**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.

Many Appendix N authors died before RPGs boomed in popularity, but Vance outlived Gygax himself. Was he ever aware that he had a huge impact on fantasy games? Did he have anything to say about it?

Whenever a player wants to do something creative ingame that isnt covered by the rules, I always improvise and let them roll whatever makes sense to me. But I have played in games where the GM wouldnt allow that sort of thing, and only actions specificly covered by the rules were allowed. Examples:

1. What happens when a player wants to throw his sword at an opponent, but the rules dont mention throwing
2. Game doesnt have hit locations. But what if a player wants to shoot an enemy in the leg to stop him from running away?

How do you these situations? Is there a line for you and if so, where do you draw it?

EDIT: changed to make my examples game-agnostic

Just wanted to share a small "discovery" (that I am sure isn't news to most of you).

I recently started playing "Ninjago" with my kids on the car while driving them to school/kindergarden. I know absolutely nothing about the lore, characters, anything. But it's basically role-playing, so I figured I'd give it a shot.

I got assigned a character and as we discussed our powers, I ended up with "Can summon horses".

And boy, am I having a blast with that power. While they have ice and fire powers, I have to think creatively and solve problems with the power of "horse". They're not just a means of transportation now, or a food source.

I can spawn horses to drop on enemies, create districations, block passages, anchor ropes to, and even build improvized shelter - a lot of horses are killed in the making of these adventures. But I'm loving it, and after playing games with proper rules and fancy builds, I'm actually really enjoying this whacky campaign we have going on. And I like my horse soawning powers.

Ot's cool to see how the lack of choices makes you more creative with the tools you do have :)

Cheers!

From a table perspective, what are your feelings/thoughts when a player says "It is what my character would do" ?

I've always been a bit on/off about that line. To me it often ends up feeling like an excuse to do something, that doesn't directly relate to the character they made, but rather what the player wants to do - and too often it can is disruptive. But at the same time, the player is after all the one that controls their character.

What's your take on it ?

(Sorry, english isn't my first language)

I have this friend who really likes to play the campaigns that we (We change the DM time to time) make, but it's impossible to play with her.

All of her characters are arrogant, womanizers and jerks (I don't mind characters like that, but everytime?!) and their behavior is making me stop wanting to play because it's just messing things up for the group.

Example: I've made a one shot where everyone were Goblins and they had to do simple things like steal a chicken. Everyone was having fun, until she decided that her character left the group because he wanted to flirt with fairies??? In the end, 2 of the 4 of them died, and she only appeared at the end of the fight scene.

On other campaign, the one that we are playing rn, her character is a huge dumbass, that because of him, the rest of the party always get into a fight, and in one of those fights, we killed the brother of a key NPC.

EDIT: Thank you all for the suggestion, and as some comments said, I didn't phrase it properly, but my question was "RPG is a group game, all characters that this player makes are jerks who can't accept no for an answer and put the party on very annoying situations all the sessions. How can I tell her to stop that?"

EDIT2: I spoke with her, she said that she would make her characters less idiots now, but we are okay, thanks for everything guys!!!

I am generalizing, and i know games like Fate do have difficulty ratings. But I have seen that the school of games derived from PbtA and FitD (arguably the more popular narrative systems currently) avocate for fixed chances.

Blades in the Dark and FitD games are interesting because they ask the GM to set other knobs (position and effect) instead of the likeliness of the action

https://youtu.be/AkAijiVHRlc?si=TFhLRWzF72PSW9ks

I enjoy the legen of King Arthur, but I'ver never read L'morte D'Arthur or whatever it's called. I'm no scholar of the legend.

I do like the recent family BBC tv show Merlin and much prefer the more fantastical elements of the Arthurian legend.

One thing Merlin did really well was present the idea of the 'Old Religion' (ie pagan magic) which Uther Pendragon had outlawed on pain of death. In fact in the show Uther is really the villain (with genuine motivations).

Anyway.

How good is Pendragon RPG for just such a game? Or is it really for people who want a more accurate scholarly Arthurian RPG?

Hiya!
I’m bringing a new character into our campaign and would love some roleplaying advice.

He’s a bard from a veryy high noble family (the kind obsessed with bloodlines, reputation, and appearances) and he ran away from home. He’s still young for a high elf, and before meeting the party he’s been traveling alone for about a month, mostly surviving by performing in taverns, drinking too much, and keeping his head down.

I’m having a bit of trouble figuring out how much of his noble background should still show, and how to roleplay that without making him into a caricature. What kinds of habits or assumptions would realistically stick around, and what would start to fade?

