I just had a realization: RPs are the natural evolution of RPGs, better for those who are more creative...

I just had a realization: RPs are the natural evolution of RPGs, better for those who are more creative. Follow the arrows:

RPG:
> structure is predefined and restrictive, anything outside of it needs to be homebrewed in a way it works with the existing structure.
> DM is the almighty god who holds the responsibility for the major part of the game. A bad DM will always ruin the entire table.
> success and failure are determined by dice, players are limited in just roleplaying the result. A successful or failure in a specific moment may set the story off rails or defy logic, giving an artificial feeling to the setting.
> need for growth to stay relevant to the plot creates artificial behaviors, such as min maxing, murderhoboing, greediness and selfishness.
> each player needs to develop a knowledge of the system in order to work fluently

RP:
> no structure, players enjoy utmost freedom to use their creativity in creating a compelling storyline.
> no DM, each player has equal access and responsability in the making of the setting and ensuring the enjoyability of the entire table.
> success and failure are determined by the own players, who do it to satisfy the narrative and create an enjoyable story to the table.
> growth is only used to improve the narrative, and when it would be fun to do so, more equal to a book or a movie than a videogame.
> each player isn't bound by limited knowledges that only apply in a single system, being able to dedicate himself to only roleplaying.

Removing the concept of systems is necessary to allow creativity to rise freely. Of course that only apply to those who can actually function without a nanny to tell them what is good or bad to the game. Do you guys agree?

Choas cannot exist without order and order cannot exist without chaos.

There has to be some kind of ruleset whether simple or complex.

we're not interested in mere collaborative story-telling. we're using to dice to take matters out of the hands of both players and GM, thus providing challenge. if you don't need challenge, as provided by dice, but are satisfied with mere creativity, more power to you. i don't follow.

it depends on what kind of person you are

some people who like role playing games will indeed go on to role play without a game while others will go on to play games without roles

still a third category of people will go on to role games where there is no play at all and the participants simply sit around silently in character until one person wins by attrition

In the RPG, the DM represents a single point of failure. Given the time constraints on the participants, and his effort if he constructed the adventure, he is out those things if he carelessly makes the adventure go foom.

In RP, every player represents a point of failure.
There is no cost to a player looking to implode the adventure, only a reward. He gets to either make a new character, or go do something he wanted to do more anyway, which was why he looked into imploding the adventure into an unrecoverable state.

No. RP is just masturbation. As a child, I told stories. With my friends, with my siblings, with my toys, with my drawings, I made up worlds and played in them. Eventually, 1 by 1, I abandoned them. They never felt real to me, they were just another playplace to be done with.

As an adult, I discovered RPGs, and the rules made it real. When you have restrictions, and the world doesn't always follow the plan that you had, THEN you can truely roleplay. By taking power from the players, and putting it into random chance, the world self actualizes, and becomes a second reality

Nope. The 'Game' part of a Roleplaying Game can make the roleplaying aspect better and more meaningful. That's why it's there.

So much of what you attribute to both categories are straight up lies

>challenge is rolling more than 14
Really makes me think.

Well, it certainly proves you're an idiot.

>ad hominem
Yeah user, congrats in rolling that 15 plus tip. That certainly took a lot of mental capacity. Now let me get back to my puzzles.

Not doing anything to disprove it.

Is that why you're talking shit about RPGs? That you just don't understand how they actually work?

RPs with dice mechanics are ascended tier. No DMs, but also rules. Its just that the rules are natural and inviolable, and have no need of a middleman to interpret them.

Nah, I'm talking shit about you for thinking that adding a dice makes anything more challenging. That makes you an idiot.

While it does offer a degree of challenge, it's a very poor intellectual one. Any idiot can roll a dice like you for example. This is why good RPGs usually have rules and situations where the dice isn't used. As in my example, puzzles. A good puzzle will make the player uses his brains to solve it, a retarded puzzle is just 'wizard, roll a dice. you pass' which is very limited.

And yet again you show a complete lack of understanding of how RPG mechanics actually work.

By focusing on the moment the dice are rolled, you miss out on 99% of the depth and meaningful mechanical choices a system can provide. So yeah, you just don't understand how RPGs actually work.

>you don't know mechanics because dice are actually just 1% of it
>even through I said previously to don't remove the dice, challenge is removed from the game without it
user you could just say you have no idea what you talking about and leave it at that.

I'm actually a different user to that. I'm just amused that you keep talking shit while clearly not knowing what the fuck you're talking about. And that's alongside the multiple lies in the OP.

>I'm another user, trust it
>you are talking shit even through I cannot refute it
You can come back after you find an argument. But the fact is that dice aren't intellectual nor meritocratic and there are better, more challenging ways to try a player without those.

Dice are a means, not an end, and trying to assess the use of dice in and of themselves without considering how they're used in different mechanical frameworks just proves, again, that you are talking completely out of your arse.

>but dices are just a way not an end
That doesn't change anything, it's still intellectually lazy. Rolling a dice requires no effort, different from puzzles for example. You can stop now.

The only intellectual laziness going on is your wilful ignorance of how mechanical systems actually function. Fuck, FATE already blows most of the lies in the OP out of the water, and its use of FUDGE dice as a way of driving decision making and choice obliterates your small minded assumptions about the roles dice can and do play in RPGs.

NUH UH I HAVE A FORCEFIELD

Challenge is thinking tactically about the statistical models of your options. Throwing 1d20 of course throws it out the window, but it doesn't have to be this way.

you should be firing more synapses then. the challenge part comes in from having to deal with circumstances that fate/the dice-rolls created instead of being subject to GM whim.
>you blew you sneak test?
>well, the story now progresses very differently from if you had passed it.

Eh, while d20 systems are swingy I think it's often overstated. It's perfectly possible to be tactical in a d20 system, and they do still tend to the average, they just also have more extreme highs and lows which can actually be a positive for certain kinds of game.

>it blows your argument because the system uses it to affect the setting
Okay user, tell me how using RNG as a mean (which is the very challenging act of picking a dice, holding it on your hand, rolling and checking a result) actually requires thinking. I know you will say 'but it's just a mean', but you still haven't answered why it's a more challenging mean than all those other possible ways a DM or player could use to decide if a character succeeded in something.

Your question fundamentally misunderstands the point of dice in a system. There isn't really an answer or a refutation because you're starting from a false premise based entirely on ignorance.

>I'm talking shit about you for thinking that adding a dice makes anything more challenging. That makes you an idiot.
no, it shows that you lack FUNDAMENTAL understanding of the medium of role-playing games, user. sometimes dice take GM and players alike down a storypath they'd prefer not to go (PC death or TPK in the extreme case). but they still do because the dice have decided it. when both GMs and players submit to the dice, this
a) creates tension (because there are clearly favorable storypaths)
b) creates challenge (how do I avoid those storypaths the best?)
...because it's not subject to GM-player negotiation.

Oh really user? Please, what's the point of dice in this system. Tell me and how it couldn't be replaced by literally anything else.

>The models for success are determined by the safest tactical option with with lowest margin for failure

And this type of thinking says 'ADVENTURE!' to you?

>retard

>there are better, more challenging ways to try a player without those.
without a random element, all these ways can be influenced by social skillfulness in gaming the GM or other players. RPG systems exist, among other things, to take the decision of how the story proceeds out of the hands of both GM and players.

And that's where some narrative games fall short. Miserably so.

So that's what it comes down to: you don't like it because you are unsuccessful at social interaction but excel in establishing threat and success matrices.

RP would require perfect players to work.

I do not think I need to explain this point further.

To add in a factor outside the direct control of the players and the GM. Necessity is the mother of invention, and dicerolls can force you to be creative in ways that you wouldn't be without that kind of pressure.

And, to counter one of the lies in the OP, that you're forced to RP the result of the dice, in FATE it more becomes a combination of resource allocation and clever narrative and descriptive play. Get a bad roll? You need to start thinking how to use your or the scenes aspects and the fate points you have on hand to make up the difference, which can often introduce new and interesting elements to the scene or make you improvise because of it. They can also introduce complications and costs to achieve what you want, which further improves the story going forward.

And that's just one day a system of mechanics and dice can drive and improve RP. Every system has its own, and the sheer variety of experiences you can gain is just another reason why RPG systems are fucking awesome.

I should clarify that I don't look down on pure RP, even if I don't enjoy it myself, but I absolutely despise anyone who tries to claim that their personal flavour of fun is somehow superior to someone elses. It just makes them a smug, condescending cunt.

That's funny user, especially when you consider the GM doesn't even have to show his rolls.

But there is no more tension than literally playing a lottery and hoping you hit the big number. What dice does create is stupidity, like your barbarian breaking his back opening a gate and your elf druid easily doing it.

Maybe you could add the challenge of 'increasing stats to have a slightly better chance at a random roll', but that's still not very challenging in real life.

because the dice can't be fast-talked into helping you out of a pickle. especially if the GM submits to the dice as well (doesn't fudge behind the screen).

>I'm either wilfully ignorant or an outright liar

>without a random element, all these ways can be influenced by social skillfulness in gaming the GM or other players.
How does social skillfulness help you in 'hey wizard, to open this magic door solve this puzzle'?

Because relying on OOC 'player skill' is horseshit. If your PC is meant to be smart, your OOC intelligence doesn't matter. Same for social skills as it is for physical strength. Trying to force that kind of thing is a bullshit double standard that punishes people for playing characters different to themselves, essentially disincentivising a key strength of RPGs.

