees of failure/success table.

>> No.56889676

The problem with that is normalfags are dumb and think socializing is some mystical, unquantifiable experience. Look at the backlash are pick up artists for instance.
The reason social things don't have rules is because designers don't believe there are any rules in real life.

>> No.56889803

It's not the same thing but it demonstrates how romance and sex can be staged in roleplaying. Even if it's as simple as a
>fade to black

That's understandable and you don't have to roleplay it. You can switch the 3rd person and narrate the gist of it, instead. You're not making the beginner's mistake of identifying completely with your character, do you?
>the next morning...

>> No.56889979

Playin as a lizardfolk in 5e with the way they wrote their mindset is fun.

>> No.56890067

You have no fucking clue what the word "protagonist" means.

>> No.56890102

Protagonist is just a main character.
There is no definition of that word that means the main character has to be special.
I was addressing that anons use of the word protagonist, as the way anon was using it implied protagonists are inherently special.
>Your players are supposed to stand out and be weird. They're the protagonists.

>> No.56890154

But anon, it isn't the katana itself, it's the obnoxious weeb with no understanding of theme or tone who is behind the katana. It's what the katana represents, including the "katanas are underpowered" fags. https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Katanas_are_Underpowered_in_d20

>Only hugging girls
What a fag. I bet you like to hold hands with them too.

>> No.56890162

Any system that takes more than an hour to teach to a total newbie isn't worth playing. In addition, creating a character should take 10 minutes or less once you have the basic idea figured out. More often than not, complexity is the game compensating for how shitty it is.

The only good thing about PbtA is Partial Successes and it should be in every game. Likewise, the only good thing about 13th Age is Failing Forward and it should be an optional rule in every game.

There should be no distinction between combat and non-combat Skills and Abilities. The only thing that changes when a fight starts is determining Initiative. 4E's AEDU system created a rift between exploration and combat and that's why it sucked.

Systems don't need to be perfectly balanced, they just need to offer several comparable options for the players to choose from. Making an 'optimized' warrior who can fight a bit better than his level would indicate is fine. Making an 'optimized' wizard who can obliterate enemies and circumvent challenges with ease is not fine.

GMs should focus on the important and memorable parts of your campaign and supplement the rest with random charts and tables. Boss fights, puzzles, mystical locations, and an interesting plot (or mystery) are all worth your prep time. For everything else use random name / place / encounter / loot generators. Your players are here for the juicy bits, don't waste your time (and theirs) on the small stuff.

>> No.56890982

Critical fails that do more that what the system tells you to do.
Critical successes that do more that whatever the system tell you to do.

>inb4 whaa you like your games stale and boring full of full-round "I attack" actions

Bitch, adding randomness does nothing to resolve that problem. The only thing it does is fuck people over for no reason. they get critted, go "fuck" now I can't do one thing as well as before oh well and if they had nothing as backup they won't suddenly grow a new thing to do.

If you want to challenge your players throw things that change the flow of battle. add difficult terrain, cover, concealment, swarms of enemy, make one enemy a high priority target, make it so that a battle WILL be gruelling unless they use their brains a go through the trouble of pinpointing the enemy's weakness and and exploiting it.

If you do that you won't ever mind that all your BSF does is swing his sword because he earned it by going through all the necessary steps to make it worth it.

Say BSF wants to swing his sword 3 times as a full round action since that kills ALL the things. Okay, first you need to go through a bit of difficult terrain, then there's cover for the enemies and all this while they have crossbowman turning him into a pincushion.

But would you look at that, the enemies are stupid and only keeping formation because one of them is intelligent enough to rally them, he's obviously the leader since he's shouting orders from 15 ft back and telling his troops how to not rout and die.

>> No.56891079

Well, Mr. spell caster has a target to silence and feels like a bad-ass by stopping the head of a group of "soldiers" while also being Mr. Tactician, giving bonus to his buddies while formulating a battle plan and is feeling like a genius.

Mr Stabby McStab vanishes to take care of high priority targets like the aforementioned leader and maybe a spell-caster feeling like the hero since he saved the day by neutralizing important targets.

Mr. archer has targets to suppress and is feeling awesome by making enemy crossbowman taste their own medicine and letting Large MCBigHuge close the gap and felling some guys in the process.

