It's all consensus based and mutual with you group. You got dice.)
>>9467835601000001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 00111111
This spam is beyond idiotic, at least try to write like a human
>>94678381Nope. R U?
>>94678393>you group. Youbots don't like making spelling errors.lazy people like myself do because I don't have a fucken editor IRL (I'm a poor fag...surprise!)
>>94678517>poor fag*poorfagsee!
It's a pretty damn good new idea, is it not⁈
>>94678612just try it out.it works even abstractly! as a thought experiment
>>>/wsg/5768808
>>94678356Most D&D 5e players don't know the rules anyway, so this IS how they play. It's a game designed BY retards, FOR retards.
>>94678356Do you spam like that just to flex that you can do whatever you want on this board? Yeah, we know.
>>94678544>doesn't use a browser spellchecker>doesn't use LibreOffice or whatever other text editor with (also free) spell checkerI'd say he was right, he's not just a poorfag, he's poor and also a fag.
>>94678356>why not play [game] without [game]I am fascinated by your completely incoherent grasp on RPGs. Please explain further.
>>94679219Could be worse. Could be Traveller.
Why hasn't this board been deleted?
>>94679576explain why you need rulebooks to role play a game?I could roleplay with you right now: you are in front of a red dragon, she looks pissed, what do you do?
>>94679299Do whatever I want?Yes I have free will to think of new ideas like "hey, why don't I just play D&D the way I want to?"I am an American you know...
>>94679946>>>/qst/
>>94679946Depends, what are my options? What is the relative value (opportunity cost) of each option to every other options? What is the probability of success of each of these options? What are the probable consequences of failure for each option?
>>94679965What options do you think would be the most you thing that you would do in that setting (given your honest knowledge of D&D class archetypes and the limits you know and wish to place upon yourself... you could be a demigod or a lvl-0 aristocrat for what I care. have fun. that's my aim/telos and I hope it's your's)
>>94679991Okay, I'm a level 900 wizard. I think the dragon out of existence.
>>94680002what existence do you think the dragon into?
>>94680002>[I'm operating under the D&D metaphysics that "think" and "wish" are kinda synonymous as a lvl 900 wizard and by existences we're using the Planescape/Great Wheel cosmology That way we're in the same gameworld and speaking a common tongue.]
>>94680083remember they're a difference between rulesets and settings (the latter transcends the former)
>>94680083You haven't established any rules, so my actions are valid. If you want to invalidate my actions, looks like you'll have to establish some rules. Imagine that.
>>94680429what will it take for you to move forward?
>>946805054E?
>>94678356That's what DMs are expected to do, anyway. Buy all the books and peripherals, and then ignore them.
>>94682163Why not just... not buy all the books and peripherals?Or just read them at the store, store the ideas in your "bag of holding".
>>94682236You misunderstood the point.Try reading the post.
>>94680505Movement rules.
>>94682254No, he didn't. Answer the question.
>>94682369The question has nothing to do with the point.
>>94682373What's the point?
>>94682367
>>94682665The point is what's expected of a DM, which you'd have known if you'd read the post.
>>94682373yeah it does
>>94682938No, that isn't the point. If you don't need rules, you shouldn't buy the books.
>>94683027The company's expectation for making their product ≠ what should be done.The DM is only expected to buy the product, and D&D's defenders will always tell you to change or ignore the product you're expected to buy.What you should do is not buy the product, because you'd have to change or ignore it anyway.
>>94679299>you can do whatever you want on this boardi received a three day ban for my Myfarog threads.
>>94683064Irrelevant to the discussion.
>>94683064If the DM is God, then the DM can play without a ruleset. I first learned to roleplay this way from my cousin DMing Star Wars with standard 52-deck of cards. That was it. It got me into D6 Star Wars and AD&D and stuff, but then I realized:>"wait, I can just play the games without the rulebooks as guardrails. I learned to like the game without rules (outside of the meta rule of using the deck to simulate RNG).as OP I think it's an interesting topic to explore because I never hear people talk about it though I think about it kinda too often
>>94683064Also "the company/official-IP holder" can work on developing the lore and brand. Perhaps rulesets aren't their thing?
