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

[Active User]

People have said the X card is a poor substitution for being more assertive or confrontational, and while that's true there ultimately always are going to be people who for whatever reason are going to find it far easier to slip in a card as their objection rather than saying it themselves. It's no substitute for just clearly establishing what people are and aren't okay with for anything long term, but I don't think there's no place for the thing when playing with randoms.

As for the disabled characters, I generally end up playing with settings where healing's a lot scarcer and injuries can stick around, so I've had quite a few whether from the outset or through gameplay. It would seem to completely defeat the point to want to play a disabled character who's effectively not disabled at all. I don't really get it, that doesn't even make sense for representation purposes because what disabled people would relate to about this stuff is the very real struggles and impediments they face due to their conditions. A disability that doesn't compromise one's ability at all is too inauthentic to really see yourself in, and I can't imagine that disabled people looking for a power fantasy wouldn't just make characters who aren't disabled.

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

Magic trivializes this retarded idea of the chair. Much like how it trivializes transexuality. There's a spell you can actually enchant into an item to fix the latter.

Magic trivializes every problem tho.

 

[Corn Flakes]

People have said the X card is a poor substitution for being more assertive or confrontational, and while that's true there ultimately always are going to be people who for whatever reason are going to find it far easier to slip in a card as their objection rather than saying it themselves. It's no substitute for just clearly establishing what people are and aren't okay with for anything long term, but I don't think there's no place for the thing when playing with randoms.

RPGs are social games. If you don't have the social skills to be able to go "that was a bit much, man" with even a modicum of tact, you really should be working more on that rather than reaching for shit like X cards. And if you can't take someone else going "I didn't like that" without sperging out about how they're a pussy (I've seen that happening before), you've got to work on your social skills as well.

X cards are an invention from people for whom gatekeeping is a sin. They exist so people don't have to improve and instead get other people to cater to them. It's on the GM to specify the level of shock they intend to have in their campaign, and it's on the players to pay attention to it. And if someone does get blindsided and feels bad about it, we can all talk about it and resolve the situation like the adults we all presumably are. Yeah, it's not going to make Adamska's friend less green around the gills, but it'll hopefully prevent it from happening again and everybody has learned something about it. (And now @Adamska and his group have an interesting story to tell.)

Simply slapping down an X card on the table means nothing gets discussed and nobody has learned. Even among the woke PBTA crowd: they say the X card is about "fostering conversations and avoiding unpleasant situations" but whenever you see them actually using it they do it like it's a Uno reverse card. The GM just looks at it, shrugs/sighs, and awkwardly retcons what they just said.

 

[Battlefield2142EU]

If post Gary Gygax TSR listened Jim Ward. TSR could’ve brought Magic the gathering or WOTC outright when the company was still new.

 

[anti SJW]

Best session 0 ever.

 

[Mexican_Wizard_711]

A Question for those who GM, has anyone here ever used an X-Card or any other of these so-called "safety tools" for their game?

Nope, since such things are tailored made for people who can't handle anything more offensive than a Critical Role type game (Daggerhearts, MCDM, Lancer etc)

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

I think the concept within reason could be interesting like a zombie PC or something, but it would definitely need to be something that you’d have to run by the DM.

The only real issue with Monster PCs, and non-human PCs in general, in 3.5e was Level Adjustment, probably the single worst idea they introduced in that edition. It made many otherwise completely viable monster races from past editions unplayable unless you went out of your way to houserule it away or use the Unearthed Arcana rules to buy it off, though some monsters/non-humans weren't all that negatively effected by it.

 

[Mr. Manchester]

The only real issue with Monster PCs, and non-human PCs in general, in 3.5e was Level Adjustment, probably the single worst idea they introduced in that edition. It made many otherwise completely viable monster races from past editions unplayable unless you went out of your way to houserule it away or use the Unearthed Arcana rules to buy it off, though some monsters/non-humans weren't all that negatively effected by it.

