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

[Ghostse]

Or the opposite problem, where someone wants to do something creative but there's no rules for that. eg. In one game there were giant walking candles (basically golems) and one player wanted to put a bucket on it's head to snuff out the flame. What skill is that? I quickly made up an athletics number and told them to roll. I don't really find it to be a 5e problem, but a crunchy games problem.

The far bigger problem is the nat-20 issue, where players expect nat 20 to basically be magic and grant whatever they want.

Very much agreed. I want SOME skill-ness because it makes things easier to rule on - and just because you have a clever plan it doesn't mean it'll work. Its just difficult to hit that sweet spot of "too austitic to be useable" and "to vague to make any meaningful difference for characters"
In B/X I've just been using "roll under relevant stat" as a good-enough.

I guess when I say 5e-only players, I mean players who never played a system without a limited skill metric vs. Anything specifically wrong with the system.

3.5 had the problem of "a skill for eveything", 4e condensed them but more as way of making it easier to apply to Challenges, just 5e kept the stream-lined system of 4e but without challenges it felt limiting. Trained/untrained is also good for a 4e "shut up and roll" but bad for 5e where they tried to go back to more interaction.

I won't beat a dead horse, but I'm the opposite. I find meat grinders lead to less interesting stories, because how could you be interested in, say, LotR if every 10 minutes half the fellowship is replaced with new characters, and by the end none of the original characters are left. Or where they get a bunch of hirelings they send to do all the dirty work.

I forget what OSR game it was that had an elegant solution to the latter problem. Hirelings would never enter dungeons. Adventurers would, but they demand a cut of the loot and are DM controlled.

No one likes a meatgrinder (unless its a lvl 0). For all the talk about B/X being lethal, its only a murder fest for very new players who aren't getting some GM coaching; one of the reason I like Lair of the Lantern Worm as a intro for new players is that because time keeps rewinding so it lets players experiment, fuck up, die... and then everything resets. So they learn about how squishy they are, how they need to be narrative about what they do even when successful, and how to be smart when running combat (and also: how some enemies will likewise be smart)

Since hirelings relate to your ability to haul out your loot, if there's a hazard trap I'll usually rule that it hit a hireling unless something would make me rule otherwise. They won't do anything stupid or obviously dangerous. Well, more dangerous than going into a monster-infested dungeon.

 

[The Bogwater Rises]

How is the combat in Mothership? I like that ease-of-use in everything else about it but combat seems a bit underbaked in theory. I don’t know how fun it is in practice, though.

It is a bit loosey goosey and is way less tactical than most systems, but I didn't hate it. Combat is usually highly lethal to the players (you are fighting space monsters that kill humans and you are a human or an android) but the players do have options that are lethal. It's very GM dependant on how the combat goes. If you want full tactical gameplay, I would definitely look at something else or try pulling from like Only War or something, but if you are looking for quick and lethal I don't think it's too bad.

In one game there were giant walking candles (basically golems) and one player wanted to put a bucket on it's head to snuff out the flame. What skill is that?

If there isn't an obvious skill for something I would usually work from the attribute they want and then go down to a skill for that attribute if there are any, otherwise it's an attribute vs attribute sort of test IMO. Just how my brain works to easily come up with an answer for that even if a game has tons of skills. Also asking "How do you want to do that to a player?" and not getting a retard answer would help build the scene.

The far bigger problem is the nat-20 issue, where players expect nat 20 to basically be magic and grant whatever they want.

Yeah that mentality is stupid. I do believe nat 20 = best case scenario. If they fail the check despite getting a nat 20 ... well they shouldn't have been rolling anyway but I understand some people are nuts. If it is a literal impossible thing they are requesting and roll a nat 20 I would give them some advice to achieve their goal or something to help them build up to doing the impossible later. I know you're not talking about sane people though. Just typing out my thoughts here.

 

[Ghostse]

Also asking "How do you want to do that to a player?" and not getting a retard answer would help build the scene.

This is key. I had to deal with players who were constantly injecting dumb ideas expecting them to work and got pissed when I didn't work with them.

