>>97647536
deets or it didn't happen

>>97647536
Actually more like
>players wants to do something "clever"
>it's actually just using some spell or ability in the book that negates one or several obstacles to spare them the indignity of having to engage with the game in any meaningful way
>GM is powerless.

>>97647644
>GM is powerless
Or they would be if they weren't the final say on how a rule is interpreted at a given gaming table. Almost every group has a set of homebrew rules. My Old Shadowrun GM didn't allow PC hackers because he didn't want to effectively have to write up a whole separate mini campaign for only one or two characters so they could fuck around in cyberspace while the rest of the group stared at the ceiling.

>>97647536
for the sake of the argument, why cant the GM create a non-contrived counter-measure?

in my experience, DMs usually let the first instance of a wombo combo work just fine because the players discovered some unintended (or totally intended) interaction and let them have fun
and then only start implementing counter-measures if they try it again, usually with the justification that word got around after the first time they tried it

>>97647644
>>97647686
That's sort of the crux of it. The GM just has to homebrew and houserule to remove the boring parts of the game.
The only issue arises when a GM is either too scared to put their foot down, or otherwise doesn't realize that there's a problem.

>>97647714
Typically, the GMs who run into this are the inexperienced ones that didn't spot the problem in advance, so they're also the ones who are the worst at adapting on the fly.

>>97647536
The fuck do you mean contrived? Helpless? Do you think tabletop is like videogames where you can just drop 1000 cheese wheels on a guard to trap him? If they're this new to these games they're not too high a level for villagers to take them out with pitchforks and torches.
Or you can wave it away as a GM with basic shit.
>if you're not retarded about your setting, magic is known enough that basic protective amulets and runes carved onto door frames prevent NPCs from being helpless, as if they don't have a local witch who makes that shit in exchange for beets.
>local guard, who definitely has a counterspell amulet they keep hanging on a nail in the guard shack, walks up and says "wots all this 'ere?"
>the villagers they're abusing say a prayer to the god they worship in that area for protection and the "combo" fizzles out.
If it's possible for any level 2 retard to abuse magic in your setting then people in it have ways of handling shit like that.

The local tailor knows a couple spells because he bought a book on them from a travelling merchant. He picked it up for the color changing spells so he can make pretty clothes for the ladies, but he has time in the evenings because he still doesn't have a lady of his own, and has read up on more than that. This is the easiest shit to just make up on the spot I could just keep going forever here.

>>97647644
In the old days we called that "using a resource to solve a problem".
Made more sense when spells weren't infinite use

>>97647748
>Typically, the GMs who run into this are the inexperienced ones that didn't spot the problem in advance
>you need to spot every possible combination of 50 to 100 spells in the book i.e. go through 10,000 possible combination in a million possible situations to pre-empt every single abuse of a spell or power to add contrived shit to your world to counteract it, thus invalidating the spells entire existence other than the further divide the gap between mundane and magical characters
Kill yourself.

File: Homebrew_nonsense.jpg (38 KB, 700x366)

38 KB JPG

>>97647714
In my experience it seems to be a matter of pride / saving face. When GM opens the game with his final masterfully crafted set of houserules and insists we commit it to memory he can't very well admit he missed (or created) a glaring loohole without looking like idiot.

>>97647902
>you need to spot every possible combination of 50 to 100 spells in the book
There are some poorly designed systems out there that are more difficult to run for inexperienced GMs. What's your point?

>>97647937
So what's your definition of an experienced GM? let's do that so you can't move the goalposts ex post facto to hold onto your dumbass assertion once it's revealed that even otherwise-competent GMs struggle with this, because magic systems in most RPGs are designed like shit.

>>97647920
Those kinds of GMs treat tabletop like it's a videogame where it's designed to function and can't be altered or tweaked or improv'd on the fly. Like most house rules are just nipping an exploit in the bud.

And the idiots in this thread like OP are nogames who assume it's like videogames. So they imagine players just finding an exploit, testing it out on preprogrammed NPCs, and the GM being helpless as if he stopped having control of the game world the second the game started.

>>97647995
I didn't say that an experienced GM would never struggle with this? My original post just pointed out that it was typical for inexperienced GMs to struggle with it more.
>because magic systems in most RPGs are designed like shit.
Yeah, and the answer is to either run a different system, or use your experience as a GM to homebrew/houserule things in advance to avoid running into problems.

If you're experienced enough to recognize that a system is shit, and also self-aware enough to realize that you can't fix it, then why the fuck are you using it?

>>97647536
I don't understand your complaint at all. If the players have done something with solves a problem and to which their enemies have no reasonable counter, how is that not clever? And how the fuck does it ruin the game?

>>97649368
Its ai prompted drivel or ESL outrage bait, neither worth acknowledging past calling op a faggot.

>>97648252
>If you're experienced enough to recognize that a system is shit, and also self-aware enough to realize that you can't fix it, then why the fuck are you using it?
Sunk cost fallacy.

>>97647686
That's a shadowrun specific issue that other cyberpunk systems handle better.

Hacking is cool, but it needs to be something that's handled with a single skill roll rather than an entire books worth of external rules.

>>97649950
Every time you relegate complex non-combat action to a single roll of a die you're propagating D&D brainrot. Perhaps unwittingly, but still.

>>97649368
>If the players have done something with solves a problem and to which their enemies have no reasonable counter, how is that not clever?
Because combining two spells to do some overpowered bullshit isn't clever at all. If you do something clever involving real-world physics, that's one thing. But magic is by definition an arbitrary thing created by game designers that can do anything. Being "creative" in that framework is inherently retarded, because magic as a system does not need to be internally consistent or functional (see: tippyverse, which people get mad at, because it interprets magic as people would actually use it, to its most optimal level, and fantasyfags screech that "you're missing the point of magic!!!")

>>97649950
Dungeon delving is cool but it should be rekegated to a single die roll instead of some convoluted minigame where only combat characters participate

>>97647536
Why are you playing bad games?

>>97647644
Using spells and abilities is engaging with the game. Obviously.

>>97647714
Why hasn't anyone in the entire world thought to use magic to their benefit?

>>97647536
Have you tried not playing D&Dogshit?

>>97647748
It's not a problem. Using your character's capabilities to overcome adversity is the game.

>>97647536
Example?

>>97647536
Just let them win. What's the big deal?

>>97647902
So you know the rules of the system are so complex and poorly designed that it's impossible to run a functional game in the system, and you still chose to use it? Why?

>>97652828
The point of the game is to accomplish your goals, whatever those might be. Not to "be clever". That doesn't benefit your character.

>>97652896
>The point of the game is to accomplish your goals
Okay.
I am the GM.
I just say "okay you accomplish your goals."
Nice. Game over.
Yeah, I just started the game and then decided you guys reached 20th level.
You win.
Good job!

>>97652887
Because sometimes you do not have 100% knowledge of every possibility of a system when you achieve a working knowledge of it?
Have you ever actually ran a TTRPG that wasn't a one-page narrativist minimalist lasers and feelings clone from itch.io?

