RPGnet Forums

[Screw Danlon]

It's gotten lost over the years that the rules were just meant to there in the background, and consulted if there was a conflict, and were just modeled on concepts early wargamers could wrap their warped minds around. It's not like now where dice rolls define the game, it was the other way around. If you ever have a chance to play in a game run by any of the few remaining old guard (mostly not D&D at this point because of this), you see just how little importance the dice actually had in their eyes.

I miss that. I always run my games as low-rule as possible. If I can solve it on the fly, I do. I never even bothered to track ammo and food counts, as long as people made sure they bought some at towns regularly, and sometimes I didn’t even make stat blocks, I just made a few monsters that felt “right” and let them die when it felt dramatically appropriate.

But one of my friends is a massive stickler on rules, and will consult the handbook for every single difficulty check, tracks ammo every round, all that tedious stuff. Even in “low-rule“ games like Spirit of the Century. He’s a decent GM, but I have to skip about half the games he runs because the OCD kills me.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

I always read these mod texts in the voice of Bill Lumbergh.
View attachment 2346755
These have to be the most insufferable, shitty people alive. I want to kill them irl.

They're not worth the bullet.

Honestly, I'd settle for driving them out of their little hugbox and forcing them to deal with (gasp) actual dissenting opinions, where they can't just banhammer away someone for wrongthink.

I can't even figure out how Heavy Arms's post was objectionable, other than 'it made Bcaugust54's fee-fees hurt'.

 

[AnOminous]

But one of my friends is a massive stickler on rules, and will consult the handbook for every single difficulty check, tracks ammo every round, all that tedious stuff. Even in “low-rule“ games like Spirit of the Century. He’s a decent GM, but I have to skip about half the games he runs because the OCD kills me.

As a GM I always rolled behind the screen and would have zero hesitation cheating in favor of the players. Especially if someone came up with an actually good idea and rolled some literally ridiculous bullshit. Oh? Nah, you actually critted that shit.

The real rule for any RPG is "is it fun?" If it isn't, fuck it.

 

[NerdShamer]

Did i not call it?

Considering how someone else just ate a week long ban for justifying capitalism and that socialism requires you to work for a living, you have a point.

 

[Zonga]

Considering how someone else just ate a week long ban for justifying capitalism and that socialism requires you to work for a living, you have a point.

It was pretty easy to see coming even without that, though. Like I said - there is only one correct opinion on any given subject, it is an incredibly convoluted opinion that is impossible to guess, and guessing wrong will get you banned, as will asking for clarification (since that proves that you didnt already share the correct opinion as "obvious".)

This is how narcissists play their games.

 

[MembersSchoolPizza]

D&D has always broken down at power levels where randomness shouldn't be a factor anymore. You wouldn't go to a brain surgeon who somehow missed your head with his scalpel once every 20 cuts, and that's without taking into account magic.

We're getting a little offtopic, but this is why I've never liked the "succeed on critical success, fail on critical fumble" rules. A rando is not going to succeed at, say, smithing a sword the first try. Doesn't matter how lucky they get. Aint. Gonna. Happen. And while technically it's possible to critically fail on making a cooking check for a sandwich, I suppose, you aren't going to do it one time in twenty, no.

 

[UnsufficentBoobage]

Spirit of the Century

Is Google shitting me or did this REALLY get a TDS-filled sequel?

 

[Hugbox Kommissar]

We're getting a little offtopic, but this is why I've never liked the "succeed on critical success, fail on critical fumble" rules. A rando is not going to succeed at, say, smithing a sword the first try. Doesn't matter how lucky they get. Aint. Gonna. Happen. And while technically it's possible to critically fail on making a cooking check for a sandwich, I suppose, you aren't going to do it one time in twenty, no.

In D&D 5e at least, a nat 20 only matters for attack rolls, not skill checks. There is no auto-success for skill checks, not that it doesn't stop people from playing that way.


So this post isn't completely off topic:

This is going to become a thing, isn't it?

 

[Shaka Brah]

In D&D 5e at least, a nat 20 only matters for attack rolls, not skill checks. There is no auto-success for skill checks, not that it doesn't stop people from playing that way.

The only optional rules I can recall are ones where a 20 on a skill roll can count as a 30.

 

[Flaming Insignias]

In D&D 5e at least, a nat 20 only matters for attack rolls, not skill checks. There is no auto-success for skill checks, not that it doesn't stop people from playing that way.


So this post isn't completely off topic:
View attachment 2347343
This is going to become a thing, isn't it?

There was actually a theory going around that infection may make people suffer from some level of restlessness and wanderlust, which was why you had so many infected people traveling around in the early stages of the outbreak. It’s probably not the case, but it does seem to be accurate.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

There was actually a theory going around that infection may make people suffer from some level of restlessness and wanderlust, which was why you had so many infected people traveling around in the early stages of the outbreak. It’s probably not the case, but it does seem to be accurate.

It couldn't have anything to do with how most of the planet locked itself in the closet and hid in the corner (figuratively speaking)?

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

Is Google shitting me or did this REALLY get a TDS-filled sequel?

I can't find anything obvious on a search. Closest seems to be Shadow of The Century? Not read that one, while I do see a worrying amount of references to sticking it to "the man" it is meant to be set in the 1980s. But it was published in 2019 so TDS seems possible.
Lot more SotC supplements than I realised actually. That said given I was only aware of it and Strange Tales that's not too hard.

 

[JohnDoe]

We're getting a little offtopic, but this is why I've never liked the "succeed on critical success, fail on critical fumble" rules. A rando is not going to succeed at, say, smithing a sword the first try. Doesn't matter how lucky they get. Aint. Gonna. Happen. And while technically it's possible to critically fail on making a cooking check for a sandwich, I suppose, you aren't going to do it one time in twenty, no.

This is why in every game I and my friends run, we just eschew rolling unless it really needs it. The only time you're rolling to make a sandwich, for example, is if you're in a sandwich making contest or trying to do it before a bomb goes off or something. Otherwise you just get into stupid pedantry.

In a few games I think they even have rules where if you have X amount of skill over the DC you just succeed at the task.

 

[Flexo]

This is why in every game I and my friends run, we just eschew rolling unless it really needs it. The only time you're rolling to make a sandwich, for example, is if you're in a sandwich making contest or trying to do it before a bomb goes off or something. Otherwise you just get into stupid pedantry.

In a few games I think they even have rules where if you have X amount of skill over the DC you just succeed at the task.

I recall 3.5 having that solved with the "take 10" or "take 20" rule. Where basically if your skill was high enough, you just auto passed after a time. Was that removed in later editions?

 

[Dante Alighieri]

Where basically if your skill was high enough, you just auto passed after a time.

Nah it was a "this isn't a stressful situation so I can take some time to do this skill check" rule where you treat it as if you rolled a 10/20.

Using Skills :: d20srd.org

And yes it has been removed in 5e.

 

[NerdShamer]

I legitimately laughed at this one.

Seriously, this is something that's actually good and worth playing...And he gets banned for half a year for taking the bait.

 

[Shaka Brah]

Nah it was a "this isn't a stressful situation so I can take some time to do this skill check" rule where you treat it as if you rolled a 10/20.

Using Skills :: d20srd.org

And yes it has been removed in 5e.

Is it really gone in 5e? I could have sworn it was an optional rule in the DMG or somewhere.

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

I recall 3.5 having that solved with the "take 10" or "take 20" rule. Where basically if your skill was high enough, you just auto passed after a time. Was that removed in later editions?

I resisted the skill check discussion but I'll crack here.

3.5 did a fairly simple thing to solve the 1 in 20 skill checks failure. Skill checks do not auto fail or auto pass on 1 or 20, that's limited to other rolls.

So if you have a high enough Climb bonus say to make a check even on a 1 you're fine and needn't even roll unless a higher check helps somehow.

Use Magic Device specifically has a punishment for trying to use the skill to activate an item and failing to do so on a natural 1, that you could not try again with that item for 24 hours. But again that required you to fail, if your skill was high enough to pass on a 1 then it's all good.

 

[Flaming Insignias]

I resisted the skill check discussion but I'll crack here.

3.5 did a fairly simple thing to solve the 1 in 20 skill checks failure. Skill checks do not auto fail or auto pass on 1 or 20, that's limited to other rolls.

So if you have a high enough Climb bonus say to make a check even on a 1 you're fine and needn't even roll unless a higher check helps somehow.

Use Magic Device specifically has a punishment for trying to use the skill to activate an item and failing to do so on a natural 1, that you could not try again with that item for 24 hours. But again that required you to fail, if your skill was high enough to pass on a 1 then it's all good.

5e is the same, but decades of house rules treating Natural 20s and 1s as either perfection or catastrophe has led to people assuming that's how it works. If you were making crit rolls, you probably were succeeding/failing anyway unless the skill rating was near-impossible to solve/your bonuses were ludicrous.

 

[Hugbox Kommissar]

I legitimately laughed at this one.

Seriously, this is something that's actually good and worth playing...And he gets banned for half a year for taking the bait.

Wow, someone really got bootyblasted over this. Also, how is this "propaganda"? Its absolutely true and every culture that used lots of slaves gave some privileges over others (in the South you had the house nigger vs field slave dichotomy, the Turks had slave bureaucrats and soldiers etc) which means that slavery wasn't just a long series of whippings and buck breakings.

Oh well, I guess this guy gets more free time to devote to his kickass campaign setting.