Originally Posted by Ghatt
When did die rolls become such a bad thing in rpgs?


Ever since mass market imbeciles were invited in.

To them a chance of achieving something at 80% or 90% or any % is "random" - as if its completely chaotically random. And all that fuels that moronic nonsense is pathetic deranged butthurt their attack missed sometimes or spell didnt hit.

Because in their heads they are still playing action games where player reactions override characters skills - and the devs are fucking listening to that because it brings them more fucking money. Or so they think!

Hence, DOS2 main mechanics as an attempt to have a cake and eat it too.

It never worked and it never will.
Decades of decline were the result before, and even now in this "Renaissance" of "old school Turn based RPGs" the biggest kickstarter successes are trying to worm in more "action" by removing as much of "RNG" as they can - thus directly reducing character skills influence on the gameplay itself - which make the game less of an RPG and more of a hybrid action RPG or, in more extreme cases, action games with some RPG mechanics.

Then even in a TB game you get the mechanics such as Hard CC with 100% chance to succeed, and then you get binary armors that prevent any "RNG" from disturbing the imbeciles that you need to whack off to win and you get the removal of initiative and ALL of its effects on the gameplay - because its not fucking binary enough!

The you get insane deranged proclamations such as this :

"When you have to suggest something like adding "RNG" and stat limitation, you lose the right to say anything about being tactical."

And what was the one before? That "You cannot expect "insane" tactical options in a ... Turn based game"?
(the insane part is a idiotic strawman woven into an absurdity)