Mr. Large MCBigHuge has a bunch of targets to get to, running from cover to cover feeling like a goddamn action hero as 5-6 crossbow bolts are aimed at him and only one of them hit for 1d6 or 1d8 throwing smoke-sticks for concealment and the moment he finally gets to the meat to the fight and starts swinging his sword even though at THAT point the fight is "I do my most powerful attack every turn until they die" it's been fully deserved and people will remember this encounter.

>> No.56891227

>The story shouldn't be written up beforehand, it should develop at the table. If your sacred and inviolable story is so important that you can't have die rolls messing it up write a fucking novel instead.


Never fudge dice, it's a sign of a novice who can't improvise. If you didn't want a random result, don't roll a die in the first place.

>because a goblin threw a stone at them and killed them with a very lucky hit
>only a player can get very lucky, never their opponent

Combat should always be dangerous and involve risk, otherwise what's the point? Just wave your hands and declare that they defeated them because it's a foregone conclusion in your mind. If your players want to avoid all risk and beat up some babies and steal their candy instead then maybe that's more their style.

>> No.56891265

Except that’s objectively wrong due tonRebirth Superman being a deliberate return to the classical, idealistic heroism Superman established, which has directly correlated to the book carving a successful spot in DC’s current lineup and having dramatically more consistent readership.

>> No.56891417

>Combat should always be dangerous and involve risk, otherwise what's the point?
Some players just want to be fellated by their GM.

>> No.56891435

I accepted 5 years ago that DC was dead, you cant fool me

>> No.56891436

Stealing that pic.

I agree on most points, but much of your post is composed of incomplete thoughts and sentences.

>Crit fails/successes
In what context? Most crit fails that people talk about don't really exist in mainline DnD. They're a made up homebrew bullshit. There are critical fumbles for combat as an optional rule, but not "chop-your-friend's-hand-off" retardedness. Most of them just make you lose your turn from dropping your weapon, getting stunned, whatever. Some of them break or damage your weapon, and that's fine too, I guess. I have a general problem with crits at all in D20, since that shit is so fucking swingy.

>> No.56891490

This is actually historically accurate though? Ninjas just dressed like commoners and not in camo or anthing.

>> No.56891516

You don't read superman and you're only familiar with the movies if you think a manga whose sole characterization of everyone is just what their powers are short of maybe bakugou, whose only characterization is "an asshole". It's so unbearably generic it makes me cringe whenever I see someone say "japan puts out better cape content because bnha exists!"
It really doesn't. It really, fucking doesn't.

>> No.56891563

>bandits aren't a thing that existed or exist in real life.
"Bandits" are just the remnants of military forces after a very damaging and large war.

>> No.56891564

Yes, feudal Japanese commoners were well known for their orange jumpsuits.

>> No.56891632

I might not have been precise enough.

Let's take examples from pathfinder since it's the one most players know well enough to talk about.

What I mean is, you get in a fight and you attack. you roll a one. instead of simply missing your attack which is punishment enough, I think, you draw a card from a deck. All of a sudden you're stunned. In the middle of a fight. for no reason.

Or you swing and, instead of getting 2x damage or something, you deal 2x damage and 2d4 const damage.

the only thing this does is fuck with the balance of a combat and I hate that since when encounters are designed they do not take into account such swinginess.

Now I like the randomness of combat as much as the next, reasonable, guy and, say, I made a mistake and took a fight that was too hard, it's my bad. Or, they got lucky and landed two or three hard crits. sure, it happens. but if one crit sends my favoured weapon to the other side of the room and I can't fight effectively anymore it's bullshit.

>> No.56891686

Bright orange clothing would have been perfectly appropriate for a young boy in medieval Japan.

>> No.56891700

>Players expecting the happy ending and becoming incredibly upset when it doesn't fully happen
I'm not here for someones escapist fantasy where their imaginary life gets fulfilled unlike their real one. I'm here for an interesting and intense adventure with stakes of failure, not someones support group.

>Players becoming overly attached to their characters and acting emotionally devastated when they die. Doubly worse if it's a bad character.
The story moves on, new experiences can be had and new attachments made. You're not a small child that forms overly strong attachments to the first object they see, are you?

