in after: proving someone wrong

I like

Accomplishment, character growth, and powergaming, from DnD(and any other it applies to), and I like them because I do.

I hate:

Accomplishment, character growth, and powergaming, from DnD(and any other it applies to), and I hate them because I do.

I like some of BESM's character build ideas, but the description of things were very vague. also: D&D would be alright if people weren't obsessed with breaking it and making uber hax builds

>>840547

ಠ_ಠ

I like:

- Roll-under systems, because they're fast, easy and math-free
- Semi-freeform magic systems like in Mage, because learning individual spells is just dumb
- Classless, skill+ability based systems, because they give you a lot of freedom of customization

I dislike:

- Armor class, saving throws and other D&D-isms because seriously guys, some thing belong to the past
- Abstraction of any sort, because that's just extra work for me as a GM
- Fate points and other metagame elements, because they are jarring

I like:

Stunt systems. Things that help make it more than "I attack" are nice.

High customization. I love Mekton Zeta Plus's construction rules.

Random tables or effects. From lifepaths to magic effects to decks of many things, I just like not knowing what's going to happen with appropriate actions.

>>840580
I think your a faggot, DND RULES!

Honestly I love nearly everything from the cyberpunk system.

>>840594

Like what bits specifically? Seeing as I've never played it.

>>840580
>- Semi-freeform magic systems like in Mage, because learning individual spells is just dumb

I've never played it, and I'm all for freeform magic. How does it work?

I like:
*Options in Combat: the ability to snap someone's weapon, knock it out of their hand, push them out of the way, knock them on their ass etc.
*Somewhat more open ended character creation. However, oddly enough, I also like there to be a structure to build around, rather than just "here are your points, here is a list of abilities."
*I like a system that is not tied to the fluff and could easily be adapted to something else without too much of a headache or too many hours spent trying to switch it over.

I hate:
*Unopposed checks. I don't care if your some sort of god swinging a sword. If I'm quick and observant, I should get a chance to avoid your attacks (through either a static number, or an opposed roll).
*Strict description stuff: I like being able to describe how my character attacks be fluff, not crunch. If I disarm someone, I don't want to have to describe how I go around xyz defense which effects my check and instead, just knock it out of his hands and describe how afterwards.
*Games where I don't get rewarded for thinking outside the box. If I climb up the wall and jump onto the Dragon's back, I want to have something actually reward me for that, rather than it just be wasting a turn with checks to get the same combat from a new angle.

Like:
- The Conan magic system. Fuck every other spellcaster and his fireballs. Magic should be rare, powerful, and wicked cool.
- Shock Value (Game of Thrones) - So rogues can actually knock out those Fighter guards in a sneaky fashion.
- Action/Fate/Force Points - the ability to do something cool and heroic when you might not be able to, normally.
- GRIM AND DARK

Haet:
- D&D AC/saves.
- D&D Magic system

>>840608
the rules to hit: when you autofire you hit the target wit 1 bullet per pt you exceed the to hit number by

The actions: you can take up to like 5 actions in a round, but start taking large cumulative penalties above the first

variety in equipment and skills allows for high level of character customization

and: it's D10+ability+skill level to resolve everything. simple math is good when you run 27 hour sessions.

>>840608

You have a standard "alter reality whichevever way you want" roll and a bunch of broad magic skills, and you use the severity of the desired change and your points in the most closely related magic skill to determine success. It takes about 1 page and is very neat and useful.

For the folks who want more detail, there are D&D style individual spells too, which are just regular on-the-fly spells practiced to the point where they can no longer fail much. You can create your own.

>>840608
Spheres of Magick, like Life, Matter energy. You buy up dots in each 1=sensory 2=control existing whatever 3=magnify, diminish, transmute 4=create
theres a sphere called prime, which basically is what existance is made out of...to make anything permanently you need to be able to use Prime..
then it's all about rolling a tardload of d10s and counting successes.

>>840629
>GRIM AND DARK

I forgot to add this to my list of shit I hate. I don't like GRIM AND DARK ALL THE TIME! Sometimes, I want something light hearted and fun, not "GRAH EVERYONE YOU KNOW AND LOVE IS DEAD AND YOU LOST YOUR LEFT EYE."

I like:
- Die pools.

I dislike:
- Pools of any other die than d6 (because that's the only die any player can be expected to have buckets of just lying around).

>>840629
I like for for D&D AC/Magic you just put "I hate it" with no actual reason as to why.

>- List three things about your favorite systems, which systems they're from, and why you like those mechanics.

