Your favourite tabletop RPGs?

[WindVoyager]

Ravenloft is one of those settings that shouldn't be attached to D&D's system, any edition.

I like Ravenloft 2nd ed and ever since I went to 3\3,5 I've been converting them but its very hard to find any adventures or anything any more. Used to find free downloads of the adventures and now you can't.

[Callie Del Noire]

I am having a LOT of fun doing my job as Venture-Lieutenant for the local Pathfinder Organized Play. We got the lodge up and running and growing. We had five tables this weekend and my sunday game had SEVEN players.. I might have to start shopping around for a 2nd DM.

The stories are for the MOST part pretty solid and the group I have is having fun.

Fun point of the weekend... the bomb/alchemical weapon crazy alchemist hitting HIMSELF with a scatter fail.

[gamergirl4life]

My favorites are as follows:

Reign: (a really good fantasy system with some good mechanics for running organizations)

Pathfinder: (for when you want some D&D style action)

World of darkness: (mostly new, but the old is all good too)

and two I have been reading and liking what I see:

Technoir: Cyberpunky noir stories

and Legend of the 5 rings seems like a really interesting setting/system.

[MasterMischief]

G.U.R.P.S.
Hero
Mutants and Masterminds 2e

Honorable mention to Fate and PDQ.  I have only played a handful of games between then, so I am not sure they can support a serious campaign, but they sure look like fun.

I believe a part of contention between balance = good and balance = who cares comes from the approach to role playing.  People who see it as more of a game are more inclined to favor balance.  People who see it as collaborative story telling are more concerned about a good story which may even be easier without balance.

[Chris Brady]

I believe a part of contention between balance = good and balance = who cares comes from the approach to role playing.  People who see it as more of a game are more inclined to favor balance.  People who see it as collaborative story telling are more concerned about a good story which may even be easier without balance.

That is definitely not me.  I believe in Story first, and I WANT Balance between all the roles available.  Because Balance = Star Power.  And Star Power equates the ability for players to feel like they're contributing.  Which in different games means different things.  No one wants to show up with a Face/Talker character only to find out that the Fighting Man not only can do it well, ends up being BETTER at it in the long run.

Table Top RPGs are in general a cooperative venture, and that means everyone at the table should, by nature contribute.  Now sometimes that means in terms of combat effectiveness, in others it's specialties in and out of a conflict situation, it all depends on the game you play.  And sometimes it means that yes, some house rules should be incorporated to help facilitate it.  On the other hand, if you have to rewrite the entire game to make sure the rest of the players can contribute, then you need to evaluate if this is what you want to do.

For some us, that's perfectly fine.  As long as we realize that yes, potentially a lot of 'work' is ahead of us.  Others, we have a limit as to how far we believe we should do the heavy lifting.  And even within those limits (of both groups) it depends on the game.  For example, Exalted.  TO ME, I have never met any other Pen and Paper RPG system that actively hates the GM.  It goes out of it's way to screw you over, for not only d you need to know the 'charm system' for the PCs (and heaven forfend if they are playing separate types of Exalts!) but you need to know every other charm of every enemy you intend to use in the game.  Even if you end up handwaving it extensively an idea of what they do is necessary.  But for other people, they don't care, they've been playing White Wolf games since inception and so they've already built up a catalog of innate house rules, hand waving and other short cuts all ready to use and stick into places the game might break for someone else.

Another game is Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch.  For ME, I can give bonuses out the wazoo to signify that such and such a character has experience doing that sort of activity on a pretty regular basis (I tend to give a 10-20% bonus to the percentile rolls based on what their backgrounds are.)  Others agonize and scrape and scrimp for all the bonuses and penalties, often making their characters feel incompetent (after all, the base IS 30% on average, if you're lucky you'll be able to get a natural 40% to a stat) and they don't like that, so they add points to the stats, or find other mechanisms for competence.

It's different for everyone.  And we need to understand that what works for you, may not work for someone else, even if it makes sense to you.  (For example, I believe to mitigate the 'God Stat' issue in the WoD, any of them old and new, you make Melee combat, both armed and unarmed, to be based of Strength, right down to defenses if necessary.  But to some people that like, "AAAAAAH THE BURNING!  THE BURNING!  TAKE OUT THE D&DISM OUT OF MY WHITE WOLF!  I'M MELTING!  I'M MELTING!!!"  So in the end, I put it out there and let anyone do whatever they want with that suggestion.  Right down ignoring it as an utterly stupid idea.)

[WindVoyager]

Pathfinder: (for when you want some D&D style action)

I've heard of Pathfinder but isn't 4th ed stuff? I tried 4th and can't stand it and don't feel like getting more books unless its D20 or 3rd\3.5

[LunarSage]

Pathfinder is basically 3.5 with nearly every negative aspect fixed.  Staying in one class actually gives some nice benefits, for example.

I highly recommend Pathfinder... especially if you still like 3.5.

[Chris Brady]

I've heard of Pathfinder but isn't 4th ed stuff? I tried 4th and can't stand it and don't feel like getting more books unless its D20 or 3rd\3.5

Then you're in luck!  Pathfinder is Paizo's reskin of 3.x!  With all the features and flaws that come with it!  (Which may mean more features than flaws for you, but it does really take all types.)  It's a really gorgeous book, and for that price you really are getting your money's worth, especially if you like Wayne Reynolds art, and glossy pages.  Most others would be selling that upwards of 80 bucks!  Seriously, 50 bucks for a full colour glossy page core book in excess of 100 pages is a bloody steal!

And even better they have a free System Resource Document up on their site, to show you that if their changes to the system are good for you or not, before you take the plunge!  Here's the Link:  http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

Personally, I'm burnt out on 3.x, and most of the changes they've done to the system make most of the flaws I've had to deal with as a GM worse, but if YOU like D20, here, I hope you love it, and have years of fun with it!

Happy Gaming!

[Chris Brady]

Pathfinder is basically 3.5 with nearly every negative aspect fixed.  Staying in one class actually gives some nice benefits, for example.

Not really, but it does fix a couple of the little things.  Like the Paladin's Smite being a fight long power, as long as the 'marked' target is still up, now, rather than a single attack that may miss.  Not to mention that Great Cleave is actually worth taking as it's more of a sweep attack and doesn't require the Fighter (the usual class that takes it) to drop the target, which after level 4 is nigh impossible to do on equal level monsters, even with hyperfocusing into Power Attack and a great weapon for outright damage.  Not to mention that the Fighter capstone (or the level 19 power) is a little insulting.  After all, the amount of monsters that you fight at that level don't do damage, they'll turn you to stone, paralyze, charm or otherwise target your reflex or will saves.  And let's face it, when you have 35HP left, when something hits you for 45 instead of 50 points of damage, the DR is moot.

There are a lot of things still left over that a lot of people either don't care about, especially since a lot of the PFRPG fans love their magic users, or already have their rules in place from all the other campaigns they've run.  For example, I've removed most of the penalties and feat taxes for two weapon fighting.  I've also given Fighters and Paladins and Rangers the ability to add their BAB to damage, 1.5x or dual wielding and 2x for two handed.  Does it make 2 handed weapons superiour damage?  Well, yes, but you're sacrificing defense for offense.  Not to mention that two handed weapons historically have always hit harder.  And let's face it, in D&D defense outstrips damage potential like crazy fast.

I highly recommend Pathfinder... especially if you still like 3.5.

This on the other hand, I agree wholeheartedly.

[Moraline]

I feel the best example of excellent and very unbalanced table top role playing is all of the non-system collaborative stories that are here.

I can sit down with a group of people, and just role play.

I don't need books, miniatures, dice or anything.

What the actual systems do for me is provide an already pre-existing world with sets of classes and rough guidelines. If I choose to follow them or not at all is strictly up to my players and I. That's why earlier I choose RIFTS, it's the world setting and concepts that I love about it.

I don't need a system to create great memorable table top role playing experiences. I need good players.

[Oniya]

I don't need a system to create great memorable table top role playing experiences. I need good players.

Quoted for truth.  You can have great 'role playing' experiences with a Risk board and a handful of steampunk fans.  Or a Halloween party - come as you'd like to be.  What?  We have two Gomez's and only one Morticia?  Comic-horror-drama in the making!

[Chris Brady]

Quoted for truth.  You can have great 'role playing' experiences with a Risk board and a handful of steampunk fans.  Or a Halloween party - come as you'd like to be.  What?  We have two Gomez's and only one Morticia?  Comic-horror-drama in the making!

Please don't assume that everyone's experience is like yours.  Some of us require a structure to work with, and it's better if that structure is functional.

Not all of us are expert actors and actresses like you, don't assume that they are.

[LunarSage]

Dude, she wasn't generalizing.  She said you can have those experiences, not you will.  Granted I love me some dice in tabletop, but I can see the appeal of online freeform as well.