>> No.56891759

Yeah, it makes it more difficult to have a tactical combat when you have edge-case fuckery be so common. I like the idea of critical success and failure, but only when it's at the far extreme of likelyhood. The D20 is too swingy, and 5% is too high a chance for that bullshit.

>> No.56891871

Pokemon TCG is better than Magic, even if EX/GX cards are pure cancer.

>> No.56891923

then what the fuck is superman other then "literally jesus" at this point

>> No.56891939

Fair enough.

>> No.56892407

>Never fudge dice, it's a sign of a novice who can't improvise.
Rolling in the open is a fairly new phenomenon and is mainly done when the players don't trust the GM and the GM doesn't give a shit about the longevity of his campaign, especially in systems where crits can immediately cause shift the tides of battle in an instant.
>Combat should always be dangerous and involve risk, otherwise what's the point?
Not every campaign is going to have an emphasize on combat and not every system is going to focus on combat as much as D&D and its offshoots do. To say nothing on the fact that the die doesn't give a shit about the difficulty of the encounter, nor does it care if the results end up leading to an unsatisfactory end either.

If you want to play a game where RNG is the sole determining factor of your success, play one of the old school Wizardry or M&M games and see how far you get without save-scumming.

>> No.56892450

>t. GM who will unironically complain about everyone playing orphans with no connections and no drive beyond killing monsters a few weeks later.

>> No.56892464

Superman done right is supposed to be a symbol that inspires people to do their best, even if they don't believe they have what it takes.

Superman done wrong is a dude who basically never loses unless it's against plot devices like Doomsday.

>> No.56892627

>Any system that takes more than an hour to teach to a total newbie isn't worth playing. In addition, creating a character should take 10 minutes or less once you have the basic idea figured out. More often than not, complexity is the game compensating for how shitty it is.

I would add to this that there are some games that are just so shitty, no matter how good the GM is its still going to suck.

Also a lot of games have made it so there needs to be a rule for every little thing, and there are an entire generation of players that think along these lines.

>> No.56892781

>games so broken they break the players

>> No.56892846

that rules out pretty much all games though

>> No.56893387

>Never fudge dice, it's a sign of a novice who can't improvise. If you didn't want a random result, don't roll a die in the first place.
You remind me of myself, when I had no idea of what I was doing and didn't have any good groups.

>> No.56893425

I am still Forced to play that my character likes that character after the fade to black. I still Have to interact with the character my PC would have a romantic interest in, romantically. That would be very awkward for me

>> No.56893426

I'm kind of one of these, mostly on a few specific topics.

For example, if my character starts with a 'halberd' it's assumed that they purchased/made, I'd like to be able to declare that since it's a halberd I can stab with the spear point. Yet 5e doesn't let you do piercing damage with a halberd.

You don't need to be realistic, but disassociated mechanics (like a halberd essentially just being a damage stick with a 10ft range) get on my nerves. My current DM lets me get away with a bit, but 'stab someone with an axe-spear' shouldn't be a house rule when axes, spears, axe-spears and stabbing are all already in the core rules.

>> No.56893487

This is a thread for unpopular opinions, not obvious common sense shit.

>> No.56893516

What's up with all the newfag retards who think that rolling in the open makes a good RPG?

>> No.56893533

It doesn't make a good rpg, but it can help. Nothing anyone's mentioned here universally makes an rpg bad, or good if avoided. It's just that most people botch it.

>> No.56893561

I personally like the idea of a 'healer' that mechanically just lets their allies heal?

In my functionally-homebrew, my 'healer class' is the cavalry class and their main deal is healing injuries, not HP.

>Unpopular opinion: 0hp = unconscious is bad.
I like giving the players a choice between "collapse and tap out" and "keep fighting but risk permanent/semipermanent stat damage."

It's a good way to work permanent injuries into a generic d&d styled system. Have the players take a major risk (fight on at zero HP) and take a penalty (missing limb) if it doesn't pay off.

>> No.56893619

I always hated these mechanics and void them for PCs in my games. If a player takes an action, rolls poorly and fucks up, they still made the choice. If they fail a will save for fear/seduction, the GM is essentially ripping the metaphorical controller away from the player's hand and making the action for the player, which goes against the spirit of the game if you ask me.

