The cancer killing RPGs

Not so much anymore, really. All those companies are trying to clamp down hard on house rules and enforce uniformity across the customer base.

just release remasters for them every decade. you'll never recapture the magic of their youth anyways. let the core game move on
it's ez money and it helps the company and new players stay grounded

How are criticals handled in a 3d6 system?

Thank you. I was sitting here mathing out what I thought might be the best way to handle it.
It's definitely not a perfect replacement, like you were implying, but there's something here that I like. I'm gonna try to use it in a game and see how it flows.

>Lore rape reasons
lol

>absolute dogshit design choices too like bounded accuracy
Explain how you think this is "absolute dogshit" without sounding like a fricking sperg. I'm curious to hear this.

It's an action game with a pre-made protagonist, where's the roleplay exactly?

I roleplay as master chief when I play the action rpg, Halo.

What your hand looks like is still random anon. You could simply roll 5 dice in advance and choose when to apply the roles.

Into the Breach and Militia 2 are good examples of great turn based games where there is zero RNG in combat and tactics, but there is still randomness in enemy placement and enemy spawns which is where emergent elements come in.

My group has been playing with crit successes and failures for years to great success. In my experience they are super rare. Not sure why it feels so common in bg3. Theyre also in the 5e book

OK but that still isn't random chance. and you can still fail on a 1 which is a 5% chance. also, mind games are not a "random factor". You're not guessing. you're taking input from factors, making a decision on what you see, then taking an action. the speed of these factors taking place, your perception, these are individualistic and owned. not random chance

I haven't played much DnD, but we've always had that rule. 1 crit fail, 20 crit success, no matter what you're rolling.

From D&D Basic rulebook from 1980.

Lmao the very sentence preceding this is pic related.
Funny how homosexuals never post it.

Actual problem is modern players are certain the DM won't kill their characters.

only in starcraft. and your reaction has to be executed well. you act as if you predict the mind game and win.

What system are you complaining about?

BG3 might have crit fail/success on skill checks, but the system it's based on (D&D 5e) actually doesn't, that's a houserule they added.

In fact I'm not aware of any TTRPG systems that have crits affecting skill checks.

Most things people hate about it, aside from autists who pretend RNG is bad, are later additions to the system by people who don't understand it.
Critical failures? Not a thing in actual D&D.
Critical successes? Barely a thing in actual D&D.
Social rolls? Only really for the original reaction. (although i've seen DMs do it when they're unsure how an NPC would react)

The old game doesn't even recommend you roll unless a competent adventurer would have a risk of failure doing what they're attempting.

You know very well why those are a thing.

>I need the constant threat of novelty and random circumstance to pay attention and care about the game

>RNG is meant to simulate that unpredictability in a turn-based situation.
RNG rolls feel less like simulating variance and more like "whoops, sorry, the computer decided to read your inputs and do an impossible parry no human could pull off. tough luck pal!"

>Guess dice rolls are a very accurate representation then.
No, because people can't suddenly pull frame-perfect inputs and read your mind like the AI can on demand. Hence fighting game AI feels awful to play against.

No they're not. They're bound to the system of their programming. Given enough time, you can perfectly predict the actions of CPU enemies. This is especially obvious in fighting games, because computers suck at them.

Neither is exactly every 50,000th trash mob dropping the bear butt, double moron. The grinding is the issue in that scenario.

>if you had ever been to the gym once you would realize how fricking stupid this is. try going and seeing how successful you are under some real iron, pussy.
So you're saying that every trip to the gym for you is the same?

>variability in effort =/= uncontrolled outcome as a result of forces outside of my control.
Which is why no action in any rpg is left up to a dice roll is it? Ever heard of a stat sheet? Dumb c**t. Do you even understand what the word variability means?
>315lbs is 315lbs every day. and I bench 345 so yes, I am successful at it every. single. time.
It sounds like you aren't judging by your defensive attitude

Why are you trying so hard to assert your ability to lift weights over an argument that has nothing to do with that? Are you a poof?

I'm not going to frick you anon

I'll ponder what the frick your post even means, ESL

and you're a gambling addict who's resigned to dice rolls and has lost his self respect in favor of the pursuit of endless novelty.

BRB gonna make 1 million selling my butthole to a Dubai prince. Can't wait to feel lucky later.

Gambling implies stakes anon. I don't wager anything on playing an RPG. Again, I don't like RNG, but there's no alternative that's not predicable and therefore boring.

>Gambling: "the practice of risking money or other stakes in a game or bet".
What did I gamble anon? The only answer you could come up with is time, but I wasn't expecting anything in return for my time, so that's not a gamble either. It's not gambling just because both involve chance, stop doubling down when you're wrong.

>so your time is worthless
No anon, but unless I'm putting my time up as a stake in hopes of gaining a return on its value, I'm not gambling my time.
You're not gambling your money when you buy a hamburger, you know exactly what you lose and gain. When I play a game, I lose time and gain entertainment, same thing.

Yeah, and if I bake a delicious cake and trip over a loose tile my efforts are also wasted. That doesn't make baking cakes gambling.

You don't work and you're stupid. Now stop wasting the time I'm investing you filthy slot machine.

Good, now frick off.

I can simply ignore you, starting now.

> if you had ever been to the gym once you would realize how fricking stupid this is. try going and seeing how successful you are under some real iron, pussy.

This is some of the gayest "internet tough guy" shit I've read on here in a long time.
Go ahead. Tell us about your confirmed kills and military service.

even top strongmen see variance in their lifts, mr valedictorian

again, this is tabletop. in video games, where is this consequence from chance applied and where is the method to adapt to it? In theory, I like your thought. in practice, I fail, nothing happens, I feel cheated by a computer.

Yes, and what you'll find there comes from a limited list of options.

The things you can find under that rock are a list of blocks, or a hole that leads to a list of encounters. That's a pretty limited number of things.

No, a real DM is good because you CAN find a Lamborghini and weed in a dungeon. You can't find that in a video game, because the devs didn't program it in.

everything it has ever learnt in it's entire life
STOP METAGAMING REEEEEEEE

4E was made for WoW players circa 2005 to 2008 anon. Some of the stuff in the systems were lifted straight from WoW, which is kind of ironic considering Warcraft's Warhammer origins and D&Ds wargaming origins.

Just like irl, sometimes that works, sometimes the goblins are undeterred. To turn something like that into a number puts the emphasis way too much on gamey aspects and not enough on the roleplay.

The more rules you put in place, the less free the players/DM are to fill in the blanks. If you have too many rules for everything, the game system itself basically railroads you.

You got an example?

>You end up needing house rules like letting a Str based Fighter roll using Str to intimidate instead of Cha.
that's not a houserule, it's in the PHB.
p 175

That is why things like carry limits and encumberance should be enforced strictly to make STR matter.

Speaking of which, I like how old Tunnels & Trolls did magic, casters used STR as a spellcasting resource that was temporarily drained by spells and strength was a limit of how many spells a wizard can cast per encounter.

I mean that rules are binding and sometimes the story is better when the rules are tossed out the window.
>X would be cool, but we can't do that because muh rules said so

Epic standoff final battle.. oh, the barbarian rolled a really good intimidation check so the boss runs away. Great.

>So you want it to handhold DMs more?
I mean... yeah. It's a three hundred page book called "the dungeon master's guide". I think it should give more guidance.
there are a lot of instances where the designers say something to the effect of "if you want, you can run it this way. or, if you'd rather, you can run it this way instead." which is obviously true as far as it goes, but what they almost never do is expound on what the merits of different approaches are. take the stealth rules for instance. the rules gesture at some circumstances in which you can hide but the only hard rule is" the DM decides when hiding is possible", and that's practically tautological. to me, ideally, even if the rule is just "the DM decides", the DM guide should have some guidance on how you *might* want to run it, since the question of "how does hiding work" is pretty important in a lot of adventuring scenarios

yeah sure. I mean it's 300 pages. it even has some (vague) writing advice in it. what would you put in there

well I totally disagree with you on the first point, I think the tables and numbers in the DMG are just about the least useful stuff in there.

just look at the current confused argument going on ITT about ability checks. a few pages in the DMG dedicated to the subject could have cleared the idea up for thousands of people but no here we are riding the same merry-go-round of an argument about breaking the lockpicking or the wizard picking up a rock that the barbarian couldn't for the tenth year running

no that's not at all what I was saying

I mean that there are ways to reconcile the game's system and with the problems that people run into when trying to run it as-written and I think the DMG was a good place to have included some of that stuff instead of just saying "lol figure it out kid" and leaving people to stumble upon blogs like angrygm, alexandrian or matt colville if they actually want to read someone digging into the intellectual end of that stuff

that hatred is related specifically to special dice and not the mechanic which is really just a re-intrepretation of roll results into symbols rather than numbers. real question is how available will those dice be 10-20 years from now.

consider the nuzlocke. you win and die by rng. you have a game completely figured out from top to bottom, rolls, chance, and you'll see people spend half a year trying to get the "God run" where they get the tools they need to win.

examples abound of skinny, whiny prepubscent losers anxiously staring at the screen wondering what the dice are gonna do. this is you and every other defender in this thread. dice only function as an upfront screen to execution, it's lazy and doesn't translate to the video game environment. besides, if the orc rolls a 2, then I need to adapt to that circumstance with what I have available.

pathfinder is the situation you describe. you can't beat core with say, an assassin. you literally cannot stack enough advantage to beat the game. this means you need to optimize for charisma tank. community cleric and so on to guarantee a CHANCE at winning. this includes dice rolls. this is hyper optimizing at the expense of experience. yet people do it in droves because wow! if I hit the 20% chance on this fight I win! how is THAT fun?

if the results aren't interesting around pass/fail then rng is not the solution. if you zoom out any encounter with dice is just gambling, pure and simple. even if you win from stacking advantage, then you won because you DIDNT get the 5% chance to fail. it's a hollow victory.

as for the solution, intricate design is the only one. as mentioned before, new vegas did skill checks right. as for combat, that isn't turn based so I can't give you a good solution. poe 2 attempted some fixes but turn based is so bad that the rtwp and chance is all it has. but if it was, things that make sense with input on the players behalf do. for example, if I fail to bash a door in with 14 strength, but I have a potion of invigorating that would give me 16, I should he able to fail, drink it, and open the door. with no chance to also fail after opening the door.

my point is that roleplay should function as the players input. if I have stealth, that may come at the detriment of damage but I can avoid notice and get in close for a first attack, and guarantee the win. the orc can notice up to a ceiling but if you're doing a ninja run, this makes sense.

how isn't it? why are you being reductionist to the point of obfuscation?

To be fair, if you get rid of randomness all together then you actually kill or overpower certain kinds of builds.
Dodge builds in turn based RPGs use a character's speed/agility to lean the rolls in favor of the character dodging attacks. In a system where you'll always hit you either make those kinds of builds pointless, or you make them so overpowered the game is pointless.

Well, you could give someone a number of dodge points depending on their dodge stat and allow them to use those points to dodge attacks. I don't know if that's any more fun than dodge %.

OK but did you actually play the scenario and execute it or are you theorycrafting the scenario, it's played out, and not worth doing? in the case of the latter, you're a gambler.

if you like playing a rogue, then there should be scenarios where being stealth presents advantage vs not presenting it. same with a fighter, a mage. that's interesting design, handcrafted encounters that encourage multiple approaches and reward/punish whatever your approach is. and this is where the GAME aspect comes in. did you explore and level up and grow enough to pass the stealth check? or are you gonna have to face tank it? the choice is yours and so is the consequence.

you shouldn't be rewarded being a bumbling stupid fighter but you roll a 20 and get to stealth right up to the mob. it's stupid.

>you shouldn't be rewarded being a bumbling stupid fighter but you roll a 20 and get to stealth right up to the mob
Why not? Sometimes that happens.. not often, but sometimes. Because something like that is unlikely, that makes it funny when it happens anyway.

Doesn't have to be a reaction. You can declare dodge beforehand.

No, because I could just become extremely good at the minigame and be a master of stealth on my paladin.

I would, but that would be a completely different game. I'd just go play an actual stealth game if that's what I wanted to play. Also, either the game is made with this in mind and is really hard until you become good at its minigames, or it's not made with this in mind and becomes ridiculously easy once you become good at the minigames. It's a self defeating idea.

Stealth is Dex, not Int or Wis. And Dex fighters can have good stealth checks. Disadvantage usually only comes from what armor you're wearing.
And unless you're an 8 on Dex while also wearing Heavy Armor, you're probably only rolling stealth with a -1 in general. That doesn't take into account magic items like boots that don't make a sound, or spells like pass without trace.

the rng softens execution and makes morons get hooked into gambling. I would be fine with rng infesting my games if all outcomes were considered but there are hard limits on scenarios.

I read a homebrew about a halfling assassin who wanted to sneak attack with a greataxe. like a midget ninja? fun right? hordes of morons pouring in screeching about cheese and balance and design. people who gamble with rng in games need just the right amount to feel novelty but not too much so they get anxious and frustrated. it's a hamster wheel and a crux to explain away not writing for scenarios in a game.

there are elements that ruin video games by virtue of attempting to be "faithful" or otherwise. it's the reason you don't want to watch a loading screen of a character grabbing paper, putting his glasses on, then reading a piece of information you find. dice is something that needs to be sacrificed in favor of something else.

You're not make sense to me, because you're discounting the inherent risk of doing actions.
You call it gambling, but you can equally choose builds and ways to make the RNG go in your favor most, if not all the time. That's a choice. High risk high reward? Low risk, medium reward.
But you're also making an argument that Super Mario Bros is the pinnacle of gaming. For some, maybe. But I think you're comparing two different types of games and complaining that one is killing all games.

The lockpick example is only good if there is no risk.
But, there's a risk of breaking your lockpick equipment, or making the lock unpickable.
>brain dead and can't accept failure
It sounds like you, yourself, can't accept games built around the possibility of random failure, therefore, those games aren't for you. And that's ok. But there are entire strategies built around this principle of risk, reward, mitigation, and execution.

We're back to the beginning.
You don't like to fail. You don't like the possibility that random events outside of your control, could impact your chances of success. Ok. Fine.

Think of it in another way. You're playing Mario. You're really really good. There's no chance you die on the first Goomba. But, after playing this game 100000000 times, your grip slips, and you don't press jump at the right time.

But you're getting upset that people want to simulate this in a role playing game.

Sounds like you just don't like those kind of games, so stop playing them.
At this point you just sound like:
>Noooooo!
>Stop liking gameplay mechanics that I don't like!

You're just trying to label gameplay mechanics you don't like with a negative term in hopes it makes your bullshit arguments seem more credible.

>please let me shoot the sitting duck one more time mom

>different is bad because....I haven't heard it before!
maybe I'm a fricking genius and you're a hamster brained Black folklave.

I accept your concession, addict.

>ou're paying for entertainment with your money and time. Do you have such low standards and self-worth that "fricking nothing" is acceptable return?
DnD was designed for tabletop, where your DM or you yourself can use your imagination to explain what happened in this specific situation. I understand that games cannot possibly do that, unless you're satisfied with a couple pre-written lines of text which will just pop up, and which you will see hundreds of times over the course of the game. Again, you would have to use some AI shit to possibly give you those "interesting" results every time.
I am paying money for a good product, but I will have realistic expectations for it, and not expect every extremely minor detail which some anon's autistic mind focused on to be addressed. You're the fricking moron here if you call a game low quality just because it didn't meet your expectations in some mundane little detail which nobody cares about.

But you're putting the player in a repetitive purgatory of repeating the same actions over and over until they get sequence perfect.
You can say that there is no autonomy.
So, is it a choice between gambling and no autonomy?

I don't actually believe that. I'm just inverting the argument and showing you hoe ridiculous it is to make such an argument about video games.

>bumbling idiot savant magically saves the day?
As if that never happens IRL. I've met some absolutely moronic successful people.

Yes but you need to find the correct position and choice of actions. That's where the strategy comes from.
You can also have an unpredictable AI, that would create unique problems that you need to solve on the fly, you have a set of tools that you know how they will behave, but you can't always know what the problem will be.

>You can also have an unpredictable AI
that would be rng lol

Yeah and it's different from combat dice rolls. You need some RNG in a game, otherwise you could write out an exact sequence of actions to beat it optimally and anyone could do it by following the guide.
Every strategy and tactical game has some RNG (map generation, loot, unit HP, behavior).
To-hit and damage rolls are just the worst part of it.

>You need some RNG in a game, otherwise you could write out an exact sequence of actions to beat it optimally and anyone could do it by following the guide.
Yes, that's exactly the point I made.

If the thing the enemy does after you've set the circumstances if predictable, it's boring. If what the enemy does is unpredictable, RNG is involved, and we're back to square one.
Can you just shut up? You're a lot dumber than you think you are.

No you absolute smoothbrain, a dice roll is just one of many ways to achieve simulated randomness. It doesn't fricking matter what you use, toss a coin for all I care. The result is the same and so is the conclusion, you need RNG in RPGs.

Wow great good for you

adjust how? the results are either reward or no reward. there's no input on the part of the player. anyone can pull the level. not everyone can respond dynamically to outcomes from positioning, tactics, and whether or not they win or lose.

one thing that hasn't been brought up is divinity os: ll. there's a lot of RNG in that game with hit chance etc. but larian lets you figure out how to cheese and overcome a lot of the circumstance thats presented to you. i dont know that there's a single complaint about the cheese tactics because if you stay off youtube and stop spoiling yourself the discovery and execution of your strategy is far more fun than gaming the dice.

the role playing comes into effect here. if I have rangers who have the high ground then yes the ai responds one way. if it's fighters it's another. the problem is you need a dressed up illusion of mechanics to feel like you did anything because you are incapable of enjoying something without the dice hanging in the background.

Positioning is always the same.. sturdy guys in front. Choice of actions has some space to play in, but I find I struggle to make the choices not glaringly obvious. Even in a complex counter system like Pokemon, it doesn't take long until the player picks the optimal choice every time. And of course as the others pointed out, unpredictable AI is a dice roll.