I remember that playing a tiefling was almost always a terrible option because you straight up lost a level. The only time it's been a remotely good idea was if you planned on casting polymorph a lot since tieflings had the outsider type and RAW meant they could polymorph into other outsiders. Technically they should have been proficient in all weapons and were immune to some stuff too, but I don't remember everything and I bet there was an errata.

Speaking of polymorph, I remember casting it on the party rogue while they were in a flank giving them something like 8 attacks which could all throw sneak attack dice.

God polymorph was broken, I miss it.

 

[Ghostse]

RPGs are social games. If you don't have the social skills to be able to go "that was a bit much, man" with even a modicum of tact, you really should be working more on that rather than reaching for shit like X cards. And if you can't take someone else going "I didn't like that" without sperging out about how they're a pussy (I've seen that happening before), you've got to work on your social skills as well.

X cards [ ... ] exist so people don't have to improve and instead get other people to cater to them.

Exactly this.

 

[MISTER-CREEPMAN00]

Probably an unnecessary nit-pick, but after seeing some games held by /tg/ users. Has anyone else that most /tg/ ttrpg games are usually some variant of: "Piece of Media made popular by the Algorithm and YouTubers", "GM literally either ripping it off with serial numbers filed off or asking for a system to emulate said setting". I get the feeling that some people are too uncreative to make their own setting.

 

[Atypical Dog]

Probably an unnecessary nit-pick, but after seeing some games held by /tg/ users. Has anyone else that most /tg/ ttrpg games are usually some variant of: "Piece of Media made popular by the Algorithm and YouTubers", "GM literally either ripping it off with serial numbers filed off or asking for a system to emulate said setting". I get the feeling that some people are too uncreative to make their own setting.

Just ripping off an existing system is easy and low-effort if all you want to do is run a game. I think /tg/ nerds have it worse since they feel like they should try to make the setting "consistent" and "reasonable"and try to make the worldbuilding cohesive.

Personally, I steal without restraint. I just wanna roll dice and laugh at the results, simple as.

 

[Battlefield2142EU]

i have never seen this amount of damage control over DaggerHeart by DND youtubers. If the community had balls, this would've become a Gamergate-like event. Youtubers, for financial or political reasons, are doing damage control. I shouldn't tell what someone's political affiliation if they are defending Critical Role or not.

 

[Mexican_Wizard_711]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=aczfNW3x3yUhttps://youtube.com/watch?v=GoZCJFn3P08https://youtube.com/watch?v=iQHamkkTD6whttps://youtube.com/watch?v=4DRMI9op9Zwi have never seen this amount of damage control over DaggerHeart by DND youtubers. If the community had balls, this would've become a Gamergate-like event. Youtubers, for financial or political reasons, are doing damage control. I shouldn't tell what someone's political affiliation if they are defending Critical Role or not.

I heard that Daggerhearts is even worse than Candela Obscura, don't know why the "community" thinks it's going the one RPG to finally kill DnD

 

[Abella]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=aczfNW3x3yUhttps://youtube.com/watch?v=GoZCJFn3P08https://youtube.com/watch?v=iQHamkkTD6whttps://youtube.com/watch?v=4DRMI9op9Zwi have never seen this amount of damage control over DaggerHeart by DND youtubers. If the community had balls, this would've become a Gamergate-like event. Youtubers, for financial or political reasons, are doing damage control. I shouldn't tell what someone's political affiliation if they are defending Critical Role or not.

That DnD shorts is a soy elemental. I don’t know what it is with DnD YouTubers being soy elementals.

 

[AnOminous]

The player did when the Barbarian was vividly described in detail about how he was experiencing the agony of dissolving in the gastric acid and cleaving into the walls of the stomach to rip his way out. It was specifically the injuries faced as this happened that procced the squick-out. They did not just sit there and take it and told the GM as soon as that happened.