>> No.56893658

I like a comment made on Goblin Punch about 'magic levels.' One example was a trader who could make dozens upon dozens of tiny grass-golems, and half the people he knew could do it too. But grass golems don't stop you from dying to an infected cooking burn or starving in winter.

Magic is just more interesting (to me) when it's an unknown quantity. A warlock who's granted powers she barely understands. A sorcerer who casts spells as easily as sneezing (and has about that much control). Then on the opposite end of the scale, a wizard who's studied the arcane to such excess that the inside of his skull is patterned in runes.

I've never liked the ability to just say 'oh i picked up another bag of coins, level up! I'm going to suddenly become a Wizard.'

>> No.56893734

This post made me more angry than anything has in weeks. Well done Anon, I don't even believe you were baiting.

>> No.56893759

>I do get to decide wether my character feels attracted to someone else or other
Not if it's supernatural.

>> No.56893811

MHA paints characters in broad strokes because it's for kids, but they're decently characterized beyond their quirks. It seems more like you want to hate-wank about something you dislike than that you actually have a solid argument.

>> No.56893927

>Mouse Guard is a terrible system for general, casual play.

>> No.56894465

>Combat should always be dangerous and involve risk, otherwise what's the point?

I often wonder about the sort of people who get into rpgs just to have a circlejerk because they're afraid of ever losing. A game without a loss state isn't one. You might as well play golf or watch paint dry.

The best fights are the thrilling ones that you won by just the barest of margins and could have easily gone the other way if not for good tactics and choices and a bit of good luck. I pity those who never get to experience them.

>> No.56894474

You're not wrong. But at least with the fear check, that is a necessary evil. A stop gap solution until such a time where shitty roleplayers and assholes cease to exist.

If you have a group where describing scary things results in scared pcs acting out the terror in the scene you've got a group able to get into the right mindset, are good at describing things, and should not roll for fear. If you're playing with anything less that roll is now as necessary as the damage check because fuck you my pc isn't scared of shit and never will be.

>> No.56894510

You're right, gms shouldn't roll dice to affect the pcs in any way. Now could you tell me how much damage you feel that sword in your leg has done?

>> No.56894518

Exactly. Fudging dice takes away the risk which takes away the excitement. The only times I understand it is when a new DM doesn't know what they're doing and can't balance encounters.

>> No.56894708

I've been playing games for almost 15 years and running them for half that time. My current campaign is going on almost two and a half years now.

I've always rolled out in the open. The premise that my players can't handle real danger, adversity, or a character being killed is weird and simply untrue. Whether the fight is easy or hard, neither they nor I know how exactly how it's going to turn out. It's thrilling for them and part of the fun for me to GM the game.

The idea that overcoming real obstacles or a character death makes for a bad story is absurd. If anything an unlikely result has the potential to make for an even more memorable campaign.

I just can't believe people keep arguing for fudging, for plot armor and mary sue characters. I never coddled my players and never handed them any victories. If (not when, but if) they succeed despite all the obstacles, then the victory is all the sweeter. Each that they have, they took and earned every single one and they know it and love it.

For anyone who doesn't get this, who has never experienced it, I honestly feel real bad for you. I wish I could explain it better, I wish you could see it.

>> No.56894741

honestly, if describing something scary doesn't make your players scared then you fucked up as a GM.
drop the pitchfork and let me explain:

I have played two different campaign in the last 6 months with two different GM.
Both campaigns had a similar feel to them being high fantasy dungeon crawl-y and all.

In the first campaign not a single time was I scared by the encounters because every time the GM tried to tell us how scary it was instead of making it scary.
He would tell us "it's a big ass monster with big teeth and long arms" or some things and then we would proceed to beat the living shit out of it and there you go that's that. at first I tried to act scared in character but after two or three fights like that it only made sense in character to be bold and cocky and not be scared of there so called monsters.

In the second campaign, however, the tension was high because the encounters were challenging and in character and out of character I was always weary of fights. If and when I saw a monster that our GM described as large, full of muscle and with a buddy that's scrawny I was scared shitless because I knew that my GM would use these monsters to their fullest and fuck us over f we were to underestimate them and never went anywhere without my party. every win was celebrated and alcohol flowed aplenty.

