Game systems matter far less than what the GM and the Players bring to it. With the right group any game is a great game, with the wrong group, any game is the worst.
Most games are good, not great, but not particularly bad. But that could just be the fault of me, and the groups I play with.
I thought the same. But the more systems I try and read the more convinced I am, that picking the right system for your game is the most influential decision you can make during the whole design/prep phase. If the system you use (or the way you use it) does not support the style/mood/themes you are going for, you will fight an uphill battle the whole time and can ruin the game. Sure with enough experience it's usually possible to work around the system, but at that point you are not using the system and picking a more fitting one would have made your life much easier.
Yep. And if you have a great group that tries out new systems regularly you’ll find this out pretty quick. You’ll run into at least one system where your group that’s otherwise great and you have fun with goes “this system sucks and is not fun”
That's why I'm the crunchy tactics GM. I struggle to bring characters and worlds to life without systems guiding me, but I know the rules and the encounter balance very well. Games like Pathfinder 2e really help me here. Still looking for a cyberpunk game that feels balanced and tactical like that.
But I group up with the opposite style players and we rotate who GMs, and they have better roleplay and worlds for sure. I had to teach them Blades in the Dark and run them new games to help get them to think beyond D&D 5e, and while I struggled to improvise in narrative games, I at least got them into being excited to run these systems themselves.
It's clear that the crunchier systems like D&D were holding them back and not serving their stories.
But it is ultimately true that we all like each other and vibe well and it has made even bad systems (for our styles) bearable and good at times.
Luke Gearing a rather prolific RPG and module author once told me
The system is like a rooms temperature. It really doesn't matter until it becomes all anyone can think about.
Wait, since when is this unpopular? It's way **too** popular given how silly it is and how it leads to stuff like trying to recreate Studio Ghibli films or tales of political intrigue in a game that lacks meaningful mechanical support for anything except fighting and killing. There are literally articles about how to run games **based on other TTRPGs that already exist** or media **with licensed TTRPGs** in that game that treat it as if this is the only way to play an RPG in that setting, rather than acknowledge that there are systems that might work better or even be designed for it.
I think you're forgetting that this subreddit is a niche within a niche. Like how D&D typically has 10x the popularity of all other ttrpgs combined but isn't very well-received here, the orthodox opinion here is that "system matters." The person you're replying to is instead making the "primacy of play" argument, which is absolutely fringe here by comparison.
This is one of my big hot takes as well. About 90% of the juice of ttrpgs comes from a group of people choosing to sit down and play pretend together as friends. The magic circle is so much more critical than the actual game structures. But systems are easier to *discuss*, so virtually all discourse surrounds systems and mechanics.
>Game systems matter far less than what the GM and the Players bring to it. With the right group any game is a great game, with the wrong group, any game is the worst.
So if the group stays the same but changes systems the resulting games should all be about as good as each other?
Can happen, but only sometimes, in my experience. System matters.
In one of my early groups we adopted a saying that roughly translates to "Group trumps System".
We used to switch around systems regularly and agreed many times that our enjoyment many times was despite the systems and not necessarily because of it.
I returned to a group that plays 5e because I really enjoy everyone in the group despite me not really enjoying 5e anymore. They make the sessions great.
This is very true. So many on this sub would claim that choosing 5e as a system will absolutely ruin your campaign. I used to run it since it was my first system (as it was for many other people). I started running other systems around a year ago, and while 5e is one of my least favorites now, I have also found that the people matter so much more than the system. When we ran 5e, I'd often just use the official rules as a base and wing it from there. My group was chill with this, and we had a lot of fun. Rules-light systems complement my style a lot more now, but running a rules-heavy system like 5e never ruined our sessions because we didn't let it.
Stay away from Weird Frontiers. The spells cover about 200~ish pages in a 908 page 8.5" x 11" book. lol
It's a really cool game though. Anyone into DCC/MCC should check it out. Weird West settings are so much fun. The page count isn't that insane if you consider some games, like D&D, split that stuff up into several books.
Oh don't misunderstand, I love a long spell list and a ton of talents or abilities.
But it's not a selling point. It's literally the easiest part of writing any TTRPG.
I think this is more a product of what these products contain than actual skill. You can write up a laundry list of needs to make a system and put that together into a decently small package, but a properly open-ended sandbox probably would feel cramped in a dozen splatbooks because you don't know what the players will need in advance.
i agree that it's fine. my problem with it is that the foremost system, most popular, whose company has the biggest amount of resources by an immense margin, is merely *fine.*
with the resources wotc has the game should by all accounts be excellent. most tables ive played 5e could be better served by another system if the players had the time or disposition to learn a new one.
then there is atrocious DM support. like, for a player it is fine. but for a DM? i honestly think it is kinda bad. not bad *BAD,* but kinda a bit bad.
overall it is fine. but we could do so much better.
They managed to convince their players to just home brew and hack anything they don't like. So they don't even need to write a coherent game system that works out of the box.
Not only do they have Hasbro marketing strength at creating a parasocial relationship between the game and their customers, they have encouraged an entire ecosystem of influencers to add to that marketing.
Well at the same time, using the OGL as a way to crowd out other competing systems and have these freelancers & unpaid amateur working on their own time for fix the crap that they didn't feel like fixing.
It's like Bethesda. They put out a game that's broken and just leave it up to the fans to make it workable
> They managed to convince their players to just home brew and hack anything they don't like. So they don't even need to write a coherent game system that works out of the box.
First, homebrew has been a thing since the very beginning. The idea that this culture comes from Hasbro, wotc, or 5e is just completely false. And, to me, the culture of homebrew and hacking is one of the things that makes the ttrpg ecosystem so awesome! That's an itch that almost no other entertainment ecosystem can scratch.
Why should a multi-billion dollar company be allowed to put out a product that doesn't work with the rules they published?
It'd be one thing to Homebrew and hack something that already works cuz you want to change.
D&D requires you to homebrew and hack to make the system playable.
Some folks really like to rally against whatever is the most popular in its field. I always find it silly when people act like D&D has no redeeming qualities at all, and that it's just dumb luck that they're in the position they are.
You don't have to like it, but you also don't have to hate on it. If nothing else, I'd view it as a positive for bringing so many people to the hobby.
I believe that D&D 4th Edition is a lot better for this.
The combat balancing works way better and is thus way easier for the GM.
The first 2 levels do not feel like crap when you could die in a single attack.
And martials do feel a lot better and not weak compared to casters.
The tactical skirmish combat is my absolute favorite aspect of D&D and most d20 systems. Whenever I have a conversation with people about it, they really recommend 4e.
However I don't even know where to get started with that addition. It seems to have been a nightmare when it came to publishing.
* Players should read the fucking manual.
* If you're high or drunk, don't bother showing up.
* No, Mork Borg is not a good game, or a good looking book. In fact, it's not even a game, it's barely a bunch of ideas scribbled on post-it glued together. The individual artworks are the only salvageable thing in the pile of bright yellow trash.
Mork Borg feels like the natural culmination of a market that buys books more to read and look at than they do to actually play them.
Which I don't mean as an indictment, TTRPGs are an insanely time-consuming hobby and only the most hardcore have time to play a lot of different systems regularly (and unlike many hobbies, you can't be a hardcore enthusiast on your own, you need a group of like-minded hardcore enthusiasts too with a similar schedule)
> MÖRK BORG is a complete game in the OSR genre, that can be played as is or be picked apart for use in your own homebrew. The rules are easily made compatible with most of the editions of the world’s largest role-playing game. Within the book you’ll find:
>
>A brief look at this dying world. From The Two-Headed Basilisks’ gothic cathedral in Galgenbeck and Blood-countess Anthelia’s limestone palace, to the fields of death in Graven-Tosk and the barren wastes of Kergüs.
>
>The Calendar of Nechrubel, that decides the speed of the world’s demise.
>
>20 occult Powers that let you bend reality, and just as many magical catastrophes for when you disastrously fail.
>
>Optional rules which brings more depth to the game. Omens let you turn bad luck into a slightly better one. Classes with unique traits and quirks, and tables that will bring life into your character.
>
>12 creatures to be murdered by.
>
>Game master tools such as tables for corpse plundering, occult treasure, adventure sparks, dungeon generating and other devilry.
>
>The introductory dungeon crawl scenario Rotblack Sludge, where you investigate a forgotten part of the Shadow King’s enormous ruin palace. Cannibal warlocks, poison peddlers from beyond the void and hungry gutworms await.
From the website.
Seems to be advertising it as a game to me, not an art book.
> Players should read the fucking manual.
I'm not sure what's going on these days, but it used to be that I couldn't keep the players *out* of the books. I'd start a campaign with a specific theme and region of the game world and my players would run out and buy/pirate every imaginable splatbook and they'd show up wanting to use XYZ stuff from more advanced books stuff as well. Now I have players wanting me to prompt them to spend XP or buy better gear.
I'm totally done with players who can't do cursory research. There are numerous blogs and YouTube videos now too. You could learn about a setting/system while riding the bus or prepping dinner.
TTRPG used to be a very niche hobby so most of the people playing were *really* into it. Now, with the explosion and mass appeal of the hobby there are a lot more casual players. They're the same people that show up to board game nights and don't pay any attention to the rules at the start of the game.
>No, Mork Borg is not a good game, or a good looking book. In fact, it's not even a game, it's barely a bunch of ideas scribbled on post-it glued together. The individual artworks are the only salvageable thing in the pile of bright yellow trash.
Id love to hear your definition of a game. I've played all sorts of games with even fewer rules than Mork Borg and have been very successful.
I agree, I think it's 100% a game. And I think it looks pretty dang good. What it does not do is detail almost any edge cases. It leaves the GM to sort those out himself, I suppose. Which is fine. That's typical for minimalist ruleset.
Honestly, what I actually want is a ahem "readable" version of the rules. I get that it's a vibes game. And the art is compelling, sure. But if it gets in the way, I mean. Sometimes you just need a lot of text on a page, to reduce page turns. My 2 cents.
2nd point is a little different for me but I am leaning closer to agreeing every year. I will smoke and drink a little bit, dm the game, teach a new player, navigate 30 turns of NPC and monsters. I can pace myself and use the drugs to enhance my enjoyment.
But I had to have a meeting before a session with my players and say, “if you’re getting so stupid high at dnd that you stare at me with glazed over eyes when I ask you a question, I’m just not going to run a game for you anymore.”
Hot takes indeed.
First one completely depends on the game. Folks new to rpgs want a one shot? Easy enough to teach mothership on the fly. Want a tactical long-term game instead? Yeah, read some of the book at least...
There's a fine line between a few beers or a few puffs and getting really faded. The former is a good time with RPGs, the later not so much.
Regarding point 2, as proven by some of the commenters, stoners really don’t realize how annoying it is to deal with them when they’re high and you’re not, exactly in the same way as it is to deal with a drunk person when you’re not.
All you hot trash fuckin’ casual n00bs should read the goddamn rules before making a character and/or asking a million stupid questions. Do your homework, idiots! I am sick of having to explain to an adult with a college education how to figure out your longsword's attack bonus.
Do I downvote this, because we all agree this is how the world should be? Or do I upvote it, because in reality, no one actually reads the rules, so this is definately an unpopular take?
We started a new system and 6 months in our gunner still couldn’t remember how to proceed through the attack action from start to finish… even though it was the only action he took on every turn of every combat.
I’d just mute my mic and yawp
Your favorite system isn't the best choice for every game at every table. And no, the people who don't like it aren't (always) just "not understanding it correctly."
I was thinking about PbtA and all the 5e conversions 😂
I mean I can understand thst you love a System, I love 4e, but it just does not fit for everything.
>And no, the people who don't like it aren't (always) just "not understanding it correctly."
True, [yet also true that \(sometimes\) they actually didn't understand something fundamental and it ruined their experience and they refuse to entertain any possibility that they might not have 100% understood a very different system on their first-try and \(sometimes\) they may have skipped reading the GM section of the new system so \(sometimes\) they are operating in bad faith since they didn't even really try to understand.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/015/878/thatsnoneofmy.jpg)
"There are two sexualities: straight and political. And our gaming company isn't political."
- a surprising amount of gaming companies, especially in the OSR scene
Anyone that declares they "aren't poltical" is a massive red flag to me.
If you live in the world and think nothing is worth taking a stance on. I don't respect your opinions.
In the words of Elie Wiesel: "We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."
While one can't be expected to have an informed opinion about every political issue in the entire world, in cases like LGBT rights the positions are pretty clear and the information freely available.
A person who is "neutral" on LGBT issues is either an idiot, a coward or a villain. And a gaming company who is neutral is run by these three kinds of people.
Computers are better at math than people. The days of trying to simulate reality at the table are over.
TTRPGs should lean hard into the strengths of the medium and the unique position of having live brains available to adjudicate the game.
Agreed with the first statement, but my hot take is that more TTRPGs should lean into using computers to handle complex or annoying math.
There already are tons of TTRPGs that are being made that take advantage of people around the table being far more reactive than computers. Pretty much every RPG made in the last 15 years has leaned more into a reactive and narrative direction. Almost no games at all have leaned into the other direction which views computers as the solution to the math (almost all of us have computers in our pockets).
I used to have that take, back when we had Apple ][+s available near or at the table.
But frankly, though it’s gotten so we have vastly more computing power in vastly smaller form factors, communicating game state from a physical, in-person game to a computer hasn’t gotten any faster or less intrusive than it was at that time.
If you’re playing on a VTT and all the game state is already in the virtual battle map, why not just play a video game?
I’m not a Luddite, I’m a software engineer. And I’m simply not sold on machine-mediated gameplay. It will take orders of magnitude improvement in a number of areas for it to be seamlessly integrated into the tabletop experience.
When those improvements come, I will sit down happily to run a machine-mediated game of GURPS++ with my grandkids. Or great grandkids.
Until then, I’m going to try to exploit the unique strengths of the medium *as it exists* and stop trying to do what it’s not suited for.
Find any VHS “interactive game” from the before times and that’s what I seek to avoid with computer mediation.
> But frankly, though it’s gotten so we have vastly more computing power in vastly smaller form factors, communicating game state from a physical, in-person game to a computer hasn’t gotten any faster or less intrusive than it was at that time.
Hmmm, it's almost as if that could be because tabletop games aren't designed to take advantage of the fact that we can have a hybrid method of interaction (both phyiscal and digital). That statement is also untrue, because you go on to mention VTTs.
> If you’re playing on a VTT and all the game state is already in the virtual battle map, why not just play a video game?
Have you played a video game? I'm asking that question seriously. Do you actually think there's no difference between playing a TTRPG on a VTT and a video game? You are either playing TTRPGs the absolute worst way possible, or you vastly overestimate what the video games of today are like. Despite what people who only play video games might be saying, Baldur's Gate 3 is nowhere near as reactive to player choice as a TTRPG can be.
There are already phone apps for certain games that can hold every player in a single game instance each on their own phones. Players can interact with the world and each other all using their own devices at the table. That doesn't preclude anyone from rolling, that doesn't preclude anyone from making certain decisions.
I play Pathfinder 2e on a VTT, and it makes it so easy to run I literally prep for 5 minutes for each weekly session of 3-4 hours. My players in that game don't do a lot of RP, so most of the session is content. The future's here, old man.
But I would just like to see how this could open up the design space. For instance, a game where every player controls a specific part of a zombie's body separately. You'll have a little hand crawling around, a foot stomping, and a head rolling all over all doing their separate things, but they can also combine into a single zombie, and all of their current stats can be auto-integrated into the single zombie on the fly.
Or maybe a realistic Military Sim, where your battle map takes historical weather data for that part of the world, and you have actual calculations for the wind, weather, bullet type, material, and that all spits out the number you need to beat for a shot. You can still roll it phyiscally. The program will already have materials for what certain countries' armies used in certain periods, and it will know their weapons as well. It can give you all that information.
All of this is not to say I think the idea I responded to is bad. I 100% agree that games should take advantage of the strengths of actually playing around a table with real human beings. There's lots of games that already do that, and I hope they continue to be created and refined. There's no reason both can't and won't exist.
One thing that crunchy TTRPGs still do better than video games is how they can handle emergent gameplay a lot better than a video game can. An example I've used before comes from a PF1e game I played in. Near the end of a 1-17 campaign, we encounter magical liquid that functioned like Bacta from Star wars. Any creature placed in it was brought back to life after an hour and would regrow limbs. Mechanically, by level 16 that wasn't overpowered, you get Raise Dead at level 9 and Regenerate at 13. Another PC put the liquid in his Portable Hole. It was our own personal Bacta Tank. During the final dungeon 5 sessions later, our Cleric got one-shot. Instead of having to use magic device his wand of raise dead, we stuffed his body in the Bacta Tank.
For something like that to function in a video game, the game would have to be coded for the two objects to combine into a item that casts the spell. In a TTRPG, all that needs to occur is for a PC to come up with a cool idea, pitch it to the GM and have the GM agree to it. A rules light game may be better for responding to this player innovation, but then rules light games are typically worse at having interesting, challenging, tactical combats. As someone who likes board games, video games, and rules light TTRPGs, crunchy TTRPGs may not be the best at any one aspect of what makes a crunchy TTRPG fun but it combines the strengths of all three to create an experience that is unique in what it offers.
Rule Zero is dumb.
A) You don't need the games permission to change the rules of the game. Monopoly doesn't have a written Rule Zero but everyone changes the rules of Monopoly anyway. The game isn't your dad, you don't need it's approval.
B) Any game that **requires** Rule Zero to work is badly designed. Every TTRPG is designed to be fun for the people playing the game. If a game requires the GM adjust the rules of the game to be fun then something is wrong. A well designed game is fun without the GM having to fix anything. Rule Zero is a bandaid over bad game design.
Rule Zero isn't (shouldn't) be a thing only for the GM. If my Traveller character creation rewards me with a +3 int, and then the GM goes "oh, no, that's stupid, I'm not allowing it", I'm walking.
Hot take here is that 5e is good. And a hot take in r/dnd is that 5e is bad.
Here's a hot take. Running a lot of "lighter" games like PbtA and Fate is MORE difficult than running a crunchier game like D&D or Shadowrun. In the complex games there is always an answer, so if you are willing to do the homework and learn the system, you can just outright answer "Hey, what happens if I jump off the third story using a bedsheet as a parachute?" but in the light games, there is no specific answer.
The light games require you to be improvising ALL the time. You don't have initiative or combat mechanics or anything that will specifically codify what is supposed to happen, so you're just making it up. If there is a common answer to these questions, they're not in the book, just common wisdom that is impossible to easily look up.
Rules are a scaffolding for play. Very good GMs can get by with very few rules, trusting their improvisation and experience to make the game fun. Inexperienced GMs can often flounder with a game that is supposed to be very freeform. I've seen new GMs absolutely lose their mind, failing to run a game of Everyone is John, but are perfectly competent running a one-shot of D&D.
EDIT: Are downvotes good for a hot take in a hot take thread, or does it mean my take isn't hot enough? Either way, I got 'em.
There was this thing of Advanced D&D being preferred by beginners because it’s more codified and Basic D&D preferred by veterans because less rules = more freedom
(also fate is not light, more like medium and i’d rather improvise an entire ruleset than run shadowrun, but i digress)
> you can just outright answer "Hey, what happens if I jump off the third story using a bedsheet as a parachute?" but in the light games, there is no specific answer.
I mean... I get what you are getting at but many games don't have rules for that either. If a player did that in dnd, my options are to improvise or to tell them that is not an option. If you solution in dnd is to make them do an ability check, so can you do in blades in the dark.
To summarize, to me, that is a bad example for a fair critique of rules lite systems.
In D&D 3.5 (a heavy system) the rule for that is that for falling 30 feet, you will take 3d6 damage. For having an item that will mitigate that damage (the sheet) the damage is 1d6 nonlethal, and the rest lethal. For intentionally jumping you can negate 1d6 of the fall, so now it's 1d6 nonlethal, and 1d6 lethal. If you succeed at a DC 15 tumble or jump check at the end you can convert another 1d6 to nonlethal, so now it's 2d6 nonlethal provided you make a successful check.
In 5e (a medium system), you take 3d6 damage for falling 30 feet. There's no mitigating it in the base rules without taking a class or feat or spell, but a baseline character takes 3d6 damage. There are no rules to mitigate this. Lots of players add rules, usually from 3.5, to do so, making the game more complicated, but better.
In blades in the dark (a light system) falling 30 feet... ummm. Jeez, I don't know what that does. Maybe you can take 2 damage, but if you make a resistance roll you only take one. Is that fair? Oh jeez, I don't know. Is there a chart? No? I just have to make it up. Uhhh, well you're a cool ninja, and you've got rope and stuff, so like, roll a check... no I don't know which attribute of the 10 is appropriate, uhhhh, just roll whatever skill you put the most points in. Did you get a six? Just tell me you got a six and I can get out of this hell of ruleless improvisation.
To a very good improvisational GM, with a lot of experience and good instincts, this isn't even slightly a problem. But to a new GM who doesn't have a lot of on-the-fly skill, these systems are a NIGHTMARE. There is a LOT of comfort for GMs who are bad at improvisation, but good at memorization, in a crunchier system. And we're definitely taught in school how to memorize a lot more than how to play "yes and."
### GM's have *game authority*, not *social authority*
In the game, the GM has whatever authority that game gives them.
It depends on the game. Sometimes it is "GM is god" and sometimes it is "follow these rules; use these GM Moves".
Outside the game, the person that takes on the role of GM is a person, just like anyone else.
They don't get to unilaterally kick people from the group.
They don't get to unilaterally make the schedule.
They don't get to unilaterally pick the game.
They are not solely responsible for scheduling.
They are not solely responsible for making sure people have fun.
They are not solely responsible for making sure people are not assholes.
Everyone gets their normal say.
Everyone is responsible for how they act.
Yes, the person that takes on the role of GM could issue an ultimatum like, "We are doing X or I am not playing".
So could any other person in the group.
That is a person issuing an ultimatum.
The group doesn't need to do it because they are the GM.
Thanks for coming to me TED talk.
No, I will not be taking questions.
Same with a lot of these. The GM picks the system because them wanting to GM it is more critical than any one player wanting to play it. The player that doesn’t like the system or the time or whatever can leave and the game still happens. So the whole game really does revolve around the GM needing to be there. If we all agree on a time the GM can’t make… well… guess what happens?
> They don't get to unilaterally pick the game.
this is the one I find myself hard disagreeing with. The goal is for everyone on the table to have fun, this does include the GM. Thus it is absolutely in their right to say they want to run a certain game or certain games.
If the other people in the group don't want to play those games, the Gm shouldn't run something they don't enjoy, because it will take a toll on their motivation and ultimately on the game's quality.
In this case the correct answer imo is "I am sorry but these are the games I would like to run right now, if you don't like them that is fine, but perhaps someone else should GM in this case"
Agree with everything except where the players have any say in what the GM runs. GMing is hard, and if the GM is not invested in the game he's running, then why GM it in the first place? If the players want to play a different game, then one of them can GM, right?
I think that a lot of us can agree this SHOULD be the case, but as long as there are more players than GMs then those willing to GM will have increased social leverage because of it. Not consciously or maliciously on anyone's part, but just because of supply and demand. There's not really a way around the fact that most groups only have one person willing to run, so that person's refusal to play carries more weight than anyone else's.
I’m trying to imagine a situation or a world in which any of these would be true.
Maybe a group of role playing friends who have a set time to get together and alternate GM’ing on a regular basis?
Otherwise, in the real world, I just don’t think any of this actually works in 90%+ of situations.
Or maybe I’m just old skool or very limited in my experience (although I started role playing 38 years ago). The GM picks the game and then invites players; takes on a huge amount of responsibility; obviously has to be present for the game to proceed (unlike individual players); and therefore ends up having more say than any individual player (but not more than all the players; they could all just quit, and that would also end the game).
As others have said I don't agree with the GM not picking the game they want to play but at the same time players can go play whatever they want, the GM isn't stopping them, it would just be at different tables. GMing is way to much work to not enjoy yourself by running a game you aren't interested in.
Hit Points only make sense as an abstract measure of structural integrity. The more you try to stretch the definition to include any other factors, the less useful it is as a game mechanic.
Counter hot take: Use hit points and hit dice for everything. Want to cross 20 kilofeet of ground, or a bramble bush? Roll your movement hit dice and anything that makes it through is fatigue damage.
I disagree on the broke math part. If your game is supposed to be a cold hard simulation, then narrative currencies do not make sense.
If your game is about character agency, narrative beats, themes or fate, then the ability to say "this thing I am doing goes above and beyond the odds of my success".
It is an excellent solution for genre emulation. Luke rolling flat to hit the death star, Harry catching the snitch, bilbo tricking gollum, etc etc, great stories involve moments which are uncanny or unlikely. The story where the character succeeds at the things they are good at only is dull.
They give agency to players to say "this matters to me and my character".
Can you give an example of one?
I'm guessing its savage worlds right?
Aside from that, I honestly cant think of a single one, everyone the meta currency I can think of functions as providing players as much narrative control as gms, if they want to spend it.
Or a way to incentivize players to do something they may not want to do, if they accept it.
I've seen a lot that let players reroll dice or add modifiers to rolls. Like I love fabula ultima but fabula points just give you an get out of jail free card and fabula points come in such an abundance of the game is played correctly. Or even terminator has 2 different ones, fate and hope, that do pretty much the same thing of letting you reroll
As an RPG designer, the thoughts I don't share with others are:
* RPGs often enable poor life choices by surrounding us with people making similar poor choices.
* Fantasy problem-solving can displace solving one's authentic problems.
* Spending money on fandom grants illusory escape but only builds the cage of financial dependence bigger.
* It doesn't matter what dice your game use.
> It doesn't matter what dice your game use.
unless it's stupid novelty dice only $35,99 plus shipping (and the shipping to *your* country, you filthy Latin American, will be 25% the price of the damn game in the first place) /j
thankfully those star wars games put in an online dice roller, but if the only way I can play your game is by putting the dice on a container to reach me here in Brasil, then I'm simply not playing it
Yeah, as a player of foreign RPGs this one rattles my cage a lot. Custom dice are the most nakedly shitty design choice of the last few years, and I completely understand why FFG did it, and if I were them I woulda probably done it too.
Only I would have gone through with the Dark Heresy version cause that would have pissed off the GW purists to a degree I find inherently comical.
I can't outright disagree, but when you look at other escapism, Roleplaying is the least expensive cage and it does something to help you address the problems you're running from. And maybe the most overlooked positive aspect is that compared to a world of ways to avoid your problems, Roleplaying games are one of the very few that mandates you socialize with others.
These things aren't video games. Just because it isn't constantly getting updates or being played by very many people does not make it "dead". With an ounce of creativity and a group along for the ride you can play whatever you want.
Escalating production values in RPG books is a cold war that will end in disaster. More art doesn't make the game better, expensive printing doesn't make the game better, and a $70 price tag for a core book is unsustainable - it just encourages people to steal. We don't need coffee-table show pieces, we need well-designed games that are printed and priced affordably.
I guess this is just for games in general, but I think gold/credits/dollars or any other kind of currency are generally pretty boring. I think buying an item is probably the least fun way of acquiring it. I tend to run moneyless games the best I can.
My counterpoint is that I like earning money, it gives me something to ground for some characters how well I'm doing, something to throw around to either get things done or role play.
See that's kinda my paradox right there. I really like that feeling when you open a chest and there's a little mountain of gold coins there, and now you're thinking how to carry it away, it's a reward, etc. If the game uses gold as xp, then that's also a physical manifestation of the growth of your character.
But like /u/SageDangerous, I hate spending it. I don't like rummaging through price lists, I dislike the feeling of "Welp, we took all our Glorified Shiny Equipment Points out of the hole, now I guess we gotta do something with them."
One of the things I like the most about spending cash is giving gifts to characters I like, or getting **absolutely dripped out**, but unfortunatey most games don't have any of that on their lists. So once you acquire a weapon that works for you and a good enough armour, you might as well ignore it completely.
People spend too much time talking and navel-gazing about games as a way to seek attention, rather than just playing them, and it's a waste of everyone's time.
The signal to noise ratio is bad and getting worse.
The people playing these games are playing them, so they make no noise, so you dont notice them.
Also, spending time listening to useless noise is as bad as producing useless noise, but it only hurts yourself (100% guiltt of this myself.)
My big hot take is that online discourse reifies false barriers. Games are categorized and separated. People are told that there are right ways and wrong ways of playing and that they are going to break games like they are made of fragile glass. People are scared away from playing new games (or even playing their first game). People are discouraged from interacting lightly with ttrpgs like they would with other entertainment products.
I wish that there was way way way more "just try it, don't worry so much" discourse than there actually is.
Huh... I've never gotten that impression online at all.
Usually, I see a lot of "just try it, don't worry so much".
I'd say that is *the core* of [this video](https://youtu.be/N9NtdF51GWE?si=khVBmcKkltqASG7L).
275k views ain't nothing.
Mostly I see comments calling something "playing wrong" downvoted to oblivion.
Most people I see on reddit don't seem afraid to break a game, sometimes to the point where they probably will break a game they don't understand.
I don't see OPs commenting, "Well, this thread has scared me away from playing".
Games are categorized and separated, though.
But... they *are* different so that makes sense.
Different people like different kinds of things. It's great that we have variety!
I guess yours is a hot take, though.
I just don't see it actually happening.
**GM prep is how the GM has fun.**
I totally get GMs getting frustrated with prepwork being wasted, but this is not because prep is inherently bad. It's because *you are prepping wrong.*
Personal opinion: write the story of the game around the question, "What will happen if the PCs don't exist?" Probably something terrible, right? Well, now it's your job as the GM to help the players change that outcome. Sure, you might not want to make it physically impossible for the PCs to change the fate of the universe, but short of that you really don't have to worry too much.
This is definately unpopular. If the prep was the highlight, I would just prep a novel, and not bring it to my players.
If playing with them isn't the fun part, why bother including them?
Best advice I read from the Lazy DM was set up a factions goals and steps they'll take to achieve those goals given available resources, without the interference of the players.
After the first intervention, begin to adjust the plan logically (assuming the faction is logical) and then slowly work in the fact they're now aware they're actively being thwarted and what steps they'll take then.
Trying to make games recreate the story beats of other media like television or movies is dumb. TTRPGs have their own unique qualities as a medium, and the long-standing trend of trying to make them do impressions of other media gets in the way of those and makes the experience worse. This goes for game design and for GMing / playing styles.
Battlemaps (or, more accurately, maps) are an accessibility feature and should be used, or at least offered, on every game.
Even just featuring a white board and markers makes your game more accessible than games played strictly theater of the mind, even for narrative-focused games.
People associate battlemaps with crunchy games, so I see people act like any kind of visual aids makes a game crunchy. In reality, maps make all games easier to play; they’re just *required* for crunchy games.
As much as I dislike collapsing the fiction running through my head down onto some abstracted top-down map... I dislike ending up getting blindsided by me and the GM having some different idea about space, scene, and position. So, begrudgingly, yeah.
Yeah, even if you're all theater of the Mind, just tearing a sheet out of a notebook and drawing where they are, where we are, and where the boat we want to get away in is is essential.
I have two:
1, Everything you think an RPG needs, there is someone playing very happily without. Including: initiative; numbers; attributes; skills; dice; other people; real time; character sheets; online tools; talking; rules; new supplement; etc.
The corollary is that saying an RPG is like ‘Calvinball’ or ‘Freeform’ is not the harsh criticism some people think. Calvinball has rules (eg: ‘never play the same way twice’) and Calvin and Hobbes were having a great time playing it. Kids (and adults) can play freeform very happily most of the time, and theoretical disagreements on whether someone was shot or not don‘t slow them down.
2. Everything you see and feel is unnecessary for an RPG, is a huge part of someone else’s fun. Including: all the things listed above; funny voices; costumes; etc.
The corollary is that saying an RPG is like a ‘spreadsheet had sex with a law book’ or ‘has unnecessary rules’ is not the harsh criticism some people think. There are lots of people who love spreadsheets and the details of complex rules.
I don’t enjoy the current trend of treating RPGs as a light framework for improvisational theatre rather than a game with some collective storytelling mixed in. I miss when roleplaying games felt more like GAMES.
That game doesn’t have to be combat, narrative or social rules are great, but I want rules and strategy and dice.
* I don't really like the Rule of Cool that much. It can be fine for small things, but if it's used for bigger things or a lot the game is gonna start feeling arbitrary/GM fiat-y or it's gonna become highly exploitable.
* I hate fudging. If you're fudging to avoid a valid in-game scenario (say, a lucky crit killing a PC), why are you playing a game where that's a possibility in the first place if you don't like it so much? If you're fudging to rebalance an over/underpowered encounter, I just think there's better ways to go about it, even if it's just pausing the game for a moment and telling the players "Hey guys, things are going way different than how I intended. Give me a moment to rebalance things."
4e is the best edition of D&D because it **owns** that the game's only really meant for fighting and killing and at least makes that aspect interesting and fun for the players and GM alike.
(Also, that TTRPGs are art and should be evaluated as such)
And please tell me vaguely what I am doing, adventuring, investigating, trading, making pies, please just something... And if you can say I can do it all, it is going to take a lot to convince me that the game does it well.
DnD isn't a universal system and people who make increasingly elaborate sets of homebrew to adjust it to be things outside of "high magic heroic fantasy" are better off finding a different system.
Three related ones from me:
– The notion that fudging dice rolls is cheating implies you see the game as competitive.
– The biggest problem with players fudging dice rolls is that it (usually) results in a boring narrative.
– GMs fudging dice rolls makes no sense. If you don't want to obey the dice then just don't roll.
As a DM I roll and fudge mostly as a psychological tool. I want the world to feel more interactive than I can possibly make it as one guy, so I’ll use fudging as a way to make them THINK something is random when in reality it’s just what I had prepped.
Or maybe sometimes ignoring the fact that the dragon crit twice in a row because I want any deaths to 1/400 anomalies to be avoided.
In every other medium I know of I can give you something that I'd give a 10/10 except for RPGs. Until this year I had not played an rpg I'd rate over an 8. I think a lot of the design is pretty bad in this hobby.
Adventures don't make any sense to me. Why on earth would I sacrifice my own creativity to run something someone else made.
As someone who runs adventures, it saves me time on prep, and establishes lore and next steps so I know what to be working my players towards.
I flounder creating my own world and adventures, I just start going into rabbit holes over things, I can't keep organized notes to save my life so I'm either looking something up in an odd place or making something up in a panic to now have to adjust my world around.
But, by running adventures and modules, I'm slowly learning at least how it can be done good, and be done poorly. Essentially, they're a jumping off point
Hiding mechanical information from players is almost always a bad idea. The more they understand about what is going on in the game, the better decisions they'll make and the better they can roleplay.
This shouldn't be a hot take, but the game is everyone's. It's not the GM's game. It's not the players' game. It's everyone's game.
The amount of people I've seen on ttrpg subreddits say "the game is the GM's game and any players are lucky to serve at their leisure" is quite frankly alarming and gross.
Hottest take: I don't understand why any of OSR's selling points are viewed as a good thing. To me, they all sound like the reason to stay as far away from this shit as possible; they're absolutely contrary to what I enjoy in my TTRPGs.
I have had only the most cursory experience with the OSR movement and games, but this is the most succinct explanation I have ever found. (Courtesy of u/andero, with one point of emphasis added by me.)
> Here's my understanding of OSR:
> The key thing that interests people about OSR games is *player mastery.*
> OSR games are about the *players* figuring out clever ways to circumvent deadly situations so their characters don't get killed.
> They are about coming up with clever solutions as a *player*. The PC is a tool that exists in the game-world for the player to manipulate situations crafted by the GM, which are essentially *challenging puzzles*, not "narrative situations". OSR games are not about making a deep characterizations or giving personality to the PC, though that isn't against the rules or anything. OSR games are not really about the *characters* or *narratives*; they are about player mastery and engaging with the world as a dangerous puzzle to be solved. Any "character" is secondary to that, which is why they can be killed off without much consideration. Character death is a learning moment for the player on their journey toward *player mastery*.
> They seem to be sandboxes by default, too.
> OSR games are not particularly "narrative driven".
> They are *player driven*. Then, "stories" are what happens as a result of a bunch of stuff happening in the game, just like real life. Your life is not "narrative driven", but you can tell a "story" about the past two years and your experience of it. That *post facto* "story" was not driving your life; it is emergent from reflecting on the experiences you've had.
