>rolling high is always best EXCEPT one thing where you want to roll low (or vice versa)
>abstract wealth
>custom dice
>hit points are plot armor, not actual injury
>>47244938
>abstract wealth
>Wanting to track individual coins and bills
>custom dice
>what is motherfucking D&D
D&D is pretty much the only system I know of that requires you to have no less than six different shapes of special dice, except for games specifically based on D&D. Things like FATE are easy enough to use regular d6s for, so they don't even count as needing special dice.
>hit points are plot armor, not actual injury
Being able to be impaled or have your throat slit 30 times before suddenly dropping dead because you ran out of meat points is just as dumb.
>>47244938
Usually the people who play them. Honestly.
>>47245000
>Custom dice
I think he means systems like Edge of the Empire. D&D needs a lot of the dice, but they all are just ranges of numbers, and can and are used in other systems, though some more than others.
>>47244938
>>rolling high is always best EXCEPT one thing where you want to roll low (or vice versa)
It's there so that High stats = good, you dofus.
I'm so sick of this complaint. Use a little logic to figure out how a higher stats could be used for a benefit.
>>47244938
>>rolling high is always best EXCEPT one thing where you want to roll low (or vice versa)
I have literally never seen this.
>>abstract wealth
But this is the best way to do wealth.
>>special dice
I actually love this, but kind of get why people hate it. Kind of.
>>47245247
>>>rolling high is always best EXCEPT one thing where you want to roll low (or vice versa)
>I have literally never seen this.
It's usually noticeable on d100 systems where you roll low to get under your stat to make the "check" while for things like damage, you aim to roll high.
>>47245397
Okay, I understand that then. I guess I misunderstood it, I read it as "roll over for strength checks, and roll under for intelligence checks!".
But still, rolling under for percentile checks isn't a difficult concept.
>>47245145
Edge of the Empire comes with conversion charts. You don't need the fancy dice.
>>47244938
Hit Points as plot armor is literally the only thing that makes sense unless you are using a system that is crazy detailed.
>We only use d6! No need for "hard to find" dice!
I like fiddling with my dice, and I find the d6 to be the most boring of all dice. As a side note, there aren't enough games that use my favorite of all dice, the d12.
>Actual mechanical rules are less than 1 page long
So many 1-page indie games that basically involve "roll a d6 and decide things based on how you _feel_".
>Rules have a glass ceiling
Meaning that there isn't anything that just -is-, just ridiculously large challenge numbers, much like 3.5e. I like certain things just being deadly and not requiring a roll.
>Rules allow for rerolls
Nothing takes tension out of the scene moreso than someone just rolling out of the badthing over and over again. You getting an initial roll to begin with is your chance to get out of the bad thing. The roll should not be a guaranteed thing.
>Long paragraphs of Holier-than-thou introductions from the author
I really wish this wasn't an actual thing. I've returned at least 3 rules to the authors at conventions they were selling them in.
>Rules get so granular that they dictate your entire life
3.5. Nuff said.
>>47245548
>Playing a game by referencing a chart every roll
Anon, there's a reason we've moved away from 1e and THAC0.
>>47244938
Pic related is pretty much the only thing. I try to keep an open enough mind to at least give everything else a chance, but there is absolutely zero defending this garbage.
>>47244938
>Published under the OGL.
Won't touch it.
>>47245548
Yeah, because, the one thing easier than learning a bunch of abstract symbols, is learning which random numbers represent those symbols. Especially when the same number will mean a totally different symbol depending on which die it appears on.
Fucking please, dude.
>>47244938
>Roll under
>d20
>Custom dice
>Fantasy Flight Games
Motherfucking
Dice
Pools
>>47244938
>too many skills, not enough accessibility
also, the chip on my shoulder
>make an (unjustifiably) unbalanced game, put the onus on the GM to figure any issues out
>>47244938
I am currently writing up the outlines for a tabletop system based in the xcom apocalypse setting, any suggestions?
>>47244938
>>47247202
OH also
>your character effectively the same as everyone else
The Mountain Witch did this, and while the game concept itself was cool, the fact that who my character was and his motivations having no actual effect on the outcome of anything felt dumb.
What's abstract wealth?
>>47247398
like instead of say your character having "your character has $3,427 in his account", the game just has your character be "wealthy" or "poor" or "average" or any other grade of personal wealth. this also typically includes any connections/networking your character might have in regards to acquiring things.
instead of just straight up spending money you might have, purchasing things is largely a case of "lol of course you can afford a new car!" or "of course you can buy a fast food meal!" sometimes rolling dice is involved.
>>47244938
>rolling high is always best except one thing where you want to roll low
Wow for once i actually agree with something one of these stupid threads says.
I mean, I get why they try to do it, so you can't have a guy with cheater dice roll nothing but 6's all day, but honestly if he got weighted dice for the 6 he's probably got some for 1's as well.
Its really not hard for a guy who's played for a while to get, but it always confuses newbies when everything else needs to roll high, but morale for example needs low numbers to be successful
>re-rolls available to the point of frivolity
FATE, I'm looking at you
>re-rolls available, but the second roll *must* be taken
This is shit. If you're giving up some sort of in-game currency, be they character build points / class features or fate points/bennies, then the re-roll shouldn't potentially give you a *worse* result.
GURPS nails it with the Luck advantage: roll the dice two additional times, and take the best result of the three.
>>47247543
3 is past the line of frivolity for me
D&D 5e "Advantage" is nice, or FC's Action Dice
>>47247003
>Fantasy Flight Games
Ill give you that their rule books are pretty universally shitty but their games are fun from the ones Ive played.Does FFG do TTRPGs? Ive only seen board games from them.
>>47244938
>hit points are plot armor, not actual injury
So you want meat points? Absolutely disgusting.
>>47247613
FFG are responsible for the Warhammer/WH40K RPG lines.
>>47247555
It's basically like advantage in 5E, but you roll three times, not two, so you're more likely to get a good result. Considering it costs character points to take the Luck advantage, *and* you have to wait an hour between uses, it's reasonable.
Being able to pay fate point after fate point (in FATE) to constantly re-roll your result is frivolity.
High Five for knowing FC. That game doesn't get enough love.
>>47247626
I'm not a big fan of meat points either, but it depends on the game. GURPS, where the average human has 10 and they don't bloat up, is fine. D&D, where they bloat up considerably, is stupid.
>>47244938
>alignment and "objective" morality
>character classes
>levels
>Vancian magic
>"fail forward" mechanics
>guaranteed successes with high skills/attributes
>eldritch anything
I hate D&D, its derivatives and clones, d20 systems in general, and PBtA-style games.
>>47247815
So you hate role playing games in general? Would have been a lot faster just to type that.
>>47247828
You're some poor wretch to think that garbage is all there is to RPGs.
I enjoy GURPS, WoD, DoubleCross, FFG Star Wars, and many others.
>>47247815
I am indifferent to half of those things but I'm pretty sure I hate youand your stupid face
>>47244938
>rules on chargen aren't organized so you can go through the book doing each step with the book in order and come out with a fleshed out character once they're done
>really anything where I need to backtrack and skip ahead and overall read the book in a jumbled order to learn the system; pouring over these things is for when it's time to see if there's any neat options or combinations thereof I missed, a rule everyone's forgotten and we wanna see if there's an official one before the GM makes a ruling, etc
>book dedicates 50% of its contents to short stories, but doesn't separate fluff and crunch into separate halves of the book
>game gets so caught up on simulationism that it becomes a chore to read the crunch
>>47247853
>hates eldritch anything
>likes WoD and Double Cross
>both games built around unnatural, sinister forces with a supernatural overtone
Buddy...
>>47247927
Specifically Lovecraftian, cosmic horror. WoD is generally not horror at all and Gothic on the rare occasion it is. DoubleCross is not even close to horror, especially of the worst kind.
>>47247815
>"objective" morality
Altruism is objectively good. It's programmed into humans at birth and inherent to all cultures. Not having a sense of empathy (which creates the ability to be genuinely altruistic) is literal genetic degeneracy. Being able to rationalize altruism by understanding that helping others helps us or to be able to resist unwise altruism where our loss is disproportionally significant compared to the other's gain is a measured and matured form of good.
Believing otherwise is edgy teenage bullshit and nothing more.
>>47247953
Natural things are not inherently good you juvenile.
>>47247938
Then call it cosmic horror, not eldritch. That's not what eldritch means.
>>47247962
Found the degenerate.
>>47247963
Eldritch horror is synonymous with cosmic and Lovecraftian horror.
Horror as a genre is pretty much the lowest, most plebeian variety, except maybe for conedy.
>>47247953
Altruism has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. One can be altruistic and immoral (commies) or egotistic and scrupulously moral (some of the better capitalists).
>>47247953
>Altruism is objectively good. It's programmed into humans at birth and inherent to all cultures.
Being universal to all human culture is not the same as being objective. Good and evil are value judgements, always.
