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

[Tactical Wizard]

That elf is nicely thicc and the samurai has a good design and
*sees a gnome*
NVM. Setting is trash.
0/10

When you see a gnome, never bring them home.

 

[Judge Dredd]

Time for Dice Scum to delve into the golden child of the OSR, Shadowdark! Is it truly that grim and gritty campaign we supposedly always wanted or is it merely a penumbra?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=VWccE8goinw

Not listened to the full thing. I skipped to the last 20 minutes to get your thoughts. And I have opinions.

@Adamska The flavours of the month I think you trying to think of were Shadow of the Demon Lord, Mothership, Black Hack, Five Torches Deep, Forbidden Lands, and maybe Dungeon Crawl Classics. All of these were grimdark DnD killers that didn't really go anywhere, with DCC and Demon Lord being the only ones that stuck around. Maybe Castles and Crusades and Into The Odd could be included as well.

You guys seem to share my opinion that there's nothing really to Shadowdark. It's just a generic OSE/Basic clone. Shadows of the Demon Lord does grimdark DnD already. Want 5e without the license? Tales of the Valiant has you covered. I never really understood OSRs obsession for random tables. Especially when Worlds/Stars without Number do a lot of that stuff already.

As for this being a money grab for various third parties and content creators. I think this is what Deathbringer and Draw Steel will end up being. Draw Steel being the current flavour of the month, and like Shadowdark I never hear about the mechanics. Just that Matt somebody or other made it so it's good by default.


As for the brief tangent about Trench Crusade. Despite the ridiculous astroturfed hype, the game is far from a 40k killer. The real 40k killer is Games Workshop themselves but that's a topic for the 40k thread. Trench Crusade has a number of issues as a business. The 3D printing centric model doesn't really work outside of the 3D printing community. And the lore crosses the line from grimdark to grimderp. ie. It becomes a parody of itself. It's an apt comparison though as none of these DnD killers have come close. Meanwhile the real 40k killers. Bolt Action, One Page Rules, and Star Wars Legion, are poopooed for not being 40k.

TTRPGs are dead, but as far as continuing goes. It's looking like a toss up between Tales of the Valiant or Pathfinder 2. Those are the two non-DnD games that dominate the TTRPG shelves at my FLGS at least.

 

[Ghostse]

OSR is about Random tables because it shakes up the game and lets you abstract the generation of less-important areas and characters. this is how you have a 30-page booklet produce years of content instead of just weeks. This was critical back when you couldn't just google "Fun module free download" or just Yo-ho-ho some legally acquired PDFs.
If the module is well designed, the tables can also be used to subtly communicate things about the setting; what does it mean when there's a 25% chance a commoner is a halfling, but halfings aren't on the random noble table?

There is also stuff like Mazerats and DCC to a lesser degree where the character tables let players make new characters quickly while also shitting on min-maxers.

The issue with a lot OSR creators forget is the tables shouldn't just lol random & quirky. There should be relevance to what you're rolling against. While it can be fun to do a "absolutely zero prep" session where you roll on a table to have the part walk into the tavern and find a Manticore, and the rest of the session being about dealing with that and how it happened, it should events related to moving the quest along.

 

[Paradox Mystic]

While it can be fun to do a "absolutely zero prep" session where you roll on a table to have the part walk into the tavern and find a Manticore, and the rest of the session being about dealing with that and how it happened, it should events related to moving the quest along.

You are right that considering "and this is why this next thing happens and that leads to..." is a valuable piece of advice for adding depth to a game. Otherwise it's just a bunch of random mini-plots instead of having nuanced layers to the story like aftermath and consequences that can lead to more plot.

 

[Adamska]

OSR is about Random tables because it shakes up the game and lets you abstract the generation of less-important areas and characters. this is how you have a 30-page booklet produce years of content instead of just weeks. This was critical back when you couldn't just google "Fun module free download" or just Yo-ho-ho some legally acquired PDFs.

The problem is that most of the tables in Shadowdark were completely worthless, made up over half of the book, and could have been reduced in scale to save page space and you money since the length of the book would shrink down. Encounter tables for all terrains in theory should be good; but not when a d% chart eats two pages for each, and in many cases they give you character names for a setting that does not exist yet; you have to fund that kickstarter first.

