Poll: Let's Talk about D&D!

[Jei-chan]

WOW thank you so much for all of this. I'm at work right now but I can't wait to dig into some of this and learn more. I really appreciate you typing all this up. I am not opposed to messing with spell slots or any of that administrative work. I'd like to get a firm grasp of all the various mechanics. I made a Paladin as my first character basically because I had a backstory and a playstyle in mind that really suited one but I'm itching to branch out and learn the other classes that play differently. The hunter style ranger and the rogue scout both sounds really interesting. To me a focus on animals is more in the domain of a druid than a ranger, even though I know mechanically they are very different. I am definitely looking to play a combat focused, dual weapon and short bow type of character that in my mind really flows through combat encounters. In some ways a fighter might be a better pick but I'm drawn to the flavor of the Ranger.

No problem! I honestly really like class systems/game systems so I've experimented with just about everything in D&D (5e only, because I only just started playing a year or so ago) at one point or another XD

I could write pages and pages and about nifty things you can do with class features, but I didn't want to break the site lmao. You can DM me if you'd like if you have other questions, or otherwise I wish you luck and hope you find a nice niche to play around in!

As for your question about backstories, I'd second the helpfulness of the Backgrounds feature, but I'd also add not to be afraid to spitball ideas with the other players in your group (if you're in a position to consult with them beforehand). You can come up with some really fun characters who have intertwined backstories - like my boyfriend once played a Tiefling rogue who worked as a servant for my friend's halfling Bard, and they had some really fun banter based on their working relationship. Siblings can also be super-fun XD

 

[cathou]

wow, been a long while since i last played a D&D game. we used to play second edition, with an addon called... something i dont remember. mind you it was before the third edition was out. we also played Call of Cthulhu. it was fun, but let's face it, your caracter is not suppose to live long, because he will ultimatly going nut. i also used to play a lot of Pendragon, wich is a game with king arthur. it was fun.

we also played a couple session of In Nomine Satanis Magna Veritas, which probably none of you have heard of, because it's a french game. you play either an angel or a demon but in modern setting. you are send by either God or the devil to do tasks. it can be planting a bomb to make a peace effort failed for exemple. it's very funny. the system is 3 six faced dices. you get 111 it's a direct intervention from God, 666 is a direct intervention from Satan. of course 111 is good for angels, but 666 is good for demons...

 

[Drake the Dragonheart]

I played 3rd edition, and then the vast majority was either 3.5/pathfinder.

I did play a little bit of 4th ed. I had some fun with it, but most of my gaming friends have expressed strong dislike for it. The common complaint with 4th edition is that it made a pen and paper game too much like an MMO.

I play a bit of Neverwinter which uses 4th edition rules and I have to say I do like it, even if it almost feels like I am playing Diablo 3 in a D&D setting.

I also run a Star Wars: KOTOR game which uses the same D20 rule set as 3rd edition/3.5. Does that count?

interesting character? Sir Shamus: an Irish accented goblin rogue and a paladin of Bahamut, whose special mount is a celestial medium monstrous tarantula. just imagine trying to combine a goblin voice with an Irish accent!

 

[Schadrach]

Overall I like 3.5/Pathfinder the most just because of the sheer expressive power of the rules. There's enough content that you can make just about any character concept you want and make them competitive.

The lack of this is something I dislike about 4e. The expressive space of the rules is much, much narrower than in 3.5 or Pathfinder. Or to put it another way, I could build more varieties of "Wizard" in Pathfinder that are all conceptually and mechanically distinct to one extent or another than you can in 4e. Hell, I once built a 3e sorcerer who believed his powers were a divine gift because of his background (by chance the right song happened to be playing while I flipped through the right page of the Forgotten Realms books and I noticed the asterisk on Kossuth [fun fact -- the fire god Kossuth counts as being two different alignments in the Forgotten Realms because he himself is true neutral, but his temples are very rigid and hierarchical to the point of being functionally lawful neutral] and had the idea of an orphan taken in by the temple of Kossuth who was temperamentally unsuited for the temple and would become a sort of zealous reformist apostate), and was built to reach as close to cleric as possible while still being a sorcerer.

I also once played a weird shapeshifting build that if it had been forced into it's natural would have been just as surprised as you are as to what it might be -- it changed form so often for so long that the idea that you are *really* something specific underneath seemed "quaint." Used "it" as a pronoun because it also thought the concept of being tied to a specific gender was "quaint." Omnisexual, flirted with literally every living thing it could because it could be your "type", whatever your type might be so long as it wasn't size Colossal or Fine. Got (Ex) abilities, so could produce venom and the like, and made spare cash by selling exotic bodily fluids.

4e also seemed to like the idea of a "Holy Rhombus" as some of us MMO players liked to jokingly refer to it at the time (as opposed to the "Holy Trinity" in MMOs). Which is to say that each class was pigeon holed enough that you could group 4e classes into "roles" and they could generally stand in for each other in that fashion.

Overall I like Fate better for what 5e's trying to do, and I think it encapsulates broad circumstances a lot better.

Right until this sentence I was going to reply to you and suggest you might like something FUDGE based, but apparently you already found FATE.

Another possible contender is Dungeon World, which is built off the same core mechanics as Apocalypse World. http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/

You're all satanists. D&D is of satan.

Ave satanas, ************. =p

FUCK D&D, PLAY GURPS!

GURPS is for people who want to simulate a universe more than play a game.

Another question, if I may hijack this thread a bit, what is everyone's favorite D&D setting (or another RPG setting if you're feeling saucy)?

Personally I've always been a fan of Dark Sun because I like the idea of post-apocalyptic 'ard mode.

Planescape, easily.

Like, people complain about cookie cutter classes, but playing a wizard like a fighter was a good way to commit suicide, same as anytime else.

No, but you could swap in any controller for any other and barely notice. The classes were cookie cutter, they came in 4 shapes.

Anyone know a place where I can read DnD sessions?

I don't know about reading, but I have it on good authority that Record of Loddoss War is basically the writer's DnD campaigns made manifest.

Interestingly, the Lone Wolf books by Joe Dever were heavily inspired by the his D&D campaign. They themselves are choose-your-own-adventure style gamebooks with some fairly simple mechanics.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Can also just pull out your ass as you go. Its kinda what I do.

Are we still talking about D&D or whole 'nother type of role play? Kind of want to make a dwarf bard in ass-less chaps now.

No problem! I honestly really like class systems/game systems so I've experimented with just about everything in D&D (5e only, because I only just started playing a year or so ago) at one point or another XD

I could write pages and pages and about nifty things you can do with class features, but I didn't want to break the site lmao. You can DM me if you'd like if you have other questions, or otherwise I wish you luck and hope you find a nice niche to play around in!

As for your question about backstories, I'd second the helpfulness of the Backgrounds feature, but I'd also add not to be afraid to spitball ideas with the other players in your group (if you're in a position to consult with them beforehand). You can come up with some really fun characters who have intertwined backstories - like my boyfriend once played a Tiefling rogue who worked as a servant for my friend's halfling Bard, and they had some really fun banter based on their working relationship. Siblings can also be super-fun XD

The backgrounds are definitely a big help. I ended going with Hermit for my Paladin and used that section of the rule book liberally when directing my girlfriend in the creation of her Druid. She had a little trouble coming up with things on her own and being able to look through the suggested ideals, traits, flaws, etc was a huuuuge help. Your idea of free-wheeling sounds really fun as well. I think I'll have to coordinate with one of the guys in my group on something. Our current characters have a sort of bromance going on so maybe we can do something that ties our next pair together somehow.

 

[BreakfastMan]

You're all satanists. D&D is of satan.

Ave satanas, ************. =p

SATAN

 

[the December King]

New question- Anyone have any particularly interesting or creative character backstories? I am very into the roleplay aspect of the game and trying to understand these characters' motivations.

I've been playing D&D in one form or another for 30 years now, and I've seen me some stuff I thought was really clever... but most of it was done by other people!

I'd say that for most of my time playing, I haven't played "conventional" humanoid races (humans or demi-humans), preferring to make up new social and biological facts of the monstrous races as I play.

Gnolls, Lizardfolk, Asabis, Ettercaps, Trolls, lesser Undead, Sahaugin, Troglydytes, Salamanders, Aarakocra... I still remember how excited I was when Savage Species came out for the 3rd Edition, it was awesome. I liked it a lot more than the approach that Pathfinder has taken with monster PCs, as the former commented less on the societies these monsters had, and focused just on their combat abilities and strategies, and making each monster into a level-based class. That left me room to make some fun shit up! Now, I understand that I can make any of it up that I want, it's a game based on imagination and I don't need to adapt all of the rules, but still, I just enjoyed that approach more.

