All about Pen & Paper rpgs and their relation to video games.

[Another Ned]

I always thought there were many different systems, but I never realized - Damn, there are many different systems!

I've only been playing pen&paper rpg for about one year, and only Anima: Beyond Fantasy with three of my friends (and three different campaigns as all of them wanted to GM), so I can't really compare it to others. Only know that it was super complicated for me to grasp at first (and even after playing a Mentalist for a year now we still have to improvise on psychic powers every now and then) but it gets easier with time. It's a Spanish system strongly inspired by J-RPGs flavour-wise and all you need are two d10 (and the tables. Lots and lots of tables. Scattered all over the book/s). I love my d10s. They always seem to know when it's most interesting to fail.

And now I already see myself spending the coming evenings reading more about the systems discussed here in this thread. D:

I plan on playing more pen&paper rpgs in the future, as I really like the role-playing aspect, the things apart from the usual video game stuff (and seemingly context sensitive dice ). Fighting and running errands for NPCs is something I can do in pretty much every (MMO)RPG, but failing a "Climb" check to fall down a 15 metres high cliff just to be saved by an Energy Shield I cautiously casted on myself before? Has yet to happen to me in a video game.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

@ AstoXx & Touchfuzzy: Both games sound amazing! Thanks for the recommendations.

@ Chiara: Yes, I've heard about Anima, sounds like a pretty good game. But now I'm intrigued by Touchfuzzy's recommendation: Tenra Bansho Zero. If you have any questions about the games in this thread, don't hesitate to ask 

 

[Scythuz]

Seems like I've gone and stumbled into a whole new world haha.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

Seems like I've gone and stumbled into a whole new world haha.

If you feel like that whenever you are about to play an rpg, that's the greatest thing you can accomplish 

 

[kingmakerspider]

Pathfinder is amazing. I play every chance I get. And there's nothing like taking a character through a story arc campaign that lasts from level 1 to level 11 and still going. It is quite the adventure.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

Pathfinder is amazing. I play every chance I get. And there's nothing like taking a character through a story arc campaign that lasts from level 1 to level 11 and still going. It is quite the adventure.

I also love Pathfinder! People point out many of it's flaws, and I can certainly agree with some of them, but I still can't get enough of it: character feat trees, setting flexibility, monster customization, it has a maddenning amount of content and posibilities.

 

[Touchfuzzy]

I like Pathfinder more than 3.x (mostly because they made 20 level base class with maybe an archetype thrown in a viable character choice), and I'll play in it (actually I am in a Rise of the Runelords game that my brother is running), but I would never want to run it personally.

3.x/PF just lay way too much prep work on GMs for my taste. Unless you use adventure paths, which I'm kind of meh to using. I like to create my own adventures more than running someone else's.

I'm honestly looking forward to Next, it looks a truly rules light-medium D&D, which we haven't had in a while.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

@ Touchfuzzy: Yes, Pathfinder is a lot of work for the GM, specially at higher levels when even a single "normal" enemy has a bazillion powers and spells.

I run Pathfinder using the Forgotten Realms campaign setting.

I've heard mixed opinions about D&D next so far, we'll have to wait and see if it's a good change or not.

 

[kingmakerspider]

I'm definitely hoping Next is good too. I'm looking forward to hearing more about it. I'm playing through the Carrion Crown adventure path of Pathfinder...which is amazing, by the way. It's put together very well. And yeah, it has a lot of prep work if you'd create your own. But any GM would know that going into it. So they'd likely steer clear of that if they didn't wanna put that much prep in. I definitely am the kind of guy to want to create my own adventure path too...and have tried multiple times but it is—as you've stated—a lot of work to undertake. Potentially, getting a small team together to do such a thing would expedite things exponentially. Just sayin'.

.

 

[AstoXx]

I'm a bit iffy on Pathfinder myself. While it is still fun and enjoyable, I hate the fact that there are inherent trap options within the game. My biggest gripe is the fact that they actually went and buffed all of the fullcaster classes and even nerfed the noncasters! You got that wrong way around, Paizo!

If you want a good d20 system fix, I'd suggest either Legend or 13th Age, where marials are not simply meatshields and packmules for the Master Race casters. That or play Anima, where everyone can do crazy off-the-wall ****.

 

[kingmakerspider]

Anima...haven't looked into that....hmmm.

I still feel like there's a FAIRLY good balance in the classes, i dunno. But I can only speak for levels 1 through about 9 or so. It does seem like caster classes BECOME the 'master race class' around that time—as they get to more mid-to-high levels. That I can definitely see. There are just so many pen & paper games that are so addictively fun.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

Well, I don't want to sound elitist, but I've never understood why GMs have so much trouble with casters. Yes, as a base class, they are overpowered, but that is easily manageable by dropping a few antimagic or wild magic areas here and there.

I think the power of casters was identified as a potential troublesome element even in the early days, and I'm suspecting that's why they created Beholders in the first place.

So, there are many ways, through monsters, evironments and traps, that a GM can make a caster useless so that the melee users in Pathfinder can shine just as bright. In the strength lies the weakness, casters are amazing because of their spells; well, take them away every now and then 

 

[Touchfuzzy]

Eh, I think casters were more of an issue in 3.x than in Pathfinder. Both have disparity, but at least Fighters get more than a bunch of feats in PF.

 

[AstoXx]

You don't have to make an encounter solely dedicated to bringing down the martials. You DO have to make an encounter dedicated solely to bringing down the casters. With the right spells, they can: fight better than the fighters; sneak better than the rogue; buff better than the bard; shoot stuff better than a ranger and just do everything better than a monk (but who can't?).

The moment you start reasoning to yourself "X isn't so bad, because I can specifically do Y to beat them" you've fallen into a thought-trap. You shouldn't have to create these encounters with antimagic fields just so the wizard can't nuke entire encounters. The worst part of it is, if you want to most effectively stop that wizard/cleric/druid from taking over the party, you add them to the ENEMY encounter, because no-one else can do things like counterspelling or MAKING antimagic fields than those pure Master Race casters. But that's enough about that, other this discussion will take over the whole thread. :\

 

[Another Ned]

[...]

@ Chiara: [...] If you have any questions about the games in this thread, don't hesitate to ask 

Actually, I do have a question. My only experience with Dungeons&Dragons-like rules is playing Baldur's Gate for a short while and I wondered... Do mages really forget their spells after use and... how does this feel while actually playing? Baldur's Gate didn't leave the best impression on me regarding this topic, so I'm curious. Flavour-wise it's an interesting system, but... Hm. And do they also have casting time? (Skill restrictions is an interesting topic, I think)

 

[Frostyfirefly]

Actually, I do have a question. My only experience with Dungeons&Dragons-like rules is playing Baldur's Gate for a short while and I wondered... Do mages really forget their spells after use and... how does this feel while actually playing? Baldur's Gate didn't leave the best impression on me regarding this topic, so I'm curious. Flavour-wise it's an interesting system, but... Hm. And do they also have casting time? (Skill restrictions is an interesting topic, I think)

Yes, the spells are stored as potential energy inside the mages minds, and released and lost when casted; it's modeled after Jack Vance's fictional work "The Dying Earth". When actually playing, it feels restrictive, but it was made that way to have a measure of balance, so that mages don't become too powerful in the game.

There are some casting time restrictions, some of the more elaborate spells may take a few rounds to cast, and if they hit during that time, the spell might be interrupted.

A lot of people don't like that particular system, that's why Dungeon Crawl Classics created a new one in which both wizards and clerics can cas spells almost infinitely, however, each time they do, they risk mutation or losing the favor of their gods. So, on a good streak of rolls, the caster could pretty much spend an entire day firing away at his heart's content, but getting bad rolls, he may just be able to cast a few spells before becoming a walking slug or having to endure some otherworldly punishment.

If you are interested, I'm planning on organizing a play-by-forum Dungeon Crawl Classics adventure mid January, it's a great way to try out that new system.

 

[Another Ned]

Thanks for the answer. I can see why some people wouldn't like such a system. D: Interruption via hit... Does that mean if I was to encounter a really powerful mage I just need to repeatedly hit him so he doesn't use his strong spells? Or does the cartoon playing in my mind right now simplify things a little bit too much?

The improvement with the caster just risking his/her ... well, everything sounds a bit more interesting (and reminds me of an anecdote a friend of mine once told me about a cleric in his group who got turned into a sheep though I can't remember if it was because of a system like that or just him being a meancreative GM...).

As for the play-by-forum thing: Am interested. Never done that before.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

Technically, yes, but a really powerful mage is usually surrounded by minions he previously binded to his will, has like a ton of magical defenses up (mirror image, mage armor...), and will never use spells that require a long casting time when up close or in missile fire range; he will most likely use instantaneous spells first that paralyze or immobilize, so he can launch the big ones. There's also the possibility he will use Disintegrate or Meteor Swarm right off the bat, which require virtually no casting time and may pretty much decimate an entire group in a few rounds.

Cool, I'll let you know when I organize the whole thing and save you a spot. Play by forum, is quite easy: the dungeon master sets up a scene, you post your character's action, and then he tells you what happens according to roleplaying and dice rolls; there will also be a thread with all the basic rules so beginners can jump right in. We would play it at rpggeek.com, where they have an awesome dice roller. Chek out my review of Dungeon Crawl Classics on my youtube channel if you want to know more about the game.

 

[Kaelan]

Actually, I do have a question. My only experience with Dungeons&Dragons-like rules is playing Baldur's Gate for a short while and I wondered... Do mages really forget their spells after use and... how does this feel while actually playing? Baldur's Gate didn't leave the best impression on me regarding this topic, so I'm curious. Flavour-wise it's an interesting system, but... Hm. And do they also have casting time? (Skill restrictions is an interesting topic, I think)

Some casters (Wizards, Clerics) have a number of slots you can put spells in. You can use each slot exactly once each day, then you have to rest for several hours to be able to use them again. If you want to cast a spell multiple times, you have to put it in multiple slots. Others (Sorcerers, Bards) can use any spell of a given level a certain number of times per day. It's not much different from running out of MP, the only difference is your resource (slots or spells/day instead of MP) apply to specific spells or levels of spells instead of everything you can cast.

Usually there is no casting time - at least not equivalent to something like FFT cast timers. D&D is turn based and most spells cast on your turn as soon as you decide to use them. They can usually be interrupted if you cast too close to an enemy unit, and there are ways of explicitly saying "I'm going to give up my turn to watch for your spells and interrupt you next time you start casting", but thats about it.

It's pretty easy to get used to, to be honest. In a well-run game, you'll feel like conserving resources is important (can't toss your strongest spell every fight cause - well, you might only have one or two castings of it).

 

[Another Ned]

@Frostyfirefly: Too bad, the images in my head were so much funnier than reality (again).
But Meteors? Really? Should have expected that. Wizards love their meteors.
(Now I remember playing Dragon's Dogma and my sorcerer pawn casting meteors when encountering drakes, griffins, cyclopes, wolves...)

Is there also "friendly fire"? A wizard wiping out half his/her party by accident?

In Anima I have some skills I think I shouldn't use in closed rooms and only if my allies are somewhere else, which is another... interesting restriction (and a bit of a balancing thing, I guess, as I once one-hit a bandit with my level 1 mentalist).

@Kaelan: Thanks for the explanation. You talking from experience playing such classes?

And these slots, you get more of them per level up, right?  
Haven't played FFT, but I think I get what you mean.

I was mostly asking about casting time because of a one-session experience playing a Wizard in Anima. There you need to spend time accumulating your mana-equivalent before casting spells, meaning that as a Wizard, you're pretty much useless for several turns. Was just curious if it's the same for D&D-based systems.