**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.

for example, playing monster hearts actually feels like playing an episode of vampire diaries, and the humanity and cybernetic leveling up of cyberpunk makes you make tough choices or die quick. which is very cyberpunk

Been diving into a bunch of indie RPGs lately and keep running into these little mechanical ideas that solve problems I didn't even realize D&D/Pathfinder had - stuff like clocks for tracking tension, or resolution systems that make failure feel interesting instead of just "nothing happens."

Curious what your picks are. What's a rule or subsystem from a game most people haven't played that deserves way more attention?

From D&D 5e: "Advantage/Disadvantage" being roll twice take the highest/lowest. It has existed for a long time, but the name of it is perfect. So much so that I still use the name with other games.

Other than that, a more mechanical thing is the "Cheat" mechanic in Through the Breach. You flip cards to make a skill check instead of a roll and you have a hand of cards that you can replace your flip with. So you can almost guarantee a hit even if you flip poorly (unless it's the black joker which is a crit fail).

As per title, what's some rpg mechanics you find get a lotta hate or at least confoundment as to why they exist that you find actually fun and typically well-justified?

Where do you find fun despite most finding none there?

Personally, I actually like having stuff like ammo and rations to personally keep inventory of, as opposed to it being waived off just because "it only matters if you hit literal zero and we aren't going to LET that happen".

So we've been playing TTRPGs for about a decade now. Standard evolution. Started with 5e, moved on to pathfinder 2e, dabbled in Daggerheart and Forbidden Lands. Our current long term campaign is PF2e. We have just spent a whole week in Italy together enjoying the summer and playing Pathfinder every evening, which is something we try to do every year. And while we did have a blast, we felt like we need to move on to another system after this campaign. Here are the main issues we had with the system:

Because we are high level now (lvl 17) it's more apparent than ever that pathfinder can hardly be played without technical aid. We use Foundry. We miss the feeling of just rolling dice and pushing minis around on a flip side battle map. Also combat is taking way too long. We like combat and everybody is excited about it for 15-30 minutes but everything after that is just a slog and really tough to roleplay. Additionally I, the DM, feel like it's too prep heavy. Combat is very tough to make interesting or even know how to play a monster without prepping it beforehand. But also the "story" part of it. There is just not enough mechanics that facilitate interesting story beats or mechanics around emergent gameplay. For context we always play PC focused sandboxes where the story evolves around the decisions the players make at the table. We use fronts from dungeon world for that.

So I think what we are looking for is:
- crunch but complex not complicated (ie 6 different conditions not 27)
- can be played in person without technical aids
- combat that is fun, interesting, cinematic and somewhat short (this might be utopic ^^)
- a lot of character choices / interesting character choices
- emergent gameplay through mechanics and/or other systems
- low/no prep
- geared towards interesting stories/character development/character focused stories (probably narrative mechanics, but maybe there is other things I'm not aware of)

I loved forbidden lands personally for the emergent gameplay and the way monsters are played. Just rolling to see what the monster does was extremely fun. Same reason why I love the beholder. But I think for my players it's not.. heroic? crunchy? .. enough? With Daggerheart I really liked to spend fear because it felt like I, as the GM, was a player as well and creating bad circumstances felt more "justified". But it didn't have enough interesting character choices for us and combat didn't really feel challenging or deadly. One of the reasons we've played PF2e for so long is the crunchy combat and the feeling of danger. Please keep in mind all of this is personal experience and we've only played a couple sessions each. I'm not knocking these games or anything. They are great games.

Ok so the strongest contestants at the moment are:
- 13th age 2e (seems like a really good fit)
- DnD 4e (just the monster roles and ease of encounter design alone make it very enticing)
- savage worlds?

I don't know if there is a game system that does everything I've listed. But please let me know what you think the right system for our group would be.

This is for players and has to do with actual play experience. (If you find none of it's relevant to your gaming experience, thanks for reading, we're all set.)

Any TTRPG you've ever played: When you're playing, what makes a setting "pop" for you? What gave you that "you are there" feeling? What did your GM tell you about the setting (whether it was homebrew or a canon detail about a pre-made setting) that made it really 'work' for you?

Here's why I ask: I'm midway through doing some worldbuilding for a campaign-setting and there's lots of really good technical stuff like a couple of guys who have worksheets for "how many people can your fantasy city's agricultural base support?" or "Where is their metal coming from, and how does that build into court politics?" (or for that matter "what are your setting's court politics?")

And ngl, there's sort of a 'building a ship in a bottle' sort of fun in making a setting where, if anyone asked, everything works... but also ngl, I've never been in an actual campaign where a player asked the GM where the metal and grain was coming from.

So, I put it to you: what details actually *did* it for you? Gave the place a lived-in feel, I mean. Specific in-play examples especially if you have any. This will help a bit, as I course correct a little. Also it's sort of a chance to brag on your favorite GM, which is good too. Thanks in advance.

Don't get me wrong, I love Warhammer and other offshoots of classical fantasy, but I feel like introducing elves, dwarves and all the standard fantasy trappings introduces a certain flavor to the setting that doesn't work every kind of story. I am curious what else can be done with dark fantasy. I wonder if there are RPG systems that feel more like Berserk, the Castlevania show or the Elric of Melnibone books? (Not saying those are similar, just using them as examples of dark fantasy that is not "Tolkien but darker").

In terms of mechanics, I tend to gravitate towards medium crunch systems. Something that is simpler to onboard people than modern D&D, but not so minimalistic the players who like to tweak the numbers have completely nothing to do. On the other hand, not a fan of completely classless systems. I like when players are guided at least a little towards the roles they could play in a party. In my opinion it makes things easier both for the players and the DM.

Out of the systems I am familiar with Mork Borg comes the closest to checking all of those boxes. It is fun, but I am looking for something better suited for a longer campaign and without the world as guaranteed to end soon, lol

Can anyone recommend to me a system that has both this kind of flavor and hits the sweet spot of crunch where it's neither too much nor too little? Thank you and advance for any rec!

How do you structure a campaign for a martial arts/wuxia game?

For traditional fantasy dungeon crawler, you can just set up a wilderness with a town and a nearby dungeon, and you're good to go. If you're ambitious, you make an over-arching quest that will move them around the map.

But for a game emulating wuxia or even less fantastical kung fu movies, what shape does a campaign take? It feels wrong to just say "here's your... kung fu dungeon... go on your.... kung fu quest..."

Historically, for me, a Rules Lawyer was someone who typically knew the rules very well and staunchly insisted that everything be done by RAW. Further, they would argue that varying interpretations or ambiguities be handled based on how they interpret it. Notoriously these people would pedantically correct everyone and slow down the flow of the game.

Similarly, Rule of Cool, use to mean occasionally allowing something to happen for the sake of a cool scene or character moment, even if not allowed or within the rules.

Now, if I see game advertisements like, "We play by Rule of Cool, no Rules Lawyers;" I am coming to find what they are actually saying is, "Our group has a poor grasp of the rules, we aren't bothering to learn them; and don't disagree when our arbitrary, whimsical, and ever-changing 'homebrew' has adverse effects on your character."

I didn't know if this is a growing phenomenon or I just had some bad luck.

Edit 1: I was not the person accused of being the Rules Lawyer by these groups.

Edit 2: Since there were some request for context.

Situation 1: A player was playing PF1e. The player made a single diagonal move on the grid. Then a group member and the GM said, "You cannot do that, you don't have enough movement to move 10ft." (Which is hypocritical for a group claiming they don't like Rules Lawyers). The player said, "The first diagonal is only 5 feet." Then the established group mobbed the player saying he was a Rules Lawyer and that isn't the way they play. The group didn't know the rules, and jumped all over the player for correcting their error, while they were trying to correct that player, erroneously as per RAW. Then the group chimed in invoking Rule of Cool, which in their terms, seemed to mean whatever arbitrary decision the GM made was better than just reading the book.

Situation 2: Also, PF1e. A player cast a spell that was not subject to Spell Resistance. The GM said, "Roll to break Spell Resistance." The player, very normally, said, "This spell is not subject to Spell Resistance." The GM said "I think Spell Resistance should apply to any spell, or else what's the point." Then, once again, all the established players chimed in supporting the GM's off-the-cuff ruling and accusing the person of being a Rules Lawyer and power gaming, further adding that they play by the Rule of Cool, which made no sense based on my understanding of Rule of Cool.

I am not here to argue in favor of one side or the other. I posted this to just see if those terms may have morphed to mean something different than what I understood them to be for a long time.

Hi,

I recently picked up "Sigil and Shadow" because it had been recommended to me a while back, and after playing Hunter Reckoning 5th Edition, I felt like I wanted more. But, for example, I was looking for something that would allow hunters to use a variety of magic and, generally, something closer to a rulebook than a ready-made setting-and so far, it looks like this system fits my needs perfectly.

I’ve finished reading the section on character creation (I’m still reading) and I don’t understand the rule regarding equipment. It mentions that there are equipment packages, but it also says that a player can have 5 items, one of which must come from a package. Does that mean they can have 5 random items, but, for example, as a detective, they should have one notebook? Can player pick weapon/vehicle or that will be too much for beginning of game?

I'm also curious about how to run, in practice, a team made up of the "light" and "dark" sides—is that possible, or should I stick to just one category?

Of course, I know that many rules can be adapted to suit the game, but I'd like to try the "vanilla" version of the game first, so that I can make modifications later if necessary.

Hey guys! New Vaesen GM here.

So, I have a bunch of official mysteries ready to run. I'm loving all the content and the whole rpg, it's really up my alley, but i have a question regarding the way the core rulebook suggests writing mysteries.

I've been trying to follow it mostly and it's been fine, the one part that kind of threw me off track were the Clues. In the book, their section comes right after Atmosphere, so i assume it suggests crafting them after figuring out the mysteries atmosphere, but i feel like to do that I need to have a better grasp on location, characters, etc., which come afterwards.

My question is, has anyone tried to do it in this order? Like, figure the clues out first? Did it work out well, and how did you go about it?

Mainly I'd like to hear how you go about writing your Vaesen mysteries, I guess :) what order you figure stuff out. I don't really have a formula yet, so I'm very interested in learning more about other people's way of running things (perhaps overthinking a bit but oh well)