“If your actions don't live up to your words, you have nothing to say.” - DaShanne Stokes
If you start describing to me a dragon but he fights like a kobold I will never be scared of a creature until you prouve to me that its worth being scared about.
Anyways, all this to say that if your players aren't scared of monsters the problem isn't in the players hands but the GM's.

>> No.56894907

Really? You, as a person, get scared from something described and/or shown to be brutal and lethal? I understand that it's needed so that you can make your character, who would be scared shitless, act shitless. But you, the player, are also afraid?

Sheit, never imagined that.

>> No.56894973

For what it's worth anon, I appreciate your earnestness and would gladly play in your game.

>> No.56894987

well, obviously, I don't go under the table and weep.
but I have on several occasions, after taking a hit, or seeing a buddy take a hit simply said fuck all of this and bolted off to regroup, take a better position or whatnot.
and that's because I know that my GM will take advantage of a break in formation to bull rush and lock down a character until he dies.
of course he would. that's what the enemy would do and it's expected that we would react accordingly to not die.
when the last time your GM told you a creature looked super strong and it hit for 2d8+14 when you have 43 health you dont need a lot of prodding to feel tense when he describes a troll or something equivalent.

>> No.56895095

You seem to have a really really narrow definition of fear.

>> No.56895117

I might, that's very possible. care to describe what your definition of fear in the context of your discussion? I'm always down to learn about new ways to role-play

>> No.56895129

>our discussion*

>> No.56895227

The problem here is the old Conan one
>"what good is a sword against sorcery?"
If the wizard is a 70 year old man whose sacrificed virgins and made unholy pacts with the fallen Morningstar such that he can slay a man with a word, then straight-up fighters start crying all over again because the response becomes "only roll range or stealth specialists"

>> No.56895251

It's just that all of your examples are a fear of some imminent threat. There is plenty of other kinds of fear, less mechanically fueled fear. Psychological fear, tension, that slow burn of terror, and plain old spoopy shit. It's not possible for someone who doesn't care about roleplaying or atmosphere to completely ignore any stimuli let alone spooky ones if they lack a mechanical component.

>> No.56895277

Apparently you still have no idea what you’re doing if you think writing a book makes for a fun rpg

>> No.56895329

If your plot can't handle random chance, do not introduce it, or go play a narrative diceless "game".

If a game falls apart due to a character or two dying then you have failed to structure an engaging plot or world, your players have failed to form meaningful connections between themselves, or you may be playing with literal children.
If you have tpked and somehow fudging a dice roll prevents this you're horrifically terrible at gming.

>> No.56895417

I understand the logic behind it but I think even then those are fuelled by mechanics.

let's take a real life example to compare:
I'm in a dark basement. In my basement, actually. in that case no mater what happens, I won't be spooped, right?
now, again, real life, imagine I'm in a basement, in someone else's basement, stealing shit. every thing I'll hear will put me on edge.
That makes sense, I think.

back to the game:
I'm in some dungeon, and up until now nothing has challenged me. even if some orc were to pop up and roar at me I wouldn't flinch.
let's say, i'm in the same dungeon but I know that the GM is ruthless, it won't take much to put me on edge. (I once jumped out of the way of a piece of wood that fell from a tapestry because I thought It might have been a trap and doing so in an earlier session saved me some damage. turns out it was a wand.)
put me in a torture room, I'm bound and gagged. up until now the GM was never even talked about ability damage. show me a torturer and i'll spit in his stupid face.
Same situation but the GM has hinted about permanent damage and limb loss. I will be a very docile captive.

It's all about consequences. If there are no consequences, there is no fear. in real life just like in games.
you can't ask my character or me to act AS IF there would be consequences if there are none.

I suppose TL;DR Roleplaying is based off of mechanics just like real life is based off of physics... I guess.

>> No.56895510

>>the GM avoids killing the character they *really, really like* and is holding the group together with all their might because a goblin threw a stone at them and killed them with a very lucky hit

You should pick a theme and a tone for your game and stick with it. The rules and dice should work for the players and the NPCs equally so everyone can accurately assess challenges, learn from previous encounters, and understand the setting. Consistency is important.

I'll give you some examples to help.
A) Goblins aren't a threat and shouldn't ever be able to kill a PC.
What ends up happening - > Anytime the goblins encounter the PCs they should turn around and run away because they know they can't win, and the PCs should let them go, because they're not a threat. Players don't waste time with stuff that's beneath them, and stick to heroic things.

