>a 20 is an automatic success >a 1 is an automatic failure

>>48661053
Perhaps instead of succeeding or failing you are rolling about how badly you are failing?

>skubposting

File: 1456282086983.png (310KB, 518x539px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 518x539px

>>48661088
>I attack the dragon
>OK, roll to see if your sword just bounces off his scales harmlessly or you accidentily stab yourself in the face

>>48661343
>I've literally never played anything but DnD
Try degrees of success son.
Just because you get hit doesn't mean you're hit as hard as possible, just because you hit doesn't mean you decimate your opponent.

File: 1459295504703.png (217KB, 800x594px)

217KB, 800x594px

>>48662003
>What are damage rolls?

I agree OP. the 20/1 rules are simply a conceit to fun gameplay: if you're rolling, there's a possibility of success/failure.

The memes that this has generated are just memes, and ignore the actual rules. You don't super succeed on a 20, and you don't super fail on a 1, unless your group wants that to happen.

That being said, the d20 as it is used in DnD is too binary. There need to be degrees of success, as>>48662003, and this is why other systems are superior.


>>48661343
>>48662087
>>>/a/

>>48662087
>What are game systems that don't roll for damage, but instead have a set base damage value for weapons, and damage dealt is a percentage of the base damage depending on the difference between attack and defense rolls.

Learn to upgrade to better systems bro.

>>48662252
>There need to be degrees of success

Degrees of success tend to unnecessarily slow down the game. Often dramatically, such as in the case when tables need to be referenced.

Binary pass/fail is fast and simple and answers the obvious questions that need to be answered, and any further embellishment for particularly high or low rolls being left to the GM's discretion is great for flavor but not as necessary as you seem to think it is.

Other systems are different, not superior.

>>48662329
Degrees of success or circumstantial bonuses/failures only slow down the game as you learn the system. Once you learn the system, game play is quick. It also helps the DM by providing a rules basis for adding circumstantial benefits and penalties, without being unfair to any one player. It is an inherently superior system to binary rolls.

The only thing DnD has going for it at this point is that it is practically a normie game, and has widespread appeal compared to the other games that have never been able to compete with DnD's brand recognition.

>>48662397
>D&D
>normie game

Bro, The real thing that has D&D still going is it's legacy. It's what every normie thinks of when they think about tabletop gaming.

>>48662397
What I seem to find in degrees of success systems is that combat takes fucking forever because unless you roll the highest possible roll the enemy basically ignores whatever you did.

>>48662591
You're thinking of mutants and masterminds.

>>48662397
>Once you learn the system, game play is quick

Quicker, but still slower than binary, and even with system mastery there are plenty of common delays and setbacks as players have to reevaluate their plans based on a particular degree of success and deliberating over what ultimately amounts to a negligible distinction.

>It also helps the DM by providing a rules basis for adding circumstantial benefits and penalties

It actually works against the GM, because it becomes "every point matters", with players working to eke out any bonus they can while the GM is forced to be stingy in order to avoid unbalancing the natural mechanics of the game. With degrees of success, every roll has the potential of becoming a headache because the players unwittingly attach undo importance to milking out not simply a success, but as large a success as they can possibly muster.

It's only inherently different, and involves a lot of negatives that most people prefer to avoid. It's the reason why most games, even those outside of D&D, prefer to use binary resolution, and the more modern trend (even in D&D, with 5e's advantage system) is to make the questions and answers asked at the table to be as simple and intuitive as possible, and that means asking questions like "Do I manage to swim all the way to shore?" instead of "How far did I swim, and how far is the shore?" or "By what degree did I end up drowning?"

You seem to be a little bit over-committed to your "my way is inherently superior" idealogy, and that's why I think I'm done talking with you. Good day.

>>48662640
Having played both, I can only say that your problem is with players. Good players try to optimize a little, not totally cheese the system. Also whoever DMed your games is retarded: you impose hard limits on turn length and all of your problems are solved.

Actually, most of the problems you've listed are either dm or player issues. And most of them are more of a problem with DnD, because that's the system where you get the players who can't find real groups congregating.

>>48662722
>Actually, most of the problems you've listed are either dm or player issues.

Welcome to different groups preferring different things, and neither method being "inherently" superior. But, regardless of that, it's not so much of problem with the GM or the players as it is just inherent hurdles and issues with the degrees of success method of resolution.

