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
My group hasn't met in person for a year now due to the coof and other stuff going on... and I realize that I am barely invested in the game as a result.
I barely listen to what's going on, most often spend my time scrolling through whatever website I got open at the time and and I really don't know what the overall goal is at the moment.
I mean, we resolved the last quest, got rewarded and now spent some time stocking up before we head out, but I only know the very barebones aspects of what we do and why.

Doesn't help that technically, my character should be pressing on cause he has a personal agenda that would actually necessitate faster travel, but we get bogged down in various ways and frankly, if I was playing my character more logically, I would have packed my shit and left the group behind, cause it's slowing me down too much...

I also think that the DnD system is taking its toll on me. Character progression feels so limited and railroady. I am ramshackled to a level-up system that allows me no meaningful decisions and even multiclassing doesn't seem like that'd offer much relief, it would just mean that I can choose between yet another linear path parallel to the old one. I am also getting really tired of the powercreep. I guess being able to easily obliterate something that used to be a tough challenge 3 or 4 levels ago is pretty rewarding for most players, but to me, it's just too game-y, if that makes any sense. Especially since the opposite also applies: If the DM puts some NPC in front of me that just happens to be a few levels higher, I am so comically underpowered that I don't even need to humor the thought of trying to fight them - especially when they can ruin my shit with some "succeeed at dumpstat saving throw with disadvantage or be instagibbed" bullshit abilities. Of course, I don't mind NPCs being weaker or stronger, but the difference in power in DnD is way too steep in both directions.

In a sense, it feels like the treadmill aspect of the levelgrinder gameplay. You need to work your way up so you get greater numbers, so you can work your way further up to get even higher numbers... and the fact that the game throws stuff at you with ridiculous numbers, that need a ridiculous amount of working my way up, highlights that.
 
RomanesEuntDomus said:
My group hasn't met in person for a year now due to the coof and other stuff going on... and I realize that I am barely invested in the game as a result.
I barely listen to what's going on, most often spend my time scrolling through whatever website I got open at the time and and I really don't know what the overall goal is at the moment.
I mean, we resolved the last quest, got rewarded and now spent some time stocking up before we head out, but I only know the very barebones aspects of what we do and why.

Doesn't help that technically, my character should be pressing on cause he has a personal agenda that would actually necessitate faster travel, but we get bogged down in various ways and frankly, if I was playing my character more logically, I would have packed my shit and left the group behind, cause it's slowing me down too much...

I also think that the DnD system is taking its toll on me. Character progression feels so limited and railroady. I am ramshackled to a level-up system that allows me no meaningful decisions and even multiclassing doesn't seem like that'd offer much relief, it would just mean that I can choose between yet another linear path parallel to the old one. I am also getting really tired of the powercreep. I guess being able to easily obliterate something that used to be a tough challenge 3 or 4 levels ago is pretty rewarding for most players, but to me, it's just too game-y, if that makes any sense. Especially since the opposite also applies: If the DM puts some NPC in front of me that just happens to be a few levels higher, I am so comically underpowered that I don't even need to humor the thought of trying to fight them - especially when they can ruin my shit with some "succeeed at dumpstat saving throw with disadvantage or be instagibbed" bullshit abilities. Of course, I don't mind NPCs being weaker or stronger, but the difference in power in DnD is way too steep in both directions.

In a sense, it feels like the treadmill aspect of the levelgrinder gameplay. You need to work your way up so you get greater numbers, so you can work your way further up to get even higher numbers... and the fact that the game throws stuff at you with ridiculous numbers, that need a ridiculous amount of working my way up, highlights that.
Click to expand...
My group is all over the place now so I know the feels some what, but for us it's better. We're all either Old Hats or Grey Beards either retired, close to retirement, or so busy we can't leave the house (we're expecting twins next year.) so playing online is better for all of us. We can keep track of what's going on easier without having to rely on our aging memories. Wednesdays tend to be any setting/ rules and our weekend games tend to be AD&D to help keep the game "fresh".

