>game rules are lower lethality than the real world>fighting with a weapon is only marginally better than fighting unarmed (instead of being hundreds of times better like in real life)>the only practical way to kill people is to invest every last skill point into combat>tools provide only a miniscule bonus to performanceThis describes the overwhelming majority of TTRPGs. For some reason nobody ever seems to think about just how fucking weird this would make the world. Just think about it. Humanity operating under those rules would never even make it past the stone age. We'd still be living in fear of animals. And it's hard to even imagine the ramficiations of gatekeeping the ability to kill in such fashion. It would destroy the social dynamics we are used to in the real world.
>And it's hard to even imagine the ramficiations of gatekeeping the ability to kill in such a fashion
>>97090192It's an abstraction you fuck.
>>97090234That's a meaningless thing to say. In the context of a game it's the only thing I can engage with.
>>97090240How about you go engage with some grass outside?
>>97090192>Uuuuuh why is my game a game!?!?!Your first thread didn't take off so you decided to try again? speed fuck yourself with a rusty chunk of rebar.
>>97090309>>97090313Not traditional games.
>>97090240A normal tabletop game is not meant to be an accurate representation of every time period and is built around recreating a certain experience with mechanics rather producing than a physical simulations model. I cannot speak as to GURPS which likely exists as an exception.For example, in a typical fantasy TTRPG the rules allow for players to fight goblins and monsters, sometimes using their fists if they want a martial-arts flair for the fun of it. This fantasy world is not predicated on the existence of a stone age and indeed there may never have even been an equivalent in-universe since gods and such could have poofed the world into existence with swords and plate mail already ready. Ignoring setting details, the fact that armor only provides a moderate bonus is really more a result of how hit points are viewed, which is another argument entirely. Keep in mind that most systems use hit points as a generalized and ill-defined thing rather than actual bodily hits which armour would mitigate.As for tools and how you say they only provide a miniscule bonus I am going to flat-out disagree there. Most normal systems I am aware of refuse to even let players attempt, for example, a craft or profession check without the requisite equipment. You do have a point if you are thinking of crowbars though, as I consider them generally underpowered in a lot of games but that's a somewhat different matter.A good place to end this is to ask what you even want here. Do you want to try to apply tabletop rules to situations they were not designed for and laugh? That's all well and good and by all means do so. Do you want to find a system which meets your requirements? If that's the case please provide something more actionable than what you don't want.
>>97090192You're not fighting normal guys and animals in ttrpgs, you're fighting warriors and monsters
>>97090359I understand what the the intention behind the abstraction is, but I still ultimately have to weigh the validity of my decisions during the game with the rules in mind. There have been plenty of occasions where a decision would have made sense if it was made in identical circumstances in the real world but didn't work because of the quirks of the game. There is no "unabstracted" game for me to engage with.So instead I have to engage with the game world like a weird alien (because I know how the rules work and going against them results in failure) while every NPC acts as you would expect them to in the real world even though they reasonably shouldn't because they also just fail when they don't play along. This gets especially outlandish in games with settings that encourage the regular passage of time and where the PCs are given abilities and the expectation to shape society, like Exalted, because as you advance the world around you the overall dissonance grows exponentially and it becomes increasingly more difficult to exercise suspension of disbelief or even to make sense of your future decisions.
>>97090359>I cannot speak as to GURPS which likely exists as an exception.GURPS also follows that same exact rule. If you go purely by basic, it exists as a sort of larger than life realism, where the rules err on the believable side; but it leans on allowing the players to do exceptional things for dramatic effect. If you add books, you can go either more or less simulationist as you please. The more cinematic rules end up stripping out a lot of the more fiddly rules up to and including the HP of mooks.
>>97090359Hey don't worry, GURPS is also a means to the end of satisfactorily recreating the vibes of a desired genre, it's just modular to a fault and exists as more of a game design kit instead of having the slant of any particular designer's vision baked in. Ostensibly. Marketing line aside, it has no more interest in physics than, say, D&D creating its statistical baselines with a little bit of scientific trivia. There's just usually a module to cater to any DM's specific brand of autism.