>>47245692
>d12
Play more modempunk, fuck face
>>47247534
>I get why they try to do it, so you can't have a guy with cheater dice roll nothing but 6's all day
man, that's not why. it's just bad design, plain and simple. like they can't fucking be arsed to play around with how numbers work to make all rolls try and be high or low.
thac0 isn't a roll completely different from everything else in AD&D, but it's a good example of what I mean. it made armor work better with lower numbers. this was completely different from everything else in the system where larger numbers meant something was better. why? because the people who created D&D and their friends were a bunch of wargaming nerds who couldn't let go of the idea that 1st class armor is better than 2nd class armor and— hell you get I mean.
this got fixed in 3rd edition 'cause designers finally said having 10 as an "average" number and armor adding to 10 is not a hard concept to wrap your head around.
>>47247613
can't tell if being sarcastic, but aside from the 40k and newer Warhammer RPGs, they've also made a successful series of Star Wars RPGs as well
>>47247815
I'll take the bait. What's wrong with failing forward? If nothing of significance happens on a failure, then why bother rolling at all?
>>47248159
The thing that's wrong is that you should fail BACKWARD. The assumption that every action the PCs take will always progress them takes the significance out of failure, no matter what bullshit insignificant "consequences" you make up.
>>47244938
I don't know, really, since I usually take the time to read and understand the purpose of the rules before disregarding them as shit.
I'm pretty sure seeing a book that has 200+ pages in it is a turn-off, because most of the time, it's uncalled for.
>>47248208
By forward, they mean that the story moves forward, not that the PC gets what they want.
If your failure to pick a lock means you take too long and get caught by guards, that's failing forward.
>>47245548
that would be great if it worked with a consistent version, where you could say things like "higher rolls are generally better" making it easier to eyeball.
"I need a 6, a 9, or a 4 on this die, and not a 2 or 3 on this die" is stupid as fuck.
>>47248159
The significance is that you fail, and something bad also usually happens on top of your failure.
The problem with failing forward is that it trivializes every challenge and heavily railroads the game in often irrational ways.
If you fail to sneak into the enemy castle, you should be forced to flee, captured, or killed. If you fail to seduce the CEO's daughter, she should rdject your advances and maybe even find you creepy. If you fail to hit the nail with you hammer you could hit your thumb too.
Failure should not be rewarded.
>>47248208
What you're referring to is a system without binary pass/fail which is different than "failing forward". Systems that use one of those concepts usually use both, but they aren't actually the same thing.
I agree with a lot of things said in this thread. I dislike inconsistent rolling mechanisms, abstract wealth, hit points as plot armour (these actually makes LESS sense than absurdly high meat points), the people who play the system, d6 systems, one-page rulesets, rerolls, Holier-than-thou introductions from the author, dice pools, too many skills, unjustifiably unbalanced rules, and vancian magic. You are all wonderful people and we can hate things together.
However, none of these things are instant "into the trash it goes" things for me, because if they were I would be playing no games. Sometimes you have to give a little, or modify a system into your preferences.
>>47248243
When "something bad also happens" that's "failing forward"
>>47248270
No, failing forward is "you fail, but..." What I'm describing is "You fail. Your failure produced obvious negative consequences."
>>47248233
>>47248270
The problem is that the "story", as failing forward systems have it, assumes the PCs succeed at the end. The correct approach to "story" is to assume that the story does not exist, that there is no particular end you are approaching.
Every system has something bad happen when you fail, that's why its called failure. "Failing forward" systems have you fail, and fail, and still succeed at the end because that's what the "story" says.
The only story that a game should have is the story told after, naturally constructed from the events that took place. This could mean that the story ends with all the PCs getting shanked by goblins. If you have a "story" to progress to before the game is over, you are railroading, plain and simple.
>>47248279
You're the only one who didn't know what the fuck you're talking about
>>47248279
"You fail, but..." is non-binary pass/fail. "Your failure produced obvious negative consequences." is failing forward. They don't actually have to be used in the same game, but most games that use one, use both so I can understand the confusion.
Failing forward is not some revolutionary concept. It just isn't written into most older games, they assume the GM won't let the party sit at the same door rolling checks to pick or bash it all day.
>>47248337
>"Your failure produced obvious negative consequences." is failing forward
No, because that isn't how the term is actually used, and also because that would mean that every system ever is "failing forward".
Words only have meaning when they distinguish one thing from another.
>>47248386
>every system ever is "failing forward"
Let's look at D&D combat versus combat in a game with failing forward.
In D&D, you attack and you roll low. Literally nothing happens.
In a failing forward game, you attack and roll low. The enemy hurts you.
That's the most basic explanation of failing forward
>>47248402
>nothing happens
No, you fail to hit, the obvious negative consequence is that you miss.
>>47248312
Thats not railroading though, railroading is a literal forcing of someone to only be able to take one path.
Failing forward is a way to advance things and keep them interesting instead of having the rogue roll twenty times to pick the lock. Failing forward doesnt necessitate that the forward be the direction of the story, merely that you dont stop the game while someone rolls over and over and instead keep things rolling.
Hell, most of the time the failing forward will end up having things take a tangential path from what you had planned because suddenly theres guards chasing the group or the person they were trying to persuade now wont talk to them and they need a workaround.
Also, of course a story expects the players to succeed. No one wants to just sit around and fail constantly same as no one just wants to breeze through with no effort. But expecting success and having them actually succeed are two very different things. If you have a DM that abuses failing forward to mean you always succeed easily then thats on him. Same as if he was using plot armor to make you invincible or said 'you cant do that cause its not part of the story' and railroaded you.
Like most things, the instrument was meant to be used one way but people can use it different ways or even use it wrong or abuse it. Sometimes its right to blame the instrument, but this isnt one of those cases.
>>47248312
I absolutely agree with that approach to story. You know what else agrees with you?
Apocalypse World, one of the most notable failing forward systems
In it, "Play to find out what happens" is a rule the GM is expected to follow.
>>47248497
Nothing happens as in there is no situational change. Everything is exactly the same as if you hadn't rolled at all.
>>47247977
Slavery, segregation and Eliteism aren't natural, nor are they good. He may be an idiot, but he's an idiot with a point.
>>47247962
And you're going to try and argue that community, altruism, family and empathy, all natural parts of humanity, are somehow morally wrong?
Neither 'nature' or 'creation' is inherently good or evil. It is necessary to examine ourselves, our thoughts and our actions, as they develop and change and determine what is good and right and what needs to be pruned, lest it twist into a cancer.
>>47247977
But hes not wrong. Natural =/= good same as natural =/= bad. Its a case by case thing and I assume that even that 'degenerate' anon would agree that altruism isnt a bad thing, he was merely pointing out your fallacy.
>>47245692
>D12
Mah dark skinned ethnic individual.
>>47248529
>everything is the same
Wrong, in the literal sense the character has done something that is distinct on its own, in the mechanical sense your turn has been used ineffectively which can disadvantage you compared to opponents that have yet to act.
>Point buy systems
>Over 1 hour to make a character
>Spending entire sessions on shopping
>>47248539
I don't need to argue that x thing is wrong. The point is that x thing can be anything and it's equally as inherently valid/invalid as any other thing.
Some other anon already said this, but right and wrong are value judgements, preferences that stem from arbitrarily selected axioms. What is good is only good according to a particular conception of good, and what is popular is not inherently superior.
>>47245614
There are plenty of systems where it represents actual injury and characters who have taken damage become less effective, and most of those are pretty abstract systems.
In Eclipse Phase, for example, damage in excess of your wound threshold causes wounds which give -10 on all actions per wound.
>>47245697
>>He thinks using THAC0 requires charts
>>47248638
I tried to get into eclipse phase.
>Needed to hire moving men to get the book into my house.
>Immediately began reading.
>Three hours later
>I'm done with the introduction, but there's more setting for me to read! It's pretty fun, and I'm getting excited about the idea of sleeving into different bodies!
>My eyes begin to ache.
>Eighteen hours later
>I'm wondering if there's any RPG in here and it's not all setting info.
>I'm starting to hallucinate- I've got my own shoulder-fairy AI telling me all the cool things about Eclipse phase.
>Sixty-two days later
>I've finally finished the setting info about the cool solar whale critters and the advanced production.
>Cataracts are forming from constant reading,
>Forty years later
>I'm on my death bed
>Everyone I love around me
>I mindlessly finish reading about the not!psychics, my dried finger tracing the ink. I have long since gone blind.
>Finally, I'm about 98% through the book
>Turn a page...
>CHAPTER 2: Creating a character!
>Die.
>>47248715
Not that anon but personally I prefer the chart from 1e to THAC0 from 2e, for what it's worth.
>>47248539
>all natural parts of humanity, are somehow morally wrong?
I'm actually no sure if the word "nature" as any meaning at all in those contexts.
>>47247815
Hates failing forward, loves FFG Star Wars: failing forward the game.
>Any system that goes "Do what's best for the story!"