Yeah that mentality is stupid. I do believe nat-20 = best case scenario. If they fail the check despite getting a nat-20 ... well they shouldn't have been rolling anyway but I understand some people are nuts. If it is a literal impossible thing they are requesting and roll a nat 20 I would give them some advice to achieve their goal or something to help them build up to doing the impossible later. I know you're not talking about sane people though. Just typing out my thoughts here.

Agreed. That while they don't succeed, it doesn't succeed in a awy
I like your phrasing of "best case scenario".

I also treat natural 1s the same way; you still get your check. If you have enough athletics skill a natural 1 still gives you a 10+ you still get that score and don't fall unless something else happens to make you fall.

 

[The Ugly One]

Honestly I usually give my players free swaps on combat powers for the first few sessions.

A DM who doesn't let the players tweak their characters early on is kind of a dick.

 

[AnOminous]

Very much agreed. I want SOME skill-ness because it makes things easier to rule on - and just because you have a clever plan it doesn't mean it'll work.

I like skill trees, where you have a general skill type and individual more specific skills. I.e. a general "science" skill but specializations like "biology" or even subspecializations like "microbiology." So the general skill gives you some ability to do anything relevant in the field, although maybe more slowly or with less likelihood of success, while the subspecialties increase that.

Another good thing is it's easy to prune skill trees, just use the major skills in settings where you don't need to be fancy about it, or add even more detailed sub-trees when there's some need for it. For instance, in an RPG in a bootlegging setting (one of my CoC campaigns had something like this), you might have an "automobile" skill, but with subskills for things like repair, customization (juicing up the engine for instance), "stunt" driving, and get as detailed as you like, with stuff as hyper-specific as "bootlegger reverse" maneuver skill.

(I also grafted in some of the mechanics from SJG's Car Wars game for vehicular combat.)

Similarly, I'd have a "guns" skill (my CoC campaigns were generally pretty gun-heavy) and break it out into general categories like customization, repair, manufacturing ammunition if appropriate, specific classes of weapons, very specific weapons, and even ultra-specific like the exact gun the hero always used, maybe modified.

If not done with a bit of care, it can encourage minmax munchkin behavior, but I never really had a problem with that unless it was game-breaking. I'd assume people who are presumed to be legendary heroes would be familiar with how the world they live in operates and intelligent enough to maximize their chance of succeeding at their specific goals.

 

[King Dead]

The far bigger problem is the nat-20 issue, where players expect nat 20 to basically be magic and grant whatever they want.

God, that drives me crazy. Nowhere in the rules does it say a nat 20 gives you guaranteed success outside of an attack roll, but for whatever reason people extrapolate from that and assume hitting that magic number means that not only are they automatically successful, they're so super successful that piles of loot fall from the sky, the big bad walks up and surrenders, and they get to fuck the dragon.

I don't care if you rolled a 20, if the DC is 25 and you only have a +4 modifier, you failed.

 

[Revelator]

God, that drives me crazy. Nowhere in the rules does it say a nat 20 gives you guaranteed success outside of an attack roll, but for whatever reason people extrapolate from that and assume hitting that magic number means that not only are they automatically successful, they're so super successful that piles of loot fall from the sky, the big bad walks up and surrenders, and they get to fuck the dragon.

I don't care if you rolled a 20, if the DC is 25 and you only have a +4 modifier, you failed.

I have to keep reminding my Mutants and Masterminds players that criticals are for combat, not skill checks.

 

[ZMOT]

God, that drives me crazy. Nowhere in the rules does it say a nat 20 gives you guaranteed success outside of an attack roll, but for whatever reason people extrapolate from that and assume hitting that magic number means that not only are they automatically successful, they're so super successful that piles of loot fall from the sky, the big bad walks up and surrenders, and they get to fuck the dragon.

because people play dnd like monopoly (as in wrong). NATTY 20 memes and epic greentexts don't help.

There just aren't that many 4e grogs and those that are didn't want the return to caster supremacy PF2e started back down the road of again.

hu? if anything pf2 nerfed casters even harder, for like the first 5-6 levels you're more of a support than reality bending nuker, and even after that point fighter will always be a crit-bitch turning shit into red mist. can't remember how much the remaster changed it but iirc it only made the early levels less suffering, because MUH WIMPY CASTERS was a common complaint.

pf3 would just be a name change, where people either complain it was unnecessary because it didn't change enough, or it would be called a "5e" clone or whatever. an edition change is never free and painless, that's why I assume they didn't bother with it. technically the remaster is more like pf2.1 with a different license and chance to be more political correct. the original pf2 worked for years and would have for a few more.

I was just thinking if there are any good christian role-playing games. I find playing super powerful beings really lame and i really dislike magic being predictable and morally neutral. Also most fantasy feels weird because it feels like it was written by people without imagination.
Is there such a thing? Something that is not unfun to play as well?

does rahowa count?

 

[anti SJW]

So apparently, WOTC moved Orcs from the monster section of the 2024 monster manual to the NPC section of the book.

Dungeons and Dragons is dead.

 

[2LtMashengo]

MUH WIMPY CASTERS was a common complaint.

Many such cases! Haven't actually tried the system myself, but the only build advice for casters I saw in /pgg/ was "play fighter with a caster dedication, or starlit span magus."
It's been a while since I've been on /tg/ though, so it might have changed by now.

 

[That Guy Who Likes The Chili]

So apparently, WOTC moved Orcs from the monster section of the 2024 monster manual to the NPC section of the book.

Dungeons and Dragons is dead.

I'm kind of curious to see how this all plays out tbh. It seems like the gaming industry is seeing the beginnings of a pendulum shift. I might be getting too optimistic too early, but with studios like Bioware firing the writing team for games like Vielguard and a lot of DEI initiatives either being flat canceled or going underground, it will be really funny to see WoTC and their new and improved pozzed out the asshole DnD try to survive the next 4 years.
TTRPGs and video games have never been in a tighter relationship culturally, so I'm pretty excited to see how the next batch of pozzed fantasy games like Avowed do when they release(and hopefully tank big).
Its also interesting to me that WoTC has ZERO DnD Adventures planned for 2025 release to come out with their new edition, but even if they panic and try to course correct away from how "woke" they've gotten, there is no escaping how faggy they have made their 2024 core books. I don't think they can coast along on brand recognition forever, especially when newcomers start opening their books and are just met with gay dwarves baking each other bread instead of fighting dragons or delving dungeons.

 

[The Ugly One]

I guess when I say 5e-only players, I mean players who never played a system without a limited skill metric vs. Anything specifically wrong with the system.

The problem with only ever playing one system is that it can be really hard to conceive of how things could be done differently. For example, one common blindness of people who've never played anything except D&D is they don't realize what an RPG would look like without constantly escalating hit points.

Also, every edition of D&D has a shit skill system, so it's kind of a revelation when you play a game that doesn't do d20 vs DC.

No one likes a meatgrinder (unless its a lvl 0). For all the talk about B/X being lethal, its only a murder fest for very new players who aren't getting some GM coaching

IMO there is a difference between a meat grinder and a sieve. By level 4 or 5, characters should stop dying like flies, and you've got some story building with the veterans who survived. They still could die. But at some point, you don't want a new character every 2 days.

 

[Ghostse]

IMO there is a difference between a meat grinder and a sieve. By level 4 or 5, characters should stop dying like flies, and you've got some story building with the veterans who survived. They still could die. But at some point, you don't want a new character every 2 days.

Right. Even a lvl 3 party in B/X doesn't die if they are smart and clever. If the enemy is a dumb creature it can usually be outsmarted and avoided. If the enemy is intelligent, they likely don't want to die any more than party and except in exceptional circumstances you can usually negotiate at least a temporary truce even if its "With sword drawn and arrows nocked, we keep the sharp ends pointed at the group of orcs as we circle around the far side of the room, keeping as much distance as possible and ordering them in common to stay where they are, hoping our tone is understood even if our words are not. We want to have the thief open the door to the next area, and once through, slam it shut and spike it behind us"

But if you DO lose a character its more of a "oh man, if I'd have just rolled higher" as opposed to character death being the result of a long chain of fuck ups in 3e+.
Also, usually around the time people become really attached to their survivor, its much more realistic that they have access to resurrection.

 

[AnOminous]

I don't care if you rolled a 20, if the DC is 25 and you only have a +4 modifier, you failed.

I would never do the "if you get a natural 20 retard shit happens" thing, nor the "if you roll a 1 your attempt to open an unlocked door results in you instantly exploding into gibs" thing.

But a natural 20 on an impossibility might result in a less pathetic failure. "Okay so you rolled a natural 20. . .on absolute retardation you shouldn't have even tried. I guess the dragon is at least annoyed enough to be distracted a bit."

 

[40 Year Old Boomer]

I'm struggling to think of a single death in a 5e game I've run that wasn't "bad luck at level 1-2" that wasn't the result of bad decision making and can't think of any. From one campaign, the following:

Level 3 party wiped out by orc raider camp after parading about the presence upon a ridge overlooking the encampment and electing to fight against 7-1 odds rather than tactically withdrawing.
Gnome wizard dropped from a great height by harpies while rest of party contemplated their questionable inventory management in not owning any crossbows/bows/javelins/etc.
Cleric of sun/fire god getting sent to slip and fall school after picking a fight with the kobold guides the party hired, suffering a prolonged death after landing in a river of magma while wearing armor of fire resistance and being buffed by a death ward.
Fighter/Cleric of knowledge being sacrificed by pirate crew party had hired after casting inflict wounds on a random dolphin at sea to appease ocean god's wrath.
Prolonged period of 10+ levels of competency ended by another gnome wizard blindly casting fireball into the command structure of the Giant/Orc army post they were scouting, resulting in five party members being smeared across the frozen tundra while the halfling monk blowing all her ki points to run as fast as possible while holding the biggest chunk of the bard/warlock she could grab for future possible resurrection.

 

[King Dead]

I would never do the "if you get a natural 20 retard shit happens" thing, nor the "if you roll a 1 your attempt to open an unlocked door results in you instantly exploding into gibs" thing.

But a natural 20 on an impossibility might result in a less pathetic failure. "Okay so you rolled a natural 20. . .on absolute retardation you shouldn't have even tried. I guess the dragon is at least annoyed enough to be distracted a bit."

Obviously it's up to the DM to make these sorts of calls, and not-as-bad outcomes from a lucky roll that still fails isn't a bad idea. It's just stupid whenever a player figures a nat 20 is an instant win button, especially if they then get butthurt when the DM informs them otherwise. Imagine if everything in life operated on a 1-in-20 chance of complete success no matter how insane it was.

Granted, 20s are usually going to succeed for most things if you don't have negative modifiers to the roll, but it's not a guarantee. That's why skills are a part of the game.

And yes, critical failures on skill checks are just as stupid. "Okay, you rolled a 1 on your attempt to persuade the noble to assist you, so he orders all his guards to kill your entire party. Game over."

 

[Judge Dredd]

For example, one common blindness of people who've never played anything except D&D is they don't realize what an RPG would look like without constantly escalating hit points.

Games without classes too. Or games with different die sizes. I've mentioned before, but new players seem to take to Savage Worlds much easier than vets who will put all points into "fighting" and then not know what to do after that, or will assume that d4s in every skill = more crits.

Its also interesting to me that WoTC has ZERO DnD Adventures planned for 2025 release to come out with their new edition

Agreed with your post, but I didn't know that part. This makes things interesting given what has going on not just with the culture war, but Hasbro the toy company.

This might seem off topic, but it's related. Please correct anything I get wrong.

"Facts"
Hasbro supposedly doesn't care about DnD. They picked up WotC for Magic, and DnD was just whatever.
Like Disney, they thought they could buy up all the competition and have a monopoly. Disney ran into a problem. This worked short term, long term this has been a disaster because, without quality, the IPs they payed billions for are now worthless.
Hasbro as a toy business is collapsing, so much so that a toy company won't be making toys any more, but instead will become an IP farm, licencing popular IPs to third parties, and this is seen as an improvement by fans who are sick of Hasbro shitting the bed. They are currently being sued by stockholders for overproducing toys no one wanted and then not telling them.
DnD themed gambling was a thing recently.

Rumour/Theory
As has been mentioned by others, WotC has rebooted everything they can. Popular settings like Darksun are too problematic to go back to.
5.5e, despite claims otherwise, has been a failure.
The only thing working for WotC has been their deal with Larion, which they burned the bridage, and Critical Role, which they burned the bridge.

So, with that said, my speculation.
I don't know if they've tried to milk Baulders Gate 3 yet, but I imagine they'll try the same way GW are trying to milk Space Marine 2 and Astartes.

Idea A: If WotC hasn't been sold off, they'll take the wider Hasbro/Disney approach. Farm out the IP to third parties. Kobold Press and Paizo are obvious candidates.
Said third party might pull in some vets to lend legitancy, in the same way Warlord Games pulled in Andy Chambers for the new Konflikt 47 game. With Gigax dead, I don't know who that would be. The Dragon Lance people, the surviving OGs, Gigax Jr, or Keith Baker are the only ones I know. I'm sure you guys can name drop people. Matt Mercer would be unlikely but possible. Anyone who is willing to take a fat paycheck and attend a couple of interviews and has respect of the pre-woke fanbase.

Idea B: WotC keeps doubling down on woke, until they deliver a failure so catastrophic they have no option but to eject everyone at the company, just like we saw with Bioware and Ubisoft.

 

[40 Year Old Boomer]

Who the fuck can even afford most toys now? Every time I've gone browsing for something for my godson it's all pop culture horseshit priced up for millenial nostalgiafags. Shit that was retailing for 3-4 bucks when I was a kid has been repackaged to 25+ because CONSOOM

 

[That Guy Who Likes The Chili]

So, with that said, my speculation.
I don't know if they've tried to milk Baulders Gate 3 yet, but I imagine they'll try the same way GW are trying to milk Space Marine 2 and Astartes.

I know they've been running all sorts of live play D&D events and streams with the Voice Actors of the BG3 Cast playing as their characters. If those are translating into people putting down the game and picking up the actual TTRPG who can say.(I have my doubts, the fans of the VAs seem to be akin to your average Critical Role fans.) I know Larian said that WoTC firmly holds all the IP for the BG3 characters and story, but I really do think BG3 was lightning in a bottle and WoTC royally fucked that up. There doesn't seem to be any plans for future games in the franchise as far as I can tell, and even if there was, their track record for video games was absolutely abysmal for the last 20 years.
They also have their "Official" D&D Virtual Table Top, but I haven't really seen much news of that lately. It could either be a big hit, or become the most hilariously mismanaged and predatory monetization scheme since they bought D&D Beyond.

Anyone who is willing to take a fat paycheck and attend a couple of interviews and has respect of the pre-woke fanbase.

They already pre-burnt these bridges during the 50th anniversary when they released their "Official History" books calling the handful of remaining people alive a bunch of sexist, racist, problematic, bigots and didn't even bother to give them the opportunity to defend themselves. I know Rob Kuntz and a few others were going off about it on Xitter.

Idea B: WotC keeps doubling down on woke, until they deliver a failure so catastrophic they have no option but to eject everyone at the company, just like we saw with Bioware and Ubisoft.

Even setting aside all the woke shit, the 5.5e just doesn't seem all that great. I read the /r OneDnd subreddit occasionally just to see what people are saying, and it mostly just seems like a resounding "Meh". WoTC wasn't willing to take any risks to alienate any of their current player base, while simultaneously not addressing any of the issues they had with 5e, so you just now have a mediocre product that's going to annoy current players, not offer anything new to newcomers and give a gigantic middle finger to the old guard. The only praise I keep seeing from every review and every person who picked up the books is "Well, the art is nice." (In my opinion its the worst its ever been, but people are free to be wrong.) If the most you can say about a $60, 400 page book is "Art Guud" then your product has some major problems. Usually when a TTRPG is successful how good the art is, is just a bonus or an afterthought.

 

[God of Nothing]

So apparently, WOTC moved Orcs from the monster section of the 2024 monster manual to the NPC section of the book.

Dungeons and Dragons is dead.

Orc Lives Matter! Justice for Flothok!