>>97090395I think you might want to look at some of the more old-school styles of games. They sometimes have very few rules with the understanding that the player should instead interact with the world directly to benefit immersion.Think of it like:>I roll perception to see if there's a trapVS>I take a long pole and poke the floor tiles in front of meOne of these does not need rules to be performed, instead just a Game Master who can maintain a consistent and immersive world.
>>97090192>>the only practical way to kill people is to invest every last skill point into combatName five games where this is the case.
>>97090395Use the rules less, talk to your GM more. Explain that you'd like to do X like in reality (or in the appropriate type of fiction) but worry about the rules tripping you up. Negotiate, explain, and try to sell the GM on how our plan will be cool. It you ARE the GM just encourage your players to do the above.
>>97090192But mechanics ARE physics in real life! >;]
>>97090192I take it you don't actually play games, else you would realize this shit is generally only a problem in D&D which explicitly does not take place in the real world, you absolute thundering moron.
>>97091048It's a problem in every game ever made.
>>97091194Name fifty, with specific examples.
>>97091199inb4 50 d&d heartbreakers
>>97090313>>97091048>>97091199>>97091220samefag
>>97090192It's dumb as fuck, but I always love when games imply the the mechanics may be the physics
>>97090222You know what? Maybe.
>>97091259You wish, OP
>>97090192>Humanity operating under those rules would never even make it past the stone age. We'd still be living in fear of animals.You're describing the pokemon universe, except they did eventually get past ungabunga by learning to be friends with said wild animals and monsters.
>>97090192Must be why there's some many games about unarmed combat being the best. Oh wait. There aren't. You're an idiot.
>>97090222fpbp>>97090309Fourth post a strong runner up.
>>97090192Who are you quoting?
>>97090192Never had this problem in prowlers, try playing better games
>>97090192>Humanity operating under those rules would never even make it past the stone age.they also wouldn't need to.if a fist is almost as good as a sword, and barehanded is almost as good as a specialized tool, then why spend the time making and carrying and using weapons and tools, either you're already a demigod without need of such crutches or the tech tree is a waste of time.HOWEVER, i'll also point out that the games you're complaining about also usually have special super powers. Which is basically a whole second tech tree to explore compared to material technology.So no one would invest in making swords and hammers, but if it's learnable at all, EVERYONE would invest in learning magic or psionics or getting a positive mutation or breeding with monsters so your lineage gains monster powers or whatever.
>>97090240Unless the game is simulating absolute realism, it's meant to represent something fictional, which means that you can just suspend your disbelief and enjoy playing the game. Or you can continue screeching about how guns aren't deadly enough or whatever
>>97090192If you ACTUALLY thought about it it would make perfect sense. You are born into an environment filled with incredibly deadly monsters that live in just about every environment, inundated with magic. Men and women have to be biologically near identical in combat capability in order to ensure maximum survivability, so the male-female biological seperation is close to nonexisttent. Weapon become tools to either alter the type of damage you do or increase reach or range, rather than simply killing tools by themselves. Magic is commonplace enough that with some training just about everyone knows a little, and those who seek more power can usually find it in any number of ways.Adventurers become highly specialized people designed to deal with monsters on their own turf, and recover whatever the monsters took, be it land, wealth, magic, whatever. Guilds make sense in these worlds less as 'groups of unionized workers' and more as 'local troubleshooting groups funded by either government or retired adventurers. You know, like the four most played fantasy TT games that exist.
>>97090192>>97090192>>97090359Depends on how baked into the mechanics this is, how adjustable this is to make things more or less lethal. If it's possible then i don't really care as much because i can adjust it to fit the setting if not then i probably want nothing to do with it because it just feels forced. It does raise the question of if unarmed combat is just slightly worse than fighting with a sword, then why should anyone playing that system ever choose a sword besides for flavor purposes?
>>97090192>This describes the overwhelming majority of TTRPGs. Maybe.Just use GURPS if you prefer realistic simulationism.
>>97090401Well, basic default GURPS doesn't assume that the GM is allowing cinematic advantages / skills / techniques, and also assumes that you have zero pointbuy with the GM exercising harsh oversight on how you arrange your points. No one ever plays the game that way, because it just literally makes you as competent and interesting as a normal guy shopping for groceries at Walmart, but it's definitely possible.Cinematic advantages are almost always called out and labeled as such, by the way. Otherwise, the GM needs to exercise oversight. Are there people with eidetic memories? Well. Technically yeah. But they're extraordinarily rare and savants like that are always profoundly disabled in various ways. Like Kim Peek. So it might not technically be a cinematic advantage, and your players might even be able to purchase it with their available points, but that doesn't mean they should have it.There is no shortcut. The GURPS GM always has to review proposed characters, even though the players are expected to have awareness about the tone, style, power level, environment and atmosphere of the story.