X Cards are still faggotry. Real humans respond to such nonsense with this:

Personally if some fag pulled out an X card I'd just eject them from the game.

 

[Adamska]

I heard that Daggerhearts is even worse than Candela Obscura, don't know why the "community" thinks it's going the one RPG to finally kill DnD

Copium and delusions. There's a few viable options that COULD break DnD, but Daggerhearts ain't fuckin' it. It legitimately requires you to use cards in constructing your character, and that's something that WILL crater sales. TTRPG nerds tend to not like card systems and prefer dice; it's actually a major reason why Warhammer Fantasy 3e failed so badly. Also it is begging for monetization from card packs and expansions down that front, which yeah... no.

Also it's more restrictive, uncreative, and the dice system is actual fucking garbage. DMs will consistently either under DC or over DC the challenge, and that's not even getting into the fuck you aspect of the dice where you hope the fear dice is lower than your hope dice.

 

[Corn Flakes]

X Cards are still faggotry. Real humans respond to such nonsense with this:
View attachment 5835881
Personally if some fag pulled out an X card I'd just eject them from the game.

Pretty much.

Gatekeeping is necessary to keep a game running smoothly and a community from breaking up. And I don't even mean ideological gatekeeping. I'm talking about making sure everybody involved has the basic skills to:

1. enjoy the game, and
2. not ruin the experience for everyone else.

Someone getting a little shaken by a gruesome description or a shocking theme is not a problem, so long as they have the emotional maturity and social skills not to make a huge deal out of it. And the other people around the table also need a minimum of emotional maturity and social skills in order to understand the problem and work with the person towards a solution. Sometimes the solution is simply "welp, we didn't know that", and the player might even have to leave if their issue is with a central theme or element to the campaign. The GM also needs to be mature and intelligent enough to know what he's doing and warn people on sign-up. Smacking players in the face with a detailed description of how the princess was eviscerated by the cultist high-priest when the game was pitched as a lighthearted, high-fantasy adventure is doing a shitty job as a GM and will leave the players thinking you're letting a Magical Realm peek through.

X-cards are the equivalent of racing enthusiasts arguing that people who can't drive should be allowed to compete in NASCAR, with a button in their car that forces whoever is in front of them to yield or they get DQ'd. It's a ridiculous idea. Retarded, even. It's trying to find ways to get people who shouldn't be playing into games they wouldn't be having fun with.

"Oh, but Corn Flakes, you bowl of amaizeing unfrosted wisdom! Do we just leave these people out? What if they're good people and just want to try out the game?!"

That's why good intro games and competent GMs are so important when you're dealing with newbies. When my GM and I run our demo games, the adventures are usually pretty innocuous. There are usually one or two hints at harder subjects (usually some innocent people getting killed) but we don't dwell on it. We just make sure that new players know that we're doing it deliberately. That some stories will go much harder on the grit and horror, while others stick to a more idealized view of adventuring. And that it's on the players to find the games they want to belong to, and on the GMs to advertise them properly.

That usually disabuses them of any notions of being catered to and establishes that they have the power to look for the games they want instead.

 

[The Ugly One]

People have said the X card is a poor substitution for being more assertive or confrontational, and while that's true there ultimately always are going to be people who for whatever reason are going to find it far easier to slip in a card as their objection rather than saying it themselves. It's no substitute for just clearly establishing what people are and aren't okay with for anything long term, but I don't think there's no place for the thing when playing with randoms.

As for the disabled characters, I generally end up playing with settings where healing's a lot scarcer and injuries can stick around, so I've had quite a few whether from the outset or through gameplay. It would seem to completely defeat the point to want to play a disabled character who's effectively not disabled at all. I don't really get it, that doesn't even make sense for representation purposes because what disabled people would relate to about this stuff is the very real struggles and impediments they face due to their conditions. A disability that doesn't compromise one's ability at all is too inauthentic to really see yourself in, and I can't imagine that disabled people looking for a power fantasy wouldn't just make characters who aren't disabled.

In ACKS, there are rules for disability. Every time your character goes to negative HP and is restored, you roll on the Mortal Wounds table. You might just get bruised...but you also might lose an eye or die. If you get crippled, you're, well, crippled. You don't get some Battle Eyepatch that gives you normal vision. Some effects:

"You are blinded (-4 to all saving throws, no line of sight for spells, movement reduced to 1/4 normal, -2 to surprise rolls)."

"One of your arms is severed or crushed (cannot climb, use shields, dual wield, or use two handed weapons)."

"Both your legs are severed or crushed (DEX reduced to 3 for AC purposes, two crutches required, movement reduced by 60', cannot force march)."

Being handicapped is a, uh, handicap. It's not an aesthetic choice.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=S3PwSzVtlj4If post Gary Gygax TSR listened Jim Ward. TSR could’ve brought Magic the gathering or WOTC outright when the company was still new.

Imagine how rich Lorraine Williams could have made herself if she'd had WotC buy the rights to make a Buck Rogers CCG with royalties paid based on print runs, not sales. After she loaded up the company with debt and rotated into her personal bank account via ridiculously lopsided deals she made with herself, I wonder if anyone would step in to try and resurrect two corpses.

 

[Battlefield2142EU]

I heard that Daggerhearts is even worse than Candela Obscura

If I didn't know better. I would've thought Candela obscura was written by 4chan to troll critical role fans and Reddit. But no Candela obscura, a fictional Victorian era setting where demonic forces overrun the world in the shadow that celebrates LGBT and racial diversity. Which pretty confirms gay sex would never be normalized and celebrated in Candela obscura if evil didn't take over. Matt Mercer is either that much of a bad writer or secretly hates woke culture and Hollywood.

soy elemental

Imagine how rich Lorraine Williams could have made herself if she'd had WotC buy the rights to make a Buck Rogers CCG with royalties paid based on print runs, not sales.

In Uganda, pulp characters like the phantom, the shadow and Flash Gordon are still popular and iconic. Yet Buck Roger was not one of them. If Lorraine Williams was smart. She would've realized Buck Roger was so old. They rewrote the setting to be more like Flash Gordon. Most people confuse Buck Roger with Flash Gordon. Lorraine Williams Buck Roger push hurt TSR. It's like investing in Nyan cat and pedobear meme merchandise in 2024.

 

[The Ugly One]

In Uganda, pulp characters like the phantom, the shadow and Flash Gordon are still popular and iconic. Yet Buck Roger was not one of them. If Lorraine Williams was smart. She would've realized Buck Roger was so old.

Lorraine Williams was smart. She was an accountant, so she understood that what matters is whose balance sheet debt is on, and who gets paid in cash. When she understood the deal TSR had with Random House, she figured out the play. Since she was both owner & CEO of TSR and the Buck Rogers property, she could write contracts with herself ensuring that the liabilities stayed with TSR, while cash went to her, personally.

1. Random House paid TSR cash advances on books delivered. This money had to be paid back if the books didn't sell. In other words, deliver $1000 of books, get $1000 cash plus a $1000 liability.
2. Williams wrote a contract with herself to have TSR pay her a royalty on all Buck Rogers material printed, not sold. This was a royalty, not a cash advance, so Williams did not incur a liability. IOW, no refunds.
3. Williams then had TSR print as much D&D material as it could, with minimal quality testing, defer as many invoices as possible (e.g. not paying their printer), and print tons of Buck Rogers shit, so that it could max out cash on hand in order to pay herself her salary, bonuses, and Buck Rogers royalties.
4. When the financial house of cards collapsed in the late 1990s, all the liabilities were on TSR's and Random House's balance sheets. All the cash was in Williams' personal bank account.

TL;DR - Lorraine Williams concocted a scheme where the TSR entity borrowed money to pay her cash royalties on a product that was never intended to sell.