Current State of TTRPGs

[MadPreacher]

I'm on a server that has a looking for player feature for TTRPGs. Recently someone posted up an ad for a campaign that included a consent checklist. I want you to read how bad snowflakes have ruined this hobby.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIp ... w/viewform

[Element]

Does anyone perchance know of tabletop systems with very complex melee combat, something akin to Fechtbuch/Medieval combat manuals, with many attacks, defences, stances, counter attacks etc?

[MadPreacher]

Does anyone perchance know of tabletop systems with very complex melee combat, something akin to Fechtbuch/Medieval combat manuals, with many attacks, defences, stances, counter attacks etc?

There's Rolemaster (Rollmaster) and Phoenix Command off the top of my head.

[Element]

Does anyone perchance know of tabletop systems with very complex melee combat, something akin to Fechtbuch/Medieval combat manuals, with many attacks, defences, stances, counter attacks etc?

There's Rolemaster (Rollmaster) and Phoenix Command off the top of my head.

Thank you. Rolemaster appears to overlap a good deal with what I had in mind.

[rusty_shackleford]

Does anyone perchance know of tabletop systems with very complex melee combat, something akin to Fechtbuch/Medieval combat manuals, with many attacks, defences, stances, counter attacks etc?

Phoenix Command's hand-to-hand combat system supplement
HârnMaster, older editions or Gold. Newer edition streamlines it a bit.
maybe the RuneQuest games, there's been a ton of editions, just check Mythras tho. It's RuneQuest 6 with the serial numbers filed off after they lost the license.

[WhiteShark]

Does anyone perchance know of tabletop systems with very complex melee combat, something akin to Fechtbuch/Medieval combat manuals, with many attacks, defences, stances, counter attacks etc?

Riddle of Steel and Song of Swords probably fit the bill.

[Element]

Thank you for the suggestions. Harnmaster and Riddle of Steel between them cover pretty much everything

[Acrux]

These are the people that took D&D away from you.

[Tweed]

This guy talks a good game about roleplaying, but I'm willing to bet you all his characters come out the exact same. If a troll is rampaging though a village and your first thought is "society did this" then odds are you didn't leave your real self at the door when you picked up the dice.

[Tweed]

That said, there's loads of fun to be had in playing a bleeding heart floozy who constantly pisses off their fellow party members by trying to find the good in everyone and everything and proceeds to waste all of the party's money on charities of blow all the healing spells on some poor hurt umber hulk, but I'm pretty sure most people aren't capable of that kind of roleplaying anymore.

[Acrux]

This guy talks a good game about roleplaying, but I'm willing to bet you all his characters come out the exact same. If a troll is rampaging though a village and your first thought is "society did this" then odds are you didn't leave your real self at the door when you picked up the dice.

He literally complains about dehumanizing monsters.

[Tweed]

Monsters are people too.

[WhiteShark]

This was from a thread on /tg/ about the most controversial things GMs incorporate into their games:

Probably that under certain circumstances slavery can be practiced by non-evil societies but as far as things that any random player might immediately see upon starting to play in my game the most likely to cause knee jerking are things that fall into the category of "stereotypes are usually accurate".

For example, churches of Good dieties tend to be generally good while Dark Elf worshippers of a Demon Queen tend to be generally evil. This has confused my players for decades for some reason. I guess because in-game, nonhostile NPCs across the board tend to act neutrally/friendly to begin with and their true motivations/alignments only come out when given the opportunity.

In 2023, this can actually send certain types of players into a self-righteous rage spiral.

[Atlantico]

This was from a thread on /tg/ about the most controversial things GMs incorporate into their games:

Probably that under certain circumstances slavery can be practiced by non-evil societies but as far as things that any random player might immediately see upon starting to play in my game the most likely to cause knee jerking are things that fall into the category of "stereotypes are usually accurate".

For example, churches of Good dieties tend to be generally good while Dark Elf worshippers of a Demon Queen tend to be generally evil. This has confused my players for decades for some reason. I guess because in-game, nonhostile NPCs across the board tend to act neutrally/friendly to begin with and their true motivations/alignments only come out when given the opportunity.

In 2023, this can actually send certain types of players into a self-righteous rage spiral.

What is he saying exactly, are the players confused that evil NPCs start out neutral/friendly but turns out they're evil or what? I don't see what is confusing his players..

[WhiteShark]

What is he saying exactly, are the players confused that evil NPCs start out neutral/friendly but turns out they're evil or what? I don't see what is confusing his players..

Yes, that is exactly what he's saying. They don't understand how someone could be outwardly friendly but turn out to be as evil as his racial inclination and religion would suggest he is.

[maidenhaver]

I finally gave in today and bought a couple Kabalite warriors, wyches, and a dark eldar starter, except the game shops have pulled their 9th edition codecies before they've gotten the tenth editions in, so I'm just playing dawn of war redux again. What a stupid fucking hobby.

[WhiteShark]

I finally gave in today and bought a couple Kabalite warriors, wyches, and a dark eldar starter, except the game shops have pulled their 9th edition codecies before they've gotten the tenth editions in, so I'm just playing dawn of war redux again. What a stupid fucking hobby.

I hear historicals are much cheaper and have better, more stable rules to boot. There are non-historicals that don't care what minis you use, too, so you could use your existing stuff for a different game entirely.

[maidenhaver]

Maybe the boys will let my Dark Eldar fight for Dixie.

[maidenhaver]

I announce my retirement from tabletop, today. I bought an entire army, so I can talk shit about people who buy this gay warhammer crap. Its total bitch energy to buy an army and have GW change the rules four years later, just to prod its playerbase into buying trash literture and pozzed plastic. I have purchased a 3d printer for making and selling minis. I love the battle bitches and dark eldar, so I'm going to print a queen's fucktonne of them. I'll hone my airbrush on these little shits and graduate to hotwheels.

[WhiteShark]

I announce my entry into miniatures games, today. I'm using the plastic figures from a used copy of Risk 2210 I bought years ago. I have no terrain pieces so you just have to imagine that the green poker chips are trees, the white ones rocks, and the blue ones water. Hopefully going to try Force on Force's starter scenario with my cousin this evening.

[maidenhaver]

Very nice. I didn't know Risk made a futuristic version.

[J1M]

I announce my entry into miniatures games, today. I'm using the plastic figures from a used copy of Risk 2210 I bought years ago. I have no terrain pieces so you just have to imagine that the green poker chips are trees, the white ones rocks, and the blue ones water. Hopefully going to try Force on Force's starter scenario with my cousin this evening.

Your approach is more readable and thus superior.

[maidenhaver]

@WhiteShark How was the game?

[WhiteShark]

@maidenhaver There was a lot of doublechecking the rules, messaging an online friend for clarifications, and learning, but nonetheless we had a great time. My cousin was into it and said he wants to play again, but that will probably have to wait for next weekend. The scenario was USMC (figures on the bottom) trying to rescue a downed pilot (figure in the middle) vs Taliban trying to prevent that; I played the USMC and my cousin played the Taliban.

Unfortunately the game ended quite anticlimactically thanks to the rather retarded Fog of War mechanic. The rule is that if you roll a 1 on a Reaction Test, you draw a card from the Fog of War deck and apply its effects. Well, it turns out some of those effects are game-endingly impactful. The one I got reduced my Troop Quality from d8 to d6 for all my units, which completely wrecked the balance of the scenario: it was supposed to be high quality, low numbers versus low quality, high numbers, but after I drew that card my units were suddenly the same quality as the much more numerous enemy units. My three fireteams were wiped in quick succession on the next turn.

We resolved that next time we play, we will either ignore the Fog of War mechanic entirely or go through the deck and filter out all the absurd cards. Since it will probably be a week until I get to play again, I may also rebuild the scenario with the proper dimensions (I only realized after setting it all up that it was supposed to be 3'x3', not 2'x2') or construct a different one.

[maidenhaver]

Sounds like playing without fog of war is best, because if you are reading all the cards in the deck to filter the game-breaking ones, your unknown unknows now become known unknowns, and the whole mechanic is broken.

[J1M]

"The fog of war lifts and you realize you are commanding cadets instead of navy seals."

[Emphyrio]

At a convention I played a hex-and-chit tactical wargame against the game's creator. The rules were that one player had "initiative" and the other didn't. Having initiative meant that you could move more of your guys farther, and without initiative you couldn't move anybody who wasn't adjacent to a leader. At the end of each turn you rolled to see if the player who had initiative would lose it. There was also a table of effects you had to roll on. At one point he had initiative but he rolled that his leader got shot in the head, so he lost his leader and I regained initiative. After the game he asked what I thought of it. I said that that it seemed way too random and swingy. He said, "so is war, bucko!"

[maidenhaver]

@WhiteShark's marines set the poppy fields on fire but the wind changed direction and they all got high.

[Luckmann]

Monsters are people too.

Source?

[WhiteShark]

@WhiteShark's marines set the poppy fields on fire but the wind changed direction and they all got high.

Actually not too far off. This was the card: