|
So I mainly lurk this thread and used a lot of resources posted here in the past many pages to go to my DM about my discomfort with continuing to play 5e (besides that I didn't enjoy 5e that much) and it looks like we'll be switching systems from it to something else. He asked for my recommendations so now I've just got to noodle what would fit with the really unique campaign setting he's been creating/writing. So thanks everyone! edit: gosh darn this is a terrible snipe
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I mean, shouldn't some of your melee attackers be a hazard? I think 4E had AoO or OA or whatever they called it, too. Forced movement doesn't create attacks of opportunity, I don't believe. It's very much a Thing for encounter design in that edition. You need some bad spot for the PCs to force the enemies into.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
e: nm
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jul 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:This is a perfect snipe. What system did you suggest he go for, if you'd care to share? Ah,  I didn't have any ready to go so I said off the cuff of blades in the dark, 13th age, or fate. I also mentioned that I love the Glorantha setting but I didn't think that would go with the huge campaign world he built. I'm gonna be binging a bunch of threads here for more suggestions on things. It's a fantasy setting after a huge civilization shattering cataclysm, so I'm trying to find things that will allow us to use their mechanics easily
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I mean, okay, sure, fair enough, 4E has way more content for grid-based combat. But it sounds really intimidating, way too much to manage. I'd straight up not want to be expected to present several combats using all of this stuff throughout a campaign. That's what we mean by options for tactical, grid-based combat. The irony that you accused me of not liking it but you actually don't like it is loving extreme. 4e especially but honestly just about every editions besides 5 gave a poo poo and had rules that interacted with that premise. This was my point with FATE ; it at least has rules for a vaguely scrawled thing on a sheet of scratch paper rather than 5e's "enh wing it I guess?" Saying that 5e has good grid-based combat is like saying a claw-hammer is a good shovel. Hey if you like your claw-hammer that's great but it sure as gently caress ain't good at digging holes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
Pathfinder 2e is kind of interesting in that it moves towards 4e's style of combat (active environmental hazards are a part of about half the printed encounters in adventures, all characters have easier access to forced movement abilities, attacks of opportunity are less frequent but can actively interrupt a wide range of actions), despite Pathfinder 1e being a reaction against 4e in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/FallOnMyBlade/status/1282780546607841281
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
e: nm
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jul 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 01:12
|
|
|
Lancer, Strike!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 01:13
|
|
|
Fragged Empire and its spin-offs also make good use of grid-based combat. Valor and Panic at the Dojo also use grids. Mutant Chronicles 2d20 and Infinity RPG don't use strict grids, but they have zone-based tactical combat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
e: nm
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jul 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
What's going to constitute "good" tactical combat is going to vary from person to person and there's definitely not a one size fits all approach to the matter, which I think sort of loops around to one of the most common overarching arguments in the Is D&D Good Or Bad discourse which is that a lot of people treat D&D like it's a one-size-fits-all game while more contemporary game design seems to be aimed at picking a specific thing or set of things, doing those things as well as they can, ignoring the rest, and being open about it. Blades in the Dark, out of the box, is not going to work as well if you try to do something with it that is not doing crimes, getting the poo poo beat out of you, recuperating and then doing more crimes afterwards, it's not impossible to hack to do other things and stuff like Band of Blades turns it into a Black Company/Myth-esque game of soldiers trying to outrun the legions of darkness to rally at the final stronghold, but just in terms of picking up BitD and going "I'm gonna handwave some stuff and use this to run Game of Thrones or Harry Potter or whatever" is going to