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

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
View attachment 5947294
How soon until 5E wheelchair adventurers retardation start reaching chaosium and PAIZO? Little surprised Warhammer and battletech isn’t shilling it yet.
Most retarded part is without a doubt wheelblade. How would you even use it? It would be stupid enough if it was for slicing but it's clearly for stabbing, how is this guy supposed to stab with wheelchair wheel?
 
Probably because Jack Chick is dumb and nobody cares what he thinks any more (assuming he's even alive).

I still can't get over how jank the damned idea of 'combat wheelchairs' are. It's like, you're in a world of magic. You could ride around on a floating disc, or animated golem legs, but you want to use a wheelchair? A wheelchair they had to deliberately overpower so it didn't get wrecked by the first enemy with more than two brain cells?

That was always the biggest cudgel I used in those arguments. The wheelchair by itself is dumb. But the stat loadout is fucking absurd. The one time someone in my group brought it up I started hammering them on the mechanics and told them I'd have more respect for them if they built a Timmy Power Gamer character build than if they used that. Wisely, they dropped the whole thing.
If wheelchair stats are that good, can non-disabled people use them? Seems likely the would. I kind of want to see an adventure party where all of them are using wheelchairs even though only one of the party is disabled, just for the stat boosts.

Also, is Climb Walls still a Thief ability? I want to see how that works.
 
Pozzo has similarly retarded wheelchair shit. Outside of this need to inject cripples into fantasy, I don't see the point of features like keeping your wheelchair when you polymorph.
Anybody that sees a squirrel with a wheelchair is not going to see a squirrel, they're going to see a wildshaped druid.
because as has been pointed out it's not about "inclusion" but being a special snowflake or outright pandering by non-disabled people, anyone else who still wants to be crippled in their fantasy escapism has more issues than just being unable to walk...

fwiw it's not a combat wheelchair, the only thing paizuri handwaved away was movement, you don't even get flying shit:
A traveler's chair has small mechanisms, either made from interlocking wood pieces, clockwork, or other devices, that allow the chair to traverse up or down stairs without any additional difficulty (moving up stairs is still difficult terrain, just like for other characters), and move through other common adventuring terrain without any additional difficulty, such as ladders and uneven ground.
which of course makes you wonder why bother with it in the first place, but then at least it has no powercreep and only works for virtue signaling really.

it was introduced in grand bazaar which is mainly about items and their shops, in that regard they put a bit more effort in it by getting sold at a specialties shop with all other kinds of disability stuff by the crippled owner with the fitting backstory. items like reading rings doesn't invalidate being blind, so you'd still run into a wall or constantly would have to check for pits you can't see.... doesn't explain the "how does it work in a setting with fucking healing magic" or "why someone would bring someone handicapped along into danger" but eh I can live with it.

speaking of pozzo, their pandering and virtue signaling finally paid off having their reddit jannies go full retard (more than usual) dragging down with it the release of the tian-xia book :story:
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing that crip is supposed to be a thief. So. Not only is every body type equally valid, no one was like 'hey chief this is going to interfere mightily in daring break-ins and heists'?

Also for a little extra touch of retardation, that figure on the left seems to be using a kitchen knife.

You would think so, but combat wheelchair can handle it.

firefox-Jz-RHf-YNbh-L.png


This is from the second page of the combat wheelchair pdf.
 
Trying to figure out if this is a shitpost or not between the wheelchair, overly elaborate 1960s Batman wall-climb bit, and the retarded nigger hairdo/facial structure on the Goblin? Elf?
still trying to figure out that's even supposed to work, I'm afraid that artist is serious...
 
This review appeared in my recommendations.
I clicked on it because I'm looking for a good megadungeon after the PF2 campaign. But it's not that.

It has it's own rules that no one will actually play, "mechanics" that are basically writing tools that sound cool on paper but don't seem practical to run, and the setting is a typical weird-for-the-sake-of-weird OSR type setting. So far, so much standard deconstruction/subverting expectations hipster bullshit. However, I did like the sound of the character classes, like the half-man half-train, or the guy made of bees.

