Have you tried actually playing D&D? By that I mean a game of Dungeons and Dragons where:
>there is more than one dragon encounter
>there is more than one dungeon crawl
>the setting is more or less vanilla
>the game is not just an event in your head but actually involves real people, preferably in person
It seems that a lot of you are trying to use this game for things it wasn't meant to do and then making a mess and deciding it's the games fault. If you use it for what it's supposed to do it's actually pretty good.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Dungeons and Dragons markets itself and bends over backwards to try and be THE do-everything game. This is easily its own greatest single flaw.
how about you bend over to suck your own dick?
It doesn't though. It really doesn't. It' on a spectrum with "explore old castles" on one side and "murder political enemies" on the other.
Some books try to do other things and suck (like the Strixhaven book), others tried to tie other things in and did alright (like Planescape), but the marketing has always represented it as a fighting/exploring game of some sort.
What happens is that D&D introduces people to the wonder of roleplay, and then their next step is to say "LET'S DO WESTERN/SCIFI/HISTORICAL/MAGIC SCHOOL/MECHA COMBAT/whatever", and they do it with D&D because that's all they know. In a perfect world there would be some open-ended ultralight game to serve as an introduction to roleplaying, and then the people who really like murdering enemies and exploring caves would move on to D&D.
I'd say it's greatest flaw is that WotC owns it and is dedicated to this fricked up, corrupted idea of D&D as a brand with hyper specific terminology, settings, and other fictional elements. In close second is the bloated list of sacred cow mechanics and concepts that override more thoughtful game design because they are terrified of pulling a 4e again, and all of that gets in the way of it even being any good at being an adventuring and dungeon crawling RPG in the first place.
I always get stopped up trying to decide which edition to even play. Why does there have to be so many differently playing D&D's, anyway?
>Why does there have to be so many differently playing D&D's, anyway?
Because corporate D&D demands you consoom, and new editions of the game spark the dimwit's need to do so.
DnD 1-2: no real roleplay, kind of autistic, mostly just about rolling dices and fighting random generation tables
DnD 3-3.5: This is when they started to really focus on things like roleplaying, building worlds, letting DM's design stories, and so on.
DnD 4: Tried to appeal to the MMO crowd, so very combat focused.
DnD 5: Took all the lessons of the previous installments and merged what worked. People will seethe, but 5e is the best DnD ever made.
Point of correction: narratives and role-playing were extremely encouraged by 2e, especially once the supplements started coming out.
I do agree the the point of 5e is to merge past editions' strengths (minus the ones the grogs can't handle). Weird thing is, while I enjoy playing 5e (or DMing it, at least), it actually makes me want to play 2e again.
>DnD 4: Tried to appeal to the MMO crowd, so very combat focused.
throwback to tradition, lol
3.5 is as much combat focused as 4. And 4 is as much about roleplaying as 3.5.
>This is when they started to really focus on things like roleplaying, building worlds, letting DM's design stories, and so on.
Ha, no. That was the fricking start of buildhomosexualry in its worst form.
>DnD 1-2: no real roleplay, kind of autistic, mostly just about rolling dices and fighting random generation tables
Now wait just a damn minute. 2e is responsible for everything that you love about Dungeons & Dragons. Every single setting associated with the game was made in 2e and there has been literally no innovation since:
>Forgotten Realms
>Planescape
>Dark Sun
>Spelljammer
>Ravenloft
>Dragonlance
Flagellate yourself, newbie.
>why would they decide to release 5 editions of D&D over the course of 50 years. That's like one edition every 10 years man, how can I keep up
I've played D&D enough to wonder how the no-game trolls on this board have gotten so out of hand. To hear them describe it, the game raped their mother and killed their father and is their personal Satan, and is the most unholy creation ever conceived and anyone who plays the game is worse than a serial kitten-drowner. They will rush into any thread as fast as they can just to complain about people playing a game, a game that is, ultimately, okay.
The people who complain about the game are not misusing the game. They don't care about how the game is played at all; they've likely never played any game.
All they want to do is be the basic b***h trolls of /tg/: taking whatever happens to be the most popular thing and complaining about it for attention. You'll find basic b***h trolls on every board, ours just happen to be particularly basic.
I think "Stop playing D&D" is actually very good advice for when people do shit like trying to recreate star wars in D&D, or complain about teleport spells, or ask why someone's daring to play an elf. They're clearly not into the core idea of D&D, and will be happier without it. But you're right the catchphrase is overused.
but Starwars DND exists and is great though
>sw5e.com
>but Starwars DND exists
Yes.
>and is great though
Please stop. It's not advice, it's just passive-aggressive trolling.
To begin with, all RPGs are inherently adaptable. They don't require any advanced mathematics or special coding languages in order to modify, and if you want to pretend you can't adapt an RPG to be whatever you want it to be you're really just admitting to not be particularly bright. D&D doesn't even use anything more complex than basic arithmetic for 90% of its operations, and switching to different genres is often as simple as just switching out fluff. But, do go on and tell me you can't figure out how to adapt a system, even a system that countless people have adapted with ease, and watch how seriously I can take anything else you'd have to say about RPGs. Kind of hard to play the fool AND the expert.
Secondly, no game will ever match someone preferences exactly. No game is perfect. If you want to tell someone that they need to play D&D exactly as you imagine they must, in this bizarre hypothetical "vanilla default" state that presumes so much and so much inaccurately, then you might as well extend the same draconian and ultimately soulless mindset to all RPGs. At that point, you're sending everyone off on an endless and fruitless quest, jumping from system to system the moment they inevitably encounter something they disagree with.
Playing other games is great and highly encouraged. But, telling people to stop playing D&D is less advice and more of just simple trolling from limp-wristed trolls who want something they can slide back on when called out. It's one thing to say your mother is fat, it's another to say "I think your mother should eat less." The latter allows you to tuck your tail between your legs and cry "I just want her to be healthy!"
As a corollary to what you said: suggesting people other systems that are already better prepared for their desired game is fine. It's just that the trolls almost never suggest other systems and when they suggest them they never elaborate.
Good example, separate from DnD, is people recommending 2e Unknown Armies over CoC for sanity meters. You can actually forma coherent argument for UA working better than CoC for stories closer to Lovecraft's actual works, because UA's trauma meter is actually capable of modeling characters gradually realizing that the true nature of the world is incompatible with the common idea of how it works.
>almost never suggest other systems
This comes from years of any suggestions of alternatives being made are shot down because either "Daed gaem! No weekly modules? How do you play this trash!" or "This isn't D&D! How can I play something that isn't D&D if it if not D&D?" so it isn't worth adding any meaningful contribution when the result is nearly always the same level of ignorance.
You have never seen what goes into making a competent set of houserules and you're inept to the point where you think changing fluff changes a game's genre. You're shit at RPGs, stop trying.
>you can adapt it
You can also make a game from scratch, which gets better results, or use a system about what you wanted in the first place, which is much easier. You could go and mod Monopoly into a game about fighting monsters or Skyrim into an aborted flight simulator but that doesn't mean you should do it.
>in this bizarre hypothetical "vanilla default" state that presumes so much and so much inaccurately,
So you haven't tried actually playing D&D. All I "presume" is that it's a game where fantasy heroes fight monsters in a labyrinth. The derangement of worshiping a game while thinking that its own selling points are "bizarre hypotheticals" is why everyone thinks D&D players are moronic and in you're case they are right. If your campaign could not ever have the situation that's on the cover of the game, what the frick are you actually playing?
>that's too high level!
Skill issue
>I'd rather do something else!
You're wasting time and money on a game you'd rather not play
>you're imagining things
You haven't played games, you haven't even read the rules
>You can also make a game from scratch, which gets better results,
Not really, no, you'll get better results from starting with something you like and modifying it.
>or use a system about what you wanted in the first place, which is much easier.
Not really, no, it's easier to start with something you like and then modify it.
It's like I made a cheesy dip, and I said "I think this needs salt and maybe a dash of hotsauce", and you told me to start over from scratch using saltier/spicier cheeses. You're completely ignoring the investment of time/effort and you're completely ignoring the element of personal taste.
>Not really, no
Not really no, nice try troll
No, what I said is correct and you're wrong. Don't argue.
>You can also make a game from scratch,
Funny how 95% of the time someone tries this, they actually start by using D&D as the chassis. You can't even deny this happens, because we've got hundreds of published games that are not even shy about this. Hell, at some point, very single RPG was built out of either D&D or a game built out of D&D. It's like turtles.
Nope, plenty of games have nothing to do with slop and slop.
>All I "presume" is that it's a game where fantasy heroes fight monsters in a labyrinth.
That's an enormous series of presumptions.
Literally every single word in your presumption could be picked apart.
Fantasy? It's Sci-fi/Fantasy at the minimum (is it really that surprising that D&D also took whatever it wanted from science fiction? There's everything from time-traveling robots to Xenomorph knockoffs. Even Mindflayers are technically more sci-fi than fantasy, being psychic mutant aliens from the far future), but depending on what choices you make you can use it to run everything from gothic horror to pure sci-fi to teenage girl slumber party activities.
Heroes? Not only can you play low-level, cowardly losers, you can play psychotic villains, and just about any other character you can imagine, heroic or not.
Fight? You can ignore combat entirely, and you're still left with a large system. That seems to be something you're not really understanding, in that people can't use the entirety of the system simultaneously. People do not have to use every class and every option, and not even every feature of a system. You will find no shortage of people recounting times when they played sessions of D&D with little or even no combat, often incidentally, and without any issues.
Monsters? Once again, you can run an entire game without picking up the Monster Manual. Use your imagination on how, I'm kind of tired of explaining something even small children can figure out on their own.
A wild GNUtard appears in /tg/!
Roll initiative.
Not him but frick the OGL, ORC and the likes, i want an SRD fully released under the FDL
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html
>switching to different genres is often as simple as just switching out fluff
Tell me how you can reflavor druids, bards, and warlocks to fit a hard sci-fi or modern military setting without changing any of their mechanics.
Technology.
Fricking moron.
>Technology
Then explain how every single spell can be replicated through technology in a manner consistent with the setting.
I said hard sci-fi, so you can't just handwave away the laws of physics.
Using portable, magnetically contained fusion reactors to produce horrifying amounts of energy that can seemingly bend the laws of physics in specific applications.
Or whatever hand-wavy business you want that you can find in Hard-sci fi. Fricking indestructible materials, time travel, hardened light, psychic powers (ranging from mind reading to mind control to telekinesis to outright direct manipulation of reality), FTL, all can be found in examples of "Hard" sci-fi, and only require a small amount of technobabble to wave away. Hell, indestructible materials are so casually integrated into Hard scifi that they often just get a name, rather than an explanation.
>explain how every
Higgs-boson particles, homosexual.
The frick do you think I'm going to do, spend several hours explaining to you something you could figure out for yourself with even modest mental application?
Hard sci-fi is literally about handwaving away the laws of physics, that's what makes it hard sci-fi. Stop getting your opinions from illiterate youtubers and maybe you'll get some respect.
nta but you're literally describing the opposite of hard sci fi
Nope. I'm literally describing hard sci fi. The hard refefers to the fact that it's hard science getting handwaved to justify the story's departure from realism, you know, physics, chemistry, biology, and the like, as opposed to soft sci fi, which handwaves the soft sciences, like psychology, sociology, economics, etc. But I don't hate you for being wrong, you've been lied to by frauds posing as experts, and honestly, I have high hopes for your ability to break away, based on how civil you are even in defense of a formative delusion. The mark of a true scholar. Read some of the old hard stuff, like Doc Smith, and you'll see. The interesting thing happens when youget to the Golden Age grandmasters, like Clarke, Asimov, and Heinlein, and you see that they project advances in both hard and soft sciences,and as a result create settings that are fascinating and inspiring, despite their weaknesses at characterization and dialogue.
Were you aware that you don't need to use every option or feature in a game simultaneously? That that's actually imposssible? That every DM, by the very nature of just common fricking sense, has to make selective omissions?
Are you genuinely stupid?
If you can't figure out something as simple as refluffing, you can also take the route of just using options that you feel are specifically conducive to the style of game you're hoping to have. If you can't figure out how to replace a warlock's eldritch blast with a eldritch blast gun, stick to things that won't overtax your underused gray matter.
Or just play a different system tailored to the experience that you want. Why are you so resistant to anyone playing anything other than D&D? Do you make commission from WoTC?
I have to agree with you, anon, D&D is very fundamentally an absolutely SHITTY system for anything other than medieval dungeonpunk strictly-combat dungeon navigation. And it doesn't even do that particularly well.
Fricking moron.
>Or just play a different system tailored to the experience
When you finally get a chance to play a game once in your life, you'll discover something. Most published games are garbage, and the more specific the niche, the more garbage it tends to be. Being able to adapt games is a necessity for anyone who wants to be more than just another braindead moron who imagines that some designer was able to predict every possible use-case for their system and flawlessly created the perfect rules for those scenarios.
Also, this isn't about D&D so much as it is about all games. If the game you want to adapt is Black Tokyo, go for it. Learning how to adapt games is one of the most fundamental skills a GM can possess, and shame on you for trying to discourage people.
What I'm resistant towards is morons like yourself who are trying to kill the concept of adapting games, and all just because you're dedicated to an internet war of fighting against people playing a game you don't like, and you need to figure out how to work around the idea that yes, if you have some petty b***h of a complaint, it can easily be worked around, rendering your primary means of warfare pointless.
>every game is shit because...IT JUST IS OKAY?
kek
>didn't read a word
>makes up some strawman to... LE BAD?!
I accept your concession.
you're a literal schizophrenic troll
That's rich, coming from the most schizophrenic troll to ever schiz.
if you can't read your own posts that's understandable, I'm pretty sure most posters have the same issue but at that point it doesn't make much sense to throw around terms you don't understand like "strawman" in order to deflect from it
Hey, frick face.
If you need to falsely invent an argument in order to have something to address while avoiding the actual argument you're pretending to engage with, that's strawmanning.
ie. If someone says "most", you instead not only react as if they had said "every" but go so far as to create an exaggerated misquote, because you're a disingenuous shit who's unaware of what fallacies he's even committing. And, you even have the gall to try tell someone else what a "strawman" is.
As a bonus, here's some ad hominem for ya: you piece of shit.
>If you need to falsely invent an argument
There's no falsehood at play, not even an argument being made here. You're just going on an unprompted schizophrenic rant.
Like what are you even doing here anon?
>and the more specific the niche, the more garbage it tends to be.
It's consistently the other way around.
>Were you aware that you don't need to use every option or feature in a game simultaneously
Then you're doing more than just switching out fluff.
>often
Do you understand what that word means?
If it doesn't work reliably, it doesn't work often.
Do you imagine you made a point.
Bard is a profession, not a class. Druid is a religion, not a class. Warlock is an insult, not a class. Thief, fighting man, or magic-user, or go play in the sewers with the rest of the shit-eaters.
A total lack of understanding of basic math on the part of the designers is one of the primary reasons d&d is so awful.
but you can just change the math so why even complain about it?
Why would I fix a product for the designers when I could instead choose a different product that already works?
>one of the primary reasons why [false statement] is true
Trying to make an argument of out bullshit, I see.
Drown healing, vision rules treat darkness and fog as the same, monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes, oils can't be crafted, empty flasks weigh more than full flasks, ur-priests can't be ur-priests, a +2 attack roll feat and a quicken all spells from 0 to 3rd level for free feat both cost one feat slot, dragon disciples can't be dragon disciples, a tower shield can give itself cover, sword sages only get wis to ac with light armor and unarmed sword sages aren't proficient with light armor, harpoons don't work underwater, ride by attack and spirited charge don't do anything, disintegrate doesn't work on trees, stone to flesh both does and doesn't turn stone golems into flesh golems, turn undead is better used for meta magic than turning undead, most creatures can't identify their own species, you can make an infinite number of quarterstaffs arbitrarily fast
Unarmed strikes are a natural attack, and everyone's proficient in their natural attacks. That's so RAW even Gordon Ramsey's screaming at you to crack a book and chill on mistaking memes for facts.
Unarmed strikes are actually very explicitly called out as not a natural weapon in a 3.5 web article. Which makes sense, as they're listed under Simple weapons and aren't beholden to the limitations of natural weapons like no iteratives either.
>3.5
Don't get upset just because he is more based than you
Ooph, sorry, I wordeed that poorly. A monk's unarmed strikes are both a natural wepon and a manufactured weapon, according to whatever is most to the monk's advantage, explicitly, in the player's handbook, iirc, and I could not care less what some guy wrote in his blog, no matter who he is, and if wizards wanted it to be part of the rules, they should have printed it in the rules.
Why bother posting if you don't know the rules?
Wow a bunch of trivial shit that will never actually come up in a game.
And from two editions ago.
You're looking at a troll so fricking trapped in his own mind that he's still using troll arguments from more than two decades ago.
>darkness
>fog
>oils
>feats
>mounted combat
>DMM
>never showing up in a game
You've never played 3.5, have you?
Have you? All of these have caused problems and required house rules in games I've been in.
Vision rules have caused numbers arguments as a result of them not working in real games, and "what can people see" is not a trivial matter.
The best part is that he's clearly just reciting nitpick arguments, without looking at the what kind of trivial nitpick arguments could be levied against other published games. Or, better yet, actual issues.
Hell, early editions of the ST system actually made you more likely to have catastrophic failures the more skilled you were.
They're not nitpicks. The game is fundamentally broken.
>The game is fundamentally broken
Yeah, that's what I said, it's correct, and you don't have a rebuttal.
No, they're clearly nitpicks.
>fundamentally broken
I guess all the people who played it and made it the most popular game must all have figured something out that you haven't.
Such as screaming "IT'S BROKEN. IT DOESN'T WORK. YOU CAN'T PLAY IT" doesn't extend beyond your own head.
No, they're clearly not. No one has ever run a game without house rules whether they know it or not. It is broken no matter how many tantrums you throw.
Then all games are broken, because no one has ever run any RPG without some manner of house rule, modification, omission, creative interpretation of the rules, or flat out mistake.
Please, play a fricking game for once.
Incorrect.
any game that requires DM adjudication is broken by default then, cuckold. go play checkers you child
Incorrect.
>I believe there's a GM who's run a game using the entirety of the rules simultaneously, following both the Rules as Written as well as the Spirit of the Rules, while also including all Errata and Designer Clarifications from any and every source, all while avoiding any House Rules, Homebrew, or even just creative Ideas not mentioned in the rules, and both using all and none of the published optional content
lol. You're so fricking dumb you don't even understand how fricking dumb you are, or the inherent contradictions at play.
Seriously, play a game for once.
>listing a bunch of dumb shit that doesn't apply to self-made games
Yes. It happened and I was there to see it happen.
I've run games in good systems without house rules of any kind.
>no house rules
K.
But what about modifications, omissions, creative interpretations of the rules, or flat out mistakes? Keep in mind, many modifications don't even require house rules but are included as options within the system, that leaving out any option whatsoever counts as an omission, that nearly every single rule could be creatively interpreted, and you have absolutely no way to convince anyone that you run games without ever making a mistake such as forgetting some obscure rule or failing to appreciate how certain obscure rules may counter-intuitively interact.
No modifications means no modifications. It will continue to mean no modifications no matter how many times you repeat the same questions.
You're moronic, because you don't even understand how you're modifying a system even as you're modifying it.
Even if you tried your best to play the game either exactly as the designers intended, or exactly as the rules are written, you're already making a deliberate choice that is modifying the game from one vision against the other, often in an explicitly contradictory manner. And, those are only two of potentially infinite priorities you could have for running the game as perfectly as you might deliberately attempt to, with neither being particularly high priorities among anyone who's actually played a game and realized that a game's designer is always going to be detached and distant from the game as it is being run for a group that the designer has never met and at best has only imagined.
Jesus christ, people can't be as stupid as you're pretending to be. Have you really never actually considered this?
man, I'm so glad I'm not this mentally ill.
What part has confused your little brain.
The part where you're suddenly being opened up to the possibility that rules are not some absolute, independent and eternal fixture, but something that are open to interpretation and thus modification from some perceived and imaginary universal ideal?
Have you graduated High School yet?
>The part where you're suddenly being opened up to the possibility that rules are not some absolute, independent and eternal fixture
What if you're playing a game where they are?
...Are you actually moronic?
Answer the question.
I think you are. I think you are moronic.
Imagine it's a con game and the GM is both the only person who knows the rules and is legally bound not to change them. What then?
Then there's going to be a lot of creative rules interpretation.
You think "legally bound" means there would be LESS creative rules interpretation? The legal system is where we see the most examples of creative rules interpretation. It's why we have judges.
nope, legally bound to not change the rules, sorry. you lose.
You know he can't have mercy
The bottom line is that no rule is immune to interpretation; every rule can be interpreted and thus modified to some degree by the perspective of the enforcer.
There is no perfect system that perfectly predicts and then prescribes the exact course of action that must be taken with every possible decision. Do you understand this? Can you understand this? At some point, a GM is going to have to interpret the rules according to some higher philosophy, and thus modify the game in some way that sets it apart from how another GM may run the exact same system.
Even something as simple as "He asks for less rolls of a certain type than the other GM" puts a slant on the system that's impossible for designers to either predict or prescribe. Something like asking for more rolls of a certain type may have a larger impact on the game than even something as explicit as a house rule.
Now, asking for more rolls of a certain type is not explicitly "modifying the game", but I'm using it to illustrate that even working within the system you can unintentionally produce results far exceeding what the designers intended, making actual rules within the system subject to further interpretation. If a GM demands mobility checks far more than the designers intended and with far more severe consequences on failure, any mobility score will be considerably more powerful than what the designers intended, potentially severely unbalancing the game. But, unless the designers prescribe exactly how often the GM is supposed to demand mobility checks, the GM isn't even aware that he's going against RAI. If the GM sticks to either RAW or his personal vision of RAI, the game is unintentionally unbalanced to a point where whether they are modifying the game deliberately or not is a moot point, and all just because of the simple manner in which they interpreted the rules on how often Mobility rolls should be made differently than how another GM might have interpreted the same rules.
>The bottom line is that no rule is immune to interpretation
Failed on your very first sentence.
>The bottom line is that no rule is immune to interpretation
wrong.
>There is no perfect system that perfectly predicts and then prescribes the exact course of action that must be taken with every possible decision.
There doesn't need to be to avoid making house rules or modifications or additions. Is that what you're not getting?
>Now, asking for more rolls of a certain type is not explicitly "modifying the game",
0 reason to read past this. 0 reason to read above this either. I know you're a schizo who genuinely can't understand basic concepts about ttrpgs and GMing but this has fricking nothing to do with the house rule discussion by your own admission.
Nope, no modifications. Seethe.
You are assuming a game structure that doesn't match every game in existence.
I'm assuming rules, and that's about it. And, if the game does not have written rules, then all the rules are House Rules.
My God, you are autistic. And a nogames. D&D is perfectly playable. It's not the best game around (I prefer Burning Wheel), but it is a perfectly serviceable game. The majority of a TTRPG's quality comes from the people you play with. The rules to D&D might not cover every situation or be 100% airtight, but they do not get in the way of having fun.
If you genuinely think the game is unplayable you need to get your head looked at
It's not playable and it's not serviceable. The quality of a game comes from the game. Stop buying shitty products.
>It's not playable and it's not serviceable
That's crazy. I wonder what my friends and I were doing every weekend between 2005 and 2012, if not playing a a game. No amount of autistic seething will make fun games with friends not fun. Sorry scrub
>I wonder what my friends and I were doing every weekend between 2005 and 2012, if not playing a a game
I dont want to hear about your gay sex parties dude keep that shit to yourself
>Keep in mind, many modifications don't even require house rules but are included as options within the system, that leaving out any option whatsoever counts as an omission, that nearly every single rule could be creatively interpreted, and you have absolutely no way to convince anyone that you run games without ever making a mistake such as forgetting some obscure rule or failing to appreciate how certain obscure rules may counter-intuitively interact.
How would this be difficult for people that just read the rules and apply them when the rules say to apply them? Black person are you moronic?
Because the rules are never going to be comprehensive. And even if they were, you couldn't use them all without some form of omission, either deliberate, accidental, or incidental. And, at the point where you're making decisions that the designers did not foresee, you are creating House Rules.
You're asking for what is essentially the impossible without even appreciating it, because you're too fricking dumb to have ever considered it.
>Because the rules are never going to be comprehensive. And even if they were, you couldn't use them all without some form of omission, either deliberate, accidental, or incidental
Why? There's no universal law regarding running a game or designing a rule system.This is just not true. Multiple people are telling you that this is simply not true and you can you find more if you want.
Three weeks ago I ran a boss fight for a homebrew system. I did it using zero modifications, zero omissions of rules (because there are no optional rules unless you make them yourself), zero creative interpretations of the rules, and made no rules mistakes. What now?
>homebrew system.
You did it with 100% house rules.
Ta da.
That's not what a house rule is.
Rules you've created are House Rules.
If you want to split hairs, let's go ahead and include "Additions" alongside "Omissions" in the list of modifications, just so we're all square on what's happening. And, if you're starting from scratch, literally zero, every rule you add is an addition, a modification.
>Rules you've created are House Rules.
For a pre-existing system dumbass. Arbitrarily deciding that suddenly house rules have a new meanin so you can win an argument is adorable.
You're still splitting hairs by saying "No, these rules you invent are different from these rules you invent when we're discussing rules being invented and you pretending you're not modifying any rules."
We're already past that. Put "additions" into the "modifications" category alongside "omissions" and let's move on.
Now, you were seething about what, exactly?
There's no hair splitting. Your definition sucks shit and disqualifies every game in existence.
>No, these rules you invent are different from these rules you invent when we're discussing rules being invented and you pretending you're not modifying any rules
The fact that you're redefining the entire ttrpg dictionary is beautiful. You're even using the term invent wrong, spectacular.
No, rules you create are houserules if they edit an already existing rule and only if the game is past the playtesting phase. Otherwise it's rules development.
And at any rate this doesn't change the part where I changed none of the game's rules to do what I did. Nothing happened that was not strictly laid out by the game's rules ahead of time. According to you, this is impossible. Still did it.
> I changed none of the game's rules
You literally made up all of the game's rules. The frick are you even trying to say anymore.
Might as well argue that House Rules for a published system strictly laid out ahead of time don't count as House Rules.
>You literally made up all of the game's rules.
No I didn't, it was someone else's system.
>zero creative interpretations of the rules
Then you failed this.
>made no rules mistakes.
Probably also this.
>zero omissions of rules
And definitely this, because omission of rules does not mean "not using optional rules", it means "not using all the rules simultaneously and concurrently", which is functionally an impossibility. Unless you ran a Boss encounter using every enemy option simultaneously and concurrently, you decided to omit some things, ie. creatively interpret the rules to ignore certain aspects of the game. Did you do this because only a madman would even attempt to include all options of a game simultaneously? Sure. But, you can't omit aspects of a game and then demand that for other games everyone needs to include all rules and aspects of the game as well.
I understand that's not going to be an easy thought for you to swallow, so let me explain it this way.
If out of two options, either a live cat or a zombie cat, you select one to use as an enemy, you have made a decision that potentially goes against RAI, with no RAW guiding that decision. The game initially exists in a state where both options are effectively equal unless otherwise specified, and making either selection shifts the game in one direction or the other, with one benefiting PCs with anti-living thing abilities and the other benefiting anti-zombie abilities. Until you make the decision of which cat to use, all those abilities are equal, but the moment you make a decision is the moment you determine one set of abilities is stronger and more useful, and one set potentially useless and trap options. You have, functionally, interpreted one set of abilities as mechanically superior, and entirely just via omission of including the opposite cat and the rules governing its state.
Take your time to think about this before replying.
>it means "not using all the rules simultaneously and concurrently", which is functionally an impossibility. Unless you ran a Boss encounter using every enemy option simultaneously and concurrently
Holy frick is that a moronicly disingenuous statement.
If you aren't constantly reminding the players that they take 0 falling damage every time they take a step, that does not mean you are omitting the rules for falling damage.
It simply means the rule isn't applicable in that situation. You absolute dumbfrick.
>didn't take the time to think
Try again. Your falling rules nonsense isn't even close to the matter of what we're discussing.
It's 100% exactly what you were discussing. Try to think about how.
Wrong. Try again, Seriously. I'm not going to just retype what I said if you're just going to not read it a second time.
Read it, and actually listen to what I'm saying. Hell, you're so far off with your "but you're not constantly reminding them about falling damage!" that I'm actually kind of amazed by how fricking dumb that is, because I didn't actually think you were really stupid and that you were only pretending.
Last chance. Read, and think before replying.
>I'm not going to just retype what I said if you're just going to not read it a second time.
I've read it 4 times now and it's still a dumb fricking post.
No, he was right and you're wrong. Better luck next time, kid.
Nope. Choosing which enemies to use isn't a house rule, sorry.
No one said it was a house rule.
Yes you did.
> it means "not using all the rules simultaneously and concurrently",
If that's your definition it's a meaningless one.
Let me help you out.
Which do you think has a bigger mechanical impact on a game?
