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

That would be a feature, not a bug. At least if you're going for a style of game where "you see a man in full plate armor, wielding a shield and a sword" is always meant to be... a man in full plate armor, wielding a shield and a sword. As opposed to level-based systems, where that same man-in-yadda-yadda could be a CR 1/3 mook, a CR 4 captain of the guard, or a CR 12 mind-controlled adventurer, all with the same raw stats but vastly different HP pools, attack bonuses and damage potentials.

So, if you're going for the kind of game that doesn't fit Schrodingers' Men In Full Plate Armor and you want something where players can identify and prioritize threats by their descriptions rather than level/CR values, a system like the one @Atypical Dog suggested would be fine. Sure, progression would be more lateral (improving gear and picking up specialized items/weapons/spells to deal with specific threats and target damage vulnerabilities on enemies for example), but there's no reason it couldn't be fun if the players went in with the right mindset.
You're not wrong. I've just had to deal with a group of players that can't handle that lack of clear boundaries. They will 100% ignore anything they can to get to the biggest dog in the setting. If I'd start them at the entrance to some hypothetical dungeon and there's a demon lord in the wasteland that I have planned for the Big Bad culmination of the setting and just want to foreshadow, they will immediately turn 180 degrees and try to storm the Demon Lord's dark fortress. And it is depressing killing players over and over.

EDIT: I meant killing PCs over and over. You can only kill players once.
 
Sounds it. But one downside to this in combination with a sandbox is that when you move away from clear levels the tendency for your players to get out of their depth is increased. They can't tell the difference between the guard captain they're supposed to fight and the one you intended as a major adversary, because there are no longer clear challenge level markers. Or at least that's a risk with less segregated progression systems in combination with open worlds.

In real life you eyeballed what sort of man you're dealing with by his clothes and his gear. At least in times when meeting a stranger could plausibly result in personal combat. Taking an example mentioned in this thread, if you meet a man in plate armor, you can tell that he's rich, trained in combat, has friends who are rich and powerful, at least on the local level, and generally is not a person you want to antagonize needlessly, with a high degree of certainty.

In the system proposed, you also eyeball what sort of man you're dealing with by his clothes and his gear, except that at high ends gear is likely to be much fancier.

And for that matter, in a world running on level-based system you also do the same thing. The only added complication is that people are much more likely to be intentionally hiding their power level, and has more methods to do so without severely nerfing themselves.
 
There's nothing inherently wrong with running a railroad campaign; it's just very important to make sure the destination is worth taking the trip for and all the scenery along the way is interesting somehow. You can even have stops here and there to let them run free and wild if they suddenly take it into their heads to try something different.

Though, I've had a lot of success by just never throwing anything out from games I've run or tried to run, so it doesn't bother me overmuch if what started out as a straightforward gang of happy-go-lucky criminals taking on petty jobs becomes a fraught game of balancing political intrigues because they just all laser-focused on some throwaway shady courtier meant to be background detail. I just put the 'Rich Snob' index card back in the file and pull out the unused 'Viscount Vanderbilt' sheet and whatever plots are relevant.
 
There's nothing inherently wrong with running a railroad campaign; it's just very important to make sure the destination is worth taking the trip for and all the scenery along the way is interesting somehow. You can even have stops here and there to let them run free and wild if they suddenly take it into their heads to try something different.
I think this is why I've been enjoyed megadungeons a lot recently.

There's freedom, but it's extremely constrained. They have a stated goal, literally at character creation "You have to know NPC X, and be willing to risk your life to stop villain Y/save village Z". I can then dangle carrots around the world and see which ones they bite. Within the dungeon they can go whereever or do whatever, but it's a dangerous, hostile environment. I can introduce NPCs and faction play, but my players decide to just kill first, kill later, and when everything is dead maybe poke around the room for secret doors and information.

There's even a bit of meta knowledge. The further down they go, the more dangerous it gets. This isn't perfect. I've mentioned before how the PCs are getting overleveled. But ultimately it's the players choice to be extremely cautious.
 
Came across a bunch of stuff today I'd like Kiwi's opinions on.

First, there's some drama around Starfinder 2e. I don't follow RPG news, so my understanding comes from random comments. From what I understand, Starfinder 1e revised just released, complete with new canon characters taking over from the old, so it feels odd to have 2e follow that immediately. So much so that people assume it's a result of the OGL stuff.

