Is there any particular reason why so many tabletop players look

I use the HOMM V spell book as a system for available spells.
INT dictates available mana, etc.

>>52819972
How did it work?

>>52820441
Alignment dictates one of the main spell types available for your character, regardless of species.
>Any good being light magic.
>Any neutral being summoning magic.
>Any evil being dark magic.
Destructive magic is available for the most offensive class builds.

The STR, CON, and DEX of the parties characters is then divided into two then split up between familiars and the like.
>Five characters, overall having 50 STR, 34 DEX, and 80 CON.
>50 creatures, 1 STR, 0.5 DEX, 1.5 CON for fairness.

INT and WIS dictate mana and spellpower respectively.

CHA would dictate how many soldiers and familiars are willing to join, even creatures of the opposite alignment and species.
It even lowers gold costs of equipment, artefacts, and soldiers.

Overall....fairly well, and then the human character became a queen and was cursed with an evil firstborn.

>>52819930

>Is there any particular reason why so many tabletop players look down on video games when discussing the mechanics of a system?

Could be elitism or just because it was difficult to transcribe a video game RPG system into a tabletop one easily.

>Like you can't necessarily say "I'm going to stab these mofos in their sleep" in some games, you can't kill/pillage/rape NPCs in some games

In a large chunk of the older games that were open world or slightly open world you really could. Hell one of the Ultima games let you cast a spell called Armageddon that ended the world. "Why would you put that in a game?" you may ask. For a good reason, it was to teach the player that just because you can and are able to do something doesn't mean you should do it.

>>52822220
When I said that, it was more in reference to tabletop games, not video games.

Like if you tried to play a dickass thieve and slit the other party member's throats, a lot of DM's nowadays would slap your shit for being an asshole.

>>52819930
>Is there any particular reason why so many tabletop players look down on video games when discussing the mechanics of a system?
I believe it's descriptive of a system being too rigid in it's execution or too strictly adherent to formulaic principles like "team balance" that we are codified in online games.
Vidya developed conventions that were needed and made sense due to programming concerns, but carrying those over to a ttrpg system is nonsensical.

>I mean, I know that tabletop is more open-ended than the average final fantasy game but even the best tabletop system is limited by the DM.
There is a significant difference between "limited to what was written beforehand and coded into the program" and "limited to what the players can imagine that the GM will accept".
Just because both are limited to "less than infinitely everything" that doesn't mean they are relatively close in limitations.
Not remotely.
Also in ttrpgs, the GM & players can choose to disregard certain rules or skip whatever they like.
Vidya lacks that freedom.

But there is nothing wrong with vidya. And it has the benefits of quality control (we're assuming non-shit games here), whereas ttrpgs rely on who you're playing with. A good vidya can never be That GM.

>why exactly should we pretend that video games are somehow lesser because of their perceived limitations?
In short, their limitations are more than just perceived, but that makes them different, not lesser.
"Less free" isn't "Lesser", it's just less free.

But playing table top like it's a video game does make you lesser because you're ignoring what makes the game great.
Knock that off or I'll smack your ass.
The whole point of role-playing is to play as the actual person in that actual world, not as an avatar with limited moves and limited ways to interact with the world.

>>52822897
>But there is nothing wrong with vidya. And it has the benefits of quality control (we're assuming non-shit games here), whereas ttrpgs rely on who you're playing with. A good vidya can never be That GM.
I don't exactly disagree with you, but I want to argue against this, 'cause let's not pretend that there can't be an enormous difference in quality between a LAN session with friends and an online session with randoms.

>>52822897
>Just because both are limited to "less than infinitely everything" that doesn't mean they are relatively close in limitations.
At the same time though, the limitations set in a video game is usually constant throughout while the limitations in a tabletop game fluctuates depending on the DM, what rules they choose to follow, and whether or not the decide to add rules on top of the ones present in-game.
>The whole point of role-playing is to play as the actual person in that actual world, not as an avatar with limited moves and limited ways to interact with the world.
Yet at the same time, you're not actually that person, you're just using them as a vehicle to interact with the world presented within the context of the setting. It's harsh and I'll admit that it sounds pretty clinical but regardless of the medium, you're not playing as an actual person.

>>52823773
>At the same time though, the limitations set in a video game is usually constant throughout while the limitations in a tabletop game fluctuates depending on the DM
Well that's true, consistency and reliability are qualities that tabletop games cannot reproduce at the same level as video games. However, the comparative level of limitations pretty much remains the same.

>Yet at the same time, you're not actually that person, you're just using them as a vehicle to interact with the world within the context of the setting. It's harsh and I'll admit that it sounds pretty clinical but regardless of the medium, you're not playing as an actual person.
I'm not really sure what you're driving at here. You *are* playing an actual, albeit fictional, person, at varying levels of success. If you are just making the distinction between playing a character and being a character, I don't really see the point.

>>52823596
>let's not pretend that there can't be an enormous difference in quality between a LAN session with friends and an online session with randoms.
Yeah, I realized as I was posting that I was overlooking multi-player video games, because I don't usually play them.
That muddies the comparison a bit.
So let's ignore it so my post is more clearly correct, okay?

>>52819930
fuck videogames jesus christ

>>52824676
>However, the comparative level of limitations pretty much remains the same.
At the same time though, in a world where modding and the like exists, one can technically make a game that can do practically anything if they have the memory, specs, and/or programming knowledge to create mods.
>I'm not really sure what you're driving at here.
What I'm saying is, regardless of the medium, you're still playing a fictional character whose actions are limited by the rules of the game and the environment in which your is interacting with.

I can't pick up a brick and beat a goomba to death with it in most Mario games for the same reasons why I can't use a whirlwind attack as a Fighter unless I meet the prerequisites to take it. Also, much in the same way as some games allowing you to turn anything into a weapon, so too are there games where a Fighter can perform a whirlwind attack by default.

It boils down to the way the game is designed honestly.

>>52824923
>At the same time though, in a world where modding and the like exists, one can technically make a game that can do practically anything if they have the memory, specs, and/or programming knowledge to create mods.
And when you're done, that game will be "limited to what was written beforehand and coded into the program", whereas a ttrpg will not be.
Moving the framework of limitations does not change their scope.

>Regardless of the medium, you're still playing a fictional character whose actions are limited by the rules of the game and the environment in which your is interacting with.
Just like real life, where you are a person whose actions are limited by the rules of the physics and the environment in which you're interacting with.
In a ttrpg, despite how some people play, you can try to hit a goomba with a brick or try to use a whirlwind attack, no matter what.
A level 1 mage can try to cast Meteor Swarm.
Your success is just dependent on your skill level, just like real life.

>>52825207
> that game will be "limited to what was written beforehand and coded into the program"
How is this not true for tabletop games though?
>Moving the framework of limitations does not change their scope.
Actually, it does, because once you change the limitations of the system, you end up changing the scope of what your character can do as well.
>Just like real life
I'm going to ignore both points where this phrase is mentioned because real life doesn't function like either a tabletop game or a video game.
>In a ttrpg, despite how some people play, you can try to hit a goomba with a brick or try to use a whirlwind attack, no matter what.
I say this as someone who was in a campaign where an attack auto-missed because the DM thought that axes weren't aerodynamic enough to be thrown. What you can and cannot do will always boil down to DM fiat, ALWAYS!
>A level 1 mage can try to cast Meteor Swarm.
He actually can't, because he doesn't have a 9th level spell slot to spend.

>>52825424
>How is this not true for tabletop games though?
Table top games are "limited to what the players can imagine that the GM will accept".
It is a far wider range.

>>Moving the framework of limitations does not change their scope.
>Actually, it does, because once you change the limitations of the system, you end up changing the scope of what your character can do as well.
But that scope is still limited to what was pre-programmed.

>I'm going to ignore both points where this phrase is mentioned because real life doesn't function like either a tabletop game or a video game.
My point was just that your "restrictions" on what can be done in a ttrpg are no more constraining than real life.
But no matter.

>What you can and cannot do will always boil down to DM fiat, ALWAYS!
What you can succeed at, maybe, if you have a GM that never lets himself be limited by the rules.
But you can ALWAYS try anything you imagine.
Try throwing an axe in a video game where axes aren't coded as throwing weapons and you don't even get a chance to fail.

>>A level 1 mage can try to cast Meteor Swarm.
>He actually can't, because he doesn't have a 9th level spell slot to spend.
Yes. He. Can.
He can try.
It will fail, but he can try.
In a ttrpg, you can try to cover yourselves in mud and pretend to be bullywugs.
You can try to impersonate the King in a tiny village for no reason at all.
You can try assassinate the BBEG before he starts talking.
You.
Can.
Try.
Anything.

You simply can't do that in a video game.

There are GMs that are less permissive than a software program, but pretending that's always the case is silly.

Video games just aren't up to the curve when it comes to the latest and greatest development in tabletop games.

>>52825661
>It is a far wider range.
It can also be a much shorter range if the DM lacks knowledge on a particular subject and how shit works.
>But that scope is still limited to what was pre-programmed.
Much like how what a PC can do is limited to what was pre-written within the system?
>My point was just that your "restrictions" on what can be done in a ttrpg are no more constraining than real life.
And my point was that trying to bring real life into this discussion is pointless because real life isn't constructed like a game.
>What you can succeed at, maybe, if you have a GM that never lets himself be limited by the rules.
But then what's the point of having these rules, as opposed to freeform?
>Yes. He. Can.
No. He. Can. Not!
He's not at a high enough level to cast that spell, so he is not capable of casting meteor swarm until he gains level 9 spells.
1/2

>>52825661
2/2
>In a ttrpg, you can try to cover yourselves in mud and pretend to be bullywugs.
"You cover yourselves in mud and ribbit as the group of bandits looks at you with confusion on their face before pulling out their weapons."
>You can try to impersonate the King in a tiny village for no reason at all.
Why would a small village have a king in the first place?
>You can try assassinate the BBEG before he starts talking.
"Your attack fails as the BBEG continues performing his monologue unperturbed, stop being a faggot Steve!"
>You simply can't do that in a video game.
That really depends on the game though. If we're talking Super Mario Bros. then sure but if we're talking about something like DF or a MUD, then we might need to consider some things.
>There are GMs that are less permissive than a software program, but pretending that's always the case is silly.
Conversely, there are video games that are more permissive than most GMs, and pretending it's never the case is silly.

>>52825753
>It can also be a much shorter range if the DM lacks knowledge on a particular subject and how shit works.
And what if the video game we're talking about is E.T. for Atari?
If you presume a shit GM or a shit game, it's gonna be shit.

>What a PC can do is limited to what was pre-written within the system?
Not at all. Rules literally can't cover everything.

>No. He. Can. Not!
Yes he can.
I'll prove it.
A level one mage is obviously a better mage than a muggle like me, right?
ABRACADABRA! METEOR STORM!
There, I just tried to cast it.
The level one mage can do the same, or better.

>That really depends on the game though.
Please cute a video game where you can literally attempt anything you want, like wiggling your toes.

>Conversely, there are video games that are more permissive than most GMs.
>Most GMs
Really?
Have you played with most of them?
>pretending it's never the case is silly
I just accepted that some GMs are less permissive than a software program.
See E.T. for my rebuttal.

You really do believe that a player has no freedom in a ttrpg, don't you?
You are either on the spectrum or deeply traumatised by some bad GMs.

>>52825753
This is honestly very telling.

OP has clearly been burned by a bad GM, or is so incapable of finding a game that they have to try and sour grape the whole concept.

Because this whole argument is emotional, there's no point in trying to convince OP.

>>52826392
>And what if the video game we're talking about is E.T. for Atari?
And what if the tabletop game we're talking about is F.A.T.A.L.?
>Not at all. Rules literally can't cover everything.
They can't but they can still cover enough to give a general idea as far as what should be possible for a PC to do. Like what's possible to do in 3.PF isn't the same as what's possible in CoC or M&M for example.
>A level one mage is obviously a better mage than a muggle like me, right?
What are you even talking about? Just because the level 1 mage can cast spells better than a peasant doesn't mean that he can cast a spell like meteor swarm before he's 17th level.
>Please cute a video game where you can literally attempt anything you want, like wiggling your toes.
If you have enough programming knowledge and the talent, maybe Garry's Mod.
>Have you played with most of them?
Have you played most video games?
>You really do believe that a player has no freedom in a ttrpg, don't you?

>>52826518
I'm hoping my "abracadabra" point will at least get him to understand what I mean about being able to *try* anything, even if he never accepts that there are many GMs that will just roll with the players and facilitate their fun in ways a program simply cannot improvise.

>>52819930
Is this a thing? Like 70% of my locations, gimmicky fights/encounters/quests, NPCS, and a few of my homebrew spells and mechanics, are heavily inspired by video games I've played or am making

>>52825824
>Being this obtuse
I dunno dude, by essence a video game is restricted to whatever the programmers thought about and implemented, and a TTRPG restricted to whatever shit the GM has time for and what information and mechanics he can either abstract or make up. (Which is also, of course, why a GM is inferior to a gaming console in a variety of areas, like keeping tracks of a billion different variables.)

The fact that some GMs are insufferable no-you-can't-do-that-because-I-said-so fuckwads who give you less freedom than a rail shooter is completely irrelevant to the conversation, this is not what TTRPGs are *about* and you're being obnoxious on purpose.

>>52826392
>>52826518
>>52826583
Please, don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that the actions of the player will always be limited by some outside force that controls the world, whether it's an engine or a DM who is running the game.

Arguing that one has inherently more freedom than the other is pointless because at the end of the day, a third party is always going to limit what is or isn't possible for you to do in this world.

File: Cover_-Jennifer-Grouling-The-Creation-of-Narrative-in-Tabletop-Role-Playing-Games-_2010_.pdf (4MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1x1px

>>52826549
Educate yourself OP. I promise no god(s) will smite you for it.

>>52826606
>I dunno dude, by essence a video game is restricted to whatever the programmers thought about and implemented, and a TTRPG restricted to whatever shit the GM has time for and what information and mechanics he can either abstract or make up.
So you admit that they're both still limited.
>The fact that some GMs are insufferable no-you-can't-do-that-because-I-said-so fuckwads who give you less freedom than a rail shooter is completely irrelevant to the conversation
No it isn't, because a DM is required in order for the game to work, similarly to how an engine is required in order for a game to work.

>>52826641
So are we at the point in the debate where you try to stand on a high horse while ignoring every other point that I've made in my post or are we at the point where you claim to be a neutral 3rd party who decided to weigh into this debate even though the IP counter didn't go up when you posted?

Because if this is going to continue to be a civil conversation, since I'm not talking down to you, I'd appreciate it if you gave me the same courtesy.

>>52826624
The nature of the limitations is completely different. In a tabletop game, you're playing within a social medium. The negotiation of the fictional events is already a thing, even with the most hardass GM, and a simple change of perspective will let even that kind of shithead facilitate an experience no videogame can hope to even *try* to shoot for.

The limitations you talk about are a face on the coin of that negotiation, but you shouldn't forget the fact that, if everyone at the table feels like it, you could literally throw the books out the window and play freeform with no regard for the system you started with. You can switch to big motherfucking crab truckers for a session, or even rotate GMs. That is simply not possible with a videogame.

>>52826624
"There is no difference between living in the United States in the 20's and living in Cambodia in the early 70's, because both had laws."

That is essentially what you're arguing.

>>52826549
>And what if the tabletop game we're talking about is F.A.T.A.L.?
If you presume a shit GM or a shit game, it's gonna be shit.

>They can't but they can still cover enough to give a general idea as far as what should be possible for a PC to do.
A GM can improvise and make rulings to enable PCs to do things not in the book, a program simply can't. That's it.

>What are you even talking about? Just because the level 1 mage can cast spells better than a peasant doesn't mean that he can cast a spell like meteor swarm before he's 17th level.
But he can TRY.
Try, attempt, make a go at it, give it a shot, throw it against the wall and see if it sticks, swing for the fences, do you get it?
Even if the axe will never hit the target, or even goes more than a couple feet, he can still try to throw it.

>If you have enough programming knowledge and the talent, maybe Garry's Mod.
I'll look into it.

>Have you played most video games?
No, and I never said anything about most video games.
But I do know that they haven't developed software for video games that can match the human ability to improvise and imagine.

>>52826549
Again, you show your absolute ignorance. Garry's Mod as an example? A game with graphics?

You couldn't hope to code fast enough to allow for what tabletops allow daily, in a whole lifetime.

>>52826651
Well... yes? That, I think you, I and the anon you're arguing with can all agree on.
But for some reason you're trying to say those limitations are so close, the two mediums might as well be similar, and that's just stupid.
TTRPGs are less limited than video games, that's a fact. And regular roleplay is less limited than TTRPGs. But you seem to think that arguing something is less limited means arguing it's better.

>>52826697
>In a tabletop game, you're playing within a social medium.
I understand that, but at the same time, what's the difference between doing voice chat on roll20 vs. doing voice chat on a roleplay server in WoW or Neverwinter nights?
>The limitations you talk about are a face on the coin of that negotiation, but you shouldn't forget the fact that, if everyone at the table feels like it, you could literally throw the books out the window and play freeform with no regard for the system you started with.
What does that have to do with this discussion though? If we feel like it, we can stop playing Smash Bros 64 and pop in Mario Party 2 if we want.
You can switch to big motherfucking crab truckers for a session
We can also play something like Truck Simulator 20XX if we wanted to.
>even rotate GMs.
We can play a singleplayer game and rotate who gets to play if someone loses or whatever.

I'm just saying, if you go on steam, you can find a shitload of esoteric games.

>>52826718
>That is essentially what you're arguing.
No it's not, again, stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not doing it to you so don't do it to me, okay?

Also, your analogy blows because living conditions in one country as an individual of a certain age has nothing to do with the inherent difference between hobbies that people do for fun.
You would've been better off using a food analogy.

>>52826624
>Arguing that one has inherently more freedom than the other is pointless because at the end of the day, a third party is always going to limit what is or isn't possible for you to do in this world.
Wrong.
Objectively wrong.
>>52822897
>Just because both are limited to "less than infinitely everything" that doesn't mean they are relatively close in limitations.
>Not remotely.
If you are limited from leaving your house or if you are limited from leaving Earth, either way your range of motion is being limited, but the scope is significantly different.
Pretending that difference is pointless is an exercise in foolishness.

>>52826791
This is a pointless conversation. You're being obtuse just so you can refuse to admit the difference.

The social medium is there to create a story. The story of this game you're playing, where all the players get to contribute to a narrative and negotiate, socially, what can and can't be done.

WoW and NWN offer a different kind of experience, where everything is already set in stone before you start playing (including modding, but barring hacking which is not intended) and you're there as an explorer of the pre-programmed universe.

It's not a lesser experience, in some ways, but it's FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT, and more limited by definition.

You can't ask the game to take a backstory you came up with into account, to craft a story that suits your personal preferences for genre, tone, and a bunch of other things. You can only hope that the larger market will provide something you can like, AND THAT IS DIFFERENT.

>>52826679
Dude, I don't know that was, but it wasn't me, Mr abracadabra.
A couple anons joined us I believe.

>>52826791
> what's the difference between doing voice chat on roll20 vs. doing voice chat on a roleplay server in WoW or Neverwinter nights?
If you can't understand the contextual qualitative difference there, you have some problems.

Programed video games can only do what the programed game was made to do, and accidents. RPGs, due to their socially constructed nature, can do pretty much anything your little hearts desire, within the confines of imagination and how well their mechanics can represent them.

You're equating programed mechanics with game rules. They are not the same thing across mediums, although there are cross applications. If you want to try and use video game mechanics in rpgs you can, and many video rpgs attempt to create as much content, open world, ractive story, etc. to create a similar feeling and mood of possibility.

tl;dr you're trying to compare similar but different things as if they were the same. They're not in very inherent ways. Very few people think they are. You might have autism.

>>52819930
>you sometimes can't even run away from an encounter
what kind of shitty dms do you play with?

>>52826725
>If you presume a shit GM or a shit game, it's gonna be shit.
Who said anything about presuming?
>A GM can improvise and make rulings to enable PCs to do things not in the book, a program simply can't. That's it.
Depending on how robust the engine is, a programmer could mod it so it can do a thing that they want. It's certainly much harder than coming up with a rule on the fly but at the same time, adding the wrong house rule can break a game just as easily as a shitty mod can.
>But he can TRY.
Okay, how?
>Even if the axe will never hit the target, or even goes more than a couple feet, he can still try to throw it.
That would depend on the DM, as previously stated.
>But I do know that they haven't developed software for video games that can match the human ability to improvise and imagine.
Look up videos on A.I. dude, we're getting to the point where a computer can write a novel or compose music. Give it a few years and I wouldn't be surprised if we do reach that level.

>>52826868
As an addendum to this, I realize you were talking of an RP server, which is different in some respects. Obviously that RP server can in fact take some of those things into account, but because of the medium that it's being played out through and supported by, and the inherent limitations of it, it is, yes, more limited than playing with pen and paper (or pointer and screen, as it were), because there is no GM to negotiate with.

>>52826890
Deeply, deeply traumatizing ones, I suspect.
Did you know that it's impossible to hit a target with a thrown axe?

>>52826744
Well I mean, if we're talking about wiggling our toes, it'd basically be as simple as adding an animation to the model to allow the model to wiggle their toes.

If we're talking about a sprite sheet, it'd be as simple as adding a new idle animation.

But then again, this is all moot because most characters wear shoes and conservation of detail would cause the story to ignore things like wiggling toes in the same way that most games ignore hunger, stamina, sleep deprivation, or buying gas.

>>52826725
>But I do know that they haven't developed software for video games that can match the human ability to improvise and imagine.
Yet, you puny meatsack.

>>52826959
Let me see you code in a setting on the fly, reacting to player questions and focus. I want to see how you simulate the social interaction between a PC and an NPC.

>>52826790
If you have enough time, resources, and knowledge on programming, you can technically make an engine that can do practically anything you want. Granted, most machines probably wouldn't be able to run it with our current age of technology but with the way that technology is advancing, we might reach actual VR within our lifetime.

Remember, it only took consoles two generations to reach the point where consoles could emulate an arcade cabinet.

>>52826927
>because there is no GM to negotiate with.
Actually, some servers did have a GM of sorts who ran the server and set up markers for quests and what not.

>>52826877
>Programed video games can only do what the programed game was made to do, and accidents. RPGs, due to their socially constructed nature, can do pretty much anything your little hearts desire, within the confines of imagination and how well their mechanics can represent them.
So you're basically trying to say that even though both mediums allow for change, one is inherently less so than the other because you personally believe that they can never be equals?

I'm just saying, I can see the difference, but the differences themselves seem arbitrary when you take a step back. You yourself even said that there's some overlap.

>>52826917
>Who said anything about presuming?
You did:
>what if the tabletop game we're talking about is F.A.T.A.L.?
"What if it is" = "What if we presume it is"

>Depending on how robust the engine is, a programmer could mod it so it can do a thing that they want.
The software isn't improvising in response to the player, the programmer is adding to the prof ram.
Do you understand what "improvising" means?

>>But he can TRY.
>Okay, how?
By saying "Abracadabra! Meteor Storm!" for one.

>Give it a few years and I wouldn't be surprised if we do reach that level.
Which proves we're not there now.

>That would depend on the DM, as previously stated.
You are hopelessly obtuse and it saddens me.

>>52826847
>Objectively wrong.
>Objectively
Oh boy, I can see we're at that point in the debate now. Okay, let's see your rebuttal
>If you are limited from leaving your house or if you are limited from leaving Earth, either way your range of motion is being limited, but the scope is significantly different.
Okay, you're going for a shitty analogy, gotcha. Pretty standard stuff but I can't necessarily say that it's unexpected.

>>52826890
DM's who played by RAW and realized that most creatures can easily catch a group of PC's who are only moving at a base speed of 30ft./round.

>>52826998
>Let me see you code in a setting on the fly, reacting to player questions and focus.
Can you clarify what you mean here? Because depending on what you say, it can actually be possible to make a game setting that quickly.

>>52827104
Quality refuting you did there.

I see now you're not even pretending to be obtuse any more.

>>52824899
I think this anon might have had the only approach you deserve if you can't actually refute my previous post.

Your dismissing of the scope of limitations is foolishness.

>>52826725
>what if you're playing fatal? also i'm not presuming anything or i don't know what presuming means

>a program is the same as a programmer/modder

>i can't imagine a way a novice wizard could try and cast a super advanced spell, this is TOTALLY not the plot of like fifty different books and movies right

>some gms may not want you to do some things, therefore a rpg is not a medium in which you can do anything

>a.i. will totally be able to equal human imagination in a few years guys

found the retard

>>52819930
Computer RPG's are necessary because they have a clear purpose. That purpose being drawing the people who play roleplaying games for combat away from the tabletop. So that everybody else can enjoy roleplaying, creativity and tough decision making.

>>52827084
>"What if it is" = "What if we presume it is"
Just like how you presumed that the video game we were talking about was E.T. on Atari 2600?
>The software isn't improvising in response to the player, the programmer is adding to the prof ram.
So long as the program has an answer for most questions that the player could ask, what's the difference?
>By saying "Abracadabra! Meteor Storm!" for one.
OK, he says "Abracadabra! Meteor Storm!"...and nothing happens. What next?
>Which proves we're not there now.
Not really, there could be a dude making an A.I. that can run 5e for all we know and they just haven't gone public with it yet. When you look deeply into it, there's a surprising amount of bullshit that A.I. can do.
>You are hopelessly obtuse and it saddens me.
I'm just saying man, if the DM says you can't throw the axe, you can't throw the axe. You can talk about it after game or leave the game entirely but the point is that if the DM says no, you can't do a thing.

>>52827165
>Quality refuting you did there.
Yeah, I should take lessons from you and go on about how OBJECTIVE my opinion is vs. yours and offer a shitty analogy in response.

Don't try and pretend that you're batting a thousand here pally, you didn't refute anything.

>>52827168
So do you actually have a point...or are you just here to shitpost?

>>52827077
Do you think the distinction between video games and games played not in video is just my opinion? Do you actually not understand the functional qualitative difference between a videogame that does not allow you to jump over a rock because of scripting, and a narrative collaboration in which a rock is described and jumping over it can be described? It is possible to find a video game where you can jump over a rock, or play a game where the narrative for some reasons forbids rock jumping, but they are necessarily different mediums. They are strongly different due to the essential components of their construction. They are similar, they are not equivalent.

You can for sure abstract to such a distance that the differences are minimal, but at that point you're not saying much of interest.

>>52827194
>Implying combat and roleplay are mutually exclusive.
I blame roleplayfags claiming that you can't have good stats and roleplay, it's poisoning the well the same way that 3.PF did a few years ago.

>>52827228
>Just like how you presumed that the video game we were talking about was E.T. on Atari 2600?
Exactly like that, yes. This is the first time you've clearly understood something.
We have a breakthrough!

>So long as the program has an answer for most questions that the player could ask, what's the difference?
The difference between "most" (which is unlikely) and "every and any"

>>By saying "Abracadabra! Meteor Storm!" for one.
>OK, he says "Abracadabra! Meteor Storm!"...and nothing happens. What next?
Irrelevant.
He tried, that's the point.
In a program, you can't try what isn't programmed.

>>Which proves we're not there now.

>I'm just saying man, if the DM says you can't throw the axe, you can't throw the axe. You can talk about it after game or leave the game entirely but the point is that if the DM says no, you can't do a thing.
If the DM says that if you try to throw the axe, you will never hit your target, that's him setting a rule. (a dumb one)
If the DM says that it is physically impossible for your character to let the axe they are holding go into the air with as much force as you can, a.k.a. throwing, then he is not a DM, he is a Shit Rooster.

>>52827280
Similarly to how one video game allows more freedom than others, so to can one DM allow more freedom than others. There are games where you can only jump if you encounter the right flag but there are also tables where you can be railroaded into a specific path because fuck you, it's my story and that's how it's going to play out.

If you're arguing about improvisation, a programmer could fuck with the game's code and change how things work, the difference being that if the changes fuck up the game, you'd know a helluva sooner than you would in a tabletop game where one dude thinks that implementing material components will make mages more balanced.

Like I said, I can see the difference, it just seems arbitrary when you look at it from the context of one game/campaign vs. another.

>>52827266
>do you actually have a point...or are you just here to shitpost?
yes

anyway as you can see i have made fun of your claims in a way that, i hope, should indicate how exactly they are flawed

except the a.i. thing, which i will concede is more of a matter of belief. you can believe machines will be able to flawlessly imitate gms in a few years, absolutely, and neither of us can prove this wrong or right. i still think it's a fucking stupid and unrealistic prediction though.

>>52827251
The analogy is solid.
You are outright dismissing the scope of limitations.
That is precisely what the analogy illustrated.
You *are* objectively wrong.
Anyone can tell you, and has, that the difference in scope of limitations matters.
Pretending otherwise is foolishness.

>>52827345
What if your character is a quadriplegic, though? It might be literally impossible for him to throw an axe.

>>52827345
>The difference between "most" (which is unlikely) and "every and any"
Most people don't have an answer for every and any question either though, why bring it up?
>He tried, that's the point.
to borrow your own words for a moment...
>Irrelevant.
That's like saying that me pressing down on the D-Pad is me trying to duck in Megaman, pushing down does nothing, so I can't even call it an attempt. You can say "Abracadabra! Meteor Swarm!" but that doesn't mean that you're going to cast a 9th level spell as a 1st level character.

>>52827395
You are basically one step away from saying "muh opinion>your opinion" and it's funnier how you try to act like you're above the argument while presenting no arguments yourself.

>>52827228
>OK, he says "Abracadabra! Meteor Storm!"...and nothing happens. What next?
Except that's not a REQUIRED response, it's just the expected one if you're following the rules literally.

A GM can, much like Ursula K. Le Guin did when she wrote the first Earthsea book, rule that the spell is cast incorrectly in a way that has CONSEQUENCE.

A GM can, when faced with that attempt to play at games the character couldn't possibly understand, "punish" them with a curse, and "reward" the player with a future plot.

Now, I'm not saying this should happen in all cases. For example, I think the situation would make more sense if say, the character stole a spellbook, or took a peek into their mentor's, rather than just spout off the words in a show of metagaming.

But that's my contribution to the negotiation in the table, not a hard limit. We could simplify this entire mess very easily by setting soft limits and hard limits apart from each other, so you'd stop equivocating them.

>>52827443
The analogy is sound, and a valid argument, and the one trying to act like they're above it is you, OP.

Go read the book I uploaded already.

>>52827350
You'll probably have a hard time trying to convince people that someone learning the coding of a videogame to change it is very similar to houseruling an rpg, but I see what you mean.

Differences are arbitrary. Yes. Things are different just because that's how they were made with no consideration for your opinions on the matter. Doesn't make them not different. You can abstract until its similar enough if you want, but that tends to get people talking mostly empty shit about things they don't have much experience with. You could find ways to compare things along similarities and discuss if there's something specific you want to talk about, but at this point all we've got is 'games are different, but they do both have components to varying degrees of similarity'.

>>52827477
Not really.

There's a huge difference between attempting to leave your house vs. leaving the earth and the difference between a video game vs. a tabletop game. If you're arguing that tabletop is equivalent to trying to break through the atmosphere, I'm just going to say that you were still better off posting a food analogy instead.

I mean, you're more than welcome to think yourself as the smartest person in the room but if you bring it up for a vote, don't be surprised when people prove you wrong.

>>52827345
Please stop responding, you've already readily beaten the other guy and he's just giving you the runaround because he's either an idiot or a troll.

>>52827627
>Post doesn't increase the IP counter
Nice samefag

>>52827682
Lol, even if it wasn't my first time posting in the thread that just indicates that one of the several people calling you an idiot decided to alert one of the other people calling you an idiot to the fact that you're an idiot

>>52827770
You're not even trying to hide your shitposting now.

File: 1491507670925-v.png (864KB, 600x794px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 600x794px

>>52827783
I never did my guy, I'm openly mocking you because you're an idiot who isn't going to listen to any points anyone in this thread has made anyway

>>52827831
>I never did my guy
My bad, I thought your opinion was worth listening to.

>>52827847
You don't even know which opinion you're talking about!

This has got to be an emotional thing for you, OP. Go play a fucking tabletop rpg. You'll notice the difference.

Anyone else notice how OP asked a question, was given a direct and polite response, and for some reason decided to debate people over the answers to a question that he himself asked?

>>52822897
>The whole point of role-playing is to play as the actual person in that actual world, not as an avatar with limited moves and limited ways to interact with the world.

But that's the whole fucking old D&D and OSR! Le meme one-man wargame, fucking tabletop dota of its time, that played like a roguelike!

File: MindQuad.png (229KB, 512x289px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 512x289px

>>52827400
>What if your character is a quadriplegic, though? It might be literally impossible for him to throw an axe.

>>52827417
>why bring it up?
Because the fact that a human GM can respond to any and every question and scenario (despite not knowing every answer) while a program can only respond for what it was programmed to is the whole frigging point.
If the PCs decide to go steal a ship and become pirates, the GM can respond, whereas the video game might not even have a harbor generated.
The GM can use words and imagination to add to the setting in real time.
The program cannot.
The GM can pull shit out of his ass and claim it was always part of the setting.
The program doesn't even *have* an ass.

>>He tried, that's the point.
>>Irrelevant.
It is entirely relevant.
The idea that you can ALWAYS try anything you imagine is one of the many fundamental differences between a video game and a ttrpg.
That you irrationally insist that the GM will always crush anything you try does nothing to change this fact.

Also:
>>A level 1 mage can try to cast Meteor Swarm.
>He actually can't,
>>Yes. He. Can.
>No. He. Can. Not!
>What are you even talking about?
>>But he can TRY.
>Okay, how?
>OK, What next?
You fought very hard over several hours against such an "irrelevant" point.
Why is that?

>>52819930
>hating video games because mechanics
/tg/ posters are more likely to hate video games because of the mentality they instill in players

>>52827528
>There's a huge difference between attempting to leave your house vs. leaving the earth and the difference between a video game vs. a tabletop game. If you're arguing that tabletop is equivalent to trying to break through the atmosphere,
Oh I see the problem now.

That anon earlier was correct.
You are retarded.
Let me walk you through this Timmy.

>There's a huge difference between attempting to leave your house vs. leaving the earth
Yes Timmy.
But that's not what was being discussed.
The scope of the difficulty of leaving the house and the difficulty of leaving the Earth is not being discussed.
The method of limiting you to each area was never mentioned.
It could be, and let's say it is, an evil alien death ray that will incinerate you instantly from orbit the second you try to leave.
So, breaking through the atmosphere doesn't even enter into it.
Are you with me Timmy?
Good.

The scope of being limited to your house versus being limited to the Earth is what is being discussed.
If you are limited to your house, you only have the square footage of your house to travel within.
If you are limited to the Earth, you have the square footage of the entire Earth to travel within.
The difference, again, is not subtle.

>If you're arguing that tabletop is equivalent to trying to break through the atmosphere...
No, no, no, my poor little Timmy.
I'm arguing that the Earth is bigger than your house just as the entire range of human imagination is bigger than the entire range of current video game software.
Does Timmy understand the awful, mean-bad analogy now?
Does Timmy get a cookie?

>>52828696
Oh yes.
There is about a 92% chance he is trolling and this is a troll thread.
About a 6% chance he is just this densely obtuse.
And about a 15% chance he is functionally retarded.

>>52829127
>But that's the whole fucking old D&D and OSR! Le meme one-man wargame, fucking tabletop dota of its time, that played like a roguelike!
see
>>52824731
>Yeah, I realized as I was posting that I was overlooking [certain tabletop] games, because I don't usually play them.
>That muddies the comparison a bit.
>So let's ignore it so my post is more clearly correct, okay?
heh

>>52826606
>some GMs are insufferable no-you-can't-do-that-because-I-said-so fuckwads
...and other GMs spawn stories about dwarves flying out of the pits by flapping their arms because player's got a nat 20.

>>52829638
So what, the 400 pound gorilla of TTRPGs with a cult following and a school of thought behind it is just an irrelevant, isolated anecdote in a world full of FATE, Lady Blackbird, Risus, Fiasco, etc? Even the examples of a TTRPG situation in this thread are taken straight from D&D, so you can't just handwave it out - and you can't ignore away the rollplaying.

File: GorillaGlue4.png (2MB, 1119x697px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1119x697px

>>52830119
>So what, the 400 pound gorilla of TTRPGs with a cult following and a school of thought behind it is just an irrelevant, isolated anecdote
>you can't ignore away the rollplaying.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.

>>52830341
Yeah, fuck you too, asshole.

>>52830508
heh
You might have taken that last post the wrong way, but I accept your response.

>>52819930
Yes, there's a lot of things one could pick up from video games, like setting presentation, "level" design, well-written NPCs etc.

Whoever shits on vidya as a medium most likely runs shit games.

>>52829406
>the fact that a human GM can respond to any and every question and scenario (despite not knowing every answer) while a program can only respond for what it was programmed to
"Can" is not the same as "always," "usually," or even "more often than not" though.
>The idea that you can ALWAYS try anything you imagine is one of the many fundamental differences between a video game and a ttrpg.
You didn't actually try anything, you just said a bunch of nonsense in the hopes that it would actually allow you to break the game.
>Why is that?
Because I wasn't sure if you understood that even if you could theoretically do anything, it doesn't mean that you can go out of your way to break the rules of the game. Try pulling this shit in an actual campaign and don't be surprised if you don't get invited back next week.

>>52829585
>"You don't like my shitty analogy? Then you're retarded :'("
Not even bothering to read the rest of your retardation, grow a few brain cells and get back to me.

>>52829622
I'm guessing you were the kid in the back of the class who slept through math?

>>52825424
>Following the rules is bad
>Not following the rules is bad

Spoken like a true /v/irgin.

>>52832416
>"I should be allowed to cast a max level spell as a level 1 character whenever I want."
I dunno chief, wanted maximum power for minimal effort sounds more like something a /v/irgin would do than trying cast the spell legitimately.

>>52832455
What the fuck are you even on about? I'm starting to think whoever's defending video games here has some serious brain damage, because they keep answering with complete non-sequitors.

>>52832503
The dude I was arguing with claimed that you can try to cast Meteor Swarm as a level 1 mage and I'm telling him that he can't because the rules state that you have to spend a level 9 slot in order to cast meteor swarm, which a mage won't get until 17th level at the very least.

I thought you were defending him, which is why I brought it up.

The main difference is that tabletop rpgs are a mere canvas the GM and the player can choose to ignore if they prefer; There is rules but they aren't set in stone, and can change throughout the session as the game flows. Vidya have rigid rules that you cannot ignore, cannot circumvent and cannot improvise on.

>>52832256
>"Can" is not the same as "always," "usually," or even "more often than not" though.
Good job Timmy! Those words do mean different things!
You get a cookie!

>You didn't actually try anything
Yes Timmy, I did. I tried to cast a spell.
But like I said earlier, it could be anything, Bullywug disguise, toe wiggling, axe throwing, anything.
Anything you can imagine, you can try to do.

>in the hopes that it would actually allow you to break the game.
>even if you could theoretically do anything, it doesn't mean that you can go out of your way to break the rules of the game.
I don't know where you're getting this "break the game business" Timmy.
I'm talking about *playing* the game.
Role-playing a person who is in the world and can do whatever occurs to them, unlimited by the constraints of what was written in a program.
It's not about breaking the game.
It has nothing to do with breaking the game.
This business of you being so focused on "breaking" things has me worried, Timmy.

A ttrpg game doesn't break when the PC tries to do something unexpected.

>>52832264
>"You don't understand my simple analogy? Then you're retarded."
FTFY

>>52832272
Heh
No, there's some overlapping there.

>>52832600
At the same time though, since the rules for a video game doesn't change, it means that everyone who plays that particular game will have the same experience basic experience while in tabletop, the quality of the game is dependent on both the rules and how the GM interprets it.

Not to say that I'd rather have a GM who followed the RAW like it was a bible or anything, but it's nice to have some consistency whenever I decide to play a game, which tabletop unfortunately cannot compare to due to the nature of how the game works.

>>52832455
>>52832540
>>"I should be allowed to cast a max level spell as a level 1 character whenever I want."
NO.
>"I should be allowed to TRY to cast a max level spell as a level 1 character whenever I want."
There you go again, Timmy.
You just can't grasp this whole "try" concept, can you.
I know learning new words is hard.
Try to stick with it.
Oops, there it is again.

>>52832638
Yeah, this is exactly what I meant earlier.
>>52822897
>And it has the benefits of quality control (we're assuming non-shit games here), whereas ttrpgs rely on who you're playing with.
You said it better.

>>52832638
Exactly. A vidya is made like industrial food, with enough quality control to guarantee the same basic experience for everyone and to appeal to the most people.

A rpg session is a homemade meal, where every guest brings an appetizer or the wine, and the DM cooks the main course the way he feels. Sometimes it's a miss, sometimes it's a hit, but at least it's not microwaved chicken tendies and the cook can always get better.

I like videogames for different reasons as to why I like TTRPGs

>>52832626
>Yes Timmy, I did. I tried to cast a spell.
You didn't spend anything to achieve it, you didn't roll dice, you didn't even use an item/scroll/spellbook/whatever to attempt the cast, you just said "abracadabra, meteor storm" and left it at that. That's not actually trying.
>I don't know where you're getting this "break the game business" Timmy.
You're attempting to cast an end-game spell as a level 1 character long before you have the resources to cast that spell. It's like saying "I'm going to balance on a rain cloud" or "I'm going to jump from Earth to Mars in a single bound," if you tried that at any table with anyone but the most limp-wristed of betas, you'd get kicked out and/or accused of being either a retard or a power-gamer or both.

To be honest, tabletop gaming probably isn't for you and you'd do better if you started playing vidya just to understand how to flex creativity while working within the confines of the rules.

>>52832683
>It's like saying "I'm going to balance on a rain cloud" or "I'm going to jump from Earth to Mars in a single bound,"

You can try both. You cannot try in a video game unless the developer happened to consider that and implemented it in the video game.

>>52832645
You wouldn't be trying at all if you didn't think that there was a chance that you could actually fucking do it though, which is the same level of retardation as someone rolling until they get a NAT 20 to balance on a fucking cloud.

File: 1436946731741.png (368KB, 623x527px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 623x527px

>>52832673
>Food analogy

>>52832683
However you can play an eager apprentice wizard who tries to cast meteor storm and end up throwing a firebolt.

>>52832721
>You wouldn't

But you could.
You could even succeed if the GM decides to allow it.

>>52832718
The whole point of the game, aside from having fun of course, is that there's a steady progression between how you are at the start of the campaign vs. how you are at the end of it. If everyone can just throw dice at a wall until you stumble upon a meteor swarm or balance on a rain cloud, it ruins the progression of the game and will make you ask "well, why even get levels if I'm already a god at level 1 thanks to the dice?"

Outside of the most lenient of GM's would you be able to suggest something so ridiculous and actually be able to even attempt such a thing, and that's just the reality of tabletop as a whole.

>>52832683
>>52832683
>you didn't roll dice, you didn't even use an item/scroll/spellbook/whatever to attempt the cast, you just said "abracadabra, meteor storm" and left it at that.
The method of trying may vary.
And the mechanics of rolls is determined by the rules and GM.
Let's try(there's that word again) another one:
If your character falls from a great height, you can try to fly.
You can flap your arms, pray to your god, see if you have Dumbo's feather, hold your robe like a flying squirrel, or whatever.
None of that is likely to work, but you can try.
The idea is not to cheat, break the system, or anything.
It is just trying to find a solution to a problem.
By trying something.

>>52832718
>You can try both. You cannot try in a video game unless the developer happened to consider that and implemented it in the video game.
Listen to this anon, Timmy.
They understand words and concepts very well.

>>52832645
>I should be allowed to TRY to cast a max level spell as a level 1 character whenever I want
no
no you shouldn't
What is this retardation

the freedom of Roleplaying means you can do a lot of things but trying for obviously impossible things isn't gonna fly unless they're the DM already established that they're not impossible because you're playing a wacky comedy game.

I'm with you on the idea that tabletop RPGs give infinitely more freedom than an vidya RPG can but the way you're going about arguing this is fucking retarded

>>52832683
Oh, I would let them try... 100℅ chance of failure, 50/49/1 chance of the spell going off in their brain and splattering it all over the walls, nothing happening, or the spell goes critical, respectively.

If the spell goes critical, the caster explodes in a blast of magical energy. Roll 1d10 + one for every level of the spell, minus one for each level of the caster. Divide by half to figure out the blast radius, dice roll is the damage, divided evenly between every creature in the blast radius.

The caster is completely annihilated.

>>52832791
I meant to say 1d10 per level of the spell.

>>52832721
IT IS AN EXTREME EXAMPLE.
You could also try wiggling your toes, which is another extreme example.

A classic example is the PCs ignore the quest and go steal a ship and become pirates.

>>52832746
Nobody said you couldn't fluff it out like that if you wanted to, just that you can't try and cast a legitimate 9th level spell.
>>52832757
>But you could.
You can't, because the moment you allow that shit to fly, the rest of the campaign is just going to be everyone fucking around to see what new and outlandish thing they can do thanks to the blessings of RNGesus while the people who wanted to play a serious campaign either play on their phones or leave to go to greener pastures.

If you want to sit around for four hours rolling dice to fit up a dude's asshole or break the atmosphere then go ahead, but at that point you have to ask you even bothered filling out the character sheet if the dice and DM fiat is ultimately what determines what you can and can't do.

>>52832773
>The whole point of the game, aside from having fun of course, is that there's a steady progression between how you are at the start of the campaign vs. how you are at the end of it.

I disagree. Not all games are about progression of character.

>Outside of the most lenient of GM's would you be able to suggest something so ridiculous and actually be able to even attempt such a thing

I disagree again. Now most GMs most of the time would probably tell me that I fail to cast meteor swarm or shouldn't even know that such a spell exists and should stop metagaming. But they are free to say I succeed.

>>52832827
>You can't, because the moment you allow that shit to fly, the rest of the campaign is just going to be everyone fucking around to see what new and outlandish thing they can do

Maybe, maybe not. Absolute freedom certainly has its risks, but to pretend that the freedom isn't there because of them is disingenuous.

>>52832827
>You can't, because the moment you allow that shit to fly, the rest of the campaign is just going to be everyone fucking around to see what new and outlandish thing they can do
And suffer the consequences of said actions.

>>52832778
Again, you wouldn't be trying if you didn't think that there was a chance that you could actually succeed. Like I said, if you tried that in an actual game, everyone would just think that you're a retard or a power-gamer or both.

>>52832816
>A classic example is the PCs ignore the quest and go steal a ship and become pirates.
Which only works if the DM allows pirates, ships, and a sea to exist within his campaign in the first place. A DM could just as easily just give you a ship and sink it with a lightning bolt because you went off the rails, which is another extreme example.

>>52819930
>Is there any particular reason why so many tabletop players look down on video games when discussing the mechanics of a system?

Because tabletop roleplayers are an elitist bunch.
Even if a mechanic is good, conductive to roleplaying, and fits right in to a system, if they find out it was inspired by a video game, they will immediately look down on it for no reason.

Not to mention lots of "roleplayers" are retarded who somehow think that a tabletop RPG combat is the same shit as an action video game RPG
like, how do these people post on /tg/, see the thousands of wargames and card games and shit and still think "hmm yeah, computers totally replace tabletop RPG combat" and not see the inherent problem in that thought since despite the thousands of RTS, Turn-based strategy, grand strategy games on PC we still have a very well populated tabletop wargames general?

Look at this very thread
the argument is "RPG allows infinite freedom"
and somehow people like >>52827194
think that only applies to the non-combat parts.

>>52832829
>I disagree. Not all games are about progression of character.
Then what's the point of playing then? If you're exactly the same at the end as you were from the beginning, why even play the game at all?
>But they are free to say I succeed.
Which I referenced here
>Outside of the most lenient of GM's
If your GM is a beta who can't say no, you could just become a level 20 character and skip to the end of the campaign.

>>52832849
You don't have absolute freedom though, you just have as much freedom as the GM allows you to have, which is usually a lot less than you actually believe but more than you probably need.

Beyond that, if I can find the macguffin in 5 minutes thanks to a successful search check, why would we bother doing anything else? We completed the quest, the day is saved, go home already, it's over. And even if the group decides to do something else, one NAT 20 later and that goal is completed to.

That's the problem.

>>52832923
>Then what's the point of playing then?

Having fun. I don't need my character to progress to be able to take part in a story.

>If your GM is a beta who can't say no, you could just become a level 20 character and skip to the end of the campaign.

Okay, but that's a pretty video game way of looking at things if I may say so.
There probably isn't even an end, but if there was I wouldn't choose to arbitrarily go there and miss the rest.

>>52832864
When anything is possible, there are no consequences.
>I roll to balance on a cloud
>You fail and fall to your death
>Cool...I roll up a cleric and roll to bring him back to life
Even if you kill off the cleric for the attempt, they'll just keep doing it over and over again until they get that NAT 20 to resurrect everyone who died before them. Hell, they could even roll to make it so they're immortal to boot if we're operating off the idea that anything's possible to attempt.

>>52832784
>trying for obviously impossible things isn't gonna fly unless...
Unless it doesn't matter that they're impossible.

I like this example:
>>52832746
>However you can play an eager apprentice wizard who tries to cast meteor storm
So it is impossible.
So it does nothing.
So what?
There is no reason to stop a player who is role-playing an eager apprentice wizard trying to cast a spell way higher than he can cast.

Y'all are getting way too hung up on the chance for success.
The point is that ttrpg characters are free to try anything, even the impossible, whereas a program character is not.

>>52832962
Nat 20 doesn't mean that the impossible will happen.

>>52832958
>Having fun. I don't need my character to progress to be able to take part in a story.
Well if the GM doesn't bother to set any challenges along the way and everyone is perfectly balanced to your initial strength, then I can agree with you. Thing is, a game with no challenge and no depth is just masturbation.
>Okay, but that's a pretty video game way of looking at things if I may say so.
The end, as far as completing whatever goal was set up for you, the players, to achieve. Even something like becoming a pirate has no meaning if you can just skip to the part where you're pirate kings of the entire world.

>>52832791
See?
Excellent.
They tried the impossible and failed.
Because they were free to do so.

>>52832978
And just because you can try anything, doesn't mean that you should, especially if it fucks with the rules of the game.

>>52832890
>Which only works if the DM allows pirates, ships, and a sea to exist within his campaign in the first place.
But the POINT is that a GM *can* allow it.
A program cannot allow what is outside it's program.

>>52832958
You miss the point. RPGs are about spending a good time with IRL friends going on fiction adventures you build yourself. Not skipping the adventure altogether. There is no credits when you kill the BBEG. There is no definitive victory.

>>52832970
>There is no reason to stop a player who is role-playing an eager apprentice wizard trying to cast a spell way higher than he can cast.
There is when you're trying to set the power level for the campaign and are trying to maintain consistency within both the rules and the setting.
>Y'all are getting way too hung up on the chance for success.
And you're confusing "freedom" with "lack of limitations."

>>52833003
"Trying" does not necessarily mean "trying with a chance of succeeding".

>>52833016
Yet at the same time, if people are sitting down to play a particular game, the GM should at least try to be consistent as far as the limitations set within the core rulebook. Like I shouldn't be playing a game of Call of Cthulhu and be able to punch Dagon in the "face" hard enough to kill it in one blow and if I can, I'm no longer playing CoC.

>>52833026
Are you legitimately this stupid?
That post acknowledged that what is being tried is impossible and will fail.
"Power levels" and "limitations" are not affected in the slightest by someone trying to do the impossible and failing.

>>52833059
You can try to punch Dagon in the face and die horribly in the process tho. Being free doesn't mean there's no consequences.

>>52833059
Yet at the same time, your post ignored the point raised in the one it responded to entirely, Timmy.

>>52833079
Also this.

>>52833059
The POINT is that a GM *can* allow divergent change.
A program cannot allow what is outside it's program.

>>52833077
>>52833079
>>52833104
If something is truly impossible, just say "you fail" and move along. Trying gives connotations that you could theoretically succeed if you somehow roll well enough or spend enough resources or whatever the fuck.

If punching Dagon is impossible, just tell me that it's impossible and that I'm dead, there's a reason why most of the eldritch abominations have attacks that kill 1dX investigators without a defense while causing shitloads of sanity damage.

To quote Yoda "do or do not, there is no try."

>>52832986
>Well if the GM doesn't bother to set any challenges along the way

Challenges can be completed without advancing and using an initial level of skill.

>everyone is perfectly balanced

People don't even have to be balanced. I'm perfectly happy to play as a character who is weak as shit if I can still have a good time.

>The end, as far as completing whatever goal was set up for you, the players, to achieve.

And if there isn't a specific goal? A GM can set a specific goal, they can set numerous goals or they can not.

>>52833147
>Challenges can be completed without advancing and using an initial level of skill.
They can, but the problem is that if that's the case, then there's no longer any reason to play the game because you've already achieved the point where you can succeed at most challenges.
>People don't even have to be balanced. I'm perfectly happy to play as a character who is weak as shit if I can still have a good time.
You misunderstand, I'm talking about perfectly balanced in that nothing in the world is ever outside of your reach. There's no reason to gain levels if all you're fighting is kobolds and goblins.
>And if there isn't a specific goal? A GM can set a specific goal, they can set numerous goals or they can not.
Any goal that you set out to complete can be completed quickly because you have the power to just skip to the good parts since nothing in the world is outside of your weight class. If there isn't a goal at all then that raises further questions.

>>52833148
>To quote Yoda "do or do not, there is no try."
Finally! Been expecting that reply all night.

>If something is truly impossible, just say "you fail" and move along. Trying gives connotations that you could theoretically succeed
Nah.
Let's take the eager apprentice mage.
Maybe he's chatting up a lady.
Maybe he's bragging up a storm about what a powerful wizard he is.
Maybe she asks him what a really powerful spell is.
Maybe he says, "Meteor Storm".
Maybe she asks him to cast it for her.
Maybe, he's stuck and not sure what to do, so he tries to cast it anyway.
Maybe the GM replies, "You fail. Move along."

At no point was there a reasonable expectation for success.

>>52833219
You replied to the wrong post there, I think.

>>52833219
>then there's no longer any reason to play the game because you've already achieved the point where you can succeed at most challenges.
To sit down with your buds and play pretend for a few hours while solving mysteries and finding way to overcome challenges.

Not every challenge has a solution in a form of "more levels". That would be true in a vidya, but in tabletops there's more than that.

>>52833148
Also, the POINT is that a GM *can* allow divergent change.
A program cannot allow what is outside it's program.

>>52833228
>At no point was there a reasonable expectation for success.
Yet at the same time, if the GM allows the player to try and cast it, there's some part of that wizard's mind that thinks "well, maybe I'll roll high enough and I'll be able to cast it anyways."

Just saying "you fail, move along" gives a clear indication as far what is or is not possible to perform, which will give the player both a boundary that he cannot cross and a goal that he can work towards later on.

>>52833240
You gain experience to overcome more challenges. If you can complete any challenge with the minimal amount of experience required, then you're no longer playing a game, you're just fucking around for a few hours like you're, funny enough, playing a video game.

>>52833219
>They can, but the problem is that if that's the case, then there's no longer any reason to play the game because you've already achieved the point where you can succeed at most challenges.

What if you're playing the game for fun? Maybe you're hanging out with friends and and taking part in a collaborative story.

>There's no reason to gain levels if all you're fighting is kobolds and goblins.

There's no reason to need to level at all. You could find alternate way to kill the dragon without becoming tough enough to whack it to death.

>Any goal that you set out to complete can be completed quickly

But that's not necessarily the case. Take your pirate king idea. You could start as a street gang. Do odd jobs to get enough money to buy a dinghy. Use it to stowaway on a pirate ship. Earn the favour of the crew when there. Blah blah blah. End up killing the pirate king and taking his place. You can do all that without gaining levels, but it's hard to go straight from the first point to the last point unless the pirate king just happens to be chilling out next to you at the start of the game.

>>52833279
Why would you conflate ttrpgs with levels in the first place ? There's dozens of rpgs without levels and even more where mechanical progression doesn't matter much. There's way more character progression mechanics in ttrpgs, the first one of them being actual roleplaying.

I'm pretty sure you're just trolling now.

>>52833251
Yet at the same time Timmy, the POINT is that there was a perfectly valid a reasonable purpose behind a character trying something that is impossible and will fail.
And, that a GM *can* allow such divergent change from the normal game.
Whereas a video game cannot allow what is outside it's program.

>>52833334
Stop arguing semantics; levels, XP, karma, whatever the fuck you use to improve your character, that's what I mean. If you can beat the final boss without playing the game, then you're not playing a game, you're just fucking around while you have nothing better to do.

>>52833432
>If you can X without playing the game, then you're not playing a game.
I'll take Deep Insights for 400, Alex.

>>52833337
>Yet at the same time Timmy, the POINT is that there was a perfectly valid a reasonable purpose behind a character trying something that is impossible and will fail.
No Timfag, I don't care what it says in your backstory, you can't cast meteor swarm as a first level wizard. Either move on or pack up your shit and go.
>And, that a GM *can* allow such divergent change from the normal game.
You mean like mods do for open source games?
>Whereas a video game cannot allow what is outside it's program.
You mean like how a tabletop game can't add to the PHB once it's printed.

I'm just saying man, you seem to be trying to conflate two similar concepts into being radically different when a lot of conventions that are seen in one can easily be applied to the other.

>>52833460
If you're just going to be the most powerful person in the world at the start of the game, why even fill out a character sheet at all? Just write "I WIN" in big bold letters and point to it whenever the GM asks you to do an action.

>>52833502
You've never played a tabletop game right ?

>>52833520
Have you?

>>52833530
I DM two different games and play in 4 others.

>>52833462
>I don't care what it says in your backstory, you can't cast meteor swarm as a first level wizard.

You don't care, but you're not all GMs. Can you recognize the fact that a GM could decide that a backstory is sufficient to allow a first level wizard to attempt to cast meteor swarm?

>You mean like mods do for open source games?

Only if you're willing to ignore time and skill constraints.

>You mean like how a tabletop game can't add to the PHB once it's printed.

This is the same point. A GM deciding something is okay to do and changing something can happen far more fluidly than a Developer of Modder.

Imagine you're in a maze. You're given the option to go left or right.

In the TTRPG the player asks if he can instead climb the wall.
In the video game the player cannot ask because it's not in the program.

The GM says okay and eve though he hadn't planned for anything to be on top of the wall can make something up.
The player of the video game has to go and look for a mod or else make one himself, something which is a much bigger time requirement.

>>52819930
Since when was Baldur's Gate rated M? Is that a fake cover?

>>52833544
I find that hard to believe honestly. Do you just let players go through a campaign that should be done at level 1-10 at level 1 with massively scaled down encounters?

>>52833462
>I don't care what it says in your backstory, you can't cast meteor swarm as a first level wizard.
Ah Timmy, you've gone backwards.
I can *try* to cast it.

>You mean like mods do for open source games?
Nope, not like that at all.
Real time instant modification of a game in play.

>You mean like how a tabletop game can't add to the PHB once it's printed.
But they can, and do, all the time.

I'm just saying man, you seem to be having trouble understanding basic concepts.
Can you get an adult to come help you?

>>52833558
>You don't care, but you're not all GMs. Can you recognize the fact that a GM could decide that a backstory is sufficient to allow a first level wizard to attempt to cast meteor swarm?
So if I wrote in my backstory that my character is a clairvoyant who killed the BBEG in an alternate timeline, does that mean that I should just never be surprised, always have the right tool for the job, and always be capable of killing the BBEG?
>Only if you're willing to ignore time and skill constraints.
You say that as if good rulings/houserules don't require time and skill to create as well.
>climb the wall
I've played games where I was able to climb to the top of a maze because I had enough stamina to do so and I've also been in a campaign where I wasn't even allowed to attempt to climb the wall because the GM outright stated that he didn't have anything planned for if we climbed the walls of his maze.

Ultimately, it depends on the engine/GM running the game.

>>52833671
>I can *try* to cast it.
No, you can't *try* to cast it because you don't have any 9th level slots to spend. You can certainly cast a cantrip or a 1st level spell if you want but that's all you're getting as a level 1 mage. Don't like it, there's the door.
>Real time instant modification of a game in play.
Making good modifications takes just as much time and effort as making a mod for an open source game. I say this as someone who has made and playtested in several games over the years.
>But they can, and do, all the time.
They can't retroactively add errata to the PHB once the PHB itself has been printed, they can reprint the PHB with these changes in mind or add new volumes but they can't take every copy of the PHB sold and add each new alterations to it retroactively like a game can do with a patch. Once it's out there, it's out there whether it's good or not.

>>52833694
>So if I wrote in my backstory that my character is a clairvoyant who killed the BBEG in an alternate timeline, does that mean that I should just never be surprised, always have the right tool for the job, and always be capable of killing the BBEG?

If people found it compelling then sure.

>You say that as if good rulings/houserules don't require time and skill to create as well.

They really don't. If they prove to be fuck ups then you can easily change it on the fly again.

>I've played games where I was able to climb to the top of a maze because I had enough stamina to do so

That's not the point I'm making. I'm saying if the option you want is not in the game then you simply can't make it or even attempt to make it.

>I've also been in a campaign where I wasn't even allowed to attempt to climb the wall because the GM outright stated that he didn't have anything planned for if we climbed the walls of his maze.

And that's also fair but again not the point I'm making. The GM could allow you to climb the wall, he could not. The choice is his and yours and the other players because you're playing collaboratively.

>>52833756
>No, you can't *try* to cast it because you don't have any 9th level slots to spend. You can certainly cast a cantrip or a 1st level spell if you want but that's all you're getting as a level 1 mage. Don't like it, there's the door.
I really hope you're a different anon than the original Timmy. Otherwise? Timmy? Seek immediate medical help.
New anon?
See
>>52832778
Or any number of posts on the thread explaining that you can try anything, but that doesn't guarantee a chance of success.

>>Real time instant modification of a game in play.
>Making good modifications such as improvising new locations, characters, and plots in response to divergent player actions takes just as much time and effort as making a mod for an open source game. I say this as someone who has made and playtested in several games over the years.
Do tell.
Personally, I can come with quality modifications to the session I'm running in a tiny fraction of that time.
You might try just rolling with the players in their intended direction rather than playtesting the new scenario out over months.

>>But they can, and do, all the time.
>They can't retroactively add errata to the PHB once the PHB itself has been printed, they can reprint the PHB with these changes in mind or add new volumes but they can't take every copy of the PHB sold and add each new alterations to it retroactively like a game can do with a patch. Once it's out there, it's out there whether it's good or not.
Some GMs use sticky notes, some use index cards, some write it out on pads, and some even generate a wiki page.

I think you might have stepped into the middle of an argument you didn't fully understand.
Or, Timmy is having a stroke.

>>52833660
See, that's how I know you are retarded. My players in the shadowrun game I am running haven't increased combat skills or gear in ages. In fact they have about the same combat power as two sessions in the campaign, yet they do way better in every way. They have better tactics now, but also better contacts, a better place in the world. They have new motivations and new fears, new trappings and new ambitions. They progressed in every way but not in combat abilities, but yet lately I sent them a squad of guys who nearly killed them in the past, and they made a misery out of them.

>>52833899
>If people found it compelling then sure.
Should I just have maximum ranks in every skill because my character's 500 page backstory details how many years he spent mastering everything? Should I be able to start play as a level 20 character because I already beat the BBEG in an alternate timeline?
>They really don't.
Yes they do, the only reason you don't is because you're not a game designer.
>If they prove to be fuck ups then you can easily change it on the fly again.
But at that point, you've pissed off somebody at the table who liked those house rules and the original problem still needs to be fixed.
>I'm saying if the option you want is not in the game then you simply can't make it or even attempt to make it.
Which is no different than if the GM denies the choice in his game, even if the rules DO allow you to do something by RAW.
>The GM could allow you to climb the wall, he could not.
A video game could allow you to climb the wall, other games might not.

>>52834041
Another anon here.
Did you have a point you can sum up concisely, or are you just arguing?

>>52834022
>Or any number of posts on the thread explaining that you can try anything, but that doesn't guarantee a chance of success.
If you weren't right the last dozen or so posts, what makes you think that you'll be correct this time?
>Personally, I can come with quality modifications to the session I'm running in a tiny fraction of that time.
There's a difference between altering the way that the game works mechanically and modifying the plot of your campaign so that your story plays out in a different way.
>Some GMs use sticky notes, some use index cards, some write it out on pads, and some even generate a wiki page.
Again, the original rules in the first printing of the PHB cannot be altered once it's printed and shipped. You can make reminders so you don't forget the errata but my copy of the 5e PHB from two years ago isn't going to contain the fixed Ranger rules.

I think you're confused as far as what counts as a mechanic and what counts as fluff.

>>52834041
>Should I just have maximum ranks in every skill because my character's 500 page backstory details how many years he spent mastering everything? Should I be able to start play as a level 20 character because I already beat the BBEG in an alternate timeline?

If people found it compelling then sure.

>Yes they do, the only reason you don't is because you're not a game designer.

I'm not a game designer but just about everyone can make something up on the spot.

>But at that point, you've pissed off somebody at the table who liked those house rules

Then we can discuss it further if it's a big issue.

>Which is no different than if the GM denies the choice in his game

Not at all, because you then and there could inquire about it. You are even capable of convincing the GM because you can have a discussion with him in a way you cannot with a video game.

>A video game could allow you to climb the wall, other games might not.

Right, but that's not the point I'm making. The point is in a video game you can only make the choices that have been coded in. With a GM you can make choices that he hasn't considered.

>>52833462
>No Timfag
Ah, I believe this was when New Anon the Game Designer started to reply to me, I think.
Yeah, I really think you misunderstood me here >>52833337

Or, I suppose, you could be an idiot.
But, let's not jump to conclusions yet.
Miscommunications happen all the time.
Perhaps I was unclear on something after having dealt with Timmy the Obtuse for so long?

>>52834027
So what, you don't hand them any karma at the end of each session? You give them dosh to spend on bigger and better weapons? Also, who were these guys that nearly killed them in the past?

>>52834075
>Another anon
>IP count didn't go up
>Still using the retarded formatting you used earlier ITT
You're not fooling anyone Timfag.

>>52834147
>If people found it compelling then sure.
So basically, it's okay for a level 20 character to be in the same group as a level 1 group just because I spent the time to write up a novel detailing every single exploit that my character did in the past. I'm sorry mate, but there's a certain point where you gotta say "no," and we've already gone past that point.
>I'm not a game designer but just about everyone can make something up on the spot.
They certainly can, doesn't mean that it'll be good or end up causing more problems than it "fixed" either.
>Then we can discuss it further if it's a big issue.
There's nothing to discuss, your houserule made someone god and then you took it away. Until you add the houserule back in, he's going to shit on you and by that point, the whole campaign is ruined.
>You are even capable of convincing the GM
>With a GM you can make choices that he hasn't considered.
You can also reprogram the way a game works or install mods if need be.

File: chimera.png (113KB, 459x622px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 459x622px

>>52834202
Yeah, between 3 and 7 karma. They spend it on technical skills. And they get dosh. They even have a betaware-grade bioware growing pod. So far they use all of this to bribe and secure alliances and contacts.

>>52834160
No, I understood you perfectly, I just think that you're a fucking idiot who doesn't understand how games work either mechanically or narratively.

Your immaturity isn't exactly helping your case either.

>>52834260
>You can also reprogram the way a game works or install mods if need be.
This has nothing to do with improv GMing, except if you are extremely autistic that is.

>>52834271
>Yeah, between 3 and 7 karma.
>And they get dosh.
Which is still progressing and improving their character you fucking idiot!

>>52834145
>If you weren't right the last dozen or so posts, what makes you think that you'll be correct this time?
Fortunately, I don't need to bother with that hypothetical scenario, having been correct all thread.
(Multiplayer Vidya and rollplaying ttrpgs not withstanding)

>There's a difference between altering the way that the game works mechanically and modifying the plot of your campaign so that your story plays out in a different way.
Correct.
And a software program can do neither as expediently as a human GM running a ttrpg.

>Again, the original rules in the first printing of the PHB cannot be altered once it's printed and shipped.
Sure it can. Take a pen and write in the book. Done.
You're making it way more complicated than it needs to be.
If a GM finds the complicated rules of creating a antidote potion to be a hassle, he can scribble them out and write "use a bezoar".
I'm not saying it's best, or balanced, or even gonna be good.
I'm saying it's easily possible.

>I think you're confused as far as what counts as a mechanic and what counts as fluff.
I think you're confused as to what you're arguing about.

>>52834300
in non-combat skills, which apparently you just forget because you are a retarded /v/ermin.

>>52819930
Because people like to think their chosen hobby is the best and anything else sucks?

Shitposting aside, the difference is easily quantifiable.
A video game only consists of entities and mechanics as concerned by developerw, with leeway given for procedural generation (Dwarf fortress laughs at the limitations of most video games. It also tends to kill your character in ways all rogue likes would shed tears of manly pride)
Tabletop on the other hand starts with the complete mechanics and entities available to the Gm, and the Gm retains the ability to improvise, fudge the rules as necessary, create new entities.

It also bares mentioning that video games can do things at a drastically faster pace than tabletop. While you could simulate the battles in say... Dark souls in tabletop, it would not be the same.

This distinction does not make one objectively better than the other. It makes its base design more flexible. Just like a video game can be shit, so can a tabletop campaign. Just as a video game can be great, so can a tabletop campaign.

Comparing a specific tabletop game (session/campaign) to a specific video game makes sense. Comparing video games to tabletop does not. And sneering at one or the other is just plain stupid.

>>52834293
Your point, as I understand it, is that the GM can make improvements to the game as needed. I'm saying that the player can also make changes to the game as well through downloading mods, or reprogramming the engine.

If this has to do with making changes on the fly, I could ALT+TAB between the game and the source code and make changes on the fly if I wanted to. It's certainly possible to make changes to a program while it's running.

STOP CALLING PEOPLE TIMMY
REEEEEEEEEE

>>52834281
>I just think that you're a fucking idiot who doesn't understand how games work either mechanically or narratively.
Then explicitly phrase in what way I am wrong, rather than just declaring me wrong.
So far, you've just been faffing about without even addressing my point.

>>52834318
Doesn't. Fucking. Matter! They're improving their character, they're progressing in a non-combat way, and you're a retard for making some sort of distinction just because they're using non-combat skills.

>>52834331
What's wrong, upset-frog Tim-boy?

>>52834327
The GM is the game you sperg.

The ruleset is a guide, not a code. The game is what happens between human beings around the table.

>>52834260
>So basically, it's okay for a level 20 character to be in the same group as a level 1 group just because I spent the time to write up a novel detailing every single exploit that my character did in the past.

If people are okay with it then yes.

>I'm sorry mate, but there's a certain point where you gotta say "no,"

In a video game development team, yes. But not in a group of friends playing an RPG.

>They certainly can, doesn't mean that it'll be good

But they CAN do it. Unlike a video game. That's the point we've been trying to get you to acknowledge.

>There's nothing to discuss, your houserule made someone god and then you took it away.

There's plenty to discuss, but you seem to be caught on the whole power tripping angle which I maintain is not vital to an RPG.

>he's going to shit on you

Then he can leave the table. This is a cooperative experience. There are some social graces that should be respected.

>You can also reprogram the way a game works or install mods if need be.

And as we've discussed that requires far more time and effort.

>>52834327
>I could ALT+TAB between the game and the source code and make changes on the fly if I wanted to.
Not like that would actually affect anything in-game, though. You want RAM editing for that.

>>52834346
You were the one talking about encounters you autist.

>>52834215
I am "Timfag" but the post I was replying to was in response to a third anon.
So, that made me "another anon" or "not that anon".

I'm not engaged in the debate about karma or whatever either.

>>52834312
>Fortunately, I don't need to bother with that hypothetical scenario, having been correct all thread.
>(Multiplayer Vidya and rollplaying ttrpgs not withstanding)
Never before has someone rendered their own point moot so quickly.
>And a software program can do neither as expediently as a human GM running a ttrpg.
I can go into the source code and alter dialogue and the mechanics if I wanted to, it doesn't take much time to type up a phrase or insert a new variable.
>Sure it can. Take a pen and write in the book. Done.
Cool, not going to help anyone else who owns the book and isn't aware of the new errata though.
>I think you're confused as to what you're arguing about.
No, it's pretty much you. I've been saying the same shit all thread, you're just too concerned with throwing around insults and being "right."

>>52834343
>Then explicitly phrase in what way I am wrong, rather than just declaring me wrong.
I already have, multiple times, often in the same post. I could write it in the sky and you'd still either miss the point or ignore it entirely.

>>52834331
>Tim-Tommy, Tim-Tommy,
>Where is your mommy?
>She lives on a push cart underneath my bed.
>She's my mother, my sister, my lover, my friend.
>And she'll be with me to the very end.

>>52834372
The point was about progression you dick-licking cunt sniffer. If you're not improving your character, you're not getting stronger, which means you can't take on bigger and better challenges. If you couldn't gleam the point just because I didn't spell it out for you, then you're the autist.

>>52834359
>The GM is the game
So is the engine.
>The ruleset is a guide, not a code.
K, code can be changed.
>The game is what happens between human beings around the table.
I thought the game was the GM though? Maybe the campaign is what happens between humans but not how the actual system works.

>>52834433
>which means you can't take on bigger and better challenges.
But that's where you're wrong, Count Spergula. It just makes them less likely to succeed.

>>52834397
>I can go into the source code and alter dialogue and the mechanics if I wanted to, it doesn't take much time to type up a phrase or insert a new variable.
It takes more time than it takes for a GM to improvise in response to divergent player actions.

>Cool, not going to help anyone else who owns the book and isn't aware of the new errata though.
Agreed. GMs need to make their homebrew rules available to their players.

>No, it's pretty much you. I've been saying the same shit all thread, you're just too concerned with throwing around insults and being "right."
Yeah, I still think you're confused as to what we're arguing about.

>>52834360
>If people are okay with it then yes.
So everyone else should just pack up and go home while my level 20 character proceeds to win the campaign with no obstacles standing in my way just because I wrote up a better backstory?
>In a video game development team, yes.
There are one-man teams for the record.
>But not in a group of friends playing an RPG.
What kinda shitty games are playing/running?
>There's plenty to discuss, but you seem to be caught on the whole power tripping angle which I maintain is not vital to an RPG.
You say this, and yet according to you, I can play a level 20 character in a level 1 campaign if my backstory is detailed enough. Getting mixed signals there.
>And as we've discussed that requires far more time and effort.
Not really, game design doesn't change just because you go from P&P to vidya, it just means that you have to account for different inputs.

>>52834433
Well then you are literally unable to get your point across because you are plagued by vidya mentality and autism.

You can take on bigger and better challenges by being smarter, with a better teamwork, by circumventing the obstacle trough means the GM didn't think of. All those things you can't do in vidya because there's always only a handful of possible choices.

>>52834370
Either way, the point still stands.

>>52834409
>I already have, multiple times, often in the same post. I could write it in the sky and you'd still either miss the point or ignore it entirely.
And yet, you can't so much as quote a post with it?
That seems odd.
Doesn't that seem odd?

>>52834508
>So everyone else should just pack up and go home while my level 20 character proceeds to win the campaign with no obstacles standing in my way just because I wrote up a better backstory?
They agreed to it, so obviously they're fine with that.

>>52834563
Yeah, that seemed pretty clear to me, too.

>>52834455
The game is the campaign. The system is a guide. The GM can just not give a shit about the rules if he thinks the game will be better. A vidya can never choose to avoid the code.

In a vidya you are onboard a story that has been made for you by designers, with unwavering rules and no room for imagination. In a ttrpg you, your fellow players and your GM have all the control upon the story.

>>52834481
>It just makes them less likely to succeed.
Which means they can't take move on to bigger and better challenges.
>>52834518
>You can take on bigger and better challenges by being smarter, with a better teamwork, by circumventing the obstacle trough means the GM didn't think of.
Yet at the end of the day, if the GM doesn't give you resources to improve your character with, you can't do SHIT! A group can't just beat up a dragon right out the fucking gate if they spend enough karma to raise their skills, gain new spells, or afford new augments, the chances that their plan will work will increase exponentially.

If you can, then progression loses all meaning because you can achieve anything regardless of how many dice you're throwing.

>>52834584
>you can't do SHIT
Spotted the /v/irgin

Go back leveling up your waifu in your gringing autism simulator.

>>52834488
>It takes more time than it takes for a GM to improvise in response to divergent player actions.
It takes about as long as typing up something in an IRC channel or a text only game on roll20.

>>52829426
what mentality is that?

>>52834610
This one : >>52834584

>>52834508
>So everyone else should just pack up and go home while my level 20 character proceeds to win the campaign with no obstacles standing in my way just because I wrote up a better backstory?

No. If the rest of the group do not want you to be playing a level 20 character then I won't okay it. If the rest of the group somehow fell in love with the story of your character and did not mind you stealing all the spot light then I would okay it.

>There are one-man teams for the record.

What's your point? At some point they still have to limit themselves if they ever intend to release the game.

>What kinda shitty games are playing/running?

Games where we as a group are able to talk and come to consensus and have fun.

>You say this, and yet according to you, I can play a level 20 character in a level 1 campaign if my backstory is detailed enough. Getting mixed signals there.

Sorry if I confused you, but I feel my point has been quite simple. You can absolutely play a level 20 character in a level 1 campaign if people want to play that with you.

>Not really, game design doesn't change just because you go from P&P to vidya

It absolutely does. If you've ever had to code even simple things before you'd be aware it can take a very long time. Much longer than simply thinking of something.

>>52834563
>>52834576
Why even play at all?

>>52834524
>And yet, you can't so much as quote a post with it?
Why don't you reread the thread rather than asking people to spoonfeed it to you?

>>52834623
Because, presumably, you aren't going to be a cunt who pulls that sort of shit ll the damn time.

File: NormalSaitama.png (443KB, 1271x717px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1271x717px

>>52834584
>progression can only be achieved by getting stronger

>>52834579
>The GM can just not give a shit about the rules if he thinks the game will be better.
But then why use the system at all? Why not just roll dice and say whether or not they succeeded or failed based off the whims of the GM?
>In a vidya you are onboard a story that has been made for you by designers, with unwavering rules and no room for imagination.
You've been playing some shitty video games then.

>>52834623
Because your fellow players are never autistic shits who think having a lvl20 character in a lvl1 party is good.

>>52834622
>If you've ever had to code even simple things before you'd be aware it can take a very long time.
Shit, you don't even have to get into coding to see that. How long does it take to make a good RPG Maker game?

File: damage control.jpg (101KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 650x650px

>>52834603
>>52834619

I thought not.

>>52834641
I read all the posts replying to me and saw nothing of what you say.
If you are so clearly right, and I am so clearly wrong, then it can't be that hard to cite one of the many, many times you've explained it.
Can it?
I thought not.

I really thought not.

>>52834656
>You've been playing video games then.
FTFY

>>52834622
>If the rest of the group somehow fell in love with the story of your character and did not mind you stealing all the spot light then I would okay it.
>You can absolutely play a level 20 character in a level 1 campaign if people want to play that with you.
You shouldn't even allow it all, simply because it's such an easy fucking thing to abuse and you'll just end up with special snowflakes but whatever.
>At some point they still have to limit themselves if they ever intend to release the game.
Patches exist.
>Much longer than simply thinking of something.
Yet at the same time, you still need to write down the rule, make sure it's clear and concise, playtest it to make sure it doesn't interfere with the mechanics, and make sure that it survives first contact with varying groups of varying levels of expertise. Look at how long each edition of D&D takes to come out for example, it's comparable to most video game release cycles.

>>52834656
Because the system is a good help. But as a GM you can always decide to skip over parts of the system you think are stupid. Say, in Deathwatch, PCs from other chapters can't benefit from their leader's chapter squad power mode. It's stupid, in a game where the entire point is a bunch of space marines from all matters of chapters learning to cooperate. So I houserule it.

>You've been playing some shitty video games then.
So I suppose you only play sandbox and strategy games ?

>>52834664
>How long does it take to make a good RPG Maker game?
About as long as it takes to create a good tabletop RPG.

>>52834752
>Yet at the same time,
Timmy you fucker, you aren't fooling anyone.

>>52834649
Why shouldn't I do it all the time if there's a chance that the DM will say yes?

>>52834584
If I remember correctly the starter set of Pathfinder lets you rekt a dragon while lvl 1.

By SR5 rules a team of newly-created runners can well enough kill a dragon as well.

>>52834654
>He says, when Saitama spend months of intense exercise to get to where he is today.
I'm just saying man, Saitama is basically what would happen if you put a level 20 character in a level 5-10 campaign.

File: Autism_Speaks_Logo.jpg (12KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 400x400px

>>52834784
Because there's a chance the GM will kick you in the dick.

>>52834784
>Because, presumably, you aren't going to be a cunt
I see that I presumed wrongly.

>>52834661
But it's in muh backstory, obviously that means that you HAVE to let me be the main character of the campaign.

I'm joking but the sad thing is there are people who would say this crap with a straight face.

>>52834803
Saitama experiences progression despite being stronger than anything.

>>52834720
>I read all the posts replying to me and saw nothing of what you say.
Of course you didn't, you have the reading comprehension of a dead marmot and the charisma of a road-killed skunk. I get more feedback arguing with a brick wall if we're being honest here.

>>52834842
You'd get more feedback arguing with a vidya than a vidya-lover

I thought not. Pathetic.

>>52834842
>Of course you didn't, you have the reading comprehension of a dead marmot and the charisma of a road-killed skunk.
Would this be an example of the wonderful maturity you said I was lacking?

>>52834852
He is the Vidya lover.

There is no vidya yet that offer the freedom a ttrpg can offer.

None, not even Dwarf Fortress.

>>52834760
Even when the rules are given, you can still find different interactions between the rules that the devs may or may not have accounted for when they created the mechanics initially.

Take wave-dashing in Super Smash Bros. Melee for example, it's a movement option that allows you to move while still maintaining a neutral stance. The devs didn't account for it but because of the way that the physics works, coupled with the ability to air dodge in any direction you want, players discovered something that added depth and strategy to the game where it wasn't planned to be.

Just because you have concrete rules doesn't mean that you can't find shit within the rules that add creativity and depth to the way you approach obstacles. I'd even argue that having concrete rules makes such things more rewarding to find, because you're thinking outside the box rather than convincing the game that you should be able to do this one thing even though you can't by RAW.

>>52834814
>>52834823
So you're saying that even if there's a chance that the GM and the players are okay with it, I still shouldn't try to play a level 20 character in a level 1 campaign?

Because if that's what you're saying then I agree with you.

>>52834788
I'd love to see how that's possible.

>>52834841
Mainly by advancing in the ranks of the hero association and gaining followers but that's more to show how inept the association is with their power levels.

>>52834883
I never said I respected you.

I thought not. Pathetic and downright sad.

>>52835032
>I never said I respected you.
And I never promised you a rose garden.

The POINT is that there can be a perfectly valid a reasonable purpose behind a character trying something that is impossible and will fail with zero chance of success, and as such, a player can try anything in a ttrpg, even the impossible.
And, a GM *can* allow and accommodate such divergent change from the normal game and is entirely capable of doing so.
Whereas a video game cannot allow what is outside it's program.

>>52834752
>You shouldn't even allow it all, simply because it's such an easy fucking thing to abuse

You forget that we're adults and friends

>Patches exist.

Patches are the same thing.
Video games are an industry and teams only get so long to make something.

>Yet at the same time, you still need to write down the rule, make sure it's clear and concise, playtest it to make sure it doesn't interfere with the mechanics, and make sure that it survives first contact with varying groups of varying levels of expertise. Look at how long each edition of D&D takes to come out for example, it's comparable to most video game release cycles.

But I'm not talking about making a brand new RPG system, though I'm sure I could make one much faster and with a far smaller team than a video game, I'm talking about running a game.

>>52834981
In SR you can just literally load up on flashbangs and have the dragon go into seizure.

>>52835009
Also through his friendships and master/student relationship.
As well as his struggle with male pattern baldness.

>>52835094
>And I never promised you a rose garden.
I also never promised to spoonfeed you shit that had already been ignored time and time again. At this point I just think you're more interested in hearing yourself type because it certainly isn't to participate in an argument.

File: download.jpg (13KB, 398x126px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 398x126px

>ITT:

>>52835160
>At this point I just think you're more interested in hearing yourself type because it certainly isn't to participate in an argument.
Well, you've stopped arguing, haven't you?
You're just waving your internet penis around, declaring yourself correct and me wrong, baselessly.

You started off wrong, thrashed around foolishly to no effect, and now sit proudly pretending that we can't all see you lying in your own mess.

>>52835096
>You forget that we're adults and friends
Sometimes that's not enough, as many people ITT can probably attest when they invite someone to game only to find out that they're either a power gamer, a special snowflake, a rules lawyer, or worse. Then you go on roll20 and it's just a whole 'nother layer of hell.
>Video games are an industry and teams only get so long to make something.
That doesn't mean that the team necessarily stops making patches though. We just recently got an updated rerelease for Skyrim for fucks sake.
>But I'm not talking about making a brand new RPG system, though I'm sure I could make one much faster and with a far smaller team than a video game
I laugh at your ignorance, there's a reason why new editions of D&D or ShadowRun or WoD take so long to come out. Also, there's a difference between something you scribbled in an afternoon and something that you actually put time and effort in.

>>52835121
Why doesn't the dragon just fly away and rain death from above? Wasn't there one who wiped out the middle-east or something with just one breath weapon?

>>52835262
>You're just waving your internet penis around, declaring yourself correct and me wrong, baselessly.
No, that's what you've been doing, read >>52834312
>Fortunately, I don't need to bother with that hypothetical scenario, having been correct all thread.
You never had any intentions of PROVING why you were right, just that you were right and I was wrong because your opinion is inherently better than mine.

I guess this is the part where you call me names and proclaim how you were right because you were right all along, that seems to be your pattern.

>>52835268
>Sometimes that's not enough

I have always found that it is. When most people relate their horror stories it usually comes about because they're not actually willing to discuss their problems.

>That doesn't mean that the team necessarily stops making patches though.

They'll make patches so long as they are paid to do so. You have big games like World of Warcraft that relies continually on new content and even they can't keep up with the rate that it is consumed buy players.

>I laugh at your ignorance, there's a reason why new editions of D&D or ShadowRun or WoD take so long to come out.

They come out less often in favour of making expansions to those games. If new editions came out every other month then people would be unable to learn the game and unwilling to spend their money.

>Also, there's a difference between something you scribbled in an afternoon and something that you actually put time and effort in.

Yet the thing you scribbled in an afternoon would be a totally workable RPG, good luck making a video game RPG in similar time.

>>52835349
>They'll make patches so long as they are paid to do so.
Some developers continue to support games even when they're not being paid, like the guys at Valkyrie Software, who put out Septerra Core v1.07 after the company stopped existing.

>>52835349
>When most people relate their horror stories it usually comes about because they're not actually willing to discuss their problems.
Or the GM/Player was unwilling to listen to criticism, got defensive as hell, and generally made it out to be a personal attack when it wasn't always the case.
>They'll make patches so long as they are paid to do so.
Not necessarily. There are some devs out, as mentioned here >>52835398 who add patches to the game even when they're not being compensated for their time.
>They come out less often in favour of making expansions to those games.
How does that change anything? They're still developing and adding shit to the game and they have to be careful not to add shit that fucks with the established tone of the game.
>good luck making a video game RPG in similar time.
I've made Pacman clones in game maker in less than an hour, it's not that hard once you get the hang of it.

>>52835506
>Or the GM/Player was unwilling to listen to criticism

That's something you just have to discuss.

>Not necessarily. There are some devs out, as mentioned here >>52835398 who add patches to the game even when they're not being compensated for their time.

Such labours of love do exist, but it doesn't change the timescale. Septerra Core was released in 1999 and wasn't patched until 2006.

>How does that change anything?

Because they're not writing new core rules every Wednesday because that would turn people off from learning their system. They release an edition and let people get comfortable with it, then expand that. Once the edition is big enough they'll then make new core rules and start again.
The reason why new editions of RPGs are few and far between is not because it's so difficult to write new rules, but because is they released new editions all the time no one would buy them.

>I've made Pacman clones in game maker in less than an hour, it's not that hard once you get the hang of it.

Pacman is very simple. Are we not talking about RPGs?

>>52835656
>That's something you just have to discuss.
If they're unwilling to listen to criticism, they're not going to willing to discuss anything with you.
>Septerra Core was released in 1999 and wasn't patched until 2006.
The original argument was that patches will only come out while the devs are being paid, nothing in the original argument mentioned anything about timescale.
>The reason why new editions of RPGs are few and far between is not because it's so difficult to write new rules, but because is they released new editions all the time no one would buy them.
There's a difference between adding splat books and making an entirely new edition of your game.
>Pacman is very simple.
And most tabletop RPG's aren't as complicated as ShadowRun or 3.PF, what's your point?

>>52834981
in shadowrun ramming does astounding amounts of damage

grabbing some flying vehicle that is fast and heavy will fuck up anything with stats due to the weird formula they use for ramming

of course, getting a dragon to be standing in place and allowing you to ram it is another stor

>this stupid discussion started at friday
>it is now saturday
>it is still going

>>52819930
>I didn't read anything in the OP or the thread
I just came by to say that Baldurs Gate is amazing, and is by far the best CRPG ever made, period.
Anything that came before or after is complete and utter shit.

>>52835728
>If they're unwilling to listen to criticism, they're not going to willing to discuss anything with you.

If they're literally unwilling to communicate with me, then I'd just have to eject them from the group. But I doubt that's actually the case because people don't tend to roleplay in a group for the solo experience.

>The original argument was that patches will only come out while the devs are being paid, nothing in the original argument mentioned anything about timescale.

The paid thing originally had to do with time scale. That teams only had a limited time to work on something and so couldn't fit in everything they want. I believe that point is still a valid one, even if not all games developers will work purely for money

>There's a difference between adding splat books and making an entirely new edition of your game.

I agree.

>And most tabletop RPG's aren't as complicated as ShadowRun or 3.PF, what's your point?

What is yours? TTRPG's do not need to be complex at all, you can pretty much just freeform. A video game RPG however is more complex than pacman.

>>52835762
What can I say, people will fight tooth and nail to defend their definition "goodrightfun" vs. "badwrongfun" even if the differences are arbitrary.

Autism is a powerful vice.

>>52835887
>If they're literally unwilling to communicate with me, then I'd just have to eject them from the group.
What if they're the GM? What if doing so means that you don't have enough people to play?
>But I doubt that's actually the case because people don't tend to roleplay in a group for the solo experience.
You'd be surprised.
>The paid thing originally had to do with time scale.
How fast or how slowly a dev decides to release an update for their game depends on the dev, and that applies to video games and tabletop games. It has nothing to do with one medium being inherently easier to write, it just boils down to whether or not the devs are ready/willing to devote the time to add something to the game.
>TTRPG's do not need to be complex at all
Neither do video games. I mean, Pacman, Space Invaders, Kirby, Tetris, etc. are simple games that anyone can pick up and play if they wanted to and they're also not that difficult to emulate either.

>>52834941
Please concisely state what you believe the point you are arguing against.

>>52836229
That video games don't allow for imagination unless they're sandbox or strategy games.

>>52836385
Literally no one in this thread has said that. Nobody is arguing that video games are bad, or even worse than TTRPGS, the people in this thread are saying that as far as time and energy goes, it is far, FAR easier to develop assets on the fly for than video games, which outside of incredibly basic coding, is almost impossible to do literally on the fly. You don't need to learn how to code, and if you're talented enough you don't even need to read pre established rules. A GM can say on the fly "this isn't fun, I'm going to throw this monster or character at them" at literally any time, something that might not be in the game or rulebook even, without even skipping a beat.

Video games, however, do have their extremely important uses. They can create a less abstract, more concrete playing space with a very immersive visual component, and can be very consistent with thousands of variables that are waaay more complex than what a gm can throw at you. Your pacing can also be much faster since you can have instant feedback on what your avatar is doing, also meaning some games can cut turns and the like completely, since you can literally control your avatar.

Let me pose you this question: if it were as easy to create worlds with that can interact with people on literally any level you or they could think of, instantly, why would most people still use TTRPGS?
I could see some people doing it for the nostalgia or the love of physical game pieces/books, but by and large if you could create a world as adaptive and easy to manipulate as a TTRPG in a computer, just as easily, then everyone would.

>>52836689
>Literally no one in this thread has said that.
ahem
>>52834579
>In a vidya you are onboard a story that has been made for you by designers, with unwavering rules and no room for imagination.
>>52834760
>So I suppose you only play sandbox and strategy games ?
Keep in mind, those are the posts that I was responding to, specifically.

>>52836735
No rules for imagination, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE PROGRAM HOLY SHIT OF COURSE A COMPUTER DOESN'T HAVE A FUCKING IMAGINATION. YOU ARE LITERALLY JUST TAKING PIECES FROM RANDOM SENTENCES AND FORMING STRAWMEN OUT OF THEM.

Video games themselves can be very imaginative, tons of them are, but if you are asking if a literal video game can exert improvised imagination, then of course fucking not. Also please respond to the rest of my post instead of literally only reading the first sentence.

>>52836689
>if it were as easy to create worlds with that can interact with people on literally any level you or they could think of, instantly, why would most people still use TTRPGS?
Preference? I mean, you can argue that book stores are obsolete thanks to e-books and audiobooks existing but people will still go to Barnes & Noble to buy books to read even though you can buy their entire selection online or through their e-shop.

>>52836857
>No rules for imagination, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE PROGRAM HOLY SHIT OF COURSE A COMPUTER DOESN'T HAVE A FUCKING IMAGINATION. YOU ARE LITERALLY JUST TAKING PIECES FROM RANDOM SENTENCES AND FORMING STRAWMEN OUT OF THEM.
There's no need to be upset, you said that nobody ITT said that video games don't allow for creativity, I pointed out the posts that said just that. I understand you were proven wrong but get a hold of yourself, it happens sometimes.
>if you are asking if a literal video game can exert improvised imagination, then of course fucking not.
What about Dwarf Fortress?
>Also please respond to the rest of my post instead of literally only reading the first sentence.
Kk

>>52836927
Entirely different ballgame. If I buy an e-book it's fundamentally the same book, but I (and others) could recreate the adaptiveness of a ttrpg WITH the added audiovisual component of video games, for whatever assets or mechanics pop into my head, INSTANTLY AND WITH NO TRAINING (very important) I would probably never touch another ttrpg again.

>>52836970
You didn't address the body of my post, only the tone, try again.

Video games can be imaginative, they cannot imagine, this is fact and what the above poster was saying.

>>52836991
>I (and others) could recreate the adaptiveness of a ttrpg WITH the added audiovisual component of video games, for whatever assets or mechanics pop into my head, INSTANTLY AND WITH NO TRAINING (very important) I would probably never touch another ttrpg again.
I can guarantee that there'd still be a sizable audience that would still play ttrpg's even if such technology existed simple because they prefer it.

>>52837115
Prove it bich, I like TTRPGS but we don't even have adaptive programs like the one mentioned above and TTRPGS have a hard time competing with vidya

>>52832264
You really should read it.

>>52837024
>Video games can be imaginative, they cannot imagine, this is fact and what the above poster was saying.
Then we'd just end up getting into an argument that basically boils down to you preferring tabletop just because it FEELS like you get more freedom than you would in a video game even though the amount of freedom you can get is dependent on the engine/GM running the game.

I could sink hundreds of hours playing a game where I can get a spouse, raise children, own a house, and shoot the shit with members of my guild in between raids and I can also be stuck with a GM who grossly misinterprets what tabletop is meant to be and railroads the party into going to areas A, B, and C in that particular order with no variance because that's how his story is supposed to go.

Maybe if you say that tabletop has more POTENTIAL, then I could agree to disagree with you. Otherwise, it's just gonna be more of the same.

>>52837156
People still listen to radio even though stuff like spotify exists. People still watch DVD's even though Blu Rays exist. People still listen to CD's even though MP3 players exist. I'm just saying man, just because you're dissatisfied with tabletop gaming doesn't mean that everyone else is.

>>52837218
>that reply

It's possible for a car and a bicycle to both go 5 miles per hour or slower.
A bicycle sometimes goes faster than a car.
Does that mean that any argument over which is faster boils down to you preferring bicycles just because it FEELS like you get more speed than you would in a car, even though the amount of speed you can get is dependent on the engine/cyclist running the vehicle?

Maybe if I say that a car has more POTENTIAL speed, then you could agree to disagree with me.
Because there's no way you'd actually just agree that a car has more potential speed than a bicycle, after all, their speed is dependent on who's operating them!

inb4: Shitty analogy so yatta yatta yatta you not answering question.

>>52838085
>Does that mean that any argument over which is faster boils down to you preferring bicycles just because it FEELS like you get more speed than you would in a car
Who would even think this? At what point is any of what you just typed analogous to something that happens in real life? Of course the fucking car is going to be faster than the bicycle but one could make the case that a cyclist can technically cover more distance since they can go for as long as their stamina lasts (or as long as there's a down hill slope) while a car can only go as far as a full tank of gas can take it. This entire analogy is retarded and you should be ashamed for posting this where other people could read it. For shame anon.

Anyways, a more apt description would've been a comparison between a motorcycle and a car, or hell, even a skateboard vs. a bike.

We're all dumber for having read your post.

>>52834771
What the fuck does this even mean?

What is a tabletop RPG in this context? An edition of DnD? A whole campaign? A beer and pretzels one-shot?

Fucking explain your points, or I'll start calling you Timmy like that other anon.

>>52834803
Dude, this is... inaccurate at best.

Canonically, Saitama's power is nonsensical. His training regime is a joke and has nothing to do with it as far as we know.

If you read the manga, the mechanics of it are sort of explained, but there's still no mention of how it happened to him, or that it wasn't just a completely random thing.

>>52838540
>What is a tabletop RPG in this context?
Creating a fucking system R-tard.

>>52838576
IIRC, he transcended his limits after a bad tooth got knocked out of his mouth.

>>52838462
If this is OP, again, I think we've hit paydirt.

This thread has allowed us to gaze into the void. This truly must be the full depth of retardation. There can be nothing lower than this.

We need to find a way to monetize this post.

>>52838590
BUT NOBODY ARGUED THIS.

What the fuck does creating a system for wide consumption have to do with running a fucking game. The system is a fucking guide, and as such IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT, which utterly invalidates whatever argument you had for why this was ever relevant to this thread's discussion.

If anyone is a retard here, OP, it is you. And there's no fucking denying it anymore.

>>52838842
>Butts into a conversation partway through
>Lacks sufficient reading comprehension
>Blames others for your own retardation
>Accuses others of being dumb to cover their own sub-100 IQ.
Please, we have enough retards ITT who think that they're clever, we don't need more faggots to add to the kindling.

>>52838764
I wonder what it is with retards and shitty analogies. For people who find themselves so above /v/ermin, you people sure do love to abuse their favorite tactics.

Just saying.

>>52839043
The analogy is sound. The bike and car are both vehicles that can travel at similar speeds, but the car can go faster than the bike, undeniably.

A TRPG and a Videogame can both create a narrative and provide entertainment, but the TRPG allows for more freedom, undeniably.

Expanding the analogy to add fuel only adds to the point. Videogames are not WORSE than TRPGS at EVERYTHING, only at allowing for freedom. They are better in a whole load of other things, which is why they have a gigantic fucking industry behind them.

>>52838969
Yes, we have one retard in this thread who thinks he's clever, we agree on that.

Also, you're the moron who keeps looking at the IP counter. Did mine change in less than 12 hours or something? I posted a book for you to read and trounced you at least 6 times since I joined this conversation.

>>52838576
Samefagging to expand my point:

Saitama is in fact an example of a character that could be run in a tabletop that, yes, could kill the big bad in one blow right at the very start of the game.

And you could keep playing, because combat superiority isn't the point of tabletops, or even an important part once you're playing the kind of game you'd have to be playing to approximate One Punch Man.

As another example, you could be playing a Harvest Moon-style campaign using a ruleset that has absolutely no similarities to DnD beyond the need to create characters (maybe even *shudder* diceless!) and you could be focusing on social interaction.

Which means the group could agree to let one of them be a master farmer and have no problems with it, because they want to play the kind of story that has that character in it.

>>52839142
>The analogy is sound.
It really isn't. Like in that analogy, is the car analogous to video games because they're both examples of technology with a huge multi-million dollar industry behind it or are cars analogous to tabletop games because cars allow you to travel much further (offering more freedom) but are limited by how often they need to be "refueled" after you go on for a long enough period of time?

When we talk about speed, are we talking about acceleration or maximum distance traveled before needing to stop and refuel?

I'm just saying man, a lot of bullshit isn't exactly clear in your analogy and there's too much overlap between video games and tabletop games to use a motorized vehicle vs. a non-motorized vehicle.

Like I said, it'd be more apt to compare a motorcycle against a car since they're both vehicles with a lot of overlap that have reasons why one is better to use in certain situations than the other. The way your analogy reads, it sounds biased.

File: 1448203443051.jpg (78KB, 340x314px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 340x314px

>>52839166
>trounced you at least 6 times since I joined this conversation.
Oh god anon, I can't breathe. The only you beat is your meat, and even then your hand is unsatisfied afterwards.

>>52839361
Even if combat superiority isn't the point of the game, you'd be hard pressed to come into a game with a character who is basically Saitama while everyone else is playing Licenseless Rider, or worse, an unnamed Class-X hero who only exists to get beaten up by some random monster who was categorized under the wrong monster level by the association.

>>52839641
I said the analogy was sound, but I didn't write it. I would've used a more relevant comparison, but that's besides the point.

An analogy doesn't need to be exact, and the details you're bringing up at this point are practically full-on autism. The original anon was comparing speed as an analogy for freedom, and that's it. Use a different analogy if you want to make a different point.

>>52839696
Yes, and you would know, in an anonymous board.

It's really teelling that you keep trying to pin down who's talking. It shows how much of a newfag you are, that you can't address the actual arguements the way you're supposed to, and just keep saying "THIS IS THE TIME WHEN YOU START BEING A CONDESCENDING PRICK, RIGHT? AM I RIGHT? I'M ALWAYS RIGHT".

Of course we're all going to be condescending to someone like you. That's what condescension was invented for.

>>52839770
That entirely depends on the game, anon. There are systems that REQUIRE that kind of contrast between characters.

An example you might understand is Shadowrun (just so I don't have to explain a more obscure game). In Shadowrun, you have specialized characters who are capable of particular things. It's very rare that someone creates a jack of all trades that can compete with someone else.

Now abstract that concept into a game with fewer, simpler mechanics. You have a Knight class that will always win in combat tests against anyone who isn't a Knight.

Now, use that system to run a game where intrigue is the focus, and you become someone who has a certain amount of influence based on your battlefield experience and past victories, but also someone whose most powerful ability won't always be relevant. In that kind of game, Sir Saitama wouldn't be out of place.

>>52839785
Fine, compare for a moment a motorcycle with a car.

Cars can also carry more weight, carry more people, and is relatively more safe to ride in comparison to a motorcycle since you things like seat belts and airbags to protect you in case of an accident.

On the other hand, motorcycles can fit into spaces that'd be too narrow for a car to ride, are much more aerodynamic, and some people are suckers for the sound a motorcycle makes when you rev it up to go somewhere.

At the same time though, they're both motorized vehicles that can take you and friend to where you need to go, there's an entire industry and culture behind them, and you'd eventually need to stop and change a few things around if you find that one part isn't working as well as it used to.

So overall, they're both good for what you need them to do but which one is the best overall boils down to personal preference.

File: 1472387968270.png (85KB, 192x187px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 192x187px

>>52839820
Damn, calm down man, that shitty INT can only take you so far even when you're calm, but let me guess, you're on your phone right now right?

>>52839913
Okay, but that analogy wouldn't really apply to the depth and width of difference between the way a tabletop runs and a game plays.

Videogames and Tabletops are not used for the same things, and have vastly different protocol when it comes to "changing a few things around".

They are not as close as a motorcycle is to a car, taking these things into account.

>>52839903
>There are systems that REQUIRE that kind of contrast between characters.
I'm not saying there isn't, I'm just saying that in a game that's focused on combat, someone like Saitama is going to do much more than the rest of the party when it comes to how well they fare in combat.

If everyone has a role to take though, then it's whatever. You'd generally want someone who can deal with physical, matrix, and astral bullshit while on a run so that's not really an issue, it's just if and when one dude is stepping on someone else's toes, to the point where they're unnecessary to the plot.