|
Alien Rope Burn posted:A question that came up tonight after the game (Last Stand, for the record): are there signs of anybody playing 5e? I don't even know anybody that owns the books in person. Is Pathfinder pretty much just kicking its rear end, or what? I'm running a 5E game on IRC currently. Though yeah, it seems like the 3E grogs have mostly migrated straight to Pathfinder and entrenched themselves, and the people who liked 4E don't really see much charm in 5E because it's pretty much a step back on most of the things they liked.
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Mike Mearls has positioned D&D Next to appeal to people who are tired of 3.X, hate 4E, and refuse to play anything that isn't called Dungeons & Dragons. Pretty much anybody outside that Venn diagram has more appealing options. Well, it depends a bit. I'd say that, as fits actual mechanics and feel, it's roughly a mix of 3.X and 2E AD&D. I was, and am, one of the hardcore 2E dorks, and my feelings on 5E are that it feels like a more approachable 2E that requires a bit less houseruling(though still some) to fit my tastes. No real antipathy for 4E. Though I admit in part I fired up a 5E game because I know some incredibly insufferable doomsayers who were whining for a solid year and a half or so about how hey could clearly recognize that 5E was going to be terrible, TERRIBLE FOREVER, without ever having tried it or really given it a chance in any way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 10:15
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:yeah but I really wanna play D&D that isn't 4e or the stupid complicated mess Pathfinder has become If you want to give 5E a shot, I can pass you the tentative house rules I'm using to improve my group's experience.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
bunnielab posted:What is the basic rundown of the various D&D editions? My only playing experience was a mishmash of 1ed and 2ed, but I do remember owning the red box as a kid. Honestly at this point I think whatever bastard version Baulder's Gate used is the only one I am really familiar with. Rundown in what sense? As in the differences? Thematics? Moods? Opinions? But using 2E as a baseline, expect this to be very flavoured by my own opinions and experiences... Expect 3E to have a much more unified system, but worse class balance, and FAR more magic. A +1 sword is no longer rare and special, it's used to pave streets. 3.5E is basically just a mildly rebalanced 3E, all the same comments and critiques apply. The upsides is way more freedom to customize characters(assuming you weren't using Player's Option for 2E, in which case I'd say 2E still wins out there) and generally an easier system. It sometimes gets called the "caster supremacy"-edition and that's honestly a pretty fair critique. Also pretty much every single critique that applies to 3E also applies to Pathfinder, don't listen to anyone who says otherwise. 4E feels to me much more designed for play with a grid(some people say all D&D is made for use with a grid, but I still hold that it's way more vital to have a grid or battle map for 4E than it ever was for 2E, 3E or 5E), and returns to having pretty solid balance, generally by the means of now unifying the systems the classes use. I.e. every class is basically based around using powers, rather than wizards and clerics getting cool special abilities while fighters get Attack and Attack+1. It generally feels like a bit of a reboot of the franchise, in the sense that it's a lot less afraid to throw out old things and try new things. By and large probably the most well-designed D&D edition(at least rules-wise, I really did not care much for the provided fluff and setting work) since 2E. 5E returns to something a lot similar to 3E's system, but with a few twists, borrowing improved class balance, some simplification(in terms of skills/proficiencies, for instance) and greater rarity of magic from 2E. Largely it's an updated 3E, though, rather than a continuation of the ideas and concepts from 4E, which it largely seems to dump by the wayside, which is a bit of a shame, because while the fighty classes are definitely less shafted than they were in 3E, without some houseruling they're still somewhat at a dearth for actually fun options. It's hard to really call it poo poo, but you could definitely say that it failed to learn. Moths: If they'd been playtesters, I would've listened to them. They were just fuckfaces, so by and large I just resolved to give 5E a chance and see if fun could be had with it to give them the finger.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Between Numenera being a Monte Cook creation and the sales pitch for the videogame sounding like an explicit ripoff of PS:T trying to ride nostalgia for a good game, I have zero expectations for that game being worth a drat, but that's just me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You know I'm starting to wonder if a lot of hate for 4e comes from a lot more of the page count being given over to being a rule-book with stats and such and not a fantasy Almanac/Travelogue with some occasional easily-ignored statblocks in it. In other words, how many people defending 3.5 don't actually intend to play it and just treat it as fantasy literature? If that's what they wanted, they'd play 5E or 2E instead. Try reading the 3E MM's, every monster's literally just a brief physical description and then a statblock. In 2E and 5E, every monster's got at least a page to itself and usually comes with something to hook it into a campaign world(behavior, enemies, what potion you can turn its liver into, etc.). Just enough to make it more than a thing to beat up for XP.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
PresidentBeard posted:Anyone who liked the D&D settings using 3.5 basically had to track down old 2nd edition fluff books for things like Planescape, Dark Sun, and Spelljammer. WotC just straight up murdered proper fluff of any kind. Honestly, that's the case for all D&D editions, the whole thing peaked, fluff-wise in 2E. Planescape, Birthright, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Ravenloft. Any versions of them after that point seem to have taken a few crippling blows to the head and some weird changes for no good reason, or just never get revived. I'm personally really sad we never got a Birthright for 4E, the two seem like they'd have fit together pretty well.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Did 4e ever have its own version of mass combat rules? I don't know, but Birthright had its own, simplified, ruleset for mass combat, effectively completely separate from the D&D rules. It was really very neat and I hardly think it would've even needed upgrading.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
Helical Nightmares posted:I played in a Birthright campaign for over a year. We had a handfull of mass combat events (5+). I recall the group I was with being disappointed by the lack of balance in the mass combat card mechanics. It seemed that the game was balanced around "level 1" archers, spearmen and knights, but quickly got out of control when you had units higher than level 1. This is from what I remember. We briefly considered looking at the warhammer rules for a more balanced fantasy wargaming system ( ...level 1 units? What? Units did not have levels as such, as I recall it. All I remember is some improvised rules for "levelling up" veteran units or designing your own nation's specialists, ranger units, etc., by shuffling points around, from the Book of Regency, that was basically a tome of houserules released online years after Birthright was basically a dead thing. Or are you talking about having access to non-generic units, like the various pre-existing nations' unique cavalry and infantry troops, vs access to just plain peasant militias and light cavalry? As for a lack of balance... try engaging skeleton regiments with anything but the toughest available units, your troops will basically be unable to break them outside of the luckiest draws possible, so you better hope you've either got some seriously tough cavalry/heavy infantry or that you've got a mage who can hurl some war spells around, otherwise the undead will just march at you inexorably, chewing through unit after unit until eventually defeated. Blockhouse posted:I don't know how kitchen sink could be a criticism but I was raised on Final Fantasy as my primary fantasy setting so if a world doesn't have at least two of the following (guns, magitech, aliens, robots, and a not-Japan) then it just can't hold my interest. Basically if a setting tries to involve everything it sometimes ends up lacking any sort of flavour at all, it just becomes a generic brown muddle, not to mention that trying to balance swords, laser guns, magic, psionics and also some fifth setting-specific thing against each other is also often a fool's game. So either you end up with completely stupid reasons why a longsword is equal to a plasma rifle or the balance is just completely out of whack and some options really aren't options at all. So there's a pretty good reason why "kitchen sink" can be a criticism: not that it's a bad thing in itself, but that it very, very often tends to bring bad things with it. PurpleXVI fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 13:11
|
|
) but then we decided to abstract the mass combat and focus on what our characters were doing instead.