Imagine being this furious that the players understand the rules better than you do LEMAO

>>97652960
Yes, I have. And since the system I use is well-designed, I don't have to vet ten million individual abilities with interactions the designers didn't bother to playtest because they're incompetent. So I don't have these problems. So what's your excuse?

>>97652961
coming up with stupid combos of magic to cheese the game isn't a virtue.

Yes it is lol

>>97652968
What system?

>>97653225
Prowlers and Paragons. You will now move the goalposts.

>>97653224
ok 3aboo go jerk off your gay little build and feel so cool about yourself
just so you know, your "magic" doesn't work irl, and I could easily curbstomp you
in fact, if you live near eastern connecticut, let me know and we can make it happen.

>>97653236
>Prowlers and Paragons
>>97652968
>since the system I use is well-designed, I don't have to vet ten million individual abilities with interactions the designers didn't bother to playtest because they're incompetent
I think the only worse contradictory answer you could have given was M&M

>>97653249
No, it's quite a good answer, since it fits the description I provided without caveat or qualification.

>>97653240
>STILL seething
lol

>>97653236
>plays supers game
>thinks that there isn't a way to break it
LMAO superhero games are the most broken shit I've ever seen. Seen players constantly break the abilities in those games by comboing 2 powers together in a way the rules didn't think of and "uhh hehehe nothing says I CAN'T do these both at the same time hehehe" and smile smugly as if they just discovered something actually clever or insightful.

It isn't. It's gay.
And the GM can always respond, by simply having magical countermeasures exist.
Or have the enemy start using the same trick.
But do you see how that degenerates the game?
And strains believability?
Cheesy gimmicks are bad for the game. They literally force a GM to respond to not trivialize the game, and then that adds more bloat onto the game.

Look at Harry Potter. They had to add teleportation to the story. Thus taking the wind out of a lot of the cool and flavorful magical transport methods in the world. But it also meant they had to make the entire castle impossible to teleport into, because otherwise the bad guys could just teleport in and kill everyone. It just starts to wear away at the worldbuilding because now you have to consider all sorts of bullshit countermeasures to every type of magical exploitation, and it's rarely very magical.
>hahaha you talked about le dumb millennial roastie series
Not the point. The point is that this phenomenon even shows up in the most popular fantasy series of all time.

>>97652884
>Just let them win. What's the big deal?
Because then there's no game.

>>97652872
>Have you tried not playing D&Dogshit?
System isn't D&D, but good point. because the system decided to start being more like D&D and as a result became shit.

>>97653268
not an argument.

>>97653269
So you can't name a way to break the game? You agree with me?

>>97653280
>Because then there's no game.
There's plenty of game though? Stop being a control freak.

>>97647536
>>97647644
Exactly it's a skill issue, the players have found a way to solve their own problem while the GM is left twiddling their thumbs. if it ruins the game that is on you as a GM. Learn to improvise not just plan out every single campaign down to the last detail. Learn to go with the flow. A lot of game systems have mechanical shortcomings, some systems are absolutely worse than others but in this case it doesn't sound like the fault is the players who are having fun and engaging with the game and game world.

>>97647686
>>97647714
>>97647920
>>97652828
>>97652884

This is one thing i dislike and why i no longer play games that require GMs, the idea that if you're the GM and you're ever powerless to do something while you control everything in-universe or worse then use it as a cudgel against players when they do something the GM doesn't like. i've had lots of experience with bad GMs to the point where i have a dislike for GMs and am distrustful of them and the position they hold at a table i'm at.
>>97652954
You know that is not what they are saying, don't try and be obtuse and move goalposts.
>>97653280
That sounds like a you problem if you can't figure out how to keep the game going without kneecapping your players and their PCs when they do something and they have every right to be mad at you as a GM, i would too if i were a player at the table where the GM has to keep coming up with ways to not let me play the character i created because they just can't figure out how to make it work with their campaign instead of trying to be a good GM and try to, make the minimum effort to do your job as a GM

>>97653371
so you just want to play a boardgame where every outcome is deterministic?

>>97652960
>>97653225
NTA, but Call of Cthulhu doesn't have this problem at all.

But if you're the one running a game, and you hate running it, you can stop and pick something else. This all seems like you're just complaining about a self-induced problem and then rejecting any possible solution.
Maybe those itch.io games you mentioned would be more your speed?

>>97653269
Do not blame the players for creating a character you cannot handle, if the player followed what was asked like say creating a character along a certain guideline for example and they did, it is not for you the GM to then keep creating arbitrary ways to stop them playing that character and to handwave ways to knee cap them at every turn because they created a character you cannot handle. Come up with clever ways to deal with it in-universe. the exemption to this is if player makes a character that didn't fit like a super indestructible, super strong guy for a street level campaign that would be a reason to talk to that player. otherwise they created that character for a reason, because they intend to play as that character, so let them.

File: images.jpg (425 KB, 1803x921)

425 KB JPG

>>97653269
combo attacks are the bread and butter of superhero comics, so thats on brand

>>97653399
>>97653399
Again, you're creating a strawman argument where if i say don't knee cap players, they created those and play them for a reason that automatically means allow them to automatically succeed. I didn't in any place say that there are lot of ways you can challenge PCs and make PCs useful without knee capping them and keep the campaign going. TTRPGS though do have a lot of determinism though, the eventuality the main antagonist will be defeated by the PCs, even if not all PCs survive. TPKs are extremely rare in that few GMs actually allow them to happen at their table and even fumble dice to prevent TPKs.

>>97653466
you said you dont like playing a game that needs GMs
GMs are there to arbitrate events that arent or cant be covered by whats written, like if a player decides to open a door that wasnt meant to be opened

in lieu of a DM, all events have to be pre-determined, you cant open a door if it isnt meant to be opened or you just randomly generate an outcome for any unintended interaction
so thats a boardgame, where you never have to worry about a player saying he wants to run off with a painting you just descrbed in the room

>>97653466
It's not inevitable that any particular thing will happen in a game. The party can be defeated and there's nothing wrong with that. If they can't be defeated, they shouldn't have Health and shouldn't be able to take damage.

>>97653484
What do you mean "meant to be opened"? Doors aren't meant to be opened or not be opened, they're doors. They have hinges and latches and might be locked or unlocked or barricaded or magically sealed or whatever. Whether a door becomes open or shut depends on whether and how it is interacted with, and nothing else.

>>97653496
>What do you mean "meant to be opened"?
if you describe a door as part of the scenery, the players might decide to look in it even if you hadnt thought up of whats behind it
the DM can react quickly and tell them that its just a store room, nothing to see here, or else make up any number of interesting things to see behind it

without a DM, then theres no one to actually populate the contents of a room
so the door is just part of the scenery and you cant interact with it in anyway or you consult the manual for a pre-generated template

since you do not like DMs to moderate your games, then we can only assume that either every door is conveniently locked unless it leads somewhere the game has decided or the only doors that exist are ones that lead to the next encounter

>>97653522
Uh what? If you created a world, and being in that world built rooms, then obviously they would have put things in those rooms. Surely you're using fullsims to make your games, right? You're not new, right?

