Why does this comic trigger /tg/ so hard? All's it does is literally just highlight the fact that TTRPG's were never designed for absolute rules-adherence, and the fact that the only people who get upset over not absolutely adhering to rules are competitive morons that miss the point of the game in the first place.
TTRPGs developed out of miniature war games though D&D almost immediately dropped the miniatures. It’s basically war games on a 1 to 1, squad based tactics scale
there's way more to it than that
That reminds me, how well does the newish D&D skirmish game work? I was excited because there was supposed to be a way to run a kobold tribe, but then I heard that not only are kobolds just monsters the two players compete to kill more of, but you have to play with >premade adventurer parties so I immediately lost all interest
>D&D
It's shit.
And? Nothing you said contradicts OP.
>It’s basically war games on a 1 to 1, squad based tactics scale
Well, no. It didn't technically come out of "wargames" per-se. It came out of a "role-playing" wargame scenario where there was no actual combat. The idea came from Braunstein, which was more experimental than it was a "tactical wargame". It was more of a political/social strategy game than a wargame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunstein_(game)
Wargames are hundreds of years old dumbass
....................Re-read my post and then reply to me like you aren't a sub-80 IQ moronic mongrel, thank you.
>Why does this comic trigger /tg/ so hard?
Because other than being a "i am silly" tier strawmanned scenario needs 14 fricking panels to drive some vague point home. It's as low quality as you can get.
>other than being a "i am silly" tier strawmanned scenario
IE, every single satirical comic ever.
Find better satirical comics.
The existence of satire itself as a concept is dependent on mocking your opponent's position....
Of course but that doesn't absolve the author from exercising poignancy, wit and brevity.
Actually it does. L + ratio.
>Actually it does
No, it just makes for low quality bullshit akin to a quarrel between children.
>L + ratio
I guess you make a study case yourself.
Exactly why satirical comics are dogshit. But depicting both sides as silly? Now that's fricking chad shit.
Ok David
Who's David?
Slightly better
The rules of a game create points of decision based on strength, skill, and/or luck. It's an agreement made between players and referee, regardless of whether you're playing competitively or cooperatively. If you don't adhere to the rules and just go off of whim, there is no consistency, there are no stakes, anything can just happen for any reason.
If you have fun with that, that's fine, but it isn't a game.
>If you don't adhere to the rules and just go off of whim, there is no consistency, there are no stakes, anything can just happen for any reason.
Who's to say that your new rule is not consistent? You're using motte and bailey fallacies because your argument is moronic.
Because to be consistent it had to be established beforehand. His argument isn't moronic, yours is.
>Because to be consistent it had to be established beforehand
So then he is 100% consistent? You lose, thanks for playing.
>appeal to authority
>appealing to an authority that encourages rulings based on whim when it's already been pointed out that an activity based on whim isn't a game
have a nice day.
>objectively disproves him
>K-K-K-have a nice day
OP proving his point every time he makes one of these threads.
This.
The only reason morons don't complain about it is because their daddy DM does good things for them. If the situation were different, they'd be singing a different tune.
Never read that shitty comic, I don't know what that image is supposed to represent.
>based on a whim
The DM is the referee, it's not based on a whim, it's based on how the DM best thinks a certain action should pertain to their setting and the group's playstyle. If you can't comprehend that, then maybe TTRPG's just aren't for you.
Why did you buy a rulebook if you're not going to use it?
But I am using the rulebook. I just cited it. You're the one who didn't read it and is now making up rules.
nah you're making up rules moron
>Why did you buy a rulebook if you're not going to use it?
Not an answer.
It is but you're free to cope.
It isn't, and you're coping.
>If you change ANYTHING about the game, you're not using the rulebook at all!
Actual room temp IQ logic.
I'm right moron
No you aren’t.
yeah I am
In what way?
every way 🙂
So you are just shitposting. Good to know I’m right and you’re wrong.
mad and wrong 🙂
You are factually, provably, objectively incorrect.
nope you are
Your statement was
>why did you buy a rulebook if you're not going to use it?
When in fact, most people- even those that heavily use house rules- still use parts of the rulebook. Using a fraction of a book is still using it.
In short, you're a moron and you're wrong.
>Never read that shitty comic, I don't know what that image is supposed to represent.
I didn't have any doubts to begin with that you were a disingenuous mongoloid, don't worry anon.
>I haven't read Calvin and Hobbes
>HAH, you're a disingenuous liar!
Cognitive dissonance at its peak.
Black person you just admitted that you knew what that image was about all along, you ARE a disingenuous c**t.
>you just admitted that you knew what that image was
[citation needed]
>[citation needed]
The post i replied to, also even feigning ignorance doesn't plead for your case when every information is at one fricking google search away you fricking twat.
>The post I replied to
Where did I say I knew it? I know of the comic, that doesn't mean I read it. I also know of Superman.
Ok, suits you to be object of unaware ridicule, even when you have all the instruments at your fingertips for avoiding so. I guess is better than admitting that calvinball owns your piece of volatile gygaxian credo, which is even worthless because the man himself changed opinion as easily as breathing multiple times over the course of his life.
you having a stroke or something?
>Random reply #12753906
Ok, i'm arguing with a fricking both, my bad.
lol you can't even speak english
So you CAN read! I had my doubts with that random reply. I guess we have stressed enough the fact you're a disingenuous c**t beyond any reasonable doubt.
>everyone replying to me is the same person
Schizo.
you having a stroke?
>I guess is better than admitting that calvinball owns your piece of volatile gygaxian credo
Except it doesn't. The basis for RPG's existing is the fact that the rules are meant to be open-ended, with the DM/GM acting as a referee, who keeps things consistent.
So you're wrong, basically, in all regards.
>The basis for RPG's existing is the fact that the rules are meant to be open-ended
But it is demanded, sooner or later, to reach a consistency point in ruling. As in having a set of agreed ruling (houserules stemming from rule zero application) for the table to futher the actual 'game'. It's a dynamic, continuos process but for that purpose neither the less.
House-rules are specifically just that, rules designed and allowing for consistency.
I don't abide by the idea that creating Target Numbers of Skill Checks on the fly for complex actions is "making up rules", you're literally using the rules to design ways to resolve player actions. So in regards to the idea that house rules are inconsistent, it relies on a flawed idea of what house-rules are to begin with; when they are clearly rules. The idea that target numbers are inconsistent is flawed since they vary per action, but they are based on the idea of following the book in terms of how to handle target numbers using the characters skills and/or stats.
Essentially, as long as you aren't making up a rule in the middle of the game like "You can't access level 5 spell because you didn't do the hokey pokey", you're abiding by the games core ethos and you are consistent with the rules of the game. Introducing certain house rules when they are applicable to the players is also not inconsistent since they will not have interacted with those rules before said rule was required. Miscommunication is a whole other aspect entirely that has nothing to do with making up rules.
Arbitrating certain rules because of a certain level of vagueness or arguing with the DM for what the intent of a rule is are also different.
There are actually extremely few and rare instances of rules being "made up" on the spot that would necessitate the criticism that you aren't playing by the rules.
>I don't abide by the idea that creating Target Numbers of Skill Checks on the fly for complex actions is "making up rules", you're literally using the rules to design ways to resolve player actions.
Neither do i, but even in this case, you're deemed to reach a "consistency point" sooner or later as in developing a unique method for generating adequate TNs that suits your needs.
>So in regards to the idea that house rules are inconsistent, it relies on a flawed idea of what house-rules are to begin with; when they are clearly rules.
Let's say you have to resolve a situation not covered by the rules, you make something on the spot to keep the flow, then after the game you think about for some time and the next you stumble on the same situation you show the players your improved ruling resolution and the all agree to keep using this ruling thereafter (or until a new edit is required). So an house ruling is created.
>Arbitrating certain rules because of a certain level of vagueness or arguing with the DM for what the intent of a rule is are also different.
But ultimately it is resolved with an house ruling (as in an agreed ruling for that table).
>There are actually extremely few and rare instances of rules being "made up" on the spot that would necessitate the criticism that you aren't playing by the rules.
The criticism of "you're not playing by the rules" stems from inconsistencies in ruling generated by table miscommunication (as you stated). Point is there's always a defitive set of rules that a table will eventually agree upon.
>sooner or later as in developing a unique method for generating adequate TNs that suits your needs.
That's based primarily on the assumption of repeatable actions, which isn't that hard. Even if the target number does vary slightly, you could easily argue the circumstances are different.
> you make something on the spot to keep the flow,
>So an house ruling is created.
That would be an arbitration. A house rule would determine it as a consistent and reoccurring rule.
>Point is there's always a defitive set of rules that a table will eventually agree upon.
And as you've already demonstrated, those "rulings" are subject to change. The key facet here is the difference between a "rule" and an "arbitration".
Target numbers are not rules by themselves. They are arbitrations that rely on pre-existing subsets of rules. The ultimate conceit here is that rules are designed to be a framework within which the GM and players operate cooperatively. The only "inconsistency" is when rules that were previously applied, are changed. House rules introduced and kept that way keeps the game consistent, and the application of them is supported within the text of the game.
>That's based primarily on the assumption of repeatable actions, which isn't that hard. Even if the target number does vary slightly, you could easily argue the circumstances are different.
No i'm talking about the method for picking the TN, to make an example when i was gming 3.5e, when in doubt for the adequate DC to use, i picked 15 and then added +/-2 based on sutuational traits of the scenario.
>That would be an arbitration. A house rule would determine it as a consistent and reoccurring rule.
Yes, that was my point in the example. The gm refined the ruling and the proposed it to the table.
>And as you've already demonstrated, those "rulings" are subject to change.
To be more precise are subject to refinement after extensive playtest.
>The key facet here is the difference between a "rule" and an "arbitration".
arbitration is when recurring to rule zero to solve a situational ambiguity and rule is when the table reference that ruling thereafter.
>Target numbers are not rules by themselves. They are arbitrations that rely on pre-existing subsets of rules. The ultimate conceit here is that rules are designed to be a framework within which the GM and players operate cooperatively.
I agree, that's why i personally tend to prefere scalable and-or flexible rulesystems over rigid ones.
>The only "inconsistency" is when rules that were previously applied, are changed.
In an arbitrary (no pun intended) manner. Look i'm aware that the hyperbolic scenario of the gm altering the rules constantly and inconsistently doesn't actually hapoens in real life (well i could actually make an example over an experience i had with a weird guy that owned my lgs), but my point is that doesn't happen BECAUSE rule zero exist in service of the rulesystem, not to supersede it.
>Never read that shitty comic, I don't know what that image is supposed to represent.
no soul detected, do not engage with this thing anons
>it's based on how the DM best thinks a certain action should pertain to their setting and the group's playstyle
Yes, the DM's whims.
Lucky I had it saved.
>just do whatever you want!
Shit "rule".
Have you tried not playing with DnDetards? They're literally the only ones moronic enough to have autistic meltdowns over this shit.
Because it's moronic.
What point is that comic supposed to eventually make? All of the characters seem to be buttholes and there doesn't seem to be any real conclusion beyond, "don't play with people who don't actually want to play", which /tg/ has been telling you fricking forever.
It's pretty clearly mocking people, namely those on /tg/, who constantly call everything broken, and then complain about house rules to said broken games. The logic is that if the game is broken, then there is no concievable "balance" at play, so house-ruling it should be allowed, and since these people are just narcissists, there is no such thing as a non-broken game, so it effectively falls under every single TTRPG.
Actually there are non-broken games. Sorry you're a tourist with no experience.
In other words, the OP is moronic. Thanks for letting us know.
>call everything broken
>complain about house rules
I haven't seen anyone do both, except where the complaint about house rules boils down to, "I shouldn't have to do the game designer's job for them". Which is not a complaint about house rules, but about their necessity.
>but about their necessity.
Their "necessity" is presupposed on the grounds that the game is broken.
> Why does this comic trigger /tg/ so hard?
You flatter yourself. Just from seeing the thumbnail, people already know it isn't worth reading, and will ignore it without reading a single word.
Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
>Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative
Then go find a different campaign, homosexual, I'm the DM and what I say goes, lmao.
Nah. I'll kick you out of your own house.
I'll kill you for assault, DM'ing my own laws, and the judge will agree with me, turning rules-improvisation into a reality, directly contradicting your shitty argument even in a real-world scenario.
How will coping fa/tg/unts seethe over my post this time?
You'll be dead before you can blink, and so will every cop they send after me.
Correct, the rest of the group and I ARE impinging on your agency as a person. You agreed to it when you entered into a social contract to play a game with us. Every single one of us abrogates a certain amount of freedoms to be able to interact with others by the very nature of social interaction. And in an RPG setting if YOU are the only one having a problem and the rest of us aren't then it's on (You) to convince us to listen to you. And autistic shrieking and saying "the game is bad" isn't an argument. It has to be a holistic argument that's worthy of our time.
If you're not willing to do that then go frick a shovel you slug infested c**t. You're infringing on MY agency to have a good time with people that I like.
Wrong answer. Enjoy your firebomb.
Like most Amerilards, you won't do shit.
Way to out yourself as a no-games, you KHV.
You're not describing you and your group playing a game, you're all just socializing.
>Social Contract
Ugh, stay away you freak.
>Why does this comic trigger /tg/ so hard?
Because most of /tg/ IS the fat bastard in the comic. They're nogames homosexuals because they're so insufferable they get booted quickly from any table they join.
>All's it does is literally just highlight the fact that TTRPG's were never designed for absolute rules-adherence
This upsets /tg/ because most of /tg/ are socially inept morons who care more about winning a cooperative storytelling game than having fun with friends (mostly because they have no friends)
>the fact that the only people who get upset over not absolutely adhering to rules are competitive morons that miss the point of the game in the first place
Yes, nailed it.
>NOO YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE RULES LE ORIGINAL INTENT
vs
>Aw sweet you gave everyone cool new shit and now the game is more fun as a result, thanks GM
Most of /tg/ is the former. Me and my group are the latter.
Yeah that's nice 5e is still shit slop though
>Why does this comic trigger /tg/ so hard?
Cause the comic is wrong?
It's a general board view, and doesn't actually point out specific issues.
>A: "There is a problem"
>B: "Doesn't matter, problem is solved"
>A: "How?"
>B: "Unspecified! You talking about it makes you the new problem!"
If Comic-Dave's "problem" (using D&D as an example) was say something very core:
- He doesn't like the leveling system, having levels at all.
- Doesn't like having classes, not the pre-built classes, classes at all. He wants classless.
- Doesn't like resolving mechanics using a d20.
These are all very core issues. Yeah there are people out there that house rule away those very things, but not within 5-10 min. Comic-DM can't hand wave and say "Oh it was fixed" there is no fixing the above issues. With out a ton of serious work.
A few panels on Comic-Dave being unable to backup his point, but most net-trolls like us absolutely have backup arguments ready to go. And back up for the back ups. Right or wrong, there would be no stuttering silence. Dave would fire back a well constructed reply and they it's Comic-Player1's turn to have a retrot.
Also. Comic-Dave left the building? Very few people would have the self awareness to actually leave. Most would stay and huff in their seat all night long.
>"This is the fourth game we've played"
Ha. Man, if people actually rotated systems that fast you wouldn't have Comic-Dave complaining about a rule being broken, you'd instead have Comic-DM complaining that they settle on a system instead of changing systems so often.
>Making room for my sister
Man, too many people DO NOT have back up players for IRL games. That part is the true fantasy. And those that are luck enough to have a large pool to dip into- they should realize they are luckier than others.
Comic is a nice fantasy for people that just want to shutup and play, but it's written by people who aren't actually listening to other people.
>Man, if people actually rotated systems that fast you wouldn't have Comic-Dave complaining about a rule being broken
I once went from DM'ing a game of D&D, to Call of Cthulhu, to Hunter The Reckoning within 4 weeks of each other, with the same group. It more than you know.
Because you have a mixing of people who play literal wargames, like Warhammer, and those that play more socially driven games like D&D where there is a communal and improvisational aspect to the game at play.
Naturally you tend to have overlap, and the people who play wargames, at least some of them, cannot seem to comprehend the fact that the rules are maleable and they assume that the objective in the TTRPG is to reach max level and "win the game" (despite there technically not actually being a max level).
Rulebooks lay out the groundwork as guidelines in TTRPG's. It is assumed, by virtually everyone who plays them, that they can be changed, adjusted, or removed entirely. Obviously no DM is going to say "Your longsword does 0 damage because I say it does even though you rolled a crit and confirmed it", at least not without an appropriate reason, such as there being an illusion or some form of blockage that stops the attack or the damage.
If I have a Monk character who flips a table into the air and then kicks said table while it's in the air into a group of enemies, well there are no rules for that, in any edition of D&D. But it would be the DM to determine my action. Saying I can't do that specifically because there are no rules is not an adequate response, since there are no rules for breathing in the game either, but we assume the players are always doing that as well.
What gets me is the "no i already got someone else lined up" shit at the end. I could write a paragraph of my psychoanalysis on it but have ultimately decided not.
>I-I'M THE DM I CAN CHANGE THE RULES WHENEVER I WANT CUZ I SAY SO
ok, go rob a store and when the cops try to arrest you just say
>oh sorry officer I'm the dm that rule that says I can't steal? Yeah I'm removing that rule do I'm not cheating I didn't break and rules you can't arrest me teehee :3
and see how that works out for you
Probably the most moronic argument ITT
Genuine moron.
>I'M A PALADIN, I KILL EVIL-DOERS
Okay, go kill a politician and when the cops try to arrest you just say
>I AM A PALADIN, I DETECTED HE WAS EVIL AND KILLED HIM! What, you don't know? I know Detect Evil!
>Being the DM and changing the rules of the game.
>VS
>Not being the DM, breaking the rules and then retroactively claiming you are the DM
You really don't know how to make an analogy.
>you having a stroke?
so yes?
not going to read your comic no matter how many times you spam it.
too many panels, too much text, and i know exactly how it goes, the fat moron representing Opinions You Don't Like gets madder and madder reacting to the perfectly sharp self-insert that speaks in a very plummy, try-hard autists manner
I'll just say this.
Most communities don't agree on house-rulings because it "unbalances" the game.
Now what I don't understand is how the frick you can think that it's balanced to give invisibility and animate objects to casters at low-levels.
Your games are NOT balanced, but even so they will sperg and rip out their asses if someone even suggests to add armor reduction or something minor like that as a house-rule.
>hytnpdnd
Yes, I have.
Im not reading the whole thread, why was op mad enough to make an "i am silly" comic?
BTFO'd by superior players
How embarassing
>OP makes a bait thread
>Over 100 replies
Every time with this shit.
/tg/ the g stands for Ganker
Nobody even posted hilarious edits from the same thread he made before.
You're a pussy for not posting THIS pls mod don't ban me pls
>Why does this comic trigger /tg/ so hard
[citation needed]