**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.

What’s a piece of TTRPG lore that made you wonder how it ever made it into print?

The kind that completely took you out of the setting. Not because it was shocking or offensive, but because it felt so silly, absurd, or nonsensical that you couldn’t believe nobody stopped and said, “Maybe we should rethink this.”

What was it?

What I mean by this is what in a system automatically turns you off from playing it. For me it’s when it’s to similar to another system. Like the many D&D likes with only one new mechanic or Nimble where it’s just Pathfinder home rules.

What are your RPG pet peeves? Trends, player behaviors, mechanics, etc. etc. Do tell.

For me, it's how small writing space almost always is on character sheets. Seems like 90% of the time you gotta use chicken scratch to write stuff down.

Related: when a character sheet has just TONS of stuff on it. As an example, I love Pathfinder but the 2nd edition character sheet spills over four pages and they're basically walls of text and graphics even before you start writing.

I'm a special guest at a number of ttrpg conventions. I prefer theater of the mind, but I bring miniatures, terrain, and props as I feel like I need to "bring it" as a special guest. Would you as a player be disappointed, or feel ripped off, by a special guest game if it was simply ToTM?

I guess this could apply to any system but I know some are more geared towards you not being the chosen one. What's your favorites?

Not best, not worst, not most or least controversial or relatable, what is your most COMPLICATED take, with the most little fiddly bits, that takes the most tangents to explain, that takes the most work to make heads or tails of whatsoever?

Edit: TAKE. Not most complicated SYSTEM, I'm looking for TAKES.

I've been finding myself caught between the dichotomy of games with huge, multi-hour combats on a grid (e.g. Lancer, Draw Steel, Pathfinder) and games with rules so lite that combat doesn't have much mechanical depth (e.g. Monster of the Week, Wildsea, most OSR games). Which is obviously fine, but I really like game-y combat, and sometimes it seems like the only places to go for that sort of thing all have the same problems: it takes too long, you wait forever to take your turn, it's super complicated and takes a lot of knowledge to master for the GM and the players, etc etc

Games that seem like they might hit that sweet spot all seem to be obscure itch io titles, like Infinite Revolution Overdrive, Slayers, or even the slightly-less-obscure Tom Bloom game, Cain.

What are some other games that are lighter than a D&D-like but which still have some depth to their combat mechanics?

Hi [r/rpg](r/rpg). I’m a homebrewer-turned-aspiring-designer and I’ve been working for a while on an original tabletop system. One of the features I want to highlight is breaking down the asymmetry between GM and player.

I’m coming from a 5e background with a little bit of pathfinder and PbtA. I feel like one of my weaknesses is not having a breadth of exposure to more niche systems, so I’m asking this to try and open up a discussion about systems that may have done similar things.

Is anyone aware of systems with no GM where players share the usual responsibilities/powers of the GM? In a system with no GM, what aspects of that role do you think should be distributed to the players and which should be resolved mechanically by the system itself?

It's a commonly brought up sentiment that many people are reluctant to try games outside of 5e due to the perceived amount of reading that one needs to do. "I already read this 200+ page book and now I gotta do it again? I'd rather not bother!".

But I am curious how the more invested in the hobby approach the concept. You and I are more open to reading, and also know a bit more that even if a book is 200 pages you only really "need" a fraction of it more often than not. But even so, I imagine some have their limits on how much they're willing to bother to participate rather than just play a game they're already familiar with.

To elaborate on the hypothetical: A friend of yours proposes them running a game with a system you are unfamiliar with. The pitch for the system has you definitely onboard with the premise. It's not your dream game you'd move mountains for, but it's also not a "sure whatever" kind of situation. You want to play this game, in short.

As well, the consideration of "required" reading is a little flexible, but is generally what you would consider broadly necessary. For example, if you knew you wanted to play a cleric, you would only need to read the cleric section of the book, which might only be three pages, so in your case "required" would be three pages. But you might instead want to read up on each class to know what your options are before deciding, so your "required" reading might instead be twenty pages to read the broad strokes of each class first. Some sections might be less negotiable, like resolution or combat rules, but I'm basically trying to lay out the scenario where you're looking at a fat book and thinking on how much would be, or that you would want to be, required reading.

Anyway here's the informal, unscientific poll:

A) 1-10 pages

B) 10-20 pages

C) 20-40 pages

D) 40-60 pages

E) 60-100 pages

F) 100-150 pages

G) 150+ pages

Hi folks,

A couple of friends and I are going to be starting a new Pathfinder 2e campaign soon, and since it's becoming more and more difficult to regularly meet up in person as we're getting older, we're looking to switch to a hybrid format where we have online sessions in between the in-person ones.

I will be GM'ing, but the problem is that I'm not particularly fond of doing online prep work for this sort of thing. A friend of mine runs a game where I am a player and the amount of settings he has to tweak, resources he has to purchase etc. is just too much for me.

I am basically looking for something super bare-bones: ideally, an online room that's little more than a gridmap I could draw on and place tokens on, where I can share the occasional picture and where everyone can roll die for all to see.

There is no need for animations, integrated character sheet support, or anything like that. The simpler, the better :)

Does anything like this exist? Any recommendations would be much appreciated!

So for context, I've never DM'ed before, but I've gotten really interested in it lately, and I have a worldbuilding project I was planning to use for novels/short stories that I think would make a cool setting for some campaigns: basically 30 Years' War Europe but with vampires, witchcraft, satanic cults, religious fanatics with actual 'divine' powers, etc. Main inspirations are Berserk and the Castlevania netflix series. Problem is, I'm not sure if there's any rules systems out there that are an ideal fit or if I'd have to seriously tinker with one.

I know that Vampire the Masquerade has a supplement/alternate version set in the Middle Ages, but to my understanding that setting is more about playing a vampire; the way I imagine this is that most if not all the player characters are humans fighting against the vampires and other forces of darkness. I've also heard of Mork Borg and Rhapsody of Blood, so I'll definitely try to look into those. Are there any others you guys think would be a good fit? Ideally something rules-light. Thanks!

UPDATE: Thanks everyone for the recs! definitely way more systems than I realized that might work so I have lots of homework to do over the weekend, but the good kind!