>>97653522
If you didn't want the players to interact with it, why did you put it there? Are you stupid?

>>97653484
>>97653522
That sounds a bit old fashioned. There are solo, GMless and co-op games that don't require a GM. having a door that wasn't meant to be opened sounds pretty determinist if the purpose of the door and the room as meant to not be opened, why would there even be a door if it wasn't meant to be interacted with? There are plenty of GMless and co-op games that allow PCs free will and use dice to determine chance. It's not all just pure preplanned outcome like a board game just because there is no GM running it.

>>97653435
>Do not blame the players for creating a character you cannot handle
The GM can handle any character possible, on two levels:
Firstly:
>you can't play that character in the first place
Secondly:
>rocks fall your character dies
Thirdly (the best answer, but still shit):
>okay the NPCs you are pissing off with your magic trick hire a wizard to figure out how to counteract it and do, they suddenly find like 5 million gold pieces to do it with also, even though this is incredibly unrealistic this is the way that /tg/ thinks you are supposed to "handle" this and don't care that it breaks verisimilitude because they were taught that that is "storyshit"

>>97653555
In my experience strict adherence to Chekhov Gun principle makes ttrpg environments feel rather barren.

>>97653309
>Exactly it's a skill issue, the players have found a way to solve their own problem while the GM is left twiddling their thumbs. if it ruins the game that is on you as a GM
No it isn't fag it's on the rules for being shit. "The GM can't handle it oh nooooo" okay so now the DM has to invent some super contrived magical secret organization that goes and stops people from doing stupid tippyverse shit and slaughtering random commoners with it. Or just has the enemy start copying their stupid gimmicky tricks.

The GM is PERFECTLY capable of handling the issue. It just comes at the expense of the setting, 100% of the time.

>>97653406
>dude just stop running a great campaign because some player found an obnoxious combo in the rules that isn't narratively satisfying or interesting at all, nor does it have any real cleverness to it.

Any "clever solution" involving magic is not clever. You are being given superpower tools and then jerking yourself off because you managed to do something even more retardedly overpowered with them. You have nothing to be proud of.

>>97653391
>>97653339
>>97653287
>>97653479
>>97653567
>you didn't read and master my entire system in 90-ish minutes so I am going to ragespam you gloating about nothing, even though the statement was made from someone who has a lot more GM experience than me including with superheroes systems and knows that they almost always contain broken combos.

>>97653591
Would you like to try responding to what I asked?

>>97653602
No, not the entire system. Since you claimed you can break any system by comboing two powers together, you must be aware of at least one such example for each system, or else you would not have made the claim. Since you can't provide such an example, you lied. It isn't the case that you can break any system by comboing two powers together. QED.

>>97653610
Nah, I'm good.

>>97653597
Why not just write a book?

>>97653597
Fortunately, doing clever things / feeling "proud" isn't the point of playing a game.

>>97653622
You certainly are not. Do as you're told. NOW.

>>97653624
>it's bad for the setting or game to have stupid overpowered bullshit that 99% of the population of the world has no viable or reasonable response to, due to the magic system being shit and allowing players to do ridiculous things with magic
>if you don't like this, you are a railroading retard GM and should just write a novel
Nice false dichotomy, faggot. Start posting an actual real argument or fuck off.

>>97653632
Yes, if you don't like reacting to your players, you should be writing a book.

>>97653597
Any clever solution using technology is not clever. You are being given a device to do it for you

>>97653640
>overly-transparent metagaming is "reacting to the players"
I guess technically you're right, except if I wrote that in a book it'd be shit writing, because it's ridiculous and unrealistic.
>HAHAHAHA HE SAID THE MAGIC WORD REALISM AND FANTASY ISNT REALISTIC SO I WIN
Complete bullshit argument that presupposes that all bounds of sociology and psychology and logistics instantly dissolve because suddenly dragons exist.

>>97653651
I agree, that's why that "hyperspace ramming" scene in Star Wars was total fucking dogshit. And it fits, too, because it's a fantasy technology, being abused by a shitty writer.

>>97653655
You should definitely write a book. It will be better for your mental health instead of forcing yourself onto a hobby you clearly fundamentally dislike.

>>97653632
Why are you playing a game that isn't balanced properly?

>>97653651
Being clever isn't a player goal.

>>97653655
The existence of magic does make all intuition derived from our experience of a world that doesn't have magic worthless, yes.

>>97653655
>Complete bullshit argument
Except that "if this unrealistic thing, then why not that?" Is perfectly valid
If realism is the argument, then realism should be applied universally
If realism gets a pass on one thing but not another, then whats being argued is not realism but something else

If we want humans to have realistic responses to events but don't mind unrealism in physics, then you are confusing your desire for something other than realism for realism

>>97653592
I still don't see where this isn't a skill issue on your part as the GM. One D&D game we figured out how to build a makeshift tank with the wizard and his spells acting as the main weapon, and other players throwing flasks of various concoctions and steamrolled the the main antagonist of the campaign and his armies in two turns pissing off the GM. If it were me i would be happy my players came up with a way to solve their problem in-game and reward them for doing it even if they unceremoniously ran over the main villain and his army because i expect my players to and am happy when they do, i love it when my players do that and love when as a player we do stuff like that. There are ways to deal with it but if they are slaughtering random commoners and it's out of line for the characters and the campaign then you should talk to your players, if they are having fun though i see no problem with it. You could always up the ante with the antagonists they face, there are lots of ways to deal with the problem that don't involve doing any of those things.

>>97653682
>The existence of magic does make all intuition derived from our experience of a world that doesn't have magic worthless, yes.
Completely wrong, faggot.
If magic exists and a level 1 commoner drops a pebble to the ground, then you would expect it to fall to the ground.
If you cannot use "all intuition" in an RPG then you literally cannot play because it would be so completely alien to your actual experience that you wouldn't be able to even describe your actions.
Fuck you for wasting my time replying to such an obviously retarded assertion.

>>97653662
>You should definitely write a book.
You should definitely be shot and killed.

>>97653683
>Except that "if this unrealistic thing, then why not that?" Is perfectly valid
No it isn't. The only thing unrealistic that is present is magic.
If magic is not involved, then the world behaves normally. Maybe somewhat on "action movie logic" as it would in a novel. But it doesn't mean "le epic whacky physics defying nat 20" shit suddenly comes into play.
>If realism gets a pass on one thing but not another, then whats being argued is not realism but something else
Yes it is. It's realistic to the genre.
That's why people complain about Aragorn falling off a 400 foot cliff and surviving in Lord of the Rings. Because even though magic exists, he didn't have any to protect him from falling that far.
>If we want humans to have realistic responses to events but don't mind unrealism in physics
No, because agreeing to specific violations of physics per the rules of magic doesn't completely invalidate human behavior.