If I wanted to run a story I would have written a novel. Even in heavily railroaded pre-written modules I switch things up and make it more player-driven. The story is what the players do and how the GM's world interacts, not a set script.
>Character creation rules aren't right at the start of the book
As a GM, the best way I learn the system is to create a character myself to see how it works. If I can't find the rules to make a character in ten seconds and it's not clearly labeled in the table of contents I rapidly lose interest.
>>47244938
>Dice pool systems where any mechanic requires you to subtract dice from the pool BEFORE rolling. This inevitably gets forgotten and unlike flat numeric modifiers can't be applied after the dice are rolled. The entire pool must be rerolled.
>50+ pages of metaplot, setting, or short stories before any rules are discussed
>The GM has to pick out a skill for the players to roll for most activities. Skills aren't 110% clear what each individual one is for or have defined mechanical aspects they are always allowed to cover.
>Having skills for shit that everyone should be basically competent at (such as driving cars or having a high school level of education)
>The ability to succeed or even critical on an attack but deal no damage because of unfavorable damage rolls / resist rolls
>"The Feat Problem" where every so often as you progress you get to pick another character improvement from a list. You always pick the best/most useful one first and arrange things so that if you need multiple to function you can get them all fairly early in the game. After that though you end up picking things that are less and less desirable, stalling your character's power growth.
>"Everyone make an X check" There's no point in being good at these skills. Someone is usually going to pass them and it often enough won't even be you simply because of random chance.
>Combat that requires looking up the rules in a book for my power/ability every round.
>Combat where 99% of the time your only option is "I hit it with my axe" or some variant thereof.
>Combat that takes 10+ minutes to get around the table on average
>In a game where fighting is expected, the mere ability to make a non-combat character is ridiculous
>>47249030
>Having skills for shit that everyone should be basically competent at (such as driving cars or having a high school level of education)
>Everyone can drive and finishes high-school
What planet are you living on and is there any way for me to get there? It sounds nice!
>>47247444
It actually works pretty well if you know what your doing I like it a lot better it discourages wealth hoarding
A well-known one, but it kills any interest immediately:
>characters have a stat that determines order of actions
>characters decide which action they are going to use when it reaches their go
Congratulations, designers. You've just made slow situationally rewarding and fast situationally punishing, putting the speed stat a neutral. Given that the speed stat will inevitably cost players to raise, the result is almost everyone playing a slow build unless they can guarantee wiping out all enemies with an alpha strke before they can react, which is boring and wanky in any case. Bad player incentives 101.
Credit goes to actually using the DnD alignment table in any year after 2000. The Tin Lizzy is an important and attractive milestone in motor design, but you don't actually drive one for the practical purposes of getting from A to B. DnD alignment was a crucial step towards motive specification in gaming, but for practical purposes is limited, foggy and at times contradictory.
luck points/moxie/fate points/get out of jail free currency to stop "muh bad things" happening.
That paragraph about using certain gendered pronouns. Seriously. Grow up and start writing in the third person, it sounds better.
>Games with super special snowflake options that no sane GM would ever allow, but are legal by RAW and just create a shitton of arguments.
Take shadowrun for example. Things like reverse furries, drakes, AIs, free spirits etc.
>>47245614
This. I remember summarising to a group of friends back in high school that abstract hit points basically treat all injuries as if they have perfectly diffused throughout the victims body, making every bit of them *slightly* bruised or tattered. The counter hitting zero is when enough tiny cuts have emerged all over them that they can't move anymore.
The Wound stat in Warhammer makes more sense for characters than it does for large targets and monsters for the same reason. It reflects the character having been injured and in sticky situations before, and rolling with the blows, using a prepared counter to get in the footing where an otherwise less experienced soldier would fall in shock. The Toughness stat is perfectly adequate for representing physical bulk.
>>47248862
>Any system that goes "Do what's best for the story!"
>The story is what the players do and how the GM's world interacts, not a set script.
These aren't actually opposed you know.
>>47249030
Every game that Ive seen driving as a skill its meant advanced driving techniques. Not trained doesnt mean unable to drive, it just means you have the basic drivong education everyone gets to get a liscense.
>>47244938
>>rolling high is always best EXCEPT one thing where you want to roll low (or vice versa)
I think striving for consistency does more harm then good. Substraction is not that hard, but it's tedious and eventually tire people out, so when rolling for probability, die should roll under the given number. Probability of good thing or bad thing? Doesn't matter.
>>47248715
OD&D thac0 and saves does require the DM to have a chart for the monsters. Players got it easy.
>>47247988
No it's not you fucking dimwit. Just because Lovecraft describes his creations as eldritch and there is a Lovecraftian board game called Eldritch Horror does not mean it's synonymous to Lovecraft.
That shit is cosmic horror, bruh.
>>47248575
Right, but if your character had instead sat there contemplating their navel on their turn, it would have had the exact same result as their failure to hit. The two would be literally indistinguishable. In a fail-forward system, the failed roll to hit has different consequences than inaction.
>>47248862
Congratulations on engendering strong and opposite feelings with your two points! I fucking HATE IT when the chargen rules are buried somewhere three or four chapters into the book. If they're immediately after setting information, it's almost okay, but if the setting information is literally half the book, I will actively skip it. The problem with that is that most books with that much setting information want you to know a huge chunk of it before you create your character, so you're sitting their going "what the fuck is a Demorthèn?"
Your first point, though, is hilariously myopic, even if it is based in an unfortunate reality.
>>47247938
>WoD
>not horror
What the actual fuck am I reading.
>>47249155
That doesn't make sense. If you have two characters fighting, and the action order goes A, B, A, B, etc., then A is obviously better off. The fact that A can't react to B on their first turn is meaningless since B can't do anything for A to react to.
What system doesn't have the option to wait, anyway? Depending on the system, A may be able to do something like waiting for B to close the distance but before B gets to attack.
>>47253218
You are reading someone who has somewhat decent taste in horror.
Even if he is still fucking shit opinions.
>>47253987
Bad horror is still horror; it sounds like he's trying to say that the WoD setting is more 'highbrow' than horror.
He also thinks that 'Lovecraft' and 'eldritch' are literally synonyms, though, so that's awkward.
>>47244938
Aren't the hit points in D&D explicitly abstracted aka plot armor until you reach 0 and the negatives?
>>47248312
So you're saying there's never any story where the protagonists fail, ever. That would be incorrect. I hope you realize how stupid that sounds. Just because the story is progressing doesn't mean good things is happening. If the PC trying to pick a lock to get into the castle, gets caught, and winds up in the dungeon, they have failed 'forward' because they are technically in the castle but definitely not in a way they want to be.
This allows them to progress from this point, but at a large disadvantage: Not having any equipment, needing to break out of the cell, etc. That's what failing forward means, not "oh you failed to pick the lock but it opened anyway lol". That has NOTHING to do with failing forward.
>>47254714
Yes. A lot of things in D&D are abstract.
>>47244938
>OP plays them
>>47245043
This. The more obnoxious the fanbase and the more they evangelize and try to convert me to their hot new cool system, the less interested I am in it. If a system attracts people that fucking obnoxious, then I want nothing to do with it.
>>47254714
>explicitly
No, they're not explicitly described as anything other than a measure of how much damage you can take. This is part of the problem, because some assume it means plot armour and some assume it means meat points. The former is not compatible with poisons that apply on damage (if it didn't actually hurt you, how the hell did it poison you?) and the latter is not compatible with environmental damages (like why can guy A barely survive a 20ft fall but guy B can be literally dropped from orbit and be largely okay),
>>47248760
That's not funny and you know it.
>>47253761
Not if B gets to witness A's action and then react to it. A classic example is two opposed characters approaching opposite bends in an S-shaped corridor. Each character performs all their actions at once, and can both move and attack in a turn (using projectiles) in either order. Whoever heads around the corner first is met with nothing and so does nothing. But whoever goes second sees their enemy, and is free to shoot at them. In this situation, going second granted the advantage. The controller of character A wouldn't do this with perfect information, but not all games involved perfect information and many would be completey ruined by that. If Player A can cautiously approach the junction, so can the controller of B. In the end, the first to head around the corner loses. If both sit there stalemating, then speed was a non-factor.
Now consider the alternative. Player A and B plan their actions in advance, then reveal them and resolve simultaneously. Let's say both Player A and B choose to head around the corridor. Their characters both do so. A heads around first, but B doesn't get to shoot at A since its controller didn't (couldn't) plan an attack without a target. The next turn, the two players both plan shooting attacks. A resolves first, and thus has the advantage in the ensuing firefight. Or, A could choose to back off, and thus leave B without a target, shooting a wall when its action resolves. This same advantage translates perfectly into other initial setups, such as if A chooses to wait for B, or if A heads around the corner and B waits.
Speaking of waiting. Wait mechanics can alleviate the issues with the decision-at-resolve system, but not all. Sometimes it can reverse the problem, and make fast characters too powerful. Other times it just makes gaming a chaos of interruptions, rather than neat flowing action.