>>94678356Because the rules create a screen to refer to for things we don't immediately like in the short term. The immediate consensus that the rules are important and should be obeyed in general creates a neutral arbiter to refer back to, in the way a GM should be, but can often fail at. Without a consistent rules base, even otherwise fair GMs can get caught up on what their gut feeling suggests rather than a more objective view of the situation. Even if the GM is fair, there can easily be a perception that he isn't especially if one player is making a series of mistakes or bad decisions. The rules provide a screen for decisions and a basis for how the physics of the world work, from a practical circumstances. Imagine, if you will, having a character randomly killed after knocking on a random door in a random street, by a random NPC who decided to blast your character with a shotgun upon seeing his ugly mug. In a system with clear rules, there can be rolls to remove culpability from killing your character from the GM. Without those rules, this essentially appears to be an arbitrary decision to murder your character.
>>94686212No I disagree. I don't think that is a fair comparison to say that rules automatically make something fair [Lawful]; that's a logical equity fallacy. The reason I believe this is apples/oranges is because this is a game, a willing social contract between participants all who can opt out at any time (we've all had people bail on our sessions for no good reason). My proof of concept is that it is possible to play without any ruleset, so assuming that the DM and the players all have the same aim, then why not eschew the rulesets in favor of storytelling and flow? If a wizard feels powerful enough, let em teleport (at least try).
>>94686579Its not the 'truth' of the matter, its the appearance of 'truth'. The rules don't make things fair, they make things appear fair. The GM can ignore rules, but so long as they appear to obey them the illusion of fairness is maintained. The rules aren't about fairness, they are about the appearance of fairness. They give players room to stand on in confrontations with the game master when things go awry in a way the players don't appreciate, and give the GM a similar platform when they stand against a player decision. You can play with no rules, but my own experiments have had my players feel a bit lost, or insistent on silly nonsense because the rules don't explicitly prevent them from attempting it. True fairness isn't a part of this, its that the book is an arbiter which is disconnected from the particular table and its circumstances. The book can't suddenly decide that John takes a lightning bolt to the face because he poked a snide joke at the game master, nor can the book decide to give the game master's girlfriend a handout. Even in good faith, a GM can err, and so can a player; thus having some third party to point at is a good thing. The book isn't some magic arbiter of fairness, but it is disconnected from the realities of the table, which can be a good thing, as decided by the table.
>>94686579rules automatically make things fair
A TTRPG needs 3 things to survive >an agreement on genre ("you are all grunt soldiers in a mostly realistic modern war") to set guardrails on the game>a resolution mechanic to resolve disputes that fall within the genre >imagination For the most part, you can reply on imagination. "I go check his body, what do I see?" "I tell General Fuckface that he's a fuckface." "I pull the pin on the grenade and wait to die." There doesnt need to be any rules. Everyone agrees that General Fuckface is gonna be pissed, or that the grenade will kill you or that the GM gets to decide what is in the body. Sometimes though, two players will disagree on what happens within the genre. "My guy shoots your guy first!" "No, my guy is faster!" Then you have to turn to the resolution mechanic. Roll your funny d20's add some stats. The player with the higher number gets to decide what happens. Sorry Billy, your guy is dead. This is just an example. There are all kinds of resolution mechanics -- dice, cards, modifiers, without -- and all kinds of outcomes. In my example the higher number dominates the lower number, but you could imagine some back and forth and bargaining instead of an all or nothing result. And finally, sometimes someone will do something out of genre. "My guy gets into his F-22 fighter jet!" Sorry Timmy, we agreed that you are all grunt soldiers. No fighter jets. If you play a TTRPG in this minimalist way, you'll have a lot of fun. The resolution mechanic doesnt need to be complex. Try flipping a coin. Heads, my guy wins. Tails, your guy wins. If you play this way, you'll shed the illusions you once had. Rather than playing the game as an exercise in imaginary optimization, you'll play the game to find out what happens, to find the end of the story that you are creating together.
