After playing for a few years, I realized that in most cases,

>>52986462

Your problem is you are viewing the game as an exercise of personal ability, rather than a collaborative storytelling experiance.

Stop trying to 'win' RPGs.

>>52986462
You're in the wrong hobby, but look into 4e I guess.

>>52986833
What good is a narrative with no consequence and no stakes? Wouldn't it be more gratifying to get a happy ending that you earned through resourcefulness and an understanding of the rules, rather than having every obstacle be not only solvable but practically handed to you by the DM by default, except for situations where the DM goes out of their way to fuck you over?

>>52986880
>You're in the wrong hobby
Because I want my victory to have meaning? Maybe I am in the wrong hobby...

>>52986462
>or because the DM thought that we were being clever and threw us a bone.
This is certainly skill based although the mechanics were probably quite loose.

>>52986893
>>52986914
Get a better GM. Ours is firm but fair and we have enough Lethality to make the game more than a viable threat, but not enough to feel dickish.

Also, because meme for meme's sake: Have you tried not playing D&D?

Also, Have you tried GURPS and 3d6?

Or, alternatively: Have you tried Campaign-based Wargames?

>>52986914
The major appeal of roleplaying games is that you're allowed to win by being clever and finding sensible ways to cheat a ruleset. The meaning of victory is a narrative progression, the fact that you saved a village and the characters that inhabit it rather than the fact that you won a battle and got some rewards.

Not to say that your preferences are bad, but you'd be hard pressed to find many RPGs that want to make combat more in-depth instead of streamlining it for the sake of story telling. This is a very poor hobby if you want to polish your mechanical mastery. But do try 4e.

>>52986956
>This is certainly skill based although the mechanics were probably quite loose.
My only problem with this is that it feels like it comes down to impressing the DM more than it feels as though you're actually learning how to utilize the mechanics.

If you're charismatic enough, or happen to know the DM's sense of humor, practically anything will fly and you'll almost always succeed so long as you're lucky enough to get a good roll.

I don't necessarily want there to be one right answer but what's the point of answering when everything can be the right answer anyway?

>>52986462
Strike! is very focused on the tactical combat part. There's some randomness, but mitigating it is part of the game's strategy.

I'd recommend it for fights that are skill based.

File: tg complaints department version 2.jpg (44KB, 680x364px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 680x364px

>>52986462

>>52986982
If it boils down to luck and DM fiat though, where's the sense of accomplishment in saving that village when you know deep down that the only reason this village exists is so you could "save" it or leave it to burn?

The village isn't going to be terrorized by an adult dragon before you're around level 10-12 because there's no way for you to beat that dragon as a low-level character, so instead, it'll be a group of orcs and a few goblins and maybe by the end of it, the DM will make you level 2 characters.

So what's the point of getting stronger?

>>52986462
Play something that's not DnD and stop calling your GM a DM.

>>52987278
The point of getting stronger is that it lets you leverage your power outside of your standard progression adventure. It means when you walk into town as a party of level 8s, you don't have to sit there and take it when people get rowdy at the bar table over, it means that you might not be able to fight an adult dragon head on like a level 12 but you might have the option to arrange its death through other means that a level 1 won't.

Mechanics are what enable your out of the box options. They set you up for your list of rules to use and abuse. Your expectation of combat to play like a video game seems to extend to other facets of tabletop as well, because it doesn't seem you're giving nearly enough due consideration to how much a level range can allow you to interact with the world outside your DM's plot hook.

>>52986462
Any RPG will do the trick as long as both the GM and the players are willing to make it be that way.

>>52987156
again, purely depends on the GM and the players

>>52987278
The point of getting stronger is to make the game less repetitive

File: 1466657705998.jpg (100KB, 446x446px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 446x446px

>>52986893
>understanding of the rules

Does that really matter?

It's one thing to win a battle because of some clever or imaginative thinking or having the courage to take a big risk, but if it all boils down to a question of how well you've poured over the books, visited charOps boards in order to build a powerful character, and ultimately manipulated the rules in order to bring the most unbalanced aspects into light, does it really matter? Is it worth rewarding?

I don't think "understanding the rules" is supposed to be some tool for victory. In fact, the baseline of "understanding the rules" should probably be coming to terms that in the case of any meaningful decisions some options will be stronger than others, but not always in a way that is best for the tone of the game.

When I GM, I see no real reason to "reward" (or penalize) players who build strong characters or use mechanically optimized strategies, nor do I consider how well you can use the rules to achieve victory to be a particularly important or impressive skill. It's useful in other situations (such as putting homebrews through stress tests) and and its vital in other types of games, but as a whole putting to much emphasis on how well you can use the rules to achieve victory in a roleplaying game tends to lead players to obsess about what is ultimately less important than considerations such as how well your character can cooperate with the others or whether they can bring their personality into each battle.

>>52986968
>Also, Have you tried GURPS and 3d6?

If you're trying to use that as a solution to his problems, you're only going to exasperate them.

GURPS is particularly awful at making the game feel like anything other than a fussy "Mother-may-i" scenario with the GM.

>>52987405
Here's the thing, if an NPC approaches you, it's because a) they have something you want and b) the problem that you need to help them with is something that's within your ability to accomplish.

The DM isn't going to give you something that you can't handle as a party, which makes it feel as though every major issue that's happening within the world is tailored to your capabilities as a group.

>>52987524
What the fuck kind of games have you been playing with it?

>>52987463
>Does that really matter?
Yes.

If you don't understand your limitations as a player, how are you supposed to figure out ways to break through those limitations to achieve something that you thought wasn't possible?

Also, if you don't know how the rules work, how are you going to approach them in a way that would lend itself to outside-the-box thinking?

And if learning the rules doesn't matter, why use them in the first place?

>>52987555
Your DM is shit but that aside, this has already been addressed. If the railroad is always tailored to your power level, then leverage your power level in other directions. There's a legitimate issue you might have in your 8th level party always fighting 8th level enemies as part of the story, but if you take a break to challenge petty thief dens in town on your downtime and they're 8th level there, that has nothing to do with the any system.

>>52986833
>muh collaborative story

Go away Forgefag

OP needs to go play a sport. Or perhaps a video game. Dark Souls, maybe?

>>52986462
PF, I guess.
You may actually enjoy the Ivory Tower.

>>52987524
Fuck off, Virt

>>52987555
Sounds like you need to play yourself a good old-fashioned hex crawl with a GM that actually knows how to world build.

Random town rumor tables (which may or may not be true or helpful), random wilderness/Urban encounters that may or may not require you to fight/talk/run, the chance to actually accidentally run into an Adult Red Dragon in its' lair because you decided to hike up a mountain side at level 1, the whole lot of it.

>>52987655
Pathfinder might mitigate the players being clever but onward from about 5th level, it exaggerates the "rolling high enough" problem more than any system I know.

>>52987655
PF is a game that becomes less enjoyable the more you actually understand how it works. It's a ruleset equivalent to that guy who accuses you of meta-gaming just because you built a paladin for an all-undead campaign.

No thanks.

File: Are you serious.jpg (37KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 480x360px

>>52987719
>GM wants to run Wrath of the Righteous AP for our group.
>Decide to roll up a Paladin because Dues Vult in a AP dedicated to Dues Vult.
>GM calls me a meta-gaming faggot for making a Paladin.
>mfw

>>52987719
>PF is a game that becomes less enjoyable the more you actually understand how it works.
It kills me how true this has been for me.

>>52987405
>>52987555
You need a good GM with a bit of imagination that isn't a pushover. If he can build a live world that doesn't have areas scaled to your level. We recently came across a crypt with a dracolich that we released unintentionally because we pushed in a direction that wasn't something we needed to do and fighting it and escaping by the skin of our teeth was really hair-raising and challenging

>>52987719
In a way that's true, but on the other hand you're less likely to landmine yourself into not having fun.

Which is a thing, despite certain peoples' insistence that it doesn't happen. It happens a lot.

>>52987620
Understanding the rules enough to play is one thing, but the issue I have is with the idea of attempting to use the rules as a tool for victory, or that victory in combat should be somehow determined by how well you know the rules. Ideally, an imaginative and clever novice to a game and an imaginative veteran of that game coming to the same table will both be able to flex their muscles. Part of that is dependent on the GM, but a fair portion comes from the players understanding that knowing the rules better doesn't automatically make you a better player.

>how are you going to approach them in a way that would lend itself to outside-the-box thinking?

Outside-the-box thinking in roleplaying games typically involves looking at the game outside of the framework of the rules. While in a more limited game certain actions not detailed in the rules are simply impossible, for a roleplaying game there are no such limits.

>>52987278
>when you know deep down
Listen, buddy, I feel your desire for better mechanics (I've been writing my own system for this specific purpose, doomed though the endeavour may be), but deep down you know the entire game is just there for you to fuck around or die.

I don't actually run games that way, though. I throw random shit around with no heed to power levels. If a dragon is rampaging through town and you care enough to save it, better haul ass to find someone stronger to take care of it, unless you have some genius idea.

>>52987463
>tends to lead players to obsess about what is ultimately less important
It shouldn't have to be like this, though. The best games I have ever had were ones where everyone knew exactly how the rules worked and didn't have to worry about getting gypped by unbalanced crap. We played a strategic game with optimized characters, and everyone had realistic expectations of what their characters could accomplish.

File: 1378038474887.jpg (38KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x667px

>>52987846
>In a way that's true, but on the other hand you're less likely to landmine yourself into not having fun.
Are you joking?

>>52987846
>Hahah! I'll build around Step Up and max out my CON! I'm so fucking tanky and their melee will never get around me!
>I guess I need DEX to TWF, so I'll get that up and put the left over points into STR. Six attacks has to be good!
>I'm going to build an archery rogue and snipe people!
All mistakes I made when I was new.

>>52987335
Stop getting so upset about people enjoying popular games.

>>52987937
>Hahah! I'll build around Step Up and max out my CON! I'm so fucking tanky and their melee will never get around me!
You joke about that, but a dex based Weapon finesse build using the Tower Shield Specialist archetype, Mithril Fullplate and Tower Shield, and the Step Up, Combat Reflex and Combat Patrol feat lines was my go-to build for Fighter for the longest time until my GM started allowing us to use Path of War.

>>52987928
No.

File: Grooface.png (324KB, 478x448px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 478x448px

>>52987524
>you're only going to exasperate them

>>52987524
>robust set of stuff you can do by default
>combat rules that make sense, easily understood derivative values, and stats that can be mapped onto real world scenarios without blatant stupidity
>hurr mother-may-i
Do you even know what that means? 3.5 melee that wants to do something other than full attack without resorting to Dungeoncrasher or whatever is Mother-May-I because the rules for them are shit and the backup mechanics that you run things off of by default - attribute checks and skill checks - are either barred from you due to your skill points or are as unreliable as your deadbeat tweaker cousin who wants to clean your house for you, honest.

If I want to kick some fucker in the shin or throw sand in their eye or take aim at some guy's head specifically in GURPS, I don't need to beg the GM to come up with something on the fly or default to rules that don't work.

>>52988016
No offense mate, but that sounds like absolute trash. You can make opportunity attacks, yes, but you re only doing damage (a piddly amount at that) no movement control of any sorts, and you need to give up your turn for combat patrol to boot.

Unless of course you are omitting some key feat from that build that lets you control enemies.

>>52986914
>I want my victory to have meaning
>In a tabletop fantasy game
It never will have meaning, because it's not fucking real. You will never be able to reliably brag about it. It will never leave you truly fulfilled. It's a fun pastime, a game. If you're looking to feel meaningful victory in a fucking tabletop game, the rest of your life must be a mess.

>>52987278
>Playing D&D for a sense of accomplishment
Please, do something with your life. You can get a sense of accomplishment from other things. Real things that actually matter. You're looking to fill your very real void with fantasy accomplishment, you won't be successful in that.

>>52988217
>Look at all these options!
>they're all shit

GURPS.

File: 1417575653818.png (2MB, 5047x4053px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5047x4053px

>>52988414
>You will never be able to reliably brag about it.

Really depends on the game tough.

File: Strike!combat_example.pdf (611KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 1x1px

>>52987203
I feel like following up on this, so here's a combat example...

File: Strike!Adversarial_play.pdf (7MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

7MB, 1x1px

>>52988698
And two examples of "adversarial play", which as far as I can tell is basically what the OP wants.

>>52988698
>>52988732
I keep wanting to learn this game but the rulebook is so fucking bad. They seriously needed to hire someone to have formatted it, what the fuck is with people thinking they can get away without project management?

What does this even mean? What are you complaining about? That the GM matched the things you'd be facing more or less to your party's capabilities so that if you do something clever or you roll well you can win? I don't see how this is a bad thing.

>Where victory is earned through the skill of the player in utilizing the mechanics given to them rather than given at the whimsy of the dice and the DM?
Short of having something that randomly determines what you'll be facing and when, you'll never completely free yourself of the DM "allowing" you to win. And as someone who has played shitty games where this is the case, you might want to count your blessings.

>>52986462
Maybe Dark Heresy? I know if we didnt plan out our fights we fucking died.

>>52988796
My general feeling is that this game manages to miss the point of roleplaying games pretty fucking hard.

The combat has a lot of niggling options making it dense but very gamey, while everything outside of combat is just sort of a vehicle to get people back into combat.

It's like an awkward board game, and not even a particularly good one. The 4e D&D board games seem like a much better way to spend an evening.

>>52988355
It was basically a situation where I'd set my starting point with it, then bouncing from enemy to enemy the entire combat, as the rest of the group kited backwards to keep forcing the enemies to provoke attack of opportunities.

By 12th level, I'd have the Disruptive and Spellbreaker feats, a short sword with the Agile property (allows the use of dex to damage if using Weapon Finesse), and if we were facing spell casters our wizard would Quicked Enlarge Person me (for the extra reach and damage) and teleport us in the middle of the spell casters so I could force concentration checks and pinball between them smacking them in the face every time they tried to cast something or move out of my reach. We tried convincing the GM to let the Wizard throw me at people using Telekinesis, but the GM didn't like the idea of the group turning me into an opportunity attacking - spellcasting denying 8 to 10 D6 missile.

It was a fun game.

>>52988796
It could be condensed down significantly. While I sorta appreciate the dev commentary, it should have been relegated to sideboxes. I hope they'll do an "ultimate" edition after the book with equipment/monster hunter stuff comes out, but that's going to be a bit delayed...

>>52988861
> while everything outside of combat is just sort of a vehicle to get people back into combat.

Out of combat stuff is to serve bridge between conflicts; which then can be combats, but you can play without ever touching the tactics module.

I mean, it's a waste cause it's the best part, but hey, if you want "REAL roleplaying" without combat, you can do that.

>>52987203
>>52988698
>>52988732
Stop shilling Strike!

Why does /tg/ keep shilling Strike!?

Hackmaster comes to mind. But really, old D&D used to be played that way. Have you read "A quick primer for old-school gaming"?

>>52989007
/tg/ shills every single game except for D&D, simply because D&D is the one game that doesn't need to be shilled.

>>52989007
It's not /tg/, it's literally just one guy who refuses to believe that no one likes his game.

>>52988591
>I've never seen them but they're totally shit guys

>>52988986
It's not just too bloated, but the text is also written in this conversational tone that I dislike. I have trouble following a block through because it'll trail off for some specific example and I'm lost on the rule when it returns. I can't help but feel the contents aren't laid out in the right order to learn things efficiently either.

It doesn't feel like the system would actually be that hard to learn but the book just frustrates me so much when I try to get through it.

>>52989047
Actually Strikefag is kind of a bro, and he does discuss other systems when Strike is irrelevant. He's a namefag, but only mildly annoying for being a namefag, not much else.

>>52989038
>Not recognizing the meme.
Also we do tell newbies to play 5e whenever newbies ask for a system.

>>52988948
Why wouldn't the wizards just walk 30 feet out of your reach (even with combat patrol it should be around 20-ish until very high levels) and then cast a spell? Yeah, they get hit with an AoO but a short sword with agile is like... 1d6 +10-ish? At that level, even a wizard laughs that off.

I guess with enlarge+reach weapon, your reach could be close to 30 sooner, but then your damage is even worse.

Eh, sorry, it's just that I tried a build like that but always got frustrated by some component missing. I'm glad it worked out in practice for you.

>>52986462
If you roll shit, you're competing against a threshold

You may want something with more freeform risk management, like Blades in the Dark

>>52989113
>Also we do tell newbies to play 5e whenever newbies ask for a system.

Probably because that's just a good recommendation.

>>52989175
>At that level, even a wizard laughs that off.

The HP calculations for most NPCs and monsters assume average HP per hit die. So, for example, a level 12 wizard NPC would have ~42 HP +/- con modifiers base. That 1d6+10 is 1/4 of their HP per turn, and I was doing that several times a turn. It probably helped that it was a game that tended to alternate between Urban environments and dungeons, with the occasional random encounters between towns, I suppose.

File: 687474703a2f2f692e696d6775722e636f6d2f733976676176592e6a7067.jpg (849KB, 3216x2136px) Image search: [Google]

849KB, 3216x2136px

>>52986462
You don't have to quit, but I think you should take a break from PnP, OP, because you sound burned out. Try a board game (see: board game general /bgg/) that has the same RP elements, good story/campaign arc, plenty of rules to follow, but no GM. It might have some elements of luck based on cards or dice, but there's strategy and collaboration depending on the game-type.

I've been playing some Eldritch Horror and Dead of Winter lately, myself.

>>52986462
Have you tried board games?

Failing that, you've always got 3.pf, gurps, or really any system where you can minmax hard enough to destroy the universe. That's kind of like skill.

>>52988414
>>52988456
If accomplishment doesn't matter, why not just cut the bullshit and give everyone a shitload of levels before saying "you stand in front of the BBEG's lair, how do you proceed?"

It's not like anything that happens between level 1 and level X has meaning if what you're saying is true.

OP, have you tried being less autistic?

>>52990615
This is an extremely autistic viewpoint.
It matters because you have fun, not because you brag about your achievements.
Coming up with interesting solutions to problems matters.
Having character interactions and growth matters.

>>52990615
Something doesn't have to be an accomplishment for it to be enjoyable.

>>52990769
>>52990784
If there's no accomplishment, especially for a game, then none of it matters. For all I know, the only reason why our "interesting" solutions worked is because the GM allowed them to work.

It's like gearing up to fight the best player in the tournament, only to find out that the only reason you won was because they decided to throw the match. You don't feel good about it, in fact, it makes you question whether or not you deserved to win in the first place.

>>52986462
>Skill based

It's not really a medium that rewards skill in any way, unless you count rote memorisation and ability to perform basic mathematics and probability to be skill, but that falls under rolling high.

If you really require that your own personal aptitude be a catalyst for progress in the game for the game itself to have any meaning to you, there's not much I can say to you.

>>52986893
>understanding of the rules

Except self-limitation is inherent in this hobby.

It doesn't take a genius to look up '[system] charop guide' and proceed to make the most broken character imaginable. That's your 'Personal skill' right there. Do you think it would give your game more meaning? Make it more gratifying?

I don't.

>>52987278
What's the point in being alive?

Things only mean what you want them to mean. You're edging into nihilism territory, but you're doing it ass-fucking-backwards, squinting at your bullshit D&D stories all the way.

Just accept it for what it is: A cool story that you helped build, enjoying yourself with friends all the while.

>>52991230
Do you apply that logic to the rest of your life? Have you ever enjoyed a videogame not played on the hardest difficulty? Do you believe the tests and exams you passed were always of the utmost difficulty, and that you never got a lucky break with easy questions, or because the professor liked you (if we're talking about oral exams)? Do you believe your partners and your friends are there for you because you ACCOMPLISHED them? Or worse, that you are THEIR accomplishment? Do you then think it feasible if they were to discard you like the piece of autistic dung you are because a better, more accomplished individual came along? Do you FOR A MOMENT believe that chance has never turned the stakes, nay, do you in fact believe this isn't a common or almost prevailing occurrence?
I supppose you can affect real life more than you can a random d20 die roll. Or maybe it seems that way to you because the results are not immediately discernible, but with a die they are. Guess what, life is more chance-based than you think, it just doesn't happen as quickly and it gives you a sense or agency that you will not get from rolling dice and adding up numbers, because deep inside, and outside too, don't get me wrong, you are a failure and are doing nothing with your life. Games are not meant to provide you with a sense of agency at the level which you crave, because you know them to be fake. No amount of involved skill will change that.

This thread is depressing.

Has the entire hobby always been a bunch of nerds circlejerking about how awesome their narratives are? It reminds me of when Mass Effect 3 was coming out and we found out that nothing we did actually mattered.

God, I might actually get back into vidya again if this is the alternative.

>>52991551
This tbqfhwyfamalam.

>>52991551
>>52991552
Welp, guess this is the part where the trolls come out to play.

To answer your question, no, I don't apply this logic to every facet of my life because when playing vidya or taking a test or whatever, my success is based off of my proficiency as a person and there's an actual risk for failure (whether it's failing a test or not making progress in a video game).

>>52986462
Skill based RPG¨
well there is this hich is based on physical dexterity as the core mechnic is a Jenga tower which you have to kep from falling, but there are also dice and maybe tables involved.https://archive.4plebs.org/dl/tg/image/1378/74/1378746682811.pdf

>>52991657
Just because it calls your bizarre and inconsistent worldview into question doesn't mean it's a troll. That's just a really short-sighted defense mechanism and you should really stamp it out before it blinds you to any genuine chance at introspection.

Assuming that things only have meaning if there is a chance of failure is just as arbitrary as any other method of assigning it. Can you really not enjoy something just for what it is? A fun story? Time spent playing a game with friends? Do you truly, honestly need to feel like you have been able to demonstrate your personal proficiency to be able to look back on your D&D game with fondness?

I mean, by my own philosophy, that is a perfectly valid outlook - Or it would be, if it weren't actively reducing your quality of life. If this pointless neuroticism is affecting your happiness, then you need to decide whether to embrace it and spend your time doing something you'd enjoy more, or discard it and continue enjoying this hobby. Those are the choices. It doesn't need to be made any more complicated than this.

>>52986462
If you want purely mechanical interaction your better off with boardgames and wargames. There's nothing wrong with that it's just a different medium.

But yeah in ttrpgs it does mostly come down to the DM. Now that doesn't mean the game can't be skill based it just means the DM you choose needs to objective, consistent and fair. One that sets out a base structure for the game and sticks to it. One that thoughtfully creates challenges and fleshes out the world with details for the players to utilise. One that puts their mood, options toward players and their own idea of plot aside, taking pleasure instead in ruling the actions and reactions that occur in the world.

So really it takes a skilled DM to run a game that allows players to be skilled. Really it's no different than any single player video game. You are not competing against the game because any normal videogame has to be conceivably beatable. You seeing if you overcome the challenge that the games designer has set for you using the rules they have made for you. Every victory or defeat short of hacking or exploiting glitches is both fair and within the will of the designer.
The difference in table top is that the designer is there in front of you and makes his rulings in real time.

Find games that made my skilled and dedicated designers. If you can't find any, become one yourself and inspire others to follow your example.

>>52991829
I call you a troll because you wrote out a wall of text that basically boils down to "do you need a chance to fail to feel accomplished?" and you tried to conflate a game (a recreational activity) with that of an exam (an activity that decides whether I pass a class or not). I don't need excitement and a failure chance to feel accomplished with my life as a whole and the fact that you believed that to be so is why I called you a troll. If you want to rescind your statement and start over from scratch, we can put it behind us and focus on the argument at hand.

Either way, it's not arbitrary to want a failure state in a game that I'm sitting down to play as a recreational activity. In every game known to man, there's always a win condition and a failure state. If a game lacks these elements, and player skill doesn't factor into these elements, then it stops being a game and starts becoming a circlejerk where we only lose if we decide to.

File: 1374797089702.gif (3MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x281px

>>52991920
Five Star post right here.

>>52991982
You're arguing with another person. Should be pretty obvious, as he said he understands your world-view and cares about you enough that he advises you not to be so neurotic.

To me you're just an entitled piece of shit that never worked or achieved anything and is looking for a sense of agency where there can be none.

>>52991982
I don't particularly want to put it behind us because it is in fact relevant to the discussion.

More relevant, however, is that you have inherently misread the point of the hobby. Or, more accurately, your DM's interpretation of the point of the hobby, there is no objective point.

Some DMs like number crunching games. Games where you are given free reign over your character and are expected to work out the percentiles on every action you take to win, because no punches are being pulled, and you will lose otherwise. But the question is, do you actually define the ability to perform basic math and look through rulebooks for hours as 'personal profiency'? It takes about as much 'skill' as blackjack does. It has a win condition and failure state, so it fits your definition of a game, but it's, well, boring, in my opinion.

Some DMs like storytelling games. Games where the intention is to create a narrative, and the system is just an engine for this. Oh, there might be a chance of losing, but generally even being defeated or failing won't actually halt the story, it will simply take it in a new direction. The win condition and failure states here are not well-defined. You're expected to create your own win conditions and failure states from your immersion in the narrative.

Personally, I prefer the latter since it creates a more fulfilling experience for me, rather than winning at a game because I memorised all the options and made all the right moves, but I acknowledge that there is no objective truth to this, or, well, anything.

But what it boils down to is the choice I proposed before. Accept that this issue you have taken is detracting from your happiness. After that, you can either opt to find meaning from this hobby as you have before, or opt to leave the hobby and find meaning elsewhere, since you have explicitly said that you need meaning for enjoyment to be possible.

Final option, of course, is that you just have a bad DM.

Sounds like you want to play a wargame where you make up a story about your army and how they won. That's fine, but tabletop and dice aren't the problem, you're the problem.

>>52992054
>To me you're just an entitled piece of shit that never worked or achieved anything and is looking for a sense of agency where there can be none.
It's amazing how you can get this much detail out of a few posts talking about my dissatisfaction with the hobby. I mean, that's quite a lot of detail based off of a fairly minor interaction with an anonymous entity on a Bosnian knitting forum.

>>52992187
I don't need meaning to find enjoyment as a whole but if I'm sitting down with the intention of playing a game, I'd like to know that I'm winning and losing due to my own choices as a player, not through luck or DM fiat.

I think you misunderstand me, my dissatisfaction with the hobby is just that, dissatisfaction with the hobby. I don't need a reason to have fun, and I say this as someone who hangs out with people every week, either shooting the shit, playing vidya, or just throwing back brews and having a good time being jackasses on the weekend.

However, what's ultimately disheartening to me is the fact that tabletop gaming no longer has any real bite to it. Everything feels artificial, like through no fault of my own, I'm going to beat the BBEG no matter what decision I make because the DM decided that the game's narrative superseded the mechanics of the game, but not before we're at a point where we can beat them on relatively even ground.

I hope I'm clearer now.

>>52992354
If that's the case then the best advice I can give you is to trust your DM.

>>52992354
Like I said, attempt to immerse yourself in the narrative, and like >>52992379 said, trust your DM. You might be secretly worried that your winning and losing is arbitrary and based on DM fiat, but to your character? It's sure as hell a real fight, with real consequences, and the ending isn't written in stone.

Roleplay harder, and believe in the person who is running the world. If that isn't possible, find somebody else to run the world. A good DM will be able to create a real sense of risk and consequence, but you need to meet them halfway or nobody is going to have a good time. If you approach this with scepticism, you're never going to be able to immerse yourself.

Suspension of disbelief is very important in this hobby, and I think most of your problem lies in the fact that you have lost the ability to enter a mindset that is conducive to that due to your doubts. If so, I'm not sure what I can tell you that would make it better, since that delves farther into psychology than I feel I am qualified to deal with.

>>52992379
>>52992504
I trust him as much as to say that he's not as terrible as some of the horror stories I've read on /tg/ over the last few years but even then, I just can't shake the feeling in the back of my head that the only reason we beat the dragon is because it was scaled to our level.

I want a game where we're a bunch of level 1 characters, but can also choose to take on the BBEG by level 2, even though he's a CR10 encounter. Sure, we're most likely going to die and it's not recommended, but it's the principal of knowing that we could, rather than being led around by the hand until we go through enough (properly scaled) encounters until the GM says "okay fellas, it's time to take on that BBEG now!"

Do you know what I'm saying?

>>52986462
>he is still trying to climb the mmr ladder in delusional
[dih-loo-zhuh-nl]
Spell Syllables
Examples
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:
Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.
2.
Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness:
He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him.

>>52992542
Wut?

>>52992538
>I want a game where we're a bunch of level 1 characters, but can also choose to take on the BBEG by level 2, even though he's a CR10 encounter. Sure, we're most likely going to die and it's not recommended, but it's the principal of knowing that we could, rather than being led around by the hand until we go through enough (properly scaled) encounters until the GM says "okay fellas, it's time to take on that BBEG now!"
>Do you know what I'm saying?


I think I do know what you're saying, unlike the rest of the thread

I think you're saying you want to start browsing OSR general and play in old-school games where there's lethal dungeons and a lethal wilderness and your goal is to get rich and maybe find a macguffin at the bottom of the cursed megadungeon and probably have a few dozen characters per player end up dying horribly, and the GM is there not to hold your hand and slap your wrists as they guide you through a plot, but to neutrally arbitrate the consequences of your actions in the sandbox murder-land.

The dungeon gets harder as you descend, the wilderness gets harder as you get further from civilization, but there might be an out-of-place Basilisk on Level 1 guarding fabulous loot and if you steal the loot, good for you, and if you die horribly, that's fine too. Or maybe it's on level 3 and you want to 'dive' through the insane depths as a level 1 character in a high-risk high-reward gamble, and that's fine too.

>>52992354
Have you tried talking with your group or your GM?

>>52992651
Sounds fun, but how is that ANY different from what the OP is complaining about?

>After playing for a few years, I realized that in most cases, our party won because we either rolled high enough to beat the threshold for the action or because the DM thought that we were being clever and threw us a bone.

The party wins because the dice favored them, they were clever, or both. That's even more true in OSR where, by your own account, there's less of a trend of handholding and scaling encounters down; if the PCs want to survive, they need to play smart and occasionally get lucky. OP is whining that nothing matters and it's all an arbitrary game of pretend like that's a sudden revalation.

>>52992772
Have you actually read the thread or are you just pretending? OP (a fag, as expected) has problems with his GM coddling the group.

>>52992651
Y'know what, I think I will go check out the OSR general.

>>52992651
so I checked out the OSR general and it reminds me too much of /pfg/ in some places. With that being said, I did check out the trove though.

>>52992878
*Everything* boils down to GM decision though, and it seems like OP has a very broad definition of "coddling."

File: pepe if created by reddit.png (231KB, 1092x1037px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1092x1037px

>>52986462
>Are there any tabletop RPG's that are skill based?

F.A.T.A.L is believe it or not

really underated as well imho

>>52993844
I mean it does take a lot of skill to play a full session and/or keep your sanity while doing it. Technically, you're absolutely right.

>>52987620
wtf are you talking about?
If it's a rules-based limitation then how is knowing the rules supposed to allow you to "break through" those limitations unless you mean purposefully powergaming, misinterpreting and stretching wording to fuck with the obvious intention of the rules to cheat the game?

Actually trying to roleplay to tell an interesting story is what lets you overcome limitations, not being a /v/tard metagaming faggot who any sensible gm will just say "no, stop fucking around" to anyway.

>>52994687
Why is it that whenever people reference the rules, roleplay faggots like you feel the need to accuse them of being /v/tards or metagamers?

Is it a sin to actually try and understand the rules?

>>52991230
It's a fucking game, it doesn't matter regardless of what you accomplish in the game.

The only reason ANYTHING happens is because the gm allows it, they're the gm, that's how this works, you seem to want a video game.

>>52991556
So you admit you're just a shitposting /v/tard

You clearly just don't like roleplaying games because you can't stand that the gm controls the world and therefore threatens the pathetic delusion of accomplishment that you have for "beating" games.

>>52992538
Some gms do give players the freedom to take on challenges far above their capabilities but most have stopped because it often just leads to whining of cheap party kills and that they didn't give enough obvious warnings and sometimes those complaints are fair.
You can find plenty of such stories in the archives.

>>52995018
>So you admit you're just a shitposting /v/tard
Is referencing vidya enough to really be called shitposting nowadays? Is this really how bad /tg/ has gotten, where stories are made up and the points don't matter?

I don't necessarily WANT to go back to vidya, but it seems like all the storyfags shitting up vidya are doing everything in their power to fuck up tabletop games as well.

I remember reading through AD&D's rulebook and saying "wow, this game's actually pretty fucking brutal" and it maintained that level of lethality even when you gained a shitload of levels. Nowadays, you actively have to go out of your way to die between HP bloat and limp-wristed storyfags like you who think that mechanics in a game is bad and anyone who bothers learning the rules is a tryhard /v/tard.

>>52994862
What other possible meaning is there to "break through those limitations" when those limitations are literally the rules, you powergaming min-maxing faggot?

>>52994961
I want an actual fucking challenge, not just riding a rollercoaster and watching the DM stroke his own dick as party members go on about "muh story."

People go on about immersion and verisimilitude but what do you think is going to break it more? Someone referencing HP or someone demonstrating that they have more than enough HP to survive a stab wound to the throat?

>>52986833
>collaborative storytelling
Nah fuck that shit. Rpgs are games, not just telling a story.

>>52988861
>the point of roleplaying games
Pray tell, what exactly is the point of roleplaying games? I thought it was having fun but clearly since im in a combat heavy old school dungeon crawl im somehow "doing it wrong" and should go play video games?

>>52995236
Check out OSR games. They're games about telling a story, instead of 3.PF+, which are stories about playing a game.

>>52995135
>What other possible meaning is there to "break through those limitations" when those limitations are literally the rules, you powergaming min-maxing faggot?
There was one time in a 3.PF game my friend ran where I was playing a summoner.

Anyways, it was one of the final fights of the campaign and we were assailing a cult leader that was attempting to summon an old god back to our world and we knew that time was of the essence.

I went first in the initiative and on my turn, I used a move action to get to just outside the leader's melee attack range and used transposition to switch places with my eidolon before using a 5 ft. shift to get it into melee range, where my eidolon then proceeded to use their full attack action to deal a hefty chunk of damage.

That's the kinda shit I'm talking about, taking the mechanics that the game gives you (transposition) and using it to overcome the limitations of the rules (you cannot use a full attack action if you move more than 5 ft.)

>>52995399
I do play b/x im just tired of the majority of /tg/ forgetting the meaning of the "G" in RPG.

also this idea that its not possible to have challenge in rpg because its all up to the dm is retarded. The dm designs the challenge, but from that point on he can act impartially.

A video game is designed in a way that you can beat it, doesnt mean they cant be challenging. So why do people here think that just because a dm makes the scenarios, they cant also provide a challenge to the players?

>>52995154
Then just talk to your gm like an adult and ask for more challenging encounters, you autist.

>enough HP to survive a stab wound to the throat?
Ok so you're too stupid to understand hp too.
This is why you describe actions after rolling.
So when you just take 2 hp off of 100 you only managed to barely scratch them, when you get a critical hit on some peasant and reduce them to dying then you managed to flawlessly stab clean through their throat like your anime description.

Of course none of that matters because no one is forcing you to play d&d and it's a system that's actually pretty poorly suited for your "le roleplay faggot muh story" boogeyman, you sperg.

>>52995403
So what's stopping you from doing that?
Are you just bitching and whining that every second of the game isn't like that and the group takes 5 minutes for social shit and roleplay when they get to town?

How does this fit with the stupid bs in the op that it's all at the whim of the dm?
Ultimately they allowed you to do that like they allow anything and they could have planned ahead to counter your teleportation or the luck of the rolls could make your eidolon's attacks irrelevant.

>>52995618
>Ok so you're too stupid to understand hp too.
I understand what HP is, I also understand that most PC's have too much of it relative to the amount of damage that weapons are supposed to deal as well.
>This is why you describe actions after rolling.
Okay
>"The bandit holds a knife to your character's throat."
>"Meh, knives only deal like 1d4+STR damage. Even if he rolled max, I should have enough to make a death saving throw if he somehow manages to deal too much damage."
>"..."
>"I roll to break the grapple!"

>design a combat encounter and a puzzle, before my players ever even make their characters so I have no idea what their composition is
>run them in an impartial manner, letting the dice fall where it will and not fudging shit

why are those things not considered challenges for my players?

>>52995714
>So what's stopping you from doing that?
Other than roleplayfags like you who accuse me of power-gaming for figuring out shit like that on my own? Nothing much.
>Are you just bitching and whining that every second of the game isn't like that and the group takes 5 minutes for social shit and roleplay when they get to town?
No, it's a combination of the DM handing us victories hand over fist because his plot demands it and every problem we run across having no wrong answer so long as the dice don't screw you over.
>Ultimately they allowed you to do that like they allow anything and they could have planned ahead to counter your teleportation or the luck of the rolls could make your eidolon's attacks irrelevant.
Yes, but the point was that this was something that I figured out on my own and put into practice to great effect. It's the difference between learning something in a tutorial and learning something through play based off level design.

>>52995721
>I understand what HP is
>have more than enough HP to survive a stab wound to the throat
You clearly fucking don't by your own words.

As to the rest of your post, I repeat
>Of course none of that matters because no one is forcing you to play d&d
and again this is specifically a case where the system is NOT suited to the evil roleplayers that are ruining your fun.

>>52995559
Because in many cases, GM's are obsessed with balance, which leads to them balancing everything in the campaign around the relative power level of the characters, leading to any challenge you face and any power you gain becoming meaningless as nothing in the world is outside your weight class, except for times when they explicitly are just so the DM can show how "real" shit is and showing off how not everything is scaled to your level yet still letting you get away from the creature even though it should easily be able to catch up to the party.

>>52995913
>You clearly fucking don't by your own words.
Explain how I'm wrong. Explain how HP isn't a measure of how much damage you can take before falling unconscious and/or dying.
>and again this is specifically a case where the system is NOT suited to the evil roleplayers that are ruining your fun.
Are you even capable of speaking like an adult? I'm just saying man, I don't think that roleplayers are evil, I just think they enjoy the smell of their own farts based off of people like you who assume that "I want challenge" is the same as "I want every campaign to be a video game."

>>52995559
DMs also tend to be foreveralone maladjusts who have to keep their players coming back, or they'll lose all social interaction. Tends to cause a lean in the direction of dicksucking.

>>52995830
>Other than roleplayfags like you who accuse me of power-gaming for figuring out shit like that on my own?
And they're literally stopping you from using those play options or you're just getting absolutely buttdevestated that people are complaining?
And I never said your example was powergaming, retard. If you just want to attack a strawman to feel smart then you don't need me as a prop.

I don't control you, your gm, or your group. If your gm and group don't want to play the sort of game you do then find a new group instead of whining to 4chan like they're responsible and can do something about it.

>No, it's a combination of the DM handing us victories hand over fist because his plot demands it and every problem we run across having no wrong answer so long as the dice don't screw you over.
So you're bitching and crying that you have a shitty dm, do you want a medal?

Anyway as much as it triggers you the dm literally controls everything, any treasure or encounter is literally handed to you at the whim of the gm and if you want tougher challenges then you need to talk to your gm like an adult instead of just crying about it online.

>>52995956
>Explain how I'm wrong
Because It doesn't work the way you clearly think it does based on
>have more than enough HP to survive a stab wound to the throat
Hp are not meatpoints, they are an abstract value rolling in luck, endurance and all sorts of shit.
When you get stabbed by a spear and only take one damage you are not being run through and shrugging it off, you are barely being scratched as it slips by you or your armour absorbed the impact so you just suffered a light hit.

>Are you even capable of speaking like an adult?
>people who disagree with me are just le roleplay boogyman and SNIFF THEIR OWN FARTS!
wew kid, the irony is overwhelming.

It's not my fault that you literally don't understand how a system works and want to project all your issues on some roleplayer boogeyman.
Wanting a challenge isn't I call you a a /v/tard, completely misunderstanding how games work in a way that's very obviously based on thinking of it like a videogame is.

Whining about roleplayers on 4chan isn't going to fix your game, talking to your group like an adult or finding a new group if you can't reach an agreement will.

>>52996031
are you >>52995135
Because if you aren't, that's who I was referring to in regards to "roleplayfags like you."

Then again, you're about as caustic as the first guy so for all I know, you're the same person and you're pretending not to be for whatever reason.

Anyways, it's just this weird DM philosophy that people have nowadays, where the rules are only there to be ignored and anything you set in front of the players is either equal to them so they can beat them or vastly above their power level, but only to make them think that you aren't molly-coddling them as they learn to run away from the big scary monster you put in their way.

Looking through the OSR general, I think I much prefer how older editions handled their games, where everything is expected to kill you and not dying was actually an achievement deserving of praise.

Did you know that pit traps were actually deadly? You wouldn't it you played 5e's tomb of horrors.

>>52996164
>Because It doesn't work the way you clearly think it does
>It's not my fault that you literally don't understand how a system works and want to project all your issues on some roleplayer boogeyman.
>completely misunderstanding how games work in a way that's very obviously based on thinking of it like a videogame is.
You didn't actually prove me wrong in my assertion that HP are a measurement of how much damage you can take before being KO'd or dying, you just added some prose to describe what taking 1 damage is like and patted yourself on the back as if you're the first guy to describe something in a tabletop RPG.

>>52995926
Even when scaled to their level its still a challenge.
Video games are alway designed to be beaten, puzzles are generally designed to be solved.

Thus a "balanced" encounter is still a challenge, as long as the gm isnt changing his rolls and is acting more or less impartially.

>>52997860
>Video games are alway designed to be beaten, puzzles are generally designed to be solved.
Yet at the same time, there's a huge difference between something being possible and actually pulling it off.

Think about it like this right, a bullet hell like DoDon-Pachi or Touhou has patterns that are designed to be beaten, but actually doing so will generally require that you either learn the patterns or gain enough skill to slip into the minor gaps of safety that the game affords you to have.

In a tabletop game however, you don't improve as a player, you just kinda gain more levels to fight bigger enemies but it ultimately doesn't matter because nothing you fight is going to be outside your weight class, so aside from gaining an ability or two from leveling up, levels in and of themselves become worthless.

>52996302
The best part is how the guy didn't take your obvious bait.
>>52997860
This.
People thinking "balanced" means "simple/homogenous/easy" are idiots/trolls.

>>53000157
hi I'm >>52996302

How is me calling HP a measure of how much damage you can take before getting KO'd or dying bait? What do you think is supposed to happen when you run out of HP?

>>53000157
>People thinking "balanced" means "simple/homogenous/easy" are idiots/trolls.
If the encounters are always scaled to your level, you don't actually become any more powerful because you'll always be given a 50/50 shot of taking out everything that stands in your way.

Think about it like this right, what situations can you think of that require more thought than "I attack X" or "I cast Y at X?" and still be just as viable as either of those options.

>>52995959
Yeah, that seems to be the running theme in the hobby, attention whores asking other attention whores to give them more attention.

>>53000230
We all get what you're saying man, now describe how you would make a knife held to the throat lethal when it can only do 1d4+strength damage, which can barely kill 1st level characters. If you do it solely with rolls, it's impossible to convince a non-roleplayer to surrender/not struggle against the assailant.
Do you understand what he's trying to tell you now

>>53000315
And if encounters are never scaled to your level, you'll very probably run into no option but die scenarios, or possibly even worse, the succession of pisseasy encounters where no amount of tactics necessary.

>Think about it like this right, what situations can you think of that require more thought than "I attack X" or "I cast Y at X?" and still be just as viable as either of those options.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. But I'm guessing you want something more tactical; maybe look for a system with facing rules or large amounts of "circumstantial" bonuses, where positioning means a lot, so while you might be attacking X or casting spell Y at Z, where you go to do it is often as or more important.

>>53003664
The clincher, anon, is no, not every combat is actually keyed to the pcs' "level", that is a strawman someone propped up, on top of the fact that gains in power is represented by heightened capabilities in the characters themselves. Further, not everything is a situation you can resolve with violence.
>>53000230
Because that is what it does, not what it is. Defining it by such a measure means you are misunderstanding what it represents and how it interacts with the world.

>>52987156
Because its RP, not a wargame?

>>53003737
>And if encounters are never scaled to your level, you'll very probably run into no option but die scenarios, or possibly even worse, the succession of pisseasy encounters where no amount of tactics necessary.
Which would honestly be a nice change of pace. Sometimes it's nice to run into a bunch of goblins as level 5 characters and wipe the floor with them without any incedent and sometimes it's nice to fight an adult dragon as you're going into a cave on a rumor that there's treasure deep in the catacombs. It certainly makes the world feel more organic than running into equal leveled encounters where everything is designed to survive 2-3 rounds before dying in every other combat encounter.
>I'm not sure what you're asking here. But I'm guessing you want something more tactical
Well I've been looking into OSR since last night and it certainly fits the bill, and I heard 4e getting dropped ITT as well.

>>53003769
What are you talking about? I'm not saying anything about accomodating PC levels or solving everything with violence. Stop beating around the bush and clearly state the reasoning and steps you would take to convince a ROLLplayer not to struggle against a 1d4+STR knife at their throat. Not a roleplayer, who despite knowing their character MECHANICALLY cannot be killed by that, but is going to play along for the story.

We're playing a game. You said an assassin grappled me from behind and will cut my throat. As a barbarian with 16 con I have 15hp at first level. Convince me I am in danger. Go.

>>53003904
Stop playing 3.PF, and that would go a long way.
But since you wanted to go this route:
You said assassin? The assumption that an assassin must be using a knife is factually incorrect, short swords were more the norm, especially in 2e where assassin was a class.
We are using 3.PF, poison is a thing, 2d6 sneak attack, and depending on the situation, coup de grace may be on the table.
Or, I could simply choose to not have such a stubborn, willfully obtuse player at my table, because if you can't understand this, you would not understand any of the judgments the vast majority of games expressly leave to the GM.
It's a moot point.

>>53003769
>Defining it by such a measure means you are misunderstanding what it represents and how it interacts with the world.
I understand how HP works, it's not a difficult concept to grasp and I don't understand why you're making a big deal about this. If the damage dealt doesn't scale up to the HP given, nothing you say is going to make the attack actually feel dangerous because anyone capable of basic math will be able to see that the damage taken is much lower than a quarter of their maximum health.

In fact, coming up with prose to describe such a low amount of damage will only make this problem feel more apparent IMHO.

>>53003851
What good is a narrative with no conflict?

>>52995236
The rules exist as an arbitration system for when the outcome is unclear, not as a mechanical system to be exploited desu.

>>53004001
The original argument was that a bandit held a knife against your throat, not an assassin.

>>53004065
Every rule in existence can be exploited desu. If you don't want exploitation, run freeform, not a tabletop RPG!

>>53004001
I am playing 5e, and I wrote assassin without a capital letter for the express reason of not conferring a class, but if you insist on the sneak attack, let's say it's a Rogue. A sneak attack, may I remind you, he does bot get if there are none of his allies next to us. But let's assume they are. Cutting my throat for MAX damage with a shortsword for 2d6+strength (unless this is the strongest person ever, that won't be +5, more like +1 or +2) still barely barely gets me to 0hp AT MAX DAMAGE.

But assuming there are no allies, he isn't the strongest dude ever, and has a FUCKING DAGGER LIKE I SAID YOU GOAL-POST MOVINT CUNT, I take about 3-6 damage. Not even close to a lethal strike.

Your presumption that I am such a player is just that, a presumption. Even with 100hp I would back down at that situation, because I'm a roleplayer, but that is not what the precedent was, and not what we were discussing, which is that MECHANICALLY I have no reason to be afraid as I am not in danger.

Fucktard.

>>53004070
Alright, coup de grace, take full damage/roll death save.
If this is Basic/2e, you are likely dead.
3e, at first level, you'd have high odds of being dead.
4e, you'd end up bloodied at the least.
>>53004048
Why are you assuming it's one or the other.
What is up with the inflexible autists in this thread?

>>53004165
>Why are you assuming it's one or the other.
Because if every victory is given to you based off of how much you entertain the DM, there's no real conflict, it's just a roller coaster ride where the end of the ride is capped off with a requisite final boss fight against the BBEG.

>>53004146
I know absolutely nothing about 5e, and can't comment on it in the slightest.
So it's whatever you say, but I know how it would work out in every other edition.
What you are still forgetting is that the DM has express license to adjudicate the results the way they want to, especially since the combat rules pointedly do not cover the situation you are bringing up.
I wouldn't deal hp damage. I'd have you roll a death save or drop down and start bleeding out. If you made the save, you just take crit damage and roll initiative.
>>53004205
Except that's not how actual games go at all, just in your strawman example.
And if the game is going that way, the only reason you would reasonably know that is if you yourself are the GM, and have chosen to run the game in such a fashion.

>>53003876
>Which would honestly be a nice change of pace.
As someone who has been on the other end of it, it gets old REAL fast.

>Oh look, my random encounter table says you run into a sand golem. Lessee, none of you have the perception to see it in the desert, so it kills one of you at random right off the bat. Nope, you can't hurt it. Sure, you can try to run, but it's faster and hardier than any of you, so you're all dead.

It's actually even more settled by DM fiat than a "perfectly balanced setting", and it's something that happened a lot in actual old school games. I can't speak to OSR, as an oldfag who has memories of that time (mostly bad ones), it's a style of play that's far more dependent on the DM "allowing" you to win than more modern styles.

>>53004307
>Except that's not how actual games go at all
No, it is, for the most part.
>And if the game is going that way, the only reason you would reasonably know that is if you yourself are the GM, and have chosen to run the game in such a fashion.
Or after years of playing, I've noticed that every game always throws us against goblins/kobolds/orcs and that we continue fighting a successive number of encounters that are roughly our level until we reach the end and start over from scratch.

It doesn't help that so many people will be accused of being shit DM's if they actually don't balance encounters. Poking through older editions, apparently you can fight a goddamn dragon if you wander around the forest for long enough but if you tried doing that now, you'd be called a shitty DM and accused of railroading or some shit.

>>53004400
It was also a time where you weren't expected to fight, and beat, everything you came across.
Running was important, and outside a spare handful of creatures, no foe pursued pcs past a certain distance.
>>53004445
You are making arguments about the nature of traditional progression in D&D, but it doesn't really inform on most games.
> apparently you can fight a goddamn dragon if you wander around the forest for long enough but if you tried doing that now, you'd be called a shitty DM and accused of railroading or some shit
As above anon already said, that shit was NOT good for a game because the same system meant you were not going to even begin to survive even a single attack, and half the party dying to a random encounter (which was more likely then you think) pulled down the mood and tempo of the game.
At this point, anon, you are throwing out a lot of "this is my opinion" in the thread, and I'm not here to tell you your opinion is wrong. What you ought to realize is why games of D&D proceed in that route, and understand that yes, there is a visceral feel of power gain that is more than mechanics, it comes from understanding that in a setting, a dragon is a powerful foe, and if you can take a dragon, you can take a lot of other things.
Unless you have something else, this thread has basically run it's course.

>>53004400
Not necessarily, from what I understand about the game, you probably got killed because you didn't make the necessary prep work to avoid the golem before entering the desert.

Also, you didn't really roll perception in older d&d games unless I missed something.

>>53004548
>As above anon already said, that shit was NOT good for a game because the same system meant you were not going to even begin to survive even a single attack, and half the party dying to a random encounter (which was more likely then you think) pulled down the mood and tempo of the game.
If the game is pulled down because you lost, that honestly says more about you and the current state of the hobby than anything wrong with the concept.

That's the problem honestly, people are so afraid of losing that the devs did everything in their power to make sure that nobody would ever be put into a bad spot ever. It's why mages lost so many roadblocks that kept them in check and why everyone gets more than 1.5x the health of their OD&D/AD&D counterparts.

You practically have to go out of your way to die and everyone's so afraid of being called shitty that they give these people what they want, roller coaster narratives without any of the actual stakes that make stories memorable.

>>53004548
>It was also a time where you weren't expected to fight, and beat, everything you came across.
True
>Running was important, and outside a spare handful of creatures, no foe pursued pcs past a certain distance.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA. If you were lucky, sure. If you weren't, you didn't last that long, or your GM noted that the pursue distance was in a mile or two (for a usual outdoor encounter) and you weren't going to make it that far when it's something really powerful on your ass. And that's of course when they're not taking steps to prevent your leaving, which dependent on the system, probably do exist in some form.

>>53004657
>If the game is pulled down because you lost, that honestly says more about you and the current state of the hobby than anything wrong with the concept.
No, the game got pulled down because the rapport and camaraderie that was being built up between the pcs got sliced short on a whim that they functionally had no recourse against.
You are making a lot of mechanics arguments and ignoring the essential roleplaying aspects entirely.
>>53004571
You are wrong on both counts. Wandering monsters almost always got the jump on you, and "perception" was often settled via percentile roll.
>>53004666
That's why it was always nice to have a dwarf or halfling around.

>>53004571
>Not necessarily, from what I understand about the game, you probably got killed because you didn't make the necessary prep work to avoid the golem before entering the desert.

No, we didn't. This was from a published adventure with the stats for Sand Golems contained in the back in it (i.e.not part of the game's equivalent to a monster manual) and none of us playing through the first time even knew there was such a thing as a sand golem. For a "first level" party (The game in question, Dragonquest, didn't use levels), the only real chance of survival was to be part of a party of 7 or more, since that was the limit the things would have to attack. But you went in BLIND, not even knowing there was such a thing as a sand golem, let alone what precautions you could take against it.


>Also, you didn't really roll perception in older d&d games unless I missed something.

That example in particular wasn't in DnD. You had a perception stat of 8 for a default human, with a possible +-1 depending on your race's stuff. That gave you a 0-4% chance of detecting it on approach, since

>Sand Golems can swim through sand as humans move through water. When a Sand Golem is in this state, only the black eyes can be seen, but they are often mistaken for ordinary stones.

That being said, in older DnD games, I would occasionally encounter the equivalent, the "surprise, it's a beholder popping out of the well that you had no way of even knowing about, you're all dead", or the joy of rube-goldberg esque traps that the only way to survive was to think the same way the ref did, or other bullshit.

>>53004737
>No, the game got pulled down because the rapport and camaraderie that was being built up between the pcs got sliced short on a whim that they functionally had no recourse against.
Okay, so what? It blows when a character you like gets cut down sooner than you expected but if there's no chance of a character dying then what's the point of that rapport and camaraderie in the first place? You need equal parts of good and bad to happen, otherwise you end up making both parts worthless and cheap in the end.
>>53004737
If wandering monsters always got the drop on you then what was the point of perception? Even in the example the other anon posted, it just kinda sounded like the party wandered into the desert on foot without any supplies, unless the original posted would like to clarify if I'm mistaken.

File: 1424682667549.gif (2MB, 235x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 235x240px

>>52991920
I agree with Wonder-Red. Underrated post.

>>53004887
>if there's no chance of a character dying
At what point did I say that was the case, anon? You continue to read a lot of contention into every statement, treating them as black/white variables.
There is a difference between a situation of poor luck/positioning/foolhardiness, and coming up on something you have absolutely no functional way of dealing with, not even by running.
>If wandering monsters always got the drop on you then what was the point of perception?
Because your spot check in 2e was based on a percentile roll, and you are talking about 30% chance. Further, if something was using the Hide skill against you, YOU DID NOT SEE IT, PERIOD. It passed it's Hide roll, and thus was hidden. Many dms didn't even use the spot rolls, and simply described things as the players saw them.
>it just kinda sounded like the party wandered into the desert on foot without any supplies
You are being very generous in your assumption that being ganked by a hidden enemy that was beyond their power purposely was their fault.

>>53004887
>Even in the example the other anon posted, it just kinda sounded like the party wandered into the desert on foot without any supplies, unless the original posted would like to clarify if I'm mistaken.
Okay, having read >>53004817 it seems as though my assumptions were partially correct.
>>53004817
From what I've read so far, PC's are meant to be easy to kill both to sell how lethal the game is and to sell how dangerous adventuring into parts unknown was supposed to be.

Traps were practically OHKO, but there were also ways to avoid them if knew where to look and how to approach obstacles. Monsters wandered around, which meant that time spent resting put you in danger the longer you stayed.

You weren't heroes going into to tombs to take on liches and save the world, you're a group of vegabonds going into a world that hates you and wants you to die for daring to leave the comforts of civilization for promises of treasure and nobility.

>>53004887
> Even in the example the other anon posted, it just kinda sounded like the party wandered into the desert on foot without any supplies, unless the original posted would like to clarify if I'm mistaken.

As the guy who posted the original story, it was from a module in an old game called Dragonquest. We had a mission to go save this guy's daughter who got captured by bedouins. Our first game through, we get desert supplies, a camel to haul our shit, some extra water, ditched the metal armor, etc. That cost us pretty much all of our starting money. We go out into the desert, on our way to enlist with the Bedouins in question as a cover to get access to the camp. It was about a 2 day journey for the desert part (We didn't start there), and in that time, you get 4 random encounter rolls, one every 12 hours. 20% chance for an encounter, and then a 4% if you do get an encounter of getting a sand golem, so that leaves you with about a 96% chance of never running into one.

But, if you do, you're probably fucked, unless you're traveling in a party of 7 or more. I would again like to repeat that Sand Golems were not part of the "standard" array of monsters and were only introduced with the adventure, so even knowing they were a thing wasn't part of our knowledge set at the beginning of the first time through.

Anyway, we ran into one at around 8am of our second day traveling, when we're tired (we were moving by night), so most of us are around half-fatigue anywa. We of course all fail our Perception rolls, since the odds are ludicrously low that we'd see it, and it kills Andrew's character in one hit on the "surprise" round. We shoot it with our bows, but that does nothing, and then we tried to flee, to be hunted down and killed, in part because half-exausted people don't run all that fast.

I've since gotten the module and run it myself, but it's just a bad Random Encounter Table, and one that wasn't that uncharacteristic of games back then.

>>53005011
>There is a difference between a situation of poor luck/positioning/foolhardiness, and coming up on something you have absolutely no functional way of dealing with, not even by running.
Well if you go into a place called "tomb of horrors" then it stands to reason that most of the architecture is going to try and kill you, likely through no fault of your own beyond being unlucky. It happens, and that's okay, because the moments where you come out ahead end up feeling sweeter as a result.
>You are being very generous in your assumption that being ganked by a hidden enemy that was beyond their power purposely was their fault.
Well I mean, they could've hired a cart to pull them across the desert or something.

>>53005019
>From what I've read so far, PC's are meant to be easy to kill both to sell how lethal the game is and to sell how dangerous adventuring into parts unknown was supposed to be.
And there's a BIG difference between 'this game is lethal and you need to be on your toes', and 'if the RNG dictates you die, you die'.
How would you like it if in a "highly lethal" adventuring game, your GM announced that on every adventure, you'd have a 4% chance of dying in your sleep to random assassins. There's no defense possible, or precautions you could take, if they show up, you're dead. I'd imagine you'd call bullshit, and rightly so. When the "lethal" hazard is an unavoidable part of accepting the adventure at all and there are no reasonable precautions you can take, that's essentially what you're asking for.

>Traps were practically OHKO, but there were also ways to avoid them if knew where to look and how to approach obstacles. Monsters wandered around, which meant that time spent resting put you in danger the longer you stayed.
No, there are SUPPOSED to be ways to avoid them. In practice though, that's often dependent on your GM. I had another game, way, way back in the 80s, where we had that old hackneyed "There's a room with tiles with letters on them, trust in the name of the Master to protect you, i.e. walk on the right tiles or DIE" Well, we walked on the tiles of the name of the God who this particular cult worshipped, only to be squashed by the falling ceiling because it OBVIOUSLY meant the name of the cult leader, which was complicated by the fact that the guy's name was drawn from the god, so the first 5 letters were in common.

And that's just the point I'm trying to make. "Gritty and lethal and you're not Big Heroes' is a fine way to play. But if you play it real old school way, you are enormously more dependent on GM goodwill to survive, because luck more than anything else separates the rich from the dead.

>>53005027

The thing about random encounter tables is that they're supposed to be indicative of the creatures that are common to an area. That means that information should be available (or at least known) to some subset of the educated population. If nobody knows what's in the desert, and isn't not possible to classify the local fauna in any consistent way, then there is no table.

I've avoided this whole problem by assuming the above - the PCs can always do some prep and find out what the most dangerous thing in the desert is. It's their own damn fault if they wander into new territory without the answer to the most basic question "what is the most dangerous thing in this desert?" If anything, some rare creature that can easily kill a party of 6 is noteworthy and probably has legends, if not textbooks, written about it, even if nobody actually knows specifically what it is.

>>53005157
And that is an argument that is COMPLETELY dependent on the GM thinking along the same lines you do. What if the "educated" population segment that knows about Sand Golems doesn't want to talk to smelly adventurers? What if nobody does in fact know about them? Or the people who do in fact know about them, if asked a general question like "What are the things to worry about in desert travel" are going to repeat more common dangers like bedouin raiders and sandstorms, and not this ultra-rare exotic creature that is almost impossible to spot and only attacks small groups and almost never leaves survivors; and that they'll only talk about Sand Golems if you have your party directly ask about them, which of course they have no reason to do so if they don't know there's something along to be worried about in the first place?

If you want to avoid that kind of thing, you need a GM who is willing to allow you to access that information; at which point how is that any different from someone who "allows" you to win by pleasing him.

>>53005157
>they're supposed to be indicative of the creatures that are common to an area.
In 2e D&D, one of the random enemy encounters for any arcane type dungeon was a level 5 magic user and 3-10 gargolyes.
I can't even begin to explain how scary that is until the entire party is at least level 8.
>>53005152 is entirely correct, there is a reason that play style was mostly left behind because it in itself is exceedingly niche, a parcel of the early wargaming days that most rpgs are descended from.
You pointedly do NOT have experience with this type of gameplay, whilst 2 people in this thread have.
Like in >>53005245, because many of the skills that mean "I made this roll, thus I achieve this goal of varying difficulty" didn't exist, you were far more reliant on the GM working with you to accomplish things, and if they did not want you to, then you functionally could not, period, no recourse.
Granted, that is the sign of a poor gm, but all of the examples of gaming you have brought up thus far can also be attributed to poor gm'ing, lack of control of pacing, presenting varied challenges, low engagement by the players.

>>53005152
>When the "lethal" hazard is an unavoidable part of accepting the adventure at all and there are no reasonable precautions you can take, that's essentially what you're asking for.
No it's not, reread what I said and don't put words in my mouth.
>>53005152
Are you saying that you didn't have a means of testing the tiles without actually walking into the room? If they were pressure plates, why didn't you just press them from afar? Also, if the entire party was squashed, that's really your fault for walking into this room all at once rather than sending in one dude and hoping for the best?

It sounds to me like you died through your own actions, rather than through any fault with the DM.

>>53005306
>If they were pressure plates, why didn't you just press them from afar?
Schrodinger's Toolkit: the assumption that you ought to have every tool you need, at every moment you need them, and if you don't, it's your fault.
>that's really your fault for walking into this room all at once rather than sending in one dude and hoping for the best?
Hindsight doesn't make you smarter, anon. I could easily present the example of a water pit trap in the middle of a room that had no obvious signs and could really be skipped over unless someone mentioned they were walking on the lefthand side of the room.

>>53005291
>You pointedly do NOT have experience with this type of gameplay, whilst 2 people in this thread have.
Tbh, it just sounds like two people whining more than two people who have experience with the game. I mean, one dude got dunked on because he was new and the party didn't take time to rest during the night and another dude is pissy because he made a wrong assumption that got him and his party crushed under a ceiling.

I hear this type of thing happen all the time with games with difficult encounters, the only really way to fix it is to improve, learn from your mistakes, and try to do a little better next time.

>>53005424
>Schrodinger's Toolkit: the assumption that you ought to have every tool you need, at every moment you need them, and if you don't, it's your fault.
You have 4-6 bodies to divide poles, rope, ball bearings, etc. between and if you didn't have them, that was your fault.
>Hindsight doesn't make you smarter, anon.
Actually it does, because it means that you'll remember your mistakes and will be less likely to make the same mistake in the future.

I dunno anon, the more I talk to you, the more it seems like you really did die due to your own actions.

>>53005306
>No it's not, reread what I said and don't put words in my mouth.
It is, you're just deciding (wrongly) that every ref would run things the way you did, and not how they actually in fact did so.

>Are you saying that you didn't have a means of testing the tiles without actually walking into the room?
Nope. I would also point out that we "failed" on the 6th letter, which meant that to test it would involve someone being well within the room when the shit hit the fan.

>If they were pressure plates, why didn't you just press them from afar? Also, if the entire party was squashed, that's really your fault for walking into this room all at once rather than sending in one dude and hoping for the best?
No, it's literal magic which could tell the difference between pressure of a non-sapient force and one of sapient force.

And we all went in at once BECAUSE WE THOUGHT WE HAD SOLVED IT. We had the name of the "Master", and it was one that led exactly from start to end, so we went through as a body rather than risk getting ambushed on one or both ends while the party was split up; using a methodology that was perfectly reasonable with the information we were given.

> I mean, one dude got dunked on because he was new and the party didn't take time to rest during the night and another dude is pissy because he made a wrong assumption that got him and his party crushed under a ceiling.
Now who is blatantly mischaracterizing things?

>>53005446
It was the same guy, anon.
And you are implying encounters pointedly designed to not be winnable are "difficult", rather than "unfair".
>>53005510
Like I said, Schrodinger's Toolkit. You are making a dishonest argument.
>because it means that you'll remember your mistakes and will be less likely to make the same mistake in the future
This is actually impossible, because many traps require the DM to pass you along enough information to act on. Hell, later 2e D&D modules starting to fuck with players by using their metaknowledge against them, like having powerful undead that were blind, but would rush a player tapping on the walls, floor and ceiling with a 10' pole.
This is where I exit, because this conversation has turned, once again, into banal accusations and high rider nonsense.
>>53005538, you ought to do the same.

File: Where's the You..png (14KB, 880x179px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 880x179px

>>53005510
>I dunno anon, the more I talk to you, the more it seems like you really did die due to your own actions.
You're not even replying to the guy who told you the story.

>>53005538
>It is
No it isn't.
>And we all went in at once BECAUSE WE THOUGHT WE HAD SOLVED IT. We had the name of the "Master", and it was one that led exactly from start to end, so we went through as a body rather than risk getting ambushed on one or both ends while the party was split up; using a methodology that was perfectly reasonable with the information we were given.
And you were mistaken, it happens sometimes.
>Now who is blatantly mischaracterizing things?
Still you.

>>53005580
>And you are implying encounters pointedly designed to not be winnable are "difficult", rather than "unfair".
And you're sitting here going on about how something being difficult means that you had no way of pulling it off. Pulling shit off in spite of the odds is what any story worth telling is made of mate, if you want things to always be in your weight class, you can always play modern D&D where nobody dies and everyone holds your hand through the tough sections.
>Like I said, Schrodinger's Toolkit. You are making a dishonest argument.
You have a party, comprised of multiple people, who each have the capacity to carry at least 1-2 instances of every tool that may or may not need, yet you're trying to say that it's impossible to have everything that you may or may not need for your adventure?
>This is where I exit, because this conversation has turned[...]into banal accusations and high rider nonsense.
Ok, it's okay when you do it but not me? Whatever man.

>>53005588
I was replying to the one who was going on about Schrodinger's toolkit, not the guy who was new and died from a sand golem.

>>52987278
The point of being stronger is that you can take on challenges that require you to beat adult dragons rather than ones that require you to beat orcs. From a strictly abstract Eurogame-like point of view there's no real difference, but from a roleplaying perspective saving a village from some orcs, saving a kingdom from a dragon, and saving the world from a demon lord are very different stories.

>>53008874
>No it isn't.
Sure it is. "Making the appropriate preparations" is only an option if your referee gives you the information such that appropriate preparations are possible. Maybe you would have done that if you were reffing back then. Maybe not. Either way, it IS in fact a lethal hazard and ultimately a RNG kill if you do not have that information.

>And you were mistaken, it happens sometimes.
And so all of your points about "why didn't you try tapping it with a pole or something" are meaningless.

>Still you.
Nnnope. Let's go back to your original statement.

>I mean, one dude got dunked on because he was new and the party didn't take time to rest during the night.
Please explain how you "knew" the random encounter would hit then? And why it's a bad idea to travel by night and rest in the day in the desert? And how that could have been avoided by anything other than dumb luck if the reverse had been done; after all, the random encounter table doesn't stop rolling. And of course, it would have no bearing on the fact that the SG is invulnerable to the sorts of weapons that a just generated party is likely to have, is practically invisible until it strikes, can murder the fuck out of someone on a surprise attack, and that your "best" bet in that situation is to scatter and flee, which will probably lead to 1-2 more people dying, and any survivors being stuck in the desert with no heavy supplies.

>>53008996
>I was replying to the one who was going on about Schrodinger's toolkit, not the guy who was new and died from a sand golem.

Bull.

>I dunno anon, the more I talk to you, the more it seems like you really did die due to your own actions.
The only way that makes sense is if you think that the guy talking about Schrodinger's toolkit me, the guy with the sand golem story. So either you're a bad reader, or just a blatantly dishonest troll. Given how you seemed to wait until the thread was right at terminal before responding, I'm guessing the latter.

>>52986893
Bruh, you should GM for your group. Even if it's just a one shot, worst comes to worst your current GM might appreciate the opportunity to play

>>53009132
>"Making the appropriate preparations" is only an option if your referee gives you the information such that appropriate preparations are possible.
Or if you, as a group, are smart enough to know when to break out the rope, poles, and weights when you're tasked to go inside of a dungeon with multiple deadly traps inside.
>And so all of your points about "why didn't you try tapping it with a pole or something" are meaningless.
Only if you're the type of person who gets upset over their mistakes and doesn't take it as a learning experience to do better next time.
>Please explain how you "knew" the random encounter would hit then?
From what he explained, they traveled through the night and only tried resting the next morning, which is when the golem attacked and defeated them due to them dealing with fatigue penalties.

I'm just saying man, a cart where you can ride in while resting would've probably saved their lives in the long run.

>>53009132
>Bull.
No, it's true, reread the post (which you've so graciously saved, thanks btw) and realize that I was referring to toolkit guy rather than golem guy.

Granted, there's some overlap in why their group ultimately died so I can see the confusion there.
>Given how you seemed to wait until the thread was right at terminal before responding, I'm guessing the latter.
Dude, I honestly just took a fucking nap. Not everything's a conspiracy to gain (you)'s y'know.

>>53009460
I'm thinking of running an OSR game sometime next week but I'm worried that if I do, they'll get mad and never play again because they're so used to how things worked in modern D&D.

>>53009556
just tell them it'll be different, be clear about the rules and tell them to get ready for a challenge.
Also if it doesn't break the game don't be afraid to compromise

>>53009963
Okay then.

I was thinking of giving them multiple character sheets and having each member travel as a group so that if one character dies, they'll still have someone to play in the meantime.

Is this a good idea or should I just keep it down to one?

>>52986462
>>52992913
I'm with you, OP. Most TTRPGs are recastings of old mass combat wargame rules, which were meant as a kind of What If? simulation. Skill wasn't as great a factor because outcomes were highly randomized. When the simulation is stacked in your favor, you have a pleasant narrative; when not, you have butthurt players. But in this style, skill-to-win requires that the simulation insert some weakness into the dungeon side, for the party to detect and exploit. That makes the scenario a sort of puzzle.

If the weak point is broadly assailable in multiple ways, then there's room for cunning play, but it's too easy, and I don't think you'd be satisfied with the mild challenge. If it's a narrow weakness, you're challenged, but cunning plans that don't happen to exploit that weakness will fail. That makes cunning play unlikely, and your play is mostly taken up with the effort of researching the weakness, which can take away the fun.

In this style of game, skill-to-win is an arithmetic problem that makes things extremely dull for the DM. Every interesting thing they would want to add would be overcome by your playing percentages. This arithmetic side of the game could be handled by a computer, removing some of the boredom for the DM. The existential problem of monsters gauged to your level could be handled plausibly by tiering danger into regions or dungeon depths. The concept of grinding small fry to safely strengthen for a foray into more dangerous regions can be handled by any competent DM.

But personally, I think the arithmetic base needs to be replaced with a logic base in the gaming system. If every encounter were presented as a logical problem instead of a series of integer values, that could allow for cunning play, but as I said before, that opens the door for a lot of pitfalls.

>>53011696
Honestly, I have no problem with multiple ways to overcome an obstacle, I only have an issue when everything and anything has a chance to be the right answer because the answer entertained the DM and/or the dice came up in your favor.

It's like you said, when it's broadly assailable in multiple ways, it becomes too easy. When it becomes a game of making the DM laugh, it feels like my decisions as a player matters less than making sure that the DM is in a good mood or something.

Reading through the OSR trove for a bit, it's begun to awaken the parts of myself that fell in love with games in the first place, when worlds were impartial to PC drive and motivation and you had to earn every single bit of power using your own wits and death was not only expected, but encouraged as a tool to teach, rather than something that only happened when the DM decided that it would be appropriate for the story.

If you're familiar with OSR stuff, what's a good module to start with?

>>53009529
Honestly, you have serious issues with understanding other people's views. The stories some of the other anons told you are perfect examples of unavoidable death through 1. A wrong guess(there seemed to be no evidence pointing to one or the other option
or
2. Sheer bad luck on the encounter table.

There simply are moments which you can't prepare for.
Your argument of "learning from failures" is fine and dandy, but that doesn't console the player, who might have poured literal tens of hours into working out details on the backstory and the motivations of his character and proceeds to write actual records of in-game happenings.

Some of my players are like that. They'd be devastated to lose their character, far more so if it were in a situation where they had no control over.

Seeing how you wouldn't have a problem with losing a character that way, I think the assumption of you being a "Rollplayer" first and foremost is probably correct. Else you would value interaction and your characters more than what you let on here in this thread.

I understand though. One of my players is also a good bit more power-gamey than the others. He also always tries to be the 'best', the most effective, be it in combat or elsewhere. He defines the success of our sessions through his accomplishments and the overall end result achieved.

But, just as others have said: That. Is. Not. The. Point.

Tabletop RPGs aren't actually a medium you can "win" at. You can succeed or fail, both having different repercussions.

Here I argue your point, because I understand your frustration to an extent. All I have to say after reading this thread is: Your GM(and your group for that matter) probably just isn't right for you. They seem to have different ideas, different opinions on how the game should be. They don't want to play the way you do. Simple as that.

(1/2)

>>53012175
Older modules were better at preventing implausible successes. Good candidates I have played are the BECMI module B36 Terrible Trouble At Tragidore that came with the custom Dungeon Master's Screen, the standalone 1e module B1 In Search Of The Unknown, and the 6 module campaign that begins with G1 Steading Of The Hill Giant Chief.

>>53012631
>Your argument of "learning from failures" is fine and dandy, but that doesn't console the player, who might have poured literal tens of hours into working out details on the backstory and the motivations of his character and proceeds to write actual records of in-game happenings.
If you're spending 10 hours on a backstory and motivations for your character, especially in a game where your character's longevity is equal to that of a chain-smoking housefly with a crush fetish, that once again says more about you as a player than any fault in the game.

Also, who the hell spends 10 hours on a backstory and motivations like that? Even in more narrative system, this seems excessive.
>They'd be devastated to lose their character, far more so if it were in a situation where they had no control over.
Okay, things happen. If they don't want their characters to die, take up writing, not a tabletop game where perma-death is a part of the game's design.

>>53012631
There is no need for part 2, anon. You're the last nigger in the gangbang, OP is thoroughly fucked out so you might as well take your selfserving parochialism to reddit.

>>53009529
>>53012631
(2/2)

I for one am doing exactly what you seem to look for in your game. My players are presented with multiple choices, multiple hooks to follow in a living world that !moves! This is a key point. Having multiple hooks, many manageable for the party's power level, some below that and a few extremely high above their head, and they know it. Whatever one they choose, I won't pull my punches, yet I always present hints on how to handle any situation. If their chars are able to do what must be done is another story entirely then.

And, most important of everything I've written these two posts:

Don't play fucking D&D. The leveling system is just ridiculously stupid if you're looking for a semi-realistic RPG with realistic lethality.

Play a system without levels. We're playing TDE, which also works on XP gain, but has a kind of free leveling. That way, characters do become stronger, by a lot even. Yet they never become some kind of super-humans able to go toe-to-toe with a dragon. In TDE, fighting a dragon would nearly always spell your demise, no matter how experienced your party is. The only way to beat such a foe is through IMMENSE preparation and an exceeding number of allies(cannon fodder).

Plus, every encounter COULD potentially end with a character death. Because the system is far less forgiving in most cases, and because of the far smaller distance in power levels between party and enemies.

Better Ruleset+setting + a slightly numbercrunching GM = Your game.
The only thing you're now never going to eliminate is the randomness of the dice. But if you want to start complaining about that as well, then this hobby just really isn't for you.

>>53012631
>Else you would value interaction and your characters more than what you let on here in this thread.
Don't mistake my acceptance of character death with me not valuing interaction or my characters, in fact, part of the reason why I lost my way was because I valued these aspects of tabletop gaming too much.

When you make a character and you see them going from level 1 to level 5, it was an achievement. It was like watching a character go from a scared weakling to a badass over the course of a few books, it endears you to the character's struggles and makes you want to see them succeed even more and makes situations where you see them in danger that much more nail-biting.

The problem though is that because of the way that modern games are designed, you end up in a situation where you practically NEED to go out of your way to die, spiting both the mechanics and whims of the GM. It's like reading a story and having the ending spoiled, there's no tension anymore.

>>53012786
I'll give them a look, thank you friend.

>>53012810
Again, you fail to understand. Some players don't WANT permadeath. Just like you want accomplishment, they might not want theír characters to die, because they're so heavily invested in them.

Preferences is the key word.

And before you say "But it's part of the game/rules!" Yeah it is, but homebrewing and different playstyles do exist. I mean, how many different houserules of Monopoly do you think there are on this earth?

Finally, just because my players don't want their chars to die, doesn't mean I coddle them. That's not the game we play, and they know that. Yet they still invest a lot of time into their chars, eventhough there have been a good number of deaths in our campaign already. Why?

Because it's not random. At least everything apart from the dice isn't. There is a reason for everything, and there are ways to work around obstacles. Ultimately, it's their fault if a char dies, and they know it.

If it were simple "one-missstep-and-you-die"-situations, their motivations to create engaging characters would have long since crumbled.

>>53012935
>I for one am doing exactly what you seem to look for in your game
That's good to hear anon. I actually don't mean that in a sarcastic way btw, I'm genuinely glad to hear that you're not falling into the same trappings as most DM's nowadays.
>Don't play fucking D&D. The leveling system is just ridiculously stupid if you're looking for a semi-realistic RPG with realistic lethality.
The leveling system isn't the issue, it's the fact that players have too much HP relative to the amount of damage you're supposed to deal by default.
>We're playing TDE, which also works on XP gain, but has a kind of free leveling. That way, characters do become stronger, by a lot even. Yet they never become some kind of super-humans able to go toe-to-toe with a dragon.
Sounds interesting, what's TDE if you don't mind me asking?

>>53012976
Oh, so if that's actually what you think, then just play one of the games the other anons before you mentioned. Random encounters, deathtraps with practically no way of knowing the correct solution, and death behind every door. Once you lost two or three characters that way you will most definitely not think like that anymore, I promise.

>>53013097
>Again, you fail to understand. Some players don't WANT permadeath. Just like you want accomplishment, they might not want theír characters to die, because they're so heavily invested in them.
Then why play them? Why build a character if you don't want to lose them as a consequence of the game? I understand it's a preference, and from what I understand you don't seem like a limp-wristed DM, but it seems asinine to make a character in a game where character death is possible just so they could never face the possibility of death outside of thematically appropriate moments.
>If it were simple "one-missstep-and-you-die"-situations, their motivations to create engaging characters would have long since crumbled.
Honestly, engaging characters are defined through play, not through how much detail you put into them during character creation.

>>52995959

Fuck dude... too real

>>53013120
TDE's "The Dark Eye", originally a german system.
Pretty neat worldbuilding, mechanics are pretty decent if a little overcomplicated, but that's probably the case with every system on the market.

Our group just made minor additions to the rules, like crit damage modifiers and hit zone modifiers, exactly to prevent a situations like what you mentioned earlier with the dagger at the throat. That would nearly always kill even the party tank. But that's also due to the smaller HP pools.

>>53013193
>Honestly, engaging characters are defined through play, not through how much detail you put into them during character creation.
This.

>>53013150
I'd never make a character for any game that I am not okay with losing during play, and this is how I've been since I started playing a few years ago.

I've lost characters that I enjoyed playing and y'know what I do, I feel bad for a bit and then I'd move on and make another character. Their memories are preserved in my mind and I'll work hard to make sure that my next character doesn't die to similar mistakes in the future.

Sometimes it's entirely possible to do everything right and still fail, but that's okay too, because the alternative is that I never try, which is magnitudes worse than losing through no fault of my own.

It's an RPG, and you can't have Role-Play without the Game, and vice-versa.

>>52986462
The easy thing to do here is instead of let dice do the talking, let consumable resources require management of "good" and "bad" rolls.
This seems to exist in a lot of systems already as fate points but if you could go further with it...

>>53013232
>TDE's "The Dark Eye", originally a german system.
German system? That's pretty cool. I'm assuming there's an English version floating around?

>>53013193
>it seems asinine to make a character in a game where character death is possible just so they could never face the possibility of death outside of thematically appropriate moments.
Would you look at that. That's one argument I had more often with a part of the group, since I did tell them I'd GM, yet only a realistic kind of game. They were OK with it at first, but when the possibilities of death - and then actual character death - arose, it was suddenly not so cool anymore.
I told them they had to GM themselves if they wanted a different style - I'm still GMing.

>Honestly, engaging characters are defined through play, not through how much detail you put into them during character creation.
Half-true. Had the problem arise that one player made a char without anything, no real motivation, no backstory, no nothing. That char just didn't work, he had no idea how to play him the first session. So he worked out a backstory after that, which improved things quite a bit. One of my players is just so immersed in the game, that he really goes over the top with all the background stuff, but it's all in line and pretty interesting, no autist-level crazy, so it's cool.

>>53013353
They brought it to the english-speaking market only last year I believe, so yeah, there is. But be warned, it's pretty different from D&D from my understanding(only looked into D&D very little, so can't really say. Nowhere near as crazy with the powerlevels for the PCs though, that's for sure).

>>53013310
Well, true, but I can't imagine that it doesn't make a difference to you which way your character bites the dust. I mean, would you honestly not be upset about a really cheap character death?

>>53013409
>I told them they had to GM themselves if they wanted a different style - I'm still GMing.
Good on you mate.
>Had the problem arise that one player made a char without anything, no real motivation, no backstory, no nothing. That char just didn't work, he had no idea how to play him the first session.
At the same time though, there's a difference between having a sparse backstory and having no backstory at all.

>>53013466
>But be warned, it's pretty different from D&D from my understanding
That's fine, I'm already learning OSR so I might as well dip my toes into classless systems too.

>>53013532
>I mean, would you honestly not be upset about a really cheap character death?
The only time I've been upset by a "cheap character death" was when the DM told me that my character died because the DM initiated a "Rocks fall, everyone dies" because another player pissed him off OoC and he decided to end the campaign early as a fuck you to the offending player.

Granted, after they sat down and talked it out like adults, they retconned the deaths and we finished the campaign but that pissed me off because OoC drama caused my character's death and nothing short of a full party revolt saved him from death.

If I'm going to die, I want it to be through my actions in-game, not because of OoC shit, y'know what I mean?