Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Serf posted:

If any setting deserves a revival, it is definitely TORG. Give it a better system and rewrite some of the fluff and it would be a great setting to play in.

You mean what's coming this year?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Kavak posted:

See while I agree with cleaning out stagnant or offensive parts of the setting, I don't see that as necessary for player agency- if the PCs make a goal to topple a kingdom or organization in a setting, I'm going to let them have a fair crack at it, NPCs be damned. Or are you saying there aren't enough openings for that?

There weren't really enough openings. Too many nations/organizations in the Forgotten Realms were full of what were effectively max level wizards.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Nessus posted:

Isn't that the whole idea behind things like "living realms" and the various adventure paths and other organized play stuff for Pathfinder and so on? I mean, doesn't really turn me on, but there seems to be a demand.

The APs that Pathfinder does are just a series of modules, they have nothing to do with multiple DMs. As for Organized Play, there's a reason that those have strict rules about wealth and items, specifically to prevent the whole "So Bob gave me a +5 Vorpal Greataxe last week, and that means that I kill him." "But we're level 1." type things.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




gradenko_2000 posted:

I feel like if I ever ran into that kind of situation, it'd either be we'd put Rappan Athuk on the backburner while we played Mithril Gates: The Smeltening Economic Simulator, or I'd just tell the group "okay, presumably you're able to do what you like to the gates. Can we go back to the module I said we'd all be running together?" because otherwise we're all just kidding ourselves if the first instinct is to gently caress off and ignore the book.

(of course, the alternative is to run something that doesn't have such a massive goddamn plot hole, but that's neither here nor there)

With Rappan Athuk I think the reason to steal all that poo poo is to sell it and buy gear so you can survive all of its bullshit.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




When was this published, exactly? Because pretty much every group I've been in that I can recall have been instantly suspicious of any children that show up. "The child is actually the villain!" isn't expectation defying, it's practically cliche.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Bacon In A Wok posted:

Yep, these appear in older editions, alright.

And the reason why they mostly don't appear in newer stuff isn't because the authors of Pathfinder, 4E and 5E are kill-happy sadists who don't want players being 'taught lessons'. It's because the magic item that turns against its wielder in a fight is sometimes nastier than "you put it on, and then you die", because it risks turning a tough-but-winnable fight into a TPK. Cursed treasure only really makes sense in a "too good to be true" setup, such as actively being planted on the PCs by an adversary too weak to face them in a stand-up fight.

Uh, Pathfinder and 5e definitely have cursed items in them.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Alien Rope Burn posted:

I remember a player on a Marvel Comics MUSH that was like that, she'd do insanely questionable poo poo and then next scene would be like "well I'm evil why don't you just accept that" like it was just a natural condition and not, say, abuse. She'd throw terrible tantrums if you called her out on it, and was kind of obsessed with murder and transformation and- huh.

Nahhh. :raise:

Nahhh is probably right. I've met a small handful of people that fit that description in various RPG circles over time. I'm really wishing I hadn't, actually.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Covok posted:

Why do Magical Girl TRPGs always always seem to be either grimdark or involve court politics or both?

The only magical girl show I saw was Cardcaptor when I was growing up and I don't remember either of that in that show. Sailor Moon different?

Sailor Moon had some darker moments, but none of the parts of it I'm aware of come even close to qualifying as grimdark, nor do they involve court politics.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Doresh posted:

tokusatsu heroes (because what else are magical boys gonna look like

All of them look like Tuxedo Mask. All of them.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




You're a monster.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




I have a feeling that "chocolate, ground" is supposed to be a single item, like you'd list it in a recipe. Of course the people (person?) behind the game don't (doesn't) understand how comma separated lists work, but that's not surprising given how little they understand about anything else.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Obviously Rajaat was going senile, which is why he wrote everything down in a place no one but himself should've had access to.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




SirPhoebos posted:

GIS is becoming less and less helpful for gathering the artwork for my posts. What tools do the rest of you use for getting pictures off of pdfs?

I personally use pdfimages (specifically the windows version from these guys).

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Personally I found Reign of Winter to be better put together than Iron Gods, so let's see that one reviewed first.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Evil Mastermind posted:

That rabbit has seen some poo poo. In fact, I think it's seeing it right now.

The rabbit is named after a disease that causes rabbits to develop skin tumors, fatigue and fever before finally killing them. Of course she's seen some poo poo.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




There's something absolutely perfect about Arrogance being a power you can select in Better Angels.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Young Freud posted:

Yeah, longswords are a hell of a lot more versatile. Really, and it reminds me of some research I did in the matter, that katanas have more in common with cavalry sabers, given their length and slashing, than longswords, which are longer by almost a foot in most cases and, as seen in that second video, could be used for thrusting attacks, bludgeoning attacks with the pommel, and, since you were likely wearing gauntlets, being able to use the sword as a fulcrum in close combat.

You don't actually need to have gauntlets on to half-sword if you know what you're doing.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




At least in 3.5, the result of Acererak's shenanigans is that he ends up trapped for all time beyond existence after his phylactery is shattered, his only attachment to reality being that he's now a vestige that Binders can call upon.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




It's been a few years since I last touched AFMBE, but from what I remember my main complaint was that it would sometimes bury relatively important information within mostly unrelated paragraphs.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Night10194 posted:

It's really, really hilarious to compare Dead Reign to AFMBE.

Yeah, for the complaints I have with AFMBE I'll still heartily recommend it to anyone who wants a zombie game. Based on the review so far I doubt I'd do the same for Dead Reign.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




One thing to be noted about AFMBE is that chart about targeting different body parts only fully applies to living humans. Zombies ignore everything except the to-hit modifier, as they have their own rules for how damage works on them later in the book.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




And it's not a half-bad system on its own, without restricting the comparison to "other zombie games", too.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




I'll admit I haven't read or played through it, but the bits I've heard from others who have played through it indicated a good portion of Way of the Wicked is "Do EEEEEEVIL things because you're EEEEEEVIL and that's what EEEEEEVIL people do for no other reason than to do EEEEEEVIL." What's your opinion on that?

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Yeah, I'm willing to believe that the people I talked with had negative impressions on that front due to how their GM ran things rather than how the material was actually laid out in the books. Looking forwards to seeing more about this, since "well done evil" is hard to do.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




ZeroCount posted:

It really illuminates the problem with D&D alignment-based outsiders. At least a human in the game with a Good alignment is that way because of his actions and if he acts badly enough it can shift to reflect that. Outsiders like gods or angels or whatever are just objectively Good because That's What They Are and it often seems to have very little to do with how they actually act.

At least in 3.5 outsiders can shift alignments based on their actions, it's just that it pretty much doesn't come up and most people forgot it was a thing.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Halloween Jack posted:

If I remember right, a devil could theoretically become Good, but it's still an Evil Outsider and thus affected by spells and things that affect Evil creatures. Like, Evil is a flavour of midichlorian. This is the kind of very silly, but also very pedantic crap in D&D cosmology that I try to dispense with whenever possible.

Yup! Any creature with an alignment subtype is actually made of that alignment, and thus always counts as that alignment in addition to its actual alignment. There was an example Succubus Paladin that used a Holy weapon, which gave her a negative level because she counted as Evil.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Young Freud posted:

It would be hilarious if one of the other characters said at him, "Stop spazzing out, dude" even after all of that.


The what now? Is this fan-made or an upcoming WW product?

Upcoming Onyx Path project.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Last time I played Vampire I found it much more useful to be invisible most of the time over moving really fast.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




RentACop posted:

Pot bellies get up to medum-large dog size, but they're so loving fat they look bigger, outdoor pet for most people. You could also look into teacup pigs, which nine times out of ten is actually just a baby regular-rear end pig (don't actually do this)

I think you mean ten times out of ten.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




JackMann posted:

There is an actual breed of pig that only gets 50-150 lbs (instead of 300-500 lbs), but yeah, you'll never get a pig that's going to stay small pet size.

Well, yes, but those are called kunekune. Anyone who is selling a "micro" or "teacup" or "mini" pig is preying on ignorance.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




The Lone Badger posted:

You totally can, but you need a Mage and they're valuable.

Reminds me of a Shadowrun game I was in, where my character accidentally ended up with a lot of sway over party decisions because they knew that as a mage he could replace them far more easily than they could replace him.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




unseenlibrarian posted:

Remy and Belle seem like a really excellent plot hook for a Sin-eater Krewe; you've got a dude with a bunch of info on a really vile brand of abmortal (At least as Sin-eaters and their geists would see it.) and a ghost that needs to be laid to rest.

Yeah, that was my immediate thought as well. Although that's probably because Geist is my favorite splat for some reason.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




I assume the idea is for GMs who, for whatever reason, want to model how the population would change if they're running their game X years into the future of the setting.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Deathwatch is also a chance for Marines that have hosed up really badly to atone for their mistakes.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




marshmallow creep posted:

What qualifies someone for banishment? Forgot to praise the Emperor that one time?

Depends entirely on what Chapter they're being banished from. For example, the Space Wolves won't care so much if you forget to praise the Emperor (in fact you might annoy them by praising him too much, they're not big on authority), but they'll be royally pissed off at you if you run from a fight or leave a brother to die when it's not absolutely necessary.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Even after the errata combat is still amazingly lethal.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Robindaybird posted:

There's a reason why some people run Tomb of Horrors with Paranoia-style Six Pack sheets - still hard, but less sitting around because you died in the first room.

The only time I ever ran Tomb of Horrors I asked the players to prepare a backup character so they could jump back in if they died. I later realized I should've had them bring more than one backup, but we all had fun anyway.

Count Chocula posted:

I gotta say that I literally did not understand the appeal of Tomb of Horror style D&D until I played Dark Souls and had fun dying to brutally hard enemies and strangely placed traps. It all sounded like total bullshit until I cleared Sen's Fortress, now I get the appeal. The game knows it's trying to gently caress you over, you know it's trying to gently caress you over, we're all on the same page so let's crawl through some dungeons.

This is all assuming the game is playing fair, which I understand isn't always the case.

The 3.5 version, at least, was pretty drat fair. Nothing in it really messes with how 3.5 works by default, to the point where it's possible to build a character to solo the thing that can be run without foreknowledge of what to expect and do it at a level below what the module expects any PC to be.

I'd comment on the earlier versions, but I've never actually played them.

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Monk E posted:

You know from what I played of Tomb this is actually my biggest issue with it it seems like there's no reason not to just have the entire campaign devolve into one or two guys just poking things with sticks for hours on end.

That is a totally fair gripe with it. From what I understand the Tomb lost a lot of its bite when ported to 3.5 where you can say "I take 20 on Search for a total of Lots. Is this square trapped? It is? Okay, I got a Big Number on Disable Device, it's now disarmed.", when previously it was "I poke it with a stick, does anything happen? No? How about if I throw a weight onto it? It sinks a bit? Okay, I try to wedge something under it."

PurpleXVI posted:

5E was designed by committee and had no idea what it wanted to be, which meant they ended up with an edition that did a lot of things "okay," did nothing really well or uniquely and ultimately did a lot of things worse than already-existing editions. Like, I find it hard to come up with any reason to not just play 2E, 4E or even 3E instead of 5E. On every single metric it's beaten by one of those three editions, it has no stand-out point where you can go: "Well if you want THIS" or "If you want this done REALLY WELL," then you have to play 5E over the other three, while I'd say that those other three all have something going for them in terms of being different.

I have a friend who's pretty into 5e who doesn't understand me when I say this.

senrath fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Apr 2, 2017

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Nessus posted:

I never got this, because it seems like the core loving conceit of the game is that you have to dip your dick in the pool in order to play the game. Like it would be like if D&D had a meme saying 'lol! just stay home and put in a crop!' I guess CoC is set in a recognizable historical era so you can more easily see the alternatives for your character.

In my experience from people who like CoC games the quote could be expanded to "If you want to survive, never touch or read anything. But honestly, who really wants to survive?"

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

senrath
Nov 3, 2009

Look Professor, a destruct switch!




Night10194 posted:

The gridless bit is important. Almost everyone effectively played D&D 3.5 or whatever gridless, and man it was not made for that.

Do you have a citation to back that up? Because the vast majority of 3.whatever games I've played in used a grid.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply