>guy complains about a system
>turns out it's because he's just bad at the game
I think the only part of this that's still even a surprise anymore is that people can somehow still actually be bad at RPGs. RPGs have become so easy to get into and learn that it's really sad how some people will actively sabotage themselves just to ensure they don't have fun. But, it just goes to show that if a person is motivated by petty spite, they can prove to be incompetent at anything.
GURPS in a nutshell
Is that seal real?
It's the real deal.
The seal is real
It's a good seal, sir.
>person blames the system for system agnostic problems
Why is this so common here?
I actually encountered the oppoaite problem.
I suck at the game most of the time, but can stomach it for those high roles/clever solutions moment that come like once in 3 sessions.
My friend on the other hand, is an optimizer and a role-play edgelord who somehow manages to build and talk dm into homebrowing anime bullshit type characthers.
And yet he still complains.
Makes me feel like a total tard sometimes
There's a guy in my group who constantly begs the DM for all manner of completely broken bullshit in order to make his character true to his concept. I think the reason the DM enables him is because he's an idiot in a way that math can't fix - he forgets how half the features he demands work, or that he has them, and frequently gets his character killed off by doing something completely avoidable by anyone who isn't a total moron. Funniest part is, he blames his characters' constant deaths on not being good at "tactical" games, despite the fact that he only rarely gets killed in combat, and even then usually because he forgot whatever busted-ass feature he could have used to avoid it.
I have a player like this. I constantly give him absolutely broken shit because he's so dumb that it won't matter and will occasionally make a really fun situation. If any of my other players had access to even a quarter of what he does I'd have to be treating my campaign very differently.
This guy honestly sounds like a great player. He’s fun and gets into character and doesnt abuse broken shit
I too have tried to get D&Dfinder players to try different games.
Same.
The fricking worst is that the guys I play with just instinctually yeet themselves into oblivion whenever I even think of trying anything other.
Battletech, warhammer 40k/killteam, cyberpunk, some weeb shit from 90s Russia.
Nothing.
BUT WHEN THE DM MENTIONS HE WANTS TO TRY HIS BULLSHIT RULE NUMBER 1734.
Even the guy who is coughing up blood is there!
>"I suck at D&D so I must hate it"
lol you dumb gays
I have you know I am not a dumb homosexual for being shit at D&D.
I am a mega moronic homosexual for trying to get my friends to try something different, instead of basically breaking D&D with homebrew and b***hing about it every other week.
Which is worse.
Because not only are we all moronic, nobody gives a shit in my friend group to actually listen to me.
>RPGs have become so easy to get into and learn that it's really sad how some people will actively sabotage themselves just to ensure they don't have fun.
What kind of "bad" are we talking about? Because the last time I heard someone say that IRL, what they meant by "bad" was actually "that player does stuff like spend their levelup feats on extra languages instead of feats that are necessary for optimal combat performance, and we have to babysit them through combat. They're frickin' bad at building a character, and it's frustrating".
If that's the type of "bad" we're talking about, then it's totally a system problem, because the system in question is basically saying "you have to pick between an option you feel fits with your character concept, and this other option that's mandatory for your class to stay relevant in combat encounters", which in a ROLE PLAYING gameis a bit of an issue.
If by "bad" we're talking about people who can't read/remember the rules and their character's abilities, or are trying to goof off in serious scenes, or any of the other sins one can commit in a TTRPG, or being That Guy, then sure. You've got a complaint. But you shouldn't be surprised, because the world churns out a constant supply of dickheads, and some of them will make it into this hobby no matter what we try to do about it.
>If that's the type of "bad" we're talking about, then it's totally a system problem, because the system in question is basically saying "you have to pick between an option you feel fits with your character concept, and this other option that's mandatory for your class to stay relevant in combat encounters", which in a ROLE PLAYING gameis a bit of an issue.
What game doesn't do this?
If you have limited points let's say in Mutants & Masterminds or Big eyes small mouth and you didn't put anything to make the character good. Like not asking for help and what not then yeah you should instead put more points into stats or powers instead of mundane asaine bullshit like extra languages that you most likely not going to be speaking.
We have a term for it in RPGs its called ribbon features which are non mechanical flavor that well you can just RP out. That isn't a system problem because remember ROLEPLAYING means playing a combat role as well dumbass not just improve acting.
>which in a ROLE PLAYING gameis a bit of an issue.
Hard disagree. If you need rules to help you RP you're socially moronic. Leave the system to do important stuff, like travel and combat, and have very basic RP rules. Roll whatever skill or stat or combination you need to do, be done with it, RP it out.
>higher proportion of shit games
You weren't around in the 90s and early 2000s, were you? Shit games have always been around. People released an RPG for every IP ever. And most were for shit d6 or d20 systems. These days it just so happens to be 5e and PbtA that takes that place.
>they're ultimately satisfied with an excuse to get drunk with their friends
We used to call these beer and pretzel RPGs. And they are far more valid than your shit "muh ultra serious gamez". It was always about having fun with your friends.
>I never really read books, just skim.
Why even use a system? Why not just have a high/low roll? Systems are there for everyone to agree about the rules. The randomness is there to allow risk without your GM having to deal with it. If there is no risk why use a system? Or use a system made for that. Use PbtA, FUDGE. But if your players enjoy it, good on you.
>spend a lot of time in books or on thier phones
Never had this issue at the table. If we can't agree on a rule the GM decides and then we look it up after the game or during a break. Takes a solid 2 minutes to look up the rule, maybe 5 if it has a related rule that we don't know.
Easy to learn, difficult to master. With the influx of normies, i'd say there is a higher proportion of shit games being played today than in the past. And because players are also normies who don't know any better, don't understand 'higher concepts,' read fantasy novels the original shit was based off, they're ultimately satisfied with an excuse to get drunk with their friends and scream 'LMAO BOBLIN THE GOBLIN! XD'
Not to jerk off about 'the craft' or anything, but ask the average normie GM about simple shit like how they portray tone, tension and themes and they will look at you like a stunned mullet. There is a reason so many youtubers, communities and the like have sprung up around the GM side of 'How to run a game' and the fact most of these places focus on absolute basics of 'you want your story to have a beginning middle and end' and 'it's okay to kick the player whose character molests every gnome they meet.'
I find it funny how much hay is made about the 'pressure' on GMs. The pressure only exists if you're actually putting in heavy effort, and from what i'm seeing barely anyone does, or if they do they're not online b***hing about it.
>I find it funny how much hay is made about the 'pressure' on GMs. The pressure only exists if you're actually putting in heavy effort, and from what i'm seeing barely anyone does, or if they do they're not online b***hing about it.
What kind of 'pressure' are people are talking about: is it that self-imposed "I'm going to bring the most entertaining game I can for my players" pressure, or is it "people expect me to be Matt Mercer - frick, I'm never gonna live up to that"? People in the second category are more inclined to b***h about it, because it's not the internal pressure to do your best and bring your A Game to the table every session, it's a fear of the completely unrealistic expectations of other people.
I'm not a professional voice actor running a semi-scripted campaign for the entertainment of an audience. I am never going to run a campaign as slickly as that, and the pressure to try to would be crushing.
But I'm not trying to do that. And I'm not trying to railroad a group through an epic fantasy I've come up with. I started this hobby long before Critical Role was a thing, and the pressure I've actually had to deal with is getting everyone to line up their schedules and then run the most enjoyable session I can for my players, responding to what they're doing, figuring out when to say "sure" and when to say "we'll look the rule up after the session, because everybody else at the table would prefer to play instead of argue about it", and all the usual GM stuff.
Good post, hit the nail on the head.
Tbf we were all like that once, every GM first game is an incoherent mess. The problem isn't the influx of new players that are actively interested in rpg, the problem is when people just don't want to grow in what they like or are just playing it because it's a fad
Fad or not, I also believe WotC is reaping what they sowed when they moved their business model from expansion books to pre-written adventures and merch. The amount of newbie groups I've seen that only run whatever new adventure came out that year is staggering, and because these GMs are never given a foundation, or a need really, to make their own stuff and go off the rails, these training wheels have left the hobby with a lack skilled GMs compared to literally any other system.
What's "bad at the game" mean? Failing to participate? Beat monsters? Engage with npcs? Isn't this all just roll "X" to beat "Y". Where "Y"'s value is determined by the individual running the game.
I find people are hung up on dumb crap most of the time. I have DMed for years straight. Never have had complaints. I never really read books, just skim. I just ask what system, check I have the correct looking dice; and then bullshit my way through the game. So long as fun is had, no one cares.
If I get called on stuff. I just say idk, look it up, and roll exactly that way for that thing or w.e. that player I now know is here to win, not have fun. So I just feed them dumb dumb statements like "wow, you solved it!" Or "hm, let's look that up *looks up simple skimmed rule* you're so right".
You're adults playing pretend adventure in a room. Doing anything concerning not fun, including things like "Rules" shows you're not fun. If I wanted that crap I would play a card game, a video game, or something else that fundamentally restricts my imagination and capacity.
I make fun, I can run a campaign with a piece of paper and 3 6 sided dice.
But anon rules can be very fun. In fact without rules you aren't really playing a game. That's ok, but not everyone's preference. I sometimes enjoy a crunchier RPG that gives actions more mechanical heft because expressing myself through that system is a unique experience which can produce results I would not have done in a freeform environment. The rules also give the players grounding on what they can reasonably attempt and can also help remove the sting of failure. If everything is DM fiat then if my character gets into a bad situation and gets killed I as a player may feel personally slighted by the GM, but if that is "the rules" then it is a neutral arbiter that has killed my PC and not my friend the GM. Of course some level of GM fiat is always involved but that is the magic of RPG's. I wouldn't want to play at your table but that's ok.
>The rules also give the players grounding on what they can reasonably attempt and can also help remove the sting of failure. If everything is DM fiat then if my character gets into a bad situation and gets killed I as a player may feel personally slighted by the GM, but if that is "the rules" then it is a neutral arbiter that has killed my PC and not my friend the GM.
There's definitely a fine line to walk on that front as a GM.
Personally, my favorite way of jiggering things behind the screen is making up enemy statblocks on the fly, and the way I do it is to wait for someone to make an attack roll that the rest of the table is obviously certain hits the described enemy. Now its AC (or equivalent) is between that and the highest attack roll that I've said has missed. Eventually, as combat goes on, I'll have a concrete number for the enemy's AC, and use it per the rules - but it's a number that fits with what the players are imagining about the enemy, even if that isn't straight out of a monster manual or something. I'll do similar things to adjust the monster's own attack and damage: maintain consistency from the players' perspective, but try to tie it to what they expect and respond well to.
Oh, and I'll shave off HP from enemies when it seems like combat is dragging out too long, or if someone scored a bigass crit that would have left an enemy with only a few HP by the math - frick it, that's big and dramatic and fully kills the enemy because that's more fun for everyone.
There's a lot of wiggle room between straight mathematical RAW and "the GM is deciding everything". Although I admit that I usually run campaigns where it's tacitly understood that player characters only die at dramatically appropriate moments (or when someone has to quit the campaign for IRL reasons), usually pre-arranged with the player in question. If I ran high-lethality, I'd be fudging a lot less for exactly the reasons you gave.
No what you describe is basically the exact same thing that I said just with extra steps. Have you considered playing a system that actually does what you want it to do? Burning Wheel for instance has a rule where if a PC has a "persona point" then they can not die (though something terrible can happen to them). I'm sure other systems have similar things. But either way I find the idea of prearranging my PC's death with the GM to be un-fun. Because that means I can't die normally. If I won't die unless the GM wants me to (the highest possible stakes or close to them) then that means that very little I do as a player matters. The flip side of what I said above is that rules don't just prevent me as player from feeling slighted, they also allow me to exert agency on the game world. Because if the rules are the rules I can use them as player to do what I want, but if the GM can just say no because it doesn't fit his vision then I have no control. I perceive GMing by fiat to be the height of selfish GMing because you quite literally aren't letting them play, instead you are lying to them by fudging stuff/changing things and creating the illusion of risk. When I play RPG's I WANT risk, that is what makes rolling the dice fun and gives the action stakes.
>I find the idea of prearranging my PC's death with the GM to be un-fun
The most fun time I ever did this, it was actually pre-arranged before the campaign even began, since the player in question knew he'd need to leave before the campaign was over, and wanted to set up doing it with a bang, in a way that would shock the other players and keep their "oh shit, you can just randomly die!" fear alive.
We were both deliberately trying to frick with the rest of the players.
