Martials are boring as fuck and I'm tired of pretending they're not.

Martials are boring as fuck and I'm tired of pretending they're not.

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If martials are so boring, why do I have so much fun playing them?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Highly depends on the system.

      Guarantee you this guy doesn't weigh a pound under 500.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Blessed are the simpletons, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I usually get frustrated playing more advanced classes but my most recent character has been a standard fighter and I’ve been having a great time.

      I think part of it might be not extending my brainpower to “oh I have to prep the Dick Exploder and two casts of this and I can do x action but I need X.” And I can use it to roleplay more.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Casters have spells
      Martials should have combat actions other than "I attack" like sundering, tripping, grappling, disarming, and body blocking. There doesn't necessarily need to be a large list of non-attacking options but enough to mix it up a bit.
      3.5 D&D had a bunch of bullshit like this where you could play a chain wielding ass who trips everyone nearby and make AOO against them when they try to get back up.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The meme response would be to shill 4e to you. The real response is to shill DCC to you. Mighty deeds for warriors in DCC allow you to do such things in a freeform way with a simple mechanic that never punishes you for trying. Essentially doing something cool costs you nothing and doesn't replace a normal attack.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You're right but boring people love boring shit.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Systems played: 1

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Must be Pathfinder 2E where you are forced to stand toe to toe trading blows because your dighter is slow as fuck and the reality of rhe action economy means you're probably spend 3 turns if you try to equip or use something else.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh hey you're the guy from the general. You're not supposed to change what weapons you're holding out of emergencies, I'm sorry you felt invalidated by acid slimes

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What is this funnyjunk tier post even for? You have an opinion, good for you I guess?

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    *makes martials as fun as casters with one simple rule*

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the 'DM may I...' die
      yes, you may die and you can take your bad ideas with you

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        gay

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >caster: here's a bunch of descript powers you can do that have rules and limitations for how, when, and how often they can be used
        >martial: lmao just make it up and roll a die whenever
        Needs something more concrete, like ToB but without the retardation.

        >No! You need CONCRETE EXACT RULES in order to throw pocket sand in an enemies eyes!

        This is your brain on 5e

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          random asspull moves belong in improv comedy
          or Exaled

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >5E 5E 5E
            Either don't bother with maneuvers at all because the system wasn't designed with that kind of specificity in mind (AD&D, BX, et al) or actually provide rules to govern play with the same level of specificity that nonmartials/casters get.
            GM fiat is not game design, its a middle finger. And you're happily sitting on it.

            >"damn, why are martials so boring?"
            >"no, I absolutely won't let you do anything that isn't strictly covered by the rules, sorry. You need the pocket sand feat if you want to do that."

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >"damn, why are martials so boring?"
              Never said that (absolutely fine with the AD&D fighter as is). I said a "deed" die roll governed by GM fiat doesn't "fix" anything. Which apparently made you massively assmad, lmao

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                My fighter throws sand in the goblin's eyes. Your ruling?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Improvised Weapon attack for 1 damage, if the attack lands the target is Blinded until end of combat.
                Other goblins see what you've done and think it's hilarious, their next action will be throwing sand in your eyes.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Roll to attack at -2. That's your combat round. On success, that's his round too (maybe he attacks at a -4 if the successful attack was close). A round constitutes a full minute of what is assumed to be a lot of action. Meaning what you've managed to do at best is waste one another's time while his buddies advance and try to kill your buddies. Maybe you set him up to take a hit from a friend.
                Bottom line the game (AD&D in this case) is ill suited to simulate such tactical specificity, so stop thinking of it that way. One attack roll is not 5E's 6-second single blow, it's the culmination of a minute of feinting and blocking and parrying and moving around.
                Think less about what explicit actions you take in each second of melee, think more about the larger picture: positioning, engaging combatants to stop their advance, charging, meeting their charge, keeping them away from vulnerable allies, removing threats from play or trying to force a retreat. That's the fighter's purview.
                This [...] has a good point too. You wanna invite those kind of shenanigans into melee, expect enemy combatants to do that shit too.

                Okay nevermind, I just do a normal attack then.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Other goblins see what you've done and think it's hilarious, their next action will be throwing sand in your eyes.
                This type of stuff just discourages people trying to do cool shit. While there needs to be a level of fair play instantly throwing out the "I can do it too >:)" just makes people feel punished for thinking outside the box.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Roll to attack at -2. That's your combat round. On success, that's his round too (maybe he attacks at a -4 if the successful attack was close). A round constitutes a full minute of what is assumed to be a lot of action. Meaning what you've managed to do at best is waste one another's time while his buddies advance and try to kill your buddies. Maybe you set him up to take a hit from a friend.
                Bottom line the game (AD&D in this case) is ill suited to simulate such tactical specificity, so stop thinking of it that way. One attack roll is not 5E's 6-second single blow, it's the culmination of a minute of feinting and blocking and parrying and moving around.
                Think less about what explicit actions you take in each second of melee, think more about the larger picture: positioning, engaging combatants to stop their advance, charging, meeting their charge, keeping them away from vulnerable allies, removing threats from play or trying to force a retreat. That's the fighter's purview.
                This

                Improvised Weapon attack for 1 damage, if the attack lands the target is Blinded until end of combat.
                Other goblins see what you've done and think it's hilarious, their next action will be throwing sand in your eyes.

                has a good point too. You wanna invite those kind of shenanigans into melee, expect enemy combatants to do that shit too.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You basically described Dirty Trick

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Shh don't tell them that there's a way to do it really simply or he'll lose confidence. When working with special needs patients, you have to let them work out stuff on their own.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Shh don't tell them that there's a way to do it really simply or he'll lose confidence. When working with special needs patients, you have to let them work out stuff on their own.

                Yeah, except we didn't have to use superfluous CMD or condition names or other retarded 3E shit.

                [...]
                Okay nevermind, I just do a normal attack then.

                Dunno what to tell ya, chief. AD&D (like its roots) is a game of abstraction. You wanna break it down to every lil action you take in every moment and give it a keyword and a boring laundry list of feats surrounding it, play 3E.
                The point is, you either go all the way and rule that shit to death so you CAN acutely make tactical decisions like that, or you abstract it and ignore fiddly shit like that.
                Half measures like "deed" rolls or 5E's shitty stripped down solution are just dumb.

                >fighter wants to do something mildly creative that isn't just swinging his sword for once
                >DMs immediate reaction is to punish this

                Why are DnD players like this?

                >any restriction or qualification is punishment
                Because I've DMed long enough to know better. Make it too effective or too applicable and every one of you fuckers will be running around with bags of sand. Make it too ineffective or too niche and it'll never see play. Make it a nice option in specific situations, but with a cost.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't know what to tell you other than that I've played 3e and AD&D, and I find that Deeds give the most freedom to Fighter players and actually makes them as fun to play as casters. Too many feats, prestige classes and rules like in 3e HEAVILY restricts player options rather than frees them. And while I enjoy AD&D the fighter can easily feel too simplistic and boring. DCC is a happy middle ground to me.

                Agree to disagree I guess.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The issue that others pointed out is that the mechanics relies almost entirely on DM Fiat and does not have a proper spectrum for different actions. So blinding someone, tripping or disarming him all work under the same variables, unless you make a peroper system for it.

                It's why all the replies are "get a crunchy system or full freeform", because the middle ground cannot exists unless someone (the GM) puts the effort and sacrifices himself to tip the scale towards what each player expects.
                It's the good old "Casual vs Hardcore" conflict that has existed for centuries and people keeps trying to find the "middle ground" that cannot exists, literally. Either balance everything relevant with specifications or don't at all. Don't try to do both because that's what "aiming for a wider audience" does and the result is what every company trying to increase profits archieved: it killed the IP.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it’s just dumb
                Why?
                >because you have no rules or a bajillion rules, Jesus!
                Why not a single rule that covers all actions?
                >that’s just dumb!
                WHY is it DUMB?
                What is, functionally, the issue? Honestly it’s like arguing with a woman here

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >a miriad of different tactical options with different applications and different likely levels of risk and reward
                >let's have that all be the exact same roll with the exact same chances of success
                No, you're right. It's not dumb, it's properly retarded.
                >Honestly it’s like arguing with a woman here
                Implying you know what that's like, lmao

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >n-no it’s TOO effective!
                >now you’ll start equipping effective items and using them effectively!
                Yeah, okay. I believe you have dm’d plenty of systems and the reason is that no matter what system you run your players have a mediocre time because you deliberately repress their creativity so you don’t have to come up with a challenge to fit it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >LET ME USE A BAG OF SAND WITH INFINITE REWARD AND NO RISK OR I'M OPPRESSED
                Kek, you'd never have made it to session one to begin with, dip

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How hard can throwing sand even be.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                go outside and give it a try

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Very effective, I already killed two dudes

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The point is, you either go all the way and rule that shit to death so you CAN acutely make tactical decisions like that, or you abstract it and ignore fiddly shit like that.
                >Half measures like "deed" rolls or 5E's shitty stripped down solution are just dumb.
                Have you tried not playing Dungeons & Dragons(tm)?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                3aboos are the worst. They could have played a different game or kept playing AD&D. Instead they chose to play 3e.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Steve Jackson's Melee, Star Wars WEG, WHFR, to name a few. The thing is they know what they are and what they aren't. You don't see Star Wars with pages of tactical manuevers. It's an abstraction of cinematic space opera action. AD&D knows what it is, too, it's an abstraction of heroic fantasy. Melee isn't just one sentence on combat that says "Lmao, make it up bro". It's a game simulating the facets of man on man combat, so each eventuality is outlined in detail and there are rules for most things one can and cannot do.
                Bottom line, games ought to pick a lane and stop trying to do everything or offload actual game design to GM/referee fiat.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I unironically love Melee. Made specifically because he hated D&D combat.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You don't sound very pleasant to play with. I think I'll find another game, and we'll both be the happier.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Dirty Trick is completely unusable without feat support.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And you can't use mighty deeds unless you get 18 strength

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >fighter wants to do something mildly creative that isn't just swinging his sword for once
                >DMs immediate reaction is to punish this

                Why are DnD players like this?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Same dickheads that think they are super clever for using destroy water to kill monsters or some shit.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't need a ruling, the system already has rules for dirty tricks and improvised maneuvers and keeping them level apropriate. Today you're throwing dirt in the goblin's eyes, tomorrow you're kicking burning pitch into the face of a wyvern.
                Everything is possible when you're not playing with 5e or 2e fans.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >pocket sand feat
              Exactly.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Of course, to balance all this, casters don't get feats, period, which is fine because there aren't any caster feats to take. They're all martial feats. And martials get a new feat every level or two, and don't have to trade stat increases for them. They're pretty great, really.

                Oh, wait, we just invented battlemaster. Oops.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Hey should we expand upon battlemaster? Maybe even make it a universal mechanic for all martials? We can call it something like Robilar’s Treatise of Arms.
                >NAAAAAAAH! New edition time!

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >5E 5E 5E
          Either don't bother with maneuvers at all because the system wasn't designed with that kind of specificity in mind (AD&D, BX, et al) or actually provide rules to govern play with the same level of specificity that nonmartials/casters get.
          GM fiat is not game design, its a middle finger. And you're happily sitting on it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >this is the same person who throws an absolute shitfit when casters try to exceed the bounds of their spells

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, I need general rules that can quickly be extrapolated onto during play with minimal effort.
          Pocket sand is a full-action feint that's probably too obvious to work a second time. Moving on.
          I should have to neither ask the player "urrr, do you have the pocket sand feat?" nor come up with some bullshit on the spot.

          Really, DCC deeds aren't the worst for that. Pretty sure Call of Cthulhu uses a similar concept? 'combat maneuvers,' or some such? Someone was explaining it to me the other day but I've forgotten.
          All just a little vague and, in the dcc case, class limited for my tastes, but that's mostly preference.

          https://i.imgur.com/hHFrrXg.jpg

          Martials are boring as fuck and I'm tired of pretending they're not.

          Personal anecdote for fun martial shit:
          I wanna say one of the coolest dumb moves that ever happened in my game was me panicking as an NPC. The party leader, huge viking dude, is out for revenge against this woman's order. There's four apprentices in her group. Two he passed off for slaves to settle a debt, one he let go to tell the tale, and lucky #4 is just going to die in an honorable fight. Best deal he can give.

          She's got an icepick with a weighted chain and a thing on the end that sets off a frost AoE spell when it hits something. None of this is working, because this guy's armor is just too damned good. So I get the bright idea, "Well, she can feint, then duck under his arm and try and jam the explodey part up into his armpit where the armor's shit."

          Works a charm. Except that he's a beast of a man and the damage left after the voider still doesn't do anything but make him more pissed. He rips it out, yanks the pick out of her hand by the chain, and puts it through her skull.