- From the (as of yet unreleased) Eiridia RPG, I have to say that I absolutely adore his creative magic use system. You pick a school of magic (i.e. fire) then depending on how many MP you use, you can freeform different attacks (2MP/ft. for a line attack, +3MP/4ft. for AoE, 7MP/ft. cone attack, etc.) on-the-fly. I've heard of other RPGs doing this, but I loved the way it was done in Eiridia.

- Roll-under systems are amazing, simply because of less calculations. There are varying degrees of success that are simply measured by how far away from your number the roll was. (see also: BESM 2nd Ed. Revised)

- Room to improvise (see also: simple structure of rules to allow anything to be added ad hoc into the game fluidly) such as nWoD and oWoD and BESM. I like being able to, if needed, come up with all the rules you'll need for a new weapon/item that the PCs suggest in 10 seconds, simply because there's no really complicated rules/details to work out. This keeps games running fluidly, without having to plan ahead with detailed rules for every possible outcome.

>- List three things about your most hated systems, which systems they're from, and (very important) why you hate them, and how they should be improved (even "see above").

- D20 = suck. End of story. With all the different numbers and variables one has to constantly keep track of, if someone hits next level during a game, you have to pause the whole game for approximately 15 minutes while they re-calculate all of their totals, making use of probably 3 different books to do so. Yuck.

- FATAL. Even though it was intended to be the most detailed and strictly ruled RPG evar, it gets to a point where half of the values don't mean squat.

- The lack of creativity in the RPG market overall. I mean, the first time I played D&D, and breathtaking story about fighting and slaying the red dragon, and stopping an evil wizard from doing something to destroy the world was great... But 9/10 mass-produced RPGs nowadays are following the exact same fantasy setting. It's old and washed-out. Creativity, pl0x?

Lengthy, I know, but from what I've seen on /tg/, I know that a lot of you share my same frustrations, and I know that I'm most certainly not alone in my opinions.

I like:
1. Percentage based skill checks
2. Significant EXP rewards for things other than going around and killing mooks
3. Equipment customization/modification

Things I HAET:
1. DND's spell system - the whole thing is BS
2. Armor that doesn't actually absorb damage
3. The only viable source of EXP being holocaust-level killing.

>>840680

Whoopsie, noko is in wrong field. I'm doin it wrong. Bah, whatever.

>>840681
lol? I've never played a game where we leveled up mid-game, XP is always dolled out at the END of the session, so if you level up, it's at the end.

I liek:
ACTION POINTS because they give players more control over situations and allow for EXTREME moments.
Any system that ties fluff with crunch. Advantage/disadvantage systems, oWoD's virtues and vices etc.
Systems that give player a lot of space to define their characters. Best example I can think of is DitV's, where pretty much everything can be a trait. Because characters are the most important thing in a campaign. The more freedom the better.

I haet:
Derived stats. They always end up a mess. No exceptions.
Systems with too much focus on combat. It's not a wargame. Combat is important but not central.
Systems that make it hard to ad hoc. The less I have to look up during a session the better.

loev:

-the basic combat to have enough depth that if you don't pimp out you skills for it you are actually able to do more then feebly attack.
-said basic combat isn't stupidly exploitable (lawl always head shot called attack)
-classes are alright as long as there is a decent amount of customization.

haet:
~systems that reward redundancy
~auto hitting
~not designed under the assumption that someone is going to use random items to hurt someone in some way, or worse yet just saying they are just improvised and have -4 to hit and deal 1d4 damage.

>>840681
Who the hell gives XP out in the middle of the session?

>>840711
all my DMs did

>>840681
Nothin is original new. It's all been done.
Er..I mean...

RADDA RADDA RADDA RADDA.

Just something I want to throw out there:

I hate games with poorly thought out combat systems that seem like they were never play tested or used. I feel that while it might not be the only solution, it should be an option that's bogged down with poorly thought out combat.

I hate games with WFRP style To-Hit rolls. There is no defense, there is "I roll under this number and hit you for x damage". Terrible way to go about things.

liek
- feats or talents or perks or whatever you call them... i like the idea of getting to pick from a list of 500 special abilities that are all different. extra points if there are rules for creating your own.

haet
- modifiers that you calculate out of your stats, as in "my strength is 56 (+13)". that's just unnecessary math. either use the stat number itself or only list the modifier.

>>840711
>>840716
Same. I've never got a lumped sum at the end of a session, We normally go per-encounter.

>>840681
>if someone hits next level during a game, you have to pause the whole game for approximately 15 minutes while they re-calculate all of their totals

Bullshit, you can't level until the end of a campaign.

Like:
- Point-buy stats (a'la Lot5r). Lets you have a good range of character ability w/o someone getting fucked over
- D&D 3.5 AC. Say what you want, it's quick, simple and easy to work with.
- D20 roll under. Occasionally frustrating if you have bad luck, but again ease of use trumps all.

Dislike
- Storyteller system. Sorry but putting power into the hands of a power-hungry bastard is always a bad idea
- GRIM AND DARK. If I'm gonna waste hours playing pretend with a bunch of neckeards, I might as well have fun doing it.
- Classless. If I wanna play a fighter, I'd like to be able to turn to a page in the rulebook, pick out the fighter stats and be good to go. Spending hours powergaming what "talents/feats/abilities/whatever" to take is a pain in the ass that keeps me from the good stuff

>>840721
>I hate games with WFRP style To-Hit rolls. There is no defense, there is "I roll under this number and hit you for x damage". Terrible way to go about things.

Not directly related, but:
Typically, roll-under systems perform well with unopposed checks but have a problem with opposed ones. Either they avoid opposed checks altogether (like WHRP does, with some bad results) or they introduce math into an otherwise math-free system (in Cthulhu, IIRC, in an opposed check the party who beat his check by the greatest margin wins, which works, but takes away the benefit of having a roll-under system.

But there's a third system, a really clever one, that was used to good effect in Pendragon or something IIRC. In it, opposed roll-under checks worked something like this:

1) Both roll a check.
2) If one party succeeds in his check and the other fails, the successful party wins.
3) If both fail, it's a stalemate.
4) If both succeed, the one who ROLLED A HIGHER NUMBER wins.

No math, and it does the same thing. Genius.

>>With all the different numbers and variables one has to constantly keep track of, if someone hits next level during a game, you have to pause the whole game for approximately 15 minutes while they re-calculate all of their totals, making use of probably 3 different books to do so. Yuck.
I've never had these problems for three reasons:

1) XP is handed out at the end of the session or at a "Story break." which is normally DM thinking time or time while one of our players is cooking.
2) D&D is for the most part a bunch of simple formula and charts. Occasionally, there might be a "Double check" kinda situation, but for the most part I do my leveling in about 3 minutes as do most people in my group
3) Planning ahead. Your character has staying power in D&D. You should take a bit and map out your plans for your character. Normally, I have stuff marked on my sheet for things like feats and the like of things I know I'm going to take.

But YMMV I guess.

>>840747
GRIM AND DARK only really works with quick character creation.

>>840751
Well, I'm a d20 player. (Yes, I've played other systems, is it that shocking that some of us prefer it.) However, my group has snatched or homebrewed a few things to make what I feel a better game. One of favorites: The Defense roll. (We take the armor as DR variant from Unearthed Arcana/SRD)

You roll your die add your modifiers, I roll my die add my modifiers, who ever has the higher total wins. (of course, defending against multiple attacks makes it harder.)

>>840777
Isn't that thac0?

>>840787
No, Thac0 was the number you rolled under. What this is d20 roll on attackers part, d20 roll on defenders part.

Also, you're still aiming for the higher number

>>840751
I liked interlock's.

roll stat + skill + 1d10 and modifiers versus opposing roll.

whoever has the highest wins.

no muss no fuss.

>>840807
>>840814
problem with those is that it requires twice the amount of rolling. That doesn't sound bad in abstract, but when the game starts and dice are rolling behind things, and under things and people are rerolling cocked dice, it gets tedious.

Especially when you have that one bastard who always rolls twenties waltzing around without a scratch.

>>840814

Twilight 2000 had a nice variant on that - roll under stat + skill on a d20. Both games measured everything from1 to 10 and were partially compatible, so I stole T2K's die system for use in CP2K.

Twilight 2000 ruled.

>>840838
We play on a level ground with not a lot for dice to roll under, and even then, they're easily recovered.

And yes, the all 20 stuff does happen once or twice, but that happens. Sometimes, you're some sort of god.

>>840838
Really, so how do you propose two people roll an opposed (person versus person) skill check?

When it's not an opposed skill check (person versus difficulty number) it's only one roll.

I've been running interlock system since first edition of cyberpunk came out and I've never had the game bogged down by the dice rolls.

And if your players are rolling their dice cock-eyed, under things and over things, you should start playing at a table. That is the biggest way people try to cheat fudging their dice rolls and the such.

Like: Point buy for stats and skills, so that dice don't fuck you in character creation. I usually run homebrew systems where either you're given a set number of points for stats and a set number of points for skills (with caps established), or a set number of overall points and a conversion rate that says one stat point = x number of skill points.