I'm also less kind to it mainly because in many cases, guess what? It often just came off like it was copying from donjon's own generators. I was most nettled by their inn generator for that, since the donjon version not only also gave you an inkeeper, but also patrons that gave interesting hooks.

For example, one of the generated patrons was a concerned druid who was looking after some badly injured woodsmen also in the tavern, and that alone already tells you a great hook for that.

And you can also discern and get menu items, determine what accommodations you could get, and whether or not it was a place commoners or adventurers tended to go, meaning you could determine clientele.

The issue with a lot OSR creators forget is the tables shouldn't just lol random & quirky. There should be relevance to what you're rolling against. While it can be fun to do a "absolutely zero prep" session where you roll on a table to have the part walk into the tavern and find a Manticore, and the rest of the session being about dealing with that and how it happened, it should events related to moving the quest along.

About the only table I remember liking was the rumors table, because those are always useful as an adventure hook or to establish plots that will occur later on. Again, the encounters tables were 40 pages long, and I know you can truncate those by a lot.

Most of the other ones were filched from the SRD or from 1e and 2e shit too tbh.

Again, I don't see much of a need for OSR when I can just crack open my Basic and Expert books, which not just explains shit better usually but also did most of the work these apes copy, but they're like five bucks each right now on DrivethuRPG. Or totally findable in a dumpster.

 

[Jet Fuel Johnny]

If you want tables, get some of the old 3.5 hardbacks like DMs Guide 2 or PHB2 or grab PF1E's DMG.

To be honest, the layout was fucking glaring. It was absolutely sloppy and during the 3.X 3PP boom would have been mocked, derided, and laughed at. The formatting was shit, the font was in Reader's Digest Prune Review size, the art was shitty, and the endless tables were just fucking retarded.

Watching that video I'm beginning to suspect that most of these BrOSR and OSR people don't have any ACTUAL play experience. You can absolutely do zero-prep, but their method is retarded. You can do Domain Level Play (Like Risk, only more retarded!!!) but it's retarded. You can do 1:1 time. But it's retarded and limits the game.

All the charts were faggoty, and I play Rifts.

 

[Ghostse]

I'm also less kind to it mainly because in many cases, guess what? It often just came off like it was copying from donjon's own generators. I was most nettled by their inn generator for that, since the donjon version not only also gave you an inkeeper, but also patrons that gave interesting hooks.

For example, one of the generated patrons was a concerned druid who was looking after some badly injured woodsmen also in the tavern, and that alone already tells you a great hook for that.

And you can also discern and get menu items, determine what accommodations you could get, and whether or not it was a place commoners or adventurers tended to go, meaning you could determine clientele.

I guess that's sort of my point is that at some point in CURRENT YEAR you're better off just using a program instead of what would be rolling on a bunch of tables.
Like one of the things I want from my random generators is I often need distinct but not interesting NPCs. That is, NPCs that are not just NPC #1830 but also not "The man talking with the shop keeper is holding an axe dripping with blood and seems ringed in shadows, as he attempts to barter a ring with a skeletal finger still inside" because I know what my players are going to do when they see that
attempt to go get a skeletal finger to put into their ring so they can sell if for more money, and then on the way get distracted by an NPC who figured into an earlier quest but no longer has any role in the adventure

About the only table I remember liking was the rumors table, because those are always useful as an adventure hook or to establish plots that will occur later on. Again, the encounters tables were 40 pages long, and I know you can truncate those by a lot.

That's why I specified "well designed" which a lot of OSR stuff is NOT. A lot of the 70s and 80s tables aren't perfect but given the difficulty of printing, had usually seen extensive playtesting.

 

[AnOminous]

I guess that's sort of my point is that at some point in CURRENT YEAR you're better off just using a program instead of what would be rolling on a bunch of tables.

Even in the early '80s as a kid I wrote a BASIC program for character generation that could use all the normal methods, like rolling 6d6 for every stat (or just the main stat of the chosen character) and throwing out the bottom three.

Or it could do 4d6, drop bottom, or even generate via a points system, where some of it was random and you could also expend a pool of points on your stats (partly borrowed from GURPS).