A house rule that says "All enemies take half damage from swords", or the expressed decision "All enemies are going to be zombies, which take half damage from swords"?
If your answer is that they're functionally very similar and whether one is a house rule or not isn't that big of a mechanical difference, you'd be right. The decision to omit non-Zombie enemies has a very similar impact to the decision of implementing a house rule, to the point where you're often going to find certain GM decisions having more of an impact on a game than whether or not they elect to use certain house rules.
>If your answer is that they're functionally very similar
Good thing that's not my answer.
not functionally similar. you're wrong.
>Then you failed this.
RAW enemy generation is not a creative interpretation of the rules. Direct usage of abilities exactly as written is not a creative interpretation of the rules.
>Probably also this.
Nope. But you're too dumb to grasp why.
>because omission of rules does not mean "not using optional rules", it means "not using all the rules simultaneously and concurrently"
This definition makes it a meaningless metric on which to judge whether you ran a game without houserules.
You said "not using all rules simultaneously and concurrently" was an omission of rules.
Your example of this was a boss encounter where the DM had a zombie cat, rather than a zombie cat and a living cat. Except it wouldn't stop there would it? Because the DM also decided to not use a demon cat or a half-dragon cat or a were-cat or every other variety of cat in the game.
"Unless you ran a Boss encounter using every enemy option simultaneously and concurrently"' would mean that in order to not omit rules, every encounter needs to include EVERY enemy with every combination of templates. Which would be in violation of other rules concerning how many enemies of a particular difficulty an encounter should consist of.
If you are playing a game of chess, are you omitting rules when you decide to make one move instead of another possible move? Because if your definition of omission of rules is to choose between two legal options, it's simply an incorrect and unworkable definition.
>Except it wouldn't stop there would it?
Yep. Glad you at least picked up on that.
>If you are playing a game of chess, are you omitting rules when you decide to make one move instead of another possible move?
You are not in control of the other player, and you cannot force them to omit rules. Even if you never move your Rooks laterally, your opponent is under no compunctions to follow the same restrictions.
If you both agree that neither of you will move your Rooks laterally, then you have indeed decided to omit (or really, to flat out change) a rule.
On the other side of things, a GM is in control of all the rules, and his decisions to omit aspects of the game does indeed modify the rules for the players, often significantly.
>If you both agree
Except by your metric, nobody has to agree. Simply by neither player deciding to make those particular plays would be an "omission". If you forfeit on your first turn, you have now "omitted" 99% of the rules of chess without any input from your opponent.
The rule hasn't actually been changed though, it merely isn't being applied. Your opponent in chess couldn't call over a judge or referee and have you disqualified from a tournament for 'changing the rules' by deciding to forfeit and therefore preventing them from moving any of their pieces. Nor could they do so if you managed to checkmate them in 3 moves and "omit" the majority of plays they could have made.
"Using all rules simultaneously and concurrently" is an inane and idiotic metric that falls apart the moment you try to apply it to very basic examples like this.
You're still struggling with the idea that RPGs are not Chess. I don't think you really understand that the issue at hand is the fact that the GM is in charge of all the rules and what is presented to the players, and ultimately it's their decisions that determines the outcomes of any scenario, in no small part because what the scenarios are also happen to be based on their decisions. We could even go so far as to to say the decision to agree to run one pre-written module over another ultimately is their responsibility.
Unless there's a gun against their head, but at that point we've definitely gone off the deep end.
Even if I went ahead and agreed RPGs are Chess just to spare us all your sidetracked argument, what is the functional difference between a player expressly electing to never move his rooks laterally, and a house rule that removes the ability for him to move rooks laterally? The omission of aspects of the game functions basically identically as outright house rules, and what degree of omission constitutes a change really is an all or none affair when we're talking about literally "any" modification done to a game.
We're talking absolutes here. We've already got people talking about how they're running games with no errors in the exact way that they imagine the designer intended in games to be run, in games where the designers managed to exactly convey all their intentions perfectly in the written rules for every conceivable scenario, and the joke is that even with all that, they're still falling short because their decisions are inherently and unintentionally moving the game away from the imagined ideal that their messiah designer set out for people to follow, just on account that they are unable to make every decision truly as equal as the designers initially laid them out to be, ultimately skewing the entire game in the process from its perfect ideal (and imaginary) initial state.
>You're still struggling with the idea that RPGs are not Chess
And yet you were the one who stated that a chess game where neither player moves their rooks laterally is "omitting" or "changing" rules. You have not made the distinction between RPGs and other rules systems prior to this, and doing so now is merely shifting the goalposts.
>what is the functional difference between a player expressly electing to never move his rooks laterally, and a house rule that removes the ability for him to move rooks laterally?
One is a legal option within the rules of the game, and the other is a houserule. The fact that you've decided to conflate the two is why your argument falls flat.
>what degree of omission constitutes a change
This is where your definition is lacking. The obvious way to frame an omission of a rule as being a change to the rules is if a rule would apply, but it simply gets ignored instead. That is not the same thing as not choosing to take an action that would call upon the rule.
To use a very basic example, declaring that a character takes no damage when they jump off a cliff is omitting a rule. The character deciding to not jump off the cliff in the first place is not omitting a rule. The rule still exists, it simply isn't applicable at that moment in time.
> We're talking absolutes here
And your logic about how something as basic as deciding to promote a pawn into a queen instead of a rook is "omitting rules: makes you a very poor authority on what actually constitutes a game being 'skewed' from the rules as written.
Why should anyone listen to you on what it means to play a game correctly, when according to you everyone in chess tournaments is constantly and unavoidably changing the rules?
Nope. Choosing to use one enemy over the other doesn't change any rules.
that's not what it means to omit rules, and you're not the arbiter of definitions.
>you're not the arbiter of definitions
i mean he's the DM and the DM has the authority on rules interpretation, so . . . ???
No he isn't.
I've defined and explained what I mean in the context of this argument. If you plan on disagreeing, you're arguing about something else entirely.
I don't care what you imagine omission to mean, since the way I've defined it makes it clear that omission can result in a significant modification to a game that can equal or exceed the changes that even explicit home rules can make. And, we're talking about literally any modification, including accidental and incidental.
Your definition sucks and has nothing to do with running a game RAW, which you believe is impossible for some reason.
RAW is still open to interpretation, you child. I can't believe you're actually dumb enough to need that explained to you, as if you've never seen any people argue over RAW.
Quit being dumb and actually learn something.
Nope. You fail to understand that not all games are set up the way you believe they are.
>"nope"
>"you're wrong"
>provides zero arguments or examples
Nope, you're wrong.
>ask GM
>"Hey, are attacks subject to GM interpretation?"
>"No"
It's a lack of imagination on your part why you can't figure out why that might be the case.
You're just trolling at this point, and not well.
I assure you I'm not trolling. RPGs can be more than your narrow conception of them.
It has everything to do with running a game RAW, and how whether or not you're running a game RAW has no real significance over whether or not you're running a modified game or not. Hell, running strictly RAW over RAI is functionally modified manner of playing the game, especially in games that explicitly, by RAW, ask GMs to use their own judgements and asking players to abide by those judgements. In other words, RAI as RAW, which is functionally a paradox if you actually hope to uphold RAW in an absolute sense, because the RAW asks you to ignore RAW and instead use RAI.
Take your time with that one. I know a lot of RAW-gays that struggled with it for decades before finally allowing it to sink in.
>RAI is functionally modified manner of playing the game, especially in games that explicitly, by RAW, ask GMs to use their own judgements and asking players to abide by those judgements.
But if you run it explicitly as RAW you are not interpreting any rules, you are using the books rules as defined by the book. So you are not making any interpretations. 5e rules state a longsword does 1d8 dmg. If I follow that RAW rule am I interpreting it or am I following it RAW?
You are legitimately insane and I feel like I'm talking with my schizophrenic aunt.
> you are not interpreting any rules
Yes, yes you are.
Christ.
>rules as defined by the book
They are partially and inadequately defined at best. We're not talking about legal legislature here, and even that is open to heavy amounts of interpretation, hence the need for judges.
It's like... it's like sheet music.
You probably imagine that sheet music is strict and precise. Every note is plotted out, with timing down to 1/256th of a second (and potentially further), and additional instructions to help properly adhere to the composer's intention. Two people, given the same sheet music, will play the same exact song, right?
But, you're going to discover with experience that it's rare to see demisemihemidemisemiquavers, and most composers predominantly use notes between 1/2 and 1/16 of a second, leaving plenty of room for the player to perform subtle interpretations on how exactly the notes blend together within the constraints of the notation. And that's not even opening up how every single note can be played slightly differently even when the intensity or volume for a section are indicated, and how wide and varied the accents and ornaments for notation can be, involving a fair amount of subjective understanding of the relative values.
And, this is not just me waxing poetic. Music competitions are not based around whether or not you're hitting the correct note; that's effectively the starting line. They're built around how well a musician manages to interpret the piece within the confines of the music as written, with each being able to dramatically transform a song thanks to just how subjective what to an outsider such objective notation is. It's actually rare to find musicians who can perfectly capture the exact performance of another musician with anything that resembles perfect fidelity.
To the amateur, it might even all sound the same, just like to an amateur the interpretation of a particular rule in an RPG might seem no different between GMs, in the hypothetical scenario where both are trying their hardest to stick to RAW. But, even just something like how often they employ a rule, how often they elect to use certain options over others, or how they treat certain subjective values or are otherwise not given the most strict and explicit instructions, all of these can dramatically change the impact of the rules on the game, alongside that both GMs will have different interpretations of what exactly RAW happens to be for many different rules.
And, this is with two hypothetical GMs who both agree that RAW is the best way to run a game and are both perfect in their knowledge and execution of the rules, which you will never find. GMs are going to have different opinions on just about any rule, even ones they can both agree on in principle. Sometimes the differences will be subtle, but more often than not, they won't be, especially if you have enough knowledge and experience to understand exactly what those differences are.
You might not be there yet. Good luck though.
You're discounting the existence of rules that have no additional interpretation.
No, I'm not.
You're pretending those exist, but then you provide no examples.
Why would I need to do that? You're the one ignorant of computer-aided roleplaying games.
You're still not providing examples to support your claims. Why would you need to support your argument, you ask? Because I'm calling you out.
You can either admit to having nothing, or you can provide nothing and inadvertently admit the same. That, or actually provide an example.
Actually I did
And that's on the looser side because you can ignore what it spits out if you feel like it. You're telling me you can't imagine a game where doing that is much more difficult and the aid directly performs instructions you put in? MUDs are decades old and worked off of a similar concept when applied to roleplaying.
Putting the decision-making process in the hands of a computer or other form of randomization is still making a decision, and deciding on a way to interpret the handling of that decision. Eventually though, at the point where you're no longer making the majority of the decisions is the point where you're not running an RPG so much as you're playing in an assisted RPG with an automated GM. The line is blurry as to where exactly that is, but either way, you've decided to interpret the rules in a manner that have left you believing that a set of random results or a script can fairly adjudicate them for yourself, alongside the potentially complicated methods involved in determining the exact parameters of those random results or script if you plan on doing that yourself. You're really being forced to make a lot of subjective decisions.
I don't get why you imagine that a computer providing results is any different from rolling dice to determine damage. It's still subject to the same overall decision-making process with the GM as the ultimate authority, even ignoring the ability to ignore the results. More of a GM's power comes from determining what rolls must be made, not what the results of those rolls end up being, after all.
nah
I don't think you've ever played a game like that if that's what you think it's like.
Literally insane.
You only just now realized that?
If you're too stupid to understand what is being said, that's on you. No need to just scream "Wah you made me upset!" when you're incapable of doing anything else in this discussion.
This isn't even that complicated. I get the feeling you're deliberately trying to be stupid here.
No anon I'm too sane to follow your insane logic. If you are shitposting I have to applaud you because reading your words is like having a conversation with my schizophrenic aunt.
>Hey, you're wrong
>I can't say why
>You're just insane, okay?!
You're pathetic.
I understand entirely what you're saying.
I'm saying you're a fricking lunatic for responding to a simple question like that while somehow managing to completely dodge and misunderstand the point of the question.
>5e rules state a longsword does 1d8 dmg. If I follow that RAW rule am I interpreting it or am I following it RAW?
1d8 damage is only one side of a much larger equation, and not even the entire side. A longsword deals 1d8, but what does 1d8 damage actually mean? It's primarily a value subtracted from enemy HP to remove them from combat, so it's affected directly by enemy HP. Without changing the longsword's 1d8, you can change it from a terrifying murder tool to an annoying toothpick just with how much HP it's being set against, and that can be as simple as just what enemies you are more inclined to use.
It can also be impacted by options that are both RAW and are up to the DM's discretion. Are you rolling for every enemy's HP, which will lead to a greater amount of variance even among the same type of enemy, or are you using the listed averages? If you're employing rolled HP, 1d8 will often be enough to outright kill some of them in a single hit, making it feel quite powerful with effectively the most optimal outcome (1 hit, 1 kill). But, if you instead elect to use listed averages with enemies in such a fashion that no enemy has less than 1d8+modifier HP, the longsword will at minimum require two attacks for every kill, barring criticals/special abilities. It will be more reliable and consistent with how many hits it needs to down an opponent, and regardless it certainly won't feel the same to a player sensitive to such things.
How much damage a longsword deals may be "1d8", but what that 1d8 actually feels like is a much more complicated question involving a fair amount of decisions that can skew it one way or the other. Even just including certain amounts of enemies that are resistant or vulnerable to slashing can dramatically alter what that "a longsdword does 1d8 dmg" actually means.
>A longsword deals 1d8, but what does 1d8 damage actually mean?
It means you roll an eight sided die, and the target loses hitpoints based upon the number printed on the resulting face of the die.
2+2 equals 4. Where is the interpretation?
1d8 means 1 to 8 damage with each possible value equally likely. It doesn't matter if you ask "BUT WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN?" in an insufferable tone of voice. It means 1 to 8 damage.
When I call you a homosexual, am I calling you a bundle of sticks? It's almost like context is important.
You dumb homosexual.
What context does 1d8 have?
What context does homosexual have?
Not being able to answer the question, that context
Wrong, the context is describing you, in order to illustrate that importance of context. You're no bundle of sticks, I tell you what.
1 to 8 damage.
Look.
1d8 damage doesn't always mean the same thing.
1d8 damage against an enemy with 1 HP is certain death.
1d8 damage against an enemy with 100 HP barely a scratch.
Do you understand this? Saying "It's 1d8 damage either way" is like saying your dick is still a dick, despite it being split in half and sewn to either side of a cavity you need to routinely dilate.
Sorry, it means 1 to 8 damage.
Sure, but what is 1 to 8 damage?
Didn't think that far, did you?
What? You're going to go recursive and say "It's what a Longsword is?" or "It's what plants crave?"
>Sure, but what is 1 to 8 damage?
1 to 8 points of damage. It's self evident.
What are you confused about? Damage is negative hitpoints. One is S(0). 8 is S~~*~~*((0*~~*~~)).
Formatting error. That should be S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(0*~~*~~)).
>1d8 damage doesn't always mean the same thing.
Yes it does, 1 to 8 damage.
>1d8 damage against an enemy with 1 HP is certain death.
Irrelevant. 1d8 damage doesn't change, it means the same thing regardless of when its applied.
>1d8 damage against an enemy with 100 HP barely a scratch.
Doesn't matter, it means the same thing. 1 to 8 damage.
1d8 damage doesn't stop being 1d8 damage, it's the same regardless of where or when its applied, regardless of interpretation or personal definition. At best, it changes context but is not at all beholden to context whatsoever.
I don't think you really understand how stupid you sound. Which is a shame, because it's actually genuinely hilarious.
You have the opportunity to actually understand what damage actually means, and instead you're just repeating a braindead mantra. You're literally refusing to get smarter, and that explains so much about you.
I'll give you a clue here. If you're stuck in a recursive loop of defining definitions, you're basically moronic.
This. This is what you sound like.
?si=bq0ZPsNfKFUHSqIL
We know what damage means. Each point of damage (that isn't mitigated by damage reduction, resistance, or other effect) reduces hitpoints by 1.
... And what are hitpoints. Don't be recursive now.
And so on.
Get it? Notice how as me move on, the context gets more and more complicated, and open to further and greater interpretation as more and more rules begin to interact?
A hitpoint is an abstract resource that tracks the total amount of luck, health, vigor, determination, or other innate capabilities of a being. It may defined differently in different systems.
Whoa? Abstract? That seems fairly open to interpretation. You sure you want to use that particular definition?
It's not open to interpretation at all. It's defined in the rulebook.
Do you know what abstract means.
It certainly doesn't mean open to interpretation. An abstract thing may be vague, or it may be explicitly defined. Like say, the natural numbers. Or rules about health.
>An abstract thing may be vague, or it may be explicitly defined.
I don't think you understand... anything, at this point.
>abstract doesn't mean open to interpretation
It's extremely open to interpretation. Even if you named an abstract painting "This is Explicitly a Representation of the Time Anon Schooled Me in What Abstract Means and My Admission of Guilt and Shame at The Thought That I could Command What People Can Interpret Via Lengthy Titles", people are free to interpret it as more of a better representation of you just being kind of dumb and never really learning your lessons.
So you didn't even read my post. Abstract doesn't mean vague. I gave you examples.
Abstract means, at it's most basic, independent. In the context of Hit Points, it means a resource that is independent of any exact and direct comparative value, and is instead a VAGUE amalgamation of luck, health, vigor, etc.
What is the exact makeup of hitpoints? Do you know what percentage is luck, health, etc? Or is that open to interpretation?
Abstract doesn't mean vague. I gave you a definition of health that doesn't require interpretation, and I provided an additional example of an abstract idea that is rigorously defined. I'm not going to respond again until you acknowledge what I've said. I'm not interested in speaking to a tape recording.
>doesn't require interpretation
What is toughness.
What is might.
Etc.
Eventually, inevitably, you're going to hit things that are more and more open to interpretation. Even the most rigidly defined aspects of any system, no matter how laboriously worked over they might be, are eventually going to have to rely on some measure of the GM making an assumption, interpreting the rules to mean something that may or may not mean exactly what the author intended. There's simply not enough pages in the universe for that.
Hell, even Health remains open to interpretation, because while we understand it to be defined by the game rules as an abstract combination of either Toughness/Might or Toughness/Willpower, that by itself is fundamentally a question in itself that opens up dozens of other questions, like what exactly constitutes 1 point of damage. The game may provide examples, but in no way is it possible for a game to comprehensively list, define, and quantify every single possible example of 1 point of damage, or, inversely, the value of 1 point of Health.
Is this really neccesary to be explained to you? Have you really never actually considered how open to interpretation something as... basic as RPG rules may happen to be?
Toughness and might are also explicitly defined in the rules. I can paste the entries for you, if you like. 1 point of damage is also explicitly defined. Every single instance. Without exception.
> Every single instance. Without exception
Go on.
1 point of damage is the result of 1 net success on an attack challenge roll. This literally covers every possible source of damage you can name.
That doesn't mean anything by itself.
You do understand that, right?
What does 1 damage look like? What can cause 1 damage? Defining 1 damage by a round-a-bout way of saying "the result of a roll that would deal 1 damage" really only just leads to the question of "What type of attack would produce a result of a roll that would deal 1 damage," among a million other questions that demand interpretations.
Of course it means something. It means your health is reduced by 1.
If you attack someone, and they roll 6 successes, and you roll 7 successes, you deal 1 damage to them, and their health is thus reduced by 1.
Purposely missing the point doesn't make you clever.
Assuming you did do it on purpose and you're not actually as stupid as you're pretending to be.
No, the answer is legitimate, you just don't like that your middle school philosophy doesn't impress anyone in the thread.
>middle school philosophy
BASIC FACTS? You're struggling with BASIC FACTS?!
You're right. about one thing. This is simple shit a middle schooler should be able to understand. And you're pretending to be dumber than that.
You don't even know what "abstract" means. Don't pretend to be indignant at me. You're a poor actor and a worse liar.
You pretending that there's a single definition of abstract when you went ahead and used the wrong one just to avoid the simple fact that abstract rules are open to interpretation is a good fricking joke.
An abstract rule may be open to interpretation, or it may not be. Because "abstract" doesn't mean "vague". How many times do I need to repeat this?
We were literally talking about abstract Hit Points.
Right, and they're rigorously defined. 1 hitpoint = the ability to absorb 1 point of damage.
But, 1 point of damage is not rigorously defined. It's defined, but not to the point where it's not open to many degrees of interpretation.
What points of interpretation?
Rigorously defined.
>You pretending that there's a single definition of abstract
Is that the guy who was pretending abstract was solely defined as 'being open to interpretation' rather than any of the other definitions?
NTA, When has an abstract rule even been brought up? I see you guys talked about hitpoints earlier, those don't seem to be abstract. They're concrete aspects of most tabletop roleplaying games.
You being incapable of understanding very basic RPG mechanics makes you the inverse of clever.
You're asking him about a resolution mechanic and you're surprised that he's telling you how the rules work.
>What type of attack
why would you ask this, why would anyone be led to this?
Imagine an attack unforeseen by the designers.
Like, a bag of cotton candy launched out of a canon at Mach 3.
How would you adjudicate what potential damage it might deal unless you can understand or interpret what damage is beyond using stats that self-reference each other? If they explicitly define damage range by the speed of the object checked against a table of its hardness and compactibility combined with a psychological impact chart to determine it's effect on will power, cross-referenced with the date and the character's horoscope to determine whether candy-related attacks are more pschologically effective on capricorns, then we at least have a start towards a rigorous definition.
If it's a player's cannon, it depends on how they're representing it. If the cannon is the Blast power, then the roll is based on their Blast rank. If it's an item with a gear bonus, the attack is Agility + Weapon Bonus.
> it depends on how they're representing it
Huh. Sounds open to interpretation. Like fricking explicitly.
Nope. The player decides which of those options to use. Both options have rigorously defined rules. No interpretation required.
>Nope. The player decides which of those options to use
And how do they do that.
Fricking moron.
If it's an innate attack, they take the Blast power. If it's tied to an item that could potentially be lost or destroyed, they take the item option.
Fricking moron.
So, whether the bag of cotton candy is traveling at Mach 3 or Mach 10 is irrelevant?
Consider that for a moment.
That's what's great about systems that aren't D&D, they don't intend to be autistic physics simulations. But, if you really want to, you can simply reference the Speed Table and find your Blast rank to determine how fast your projectile travels.
D&D also does not intend to be an autistic physics simulation.
But, we're at least moving forward now. Can you check the Speed table and tell me what Blast rank is required to get a projectile to Mach 100? I've got a strong feeling we're going to have to perform some interpretation of the rules soon.
15d.
What page is the speed table? I can't seem to find it.
Thanks mate.
>Well, the initial point was about a mach 3 and mach 10 projectile being identical
The actual point was to determine what exactly contributes to damage, with an Anon chiming in to say the damage is based on their blast rank, and eventually we even got a speed chart. Effectively, we can determine Mach 3 candy at about 10d, and Mach 100 at 15d, and can even extrapolate the relative damage of these projectiles from there. That's great, because we've got a lot of answers that just add further questions that require some degree of interpretation.
Like, what happens when we replace the bag of cotton candy and put something else in the same cannon? Bags of Cotton candy are notoriously terrible projectiles, so logically even the most basic change of switching out the ammunition would increase the damage coming out of the same cannon, right? Does the cannon not work, does the cannon deal more damage, or does the cannon deal the same amount of damage, as according to RAW since the damage is independent of what's being represented and instead just a matter of (in this case literal) fluff attached to the character's statistics? I'm assuming at some point the cotton candy may become irrelevant, but the question then becomes at one point is that? Hell, at what point does the GM say "stop it with this shooting cotton candy out of a canon" business?
What's also great is that we have an example of 1d's speed. A bag of cotton candy traveling at 2mph is apparently enough to deal some measure of damage. Not a whole lot, but we're having fun with creative rules interpretations now.
What contributes to damage is the rank of your attack. Everything in your post is just sophistry trying to obscure simple facts.
>What contributes to damage is the rank of your attack.
And the ranks also determines the speed of the projectile, right? Or is that not what the speed chart is for?
No, that isn't what the speed chart is used for. I suggested in case someone is stuck with a DM as unfortunately brain damaged as you who thinks every game should be a simulation.
No one said the game should be a simulation. But, we were trying to figure out how a GM could represent, specifically, a Mach 3 bag of cotton candy and how much damage it would deal, with someone saying that the rules would have what exactly the damage was explicitly defined in a way that would leave no room for interpretation.
You're telling me that the system can't actually interact directly with the concept of a mach 3 bag of cotton candy, and instead you need to roughly estimate and interpret what that damage would be? The only thing the rules are equipped to handle is the characters rank and then what damage they would deal regardless of method used?
I was told there was no room for interpretation here, and you're telling me that the fluff door was left wide open and we can't even figure out what Mach 3 Cotton Candy looks like.
It depends, entirely, on how many ranks you purchase for your attack. It doesn't matter if the projectile travels one meter per second or a hundred trillion times the speed of light. If you have six ranks, you roll six dice. I don't know how to make this any simpler for you.
He's not asking so that he can understand. He's asking so that he can find some flaw to try and prove his point that nobody runs tabletop RPGs without houserules.
>He's not asking so that he can understand.
I genuinely don't think he could understand if he wanted to
So, the bottom line is, that the system cannot actually answer what damage a Mach 3 cotton candy does, because the system is not designed to be able to answer that.
> It doesn't matter if the projectile travels one meter per second or a hundred trillion times the speed of light. If you have six ranks, you roll six dice.
Which means what each point of damage happens to be is NOT strictly defined. It is defined by the rules within the rules, but it is unable to provide strict context for what a point of damage reflects in the fluff, in no small part because the fluff is extremely flexible and open to interpretation.
Thanks for helping make this clear.
Sure it can. You flavor your Blast as a Mach 3 cotton candy projectile, and the damage it does is based on the number of ranks you purchased.
This is like the seventh time I've explained how the game works to you. Are you even reading my posts?
The damage is independent of the projectile and its speed. That makes the projectile and speed not explicitly defined, and what represents damage is open to interpretation.
I am reading your posts, Are you reading mine? What is eluding you?
No, what represents damage isn't up to interpretation. One point of damage is represented by one net success on an attack roll. Always and without exception. How many times is that now?
What damage represents is up to interpretation.
Dumbass.
>One point of damage is represented by one net success on an attack roll.
Describe that action. Describe that one point of damage being dealt.
No it isn't, dumbass. There's no action to describe and it doesn't matter. One success is one damage.
This guy has brain damage. It may help to say, "What rank of attack would you need if you wanted to hit people with a mach 3 bag of cotton candy?"
There are two basic answers here, one is to say "It can be any attack rank that you want and do an appropriate amount of damage because there is no explicit relationship between the game rules and the game world", the other is probably "It's rank 1 and is basically just a punch".
The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd point of damage to a 4-HP commoner represents an attack that could have shut them down if they weren't alert. I always said it was like a quick stab with a small knife, serious enough to be potentially life threatening but not so serious that an alert target can't shrug it off. The important part is that, once the commoner (or literally anyone else) only has 1 HP remaining, that means he's hurt and tired enough that the 1-HP attack is now enough to incapacitate him.
I never thought that a simple HP system was a good fit for D&D, I always thought it would fit the genre better to have a defensive stamina pool combined with an injury system, simple HP should be used for mecha combat or cyber warfare or perhaps for a super-simple wargame.
>The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd point of damage to a 4-HP commoner represents an attack that could have shut them down if they weren't alert. I always said it was like a quick stab with a small knife, serious enough to be potentially life threatening but not so serious that an alert target can't shrug it off.
Is it fair to say another GM may interpret it differently? The rules don't actually explicitly state how each point of damage should be conveyed, and in D&D in particular the mix of luck/endurance/etc. makes it really open to not just each individual GM's style, but even their mood at the moment.
>There are two basic answers here,
Huh. Sounds like that's open to interpretation.
>It may help to say
Being charitable towards him isn't going to help anon. His premise is that rules don't matter because everything is subjective.
Nope, it's that rules are open to interpretation.
How do you not understand that no rule can ever be all encompassing, and at some point a GM is forced to make decisions involving that rule that were unforeseen by the designers?
Even just something as basic as "well, what does 1 damage look like" has got you completely bewildered, like you've never imagined that at any point someone might actually try to extrapolate more meaning from an RPG mechanic.
They're not open to interpretation, sadly. "What does one damage look like" doesn't mean anything. There isn't anything that damage looks like.
In 5e A longsword does 1d8 dmg. What interpretations other than rolling a single d8 for damage can you come to?
This
The ability does what it says it does.
If the player wants to give their a really weak cotton candy blast ability, they can do that.
This isn't creative rules interpretations. This is just the basic rules of ranks allowing for more successes and more damage.
>This isn't creative rules interpretations.
It's interpreting the rule quite a bit, since we're discussing what the rule represents. Hell, we even got to the point where the rule is so fundamentally flexible that we can interpret its representation to be just about whatever we want at this point, since the damage is apparently entirely separate and irrelevant.