> that means I can't die normally. If I won't die unless the GM wants me to (the highest possible stakes or close to them) then that means that very little I do as a player matters
The campaigns I pulled that in were ones that ran long-term, and the sets of players I had preferred for their daring heroes to not perish at the cheap knife of some random goblin before having a duel with the corrupt lordling who'd destroyed their family, or whatever their personal arc was.
The one-shots and short campaigns I ran during the same period, and with some of the same people - holy shit did I splatter player characters all over the walls with open rolls!
Those are different narrative experiences that the campaigns, groups, systems, and GM fudging were aiming to create. Different genres, if you will.
> The flip side of what I said above is that rules don't just prevent me as player from feeling slighted, they also allow me to exert agency on the game world.
Players stop having any agency at all in the game world if their characters are dead.
If the GM wants to have player characters continue to exert agency, they need to keep them alive. Protagonists in most genres get to do this simply by existing in their own genre, and there's an expectation that they don't get wrecked.
Your first example is cool and makes sense given the IRL circumstances.
>The campaigns I pulled that in were ones that ran long-term, and the sets of players I had preferred for their daring heroes to not perish at the cheap knife of some random goblin
Then why fight the goblins? Why roll the dice? Just "Say Yes." Let the players describe how they attack the goblins even roleplay the goblins' reactions and such if you want. But if there is no chance of death or risk of resource loss then there's no point in engaging with the dice mechanics. Now let's say you didn't intend for the goblins to be deadly but one of them lands a lucky crit and kills a PC. If you dislike that remove crits altogether before the fight begins. If the goblins still murder a PC then you can consider if you badly misjudged the balance of the encounter. If so then I would agree with some fudging to bring them in line with the intended fiction. But if the PC had made mistakes beforehand that left him low and fought recklessly then yes they should die at the hands of that lowly goblin because that is the logical consequence of their gameplay. If you mess with this sort of thing too much it breaks versimilitude and makes the whole thing feel like a pointless exercise. So I return to my first advice which is just to say yes and not lie to your players that there is a risk of failure. A variant of this is to make a die roll for the fight with failure consequences being spent resources instead of failing to defeat the goblins.
>Players stop having any agency at all in the game world if their characters are dead.
>If the GM wants to have player characters continue to exert agency, they need to keep them alive.
But if I cannot choose to be risky (bc there is no risk) then I also have no agency. In most RPG games putting your PC's life on the line is an expected part of the fiction. Your 2nd point is totally genre dependent and different systems will support different styles.
Outlines for understanding what you're doing are the same as rules. If I didn't present an obvious chance of failure then yes, it's not also a game. But that's what I would need 3 dice for. I don't believe rules are bad. I believe getting hung up on them is. At the point in which you should just play a board game is a subjective feeling. So maybe, but I doubt it. I'm fun.
I don't understand how you can fail at playing (play badly) a TTRPG unless you basically don't want to be there.
I guess the only way to fail would be to completely disregard instructions as to what dice to roll and/or to avoid engaging with the imaginary space. Sort of like the only way to fail to play basketball is to break the rules or not play when the game starts. Playing badly isn't the same as failing to play.
Examples of playing badly in an RPG would be: throwing your character into deadly risks with little chance of upside (poor game play), or hogging the spotlight and refusing to let the other players get a word in (poor activity play). Poor game play rarely is an issue since there isn't a real failure state in RPG's and the games typically don't end until everyone is ready to be done. But there is a game to be played both with the dice and the imaginary world that can be optimized to an extent.
While I do believe RPG's are games they are not traditional games in the sense of having a winner or loser. They are a very odd mix of a game and activity and that is why I think people feel free to fudge and lie to their players. While that works for some people, I am of the firm belief the majority of players would not enjoy that practice if it was revealed to them and if would lower their enjoyment of the experience. It tips the weight too far towards activity and what is worse it concentrates the power of that change in the GM. Certain RPG's are made for this and let the players have more narrative say, creating a more collaboration focused activity than the more gamey character focused traditional RPG. All that to say it's not inherently bad to fudge but I think the most common methods are just about one of the worst ways to do it.
I don't lie and I play face to face with people. I usually attribute this to just socially awkward people. I think it sounds more like a people problem. I'm amiable, so maybe I'm ignorant. But I keep session going for years. So I admit I DM more than I play. But this thread may just be talking specifically about outliers. I play games with friends, I have a lot; so maybe my refusal to play online games is why I'm missing the point. Clearly.
I also DM for my friends and rarely get to play. I don't want to sound too harsh with my theoretical ramblings, if your group has fun then that is the most important thing. There is a huge spectrum of what an RPG can be. My particular subjective trigger is people fudging damage and stuff in D&D (98% of the conversation on fudging is about this topic), but even that can be OK if your table genuinely prefers it. And I cannot say what your table is like just what my preference is and my reasonings.
I'm a player in a new group now, they like that critical roll show and talk about gygax. His campaign is in a module. It's the polar opposite of my playstyle. The DM is also one of my players.
I think you would have fun because you don't just accuse me of no games because you feel personally attacked. I wanna be good at DMing.
You can't get mad at dice, same as you can't control cards you pull. I just usually lose players due to life (work, school, etc) not these situations. I want people to have fun, that's all I care about. Often the people concerned the most about rules spend a lot of time in books or on thier phones. If that's fun, that's fine. Just not my priority as a DM. Show me the rule, I'll follow it. As long as we are having fun.
> I guess the only way to fail would be to completely disregard instructions as to what dice to roll and/or to avoid engaging with the imaginary space.
Now I’m just thinking about how bad that can go.
GM: “Sorry guys, JimBob will not be joining us for game nights”
Players: “What! Why? Did something come up?”
GM: “not exactly, I was giving him a tutorial last week and he misunderstood how skill checks worked and somehow thought “roll 1D20 and add your skill bonus” meant “jam the dice into your eye as hard as you can”. We spent the rest of the night in the emergency room.”
GM: "You step into a dank and musty tomb, the sarcophagus against the far wall begins to creak open..."
JimBob: "I ask the barmaid in the corner if she comes here often."
Now this is funny!
We need more JimBob stories!
>If I get called on stuff. I just say idk, look it up, and roll exactly that way for that thing or w.e. that player I now know is here to win, not have fun. So I just feed them dumb dumb statements like "wow, you solved it!" Or "hm, let's look that up *looks up simple skimmed rule* you're so right".
Nogames homosexual.
Be mad all you like. So long as someone makes you feel good about yourself. You won't care about rules. 2 games this week, pic related is my shitty board. We got drunk and had fun.
>I can run a campaign with a piece of paper and 3 6 sided dice.
GURPSgay?
I have the books. You think I'm memorizing that system? GURPS curious if you will.
(I have ran 3 or 4 campaigns of GURPS, not fully understanding how to use the majority of the system) people don't know and don't care. Roll dice. Show tables, print sheets, repeat "hah this is complicated, we can learn as we go" a lot. Fun is still had.
3 dice works in a D&D system also. Just make more positive and negative effects while you play. "Your bad survival check gives you -1 on your dex checks" etc, etc.
The base rolls can't go bellow 3 and heights stop at 18. So you can shovel out magic weapons as a compensation.
Again, it's all variations of pretend. Books, systems, etc, just help. At least imo.
Honestly the same way I run GURPS, although I'm still new. I just run rules lite and throw in other rules if it feels like it'd be fun.
Vast majority of the system is optional anyway, I guess it's the intended way. I like playing around with rules but I don't treat them too seriously.
Some people are incompetent at a thing, period. Yet our society continually teaches and preaches the doctrine of "you only need confidence and practice". We should stop teaching people that nothing is impossible and start making them see reality.
Reminds me of a guy who plays Dystopian Wars at my LGS. He plays Empire and is always losing, and this is because what always happens is he sees something cool in the Orbat, puts the unit into his fleet, completely mismanages it so it gets blasted right off the board before accomplishing anything, then goes around complaining to everyone about how it’s a trash unit.
Me and another Dystopian Wars player sat down one night with the Empire Orbat and actually put together several Empire Fleets that would be competitive, couple even preserving the spirit of what he was going for, but more competently executed. We’ve never bothered to show the guy the lists because we already know that he’d reject them because he wants to do it his way, which gets consistently smacked down by almost everyone.
>'good at a system'
Anyone that says this is a minmaxing homosexual who treats the game as a math equation.
There is no 'good at the system' or 'rule compentency' or whatever backwards bullshit buzzword people are using to justify being a colossal mathhomosexual now.
>I can't do basic math: the post
So what we're discussing here is players that will not be happy unless the whole group is playing a specific game, right?
>OP makes a thread
>Turns out it's a shitpost