Alright, Veeky Forums we've had it. This is place is overrun with """"gamist"""...

>they'll think its the same
Change the DC to hit senpai
>i need to do something outside of my turn
Oh you have ADHD. maybe a faster system that gives you more turns is what you need.

OH WAIT

I agree with your opinion with the exception that I do not begrudge those who prefer rules-lite or narrativist games.

Who can fuck right off, though, are the tards who think something like "okay, he's 30 feet away and behind cover so you take this and this modifier to your roll to hit" is too complicated.

You don't deserve a (You), but since you tried, I'll bite. If you have a problem with "HP bloat" then you can rectify that without even changing the rules. In a tabletop game, everything can be tailored to sate the desires of your greasy neckbeard heart, even the D&D rulebooks say that you should be doing this. If you don't like something, you take it out, change it, or ignore it.

The amount of rules doesn't determine how good a system is. What matters is that they function properly and serve their intended purpose. For instance, having six modifiers is a way to factor in circumstance into a situation, but that doesn't mean that it isn't clunky when compared to other methods of abstracting the same concept such as advantage/disadvantage, substituting the die rolled for the action with another with a lower or higher maximum, or adding and subtracting dice from dice pools, all of which require only a single adjustment.

That aside, nobody is holding a gun to your head and saying that you must play Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition or Everyone is John with the "normies" that you detest so much. You have the freedom to choose what games you'd like to join, what system you want to run, and what people you play with, but doing any of those things requires a shred of initiative on your part that you evidently lack, as you're here shitposting on Veeky Forums about games that you aren't in.

>That aside, nobody is holding a gun to your head and saying that you must play Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition or Everyone is John with the "normies" that you detest so much
Not OP, but the issue is that D&D or PF is all anyone ever wants to play. If you are lucky enough to even have a steady group and you throw out something a little more niche like GURPS, inevitably 2 people aren't going to have the books and another is going to just not like the system.

Y'all motherfuckers need Mythras.

>then you can rectify that without even changing the rules.
No, the DM can. The player can't do shit aside from ask the DM to fix the problem.

And if the player considers it an issue for sensible reasons and politely points this out, a good GM will be willing to discuss it and consider possible solutions.Communication and compromise are imperative.

>the kind who are constantly thinking "i can tank this I have the HP" rather than what their character would do
Their character would think "I'm likely to get some bruises and scratches, but I'm in good enough health to handle them."

>No sane person thinks about their life in terms of HP and makes decisions based on it
I must be crazy then, since I'd rather be run over by a bicycle than a car.

>potentially crippling encounter
Every encounter is potentially crippling.

>maybe a faster system that gives you more turns is what you need.
To the contrary, having dynamic defenses reduces the need for fast combat.

>No, the DM can. The player can't do shit aside from ask the DM to fix the problem.

Ah, so you're unwilling to make the effort to DM. You're just yet another in a sea of entitled players. All becomes clear.

I've DMed before. It was a complete waste of my time because there's nothing about it I enjoy, but I've done it.

>In a tabletop game, everything can be tailored to sate the desires of your greasy neckbeard heart
Sure, I can play E6, or whatever homebrew I fancy, but the monsters statblocks have been tailored to different rules and I invalidate all of that to some degree, meaning I have to revise statblocks and check how well they play against my party under these new rules.

>advantage/disadvantage,
Oh, you mean where having 6 advantages and 1 disadvantage amounts to 1 advantage die? These kinds of non-clunky mechanics suck. And all that because some gamers are too lazy to memorize that shooting a target in partial cover gives -2 and in full cover gives -5 to hit. Literally too lazy to memorize a handful of combat modifiers. is right, some people are dragging down the quality of our hobby due to their laziness or lack of intellectual qualities (you decide which).

>You have the freedom to choose what games you'd like to join,
Dude, the only way hobby politics does not matter is if you have stable group of gamers with their own local politics/philosophy. And it's likely that the general direction in which this hobby moves will influence that group one way or another too.

