ITT: Wrong Opinions

I unironically like 3.PF more than 5E but I can't help but fell your baiting

D&D is the perfect system for an Game of Thrones'like intrigue game.

It;s kind of obvious the wrong is hyperbole for "opinions I really hate"

Jesus Christ I need to proof read
It's kind of obvious that wrong is hyperbole for "opinions I really hate" in this case

>D&D is bad!!!
>GURPS is good!!!
>Point buy is good!!!
>Anima is easy!!!
>40k lore is teenager trash!!!
>Pathfinder is bad!!!

DnD is a good role-playing game.
Rules are more important than fun.
"fun" is a buzzword.
Alignments are not shit.
Learning new systems is hard.
DnD is friendly for new players.

These contradict each other

But user, this are good opinions

And they are both trips of truth. How will we know which is which?

>the engine is fundamentally flawed because they painted the car the wrong colour

>PF is not 3.5 improved in every single way
>D&D is not a war game
>Women can be good players too
>Shadowrun/Vampires are good solid games
>Futuristic D&D can be fun
>Realism is bad
>MtG is not a p2w game, it has skill
>Starwars TRPGS are good (or Starwars at all)

This.

Sure sign of retards, seriously.

but user, 3.PF is fucked up at it's core, so your metaphor doesn't work

>Orc double axes are legitimate weapons.

Yes, I had someone say something like this to me. Big weeb.

>Jackie Chan can do it in this movie, why shouldn't my character?

(Because it's out of tone with the rest of what we're doing, you jackass.) This was about using a steel ladder as an improvised weapon to prove he should be able to use something similarly dumb as an improvised weapon. I don't even remember what weapon we were bitching about, just that he used a scene from a very silly Jackie Chan movie to support his opinion.

Nah I get you.

I know people who unironically think their opinions are factually better than others just because they have them, though. You gotta put your foot down about that sort.

These aren't bad opinions
>MtG is not a p2w game, it has skill
>D&D is not a war game
>Women can be good players too

>d20+mod>target number is fucked up at its core
please explain

that casters completely ignore that

But I have my opinions because they are the right ones to have, not the other way around.

>I never had a good game with 3.PF, so I don't feel like playing that

The biggest problem is not what the game does but what it doesn't , at that point your basically playing role assisted free-form and you could do that with pretty much any game

Good post, your opinion is indeed wrong.

Perfect post for the Wrong Opinions thread.

>characters becoming essentialy living legends, maybe gods at the end game of the campaign is shit
You know, you could use these characters that became legends or gods as npcs in another campaign based in the same world.

I don't mind crazy power progression but I would like it to occur at a reasonable pace

sure it would be in a long campaign, where you would "puff i am a god", it would be slow and steady as you get more experience and magical itens.

I could homebrew a combat system for RaHoWa but that doesn't mean it isn't bad as is. That game has broken crunch and is bad because of it.

Depends what you are hoping to do user.

For me it is that d20 is super swingy, among other things. Also, a lot of people use it incorrectly because it is easy to do so. If done with RAW, it really isn't too terrible, but it's foolish to divorce it from its toxic applications.

- One-die roll means that characters are generally less competent than they should be, or at least less consistent.

That right there is the biggest issue.

- 5% chance of crit-success or crit-failure is ridiculous.
- Crit-failures are not supposed to make you hit your buddy with a devastating blow, you're supposed to lose some turns, maybe hurt yourself for a couple points. People forget that.
+ Crit-failures aren't supposed to apply to skill rolls, only to combat rolls. People forget that.
- Crit-fishing is something that actually makes sense as a strategy for some people. If it's necessary, you should be legging it.

How d20 related stuff handles crits is problematic at best, with RAW, and fucking unbearable at worst, when misinterpreted or homebrewed.

- Because it advances or improves at a constant rate, it encourages munchkiny behavior, and makes advancement boring.
+ Because of linear advancement, challenges also increase linearly, and the difference of success to a very skilled or a very unskilled character is identical.
+ Because of linear advancement, skills never feel different when they've reached a certain point, and there's a system encouragement to go beyond heroic levels to just ridiculous levels.

While there is a practical limit to how far one can escalate, generally the d20 mechanic encourages a style that doesn't know how to not escalate.

There are other problems beyond those.

>I let the opinions of assholes on Veeky Forums dictate what games I like/play

>d20 is super swingy
take 10 should fix this
>One-die roll means that characters are generally less competent than they should be
See above. Also, multiple dice rolls are an unnecessary waste of time.

>crit failures/crits
As you mention, the most egregious thing about these is that people just don't play them correctly. Crits don't apply to skills, and in combat it causes a level of danger even when fighting weak enemies.

As someone who knows most of what he knows about 40k from lurking here, it seems like a cool setting. So long as you never attempt to learn more than what is discussed here. The moment I touched the wiki, I learned the horror that only decades of revision can bring

This isn't a right opinions thread user.

>D&D is good for some types of games and settings

>everyone else's setting is worthless and terrible, but MINE is the one that everyone should care about
>[System] cannot be enjoyed and you're wrong for enjoying [System]
>Wizards should be literal gods and martials are for retards that just want to live out a power fantasy where they're strong
>Music at the table is always a bad idea
>Music at the table is usually a good idea
>Woman don't belong at the table
>The average woman is as good at roleplaying as the average man
>Cosmic Horror is enjoyable on the Tabletop
>Cosmic Horror is worth anything at all.

>Stat Me threads are always funny

>Stat Me threads are ever funny

>ITT wrong opinions
Isn't that just a regular Veeky Forums thread?

>my system is better because it supports transgender elves.

>40k is a parody, you're not supposed to take it seriously!

>Take 10 should fix [d20 swinginess] and [lack of character competence/consistency].

>Taking 10: When your character is not being threatened or distracted...
See d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm

I am explicitly talking about situations in which you have to roll a d20, like tense stealth moments, combat, social checks, etc. Generally, one should take a stance that if there is no risk to failure, there shouldn't even be a roll. There are exceptions, such as if the players or the PCs shouldn't know the outcome of the roll, for tension, etc. If there is some consequence of failure, but the character is not threatened or under pressure, then that is the intersection where taking 10 should live.

>Multiple dice rolls are an unnecessary waste of time.
Pic related.

It really doesn't take that much longer. For a resolution mechanic which I think, subjectively, feels better, I don't mind taking the extra couple seconds to count out two or three extra dice. For some systems, unloading a fistful of dice is part of the fun. Also, in case there is any misunderstanding, I was talking specifically about a "one-die" roll, as opposed to one "die-roll", wherein only one die is cast to constitute a roll, as opposed to multiple dice constituting one roll.

>check out my homebrew critical failure charts, I think they're fairly balanced
>it's not like you're gonna immediately critically maim yourself doing something relatively mundane again...

>5% chance of crit-success or crit-failure is ridiculous.
crit failures are a houserule and you should savagely beat your dm with a bag of d20s for trying to use them
crits period are only supposed to happen on combat rolls and are supposed to be confirmed anyway

>take 10 should fix this
if your system has to be fixed by ignoring the system, there's something wrong
also if the only reason weaker enemies are ever a threat is just because of crits, there is also something wrong

>"I think D&D is terrible!"
>Never lists a replacement fantasy book that isn't just someone's houserules of D&D

>d20 is super swingy
I have never understood what people meant by this.

>if your system has to be fixed by ignoring the system, there's something wrong
It was their attempt to ratify a peculiarity from how people played with non-weapon proficiencies in 2e. People would roll, and the DM would say you fail, but then they would just shrug their shoulders and roll again, and the DM didn't really know how to answer that. Not a lot of people understood the idea of cost vs benefit because it was a fairly new and experimental system that was trying to move D&D out of the Dungeon and into the more familiar territory of the over world and campaign setting. The Take 10/20 system is in there trying to answer that instead of realizing that most skill systems like that are flawed to begin with and weren't necessary in the older D&D games.