He can be a bit of a jerk in the beginning, but of course i want to give some growth along the way. Any tips or examples would be really appreciated!

I’m an artist who gets plenty of work from the super rich.

A lot of them are a part of terrible shit. The people and environment suffering for their gain.

But face to face, they’re lovely educated people who support the arts and actively want to support a young artist - send Christmas cards and take me and my family out for dinner. But after a bit of research you find out they’re totally fucked.

A villain who’s in every other way a good person makes campaigns a lot more interesting.

That’s it. That’s my insight into the land of the mega rich.

Disclaimer: This is just a list of my first impressions, & I am not a professional game reviewer! Whether or not you should buy Vileborn is something only you can decide. I'm also aware that using bullet points, bolding lines of text, & using the semi-colon are often considered signs of genAI usage, but no genAI was used in the writing of this post or the playing of the adventure. :)

One of the groups I play in (we usually play Fabula Ultima, for context) was down a player this week, so the GM offered to run Vileborn for us (they had run this particular game+scenario once already). We agreed! We built our own characters as opposed to using the pregens, reviewed them with the GM to ensure they were build properly & on par with the pregens, then started the adventure with a simple scenario; Introduce how each PC was recruited into the secret order of monster hunters/how they felt about it, a social scene engaging with another young group of Order members that provoked us, then a conflict/combat scene testing our PCs' abilities to see if we deserve to join the Order. The entire session took 4 hours total, & here are my thoughts;

• My opinion on the setting is limited based on what little we played. I will say that from what the GM explained to us, & what we read, I do quite like the idea of the setting. The game being set in such a specific story, too, is something I'm really into! In the circles I tend to play ttrpgs in, there's a bit of friction between whether you should run house-made worlds/adventures, or pre-written ones. Vileborn takes place in a distinct setting & story hook that I suppose you could deviate from, but I imagine could come with some growing pains.

• Character creation is very fun & simple to me! You pick a background, a dark heritage (similar to a Class or a Playbook), those come with a few character details, & that's about it. Approaches, personality, & training as "stats" offer a lot of variety without feeling like I might "build" a character in a "non-optimal" way.

• Backgrounds feel a little bit limited, but I really like that each one comes with "pick this if you envision your character being like this" rather than just being static in-world explanations about what those backgrounds encompass. As a player, I don't need to know what a Noble does in the world, but I do need to know how a young Noble is likely to behave. Luckily, the book gives you both!

• The character sheets are not my favorite. They're nice to look at on first glance, but about half of the details you pick during character creation (your starting Ability (not your dark heritage gift), your distinctive mark, your past event) can't actually fit onto the space provided. Or there is no space provided for them. I understand that digitally you can just make the font small, & physically you could just write it on the back of the sheet, but when starting out? It just felt odd that there's all this space dedicated to stuff we're not meant to use at the start (motives, resources, & 3 unused Gift boxes).

  • I've seen worse character sheets, but I really don't like when a character creation stage has details that you can't easily fit onto the official character sheets. I think much less space devoted to the center of the sheet would have worked better, as there's a lot of empty space.
  • I also mention the addiction mechanic later on, but there's no space on the character sheet dedicated to tracking that either. That's weird, I think, considering there's a space to track other negative effects like Conditions & Wounds.

• There was some strange wording on the Shadowdancer sheet. The Dark Heritage feature in regards to the d12; It states that "you" (the player) add a d12 to your pool, but it's actually a d12 that the GM rolls in regards to resisting complications that come with PCs utilizing their Dark Gifts. I still got to add that die to my roll, but it wasn't actually meant for the player to roll it. Going all-in on your Dark Gift doesn't feel very much like a risk vs. reward when the difficulty for tests is so high (usually a 7 or more in the conflict scenario we were in), your dice can only roll so high (d8 on average) at the start of the game.

• Combat/conflicts are a little too long. Now, I know from experience that when testing out a new system, things take at LEAST twice as long as they would if everyone was well-versed in the rules. However, after hearing the rules for the scenario we played through, I think conflicts as-written just take too long. We needed 8 successful turns, which sounds easy enough with a party of 3, but if the dice roll poorly (or worse, they roll half-good, half-bad,) the conflict lasts for several rounds.

  • The enemy got a turn every 2nd, 4th, & 6th round. If we didn't get 8 successes by the end of that enemy turn after 6 rounds, we failed the scenario. Personally, I think this is just too long for a more narratively inclined game that's meant to follow 3 "acts".
  • We had a pretty even amount of successes & failures, which meant the fight went on for a long, long time. This was because each turn was, while very fun in that we got to explore some cool narrative descriptions explaining why approaches/personality traits/training areas were used, as well as narrative descritpions for their outcomes? That time translated into a lengthy fight, as whether we pass/failed, turns took time to narrate. It rivaled the length of D&D5e turns, which made the combat feel less like a quick fight to test our characters & more like an awkward slog.
  • While I'm not a huge fan of PbtA games, I find that that style of game handles fights way quicker, even with newbies. FitD, too!

• One player got really excited that they got doubles on their dice, at first. However, after asking if that made it a critical success (like in games such as Fabula Ultima or Household), they were disappointed to learn that nothing like that exists in the game. There was no bonus or consequence to a lucky die roll.

  • I don't think games necessarily need a way to "critically succeed", especially a game with a dark tone like Vileborn, but it leads me back to the issue I have with there not feeling like there's any real risk vs. reward. Rolling doubles/high doesn't do anything for your rolls, feeding into your dark urge doesn't do anything for your rolls, rolling low doesn't do anything for your rolls or the narrative, resisting your dark urge doesn't do anything for your rolls. It just didn't seem like there was anything about the dice themselves that were that exciting.
  • This system reminds me a lot of Cortex Prime in how it explains things work (the Approaches/Personality/Training remind me of how Cortex Prime games are usually built on 3 core mechanics like Distinctions/Relationships/Powers), but there's nothing like "stepping down one die to increase another" or "give in to your Dark Urge to gain a +1 Force, but step down your Willpower", or anything like that in the base mechanics of the game.
  • I think Vileborn could actually more fun, as a setting, in a game like Cortex, CoC, FitD, or arguably even FATE, which I feel have more robust mechanics for struggling against otherworldly forces.

• Another issue was the flexible difficulty. The enemy we faced in the scenario had 3 different difficulties we had to meet/exceed with our approaches, & those difficulties were something we wouldn't know until we rolled. It's fine not to know the difficulty before rolling, but when the difficulties would increase later in the fight, it made it so that we felt like we were never really figuring anything out or making meaningful choices.

  • Back when I played D&D5e a lot, I used to love calculating things like AC through observation; "The Wizard hit with a 17, but the Fighter missed with a 16, so the Orc's AC is likely 16!" We couldn't really do that in the scenario we played due to the changing difficulties, so it felt like how our characters approached the enemy didn't matter. With the DC being 7 or above, we had to use our best Approaches (d8) to stand a chance of succeeding. Only one of us built a character that had a d10 at the start.
  • It's possible that the very intention of the scenario was to make us feel that way, but I don't think that a scenario succeeding at its intended lesson equates to it being good & fun. Even the GM admitted at the end of the adventure that they got bored of the fight near the end.

• Healing/recovery with "Reverie" is something I'm unsure about. Granted, it was explored briefly at the end, & is tied into the setting itself, so my feelings might be different if we played long-term. It cleared our Wounds & Dark Heritage boxes, but, interestingly, not our Conditions (Angry, Shame, Confusion, etc.). I don't know how common it is in long-term play, but I do like that they don't heal the conditions! "Cure-all" mechanics in games tend to rub me the wrong way, & I much prefer recovery via roleplay or dice mechanics (such as in Cortex Prime or FitD). Although there is some kind of addiction mechanic involved with it, which I'm not sure if I would like given it has some kind of point-system attached to it? There's no mention of it on the character sheets, so I'd have to look further into the core book to understand.

Bottom Line: Did I have fun? Yeah! Would I play it again? Yeah! Will I be buying Vileborn, either to run as a GM or play in as a player? No, I don't think so.

TL;DR? Playing Vileborn made me realize how much I've been craving some good dark fantasy, but mechanically, I don't think Vileborn is the one for me. I much preferred how CoC & FitD handled dark themes translating into mechanics, but neither are necessarily the same type of horror that Vileborn is trying to lean so heavily on. I'd be interested in hearing others' recommendations for ttrpgs that do the "play as monsters fighting monsters in a horror setting" with intensity & a quicker pace!

I would love to hear others' experiences with Vileborn, but please be kind in regards to how my GM ran the scenario! It's possible that they got things wrong, or that we misinterpreted the rules-as-written, but I assure you, we all had a good time & everyone at the table is invested in playing Vileborn again. No system is perfect, & in time we may actually change our minds.

Finally, thank you for reading! I hope it was informative and/or entertaining to read!