>>187574 Most of the games I've played over my lifetime have been online. There are actually a lot of time-saving advantages to online games, as well as the option of logging sessions. I've found that games played through a chat interface tend to go slower though, since people will take their time to type what they're going to do--so if you can get a group that all agrees to use headsets, you're better off.
I used to use MapTool, but Roll20 seems to be the best option around these days for online playing. Less fiddly about installs, for starters.
My group is kinda weird. We've got 2 remote members (used to live near by) and 4 local members. Nobody wanted to just up and quit, and the local members didn't want to go into a web client for gaming. So what we ended up doing we put the 2 remotes up on the TV in the living room and having all the locals sit in front of it.
We started out with MapTool, but that program always game us issues. We switched to Roll20 and haven't looked back. The only thing bad i have to say about it is that I'd like to make the player pictures bigger (one of the remotes makes great facial expressions) and that's more of a minor quibble than anything else.
If you haven't done the online stuff before I'd suggest starting out with Roll20. I haven't run MapTool in quite some time so they may have fixed it/made it more stable, but there is usually some issue with MapTool that needs troubleshooting at first. That said, I do like MapTool's layout and interface a bit more than Roll20.
>>187632 Its more open source? And Changeling more bugs(and I like bugs) then ponies and having one fumble around the standard Pathfinder world trying to act human could be fun to play.
Unless they are just standard "DnD" Dopplegangers except ponies.(Boring! I want my love-eating bugponything damn it!) I dont know because I cant find the fucking rules!
Also I checked out the free level one adventure: http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/125621/Ponyfinder--Tower-of-Misery It had some weird "Muffin" mode for players who wants to play like the tv show/comic. I like that, could be great for nerd parents playing RPGs with their little girls. True next gen gaming man.
I don't like a lot of what Pathfinder is doing. It sold itself as being a fixed/improved version of 3.5 when truthfully there are actual houserules to 3.5 that're much better than pathfinder (said houserules FYI do tend to include "ban every class in the core books though so that's something) and it's clear that author favoritism is rampant throughout the books setting and lines.
Monks continuously got debuffs for the simple reason that several developers (most notable Sean K Reynolds) simply didn't like Monks and while it debuffed some of the more broken spells in D&D 3.5 it also gave Wizards a whole lot more options and greatly nerfed the effectiveness of other classes by making very small but important tweaks to rules. A major one being that Rogues couldn't sneak attack with splash damage which was one of their most effective strategies. Likewise it did practically nothing to change the fact that a Wizard is still a highly effective toolbox that can win an encounter with 1 successful spell.
On a more personal and Nitpicky note I also don't like its core setting of Golarion because quite frankly the setting lacks consistency or a sense of interconnection. In D&D if you wanna play a Gothic Horror Campaign versus a Noble Bright High Fantasy Epic the game offers you two separate settings that're literally worlds apart and almost never interacted or in some cases simply couldn't. Golarion's response is to have one mega-setting but have each country/general area be its own "brand" of fantasy. Which sounds good on paper but then becomes a complete nightmare when you actually have to think about it for more than 10 minutes and leads to really stupid things like there being a country ruled by Demons and being a blasted wasteland that's right next to Fantasy America (which is so transparently fantasy America they might as well be eating apple pie every day and shit fireworks. You think I'm being hyperbolic but it's literally called the constant revolution and they ride giant bald eagles but I digress).
And do you know what info we have on these two neighboring nations going to war? Or fearing the inevitable invasion from one to the other? Nothing because that would mean they'd have to established a set tone or ideology for the entire setting and fuck if they're doing that. As such we wind up with what I liked to call Fantasy Disneyland syndrome where you have a Bright Futuristic City just a couple miles away from a land of primitive savages that've just learned to sharpen a rock and tie it to a stick and nobody wants to bother explaining why the future guys haven't tried to enlighten these other guys or why these other guys haven't even so much as tried to take a blaster rifle off their neighbors.
But that's a personal nitpick I recognize and may not apply to everyone.
BUT WITH ALL THAT SAID I suppose my biggest miff with PF/D&D 3.5 isn't so much the mechanics but the weird cult of personality they've developed where people assume that because PF/3.5 is costly and investive that all other games are like that when really most other games have done everything in their power to NOT be that.