          Was still a hell of a fun little scrape though. There was an attempt at cleverness, but sometimes a huge dude is just too huge a dude.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If anything, 5e is the domain of asspuls and retards who don't care for the rules.
          And the exceedingly detailed spells are a legacy of... players playing casters and designing spells in play. Bigby, Mordekained, Tasha - these were all player characters or their minions.
          The reason you have zero fencing techniques or deadly heart-stopping blows is only because the original player groups not only lacked people interested in sports, but also had this weird aversion flipping over intoobsession with magic users, which also resulted in the weird level progression of those classes in early D&D.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >caster: here's a bunch of descript powers you can do that have rules and limitations for how, when, and how often they can be used
      >martial: lmao just make it up and roll a die whenever
      Needs something more concrete, like ToB but without the retardation.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That sounds a lot like Tests in Savage Worlds.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Imagine playing a system that can't even compete with Savage morons

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the 'DM may I...' die
      yes, you may die and you can take your bad ideas with you

      >caster: here's a bunch of descript powers you can do that have rules and limitations for how, when, and how often they can be used
      >martial: lmao just make it up and roll a die whenever
      Needs something more concrete, like ToB but without the retardation.

      >being this salty about people using their brains in a physical fight
      The question stands; if martial date so weak compared to casters, and so boring compared to casters, why wouldn’t you want to give them the option of being less boring and less weak?

      Also, there would be restrictions, just as a caster has restrictions. There are only so many things you can feasibly do in a fight that have a practical outcome (much like a spell list) and the results will still only be as impressive as a cantrip or 1st level spell (shifting enemies a space, stunning or laying them out, maiming or disarming them, the worst being a coup de grace, which should be an option in any system).

      So why exactly would it be a bad thing to give martial a chance to strike with intent instead of flailing aimlessly for damage, ESPECIALLY since the current complaint is that combat is “too boring”?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I wouldn't play dnd you massive gay

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >a warrior CAN declare a Deed
      >gives absolutely no reason why they wouldn't, it's always better than a normal attack
      God damn how did they design a system this terribly?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's essentially always part of your normal attack. You do your normal attack and maybe something else in the same swing.

        So fighters in DCC are essentially swinging from chandeliers, tripping opponents and doing called shots every turn, never just "I swing my sword".

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If it's the default it's a terrible way to present it.
          Still dislike the emphasis on needing to do damage every turn instead of simply gaining an advantage or going for another goal.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's because if you sacrifice combat effectiveness and do boring as fuck rulings like

            Roll to attack at -2. That's your combat round. On success, that's his round too (maybe he attacks at a -4 if the successful attack was close). A round constitutes a full minute of what is assumed to be a lot of action. Meaning what you've managed to do at best is waste one another's time while his buddies advance and try to kill your buddies. Maybe you set him up to take a hit from a friend.
            Bottom line the game (AD&D in this case) is ill suited to simulate such tactical specificity, so stop thinking of it that way. One attack roll is not 5E's 6-second single blow, it's the culmination of a minute of feinting and blocking and parrying and moving around.
            Think less about what explicit actions you take in each second of melee, think more about the larger picture: positioning, engaging combatants to stop their advance, charging, meeting their charge, keeping them away from vulnerable allies, removing threats from play or trying to force a retreat. That's the fighter's purview.
            This [...] has a good point too. You wanna invite those kind of shenanigans into melee, expect enemy combatants to do that shit too.

            you end up back into the trap of players always just doing their safe attack roll and nothing else.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Sounds like bad design, balance and/or players.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Because creative solutions should actually be ingenious and well planned to be super effective, and not some lame shit you pull out of your ass because you want an "I Win" button for encounters too. A potential advantage ought to come at some risk/cost. Else the opposite of what you're whinging about becomes true, "Why the fuck would I ever standard attack when throwing sand is better/easier?"

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Else the opposite of what you're whinging about becomes true,

                You're right, martials in DCC are always trying to do creative shit every turn. Push backs, tripping, shield bashes, blinding all combined with their normal attack. Instead of maybe possibly doing something tactically cool once every session or so if the DM feels nice and doesn't give me a -4 fuck you modifier.

                Yeah, I'd much prefer to play in the former system.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You can DO cool things as a Martial without taking a million feats? And it's mechanically optimal to do that instead of be a Full Attack blender every turn forever?
        >Terrible design

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well done missing the point.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >a warrior CAN declare a Deed
            >gives absolutely no reason why they wouldn't, it's always better than a normal attack
            God damn how did they design a system this terribly?

            NTAYRT but would you rather martials just strictly go 'I attack, I hit, I do X damage, that's my turn' instead of having some more meaningful engagement with the enemies and environment?
            You sound like the people who caused the 5e fighter to get downgraded from the playtest where Battle Master was the standard mechanic of the class cause tards found it 'too complicated' and is why it's a Subclass now.
            Hell 4e had a bunch of people who hated the fact martials could do cool shit with At-Wills and thought they should only have Basic Attack.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Where the hell are you getting that? Why can't the players just do something creative that puts them in a better spot instead of attacking? Why is an ATTACK PLUS button absolutely necessary?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Why is an ATTACK PLUS button absolutely necessary?

                I already explained it to you

                It's because if you sacrifice combat effectiveness and do boring as fuck rulings like [...] you end up back into the trap of players always just doing their safe attack roll and nothing else.

                Players will always do the optimal thing in combat, and 99% of the time that's simply doing damage. So you might as well make it fun and creative to do.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >and 99% of the time that's simply doing damage.
                And I explained the only reason this is the case is because the system is awfully designed.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And what systems fixes that issue? Because it's certainly not any variation of DnD.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >b-but what about muh DND!
                get new material

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Mate, I'm trying to work with you here. Just say what system it is that fixes the issue we're talking about.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                GURPS, The Fantasy Trip

                How does letting a martial do something neat alongside attacking mean the system is awfully designed?

                Because, when you do something cool, there should be a sacrifice. Give them the option to do something cool with a substantial effect, but sacrifice their attack, but attacking after that cool thing, on their next turn, is much better, and it ends up being many, many times more satisfying than "I throw sand and attack" "I push and attack" "I throw sand and attack" because there's options. You don't want to make martials more fun, you want to make them as they currently are, but with more words. Play a good game once in your life, and you'll learn what makes martials fun. I've never been bored in GURPS while swinging a sword, and for good god damn reasons.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >when you do something cool, there should be a sacrifice.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Then it will never be more interesting than
                >I attack
                If your system cannot handle anything that is not "HP goes down" then it's a shit system.

                Ah fuck I've been arguing with a GURPStard, no wonder I'm not getting through

                [...]
                >Instead they will default to something that's simple and makes some progress towards the victory

                IE "I swing my sword".

                Funny that your D&D rotten mind can't even imagine that some systems don't make regular attacking front and center, and that other systems can be better at presenting meaningful options to the players. Have fun rolling d20, I guess, I suppose that's about as much engagement as your brain can take.

                >I've never been bored in GURPS while swinging a sword
                Yeah, I can't imagine getting bored memorizing entirety of Talhoffer Manual complete with dozens of rules and autistically detailed mechanics associated with every page and then converting it into second-by-second slideshow of a combat. Tired, frustrated, or annoyed sure. But definitely not bored.

                Bait is getting stale.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If your system cannot handle anything that is not "HP goes down" then it's a shit system.
                So you agree that DCC isn't a shit system then? Cause what you're describing is it's Might Deed of Arms mechanic.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Idk what DCC is man. You do you.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Literally the start of the chain you're replying to, anon. See

                *makes martials as fun as casters with one simple rule*

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't care. About what you linked, it's shit. It's shit for various reasons:
                >Free form shit
                >Every deed is an attack, so there is no risk/reward to any of these things
                >You don't have any skill differences between deeds
                "Deed die" THE ABSOLUTE STATE

                Oh, I touched it alright, and dropped it like blighted potato after few sessions of >there's some basic rules to do things and then these hundreds and hundred of "optional" rules to do things better, you don't really need to use those, but NPCs will and you will be putting yourself at disadvantage if you don't, because this is refined system that rewards dedicated gamers. I really don't want to worry about giving each stab clockwise or counter-clockwise spind depending on which hemisphere the fight takes place.

                Also not understanding something as straightforward as GURPS is pretty embarrassing, but I suppose it's to be expected.

                Fuck off, retard.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Every deed is an attack, so there is no risk/reward to any of these things
                If you fail the deed roll the deed doesn't happen and if you fail the attack it also doesn't happen. Why does everything have to be Risk/Reward? Shouldn't characters feel stronger as they level up?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because risk/reward is how you open up more options to the player. The deed die is still just "I attack" with just a few extra words.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Roleplaying your attacks is 'free form shit'
                Oh god, you're actually fucking autistic, aren't you?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Feel free to be a mary sue gay, I guess.

                Ah fuck I've been arguing with a GURPStard, no wonder I'm not getting through

                [...]
                >Instead they will default to something that's simple and makes some progress towards the victory

                IE "I swing my sword".

                Oh, man, I play more than one system? Oh no. I forgot I'm talking to someone who unironically thinks D&D is the absolute peak of gaming.

                >I've never been bored in GURPS while swinging a sword
                Yeah, I can't imagine getting bored memorizing entirety of Talhoffer Manual complete with dozens of rules and autistically detailed mechanics associated with every page and then converting it into second-by-second slideshow of a combat. Tired, frustrated, or annoyed sure. But definitely not bored.

                And, wow, someone who's never touched GURPS, telling me that they know the system at all.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, I touched it alright, and dropped it like blighted potato after few sessions of >there's some basic rules to do things and then these hundreds and hundred of "optional" rules to do things better, you don't really need to use those, but NPCs will and you will be putting yourself at disadvantage if you don't, because this is refined system that rewards dedicated gamers. I really don't want to worry about giving each stab clockwise or counter-clockwise spind depending on which hemisphere the fight takes place.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't understand how to roll 3d6 against my skill, rolling under
                Wow, you are actually stupid.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ah fuck I've been arguing with a GURPStard, no wonder I'm not getting through

                >Players will always do the optimal thing in combat
                Not necessarily, players will often either struggle to remember all their options or fail to correctly analyze which one is optimal for given situation. Instead they will default to something that's simple and makes some progress towards the victory even if it's suboptimal.

                >Instead they will default to something that's simple and makes some progress towards the victory

                IE "I swing my sword".

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                By the way, in GURPS, the optimal attack strategy is never "I swing my sword," unless you are fighting a literal child as a professional soldier. It will always be more efficient to end the fight by feinting, or using deceptive attack, or getting behind them, or taking a penalty to attack multiple times, or using IQ to feint, all depending on the situation. The fact that you don't realize this, it makes me realize that I honestly wish I could be ignorant, so I could learn it all again. Sadly, you're just a dumbass.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Ah fuck I've been arguing with a GURPStard, no wonder I'm not getting through
                Not even the same anon, but nice try

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's a lot of replies, anon. Feel free to link specific ones so I can check it out.

                This is the first post hostile post I see in the GURPS talk chain.

                You don't really seem ready to make any concessions, not even something as simple as the fact that one of the writers literally confirmed that the rules interpretation of ranged weapons at close range lead to melee attacks is indeed correct. Hell, you aren't even ready to concede that shooting someone point blank (gun to back kind of point-blank) is a melee attack, even though melee is a qualifier for range. And on top of this you make pretty inflamatory claims like
                >I'm just pointing out to the anon saying that GURPS can simulate 'anything' that it literally cannot simulate a dude getting his left arm grabbed then drawing a firing a gun with his right by RAW.

                I don't know man, just feels kinda sus, you know?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >>I'm just pointing out to the anon saying that GURPS can simulate 'anything' that it literally cannot simulate a dude getting his left arm grabbed then drawing a firing a gun with his right by RAW.
                Fun fact, that's not the anon who you're replying to that said that, that was me. Under only the interpretations put into this thread via images by anons prior to someone finding actual clarification by the designers it appeared all rules pointed to what you greentexted me saying. It's good to know I'm wrong. It still doesn't justify people who are GURPS lovers seething over the concept of DCC's Mighty Deeds of Arms.
                I've played GURPS, though we didn't play in a setting with guns so I never had to encounter that specific issue before. I like the system for what it does but people just going 'game I don't like is SHIT while my game is BEST' lead to me getting a little heated.
                I still think it's dumb it wasn't worded clearer in the GURPS book but glad we have one of the actual designers on record clearing it up. You would have thought for sure they'd rectify it in Tactical Shooting but looking through they didn't. They mention parrying rifles at Range 1 and getting a bonus to dodging if the gun is right up against you though.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It still doesn't justify people who are GURPS lovers seething over the concept of DCC's Mighty Deeds of Arms.
                You're overthinking this. It's not that the GURPS lovers are seething, it's just that some people simply don't like the way the system works for reasons which have been detailed pretty well already completely separate from GURPS at all. This is not some GURPS supremacy conspiracy, my man.

                >Fun fact, that's not the anon who you're replying to that said that
                Yeah, I should clarify, by "you" I meant the people fighting the GURPS stuff. I know there's a few around, but the posts seemed kinda similar in nature, so there you go.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I've never been bored in GURPS while swinging a sword
                Yeah, I can't imagine getting bored memorizing entirety of Talhoffer Manual complete with dozens of rules and autistically detailed mechanics associated with every page and then converting it into second-by-second slideshow of a combat. Tired, frustrated, or annoyed sure. But definitely not bored.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Because, when you do something cool, there should be a sacrifice
                So you want to turn 'I knock them down and stab them' into 'I knock them down, end my turn, hop they don't stand up, and then attack on my second turn?'
                You do know that the DCC Mighty Deed die scales with level right? It's a 33% chance of happening at level 1, 50% at level 2, 60% at level 3, 66% at level 4, etc. It only becomes guaranteed at level 8 and onward assuming your attack hits the target. You seem to be missing that part, the might deed die needs to be 3+ AND your attack needs to hit for it to work.
                Considering you're pointing to two easily broken 3d6 systems of GURPS and TFT I can only assume that you're either suffering from aphantasia or autism and need an actual list of things you can attempt put before you instead of coming up with something interesting on the spot.
                You literally complain that there aren't 'interesting options for PCs' when that's the entire point of Mighty Deeds. Lets look at the actual fluff explanation of them.
                >Mighty Deed of Arms:
                >Warriors earn their gold with pure physical prowess. They swing across chapels on chandelier chains, bash through iron-banded oaken doors, and leap over chasms in pursuit of their foes. When locked in mortal melee, their mighty deeds of arms turn the course of battle: a brazen bull rush to push back the enemy lines, a swinging flail to entangle the beastman’s sword arm, or a well-placed dagger through the enemy knight’s visor.
                It's about doing the wild shit you read warriors doing in paper back novels. Go read Dragonlance or Conan, they're never just 'swinging their sword'.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Considering you're pointing to two easily broken 3d6 systems of GURPS and TFT
                Imagine shitting on GURPS and TFT and sucking off MUH HECKIN HARDCORE RANDOMINO DCC in the same dick-reeking breath

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >He has no actual response so is reduced to playground name calling.
                I'm sorry anon, if you can't see that 3d6 easily breaks when I can take the Gun! skill to 25 out of chargen then you're actually retarded.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not that retard, but it's descriptive chargen. It's not even meant to function if you play it like prescriptive 'biggest number minigame,' chargen.
                "I could take gun! 25," is about the same as "I could bring a lasergun toting assault cyborg to your low fantasy game." The rules don't stop it because the rules don't know what you're trying to do with them. Maybe you actually want that, who knows.
                Now in complete fairness, the rules explain how to use character generation to purpose literally fucking nowhere, which is probably 90% of why people bounce off the thing. It's written like shit and barely bothers to explain what it's for.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The rules don't stop it because the rules don't know what you're trying to do with them.
                That holds true as well for retards like

                Okay so what he spits in their eyes, three stooges their eyes, pisses in their eyes, its still someone abusing the mechanics to effectively powergame because the DM gave them a 'Do Whatever The Fuck You Want Free' card

                Its impossibly retarded no matter what coat of paint you give it. Casters at least have the limitation of spell slots and the deniability of it being an actual spell. If that's all it takes why isn't every chump with a pair of hands carrying around backpacks of shit to sling at opponents eyes? Why isn't every opponent tipping their enemies like cows for that sweet sweet +X to hit?

                who see the DCC "do a cool thing like warriors from novels do" Might Deed system and instantly go 'umm, it's so easily exploitable!'
                All games break in their own ways but the decent to good ones, like DCC and GURPS, only break when you are purposefully attempting to break them.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No argument. I think the DCC thing is fine. The game works on a totally different combat principle from gurps. I don't know if it's my thing, but it's clear in a game where HP gain/loss is the norm instead of the exception that the potential reward for 'doing a thing that isn't attacking,' has to be astronomical, so it may as well be done at the same time.
                Compared to something like GURPS or a TROS-like where the objective is to use other actions to set up doing damage at all, it's a significant difference in design philosophy.

                >GURPSfag doesn't understand that more rules and options restricts players more than anything else

                This is the inherent problem with "crunchy" game systems.

                Agree to disagree. I've not really run into a player action I couldn't use the system to arbitrate. It's not like 3.5 with the fuckin' "you don't have the feat for that," shit.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                My man, I can deflect any bullets you fire for less points. One trick ponies die first in GURPS.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >So you want to turn 'I knock them down and stab them' into 'I knock them down, end my turn, hop they don't stand up, and then attack on my second turn?'
                Yes? I mean, if you hit someone in the face in GURPS, they have a good chance of being stunned for more than one turn, but even if they're only stunned for one, or are only knocked down, you have a turn where they are at a huge penalty to defense, and you have a bonus to hit. You don't know jack shit about GURPS.

                I don't care if it's a 33% chance or whatever to work. If it's optimal to throw sand in someone's eye and attack every turn, they'll do that. There's no downside, even if it only works occasionally. And I'm sorry I enjoy having options, I guess? Your bad games can keep not having them.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >And I'm sorry I enjoy having options, I guess?
                You have options in DCC, but again, you're clearly too lacking in spontaneous creativity that you need to view combat like a video game staring at a hot bar of options instead of just going for it.
                All power to you but blanket statementing any game that doesn't play to your simulationist style as 'bad' is showing more that you've secluded yourself. You're not holding one game above others, you're an RPG equivalent of a picky eater, even if something is as good as what you like if it's not what you like it's bad.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why would I view it like a video game selection screen? I just describe what I want to do, and I know there's mechanics to support it. As opposed to your "I attack" game.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                See, I can do that exact same thing but in likely 1/5 the time or quicker thanks to there 'I attack' rules you keep strawmanning.
                Again, you're a simulationist picky-gamer so anything that doesn't massage your autistic brain a specific way makes you revile at it. It's okay, I play GURPS as well and enjoy it. One of the best campaigns I ever played in was a 2 year long GURPS game. Does that make you happy, anon?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Honestly, I have no care about what anyone plays. I even have friends who play D&D, shockingly enough. I'm just tired of people thinking GURPS is this super gayy autistic game. I enjoy 3d6 roll under, I enjoy having point buy, and I enjoy knowing that all of the rules I use make sense, according to how I perceive the world. The only umbrage I have with rules light or heavily abstracted games is that they often feel too gamey.

                >I just describe what I want to do, and I know there's mechanics to support it.

                That's literally Mighty Deeds but with less page flipping

                Not how I saw it described. It looks more like there's not even any mechanics besides "roll and the GM will make something up on the spot." Seems like nothing but extra work for the GM and the same old "I attack" I deal with when my D&D friends play other games.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >"roll and the GM will make something up on the spot."
                It's not on the GM to figure it out, it's on the Player to describe what they want to do and the GM to figure out first if it's possible and then, based on the description, assign how the target reacts to it.
                >The only umbrage I have with rules light or heavily abstracted games is that they often feel too gamey.
                That's exactly how everyone else views GURPS, anon. It's the gamiest of RPGs because it feels like you're doing all the work of a computer. To people who don't 'get' the system and have it set before them it feels like someone getting dropped into a fighting game without being told the controls and just being told 'look at the movelist.'
                It's simulationist, what it does it does well, however simulationism isn't the only style of system out there.
                >I'm just tired of people thinking GURPS is this super gayy autistic game
                It doesn't help that your response to anyone saying another game does something better/faster/cleaner is to call it 'bad' and effectively proclaim it 'wrongfun'. You're being the gayy autist yourself, anon.
                >I enjoy knowing that all of the rules I use make sense, according to how I perceive the world
                The DCC Mighty Deeds system does just that, it works based on the sense of the world. If it helps your brain process it better, it's like if taking the 'Warrior' template gave you an edge where you got to just negate up to -2/-4 in penalties from special maneuvers, it's that simple.
                DCC is about sword and sorcery, not mudcore. Wizards don't have spell slots and are shackled to beings of immense power in some way and Warriors get to swing from chandeliers if their check passes.
                (1/2)

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Drop any RPG someone's not familiar with and it's like dropping them into a fighting game. And I did not open up hostilities. People were shitting on the idea of GURPS even being fun before my first post in this thread.
                I understand why you think GURPS is simulationist, but I've never run it that way, and it's only been run that way in my group once or twice. I do agree that GURPS isn't good at explaining what it does well, since it mostly just drops the rules on you, and expects you to tailor the rules to the campaign. That's the main thing I want them to fix. However, fun dungeon romps where you go in and kill the bad guy is probably the most played version of GURPS, and in that, you can teleport behind people for rolling stealth.

                There's a good chance DCC is a really good RPG that I'm overlooking (but will probably never play, as I'm satisfied with the three systems we use), but what was being criticized was the average, normie player that says "I attack" over and over again. Just giving them the same thing won't make it any better.

                Also, being able to do everything I want without real restriction doesn't seem fun to me. I am a wargame/boardgame player as well. I like having distinct options. I just don't think it solves the boredom issue. GURPS does by making attacking less efficient than otherwise, but I understand why people don't like it, as well.

                I think, both require good GMs. One just reuires them to remember, maybe, a dozen penalties and bonuses, and the other requires narrative and creativity for every attack. I just prefer my options being well defined, while you seem to prefer a more open system.

                And, no, there's almost no page flipping. Knowing a few penalties is enough to understand the rest. Saying combat options in GURPS requires tons of page flipping is like saying the same for Chess. There's a few options you have to memorize, but it's more about how you use them, than the actual amount.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The DCC Mighty Deeds system does just that
                It doesn't retard. There are barely any rules to speak of. It's a retarded kind of freeform where it's freeform in a game which was supposed to be an actual system. It's literally making shit up. It's about as freeform as it gets in that one little instance of combat.
                It's possibly the worst designed "system" for anything ever I've ever read about on this board.

                >Because, when you do something cool, there should be a sacrifice
                So you want to turn 'I knock them down and stab them' into 'I knock them down, end my turn, hop they don't stand up, and then attack on my second turn?'
                You do know that the DCC Mighty Deed die scales with level right? It's a 33% chance of happening at level 1, 50% at level 2, 60% at level 3, 66% at level 4, etc. It only becomes guaranteed at level 8 and onward assuming your attack hits the target. You seem to be missing that part, the might deed die needs to be 3+ AND your attack needs to hit for it to work.
                Considering you're pointing to two easily broken 3d6 systems of GURPS and TFT I can only assume that you're either suffering from aphantasia or autism and need an actual list of things you can attempt put before you instead of coming up with something interesting on the spot.
                You literally complain that there aren't 'interesting options for PCs' when that's the entire point of Mighty Deeds. Lets look at the actual fluff explanation of them.
                >Mighty Deed of Arms:
                >Warriors earn their gold with pure physical prowess. They swing across chapels on chandelier chains, bash through iron-banded oaken doors, and leap over chasms in pursuit of their foes. When locked in mortal melee, their mighty deeds of arms turn the course of battle: a brazen bull rush to push back the enemy lines, a swinging flail to entangle the beastman’s sword arm, or a well-placed dagger through the enemy knight’s visor.
                It's about doing the wild shit you read warriors doing in paper back novels. Go read Dragonlance or Conan, they're never just 'swinging their sword'.

                >So you want to turn 'I knock them down and stab them' into 'I knock them down, end my turn, hop they don't stand up, and then attack on my second turn?'
                >NOOOOO, MY OPONENT CANNOT REACT EVEN IF IT MAKES SENSE, THEY HAVE TO WAIT, NOOOO
                Retarded monkey shit-for-brains. Shove your shitty game up your ass with all those dildos you already have in there.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you cannot use any limb that has been grappled (implying you can use limbs that aren't grappled)
                >ranged attacks - are completely impossible
                >By RAW you cannot pull a pistol using your ungrappled arm and put it against the person and pull the trigger
                Wow, you actually managed to post something that shows GURPS is shit in some regards, good going anon. Really proving your point along the name calling, you're sure showing me!

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >ranged attacks - are completely impossible
                Are you actually retarded?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                While I'm not arguing the pistol stuff anymore, that is literally the wording in the grappling rules, see pic in

                >The DCC Mighty Deeds system does just that
                It doesn't retard. There are barely any rules to speak of. It's a retarded kind of freeform where it's freeform in a game which was supposed to be an actual system. It's literally making shit up. It's about as freeform as it gets in that one little instance of combat.
                It's possibly the worst designed "system" for anything ever I've ever read about on this board.

                [...]
                >So you want to turn 'I knock them down and stab them' into 'I knock them down, end my turn, hop they don't stand up, and then attack on my second turn?'
                >NOOOOO, MY OPONENT CANNOT REACT EVEN IF IT MAKES SENSE, THEY HAVE TO WAIT, NOOOO
                Retarded monkey shit-for-brains. Shove your shitty game up your ass with all those dildos you already have in there.