B) Goblins are a threat and should be able to kill a PC.
What ends up happening - > IF the goblins and PCs fight and the goblin gets a lucky hit in, one of the PCs die. Everyone understands why goblins are a threat and exterminating goblins is seen as purposeful and heroic. The danger makes it exciting, because the PCs can't take victory or safety for granted.

C) Goblins are a threat and should be able to kill PCs, but never do because you fudge the dice.
What ends up happening - > Inconsistency. The PCs are fighting the goblins because they're a threat, and the goblins are fighting because they think they can win. Neither of these are true. Combat is unsatisfying and nonsensical. The PCs are never in any real danger and after a time the players realize this and either grow bored with suicidal enemies and predictable combats or decide to push the boundaries of their plot armor to see how far they can go.

A is your typical high power game, B is your typical low power game. C isn't a game at all.

>> No.56895590

Of course, I can't say anything about the way you role-play. I mean what kind of asshole would I be if I told you:
>the way you enjoy your free time with your friend is wrong and you're stupid and you should feel bad and...
right? how stupid would that be.

however, the way I enjoy playing my RPG is by making everything mechanically relevant.
sure, I could pretend to care about my pretend character's pretend daughter but why would I? and I think that's why the cliché of "my character has no family left alive" exists. Why would you care about pretend characters that really do nothing for you?
However, I care a lot about my buddy's character and that's because he's there in the thick of the fight every time with me, if he dies who'll be with me when I go dungeon diving? I mean, sure he'll make another character but I get attached to this one. I learn his quirks and what makes him tic.

what I can do, is take a drawback to add a daughter that I need to protect because if I don't I gain a bigger drawback. by doing so I gain a perk to counteract the drawback and now I have to care about my character's daughter. she becomes important to me.

if I come back to home #1 and see the door blasted open and see that daughter is gone missing, I'll act the part of
>"oh no my daughter is gone, I must find her! I suppose I'll go to the police and do something"
and see what the GM has in store.
If, however, I come back to home #2 and see the same thing there will be no acting there will be wrath.
>"you guys have to help me find my daughter or so help me after I find them and make them eat their dick before making them eat their heart I will rain destruction upon you."

It becomes genuine. when your character feels like shit because he couldn't protect his daughter you feel like shit, playing this character, because you have to pay the consequences of not protecting your daughter.
you want revenge, and so does he.

>> No.56895673

Man I'm too fuckin' busy to gamble setup time like that. I don't plan for hours and hours just so some shitty rolls can make me throw my hands up and say "everyone died; game over". If I wanted that sort of thrill I'd go play a vidya or whatever.

>> No.56895696

What if the players are new and don't know what you're fudging?

>> No.56895714

not that anon

it's even worse because you teach them terrible lessons.
>oh, ok this kind of monster is not that dangerous, cool.
play with another GM
>what, how did we get wiped?

>> No.56895724

Then you're building a strange sort of expectations. They eventually start playing ttrpgs as if they're playing diablo, all enemies are there to be killed as loot pinatas because all combat is point and click.

>> No.56895753

>not new
Which is why you're posting with old-ass images which you only just saved a month or two ago, right?

>> No.56895840

I'm going to add to your point.
In what games right now can a gobbo strait up oneshot a pc with a single roll of the dice? With all of the meta mechanics, death saves, active defenses, and other such mechanics out there today, I really doubt that's a situation where a fudge is saving a pc from luck, but rather a rather lengthy string of bad decision making
Like a pc isn't likely to die just like that unless you're playing a really lethal system, at which point that's just a conceit of the game you're playing
This sort of thing just doesn't come out of nowhere

Then you're teaching them wrong. Much like the american educational system. You know what's super fucking productive? Spending a few weeks every year unlearning every bit of bullshit the teachers in the grade below taught you, the more boldfaced the lie the better. That absolutely never has a negative impact on people's minds, and totally shapes their opinions on topics and educators in a healthy way

Worst case scenario you're creating someone who will give up on trying to gm if they try to. Because they'll try, and they'll either not fudge and shocker now balancing encounters is hard, why do people keep dying when I throw a random encounter between towns? Or they being new will fudge too hard, and again being new, everyone is going to call them on it, and guess what? That doesn't lead to a good group dynamic when you know that the unbiased window into the game world will lie to you however they see fit, better just hope that they lie for you and not against, but they wouldn't do that. They're trusty liars

>> No.56895845

It's funny you bring up a goblin killing a character by luck that everyone really likes and is holding the group together.

