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

[Abella]

I remember Al-Quadim from the video game.

That was my introduction to it, but then I saw how it was so similar to stories like Sinbad and Aladdin and lost interest for some time.

It's from around 1993/1994 and the last time I played it was in the previous century, so my memory isn't perfect, but it has problems, since it's an action game with some D&D elements. Compared to the other D&D games coming out around that time, like the first Dark Sun game or the Ravenloft game, it's very underwhelming.

It’s very much a product of its time. The enemies were annoying and the AI was dumb, but the game was also underwhelming compared to the first two ravenloft and dark sun games.

 

[Judge Dredd]

Also, it mentions that leadership has taken its toll on her over the centuries, and that it's wearing her out to continue managing it.

Doesn't the citidel have a term limit of 10 years?

That's a good way to do it tho. Instead of evacuating, I'd have it be a political overthrow. Get the retards out of power for a while so things can be acomplished.

I'm starting like the sound of this tbh. Though I'd never get to run it.

 

[King Dead]

Doesn't the citidel have a term limit of 10 years?

That's a good way to do it tho. Instead of evacuating, I'd have it be a political overthrow. Get the retards out of power for a while so things can be acomplished.

I'm starting like the sound of this tbh. Though I'd never get to run it.

Each term is only ten years, but there's nothing stopping someone from running again as long as they're approved by the mystical jewel not-gods, which is why the dragon has been in power for as long as she has.

It would be an interesting project to go through and rewrite all the adventures in the book so that you're instead sowing seeds of discontent within the populace of each world you visit and turning them against the citadel, such that they welcome its eventual destruction in the end. Radiant Citadel: Total Chud Edition.

 

[Judge Dredd]

I'm sure post is going to go over very well here, but I think I found another reason furries are alright.

There was two excitedly discussing how hero forge has added armoured beast race legs, and sharing their creations. At the time I thought nothing of it. But on reflection it's nice to have people excited for games, excited for their characters. It's not people who are disinterested or complaining all the time.

 

[Ghostse]

"Hello fellow not-furries. I just want you know that furries - which I'm not - are alright. I carry alot of water for furries despite not being one because they're just that pleasant of company and being discriminatory against them is just heckin' uncool. You really need to just start ignoring all the depraved furry behavior you've seen from furries, and the fact that every time there's some sort of horrorific degen uncovered they have a furaffinity acount. I'm not a furry btw. But yiff in hell is a big yikes, and that's from someone who isn't a furry but complains about furry discrimination. a lot."

I'm sure post is going to go over very well here, but I think I found another reason furries are alright.

There was two excitedly discussing how hero forge has added armoured beast race legs, and sharing their creations. At the time I thought nothing of it. But on reflection it's nice to have people excited for games, excited for their characters. It's not people who are disinterested or complaining all the time.

They're only excited because its one step closer to an official null bulge.

 

[Kyria the Great]

Something that has been always a bug in my opinion in RPGs is the transactional nature of religion and gods. I know it's done for mechanical purposes but for me it often cheapens worlds if handled poorly like it often is. Something like "am I acting in my god's principles," should always be on the mind of every one, even subconsciously given indifference to religion is a very modern concept in human history.

 

[Tiz_the_happy]

Hey i got a question, it may not get a clean answer but id like to get others peoples perspective. I don't play DnD if im the DM i prefer savage world and my own homebrew system. but when i try to encourage other player to play other systems other than DnD i get stonewalled. Even if they enjoy other systems its always back to DnD 5e. i want to encourage some diversity in my local TTRPG groups but i feel like i dont know how.

 

[LovisXVI]

Hey i got a question, it may not get a clean answer but id like to get others peoples perspective. I don't play DnD if im the DM i prefer savage world and my own homebrew system. but when i try to encourage other player to play other systems other than DnD i get stonewalled. Even if they enjoy other systems its always back to DnD 5e. i want to encourage some diversity in my local TTRPG groups but i feel like i dont know how.

Don't start with talking about the system, start with the idea of the campaign, sell the players on it, then drop the ball on them: I want to use this system, and explain why you have to use that one. Seth Skorkowsky has a good video on this:

 

[Henri Barbusse]

Something that has been always a bug in my opinion in RPGs is the transactional nature of religion and gods. I know it's done for mechanical purposes but for me it often cheapens worlds if handled poorly like it often is. Something like "am I acting in my god's principles," should always be on the mind of every one, even subconsciously given indifference to religion is a very modern concept in human history.

I think this isn't really a bug, but rather a feature of outsized influence of Roman religion on how we think about pagan religions. There is a definite pantheon and the gods can be bribed with appropriate sacrifices and show signs when they are displeased, etc. The Roman model is what a pagan religion is supposed to look like to an average person.

Meanwhile we know that Norse paganism tried to establish a proper organization and hierarchy only in response to threat of Christianization. Same with Slavic paganism, which saw a short-lived effort to create an organization in Kievan Rus a few decades before Christianization. With Slavic paganism, it's even likely that there were maybe one or two common gods and some common figures from a creation myth, but otherwise most of the gods were associated with a specific tribe rather than the entire group.

Besides, since gods and divine beings have definite existence in D&D, it's hard to replicate things like the Harima Fudoki, which contain traces of two concurrent mythological cycles, one of the expansion of what would become Shinto and a cycle of legends connected with gods of local non-Yamato tribes. The objective existence of gods also makes it hard to have people truly indifferent to religion. It's not a completely modern phenomenon, we have some writings by Cicero which express disbelief in divination and so on, but still sees respect for it as important for the health of the state and society. In most if not all D&D settings, gods exist and are active. It's difficult to be indifferent to that.

Edit. I just noticed you said RPGs and not D&D, but I'll say that the influence of D&D on fantasy RPGs is just as outsized as the influence of Greco-Roman pantheon on the general idea of what paganism was like.

 

[Ghostse]

Something that has been always a bug in my opinion in RPGs is the transactional nature of religion and gods. I know it's done for mechanical purposes but for me it often cheapens worlds if handled poorly like it often is. Something like "am I acting in my god's principles," should always be on the mind of every one, even subconsciously given indifference to religion is a very modern concept in human history.

Sort of.
There was very fair bit of transactionalism going on in early religions. Disease and hygiene were not fully unde
People forget that before modern medicine and epidemiology, it was not unheard of for outwardly healthy people to just be found dead in the morning. People would go into comas and come out of them. You have multiple cases of people in the 1800s getting roused from their coffins at their funerals. With no weather satelites or doppler RADAR you don't know what storms and weather are doing in places you can't observe.
I mean you have an earth quake 1000 miles away under the ocean, and then whole Japanese villages who never even felt the earth shift are suddenly wiped out by a tsunami 10 hours later.
When Krakatoa went off we knew about it because of European presence in the Pacific to report on it. If it had been 1800BC instead of AD, there would have been 5 years of winter no one in the Mediterranean would have had a fucking clue why.
Whatever supernatural forces you worshipped were supposed to protect you from this shit.

The afterlife, or I guess what I should say is "an existance after this one that is an improved version of this one and open to all" is a relatively new concept. Most early, animalist religions you just sort of return to the cycle of life, maybe you're reborn as an animal or a become a spirit. When you start getting more advanced religions in Mesopotamia your afterlife is pretty much the same as your mortal one.
Even in Egypt who had the most developed early afterlife that's survived, the afterlife was mostly reserved for the nobility and depended on your ability to preserve your corpse.

Also rememeber that until... well technically until the concept of Amun-ra, but really until Judaism, the concept of single god - as opposed to a primary god - is new. Other gods that might be just powerful - or even more powerful - than your God was common, and paying tribute or making offerings to foreign gods in their lands was completely normal. An Egyptian trader would not think anything of stopping by the temple of Ba'al to make offerings to beg for good travel conditions before setting out with a trade caravan for tin and lapis.

But your complaint is also not off base.
People would have simply integrated religious law into their daily lives and not thought overly hard about it. The followed their religious precepts because you do that to get the general protection and blessings of the gods, not because they were looking for transactional benefits (though they might make extra offerings or tributes or engage in specific behavior for that extra bit of luck)
You don't have people multiple times every day considering "Do i follow the civil and criminal code in this case? are the material benefits worth obeying the law?", peple in the west in general just follow the law without thinking about it.