I guess one of my favourite characters currently is a Blackscale Lizardfolk named Alag'Har. He's a renaissance warrior- attempting to learn and master many combat styles, as he has a dedication to weapons, warfare and martial arts... but it's not because he's a war-mongering monster... he's writing a book on combat and battle in the lands he's visited!

He was raised by humans in a special exchange program designed to ease relations, and so now he appreciates many aspects of human culture- cooking and food, eating from bowls or plates, music, sleeping at night (in beds), etc. I've been enjoying deciding what influences have been made from his adopted family, and what is deeply ingrained into the reptilian genes (and that there was a brief period between birth and adoption that also may have had a profound effect).

 

[Souplex]

You're all satanists. D&D is of satan.

Ave satanas, ************. =p

SATAN

The D&D lore on the lower planes is far more interesting than the new Testament.
And there is no Satan in D&D, there is Asmodeus though.
Also: Demons, Devils, and Daemons are all separate things, and all hate each other.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

snip

FUCK D&D, PLAY GURPS!

GURPS is for people who want to simulate a universe more than play a game.

HA! I'm running a GURPS game right now! Show's what you know!

(please help me)

Another question, if I may hijack this thread a bit, what is everyone's favorite D&D setting (or another RPG setting if you're feeling saucy)?

Personally I've always been a fan of Dark Sun because I like the idea of post-apocalyptic 'ard mode.

Planescape, easily.

snip

Planescape seems really popular. I did really like the original art to Planescape.

 

[BreakfastMan]

You're all satanists. D&D is of satan.

Ave satanas, ************. =p

SATAN

The D&D lore on the lower planes is far more interesting than the new Testament.
And there is no Satan in D&D, there is Asmodeus though.
Also: Demons, Devils, and Daemons are all separate things, and all hate each other.

Oh man so interesting. You just have one big war that goes on forever and ever... Never seen that one done before.

 

[Saelune]

You're all satanists. D&D is of satan.

Ave satanas, ************. =p

SATAN

The D&D lore on the lower planes is far more interesting than the new Testament.
And there is no Satan in D&D, there is Asmodeus though.
Also: Demons, Devils, and Daemons are all separate things, and all hate each other.

I decided that the Hells and Devils are actually the same beings as Demons and that a bunch of them decided Law and Order is better, took over part of the Abyss, turned it into the Hells, and reside there but otherwise its the same place, even if no one wants to admit it.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Here's one for my fellow GMs.

Do you prefer running more narrative-driven campaigns or an open sandbox style?

My preference goes to the former. I like how it gives me tighter control over the ebb and flow of the game, building atmosphere as the story progresses until it reaches a crescendo in a (hopefully) satisfying conclusion, and finely tailor encounters for maximum effect, since I already have a general idea of where things are likely to go. Players can also count on there being clearly defined goals to work towards. Because of this, I think it is the better approach for a group of less experienced players. Overdoing it does run the risk of railroading.

But, the sandbox style also has merits. Assuming they're the type to strike out on their own, player have more agency. They can go anywhere, do anything. They can craft their own stories and make an impact on the world as they see fit, with the GM basically just there to fill in the details as needed to keep things moving. It does more or less require more experienced players who know the possibilities of the game well enough to set goals for themselves. If not, the game can really grind to a halt.

I'd say it's possible to do both, but I admit I'm not a good enough GM to pull it off.

 

[Dr.Susse]

Here's one for my fellow GMs.

Do you prefer running more narrative-driven campaigns or an open sandbox style?

My preference goes to the former. I like how it gives me tighter control over the ebb and flow of the game, building atmosphere as the story progresses until it reaches a crescendo in a (hopefully) satisfying conclusion, and finely tailor encounters for maximum effect, since I already have a general idea of where things are likely to go. Players can also count on there being clearly defined goals to work towards. Because of this, I think it is the better approach for a group of less experienced players. Overdoing it does run the risk of railroading.

But, the sandbox style also has merits. Assuming they're the type to strike out on their own, player have more agency. They can go anywhere, do anything. They can craft their own stories and make an impact on the world as they see fit, with the GM basically just there to fill in the details as needed to keep things moving. It does more or less require more experienced players who know the possibilities of the game well enough to set goals for themselves. If not, the game can really grind to a halt.

I'd say it's possible to do both, but I admit I'm not a good enough GM to pull it off.

I love giving the illusion of free reign but keeping them on the rails as best I can. That being said you can never fully prepare for what a group can ruin.......
A Homebrew world helps as you can free ball the lore a bit. But yeah I really like letting the players think they are driving the story forward.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

snip

I love giving the illusion of free reign but keeping them on the rails as best I can. That being said you can never fully prepare for what a group can ruin.......
A Homebrew world helps as you can free ball the lore a bit. But yeah I really like letting the players think they are driving the story forward.

Ay yes, that's somewhat of a favorite trick of mine as well. "Oh, they want to go to City B? Guess the next big event will take place there, instead of City A as planned."

 

[the December King]

Here's one for my fellow GMs.

Do you prefer running more narrative-driven campaigns or an open sandbox style?

Good question! I usually roll with my mood at the time, followed by the mood of the room. I mean, if I have been planning out a series of encounters and roleplaying moments, including reveals and specific traps or eureka moments, then I'll do my damndest to keep the story on the rails (though, as has been mentioned, I can adapt this to allow for the sense of freedom for the players).

On the other hand, sometimes I come to the game and just say, "hey, you guys want to go on a hunt?" Or even ask the players what they want would like to play, cart blanche, and let a loose story form around their choices (including the general vibe of the room- I mean, if player X has been having a shitty day, I might try to specifically throw them something fun or engaging, depending on their personality type, of course). Some of our best games start out like that, where the DM rolls with the desires of the characters the players have chosen.

 

[RedRockRun]

I've never played D&D or any other PnP game before. I'd very much like to, but I have no friends and in no mood whatsoever to find groups. It seems as though most of those groups would be composed of people who have been friends for years, and it would be incredibly awkward entering that kind of setting. I'm not what you would call an extrovert.

 

[the December King]

I've never played D&D or any other PnP game before. I'd very much like to, but I have no friends and in no mood whatsoever to find groups. It seems as though most of those groups would be composed of people who have been friends for years, and it would be incredibly awkward entering that kind of setting. I'm not what you would call an extrovert.

I know that my own core group has been playing together since High School, and I have heard from others that it can be intimidating, walking into an environment like that. But we try to take in new players when we find like-minded folks, and I have played in other groups over the years, but not recently, mainly because my personal life needed priority (I've had to cut back my regular sessions to once every two weeks instead of once a week, as it was in the past).

I'm not trying to goad you into tabletop, or anything, I'm just saying that some groups are not necessarily old timers and all friends for years, and many will gladly take on new players, if you go looking.

Also? Cons are a great place to jump into some open games in a (mostly) casual environment. Or they used to be? Last Con I attended was in 1997, I think... NovaCon, I believe it was. But I did play in several open games during that Con - some Vampire:The Masquerade, and a session of 2nd Edition D&D leap to mind.

 

[Saelune]

I tend to end up running story-oriented campaigns, but I want to do that less, or atleast I want to build up to it. Too often I end up having alot of pseudo-rails, like time-limits or some other burden that keeps players from exploring...but I also blame my players because one, they seem fine with it, and two, dont tend to want to wander off.

My current campaign though, they have just delivered my recent psuedo-rail, and now I am attempting to let them do as they please. They are still on a hook, to hunt down one PC's wife who fled (cause he is an evil necromancer), but there is no time limit currently, and her escaping wont blow up my world (currently), so they are in no rush, and I am excited about it.

 

[Saelune]

I've never played D&D or any other PnP game before. I'd very much like to, but I have no friends and in no mood whatsoever to find groups. It seems as though most of those groups would be composed of people who have been friends for years, and it would be incredibly awkward entering that kind of setting. I'm not what you would call an extrovert.

I keep intending on buying headphones or headset so I can run games online on roll20, since I want to play with others. Could always check that site out.

 

[Souplex]

I've never played D&D or any other PnP game before. I'd very much like to, but I have no friends and in no mood whatsoever to find groups. It seems as though most of those groups would be composed of people who have been friends for years, and it would be incredibly awkward entering that kind of setting. I'm not what you would call an extrovert.

1 google later...
https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Friendly_Local_Game_Stores_(FLGS)_of_the_USA#toc24