Some Spoilers btw.
That's literally the plotline from the anime Grimgar. What was a pretty generic and slow paced isekai story became something completely different and far more interesting (though still very slow paced) because the party leader died. The drama and character interplay and the growth was only possible because of that. What was rather bland turned out memorable and very decent.

Maybe the story is now about revenge. Maybe it's about filling in the shoes of someone who was way better than everyone else. Maybe it's about bringing back the body a long way home. Maybe it's about finding an heir. Maybe it's about finding a way to bring them back. Maybe it's about everyone starting to take life seriously because it's precious and fragile.

You're limiting yourself from the possibilities of where a story could go simply because you're afraid of letting go of the story in your head. Have faith in your players, give them a chance, because sometimes the plot twists that are most unexpected, that are most fear inducing and the most heart-wrenching are the best ones.

>> No.56896464

>ITT: Unpopular Opinions

I like modern D&D and old school D&D and Fate and PbtA and GURPS and wouldn't mind playing a game using any of them.

>> No.56896478

Is that an unpopular opinion?

I've always said systems don't matter. Quality of the people at the table is what really matters.

>> No.56896548

>Is that an unpopular opinion?
I can't be sure. You make a good point about people who don't think system matters. Probably there are a bunch of those people and I hadn't even considered it.

The reason I think it's unpopular, though, is I'm among the people who think system is actually very important, and among people like me I suspect it's rare to like such a wide variety of systems at once given how liking even one of them gets you put on blast by people who like another one of them.

>> No.56896593

Except Grimgar is not memorable, otherwise it would be better known. Also, Isekai is shit.

>> No.56897423

>and yet it doesn't actually say anything interesting or important
Its whole message is "for your nazi fapfantasies to be applicable to reality, the universe needs to be at least this actively hostile to human life". Whether it's interesting and important is for you to decide

>> No.56897592

What about the times when the opposite occurs?

When the players do everything right, make the right calls, bring in peak synergy, and yet they still fail because nobody rolled higher than a 10 and nobody on the enemy team could roll lower than a 15 for the whole night?

When a campaign has been building up to a final boss, one that has eluded and taunted the group for months/years, one that has been a consistent cause of everything bad that happened within the setting, and when you finally get to fight him, he drops dead without having hit one PC for appreciable damage and drops dead after the players keep scoring hit and hit after crit?

Because your problem is that you think that difficulty and fudging dice are mutually exclusive, when the reality is that fudging is only done when the outcome of the dice leads to an unsatisfactory outcome for everyone involved. If the game is too easy, that's because of the GM, not because of fudging as a concept.

>> No.56897637

And what if rolling out in the open ends up causing an encounter to become easier than expected?

>> No.56897674

Stopped reading right there.

>> No.56897739

Those are entirely separate issues that has nothing to do with fudging though.
Every GM fudges in some way. The ones that don't are either new, shit, or liars. Keep in mind, there are ways to fudge that have nothing to do with fudging dice.

>> No.56897833

Then it's working as intended.

>> No.56897927

Even if it's supposed to be a climactic fight with an end boss who ends up missing most of the time while the group curb stomps him into the dirt becaue they just cannot roll higher than 10 on the die?

Because I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty disappointed knowing that the only reason why we won was because of RNG, especially if it was supposed to be a tough fight that the GM had been building up towards for several sessions.

>> No.56898087

>Because I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty disappointed knowing that the only reason why we won was because of RNG, especially if it was supposed to be a tough fight that the GM had been building up towards for several sessions.
That's a problem with the garbage system you're using, not with rolling in the open.

>> No.56898212

>That's a problem with the garbage system you're using, not with rolling in the open.
Any system that uses dice for it's resolution mechanics is going to have a chance where someone ends up rolling higher or lower than average for the entire night through no fault of their own because RNG does not give no fucks about how enjoyable the campaign is.

Rolling doesn't make you honest, it just lets you deflect incompetence onto something else while claiming that shit was "beyond your control."

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.