                . It just turns out pistols stop counting as ranged weapons when you're fighting someone at range 'C'.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They don't stop counting as ranged weapons, it's the attack that is melee. The ruling explicitly talks about a ranged attack, which is described very clearly in the rools as mentioned

                "Ranged" attacks are attacks at range. It's not made super clear, but the Weapons for Close Combat section does mean that ranged weapons are usable in grappling situations.

                . Why is this so hard to understand?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you? Its literally exactly what it says

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >There are barely any rules to speak of.
                I'm sorry you lack improvisational creativity and need a game to tell you what you can and can't do explicitly, anon.
                >It's possibly the worst designed "system" for anything ever I've ever read about on this board.
                Guess you really are a picky-gamer, everything that isn't your specific brand of simulationist autism makes your retch. I've played GURPS for years and I can recognize it's strengths and weaknesses like every other game I've played more than once. But you apparently can't.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm sorry you lack improvisational creativity and need a game to tell you what you can and can't do explicitly, anon.
                We're talking about rules, gay. We're talking about the system. This is not about creativity, shitstain.

                >you cannot use any limb that has been grappled (implying you can use limbs that aren't grappled)
                >ranged attacks - are completely impossible
                >By RAW you cannot pull a pistol using your ungrappled arm and put it against the person and pull the trigger
                Wow, you actually managed to post something that shows GURPS is shit in some regards, good going anon. Really proving your point along the name calling, you're sure showing me!

                Hahaha, retard.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Grappling and close combat are two different things, dumbass. You cannot make a RANGED attack while grappled. By RAW you cannot shoot a pistol while grappled.
                You can be in close combat (ie, on the same hex) but not be grappling. But GURPS 4e RAW the second John Enemy grabs your left arm your right arm becomes incapable of pulling the trigger. Actually read the fucking rules of the game you apparently love so much.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Using a RANGED weapon in a CLOSE situation is NOT a RANGED attack, you imbecile. That's what that piece of text was trying to convey.

                >Grappling and close combat are two different things, dumbass.
                Actual retard. All that matters is the type of attack. Ranged attacks cannot be made, but melee attacks with ranged weapons can.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >System outright says the rule was in place to promote and be utilized creative players
                >W-We're not talking about creativity.
                So you either entirely lack reading comprehension or are legit autistic, which is it?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm telling you your system is shit. I don't know why you keep thinking I'm comparing it to GURPS in any way when I say that, because I'm not. I'm not saying it's worst than GURPS (although it is, kek), and I'm not saying it's better. I'm saying its shit by its own merits, no comparison needed, looking at the "rule" by itself. The other gay was the one sperging about GURPS and about how this gayy ass free-form system was supposedly better than GURPS, and I'm merely demonstrating how little he knows about the game.

                >There are barely any rules to speak of.
                I'm sorry you lack improvisational creativity and need a game to tell you what you can and can't do explicitly, anon.
                >It's possibly the worst designed "system" for anything ever I've ever read about on this board.
                Guess you really are a picky-gamer, everything that isn't your specific brand of simulationist autism makes your retch. I've played GURPS for years and I can recognize it's strengths and weaknesses like every other game I've played more than once. But you apparently can't.

                It is highly ironic that you think this picture applies to me. Rich, even.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So why can't you shoot a pistol with your free arms while your other is grappled by RAW in GURPS? I thought the game was supposed to be able to simulate effectively anything?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can. It's a Reach C attack.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's a Reach C Ranged Attack and Ranged Attacks are 'impossible' while grappled. No where does it say Pistols stop being ranged attacks at Close Combat range, read your book.

                Corebook grappling rules are a shitshow.
                No game has ever had good grappling rules based on a 'grappled state,' that just changes a bunch of specific options around. I have seen exactly one good high crunch grappling system ever, and it's buried in an article in pyramid 3-34.

                I'm just pointing out to the anon saying that GURPS can simulate 'anything' that it literally cannot simulate a dude getting his left arm grabbed then drawing a firing a gun with his right by RAW.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                "Ranged" attacks are attacks at range. It's not made super clear, but the Weapons for Close Combat section does mean that ranged weapons are usable in grappling situations.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >"Ranged" attacks are attacks at range.
                It outright says 'ranged weapon' it does not say 'ranged weapons count as melee weapons with reach "C"' They remain ranged weapons, they still have 'range' as opposed to melee 'reach' but ignore the speed/range penalties.
                They are still ranged attacks but just done at Range 'C'. We know this because Tactical Shooting SPECIFICALLY goes into firing at range 'C' with a +4 to All-Out Attack and +4 if you put your gun against them. You are still shooting them, it's still a ranged attack going through everything.
                However it NEVER goes over if you are grappled which negates ranged attacks. There are rules for when they attempt to grab your gun to disarm.
                It's THE stupid flaw in GURPS and looking it up online I am nowhere near the first person who's brought it up.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's a matter of not getting the point across well. Kromm answers it in the only post I've seen about it. Again, I never said GURPS is perfect. It needs clearer wording on some things. But Ranged Weapons are just Weapons. You can use them for melee attacks, and that includes shooting someone in melee. The reason there's a bonus for having it against someone is the same reason you can just place your spear against someone and attack. They're not moving out of the way. They're not resisting. You can hit them easier. Pistols in Reach C count as melee weapons.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Pistols in Reach C count as melee weapons
                So why didn't they just word it that way to avoid any confusion? You have ranged weapons and it says ignore ranged penalties but not that it's now a melee weapon. It would have taken one sentence to solve this issue entirely.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's pretty obvious though, if you consider the example of thrown melee weapons. The weapon may be melee, but the attack itself is ranged. It's not that bad, come on now. If you hit someone over the head with the butt of a rifle you're not going to consider that a ranged attack.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It's pretty obvious though, if you consider the example of thrown melee weapons.
                You're rolling Thrown Weapon not Axe/Club.
                >If you hit someone over the head with the butt of a rifle you're not going to consider that a ranged attack.
                No because you roll Staff or Spear for that, not Shooting (Rifle).
                Shooting a pistol into someone's gut while they grab you still uses Guns (Pistol).
                Again, the rules should be clearer.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They should have worded it better. No one has disputed that.

                Well, in this case having better rules makes you grapple "worse" since basic rules incapacitate target's ranged attacks completely the moment you tug their sleeve while advanced rules actually go into detail which body parts you're holding.

                I imagine, if you are only holding their sleeve gently, they aren't grappled. If you're dragging their sleeve around so they have to keep resisting, yeah, it makes sense. Remember, once they're pinned, you can do whatever you like to them. This is while the grappling is actively going on.

                >Just because people don't like that style of doing things doesn't necessarily mean they're an "uncreative moron."
                Consider the responses of other 'GURPSfags' in the thread and you'll understand. Go up the reply chain, if anyone started riling it was them first.

                The first mention of GURPS I saw was someone saying GURPS fixes the issue, and the second was calling them autistic for using it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >and the second was calling them autistic for using it.
                The first post was someone saying use GURPS, the next was someone posting the John Wick shooting and going 'why would you do that to yourself." It wasn't until later that people started calling GURPS players autistic. You're misreading the thread and putting words into peoples mouths

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                "Why would you do that to yourself" while posting an overly stupid and autistic criticism of GURPS, specifically made to show that GURPS is bad, is not what I just described?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >specifically made to show that GURPS is bad, is not what I just described?
                >and the second was calling them autistic for using it.
                You're the one calling that image autistic, you're retroactively applying terms. They didn't say it was autistic, it was talking about rule bloat. You're projecting, anon.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                "The image was just describing how autistic GURPS is, but never used the word. Mostly Untrue."
                You are trying your best to look like a retard, right? This is a joke?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you assuming that calling something bad is also calling it autistic, anon? Are you that jaded?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Forgot to add in

                >specifically made to show that GURPS is bad, is not what I just described?
                >and the second was calling them autistic for using it.
                You're the one calling that image autistic, you're retroactively applying terms. They didn't say it was autistic, it was talking about rule bloat. You're projecting, anon.

                you would have had a point if the filename was like 'GURPS Gun Autism' or something but it's not, you're the one forcing the term into it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >if the filename was like 'GURPS Gun Autism' or something
                The one about calculating damage inflicted by shotgun blast tracking trajectory of each individual pellet?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There's difference between shooting pistol at melee range and pistol-whipping with it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >if you put your gun against them. You are still shooting them, it's still a ranged attack going through everything.
                This would be a melee attack, much in the same way throwing an axe at someone would count as a ranged attack, despite the weapon being technically melee.

                >because you just attack trying to blind someone every turn until it works.
                Did you literally not read the last 2/3 of the post?
                > Like previously stated in the thread MDoAs are meant to promote creativity. The people 'playing Dale Gribble' are the people who ruin the fun for everyone else. Like every single system in existence, if you go in with the intent to break it you can. Just like how you can break 5e, GURPS, Rogue Trader or any other system if you go in with bad faith intentions you can do the same to DCC.
                If you're just going 'hurr durr I roll to blind again' then you're being an uncreative moron and maybe that game isn't for you.

                >If you're just going 'hurr durr I roll to blind again' then you're being an uncreative moron and maybe that game isn't for you.
                Feels like you're being way too hostile about this. Just because people don't like that style of doing things doesn't necessarily mean they're an "uncreative moron." Are you sure you're not just trying to rile people up here? Because from the GURPS stuff it feels like you are a bit.

                Yeah but it's an additional effect on top of your attack with no penalty for failure. So it doesn't actually fix the problem of being boring because you just attack trying to blind someone every turn until it works. In-universe if your character knows he has a decent chance of blinding someone every time he attacks he has no reason not to do so, the loony toons chandelier swinging shenanigans or tying their shoelaces together aren't gonna be better than just blinding them (any enemy with eyes) or disarming their weapon (if a humanoid)and ganging up on the enemy.
                If spellcasters didn't have actual spells, and just had a corresponding "mighty deeds of magic" system where you did the exact same thing as mighty deeds of arms, do you understand why people would just use the "he's fucking blind" spell as their go-to?

                Now, if both casters AND martials are just making shit up with "mighty deeds of arms" and "mighty deeds of magic" as their go-to and there's not actual rules or options for most of what they can do beyond DM fiat, that's potentially fine, but at that point you're basically playing a capeshit superhero game, superman using his laser vision to cut apart a falling meteor is resolved the same way as the hulk smashing it apart or a wizard hero teleporting it into the sun.

                >tying their shoelaces together
                What the fuck, I didn't remember this. The system is based, I take it back.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Just because people don't like that style of doing things doesn't necessarily mean they're an "uncreative moron."
                Consider the responses of other 'GURPSfags' in the thread and you'll understand. Go up the reply chain, if anyone started riling it was them first.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Reach C Ranged Attack
                Reach C means it's not ranged, it's close. From the book:
                >A “ranged attack” is any attack
                with a weapon used at a distance,
                from a thrown rock to a laser rifle. (P 372, Ranged Attacks intro).
                This also means for instance, that a C attack with a ranged weapon can be parried like a regular melee attack with a melee weapon.
                So he's right. But even if he wasn't, it'd be a trivial rule to apply. What you can't do is you can't shoot from where you are to someone far away, but you could just as easily add that if you wanted, it doesn't really break anything.

                >anon saying that GURPS can simulate 'anything'
                I don't think anyone said that in the thread, and I also think you're missing the point of GURPS pretty bad. The point is that you can use the rules you like, drop the ones you dislike, and make up ones you feel are missing. That's all it is, really.

                "Ranged" attacks are attacks at range. It's not made super clear, but the Weapons for Close Combat section does mean that ranged weapons are usable in grappling situations.

                This too, it isn't super clear. It's "obvious" when you kinda know about it, but it's easy to miss. Not like you can just wing it and not even consider those rules, of course.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm

                "Ranged" attacks are attacks at range. It's not made super clear, but the Weapons for Close Combat section does mean that ranged weapons are usable in grappling situations.

                I think GURPS could use with being clearer, and having options be more clear, especially the ones that are specifically meant as additional options. GURPS isn't flawless, and I want it to improve, but people who try their best to find one small, easily fixable, not actually true rule do nothing but make GURPS worse.

                I'm just saying not by corebook raw, because it's shit
                The actually good replacement grappling system argues that you can do anything while grapple the other guy doesn't try to stop you from doing, which results in an opposed roll.
                Now, he can't control your left arm from your right (though he could from your torso at a penalty, you only get one 'step' of removal.) But we can potentially, say, control his movement to yank him such that his front arc's not pointing at what he wants to shoot. Or have just thrown him to the ground at a penalty as soon as the grapple landed. In any case we can't directly stop him from doing things with his right arm from holding his left, we have to perform some other action that makes him logically incapable of doing it.

                "Now Anon," I hear you ask, "Doesn't the fact that a more straightforward, plain language grappling system only exists in some magazine article nobody has ever heard of kind of prove my point?"
                Yes, frankly. All the best parts of GURPS are hidden as fuck, and you could make a vastly improved 5e of this game just from shit they've already published but will never use in a core book.