Ridiculous successes and failures. With the system we usually run, we use a d10 for the core mechanic - and, if you roll a ten, you can roll again and add it. If you roll a one, roll again, and it's negative.

Having conversion charts to show common sense stuff, like how much damage falling a certain distance does, how much a character with your strength can lift, etc. I'll probably never use'em, but it's nice to know they're there in case of an obscure argument.

Hate: Everything being based on Dex or its equivalent. Just because someone's fast, doesn't mean they should completely own in melee and ranged combat.

Characters being allowed to just roleplay past intelligence or charisma-based situations without having to roll for it. Sure, you the player can come up with a good plan to get past the security system, a convincing lie to get around the guard, and a simple lever mechanism to open the blast door. But your character has an Int of 3. I'm making you roll dat shit, and you best believe you're going to fail at it.

>>840841

Yes it did, I still try running it from time to time. I just prefer the over method. I did the reverse of you and moved interlock to twilight 2000. Did you hear about Twilight 2013. Some interesting stuff going on there. I have high hopes for them. But we will see.

>>840855
My point was that any opposed check inherently takes longer than a static number rolled against.

Personally, I'd prefer a system where the defender sets the DC through a static number while the attacker rolls the dice.

Oh, and we roll on tables too, but dice roll off, or they roll into books. Stuff just happens.

>>840856
I think point buy system's work out best. Nobody get's butthurt over bad rolls. fuzion did this pretty decently, but they had no real rules for how magic/psionics/super powers should work. (Barring using the fuzion version of champions... ugh)

consider every idea in this thread stolen and poorly implemented to keep my gaming group from ever leaving D&D from having tried "other systems"

>>840953
I'm having trouble following your words.

>>841022
1: take all ideas in thread
2: make psudo systems that are horrible with ideas
3: play games with group till they never want to try a new system
4: ???
5: PROFIT!

The key points for my favourite system:

1) There has to be a decent difficulty scale that applies for all actions. ie. all actions are submited to the same mechanic, no huge subsets of rulles for spellcasting/jumping over a cliff/hiting a guy with a stick. All of these actions are resolved on the same scale.

2) The result should be clear to everyone at the table, and to the player immediately. Namely, no DC's, roll under instead. However, there has to be an easy way to introduce a difficulty shift in fucked up situations.
3) A nice progression of power that doesn't overreach the dice. In other words no 1d20+353 rolls where the dice doesn't really matter anymore.
4) Some sort of mental/insanity system + a very realistic health system. You get shot by a gun and survive, you don't hop around like a crazy fucker on stereoids because you "still have 10 hp left".
5) a fairly complex combat system where tactics are of big importance. Should be fairly smooth as well. No Riddle of Steel roll of 143 tables to get a result.
6) a chance for the players to impact the game (fate points etc).
7) a chance for players to make up traits/skills/abilities (Dogs, Over the Edge, SotC) and basicaly create a character that suits them best and their idea of their character. (provided they aren't some sort of Drizztfags or whatever)

>>840747
>>Classless. If I wanna play a fighter, I'd like to be able to turn to a page in the rulebook, pick out the fighter stats and be good to go. Spending hours powergaming what "talents/feats/abilities/whatever" to take is a pain in the ass that keeps me from the good stuff

ALL classless games I ever played had their combat skill very clearly defined. It's faster to make a combat character in a classless game than it is in some class-based games.

>>841032
You're a cruel, cruel man.

>>841185
but i don't want to play a "combat character". I want to play a "fighter" with all that it entails. I want the "fighter" to be distinguishable from the "ranger" but easily indentifiable, quick to build and obvious in description. The combat system is an entirely separate issue.

I like diceless systems or systems with only a little variation in capability due to chance that mean it. amber, some of the variants for d&d nearly make it like critical hist = 30 and crit miss = -10. I like situational modifiers to make strategy important. amber again but also +1 for high ground +2 for flanking. Amber is great and simple. the person with the highest number wins. period. its very very fast.

I hate with the burning passion of a thousand firey suns 'diceless' systems like Vampire larp or mage the goddamn ascension that don't have any rules. Free form gaming .. you're better off just deciding on gm fiat and tossing the book. three goddamn hours of arguing about whether which sphere can do what or how far 'three steps' goes. games have rules otherwise its amateur theater.

