| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a MSH "FASERIP" retro-clone called, appropriately enough, FASERIP that's available at no cost from DriveThruRPG.
(Interior art was by my friend and former GM, Storn Cook.)
My group played a little Marvel Super Heroes RPG back in the '80s, but we didn't really get into it: None of us were big comic book fans, so our touchstones were all Saturday morning super-hero shows from the '60s, '70s, & early '80s like Space Ghost, The New Adventures of Batman and Robin, Super Friends and Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends.
I played Aberrant a few times in the '90s, but I kind of bounced off of it. I never owned a copy of the book and I don't remember the rules all that well. It might have been the group rather than the rules: The other players weren't all that into being super-heroes and bristled against genre expectations... which frustrated the GM. That group ended up switching to playing ADRPG.
Mutans & Masterminds is a pretty interesting supers game in that is uses WotC's d20 OGL, but the resulting game bears only a passing similarity to D&D in that there's a core mechanic of rolling 1d20+modifier to meet or exceed a Difficulty Class. There's no hit points, and the only die used in the game is the d20. It uses 8 stats instead of six, each with a Rank, which is the modifier added to the d20 on rolls. Powers are descriptive and mostly free-form, but do carry mechanical weight. I've only played it a couple of times at conventions, but I think it's a pretty solid supers system.
I've played Masks a few times, and that one is very different from more "standard" supers RPGs: It's specifically about teenage superheroes. The game is more focused on interpersonal relationships, identity and sense of self, coming of age, and growth than it is about punching bad guys.
I just received my copy of the short-lived RPG Marvel Heroic Roleplaying from 2012, published by Margaret Weis Productions, and uses the Cortex Plus rules. Some friends of mine who are more into supers games than I am tell me that it's their favorite supers RPG, mainly for its extensive Teamwork rules. As a Cortex game, the core resolution mechanic is that the character assembles a dice pool, rolls them all, and adds the two highest numbers rolled, seeking to beat either a target number or an opposed roll. The dice rolled vary between d4, d6, d8, d10, and d12. There are mechanics in place to determine which die and how many are rolled on a specific check. Obviously higher dice can roll higher values, but there are mechanics that encourage a player to roll a lower die in certain circumstances. I haven't yet played a Cortex game yet, and it's very high on my "want to play" list.
New topic for discussion...
Have you ever encountered a specific RPG innovation, mechanic, or table practice that changed the way you looked at/approached playing TTRPGs in general?
If so: What was it, and how did it change your approach?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
New topic for discussion...
Have you ever encountered a specific RPG innovation, mechanic, or table practice that changed the way you looked at/approached playing TTRPGs in general?
If so: What was it, and how did it change your approach?
Scum and Villainy's (or I guess Blades more generally, but S&V is the one I've played) flashback mechanic. I really want to port a version of it over to my Pathfinder games because it was a very fluid and genre savvy way of keeping action moving instead of everyone hyper planning and detailing stuff in advance before anything could happen ... just fill in the blanks ex post facto.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scum and Villainy's (or I guess Blades more generally, but S&V is the one I've played) flashback mechanic. I really want to port a version of it over to my Pathfinder games because it was a very fluid and genre savvy way of keeping action moving instead of everyone hyper planning and detailing stuff in advance before anything could happen ... just fill in the blanks ex post facto.New topic for discussion...
Have you ever encountered a specific RPG innovation, mechanic, or table practice that changed the way you looked at/approached playing TTRPGs in general?
If so: What was it, and how did it change your approach?
100% agree! The flashback mechanic from Blades in the Dark is a thing of beauty that makes a "heist" adventure just sing at the table!
Kind of a retread of familiar ground, but the Traveller chargen system is really interesting. Since the game doesn't have leveling, its easier to have a random generator for making a character. Each dice roll is an interesting story all its own. I have a lot of fun making custom life and mishap tables to fit my Traveller campaigns.
3E multiclassing and PF Archetyping. It expands the class system to its limit to allow for flexible chargen while also still maintaining the boundaries of a class system. I can spend hours dreaming up characters for any type of campaign.
One very big take-away I've gotten from "Powered by the Apocalpyse" games that I now use universally in any RPG that I GM:
Don't ask for a roll unless failure is interesting; if not, the PCs succeed and you move on.
Another take-away from PbtA games is:
Let the players narrate their characters' successes.
My usual technique when the player succeeds is to say, "Cool! What does that look like?" I may offer some prompts or guardrails, but a success means that the player should have narrative control over that part of the scene.
A big take-away from Trophy that I've been incorporating into pretty much every game I run now is:
Let the players set the stakes of a roll.