fall extremely flat. In Lancer's case its version of tactical combat is the 4E D&D school thereof. That means: -Positioning is important, it has opportunity attacks and forced movement abilities, systems that create zones and areas for you to push people into/pull them out of, etc, running it in "theater of the mind" will lose a lot in translation and make a lot of stuff less engaging -At the same time it doesn't have facing rules or cost you movement to turn around or anything, so it's not gonna be like Battletech or Iron Kingdoms -NPCs have a "puzzle fight" quality to them where each one has an actual sort of mechanical/tactical niche they're really good at instead of just being, like, an orc and then a Bigger Orc -Players have a lot of resources to burn and the game is paced as a marathon and not a sprint, a single fight in a vacuum will probably be winnable by any given group of players and a big part of the challenge lies in pushing them to go for 3-4 fights without a full restock so that by the end they're feeling the pinch, their mechs are beat to poo poo, they're out of special limited powers, and it's do or die time
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 01:30
|
|
|
Shirec posted:So I mainly lurk this thread and used a lot of resources posted here in the past many pages to go to my DM about my discomfort with continuing to play 5e (besides that I didn't enjoy 5e that much) and it looks like we'll be switching systems from it to something else. He asked for my recommendations so now I've just got to noodle what would fit with the really unique campaign setting he's been creating/writing. So thanks everyone! What does your group enjoy overall? When using 5e, what about it seemed almost good but not quite hitting the mark? Some of what you mentioned previously could work, but knowing this will help with recommendations. Like for me, I'd almost be wanting to suggest Shadow of the Demon Lord but just wipe the poop off (and the other stuff, depending on the tone of your game). It's a solid system that anyone who is familiar with 5th Edition would pick up on quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 01:31
|
|
|
Spellbound Kingdoms has zones AND flowchart-based combat styles. If you want even a little bit of swashbuckling in your fantasy adventure game, https://projects.inklesspen.com/fatal-and-friends/nifara/spellbound-kingdoms/
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 01:32
|
|
|
Arthil posted:What does your group enjoy overall? When using 5e, what about it seemed almost good but not quite hitting the mark? So some of my group is SUPER new to ttrpgs in general and don't know enough to have opinions, and my GM seems pretty well versed so is open to most anything. The others I think have only ever done d&d or pathfinder at most. I know that most of them really like doing the roleplay aspect of it (coming up with some very funny/good moments) and any time they've played fighters they've seemed to run up against the fact that fighters are boring to play. I think really anything is up for grabs if it's not too crunchy or hard for brand new players to get into.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 01:43
|
|
|
Do you think they'd be up for something like Ryuutama?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
I guess my suggestion still stands, then! SotDL is simple to understand. No skill system, it works off of character professions (think if your 5e backgrounds actually dictated what you were really good at entirely). Slightly tighter ability scores, where they basically have CON rolled into STR and removed Charisma entirely but rolled the idea of "force of will" into... well, Will/Wisdom. You get d6's to your rolls that help or hurt you, but all getting more does is increase the chance to get a +6/-6 and they cancel each other out so getting 4 negative d6 dice when you have 2 positive ones means you only have 2 negative dice. Only two types of dice used too, which is really nice. Multi-classing is baked into the system, every level actually gets you something useful. Very different initiative system, you don't roll for it and players always go first.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 02:22
|
|
|
Roadie posted:Pathfinder 2e is kind of interesting in that it moves towards 4e's style of combat (active environmental hazards are a part of about half the printed encounters in adventures, all characters have easier access to forced movement abilities, attacks of opportunity are less frequent but can actively interrupt a wide range of actions), despite Pathfinder 1e being a reaction against 4e in the first place. yeah the developers were pretty apologetic and said "4e had a lot of good ideas, we just didn't realize it at the time."
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 02:26
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:i literally play 5e (and, occasionally, good games), with children age 6 to 16, for a living. it is my job. edit: I had disregarded 5e after reading the playtest material so this is first time I've really tried to learn it and ugghh. I was pretty hype skimming through the classes - "huh, this is pretty cool, fast char gen with lots of class features and customization as you level!" - and my opinion went further and further downhill with every chapter. Gobbeldygook fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Jul 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 02:30
|
|
|
God, I wish Schwalb would open up Demon Lord. He doesn't have to - Lancer seems pretty rock solid - but man, I feel like a decent community push would really let SotDL fuckin' sing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 02:44
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:God, I wish Schwalb would open up Demon Lord. He doesn't have to - Lancer seems pretty rock solid - but man, I feel like a decent community push would really let SotDL fuckin' sing. He's doing Shadow of the Mad Wizard, which is the High Fantasy version, but who knows what that could lead to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Have you made any effortposts about tabletop games & kids? I have been grudgingly reading 5e to run games with a friend & their young kids because they already knew 5e, so I would be very interested in reading your experiences with teaching kids to play non-D&D games and what seems to work and also not work. Kids are smart as hell! They're also morons. You get young enough and kids have basically two emotions, "tired" and "hungry", and they don't even know they have them. That all being said: You just kinda... do it. You need WAY more energy and charisma to entertain kids, and the stamina not to lost your patience or temper, than you do for a good adult game group - but unlike a BAD adult game group, you're literally the adult in the room and can throw your weight around a bit. Anyway, the big stuff with new games is expectations. When I run a game like Anomaly or something Descended from the Queen with kids, I make sure they know going in that it isn't a game about winning or accumulating power. I start new systems with lighthearted playsets and one-shots and try to play a bunch of games with a group before doubling back on what I personally prefer - and if the kids love something, like how some in my Social Skills problem loved For the Queen, I follow their lead. Teaching and enforcing "yes and" is even more important with kids than it is with adults. Fortunately, my job also involves board games and larp combat, so a lot of the kids are already primed with emotional safety rulesets. I can write up some of the scripts we use if you like - but the big one, for LARP or RPGs, is "Safety, Trust, Fun". In order for us all to have fun, we need to feel safe - that no one is going to try to hurt us - and that we can trust one another and be trusted. So with a firm but gentle hand, I make sure that players have their turn to talk, that one player's story contributions are considered and included by the next kid, and that the subject matter remains appropriate for all players. When players violate those safety-trust-fun rules, I halt gameplay, enumerate why those rules are important, and then return attention to the kid who was interrupted. The big thing to get kids into non-D&D RPGs is simply early intervention.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 02:50
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:God, I wish Schwalb would open up Demon Lord. He doesn't have to - Lancer seems pretty rock solid - but man, I feel like a decent community push would really let SotDL fuckin' sing. Honestly, I'm just waiting on Shadow of the Mad Wizard to drop. SotDL already does pretty much everything 5e does, but better, all I really need to get more groups onboard with it is a version with a more traditional tabletop fantasy flavor rather than the "Guts and blood and poop" of regular SotDL. To the earlier discussion of the mechanical merits of 5e: The two biggest things it has going for it is the aforementioned fact that it doesn't necessarily excel at any one thing it does but is sort of generically "okay" at a bunch of the things it does and the whole bounded accuracy thing. The fact that the math curve is far flatter and removes the problem earlier editions had of lower level monsters and characters being mechanically incapable of hitting monsters and players above a certain level is one of the things that actually makes it hard for me to go back to earlier editions. Basically 5e is a bland compromise system: There are systems that do aspects of 5e better, but 5e was deliberately designed to be a (mechanically) inoffensive system that you can get players with a wide range of mechanical preferences to agree to sit down and play. In regards to the debate about tactical, grid-based combat: Yes, there are other systems that do that a hell of a lot better than D&D, but when you're running a game for a group where some of the players are super into grid-based combat and the others are really big into the more free-form, non-combat stuff, I'm willing to settle for a system that just does an okay job at tactical combat if it's able to strike a compromise between those two sets of players. The other big problem is that for a lot of people. investing the time to sit down and learn an entirely new system and how to run it is not necessarily a commitment they can make. While there might be other systems that would serve them and their groups better, not everybody involved in that group is going to have the free time to commit to switch over to that system. WotC, and their D&D design team in specific, are absolute dogshit and players and the industry would be better served by people moving towards other systems not made by shitlords, but getting all judgmental about people who play an "inferior" system from a mechanical basis just seems...weirdly elitist and not productive?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 03:01