I didn't always have access to a computer though so often we'd just roll a bunch of dice. I generally allowed players to reject hopeless characters or even just mildly shitty ones. I was not going to toss PCs into a meatgrinder with characters who couldn't do shit.

 

[The Ugly One]

ACKS tables are things Macris designed for use in his own games. They are generally pretty good.

 

[Judge Dredd]

I saw this video today and want to discuss it. Summary in the spoiler.

The video is a list of the top 20 TTRPGs are GenCon based on number of games. The results are both predictable and very surprising. The comments are full of cope trying to argue why the list is wrong. These are just good convention games, the list should've counted the number of players instead of the number of games, etc.

Spoiler: The list

Taken from the comments.

Star Trek Adventures [01:06]
Blade Runner [01:24]
Vaesen [01:31]
Dragonbane [01:51]
Mörk Borg [02:12]
Tales of the Valiant [02:30]
Vast Grimm [02:42]
Vampire: The Masquerade [02:56]
Shadowdark [03:19]
Cipher System [04:44]
Daggerheart [04:44]
Savage Worlds [05:06]
Pirate Borg [05:40]
Shadowrun [06:21]
Avatar Legends [06:51]
Cyberpunk [07:19]
Dungeon Crawl Classics [07:52]
Starfinder [08:41]
Call of Cthulhu [09:08]
Pathfinder [09:48]
Dungeons & Dragons [10:26]

Some, like Savage Worlds, and games with different editions, don't change the outcome. eg. If you combine Savage Worlds and Deadlands, the possition don't change. They would just be places 11 and 10 instead of just 10.

Even if Daggerheart was 10 times more popular, it still wouldn't beat DnD (80 games vs 1300)

Games like Traveler didn't even make the top 20.

My take. I'm surprised to see Savage Worlds got into the top 20 at all. Starfinder being so high was a shock as well, although I assume that's for the SF2 playtest?

It shows how much bullshit is in the internet discourse around these games.

I also find it interesting how all the Free League stuff (except Pirate Borg) are clumped together.

OSR is about Random tables because it shakes up the game and lets you abstract the generation of less-important areas and characters.

I remember some OSR game having a random throne generator.

I use the name table from Knave a lot as all the online random name generators spit out nonsense 9 times out of 10.

 

[Gingervitis]

ACKS tables are things Macris designed for use in his own games. They are generally pretty good.

While we’re speaking about ACKS, I like the stat generation method listed in ACKS II.


I honestly like this better than the AD&D method.

1. You get the same average score, but the higher scores are higher (ensuring baseline competence in at least one class) and the lower scores are lower (which makes games more interesting).
2. It allows for some choice in what you want to play, since nowadays gamers tend to have a character class they want to play, as opposed to letting the dice fall where they may like with 3d6. Yet at the same time, it allows for a randomness that doesn’t exist in the 4d6 method, since you can’t just assign stats wherever you want

If I ever get around to running Swords and Wizardry Complete, I’m gonna use the ACKS stat generation method

 

[The Ugly One]

It also flatly guarantees a decent character, since you're guaranteed at least +1/+0/+0 in three stats of your choice.

 

[Adamska]

If we're talking about character creation methods, I think the method that I most prefer is actually point buy, which the DMG gives as an alternative. Mainly because it allows you to just straight up build the character that you want to make, and no shitting around about that sort of thing. You don't have to constantly worry about mediocre characters created with the 4d6 method. You don't have to worry about extremely lopsided characters. You don't have to worry about extremely anemic characters. You just build what you want to build

You just select the number of points you want to limit yourself on and then make sacrifices as needed. Doing that with 28 or 32 points is a good set to work with.

 

[Mr. Manchester]

If we're talking about character creation methods, I think the method that I most prefer is actually point buy, which the DMG gives as an alternative. Mainly because it allows you to just straight up build the character that you want to make, and no shitting around about that sort of thing. You don't have to constantly worry about mediocre characters created with the 4d6 method. You don't have to worry about extremely lopsided characters. You don't have to worry about extremely anemic characters. You just build what you want to build

You just select the number of points you want to limit yourself on and then make sacrifices as needed. Doing that with 28 or 32 points is a good set to work with.

