Tabletop Roleplaying Games (D&D, Pathfinder, CoC, ETC.)

[Tri-Tachyon'sClown]

Player's Handbook was released ~a month or two ago, the DMG is supposed to come out sometime next month. I don't think they've released sales numbers or anything, but I doubt the reception for 6e (sorry, OneDnD) is anywhere near what 5e got when it came out because of all the shit WOTC has pulled over the past 18 months or so. Sending the Pinkertons to harass that MtG streamer, the shitshow which was the OGL crisis, etc. Even Critical Role, arguably the biggest draw to the hobby for the past few years, tried to quietly distance themselves from WOTC in the wake of the OGL scandal. I think even a lot of the hardcore consoomers realised that actually you don't need to buy everything WOTC puts out to play DnD, and I think the new edition might be seeing poor sales because of that.

God damn, well good. Whatever fucks with WOTC pleases me, even niggercattle not "getting with the program" is music to my ears. Though I am surprised Critical Role is trying to avoid WOTC.

 

[Ghostse]

I mean Mercer has made two (utter shit) RPGs, and the most recent one from what I've heard is pretty much tailor made for "cinematic" play.

 

[LovisXVI]

Delta Green update: human sacrifice. Also I was right.

 

[Tri-Tachyon'sClown]

Delta Green update: human sacrifice. Also I was right.

Oh shit Delta Green. I haven't heard that game in a long time. Didn't they make new versions relatively recently? Like a few years ago? Wonder if they're any good.

 

[Blarmed&Dangerous]

Oh shit Delta Green. I haven't heard that game in a long time. Didn't they make new versions relatively recently? Like a few years ago? Wonder if they're any good.

Yes and no. The concept is very interesting, and the system has some cool stuff in it. However, the system is also very bad as soon as combat starts, the adventures are very hit or miss, and the authors have all gone absolutely insane about Donald Trump.

I honestly have trouble with it because it's genuinely like 1:1 good and bad stuff.

 

[Tri-Tachyon'sClown]

and the authors have all gone absolutely insane about Donald Trump.

...God damn it not again. Throw the combat system out and replace it with...GURPS or some shit. Get some writefag (*cough*) to make some adventures for you, and you should be good. Seriously what's with the fucking politics? What did they do specific-

Ah.

 

[SadLonelyLoser]

Player's Handbook was released ~a month or two ago, the DMG is supposed to come out sometime next month. I don't think they've released sales numbers or anything, but I doubt the reception for 6e (sorry, OneDnD) is anywhere near what 5e got when it came out because of all the shit WOTC has pulled over the past 18 months or so. Sending the Pinkertons to harass that MtG streamer, the shitshow which was the OGL crisis, etc. Even Critical Role, arguably the biggest draw to the hobby for the past few years, tried to quietly distance themselves from WOTC in the wake of the OGL scandal. I think even a lot of the hardcore consoomers realised that actually you don't need to buy everything WOTC puts out to play DnD, and I think the new edition might be seeing poor sales because of that.

As much as I want you to be right, WOTC claims they sold three times as many copies during the first week than the 2014 5e player's handbook. Now, they could be lying or using a number like number of copies printed vs number actually sold, but keep in mind they're selling to a much higher base number of players than ever before.

Keep in mind that most people don't care about niche internet drama like the OGL and Pinkerton stuff. They want to play Dungeons and Dragons and will buy that over anything else.

 

[Adamska]

As much as I want you to be right, WOTC claims they sold three times as many copies during the first week than the 2014 5e player's handbook. Now, they could be lying or using a number like number of copies printed vs number actually sold, but keep in mind they're selling to a much higher base number of players than ever before.

They're almost certainly relying on gamestore sales as its metric and not actual units sold, which no fucking shit. It's the newest edition of the biggest system out there; of fucking course you're gonna get numbers like that sold to game stores. This scummy tactic isn't new; comic books do the same thing and it's why a buttload of LCS died.

And what do you know, I found sources indicating that only 4k fucking units sold in the first week. By comparison 5e sold five times that in the same period. Now to be fair, even though I don't trust Polygon at all, I could believe that the sales then began blazing after that first week when the tourists realized there was a new edition to buy and never play. But here's the thing: it doesn't matter.

Bullshit like this neglect the situations both releases were facing. 5e sold a 40k books its first four weeks, which is a slew better than what 4e and 3.5 or 3e did; the latter two not even really having numbers beyond the yearly. It was starting from a smaller base, and built the numbers of people who might buy this shit.

I should also note it's rather damning that they laid off a lot of people at once; something tells me they weren't entirely confident on hitting targets since they know they have a base that was orders better than it was when 5e came out. There's also the matter that even good sales can lead to failure, since 4e, for all I don't like it, actually sold well. But it did not meet the numbers they hope for.

One more and hilarious thing I want to point out is I think 1e and 2e absolutely goddamned wrekt every number given that in the first year alone both did 650k and 450k. Just to give a bar and to kill the lie of fastest selling edition these fucks are gargling.

Keep in mind that most people don't care about niche internet drama like the OGL and Pinkerton stuff. They want to play Dungeons and Dragons and will buy that over anything else.

More like get the book and not play it because trendy. Most of them are beyond casual and will never play a game honestly.

I do personally think the 52 week is much more important than their 4 week, especially given they are starting from a larger and more "saturated" so to speak market.

 

[Overly Serious]

HERO System 6E does, but that's a system that puts a lot of work onto players. The skills in it are supposed to be used in heroic play, rather than superheroic and it shows. The basic system is 3d6 roll under with 11- being the 'average' roll. You can spend 1 point on a skill to make it 8-, 2 points total to make it 11- and 3 points total the skill roll your stat roll. (Each skill is keyed to a stat and stat roll is 11- at 10 in a stat and it goes up by 1 for every 5 points in a stat).

After that you can buy skill levels for 2 points per +1 or penalty skill levels for 1 point per +1, but penalty skill levels only mitigate penalties. There's an 'Everyman skill' option that's just skills that get the 8- rank for free.

The Skills book just expands for it a lot and has a ton of examples and modifiers for the skills. For example, it's -8 to Charm when trying to seduce a completely biologically incompatible alien.
It also has four pages devoted to mutual intelligibility of pretty much every real life language that has at least a million speakers.

The Bases book expands on it by letting you purchase facilities in your base that help with Skills. Like a state-of-the-art Surgery room for Medicine rolls or a specialized library for specific Knowlegde skills.

You usually want to stack modifiers and the easiest way is to use extra time. If an action takes one turn (12 seconds), you can take an hour to get a +4 or +5. It's simple to adjudicate and easy to calculate, since you never work with big numbers. For things like picking locks, I personally allow adding the bonus after the roll as in "You're two short, so do you want to spend 30 minutes picking the lock or do you try something else?"

High-power superheroic characters are built with so many points that they often get 18- roll on skills with just their base stats, so the system kind of falls by the wayside at that power level. Superman doesn't defuse a bomb, he takes it and flies so high that it harms no one when it detonates.

I was about to chime in about Hero 6E but you beat me too it and wrote pretty extensively. So I'll just add my personal experience which is that in practice it plays pretty darn well. Certainly a Hell of a lot better than the swingy d20 systems. 3d6 presents a very nice curve that makes a +/- modifier more significant than its d20 equivalent. A +1 in a d20 system makes a difference 1 in 20 times. In a 3d6 system where a target is 11, it's more valuable. And a +2 or +3 in a d20 system isn't really that much more significant than a +1 but in Hero it becomes much more potent. One thing I feel isn't clear from your very good overview (not your fault) is that the book is very supportive in how to use all this stuff. Like it has a friendly little table that tells you what the odds are at different targets to help a GM.

Hero 6E is a complex game, BUT, I feel most of the complexity is front-loaded. Working out all the powers, building characters, etc. is definitely non-trivial and maths-heavy. It's an old school GURPS-era system. But in actual play, I felt it flowed pretty quickly. In fact, at least as fast as D&D once you understand it because D&D is littered with exceptions and special cases, whereas Hero 6E is more complex at base but fairly consistent.

It's my favourite system for complex, non-casual games.

I don't know, fixed initiative always struck me as a way rules retards could rig things. Good luck doing that when your minimax plan relied on acting in a certain order, something that would never happen in "reality" even in a fantasy scenario.

A couple of more interesting initiative systems I've come across in my time are Free League's Aliens, Free League's The One Ring and Cubicle 7's Doctor Who.

In Aliens, you just use playing cards, shuffle ten of a single suit together and everybody draws cards and goes in that order for the rest of the combat. With a couple of exceptions! Firstly, two friendly characters can swap cards so long as it's before either of their actions. Secondly, a good combat result can let you swap with an opponent. Which represents you gaining the advantage - next round, it's you who'll be getting to act on 7. The system is fast, simple and classic Free League, accomplishing what they want which is fast-paced play.

The One Ring is even simpler: Heroes go first. And amongst themselves they go in order of the stances, Forward stance first, then Open, then Defensive then Rearward (iirc). Again, it's classic Free League in that it just goes straight for what they want to achieve - the PCs are the heroes who drive the action and the boldest ones first.

As to Cubicle 7's Doctor Who, it again is worth mentioning for how very well it achieves its ends. It's based on the type of action and goes: Talkers, Movers, Doers, Fighters. If your action is to say something, persuade someone, whatever, you go first (ties solved by attribute). Then movers, so if you want to run away, jump through a portal, get in an airlock, you're next. Doers come third (iirc) so you want to activate that forcefield, start the TARDIS, drink the nanomachine solution, its your turn now. Finally, if what you want to do is a fighting action, you get to go last.

It's simple and makes the game play exactly how a Doctor Who episode would. Artificial of course, but knowingly so.

Jihad on X anything cards. Oh, you're triggered? Well, we'd best protect you from yourself. Get the fuck OUT of here NOW.

I happy with a middle-ground on this. If a player has a long list or the thing they object to is a fairly core thing like "no gore" in a CoC game, then that's just incompatible. But I will try to accomodate particular triggers. Most of us have some and if you don't you're probably young. Like there's a lot of people who enjoy the Aliens movies and are fine with all the various gore in general, but still have a deep dislike of the maternity ward scene in AvP: Requiem. I pick that example because I am one. You can include nearly any sort of gruesomeness you like but hurting babies is a major turn off that will disengage me from your game fast. If someone privately says to me that a particular theme is distressing to them, I'll try to accomodate them. End of the day, it's about having a fun game together, within reason.

 

[The Ugly One]

One more and hilarious thing I want to point out is I think 1e and 2e absolutely goddamned wrekt every number given that in the first year alone both did 650k and 450k.

Pretty sure 1e and 2e each sold a total of 1.5m-2m core books in total across their entire lives. One thing worth pointing out is 4e outsold 3e in its first quarter, but fell of so insanely quickly that they killed it after just a few years.

And a +2 or +3 in a d20 system isn't really that much more significant than a +1 but in Hero it becomes much more potent.

Depends. If you have a THAC0 of 16 and are going up against AC 0, you will land 25% of your hits. If you add a +3 to that, you're now hitting 40% of your hits. In traditional D&D, items with a +N bonus are especially useful to thieves.

 

[Overly Serious]

Depends. If you have a THAC0 of 16 and are going up against AC 0, you will land 25% of your hits. If you add a +3 to that, you're now hitting 40% of your hits. In traditional D&D, items with a +N bonus are especially useful to thieves.

Granted the more edge your odds, the more a +n will make a difference. In the way that if there's a 0.5% chance of something then an increase of 0.5% has doubled your chances. But a +1 still only makes a difference in 1 in 20 cases (I need a sixteen and I roll a fifteen) and a +2 in only 2 in 20 cases (I need a sixteen and roll a fourteen or a fifteen). This differs from a +1 on a 3d6 system where you need a 12 and roll an 11 because whilst rolling an 11 on a d20 is a 1 in 20 chance (5%), rolling an 11 with 3d6 is a 12.5%. So a +1 makes a difference far more often than it makes on a d20 system and this principle extends all the way up the bonuses.

So if you're saying that a +n can make or less more in some cases on a d20 depending on target score, which is what your example showed then yes, if you're assessing in terms of relative change to the chance of success that's so - it might double your chance of success if your chance is low to begin with. If you already have a high chance of success then it might only increase your odds by 12.5% or something. But either way, it only makes a difference in n/20 cases. A +2 is only ever going to matter to the actual die roll in 2/20 times, i.e 10% of them.

With 3d6 it matters more often and therefore gives more satisfaction to a player. A +1 sword in D&D should feel cool - it's a magic sword. But most of the time you just shrug and soon come to feel it doesn't make much difference. And a GM doesn't want to be handing out +4 swords to offset that because it's going to throw everything off. But in Hero 6e, a player is feeling really happy about their little +1 sword because whilst not throwing off balance or dramatically changing what they can hit, it's coming into play a lot more often.

EDIT: Lets sum up the effect in less mathematical terms. A +1 sword in D&D wont make it likely that a low-level character can hit that ancient red dragon, and it also wont often make a difference to them hitting that goblin. A +1 sword in Hero 6e wont make it likely that a low-level character can hit the ancient red dragon either, but it will make a difference to them hitting the goblin more often. Which is a nice rewarding feeling for getting your magic sword without getting horrible power creep.

 

[Henri Barbusse]

Hero 6E is a complex game, BUT, I feel most of the complexity is front-loaded. Working out all the powers, building characters, etc. is definitely non-trivial and maths-heavy. It's an old school GURPS-era system. But in actual play, I felt it flowed pretty quickly. In fact, at least as fast as D&D once you understand it because D&D is littered with exceptions and special cases, whereas Hero 6E is more complex at base but fairly consistent.

Hero Designer exists and is almost mandatory. (I could make a character without it, but it would take far too much time) It also has the advantage of letting the player just mess with the options and see what they can make. But you're right that most of the complexity is front-loaded, though it includes stuff like figuring out how to balance the game. The rulebook has suggestions that are good enough for beginners who don't have the experience to fine tune the game the exact way they want it.

There's also the complexity of wrapping your head around the way HERO does things. To use fancy modern terms, the base rulebook is 100% crunch with no fluff and in fact, since it's a universal system, you have to write the fluff for everything yourself. Having the supplements helps immensely, since the base rulebook is a toolkit and while it has plenty of examples ofhow to use the toolkit, the supplements that are just long lists of possible statted up powers really help with figuring out the game.

To use an example from the books of how HERO does things, there's an example power in, I think, Advanced Player Guide, that's remotely detonating explosives carried by someone else. In game mechanics, it's statted up as Mind Controllling the explosives into suicide. It is probably the best way to make a power like that, but it feels strange at first.

 

[Overly Serious]

@Henri Barbusse It's quite nice to run into another 6e player. (Though it's been a while for me as I most commonly do casual systems these days due to different audience). I don't have printed editions of the books but I'd kind of like them just for the joy of dropping them on the table in front of people. I don't have them to hand, what are they? About 450 pages for the character creation rules and around 350 for the main rules? Something like that.

Obviously there are a lot of useful supplements on top of that because none of the something like 800 pages of core rules are background or setting.

In some ways Hero 6e is more like a programming language for building an RPG than an RPG itself. Yet for all that it lends itself to jokes, I wasn't kidding about how well it plays in practice. Had quite a lot of fun running it.

I'm also motivated to share the standard character sheet here for others to see:

 

[The Ugly One]

I'm just saying a +1 sword mattered more in classic d&d at low levels, when you didn't hit 55% of the time to begin with. That's all. It's irrelevant at high levels for the reasons given.

 

[Henri Barbusse]

I don't have printed editions of the books but I'd kind of like them just for the joy of dropping them on the table in front of people. I don't have them to hand, what are they? About 450 pages for the character creation rules and around 350 for the main rules? Something like that.

Looking at the pdfs, the character creation rules are 466 pages (including cover, etc.) and the gameplay rules are 322 pages. There's a video on youtube of testing whether the 5e HERO rulebook can stop a bullet and, IIRC, it can stop small calibers.

 

[Overly Serious]

I'm just saying a +1 sword mattered more in classic d&d at low levels, when you didn't hit 55% of the time to begin with. That's all. It's irrelevant at high levels for the reasons given.

But it's just as irrelevant at low levels. Lets take your notion of only hitting 55% of the time. So lets say you need an 12 to hit. The only time a +1 sword matters is if you roll an 11. It makes no difference on any of the other 19 possible numbers you can roll. So 5% of times you roll it actually makes a difference. That's true regardless of character level. The only change being high level makes is between 'it's irrelevant because you hit anyway' and 'it's irrelevant because you still miss'.

You gave an example of how it greatly increases your chance to hit at the edges but that's misleading. Yes, if you have a 1 in 20 chance to hit and it becomes 2 in 20 you can say that you've doubled your chance of hitting, but your odds are still very poor - you've just gone form needing to roll a straight 20 to needing a 19 or 20.

But with a 3d6 system, that +1 is a lot more meaningful. A d20 system it's less so whether you're talking low levels or high.

 

[The Ugly One]

But it's just as irrelevant at low levels. Lets take your notion of only hitting 55% of the time.

You're missing that probabilities are aggregates, and over multiple rolls, a seemingly small change matters a lot.

Realistic example. The party has 4 low-level henchmen ganging up on a tough enemy. With ordinary swords (d6), they hit 20% of the time. Expected damage first round is 4 x 0.2 x 3.5 = 2.8.

With +1 swords that becomes 4 x 0.25 x 4.5 = 4.5.

That's a 40% increase in the expected damage.

Your chance to hit at least once in those four attacks jumps from 59% to 68%, so a 9% decrease in the chance of a dead round.

All from adding 1 to a d20 and to a d6.

 

[Overly Serious]

You're missing that probabilities are aggregates, and over multiple rolls, a seemingly small change matters a lot.

Realistic example. The party has 4 low-level henchmen ganging up on a tough enemy. With ordinary swords (d6), they hit 20% of the time. Expected damage first round is 4 x 0.2 x 3.5 = 2.8.

With +1 swords that becomes 4 x 0.25 x 4.5 = 4.5.

That's a 40% increase in the expected damage.

Your chance to hit at least once in those four attacks jumps from 59% to 68%, so a 9% decrease in the chance of a dead round.

All from adding 1 to a d20 and to a d6.

I don't feel I am "missing that probabilities are aggregates". My main point is that in a 3d6 system, the +1 is relevant a lot more often than in a d20 system without much altering what is achievable on the edges. I.e. you feel the benefit without suddenly being able to do radically different things than you could before. That's a desirable outcome and an advantage over a d20 system. All you do by queuing up aggregate scenarios in which there are four low-level henchmen all armed with +1 swords fighting round by round, is emphasize my point that individually it's rarely significant. You're having to scale it up so that you can make some statistical trend out of it to try and make it so.

You even had to start bringing in bonuses to damage to bolster what you're saying when everything I'd been saying was about the effect of +1 in a d20 system on hit probabilities. A bonus to the damage roll has nothing to do with what I've been saying about d20 vs. 3d6 pros and cons. So sticking to the point I've actually been making, So it would make < 1hp difference per round based on hit probabilities. I'm only interested in comparing things that are different. If a broadsword in both systems did 1d6 damage, why the Hell do we want to debate about that? It has nothing to do with what I'm actually comparing which is 3d6 vs. d20 systems. A magic weapon in Hero 6e could have a bonus to hit and no bonus to damage. Or the same damage but greater armour penetration. Or enhance your parrying. Or increase your range. I made a point about d20 vs. 3d6, not weapon damage which is a different topic. You'll probably reply with some variation of "but in D&D a +1 weapon does add to damage". And I wont care because it has nothing to do with the virtues of a 3d6 bell curve over a d20 die.

A +1 in a d20 system is rarely significant. And the fact that you have to start going to aggregates across multiple henchmen and aggregate rounds doesn't refute that. It shows that it is indeed rare because to make it matter you have to stack up the number of instances.

I'm sorry, I've always respected your posts about Intel and AMD chips, but this conversation is bizarre to me.

 

[The Ugly One]

I don't feel I am "missing that probabilities are aggregates". My main point is that in a 3d6 system, the +1 is relevant a lot more often than in a d20 system

This is true. But the claim that a +1 sword in D&D is "meaningless" is objectively wrong, particularly in classic D&D, where your base chance to hit is often 20%-30% rather than the 55%-70% of 5e, parties can be quite large, combats can go 5-6 rounds, and HP totals are low enough that hits translate into monsters leaving the board very, very quickly. It has a significant effect on survivability, which is all that matters in the end, not how good you feel about your odds on one single roll.

All you do by queuing up aggregate scenarios in which there are four low-level henchmen all armed with +1 swords fighting round by round, is emphasize my point that individually it's rarely significant. You're having to scale it up so that you can make some statistical trend out of it to try and make it so.

"It only affects 5% of your rolls" is aggregate statistics. And since most RPGs involve many rolls, statistics, which do not apply to individual rolls, matter. And the funny thing is, over time, all these dice games become Gaussian, and probabilities you actually care about ("What is the chance my henchmen take out this ogre and don't all get killed") all look like bell curves and vary in surprising ways. That was my point.

By the way, it is simply not true in the general case that +1 affects 3d6 more than 1d20. It can have a larger or smaller effect, depending on your target value.

 

[Corn Flakes]

This is true. But the claim that a +1 sword in D&D is "meaningless" is objectively wrong, particularly in classic D&D, where your base chance to hit is often 20%-30% rather than the 55%-70% of 5e, parties can be quite large, combats can go 5-6 rounds, and HP totals are low enough that hits translate into monsters leaving the board very, very quickly. It has a significant effect on survivability, which is all that matters in the end, not how good you feel about your odds on one single roll.

It's funny, a +1 weapon can feel a lot less impactful in 5e because of how bloated the health pools are and how long some combats can go. Doesn't help that 5e only goes up to +3, but a +5 weapon in 3.5e or AD&D was late-game equipment because you felt the difference after a few fights. But even a +1 or a +2 made a difference when enemies would so often end up at 1 or 2 HP and need another attack otherwise.