5e causes brain damage

File: baiteroni.png (247KB, 800x765px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 800x765px

>>52712445

in all seriousness, is that guy about to eat a raw parsnip as part of his lunch?
is this something worth trying OOC?

>>52712445
>It's all about FUN guys!
>It's all about doing what you enjoy, with people you like!

>>52715855
Personally, I find raw parsnip isn't as good, but they're certainly edible.

>>52712445

Rollplayers are gutless little bitches who hate to lose and can't take the challenge of an honest wargame. Instead they want to play a cooperative '''''''roleplaying''''''' game focussed on combat, where the GM is supposed to create fights the players are likely to win and the only '''''''challenge''''''' is how optimally they win.

Anyone who enjoys only game mechanics should instead just play skirmish scale wargames that have lots of granularity and a campaign system. You can even play teams of 3vs3 or 2vs2 if you want that coop element. It's much better because your opponents will be more or less equal in power to you and will be going all out to beat you, making it more exciting and a much closer call than the vast majority of combat encounters in RPGs.

But rollplayers won't do this because they just want to win playing on easy mode, and are pissbabby sore losers.

>>52712445
D&D causes brain damage.

Defend any edition of D&D without proving your mental inferiority, you just can't, whenever (of course assuming you AT LEAST have a high school diploma) you try to play D&D you realize it's dogshit and play better systems.

>>52716802

What better system is there for tactical, team based grid combat than 4e?

>>52716853
Sentinel Tactics?

>>52716802
Its easy to find/convince people to try it because of the brand and its pretty fun to play.

Honestly that's all I need to enjoy a ttrpg.

Plus I think its a pretty solid game

>>52716918

As far as I'm aware that doesn't have character creation/skills.

>>52716802
2e seems pretty cool, I'm going to try it out to have an old school fantasy sandbox adventure instead of the boring PF premades my group always plays.

>>52715855
Not that different from carrot, desu. And considering the period, making a fire to cook that parsnip would have been kind of a pain in the ass.

>>52716802
like what?
give me alternatives that are not autistic

>>52712445
>It's fun
>It's easy to learn
>It's easier to get people to play
>It's easy to modify on the fly
>It's honestly a pretty decent system

I'm really not interested in pretending it's some kind of flawless system, and I'm certainly open to ideas about better ones, but while I have my gripes with it, it does its job just fine. What system do you recommend, monk anon? I'm not going to argue about it, I'd just like to get your opinion. Since you clearly think 5e doesn't do a very good job, you must have a system or two you consider better.

>>52716802
>1e and 2e are legitimately good "crawl into dark places, kill things, and take their stuff" games.
>4e has the best skirmish combat of any RPG

Really, it's just 3e and 5e that suck. 3e is a dogshit frankenstein of a game that doesn't know what it wants to be or how to do it. 5e is a D&D logo applied to the front of a pile of blank pages.

>>52715855
In Bavaria that's actually quite a common thing to eat with bread and some beer for a snack or as lunch. Usually it's cut into thin slices and salted, then left to rest for a few minutes

>>52717183
that sounds pretty tasty, actually

Popularity is actually a key quality for an RPG. If you have a perfect system and nobody to play it with you're shit outta luck.

>>52717067
2e has its flaws. While I'm generally the first to defend Roleplaying over Rollplaying, 2e (something I'm also typically quick to defend) definitely favoring the former over the later, it sometimes takes this to a point that it attempts to be a simulation instead of a game. Attribute scores above eight but below fifteen generally don't matter in average play (with scores outside that range bringing either meaty bonuses or crippling deficiencies), THAC0 progression means that someone at higher levels who isn't a Fighter will generally need to have enchantments or extremely high (17+) attributes in a static-attribute system to reliably hit non-positive AC scores, health for PCs caps fairly early on while damage from spells and the like only increases (along with frequency of save-or-die effects) to the point that eventually even the fighters get a glass jaw (Been a while but Fighter HP w/o Con Modifiers caps out at either 10d10+30 or 9d10+33, so 82-85 HP on average) emphasizing both the aspects of "Don't get hit" and "Have good saves"…

It's a very fun system all the same IMO, and has a lot of rules for the roleplaying aspects that tend to work without leaving someone too broken / overpowered (it also encourages PCs at lower levels to pick their fights carefully, not just go "WE SEE A WORG KILL IT FAT EXP TIME" or "YOU PICKED THE WRONG PARTY TO ROB PUNKS"), but it's very much a different system from PF. PF is a game focused around Crouching Tigers and Hidden Badasses who quickly start to resemble protagonists from games like Skyrim or Breath of the Wild or the like in their ability to mow through even the toughest foes. By contrast, in 2E you literally might spend your first 2-3 levels fighting nothing more dangerous than rats or isolated Kobolds / Goblins / etcetera with killing a bear without any casualties feeling like an accomplishment.

>>52717245
Going on with what this anon said is that if you have a popular system it's extremely easy to find games to play with and you can just drop out of shitty games.
Conversely if you have a not well known perfect system it's extremely hard to find another game if you have a shitty group. Great mechanics a good game do not make

>>52717389
>>52717245
That's only true if you only play with shitters who aren't willing to give games that aren't popular a try.

Of course, since nobody would allow you faggots into their IRL parties, all you are left is roll20, and in that context your point is entirely valid.

>>52717314
>rules for the roleplaying
Can you elaborate on these?
Granted I've only read the 2e PHB so far but all I can think of from it are the rules for non-weapon proficiencies.
Which are somewhat confusing to me in that the are multiple variations provided, all seemingly optional and based heavily on case-by-case DM judgment rather than set DCs.

>>52717521
You're only supposed to use one of the three non-weapon skill systems at a time. No mixing real-world knowledge, Secondary Skills, and NWPs. Unless your DM says it's OK.

He might be referring to the individual XP awards and reaction table.

>>52712445
It's popular, which attracts players, which makes it more likely to be played, which makes it more likely that feedback is generated, which makes it more likely that it is improved, which attracts more players, which.... Etc

>>52717314
Whenever I hear "rules from roleplaying", the GM in me gets exceedingly wary.
From my experience, rules for roleplaying either prescribe a very formulaic approach to rp among pcs and/or npcs, very rarely in a way that is supposed to reflect a ritualized in setting approach, such is in L5R, or outright says to players (and actually to the GM) roll X for Y, or Z against Y, such as in WoD.
While I can live with them, I'd rather there be advice for approaches, rather than hard and fast rules (which open doors to abuse by players/GM).

>>52716853
GURPS.

>>52717111
GURPS, not autistic just not designed for ape-intellect level such as yours.

>>52717155
>>52717067
Inferior in every aspect to GURPS.

>>52716988
I'm sorry you live in an african country.

>>52717538
A mix of that (EXP rewards, simulating morale breaking in combat, reaction table, etc.) and various kits having special abilities that let them do stuff like tell when somebody is lying or determine someone's true origins by watching them passively or the like.

>>52717521
DC in 2E didn't really exist. For the most part you would roll an Attribute check (wherein the goal, instead of beating a set DC, was to roll under your respective attribute) for Proficiencies or attempt to beat your fixed Saving Throw value (sometimes with a modifier) for, well, Saving Throws.

For non-weapon proficiencies a lot of 2E DMs I know just let people apply what would make sense for their character, being more or less generous depending on how much effort the players put into their character's background and meshing with the setting. The "Non-Weapon Proficiencies w/ Level + Bonus Languages for either Languages or Proficiencies" background was the next most common, but mainly in games that CharGen was more forgiving than "3d6 x6 Final Destination" (4d6b3, for example, or even 5d6b3 or 4d6b3 rolled seven times or the like).

>>52717616
Normally I'd agree, but… well, see 3 / 3.PF. The PHB and DMG and whatnot started to break away from as much, which lead to 3 / 3.PF noticeably diverging into spreadsheet combat simulators for veteran players instead of functional roleplaying experiences. In 2E you can say you want to play a Fighter with shaky hands who does some bureaucratic stuff on the side and both DM + Players will probably go "Coo', you'll help if we ever get in trouble with the local law." In 3 / 3.PF you'll barely get "Fighter" out past your lips before you're either (at best) fed suggestions about a class who does their job better or told to re-roll because "I'm not wasting spells / magic items on you just so you can fly and keep up with the party", let alone "Wait you have flaws and a skill focus on something not directly related to your class?"

I didn't understand any of the posts in this thread, except the one about parsnip not being all that different from carrot.

File: best of tg 666.jpg (296KB, 1533x714px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1533x714px

This

>>52717707

GURPS is one of the few systems worse than D&D, both in substance and in fanbase

>>52717183
interesting, will try it out.

>>52716853
>>52717026
Strike!

At what point does the goal of "realism" in a system make having fun less likely?

>>52717708
>In 3 / 3.PF you'll barely get "Fighter" out past your lips before you're either (at best) fed suggestions about a class who does their job better
Be up front about this, people say that not because other classes can do the fighters job better (it's actually quite competent in PF as a damage dealing combatant), people suggest other classes because they can do the combat thing, and something else besides, while the fighter, in 90% of cases, is relegated to combat only, and actually do lose noticeably on their capacity if they diverge from it.
In 2e's case, there was no real rules or numbers for a number of things, so the player needed to work with the GM to come up with something to mutual satisfaction.
Lack of rules means the GM and player must interact, and the player must actively present the thing they want.
>>52717764
See 3.PF.
The "realism" in and of itself is not bad, it's that some people are bound to the realism, and some people are expressly by design not, and reap the benefit of being free of a yoke.

>>52717736
I'd ask for an IQ test but I know you're clinically retarded kid.

Prove GURPS is bad without proving you're retarded, you can't.

5e definitely caused brain damage to you, OP

>>52715855

That beer looks pretty good, and I don't even like beer.

>>52716802
Please support your baseless accusation first.

>>52717708
>Apply what would make sense for their character
I'm definitely going to use this when I try to run it, thanks anon! Cutting out extra rules is great and it seems like they have to get their skills from actually writing a backstory.

Is there a resource for common 2e shortcuts like that?

>>52717822
>>52717707
>lazy babby troll counting on getting his shit ruses through during off-peak /tg/ hours

KYS. :)

>>52717788
>See 3.PF.

You mean the one where the realism of weapon cords was tested by flipping a mouse around?

:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Mmmm no.

>>52715855
Could be white carrot too. Used to be a lot more common.

>>52717314
>THAC0 progression means that someone at higher levels who isn't a Fighter will generally need to have enchantments or extremely high (17+) attributes in a static-attribute system to reliably hit non-positive AC scores
How many monsters does this honestly apply to? Looking through my Monstrous Manual I can find most of them are campaign ending boss monsters with impressive spellcasting powers to boot.
>Pit Fiend
>Most adult dragons
>Storm Giants and Fire Giants in battle armor

Other more common monsters occasionally dip into negatives, but never too far, or are the sorts of creatures players aren't really meant to fight.
>Galeb Duhr
>Green Hags
>The armored part of a Bulette
>Ki-Rin
>Rakshasa
>Some sphinxes
>The armored part of a zaratan

That's it. That's every 2e monster in the base book with a negative armor class. Also, keep in mind that because most characters don't have notable (or any!) attribute bonuses to their combat scores most characters won't lag too far behind the warriors due to lack of strength. A level 13 priest has THAC0 12, a rogue has 14, a warrior has 8, and a wizard has a 16. Even the wizard can hit an AC -2 creature without needing to roll a natural 20 and rogues and priests will hit reliably enough.

>>52717979
I hate 3.PF.

I hate the 3.PF devs (well, most of them) with a burning passion.

But if you don't get that that was a (shitty) joke, you are a fucking autist.

Troll post but a decent topic. 5e system isn't perfect, but it knows well enough not to bother trying. The strength of 5e is that it dials itself back to the d20+mod vs target logic in most circumstances, and gives a lot of flexibility with the advantage system.

It's easy to house rule, there aren't endless charts for everything ala gurps, and the math either stays simple or gets out of the way. Whenever I need to dictate anything on the fly, I can usually think up something on the spot that makes sense with the rest of the rules, and the players are happy. The players get a sense of how the rules consistently behave and that sense is never broken.

I've run 5e for a couple years now and the game has rarely been fragile enough to cause problems. I've had to tweak a few things, but there's never going to be a set of rules that fits everything perfectly. If the math is light, adaptable, and predictable, the system is doing its job for all parties.

>>52717979
You mean where the "quest for realism" makes the game less fun?
It is exactly what was asked for, I never said it did it well, and there are far more blatant issues.

>>52718227
Also, you no longer need to juggle DC to make the party relevant.
>The rogue can pick locks with a +20 so DC35 to make it interesting but no one has athletics so the chasm must be along DC15 and...
In the end, it was more than "kind of" patchwork.

>>52718230
>>52717764

Realism is harmful when it's unequally or thoughtlessly applied.

Not all games need to be realistic. For some genres and themes it is an asset, but for others it is a detriment. Knowing the experience you want to convey and how much realism is appropriate is a key part of design.

In terms of unequal realism, the caster/martial double standard is the classic example. The idea that while magic users can be ridiculously powerful, martial characters must adhere absolutely to the laws of reality. It's a situation that simply can't function as a rational basis for design without causing no end of problems down the line. If you have high fantasy spellcasters, you should have epic, heroic martial fighters who are unrestricted by the laws of our reality in what they can achieve. Likewise, if you have mundane, realistic martial combatants, magic users must be similarly restricted in order for anything to make sense. That doesn't necessarily mean 'no magic', but their capabilities need to be weighted against the mundane to ensure that they aren't overly strong, and given appropriate costs for the advantages they present.

>>52718288
4e's solution (which was the same, but different math) was more fitting for d20s number range, but yeah, it helps.

>>52717747
NO. I REFUSE. I WILL NEVER PLAY YOUR SYSTEM. EVER. I DON'T CARE HOW EASILY REFLUFFABLE IT IS.

>>52718404
SEARCH YOUR FEELINGS

YOU KNOW IT TO BE TRUE!

>>52712615
I don't get this image. Someone who is baiting is trying to get (you)s. They aren't handing them out as part of the bait.

In the fish hook metaphor, the fish is the (you).

>>52718288

Yeah, 5e made several improvements to deal with power inflation, both numerically, and with casters. Tying active magics to concentration, and spell mechanics to spell level instead of caster level, have both improved the state of balance a lot.

I'm not quite certain they hit the mark with skills. The difference between skilled and unskilled is small, to the point where it doesn't feel like a character with acrobatics (for example) is acrobatic, unless it's a higher level rogue focused on it. The difference should be definitive, but not overpowering. That's my largest complaint with the system right now. I've personally 'fixed' it with house rules, but I'm hoping that whenever 6e comes out there's some thought put into it.

>>52718500
It seems meant to indicate that the baiter has responded to the baitee's original post.
Not really applicable here.

File: 121808.jpg (118KB, 900x1182px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 900x1182px

>>52718477
*autistic screeching*

>>52718539
5e's skill system can be pretty broken, when you consider that they didn't actually get rid of stacking skill bonuses, they just reduced their number. Thanks to bounded accuracy, every skill bonus is much more powerful, and you get character builds like the "unbeatable grapple check".

>>52717966
>Can't prove me wrong
>I-I BETTER TELL HIM TO KYS HIMSELF!!!!
hahaha thanks for proving how much of a brainlet you're.

>>52712445
>D&D causes braindamage

FTFY. Just ask anyone who has tried to get 3.x faggots to play anything that isn't 3.x or derivative.

>>52718686
Expertise was a mistake, it should only have given advantage

>>52719205
Expertise should have been available to everyone, and given a flat +5, Saga edition style.

>>52716070
Here's your (you)

>>52717125
One of the few things I think should be global is ID's. Would really cut down on the shitposts if we could just go
>One post by this ID

>>52719480
That's in stark opposition with the whole "anonimity" thing.

>>52717125
>>It's easy to modify on the fly
I wish more people recognized this. 5e is meant to be modified for your group, but the second you discuss potential modifications on any discussion forum meant for 5e, people jump down your throat for violating their sacred cows.

>>52719480
>One of the few things I think should be global is ID's
Then you should probably leave chans entirely and go to reddit or some place else.

>>52719522
What are some good modifications to do to 5e?

>>52719480

Anonymity is the only reason this site has value. Remove that and it's just another shitty forum where everything is decided by hierarchy and reputation. Anonymity has its own problems, but that you have to take people based on what they say, here and now, rather than the accumulation of reputation, and that you can't just filter people who disagree with you away is what gives the conversation here its unique qualities.

File: rose karkat.png (102KB, 341x278px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 341x278px

>>52715938
What

3e and 5e are popular, therefore they are bad

>>52716070
This is actually kind of true. If you're not there for the roleplaying elements, and minmaxing for combat your basically just playing a wargame, where the GM has the option of fudging things in your favor.

>>52716070
I know this is throwing pasta into the river, but it seems basically legit.

>>52719480
Upvoted

>>52719819
Nah.

3e's badness is unrelated to its popularity. It popularity just means its faults are more exposed and so magnified online.

The same is true for 5e except its faults are actually pretty minor, all things considered.

>>52716070
You know, I was thinking this was bait, but... actually, I played with people like that.

>>52717764
When it's applied to the wrong genre or applied haphazardly and then not counteracted by the rest of the game.

>>52716070
I'm wondering if this is actually a problem.
I've got one player in our group that does this. He min-maxes for combat, and generally has little to no character background and generally doesn't participate much in social encounters.

He might be a "bad" player but he's not disruptive.

I think he just wants to beat up fictional characters in his free time to blow off steam.

It might be a little boring. But is it something worth booting from a game for? Or should it just be a "don't invite invite him back" sort of thing.

>>52717734
That's a shitty, retarded post from someone who's never actually done anything like that. I have, and it turns out that a 2000 mile drive with no AC in summer heat is absolutely fucking miserable. You'd have to pay me to make me even consider doing it again.

>>52717764
There is no hard point. Some people like much more simulationist games.

Some people love minutia and calculating things like damaged based on acceleration due to gravity. Other players like rules light games to the point of not using dice.

>>52720076
Def not a thing to kick people out for. Probably a good idea to talk to people about themes, types f play, what everyone's into, etc. before you start a campaign, or when you're putting together a group though.

>>52720123
As someone who has, I've got to disagree. It's much more about what happened and who you were with than what system you played. If you have a group of friends you like be be around, you can have fun drinking and playing shoots and ladders.

Fun stories often have a lot to do with the fucked up bad things that happened along the way rather than "everything went smoothly the end"

>>52720123
>>52720193

I feel like you aren't exactly disagreeing with each other, or the post itself.

Even the post directly says that you might have a better time with a better car/system. It's not about excusing bad design or pretending it isn't a factor. But it also acknowledges that people can and do have fun with flawed systems. Knowing their flaws, and being able to frankly and openly discuss them is only an advantage for other people who might want to play them. Knowing ahead of time how to make the car you're stuck with work best will make the journey go smoother, you know? Although it also might make you choose a different car, if the steps you'd have to go to to make it work are just too much bother.

>>52720193
I also disagree with that because I've had bad systems ruin games by frustrating the GM or a player into no longer having fun.

>>52720123
Every analogy breaks down eventually.

>>52718683
that protagonist has shit trigger discipline

>>52720242
The problem is that it's downplaying just how bad of an experience a shitty car can make an extended road trip. Dealing with California summer heat with no AC is shit and no amount of "but what REALLY mattered is who you were with at the time :))))))" will make it not have ruined the experience.

How do you make 5e less bland? Like it feels like the system doesn't do anything unique and I havent been here long enough to be a grog and Ive been here too long to be a newb so the nostaliga or newess dosent really work for me.

File: le cat.jpg (128KB, 1032x968px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1032x968px

ROLEPLAY group:
>hahaah see what i did guise? so funney
>and then I try to fuck the innkeepers wife
>*indescribably tortured in-character voices*
>you can't kill my chara tho
>murderhobo

ROLLPLAY group
>okay, so when I break down the door you'll be ready to throw in the torch and our mage will have a spell ready to attack if we see anybody
>Does anybody have a 10ft pole?
>wow, the DM really kicked our ass with that dungeon. We should try it again next week

5e causes brain damage

>>52719502
>>52719544
>>52719764

I think (hope) that he means something more like pol, where the ID is thread based, and after the thread is gone so is the ID

>>52720395

Third party content? Even if the first party stuff is light, I know a shitload of people have been trying to jump on the bandwagon, to varying success.

Other than that... People say it's easy to improvise and make stuff for?

Honestly, 5e's lack of content or particular novelty is its biggest weakness. It's a very bare bones, basic product.

>>52720337
Can't comment about AC.
But one of the road trips I remember most fondly was objectively pretty awful.

>Friend works late nights as a janitor
>Accidentally spills what's essentially garage juice on himself
>Too tired to shower passes out
>We arrive at his door for the road trip, but he hasn't showered yet and we've got to leave 15 minutes ago
>the smell is so bad it's like walking into purple tinged brick wall
>It starts to pour torrentialy
>We've got hours of a Sophie's choice between opening the windows to freezing rain and the bog of eternal stench.
>Finally arrive
>Smell is so bad host tells us not to walk on the carpets and avoid the other customers.

>>52716070
>wargames that have [...] a campaign system
What does this even mean? How does that work?

>>52720537
That has nothing to do with the car, though. You and I both know your trip would've gotten a whole lot shittier if your car broke down when you were halfway there and left you stranded in the middle of nowhere.

Which has also happened to me, and surprise surprise, being stuck on the side of the road for ages ruined the return trip.

>>52720123
See that's why I use that post to explain "System matters, but not as much as people act like". Because cool people make the trip worth it but that stretch through the desert with no AC is gonna suck either way.

>>52720427

ROLLPLAY group
>No DM, you HAVE to let me use this obscure limited edition splatbook they gave out free at a con seven years ago, my broken as fuck build depends on it
>I roll Bluff to convince the Orcs to cut their own throats
>Hold on guys, I'm just calculating the optimal attack configuration for this turn, it'll only take another 15 minutes
>But there CAN'T be manticores in this part of the forest, the random encounter table doesn't include them! No fair!
>wow, the DM really kicked our ass with that dungeon. He must have fudged the dice in his favour. Let's cheat next week.

ROLEPLAY group
>I could just ask to roll INT to figure out who the culprit is, but let's try to gather clues instead and solve it the fun way
>First I'm going to casually remind the Baron that my father faithfully served his father for twenty years, then I'm going to flatter the Baron about his recent victory, and then I'm going to raise the possibility of an advance on our pay so we can buy supplies.
>Does anybody have a 10ft pole?
How it's done properly, grasshopper. :^)

>>52720739
It's not his fault that he has never ROLEPLAYed with anyone but Munchkins. Sad.

>>52720589
Usually you've got some sort of war-band and get to add points to it as time goes on. Usually with bonuses for winning. Characters that die in game, have a chance of staying dead.

I've seen other's that had a map with territory you fought over. Certain territories, like a space port or supply dumb, gave in game bonuses.

>>52720739
>>52720427

Why do people perpetuate the false dichotomy?

I play roleplaying games for the characters and the stories their actions create, but I can also appreciate and enjoy interacting with an engaging, well designed set of mechanics alongside that.

>>52717822
Prove GURPS is good without proving you're retarded, you can't.

>>52720739
>>I could just ask to roll INT to figure out who the culprit is
A good roleplayer wouldn't even bring it up as a possibility.

>>52720810

Fuck this kind of purist bullshit. Skill checks exist for a reason.

If you can figure it out yourself, sure. But if people are getting stuck or can't figure something out, there's nothing wrong with letting them roll for some hints or just to keep the game moving.

>>52720810

You're wrong and a faggot. Kill yourself immediately.

>>52720801
>Why do people perpetuate the false dichotomy?
Because autism.

That and tg and 4chan in general likes to argue.

>>52712445
I don't understand. What exactly is the problem here?

>>52720827
>Fuck this kind of purist bullshit. Skill checks exist for a reason.
Fuck you m8.

You don't just announce you can make an int check to solve a complex problem.

You try to work it out IC. If you reach a point where you're genuinely stuck, the GM should ask for a roll and give out an appropriate hint to get you moving in the right direction, or you can ask if he doesn't offer one.

>I could just roll INT to figure out who the culprit is
Is the social equivalent of
>I could just roll STR to kill the enemy army

>>52720901

You literally just repeated the next few lines of my post after the quote back to me. I don't even.

>>52712445
>/tg/ causes brain damagr
FTFY

>>52720960
>*damage
Case in point.

>>52719819
Every edition has sold better and been more popular than previous editions. Does this mean the "best" edition is OD&D?

>>52720395
In my experience, by running it "theater of the mind," so the group collectively spends more energy on interactions than thinking about the elements that go with miniatures.
It can take getting used to if you've never played or ran an RPG without minis or grid combat before, but I'd say it's worth it.

>>52719819
If alot of people like something, chances are there is something in there good that they like.

>>52721221

Popularity and quality do not correlate, positively or negatively. Attempting to use it to argue one way or the other is always dumb.

>>52721006
>Every edition has sold better and been more popular than previous editions. Does this mean the "best" edition is OD&D?

OD&D and 4e are really the best.

It checks out.

>>52720959
tldr

>>52721280

Despite loving 4e, I've slowly come to agree with the people who say it isn't 'real' D&D, especially given the fanbase response to 5th.

The things I love about 4th are pretty much exactly the things that make it not 'real' D&D, so it might make more sense to just treat it as its own thing.

>>52721006
That literally changes nothing with my gameplay experience. I mean fuck we alrrady do that and 5e isnt magically made more interesting

>>52717747
I would have already played Struke if it was designed for humans with human eyeballs to read and not the strange reptilian autists that like multi-contrasting-colored character sheets and references and whatever dialect of English it is written in.

>>52721502
I have a similar problem with it. The Strike book is really oddly written and I just end up putting it down every time I start getting through it.

>>52718055
If you can't understand that continuously dismissing your critics with shitty jokes is worse than taking it literally, then a little autism would help you.

>>52721502
>>52721527

I just found the tactical combat side kinda shallow and lacking compared to 4e. I get the idea of streamlining, but it...

To use a very bad example, it felt like comparing an MMO character to a MOBA one. In 4e you have loads of abilities with a lot of quite complex interactions, but the really strong synergies are things you need to figure out for yourselves and work within your group. All of the various components you could plug together to make a Strike! character felt very predesigned to work a certain way. Very obvious and simplistic, not really giving you much room to express yourself or be creative in how you actually played out the combat because how they were meant to work was pretty obvious.

Much as I don't really care for pathfinder, I think the next version of D&D would do well to adopt something like the spheres of power system for magic.

SoP manages to get casters to focus on a couple areas of specialization rather than permitting omni-casters, and the spell point mechanic is much easier to understand and work with in play. 5e managed to do some clever things with boosting spell levels, but still ultimately has a strange power curve depending on which slots you're spending. SoP keeps simpler by having all-day free spells akin to cantrips, while allowing the player to burn resources to bump them up to powerful magics at their level of ability, without that middle ground.

>>52721502
>>52721527

The book is amateurish, and the character sheets are pure shit. Reading the parts with the skills and the kits and stuff makes me go cross-eyed sometimes.

I made a php/html tool that lets me just print out all the powers/abilities of classes/roles as cards, and then character building is just picking cards. Then you put them in a card-folder thing, and you got your character.

There's also an online characterbuilder.

Originally I just printed out the character creation survey and the classes/roles and that worked with new players wonderfully.

>>52721569
Feats are the spice that's meant to make your characters unique from every other character that takes the same class/role/powers.

I sorta agree though, but the playtest classes are a lot better about it.

>>52720739
>>52720781
>>52720827
>>52720835
>>52720959
Why are roleplayers such faggots /tg/?

Everytime someone comes in trying to roleplay, they always scoff when it comes time to roll dice and they're always incompetent, to the point where we have to carry their asses to the finish line while they're too busy patting themselves on the back for being so useless.

>>52712445
No.

>>52716853
Mutants and Masterminds

>>52725298
because role-players are narcissists who care more about the epic xDDD stunts they can perform rather than advance the game

Does anyone in this thread actually play games or is this all armchair rpg theory? Because it's reading like a slightly more retarded version of the forge.

>>52726369
No.

>>52726369
But that monk's dinner is looking pretty alright to be honest with you.

File: 1489707069020.jpg (50KB, 564x564px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 564x564px

>>52728684

I could do without the parsnip but everything else looks comfy as fuck.

>>52721699
I think the building a character by cards legitimately has huge potential, I would love to see it fully fleshed out somewhere. Cards are just so much more space efficient than a normal character sheet.

>>52712445
A beer, a raw parsnip, a loaf of bread, a wedge of cheese and thou.

>>52726369
I just got finished with my around fiftieth game of 5e tonight. Druid, wild elf. Out of all editions it seems most like 3e to me. It de-emphasized feats which yeah, ok great start but all that does in the end is seriously hamper martials. Again.
Every single edition is a nerfed edition of the ones before it. I find it highly funny how 4e is so touted around here now after years of being routinely eviscerated on tg. Yet 4e nerfed things too. While playing 4e I finally realized our group plays ""our"" way, period. Not much matters beyond that and no splat could change that unless we allow it too. My friends banned bladesingers and wild mages. Would you?

>>52717734
haha WOW! a screencap!

guess I can't like things anymore!

In all seriousness, DND is not ideal, of course but it is what everyone knows and I can't get people to try other systems. I want to try all sorts of stuff but I can't because everyone wants to play dnd because they saw fag mercer's gay ass youtube channel.

It does well enough though, I don't get the huge amounts of hate on this board. It's not like everything needs to be either the best or absolute shit.

also that metaphor is retarded.

>>52717707
Heed not the Luddites who rage against that which is beyond them. GURPS is a top-tier system and I've yet to hear a counter-argument to that statement that I can see any validity in.

>>52718966
Literally the reason I'm unable to move beyond Pathfinder, my group won't touch systems more exotic than that.

>>52730226
For the most part, the people who were hating 4e THAT much were assblasted 3.PF fans and people parroting memes that generally had little basis in reality.

>>52712445
D&D causes brain damage, frankly.

File: daffy.jpg (14KB, 400x481px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x481px

>>52716070
my group is like that. gamists who want a low challenge level for the players. it's all about getting XP and upgrading your char.

whereas i am a (genre) simulationist with a desire for a high challenge level.

>mfw

>>52716853
not better but a futuristic alternative is the Deathwatch RPG

>>52717245
>>52717389
you have to wonder though if good systems don't become more popular over time

>>52717314
>it sometimes takes this to a point that it attempts to be a simulation instead of a game
these were the sign of the times, anon-kun. this attempt defines the immediate post-old-school era

>WE SEE A WORG KILL IT FAT EXP TIME
>YOU PICKED THE WRONG PARTY TO ROB PUNKS
both sound eerily familiar, kek

>>52717747
>inb4 why does teegee keep shilling strike

>>52725298
>>52726347
>rollplayers try to pretend they're anything other than pissbabbies who don't have the balls to play a proper wargame, and instead just want to beat the GM-controlled opfor that is designed to be weaker than them

KYS. :)

>>52719950
underrated post

>>52721274
sure but when a mediocre game is hugely popular, it's kinda bad

>>52733893
Proponents of American Football would disagree.

>>52712445
>Hey guys let's try to have fun!
FUCKING 5E RETARDSWSDSDS!!!11!!

>>52733787
>GM's MUST make spoonfeeder dungeons!
>don't like it? play $40k instead xDD
that's wrong

Roleplay and rollplay are two sides of the same coin. It's a false dichotomy. One is not mutually exclusive with the other, people are allowed to find math fun and like random chance while also enjoying getting in-character. I find those "storytelling" systems painfully boring and mechanically lacking, but I find wargaming doesn't hit the spot for me in terms of narrative engagement and being able to identify with and respond to threats from the perspective of my character.

Stormwind fallacy 2: Electric Boogaloo - the Thread.

>>52720337
There's also a difference between a 2000 mile road trip and a trip to the closest beach once a week.

>>52717707
Fuck right off mate. You're not even seriously presenting GURPS as an alternative, you're just using it's meme status as bait.

File: 1491623207696.gif (7KB, 130x142px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 130x142px

5e so far is the worst of all world's d&d editions. It's so very, very full. Every edition before it tried to move forward, at least. This is just a huge step back into the 3e pile of shit that the world didn't need. Also I don't care how many people it brings to the hobby. Look at what 3e did and you argue the industry is better off because of it. That's pitiful. I'd rather d&d just die off already and let some innovation through, goddamn. People will still play it and someday when it's good again, others will be allowed to make money off it from being a superior choice to other games. As it stands, that will never happen. Fuck d&d. It has tons of awesome creators and writers but let the fucking thing die.

>>52738915
*Dull, not full. Sorry, 4chan.

File: belgianwhite1.jpg (94KB, 607x512px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 607x512px

There's a lot of the autism spectrum represented in this thread already, but 4srs everyone, it might not be a parsnip. It's probably a 1st edition carrot. Shit didn't use to be just orange. Get your carrots straight. Fuck.

I can almost imagine myself on the forge right now. It's as if Ron Edwards soul fragmented into a hundred screaming autists.

>>52730499
Their screeches much like dogs barking annoy me.

>>52715855
>>>/ck/

>>52712445
>roleplay, based on the words it is made of, can be interpreted as 'playing a role' like a fucking actor or 'playing a role' as part of a strategy.
>"He'll be playing the role of Hamlet" compared to "Your role in this op will be maintaining comms and hacking into the vault itself."
>mfw 'rollplay' is technically 'roleplay'
>mfw no face

I really don't quite understand anyone who would play tabletop purely for mechanics and such without putting any effort into story.

I get enough of that kind of shit from vidya.

>>52720123

suffering as a group with people you love is its own reward

>>52717155

3e was about options and new rulesets from 2e. Want to play an eastern monk? There from the start. Want to build a magic-robot maker? There's one in the official splatbook. Want to do something? Good chance there's a skill for it.

Seriously, it's flaws are 99% shitplayers and shit GMs that go fucking screaming down the douchenozzle thatguy route instead of enjoying the game and trying to make that balance of rules and options fun.

>>52720076
If he isn't being disruptive, don't kick him out. If everyone else in the group is having fun and he just fades into the background during RP then don't worry. Just consider him the silent warrior/mage that is in every group of protagonists and let him kill shit.

File: 24d.jpg (29KB, 521x509px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 521x509px

>>52715938

>>52716802
OD&D is great for roleplaying as adrenaline junky assholes crawling into holes full of monsters to steal their shit because they find it more palatable than pledging fealty to some lord.

Which, by the way, is flavorful as hell.

>>52733787
>Wanting a game to have mechanical depth and rewarding player skill means that the player should invest in 40k.
You're not really making roleplayers look like any better senpai, it just seems as though roleplayers just want to be spoonfed awesome moments for the sake of plot.

>>52744718
Well when you understand what your character can do and you don't have to wait for the DM's personal interpretation on what's most appropriate to use for an action, it generally allows you to roleplay more effectively because you know what you'd do in a particular situation.

Put it another way, it's much easier to let go and become immersed in the game when you're not worrying about whether or not you applied the correct modifiers to the correct portions of your character.

>>52717155
>4e
if i wanted to play a video game i would

>>52744903
The real flaw comes from the fact that everything that made Fighters and Mages balanced between one another got phased out or nerfed.
>Back then, mages got penalties to their INIT for casting certain spells, now most spells only cost a standard action.
>Anti-Magic used to be a percentage chance of a spell just not working and couldn't be affected by the mage's level, as opposed to SR which can be rendered moot thanks to the mage's class levels being added as a bonus to the roll.
>90% of all spells target WILL, which most martials will have as their weakest save.
>Back then, the amount of HP that you received was actually capped once you reached mid-level, as opposed to now where you get HD+CON.
>Martials generally leveled faster and got perks like guilds and armies, as opposed to now where anyone can have one with the leadership feat.
Among other things. If shit people ruined games, it's because the rules allowed it to happen.

I like L5R.

>>52717155
>>1e and 2e are legitimately good "crawl into dark places, kill things, and take their stuff" games.

You mean cobbled together ideas without any coherent direction or consistency, right? Because 1 and 2e are entirely just trying to figure out what the fuck they were doing. Fucking half of character creation is dm privy information spread across 200 pages you have to bookmark because its in no particular order bullshit that was.

>>52747736
No AD&D 2e had itself pretty fucking figured out, you could make that argument for 1e or OD&D, yeah, because they were entirely new things, but not 2e.

>>52716070
I actually kind of agree. Can't find a rebuttal to this.

>>52717183
Babarians are the subhumans of german folk.

>>52747795
I disagree heavily. OD&D was a very focused, arguably even refined design with a few legacy weirdnesses.

AD&D was a bloated collection of houserules with no unifying design ideal behind them. It was really the beginning of the end (the "end" here being 3rd edition).

>>52747688
but none of the D&D videogames use the 4e ruleset :^)

>>52747709
And those players chose to be shit.

I've only had one DnD campaign (3.5) where it was a cluster fuck of suck because one guy decided he want to power game, complained about everything, and generall was a dickhole. He last 2 sessions before we kicked him out and had a wonderful campaign.

Hate the player not the game (or alternatively, only shitty mechanics blame the tools).

>>52748050
>Barbarians are the subhuman german folk.
there, i fixed it.

>>52748629
Shitty mechanics are exactly the problem with 3.x

>>52748705
Like i said, I've only had one problem with 3.x and that's been shitty players. that campaign? 2 years long, lots of fun and stories and very little dipshitery/powergaming.

(that being said, 3.x tends to be a very difficult system to use well, but when done well it shines quite a bit, so again, hate the players not the game.)

>>52748735
>>52748705
oh and to be even more of a shit, the only shity players i've encountered are the ones who complain about the rules of a system they happen to be playing.

(i wonder if you know what aberrant is, and how fucked you have to be to play it)

>>52748629
>>52748735
>>52748761
>And those players chose to be shit.
Not necessarily. If you're playing in a game that rewards power gaming by hiding nuggets of diamond among a mountain of shit, it's just as much an issue with the game as it is with the player(s) at that point.

Think about it, you don't hear about any horror stories on the level of 3.PF games in shit like WoD or ShadowRun, and it's mainly because even if there is a broken ability that makes one PC marginally more powerful than the other, the game will also make it so that players aren't arbitrarily locked out of certain options based on which options they chose at character creation.

If you've only dealt with a single person then good for you, but realize that those people are generally the rule when looking for groups for 3.PF since the game encourages that sort of behavior.

>>52748735
Liking how shit tastes doesn't make it stop being shit. The system absolutely works and can be fun, but it's in spite of the mechanics, not because of them. It's a cobbled-together disaster that was '''''''playtested''''''' with such fine characters as a 12-int wizard.

>>52748785
I do, and i identify them quickly. hence the teo pump chump mentioned.

I GM a lot (though not exclusively) and have played a lot of games. I have horror stories from all of them (BESM especially), and all of those problems can be traced back to a person choosing to be shitty.

I don't really care if the system is obtuse, as a GM party balance is integral to my though process, so wizards who break the game get merked hard. I'm also unforgiving when i think someones a shit. so maybe my approach scares that shit away?

>>52748786
No it does not, but hating shit because someone threw at you makes as much sense *to me* as shitting on a game because shitheads flock to it. I also think it did a lot of things right, and the things it did wrong can be solved with clever GMing (in my opinion).

It's mechanics are *all right* for casual play, when the gm knows what they are doing, which if your playing with newer people is a godsend.

But the root of the problem is shitty players (the point of this), not shitty games. People who take advantage of things in ill faith. They are what makes shit unbearable for me.

>>52748847
>I don't really care if the system is obtuse, as a GM party balance is integral to my though process, so wizards who break the game get merked hard.
What does this mean exactly?
>But the root of the problem is shitty players (the point of this), not shitty games.
Shitty games condone and encourage shitty behavior though.

>>52748873
>What does this mean exactly?
it means i can and do run any system i feel like and punish for being a shitty player. I'll give the wizard less experience (f they are older they learn slower) because they are overshadowing the party. Murderhobo distrupting scene? sucks to be that guy for any onumber of in context reasons.

I punish players for being shitty people. that's what that ment.

>Shitty games condone and encourage shitty behavior though.
Shitty Gm's allow for that be the case. Players still choose to be shits. Game does not force you to break your character, you choose what feat spells abilities you develop as you play, you choose to be a shit when you make a broken character (on purpose) and refuse to change it.

The root of the problem i shitty players, not shitty games.

>>52748919
>it means i can and do run any system i feel like and punish for being a shitty player.
What does it mean to be a shitty player though? Like what's your criteria for good players vs. shit players?
> I'll give the wizard less experience (f they are older they learn slower) because they are overshadowing the party.
That's the way that the wizard is designed though. I'm not saying that I condone a class that's able to do everything but at the same time, you shouldn't be punishing the players for using the abilities that their class gives them.
>Game does not force you to break your character, you choose what feat spells abilities you develop as you play, you choose to be a shit when you make a broken character (on purpose) and refuse to change it.
Full casters as a whole don't need feats to be broken though, even then, why even let them in your party if you're going to dock XP for using their powers?

>>52712445
Why are all the "heavy role players" just a bunch of angry free-form, fun hating faggots?

>What? There is a mechanic attached to your action? STOP ROLLPLAYING

>>52749011
>you shouldn't be punishing the players for using the abilities that their class gives them.
Not that anon, but yeah, sometimes you should.
Well, technically you should talk to them like an adult.
But failing that, if they are "using the abilities that their class gives them" to ruin the game for others, you adjust.
"It's what my character can do" is actually worse than "It's what my character would do" as an excuse for being shitty.
I ran a 3.x game once with a former GM playing a maxxed out wizard.
But he played it like Gandalf the White guiding Fell's Five.
It was cool because he didn't do absolutely everything he could at all times.
I rewarded him by occasionally sending insanely unbalanced enemies for him to show off against every so often.

>>52749011
>why even let them in your party if you're going to dock XP for using their powers?
Also, it doesn't have to be all or nothing.

>>52719622
One that Dawnforged came up with which I actually like and use is the 'Better Crits' rule. The idea is that when you crit you get your regular max damage for any dice you would roll and then roll your weapon dice (only you're weapon dice) again and add that on top. This means crits will always be better than regular hits (i.e. you can't roll nothing but 1s and have a really low damage crit). They also suggested that if you roll max damage on your weapon die(dice) then you roll them again and repeat until you don't roll max for exponential damage. I don't do that because that seems a like little too much. Also one of the first things you should do is make your own equipment, alchemical potions and magic items. Lots of freedom to create there.

>>52749171
>Well, technically you should talk to them like an adult.
The fact that you think that talking to people like an adult is "technically" correct speaks volumes of your emotional maturity.
>"It's what my character can do" is actually worse than "It's what my character would do" as an excuse for being shitty.
Then why did you allow the class in the first place? If you're going to sperg out because the wizard used "grease" to knock the boss prone then you're better off just not running the system.
>>52749184
No, but considering how many spells the wizard have that are useful vs. the number of combat feats that are useful, the wizard breaking the game isn't a matter of if, but when.

>>52720782
Like Inquisitor? Actually the way my old group was playing Inquisitor was probably not the way it was meant to be played but it resembled what you're describing.

>>52716070
This

>>52749270
>The fact that you think that talking to people like an adult is "technically" correct speaks volumes of your emotional maturity.
Considering that I think only one other anon in this thread has even mentioned communicating in order to resolve these issues, I think you may be right.
Thank you for the compliment.

>Then why did you allow the class in the first place?
At the risk of repeating myself, it doesn't have to be all or nothing.

>If you're going to sperg out because the wizard used "grease" to knock the boss prone
Who's doing that?

>considering how many spells the wizard have that are useful vs. the number of combat feats that are useful, the wizard breaking the game isn't a matter of if, but when.
I agree.
The wizard breaks the game *when* they choose to.

To me this argument goes back to:
>>52748785
>If you're playing in a game that rewards power gaming by hiding nuggets of diamond among a mountain of shit, it's just as much an issue with the game as it is with the player(s) at that point.
In practice, the game only rewards power gaming if you allow the game to reward it.

>>52749447
>The wizard breaks the game *when* they choose to.
No, the wizard breaks the game the moment they have a surplus of spells that can be used for a variety of different ways. Keep in mind, as early as level 5, the wizard can fly, shoot lightning, turn invisible, and has access to spells like hold person, wind wall, and haste just as a consequence of playing the game. Do you think that a wizard has a choice in not being broken when the bulk of their spells are designed to be broken?
>In practice, the game only rewards power gaming if you allow the game to reward it.
If you have to spend time not focusing on enriching the game just to make sure that nobody is power gaming, doesn't that kinda prove the point that the game allows power gaming in the first place?

>>52749534
>Do you think that a wizard has a choice in not being broken when the bulk of their spells are designed to be broken?
Yes.
Just because they are given a larger toolbox, they aren't forced to hammer nails with a sledgehammer, or take over the job of every other PC, or whatever other sins they might commit if they chose to.

>If you have to spend time not focusing on enriching the game just to make sure that nobody is power gaming,
This is not nearly the timesink you are presenting it as.

>doesn't that kinda prove the point that the game allows power gaming in the first place?
Sure, the game allows it, but most any game allows powergaming, if the GM allows it to happen.

>>52749714
>Just because they are given a larger toolbox, they aren't forced to hammer nails with a sledgehammer, or take over the job of every other PC, or whatever other sins they might commit if they chose to.
The thing is, because they have a larger toolset, they have every type of hammer in the book, in addition to whatever tools they might need to pull off the job that they're shooting for. If the other PC's can only choose between a ball-peen hammer, a sledge hammer, and having nails, that's an issue with the game, not the players.
>This is not nearly the timesink you are presenting it as.
Even if it's ten seconds, that's still ten seconds that's not being focused on the game.
>Sure, the game allows it, but most any game allows powergaming, if the GM allows it to happen.
Most games don't give one set of characters hundreds of game-breaking spells while giving the other ones jack-and-shit to work with either.

>>52749789
>If the other PC's can only choose between a ball-peen hammer, a sledge hammer, and having nails, that's an issue with the game, not the players.
And if the player chooses to intentionally utilize that issue to worsen the game for the other players, the player is the problem.

>Even if it's ten seconds, that's still ten seconds that's not being focused on enriching the game.
So is time spent fetching dropped dice.

>Most games don't give one set of characters hundreds of game-breaking spells while giving the other ones jack-and-shit to work with either.
That's not the point.
Or rather, it's not the point of what I'm discussing.
Your point is clearly that you don't like the system.
That's a fine opinion, but if you'd let go of that for a moment, you might be able to stay on track while we discuss this.

>>52719522
>5e is meant to be modified for your group
Prove it.

>>52749962
>And if the player chooses to intentionally utilize that issue to worsen the game for the other players, the player is the problem.
Not really, because if the game is stupid enough to give one dude every tool available to mankind while giving everyone else the choice between a ballpeen hammer, a sledgehammer, and some nails, it's the game's fault, not the player. If I'm able to utilize a full toolkit and the game assumes that I'll be using said toolkit, why the fuck wouldn't I use my full toolkit?
>So is time spent fetching dropped dice.
That has nothing to do with this discussion, stay focused.
>Your point is clearly that you don't like the system.
No, my point is that you shouldn't be punishing a player for utilizing the full range of their character's power when you allowed the class to be played in the first place. Before replying, you should make sure that you fully understand what's actually being discussed.

>>52750036
>why the fuck wouldn't I use my full toolkit?
So as to not shit on the game.
Much like, although you have a sledgehammer, you don't use it to hammer a nail.

>That has nothing to do with this discussion, stay focused.
I'm not the one digressing into seconds spent not focusing on enriching the game.
But fine.
Stay On Target.

>No, my point is that ...
If that was your point, you didn't do a very good job expressing yourself.
But let's stay on target:

>you shouldn't be punishing a player for utilizing the full range of their character's power when you allowed the class to be played in the first place.
The class and its abilities are part of the game, just like the freedom of action is part of the game.
I would "punish" the player for taking any action that worsens the game for everyone.
The game allows them to betray the party, directly or indirectly damage or kill other PCs, run off from the group, and many other choices of action.
Are you saying you shouldn't be punishing a player for utilizing the full range of their character's possible actions when you allowed the game to be played in the first place?

>>52750036
>>52750171
Both of you should just play a better game - one that's not DnD.

>>52750171
>Much like, although you have a sledgehammer, you don't use it to hammer a nail.
I'm not trying to use a sledgehammer, I'm trying to use a ballpeen hammer to hammer some nails and you're trying to punish me for doing so.
>I'm not the one digressing into seconds spent not focusing on enriching the game.
I'm saying that you, as a GM, are wasting time that could've been spent on improving the campaign trying to come up with ways to punish the mage for being a mage. A die rolling off the table has nothing to do with this because it's something that would only happen during play.
>If that was your point, you didn't do a very good job expressing yourself.
Or you have poor reading comprehension since I've clearly explained it here >>52749011
>That's the way that the wizard is designed though. I'm not saying that I condone a class that's able to do everything but at the same time, you shouldn't be punishing the players for using the abilities that their class gives them.

1/2

>>52748785
Just because you can fuck something. Doesn't mean you should.

>>52750171
2/2
>I would "punish" the player for taking any action that worsens the game for everyone.
The thing is, you're punishing players for using the abilities that their class grants them and it'd be no different than punishing the Barbarian for doing more damage than the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue in the party. If you seriously have issues with mages, then don't let people play mages. Most people would rather you do that than dock XP for being good at the game.
>The game allows them to betray the party, directly or indirectly damage or kill other PCs, run off from the group, and many other choices of action.
Not even comparable to this situation. The wizard isn't betraying the Rogue by casting invisibility on himself.
>Are you saying you shouldn't be punishing a player for utilizing the full range of their character's possible actions when you allowed the game to be played in the first place?
You ask this, yet you still think you're a good DM?

>>52748785
Actually, you hear horror stories about those games all the time - just not here. It's trivially easy to summon and bind 20 die elementals using rituals in most Shadowrun editions, and nearly impossible to combat them. And WoD is so fucking broken it makes D&D look positively stable.

>>52750299
Why shouldn't I? If the game rewards me for power-gaming, expects me to power-game, and gives me the tools to effectively power-game with, why shouldn't I do it? If anything, wouldn't the people who aren't power-gaming in the wrong?

>>52750345
Yeah, we've heard this argument before. it's called being That guy and ruining other people's fun for your own pleasure.

>>52750320
Yet at the same time, a) In ShadowRun there are also creatures that can easily wipe the floor with your 20 die elementals if you decide to piss off enough corps to become a legitimate threat to their assets and b) Any broken bullshit that you can perform can easily be performed by anyone else, including creatures that are much higher on the totem pole than you are.

Compared to wizards, who have several means of just ignoring the weaknesses that they actually do have and can only really be countered by another mage of equal or greater power, it's actually not that big of a deal.

>>52750261
Ok so, obviously you're missing the point multiple anons are making at you.

The player makes the choice to ABUSE his choices.

That's what makes him a shitty player, and a good GM will PUNISH ABUSE.

Now, defining abuse before you're brain implodes from the dumb; using your options to create and imbalance in power for yourself, choosing to be dickhead.

Want the like you out yourself as a dickhead analogy? Just because you CAN fuck the passed out girl with no repercussions, doesn't mean you SHOULD. The girl isn't to blame for being passed out (and if you think that you are reprehensible) you are to blame for sticking your dick where it doesn't belong.

And yes, I compare power gamers to rapists, because the mentality is the fucking same.

They make the CHOICE to ABUSE

That's what a shitty player is, one who chooses to abuse the system for thier benefit. A shitty system might be easy to abuse, but it's a shitty player who abuses it.

>>52750345
So you're a rapist then?

>>52750374
Am I that guy for using invisibility and fly to avoid a group of hobgoblins below me? Am I THAT GUY for using hold person on the bog witch who would've otherwise murdered the party? Am I THAT GUY for summoning monsters to act as an extra layer of defense between us and a big nasty that would've otherwise killed us with its impressive reach?

No, I'm just playing the game, using the abilities given to me by default in the CRB. If people have an issue with that, they shouldn't have picked a worthless class that only afford to do two things, and not very well to boot.
>>52750435
Where the fuck did this come from? We're just talking about a game you sick fuck, get help!

>>52750448
Didnt you say you'd totally abuse something that is easy to abuse?

>>52750461
Is raping really that easy in your country? Here we have law enforcements which makes it incredibly hard to safely rape.

>>52750485
In the game you have law enforcement via GM and punishment via narrative.

>>52750419
>The player makes the choice to ABUSE his choices.
How is using a spell as intended abusing his choices?
>using your options to create and imbalance in power for yourself, choosing to be dickhead.
Even if I went out of my way not to cast any spells for the entirety of the campaign, the martials would still suck dick and would end up needing my spells to progress through the game anyways, so what's the point?
>And yes, I compare power gamers to rapists, because the mentality is the fucking same.
Seriously, get help. I'm not even joking with you, seek help, because you're no longer operating in our reality anymore.
>A shitty system might be easy to abuse, but it's a shitty player who abuses it.
Or because the system is so shitty that a player can accidentally break the game just by playing it as intended.

>>52750485
Also would it change anything if it was? Why are laws the only thing preventing you from rape?

Why are rules the only preventing you from powergaming?

>>52750461
Abusing a game is in no way, shape, or form even tangibly related to rape anon. If you need this explained, either seek therapy or the nearest cliff.

>>52750494
>>52750510
see >>52750514

>>52750526
Abuse of power is still abuse of power.

Regardless of the context.

>>52750494
I'm not the other guy he was talking with, I just love rape.

>>52750510
Yes it kinda would, it would mean you live in a shit country. Law enforcement is so strict and hard to dodge that I have found its just easier to befriend the female and then go out with her like a normal person. Raping shouldn't be this hard. I wish we lived in medieval times.

>>52750552
That makes you a shitty person anon.

Means you're probably a shitty player too, and I wouldnt play with you.

>>52750544
No it isn't. It's like saying that because I spent an afternoon killing a goblin horde, it means that I like to set dogs and cats on fire.

>>52750571
Goblin hoard that's attacking you or can defend themselves intelligently? This is presuming in game, by yourself, without a party or narrative or any context what so ever, seriously. Or is the act of... What? Like you need context for that to be an abuse of power.

Dogs not doing anything and being dogs? This one doesn't need context to show you are abusing power.

Not comparable, or even showing an abuse of power.

>>52750568
You wouldn't ever know I was a shitty person if we played together. I don't mix sex with role playing, plus the penalization in role playing games is harsh as fuck.

>shitty person
And? There are a lot of shitty people out there, no one seems to care enough to do something about it, if communities did, the place would soon fall into anarchy. And a lawless land is just what I want.

Fantasy games aren't really lawless, a lvl 9 guard captain shows up out of nowhere if you don't behave. So I behave.

>>52750611
So to recap, rape requires context but killing something doesn't?

Screw this roleplay vs rollplay bullshit

A good D&D session can and should contain ALL of the following:
>Character driven drama
>Comedy
>Horror
>Tactically interesting combat
>Interesting noncombat decisions

Why only have one or two?

>>52750722
Too bad D&D is terrible at providing any of those, except maybe cheap, grating OOC 'muh beer and pretzels' humor.

>>52750654
The goblins hoarse does because it doesn't have... A focus? There are too many variables? It needs context to parse down the potential ambiguity involved. Rape has no ambiguity.

How about this;
Killing things for shits and giggles is an abuse of power (hence solo gaming and competitive gaming [gaming being entertainment that requires interaction, sports too] not being inherently abusive in using power to its fullest, the point is to win, so you win).

Goblin hoard needs context because it's not clear WHY you are killing hoard.

Burning cats and dogs? I don't really need to ask why. Same with rape.

At least in the context of using them as comparitives.

Rape is an abuse of power, powergaming (when you shouldn't be) is an abuse of power. Both are a conscious choice by the person commiting the act. Both are shitty things to do (regardless of magnitude I hate shitty things to do and the people who do them)

Making more sense now? I am talking principle.

>>52750461
>>52750419
>>52750435
>>52750299
>>52750544
>>52750611
More proof that D&D causes brain damage.

>>52750762
Too bad I've experiance all of those on a regular basis while playing the various versions of dnd. I've also not, but that was because a shitty player or Dm.

>>52750762
>the books must provide these thing
>not the GM

You are the problem with this hobby. No books provide any of those things at all.

>>52750810
Proof that guy never knows he's that guy.

I mean I'm a that guy, but I've weaponized it against my own kind.

>>52750802
You shouldn't even be trying to equate power-gaming to rape in the first place. What kind of autistic fucktard do you have to be to even consider those two things related?

>>52750810
more proof to add to the pile
>>52750827
>>52750802

>>52750835
The principle is the same, so the act matters little to me.

>>52750851
So you admit you have severe autism

>>52750851
>The principle is the same
No it isn't.

>>52750870
Dude, changes nothing you haven't refuted the point. My mental state doesn't change the message yo which is;

An abuse of power is a shitty thing to do, regardless of context. You can be a shitty person, or you accept that and stop blaming a (albeit shitty) tool for why people don't like playing with you.

I mean that's what this is about, right? You had a shitty experience playing dnd (maybe as the broken wizard) got called in it and freaked? Now you blame shitty systems for letting you do things you shouldn't (not technically shouldn't, like soul? Morality? Shouldn't)

I mean if your ok with being a shitty person, stop arguing and walk away, if not keep defending your hill or chose to stop being shitty. There's really only one path out of there yo.

>>52750889
How isn't it? Denial isn't an argument, and the burden of proof is on you.

I contend, power gaming is an abuse of power, as it allows for some to take the fun out of something simply by choosing to do so. Rape is an abuse of power because I know you get this one (even if the law allowed it)

Both, on principle, are shitty things to do to someone else, even if the magnitude doesn't match.

>>52750944
This is the opposite of a non-autistic reply
Also
>yo
>there is only one way out of this, either I'm right or I'm right
Absolutely autism, specially with the speech mannerism on a public world wide internet text board.

>>52751021
So your argument is?

>>52751000
>How isn't it?
Because people don't usually go to therapy or commit suicide because some dude decided to play a competent wizard while they were stuck with an unoptimized fighter.

>>52751039
You're sick, seek mental help. All your opinions should be disregarded. A normal person wouldn't immediately think about rape when talking about power abuse, a normal person would think about a boss mistreating its employees, or something like that.

Your autism doesn't let you see how sick and mentally ill your opinions are.

>>52751039
Either you're so autistic that you'd equate someone getting a +30 to their skill check to holding someone down and sticking something up their ass without their consent or you're rusing and had no intention of continuing this discussion. At this point, we've veered so far off the original argument that we're just making fun of you at this point.

Your players only put up with you because they're too chickenshit to either find a new group or volunteer to run their own.

>>52750261
>I'm not trying to use a sledgehammer, I'm...
Now you're just nitpicking the metaphor

>I'm saying that you, as a GM, are wasting time
And I addressed that.
Now you, as a poster, are wasting time
Stay On Target.

>>52750261
>Or you have poor reading comprehension since I've clearly explained it here
Or you have poor reading comprehension since you poorly explained it here >>52749789
>Most games don't give one set of characters hundreds of game-breaking spells while giving the other ones jack-and-shit to work with either.

>>52750319
>If you seriously have issues with mages
#NotAllMages

>The wizard isn't betraying the Rogue by casting invisibility on himself.
The wizard player is kinda betraying the Rogue player though.
>Player1 builds a stealthy rogue design to sneak and open doors.
>Player2 builds a mage and specifically prepares Invisibility and Knock out of all the possible spells.
>Player2: "What? I had the option to compete for your speciality, so I had to do it! Blame the system!"

>You ask this, yet you still think you're a good DM?
I notice you didn't answer the question.
I'll answer yours though: Yes, motherfucker.
The system allows a player to take first watch and slit the entire parties throats while they sleep.
It's a real, valid option that I would discourage just as I would discourage the real, valid option of using the system to play a mage that ruins everyone's fun.

The answer isn't to find a system without shitty flaws, the answer is to find, or make, players without shitty flaws and then play the system that best fits the game that everyone wants.

>>52750345
>Why shouldn't I?
To not be a dick.

>But I'm allowed to be a dick by RAW!
Not at my table.

>I'm only being a dick because the game allows it!
No you're being a dick because you want to, even if it's just to satisfy your urge to make others hate the system.
Too bad it just makes us hate you.
Because you're a dick.

>>52751118
>>52751110
So your argument is that I'm sick for thinking rape is an abuse of power?

I used it because it's a stark and unarguable principal. Rape is an abuse of power.

In choosing to be a wizard you have a higher capacity for power, it's your responsibility as a decent player to not abuse that power (this making the other players moot). You choose to abuse that power by becoming overly powerful compared to the rest of the people around you. You abuse your power to choose in doing doing so, and that abuse effects someone else Ina negative way.

Principal matters.

The argument started with (btw);
Shitty players (powergaming under that umbrella) make for shitty games, shitty systems just makes it easier. Don't blame the system, blame the rapist.

>>52750810
>More proof that D&D causes brain damage.
This >>52750571 is brain damage.

>>52751209
>Don't blame the system, blame the rapist.
I seriously hope this is bait.

>>52751121
>Now you're just nitpicking the metaphor
No, I'm pointing out how flawed the metaphor is.
>Now you, as a poster, are wasting time
Which doesn't matter because neither of us are in the middle of a game or preparing to run one ATM.
>Or you have poor reading comprehension
Nope, still you.
>The wizard player is kinda betraying the Rogue player though.
Rogues have UMD as a skill so he could've asked the wizard to prepare a wand of invisibility and knock beforehand.
>I'll answer yours though: Yes, motherfucker.
I beg to differ.
>No you're being a dick because you want to, even if it's just to satisfy your urge to make others hate the system.
Dude, I'm just trying to play a fucking wizard here. 3.PF has been out for over a decade, it's not a recent thing that mages are broken as fuck and if you allow people to play mages in spite of it, that's on you bro.

>>52751232
You're not nearly as clever as you think you are rape-anon.

>>52751110
>A normal person wouldn't immediately think about rape when talking about power abuse
wut?

>>52751259
I'm rape anon, that's just back up.

>>52751259
I'm not either rape anon.
I just know a complete inabilty to compare concepts in a rational manner when I see one.

>>52751209
Again, I don't see many people going to therapy or committing suicide because someone else in the party made them obsolete. I've also never seen someone contract an STD or get pregnant from someone playing a wizard either.

A house cat and a tiger are the same thing according to your warped logic since they're both felines yet I'm sure that most people (read: non-autistics) would agree that more people have died from being mauled by tigers than by getting bitten by a house-cat.

It's not even an abuse of power because the only reason why the wizard is even able to use his abilities is because YOU, as in, THE DM, allowed him to play that class in the first place.

>>52751270
I know right? He's try to make it sound like sick to discredit my rational, without attack the rational itself!

It's almost as if he want to be able to abuse power or something!

File: 1437641347673.jpg (51KB, 555x344px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 555x344px

>>52751296
>He says, when the post was in response to someone trying to equate power-gaming to rape.

>>52751241
>No, I'm pointing out how flawed the metaphor is.
Now you're just nitpicking how I described you nitpicking the metaphor

>Which doesn't matter because neither of us are in the middle of a game or preparing to run one ATM.
>Time only matters when you are in the middle of a game or preparing to run one.
You need to reexamine your life.

>>Or you have poor reading comprehension
>Nope, still you.
I beg to differ

>Rogues have UMD as a skill so he could've asked the wizard to prepare a wand of invisibility and knock beforehand.
Doesn't change the fact that the wizard specifically chose to do the rogue's speciality out all possible options.
Stop sidestepping.

>I beg to differ.
How would you know?
Never mind.
Stay On Target.

>Dude, I'm just trying to play a fucking wizard here.
>3.PF has been out for over a decade, it's not a recent thing that mages are broken as fuck, so I can be sick as much as I want and blame the system
You are playing a mage and abusing the options in order to be a dick.

>>52751296
There is only one

>>52751327
You conflate principal with reality. Ideas arent cats anon. The are ideas. The principal point of rape is power abuse, the principal act of powergaming is power abuse.

Fun right?

>>52751352
I can show my (you)s. Up to a point, had to switch to my phone.

>>52751392
Both principals are supposed to say point, I'm not even proofreading any more.

>>52751352
Still a more rational comparison of concepts than what you posted.
But I understand that you don't get that.
Brain damage and all.

Feel free to reply with a cute reaction image.
I made my point.

>>52751392
>There is only one
I thought there was one that made the abuse analogy and another that was all: I be rapin' mad honeys, see!

>>52751390
>Now you're just nitpicking how I described you nitpicking the metaphor
Because the metaphor itself was poor, why would someone have a full toolkit yet pick the tool that doesn't work for the job?
>You need to reexamine your life.
And you need to work on your reading comprehension.
>Doesn't change the fact that the wizard specifically chose to do the rogue's speciality out all possible options.
If the mission is to enter a stronghold unseen, wouldn't it make sense to send in the dude who can do it without having to roll?
>How would you know?
Based off this conversation and your general attitude.
>You are playing a mage and abusing the options in order to be a dick.
No, I'm just trying to play my class and be useful here. It's not always a personal attack against your game anon.

Again, why even let me pick the class in the first place?

>>52751440
Ohhh right actual rapes anon. Forgot about him.

At least he knows what he is.

>>52751422
>Still a more rational comparison of concepts than what you posted.
Hello rape-anon
>I made my point.
That murder needs context but rape doesn't?

This thread gets stupider everyday.

>>52751447
>>52751447
>No, I'm just trying to play my class and be useful here. It's not always a personal attack against your game anon.

Because the other players want to do the same thing without you win buttoning it.

>Again, why even let me pick the class in the first place?

Because not letting you would be an abuse of power anon.

>>52751461
That's because D&D causes brain damage.

File: Screenshot_2017-04-17-11-30-04.png (329KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1080x1920px

>>52751460
I told I'd show you some (you)s

>>52751481
>Because the other players want to do the same thing without you win buttoning it.
Why didn't they pick wizards themselves? Why didn't they ask me for help? Why did you even let me play the class if you didn't want me auto-winning with my spells?
>Because not letting you would be an abuse of power anon.
YOU'RE THE FUCKING DM! YOU SET WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE PLAYED, NOT THE FUCKING PLAYERS!

Seriously, it's not an abuse of power to say "listen, we're going to be limiting our game to T3/T4 today because I wanted to run a balanced game," especially if you're upfront about this before the game even starts.

>>52751501
The fact that you agree with him puts you on the same level as him anon. You were better off being mistaken for him.

>>52751548
So your saying you need rule to you right from wrong?

>>52751447
Wow.
Just wow.

>>Doesn't change the fact that the wizard specifically chose to do the rogue's speciality out all possible options.
>If the mission is to enter a stronghold unseen, wouldn't it make sense to send in the dude who can do it without having to roll?
Doesn't change the fact that the wizard player specifically chose to do the rogue player's speciality out all possible options.
Wow, you're dense.

>>You are playing a mage and abusing the options in order to be a dick.
>No, I'm just trying to play my class and be useful here.
There is being useful and there is abusing the options in order to be a dick.
It is not all or nothing.

>Again, why even let me pick the class in the first place?
Again, it is not all or nothing.
Wow, you're dense.

At this point, I'm left just repeating myself.
If you're gonna be a contrarian troll, try not to be so stupid you can even continue without deflecting into the same points you're deflecting away from or have already been addressed.

This is either the saddest finish to a contrarian argument I've ever had on 4chan, or you actually do have brain damage.

>>52751572
I am him you dip shit.

>>52751460
Made me reply anyway.
Seriously not that anon.
We are not one guy.

Get some sleep man.

>>52751581
>Rules To tell you
Fuck me I hate my phone

>>52751581
What are you even trying to say?

>>52751623
See
>>52751620

>>52751548
Why is prohibiting classes fine but asking players not to dicks unthinkable?

>>52751658
Because it's bait.

They'll jump on it and say it's hypocrisy

>>52751589
>Doesn't change the fact that the wizard player specifically chose to do the rogue player's speciality out all possible options.
No, it changes everything. The Rogue player could fuck up, get caught, and possibly killed while the wizard can pass through the stronghold and unlock any door without getting caught, without having to make a single roll. It's risk management anon, the game put these spells here for a reason and the Rogue could've asked me for a solid so I donate a scroll or a wand or something.
>Again, it is not all or nothing.
If you're going to be this much of a baby about it, maybe it should. I'd rather you banned T1/T2 classes than get mad when they do their jobs.

>>52751620
Well it'd certainly be nice to know that mages are going to trigger you before we start the game than to start the game and discover that I'm losing like half my XP for the session.

>>52749300
I'd look at Mordheim, Frostgrave, Infinity, Malifaux

>>52717927
Yea. Whoever that artist was he really had ba way with really nice and warm colours.

>>52751721
Only when you're being an asshole about being a mage.

Which has been the whole point that you missed

Act like an asshole, get treated as one.

>>52751658
Because the whole crux of this argument hinges on your being butthurt about someone playing a class that can LITERALLY do everything in the game better than the niche classes.

If you were upfront and banned mages before game, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

>>52751744
>Only when you're being an asshole about being a mage.
For all I know, I'm losing XP because I used Hold Person against the living armor you prepared to throw at us that day or cast fly before going up to a mountain fortress.

Also, the irony of someone named "rapeanon" accusing others of being an asshole.

>>52751765
JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DO SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD

That was the whole point of using rape as a comparable. Because you shouldn't rape.

>>52751807
The pint of the Gam isn't exp or lvls or power anon

It's play, it's narrative, it's fun.

If you find exp grinding and leveling up fun, don't play ttrpgs play godamn wow.

I changed my name because id rather lessen your idiocy. I choose to make it easier to identify myself so it would be easier on you (taking a detriment to my power in order to make another party member useful)

File: this.jpg (23KB, 385x196px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 385x196px

>>52716070
This is entirely and 100% true.

>>52751815
Under that logic, just because you CAN allow people to play wizards, doesn't mean that you actually should, especially if you can't handle the casting spells.
>Because you shouldn't rape.
You say this, yet you still call yourself "Rapeanon."

>>52751693
>No, it changes everything. The Rogue player could fuck up, get caught, and possibly killed while the wizard can pass through the stronghold and unlock any door without getting caught, without having to make a single roll. It's risk management anon, the game put these spells here for a reason and the Rogue could've asked me for a solid so I donate a scroll or a wand or something.
>Missing the point this hard
So it is brain damage then.

Now I kinda feel bad for joking about it.

>>52749246
How's that translate to NPC/enemy units? Cause I think I heard somewhere the reason the Confirm-Crit aspect was a thing was to protect PCs moreso than nerfing them, to prevent a frequent scenario where players might get deleted by what most bosses have as overwhelming damage.

>>52751859
Narratively speaking, why wouldn't the wizard cast invisibility and knock to prevent the Rogue from taking a dangerous risk just to make the Rogue feel better about himself.

Tbh, if the game was actually balanced worth a damn, the Rogue would be the one learning these spells, not me.

>>52751901
See
>>52751859

I'm not running the game for you (and I trust not assholes to be good players with wizards, I've played with many wizards who don't negate an encounter the moment they can) I'm running it for everyone at the table

If your fun requires you to abuse your character, you don't have a place at my table.

>>52751910
Don't, he is choosing his fate.

How do we kill the autistic tripfaggot?

>>52751910
>So it is brain damage then.
Well at least you're self-aware enough to perform a self-diagnosis.

>>52751962
You still missed the point. By. So. Many.


Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiles

>>52751973
I can never die.

>>52751963
>I've played with many wizards who don't negate an encounter the moment they can
What kind of wizards were they?
>If your fun requires you to abuse your character, you don't have a place at my table.
I'm not even abusing my character, and desu, I wouldn't want to play at the table of someone who thinks that labeling themselves as "Rapeanon" is a good idea anyways.
>>52752006
Answer the question, if the wizard knows that he can do the Rogue's job better than the Rogue, why would they allow the Rogue to risk their life needlessly just so the Rogue's player feels better about themselves?

Gandalf didn't sit back and let Bilbo and the crew take on a Balrog, he put himself in the line of fire because he knew the job was too big for them to survive.

But I imagine your reply will boil down to "you missed the point" because at this point D&D has rotted your brain so much that all you can do is repeat yourself and claim that rape is power-gaming for keeps or some stupid shit.

File: 609c49af3556f385d35f96885a8f65e4.jpg (13KB, 320x269px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 320x269px

>>52751975
>>So it is brain damage then.
>Well at least you're self-aware enough to perform a self-diagnosis.

>>52752098
Again, labeled myself for you anon. So that you'd see other people think you're a piece of shit.

Why don't you come up with answers to any of the questions I've asked first? I mean, we can run hypotheticals, but I'm talking about choosing to be a dick again with magic and abusing your powers as a wizard.

Situationals are also moot.

I don't think a person should do something that will detract from the experiance of another just because hey can. I think it makes you a shitty.player when you only care about exp and lvls and what spells you've cast. I think you are shitty person because you can't see that, and continue to argue poorly.

You're a child anon, only a child gets mad when he's told the way he's playing with his toy is hurting other people. And then blame the toy, not yourself for using the toy like a dickhead.

To go back to the rape!

'Look at how drunk she is, shes just asking for it!' is the equivalent behaviour. (In regards to abusing a system because you can and it's easy to do so.)

>>52752098
>Gandalf didn't sit back and let Bilbo and the crew take on a Balrog
Not that anon, but here's a question for you, sugartits: Is a Cave troll and a couple goblins so much stronger than a Balrog that Gandalf needed to fight alongside everyone in order to beat it when he soloed the Balrog?

>>52752224
>So that you'd see other people think you're a piece of shit.
One other dude, out of 103 unique IPs. The horror.
>Why don't you come up with answers to any of the questions I've asked first?
Because you'd just ignore it because it isn't what you want to hear before falling back to making shitty rape analogies while going on about how rape is bad m'kay?

>>52752310
So far, a few I can count not him or myself (by writing style mostly)

Also, no I wouldn't. You are making argument because you don't have any. You haven't argued a single point in here successfully. Unlike you, if that had happened I'd have responded to then with rationality.

Since you're saying I shouldn't I use The rape I analogy; The analogy is a tool that I shouldn't be using to make my point, but I am. I'm being a dick for doing so. Just because I CAN do something, doesn't mean I should.

(hopefully I'm not being too subtle here, I'm acting like you do, well rationally and intellectually, but still acting like you to prove a point. If you cannot see the point anon... I'm sorry. You just suck as a person)

>>52752418
>Arnt making
fucking phone goddamnit.

File: doubleking.png (38KB, 130x250px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 130x250px

i started having fun with D&D 5e when i started treating it less like an open-ended adventure where i can do anything i want when i want, and more like an vidya RPG where i'm better off for working within the GM's expectations

roleplaying is fine, but it becomes detrimental when you treat D&D 5e specifically like its a sandbox.

railroads aren't always a bad thing fellas

>>52752224
>'Look at how drunk she is, shes just asking for it!'
She literally is though.

What made her think being drunk without protective friends was a good idea? She honestly deserves it in my honest opinion. On the very least to teach her a lesson.

>>52736702
Guess in the everflowing cycles of newfags this knowledge was forgotten.

>>52752521
No she's not.

it's the other person's choice to rape her. Makes him an asshole

So yeah, you are rapist. Neat.

>>52752418
>Unlike you, if that had happened I'd have responded to then with rationality.
Yes anon, because you've been the picture of making calm and rational decisions this entire debate.
>The analogy is a tool that I shouldn't be using to make my point, but I am.
The analogy doesn't work even on a conceptual level anon, you'd actually be better off using a food analogy since at least then I'd think you were a fool, rather than a low-functioning autistic in serious need of either a reality check, therapy, or a long walk off a short pier.

If mages trigger you this much, don't let people play them and calmly explain why before the session even begins. It's not rocket science and if your group is as good as you claim they are, they shouldn't have an issue with this.

>>52752559
>So yeah, you are rapist
We already addressed this like 2 hours ago, when I last posted.

No, she made her choice when she decided to get drunk around males with no protection. It's not the train's fault someone stood in front of it.

>>52752559
Not him but you shouldn't accuse others of being rapists while calling yourself "Rapeanon." I understand why you did it but it's sending some mixed signals here.

>>52752559

>Namefag

>shit opinion

weeeew

>>52752579
Hey tenderloin, you gonna respond to my question?
>>52752238

Or do you just want to admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about right now?

>>52752579
Mages don't trigger me dumbass. I've even stated that when a player isn't playing a mage like a Dickerson I have no problems with them.

>>52752592
So she stuck the guys dick in her right? I mean her being drunk forced his dick into her? She made the decision for HIM to rape her? I feel you don't know what rape is anon.

Which means you probably don't know right from wrong.

Which makes you a rapist (condoning the evil actions of another makes you evil anon)

I mean I could say murderer if you want. Or pointy haired boss (a boss shouldn't be shitty to their employees just because they can)

>>52752614
Yeah, I did it mostly to prove a point he missed. Sad.

>>52752651
Just so we're clear, are you Rapeanon when he's at the computer or when he's on his phone?

Also, to answer your question, Gandalf probably could've solo'd those goblins and cave trolls but held back so he could save his strength for the real shit. Then again, my memory's a bit foggy so for all I know, he had some reason why he needed to fight alongside everyone or something.

>>52752719
>Mages don't trigger me dumbass. I've even stated that when a player isn't playing a mage like a Dickerson I have no problems with them.
Okay, well what kind of mage do those types of players usually play? Let me guess, evokers that gave up transmutation and conjuration?

>>52752719
>Yeah, I did it mostly to prove a point he missed.
I understand that but isn't that plan flawed? I mean, you can't really expect people to take you seriously while wearing a neon sign that reads "I like rape" or something to that effect.

Someone coming in sees your name, you've instantly lost any high ground you could've had from the start.

>>52752511
This is the greatest evidence that 5e causes brain damage in the thread.

I kid, I kid.
I just honestly can't imagine what you meant here.

>>52752719
>So she stuck the guys dick in her right?
She probably did if she hasn't completely pass out yet.

>Which means you probably don't know right from wrong.
Right and wrong is merely dictated by society, so its a social construct. On Muslim society, it is right to rape a heretic blue eyes blond female in all situations.

>Which makes you a rapist (condoning the evil actions of another makes you evil anon)
Evil is a social construct based on multiple things, just like in DnD.

The goblin isn't inherently evil, it is only evil from a human point of view.

>I mean I could say murderer if you want. Or pointy haired boss (a boss shouldn't be shitty to their employees just because they can)
No, I'm fine with rape. I love rape. I don't like murders. What's the point of murdering someone, if he doesn't get to experience what you did to him/her? Murder is wrong.

>>52752511
That has nothing to do with the system and everything to do with the kind of game your GM is trying to run.

>>52752729
>Just so we're clear, are you Rapeanon when he's at the computer or when he's on his phone?
Neither, sweetcheeks.

>Gandalf probably could've solo'd those goblins and cave trolls but held back so he could save his strength for the real shit.
Right.
Or maybe he did it cause he knew they could handle their own and it wasn't about saving up his power at all.
Maybe he's just letting them use theirs cause a wizard's wise enough to know that just cause he CAN throw power around, doesn't mean he SHOULD throw power around.

Hell, ol Ben Parker knew that an he's the deadest guy in the Marvel universe.

>>52752729
They play with whatever school of magic they want, they just don't make it a.point to solve the parties problems by bring over powered. They make the concious choice to be at the power level as the rest of the party. When they participate with the mentality 'lets play a story's and not 'lets win this one's

>>52752771
The entire point actually, I'm arguing from a moral lowground and still comming off as rational. Had I not used rape and use literally anything else it would have been different, yes, but I'm proving a very specific point.

>>52752779
Right.

So far I've pegged you at low cognitive, amoral, childish and reprehensible. Neat.

Rape is wrong, in all contexts when dealing with a Sapient that can give consent. You fuckwaffle.

You really are a terrible human being.

>>52752913
>They play with whatever school of magic they want, they just don't make it a.point to solve the parties problems by bring over powered.
What a perfect non-answer.
>The entire point actually, I'm arguing from a moral lowground and still comming off as rational.
You're failing horribly.

>>52752913
>So far I've pegged you at low cognitive, amoral, childish and reprehensible. Neat.
Neat indeed
>he is a moralfag

>Rape is wrong
Only if its my family the one getting raped.

>in all contexts when dealing with a Sapient that can give consent
That's like your opinion man. The middle east begs to differ.

>You really are a terrible human being
And what are you going to do about it? The same laws that prevent me from openly raping are the ones preventing you from harming me.

A drunk female deserves to be raped if she was alone partying. Retardation should not be enabled.

>>52752985
Only people who hurt others on purpose deserve to be hurt anon.

>>52752979
Seeing as you haven't rationally challenged shit, yeah.

>>52753064
Coming from you, forgive me if I'm skeptical in your assessment of rationality.

>>52753050
No, Accidental murder is still murder, and should still be punished. Otherwise you get 'accidents' all over the place.

You should stop believing your own moral code as absolute truth. It's not , and will never be absolute truth. The truth is, you can do whatever the fuck you want, and the only one that can stop you is the LAW.

The drunk bitch maybe will learn a thing or two about real life after getting raped for being retarded. Just like a normal person would learn not to walk around with 1000 dollars in cash in his pockets after getting assaulted. It's just a life lesson.

Dear rapeanon

Please give concrete examples of what a wizard is allowed to do before you get pissy about it

Best regards
Someone who thinks you're an absolute moron powertripping on his own koolaid

>>52751485
Ron Edwards is that you?

>>52753161
>No, Accidental murder is still murder
Isn't it just manslaughter when there's no intent?