>>47251618
THAC0 replaced the old combat matrices.
Used to be you needed a chart to know the number you needed in order to hit. THAC0 just gives you a number at which you hit AC 0. Subtract the target's AC from your THAC0, you get what you need to actually hit the target.
So the chart is replaced with a simple formula.
>>47247988
"Eldritch" just means "weird, sinister, ghostly".
Cosmic horror, which is to say Lovecraftian horror, is a type of eldritch horror, but so is most other supernatural horror.
>>47245000
>Wanting to track individual coins and bills
>oh no my brain had a seizure so I can't do arithmetic
But actually, here are some of mine:
>stat penalties for sex, and similar rules
>other game rules indicating the writer's excessive fixation on sex or bigotry
>people automatically becoming vastly more competent because they feel bad
>>47255650
>stat penalties for sex, and similar rules
Depends entirely on the kind of game you're playing. For most, it's a bad idea.
>>47247350
The mountain witch was a game that was defined by its characters' motivations and goals. I'm surprised to see this was your complaint with the game.
>Table of contents doesn't have any more detail than pages where chapters start.
Into the trash World of Darkness. Never can I find any rule when I want it and stopping the session for 15 minutes so I can read a whole chapter where half of it is just bad fanfic level story time is nonsense. Grr.
>>47252836
>>47255485
The meaning of the word eldritch doesn't matter, the genre of eldritch horror is indistinguishable from cosmic and Lovecraftian horror.
>>47253218
WoD is not horror, it's supernatural politics and action. Nothing about WoD is scary, the only way they market it as "horror" is as a game of "personal horror" which means your character is upset by the things that happen to them, to give the emo and gothic playerbase an excuse to be angsty.
Vampires, werewolves, ghosts, and even demons are just regular dudes in WoD, who probably all go to the same bar. You don't run in fear from a supernatural menace in WoD, you sit down and bargain with him or punch him in his fucking face.
>>47258397
I've never played WoD and don't know anything about it, but if it's as you describe then it sounds really stupid.
>>47258708
>AGHHH WHY ISN'T EVERYTHING INCOMPREHENSIBLE AND MADDENING!!!
>Those are /GHOSTS/ holy shit how are you not shitting yourself in fear, omg like they're DEAD PEOPLE AGHH!!!!
>Vampires!? They want to SUCK YOUR BLOOD! AGAHHAHAHAH!!!!
>WEREWOLVES ARE PART WOLF PART MAN IT'S IMPOSSIBLE IMPOSSSIBLE
>>47258791
>>47258397
>Nothing about WoD is scary, the only way they market it as "horror" is as a game of "personal horror" which means your character is upset by the things that happen to them, to give the emo and gothic playerbase an excuse to be angsty.
Personal horror is the horror of the realization of how much you've changed and what you are willing to do. It's a person who has killed eleven innocent men trying to kill one guilty one. You can be dismissive about angst, but without it there wouldn't be stories.
>Vampires, werewolves, ghosts, and even demons are just regular dudes in WoD, who probably all go to the same bar. You don't run in fear from a supernatural menace in WoD, you sit down and bargain with him or punch him in his fucking face.
The players are supposed to be newly changed, but as one does change one becomes different. None of those are regular dudes. Elder vampires have eugenics programs of ghouls, werewolves are predator gods who can only eat human flesh and magic, ghosts are memories, and demons are bugged programming from a machine that watches and controls the world.
>>47244938
>there aren't any DC tables for skills
>player HP is set up so that 6ft humans become like steel battleships as they level
>the game is focused on combat, but rules for PC death are so forgiving that there's little to no risk involved
>spells are ranked in raw power from 1 to 9, starting at 'really useful and versatile' transitioning to 'fucking bullshit' and ending with 'you are god'
>you are expected to defeat the dragon by leveling up to the appropriate strength tier and then overpowering it
>>47259055
>Personal horror is the horror of the realization of how much you've changed and what you are willing to do.
It's only meaningful to pathetic beta bitches who actually care about that sort of bullshit. Being a supernatural creature almost always means you are vastly more powerful and important than humans, and the main internal conflict in WoD is people bemoaning this fact because their mommy told them that hurting people is wrong. But characters grow up, stop behaving irrationally, and embrace the fact that the supernatural is just part of the natural.
>unironically choosing to play CofD in 2016
There's a reason that garbage got cucked out of its own name.
>>47259128
>in world of darkness, it's okay to kill fucking people in cold blood.
>until the storyteller takes your character away and forces you to.make a new, or just kills you for reveling monsters are real to the general public
WoD is shit, but I will say it does the best way with dealing with shit players with common sense "don't be breaking the code, you asshat." That most of the major factions have.
>>47259128
>It's only meaningful to pathetic beta bitches who actually care about that sort of bullshit. Being a supernatural creature almost always means you are vastly more powerful and important than humans, and the main internal conflict in WoD is people bemoaning this fact because their mommy told them that hurting people is wrong. But characters grow up, stop behaving irrationally, and embrace the fact that the supernatural is just part of the natural.
That was just an example, I should have realized I was talking to an edgelord. So here's another example of personal horror you might be able to appreciate more. You're so eager to get that signed copy of Naruto that you end up behind a bookstore jacking off strange men onto your face to get it. When you wipe the cum out of your eyes, you see yourself and how you've fallen.
Because being powerful doesn't mean you're all powerful, and thinking you're important just means you're going to be shown how irrelevant you are.
>>47258708
He's wrong.
>>47258397
Is that you, Camilla?
Have you actually played the games you're complaining about? For one, there's plenty in the WoD that's scary. nWoD, 2e in particular, is about the fear of the unknown. More than that, "personal horror" isn't the horror of what has been done TO you, it's the horror of what has been done BY you. It's not about being angsty, it's about being (or trying not to be) a shitty person.
Here are just some of the horror themes in WoD:
>Loss of identity
>Loss of ethical concerns
>Loss of humanity, both literally and figuratively
>Loss of social networks
>Being the Other
>The awareness of what goes on behind the curtain
>Body Horror (oh so much)
>Cosmic horror
>Eldritch horror
>Inherited duty
>Post-traumatic stress
And this is on top of pure mechanical horror of "this shit rolls twice as many dice as I do."
Even in oWoD, you've got many of these themes.
>>47259128
Oh, I mistook you for someone who was wrong, but not a complete idiot.
I'm sure you're such an enlightened ubermench, as opposed to someone with no sense of self-awareness.
>>47259196
That sounds pretentious and dumb.
>>47259193
The Masquerade applies only to vampires, but it's hardly challenging for them to overcome. Outright killing is something a low minded Gangrel uses to solve his problems, anyways.
>>47259196
>Because being powerful doesn't mean you're all powerful, and thinking you're important just means you're going to be shown how irrelevant you are.
You're mistaking the politics of the supernatural for the ridiculous "moral dilemma" that the developers assume your characters will have regarding humanity. Of course the ambitious neonates will be put in their place by vampires, but being bottom bothered at accidentally killing some street trash for blood, or not even killing him at all, is something that never happens and never should happen.
>>47259241
> nWoD, 2e in particular, is about the fear of the unknown
Get out of here with your terrible games, and remember that it's not nWoD anymore, it's CofD, since it was so shitty that it had the name revoked by the new and superior management.
>>47259297
fair enough,
again vampire is the only game i know of.
but it also covers the concept of Humanity.
You are the monster, don't get me wrong, however, you really cant fuck around being an ass too much, or storyteller will take your character. (at least in vampire)
>>47245692
>tfw deving a game that uses d12
>>47258708
Thing is, you're not wrong. I missed out on WoD when it first came out.
>busy being angsty
>became adult, did adult things
Then I find c/o/n/WoD.
One hell of a load of retarded shit right there in a very lavish set of books.
>too much muh fiction
>too much muh speshul snowflaykz
It's just not very good. And they attempt to polish the turd with God Machine and further desperate meta-tweaks.
>still a turd
>>47259297
The bame wasn't revoked, it was changed. Because Old World of Darkness is making a return.
If your going to dis on the game at least do some research.
>>47260005
It was revoked by Johan himself, because CofD is faggy shit that was always the vastly lesser sibling of WoD. There is only one World of Darkness, and it's the original.
>>47259855
Please stop being so dumb, you're causing me physical pain.
>>47258397
I got that feeling from Vampire, but I'm surprised nobody has brough up playing plain WoD, that is, just the main rulebook, where you're not playing Edward specialface, but your average Joe, being faced with stuff he just doesn't understand. That seems pretty horror to me.
>>47260145
>being normal must be spooky
No, it's really not. Again, the majority of supernatural creatures in WoD are just humans who have fangs or claws or pointy hats. They like heavy metal and beer pong and Dark Souls. Sure, if they want to harm you, that's scary because your life is in danger, but they're not any more scary than Tyrone Biggums in that regard.