Hobby politics is a thing. And we simulationists have been a bit of a punching bag in recent years. No more!

So basically the issue is that having a choice is bad because people tend to choose what they like rather than what you'd like.

Okay.

I don't even like GURPS much but this is due to stupid brainlet memes that (falsely) claim it takes a PhD to play GURPS. GURPS has pretty standard/average rules with a lot of subsystems and optional rules of varying complexity, so that you can play it from medium crunch to ultra-sperg-out rules-heavy.

We haven't been vocal enough in mocking these moronic depictations.

>I've DMed before. It was a complete waste of my time because there's nothing about it I enjoy, but I've done it.

How do you claim to have a superior grasp of a system which you tried to employ and failed than a person who employs it and succeeds? Attempting to run a game and not enjoying it, no matter the system, is not a fault of the system, but the fault of the person attempting to run it.

Let it stand that players are in vast majority entitled and don't appreciate the work done for them by the person running the game because it doesn't specifically appeal to the player's proclivities.

>From OD&D-2e, HP bloat wasn't an issue and it was mostly unheard of. Didn't matter what level your character was, they could get felled in a single turn and it happened often.
I mean, things might not have been as out of control, but a 9th level character still had 9x the hit points a 1st level character did. And a 9th level fighter might have 50 hit points, which is more than 5x the maximum normal sword damage. So there's definitely some bloat going on.

>Rules lite and narrativism is a particular blight that gets rooted into the hobby more and more every year.
And yet pic related is rules-light, even if it's towards the upper end of it. Rules-light is not the same thing as narrativist. And honestly, while narrativism doesn't personally interest me much (it tends to ruin my sense of immersion), I don't think it's an illegitimate art form. Different strokes for different folks.

>So basically the issue is that having a choice is bad
Where did I ever say that?

>people tend to choose what they like rather than what you'd like
People tend towards the lowest common denominator, which is D&D/PF. It has the fanbase, advertising and media presence. To a lot of people, even players, D&D is TTRPG.

I'm fine with playing D&D, but not all the time and you can't pretend that it's good for everything. But everyone knows the system and has the books, and they understandably might not want to spend $50-$100 on new books or take hours out of their busy schedule to learn a new system. So D&D is all that ever gets played.

I'm not limiting it to GURPS. I could say Shadowrun, or Vampire, or Traveller.

I'll post wherever I goddamn well please

>they understandably might not want to spend $50-$100 on new books or take hours out of their busy schedule to learn a new system
Ackshually, I don't understand this at all. Not one bit.

>I'm not limiting it to GURPS. I could say Shadowrun, or Vampire, or Traveller.
You might be surprised how many players don't like D&D but stay mumm.

似てるけど違います

Disregarding that I'm not OP or you're the only person who'd say I failed at running a game.

>Disregarding that I'm not OP or you're the only person who'd say I failed at running a game.

Running a game and not enjoying it with your pals is a failure. You don't seem to understand that the whole hobby is a GM's market. You can either run a game and make it the way you like it, or you can have someone else run the game they like and you can appreciate the effort they put into putting it together for you. Or you can not play or run any game. Those are your three options. You don't get to complain about what game is run if you're not the one running it, because your investment is minimal, and expendable. Any number of people can take your place that will be suitable for the game that is being run. Be thankful you have a game to play at all, since you don't want to run the game yourself. You are really just continually describing how truly ungrateful you are, and how inconsiderate of others you are.

>You are really just continually describing how truly ungrateful you are, and how inconsiderate of others you are.
Lel, you're betraying our own outlook here. I don't expect gratitude from my players, being a GM is a fairly enjoyable activity to many of us GMs. The best 'Thank you' that a player can express is being interested and engaged. It's all that matters.

>Running a game and not enjoying it with your pals is a failure
No, it's a failure if the players didn't enjoy it, which never happened.

>But everyone knows the system and has the books, and they understandably might not want to spend $50-$100 on new books or take hours out of their busy schedule to learn a new system. So D&D is all that ever gets played.

I hope you were not one of the guys claiming rules-light or narrativist games are shit. People turns to those games mostly because they've grown up beyond D&D but they also grew up in general and don't have much time to spend on massive rulebooks. A new game that can be learned in 5 minutes before the session will always be better than a new rules-heavy one if only because of investment/reward ratio.

Nah, I'm fine with people playing what they want to play.

It's just frustrating because D&D is all anyone ever plays. I'm personally /k/ as fuck and like lots of guns and wound autism, but no one wants to play that game.

>Lel, you're betraying our own outlook here. I don't expect gratitude from my players, being a GM is a fairly enjoyable activity to many of us GMs. The best 'Thank you' that a player can express is being interested and engaged. It's all that matters.

I agree that the best "Thank you" a player can express is a genuine interest. Nowhere did I say that it wasn't. I was replying in regard to the statement that only the DM has the ability to change "X thing I don't like", which is a non-problem, because you have the option to either run the game or play the game. If you want to have "X thing I don't like" changed, then run the game and change it, or stop complaining when you don't want to make the effort.

>No, it's a failure if the players didn't enjoy it, which never happened.

Read again.
>>Running a game and not enjoying it WITH your pals is a failure

The game isn't all about the players singularly. It is about the enjoyment of everyone. As I said before, being unable to enjoy running a game is not a fault of the game, it is a fault of the person running it. If your friends enjoyed it ans you thought it was a waste of your time, it is still a waste of your time and is still a failure on your part.

>in d&d all I get to do
t. guy who doesn't play or understand how to play d&d

Learning a new edition of D&D is insignificantly easier than learning a new system from scratch. The GM has still to read all the rules to see what has changed. We can only argue about the complexity of the systems involved. Shadowrun 5E is certainly more work than D&D 5E. CoC any edition isn't.

So for most role-players out there 'I have got no time to learn a new system' is no excuse.

>>in d&d all I get to do
An overstatement (inb4 Reactions) but essentially correct.

>inb4 that thing that invalidates your argument

and technically, you also roll saves

>>Reactions
>>Saves
Neither disproves
>An overstatement (inb4 Reactions) but essentially correct.

How can you be essentially correct when there are two commonly happening things that counteract what you have said.

>the sky is red!
>well, most of the time the sky is blue, but I guess during sunset/rise it's often
>ESSENTIALLY, THE SKY IS RED

If you want defensive, active, and dynamic AC, take the Dodge feat. A character was incapacitated in my game tonight because he didn't assign his Dodge target, has an AC of 14 and a zombie rolled exactly 14. You can also take it 5 times and apply it across multiple enemies, or focus all on one enemy. If you can't find the active and dynamic tools in the game then you aren't trying. There are plenty of options that put things in the player's hands that you are ignoring. The Dodge feat is only one example.

>reactions and saves
>most of the time
Okay.

OP, it's great that you're not just accepting your crippling autism, but are even proud of it.

So theres two equally effective solutions
Dynamic defences: rules heavy, potentially arbitrary
Abstract rolls: faster, rules light, potentially arbitrary

Either way all the relevent engagement comes from the DM describing your character's reaction/injury so why add excess bloat to the game?

>You may only post in this thread if
Bitch, you can't tell me what to do.

Too many rules; didn't read

Anyone here a fan of Dungeon World?

I've settled on a set of rules for DMing that have worked really well for me and my party:

Out of combat: Narrative-driven, but players still make a ton of skill checks. I encourage players to come up with unique and inventive solutions and 'balance' it with dice rolls. If they can really convince me, I might throw them an advantage on a check. For example: There were a band of Orcs waiting inside a cave to ambush a royal Dwarven caravan. They would wait for a signal from their scout before attacking, otherwise they would hide deep in the cave system to avoid the vanguard of the Dwarves. My PCs extracted this information from the scout with intimidate (aka torture) checks that led to the scout dying. They then had the brilliant idea of killing all the Orcs by burning a huge mound of wood at the entrance to the cave, causing it to fill up with smoke and suffocate the 30~ strong band of Orcs/Ogres. I made them do lots of checks, Survival to find appropriate tinder, kindling, timber, etc; Athletics to gauge time it would take to fell/transport timber; etc.

In combat: Rules lawyering to the extreme. They're all hardcore turn based tactics gamers at heart, so they powergame to the max in combat and expect me to do the same. Instead of players exploring a narrative, I treat it as PC vs DM and only put genuinely challenging and interesting encounters.

This is a healthy mix that lets the players and DM explore the freedom that 5E offers, while also getting in some interesting combat encounters which is usually where rules-lite turns to crap. Good turn based games need a ton of mechanics and rules to be deep.

You're a bretty good GM, imo. I feel part of the annoyance with gamey systems and DnD is that with so many stories about 'LOL NAT 20' is that it encourages players to break the game before actually fiddling with the system.

I remember when we were in a group trying a test game in GURPs with a 300 point budget- even with all us having a combat lean for skills, a decent hit would complicate things due to shock, and it ended with one character getting hospitalized in our test fight. More systems really need to say: "No, your high numbers and skills only mean so much."

I like D&D for its rules. Roleplaying games are about the story as much as the mechanics. It's not a dichotomy. I have no opinion on Dungeon World, having never played it nor seen it played.

So...how are you going to stop me from continuing to post in this thread?

>be me
>gamo-narrativist rules light-kin dicesexual
>love D&D and Dungeon World
>run 5 DW games for friends and a D&D one for the family
>go on the /teegee/ while sipping my chai latte from the closest starbucks
>see thread of user that really hates me
>tells me I can't post
>post anyways

I hope this doesn't activate any of your triggers my dear compatriot.

>OP, it's great that you're not just accepting your crippling autism, but are even proud of it.
To normies all nerds look like autists, I indeed wear it with pride. As long as I am not not like you, 'tis all good.

>So...how are you going to stop me from continuing to post in this thread?
...frogposting? :^)

Video is irrelevant to the OP, guy who posted it probably doesn’t understand what it means and just thinks it “seems smart”, but incidentally, imagine making a video of about cynicism and irony in the western canon and then going on. To talk about it’s always sunny in Philadelphia, parks and rec,Rick and Morty and family guy as if they are worth even paying attention to and not just slurry for children and brain dead adults. Why are Americans such a mistake Lord? Why can they not understand anything beyond an “earnest” moment from the boss on the office? Why can they only relate to anything as long as it has the same mandatory “character arc” from every Disney film? Why do they read effluence like “ready player one” instead of books? I cannot wait for America to fade from the world stage in 10 years time.

Lol what? You can dislike gming and all of your players can still be having fun with it.

>its only really a role-playing game if the core of the game focuses on tactical dungeon crawling instead of roleplaying

>You may only post in this thread if
>A. you despise D&D for its rules, starting with HP bloat and how wounds have no effect until you're HP B. you laugh at narrativist games who don't have any situational modifiers at all, such as Dungeon World.
That's not an accurate description of Dungeon World, but generally agreed.

Now I'm authorised to post here: you're a cunt.

What part of 'despising D&D's hitpoints' and its implications did you not get? Damn, it's as if people these days only know gamism and narrativism. This thread was highly needed.

Good, I hate your guts just as well.

>No on is allowed to like things I don't
k

>Different strokes for different folks
Freestyle will always be faster than breaststroke, and D&D will always be the worst system

>Lol what? You can dislike gming and all of your players can still be having fun with it.

I didn't say they couldn't. You didn't follow the reply chain and stopped here, because the individual I replied to also replied in similar fashion and I explained again what I said. I'll reiterate, since you seem to lack reading comprehension:

>The game isn't all about the players singularly. It is about the enjoyment of everyone. As I said before, being unable to enjoy running a game is not a fault of the game, it is a fault of the person running it. If your friends enjoyed it and you thought it was a waste of your time, it is still a waste of your time and is still a failure on your part.