>>97092050I really don't get this mindset. Why does someone have to switch over to GURPS if they want other combat options like grittier combat? I get maybe a specific genre where combat is less lethal like a wuxia game but i don't get why there wouldn't be options in genre games like a general fantasy genre game to customize how combat plays out and suit the tastes of the players, gm and the campaign they're playing, maybe to make it more like Game of Thrones or more cinematic. More options and customizability can only be a good thing for both players and GMs and allow they to do more with a setting, telling different stories and story types in that setting. It feels constraining if all the combat is set to cinematic with no options to adjust it, forcing the players to play a certain way and players and GMs doing more with the setting including making their own stories due to being blocked in.
The threefold model and GNS theory were devised in order to deal with people like you. Your desire for game rules which accurately simulate "real world" combat and your confusion regarding a world simulated using the game rules as they are makes it clear that you want to use TTRPGs for simulation first and foremost, as you seem unable to understand that the rules are streamlined in order to provide an enjoyable gameplay experience or tailored in order to provide a particular narrative experience that may not conform to reality.The issue with focusing on simulation is that your criticism will always apply. There is no set of rules which cleaves to reality to such a degree that it can be called a truly accurate simulation. There will always be weird breaks in immersion and trying to pursue game rules that can be used to accurately represent all of the rules of reality in their entirety will result in convoluted systems like GURPS at best, and unplayable trash like FATAL at worst.
>>97090389Dragqueens&Dogshittard moment.
>>97090395>There have been plenty of occasions where a decision would have made sense if it was made in identical circumstances in the real world but didn't work because of the quirks of the game.Shit game. What you describe is why we have GMs.>There is no "unabstracted" game for me to engage with.Skill issue.
>>97092106>i don't get why there wouldn't be optionsBecause creating more options is more work for the designers. Especially because the designers can't read your mind to cater the game exactly to what you want. >Why does someone have to switch over to GURPS if they want other combat options like grittier combat?You don't have to. There are other games that suit gritty low-fantasy. There's an officially licensed Game of Thrones system, as well as a Warhammer Fantasy rpg. But if you want a System for RolePlaying which is Generic and Universal, consider the Generic Universal RolePlaying System.There's no point in complaining that other tabletop games don't give you enough options for customizing a campaign when you're refusing to look at the game that prides itself on giving you the most options possible on customizing everything. Why waste your time complaining that other games aren't GURPS when you could simply play GURPS?
>>97090192>Mechanics as physicsGame mechanics are not physics. I hope that clears things up for you.>>97090240>In the context of a game it's the only thing I can engage withFundamentally incorrect. Arguably as a player you don't get to engage with the mechanics at all: you engage with the GM, who consults the mechanics to adjudicate what happens. Which is why every game that says anything on the subject tells the GM to just decide what happens when the result seems obvious.
You need to be 18 to post here.
>>97090192anon, the problem with weapon damage only applies to player characters. Sure, a weapon dealing D6 damage isn't much when you have a +4 strength bonus but it's massive when you're a commoner or guard with a +0 or +1 bonus.A PC who can tank dozens of hits is a statistical anomaly. Most people will die in 1 or 2 hits.Leveling up and being able to tank said blows is also something only PCs could achieve with any sort of likelihood. Say a soldier needs to kill 8 enemy soldiers to get to level 2, doable for a PC, maybe, but for that NPC soldier they have a 50% chance of dying against every soldier so only 1 in every 256 soldiers will ever get to level 2.etc, etc. You're viewing things in too player centric a light. For 99.9% of the world and 99.9% of the problems they'll face, it works.
