The absolute madman

Why is his avatar all rainbow?

>>48680999
He worships Corellon. Nice trips

>>48680981
>LITERALLY gives people leeway to do whatever the hell they want and call it D&D
Woooow.
I guess it doesn't matter, because I already have to write everything other than the characters and spells anyway, and pretty much homebrew the shit out of the rest of it because we got three half-baked books pretending to be OSR.

>>48680999
He changed it to that after the Orlando shootings.

The whole series of tweets was pretty dumb, but Mearls is a hack. He's pitching a stupid false dichotomy to convince people that your 'table experience' (something entirely subjective and much more reliant on your group than the system) is a selling point for his generic and mediocre RPG.

his wife's child loves playing d&d without following the rules, and he's just changed his views to accommodate the little tyke

>>48681075
I hate when people do this. It's like saying "hey I don't reeeaaallly give a shit about what happened but I want everyone to think I do!" Useful though, for people on Facebook who changed theirs the first time France got attacked and didn't bother to change it back before the thing happened in Nice.

>>48681118
That kid's gonna grow up to be a shithead

>>48681159

The kid's named LeBron and constantly looks up to his biological father, he's going to be a shithead regardless.

No fear as I am protected by my fortress of 3.5 books.

But this was literally always true. If the GM wants to ignore a rule, he can do so. Provided of course the players are happy, and if not then the rulebook comes out.

But no, I must take one twitter post as evidence of some great plague upon my perfect and pure hobby.

>>48680981
Why did he put the (((Jew))) markings around his own name?

>>48681415
it's a thing betas are doing to show solidarity with god's chosen people because evil internet nazis are pointing them out :(

>>48681415
Meme magic

File: Rogue_PSA.png (82KB, 1369x559px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1369x559px

>>48680981
It reflects an old-school attitude toward rules, in which you only use the rules when the GM is uncertain as to what the outcome is.

For example, if you make good use of 10 foot poles, or declare that you search in the right way, you don't need dice to determine that you found the trap. If you don't find it that way, then the dice come out and you roll your PC's trap-finding skill.

Or if you already earned the trust and respect of NPCs through play, you don't need a roll to determine whether or not they'll help you. However if their loyalty is not so certain, then the GM makes a roll for it, taking into account factors like charisma and the PCs relationship to them.

>>48681445
>2 SJW markers
>Wife's son
Christ...

>>48681610
Look up Richard Garriott. He is the Alpha-Beta

>>48681067
I mean, in 0e there was a lot of DM fiat too, and the system was designed to tell you "hey, if your players do something not listed here, figure it out."

So how is it a bad thing to try to move back toward that philosophy?

I have no idea who Mike Mearls is.

>>48680981
>implying that this isn't the best way to play dnd.
Seriously, even in ADnD the rules were mostly optional. It's up to the DM to choose the best playstyle for a group of people there is no one size fits all style of play.

File: virt you faggot.png (99KB, 590x777px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 590x777px

>>48681725
>I have no idea who Mike Mearls is.
A lead guy on D&D 5th Edition. The cap is from some tweets he made talking about how livestreams and YouTube videos can be helpful to new players (I bet WotC's kike department has plenty of sales metrics to support that)

>>48681150
You're trying incredibly hard to be offended by this.

>>48681781
While the analogy is kinda bad. That's not bad advice, Dnd has a lot of rules and they take a while to teach. I've found that players react better to just playing the game and learning by doing.

Also what's the problem with getting new players into the game? Half of /tg/ is people complaining that they can't find people to play with, getting new players into the game is an excellent way to solve that problem.

>>48681745
We all know house rules are a thing, but Mearls comparison is just crazy. Especially when coming from a freaking game designer.

>>48681745
>up to the dm

No it fucking is not.

It is never up to the dm alone.

It is up to the group and should only be a group discussion, not a single member of the group.

>>48681914
It's not crazy. He's saying fundamental rules and mechanics can be easily learned through observation and he's gushing about that (because he designed them).

>>48681725
You know, I'm not even going to try to argue with this, because you're right.
I'll just find rules I actually want to use as homebrew material, or just make a Pathfinder-style 'I can't believe it's not D&D'.