More over, Starfinder 2e is just a PathFinder 2 expansion instead of a stand alone game. Pozzo claims that it's a totally different system because races can have flight at first level and there's rules for ranged cover. I'm fairly sure PF2 had ranged cover, but being 100% compatible and using the same ruleset, if true, I can understand why people assume it's be relegated to PF2 reskin terratory. What I don't get is why people are complaining that certain builds are gone. Like, I get that having no mechanic class means you can't build your mechanic character in the new edition, but I don't see how not being able to port a soldier over 1-1 is a bad thing.

Second, a friend of mine said he was a fan of Star Wars 5e. Supposedly, it's 5e, but reskinned as Star Wars. I'd not only never heard of it, but there was a Star Wars game I heard about a lot with funky dice that everybody claimed to love but never actually played. Anyone have any opinions on Star Wars 5e?


An unrelated topic. I'm looking for good gunslinger rules for 5e. I'm using some from a blog called Middle Finger of Vecna. I have them saved, but that site seems to be dead links when I tried. Online people point to Matt Mercers rules because of course they do. There's a bunch of homebrew ones floating around of various quality but none seem up the standard of the Vecna one.
 
An unrelated topic. I'm looking for good gunslinger rules for 5e. I'm using some from a blog called Middle Finger of Vecna. I have them saved, but that site seems to be dead links when I tried. Online people point to Matt Mercers rules because of course they do. There's a bunch of homebrew ones floating around of various quality but none seem up the standard of the Vecna one.
I know everybody likes their gunslingers firing flintlock pistols like they're Glocks (or crossbows), but the most memorable and enjoyable way our group ever did a gunslinger was treating firearms like encounter abilities/spells. Basically, you can blow someone away with a 3d10 piercing damage shot from a muzzle-loading pistol, but then it takes three whole turns for it to be reloaded and the ammunition is very expensive and hard to find (read: the gunslinger only carried a certain amount at the start of an adventure and couldn't make more).

The gunslinger walked around with four pistols hanging from his belt and usually just fought with a rapier until he decided someone was about to have a really bad day. There were other silly things like gunshots drawing attention from all across the dungeon, the character having to make sure the loaded pistols didn't get wet, being able to sacrifice a shot in order to light a fire instantly, and shit like that but overall it worked really well for a more unique character concept with associated mechanics. And making it 3d10 meant every shot could be a grazing hit for 3 damage, or the necromancer we spent the last two adventures hunting down just took a meatshot for 28 damage just as he was preparing to run away. Fun times.
 
I was a teen, me and some friends played a self contained dungeon crawl game book that played like the Fighting Fantasy books, but with a DM narrating the game. I wanted to track down the game, but I don't remember what it's called. All I really remember was the dungeon entrance was hidden in a tree.
that would require a little bit more info, like age and look
:story:

what does "played like" mean (like an adventure book? or the combat?) remember the publisher?

More over, Starfinder 2e is just a PathFinder 2 expansion instead of a stand alone game. Pozzo claims that it's a totally different system because races can have flight at first level and there's rules for ranged cover. I'm fairly sure PF2 had ranged cover, but being 100% compatible and using the same ruleset, if true, I can understand why people assume it's be relegated to PF2 reskin terratory. What I don't get is why people are complaining that certain builds are gone. Like, I get that having no mechanic class means you can't build your mechanic character in the new edition, but I don't see how not being able to port a soldier over 1-1 is a bad thing.
yeah, the common theory is that it was based on the OGL thing, just like revamping the pf2 stuff which didn't really need new books. dunno if pozzo ever outright stated it.

as for the rules, not sure why people call it an expansion. maybe some salty sf grogs? people have been asking for "starfinder with pf2 rules" for quite a while, so that shouldn't be surprising. given sf apparently wasn't that much of a moneymaker they probably figured when they have to purge the OGL stuff might as well move it over, thus extending their existing big earner (iirc they outright said the rules are compatible on purpose, dunno who said it's different).
afaik the only things that really changed so far are stamina and armor, although that was already a variant rule in pf2 (suspiciously absent in the new GM core, read speculation they might add it to the new SF book). haven't looked at the classes, but the playtest for pf2 commander (only took them a few years to make a not!4e warlord) and guardian are running right now, most stuff should be able to make it into the new edition.

anyway sf2 playtest is still coming, all people know right now are some blog posts/previews. and what makes it into the final book is anyone's guess.

I'd not only never heard of it, but there was a Star Wars game I heard about a lot with funky dice that everybody claimed to love but never actually played.
ffg star wars (edge of the empire for han solo tier, age of rebellion for military etc, force and destiny for jedi shenanigans), later became genesys. needs extra dice and asmodee wants retarded amounts of licensing money for it, thus making sure no one can buy a set since asmodee itself is too lazy/cheap/retarded to guarantee a supply. people recommend dice apps and there's a translation chart in the book, still not the same.

I like it and think it works great for SW, but since it's more on the narrative side it's also disliked for that reason.
tbh if I'm really in the mood for star wars + crunch I'd just play the imperial assault boardgame or legion... (should be up on tabletop simulator, IA doesn't even need a GM).

as for star wars 5e...
1710757776955593.jpg
 
but there was a Star Wars game I heard about a lot with funky dice that everybody claimed to love but never actually played.
Those were the FFG Star Wars games. The DRM dice are annoying, but once you understand that you should blow all your creation points in attributes and then play it like a schlocky B action movie, it becomes a lot of fun.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GhastlyGhost
FFG's Star Wars is pretty darn good honestly. It's just yeah the unique dice are a pain in the ass to translate without a digital roller. It also can result in some real bullshit sometimes. Mainly because it has successes, failures, advantages, and disadvantages. So you can get four or five advantages which improve a roll's result or make things easier, but still fail or do nothing multiple times since you don't get any successes due to failures cancelling them out. Same can happen with advantages and disadvantages mind you, but goddamn do you remember the nonsense result rolls more...

It actually can be hair pulling due to that at times.

WEG Star Wars was pretty solid, but minmaxing in it was pretty easy, though also very punisheable if you monofocused.
 
I know everybody likes their gunslingers firing flintlock pistols like they're Glocks (or crossbows), but the most memorable and enjoyable way our group ever did a gunslinger was treating firearms like encounter abilities/spells. Basically, you can blow someone away with a 3d10 piercing damage shot from a muzzle-loading pistol, but then it takes three whole turns for it to be reloaded and the ammunition is very expensive and hard to find (read: the gunslinger only carried a certain amount at the start of an adventure and couldn't make more).
The whole "takes three rounds to reload" bit is just how flintlocks worked. Generally, it made more sense to carry multiple pistols back in the day than try to reload during a fight, unless it was a massive battle and you had time. The whole, "you only have a certain amount of shots and can't make more" thing is just overkill and a recipe for making a useless character. Once they run out of bullets, they're basically a shittier fighter.

FFG's Star Wars is pretty darn good honestly. It's just yeah the unique dice are a pain in the ass to translate without a digital roller. It also can result in some real bullshit sometimes. Mainly because it has successes, failures, advantages, and disadvantages. So you can get four or five advantages which improve a roll's result or make things easier, but still fail or do nothing multiple times since you don't get any successes due to failures cancelling them out. Same can happen with advantages and disadvantages mind you, but goddamn do you remember the nonsense result rolls more...

It actually can be hair pulling due to that at times.

WEG Star Wars was pretty solid, but minmaxing in it was pretty easy, though also very punisheable if you monofocused.
The d20 Star Wars RPG: Saga Edition is also very solid and basically functions on a better version of D20 Modern and D&D 3.0 (its based on the "Orcus" prototype of 4e that also led to the creation of Tome of Battle, and is base more on D20 modern, so it skipped a lot of the changes made in the move from 3.0 to 3.5), with all the issues of those systems effectively ironed out. It also has its entire ruleset (along with a lot Homebrew) completely recreated faithfully on its wiki, so you don't even need the books to run it. The benefit of being out of print since Wizards of the Coast lost the license. Its also newer than the older WEG games, so it has a lot of later EU stuff, but it contains none of the bullshit of the newer Disney Star Wars reboot.
 
The whole "takes three rounds to reload" bit is just how flintlocks worked. Generally, it made more sense to carry multiple pistols back in the day than try to reload during a fight, unless it was a massive battle and you had time.
Yes. My point is that everybody tries to make gunslingers like they're bowmen, reloading and firing every round, when in fact they can be a lot more interesting by leaning into the fact firearms were game changers in heavy, frontloaded, relatively easy to aim firepower.

The whole, "you only have a certain amount of shots and can't make more" thing is just overkill and a recipe for making a useless character. Once they run out of bullets, they're basically a shittier fighter.
It worked for us, but in fairness it was 5e. Archetypes have very little impact on classes' power progression to begin with so even when out of ammo the character still had access to Sneak Attack, Expertise, Evasion and all the other general Rogue abilities. It might not sound like much, but a 25-round bandolier usually lasted the character through an entire adventure and it could be resupplied if they were in town and the local apothecary had the right materials. Between that and the archetype giving him tricks that weren't ammunition-dependant (using a pistol like an off-hand club, being able to distill Alchemist's Fire into small 2d6 damage grenades, stuff like that) the player never felt useless.

That campaign ended at level 12, so the 3d10 damage on tap never stopped feeling relevant. Our GM did say he had some ideas for imbued shots (or just harder-hitting bullets) past level 13 but I don't think he ever wrote that whole thing down. I should ask him, actually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghostse
Has anyone ever played the game Twilight: 2000? I love the concept and want to break out of the OSR and 5e ghetto that I've been living in for so long.
@Jet Fuel Johnny Here's your time to shine!
The whole "takes three rounds to reload" bit is just how flintlocks worked. Generally, it made more sense to carry multiple pistols back in the day than try to reload during a fight, unless it was a massive battle and you had time. The whole, "you only have a certain amount of shots and can't make more" thing is just overkill and a recipe for making a useless character. Once they run out of bullets, they're basically a shittier fighter.
Yeah, I didn't actually mind the reloading rules all that much when I made a Gunslinger for Pathfinder 1E, but what really fucking killed the fun for me was a combination of the ammo pricing and the extremely short ranges. You had to be staring someone pretty much in the face to avoid taking a penalty on your to-hit roll, and while you did get to roll against touch AC at those ranges, you've still got to make your attack roll, and even if you hit you've still blown multiple GP on a single close range attack that's going to leave you vulnerable to any follow-ups from the person or their buddies. And the rest of the range brackets were based on those extremely small first range brackets, so you suffered heavily if ranges increased in the slightest, especially since your only advantage of ignoring someone's worn armor was gone.

Oh, and bayonets only counted as finesse weapons when held in your hand (on top of PF1e using the D&D3.5e rules where you needed the feat on top of a weapon being classed as finesse). Sticking them on your musket barrel was entirely counter-productive since the whole thing counted as a spear which wasn't a finesse weapon, and you're a class focused on dexterity for ranged attacks. Oops.
 
The FFG Star Wars RPG line are pretty good. People have given thoughts on it, I'll add mine.

There are actually three lines all using the same system. These are:
Edge of Empire - a line focused around criminals and criminal life, minimal Force stuff. Character careers are all things like "Smuggler", "Hired Gun", etc.
Age of Rebellion - a line focused around rebels and battling the empire., again minimal Force stuff. Character careers are things like Diplomat, Soldier, Spy, etc.
Force and Destiny - a line focused around Force users, Jedi by default but can be reskinned for other options. Character careers are based around Jedi archetypes such as Mystic, Guardian, Consular, etc.

There's a lot of overlap between the lines - an Outlaw Tech from Edge of the Empire is going to have a lot of skills and talents in common with an Engineer from Age of Rebellion. The rules, the background fluff, ship, species and weapon stats - hugely redundant between the game lines. FFG know how to get their money! But that said, whilst there's a significant monetary angle to so much duplication the developers do a decent job of giving some value to it all. The different focuses in the game lines do actually give you a different feel and let you have a slightly better experiencem imo. For example, each game line has a core mechanic that has a narrative and mechanical impact on the group. For Edge of the Empire, that's your Obligation score which rises and falls in a campaign reflecting the criminal world's claws in you. Whilst Age of Rebellion has some sort of Duty score governing standing and impact in the rebellion, requisitions and such. Force and Destiny has the Conflict score which is the sway of Light or Darkside in the party. That's the most overt difference but in general it is nice to have the different game lines. But you'll be burning money if you collect all three and seeing a TONNE of repeated information.

The game system is pretty flexible and plays quickly. It can get a little mentally exhausting thinking up side-effects for actions the whole time. Basically as well as the axis of Succeed-Fail you have the axis of Advantage-Threat. Lets say you roll your Mechanics to open an air lock. You might succeed but roll three threat. Great - you got the airlock open but you damage the seals doing so, it's now not merely open but jammed open. Or lets say you roll to shoot someone, you hit doing damage but you also roll two Advantage as well - great, maybe you activate a special quality of the weapon such as knocking your opponent prone. There are also Triumphs and Despairs which are like next level Advantages and Threats. They can only occur when you use the more powerful Proficiency or Challenge dice. I wont go all into the details but if it sounds complex it isn't. You gain more than you lose from it it and whilst I was initially put off by custom dice I can now see there is actually a lot they bring to the table. I'll give my favourite example of this. There are Force dice which have black and white dots on different facings and when using a Force power, you typically roll Force dice to see how well you do, with white dots being Lightside, black dark. You can choose to use dark if you wish but it can cause Conflict. Here's the nice part though - the total number of Light and Dark points on a Force dice are the same but they are not distributed the same. More sides have dark side points than lightside. But light side points have more double-dots than dark side do. So dark side is more likely to succeed but when light side succeeds it is more likely to succeed well. So is the dark side more powerful? No... easier. ;)

It's that sort of subtle effect you'll find a lot of in the FFG Star Wars line. It's very quick in play. A typically hard system to just outright die in but a fairly easy system to be taken down for the count. In short, it plays very well to the movies with lots of dramatic turn arounds in the story.

Space combat rules are a bit tough to get your head around for most people not because they're complex but because they're so counter-intuitive. And there are some rough edges here and there in the rules. Nothing a GM can't make a reasonable ruling on. On the whole, it's a very good system. Currently being reprinted by Edge Studios, as well. I can talk more in detail about the system if anybody has questions.
 
Currently putting together a Rogue Trader game to take over once our three years in the making Pathfinder 1-20 campaign finishes. So far we've got a noble-born Rogue Trader with an unhealthy interest in xenos, an Arch-Militant backporting the Ogryn rules from Only War with 31 wounds, a best-quality warhammer, and precious little else, a long-suffering Seneschal, a snooty Navigator (redundant), and a Voidmaster whose player's only previous experience with the system was a short-lived Only War game in which his fire team attempted to use a melta charge to breach and clear what turned out to be the promethium storage room.
 
What gods in RPGs are fun or interesting?

I never cared for fictional pantheons, and when a setting book opens with "here's 27 gods, their domains, and who worships them" my eyes glaze over and I skip the section. Which is all the more strange there are entire expansion books on the subject. So far, the only gods I found interesting were in Starfinder. Abadar and Triune. Being the god of money and civilization (and space Amazon) and a machine god that invented The Drift (the games equivalent of The Warp).

I've been told that DnD used to have a god of love that did wedding and matchmaking, but was never mentioned in 5e for being problematic in current year.

There was also a moon god that Spoony said everyone would choose for convention games because they were OP.
 
God /tg/ can be unbearable at times, I came across a thread and saw some people unironically arguing that Tolkien is pagan
What gods in RPGs are fun or interesting?

I never cared for fictional pantheons, and when a setting book opens with "here's 27 gods, their domains, and who worships them" my eyes glaze over and I skip the section. Which is all the more strange there are entire expansion books on the subject. So far, the only gods I found interesting were in Starfinder. Abadar and Triune. Being the god of money and civilization (and space Amazon) and a machine god that invented The Drift (the games equivalent of The Warp).

I've been told that DnD used to have a god of love that did wedding and matchmaking, but was never mentioned in 5e for being problematic in current year.

There was also a moon god that Spoony said everyone would choose for convention games because they were OP.
I prefer to make my own gods, the ones in DnD don't satisfy my interest
 
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Brain Problems
What gods in RPGs are fun or interesting?

I never cared for fictional pantheons, and when a setting book opens with "here's 27 gods, their domains, and who worships them" my eyes glaze over and I skip the section. Which is all the more strange there are entire expansion books on the subject. So far, the only gods I found interesting were in Starfinder. Abadar and Triune. Being the god of money and civilization (and space Amazon) and a machine god that invented The Drift (the games equivalent of The Warp).

I've been told that DnD used to have a god of love that did wedding and matchmaking, but was never mentioned in 5e for being problematic in current year.

There was also a moon god that Spoony said everyone would choose for convention games because they were OP.

For campaigns, I usually take the default 4e pantheon because, minus the knife-ear gods where there are some seams from them bolting on celtic mythology to vaguely greco-roman pantheon, it works pretty well and it covers a good gamut of domains and its pretty easy to tweak the pantheon to where you can gloss over the frictions between the dieties and have it so all the (surviving) gods get along in a Roman sort of way so that by the default the players don't need to murder each other over theology. Or you can exagerate them and really up the olympian drama, petty butthurts, and scheming.

I will brew up my own stable of dieties from time to time.

I am between campaigns right now, so when I do my OSE megadungeons the story is always the characters are encountering these dungeons on a dead world. And scattered in the remains of these dead civilizations are the tombs and bones of their gods, so I'll usually toss an altars or shrines (or a few) to some long dead god I'll make up on the spot - because even a dead god is still powerful beyond mortal reckoning.
 
Back