>>187639 The way I remember it is some dude made this and then it just snowballed all the why to kickstater and now its a offical 3rd party product.
And stupid broken bullshit does make for great story to tell other gamers. Like how the last Pathfinder game one of the guy I will be playing with on sunday had him as some weird Frog Wizard who dropped giant toads on his foes and then turned into the devil to fight the devil. And ofcoure the durf of the groub went into the giant toad's mouth to get his loot back.
Then it was the story I heard a few Calcon's back about a Drakar och Demoner game where the big bad dragon boss triple crit failed super hard while trying to fly into a cave to stop the heroes from looting his hoard with their infinity chest, so that he crashed into the mounting side and died.
>>187648 >all the way to kickstater that is... Also free 4th editon Translation kit: http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/121460/Ponyfinder--4th-Edition-Translation But it dont have the doppleganger rules I need, fuck!
>Like how the last Pathfinder game one of the guy I will be playing with on sunday had him as some weird Frog Wizard who dropped giant toads on his foes and then turned into the devil to fight the devil.
See my issue isn't so much that stupid broken shit CAN happen? It's just...
okay can a fighter or a barbarian or a rogue do something even REMOTELY similar to that in scope/ability? And yet all 3 classes are still presented as though they are comparable to the wizard/cleric/druid?
>have a good GM that give them magic items to compensate then yeah.
See even then that requires an insane amount of adjustment.
The books tell you to give party a split and fair amount of money/gold but if you do then you'll hit a wall of the Fighter saving up to buy boots of flying or whatever to get an ability the wizard can do any time he wants as long as he has a feather while he's spending the gold on items to improve his defense.
Which means that the DM has to basically give all the other martial classes a disproportionately large amount of items which take up different body slots and don't always have stacking benefits, and even then that's a pretty poor patch considering you know what classes are REALLY GOOD AT MAKING MAGICAL ITEMS? Casters. So practically nothing is stopping them from still having the edge.
>But this is not a Pathfinder issue alone, DnD has had this from the start.
Arguable less so in 2e and practically non-existent in 4e but lets not get on THAT subject.
>Magic can do almost anything after all.
HERE'S THE PROBLEM.
Every time I talk about caster supremacy people are always like "OH! BUT MAGIC! MAGIC IS THE PROBLEM! WE HAVE TO ENFORCE THE MAGIC!" and it's like: ASSHOLE YOU INVENTED THE MAGIC!
You MADE the fucking system! It's something you wrote down! If magic is too versatile or covers too many potential problems too easily then fucking change it! Yes nothing is saying magic CAN'T be the ultimate answer to everything, but nothing says that it CAN either.
You can SUPER EASILY make magic less practical to cast! Or at least less of an auto-win button. Hell you can establish clear rules to what magic CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE DO! Because it's magic! It's a blank check! So when it's too disproportionately powerful or good you don't just throw up your hands and say "Oh well! We made it too good! Can't go back now!" you either let fighters be cool martial badasses that can do vaguely mystical things with strength and shit (like with Tome of Battle) or you make wizards weaker!
The problem with casters in D&D is that they are broken by design. Wizards being god-tier and fighters being trash is intentional, because the designers believe that limited classes are for 'limited' players.
Unless you're doing some heavy houseruling or bans, fullcasters in 3.5/Pathfinder are basically unfixable.
Ughh. D&D has systemic problems built into the culture itself. It's even apparent in the fan community of D&D--look how resistant large portions of it are to the very idea that there can be game systems that are better suited to certain types of stories, or that rule changes can affect roleplaying opportunities.
The thing is, despite the fact that the new editions keep coming, I really get the impression that there is this idea that "Things shouldn't ever really change" in D&D culture. They want D&D to be the same game they've been playing since the 70's, despite the fact that the art of the RPG has come a long way since then. Right down to wanting to play the exact same modules they've been playing since then. The very fact that things are different from how they used to be seems to be inexcusable to a very large portion of both D&D's fans and their designers.
I think everyone who plays RPGs should play D&D at least once, like how fans of literature should read the classics. But I find it hard to understand why anyone would want to keep playing it after they've had that experience.
I mean when we get down to brass tacks, what is D&D (and Pathfinder, for that matter), actually GOOD at, relative to other systems? The only thing I can think is that D&D 4th Edition had a pretty good skirmish game in it, with mediocre RPG rules tacked on. That's about it.
>>187671 In all likely-hood no. That said, its still probably going to have a better balance of tacti-fu vs. RP-ablility than 4th. Though this is just the opinion of someone who's only done some moderate reading of the new rules and hasn't actually playtested it.
>>187685 Really? I saw very little in the way of increased emphasis on roleplaying in the rules I read. Back when they were planning to do away with the old skill list and let people come up with backgrounds instead (almost 13th Age style, from my understanding), it looked like they might be doing something, but they decided to nix that when they decided it wasn't nostalgic enough.
I didn't realize D&D 3.5 had an incredibly deep social combat system! ... nooo it's actually about as in depth as 4e's as both ultimately boil down to a skill roll, guess work and roleplaying.
Oh! But you obviously mean D&D 3.5's superb background generation and ways of utilizing NPC's into individual players stories! In which case no again, because if anything 4e was actually better because it actually had backgrounds and themes and shit. And yea those were just stat blocks akin to a race or whatever but they were something.
OH! You mean D&D 3.5's incredible kingdom building mechanics and company management- no it doesn't actually have those either and what little there is of things like that are hand wavy or terrible.
So HOW exactly is D&D 3.5 more "roleplay" oriented than 4e? Cause I mean half the flavor text for spells talks about how they work in combat situations. Most feats are designed to be beneficial for combat scenarios. Hell practically all skills have specific IN COMBAT EFFECTS with the exception of most Charisma skills.
Really the only thing which was KIND OF narrative and roelplayer was like, the Profession skill. In which case woopie I can make a substantially less amount of gold in a few weeks doing boring tedious work than I would if I were actually out doing what a D&D character is suppose to do. Not much incentive there for me game devs.
I really don't get why people say that 4e is this super narrowly focused combat game when D&D has NEVER been one to really focus on things outside of skirmishes and battles. Hell that was where it STARTED.
>>187689 >Mediocre RPG rules compared to what? D&D 3.5?
No. Mediocre RPG rules compared to, Fate or 13th Age or Savage Worlds or whatever other modern RPG you care to name. The state of the art has changed, and D&D has completely ignored most of the new RPG innovations that have come about.
Some friends and I are about to try out 4.0 with Roll20, both things new to all of us.
Before, we've had a 3.5 game that was broadcasting our DM's computer via TwitchTV, and audio via a Skype call. Had it focus on his screen with Photoshop running so he could draw the map and move things easily, with a Rolz.com chat for our dice.
>Gets the 26 something dollar Ponyfinder book as a pdf so that I can play that infiltrating changeling idea I had. >Show it to the GM to see if he cool with it >Thinks its rad and now we are playing that instead normal Pathfinder and my idea is not built for that.
Well horseshit... Good thing I had a plan for this! Crossbow focused Griffon Ranger it is.
It's really telling that even the people into the Old School Revolution are doing way more interesting things with D&D, and that's actually a group of people that say, "Hey, let's just play 1e/2e/Basic again."
>>188605 The first books are due out either this month or next, I think. They've been posting a lot of previews.
The mechanics still seem like retroclones to me for the most part, but they're at least taking note of the idea of opening up the system a bit (although even THAT is a bit of a throwback to d20's Open Gaming License. The way they're talking about it, it'll be a bit more polished than an SRD, but won't contain all the rules or anything. So one step forward, one step back.)--"Basic D&D" is the core of the rules with the four most iconic classes, and will be free on the internet for everyone, for example, and allegedly it will be updated regularly to add more stuff.
The books are going to be EXPENSIVE though. $60 for each of the PHB, DMG, and MM. Though allegedly you don't have to have the DMG or the MM to run a game, and the DMG is going to be more focused on the optional rules modules (like tactical/grid based combat rules, and if they stick to the things they were talking about early on, optional modules like healing surges and class powers as well), so I suspect if we see anything really innovative out of Next, it's going to be in the DMG.
>>189185 Haven't played Savage Worlds, but lately I've fallen so in love with Fate that I would recommend it for anything. Once you really understand the Fate Fractal, it becomes so easy to model anything...
...I think this might be how LISP programmers feel about LISP.
>>189190 I'm knida burnt-out on Sword & Sorcery fantasy at the moment, buuuut as long as its not d20, I'll give it a looksie. I've played other rpg systems, the ones I can remember off the top of my head are Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun, Cthulhutech(bad system, cool fluff, btw), Traveller and Mechwarrior,
>>189191 >Fractal >LISP I have this feeling that I should be afraid.
If you read swedish there is the new Mutant game, År noll. Looking at the back off the box, it felt kind like Gamma world 4e rip off if it was made by Fantasy Flight with cards tokkans, unik dies and all that. Have heard good things about it so I may give it a try when I get the money. Also the trailer is bad ass: //youtube.com/watch?v=NZvgLqcXiZc
To bad they are holding the furr... I mean Mutant Animals for the expantons. Because its not Mutant without the Shotgun wielding moose.
>>189203 >I have this feeling that I should be afraid. Not really! It's actually quite simple and elegant. The Fate Fractal is just that, in Fate, the GM can stat out anything as a character, or as a partial character. Including elements of characters like their aspects or stunts.
It makes modelling weird gameplay elements very intuitive, and it means there's a lot less scotch tape necessary to bring in new gameplay elements that weren't built into the system.
>>189211 To give an example-- Okay, let's say you're playing some sort of Urban Fantasy story, with gangs and a situation where the City itself is a major and looming thing over every story. In addition to individual members of the gang being characters, the gangs themselves could be characters--they would have their own aspects and stunts, and stress tracks that could be used to measure their influence in city politics or the amount of territory they control. They can have skills, and they need not be the same skills normal characters have--a gang might only have skills like MEMBERS, RESOURCES, and INFLUENCE, or something like that, which you can rate however you might want to. The status of the Gang character can then be used to affect how the adventure goes--because the STREET WOLVES now have less influence than THE ALPHAS, now the streets of Chicago are safer from supernatural predators.
But on top of that, the city can also be statted out as a character, with stress tracks related to different things you might want to keep track of, like a Corruption stress track, or a Treasury stress track, and Aspects representing looming threats or major players in the city that control everything.
But you can also go in the other direction. Like say one of your characters has an aspect of AMAZING ROBOT ARMOR. You can stat up that Aspect as a character, with its own set of stress and skills and aspects, that the player can use when wearing that armor in place of their own stats. Or so on and so forth.
I personally haven't done much role-playing, mostly just some Star Wars with my brother's friends years ago. I don't think I'll be able to get back to it unless it's online any time soon, but I figure it might be interesting to note that part of what attracted me to tabletop gaming was how video games were getting too streamlined and simplistic for my liking at the time. Tabletop games seemed like a nice way to play something that allows for things to get a bit hairy with the mechanistic systems.
So when D&D 4 was advertised as being streamlined and video game inspired, it didn't really help draw me further into pen and paper. Though after further consideration, I would think it should be video role playing games that should be more simulation-based anyway. I mean, they can roll dice and crunch numbers so fast that anything remotely feasibly via hand calculation should be a breeze for it, while the narrative aspects are specifically a weak point in that computer GMs are notoriously lacking in improvisation skills.
I guess I'm mostly just wondering why there's no video game based on Rolemaster or something when automating vast charts and tables, is in fact, the first thing computers were used for. They're even named after a job which consists of doing just that. There is Dwarf Fortress, but that doesn't seem to have the kind of sensibilities I would go for. So I should probably just like make game and try build such a system myself when I have the experience to handle something like that.
>>189212 You know, this anything-as-a-character concept sounds useful for creative writing in general, thanks for a nice method of nailing down specific details.
So against my better judgement I read up on Iron Claw.
And... I don't get it.
Like what is this game for? Okay hear me out. Most furries who'd hear that there's a fantasy roleplaying game catered to them would think "GREAT LET THE YIFFING BEGIN!"
But there would ALSO be furries who'd think "Awesome! I can play Kung-Fu Panda/Disney's Robin Hood the game!" and the books artwork showcases this. The book looks like it'd let you play a nice cartoon action/adventure game but HOLY HELL THESE COMBAT MECHANICS.
You think Dark Heresey is Lethal? You think ORE or GURPS is Lethal? Look at this fucking shit. The moment you get hit you're given a near debilitating penalty and every hit after that just means you get fucked up worse! Six damage not only fucking kills you it, it kills you in such a brutally horrific way all of your allies become TERRIFIED after watching you get mutilated.
Think about that for a second. In most ANY OTHER GAME you have some manner of saving grace with HP. A moment where you're taking damage but you're still for lack of a better term "stable" and don't suffer from any penalties or disadvantages. Here no such luck. The moment you get hit you better fucking hope you have friends or the ability to instantly rush and respond in kind or else you're fucking dead.
And I just can't help but wonder... why? Who is this game for? I can't imagine a lot of furries are into grim and lethal combat where a single hit means terror and facing the grim reaper. And people who're INTO super grim and lethal fantasy games probably wouldn't play this much cause... well freaking furries!
I guess this game will satisfy Guro Furries or those really dementedly crazed hardcore furry haters but outside of those two groups I don't get who this game is trying to appeal to.
>>189751 I guess it's for Watership Down tabletop? If enemies face the same rules, it could be satisfying to overkill a boss just to ensure you can spare the underlings by making them too afraid to fight while you walk away. Also sounds like good rules for a tactics game.
The thing is the art isn't BAD? Like it's furry art. The cover art is kinda terrible but the interior art actually has some pretty good pieces that look like they'd be concept art for a Disney/Dreamworks film.
My D&D group is more-or-less dead now. It's an empty victory. I got a lil' bit Stockholm Syndrome towards the end. I squeezed out fun, in spite of the personal friction I had with the entire group. I'm hopeful that my next group will use a system I don't hate.
>>193550 3.5 I would have been ok with Pathfinder or 4E, but wechoose 3.5 because it was the system the most people were familiar with. It also happend to be the system we had more than one copy of the players handbook or core rules.
Between 3.5 and 4th, yes. 4th Ed takes place sometime after 3.5, so some of the gods from before are dead, some are stronger, some are different and there's changes to a few locations. It's not well done, especially since they tried to tie in stuff like the Dragonborn from Eberron and changing the Eladrin
Pathfinder's an entirely different universe, mind, but what little I've read sounds like it's several campaign settings, all on one world/continent and that doesn't sound especially plausible, but I only recently bought the Core Rulebook for that, so I'm not totally familiar with it, yet.
>>193575 5E does look good. More so now that I saw an Eberron addon for it.
>>193576 There are some other changes in Pathfinder that I like. Especially the class customization and lack of dead levels. The full caster being 'da bes' is really just a flaw that 4E tackled the best. I also happen to like Pathfinders setting.
Remember that griffon kickstarer? ITS OUT! Digitaly anyway: http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=142575&
But if you dont know if this is for out check out this instead: http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/142867/Ponyfinder--Flights-of-Honor-Pegasi-of-Everglow Great place to start with Ponyfinder and see if the land of Everglow and its lore is something for you. And its only a buck so what do you have to lose.(a dollar plus time but whatever)
Also if you dont like Pathfinder rules then check this: http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=142575& Its just stat without any lore but hey, atleast the Changlings/doppleganger are in this one unlike the 4th translation... Anyway, I hope you find something you like. G'night!
Guys I'm afraid I'm making my DM mad. We play on weekdays, I dunno why but weekends are never an option. So when we are playing I also have my regular job here and there so I try to do my part beatween little tasks, obviously that is very tiresom plus he's pretty bad narrating, its hard to explain but he just not specific enough so I become confused very easly and all my mistakes are driving him mad, apologiziing just makes him madder and I don't want to make my job and his terrible style an excuse.
As long as we're talking DND, I'll toss something out here.
I'm not a huge fan of the 5th edition rules in general. I feel like it's basically just Pathfinder 2, and for the sake of the people who disliked 4th edition, sacrificed a lot of the genuine improvements that 4th Edition made--there were plenty of missteps with 4th Edition, but not every choice they made was a bad one, and they shouldn't have thrown everything out so easily just because of nerds not wanting to change.
All that being said: the Dungeon Master's Guide and the Monster Manual for 5th Edition are both really good. The DMG is probably the best DMG they've ever put out, and I think it's a pretty solid purchase even for people who aren't going to run a D&D game due to the degree to which it focuses on how to run a tabletop game, a lot of which is just good advice regardless of what system you're working in and what setting you're using. And the Monster Manual, while a little more system specific, is just really dense with useful information. Probably manages to have more content in one book than all three of the basic monster manuals from 4th Edition.
>>195129 I really like 5e's rules (but then it's my first DnD). I totally agree that the DMG and Monster Manual are extremely interesting even outside of running games, and have a ton of support and information that could help a person that isn't even working with DnD. I've applied lots of it to other more freeform games I do, and I spent way too much time just reading about all the lore in the Monster Manual and the unique mechanics monsters get. Usually DnD used to be so intimidating, both 3.5 and 4e, but for some reason 5e really grabbed me.
>play DnD wrath of ashardalon at local game club >healer runs off by him self and then makes fun of the rest of when we get owned by traps and mobs and how he is winning >in a co-op board game //youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI
>Be GM >Organize Pathfinder campaign on the gamefinder thread >Lots of people drop off because scheduling conflicts >Finally sit to play >2 out of 3 players disconnect and block me on skype because they got bored >MFW
>start a new campaign with friends. >roll paladin >others roll a fighter specializing in throwing things, a war priest and some third thing. >our first job is to rescue some hostages trapped in an underwater cave >I'm the only one with any swim skills, so I have to lead >roll a seventeen >all three other people crit fail >they all drown while I barely manage to fight the current and their dead weight, drag their corpses to shore, pass out. >a bear comes out of the woods and carries the smaller guy away, dragging the rest of us because of the tow rope.
>>197051 Then why is my party getting its ass kicked?
The answser is: we are level 1, have 2 rangers,no dedicted healer(the GM was nice enough to give us a wand of cure wound) and a hobgoblin fighter played by a 13 year old asshat. Good times but I still glad the new boardgame store guys started a DnD5 group I got in on.
>>197052 My last group left me such bitter feeling about pathfinder. I tried look up for another on /tg/'s gamefinder threads but they disconnected and blocked me when they got bored. I'm so sad right now.
So I'm stirring around this idea. Streaming Boardgames on Twitch using a very thematic setup. Pretty much an interactive play. Anyone know if Twitch has Dice roller functionality or a plugin cane be worked into it. Picking twitch mainly because that is where I know a fair number of people that might show interest.
>mfw I've been asked to a Pathfinder game, and the GM wants me there an hour early to go over my character sheet with me I understand wanting to be prepared, but who the fuck wants to do that at 10 in the morning?
One of my worst habits was being late to a game constantly. Still is if I'm not careful, was part of a big conflict in my group that nearly broke up the session. Though we'd show up at around 12:00 or 1:00, not 10:00 or 11:00.
GOOD NEWS EVERYONE! That Hobgoblin asshat has been taken care off. I gave him a sturn talking too. When he started singing loudly when we where trying to sneak. Then the one and a half elfs tied him up a left him for dead intill he got lose and instead of coming to our aid agains the undead that jumped us during this, he runs away so the elf not getting mauled right now decides to try and shot him. It just fucks his ear up.
Given that he is LE, gave a notes to the gm and stayed post game to rolling a new character, it will not be the last time we see of him but he is atlest out of the party. But being a bastard I did wright "we when this way ->" next to a fire rune trapped door we could not open before going in the opposit directions. Can't wait to see how that plays out.
Also DnD is going great and the new Ponyfinder book is making it streach goals. Good times.
Does anybody know of any RPGs that don't have a combat system, or at least don't consider the #1 solution to any problem "Smack it until it dies"? One of the people in my roleplaying club is trying to start a "RPGs for kids" group, and she doesn't want to encourage the murderhobo mentality...
>>197814 Fate has a combat system, but that's not the focus of the game or even necessarily something that has to come up at all. In fact, it makes it clear that those conflict rules can just as easily be used for social conflicts rather than physical conflicts, with the stakes just as high (whether we're talking physical or mental, conflicts end with opponents being "taken out," which just means the one who took them out gets to decide their fate as long as it makes sense--in a battle, that fate could be killed, or knocked out, or fell off a cliff to uncertain fate--in a mental conflict it could be running off in embarrassment, or being dragged off in ignomity, or whatever).
Fiasco might also work, though that's built with the assumption that things are going to go like a Coen Brothers movie, which often does involve a lot of death--but that's not necessarily built into the rules, just how the playsets usually tend to get used.
>>197818 You underestimate how easy it is for kids to be murderhobos; apparently, the friend who asked tried running a FFG Star Wars game that was all-Jedi, and they still went Tarantino on a couple of NPCs. Kids don't really understand death, so it's not too surprising. I'm looking more for something like Ryuutama or Little Wizards. >>197819 Not sure how a game about controlling a schizophrenic would go down with kids... >>197822 >giving Mongoose money ... Why?
>>197814 Toon has violence, but because it's slapstick characters just fundamentally don't die. I could see a creative animator (what the game calls the GM) finding ways to skirt that for the sake of story by bringing back characters as bedsheet ghosts and such when appropriate, but not a player causing death of their own accord.
So my gaming group is re-coalescing back together. We are going to start with Mechwarrior/Battletech and then D&D 5th edition after a session of so, and then flib back and forth between the campaigns. Not my idea to flip-flop, but hopefully it starves off the fatigue, but I can't help but think it might make the group forget what characters they are playing. I'm just glad that it isn't 3.5 again.
>>199139 >Is GURPS still the one to go with for custom stuff. > Personally, I'd say Fate is best for custom stuff, at least if it's narrative driven. But GURPS and Fate come from very different mindsets about roleplaying. GURPS is much more crunchy and rules-oriented and Fate is much more story-oriented.
They've already hit their main goal so now its all stretch goals for a couple of weeks. Also they have a social goal thing set up to release an art/universe lore book that all backers will get for free, something I really hope works out personally.
>>200731 Who else is a massive lorefag in general? When I backed the Sentinels of the Multiverse kickstarters it was one of the parts I was most interested in, such as finally seeing the appearance of the 'cosmic villain' of the setting which the entire climactic event/expansion is based around and the whole game has been leading up to, and seeing all these new versions of the characters from different timelines or alternate universes teaming up with the base cast to face him in classic comicbook style.
I've been playing some Valor lately, and I'm having a blast with it. It's an indie system that was on Kickstarter last year, and it's designed to emulate the feel of big dumb anime battles - Dragonball, One Piece, Gurren Lagann, that sort of thing. The interesting thing about it is that there's no prebaked spell list, and no generic attack action; instead, you create your own combat Techniques using a point-buy system.
You combine a Core with a set of modifiers to create a custom ability. A core is the technique's basic function; Damage, or Healing, for example, do exactly what they sound like. Modifiers can change how the technique targets, giving it AOE or range, or change its effect. You're capped on how many points you can put into a single technique, though, so the more modifiers you throw on, the less powerful the core effect can be. Finally, you can impose Limits to it, which restrict how often and on whom you can use the technique, in exchange for lowering the stamina cost per use.
It's really customizable, without being as hilariously unbalanced as a lot of point-buy systems can be. I've seen people use it to run campaigns based on Dragonball, One Piece, Persona and Green Lantern Corps, and they've all been hype as shit. I've also statted up the Crystal Gems for fun. It's a really fun and versatile system.
If you want to check it out, head to their website: http://valorousgames.com/. You can download a 20-page preview which contains all of the core mechanics (but not the rules for creating techniques, sadly).
Full disclosure: I'm friends with one of the people who made it, and passing acquaintances with the other one. I'd still recommend it even if I wasn't, though. It's great.
What if the internet was a setting? Like will websites be physical places or be more like factions? And what would online phenomena be like? what about other stuff in the cyberspace like virii? Also should this setting be isolated or be like a VR game?
Why is there all this buzz over Cowboy Bebop again in recent times? https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2021-10-12/official-cowboy-bebop-tabletop-role-playing-game-to-launch-kickstarter-in-2022/.178364
>>199323 The Oblivaeon game mode does my tits in, just too much bullshit involved for my old man brain to handle.
Curious how their new edition of Sentinels of the Multiverse plays like. The rules are being completely revamped and they are adding new heroes, villains and environments as content. Mainly the whole thing seems like an opportunity to make earlier mechanically inferior heroes more practical.
I finally have a stable DnD group. It's 5e because that's really easy for newbies to learn so recruiting isn't hard for it.
We have life and twilight clerics, a swarmkeeper ranger, an armorer artificier, and two aberrant mind sorcerers, because we all made our characters without contacting one another. But we do have no small amount of magic available to us.
The group has also been a bit troubled from the start, a lot of one and done players and people who come and go, so only the ranger and the life cleric have been consistent from the beginning.