It's a single roll modified by one number, which results in lot of successes and lots of failures which leads to ludo-narrative dissonance with the skill system implemented. A wizard trained in magic and specializing in the knowledge of Arcana has a ridiculously high chance (relatively) of failing any check to know things about magic, something he spent his life doing. Meanwhile, within the same party, the Barbarian gets a lucky roll and knows everything the party needs to know about X for no real in-game reason that isn't an after-sales excuse.

Then you don't really understand probability. Compare it to a bell curve system like 3d6: you're astronomically more likely to roll average than you are an 18 or a 3, bonuses for characters who are succeeding on a 10 are far more powerful than those who are succeeding on a 5(assuming it's roll over not roll under) to the tune of a +2 being a 24.07% increase in success chance for the former and a 1.84% increase for the latter, while penalties punish the more skilled of the two far less than it does the guy who's only succeeding half of the time.

Runequest and GURPS dungeon fantasy, Warhammer fantasy role-play

Sorry, whenever I point that out, I usually also point out that they have to be good.

What's wrong with Runequest?

Hey guys, I found another wrong opinion!

>Perfectly valid system suggestions aren't good for unlisted reasons.

The fact that it's a d100 system.

I have dice autism and I find d100s and d6s to be the least aesthetically and kinetically pleasing dice in the bunch.

Also I don't like skill systems where you just build percentiles and roll it.

The "d20 is super swingy" people are people who have never read the rulebook and didn't see the part that goes "You don't have to roll a strength check if you can carry the contents of a small village on your back".

That's because they've never played a game outside of that one time at a friend's house playing pathfinder. That's why a lot of these mouthbreathers think that crit fails are in the rules.

Mathematically theirs more variance with a d20, still it's not a bad resolution mechanic even if d100 is better, DnD is bad for other reasons

there's

Your only really supposed to roll for tasks that are difficult for your character to accomplish, the variance is a purposeful gamification of that difficulty.

Other user; the problem I find with that is just having the mechanic there encourages you to use it even when you know in the back of your head it might be ridiculous, and often times there is no real hard and fast rule for how NOT to use it other than "Use your best judgement", which is usually buried in the back of the DMG if anywhere at all.

I tend to prefer OSR games though. I find that skill systems in general are a bit of a flawed idea to begin with, but that's just me.

Which is a problem when you have multiple people rolling on the same check and bonuses are so small that you end up with untrained Wizards beating fantasy Bill Kazmaier on strength checks.

It's generally a problem with the bonuses rather than the die.

People get screechy when bonuses are actually appropriate for a d20, so I don't know what to tell you.

"Fumbles" have been in the rules as at least a variant rule since 3rd edition.

rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/2/is-a-fumble-on-a-natural-1-an-official-rule

"Critical failure", as such, has not appeared, to my knowledge. It is, however, ingrained in the popular culture about the game, which is not to be dismissed.

>It is possible to claim objectively that x game is bad, or that y game is better than it.

Let's be honest, it comes down to personal preference every time.

FATAL

Even WotC knows its swingy, which is why bell-curve rolls showed up as an alternate rule in the 3E Unearthed Arcana. d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm

In situations where the characters aren't superhumanly good or where the modifier on its own isn't enough to overcome the challenge, they still have to deal with the die roll. Skirting around the die roll with taking 10/20 or with situations where the character is so good they simply won't fail is not addressing the issue. Don't prop up strawmen.

A single d20 is, mathematically, more swingy than multiple dice of any kind. It is empirical, objective fact.

True but d20 works with appropriate bonuses

Ah...ur...hmm. Shit yoy got me.

It'd also be much better with degrees of success.

Homebrewing would be fixing the engine. Repainting the car is closer to refluffing.

Age of sigmar's rules are good though.

The lore is shit, and the new rules are distinctly not for the people that really liked how fantasy worked before, but the rules are still fun.

It depends on what kind of homebrewing. I'd say it's closer to swapping out some spark plugs, maybe swapping out the radio and sound system, maybe even doing something drastic like supercharging it or something, but still using the same base engine mostly intact.

>anyone who doesn't love my system is a moron

You're right, I tend to forget that 1 is an automatic miss, not just "a number so low you shouldn't even bother with the math".

>Says "Don't prop up strawmen."
>Brings up the Take 10/20 rule which neither poster talked about or addressed at all in their statements

Raw d20 is worse without take 10/20 so if anything he's doing them a favor

>core only 3.5 is the only way to play 3.5

That is every dice system. It all comes down to percentiles at the end of the day.

When I said that, I actually meant "Roll vs a static target number with some situational modifiers" as opposed to "Roll vs a target number decided by the situation and add static modifiers". d100 tends to encourage and play the former as opposed to the latter. Also, even if it did play the latter, I think having a one percentile degree of granularity is far, far too much. Most people just tend to pick multiples of 5 and are done with it.

The only way to win is not to play

>d20
>not using 2d6+3 on a 1-20 scale instead

>Thinks that arguing in a way that assumes the best of the opposing side is propping up a strawman.

Wew, lad.

Mechanical it's the same, I could see why it would feel wrong to you though

>Thinks that addressing any part of the 3.PF cancer is "the best of the opposing side"
Strawman.

i miss these days where Doom and Quake ruled the noosphere and space = demons = human greed inviting literal hell upon them. Where 40k really was a light, if ineffective, commentary on the fears of our modern corporate world's amoral, ever-consuming hunger for short-term profit, wondering when the day is that they'll cross boundaries universally agreed upon to never be crossed.

a duhhhh doyyyy duhhh i mean uhhh the inquisitors are admirable duhhhhhhhhh

Mechanically it winds up being the same, but psychologically it creates a different approach to situations and world building. It also makes a statement about the condition of the world that is juxtaposed with the rules.

In Roll vs Static Target with Situational Modifiers, your GM is saying "All tasks of this nature are equally difficult, and it is only outside modifiers that alter this". All locks are the same, all boulders are of equal weight, etc.

Roll vs TN Decided by Situation with Static Modifiers allows the GM to subtly imply the difference between tasks even within the same category. The lock you're picking is a bad lock compared to the lock you're picking that is a good lock. This boulder is heavier and requires more strength than this boulder.

While in the former, you can always add modifiers such as "This is a HEAVY BOULDER™, so it gives you a -10%" or "This is an EASY LOCK™ so it gives you a +20%", that makes the impression on the player that the lock is granting them the bonus as opposed to showcasing how good they are at the skill.

If only that was still true.

that fucking user though, holy shit

Maybe that isn't possible, but it's certainly possible to say that some shit works better or worse than some other equivalent shit.

Eh, not really. The primary difference between what I call "binary" (roll, either succeed or don't) and other systems is that other systems inherently have built in 'level of success' mechanics. Like in a dice pool system, not rolling enough dice above a threshold means that a simple action could take one or two more turns, whereas in a binary system a failure means "nope. Failed."
Imagine this: in real life, you're going to go do a social action. Walk up to a lady and social her.
-if you do well on your initial roll, she's more receptive to subsequent attempts or other types of rolls, like bartering or decieve or whatever.
-if your initial roll is a middling success or minor failure but she doesn't have anything else to do, it may take a little while for her to warm up to you. Imagine that your icebreaker joke was poorly delivered or whatever. Roll next round.
-if you blow the roll, a failure is a failure. She has a boyfriend, or she laughs stiffly and mentions that she needs to find her friends.

In a binary system, the only outcomes given a stated objective are Yes and No. The same general shape of conversation can be approximated with descriptive GMing, but you can hardly rely on that. In fact, I consider that a successful system should feel mechanically like doing a thing. Big handfuls of dice for exciting dramatic actions, few dice for inconsequential things, sequential rolls for actions happening over time.
Imagine rolling a d20 to determine the outcome of Russian roulette!

>As someone who knows most of what he knows about 40k from lurking here
>As someone who knows jack shit about 40k
FTFY