>>97090192More realistic games would tend to be more deadly though and result in a higher PC death count. That tends to fly in opposition to the usual roleplayer who uses the character as an idealised semi heroic reflection of themselves that they build an emotional attachment to. You could make combat more deadly, but then each player would need either multiple backup characters to take over when the first one dies (and would be unable or unwilling to build up the usual emotional attachment due to their short existence), or they could control multiple characters at a time so they can continue to play with attrition, in which case you are playing a wargame.More deadly combat can be useful though if the game advancement isnt based on combat like most RPGs are and there are alternative routes to success (than the usual 'kill the monster for xp and loot') and the DM wants the players to avoid face on fighting where possible.. Classic Traveller is one example - combat was pretty deadly (lasers, gauss rifles, grenades, etc), so it encouraged players to try to avoid it as much as possible through avoidance, negotiation, bluff, stealth, bribery, etc, instead of just fighting toe to toe with everything.It does depend on what the DM and players want though. Dropping a realistic combat system onto the usual DnD drones will take them time to adapt and will result in a lot of character deaths, so if you do decide to change, make sure they get it or they will quickly become disillusioned with your more realistic method.
>>97092530Main problem I have with lethal systems is that it punishes melee characters more. Best to just go crossbowman in heavy armour or some such.
>>97092719There's no such thing as a "melee character".
>>97090192... what the fuck are you even trying to bait about?
>>97092719>Translation: I have no idea what "lethal system" even meansIf you have more than 5 HP in a game where tge default damage is d6, it's not lethal.Which applies to the overwhelming majority of games fags masturbate over as "muh lethality" and "muh realismus"
>>97091953>Or you can continue screeching about how guns aren't deadly enough or whateverI will screech about how guns are TOO deadly actually.
>>97092140>convoluted systems like GURPS at bestt. Person who's never played GURPS
>>97090192Not the point of the thread, but I will confess that I find calculating how to do cool stuff with real physics way more fun than made-up magic rules
>>97092530>More realistic games would tend to be more deadly though and result in a higher PC death countNot necessarily, since a realistic game would make armor a lot more powerful than simply "you get AC 15 for wearing this cuirass". To say nothing of people being less keen on on fighting like you said. There's other solutions too, like the implementation of luck points or something similar.In fact, I'd argue a truly "Realistic" game would be less lethal than even something along the likes of Dungeons and Dragons. Even without armor.
>>97093586>wtf I don't get it!!! what am I supposed to be mad about??what is this mental illness
>playing Force & Destiny>hold up a guy at blaster point>fail my intimidation check>he decides to run >shoot him, hit>it doesn't do that much damage>shoot him again, hit>still not nearly enough>he just leaves
>>97093671It'd be really different. Fights between people would result in disabling injury much more often than death, but any D&D creature would be horrific to fight (if they aren't killed by the square cube rule or suchlike). Imagine a dungeon crawler where orcs are pretty easy to deal with but a troll just picks you up and pulls your leg off as an opening gambit. Or a dragon just vaporises your party.
>>97093911>but a troll just picks you up and pulls your leg off as an opening gambit.We can easily deal with all sorts of animals that can do that though.
>>97093953Most animals aren't motivated to do that though, or are wary of getting hurt in the process. A troll doesn't care if you try to keep it at bay, because it'll impale itself on that, regenerate, and rip off your limbs anyway.And that's all assuming the troll didn't decide to just use a troll-sized club where they can shatter every bone in your body from beyond your reach. It doesn't matter how powerful you make armor in the face of that.Dealing with D&D monsters for a realistic person is insane, because D&D monsters are designed to be able to face off against the unrealistic durability of D&D characters and withstand the occasional fireball.
>>97092275Except what if someone wants to run Faerun or some D&D setting but with grittier combat to run a gritty John LeCarre style spy story with assassins? A setting doesn't have to change just because a campaign is different in the same setting. It's just that it has more options for more play styles in that setting. Something more genre specific like i mentioned wuxia which is very specific to the genre itself i'm fine with it being what it is but in a setting it doesn't make sense not to have the options. It shouldn't be that i should go use another system to go and do that when i want to do that within a specific setting for D&D like Faerun. Rather than locking players into playing one specific way in that setting, which sounds boring and gets repetitive.
>>97092275>>97096141or say if the rogue wants to take out a guard with a dagger where it would take several hits to have grittier rules that would allow that. People who want to run the standard combat can but it shouldn't be the only option for how to play in that setting.
>>97090192Play better games, like Hero System.
