- Joined
- Feb 28, 2012
- Messages
- 7,295
- Reaction score
- 8,906
- First Language
- English
- Primarily Uses
- RMMZ
FantasyCraft is awesome but probably heavier than anything I would run nowadays. Would run it before I ran Pathfinder though.
All about Pen & Paper rpgs and their relation to video games.
- Thread starter Frostyfirefly
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pen and paper
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2012
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 76
- First Language
- Logic
- Primarily Uses
Hells, yes. MAID RPG is brilliant, as is Tenra Bansho Zero. Hell, I could list a massive amount of Japanese tabletops that I love.
Nechronica probably being the one I most love. Double Cross looks good, but I don't know if it has a translation or not.
@Potatocat:
You say he has bad taste in TTRPG's, yet you list 3.5? 3.5 is broken as hell and just outright unplayable with someone with decent system mastery. Paranoia was already mentioned (by yours truly, actually). Also, as pretty much everyone else has stated, please don't act like an elitist douche, we're ALL fans of the hobby here.
For something really obscure, there's always Eoris, which is just full of sheer art-student levels of pretension. Its character sheet is... dayum. It's something else, that's for sure.
Nechronica probably being the one I most love. Double Cross looks good, but I don't know if it has a translation or not.
@Potatocat:
You say he has bad taste in TTRPG's, yet you list 3.5? 3.5 is broken as hell and just outright unplayable with someone with decent system mastery. Paranoia was already mentioned (by yours truly, actually). Also, as pretty much everyone else has stated, please don't act like an elitist douche, we're ALL fans of the hobby here.
For something really obscure, there's always Eoris, which is just full of sheer art-student levels of pretension. Its character sheet is... dayum. It's something else, that's for sure.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2012
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 83
- First Language
- English
- Primarily Uses
Yeah, I've been slowly moving towards lighter systems as well. There's just something about crunchy games that keeps drawing me back though...
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2013
- Messages
- 264
- Reaction score
- 98
- First Language
- English
- Primarily Uses
- N/A
People wanting to run a game by the book and have enough complexity to cover any given circumstance is fine. I get that, it's not quite my thing, but I get it. I'd rather have something with medium crunch and bring more fair judgements and improvisation into it, but I understand the line where a game should be doing its job for the appropriate story genre instead of a GM trying to fit a square peg into a round hole or doing more work than they need. Also, 20+ years of experience with d20 games also makes them seem like a much easier option for me than some of the lightest systems.
On the other hand, I think there's a lot of players and even GMs that only want complex systems because they have an adversarial relationship with the the rest of the table or they just don't think they can do things that aren't specifically mentioned in the book.
If you find a lot of lawyering going on at your table, you may be saying no to your players a little too often and re-enforcing the idea of restrictions on what they can do. There's times when the crunchiest system fails you or you can't find the rule and you just need to make a call for the moment and do the research afterwards. As a classic thief player, I can tell you some people aren't as into playing by the rules and there's a lot of cases where you'll have an easier time making quick calls and running lighter rather than hitting the books and slapping them on the wrist.
If someone is calling for a climb check to go up a ladder after the GM tries to hand-wave it though, they need to understand they aren't making the game any more fun for anyone and they're maybe missing the point. As a classic thief player, I can also tell you there's a big difference between bending the rules and breaking them. no one wants the game screeching to a halt because the player is trying to BS their way past rules the GM wants to enforce to the letter.
On the other hand, I think there's a lot of players and even GMs that only want complex systems because they have an adversarial relationship with the the rest of the table or they just don't think they can do things that aren't specifically mentioned in the book.
If you find a lot of lawyering going on at your table, you may be saying no to your players a little too often and re-enforcing the idea of restrictions on what they can do. There's times when the crunchiest system fails you or you can't find the rule and you just need to make a call for the moment and do the research afterwards. As a classic thief player, I can tell you some people aren't as into playing by the rules and there's a lot of cases where you'll have an easier time making quick calls and running lighter rather than hitting the books and slapping them on the wrist.
