>intentionally posting bad takes because you're desperate for attention

>>97865282
Stun/paralyze/freeze/etc. is fine and you're a retard for thinking otherwise.

>>97865272
youre a fucking retard

>>97865670
Skill issue cope

>>97865716
calling you a retard has nothing to do with my skill in games, youre just a literal braindead worhthless retard

>>97865272
D&D 5e sucks for many, many, MANY issues that are larger than bad stun mechanics.

File: Goblin Slayer Looters.png (749.4 KB)

749.4 KB PNG

>>97865720
Curious how you're not actually making an argument against stun mechanics, as if you already subconsciously know that there's actually nothing wrong with them and the players who complain about them just need to get good

>>97865860
Not just 5e but in general

>>97865949
I'm not even talking about stun mechanics, I'm talking about you specifically, the way you post and act, makes me think that you're a genuine autistic retard loser

>>97866129
>still no explanation about why stun mechanics are bad
Funny that

>>97866203
Okay?
Are you somehow convinced that I care one way or the other about stuns?
Im calling (You) personally a nitwit and a troll

>>97866483
And (You) still haven't explained why stun mechanics are bad

>>97866503
>why arent you arguing with me, WAAAAAAAH!
Why dont you explain why youre such an autistic faggot?

>>97866503
why dont you explain why theyre good, hrm?
curious

>>97865272
Mechanic that makes foe defenseless should allow ending the bout either via killing, capturing or running away.

File: its fun lois.gif (108.9 KB)

108.9 KB GIF

>>97866537

>>97866540
stunned isnt defenseless in D&D
>>97866557
proof?

File: big fucking skol guy.jpg (790 KB)

790 KB JPG

>>97866654
I have fun freezing monsters and it's a fun challenge when they paralyze/stun/etc. me

>>97865272
The ultimate skill issue is choosing a game you don't want to play.
The game has intricate survival and exploration mechanics? Well, nobody likes those so we won't use them.
Tracking resources so classes have something to compensate for their higher power and/or utility? Nah, that's too much bookkeeping, we'll ignore those.
A recommended number of combat encounters to make managing resources more of a challenge? Combat is boring anyway, so we won't do that.
Does the game require you to put a little thought in creating your character so they can survive the various monsters and villains arrayed against them? That goes against roleplaying, everyone knows sub-optimal characters are more roleplay-friendly than those built in consideration of the world they occupy.
Oh, and anyone who criticizes the way we play is a nogames, despite the fact that we admonish and oppose every rule and suggestion included in our game of choice, so what results is closer to a fucking collaborative storytelling quest than an actual game. Oh, but that's the social contract, the game doesn't have to be a game to call it a game, you nogames.

THAT is the fucking skill issue in TTRPGs. Outright refusing to play the game, insisting what you're doing is the world's greatest TTRPG, and daring to call others nogames to compensate.

>>97865272
Would you still be bitching about it then?
>Suck it up, buttercup, you'll be fine in a couple minutes.
"Suck it up" pretty much implies it sucks.
>a few minutes
I am already waiting a few minutes. My wait time just got doubled and that is if it is a one turn stun. Ghouls take you out for a whole combat.
>how do you think the GM feels if you stun his poor precious monsters and now he doesn't get to play?
So you admit it isn't fun then? Why not just remove it on both sides then.
Plus many games hand out stun immunity to specific monsters to avoid hurting the DM's feelings. Legendary resistances are another mechanic to reduce player's ability to stun.
Additionally DM's play multiple characters and can bring in reinforcements whenever they wish.
This makes PC's both far more vulnerable to getting stunned and players more affected when stunning is used.
Also not all PC's can easily acquire the ability to stun in class based systems and most PC stunning is limited frequency. Meanwhile each monster with a stun ability use them every combat as monsters get changed out every fight.
>inb4
>tl;dr
Skill issue. Learn to read fag.

>>97871746
>he plays 5e
lmao

File: crazy scientist lady.png (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB PNG

>>97871537
This guy gets it. Not to mention people who won't just find a system that fits what they want, instead of trying to butcher and Frankenstein pre-existing systems to do things they were never meant for

>>97871848
I was just using 5e because it is the "standard" game. From the way OP was talking I assumed he was talking about stunning as done in d&d derived games. Legendary resistances are also only one of the ways games downplay player's stun attempts.
On a different note 3.5 has Undead, Constructs, Oozes, Plants, and Elementals be just immune to stunning.
Although I admit in mid-high level 3.5 players actually do have a lot of options to nullify stunning.
However that raises the question, if the point of the mechanic is just working around it.
Stunning in cyberpunk 2020 is obviously so different than the kind of stunning mentioned in the OP that it can't be compared.

>>97872023
>he doesn't give his players ice bombs, severed medusa heads, and shocking weapons
lmao

>>97865272
> Mechanic makes game unfun when used against you or by you.
> Skill issues

> how do you think the GM feels if you stun his poor precious monsters and now he doesn't get to play?
Perma GM. I don't care, and avoid using such terrible mechanics on players, allow houseruled ways to mitigate them. E.G.: Take 20% of remaining HP as a penalty (rounded up), Stun becomes -4 to all actions for one round.

FFS, I don't want to play fucking Darkest Dungeons here.

File: lady dragonslayer.png (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB PNG

>>97873632
>Perma GM. I don't care
Me neither. I like when they absolutely fuck up the monsters because that's what the monsters are there for

>I don't want to play fucking Darkest Dungeons here
And that's exactly your problem

>>97865272
Who are you talking to?

>>97872045
Give? I don't give the players anything at all. If they want something, they can try to take it.

>>97873632
>I decided to play the game that has the mechanic I think isn't fun
>I didn't take the character creation options that would allow or open the windows to allowing my character to resist the mechanic I think isn't fun
>I didn't take the equipment or enchantment options that might prevent or mitigate the mechanic I think isn't fun
>I didn't avoid the possibility of encountering the monsters responsible for causing the mechanic I think isn't fun
>I directly engaged the monster capable of causing the mechanic I think isn't fun
>My character is now experiencing the mechanic I think isn't fun and now I am mad
>No, this definitely isn't a skill issue, it's unfun and I don't want to play [unrelated thing] here
. . . ?

>>97865272
This isn't a skill issue, this is a game design issue. Stun mechanics ARE bad, for either side of the table. Being able to say "NUH UH YOU DONT GET A TURN" is bad game design. Neither side of the table should have them. They inherently gum up the game and turn it into an arms race if both sides have them, and if one side does and the other doesn't it is objectively unfair to the other side, as you pointed out yourself.

They are impossible to properly balance and have no place in a turn-based system where if your turn doesn't fucking happen you just get to sit there and do nothing as a player, and as a GM your encounter is entirely invalidated. It's just not fun for anyone at the table, so I don't include them in any TTRPG I design.

>>97874018
Nah, fuck that shit, I want to run a game where my heroes are heroic and do heroic things and my villains are evil and lose to the heroes. Morally gray grimderp edgeslop is cringe unless you're underage B& and then you're cringe instead.

>>97881194
I don't do full body stuns, and my stun-like conditions don't prevent all kinds of actions.
For instance, a stagger against the legs might prevent skills that use actions and are reactions, but magic/resource skills that involve the legs will usually still be available, and all arms skills will still be available regardless.
Injuries act as a sort of stun, but instead of preventing all abilities, they act as debuffs for most active and reactive abilities, and only some especially strenuous skills aren't usable.
Plus, I always have ability and item options that prevent, reduce, or cure stun-like conditions anyway, so anyone who receives such conditions really only have themselves to blame for not taking them.
Stuns/disabled conditions can be done right, you just need to presence of mind to work out how they work for you.

But I do understand the ire towards stuns, 100%.

File: black woman is speaking.jpg (39.6 KB)

39.6 KB JPG

>>97881194
As both a player and GM I like stun mechanics. It's fun to have a tough fight, and it's fun to have the players freeze My monsters.

>>97881199
I like this too, but I also like having both sides of characters challenged, especially with something as ball-busting as "fuck you you're turned off for 1 round now".