A reasonable model to look at in these cases I think is extremely devout but superstitious Catholics and patron saints; you need for find the right sort of Catholic but you'll know when you have. You have a generalized religious dogma that is followed without question, but in specific cases you will engage with a particular Saint and follow the rituals to gain that saint's particular blessing.
You only bury a statue of St. Joeseph in your yard when you want to sell your home. But you go to mass every week.

Hey i got a question, it may not get a clean answer but id like to get others peoples perspective. I don't play DnD if im the DM i prefer savage world and my own homebrew system. but when i try to encourage other player to play other systems other than DnD i get stonewalled. Even if they enjoy other systems its always back to DnD 5e. i want to encourage some diversity in my local TTRPG groups but i feel like i dont know how.

All I will tell you is nothing except Furryshit and obvious fetish gooning (pretty much the same thing but) will make me nope out of a game faster than "We'll be using my own home brewed..." becasue every single homebrewed system is unbalanced and objectively awful, that including yours and mine . Never mention homebrew. Say "customized" or mention what systems/subsystems you're bringing in, but as out of the way as possible. No one wants to be a beta tester unless they know you and are specifically up for that sort of thing.

I will also give you the advice I've given everyone:
When you are demoing a new system never, ever pitch a campaign. That is years of work for payoff and you might hate the system and ruin tons of prep for a DM if you don't want to play anymore.

Pitch a Savage Worlds oneshot. Have a bunch of prebuilts and try to get players a character they'll like. Make the effort needed to participate as low as possible so they don't have any excuse to not play. If needed, lie and say the prebuilts are included with the module as intended characters. Make it clear this like like Monopoly or Sorry!; you aren't forging a new path, you are following a well-traveled and clearly marked trail to Good Times and Fun.

If your oneshot goes well, suggest the idea of another adventure you know that is a little longer, "probably a couple sessions" and have, or alter, a module to run for about 3-6 sessions. See how this goes down with your players. If they like the longer format, then suggest about "extending it" to another module or use your own content. If you do it right, its 3 years later before they realize they're in the middle of a campaign.

But this is the real key point that fucks this up for a lot of missionary GMs:
BE READY FOR YOUR PLAYERS TO ABSOLUTELY 100% FUCKING LOATHE YOUR FAVORITE SYSTEM AND EVERYTHING YOU LIKE ABOUT IT. BE EXPECTING THAT YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG.
You cannot have an ego. You cannot force this on them. You need to be ready to accept that Savage Worlds is utterly awful unfun garbage they never want to be reminded of ever again and you have terrible taste in games and systems. If it doesn't work, you need to be ready to drop the topic and move on. No "Well let's do it again but change X". It didn't take, move on (back to D&D).

Also I'm just going to say you're going to have a lot better of a time boiling that frog moving to another D20 system but you do you.

 

[AnOminous]

Also rememeber that until... well technically until the concept of Amun-ra, but really until Judaism, the concept of single god - as opposed to a primary god - is new.

Amon-Ra also didn't go over particularly well. The main reason Tut was remembered approvingly was he reversed all that bullshit his dad did before he died.

A reasonable model to look at in these cases I think is extremely devout but superstitious Catholics and patron saints; you need for find the right sort of Catholic but you'll know when you have. You have a generalized religious dogma that is followed without question, but in specific cases you will engage with a particular Saint and follow the rituals to gain that saint's particular blessing.

An RPG example would be something like Paladins that can actually directly invoke divine intervention. This isn't directly transactional but it does require you adhere strictly to the rules of the power that you give patronage to, and that it be done while doing something courageous that advances the deity's goals.

 

[LovisXVI]

A reasonable model to look at in these cases I think is extremely devout but superstitious Catholics and patron saints; you need for find the right sort of Catholic but you'll know when you have. You have a generalized religious dogma that is followed without question, but in specific cases you will engage with a particular Saint and follow the rituals to gain that saint's particular blessing.