If someone is calling for a climb check to go up a ladder after the GM tries to hand-wave it though, they need to understand they aren't making the game any more fun for anyone and they're maybe missing the point. As a classic thief player, I can also tell you there's a big difference between bending the rules and breaking them. no one wants the game screeching to a halt because the player is trying to BS their way past rules the GM wants to enforce to the letter.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2013
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 90
- First Language
- Spanish
- Primarily Uses
@Omnimental: Me too, I think it's because of a natural tendency of wanting to learn and solve calculations on different levels; even when they aren't even necessary, the crunch is just too addictive 
@monkeynohito: That's true, I had a lot of trouble finding players during my younger years, because they wanted an adversarial game, and when the game meant cooperation or working together to create an experience, they felt it was kinda boring. I guess that also has to do with the kind of school I was going to, heh.
When I GM, I always try to make quick calls, but if a player thinks there is a chance to handle the situation otherwise, I will allow them a check, or just rule out in their favor; PCs have it really hard anyway, with all those traps, monsters and other obstacles.
@monkeynohito: That's true, I had a lot of trouble finding players during my younger years, because they wanted an adversarial game, and when the game meant cooperation or working together to create an experience, they felt it was kinda boring. I guess that also has to do with the kind of school I was going to, heh.
When I GM, I always try to make quick calls, but if a player thinks there is a chance to handle the situation otherwise, I will allow them a check, or just rule out in their favor; PCs have it really hard anyway, with all those traps, monsters and other obstacles.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,096
- Reaction score
- 127
- First Language
- Piglish
- Primarily Uses
In a tabletop RPG, two rules reign supreme when I'm GM.
1. If it's funny, it happens. Screw the rules. If I want to break physics, I'm breaking physics. If you're clever enough to throw a banana peel under an enemy's feet, he falls. Now, since that guy over there spilled some gas on the floor, and your other comrade has a match, I'd call the fight over. Typically what will ensue after that: slight burn damage to everyone, a lot of burn damage to one guy, and a pile of ash that used to be said guy's pants. And if I want rainbow-farting cyborg unicorns who are actually the spawn of Satan as enemies (and with the GURPS rules, I totally know how to do that), then gosh-darn-it, I'm having rainbow-farting cyborg unicorns who are actually the spawn of Satan as enemies.
2. If something would be detrimental to a character's health but still funny, it happens. A few (well, one in particular) members of the group don't mind their characters getting hurt to accomplish a goal. As a GM, I'm fine with this. Now, I wouldn't kill anyone or break their character concept in half (poking out the eyes of a vision-based char, cutting off the hand of a dual-wielder, etc.) to be funny. That's cruel. I WOULD have them lose HP for being idiots, or (more hilariously) having their plans backfire spectacularly.
There are a few minor rules that are lightly enforced (we select a group leader at the beginning of a session. This person is the only one who can give a direct order on what the party does outside of battle), as well. My favorite one is "everyone shuts up when the GM claps his hands". Of course, this is rarely followed, but it gives you some sense of control. I would personally recommend doing these things to your playgroup if you aren't already as we always have a grand old time playing. We also try to keep things moving along; if I don't have a damage formula present, I'll just throw a number at the wall and see if it sticks. Oh, and also always bring snacks. People get mad at the guy in our group who eats all the chips for that reason.
-Wallace
1. If it's funny, it happens. Screw the rules. If I want to break physics, I'm breaking physics. If you're clever enough to throw a banana peel under an enemy's feet, he falls. Now, since that guy over there spilled some gas on the floor, and your other comrade has a match, I'd call the fight over. Typically what will ensue after that: slight burn damage to everyone, a lot of burn damage to one guy, and a pile of ash that used to be said guy's pants. And if I want rainbow-farting cyborg unicorns who are actually the spawn of Satan as enemies (and with the GURPS rules, I totally know how to do that), then gosh-darn-it, I'm having rainbow-farting cyborg unicorns who are actually the spawn of Satan as enemies.
2. If something would be detrimental to a character's health but still funny, it happens. A few (well, one in particular) members of the group don't mind their characters getting hurt to accomplish a goal. As a GM, I'm fine with this. Now, I wouldn't kill anyone or break their character concept in half (poking out the eyes of a vision-based char, cutting off the hand of a dual-wielder, etc.) to be funny. That's cruel. I WOULD have them lose HP for being idiots, or (more hilariously) having their plans backfire spectacularly.
There are a few minor rules that are lightly enforced (we select a group leader at the beginning of a session. This person is the only one who can give a direct order on what the party does outside of battle), as well. My favorite one is "everyone shuts up when the GM claps his hands". Of course, this is rarely followed, but it gives you some sense of control. I would personally recommend doing these things to your playgroup if you aren't already as we always have a grand old time playing. We also try to keep things moving along; if I don't have a damage formula present, I'll just throw a number at the wall and see if it sticks. Oh, and also always bring snacks. People get mad at the guy in our group who eats all the chips for that reason.
-Wallace
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2012
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 83
- First Language
- English
- Primarily Uses
If everybody's on board for it, adversarial games can work fine. Unfortunately, I'm one of the few people in my gaming circles that prefers playing "Actually Good" characters. Everyone else seems to mostly prefer mindless hack'n'slash or selfish grimdark characters. Which is a perfectly fine way to play. Just not what I enjoy.
As to my opinion on crunch vs fluff, it entirely depends on what kind of game I'm looking to play. Over the top cinematic goes to rules lite (ala Anima Prime) while more 'realistic' games tends to favour crunchier systems (like GURPS or Fantasy Craft).
As to my opinion on crunch vs fluff, it entirely depends on what kind of game I'm looking to play. Over the top cinematic goes to rules lite (ala Anima Prime) while more 'realistic' games tends to favour crunchier systems (like GURPS or Fantasy Craft).
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2013
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 90
- First Language
- Spanish
- Primarily Uses
@wallacethepig: Those are good rules, a lot of people like that free-form style of GMing. I think they are also very fitting for comedy rpgs, where you need to focus on humor.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2013
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 90
- First Language
- Spanish
- Primarily Uses
I agree, if that's the kind of game you are playing, it can work. Rpgs like Maid and Epoch have a lot of adversarial choices and actually thrive on that.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2012
- Messages
- 258
- Reaction score
- 89
- First Language
- Italian
- Primarily Uses
I mostly play D&D 3.5/Pathfinder. I'd like to try different games, but me and my friends have several campaigns we like too much to end, and we don't have time to start other ones.
I'm trying the new edition of FATE, though. I think it has a lot of potential, which I'm not using very well since I'm not used to GMing it yet.
I think the problem of D&D is that for many people it's "the role-playing game", and it becomes the default option for a lot of groups that have a style of play not really supported by the rules, or that forces them to actively work against the rules.
For example, I'm aware that the campaign I'm DMing would probably be better if we used another system, but when I started it I used the only system I knew, and after several years making the change would be pratically impossible.
I'm trying the new edition of FATE, though. I think it has a lot of potential, which I'm not using very well since I'm not used to GMing it yet.
I think the problem of D&D is that for many people it's "the role-playing game", and it becomes the default option for a lot of groups that have a style of play not really supported by the rules, or that forces them to actively work against the rules.
For example, I'm aware that the campaign I'm DMing would probably be better if we used another system, but when I started it I used the only system I knew, and after several years making the change would be pratically impossible.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2013
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 90
- First Language
- Spanish
- Primarily Uses
@Cozzer: Me too! 70% of the time, I'm playing something D&D related.
D&D 1st Ed to Pathfinder is, in my opinion, too strong as a universal rpg language, in which you sit at a table at a convention and almost everyone will know how to play it. I also like to try other systems too, because D&D appears at my table faster than a trap springs at the Tomb of Horrors.
D&D 1st Ed to Pathfinder is, in my opinion, too strong as a universal rpg language, in which you sit at a table at a convention and almost everyone will know how to play it. I also like to try other systems too, because D&D appears at my table faster than a trap springs at the Tomb of Horrors.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2013
- Messages
- 264
- Reaction score
- 98
- First Language
- English
- Primarily Uses
- N/A
What I meant about adversarial relationships is OOC GM vs. player situations, actual social problems the group is having. You have two players looking at each other, thinking the other is getting in the way of what they really want to do and a bunch of rules lawyering, competitive BS happens. You get some people who just don't play well with others demanding a book with a solution to every situation they could get into an argument about and that's the only reason they want a heavy system. You get a lot of min-maxers, too, who just had a really hard-assed party-killer GM in their past and now they feel like they have to protect their investment even if they'd really rather focus on RP. Even in some of the best groups, with people getting along, the kneejerk first reaction is to try to think of a rule to help solve issues that come up instead of actually talking things out together and getting **** sorted.
Actually, How do you deal with rules lawyers and powergamers?
This question is an edit, so I'll give my own answer later after someone else chimes in.
Actually, How do you deal with rules lawyers and powergamers?
This question is an edit, so I'll give my own answer later after someone else chimes in.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2013
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 90
- First Language
- Spanish
- Primarily Uses
@monkeynohito: That question is really tough, they actually had a panel during Virtuacon last year about things like that, it must be in youtube somewhere. My personal take on the question is this:
Rules lawyers:
From the start, I make sure everyone in the table knows that I will be modifying and forgetting the rules every now and then, but if they know something I don't or if they have a suggestion, they are free to let me know, but that doesn't mean I will implement it. They are ok with it and there hasn't been any serious trouble lately because of that. In my experience, the trouble comes when either the GM or the rules lawyer acts very rigid when a rules problem comes up; compromise is everything, if one does not bend, almost everyone at the table will be annoyed by that person and it is very likely they will not play with that person again.
Power gamers:
These are very common in my games, and I usually let them min/max their characters, however, I let them know that because they are playing with a certain level of "expertise" that other more casual players aren't using, I will make things a lot harder for that character, and if that character is knocked out or dies because the challenge was too great, the threat that defeated him (monster, trap, etc.) will not be as hard for the remaining players. It's kinda like scaling the levels of enemies in video games, not the same, but similar.
They are not the best solutions, but they are the ones that work for me.
Rules lawyers:
From the start, I make sure everyone in the table knows that I will be modifying and forgetting the rules every now and then, but if they know something I don't or if they have a suggestion, they are free to let me know, but that doesn't mean I will implement it. They are ok with it and there hasn't been any serious trouble lately because of that. In my experience, the trouble comes when either the GM or the rules lawyer acts very rigid when a rules problem comes up; compromise is everything, if one does not bend, almost everyone at the table will be annoyed by that person and it is very likely they will not play with that person again.
Power gamers:
These are very common in my games, and I usually let them min/max their characters, however, I let them know that because they are playing with a certain level of "expertise" that other more casual players aren't using, I will make things a lot harder for that character, and if that character is knocked out or dies because the challenge was too great, the threat that defeated him (monster, trap, etc.) will not be as hard for the remaining players. It's kinda like scaling the levels of enemies in video games, not the same, but similar.
They are not the best solutions, but they are the ones that work for me.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2013
- Messages
- 264
- Reaction score
- 98
- First Language
- English
- Primarily Uses
- N/A
Yeah, I treat them pretty similar to that.
For rules lawyers, I'm open about any house rules I'm going to implement, make sure people know about changes and I'm open to suggestions. I'll also try to keep any rule questions to a minimum during play and try to get back to it afterwards. More often than not, I'll just give the advantage to the player, but if I want to say no, I'll usually give them a chance on a dice roll instead. I can always adjust the game based on whatever happens in those instances anyway. If the answer is obviously no, the other players will say something too.
Powergamers/min-maxers aren't as much of a problem as long as they aren't demanding all combat, all the time. I'm also pretty open about giving rewards for character and roleplaying, so you kind of have to do that if you really want to powergame with me. I don't mind giving people superpowers, but I need something to work with. I also don't have a problem with picking on stronger PCs more during combat. If that seems unfair, they need to get out of the powergamer's racket.
I've only had a couple times when a player was just out to sabotage a game or trying to play so far outside of everyone else's style that it was a huge problem. In both cases, I was ready to let them go, but they quit before it had to come to that, so I'm still not sure if I could actually go through with it. Some people just don't get gaming, so don't ruin your game to appease them.
