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

[40 Year Old Boomer]

@Rick Nekieta
I tell players not to bother writing down their alignment and I just keep track of their behavior, moral choices, and motivations, which has led to some players having some rather rude surprises when their deity stops answering their prayers or they get hit by side effects from aligned spells like Holy Word/Dictum/etc.

 

[Rick Nekieta]

To me, some of the more compelling dilemmas are good vs. good. Let me give an example.

There is an enemy army on the move that the players are powerless to stop. The enemy army intends to kill a hamlet of 86 civilians down to the last man. The town only has 4 well trained and well equipped keepers of the peace. They can silently escort their family/friends to safety with a very high chance of success or go full Paul Revere, trying to evacuate everyone, but possibly alerting the enemy army and ensuring everyone's destruction. One is an almost guaranteed small scale act of heroism, the other is a very risky act of heroism that might save a lot of lives or might cost a lot of lives. The more lives they try to save, the more they risk.

How many people do you attempt to rescue from a burning building on your way out? The more you add, the more you risk imperiling the ones you are currently saving.

These are the good questions, not "Do I join the empire or resist it?"

Added in edit: On second thought, the last question is STILL a good one. Do I join the empire and use my position to quietly help innocents get out of its reach or do I resist it openly?

 

[anti SJW]

RIP Ernie.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

I've had my best successes with randos via discord groups that have at least something to do with RPGs; you still have to filter for cancer, but they at least knuckle up and play at least a session to two. Usually.

My current RPG group has been pretty good. At least once a month we'll try a new system to see if we want to add it our rotation of games. I wasn't thinking it would be good. Certainly not as good as my old group, but there's been no issues. Most of us are either in our late 30s to mid 40s with one person under 30. Politics haven't been an issue, no deviancy. It's a lot better than what I was expecting given the city is more Left leaning. The group even seems to self gatekeep without being told as any new player that comes by for a game fits in well.

 

[The Bogwater Rises]

Talking about RPG groups reminds me I am pretty blessed to have made a friendship with a collection of chucklefucks a decade ago who stick around and let me run games with them. It's hard to get them to interact with outsiders sometimes, but I have found Discords to be the way to go. The golden rule is "Know when to hit the bricks" if a server is too preachy: leave. There are more out there. I work in a turbo liberal area but most of the people I've met from RPG groups who host meetups from discord or at least have a discord have been good. Most of them actually want escapism and to roll dice. I've only had a couple of interactions that were truly negative that I should have realized weren't good and just walked away. They weren't too bad but they left me very displeased.

If discord isn't your thing look up stuff on like Event hosting websites for your town or large cities nearby they probably have something for RPGs and you can meet and mingle with people at those. Hell if you GM They might be able to help you run games and get paid. There's stuff out there, just know you will meet people you don't like, but most I've encountered are bearable.

 

[Glory To Arztotska]

So back when Cyberpunk 2077 got its big overhaul patch and I decided to buy it because new Youtuber footage sold me on the combat, I decided to go to R. Talsorian's communities to learn more about CP2020.

This was back during the D&D OGL debacle and the RTal staff forbade discussion of the matter because they were worried about getting sued somehow, even though it was just banter between users.

Nothing I've read about Mike Pondsmith seems to indicate he's a bad person so why do so many of the people/companies attached to his franchise seem to be two-faced jackasses?

 

[Corn Flakes]

So back when Cyberpunk 2077 got its big overhaul patch and I decided to buy it because new Youtuber footage sold me on the combat, I decided to go to R. Talsorian's communities to learn more about CP2020.

This was back during the D&D OGL debacle and the RTal staff forbade discussion of the matter because they were worried about getting sued somehow, even though it was just banter between users.

Nothing I've read about Mike Pondsmith seems to indicate he's a bad person so why do so many of the people/companies attached to his franchise seem to be two-faced jackasses?

That's just the TTRPG industry in general. Plenty of horror stories about industry people being complete assholes to one another for no better reason than petty envy or group affiliation.

 

[ZMOT]

Because Starfinder started out as the weird bastard child of PF1e and PF2e. It has the worst parts of both. As part of the dozen of people who enjoy Starfinder, I can only hope and pray that Starfinder 2nd feels better to run and play than Starfinder 1st.

it's gonna play like pf2, or very close. so if you're ok with that you should be fine. but like every new edition there's nothing stopping you from playing the old one (and backport stuff).

playtest is over, but still available here: https://paizo.com/starfinderplaytest
haven't really looked at it myself, can't say how rough it is. however fwiw paizo is usually willing to try stuff and walk it back depending on feedback (to a degree ofc), so it's not necessarily a good preview of the final product.

 

[robobobo]

Starfinder2 being like pf2 is not remotely an endorsement for me, though pf2's rampant mediocrity comes in large part from original starfinder. That godawful treadmill math infected paizo as a whole when they had to come up with something that wasn't just stealing from another system, and they have yet to diverge from it.

 

[iScream into the void]

it's gonna play like pf2, or very close. so if you're ok with that you should be fine.

Given the entirety of my experience with Pathfinder is in either Starfinder or 2nd edition, and I like PF2e, I don't have many major complaints apart from the Drow fallout of the OGL fiasco which is largely unrelated, I hope this is a marked improvement for Starfinder. Running it right now, it feels clunky and obtuse, though that may be my inexperience with Pathfinder in terms of running the system...
That said, I want to try PF1e because I keep hearing people go on and on about the wild shit they pull, so I want to know what, if anything, I'm missing by only having played Starfinder or Pathfinder Second.

That godawful treadmill math infected paizo...

Remind me, treadmill math is when you need to roll just above the middle, so 10+ on a D20 etc to succeed at whatever it is you were doing, yeah? Or is it, "I want to do X" and talking it out with your GM to bypass a roll, and depending on how well you fellate talk your GM into it you may succeed in bypassing said roll?

 

[robobobo]

Remind me, treadmill math is when you need to roll just above the middle, so 10+ on a D20 etc to succeed at whatever it is you were doing, yeah? Or is it, "I want to do X" and talking it out with your GM to bypass a roll, and depending on how well you fellate talk your GM into it you may succeed in bypassing said roll?

Specifically, I refer to a design where the target numbers of skill checks/armor class/saving throws/etc rise along with the party's level, so that characters are never actually progressing. In various adventures published for pf2 you'll see the DCs for a pretty average sort of activity like "talk your way past the bouncer" go from 10 at the start to 30+ at the end with zero justification for why the muscle at the local bar is suddenly impossible for the best level 1 max charisma character to ever convince to let them inside. The original printing of starfinder was so bad at this that people instantly noticed that a higher level character had worse odds of doing tasks like flying their spaceship. It got errataed later on to "fix" that, but higher level characters still face a constant rise in difficulty for tasks that keep up with their increasing ranks in skills and gear.

 

[Rick Nekieta]

Specifically, I refer to a design where the target numbers of skill checks/armor class/saving throws/etc rise along with the party's level, so that characters are never actually progressing. In various adventures published for pf2 you'll see the DCs for a pretty average sort of activity like "talk your way past the bouncer" go from 10 at the start to 30+ at the end with zero justification for why the muscle at the local bar is suddenly impossible for the best level 1 max charisma character to ever convince to let them inside.

This becomes incredibly immersion breaking when the toadies and town guards at end game could wipe the floor with a mid game boss with absolute minimal risk. The fact that the challenges in front of the player scale exactly with the player at all times in all things is incredibly immersion breaking, as it only highlights that, yes, this universe literally DOES revolve around you. You will never encounter a high level threat at a low level or a low level threat at a high level, so you can always just rest assured that with proper resource conservation, you are always equipped to manage your task marginally, but it will never be a cakewalk either. This trope is also seen in "Oh, he beat my sergeant, I'll send my lieutenant. Oh, he beat my lieutenant, don't fail me captain. Oh, he beat my captain, etc...." It's as if when the adversary sees that the protagonist only marginally succeeded, he sends an only marginally greater threat BY DESIGN, because sending a heavy hitter would be downright unsporting.

 

[robobobo]

Yes, that's another thing that stood out with their adventure, we noticed that random animals we ran across in the wilderness in the late-game adventure would have annihilated us, the things we were fighting, and the entire city we were in, during the early-game adventure. Wow, sure was great that dire mole hadn't decided to come by and fuck us sideways back a month ago, whew!

 

[Imperial Citizen]

We venture into the land of Dorastor from the Runequest, tonight on Dice Scum. See Chaos monsters fighting a CLOWN ARMY?! Yes, Runequest has a lore bit about a Bronze Age Clown Army fighting a Mad Sultan. Tune it at 9 pm ET to find out more!

 

[Judge Dredd]

If you're just looking for a bunch of d6 just hit up Walmart and find the little section with poker stuff and boomer card games.
You should be able to find little sets of multiple d6s. I've even seen those at Walgreens etc.

I'm in the UK so there is no Walmart or Walgreens.

Like I said, I used to see d6s in pound land with packs of cards, but I've not seen them recently.

Starfinder2 being like pf2 is not remotely an endorsement for me, though pf2's rampant mediocrity comes in large part from original starfinder.

Sort of. Starfinder feels like an awkward half step between PF1 and PF2, and as a DM I kept wanting the game to pick a side and stick to it. Even before SF2, people were trying to homebrew the PF2 action economy into it, but failed.

That said, I want to try PF1e because I keep hearing people go on and on about the wild shit they pull, so I want to know what, if anything, I'm missing by only having played Starfinder or Pathfinder Second.

You're not missing anything.

If you're talking RAW. PF2 has better stuff in the form of late game feats. Things like being able to scare to death people if you go all in on intimidate.

But PF1 is broken in the same way 5e is/was broken later in life, just with worse math. To give a few 5e examples. One of the infamous "broken" builds in 5e was to take a fighter dip for heavy armour, and then go all wizard to have a spellcaster with 20AC from level 2. In practice nobody actually did that. Then there's the infamous druid exploit to turn into a t-rex early game and trivialise the campaign. The problem is a: that's not a thing RAW, and b: that only works in reddit theory craft where every combat takes place on a flat open field. Turning into a t-rex does nothing for a murder mystery, a cave, or against even a basic int save. Again, despite being the meta, nobody ever did this. Finally, there's the infamous "peasant railcanoon". Any DM with half a brain would say no, unless he's doing a comedy campaign.

PF1 is like that, but with more. I don't know the exact number, but 5e has about 100 feats to choose from. PF1 had more than 1400 by the end of it's run (but that includes third party content). As a result, someone with a degree in autism could find particular synergies that don't play nice together. I played PF1 for a few years and even after that time ...I still didn't understand it. To give a real example, during one game the boss stepped out, a PC used an ability that banished him to shadow realm, no save. The DM said no, and an argument began. I forget the specific rules, but it was some weird combination of of those thousands of feats and abilities.

Most are more mundane. "I get a +2 from this, +1 from that, +2 because the bard is playing, +1 because of the bards special song, I moved so this feat gives me an extra +2, -1 for flank, but because of flank fighter I get +4-" on and on.

 

[That Guy Who Likes The Chili]

the GM loses his most powerful tool to create compelling dilemmas for the players.

I've noticed a lot of people (most new to the hobby) are in favor of *just* eliminating alignment or similar mechanisms.

I completely agree with this. I've recently made the mistake of running a few campaigns for newer players and not forcing alignment on my players, and its been a total disaster. I'm fairly certain everyone at my table, if I were to assign them alignments at the moment would either be Chaotic or Neutral Evil. Its also very difficult to motivate no-alignment players I've found, as their character motivations can change on a dime, one minute they'll be chasing an engaging plot-hook, then the next they'll just decide its too dangerous or the reward isn't worth it, or they'll randomly loose motivation and abandon an NPC in need of help because they got distracted by something.

That being said, I've found playing with alignment to be difficult unless everyone is on the same page, especially when it comes to alignment shifts because some people will be very passionate about why X action wasn't immoral in their eyes, or will try and come up with wild justifications why certain actions can still be considered within their alignment. Or you have people that want to be special and say they are too deep and complex and can't simply be boxed into the 9 alignments therefore they should be allowed to act out every now and then for free.

 

[Rapier Ape]

@Judge Dredd
Ah Bongland. It checks out.
I suppose your other option could be toy stores? Either that or just bite the bullet and order them.
They're just an easy to find commodity here I guess. I mean I've even seen packages of them in gas stations in states with casinos and video lottery.

 

[Blarmed&Dangerous]

pound land

This is somewhere other than where I take your mom to?

 

[Judge Dredd]

They're just an easy to find commodity here I guess. I mean I've even seen packages of them in gas stations in states with casinos and video lottery.

I thought for a moment you said gas stations with casinos, which sounds as American as it gets.

But yes, they used to be easy to find here. Not "polyhedral dice at dollar general" easy, but any pound shop would sell d6s and any nerd shop would have you covered. Now, not so much. I wondered if that was a local thing or a general thing.

 

[The Ugly One]

Specifically, I refer to a design where the target numbers of skill checks/armor class/saving throws/etc rise along with the party's level, so that characters are never actually progressing. In various adventures published for pf2 you'll see the DCs for a pretty average sort of activity like "talk your way past the bouncer" go from 10 at the start to 30+ at the end with zero justification for why the muscle at the local bar is suddenly impossible for the best level 1 max charisma character to ever convince to let them inside. The original printing of starfinder was so bad at this that people instantly noticed that a higher level character had worse odds of doing tasks like flying their spaceship. It got errataed later on to "fix" that, but higher level characters still face a constant rise in difficulty for tasks that keep up with their increasing ranks in skills and gear.

This has been a problem since D&D 3rd edition, because for skills, having modifiers that range from -10% to +115% or more is an unintelligible design space, because what it does is make it impossible to construct a task where the best character is highly likely to succeed, and the worst character is highly likely to fail. Even with the 1/20 house rule, it's unsatisfying because you're just clipping the chance of success at 95%.

Percentile systems like Cthulhu and dice pool systems both work far better than d20 for resolving skills. There's really no reason D&D has to use d20 for skills.