To tell you the truth, I don't know how much "damage" a cannon shooting mach 3 cotton candy would deal to anything in reality, but with this system that's basically irrelevant since damage is an arbitrary smashing together of numbers with only the loosest threads of fluff attached, so it can do anything from a butterfly kiss to killing Superman.
>It's interpreting the rule quite a bit
No. The rule stays the same.
You can paint the car whatever color you want, but no matter how you 'interpret' it, it's not gonna change the engine. Get it?
Bad move with that analogy, because no one asked if you were changing your engine, they asked if you were changing your car. Changing the color is quite a change.
Or, do you imagine that when playing an RPG, the only thing the GM asks for is numbers, which collide with other numbers, and then at the end more numbers are distributed? It's almost like the numbers have some kind of meaning and context.
>they asked if you were changing your car.
And if I didn't change the coat of paint, would you accept no as an answer?
Backpedaling doesn't do you any favors.
At the point where you've essentially said "The fluff around the mechanics is irrelevant" is the part where I get to say "I guess you don't understand even the basics of RPGs."
We've been talking about RPG rules interpretations, and you've been imagining people slamming together meaningless numbers and wondering why there's all this discussion about interpreting those meaningless numbers.
>Backpedaling doesn't do you any favors.
It's not a backpedal. It's a different question, and the answer is very important.
If you ask me if I've changed my car, and I tell you no, would you believe me?
>The fluff around the mechanics is irrelevant
There are systems where this is explicitly true though. The fact that you fail to realize that just illustrates that you don't understand that RPGs beyond D&D.
Which is also probably why you don't think it's possible to play RPGs without houserules, because you're accustomed to D&D where having a spell be a fire blast instead of an ice blast requires specific abilities or outright homebrew, rather than just being a basic option to choose what flavor of Blast your character has.
He'll say that this makes the system worse
Probably. For someone who loves 'interpretation' so much, he seems to get really upset when a system actually offers freedom in how to flavor a character's abilities without needing to actively change the rules.
Which I guess gives a satisfactory answer as to why he would post something as dumb as
because he isn't aware of the RPGs that don't require rule modifications, so he simply assumes all of them are just as broken as D&D.
You made an error.
There are RPGs where the mechanics around the fluff are irrelevant, ie. Freeform.
I've yet to encounter any system that exists at the opposite end of the spectrum, with the fluff around the mechanics being entirely irrelevant. Even the most basic of barebones utility systems will include concepts like "attacks" or "conflicts" instead of "arbitrary encounters of numbers that interact in meaningless ways with absolutely no context."
>I've yet to encounter any system
You've made that abundantly clear, yes.
https://www.d20herosrd.com/home/ranks-and-measures/
Here knock yourself out
>So a hero with Strength 1 (able to lift 100 pounds), picks up a 1.5lb bag of Cotton candy (mass rank -5). Since 1 – (-5) = 6, the hero can then toss the cotton candy rank 6 distance (1,800ft)!
I'd be lucky to get 90ft.
>Measurements are approximate. Especially at the higher end, where each rank represents a wide range of measurements, the Measurements Table isn’t intended to provide precise values; it’s just a ballpark estimate so you have an idea of how things work in the context of the game. Don’t focus too heavily on precise answers, just use the table for general guidelines.
Damn you, explicit rules saying Rules as Written are merely guidelines!
>Rules as Written are merely guidelines!
> just use the table for general guidelines.
um...anon? Are you feeling okay? These sentences are completely separate from one another, like at all.
Those two sentences have nothing to do with one another.
>use [the table] for general guidelines
>use [the rules as written] for general guidelines
Seems like they are saying, directly, that the rules, which they wrote, are, extra comma, general guidelines.
Are you really just itching to fight over literally everything?
>Seems like they are saying
That is not what they are saying. I'm sorry that you don't understand a lot of what you're reading because its foreign to you but I'll explain.
The designers are not saying that the rank system is a general guideline, they are saying that the specific values of those ranks are general guidelines to follow. This is in no way similar to saying "The rules as written are guidelines"
I'll repeat. The ranks are the guidelines, not the rank system.
Example: I know a blue whale weighs 199 tons. Sadly, 199 is not ranked. Logically and as the rules directly inform me, the ranks are approximations of weight and are meant to act as estimations. Therefore, Rank 23 would be the rank to use if I were to carry a whale to an infirmary.
Well, homosexual? I gave you what you asked for. You just going to run away and hope we forget that you got embarrassed again, for like the nineteenth time?
>I've got a strong feeling we're going to have to perform some interpretation of the rules soon.
damn, they really caught his ass
D&D definitely does try to be an autistic physics simulation, it's just extraordinarily terrible at it.
What conclusion am I meant to draw from whether or not that is true?
From what I recall of Mutants and Masterminds (and it has been a while) the number of ranks you invest in an ability would be what would determine those factors of the ability.
So if you want it to be mach 10, you invest more ranks so that it rolls more dice, gets more successes, and deals more damage as a result. 1 per net success, if you remember from upthread.
they likely weigh the options and choose the most favorable choice that would lead to best results... friend.
NTA, but it seems pretty clear that it's a character building option. The player picks the ability that has the mechanical function they want.
Have you played an RPG before? Are you getting confused on how a Wizard in D&D decides if the spell he casts shoots fire or launches magic missiles?
>Rank
Did we start talking about Mutants and Masterminds?
I'm using the system rules I'm most familiar with to provide examples as I haven't played D&D in a long time. I wouldn't be arguing in good faith otherwise.
I feel like this entire thread would be even more entertaining if it was done with MnM as the primary system to reference honestly since it has a very interesting relationship between "This is what this looks like" and "This is what this does".
The game is one of the rare d20s that represents your character getting beaten down mechanically and that has flavor baked into the ruleset.
But I only play D&D
Sorry but I'm not sure what you expect me to do about your disability anon?
Give me money
Improvised weapon
>yawn
>adjudicate
>interpret
I think you want me to extrapolate the data points here..
Do you ever get tired of being owned every time you come back to the thread? lol
The way you use the word "abstract" makes me think you don't actually know what it means. It doesn't make any sense to call out toughness / might / willpower as an "abstract combination". Everything in the rules is abstract. Obviously. That doesn't mean they can't also be rigorously defined. I don't know how to dumb this down any further.
>That doesn't mean they can't also be rigorously defined
Not to the level where it becomes somehow immune to interpretation.
Yes, exactly to that level. Because they are.
Can 1d8 be interpreted any different than 1d8?
Yes?
Have you forgotten what context means again? homosexual?
1d8 is a result of an eight sided die being rolled, and you know this. homosexual.
Wrong answer.
What is the meaning of context though? Context at its most basic level is up to interpretation and is in fact an abstract definition of definition.
>The flame elemental swirls like a living sun about you, it is a rolling inferno that blazes with light so intense that the few shadows that remain dance under its hellfire blaze! The air itself trembles and contorts and you can feel your blood begin to boil in your veins! The living flame envelops you and your world becomes one of flame and the neverending intensity of the inferno!
>...so do I take any damage?
>um, 2 points of fire damage, and uh you're on fire now.
>cool.
Who are you quoting?
I'll choose to interpret that pose as a concession.
Anon before we go any further with discussion we really need to define what the definition of definition. What is definition? Is it the meaning of a word or is it really a feeling of a word that is conveyed by the user? Really this is sincerely the most basics of basics and I'm surprised you haven't picked up on this.
see
Yeah, it'd be pretty moronic to constantly ask for definitions in hopes that there's some level of definition somewhere that would be open to interpretation.
>no way is it possible for a game to comprehensively list, define, and quantify every single possible example of 1 point of damage, or, inversely, the value of 1 point of Health.
you mean the value one (1)
kudos anon, that made me chuckle
>What is toughness.
>What is might.
I don't even know what game the screenshot here is from, but even I can tell that they're game terms which would be mechanically defined elsewhere.
What's next? Are you going to pretend to be moronic about the definitions of things like 'greater value' or 'successful attack roll'? Do you struggle with the idea that rules can actually be clear about what they mean?
Why are you stuck trying to define definitions like a moron when the definitions have already been provided?
>Abstract means, at it's most basic, independent.
independence has nothing to do with abstraction
Anon, abstract doesn't exclusively refer to abstract art. It's a word with numerous definitions, including
>(of a noun) denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object.
The state of the code in your computer that is currently displaying this text is not a concrete object, but it is 100% explicitly defined. Otherwise you would not be reading this.
Similarly, the number of hitpoints listed on a character sheet are simply denoting an idea, but it's an idea with an explicit mechanical definition within the rules.
>Abstract? That seems fairly open to interpretation.
not in the instance that anon used though, it's referring to hitpoints in a tabletop game, and presumably suggesting their relationship with damage.
You guys are so close to discovering either Logical Positivism or Postmodernism. Perhaps both. Go ahead, anons, throw yourselves off one of those cliffs and put us all out of our collective miseries
Nope, no philosophy is needed. You just read the rules.
Better than whatever philosophical rabbit hole that got this guy to believe that humans are incapable of making the decision to follow a set of rules as written.
literally Satan, dude is possessed by a real life demon.
I find a 500 foot cliff.
I jump off of it.
I take a maximum of 20d6 damage.
I shake off my boots and continue on my merry way as my hit point maximum is 150 which means I will never be killed by falling from a great height as long as I am at my maximum HP. I am a happy man.
a good DM keeps your HP below maximum at all times outside of rest.
>Wand of CLW
That has no baring whatsoever on my hobby of leaping off of cliffs as it is not represented anywhere in the rule set and there is no indication that I should take that into consideration. What is, however, is my hobby.
I double it up and find a 1000 foot cliff, I hit the ground and dust myself off. I go on my merry way as I am immune to death via falling as long as I am well rested and my arbitrary meat points are at peak condition.
The context hasn't gotten any more complicated or open to interpretation. Each game term has a definition in the rules. You aren't clever.
>If you're stuck in a recursive loop of defining definitions, you're basically moronic.
>... And what are hitpoints. And so on.
oh no, it's moronic
See, no, it's not recursive, because after finding out what 1d8 means, and then what Hit Points means, we've moved on to someone needing to have what fricking "Abstract" means explained to them.
See? It's actually learning and progress, instead of just "Longsword is 1d8 which is a Longsword which is 1d8" ad infinitum like the chucklefricks above.
Stick with it, and we'll make a sapient creature out of you yet.
No one said longsword is 1d8 is longsword is 1d8, but thanks for admitting that you haven't been bothering to read any of the posts and haven't been participating in the discussion in good faith.
I'm sorry, we instead had people saying
As if they had made a point. Consider it a compliment that I gave an extra step beyond defining 1d8 as 1 to 8.
NTA but apology accepted.
And? They're correct. 1d8 means 1 to 8 damage. Well, more precisely, it's a randomization mechanic that means 1 to 8 units - it's a scalar quantity. For example, it could be 1 to 8 wolves, or 1 to 8 points of healing.
However, in the original discussion, I believe they were specifically referring to weapon damage.
>we've moved on to someone needing to have what fricking "Abstract" means explained to them.
You mean this guy?
Because he's the one who tried to bring the definition of abstract into question instead of making an actual point.
a recurring process of defining things isn't recursive?
Basic math is not a mantra, no matter how much you want to insist that there's context missing
It means absolutely nothing outside of its result anon, there is no greater meaning to it. A 1d8 damage die is damage ranging from 1 to 8 before reduction.
Nothing more or less.
>You have the opportunity to actually understand what damage actually means
Oh, I think I know your logic on this one:
When a player rolls a d8 for damage, they are immediately disqualified due to trying to change the rules of the game.
Obviously, if they roll a 5 and would deal 5 damage, that means they have omitted the rules of rolling a 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, or 8. Given that they are not using all the rules simultaneously and concurrently, they are guilty of omission of the rules, which is tantamount to changing the rules, and players shouldn't be allowed to change the rules on the fly.
The lonsword still did 1d8 dmg to either creature. The player till rolled 1d8 dice to determine dmg after hit. There is no context. You are just insane.
What context does 1d8 have?
When is a 1d8 not a 1d8?
It's a non-sequitur to deflect from your lack of logic.
No, it isn't important. No matter how much wiener I take up the ass, 1d8 still means 1 to 8 damage.
There is no such thing as rules as intended. The way you discover the intent of an author is by reading what they wrote. Whatever you think the words mean, is what you think the author intended.
Rules as Intended is primarily used as when certain rules "stick out". For example, in D&D 3.5, the arrow rules include "An arrow that hits its target is destroyed," a rule that works decently well to govern 99.99% of times an arrow is used in a game of D&D.
But, what if the target is a straw dummy, designed to safely catch arrows?
By RAW, the arrow would be destroyed.
By RAI, there would be the addendum "An arrow that hits its target is destroyed*"
*Unless it's a fricking straw dummy designed to safely catch arrows you stupid homosexual.
No, there wouldn't be any such addendum. The rules say that the arrows are destroyed, so that must be what the writers intended.
They wanted an easy simplification to be used for most use cases of arrows. They did not want to bog the rules down with excessive asterisks, hence why 3.5 includes a short blurb that says "Hey, DMs, if you disagree with a particular rule, feel free to ignore it" as part of its RAW, because they expected people to be smarter than to blindly follow every rule exactly as it was written.
You don't know anything about what they wanted or intended.
They kind of explicitly encouraged house rules. House rules are RAI and RAW.
I don't care. The rules say that arrows are destroyed, so they're destroyed. Unless you can find a rule book that says arrows aren't supposed to be destroyed when striking target dummies, you don't know that the designers intended them not to be destroyed when striking target dummies.
in the book*
>I don't care
Consider the following questions when you want to follow a rule.
>Why am I following this rule?
>Am I clear on how the rule that I’m going to follow really
works?
>Have I considered why the rule exists as it does in the first
place?
>How will the not changing the rule impact other rules or situations?
>Will the change favor one class, race, skill, or feat more than the
others?
>Overall, is following this rule going to make more players happy or
unhappy? (If the answer is “happy,” make sure following the rule isn’t
unbalancing. If the answer is “unhappy,” make sure following the rule
is worth it.)
It doesn't really matter if it's a rule written in the book or a house rule, these are considerations you should make for both, especially when there's many times where the difference between the two would be invisible to the players.
No. Do not tell me what to consider. The intent of the author is communicated by the words written in the rule.
...I'm paraphrasing words written by the author. Only a handful of words were changed, largely just reflecting the same considerations for changing a rule with following one.
It's literally what the author wants you to consider.
The author's intent is that arrows are destroyed on impact, because that's what he wrote.
The author's intent is for you to think about the rules and their purpose, and not to blindly follow them OR to carelessly modify them without considering them.
He expressly and explicitly says you are allowed to change some rules for your own game. He even says "The ability to use the mechanics as you wish is paramount to the way roleplaying games work."
His words, not mine.
Nope.
>rules were written for a reason
>you can change some if you want to
there's only RAW, and House Ruling.
House Ruling is RAW.
literally not, no. in your picture they inform you that you may house rule, and they urge consideration for the impact of those house rules.
the Rules As Written is verbatim and literal, it means you use the rules that are in the book, not ones you house rule. pedantic freak.
>literally not, no.
The RAW literally says "The ability to use the mechanics as you wish is paramount to the way roleplaying games work."
Do you know what paramount means? We're not talking movies here.
the RAW is literally the rules in the book, not changing them you fricking ignoramus.
unless the straw target is in the rulebooks, you house ruled it.
https://voca.ro/1opV74e6dGao
>since the way I've defined it
We've already established that your definitions fail basic analysis and are fundamentally flawed. An omission of the rules to those not suffering from severe mental illness would be understood as making the choice not to invoke a rule when the game says it would be invoked, aka, omitting it from play. An example of a common rule omission is that of encumbrance.
>not to invoke a rule when the game says it would be invoked
Or could be.
Omitting encumbrance is one example of omission. Omitting certain classes and thus the entirety of spellcasting is another form of omission. Omitting one type of enemy is another form of omission. All of these effect the game, with the latter two potentially having a much larger impact than omitting encumbrance.
We're talking about any modification. Omitting something like ammunition tracking is a omitting something, sure, but so is omitting something like undead enemies.
Do you understand? I'm not sure you're really appreciating what's being said here. Are you aware more that a word can apply to multiple types of things? That there's multiple types of omission?
Please, don't fight me on that. If you're going to try and convince me there's only one type of omission I'm going to give up on you as a person.
>We've already established
lol, only in your empty brain world.
What you mean is incorrect. You're dismissed.
There's only RAW
(Rules As Written)
and House Ruling.
that's a very curt way to put it, but you're not wrong
Playing 4E with the old Maptool frameworks might as well have been playing 4E RAW.
I have in fact run games without modification. I'm sorry you're so brain rotted you can't imagine a game that actually works the way it's supposed to.
No you haven't.
You're just so fricking dumb you don't understand what necessary modifications, adjustments, creative decisions, and even just selections out of options need to be made to run a game.
You may have done your best to stick to the rules as close to RAW as you could, but even that is a modification that most designers would tell you is ridiculous and there's a reason why the game is run inside of the human mind and not a $2 calculator.
>He thinks you can't run the backend of a system off of a computer
Yes I have. No modifications, no adjustments, using all the rules, in whole and in part.
>mindbroken this badly
Tell me, why exactly can't I run a system like say Call of Cthulhu, entirely raw? What's stopping me?
...That RAW can only go so far, as understood even by the RAW?
Every designer knows that no rule system can be or should be absolute, either in a prescriptive or descriptive manner, and that the GM is going to have to make decisions either unforeseen or unintended by the designers.
This is basic shit, man. Have you never actually considered any of this? Hell, the books tell you to think about it.
>...That RAW can only go so far, as understood even by the RAW?
You're working under the assumption that if I play Call of Cthulhu, I will HAVE to make a house rule or derive a ruling outside of RAW and that's simply not true.
>Then all games are broken, because no one has ever run any RPG without some manner of house rule, modification, omission, creative interpretation of the rules, or flat out mistake.
That's just flat out wrong. Even the OP is criticizing morons that don't understand the rules and just deviate from them because they're too stupid to run a game how it was designed to be run.
This reads like you've never actually read through a rulebook and assumed that they're all broken.
I mean, yes. Absolutely, one hundred percent true. The rules and numbers are just there to distract you from the fact that you're playing make-believe with other adults, and the hefty price tag and shitty art is there to distract you from the fact that the rules are nonsense and the numbers ridiculous. That's why a good group can have fun with any game, and these whiny c**ts can't have fun no matter how much their friends bend over backwards for them.
No, the rules are there to provide structure and a game. If they provide a shit structure or a shit game, they're shit rules.
All games are shit games then.
Fricking loser.
No, they're not. You don't understand the difference because you scarf down shit.
>The rules and numbers are just there to distract you from the fact that you're playing make-believe with other adults, and the hefty price tag and shitty art is there to distract you from the fact that the rules are nonsense and the numbers ridiculous.
This man has never touched a ttrpg in his entire life
>The rules and numbers are just there to distract you from the fact that you're playing make-believe with other adults, and the hefty price tag and shitty art is there to distract you from the fact that the rules are nonsense and the numbers ridiculous.
ah, a good game
I'm looking at some of the most popular videogames being shit, and I feel sad. Marketing and graphics, that's it.
Feat balance, vision rules, and mounted combat being dysfunctional are not nitpicks you fricking homosexual.
>vision rules
...Darkness and Fog being treated the same is somehow all the vision rules? It seems more like one of the most pathetic nitpicks I've ever seen.
Jesus fricking christ, how do you even expect anyone to take you seriously when that's what you're demanding everyone to consider to be a fundamental issue that makes or breaks the game?
Frick off.
There are two possible interpretations of the obscurement rules. In one of them, anyone standing in fog can see anyone not standing in fog, no matter how much fog is between them.
In the other, darkness is opaque. Light can't penetrate it, so the entire world is perpetually dark.
The rules don't work.
Actually, I have found a game that matches what I want exactly.
nah, it's good advice, and you're a troll for doing this every time someone gives it.
Hammer attempting to explain why that saws are redundant and have never been useful.
What is the core idea of D&D
I might be able to help you crack this "mystery", I've noticed that a lot of people on /tg/ only ever play in a group of their friends they've always played with. They've never been out in public playing with new people, so they form little echo chambers. They then take their spicy perspective onto a website like Ganker, where everyone is anonymous, and because they don't have much other social interaction neither.
>They've never been out in public playing with new people
NTA but why would I ever do that? Why would I go play with randos who are potentially completely insufferable when I can guarantee an enjoyable game with my friends? The only reason I can see for relying on random groups is that you simply have no friends to play with, which is a sad story all of its own.
>NTA but why would I ever do that?
In this scenario, you're the type of person who'd sit through multiple games filled with things that you don't like without ever telling your 'friends' that you want to play something else, or you're the type of person to play one game and never play anything else for some unknown reason.
It's extroversion, it's fun to meet new people, experience new playstyles, all that stuff. You can make even more new friends, there's just no downside, besides some sessions don't go like "perfectly". However it's nice to be there, and people improve with experience. Like smell the roses.
I like her art nouveau hair on this art, a shame Lodoss is very bland
Yeah and its shit
Next thread when?
>Don't mind me fellas, just getting ready for a nice round of troooling all over this thread
AISlop ----> containment
Dude, it's Records of Lodoss War, one of few /tg/ approved anime.
Excuse me, Redditor? The backbone of /tg/ is anime and if you were unaware, now you know.
Lurk for several more years before posting again, newbie.
Imagine being such a homosexual that you feel the need to make a post like this because you see art made by a computer lamo
is more than one dragon encounter
Curse of strahd is not "real D&D"
Picrel was my first approach with d&d
>Setting is !Grand Duchy of Karameikos
>3 modules = 3 dungeons
>3 modules = 6 dragons!
pretty much fits your requirements.
I have and frankly I don't think it's very good. The "high points" of the system are better achieved by dungeon-crawling board games.
I can't say I've ever had a game that actually resembles this particular example of play, no.
'Iro in the 'log
Based fellow Pirotess devotee
I love her
I fricking love these sexy elf chicks, their teats and Parn's drip are most of what I even like about Lodoss, an anime so dry I couldn't follow it back in the nineties, when we were desperate and starving and watching this shit at all required violation of international law, but I have a question for the real fans, regardless of when you came on board, just people who love Lodoss. Why is she not called "Pilots", when everybody calls D-Dorito "Deedlit?" Not trying to troll here, genuinely confused; she explicitly states, "watashi wa D-Dorito" and that is a classic method for naming old school Dyandy characters, like Melf, or my old pyromantic 3e edgelord Kilburn. I was angry, sue me, 3e took too many notes from vidya and encouraged disrespect of the Dungeon Master, and I was a teenager, but my point stands, D-Dorito or Pilots, or give me a good reason why.
Pirotess is a corruption of the name of an obscure ancient Greek love goddess
> Have you tried actually playing D&D?
Yeah, it was D&D 5e and it was awful. One can say that I've got filtered by AD&D/D&D 3.5 previously. By how bloated and vague it is at the same time. But then I tried to "do it myself", to read and play the other games. Now, as a GM I can impovise a more interesting fantasy dungeon-crawl by letting players roll 2d6s.
But D&D can be fixed. Every other heartbreaker proves it.
Corpos hate it.
Yes.
>Result.
>Dragon was fun. Everything is improved with a Dragon.
>Dungeons felt lame and contrived. Big leap out of continuity by defining X uninhabited dangerous locale with resources as a "dungeon". Call it a "Wizard's Tower" or a "Dragon's Lair". Classifying each high-peril close quarters combat location as a "dungeon" puts everyone onto side-scroller game mode.
>Vanilla makes it boring, and lends itself to players going off the rails on fantasy-fulfillment mode. You can make your setting "traditional", but you've got to make it flavourful enough that players will actually have meaningful interactions to prevent lulzrandumb behavior. Provide motivation and peril.
>Between people is expected. In person is complicated if you live in a small town or a place without a prevalent gaming community. While you can generally find players, you might struggle far more to procure good ones.
>Vanilla
Un-fricking-playable. DnD without homebrew is like a Bethesda game without games. DnDs default settings are worse than fanfiction.net AU fandoms. Anyone who enjoys "vanilla" DnD is instantly outing themselves to me as someone with extremely shit taste. That's not a crime or anything, but makes me wary of their ability to roleplay or think creatively.
*Bethesda games without mods
>. Anyone who enjoys "vanilla" DnD
An RPG is 99% what you make of it. Is DND as fleshed out as other games? No. Is it as good at <thing> as games built for <thing>? No. But the rules itself don't make the game unfun or unenjoyable. This post reeks of nogames
You want to know what's really a sign of a shit taste? When person starts caring about roleplaying too much.
Recipe for good rpg is: 20% roleplaying + 20% discovering + 60 good tactical combat encounter. And DnD is almost perfect for that. The only system that's better than DnD is Pathfinder, which is basically a mod to DnD.
You forgot the game numbnuts
>The only system that's better than DnD is Pathfinder
lol
>+ 20% discovering
wtf is discovering, you mean roleplaying?
is more than one dragon encounter
is more than one dungeon crawl
>>the setting is more or less vanilla
>>the game is not just an event in your head but actually involves real people, preferably in person
I do all of these every weekend. I don't understand why making dungeons is hard. Five room dungeon is the biggest beta shit I've ever heard. Just make a real dungeon. How lazy are you? I mean the 5 room dungeon is a smart concept to keep in mind but the idea that making these is somehow an exertive effort for modern DMs really goes to show how much the bar as been lowered. Everyone is bored of D&D and no one wants to play the fricking game, as evidenced by all the material geared toward "hooking" apathetic players into even doing anything in game.
So I just run my game and ignore that demotivational propaganda. It's all meant to sell you something anyway. Usually a subscription to some homosexuals YouTube channel.
I only use youtube for music videos and cute animal videos, the last time I viewed literally-anything-else was 15 years ago, I believe that this has greatly improved my quality of life and would recommend it to anyone.
Humans shouldn't be allowed to upload videos of themselves talking. It was a mistake to allow this.
I listen to YouTube bullshit all day at work because it's better than cycling the same thoughts through my own head.
I miss being unemployed. I had better thoughts and wasted less time.
Consider making playlists with a mix of music and podcasts, its a little more work but you won't have to deal with algorithmically-optimized ragebait getting shoved down your earhole.
It also sounds like you deserve a higher quality of life in general, but I understand that's little comfort, people gotta play the cards they're dealt.
I used to like to listen to mainstream rock stations while working, now I can rarely stomach it, it's all sad angry music for aging alcoholics.
I've played in 32 games and I've only ever encountered two dragons, and that was in the same fight and one of them got talked into running away.
>I've never opened a treasure chest
>All the gold any of my characters ever earned was payment for quest
>All the magic items I've ever encountered were bought from magic shops
>99% of all "dungeons" I've been in have been 1 floor and simple circle or L shapes.
>I've never fought a troll
>I've never found a mimic
>I've never encountered an ooze
>I've never encountered traps
>All exploration I've ever done has been handwaved
So when you put it like that I've never played a game of Dungeons and Dragons a day in my fricking life
What the frick anon
Are you doing anything Saturday?
I have only ever GMed one game for my friends but uhhh you use roll20 at all?
Anon you need rehabilitation.
Do you want to save a princess from a dragon-guarded tower?
I feel like one dragon is plenty. Ought to be multiple dungeons though
Why do you care what games we play? It's not as if there's a shortage of other people to play slop and slop with. Are you getting paid by wotc?
I play 5e. Currently playing Curse of Strahd. It's fun!
>the setting is more or less vanilla
How vanilla?
D&D just isnt that great of a system because the rules suck. I didnt notice it till I got to run a different system (The One Ring incidentally). Playing a system that actually has mechanics for things like social encounters or traveling, that actually has guidance to use as a DM in the book besides "bro just make it up idk" was eye opening. The one and only thing D&Ds rulebook actually covers well is combat.
>D&D just isnt that great of a system because the rules suck. I didnt notice it till I got to run a different system (The One Ring incidentally). Playing a system that actually has mechanics for things like social encounters or traveling, that actually has guidance to use as a DM in the book besides "bro just make it up idk" was eye opening. The one and only thing D&Ds rulebook actually covers well is combat.
I'm inclined to agree, however I think D&D just expects you to roleplay social encounters though. It doesn't *need* mechanics for that.
yeah it's super trivial that a class isn't proficient with the one type of attack it's supposed to be best at LMAO
I played it a lot and a love it.
The only prblem, that people last 5-7 days tend to dislike idea of dungeon crawling. When they stand at the entrance to dungeon, instead of venturing forth, they stand there and invent smart ways to avoid it.
Yes. As a GM and as a player, from AD&D to 4th edition... and 5th as a player.
It's not good. Every edition needed to have extensive homerules to be playable. Spells like Mass Confusion literally makes encounters trivial while other aspects make them unwinnable.
Something as simple as providing no alternative to saves-or-sucks effects... how fricking hard is it to add to the whole thing "sacrifice 5% of your health rounded up per point you failed the save by to succeed instead out of sheer willpower", instead of having a player sit down a complete encounter out of a single save?
But:
> d20
> Save-or-Suck
> Trap options, including friggin' character classes
This is just bad at a core level, and good campaigns are the result of great GMs and done in spite of D&D, not because of it.
The number of people saying you need house rules to play shows that they haven't played it.
They're right, moron. You haven't played a game.
Epic Zinger my guy. Now I would advise trying some 5e. It's a fun game.
I did. It was garbage.
>Samegayging this hard
>being this desperate because you lost the argument
I have. It isn't.
Have you tried playing D&D ?
Of course not they're too post-ironic and subversive to go on a quest to rescue a princess from a tower guarded by a dragon.
Try it sometime, "intellectuals".
You might have some fun along the way.
If there's one thing lurking on /tg/ taught me is that nobody here actually plays the games they talk about.
>no rule is immune to interpretation.
Frickin what? What level of insanity to I need to be on to understand this?
bump
I did, yeah. It was pretty fun.
Yes. 5e still fricking blows. What are the stats on a land vehicle?
>What are the stats on a land vehicle?
buy a copy of Descent into Avernus to find out!
does that mean if I look in the spell jammer book I will find the rules for shop to ship combat then?
They wouldn't leave something like that out would they? You would have to be the most moronic person in the world to leave out something like that right?
They errm, they left it out. But uhhh, it's ok because they well they, they suggest you just like, you know, board enemy ships, and you do the, you fight the, them with your, like, swords, and stuff.
THANK YOU WIZARDS OF THE COAST
VERY COOL!
Very useful. Saved for later
This entire thread reads like some kind of fricked up argument with Blaine the Mono
I did. It's still a garbage system that barely holds together even if you're trying to stay within its 'bounds'. I was pushing them hard and stretching their resources thin and they still breezed through everything.
Hell I even designed a dungeon with the express purpose of draining all the sorcerer's fireballs so he wouldn't have them for the boss. It just doesn't hold up and is so pathetically non-lethal and non-challenging.
Also, I can tell you're getting more and more desperate by the way your posts keep getting longer and longer. It's pretty embarrassing for you.
In 5e a longsword does 1d8 dmg RAW. If I follow this raw rule am I interpreting the rule or am I following it raw?
actually longsword does 1d8+Str for damage.
Actually, a character wielding a longsword deals 1d8 + strength modifier damage. A longsword, in and of itself, has 1d8 damage.
>am I interpreting the rule or am I following it
You're neither. You're just saying a rule.
lol abstractmoron got BTFO'd and left
Guess you could say he lost the will to db8
Absolutely lost
1d8 damage isn't interpreting a rule, it's interpreting the consequences of two rules.
I missed that as well, probably having a stroke from reading his posts. Imagine not even knowing what words mean and acting like a pompous buffoon.
big Agrippa the Skeptic vibes here
If everything is up to interpretation, why are you arguing? What basis do you have to decide that your interpretation is any more correct than anyone else's?
Do you morons get it yet?
No I'm more confused now, I liked Wikipedia's explanations better.
That's weird, since it's completely consistent with those explanations.
Bear in mind, I don't think determining the rank of an attack by projectile speed in air is a good idea, because adventures may take place in a variety of environments.
I think in 3e random projectiles have a damage rank of mass rank + speed rank + 10 but I could be mistaken
I don't know anything about mutants and masterminds (if that's what you're referring to), so I'll defer to your knowledge on that system.
Well, the initial point was about a mach 3 and mach 10 projectile being identical, and if different speeds correlate to different ranks, they wouldn't be, so it's a moot point.
I'm guessing that the guy didn't actually expect the game being referenced to have a that sort of table at all.
So abstractBlack person, how long will it be before you recover from your embarrassment and decide to post again this time? I give it ~7 minutes.
Ganker needs to make everyone's IP public so you can go to their house and kill them when they lose an argument.
In 5e a longsword does 1d8 dmg. How can you interpret that in any other way?
Stating a rule with no further context is not interpreting it. This was already said ages ago.
>all rules are up for interpretation
A longsword does 1d8 dmg. What other way can you interpret this other than what is written?
Actually using it in a game?
You stupid or something?
A longsword dealing 1d8 damage is meaningless unless you provide context for what 1d8 damage does, which requires you to establish what 1 point of damage is, what 1 point of HP is, and so on, all which require either rules or interpretations of those rules.
Dumbass.
Swing and a miss, dumbass.
What interpretation of those rules. You keep going on about interpretations but you never bring any up. What is your interpretation of "a longsowrd deals 1d8 dmg"?
Can you please shut up after this? All you're doing is being dumb and it's obvious.
>In 5e a longsword does 1d8 dmg.
Notice how you had to include "5e" to provide some context? It wasn't enough, but it was a start. I think you at least understand that in 5e, what 1d8 damage means is very different from something like what 1d8 in AD&D means. A longsword deals 1d8 in both systems, but the results are quite different, with it being able to deal a fair hit in AD&D, but an underwhelming blow at lower levels in 5e thanks to it being on the lower end of the damage spectrum (with few popular options below 1d8) in exchange for allowing the use of a shield which is quite valuable thanks to the relative scarcity of meaningful AC upgrades. Its distinction becomes functionally irrelevant at higher levels as other abilities make up for it's lacking damage, with the rise in HP making the comparatively minimal discrepancy between weapons also less important and the difference between abilities far more important.
Were I running a game of 5e, I would have to be aware that the longsword tends to be used by lower-damage but higher AC characters, and while it deal 1d8 I can take that into consideration and set the average HPs to either make that seem weaker or stronger depending on how effective I personally think a longsword and similar weapons should be, if I wanted to make that some sort of priority. I might even throw down a magical longsword fairly early to help a PC compensate if they enjoy the concept of a longsword but are underwhelmed by its effect in game.
You know. Interpretation. Trying to see what the Longsword feels like within the game, to actually understand what "1d8 damage" means within the system, and making decisions and considerations based off of that.
I'll interpret that in this context as a concession. Glad you can admit when you're wrong anon.
>I was moronic all along!
I love it when you're maneuvered into a place where you can't do anything but look at an argument and say "FRICK, HE GOT ME BAD" and you give up in the most shameless and transparent manner imaginable, all while thinking you've convince anyone to the contrary.
My argument is still right there. Run away now.
>Run away now.
You literally spent this entire thread running away from a d8
>it's what plants crave
You're genuinely a moron. Like, not even joking. You're genuinely as dumb as the people in a movie exaggerating how dumb idiots could be.
>My argument is still right there
And I've interpreted it as a concession.
Are you suggesting that my interpretation might be incorrect, and that there's some underlying point to your statement that isn't up to interpretation?
All those words and you couldn't name a single alternative interpretation of 1d8 damage.
no you just dont get it, its "up to interpretation"
What is 1d8 damage?
Dumbass.
You're probably just going to go right back into a Brando circle.
A reduction in health of one to eight points, determined by rolling a d8. Health is a number on your character sheet determined by your class and constitution. Your class is chosen from a list in the book. Constitution is determined at character creation, according to rules in the book.
Now you're starting to interpret it! Well done! Now, what does a point of damage look like? Go on. Describe it in the context of low level 5e, taking into account all you just said, like class and constitution. Remember that PC HP is kind of high a low levels though, with some NPCs having as little as 4 HP or lower.
Go on. Describe what 1 HP looks like.
Interpret it.
None of those statements were interpretations. Try again, and don't be dishonest this time.
You were starting to intepret it. All you did was state rules, without actually using them yet.
Use them now. You have a basic understanding of what 1 damage is, now describe it to me. Don't just repeat rules at me, actually fricking use them. Produce some result the players can understand contextually.
I mean, frick me, I'll take "It reduces your operating limit by 3%" at this point, just so that we're all aware you're a braindead robot who's never played an RPG in his life and is incapable of conveying what damage is to anything that isn't likewise a robot. If that's how you interpret a point of damage, fine, but I'm betting you're not that fricking dumb and can actually provide a meaningful interpretation of what 1 damage is.
I wasn't starting to do any such thing. You were instructed to stop being dishonest. You will not be warned again.
Frick you and your "Oh shit, he got me, better become all indignant" bullshit.
You were telling me about 1d8 damage. You know the rules surrounding it, now I want you to actually use them, in the simplest, most basic manner. I'm not asking you to run a sample combat right now, I'm asking you to do the most basic task a DM might be asked to do, to describe some mechanic in a game in a way that doesn't like like a mechanic is a game.
Interpret it. Go on. Actually convince me you understand what 1d8 is.
Or, are you going to try to tell me that 1d8 damage is entirely separate from the fluff? That "damage" is just a nonsense word slapped onto a subtraction mechanism that reduces some arbitrary value with no meaning attached to it?
What is your interpretation of 1d8 anon?
It's what plants crave.
I interpret your concession.
You're the one who claimed that every rule is up to interpretation. The burden of proof is on you to back it up. Nobody else is responsible for proving your BS for you.
So you saw me use the word indignant earlier and decided it must be something people smarter than you use? Lol.
No, that has nothing to do with it. When I instruct you to do something, you do so, immediately, without argument. Revise your post.
>No, that has nothing to do with it.
>tries dodging the point miserably because he knows he's fricked
Nice try. Once again
Interpret it. Go on. Actually convince me you understand what 1d8 is.
Or, are you going to try to tell me that 1d8 damage is entirely separate from the fluff? That "damage" is just a nonsense word slapped onto a subtraction mechanism that reduces some arbitrary value with no meaning attached to it?
One to eight damage.
>it's got electrolytes
>can't give his specific interpretation of a simple rule.
I guess not every rule is up for interpretation.
It's one to eight damage, and that's all it will ever be.
Are you going to try to tell me that 1d8 damage is entirely separate from the fluff? That "damage" is just a nonsense word slapped onto a subtraction mechanism that reduces some arbitrary value with no meaning attached to it?
What is your interpretation of 1d8 anon?
Why shouldn't it be? Do you think that will make your argument any less absurd?
Let's be real. The last person who actually tried to use their brain was
The Brando trolls aren't doing you any favors. My argument is so fricking sound, that no attention was paid to
out of sheer fricking fear of it.
The Brando trolls may be dumb, but they know when they're beaten. That's why they've been whipped into chanting about electrolytes, because they can't actually argue coherently when faced with something that solid.
No, your post was ignored because it has nothing to do with anything. 3 points of damage represents a reduction in hit points of 3. Simple as.
>It's what plants crave. Simple as.
You can just not post if you're out of ideas.
>That "damage" is just a nonsense word slapped onto a subtraction mechanism that reduces some arbitrary value with no meaning attached to it?
This idea seems to frighten you
Professional frickin yapper holy shit
>What damage represents is up to interpretation.
Not at all moron. You can't just say "its up to interpretation" and then shove your fist up your ass
Bro. Very simply give me an alternative interpretation of this simple rule. Every rule is up for interpretation right? Should be easy.
In 5e a longsword does 1d8 dmg.
What other interpretation of this can there be other than rolling a single d8 for dmg.
>I gave up and am just repeating myself instead of reading
Read, dumbass. It's already explained in the post you're quoting.
Give me an alternative interpretation that what is RAW. I'm waiting. It should be simple if every rule is up for interpretation. Please give me your specific interpretation.
It doesn't explain anything. You're just yapping paragraphs of nonsense because your mind is short circuiting over the fact that 1d8 means roll a die.
It means nothing outside of that and you desperately want it to so you're trying to dissect as far as possible until you're far enough away from it that you hope everyone will forget.
It's literally nothing but a concession that you're incapable of answering a basic question about what other possible interpretation 1d8 damage from a longsword could have.
NOT the damage in the context of a party's level
NOT the damage in the context of different editions.
1d8 Damage means that you roll a die and get a result from 1 to 8 and use that value to apply damage.
There's no other interpretation of the rules to be had. Obviously this runs counter to your thesis statement about games that you have never played so we can disregard that and keep whipping you for our entertainment.
>waxes on and on about interpretations of rules and how every rule is up for interpretation.
>when asked about a specific rule interpretation he goes silent.
C'mon man. You can do better than that. On 5e a longsword does 1d8 dmg. What interpretation can there be other tha rolling a single d8 to determine damage for a longsword.
>can't give a specific rule interpretation
Kek. C'mon guy. All rules are up for interpretation. Give me your specific interpretation of a longswords dmg in 5e other than what is RAW.
>he can't do it.
Kek. Imagine being defeated by 1d8.
Man, what is with you. You already got your ass handed to you and you've just been hovering around, repeating your Brando nonsense like the moron you are.
homie don't make me wreck you again.
Does this moron seriously not know the difference between Brando and Brawndo?
Me personally?
I just wouldn't lose to a dice, especially not one with less than 10 sides to it.
Guys stop bullying anon, he's a victim of D8 Rape, he has ptsd.
Does he feel the same about 2d4?
So in this moron's games, do longswords deal some other amount of damage depending on the DM's mood? I don't get what he's arguing for here
He's not arguing anything. He's literally been buck broken by a 1d8.
He's made lots of big claims but the main one he's hyper fixated on is that all rules are up to interpretation.
He's had bad experiences with 8 sided die apparently.
The threads still here. Everyone can read all the posts. No amount of your attempts to reframe the thread will change that, and any further attempts beyond this post will just highlight how shameless you are.
It's actually funny how badly beaten you've been, to the point where you've been stuck in a-
>it's got electrolytes
>it's what plants crave
>it's got electrolytes
-loop, and not appreciating just how fricking dumb you sound. Even by moron troll standards that's sad;.
So no alternate interpretation for longsword damage then.
>it's what plants crave
So no alternate interpretation for longsword damage then.
stop it anon, you broke him
>says they guy stuck in an electrolytes loop
Here's the scene again if you forgot what you sound like.
?si=fBmcKOmpiivH-dgo
So no alternate interpretation for longsword damage then.
>What are electrolytes?
And then they don't have a proper answer beyond repeating a catchphrase. Classic.
On the topic of answering questions, what's your alternate interpretation for longsword damage? I hope you have a proper answer rather than repeating a catchphrase.
>I don't get what he's arguing for here
He hates the idea that there are well-constructed RPG systems out there that don't require homebrew fixes.
>Anon still won't give his own specific interpretation of a rule.
I used to think d8s were pussy ass dice, but seeing how they absolutely wrecked this tard I've began to change my mind.
Round of applause for our champion who TKOd moron kun guys.
So, the thread started from a guy pretending a list of nitpicks was serious?
I was wondering where the whole "HOW DARE ANYONE SAY RULES ARE FLEXIBLE" mentality was coming from, and of course it's from trolls hoping to demand people take their petty complaints seriously.
Not nitpicks and they're all serious.
Any attempt at trolling got derailed by the absolute moronation of claiming that nobody has ever run a game without houserules. Unless that itself was trolling, which is also possible, since this is some exceptional skill at pretending to be moronic.
Though given discussion strayed into Mutants and Masterminds and other systems, perhaps anyone obsessed with D&D got bored and moved on?
Nah, it was without house rules, modifications, omissions, creative interpretation of the rules, or flat out mistakes. Direct quote.
Actually read the posts. Hell, you've been fighting all this time, and you're only now becoming aware that something as basic as "determining how to describe the fluff of an attack" falls under "creative interpretation of the rules," because the rules don't have explicit and strict guidelines surrounding describing attacks. It's even marketed as being loose with the fluff in that regard.
Games are inherently designed so that GMs have to adapt and adjust them in some fashion. When it comes to blast damage, they can adapt that to mean just about anything, apparently.
It's only under the most ridiculous, moronic mindset of "HOW DARE ANYONE SAY RULES ARE FLEXIBLE" that pointing this out got you so upset, and it all stems from you wanting a list of nitpicks to be taken seriously and not just treated as a short list of things to house rule.
I'll interpret that as a concession.
..what part? The part where I directly pointed out your flawed arguments, explained where those arguments came from, and left you with nothing to say but "Oh frick, oh frick, please please just let me run away"?
Go ahead. Run away.
How do you interpret 1d8 anon? I'm confused and need help.
>..what part?
All of it. It's my interpretation after all. Thanks for conceding, by the way.
What about 1d8 anon? How do you interpret that?
Nah, D&D's rules are fine, and anyone saying otherwise is probably just this board's worst troll. The idea that you'd have to adapt or adjust them at all in order to get the game to work is just a smear campaign.
Nope, they're horribly dysfunctional, and anyone saying otherwise has brain damage.
Don't worry, I'll interpret your concession
>I'll interpret your concession
Sorry to say that your interpretation is incorrect. Just because you have a moronic interpretation doesn't mean it's valid or worth respect.
Some troll interpreting a rule in a malicious way doesn't make the rule up for debate, it just demonstrates that people can willfully misinterpret anything, down to even the shape of the earth.
>it just demonstrates that people can willfully misinterpret anything
Which is why I'm taking the responsibility of interpreting the concession for you.
I'm just helpful like that.
In my interpretation it's not malicious and is completely valid. Your interpretation is wilfully wrong.
Correct. Interpretations can be wrong, not only wilfully, but for many other reasons. Anyone trying to rely on the existence of interpretations as if everyone's perspective is equally valid is moronic.
That's why tabletop games have rules in the first place, and one doesn't need to rely on someone's interpretation of mechanics in order to play most tabletop games. The people who do so are probably D&D hating trolls trying to nitpick what is otherwise the world's greatest roleplaying game.
Fluff isn't rules, so it doesn't involve interpreting rules. Nice try though, sucks to suck.
Fluff isn't mechanics, Anon. It is, however, definitely a part of the rules.
RPG Basics, people. We've got trolls learning them for the first time here.
No it isn't. Fluff is fluff and rules are rules.
>When it comes to blast damage, they can adapt that to mean just about anything, apparently.
He STILL doesn't understand
The best part is the idea that we had trolls fighting against the idea of games having flexible rules that are open to interpretation, like they were scared of the idea. I can't imagine any of them were actually serious though, because that takes some severe levels of "i've never played a game and only looked at rules" psychosis. I really hope our trolls are bad, but not that bad.
Longsword 1d8 interpretation.
We just had trolls grabbing at whatever. That's the pattern. See a D&D thread, start brain dead trolling and arguing, regardless of how dumb they look in the process. We even had some taking cues from Idiocracy without realizing it.
They will argue just to argue, even if what they're arguing is that non-D&D games are even worse than D&D. That's what makes them trolls.
>We even had some taking cues from Idiocracy without realizing it.
Oh yeah, that was hilarious. Whenever someone asked him a question he'd just reply
>It's what plants crave
Instead of actually trying to give an answer. Worst troll by far.
I'm actually kind of amazed that there's anyone who would admit to running games without any sort of house rules, in any context. There's a decisive lack of personality and command in the very concept of strictly abiding by the rules with no attempt to introduce your own after careful consideration. Sure, new GMs should probably try to stick to some sort of vanilla version of the game, but even then it's kind of embarrassing to imagine not wanting to put some kind of personal spin on a game, however slight it may be.
I'm actually inclined to believe we do have trolls who are that dumb. The kind who don't play games because no one would ever want to play with them.
Imagine the worst kind of rules lawyer, without any practical understanding of the rules. Now make them even more moronic than you just imagined. That's the basic formula for /tg/'s trolls.
That would certainly explain all of the dumb interpretations of D&D rules from trolls. Who knows how many new players were steered away from actually learning the rules because they saw some bizarre collection of 'problems' online that they felt compelled to fix before they even knew the system?
Our trolls are moronic, but it would be impossible to be as moronic as the ones pretending in this thread are pretending to be. They wouldn't be able to pass the Captcha to post. They wouldn't be able to breathe and type simultaneously.
They're just pretending to be that stupid. Because, basic b***h trolls can't get attention otherwise. Find popular thing, complain about popular thing, and then get increasingly dumber as the argument progresses and every point you made is thrown to the ground.
D&D is objectively bad and the rules don't work.
>Our trolls are moronic, but it would be impossible to be as moronic as the ones pretending in this thread are pretending to be.
People can be dumb in very specific ways. Some of the smartest people I know are also some of the dumbest.
I'm not saying our trolls are smart though. I'm saying they could be smart enough to type in reasonable English but still dumb enough to actually believe what they've been posting about how evil house rules are.
Longsword 1d8 interpretation.
The only reason they say they hate house rules is because they get upset when someone just says "house rule it lol" whenever they bring up some petty, minor, and easily fixable complaint. Let's not pretend their motivation is any more complicated than that.
Not pretty, not minor, not easily fixable.
I think my DM might be one of those trolls. He seems to get really upset whenever I houserule my character's abilities without telling him.
I'd present an alternate possibility, but I don't think there is one. The animosity towards house rules is so bizarre.
It's not animosity towards house rules. It's animosity towards the board. They're trolling for attention and are furious when they don't get it.
certainly is a lot of animosity towards using the rules in the book, quite bizarre indeed old chap. good thing you and I, who are definitely separate people and not the same person despite never replying less than posting delay apart, are above these ruffians.
>animosity towards the board
Just the people who actually play games. All the other no-games though love to lick each other's wounds whenever they get a whipping.
those silly no games, they think you can't play without house rules
No, they hate this board. You don't troll out of love.
Like those monsters that hang out under bridges, what are you talking about when you say troll. Define it for me.
Go to bed garfunkel.
I don't think it's just nogames. I think the worst offenders are the ones who played, but can no longer play because no one wants to play with them anymore. SUPER bitter, not just regular nogames bitter.
Those are still no-games.
>The animosity towards house rules is so bizarre.
I said that like three hundred posts ago, and they just kept at it. They're still at it, even.
Once again, no one could be as dumb as our trolls pretend to be.
We're not talking just dumb, we're talking about arguing against their own agenda without realizing it.
The only way that works is if they have no basic logic, and even a dog can understand that if you push a ball it's going to roll. Our trolls want everyone to think they're dumb enough to be painting themselves as unimaginative slaves to rules and that's somehow a good look for them.
Hell, our trolls pretend that they actually think the best use of their time is complaining about a game they don't even play. They have to be aware of how fricking dumb that is.
You have a higher opinion of them than I do. I think they're just stupid. You don't become a troll by being smart.
You couldn't become anything if you were as dumb as they are pretending to be. Even the dumbest trolls couldn't be this dumb.
yeah, you'd have to be pretty dumb to think all games require house rules, I agree.
>You don't become a troll by being smart.
You do, kinda. You need to be stupid-smart.
Ie., just smart enough to be cruel, but not smart enough to realize the one you're hurting is yourself.
yeah, just smart enough to read, but too stupid to follow instructions in a rule book.
I mean can you blame them? Pic related is downright esoteric
There's far too many idiosyncrasies surrounding this aforementioned 8 sided die, there's no way one could reasonably interpret them.
You don't need to be smart to be cruel. The opposite.
That's sounds like a simon garfunkel song.
>Once again, no one could be as dumb as our trolls pretend to be.
Read the thread. They're genuinely moronic.
seriously, they actually think you can't play a game without house rules lmao
Yeah, imagine not knowing how to read a list of instructions and follow it.
Those trolls couldn't pour water out of a boot if the instructions were on the heel. So I guess instead they drill a hole in the sole and call it a homebrew fix?
What do you expect the trolls to do when they read this? Get so upset they stop trolling? Your insults are not even that good, you're just calling them dumb over and over again, and that's not going to change them or change anything.
Hundreds of posts later, and all we've figured out is that if you poke trolls, they'll do exactly what you expect trolls to do.
Go to bed garfunkle.
He'll never learn, partly because most of those trolls live only in his head.
It's better for people to understand what are trolls are. The worst thing you could do is imagine that they're just stupid. That they can be educated. Tbey're not simply stupid. They're intentionally stupid, the worst kind of stupid. You're right, there's no fixing them, so there should at least be the warning not to try.
I should have taken my own advice and not poked you.
Let's be real. We don't need posts laboriously explaining "trolls dumb".
Don't reply to them. Don't reply to me. Go talk about games. I'm going to go talk about games.
Those "trolls" absolutely fricked you in the ass in this thread.
>"-said the troll, desperately."
>said the actual troll, desperately.
Hey, hate to interject, but does this one-man performance have an intermission? I've never seen theater done in an online forum, but you're doing a great acting job.
Yeah, the idea of tweaking a system you like is one of the strength's of tabletop RPGs. Of course, you'll also have people on both ends of that, who either are new or run things by the book, or who decide to homebrew an entire system form scratch.
I'm not sure what there is to gain by doubting the existence of those sorts of people on the ends of that spectrum though.
>I'm not sure what there is to gain by doubting the existence of those sorts of people on the ends of that spectrum though.
It's cope. The OP of this thread is one of those people and anon has dodged that fact pretty diligently to continue his schizo rant about trolls and how its impossible to play a tabletop rpg without making your own house rules.
>I'm actually kind of amazed that there's anyone who would admit to running games without any sort of house rules, in any context.
Some people just like rules.
I've played in a few groups that had unapologetic RAW gays in them, the kind that cry if a monster's stats don't match the one's in the manual.
Not everyone who likes rules is that bad though, some just want to "real" experience of the game, or have played with too many shitty GMs who can't homebrew for shit.
There's a lot of those.
Why buy the rulebook if you're not going to use it?
I like rules. I love them.
But I'm smart enough to know that blindly following them is for morons. I really can't understand how fricking dumb someone would have to be to even argue against house rules, as if any game ever made was somehow perfect right out of the box. If you don't feel qualified to make adjustments to a game's rules, you're really not qualified to be a GM at all.
The best point I'd make is that there are some pretty ultra-lite RPGs there which barely have rules in the first place. There's not much to bother houseruling if a system is basically just a unified resolution mechanic.
I doubt those people are against houserules or think those systems are perfect, but one doesn't need to be against houserules in order to not end up using any.
I'd add that there's an odd mindset I see sometimes, where people insist that the 'professional game designers' who wrote that $50 book obviously know what they're doing, because they're the experts.
Often times that's people who despite being really dedicated to a single system don't want to mess with it at all, because they've actually fooled themselves into thinking they're not capable of running a game without sticking to that specific text.
So you feeling spent $50 on a product created by people who aren't competent? You're just straight up admitting this, in public?
freely, not feeling. I can't spell but at least I don't play slopgeons
>So you freely spent $50
I didn't say I was one of those people devoted to a $50 book anon.
Besides, where do you think we are?
It's not that amazing, the rules are just consistently good, and that *exist* already.
Consistently bad.
I've actually interpreted them to be quite reasonable given the context.
No you haven't.
My adjudication on RAW is soundly solid.
>I really hope our trolls are bad, but not that bad.
Haven't you heard of this board's worst troll? Constantly lurks threads for any mention of D&D, and then gleefully 'interprets' a list of nitpicks. I'll bet he's the one who's been trying to play dumb about something as basic as how much damage a longsword does, since he seems like he's allergic to any system that actually has concrete rules.
>all these posts and anon still can't give his interpretation of that dmg die to roll for a longsword in 5e
Kek.
This chart is so confusing? It could have so many interpretations in it I don't even know where to begin with it.
>he's samegayging with himself now.
Pathetic.
>now
I'm actually kind of amazed that there's anyone who would admit to being incapable of running a game using the rules. Imagine being unable to simply read a rulebook without having some kind of schizo seizure and making up a bunch of shit the book doesn't say.
What do you mean you can't use your hands in soccer, why are you blindly following the rules?!?!?!
Best part of the thread was when anon took 1d8 damage and begun to question what the word damage even means contextually, in the most abstract sense of the word hitpoints.
>begun to question what the word damage even means contextually, in the most abstract sense of the word hitpoints.
He has to know.
You don't do this without being at least a little aware
Of course he's aware. He just has an terrible understanding of what separates rules and mechanics from other elements of a tabletop game.
After all, if you considered something as basic as visual appearance as homebrew, then you'd also be a rabid defender of homebrew.
Unless I'm misinterpreting, there's someone samegayging in here.
Perhaps anon, but he's such a subtle and skilled actor, how could we ever discern such a ruse?
They wouldn't be so foolish as to form a long chain of replies complaining about trolls that would be so easily noticed.
I need to roll a considerably high perception check, but I seem to have to define perception and check before I can gain any ground in this matter.
>ground
Hold on, you lost me. Can you define what that is first? Just need to make sure we're not misinterpreting anything.
Is no one going to define house rule for me? Are you talking about homebrew? those are completely independent things.
Oh, that's easy. A houserule is when the DM decides that rather than a living cat, an encounter will be against a zombie cat. Or when the DM decides to describe a sword slash as gravely injuring someone. Or when you get to choose what element of magic your PC uses.
can't wait to open this thread in the morning and see six hundred new posts by one IP
And the target practice dummy EATS the arrow. nom nom nom nom
The arrow was consumable. It hath bean consume.
Arrows are listed under the consumable section. The obvious interpretation is that they're there to provide sustenance.
Practice dummies need to eat too after all.
>The animosity towards using the rules in the book without interpretation is so bizarre.
I said that like nine hundred posts ago, and they just kept at it. They're still at it, even.
Rules don't require interpretation and you can play without house rules. My opinion is absolute objective fact and I get the last word.