>>97882425
It's not a "tough fight", it's not a fight at all because someone isn't playing the game. Stun mechanics are bad design because they tell someone at the table "you do not get to play the game".

A tough fight implies actual challenge. Stun mechanics are not a challenge. They are saying "you do not get to engage with the game at all".

File: bobsbooty.png (138.8 KB)

138.8 KB PNG

>>97882436
Y'know what I'll half give you the point here. If the stun is something so bad or ridiculous as to be "you're done for the entire rest of combat", I probably wouldn't like it on either end of the table. However, in the games I've played, it's never been more than a couple rounds of combat at most.

But at the same time, in some cases, players may have abilities that absolutely turn off monsters like sending a demon back to hell with certain spells/abilities. Demons usually can't do it back since they're fighting on the mortal plane, or if they can do the reverse send someone to hell, it usually doesn't last more than a couple turns at a time.

>>97882520
That's a couple of rounds too many.
>But at the same time, in some cases, players may have abilities that absolutely turn off monsters like sending a demon back to hell with certain spells/abilities
Then those systems are bad. That's also a form of stun.

>>97865272
DMs control every NPC. Players control one character (maybe two or three if they have pets). No matter what system you're playing, balancing NPCs the same as PCs is a terrible, awful idea.

>>97882939
I don't think anybody was making an argument in favour of that

File: 1760379581538682.jpg (13.7 KB)

13.7 KB JPG

>>97865272
>I play TTRPG to prove my skill
That's really fucking sad bro, do you wanna talk about it?
Does your feeling of inadequacy and this need to "prove yourself" spill to other social settings? Like, at a party where everyone is just chilling and/or getting laid, you desperately need to outcompete other kids at beer pong?
I personally play to have good time, socialize with friends and create interesting stories. It seems downright depressing to do otherwise
Remember anon, you are kenough. You don't need skill at pretend playing wizards to be kenough.

>>97880698
Who are you quoting?

>>97881194
They're fine for the players to use. They don't invalidate encounters.

>>97882672
No, there's nothing wrong with banishing effects.

>>97885756
The person I directly replied to.

They chose to play the game.
They didn't take preventative measures.
Yet they still got mad when it happened.

It isn't fucking rocket science.

>>97882436
No, stun mechanics remind you the choices you made in the game were likely wrong. If you choose to launch yourself into a bottomless cavern, you also don't get to play. The difference here is that your fellow teammates can often remedy the issue for you if you end up stunned.

>>97885093
>0 reading comprehension

>>97885761
Even if they did, I'd find that kind of fun as a GM. There's already considerable precedent for players getting "fuck off" abilities.

>>97889384
>If you choose to launch yourself into a bottomless cavern, you also don't get to play
No, because games should let my characters fly and avoid those consequences too.
It is unfun and bad game design if my characters can't fly.

>>97885887
No, the lines you quoted don't appear in their post. Try again.

>>97865272
>how do you think the GM feels if you stun his poor precious monsters and now he doesn't get to play?
GM literally doesn't care. Never has. Never will. Monster exist to be defeated by players, and if they weren't, then the GM only has himself to blame when he throws challenges that can be trivialized at the players.

None of which matters, because you're not even talking about a real game. You're whining about video game shit and pretending you know about /tg/ stuff.

>>97891812
Don't respond to me again until you learn some reading comprehension and what paraphrasal is.

>>97885887
>implying preventative measures are universally effective

>>97892128
There's nothing more effective at avoiding stuns than not being affected by them.
If being affected isn't avoidable, don't be hit by abilities that can cause stuns.
If being hit by abilities that can cause stuns is unavoidable, don't engage with entities that can cause stuns.
If engagement with entities that can cause stuns is unavoidable, you probably shouldn't be playing that game if stuns make you so mad.
No matter how you look at it, you always have a choice, and intentionally making bad decisions is, by definition, a skill issue.

>>97892146
No.

>>97892153
Your concession is accepted.

>>97865272
Who are you talking to?

>>97871537
This is and has been it, for ages. For so long, in fact, we've had editions of systems with reactionary design based around those issues where you automatically get the pay off of a complex, intricately build scheme without actually doing any of it.