>>94687884I'm going to have sex with my F-22 fighter jet and you can't stop me.
>>94678356Why does this thread get posted so often?
>>94688019NOOOOOOOOOO
Neo-trad players will engage in so called "lonely fun" in which they write their 19-page backstories and perfect builds. These require rules and general setting handouts. One can only hope this trend will pass and in ten years people actually learn to play.
>>94688065>One can only hope this trend will pass and in ten years people actually learn to play.I am wishing this since late 90s, regardless of what's the current trend in gaming.Guess what never happens when the current trend ends.
>>94687749I don't think you really want that statement to be true.
>>94688023I dunno. I'm not those other posters.
>>94686839Is Law illusory?
>>94687884It's the simplicity of imaginative group roleplay that I am fond of/miss; like when your a kid and you just naturally roleplay with other kids and agree upon stuff like power levels and stuff like "I shot you, you're dead". I feel like if you do have a good enough relationship with your group, then the best way to demonstrate this is to increasingly go ruleless (or at least house rules it to your groups liking). Eventually you can get rid of the dice if your players are good enough at explaining away the need for RNG (e.g. "I can tell a better story than the die can").
>>94688822>Trust!That's the word my brain forgot to mention to me earlier!
>>94678356Because I don't play DND, I play other systems
>>94688980Ok, not-DND systems then.
>>94688989Well, those other rulesets provide me the kind of guidelines that more or less serve my games nicely enough, and on the off-chance I come to a rule that doesn't seem to work I just change or get rid of. Why do I need to throw out the baby with the bathwater?
>>94678356This guy looks like Tyler Nixon the pornstar
>>94689016>and on the off-chance I come to a rule that doesn't seem to work I just change or get rid of>Why do I need to throw out the baby with the bathwater?the baby to me is the setting, while the bathwater is the mechanics. it's useful as a framing tool for newcomers to think-alike, but with enough trust/fiat with your co-gamers you should be able to go along with each others' wills. At least at an experimental stage it's worth a shot to say "Hey tonight we're gonna try something different..."
>>94689194If you don't understand the feedback that happens between mechanics and the story you either haven't played any game or you had very bad GMs. Something like panic in Mothership, a critical failure in Ryuutama, adversity points in KoB, improvement through failure in DG. Mechanics give you new things you wouldn't get through consensus and doing what you feel sounds right. If you're gonna do that just write a novel.
>>94689194That's kind of the thing though, my group actually likes having those rules. Means they don't have to get too involved in the boring set up of deciding what rules apply or don't apply since we already those rules to consult, and everything else they just leave to me. Plus, as >>94689260 pointed out, unexpected things spice up the gameplay. Tenra Bansho has a lovely mechanic called Aiki Chits, it's basically out of game currency that the table and the DM can award players for roleplaying well that can later be exchanged for an outcome changing mechanic called Fate Points. And between you and me, I've been known to throw in a couple extra aiki chits for players that can play AROUND any flubs or failures as an incentive to take risks. That's the kind of thing that I enjoy from the kind of rulesets I use, so why would I toss them out entirely?
>>94682367lol
>>94680429A hell goblin appears and stabs you with its rusty blade. You take 50pts of critical fire damage and die instantly. Maybe from now on we can be less combative in our roleplaying.
>>94688779it is true dumbass
>>94688822no
>>94688065that's the right way to play retard
>>94686839rules make things fair
>>94689194the unpredictability of the dice is desirable for its own sake. freeform is neither appealing nor fun.
>>94689517actually I don't, since you never established any rules that define what "50 points", "damage", "fire", "blade", "critical", "goblin", and "death" are.
>>94690073Too bad we don't have a book full of those to establish what those definitions are
>>94690251yeah, too bad.