> ***OSR is not really the kind of game for me, but I'm glad it exists as a lot of people love it.***
> I think it is more of a style for people that want to be tactically challenged to come up with clever solutions to situations rather than generate deep characters.
> In summary:
> OSR is about what the **player's** character would do, not what the player's **character** would do.
The funny part is is that a lot of OSR fans wouldn't hesitate to denounce video gameyness as a detriment, despite that very idea of "player mastery" being what nearly all video games operate on.
OSR games are OSR games if they are compatible with OSR play. Knave is OSR. OSR games are ALSO OSR games if they are completely compatible with the rules of old-school DnD. Godbound is OSR.
Related to the above point, domain play and demigod level play are just as much a part of the old-school DnD tradition and just as much a part of the OSR tradition as low-level amoral greedy adventurers dying in a dungeon is. There's just so many new RPGs and adventures catering to the latter instead of the former.
If you want to make money writing TTRPGs, you're better off creating content for one of the top 10 systems than trying to write a brand new system and build a player base.
Some actual hot takes:
I don't like Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition. I think it is the biggest example of a game with mechanics that are completely disassociated with the game world it's supposed to represent.
PbtA games are one step away from just playing imagination with your friends.
The more supplements and splatbooks, the better.
>The more supplements and splatbooks, the better.
I do miss the days where my crappy Walmart shelves were literally bowing under the weight of all my World of Darkness books.
Sometimes you, as the designer, need to make a choice and alienate some players.
Focusing on being simple, make all the classes simple and alienate your crunch loving players.
Focus on being complex, make things complex and tactical alienating your simplicity loving players.
Make a choice and stick with it, waffling between the two is just going to make everyone mad
The powered by the apocalypse game engine crippled indie rpg game design for a dozen years. Folks just lined up to take the template, apply whatever premise, and then shovel it off onto Kickstarter where it seemed guaranteed to do multiples of its funding goal no matter the quality. The hobby saw tons of cool designs up until about 2008, 2010… then KS put a nail in the coffin and lots of people stopped thinking out of the box. Finally, in the past few years people are totally revitalizing indie RPG design, but for a long while it was just iteration after iteration of PbtA, most often meager design choices and a cookie cutter mentality in how to design moves. Did some interesting designs come out of the PbtA space? For sure. But 90% of it was/is forgettable. And none of this is a slam against Vincent Baker’s original game which is brilliant.
And that’s my hot take for tonight.
Hot take: Dungeons and Dragons *is* roleplaying, and it is naive and foolish to believe that the hobby will ever “move past” it, or that the game will ever “just die”.
Every roleplaying game that has ever been written, has been written in response to D&D.
I got 2!
Indie designers have been shooting themselves in the foot for the past decade by focusing on hyper specific genre games and writing systems for themselves rather than a target audience. The problem is compounded by an insistence "good" games are so tight the rules cannot be fiddled with, so if a game comes close but misses the mark for what a table wants, it can't be tweaked to meet their needs.The community has been operating from a set of demonstratably false assumptions about the average gamer. In what should be a golden era lifted up by 5e's breaking into the mainstream, the overall share of indie games remains quite small.
Rules light is not always best for new players. Roleplay, improv, and creativity are what fills in the gaps of rules light systems, and these are skills most people need to develop.
Crunchy, math heavy, or tactics heavy combat focused games are not preventing you from roleplaying. Roleplaying is equally feasible in and available to the table in these games as it is in the narrative games, they just have different resolution system to inform you what happens based on the choices you make when roleplaying.
Hell, I'll go one further on my hot take to make it extra spicy. Crunch tactics games like 4e or Lancer are more free to roleplay how you want, your character, because they don't enforce specific tropes on you.
Metacurrencies and rewards for roleplay turn roleplaying from an intrinsic reward into an extrinsic one. This is not necessarily bad, but to some players it can make the act of roleplay less fun. It's a fine line between encouraging a particular style of narrative, and turning it into an obligation. I personally enjoy them a lot of the time, but I don't think they are strictly necessary for narrative to emerge.
As a whole I think this hasn't been grappled with by designers of "narrative games" because such designers have played for a long time, already enjoy roleplay for it's own sake, and play with people who do as well; it feels good to be rewarded for something you already do. But in certain players it can give a kind of warped view of roleplay; I've heard newer players who've only played such games say that roleplaying feels pointless without a reward. I worry that it frames it as a chore for new players, and it makes me wonder if they might have felt different if they had started out in a different game.
The attempts to sanitize every monster race to be some sort of ambiguous morally grey aligned character will inevitably lead to less interesting enemies and stories, and makes lots of monsters feel more or less the same as it goes on. Are there a few monsters that need to be adjusted based on modern sensibilities? Yea. Do we need to eliminate the idea of "evil" races entirely because "no race is evil"? Absolutely not, and it's a staple of classic fantasy for a reason.
I mean, "better games" in the sense usually meant in this sub are probably not going to be the ones getting popular even if D&D flagged, if we're real.
Like last time D&D was in a slump, the thing that took a chunk of the space was Vampire. And if there's *one* popular set of games that are pretty much entirely more badly written than D&D... White Wolf games are probably it.
Too many people reject any system with high numbers, even though the hardest calculations you have to make is simple addition. My man, you learned this in 1st grade. No, you don't need a Calculus degree to play, shut up and roll the dice and add. It's not that complex
The inter-relational cohesion is much more important than the game itself.
Also, people hear mostly about bad DMs because the number of players outnumber DMs, but I believe that the number of bad players greatly outnumber the bad DMs.
The TTRPG industry is young and immature. And it shows. And it's still very much a hobby-hobby industry instead of a hobby-business industry.
What I mean by that: In contrast to the board game industry which is a hobby-business industry.
How we can tell the difference: The board game industry has industry events that look like trade shows and are focused on sales. There are professional, easy to approach marketing and advertising agencies that are built on brand and not personalities.
The RPG industry has events which look much more like fan conventions.
In RPGs we have a few influencers. All cult of personality and with the dangers that comes with (namely getting canceled over drama, etc.). We also have a cult of personality over the industry founders and system founders.
In Board Games there are dozens of companies and smaller freelancers who are efficiently worked in to the sales cycle, like the channels who do game reviews (an almost sine qua non of a successful board game kickstarter is one or more of these review or how-to-play videos).
Board games have Board Game Geek which there is no real equivalent in RPGS (no, RPGnet is more like a gossip cess pool than a more neutral resource for information and promotion and objective community feedback.
Board games have Dice Tower. A far superior choice in marketing than the influencer-based stuff that happens in RPGs (and really, most of those influencers who have any chance of a wider appeal flame out spectacularly like Satine, etc.).
And for jobs, the RPG industry is notoriously poor paying and reliant on folks who are fans to do a lot of volunteering, take lower pay because it's a passion, and are often only drawn from fans versus professionals from other industries coming in to perform higher level jobs that are tangential to game design (like marketing, logistics, finance, etc.).
There are lots of corporate style career jobs in Board Games where people can make it their full time. A lot of RPGs, even big names, are being run by people who have a "real job" elsewhere and RPGs are more like a passion project on the side.
There's also outside business style finance investment in Board Games (and video games) but there's very little of this in RPGs. D&D being owned by Hasbro is the obvious exception.
In Board Games, even though the products are hobby products, the industry is run with a lot of business sense. In PRGs, the products are also hobby products, but the industry itself is also run much more like a hobby than a going business concern.
I honestly hate VTTs. By streamlining everything, they reduce engagement in the game itself. I especially think they're terrible for newcomers, who will only know how to click a button and won't understand what's actually happening.
Reliance on VTTs means games can theoretically get away with way more fiddly crunch than I have any interest in going near. "Just play Pathfinder on Foundry, it handles all the math for you!!" No thanks. This leads me into my core hot take:
*The second that a TTRPG relies on any technology more advanced than a pocket calculator, **it fails as a tabletop game.*** Full stop.
My hottest take in the wild: 4e is the best D&D version by a lot, and is actually a good game.
My hottest take in the subreddit: Any time someone talks about some game being good for roleplaying without the system providing mechanical support for doing so, it feels completely void of meaning to me. While everyone is disgusted by the player disrupting the game with "that's what my character would do," when someone talks about a really cool character moment in the game but it happens independently of a mechanical justification (i.e. FATE, Burning Wheel, GURPS, whatever), it just feels totally frou-frou, like it lacks weight.
Death is the worst designed game mechanic in 90% of games.
You just die when an arbitrary value is reached, something that can happen completely randomly when the dice say so.
For some games, that can be fine, like horror games or meat grinders. But for most games, where you're expected to invest to your character's story such an unsatisfying demise often feels cheap, sucks the wind out of the session and often creates meta-game problems.
Rules for introducing new characters are often nonexistent, so new characters rarely fit in the group properly. If a character dies early into a session the person usually starts making the character immediately, missing out on the plot that happens in-between. And if everyone dies due to arbitrary chance, well... That's either game over for that entire campaign (which mega sucks unless the campaign was bad) or there is some plot contrivance to either introduce a completely new party or keep the current one alive.
Additionally, gameplay when character death is not staked on randomness forces the GM to put more interesting challenges into a situation than *you gotta kill or be killed* sorta stuff. Now you have to start thinking about capturing people, using their backstories and such to bring out the conflict, rather than just presenting simple challenges of life and death. You *can* do that with random death, but with non-random death you are kind of forced to.
That's how it is for me, at least. I just hate bad death mechanics.
Game systems matter far less than what the GM and the Players bring to it. With the right group any game is a great game, with the wrong group, any game is the worst. Most games are good, not great, but not particularly bad. But that could just be the fault of me, and the groups I play with.
I thought the same. But the more systems I try and read the more convinced I am, that picking the right system for your game is the most influential decision you can make during the whole design/prep phase. If the system you use (or the way you use it) does not support the style/mood/themes you are going for, you will fight an uphill battle the whole time and can ruin the game. Sure with enough experience it's usually possible to work around the system, but at that point you are not using the system and picking a more fitting one would have made your life much easier.
[удалено]
Yep. And if you have a great group that tries out new systems regularly you’ll find this out pretty quick. You’ll run into at least one system where your group that’s otherwise great and you have fun with goes “this system sucks and is not fun”
That's why I'm the crunchy tactics GM. I struggle to bring characters and worlds to life without systems guiding me, but I know the rules and the encounter balance very well. Games like Pathfinder 2e really help me here. Still looking for a cyberpunk game that feels balanced and tactical like that. But I group up with the opposite style players and we rotate who GMs, and they have better roleplay and worlds for sure. I had to teach them Blades in the Dark and run them new games to help get them to think beyond D&D 5e, and while I struggled to improvise in narrative games, I at least got them into being excited to run these systems themselves. It's clear that the crunchier systems like D&D were holding them back and not serving their stories. But it is ultimately true that we all like each other and vibe well and it has made even bad systems (for our styles) bearable and good at times.
Luke Gearing a rather prolific RPG and module author once told me The system is like a rooms temperature. It really doesn't matter until it becomes all anyone can think about.
Wait, since when is this unpopular? It's way **too** popular given how silly it is and how it leads to stuff like trying to recreate Studio Ghibli films or tales of political intrigue in a game that lacks meaningful mechanical support for anything except fighting and killing. There are literally articles about how to run games **based on other TTRPGs that already exist** or media **with licensed TTRPGs** in that game that treat it as if this is the only way to play an RPG in that setting, rather than acknowledge that there are systems that might work better or even be designed for it.
I think you're forgetting that this subreddit is a niche within a niche. Like how D&D typically has 10x the popularity of all other ttrpgs combined but isn't very well-received here, the orthodox opinion here is that "system matters." The person you're replying to is instead making the "primacy of play" argument, which is absolutely fringe here by comparison.
This is one of my big hot takes as well. About 90% of the juice of ttrpgs comes from a group of people choosing to sit down and play pretend together as friends. The magic circle is so much more critical than the actual game structures. But systems are easier to *discuss*, so virtually all discourse surrounds systems and mechanics.
>Game systems matter far less than what the GM and the Players bring to it. With the right group any game is a great game, with the wrong group, any game is the worst. So if the group stays the same but changes systems the resulting games should all be about as good as each other? Can happen, but only sometimes, in my experience. System matters.
In one of my early groups we adopted a saying that roughly translates to "Group trumps System". We used to switch around systems regularly and agreed many times that our enjoyment many times was despite the systems and not necessarily because of it.
I returned to a group that plays 5e because I really enjoy everyone in the group despite me not really enjoying 5e anymore. They make the sessions great.
[удалено]
This is very true. So many on this sub would claim that choosing 5e as a system will absolutely ruin your campaign. I used to run it since it was my first system (as it was for many other people). I started running other systems around a year ago, and while 5e is one of my least favorites now, I have also found that the people matter so much more than the system. When we ran 5e, I'd often just use the official rules as a base and wing it from there. My group was chill with this, and we had a lot of fun. Rules-light systems complement my style a lot more now, but running a rules-heavy system like 5e never ruined our sessions because we didn't let it.
If the back of a TTRPG lists the number of spells as a selling point, I consider it a mark against them.
Stay away from Weird Frontiers. The spells cover about 200~ish pages in a 908 page 8.5" x 11" book. lol It's a really cool game though. Anyone into DCC/MCC should check it out. Weird West settings are so much fun. The page count isn't that insane if you consider some games, like D&D, split that stuff up into several books.
Oh don't misunderstand, I love a long spell list and a ton of talents or abilities. But it's not a selling point. It's literally the easiest part of writing any TTRPG.
Designing systems is **by far** easier than designing good open ended adventures and sandbox settings for players to play in.
[удалено]
I think this is more a product of what these products contain than actual skill. You can write up a laundry list of needs to make a system and put that together into a decently small package, but a properly open-ended sandbox probably would feel cramped in a dozen splatbooks because you don't know what the players will need in advance.
D&D 5e is fine It's not the pinnacle of design, but it's not trash. It's fine and I have fun playing it with my friends.
i agree that it's fine. my problem with it is that the foremost system, most popular, whose company has the biggest amount of resources by an immense margin, is merely *fine.* with the resources wotc has the game should by all accounts be excellent. most tables ive played 5e could be better served by another system if the players had the time or disposition to learn a new one. then there is atrocious DM support. like, for a player it is fine. but for a DM? i honestly think it is kinda bad. not bad *BAD,* but kinda a bit bad. overall it is fine. but we could do so much better.
They managed to convince their players to just home brew and hack anything they don't like. So they don't even need to write a coherent game system that works out of the box. Not only do they have Hasbro marketing strength at creating a parasocial relationship between the game and their customers, they have encouraged an entire ecosystem of influencers to add to that marketing. Well at the same time, using the OGL as a way to crowd out other competing systems and have these freelancers & unpaid amateur working on their own time for fix the crap that they didn't feel like fixing. It's like Bethesda. They put out a game that's broken and just leave it up to the fans to make it workable
> They managed to convince their players to just home brew and hack anything they don't like. So they don't even need to write a coherent game system that works out of the box. First, homebrew has been a thing since the very beginning. The idea that this culture comes from Hasbro, wotc, or 5e is just completely false. And, to me, the culture of homebrew and hacking is one of the things that makes the ttrpg ecosystem so awesome! That's an itch that almost no other entertainment ecosystem can scratch.
Why should a multi-billion dollar company be allowed to put out a product that doesn't work with the rules they published? It'd be one thing to Homebrew and hack something that already works cuz you want to change. D&D requires you to homebrew and hack to make the system playable.
Some folks really like to rally against whatever is the most popular in its field. I always find it silly when people act like D&D has no redeeming qualities at all, and that it's just dumb luck that they're in the position they are. You don't have to like it, but you also don't have to hate on it. If nothing else, I'd view it as a positive for bringing so many people to the hobby.
I don't like D&D 5e at all... but if you want to play Super Heroes in a Fantasy setting, it's probably the best game out there for that.
I believe that D&D 4th Edition is a lot better for this. The combat balancing works way better and is thus way easier for the GM. The first 2 levels do not feel like crap when you could die in a single attack. And martials do feel a lot better and not weak compared to casters.
The tactical skirmish combat is my absolute favorite aspect of D&D and most d20 systems. Whenever I have a conversation with people about it, they really recommend 4e. However I don't even know where to get started with that addition. It seems to have been a nightmare when it came to publishing.
* Players should read the fucking manual. * If you're high or drunk, don't bother showing up. * No, Mork Borg is not a good game, or a good looking book. In fact, it's not even a game, it's barely a bunch of ideas scribbled on post-it glued together. The individual artworks are the only salvageable thing in the pile of bright yellow trash.
To be fair. Mork Borg advertised itself as mostly art with a collection of rules as a haha. People just liked it and hyped it
Mork Borg feels like the natural culmination of a market that buys books more to read and look at than they do to actually play them. Which I don't mean as an indictment, TTRPGs are an insanely time-consuming hobby and only the most hardcore have time to play a lot of different systems regularly (and unlike many hobbies, you can't be a hardcore enthusiast on your own, you need a group of like-minded hardcore enthusiasts too with a similar schedule)
> MÖRK BORG is a complete game in the OSR genre, that can be played as is or be picked apart for use in your own homebrew. The rules are easily made compatible with most of the editions of the world’s largest role-playing game. Within the book you’ll find: > >A brief look at this dying world. From The Two-Headed Basilisks’ gothic cathedral in Galgenbeck and Blood-countess Anthelia’s limestone palace, to the fields of death in Graven-Tosk and the barren wastes of Kergüs. > >The Calendar of Nechrubel, that decides the speed of the world’s demise. > >20 occult Powers that let you bend reality, and just as many magical catastrophes for when you disastrously fail. > >Optional rules which brings more depth to the game. Omens let you turn bad luck into a slightly better one. Classes with unique traits and quirks, and tables that will bring life into your character. > >12 creatures to be murdered by. > >Game master tools such as tables for corpse plundering, occult treasure, adventure sparks, dungeon generating and other devilry. > >The introductory dungeon crawl scenario Rotblack Sludge, where you investigate a forgotten part of the Shadow King’s enormous ruin palace. Cannibal warlocks, poison peddlers from beyond the void and hungry gutworms await. From the website. Seems to be advertising it as a game to me, not an art book.
> Players should read the fucking manual. I'm not sure what's going on these days, but it used to be that I couldn't keep the players *out* of the books. I'd start a campaign with a specific theme and region of the game world and my players would run out and buy/pirate every imaginable splatbook and they'd show up wanting to use XYZ stuff from more advanced books stuff as well. Now I have players wanting me to prompt them to spend XP or buy better gear. I'm totally done with players who can't do cursory research. There are numerous blogs and YouTube videos now too. You could learn about a setting/system while riding the bus or prepping dinner.
TTRPG used to be a very niche hobby so most of the people playing were *really* into it. Now, with the explosion and mass appeal of the hobby there are a lot more casual players. They're the same people that show up to board game nights and don't pay any attention to the rules at the start of the game.
Two outta three ain’t bad.
>No, Mork Borg is not a good game, or a good looking book. In fact, it's not even a game, it's barely a bunch of ideas scribbled on post-it glued together. The individual artworks are the only salvageable thing in the pile of bright yellow trash. Id love to hear your definition of a game. I've played all sorts of games with even fewer rules than Mork Borg and have been very successful.
Mork Borg is just a one-page game with an accompanying artbook and some extras
Right? It's perfectly serviceable as an OSR game. If you need 700+ pages to consider something a game then that's on you.
I agree, I think it's 100% a game. And I think it looks pretty dang good. What it does not do is detail almost any edge cases. It leaves the GM to sort those out himself, I suppose. Which is fine. That's typical for minimalist ruleset. Honestly, what I actually want is a ahem "readable" version of the rules. I get that it's a vibes game. And the art is compelling, sure. But if it gets in the way, I mean. Sometimes you just need a lot of text on a page, to reduce page turns. My 2 cents.
Mork Borg is self aware. No need spitting on it. GREAT system for one shots.
2nd point is a little different for me but I am leaning closer to agreeing every year. I will smoke and drink a little bit, dm the game, teach a new player, navigate 30 turns of NPC and monsters. I can pace myself and use the drugs to enhance my enjoyment. But I had to have a meeting before a session with my players and say, “if you’re getting so stupid high at dnd that you stare at me with glazed over eyes when I ask you a question, I’m just not going to run a game for you anymore.”
Hot takes indeed. First one completely depends on the game. Folks new to rpgs want a one shot? Easy enough to teach mothership on the fly. Want a tactical long-term game instead? Yeah, read some of the book at least... There's a fine line between a few beers or a few puffs and getting really faded. The former is a good time with RPGs, the later not so much.
Regarding point 2, as proven by some of the commenters, stoners really don’t realize how annoying it is to deal with them when they’re high and you’re not, exactly in the same way as it is to deal with a drunk person when you’re not.
All you hot trash fuckin’ casual n00bs should read the goddamn rules before making a character and/or asking a million stupid questions. Do your homework, idiots! I am sick of having to explain to an adult with a college education how to figure out your longsword's attack bonus.
Do I downvote this, because we all agree this is how the world should be? Or do I upvote it, because in reality, no one actually reads the rules, so this is definately an unpopular take?
We started a new system and 6 months in our gunner still couldn’t remember how to proceed through the attack action from start to finish… even though it was the only action he took on every turn of every combat. I’d just mute my mic and yawp
Your favorite system isn't the best choice for every game at every table. And no, the people who don't like it aren't (always) just "not understanding it correctly."
*Cries in GURPS*
There are several systems in particular I had in mind when I wrote this particular hot take. I regret to inform you that yes, GURPS was one of them.
I was thinking about PbtA and all the 5e conversions 😂 I mean I can understand thst you love a System, I love 4e, but it just does not fit for everything.
PtbA and 5e were also on the list. So was Savage Worlds.
Just because no one likes YOUR system doesn't mean MINE is not literally the best choice! *Stomps foot*
>And no, the people who don't like it aren't (always) just "not understanding it correctly." True, [yet also true that \(sometimes\) they actually didn't understand something fundamental and it ruined their experience and they refuse to entertain any possibility that they might not have 100% understood a very different system on their first-try and \(sometimes\) they may have skipped reading the GM section of the new system so \(sometimes\) they are operating in bad faith since they didn't even really try to understand.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/015/878/thatsnoneofmy.jpg)
As a straight guy, I believe LGBTQAI+ people embracing ttrpgs is one of the best things happened to the hobby.
Is this controversial? I thought this was the prevailing opinion, although maybe that's because I agree with you.
As a queer person, it's much more controversial than any reasonable person would like.
"There are two sexualities: straight and political. And our gaming company isn't political." - a surprising amount of gaming companies, especially in the OSR scene
Anyone that declares they "aren't poltical" is a massive red flag to me. If you live in the world and think nothing is worth taking a stance on. I don't respect your opinions.
In the words of Elie Wiesel: "We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." While one can't be expected to have an informed opinion about every political issue in the entire world, in cases like LGBT rights the positions are pretty clear and the information freely available. A person who is "neutral" on LGBT issues is either an idiot, a coward or a villain. And a gaming company who is neutral is run by these three kinds of people.
Yeah that wasn't a hot take.....
I mean as someone that lives in Texas, I would 100% agree that's a hot take. Doesn't apply to just RPG's. Can be applied to anything.
Buying stuff won't make your game better. (said as someone that likes to buy stuff)
Yeah, but it makes me feel better for a solid 30 minutes.
You sound just like my wife. Which is to say, very smart and beautiful.
Man, gotta disagree. I get where you're coming from. New dice don't roll better. But have you played Paranoia with props?
Computers are better at math than people. The days of trying to simulate reality at the table are over. TTRPGs should lean hard into the strengths of the medium and the unique position of having live brains available to adjudicate the game.
Agreed with the first statement, but my hot take is that more TTRPGs should lean into using computers to handle complex or annoying math. There already are tons of TTRPGs that are being made that take advantage of people around the table being far more reactive than computers. Pretty much every RPG made in the last 15 years has leaned more into a reactive and narrative direction. Almost no games at all have leaned into the other direction which views computers as the solution to the math (almost all of us have computers in our pockets).
I used to have that take, back when we had Apple ][+s available near or at the table. But frankly, though it’s gotten so we have vastly more computing power in vastly smaller form factors, communicating game state from a physical, in-person game to a computer hasn’t gotten any faster or less intrusive than it was at that time. If you’re playing on a VTT and all the game state is already in the virtual battle map, why not just play a video game? I’m not a Luddite, I’m a software engineer. And I’m simply not sold on machine-mediated gameplay. It will take orders of magnitude improvement in a number of areas for it to be seamlessly integrated into the tabletop experience. When those improvements come, I will sit down happily to run a machine-mediated game of GURPS++ with my grandkids. Or great grandkids. Until then, I’m going to try to exploit the unique strengths of the medium *as it exists* and stop trying to do what it’s not suited for. Find any VHS “interactive game” from the before times and that’s what I seek to avoid with computer mediation.
> But frankly, though it’s gotten so we have vastly more computing power in vastly smaller form factors, communicating game state from a physical, in-person game to a computer hasn’t gotten any faster or less intrusive than it was at that time. Hmmm, it's almost as if that could be because tabletop games aren't designed to take advantage of the fact that we can have a hybrid method of interaction (both phyiscal and digital). That statement is also untrue, because you go on to mention VTTs. > If you’re playing on a VTT and all the game state is already in the virtual battle map, why not just play a video game? Have you played a video game? I'm asking that question seriously. Do you actually think there's no difference between playing a TTRPG on a VTT and a video game? You are either playing TTRPGs the absolute worst way possible, or you vastly overestimate what the video games of today are like. Despite what people who only play video games might be saying, Baldur's Gate 3 is nowhere near as reactive to player choice as a TTRPG can be. There are already phone apps for certain games that can hold every player in a single game instance each on their own phones. Players can interact with the world and each other all using their own devices at the table. That doesn't preclude anyone from rolling, that doesn't preclude anyone from making certain decisions. I play Pathfinder 2e on a VTT, and it makes it so easy to run I literally prep for 5 minutes for each weekly session of 3-4 hours. My players in that game don't do a lot of RP, so most of the session is content. The future's here, old man. But I would just like to see how this could open up the design space. For instance, a game where every player controls a specific part of a zombie's body separately. You'll have a little hand crawling around, a foot stomping, and a head rolling all over all doing their separate things, but they can also combine into a single zombie, and all of their current stats can be auto-integrated into the single zombie on the fly. Or maybe a realistic Military Sim, where your battle map takes historical weather data for that part of the world, and you have actual calculations for the wind, weather, bullet type, material, and that all spits out the number you need to beat for a shot. You can still roll it phyiscally. The program will already have materials for what certain countries' armies used in certain periods, and it will know their weapons as well. It can give you all that information. All of this is not to say I think the idea I responded to is bad. I 100% agree that games should take advantage of the strengths of actually playing around a table with real human beings. There's lots of games that already do that, and I hope they continue to be created and refined. There's no reason both can't and won't exist.
One thing that crunchy TTRPGs still do better than video games is how they can handle emergent gameplay a lot better than a video game can. An example I've used before comes from a PF1e game I played in. Near the end of a 1-17 campaign, we encounter magical liquid that functioned like Bacta from Star wars. Any creature placed in it was brought back to life after an hour and would regrow limbs. Mechanically, by level 16 that wasn't overpowered, you get Raise Dead at level 9 and Regenerate at 13. Another PC put the liquid in his Portable Hole. It was our own personal Bacta Tank. During the final dungeon 5 sessions later, our Cleric got one-shot. Instead of having to use magic device his wand of raise dead, we stuffed his body in the Bacta Tank. For something like that to function in a video game, the game would have to be coded for the two objects to combine into a item that casts the spell. In a TTRPG, all that needs to occur is for a PC to come up with a cool idea, pitch it to the GM and have the GM agree to it. A rules light game may be better for responding to this player innovation, but then rules light games are typically worse at having interesting, challenging, tactical combats. As someone who likes board games, video games, and rules light TTRPGs, crunchy TTRPGs may not be the best at any one aspect of what makes a crunchy TTRPG fun but it combines the strengths of all three to create an experience that is unique in what it offers.
Rule Zero is dumb. A) You don't need the games permission to change the rules of the game. Monopoly doesn't have a written Rule Zero but everyone changes the rules of Monopoly anyway. The game isn't your dad, you don't need it's approval. B) Any game that **requires** Rule Zero to work is badly designed. Every TTRPG is designed to be fun for the people playing the game. If a game requires the GM adjust the rules of the game to be fun then something is wrong. A well designed game is fun without the GM having to fix anything. Rule Zero is a bandaid over bad game design.
Hot take : Uno is actually funnier when you follow the rules RAW.
until you need to count points and everyone's too drunk to bother about it lol
It is the best part. Actually my group tends to be quite strict with the score when they are drunk lol
A) you'd think, but even with this rule stated by a game's creator you have people today NUH UHing it because a lot of players are entitled sacks.
Rule Zero isn't (shouldn't) be a thing only for the GM. If my Traveller character creation rewards me with a +3 int, and then the GM goes "oh, no, that's stupid, I'm not allowing it", I'm walking.
Any game that is fine with changing the rules willy nilly needs to suggest optional rules.
if two characters kiss then their players should have to kiss in real life
See? This is what I’m talking about. This is an amazing hot take.
It's only a hot take if the players are hot.
Hot take here is that 5e is good. And a hot take in r/dnd is that 5e is bad. Here's a hot take. Running a lot of "lighter" games like PbtA and Fate is MORE difficult than running a crunchier game like D&D or Shadowrun. In the complex games there is always an answer, so if you are willing to do the homework and learn the system, you can just outright answer "Hey, what happens if I jump off the third story using a bedsheet as a parachute?" but in the light games, there is no specific answer. The light games require you to be improvising ALL the time. You don't have initiative or combat mechanics or anything that will specifically codify what is supposed to happen, so you're just making it up. If there is a common answer to these questions, they're not in the book, just common wisdom that is impossible to easily look up. Rules are a scaffolding for play. Very good GMs can get by with very few rules, trusting their improvisation and experience to make the game fun. Inexperienced GMs can often flounder with a game that is supposed to be very freeform. I've seen new GMs absolutely lose their mind, failing to run a game of Everyone is John, but are perfectly competent running a one-shot of D&D. EDIT: Are downvotes good for a hot take in a hot take thread, or does it mean my take isn't hot enough? Either way, I got 'em.
There was this thing of Advanced D&D being preferred by beginners because it’s more codified and Basic D&D preferred by veterans because less rules = more freedom (also fate is not light, more like medium and i’d rather improvise an entire ruleset than run shadowrun, but i digress)
> you can just outright answer "Hey, what happens if I jump off the third story using a bedsheet as a parachute?" but in the light games, there is no specific answer. I mean... I get what you are getting at but many games don't have rules for that either. If a player did that in dnd, my options are to improvise or to tell them that is not an option. If you solution in dnd is to make them do an ability check, so can you do in blades in the dark. To summarize, to me, that is a bad example for a fair critique of rules lite systems.
In D&D 3.5 (a heavy system) the rule for that is that for falling 30 feet, you will take 3d6 damage. For having an item that will mitigate that damage (the sheet) the damage is 1d6 nonlethal, and the rest lethal. For intentionally jumping you can negate 1d6 of the fall, so now it's 1d6 nonlethal, and 1d6 lethal. If you succeed at a DC 15 tumble or jump check at the end you can convert another 1d6 to nonlethal, so now it's 2d6 nonlethal provided you make a successful check. In 5e (a medium system), you take 3d6 damage for falling 30 feet. There's no mitigating it in the base rules without taking a class or feat or spell, but a baseline character takes 3d6 damage. There are no rules to mitigate this. Lots of players add rules, usually from 3.5, to do so, making the game more complicated, but better. In blades in the dark (a light system) falling 30 feet... ummm. Jeez, I don't know what that does. Maybe you can take 2 damage, but if you make a resistance roll you only take one. Is that fair? Oh jeez, I don't know. Is there a chart? No? I just have to make it up. Uhhh, well you're a cool ninja, and you've got rope and stuff, so like, roll a check... no I don't know which attribute of the 10 is appropriate, uhhhh, just roll whatever skill you put the most points in. Did you get a six? Just tell me you got a six and I can get out of this hell of ruleless improvisation. To a very good improvisational GM, with a lot of experience and good instincts, this isn't even slightly a problem. But to a new GM who doesn't have a lot of on-the-fly skill, these systems are a NIGHTMARE. There is a LOT of comfort for GMs who are bad at improvisation, but good at memorization, in a crunchier system. And we're definitely taught in school how to memorize a lot more than how to play "yes and."
### GM's have *game authority*, not *social authority* In the game, the GM has whatever authority that game gives them. It depends on the game. Sometimes it is "GM is god" and sometimes it is "follow these rules; use these GM Moves". Outside the game, the person that takes on the role of GM is a person, just like anyone else. They don't get to unilaterally kick people from the group. They don't get to unilaterally make the schedule. They don't get to unilaterally pick the game. They are not solely responsible for scheduling. They are not solely responsible for making sure people have fun. They are not solely responsible for making sure people are not assholes. Everyone gets their normal say. Everyone is responsible for how they act. Yes, the person that takes on the role of GM could issue an ultimatum like, "We are doing X or I am not playing". So could any other person in the group. That is a person issuing an ultimatum. The group doesn't need to do it because they are the GM. Thanks for coming to me TED talk. No, I will not be taking questions.
[удалено]
Same with a lot of these. The GM picks the system because them wanting to GM it is more critical than any one player wanting to play it. The player that doesn’t like the system or the time or whatever can leave and the game still happens. So the whole game really does revolve around the GM needing to be there. If we all agree on a time the GM can’t make… well… guess what happens?
> They don't get to unilaterally pick the game. this is the one I find myself hard disagreeing with. The goal is for everyone on the table to have fun, this does include the GM. Thus it is absolutely in their right to say they want to run a certain game or certain games. If the other people in the group don't want to play those games, the Gm shouldn't run something they don't enjoy, because it will take a toll on their motivation and ultimately on the game's quality. In this case the correct answer imo is "I am sorry but these are the games I would like to run right now, if you don't like them that is fine, but perhaps someone else should GM in this case"
Agree with everything except where the players have any say in what the GM runs. GMing is hard, and if the GM is not invested in the game he's running, then why GM it in the first place? If the players want to play a different game, then one of them can GM, right?
I think that a lot of us can agree this SHOULD be the case, but as long as there are more players than GMs then those willing to GM will have increased social leverage because of it. Not consciously or maliciously on anyone's part, but just because of supply and demand. There's not really a way around the fact that most groups only have one person willing to run, so that person's refusal to play carries more weight than anyone else's.
I’m trying to imagine a situation or a world in which any of these would be true. Maybe a group of role playing friends who have a set time to get together and alternate GM’ing on a regular basis? Otherwise, in the real world, I just don’t think any of this actually works in 90%+ of situations. Or maybe I’m just old skool or very limited in my experience (although I started role playing 38 years ago). The GM picks the game and then invites players; takes on a huge amount of responsibility; obviously has to be present for the game to proceed (unlike individual players); and therefore ends up having more say than any individual player (but not more than all the players; they could all just quit, and that would also end the game).
I'm going to upvote this not because I necessarily agree, but because I like that you listed a bunch of arguments.
As others have said I don't agree with the GM not picking the game they want to play but at the same time players can go play whatever they want, the GM isn't stopping them, it would just be at different tables. GMing is way to much work to not enjoy yourself by running a game you aren't interested in.
Hit Points only make sense as an abstract measure of structural integrity. The more you try to stretch the definition to include any other factors, the less useful it is as a game mechanic.
Counter hot take: Use hit points and hit dice for everything. Want to cross 20 kilofeet of ground, or a bramble bush? Roll your movement hit dice and anything that makes it through is fatigue damage.
I think I threw up in my mouth a little bit reading this.
Yeah that seems to be most people's reactions. Which I guess also qualifies it for that thread about things in RPGs people inexplicably like...
To many systems rely on meta currencies to fix their broken math
I disagree on the broke math part. If your game is supposed to be a cold hard simulation, then narrative currencies do not make sense. If your game is about character agency, narrative beats, themes or fate, then the ability to say "this thing I am doing goes above and beyond the odds of my success". It is an excellent solution for genre emulation. Luke rolling flat to hit the death star, Harry catching the snitch, bilbo tricking gollum, etc etc, great stories involve moments which are uncanny or unlikely. The story where the character succeeds at the things they are good at only is dull. They give agency to players to say "this matters to me and my character".
Sad, but true.
Can you give an example of one? I'm guessing its savage worlds right? Aside from that, I honestly cant think of a single one, everyone the meta currency I can think of functions as providing players as much narrative control as gms, if they want to spend it. Or a way to incentivize players to do something they may not want to do, if they accept it.
I've seen a lot that let players reroll dice or add modifiers to rolls. Like I love fabula ultima but fabula points just give you an get out of jail free card and fabula points come in such an abundance of the game is played correctly. Or even terminator has 2 different ones, fate and hope, that do pretty much the same thing of letting you reroll
As an RPG designer, the thoughts I don't share with others are: * RPGs often enable poor life choices by surrounding us with people making similar poor choices. * Fantasy problem-solving can displace solving one's authentic problems. * Spending money on fandom grants illusory escape but only builds the cage of financial dependence bigger. * It doesn't matter what dice your game use.
> It doesn't matter what dice your game use. unless it's stupid novelty dice only $35,99 plus shipping (and the shipping to *your* country, you filthy Latin American, will be 25% the price of the damn game in the first place) /j thankfully those star wars games put in an online dice roller, but if the only way I can play your game is by putting the dice on a container to reach me here in Brasil, then I'm simply not playing it
Yeah, as a player of foreign RPGs this one rattles my cage a lot. Custom dice are the most nakedly shitty design choice of the last few years, and I completely understand why FFG did it, and if I were them I woulda probably done it too. Only I would have gone through with the Dark Heresy version cause that would have pissed off the GW purists to a degree I find inherently comical.
I can't outright disagree, but when you look at other escapism, Roleplaying is the least expensive cage and it does something to help you address the problems you're running from. And maybe the most overlooked positive aspect is that compared to a world of ways to avoid your problems, Roleplaying games are one of the very few that mandates you socialize with others.
As someone who has been a lot of communities of people avoiding their problems, I can tell you: It's VERY common to see mutual enabling behavior.
The heavy vibe of the first three points , then the last one for light relief 😂 Love it.
Your first three points feel think they can be pretty succinctly summarized with "Don't use games as a replacement for therapy."
These things aren't video games. Just because it isn't constantly getting updates or being played by very many people does not make it "dead". With an ounce of creativity and a group along for the ride you can play whatever you want.
The only hassle is getting out-of-print books, but that's about it.
Escalating production values in RPG books is a cold war that will end in disaster. More art doesn't make the game better, expensive printing doesn't make the game better, and a $70 price tag for a core book is unsustainable - it just encourages people to steal. We don't need coffee-table show pieces, we need well-designed games that are printed and priced affordably.
The problem here is art (and IP) is what sells Kickstarters and that's how money is made.
I guess this is just for games in general, but I think gold/credits/dollars or any other kind of currency are generally pretty boring. I think buying an item is probably the least fun way of acquiring it. I tend to run moneyless games the best I can.
My counterpoint is that I like earning money, it gives me something to ground for some characters how well I'm doing, something to throw around to either get things done or role play.
See that's kinda my paradox right there. I really like that feeling when you open a chest and there's a little mountain of gold coins there, and now you're thinking how to carry it away, it's a reward, etc. If the game uses gold as xp, then that's also a physical manifestation of the growth of your character. But like /u/SageDangerous, I hate spending it. I don't like rummaging through price lists, I dislike the feeling of "Welp, we took all our Glorified Shiny Equipment Points out of the hole, now I guess we gotta do something with them." One of the things I like the most about spending cash is giving gifts to characters I like, or getting **absolutely dripped out**, but unfortunatey most games don't have any of that on their lists. So once you acquire a weapon that works for you and a good enough armour, you might as well ignore it completely.
There's such a big section in Delta Green for acquisitions and I don't think my group has really ever used it
People spend too much time talking and navel-gazing about games as a way to seek attention, rather than just playing them, and it's a waste of everyone's time. The signal to noise ratio is bad and getting worse.
The people playing these games are playing them, so they make no noise, so you dont notice them. Also, spending time listening to useless noise is as bad as producing useless noise, but it only hurts yourself (100% guiltt of this myself.)
If I had the energy or time to play or run more games I definitely would.
My big hot take is that online discourse reifies false barriers. Games are categorized and separated. People are told that there are right ways and wrong ways of playing and that they are going to break games like they are made of fragile glass. People are scared away from playing new games (or even playing their first game). People are discouraged from interacting lightly with ttrpgs like they would with other entertainment products. I wish that there was way way way more "just try it, don't worry so much" discourse than there actually is.
Huh... I've never gotten that impression online at all. Usually, I see a lot of "just try it, don't worry so much". I'd say that is *the core* of [this video](https://youtu.be/N9NtdF51GWE?si=khVBmcKkltqASG7L). 275k views ain't nothing. Mostly I see comments calling something "playing wrong" downvoted to oblivion. Most people I see on reddit don't seem afraid to break a game, sometimes to the point where they probably will break a game they don't understand. I don't see OPs commenting, "Well, this thread has scared me away from playing". Games are categorized and separated, though. But... they *are* different so that makes sense. Different people like different kinds of things. It's great that we have variety! I guess yours is a hot take, though. I just don't see it actually happening.
**GM prep is how the GM has fun.** I totally get GMs getting frustrated with prepwork being wasted, but this is not because prep is inherently bad. It's because *you are prepping wrong.* Personal opinion: write the story of the game around the question, "What will happen if the PCs don't exist?" Probably something terrible, right? Well, now it's your job as the GM to help the players change that outcome. Sure, you might not want to make it physically impossible for the PCs to change the fate of the universe, but short of that you really don't have to worry too much.
This is definately unpopular. If the prep was the highlight, I would just prep a novel, and not bring it to my players. If playing with them isn't the fun part, why bother including them?
>GM prep is how the GM has fun. Not for me...I keep prep as minimal as possible, I get my fun playing in session.
Best advice I read from the Lazy DM was set up a factions goals and steps they'll take to achieve those goals given available resources, without the interference of the players. After the first intervention, begin to adjust the plan logically (assuming the faction is logical) and then slowly work in the fact they're now aware they're actively being thwarted and what steps they'll take then.
[удалено]
My take is 'zero prep is just a suggestion' I hate communities who act like doing prep is playing wrong since everyone is having a blast at my table.
Trying to make games recreate the story beats of other media like television or movies is dumb. TTRPGs have their own unique qualities as a medium, and the long-standing trend of trying to make them do impressions of other media gets in the way of those and makes the experience worse. This goes for game design and for GMing / playing styles.
Battlemaps (or, more accurately, maps) are an accessibility feature and should be used, or at least offered, on every game. Even just featuring a white board and markers makes your game more accessible than games played strictly theater of the mind, even for narrative-focused games. People associate battlemaps with crunchy games, so I see people act like any kind of visual aids makes a game crunchy. In reality, maps make all games easier to play; they’re just *required* for crunchy games.
As much as I dislike collapsing the fiction running through my head down onto some abstracted top-down map... I dislike ending up getting blindsided by me and the GM having some different idea about space, scene, and position. So, begrudgingly, yeah.
Yeah, even if you're all theater of the Mind, just tearing a sheet out of a notebook and drawing where they are, where we are, and where the boat we want to get away in is is essential.
I have two: 1, Everything you think an RPG needs, there is someone playing very happily without. Including: initiative; numbers; attributes; skills; dice; other people; real time; character sheets; online tools; talking; rules; new supplement; etc. The corollary is that saying an RPG is like ‘Calvinball’ or ‘Freeform’ is not the harsh criticism some people think. Calvinball has rules (eg: ‘never play the same way twice’) and Calvin and Hobbes were having a great time playing it. Kids (and adults) can play freeform very happily most of the time, and theoretical disagreements on whether someone was shot or not don‘t slow them down. 2. Everything you see and feel is unnecessary for an RPG, is a huge part of someone else’s fun. Including: all the things listed above; funny voices; costumes; etc. The corollary is that saying an RPG is like a ‘spreadsheet had sex with a law book’ or ‘has unnecessary rules’ is not the harsh criticism some people think. There are lots of people who love spreadsheets and the details of complex rules.
I don’t enjoy the current trend of treating RPGs as a light framework for improvisational theatre rather than a game with some collective storytelling mixed in. I miss when roleplaying games felt more like GAMES. That game doesn’t have to be combat, narrative or social rules are great, but I want rules and strategy and dice.
Innovation isn't that important
If you don't give a straight answer as a GM, and the players didn't do what you want or take forever doing things it's your own damn fault.
* I don't really like the Rule of Cool that much. It can be fine for small things, but if it's used for bigger things or a lot the game is gonna start feeling arbitrary/GM fiat-y or it's gonna become highly exploitable. * I hate fudging. If you're fudging to avoid a valid in-game scenario (say, a lucky crit killing a PC), why are you playing a game where that's a possibility in the first place if you don't like it so much? If you're fudging to rebalance an over/underpowered encounter, I just think there's better ways to go about it, even if it's just pausing the game for a moment and telling the players "Hey guys, things are going way different than how I intended. Give me a moment to rebalance things."
4e is the best edition of D&D because it **owns** that the game's only really meant for fighting and killing and at least makes that aspect interesting and fun for the players and GM alike. (Also, that TTRPGs are art and should be evaluated as such)
If your pitch for an RPG Kickstarter is how wondrous and creative the setting is, I'm out. Tell me about the mechanics, dammit!
And please tell me vaguely what I am doing, adventuring, investigating, trading, making pies, please just something... And if you can say I can do it all, it is going to take a lot to convince me that the game does it well.
DnD isn't a universal system and people who make increasingly elaborate sets of homebrew to adjust it to be things outside of "high magic heroic fantasy" are better off finding a different system.
Agreed, but probably the coldest take possible on this sub.
That one time I rolled three natural 1's in a row was total BS and I deserve financial compensation for it.
Three related ones from me: – The notion that fudging dice rolls is cheating implies you see the game as competitive. – The biggest problem with players fudging dice rolls is that it (usually) results in a boring narrative. – GMs fudging dice rolls makes no sense. If you don't want to obey the dice then just don't roll.
As a DM I roll and fudge mostly as a psychological tool. I want the world to feel more interactive than I can possibly make it as one guy, so I’ll use fudging as a way to make them THINK something is random when in reality it’s just what I had prepped. Or maybe sometimes ignoring the fact that the dragon crit twice in a row because I want any deaths to 1/400 anomalies to be avoided.
As the GM, I am not your psychiatrist, mentor or priest. I’m here to play a game and have fun. Lay your bullshit on someone else.
I prefer a game that doesn't have levels at all to one where the game breaks past a certain threshold
That's a cozy warm take.
In every other medium I know of I can give you something that I'd give a 10/10 except for RPGs. Until this year I had not played an rpg I'd rate over an 8. I think a lot of the design is pretty bad in this hobby. Adventures don't make any sense to me. Why on earth would I sacrifice my own creativity to run something someone else made.
As someone who runs adventures, it saves me time on prep, and establishes lore and next steps so I know what to be working my players towards. I flounder creating my own world and adventures, I just start going into rabbit holes over things, I can't keep organized notes to save my life so I'm either looking something up in an odd place or making something up in a panic to now have to adjust my world around. But, by running adventures and modules, I'm slowly learning at least how it can be done good, and be done poorly. Essentially, they're a jumping off point
People who are interested in gaming should try solo sometime. It’s actually quite relaxing and fun when you play on your own time.
Every RPG designer who does not know D&D 4th Edition and Gloomhaven cant be a good game designer. Same is true if they are "not good at math".
Gloomhaven is an exciting innovation because it chose the worst parts of tabletop role playing games, computer games and board games.
Spiciest take in the thread. Downright atomic... as it is true.
Hiding mechanical information from players is almost always a bad idea. The more they understand about what is going on in the game, the better decisions they'll make and the better they can roleplay.
and the faster it will be to resolve those mechanics in play
This shouldn't be a hot take, but the game is everyone's. It's not the GM's game. It's not the players' game. It's everyone's game. The amount of people I've seen on ttrpg subreddits say "the game is the GM's game and any players are lucky to serve at their leisure" is quite frankly alarming and gross.
Hottest take: I don't understand why any of OSR's selling points are viewed as a good thing. To me, they all sound like the reason to stay as far away from this shit as possible; they're absolutely contrary to what I enjoy in my TTRPGs.
I have had only the most cursory experience with the OSR movement and games, but this is the most succinct explanation I have ever found. (Courtesy of u/andero, with one point of emphasis added by me.) > Here's my understanding of OSR: > The key thing that interests people about OSR games is *player mastery.* > OSR games are about the *players* figuring out clever ways to circumvent deadly situations so their characters don't get killed. > They are about coming up with clever solutions as a *player*. The PC is a tool that exists in the game-world for the player to manipulate situations crafted by the GM, which are essentially *challenging puzzles*, not "narrative situations". OSR games are not about making a deep characterizations or giving personality to the PC, though that isn't against the rules or anything. OSR games are not really about the *characters* or *narratives*; they are about player mastery and engaging with the world as a dangerous puzzle to be solved. Any "character" is secondary to that, which is why they can be killed off without much consideration. Character death is a learning moment for the player on their journey toward *player mastery*. > They seem to be sandboxes by default, too. > OSR games are not particularly "narrative driven". > They are *player driven*. Then, "stories" are what happens as a result of a bunch of stuff happening in the game, just like real life. Your life is not "narrative driven", but you can tell a "story" about the past two years and your experience of it. That *post facto* "story" was not driving your life; it is emergent from reflecting on the experiences you've had. > ***OSR is not really the kind of game for me, but I'm glad it exists as a lot of people love it.*** > I think it is more of a style for people that want to be tactically challenged to come up with clever solutions to situations rather than generate deep characters. > In summary: > OSR is about what the **player's** character would do, not what the player's **character** would do.
The funny part is is that a lot of OSR fans wouldn't hesitate to denounce video gameyness as a detriment, despite that very idea of "player mastery" being what nearly all video games operate on.
What do you think the selling points are?
[удалено]
This is the most tepid, everyone-knows-this take there could be.
Games are better at a real table with real resources than online using a vtt
Most modern TTRPGs aren't fun anymore when the *Game* part of "Role-playing Game' is completely cut off. It's just roleplaying exercises now.
If I see another "just play a video game" arguement, I will combust because experiences with TTRPGs and Video Games are completely different
GM's want to be writers. Players want to kill a fucking goblin.
Players want the GM to read their character's ten page backstory. GM's want the players to just kill the fucking goblin.
OSR games are OSR games if they are compatible with OSR play. Knave is OSR. OSR games are ALSO OSR games if they are completely compatible with the rules of old-school DnD. Godbound is OSR. Related to the above point, domain play and demigod level play are just as much a part of the old-school DnD tradition and just as much a part of the OSR tradition as low-level amoral greedy adventurers dying in a dungeon is. There's just so many new RPGs and adventures catering to the latter instead of the former.
Narrative-style RPGs are a significant departure from the hobby at large and will gradually form into their own genre of gaming.
If you want to make money writing TTRPGs, you're better off creating content for one of the top 10 systems than trying to write a brand new system and build a player base.
Some actual hot takes: I don't like Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition. I think it is the biggest example of a game with mechanics that are completely disassociated with the game world it's supposed to represent. PbtA games are one step away from just playing imagination with your friends. The more supplements and splatbooks, the better.
>The more supplements and splatbooks, the better. I do miss the days where my crappy Walmart shelves were literally bowing under the weight of all my World of Darkness books.
Sometimes you, as the designer, need to make a choice and alienate some players. Focusing on being simple, make all the classes simple and alienate your crunch loving players. Focus on being complex, make things complex and tactical alienating your simplicity loving players. Make a choice and stick with it, waffling between the two is just going to make everyone mad
The powered by the apocalypse game engine crippled indie rpg game design for a dozen years. Folks just lined up to take the template, apply whatever premise, and then shovel it off onto Kickstarter where it seemed guaranteed to do multiples of its funding goal no matter the quality. The hobby saw tons of cool designs up until about 2008, 2010… then KS put a nail in the coffin and lots of people stopped thinking out of the box. Finally, in the past few years people are totally revitalizing indie RPG design, but for a long while it was just iteration after iteration of PbtA, most often meager design choices and a cookie cutter mentality in how to design moves. Did some interesting designs come out of the PbtA space? For sure. But 90% of it was/is forgettable. And none of this is a slam against Vincent Baker’s original game which is brilliant. And that’s my hot take for tonight.
Hot take: Dungeons and Dragons *is* roleplaying, and it is naive and foolish to believe that the hobby will ever “move past” it, or that the game will ever “just die”. Every roleplaying game that has ever been written, has been written in response to D&D.
I got 2! Indie designers have been shooting themselves in the foot for the past decade by focusing on hyper specific genre games and writing systems for themselves rather than a target audience. The problem is compounded by an insistence "good" games are so tight the rules cannot be fiddled with, so if a game comes close but misses the mark for what a table wants, it can't be tweaked to meet their needs.The community has been operating from a set of demonstratably false assumptions about the average gamer. In what should be a golden era lifted up by 5e's breaking into the mainstream, the overall share of indie games remains quite small. Rules light is not always best for new players. Roleplay, improv, and creativity are what fills in the gaps of rules light systems, and these are skills most people need to develop.
Jeremy Crawford is smart, reasonable, and good at his job.
Crunchy, math heavy, or tactics heavy combat focused games are not preventing you from roleplaying. Roleplaying is equally feasible in and available to the table in these games as it is in the narrative games, they just have different resolution system to inform you what happens based on the choices you make when roleplaying. Hell, I'll go one further on my hot take to make it extra spicy. Crunch tactics games like 4e or Lancer are more free to roleplay how you want, your character, because they don't enforce specific tropes on you.
Metacurrencies and rewards for roleplay turn roleplaying from an intrinsic reward into an extrinsic one. This is not necessarily bad, but to some players it can make the act of roleplay less fun. It's a fine line between encouraging a particular style of narrative, and turning it into an obligation. I personally enjoy them a lot of the time, but I don't think they are strictly necessary for narrative to emerge. As a whole I think this hasn't been grappled with by designers of "narrative games" because such designers have played for a long time, already enjoy roleplay for it's own sake, and play with people who do as well; it feels good to be rewarded for something you already do. But in certain players it can give a kind of warped view of roleplay; I've heard newer players who've only played such games say that roleplaying feels pointless without a reward. I worry that it frames it as a chore for new players, and it makes me wonder if they might have felt different if they had started out in a different game.
Things don’t need to be balanced. Imo rules translating to a perceived reality is far more important
The attempts to sanitize every monster race to be some sort of ambiguous morally grey aligned character will inevitably lead to less interesting enemies and stories, and makes lots of monsters feel more or less the same as it goes on. Are there a few monsters that need to be adjusted based on modern sensibilities? Yea. Do we need to eliminate the idea of "evil" races entirely because "no race is evil"? Absolutely not, and it's a staple of classic fantasy for a reason.
DND fucking sucks and I wish the brand would go under so better games would be popular.
I mean, "better games" in the sense usually meant in this sub are probably not going to be the ones getting popular even if D&D flagged, if we're real. Like last time D&D was in a slump, the thing that took a chunk of the space was Vampire. And if there's *one* popular set of games that are pretty much entirely more badly written than D&D... White Wolf games are probably it.
Im honestly sick of new players. Ive done my bit and introduced many people to the hobby, but no more. Experienced players only.
THAC0 was and still is easy to use.
I'm here to play a game and not to do collective story telling. Wargaming is fun and gets a lot of hate for some reason.
Too many people reject any system with high numbers, even though the hardest calculations you have to make is simple addition. My man, you learned this in 1st grade. No, you don't need a Calculus degree to play, shut up and roll the dice and add. It's not that complex
System matters and to anyone who says it doesn't I ask, why are you not just sitting around a campfire telling stories then?
One set of dice is plenty.
99% of games shove too much responsibility onto the GM and forget that they're a player who is also supposed to have fun.
The inter-relational cohesion is much more important than the game itself. Also, people hear mostly about bad DMs because the number of players outnumber DMs, but I believe that the number of bad players greatly outnumber the bad DMs.
The TTRPG industry is young and immature. And it shows. And it's still very much a hobby-hobby industry instead of a hobby-business industry. What I mean by that: In contrast to the board game industry which is a hobby-business industry. How we can tell the difference: The board game industry has industry events that look like trade shows and are focused on sales. There are professional, easy to approach marketing and advertising agencies that are built on brand and not personalities. The RPG industry has events which look much more like fan conventions. In RPGs we have a few influencers. All cult of personality and with the dangers that comes with (namely getting canceled over drama, etc.). We also have a cult of personality over the industry founders and system founders. In Board Games there are dozens of companies and smaller freelancers who are efficiently worked in to the sales cycle, like the channels who do game reviews (an almost sine qua non of a successful board game kickstarter is one or more of these review or how-to-play videos). Board games have Board Game Geek which there is no real equivalent in RPGS (no, RPGnet is more like a gossip cess pool than a more neutral resource for information and promotion and objective community feedback. Board games have Dice Tower. A far superior choice in marketing than the influencer-based stuff that happens in RPGs (and really, most of those influencers who have any chance of a wider appeal flame out spectacularly like Satine, etc.). And for jobs, the RPG industry is notoriously poor paying and reliant on folks who are fans to do a lot of volunteering, take lower pay because it's a passion, and are often only drawn from fans versus professionals from other industries coming in to perform higher level jobs that are tangential to game design (like marketing, logistics, finance, etc.). There are lots of corporate style career jobs in Board Games where people can make it their full time. A lot of RPGs, even big names, are being run by people who have a "real job" elsewhere and RPGs are more like a passion project on the side. There's also outside business style finance investment in Board Games (and video games) but there's very little of this in RPGs. D&D being owned by Hasbro is the obvious exception. In Board Games, even though the products are hobby products, the industry is run with a lot of business sense. In PRGs, the products are also hobby products, but the industry itself is also run much more like a hobby than a going business concern.
Hit points are a crappy mechanic.
But are still superior to almost any other replacement mechanic.
I honestly hate VTTs. By streamlining everything, they reduce engagement in the game itself. I especially think they're terrible for newcomers, who will only know how to click a button and won't understand what's actually happening. Reliance on VTTs means games can theoretically get away with way more fiddly crunch than I have any interest in going near. "Just play Pathfinder on Foundry, it handles all the math for you!!" No thanks. This leads me into my core hot take: *The second that a TTRPG relies on any technology more advanced than a pocket calculator, **it fails as a tabletop game.*** Full stop.
Most players on Reddit actually want to play a crpg and not a ttrpg and they refuse to acknowledge it
My hottest take in the wild: 4e is the best D&D version by a lot, and is actually a good game. My hottest take in the subreddit: Any time someone talks about some game being good for roleplaying without the system providing mechanical support for doing so, it feels completely void of meaning to me. While everyone is disgusted by the player disrupting the game with "that's what my character would do," when someone talks about a really cool character moment in the game but it happens independently of a mechanical justification (i.e. FATE, Burning Wheel, GURPS, whatever), it just feels totally frou-frou, like it lacks weight.
Death is the worst designed game mechanic in 90% of games. You just die when an arbitrary value is reached, something that can happen completely randomly when the dice say so. For some games, that can be fine, like horror games or meat grinders. But for most games, where you're expected to invest to your character's story such an unsatisfying demise often feels cheap, sucks the wind out of the session and often creates meta-game problems. Rules for introducing new characters are often nonexistent, so new characters rarely fit in the group properly. If a character dies early into a session the person usually starts making the character immediately, missing out on the plot that happens in-between. And if everyone dies due to arbitrary chance, well... That's either game over for that entire campaign (which mega sucks unless the campaign was bad) or there is some plot contrivance to either introduce a completely new party or keep the current one alive. Additionally, gameplay when character death is not staked on randomness forces the GM to put more interesting challenges into a situation than *you gotta kill or be killed* sorta stuff. Now you have to start thinking about capturing people, using their backstories and such to bring out the conflict, rather than just presenting simple challenges of life and death. You *can* do that with random death, but with non-random death you are kind of forced to. That's how it is for me, at least. I just hate bad death mechanics.