Back in like 2016 I got a game of vampire going. I pitched it to two non-ttrpg friends as “what if you’re vampires but the head vampire in the city is basically Donald Trump…”. 100% player retention.
Game ran for like two years. Lots of blood. We still talk about how the highlights.
I got a mod where your wife survives and you can find her early on. It was pretty sweet.
Failure has to be the player’s fault.
I was going to say “they have to have low random factors” but I realized that’s the same thing. Dying to a random crit in a souls-like would be infuriating
✨ brand awareness ✨
I also want to point out the main reason I stick to using DnD and ttrpgs that are very similar (e.g. pathfinder) as a framework is it lets your group get right into the game instead of spending a lot of time getting used to an unfamiliar system.
That does have some value, but sunk cost is not always a great justification. Also, a lot of systems are way easier to learn than DND. I think people think it’s going to be as hard as memorizing all the DND jank - stat to bonus mappings, attack bonus by level, spell slots, a hundred different unique spells - but many systems aren’t like that. (Quick, can you Sacred Flame and object? Smite with a thrown spear?)
I’ve been playing Vampire and the guy that’s only played DND before has had no trouble picking up the rules. Fate is maybe easier, though more creatively demanding. Lot of tyranny of the blank page potential there.
It would be something like the player asking the goons to move, the goons saying no, the player asking why, the goons giving some answer, the player rolling insight and then deciding a follow up question, probably ending with a persuasion or intimidation check with a DC dependent on how well the rest of the discussion went, with the possibility for other shenanigans to influence as well (like maybe the party mage used minor illusion to fake a badge to pretend to be cops).
That’s how DND would typically play it out, but some things worth noting.
One, where armor class, saves, and HP are very codified, the DC for persuasion or intimidation is very loosey-goosey in DND.
Fate, by contrast, has a stress track (like hit points) for physical and mental harm. So when your character pulls a knife and says “I’m gonna cut your fingers off one at a time and make you eat them”, and you roll, there’s mechanical oomph to it. You roll +7, and they’re either out of the scene of suffering a consequence. DND is just DM whims.
I honestly don’t think something like “social HP” would be better than RP and shenanigans, but idk, I would be curious to try.
I like how Fate does it. You’re not limited so much by your personal ability to act and the GM’s mode. You roll high on Provoke and it mechanically hits.
Oh, another subsystem from Fate I’d recommend importing: Concede. Solves all those “omg I wiped the party” problems.
I think the issue with combat oriented spells is you have spells at each level that do “vaguely this level’s worth of damage” for every damage type so you get a nice progression curve.
This is almost certainly a root cause. I think you could build a neat system where you don’t have two dozen variations of “do damage” spells, but you rather have rules for how much damage and other effects can go into a spell slot. Which is kind of how Mage works, actually.
But then casters would be having all sorts of fun and fighters would be left out again. Which, come to think of it, is a common problem in DND.
Also I’m not sure what you have against exploration and movement type spells because those are very useful in an intrigue heavy campaign.
Nothing against them. I just meant the majority of spells are combat.
Anyway, DnD does have a lot of combat mechanics, but it has plenty of non-combat mechanics too. The combat is more regimented and structured, but I don’t see that as a weakness, just the difference between combat and intrigue.
And sometimes that’s fine. But it’s not the only way for a game to be. If your game has little physical conflict and a lot of social conflict, DND is probably the wrong engine. Be like wearing a winter jacket on a summer beach trip.
Anyway. Like I said this is one of my bugbears so I can go on. Thanks for reading
However, rolling a D20 is a lot of fun, which makes me not want to replace it with something like 3d6.
Fun is subjective, but I personally really enjoy rolling a big dice pool. 4 fire firearms, 3 for dex, 2 for equipment bonus, 4 for the fate blessing, 4 for the gun being magically perfected, 3 for aiming, that’s approximately Get Fucked dice to throw on the table.
it has a lot of assumptions deeply baked into the rules. You need the adventuring day, to rewrite all the powers, or sharply limit party composition, or it falls apart.
The adventuring day is a big one. TBH I’ve never seen a ttrpg without it.
Any whitewolf rpg. Fate. Gurps. Don’t rest your head. Unknown armies. Countless indie RPGs. Many games that aren’t close relatives of D&D don’t have a central model of “you have a limited amount of resources to get through the day”.
I recently started a game of Vampire: The Requiem. One of the guys had only played D&D before, and it kind of blew his mind that he can just do his iconic stuff whenever he wants. He was going to punch a bouncer and we were like “Why don’t you just use your mesmerize?”, and he was like “I forgot I don’t have to save that”
There are massive amounts of fan content for DnD out there and easy to find, if you don’t want to write your own. There are whole ttrpgs that are practically modded DnD but tweaked for a specific setting.
You can also use an actual generic system like Fate or GURPS. Both of those have a ton of fan content as well. This is not a unique strength of D&D.
Hard disagree on social conflict. DnD is full of mechanics for that.
Please share. From what I recall, the system is limited to something like “Roll persuasion vs a DC, and that determines how big of a favor they’ll do for you”, or similar for intimidation.
Imagine a scenario where the players encounter a group of goons blocking the road. If they want to get in a fight, D&D has a ton of rules. Movement, to-hit and damage, armor, saves. If they want to talk through it, the rules are comparably thread-bare. There’s no social HP.
Other systems give you more. I’m pretty sure a lot of PbtA games have social moves. There’s also Monster Hearts, which I never played because you need a particular kind of group for that one.
Side note: because of how D&D’s stats work, you end up with a lot of characters are mechanically bad at socializing, or underperform at their prescribed roles. You have to work against the system to get some concepts. The whole idea of “multiple ability dependent” is a D&D-ism that’s just not in every system. If you want to play a wise cracking dashing axe-man in Fate, for example, you can just do that. You don’t need to worry about how you can get both strength and charisma, nor about if you can just reflavor Hexblade because you don’t really want the rest of Warlock.
Meta game currency is something DMs usually add in from my experience, although DnD does have inspiration points as a kinda weak form. Succeed at a cost is something I usually see DMs add in, but I have seen other ttrpgs with that more baked into the rules.
Inspiration is kind of store-brand fate points, yes. You can easily add more to it, as well as bring succeed-at-a-cost into D&D. But the argument is more about how D&D provides little.
You pick from a list. If you want to play a game about creating your own spells, it’s going to provide little guidance. Yeah that’s fair. If you have an example of a game with a good “make your own spells” system I’m curious.
Mage: The Awakening (2e) is the crunchy one that I know. The book provides a ton of examples, but even those are flexible. You add or lose dice based on adjusting the spell details, and potentially create a pool of fuck-up dice in exchange for more dramatic changes.
Unknown Armies is an old classic that has “random magick” as a thing any duke can pull off.
Fate is a generic system, so it really depends on which splatbook you’re using, or what your table decides on. One game I ran had a “choose one: slow, dangerous, expensive” model for magic. The player can’t picking “dangerous” and things got really exciting.
Also, most of the spells are about combat, with a handful about movement. Hard, hard disagree there. Off the top of my head: prestidigitation, minor illusion, friends, zone of truth, tiny hut, message, command, good berry, that one that lets you ask god a question…
I was curious so I’m looking at a spell list on a dnd wiki. A majority of spells are for combat, followed by spells that also have exploration uses (eg: fly, alarm), and then there’s everything else. But you can’t deny that a large chunk of the spells are explicitly about doing damage, or helping you do damage.
I spent too long on this post. Hopefully it was worth it! “People should play more RPGs, even if just to steal stuff to port into D&D” is one of my bugbears.
The mechanics aren’t especially “nice”. It has a lot of legacy jank (15 strength is what bonus?). 1d20+stuff vs target produces a flat probability, which is problematic.
it has a lot of assumptions deeply baked into the rules. You need the adventuring day, to rewrite all the powers, or sharply limit party composition, or it falls apart.
It’s missing or has anemic offerings for whole subsystems - social conflict, meta game currency, succeed at a cost.
Character progression is very coarse. level up and a bunch of stuff happens at once. You can’t make a character that has a shit load of sneak attack without also getting a bunch of HP and other rogue stuff.
The magic system is brittle and poorly defined. There’s not really an expectation or system for players to make their own spells. You pick from a list. If you want to play a game about creating your own spells, it’s going to provide little guidance. Also, most of the spells are about combat, with a handful about movement.
You can change rules, but after a certain point you’re playing something unrecognizable as DND.
Most ttrpgs I’ve seen don’t play all that differently from DnD
Play more games. Even a basic traditional game like Vampire is a mind opener. No adventuring day. No levels. Social conflict. No attrition and resource management. These have a big impact on the experience.
I called my reps today to tell them I do want impeachments and criminal investigations.
One of them I got a live person who said she’d fielded similar calls this week.
Damn metaphors getting me excited.
People use capitalism to mean anything involving commerce, I guess.
The fact that valve is privately owned and the profits go to the owner instead of the labor isn’t really the reason steam is dominant. A worker owned co-op could have succeeded by making the same product. Though if they were beholden to shareholders who demanded a profit, it probably would have resulted in a worse product. An argument against capitalism, with uninvolved owners taking profits, if anything.
They made a product people like. Boo-boo. Epic could have made a good product. They didn’t.
I got a mod to adjust the flow of time, which was nice.
I still lost interest pretty fast though. Shame, since it seems like a nice game.
I dislike all the long term on street parking here. Some of it I’d rather was just 15 minute parking for when you need to load or unload something. Most of the time I look at the cars and I’m like why are you here. There’s a subway stop and two bus lines here.
At the risk of repeating myself, “dying of whiteness” was a pretty interesting and depressing look at this. Turns out a lot of people would rather suffer if it means those people have it worse.
Reddit initially catered to a young, libertarian, white male internet crowd, clinging to a “free speech at all costs” ethos, until the hate speech and harassment became too extreme, and too alienating, to ignore.
Idiots.
In the end, Reddit became just another neoliberal venture, seemingly willing to cash in regardless of any concerns of social harm it might inadvertently cause.
Yep. Capitalism.
Reddit’s foundational problem is that it grew out of a narrow demographic with socially negative and often exclusionary values.
What a polite phrasing
Structural flaws, cultural toxicity and algorithmic design have turned what could have been an ideal forum
I don’t think a privately owned for profit platform could ever be ideal
No, I meant one where the business is owned by all the workers, not one where the owner also does some work.
Among the multitude of medical problems women suffered to achieve these drastic measurements were deformed ribs, weakened abdominal muscles, deformed and dislocated internal organs, and respiratory ailments. The displacement and disfigurement of the reproductive organs greatly increased the risk of miscarriage and maternal death.[5]
This makes me feel better about finding the look, at least from the photos on the page, deeply unpleasant
This is saying if you have a module with public functions A and B, they shouldn’t call each other, right? But it’s not saying that module A shouldn’t call module B’s public functions. That’s what I thought it meant at first, but that seems crazy.
Capitalism remains a problem.
I don’t think worker owner businesses would be so rabidly eager to do this AI shit. It’s ghouls and anonymous shareholders. People who don’t even work on the stuff being made.
Middle managers like to set targets and goals because it counts towards their bonus, and it looks less like they’ve got their dick in their hand when the boss comes calling.
It’s the same problem all over. Capitalism. You have people who don’t do work keeping the benefits from the work.
Most people aren’t going to give themselves stupid or useless metrics. Software people aren’t going to impose “tokens used” or “lines of code” metrics on themselves. They know those are stupid.
I don’t accept the premise that the leadership of these companies is smart. Not in a broad sense.