Over the years we've implemented a lot of house rules into various games. Such as wounds/ vitality in D&D so while you can heal vitality in the game with cure spells, nothing short of a Heal spell or something similar will heal woulds so you had to play a lot more smart. If a body part took too many wounds it's gone, similar to how grim dark games are today. We also enjoyed using the Skills and Powers book. One day I'll have to consolidate all of the rules and house rules we used to make a custom AD&D setting for any other group I join to use. Probably put together all of the traps and riddles my GM used too that kept us on our toes too.
 
Yaoi Huntress Earth said:
I guess that answers my question.
Click to expand...

depends what you disliked about 4th ed. the content argument is a bit disingenuous considering pf1 is basically dnd 3.75, you got so much content back to 3.x that pretty much any new rpg or version will be "worse" - and "just convert it bro" is moot when you can do it for pf2 as well. also doesn't help that 3.x "content" is the prime example for sturgeon's law (and quite a few ppl play pf2 so some stuff has already been ported or at least discussed if you need some pointers about).

personally I like the 3 action system, the class design and especially the monsters getting their own abilities based on the fluff.
but I'm also the guy who prefers a solid system if I want to just crawl dungeons and rolls some dice, for anything else I go full narrative with fate/genesys anyway, so trying to fit the square peg into a round hole was never much of an issue for me.
 
ZMOT said:
but I'm also the guy who prefers a solid system if I want to just crawl dungeons and rolls some dice, for anything else I go full narrative with fate/genesys anyway, so trying to fit the square peg into a round hole was never much of an issue for me.
Click to expand...
I'm on that team, too. No version of D&D was great for roleplaying. The social interaction rules have always been barebones at best and required lots of adjudication from the GM no matter what. So if a campaign was going to be heavy on intrigue, investigation or social scenes, we houseruled or homebrewed damn near everything anyway. I played 4e with two groups, and both times we still did the roleplay-heavy parts as well as we would do in 3.5e or later 5e.

I do miss playing my Warlord, though. Healing someone by basically yelling at them to rub some dirt on it and man up was just stupid fun.
 
Shaka Brah said:
Summary: It's designed so that ability use is programmatic and un-fun. Classes were built with "rotations" like an MMO instead of toolkits.
Click to expand...
Most people who have made response videos either claim every version of D&D or tabletop RPGs for that matter are the same (I had to make sure I was never subbed to such idiots), or have GM's who went out of their way to try and make the game fun by giving away magic items like candy and allowing players to do whatever the fuck they wanted despite what rules say. Lots of people out there trying to deny that the game plays too much like an MMO, and a boring one at that.
 
Anonymus Fluhre said:
Most people who have made response videos either claim every version of D&D or tabletop RPGs for that matter are the same (I had to make sure I was never subbed to such idiots), or have GM's who went out of their way to try and make the game fun by giving away magic items like candy and allowing players to do whatever the fuck they wanted despite what rules say. Lots of people out there trying to deny that the game plays too much like an MMO, and a boring one at that.
Click to expand...
What's with makers wanting their TTRPGs to be more like MMOs these days?
 
Yaoi Huntress Earth said:
What's with makers wanting their TTRPGs to be more like MMOs these days?
Click to expand...
Dante Alighieri said:
Probably trying to draw mmo players in.
Click to expand...
Basically this. It was why 4th Edition was the way it was. It was made during the height of WoW's popularity. Only thing is, that sort of gameplay doesn't work on the table. Nor does items using prefixes and suffixes. Video mechanics are hard to work on the table, but tabletop mechanics can work really well in video games.
 
Anonymus Fluhre said:
Basically this. It was why 4th Edition was the way it was. It was made during the height of WoW's popularity. Only thing is, that sort of gameplay doesn't work on the table. Nor does items using prefixes and suffixes. Video mechanics are hard to work on the table, but tabletop mechanics can work really well in video games.
Click to expand...
I understand the thinking behind it, but I also see how it went wrong.

