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

[LovisXVI]

The trannies, for all their degeneracy, are at least creating shit that's new (even if "new" in this instance means games about tranny robot camgirls)

Well ACKS is new, in that it fulfills the promise of the rpg to wargame, something I have wanted since I read Slaves to Darkness for Warhammer Fantasy. Going from some jobber to a proper warlord. Hell, that is the reason I think most of OSR is just garbage, because you start out as a jobber and stay a jobber, never really advancing to a stage where you can feel like you have progressed in the game world.

 

[CrunkLord420]

btw CY_BORG stole my motif

 

[AnOminous]

That's all well and fine, but I feel it just doesn't work as a tabletop adventure. It would be a much better video game, movie or book, where the curated qualities of the experience play to the strengths.

I don't really want surrealism in an adventure game, at least not as the only element. I want some recognizable win/loss conditions. Maybe you save the world (again). Maybe it ends (again). I'd like there to be some actual comprehensible conclusion.

 

[Ghostse]

I don't know the problem with subclasses. I thought it was fine and a good way to customize a class without making new classes every five minutes.

I'm not opposed to the concept.

The issue is two fold:
-You must have a subclass. there is no Fighter Fighter. I'm aware there is a "standard" subclassbut its not the same.
-Subclasses are all benefits and no draw backs.

That is, when I become a bar room brawler, I don't trade out anything to focus on punching and wrasslin' dudes. I only gain things from my closest subclass and the only trade off is I don't get as many cool things as other subclasses. This leads to power creep (very likely intentional to move splats/books) and poor balance.

4e Class Options has technically the same problem, but the trade offs were much more focused. "What kind of weapons do you want to use to murder people with?" as opposed to radical shifts in abilities and what you have access to.

 

[The Ugly One]

Almost everything else is fixable, but I dunno how you fix subclasses and the over reliance on A/D with a massive rebuild.

I never had a problem with A/D. It was a little coarse, but fixed more problems than it created. I don't agree that subclasses were intrinsically broken. There were a few that needed rework, but even as-is, they weren't breaking anyone's game where the OP character just took over while the rest of the party held his luggage. I've played and run multiple campaigns to ~14th level, and not a single one flew apart due to one class being deeply broken. I never needed a sheaf of house rules to make 5e playable. Only cantrip that was marginally an issue was Toll the Dead.

What I would change, aside from tweaking a handful of problem classes & spells:

• Rework spell scaling with level.
• Allow casters to concentrate on one additional spell every 5 levels or so
• Delete "bonus action." Rework the existing bonus actions to not be stupid.
• Delete multiclassing.
• Make every class able to retrain at least one spell on a long rest, DMs pretty much let you fix bad spell picks anyway, despite the rules formally disallowing it. So...formally allow it.
• Delete feats as such. Allow characters to choose +2 ASI, a save proficiency, 2 weapon proficiencies, increase armor proficiency, or 2 skill proficiencies at the appropriate levels.
• Reintroduce the Turn concept. Some powers should be "once per Turn" instead of "once per Short Rest," like Action Surge. Have a well-defined section on managing the party's Turns.

Those would be my main changes.

 

[LovisXVI]

Delete multiclassing.

I'm leery on this unless it's replaced by a really robust subclass system so you can find a middle ground between two to start or you do it like old D&D and start as a multiclass character. Hell the best multiclass system I've ever encountered was in PoE 2eadfire, where you choose to multiclass at character creation, and by doing so you get slower progression, halve a lot of passive and give up your level 19 and 20 abilities, but it allowed for really fun combinations and synergy. My favorite was Barbarian-Rogue (Streetfighter) as it really encouraged getting into the thick of it and using debuff attacks.

 

[Blarmed&Dangerous]

Well ACKS is new, in that it fulfills the promise of the rpg to wargame, something I have wanted since I read Slaves to Darkness for Warhammer Fantasy. Going from some jobber to a proper warlord. Hell, that is the reason I think most of OSR is just garbage, because you start out as a jobber and stay a jobber, never really advancing to a stage where you can feel like you have progressed in the game world.

I agree, which is why I said I was interested in it despite not liking OSR fantasy. I wish more people were doing more new and interesting things in the RPG space that weren't tranny diaperfurs.

Stuff like Brozer is a step in the right direction, but could use a little more style and polish (and maybe not be a hodgepodge of Gen-X injokes)

 

[2LtMashengo]

If you're referring to the letter/journal pages, I hear what you're talking about but at least that's diegetic and not the writer putting a block of text in as an aside to say Fuck Capitali$m.

Fair, but it's pretty obvious from his other work that the Amante's home/timeframe was chosen only so he could justify bitching about the chuddies.
Detwiller has the exact same politics, but he can (usually) keep it in his pants.

It would be a much better book

Common (and correct) complaint about Detwiller's work. The DG novels/short stories do not sell anywhere near as many copies as the tabletop stuff, so he repackages them into adventures. Very literally in some cases, all the short stories between chapters of the Agent's Handbook are taken from "The Way it Went Down."

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

• Make every class able to retrain at least one spell on a long rest, DMs pretty much let you fix bad spell picks anyway, despite the rules formally disallowing it. So...formally allow it.

One of the smarter things PF2 did was to hardwire retraining into the game. If you have a system with a shitload of options, chances are that someone's going to make a pick they're not happy with. I've never understood the mindset of 'Oh, you picked X feat/ability/option/spell and it doesn't really work for you? Lol, sucks to be you.'

 

[AnOminous]

Delete multiclassing.

Agreed. I both broke other people's games with multiclassing and had my own games broken with it. BANNED. They actually threw dice at me.

 

[Ghostse]

I never had a problem with A/D. It was a little coarse, but fixed more problems than it created. I don't agree that subclasses were intrinsically broken. There were a few that needed rework, but even as-is, they weren't breaking anyone's game where the OP character just took over while the rest of the party held his luggage. I've played and run multiple campaigns to ~14th level, and not a single one flew apart due to one class being deeply broken. I never needed a sheaf of house rules to make 5e playable. Only cantrip that was marginally an issue was Toll the Dead.

What I would change, aside from tweaking a handful of problem classes & spells:

• Rework spell scaling with level.
• Allow casters to concentrate on one additional spell every 5 levels or so
• Delete "bonus action." Rework the existing bonus actions to not be stupid.
• Delete multiclassing.
• Make every class able to retrain at least one spell on a long rest, DMs pretty much let you fix bad spell picks anyway, despite the rules formally disallowing it. So...formally allow it.
• Delete feats as such. Allow characters to choose +2 ASI, a save proficiency, 2 weapon proficiencies, increase armor proficiency, or 2 skill proficiencies at the appropriate levels.
• Reintroduce the Turn concept. Some powers should be "once per Turn" instead of "once per Short Rest," like Action Surge. Have a well-defined section on managing the party's Turns.

Those would be my main changes.

I will agree that subclasses aren't exactly causing games to implode via OP (other parts of 5e do that) but more that they are limiting. You don't see a lot of variety in subclass choices, its always the latest meta which is always the one from the latest splat.
I guess I should also point out, for full honesty, that I haven't run anything 5e that wasn't with Pregens since Tasha's. So its all 2nd hand after that, but everyone always picked the same combos.

I wouldn't give casters free concentration, but I think a Feat or progression option for addtional slots wouldn't be the worst. I think the real issue is sort of like A/D, there is too much crammed into the "Concentration" pipeline. I would maybe give spells a "concentration level" so weak spells don't consume as much resource as strong ones.
back-of-napkinning, maybe have a "press you luck" mechanic on concentration. You can try to stack more spells, but the more you stack the higher the odds you fuckup and your mind goes fully blank.

Honestly I feel the bonus actions are fine-but-nitpicky. I would prefer something that doesn't break flow, or make people feel like they HAVE to find a bonus action (big issue with 4e & minor actions). I would maybe do something like halve move speed, change round action economy to "Action and 2 moves" and make bonus actions "move" actions, and maybe for most bonus actions add "you may also move one square"; but that fucks with things like Slow.
PF 2e does something sort of similar in their action economy, but when I was running a "solo demo" it was just so unnatural.

I really like the idea and customization with multiclassing but it always fucks up balance. So many 'le reddit' builds use Multiclassing.

Sort like I like the idea of feats, but always its either everyone always chooses the same dozen or so, or the preqs are so ridiculously spergy. In my mind, you'd choose a feat or two at character creation, and then gain new character bonuses as you adventure - not as you level.
Did you solve the issue with the Necromancer by talking things out? You now get a Silver Tongue +whatever to diplomacy. Did you eradicate the goblin nest with cleansing fire? You're now a pyromance, add 1d6 to all fire spells.
I sort of do this with my B/X games where even though B/X doesn't have feats, I give characters feats as rewards related to what they did.

One of the smarter things PF2 did was to hardwire retraining into the game. If you have a system with a shitload of options, chances are that someone's going to make a pick they're not happy with. I've never understood the mindset of 'Oh, you picked X feat/ability/option/spell and it doesn't really work for you? Lol, sucks to be you.'

>TFW D&D 4e did it first

 

[p1138]

Strong disagree.

I've played mid-level and high-level Pathfinder. Static bonuses kill the game. Every modifier adds mental bloat and slows the game down. A +2, that's nothing. When a turn ends up as "I attack, +2 for flank, -2 for off hand, +1 for the duel wield feat, +2 from the paladins aura, is the bard singing? that's +2,.." and then a player jumps in about how he forgot to add the aura bonus last turn so his attack would've hit. It gets fucking exhausting. A/D puts an end to all that.

Now, I do think you could have double advantage/disadvantage, but I don't know.

You stopped reading.

The problem with PF is all of that shit stacking, and 10 different kinds of bonus(even if 2 bonuses of the same type can't stack). +2 circumstance, +3 profane, +2 blah blah blah now I've got a +38 on the roll(I've actually hit low 50s for stealth checks in PF and low 70s for knowledge checks without even having to be near lvl 20). Yes it gets ridiculous. But what did I actually say?

(and not letting them stack with anything besides A/D)

It completely eliminates the issue PF has with stacking bonuses, even if in PF the same type of bonus can't stack I mean not allowing them to stack at all. Have a +1 from a buff spell, a +2 from some magic item congrats all you've got is +2 to whatever that roll was. No stacking would mean no stacking, period.

 

[The Ugly One]

I wouldn't give casters free concentration, but I think a Feat or progression option for addtional slots wouldn't be the worst. I think the real issue is sort of like A/D, there is too much crammed into the "Concentration" pipeline. I would maybe give spells a "concentration level" so weak spells don't consume as much resource as strong ones.
back-of-napkinning, maybe have a "press you luck" mechanic on concentration. You can try to stack more spells, but the more you stack the higher the odds you fuckup and your mind goes fully blank.

Needs the KISS principle.

I wouldn't go any more complex than, for example:

"You may concentrate on one additional spell. The new spell cannot be more than half the level of the lowest-level spell you are currently concentrating on, rounded down. "

Still will slow things down more than "you can concentrate on one additional spell." If a 7th level caster wants to blow his highest level slots on sustaining 2 effects, so what, really?

Sort like I like the idea of feats

Feats always turns into a grab bag of powers that should be part of the class, and they always suffer from power creep. That's why I prefer a strict, well-defined list of generic improvements.

 

[Manly_Brony]

the writer putting a block of text in as an aside to say Fuck Capitali$m.

CY/BORG's Rule 0 is literally that you're not allowed to play if you're not a communist.

"Comrade TTRPG designer! I must inform you that the supreme council rejected your work, it will not be included among the state approved games. You have been reassigned to mine uranium and your train leaves in an hour! Workers of the world unite!"

 

[Lightning's Heraldry]

BORG aesthetic is peak. The rules are fine. I assume people hate it because it's style over substance, but that's also the point. It's a perfect dark comedy setting where you don't have to overthink over the top violence. Life's a meat grinder, and that's cool.

There's nothing less appealing to me than standard tolkien high fantasy.

To make this concise; I do not like borg games because they are lazy. The rules do not meet my expectations for quality, quantity or variety. I also don't buy politicized products, especially where I know the authors would cheer for my murder.
The fact that it looks the way it does it almost entirely irrelevant. Being ugly isn't any more a personality than being pretty, but I know what I prefer to look at.

Like I said, give Black Sword Hack a look. I found good success and I don't think anyone in the know would call Elric "standard tolkien high fantasy".
I did try to recommend something to the taste you outlined. I don't just recommend my own preference or I would just tell you to play OD&D(or retroclone of your choice) or GURPS.
I would also try looking at any of the older weird fantasy style modules for 1e, such as the books which are part of the DA series or other ones which include robots and spaceships. I know there are some others here who run older stuff who may think of more examples off the cuff better than I can in this moment.

In any case I always recommend trying to form a group for tabletop. Solo never really hits the same spot as a group does. You honestly only need 3 people to have the minimum and people can pass of GMing for different modules or adventures. Writing adventures, magic items, drawing dungeon and world maps are all apart of the game too and you kind of miss out on those without friends.

In other news I picked up Swords & Wizardry and I think it is a real shame I hadn't taken time to read it until now given how long the system has been in the scene. It really is the perfect blend of 0e and 1e and does many things so much better than OSE or other retroclones I had read until now. My only complaint is that there are only 3 books total! The Options book is amazing and I would love to see another one in the same vein written at some point, as the new classes it brings in feel right at home and the old classes it revises and brings to a correct power level are completely fixed and more flavorful than ever.

 

[AnOminous]

Like I said, give Black Sword Hack a look. I found good success and I don't think anyone in the know would call Elric "standard tolkien high fantasy".

I'd say Moorcock's style of high fantasy is sort of like a Sergio Leone Western compared to a classical Western.

It completely eliminates the issue PF has with stacking bonuses, even if in PF the same type of bonus can't stack I mean not allowing them to stack at all. Have a +1 from a buff spell, a +2 from some magic item congrats all you've got is +2 to whatever that roll was. No stacking would mean no stacking, period.

I don't have an opinion on PF specifically, because I've only played a couple low level sessions where we didn't have the resources to stack much, but I generally encouraged it in my hack and slash campaigns. That said, if you put together a buffed party, you'd end up fighting buffed ogres and trolls instead of the usual gobbos and orcs.

Monsters, especially intelligent ones, can do that shit too.

One of the smarter things PF2 did was to hardwire retraining into the game. If you have a system with a shitload of options, chances are that someone's going to make a pick they're not happy with. I've never understood the mindset of 'Oh, you picked X feat/ability/option/spell and it doesn't really work for you? Lol, sucks to be you.'

I'd always allow a redo, especially at the chargen stage. Why would I force someone to play a shitty, unfun character? Sometimes they'd turn it down, though, wanting the challenge of playing a difficult character. It could be fun figuring out a playstyle that works for a "problematic" character.

 

[Brain Problems]

Last thing about Delta Green for now (I swear) but didn't someone here say they used the automatic firearm rules from it in their CoC games ie. the lethality and it just basically killing mooks outright if you land a hit?

Also, regarding bonus action stuff - all I can say is that in one campaign (5E) I'm currently in I swear to Christ one PC's turns last 10 minutes because he does one thing and then has a seemingly impossible amount of extra actions and "bonus actions". I'm exaggerating but what's there is all kosher as far as RAW goes but the classic question from the DM to him is, "...and anything else?"

Yes he's multiclassing.

 

[p1138]

I don't have an opinion on PF specifically, because I've only played a couple low level sessions where we didn't have the resources to stack much, but I generally encouraged it in my hack and slash campaigns. That said, if you put together a buffed party, you'd end up fighting buffed ogres and trolls instead of the usual gobbos and orcs.

Monsters, especially intelligent ones, can do that shit too.

They can, but when you've got a lvl 14 character rolling +50 on stealth checks, or casually making every lore check no matter the DC because they can get a +70, it gets well into the realm of stupidity. Even fly checks for dex based characters get stupid into the +30 range once you're in the high teens at which point the normal DCs basically don't apply and you've got supermen flying around that can be stopped with an anti magic field... but then that brings its own set of problems.

It also slows down the game when you aren't using a VTT and need to change bonuses around because some are temporary buffs or whatever, and unless everyone at the table is doing that, you end up with characters swinging with a +25 to hit, while there's the one party member in the back who didn't spend 4 hours reading through everything and only has a +15. Buffing intelligent monsters makes that disparity between players even worse, and on top of that you can get situations where some of the players get frustrating at the "boat anchor" of a party member who is actually doing just fine without spending every possible silver piece available to get a bonus on everything, which can bleed into the general vibe of the table and worse end up with someone trying to tell someone how to play their perfectly normal character to "keep up".

Meanwhile as the DM, you're expected to keep up with the loot treadmill for the party with the big 6, which can just end up super contrived at times, which is a bigger issue with a system that goes to +5 than something like 5e that only goes to +3. Also because the big 6 is basically all "best in slot" it actively discourages players from using any actually creative loot you might hand out just to see someone try and do something interesting because they need those enhancement bonuses that stack with everything else.

It also means as a company releasing content, you never have to give a shit if you've published a +2 sacred ring of strength, a +3 enhancement belt of strength, a +2 circumstance shoes of strength, and so on since not allowing any kind of stacking means that character ends up with a +3 bonus and not a +10 by the time they're done with the rest of their equipment. And since you don't have to worry about stacking bonuses... you can ditch stupid shit like only allowing 3 items for attunement or whatever since those players aren't looking to stack bonuses but actual utility they can roleplay with.

At the same time because I said advantage and disadvantage should mostly be a tool for the DM, you also remove a lot of shit that grants advantage to players so when the DM grants it, it can be more meaningful so you don't end up with 3 instances of advantage cancelling out multiple instances of disadvantage and so on.

 

[The Bogwater Flows On]

It also slows down the game when you aren't using a VTT and need to change bonuses around because some are temporary buffs or whatever,

This is the main reason why Pathfinder itself doesn't interest me. I know it can be played IRL at tables, but it feels like one of those "made for VTT" type games that don't interest me.

I know I got the worst experience with it trying to freeball a Starfinder game, but I dread going into Pathfinder when I see things "Yeah I have a +20 to the roll"

 

[p1138]

This is the main reason why Pathfinder itself doesn't interest me. I know it can be played IRL at tables, but it feels like one of those "made for VTT" type games that don't interest me.

I know I got the worst experience with it trying to freeball a Starfinder game, but I dread going into Pathfinder when I see things "Yeah I have a +20 to the roll"

Weirdly it's not made for a VTT, but I do get what you mean. There's just so much fiddly shit that doesn't add anything to the gameplay or actively detracts from it. PF2 is a bit better however the community for it is just as obnoxious and character creation took things from classes and races and gives you 5(or so, I can't remember exactly how many) buckets of feats to sift through.