I really don't think any assumptions have been made.  It's all good all around. 

[Oniya]

Ye-eah, I'm not telling anyone to throw out their dicebags and manuals.  (Even though I'd free up a ton of shelf- and drawer-space that way.)  O___o  It's just a lot easier for good players to make the best of a bad system than it is for bad players to do something fun with even a good system.  Won't say it can't happen, but it's a lot more work.

[Chris Brady]

What I'm saying is that a bad system can sometimes suck the fun out of a good game with GREAT players.  It's a balance that needs to be addressed by everyone who RPs.  Some can handwave just about everything (Those I've notice either started or gravitated to the White Wolf systems), others simply can't (started with the more system heavy games, like D&D, but Palladium Books is up there, as is HERO or GURPS.)

[Kathadon]

Ah RIFTS... Infinite possibilities and infinite problems.

My table top roleplay started with the old red box D&D. For the life of me I have no idea why my grandfather had it tucked away in his "board games for the grandkid's" closet, but it started me down the road to role playing.

Hero System: My second game and alot of fun when my friends were collecting comics. You could make a reasonable copy of any character you wanted from comics/movies and play them.

AD&D 2ndEd: My first try with established realms. At the time it was Darksun, then Birthrite. Great settings, loads of ideas, lots of fun on Sunday nights.

Palladium: RIFTS in particular is my guilty pleasure. The combat system is horrid, character creation takes forever, but the setting..... RIFTS is post post-apocalypse. If you can think of it you can play it. Demigod? Sure. Wizard? Okay. Samurai? Well the rifts brought him over. Baby dragon? Why not? A cyber punk city runner? Come on in. A soldier in a gleaming suit of power armor that can level a mountain? Why yes I have a class for that.

RIFTS can be anything and yes a player can be gimped. Kinda like Hawkeye and Black Widow were out of their league in Avengers. They could not stop the invasion, or hold back the aliens. But they could do other stuff to help. That is a RIFTS scenario in a nutshell.

OWoD: I liked Werewolf: the Apocalypse, but I never got a group to play. Everyone wanted to be Vampires

Shadowrun: I know of, along with Earth Dawn, but sadly never got a chance to play.

And 3. whatever D&D I dabbled in with friends, but I really felt they were just trying to sell the next book of the month with bigger and better stuff in it.

[Vanity Evolved]

I feel the best example of excellent and very unbalanced table top role playing is all of the non-system collaborative stories that are here.

I can sit down with a group of people, and just role play.

I don't need books, miniatures, dice or anything.

What the actual systems do for me is provide an already pre-existing world with sets of classes and rough guidelines. If I choose to follow them or not at all is strictly up to my players and I. That's why earlier I choose RIFTS, it's the world setting and concepts that I love about it.

I don't need a system to create great memorable table top role playing experiences. I need good players.

Of course you don't need a system for a good, co-operative roleplay.

However, if I am using a system, I want it to work. I don't need a car to get to work; but if I am using a car to get to work, I don't want it stopping every five minutes and expecting me to fix it before going forward.

Ye-eah, I'm not telling anyone to throw out their dicebags and manuals.  (Even though I'd free up a ton of shelf- and drawer-space that way.)  O___o  It's just a lot easier for good players to make the best of a bad system than it is for bad players to do something fun with even a good system.  Won't say it can't happen, but it's a lot more work.

Which completely depends on what you're terming as bad, here. A good rules lawyer can work a terrible character generation system into making better characters, yeah. But good roleplayers don't make bad games better, mechanically; they simply roleplay better. Something which has nothing to do with mechanical balance. As you said, a good roleplayer can make a vivid scene out of a game of RISK quite easily.

What I'm saying is that a bad system can sometimes suck the fun out of a good game with GREAT players.  It's a balance that needs to be addressed by everyone who RPs.  Some can handwave just about everything (Those I've notice either started or gravitated to the White Wolf systems), others simply can't (started with the more system heavy games, like D&D, but Palladium Books is up there, as is HERO or GURPS.)

This. I adore the idea of Shadowrun, and Exalted is an amazing game, but I absolutely hate Shadowrun as a system and think it's hugely unbalanced to the point that I, personally, can't enjoy it. And Exalted is renowned for it's terrible mechanics (as if a two hundred page errata, and then 'Screw it, we'll just make a new edition' wasn't proof enough). Some games get away with it easier than others; D&D is the perfect example of this, with it's house of cards magic system ('Magic is broken, get rid of magic and the game works. Oops, the entire system of mundane combat was balanced around magic being hugely available, now the mundane classes suck...')

[Moraline]

Of course you don't need a system for a good, co-operative roleplay.

However, if I am using a system, I want it to work. I don't need a car to get to work; but if I am using a car to get to work, I don't want it stopping every five minutes and expecting me to fix it before going forward.

The difference is a car is a motor vehicle. If it stops running it can no longer do the motoring. 

"Role Playing," means taking on the life and role of a character. You don't need books or dice or anything to make that happen. You just create a role and play the part.  All of the rest of the stuff is just fluff and that fluff comes in different flavors for different people.

All I'm saying is that I don't need the fluff and I can find ways to enjoy all of the numerous types of fluff out there as well. I do both.

For me it's about the "Role Playing" and not the hard rules.

Ah RIFTS... Infinite possibilities and infinite problems.

Palladium: RIFTS in particular is my guilty pleasure. The combat system is horrid, character creation takes forever, but the setting..... RIFTS is post post-apocalypse. If you can think of it you can play it. Demigod? Sure. Wizard? Okay. Samurai? Well the rifts brought him over. Baby dragon? Why not? A cyber punk city runner? Come on in. A soldier in a gleaming suit of power armor that can level a mountain? Why yes I have a class for that.

RIFTS can be anything and yes a player can be gimped. Kinda like Hawkeye and Black Widow were out of their league in Avengers. They could not stop the invasion, or hold back the aliens. But they could do other stuff to help. That is a RIFTS scenario in a nutshell.

That's the spirit, Kathadon! You totally get why I enjoy the system so much. I love playing in it and I love GM'ing it.

[Skynet]

I don't think that a system can encourage good role-playing unless there is a willingness to role-play in the context of the RPG.

That said, I use hand-waving and fiat every so often, but the ideal game system should help you have fun because of the rules and not in spite of them.

That said, if a game advertises itself as one where you can play a bad-ass swordsman who can take on hordes of opponents, or a learned scholar who can recall obscure information and conduct rituals, then the game system should be able to support the character concepts within the context of the rules.

[LunarSage]

Fun fact:  It's more than possible to turn a session of Arkham Horror into an RPG, even though it's technically a board game.

I love that game. 

[Vanity Evolved]

The difference is a car is a motor vehicle. If it stops running it can no longer do the motoring. 

"Role Playing," means taking on the life and role of a character. You don't need books or dice or anything to make that happen. You just create a role and play the part.  All of the rest of the stuff is just fluff and that fluff comes in different flavors for different people.

All I'm saying is that I don't need the fluff and I can find ways to enjoy all of the numerous types of fluff out there as well. I do both.

For me it's about the "Role Playing" and not the hard rules.

That's the spirit, Kathadon! You totally get why I enjoy the system so much. I love playing in it and I love GM'ing it.

In context, the comparison works; in this case, roleplaying without a system is walking and with one is the car. As mentioned, it's possible to travel both ways enjoyably. However, systems do have the problem that it's possible to run into problems which make the rise less than satisfactory (3.5, ferex) or can completely stall and destroy the journey (Exalted and Scion are huge examples of this).

I don't think that a system can encourage good role-playing unless there is a willingness to role-play in the context of the RPG.

That said, I use hand-waving and fiat every so often, but the ideal game system should help you have fun because of the rules and not in spite of them.

That said, if a game advertises itself as one where you can play a bad-ass swordsman who can take on hordes of opponents, or a learned scholar who can recall obscure information and conduct rituals, then the game system should be able to support the character concepts within the context of the rules.

You're completely right. A system can actively reward reinforcing tropes and playing to what the game is trying to emulate (Legends of the Wulin does this fantastically; mechanical and thematic bonuses for roleplaying up combat conditions and wuxia tropes, stunt bonuses for descriptions, rewards for actively seeking out to make your life awkward like a true Wulin hero and advancement tied to Deeds, rather than a generic 'You level up by punching things!'), but you only get as much roleplay out of a game as you're willing to put in.

Exactly. If we had the perfect system, everyone would be playing it. But until that time, we have to make do with less than perfection. Some are easier than others, however. It's easy to handwave away the odd broken ability; it's much harder to make something workable out of Exalted (which even the creators gave up with after two hundred pages of errata just to make it work) or Scion (where one ability taken early on can push your defenses into the range that standing still requires fourty dice at 7+ (on d10s) just to get a basic hit, in a system where the maximum dice pool is around about twenty for one group, and fifteen for the others.

Once again, Exalted is a perfect example; a game where the Dawn Caste are billed as the god-king generals and martial masters of the Solars, yet are inferior at their job compared to both Nights (the assassin sneaks) and Twilights (the sorcerers). And I've already brought up magic users in D&D being far superior at everyone elses job enough far too much in this thread already.

[Moraline]

In context, the comparison works; in this case, roleplaying without a system is walking and with one is the car. As mentioned, it's possible to travel both ways enjoyably. However, systems do have the problem that it's possible to run into problems which make the rise less than satisfactory (3.5, ferex) or can completely stall and destroy the journey (Exalted and Scion are huge examples of this).

See this is a point where I disagree.

A role playing game means to role play. No where in that does it need dice or hard rules. Role playing is the act of fulfilling the role itself. Taking on the life of a character, whether you sit around and tell the stories while playing back and forth with others or choose to LARP it up.

Role playing is about the Role. That to me, is 100% of the reason to play.

Actors role play on stage all the time when learning how to act - it's a game of back and forth. The rules are arbitrary and fluid.

As I stated in my earlier posts. I don't need the rules to have or create good game play so why would a hick-up in some pre-existing set of rules that I am following or maybe not following affect me in anyway? They don't. I just keep playing and everyone keeps having fun. Smooth and fluid.

What your saying is that if you run into an issue with the rules that everything grinds to a halt for one reason or another. That logic doesn't apply to me or any group I have ever role played with.

I have never once in a decade and a half of gaming ever ran into that issue. If me and my players hit a speed bump in the rules we let logic and reason dictate the decision and failing that the Game Master decided. The Game Master isn't a player they are the All Knowing Omniscient presence to govern the world. A good GM will just make a snap decision and the game continues to flow.

Of course, I also don't play with people that insist on following every rule and number crunching. For me personally that detracts from the role playing.

Honestly, in the end it's just a difference of play-style choices. People like you and I would never play together. We just see the games differently. I see it as all about the acting/role playing and you don't. Just different people that's all.

[Vanity Evolved]

See this is a point where I disagree.

A role playing game means to role play. No where in that does it need dice or hard rules. Role playing is the act of fulfilling the role itself. Taking on the life of a character, whether you sit around and tell the stories while playing back and forth with others or choose to LARP it up.

Role playing is about the Role. That to me, is 100% of the reason to play.

Actors role play on stage all the time when learning how to act - it's a game of back and forth. The rules are arbitrary and fluid.

As I stated in my earlier posts. I don't need the rules to have or create good game play so why would a hick-up in some pre-existing set of rules that I am following or maybe not following affect me in anyway? They don't. I just keep playing and everyone keeps having fun. Smooth and fluid.

What your saying is that if you run into an issue with the rules that everything grinds to a halt for one reason or another. That logic doesn't apply to me or any group I have ever role played with.

I have never once in a decade and a half of gaming ever ran into that issue. If me and my players hit a speed bump in the rules we let logic and reason dictate the decision and failing that the Game Master decided. The Game Master isn't a player they are the All Knowing Omniscient presence to govern the world. A good GM will just make a snap decision and the game continues to flow.

Of course, I also don't play with people that insist on following every rule and number crunching. For me personally that detracts from the role playing.

Honestly, in the end it's just a difference of play-style choices. People like you and I would never play together. We just see the games differently. I see it as all about the acting/role playing and you don't. Just different people that's all.

This... is what I said. In my last two posts. Never once have I said 'a roleplaying game requires mechanics'. Maybe my analogy alluded to this, but this is not something I have said.

And yes, I have had moments when a game has ground to a halt over discoveries within a game. The two off the top of my head being where the Rogue ended up asking if he could make a new character, because his character could no longer fill his niche and never got to shine in his chosen area because the Wizard was constantly superior to him, and once when someone discovered their Monk doesn't work like how the rules advertise. I'm not saying all problems cause an instant stop, but some problems -can- do this (As pointed out, Untouchable Opponent and Epic Attributes in Scion; the former is an easy 'No, that ability doesn't exist' but the second is an integral part of the game, and requires an entire rewrite of the system to sort out.)

[Moraline]

Yes, your analogy alluded to this.

Hence, that is why I only quoted the reference to it because you stated that your reference worked in context. It did not.

Then I only referred directly to the information in the quote, in my response.

[Oniya]

Why don't we all try to get back to our favorites, instead of why things suck?