>>47260145
I get why, the main face of WoD old or new is the main three, Vampire, Werewolf and mage. An I doubt that even if we keep getting more mortal/minor-template books that view will ever -really- change.
But yeah fampai, straight mortals games are usally the best for horror.
>>47260145
the best way to do WoD is play either the core book, or do Hunter the Vigil/ Reckoning.
either way, your still human, and your fighting the Vampires
>>47260246
Well, depending on how you do it you're a human with your own kind of supernatural powers.
>ITT: WoDfags can't admit their game is shit
>>47260311
Nah but who cares man, I have fun with it. Isn't that all that matters?
>>47260311
Horror is really hard to do, regardless of system.
WoD is kind of like the D&D of horror games, it's popular, but it's not the best way to do horror.will I get banned for posting free photos that the company gave out for free for game designers to you?
>>47260227
Please for the love of God stop being wrong.
>>47260145
"Just the main rulebook" is a thing from the version of WoD that this guy doesn't like even more than the one that he doesn't like. Even then, the things he's saying are basically untrue, even of the version that I hate.
>>47260431
You won't get banned for posting unfree photos.
Also, I need to learn Cypher (or Cortex) and make a homebrew to sell...
>>47260311
It's not shit. The person bitching here clearly has no idea what he's talking about. What he's bitching about isn't even true of oWoD, which is the version I think IS shit and the one that he's explicitly talking about. He's just one of those people who thinks horror is jumpscares and gross monsters eating your face and that psychological horror isn't a thing because "I'd never feel bad". It's the internet tough guy approach to horror.
>>47260687
Cypher is allright, GM's don't roll dice and plays with GM intrusions.
Cortex is sorta like more complicated savage worlds. If you're interest in the two games it was made for it :Fire Fly, andLeveragethan give it a look.
>>47245692
I am working on a generic RPG that uses either d12 or d10 for the core mechanic.
>>47260731
I know about Cortex. I haven't played it, but I know MWP basically does really good licensed games properties that probably are impossible to play because they're so licensed. Is the Smallville one not Cortex as well?
I just know I got emails that both of those allow for you to sell homebrew on DriveThruRPG. I have a few setting ideas that a friend suggested I turn into fully fleshed out games to sell (she just started selling her Neolithic retroclone), but I was going to make new systems for those.
>>47260687
>Please for the love of God stop being wrong.
Sorry that I'm spoiling your grim, oh-so "horrifying" angsty bullshit, kid. Go and read up on nearly any character in WoD and you'll come away thinking either, "Wow, that dude is pretty rad," or "Wow, that dude is fucked up," but never "AAAAGH I'M SO SCARED!"
>>47260871
Except that I have.
>>47260871
So whats an example of a really scary character from a TTRPG then dood? I'd like to see an example, honestly.
>>47255245
I thought it was pretty funny.And accurate.
>>47260925
Go away with your dress up princess bullshit, fuck.
>>47260954
There are none, horror is not a genre that works even in traditional media, much less in RPGs.
>>47245534
Where do you get the idea that people dislike the inconsistency because it was too hard to get their brains around?
It represents a stumbling block, it causes a hitch in mental action that's unpleasant.
There are a lot of examples that have roll under for checks and roll high for damage or for special purposes.
I seem to remember some D&D like system that had rolling high for attacks and rolling low for defenses. (actually, that almost makes a kind of aesthetic sense.)
>>47260851
Cortex is great, just not that much to work with it.
Cypher is probably one of the few things from Monte Cooke that I don't outright hate.
But the point I was getting at was it is really hard to do horror, regardless of the system, because it's more a feeling rather than a setting.
I wanted to write a little pamphlet about horror and some tips to run it. To put it simply, the best way to run the best horror game is to have both the player and the palyer's character be scared. Which is no easy tasked.
>>47260954
Not him, but some of the examplr Esoterrorist from Essoterrorist can be disturbing or really hillarious, In case of the pokemon card satan one.
>>47261401
I have never even -heard- of that, better go look it up then.
>>47261435
Esoterrorist is a supernatural investigation game made for the gums shoe system. And while it's more just "supernatural" and not "horror", It does have things that can be used for scares, one other of the example ones is a group of serial killers who are lead by your sterotypipical leader with the body of his mom he keeps in a duffle bag that,which is controlled by a demon.but the pokemon card one makes me laugh, mostly because it plays on that whole " card games are the devil." Sort of thing.
>>47255650
SJW detected. You probably think muscular differences between men and women are a psychosomatic response to gender indoctrination.
>>47260954
Well I do have "Don't Rest Your Head" when it's ran by a fairly competent Game Master, it also doesn't have to be the complex bullshit system they made.
Personal favorite one is Mother When, or theGM fucking with the players
>>47248598
>Spending entire sessions on shopping
As a DM I use those shopping sessions to introduce plot hooks and important NPCs. Hell, I've even made a minigame out of one player looking for super basic adventurer's gear in the Grand Bazaar of Sigil.
>>47261401
I find that the one thing that makes horror hard to do is the fact that players will go OOC to break tension. What pokemon card satan one?
>>47260954
The entire Summoners book, from Mage: The Awakening.
>>47261596
>Not wanting the game to harp on that women should go back to the kitchen because this is a men's game for manly men and every fictional setting has to be 1950s America.
You probably think feminists are trying to castrate you for being a man.
>>47262333
Esoterrorist 2nd edition has a couple of example bad guys to run. the one with the card game is called The Shepherdstown Cuckoosyes, laugh at 9 year oldswho are possed by a demon for doing anything to get Not! Pokemon Cards.
>>47262447
>The Shepherdstown Cuckoos
I feel like I'm missing a reference.
>>47244938
>Taking way too many design elements from D&D all at once.
>d20
>low-face dice like d6 but still uses +1/+2 etc modifiers which are extremely skewed at that level
>games that are all about solving combat
>Taking 2 hours to chargen due to insane complexity
>Vancian magic
>vanilla themes like medieval (not sword and sorcery), world war II or other zzzzzzz...
>Fantards who claim it's flawless (Pathfinder)
>Characters that are all identical in function or so unbalaned it takes legitimate effort to keep the party similar in power
On these notes I wish more games took the time to not make you peruse a huge item list for all the random bullshit like bottles, blankets, ladders or what the fuck ever.
To all the people bitching about abstract wealth:
How do you handle credit cards, loans, mortgages, taxes, investments, and interest accruing accounts in your modern games?
>>47262489
>The Shepherdstown Cuckoosi read it wrong, the kids are after Not! Garbage Pale Kids.
but even then this kid and his friends will fucking kill anyone( infered as other children)too get what he wants.
>>47262530
I don't think anyone has ever said Pathfinder is flawless, just a) better than D&D and b) generally not as bad as haters complain about.
>>47262578
No, I mean I get the feeling that "Shepherdstown Cuckoos" is a reference to something. But all I can think of is the Stepford Cuckoos from X-Men.
>>47262675
But that's wrong. It's actually flat out worse then 3.5 in a number of ways.
And given the brain damage it induces in people, we can't really put to words just how bad it really is.
>>47262675
it probably is, I try to fine something about it but nothing comes up for it.
>>47262702
What's the picture for 'It's never been a problem at our table' supposed to be? A gated community?
>>47255048
HP are explicitly described as an abstraction of stamina, mental fortitude, magic, and luck in the 1e DMG, the PHB4e, and the PHB5e.
Please don't lie.
>>47262702
>Implying that martials aren't better in Pathfinder than D&D.
When Wizards made Fighters not suck, people bitched so hard they made a new edition. Like, again, "it's not as bad as you're bitching about" isn't "it's the greatest thing since sliced bread".
Also, some of those BINGO squares sound like the kind of thing petulant people complain about, like people not wanting to engage with you when you're whining, or shutting you down for theorycrafting.
I've played Pathfinder. It's not great, but I've found that during my short time at PFS, it wasn't as bad as "go look up whatever you want on the internet" style 3.5 games.
>>47255048
No one said it didn't hurt you. Also, guy B is a superhero, because most D&D characters are.
>>47262860
Thank you for proving my point about the brain damage that is inflicted by playing anything 3.PF related. Literally perfect example.
>>47262900
>"I don't like when people point out that I'm being a child".
I'm not saying it's the greatest game ever. I like it more than I thought I would, and I do think that it's better than 3.5 (hey, martials can actually DO things!), but I wouldn't really choose to run it myself, and I'm not jumping for a chronicle.
But that doesn't change the fact that your argument seems to mostly be pointless bitching and hating something that other people like. I mean, hell, you mistake my casual defense of Pathfinder as "not that bad" as if I'm saying it's the best. Of fucking course I'm going to think that you're a slack jawed manchild who whines whenever someone corrects him.
I've talked to Pathfinder players. Most of them who do like the system like it as an alternative to D&D, and because it's really crunch heavy. I've seen plenty of minmaxers take dips into martials, but even then aside from core Fighter and Rogue, the "Martial/Caster" divide is lessened in PF with meaningful class features.
It's not a good system. Far from it. Level based systems are shit, stat bloat is a thing, it's way too reliant on magic items that you just pick up from the shop, it's a game that encourages race minmaxing, and worst of all you've got feat taxes and class features that take forever to 'come online' and function properly. But it's not the utter shitpile you're making it out to be, and not even the PF thread loves it (shit, I think the Pathfinder thread hates Pathfinder).
>>47262775
>stamina
Ok yeah, Con to Hp everything checks out here.
>luck
It is presented with a die roll so I guess.
>magic
Falling from orbit and being able to walk away is pretty magical I guess.
>mental fortitude
But then why does my 30 (Int/Wis/Cha) fighter have the same amount of hit points as my fighter with an 8 in those scores?
If a bit of descriptive text describes something that isn't modeled in the system then it doesn't count sempai.
>>47262980
>and I do think that it's better than 3.5 (hey, martials can actually DO things!),
See, this, fuckface? This is WRONG. Caster imbalance is actually a good bit worse then 3.5 base, but you are literally too fucking stupid to understand this. The people you've talked to? Also fucking idiots.
Your opnion is dogshit based on incorrect facts, and this is why I didn't bother to do anything but mock you for being a brain damaged retard. Because you actively are.
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/59403/does-pathfinder-have-the-character-imbalance-problem-that-dd-3-x-has
Read, nigga. Read. Get educated.
>>47262988
It's a game, not a reality simulation.
>It is important to keep in mind that, after all is said and done, ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a game. Because it is a game, certain things which seem "unrealistic" or simply unnecessary are integral to the system. Classes have restrictions in order to give a varied and unique approach to each class when they play, as well as to provide play balance.
--ADnD1e PHB.
>It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).
--DMG 1e.
I wish people would stop bringing up both "does balance in an RPG matter" and "what do HP represent in a DnDlike game" because both have been answered for a longass time.
>>47263067
Martials can actually do things. Hell, compare 3.5's Barbarian to Pathfinder's.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/barbarian.htm
Things a 3.5 Barbarian can do:
>Get angry
>Find traps
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/classes/barbarian.html#barbarian
Things a PF Barbarian can do
>get angry
>find traps
>Bite things
>throw people around
>Heal, presumably by shouting at himself
>Track by scent
>Various options for bonuses
Pretty sure in a sourcebook they can even grow tentacles, and I know flying is a Rage Power.
Again, not saying there are no problems. Not saying it's the best. I'm not even saying that the things in that nitpicky minmax focused article aren't perfectly true, and I see feat taxes and the necessity of certain feats as one of the biggest problems, but most of your bitching is dumb, and bad and I give up talking to you actually so I don't care.
I don't know why people can't just... not like something. Everything has to be passionate hatred instead of "meh, not a fan".
>>47258397
>The meaning of the word eldritch doesn't matter, the genre of eldritch horror is indistinguishable from cosmic and Lovecraftian horror.
Only inside your own head, but you've just clearly established that you're a moron, so who cares?
WoD is very much not Lovecraftian, this is absolutely true -- it's entirely different approach to horror. WoD is ALL ABOUT personal horror: the horror of becoming something inhuman, and struggling to cope with that by carrying a semblance of being human for the rest of humanity to see. They are your audience. You are their performer, be you vampire, mage, or werewolf.
Lovecraftian horror is a completely separate beast. The key theme of Lovecraft is insignificance. You are human. You are dealing with forces and powers infinitely older than you. You can't comprehend them, at all. They are powers beyond human understanding in every possible sense of the word. Human beings are to Cthulhu what dust mites are to human beings.
The center of Lovecraftian horror is the utmost philosophical pessimism. It's the kind of thing that could depress Schopenhauer.
>>47263203
This is adorable. God you are so fucking stupid. You didn't.
Fucking.
READ.
Shit like this, this goddamn brain cancer, is why people relentlessly shit on you stupid fuckers.
3.PF ruined one generation of RPG players. Never again. I can't wait until the last of you fucks die out.
Wallow in your ignorance, retard.
>>47263230
>Still not getting it
I don't even play Pathfinder. I don't really like it all that much.
I just think that being this mad is ridiculous.
You are literally upset that other people enjoy something.
>>47263204
I don't think explaining horror to that guy will mean anything. I already tried and his answer was to pretend like he's a hard badass internet tough guy who'll knife an old lady for her purse and not feel bad.
>>47263306
Yes, you stupid, stupid little retard.
I'm upset that this literal cancer of a game ruined a fucking generation of roleplayers. There are STILL. FUCKING. GROUPS. THAT PLAY NOTHING BUT 3. fucking PF, and throw literal fits if you suggest anything else.
They are fucking cancer, and I hate them.
You are WRONG, you shitsucking fucknugget. PF really is that badly balanced, I've given you proof above, and you refuse to fucking read it, insisting it's 'ok', based on your own flawed observances.
I couldn't possibly imagine why I'm mad, no.
You literal retard.
>>47260954
>So whats an example of a really scary character from a TTRPG then dood? I'd like to see an example, honestly.
>>47261312
>There are none, horror is not a genre that works even in traditional media, much less in RPGs.
And this is what's wrong with the modern understanding of horror.
People are too used to bullshit like Saw. Raw gore for its own sake. Not much point to any of it. Absurd gore garbage.
People are also too used to thinking of suspense as horror. Suspense is an entirely different beast. It's wonderful, don't get me wrong, but its association with horror is basically incidental.
Most people don't understand the real focus of horror. They're honestly stupid enough to think their lives really do mean something. So they don't like horror, because they can't accept the absurdity that lies at the bottom of existence. They can't deal with the fact that, in the end, nothing means anything.
Let go. You'll never understand horror until you do. Stop clinging to life. Embrace the inevitable. It's coming for you, one day, whether you want it or not. You might as well make peace with it now rather than later.
Let go.
>>47262538
They don't because they only play variations of D&D where loans, banks and two column accounting do not exist. Wealth only comes from raiding dungeon #464.
>>47263362
>>47263333
Don't play with them. I've basically never had the problem you're whining about.
You're overinflating the game's problems. I never denied the game had problems, I never said it was balanced, or "okay". My observance is "yeah, it's pretty shitty, but nothing to get your knickers in a twist over".
I find it funny that "have you tried not playing D&D" is on your salty BINGO when apparently that's what you wish you could do.
>>47263362
Ok, so what is horror? Can I have a guess?
Is horror helplessness?
>>47263420
アメリカ人らしい単純、自分自身を撃ってどうする自殺か?ヘルメットは他人の頭を上に乗せるともいい、角の付いた頭で殴られたら痛いだろ、だから話が通じないんだ、ネットの痛い奴しか居ない、だから解決する奴も居ないから無法地帯
>>47263362
>>47263420
>>47263472
I'm not sure which is worse, your cringyness or your edginess.
>>47263481>Simple seems to Americans , if suicide or shoot yourself ? Helmet is also referred to as put on the head of another person , probably hurts When you are beaten in the head with a corner , so I do not understand the story , guy hurts the net not here only , so lawless because absent guy also resolve
google translation is funny sometimes.
>>47263519
Hey, captain edgelord, you're not impressing anyone.
>>47263519
Yeah, no shit dude. Just chill and enjoy until that happens.
>>47263091
Nigger I don't care if it's a reality simulation, I just want some internal fucking consistency. Don't tell me HP is also magic when there's abilities that nope the shit out of magic without changing hitpoints. Don't say its some sixth sense bullshit without factoring the actual stats the govern characters noticing shit. If you don't want me to assume that high level characters can run around with more spears in them then pic related. The have mechanics that reflect that shit.
>>47263519
>nihilism is horror
But I guess the guy who says "[people are] honestly stupid enough to think their lives really do mean something" would be the kind of guy to fear his own mortality. The gore you're posting is just psychological bullshit like Saw. Raw gore for its own sake, not much point to any of it.
People have been mortal since the dawn of time, and the fact that people have issue personalizing death doesn't mean it's terrifying to them.
>>47263560
>represent health as arbitrary numbers
>"at least change the number in the stats if that's what HP represents"
Nigger I don't care if you don't understand, I just want some internal fucking consistency. Hit points are an abstraction, and assuming your character is a pincushion because his opponents are a low level is because the GM just assumes any hit is a strong wounding blow and describes it as such, instead of describing it as a glancing blow, weakening your guard, etc.
I've fallen in love with wound systems as described in FUDGE, where the damage dealt determines the severity of the wound - and your skill negates some damage dealt. It also prevents a character from taking 3 spears with no issue, then the fourth knocking him out of the fight.
An aside: this conversation reminds me of the explosive casualty issue with Dark Heresy: when reduced to negative X wounds, your character suffers the effect listed on the critical table at X, but it doesn't matter how much damage the attack was. If your character survives a hit that brings him down to -6 and then gets punched in the face for 3 more damage, he takes the head critical for 9 damage: exploding head. We couldn't find a reasonable way to houserule this out while keeping wounds
>>47247815
Gonna catch shit, but what is failing forward?