The life cleric is basically Nacho Libre by design, but mostly just hangs about and follows commands. He's also the DM, so that sort of works out. High wisdom basically means we're constantly asking him what his human eyes see. The Ranger is your general manic child of a gnome, whose more weary than curious. She basically reads like what you'd think a traumatized gnome would: curious but hostile to everything they're investigating and throwing lots of rocks. Otherwise, they collect animals and fairies and things and it's really cute. The Twilight Cleric is basically just there for the combat, but essentially doesn't display any real character outside of that. They are a really good rules lawyer and great DPS, but don't talk a lot outside of that. The other characters all react like he's a gloomy goth guy, which really sort of works for the subclass. Our Artificier is a warforged that was created as slave labor to build a house and was then left in a closet for approximately thirty years, so comes across as very socially maladapted and near autistic, so the player has made it the party's role to basically be their family and raise them into a functioning being. It's a pretty fun bit of roleplaying because they aren't just the negative aspects of this sort of archtype. They're generous to a fault because they were taught to share and it's led to some really funny things were he collects everything and is just constantly giving silly gifts like beaver pelts and fancy clothes and treating them as equally cool. He's high intelligence and basically it's a matter of adding nuance to things and explaining how empathy actually works. The first Aberrant Mind Sorcerer is a half-orc that believes herself to be a wizard. She's very bookish, but not the sharpest tool in the shed. Does great theatrical descriptions of her magic, too. Like, she had me upping mine to match. She also eats books as part of her "I'm a wizard" schtick, so we're getting her new ones occasionally. You have to prod her for any interaction that she might have an opinion on. She's the newest, so she might just not be confident yet. And I'm playing an Amethyst Dragonborn Aberrant Mind Sorcerer, just because I wanted to roleplay something very psychic. I've also ended up the party leader and face because I wanted to be a very decisive character. They are a posh and shiny lizard that mostly tries to take care of the other characters and reacts to the relative sociopathy of the rest of the party. Not that he hasn't done some questionable things, but he generally deliberates them more than others and puts a stop to a lot of crazier stuff. He also has a family and husband a clutch of donated eggs getting ready to hatch back home. Also, sometimes skips fights entirely through talking to things, which the DM and Party have informed me is the only reason we survive some dungeons. So, that's why I don't feel bad and am proud of it.
Anyway, I joined halfways through the Lost Mine of Phandelver, and now we're doing Curse of Straud a bit overleveled at the start. I seem to be the only one really interested in getting home, since everyone else went with the homeless wanderer adventurer archtype.
>>423871 >We have life and twilight clerics, a swarmkeeper ranger, an armorer artificier, and two aberrant mind sorcerers I've not kept up up with D&D for editions now so these terms are just bizarre to me.
>>423873 Well, you have your main class which is the basic stuff: cleric, wizard, fighter, etc. These offer the majority of functions for a class, usually.
Then there's the archetype, which is usually chosen between levels 1-3 in a class and offer additional abilities. It has different names per class, but that's essentially it. Does the wizard specialize in necromancy, evocation, hitting things with a sword, etc.? That's a decision made at level 2. Fighters decide whether they're a psychic, mage, expert strategist, etc. at level 3. They're also fluffed different ways and can massively impact builds. You only get 1 archetype per class, too. It's a critical decision that can tell you more about a character than their class a lot of the time.
Also, it can muddy the waters somewhat. You can have characters that are warlocks or paladins to the same diety and they'll still play differently, but could have the same fluff because certain archtypes enable that. Saying someone is an Oath of Redemption Paladin or a Warlock with a Celestial Patron just shifts the mechanics a bit.
>>420295 Primarily dwarf parties would be a cool thing to see more of in fantasy media. It makes it strange mentioning Tolkien that it caused focused elfwanking to take off when the previous story of the Hobbit was mostly dwarfs and then one hobbit with guest appearances by Gandalf. But then again its not like they were portrayed as cool and competent adventurers/heroes unlike the members of the fellowship or tolkien elves in general.
>>425294 The original AD&D Dog-faced Kobold. 3.5 & 4e's hyperfixation on dragons and monsters looking overly pointy and angry gave my an appreciation of the older edition's diversity of weird looking critters. The point of kobolds were that they were basically cave fodder; not first round mobs for a dragon boss battle.