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:
First, most people do grow out of D&D. It's a whole thing. "Oh, you still play D&D? I did that when I was 13." is one of the most common responses if not the most common. But secondly, some of the ways to keep people playing games are lovely and bad for the players. This is more obvious in video games, but still applies somewhat to tabletop. Sunk costs, subscriptions, microtransactions, gambling mechanics. All good ways to make lots of money and have players play for a long time. D&D definitely does the sunk costs in terms of being hard to learn and expensive and a time sink. Poisoning the well, promoting a culture that views other games as mere knockoffs also keeps players in your game. It's also lovely, and is an attitude that is pervasive in rpg spaces. I don't know that Wizards is actively pursuing that - it's probably just a consequence of being in a market with one giant. Like if you made a new cola, it would be judged only relative to coke. I don't think I even want players to necessarily play a game I made forever. I want to make a really good game, I want people to play it, enjoy it, and then move on to other good games. That's what I do with games. I have my favorites, and I might return to them one day, but I also just want to move on and play new games. I loved Race for the Galaxy when I first got into board games, and now I play other things. If players like my game a lot, then when I make a new game, they'll be excited to try it. They don't still have to be playing my previous game and only my previous game. I don't have to have them captive in my supplement treadmill. Hasbro is a huge corporation and huge corporations are never content with making money, or even making lots of money. They need to make all the money. They will squeeze out every penny they can even if it makes their games worse and their customers worse-off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
I love Voidheart Symphony, I'm running a campaign of it with some Goons and Friends and it's the most fun I've had with a tabletop game ever, it's the highlight of my week. I'd love to keep that group together as long as possible - but the game can't last forever! 5E wants you on that supplement treadmill and will abandon all good game design principals to do it - starving out indie creators. DoctorWhat fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Jul 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
i have neither read nor played 5e so i can't comment on its quality. the involvement of zak s and pundit is a bridge too far for me however i will say that if you want to play other games, there are places to do so. you can seek out online communities that are into those games. i know you can go to the lancer, stars without number, blades in the dark, spire/heart or mcdowall's osr discord and offer to run a game and people will be all over it. there's also usually a recruit or two open as well. sa is slower, but posting a recruit thread here always tends to get some bites. i think people are by and large willing to try other games, and i've been able to consistently run two games a week with different systems and different groups for years now just by taking the initiative and setting something up
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 03:14
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Poisoning the well, promoting a culture that views other games as mere knockoffs also keeps players in your game. It's also lovely, and is an attitude that is pervasive in rpg spaces. I don't know that Wizards is actively pursuing that - it's probably just a consequence of being in a market with one giant. Wizards actively cultivating that attitude? Absurd! When they did that with their other product, it ended up controlling the entire CCG market! What business would want that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 03:15
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I’m in the middle of this conversation with a 10- and 12-year-old. They had signed up for a “Learn to be a dungeon master” camp this summer, which got cancelled, and I’m the closest thing they have to an RPG expert. They really want to play Real Dungeons and Dragons, and afaik the 10-yo has no exposure to APs or Stranger Things or similar. Was this an online thing? I swear I just had a conversation with a customer of mine not too long ago about the exact same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 03:26
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:honestly, while D&D has a lot of momentum behind it and that does account for a lot of its success, i think there's a deeper problem This. D&D 5e is to tabletop roleplaying what a Happy Meal is to food or a Bud Light is to beer. It's not good but there's a reason it sells.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 04:22
|
|
|
Gray Ghost posted:He's doing Shadow of the Mad Wizard, which is the High Fantasy version, but who knows what that could lead to. IIRC, he's said he's doing an SRD (which technically means nothing unless paired with some kind of license), when he's done with it. I think SotDL is perfect for indie development. Everything from "here's three Expert classes" splatbooks to total conversions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 04:51
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Was this an online thing? I swear I just had a conversation with a customer of mine not too long ago about the exact same thing. The camp? I don’t recall, tbh, but I suspect not if it was COVID-cancelled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
I’ve been trying to think of what a “corrected” 5e would look like and I keep thinking about a system focusing on really nailing individual rules modules ten to twenty pages at a time rather than releasing thick sourcebooks with mediocre campaigns. Like, start with a basic Theatre of the Mind combat ruleset with guidelines for good RP, non-racist character creation, and skill challenges,, *then* make a fantastic tactical ruleset that can be sold separately. Ideally all of these would feature solid examples of actual play in the text. When a campaign needs something else per the preferences of your players, bolt on another module (i.e. Vehicular Combat, Feats, More Spells, etc.). A lot of this already exists in the form of DM’s Guild and D&D Beyond, but I just keep coming back to the idea that maybe the only thing anyone really needs out of D&D is an incredibly simple SRD with $10 to $20 optional polished rules and light settings books with brief example adventures. I know none of this actually feels like anything new and a lot of D&D’s rot has more to do with WotC’s politics, But i think there is a lot of value in a system that provides flexibility for different kinds of players with a lot of headroom for long campaigns and character advancement. I just wish the standard bearer didn’t feel so mediocre.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 05:45
|
|
|
KingKalamari posted:ake. While there might be other systems that would serve them and their groups better, not everybody involved in that group is going to have the free time to commit to switch over to that system.\ I guess this is the part that I never can get. Like it just shorts by brain. I mean I know I'm a single bachelor without any of my own children, but I'm a grad student who does most of the primary care for 2 kids cause their parents have day jobs, and I still find the time to read a book in the evening. Cause I'd lose my loving mind if I didn't. The average game, in terms of player-facing content is maybe a hundred pages and with most games it's dumb charts and stuff : are you telling me you really can't read all of that, or at least enough to hobble along, over 1 glass of wine after putting the kids to bed? Really?. Be honest. And everyone who isn't playing lovely fantasy heatbreakers knows it's way less than that. You can play Apocalypse Wold while actually illiterate. I get not chastising folk if they like they're comfy D&D land, sure. But pretending like switching systems is some odious task is idiotic. It somewhere between a quiet night of reading and nothing. And if someone brings up needing to spend a quiet night reading, loving christ I thought you wanted to engage with the mechanics. The systems that don't need that are right over there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 06:05
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I guess this is the part that I never can get. Like it just shorts by brain. A lot of people who play D&D don't even bother to read the rulebooks for D&D, they pick it up from osmosis and being told what to do by the other players. I've seen this in action, someone I know who's played RPGs almost as long as I have, but has almost only ever played 3.x, 5e, or Pathfinder. It's baffling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 06:09
|
|
|
I was being polite and keeping D&D in the math but unmentioned. If you go to indie games, a lot of them an fit on a business card. Even Blades, which is pretty crunchy, outside of player options and just in terms of learning the system... What's that? 20 pages at most?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 06:16
|
|
|
Gray Ghost posted:I’ve been trying to think of what a “corrected” 5e would look like and I keep thinking about a system focusing on really nailing individual rules modules ten to twenty pages at a time rather than releasing thick sourcebooks with mediocre campaigns. What D&D "should" do is to pick a lane and stay in it. There are people who did not like 4e because it did tactical combat really well, and some people do not want to do that, and that's fine (and this is different from people who disliked 4e for completely disingenuous reasons, but that's a digression). But then you get 5e where there's just enough legacy rules regarding square-by-square tactical combat that it sticks out like a sore thumb whenever you try to seriously engage with it and it doesn't work, while at the same time the text is trying to tell you that you don't need to bother with any of that poo poo and just eyeball it, but in the meantime the game outright says that a Dwarf moves 5 feet slower than a Human, so what gives? And then that just reinforces this idea that players should just ignore parts of the text that they don't like or they feel don't work, and/or rewrite new rules themselves, which then leads down the (to be clear, bad) rabbit hole of thinking that a game that you need to rewrite large parts of is actually A Good Thing because You Make The Game Yours. Any new development of D&D is probably not going to be focused on tactical combat, both because of their prior experience with 4e and also because any developer might think that a "rules-light, theater-of-the-mind" approach is going to be better for mass consumer appeal (which I don't even really disagree with), but if they want to do that, they have to commit to doing that, instead of half-assing it in this way where it's 80% 3.5e rules except they tell you that you can close your eyes and pretend the grid doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 06:27
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I guess this is the part that I never can get. Like it just shorts by brain. But keep in mind the important thing here isn't player-facing content, it's GM-facing content. My experience is that most players are reasonably amenable to playing in a new or different system if their friends are playing it, but you need to have someone who's actually willing to learn the system well enough to run it and potentially show the rest of the group the ropes. If you play in your friend Dave's 5e game and enjoy it because it lets you roleplay with your friends then you, as a hypothetical player, are not going to care too much about the relative merits of the system being used so long as it gets the job done. Similarly, if you eventually want to branch out an start running your own game, you're more likely to want to run in the system you're already familiar with and have a friend who can help you with the specifics of DMing. This isn't necessarily a good thing for the industry, but we have to remember that not everyone who plays this game wants to invest the same amount of time or attention into this hobby, and ragging on people for playing an inferior system is the kind of elitism that drives people off from the hobby. I agree that systems other than 5e need greater exposure in the public consciousness, but taking potshots at 5e's mechanics is less likely to do that than exposing people to other systems. gradenko_2000 posted:What D&D "should" do is to pick a lane and stay in it. On the flip-side, I think the opposite sort of philosophy (Just a generalized system that does alright at a bunch of things but doesn't excel at any one in particular) could work for D&D from a development standpoint, but they'd need to actually commit to that as a goal for the game. It's the legacy rules that are ultimately what holds D&D development back so much: All these vestigial systems and rules that don't actually serve a purpose and are just carried over from previous editions. KingKalamari fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Jul 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 06:39
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I get not chastising folk if they like they're comfy D&D land, sure. But pretending like switching systems is some odious task is idiotic. It somewhere between a quiet night of reading and nothing. And if someone brings up needing to spend a quiet night reading, loving christ I thought you wanted to engage with the mechanics. The systems that don't need that are right over there. The people I play with have literally never read an RPG rulebook and probably never will (aside from maybe looking at tables for character building and so forth). If we change system it's up to me to teach it to them. Andrast fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Jul 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 06:56
|
|
|
Er while I will and have for many years taken potshots at 5e for being the blandest gruel you could imagine that brought back caster supremacy with a vengeance, the only place I'd lead with that is here because I assume everyone knows its background. If my rando friend was looking at a copy I'd lead with, "You know the lead designer sought out a Nazi and a serial abuser, helped the latter keep abusing and never said anything, right?" And then, maybe, much later I'd go, "And also they totally hosed up how warlocks work and bonus actions don't make any sense. But the other stuff is what you should remember."
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 07:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Andrast posted:The people I play with have literally never read an RPG rulebook and never will (aside from maybe looking at tables for character building and so forth). If we change system it's up to me to teach it to them. Kay???? And? Then you can quietly switch to any system and they won't notice. You just said they ain't gonna read the book so you can just make it up. If this is literally your argument you could just be playing like Monsterhearts with a sticker that says D&D on the book. If they ain't gonna read, how are they to know? (Also note leaving fallow the idea that it's a huge burden to read a book. Seriously. It's not dark sorcery. I get work-life balance but it's just a book. That you don't have to read all of.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 07:07
|
|