More and more I've started to lean into that. There is some fun to rolling but there's always someone who ends up with something boring, and then he can't do anything at game or is allowed to roll again until he gets something like point buy anyway. It's also good if the system you're planning on playing is really crunchy, gives you something to fiddle around with when its slow at work.

 

[Halbschwanz]

It's impressive that she hates Elves more than the halfpint hater.

Drow look upon all that is not themselves with contempt. Why are you surprised? I imagine the two bond by coming up with more elaborate slurs for every mutant tiefling they run across.

I honestly like this better than the AD&D method.

Dungeonetics' ability generator does something very similar. It's intended for 3.PF, but I'm sure you could tool it to your D&D stat array of choice. Another fun one I've run across for more old school style games is yin-yang method. You only generate 3 scores with 3d6; your other three are 21 - the results of your rolls. Then either your lowest score becomes an 8 or your highest becomes 17 depending on how you rolled.

 

[The Ugly One]

More and more I've started to lean into that. There is some fun to rolling but there's always someone who ends up with something boring, and then he can't do anything at game or is allowed to roll again until he gets something like point buy anyway. It's also good if the system you're planning on playing is really crunchy, gives you something to fiddle around with when its slow at work.

When the largest possible bonus is +3, it's not a big deal. One of the strongest characters at my table had no bonuses at all.

 

[Ghostse]

While we’re speaking about ACKS, I like the stat generation method listed in ACKS II.
View attachment 7805649
I honestly like this better than the AD&D method.

1. You get the same average score, but the higher scores are higher (ensuring baseline competence in at least one class) and the lower scores are lower (which makes games more interesting).
2. It allows for some choice in what you want to play, since nowadays gamers tend to have a character class they want to play, as opposed to letting the dice fall where they may like with 3d6. Yet at the same time, it allows for a randomness that doesn’t exist in the 4d6 method, since you can’t just assign stats wherever you want

If I ever get around to running Swords and Wizardry Complete, I’m gonna use the ACKS stat generation method

that's an interesting way to handle it. I certainly don't hate it.

If we're talking about character creation methods, I think the method that I most prefer is actually point buy, which the DMG gives as an alternative. Mainly because it allows you to just straight up build the character that you want to make, and no shitting around about that sort of thing. You don't have to constantly worry about mediocre characters created with the 4d6 method. You don't have to worry about extremely lopsided characters. You don't have to worry about extremely anemic characters. You just build what you want to build

You just select the number of points you want to limit yourself on and then make sacrifices as needed. Doing that with 28 or 32 points is a good set to work with.

For me it depends on the game and what I'm playing.

Oneshots and megadungeons for B/X clones, I've just moved to straight pre-gens. It prevents F****S*** and lessens gooners and retards. And since its usually less-experienced people, I've found people behave differently with a "Here is this Sir Pregen, a knight of renown" than whatever they come up with.
So for pregens I'll roll 3d6 6 times and then just fix the scores I don't like.
But if I'm letting people make characters: either 6 4d6 drop lowest or 6 3d6 (reroll ones and sixes) then 3d6 (reroll ones) and you can swap any of those 3 dice with any other die roll. And if you somehow manage to roll all 2's or or something, , expect divine intervention.
Replacement characters are straight 3d6, sucks on a one.

But campaigns for 3e and above (that includes PF), for me point buy is a must. Stats are too important. I wouldn't put up with being in a game a year or more with a gimp character and I don't expect my players to either.

More and more I've started to lean into that. There is some fun to rolling but there's always someone who ends up with something boring, and then he can't do anything at game or is allowed to roll again until he gets something like point buy anyway. It's also good if the system you're planning on playing is really crunchy, gives you something to fiddle around with when its slow at work.

Stats matter much less for B/X games, where combat should be avoided and there are no skills.
Anything with skills, for me point buy is the only way to go.

I'm slowly trying to cook up a system with a Race-Ancestry-Background-Class creation progression system where you'd have some variety but Race (and Ancestry to a lesser degree) would set a starting point that would be modified with background, and with class adding bonuses.