>>94690051Ok. I have a rule: I win at everything.Only rule.Fair?
>>94691215Okay, I use the rule "I win at everything" and win.
>>94678356If you go that, you're not playing D&D
>>94691219Then you're also just demonstrating my point that adding rules doesn't make it more fair either (even if you and I win all the time, it's still not a fair game to anyone else). I think it has something to do with Incompleteness...
>>94691241But it is perfectly fair. Anyone can use the "I win all the time" rule, so it is fair by definition.As long as all players are using the same set of rules, and no rule specifically advantages a particular side or participant over another (like a rule that says "only player 1 can pick Akuma", for example), the game is automatically fair.
>>94691260>so it is fair by definitionby whom?
>>94691344What do you mean, by whom? That's what the word "fair" means.
>>94691366You're assuming much about fairness.What's fair to you isn't universally fair.Nor is the rule that "You win all the time".While the world isn't fair, a fantasy world could definitely be fair and a good way to try it is without rules.Then again, you could impose on yourself "I don't always win all the time" as a self-rule.
>>94691431No, I don't presume anything, I'm simply correct In the context of games, fairness is well defined, and it isn't subjective to a particular person. I provided the definition above.
>>94691431A self imposed rule is not a rule of the game and has nothing to do with its fairness. A world isn't fair or unfair, a rule set is.
lmao so BTFO'd he deleted
>>94691635ok. you win.
lol mad
>>94679946You've never actually read any RPG rulebook, have you? Many things for roleplay and storytelling do not explicitly need, or call for rules. But there are things that might. Moments where the outcome is uncertain, or where the chance of failure opens up potentially interesting possibilities that could enrich the story being created.Do you think people use rulesets because the rules hold their hand through the creation and development of a story? Is that what you think RPGs are? Because you're fucking wrong.
>>94679946You never answered my question. What are my options?
>>94679946So, you just want to roleplay. Yeah, you didn't come up with some revolutionary new idea. That's called just plain RPing. You could just say that instead.
>>94699337you tell mewhat are you options?
>>94699665No, you tell me.
>>94691718>>94699757no one wants to play with faggots
bump
>>94678356Yeah
>>94678356If i ever have the chance i will run "d&d" (as in d&d settings, 1e to 3d era at least) in other rulesystems but until now i never got humored by my group in this regard (they want as RAW as possible when d&d is concerned), i may try with some newblood eventually.
>>94715235slashing broadsword
>>94710677You should be killed.
>>94722543what's your problem?
>>94678356Rules aren't a restriction. Frameworks drive freedom and creativity. Rules give you something to want. Something to strive towards. Goals to set and things to achieve. A good rules set, itself, drives the players to action. Structure and rules are freeing--not restrictive.
>>94724881Ok, I'll give you that some of the best directors' masterpieces were under constraints.But with everything you just said, I could say the same about breaking the rules/thinking outside the box: freedom and creativity emerge outward of the confines of the framework (once you tap out the inward limits of the framework).My belief is that: you can be free and creative while creating meaningful goals and driving player actions/agency without playing with rules.Rules aren't useless, I'm not cynical. I'm interested in what happens after you maxed out rulesets' use like >>94680002 and have fully explored the mechanical limits of the game as a lvl 900 wizard. In this case, the "metaphysics"/rules of the game start to limit the what is possible for the setting and stories that could be told within that setting. We've seen this time and again at how the rules affect settings & lore (like in 4E D&D's system did to the Forgotten Realms with Spellplague). I'd like to see where we can go without the rulesets arbitrarily limiting imagination. One campaign setting I would particularly like to explore without rules is Planescape, given how meta the setting is.
>>94725189>I could say the same about breaking the rules/thinking outside the box: freedom and creativity emerge outward of the confines of the frameworkI agree with you. You gotta have a framework to break outa, though.If you have infinite possibility and no wants in front of you, you end up doing nothing. The rules give you a reason.