This kind of goes back to the furry topic earlier, where people are kind of tired of being "the elf" or "the druid". Having races and classes like artificer and warforged I think is part of why people love Eberron so much. Any recommendations on that front would be welcome.
 
A friend of mine suggested Godbound to me and acting like a demigod looks completely insane. Picking three domains and getting to do cool stuff like perfect accuracy or instant teleportation as a lesser power is pretty wild, but I'm split on the system. I want to like it because it looks pretty easy to set up, but the very player/character-driven sandbox way the game wants you to play makes it hard to get people to move. I've found that most parties tend to be relatively passive or follow a leader rather than chart their own path. Is this common?

Follow-up question: I like to run worldbuilding-light games - it's part of why I'm not a huge fan of Godbound, since that kind of sandbox stuff kind of needs strong setting prep. Anyone in the thread have any recommendations?
 
I want to like it because it looks pretty easy to set up, but the very player/character-driven sandbox way the game wants you to play makes it hard to get people to move. I've found that most parties tend to be relatively passive or follow a leader rather than chart their own path. Is this common?
In my experience, yes.

This is going to seem off topic, but it's related. In market research, there's something called social desirability bias. It's the tendency for people to answer questions in a way that seems correct to the group, and not what they feel or know. In extreme cases, you can get people to say objectively false things. But usually it's matters of taste like what kind of coffee do they like. Jim Sterling had a good video on this back in the day.

Anyway, in TTRPG terms, when asked, people will say they want a hardcore, grim and gritty, character driven open world game, with faction play and politics. In practice, they want to kill monsters, get cool loot, and level up.

When presented with an open world sandbox, most players shut down.

I like to run worldbuilding-light games - it's part of why I'm not a huge fan of Godbound, since that kind of sandbox stuff kind of needs strong setting prep. Anyone in the thread have any recommendations?
What do you mean by worldbuilding light? Are you talking about up front lore dumps, or settings where you, as the DM, don't have to do much?


Edit: The Quinn's Quest review linked above, I have since watched his other videos and he's mostly a write off. Typical woke stuff. Complaining about how DnD has racial traits and some creatures are marked as evil. He also turns his nose up at combat games.
 
What do you mean by worldbuilding light? Are you talking about up front lore dumps, or settings where you, as the DM, don't have to do much?
Both.

I'm more okay with upfront lore dumps but I'd prefer to not have to do much - my go-to solution so far was to theme all the names in the area based on a work of fiction that my players might not be familiar with (using 3 kingdoms names with a group that hasn't read Romance, or Fire Emblem names on a non-weeb group). Not an obvious reference that takes you out of it, easy enough for me to remember that I don't have to have notes.

Edit: If it sounds like I'm lazy, I am.
When presented with an open world sandbox, most players shut down.
Yeah, I've ended up group leader by default a lot. It's to the point that my default character profile is "brash frontline tank/fighter who happily barges into your personal quest and just rolls with it", because it helps tie the party together by forcing interactions.

Either that or party face-utility rogue with the same idea - they're nosy and happy to get into other people's business.
 
The system did well, but the miss rate seemed to frustrate players. Turns go by in seconds or minutes at most, it's not like DnD where you're waiting 20-40 mins for a turn, so a miss isn't as big a deal. You're either spray and preying, or you're always taking the focus action for slow but reliable damage. I don't know if I should mess with it or leave it as is.

A related problem is people didn't play to their characters strengths. Imagine a bard that doesn't inspire, a barbarian that never rages, a paladin that doesn't smite, and a wizard that never casts. I had this in a previous Tiny d6 game and I don't why.
Sounds interesting, I might have to take look at the rule set. I'm still trying to figure out what I want to run after my two games finish.
 
When presented with an open world sandbox, most players shut down.
Or they show a complete lack of understanding of what is appropriate and go charging at the king's army because the king has the most loot. Nor do they learn, instead repeating this process over and over like Dr. Strange going to Dormammu at the end of the movie saying "I have come to bargain".