>>97653711
>this unrealistic thing is fine
>but this one is not
So the issue isnt realism but something else
You are confusing the cause and effect

>>97647536
>Game has glaring hole in its structure where certain elements routinely and completely obliterate any challenge possible
>There is no problem with the GM for directly allowing this loophole
>There is no problem with the GM putting the players in a situation where the loophole exists in the first place
>There is no problem with the GM allowing the tools that create this loophole in the first place
>There is no problem with the GM having failed to establish a gentleman's agreement to not do such bullshit
>There is no problem with the GM failing to formulate an a posteriori ruling to prevent such incidents in the present and the future
>There is no problem with the GM choosing to run this particular game over other games that would not permit such questionable design

>The players are philistines for choosing to have their characters accomplish their goals with a method that maximizes their apparent efficiency

>>97653711
Completely correct, rather.

>>97653749
>if I keep saying I'm right and ignore everything he says to the contrary, it makes me right!

>>97653721
>So the issue isnt realism but something else
No because there are various types of realism and making exceptions to realism in some areas doesn't completely invalidate it as an ideal to be strived toward.

>>97653805
Everything you said to the contrary was wrong, so yes, of course I'll ignore it. Try saying something correct if you want to be taken seriously. Moron.

>>97653742
How is the GM "directly allowing" the loophole?
So that means that every DM who ran D&D 3.5 was a shit DM because the "locate city bomb" existed hidden in the rules for years, and that DM was supposed to analyze the entire system with superhuman speed and figure out that such an exploit existed, otherwise he's a garbage DM

Yeah kill yourself.

>>97653805
>and making exceptions to realism in some areas doesn't completely invalidate it as an ideal to be strived toward
If you are making exceptions, then the ideal in your head isn't actually the real world
So what you are looking for is something else from realism entirely, you just conflated it with realism

>>97653809
>Everything you said to the contrary was wrong, so yes, of course I'll ignore it.
Okay prove it then faggot or else fuck off.
>If magic exists and a level 1 commoner drops a pebble to the ground, then you would expect it to fall to the ground.
Refute this statement you stupid fag because I guarantee if you try this in 99% of D&D campaigns it would have the result I outlined.
Prove.
It.
Wrong.
Or.
Fuck.
Off.

>>97653819
No, you're the one that has to prove your claims, sorry.

>>97653821
I just did faggot.
If magic exists and a level 1 commoner drops a pebble on the ground, there is no magic involved, therefore realism takes precedent.
If this isn't the case and the setting doesn't allow you to use any of your IRL intuition to describe events in it, then you literally cannot play an RPG in it because it is so alien to your experience that you would be unable to interface with the game at all.

Therefore, some degree of realism is still present.

>>97653828
Prove it.

>>97653831
I just did, faggot. You're intentionally refusing to engage with what I said, because you don't like it, not because there's anything wrong with it.

>>97653835
No you didn't.

>>97653817
>If you are making exceptions, then the ideal in your head isn't actually the real world
The exception being made is where magic is present. That is an exception to realism. It doesn't mean that when magic is not present, realism does not apply.
>So what you are looking for is something else from realism entirely
Call it what you want, it's the same concept, just with exceptions for established fictional phenomena that violate it. You follow the rules of what I am saying every single time you play D&D. Otherwise you would not be able to play the game because it would be le kooky 8D lovecraftian nightmare because "realism" doesn't exist at all.

That clearly doesn't happen, so clearly "realism" is involved as a guide to some degree.

>>97653602
lol you got owned

>>97653843
>>97653837
>this is what passes for logical debate on /tg/
>while trying to defend D&D-tier bullshit magic systems

>>97653841
>The exception being made is where magic is present
So clearly, realism can be ignored when its convenient or fun

>Call it what you want, it's the same concept,
Clearly not, if you can deviate from it

>Otherwise you would not be able to play the game because it would be le kooky 8D lovecraftian nightmare because "realism" doesn't exist at all.
Whats preventing such an outcome is therefore not a desire to be realistic but something else, since realism can be ignored when needed but preserved in other cases
So realism in this case is neither good nor bad, just selectively applied when needed

>>97653813
>Player tries something retarded
>Say 'no'

Dunno how other GM's haven't figured out this property. You ARE aware you have formal veto power over every in-game interaction, right?

>>97653813
It's not "hidden". It's just a consequence of the rules of the game. If you don't like the rules, play something else.

>>97653886
>hey anon I found something cool I can do in game
>uhhh no you can't do that because I don't want you to
Great way to make players check out of the game.

>>97653892
>okay guys they found a broken combo on the forums and I want to use it
>this is all your fault DM for not figuring this out 5 years ago and picking a different system
Playoid entitlement is through the roof.

>>97653896
>Player so entitled that being told 'no' in regards to a single interaction causes them to completely dissociate from what's happening around them
Good riddance.

>>97653856
>So clearly, realism can be ignored when its convenient or fun
>Clearly not, if you can deviate from it
This is like saying that morality doesn't exist because you can deviate from it.
Or that there are exceptions to the law against homicide.
>Whats preventing such an outcome is therefore not a desire to be realistic but something else, since realism can be ignored when needed but preserved in other cases
It's ignored when a fantastical element in the story precludes it. Usually informed by the genre.
>So realism in this case is neither good nor bad, just selectively applied when needed
Yeah, based off of rules. That's why magic systems, even the "vague" ones, have rules.
And when magic isn't involved to violate realism, then it functions.
Otherwise please explain why Bruce Willis shouldn't win at Die Hard by sprouting wings and flying away and conjuring guided missiles that kill all his opponents? He does a lot of unrealistic things in the film, but they all fit the genre.

>>97653924
>This is like saying that morality doesn't exist because you can deviate from it.
Its saying that your basis for how good something is how realistic it is
Thats closer to arguing that morality is good because god said its good, and then saying that this part of morality that god said is bad is good
Clearly the source of morality is not god but something else, because we can have morals outside what god said
So realism is not what makes something good but something else entirely, something can be unreal and good or real and bad

>Otherwise please explain why Bruce Willis shouldn't win at Die Hard by sprouting wings and flying away and conjuring guided missiles that kill all his opponents
The shorter answer is that its less interesting to the plot
Bruce willis does a lot of unrealistic things in the movie that go unchallenged
What makes things interestings interesting is therefore not based on realism

>He does a lot of unrealistic things in the film, but they all fit the genre.
So you basically agree with me
What is good is not realism but something else, the exact same argument i am making
What fits the genre has nothing to do with realism

>>97653813
You read the fist bullet point, and then ignored the rest.
>There is no problem with the GM having failed to establish a gentleman's agreement to not do such bullshit
>There is no problem with the GM failing to formulate an a posteriori ruling to prevent such incidents in the present and the future
>There is no problem with the GM choosing to run this particular game over other games that would not permit such questionable design
Even if you want to say that you ran 3.5 and your players brought such a thing to the table without you realizing it was possible, you still had options.