Looking at that one a bit closer: This is from Trophy's Risk Roll...
When your character attempts a risky task, say what you hope will happen and ask the GM and the other players what could possibly go wrong. Then gather 6-sided dice...
The stakes for the roll are set as an out-of-character negotiation between the players and the GM. This is important: It provides a level of consent and it opens up possibilities based on everyone's imagination rather than just the GM's. Also note: The player considering the risky task has the option to back down and not roll if they think the stakes of failure are too high.
This technique isn't necessarily for every table: I've encountered some players who want the GM to make all of the decisions outside of their own character's. But I've found that most players, even those with no story-game background, love the ability to put their own ideas of what might happen on the table. And, as a GM, I find giving the other players input on what failure might look like makes my job easier and more enjoyable.
One interesting side-effect: I find that players more often than not set higher stakes, with worse possible outcomes, than I would have on my own!
Hey... if anyone wants to see my GM style in action, I'm running some of games in July over at The Gauntlet that have open seats...
The Final Girl Thu 7/1, 8:00 PM EDT (UTC-4)
Candlelight: The Mossy Tomb Thu 7/8, 8:00 PM EDT (UTC-4)
Paranormal Minstrels Thu 7/15, 8:00 PM EDT (UTC-4)
Dangit, Candlelight is full up. H-bomb, please post a note here and I'll also try to keep my eye on the Gauntlet calendar, if more Candlelight games appear. I'd really like to jump into one of those.
On The Gauntlet Calendar, I'd encourage you to sign up for the waitlist, especially for games that are a few weeks out: Frequently somebody has to drop and people get pulled in from the waitlist automatically.
I just had to reschedule a game I'm running this weekend for our mini-con Gauntlet Community Open Gaming: a pseudo-historical adventure for Trophy Dark called "Isle of Water and Blood". Alas, only one of the original players could make the new time-slot... but that means there are still three open seats!
Trophy Dark: Isle of Water and Blood
One other thing about the Gauntlet Calendar: If you've never registered before, one of the Gauntlet admins has to "OK" your sign-up request. They usually get to it within half an hour during the day, but it might be a few hours if you sign up in the middle of the night when all the admins are asleep...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Former Paizo employee (and now frequent freelancer) Owen K.C. Stephens wrote a very interesting blog post about optimization in RPGs and how game designers might take optimization into consideration with their design choices. I thought there might be some overlap with this discussion:
Designing TTRPGs with Optimizers in Mind
I think he kind of missed the mark with his comments on "soft limits, rules-light" games. In particular, I don't think he took into consideration the concept of table culture: Designers of such games aren't really intending their games for the subset of TTRPGers who are interested in playing the "character builder" mini-game. This is a gross generalization, but I don't think that players who are wont to optimize their characters generally have all that much interest in playing "soft limits, rules-light" games in the first place.
I'll comment strictly on the D&D family of crunchy systems and my opinions on optimization. I think the biggest issue is designing for the TTRPG player pool in general. This has been mitigated somewhat by the internets, but its still an issue. Designers are also bad at pointing out what type of game they are making and how it should be played.
What does that mean? Well, lets think about sports. Many adults like to play softball. Some of them its to get outside and do a little bonding with friends and co-workers. Others, they play fast pitch for competitive stakes like trophies and prize money pools. The two dont mix, and its pretty easy to tell which is which.
D&D and TTRPGs are nowhere near as popular as softball. So you got causal players mixing with hardcore competitors and the rulebook isnt very clear about how the game is to be played. Causes many disruptions and arguments.
3E ivory tower design left a gap that could just about fill the grand canyon. It is very hard to balance for a party of differently experienced players. 4E tried to close that gap, and decided to use a tactical mini game to make up for the charop mini game. Oddly, im my experience it seemed to grab a few causals and a few hard cores, but was off putting to most folks in general. 5E is the goldilocks that dropped the tactical mini game, but also closed the power charop gap. 5E forces the causal player up, but the competitor down. Its not my favorite edition, but I can see why its such a winner.
This is likely for the best. That leaves all other not D&D games open to define themselves. I dont think you need to bother with any trigger warning or heavy handed guidance comments as long as you are up front about what your game is designed to do. D&D has the masses locked up, take advantage of being specific.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TL:DR of my previous post. D&D is the thanksgiving dinner TTPRG. Other games can cater to crazy uncles or black sheep cousins.
I like crunchy games but I'm up for anything as long as it's with cool people.
Except for card games, I don't do card games. Except for Uno, but only if it's OG Uno.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Other games can cater to crazy uncles or black sheep cousins.
That does make it sound a bit like any game that isn’t D&D just exists on the fringes of the hobby.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, they kind of do. Doesn't mean many of them aren't good, but D&D is the 800lb gorilla in the rpg world and has been from the start.
I wouldn’t say that’s how popularity works. To use a film analogy: Star Wars is the 800lb gorilla of science fiction films - its enduring and resurgent popularity does not push Jurassic Park to the fringes. They are both mainstream successes.
Vampire: The Masquerade, GURPS, Champs, Traveller, the various Star Wars games, Pathfinder, Exalted; they all in their time mainstream successes. D&D expanding the size of the hobby doesn’t diminish those successes, it just makes D&D more successful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Other games can cater to crazy uncles or black sheep cousins.That does make it sound a bit like any game that isn’t D&D just exists on the fringes of the hobby.
It aint perfect, im just working with what Hoover gave me. /shrug
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark’s post is about the disparity between optimizers and “casual” players when coming to a common table and the prescriptiveness of the rules on how to play. I think it’s more that he’s saying that D&D is thanksgiving dinner where everyone is more or less expected to get along despite their differences - and that other games are just regular meals. I think that’s an okay analogy, and a bit different than the idea that D&D is for everyone while other games are for the families outsiders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's coming from the perspective of playing indie RPGs online, but there is a fantastic episode of The Gauntlet Podcast about how to be a good player. I'd highly recommend any TTRPGer take a listen:
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just got through a complete read of the new Stargate SG-1 TTRPG that I kickstarted from Wyvern Gaming, and I'm quite impressed with the way they revised 5e for their game. Their review blurbs call it a "Highly Adapted 5th Edition D20 Ruleset" and that frankly feels like a bit of an understatement.
Leveling has been dropped down to the collection of "Mission Points" rather than the standard XP earning.
To fit the tone of the series as being about an advanced military unit - gear isn't bought it is loaded out based on the mission parameters.
The first five levels are traditional D20 class based leveling. After level 5 it becomes a nearly point buy system that focuses on purchasing feats to expand as you see fit.
It reads really well, I'm curious to see how it hits at a table once the traditional leveling caps out and you're into treating Feats like Merits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would humbly submit that one of the reasons I don't play smaller, niche games that narrowly define how it should be played is because I'd rather not be told how to play. I'm not saying that's a bad design feature; I'd agree that catering to specific types of gamers is a good way to ensure your game has an audience.
I know I'm late to this party, but I don't think I understand what you mean by "niche games that narrowly define how it should be played".
Do you mean high-concept games with a specific default starting assumption (e.g. Honey Heist, where all the PCs are literal bears trying to pull off a heist to steal honey)
Or do you mean games that dictate specific style of play?
Or something else?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just got through a complete read of the new Stargate SG-1 TTRPG that I kickstarted from Wyvern Gaming, and I'm quite impressed with the way they revised 5e for their game. Their review blurbs call it a "Highly Adapted 5th Edition D20 Ruleset" and that frankly feels like a bit of an understatement.
Leveling has been dropped down to the collection of "Mission Points" rather than the standard XP earning.
To fit the tone of the series as being about an advanced military unit - gear isn't bought it is loaded out based on the mission parameters.
The first five levels are traditional D20 class based leveling. After level 5 it becomes a nearly point buy system that focuses on purchasing feats to expand as you see fit.
It reads really well, I'm curious to see how it hits at a table once the traditional leveling caps out and you're into treating Feats like Merits.
Very interesting! I mostly stay out of the d20/OGL pool these days, and I pretty much stopped reading the KS pitch when it said it would be built on 5E. I may need to check it out.
The last time I played a Stargate SG-1 RPG was a homebrew using Savage Worlds back in the late aughts, and I kind of bounced off that system hard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just got through a complete read of the new Stargate SG-1 TTRPG that I kickstarted from Wyvern Gaming, and I'm quite impressed with the way they revised 5e for their game. Their review blurbs call it a "Highly Adapted 5th Edition D20 Ruleset" and that frankly feels like a bit of an understatement.
Leveling has been dropped down to the collection of "Mission Points" rather than the standard XP earning.
To fit the tone of the series as being about an advanced military unit - gear isn't bought it is loaded out based on the mission parameters.
The first five levels are traditional D20 class based leveling. After level 5 it becomes a nearly point buy system that focuses on purchasing feats to expand as you see fit.
It reads really well, I'm curious to see how it hits at a table once the traditional leveling caps out and you're into treating Feats like Merits.
Very interesting! I mostly stay out of the d20/OGL pool these days, and I pretty much stopped reading the KS pitch when it said it would be built on 5E. I may need to check it out.