>>97096170>I want to change the tone of my game>Which means different rules>But I don't want to... like... change the rulesYou talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.
>>97093868Lol reminds me of pic related.Some games are just shitty at being anyone other than a "numbers get bigger" simulator.
>>97096170Hit points are not meat points in DnD. It's pretty explicit about that. HP is luck, stamina, pain tolerance, force of will, fighting skill and just about anything else before you hit actual, serious flesh and blood damage at the end. If the rogue is stabbing guards in the back, they can simply die or roll for coup de grace if we're talking 3.pf because that's the point you bypass all the other things HP represents and actually start doing lasting physical damage.
>>97096141>>97096170>what if someone wants to run Faerun or some D&D setting but with grittier combatExplain who is stopping you from taking Faerun and running a campaign using a system other than D&D. Explain who is stopping you from adding those options yourself.
>>97096192Use different rules to have a different tone in the game setting. It's not that hard to understand different tone with grittier damage for a different campaign style in a game setting like say Faerun. I never said i don't want to change the rules, i said those who like to play with the standard rules with a more cinematic style can, but optional rules for playing in different ways within it should also be included like grittier rules for a different playstyle. I do want to change the rules, it's the setting that remains the same. Hope that is clear enough for you.>>97096262Another point is it makes no sense for someone to switch over to GURPS or any other grittier system, buy the GURPS books etc to run a campaign when they have the books of the other system. It's impractical. What's stopping them from adding those options instead of relying on the GM to either a figure it out taking time and putting off the campaign in order to add those options or b create it from scratch for that game system
>>97096299Right, so.. play with the same setting, using a different system. If you want gritty combat it's easier to switch from D&D to a different system than to make D&D do gritty combat.
>>97096262By the same coin that there is no reason why someone GMing a campaign in that game system can't add those options there is also no reason why the people creating the rules can't add those options either. If you want to argue who should get the burden where you put it on individual GMs.
>>97096320So you want me to buy up a bunch of books for a different system with grittier combat and run a campaign with that system and take the setting from the first and put it in the grittier system? I already have the books for the first do i need to buy a bunch of books for another system to do that?
>>97096342Yes. On the bright side, there are lots of other systems which are free, or you can just pirate the PDFs for a paid system if you like.
>>97096299>Another point is it makes no sense for someone to switch over to GURPS or any other grittier system, buy the GURPS books etc to run a campaign when they have the books of the other systemNo. If the books of the system you already have don't have the rules for the sort of game you want, then the fact that you already own those books is irrelevant.>What's stopping them from adding those optionsThey don't want to spend the money and time on it. If you don't like that, nobody is forcing you to play their game. Any more stupid questions?
>>97096327>there is no reason why someone GMing a campaign in that game system can't add those options Yes, that's what I said.>If you want to argue who should get the burden I'm not arguing who should get the burden. I'm explaining the way things are. You aren't going to wake up one morning and find that the D&D books you own have suddenly sprouted extra pages with more gameplay options.You can complain that the designers should have put more into those books, but the fact is they didn't. Are you trying to find a solution, or are you going to continue to complain about things that cannot change?
>>97096380Just like how not everyone will have the money and time to spend figuring out how to add options. You cannot just put that purely on people to figure out and add options to a game system either. People have stuff to do, work, family etc and like how you don't think a publisher should have to for those reasons it's ridiculous to expect the same reasons not to apply the the individual/s playing and running the campaign to do it using the same reasons.>No. If the books of the system you already have don't have the rules for the sort of game you want, then the fact that you already own those books is irrelevant.Ruling out what >>97096362 said about pirating and free systems it absolutely should since the main reason someone bought that system is to play it and they paid money for it, it absolutely does matter when you're asking them to switch to a different system entirely and get books for that system with the exclusions i mentioned already above from the other anon. So then their only options remain play the system they have locked to that playstyle they aren't interested in or barring the exceptions shell out money to switch to a different system? it's not practical.
>>97096436You're arguing for things not to change. There is no reason why they cannot have been put in during printing, i don't know why you're arguing them being added after when people have bought it. i don't know how you came to this logical conclusion or argument that it should be added in later. A little forethought goes a long way.
>>97096461>So then their only options remain play the system they have locked to that playstyle they aren't interested in or barring the exceptions shell out money to switch to a different system? it's not practical."I bought an F1 car, but now I want to move my farm equipment over a muddy field and I have to buy a truck as well? It's not practical!"
>>97096499You're going to create a strawman argument to create a false equivalence between a tabletop game system rules with a physical F1 car? You're comparing a apple to a orange
>>97096548I'm making a broad comparison because you've proven too stupid to listen when people tell you directly. I thought maybe a Star-Trek-style engineering analogy might work loose the stuck bolt in your brain.
>>97096461>like how you don't think a publisher shouldAs I said here >>97096436 it's not a matter of if they should. It's a matter of how it is.>>97096492>You're arguing for things not to change. There is no reason why they cannot have been put in during printing,I'm not arguing for things not to change. I am pointing out the fact that unless you have a time machine, what has already been printed cannot be changed. No matter how many times you open up your D&D books, the options you want will not be in there. >shell out money to switch to a different system?If the rulebooks you already bought do not have what you need, your only options are to get new books or write one yourself. >>97096548>You're comparing a apple to a orangeYou're complaining that an apple stand only sold you an apple instead of also giving you an orange. You're refusing to go out and buy an orange, and instead complaining about how that apple stand should sell oranges.Except even if the apple stand starting selling oranges tomorrow, you would still have to go visit them to buy an orange. There is no path where your apple magically turns into an orange. You do not have an orange. You will not have an orange until you seek out an orange. Complaining that your apple is not an orange will not give you an orange.
>>97096564You are comparing two incomparable things a F1 car that is a physical thing specifically designed for one purpose (driving laps at incredible speeds) and a broad set of written tabletop rules that govern the mechanics of a tabletop game system. They aren't the same. However if you want me to indulge your metaphor then i will with my own that there is no reason why as owner of the F1 car you cannot request from the manufacturer tires and other modifications allowing it to do those things, to whatever degree of success or time it takes to do so. It is entirely however on people making those parts to custom make it to do that and not on you the owner of the F1 car. It doesn't make sense for someone who owns said F1 car to have to go out and shell out more money for a extra vehicle he may not be able to afford, again barring those exceptions i stated already to buy a different vehicle to accomplish that task>>97096610there's no reason why they would only only sell a apples and not oranges even then when told "hey i would like oranges" there's no reason to keep it the same and only sell apples or tell them they can only have apples. there are plenty other ways they can add those rules after like putting it on their website, since they are the publisher no reason why they couldn't take it on themselves and publish options for grittier rules after the book on their site or as a pdf for those who want it, the point is there is no reason why it shouldn't be a option at all or one that is available to those who want it. Another is to ask for what you're asking for from the person who made that system, it shouldn't be being fated to play one system one way forever.
>>97096823>there is no reason why as owner of the F1 car you cannot request from the manufacturer tires and other modifications allowing it to do those thingsYou can request it. But if the manufacturer doesn't make the parts you need, they won't sell them to you. Because they make parts for F1 cars, not for trucks. They aren't going to alter their entire operation to cater to one person who wants a truck>It doesn't make sense for someone who owns said F1 car to have to go out and shell out more money for a extra vehicle he may not be able to affordAnd it especially doesn't make sense for the manufacturer to go out of their way to get you all of the parts needed to convert an F1 car into a truck if that person doesn't even have the money to pay for it.>there's no reason why they would only only sell a apples and not oranges even then when told "hey i would like oranges"It's an apple stand. The person grows their own apples. For them to sell you an orange, they'd either need to grow oranges (which would take time for an orange tree to grow and may not even be possible based on the climate), or find another supplier. But instead of doing all of that, they'd simply point out that there's an orange stand directly across the street that you can go buy an orange from.Why should you continue to ask the apple seller for an orange when there's already people selling oranges? >it shouldn't be being fated to play one system one way foreverCorrect. But you already aren't fated to play one system forever. You can play a different system. And distinctly from cars or fruit, you also aren't reliant on a factory or a farmer to provide you with a product, because you are also entirely capable of making your own homebrew rule changes and options that you want to see.
>>97096499The better example is that anon bought Monopoly, and it mad that Life isn't in the box too.
>>97090192>>the only practical way to kill people is to invest every last skill point into combatname five games
>>97096997Force & Destiny.