The inherent issue is that this individual originally made the assertion that only a DM/GM gets to decide how the rules work, and that players get to do nothing about it. I replied and said that if they want to play the game they want or want the game rules to be the way they want, then they should run the game. They then said they dislike it. So you see, the problem is this individual player's attitude, whereas he expects the GM, who puts the most effort into the game, to make additional concessions due exclusively to this one player's preferences. That is an exceptional amount of entitlement. If you don't want to make the effort to GM, then the person that is the GM should at the very least be able to run the game they want to run, or run the game with the rules they like. Again, I'll reiterate, it is a GM's market. Your playerhood is expendable. Any person can take your place. You should be happy that someone is taking their time to put something together for you to play at all, and at least grant the GM the one, simple luxury of running the game that GM likes, or letting the GM run X game with the rules that they like, without having to feel like you are a victim of their preferences. You have the option to run the game or not play if you hate the rules/game X GM likes.

It's 5x the maximum normal sword damage, but many monsters aren't using swords, and high level fighters tend to hit many times per round, without any cumulative penalty to hit. Many do a bite/claw/claw arrangement that can take a big chunk out of that 50hp, and hp growth slows waaaaaay down after a certain point. The difference between a level 12 fighter's hp and a level 20 fighter's hp is going to be somewhere in the range of 16-32. For all other characters, it will be somewhere between 8 and 16. Multiclassed characters get a proportionally divided amount of hp and only get their con bonus when their lowest level class goes up (And all xp gets split equally among all classes, which run on different XP charts at different rates)

If your game has dynamic defenses, you could just have one guy roll two dice instead and up the target DC by the average.

It's essentially the same mathematically as rolling an opposed check, but faster and less fiddly.

In most games it's not an opposed roll and not much mathmatics is involved. If the attacker hits, the defender rolls against his parry value to see if he can block the attacker. If the attacker has a critical success, the defender usually has to roll a critical success on parry (or dodge) too to negate.

It's simple, fast, straight-forward, it gives the defender something to do outside of their turn AND it creates another tension point:
>Can I negate his Critical Attack with a Critical Parry?
Even the moments between a successful enemy attack and the parry roll are full of tension.

Dynamic defenses are good and, if done properly, not slow.

>Dynamic defenses are good and, if done properly, not slow.

It's literally at the very least twice as slow as "roll to hit".

I mean, it's up to you where you draw the line, but that's about twice as slow as it needs to be.

>It's literally at the very least twice as slow as "roll to hit".
2x0=0. 2xneglible probably is still megligible.

>I mean, it's up to you where you draw the line, but that's about twice as slow as it needs to be.
Rolling a die and reading/interpreting the results takes anywhere from 2 to 10 seconds. Is that really what's slowing down your turn? Moreover, is that really slower than calculating your AC when there's various factors influencing it (fighting defensively or whatever).

Speed is not really a relevant factor.

So, how about a game that includes easy injuries that effect the player in and out of combat? It makes every fight dangerous, but not necessarily deadly, making HP bloat more of a milestone for which monsters/enemies are reasonable foes. Goblins can always get a lucky hit and hack a hand off.

>Video clearly states those shows are different from a Post-Modern vs Sincerity framework

I think that by linking the video you are implying that narrativist games are post-modern, in that they are mostly deconstructive. I would agree with that. I don't think games like Dungeon World or FATE have enough real meat to be that engaging as games.

It's not that it's too much, it's that I don't see the point in determining if an attack hit with two rolls over one roll.

>Moreover, is that really slower than calculating your AC when there's various factors influencing it (fighting defensively or whatever).

So the defensive roll replaces every single other calculation you need to make? No modifiers to the attack/parry/dodge roll?

If not, you don't really come out ahead.

If I wanted to play a game for its combat and rules, I'd play a computer game.

>I don't see the point in determining if an attack hit with two rolls over one roll.
It doesn't just matter what happens but also how it happens. That's why.

You didn't read the OP properly.

If you're above 0 HP you're not wounded.