**Come here and talk about anything!**

This post will stay stickied for (at least) the week-end. Please enjoy this space where you can talk about anything: your last game, your current project, your patreon, etc. You can even talk about video games, ask for a group, or post a survey or share a new meme you've just found. This is the place for small talk on r/rpg.

The off-topic rules may not apply here, but the other rules still do. This is less the Wild West and more the Mild West. Don't be a jerk.

----------

This submission is generated automatically each Saturday at 00:00 UTC.

Is it a certain type of NPC? An overtone/undertone baked in your writing style? Something that you feel appeals more to you than the players?

I would call myself a near forever DM, I started in the hobby back in 2nd edition and have been runnign games on and off since and I am fairly familiar with a decent number of game systems (to a point that I sometimes pick up core books for systems that strike my fancy that I have no intent to run) I have often found that one of the most frustrating and mentally draining things in an RPG product is the use, really the overuse of Rule 0. The idea that the DM is free to change rules whenever and wherever they want whether it is to taste or to adjust percieved balance they say that the game is in the GMs hands. I don't object to it as a general concept being mentioned as it can be a good reminder for starting GMs that they can make changes if somethign isn't working the problem is the way that it seems to be used.

By that I mean that it feels like it's become a central guidepoint for certain games 5th edition D&D and it actually makes the game harder to run rather than simpler. I say this because when running a game you often have to make adjustments or compensate for things that a player could reasonably (or unreasonably) do. I get that a designer can't predict every crazy or stupid thing that a player might come up with but certain things like selling a magic item or crafting one should have at least some basic rules and not a massive price range to the point that money seems to have no meaning and the GM is probably going to look like an ass. I will argue that it probably takes more skill and experienfce to run a game in a fairly loose system than a more rigidly mechanical one simply because in the latter you have structures to check for guidance and can compare with them to determine intent and extrapolate ideas. This relates to rule zero because so often the book will just say 'come up with it yourself' which is an issue because I paid money to get a book to give me a toolkit to run my game and it starts to feel like I'm in a restaurant that expects me to provide the food, prepare it fully myself, take it to the table and wash the dishes afterwards but is still charging me for a full experience even though all of the work was done by me.

I feel like a lot of this is done for economic reasons, each group probably only has one dedicated DM but multiple players so there is only one person buying the DM books but more buying the player books (Especially as most dedicated DMs also buy the player books either to study the mechanics for ideas or to be familiar with whatever the players will be looking to do next session). It also might be linked to the idea of AI GMs that wizards has tried to offer as an idea, too many rules or options might increase the possibility of the AI getting confused.

Rule 0 is fine in and of itself but it cannot and should not be used as a core design principle, when placed as a structural pillar it's just a cop out. I may not be saying this as clearly as I could and I coudl also be a major minority in this view so thoughts and questions from others are welcome

EDIT: OK, OK, I didn't realize that if I mention 5E as an active problem it automatically makes my post a 5E post universally. I can list other games I have had this issue with some of which are older. OSR is big on this. FATE has a fair amount of it as well however FATE is kind of liquid in terms of design since the players can also exert narrative control on the game that can contradict the DMs plans. Lancer has this issue (as do many systems that seem to prioritize player onboarding) Renegades d20 games also have issues there in my personal experience but that might not be sufficiently different

I am new to ttrpgs and have only ever dmed 5e DnD. I want to homebrew a Pixie Hollow / Barbie Fairytopia setting so my friends can play as fairies and go on little adventures. My ideal system would:

• include combat but be focused more on roleplay and exploration
• allow me to build my own setting
• have classes that wouldn't feel out of place in a glittery fairy world OR allow me to homebrew classes with relative ease
• be beginner friendly (at least for the players)

I can't help feeling useless, no matter what I do. And I don't want to be a dead weight on the party, but I have no idea how to change that.

When I play a fighting-oriented character, I'm useless because there are no fights thanks to all the good-at-talking characters talking us out of combat entirely. And in the few fights are dominated by people who are Creative with it, which I'm not enough capable of keeping up with (like, in Eat The Reich I wouldn't have come up with the idea that a bow that gives a huge bonus to silent attacks can be used as a melee weapon for decapitating opponents in open combat because it doesn't make a sound).

When I play a utility-oriented character, I'm useless because there's barely any skill checks to be made, or failing them is of no consequence. And creating opportunities for skill checks requires creativity I, once again, lack.

When I play a talking-oriented character, I'm useless again because even in the rare cases where the social thing is resolved with a dice roll rather than roleplay, after the roll I'm still supposed to role-play the interaction, and doing that poorly doesn't give results, which is a problem because of the aforementioned low charisma of the person behind the character (me). And again, creativity for things other than talking ("I try to intimidate the [bad folk] we're about to fight" "ok, how?" ***A hot minute of trying to come up with something vaguely reasonable, destroying the pace and party's fun, then a roll*** "ok, what does that achieve?" "they're scared" "okay, but how does it help you deal damage or protect yourself" ***another break for my broken brain to think*** "they're frozen in fear? Some dropped their weapons?" barely satisfatory. Took me me five minutes to resolve what should take twenty seconds while others were just waiting, blocked away from having fun because I'm slow).

I'm tired of being a dead weight, but I have no idea how to improve on that front. If any of you have had similar problems and solved them, can you share how you achieved that? How did you learn to just, come up with things?

I need an RPG for my son and his friends (all 14, 15 or 16). I've sat down with them and asked them what they want and this is what I got:

• Explosive Shōnen action
• Character growth starting mundane but escalating to the divine
• A degree of tactical play, but not dependent on maps, squares or hexes - but where decisions have real impact.
• Fast gameplay, or at least gameplay that doesn't drag.
• Character powers unique enough that no two characters steel each others thunder.
• Powers that can be used in some way to boost, supplement, interact or tag team with each other.
• Martial Arts and powers.
• Inspired by the likes Jujutsu Kaisen / Solo Levelling / Tokyo Ghoul / Chainsaw man

My first thoughts were:

• Aberrant (1e)
• CAIN
• Exalted (1e or Essence)
• Weapons of the Gods

• Daggerheart

  But I'd be interested to know if I've missed something thats a better fit?

I'm hoping to run a game set in the Trench Crusade world and am looking for a system that would fit well with that setting. Ideally it would:

- Be Lethal

- Have serviceable firearm rules

- Have magic already built into the system but not a key focus

- The characters aren't superheroes

If it had decent campaign progression that'd be great but I am fine with a one shot focused game at least to start.

I'm looking to run a superhero game soon, but am struggling to find the right system for it. I'm looking for something that supports a gritty, city-bound game, rooted a bit more in pulp detective stories and early comics (but still with the potential for powered characters).

Think The Shadow, The Question, Fallen Aces, or to a degree even Batman TAS.

The only superhero rpg I'm that familiar with is Mutants & Masterminds, but I'd really prefer a lighter, more narrative approach.

Any recommendations?

I am someone who for various reasons has a lot of spare time. Enough to play about 4 sessions each week, sometimes more. Even so, in my whole career I have only had one true horror story. A Curse of Strahd campaign in which the DM was playing adversarially and a player turned out to be a fucking Nazi. I left upon finding out and the group seemingly disbanded the next session due to the obvious.

Besides that not much interesting stuff happened. I had a good friend who was kinda' railroading people while trying to be Matt Mercer in the Wildsea, but the dynamics between players were all good and we all knew each other. He was a better friend than GM, I suppose.

And I was also part of a Numenera campaign where the GM decided to use the system to run an investigation, but he either did not know about the three clue rule or kept thinking that players would do specific things and it just wasn't working out. The players had a lot in common, maybe a little less with me, so again, group dynamic was good and table talk was fun. (This was a very chatty table.) The campaign was seemingly patched up to include more exploration and combat after I left.

I feel like my TED Talk is really boring because while the games were not without issues, we really didn't have personality problem . Even in the first group, the rest of the players were really cool.

I'm pulling up at straws to come up with anything else, because most of the time when I left a campaign it was because of playstyle differences or growing bored of the system as it was the case with DnD.

While different, most of the folks have a similar history in most Fantasy games:

- Elves had a great magical empire of old until the lost it all, hid themselves or began a civil war amongst themselves.

- Dwarves had great riches under montains and rocks until they dug too deep.

- Halflings either were very peaceful until a recent story of wonderlust and discovery OR they had a glorious, adventurous past but now a subdued, idyllic present.

- Orcs are malformed being of war, brutality and conquest, know either accepting such fate or trying to change the now.

- Goblin are being of treachery, chaos, lies and tricks, sometimes enslaved and sometimes the slavers.

This is a big generalization, but also the Stock, Pre-Baked recipe to include each of these ancestries into your game, the pre conceived notions most players have when you say "what you know about ____ ?"

Considering these assumptions, what would be artistic styles throughout the ages? I often have heard "Elves = Art Nouveau", "Dwarves = Art Deco", "Orcs = Metal Heads", but would this be true all through their history? Maybe if the Elves were a great empore that fell from grace, their artistic history nowadays would involve more tragedies and less saturation? If Orcs have a Metal aesthetic, would Orc counter culture have more gentle shapes and colors? Is there a difference a different between the Dwarven art of a Merchant, Aristocrat and a Craftsman? DOES GOBLINS LISTEN TO SKA AND LIKE EXTREME SPORTS?!

I am curious to know how do you treat such aesthetics in your games, considering the cultural background you gave to them in your homegames.

Hi guys! I am gere because i need some help with an ongoing campaign. The story is something similar to star wars, whit the BBEP and the Resistance. The world is built this way: - The central planet, the Capital - 3 concentric circles of planet with their stars around the central planet; - The external circle, where all the planet are supposed to be destroyed and where the Resistance Base is located.

Now, the players are collecting allies around the planets and soon the attack phase against the BBEP will start. How do i manage to keep things interesting instead of putting a lot of missions like "destroy this", "destroy that", "conquer that planet"...?

I need some subplot idea to make things more active, so please enlighten me.

PS: I am not a native English speaking, i hope i was clear enough

More of a fun theoretical question than anything, but here goes: what are some games that, by virtue of their premise or mechanics or both, are especially difficult to deliver a satisfying experience in just one sitting, in contrast to all the great oneshot-friendly or even oneshot-specific games out there, like CBR+PNK or Grant Howwitt's one-page games?