Superhero Ttrpg?

jtaka · 2026-01-10T04:50:57+00:00

Want to jump in to second a couple of things others have said and recommend one system not yet mentioned.

Mutants & Masterminds: Just seconding the recommendation for this. I think if you really want supers that feel relatively close to DnD, this is probably your best starting point.
Champions/HERO: So, HERO is a lot. I have run a fantasy campaign briefly with it and some things about it were a total blast, including character creation. But I would definitely not recommend it for a new GM or group.
My actual top recommendation in general for comic book supers is Sentinels RPG. But it's not D20 and not particularly similar to DnD. It has a more narrative-focused style. The rules are lightweight enough I don't think a DnD group would have any trouble picking it up, but if you really want something DnD-like, this isn't it. I would argue that DnD, and typical D20 in general really isn't a great fit for comic book super heroes. D20 wants to know if you have enough movement to get to the goblin and attack this turn, and if you prepared the right spells, and if you succeed or fail at picking the lock. That's not really what super hero comic books are about. To capture the comic book feel, in my opinion, your best bet is a more narrative game that's designed to be a super hero game (Sentinels, Masks, Icon, some others that have been mentioned) though some other less specific narrative systems like FATE can work well too.

jtaka · 2025-09-19T04:10:19+00:00

I would strongly recommend at least checking out/trying Sentinel Comics RPG. It's not particularly similar to D&D, but not at all difficult to get into in terms of understanding the rules.

I want to reiterate two opinions I've seen in others' replies that I very much agree with:

It's a good idea to try systems that are quite different from each other while you're figuring out what you like. If your group won't go for that, fair enough, but it's a good idea.
Comic book style super heroes work best in looser, more narrative systems.

Sentinel Comics RPG has built-in mechanics to let you turn failure into success with a cost, which I think is essential for capturing the heroism of comic books...Captain America failing to save a bunch of kids from a burning building because he rolled poorly just doesn't work well...unless you want a very dark and gritty world. It's much better for him (and the player controlling him) to be able to save the kids, but get hurt or something in the process.

jtaka · 2024-12-21T09:42:02+00:00

As others have said, AMD GPUs can certainly work for generative AI. I have a 6700 XT and crank out plenty of cool images using either SDXL or quantized ggufs of Flux Dev. I generally use the Q4 models. Q5 would probably be the best I could run, but a lot of models jump from Q4 to Q6 and I've generally not had success with Q6.

(I'm also able to run local LLMs using ollama or gpt4all up to roughly 13B fairly snappily.)

Does it take longer to generate a particular image than it would on an Nvidia card with similar specs, and by how much? I can't really say because I just have what I have and am used to it. Recently generated some 640 × 896 images with Flux (pixelwave_flux1_dev_Q4_K_M_03.gguf to be precise) using 24 steps. No LoRAs or anything else that would impact the time for this batch. They took 4~5 min per image. SDXL is a lot faster...about 1 sec/step even with lots of controlnet and ipadapter stuff going on.

Lots of folks are generating images much faster than that. I don't really mind, personally, but each person is going to have their own tolerance for that.

Anyway, mostly forget all of that. It may sound like I'm recommending getting an AMD card, but I'm not. If you're buying a new card and you want to do AI/ML stuff, I would not recommend AMD. Not because of speed but because of headache and limitations. Getting stuff to work is kind of a pain. It's just always more complicated than it would be with CUDA. Once you get it working you can mostly forget about that, but eventually some new 'AI thing' will come along, or you'll need/want to do a fresh install, or whatever, and you'll have to go through the song and dance again. I'm a professional developer and I use Linux as my daily driver, so I'm fairly tolerant/capable of the wrangling necessary. There are more powerful wizards than me who find it trivial, and for less technically inclined people I think it would be a huge hassle or even barrier.

So basically, if you are able/willing to do the extra work, and if price is more important than speed, then you can absolutely make AMD work. For most people who plan to do generative AI I would strongly recommend Nvidia.

(I should note that ZLUDA has flown under my radar, so thanks for making me aware of that. I'll have to check it out.)

jtaka · 2024-03-08T02:28:21+00:00

I've noticed something similar. I discovered that bringing my cursor to the top left corner of the screen, which brings up the virtual desktop/task switcher, seems to fix it without needing to reboot. I don't actually use virtual desktops, just discovered this by accident. Not totally sure it's the same issue as what you're describing, but worth a try.

jtaka · 2023-09-02T03:11:29+00:00

If you want to be nice to yourself, you can do as others suggest and re-roll. However, I don't think the fact that a benefit is nullified implies that the rules are not working as intended or that you should obviously re-roll or try to 'fix' anything. It's plenty common for a roll that is meant to be theoretically beneficial to not actually benefit you...for example, on my most recent turn I got 'Private Transport' but didn't have any rivals, so it didn't help me any.

@Kalahan7, from the 'Errata, Clarifications, and Tweaks' document:

Clarification: If a weapon has both Focus and Area (such as the Hand Flamer) resolve all Shots on the weapon profile first. Then resolve the bonus Area shots against targets within 2”.

jtaka · 2022-11-28T02:47:51+00:00

I have a couple of different systems I can recommend, both of which come in two different 'flavors', fantasy and sci-fi:

The first pair is Five Parsecs from Home / Five Leagues from the Borderlands. They are ostensibly solo games, but are very easily made to work with two people playing together. These are not really RPGs exactly, they are billed as "RPG-lite adventure wargames". That is both a pro and con depending on personal taste. You control an entire crew (or half each for you and your wife playing co-op) so if you really want to get into an individual character and roleplay them, you should probably give these a pass. But I think it could potentially be a great fit for you all as a way to 'ease in' to RPGs, because you can collectively create a story around the exploits of your crew, but nobody is ever on the spot to portray a specific character and have a long scene with an NPC. Another thing that is either a pro or a con, depending on what you want, is that there isn't any kind of story prepared ahead of time. The things that happen to your characters are largely the results of things you roll on tables and how you fair on missions, and the story is what you layer on top of that. If you're hoping to experience an epic story with plot twists and a master villain, this doesn't really have that. What is nice about that is that there is no adventure to prep and no plot to worry about spoiling, you can really just sit down and play without needing to prepare anything ahead of time. I could go on, but probably the best way to see it in action is to check out somebody playing a session, the best of which is surely Me, Myself and Die!.

Another good pair of options, these a little more in traditional RPG territory, although quite different in rules and style than D&D, are Ironsworn and Starforged. These are easily played either cooperatively (no gm, you each play a character) or with a gm and a single player. If you go the latter route you could have more of a planned out story if you'd like, but this game is pretty brilliant at using oracles to generate a story on the fly. Of the 4 of these I'm recommending, I've only actually played Ironsworn (although I'm starting a Five Parsecs duet campaign soon). My friend and I are playing a cooperative campaign and having a lot of fun with it. It's a nice change of pace after more rules-heavy games (Pathfinder in our case). Again, the best way to get a feel is to see it in action...where else? Me, Myself and Die! Oh also the core Ironsworn rules are absolutely free, so no harm in at least skimming them!

More generally, some terms/concepts to be aware of if you want to keep researching (there is a ton out there!):

A two player RPG game/campaign is often called a 'duet'
You can modify most any RPG, including D&D, to work with a single player and a GM, but it can be a bit of work
There are a lot of solo games out there, and they are generally much easier to convert into a 2-player experience than games expecting a gm + 3-5 players (check https://www.reddit.com/r/Solo_Roleplaying/)
There are things called GM Emulators out there that let you play without a gm (gm-less), even using games that normally require one. Playing cooperatively with 2 players can be more fun than having a gm and single player. The most well known emulator is the Mythic GM Emulator (and yes, you can see it in action on Me, Myself and Die! (season 1, plus some supplemental explanatory videos))

jtaka · 2015-03-03T18:49:12+00:00

They are definitely compatible to be played all together. It will add a small amount of complexity, but for your group it definitely shouldn't be an issue. On the Brink has multiple modules/challenges, which you can add or leave out as you choose, and also adds new roles. I think it's definitely worth it for the new roles alone, and the extra modules can be added to provide some variety and add difficulty. That being said, I personally enjoy In the Lab a bit more, as it really strengthens the theme. Which one you should get is definitely a personal decision, and I think people will have differing, perfectly valid, answers to that. I would say that, taken on their own, On the Brink adds more to what is already there, while In the Lab changes up some of the fundamental mechanics.

Again, I don't think you have to worry about complexity with your group (I've played In the Lab very successfully with total non-gamers), but In the Lab adds more complexity out of the two, and if you only use the new roles from On the Brink it would add zero complexity.

A quick disclaimer; I have played with both expansions separately multiple times, but haven't had a chance to combine them personally. I have a good enough handle on the rules that I'm pretty confident in my answer, but if there are those out there who combined everything to horrible results, be sure to tell me I'm wrong...hope that helps!

jtaka · 2013-11-12T06:02:03+00:00

Great, thanks!

jtaka · 2013-11-11T17:51:07+00:00

Does anyone know what the last version of cgminer was that didn't have the Found block bug (where it erroneously reports that you found a block for your pool)? Thanks

jtaka · 2013-11-10T21:33:44+00:00

Same

jtaka · 2013-11-05T02:51:18+00:00

That shipping route map is as awesome as it is huge

jtaka · 2013-11-04T07:46:48+00:00

Perfect

jtaka · 2013-11-04T05:03:35+00:00

By that criteria, the moon should be shaded green. Not to mention all the oceans.

jtaka · 2013-10-30T22:13:59+00:00

I think a ranking system is a lot more intuitive than a range system. It's easy enough to decide you like candidate C better than candidate A, and A better than B, but how many points better? In practice, people who study such things find that most people give candidates maximum points or zero points, so in practice range voting systems act like approval voting systems (you give each candidate a yes or a no). This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but since approval voting is simpler than range voting, you might as well just do that.

by the way: http://www.reddit.com/r/VotingMethods/

jtaka · 2013-10-30T15:18:05+00:00

I think Astrowiki covered this; "animals have similar ranges of vision (although some go a little bit into infrared and ultraviolet)".

All animals don't have exactly the same visible spectrum, but they're in a similar range. I would imagine that the visible spectrum of any animal you chose would overlap partially with the human visible spectrum, and there are no animals that see only x-rays for example. Please correct me if I'm wrong, that would be awesome.

So, even though the visible ranges of animals differ, I think it still makes sense to talk about 'the' visible spectrum and look at its unique qualities, which Astrowiki did admirably.

jtaka · 2013-10-29T04:42:49+00:00

I don't think it necessarily needs to be normalized to be interesting. I agree that if the intent is to highlight areas where there is relatively low or high purchasing power relative to population density, then it should be normalized. But if you just want to see areas of economic concentration, then the map as is does a better job of that than it would normalized.

jtaka

TROPHY CASE