>>48681914
Is it really though? A lot of a game designer's work is accessibility, a concept that Dungeons and dragons had struggled with for a while and sorely needs at the moment.

Also it's not like the rules are going away, they'll still be there.

>>48681861
No its true.
It is about the same as saying I send my thoughts and prayer.
If you actually care do something more than share a link and change color on your avatar.

I made pins and necklaces and handed them out at pride parade for free to show my support.

What I object to in the series of tweets is the dumb false dichotomy, that theorycrafting and designing 'for the table' are different things.

They're both part of the design process, and they're both important and intimately connected. Running the math and ensuring the theory is sound is part of avoiding snags at the table, while the table-design side sometimes requires compromising on exact mathematical perfection to make the experience more fun. Denying either side is just excusing the weaknesses of your game.

>>48681938
Yeah you're absolutely right, I was a bit lazy with my wording.
What I meant to say was that the DM's job is to interpret what the party wanted and design a game around it.

>>48682003
It doesn't sorely need it. The game sold and is selling well and coming back into the public consciousness. Whatever their plan was, it's not hurting them.

>>48681938
I believe he was refering to negotiate between playas, as an arbiter?

>>48682024

People with jobs don't have time to march alongside tony and jose as they 69 each other while cartwheeling down the street covered in body glitter and streamers.

>>48682103
...What?

>>48681938

Depends on the group.

When my players want me to DM, they tell me what kind of world they want, but beyond that they say house rules are up to me.

>>48682059
>>48682100
Just concerned.

There are people on 4chan who adamantly believe that as a dm, their word is law and by being in that position they know best for their group.

>>48682117
If you can't put aside an hour to fondle a fag's cock then you need to reconsider your life choices.

>>48682103
To be fair it is really hard to get the 69 right while both are simultaneously cartwheeling. It takes alot of practice.

>>48682095
I think their plan for 5e has always been accessibility. It's a lot less mechanically driven then 3e and 4e.

>>48681899
>Also what's the problem with getting new players into the game?

Because that other half of /tg/ is neckbeards that hate all these normies invading their hobby. People want new players (to their group) but not new players (to tabletop) because they're picky bitches who will never be happy.

People here seem to be missing the point that Mearls was talking about live streams especially, and that is dangerous. Shows like Critical Role are improv acting with a plot and don't really look like your average game of D&D. Looking at this stuff to get tips doesn't sound good.

>>48682310
It's a good starting point though. A basic idea of the flow of the game. I don't think it's as dangerous as you're making it out to be.

>>48682310
>>48682352
I agree, it brings people up to speed quickly.

I'd be interested to see if other more 'usual' RPG streams arise. Problem is the pacing of your average session isn't as entertaining, so it'd necessarily attract a niche audience.

>>48682310
That's what he wants game groups to be, groups of handsome and beautiful improv actors that occasionally roll dice.

>>48682352
It is if it's going to affect WotC's design.

>>48682386
Yeah ok faggot, don't forget to luck that cheeto dust of your keyboard

>>48682393
It's already affected WotC's design. Do you think that they were unaware of the internet when they were designing 5e? Streams have been getting people into the game for a while.

File: grognard.png (273KB, 500x372px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 500x372px

>>48682386
>>48682393
>>48682422
Remember when DnD was good?

>>48682393
Design of what? 5e doesn't seem to be getting splat books and what he's saying doesn't affect adventures.

5e is doing really well so I wouldn't wring my hands about 6e coming out of nowhere looking like a Dungeon World clone

>>48682473
5e is great. Tons of fun, without being bogged down with needless rules. People are just looking for controversy.

>>48680981
I-Is that an (((echo))) on his name?

>>48682505
>>48682510
I do enjoy 5e, but i think there's a line that needs to be drawn here.

>>48682505
>6e coming out of nowhere looking like a Dungeon World clone

5e is successful enough that it'll probably be 5-10 years before 6e. In that time indie and narrative games are going to continue increasing in popularity. WotC will notice and will follow suit in their design of 6e.

I consider all of this a good thing.

>>48680981
Taking the tweet in a complete vacuum, he's right. Rule 0 has existed since forever.

>>48682562
What line? Ban streamers? Game designers having opinions on game design is bad?

>>48682562
No there isn't anon

>>48682586
This is not rule 0. This is the slippery slope to DnD becoming Lord of the Dice.

>>48682617

Learn to fucking read.

I fuckin hate Mike but anyone bitching about this statement can leave the fucking hall. Rules lawyer WotC cucks. This is how Gygax meant DMing to function. Tough shit if you're not creative enough to handle it. Pussy.

>>48682660
I can read

You just seem to dislike story games, and you don't want anybody else to like story games either.

>>48682711
>Rules are bad and get in the way of my epic plot

When will this meme stop

>>48682731
probably never, unfortunately

>>48682654
Then you'll end up like the OSR grognards, the 3.5 die hards, and the 4eaboos if you're not already sitting in the corner shouting "Not muh d&d!"

You'll get some (you)'s and the community will move on

>>48680981
>((()))
o-oy vey

Cry some more, 3.5fags.

>>48682310
but critical role has lots of D&D elements, heavy dice rolling etc.

Harmonquest/Aquisitions Incorporated is much more cancerous and more like what you're describing

>>48682731
>I'd like to play a game with my friends but first I need make sure my fantasy taxes are in order.

>>48682812
Do you want a ten foot pole to help with that reaching?

File: consider the following.jpg (41KB, 499x341px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 499x341px

>>48682731
Rules are there to make the game more fun they're features.

Unfortunately you also have players who get incredibly vexed when the game isn't played using all of the above rules and in a specific fashion (I know, I'm in one of those parties).

Yes there's a rule for underwater basket weaving on page 295, but would it really improve the game by having me stop to read/clarify it for this one time thing?

>>48682742
>the community will move on
Innovation is good. Change is bad.

NOTHING (especially RPGs) has ever been improved or made better by changing its core formula and altering it to fit what's popular now.

>>48681914
ITS THE SAME SHIT GARY GYGAX ALWAYS SAID
I'd hate to have you as my DM
This is just /v/ tier "looking for a reason to be mad" bullshit. Fuck you. Get out.

>>48681610
Has he actually said "Wife's Son" for real?

>>48682912
>Innovation is good. Change is bad.
You need to change things to innovate annon.

>>48682944
change for innovation is good, but change for the sake of change is bad. That should be rather obvious.

>>48682971
Who decides what's innovation change and what's bad change. Is it you?

>>48682711
Story games aren't D&D and never were, Its not what the system was designed for and there's so many better systems you could be playing for what you want. D&D is a dungeon crawl game.

>>48683063
Dungeons and Dragons isn't going to become a story game but it can stand to take a few pointers from them.

>>48683003
No, the differences between innovation and change are fairly obvious, especially with things that have had various iterations over time.

If a feature works well and is a 'core' feature - I.E. it's been used is all/most of the previous iterations - then changing it is not innovation.

Note, this does not keep things entirely static. New features can be added (and removed) easily and without problem, and older features can be changed if they don't work anymore.

>>48683122
Whether or a mechanic works is a lot less objective than you think it is. For example I really like how advantage works, I think it makes the game play faster. But my friend hates how imprecise it is and preferred situational modifiers for his games.

>>48683163

I'm not sure why slap on a -2 is slower or faster than advantage (i.e. more rolling attempts)

Care to explain?

>>48683163
Can you give a reason (based on logic/example rather than opinion) to explain why a mechanic is working or not? If you can, congratulations, you've found an objective answer to your questions.

>>48683193
anon probably subscribes to the "more math = slow and wrongbadfun" school of thought.

>>48680981
NBA on suicide watch

>>48683217

It would be objective for someone who shares the same assumptions.

Personally, I'm the kinda person who gets bothered by advantage's implimentation basically meaning that you never crit if you are disadvantaged, and that crossbows can be fast reloaded with disadvantage which then means that if you already have disadvantage, your crossbow reload becomes free.

>>48683163
>>48683193
Naw, you guys are being silly. Situational modifiers work best with a steep curve a la GURPS, so characters will pretty much always succeed doing simple things, mostly succeed when doing things they're good at, and almost never succeed doing really complex reacharound shit. With a smooth curve you're just dicking around in a chaotic "WHO KNOOOWWWS" system anyway so why not add a weird double down mechanic?

>>48682473
But D&D has never been good. It's just your knowledge of the alternatives to it was shittier back then.

>>48683193
You can have a lot of modifiers stacking together, especially when you have a clever wizard or cleric.
Advantage is nice because you can give a person a bonus for using their imagination and all they need to do is grab two dice and roll it. It works really well for the pace of my campaign.

Also as >>48683247 said, it help reduce the "I'm good at it therefore I never fail ever" situations a minmaxing player can get into.

>>48683243
>It would be objective for someone who shares the same assumptions
It would also be objective for someone who doesn't shares the same assumptions. Thing is, you can have a perfectly logical and objective reason to innovate and a perfectly logical and objective reason to stay the same at the same time. It doesn't matter it more than one option is logical and objective; the change would still be innovation.

>>48683280
Personally, I've always thought that DnD was improved by the "I'm good at it therefore I never fail ever" situations. I think its perfectly setting appropriate for level 20 PCs to be mowing down low-level mooks like something out of Dynasty Warriors or Exalted. Speeds the game up too.

>>48683280

You have that many situational modifers that your players haven't figured out what will happen first hand?

Also, GURPS 3d6 just has a range of 10 or so values that produce interesting results, otherwise, you might as well just roll a.1d10 or something.

>>48682542
Yup

>>48683317

That's not neccessarily the case.

For example, assume that a person likes green as a color.

Therefore, it makes sense for them to find and collect green things. (Because they like them)

If you like red things, you shouldn't collect green things.

God, the RPG community barely survived the rise of WoD and the Storyteller system, and then the subsequent rise of The Forge and Storygames, but people getting into the hobby because they watched some streamers and the people who actually want to start "streaming" their D&D sessions are going to be the fucking end of us

File: autism.jpg (59KB, 540x534px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 540x534px

>>48683325
>3d6 = 1d10
Anon, do you not understand how probability curves work?

>>48683325
>You have that many situational modifiers that your players haven't figured out what will happen first hand?
No, but my group likes to keep a relatively fast pace, and constant modifiers didn't flow as well as advantage so we went with that.

>>48683371
This goes back to the original point on core features not changing. If something's core features is being green, than it should not be changed to be red because some people like red. people who like red should use red things, not make green things change to be red.

>>48683380

Eh, It's more it a 1d8.

Anyway, I do this by looking at the output of 3d6 compared to 1d10, and comparing the "at least" outputs.

http://anydice.com/program/1a6b

You will note between 7 to 15 the differences in probability of between meating or beating a value and getting the value are about 10%, which goes with the 1d10.

However, that there are only 8 values where this is interesting makes it like 1d8.

>>48683432
But what if someone makes a green thing with red trim? I think you're oversimplifying.

>>48683444
Do you not see the curve on 3d6? You are more likely to get a 10 or 11 on 3d6 while you're equally likely to get any number on 1d10.

>>48683317
>Personally, I've always thought that DnD was improved by the "I'm good at it therefore I never fail ever" situations. I think its perfectly setting appropriate for level 20 PCs to be mowing down low-level mooks like something out of Dynasty Warriors or Exalted. Speeds the game up too.
That's fine man and I have a ton of fun playing those types of games, but in a d20 system that heightens failure probability and the gambling aspect, near-guaranteed hits are the exact opposite of what I'd try to implement as a designer. Also, that was a classic gripe of players who got into high level campaigns: they got bored. At a certain point the non-OP PCs kinda die off or fall by the wayside, while the OP players MIGHT be having fun doing the Liu Bei's Triple Peasant Death Twirl of Figurative Fisting, but often times they weren't because they didn't feel that challenge anymore, either because the lesser PCs were being protected or because the DM was actually having trouble putting together challenging encounters for those munchkins.

>>48683371
Anon, you have just stumbled upon one of the most interesting topics in philosophy, and one I've been thinking a lot about recently: how objective things can and cannot be.

The solution is to take something almost objective (but still partially subjective) and saying "this is objective enough, we're using this as a baseline." The previously subjective thing basically becomes the "new objective"

Take, for example, ethics and morality. Everyone agrees that murder and theft are wrong, even though these are entirely subjective and opinion-based statements. That is because the Golden Rule, which is (partially) subjective, is considered to be the "new objective;" viewed from the lens of the golden rule, statements about murder and theft being immoral can be treated as objective, even when they are not.

No, I don't know why a DnD thread on a Chinese cartoon imageboard was the place I chose to post this.

File: d8 vs 3d6 prob graph (d8 in question).png (15KB, 326x655px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 326x655px

>>48683380
To be fair, 3d6 gives you very similar probabilities to 1d8, with some unlikely shit added at either end.

>>48683447
If someone makes a green thing with red trim, then it's a green thing with a little bit of red.

Of course, over time, you could eventually keep on increasing the red in the green, as the levels of red keep on growing and growing. That's how you end up with threads like this.

Personally, I think this should be avoided. If you /have/ to add red to your green, only add red in moderation. Of course, now we need to come up with what "moderation" means objectively...

>>48683444
Nice trips, but you don't get the point of 3d6. Look:
>>48683247
>Situational modifiers work best with a steep curve a la GURPS, so characters will pretty much always succeed doing simple things, mostly succeed when doing things they're good at, and almost never succeed doing really complex reacharound shit.
The steep curve is the point because the GM can very quickly calculate how much of a mod to put on something to indicate challenge, and the challenge is significantly altered to be easier by just adding two points to a DC10/under.

>>48683484
>with some unlikely shit added at either end
That's the point!

File: 1338816177968.jpg (19KB, 328x167px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 328x167px

>>48683484

>>48683511
You're getting awfully close to a slippery slope.

But besides that, if the green thing that features red is popular, maybe more popular than the green thing. Is that bad?

File: Example.png (51KB, 1333x648px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1333x648px

>>48683471

It's not important what the most likely value is, because the goal is to meet or exceed a given value.

Anyway, to see how this goal works with a given dice roll, you can choose the "at least" option, as marked in yellow.

You will see something like the attached image.

File: orZHP1u.gif (2MB, 330x275px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x275px

>>48683484
Dude. Modifiers.

>>48683478

Niggah, you think I didn't know that I wasn't getting into the fact that it isn't a rational choice to be rational?

>>48683526
>That's the point!
Most of the time it doesn't matter. You don't make many rolls where you have less than a 12% chance to succeed, or less than a 12% chance to fail. I'm not saying that 1d8 and 3d6 are identical, but they have a remarkably similar probability curve for most of their range.

>>48683571
I'm not the best at math, but wouldn't that only work if the goal is the same number every time?

>>48683526

Why fuckin' bother?

You now require people to throw 3x dice and not fuck it up.

>>48683605

The goal isn't the same number every time.

The goal is to meet or beat the value on the left.

>>48683560
>Is that bad?
>"NOTHING (especially RPGs) has ever been improved or made better by changing its core formula and altering it to fit what's popular now."
We have literally come back right where we started with this. You wanna keep going, or should we just call it a tie?

>>48683591
Well, yeah. A little. It seemed to be what the whole argument was about.

>>48683606
>why fuckin' bother
Because extreme success is more enjoyable when it happens 0.00463% instead of 12.5% of the time.

>>48683624
>We have literally come back right where we started with this. You wanna keep going, or should we just call it a tie?
Yeah, I think we disagree on the core concept of the argument. We're going to get nowhere.

>>48683624

To be fair,

I might have double negatived myself on accident.

>>48683640

So when it never happens except when you cheat at dice.

>>48683640
I think that's why I like bell curves better than flat probabilities. Even if the system is well designed such that chances of success are reasonable, just the fact that in 3d6 you're so rarely going to see that 18 makes it feel really good when it does.

>>48683660
>I'm unlucky
Shit sux mang

File: 22-springboob.png (945KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

945KB, 800x600px

>Look you don't HAVE to use my rules I made!
>Just ya know gimme 60 dollars for 400 pages of these rules that you don't HAVE to use
>Oh that's just one book actually
>it's more like 150 dollars for 3 books of 400 pages of rules you DON'T NEED TO USE
>My game is great!

>>48683645
Still a fun argument, though. Good game; half point each, I guess.

>>48683651
Triple negatived, actually.

>>48683670
>0.00463%

So roughly 1 in 215 times, most of which when you get it, it doesn't fucking matter, because how often do you need 16s or whatever to not fuck up?

>>48681745
>even in ADnD the rules were mostly optional
Not in 1e. It was meant to be a by-the-book unified ruleset for the sake of tournament and convention play--the sanctioned, inviolate rulebook.
It's pretty well recorded that Gygax would 'sperg out about people running it to their own tastes. He would always direct them instead to non-Advanced rules, saying you're welcome to modify those however you like.

>>48680981
Who?

>>>48683624

I consider the "isn't a rational choice" to kinda live in it's own space.

Whatever.

>>48683699
Something, something the death of the author.

>>48683698
If rolling a 20 on a d20 is a big deal with a 5% chance then rolling a 18 on 3d6 is 10.799 times more of a big deal.

If you're playing a game with those probabilities the system (which is obviously well designed since it has such a sensible dice mechanic) will reflect that by making your success fucking FEEL like a success and a decent GM/group will do the same.

>rolling when it doesn't matter
Shiggy diggy doo

>>48683571
The point of GURPS is to make it as realistic as possible. If you have a 5 skill in what you're doing but a negative one modifier, you're only about 5% more likely to fail. In a d10 or d8 there's less nuance. GURPS is designed to punish gamble rolls.

>>48681075
I think it's the best way to do it actually. Here are their options:
>Show no response, giving off a poor PR display and makes the company look heartless
>Make a bunch of lengthy "cry sorrow cry" posts about the incident making them look preachy and attention-whorey
>Change Icon to be related to the incident as a silent but well meant recognition of the tragedy that doesn't make them preachy but also doesn't make them heartless

>>48683698
There is an argument to be made for criticals, especially as compared to a d8. Criticalling 1/8 of the time is probably too much, though you could add a confirmation roll where you need to roll another 8 in order to critical (or something like that).

Personally, I think that 1d8 has too small a range for most games, though I feel similarly about 3d6 (though at least there you have the benefit of the tapering at either end). Now, a d20 is another story. It has a larger range than 3d6, and I really don't need things to be more granular than 5%. I mean, 3d6 is less than half that granular at the middle of its range.

>>48683674
Here's the secret anon

you don't need the rules at all, you're already a sucker by paying someone to use your imagination

>>48683762

So what you're saying is anyone who isn't freeforming is just a sucker?

Literally the only fucking rule you'll ever need is "Roll this dice and finger an estimate of a result based on the number and how good you assume this guy is".

It... continues to astound me how much /tg/ claims to hate narrativist games then instantly falls back to this argument the moment shitty rules are brought up in games they like.

>>48683759

Exactly, 5% grains are pretty nice

File: d10,000.png (106KB, 411x396px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 411x396px

>>48683743
>If rolling a 20 on a d20 is a big deal with a 5% chance then rolling a 18 on 3d6 is 10.799 times more of a big deal.
And this is why all games should use a d10,000, because then criticals are a really, really big deal.

Dear captcha: do you not know what a billboard is? Because none of those are billboards.

>>48683743

The point is that a 5% chance of critical happens enough to get the extra juicy damage, so that upping defense doesn't prevent you from getting rekted by a critical.

>>48682256
Aren't those people also complaining about not having people to play with? If you already have a group of people you like gaming with, you don't need to worry about people you don't like invading your group unless one of them starts dating your GM.

>>48683781
I'm not defending D&D and I don't claim to hate narrative games. I'm just saying don't get all offended when the guy says "play this game of make believe the way you want"

Because ultimately it's just you and your group it doesn't fucking matter what happens, your groups experience at the table has 0 effect on other groups play styles, we're all playing make believe and spent money on books telling us how we should which sounds a lot dumber than what Mearls is saying

People need to stop worrying about having fun the right way

>>48683806
We can't let groups we disagree with take part in our pass times then we would have something in common and that would be worse than death

>>48683743
>10.799 times more of a big deal.
Actually, it's 10.8 times more of a big deal. It's .001 times bigger of a deal than you were giving it credit for.

