When did you realise reducing magic to dice rolls and number

File: 1426562752827.jpg (38KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x281px

>>50161295
When did you realise reducing melee combat to dice rolls and number calculations removes all of the exciting aspects of it, and thus cannot work properly if you allow people to use it in tabletop games or video games?

It's difficult to quantify how much more effective the blood of a virgin on her wedding night will be in a spell versus the blood of an old man who lived a full life with no regrets.

Rolled 10 + 3 (1d20 + 3)

I cast "Shut up OP"

>>50161316
Video games can pull it off better because you can simulate movement easier.

You do have a decent point however. it is difficult to properly simulate engaging melee combat.

>>50161326
not an argument

>>50161295
I still haven't. Convince me.

>>50161348
Magic draws from the themes of whatever it's a part of, and thus should follow that, not arbitrary dice rolls.

Magic is concerned with the mystery and unknowable parts of nature, and therefore should stay mysterious. Dice rolls break it down into something resembling an extremely crude science.

Rolled 10 (1d20)

>>50161339
I cast "Who said I want to have an argument, you autist? There should be mechanics on it, not have them go on a scavenger hunt for cat's nipples so they can cast magic missile."

I don't have any bonuses though.

>>50161398
Autistics like set and easily understandable rules, which are what you are advocating for.

Magic isn't magic if it has mechanics.

>>50161390
Melee draws from the cultures and techniques of whatever culture it's a part of, and thus should follow that, not arbitrary dice rolls.

Melee is concerned with the mystery and unknowable parts of self-mastery and physical, mental, and spiritual refinement, and therefore should stay esoteric. Dice rolls break it down into something resembling an extremely crude science.

>>50161390
Neither of those are convincing. Dice rolls model processes too unknowable or too arcane to explicitly design rules for. If anything, they're the superior choice by your logic.

>>50161426
Don't see what your point is here.

What's wrong with being opposed to the idea of melee not being reduced to dice rolls?

I would make an argument that melee is an actual physical thing in real life, empiricism can be applied to it, whereas the same cannot be said for magic, so therefore attempting to simulate it in such a way isn't as bad, it just needs to be done well (which it usually isn't).

>>50161447
Except like I said, it reduces it to numbers. The whole problem here is attempting to model magic. My solution is to not do that, then you have truly magical magic.

>>50161398
Well no you should have to gather your god dam material components fuck the component pouch.

Op is a faggot though.

>>50161458
So your argument is that the only acceptable tabletop games are pure abstraction, like checkers? Otherwise, you are reducing the subject being modeled to numbers, which loses some essential part of the genuine experience. Only a game which models nothing loses nothing.

>>50161491
That is correct.

A story driven fantasy game should purely be freeform storytelling, the dice rolls impede it.

>>50161458
You know traditionally magic does have defined cause and effect.

Its incredibly dificult to refute your argument because you have no argumentto begin with.

File: all hope lost.jpg (80KB, 766x960px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 766x960px

>>50161295
I like to throw fireballs.

Certain Tabletop games and videogames let me play a guy who can shoot fireballs.

>OP: "YOU'RE HAVING BADWRONGFUN BECAUSE I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I WANT BUT YOUR THING SUCKS!"

>>50161504
And fuck chess, too, amirite? It reduces the chaos of the battlefield to a cold, calculating ritual. IT'S SHIT

>>50161504
>freeform

>>50161458
The problem with roleplayers these days is that they can't handle a little abstraction. Yeah, you want to do a cool flip over that wall and land on a guy while stabbing him? Sure, just roll dex+combat modifier, since that's an appropriate metric for the skills you'd use in real life to do that sort of thing.

>>50161507
Traditionally magic has been seen as a mysterious thought, and people didn't attempt to understand how it functioned.

You'd see the effect of it, and perhaps would might trigger it (for example speaking and incantation or something like that) but the rest of it is up to the gods, or satan, or whatever you're gaining your magical power from.
>>50161516
Keep your mindless power-fantasies then, I for one want fantasy to go somewhere.
>>50161525
Chess is so abstract it isn't reducing anything, and you could possibly argue that cold detachment of it all is saying something about military commanders.

>>50161554
*force not thought

>>50161554
>Chess is so abstract it isn't reducing anything, and you could possibly argue that cold detachment of it all is saying something about military commanders.

Sure, but then you'd have to admit that a tabletop game could include magic as long as it the game wasn't well-grounded in simulationism, and did its magic in a way that made an artistic statement about the subject. Are you sure you want to allow that?

>>50161600
My point is that magic is inherently at odds with knowing how it functions (dice rolls) since it takes away a certain level of mystery that isn't neccessary for it to be magic.

You could include it in a tabletop game, but not mechanically. It would have to be purely a story element.

File: 1476278685249.jpg (423KB, 1800x920px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 1800x920px

>>50161295
I sympathize with your argument, OP, but you're making a piss-poor case for it.

All RPGs are models. All models reduce reality/concepts to numbers. It's an inherent part of the process and without it you don't have anything more than a story. People who want to play a game, or want to have a cooperative story where people aren't just shouting random things at each other, need models and rules. Numbers are always a consequence of that.

Now what you should be arguing is that magic in RPGs needs more randomness, less cause-and-effect empiricism. But not in every case, since there are there many schools of magic in the real work that were essentially proto-sciences, with discrete rules, numbers and models for how magic was to be cast (hermeticism, alchemy, even voodoun).

The key difference is that while science is a system for explaining everything (and testing it, refining it, rejecting it, a meta-system basically), different magic types are conflicting systems of thought that are hidden (hence, hermetic and esoteric) from common knowledge. So in order to be more mysterious, magic has to be "more hidden". Down to an individual level if need be.

>>50161554
>Traditionally magic has been seen as a mysterious thought, and people didn't attempt to understand how it functioned
You mean they did not work to understand the underlying principles.
Because that is false.

And if you mean they did not try and study it and learn to use it thats even more false.

I think you dont know what it is you want you are just spewing irrelevant bullshit because you decided you wanted magic to exist in the world rather then as spells.

Which is a perfectly valid desire for a setting but your logic or attempt at logic is bullshit.

>>50161295
>>50161639
After some thought, I think that what OP might mean is that RPGs could be greatly improved by having magic users that don't 100% know how magic works.

The best way to do this would be to just have the DM take care of it all, but that would probably slog the game down a lot. Maybe there's like a secret DM forum somewhere where new DMs can learn how magic works and old ones can teach and come up with new theories and rules. But hey, I'm no game designer and I know this idea is shit.

There didn't use to be anything magical about magic, alchemy and so on. Follow the script, thing happens. If not, well, nothing ever really goes to plan.

The magical and mysterious bits were simply that no one understood any aspect of the world all that well back then. Everything was mysterious.

Then as we started to figure out the bits of the world that have the most direct impact on our daily lives, we've discovered that some of the old shit was correct, and some of it was pants on head retarded. The latter we call magic, superstition, and so on.

But this is a distinction we make.

Back in the day there was no such difference between honing your sword, asking the Holy Virgin to put in a good word for you, and writing the abracadabra triangle on the blade (or some such, I'm not bothering to see which particular things may have been popular at the same place and time). They would all have been well known, complementary and widely practised methods of bringing about the same result, that is victory in battle.

I guess the most obvious example of magic and science going hand in hand, and then splitting up when people started making note of what worked measurably and with reproducibility is chemistry as we know it taking off from alchemy.

The hardon for mystery comes into play when you either don't like what reality is, or when you can't be arsed to put in the work to understand the scientific explanation, preferring instead a great mishmash where there's no right but what you feel should be right, and no one can thus tell you that you're flat out wrong. (Until you try a flight potion as an alternative to a parachute, and the ground decides to terminally veto your ideas.)

>>50161637
>You could include it in a tabletop game, but not mechanically. It would have to be purely a story element.

So you want the players to decide the exact affect of there spells instead of the gm and even decide if they sucedd in casting.

Leaving aside how inherently retarded that is your shit about mysteriousness and whatnot does not even connect in a logical way to this desire.

>>50161670
If you look at how magic is depicted within mythology, it is not some kind of science or logical practice that can be comprehended. It's source is usually something extremely abstract and often beyond human, such as a divine being.

Due to this nature of it being beyond human understanding on a technical level, breaking it down into dice rolls does give you an understanding of it, thus chipping away at it's magical nature.

I'm not against spells, I'm against a direct technical understanding of magic. Slicing up three frogs and whispering three magical words to put a curse on someone is not at odds with magic. Rolling a dice and hoping for a twenty is.

>>50161702
Someone should decide what their magic spells do, as long as it fits within the narrative, tone and theme of the story.

If you can't trust your players to be responsible and good for the story, why are you playing with them?

>>50161693
It might also be that op has a hardon for wild magic like the guy who wrote complete arcane.

>>50161295
> Magic for low to moderate level casters = numbers and calculations
> Magic for masters of magic and powerful magical beings = plot device/do whatever the fuck you want button

Do it differently and you're doing it wrong.

File: 218711Livre3estampe41Copie.jpg (2MB, 2400x3634px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2400x3634px

>>50161426
>Melee draws from the cultures and techniques of whatever culture it's a part of
>Dice rolls break it down into something resembling an extremely crude science.

Trying to make science of melee, with varying degrees of success, can be culturally appropriate.

>>50161726
You are such a faggot holy shit

>>50161726
>If you look at how magic is depicted within mythology, it is not some kind of science or logical practice that can be comprehended. It's source is usually something extremely abstract and often beyond human, such as a divine being.
Yes correct
>Due to this nature of it being beyond human understanding on a technical level, breaking it down into dice rolls does give you an understanding of it, thus chipping away at it's magical nature.
These things dont lead into one another

>I'm not against spells, I'm against a direct technical understanding of magic. Slicing up three frogs and whispering three magical words to put a curse on someone is not at odds with magic. Rolling a dice and hoping for a twenty is
You dont understand that the d20 roll represents your success at said frog cutting your not just thinking and it happens.


So what you want is more material, somantic and verbal components.

I dont get to say this often but

HAVE YOU TRIED PLAYING D&D

>>50161792
I don't play tabletop, precisely because of the problems I'm describing.

At least vidya can mask it to an extent.

The dice rolls give you an example of what dictates magical success and how it relates to your characters ability. How is this not giving you a technical understanding of it?

The effect of the frog-cutting should come from how well it would serve the themes and plot, not from a dice roll. A dice roll would cheapen the curse, whereas leaving it to whatever bizarre forces you are placing your trust into keeps the illusion of magic.

>>50161726
>If you look at how magic is depicted within mythology, it is not some kind of science or logical practice that can be comprehended. It's source is usually something extremely abstract and often beyond human, such as a divine being.

They depicted everythign like that. Day and night? Two divine chariots race around the world carrying the sun and moon. The smith made a good sword? He was good both at hammering and mumbling incantations. Earthquake flattened the village? Someone didn't suck up to the gods properly. magic was just another skill, or part of a range of skills and crafts.

Then they made those gods extremely human and understandable (they're assholes, that's about it). So much for that mystery.

>>50161822
>I don't play tabletop
>The effect of the frog-cutting should come from how well it would serve the themes and plot
>>>/lit/

>>50161726
>Slicing up three frogs and whispering three magical words to put a curse on someone is not at odds with magic. Rolling a dice and hoping for a twenty is.

Okay, OP. I want to make the Emperor's head explode. I burn three incense sticks and a black goat's head, then pour milk on it. His head explodes, right?

Why or why not? Who decides? How do they decide?

Are you basically arguing for arbitrary GM fiat? How is a newb GM supposed to adjudicate all this mysterious shit?

>>50161295
i think making a system with that kind of magic-"mechanic" would make it broken enough to not be usable by PCs at all.

i mean, let's start by looking at how you deal with magic mechanicly if you remove any of the rules that are supposed to deal with this.

also, good bait thread.

