Like the title says, this is a thread for any and all table top games and things related to them.
If you have a question about homebrew, worldbuilding, game mechanics ect this is the thread for it.
/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal
44 replies and 3 files omitted.
How many of you guys play Ponyfinder and/or play any other ttrpgs that take place in Equestria or pony-themed settings?
>>147575
I've been looking into second edition a bit, but finding groups is tough. They do exist out there though.
I've been looking into second edition a bit, but finding groups is tough. They do exist out there though.
What do you guys think of the 2e conversation handbook for Ponyfinder?
>>148198
Sorry, I have no knowledge of this, and therefore cant comment,... yet
2e conversion you say? Ima have to look that up
What are anon's impressions of using weighted scenarios to challenge the party? At times I like to pit the party against otherwise insurmountable foes, under the context of 'if you dont run/escape, you will be killed', to emphasize the fact that 'no, you cant just murderhobo your way through'. This could be anything from villains and adversaries, to a really pissed off group of soldiers/guards (often because of a rogue). The spirit behind it is to emphasize that the party IS the center of the story, but that doesnt give license to do anything they want, at least not without a very real possibility of death or consequence for foolish/haphazard choices.
In my games I want the players to be as motivated to try to avoid dying as a person likely would be in an irl conflict at the same level of risk.
Sorry, I have no knowledge of this, and therefore cant comment,... yet
2e conversion you say? Ima have to look that up
What are anon's impressions of using weighted scenarios to challenge the party? At times I like to pit the party against otherwise insurmountable foes, under the context of 'if you dont run/escape, you will be killed', to emphasize the fact that 'no, you cant just murderhobo your way through'. This could be anything from villains and adversaries, to a really pissed off group of soldiers/guards (often because of a rogue). The spirit behind it is to emphasize that the party IS the center of the story, but that doesnt give license to do anything they want, at least not without a very real possibility of death or consequence for foolish/haphazard choices.
In my games I want the players to be as motivated to try to avoid dying as a person likely would be in an irl conflict at the same level of risk.
>>148233
>At times I like to pit the party against otherwise insurmountable foes
No matter how clear you try to make the danger, at least half of the PCs will believe that the danger is supposed to be a challenge that they're supposed to overcome. Even if they know running is the better option, PC mentality encourages them to be "brave".
Of course, it's fine to do that, but you should have a backup plan for how you will react if the party does the opposite of what you want/expect them to do. For example, you could cause them to get captured, with a chance to escape later. Unbeatable enemies should also have nonlethal tactics at their disposal: for example, the overleveled werelion lich king in my most recent game was predisposed to be a cautious fighter since he had no knowledge of the party or their allies; his paralysis attacks would have likely incapacitated most of the party, and I had him prepare some extra spells that could explicitly incapacitate the elf and the dragon without killing them. If they lost, they would have been captured and tortured by the enemy bard. If they won, kudos to them. Either way the campaign would have continued.
>In my games I want the players to be as motivated to try to avoid dying as a person likely would be in an irl conflict at the same level of risk.
A good idea to do that is to do the overleveled encounter early on, on the third or fourth session. However, the objective shouldn't be to make the party run away, but to just let them throw themselves at the encounter and then watch them get captured. I wouldn't make the encounter too obviously overleveled either, but instead just deceivingly deadly (making it obvious will feel like railroading and will be unfun), like partof a group of seemingly weak goblins suddenly shapeshifting into half-dragon barghests. This way you can set expectations, and teach the party about the very real possibility of TPKs. The current module I'm using had an encounter like that, although I never really needed it since my enemy tactics were good enough to consistently scare the party for most of the game.
>avoid dying as a person likely would
Normal people don't crawl into dungeons full of skeletons to make a few hundred bucks; PCs are meant to be heroes, and risk dying like heroes, or fools. Death is a natural part of D&D. While PCs who kamikaze themselves at every danger may be annoying, it's also important to acknowledge that players should also be free to play their characters how they wish. If their choices result in their capture or death, so be it. Just make sure you've got robust flowcharts and you narrate well enough to make the dangers clear. Expecting players to make the decisions you want is just setting yourself up for frustration.
Enemies with nonlethal tactic options to capture the PCs are also a good method to prevent the party from being TPK'd at moments that would be inconvenient to your plot.
>At times I like to pit the party against otherwise insurmountable foes
No matter how clear you try to make the danger, at least half of the PCs will believe that the danger is supposed to be a challenge that they're supposed to overcome. Even if they know running is the better option, PC mentality encourages them to be "brave".
Of course, it's fine to do that, but you should have a backup plan for how you will react if the party does the opposite of what you want/expect them to do. For example, you could cause them to get captured, with a chance to escape later. Unbeatable enemies should also have nonlethal tactics at their disposal: for example, the overleveled werelion lich king in my most recent game was predisposed to be a cautious fighter since he had no knowledge of the party or their allies; his paralysis attacks would have likely incapacitated most of the party, and I had him prepare some extra spells that could explicitly incapacitate the elf and the dragon without killing them. If they lost, they would have been captured and tortured by the enemy bard. If they won, kudos to them. Either way the campaign would have continued.
>In my games I want the players to be as motivated to try to avoid dying as a person likely would be in an irl conflict at the same level of risk.
A good idea to do that is to do the overleveled encounter early on, on the third or fourth session. However, the objective shouldn't be to make the party run away, but to just let them throw themselves at the encounter and then watch them get captured. I wouldn't make the encounter too obviously overleveled either, but instead just deceivingly deadly (making it obvious will feel like railroading and will be unfun), like partof a group of seemingly weak goblins suddenly shapeshifting into half-dragon barghests. This way you can set expectations, and teach the party about the very real possibility of TPKs. The current module I'm using had an encounter like that, although I never really needed it since my enemy tactics were good enough to consistently scare the party for most of the game.
>avoid dying as a person likely would
Normal people don't crawl into dungeons full of skeletons to make a few hundred bucks; PCs are meant to be heroes, and risk dying like heroes, or fools. Death is a natural part of D&D. While PCs who kamikaze themselves at every danger may be annoying, it's also important to acknowledge that players should also be free to play their characters how they wish. If their choices result in their capture or death, so be it. Just make sure you've got robust flowcharts and you narrate well enough to make the dangers clear. Expecting players to make the decisions you want is just setting yourself up for frustration.
