The cool thing in this day and age is that we can choose from, like, a dozen well-maintained systems. There's an RPG system for everyone. Ok, now here are some random thoughts about D&D 5E because I encountered these: 1. There are no attacks of opportunity anymore against people who try to use ranged weapons, or cast spells while in melee. The shooter/caster just has disadvantage on their hit rolls. I don't like that, coming from 3.5E this just feels wrong. Since shooting is pretty strong in 5E anyway I decided to create a houserule to restore attacks of opportunity. If it sucks I will drop it again, we will see. But I think it will encourage shooter builds to take movement feats, play more intelligently, or just not focus all of their abilities on shooting, so they can do something in melee instead. 2. I will change the rules for the Warrior/Barbarian/Paladin fighting style "Great Weapon Fighting". Because it sucks. It is so iconic, but it is by far the worst ability a melee character can pick. Its average gain per attack is....one. And that never increases, nor do things like a Paladins smite ability profit from it. It doesn't sound that bad, but it is. So I'll probably change it to So basically all his ones and twos would become twelves. I am not good in computing this but if I didn't input it wrongly into anydice it should increase the average damage by almost two. If it is too strong I will change it back. But I don't want my fighter buddy to suck, he is the only melee character in the group, a Dwarf with a big two-handed axe. https://anydice.com/program/19c59 Code: function: onesandtwostotwelves NUMBER:n{ if NUMBER < 3 { result: 12} result: NUMBER } function: reroll R:n under N:n { if R < N { result: 1d12 } else {result: R} } output 1d12 named "normal" output [reroll 1d12 under 3] named "reroll" output [onesandtwostotwelves 1d12] named "maxed" .....I had another houserule in mind but I forgot it. I'll add it later. EDIT: Remembered it. see below. 3. I'll probably remove or at least change the Crossbow Expert feat. It is just silly. It doesn't matter how skilled you are, loading a crossbow has to take time. This feat makes bows mostly pointless. I mean: sure you have to take a feat, but shooting into combat without penalty and bypassing the loading limitation of the crossbow...
White Wolf's d10 system has this as well. Shields are different. They don't provide damage reduction, they raise the difficulty of enemies to hit. d10 is similar. Though a part of me yearns for more complexity. I am concerned the only non-spell-caster in my group doesn't much dynamics. It's basically "I attack with my axe" over and over again. It's just a matter of deciding between attacking once, twice, or thrice (the more actions you take in one round, the less dice you have to roll on each action). The player envisioned her character jumping around and "fighting like a muscular ballerina." It's hard to do things if it's just. "I attack a skeleton with my axe" twenty times in a row. I'm thinking of making combat rounds longer to allow more complex actions. We'll see what my players say. West End d6 system had a to-hit location chart but ultimately decided to stop rolling it every time because it was annoying. It was only necessary when characters wore uneven armor which players generally avoided doing. I like abstraction of the d10 system. It assumes everyone is trying to hit the most damaging spot they can every time. If an attacker rolls better to hit than necessary, they get bonus damage to represent an especially accurate hit. If the attacker barely rolls enough to hit, no bonus damage. That is available in d10 as well. Basically any system that doesn't have character levels. I'm just saying d10 provides a slower combat experience than D&D 3.5. Mainly because you can roll your to-hit and damage dice in the same hand. That's not feasible with D&D10 because how many dice you roll to damage is dependent on the accuracy of your to-hit roll. I never said 4th edition had zero redeeming features. It's just that everyone I talked to said the cons outweigh the pros. I applaud your initiative at personalizing house rules. I would point out that from my very limited directed HEMA experience and from watching a bunch of videos from Shadiversity, the Metatron, and Skallgrim, it seems like using two handed weapons in battle was not a great strategy. Unless you have amazing armor, shield and a one handed weapon is a more effective combat style most of the time. I will not deny that great weapon fighting looks cooler in TV and movies.
I also watch those channels (well, except Shad, who is just wrong too often. I unsubscribed from him) and also scholagladiatoria which I would even say is the best one. I come to a slightly different view, basically a "Yes and no" because it depends on context. A big part of weapons on medieval battlefields were pikes, a two handed weapon. Halberds, Bills, Naginatas and the like were often used by (relatively) lightly armored soldiers. Incidentally the Greatsword (and also its Japanese counterpart, the Nodachi ) was used within pike formations, against other pike formations. Greatsword units like in Warhammer indeed don't make a lot of sense at all. Like you say, for late medieval heavily armored men-at-arms a two handed weapon like a Poleaxe was pretty much the standard. At least my buddy is realistic in that regard, he does wear heavy armor. But yeah, RPGs are not historical simulators, and battles in those worlds are not realistic anyway. Noone in their right mind would use pike formations if the enemy has the ability to throw fireballs. Battles in fantasy worlds would look a lot more like modern battles than medieval ones. Archers are too effective as well. In the real world if someone is wearing a suit of 16th century plate armor I can just drop my bow and run, regardless of how great my bow's draw weight is and how great of an archer I am. In a fantasy world I have a good chance. One-handed swords are equally ineffective against such armor (except maybe using the murderstroke but that is two handed), yet in D&D and other they work just fine. So in the end the rule change is purely because of balance. D&D has always had great weapon fighting as a valid play style, but in this edition it is an inferior choice mathematically. I am trying to fix that.
Shields in GURPS are rather involved, especially as both an active DR source dependent on where you're facing and as a weapon in its own right. It may be worth noting that weapon proficiencies, including shield proficiency, are treated as dexterity-based skills in GURPS, with strength only applicable to damage output where appropriate. Consider opening the door to tactical options by having the party come across a small group of even low-level NPCs built around making the most of them. Perhaps a fellow band of veteran adventurers willing to share their knowledge? I don't have anything on the uneven armour bit, but both GURPS and WHFRP use hit location as part of their injury systems, not just for immediate damage but also the lingering effects, permanent or temporary, of that damage outside the encounter. Different strokes for different folks, I think. WHFRP's system effectively required the inverse of the attack roll on the d% to determine hit location if it wasn't already called for at a skill penalty. As for GURPS, the default is that you're just striking at your target's center of mass and hitting what's conveniently in that general man-sized area, and that any target more specific than that, like a knee or an eye, is going to be a more difficult target to successfully hit.
Forgot to mention: While some people enjoy that simplicity (my buddy is one of them) I like how D&D5E also allows picking a fighter archetype that has a special resource and "maneuvers" to do special stuff in fights. It allows for much more interesting play (as a mechanic. Fluff wise everyone can do it anyway). I'd play a fighter like that.
This is about Skyrim but it applies to my D&D group. Which is both hilarious and sad. :'( ( https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/11/14/thulsa-broom )
I actually had a broom dungeon! But it was a dungeon with lots of brooms it. The lich was OCD about cleanliness and had dozens of skeletons whose only job it was to sweep and mop. Here's another question for tabletop RPGs that applies to almost any setting. I think holidays and celebrations are a great way to develop a setting, but I'm not sure if they are great for storytelling. Lots of action movies use holidays as a backdrop, especially Christmas such as Gremlins, Batman Returns, and Die Hard. It's a great hook to have villains or natural disasters strike during what should be celebratory events. But even in a high danger setting, 90% of holidays and celebrations will not suffer a calamitous event. I'm never sure what to do when game mastering a holiday where things don't go badly. It basically takes ten minutes to describe what happens then it's over.
Ok this will sound mega cheesy and boring, but I once roleplayed a situation like that with my group the whole session. I described something that was basically a medieval county fair (I stole the idea from Baldur's Gate, where there is one at.... Beregost or Nashkell I think). The players visited different attractions like a fortune teller, a comedy show (I copied parts of the standup program from my favourite comedian and adjusted them to Faerûn) and an exotic animal show. I described what they were eating, they drank a lot, gambled, some smoked drugs and had...ehmm....fun with NPCs that were ready for some action (one contracted an STD, it was damn funny), a few got into a brawl. Others bought each other presents, tried out several games like a horse race, weightlifting, an archery contest and a little fighting tournament with non lethal weapons. It was fun. Other possibilities are balls (think of the Vienna Opera Ball, with all the nobles and so on) or other high society events. They provide a great opportunity to get to know allies and villains (think James Bond movies) and holidays can be good occasions for such events. Of course the DM has to think outside of the box a bit, since otherwise the whole thing becomes a charisma (or diplomacy or whatever the system provides) rolling event. But if your players are into social stuff I can only recommend trying it out.
Aginor's post was so nice I wish I could like it twice. Hardly mega cheesy and boring. What the major take away is. Give the player characters something to do at celebrations and keep a light tone and fun will be had by the players. This part I already knew but had trouble implementing. My friend @eron12 actually ran a fantastic high political game where we got a lot of plots advanced at parties and social gatherings. While it helps the plan the party itself, I thin the key to putting intrigue in a royal ball or the like is to make sure several characters are present with an agenda. As long as all the characters want something, the player characters will have something to do unless they are wallflowers.
Question; has anyone done sci fi rpgs? I just started one with some friends and I am interested in learning about other people’s experiences. currently we got a half orc rouge who was a criminal to try and pay off his student loans, a copper Dragonborn also a rouge, a human noble turned revolutionary (who is also a rogue), and then the diabolical creature that I play. So far things have been interesting
Edit: @Lizerd Not yet, only fantasy and a tiny bit modern (Zombie, a game named "All Flesh Must Be Eaten"). Another house rule I am thinking about: I might let the characters mounts gain levels. Otherwise I would constantly have to protect them because even an experienced war horse has 19 hit points, a poor save and AC 11. I will at least increase the hit points I think, so the horse has a chance to not be one-hitted by basically any creature above CR3. Currently in D&D5E there is hardly any reason to ever fight mounted, and I want to make it an option.
I’ve never actually done zombie rpgs, what are they like? if it’s interesting it might be integrated into the current sci fi campaign as some kind of disease outbreak. We have a massive amount of area to mess around in which means we can have basically anything in the campaign
I only played it for a very short time. The rules were intriguing, but to me personally a game that is purely about Zomhie Survival is not broad enough. I like to let my players fight hordes of Zombies now and then, but not in every adventure.
I have only played fantasy RPGs so far. My group has talked about running a campaign set in the Dresden Files world or running some Call of Cthulhu.
So while I've got the time to type it out, here's some of the exploits of my RP group: "Pirate" campaign: by the end of the second session, we dropped 17 primitive depth charges on a merfolk city, effectively nuking it on market day, with over 95% of the population killed and the rest either killed in the ensuing combat or driven off by a megalodon. By the end of the third session, we made a mint on what we now refer to as "the $108M octopus" (we discovered a giant octopus guarding the wreck of an ancient treasure ship) and proceeded to transcend into an Empire Trading Company, taking over the world economy over the course of an in-game year. Having been so thoroughly broken, the campaign ended with us going on a safari hunt to Skull Island. Roman campaign: a highly memorable campaign that saw us start in the gladiatorial arena of Pompeii a few months before the earthquake, travel to Sparta, and then finally make our way to Britannia via Gaul, all while dealing with Seneca's machinations. I played an assassin whose reason for becoming a gladiator involved a botched escape from an otherwise successful assassination of one of Nero's cousins on behalf of the consul of Pompeii. The other players included a free-spirited Spartan who liked fighting and climbing monuments, a Pictish barbarian, and a disgraced Roman Legionnaire and veteran of Boudica's rebellion. Warhammer Fantasy goblin campaign: so many squigs, snotlings, and magic mushrooms were involved in our quest to enter the local dwarf hold's book of grudges, which we accomplished in such an exceptionally squicky way that we all agreed was even beyond what we normally do and that it should never be repeated. On a fluke, we also managed to gain the blessing of the Lady of the Lake during the End Times, survived the End Times, and found ourselves in Ghyran with our memories intact but no possessions apart from a single gromril codpiece originally meant as a joke to insult dwarves.
I got a question. What do you guys do about players not showing up. These days most of my games have 2 or 3 players so if someone is missing we cannot play at all, but in my teenage years we often had 5 or 6 players in our group and very rarely had a all the players every session. Option One: Don't play without the full group. The downside is obvious, you don't get to play as much. Option Two: Have someone else play the others characters in addition to their own. The downside is that players have their characters do things they wouldn't ordinarily do and suffer consequences for things they had no say in. Once I was playing three characters and two of them died (my character was fine). The DM gave me/us a mulligan. Another time I accidentally destroyed another player's magical sword. Who knew striking a magma monster with a metal weapon was a bad idea? I am a menace when playing other people's characters. Option Three: The Purple Cow of Death! My players older brother had a wide turnover in his D&D games. If a player is not present, the Purple Cow of Death flies down and swallows the character whole. If a new player joins, the Purple Cow of Death vomits them up. Either way, the characters never question the presence of the cow, and never question the loyalty of the new party member. Sometimes the Purple Cow of Death, if the Dungeon Master picks a new supplement or gets a brainwave to change the setting dramatically. It's possible to throw in a new nation, tribe, monster race, or landmark that "has always been there." That's actually less of a problem than the first because just because we never talked about something doesn't mean it didn't exist before you knew about. Did you know Macau is a semi-autonomous region of China sort of like Hong Kong but it's a sort of a cross between Monaco and Las Vegas in that rich Chinese people go there to gamble and enjoy looser laws and mores although the CCP is clamping down on Macau more. I only found out about Macau a couple years ago. This is obviously not particularly realistic, but if that's not an issue for you and you just want to take on some dungeons and don't care about realism. It's also problematic if you want to have extensive character arcs or character driven story plots. Option Four: Try to realistically write characters in or or out. This is easier to do in some games than others. If the game is a sandbox style political intrigue game it's pretty easy to write characters in and out as long as everyone establishes ties in Session One or is part of the same group. In addition to the group intrigues, all the characters have their own intrigues and in many cases they have day jobs. They can be called away unavoidably if their personal obligations get in the way. New characters are relatively easy to write in if all the characters are in the same faction or share a broad goal. This is even easier in modern urban fantasy where you can get on a car or plane and leave or arrive. It's harder to write people in or out if you are in the middle of a dungeon. It's also harder to justify characters sitting out of a session if you are playing a railroad style game with high stakes. If you are fighting to literally or metaphorically save the world, it's unlikely a character would choose to sit out of an adventure just because their player is gone. What do you guys do about missing players?
It's usually Option 4 in my gaming group, though with a Blood Bowl season in full swing it's just as likely that the session that week will be scrapped to get a few games in.
We did something similar to purple cow of death, but instead would be sucked into the aether and would be tortured by sweaty baboons. Most people were pretty diligent about being available...
I have done different things. These days I have three players: my wife, my buddy and his wife. When one of those is not available we don't play. In the past, back when I had a core group of four friends but another six players were present at times (ten players at the same time happened at least once or twice but the regular number was six or so) I did all of the following things at least once: 1. play a PC myself. That night we had only three players at the table, in the middle of a session. None of them was a melee character and I had no good explanation. So I called the Barbarian's player if he was OK with me playing his character so the group can finish the quest. He wasn't too interested in that quest anyway, and agreed. I made sure to play in the style he used to play, including using his habit of making obscene remarks about the enemy. It was fun for everyone involved. He almost died but I made sure that the enemies did not actually try to kill him. 2. Make up an explanation why the player is not there. A lot of my players were kinda free spirits, so I always could find an explanation. The wizards did studies, the druids/monks/clerics/paladins did some spiritual stuff and so on. It didn't happen within a dungeon fortunately, but that's probably because I didn't include huge dungeons in my quests usually. 3. Give no explanation at all. Especially for the rarely present players. I usually scaled the fights for six players and if one or two players more were there I just added a few enemies. I never tailored quests to characters played by irregular players. That way they were never "missing" but always a bonus when they were there. 4. Play a "one shot" instead of the regular session. Once we were in the middle of a quest and a regular player was missing. It was his personal quest and the session was intended to be the last battle against his personal nemesis so we couldn't play without him. We still wanted to play. So I improvised a session. The characters that were present were magically trapped in a dream inspired by a book the missing character was reading. Remember that Star Trek TNG episode where they are trapped in a hotel based on a book? Mix it with the TNG episode in which Data was dreaming (Troy was the Cake and so on) and a bit of Terry Pratchett and Kafka. I included all kinds of weird things, some of which I had actually taken straight from a Franz Kafka story (one of the PCs was the big insect from "The Metamorphosis"). The goal of the story was to realize that they were trapped in that dream world and how to escape from it. The regular game resumed in the next session.