**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.

Just posting to share, there is no request for advice or attempt to start a deeper conversation.

I played RPGs off and on for about 30 years. It was always something I enjoyed but often felt like I was too busy or sometimes (in my twenties) too cool to make time for. But I recently returned to the GM screen at 57 after a gap of over ten years.

Despite many reasons that would suggest (on paper anyway) it should have been a failure it has so been the most successful campaign I have run. I gauge success by everybody (including me) having fun.

I have a mix of players ranging from a friend my age who has played as much as I have, to a childhood friend and career soldier who isn’t a gamer at all, to my 13 yo daughter. We play in person despite people driving over an hour to get to the game.

I ignored a lot of common wisdom on how to start a campaign, but normally with good reason. For example, I’m not going to have someone drive an hour and a half for a freaking session zero.

It’s a West March lite post apocalypse campaign using reskinned Shadow Dark rules.

I’ve been pondering what my takeaway from this experience is so far. I think it is that it has succeeded because I was realistic about my situation and bandwidth. For example, I set the expectation early on that we will play once a month on a day that at least three people can be here. Instead of trying to meet weakly or wait for everybody to be free. And the fluid nature of a West Marches lite approach makes it pretty easy for me to navigate the problems we have had with scheduling and planning.

The high points:

I’m on track to get us a satisfying end (not a plotted end but a natural resolution of the conflicts created by layer decisions) instead of it just petering out after a while.

My daughter whom I was not sure would enjoy TTRPGs has been super gung ho about it.

Anyway, just wanted to share.

I think it's no secret that there's a major part of D&D homebrew that makes you go: "Brother, you should really play a different system."

I don't want to get into the weeds of the how and why that's such a prevalent thing, but bottom line is: D&D occupies a very large portion of the TTRPG market.

So that made me think: what if that just wasn't a thing? Would some other system take its place and it would be practically the same problem but under a different name? Or would the TTRPG lanscape be more varied due to people actually playing systems they should be playing?

For the sake of this hypothetical scenario let's only say that Pathfinder doesn't exist as well (since it started off as a spin-off to D&D, so no D&D => no Pathfinder).

EDIT: Forgot to add my own answer. To be honest, I have no clue, that's why I thought it would be interesting to make this post. D&D is just so heavily ingrained in the TTRPG scene that imagining a world without it is difficult for me, so I'd like to hear other people's opinion!

Hi All,

Is anyone playing this? I want to start up a Zombie survival type of game (getting bored of always running D&D), and this seems to be the obvious choice.

Before I buy the core rulebook, are there any others actually playing this? From what I've seen it's very narrative and extremely RPG heavy, how have others dealt with this? IN my experience it's difficult to keep mainly RPG table happy.

Preferably something with a solo mode. I really enjoyed DnD 4e back in the day and I used to play Warhammer 40k, but currently dnd 5e doesn't feel tactical enough and Warhammer 40k is too expensive plus is leaning too hard into the competitive seen.

I really enjoy having a low model count. And each model able to have a small load out. Kind of like the Xcom video game where you have 2 weapons and 2 consumable items. Maybe armor slots if you are fancy.

Hello, I'm making a video deconstructing the flaws in D&D's resource management, and I realised that while my knowledge of videogames that employ this kind of gameplay loop is pretty extensive, I cannot say the same for TTRPGs which are obviously more relevant to the discussion.

I wanted to ask what you think are TTRPGs with interesting implementations of resource management, whether it's games you think do it well, badly or in any sort of way that is worth bringing up.

Anyone can recommend session scheduling apps - either as online web app or Discord bot? I did use Skelf but issue with this is that it doesn't remove votes of folks no longer on the server (who left after they realized they can't play) and it does accumulate all the votes as totals so I don't know if the highest number on two days are actually the same people. Like right now it feels the most reasonable way to go is to set spreadsheet on Google drive with names and dates but this way I need to set up the file, add privileges, sent the links. So it doesn't feel like best way to go.

Guess we weren't the only ones complaining how expensive/complex it was to just get the physical books+GM screen. This pledge level costs the same as if you did the build-a-pledge thing.

They're up to $2M so hopefully they'll have enough cash to produce all the other knickknacks.

Say you are running an investigative scenario. The players have found several clues, discussed them, and developed a theory about what's happening.

The theory is coherent. It explains the evidence. The players are satisfied with it and decide to act on it.

There's only one tiny little problem: they're wrong.

They didn't miss an obvious clue or fail a roll. It's just that the available evidence genuinely admits more than one interpretation.

And, to make matters worse, let us assume the action they intend to take will destroy any chance of reaching a successful conclusion to the mystery.

What do you do?

Do you introduce additional information to help them reconsider?

Let them proceed and discover the consequences?

Adjust the underlying explanation if their theory is particularly convincing?

Or something else?

Do you think the GM has any responsibility to make sure the players discover the truth?

I've played RIFTS, and that's the only system that comes to mind that does it all, really. I do prefer simulationist style games rather than narrative style.

I currently mostly run Pathfinder 1e and enjoy it, and honestly, it can do everything except the mecha / planes that I want. I could try to homebrew them in, but I'm not sure where I'd even start with that in particular.

I generally don’t like to badmouth people, but after all these years, I’ve decided it’s time to get this off my chest.

This was the first group I ever played with in voice-based sessions; previously, I had mostly played on forums, which is a different kind of experience.

It’s worth noting that we are all people with disabilities: four of us are wheelchair users, and the fifth person is hard of hearing.

I started as the Game Master (GM) and later became a player.

Player A: A long-time friend of mine with whom I’m still in touch; honestly, I have no complaints about them as a player.

Player B: A friend of Player A. I had played with them before on a forum—alongside Player A—and even back then, I noticed some issues, primarily a playstyle that was very uncooperative.

Player C: Player B’s best friend; their characters were almost always best friends from the start and would focus their interactions almost exclusively on each other.

Player D: A person who is hard of hearing; I honestly didn’t have any major issues with them.

Here’s the situation:

Player B had run sessions on a forum where I played, and even then, I noticed certain red flags—specifically, a very uncooperative way of playing, justified by the excuse, "that’s just how my character is."

That said, I should acknowledge that Player B was actually the first GM I ever played under.

As it happens, our group started playing in a campaign run by Player B. Players A, B, and C were involved, though Player A wasn’t present for some of it. There was one other player—someone I don’t think I ever ran into again. It only lasted a few sessions, but it was fine.

Later, I ran a *Kingmaker* campaign; the first part went well. One player’s character died—partly due to the actions of Players B and C, but also because the player failed to heal their own character. Still, it was all okay.

However, as we were about to start the second part, things got strange. According to the campaign plot, the players were supposed to receive noble titles and the lands they had conquered to govern. Suddenly, Players B and C took offense; they insisted that the entire party should travel to the capital to earn their titles there instead. In the end, I agreed to run something of my own design, and the group set off on a long journey to the capital of Brevoy. It started off pleasantly enough, but then, on two separate occasions, Players B and C split off from the rest of the party, forcing me to run two sessions simultaneously. Later, Players B and C suddenly complained that the sessions were "too comedic"—even though both of them were playing characters clearly built for humor, and they themselves would frequently initiate comedic bits. Honestly, it was really hard to figure out what they actually wanted. Ultimately, the campaign ended rather quickly, though on relatively peaceful terms—and then, I made the mistake of continuing to play with them.

Earlier on—somewhere between the first and second parts of *Kingmaker*—Player A had run a holiday-themed session, which was intended to have a lighthearted, comedic tone. So, I created a lizardfolk character who didn’t understand holidays—the whole idea was for him to learn their meaning over time. But then, the group decided my character didn’t fit the tone of the campaign because he was "too comedic." This, mind you, in a campaign that featured a lich with the personality of the Grinch and Team Rocket as antagonists!

Later, I changed characters when Player A introduced a new story arc, but my character was consistently ignored—or even treated with hostility—by Players B and C. On a couple of occasions, they even left him for dead when he tried to save the rest of the party… and one of their characters was a paladin, no less!

Meanwhile, another campaign started, run by a different GM, with me, Player B, and Player C—Player D was there at the start but had to leave. Once again, my character was completely ignored by the other players, and every action he took was met with suspicion or resentment. Eventually, the three-person party died, and the GM started a follow-up campaign—that’s when things got truly bizarre.

It began with the party arriving at a village plagued by a werewolf (my character had a backstory connection to werewolves, so this was clearly a nod to him). For no apparent reason, Players B and C decided to head somewhere else entirely. Not wanting to make things difficult for the GM, I followed them. This happened three times—the GM had to restart the adventure from scratch each time because the party kept wandering off, refusing to engage with the plot—until, finally, the GM had to trap the party in a location from which there was no escape. It’s also worth mentioning that these two would badmouth every other player and Game Master they had played with—with the exception of Player A, likely because he was a mutual acquaintance of ours.

In the end, the Game Master wrapped up the campaign, and I went looking for another group. Things actually went really well with that new group, though I still had a few lingering habits—such as a great deal of uncertainty regarding my own abilities.