Another fun one I've run across for more old school style games is yin-yang method. You only generate 3 scores with 3d6; your other three are 21 - the results of your rolls. Then either your lowest score becomes an 8 or your highest becomes 17 depending on how you rolled.

I like the concept, and that it implies better scores on 3 attributes came at the cost of focusing on the other.

When the largest possible bonus is +3, it's not a big deal. One of the strongest characters at my table had no bonuses at all.

When the largest bonus is +3 AND it takes a a really shit score to go to below -1.

It shows how much bullshit is in the internet discourse around these games.

No one is going to play traveller as a convention one-shot. Full stop.
I'm going to assume the same for ACKS.

 

[AnOminous]

You just select the number of points you want to limit yourself on and then make sacrifices as needed. Doing that with 28 or 32 points is a good set to work with.

I think sometimes the nature of the game and campaign determines the best chargen method. For instance if I were running an incredibly unforgiving campaign, let's say a brutal AD&D campaign, I'd use the 6d6 keep highest, then arrange according to your desire, and everyone gets to pick one or more perks (or even make up their own within reason), which could be a magic item, a powerful social connection, a signature move, a bespoke spell only they had and could choose to keep secret or get paid to teach it, etc.

I actually wrote a pretty good BASIC program with all the different kinds of AD&D chargens I'd use. Wish I still had it but I lost the 5.25" floppy it was on.

I don't mind a milieu being incredibly hostile and dangerous, and this would be mostly for a no-reroll what you roll is what you get meat grinder. That kind of thing just isn't fun when you don't have something in the way of badass to bring to the table.

I'd do the same thing in CoC but it wasn't as amenable to that.

And then there's Paranoia. In keeping with the pure evil of the setting you got what you got even if it was completely pathetic and doomed. I mean even the best character you could possibly roll was going to die and probably soon.

There's the near pure points system, like GURPS used to be (and maybe still is). Actually GURPS is the only place I've seen this explicitly be the method. And for some reason, GURPS was too autistic for the groups I played with so I never really got to play more than a couple sessions. Everyone thought it had some good ideas but it was just too, well, Generic. I definitely ripped off some ideas from it for other games, and would sometimes use a hybrid of the "roll x number of dice take top three" method and being able to reassign a limited number of points from one stat to another, sometimes for a penalty, i.e. -2 for +1 if it wasn't a class base stat.

 

[Judge Dredd]

No one is going to play traveller as a convention one-shot. Full stop.
I'm going to assume the same for ACKS.

Or more likely, ACKS is completely unknown and no one actually plays it. Same with Castles and Crusades.

At very least, it's a drop in the bucket compared to DnD.

Oneshots and megadungeons for B/X clones, I've just moved to straight pre-gens.

One happy medium I've found is pre-gens with customization.

Basically handing out pre-gens, but allowing them to change their name, appearence, and other details. That way they aren't Sir Pregen, but Sir OC Donut Steel. Gameplay wise they're pregens, but the players don't feel like they're playing Billy McDefault.

More and more I've started to lean into that. There is some fun to rolling but there's always someone who ends up with something boring, and then he can't do anything at game or is allowed to roll again until he gets something like point buy anyway.

Grognards and OSR simps refuse to admit this, but random rolling is and always will be a meme for long campaigns. No matter how much of a hardcore dice-fall-where-they-may old school player they claim to be, there is always salt whenever they level up, roll for HP, and roll a 1. With the table unanimously agreeing to take the average from then on.

Random roll stats are less of an issue, provided they can swap like for like. Again, 4d6-in-order drop the lowest is repeated adnauseum, the instant their fighter rolls crap for strength and con, suddenly the meme is dropped and people ask for any other character creation method.

For what it's worth, I change depending on the game. I like standard array, with Starfinder I think it was having a bunch of arrays to choose from.

 

[Red Dragon]

Basically handing out pre-gens, but allowing them to change their name, appearence, and other details. That way they aren't Sir Pregen, but Sir OC Donut Steel. Gameplay wise they're pregens, but the players don't feel like they're playing Billy McDefault.

This also gets rid of "choice paralysis": the player assumes you're giving him a needed class for the adventure, and is happy to customize the pregen a little bit without worrying too much about the build and stats. This is very effective with new players.