Tabletop games

So what's the general consensus on board/pen and paper games? I've poked around with DnD a little bit and right now I'm looking into Warhammer (having played DoW). Any of you have recommendations for games to try etc?

yes to warhammer 40k

I play D&D when I can. Prefer Pathfinder (aka 3.75e) and 3.5e to 4e. I feel like both do a great job of offering you choices to make the character you envision, which is the heart of RP. There are certainly balance issues, but since combat isn't the emphasized mechanic, it all works out.

4e tries really hard to be an action RPG like World of Warcraft, with everything hinging on the combat, and somehow manages to make all the classes less interesting but still fails to balance combat. Not to mention all of 4e is designed around good and neutral parties. All the divine abilities are radiant beams of righteous justice. Good luck playing a Cleric of Zehir or some other evil deity: your only option is to manually reflavor your abilities, and swap out Radiant damage (one of the best damage types in the game) for Necrotic damage (easily the most common damage type to have resistance to). Ultimately, it neglects the things that make pen and paper games fun, improvisation of rules and roleplaying, in an attempt to compete with video games at their strong suit: satisfying combat.

I hear Next (which Wizards decided not to call 5e for some reason) is going back to 3e style mechanics, while retaining the cool stuff from 4e (like Paragon Paths), but I'll remain skeptical so long as Wizards continues to shit on all the third party content developers by refusing to go back to allowing core stuff to be open content.

40k is a lot of fun (or at least it was, I havnt played since 4th edition... its now on 7th and I have heard friends complain it got dumbed down too much since 4th)

be warned 40k is a money sink



I've heard Crossfire is a very fun tabletop that better simulates WWII battles, its supposedly way different than something like 40k. maybe check that out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_%28miniatures_game%29

It all depends on what floats your boat.

4e, unlike what Rot said, is actually fairly balanced compared to the previous editions. This was accomplished by nerfing the spellcasters into bards, giving the martial classes spell-like abilities so they could be bards of another flavor, and making all combat close-ranged.

Not sure what they did to skills and non-combat mechanics, so w/e. My advice is to stick to 3.5/3.75 and keep an eye out for munchkins.

I've played a lot of Pathfinder over the last year, and I'm having a blast. Wish that the other guys in my party would post more often, though. Everyone else seems fine with posting two or three times a week.

You could also try out Warhammer 40,000: Dark Heresy. It's an RPG set in the WH40K universe, and the mechanics are a lot of fun. Be warned, though, I haven't played too much of it.

The actual Warhammer 40K miniature game? That's a full-time hobby. The miniatures are expensive, you've got to paint them, etc.


... so, does anyone feel like taking another crack at a community RPG?

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:4e, unlike what Rot said, is actually fairly balanced compared to the previous editions. This was accomplished by nerfing the spellcasters into bards, giving the martial classes spell-like abilities so they could be bards of another flavor, and making all combat close-ranged.

While I would agree that it is more balanced that strictly 3.5e/PF combat, it still isn't overly balanced. They just did away with the batman wizard and other caster shenaniganry.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Not sure what they did to skills and non-combat mechanics, so w/e. My advice is to stick to 3.5/3.75 and keep an eye out for munchkins.

Watered it down like everything else. "Hope you didn't like the two axis alignment system, because we decided that good is never chaotic, evil is never lawful, and neutral is always hard neutral!" -Wizards of the Coast

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:I've played a lot of Pathfinder over the last year, and I'm having a blast. Wish that the other guys in my party would post more often, though. Everyone else seems fine with posting two or three times a week.

I really like Pathfinder, but play-by-post games are absolutely dependent on real activity, and that doesn't seem to be something that anyone is willing to give these days.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:... so, does anyone feel like taking another crack at a community RPG?

I'd be down to play some D&D, though I've sworn off DMing until I've got a real setting to work with, and god only knows how long that will take.

I can play

I'm up for it too as long as we can keep it active

I'll play once I do some googling...

EDIT: Also, if I play cheaply how bad can 40k get in terms of $?

Hundreds of Dollars. I had a 3000 point Space Marine Army and a 3000 point Tyranid Army and both probably cost me 5-600 (probably more than that) each

the cost was what made me stop

I've only played PF, so I don't know how good/bad other games are, but I'm enjoying it (Or I would be if the group weren't on hiatus on account of the DM's recurring homelessness). Has anyone played F.A.T.E. and know how good that is?

Also, I'd be down for another try at an RP. THanks to my new job and lack of school, I have the time for it.

Does poker count?

I'd be down as well.

Only real experience I have is PF.



I have my zombie game still which I could just reuse/restart since it didn't get far unless someone has another game set up or wants to make one.

Those of you who don't know how to play I made a very easy to understand thread about it.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Watered it down like everything else. "Hope you didn't like the two axis alignment system, because we decided that good is never chaotic, evil is never lawful, and neutral is always hard neutral!" -Wizards of the Coast

"Seriously, we're f%#ing tired of reading these alignment threads."

Rotaretilbo wrote:I really like Pathfinder, but play-by-post games are absolutely dependent on real activity, and that doesn't seem to be something that anyone is willing to give these days.

There's some tricks you can do to make combat run smoother. For example, you have to forget running initiative like you would in a tabletop game. In the PF game I'm playing, the DM averages initiative to see who goes first. Then it strictly alternates between the party and the enemies.