They do this until the GM quits the game in despair and declares the only adventures he will ever run if he ever runs one again, will be a single corridor with no branches, one entrance and a defined sequence of monsters who do nothing but sit and wait for the PCs to arrive for a self-contained encounter because his players are too stupid to understand the difference between "there is an ancient dragon in this mountain" and "there is an ancient dragon in this mountain and you are supposed to march up to the mouth of its cave and wave your tiny fucking sword at it instead of dealing with the band of goblins who have been waylaying travelers."

Ah, not speaking out of personal experience here at all. No way.
 
I clicked on it because I'm looking for a good megadungeon after the PF2 campaign.
this might not fit the bill exactly, but: https://scholomance.substack.com/p/tabletop-review-castle-of-the-silver
author seems to be a bit underrated, least I never see people talk about his stuff often

Edit: If it sounds like I'm lazy, I am.
there are generators for the heavy lifting, then just touch it up here and there.

or pick one of solo RPGs which double as world builder tool:
 
Last edited:
This review appeared in my recommendations.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=1xgq9s85mO0I clicked on it because I'm looking for a good megadungeon after the PF2 campaign. But it's not that.

It has it's own rules that no one will actually play, "mechanics" that are basically writing tools that sound cool on paper but don't seem practical to run, and the setting is a typical weird-for-the-sake-of-weird OSR type setting. So far, so much standard deconstruction/subverting expectations hipster bullshit. However, I did like the sound of the character classes, like the half-man half-train, or the guy made of bees.

This kind of goes back to the furry topic earlier, where people are kind of tired of being "the elf" or "the druid". Having races and classes like artificer and warforged I think is part of why people love Eberron so much. Any recommendations on that front would be welcome.
If you know anything about the reviewer he's married to Leigh Alexander of the Great Gaming Jihad fame and is primarily a board game enthusiast that used to be involved in a very popular youtube show called Shut Up and Sit Down that, until he left, was co-hosted with Matt Lees, a total fucking giant nosed faggot. Quinns ain't that bad all things considered but his tastes are firmly in the "experience generator" territory of games so anything that lets the theatre kids really have at it is up his alley and as result he would not be the first person I rush to hear discuss TTRPGs, even if I sort of respect his opinion generally.
 
So far, so much standard deconstruction/subverting expectations hipster bullshit.
I generally hate that in RPGs. You should be rewarded for paying attention and figuring out things. I never formally did this, but I generally tried to have a bad result if you were a total retard, an okay result if you were merely competent, a good result for paying attention and picking up clues, and a super result for figuring out something I hadn't even thought of myself.

I mean there are obvious exceptions like instadeath games where the slightest mistake is game over, but those are for special situations. Most people don't want to play something like that every time because it's more stressful than fun.
 
Anyway, in TTRPG terms, when asked, people will say they want a hardcore, grim and gritty, character driven open world game, with faction play and politics. In practice, they want to kill monsters, get cool loot, and level up.

When presented with an open world sandbox, most players shut down.
This was one of my first big lessons as a GM, and it went surprisingly well all things considered.

One of the first games I ran that was not a pre-made adventure was a game I had worked on for a couple years (Dresden Files FATE game set in Los Angeles; should have chosen a city I actually knew, but I had a bunch of aesthetic and unique location stuff set up. Hindsight is 20/20.) that incorporated DMing advice from online and from players who I and others in our groups had improperly railroaded in previous games. It wasn't giga-autist "16x the detail" fleshed out or anything like that, but it was a game with an opening mission to bring the party together and then let them loose into a sandbox where they could explore some ongoing problems and side with one of 4 factions, with hidden side missions for cool unique items/powers. Everybody liked each other's characters and the NPCs, but the party would limp half-heartedly into whatever mission they would ask me to suggest at the top of the session and as the campaign came to a close, they had accidentally sided with the biggest most powerful evil faction just because they'd never gone out of their way to pursue anyone else. We had a session where I laid out the situation of the campaign in plain English and told them they were siding with the guys I had thought they wanted to side with least, and our last 2 or 3 sessions were me guiding the players through the things they wanted to happen so they could get the ending they wanted.

I looked back over the game and realized that the players had never found or asked after any of the side-missions, most of the faction politicking had fallen flat or been ignored, and like one or two guys actually cared enough to have developed their characters in any way. And despite all that, my players had a decidedly positive outlook on the game because they liked the characters and the last 2 or 3 sessions were cool.

So anymore, I stick to having a story with cool stuff and novel events, and just guide the players along unless they're vocal about something specific. It takes less effort, makes everyone happy, and gets you through games at a much faster and more fun pace. A sandbox-gamer table is extremely rare.
 
Last edited:
Or they show a complete lack of understanding of what is appropriate and go charging at the king's army because the king has the most loot. Nor do they learn, instead repeating this process over and over like Dr. Strange going to Dormammu at the end of the movie saying "I have come to bargain".
Kind of makes me want to make a system that leans into this by turning the game into a roguelike. No levels, only gear and skills partially passed on from run to run. Could be a fun little game.
I generally hate that in RPGs. You should be rewarded for paying attention and figuring out things. I never formally did this, but I generally tried to have a bad result if you were a total retard, an okay result if you were merely competent, a good result for paying attention and picking up clues, and a super result for figuring out something I hadn't even thought of myself.
Honestly, I find myself banking dice for combat. My friend runs a Dark Heresy 2 game with minimal skill checks and uses the default test threshold instead.

Long version: In Dark Heresy 2, the number you roll against is determined by the characteristic (stat) and your levels in the skill. Someone with 40 Agility and Trained (+0) Stealth (runs off Agility) would try to roll under 40 on a Challenging (+0) Stealth test. Someone with another skill rank in Stealth would have a +10 to Stealth, so on the same Agility, would have a number of 50.

Instead of having people roll on a swingy d100 he just takes our plans into account and uses the number to decide how well (or not) the plan goes. He also does this with our weaknesses - my character is a noodle arms at 25 strength so I couldn't properly lift a chest and make a clean getaway or force a door, for example.
 
Kind of makes me want to make a system that leans into this by turning the game into a roguelike. No levels, only gear and skills partially passed on from run to run. Could be a fun little game.
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.
Honestly, I find myself banking dice for combat. My friend runs a Dark Heresy 2 game with minimal skill checks and uses the default test threshold instead.

Long version: In Dark Heresy 2, the number you roll against is determined by the characteristic (stat) and your levels in the skill. Someone with 40 Agility and Trained (+0) Stealth (runs off Agility) would try to roll under 40 on a Challenging (+0) Stealth test. Someone with another skill rank in Stealth would have a +10 to Stealth, so on the same Agility, would have a number of 50.

Instead of having people roll on a swingy d100 he just takes our plans into account and uses the number to decide how well (or not) the plan goes. He also does this with our weaknesses - my character is a noodle arms at 25 strength so I couldn't properly lift a chest and make a clean getaway or force a door, for example.
Hero is one of the best mathematical foundations for a game I've seen and deals with swinginess by having 3D6 be the base dice pool for everything. It works so much better than 1d20 or raw percentaile (which Dark Heresy is more nuanced than to be fair). I really like Hero. Character creation and set up is very involved and old school but in actual play the system is fairly quick. My usual problem with percentile systems is that they are prone to hitting a cap in power levels. I don't know if anyone remembers Eclipse Phase, the interesting but flawed RPG from years back. That was a percentile system and because it was about transhumanism it hit a problem of rapidly running out of room at the top end. Ordinary people had very low chances of success. Transhumans were typically pretty high. But the system couldn't really handle things above that. Someone transfers their brain into a military Reaper drone? There's nowhere for the percentages to go. You're a giant loading crab robot? Woot - your strength is like 4% higher than your buddy the uplifted gorilla.

Compressing wildly different abilities into a finite 1-100 scale and still making it playable is very difficult, imo. Warhammer FRP and DH do it better than most.
 
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.
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.
 
If you know anything about the reviewer he's married to Leigh Alexander of the Great Gaming Jihad fame and is primarily a board game enthusiast that used to be involved in a very popular youtube show called Shut Up and Sit Down that, until he left, was co-hosted with Matt Lees, a total fucking giant nosed faggot. Quinns ain't that bad all things considered but his tastes are firmly in the "experience generator" territory of games so anything that lets the theatre kids really have at it is up his alley and as result he would not be the first person I rush to hear discuss TTRPGs, even if I sort of respect his opinion generally.
I didn't know any of that. Thanks. I don't why ex-GamerGate people keep coming up (I follow the SBI and Steller Blade dramas and familiar names keep cropping up in those too).

I thought it was suspicious that a channel that started 2 months ago and only has 3 videos had over 100k views each. As said in a later post, in other videos he shits on DnD for being "problematic" due to having racial stats (something that was removed iirc) and alignments, and complains that a mech combat game is all about combat and not romance or drama out of the cockpit.

As for the game itself, like I said, his review makes it sound like hipster bullshit, but I like some of the concepts such as the a-typical classes. It's also interesting to see a stand alone dungeon crawl game.

I don't know if I ever asked on KF, but when 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.


Kind of makes me want to make a system that leans into this by turning the game into a roguelike. No levels, only gear and skills partially passed on from run to run. Could be a fun little game.
A friend has wants to do the same, but from the other direction. He wants to run Tomb of Horrors as a groundhog day game. Each time the party wipes, they start back at town. They lose all their gear, but keep their knowledge and experience.

I'm more okay with upfront lore dumps but I'd prefer to not have to do much - my go-to solution so far was to theme all the names in the area based on a work of fiction that my players might not be familiar with (using 3 kingdoms names with a group that hasn't read Romance, or Fire Emblem names on a non-weeb group). Not an obvious reference that takes you out of it, easy enough for me to remember that I don't have to have notes.
I have two recommendations then. Sorry to beat a horse.

My first bit of advice is to buy or pirate Return of the Lazy Dungeon Master. The key points are all free on YouTube or on his blog, but the book saves you digging.

Eberron is one of my favourite fantasy settings in part because everything presented is gaming material. Instead of the lore being about lines of kings and geopolitics, every element is designed to get you adventuring and just reading it will fill your mind with adventure ideas. It also doesn't present concrete answers to things. What caused The Mourning (a magic nuke that wiped out a country)? Doesn't say, that's for you to answer, or ignore, as you see fit. Powerful NPCs are deliberately constrained or have questionable motives, so it's up to the players to be the heroes. What's more, it's an easy setting to explain since you don't need much of a lore dump, and even then you only explain what is needed.

Which is my second bit of advice. Only lore dump about things the player needs to know. And if you're extra lazy, don't flesh out the lore beyond what you might need next session.


Sounds interesting, I might have to take look at the rule set. I'm still trying to figure out what I want to run after my two games finish.
Tiny d6 is good but it has problems.

My main advice that would be triple underlined and written in gold pen is don't buy the revised books. Mecha and Monsters and the original Tiny Frontiers are the best ones of the bunch. Add in the free fan Star Wars expansion (just google Tiny Frontiers Homebrew) and you're set. Tiny Frontiers Mecha and Monsters Evolved has glaring errors, like the description of the helicopter being bold red text that says "description goes here". Tiny Frontiers Revised has slightly expanded space ship rules but not much else of value, and even cuts the mech rules. It's poorly edited with the same traits being included twice under different names.

If you've played the Arkham board games, they're basically that. You roll 1-3 d6, a 5 or 6 is a success. There's little to no gear or level progression, so they work best as one shots or short campaigns.


What I like is that simplicity though. You hand them a list of 20-30 traits, and ask them to pick 3. There's no autism required for things like ship building or mech building. Again it's just a list of traits and they pick three. In mech and monsters they introduce chassis that have x number of systems in 4 different categories, but it's basically the same. I've run a bunch of one shots in the system from Bubblegum Crisis to Star Trek. The lack of granularity hurts the depth of the game, but it plays extremely fast, and when I just want to throw together a quick sci-fi game, it works great.
 
Back
Top Bottom