Enemies with nonlethal tactic options to capture the PCs are also a good method to prevent the party from being TPK'd at moments that would be inconvenient to your plot.
>>148233
>2e conversion you say?
The PF2e conversion for Ponyfinder, which was originally PF1e.
I say it converts really well, relatively. PF2e's modular and scaling racial abilities are pretty accommodating for pony races. You can have races that fly and races with innate magical powers without them being too front loaded.
>2e conversion you say?
The PF2e conversion for Ponyfinder, which was originally PF1e.
I say it converts really well, relatively. PF2e's modular and scaling racial abilities are pretty accommodating for pony races. You can have races that fly and races with innate magical powers without them being too front loaded.
>>148233
>as a person likely would be in an irl conflict at the same level of risk
In my experience, I have been more frustrated by characters who continuously run away and refuse to enter danger than characters who are too reckless.
Reckless characters can be replaced, but if the plot can't advance because PCs don't enter the cave the game grinds to a halt.
>as a person likely would be in an irl conflict at the same level of risk
In my experience, I have been more frustrated by characters who continuously run away and refuse to enter danger than characters who are too reckless.
Reckless characters can be replaced, but if the plot can't advance because PCs don't enter the cave the game grinds to a halt.
What's the best platform for online games? I've been trying to get savy with Foundry to improve my games, but I think there are some other electronic tabletops worth using. I'm used to using discord for voice chat, but I want to break my dependance on my site.
On the subject of voice chat (or lack thereof), what makes a good PbP game? I really believe that PbP games can be good and fun, but my personal experience with them hasn't been all that great, from both a DM and player perspective. They've in my experience been slow and inconsistent with rules, often frustrating because players get up and walk away during roleplay. I find that they seem to be difficult with mechanics too because combat become a slough, or the entire game goes full magic tea party.
On the subject of voice chat (or lack thereof), what makes a good PbP game? I really believe that PbP games can be good and fun, but my personal experience with them hasn't been all that great, from both a DM and player perspective. They've in my experience been slow and inconsistent with rules, often frustrating because players get up and walk away during roleplay. I find that they seem to be difficult with mechanics too because combat become a slough, or the entire game goes full magic tea party.
>>148551
I care about freedom, but I also care about functionality.
I've never heard of mumble. I guess I'll try it out.
I care about freedom, but I also care about functionality.
I've never heard of mumble. I guess I'll try it out.
>>148552
Mumble is good... if your ping time is over 1 second (satellite internet) discord drops all packets over that, mumble does not.
Found that out playing ponyfinder... lul.
While the protocol for matrix is fine, as far as I know none of the clients have voice functioning very well unless its the element web browser client. Even then there is no push-to-talk which is super fail in my book.
There are no tech companies paying for any of the matrix clients development. So far its just one or three guys working on the client. Mind you there are like a dozen different kinds with a different focus for each.
Look for one that will work well for what you want and throw money at them.
I could pop open a mumble server though. Easy to do and uses almost no resources. Works well for voice communication within games of any kind. Heh, I have the domain area51.world I could use it for if you want.
Mumble is good... if your ping time is over 1 second (satellite internet) discord drops all packets over that, mumble does not.
Found that out playing ponyfinder... lul.
While the protocol for matrix is fine, as far as I know none of the clients have voice functioning very well unless its the element web browser client. Even then there is no push-to-talk which is super fail in my book.
There are no tech companies paying for any of the matrix clients development. So far its just one or three guys working on the client. Mind you there are like a dozen different kinds with a different focus for each.
Look for one that will work well for what you want and throw money at them.
I could pop open a mumble server though. Easy to do and uses almost no resources. Works well for voice communication within games of any kind. Heh, I have the domain area51.world I could use it for if you want.
Anyone know a good place to get players online? Do we have a ""Discord"" or whatever else thats better?
>>148703
I made a games matrix channel on https://mlp.chat - depending on how things go I might rename it to tabletop or whatever. For now there is not enough activity to have such a divide.
#games:mlp.chat
I made a games matrix channel on https://mlp.chat - depending on how things go I might rename it to tabletop or whatever. For now there is not enough activity to have such a divide.
#games:mlp.chat
>>148704
Oh nice. Btw I know its not really the best but its the only version i have. Would anyone be interested in a game of DnD 5e?
Oh nice. Btw I know its not really the best but its the only version i have. Would anyone be interested in a game of DnD 5e?
>>148732
It is indeed a fun time.
I'd invite you to my current campaign, but it's already kind of nearing its end. I'm probably going to run a new one this winter though, and I'd gladly take players from this board.
It is indeed a fun time.
I'd invite you to my current campaign, but it's already kind of nearing its end. I'm probably going to run a new one this winter though, and I'd gladly take players from this board.
>>149012
Hell yeah. I 3d print my minis and paint 'em. Theyre alot more fragile/brittle than the old-school pewter ones, but they take paint alot better, and the price is right.
Hell yeah. I 3d print my minis and paint 'em. Theyre alot more fragile/brittle than the old-school pewter ones, but they take paint alot better, and the price is right.
Anyone of you know a good place for a leaf to get good price minis? The ones i get from wizkid are good but i wish i could prime them myself.
File (): 6E7FDF30C5452087CF859ADB4D19A6DA-57403.jpg (56.1 KB, 626x802, fizbans-treasury-of-dragons.jpg)
>>149300
I thought of making a thread for 5e, but it would basically be a general and I never really felt like it or thought anyone was interested.
The cover was found in the source code of d&dbeyond, which once again shows how crap Hasbro is at protecting their property.
Looks like it's going to be a generalist book, like Volo's Guide, only with Dragons. The name on the cover is of course a Dragonlance reference, although we also know that this book features Gemstone Dragons, which don't fit into the mileau of Krynn at all; from that we can assume that it's not a setting book, but a generalist book. Basically 5e's Draconomicon. As for why they would invoke the name of Fizban, I can only assume they want to either milk nostalgia or possibly reboot a Dragonlance adventure book in the future.
All of the player content has already been published in UA. It's only a question of what they're going to nerf into oblivion.
I thought of making a thread for 5e, but it would basically be a general and I never really felt like it or thought anyone was interested.
The cover was found in the source code of d&dbeyond, which once again shows how crap Hasbro is at protecting their property.
Looks like it's going to be a generalist book, like Volo's Guide, only with Dragons. The name on the cover is of course a Dragonlance reference, although we also know that this book features Gemstone Dragons, which don't fit into the mileau of Krynn at all; from that we can assume that it's not a setting book, but a generalist book. Basically 5e's Draconomicon. As for why they would invoke the name of Fizban, I can only assume they want to either milk nostalgia or possibly reboot a Dragonlance adventure book in the future.
All of the player content has already been published in UA. It's only a question of what they're going to nerf into oblivion.
>>149302
Them again, they're probably just using Fizban's name. They used Tasha for their last book, and they haven't said anything about Grayhawk whatsoever.
Them again, they're probably just using Fizban's name. They used Tasha for their last book, and they haven't said anything about Grayhawk whatsoever.
Don't you just love it when book writers name-drop characters from old settings and say a couple words like "yeah, you can totally play in this setting", and then proceed to not produce any content for the setting whatsoever? No modules. No maps. No nothing.
>>149306
WotC tries to get as much hype as possible with minimal effort. Name-dropping old characters and half-ass reviving old settings let's gets people excited enough to get a book printed.
Welcome to 5e.
>new maps and worlds
Lmao, no. That would require hiring actual writers to produce actually content. WotC doesn't do that in 2021.
WotC tries to get as much hype as possible with minimal effort. Name-dropping old characters and half-ass reviving old settings let's gets people excited enough to get a book printed.
Welcome to 5e.
>new maps and worlds
Lmao, no. That would require hiring actual writers to produce actually content. WotC doesn't do that in 2021.
Also, maps and worlds aren't worth very much on their own if they don't print any adventures to enjoy them.
>>149310
They weren't always this terrible. They've gotten lazy, or at least unwilling to hire writers.
They weren't always this terrible. They've gotten lazy, or at least unwilling to hire writers.
>>149311
>they weren’t always this terrible
I’m not so sure. They were better at hiding their Disdain.
>they weren’t always this terrible
I’m not so sure. They were better at hiding their Disdain.
>>149312
I mean they used to actually produce books. There was a time when they'd pump out books full of mechanical content at least once a month.
I mean they used to actually produce books. There was a time when they'd pump out books full of mechanical content at least once a month.
>>149314
Tbh, with the most recent edition, the problem isn't just lack of content, but the game design itself. The game isn't modular enough for new character content to really enrich the game. Every feat and subclass it mutually exclusive with all of the previous feats and subclasses, so there's little that you can add to a character concept with a new book.
It's a shame. They tried to make 5e so "simple" that they quashed any room it could have had to improve. Too bad it's not modular like PF2e.
Tbh, with the most recent edition, the problem isn't just lack of content, but the game design itself. The game isn't modular enough for new character content to really enrich the game. Every feat and subclass it mutually exclusive with all of the previous feats and subclasses, so there's little that you can add to a character concept with a new book.
It's a shame. They tried to make 5e so "simple" that they quashed any room it could have had to improve. Too bad it's not modular like PF2e.
Favorite game?
What do you like about it to that other games don't do well?
What do you like about it to that other games don't do well?
File (): 5F08F9E51EB247352664FBFA6B5A4CA0-138855.jpg (135.6 KB, 600x787, despair.jpg)
File (): 01138A2CA9C145A69CCA55E350ED0086-2645.png (2.6 KB, 364x43, ee52a138ddf93e56520910fabcb0df25.png)
https://www.enworld.org/threads/wotc-novels-non-5e-lore-are-officially-not-canon.681553/
Thoughts? I didn't think it warranted a thread.
Thoughts? I didn't think it warranted a thread.
>>148233
I'm bored, so I feel like inquiring this again, if you're still there.
What exactly is your experience with "weighted scenarios"? I think I've been in plenty of games that might have something similar to what you are describing, but I'm not sure.
I'm bored, so I feel like inquiring this again, if you're still there.
What exactly is your experience with "weighted scenarios"? I think I've been in plenty of games that might have something similar to what you are describing, but I'm not sure.
>>149799
The thing about "weighted scenarios", as you describe them, is that they often include situations where the party has their backs to the wall and there is only one viable solution to the predicament. The problem with that is if there was no way of avoiding that situation in the first place, it's basically just railroading. Now, nobody likes railroading, but a little bit of subtle railroading to keep the game on track doesn't hurt that much. However, if the railroaded situation you create is "Do what I expect you to, or you'll be TPK'd", a variety of things could happen.
>1. The party immediately realizes that it's railroaded, and does what you want them to do (run away, negotiate, surrender, etc)
This is a likely scenario, but it's rather unfun when the players realize that they're not getting to make choices in the matter, which can lead to situation 2b (see below) if you do this more than once.
>2. The party recognizes it's a railroaded situation, but misinterprets what they are supposed to do (fight until expected help arrives, die with honor, kill the enemies' leader, distract the enemy and die while the rest of the party escapes, destroy the McGuffin, use up all of their resources, etc)
This is a situation you create for yourself when you give the party problems with only one solution. If there is only one solution in the situation, any other significant action has potential to derail the plot that you tried to railroad. As the GM, you are responsible for eloquently communicating the situation to the party; any inadequacy in making the situation clear is a failure on your behalf.
>2b. The party realizes that the situation is railroaded, and gets frustrated or antagonistic as a result, leading them to do something you don't expect them to (destroy the McGuffin, kill themselves, fight to the death in a show of 'bravery', join the evil side, exploit a mechanical loophole, sacrifice a key NPC, destroy the world, etc)
This outcome is more likely than you think. If you haven't been communicating with the party well, or you've frustrated them with your plot resolution, they're going to be unpredictable. Players who feel like they're being deprived of choices will try to create choices for themselves, leading them to subvert the plot and/or to the one thing you haven't prepared for them to do. Some players will do this without even realizing it, or just have a belief that they're supposed to outsmart the GM even when surrounded and supposedly out of options. This is something to watch out for, because players will never fail to surprise you in their plot-derailing ingenuity or equally-powerful stupidity. Cornered PCs can act like cornered animals, even if they don't realize they're cornered (see number 3 below).