>>47263690
>An aside: this conversation reminds me of the explosive casualty issue with Dark Heresy: when reduced to negative X wounds, your character suffers the effect listed on the critical table at X, but it doesn't matter how much damage the attack was. If your character survives a hit that brings him down to -6 and then gets punched in the face for 3 more damage, he takes the head critical for 9 damage: exploding head. We couldn't find a reasonable way to houserule this out while keeping wounds
... you really couldn't think of a reasonable rule for that? Just don't make it stack, man. Ignore critical damage tracking, just use the critical effect for however much damage the attack dealt. All the lower results tend to add some levels of fatigue and the higher results are quite rapidly "blood loss or instant death" so you're still going to lose consciousness or die pretty quickly.
>>47263780
When you say it logically like that, it sounds obvious and makes me look stupid. I don't appreciate it.
>>47263734
A method of thought in RPGs where failing to achieve a goal still progresses the narrative in some fashion. It's to prevent players from rolling dice ad infnum until they succeed at whatever they set out to do.
>>47263803
You're not welcome.
>>47262094
Do tell, comrade.
>>47263560
There are different kinds of magic.
Also, stop being dumb. There is no reasonable way to handle HP in most games.
>>47263734
A good game design principle, but this thread hates a lot of those.
>>47263690
Nigger, It's fine if they an abstraction just give me rules that interact with that abstraction, don't shove a paragraph in a 100+page book that implies that I'm a twat for reading rules and not grasping the weird abstraction that you want them to represent.
That fudge thing sounds cool though.
>>47247988
You didn't even say eldritch horror. You just said eldritch.
>>47244938
Abstract wealth is great for systems where you are assumed to have a job and financial gains outside of adventuring. It also helps the GM from having to stop the game so much to explain how much everything costs in an absurd book keeping of life events.
Also while FF is slightly jewing people with their dice, it does make a unique roll system that fuels it's cinematic style well. I couldn't imagine the game without it.
>>47263899
You wanna take a crack at the other half of my argument instead of just the bit that you can come with a flimsy rational against?
Hp can be handled resonantly, just figure out what it's supposed to represent and make rules that reflect that. If it's skill then let fighty characters give themselves temp hp for a round or some shit with a block. let lucky charters penalize damage against them or some shit.
>>47244938
>Vancian Magic
all vancian magic does is buff mages with every book, and while it may be slightly humorous from a meta Perspective (that a wizard gains power as his player accrues more books), the fact that Vancian spells don't follow defined, relatively consistent, rules like every other part of the game is dumb.
>Shallow mechanics
When an encounter consists of every character repeating the same actions with no variations due to lack of benefit, I feel like you may as well take the final step into freeform RP, and just describe your characters interacting with the world.
>Classes
Because they never seem to be balanced while remaining unique. Also reducing character option without maintaining character balance is dumb.
>>47244938
>incredibly limited mechanical options, regardless of whether or not fluff options are nearly as limited
>rules requiring calculus
>rules with no GM fiat flexibility
>any combination where HP loss means penalties to movement and attack, but there is nothing in place to prevent rocket tag
>rules heavier than ununquadium
>rules lighter than helium
>mechanics rely on player's knowledge or skills instead of character's in a "serious" game
An addendum for "things I don't like but am willing to begrudgingly tolerate:"
>death is cheap, but everything can TPK your party
>a single weapon type is singled out for being hamstringed because the devs put it in but it "doesn't fit the genre"
>rules are disorganized
>pure fluff options with mechanical costs for no reason - i.e. needing a feat to do something that has no mechanical basis in and of itself
>>47264009
Let me turn this around: What system do you feel has internally consistent HP?
>>47244938
>Things that instantly turn you off a new system
>"This is a system meant to emulate insertgenrehere!"
>author clearly has only a superficial understanding of said genre and game fails to emulate anything of said genre except for one or two of its more popular examples.
See literally every "anime" RPG ever, most "mecha" RPGs, and about 99% of "steampunk" RPGs.
>>47264083
My homebrew system, it's pretty great.
>>47244938
Nice topic you got here OP, might actually make it enjoyable to read the replies for once.
>Any system that begins its core rules book with a 100+ page spiel about the setting and characters that it basically demands you run your game with.
>Requires the generic rule book it’s based upon because it refuses to explain the core system even after you paid £30 for it.
>Way too overly complex for the simple game it wants you to play.
>No bestiary.
>Systems that go out of their way to present themselves as elegant when the designers have had to introduce loads of clunky modifications whenever they came up against something they didn’t think about earlier on.
>Games that are trying too hard to be super edgy or grimdark. (They attract too many immature players.)
>Any that are built around a single gimmick.
>Systems that think that just because they’re story focused they don’t need to track stats.
>I’m afraid to say that poor artwork often puts me off too, but let’s be clear when I say “poor” I mean really really terrible artwork.
>>47264158
"My homebrew system" the /tg/ equivalent of the "mix tape."
>>47247274
Wrong thread me thinks.
>>47255377
..? Okay noted that in a labyrinth setting, having a lower initiative can have fringe benefits. But in lets say an open field, a forest, a busy town square, an office building, or an L shaped corridor, or even your s shaped corridor, the intelligent player/character can make assumptions based on the setting.
>are projectiles deadly?
what are we talking here? some kobolds with rocks or a KGB agent with an [insert appropriate gun here]?
>are you in combat?
Are you or your character aware of immediate danger?
if the answer is yes than an intelligent character/player "A" would act your scenario out like so:
Player A approaches the blind corner, and *gasp* looks around the corner. He sees no one but knows his life is in danger so he readies his gun to fire on an enemy and finishes his movement.Or in a game where you cannot set a action to "trigger" he stops at the corner and collects himself. NPC B then will also look around the corner into the sights of Player A who shoots from his side of the hallway. or in the non triggering game player A then walks down the hallway turns the corner sees NPC B and shoots first. alternating in a situation where neither character is aware you 1) shouldn't be in initiative order and 2) roll iniative/ enter turn order as soon as Player B turns the corner.
>>47247815
>I hate roleplaying the post.
>>47264233
You know there are other systems than D&D, right?
>>47248226
>I'm pretty sure seeing a book that has 200+ pages in it is a turn-off, because most of the time, it's uncalled for.
You should probably stick to your crappy 1-page rules on combat and magic indie games then.
>>47248598
An hour to make a PC isn't that long at all. By the sounds of it you just want to roll for stats and play with the resulting incredibly unbalanced party.
Yeah I'll agree with you on the shopping, it gets annoying after 30 mins or so. Especially when it's only one or two players doing it whilst the others wait.
>>47264233
>bashing D&D
>hating roleplaying
It's one or the other, chief.
>>47264158
I'm going to be skeptical unless you show me. Something tells me you've got blinders on.
>>47264199
Much like mixtapes, there are some great ones, but chances are yours isn't.
>>47264021
also
>Player based puzzles or checks
I dislike when my dumb Ork finishes the puzzle or riddle for the 500 year old elven wizard. What exactly does your bard say as he lies to the queen? Unless every skill can get a bonus if you describe proper technique it's dumb to include it sometimes, I'm not playing myself I'm playing a character with a skill set outside of my own.
>>47249161
I'm not against fate points in general. They give more control to the players which is fair given that they are just as involved in creating the world as the GM, but I think they should be much harder to earn.
>>47262530
Any theme can be exciting. You just need a better GM. I really can't see how WWII would be dull for example.
>>47263203
>Things a PF Barbarian can do
You mean "can do but 90% of them will be done poorly because shitty design". Superstition and related powers are the ONLY new features that are both powerful and allow them to do something a Barbarian in 3.5 couldn't already do, and it's telling that literally every other totem in the game is utter shit compared to the Beast totem because pounce is indispensable to a melee character.
>unreasonable amount of plot/setting writing before any rules are discussed
>Terrible rulebook formatting and bad editing
>any amount of arithmetic beyond addition and subtraction for actions that could happen multiple times per turn
>rolling for initiative every turn
>any system that feels the need to go into absurd detail about what hit points represent
>any rulebook with author asides that are just the author addressing minor complaints with a petulant tone
In my experience there are very few systems that are inexcusably bad, but having a poorly made rulebook will absolutely kill any chance of fun.
>>47264112
I agree that most "anime" games other than the ones from Japan itself are fucking dreadful.
>>47264308
>bashing D&D
You have me confused with another anon there me thinks.
>>47245197
>EXCEPT
>(or vice versa)
You missed some words, you dofus.
>>47264421
This guy >>47264233 replied to me, complaining that I hate roleplaying, which is utterly bizarre given
my condemnation of D&D and its derivatives and my dismissal of anti-roleplaying gamist mechanics like "character classes" and "levels".
>>47264199
>>47264326
I'm actually not the guy he was arguing with, I just think my homebrew system is great.
>>47264451
>I just think my homebrew system is great.
I bet you do.
>>47264459
If you can't take pride in your own creations, you're doing it wrong.
>>47264472
I'm sure your mom will put it up on the refrigerator.
>>47264378
I said that it's more than 3.5 offered. It is. And supplements let you do more. There are still feat taxes and all that shit, but you can't deny that Pathfinder allows martials to actually do SOMEthing.
I hear Unchained also really increased what they can do, although that's more "there are two classes called Fighter" than fixing the problems with the original.
>>47264472
>>47264451
I'm not saying it's not. I'm just highly skeptical. Especially when you bring it up as "my system manages to do this thing so perfect".
>>47264472
Or it shows an inflated ego constructed around the misplaced belief that your creations are just better.
I bet you're about what 17? and you've probably just skimmed over a few systems in pdf form and thought 'I can clearly do better cause I'm soo smart'.
You almost certainly took an existing system and modified it only slightly that or your rules are so vague that they would fall apart when play tested.
Also the way you said "I" makes me think that you've either not shown it to anyone or you have and they said it was shit.
>>47264507
honestly theres not really a reason to ever play anything thats not a spellcaster in PF
>>47264507
Well, you asked the guy what system he thought had internally consistent HP, and I thought it would be funny to interject and say my homebrew system does, which isn't the same as "my damage modelling system is absolutely perfect". Plus it's only technically accurate if by HP you mean wound-modelling in general because the one I designed doesn't have a single depleting resource to represent health.
>>47264526
You're reading an awful lot into remarkably few words on my part, so I assume you're conflating me with the guy who was originally bitching about how terrible HP is.
>>47264593
You need a large amount of house-ruling to balance Pathfinder out, but I do believe it can be playable.
I don't think 5th or 2nd Ed were much better.
>>47264605
Not really, if you've been apart of the PnP RPG community for long enough you come across the same patterns of behaviour. The same newbies doing the same shit.
and why would I ever say Harry Potter is terrible?
I'm actually this guy ...
>>47264197
>>47264219
>>47264288
>>47264330
>>47264364
>>47264407
>>47264459
>>47258791
>obnoxious, belittling "opinion"
>posts Dresden Codak
Perfect shitpost, 10/10.
>>47262860
>Implying that martials aren't better in Pathfinder than D&D.
Except for Paladins they really, REALLY aren't. Rogues in particular got shafted hard.
>>47264197
>Any system that begins its core rules book with a 100+ page spiel about the setting and characters that it basically demands you run your game with.
While 100 pages is clearly excessive, I don't think there's anything wrong about systems that are tied to a specific setting.
>>47264731
>I like being railroaded.
>I don't like my GM to have some creative freedom.
>The system is not the most important part of a roleplaying game and thus character creation should not be one of the first things in the book.
>I enjoy reading poorly written short fantasy novels inside my core rule book.
>>47264446
>complaining that I hate roleplaying, which is utterly bizarre given my condemnation of D&D and its derivatives
Is there supposed to be some kind of logical connection here?
>and my dismissal of anti-roleplaying gamist mechanics like "character classes" and "levels".
Oh, you're one of those. Never mind.
>>47264751
>I love making strawmen
>I think my generic fantasy setting #41748 is a unique masterpiece
Seriously, if everyone at the table wants to play in WH40k universe, there's nothing wrong with using a system specifically made for that.
>>47264772
Wait what? But surely if the setting gives the GM/players creative control it would in some fashion be slightly different. So umm yeah I do think it's unique.
I never said there is anything wrong with it, moron. I said beginning games like Only War with massive lore dumps can really detract from the initial engagement with the game. Especially given that most players who want to play a 40k game are normally already well versed in the bloody lore.
>>47264824
So we both agree that a)there's nothing wrong with setting-specific systems and b)excessive lore dumps at the beginning of the book are bad? What are you even trying to argue?
Only War, by the way, has less than 20 pages of lore at the beginning of the book, and instead of being a generic lore dump most of that is devoted to the specific aspects of the setting that concern the setup for the game itself and might not be already known to the players even if they do know the setting on a general level.
>>47248098
>this was completely different from everything else in the system where larger numbers meant something was better
Except for saves you dumbass.
So lets see
Stats - Higher is better
AC - Lower is better
THAC0 - Lower is better
Saves - Lower is better
If anything, higher is better is out of the ordinary.
All this talk about abstract health systems remind me how awful d20 Stars Wars health system was .Boo
>>47244938
>greater effort costs a sanity or soul resource
>better weapons available to the upper class, so that a nobleman can carry a bigger club than a mountain giant is allowed
Seriously, fuck Tenra Bansho Zero
>>47264446
>things like "roles within a game " and " character advancement" are bad for role-playing games.
free-form role-play is awful.
Even FATE has some understanding about roles within a party and character advancement to some degree, it's not as strict as D&D, but it's still there.
>>47245000
>abstract wealth
>Wanting to track individual coins and bills
Usually when talking about abstract wealth, it's not "1000 cp" vs "100 copper, 9 silver and a gem worth 10 silver", but rather "1000 cp" vs a scale of rich-well off-poor-starving, where there isn't an actual figure attached.
>>47248575
In D&D, you perform your standard action, you miss, and your turn is wasted with nothing significant happening to put you or your opponent in a disadvantageous situation.
If the opponent was sitting in a pile of shit, stroking his dick, and licking his bunghole and you missed anyways, nothing happens aside from, maybe, wasting a resource like arrows or bullets or something that's peanuts in the grand scheme of things.
In fail forward, I dunno, you slip and land in the shit, or maybe your left yourself open, or maybe your action makes an event that you never intended to perform, the point is that the situation changes and now you have to account for those changes in subsequent turns of combat.
>>47249161
>That paragraph about using certain gendered pronouns. Seriously. Grow up and start writing in the third person, it sounds better.
Do you know what third person means?
>>47249051
In Shadowrun at least you have to take a quality to be worse in it than the average person.
So a person with no ranks in driving is as good as the average person (due to cars being very easy to drive) and get better with each rank.
Some skills can't be done by the untrained (like automobile mechanic) and there you can't even try to do it if you have no ranks in it
>>47262860
Wow, I thought 3.PF fans being brain damaged was a meme.
>>47264507
Martials only have the benefit of having more trap options to choose from.
Nobody is going to tell you to play a martial when casters not only exist but are capable of being better martials.
I've tried any kind of system with the most bizarre rules (I come from a land that created an RPG to be played with tarots.)
Yet the one thing I'll never be able to bearShitty chibi-ass kawaii "art", like in Nobilis 3rd edition
>>47263413
>"I can't see the issue as long as I'm blind."
You're lucky, try looking for a game in the PFS and then tell me that 3.PF players aren't cancer.
>>47249199
hey 3e autist, long time no see!
>>47264387
>Terrible rulebook formatting and bad editing
I'll take "What is CGL?" for 500, Alex.
>>47249199
Dude, 3rd edition has everything from furries to half-angels to half-demons to half-elementals to monster races to custom races that are OP as fuck.
I mean shit, later adventure paths had robots, zombies, aliens, fucking cthulhu, not!Godzilla, not!Mothera, and god knows what else.
At least in Shadowrun, the world is consistent for the most part.
>>47248715
I don't. 1e DOES use a chart which is why I mentioned it, and THAC0 is a formula some compsci dudes figured out to represent the chart.
Thanks for being retarded though. My only regret is that I only see this now, knowing you won't be here to realize the error of your way.
>>47263413
It's less easy than that for a lot of people. If you have a small player pool in your area, then having one or two of those groups who absolutely won't play anything not 3.PF (and trust me, plenty of those exist), then you're kind of stuck
>>47245247
40k has it. High is good for everything except leadership tests.
>>47267732
>Literally repeatedly said that I don't even like the fucking system.
>>47267816
Iunno. There are a lot of good things about Martials. A lot of the caster classes can do more, but it's far from 3.5 and the way that it ONLY has trap options. Dipping into a martial class is a potentially beneficial thing for people who have enough system mastery.
That said, again, I don't like Pathfinder that much. It's an okay game and I won't vomit at the thought of playing it, and the world is pretty neat, but it would be better if it wasn't a level based system with number bloat. I mean, I'd still much rather play Golarion in a modified nWoD2e or even just M&M, but it's not a terrible, impossible to enjoy system.
>>47267881
Pathfinder Society? That's where I've done all my Pathfinder playing. My friend loves Pathfinder, and is Venture Captain of the local lodge. I've run games, and played something like thirty or forty sessions. I was actually able to have fun, even as a Martial, and one of the less impressive Martials at that (halfling samurai, riding a wolf, using a Medium katana). I've also used barely any spells with my Alchemist, instead focusing on explosions.
I wouldn't want some of them in my home games, but they're no more cancer than anything I'd see on /tg/. In this thread.
