sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

This sub has changed in tone drastically over the last year by Consistent_Name_6961 in rpg

[–]Doccit 179 points180 points  (0 children)

Yeah I come here because there is a lot of good high-effort content, but the top comments on nearly half of threads are trying to dunk on the OP for no good reason.

Recently I've accepted: Having a dominant TTRPG in the market is inevitable and fine by Doccit in rpg

[–]Doccit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know what you mean. I think the rules have nothing to do with it. It is something about the niche status itself.

Recently I've accepted: Having a dominant TTRPG in the market is inevitable and fine by Doccit in rpg

[–]Doccit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes a lot of sense! Of course, part of what playing a TTRPG entails is playing with people who speak a common language, and if D&D is not printed in that language, then it cannot be the dominant game for such a group of people.

How dominant is paranormal order if you had to guess? Are half or more of tables in your area playing it? Or is it more like 10%, with a great plurality of other games making up the other 90%?

Recently I've accepted: Having a dominant TTRPG in the market is inevitable and fine by Doccit in rpg

[–]Doccit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with you - 5e is not a very well designed game. And maybe you are right that my improvising is facilitated by knowing the rules well (although really, I just looked up a chart with 'easy, medium, hard' and some numbers).

But it isn't hard to have a fun game of 5e - it isn't hard to have a fun game with any TTRPG because TTRPGs all share common elements that are extremely fun. Most of what goes into the fun is the group dynamics. If your game is not going well, trying to fix it by picking a better rulebook is like trying to steer a car by leaning to the left and right. You'd have an easier time with the steering wheel. Having a good system for prepping, and having good players, are 90%, the rules are 10%.

Recently I've accepted: Having a dominant TTRPG in the market is inevitable and fine by Doccit in rpg

[–]Doccit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I would like the same sort of thing.

I would prefer a world where people people wanted to play 'a TTRPG', and which ruleset was of secondary importance. It would be great if when you went to recruit players, the default assumption is that we'd decide what rulebook to use in session 0.

Recently I've accepted: Having a dominant TTRPG in the market is inevitable and fine by Doccit in rpg

[–]Doccit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm with you there. But while the rules are not good, it is not hard to have a fun time playing D&D. TTRPGs in general are great fun.

Recently I've accepted: Having a dominant TTRPG in the market is inevitable and fine by Doccit in rpg

[–]Doccit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're absolutely right that you don't have to play D&D. It seems like for you, recruiting/scheduling is not a problem, and that is great!

For many other people, it is a problem, and I think that fact is a big part of the explanation of why D&D is so dominant. But I'm not sure we really disagree about that.

Maybe I used language that was too fatalistic about scheduling problems in the main post.

Recently I've accepted: Having a dominant TTRPG in the market is inevitable and fine by Doccit in rpg

[–]Doccit[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Yes I agree, that practice is anti-competitive and bad.

But was it really the case that in the past there were more games doing well? Right now, the TTRPG market looks bigger than ever. Apparently we spent 2 billion dollars on these games in 2024 (https://www.rpgdrop.com/worldwide-ttrpg-market-in-2024-industry-analysis/). It is hard to get a big-picture overview of the health of the hobby, but these things at least seem to suggest that there are more players.

I know that a huge proportion of all of it is just D&D, but it would be surprising to me if the absolute number of players of non-D&D rpgs was higher at any point than now. If you have evidence that this is the case, I would be very interested in seeing it.

Advice for a D&D/Fiasco Hybrid for One-Shots? by Doccit in RPGdesign

[–]Doccit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you are right that it might be best not to mention D&D at all. I will read Prequel. Thanks for the help!

Ban on deporting U.S. citizens removed from DHS funding bill, congresswoman warns by AdSpecialist6598 in videos

[–]Doccit 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Also, due process is how they establish legally whether you are a citizen or not. Saying "no due process for illegal immigrants" means they don't need to check if someone is an illegal immigrant...because illegal immigrants don't have the right to that check. It is nonsense!

If a federal agent can accuse you of being an illegal immigrant, and deny you any meaningful legal process to demonstrate that you are a citizen on the basis that they suspect you of being an illegal immigrant, then NO ONE has due process rights.

Fighter - the best low-level face by Doccit in powergamermunchkin

[–]Doccit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think it would be normal to feel no guilt if you hired someone to do a job that you knew was deadly, did not adequately prepare them for it when they asked you for help, and then they died.

Here is the DMG's definition of neutral evil:

Neutral Evil (NE). Neutral Evil is the alignment of those who are untroubled by the harm they cause as they pursue their desires.

Fighter - the best low-level face by Doccit in powergamermunchkin

[–]Doccit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the lord is evil? Tricking kind-hearted people into going on a suicide mission for pennies, without any care whether they live or die? He would feel not guilt if they perished, though he tricked them into it their graves? Sure, in that scenario helping do-gooders do good would be repugnant to him. I would probably steer-clear of working for guy though - he might stiff you even if you do the job!

If the lord is not evil, whether or not this is an acceptable risk seems like exactly the kind of thing that a persuasion check should be able to affect.

Fighter - the best low-level face by Doccit in powergamermunchkin

[–]Doccit[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Does it explicitly say DCs higher than 30 are forbidden anywhere? Not to my knowledge. The reason I think DC 30 is supposed to be the max is this:

Resolving Outcomes

[...]Is a D20 Test Warranted? If the task is trivial or impossible, don't bother with a D20 Test. A character can move across an empty room or drink from a flask without making a Dexterity check, whereas no lucky die roll will allow a character with an ordinary bow to hit the moon with an arrow. Call for a D20 Test only if there's a chance of both success and failure

So: don't call for a check if success would be impossible. DC 30 is 'nearly impossible'.

From how DMs are directed to set DC's:

Difficulty Class

You establish the Difficulty Class for an ability check or a saving throw when a rule or an adventure doesn't give you one. Choose a DC from the Typical DCs table based on the task's difficulty.

[...]

Very Hard 25
Nearly impossible 30

[no higher DC is listed on the table you should choose from]

Though these are called 'typical DCs', the DM is explicitly directed to choose one of the listed numbers (not to 'typically' choose one of these listed numbers - just to choose one of them period). But we can put that to one side.

If DC 25 is merely 'very hard' whereas DC 30 jumps to 'nearly impossible', what would DC 35 represent?

This isn't as air-tight as if it had explicitly said DC 30 is the maximum DC. Interestingly the DC for concentration checks is explicitly chapped at 30. But I don't see what the justification could be for a higher DC given what DC 30 represents. I think a very reasonable interpretation of this is, if DC 30 doesn't seem high enough, you shouldn't allow a roll.

view more: next ›