And yet other means offer far more pressure, because they actually depend on your real skills instead of mostly luck.

There is no new or interesting element user. You are basically adding 'luck', which in the end is just that, 'luck'. It doesn't add anything, because being lucky always require nothing.

>i prefer games in which my bootlicking the GM skills/my general popularity pay-off
alright, more power to you. outside of paranoia it's not my cup of tea.

>That's funny user, especially when you consider the GM doesn't even have to show his rolls.
see >What dice does create is stupidity, like your barbarian breaking his back opening a gate and your elf druid easily doing it.
that's due to inaccurate models of the gamign world physics, not an argument against dice rolls per se.

>Maybe you could add the challenge of 'increasing stats to have a slightly better chance at a random roll', but that's still not very challenging in real life.
you usually try to create circumstantial modifiers instead: getting someone to assist you, get a flanking attack, prepare the right spells, gang up 3 against 1 etc.

And now you make unsubstantiated assertions without offering any meaningfully comparable alternatives. Do you want to try again?

>>How does social skillfulness help you in 'hey wizard, to open this magic door solve this puzzle'?
>awwww, com'on GM, this puzzle is way too hard, we've been sitting here for an eternity now. you always pull such stupid shit, you know that? give us a hint, man! we're kinda tired of your GMing.
extreme example but serves to illustrate a point: the more players and GM submit to the dice, the less is prone to arbitration and negotiation.

Are you one of those wizards in those 'low INT, high INT' threads people came to laugh?

The fact of the matter is that rpgs that require thinking are better for more intelligent players, who would rather be challenged themselves by the gm ingenuity than luck rolls.

>And yet other means offer far more pressure, because they actually depend on your real skills instead of mostly luck.
trying to get positive modifiers due to skillful conduct is also dependent on player skill. but it's not entirely, creating tension.

Lies, unsubstantiated assertions, broad and ambiguous statements that lack any actual point or argument.

Hmm. I wonder who actually has low Int here.

If you want a narrative you have total control over write a book. RPGs are about the characters and how they interact with the world and each other. The narrative is to provide the structure for these interactions, not to be the focus.

Did you miss my point about puzzles? How about resource management? How about confronting abilities?

You should follow the conversation before posting.

>if I dismiss the post then he has no argument

Not really user. Intelligent players like puzzles and usually hate rollplaying.

The latter two work just as well combined with dice mechanics, the former is horseshit, and none of them work in the same way or provide the same thing.

Then again, at this point you've basically proved you just don't understand dice, or you're intentionally avoiding acknowledging it because you want to keep arguing your weak failure of a point.

Fuck, you're a troll aren't you? Kudos for keeping me going this long, I guess.

>unsubstantiated assertions

>aww c'mon GM, let me roll again. Please, I'm just at 3 hp!
>aww c'mon GM, I should open this gate. I have 20 STR and this is an easy task
aww c'mon GM, let's return to the start to the battle. Our party is gonna get wiped because I forgot to cast Protection before it.
I really don't see your point user. In both examples he just has to say 'no'.

As pretentious as this sounds, I'd have to agree. There's no conflict, no tension, no engagement if there isn't risk. There's no risk if there are no limits.

Challenge is learning to leverage your advantages and avoid having your disadvantages leveraged against you.

>it's an assertion that usually intelligent people prefer more intellectual activities

Not really, all of them don't require luck in order to affect the game.

user, it's you that aren't understanding it. Using something that is random is always effortless. It's simple as that, it doesn't even need to be a dice. Like pick a card, or guess a number or whatever.

>How about resource management?
resource management is an alternative, of course. and while it retains the challenge aspect, it decreases the tension. which is why diceless RPGs are less popular.

no, what I am rather seeing is bickering how the encounter was way too hard, the GM didn't describe things properly, etc. and this is in games with dice. without it's even more open to abuse.

>I have never had a friend in my entire life and, just like my entire experience with tabletop gaming, these conversations about how to play games comes from the realm of hypothetical probability where I am most comfortable

Okay dude but maybe you shouldn't be so adamant about your opinions on the inclusion of dice in your games if you're so against social interaction that you consider compromise and conversation to be """bootlicking""".

He's pretending to be retarded.

It's a fucking GAME, not a simulation.

Kind of yes, but I also agree that the best middle point lies on rules lite. Rules are to regulate the game and prowide simplistic fun from little gaming elements, and ok. They prevent the thing form tuening into formless chaotic messy wishfest that freeform is.
On the other hand, crunchy/restrictive systems ARE really both liliting and distracting. I never bought the "challenge" part since roleplaying isn't really about that and it's after all always arbitrary (decided by the GM) , but having a element or chance that doesn't depend on someones whim (that much) and a rough numerical evaluation of your character capabilities helps. And rolling some dice is always fun.

In other words, OP clearny never played any game other than D&D and escapes into the other extreme.

While I appreciate rules light design, I've always found it rather unsatisfying. Part of what I enjoy about the experience of an RPG is mechanical distinction and differentiation, both between my character and others, and between the various options available to me. Giving choices that degree of mechanical weight, knowing that they will have tangibly different consequences on the system side before any fluff is applied, is something I enjoy engaging with, at least in systems well designed enough to make those choices meaningful and interesting, rather than always being able to default to a superior option. And I do find this enhances the experience of roleplaying for me, having my character function differently in the rules making it more enjoyable to play them, expressing who they are through the choices they make in tangible, meaningful ways even without fluff.

>RPG:
>> structure is predefined and *somewhat* restrictive, anything outside of it, *that demands a rules system*, needs to be homebrewed in a way it works with the existing structure.
FTFY
Now this makes more sense.

>> DM is the almighty god who holds the responsibility for the major part of the game. A bad DM will always ruin the entire table.
Overlooking the possible subversion of "always", this is more or less true.

>> success and failure are determined by dice, players are limited in just roleplaying the result.
Utterly false.
Players are able to make decisions that could negate the possibility of failure altogether.
Only the results determined by chance or significant complexity abstracted to chance are decided by a dice roll.

>> A successful or failure in a specific moment may set the story off rails or defy logic, giving an artificial feeling to the setting.
>> need for growth to stay relevant to the plot creates artificial behaviors, such as min maxing, murderhoboing, greediness and selfishness.
This is entirely dependent on those playing and in no way universal.

>> each player needs to develop a knowledge of the system in order to work fluently
Depends on the system.

>RP:
>> Playing pretend and make believe is fun too.
Agreed.

Overall, I suggest you actually play some role-playing games before attempting something like this again.

i have been playing RPGs for over 30 years, i knoe every major system and countless minor ones. and i am trying to explain to you knuckleheads why there is a G in RPGs and why RPGs are commercially successful and diceless RPGs are not. if you choose to continue to live in ignorance, that is none of my business.

>always arbitrary (decided by the GM)
GMs regularly accept outcomes of die rolls even if they had prefered the story to have gone a different way. this is something the morons in here do not get: the randomizer means the GM himself has no idea what's going to happen in the game. if he plays a lot with the same people, he often can predict how an encounter will play out, if it wasn't for the dice.

There always has to be a way to arbitrate conflict

Without any quantitative measurement this ends up being qualitative, which means whining to/being buds with an admin until things swing your way, because if you don't you will consistently lose every dispute when the other guy does

Hey man, rolling over 14 is hard. I've been playing for years and I can still only do it about 30% of the time.

Honestly, the most challenging tabletop I've played involved no dice rolls.
Dice rolls suck the challenge out of things, and give idiots a chance to succeed.

tldr;
>hey guys ever heard of writing books
>probably not, I am very smart and above all you plebs that do things beacuse their "fun" or want "challenge"
>I'm angry cus my edgy grimdark oc wasn't as powerful and cool as I imagined him, SO WHAT IF I FAILED THE ROLL I WANT EVERYONE TO SUCK MY EPIC DICK

This, desu. I've never seen a freeform RP not devolve into this at some point.

>aww c'mon GM, I should open this gate. I have 20 STR and this is an easy task

Except that's a completely valid statement. I'd allow it if I was a DM in that situation.

Ah, to be 16 again

Wew OP, Congratulations! Now you can scamper off to Go Gaia and play in one of those freeform naruto battle school play-by-posts.

Apart of me wants to agree. I spent most of HS doing forum role plays but they were shitty. Most people won't allow their precious character to get hurt or heaven forbid die even if they get written into a corner. They are only tolerable if there's some form of moderation to call players out on bullshit and give some restrictions.

On the other hand RPGs, provide structure and consequences such as injury or death but some games can limit the character you want to play.

I think both are fine. Do whatever you have fun with

>I've been friendsless and bad at adventure for 30 years and I have no argument for why I can't even discuss contentious topics at my nonexistent table

Fuck off retard.

you should try to get some positive modifiers to your real. doing so can be a real challenge

and that's fine. just because bob is declaring a dumb action, doesn't mean that his 10th level fighter hasn't means to mitigate the damage done.

2/10, for making me include you in the reply

My god, what a smug, retarded asshole.

Fuck off retard.

fuck no. Rules give structure, and structure gives the players guidelines and easily established common ground. The position of a GM allows for a referee to handle the implementation of those rules and any disputes between players and helps keep narrative focus and progress going.
Plus, it's far easier to establish an end goal with a system and set up progress along the way. Think of it like this -- there's a reason that the traditional narrative structure for storytelling is the way it is and is so dominant -- it works really well 95% of the time, while totally different narrative structures do not.