The last time I played a Stargate SG-1 RPG was a homebrew using Savage Worlds back in the late aughts, and I kind of bounced off that system hard.
Me too, reskinned 5E hasnt really gotten it done for me. However, Stargate TTRPG sounds different enough to be interesting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Me too, reskinned 5E hasnt really gotten it done for me. However, Stargate TTRPG sounds different enough to be interesting.
I only backed because I wanted to support the property, and 5e is my least favorite D20 iteration so I had no expectations from this.
Then I got the backer pdf. Now I actually want to run this, and I kind of want to homebrew these changes into an actual 5e game.
We are going to launch a new game soon with Monster of the Week. This one is based in the deep south and the GM says its Ghostbusters meets x-files.
I'll report back on how the first session goes!
I love Monster of the Week! I ran an eight-month-long campaign of that game from Feb-Oct 2020.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could you explain exactly how 5E doesnt deliver a similar experience to 3E? I mean, I know that 5E is more down to earth with bounded accuracy, but I dont see how it cant, "encourage bending and breaking rules and making new classes or class modifications unique to a particular character to better fit the character, thus having zero expectation that the rules alone would be mechanically balanced without a gm to ride herd on optimizers and rules lawyers."
PF2 is another animal and I can see why it doesn't work like you want it to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm much more curious to see it justified that PF1 doesn't provide the same experience as 3.0 and 3.5.
I suspect it will involve some statement from The Alexandrian and the charge that the bulk of us played all three of those games incorrectly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not curious at all. I've heard it all before and would rather just not derail into another DLH argument.
I don’t disagree with you.
I just wanted to take a second and call out how ridiculous it is on its face that one of the three versions of 3.X is somehow structurally different than the other two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not only is the popular style not to my taste, I also like variety in general, thus removing variety and focusing on the currently popular style are things I consider undesirable, one because it's bad for the rpg community's growth and both because I want to find players that enjoy my style as well.
So most of this is just preferential to style and not really a mechanical discussion. That is fine, however, im curious what you mean by community growth? Do you mean in size? You'd be sorely mistaken if so. If you are referring to the community being stunted, because they don't play like you do, then thats poppycock.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Hollywood analogy is incredibly flawed from the start because the broader industry doesn't create just one type of game with one style of play. There are such a wide variety of styles and systems out there, that if the games industry where Hollywood they would be making many different genres of movie.
The World of Darkness doesn't feature the same style of play as Dungeons and Dragons; doesn't feature the same style of play as Kids on Bikes; doesn't feature the same style of play of Genesys; doesn't feature the same style of play as Dungeon Crawl Classics;
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess you'll always have 3E OGL. Good Luck IC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, if it really was a parallel, Hollywood would be D&D. A handful of other games would be noted independent studios and there'd be a bunch of people making movies in their basements.
Yeah I think that the analogy that D&D is ALL OF HOLLYWOOD while games companies that have existed just as long are “independent production companies” is reductive if the rest of the hobby.
It isn’t that D&D is Disney, Paramount, Universal, Fox, Sony and Warner Bros all rolled into one while Games Workshop or White Wolf is View Askew productions.
The whole analogy is flawed.
The games are out there, but the vast majority of people who might be interested come in through D&D and even if they're hooked on that style, might well never see anything else.
Sales last quarter for Cyberpunk RED and the juggernaut that is the PbtA Kickstarter for Last Airbender would tend to counter that logic.
Nor is this new. It's been that way for much of the hobby's life, with a few exceptions when D&D was struggling. I'm not sure it's actually a problem though. D&D 5E being wildly popular and bringing more people into the hobby as a whole isn't a bad thing, even if most of them never try anything else.
It really hasn’t. GURPS, Vampire, WEG D6, CoC, Exalted, and Savage Worlds have at various points been incredibly strong sales competition for D&D. The situation where D&D sits high atop the untouchable tower below which sits everything else is kind of a now thing. The early 80’s were kind of like that as well, but what sales data there is suggests that GURPS and D6 were far closer to D&D in sales then than anything currently.
I'd also dispute that 5E is any more limited than 3.5 (or 3.0), as any of them were actually promoted or commonly played, as opposed to some theoretical abstract extract of the d20 system. It caters to a somewhat different play style and subgenre, but that's not the same as being more limited. And when viewed from the perspective of some of the smaller more divergent games, the various versions of D&D (and PF) all kind of blur together anyway. There are differences, but they're all doing basically the...
The rest of this I will totally agree with
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're missing them, might be time for some spectacles. ;)