For rules lawyers, I'm open about any house rules I'm going to implement, make sure people know about changes and I'm open to suggestions. I'll also try to keep any rule questions to a minimum during play and try to get back to it afterwards. More often than not, I'll just give the advantage to the player, but if I want to say no, I'll usually give them a chance on a dice roll instead. I can always adjust the game based on whatever happens in those instances anyway. If the answer is obviously no, the other players will say something too.
Powergamers/min-maxers aren't as much of a problem as long as they aren't demanding all combat, all the time. I'm also pretty open about giving rewards for character and roleplaying, so you kind of have to do that if you really want to powergame with me. I don't mind giving people superpowers, but I need something to work with. I also don't have a problem with picking on stronger PCs more during combat. If that seems unfair, they need to get out of the powergamer's racket.
I've only had a couple times when a player was just out to sabotage a game or trying to play so far outside of everyone else's style that it was a huge problem. In both cases, I was ready to let them go, but they quit before it had to come to that, so I'm still not sure if I could actually go through with it. Some people just don't get gaming, so don't ruin your game to appease them.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2013
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 90
- First Language
- Spanish
- Primarily Uses
I recently uploaded a video review for Interface Zero 2.0 (Savage Worlds). It's an incredibly complete game, it surprises me how it includes so many things that other systems would need dozens of supplements to integrate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv0emJrGhDs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv0emJrGhDs
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2012
- Messages
- 7,295
- Reaction score
- 8,906
- First Language
- English
- Primarily Uses
- RMMZ
There might be something interesting on page 195.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2013
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 90
- First Language
- Spanish
- Primarily Uses
Let me think; I'm guessing one of the NPCs is based on or looks like you?
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2012
- Messages
- 7,295
- Reaction score
- 8,906
- First Language
- English
- Primarily Uses
- RMMZ
Yep, I backed it on kickstarter for quite a bit. It was a birthday present for myself last year
.(It looks a little heavier than me though)
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2013
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 90
- First Language
- Spanish
- Primarily Uses
Oh, the one on the right; that's awesome!
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2013
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 257
- First Language
- Dutch
- Primarily Uses
- RMMV
As we just had the first session of the 13th age campaign I'm in, it's a good system.
I play as a Wood Elf Ranger/Dragonslayer who is destined to slay the Red Dragon (and by extension, The Three) but runs straight in the other direction if you just mention 'fire'. We have a human cleric in the party who still worships the White Dragon. Next up we have a half-elf Sorceress, a human Necromancer (who is GOOD), a forgeborn monk who used to be a magic sword (she is pretty much a living, magical weapon, and gains the perks of a magic weapon, can talk to them etc.) and a tiefling pirate.
We met a minor white dragon, who respects me because the dragons who don't respect dragonslayers tend to have really short lives. After that, we saved a village of gnomes. Then we got the plothook for the next session, we're called to Axis and we have to steal some magic book from the Archmage in Horizon for the minor white dragon. The Sorceress got a baby gold dragon as a companion. (me does not like *grumble*, it breathed fire right in front of my face! Cue me running in circles because of the fire.)
This game is fun.
I play as a Wood Elf Ranger/Dragonslayer who is destined to slay the Red Dragon (and by extension, The Three) but runs straight in the other direction if you just mention 'fire'. We have a human cleric in the party who still worships the White Dragon. Next up we have a half-elf Sorceress, a human Necromancer (who is GOOD), a forgeborn monk who used to be a magic sword (she is pretty much a living, magical weapon, and gains the perks of a magic weapon, can talk to them etc.) and a tiefling pirate.
We met a minor white dragon, who respects me because the dragons who don't respect dragonslayers tend to have really short lives. After that, we saved a village of gnomes. Then we got the plothook for the next session, we're called to Axis and we have to steal some magic book from the Archmage in Horizon for the minor white dragon. The Sorceress got a baby gold dragon as a companion. (me does not like *grumble*, it breathed fire right in front of my face! Cue me running in circles because of the fire.)
This game is fun.
