TTRPGs should punish people who play DMFs.

[Koumei]

That would call for a Touhou RPG. In Touhou the combats are non-lethal displays of fireworks and the loser has to obey the winner for a time. (the winner usually asks for "stop causing this incident"). Everybody gets drunk afterwards.

It must be done. MAKE IT HAPPEN.

[PoliteNewb]

Lago, if you really hate people who play DMF's so very badly, you could just...not play with them? Or slap them with your cock, maybe? Why do you need the game to do your job for you?

tl;dr

[Koumei]

I was going to do a big post on how, as usual, Lago is completely wrong, and what games should do is:
[*]Force them to have useful abilities (yeah, if they choose not to use them, that's their problem more than anyone else's)
[*]Tell fans of the DMF to fuck off and play a boring game instead. Don't use those exact words, don't talk about GROWING A PAIR or whatever. Just say "This game is more LotR Movies (shield-surfing and awesome elephant-killing stunts) than LotR Books (sword sword arrow snore), and is more Last Airbender/The Undertaker (WWE)/Disgaea than either of those. If you want completely ordinary men constrained 100% by the laws of physics, then this is not the game for you."

But it looks like everyone else is already doing that, so really, I just want to emphasise that Lago is wrong as usual.

[nockermensch]

That would call for a Touhou RPG. In Touhou the combats are non-lethal displays of fireworks and the loser has to obey the winner for a time. (the winner usually asks for "stop causing this incident"). Everybody gets drunk afterwards.

It must be done. MAKE IT HAPPEN.

it already exists. But I remember reading reviews saying it's not a good RPG.

[Mistborn]

A TPK against the Lich King means you're now part of the zombie apocalypse.

Well probaly a TPK aginast the Lich King means you're all going to have to roll up new characters to fight the zombie apocalypse. Which many now include the old PCs. That's how I'd handled it anyway.

[Krusk]

Players wandering off to go play Smash Brothers slows the game down a lot. Descriptions have to be read out repeatedly, people have to wait whenever his turn comes up, it turns an evening of enjoyable gaming into a shitty game of disinterested gamer herding.

-Username17

You ever play with this guy?

Its seriously as simple as shouting "Jim, its your up" letting him respond with "I charge something big, roll me a d20 and 2d6+10 damage". then you roll some dice and move on.

His turn still takes half that of some of the other players.

[Maj]

I've played with That Guy. It didn't work as neatly as your scenario.

In our game, you shout to That Guy, he looks up, and asks what's going on. How many enemies have been killed since the last time he looked at the game? What is the status of both his character and the other players? What magical effects are in play that weren't before? Has the battlefield changed at all? Has anything new about the plot been revealed?

It may not take a horribly long amount of time, but it takes considerably more than if That Guy were just paying attention in the first place. and the real kicker is that because it adds to the overall length of combat time, That Guy becomes even less likely to want to pay attention if there's even a hint that someone else might need a game update, too.

[Aryxbez]

Its seriously as simple as shouting "Jim, its your up" letting him respond with "I charge something big, roll me a d20 and 2d6+10 damage". then you roll some dice and move on.

His turn still takes half that of some of the other players.

That example makes it out to sound "That Guy" wouldn't even need to be there to contribute, having someone else do the simple attack and damage roll. Regardless if that's the case or not, it makes me wonder why "That Guy" is there at all. If he really wants to play Video Games instead of associating with friends and the game, why not just show up till the scheduled time they would be done playing the RPG? It's not like he'll be bored, he has video games till then to keep him busy till his friends are done. Even if he wants to be there to socialize, distracting other players is just going to slow the game down.

Don't really need to make rules for such behavior if the apparent problem player(s) aren't there to begin with.

[...You Lost Me]

I have Maj's problem. That Guy is totally out of it, and needs to be re-updated as to every facet of combat, and needs to know the distances between him and opponents for whether or not he has to charge and if anyone is low on HP and needs to be whacked with the healing stick.

It's a real pain.

[icyshadowlord]

...the hell is a DMF, anyway?

[Mr. GC]

...the hell is a DMF, anyway?

Dumbfuck Melee Fighter.

If their action every round is I attack it, or possibly trip it = DMF.

[Aryxbez]

...the hell is a DMF, anyway?

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=267706#267706

I believe there was an entire thread of the definition over the matter (or perhaps that was VAH or "Vanilla Action Hero").

As I recall, it's a fighter of limited tricks, that also has a crappy Intelligence score, since as the trend goes, it's one of the attributes that can be dropped in favor of "ideally" being viable.

[ishy]

I don't think you can solve the problems by making 'the guy' play a wizard instead of a DMF, it'll just be more frustration as he'll be asking what his spells do as well now.

In one group I'm currently playing, I do have a DMF as well, the guy playing it has some serious mental issues (is also in a mental institute) and he doesn't want to play anything more complicated than a DMF. But yet even he pays attention in combat and doesn't disrupt the flow of the game out of combat. Even makes the game better (well for me at least) as I play a bard, and we sometimes do the moonwalk or the macarena in the middle of the dungeon. Or you know some other weird stuff.

[RadiantPhoenix]

The VAH and the DMF are not the same, but a given character might be both.

Kenpachi from Bleach is a DMF but not a VAH; he can fly around and is impossibly strong, but literally his only contribution to the plot is stabbinating people.

James Bond is a VAH but not a DMF; he isn't super-strong, super fast, or capable of flying under his own power, but he actually does interesting things in the plot besides fighting people.

[Morat]

But that's not the same as letting you fail, is it?

There are already enough games where almost everyone wins. We call them "all the RPGs on the market."

See, I'd read MG as saying that you are permitted to fail and that it doesn't need to end the story. Like most RPGs, there's the one-roll skill check and the involved round-by-round conflict. In the former, success means succeeding without harm. Failure is either getting what you want at a cost (you successfully navigated to your destination, but the effort made you Tired or Hungry) or it's introducing a twist. Fr'ex, the first example mission has the patrol searching for a grain merchant who's selling secrets about their fortress. You make effectively a spot vs. stealth check, and the book's suggestion for failure is a twist that a snake has eaten the merchant and will shortly thereafter attack the patrol. It's a little odd to think of the merchant succeeding by being eaten, but it does mean the patrol can't interrogate the merchant, forcing them to continue the investigation pretty blind. That sure seems to me like failure that doesn't mean game over. The expectation looks like that if failure = story stalls, then the GM should make it success-with-condition. But if failure can = story shoots off in a different direction, the GM should do that instead. So if the patrol fails to find the merchant, they can still find a secret map of their home base hidden in the merchant's grain cart. Since this is pretty much their only remaining lead, the suggestion is that on a failed search to give the map to the party in exchange for making them Angry. I should note that there are only five conditions, they're significant penalties and recovering from them is pretty slow and difficult, so getting dinged for one (or more!) sucks.

The second type is the full conflict, where the sides declare goals, the winner accomplishes their goal, and the loser forces a compromise based on how close the winner was to losing. The example fight with the snake is to the death, and death can only be brought in when explicitly stated as a goal for an opponent in a conflict (though that can be winter succeeding at freezing you to death in a journey conflict). It is pretty clear that if you lose a fight where your opponent's goal is your death, you're dead.

[K]

But that's not the same as letting you fail, is it?

There are already enough games where almost everyone wins. We call them "all the RPGs on the market."

See, I'd read MG as saying that you are permitted to fail and that it doesn't need to end the story. Like most RPGs, there's the one-roll skill check and the involved round-by-round conflict. In the former, success means succeeding without harm. Failure is either getting what you want at a cost (you successfully navigated to your destination, but the effort made you Tired or Hungry) or it's introducing a twist. Fr'ex, the first example mission has the patrol searching for a grain merchant who's selling secrets about their fortress. You make effectively a spot vs. stealth check, and the book's suggestion for failure is a twist that a snake has eaten the merchant and will shortly thereafter attack the patrol. It's a little odd to think of the merchant succeeding by being eaten, but it does mean the patrol can't interrogate the merchant, forcing them to continue the investigation pretty blind. That sure seems to me like failure that doesn't mean game over. The expectation looks like that if failure = story stalls, then the GM should make it success-with-condition. But if failure can = story shoots off in a different direction, the GM should do that instead. So if the patrol fails to find the merchant, they can still find a secret map of their home base hidden in the merchant's grain cart. Since this is pretty much their only remaining lead, the suggestion is that on a failed search to give the map to the party in exchange for making them Angry. I should note that there are only five conditions, they're significant penalties and recovering from them is pretty slow and difficult, so getting dinged for one (or more!) sucks.

The second type is the full conflict, where the sides declare goals, the winner accomplishes their goal, and the loser forces a compromise based on how close the winner was to losing. The example fight with the snake is to the death, and death can only be brought in when explicitly stated as a goal for an opponent in a conflict (though that can be winter succeeding at freezing you to death in a journey conflict). It is pretty clear that if you lose a fight where your opponent's goal is your death, you're dead.

That sounds fucking awful. It's the worst of a Magic Tea Party game and the worst of a rules-based system.

It also doesn't accomplish the stated goal that I'm looking for: a game where failure doesn't mean you stop playing. Clearly, even this MTP mash-up still has end conditions where the DM and players crumple up the campaign and/or character sheets and go play Smash Brothers.

[Dominicius]

But that's not the same as letting you fail, is it?

There are already enough games where almost everyone wins. We call them "all the RPGs on the market."

See, I'd read MG as saying that you are permitted to fail and that it doesn't need to end the story. Like most RPGs, there's the one-roll skill check and the involved round-by-round conflict. In the former, success means succeeding without harm. Failure is either getting what you want at a cost (you successfully navigated to your destination, but the effort made you Tired or Hungry) or it's introducing a twist. Fr'ex, the first example mission has the patrol searching for a grain merchant who's selling secrets about their fortress. You make effectively a spot vs. stealth check, and the book's suggestion for failure is a twist that a snake has eaten the merchant and will shortly thereafter attack the patrol. It's a little odd to think of the merchant succeeding by being eaten, but it does mean the patrol can't interrogate the merchant, forcing them to continue the investigation pretty blind. That sure seems to me like failure that doesn't mean game over. The expectation looks like that if failure = story stalls, then the GM should make it success-with-condition. But if failure can = story shoots off in a different direction, the GM should do that instead. So if the patrol fails to find the merchant, they can still find a secret map of their home base hidden in the merchant's grain cart. Since this is pretty much their only remaining lead, the suggestion is that on a failed search to give the map to the party in exchange for making them Angry. I should note that there are only five conditions, they're significant penalties and recovering from them is pretty slow and difficult, so getting dinged for one (or more!) sucks.

The second type is the full conflict, where the sides declare goals, the winner accomplishes their goal, and the loser forces a compromise based on how close the winner was to losing. The example fight with the snake is to the death, and death can only be brought in when explicitly stated as a goal for an opponent in a conflict (though that can be winter succeeding at freezing you to death in a journey conflict). It is pretty clear that if you lose a fight where your opponent's goal is your death, you're dead.

That sounds fucking awful. It's the worst of a Magic Tea Party game and the worst of a rules-based system.

It also doesn't accomplish the stated goal that I'm looking for: a game where failure doesn't mean you stop playing. Clearly, even this MTP mash-up still has end conditions where the DM and players crumple up the campaign and/or character sheets and go play Smash Brothers.

K, the thing you want is not something you look for in a system, at least not initially. It must first be established in a setting otherwise you will get huge disconnects no matter what mechanic you come up with.

[Username17]

K, the thing you want is not something you look for in a system, at least not initially. It must first be established in a setting otherwise you will get huge disconnects no matter what mechanic you come up with.

Disagree.

Yes, you need a setting where team monster or team villain or whatever has no intention of slitting the throats of the PCs while they lie there unconscious. But primarily you need a system to have outputs other than "you're dead" for the combat minigame. As long as retreat is not going to work and the characters die when they are punched out, it just doesn't even matter what the setting tells you the enemies will do if you are caught.

You really need a ransom negotiation system for surrender to be an option. But guess what: that's a system issue too.

-Username17

[hyzmarca]

You make effectively a spot vs. stealth check, and the book's suggestion for failure is a twist that a snake has eaten the merchant and will shortly thereafter attack the patrol.

That doesn't make any sense.

I presume that the snake is very large, because it's big enough to eat the merchant, but even so it'll take him days to digest that dude. Snakes don't go out hunting right after they've eaten a meal, they bask and digest. Or they hide in their burrows and digest. Either way, the snake is not going to be in the mood to attack anyone after eating a merchant, much less an entire patrol.

So the snake, logically, should not be attacking the patrol and should not be fighting to the death. If the meal fights back, then most predators run away.

[Morat]

You make effectively a spot vs. stealth check, and the book's suggestion for failure is a twist that a snake has eaten the merchant and will shortly thereafter attack the patrol.

That doesn't make any sense.

I presume that the snake is very large, because it's big enough to eat the merchant, but even so it'll take him days to digest that dude. Snakes don't go out hunting right after they've eaten a mean, they bask and digest. Or they hide in their burrows and digest. Either way, the snake is not going to be in the mood to attack anyone after eating a merchant, much less an entire patrol.

So the snake, logically, should not be attacking the patrol and should not be fighting to the death. If the meal fights back, then most predators run away.

Oh, fine, specifically the snake initially attempts to drive off the patrol, the patrol later comes across the snake's burrow and its clutch of eggs, and while two of the three mice start smashing the eggs the one standing watch gets attacked by the snake. I didn't figure I needed to lay out every action in sequence, but apparently I was totally wrong about everything forever.

[...You Lost Me]

hyz's post was dumb, ignore that. Answer the actual critique.

[ModelCitizen]

I've played with That Guy. It didn't work as neatly as your scenario.

In our game, you shout to That Guy, he looks up, and asks what's going on. How many enemies have been killed since the last time he looked at the game? What is the status of both his character and the other players? What magical effects are in play that weren't before? Has the battlefield changed at all? Has anything new about the plot been revealed?

It may not take a horribly long amount of time, but it takes considerably more than if That Guy were just paying attention in the first place. and the real kicker is that because it adds to the overall length of combat time, That Guy becomes even less likely to want to pay attention if there's even a hint that someone else might need a game update, too.

That Guy is fucking annoying, but it's not quite the same thing. He doesn't (just) tune out the non-combat parts, he tunes out everything except his personal turn. That's not an "only cares about combat" issue because even if you were playing a straight-up wargame he'd still be a pain in the ass.

[Koumei]

The patch-fix solution is obvious here: don't play with That Guy. Seriously, he wastes your time and presumably his presence results in more cooking needing to be done and more dishes left for cleaning.

I'm not really sure how the system can inherently fix this - about the only way might be preventative measures: providing options and complexity such that every That Guy looks at it, his eyes glaze over and he decides not to play in the first place.

[ishy]

Yeah you shouldn't fix problems like that in the game, but out of the game. Otherwise you just risk pissing people off.

But the other topic is far more interesting.

Disagree.

Yes, you need a setting where team monster or team villain or whatever has no intention of slitting the throats of the PCs while they lie there unconscious. But primarily you need a system to have outputs other than "you're dead" for the combat minigame. As long as retreat is not going to work and the characters die when they are punched out, it just doesn't even matter what the setting tells you the enemies will do if you are caught.

You really need a ransom negotiation system for surrender to be an option. But guess what: that's a system issue too.

-Username17

So lets assume we have a dnd 3.5 like game, but defaults to non-lethal damage, has a good retreat and ransom negotiation system etc.

But how would you handle it if a pc / all pcs are caught by for example an ooze? It doesn't have any motivation other than killing the pcs (that I can think off at least). Then you'd also need some kind of system for still playing after you die / returning to life. How can you make that workable without feeling shit?

[virgil]

But how would you handle it if a pc / all pcs are caught by for example an ooze? It doesn't have any motivation other than killing the pcs (that I can think off at least). Then you'd also need some kind of system for still playing after you die / returning to life. How can you make that workable without feeling shit?

It would assume that ooze isn't a lone wolf, but is a pawn to someone who is willing to negotiate.