>>50161840
These mundane elements are giving magical and divine properties. Magic should both be relatable to the individual, yet also mysterious enough to seem beyond the individual. Deifying things like smithing support this.
>>50161842
I'm simply trying to help people who also like fantasy make better settings.
>>50161843
Decide beforehand who might decide on that, and place trust in that you are playing with that they'll make a choice that contributes to the plot.

>>50161842
If the story time threads are to be believed I doubt 50% or more of the people on this board play any /tg

File: 3fdd18_b96c079dea82446287cf024c0015bc7c.jpg_srz_452_568_85_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz.jpg (122KB, 443x557px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 443x557px

>>50161822
So go freeform then. No dice to worry about. Of course, that does put you at the mercy of whatever bizarre forces you are placing your trust into, aka the DM. Throwing Empress Fortuna's polygonal bones for a reading may prove preferable, even if they have a tendency to speak clearly.

>>50161822
>I don't play tabletop
Then why are you trying to tell us how to play it?

>>50161873
>I'm simply trying to help people who also like fantasy make better settings.
You clearly dont know what you are talking about then because almost every game has the sort of stuff you are describing underneath the dice rolls.

I dont think i have ever played an rpg without at least material components to the magic.

>>50161892
You're playing it wrong, that's why. Video games and tabletop have a large influence on fantasy, whether you like it or not, and I want fantasy to flourish.

>>50161873


You're not interested in playing tabletop and no one is going to put your austistic bullshit into action. This his thread isn't /tg/ related take your shit to >>>/lit/

>>50161873
>Decide beforehand who might decide on that, and place trust in that you are playing with that they'll make a choice that contributes to the plot.

>decide how?
You're just shifting the decision process further away.

But let's say you assign Bob as the judge of whether spells work. So if I want to make the Emperor's head explode, Bob now tells me (Mike) that I can't. So Bob has now taken all agency away from me and is basically playing my character. Everyone's character, in fact, if everyone wants to do magic.

>contributes to the plot

Fuck you, making the Emperor's head contributes to the plot! Why is Bob making my decisions for me?!?

>>50161504
>the dice rolls impede it
Confirmed to not know what he's talking about. And only have played/read shit games.
The thread should have stopped there.

File: 7 to a light 8 out of 10.jpg (13KB, 480x269px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x269px

>>50161908
Man, until you busted that one out, I almost believed you. Good work.

>>50161915
>But let's say you assign Bob as the judge of whether spells work. So if I want to make the Emperor's head explode, Bob now tells me (Mike) that I can't. So Bob has now taken all agency away from me and is basically playing my character. Everyone's character, in fact, if everyone wants to do magic.
Well here you hit one road block with placing someone in charge of something, you can get decisions you don't like.

Regardless, it doesn't take your agency away. You chose to do the spell, and the spell failed. You can't control the forces of the world to get your way all the time, and this isn't even covering that you don't need to dedicate your character to only casting bizarre satanic spells.

>>50161842
Nah ops a faggot but i would not call him /lit/
>I'm simply trying to help people who also like fantasy make better settings
Alright yeah you were right completly fucking /lit/ those guys will flip there lid if you so much as put an elf in a city they hate diversity in a genre.

>>50161942
I'm not baiting. Maybe you aren't playing it wrong, but I think it's a detrimental way of playing and keeps fantasy as schlock.

>>50161943
>You can't control the forces of the world to get your way all the time
Yes exactly thats what the fucking dice are for.
I get that you want a person to decide to make the story work better but you also seem to want randomness you cannot have both.

>>50161960
Oh wow you really are /lit/
It sickens me that the book board which should probably be the most mature board on 4chan is so fucking stuckup.

I once made a thread to talk about how much a book fell apart towards the end and all the responses were basicly just waaaaah this book mixs genres and has a funny title.

>>50161943
>You can't control the forces of the world to get your way all the time
Then why does Bob get to control them? Who decides?

You haven't answered the question. Your proposal is incredibly impractical and silly and doesn't solve any of the problems of how to decide effects and resolve competing claims.

You're either baiting, or profoundly ignorant about games.

>>50162063
>Then why does Bob get to control them? Who decides?
Because you placed your trust in him? If you don't trust Bob, don't hand power over to him.

If my proposal is impractical, than tabletop games are impractical for good magic, and thus should focus on other things instead.
>>50161985
But like I said, the dice reduce the mystery of magic.

>>50162091
Please leave

>>50162091
>But like I said, the dice reduce the mystery of magic.
And bob reduces the mystery of magic far more.

File: having-fun-wrong-funny-quotes1.jpg (20KB, 620x344px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 620x344px

>>50161960
>I'm not baiting.

Oh yes you are. Now fuck off.

>>50161295
>2016
>Doesn't know about Wonders & Wickedness or Talislanta 4e or you know, any game that isn't D&D 3.X or later.

>>50162129
Well don't give him that power then, give it someone who can keep the mystery.

>>50162135
I honestly think op really is enough of a pretentious cum guzzling faggot to be serious here.
Which makes it even more impressive that he managed to make /tg/ auctualy mad which is a hard thing to do.

>>50162161
What fucking mystery.
Your basicly turning the game into a colective writing exercise every time somebody casts a spell.

>>50162164
>Which makes it even more impressive that he managed to make /tg/ auctualy mad which is a hard thing to do.
Whenever I seem to post my opinion on here it seems to rile /tg/ up. I guess they just don't like things against the hivemind? I don't know.
>>50162179
And? I'd argue that writing and human feelings are more compelling and hold more mystery than rolling a dice.

>>50161412
You are aware that this board is about games right? Games need rules or "mechanics" to function. The rules either come from a book, some poorly balanced homebrew nonsense, or dm fiat. It's not like the rulebooks go into the specifics of how any of it works under the hood; they just explain what is possible within the setting and how the outcomes are determined. The dice simply emulate the random nature of the setting.

I guess I don't get what your point is. It seems like you'd like a game that lets you do literally anything you want, which is already possible if you find a willing DM and group, but good luck with that.

>>50162186
The dice are the greatest mystery there is you faggot
/tg/ is incredibly willing to try all sorts of things your thing is just phenominaly fucking stupid.
What could be more mysterious then the possibly of random failure at the whim of chance.

If you want to write a story with people then fucking do that dont try and wrap it up in some horrible coruption of an rpg

>>50162186
>I guess they just don't like things against the hivemind?

No, we just have a hard time with pretentious, arrogant assholes.

>>50162203
You can have a game, even a fantasy game, without magic if you insist on dice-rolling dictating everything.

I would argue that non-dice rolley magic is compatible with a standard dice-rolling game, you just need to restrict how players can use it.

>>50162223
>/tg/ is incredibly willing to try all sorts of things your thing is just phenominaly fucking stupid.
Except it isn't. They're more interested in ironing out technical details rather than meaning, metaphor or symbolism behind fantasy.

How are dice mysterious? They are an incredibly mundane item which is easily comprehended and understood by human beings. When I played warhammer, I didn't view it as a mysterious implement. I viewed them simply as my road to victory, or loss.

>>50162247
>you just need to restrict how players can use it.
You want a system that has a more abstract act of casting magic and you tell your dm what you want to do.
That is fine but all those systems will still involve a fucking die

>>50162272
>That is fine but all those systems will still involve a fucking die
Why? I'm saying that it doesn't need that. Not only does it not need that, it's a detriment to the magic.

>>50162247
>When I played warhammer, I didn't view it as a mysterious implement. I viewed them simply as my road to victory, or loss.

That is a flaw in your perception of the world. Fix it.

>>50161873
>Decide beforehand who might decide on that, and place trust in that you are playing with that they'll make a choice that contributes to the plot.
"No, you can't make the Emperor head's explode, he's crucial to my story!
-Fuck you man, I wanted to be an asshole anarchist wizard, not listen to your semi-historicak fanfic. I told you last week."

>>50162247
>They're more interested in ironing out technical details rather than meaning, metaphor or symbolism behind fantasy.
There is a thread right fucking now about abstract mimics
We have near constant discusions on morality.

>>50162284
>That is a flaw in your perception of the world. Fix it.
Not an argument
>>50162291
How is this a flaw with what I'm saying?
This is a flaw with the people you are playing with.

>>50162277
>it's a detriment to the magic.
You've yet to explain how, except for bullshit 'muh feelings' subjective arguments.

>>50162318
>You've yet to explain how, except for bullshit 'muh feelings' subjective arguments.
The only bullshit here is what you just said.
All arguments when talking about fantasy are going to be subjective, and literally all arguments are rooted in feelings.
>>50162315
Worldbuilding threads are people talking about the rivers being right and the geography making sense.
Armour threads are about the armour being practical and making sense.

/tg/ is riddled with a technical view of fantasy

>>50162341
We're not talking about fantasy you stupid nigger, we're talking about game mechanics.

OP seems to be incredibly confused.

He claims in mythology magic was more mysterious. That's because usually in mythology the magic is used by something that is beyond human, like a spirit or god.

Every magical human institution has rules, rituals, cause and effect, whether with ingredients or with a power. We don't get to use the mysterious magic, we are bound to the material in our understanding.

What you want is absurd fairytale bullshit magic.

>>50162394
He sure seems fond of bullshit.

>>50162341
>ma symbolism.
When you try and put symbolism in every little thing symbolism becomes meaningless.

>>50162247
I hate to break this to you, but you're really coming across as a troll. Rolling dice to determine outcomes is fine, stats for health, strength, constitution, charisma are all fine, but magic is special and can't be reduced to numbers because you think it negatively impacts the fantasy genre as a whole. Where are you getting these ideas? What makes you think D&D has a greater impact on fantasy authors than vice versa? Tolkien wasn't thinking about a table top role playing game when he wrote LoTR.

You've already said you don't enjoy or play tabletop games and that you're posting on the traditional gaming board to proselytize about the harm these games do to the fantasy genre. I'll give you some advice. Stop trying to convince people that you're views are more important than others without even having an explicit well thought out argument with sources and don't expect a type of game that's been around for decades because you complained about it online anonymously. That sort of thing is just going to agrevate people and has no chance of changing anyone's mind. You should seek out a group that is interested in fantasy, improv, and role playing. That's what you're describing. People collectively decide the ground rules and people are free to operate within them. No dice or rulebooks required. That won't change the fantasy genre to you're liking, but at least you stand a chance of enjoying it.

Magic is a skill. It is a thing that you can do. When someone does a thing, there is a chance that the thing will work or fail. The better the person is at thing, the more likely the thing is to work rather than fail.

I fail to see how using dice is a bad way to represent this.

>>50162392
>we're not talking about fantasy
>when I make it explicity clear we are
We're talking about how fantasy and mechanics interact, that is talking about fantasy.
If you click on the left hand side of your browser, you can scroll around and look at other posts, then you can read them to understand what we're discussing.
Helpful, eh?
>>50162394
Magic without mystery is cheapened, and I'd argue is on a fast track to not being magic at all.

What you call bullshit magic actually has meaning and says something, it speaks to human feelings.
>>50162425
Symbolism was an example of something that could be discussed in fantasy, that /tg/ likes to gloss over.
>>50162437
I'm not trying to come across as a troll.

The thing about health, strength, etc is that they are mundane concepts. I do think reducing them to dice rolls can be harmful, but that's primarily because it creates a disconnect rather than them being impossible to simulate. The problem for them is that they often aren't simulated very well.

Magic is something that is supposed to be beyond human understanding, if someone can understand how it functions, it ceases to be magic (or the being ceases to be human, if you want to play around with something like that). Therefore you as a player knowing that it's just dice rolling breaks they mystery of it, reducing it to nothing more than a tool to play the game with.
>>50162447
>Magic is a skill
Is it? You say that as if magic is inherently a skillful practice. But even if it is, simulating it with dice is still a bad choice. Like I said, it cheapens the mystery of it. You're placing your trust in dice, a mundane object, not some all-powerful force.

>>50161554
>Traditionally magic has been seen as a mysterious thought, and people didn't attempt to understand how it functioned.

Oh I see you are just making things up, okay.

>>50161637

>My point is that magic is inherently at odds with knowing how it functions (dice rolls)

Dice rolls don't determine how magic functions, dice rolls determine the end result of an attempt to use it.

Magic is usually depicted as a skill or a knowledge exercised by those who study and practice it. By comparing that to other things people study and practice at, such as Olympic sports and spelling bees, we know that even professionals something fail.

Dice allow for a chance of failure or success.

How the magic "works", what the results of failure or success are, and how much magic is shrouded in mysticism is entirely up to the fluff of your setting.

>>50162479
>What you call bullshit magic actually has meaning and says something, it speaks to human feelings.

No, if anything it's just something allegorical or done for the sake of plot as those stories were. It has no substance.

Actual real world magical institutions were nothing like it.

>>50162479
>You're placing your trust in dice, a mundane object, not some all-powerful force.

Because it's a game, not a circlejerk storytime.

Go back to /lit/ faggot.

>>50162316
>>50162316
It's your conception of what is an RPG that is flawed.
If Jim told me last week that for our next one-shot he wanted to be an Asshole Anarchist Wizard, and I said "Ok, that's cool", he should be able to do so.
But if every time he does something desructive he manages to accomplish it with zero effort because we all agreed the game would be about blowing up stuff, he's gonna be very bored, very quick. On the other hand, if he wants to make something explode and I say "No, you don't" because I don't want that thing to explode, I'm basically stealing his power to act on the game's fiction and world. But if I say "Well, you can try but that'll requires a nat 20 because the Emperor's Chancellor is a really powerful wizard protecting his master, you sure you don't want to negotiate?" he has the choice of saying "Huh okay, we'll try talking about that mess first" or "Nah, fuck it, I want his dumb face gone". Or whatever else, like "Shit, I walk out of the throne room".
If you concentrate all final decisions in the hand of a single player, an all-powerful GM, that GM is the one writing the story and the players are only there to suggest stuff.
That's not what an RPG is about. An RPG is about people pretending to be wizards and cyborgs and vampires in a world you have created for them. Not about you writing a story with their help.

>>50162479
>Magic is something that is supposed to be beyond human understanding, if someone can understand how it functions, it ceases to be magic
So only your definition of magic is allowed
>Therefore you as a player knowing that it's just dice rolling breaks they mystery of it
Your not meant to think of it as a player you think of it as a character you know roughly how likely this spell is to succeed and the player rolls the dice to work out if you did succed.
>You're placing your trust in dice, a mundane object, not some all-powerful force.
Stop thinking of the dice as an object and think of what it represents it is random chance one of the greatest forces there is.

>>50162479
>>Magic is something that is supposed to be beyond human understanding

Then play D&D without wizards. They're the only class that actually studies magic and has any idea how it works and none of that is explained in the books; players and DMs come up with that.

Druids get their magic from nature; this isn't explained. Clerics get their magic from a deity; this isn't explained. Warlocks get their power from a pack with a magical entity; this isn't explained. Sorcerers are innately magical because of their blood line; this isn't explained.

>>Therefore you as a player knowing that it's just dice rolling breaks they mystery of it, reducing it to nothing more than a tool to play the game with.

This isn't a universal statement. What you're describing is weak roleplaying skills that make it impossible to stop meta-gaming. The die rolls and mechanics are only as important as you make them. If you choose to roleplay well and are good at it then these things will become invisible to you and will only be used by the dm. You could even get the dm to roll for you and explain things to you without using numbers if you really wanted. It'd be a little challenging to find a whole group that plays like that, but it could be done.

>>50162479
>Magic without mystery is cheapened

No it isn't.

When did you realise reducing reality to dice rolls and number calculations removes all of the magical aspects of it, and thus cannot work properly if you allow people to simulate it in tabletop games or video games?

>>50162533
>Dice rolls don't determine how magic functions, dice rolls determine the end result of an attempt to use it.
That isn't a bad point, but what determines it's success or failure is ulimately something that determines a part of how it functions and what's commanding it. It reveals too much information, and causes magic to lose weight.
>>50162540
It can be done in a shallow manner or a meaningful manner, it depends on the author.

The ability for it to be done well is what matters, which is something magic that is caught up in with mechanics cannot achieve.
>>50162556
Not an argument.
>>50162564
Like I said, you should place trust in your players to make decisions that contribute to the plot. If they are incapable of that, don't play with them.
>>50162572
I'm arguing that my definition is what makes magic magic, and therefore you shouldn't remove it. I'm not ordering you to do it differently, I'm merely trying to show you why it would be better if you did it a different way.

Yes you are supposed to be in character, but ultimately your normal thoughts are still there, and you know how the magic functions, causing a further disconnect between player and character.

I suppose magic that plays on the idea of pure chance might favour dice, but many different types of magic imply to be placing their power in some kind of higher mystery, a demon, a deity, something like that.

>>50162577
>Druids get their magic from nature; this isn't explained. Clerics get their magic from a deity; this isn't explained. Warlocks get their power from a pack with a magical entity; this isn't explained. Sorcerers are innately magical because of their blood line; this isn't explained.
But dice does determine their spells/magic/whatever, right?

You can say it's weak roleplaying skills all you want, but ultimately it's impossible to completely immerse yourself into it, and you'll always have an awareness that numbers determine it, not something higher.

This is why games can mask it to a degree, as you don't see the behind the scenes calculations, but you ultimately can still see it for what it is.

>>50161295
>When did you opinion that opinion opinion opinion

>>50162341
>All arguments when talking about fantasy are going to be subjective, and literally all arguments are rooted in feelings.
So there's no point in debating it.
Goodbye.

>>50162654
>But the DM does determine their spells/magic/whatever, right?
>You can say it's weak roleplaying skills all you want, but ultimately it's impossible to completely immerse yourself into it, and you'll always have an awareness that DM fiat determine it, not something higher.
>This is why games can mask it to a degree, as you don't see the behind the scenes intuition, but you ultimately can still see it for what it is.

>>50162643
>I'm arguing that my definition is what makes magic magic

You would be wrong, as your idea of magic only exists in fairytales where they had no rules and were more examples of allegory and facilitators of plot.

Again, actual real life magical institutions were nothing like it, and the primitive forms of science actually came from those same practises.

>>50162661
If you don't see a point in debating about anything, that's fine.

>>50162674
A human can make something seem far more mysterious and can speak to you as a person far more than a dice can.

It's why when Gandalf performs magic it's magical, and when your lvl 10 wizard shoots a fireball isn't.

>>50162680
Magic should take inspiration from fairy stories and mythologies, not proto-scientifice institutions.

>>50162643
Not an argument.

>>50162654
Not an argument.

>>50162700
>Magic should take inspiration from fairy stories and mythologies

That's not actual magic then.

>>50162700
Not an argument.

>>50161390
>Dice rolls break it down into something resembling an extremely crude science.
>Randomness equals science
That's the exact contrary of the scientific method.

>>50162701
>>50162718

Not an argument.

>>50162643
>many different types of magic imply to be placing their power in some kind of higher mystery, a demon, a deity, something like that.
Not all magic is like that.

>>50162731
>>50162738
Not an argument.

>>50162720
>That's not actual magic then.
Actual magic?
Magic has no strict definition, though that doesn't mean it's not up for debate. I just need more to work with than what you've given me.

>>50162741
I'd argue it's very boring magic, and doesn't come across as very magical.

>>50162744
>>50162738
>>50162731
>>50162718
>>50162701
Shitposters are out in full force today, I see.

I remember this thread. It was retarded then, and it's retarded now.

>>50162738
>>50162744
Not an argument.

>>50162700
>A human can make something seem far more mysterious and can speak to you as a person far more than a dice can
Thats blatently false.

>>50162753
>Shitposters are out in full force today, I see.
Flies to shit and all that.
Also, not an argument.

>>50162762
How?
Stating something doesn't make it a fact, back it up with an argument.

>>50162753
>Magic has no strict definition

You're quite right, it's a blanket definition of a multitude of practises.

PRACTISES, with rules and rituals. Something that can be PRACTISED, it can be TRAINED.

>>50162753
>Shitposters are out in full force today, I see.
Not an argument.

>>50162753
Not an argument.

>>50162479
>Is it? You say that as if magic is inherently a skillful practice. But even if it is, simulating it with dice is still a bad choice. Like I said, it cheapens the mystery of it. You're placing your trust in dice, a mundane object, not some all-powerful force.

Your in-game character can be placing their trust in an all-powerful force as much as you want. It's up to you and the other players to form a narrative.

However, all-powerful forces do not exist in real life (and if they do, they're probably too busy to talk to a bunch of RPG players), so we have to represent them in some way. So we use dice.

What is your alternative? Conducting magic rituals in real life to determine if a spell works or not?

>>50162753
Not an argument.

No, really, all you do is say what things should be without reason. Or any reason you give is about your very specific ~feelings~ that are clearly in the minority and not grounded in any actual reason.

You're actually incredibly bad at engaging yourself if you can't separate the meta of dice rolling with what your character is experiencing. But your dullness was already proven when you could only consider a die as an object and not even realize people were talking about it being a way to determine random outcomes.
IMPORTANTLY, not even random in setting. In setting it could be a determined result by a higher power with no randomness involved and yet that yes or no mysterious grant of magic can still be determined through a dice roll perfectly satisfactorily.

>>50161295
Your imagination is crippled and flimsy if it can be shattered by a number on a die.

>>50162778
I never spoke against rituals or spell casting. I spoke against the result of these rituals being determined by dice.

>>50162795
My alternative is someone deciding the result of it based on how it will serve the narrative, tone and themes of it all.

Dice are a very poor stand-in for an all powerful force, since it's so easy to understand them.

>>50162819
If you can somehow overlook the fact that all the supernatural elements are determined by something banal and mundane, than go on ahead, but you can't fault someone for not being able to do the same.

Even if you see it past the physical item of a die and just as a random outcome, then it still cheapens it. The idea of a spell working purely on chance rather than the whim of whatever you are calling upon makes it harder to get into.

>>50161504
>freeform

I'm not even going to bother reading the rest.

>>50162643
>Like I said, you should place trust in your players to make decisions that contribute to the plot
They do that through there actions.
The fun is the players not knowing exactly how it will turn out.

>>50161696
>>50161639
These guys get it. Take notes OP, this is what you're trying to articulate

>>50162845
Write something or play freeform then.

People play tabletop for a game and a story.

>>50162845
>dice

Chance is the closest thing we have to an impartial otherworldly power that could decide the application of magic.

You thought dice gods were a joke?

>>50162845
>My alternative is someone deciding the result of it based on how it will serve the narrative
And thats not an rpg.
In a quest thread that might happen sure but a general rpg if you do that its just railroading.

Your problem is you are looking at the game as a final story.

>>50162654
Not all spells involve dice rolling and many of the spells that require dice are determined more by the DM deciding what number is required.

You're missing the entire point of the dice though. The dice take the place of the part that isn't quantifiable, the unknown and unknowable. You don't know why a die lands the way it does; that is the entire part. You don't know why the spell works or doesn't. Sure you can study the probability and make an educated guess at what outcome is likely, but most fantasy settings with magic have magic that is somewhat predictable. Morgoth wasn't acting entirely randomly with his magic. Saruman knows that the plantiar lets him scry even if he doesn't know how it works and he knows that he's using magic to throw Gandalf around with magic when they duel. You're imaging a problem that doesn't exist; that's why everyone thinks you're trolling.

If you really don't like dice then find a GM that's willing to roll for you and mask the math with fluff. Most people don't like that because they want to feel they're playing a fair game with rules, but you could find someone to do that for you. You could even request that you be allowed to do magic that isn't in the books. Some DMs would allow it, especially if you let them decide who to determine if it works and how well.

>>50161504
>freeform

Gb2/gaia/

>>50162643

>What determines it's success or failure is ulimately something that determines a part of how it functions and what's commanding it.

Not... Really. At least not in this context. The story is what maintains the functions of the magic. As an example, say I'm trying to cast a spell that heals someone. I roll a d20 and succeed.

Sounds boring, right? Well, that's why you gotta dress it up. So, instead, I call upon the spirits of the surrounding forest to lend their energies of growth. And, (because I succeed on the roll) it turns out the guy I'm healing has been tending small trees his whole life and the spirits willing help him. Or I fail, and he started a fire and they refuse him. Or maybe it's a character we knew from before this scene, and he's been helping the forrest his whole life, but the spirits just don't have enough power to help him.

Maybe they help or not completely arbitrarily. It's entirely up to the players to create the reasons behind what happens to them, like how our ancestors explained the natural disasters they had no control over as the mysterious will of gods.

>It reveals too much information, and causes magic to lose weight.

No more than the words "and then the wizard set the bandits hat on fire" do in a novel.

>>50162700
>A human can make something seem far more mysterious and can speak to you as a person far more than a dice can.
Oooh, okay. I get it now! You think it goes like
>I shoot a fireball
>rolls dice
>You succeed, rejoice
Nah, if you group is not shit it goes more like
>I shoot a fireball at the kobold shaman
>rolls dice
>Your fireball hits him right in the face and he starts running around, screaming. The rest of the tribe seems to be afraid, and most of them take a few step back, leaving only the bravest on the first line.

As >>50162577 wrote, how magic functions is never really explained. The dice are only a way to replicate what's happening in the game's world. This is true for magic, cooking, driving, shooting, fighting...

>>50162654
>You can say it's weak roleplaying skills all you want, but ultimately it's impossible to completely immerse yourself into it
But it is never possible to completely immerse yourself into the game. Just like a book, or a movie. Even when you're at th emost intense moment of the game, you always know you're not actually fighting the dragon but sitting at the table with your friends. Or reading a book, or watching a movie.

>>50162643
>Like I said, you should place trust in your players to make decisions that contribute to the plot. If they are incapable of that, don't play with them.
That's not what I meant. It's about letting them choose what they are going to do and not restrict it to only decisions that YOU approve, or it becomes a collective writing exercize, with you as the leader. Which is not what an RPG should be.

>>50162845
>but you can't fault someone for not being able to do the same.

This entire thread is you faulting us for being able to do so.

Hypocritical piece of shit.

>>50161908

Holy fuck, you could not be any more insufferable. Now, I once saw a thread where a fucking pedophile asked if D&D was allowed in prisons, and he was way less insufferable than you.

>>50162929
>and not restrict it to only decisions that YOU approve

That's not going to be a concept his brain can handle.

>>50162774
Not an argument.

God dammit its 2:45am i really should be going to sleep but its so much fun running rings around ops arguments.

>>50162957
Not an argument.

>>50162932
HOW WILL HE EVER RECOVER?

>>50162947
What was he in prison for.

>>50162957
Running rings against nothing? I guess the challenge is to see how tight you can make them.

>>50162845
>My alternative is someone deciding the result of it based on how it will serve the narrative, tone and themes of it all.

I shoot a fireball at a skeleton. How well does this serve the narrative, tone, and theme? It probably doesn't, really. It's just a shooting attack. It should be as effective as the skill of the user.

By your logic, all attacks and actions in general should be decided by how well they serve the narrative. At this point, you would just be storytelling. There's nothing wrong with storytelling, but it's different from tabletop gaming.

The joy of tabletop gaming is justifying a narrative based on all the random results. Taking random events, pure "things that happen" and stringing them together in a logical narrative is something the human mind does well, and is something that a lot of people find joy in. It doesn't always work or make sense, but when it does, it's all the more special.

>>50162975
Yes.
Thats why its so fun im not that good woth words but ops retardation is in the perfect style where its stupid enough i can pick it apart and poorly worded enough i will always be more eloquent then him.

>>50162973

Shoplifting.

>>50162904
My point though is that by taking the unknowable and placing it in the hands of dice, it cheapens it for me, and rips out the unknowable nature of it. That's why I think it degrades magic, as it chips at the mystery of it. You need to heavily disconnect yourself from it.

I'm not saying magic can't have predictable currents, I'd say it should have it to an extent. But the currents should be based not on chance, but on how it fits in with the setting as a whole.

Like I said, you can attempt to mask it (like video games often do) but ultimately the knowledge that chance and numbers are what determines things in the world sits in the back of the head.

>>50162922
I don't understand your point. The dice are just in the way in your example, and chip at the idea of healing calling upon forest spirits. Ultimately these spirits to me would seem powerless and meaningless, it's the dice doing the work, and if the dice ARE supposed to be the spirits, then the spirits aren't compelling as they are just completely random.

>>50162929
It's not possible to completely immerse oneself, but there are factors that make it more difficult. Knowing that magic is a consequence of chance rather than the whim of a force is one of those things.

If an RPG shouldn't be what I'm describing, than it isn't well suited for magic.

>>50162932
I'm not faulting anyone. I'm simply saying that the magic they like isn't compelling.

>>50162983
>It probably doesn't, really.
You answered your own question. If you're just using magic as a tool to overcome obstacles, without delving into the implications of that, then don't use it.

>>50163013
But I want to be a wizard who shoots fireballs at everyone.

>>50162998
>consequence of chance rather than the whim of a force
You don't seem to understand: The whim of the force is being modelled by the die roll.

>>50162998
Chance is a force.

I would say write a fucking book but you would probably cram it with so much empty symbolism it becomes unreadable and any real deeper meaning is burried under a pile of shit.

>>50163023
>You don't seem to understand: The whim of the force is being modelled by the die roll.
And therefore it's cheapened and I have no investment in the 'force' (sounds like we're talking about star wars now) anymore.
>>50163020
I mean sure, on a basic level that can be appealing. But I want fantasy to be something more than just mindless power fantasies.

Everyone post your favorite part of OP's stupidity.

Mine is how he thinks the GM is completely passive and can't decide to adjust anything at all in standard systems, and that the only alternative is to completely get rid of any random chance, coupled with having an understanding of RPGs based purely on memes he heard about 3.x.

>>50163013
If your argument is that magic should serve a greater purpose rather than take the form of common attacks, then make a setting and system where this is true. I actually understand where you are coming from and am interested in seeing what you come up with.

>>50163013
>badwrongfun

a setting having blasty magic wont stop other settings from having only more subtle magic

>>50162998
>If an RPG shouldn't be what I'm describing, than it isn't well suited for magic.

Said the guy who has no experience whatsoever with RPGs.

Next he'll be off to the local swingers club to tell them they're fucking wrong.

>>50163050
>And therefore it's cheapened
How so? If it's an inscrutable entity whose decision-making processes are unknowable by humans, then there will be no observable in-universe difference if you replace it with a die roll with modifiers for in-game conditions and actions.

>>50163053
Well I wouldn't mind whipping up a setting, though obviously I can't do that on the spot.

Most of my setting I work on is purely in my head, I struggle to write anything down because I can't come up with names for things.

But I wouldn't constrain magic with a system, beyond putting forth different 'ideas' as to what powers might dictate it (certain deities, demons, natural forces, etc).

>>50163067
While I don't have much experience with tabletop, I've played (and enjoyed) plenty of video game rpgs. I understand they are more limited in scope, but ultimately I'm addressing the fundamental idea of magic being dictated by die.

>>50163062
Partially true, though something being popular does make it harder for the more obscure things to get a foot in the door.

Regardless this doesn't make such things exempt from criticism.

I think anon is convinced that us throwing fireballs is going to make people stop writing books about people using magic for other stuff.

Which is an absurd belief

>>50163053
>and am interested in seeing what you come up with.

Oh lord, that'd be the most glorious train wreck. Sadly the odds of him ever producing anything are basically zero.

>>50163087
Because I know a die has no whim, there is nothing deific about it or chance, really. It doesn't hint to a higher power at all, and even if it did, it would only serve to generalise different types of magic into one super higher-power (which could work for some things, but not all).

>>50163050
>blasty magic makes for mindless power fantasy
God confirmed for power fantasy.

>>50163108
There's nothing deific about Ted the GM deciding to let you cast the spell, either.

>>50163108
>Because I know a die has no whim, there is nothing deific about it

Uh back the fuck off???

>>50162998

>I don't understand your point... Ultimately these spirits to me would seem powerless and meaningless.

Dude, honestly. That's just you not separating the table from the setting. It's just imagination.

>>50163095
>Most of my setting I work on is purely in my head, I struggle to write anything down because I can't come up with names for things.
I cant name things either but i will at least number them.
>something being popular does make it harder for the more obscure things to get a foot in the door.
Totaly false these are rpgs nor fucking tv shows

>>50163128
If Ted the GM is good with words, it's not hard to stir deific ideas within you.

Words can create greater romantic image than a die can.

>>50163142
I get that, but I don't understand how people can seperate it to such an extent, especially when the die aren't even a neccessity.

The die in this context are like an annoying guy breathing down your shoulder, bothering you about work and other real world problems when you're trying to get in character.

>>50163128
Except Ted has this really great ~story~ he's been writi- er, keeping in his head, he's not very good at naming things, and it's so great and excellent why he's basically a story telling god!

>>50163154
>Words can create greater romantic image than a die can.
You dumb bastard, you're meant to describe things even when you roll the dice. The die is just a method of generating the outcome, how you describe that outcome is up to you.

>>50163095
>While I don't have much experience with tabletop, I've played (and enjoyed) plenty of video game rpgs.

So you've wanked a lot, the swingers still ain't impressed with your sage advice.

File: Fortuna-_Prosper.jpg (992KB, 1104x2360px) Image search: [Google]

992KB, 1104x2360px

>>50163108
>Because I know a die has no whim, there is nothing deific about it

And this from mister "we should follow mythology!"

>>50163154

> The die aren't even a neccessity... The die in this context are like an annoying guy breathing down your shoulder, bothering you about work and other real world problems when you're trying to get in character.

Friend, I can't help you. You've either got some mental block or are TRYING not to get immersed. Either way, I recommend just writing off TableTop as something not for you and moving on to entertainment that doesn't require so much work.

>>50163154
Is this real, certifiable autism?

>>50162998

>>But the currents should be based not on chance, but on how it fits in with the setting as a whole.

You seem to have gone full circle here, which again, makes you seem like a troll. Your saying that the problem isn't that dice cut into immersion, but that events shouldn't be based on chance, but rather entirely determined by how the story should unfold. That isn't a great high minded argument about damage to the fantasy setting and video games are even worse at this because everything that isn't scripted or based on a decision tree is based on a pseudo random generator(fancy computer dice). The argument you're presenting here isn't that die roles and mechanics make the game a strategy game about math without a plot.

The argument you're making here is that dice are bad because randomness is bad. Events should be decided entirely by what serves the story best. I can sum up the perfect response to this quite succinctly. Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

The best part is that you can entirely eliminate the dice from the game. The game is designed to have an element of chance because players enjoy it, but it won't hurt the balance if you remove it. It's actually quite easy to do that too. Simply ignore instructions to roll dice and use the average value!

To be honest; it sounds like you played D&D or a similar game once or twice and got mad when things didn't go your way after rolling low. I wouldn't be surprised if you were playing as a lock or equally squishy magic user, did something dumb like got up close to a bunch of angry melee npcs, and died when the DM rolled a natural 20 on an attack roll against your character.

That would be totally frustrating. I can understand that. I get that avoid that kind of stuff often means meta gaming BS, but don't come here and tell everyone that enjoys these games to stop playing them because you had a bad experience.

>>50163154
>Words can create greater romantic image than a die can.

And once again the fact that you haven't played any tabletop RPG makes you say something utterly retarded.

>>50163183
I know that, but ultimately the dice are still hovering above it all.
Why do you need the dice? Why not gut them out and just have words?

>>50163185
This isn't a good argument though, the 'you haven't tried it' argument isn't sound, instead you should just address what the person says.

>>50163213
That would be fine, if video games and to a lesser extent nowadays, tabletop, didn't have such an influence on fantasy.

>>50163221
I haven't played tabletop, just ERPed with people online, so it isn't bad experiences getting to me. I have played warhammer though, and I was always dissatisfied with the magic in it.

The problem with dice is twofold. They reduce the game into something more akin to strategy and cold detachment (like you mentioned), as well as invalidate whatever forces might be behind the magic you're calling upon.

>>50163253
I'm sorry dude, you're just really awful at getting into character. You either need total control or a flashy tv screen to get what you want.
Accept that you aren't good enough at it for a TTRPG and move on.
Meanwhile, we will be rolling dice *and* getting immersed.

File: 10562_420.jpg (34KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 420x420px

>>50163253
>I know that, but ultimately the dice are still hovering above it all.

Here you go, it'll help.

>>50163253
The dice don't invalidate shit. It's your crippling autism that prevents you from seeing past them that invalidates things.

>>50163292
Maybe, but I can easily get immersed in other things. I've put forth my arguments as to why dice invalidate magic, and I feel liked I've defended them reasonably well.

It's fine for you to enjoy something I don't like, but that doesn't mean I can't critique it.

>>50163294
Autistics prefer rigid rulesets and routine, reducing magic to numbers would appeal to them.

>>50163318
You have not defended them well and your critiques have been circular and shallow. They especially show your lack of experience and thus understanding with the form.

>>50163253
>>I have played warhammer though, and I was always dissatisfied with the magic in it.

warhammer and D&D are entirely different. warhammer is a competitive strategy game. D&D is a cooperative roleplaying game. You might want to try things before deciding that they're damaging the entire fantasy genre and need to be changed to match the whim of someone that's never played one and doesn't have any idea how it works. Seriously, conflating warhammer and D&D because they both involve miniatures and dice is so inane. This is the kind of shit that makes people think you're trolling.


>> They reduce the game into something more akin to strategy and cold detachment

The character you're playing probably employs some strategy. Roleplay that. Even a barbarian has a strategy; the strategy is to run at people and hit them with shit, but that is a strategy that can be role played.

>>invalidate whatever forces might be behind the magic you're calling upon.

The problem you're describing is that the magic in the game isn't real. That's fantasy for you; it isn't actually happening. I doubt you're going to get around that one.

>>50163388
I didn't mean to compare the two, I was simply saying I do have a degree of experience of magic interacting with dice. My critiques rely on the very idea of magic interacting with dice, so therefore I don't need experience in DnD to know that it won't work (in my opinion).

The crux of my argument is that magical effects being determined by something known to the player invalides the mystery of it and the forces behind it, therefore ruining it's place as magic.

>>50163293
I had that thought earlier.
This guy wouldn't be able to enjoy a TTRPG sober.

It's probably for the best anyway. I suspect he'd be that guy if he played.

>>50163253
>This isn't a good argument though

Oh, but it is. You're talking about the subjective experience of something. And it's an experience you've never had. So you can't argue this shit based on objective logic, since it's all subjective, and you can't argue it based on your experience, because you haven't had it.

You have absolutely nothing. But you think you do, because you've played video games!

Now go play Dante's Inferno, and then tell /lit/ all about the flaws of Alighieri's work based solely on that.

>>50163318
>Autistics prefer rigid rulesets and routine, reducing magic to numbers would appeal to them.

You've simply chosen a different rigid ruleset to impose on things, and that you think you've somehow argued well shows a complete lack of social ability.

>>50163439

Then there is no answer. Magic is not allowed in games anymore.

Magic, as a force in the world of the game, HAS to have a mechanic tied to it if it's going to affect the player in any meaningful way. And I'm not just some asshole, I've gotten a degree in game design. You CANNOT have shit that affects the player be determined by something the players can't understand. Games in general don't work like that.

>>50161321
That's just because you don't know how to do magic. If your character is an expert in this sort of thing they should be able to put a number on it, or talk knowledgeably about the qualitative differences.

Unless nobody knows why or how magic works and they're just following a formula, like in fact most magical rituals. But that requires precision and attention to detail and not gut feelings like the OP seems to consider is the essence of magic.

>>50163439
>>(in my opinion).

Just what we always wanted. A guy that has never played D&D or even a game like it telling people that they've been doing it wrong sense forever. Your so called experience is that you rolled a die once in a game.

>>The crux of my argument is that magical effects being determined by something known to the player invalides the mystery of it and the forces behind it, therefore ruining it's place as magic.

The crux of your argument is that the dm should decide if all magic works or not and that using dice breaks immersion because that informs you that the magic isn't real, but is part of a game and that using rules to determine what magic can do in a game is bad too.

I really feel bad for you if you're not trolling. Everything you've shown here is vanity and selfishness masquerading as depth. I'd hate to hear your opinions on politics or current events.

I don't think there was ever much point to this discussion.

>>50163474
I'm talking about dice interacting with magic, and why it's inherently bad. I don't need experience for that.

>>50163521
>Then there is no answer. Magic is not allowed in games anymore.
Well, magic with dice rolls, yeah. If you aren't willing to accept something the players can't understand impacting them, then gut the magic and your game will be better for it.

>>50163547
Of course it's my opinion. When have I put the pretention on of it not being an opinion? I've simply stated why I think magic can't work when constrained by a strict mechanical ruleset.

I seriously don't understand where you're getting vanity and selfishness from. All I've done in this thread is state something I believe, and defend it.

File: 1462412648568.jpg (26KB, 800x321px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 800x321px

>>50163632
>I'm talking about dice interacting with magic, and why it's inherently bad.
>Of course it's my opinion. When have I put the pretention on of it not being an opinion?

>>50163439
>The crux of my argument is that magical effects being determined by something known to the player invalides the mystery of it and the forces behind it, therefore ruining it's place as magic.

So we leave it to the GM. Except he's known to me. I've been hanging out with that fucker for a quarter of a century by now. I know him far better than I know the outcome of a die roll in advance.

>>50163632

>Well, magic with dice rolls, yeah. If you aren't willing to accept something the players can't understand impacting them, then gut the magic and your game will be better for it.

The simple fact that games have used dice rolls to represent magic for years without pissing off their fanbases and dying off proves you're wrong about this.

The additional fact that stripping these mechanics out of those respective games would cause a massive amount of players to drop the game like a boiling pot of water does, also.

>>50163632
Your stance is completely incoherent though. You think that for magic to feel right, it has to be intrinsically incomprehensible and unpredictable. Therefore it;s bad to use dice to represent its effects in a game, because...?

Like the entire point of dice is to introduce an element of (impartial) unpredictability.

How do you feel about games where casting a spell doesn't require rolling any dice, as is usually the case in Dungeons and Dragons? Your character knows Invisibility, he prepared the spell that morning, and whenever he wants he casts it and turns invisible.

>>50163632

>>When have I put the pretention on of it not being an opinion?

The very first post in the thread.

>>When did you realise reducing magic to dice rolls and number calculations removes all of the magical aspects of it, and thus cannot work properly if you allow people to use it in tabletop games or video games?

This is why I feel bad for you if you aren't trolling. You literally have no idea what the content of your posts is. You're flip flopping all over the place, you present your argument as a question about when everyone came to agree with your esoteric slapdash opinion, and you're aware of none of this. Every point you've made is vanity and selfishness presented as depth.

>>50163632
>I seriously don't understand where you're getting vanity and selfishness from.

Your posts.

>>50163648
Those two statements aren't at odds with eachother.

Do you expect someone to add (my opinion) at the end of everything they say?

>>50163671
But if your GM is a good storyteller, he should be able to inspire mystery and stir feelings within you effectively, which is more powerful than a dice, which says nothing.

>>50163680
Well sure, if you care for profit and popularity, happily disregard what I say. But I'm discussing terms of quality, and something popular can be wrong, medicore or even bad.

>>50163702
Not neccessarily unpredictable, firebals flying out of the sky for no reason isn't interesting. But it's predicatibility shouldn't come from numbers, but instead from the themes and plot of whatever it's in, and the nature of the magic you're drawing from. It should be incomprehensible to a degree. Dice are a very mundane object, easily visualised and understood by the person using them (that's why they are used to simulate these things, they are easy to work with) but this degrades the magic into just a tool you are working with.

As for your example, I wouldn't be fond of that magic for different reasons, I also don't know what the process involved with that is. Does it draw from some kind of 'mana' source? Is it just a text that is recited? How well known is this spell?

>>50163755
>The very first post in the thread.
I double-checked, I didn't do that. It's pretty obvious to the reader that it's an opinion.

You're not saying anything with the rest of your post, so I have nothing to address.

I do think that the OP's approach to magic has its place, and it's in games where the players will never wield magic and won;'t have it directly impact them too often.

Like for instance the rules for magic in King Arthur Pendragon basically just say magic can do the following things, and the average npc witch or sorcerer will know one or two of them. They successfully cast their spells whenever the GM thinks it's appropriate, unless a player knight interrupts by murdering them or something.

>>50163798
>I double-checked, I didn't do that. It's pretty obvious to the reader that it's an opinion.

Are you actually serious? You must be trolling.

double-checked what? I quoted your post. You didn't have to do anything other than read my post.

You asked, "When did you realise reducing magic to dice rolls and number calculations removes all of the magical aspects of it, and thus cannot work properly if you allow people to use it in tabletop games or video games?" that's literally asking people when they came to agree with you after implicitly making the assumption that everyone has.

Are you claiming that your rhetoric is so ridiculous that know one could reasonably interpret it as anything other than hyperbole? You're aware that is literally the modus operandi of a troll right?

>>50163798
>this degrades the magic into just a tool you are working with
well yes, if you put the ability to do magic in the hands of the players then that's what it is. That's actually one of the reasons I like games about magicians so much, because the players have lots of defined verbs for taking control of their environment instead of just hoping the GM likes their acting. It lets you approach a roleplaying scenario as a puzzle-solving exercise, which I find rewarding gameplay.

But if you want a game where the supernatural is completely unknowable and uncontrollable, then there are lots that do that and it works plenty well, especially if you want a horror-y vibe.

Regarding the D&D example, the "source" of a characters magic can vary but wizards are usually described as channeling obscure energies that are latent in the world. To prepare a spell they have to study and memorise a complex formula from their spellbook, which requires practice and concentration, and once it's in their heads its charged with power in such a way that once they speak the words to release it they can't cast it again without going back to the books.

>>50163878
I don't want to sound like a memer here, but you do sound new when you don't recognise that style of post I used for my first post. It's a common thing, and it is just jokey rhetoric. Most people are accustomed to it (after all, I see it all the time) and understand it's not really an absolute statement, but instead an opinion designed to spark a discussion.

Personally I find it much more offensive to reduce human interactions to dice rolls and number calculations, and not magic which has a storied real-world history of being treated as a kind of science or mathematics by its practitioners, but each to their own.

>>50163918

>>just jokey rhetoric

Are you claiming that your rhetoric is so ridiculous that know one could reasonably interpret it as anything other than hyperbole? You're aware that is literally the modus operandi of a troll right?

>>50163916
I think I mispoke with the tool part.

I don't mind magic being used as a tool to power, as long as it's acknowledged as something still mysterious. For example a wizard delving into forbidden tomes to attain unprecedented power isn't at odds with the kind of magic I like.

I suppose I more meant to say is that players view magic like any other weapon or tool, they view it as something mundane. As mundane as their hands, sword or armour. They aren't calling upon some bizarre force to assist them, they are calling upon a strict set of mechanical rules, mechanical rules that are eerily similar to how the mundane stuff is determined.

As for that example, it doesn't bother me too much in this regard. I usually prefer magic to be more 'rare' when it comes to people wielding it, but that's a completely different criticism to my original points. I do like the idea of words holding power though, so it's nice it follows in that tradition. I suppose I would probably need to know more about the aesthetic of DnD magic and what it draws from before making a full judgement.

>>50163798
>But if your GM is a good storyteller, he should be able to inspire mystery and stir feelings within you effectively, which is more powerful than a dice, which says nothing.

That doesn't stop him from being well known to me. So apparently being well known isn't actually a problem, everything you've said above about that has been lies and bullshit through and through (but you probably fooled yourself with that drivel).

You just don't like dice.

No arguments for it, no justification, you just don't. Which isn't a surprise, since you're actually fine with having a computer randomise the number instead. (Which it will do in a far more understandable way than a die, as we're looking at a chaotic function merely simulating randomness). Same thing, different reaction.

Don't be surprised that the rest of us don't share this pathologic hangup of yours.

And in the game, it isn't the words or the dice. That's a fallacy you've cooked up since you don't actually know how shit goes down.

The dice inspires the words.

But then again, if you don't create I guess the role of limitations in inspiring you can be counter-intuitive.

>>50163973
Everyone on 4chan speaks in ridiculous hyperbole, but people can easily see what the actual point being made is.

>>50163977
>since you're actually fine with having a computer randomise the number instead
???

I criticised video games a lot in this thread, I just said they can hide it better, but the veil is still paper thin.

I've made my dice problem pretty clear, resting magic on something mundane like magic cheapens it. Resting it on an author doesn't, since you can't completely know the authors intentions and motives (you aren't a mindreader) and they'll be able to add a humanity to it which a dice cannot.

Since you're going to assume things about me, I'll just assume you haven't read the thread. Why not try doing that, champ?

>>50164011
No one should read this thread, honestly.
Your hang ups with dice are clearly your own issue, not an issue threatening the fantasy genre or whatever.

>>50163974
But what do you think magic is, if not an attempt to establish or discern rules for the universe? The guy who works with it every day is going to think in much more mechanical terms about his work than the guy who does feats of heroic athleticism. Because I'm a wizard and I went to wizard school, I KNOW that you can hold power over something by possessing a part of it, or knowing its true name , or by creating the symbolic representation of the thing I want to happen to it. I'm perfectly conscious that it's easier to make a ship that sails on air than to levitate a house, because I have some knowledge of the secret workings of nature. If I do this every day I'm going to become a bit blase about it, even if I know there are horrible dangers involved.

>>50164032
I see you're opting for the 'not an argument' route.

>>50164047
The application of magic is calling upon higher powers to influence the world around you in some manner. A wizard doesn't need to be blase about it, because he doesn't need to be calling upon it all the time. Gandalf for example rarely uses his magic, instead he has other traits that make him wizardly, such as his sage advice.

Ultimately if a wizard attains understanding of magic, it's inner workings and true nature (kind of like achieving gnosis), then I think it would benefit the setting for him to almost be in a transcended state, beyond human (and thus players shouldn't be playing as him).

>>50164011
>Why not try doing that, champ?

Apparently you didn't even read my post. Could you perhaps strain yourself to read the rest of this one?

>and they'll be able to add a humanity to it which a dice cannot.

It isn't the dice or the human here. The dice is a tool to help the human(s) make the story, to find the words, to create the narrative.

There, did you make it this far, or did you suffer an anxiety attack along the way?

Now since it seems I misremember your problems with computer games a bit, it would seem the problem is with randomisation in general. You just can't stand it when the dice tells you that no, magic isn't your one stop do whatever you want panacea. The narrative didn't end up being the one where you were the totally awesome one.

>>50164011
>>Everyone on 4chan speaks in ridiculous hyperbole
Not entirely accurate, but it misses the point. You used rhetoric that implied a claim then when your claim was dismantled you claimed that it was simply an oppinion and not meant to be taken seriously. You're literally a troll.

This is why I told you that I feel sorry for you if you're not trolling. It takes a very special and stupid snowflake to troll on accident. I'd prefer not to insult you, but I feel that you've brought it upon yourself on this occasion.

I wish you better luck with your future posts. if you are indeed only trolling by accident. Otherwise, I'd rate this a solid 7 out of 10 troll.

>>50164048
Your argument is seriously not worth engaging with. You're presenting creativity and randomization as if they're somehow at odds, because you have a hangup about dice, the physical objects.

>>50164048
OP's certainly walked it nice and flat by now.

>>50164085
>Gandalf for example rarely uses his magic

And that was more because he knew it well, than because it was mysterious to him.

>>50164048
you've opted for the, "I'm not claiming anything. I'm just stating opinions route". What's the difference?

>>50164085
>The application of magic is calling upon higher powers to influence the world around you in some manner.

Only sometimes

>>50164120

NO. All the time. I'm OP now, and I say magic is whatever the fuck I need it to be for my wizard to make a mudhole in the fighter's ass and stomp it dry.

>:(

>>50164085
>The application of magic is calling upon higher powers to influence the world around you in some manner.

Let's check with mythology:

Oden, highest power in his setting, doing magic by runes and spells, just like a common mortal would.

Oh.

>>50164115
The person doing it.

>>50161295
Stop playing deendee

>>50164092
>You just can't stand it when the dice tells you that no, magic isn't your one stop do whatever you want panacea. The narrative didn't end up being the one where you were the totally awesome one.
I'm not interested in a power-fantasy. My objection to randomisation and dice isn't since it stops me from doing whatever I want. My objection is because it sucks the human elements out of it all, can create glaring tonal shifts and inconsistencies and in general degrades the value of magic.

The dice doesn't help people make the story or create a narrative in magic's case, as magic should serve the themes of the narrative. Unless your theme is randomness and perhaps fatalism, then it won't work.

>>50164099
But I never claimed it wasn't an opinion, and it's quite clear it is an opinion. I haven't said it isn't meant to be taken seriously either, just the rhetoric isn't. My point still stands, I'm not being 'jokey' when I say my opinions on magic, they are my legit opinions.

>>50164114
>And that was more because he knew it well, than because it was mysterious to him.
No, it was because it wouldn't serve the plot for him to use magic constantly, and it would be at odds with Tolkien's ideas of divine intervention.

>>50164162
I'm not knowledgeable enough about norse mythology to make a complete judgement, but polytheistic deities often aren't the highest power in pantheons.

>>50164164
Actually part of OP's problem seems to be that he's never played dnd. Though if he did he would hate it for ubiquitous reliable magic.

>>50164011
>Everyone on 4chan speaks in ridiculous hyperbole, but people can easily see what the actual point being made is.
Have you noticed that threads started with deliberately antagonistic templates such as the one you used don't spark civil discussions?
But getting into your argument, if you want the narrative to dictate everything, write a book, don't play tabletop.

>>50164206
>Have you noticed that threads started with deliberately antagonistic templates such as the one you used don't spark civil discussions?
Maybe that's a /tg/ thing, but on other boards I go on people can actually handle the banter.

File: images.jpg (3KB, 100x93px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 100x93px

>>50164186

>Odin
>Not biggest badass in Norse Mythology
>OP never even watched Thor, let alone read some of the stories.

What's wrong with taking mystical processes and turning them into a type of collegiate learning process for a setting? It doesn't have to be every mystical process, but given that some spells in games like DnD 5e don't even need fucking spell rolls and can blow up in your face if you're someone like a Sorceror in ways that can be utterly random, I'd like to ask where the line starts and ends with saying "it shouldn't use dice, it should just be freeform". That just sounds like an opinion, rather than anything based around what is 'right' or 'wrong'. I mean for fuck sake, the entire argument discussing how to roleplay something unknowable in real life is downright retarded, as it's completely up to an individual person how to portray that in their games, and giving it a metric makes it inherently more understandable for new players, thereby making it more accessible. Dismissing that is piss. There's a reason dice and coin RPGs are the most popular.

>>50164186
>Unless your theme is randomness and perhaps fatalism
I don't think you understand, that theme is inherent to tabletop. Sometimes things fail, sometimes you fail. You don't get to pick and choose what to fail at all the time or it's basically never failing at all.

>>50164247
Certainly an interesting analysis, though I'm sure plenty of people would disagree.

So if someone wants to play something that isn't about fatalism and lack of free-will, should they avoid tabletop and video games?

>>50164162
>>The person doing it.

One is a troll and the other is an idiot. Why converse with either?
You're claim is nonsense. Your arguments for it are nonsense and your insistence that it's just an opinion while continually attempting to prove it as a fact elucidate that you're opinions/claims aren't worth reading.
Goodbye.

>>50164217
Buddy, half the thread is various insults directed at you. if anything can't handle banter, it's you.

>>50164265

No, if someone wants to always succeed and go as far as their imagination takes them, they should write an awful book starring themselves as a Mary Sue.

If someone wants to enjoy a story written by someone else, while at the same time enjoy to tensity of possibly fucking up at a key moment and letting the bad guy win it all, then they should play games and take the fucking randomization.

>>50164306
I haven't complained about insults here.

>>50164186
>My objection is because it sucks the human elements out of it all

If your GM is shit, then there won't be any human element to suck out really. Not nay non-shit one.

If your GM is good, then it won't suck out the human element, it'll help him inject it.

And this ain't some vague fucking opinion. That the random element necessarily sucks out the human touch is flat out objectively wrong. Sure the dice aren't guaranteed to always help either, but that's down to... the people! Not the dice, they just are.

>I'm not knowledgeable enough about norse mythology to make a complete judgement

You're not knowledgeable about tabletop RPGs either, but that sure ain't stopping you.

But your caution serves you well. Norse mythology has no Brahman or anything like that. Odin isn't omnipotent, but there's none above him.

Learn from this.

>>50164319
Not an argument. :^)

>>50164316
>No, if someone wants to always succeed and go as far as their imagination takes them, they should write an awful book starring themselves as a Mary Sue.
I don't know why this strawmeme keeps getting repeated.

>>50164319
Your whiny, defensive, petulant tone makes it hard to tell.

>>50164335
Because we can see where your arguments point to, even if you desperately try to deny it.

>>50164332
But if your GM is good, he can simply remove the dice. The dice only place limits and harm immersion, they aren't neccessary.

Odin isn't a creator deity though is he? He may be at the top, but since he isn't a monotheist style god, that doesn't mean there aren't things beyond him, meaning him casting spells in a similar way to people could make sense.

>>50164369
>Because we can see where your arguments point to, even if you desperately try to deny it.
But this is literally a strawman.

I've made it clear what my intentions are, what else am I to do? Can you just not comprehend someone holding an opinion without them trying to validate their power fantasies?

>>50164265
Well in video games, magic is more a product of resource management, but this isn't the video games board so I won't get into it.
But yes, I recommend a medium with less player agency. Have you tried reading these things called 'books'? If you really want your mind to be blown, try a 'choose your own adventure' book.

>>50162425
This so fucking much.

>>50164386
You claiming that it isn't what you're after doesn't make it a strawman, even if you believe your won bullshit. Only if you actually weren't after it would it be a strawman.

>what else am I to do?

Leave now and never come back?

>>50164401
Well you do have a point to an extent. However from the people I've talked with, not all tabletop games strive to embody the themes of fatalism, chance and lack of free-will. I'd say a lot barely scratch it's surface. So there's another criticism, I guess. Why doesn't the setting reflect this properly beyond the dice?

>>50164445
It's a strawman because you're attacking something I haven't said or believe in.

>>50164452
>something I haven't said
We can read between the lines.

>or believe in.
Self-reflection not being your strong side.

>>50164452
Because the dice are an underlying mechanism, just like it is an underlying theme. The games themselves have more immediate themes, they're dictated by the individual GM's judgements. You want a game with no magic rolls? Ask around for someone running a low magic setting who doesn't allow players to create wizard characters.
Just don't insinuate that it is the only right way to play a tabletop game.

Magic has no aspects to it. By its very inceptions it is 100% fantasy and thus it is up to the author to decide what role magic is going to play in his world.

Do you want magic to be treated as a science? Where the wizard player can feel legitimately intelligent as he delves into the arcane? Numbers and statistics facilitate that, creating a logical puzzle for the player to enjoy.

Want magic to be more mystical, a force that can't be understood or controller fully? Go ahead and dump stats then. More than likely magic won't be something you can specialize in under these conditions but that is not the intent after all.

TL;DR: Shut up.

>>50164452

You don't need to say it or believe it, it's the end result of what you're suggesting. No randomness in a game = Communal book writing.

>>50164504
>We can read between the lines.
I can make up stuff too, I just don't because it doesn't make for good discussion.

>>50164517
If the dice entirely dictates the magic, and the magic reflects the overall themes of the work (and it should) then it stands that the game should focus on themes of randomness and fatalism, and any other themes should be to the side or should link back to it.

>>50164519
I never said people can't do what they want for it, they have that freedom. But that doesn't mean someone can't argue one way or another as to what makes good magic.

>>50164530
>No randomness in a game = Communal book writing.
He was implying I just want no restraints to live out a mary-sue power-fantasy.

Quite a jump if you ask me.

>>50164556

You're first post claiming "Strawman" was in response to a post claiming what you wanted was to write a book. Everything you have proposed would be writing a book. So no, Communal book writing isn't that big of a jump.

If you're just reading now I'll save you some time.

OP is a troll arguing that dice are bad because they break immersion to the extent that anything but metagaming becomes impossible.

He has never played D&D or anything like it, but he did play warhammer once and didn't like it because the die rolls for magic were about tactics not plot.

He prefers video games because he doesn't know how random number generators work.

He's come to the traditional gaming board to state his claim with inflammatory rhetoric then back it up with weak arguments while explaining that he's simply stating an opinion.

He frequently responds with, "not an argument".

In short; the OP is a troll. Feel free to waste your time here feeding him or not.

>>50164556
No, what I'm saying is that the rules have dice. Each individual game is dictated by the communal efforts of the players and the GM. They are the ones who decide on a more immediate theme.
If you want, you can find a GM who agrees to your arbitrary standards, and if you can't, you can become that GM.
(Good luck finding players for it, though)
There is literally a rule that says 'you don't have to follow the rulebook, tabletop games are for the entertainment of all involved and if a rule gets in the way the GM has the right to ignore it'

>>50164620
His claim was that I wanted to write a book about a self-insert mary-sue. That is a complete jump.

>>50164626
>He prefers video games because he doesn't know how random number generators work.
Good job reading the thread, I frequently criticise video games for the same problems as tabletop.

>>50164634
Well I would advocate for the removal of the dice then, since it gets in the way if you are trying to explore themes beyond fatalism and lack of free-will.

>>50163253
>I know that, but ultimately the dice are still hovering above it all.
Why do you need the dice? Why not gut them out and just have words?
Just fuck off and play freeform then faggot.

>>50164643
You just don't know yourself.

We'd wish we didn't either, but now that you've inflicted yourself upon us at length...

>>50161295
>When did you realise reducing magic to dice rolls and number calculations removes all of the magical aspects of it, and thus cannot work properly if you allow people to use it in tabletop games or video games?
What would you recommend? If you don't actually have an idea shut the fuck up.

>>50164659
The dice don't "get in the way" of the narrative, their entire purpose is to shape the narrative! If you don't want the dice to affect the narrative, you might as well try communal book writing!
And before you claim I'm saying anything about power fantasies or Mary Sues, let me preempt it by saying no, that is not inherent to the freeform RP or communal book writing format.

>>50164706
That doesn't invalidate my argument though, all it does is make communal book writing sound like a better option for those who want magic to be a strong focus in a fantasy setting.

>>50164723
I'm not invalidating your argument, I'm trying to point you to a more fitting avenue for your intentions so you can get out of our collective faces and stop trying to fit your square peg self into the round hole that tabletop games become in this metaphor

>ITT:
>>There is only one way to correctly do magic, and dice are bad for it
>Except we're enjoying RPGs where that's not the case
>>I'm not talking about RPGs, just *fiction* in general, because I've never played an RPG
>you sound like a tremendous fag
This is the most asinine bullshit, and I wish I had the self-control to do something productive and not read this thread.

>>50164723
Yeah because communal book writing is the same experience as tabletop RPGs in all aspects.

Fuck off.

>>50164659
>>50164626
>He prefers video games because he doesn't know how random number generators work.
Good job reading the thread, I frequently criticise video games for the same problems as tabletop.

>>50161339
>>Video games can pull it off better because you can simulate movement easier.

Literally his 2nd post in the thread. You must need glasses if you can't see through his bullshit.

>>50164767
>I'm not talking about RPGs, just *fiction* in general, because I've never played an RPG
I'm playing kotor 2 right now senpai

>>50164747
I'm trying to put forth ideas and discuss things about the nature of magic, and perhaps make people see things my way so we can improve more fantasy settings.

>>50164776
>Literally his 2nd post in the thread. You must need glasses if you can't see through his bullshit.
I think you're the one who needs glasses.

I specifically said there in terms of 'movement', as in games can simulate movement more naturally than a tabletop game (though I might turn back on that statement, depends on the game. Bit too broad for my tastes).

If you read over the thread, I specifically say that while games can attempt to mask the numbers parts, it's a paper thin disguise that doesn't fool anyone.

>>50164698
Don't you get it, if you use dice its mundane but if your friend gets to arbitrarily decide for you whether your spell works its mysterious and mystical.

File: Bitch No.gif (493KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 320x240px

>>50161295
Oh God, not this guy.
In between guys like you and the powergamers, I'm just about done with settings that allow magic.
If there was ever a point in human history where magic was available on demand to humans, I'm sure it got taken away because of fucks like you.

>>50164790
>we can improve more fantasy settings.
Now see, you are possibly laboring under the delusion that every single tabletop game uses the same setting. What I am trying to hammer into your skull is that this is in fact not the case. It is up to the individual GM to decide the specific themes of the setting, which is why there are plenty of individual games not set in Generic Fantasy Universe. What you are trying to do is impose a universal standard on a thing that has no reason to have a universal standard.
People not listening to you is how we get stories and books that explore a variety of themes in different genres.

>>50164863
But what I'm referring to specifically is a specific standard: dice.

I'm not saying all fantasy settings are generic and suffer and I'm here to enlighten them. I'm saying fantasy settings in a tabletop or video game context that use dice to determine magical things are inherently flawed, and that by addressing this problem setting which use that method can flourish and be better.

I never said every tabletop game uses the same setting, I never said every tabletop game even relies on dice. What I said is that dice themselves are inherently harmful to almost all magic.

That's why I use GURPS Sorcery. It makes magic magical in tabletop games.

File: 1393480907764.jpg (123KB, 900x564px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 900x564px

Apparently lots of actual IRL magic is not magical enough for the OP.

>>50164790
>>Video games can pull it off better

You posted what you posted and you practically led with it. walk it as far back as you want, doesn't change anything. It only goes to show that you don't care about your opinions anymore than anyone else cares about them, which is to say not at all.

>>50164895
If you take away the dice (or other pseudo-random narrative-influencing device that the particular system calls for) then the tabletop game becomes a communal book writing. It's like saying
>books should interweave words and pictures, I feel that it could really expand their horizons and potentials
>no, I'm not talking about comics, I'm saying books should use methods like comics, but they'd still be books

>>50164790
>and perhaps make people see things my way so we can improve more fantasy settings.

I thought you were just stating an opinion and weren't so bold to attempt to prove it. I thought you weren't suggesting what you said was true or that anyone agreed with you?

>>50164936
What do they pull of better? You're taking my posts out of context and sometimes just outright pulling shit out of your arse.

I said games can sometimes pull magic off better since more of it is obscured. Did I say it pulls it off well? No. Did I say it doesn't suffer from the same problems? No.

This isn't difficult to understand.

>>50164937
Well if what I propose is communal book writing, than that's what I propose. Under your logic, I propose that we scrap tabletop RPGs in favour of communal book writing.

>>50164978
And I propose we scrap all literature in favor of comics. Just because you personally can't see value in the medium, doesn't mean nobody else should.

>>50164971
You're not making any sense.

An opinion can be backed up with things, it's not just a random preference. When I say it's opinion, I'm clarifying that it isn't an objective fact. Something doesn't need to be an objective fact for you to convince others to follow your path.

Of course I think fantasy would be better off with magic like how I describe, and I have my reasons for believing that, and I wish to show people my reasons. I'm not so arrogant as to assume that my word is gospel, and I and only I know what makes good magic.

>>50164790
>KotOR II
But why do you enjoy it, why bother playing when it restricts the force (magic as an overaching force) to simple mechanics and randomization when that is exactly what you are arguing against.

>>50164978
>I propose that we scrap tabletop RPGs in favour of communal book writing
Thrice be named, and thrice be damned,
>>>/lit/ be the hell I name for thee, demon OP.

>>50165001
>And I propose we scrap all literature in favor of comics
Interesting, care to back up your points on that one?

Just because people enjoy things doesn't mean it's beyond criticism.

>>50165007
I never said that games and tabletop are inherently bad and unenjoyable. I can enjoy kotor II while attempting to overlook the shittier side of the force (the game mechanics of it).

>>50164978
>>What do they pull of better?
>>50161339
>>Video games can pull it off better because you can simulate movement easier.


I don't fucking know because you just talk in circles. You're the one that posted both of the quotes. Why don't you explain what you were talking about in your second post?

>>You're taking my posts out of context and sometimes just outright pulling shit out of your arse.
Quoting someone that can't explain their statements isn't taking them out of context or fabricating anyone. I;m simply pointing out that your "arguments" have no merit because not even you know what your posts mean.

>>50165040
I explained that already.

I was saying that games can simulate movement better than tabletop games, a bit of a sweeping statement, so I should have avoided saying it perhaps. But I don't know what it has to do with magic, or how it means I think games don't suffer from the same problems as tabletop.

I don't mind repeating myself, but if you push it far enough I might just have to create a stock response and copy + paste it each time.

>>50165028
My point is that I personally can't accept the use of words to make a clear image in my head, so books should provide actual pictures to cater to me.
Notice how this parallels your inability to accept the use of dice to affect the narrative of the game, so games should not use them at all to cater to you.
Does your opinion hold more intrinsic value than mine, and if so, why?

>>50165028
The lack of visual elements results in an unsustainable discontinuity in readers minds. The use of text alone forces the reader to focus on symbols known as letters instead of the action. The use of a purely text based medium detracts from the fantasy genre because all other forms of that genre are forced to became like those vapid tombs controlled entirely by the symbols known as letters.

>>50165057
You're saying that video games do it better, but you deny that you prefer video games?

And you're going to simply copy paste a simple response to my future replies? Maybe something like, "not an argument"?

>>50165089
>not use them at all to cater to you
But that isn't my reasoning. My reasoning is that magic would hold more meaning, thus stir more emotions within people by the removal of mechanics.

In your case I would say personally pursue comics sure, and they would hold more personal value to you. But your argument would have no bearing on others.

>>50165103
I would argue that the visuals you create in your head provide a stronger image than say a comic, and therefore don't actually cause a disconnect.

>>50165128
Since when were we discussing preference? I'm pretty sure you claimed I didn't see these faults in games, when I did.

>>50165089
That's not really a good parallel to his point, a better one would be something like
>words are a poor choice for combat scenes because they can't properly demonstrate the movement inherent in the type of scene, while images can provide this detail much more eloquently
This said while, of course, ignoring that some combats may be slow and deliberate, some may be (like WW1) mostly sitting in place hoping to not get blown up, et c.

>>50165128
Not an argument.

>>50165153
>>I'm pretty sure you claimed I didn't see these faults in games

Can you back that up with a quote or are you just making that up?

I just said that you prefer videogames based on your statements that they 'do it better' and that you've never even played D&D.

>>50165153
>My reasoning is that magic would hold more meaning, thus stir more emotions within people by the removal of mechanics.
>In your case I would say personally pursue comics sure, and they would hold more personal value to you. But your argument would have no bearing on others.
My reasoning is that pictures would hold more meaning, thus stir more emotions within people than a block of text can.
In your case, I would say personally pursue communal writing, and they would hold more personal value to you, but your argument would have no bearing on others.

>>50165190
Well I haven't tried DnD, I can't say for sure I prefer games. But sure, why not. I don't see what's so bad in saying I prefer video games.

>>50165205
Why do pictures stir more meaning and emotion?

>>50165221
The saying 'a picture is worth a thousand words' exists for a reason.
Why is the use of dice to affect the narrative worse than a communal narrative?

>>50165350
I've explained why magic suffers due to dice. Dice are mundane, and people are easily familiar with them. This reduces what should be a force beyond human understanding into something completely mundane and plain.

>>50165380
>Dice are mundane, and people are easily familiar with them. This reduces what should be a force beyond human understanding into something completely mundane and plain.
Words are esoteric, and people aren't inherently familiar with them. This complicates what should be immediately understandable with a glance into something completely extraneous and pointless.

>>50164626
>>50164659
>>50165221
He argues for an hour that he never said he prefers video games then admits he was lying.

>>50165474
To be fair to the lil' guy, he has admitted to never playing RPGs, so he probably, in an uncharacteristic moment of humility, decided not to give opinions on shit he doesn't know about, unlike the entire rest of this thread.

>>50165468
>Words are esoteric, and people aren't inherently familiar with them.
Most people are familiar with some kind of language.
>>50165474
I checked where this whole thing started.

The guy said that I prefer video games because I don't know how random number generators work.

That's not why I prefer em.

File: 1476158584915.png (121KB, 553x585px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 553x585px

>>50161390
>>50161458
>>50161504

>>50165380
>should be a force beyond human understanding
You still haven't backed that up. Probably because history, culture, and (in the specific case of what you've spent the last 6 hours shitposting about) game design all say that it's a shitty idea to have a force that's completely unknowable to humanity to the point that it cannot be made into mechanics.

You just want it to be unknowable because you want an out for your stories, and you're talking about it like this because you want to be on >>>/lit/ and clicked the wrong board by mistake.

>>50165508
>Most people are familiar with some kind of language.
Most people are familiar with the concept of dice as an abstraction for forces beyond your control.

>>50165566
Except magic has usually been treated as drawing upon something beyond normal mortals.

You can tell me why I want it, or you can address what I say.

I know which is easier though.

>>50165565
I'll admit that I'm taking bait, but it's mostly because the more (you)s he gets, the quicker this shithole of a thread falls off the board, and it doesn't look like anyone else is on board with the idea of it getting a slow and quiet death.

>>50165600
>Most people are familiar with the concept of dice as an abstraction for forces beyond your control.
They aren't. They're familiar with them as mundane cubes for determining random numbers.
>>50165608
>i-it disagrees with me so it's bait!
try harder

>>50165605
>Except magic has usually been treated as drawing upon something beyond normal mortals.
Gravity's beyond normal mortals (and even those who study it aren't 100% clear how it works), but most RPGs still have rules for how much damage you take when you fall.

>>50165508
>>The guy said that I prefer video games because I don't know how random number generators work.

Oh, so he's wrong because, while you do prefer video games, it isn't because of random number generators, but because:
>>50161339
>>Video games can pull it off better because you can simulate movement easier.

He must feel like a real dummy for pointing out that you prefer videogames over traditional games while posting arguments on the traditional gaming board that people playing TTRPGs are doing it wrong and are a detriment to the fantasy genre.

I mean he did get the reason you prefer videogames wrong; it isn't the RNG, but rather it's because:

>>...you can simulate movement easier.

>>50165622
Well then most people aren't familiar with language as a method of conveying imaginary scenes.
Think of how much writing is used for mundane purposes and not narrative writing.

>>50161316
>>50165622

This thread has been marked as a troll thread since the 2nd post.

>>50165637
I turned back on that reason, though I still do prefer video games.

Regardless everything you said isn't relevant to the discussion.

>>50165656
>Well then most people aren't familiar with language as a method of conveying imaginary scenes.
They are though.

>>50165681
Alright then. I can't mindlessly turn that argument against you, so I'll point out that tabletop games are in fact a niche hobby.
Most people who actually play tabletop games are familiar with the concept of dice as an abstraction for forces beyond your control.
Your argument here is that since you can't, the entire niche should shift to accommodate people like you.

>>50165725
>Most people who actually play tabletop games are familiar with the concept of dice as an abstraction for forces beyond your control.
But this also funnels all themes for a game into fatalism.
So my other critique is that even if dice can work, they can only work if your theme is fatalism and lack of free will.

>>50162091
you seem overly focused on a very narrow spectrum of the medium.
to understand the so called "problem" that arises from your perspective, you have to understand the very basics of the medium.

the traditional dice roll:
a simple way to find a numerical number from a specified range.
because you have never played a Pen&Paper or Table-Top game, you might be more familiar with games like snakes and ladders, where the 6-sided dice has only 1 function: moving.

In Pen&Paper and Tabletop games the dice rolls do not mean something on their own.

each dice roll needs context:
Game Master, Setting and Actions define what the dice roll stands for.

Example:
you try to leap over a fence.
it looks easy and probably is, but it could still turn into a painful fumble.
your character is very /fit/ and has a Body value of 8. (a very high value)
success to leap over the fence needs a value to reach a minimum level of 10.

there is still the possibility to fail there, it builds up a bit of drama.
the outcome of the action will now be determined by a dice roll, this dice roll does not expresses the jump it self, it expresses uncertainty, the probability of failing or succeeding.

drama, suspense.

now lets go to back to magic.
The rules of magic are not changed through a dice roll.
magic and its rules for its rituals and spells are regulated by the Game Master, the story teller.

so what does the dice roll do?

for casting a spell or performing a ritual the character needs to recite ancient spells, perform specific movements, concentrate, focus, or do other tasks.

example:
the ritualist might need to create a near perfect circle, with glyphs and shapes in it written with chalk.

the ritualist has a writing skill with a value of 5
he needs to get a value of 10 to succeed.


time for a dice roll...

failed the first time...
" it was more of an eggshape."

failed the second time...
" dammit I drew the symbol the wrong way around"

3rd times a charm.

...

>>50165681
>>Regardless everything you said isn't relevant to the discussion.

You're arguing that your preference for video games over traditional games ins't relevant to your argument that traditional games, an entire type of game that's been around for decades you've never played, is being played wrong by the entire community and that it's hurting the fantasy genre. furthermore, you thought it was relevant when you were being called out as a troll.

This only goes to further demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about and are likely purposefully talking in circles as a joke. It also unequivocally proves that this thread had no point from the start and certainly has no point now.

>>50164626
>>50164659

>>50165768
So why describe such mundane actions in such depth? The success of managing to draw the magic circle should just rely on what serves the themes, narrative and tone.

>>50165783
I make points, you address them. My experience, my character, my hair colour or my dick size isn't relevant in the slightest.

OP, make a convincing argument that you aren't just really fucking stupid. Because there is a whole shit load of people thinking you are. And if you are, your opinion on all this is probably also really fucking stupid. So if you can say something that somehow proves that you aren't just a moron, then I'll believe you that dice somehow ruin magic.

Your whole idea that magic is inherently mysterious is dumb in the first place. Magic is mysterious to peasants, not the people casting the spells. It is literally a wizards business to know how magic works. Magic IS a science, just one not understood by MOST, which is LITERALLY what arcane means.

>>50165761
>they can only work if your theme is fatalism and lack of free will.
Funny thing about that. You do not, in fact, have to roll dice to do everything. There are plenty of dice-free decisions that you can make, hence the 'role playing' aspect.
And there are plenty of games that don't explore the theme of fatalism because of THE INDIVIDUAL GM (seeing a pattern here?)
So my suggestion is that if you're intent on reforming the entire tabletop medium to conform to a standard that does not suit the existing players in favor of yourself, I get to reform the entire writing medium to a standard that suits myself over everyone else who reads.

>>50165768
rolling a dice are not in conflict of the story, the rules of magic it self, or any other theme.

it stands for our human ability to fail.
for conflicts to not allways go our way.

this medium is a complex one that deals with exactly this kind of shit.

and experiences are to be crafted with this in mind. it is game design, story writing, and social interaction combined in a glorious way.

if you still think otherwise
follow this fine gentleman's advice:
>>50162105

>>50165870
Magic should reflect the overall themes of the world. If it doesn't, it's meaningless and should be binned.

Therefore, since the dice force it to be just down to random chance, the theme must align to fatalism and lack of free will otherwise it will be inconsistent.

>>50165853
>Magic IS a science
Except it isnt. Magic is inherently supernatural, and the supernatural is outside of the bounds of science and empiricism.

>>50165816
these actions are not mundane, they are a struggle, a good one.

>>50165955
So when people talk about the skill a character possesses to cast magic, it is in reality extremely mundane skills such as the ability to draw a circle or memorise a piece of text?

>>50165816
>>My experience, my character, my hair colour or my dick size isn't relevant in the slightest.

I suppose you think your lack of knowledge or understanding of the topic isn't relevant either.

I don't know you personally and I've never seen nor had interest in seeing your dick, but we all know you're a disgusting little troll that is really enjoying his first philosophy class because you can prattle on mindlessly and pretend you're right when literally everyone in the room wishes you'd shut your mouth. Of course
You're oblivious to everyone else's desires because you're complete engrossed in your myopic bliss of finally have someones attention. One could say that I don't know you and couldn't know these things about you, but I'm surely right and my lack of experience isn't relevant in the slightest.

>>50165933
No, it really is a science. If it was completely unexplainable, it wouldn't exist, which is why it doesn't. If there was no way to explain or control it, it just wouldn't be. That is why it is called arcane. Arcane literally means known by few. Not known by none. So in any fantasy setting where magic exists, it is a science, but not one anyone fully understands, and most don't understand it at all. And you still need to make a convincing argument that you aren't just really fucking stupid.

>>50165933
And magic does in fact reflect the overall themes of the world. You know how?
THE INDIVIDUAL GM DECIDES HOW
If you're so intent on tabletop gaming find an INDIVIDUAL GM who's willing to put up with you.
I'm sure you will be able to find an INDIVIDUAL GM who shares your ideas on the narrative value of magic.
Also you're being needlessly reductionist about dice. There is much more nuance to magic rolling than pass/fail.
In fact, there are some INDIVIDUAL GMs out there who will forego magic entirely, taking out rolling for this idealized (and idolized) form of magic that you hold so dear.

File: ZgwIASL.gif (2MB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x300px

I made my case with these 3 posts

>>50165768
>>50165909
>>50165955

Pen&Paper is a medium that thrives when there is the possibility to fail.
not because the world, magic or someone else dictates it, but because we are ultimately human.

"The dice is our humanity incarnate" -Anon 2016

I invite everyone to abandon thread now.

GOOD LUCK to all of you.
lets roll

>>50166014
Lack of experience is only relevant when it's shown in what I say, and to counter it, you address what I say. Attacking my character gets us no where.

>>50166023
You're thinking of a fantasy setting as a simulated world, when you should be thinking of it as a mythology. It doesn't matter if it's impossible, a fantasy world isn't supposed ot be a simulated reality. It's limits in magic are entirely at the whims of the author.

>>50166063
>I invite everyone to abandon thread now.
At this point, there's no reason. We're already past the bump limit. Let's enjoy our sinking ship captained by a retard all the way down.

>>50166061
>THE INDIVIDUAL GM DECIDES HOW
How can he decide without binning dice?
I've explicity explained how dice funnel the primary themes into fatalism. The magic must reflect this or it will be inconsistent.

>>50166063
this

>>50166069
The thing about fantasy as mythology, mythology is based off people having no idea how the world worked. A dumb peasant said something was magic, because he doesn't realise ice melts when hot. A noble thinks a man is bending reality, when all he is doing is using his barely known science to shoot fire out of his hands. The idea of magic just happening because is 1. Not fun, 2. Bad fucking story telling, 3. Impossible to portray in an interactive experience.

Besides, in myths, in folklore, there are plenty of sources of things that use magic. You know how they use magic? A SCIENCE NOT UNDERSTOOD BY ONLOOKERS.