Second, you have to keep party sizes small. I think three or four is ideal.

Rotaretilbo wrote:I'd be down to play some D&D, though I've sworn off DMing until I've got a real setting to work with, and god only knows how long that will take.

Actually, I was volunteering. I'm thinking about picking up an Adventure Path from Paizo. Think of it as a pre-gen campaign in six parts. If we play one of those, I can cut my teeth on DMing and still deliver a solid experience. I would just require a commitment for everyone to post at least once per day. If you have to step out of town, that's alright, I can play your character for you.

How's that sound?

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

How's that sound?

Seeing as the DM for my other PF game is still facing impending homelessness, I'm in. It'll be interesting to see which moves faster, post per day versus by-weekly Skype sessions. Speaking of which, have you used Roll20 before?

sounds good to me rasq

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:"Seriously, we're f%#ing tired of reading these alignment threads."

Then they never should have simplified the alignment schema! I don't care if they want to streamline things in their D&D Essentials bullshit (which they scrapped because it was handled so terribly), but why change what hasn't been broken since 1977? And it's not like alignment has any impact whatsoever in 4e anyway, so what was the point of cutting the four best alignments?

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:There's some tricks you can do to make combat run smoother. For example, you have to forget running initiative like you would in a tabletop game. In the PF game I'm playing, the DM averages initiative to see who goes first. Then it strictly alternates between the party and the enemies.

Most of the games I've seen group the enemies into one turn, which I can get behind. I don't know how I feel about grouping the party into a single initiative, though.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Second, you have to keep party sizes small. I think three or four is ideal.

Three doesn't leave a lot of room, though, does it? Most parties want at least one mage, one healer, one tank, one striker, and one skill monkey. With three players, the tank and healer are the same player (typically a paladin or cleric), and the striker and skill monkey are the same player (pretty much has to be a rogue). Mage is pretty much always going to be either a wizard or sorcerer, which means that barb, bard, fighter, druid, monk, and ranger all get left out to dry.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Actually, I was volunteering. I'm thinking about picking up an Adventure Path from Paizo. Think of it as a pre-gen campaign in six parts. If we play one of those, I can cut my teeth on DMing and still deliver a solid experience. I would just require a commitment for everyone to post at least once per day. If you have to step out of town, that's alright, I can play your character for you.

How's that sound?

That's agreeable. I'm pretty sure I can manage once a day.

I check once a day anyway, i'm down.


Im'a reuse Henry if applicable





Also if you guys wanna talk ever i'm on skype all the time. I always talk with Rasq and Rot. I can make a little call group for us even.


highlordpheonix

Rotaretilbo wrote:Most of the games I've seen group the enemies into one turn, which I can get behind. I don't know how I feel about grouping the party into a single initiative, though.

It's worked out well so far.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Three doesn't leave a lot of room, though, does it? Most parties want at least one mage, one healer, one tank, one striker, and one skill monkey. With three players, the tank and healer are the same player (typically a paladin or cleric), and the striker and skill monkey are the same player (pretty much has to be a rogue). Mage is pretty much always going to be either a wizard or sorcerer, which means that barb, bard, fighter, druid, monk, and ranger all get left out to dry.

Step out and experiment. If you don't have a healer, there's a Wand of Cure Light Wounds for that.

There's two games out there that me and my friends are playing. The one I'm playing in has a four man team of two fighters, a cleric, and a sorcerer. The other team has a rogue, barbarian, druid, and paladin.
We're doing fine!

Mr.Inferior of the two Admins wrote:sounds good to me rasq

Lord Pheonix wrote:I check once a day anyway, i'm down.

Rotaretilbo wrote:That's agreeable. I'm pretty sure I can manage once a day.

Tylertlat wrote:Seeing as the DM for my other PF game is still facing impending homelessness, I'm in. It'll be interesting to see which moves faster, post per day versus by-weekly Skype sessions. Speaking of which, have you used Roll20 before?

♫And we're off to the Paizo Store, the wonderful Paizo Store online!♫

Lord Pheonix wrote:Im'a reuse Henry if applicable

Don't you mean Paul? Or would you like to borrow Henry Southgard's backstory?

Yeah, I guess I mean Paul lol. Was reading your thread and it got stuck in my head I guess.

my DnD group tried to run as 4 rangers, it went pretty well for as far as we got (which was only 3 sessions of playing, so not very far)


keep in mind if I join I really dont have much knowledge of how to play, so I will need a bit of hand-holding to start

Very well.

Everyone, start thinking about your character backgrounds. Could be a couple of sentences, could be the five pages I expect from Rot. Characters and classes will be limited to the Core Rulebook. Go here, start taking notes, expect more detailed instructions within a few days.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Step out and experiment. If you don't have a healer, there's a Wand of Cure Light Wounds for that.

There's two games out there that me and my friends are playing. The one I'm playing in has a four man team of two fighters, a cleric, and a sorcerer. The other team has a rogue, barbarian, druid, and paladin.
We're doing fine!

I mean, it certainly can work; you're just not as versatile a party. But I suppose versatility isn't really a must, so much as a want, when I really think about it. It's nice to fill all the roles, but overcoming adversity is part of the fun of D&D, and a well-rounded party doesn't encounter as much adversity.

Should we call classes or just show up with characters and hope they mesh well?

I'd rather the surprise over meta gaming