>>48683841

I would argue that... the good arguments had in these threads (however sparse) aren't necessarily about having fun the right way but rather aim to discuss some important questions like:

What IS good game design?

Can we judge games based on mechanics? Is it fair to?

Should tabletop RPGs be magically immune to criticism?

Should writers have no accountability with the quality or lack thereof with their works because of this?

It's not about whether or not Jim Doucheface over at table 3 and his band of chucklefucks are having fun.

It's about why John Deverson is getting paid to make a bunch of vaguely shaped suggestions for rules with no actual design goals outside of a vague idea of emulating a game people can't even properly describe and have said people support and applaude him for it.

Also I fucking hate to be THAT GUY but I'm really sick of people using 'fun' as the final defense because it's not a fucking topic of discussion. It's just telling people to shut up and calling you an asshat for continuing to perpetuate this discussion in the first place. Which: congradulations you told a bunch of nerds online their argument is petty and inconsequential have any other stunning revelations for us Einstein? Why don't you just put the whole world in a bottle while you're at it Superman?

>>48683873
You fuckin nailed him bro

>>48683841
sorry, i did not spend money on my books. Everything from 3/3.5 is available online in free pdfs. I got the core set from my bro for free, the rest i waited for. I literally saved myself 2k.

>>48681938
You shitty player-only gamers need to realize that you're a dime a dozen. GMing is hard work, being a player is pants-on-head retarded easy. When you say "I jump" the GM tells you how high, and you can be replaced in minutes, as there are dozens, if not hundreds more prospective players clamoring to get into a game.

So if you get to play, you will shut the fuck up and do as you're told, because it's real fucking simple to toss your entitled ass to the curb.

>>48683938
this
say what you will about the OGL, free rules was fucking great.
I'm never gonna forgive Wizards for shutting down dndtools.com

>>48683991
Or you could be a good DM and work with your players for the best experience possible.

>>48683907
Well I mean, it's a wide market that has some pretty varying opinions, so at the end of the day the fun factor will come in, but it's to answer whether or not you hit your target audience. I like simple dice pools with low simple numbers, but I hate Shadowrun's dice pool system (fuck Cthulhutech's dice too but that's another thing). I hate rolling a handful of dice just to perform an action, it feels retarded to me, and the more I roll the worse I feel.

So if you're targeting me, you're trying to produce what I want. In simple terms, I don't want the second option at all, but if you're trying to bring some of those people or people in the middle in, you'll compromise while trying not to alienate me (let's just assume I'm the targeted core audience for the hypothetical)

If most of us are having a good amount of fun then you succeeded.

>>48684019
Their preferences matter in so far as they're going to contribute to making the game more enjoyable for me to run. The number 1 priority of a GM is their own satisfaction, as it should be, vecause it is the GM who makes everything happen, while the players merely mooch off of that effort in a typically parasitic manner.

>>48684047
I find that games work best when both player and DM are working together. A "fuck you got mine" mentality isn't conducive for a cooperative game.

>>48684035

See it's not even about that?

Because what you just described there IS an opinion. Or more accurately: it's some kind of... I guess there's no other way to put it. It's some kinda autistic reflex of disgust you feel the moment you're asked to leave your comfort zone.

But that's just aestetics at the end of the day. Arguing "I don't like dice pools" is like arguing "I don't like big numbers" there's no substance to what you're saying.

Now alternatively: looking at a book and saying "Isn't this class that can barely actually deal any damage being presented in the same space and general level as this other class that can instantly do *anything* without even needing a roll kind of ruining the point of this game being about a team of adventuring heroes who work together to solve problems and traverse dangerous worlds?"

Because that right there? That's an ARGUMENT. Opinion factors into there slightly but there's like, an actual point there. A game wants to attempt something but it's failed to accomplish it. Forcing DM's and players to have to work around it both in and out of immediate play.

It's kind of like the difference between "I don't like this house because it has shag carpet" and "This house's roof is leaking". The former is no matter how you slice it a matter of preference. Trying to compare it to the latter you may as well be saying "Yea well some people LIKE having slow drops of cold water strike their face. You ever consider THAT?"

>>48684085
I agree, players should tailor their characters and playstyles to match the setting, atmosphere, and mechanics that the GM is graciously shared with them.

>>48684109
While that is true, a dm should also take the players into account when designing their world. For example I had a player who made a fire mage, and they were taking on a water dungeon. This fire felt like her powers were less than useful in that area, so I put enemies with ice armor in the later areas. This allowed the player to have a bit more fun then if I just forced the player to change because "muh setting".

>>48684101
Dude, some people don't like well balanced systems. Gamma World for example. And like I said, I like low numbers in games so how much damage something does means shit to me, and you completely ignore non-damage based utility. You didn't make an argument you just stated your opinion on what your style of game is like.

Also, don't call me autistic you dickhead.

>>48684189

>some people don't like well balanced systems

You know there's a reason every time people try and sell others on 3.x they always seem to either avoid mentioning the imbalance or they try to state it's not there or they justify it.

Because at the end of the day like, 90% of people's reactions to being told Wizards are just objectively better is "That's lame".

I've never actually met a person who heard "Yea this game is really imbalanced" and went "WOA HOLY SHIT YES!" which I think indicates that may 'imbalance' isn't what people appreciate about those games but rather the way certain classes play.

>And like I said, I like low numbers in games so how much damage something does means shit to me,

That's... not at all really the point I was trying to make? It was just a point about class ineffectiveness. It doesn't matter if you like low numbers and this influences what classes you like (although if that IS the case that's just... odd no other way of putting it) the point is that one class is weaker than another.

>and you completely ignore non-damage based utility

Whiiich is something spellcasters in 3.x have almost exclusively. So... no?

>You didn't make an argument you just stated your opinion on what your style of game is like.


That style being how D&D 3.X actually presents itself? Gee it's almost as if I like the idea of a game more than what it actually is.

You could call that an opinion but then I could also call that objectively misleading. Which is not a good thing.

>Also, don't call me autistic you dickhead.

Hey man I won't use that word when I'm presented with a better word for "I have no logical or moral explaination for why I dislike this minor, insignificant detail but I will actively go against it whenever I encounter it".

Also I didn't call YOU it I called the argument you were using along those lines and I even admitted that was unfair.

>>48684162
The key component is whether or not the GM feels the change will make the game more enjoyable for them to run, which naturally includes player engagement, but again all of that is completely subordinate to their judgement.

>>48684275
While yes it does eventually come down to the DM, the players also are important parts. A gm without players is just a person playing make believe in their basement.

>>48684275
>>48684302
Sorry forgot to finish my thought.

A GM is as expected to work with the players as the players are expected to work with the DM.

>>48684302
>a GM without players
Is a unicorn.

The point here is that players, as people who contribute very little effort to the game, are very, very easy to replace. Their wants do not intrinsically matter because they are nearly vestigial in the first place.

A GM can replace his whole group overnight, or even faster if he wants.

>>48684377
There are a lot more GMs without players than you think. /tg/ is full of them.

>>48684377
>>48684387
Also I play with close friends, they're a little harder to replace.

>>48684377
I'm a unicorn. Granted, that's because I have standards. The long term pool of players I've drawn from has become... uh... non-potable (or whatever completes the analogy). They've all gotten jaded, or don't care enough to put forth any effort anymore, or have become whiny babies whenever shit doesn't go their way (like failing more than 1 roll in a row), etc. So now I'm left with the prospect of trying to recruit a whole new group of players, none of who can be fucktards (because it only takes one to ruin the whole game), and that just seems exhausting.

>>48684451
You're not a unicorn, you're just a horse with a stick up your ass.

File: 1467997124857.png (159KB, 236x311px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 236x311px

>>48681031
GOD DAMN ELVES WHEN WILL THEY LEARN?

>>48684463
>You're not a unicorn, you're just a horse with a stick up your ass.
Nuh-uh! You!

>>48681546
This is correct in my mind