|
Helical Nightmares posted:"Level 1 units" I'm refering to were the basic archer, cavalry and infantry. I'm not using the correct terminology; I don't remember it. No, no, it's fine. I was just puzzled and thought maybe you had your systems mixed up or were using house rules. But yes, I agree, the balance definitely needed some work in places(see the aforementioned skeletons basically rocking the gently caress out of everything despite being incredibly cheap for mage regents to conjure up, compared to normal units, especially in light of their zero maintenance), and some parts of the actual ruling rules needed a few tweaks or clarifications, but by and large I felt like Birthright was really close to a both simple and functional system. Not so vague that the nation ruling stuff was just a tacked-on thing, but also not so obsessed with simulating minutiae and realism that you needed degrees in sociology and economics to run a nation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
Len posted:Has anyone experienced a player being an rear end in a top hat about the 4 hour rest time of elves? (D&D 3.5) We have a player who uses that four hour rest and then crams as much into the day as he can. He calls the DM and talks for hours having essentially a mini-session about what he does during the time the party isn't awake. The DM is getting tired of it and has been trying to come up with a way to essentially say "gently caress you. You have to sleep with the party." But hasn't come up with a way yet. Just tell him to stop hogging the limelight, really the only thing to do here is to get the player to understand that he's loving up everyone else's fun. Trying to discourage him with a rule change or whatever won't change his mentality, only the outlet for it, and he'll probably still get on everyone's nerves as well as being pissy about the change because he doesn't understand why it was necessary. Like, have you guys tried just talking to him about it?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:While on the subject of weird kitchen sink settings...what IS it people see in Exalted's setting? I always hear 'It's a terrible rules system with an awesome setting and oh man the setting is so cool!' but it always seems kinda bland when described. Well, the thing about Exalted is that the concept, described in the broadest terms, is pretty rad. Your former incarnation helped free the material world from the oppression of its original creators, but became overcome by his/her own hubris and was eventually destroyed by his own servants/soldiers. In the many long years where his soul has lain dormant, the world has been slowly crumbling, under siege by the survivors of the original war for control of reality, and simply decaying due to lacking its greatest heroes. But here you are, reincarnated, weaker than you once were, with many horrible things out looking for you, but also old allies that still remain... now you have to reclaim your old powers, your old property and your old destiny, to reforge the world into the shining place it once was... or simply to take control of the ashes, to become the new overlord.* The problem is that the instant you get into the details you get terrible writing for what's basically an anime RPG with really, really miserable rules, including, yes, the occasional painful-to-read fetish trash. It's not particularly kitchen sinky, honestly, it's pretty coherent both in tech level and theme as long as you don't use the weirder splats(like, say, Jadeborn and Dragon Kings) or crank the Magitech up to 11, but keep it as the occasional remnant of a bygone era of glories. *Yes, I know some of the terminology is wrong, Solar shard, not a soul, etc. but gently caress Exalted's wanky original vocabulary do not steal when it hampers comprehension.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Dammit Who? posted:The 3e leak works a hell of a lot better. I don't want to drag the argument here but... if you visit the 3E thread, that's not exactly something everyone agrees on. My personal opinion is that it's neither a step forward or a step backward, still poo poo, still roughly as poo poo, but poo poo of a slightly different flavour and texture, which is a shame, a drat shame, because as just about everyone can attest to: The pitch for Exalted is wonderful, if only the reality could be as good.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
TheTatteredKing posted:Well we'll always have the time honored tradition of running X in Y ruleset. The few times I've tried suggesting that to Exalted fans I've been told that it's impossible to separate the crunch and the fluff of Exalted, and that if I wanted to do that, I obviously simply didn't like Exalted and should simply go play something else. I took their advice and it turned out to be an excellent suggestion. Simian_Prime posted:It is. It's a shame. When Holden was in the 3E Exalted thread, people gave him constructive critique on Abyssals(it was related to the creepy as gently caress rape ghost charm tree they had, and I think still have), and his response was that he was legally barred from taking suggestions from people. I think trying to negotiate with the 3E Exalted devs is a lost cause.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Bedlamdan posted:It might be best to just snatch the leak and come up with your own opinions on it, given that PurpleXVI unironically believes Exalted 2E's tick combat is good, rather than bad. Exalted 2E had its fair share of issues, plenty of them in combat, but I actually liked the tick mechanic. I always felt like it was one of the more natural ways to handle initiative. So yes, please, attempt to state that all my opinions are irrelevant because I like one single mechanic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
TheTatteredKing posted:Well I think I learned all I need to know about the game But come now, then you'd miss out on the anti-fiat currency rant and the city where they produce superbabies via gangbangs, including accidental mega-CHUD's that they for some reason flushed into the sewers rather than kill.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Exalted being crunchy isn't bad, it's that it's a crunchy system on top of Storyteller which was not really built to hold all that weight. In theory they could fix it but I have a feeling it would require making some really key changes to how the whole thing works. Yeah, just dumping the clunky as gently caress Storyteller baggage would do WONDERS for making Exalted less poo poo, system-wise. Exalted also really desperately needs to clear out its overload of "powers that add numbers" in favour of "powers that add new abilities." Because the vast majority of all the piles and piles of Charms are literally some variant of "Have a +X to do Y" not "you can now do this thing which you otherwise could not do, giving you new and exciting options."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Because it's dumb and boring, and we already have goblins. "Goblins, BUT THEY USE TRAPS" is a poo poo niche. I think the problem isn't a connection to a bigger, badder species but specifically dragons, one of the biggest and baddest. It feels somehow, kinda... Mary Sue-ish. Part of the bad taste is probably because 3E seemed to coincide with such a vast amount of people jerking off over kobolds, which was especially choking and loving annoying if you posted on /tg/ over on 4chan, where there seemed to be an entire kobold fetish subculture. gently caress whatever stupid oval office wrote "Tucker's Kobolds," which is a loving terrible kobold fanfic which bizarrely gets praised as being SO COOOOOOL despite being also an example of terrible loving GM'ing. I just miss kobolds as the little comedy relief dorks at the bottom of the pecking order, just barely above housecats, trying to make them cool was a terrible idea.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Rolling for character creation worked because it reinforced the idea of quickly stamping out stacks of character sheets while also providing just enough variation that it didn't literally feel like you were all playing the same guy over and over. As well, the stats were almost meaningless. It wasn't a big deal to roll an 9 on your INT if you only ever got a -1 to things on a 8 or lower, or a +1 to things on a 13 or higher. At 1st level, the difference between and 18 and an 8 could be loving huge, though, so your stats weren't likely to make a huge impact, but if you rolled an 18 for one of the three core combat stats(Str, Dex or Con), it could REALLY affect your character. The stats, if anything, meant more than in 3E and onwards, because there were far less non-stat ways to get bonuses, and those that were, were much more rare. You were just less LIKELY to have a stat that gave a bonus, due to the gap(roughly 8 to 14 for most stats) which was considered "human average" and didn't really yield any notable bonuses or penalties. I also still don't get why everyone assumes that OD&D through 2nd ed AD&D were hyperlethal meatgrinders for faceless mooks, I always remember getting invested in my characters and I never remember any GM's that showered us with save-or-dies haphazardly. Knights of the Dinner Table, while funny, really isn't representative of anyone's "old school" gaming experiences that I know of. Comrade Gorbash posted:The problem with the adversarial DMing/fantasy loving Vietnam model isn't that it's inherently bad, it's that it gets used in game systems that don't work well for it and as a gotcha when the GM gets mad instead of an agreed upon feature of the game. Or that its presented as the "correct" way to play, rather than just a different one. And it is inherently bad in systems without any limits on or (functional, CR doesn't count) guidelines for GM power(that is to say, basically all of them). Because it pretty much always winds down to whether the guy with infinite power will pull his punches or not. No one ever positively remembers the time that the entire party was arbitrarily killed by a collapsing ceiling in Interchangeable Dungeon #47 or that time their first level characters opened a door to find a Great Wyrm Red Dragon staring back at them from the broom closet.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I like the idea of kobolds as juvenile delinquent gangs. They're dangerous to individuals and low level PCs but if your party isn't purely in it for killing they can set them straight. "Tunnel But can a tiny lizardman have a pompadour that accounts for 50% of his body by volume? Quarex posted:Edit: PurpleXVI, I think the pure "meatgrinder"-type campaign was falling out of favor throughout the 1980s, if my oral-history-style understanding of that era of gaming is any indication. I know by the time I first played in the 1990s the games where you knew you would run through an average of a character a week were already being spoken of as the way other people's games had been in the past, and people were thanking goodness that they did not still play like that. Though of course the people that preferred that style were surely still doing it. That seems pretty right, I'm not denying that no terrible GM's ever did it, I'm just saying that the prevalence feels a bit overstated. And that probably most of the TPK's anyone ever experienced were more down to some newbie GM loving up and looking crestfallen when he realizes he just blew it, than some giggling evil GM twirling his moustache as he leads the innocent party into yet another save-or-die trap. And they only get the save if they use the ten-foot-pole to poke the ground ahead of them. AlphaDog posted:I've been thinking about a dungeon crawl game where character creation is "draw a card from these three decks" (or maybe "draw 2 and discard 1 from each of these three decks"). That sounds a lot like what the Doom boardgame did, and the Doom boardgame was a loving riot. The less players you had, the more cards they got to draw, and each card was a special ability of some sort(more damage with X weapon, can bounce grenades around corners, can shoot past obstructions, etc.), kills were used as direct "currency" to buy ammo, equipment and extra abilities between "levels."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Payndz posted:The retroclone I'm working on has character creation that boils down to: choose class, write down predefined stats based on class and 'tier' (one of three levels), add four points wherever you like to a max of 18, write down AC and HP, done. (Plus choose spells if you're a caster.) No weapon selection because all damage is determined by your class's Hit Die, armour is a function of class, and you're assumed to have all the standard adventuring equipment you might need. No need for money because the characters are intended to be one-shots. I'm aiming for finished in three minutes, tops. Maybe just give everyone a flat Initiative stat, have people go from highest to lowest always. Hard to make it any simpler than that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:Side-based initiative. All monsters go, then all PCs go, loop. The tricksy part being that all the players get to choose every turn who goes first or second or whatever based on what the group needs. Drop Initiative as a character stat entirely and tie who gets to go first to an "ambush" mechanic that they can get bonuses on instead. Having an entire side go first, though, feels like the sort of thing that could very easily decide the entire fight before it even gets slightly underway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:It can. That's really how BD&D operates. Generally speaking, though, even if a party gets ambushed they can survive it more easily than a group of monsters being ambushed by players. Right, but the party being able to effortlessly annihilate fights before they even start is a problem, too, if the game is supposed to be dungeon crawling with combat as a relatively core element. Obviously better than the party getting wiped out without a chance to respond, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Torg uses side-based initiative determined by a draw off a deck For some reason reminds me of Robo Rally's(now there's a boardgame that needs more love) approach to initiative, I wonder how well something similar would work in an RPG? Essentially everyone plots their turn in secret from a limited supply of options, then initiative happens after actions are revealed, determining whether someone manages to get out of the way of something else or whether they're still standing there and taking a whomp right to the face.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Flavivirus posted:This is basically how all of BWHQ's games (Burning Wheel, Torchbearer, Mouse Guard, etc) work - both sides (or all participants in the case of Burning Wheel) program in their actions over the 3 stages of the next round, and then simultaneously reveal actions and resolve them. Tends to work well in making combat unpredictable while still retaining some strategy. How does it work out in play, though? I get the feeling that in general it would make combat resolve somewhat slower than the usual way of doing things. Palecur: That system doesn't sound too dissimilar from 2E Exalted's tick initiative system.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:There's no argument, I was just stating the fact of what storygames are vs. RPGs. If only they weren't stupid, arbitrary categories designed entirely to establish nerd superiority over others. "Storygames" and RPG's are the exact same thing, the only thing that makes a difference is approach and playstyle.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:It never is not amusing seeing people fall for FAU's antics. To be fair, it's hard not to fall for it when just a thread over you can probably find someone who would say the exact same thing but be entirely serious.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
I usually just always ask my players if they want point buy or rolled stats. If they go for rolled stats, the usual method is to roll three or four "arrays" of six numbers(either 3d6 or 4d6-drop-lowest, depending on what sort of mood/power level we're going for). Anyone can pick any of the arrays, numbers staying in the positions they're rolled, i.e. the first number rolled in a given array is strength, second is dexterity, etc., with the option to swap two. That way you get randomly rolled stats but no one is forced into being more gimped than the others.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:This may be the most work I've ever seen put into a heartbreaker. Seriously, I don't even know where to start with this. Well get yourself over to F&F and review that mess of a system for us, then.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
chaos rhames posted:How does a rogue modron work? That seems like a cold fire elemental. Well, they're less "rogue" and more just "develop individuality." They're not CRAZY CHAOTIC THINGS, they've just learned to have objectives that aren't passed down by the will of Primus. Or at least that was how they worked in the older editions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:It reminds me of why I'm continually disappointed and aggravated by OSR. Early RPGs - mostly D&D but there were a few other late 70s/early 80s games accompanying it - had some very different assumptions about play style, and thus many odd rule concepts to accommodate those assumptions. Starting around AD&D and 2nd edition, D&D moved away from some of those ideas, and most other games followed suit or were moving in the direction typified by White Wolf. Modern indie games are doing some very cool and different things to be sure, but there's still a lot of untapped potential in the half-formed concepts in original D&D that didn't survive into later editions. Things like balance through differential advancement rates, henchmen and followers, running guilds and/or castles, or even the treasure-as-xp concept. I don't know if any of them are actually good ideas, or if their falling by the wayside was necessary to improve game design. But reassessing those ideas with some modern design concepts and techniques could yield some interesting results. I think one part of that which definitely needs reviving is the concept of the "Lord" level: Up to and including 2nd edition AD&D, it was assumed that when you hit 9th level, you'd start settling down. Advancement in fighting power(HP) and other adventuring stuff would start slowing down, just murdering things would not provide a lot of XP(relative to how much you needed) unless you went hunting dragons or something(not a clever idea) and your character had probably spent a good while adventuring by that point, up to a decade or so(in-game time). Instead of just retiring and buying a farm, however, every single class had a specific note for 9th level detailing what sort of followers they could attract, and what sort of "fortress" it was suggested they build(guilds for thieves, towers for mages, meditation retreats for monks, temples for clerics, etc.). For the DM, it was suggested that they advance towards something more political, dealing with matters of the realm, not just tearing out monster hearts with their bare hands(though of course, sometimes that might still be called for). That they be shifted into the background as time went by, becoming parts of the setting as players shifted to a new "generation" of characters, with the old favourites occasionally getting brought out to counter huge threats to the world. Firstly, it's great that there's a concept for changing the gameplay so it's not just the same poo poo from level 1 to 30, but with increasing numbers. Secondly, I like the idea that the ultimate "reward" isn't hitting level 20 and winning the game, it's having your character become a notable guy in the setting, a mover and shaker, maybe even a legend, and then playing the "next generation" who grew up with him or her having an impact on politics, being told stories of their adventures and maybe looking up to them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:But if i wanted to play that why wouldn't i start a game as the lord and you know probably play a system that was designed to support that playstyle much better. Well, maybe some people enjoy the story arc of a wandering band of heroes actually becoming movers and shakers, rather than starting out at that level, or always being wandering heroes. I think that you'd be missing out on a lot of potential stories if you didn't have a system that could handle both. I'm entirely in favour of games that know what they want to be, and devote themselves to doing that thing right, but games can also be too narrow in scope. Plus, it's already been done reasonably well in Birthright, so we know it's not an impossibility.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Siivola posted:This is a thing it would be really cool to say with a citation attached, because Varg Vikernes doesn't actually write D&D supplements. Considering that LotFP has art of women getting fisted to death by skeletons, I think it's pretty easy to believe the creator's got something broken in his head along these lines, unless I'm getting it mixed up with another creepy RPG.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I've gotta be honest, I've never really understood the fascination people have with FATAL. It's not even creatively purile or anything. If you really have a pressing need to bring a bunch of uncreative racism and dick jokes to the gaming table Cards Against Humanity exists and plays a lot quicker. For me it's mostly that it was my first really awful RPG, and I think it's the same for a lot of people. You'll have experienced two, maybe three systems that have their quirks, but are largely functional and not completely insane(say... D&D, Vampire the Masquerade and Paranoia), and then you open this .PDF and your mind just boggles at the completely non-functional rules and the racist slurs and feces on every page. It's the archetypal insane poo poo RPG that gets thrown at every newbie in the hobby for a laugh at their reaction, so it sticks in people's minds. EDIT: ^^^^is that some actual defense of "fat acceptance" because that's loving hilarious
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:Messed up that the white pieces on chess always move first or is it social commentary on racism? Only one explicitly female piece in Chess? Wow, patriarchy. Where are my transsexual rooks?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:yo is there any reason to play a game these days that doesn't involve some form of collaboration of setting design / explication between the players and the gm Some players trust their GM to come up with decent background fluff and actually enjoy some of the pre-made settings? I'm not sure why we need to have this weird hate on people who're happy to offload most of the pre-game creative work to the GM and/or a setting book. I mean, can't we just be cool both with the more collaborative writing games AND the more traditional ones?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
The Real Foogla posted:The one time I let my players do that one of them implemented capitalism in his Birthright realm. Never again. I am the law. Low Law, high Guild, hang all characters with Bloodlines so they can't interfere with the Invisible Hand of the Free Market?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
Serf posted:I would totally play in a game where we just founded a bank in a world where gold comes from monster-killing. Imagine the hijinks as you fight other banks and develop more and more sophisticated ways of killing monsters to generate loot to buy out your competitors. Game ends when you own/destroy all the other banks or have hunted all the monsters to extinction. Yeah, no lie, this actually sounds pretty fun.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Covok posted:The mine has run dry. The reason it was all ugly poo poo was because there isn't really that much more DM-Mask-type posts out there. We've been mining for years, there is only so much funny grog to take from the internet. So we've reached peak grog and now it's time to find fresh, sustainable sources of lovely people?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
Lynx Winters posted:BESM in a general is a kinda bad but simple do-anything system with some incredibly ridiculous loopholes and rocket-tag combat. The biggest broke thing comes from the mecha rules, which Sailor Moon doesn't have, but Sailor Moon still has rocket-tag combat because the guy who wrote it never actually used his own combat rules until David Pulver sat him down and forced him to. Also in BESM 3rd ed, the suggested stat pool for an "ordinary" character could very easily have an attack that hit literally everyone in the universe with cruise missiles, except for the people they liked, and could be spammed at will until they murdered everyone. AmiYumi posted:You're forgetting the king of unplayable Toonami RPGs. Fun story, I actually tried running a game of this. First session was a tournament, the adventure in the back of the book. Had some fun roleplaying, then got to the first match. Both players powered up, then the Saiyan PC sunk all his ki into extra actions and pasted his opponent a dozen times over. And that was the last time we played! So the game consisted of ten minutes of powering up and then the Saiyan beating the piss out of his opponent without a challenge. Sounds pretty true to the show! PurpleXVI fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 10:54
|
|