I would agree, polytheism is no more transactional than iconographic Christianity is. Votive offerings to a spiritual figure (Saint, God, local Genius) are more a matter of thanks or supplication than literal bribery. Transactional "religious" phenomena are more associated with malicious (or at least amoral) spiritual entities like the Loa of West Africa. So you might see Faerun people occasionally offer things to Bane to keep taxes low or make sure the government isn't too oppressive, but you pray to Torm in thanks for the effective government and might include a votive if you are feeling particularly thankful.

Amon-Ra also didn't go over particularly well. The main reason Tut was remembered approvingly was he reversed all that bullshit his dad did before he died.

Strictly speaking, Akhenaten started the cult of Aten, not Amun-Ra. For what it's worth, Jan Assmann believed that Jewish monotheism found its origins in Atenism and that a corrupted memory of the Atenists being driven out is the basis for the Exodus myth. Amun-Ra within the Egyptian theology has a place more similar to Bhaktism within Hinduism, where he is identified with the unifying principle (the Monad basically), placing him "above" all other Gods, rather than being the singular God. Hard to do within the standard D&D framework, given you can go to their respective realms in Planescape. If you wanted a truly authentic approach, you'd need to nix all that connection and make stuff a bit more vague.

 

[Ghostse]

Amon-Ra also didn't go over particularly well. The main reason Tut was remembered approvingly was he reversed all that bullshit his dad did before he died.

You aren't wrong but that was first recorded attempts at monotheism to suvive (after a fashion; they tried to erase everything after Amun-hotep died) and even then it was a dubious half-step; Amun-hotep didn't exactly say there were no other gods, just the gods were all aspects of Amun-ra.

There is also a question of how much of the believe was theological and how much was a political attempt to force the various preisthoods and secret societies to be subordinated to the Pharohship (and provide an excuse to dispossess and potentially execute as heretics and traitors any who disagreed. See also: Henry VIII)

An RPG example would be something like Paladins that can actually directly invoke divine intervention. This isn't directly transactional but it does require you adhere strictly to the rules of the power that you give patronage to, and that it be done while doing something courageous that advances the deity's goals.

For my money, a Paladin should be Prestige class. If you systems doesn't have prestige classes, then it needs to start. Basically no one under 10th level should be a Paladin.
In a very real sense, a Paladin shouldn't need to beg divine intervention - as a holy warrior of their god, upholding their god's laws and customs should be second nature and thus their god should just intervene on their servants behalf. Enemies who aren't likewise given bonus by their gods should find their blades fail to actually wound flesh. A blow that seems to be normal would suddenly turn into a critical injury.

I have been mulling around what to do about this thing should it come up. Which it hasn't since every game I've run in the past almost 3 years now has been pregens.

But what I think I would do is make the Paladin class a "Crusader" instead. Not only will this trigger muslims and eurphorics, but A Crusader, much like the nobility taking up the cross, would be less of a noble paragon of godly virtue and more of a thug on the side of good. He has access to healing and godly protection, but some lapses of alignment and willingness to engage in realpolitik would be overlooked so long as they are in service of enactling their god's will. He can't just go around murdering orphans and expect to hold his divine powers, but if he needs to lie, cheat, and murder some orclings to exterminate that orc camp .... that's a few minor infractions we can overlook.

 

[AnOminous]

Strictly speaking, Akhenaten started the cult of Aten, not Amun-Ra. For what it's worth, Jan Assmann believed that Jewish monotheism found its origins in Atenism and that a corrupted memory of the Atenists being driven out is the basis for the Exodus myth. Amun-Ra within the Egyptian theology has a place more similar to Bhaktism within Hinduism, where he is identified with the unifying principle (the Monad basically), placing him "above" all other Gods, rather than being the singular God.

Okay, got that wrong (misremembered from when I went to one of the many Tut-themed events). Akhenaten made the mistake of suddenly trying to abolish all the other gods at the same time as instituting his own.

But what I think I would do is make the Paladin class a "Crusader" instead.

I'd usually treated Lawful Good fighters in general as vaguely Catholicism-based Crusader types, with Paladins being a step above. Paladins in general were pretty OP but were also highly limited in what they could do. I'd almost always have an LG as party leader, and when there was a Paladin it was usually him.

For one, the party, even the CEs, generally knew they'd get a fair shake from the guy, and as a GM, I could somewhat control what the party did, or at least know it wouldn't degenerate into a murderhobo murderfest.

 

[Ghostse]

Strictly speaking, Akhenaten started the cult of Aten, not Amun-Ra.

Fuck your are right. I got my sundiscs mixed up.

 

[LovisXVI]

But what I think I would do is make the Paladin class a "Crusader" instead. Not only will this trigger muslims and eurphorics, but A Crusader, much like the nobility taking up the cross, would be less of a noble paragon of godly virtue and more of a thug on the side of good. He has access to healing and godly protection, but some lapses of alignment and willingness to engage in realpolitik would be overlooked so long as they are in service of enactling their god's will. He can't just go around murdering orphans and expect to hold his divine powers, but if he needs to lie, cheat, and murder some orclings to exterminate that orc camp .... that's a few minor infractions we can overlook.

Sounds like a Hellknight from Pathfinder, though they are more thugs on the side of law than good.

 

[Red Dragon]

If you wanted a truly authentic approach, you'd need to nix all that connection and make stuff a bit more vague.

That's why I like the "distant gods" concept. Yes, the gods are real, they channel their powers through worthy worshippers and can bless and curse... But they still need mortals to do the heavy lifting. They don't manifest physically and don't mess directly with creation. Why? We don't know. They're gods, we cannot comprehend them.

For my money, a Paladin should be Prestige class. If your system doesn't have prestige classes, then it needs to start. Basically no one under 10th level should be a Paladin.

I've been saying this for at least ten years IRL, but nobody listens... Anyone can start out as a simple Warrior, but a Paladin is someone who already proved themselves worthy of their god's blessings. It's not a job for a green nobody.

 

[Alabama Gamer]

Guy in our group wants to run The Fall of Delta Green, and I am preemptively lowering his expectations for us by coming up with appropriate Vietnam-era helmet graffiti.
"My other ride is the body of a Yithian"
"I Nyarlathotep"
"I fought the Karotechia and all I got was this stupid helmet"
[in the style of Kilroy] "Cthulhu Was Here"
"Sanity is what you make of it"

 

[strawberry15]

Players become level 2 and arrogant. Wanted to deal with 50 zombies on their own, without any hirelings, without waiting for a skirmish group (20 spearman) and after not laying defensively and splitting the party into two and after the archers(2) deciding they can deal with remaining zombies on their own because they could in no way climb to the roofs of the abandoned buildings the party is dead. Aside from the paladin of course who has a limp leg now. I wanted to warn them as much as i can,

I tried to warn them three times and as a dm unless it is against the fantasy and worldbuilding elements i try not to put any opinion but i tried to warn them 3 times. I regret nothing as i did nothing wrong.

 

[Judge Dredd]

Hey i got a question, it may not get a clean answer but id like to get others peoples perspective. I don't play DnD if im the DM i prefer savage world and my own homebrew system. but when i try to encourage other player to play other systems other than DnD i get stonewalled. Even if they enjoy other systems its always back to DnD 5e. i want to encourage some diversity in my local TTRPG groups but i feel like i dont know how.

I know your pain man. I struggle with it too.

I'd love to give advice, but I don't have any. I've had limited luck trying to convince people to 5e variants like Nimble. Pathfinder 2e is what we're currently playing and I think then it's because it's the only non-5e game normies have heard of. I've also tried selling people on settings and rules, but that only works with what this thread calls "theatre kids" who care about story and don't care for mechanics.

---

I have a homebrew question.

1. Has anyone here played Everyday Heroes or d20 Modern?
   1. If so, how are the firearms rules?
   2. How compatible is it with other games?
2. Any suggestions for making guns feel like guns?

Context. I'm running a short steampunk PF2 game. Since everyone has ranged attacks, I'm worried it will devolve into people standing in the open plinking at each other. I had heard a rule from Everyday Heroes (the sequel to d20 modern) that makes guns auto-hit on targets in the open, but I saw no mention of that in the quickstart rules. I thought of homebrewing something similar, by having attack auto hit, or having attacks do 1 result higher to humanoids in the open.