>And most of them are more of a problem with DnD, because that's the system where you get the players who can't find real groups congregating.

I had a feeling you were just a sad little troll. I said, good day.

>>48662803
No, players taking too long in combat because they're trying to fish for min/maxing is definitely a player thing. You can do it in any edition of DnD too.

>>48662862
What part of "Good Day" don't you understand?

The part where you are literally just repeating what you just said, so I have to literally just repeat that they are inherent hurdles and issues with the degrees of success method of resolution that any group has to navigate around?

I get the sense you're prepared to be stuck in a loop, but for everyone's sake keep your stupidity to yourself, instead of committing to it and repeating it forever like you think you're not just being a dumb troll.

Good day. This time, as a finality.

>>48663003
>What part of "Good Day" don't you understand?
The part where you say it and keep responding to me.

You say that it's an inherent problem with degrees of success, but it isn't. It persists across all systems: bad players will be bad players. So far you haven't done anything to contradict my experience playing with these types of players in DnD.

>>48662304
Games like this are what? Sounds like a neat idea. Only examples i can think of is mutants and masterminds

>>48664219
Edge of the Empire has degrees of success. When you roll for an action there are three different good things you can get and three different bad things.

Successes determine whether or not you actually did the thing you were trying to do. Usually more of them means you did it better. Advantages are small bonuses to miscellaneous things, though they can add up quickly and make a noticeable difference. Triumphs are big bonuses, they allow you to add on some pretty hefty bonus effects to whatever you just did.

Then there are bad equivalents for each of the three good things. I forget what they're called, but they really are exactly the same, just bad.

>>48664321
Not degrees of success. Lots of games have that.

Flat damage modified by degrees of success .

>>48662640
>>48662803
>>48663003
>Good day.
Regardless of whether your position is correct or not, you sound like a gay.

>>48664321
You forgot to mention the part of EotE where combat literally takes forever if you have less than 6 people playing with 4 of them being combat monsters.

I love the system but jesus fuck is it wonky as hell.

>>48664219
Anima: Beyond Fantasy was the one I was specifically thinking of.

>>48661053
>If no matter what you roll, you're going to succeed/fail, then you shoudn't be rolling. If you're going to fail even if you roll a 20, then the DM should simply tell you that.

Actually, no. If someone says "I'd like to try and pick the lock." and the DM goes "You can't pick it." then that takes away the idea of choices and alternative ways to play the game from that person's head. By making a player roll, even if they don't have any chance of succeeding in the check, and they roll and fail, it makes them think "was that just an impossible check he made me do? or was it just not a good enough roll? or was the DC like, 25 and only obtainable with amazing stats?". It's all about letting players have the freedom to make choices and keep making choices.

And by the way, a good DM would never say "you're going to fail, don't even roll." Because again, you take away the choice. And a great DM will say "okay, gimme a ____ check", and if they somehow hit that 5%? Fine! Work it in! They just succeeded in lockpicking that unpickable door, now they can skip a few fights. You gotta be flexible to be a DM, because the crazy solution no one would think of is what's gonna get you.

>>48662397
>DnD
>normie game
When the hell did Dungeons and Dragons, the game with fucktons of dice and grid paper and figurines and character sheets, become a "normie game"?

>>48665065
>And by the way, a good DM would never say "you're going to fail, don't even roll."

"I'm going to stab the sun."

>>48662252

>48662087
>/a/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_(policy_debate)

>>48665082
>When the hell did Dungeons and Dragons, the game with fucktons of dice and grid paper and figurines and character sheets, become a "normie game"
Around 3e and when all those vidya games that use the d20 system came out.

>>48665124
>this is not a good choice
Good luck when your campaign has the Sun God trying to kill you

>>48665124
>"I'm going to stab the sun."
"Alright. Gimme an Acrobatics check, then give me an attack roll."
>2d20, both 20.
"Well damn. Your character, filled with godlike strength, crouches, lifts their longsword, jumps, and soars into the sky. You fly up, up, up, and fly directly into the sun, stabbing it in the process. Gimme a damage roll."
>max damage, let's say 15
"Okay, the sun takes 15 slashing damage, resisted because it's a ball of gas, and you take 3 million Fire damage from the flaming gas reactions, along with 3 million force damage from the gravitational effects."

And then the table busts out into laughter because no one is actually stupid enough to seriously have their character do that, and if they actually want their character to do that and for that to be "canon" in their campaign, then their character is dead and they'll have to reroll.

>>48665124
You're going to *try*. Good luck hitting the Sun's AC, though.

>>48662722
If the system encourages that sort of gameplay, it's a problem with the system.

File: 10985217_670156409780447_1491164262883053028_n.jpg (20KB, 375x375px)

20KB, 375x375px

>>48661053
>flat probability curve
>using a black and white fail or success instead of degrees of failure and success.

File: 1466006909546.gif (90KB, 142x145px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 142x145px

>>48662397
>D&D
>normie game
>everywhere I go everyone plays Shadowrun or some Vampire bullshit
>I'm perhaps the only D&D player in my social circles, real or online

>everyone on /tg/ bawwws about how retardedly complex D&D is
>shill for their a-toddler-can-play-this level of complexity systems
>literally no creativity and skill threshold
>normies flock to these simple systems
>go to /tg/ and project so hard that you can read it on the moon

Get a grip.

>>48662087
In D&D it's a mechanic that is largely (except for Crits) unlinked to how much damage you do.

File: burning.gif (2MB, 448x252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 448x252px

>I attack the dragon
>look DM, I rolled a Nat 20
>that means I instantly kill it right?

Also normies that think nat 20 on skill check means anything.

>I rolled a Nat 20 on Intimidate, of *course* the dragon is afraid of us now

Fuck this stupid meme. Normies don't understand the concept.

>>48668393

>Using anecdotal evidence to claim anything.

You get a grip.

More people know about D&D overall than SR or WoD.

>>48668597
>where is the proofs?
>>/pol/

>>48668619

>People expect me to provide actual proof?
>Must be /pol/

Faggot

There are no good games that use degrees of success.

>>48661053
>A trained master has as much chance at failing a basic task as a novice has at completely a difficult one.
That would be like saying Gordon Ramsey could fuck up making toast while you could perfectly cook a filet minon at equal chance.

The DC of tasks are set to where around a 10+Modifiers is enough to suceed so that a moderately difficult task is something attempted by highly skilled people. Adding in the abitrary 20/1 just makes it nonsensical that unskilled, untrained, uneducated people can outperform masters 5% of the time.

>>48669387
It does make sense in the context that it's a game, not a simulation, and that the potential for extreme circumstances to occur more often than they would in reality helps contribute to a more exciting narrative.

What's better? A cooking contest where the result is a foregone conclusion, or a cooking contest where there is a small chance that the winds of fate might blow in the underdog's favor?

If you want there to be no chance for the underdog to win, just omit the rolls and proceed with the expected turn of events.

File: tumblr_inline_o15si2i6Pv1refb6p_500[1].png (187KB, 500x731px)

187KB, 500x731px

>>48668393
>my anecdotal evidence is more valuable than actual statistics, and enables me to project while saying everyone else is projecting.

>>48669387
You don't have gordon ramsay roll for making toast, unless there's a chance he can fail.

This isn't hard to get anon: If the character is so skilled there isn't a chance he can fail at an activity, he doesn't even have to roll for it.

>>48669538
But you want to roll on the exact inverse situation. You are either a troll or a moron. Probably both.

>>48668393

Are you literally retarded?

D&D, and Pathfinder by extension, are the most played RPG systems out there. Everyone knows what D&D is, even people who don't play RPGs.

I mean, I don't even know how one can claim otherwise. It's not even debatable.

>>48669557
If it's actually impossible to succeed, you don't have him roll either.

This was the fucking OP of the thread, are you retarded?

>>48661053
I ask for criticals to be confirmed, (like say, rolling two natural 1s is a confirmed critical failure while a 1 and a 5 is just a regular fail.) otherwise they're regular successes/failures. It makes a critical success and failure more extraordinary in m opinion
If they roll a 1 and a 20, then it gets made a regular success and I'll give something along the lines of "your character stumbles but while they're tripping their sword manages to land a blow and you regain your footing, roll for damage."

People I play with seem to like it anyway.

>>48668393
I was gonna say something, but you already got BTFO by other anons.

>>48669387
Gordon Ramsay uses a toaster just like everyone else, he has as much a chance of forgetting he put the toaster on waffle time or having the fuse go or forgetting he's just toasted something and putting back in or any possible way you could fail at putting bread in and pushing down a button as anyone else does.

>>48669584
>it's not even debatable
but isn't that debatable?

>>48661053
I like crit fails and crit successes on non combat roles because it's fun.

That's, like, rule -1.

>>48668872
>demanding a peer reviewed study about a person's social circle and experience
That anon may be a faggot, but you're a retard.

>weekly pathfinder game at the place i play dnd
>they are down a person and need a meat shield
>i offer to step in and play a mercenary helping the team
>getting job from local guy who doesnt like us very much
>try to do this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxDtEsIL0ik
>nat 20
>dm tells me he laughs in my face
it wasnt a big deal but it REALLY irked me, me succeeding here would have in no way compromised his campaign and my character had like 17 STR

>>48669995
DM sounds like a fag.

>>48669594
Which many say, like idiots, that not allowing them to roll because they cant succeed is too railroady. So either you can roll on anything and have a 5% chance to succeed and inversely a 5% chance to fail at anything. Then its ridiculous.
>>48669765
That makes no sense. Him forgetting is less likely to happen than you forgetting because in context hes a master chef. By your logic you cpuld forget how to breathe because of the all the mistakes you could make so theres a 5% chance you suffocate yourself.

Somethings you cant fail at and somethings you just cant do. Luck can only get you so far.

>>48669937
My rule -1 is...different.

"Even when they aren't, your players are always intentionally trying to screw up your plans. There's more of them than you, you can't possibly predict their every move."

It is supplemented by Rule -2.

"Even when you think you are, you are never challenging your players enough. There's more of them than you, they'll be able to think up solutions you didn't even consider. So go ahead, toss another Rancor into that pit. Serves the fuckers right for screwing up your plans."

(there's a fair bit of hyperbole in those two rules, but the basic gist of them is - you can't possibly accurately predict what they'll do, so don't bother trying; and, when making what is supposed to be a challenging encounter, always take what you THINK they can handle, and then add in a little bit more, or else you WILL be disappointed by how fast they take the thing down.)

>>48670198
>Which many say, like idiots, that not allowing them to roll because they cant succeed is too railroady.

Why are you deciding how your game works around idiots?

There are three things you should never bother taking into account when deciding how a game works:
1) Actively stupid players
2) Hostile GMs
3) People who disagree with the premise of the game

>>48669957
He may be retarded, but he's right. A single anons anecdotal evidence is practically worthless.

>>48664219
Shadowrun has that, warhammer rpgs have also goodies tied to the degree of successes when attacking.

>>48662722
>succeed against AC
>roll 2 d6 + 3
>snake eyes
> lowest possible damage
>"you just barely swipe the dragon with your sword"

>attack again, instead roll 12+3
>max damage
>"you catch the dragon unaware and stab your sword deep into its flesh"

>roll insight to see if the lying noble is being truthful
>roll 12 against DC 13
>"you think he might be telling the truth"

>roll 3 against DC 13
>"you think he is being completely truthful"

>roll 16 against DC 13
>"you suspect he's hiding something"

What's the problem? Degrees of success are up to the DMS discretion and can be easily worked in to regular gameplay.

>>48669432

>It does make sense in the context that it's a game, not a simulation,

No it doesn't.

>and that the potential for extreme circumstances to occur more often than they would in reality helps contribute to a more exciting narrative.

Here's the thing though, if you compare a dude who is considered a master of his craft and a dude who has no idea what he's doing (and not just in a generic "oh, it turned out he was a master this whole time but he hid his power level" faggotry), the dude who is obviously better should be winning more contests against than not against a person who doesn't know what he's even trying to do.

To put it another way, why bother investing into a skill when you could theorhetically just throw dice at any given problem and fish for crits?

>What's better? A cooking contest where the result is a foregone conclusion, or a cooking contest where there is a small chance that the winds of fate might blow in the underdog's favor?

One where the underdog is at a clear disadvantage for being weaker than his opponent, only to train and return and win later on due to having more insight into what's required to succeed against the master.

Hell, the drive to improve is a "quest" in and of itself, and it's something that anyone who has any drive to improve can sympathize with due to the fact that, hey, people like success.

>>48670577
This.

>>48670583
Opposed Tests generally require their own mechanic.

>>48670583

In D&D 5e I just represent this by saying that players can only roll a lot of skill checks if they have training/proficiency in the skill. In particular I use this for knowledge skills and the likes of the medicine skill, nature( identifyinh poisons) animal handling, lock picking, arcana ( identifying magic items and such) 3.5/PF had this as a raw mechanic too and it works well in resolving this issue in a way the players dont mind.

>>48661053
>what are degrees of failure/success
You are a retard.

>>48665065
The problem I run into is the opposite. If I let them try they will try over and over again until they do it. It pisses me off to no end because most times I dont have any methods to force them to give up. Its worst with spot and search checks. Me saying "There is nothing to find" or "Its impossible" speeds up the game and gets it going.

>>48670894
Only flavorful touches in good games, and pieces of mechanical shit in bad games?

If a game actually uses explicit degrees of success, you're in for a bad game.

>>48670969
>implying
>being so wrong
Forced Success mechanics are a thing.
Explicitly spending degree of success to get an advantage is a thing.

>>48670969
Untrue. It depends entire on the individual context/mechanic.

>>48664536
Really? I've only run it a few times, but I never had issues with combat. All 5 of my players were completely new to the system (some were new to RPGs), so no optimized monsters. Only 2 were really combat-focused, the rest were pilot/mechanic/social classes.

Each turn of combat can take a little longer than a D&D combat, but with humanoid opponents, most things died in 1 or 2 hits (and full-auto guns and explosives can hit multiple enemeies). Even the big mean "Nemesis" NPCs could still be wiped out by a couple good blaster hits (and they can take-out party members in 1 or 2 hits easily).

Typical D&D combat is way longer in my experience. The evil wizard in a 5e scenario seems to typically get 5x more health than PCs, and any non-trivial combat takes quite a few turns around the table as everyone slowly chips away at the baddie, while also wasting time healing each other to prevent death saves.

>>48671085
For games that use it as the core of their system, for every roll where it makes sense to have degrees of success, there's twenty rolls where it just bogs the game down.

>>48671117
It seems to me that pretty much every combat action can have interesting degrees of success. Ditto for social, knowledge, and crafting rolls.

I guess if your game is 90% lockpicking and climbing, degree-of-success probably wouldn't be interesting.

File: 2spooky4ice.jpg (140KB, 630x420px)

140KB, 630x420px

>>48668393

>playing the only RPG that normies even know exists
>not only that but thinking you're somehow superior for not playing any other systems
>thinks the only other systems that exists is DW

Everyone keeps mentioning degrees of success but what systems have it, and aren't Anima?

Mutants and masterminds and I think NWoD. I'm not certain though.

>>48673036

Every 40k RPG, for one. Edge of the Empire and the derivatives of that, cWoD and CoD...

>>48673067
Thank you for giving me games to search. I'm new to tabletop. Out of all those, what do you like the most.

>>48673151

I'm a big fan of the 40k RPG's, but that's because I'm a big 40k fan in general. The Edge of the Empire style Star Wars games are great if you have access to their funky dice, annoying as shit otherwise.

Both WoD's can be fun, but only if you never play with a fan of either setting. I prefer cWoD to nWoD and so does most of my group, but its entirely subjective. Also avoid WoD general, its cancer.

>>48664873
No. Don't. Anima is utter crap: that particular concept is pretty neat, but the way it's executed is horrible

>>48661053
I think it all depends on your groups preferences.

My group is new, and the only reason we got into tabletop is because we read the crazy greentext posts like Sir Bearington and that one 40k one where a dude kills a demon with a well thrown brick.

So yeah, we try to keep things relatively serious, but at the same time leave room for completely unexpected moments to happen. This is why we use crit fails and successes even on skill checks.

We haven't had anyone try and stab the sun or something, but if there is any way possible that one of our characters could ever have a chance of doing something then a nat 20 can do it. With crit fails if it is a task that there is ever a reasonable chance of failure at any time then a crit fail can ruin your day.

>>48661053
On one hand, yes. On the other hand, your players will scream if you just rule that they can't injure the thing. Letting them roll avoids an autistic bitch-fit 95% of the time.

Also, you can always roll to see if you get a critical hit.