>Infinite damage stack
>Infinite growth of XP characters
>Systems often try to cover all possible situations, as ruselt it Jack of all trades, master of none
>Imitation of Dnd, more precisely imitation of principle that most actions should be tied to feats instead of being an available option from the start
 |
 |
|
The hobbyists mostly.
Holding it back from what?
This. It's always a human problem.
Capitalism. There is no incentive to create better systems, just to crank out new shit as fast as possible so you can sell another book - or collect Reddit upvotes, if you make one-page "hacks".
The fluff vs crunch false dichotomy is another big one, although is probably overlaps with . The games are mostly played by autismal number crunchers with no personality outside of memes, or illiterate dramagays who can't do basic math. RPGs are a hobby with a high barrier of entry, but sadly does not attract people of a high enough quality to make it worthwhile outside of the rare, strongly vetted group.
These guys also have a point. Basically, the reason the hobby is shit is because the players are shit.
>Capitalism. There is no incentive to create better systems
There's no incentive because the RPG hobby is fundamentally entrenched in playing systems they've spent years becoming comfortable with. If microsoft and gaming advancements didn't require people to upgrade their OS, I'm sure there'd be people still running Windows 95. The only reason they aren't is because they are forced to change. Goes for a lot of things. People like familiar things and only venture into the unknown when they have enough assurance from trusted friends and family that it's okay to finally try the new thing.
And despite this, there are still tons of new systems being made all the time. The indie scene is bigger than its ever been. It's so fricking massive that discoverability is one of the biggest problems that indie designers have to deal with. The primary problem is that 95% of the market is gobbled up by D&D, Warhammer, and MtG, and competing with them when there's countless podcasts, stores, and influencer-types cramming D&D down everyone's throats, is fricking hard.
>just to crank out new shit as fast as possible so you can sell another book
Most people making low effort hacks and homebrews are barely selling shit. They are able to crank out material more quickly generally because they are using some other system as the basis for their game, or because the scope of their project is intentionally smaller. They aren't trying to compete and make the equivalent of a Triple-A Blockbuster. They're making faux-retro pixel art mumblecore.
There are people who do want to make better systems, but better systems take time and time is expensive, so they generally end up working other jobs in between scribbling away at their homebrew for years. And then there's the playtesting process which can take years more. Then formatting, proofing, and publishing, which takes yet more money, and even after doing that, they might still find minimal to no success because, again, D&D dominates.
You write as if you disagree with me, but I don't see how anything you say (all of which is correct, at least speaking strictly) is mutually exclusive with what I'm saying.
>You know why D&D and similar games do not list Pocket Sand as an optional action?
You aren't even correct about this. Pathfinder already has pocket sand in the form of the Dirty Trick maneuver. It is available to anyone, as you seem to want, but is completely pointless to use unless you sink some five feats into it. Though, as you think throwing sand at people is clever and insightful (and worst of all, effective on a level that can contend with spells and shit), I am not surprised to learn that you don't actually play games or know rules.
>If it is not guns these kids will use knives if not knives go to their homes at night and burn them alive.
Unlikely. I thought about it myself for years, and eventually had to surrender to the fact that I couldn't possibly chase down enough of the kids I hated with a knife, and I could realistically only burn down one of their houses before I'd get caught. It would have been a lot more feasible to kill them with a gun.
>but is completely pointless to use unless you sink some five feats into it.
Thank you for showing the main reasons why RPGs suck and people don't want to play them - even the simplest action is too hard to achieve and a beginner just can't throw sand in his eyes without a guide. It's stupid.
If you hate RPGs so much, don't go into RPG discussion threads.
I love quests and adventures, so I have to put up with the system. But yes, I'd rather play something like Arkham than stupid, complicated dnd-type crap that at the same time manages to have the stupidest battle process where all the resources of the mind are spent on not forgetting all the bonuses and remembering what feat you need for throwing sand in the eyes.
playing devil's advocate, RPG characters can be punch mountains to death and shrug off immolation. their eyeballs are too powerful to succumb to pocket sand, unless it's Pocket Sand 5
>RPG characters can be punch mountains
No, not in Dnd, anyone who is not a mage is useless trash who cannot knock out even a simple wooden door.
>their eyeballs are too powerful to succumb to pocket sand, unless it's Pocket Sand 5
I would like it to be true, but in fact, the authors simply do not want to make a fuss about balancing it and therefore they simply make it so that without feats you cannot do anything even to a simple peasant.
>No, not in Dnd
This.
>. their eyeballs are too powerful to succumb to pocket sand, unless it's Pocket Sand 5
Not if you play anything like D&D.
For this to make sense you should be playing S.W.O.D. where explicitly mages have a barrier around them
> unless it's Pocket Sand 5
in
S.W.O.D. this means shit. Since there is no way for sand to penetrate the barrier Try throwing sand at a IRL tank to blind it and see what happens. In S.W.O.D. mages are basically like tanks, armor and damage power.
However S.W.O.D. states that anyone other then a mage simply dies to mages since magic is so overpowered.
I think in HERO you can throw sand once, but if you want to keep using the ability you need to pay for it with character points.
I don't know if sand is in the GURPS core rules, but if you're going to use it a lot you should get GURPS Sand.
Basically this.
>Pathfinder already has pocket sand in the form of the Dirty Trick maneuver. It is available to anyone, as you seem to want, but is completely pointless to use unless you sink some five feats into it.
>t. idiot
You realize mastering throwing sand takes like 4 days of practice with sand right ?
>(and worst of all, effective on a level that can contend with spells and shit
If you are not playing something like S.W.O.D. you are wrong since what ? 70% of the world will try to get you with a sword ?
>but I don't see how anything you say is mutually exclusive with what I'm saying.
I would say blaming capitalism taints your whole argument, but you just went ahead and admitted that you're a psychopath who planned to murder a bunch of students, but decided against it because you didn't have a gun.
It never ceases to amaze me, the desperate fervour with which Americans compulsively defend capitalism at every turn. It's like a god to them, it can brook no criticism.
>Complains about games being complicated
>Still wants every conceivable, pointless little action to be in the game
Just go back to the sandbox where you can throw cat turds at the other preschoolers in peace.
>Throwing sand straight up incapacitates targets with no save
Cool, I'm bringing a bag of sand everywhere I go from now on. Give me a couple more rulings like that and I won't even need spells any more.
>to have more than 1 options is conceivable, pointless little actions
Dnd statcheking brain rot in action.
>Dnd statcheking brain rot in action.
This.
The only question is if D&D attracts the most fricked up people in the head or did playing D&D rots your brain to its shit system.
>it can brook no criticism.
>Capitalism. There is no incentive to create better systems, just to crank out new shit as fast as possible so you can sell another book -
yes this is a minor nitpick where you suggest that the existence of profitable trade prevents anything from ever improving
>or collect Reddit upvotes, if you make one-page "hacks".
this is a rejection of your own point. free systems exist, each one in some way an attempt to improve on an existing system. if many of them are find-replace pbta clones, maybe there's some fundamental issue with free games. maybe money helps.
in fact, i have seen free games that i would much rather play over whatever hasbro or GW are dumping out. they take work to find, though, since $0 revenue means $0 for advertising. the effectively non-existent barrier to entry means the good can easily get lost in the pile of shit.
what you actually want is a mid-sized publisher's game that is barely turning a profit. not one that can float with zero effort on the sheer brand power of the name Dungeons and Dragons. one that can pay standard operating costs if and only if their game gets good word of mouth. maybe we can recommend you one if you do actually play games
>you suggest that the existence of profitable trade prevents anything from ever improving
It absolutely does, whenever it is more profitable to not improve anything.
Buddy, people have been trying to fix D&D for longer than you've been alive and the only one that managed to do well enough still copied 90% of its material out of the 3.5 OGL, meaning their base game was similar enough to the thing people wanted at a time when the new edition was floundering. WotC has no reason to improve because they are coasting on e-celeb free advertising, brand recognition, and a legacy name, on top of having 50 years of pop culture dominance.
It's like competing with McDonalds when all you have is an easy bake oven and an empty parking space. Even if your food was better in every conceivable way and you were dedicated to far better business practices and smarter financial decisions, you'd still fail against the cultural power that McDonalds has, which exists separate from the actual business-side of the whole operation. WotC doesn't even show up to the biggest conventions, because people will sell their products regardless of what WotC's spend on advertising and promotion.
>It never ceases to amaze me, the desperate fervour with which Americans compulsively defend capitalism at every turn
Nah, it's just that blaming capitalism for things that don't involve capitalism is the domain of the mentally ill homosexual. It's a pointless thing to bring up, but morons like you love to do it anyways because you think it adds weight to your argument when all it really does is expose you as a jackass.
Nah Americans worship capitalism they got indoctrinated into it.
Even if capitalism gets them starving they will scream
>Dam you socialism
>Help me free market / capitalism I'm starving !
>This is all the fault of socialism !
>Nah Americans worship capitalism they got indoctrinated into it.
>government uses its power to collude and tamper with the market at every given opportunity
>everything goes horribly wrong
>curse you capitalism!
Take your meds, schizo. You've already made it more than clear that you're a lunatic. You're not going to do yourself any favors by trying to discuss international cultures and economics.
>Cool, I'm bringing a bag of sand everywhere I go from now on. Give me a couple more rulings like that and I won't even need spells any more.
>I literally do not understand that pocket sand was the peeper spray 0.1 of its time.
It is effective because pepper spray is effective.
Honestly I know a systems that don’t have your first and fourth points. The second one can be solved by having the GM end the campaign before it happens. The second point can be solved by making rolls harder for jack of all trades kind characters.
I’d say the biggest thing holding the hobby back are
>the monopoly DnD has
>the hobby being depicted as this wacky theater with dicerolls in other media
>people getting into the hobby with a videogame mindset
>so basically it’s hard to find decent players
This.
There are plenty of systems without problems the OP listed. The problem is people not willing to play such systems.
I think it's because it's hard for people to change habits. So the way out of the situation would be to create and advertise a system that is designed for the entire population, not only for those who already play, but it seems that no one wants to do this. And the most paradoxical thing is that dnd started as a system designed for people who have never played tabletop rpg, but for some reason everyone ignores this aspect.
>people getting into the hobby with a videogame mindset
These people are the worse, they just treat the game as if it is some grand theft auto multiplayer game with cheats on. Some even go as far as to think they can instantly pick up a whole horde of treasure like an elder scrolls game. Who am I kidding, the only elder scroll game they played is Skyrim.
>people getting into the hobby with a videogame mindset
seconding this, these people are a plague.
They could be tolerable if they weren't such sociopaths to the point that they try to pull shit and scams on the other players and treating it as if it was their own special adventure ignoring everyone else.
Fortunately, ""the hobby"" is only a spook that exists for people without groups.
What systems besides Anima do the first two?
What non-generic systems do the third?
Even modern D&D doesn't do the fourth, for the most part, nor do classic edition. That's a very specific 3.x-ism.
provides a much more realistic set of issues in the hobby, and these are all solved when you do eventually find decent players.
To be fair, card games and wargames generally have a much higher cost of entry to get enough for a whole group to game with, compared to RPGs or board games where you can buy a single book or box for the whole table. There's also the factor of cardgames and wargames needing a strong community to function at all, wheras a board game night or RPG group needs four to seven people in a general region, at most.
>Fortunately, ""the hobby"" is only a spook that exists for people without groups.
anon The bulk of the actual hobby is literally written by third-party corporations not your table
>the hobby being depicted as this wacky theater with dicerolls in other media
The fictional show Stranger Things depicts D&D as a fun dice game. "Actual plays" like Critical Roll turn it into freeform improv for theatergays.
>hold back the hobby
What does this even mean?
>What does this even mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby
And what does it mean for one to be held back?
ESL detected.
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/hold-back
It is meaningless when applied to a hobby, because hobbies don't fricking go anywhere.
>https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/moved+forward
Now pls back the frick off to your third world shithole.
>We have to go forward and do better than we were, because where we were is bad and where we're going is good!
>Where are we going?
>Haha wow, you're so stupid.
Frick off prog.
Kek, shitskin discovered that his English teacher bamboozled him
> Jack of all trades, master of none
And often times better than a master of one.
Thank you I'm tired of seeing moron quote that shit wrong
>Thank you I'm tired of seeing moron quote that shit wrong
The "master of none" phrase dates back to the 1700s. Meanwhile, there are no known instances of the last line dated to before the twenty-first century. Imagine being this pedantic and full of yourself and also being wrong.
Imagine being so stupid as to thinking the sum total of all correct facts that could ever be stated was a corpus completed in 1721 and that people could never learn new things or build upon predecessors' works
>no known instances of the last line dated to before the twenty-first century
There are. I first used it in the 20th century as a teenager, having learnt it from my mother who learnt it I don't know when but as a proverb from her uncle who died when she was a young adult so we're talking first half of the 20th century.
t. oldgay
yeah it's source dude, trust me,deal with it. The later lines are older than 21st century as everyone here used them in the 20th century knows.
>I'm tired of seeing moron quote that shit wrong
"actually that is the full original quote"
>Imagine being so stupid as to thinking the sum total of all correct facts that could ever be stated was a corpus completed in 1721 and that people could never learn new things or build upon predecessors' works
:/
>Classes
Magic being a thing and not being used by all characters.
It depends on the setting, but this is the problem when a system do not stick to one setting, but try to be universal crap like Gurps.
>Magic being a thing and not being used by all characters.
I think this goes hand-in-hand with OP's pic. It's why I dislike most martial classes; a barbarian going into a supernatural rage is much better.
>One-true-way-ism and people being unable to resist whining about other people's games
>D&D being more popular than anything else in the market by an order of magnitude
>The infinite arms race of people being shitty/creepy, and then people abusing the rules designed to prevent that behaviour to be even more shitty/creepy
>Bad faith actors trolling actual players (every year at my university we have to boot about half the September intake to the gaming society as they just want to deliberately annoy people)
>Infiltration of deeply monetised games into FLGS (it's impossible to make money on RPGs but card games and Warhammer make it hard to share the store)
>The infinite arms race of people being shitty/creepy, and then people abusing the rules designed to prevent that behaviour to be even more shitty/creepy
examples? I am not saying you are wrong, I honestly don't know what you are talking about.
>Bad faith actors trolling actual players (every year at my university we have to boot about half the September intake to the gaming society as they just want to deliberately annoy people)
I never had this but I had such shitty and selfish players you would think they were trolling the entire group where they should have or were kicked.
Rules like."you have to address sexual content" being stretched by shit DMs into "you have to send me IRL videos of you shlicking"
On the subject of trolls: people gauging the group and then submitting deliberately shocking Nazi or Danger hair characters just to piss people off absent any real world ideology. Basically being a shitwiener
>Rules like."you have to address sexual content" being stretched by shit DMs into "you have to send me IRL videos of you shlicking"
what the frick are you talking about you dumb homosexual
So that's an example from my personal life, but for every rule designed to make it harder for weird bastards to be weird to people who don't like it, there's an even weirder basteard waiting to take advantage.
let's be honest, you were probably asking for it
>The infinite arms race of people being shitty/creepy, and then people abusing the rules designed to prevent that behaviour to be even more shitty/creepy
this alone has basically ruined every RPG
when the solution all along was just talking to everyone like adults
But that's haaaaaaaaard!
I mean, the earliest games never considered presenting that as an option - they just suggested 'throw lightning at the problem players until things improve.'
Now, we're up to 'here's some conflict resolution techniques that we got from corporate Human Resource departments, but because everyone knows that HR is terrible at conflict resolution, we're going to lie and say these tools come from the BDSM scene, so it sounds sexier'.
This is, I guess, an improvement of sorts. So, maybe actually suggesting actual engagement with the actual human beings at the table will show up in the books some time soon.
...Not that it would help any of the people in this thread.
I had someone tell a story like that with the lightning throwing after being a pretentious butthole and I pretty much just blacklisted that guy in the local community from running anything. School clubs made keeping those type of game ruining buttholes out easy.
That's a good way to lose your thumb
Not enough furry games.
Do you really want to put up with it?
You make it so picking your species matters you get people who want to be dik-dik or something complaining their character is nonviable.
You make it so the race doesn't matter what's the point?
You somehow make a decent product who is going to pick it up other than a few furries because they see a furry on the cover.
And don't get me started on the weird furry fetish fuel races
pretty much this. a toxic pill for everyone but the most dedicated of proxy animal abusers.
An untold glut of new board games and KickStarter projects coming out every month that looks ever closer to the 1983 vidya crash.
I sort of hope the bubble pops
I once dreamed of getting in on the board game rush but honestly seeing how far it's gone I'm just fricking sick of it all. The people of America no longer have to sit around and play fricking monopoly ad infinitum, our work is done.
The success has mostly been in europe etc
It'll only pop once the economy goes to shit given this stuff is carried by a glut of low value high income jobs.
Once the economy crashes nobody will have money to throw at projects for free. Kickstarter is the Funko pop for games nerds
Bloated combat juxtaposed to everything else in the system being largely reduced to a single die roll.
Doesnt helps that this is what most people want, like how many recoil at the idea of having to manage resources or actually do stuff in the downtime because it keeps them away from killing more shit.
Correction - the current audience does not want anything else, but the systems from FFG in Warhammer 40k universe have shown that there is a demand for dnd alternative, you just need to make the system playable from the start.
>Bloated combat juxtaposed to everything else in the system being largely reduced to a single die roll
This
Where the frick is my in-depth cliff climbing system
I don't have any experience outside of my own group, so I don't know if anything's being held back "out there" but I think the biggest thing holding it back on /tg/, and possibly outside of here as well, is that either all ttrpgs or even all traditional games get lumped together as "the hobby".
And because people are wired to make groups, they'll want "the hobby" that they are part of to be cohesive, so they know what group they are part of. But there's so much variety that there isn't one tabletop or even one rpg hobby in that same sense. So you get people who aren't interested in the "main hobby" complaining about it because they still want to be part of it even if they don't like it.
Start looking at everything as more granular, and you'll find small patches flourishing beneath the canopy. But focus on "the hobby" and you'll lose sight of the beauty that is hidden just beneath the surface
>systems try to cover all
>imitation of DnD
This last one has become particularly painful in the last decade. Every single homebrewI've observed so far is reduced to someone attempting to make basic skills or actions part of a massive database. "Ooh, what if there was an action where you threw sand in someone's eye?! And only this class with this prereq-" WHAT IF YOU COULD JUST PICK UP FRICKING SAND AND THROW IT AT PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF YOUR OCCUPATION
learn to differentiate between mechanics and rp, moron
everyone can throw sand, but only this particularly experienced dirty fighter can capitalize on it to the point of meriting a mechanical resolution
everyone can put their back into a swing, but only the guy whose thing is hitting things really hard merits it having extraordinary results
everyone can choose to stick a knife into a vulnerable spot, but only the assassin guy merits it being a special thing
why? because it's fricking assumed that you're going to be trying to distract your opponent, hit him really hard and target his vulnerable spots in a life or death fight, you fricking moron
>everyone can throw sand, but only this particularly experienced dirty fighter can capitalize on it to the point of meriting a mechanical resolution
if your referee gives you a +X to your roll because you threw sand he's a moron
If your ref doesn't give you a roleplay based ingame advantage (eg, the dude can't attack this turn and you don't need a roll to hit him) for throwing the sand successfully, he's a giant c**t
If you keep treating RPGs as videogames, you're a moron, but that's not an issue since you don't play anyways, is it ?
>Ooh, what if there was an action where you threw sand in someone's eye?! And only this class with this prereq-
this is obviously stupid but it's a symptom of the linear warriors quadratic wizards issue. a hard class delineation like that ensures that the spellcaster spends a few sessions being the weakest link and then ticks over into godhood
they try to give the sword guy a "stun spell" to close the gap but he's explicitly not supposed to do anything magical. the stun is described as throwing sand or some shit and it's given equivalent power to the literal reality warping, physics defying Magic.
(this does not apply to classless systems with a "throw sand" feat. those are just moronic.)
the real solution is that everyone should have a super power, but only a specific one.
>the real solution is that everyone should have a super power, but only a specific one.
The real solution is to actually stop pretending like the moron with the stick can take out tanks. Go full out realism, wizards can spam magic grenades and rockets while normies are cannon fodder for them.
You being a knight is the result of you being a burger flipper IRL you where to stupid to learn magic so you are a knight now and are supposed to fight invaders etc. However everyone knows you are only a overplayed alarm system and your screams of agony after you get your legs blown away will alarm your wizard master that another wizard is invading.
>Go full out realism, wizards can
moron
>>Go full out realism,
YES.
Why are D&D gays like this ?
>NOOO reee my farmer who can not fight must be able to defeat Darth Vader despite not having any force powers.
Why are D&D gays like this ?
Who mentioned DnD? What part of “wizards can” is “full realism”, moron?
The part
>When I grant that this guy can throw rocket propelled grenades at everyone and turn invisible this is how combat would look like
Part.
I know the word triggers you however I see a wizard not different from modern military equipment and modern military equipment would destroy any medieval army, if they are getting carpet bombed they literally can not fight back only die less.
Stop trying to make everything balanced
>Nooo reee I want to use a square wheel REEE
>Why are round wheels so overpowered ?
>Help ! Nerf now !
Like this:
?t=317
This is my point.
>wizards are supposed to be better because wizards are better because they just are
In a game that assumes some level of balance and equivalent power levels, giving one guy an atom bomb and another guy a handful of rocks, and saying that OBVIOUSLY the atom bomb is better because it's a bomb is missing the point entirely. No one should get the atom bomb. That shouldn't be an option unless everyone else is getting some sort of WMD of equivalent destructive force. Maybe one guy gets chemical weapons and another guy gets anthrax and one other guy gets genetically engineered viruses or something... But you can't just let one guy get the atom bomb and scoff when people tell you that's not balanced.
>That shouldn't be an option unless everyone else is getting some sort of WMD
NO ! Stop trying to make things balanced.
>b-b-b-
NO !
>b-b-b-b-
You know what go into Star craft 1 multiplayer or any fighting game multiplayer or a chess game where it is not trying to protect you form going VS advanced players. See how that works out.
Some things being absurdly overpowered is the point.
If everything is balanced everything is boring.
Whats next ? Remove levels because it is unfair that a L1 character can not take out a L 99 character ?
Whats next ? try to balance you rolling a natural 1 or natural 20 ?
Monte Cook and his brigade of homosexuals tried that system mastery logic and it just made the game moronic and you're moronic for trying to insist that picking from a list of a dozen options and getting the one that is 1000 times better than the other options is a matter of being a skilled, advanced player. Level 1 characters should be roughly equal to other level 1 characters. A level 1 wizard is not a level 99 character you fricking moronic homosexual.
Cry harder.
>that picking from a list of a dozen options and getting the one that is 1
This is realistic. Like in some brands are shit IRL literal disintegrating shit.
So making 20% of the spells inferior versions of the real ones is a great idea. Especially if your players know nothing of the world, let them explore and learn it this way.
> 1000 times better than the
Not really I propose
>100%
The perfect spell
>70%
The inferior version of the spell
>50%
Lame version.
>1%
The joke version of the spell.
imagine the roleplaying potential if you are someone who learns about magic on his own and he finds the 100% spell or someone who only got the 1% spell.
>This is realistic. Like in some brands are shit IRL literal disintegrating shit.
"Realistic" and "balanced" are not the same thing. You are a living example of what D&D brainrot looks like in action.
>You are a living example of what D&D brainrot looks like in action.
Explain.
>"Realistic" and "balanced" are not the same thing.
There are spells and items who are simply shit. Get over it. I'm sorry reality triggers you that the chink shit phone for $5 is unbelievable shit and not worth even owning.
?t=375
D&D is not reality.
Cry harder it is fun to get a OP item/spell or try to manage with shit.
It's impressive how much dedication you put into being the dumbest motherfricker on Ganker. None of what you said in any way supports the arguments you were making earlier about player skill.
>The G in RPG stands for game. It’s a dungeon exploring, treasure looting game
That's what D&D is supposed to be, but it's not even good at being that. It's actually a profoundly shitty dungeon crawl and loot collecting game, which is why it inspired countless people to make OSR clones and retrohacks that do the sort of things people expect D&D to do. Also, don't be the kind of moron who thinks every RPG should be like D&D and only like D&D. What you're describing is a board game.
Every RPG should be like D&D? No, not exactly. Look, I doubt I would have enjoyed playing at Gygax’s table more than a few sessions. What I’m after in my RPGs is an emphasis on the world, not on the characters. I like it when the characters are transient, experiencing and influencing the world in their little ways for a brief time. I like games that span generations, that let you see the world changing because of the things the players do. I am so fricking sick and tired of RPG tables where the expectation is a circle jerk over tragic backstories and the characters go from level 3 superheroes to level 20 gods that kill other gods and then the game stops and the group wipes the slate clean.
Everything you've just described is far removed from a "dungeon exploring, treasure looting game" and shows that you're pretty fricking sick of what D&D and it's brainrot have done to RPGs, too.
I see your point. But the way I run D&D is that the setting is always post-apocalyptic. There’s been some great cosmic cataclysm that the world is just now recovering from. Feudalism arising from shattered empires, ruins and ancient mysterious treasure abound. That’s the foundation. Dungeon delving suits that well, I think. But the players can go any direction they want; I don’t aim to keep them in dungeons.
>where the expectation is a circle jerk over tragic backstories
This is problem with your party, not with system or hobby problem.
>from level 3 superheroes to level 20 gods that kill other gods
But not fighters, fighters should always be realistic because of um... reasons.
I’m a huge fan of fighter deed dice from DCC and incorporate them into D&D all the time.
Sounds like you want something more like Tony Bath's Hyboria campaign than any RPG.
Thank you, friend, I will look into that. As long as there’s no vancian magic ugh
I don't think he included any magic at all.
I guess straight up wargaming would factor into it but I still want to keep it more personal overall.
>emphasis on the world, not on the characters
>characters are transient, experiencing and influencing the world in their little ways for a brief time
>more personal overall
If you actually know what you want then you suck balls at explaining it.
Because other things than battlefield skirmishes drive the evolution of the world.
Dumbfrickshitassmoronpussy
Nothing I said was anything to do with battles.
I meant more personal than Hyboria, you illiterate fricktruffle.
You want a game that emphasises the world rather than the characters but is still personal. It's inherently contradictory, which has nothing to do with my earlier suggestion. You want something that not only doesn't exist, but can't.
No, wizzleteeth. You have your campaign. You put lots of politics into the game, alongside adventuring, so that the players can manage kingdoms or go on adventures or whatever the frick they want, but the point of the game is to be invested in the world, not only in one character’s fricking dramatic story arc. You RETIRE PCs and play new ones in that same world where your old PCs are still around, or at least their influence can still be felt. The campaign world doesn’t end when the group decides they’re bored with their level 20 god characters.
>arguments you were making earlier about player skill.
Imagine being so dense.
>about player skill.
Yes and the most skilled players will tell you that some tratagy AKA using one unit is "worthless" making that unit "worthless" in advanced play.
If you can not see the similarity then you failed the IQ test.
>It's impressive how much dedication you put into being the dumbest motherfricker on Ganker.
You are projecting.
Yes we're aware anything that doesn't impact combat you are incapable of evaluating.
>real life people had the skills to fight with various types of weapons, plus they had other skills such as poetry, dancing, singing, mathematics, etc.
>dnd - rrreeee, that's not realistic
The problem with all dndrons is that they believe that dnd has done everything right and the system is without major flaws, while in reality Dnd is a piece of crap that tries to include all possible settings and as a result the mechanics of the system do not fit any setting.
>Star craft 1 multiplayer
the three factions are impeccably balanced against each other. zerg are not simply the best or worst faction.
a wizard faction would be able to field any unit in the game and do more damage
>or any fighting game multiplayer
characters are roughly balanced against each other and games are now patched every few months to improve balance
a wizard would have every move and do more damage
>or a chess game
the two sides in chess are literally identical except who goes first
a wizard side would have 18 pieces, 17 of them queens
>the three factions are impeccably balanced against each
>the two sides in chess are literally identical
The point is that other humans will wipe the fore with you. You do not get to be balanced because your skill is low.
After you grasp this you can grasp that some technologies are crap IRL and ignored (like airplanes that are made out of paper). Same for some spells.
>>Star craft 1
Yet there always are units who are not used or considered abandoned and n00b bait.
>In a game that assumes some level of balance and equivalent power levels,
what game?
d&d is notorious for wizards vastly overshadowing non-casters and being better at everything than the classes specializing in those things, what are you even talking about? not in a single edition were casters not several leagues above non-casters, you nogames shitposting homosexual
>realism, wizards
moron
>The real solution is to actually stop pretending like the moron with the stick can take out tanks.
my point is that there's no reason to have the moron with a Stick class at all for PCs
You're a moronic homosexual. Did a fighter steal your lunch?
Castergays, everyone.
>WHAT IF YOU COULD JUST PICK UP FRICKING SAND AND THROW IT AT PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF YOUR OCCUPATION
Either this is a meaningful action to take, in which case why even have a class or special abilities at all if some random bullshit anyone can do is just as good, or this is not a meaningful action to take, in which case, why have rules for it at all?
You ever had sand thrown in your eyes? It fricking hurts and it's very effective at blinding and disabling a person. It's also not very hard to do, making it a viable and useful thing to try in a variety of combat situations. You know why D&D and similar games do not list Pocket Sand as an optional action? Because it would interfere with the delicate action economy. It potentially ruins and unbalances their carefully clusterfricked ruleset. It's too chaotic and unfair to the DM to have players instantly disable their monsters with clever and thoughtful tactics, so they just don't allow them, or simply give the DM the power to veto and reject all options that threaten the careful illusion of fair challenge and balanced mechanics.
D&D autism is truly the worst kind of autism. Players can build absurd characters who can do tons of damage, but if they try to take one too many handle item actions or do something that isn't explicitly explained in the books, people feel entitled to having a total shit fit over it and rules lawyering for hours about how pocket sand is too strong and needs to be nerfed.
People getting into a popular niche and sticking there.
>no I won't play this other RPG, I just want to play D&D
>no I won't playing this other card game, I just want to play MTG
>no I won't playing this other wargame, I just want to play 40k
>no I won't play this other board game, I just want to play Catan
etc
Open mindedness and being willing to try new things grows the hobby, gives smaller developers a chance, and rewards innovation. The inverse encourages copy-cats and generic game design.
To be honest, the alternatives often disappoint with their quality.
"Movie Buff" is a pretty lazy, passive hobby but even still any cinephile worth the name checks out the stuff on the fringe. The old exploitation crap, experimental foreign films, art house projects, most of it sucks in terms of overall quality and production. But it's still worth watching if you love the medium because so often you can find something strange or innovative or just flat out baldy. It's not for everyone but for someone who loves movies it enhances thier view of the medium as a whole, deepens thier knowledge and inspires them. That's why it's thier hobby.
I guess your post reminded me that table top games as a hobby is still actually pretty small. Most involved treat these games as singular products to be consumed. Looking for the object with the highest popularity and polish to meet thier needs.
if the average movie/episode lasted 4+ hours not counting the prep and needed you to read a book first, you wouldn't have many people checking fringe shit either
Most movie buffs only watch Marvel and Star Wars
the problem is the alternatives often ignore increasing the quality and go for other strategies to make themselves popular, putting the cart before the horse
Look if you're a fan of barbeque looking for good BBQ outside of the American south or midwest, you're inevitably going to run into a lot of crap that tastes like burnt shit smothered in crap sauce. But if you never try anything outside of what you know will be good you'll never find the stuff that is both worthwhile and novel. You can't find good BBQ without being willing to try bad BBQ.
RPGs work the same way. The vast majority of everything is crap, but an unwillingness to try something new because it might suck is how DnD maintains its popularity in the minds of so many members of the hobby. If you want something other than the most popular and well established classics, you'll have to either accept digging through trash for the occasional diamond or learn to appreciate the kernels of good ideas you can find in every garbage bin.
Does anyone actually play Catan these days? Most people I talk to refer to it as a fond memory of 2006-2014.
>Looks at child death rates
Yikes, not looking too good for the paki
Still outnumber you 😉 clock is ticking
Not him but Europe is becoming brown through arabs and indians while the US is becoming brown through latinos. Australia instead is becoming yellow by east asian immigration. Whites are being replaced everywhere.
>Whites are being replaced everywhere.
In order to replace someone, there has to already be a person there to replace. Brown people are going to these places because white people became so obsessed with cuckoldry that they've forgotten how to procreate, and brown people are needed to pick up the labor slack for you faildicked heathens.
There's a difference.
I don't think there is much holding the hobby back as a whole. There is a fair amount of experimental stuff that bucks trends and does it's own thing so long as you're willing to go look for it.
The problem is, unfortunately, DnD's grip on the new player experience and new players in general. TTRPGs outside of the hobby is JUST known for DnD, at least in North America. Introducing a total newby to the CONCEPT of other games often involves saying things like "It's DnD but for space." Video games, for example, don't all have to be under the shadow of Mario anymore. Even the unitiated understand that vidya offers a wide variety of experience nowadays. But new players will often be expecting a DnD experience regardless of your game.
What's worse is many of these new players seemingly become attached and don't want or feel any interest in other games. They aren't so much into TTRPGs as a hobby as they are into DnD specifically and shun all other games. Things in this state would be fine so long as the public were at least aware of other games, it would be sort of like console exclusivity. Some people are into Nintendo others play Sony. If things were like that you could attract new players and avoid the sinkhole.
>GMing is fundamentally more difficult than being a player and requires far more commitment
>good GMs are also therefore difficult to come by
I can think of no solution unless you want to try using a GM emulator (personally not a fan) or waiting for sophisticated enough AI to run your games for you. How do you lighten the load of the GM without creating a worse game? And piggy-backing off of that, the quality of the entire game is capped by the quality of the GM. A bad player can bring down a game if left unchecked, but a bad GM means it never had a chance of being good.
>the majority of people attracted to the hobby make for poor players (of many different sorts)
Again, I have no solution.
You can try non-GM based games but those usually require for a good half of the table to be the kind of people that makes good GMs
Well yeah. That's part of why I don't like using a GM emulator. The other thing I find is that usually one player winds up being the de facto GM in those kinds of games (though I guess it would depend on the system).
It would help if people stopped thinking they're too good for a new GM looking to get experience, and instead eased them into it.
>people willing to try new systems
I have this friend of mine that wanted to get into a ttrpg for the longest time. I invited him to my other sessions (BitD, GURPS, delta green) but he was adamant about wanting to play 5e.
So another buddy of mine offered to run 5e in the hopes that we can gateway-drug this guy into other systems. We're finally playing 5e, but he's playing with us -- the munchkins and autists that got bored of minmaxing 5e years ago.
We're running around with feats and multiclasses, we're rolling lots of damage dice, and our newbie is getting disheartened -- he's not sure how to use his class, he hasn't read the book, and (most importantly) he's not yet comfortable roleplaying as his character. He was playing an e-blaster warlock, but we talked between sessions and turned his character into a hexblade. We explained how to use the class, he started doing more damage and knocking enemies around, and now he's having fun and coming out of his RP shell.
But here's the thing: I always considered 5e to be pretty simplistic and basic. People normally pick up other systems when they want deeper crunch or smoother rules for specific sorts of play, but people *should* be picking up systems that are also... easier than 5e.
Some people just won't bother to read or don't have the patience. PbtA, as much as I dislike it, gets a game going much faster and might be a better way to introduce roleplaying to people that haven't done this shit before.
Maybe. I don't fricking know.
The biggest annoying fad right now is ttrpgs that are "narrative-focused" and as a result very light on rules. Give me mechanically complex and deep systems and make combat fun to both run and play.
>mechanically complex
>fun to run and play
Pick one.
you have <80 IQ. Mechanical depth is what keeps a game fun many years into playing it. As long as people like you exist, companies will continue to put out games with paper-thin dogshit mechanics and terrible balancing because it's "narrative focused" and "light on crunch".
Ideally the game is designed to slowly ramp in complexity, starting simple and instead of just increasing power levels with XP the game uses character advancement to expand and introduce deeper mechanics.
Fatal isn't terrible because it's mechanically complex, Fatal is terrible because the mechanics it chose to focus on are moronic. What needs complexity is Character Creation, Progression, and Combat. Make those good, and you have a good game, slack on them and the system is worse for it.
I didn't say anything about depth, moron
Learn English.
A game that is complex is not fun to play and run, which is why all the most popular games are simple and nobody plays fricking Shadowrun.
You're equating what you believe to be good conceptually with what is fun empirically.
Go ahead, name 3 complex games that are fun to play and run.
FFG Star Wars, Traveler, Dark Heresy, Lancer, Warhammer Fantasy, World of Darkness, Call of Cthulhu 7e to name a few.
While not all of them excel in all regards, CoC has basically no progression system, Lancer is pretty much just a combat system with everything else being somewhat superfluous, etc, but they all provide good experiences in their own right when played as intended.
Depends on what the mechanics are. A good combat system can really elevate combat but for that it needs to have well balanced and detailed crunch. "I hit it til it dies" is boring as shit.
moron.
>FFG Star Wars, Traveler, Dark Heresy, Lancer, Warhammer Fantasy, World of Darkness, Call of Cthulhu 7e to name a few.
>complex
if ffg sw is complex to you, I don't know what point there is to continuing this
1. Cherry picking one of the games I mentioned is kinda pathetic.
2. Maybe you've got some different definition of complex than I do. I'm not talking about simulation games that make you roll 2d100+3d6+d10 every time you fricking breath.
I was talking about it in a positive context, I mentioned its one drawback, a draw back which does heavily limit the length of game you can run with it. It limits you to doing more shortform games. That's perfectly fine and what CoC is intended for.
none of the games you listed are complex, hence the greentext, moron
pretending I’m cherry picking is almost as moronic as pretending fog sw is anywhere approaching complex games like sr or 2020
>none of the games you listed are complex, hence the greentext, moron
You seem to be under the misinterpretation that I want to play some uber-complex fricking total reality sim. If you look at my original post, all I want is for games not to be dumbed down to the point moronation, and way too many ttrpgs, especially indi-ttrpgs are going with these poorly-balanced, rules light, "narrative focused" systems that are boring as hell to play and structured like dogshit. The best games have enough complexity to keep things interesting and enough mechanical richness that you can enjoy playing it for years and not grow bored of it. It doesn't have to be Shadowrun or Cyberpunk 2020, it just has to have more depth than a puddle.
Black person, you’re complaining about games being narrative and “not complex” while presenting ffg sw as the opposite
again, you are just attributing words you associate with positive qualities in your head conceptually to systems that have nothing to do with such descriptors
>I think complex = good
>I think X = good
>therefore X = complex
some of the games you listed are less complex than the average osr c/p job ffs
>CoC has basically no progression system
and yet it's fun and has been consistently popular for decades
>"I hit it til it dies" is boring as shit.
That's literally combat. Combat is violence.
>CoC 7e
oh wow
>"I hit it til it dies" is boring as shit.
That's what combat is. Entire point of violence is to strike until the target is disabled
Not original anon but your either being completely disingenuous or are actually moronic with this comment. He clearly means combat to be more indepth than d20 wiener slapping the monster for 3 rounds with no gameplay tactics involved.
>. He clearly means combat to be more indepth than d20 wiener slapping the monster for 3 rounds with no gameplay tactics involved.
that's what combat is. Variables are just abstracted by RNG. Combat is about hitting things until you don't need to hit them anymore.
>hitting thing is easy and do not require intellect
Typical western moron who thinks that technics is for weebs.
that's why you have bonuses to the RNG to display proficiency
>the dragon attacks! roll combat check.
>"14, and i get a +1 to combat rolls."
>the dragon is slain!
yup. That's the desired end for the combat.
Ok autist.
Okay, idiot who can't prove any of it wrong.
>autistic person does not understand that people want to get satisfaction from the process and their result is not always important
Many such cases prove that autistic people should be isolated from RPGs, they ruined everything.
>satisfaction from the process and their result is not always important
Bullshit. If the result isn't important then /tg/ wouldn't be filled to the brim with caster vs martial complaints.
People want effectiveness but won't accept distillation of options because they are wishy washy idiots
>autistic anon does not understand that the main reason for complaints is that playing as a fighter is boring and monotonous
You failed the be human test again.
>anon does not understand that the main reason for complaints is that playing as a fighter is boring and monotonous
that's because the fighter has nothing to do outside of fighting, not the fight itself. You fail basic comprehension.
>not the fight itself
Wow, statcheking your enemy with 1 viable option it's sooo fun for autists, how people can complain?
that's every class. Again, you just don't like combat, but you obviously can't comprehend anything at this stage.
>that's every class
Really? Why then mages can afford to have more than one spell? I didn't see mages sticking to the fireball because it's the best they have, but fighters don't have a choice in dnd, there's only one effective tactic - stand still and attack. There is not even an analogue of the spell for melee (and don't lie about battlemaster to me, BM is meme), if you want to have a choice what to do in battle, then you take a multiclass, which is again not optimal and system punishet it.
the punchline is that they then move to the Loot Divvying mechanics which is a separate book unto itself
i could imagine a game where you run fighting super simply like that, and have the mechanics focus on something else. i can't think of any game that does it, though. concepts like hit points and accuracy are too entrenched, really.
look, I really don't care. The only myth I want to dispel is that RPG combat should be this in-depth 4D chess thing and even when "complex" it isn't.
If hitting things until it goes down is boring, then you find the entirety of combat boring. Making it more tedious doesn't actually make the activity fun if you don't enjoy the core goal of it in the first place.
If mechanics are an obstacle why have them at all? Just play a narrative based campaign. I personally think that would be garbage and would never sit down to play make believe with you and your friends. But that's okay because the world is big and we never have to meet each other.
>If mechanics are an obstacle why have them at all?
it's just there to be fair. That's all rules are for anyway. It's there to give semblance of structure so everyone engaging in the activity can understand what's going on with clarity and how to conduct themselves.
Combat rules are just a way to regulate who goes down in a conflict in a relatively fair and clear way.
If you hate combat in its basic forms, no matter what set dressing you get, you are gonna hate it because the core activity itself does not appeal to you.
Would you believe that there are actually people who enjoy complex mechanics and would balk at the idea of resolving combat with a single dice roll plus mod?
>Would you believe that there are actually people who enjoy complex mechanics and would balk at the idea of resolving combat with a single dice roll plus mod?
yes, but that's still just a complex way of resolving "hitting things until it dies." The start of the argument was that combat being hitting things until it dies is bad when that's the very nature of combat. If you don't like hitting things until it dies, then adding a calculus problem before hitting things until it dies isn't going to improve the enjoyment of hitting things until it dies.
It's amusing that you talk about narrative based campaign being garbage when the level of complexity that you want to enforce can only be achieved via becoming more freeform and losing constraints.
You want to find engagement in an activity that you fundamentally dislike. I guess it is /tg/ after all.
This post brought to you by FAS
You shouldn't drink while pregnant, anon.
Think of your baby.
>If you don't like tic tac toe, you won't like chess either
Neither games share an end goal.
Tic Tac Toe is about creating a specific arrangement while Chess is about elimination of a specific enemy piece.
Connect 4 vs Tic Tac Toe would be more of an apt comparison although if you dislike one, I fail to see the appeal in the other that will bring you.
So the guy who says "I like complexity for the sake of complexity" isn't real? Or he's lying to himself? Is that what you are trying to say?
I'm saying that he's severely misguided because his ire is directed at the core activity while refusing to admit that. He dislike the most basic premise of combat, hitting things until it goes down. How are you going to enjoy boxing if you hate the fundamental of punching someone? You can be taught all the bobbing and weaving techniques, all the footwork, all the bodily conditioning, but if you dislike the act of punching, you aren't going to enjoy boxing.
Note that the anon that started this argument chain stated that he hated combat because it boiled down to hitting things. But that's what combat is. On it's fundamental level, at base level activity, hitting things until you don't need to hit it anymore is combat. If the base line combat is what he hates, he's not going to enjoy it no matter what window dressing you give it. It could be a fist, it could a laser beam, it could be anything done anyway, but if "hitting things until it goes down" doesn't appeal to you combat is simply not appealing. Which is fine, but you do have to be able to recognize what you actually hate.
Also no one actually likes complexity for the sake of complexity. That's just a gross simplification of wanting to be mentally engaged, Anon saying that he likes complexity for the sake of complexity doesn't have every file on his computer encrypted nor does he request others send him information via code of ciphers. Because complexity for the sake of complexity is just annoying. He wants to be mentally engaged, and have meaningful choices, but thinking about choices can't fundamentally change what the choices are about.
/tg/ in general has a really bad case where they want completely opposite things to exist simultaneously. They want to feel smart, but don't like logical best answers. They want to gatekeep, but is frustrated that their hobby is niche. They want many choices as possible, but can't stand freeform.
>PICTURE
This is a actual official policy in cartoons. Notice how everyone ant their mother can pull out bazookas and throw rockets or grenades at everything; however someone using a gun is a big problem.
The idea is that in America kids can not get their hands on rocket launchers or grenades while they can get their hands on guns so this is why this rule exists.
Character taking a machine gun and shooting ? = BAD !
Character jumping into a tank and using its canon to rain devastation ? = GOOD.
hey, only damage bazookas do is make people yell and jump
I think the most cool / outrageous example is the 90s spider man. There bank robbers (at night) think it is a casual think to open the safe by shooting rockets at the safe.
Also everyone throws rockets everywhere however spider man dodges them.
Another example is the 2003 TMNT especially the war like episodes where gangsters have access to literal bazookas and mach walkers who also spam rockets however no one is pulling a gun.
That's because the show is made for Americans, and American kids have access to guns, but usually not to bazookas and tanks, making gunfire imitable violence.
It's not actually about the access to guns it's that American parents are fricking psychotic Puritan morons
God, I wish.
Fun fact from the columbine documentary:
>Oh yea these are the weird kids in their trench coats
>Yes we bullied them 24/7
>Especially the kids they killed and deliberately hunted in their shooting.
> .....
>OH MY GOD HOW CAN THIS TRAGEDY BE HAPPENING, I LITERALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND
Columbine was literally a bunch of bullies getting their punishment. If it is not guns these kids will use knives if not knives go to their homes at night and burn them alive.
Bullies need to learn that their actions have consequences. Legalize murder and bulling will practically vanish.
They send children to torture prison and call it education. It's the only place most people ever face violence in their lives. The fact that there are so few school shootings is astonishing.
Yes schools are prisons for children with the same prison mentality.
>The fact that there are so few school shootings is astonishing.
Exactly this.
Nice how the stupid idiot kids accidentally dropped the fact that they where relentlessly bulling these 2 guys, now they try to hide it under le weird loners in modern times.
Because the killed ones can only be innocent angels who never did anything wrong so say .
School system really is one giant MK Ultra style trauma conditioning center. People wonder what's wrong with society and never stop to ask why every single person who survived America's public education system still drags around unresolved emotional baggage from the 12+ years they spent going to public school.
guys like you unironically believe that an armed society is a polite society
and guys like you make excuses for abuse and torture like you're jumping up to do right now.
Seems like we need to be armed specifically because of you and your ilk
you're taking the position that the columbine shooters were justified, which is obviously moronic, but let's look at the specifics anyway
>Columbine was literally a bunch of bullies getting their punishment
12 students and 1 teacher died. 21 additional students were injured. they exchanged shots with the police, and finally committed suicide. not necessarily in that order. did the teacher bully them? did all 31 people they shot at bully them? almost certainly not as far as we know
>If it is not guns these kids will use knives if not knives go to their homes at night and burn them alive.
so the original plan was a bombing actually. they had a frick load of pipe bombs, propane tanks, fire bombs, totalling about 100
presumably that would be the total destruction of the school, killing everyone in it. did literally every person in the building that day bully them?
the bombs didn't end up working for the most part, either not detonating or detonating harmlessly
they also had knives actually but ended up killing themselves before using them
>Legalize murder and bulling will practically vanish.
if murder was legal someone would kill you for making such a stupid fricking post
not sure if they would also spray into a crowd and murder everyone around you, or try to level whatever building you were in. depends how crazy they are i guess
I'm not saying they are justified and did nothing wrong, I'm telling you what happens if you push some kids for to long and then you see what happens. The bullies created this problem in the first place and like a runaway fire it consumed a lot.
>did the teacher bully them?
They are responsible for not stopping the bullying so YES the entire administration of the school is the most responsible for this.
>did all 31 people they shot at bully them?
Prove they did not. At best you get what I was telling you a bully created a runaway fire and now is crying that the fire not only killed him it killed other bystanders.
The problem is not guns or whatever shit you want to blame it is bullying and schools need to address this issue. Not fricken hide their head in the sand and cry how all the bullies who got killed never did anything wrong.
>did the teacher bully them?
>did all 31 people they shot at bully them?
From the documentary there where more namely the guys who where talking and remembering how they bullied them. How do you explain that one ?
> 21 additional students were injured
What injuries ?
>Oh no I scraped my arm I'm injured how terrible.
>so the original plan was a bombing actually.
My point is that if schools do not address the bullying they have going on then banning guns will not help these kids will use something else rocks or knives or even acid. The problem is bullying.
>if murder was legal
The point is that for 95% of all people they start thinking 50 times before disrespecting someone if they know the other guy can shoot you.
1/2
2/2
>not sure if they would also spray into a crowd and murder everyone around you, or try to level whatever building you were in. depends how crazy they are i guess
What a comical fantasy land you live in, people like you describe are what 0.0000001% of the population ? Sure this happens however this one guy quickly gets shot by others with guns and the problem solves itself.
>also spray into a crowd and murder everyone around you,
Yet all these cases involve people who
A) Planned it all
B) Chose targets who have wronged them
C) Targeted these people or people involved in the same school institution.
And more and more cases involve these killers targeting people who bullied them. Explain that one.
> It would have been a lot more feasible to kill them with a gun.
Maybe maybe.
Look up knife attacks in the UK etc.
>to the fact that I couldn't possibly chase down enough of the kids I hated with a knife,
I mean they planed it with guns and did not manage to shoot all of them. SO....
> I could realistically only burn down one of their houses before
Lol you do not know that fire bugs can be on the loos for years and burn down 100s of homes before the police gets them. This requires knowledge how to be a good fire bug however.
Watch and learn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Leonard_Orr
>His modus operandi was to set fires using an incendiary timing device, usually comprising a lit cigarette with three matches wrapped in ruled yellow writing paper and secured by a rubber band, in stores while they were open and populated.
I know however comical in implications.
If anything like this happened in reality (criminals blasting rockets into buildings like it is nothing) it would make for a national tragedy and occupy the ATF.
?t=23
>/tg/ in general has a really bad case where they want completely opposite things to exist simultaneously.
It's almost as if the board is inhabited by people with different opinions.
No, many threads are founded on premises like "I want extremely crunchy combat founded on realism, but sessions take forever and my PCs keep dying. How to fix?"
or
"I want a kitchen sink high-power fantasy dungeon delving game, but my players won't stick to a highly cohesive and dour tone. What do?"
No, it's within in the same sentence, like anon wanting combat to be engaging when he can't even stomach the basic roll to hit.
There are a few. Here's Fellowship's finish them move, which gets close.
>FFG Star Wars, Dark Heresy, Lancer, Warhammer Fantasy, Call of Cthulhu 7e
>Complex
And you're calling other people 80 IQ? Those are all medium-light to medium crunch games. Where's Phoenix Command?
Phoenix Command is like FATAL but safe for work. Dark Heresy represents the complexity ceiling of games you can find groups for nowadays. Whether a given game is a millimetre or a mile above that ceiling is irrelevant.
>Mechanical depth is what keeps a game fun many years into playing it.
no, it allows creation to be fun, but not actually playing it.
>Ideally the game is designed to slowly ramp in complexity, starting simple and instead of just increasing power levels with XP the game uses character advancement to expand and introduce deeper mechanics.
nogamez moment
Yeah, it is called. Gurps
You are like a baby !
Do we look like we are playing a child safe game here ? Are you even trying ?
> Give me mechanically complex and deep systems and make combat fun to both run and play.
I did see some homosexual D&D online and they did enter a pie eating competition. I cringed inside.
I think the worst thing was that they where using their ghastly D&D shit to model that.
I mean hello ? Why not use LDR (Lilith Domino Rex)
That set has a system specifically made to model realistic competitive eating, I mean granted it is for giga perverts however you can cool the stats and the players can like have some restraint.
However who makes a D&D campaign about a pie eating competition ?????
I bet fatal does not even have a mechanic to model how full your stomach is and your hunger and will power levels and have it decrease with food eaten.
>I bet fatal does not even have a mechanic to model how full your stomach is and your hunger and will power levels and have it decrease with food eaten.
it doesn't, but it does force female characters to roll on char gen for death by anorexia
>it doesn't, but it does force female characters to roll on char gen for death by anorexia
Reading that garbage.
>1d100 weeks from now
No seriously.
>Herp derp your character will die in 70 days roll play that
>(because this is how reality works !)
Trash.
in LDR your character would have a psychology meter/stat/value and a body meter and roll if the physical hunger makes them convinced to eat with increases over time.
In like
>roll if you will eat food now
And if the psychological condition is bigger then these values your character does not eat while having a counter of how long they can survive without food or rolling against starvation.
Also three would be conditions that decrease the psychological state like making eating food more interesting or getting motivated by other characters.
You know modeling reality.
It is comical that LDR manages to be more realistic then FATAL.
>1d100
What is this guys obsession with a d100 ? It is not even realistic in this case. It is more like the fates decided that your character will die of starvation and literally nothing can change this VS actually modeling a character with the mental disorder of anorexia.
Actually a anorexia game like this sounds great good idea to include in something like a cthulhu based game where psychological disorders can get you killed.
>Trash.
Can you imagine hating on FATAL?
>Can you imagine hating on FATAL?
No I'm only commenting how bad of an idea it is to basically have this unrealistic way to resolve anorexia while the game prides itself to be le realistic.
The setting of fatal looks interesting to bad it triggered SJWs so hard the guy who made it was bullied away.
FATAL came out and was ridiculed long before SJWs were a thing. It’s just terrible from a purely mechanical point of view, politics aside.
Only the last one
>imitation
Is somewhat of a problem, and even that not as much, it's a working method of showing setting elements mechanically.
>Things that hold back the hobby in your opinion.
40k
and I do mean 40k as a whole holds back the hobby.
Due to the nature of the miniature gaming hobby needing other players, only popular games can survive, so 40k goes into self serving feedback loop that make people think the game has any merit.
This bleeds into other awful things like "yourdudes" where people dismiss any game without explicit customization when no game actually dissuades that. Or mistakenly thinking that TLOS is actually a good rule.
Picture.
Not if you play S.S.O.D. (literally anything in that system is a gun on legs, while it struggles with swords) The gun or weapons determine the stats, change the gun and the characters stats change (gun on legs). And the damage is always fixed to the gun (gun on legs) and the values are decreased in precision in like how familiar the character is with this gun etc (gun on legs).
>Flat HP for calculating damage
>Abilities that just give damage increases that trigger either in certain situations and are just a special type of damage
>Classes that try to enforce a flavor of a certain setting on what you can and can't do
>Treating XP and levels as a core game mechanic while the PC's are supposed to act and pretend as if power levels don't exist at all
>Just because a certain race, magic, class or job exists in your setting it doesn't have to be PC accessible.
>"The player is always right" mentality
>"If it is fun allow it" mentality because fun is a false god
>Everyone is too scared to move away from dwarves, elves and halflings and other fantasy tropes.
The biggest one of all though is the player base itself thinking everything has to be wacky then getting mad their character died doing something stupid and how the DM didn't bail them out.
morons who think of it as a singular umbrella category that can be marketed to.
morons who then buy the hobby as a lifestyle choice.
D100 roll under skill systems with degrees of success and failure are objectively better than the d20 system. But popular culture catching on to the hobby has kept it from evolving for decades.
>D100 roll under skill systems
Only possible with virtual dice.
and?
>and?
Remember tradition.
>and?
Ganker is this way
>Wrong board
>Only possible with virtual dice.
Explain. Can't you roll two d10 and check if the result is higher or lower than your skill number without your calculator?
not him, and you can, but dice probability goes out the window, it’s not a % system at that point
>it’s not a % system at that point
What is it then? If your skill is 70 you got 70% to succeed on a generic roll.
not with 2d10 you don’t, you need a single dice for that to be the case, that’s the point
If you take a number from one d10 and write it down next to a number from the second d10 you'll get a number varying from 00 to 99, all with equal chance (1/100 aka 1%), which you can use to represent your percentage based roll.
I can't understand what's so difficult about this.
00-99 is not the same distribution as 1-100
That's why you use 00 to represent 100. Have you never rolled a d100 in your life or am I being baited?
you’re just bad at math
if 10/2 is less than 2/10 and 10/10, you displaced a result and no longer have 70% to hit under 70
>if 12 is less than 20 and 100 you're wrong
Well, okay, I guess.
yes, moron
chart the distribution
Okay, man, I genuinely trying to help you understand so if you're trolling me you should feel ashamed.
Just answer me this. What's the probability you roll 70 or less with this 2 d10 roll?
chart it or frick off, brainlet
>cannot answer a simple question
no, u, gay.
not that anon, before you get asspy.
That's not a hard question. Okay, you may be beyond my help. But if you'll have time, reread this thread when you're not drunk or high or moronic or whatever you are right now.
If you chart it it's literally a flat line, because every result has the exact same likelihood
it’s not a matter of linearity of distribution, it’s a matter of distribution of results against a target number, ie the mean, not the average that is pertinent to the discussion
the gay is just too dumb to understand this
the mean of d10 tens place and d10 ones place is 50.5, or in integers, 50 and 51. this is because there's absolutely no weighting and 50.5 is in the middle of 1 and 100.
if you roll targeting equal to or under:
>70
70% chance
>50
50% chance
>1
1% chance
>100
100% chance
jfc chart out the rolls as [d10][d10] and count out the results under X if you have to just stop posting stupid shit
>literally too moronic to understand percentages
lol
you’re not fooling anyone, you’re plainly afraid of facing reality and looking at a chart as a monument to your intellectual inferiority
I don’t even blame you, I blame the system that allowed you to be as you are
>STILL too moronic to understand percentages
lol
x=y=0
while x<10:
while y<10:
print(x, y)
y+=1
x+=1
y=0
0 0
0 1
0 2
0 3
0 4
0 5
0 6
0 7
0 8
0 9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
2 8
2 9
3 0
3 1
3 2
3 3
3 4
3 5
3 6
3 7
3 8
3 9
4 0
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
4 5
4 6
4 7
4 8
4 9
exactly, glad you figured it out
>can't even read the graph
fricking lol
I see the next task on the agenda is teaching you what a graph is
>doesn't even know what a graph is
lol
sorry about your iq
>he doesn't know what a diagram is
lol
sweaty, this is embarrassing
>he doesn't know that a number is a simplified drawing of a more complex concept, as is a series of numbers
lol
>moronic esl high school dropout
>I-I was merely pretending to be moronic
lol cope harder brainlet
>realizes that numbers are a shortened diagram representation of a pile of things, gets salty, begins flailing
lol
I understand you’re confused because diagram probably means two grams or something in your monkey language, but seriously, learn english before posting
Did you two idiots just argue about manually typing out something you can just use anydice for? You're trying to argue who's smarter when both of you are too dumb to know not to try to reinvent the wheel. Like Egg Shen said,
>a strong man likes to feel nature on his face, Jack
>yeah but a wise man knows to get in out of the rain!
Found it, close enough
>Did you two idiots just argue about manually typing out something you can just use anydice for?
i didn't manually type the result
it's coded input and output. not on anydice but on repl.it in python
normally it would be stupid to make a script that literally just counts but the dude has been asking for it for an hour
you'd think
>00-99 is not the same distribution as 1-100
>That's why you use 00 to represent 100
that should be enough. and yet here we are
My guy, you will never win an argument with a moron, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you on experience.
Reddit quote
you could have just made this graph
https://anydice.com/program/29ce0
understand my man can't read numbers and need pictures
5 0
5 1
5 2
5 3
5 4
5 5
5 6
5 7
5 8
5 9
6 0
6 1
6 2
6 3
6 4
6 5
6 6
6 7
6 8
6 9
7 0
7 1
7 2
7 3
7 4
7 5
7 6
7 7
7 8
7 9
8 0
8 1
8 2
8 3
8 4
8 5
8 6
8 7
8 8
8 9
9 0
9 1
9 2
9 3
9 4
9 5
9 6
9 7
9 8
9 9
Rolled 3, 7 = 10 (2d10)
holy shit lmao
you roll the 2d10
the first one gives you a tens digit. the second gives you a ones digit. 00 is read as 100.
there are exactly 100 options, each with a 1% chance
>with degrees of success
You can do that with a d20 too.
lol yeah that's granularity OMG BOYS I got a 20! I know I roll 400 dice a session and its a 5%chance but POGGERS!
Die in a fire
>has to spam the natty 20 meme because he can't justify his shit take
>has never actually played a d20 game with degrees of success
lol
lmao
I actually play games with both and D100 feels worse every time, and it IS worse the more you think about it.
Im sure you play all the games
>I actually play games with both and D100 f
>D100 roll under skill systems
Byron Hall smiles.
>Byron Hall smiles
Rolling for circumference!
didn't actually roll
Mother fricker
Rolled 87, 73 = 160 (2d100)
Rolling for circumference!
>Rolling for circumference!
You are like a baby. Are you even trying ?
3d6 roll under with degrees of success is the best resolution mechanic. Modifiers become more interesting, and the results fall inside a normal distribution. The numbers stay very manageable too, with 10 pretty much in the middle
>The curve is more even but even less granularity.
>degrees of success
okay moron
Considering the direction that DnD 5e is going, the hobby needs to be held back more.
Only issue is bad players and the DnD monopoly
Bell Curve > Dice Pool = D100 > any 1dX resolution
A focus on modern day, United States identity politics that have no place in fictional media and fantasy media is literally holding the hobby back. Nobody examines mechanics any more, they just psychoanalyze the phrasing and portrayals in the works, and construct judgements based purely on their assumptions.
Games that are hard or impossible to play alone.
>most actions should be tied to feats instead of being an available option from the start
D&D doesn't do that
>Systems often try to cover all possible situations, as ruselt it Jack of all trades, master of none
I'm confused what you mean by this. Most systems I've read go the opposite direction, there will be one mechanical subsystem (usually combat but now and then you'll get something else) that's the main focus of the entire game, usually with an entire chapter dedicated to it alone and then everything else gets a couple of bells and whistles.
Christ they're still going
>Things that hold back the hobby in your opinion.
D&D as a whole. D&D is holding back the hobby. It dominates market share and table space. It consumes all humor and in jokes. It's somehow the most successful game in RPG history and it's still largely a thing that normies can't even begin to understand, despite the concept of RPGs being really fricking simple.
Because D&D is such a piss poor game written and designed by moronic homosexuals, it has created this massive outpouring of talent and dedication that is all wasted on trying to fix and modify and upgrade D&D with tons of homebrew and none of it fricking works. Discovering good homebrew is fricking impossible because there's too damned much D&D third party content.
So you've got people throwing away their lives trying to make it big shilling new classes or new monsters or tweaked rules for encumbrance or whatever other dumb bullshit they think they can improve, and all it's doing is reinforcing D&D's Fortress of moronation, further entrenching the game as this all consuming black hole that is dragging people further away from other games, from investing their time in better aspects of the hobby. Instead, it's just fricking D&D. All the goddamned time. D&D and only D&D, forever.
And that's not even getting into the shit that D&D has done to players. The way it makes them moronic murderhobos who can only think of RPGs in terms of builds and spell exploits and getting that next magic item. It makes people obsessed with "balance" but balance in D&D means not letting anyone outshine anyone else, even at the things they're supposed to be good at. Can't have the fighter be too good at killing anything!... but hey, the wizard can only cast 5 of those 10d10 AOE Frick All Your Shit Up Spells a day, so it's fair!
Frick D&D and everything it's done to this hobby.
In your view, what is the quintessential RPG. If its not D&D what would you slide over to someone and say ''This is the best one, play it''
There are coupple free candidates:
http://www.halfmeme.com/nicotinegirls.html
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/170294/Risus-The-Anything-RPG
They may not be the best RPGs out there (odds are the best one is not available in english and only known to few thousand tops), but they would do.
@pic
actually, it's more like this:
Lvl 1 char firing an ordinary projectile weapon:
?t=82
Lvl 20 char firing an ordinary projectile weapon:
?t=56
or, to put it more succinctly...
?t=416
Trying to compete with storytelling mediums. Technically it's way more appealing to have a real story with real characters in a real world than playing as 5 random dudes raiding a random goblin fortress, and by all means it does feel fresh for a while, but soon enough it's evident that even a videogame RPG does a better job at it. Why? Because no matter how good the GM is, you will never have 5 players who will approach the game cohesively with the same mindset. Stuff like Critical Role doubled down on this delusion but it was there long before then. The entire hobby is built on a delusion of itself. There's OSR but in the era of videogames it makes little sense to play that because it's straight up obsolete.
Most of the problem lies with D&D, which to this day, drags the rotten corpse of Gygax's wargaming autism into the present day, making people believe that the ideal "story" and format for any RPG is to be a band of grave robbing lunatics who hang out in old tombs stabbing anything that moves or doesn't, all while simulating a really shitty camping trip with minimal supplies.
You can tell damned near any kind of story with an RPG, but you need the right mindset and your group needs to be on the same page. However, because D&D has poisoned the collective consciousness, most people in the hobby believe all games are like D&D and are thus about murderhoboing, getting loot, and acting like buttholes.
>and of grave robbing lunatics who hang out in old tombs stabbing anything that moves or doesn't, all while simulating a really shitty camping trip with minimal supplies.
Based.
RPGs aren't for telling stories. Stop trying to drag some poor bastards through your unpublishable novel.
Exactly! The G in RPG stands for game. It’s a dungeon exploring, treasure looting game. If you want to give your playing pieces names and personalities and histories, that’s your deal and you should enjoy that. But the only kind of stories that are compatible with D&D are the ones you tell about the game after the game is over. Anything else is, as this guy says, dragging some poor bastards through your shitty fantasy novel.
With literacy this poor it's no wonder you can't get your novel published.
Tell me how far up your ass Wil Wheaton has been while you play Fiasco?
>You can tell damned near any kind of bad story with an RPG
yeah
>but you need the right mindset and your group needs to be
not gonna happen
Mostly, people losing their shit at new people for only knowing D&D
It's the most popular system by an amount it doesn't deserve but when people who want others to play something else get shitty at people for only knowing D&D those people decide NOT to play with that guy and go back to playing D&D without seeking out other stuff.
If you want to get new people to do non-new people things, you have to be prepared to tolerate a level of noobiness you would otherwise find abhorrent
If you just want to b***h, continue as the board usually does and respond talking about how D&D is too popular or say something about critical role or whatever.
Ultimately, it's like getting mad at a fat guy at the gym for being fat and not knowing how to exercise and then complaining about how people are so fricking fat.
Maybe he shouldn't be fat - and he should definitely know how to exercise.
But making the place where he can learn shit for him isn't going to help either of you.
People dont do this and thats a complete strawman. People lose there shit when people act like D&D is the only rpg that exists and refuse to play anything else.
>People dont do this
It happens all the time. If you point out that you're willing to learn other systems, you get shat on in the gamefinder
Keep in mind though that the monsters in such games tend to increase to match your level as well, so the 1st level skeleton you meet in that dungeon will be a 20th level skeleton if you approach it later, making the fight with your super gun exactly the same level of danger. Makes leveling up pretty pointless in the long run in these type of games.
OPs pic related ruined Cyberpunk 2077 for me in a big way. Low level/early game 10 shotgun blasts to the face do nothin, high level single punch obliterates anything. Fun environment/story though.
Castergays are morons. A level is a measure of power. It is much like taking a temperature. You can look at two characters of the same level, no matter the class, and say "I can expect a similar amount of ability in violence and possibly utility from these two."
All you're really advocating for is a much higher level cap for magic casters. So somewhere along the line, the dm just looks at the martials and says "Okay, no more exp for you guys. You're done."
The whole argument is made worse by the fact that caster supremacy has been argued to death since 3.5 and the reasoning in favor of caster surpremacy is always just pure moronic autism. It's always based on some vague idea of what western fantasy is supposed to be, based on nothing but D&D itself.
>D&D says fighty men with swords are weaker than wizards, therefore any fiction that has fighty men with swords be almost as effective as wizards is wrong and bad and dumb
Meanwhile, fantasy fiction has had isekai stories and magic swords and superhero characters that predate the first castles and knights ever existing in Europe. And even after that, all the pulp fiction and other books that actually inspired D&D were wild as frick, but still we get autists today insisting that D&D fantasy is the best and only fantasy and that deviating in any way, such as making wizards less fricking obnoxious, is unacceptable.
>making wizards less fricking obnoxious
While I totally agree, I favor buffing fight men to the anime jumping, mountain cutting, over the top strong badasses at higher levels. It's not realistic, but neither are wizards.
Wizards need to be tuned back, either way and be given less "frick your entire campaign" spells, but yeah. Making fighty men less boring is the ideal too.
Politics and consoomers
The oppressive social footprint. D&D requires a huge time and energy commitment to play.
>time to get a new player up to speed
>time to spin up a new game of experienced players, including planning, session 0, character creation
>number of players needs to be held between 3 and 7 to avoid an awful experience
>length of a single game session -- 3+ hours, sometimes up to 6 or even 8
>length of a campaign -- months or years
>necessity to attend each event -- no balance if a player drops out
>time commitment to DM due to campaign planning
>time spent reading the PHB on your own
>time spent creating a well built, compelling player character
>etc etc
In some sense, all of these are good, because we're all autists who love obsessing over our hobby. But in a more meaningful sense, they hold us all back from playing. They hold back new players who are told to read the entire PHB and spend hours making their characters. They hold back our ability to run one shot sessions instead of playing some random awful board game. They stop us from organizing online playgroups because everyone on the internet is a flake. They burn out DMs who feel like they need to spend hours preparing for next week's session.
I dont know what the solution is, but imagine a TTRPG that you could spin up, create characters, and run quickly in a single afternoon. Something that you could do instead of playing fricking Catan for the billionth time. Something with enough depth that experienced players could enjoy and with a simple enough core ruleset that you could get new players playing quickly. Cutting down on the required social footprint of D&D would do wonders.
I can disagree with none of this. The mental barrier that comes with the time investment is massive. I'd even argue that D&D is partially responsible because it has gotten people so used to the idea that every RPG needs to be 3-15 books, and in those books, there needs to be way more information than you will ever actually need in addition to that information being undesirable to seek out when you might need it.
Most other systems are not hard to learn, but there is that mental barrier there that haunts everyone and resurfaces memories of learning D&D for the first time. Being overwhelmed by the hundreds of pages of material. The daunting task of running a game, remembering rules, and using everything in those books. It makes people fear new games when they really shouldn't.
>but imagine a TTRPG that you could spin up, create characters, and run quickly in a single afternoon.
I've done exactly this at gaming conventions. Taught, played, and wrapped up whole modules in a 4 hour slot. Learned and played a new game in a couple hours. It's entirely doable, you just need to shake your brain free of the D&D-induced idiocy that convinced you and your group that anything simpler than a 6 hour session where 4 of those hours consist of one combat encounter is somehow inferior to playing something that takes less time to learn. And it doesn't have to be FATE or some diceless generic system.. Just grab some notecards and a handful of dice. You can slap together a game in minutes and make up the rest as you go.
I agree with your post. D&D, while honestly a great game, should not be the game we introduce noobies to by default, nor should it be the game we reach for by default. We need the ability to play a game quicky, without the oppressive social and time requirements that most players put up with. We need to take a look at what stops us from being able to play -- and let's be honest there's a lot -- and do our best to remove them.
Take, for example, Here to Slay. Its a card game about building a team of heroes and battling monsters by rolling dice and adding numbers to the result. Here to Slay is very similar on its basic premise to D&D and other TTRPGs. Its al very easy to get into, you dont need to be an expert to play, and the social footprint is small. I've played it with people who would NEVER play D&D, and played it with people who play D&D but dont have time to run a one shot, because running a one shot is an insane amount of work.
Here to Slay is also garbage compared to TTRPG's. The gameplay is "Look ma, I played a card." It completely lacks the richness, imagination, and team dynamics of any TTRPG. Why are we playing a terrible card game about being a hero, slaying monsters and collecting loot, when we could be playing something way better in the form of a TTRPG? The answer is how oppressive it is to run the most popular TTRPGs.
I wouldn't say D&D is a great game, but yeah.
>hey I want to have everyone over for dinner
>first we're going to need to get everyone over to my house for a planning night so we can decide what we're eating
>and then we'll go shopping for all the ingredients
>and then next week we'll all get together and I'll cook all the food once everyone arrives and is seated at the dinner table
>and we'll do this every week!
>it will be fun!
Ha, for sure. This is the approach of DMs who don’t want to play D&D as much as they want to drag people through their brilliant idea for an epic fantasy novel. Which seems to be most of them.
A good DM has a short premade dungeon and pregens that he hands out, explaining that there’s actually more of a process to making characters but that’s for another time. He sets the scene. He asks the players what they want to do. They tell him. If there’s a conflict or challenge involved, he gives them a die and tells them to roll it, then tells them what happens. No explaining the mechanics at all. Sometimes he can tell a player, “Oh, by the way, since you are a wizard, you can cast a light spell once a day, which does X.” Fudge it in the name of fun. Hell, for casters, just give them a list of the spells they know, names only, and let them creatively interpret the spell effects and make it happen. Make D&D fun again.
>Imitation of Dnd, more precisely imitation of principle that most actions should be tied to feats instead of being an available option from the start
Have you tried playing Shadow of the Demon Lord?
When people make an interactive cyoa neocities and they don't include a button that makes it sandbox mode and unlimited choices and points.
When they do however, they are insanely BASED. huge respect.
The things holding back the hobby are the rpg incels. Only wargaming chads push the hobby to greater heights.