>3. The party DOESN'T recognize that the situation is railroaded, and does the opposite of what you expect them to (fight to the death, destroy the McGuffin, join the evil side, sacrifice a party member, use up all of their resources in desperation, etc).
You can expect at least one party member to misinterpret the situation, so this outcome is rather likely.
>3b. The party is more optimized/powerful than you expected, leading them to simply bulldoze right through odds you thought to be "insurmountable" with brute force and clever tactics.
This happens all of time, but isn't really a problem unless you hinged your entire plot/universe on the the party's failure, which you should never do. If you don't want the PCs to murder the goddess of light, you shouldn't have put her there in the flesh (if it has stats, you can kill it).
>4. The party doesn't recognize the situation is railroaded, but still does what you expect them to.
This is the most desirable outcome, but notice how it's only one of 4-4 outcomes possible, and with 4-6 party members you can expect at least one player to try something whacky. It is also the outcome that requires the most skill as a GM, because it means getting the party to do what you want without letting them realize that they aren't the ones making the choices.
From what is listed above, there are 4-6 ways a party can react to any situation with "insurmountable odds", and only 1-2 of them are really any good. As a GM, you shouldn't really be depriving your party of choices, because when you do that you deprotagonize the players and worse you create the possibility of PCs frustrating you by defying your expectations. Not only is railroadinging in this fashion unfun, but it gets even worse when you realize that the party might not properly cooperate with the actions you are trying to force them into.
Of course, it's not always bad. This stuff happens in games all of the time, but you might be setting yourself up for failure if you rely on the PCs doing exactly what you expect them to.
>>149800
Idk. I might have just wasted 15 minutes typing the post above if i've misinterpreted Anon's post.
See >>148233
The thing about "weighted scenarios", as you describe them, is that they often include situations where the party has their backs to the wall and there is only one viable solution to the predicament. The problem with that is if there was no way of avoiding that situation in the first place, it's basically just railroading. Now, nobody likes railroading, but a little bit of subtle railroading to keep the game on track doesn't hurt that much. However, if the railroaded situation you create is "Do what I expect you to, or you'll be TPK'd", a variety of things could happen.
>1. The party immediately realizes that it's railroaded, and does what you want them to do (run away, negotiate, surrender, etc)
This is a likely scenario, but it's rather unfun when the players realize that they're not getting to make choices in the matter, which can lead to situation 2b (see below) if you do this more than once.
>2. The party recognizes it's a railroaded situation, but misinterprets what they are supposed to do (fight until expected help arrives, die with honor, kill the enemies' leader, distract the enemy and die while the rest of the party escapes, destroy the McGuffin, use up all of their resources, etc)
This is a situation you create for yourself when you give the party problems with only one solution. If there is only one solution in the situation, any other significant action has potential to derail the plot that you tried to railroad. As the GM, you are responsible for eloquently communicating the situation to the party; any inadequacy in making the situation clear is a failure on your behalf.
>2b. The party realizes that the situation is railroaded, and gets frustrated or antagonistic as a result, leading them to do something you don't expect them to (destroy the McGuffin, kill themselves, fight to the death in a show of 'bravery', join the evil side, exploit a mechanical loophole, sacrifice a key NPC, destroy the world, etc)
This outcome is more likely than you think. If you haven't been communicating with the party well, or you've frustrated them with your plot resolution, they're going to be unpredictable. Players who feel like they're being deprived of choices will try to create choices for themselves, leading them to subvert the plot and/or to the one thing you haven't prepared for them to do. Some players will do this without even realizing it, or just have a belief that they're supposed to outsmart the GM even when surrounded and supposedly out of options. This is something to watch out for, because players will never fail to surprise you in their plot-derailing ingenuity or equally-powerful stupidity. Cornered PCs can act like cornered animals, even if they don't realize they're cornered (see number 3 below).
>3. The party DOESN'T recognize that the situation is railroaded, and does the opposite of what you expect them to (fight to the death, destroy the McGuffin, join the evil side, sacrifice a party member, use up all of their resources in desperation, etc).
You can expect at least one party member to misinterpret the situation, so this outcome is rather likely.
>3b. The party is more optimized/powerful than you expected, leading them to simply bulldoze right through odds you thought to be "insurmountable" with brute force and clever tactics.
This happens all of time, but isn't really a problem unless you hinged your entire plot/universe on the the party's failure, which you should never do. If you don't want the PCs to murder the goddess of light, you shouldn't have put her there in the flesh (if it has stats, you can kill it).
>4. The party doesn't recognize the situation is railroaded, but still does what you expect them to.
This is the most desirable outcome, but notice how it's only one of 4-4 outcomes possible, and with 4-6 party members you can expect at least one player to try something whacky. It is also the outcome that requires the most skill as a GM, because it means getting the party to do what you want without letting them realize that they aren't the ones making the choices.
From what is listed above, there are 4-6 ways a party can react to any situation with "insurmountable odds", and only 1-2 of them are really any good. As a GM, you shouldn't really be depriving your party of choices, because when you do that you deprotagonize the players and worse you create the possibility of PCs frustrating you by defying your expectations. Not only is railroadinging in this fashion unfun, but it gets even worse when you realize that the party might not properly cooperate with the actions you are trying to force them into.
Of course, it's not always bad. This stuff happens in games all of the time, but you might be setting yourself up for failure if you rely on the PCs doing exactly what you expect them to.
>>149800
Idk. I might have just wasted 15 minutes typing the post above if i've misinterpreted Anon's post.
See >>148233
>>149800
I might not have understood what >>148233 meant, which is why I asked for his exoperience in the matter.
>>148233
>The spirit behind it is to emphasize that the party IS the center of the story, but that doesnt give license to do anything they want, at least not without a very real possibility of death or consequence for foolish/haphazard choices.
>In my games I want the players to be as motivated to try to avoid dying as a person likely would be in an irl conflict at the same level of risk.
How do you usually go about implementing this? Do you actually kill them, or do you not? What's the level of game lethality you're looking for?
Usually early deadly encournters that install fear of death in players are meant to set up the expectation that they could die, but also make them more okay with the potential of dying. PCs who don't want to risk dying wouldn't go on adventures in the first place: heroes are by their nature braver than usual.
Idk if you're even still alive, but I want to understand what you're getting at.
I might not have understood what >>148233 meant, which is why I asked for his exoperience in the matter.
>>148233
>The spirit behind it is to emphasize that the party IS the center of the story, but that doesnt give license to do anything they want, at least not without a very real possibility of death or consequence for foolish/haphazard choices.
>In my games I want the players to be as motivated to try to avoid dying as a person likely would be in an irl conflict at the same level of risk.
How do you usually go about implementing this? Do you actually kill them, or do you not? What's the level of game lethality you're looking for?
Usually early deadly encournters that install fear of death in players are meant to set up the expectation that they could die, but also make them more okay with the potential of dying. PCs who don't want to risk dying wouldn't go on adventures in the first place: heroes are by their nature braver than usual.
Idk if you're even still alive, but I want to understand what you're getting at.
Anyone else here tried PF2e?
It's been growing on me. I was originally a 3.5e/PF1e fan, but I'm liking this edition.
It's been growing on me. I was originally a 3.5e/PF1e fan, but I'm liking this edition.
File (): 4E3AECD9FB8EB6819E214C9EA508014B-163783.png (159.9 KB, 802x316, unknown-50.png)
Kek, I don't think any other deity takes such great lengths to defend her followers.
Look at this. Do not ever fuck with dead hobbits.
Look at this. Do not ever fuck with dead hobbits.
File (): 233561A9477B14B81ACD1F0D7244AE56-1682824.png (1.6 MB, 1348x1357, a5971901c085d9a1565c305b19d2c48d.png)
5e modules are such shit.
File (): 6D4E033768E4499BA2E185425BC692E3-83357.jpg (81.4 KB, 1075x1509, qlw0iftj7c271.jpg)
File (): 0D250316D5F5B2783E1D79ABCCBDF005-157218.jpg (153.5 KB, 500x711, image0 (5)~2.jpg)
So... Anybody around here like Pathfinder?
File (): 8AAB2D13E4A02E6E2EFCD3D400AF3484-314644.png (307.3 KB, 584x487, unknown-35.png)
File (): 35EBEE24DD6BD4BBBA415DD069DEE910-70745.jpg (69.1 KB, 430x251, like_seriously_5e_is.jpg)
File (): E815095C790468EB75965E889BEEA945-781558.png (763.2 KB, 807x658, 241359639_4535700039826794_3322270158113703800_n.png)
File (): 38BCC38BC3E2C4325222418A92B338BA-45738.jpg (44.7 KB, 500x533, image0-149.jpg)
>>151681
What if the solution to the Martial Caster Disparity is to give melee classes a highly limited class-specific pool of "Techniques" they can perform?
Like a spell list, only with more uses per day and lower power levels until the highest levels.
That'd stop DMs from treating Melee Classes like moderately-fit humans with "I don't care if your STR is over 20 you cant break your cage's iron bars because they're magic and I don't want you to" talk.
At the low levels, combat techniques like "Barbaric Blow" and "Graceful Slash" and whatnot to add STR or DEX numbers to your effectiveness as a reward for picking that particular class and using up one of your limited-use-per-day Techniques.
Perhaps "Brandish Weapon" to boost the Warrior's Intimidation roll or "Deft Hands" to boost the Thief's chances of successful thief shit.
At mid-level, more advanced techniques that represent the peak of human ability. And things accelerate rapidly from there.
At high-level, we get into the "Slash a hole through reality with your blade, casting Dimension Door" tier. This is where your character can use a spell slot to do something casters could probably do better if you didn't have this option. Being so tough you can block a spell with your pecs. A spellcaster can make himself invisible but a max level Thief should be so stealthy he's "Better than invisible" and can do more thief shit. The Wizard will be happy he no longer has to spend spell slots on things his teammates can now do better than him.
You'd still be a raging barbarian with a shitton of survivability, but you'd also have Techniques like "Run faster because you're trying harder now" or "Scream so hard your foe's next spell fails" or "Hit his spell with your weapon so hard it bounces back at the foe" or "If raging, enemies that try to mind control you get mind-controlled harder instead".
What if the solution to the Martial Caster Disparity is to give melee classes a highly limited class-specific pool of "Techniques" they can perform?
Like a spell list, only with more uses per day and lower power levels until the highest levels.
That'd stop DMs from treating Melee Classes like moderately-fit humans with "I don't care if your STR is over 20 you cant break your cage's iron bars because they're magic and I don't want you to" talk.
At the low levels, combat techniques like "Barbaric Blow" and "Graceful Slash" and whatnot to add STR or DEX numbers to your effectiveness as a reward for picking that particular class and using up one of your limited-use-per-day Techniques.
Perhaps "Brandish Weapon" to boost the Warrior's Intimidation roll or "Deft Hands" to boost the Thief's chances of successful thief shit.
At mid-level, more advanced techniques that represent the peak of human ability. And things accelerate rapidly from there.
At high-level, we get into the "Slash a hole through reality with your blade, casting Dimension Door" tier. This is where your character can use a spell slot to do something casters could probably do better if you didn't have this option. Being so tough you can block a spell with your pecs. A spellcaster can make himself invisible but a max level Thief should be so stealthy he's "Better than invisible" and can do more thief shit. The Wizard will be happy he no longer has to spend spell slots on things his teammates can now do better than him.
You'd still be a raging barbarian with a shitton of survivability, but you'd also have Techniques like "Run faster because you're trying harder now" or "Scream so hard your foe's next spell fails" or "Hit his spell with your weapon so hard it bounces back at the foe" or "If raging, enemies that try to mind control you get mind-controlled harder instead".
>>151690
I recall some DND-like giving players a pool of "Awesomeness Points", and they can spend one to improve their odds when rolling die. Or did it outright guarantee the success of an action? Was there a system where enemies could spend their own Awesomeness Points to dodge, and whoever expended more resources won the advantage? I forget what the points were called.
Anyway these Techniques would effectively be consumable "points" you can use X number of times per day to make your character better at something. Could be a skill, a combat action, a temporary buff you can instantly apply to yourself, a permanent passive buff that can fill the slot of a technique when you're able to learn new ones, even give some ideas to players for what their characters could do. Rogues could try to steal the weapons of their enemies. Or Fighters could use their "Initiate Weapon Bind" technique to rob themselves and their target of their next action, giving teammates an opening to strike.
The Martial-Caster Disparity only seems like a problem because it gives casters the ability to do something better than a Martial, but a Martial can do it more times per day without needing spells.
The Technique System would let Martials have their own pool of cool shit to do a limited number of times per day, but easier Techniques should have more uses per day even at low levels.
I recall some DND-like giving players a pool of "Awesomeness Points", and they can spend one to improve their odds when rolling die. Or did it outright guarantee the success of an action? Was there a system where enemies could spend their own Awesomeness Points to dodge, and whoever expended more resources won the advantage? I forget what the points were called.
Anyway these Techniques would effectively be consumable "points" you can use X number of times per day to make your character better at something. Could be a skill, a combat action, a temporary buff you can instantly apply to yourself, a permanent passive buff that can fill the slot of a technique when you're able to learn new ones, even give some ideas to players for what their characters could do. Rogues could try to steal the weapons of their enemies. Or Fighters could use their "Initiate Weapon Bind" technique to rob themselves and their target of their next action, giving teammates an opening to strike.
The Martial-Caster Disparity only seems like a problem because it gives casters the ability to do something better than a Martial, but a Martial can do it more times per day without needing spells.
The Technique System would let Martials have their own pool of cool shit to do a limited number of times per day, but easier Techniques should have more uses per day even at low levels.
File (): 1AF152EAC461C687918253C37F789DAD-554419.png (541.4 KB, 600x600, ya88p1mt6bo71.png)
>>151691
>>151690
Can you name any systems or subsystems that do this well?
I mentioned the ToB and PaW.
I find that martials and casters seem to be pretty balanced in PF2e, and not in a fake-ass homo way like 5e does it like rationing extra attacks and whatnot. The crit specializations give weapon-fighters their own niche.
>>151690
Can you name any systems or subsystems that do this well?
I mentioned the ToB and PaW.
I find that martials and casters seem to be pretty balanced in PF2e, and not in a fake-ass homo way like 5e does it like rationing extra attacks and whatnot. The crit specializations give weapon-fighters their own niche.
>>151705
I think one of the FIM-inspired DND fanmade systems used a system where teammates who work together get bonus points for "Acting in harmony", that would be a cool way to incentivize teamwork.
I think one of the FIM-inspired DND fanmade systems used a system where teammates who work together get bonus points for "Acting in harmony", that would be a cool way to incentivize teamwork.
I'm getting close to finished with my current campaign, and I'm been considering starting a tabletop game meant to feature /mlpol/ memes, and include as much of the /mlpol/ community as I can, for the purpose of bringing more tabletop content to this board and its culture. Probably a West Marches style Pathfinder game where people can join and leave as they please, possibly even with multiple DMs or Co DMs.
It could be a really big project, and could be some work to implement, so I'm wondering if there's a strong willingness to bring such a game to this community before I start doing the work for it.
It could be a really big project, and could be some work to implement, so I'm wondering if there's a strong willingness to bring such a game to this community before I start doing the work for it.
>>151808
if it does not include discord then sure, I'd be in. I already set up a mumble server on the domain horseholes.brony.team but could easily change it to almost anything else. iwtci.science.horse for example, using one of my other domains.
Still have to read up on PF2e and how it relates to ponyfinder. Shouldn't take more than a day though.
if it does not include discord then sure, I'd be in. I already set up a mumble server on the domain horseholes.brony.team but could easily change it to almost anything else. iwtci.science.horse for example, using one of my other domains.
Still have to read up on PF2e and how it relates to ponyfinder. Shouldn't take more than a day though.
>>151808
I'm intrested but it also kinda depends. Are we playing in the pony world? I'd like to play in ponyland as pony with poners.
I've thought a lot about these threads, >>106507 → and >>111710 →
There was so much enthusiasm for this campaign. Many showed up and I don't think that was because it was epic level, or at least mostly, but because was a typical fantasy trpg adventure: A party, in Equestria, going on an adventure with a clear plot together.
I have been working on a campaign. I thought that the way of getting people on board with a campaign I had to truly put some effort into it. So I have been creating a bunch of stuff like, races(really, just written up lore and mechanical things about already existing races in equestria), classes, lore, worldbuilding. I've been chipping away this from time to time.
There's a lot of homebrew. I'm actually fairly proud of it.
I didn't mean anything with the spoiler. I'll probably never be done with it anyway. I just couldn't keep myself from telling you about it.
I'm intrested but it also kinda depends. Are we playing in the pony world? I'd like to play in ponyland as pony with poners.
I've thought a lot about these threads, >>106507 → and >>111710 →
There was so much enthusiasm for this campaign. Many showed up and I don't think that was because it was epic level, or at least mostly, but because was a typical fantasy trpg adventure: A party, in Equestria, going on an adventure with a clear plot together.
I have been working on a campaign. I thought that the way of getting people on board with a campaign I had to truly put some effort into it. So I have been creating a bunch of stuff like, races(really, just written up lore and mechanical things about already existing races in equestria), classes, lore, worldbuilding. I've been chipping away this from time to time.
There's a lot of homebrew. I'm actually fairly proud of it.
I didn't mean anything with the spoiler. I'll probably never be done with it anyway. I just couldn't keep myself from telling you about it.
>>151815
>There was so much enthusiasm for this campaign
Yeah, sadly the DM of that campaign had to cancel due to his life throwing a ton of problems at him that made him unable to run anything, let alone epic level.
>>151809
I'm considering mediums. I definitely don't want it to just be a discord server. I'm trying to think of a way to involve as much of the /mlpol/ community as possible, although due to my prior experience I've determined chansites aren't exactly the best for running traditional combat encounters. Some sort of off-site medium or electronic tabletop feels necessary just so that encounters don't take days to resolve.
PbB style could run right on the board, although I'm not sure if PbP and West Marches are compatible in a fulfilling way.
>>151815
>Are we playing in the pony world?
Ideally something close to Equestria, since it would be a moot point to make an /mlpol/ adventure without featuring ponies. It could also be a pony setting made for more traditional RP, kind of like Everglow, but less gay. Either case would take some world-building.
>There was so much enthusiasm for this campaign
Yeah, sadly the DM of that campaign had to cancel due to his life throwing a ton of problems at him that made him unable to run anything, let alone epic level.
>>151809
I'm considering mediums. I definitely don't want it to just be a discord server. I'm trying to think of a way to involve as much of the /mlpol/ community as possible, although due to my prior experience I've determined chansites aren't exactly the best for running traditional combat encounters. Some sort of off-site medium or electronic tabletop feels necessary just so that encounters don't take days to resolve.
PbB style could run right on the board, although I'm not sure if PbP and West Marches are compatible in a fulfilling way.
>>151815
>Are we playing in the pony world?
Ideally something close to Equestria, since it would be a moot point to make an /mlpol/ adventure without featuring ponies. It could also be a pony setting made for more traditional RP, kind of like Everglow, but less gay. Either case would take some world-building.
>>151816
If you want I could share my own homebrew with you, if you'd like to use 'em. Or, if you'd like some inspiration or whatever. It's all free; take everything or take nothing, it's up to you.
Races: Short version.
>Earth Pony
The customizable pony race.
Hit die per character level: d8
>Pegasus
The fast flier but not good at maneuverability. Can manipulate clouds and cause weather (only pegasi can).
Hit die per character level: d6
>Unicorn ( and Bladehorn)
Arcane spellcaster. Different moonlight enrforces spells. (Bladehorns get more spell slots with moonlight instead)
Hit die per character level: d4
>Crystal Pony
Tanky. Has a 10% (or 5%) chance of reflecting spells back at caster.
Lore: Is Crystal but produces something by oxygen in their body that makes their body malleable so if they hold their breath or lack oxygen they become hard like crystal with the cons and pros of that.
Hit die per character level: d10
>Bat Pony
Flier. Has better maneuverability than pegasus but lower speed. Echo-location: Can 'Ree' and then do a listen check with (int) for it's modifier. This listen check does not help in hearing what's being said but makes the bat pony visualize to an extreme detail if majorly successful every objects in a space and the space itself in their head.
Hit die per character level: d6
>Kirin
Arcane spellcaster. Blindrage(Or Nikirin or whatever they are called): If the kirins takes too much damage in one go they will go into a blindrage causing them to attack anyone nearby and the DM to take over the character. The player also has to tell the DM three things that pisses the pc off, which the DM will call upon a wisedom check to keep them from going berserk and blazing with fire. With different DC, one which is unlikely to set the pc off and one that is almost garanteed to set them off.
Hit die per character level: d4
>Zebra
Increadible constitution. Can run forever and so on. But what makes this race intresting is the two classes I made for it, which are still in their conceptional stage but still: Witchdoctor(mare only) and Spearchugga(Stallion only).
I instead for stallions to have int: -1 and Mares int: +1.
Hit die per character level: d10
>Trojan Horse
You're a foal of a legendary creature if you play this race as a pc. Trojan horse grow to the sizes of dragons and about the same age as well.
You're combat stick is that you have special attacks that scale in power with character level.
Size: As a foal Trojan horse you're large.
Hit die per character level: d12
>Breezy
Lore: Breezies have a fragmented souls. They only reincarnate and never get to go to the afterlife. The way for them to get to the afterlife is to fuse their soul with another sentient being's soul. This soul bound levels with the summation of the pairs' experince points an gives them both new abilties and drawbacks. Telepathy, deleivering touch attacks through each other, and switching place in space are a few abilties that get unlocked but if the whole soul dies, the breeze pc dies as well.
Breezies have the best maneuverability of the flying pcs but the slowest speed.
Size is smaller than small, probably tiny.
Hit die per character level: Doesn't have die. Instead player's toss a coin. Tails is one and heads is two.
>Human
Thought that maybe they could have techonlogy or something but haven't really come up with more than how they connect with the basic pantheon I made.
Is customizable though, I think.
Hit die per character level: Haven't considered it yet.
If you want I could share my own homebrew with you, if you'd like to use 'em. Or, if you'd like some inspiration or whatever. It's all free; take everything or take nothing, it's up to you.
Races: Short version.
>Earth Pony
The customizable pony race.
Hit die per character level: d8
>Pegasus
The fast flier but not good at maneuverability. Can manipulate clouds and cause weather (only pegasi can).
Hit die per character level: d6
>Unicorn ( and Bladehorn)
Arcane spellcaster. Different moonlight enrforces spells. (Bladehorns get more spell slots with moonlight instead)
Hit die per character level: d4
>Crystal Pony
Tanky. Has a 10% (or 5%) chance of reflecting spells back at caster.
Lore: Is Crystal but produces something by oxygen in their body that makes their body malleable so if they hold their breath or lack oxygen they become hard like crystal with the cons and pros of that.
Hit die per character level: d10
>Bat Pony
Flier. Has better maneuverability than pegasus but lower speed. Echo-location: Can 'Ree' and then do a listen check with (int) for it's modifier. This listen check does not help in hearing what's being said but makes the bat pony visualize to an extreme detail if majorly successful every objects in a space and the space itself in their head.
Hit die per character level: d6
>Kirin
Arcane spellcaster. Blindrage(Or Nikirin or whatever they are called): If the kirins takes too much damage in one go they will go into a blindrage causing them to attack anyone nearby and the DM to take over the character. The player also has to tell the DM three things that pisses the pc off, which the DM will call upon a wisedom check to keep them from going berserk and blazing with fire. With different DC, one which is unlikely to set the pc off and one that is almost garanteed to set them off.
Hit die per character level: d4
>Zebra
Increadible constitution. Can run forever and so on. But what makes this race intresting is the two classes I made for it, which are still in their conceptional stage but still: Witchdoctor(mare only) and Spearchugga(Stallion only).
I instead for stallions to have int: -1 and Mares int: +1.
Hit die per character level: d10
>Trojan Horse
You're a foal of a legendary creature if you play this race as a pc. Trojan horse grow to the sizes of dragons and about the same age as well.
You're combat stick is that you have special attacks that scale in power with character level.
Size: As a foal Trojan horse you're large.
Hit die per character level: d12
>Breezy
Lore: Breezies have a fragmented souls. They only reincarnate and never get to go to the afterlife. The way for them to get to the afterlife is to fuse their soul with another sentient being's soul. This soul bound levels with the summation of the pairs' experince points an gives them both new abilties and drawbacks. Telepathy, deleivering touch attacks through each other, and switching place in space are a few abilties that get unlocked but if the whole soul dies, the breeze pc dies as well.
Breezies have the best maneuverability of the flying pcs but the slowest speed.
Size is smaller than small, probably tiny.
Hit die per character level: Doesn't have die. Instead player's toss a coin. Tails is one and heads is two.
>Human
Thought that maybe they could have techonlogy or something but haven't really come up with more than how they connect with the basic pantheon I made.
Is customizable though, I think.
Hit die per character level: Haven't considered it yet.
>>151826
In my homebrew hit dice depend on choice of race instead of class (I thought it was intresting as a concept) and character level.
In my homebrew hit dice depend on choice of race instead of class (I thought it was intresting as a concept) and character level.
>>151827
I think it would be simpler to just give them Constitution bonuses or penalties.
By this logic, an earth pony barbarians only have d8 HP, and crystal pony wizards get d10 HP.
I think it would be simpler to just give them Constitution bonuses or penalties.
By this logic, an earth pony barbarians only have d8 HP, and crystal pony wizards get d10 HP.
>>151828
Well, crystal ponies don't have spellcasting or well I been thinking about maybe letting them be clerics.
Anyway, this is just the basic concepts. I just wanna make them distinct to begin with.
Well, crystal ponies don't have spellcasting or well I been thinking about maybe letting them be clerics.
Anyway, this is just the basic concepts. I just wanna make them distinct to begin with.
>>151829
I think you'd be better off sticking to constitution adjustments. It's a tried and true method, since HP is based on class for the purpose of said class fitting a particular niche, like frontline warrior vs caster. This looks like it could be unbalancing, and more importantly it pigeonholes races into particular niches even more so than standard racial penalties though. With this system, a Kirin couldn't play an effective Barbarian, Swordsage, or Druid because their hit points are too low to survive melee, even if . Meanwhile, an Earth pony Fighter or Barbarian somehow has less HP than a typical Fighter/Barbarian.
The breezie probably has a lot of bonuses, but with 1d2 HP they'd be in a position where any single attack could kill them at most levels.
>Don't have spellcasting
What about Psionics? With their crystal aesthetics, crystal ponies work well as Psionicists.
>Letting them be Clerics
What about Druids?
If you do intend to change the hit dice for races in X niche, consider making Racial Substitution levels for the races. The Elf Ranger racial substitution level has d6 HP, and the Half-Orc Barbarian has d12 HP, and more importantly both classes have different features.
http://marksworld.zeemer.com/files/Racial%20Substitution.html#9
Pathfinder would do this by making favored class bonuses for the races, which is based on the same idea. I think Ponyfinder already has several written.
I think you'd be better off sticking to constitution adjustments. It's a tried and true method, since HP is based on class for the purpose of said class fitting a particular niche, like frontline warrior vs caster. This looks like it could be unbalancing, and more importantly it pigeonholes races into particular niches even more so than standard racial penalties though. With this system, a Kirin couldn't play an effective Barbarian, Swordsage, or Druid because their hit points are too low to survive melee, even if . Meanwhile, an Earth pony Fighter or Barbarian somehow has less HP than a typical Fighter/Barbarian.
The breezie probably has a lot of bonuses, but with 1d2 HP they'd be in a position where any single attack could kill them at most levels.
>Don't have spellcasting
What about Psionics? With their crystal aesthetics, crystal ponies work well as Psionicists.
>Letting them be Clerics
What about Druids?
If you do intend to change the hit dice for races in X niche, consider making Racial Substitution levels for the races. The Elf Ranger racial substitution level has d6 HP, and the Half-Orc Barbarian has d12 HP, and more importantly both classes have different features.
http://marksworld.zeemer.com/files/Racial%20Substitution.html#9
Pathfinder would do this by making favored class bonuses for the races, which is based on the same idea. I think Ponyfinder already has several written.
File (): 1651EBCC0B90FD3D3A5C64AF1575EA68-28805.jpg (28.1 KB, 640x537, FB_IMG_1631402363341.jpg)
>>151831
Anyway, I can't guarantee that I'll be an active participant in any campaign you're making although I'm intrested in such a project. So don't make it big or put too much energy into it for my benefit.
Anyway, I can't guarantee that I'll be an active participant in any campaign you're making although I'm intrested in such a project. So don't make it big or put too much energy into it for my benefit.
>>152203
The point of a west marches is that it doesn't need active participants.
Anyways, it's just a thought for now, but I wanted to see if there was a willingness to play.
The point of a west marches is that it doesn't need active participants.
Anyways, it's just a thought for now, but I wanted to see if there was a willingness to play.
Thing about an /mlpol/ based game is idk what era to set the world in, or how close to Equestria the map should be... It's hard to balance expectations of the show's mileau with the appeals to exploration, violence, and nuance that come with a classic fantasy TTRPG.
File (): A8B3414111A6748190060DA6ED4CD7E3-573489.png (560.0 KB, 761x425, savageworldsfim.png)
A Savage World's ruleset for FiM-based games where most encounters are meant to be resolved nonviolently:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13rx6jUoOR8izx4_M4nqc8Wt5g0FyF2qR/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13rx6jUoOR8izx4_M4nqc8Wt5g0FyF2qR/view?usp=sharing
>>152235
Maybe I should do a world-building thread for pony RPGs. I've never done a pony game or a west marches before, so it should be worth it to brainstorm with the people who actually might play it.
Maybe I should do a world-building thread for pony RPGs. I've never done a pony game or a west marches before, so it should be worth it to brainstorm with the people who actually might play it.
File (): CE3242A85FFC3D5F4D47819353A6F758-46683.jpg (45.6 KB, 700x934, 1604424100838.jpg)
I'm starting a D&D 2e game soon. It's Dark Sun.
I've never played 2e before. Does anybody have advice on what's a good starting place?
I've never played 2e before. Does anybody have advice on what's a good starting place?
New 5e UA came out. Looks like the next release is going to be Spelljammer. The UA had a bunch of races.
Worth a thread, or nah?
Worth a thread, or nah?
File (): EAE2239407276203A64DAA7F7B12637C-95105.jpg (92.9 KB, 684x681, blbij61l2ap51.jpg)
44 replies and 3 files omitted.
[View All] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]Post pagination: [Prev] [1-100] [101-144] [Next]
144 replies | 20 files | 33 UUIDs | Page 1