It's one thing to translate ttrpg rules into a video game. It's pretty simple and the mechanics can be abstracted easily and has had a lot of success. It's another to take those translated mechanics and translate them back and make it work in a ttrpg. It's like using Google Translate multiple times.
 
Kyria the Great said:
For you veteran DMs, how do you write some impactful plot hook or twist that isn't seem as trite that will get your players to care in character?
Click to expand...
Don't hesitate to ask them questions about their characters. Ask them if they have any normie non-adventurer friends for example. Make them come up with some carpenter they still know who just works a regular job, then tie him in to whatever plot hook you want. In the example of that carpenter, he'll probably get added to their grab bag of weird solutions to problems too, because adventurers get piles of gold and your player might want to give their buddy a job.

This can go on to other things too, just asking your players to name a few things their characters care about, even in passing can give you some stuff to work with.

The trick to it is to make it kind of a casual talk when in reality you're tricking them into doing your job for you.
 
Anonymus Fluhre said:
Basically this. It was why 4th Edition was the way it was. It was made during the height of WoW's popularity. Only thing is, that sort of gameplay doesn't work on the table. Nor does items using prefixes and suffixes. Video mechanics are hard to work on the table, but tabletop mechanics can work really well in video games.
Click to expand...
The thing is, at least in my opinion, 4e was actually quite fun because it was a tactical wargame in an RPG's clothes. As a tactical RPG (video game) player who was then just starting to move to tabletop RPGs, I found it very familiar and interesting because it reminded me of things like Final Fantasy Tactics. There were a lot of viable options for each class and no real "rotation" unless you were doing a few gimmick builds, since most of the effects relied on repositioning enemies, and that had to be done with a unique approach to the battlefield every time.

Without the emphasis on positioning people on a battle-grid, that kind of class design becomes totally stale.
 
Shaka Brah said:
The thing is, at least in my opinion, 4e was actually quite fun because it was a tactical wargame in an RPG's clothes. As a tactical RPG (video game) player who was then just starting to move to tabletop RPGs, I found it very familiar and interesting because it reminded me of things like Final Fantasy Tactics. There were a lot of viable options for each class and no real "rotation" unless you were doing a few gimmick builds, since most of the effects relied on repositioning enemies, and that had to be done with a unique approach to the battlefield every time.

Without the emphasis on positioning people on a battle-grid, that kind of class design becomes totally stale.
Click to expand...
If it wasn't Official D&D 4th Edition and instead "D&D: Tactics" I think it would've been more palatable and could exist alongside the regular tabletop rules instead of replacing them
 
Dante Alighieri said:
If it wasn't Official D&D 4th Edition and instead "D&D: Tactics" I think it would've been more palatable and could exist alongside the regular tabletop rules instead of replacing them
Click to expand...
Especially in today's world of online tabletops, a refined version of 4e billed as a tactical combat experience would be an amazing niche product.
 
Maybe it's because I'm so used to the original Pathfinder and 3.5 ed. that the new rules didn't fly with me as much. Also, I'd like to share a Youtube channel about WoD (though they did a history of D&D and Cyberpunk). They're also reviewing Storyteller's Vault stuff and I hope one day one of my piece will be good enough to get attention from them.
 
Shaka Brah said:
The thing is, at least in my opinion, 4e was actually quite fun because it was a tactical wargame in an RPG's clothes. As a tactical RPG (video game) player who was then just starting to move to tabletop RPGs, I found it very familiar and interesting because it reminded me of things like Final Fantasy Tactics. There were a lot of viable options for each class and no real "rotation" unless you were doing a few gimmick builds, since most of the effects relied on repositioning enemies, and that had to be done with a unique approach to the battlefield every time.

Without the emphasis on positioning people on a battle-grid, that kind of class design becomes totally stale.
Click to expand...
In terms of a skirmish wargame it was pretty good, probably as good as Warmachine or Kill Team. As a RPG it was terrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom