Thread 96400916

>I move and attack
>I got a 17
>that hits
>it does... 7 damage
>what kind?
>bludgeoning
>ok
>robert it's your turn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRRd8mYLTKQ

>>96400916 (OP)
I wish my party's turns were this fast.
>mage spends 20min waffling about which spell to use
>casts fireball again
>every time

dice

Cool shit and rule of cool is the soccer that goes on top of a nice dish of efficient combat, it shouldn't be all you have ever. Allow for creativity, sure, my players once used their weapons to flick burning embers into a bugbear's face, and then slit him across the eyes with advantage, blinding gun permanently, that was great

>>96400916 (OP)
This video literally acknowledges that mental gymnastics are a core skill for playing D&D, Lmao.

dice

>>96401632
>the soccer that goes on top of a nice dish

>>96401632
>the soccer that goes on top of a nice dish of efficient combat,

yall fixating on soccer but not the fact that the guy's right hand was off by one key and turned "him" into "gun", which is actually kind of neat

>>96401632
Except that only happened because the GM allowed it.
If you were a playing a better system the GM wouldn't need to make combat "cooler" by allowing non-standard stuff because the system would just allow you natively to slice an enemy's eyes or something.

>>96400916 (OP)
Buy an ad, you avatar-posting faggot

>>96401834
>>96402081
My b, was phoneposting (autocorrect) and half asleep, meant to say spice

>>96402373
Why are you such a slave to EXACTLY what is on your character sheet? Rules can't cover every fucking thing, and should be strong guidelines rather than iron limits

your combats shouldn't be boring in the first place. yapping can't replace good design

>>96403430
Please provide a hypothetical example of 'good design' combat, for whatever system you please, that is completely removed from 'yapping' (aka, descriptive narration of the events therein)

I actually want to see what you think that means and how it would be done.

Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be playing D&D where it takes forever to kill something in combat and only spellcasters can have versatility in battle.

Not watching your slop

>>96400916 (OP)
I find it faster if everyone has to describe what they want to do first before rolling.

Less forgetting who did what and didnt do what.

>>96403622
Spellcasters are usually the slowest because of their “versatility”

>>96400916 (OP)
Looks like you forgot to present a topic of discussion.

>>96403378
Why do we have character sheets if we're not supposed to use them?
Why are you using rules that you have to ignore to have fun? Wouldn't it be better to use rules that enhance fun, instead of getting in the way of it?

>>96403378
>Why are you such a slave to EXACTLY what is on your character sheet? Rules can't cover every fucking thing, and should be strong guidelines rather than iron limits

The point of putting rules in place is to follow them and you absolutely can create rules that allow you to do interesting things in combat. If you can improvise a rule for something on the fly then you could have absolutely had that rule already in place.

>>96403693
Slow combat is only seen as a negative because in dnd combat is something you're forced to get through rather something you enjoy doing. If combat were fun and exciting its length would be unimportant.

>>96401649

No other boardgame community has to put up with this crap.

>>96403788
But could a system feasibly already have a rule in place for every possible improvisation? Isn't it more reasonable to just have baseline rules for the most common occurrences and then have some methods to improvise, which is usually just a dice roll anyways?

>>96401003
My last campaign turned into that but only because everytime we tried to be creative (not in an abusing way), the DM who didn't wnat to be bothered with all that was just saying "that doesn't work"/"that seems too strong".
So yeah, uninteresting projectile again and again.

>>96403588
>that is completely removed from 'yapping' (aka, descriptive narration of the events therein)
obviously the encounter is still narrated, and a good GM brings scenes to life. But the GM's job isn't to make sound effects with his mouth or fill silence with words.

bad combat:
>0 real stakes, 0 chance of anyone important dying
>homogenous goblins or bandits; optimal solution is to whack enemies until dead
>flat terrain with some token trees or boulders
>enemies will fight to the death for no reason

good combat:
>potential for death or disaster every round
>mix of high/low enemies; enemies use abilities and the environment; rewards for employing counter tactics and prioritizing enemies
>dynamic terrain with treacherous features and positional advantages
>enemy group breaks and runs as soon as they fail a morale check

Thinking is NOT a free action. You can't sit and think for 20 minutes irl during a 6 second in game turn.
Players get 15 seconds each to decide what they want to do (rolling and adding doesn't count)

>>96403827
>I flick the ember off my blade into his face and then stab his eye
>Ok roll d20 with advantage
>I grab a fistful of sand off the ground and then stab him in his less armored weapon arm.
>Ok roll d20 with advantage
>I approach from behind and put him in a chokehold
>Ok roll d20 with advantage

Why the FUCK would I want to just describe shit when it doesn't make a meaningful difference what I am doing?

>>96403827
not every improvisation, but rules for many things can easily enough cover many improvisations (i.e. rules for damage from fire outside of magical attacks makes burning the barn an option, fall damage rules let you push the bbeg off a cliff, rules for taking damage from falling objects will lead to someone cutting down the chandelier), and it's better to have rules for these sorts of things in the system rather than in the GM because the GM already has enough on their plate without also having to design a fucking physics engine to handle the players setting a grease fire under an owlbear.

>>96401649
>making things up is a good skill when playing pretend
...yeah

>>96404006
Then why buy the book, dice, and figures?

>>96404006
TTRPGs are board games. they have rules and systems dictating how they are played. The game underneath must still be fun when you play it without the jazz.

>>96404042
>>96404054
Rules are not the game. Rules are not a substitute for a game. Rules do not run a game. (YOU) run a game. (YOU) use the rules to help you do that.
The entire tabletop game, the rules, the dice, are just to give structure to your game of make believe. Rules can be changed or ignored at will if (YOU), the human running the game, thinks it will improve the experience.

Autists are unable to understand this, and so rigidly follow the exact letter of the rules then complain that they do not cover all cases (they aren't supposed to).

>>96404042
because it's not entirely Pretend.
think of it like an episode of Whose Line Is It Anyway, the games they play in the show set the underlying structure (Hoedown is a musical segment, Newscasters involves everyone getting a character in the made-up news show, etc.) and then they start making everything up.

>>96404079
kinda sounds like you've never run a game in your life, but go off queen

>>96404110
Concession accepted.

>>96404175
>gets accused of never actually having run a game
>has no comeback

>>96403983
Ok, so your issue is with a strawman GMs interpretation of hypothetical improvisations. I'm afraid I can't help you there. Good luck.

>>96403991
I agree with you. I think a lot of systems don't codify enough and those examples are pretty reasonable. I think a lot of systems aren't playtested nearly enough outside the intended bounds to pick up on all the actions players would normally try.
However, I also know there's always going to be a limit of what is covered (especially if the rulebook has a physical copy) and I'd rather just accept that and be prepared the make improvised rulings so my players aren't hemmed in by the system as long as all the expected basics are covered. The system should give you everything you reasonably need, but you should improvise to get everything you want.

>>96403955
So even with good design you still yap.
If you didn't yap about the chasm in the middle of the battlefield or the barroom tables and chandelier and staircase your players would still just [run around, attack, damage].

However, if you yap it up you can make even a fight with goblins and bandits in a flat roadside ambush exciting.

How many times do you think you can feasibly deliver high stakes, death and disaster at every turn, high low ability using enemies with counter tactics on dynamic treacherous terrain with positional advantages in a row? And if you're some kind of fantastic Ref who can do so without fail, how many times do you think it'll take before that good combat becomes rote to the players?

>>96404188
Why would I need a "comeback" to a baseless personal attack that you pulled out of your ass? You couldn't form a coherent argument so you got assblasted and tried to insult my credibility instead.

Concession accepted.

>>96404250
it's not baseless, you sound like you've never run a game in your life based on what you said. only someone who has little-to-no experience running games would make such a stupid assertion. the way you post also supports the idea that you're just some dumb opinionated kid with no experience.

>>96404210
That's not a fucking strawman that's literally how 5E works you idiot.

>>96404285
Embarrassing.

>>96404238
No amount of description makes shit combat entertaining. If it's not interesting described in the most rote way possible, it's not interesting.

>>96404079
It doesn't improve the experience to have to find an invisible extra base in the woods just because I scored a run last time.

>>96404238
I think you're missing the point.

Good GMing isn't:
>keep your players awake by constantly stirring the pot!

Good GMing is:
>give the players content which keeps them naturally engaged and then simply arbitrate the setting as you see fit
>How many times do you think you can feasibly deliver high stakes, death and disaster at every turn, high low ability using enemies with counter tactics on dynamic treacherous terrain with positional advantages in a row?
it's not hard. Play a system where players can actually die. You're the one making the content, so it's trivial to add things like "the goblin packleader rides a blind ogre as a mount" or "the slow dwarven berserkers sic wardogs on their enemies to pin them in place".

>how many times do you think it'll take before that good combat becomes rote to the players?
If dynamic high-stakes encounters are becoming boring to your party, then you've fucking succeeded and there's nowhere else to go. Try doing poker or movie nights for a while instead. Try running a different style of campaign in a new system.

>>96404081
>Whose Line Is It Anyway
That's a show.
The points don't matter.
The host explicitly says the points don't matter.
Who gets the points that don't matter is completely arbitrary, too.
There is no challenge, and no goal; just professional comedians performing professional comedy. Your example sucks.

>>96404407
my post wasn't about the points or any sort of challenge retard, it's about how the cast works off a structure outlined by the various games, in much the same way as TTRPG players work off the underlying structure of the system they're playing in, unless you're the kind of retard who shows up to the nechronica table with an elf paladin

>>96404376
I think you're wrong there, but what's entertaining is subjective.
If you can't be engaged by anything less than a one-roll-away-from-death clusterfuck battle on teetering stone towers above a lava river where exotic creatures fire spells at you from being carried by giant bats, that's too bad for you. Sounds like your brain's fried on video games and needing more and more.

I can be excited by a two turn tussle with a single cloaked assaulter with a dagger flashing in the torchlight in a shadow soaked alleyway if the DM yaps it well.

>>96404381
...then don't do that

>>96404349
>Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, a need for admiration, a lack of empathy, and a heightened sense of self-importance. Individuals with NPD may present to others as boastful, arrogant, or even unlikeable.[1] NPD is a pattern of behavior persisting over a long period and through a variety of situations or social contexts and can result in significant impairment in social and occupational functioning.

>>96404472
The problem isn't the stakes, the problem is that description cannot make something mechanically flat not mechanically flat and that's where interesting combat comes from. You can be the best GM in the world and I'm going to look at you like you're a fucking retard if you're trying to sell 5E combat.

>>96404340
So you have an problem with one games lazy, risk free, catch all rule being used in lieu of improvised rulings that involve the actual actions taken? I guess play another game or play with a GM that makes circumstantial, improvised rulings that involve risk and reward, instead of falling back on a generic dice advantage.

>>96404472
if you're engaged by simple combat encounters, and the rest of the party is too, then nothing is going wrong.

OP's video addresses the question "what do I do when my players are falling asleep during combat?" and the answer is "run better combat."

>>96404501
Well then what's mechanically flat if not my example of like, a single level 4 Assassin standing next to you in a 10' wide alleyway?
Like always, the mechanics are going to be little more than banging dice against each other until one flees, if we look at it most reductively.

>>96404540
The cartoon in OP says you can re-engage your players by being descriptive of what's going on/has happened so far.
Anon said you can't make combat good by yapping, I disagree. In fact I don't think you can make combat good /without/ yapping.

>>96404480
But things like that are permissible by the logic expressed in >>96404079. If the person running the session thinks it's an improvement to the experience, I, as a player, have to be okay with it.
Rather than having a consistent set of rules to meeting the challenges of a game, I instead have to be subject to the whims of someone who could change their mind for any or no reason.
And then, retards like >>96404079 will deflect and say "well find a new group" or "no one would ever do that" as if it excuses the shitty behavior.
I'm sorry that I value my time too much to want to sit at a table and be told "well your 25 for acrobatics doesn't pass on the chandelier swing" when two sessions back a 7 passed, and there's literally no other conditions in play that would make it different this time. Sorry that I want a game, and not just a session to appease some DM's sadism fetish or his failed novel, or his pretending to be Matt Mercer or some other shit irrelevant to games.

>>96404042
Because they look nice on the table

>>96404647
Except I've played games where we were not actually roleplaying at the time and just testing the raw mechanics and they were still fun to engage with. I've done that SOLO and it's still fun with some systems.

>>96404781
>"well your 25 for acrobatics doesn't pass on the chandelier swing" when two sessions back a 7 passed,
I've seen you before. you just have shitty GMs, it's got nothing to do with the system.

>>96404647
>Well then what's mechanically flat if not my example of like, a single level 4 Assassin standing next to you in a 10' wide alleyway?
Whether this is mechanically flat or not depends on the system. If we're playing 5E of course it's going to be shit. But we could be playing a system where he naturally has the ability to fling glass powder in my eyes and there are examples to draw on, or a system where the wounds actually do something other than deplete HP, or he could have supernatural powers to hide and cripple me with ninja magic, or any of a number of things.

>>96404857
The vast majority of GMs do not keep track of every DC they set.

>>96404865
that's fine, you can remind them. If you say "hey, I did the same thing with that same roll last session", then they can say "alright fine, I'll give you this one but I think the first ruling was a mistake so it'll be harder in the future" and then everyone walks away satisfied. If your GM still doesn't give it to you, then they just plain suck.

>>96404781
>I instead have to be subject to the whims of someone who could change their mind for any or no reason.
Yes? What the fuck do you think this is, retard? The GM has absolute power over the game. They could kill and rape all of your characters at any time for any reason they want without your input. This is not the fault of a system, it's just the nature of electing a king nerd to set and arbitrate all rules in your game of make believe.

If you have a problem with how they are running the game, maybe try talking to them instead of sperging out about rules on a laotian dolphin taming forum.

>>96400916 (OP)
We have one player that no matter what system it is takes what feels like an eternity to figure out his turn. Even when we play a system like GURPS, which has a one second one action turn that takes every other member of the party less than a minute to resolve he takes multiple minutes and it infuriates me.

>>96404472
>I can be excited by a two turn tussle with a single cloaked assaulter with a dagger flashing in the torchlight in a shadow soaked alleyway if the DM yaps it well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJNK4VKeoBM

>>96404647
>Like always, the mechanics are going to be little more than banging dice against each other until one flees, if we look at it most reductively.
Yet in practice people have different system preferences.

>>96404887
>If you say "hey, I did the same thing with that same roll last session", then they can say "alright fine, I'll give you this one but I think the first ruling was a mistake so it'll be harder in the future" and then everyone walks away satisfied.
A GM who uses a shitty and arbitrary rule system is more likely to say "Well too bad it doesn't work this time!"
Besides, that makes nobody satisfied because it's just a promise of making rolls inconsistent later. Truth is that arbitrary GMs just suck.

>>96404909
>Yes? What the fuck do you think this is, retard? The GM has absolute power over the game.
No, they don't.
>B-but rule zero says-
Doesn't matter, the players can kick the GM out any time they feel like it. Games are majority rules first and foremost.
The GM is merely given greater permissions and expectations of control in return for shouldering the responsibilities of managing the game world. This does not mean he has absolute control, because if he decides to overstep his boundaries and send the party into the piss wizard's forest, he's going to get punched in the face.

>>96405015
do you actually play games or did this happen once 3 years ago? how long are you going to carry this chandelier chip on your shoulder?

>>96403378
>Plays game with thousands of pages of rules
>Throws out the rules
There are one-page games where you can just do whatever you feel like. Play those instead of wasting everyone's time.

>>96403827
Yes, actually. In Prowlers I can attempt anything I can imagine and there will always be a way to resolve it by the rules.

I fire a bow. A lot. And I struggle to find ways to make that sound interesting.

>>96404079
Games are defined by their rules.

>>96405030
What the fuck are you on about? Did you mistake me for a different anon?

>>96405047
Prowlers?

>>96405061
>jump into the middle of a conversation without reading the thread
>on a completely anonymous imageboard
>"Did you mistake me for a different anon?"
no shit

>>96404407
What do you win in a roleplaying game?

>>96405092
Anon, nowhere did I mention chandeliers in my reply, I stated an obvious observation about GMs that any seasoned player can make.
If you're too retarded to actually distinguish between different posters, that's on you and nobody else.

>>96404472
that's because you're a skirt wearing prancing faggot

>>96404781
No, you don't have to be okay with anything. You can leave the game. Retard.

>>96405105
chandeliers? what the fuck are you talking about anon? did you confuse me for that other guy?

>>96404865
I wouldn't require you to roll to swing on the chandelier at all. Your roll would determine how effective the combat stunt is, not whether you can do it at all.

>>96405132
I accept your concession.

>>96405142
Ah, a concession from you. I accept it.

Nah you lose.

>>96403588
Not that anon, but I'll bite.
Here is a hypothetical combat encounter in GURPS, with no embellishment save the names of what maneuvers are being used.

To keep things short, this will be a battle between Yorick, a large bandit wielding a Great Axe, and Josef, a spearman wielding a Heavy Spear. The combatants start combat with weapons readied, 4 meters away from eachother. Yorick has a Two-Handed Axe/Mace skill of 12, while Josef has a spear skill of 13.

Turn One:
Josef goes first. He elects to Wait, allowing Yorick to approach him.
Yorick spends 1 fatigue point to step twice towards Josef, which triggers Josef's wait as he reaches 3 meters of distance. Josef attacks, thrusting his spear at Yorick's vitals. Yorick attempts to dodge, but does not retreat. He fails, and is hit in the vitals for 4 damage. This bounces off the DR of his Medium Brigandine.
Yorick takes his next step, closing the distance between the fighters to 2 yards. He swings his axe, and a succeeds. Josef attempts to dodge, adding the Retreat and Feverish Defense modifiers. He moves back one meter, and passes his dodge roll.

Turn Two:
Josef thrusts his spear at Yorick. He makes a Targeted, Committed Attack at Yorick's face, suffering -1 to his own defenses, and a net -3 to hit the target. He succeeds his attack roll. Yorick cannot parry, as his weapon is too large to be used immediately after swinging. He attempts to dodge, and despite retreating, he fails to do so. Josef inflicts 5 damage to Yorick's face. As Yorick as no DR at this location, this is multiplied to 10 damage by the Impaling modifier of Josef's spear. Yorick takes an immediate stun check at -5, which he manages to pass. He is now Reeling from this injury, but does not suffer Shock due to having a High Pain Tolerance.

Continued (1/2)

>>96405176

Yorick makes a Control Check against 9 for Berserk, and fails. He is now Berserk. Yorick spends one fatigue to immediately ready his Great Axe, and makes an All Out Determined Attack at Josef. He stacks two levels of deceptive attack, and succeeds his roll. Josef rolls to dodge, even with the -2 penalty from deceptive attacks, and succeeds, retreating another yard away from Yorick.

Turn Three:
Josef takes a step backwards, and tries to finish the fight. He makes a Determined (+4), All Out, Telegraphic (+4) attack, targeting Yorick's eye (-9), for a total to hit of 12. This passes, and because Yorick all out attacked last turn, he has no defense. Josef inflicts 8 damage, multiplied by 4 for passing through the eye and into the brain, dealing 32 damage to Yorick. Yorick is forced to make two death checks immediately. He passes the first one, thanks to the bonus from Berserk, but fails the second, and is killed on the spot.

This fight lasted a total of 3 seconds.

>>96405176
>>96405185
Christ I forgot how badly GURPS combat sucks

>>96405191
He just used the most boring example of a flat plane and people doing nothing but regular swings/thrusts at each other. Instead of more interesting maneuvers like ripostes or stop hits. Basically the DnD equivalent of recounting a fight of "5' step, full attack, end turn"

>>96405236
Yes, I went for a more boring example for sure, but that was mostly to demonstrate that you can do things like "I hit him in the eye" without having it be fluff. If you want to see some actually interesting GURPS combat, check Dungeons and Gurps on youtube, who has a lot of very good combat examples.

>>96405191
It's crazy how you can tell it'd take half an hour to resolve something that overcomplicated at a real table.

>>96405248
Takes me about 10 minutes. Its amazing what can happen with players who actually read the rulebook.

>>96405248
Unless you're illiterate, it takes less than 5 minutes.

>>96405254
>10 Minutes
That's abysmally slow for something you were doing for a solo and uninterrupted 1v1.

>>96405256
Apparently he's illiterate lmao

>>96405236
And the point is that he didn't have to describe shit or fluff it up. The description naturally flows from the results. You can look at the mechanics, completely divorced from any fluff at all, and figure out what's going on.

>>96405248
It'd take maybe 20 at most and that's not a big deal if the combat is good, who cares how slow it is if the fights are fun?

>>96405264
>And the point is that he didn't have to describe shit or fluff it up.
I mean he still did fluff it up here and there. It also took 10 minutes (More likely double that since anons always lie about how slow their favorite systems run) to resolve an unrealistically simplified 1v1.

>>96405260
I meant in an actual game dingus. In a combat with like 5-10 combatants not 2.

>>96405276
No that's a direct mechanical representation of the game.

>>96405280
With 5-10 combats? That's taking a couple hours at least to resolve something that sluggish, and that's if you're fast and loose with the rules too.

>>96405287
And? Do you complain when sex lasts a couple of hours? Good combat is good. I don't care if it takes all day, some of the battles I've run in GURPS have taken several sessions, and that's not a problem because it's fun the entire way through. Only theater kids get bothered by fighting being actually fun and interesting and "too slow!" because it keeps them from getting back to describing the smell of their own farts.

>>96405298
Meh, if you're autistic enough that you think rolling dice for a few hours is like sex then I can see why you don't care if it's slow, cumbersome, and that the people you're doing it with don't enjoy it.

>>96405287
We're not playing 5E, why the fuck would we have 10 combats a session?

>>96405338
Combatants*, my apologies for the typo

>>96405260
You want overcomplicated, then you look at phoenix command. GURPS is dead simple at it's core, roll 3d6 and try and get under your target number (usually your character's skill) modified by some + or - modifiers. The "difficulty" in GURPS comes from accounting for how many +1s or -2s apply to your roll.

Meanwhile, something actually complicated like Phoenix Command:

>Create a table by taking your character's Skill Accuracy Level (SAL) which is a stat determined by the character's Gun Combat Skill (GCS) from a table lookup
>Adjust that by the weapon's Shot Accuracy Modifier dependent on the number of half second impulses you aimed
>Take the resulting number and add circumstantial modifiers including range, target speed, target size, visibility and (optionally) the target's personal defensive Aim Level Modifier (ALM) which is derived from a table using their Intelligence Skill Factor (ISF) which itself is a derived stat equal to their Int+SAL
>This number is your Effective Accuracy Level (EAL) which you cross reference on table 4G for your d100 odds of hitting a target
>Single shot attacks and automatic fire use different lines on this table
>For automatic fire you need to determine the weapon's Minimum Arc (MA) which only depends on the range in the basic rules, enter table 5A with this and modify based on target size to determine if you get a hit and how many hits you get based on your weapon's ROF that turn
>On a hit, you roll up to a d1000 to determine hit location based on how much of your target is exposed
>There are three tables based on whether you're attacking from the front/rear, the sides or an oblique angle

(Cont.)

>>96405364
>You want overcomplicated, then you look at phoenix command.
If you ever feel the need to compare your system to a game as unplayably bad as Phoenix Command, it's shit.

>>96405364
>GURPS is dead simple at it's core, roll 3d6 and try and get under your target number
Phoenix command is dead simple at it's core, roll a d100 and look up what happens on a table.
(Never you mind that Phoenix Command is specifically an autistic combat system and not even a real roleplaying game, I'm sure needing to compare your game to that to make it look simpler isn't a bad sign at all)

>>96405364

>Take the weapon's penetration (PEN) value (determined by ammunition choice and range) and compare it to all applicable Protection Factor (PF) sources
>The final number is your Effective Penetration (EPEN)
>Cross reference the EPEN with the table you rolled in the hit location step with the weapons Damage Class (DC) to see how much Physical Damage (PD) you do
>Potentially up to millions of damage
>The wounded person then takes the PD they suffered and compares it to their Knockout Value (KV) to determine their Incapacitation Chance (IC) dependent on whether it's less than 1/10th or over 3x their KV
>Regardless of if they're knocked out or not, you must now multiply the PD they've suffered by 10 and then divide the result of that by the character's Health attribute (ranging from 3-18) for their Damage Total (DT)
>Take the DT and consult table 8A to see how long they have to live and their odds of surviving are, depending on the level of care they're able to receive

And that is how you resolve a single shot in Phoenix Command. Do this however many times for multishot attacks or explosive fragmentation.

>>96405372
If you think Phoenix Command is unplayable, then I've got bad news. It's complicated, but it's playable. I would say it's the limit of complexity and playability, but it's smooth running if you know the rules and have the books. FATAL might be more your speed if you want unplayable complexity.

>>96405320
>you think rolling dice for a few hours
Ooh, okay, there's the problem.
You're stuck with systems that reduce combat down to just pass-fail dice rolls and saves, with nothing else to make them engaging.
Fair enough.

>>96405403
>If you think Phoenix Command is unplayable, then I've got bad news. It's complicated, but it's playable.
I'm sure you'd argue that shit is edible too.

>>96405409
Nah the problem is your system sucks and you're convinced it's perfect for everybody. Sorry dude but I simply don't find rolling dice but more complicated to be more fun than not-doing-that.
Also I've heard the "I-its totally not overcomplicated, it takes no time to run at all bro I promise!" bullshit before, one of my players tried running a GURPS campaign. Our group unanimously called it quits a little over a month in because combat ate up most of the play time, which from what I've seen on their discord is the usual way GURPS campaigns end lol

Guess it all comes down to what you want out of a game.
Pro-fluff gang's points are
>rolling dice is boring unless their outcome transforms the overall headcanon of the scene
>the narrative feeling of the combat is more important than its minute back-and-forth
>rules should be concise and sum up multiple possible actions within easily interpretable packages
>if this is fulfilled, combat moves swiftly and we skip all the unnecessary bookkeeping. It'll feel cinematic, like a good movie

Anti-fluff gang's like
>narrative focus alone makes for an arbitrary outcome and reduces player agency
>rules should be detailed enough to simulate a plethora of actions and outcomes, and be respected to the letter if they do
>rules should deliver choices to optimize your chances of winning each turn, which if you are clever enough you will pick
>if this is fulfilled, combat can be fun for hours, like a good board game. A cinematic scene will emerge naturally out of our systematic gameplay.

I see the value of both, but with TTRPGs I sway towards narrative value. I want to feel like I have agency, and like my choices matter, but I don't need a perfect simulation of all possible actions, especially if it means memorizing a whole combat bible.
If combat FEELS fun, it's more important to me than balancing or realism. Besides, I don't want fights to take up all session. At some point I just want to know if we lost, if we won, and at what cost.
That being said, I'm also not a wargamer. There are players who love exactly this simulation, and would gladly sacrifice all the blah blah around it to get to 'the action'.

>>96405595
>Pro-fluff gang
Also known as the "nogames gang"

>>96403378
Actually rules can cover the exact situation you're describing and many others if they're just abstracted. I'm playing Scum and Villainy currently and I have never had to invent a rule.
The problem with 5e is that it has very very specific rules for combat encounters and many edge cases are thus covered but definitely not nearly enough of them. This means the DM would first have to check whether or not an applicable rule exists, and then use it if available. Sure, a DM could also just make shit up instead but then it's impossible to enforce these improvised cases consistently for the rest of the campaign.
5e puts enormous strain on the DM for being such a medium crunch system and it would do well to implement general abstracted rules for conflict resolution. If you're constantly having to come up with rules as for a system you're better off playing pretend with D20s, no rulebooks necessary.

>>96405595
My disagreement here is you're boiling it down to "Narrative vs Mechanics" when in my case, I explicitly prefer the simulationist systems because I think they provide better narrative structures than systems with light combat; and aren't necessarily slower than lighter systems.

Since GURPS is the topic at hand, I point to the knock-back rule; which dictates suffering x amount of damage causes your character to be knocked back and potentially knocked down. The narrative consequences of this can be pretty obvious, even on just flat terrain, and add a lot of flavor to the battle. While fluffy combat just doesn't have an answer besides hoping the GM throws you a bone or maybe relying purely on dice luck.

To me, the less detailed your combat system; the more agency, choice and even narrative experience you're sacrificing to potentially have a faster system. Which isn't even true in a lot of cases.

>>96405595
Having a system with a lightweight combat system in a game where combat isn't a major fixture of the game isn't a problem.
Having that when combat IS a major fixture is because now the game is shit.

>>96405736
Not really?

>>96403983
>>I flick the ember off my blade into his face and then stab his eye
>>Ok roll d20
>>I grab a fistful of sand off the ground and then stab him in his less armored weapon arm.
>>Ok roll d20
>>I approach from behind and put him in a chokehold
>>Ok roll d20
Fixed it for you.

>>96405653
>My disagreement here is you're boiling it down to "Narrative vs Mechanics" when in my case, I explicitly prefer the simulationist systems because I think they provide better narrative structures
I did make that argument in your favor in my last point >A cinematic scene will emerge naturally out of our systematic gameplay
only without stating which is 'better'.

I think neither side would want it said that they'd dismiss either an interesting narrative or solid mechanics. I definitely want solid mechanics in my games. I just don't want them to get in the way.

Regarding your example with knockback: I think such a rule has a lot of value for adding a tactical and narrative layer to combat. Never having played GURPS, I don't know how in-depth this is being handled however. Do I need to keep knockback in mind with every punch in a barfight? Is it important how many metres exactly an opponent is knocked back? Does x change depending on who I punch in the mouth? Personally, I'd probably be happy with just a 'knockback happens' tag attached to certain maneuvers and interpret from there, rather than getting into the exact physics of it.

And really, that's the gist of it. See, you can go down that rabbit hole of simulation as deep as you like, but eventually it's just information overload when the outcome should just be what the player initially wanted: to throw a motherfucker down some stairs.

>>96405653
>and aren't necessarily slower than lighter systems.
We call this lying.

>>96405933
The only thing true there is it depends who you punch in the mouth. The damage is based on their STR score -2. So 8 points for just about everyone to knock them back 1 hex (or yards if you don't use a map). You can push them back further if you hit them really, really hard. But the whole rule covers just incidental knockback and is used as a basis for shoving people around. If you want to throw a motherfucker down the stairs, you just throw them.

>>96405948
Dungeons and Dragons exists. 5e basically has no combat rules and still takes ages to resolve combat, even with people on top of their game.

advertising/begging is allowed now?

>>96405986
Takes me around 1 minute to resolve a fight between two fighters in 5e. And far from having no combat rules, it has rules that are overcomplicated and oddly balanced, IE most of the mechanics exist on your character sheet instead of as individual rules anyone could take advantage of.
With GURPS I've had two separate experienced GMs give me examples of combat that took them 10+ minutes to resolve. On their own. Fully prepared. In actual games? Hours of time for what would be otherwise simple fights. Some of that time, sure, is because not every player is an expert who has memorized every page. But that's not a problem with lite systems, and much of it is just because resolving all that crunch takes time.
>B-but that doesn't happen in my group!
Putting aside the fact that I know you're lying, I don't care. Crunchier rules take longer to work with, that's an objective fact. Anyone trying to tell you a more complicated system is just as fast as a simplified one is lying and plays no games.

>>96404079
If by "the game" you mean playing any ttrpg, sure. But "the game system" you ar playing is literally just its rules, everything else you do isn't part of that game specifically.

>>96406033
>With GURPS I've had two separate experienced GMs give me examples of combat that took them 10+ minutes to resolve. On their own.
and anon accuses me of lying.

>>96406039
You're insisting water isn't wet when you drink it. Yeah no, you're just a liar, and a dumb one at that. It's no wonder that the company behind GURPS has been in sharp decline for the last 5 years.

>>96406050
I'm sorry you play games with people who don't read the books. But it will never take a single GURPS player 10 minutes to resolve a one on one unless they're brand fucking new and don't know the rules at all, distracted and multitasking, or spitballing because humans have a really shitty sense of time unless they're watching a clock.

>>96406090
I'm sorry you don't play games at all.

>>96403827
>But could a system feasibly already have a rule in place for every possible improvisation? Isn't it more reasonable to just have baseline rules for the most common occurrences and then have some methods to improvise, which is usually just a dice roll anyways?

Because you don't need rules to describe specific actions, you can have flexible rules that can describe types of actions that you can change at whim.

If you want a rule for improvised attacks it could be as simple as.

"Instead of making a basic attack, you can choose to utilize your environment to harm or hinder your opponents. Describe an action you take utilizing your environment and then {insert attack resolution mechanic here} if this attack could cause a suitable condition, say using sand to cause blindness, apply that condition to the target."

>>96406090
Once you see someone saying a situation will "never" happen when it could very very very easily happen, you know they're retarded.

>>96406115
He claimed a "prepared and experienced" GM, two of those situations are someone who is either not prepped for the situation or experienced and the latter one is the scenario not occurring in the first place, despite claims to the contrary.

>>96406142
I can tell you're a nogames because you can't even fathom dice being random lmao

>>96405320
Anon if you don't even joy mechanics that involve rolling dice, why are you playing a game where the main component is rolling dice?

>>96406154
If you get in the situation where the dice are random enough to make a 1 on 1 in GURPS take 10 minutes to resolve as an experienced, focused GM. You just hit an absurd streak of cosmic luck that would apply to just about any system. It takes a few seconds to resolve a full round in a 1v1 here, hell there's even less rolls than DnD going on. If it's causing us to go beyond even the 5 minute mark; then we're reaching pretty wild levels of probability here.

>>96406168
Seems you've got the wrong hobby, kid. The main component is role-playing, not roll-playing.

>>96406195
>Missing a few attacks
>"Absurd streak of cosmic luck"
Nogames confirmed.

>>96406207
Anon, we're talking upwards of 30 attacks from both combatants here, not "a few". I think you're the no games in the room, not me. Especially if "roll dice and compare to number" is somehow significantly slower than "Roll dice and compare to number, but make it higher"

>>96406223
Didn't read. You don't play games, you will keep seething because you've lost this argument and the only way you can leave it is to get the last word in.

>>96406230
If one's game of choice is so unpopular that you have to resort to lying about it just to try and convince people to play it... Why aren't you just playing a different system at that point?

>>96406249
Oops, that was meant for >>96406090
Really tho, why lie?

>>96406258
Never said a lie this whole time. Difference between the two of us is I actually read the rules when they're given to me.

>>96406287
Welp, if you gotta lie then lie away, I don't really care about gurps so this has no bearing on me and my games.

>>96404079
You are absolutely correct, especially with regards to the autists.

>>96406198
Role-playing denotes playing a mechanical role not play-acting. A round of "Yes and" is an improv game, not an rpg.

If it take you more than 1 minute to resolve a combat round in GURPS of all systems, then I have some bad news for you, bro, but you're a sub85r.

>>96400916 (OP)
The DM sets the pace thats true

>>96406033
>Takes me around 1 minute to resolve a fight between two fighters in 5e.
And... what exactly happened in that fight? It looks like the OP post. None of the wounds matter until HP hits 0. None of the attacks do anything until they reduce HP to 0.

>>96409296
It would be vastly improved if every fighter had to roll to see if they scream "OWIE!" after every hit and track how many hits a day they can make before getting tired.

>>96405254
Jesus, how embarrassing

>>96403983

>I flick the ember off my blade into his face and then stab his eye
Ok, in order to perform this specific attack to blind him, roll a dice against a higher than average attacking DC to reflect the skill needed or lets figure out if its a specific mechanical maneuver the system can interpret
>I grab a fistful of sand off the ground and then stab him in his less armored weapon arm.
Ok, again a Higher attack DC or see if disarming is a mechanical process recognised in the book
>I approach from behind and put him in a chokehold
Sounds like a straight up opposed skill check with your strength and theirs?
I'm sorry your GM doesn't want to reward your attempts at being creative with trying to match your enthusiasm by reflecting that mechanically in the game.

>>96405298
unfortunately, gurps combat is certainly not good.

>>96405595
narrative focus increases player agency.

>>96405611
actually plays games*

>>96404481
Desperate.

>>96406331
Neutral observer here. You seem to care a lot. And also this is a really pathetic attempt to save face. It makes you look like a big, overly emotional loser.

>>96409662
>>96409651
>>96409665
>>96409656
Pathetic samefagging, you're just jealous you can't get in a GURPS game.

>>96404042
The book and dice are tools used to give the collective game of improvisation structure.
They aren't strictly necessary, but it helps keep the players grounded in *something*.

The figurines mainly just look nice.

>>96409725
lol

>>96409790
Wrong, retard.

I'm convinced this dice-tism comes from video games.

>>96405050
Hunt for weakspots on enemies to blind or cripple them, spent time getting high ground or other advantageous positioning for better shots, fire more than one arrow at a time, rebound shots off scenery. Or spent time getting different kinds of arrows to fire, with different poisons etc.
If you can't find something in the rules to help support this, ask your gm about what he would be cool with

>>96405050
Do what every capeshit archer does — trickshots, trick arrows, acrobatic mobility.

>>96409874
kys story shitter

>no games
>n U r no games
Is it the same persons doing this?

>>96405050
Here are just a handful of things you can do in a good game with no house rules and no GM dick sucking:

Block : use your archery as an active defense against ranged attacks by shooting projectiles out of the air. you can defend other characters with this.

Melee: engage in close combat with no penalty. this could be a bayonet on a crossbow, or arrows as improvised daggers, or incorporating a bow into martial arts for reach / leverage.

Area : fire multiple arrows at once.

Ensnare : fire a net or weighted rope or a vial of magic expanding adhesive foam to immobilize villains or even prevent them from taking actions.

Blind / Deafen / Dazzle : flashbang arrows.

Darkness : smoke bomb arrows.

Detection or Super Senses : suction cup arrows with devices attached that allow you to detect various information through walls or around corners, like motion, heat, or vibration. depending on the setting you might be able to detect the presence of life, magic, demons, or other things.

Dispel : arrows that release a burst of nullifying energy, cancelling ongoing powers in the area.

Irritant : like smoke bomb arrows, except these release some sort of obnoxious substance to debilitate opponents.

Light / Effect : you can fire arrows that glow like flares, providing vision in dark areas.

Portable Storehouse : carry an unlimited number of arrows of any type, and backup weapons.

Preparation : always have just the right kind of arrow on hand for any situation.

Swing Line : fire a grappling hook from your bow.

Tracer : is the villain getting away? put a tracking beacon on her hover bike with this arrow.

>>96409874
Bad news buddy, but games focused on a tight narrative are a development that came after dice-tism. Dice-tism is the progenitor of TTRPGs.

>>96410191
So that means that dice tism is the least likely to best the best iteration of games, then.

>>96405029
>pretending players have any power
Unless you're playing with real life actual friends, players are an infinite and useless commodity, to be discarded when convenient.

>>96413126
t. Nogames

>>96413126
Why would you ever not be playing with your friends?

>no games
>no games
>no games
Stop saying this

I think this strictly a dnd issue. I haven't had this issue in other systems. Even in Mekton Z, which is a few orders of magnitude more complex than 5e, the same players would take 5 minutes to play their turn in dnd can end theirs in 30 seconds.

>>96415934
t. nogames

>>96401632
All covered under the rules in Prowlers.

>>96404481
>let me derail the argument into ad hom attacks
>you're narcissistic btw
Insane projection. NTA

>>96404079
>people seething over literal common sense shit that everyone who engages with functional human beings knows enough by now
What the fuck happened to this board?

>>96416886
Smartphones and the 2016 US Election.

>>96416485
What is Prowlers?

Pathfinder solves this btw

>>96416886
Games are defined by their rules. You lose the argument.

My shitbrew has a Magic Save, which does exactly what you'd expect, and a Martial Save, which lets you resist combat maneuvers.
Basically:
>player describes the result they want
>they make an attack roll
>I make a judgement call based on how powerful the effect is, whether they rolled a natural 20, and how valuable the action economy is
>I give a "good faith but balanced" result
>If the attack is enough to drop the enemy, you can kind of do whatever you want to it
>If it's a mild advantage, I'll usually just give it to them in exchange for doing a bit less damage
>if it's a major or permanent advantage, they usually sacrifice damage for the effect, and the enemy gets a save.

For example, my player tries to stab an enemy in the eye. Depending on how things play out, they might knock the enemy's helmet so that it's crooked and they suffer disadvantage on their next attack. Or they might knock the helmet off. Or they might get him in the eye and permanently injure him. Or they might just stab right into his brain and kill him.

If they don't specify a secondary effect and they roll a natural 20 or they deal enough damage, I say "Extra Fun stuff happens. How are you capitalizing on this?" The same tactic is less likely to work the more times its used in a single combat.

>>96405029
>Doesn't matter, the players can kick the GM out any time they feel like it.
And the GM can have new players within days, minutes if if's online. Players meanwhile may go years without seeing a GM. Playoids only have the power to leave.

>>96420019
>And the GM can have new players within days, minutes if if's online.
>if if's online
Kek you can immediately tell someone is a nogames when they start talking about online play. Fucked up how what you say doesn't match reality huh?

>>96419634
Calling it shitbrew is pretty accurate for once huh?

>>96401003
>I wish my party's turns were this fast.
Put down a 60 seconds, or 15 seconds egg timer as each player resolves his turn. If the next homo isn't ready, then "your PC gapes at the monster like a retard this round" and on to the next. When things are moving that fast and you actually enforce it, attack vs parry vs retreat or whatever your system's basic options are suddenly get interesting.

>>96405298
Slow combat is bad because I have to wait 30+ minutes for my turn.

>>96406690
You keep saying that but it'll never catch on.

>>96402373
You sound like the most dull kind of player.

>>96401632
>Cool shit and rule of cool is the soccer that goes on top of a nice dish of efficient combat
Nigga

>>96402235
Hot coals, the soccer dish, a blinding gun. That guy's post has it all.

>>96416886
Video Games, unironically. And I say this as a fabula ultima faggot.
Autismos got too used to getting DMed by a(n almost) flawless computer that (almost) NEVER deviates from the rules and now think every game including board games, casual sports, fucking hide-n-seek and tag should work that way too.

>>96424189
This is me holy shit. I've grown accustomed to learning new systems, reading the rulebooks over and over with the goal of perfect system mastery. Finally manage to run them correctly on top of it I perfectly hit the tone and underlying themes of the setting the RPG. Get bored because I have zero passion for the story/NPCs and just wanted to run my sessions perfectly like a PC game.

Tfw no system will ever be perfect and you'd be better of just writing a good non-linear story with believable NPCs and fun magic items instead of learning infinity systems.

>>96424393
I dunno I found my own system to be perfect. I think your issue is that you didn't learn actual design principles.

>>96413126
and you have neither

The videos are private now, but there was footage of Frank Mentzer running a convention game of White Box D&D. A lot of
>You hit for 7 points of damage.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's quick. Keeps the game going. You don't need purple prose all the time.

>>96424417
I was just saying I got more of a kick from studying the book then playing the game perfectly as it is written in the book. I would get angry with myself when I couldn't find a specific rule or a player tried to do something silly which would run contra to the theme of the game setting.

What's your system like?

>>96424450
>I was just saying I got more of a kick from studying the book then playing the game perfectly as it is written in the book.
Oh that's just autism then. Most games are written like shit and have rules completely at odds with the intended way to play. And I don't know why you'd even want to follow the rules beyond establishing common ground for the players to work with.
>What's your system like?
Tacticool shooter. You get a dicepool and spend it on trying to do things or to react to things.

>>96424446
In the games I've played in and ran it seems everyone narrates their actions in combat for the first few sessions of the campaign and then people start to find it tedious and they just call out the AC they hit and the damage they do. The only way to fix is this imo is to just break the rules of combat. The ogre picks you up make a saving throw vs. incredibly high number. Oh you fail well the ogre squeezes you like a used up juice box for 2d6 damage and breaks your shield. However even I sometimes don't do this and I just get everyone to perform their actions as quick as possible so we can move on. Combat really is a chore in my games. You have to have it especially when the party are trying to get into the BBEG lair. It would make sense for them to have at least one combat encounter before stepping into the dungeon.

>>96424472
Do you play on a virtual tabletop simulator? Is your combat realistic? Would sliding across the ground for 20 ft. while shooting my SMG incur a massive penalty?

>>96424520
>Do you play on a virtual tabletop simulator?
Usually.
>Is your combat realistic?
Somewhat or not at all depending on the version. I've never aimed for realism as a design goal because realism is boring.
>Would sliding across the ground for 20 ft. while shooting my SMG incur a massive penalty?
Depends on the character.

>>96424507
>In the games I've played in and ran it seems everyone narrates their actions in combat for the first few sessions of the campaign and then people start to find it tedious and they just call out the AC they hit and the damage they do.
If this happens, either the campaign has gotten stale (Which is a really bad sign if you're just a few sessions in) or your group was making the common mistake of putting in maximum effort without considering payoff.
The better way to handle it is to let narration occur naturally. Sometimes you're speeding through the moment, other times you slow down and describe the meaty thwack the fighter's sword makes as he cuts down the last hobgoblin that was raiding their camp.

>Combat really is a chore
Either streamline it, make it rare, or figure out a system that makes fights more interesting.
Also, saying "have to" sounds dangerously close to railroading.

>>96424507
>You have to have it especially when the party are trying to get into the BBEG lair
No? Unironically ending-of-Fable-2 those fuckers every now and then. Not every bad guy needs a health bar.

>>96405990
Avatar-posting apparently is ok, too

>>96423785
I know constructive criticism is hard, but you should at least try.

>>96426149
Why would you try to construct something out of shit?

>>96426170
I'll rephrase it then. I know that using your words to explain why you feel a certain way is hard, but you should at least try.

>>96401003
That's the grognar character tho

>>96403588
not that anon
AGE has a system called Stunts, where if you roll doubles in your 3d6 test, then you get points (between 1 and 6, 7 or 8 if you use a Stunt Attack specifically) that you can spend on different mechanical things. examples including shoving yourself or your opponent a few meters for every point, or grappling them to the ground and pounding their skull into the floor. with enough Stunt points and luck you can knock someone out of a fight in a single turn, or just simulate the chaotic back and forth of a fist fight with two people grabbing or shoving each other around. I enjoy.

>>96403588
>that is completely removed from 'yapping' (aka, descriptive narration of the events therein)
A good system can paint a picture through mechanics alone.

>>96426417
Why do you need me to explain that shit stinks?

>>96400916 (OP)
>>I move and attack
>>I got a 17
>>that hits
>>it does... 7 damage
>>what kind?
>>bludgeoning
>>ok
>>robert it's your turn
literally nothing wrong with this. if robert is already checked out he is just a low attention faggot and the video encourages dm dancing like a clown desu

>>96400916 (OP)
i prefer that than wife of my friend choosing her spell for twenty minutes

>>96427218
huh? tes tabletop? where is this from?

>>96400916 (OP)
This is why I like games with wound levels and locations like riddle of steel since it makes things really easy to describe while also actually being combat relevant

Honestly I liked the video and the linked blog. I think most Anons are thinking this video is about verbose description. I don't think it is. I am pretty sure the main focus is on player engagement. Like >>96428299 said there is nothing wrong with:
>17 attacking with great axe
>Hit
> 7 bludgeoning
as long as all players are invested in the scene.

>>96428897
if i did have to nitpick one thing in this hypothetical scenario, is that when the player said they dealt 7 damage, rather than just saying okay, i would say okay and a very short description of how that damage looks in proportion to the monsters total hp. but im not even necessarily describing a verbose or prose heavy description, just something that is i think more relevant to the gameplay we are experiencing like >it's still up but it was a solid blow or >you dealt damage, but not much. you need some feedback on that level, i think.

>>96428970
I agree. Players should be receiving feedback from their actions. I was just pointing out that the video was more about structuring combat and keeping players focused rather than >narrative vs mechanics.

>>96429003
You keep players focused by banning phones at the table, anon.

>>96403955
>potential for death or disaster every round

This a big no-no

Too many tough encounters will make players are making mistakes or something is wrong with the game, easy/smooth combat is the reward for smart playing in TTRPGs

>>96403955
Man this is some of the most dogshit advice I've ever seen that cloaks itself in a few bits of common sense.

>>96440497
No, I think it's correct. "disaster" can come in the form of minions running to sound the alarm, local peasant NPCs getting pulped, expenditure of important resources, etc. Sometimes, as a result of play, the players will find themselves in combat with something they can simply roll over, and that's fine - but if you're conceiving of new content and you're not giving enemies the ability to actually cause drama, then you're just wasting the table's time. It helps to not play a system with HP bloat.

>>96441232
I've run my games like this for almost a decade and it's worked out great. If you've got specific points you'd like to vocalize then we can talk about those.

>>96401632
If slicing the enemy in the eye is so easy what's to stop me from carrying embers with me everywhere so I can just repeat this?

>>96405276
>I mean he still did fluff it up here and there.
where?
You should be able to answer this.

>>96424034
Is an improv comedy set a "role playing game"?

If you've ever thought
>I don't want to be stuck doing combat for an hour
You should switch systems. If something as important as fighting to the death is boring is boring and makes you think things are taking too long, you are playing the wrong system for (you).

I don't care if you think system a or b is bad.
What you shouldn't do is play a system where you think combat is bad and then use it to run a type of game that tends to have lots of combat.
Regardless of what (you) feel about D&D5e, I see a lot of people who are clearly playing D&D and then complain that the combat is bad or boring and combat should be fast.
Wouldn't it be easier to
>stop running campaigns that have lots of combat
>run a game with good combat
And yet none of the "combat is bad" fags ever do this.

>>96441865
>Small brain
>I will play a system that has shorter or more fun combat
>Large brain
>I will add equally boring and slow rules to non-combat so everything is equally bad

>>96441400
Having certainty that every /round/ is lethal or dangerous is actually boring

It's why CoC & DCC are one-shots and rarely ran as main campaigns

>>96441400
>I've run my games like this for almost a decade and it's worked out great.
It obviously hasn't since you feel defensive over being criticized about it. I'm guessing you've long had issues with player retention.

>>96441903
>>I will play a system that has shorter or more fun combat
Even this isn't really a system problem, it's a campaign problem. If your combat fucking sucks, you can just run a game where combat is ever going to occur.

I like how "no games" is the /tg/ equivalent of calling someone a virgin.

Like everyone wants sex but the awkward anti-social losers can't get sex. It's exactly the same with being able to get into a TTRPG game. The parallels are uncanny. You keep approaching people and they keep rejecting you, It's too perfect

Of course in the TTRPG world, anyone can become "the woman" by being a GM themselves, thus becoming the desirable entity that everyone is clamoring to get with.

Wait does this mean GMs are trannies?

>>96443757
Every hobby has this (see /k/ and their "noguns" and /v/ where people will critique games they've never played).

>>96433474
>You keep players focused by banning phones at the table
So was this a non-issue before smartphones became the norm?

Genuine question, I'm too young to know if it was

>>96443790
Pretty much. Rarely you'd have players who got distracted with socializing to the point where it would disrupt the game of course, but that wasn't an issue tables ran into consistently.
In terms of people actually sitting down and playing lasting games, ttrpgs peaked in the 80s-90s, and I think that's because it was easier to keep people focused and engaged with the game.

>>96443757
>>96443783
it's even funnier to me because "nogame" is an insult in /agdg/ where it means basically the exact same thing.

I HATE how he animates hnds..

>>96445205
agdg is the most mentally ill collection of schizos I have ever seen in my entire life.

I'm looking to be a GM. Where do I start?

>>96450316
https://thealexandrian.net/gamemastery-101 or his book, So You Want to Be a Game Master.

>>96450695
Thank you for replying. I will read the material.

>>96413126
Only if you're DMing 5e, in which case I'd rather die.

>>96450316
Page 1 of the DMG.

>>96423878
this, but also give +1 to hit if the player declares the action within 15 seconds
carrot and stick both

>>96450316
https://slyflourish.com/the_lazy_dungeon_master_cc.html

>>96423878
>Put down a 60 seconds, or 15 seconds egg timer as each player resolves his turn. If the next homo isn't ready, then "your PC gapes at the monster like a retard this round" and on to the next. When things are moving that fast and you actually enforce it, attack vs parry vs retreat or whatever your system's basic options are suddenly get interesting.
The "basic options become interesting under time pressure" is massively underrated. If there's a time limit you don't need 50 obscure options.

"You turn a corner and see 6 orcs who stare at you but don't immediately move to attack. What do you do?" Hit the timer and the players know they have 15 seconds before you default to "Ok, you do nothing. Now the orcs...". In those 15 seconds, Attack, Start Talking, or Run become plenty fun and enough options. It's also the cure to the #1 complaint of games moving to slow.

And now as DM you don't have to come up with ever-more convoluted scenarios to keep things interesting. Most encounters become interesting simply due to time pressure. Consider the orc encounter but you add "they're standing near an open pit in the floor". Or you add "one orc is holding a glowing orb that suddenly start pulsating". That's it. Enough to maybe change the decision they have 15 seconds to make. Bump it up to 30 seconds or whatever if your players are stupid.

>>96417808
>Can't win against rules
Skill issue~

>>96424446
I'm going to compare this to other systems to help explain the 'problem' as I see it.

In something like Exalted, you get stunt dice for bothering to flavor what you are doing. Getting two additional dice in a pool is a big deal (potentially more if you really go all out) so you're probably going to go out of your way to do at least a two dice stunt every attack. Even supernatural creatures can be remarkably fragile. Makes you appreciate every risk you take and every attack. You can potentially end Exalt versus Exalt fights in ONE well-placed attack.

Where are we at in the typical game of DND? A single round of combat is rarely decisive, and for all that effort of flavoring how cool your character is you roll under 10 anyway and beef it. This is going to repeat a lot, and even your successes are generally not the deciding blow. Yeah, you're putting way too much energy into nothing.

My recommendation? Let people do nonstandard actions without need for feats or skills. On one condition. They HAVE to sell it. Sell it hard. Then they can roll to do it as part of an attack. They succeed? Enemy has an appropriate status. Be more generous the more extra they go, but they have to SELL SELL SELL. The bigger a thing they want to cause? The more they got to put into the description. Rewards effort, but use is limited by it's nature.

>>96404781
Why do chandeliers always feature in these conversations? Sia is that you?

>>96443790
smartphones literally buttfucked attention spans with dopamine farming clickbait short form content.

>>96400916 (OP)
>Attack and DMG as two separated rolls
Well, you deserve it.

>>96404079
Based truth posting leopard

>>96416886
This board is mentally retarded. You have to explain to people why magic and miracles are the same, or why science fiction is technically a form of fantasy.

>>96400916 (OP)
this is why I want to switch to draw steel, spending so much time in the game on combat and it's this mediocre and takes so much effort to make interesting just isn't worth it.

>>96416261
I'm genuinely interested in this claim. What was it about Mekton Z that made them go so much faster?

>>96460898
NTA, but I think it's just selection bias.

Bahahaha

>>96460840
So why do you want to switch to draw steel?

>>96403955
This post is like the antithesis of fun.

>>96467778
no, it's correct.

>>96419634
Not that other anon, but a uniform anti-Magic and anti-Mundane save doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Various things might let you deal with a specific martial maneuver, like dealing with a feint is probably more of a mental exercise than a physical one, similarly dodging is obviously more of dexterous activity than a physical one. Similar ideas can be applied to magical actions taken against you.

Nat 20 worship is a dangerous path that an enormous procession of commentators have torn into before me.

The final problem I can see is this encouraging a bunch of special pleading for every action in combat. That's not necessarily the worst thing, but that entirely depends on if you have the social gravitas to shut down stupid/awkward shit the instant you see it.

Sure are a lot of uppity playoids ITT.

>>96446490
>agdg is the most mentally ill collection of schizos I have ever seen
Yeah they're pretty great

It could be kinda fun to put rigid timers on turns if you also add in the requirement to rp so people just blurt out whatever comes to mind and makes more or less sense.

You are the Game Master. In the middle of a fight, one of your PCs pulls a handful of sand out of his pocket and throws it at the enemy's eyes. Yes this PC was previously established as having sand in his pocket.

Quick, without looking anything up, adjudicate this action in the manner you believe is most in line with your preferred system's rules.

After you answer you may look it up. Did you get it right? I bet you didn't.

>>96471537
>"I want to toss sand in the eyes of my attacker to temporarily blind him."
>Roll to attack
>On hit: Target suffers Bane on all checks with a basis in sight for 1 round
>For every 2 above target number, add 1 round

There are no rules for this in the game that I know of.

>>96471537
It's just a dirty trick: player performs a combat maneuver and if successful he causes the target to become blind for a round per 5 points over CMD.

>>96416964
A far worse version of Mutants and Masterminds.

>>96404006
You really triggered the shit lords with this post

Aspergers will never understand the nuance of imaginative play.

They literally only understand literal instructions. They are incapable of imagining anything. This is why they sperg over anything that deviates slightly from whatever their autistic thing is.

>>96401003
default initiative just slows down the game and is bad for player engagement. My players just forget to plan their turns until I say their name, but forcing fast/slow turns from SotDL gets them more engaged without much thinking involved. It just goes like
>player fast phase
>enemy fast phase
>player slow phase
>enemy slow phase
"fast" phase you either take a move action or perform another action, but not both. "slow" lets you do both like a standard turn. Mostly what happens is players who don't need to move will go in the fast phase, then enemies who don't need to move will attack, then players who need to move will take a standard turn, then any enemies left will move and attack.
The biggest benefit is you start a round asking "who wants to go fast" and it forces players to think of what they're going to do ahead of time, because the entire round feels like their "turn". Martials can roll while the wizard thumbs through his spells, and players can move in an order that benefits cooperation.

>>96471537
Roll a Basic Attack but if it beats the enemy's let's say Reflex, the enemy is blinded and is fighting with an -4 to attack rolls until his next turn. He will of course will need a free hand, but dropping an object or weapon is a free action so it's gucci if they're full.

>>96416964
A far better version of all superhero systems.

>>96424507
Damn, it must suck to be stuck playing a game that doesn't let you do anything cool or fun during combat

>>96428299
No, there's plenty wrong with playing dull games.

>>96428897
There's plenty wrong with it. Why is there nothing more interesting to do with your turn than swing your weapon? You could be replaced by a dicebot.

>>96441738
Nothing. You can use combat stunts every turn, if you want.

>>96443757
Why are women more valuable than men?

>>96450316
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots

>>96452817
Yep, you lose.

>>96453418
Why are you flavoring your attack prior to rolling? Are you stupid?

>>96460840
buy an ad

>>96467794
Not hardly.

>>96471537
Depends on what effects the player wants, there two options I would recommend.

Power Stunt : Spend 1 Resolve to use a Trait (most likely Agility) to mimic the Blind power. As usual, target rolls Toughness or an Active Defense to defend.

Combat Stunt : if the player wants some other effect, such as getting the target to drop a held item, or be impaired, or have their movement slowed, roll Agility or a suitable Power against the target's defense roll. Strength of the effect determined by net result of the roll.

I don't need to look it up to know I'm right, but I'll provide a screenshot if needed.

>>96479752
Games are defined by their rules. You lose.

>>96479752
Games are defined by fun. You win.

Enjoy your ban.

Enjoy your stay on /tg/.

Enjoy your ban.

Can't ban me.

Why don't the mods ban this guy advertising his shitty youtube channel? These keep cropping up. Does he know them or something?

>>96471537
Depends on how I am feeling. If I am spinning too many plates I might phone it in and say, "trade your maneuver for an edge against that opponent." If I feel like getting elaborate I might go "Roll a test. <12 the sand is ineffectual. 12-16 opponent is dazed until end of their next turn. 17+ opponent is dazed (save ends)." And then the typical caveat, find another way to be clever next time to keep em from doing it over and over so I don't get bored.

>>96482615
Calm down, robot.

You lose.

>>96471537
>pathfinder like what the other guys run
that's a Dirty Trick maneuver, son
roll your CMB to beat his CMD, if you don't have a feat he AOOs you, if you beat his CMD he's blinded for a round or some shit I don't remember without looking it up
>my autistic homebrew
that's a blinding special attack, son
you need to land an Unarmed attack and earn a special effect and pick Blind, which will blind him for the rest of this combat cycle

>checking the rules
the pathfinder one is correct, but I missed the fact that there's multiple conditions you can do, it can last longer than a round, and the guy can just spend a move action to get rid of it

my autistic homebrew one was mostly correct, except I missed the fact that the enemy gets a second chance to evade the (very crippling) attack

>>96471537
>without looking anything up
I can't answer how to roll an attack roll without looking it up, this is unfair to memorylets

>>96479752
I'm all for changing rules for the better, but isn't it better to start from a good system instead of picking a bad one and then fixing it?

>>96483177
Isn't it better to pick a system more than three people actually play?

>>96483195
No, it isn't.

>>96483199
Why?

A good game with 3 players is better than a bad game with 3 trillion players. This is self explanatory and asking me to tell you is borderline trolling. Don't make me call the mods.

>>96483211
All you need is (youself) and 2 friends. You have friends who are willing to try difference systems, right?
Not to mention if you're willing to GM you can find strangers if you really have no friends willing to play with you.

>>96483220
>A good game with 3 players is better than a bad game with 3 trillion players
Why?
>This is self explanatory
Not really.
>and asking me to tell you is borderline trolling
What this translates to is "I have no objective qualifications for good vs bad, and I'm also a contrarian hipster"

Your funeral.

>>96483233
A good game is better than a bad game. It is easier to play (you remember the rules because you enjoy the system). It is easier to run (the rules do not require extensive modification).
A game with three million players may sound good but in the grand scheme of things convincing 4-5 people to play a game you like is easier on you than running a system that is clunky, boring, vague, or just a pain in the butt.

>>96483466
>A good game is better than a bad game.
Yes yes, enough platitudes though.
>It is easier to play
Why does this make something better? What counts as "easier"? Some people I know have found Apocalypse World impossible to grok but had no trouble with GURPS and some people I know got filtered by 3.5e and found masks natural.
>It is easier to run (the rules do not require extensive modification).
Actually an objective measurement, but again, why does this make something better?
>A game with three million players may sound good but in the grand scheme of things convincing 4-5 people to play a game you like is easier on you than running a system that is clunky, boring, vague, or just a pain in the butt.
A game that is clunky, boring, vague, and a pain in the butt isn't going to have 3 million players. For a game to be exceedingly popular, it must be easy to play, and easy to run... Uh oh, that doesn't bode well for your argument now does it?

>>96483565
>A game that is clunky, boring, vague, and a pain in the butt isn't going to have 3 million players
Why not? Most people only try what is marketed to them, not what is good.
I'm not even going "hurr people are dumb hurr" I'm saying most people simply haven't tried enough things.

>>96483708
>Why not?
Mass appeal requires ease of use and access.
You're right about people trying what is marketed to them, BUT there's a key word there: Try. They'll give it a shot. But if it can't consistently entertain them, they'll move on. And for most people, consistent entertainment must be easy to use, easy to access. And of course we know the system we're talking about has consistently overshadowed everything else by leaps and bounds for nearly a decade straight.

>I'm saying most people simply haven't tried enough things.
I think that's the fault of other rpgs, honestly. It's not just a marketing thing either. The #1 complaint about 5e players is that they "won't try other things", even when it's suggested to them. To me, that doesn't speak of a marketing issue. That tells me other RPGs aren't as much fun or as attractive. They find 5e, look at other things, are repulsed and then immediately decide to stick with 5e.

>>96483765
>Mass appeal requires ease of use and access.
No, it just requires marketing and being the first in the public's mind.
>look at other things
no they don't.
The average player will not read a single rulebook, not even a D&D book, much less other games.

>>96483770
>No, it just requires marketing
Incorrect, it must be easy to use and easy to access. Marketing alone is completely ineffective, otherwise everyone would own a ferrari.
>no they don't.
Proof?

>>96483795
>Marketing alone is completely ineffective
Which is why my sentence has an "and" there.

>>96483819
>Which is why my sentence has an "and" there.
Which doesn't change the slightest thing at all, because hey, we still don't all own Ferraris, even though everyone knows what they are and they've had one of the best marketing campaigns ever.
Why? Because they... Aren't accessible.

>>96483829
ferraris aren't the first car. Cars in general are a bad example, they're actually rather complicated to use when you think about it.

>>96483829
>Aren't accessible.
I notice your mother can't even get her husband to fuck her even though she has infinite ease of access and is easy to use. Curious.

>>96483850
>ferraris aren't the first car
5e is not the first RPG.
Cars are a great example of how accessibility and ease of use needs to present for mass appeal.

>>96483466
>>96483565
>>96483708
>>96483765
>>96483770
>>96483795
I feel like this conversation is a meaingless derail.
If (YOU) personally think D&D combat is fine, ok bro, no one is telling you to change systems.
But if someone doesn't like it, they should pick a different system. The answer to "Isn't it better to pick a system more than three people actually play?" is a resounding no because all you need to play an RPG is 3 people.

RPGs are not mmos, you don't need thousands of people playing your preferred game, you just need one to five people that you know.

>>96483905
>If (YOU) personally think D&D combat is fine, ok bro, no one is telling you to change systems.
First day on tg?

>>96483922
Ok, you got me. I should have said "I am personally not telling you to change systems".
But really I don't consider trolls people so my statement sort of stands.

>>96483905
>But if someone doesn't like it, they should pick a different system.
Why?
>The answer to "Isn't it better to pick a system more than three people actually play?" is a resounding no because all you need to play an RPG is 3 people.
Typical parties number at around 6 people, anon, not 3. And if only three people play something, odds are you're never gonna find the other two.
You can technically play a game all by yourself too, but it's not the norm.

>>96484005
>Why?
What do you mean why, why would you play something you don't like? I'm not talking about objective good or bad, I'm talking about personal tastes.
>And if only three people play something, odds are you're never gonna find the other two.
You realize you can just invite and teach people to play your preferred system right? You don't have to find other people already proficient.

>>96483953
Ah it is no worries. I just thought it was a good opening was all. Couldn't resist. Have a good one.

>>96484027
>What do you mean why, why would you play something you don't like?
That's kind of what I'm asking. Why would I pick a different system (A total unknown, one that probably sucks too) instead of removing the bad parts of something I do like?
>You realize you can just invite and teach people to play your preferred system right?
Sure, you can try. You'll probably suck without any experience, and a lot of people are gonna bounce off of it even after you've played and ran enough of actually used systems too, because few people will share your niche tastes and looser tolerances.

>>96484096
>A total unknown
You can just read it
Takes 30 minutes in most cases and its far easiers than removing an entire combat system and replacing it from scratch.
>try
You can just do it. Plenty of people start their own groups. You are creating imaginary obstacles due to your own insecurity

>>96484138
>You can just read it
Great, so, let me explain for the nogames: Reading a system does not give you the same level of knowledge as having played and experienced it repeatedly.
>its far easiers than removing an entire combat system and replacing it from scratch.
You don't have to replace anything from scratch, but also no doing that is really easy. If you have trouble homebrewing, you're retarded.

If 5e is so good, why is everyone who used to only play dnd moving to pathfinder?

My LGS is selling out of beginner box and core books as fast as they can order them and get them in stock.

I dare the autists sperging over following rules to explain why the Legends of Avantris are getting so popular so rapidly, when they only use the rules as a guideline.

>>96484492
>If right twix is so good, why is everyone who ate their right twix now eating their left twix?