A lot of this thread is arguing over the merits of "roll under" systems vs. "roll over" or DC systems, but honestly, I really don't see that much of a difference. When you look at it,

Roll < Stat + Modifiers
Roll + Stat + Modifiers > DC

are pretty damned close to the same, and DC systems have the added advantage of working intuitively for opposed checks (higher roll = winner). It's also simpler to hide the result of the check with DC systems (because hiding the modifiers involved in "roll under" just eliminates the speed advantage of using it). And yes, I'm disagreeing with >>841108 because, while knowing the outcome immediately might be useful in combat, sometimes you just don't want the players to know if they've succeeding (social based checks, like intimidation or detecting lies, for instance, or disarming traps). Hiding also leaves the GM room to fudge rolls if/when it's in the stories best interest (not the players' best interesting, mind you, fudging can go both ways). As for degrees of success, what >>840680 said applies equally to roll under and DC based systems: farther away you are from the target number, the larger your degree of success or failure.

That being said, here are my likes and dislikes:

Likes:
- DC systems. As argued above. Simpler for everyone, and more intuitive (higher = better). I don't hate roll under, I just think DC is better.

- Abstraction and free-form systems. Magic systems like those in Mage and Ars Magica leave lots of room for the players to do what the really want to do, and the same goes for systems like Risus and Fate. If I want to jump, catch hold of a chandelier, swing across a room, and drop-kick a guy in the face, I can do it with one quick roll, leaving more time for roleplaying, whereas in DnD that would take something like a half-dozen rolls of differing difficulties that I would have to look up in one or two different books, and might span a few rounds.

>>841550 cont'd

- Abstract character creation, and classless systems. In DnD, you can fill a page of numbers to describe your level 5 fighter, while in Risus you have Dual-Wielding Swordsman (5), which tells me just as much, in a much simpler way. You can even spice it up with setting specific information (Dual-Wielding Monk of Fiery Dawn (5) or whatever) which tells me a lot about the character's personality, and not just what the character's abilities are. Not to mention free-form systems like Risus create inherent character balance. A Sneaky Thief (4) and a Ogre Barbarian (4) are equally effective in and out of combat, but go about things in very different ways. Whereas the thief might pick the lock on a safe, the barbarian will rip the door off with his bare hands, but both of them get it open.

Dislikes:

- Class-based systems. Archaic, and pointless. Sometimes your character idea just doesn't fit into the preset classes, and there are too many to keep track of. DnD is the worst offender, of course. D20 Modern, however, did a passable job of abstracting the base classes and making them more flexible, so to make classes workable, take Modern, use only the base classes, turn all feats into talent trees (cuz really, they're the same thing, just not listed as trees), and just list off which trees each class has access too.

>>841556 cont'd

- Too many fuckin' rules. DnD. Nuff said. You could abstract most of the D20 ruleset down to Skill + Modifier + d20 > DC, and here's a list of standard DCs. The system prided itself on that core mechanic, and yet, they decided to spell out every possible action anyways. And now it's cluttered and hard to use.

- HP, AC, and other fucked up numbers. I realize HP is supposed to be an abstraction, but it does a bad job of making it seem that way. In DnD, if you hit a first level fighter for 15 damage, he's unconscious, but you hit a 20 level fighter for that much, and it's a scratch. The meaning of the numbers change as you go higher up in level, and that's unintuitive. In Storyteller games, everyone has the same amount of health levels, and some people are just slightly better at taking hits. Much better system, not to mention it actually gives penalties for being hurt.


In closing, I know I'm espousing freeform and such, but really, isn't that the point of RPGs? If you want rules and numbers, go play a) Warhammer, or b) WoW, and you'll be more than satisfied. Traditional RPGs != MMORPGs, but too many people treat them that way.

Also, thank you /tg/. It's threads like this that actually keep me coming back here. It's nice to see us discussing games, rather than posting Daemonette tits and having skubhammer vs skubmachine fights.

>>841560

Not that your ideas are bad, and they certainly work for YOUR perfect system, but i'd disagree with em.

>Class-based systems. Archaic, and pointless. Sometimes your character idea just doesn't fit into the preset classes
Then either make up a new class, or create a character that does fit a preset class. Sometimes restricting people to sane and manageable character choices is the proper thing to do. So what if you can't play a pirate/ninja wielding three swords who kills people with his ass-crack. Sometimes it's better when the choices are simple and clear so you can just pick what fits best and everyone, including the GM, knows what to expect. If you roll with a party of a fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard, everybody knows who is supposed to do what. Hell, you can almost imagine the party in your head from that simple description. If it's 2 fighters and a ninja, people still know what they are supposed to do. When you start saying, "The party is a Warrior who focuses on the brute talent tree but also has skills in Farseeing, a Mage who just has skills everywhere and a [insert generic class here] with [insert random talent choice]" it's much harder to know who should be doing what. Should the warrior be the one to bash in the door? What if he took the flower-picking talent tree and couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag?

>>841560
>Too many fuckin' rules.

There's a fine balance between simplicity and complexity that game systems try to straddle. On the one hand, making everything simple gets boring. If all you're doing is rolling a d20, it gets old. On the other hand, too many special rules for grapple and trip and bullrush, e.t.c. can bog down gameplay. Worse yet, players insist on having different opinions about how simple is "simple". You can't just say "too many rules" without defining how many is 'too many'.

>>841560
>HP, AC, and other fucked up numbers


I like the HP/AC abstraction. It allows a quick and easy summation of the capability of one character over another. Does the Wizard have 10hp and the Fighter 20? Fighter can take twice as much damage. Same with your example of a Fighter 1 vs Fighter 20 and 15dmg. 15 dmg is an abstraction. It's not an exact measure of how much flesh you cleave from someone's body, or how much he bleeds. The low level fighter goes unconscious to the same amount of damage, BECAUSE HE CAN TAKE MORE DAMAGE. Whether the 'damage' is in actual blood loss or just fatigue doesn't matter, it's just a way of measuring how good the fighters are relatively.
If you monkey with that to make it more realistic, you start running the risk of equalizing things that shouldn't be equal, like a Fighter vs a Wizard or that same low level fighter vs a high level fighter. In the real world, they are fairly equal, a sword to heart will kill an olympic level athlete just as surely as it will a 3 year old. But in a perfect game system, we want the better fighter to BE better, ergo he needs a number to define how much 'better' he is by showing how much more damage he takes.

I like FATAL.

It has never failed to disapoint me.

>>841718

You only say that because you can fit yoda inside your cunt!

>>841724

Jealous?

I think your just mad you didn't roll the 29" for vagoo depth.

>>841731


it was a 29" loli vagoo! that's just abnormal.

>>841731
Wait. Could that be you, my love?

>>841739
Why.. why.. where have you been my dear?

>>841768
>Why.. why.. where have you been my dear?

With me!

>>841768
>>841774
It is true my love. I was weak and couldn't resist his expendability.

>>841768
My love for you however remains unchanged! I love you this much!

>>841774
I hate you.

I hate you so much I could hate you dead.

May all the force of my Weaboo fury strike you down.

>>841792
>>841774
There is no reason to fight over me. There's enough to go around.

>>841791
I hate you this much.

>>841200
why yes I am

>>841813
My love, don't my feelings show through?

>>841825
No. Not really.

You did a bad thing.

>>841829
Then perhaps this will show my ever greater sincerity.

>>841831
And yet it only reveals further truth to your crime.

>>841838
Then maybe I can remind of when we first met...

>>841797
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LET TAU LIVE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE IMPERIUM!

>>841845
Oh... oh really?

>>841852
We Tau are downright sexy bastards.

Thread is not gay enough.

I must rectify that.

>>841856
My love nothing can keep us apart again. I love you this much.

>>841857

>>841857
Naruto knows.

>>841874
Indeed my love.

>>841880
Oh my love. How I missed you!

Quick counter-points:

>>841707
Class systems tend not to have rules for making new classes, so if people make their own you end up with power-gaming Mary Sue classes, or, as DnD has so kindly demonstrated for us, hundreds upon hundreds of prestige classes. As for defining roles, if you really have trouble figuring out who does what, you're doing it wrong. There's no reason characters can't shouldn't do different things and mix it up a bit. Adapt to the situation, experiment, and play characters, rather than character builds. What's the fun in just playing out the same pattern each and every time. Fighters in front, wizards and healers in back, rogues flanking, ho-hum. You might as well be running raids in WoW. Once again, RPGs aren't MMORPGs.

>>841710
You're completely right. Simple is subjective. My argument still stands though. DnD has too many rules. Too many = covering every specific task. The core rules of DnD can fit on at most a half-dozen pages, and would work much more smoothly. The fun, in my opinion, derives from the descriptions of what you're doing, not the roll you use to do it. Again, RPGs aren't MMORPGs.

>>841713
Another number can be used, such as fighting ability stat, and a resistance stat. See the Storyteller games. Very simple to know who's the better fighter, and you haven't limited characters to picking a class.

I remember lurking /cm/, then I realized it was just an offshoot of gaia. Fucking fags.

>>841857
greater good means greater boobies

>>841899
>There's no reason characters can't shouldn't do different things and mix it up a bit.

Yes there is. If a spellcaster can do everything a fighter can as well cast spells, then we have a balance problem. If he does it INSTEAD of casting spells then why don't we just call him a fighter? The class names are there as names for the roles inherent in any party based RPG. You need people to specialize in different roles in a party. That's why and how parties work. Each member brings something different and the strengths complement the weaknesses.

>DnD has too many rules.
Agreed. Personally, I'd like to see the special attacks (grappling, e.t.c.) cleaned up a bit. But it's still important to have some sort of rules for em so that when a player says he's grappling, there's a clear mechanic for how that works and you don't just rule arbitrarily that he succeeds/fails.

>Another number can be used, such as fighting ability stat, and a resistance stat
Sure, you can use another number, but it's horribly lame. It's one thing to say that you can dish out/take X amount of damage. It's another and much less useful thing to say that he has Fighting Spirit 15 or Toughness 20 if those numbers don't actually have a direct relation to how combat is resolved. And if they do then it's just a HP/AC system with fruitier numbers.

>>841899
>RPGs aren't MMORPGs

I hear that a lot, and I wonder why people use it. I mean, the video game RPG, and by extension the MMORPG is simply a derivation of the P&P RPG. Hell, if you look closely at the rules underlying most CRPGs you can see the D&D ruleset staring right back at you. The only difference is that computer AI hasn't evolved enough to provide meaningful challenges yet (hence the grindan) and that it's much harder to do complex calculations with pencil and paper than with a computer program (hence the complexity of combat). Other than that the two are rather similar and the same things that we enjoy in one, we tend to enjoy in the other.

>>841961
Video game RPGs have almost no role-play in them, it is all pick predetermined option A or B, and if you pick B we laugh at you and then you pick A.

In fact, Video Game RPGs would more accurately called Video-Stories.

>>841899
The storyteller system is intentionally crappy.

>>841980

Video-Stories? No, quite the opposite; the reason that the idea of an RPG being like a MMORPG is so reviled is because an MMORPG is all numbers and stats, and if it does occasionally have a few tiny droplets of story they're ignored by almost everyone because they're too busy twinking out their characters for maximum combat effectiveness or rushing forward to the next encounter.

I agree that D&D is alot better without all the material of extra (prestige) classes. Suddenly, your fighter cannot try to climb up on the dragon you're fighting, because that is a specific feat... I prefer having the DM improvise most such things, possibly making up very specific rules for action recurring in the campaign.

>>841961
The argument is that you don't actually do much roleplaying in a video game, and you're very limited to the constraints of the game, whereas in an RPG, you can come up with any insane idea and do it. In video games, if the designer didn't think up that possibility, you won't be able to do it.

Just as video game RPGs have evolved out of traditional RPGs, traditional RPGs have evolved beyond their roots. While they used to be just about killing monsters and taking their stuff, they're now about telling interesting stories. If I'm not doing that, I might as well pick up a video game, because that's much more accessible.


As for your other arguments, first, the other numbers DO have a relationship to how fighting is resolve. Try reading other rulesets to actually know what I'm talking about. Storyteller users the same amount of health points for every character, but the armor stats, certain special abilities, etc, are used to reduce the amount of damage taken per hit, and the fighting skills (like melee weapons, ranged weapons, etc) are used in resolving whether or not you hit someone.

Also, I never said that all characters should have the same abilities. What I'm saying is that with a classes system, you can have many different combinations of abilities, and actual variety in characters. Most characters in DnD are essentially clones of one another, maybe with a few differing feats or skills, and there's very little inherent in the stats with which you can actually identify.

And you want a cleaned up grapple? Simple: opposed unarmed combat skill check. Whoever loses gets grappled, regardless of who initiated. So much faster, same damned effect.

>>841961
Uh. No. Not at all. Things I enjoy in computer RPGs are almost exactly the opposite of the things I enjoy in P&P RPGs. In computer RPGs I like wide open worlds to explore, lots of freedom in character generation, and tons of options overall. I'll sacrifice personality and story for choices and size.

In P&P RPGs I tend to prefer playing and running games which start with quite a bit of focus, usually meaning limiting characters and situation. I really don't care about settings, premade or otherwise. As a GM I pretty much make up most setting on the fly and as a player I care much more about character interaction than anything about setting. Table top RPGs to me are about creating some fictional drama between friends.

>>842001
MMORPGs have stories too, it is just that they suck ass, and unless you are a top end raider and bring along 50 or so random dick weeds you met on the interweb, you will never get to see it.

>>842020
>>842013
>>842004
>>842001
>the reason that the idea of D&D being like a MMORPG is so reviled is because D&D is all numbers and stats, and if it does occasionally have a few tiny droplets of story they're ignored by almost everyone because they're too busy twinking out their characters for maximum combat effectiveness or rushing forward to the next encounter.

see how with a simple copypasta, your hypothetical MMORPG is pretty much like a P&P RPG? There's as much potential for immersion and "role-playing" in video games as in P&P. Some guy pretending to be an fireball casting elf doesn't do it any better just because he's in his basement with 4 friends and not in his basement talking to friends over the internet. The challenges posed by the DM are better because the DM can adapt the story on the fly, but the story itself is just as valid.

Lets take WoW, possibly the examplar of the MMORPG experience. You can play WoW as a grindan game and just hack and slash your way to more gold and experience. You can also play WoW through the quests and experience a fairly rich and interesting story. If you manage to get a group of friends to start the game with you, you can even play it as a party based system. The choice isn't built into the game itself, it's just that most people who play tend to be hack/slashan types.

Arguments over how "free" P&P is versus CRPGs are irrelevant first because any game system, including all P&P RPGs are restricted by the rules of the system. If the rules say you can't kill a dragon by sneezing on it, then you can't. And secondly, as I said earlier, that's simply a restriction of the current state of AI. As AI gets more complex, responses become more complex and the player gets more "freedom" in what he can do.

Oh, and that whole bullshit about P&P RPGs 'evolving' into some new form now? Utter crap. They are still enjoyable for the same reasons they always were, people enjoy pretending to be someone else.

I like d20 for being streamlined for combat and that its pretty universal (like Microsoft lolz). I liked the Legend of the Five Rings RPG because the system used the same mechanics for combat as a poetry contest or intimidating a snotnosed Crane, thus all non-combat skills are important because ANYTHING can become a combat analogue. I didn't like the Palladium system very much because it was so vague. It had some great licenses but I hated the system.

>>842722
I don't think you have played an MMORPG before.

>>842722
I don't think you have played a PnP RPG before.

>>842722
The thing with computer RPGs is that at least the computer does all the rules for you.

>>842746
>>842751

lol

>>842753
Which is the problem, because the computer is only limited to what rules were programed into it, and any ingenuity on the behalf of the players is typically an exploit of the system.

I like:
- The social combat system from Exalted. It abstracts social interaction pretty hard, to the point where it could be handled totally with numbers if you liked. A less-eloquent player with a socially-adept character has an easier time convincing others that his plan is a good idea. A cunning roleplayer with bad numbers can stunt and get a little bonus, but that's it.
- In Exalted, there's nothing like the sheer glee of unveiling your hax combo that nets you 30 dice of whatever. There is a special glee in rolling a fat double handful of dice.
- BELL CURVES. For maximum effect, imagine that those words are being spoken by a crazy college professor. 2d6 v 1d12. Fer serius, guise.

I dislike:
- Magic wonder stats The ability to use one stat (typically DEX or DEX analog) to do everything worth doing in a given setting (like combat).
- Too many cookers, only one beef. I prefer a small, tight, well-written amount of information to draw upon rather than a lot of bullshit spread across a ton of splatbooks. Does anyone really need five monster manuals?
- Rules that are poorly written, obtuse, or require frequent referencing of a chart (turn undead). More than that, though I hatehatehate bad indexes.

>>840656
Anyone who plays anything from White Wolf will begin to rapidly accrue fat stacks of d10s.

>>843013
It's true. My group has altogether approximately 80, discounting the ones that get lost in the dice eating rug.

>>840516
I like the basic dice mechanic used for AEG's L5R (as opposed to the d20 version that was out for awhile.) You have a pool of dice that you roll, and you choose a certain number of those dice to keep. You have a target number you have to roll over, and you just add up the dice you kept to see if you succeed or not. The other interesting aspect of the system is raises (voluntarily raising your target number to get better results if you succeed on the roll.) If you want to do something exceptional with whatever you're attempting, you need to aim for it from the beginning and if you get too ambitious you'll fail the whole task.

>>843094
Just out of curiosity, how is the number of dice that you keep decided upon? Do you have to split your pool into the number you'll roll and the maximum number that you can keep, or is it set by your "level"/equivalent rank?

>>843103
Depends on the edition of the system. In the current one, you take the trait used in the roll (Strength, Intelligence, etc) and add your ranks in the skill you're using to get the number of dice rolled, then you keep a number of dice equal to your trait.

>>841960
I don't think you really understand classless systems...

>>843070
in soviet russia, carpets munch you!