The only way someone is a garbage DM in this situation is if they recognize that something might a problem, but refuse to look for solutions or prepare in any way.

>>97653901
Yes. It is your fault. Don't play games with rules that let you break the game if you don't want your game to be broken. Retard.

>>97653915
To you, yeah.

>>97653959
>Don't play games with rules that let you break the game if you don't want your game to be broken.
What game do you play, retard?

>>97653996
Prowlers and Paragons, retard.

runs away from the argument instantly LMAO

>>97647536
Players naturally hate when you put challenge in their ways. I ran a Bond Game, and a player would always either charm the pants off someone or bribe 'em with money. He was booing when eventually he came across a guy who wasn't into money.

>>97653371
>>97652828
If this were a real problem you had you'd be more specific. People can't resist the urge to tell a story about the time something in a game pissed them off. The biggest tell on this board for idiot trolls is that they complain about vague non-specific things people supposedly do. If you were complaining about real things you'd talk about real things.

>>97654160
I can't because my players browse this board.

>>97654292
If your players made you this butthurt over something they did during your latest session, it's going to be obvious from what you've already posted.

File: woman-twerking-in-black-y(...).gif (3.46 MB, 305x498)

3.46 MB GIF

>>97647536
>players outsmarting the DM YET AGAIN
many such cases

>>97654292
You don't talk like someone who has an examples they could give so that's not true. If you were a GM you wouldn't have these problems because you'd be the fucking GM and could just say no.

>>97647748
>The only issue arises when a GM is either too scared to put their foot down
Putting your foot down, in this context, means telling the player that the explicit letter of the law doesn't count arbitrarily, even though they were allowed to take some spell or ability. Arbitrary rule negation is more of an exercise in pissing off your friends by engaging in playground pretend battles
>The door is locked!
>I use my spell that automatically opens any door.
>...it doesn't work.
>Says right here "opens ANY door."
>This door is special though
>It's just a fucking door. What special anti-door-opening magic is there?
>I'm the GM and I say there's anti-door-opening magic!

I don't get this argument. You're the DM. You made everything. If you put a door in a room, you know what it leads to. You know that doors can potentially be opened or destroyed. If you don't want the possibilities of interaction that a door creates, then just don't put it there. Even if you've never played a game in your life, this should be self evident.

>>97654549
That's a problem of your system anon. If your system has a universal door opening spell then that's what it has.

>>97654549
You missed the second half
>or otherwise doesn't realize that there's a problem.
In this context, getting to the point where the PC is casting a spell to open a locked door means the GM has been somehow blindsided by this. That's why trying to cover his ass at the last minute causes issues.
If the GM knew ahead of time that the spell existed (and we're assuming that a spell to open doors is a problem in need of solving), putting your foot down in this context means telling your players in advance that the spell is banned.

Though I wouldn't personally consider 'spell to open door' as banworthy.

>>97654604
>I don't get this argument.
you are being deliberately obtuse

>If you put a door in a room, you know what it leads to.
you might describe a great hall, and the only door in it thats immediately important is the one that leads to the throne room
the players are obviously sign posted to the only door you describe in great detail, but nothings actually stopping your players from asking "are there any other places we can go?" because logically, if its a castle large enough to have a throne room, it probably has other rooms like kitchens and stock rooms in it
you probably didnt right the entire layout of the castle in advance, so the DM may be forced to improvise should the players decide to ask questions

> If you don't want the possibilities of interaction that a door creates, then just don't put it there
>Even if you've never played a game in your life, this should be self evident.
youve clearly never played a game yourself

but if this argument is beyond your comprehension, then imagine the DM describes a crowd for the sake of set dressing in a market
the players might decide to talk to one of the people there, then it helps to have a DM capable of creating a character out of nothing to give the players to talk to

if you are playing a straightforward boardgame where the only things described to the players are the things that are of immediate importance, then thats the "dont put it there in the first place" argument in practice
but if you are describing a place thats meant to feel lived in, its not just an arena where a battle is going to take place in but a castle that has people living in it, then you are going to describe a myriad of items and locations that exist solely to give the impression that its a functioning place
the players may or may not choose to engage with the set dressing, but a good DM is always able to improvise should they decide the candlesticks you described solely to show that the place is fancy is actually important to the plot

>>97654638
I'm running a game right now. I know what is in the location where the players are, and I know what is in all the locations that are accessible from their current locations, and all of the locations accessible from all of those locations. when they experience a new place, I describe everything that is in it that can be perceived with their senses. there is no situation where they would ask if there are other places to go, because if there were they would be included in the description. There isn't any such thing as set dressing, since everything in the game is real, and not a set.

Is there something wrong with your imagination? How do you not know the layout and construction of the locations in your own game? Do you just not give a shit? Why isn't someone else running then?

>>97654604
>the GM writes every detail of the system being played and knows every single possible combination of the rules
You've never GMed in your life, or only played 1-page ultra-lite RPGS, if you think this.

>>97654638
I don't know what you mean by "important to the plot". If there are candles in a room, then they are there because someone made them, and someone else purchased them and put them there, presumably for the purpose of providing light and / or for aesthetic reasons or to impress guests. And the players can choose to interact with them in any way they please, or they can choose to ignore them, just like anything else that exists.

>>97654638
Logically, if it's a castle large enough to have a throne room, it's also large enough to have guards posted at doors and likely to just escort the PCs directly through the throne room.
Unless it's a ruined castle, in which case you can have any rooms or hallways beyond those doors collapsed and empty, and it's non-issue.

At no point is the fact that the players have a spell to instantly open doors the problem. If there are guards, they won't be allowed to wander around even if the door is unlocked. If there aren't guards, then nothing stops them from breaking down the door with a battleaxe.
And even then, what's the worst that happens? You're forced to describe a kitchen?

>>97654663
Or I just play good games that weren't designed by retards so they don't have stupid broken shit because they were actually playtested. Retard.

>>97654663
Did you mean to reply to someone else?

>>97654663
>when my players use an obscure combination of rules (lockpick + locked door) to exploit the game (open the door) and break everything (see an empty room)
Man, do I hate it when there's gameplay in the game I'm playing

>>97654669
these are all valid ways that a DM might choose to prevent the players from wandering around rather than going straight to the quest giver

> You're forced to describe a kitchen?
describing an extremely mundane room is another way that a DM might signpost to the players that theres nothing in here

but all of these are better options than going DM-less, which is what the original argument is about >>97653371
without a DM, the only things the players are able to interact with are the things already written down ahead of time
so the players literally have no choice but to interact with whatever doors are mentioned to exist
at that point its a board game, any room will have only passages to another setpiece, any other diversion simply does not exist or cannot be interacted with

>>97654638
To use a specific example from my last game, one of the heroes was attempting to gain access to a vampire controlled nightclub for the purpose of acquiring information regarding his nemesis' operations in the area. In this particular case, he wasn't able to socially engineer the bouncer, so he decided to temporarily retreat rather than cause a scene and draw unwanted attention. I provided him with the following options, should be want continue this strategy : look for roof access, check for passages leading off the nearby subway, cause a distraction across the street, disguise as a partygoer based on the fashion of those waiting in line, knock out one of the staff around back and get a uniform sneak in through the service entrance. And I made sure to let the player know these were just suggestions, and he was free to attempt anything he could think of. And I was prepared to proceed on the basis of whatever he might have chosen, since I was running the game as a game, and not a series of theme park rides.

Players exploring and making decisions and affecting the world is what makes games fun and worth running at all. Why would I ever want to destroy my own fun? How would I benefit?

>>97654668
>I don't know what you mean by "important to the plot"
now you are being deliberately obtuse
if you describe a painting for no other purpose than to establish that this room is decorated, thats not important to the plot, its set dressing that exists to set a certain scene
if the painting is being described because theres a secret passage behind it, then thats important to the plot because someone may choose to use it later on, and it would feel unfair to the players if you only describe the painting at the moment it became relevant
this can be used for dramatic effect, whatever the secret passage is behind is so normal and mundane that it wasnt worth describing, but usually anything unusual will have to be described ahead of time

>>97654700
Why would I want to prevent the players from wandering?

>>97654711
The reason I describe a painting is the same reason I describe anything. Because the player characters experienced it with their senses, and my job is to communicate such information to the players so they know what is happening in the game. It is up to the players to decide what is important to them. Not me.

>>97654714
the point is that having a DM who can either make a plausible reason that they cant go a certain place or create an entirely new place should the players go unexpected is something they are expected to do

running a game without a DM means that you can only go places that were already designed before hand and any place you cant visit is out-of-bounds with an invisible wall like its a video game
a DM-less game is basically just a board game

>>97654638
>>97654700
To be clear, the important part of the "don't put it there" argument is the other part you ignored. Which is specifically if you don't want the possibilities of interaction that the door creates.

In the example where the DM doesn't want to improvise the layout of a castle on the fly, or otherwise would struggle to do so, then clearly they didn't want the door to be there.
If the DM doesn't care about whether the players start opening random doors, including those that they're just assuming are in the room because it's a sprawling castle, then the argument no longer applies, because there's no longer a complaint being made.

You can put whatever you want anywhere as long as you're not going to bitch about the thing you put there.

>>97654732
>Which is specifically if you don't want the possibilities of interaction that the door creates.
you can describe an object solely to set the scene
the players may interact with it in a manner you did not expect
so the DM is important in this case to handle these interactions on the fly

the argument is that >>97653371 doesnt like having a DM
which is insane because it locks the players to solely interacting with objects that have been determined ahead of time and prevents the players from ever doing anything unintended

>You can put whatever you want anywhere as long as you're not going to bitch about the thing you put there.
the point is that having a DM to arbitrate when players start opening random doors is important
a DM can create a plausible reason they cant open it, populate the interior of the room with something, or just describe a room for the fun of it
without a DM, then only doors meant to be interacted with can exist

>>97654729
Why reply to me if you're going to write a post that has nothing to do with what I asked?

>>97654753
You don't describe objects to set the scene. That doesn't mean anything. If you're describing something, that means it exists. And it exists, it can be interacted with.

In case you're still not getting it, intelligent beings - the kind of beings that can build structures - don't fabricate and install doors at random. They install doors to separate rooms, to control access, to create fire breaks, and possibly for other reasons. If there is a door set in a wall, it is there because something with a mind decided to put it there. And that means it leads somewhere. Imagining what exists in the world is almost your entire job as aGM, and it is not particularly difficult. If you can't even manage that, quit.

>>97654782
so you are refuting >>97653371 claim that DM-less games are better?

>>97654790
I haven't participated in that discussion and have no opinion on it. I haven't played games without GMs, so I don't know anything about them. And even if I had, and had enjoyed them, that still wouldn't be relevant to whether or not you would enjoy them.

>>97654292
Why would that be an issue given that you have already raised the problem with them in order to resolve it rather than just sitting there seething and expecting that to prevent it happening again somehow?

>>97654797
>I haven't participated in that discussion
thats literally what this entire discussion about doors is about

the first poster claims that he never plays any games with DMs in it
the next one says that a DM is there to handle situations outside what is explicitly described to the players, the door is brought up as an example because its a situation where players might interact with something that wasnt planned ahead
a DM can create something, anything, to fill whats behind the door
without a DM, there would either be no doors outside of important ones to begin with or else any doors that dont lead to where the players can go cannot be opened by any means

thats the entire argument about doors

>>97654753
>the point is that having a DM to arbitrate when players start opening random doors is important
I'm not disagreeing with that. I feel like we may be arguing past each other, or otherwise discussing two different things here.

>>97654806
Incorrect. The discussion is about being so stupid you put doors in your game that you didn't want to be interacted with.

>>97647644
>No, you can't freeze this water and walk across it by casting an ice spell because... you just can't okay! Stop solving my puzzles in ways I didn't intend that you all find satisfying and enjoyable! You need to succeed MY way!

>>97654806
>thats literally what this entire discussion about doors is about
NTA, but I was under the impression that the current discussion of doors stemmed from >>97654549 >>97654604
Neither of which follow the reply chain back to the DM-less game discussion.

>>97653591
In my experience a door that doesn't open is the most interesting thing in any given campaign.

>>97653240
Man, it's been so long since I've seen an internet tough guy.

Tee gee will swallow every bait, no matter how obvious.

File: 1482968066372.jpg (47 KB, 500x403)

47 KB JPG

>>97655083
That's because even if it's intended as bait, all of us have experience with something similar.
Either as a DM dealing with a player who insists they can use mage hand to force choke/pinch someone's optical nerves/finger their prostate and thus take them out the fight using a cantrip because "Well it doesn't say I can't do that and technically-"
Or as a player going "Why can't I use my stone to flesh spell that I prepared to turn the giant stone golems shin into meat and let it collapse under the weight of the rest of it? Come on, it's cool!"

These two perspectives exist in the same group, but are almost irreconcilable and therefore will always generate discussion.

>>97655093
Actually, I now see that the most egregious bait has been deleted by jannies and the rest is just anons arguing with normal level of thick-headedness.
Carry on.

>>97654839
I'd say that's actually clever, because cone of cold type spells don't usually have rules for freezing large quantities of water. However, it does say it freezes a target solid until thawed.

A pedantic GM might argue that it freezes the water, but that it's not sturdy enough to walk on. Or that you freeze part of the river, but then it floats away in the current. Either way, using a spell in an unintended way is more clever than using the "I make the problem go away so I don't have to think about it" spells.

>>97647854
Important spells still aren't infinite use, problem is 5etards hate combat so fucking much that it almost never happens and they effectively have infinite spells.

>>97654848
Wow, you play in some really dull games.

>>97655814
What's the difference between rolling lockpicking and casting lockpick?

>>97655825
Good games don't have to impose arbitrary limits to be interesting and fun.

>>97647536
>eye rolling dot jaypegme
>it's the first frame of a gif
You made me eyeroll, good job

>>97655998
Wizard can cast knock at a distance and instantly unlock anything that is sealed or otherwise rigged in a way that prevent access, requires no components, only needs to be within 60ft and visible. Rogue has to have thieves tools and preferably proficiency with them, be able to touch the lock, and preferably have the sleight of hand skill also, but still needs time to do so, runs the risk of failure, and depending on the situation, may also be time sensitive.

So it's not only easier for the Wizard, but it also negates one of the few things the Rogue is actually made to do, or otherwise negates the choices another player has made to invest parts of their character into the ability to pick a lock.

>>97654672
What system?

>>97654292
Pussy.

>>97656465
Prowlers and Paragons.

>>97657044
Post a PDF.

>>97657153
Nice try glowie.

>>97647536
Stop creating realistic grounded worlds when the system is wacky.
The solution to "countering" overpowered powers is making the world and plot even more demanding and crazy, suddenly it's not about upholding whatever idealistic image you have, the game will demand players to constantly think outside of the box to succeed and survive.

>>97653958
>s if they recognize that something might a problem, but refuse to look for solutions or prepare in any way
So if a GM doesnt become the Unofficial Patch for every game they run, they're shit.

Don't kill yourself actually. Your opinions are amusing.

>>97661907
>So if a GM doesnt become the Unofficial Patch for every game they run, they're shit.
NTA but yes, that's part of the GM's job since it's basically house-ruling.
This idea that a game is unplayable you don't agree with RAW is nonsense, just don't be a bad GM.

>>97661921
I houserule that you are gay.

Now that that's settled, stop looking up spell combos and "le whacky rule exploits" on youtube.

>>97661907
>become the Unofficial Patch
That's not the only way of preparing for a problem. Establishing a gentleman's agreement was also an option in that list, for example. If you can't even talk to your players then that's pretty garbage GMing.

>>97661907
Given that "patching" the game just involves deciding how rule interactions work (or don't), yes that's literally why the GM is there.

>>97662081
Make me.

>>97647536
Who are you quoting?

>>97655990
The point I was trying to make, anon, is that nothing is more compelling to the average player than being told they can't do something. They will find a door they can't open more interesting than any mystery you were intentionally trying to set up, more magnetic than any dungeon. This is something I learned early on, and now invoke intentionally, because I know they will get more fixated on opening a lockbox that they don't have enough lockpick to open - and in turn, on the plothook inside - than they will for that same plothook being dropped into their lap.

TL:DR - If you don't want them to be able to open a door, don't put a door there in the first place, moron.

File: Screenshot (386).png (40 KB, 800x380)

40 KB PNG

>>97647902
>>you need to spot every possible combination of 50 to 100 spells in the book i.e. go through 10,000 possible combination in a million possible situations to pre-empt every single abuse of a spell or power to add contrived shit to your world to counteract it, thus invalidating the spells entire existence other than the further divide the gap between mundane and magical characters
Case in point: if Neverwinter Nights was a tabletop campaign and not a video game, a single casting of picrel on Aribeth would derail the entire second half of the campaign's story. Picrel is not even homebrew, it's an official spell WOTC made and released in an official book. You as a DM are supposed to either recognize exactly how some obscure spell can alter half of your story and deny it if you don't like it, or live with the consequences.

>>97666955
The DM has access to the player's character sheets. If the DM knows that you have this spell, he should absolutely expect that you might use it and plan around you using it. It's also a sorcerer/wizard spell, so it's not like they are a druid or cleric where they have access to their entire spell list. They must write it on their sheet on their short list of spells so it's clear that they know it.

>>97666955
Aside from what >>97667399 said where the DM can read your sheet, this is also a 9th level spell. Unless the players are level 17 at the halfway point of Neverwinter Nights, then they won't even have it.
You also don't need to recognize exactly how an obscure spell will impact the game, you only need to recognize that magic in 3.5 is powerful and world-changing. Of course, if you recognized that magic in 3.5 was so powerful, and you have such a dislike for powerful magic, I'd question why you'd pick 3.5 out of any edition of D&D to run, as basically every other edition is safer in that respect.

You either solve the problem, avoid the problem, or you suffer the problem and you live with the consequences.
What other option are you expecting to appear out of nowhere and make sure things you don't like don't happen without you having to do anything?

>>97666955
>Case in point: if Neverwinter Nights was a tabletop campaign and not a video game, a single casting of picrel on Aribeth would derail the entire second half of the campaign's story. Picrel is not even homebrew, it's an official spell WOTC made and released in an official book. You as a DM are supposed to either recognize exactly how some obscure spell can alter half of your story and deny it if you don't like it, or live with the consequences.
If the DM has to deny half the spells in the game, the system is shit.
And the players WILL whine about it.

>>97656002
This, when a campaign starts I declare that I am playing God and that I win.

>>97647536
>>GM either has to contrive some sort of coordinated reaction to it that doesn't make any sense, or let them absolutely ruin the game
>>97653280
>Because then there's no game
Holy fucking shit. Do you bitches really do think this shit?

>>97653309
>if it ruins the game that is on you as a GM.
Exactly.

When the players find some shortcut or exploit to defeat the challenge quickly, I either provide natural consequences, reasonable increased challenges based on established description, or I just let them have the win and we... move on to the NEXT challenge.
I'm imagining your GMs just crumpling in a ball, giving up, and ending the session.

Hell, once in a game I upgraded a few wolves into irradiated wendigo because the players hyped up the spooky howls so much that a low level intro fight would've been a let down.
Another time the same guys skipped to boss at the start by going through the fucking wall like lunatics and the rest of the game became investigation focused.

Roll with the punches for maximum enjoyment of everyone.

>>97647714
>DMs usually let the first instance of a wombo combo work just fine because the players discovered some unintended (or totally intended) interaction and let them have fun
>and then only start implementing counter-measures if they try it again, usually with the justification that word got around after the first time they tried it
Eh. I don't like to take winning strategies away from players either. Unless it's obvious.
It's a bit like when a player gets an ability to crush an enemy type and that enemy type never shows up ever again.
Let the PCs be awesome and crush it occasionally. Then hit them with stirge wights or something. There's always another challenge.

>>97655825
5e is ostensibly meant to be played in long stretches where player resources are being depleted all the time and tough choices are made at various points between meaningful long rests. What spells to take, what resources to buy and carry, how long to march on, etc. However, because a single combat can take multiple hours of a 2-4 hours average session, most people do one combat and then go straight to a long rest, so there's rarely ever a reason to not blow all your best spells, once-per-session/day/battle powers, and simply trivialize everything in your way.

This is where martials truly get fucked because they are meant to be nearly-un-attrition-able. They can attack forever as long as they have at least 1 HP. Casters can run out of spells, or prepare the wrong ones, and over multiple fights and challenges, they are hypothetically able to be backed into a corner and made unable to do anything but cantrips. Actually getting a caster to that point, however, is nearly impossible.

>>97667668
Clueless.

>>97666831
Damn, how do you manage to be this wrong?

>>97667899
Why do you think you have to rest at the end of a session?

>>97667899
>unattritionable
>at least 1 hp
what do you think attrition is?

>>97667899
When you play 5e with people who actually like playing tabletop, and aren't there just for the social aspect, 5e combat is very fast. You can get through a medium encounter in 20 minutes with the right table.

>>97667899
>>97667983
Combat being multiple hours is a sign that things have gone very wrong. At that point I'd give up and switch to a rules-lite system, because clearly the players aren't reading their sheets anyway.

>>97668021
Many 5e players stick with this. It became a social phenomena which means soulless bug people took to it. These people have no internal monologue so cannot process anything that is happening beyond the funny voices and high dice rolls

>>97667983
>5e combat is very fast
>You can get through a medium encounter in 20 minutes with the right table.
Mathematically impossible. It would take more than 20 minutes to get through a single round of combat with 4 players against several monsters even with every player locked in and laser focused.

>>97668047
A turn should take no longer than 1 minute per entity, 2 minutes at the later levels. The average time is much longer because 5e is full of retards that don't understand the rules or think ahead.

>>97668084
Only if everyone is playing fighters and only doing basic attacks. Your hypothetical requires that literally nothing needs to be questioned or resolved with each action, that no one ever double checks their sheet or needs to read off what an ability does, and that the GM is rapid fire bookkeeping damage and saves in single digit seconds after every attack.

>>97668103
A wizard can easily keep a turn within 1 minute, even with summons
>Your hypothetical requires that literally nothing needs to be questioned or resolved with each action
This certainly happens at least once a combat, but definitely happens way more often due to soulless bug people who "play" 5e clogging up the player slots.
>no one ever double checks their sheet or needs to read off what an ability does
Happens during other people's turn, while you wait for the DM to resolve initiative order, etc. Again a problem only for bug people
>le bookeeping!
It's basic addition and subtraction, should take a second or two per calculation tops.

>>97668146
>Happens during other people's turn, while you wait for the DM to resolve initiative order
Doing it right.

>>97668146
Your rebuttal amounts to
>Nuh uh! that doesn't happen if literally everything is perfect and running at peak efficiency!
Time your next combat, if you even play.

>>97668103
If we're assuming everyone is "locked in and laser focused", then resolving all of those things is going to take minimal amounts of time.
If the players and DM are routinely forgetting what abilities do to the point of needing to read them off again mid-session, then it sounds like they haven't been paying as much attention as they should be.

>>97668177
I played in one campaign where every single player actually knew the rules and could plan ahead. It is night and day I promise you

>>97668251
Time your combat. I guarantee you that you aren't finishing a fight with a dozen goblins in 20 minutes.

>>97668773
It's fine if your group struggles with this anon. That's just a sign that you should play a simpler system that suits your needs.

>>97655825
it's next to impossible to contrive a believable scenario where you get 5+ completely unavoidable back to back combats in a single day

>>97669091
and it's even MORE impossible to contrive a scenario where you get 5+ completely unavoidable back to back combats in a single day where the fighter somehow doesn't end up with near 0 HP after maybe one or two unless those fights were so piss fucking easy that the wizard wouldn't have even had to use any spell slots anyway

>>97668844
I'd be pretty embarrassed if I were you and I had to go to my next session and pull out the stopwatch for all my perfect friends, only to realize some trifling combat encounter took an hour and a half, knowing you talked up a big game about how it would only take 20 minutes. I'll be living in your head rent free.

>>97668047
What if this is wrong?

>>97669420
>I'd be pretty embarrassed
There's no need to be embarrassed anon. It's really easy to just try playing different games if they don't suit your needs.

>>97669603
Don't dodge the issue just because you said something stupid. We're talking about 5e.

>>97647644
>it's actually just using some spell or ability in the book that negates one or several obstacles to spare them the indignity of having to engage with the game in any meaningful way
maybe dont make every fucking little task require a series of atusticly specific skill rolls so you can fish for player nat ones, Caleb.

>>97669817
We're talking about how 5e is too complicated for you and your group to run smoothly. So the answer is that you should just play something else.
Or is that answer also too complicated for you?

>>97670088
No, what you're saying is that a group that plays perfectly, memorizes everything, and never takes more than a few seconds to resolve every action can play 5e with superhuman speed. For everyone else, the game is a fucking slog and getting through more than one combat a session is a rarity.

>>97670275
What if your experience doesn't reflect the average player's?

>>97670275
>No, what you're saying is
You can believe my anecdotal evidence or not. It doesn't really matter, because I'm not trying to convince you that you'd have a good time playing 5e.
And since you don't seem to like playing it, why does it matter whether or not my group is "superhuman"? It doesn't change the fact that your group should clearly play something else, and it'd be much more productive for you to focus on finding something you enjoy instead of arguing about whether other people are capable of not taking an hour to kill a few goblins.

>>97667983
this fucking loser thinks 20 minutes is fast KEK

>>97670299
What if yours doesn't?

>>97670330
What a pathetic pile of weaselly bullshit. It's never been about convincing anyone or how much one enjoys the game. It's about you being a lying retard. 5e combat is slow. It has always been slow. Don't bother trying to reframe the argument as if this is a matter of taste and preference.

>>97671200
>reframe the argument
There's no argument to be had. All you're doing is repeatedly stating how your group struggles with 5e.
That's a skill issue, not a matter of preference. Taste was never a factor. We already agree that running combat quickly is good. You just refuse to believe that your group is worse at it than other tables.

>>97671283
Nope, you're wrong and you lose.

>>97670440
I would be okay with that. Would you feel the same about yours if it didn't reflect the average player's?

>>97671283
>my group is perfect
>your group is dumb and stinky
>therefore 5e is fine
Consider Canadian Healthcare, faggot.

>>97671616
You're not okay with it.

>>97647536
Is magic even broken anymore? Every BBEG has three free failed saves before they actually get stuck with a spell and with concentration only working on one spell at a time one character can't be hiding behind 20 buffs while stacking 20 debuffs.

>>97672788
Why do you want this to be true?

>>97672832
Why do you keep lying?

>>97647536
GM needs to ask:
>If you're all going to be faggots, how about you start by sucking my dick?

You bunch of namby motherfuckers. Did your parents fail in raising you so bad? Not only do you spend time with your bullies, but you're too big a bitch to do anything about other than complain on a Tibetan Llama Porn forum?

Maybe single player vidya is more your speed, you autistic knob.

>>97672788
Why would anyone not be okay with their group being above average in terms of the speed in which they finish combat?

>>97674503
Why do you want me to be a liar?

>>97672804
This isn't 5e and most of the broken spells are the ones that don't require a "save" at all.

>>97647536
Who are you quoting?

>>97678296
I don't need to quote anyone.

>>97674587
>be hostile to your players to assert dominance
I'm sure you're a great GM.

>>97679230
Why did you use the quotation character?