                And you're right. You don't need other books for GURPS, but the supplements have better rules that I truly, sincerely want as core rules.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You don't need other books for GURPS, but the supplements have better rules that I truly, sincerely want as core rules.
                This is why my group has thrown our hands up and collectively decided to just write a fucking new one from the desiccated remains of it. Fuck you Steve, I'm making my own game with blackjack and hookers. Or more accurately, clearer instructions and less fiddly bespoke shit.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I love it. I'd love to see it when it's done. Just a better formatted version of GURPS (with some house rule options) would be my dream.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Going further than that, but yeah.
                Grappling's replaced, feinting's replaced, basically everything about firearm's replaced, entire damage/armor/injury multiplier system replaced, entire new system for handling object/creature scale so tanks don't need DR fucking 3,457, combined rapidstrike, dualstrike, unbalanced weapons, all into one new unified mechanic, completely replacing how IA/affliction works, new unified magic system, so on so forth.
                Deep enough into the weeds I sometimes feel disingenuous even implying it's gurps homebrew, honestly. There's stolen pieces of like five other games, but the core elements remain mostly gurps, at least.

                What the fuck is that image?

                Table of contents/to-do list, I would hope would be obvious.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Gurps

                What the fuck is that image?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >GURPS isn't flawless, and I want it to improve, but people who try their best to find one small, easily fixable, not actually true rule do nothing but make GURPS worse.
                Check out this thread:
                http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=72256
                From Sean Punch:
                >Under Actions After Being Grappled (p. B371), which affects only the target of a grapple: "You're limited to . . . attacks using weapons with reach C." As Weapons for Close Combat (p. B391) says, ranged weapons count, although they suffer a Bulk penalty (and be aware of the special rules on p. B376 for slapping aside a gun with a parry).
                The rule absolutely is the way we're describing.

                And it also absolutely doesn't matter.

                >especially the ones that are specifically meant as additional options.
                Every rule is optional, that's just GURPS. You could literally play the game as just a a series of skill rolls, even for combat. Also I think you're being pretty theatrical about the core rules, I don't think they're that bad, but ok. I have also not had much trouble with the rules, and find GURPS to be pretty clear in general, even though there are some hiccups here and there (which I guess is just the nature of such a free, yet mechanically heavy, game).

                All in all, I think GURPS 4e basic set is pretty good/10. #notsponsored

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I absolutely think GURPS is the best on the market, and that most of the rules are fantastic. When I mention clearing stuff up, it's mostly for a beginner perspective. I think it's an issue for a GM to need to scour all the rules and decide before knowing anything about the system. Though, that is why books like After the End exist. I just think a lot of abilities and mechanics can be clarified and moved to the basic set, and we can do away with alphabetic order for everything.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So what it comes down to is that the rules are badly worded to the point it has been asked multiple times.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm just saying not by corebook raw, because it's shit
                The actually good replacement grappling system argues that you can do anything while grapple the other guy doesn't try to stop you from doing, which results in an opposed roll.
                Now, he can't control your left arm from your right (though he could from your torso at a penalty, you only get one 'step' of removal.) But we can potentially, say, control his movement to yank him such that his front arc's not pointing at what he wants to shoot. Or have just thrown him to the ground at a penalty as soon as the grapple landed. In any case we can't directly stop him from doing things with his right arm from holding his left, we have to perform some other action that makes him logically incapable of doing it.

                "Now Anon," I hear you ask, "Doesn't the fact that a more straightforward, plain language grappling system only exists in some magazine article nobody has ever heard of kind of prove my point?"
                Yes, frankly. All the best parts of GURPS are hidden as fuck, and you could make a vastly improved 5e of this game just from shit they've already published but will never use in a core book.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >not by corebook raw, because it's shit
                Yeah, as pointed our earlier by

                >If your system cannot handle anything that is not "HP goes down" then it's a shit system.
                So you agree that DCC isn't a shit system then? Cause what you're describing is it's Might Deed of Arms mechanic.

                's some basic rules to do things and then these hundreds and hundred of "optional" rules to do things better

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                By "do things better," I hope you mean, "there's better rules that exist," and not, "I can use these grappling rules to grapple better," because the second is now how it works.

                Also, having additional rules is not an issue. We're complaining because we prefer it, and want it as the core grappling system. The base grappling system is already leagues ahead of most games.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well, in this case having better rules makes you grapple "worse" since basic rules incapacitate target's ranged attacks completely the moment you tug their sleeve while advanced rules actually go into detail which body parts you're holding.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Corebook grappling rules are a shitshow.
                No game has ever had good grappling rules based on a 'grappled state,' that just changes a bunch of specific options around. I have seen exactly one good high crunch grappling system ever, and it's buried in an article in pyramid 3-34.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's impossible to argue with a GURPSfag who can't even conceive of a GM making quick easy rulings on the fly without pouring over hundreds of pages of obscure situanional rules. Don't even bother, anon.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Apparently it's extra hard when they don't even know their own ruleset.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >"roll and the GM will make something up on the spot."
                It's not on the GM to figure it out, it's on the Player to describe what they want to do and the GM to figure out first if it's possible and then, based on the description, assign how the target reacts to it.
                >The only umbrage I have with rules light or heavily abstracted games is that they often feel too gamey.
                That's exactly how everyone else views GURPS, anon. It's the gamiest of RPGs because it feels like you're doing all the work of a computer. To people who don't 'get' the system and have it set before them it feels like someone getting dropped into a fighting game without being told the controls and just being told 'look at the movelist.'
                It's simulationist, what it does it does well, however simulationism isn't the only style of system out there.
                >I'm just tired of people thinking GURPS is this super gayy autistic game
                It doesn't help that your response to anyone saying another game does something better/faster/cleaner is to call it 'bad' and effectively proclaim it 'wrongfun'. You're being the gayy autist yourself, anon.
                >I enjoy knowing that all of the rules I use make sense, according to how I perceive the world
                The DCC Mighty Deeds system does just that, it works based on the sense of the world. If it helps your brain process it better, it's like if taking the 'Warrior' template gave you an edge where you got to just negate up to -2/-4 in penalties from special maneuvers, it's that simple.
                DCC is about sword and sorcery, not mudcore. Wizards don't have spell slots and are shackled to beings of immense power in some way and Warriors get to swing from chandeliers if their check passes.
                (1/2)

                Lets look at how Might Deeds are talked about by the author of DCC
                >The mechanic for Mighty Deeds of Arms was designed to encourage exciting stunts by ambitious warriors in the tradition of literary heroes. The goal was to create a rules system that encouraged situation-specific freedom without creating a lot of cumbersome rules. The author’s original expectation was that this system would be used for disarms, parries, and other traditional combat maneuvers, but in actual playtesting the Mighty Deeds of Arms have been exciting and unpredictable. It’s clear now that the system encourages creative actions, and the author believes it works best with creative warriors who devise interesting attacks.
                They outright say they didn't want a 'cumbersome system' like GURPS 78 million actions or all the billion little modifiers of D&D 3.5.
                They also outright say it was intended specifically for 'creative warriors who devise interesting attacks.' They likely know uncreative people will use it to just do the same old song and dance. But guess what, don't play DCC with them, or don't let them play a Warrior, give them the thief or something else. The same people who see the DCC Mighty Deeds and go 'Well that's boring, you'll just throw sand or trip every attack' are the same people who would have more fun playing something like 5e's neutered Champion Fighter where you just go 'I attack' up to four times a turn.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I just describe what I want to do, and I know there's mechanics to support it.

                That's literally Mighty Deeds but with less page flipping

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How does letting a martial do something neat alongside attacking mean the system is awfully designed?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Players will always do the optimal thing in combat
                Not necessarily, players will often either struggle to remember all their options or fail to correctly analyze which one is optimal for given situation. Instead they will default to something that's simple and makes some progress towards the victory even if it's suboptimal.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm the anon you replied to,

                >Why is an ATTACK PLUS button absolutely necessary?

                I already explained it to you [...]

                Players will always do the optimal thing in combat, and 99% of the time that's simply doing damage. So you might as well make it fun and creative to do.

                is correct. People will generally take a more optimal if not THE optimal option in any situation. It's the same reason so many people don't do multiple actions in SWADE cause of that stacking multi-action penalty.
                Again you're literally proving the 4e point, you want martials to have Basic Attack and Do something else, you don't want them to get to do both. For example lets look at the level 1 fighter at-wills in 4e.
                Cleave lets you do damage to a secondary target. Great for minions. Little lack luster against normal enemies.
                Reaping strike is a flurry of quick attacks on top of your regular swings granting damage even on miss. It's good for regular enemies but not minions.
                Sure strike gives a bonus to hit. Good against singular high-AC foes.
                Tide of Iron lets you push a target and shift into their spot, Great for controlling and setting up other characters' attacks or moving enemies out of reach of your allies.
                Let Martials do cool things. If we're pulling inspiration for Casters from media like Lord of the Rings and the Arthurian Legends we might as well pull what Martials can do from them as well.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You do realize we're talking about tabletop and not vidya, right? There is no "THE optimal option" when abilities are open-ended like that and their effectiveness depends on the players.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                God I wish that was true.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >There is no "THE optimal option" when abilities are open-ended like that and their effectiveness depends on the players.
                I cast WISH to kill the enemy/solve the puzzle before us, etch. You missed the start of the sentence where I said "People will generally take a more optimal if not THE optimal option in any situations."
                In some situations there is a top of the heap best most optimal option, however in many if not most cases you might not know what it is or not have things available to you to do it so most players will still take a more optimal option. Level 1 D&D characters don't have access to Wish on command for example.
                However players know certain things are better than others. Lets look at 5e, based on most campaigns, healing magic is generally worthless, all you need to do is heal one point and they're fighting again. If you're fighting enemies that do 20+ damage a hit there is no reason to cast a spell that heals 20 vs the one that heals 5. Likewise there is generally no reason to focus on sustaining the party instead of killing the enemies in 99% of fights in D&D. If the enemies die faster you can heal after.
                There is always more optimal moves, and making the options be 'I attack', 'I do something cool but the enemies aren't dying any faster' or 'I attack and potentially do something cool but I'm more likely to miss and waste my turn' you're going to find most players are going to choose 'I attack' because that beats the enemies overall faster and thus you live and continue playing your character.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I dunno anon, their trips

            >You can DO cool things as a Martial without taking a million feats? And it's mechanically optimal to do that instead of be a Full Attack blender every turn forever?
            >Terrible design

            beat your dubs

            >a warrior CAN declare a Deed
            >gives absolutely no reason why they wouldn't, it's always better than a normal attack
            God damn how did they design a system this terribly?

            I think you lost.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Dale Sanderson finally makes it to the BBEG
          >prepare for an epic fight of commission proportions
          >he spends every turn throwing sand in the dark lord's eyes for the Blinded condition
          what a very unique and engaging mechanic
          i cannot wait for the next campaign where Breakdance McDiscolegs spends every turn tripping people so he gets bonuses to hit them

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's a 'retard that always views everything in the most cynical way possible' episode
            You're literally the type of player that shouldn't be touching the DCC Warrior, you're too uncreative with a total lack of improv skills.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Okay so what he spits in their eyes, three stooges their eyes, pisses in their eyes, its still someone abusing the mechanics to effectively powergame because the DM gave them a 'Do Whatever The Fuck You Want Free' card

              Its impossibly retarded no matter what coat of paint you give it. Casters at least have the limitation of spell slots and the deniability of it being an actual spell. If that's all it takes why isn't every chump with a pair of hands carrying around backpacks of shit to sling at opponents eyes? Why isn't every opponent tipping their enemies like cows for that sweet sweet +X to hit?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >its still someone abusing the mechanics to effectively powergame
                See my previous comment
                >Casters at least have the limitation of spell slots
                So you've never fucking played DCC, have you? Casters roll checks, 1d20+their caster level and intelligence/personality mod for wizard/cleric respectively. If you roll DC 10+(2x spell level) it goes off. Higher roll means better results.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You forgot to mention that if you fail the roll, depending on how badly you do it you might permanently lose access to that spell for the rest of the day and it might misfire as well.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can still cast a spell even if you lose it for the day, you just have to spellburn at least one point every time you do so.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's only for wizards, clerics just fail and their god starts getting more pissed until the cleric fucks up hard and needs to roll to see how they must atone which includes potential limited uses of their class features.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But clerics don't lose their spells if they fail to cast it, and they don't misfire either.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I know, I didn't say they did, anon. Failure, Misfire and Lost are very specific keywords.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I didn't say they did

                Then I guess this isn't you

                You forgot to mention that if you fail the roll, depending on how badly you do it you might permanently lose access to that spell for the rest of the day and it might misfire as well.

                and I'm not sure why you replied in the first place.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                When we're talking about Martials vs Casters it's generally Fighters vs Wizards, anon.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Then why did you bring up clerics? I'm so confused, jesus

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >D&D players argue over which class makes them better at babby's first RPG until bumplimit

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >"caster class"
    >Heres some magic things you can do, your job is to fight.
    >"martial class"
    >Here's some magic things you can do BUT THEY AREN'T ACTUALLY MAGIC ITS NOT MAGIC ONLY CASTERS DO MAGIC. Your job is to fight.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >He can't justify that 'casters' are outward projectors while 'martials' are inward cultivators.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I still think that Martials could easily be Tertiary casters and their "Spells" count as Extraordinary Abilities. Except for Monk. Theirs are Supernatural.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    True, fortunately there is a solution.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Riddle of Steel?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yep, or Swong of Swords, or GURPS, or something more I don't know of.

        [...]
        >"damn, why are martials so boring?"
        >"no, I absolutely won't let you do anything that isn't strictly covered by the rules, sorry. You need the pocket sand feat if you want to do that."

        >the only alternative to GM fiat is dogshit game design.
        Please get over Monte Cook's mistake.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Even shopping around for optional books for editions other than 5e might help a lot.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Rolled 61 (1d100)

    Rolling against a 75 (Weapon Skill 45 +20 from all out attack and +10 from a best quality mono sword) to stab you

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I have fun playing a savage.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fantasy combat skirmish games are boring as fuck.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    DnDogshit is DnDogshit and you should stop pretending it's not.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Every combat option in a game should pertain to or be appropriate for war.
    If that bores you, play a game with no combat.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This but casters. Casters are so fucking boring, it's like playing a video game with godmode on. It's like having an instant win button. You're literally playing a game of chance with zero risk.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Books are so fucking boring. It's like playing a video game with godmode on, because there's zero risk.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Apples to oranges. Casters are literally shut your brain off and sit in the back like a coward using your god-mode spells to instantly delete enemies and invalidate challenges, whereas martials are constantly required to think about their actions, positioning, manage their health and prioritize targets, and can't just solve a problem with a wave of their hand.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Movies are so fucking boring. It's like playing a video game with godmode on, because there's zero risk.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't have an argument so I'm going to sit here and repeat the same thing over and over!
            Casterfag BTFO'd.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >he thinks the issue is with saying something against casters
              Comics are so fucking boring. It's like playing a video game with godmode on, because there's zero risk.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                NTA, but do you really not understand the false equivalence between interactive and non-interactive media? Or were you only PRETENDING to be retarded?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                NTA, but do you really not understand the false equivalency between a medium that requires electronic hardware and literally every other form of media that came before it?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't, actually. Please explain it to me. Are you saying videogames are only form of media that involve risk? I'm genuinely confused. Spell it out for me.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The logic that was being expressed was
                >no risk = video games
                So I brought up instances of no risk and compared them to video games, per the expressed logic.
                If you don't know what the differences between video games and other media are, I implore you to stop drawing such retarded and false comparisons.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Did your brain reach the words "video game" and then just completely short-circuit, bypassing the entire rest of any of the posts? It's the only explanation.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That isn't much worse than your brain short-circuiting when you attribute something that can happen in a video game to the entirety of something completely unrelated to the medium.
                But why would you be self-aware?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >no risk = video games
                Only if you're retarded. The argument is that no risk = GOD MODE in video games, where there is no challenge because you're literally an unkillable god who can instantly solve any problem with no effort, thought, or strategy.

                Fuck's sake, get some reading comprehension you drooling retard.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The argument is that no risk = GOD MODE in video games, where there is no challenge because you're literally an unkillable god who can instantly solve any problem with no effort, thought, or strategy.
                Oh, okay, my mistake.
                Reading books is like god mode in video games because there is no effort, thought, or strategy, and there is no risk when reading.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Reading books is like god mode in video games because there is no effort, thought, or strategy, and there is no risk when reading.
                Again, you're a fucking retard because you're comparing apples to oranges. Books, Movies, TV shows, and comics are NON-INTERACTIVE MEDIA. You do not interact with them, you have no input on how the events play out, and nothing you do affects them, whereas in a Tabletop Game OR a Video Game, you are actively participating because they are INTERACTIVE MEDIA.

                You're a drooling retard.

                That's not his point.
                Even with mods, you can't come up with plans, or decide to do things mechanically, that the engine doesn't allow for or designer hasn't thought of, either explicitly or systemically.
                I'm never going to boot up final fantasy and win a random fight by setting a trap or knocking a building over onto something.
                [...]
                Alright, 8/8, you're doing good work this thread.

                >That's not his point.
                His "point" is utter retardation and has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Casters are boring and take no thought because they literally turn you into an invicible god. Martials are interesting because they require thought and effort to play. This is the argument I'm making. Retards like (you) getting stuck on MUH VIDYA GAYEMS need to put a 12 gauge shell in your hollow skull.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Interactivity doesn't matter; if X = 1, X = 1.
                If thing is like video games, anything similar is also like video games.
                Unless, of course, your premise is built on a false equivalency.
                But you wouldn't do that, would you?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Wew.
                You know, I was actually going to agree with you on the caster thing for certain games, but it's too late because I have to kill myself now. Bye, fag.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >game has magic
                >magic is made appropriate for war
                >casters are now martial
                >therefore, casters become inherently interesting to play and require effort
                Airtight logic, Anon.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >game has magic
                >magic is made appropriate for war
                >casters are now martial
                >therefore, casters become inherently interesting to play and require effort
                Airtight logic, Anon.

                People may meme about casters being invincible gods, but at most tiers of play, running out of your cool spells just turns you into a worse fighter who is reliant on your wits to simply survive.

                Playing a caster not only gives you the interesting options, but the even more interesting experience of having to scrape by and struggle.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                interactive "single player"radventure with choices and consequences does not require electronic hardware

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Entertainment doesn't require risk to not be a video game.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sure. I must have missed the part where somebody asserted it would.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                "This but casters. Casters are so fucking boring, it's like playing a video game with godmode on. It's like having an instant win button. You're literally playing a game of chance with zero risk." - (

                This but casters. Casters are so fucking boring, it's like playing a video game with godmode on. It's like having an instant win button. You're literally playing a game of chance with zero risk.

                )

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I see. That has to be hyperbole. Or legitimate schizo posting. 50:50 chance these days.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                see

                NTA, but do you really not understand the false equivalence between interactive and non-interactive media? Or were you only PRETENDING to be retarded?

                You're a drooling retard who is comparing apples to oranges. Books, Comics, and movies are non-interactive media. Video games and Tabletop Games are interactive media.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                See

                NTA, but do you really not understand the false equivalency between a medium that requires electronic hardware and literally every other form of media that came before it?

                You're a drooling retard who doesn't understand no fair comparison can be drawn between video games and tabletop games, given what's required to run each of them.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >no fair comparison can be drawn between video games and tabletop games, given what's required to run each of them.
                The only difference is that the dice rolls are automated. That's it, that's the only difference between TTRPGs and video games. The only thing that TTRPGs do that vidya can't is emergent, adaptive narrative. If I want to play B/X or other OSR/TSR garbage I can fire up a roguelike and get the exact same experience.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Holy shit you are retarded.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The only thing that TTRPGs do that vidya can't is emergent, adaptive narrative
                No. Emergent, adaptive mechanics are what tabletop games can do that can never happen in video games.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No. Emergent, adaptive mechanics
                Mods. I can mod video games. Literally the same principle as houserules and homebrew.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >graphic design for characters and environments, sound design for music and effects, peripheral hardware to facilitate modding, and knowledge of the hyper-specific autismo code so it doesn't shit itself from even the slightest error
                LITERALLY the SAME principle as
                >common sense rulings and maybe some simple maths applied to a game that's mostly imagined
                Can't wait to hear the explanation for this one.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Rules are rules. If I want to change the rules for a game I can download a few mods and completely change how a game works. I can also just change a few rules and completely change how a tabletop game works.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I won't explain, I'll just repeat myself
                Your concession is accepted.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I cannot download a mod to turn Skyrim into a top-down turn based RPG on a whim. I also can't download a mod that automatically balances enemies and encounters based on what other mods I have installed.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If you can define new rule unambiguously in common English, there's high chance it can be also defined in any general-purpose programming language. Although the exact length of each definition may vary they should be in the same order of complexity.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Although the exact length of each definition may vary
                So not literally, then.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Literally the same principle. Not literally the same definition. The length would vary even when you converted that English definition in French or German.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not even close to the same.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's not his point.
                Even with mods, you can't come up with plans, or decide to do things mechanically, that the engine doesn't allow for or designer hasn't thought of, either explicitly or systemically.
                I'm never going to boot up final fantasy and win a random fight by setting a trap or knocking a building over onto something.

                Rules are rules. If I want to change the rules for a game I can download a few mods and completely change how a game works. I can also just change a few rules and completely change how a tabletop game works.

                Alright, 8/8, you're doing good work this thread.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Vidya with dynamically adaptive mechanics is totally possible. But the novelty factor alone probably wouldn't sell very well, so nobody bothers to actually make it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Daggerfall? Soon to be Wayward Realms?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >casters are “shut your brain off”
          Really? If that’s how you play any class it’s no wonder you hate it. Casters are about finding unthought of solutions to your problems using the unique properties of spells, and negating other caster’s bullshit while giving your fighters the fun buffs they need to win the unwinnable fights.
          I am only playing a straight up wizard as of the last 3 months and it’s great. Using a simple cast of fog cloud to force a high level flying opponent to come down to our level to engage our martial-heavy party, or hitting someone with a levitate spell so they can crawl along the ceiling in a narrow passage and pincer our enemies. Or casually dropping a magic weapon enchantment on a barbarian who has been getting his ass kicked by a ghost for the last 4 rounds and watching him tear through some spectral asshole with a battle axe that suddenly works. If you want to play a damage caster that’s your boring style. Casting and melee should compliment each other

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Have you tried playing 4e?
    Not playing D&D would be even better, but nobody expects that from (You)

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't play games where "martials" are a concept.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Come upon a teleporter trap that moves anyone who steps into it into a holding pen and also summons 1 of 15 random enemies
    >The Virgin Fighter: Kills 15 enemies
    >The Chad Wizard: Uses passwall to make a tunnel around the trap.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      that's infine xp farm (unless you play with milestones), step in, aoe the room, teleport back, rinse&repeat

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        maybe you should go back to playing world of warcraft and not ttrpgs, anon

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How is that fun to you

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What system are you playing? I've been on Riddle of Steel and its offshoot games for two years now and the magic systems are all overcomplicated bullshit.

    Like yeah if you play a game with simple mechanics where fighters just roll a die to see if they hit, then roll another die for damage, while wizards can do all sorts of whacky shit, of course fighters are going to come off as boring. So... Don't play games like that unless you want everyone to play some permutation of a wizard.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Learning GURPS made me realize how shit D$D is. I'm retarded, so it was really hard to imagine anything other than
    >Roll for attack...
    >Roll for attack...
    >Roll for attack...
    Or maybe D^D is just a massive void of creativity, due to not even trying.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Learning GURPS
      why would you do that to yourself?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Adds supplement for extra detail
        >"I added a supplement for extra detail and now I have an extra detailed game going on. Literally how can this keep happening to me!"
        This pic is actually a pretty good demonstration of the power and conciseness of GURPS, when you consider 80% of all that shit - by you is nothing but the author explaining all the modifiers (which you'd already know if you were actually playing).

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >HERO System
        >I buy Combat Skill Levels for All Firearms and Wick-Fu

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous
      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >John Wick having the pistol skill
        >Not giving him the Gun! wildcard skill.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Similar experience. My first go with gurps melee combat was getting kicked half to death by thugs in an alleyway for being too cocky about my magic working, and it was vastly more interesting than any fight I ever had in D&D. No way to go back after that.

      >Learning GURPS
      why would you do that to yourself?

      This actually highlights one of the biggest problems with the game: Its fanbase are absolute autists with no sense of scope or how to actually explain things to people. This is an article purposefully demonstrating, as the other anon says, every single one of the most complex optional rules from five different add-ons to recreate a highly complex cinematic fight scene just for the sake of being complex.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How is
      >i roll 1d20 (with mods) to hit a target number
      different than
      >i roll 3d6 to get under my dex (with mods)
      ?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        picture is worth a thousand words, and in this particular case those words are retard and moron at 500 times each

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >DO YOU EVEN HECKIN NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
          No shit. I'm asking how that adds anything beyond "I roll to attack".

          Totally valid question honestly. Without practical examples it's hard to picture how games are different.
          I don't really have the time or energy to construct a new one today, but you can have one I did last year

          The sort of TLDR here is that in GURPS combat can be described in more natural language with mechanical effects attached, there are significantly more options and they don't have to be bespoke !spells, and the nature of the dice and resolution means enemy choice can be much more loose.

          I asked what she should fight in the first thread and some anon said "1d20 dinosaurs," and rolled. And the fight was, as you can see, pretty intense, and ended in upset.
          When I repeated it in thread 2 in 5e, the 5e fans in the audience were quick to inform me it was pointless because it wasn't a fair fight. Their own observations, the unexpected simply wasn't going to happen, there was no clever out or better play. And I think that sort of sums it up in general.

          When you have a second, I would be interested to hear a more in depth explanation or example. In the meantime I'll look over the image.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm asking how that adds anything beyond "I roll to attack".
            it doesn't

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, examples are fun.
            You have a scenario in particular that interests you?
            I don't have the inclination to re-learn the base system for an example case, so a lot of what I'd wind up dumping is homebrew shit, but nothing that should drastically alter the basics of how it works.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Well, to keep it simple and more easily comparable, how about an armed melee fight between two humanoid combatants? I'm curious just how different we can get to the typical D&D fight and with how much effort.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not that guy, but GURPS has so many options, "two humanoid combatants" is insanely varied. Vikings versus Samurai would be a distinctly different fight to Knight versus Swashbuckler would be a distinctly different fight to Anime Swordsman versus He-Man would be distinctly different to Cave Man with Rock versus Cave Man with Stick. Just having a knight with a sword versus a knight with a halberd would be basically two different subclasses in D&D.

                For example, the Sword Knight needs to get within reach, while the Halberd Warrior can just use Stop Thrust (a wait action) ti keep the other knight at bay, and if the Sword Knight gets close, the Halberd Warrior can retreat at the same time. Keep committing Wait actions, until Sword Knight finally gets in range, then the Halberd knight uses the Staff skill for a better parry, using the wood of the Halberd for a larger parry area, and hitting the armored man with the blunt end of the Halberd, while the Sword Knight reverse grips his sword so he can get into Close Combat, and get a bonus to damage, while trying to target chinks in the armor, to get an Armor Divisor (5) so his damage can penetrate.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Bob Fightsman versus a random Gnoll. First two things that popped out of the list in my old Arena foundry table.
                I probably lapsed out of explaining the rules in sufficient detail somewhere. that's kinda the hell of doing these. It's easy to run if you understand it, this entire fight would have only taken a few minutes, but it takes forever to write down.

                Not the best fight I've run. I keep forgetting normal spears aren't reach 2 because I played a spear/shield fighter for so long who had a modified one that was. Only a minor fuckup, in any case.
                I also may have a grappling fixation, but damn if it's not a fun system, and you have to imagine it's hard for a dogman to overcome the impulse to bite things in the throat if the opportunity arises. It even almost worked.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This is great writeup, thanks for taking the time! Gonna pour over this when I get off work.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No problem anon.
                Ugh, turn 6 got cut off on me.
                The only text that's missing is 'the gnoll wins the roll and pins Bob up against the wall.'

                It's a decent example of some really basic low level stuff. You get up into higher skill levels and I've got characters in my saturday game who can fight a bunch of these guys at once; parrying them with grabs and judo throwing them into each other and shit. The whole scenario outlined in

                No, I need general rules that can quickly be extrapolated onto during play with minimal effort.
                Pocket sand is a full-action feint that's probably too obvious to work a second time. Moving on.
                I should have to neither ask the player "urrr, do you have the pocket sand feat?" nor come up with some bullshit on the spot.

                Really, DCC deeds aren't the worst for that. Pretty sure Call of Cthulhu uses a similar concept? 'combat maneuvers,' or some such? Someone was explaining it to me the other day but I've forgotten.
                All just a little vague and, in the dcc case, class limited for my tastes, but that's mostly preference.

                [...]
                Personal anecdote for fun martial shit:
                I wanna say one of the coolest dumb moves that ever happened in my game was me panicking as an NPC. The party leader, huge viking dude, is out for revenge against this woman's order. There's four apprentices in her group. Two he passed off for slaves to settle a debt, one he let go to tell the tale, and lucky #4 is just going to die in an honorable fight. Best deal he can give.

                She's got an icepick with a weighted chain and a thing on the end that sets off a frost AoE spell when it hits something. None of this is working, because this guy's armor is just too damned good. So I get the bright idea, "Well, she can feint, then duck under his arm and try and jam the explodey part up into his armpit where the armor's shit."

                Works a charm. Except that he's a beast of a man and the damage left after the voider still doesn't do anything but make him more pissed. He rips it out, yanks the pick out of her hand by the chain, and puts it through her skull.

                Was still a hell of a fun little scrape though. There was an attempt at cleverness, but sometimes a huge dude is just too huge a dude.

                was from said game as well.

                My girlfriend is playing a Lizardman in a current campaign I'm in, and she bit some guy's arm to drag him as a prisoner to us. Grappling with sharp teeth is the best.

                Grappling is hilarious in the right circumstances, and unusual characters can make it better for sure. You get bites, people with serpentine bodyplans constricting dudes into paste, all that fun shit.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                My girlfriend is playing a Lizardman in a current campaign I'm in, and she bit some guy's arm to drag him as a prisoner to us. Grappling with sharp teeth is the best.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No problem anon.
                Ugh, turn 6 got cut off on me.
                The only text that's missing is 'the gnoll wins the roll and pins Bob up against the wall.'

                It's a decent example of some really basic low level stuff. You get up into higher skill levels and I've got characters in my saturday game who can fight a bunch of these guys at once; parrying them with grabs and judo throwing them into each other and shit. The whole scenario outlined in [...] was from said game as well.

                [...]
                Grappling is hilarious in the right circumstances, and unusual characters can make it better for sure. You get bites, people with serpentine bodyplans constricting dudes into paste, all that fun shit.

                What program do you use for this?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm using Foundry VTT for the tokens and stuff.
                The writeup is assembled in Obsidian, which is great. You can make these canvases, assemble flowcharts, slap text and images in there, and easily export the whole thing as an image. As well, the text files themselves can contain all sorts of shit, from embedding each other to hyperlinks to other files, and so on.
                I use that shit for all my GM notes and design work now.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Me and my friends play GURPS on Tabletop Simulator. Can you make a case for Foundry VTT?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Make a case for foundry
                Automation and modules mostly.
                Panel for adding modifiers to a roll, jsut click the skill to make the roll, click damages, drag the damages onto tokens to auto-apply them with a dialog for figuring AD and ITDR and such.
                And there are foundry modules for a lot of things, automatically shifting tokens around elevations, making prefab structures with lighting and whatnot, teleporting tokens to different maps entirely, etc etc.
                I'd say if you're using TTS in a way that heavily emphasizes its 3d capabilities, you may be better off staying with it. If you're just playing on a flat grid, I'd consider Foundry the better experience, but ymmv.

                The angular LoS is the big one for me. The first time I played gurps in foundry and had a giant spider jump over my head, to realize I simply had no idea what was happening behind me and would have to turn and look next turn instead of pretending to not know, I was hooked on it, and I've only found more things like that over the years.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I might try to convince my friends. I know they like the 3d aspect, but Tabletop Sim often feels limited in actual capabilities. Maybe I could convince them for when I run a campaign.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Only the GM needs to actually own it, so if you can find someone else who has it to host for you, giving it a try is risk free. If you can't, $50 is pretty steep to try something out, no lie. Though it does go on sale around the holidays I think.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Only the GM needs to actually own it, so if you can find someone else who has it to host for you, giving it a try is risk free. If you can't, $50 is pretty steep to try something out, no lie. Though it does go on sale around the holidays I think.

                I didn't think this post through. It doesn't even need to be the GM that owns it. It's just a server you connect to and the user permissions are entirely your problem.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Only the GM needs to actually own it, so if you can find someone else who has it to host for you, giving it a try is risk free. If you can't, $50 is pretty steep to try something out, no lie. Though it does go on sale around the holidays I think.

                I have a reliable group of working adults. We could all chip in. Even if I never use it for the group, it would make stuff like Melee easier for me and my friend and girlfriend.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Rad. Best of luck then.
                The only other thing I'd note on that is if a user-made system module doesn't exist for the game you want to play...you're going to have a bad time. The generic ones all kind of blow and making it yourself requires fairly extensive programming know how.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not him, but this is my problem with these kinds of automation tools in the first place. 90% of the fun of TTRPGs for me is homebrewing, so it feels like I can never use these things, short of programming an entire game from scratch.

                I assume you can just use it as a simple board where you move tokens around, though, right?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You need to load 'some' module for it to work, but there are ones that don't do anything really, so you can still do this, yes.
                And I definitely follow. The further my group's game has diverged from gurps, the more useless the module has become, to the point the one of us with the experience is just completely overhauling it. It still works fine ignoring the automation, and I'm in it more for the general battlemap features anyway, but you've got a solid point.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Neat, thanks!

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Totally valid question honestly. Without practical examples it's hard to picture how games are different.
        I don't really have the time or energy to construct a new one today, but you can have one I did last year

        The sort of TLDR here is that in GURPS combat can be described in more natural language with mechanical effects attached, there are significantly more options and they don't have to be bespoke !spells, and the nature of the dice and resolution means enemy choice can be much more loose.

        I asked what she should fight in the first thread and some anon said "1d20 dinosaurs," and rolled. And the fight was, as you can see, pretty intense, and ended in upset.
        When I repeated it in thread 2 in 5e, the 5e fans in the audience were quick to inform me it was pointless because it wasn't a fair fight. Their own observations, the unexpected simply wasn't going to happen, there was no clever out or better play. And I think that sort of sums it up in general.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I remember that thread. It was one of the better /tg/ threads in the past couple years. Weren't there a bunch of combats other than just GURPS and 5e D&D there, too?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A few. I vividly remember some guy running Conan 2d20, and I did a touch of Kamigakari.
            I'd been encouraging people to show off their favorite games since it was, and is, my opinion that practical demonstrations and a better understanding of different games can only improve things.
            I toy with the idea of doing it again as a test case for the generic heartbreaker we're working on in part because of it, but that's a long way off.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >nothing to do but roll 1d20, I'd kill myself

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        For me, what I really enjoy about it is that you have lots of different options in the first place, but also instead of a "base attack" you roll against the skill of the thing you're trying to use. Active defenses also make the game much more interesting, and it doesn't just feel like we're trading HP. Combat is also way more dangerous, which also makes it so when you do land a hit, it can outright win you the fight, and there's also penalties for being at low HP, etc.

        Something as simple as weapon readiness makes fights so much more interesting. Also things like pic-related. Using a skill isn't as simple as just "I roll to attack with this skill", the skills can do a lot of stuff.

        It's just so ridiculously more interesting that it's genuinely depressing, when you consider most people (me included not long ago), think TTRPG combat has to be "I attack..." and that's it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          NTA. Part of the problem is people will end up doing the same move regardless because its the best move and its free so why wouldn't you spam it? If you have the option of stabbing someone or stabbing someone AND it makes them bleed, naturally you'd take the latter option because it is plain and simply *just* better. This ends up taking a very silly perspective when playing - like playing a Souls game and ONLY using the plunging attack because it is *just* better and its free so why wouldn't you spam it?

          Also while I get the mechanical interaction of declaring a Dodge, Parry, or some other defensive maneuver, it does seem kind of silly because there's no reason someone wouldn't be doing everything in their power to protect themselves. Maybe if taken in the light of D&D 3E where its equal parts offense and defense - protecting yourself while also looking for openings to attack - in that you can declare a Total Defense and sacrifice fighting ability for guarding better against attacks. Still it never quite sat right with me.

          Also off-handed rant, its absolutely retarded how much HP bloat there is not just in 5E but TTRPGs in general. The idea that a mere mortal can get shot full of arrows and just 'walk it off' or that hit points are actually 'luck points' and the enemies aren't hitting you at all is so fucking dumb.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If you have the option of stabbing someone or stabbing someone AND it makes them bleed, naturally you'd take the latter option because it is plain and simply *just* better.
            It's not that simple in GURPS. There are lots of reasons why you wouldn't do this. The flying kick for instance has a downside, but even outside of that, there are other factors at play.

            >Also while I get the mechanical interaction of declaring a Dodge, Parry, or some other defensive maneuver, it does seem kind of silly because there's no reason someone wouldn't be doing everything in their power to protect themselves.
            You don't declare that you're defending, you just dictate *how* you're choosing to defend yourself. You can choose to parry with your weapon, for instance, but it'll become unready.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nta in turn, but the example combat guy. Some points:
            Dodge, parry et al are how you opt to defend, not an action you take. you can spend your turn, like 3.5, doing nothing to get a bonus to them, but you don't have to to get them at all. You can dodge hwoever often, block once, and parry however often at a stacking -4 per iteration. You can retreat once for +3 to dodge or +1 to anything else. You have, in essence, a pool of responses to being attacked and chose how to spend them, if you're being attacked multiple times.

            There isn't really HP bloat in gurps. there could be if that's your game but, the highest HP in my current party at the beginning of the game was 18, and two years later, it is now 21. That's still an immense amount for a mortal man, but guy's seven feet tall, so.

            As for attack types, yeah, the game has some problems with that if you don't curtail it somehow. A lot of my homebrew work has been on that. I think my largest stroke of insight there was 'the more dangerous the attack, the more it's worth as a bonus to feint, but you can't exploit the feint with the same attack.' So it is beneficial to say, feint with your sword blade and then kick the guy in the knee or pommel strike his face in the opening, unlike most any other game I've seen.
            Didn't show that off above because it's still in the 'having the shit tweaked out of it' stage.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >As for attack types, yeah, the game has some problems with that if you don't curtail it somehow.
              I think it's absolutely fine to have situations where repeated attacks are just the best way to do things. The real problem with D&D is that you have literally no other option than repeated attacks, to the point where you are literally rewarded with EVEN MORE attacks after a certain point. The other real problem with D&D compared to GURPS is that in D&D you can take 6-10 attacks to die, while GURPS combat can very easily end in 2, and you don't even need to be particularly lucky / unlucky for it to go that way. This essentially means that even if all you had was a basic bitch attack, you'd still be doing less of it than you would with D&D (depending on defenses, of course, but in general I'd say that's the case).

              Sometimes the best strat is just to keep stabbing at a guy, and that's fine.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Sometimes the best strat is just to keep stabbing at a guy, and that's fine.
                Oh, I don't disagree. I like there to be reasons to do other things, but sometimes 'just swing at him and see what happens,' is the answer.
                Thinking about optimal attack types though, I more meant the 'Eyepoke McRapier-24' builds and shit like that. Things the game doesn't make it clear you probably shouldn't be doing.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >DO YOU EVEN HECKIN NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
        No shit. I'm asking how that adds anything beyond "I roll to attack".
        [...]
        When you have a second, I would be interested to hear a more in depth explanation or example. In the meantime I'll look over the image.

        I know the exact percentage chance of success in option 2 compared to option 1 assuming the GM is running most systems RAW and not telling you what you need to roll for success.
        This is even before getting into dice averages like

        picture is worth a thousand words, and in this particular case those words are retard and moron at 500 times each

        .
        Also with averages and roll-under you can find a spot where you're getting about 75-90% chance of success on most rolls and then focus elsewhere building your character to make them more well rounded instead of a one-trick pony.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No they're not

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This you?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A level 20 fighter can hit 4 times with his sword, retard.
      Anon must be a pretty shit wizard with such low INT.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What if someone wants to be the stereotypical warrior fantasy hero?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Depends on the game but odds are it will be D&D so you won't get what you want

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    your system is boring as fuck

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This Is always the same fucking issue, where casters get a fucking extra list of shit while fighters don't, so you guys want an extra list for fighters failing to see people play them so they wont have to read an extra list in the first place.

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What system?
    >inb4 5e
    I know, you’re bored of playing martial sin a system where martial are basically human shields for casters

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's the mentality that is fun to play/roleplay.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Low Fantasy Gaming fixed this. They're called Martial Exploits and they're just part of your attack roll. If you hit, you do damage AND do the thing you were trying to do. Minor Exploits are stuff like disarming or tripping foes, and Major Exploits require a roll/expending of your Luck stat (which is also used for saves and other stuff) and include things like chopping off a dragon's wing, attacking all foes around you, or even insta-killing enemies so long as your level is higher than their HD.

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Heh heh sword goes swish swoosh. Time to HEEM some goblins lol.

    My only complaint with playing a martial is barely any systems give incentives to use more than one type of weapon. I wanna kill three dudes with a spear and have it get stuck in the fourth, then pull my sword on another rushing me and kill him with a parry and riposte.

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Okay but what if there was a bonk wizard that uses their staff as melee and all their spells make them roll more and bonk faster or turn other people into bonk wizards so then there's a bazillion dice being rolled.

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    midwit take. real players enjoy the challenge having limited tools provides when it comes to problem solving.

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on the system.
    Depends on the GM, too. Everyone's bored on featureless white plains.

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Only if your dm is a rules autist and you aren't creative.
    For instance: Player "I grab the pickpocket by the collar and restrain-"
    Dm "uuuuhmm ackshaully your character does not have the grappling feat and are therefore incaple of grasping any non inanimate object, because I'm a huge autsit retard"
    Player "...thrust my sword sheathe through their legs to trip-"
    Dm "uuuuhhh is that a manuever?"

    That's the kind of thing that let's you know your dm is an actaul retard and you should find a new group. The same DM is going to let Mr Wizard zoopidoopty doop magic fix every thing and never once ask about reagents or casting time or any other autism, because nobody gives a shit about requirements anyways. DnD actaul rules are retarded where you have prestigation and unseen servant that basically can do almost anything, but the rules autist get hung up on "human moves their body to do a thing literally any human can at least attempt to do"

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The GM is correct if the game has such feats because if they just allow the players to do everything then the game falls apart. It's just a matter of the game being shit.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        As a rule of making the game function, yes the gm is always correct. But that doesn't mean the gm isn't a retard sperg. Everyone selectively applys rules. To start restricting things in combat to "no, pick only a preset option" just shows selective autism that could go on forever. If it's a spesific skill, sure go by the rule if you want. But if there's something common sense shit like "I see the goblin trying to run past me, so I stick out my foot to trip it". I say use your brain for a half second and have the goblin make a dex save or whatever. You don't need to go digging through manuals to figure out "gee, are dwaven ranger capable of thrusting one leg out? Do they need to study for years to learn this amazing technique that a fourth grader is capable of doing?" If Mr lvl 1 ranger is saying "I do 7 backflips into a lucha Libre neck lock with my thighs and spin-" then that's a diffrent story.

        By all means for dms that want bland FF7 tier "select attack, declare attack" combat, have at it. Lobotomize the creativity that makes these games fun when combat starts.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There is no amount of creativity that makes shit combat like 5E's fun.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          By not having established rules you invite bullshit and cheese tactics. You give anyone an inch and they'll take you across the country because if it worked the first time then the expectation is it will work the second, and the third, and so on until they push the envelope even further and try to get away with more and more broken shit that the game hits gonzo 'literally do anything' territory.

          Not to mention leaning too far into realism or fantasy (the actual game itself) and you completely capsize the whole thing because you're mixing two parts that inherently don't mix that well.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You cut this off as a dm by simply setting expectations. "I'm going to award creativity points this time and let it fly, but I might not always rule this way in the future."

            Up to you as a DM. But if a goblin is standing on a ledge and the warrior says, "I try and kick him in the chest to knock him back so he falls off". Imo it's just boring to say "no, your character has never seen a kick before in his life. Kicks do not exist in my setting. Kicks are filed under subsection b.47-2 and only used by lvl 6 Bosnian Goat Herders who invented the leg attack"

            It's not that hard to say "role for an unarmed attack and I'll do a savings throw to see if he gets pushed back in the event it hits, I'll decide how far". But like I said if you want Jrpg 3 dudes in a row combat, have at it.

  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ok

  35. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >GURPSfag doesn't understand that more rules and options restricts players more than anything else

    This is the inherent problem with "crunchy" game systems.

  36. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >martial classes are boring
    haha yeah those dumb sword and axe users are extremely boring can you imagine
    >keeps making archer characters that use bows instead of crossbows

  37. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I generally dislike "dude just improv it" solutions like mighty deeds of arms because it is far too easy for the results to be either useless, so you just don't do it and go back to hitting someone, or incredibly powerful to the point you have no reason in-universe or out-out-universe NOT to just use it as a go-to dedicated move, neither of which fixes the problem of being boring.
    Taking the pocket sand example, if it uses your entire turn and requires being next to enemies and also doesn't always work and they might get a save, versus being an additional effect on top of your attack and blinding them automatically, you can end up just playing Dale Gribble and using pocket sand for the entire rest of the campaign because blinding enemies is so strong, hence why blinding people is often explicitly something done with magic to hurt or curse enemies.

    In some systems like Chronicles of Darkness shit you can make this easier by having a given list of negative conditions and environmental tilts which players are encouraged to describe how they inflict them within the fiction in a more narrative sense, like being a changeling and cursing someone to be blind until they go bring you a blonde woman's favorite pillow or some shit, but that's explicitly a heavy narrative system and if you're using it in combat regularly there's some tilts you'll use 95% of the time (HEY VAMPIRE, YOU ARE ON FUCKING FIRE UNTIL YOU BRING ME A FLOWER PLUCKED FROM A WIDOW'S GRAVE) which isn't suited for combat focused games like D&D or Pathfinder or the other D&D clones which make up 90% of the tabletop market

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >versus being an additional effect on top of your attack and blinding them automatically
      It's not guaranteed to go off if your Deed Die rolls low or you miss the attack. Like previously stated in the thread MDoAs are meant to promote creativity. The people 'playing Dale Gribble' are the people who ruin the fun for everyone else. Like every single system in existence, if you go in with the intent to break it you can. Just like how you can break 5e, GURPS, Rogue Trader or any other system if you go in with bad faith intentions you can do the same to DCC.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah but it's an additional effect on top of your attack with no penalty for failure. So it doesn't actually fix the problem of being boring because you just attack trying to blind someone every turn until it works. In-universe if your character knows he has a decent chance of blinding someone every time he attacks he has no reason not to do so, the loony toons chandelier swinging shenanigans or tying their shoelaces together aren't gonna be better than just blinding them (any enemy with eyes) or disarming their weapon (if a humanoid)and ganging up on the enemy.
        If spellcasters didn't have actual spells, and just had a corresponding "mighty deeds of magic" system where you did the exact same thing as mighty deeds of arms, do you understand why people would just use the "he's fucking blind" spell as their go-to?

        Now, if both casters AND martials are just making shit up with "mighty deeds of arms" and "mighty deeds of magic" as their go-to and there's not actual rules or options for most of what they can do beyond DM fiat, that's potentially fine, but at that point you're basically playing a capeshit superhero game, superman using his laser vision to cut apart a falling meteor is resolved the same way as the hulk smashing it apart or a wizard hero teleporting it into the sun.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >because you just attack trying to blind someone every turn until it works.
          Did you literally not read the last 2/3 of the post?
          > Like previously stated in the thread MDoAs are meant to promote creativity. The people 'playing Dale Gribble' are the people who ruin the fun for everyone else. Like every single system in existence, if you go in with the intent to break it you can. Just like how you can break 5e, GURPS, Rogue Trader or any other system if you go in with bad faith intentions you can do the same to DCC.
          If you're just going 'hurr durr I roll to blind again' then you're being an uncreative moron and maybe that game isn't for you.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If you can't understand why casters don't get to freeform their spells, but martials have a free pass to attempt to trip a single dude, then I've got nothing more to say to you.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Roll a d6, on a 3+ the dragon is blinded" is not much better than a wizard saying "ok I do magic bullshit and if I roll a 3+ the dragon is blinded"
            again, you have basically arrived at fucking capeshit superhero game territory. Which is fine, but then don't pretend to be hardcore OSR muh traditional AD&D fighting man. You're playing marvel superheroes in plate

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              "blinded on 3+" is obviously bullshit, but creative use of mundane items is very much in tune with OSR. After all that's where the legendary utility of 11ft pole comes from.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >on a 3+ the dragon is blinded
              Not actually how the rule works, a level 1 warrior could MAYBE slightly irritate the eyes of a dragon, but his deed die is not big enough to completely blind it.

              >don't pretend to be hardcore OSR muh traditional AD&D fighting man.

              No one is claiming this, DCC is heroic swords and sorcery, not mudcore OSR.

  38. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So coming into this absolute shit show of edgelords and autists arguing for which system is better I've come to the conclusion that you're all retarded. You need to realize that simulation games ala GURPS with lots of modifiers and hack-n-slashy speedy games like DCC are both good in their own ways but when viewed by the opposite camp they look like utter horse shit.
    You gays need to learn to let people enjoy their games and realize mechanics that are loved by one table would not fly at another.
    Narrativists, Gamists and Simulationists are all fa/tg/uys but we need to stop bitching at each other. It's like if a MtG player just constantly whined about Synchro Summoning being shit while a Yu-Gi-Oh player went 'well mana is a dumb concept and the game would be better without it.'
    That'd be retarded and looks like you all are doing exactly that over some mechanic in a game you love/hate.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The thing is, nobody is even arguing GURPS is better than anything. It's just one guy trying to discredit GURPS because someone didn't like their system and also, incidentally, was a GURPS player. The conversation about DCC never had anything to do with GURPS and vice versa. Here's my professional shitposter analysis:
      >Thread is about martial classes
      >Someone mentions DCC
      >Tone of people shit on it
      >Some people saying GURPS is has cool martials and talking about that
      >Someone criticises DCC's deeds in a little more detail, who is also a GURPS player
      >DCC fan #1 calls someone a GURPStard
      >Shitstorm ensues

      >You gays need to learn to let people enjoy their games and realize mechanics that are loved by one table would not fly at another.
      True and real though. Go off queen, unironically.

  39. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Reasonably accurate.

  40. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >High level martials
    >not having a ragged army of pissed off followers or "fanboys" hanging on your every word of defiance in the face of the idiotic and or malicious antagonists that you turn into a well-trained movement out to fix the world.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *