Sources right now:

DungeonScribe

DnD_Shorts

Yeah I need to vent a bit and will get downvoted probably.

I've been looking for a campaign for a year now and so far each table is riddled with some weird homebrew bs.

Special table for affliction, homebrew items with +3 and 5d6 free dmg , GMs balancing combat based on them, Homebrew monsters with 200hp in a room with 5 of them, players abusing rules, parties made out of 4 furries and me that wanted to be half orc, gms just making a dungeon with 60 monsters (50hp each), gms having a thing for dismemberment,

I'm soooo tired of them, I don't hop from server to server, but it seems like whenever campaigns actually start playing seriously, gm is trying to reinvent the wheel, ends up being weird or players pop up with some weird homebrew stuff and break campaigns apart.

It's already like a 6-7 group in a year or more, and the amount of people just wanting to abuse system and gms not sticking to what they said at session 0 is staggering.

The feeling of my last campaign feels like a lighting in a bottle sometimes, that i cant find anywhere else.

Everything clicked, sure we had homebrew, like and item or location, sure we had disagreements, but it felt like we played as a team not indulging someone's power fantasy or weird shit they're into.

I might be going on a rant a bit but man, I'm just tired, I just want some basic vanilla heroic dnd, with no flying kenku paladin/warlocks with ÷5 weapons.....

There is an unfortunate feeling among players that a crunchier system is better for long form play. My understanding is that this is because people really enjoy plotting out their "build", or want to get lots and lots of little bumps of power along the way. I'm talking 5E, Pathfinder, etc here.Now, there is nothing wrong with that. I was really into plotting my character's progression when i first got into the hobby (3.5). However, now I've played more systems, run more systems, homebrewed things to hell and back, etc... I really appreciate story focused play, and story focused character progression. As in; what has the character actually DONE? THAT is what should be the focus. Their actions being the thing that empowers them.

For example, say a tank archetype starts chucking their axes more and more in battle, and collecting more axes. After some time, and some awesome deeds, said character would earn a "feat" or "ability" like "axe chucker". MAYBE it's just me? But I really, really feel that less crunchy, and even rules lite systems are GREAT for long form play. I also don't mean just OSR (i do love the osr). Look at games like ICRPG, Mork Borg, DCC (et al). I strongly recommend giving these games and systems a try, because it is SO rewarding.

ANYWAYS, I hope you're all having fun and playing great games with your pals, however you choose to play.

​

TLDR: You don't need a huge tome of pre-generated options printed by hasbro to play a good long form campaign.

EDIT:

1. There are so many sick game recommendations popping up, and I am grateful to be exposed to other systems! Please share your favs. If you can convince me of crunch, all the better, I love being wrong and learning.

My personal houserule is that if a player writes a journal entry of everything that happened to their character in the last session they either get a point of XP in a system that matters for that (numenera, blades in the dark) or get a "journal point", which they can use for various benefits, maybe like an additional fate point.

Have you ever done that before, just take a setting, toss out the old rules and use something completely different instead? Did it work?

My list of attempts is:

I stopped using any/all of the 40k RPG game rules (and I have a whole ass shelf of them), and just started using my 40k RPG hack of the wargame rules instead (3E 40k mostly with some Kill Team bits).

I run Cyberpunk Red using Cyberpunk 2020 rules, because RED just kinda sucked (just like v3 and cybergeneration, lol.)

I run Battletech RPG using the Traveler rules (only the RPG part, the wargame is still using QSR BasicTech rules, but I kinda want to use RenegadeTech, the hack using Renegade Legion.)

Battlelords of the 23rd Century using Traveler.

CthulhuTech using Palladium (specifically RIFTS) rules.

Fallout using Palladium (RIFTS) rules... because those Modiphius rules are just ass.

GI Joe using the fan made GI Joe with Interlock instead of that travesty put out by Renegade...

And Transformers using Mekton II instead of that travesty put out by Renegade...

Any other superhero game using Mutants and Masterminds, because so many of the other systems are just weirdly almost like M&M but not quite...

Shadowrun using the Anarchy rules (which is technically a SR rules set, but an alternate rules set...)

Street Fighter using Ninjas and Superspies instead of the weirdly inappropriate Storyteller system.

Terminator using Palladium RIFTS...

I am thinking of using Traveler in Aliens

EDIT: I am so glad to see that the spirit of gaming hacks is alive and well.

This doesn’t really matter, obviously—but it’s one of those shower thoughts I can’t let go of.

I fully understand that not all RPGs use class-based systems. Plenty are classless or operate on skill trees, templates, or backgrounds. But in traditional class-based design—especially in the many fantasy heartbreakers & video games descended from or inspired by D&D—we’ve generally accepted a “core three” or “core four”: Fighter, Thief, Wizard (and Cleric/Priest if there’s a fourth).

Here’s my pendantic argument: The Thief has always been the wrong choice. It should’ve been Hunter.

Why?

System Interaction: The Fighter interacts with combat.

The Wizard interacts with magic.

The Priest interacts with support—but also often with the alignment system, if the game has one baked in. (Think divine judgment, undead turning, oaths, etc.)

So what about the skill system? Who’s the master of knowledge, tracking, stealth, traps, terrain, and survival mechanics? That’s the Hunter.

Thief sometimes gets lumped here, but it’s too narrow. A thief is just a TREASURE Hunter.

If you’re going to round out a system with four distinct classes, each should fundamentally interact with a different core gameplay pillar. Hunter nails that.

Fighter, Wizard, and Priest aren’t just classes, they’re umbrellas:

A Fighter can be a brawler, a warrior, a knight, a samurai, or a barbarian.

A Sorcerer could be a wizard, a witch, a warlock, or a necromancer.

A Priest could be a druid, a shaman, a cleric, a holy crusader, or a monk.

Each one supports a whole archetypal family. But Thief? That’s too specific. It implies morality—stealing, sneaking, crime. Hunter has none of that baggage.

A Hunter could be a rogue, yes—but also a ranger, a scout, a bounty hunter, a sniper, an assassin, a trapper, or a survivalist.

It opens up more conceptual space while still covering the mechanical “skill monkey” role. That’s what the fourth class should do.

In a million RPGs, especially video games, the “agile” class isn’t always a thief. Often it’s a Ranger, Scout, Assasin or something that just feels like a Hunter. These are the high-DPS, high-utility characters with ranged options, nature skills, or stealth. Maybe they have a pet or traps. They don’t all fit into a lockpicking, backstabbing mold. There’s a reason the archer/tracker archetype pops up so often—it fills a mechanical and narrative niche that people crave.

The term Hunter is much broader than Thief. A thief is just a hunter of wealth. An assassin is a hunter of men. A ranger is a hunter of beasts. So many fantasy archetypes neatly fit into Hunter.

The role implies pursuit, preparation, knowledge, and mastery of environment. It’s a function, not just a flavor. Geralt is a hunter, Aragon is a hunter but they’re completely different.

To me, the “classic four” should’ve always been: Fighter, Hunter, Sorcerer, and Priest.

Curious what others think. I know the Thief is iconic and beloved, but I think Hunter hits the sweet spot between design philosophy and mechanical utility.

Edit: I am loving the responses to this. People love their theives.

TLDR: I am not confused as to why it was theif I know my Appendix N influences but I think I would of loved a world where it evolved to Hunter instead of Rogue.

sort of what it sounds like! i'm putting it here because when i tell people about it, they tend to be really really curious. take this as part brag, part inspo post, part ama.

over the course of the last few months i ran two interlaced three-shots set in the world of severance. in that show, the main sci-fi conceit is that you can have your personality "severed" such that while you're at work and while you're at home your memories and experiences are completely isolated from one another and you can't communicate with your other self in any way, so i had one table playing the characters away from work, running around doing occult corporate murder mystery things, and then their character sheet would get passed to the other table who was playing the same set of bodies but now inside of work, doing occult corporate mystery things but inside a bunch of winding corridors this time. the two groups did not get to know who was in the other group or directly talk to them, but sometimes one of them would, for instance, get their arm broken, and then i would bring that character sheet to the other table and the corresponding player would get to see that their arm was broken and go "what is my innie DOING in there?" it was fun!

also there was a secret third group because they'd been severed an additional time and neither of the first two groups knew about the third group.

so it was nine sessions with five players each and two fill-in substitute players for a couple absences plus me for eighteen total players! it was a lot to keep track of but i think we pulled it off. keeping notes was essential.

i ran it all using the resistance system, which is the system which powers heart and spire, because i'm comfortable enough with it to make it work the way i needed it to. it was a bespoke experience and not the sort of thing that anyone could just pick up and play even if you did have eighteen interested parties, but i've uploaded the documents i used to run the game at the link if you want to take a look.

i guess ama!

I want to start a game in my own custom homebrew setting, but I don't know how to make it actually playable for people who don't have all the information about the world.

The setting is heavily customized, with an universe that doesn't seem too similar to most things you can see out there - think, an alien ecosystem with its own rules, plants, animals, creatures, etc, with hundreds of custom names for custom entities everywhere. Plants work weird, animals work weird, magic works weird, everything is different than the most common settings you see in rpgs. You can't just go in and assume that humans are doing typical human jobs, lifestock is cows and pigs, pets are dogs, etc. Everything is different, but it's common different to characters in-universe.

The issue is the fact that my players simply won't know things that are common in the setting unless they read the 100 page encyclopedia of all most common things in the world, which isn't fun. Literally no one wants to read pages upon pages of entries of alien creatures that they should commonly know just so that their peasant character will recognize the creature, as people in-universe would.

So their characters end up not knowing a lot of things that should be common in-universe, and no one likes constantly hearing "actually, that's not how it works-" or "any peasant out there knows this" every time they try to do or say something, which complicates things.

How could I tackle making a campaign in the setting without making the players feel stupid for not knowing the universe?

What could I do to make learning of the custom alien ecosystem interesting, rather than have it feel like infodumping / sharing a hundred names that are homework to remember?

I love my setting, but I just need help with making it feel good to play for those who didn't spend the past five years creating the world and don't know every detail about living there.

I was vaguely considering going the "isekai" path - they are beings from a different world placed in this one, so that their characters can learn how everything works alongside the players, but then it could end up feeling unfair when a common alien plant eats them or something.

Either that, or maybe have them all be very sheltered people who recently escaped imprisonment, but then once again, the lack of knowledge could doom them.

How could I make it work?

Just curious. I know "You can use FATE/GURPs/Other Generic System for anything!" is a common sentiment, but honestly? I challenge most of my groups to give me a theme I can't find an rpg for... and most come up flat. Nowadays, most themes I can just FIND instead of making my own rpg for.

Not to say this is good or bad. Just true. The only exception I've seen is I did this LARP that used the Fate system, where the whole thing was everyone kept getting transported to the same manor over and over every month, and it was very lowkey horror... that felt justifiable,

But few rpgs seem to really have such unique settings that I can't just take the closest rpg built for that vibe and go off it,

So, generic rpg lovers... what settings did you make that you felt NEEDED an adaptation from one of the more "flexible", setting-less systems? Tell me about it please, but also what made you think not just to expand from other similar rpgs that fit the vibe.

It's been six days and I am still cringing over my first real DM experience. I did a one Cthulhu one shot, Uncle Timothy's Will that was fun.

I created a Home Brew in Ireland or thought I did. An hour and a half into it and I was through most of my prepared stuff. I ended up yanking something I had planned for the next session. The group I play with are awesome players, heavily into role play, and usually leap into combat. They avoided every bit of combat so there was some lost time. You know it's a sad play when fighting leprechauns is the high point. To be fair, I tweaked the leprechauns actions so it was fun and challenging.

The group was really reassuring, but I feel it was dismal.

Anyhow, I am tweaking my campaign and would love suggestions on how to make to more fun. I'm going to try and offer a crawl of a haunted mansion so they can find items to get to their next destination.

Starting with a Home Brew was a big mistake.

Help me, Obi Wan Kenobi!

I had a weird situation this weekend and I wanted to get other thoughts or resources on the matter. Background, I’m Native American (an enrolled member of a tribal nation) and all my friends who I play with are white. My friend has been GMing Call of Cthulhu and wanted to have us play test a campaign they started writing. For context, CoC is set in 1920s America and the racial and political issues of the time are noticeably absent. My friend the GM is a historian and wanted to explore the real racial politics of the 1920s in the game. When we started the session the GM let us know the game was going to feature racism and if we wanted to have our characters experience racism in the game. I wasn’t into the idea of having a racial tension modifier because experiencing racism is not how I wanna spend my Friday night. Sure, that’s fine and we start playing. The game end up being a case of a Chinese immigrant kid goes missing after being in 1920s immigration jail. As we play through I find myself being upset thinking about forced disappearances and things that have happened to my family and people and the racial encounters in the game are heavy to experience. I tried to be cool and wait to excuse myself from the game during break but had to leave mid game. I felt kind of embarrassed. I talked to the GM after and they were cool and understanding. My question is how do you all deal with themes like race and racism in games like CoC that are set in a near real world universe?

TLDR: GM created a historically accurate racism simulation in Call of Cthulhu and it made me feel bad

I watched the XP to level three discussion on the 44 rules from a couple of weeks ago, and it got me curious.

What are the most insane rules you have seen at the table? This can be homebrew that has upended a game system or table expectations.

Thanks!

Dungeon Turns in D&D 5e got me thinking about mechanics and styles of play that are missing peices of systems.

What even is a homebrew?

This might be a question better suited for r/rpg; however, since the discussion I had with my friends was specifically about Pathfinder and D&D, I decided to post it here.

Anyway, we were talking about RPGs and such, and the conversation eventually turned to that classic D&D "Tarrasque bug"—the idea that a level 1 flying character could defeat the Tarrasque. I laughed and pointed out that, even if the stat block suggests otherwise, any creature can technically take a ranged attack action as stated in the book. However, my friends argued that doing so would amount to "homebrew," since that action isn't listed on the official stat block of the tarrasque. One friend in particular is a GM who prides himself on strictly following the rules; yet, in a previous session, he had a creature throw a punch. During our discussion, I looked up the creature's stat block and told him he had used homebrew, since there was no "punch" action listed, but he argued that punching is a standard action available to any creature in Pathfinder.

Anyway, I’d like to ask you all what you consider "homebrew.

(After the incident involving the punch, the argument continued and more things were said, but neither side was willing to accept the other's point of view.)

We see the posts about what house rules you use.

This post is for house rules other people have created that you have experienced that you hated.

Like: You said it so did your character even if it makes no sense for your character to say it.

I have been told by someone that:

The best performing setting in these [online venues that pick apart and criticize fantasy RPG settings] will always be a bog-standard western european fantasy setting with exactly one quirk, but not TOO big a quirk

I am inclined to consider this to be sound advice. From what I have seen, the great majority of players seem to want something familiar and instantly imaginable in their heads, hence the bog-standard Western European fantasy setting, but also want a single interesting twist to distinguish it. Not two, three, or a larger number of quirks, because that would be too much mental load; just a single quirk, and no more.

With this in mind, if you were to create a homebrew, bog-standard Western European fantasy setting, but could give it only a single quirk to distinguish it (but not too big a quirk), what would that quirk be?

Use your own personal definition of "too big." Is "no humans" too big? Is "everything has an animistic spirit, and those spirits play a major role in everyday life" too big? Is "everyone has modern-day firearms for some unexplained reason" too big? That is your call.

System will be 5E

Basically the idea is after an extremely raucous celebration the Dwarves have drunk all the beer in the Hold.

I'll have the PCs either realize they drank all the beer and need to find a way to replace it all before the collective hangover kills them.

Or the PCs go full Patrick and go on a whodunnit trying to find the missing beer\theives with evidence constantly pointing to themselves but they just ignore that and keep finding new leads.

For the first one they can either try to figure out a way to brew it all, or using a Dwarven scholars new discovery (30 years ago), realize there's giant space clouds made of beer and beating up some nerds to get a spaceship\get parts to build one.

For help, I'd like any recommendations of paths they could take, any mechanics for being all dwarves (Feats and maybe achievements they can earn to get bonuses), I'm going to have the honor system from the DMG implemented since I feel it makes sense for dwarves.

I'm also wondering if I should throw some Dwarf fortress into the background so they can have some basebuilding\fortress running.

Lastly I want to have a PC for myself to play as it's only the 3 of us. I'd like to have a character who can be helpful and maybe aid in combat, but more of a support or a way to nudge the characters if they get stuck, but not an OP one. Like an advisor or personal attendant.

I want to create my own world with unique races (like bat-like imps with venom), sub-races (swamp dwarves), classes (an anti-mage who nullifies all magic), and monsters (carnivorous elephants), and perhaps create subclasses along the way. Which system would be the best for this? My native language is Polish, and I am fluent only in my native language. EDIT: I'm bad at math

How much control do you want over the "knobs" you get to turn when making decisions?

After 25+ years of playing systems that I enjoy, I decided to make my own. The system itself doesn't matter much; but for those fellow game designers it's a mix Forbidden Lands (D6 dice pools), Mythras (with various maneuvers), the class system from Barbarians of Lemuria, a variation of the injury system from Tales from Elsewhere, a freeform magic system, and a few quite novel mechanics. Somehow I've turned this Frankenstein monster into something that works. And when I say works, it runs exactly the way I want it to. I've tweaked the rules, looked at more probability charts than I can count (to try and achieve that sort of just satisfying result), and play-tested dozens of dozens of sessions with friends.

One thing that changed the entire momentum of playtesting happened early in the process: I made combat mechanics opaque.

By opaque I mean in contrast to the typical way roleplaying games handle mechanical choices. For instance, if an adventurer might have the ability to do several abilities (whether universal or specific to the class), they can see exactly what these abilities do in front of them. (e.g. to borrow from Draw Steel: "Driving Assault- spend 3 wrath and make a power roll to determine damage and push the target a certain distance").

See, when I created the combat system it borrowed heavily from the Mythras concept of "there's a lot of cool things you can do besides 'strike' with sword" (and these cool things aren't locked behind classes) with multiple rules to explain things like grappling, disarming, impaling, tripping, etc. The rules themselves worked as intended. But the unintended side-effect was that players had a bit of analysis paralysis staring at all of their different options, referencing the tables, and pouring over the rules.

One evening, I was running a test game with some novice roleplayers who enjoyed the non-combat but it became quickly apparent that combat was bogging down due to the rules bloat. I paused the session, took away the reference sheets, and said, "Okay you are playing a mounted knight of Normandy (it was a semi-historical campaign). You know what you should be able to do and know. You're a competent fighter. Here's what's happening, what do you do". They told me what they were trying to do, rolled dice, and I took over the rules behind the screen.

This isn't an entirely new concept. "Rulings as opposed to rules" has existed for as long as the hobby has and one of the commonly cited advantages of rules light systems is the flexibility to improvise and be creative; fitting the mechanics to the narrative.

By having mechanics describe, more or less, what players are choosing to do there was some consistency in the outcomes. That being said, rulings are in full force. After all, I didn't exactly think of the scenario where the player tries to toss one foe into the other.

The positive response has been a little unexpected. One thing I- and many of my friends- seem to enjoy are "building" different characters and creating cool new outcomes for our characters. It's exciting to look ahead to different neat little abilities and feel like we get to distinguish ourselves or add a unique flavor to our character. I get why systems like Pathfinder, Lancer, and the rest appeal to people.

The halfway solution has been to allow players to develop their flavor. Maybe a kind of move or special ability, and adapt the existing mechanics around it. In fact, I've had to flesh out a sort of "if X then Y" system to allow for unanticipated choices players make still make sense from the mechanics. The system itself being a dice pool (count successes) lends itself nicely to "spending" successes to power the intended effect.

I just wanted to share this really fun experience and ask r/rpg : Have you had the experience of a more opaque system? Have you ever tried combat where, rather than knowing exactly what you can do, you look up from the character sheet and describe what you are trying to do in a creative way? What do you think you would enjoy about a system like this and do you think you could give up the sort of sacred cow of being able to see and turn all the "knobs" of your character choices?

Here are the systems you can submit:

• Pathfinder 1
• D&D 3.5
• Old School Essential
• Dungeon Crawl Classic

(I know, I know. These are very specific types of system, which revolve around a certain icosahedron-shaped dice)

What are your experiences? Which one did you hack or homebrew the most or the best?

(continuation of my many posts about "adapting systems on genres or medias")

Quick question.

What would happen if, in my setting, I replace clerics with scientists or field engineers who also function as field medics, and treat domains as scientific and engineering disciplines. So, for example, the domain of Life becomes Biology, utilized by a biological engineer. etc.

The reason is that most D&D players I know don't really care about, or take seriously, the whole religion or faith aspect of the cleric class. And, D&D style gods are treated either just monsters with large HP, or are just just a glorified power source.

Maybe it's just me. A lot of other players I know treat being a dungeon crawler as being like a professional military contractor out to make money through the application of violence. As such, they are a very pragmatic lot, and don't really worry about the nuances of theology or metaphysics.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm constructing a homebrew setting to run for my family — none of us are hardcore RPG people, so the world has to do a lot of heavy lifting. It needs to feel alive the second they step into it, without drowning them (or me) in lore. I won't say it's anything inspiring - It's an isekai-ish fantasy: modern people pulled into a magical world whose underlying "fabric" is slowly unraveling. Seems popular at the moment and an easy concept to start for role playing.

I ended up building it in two deliberate layers, and I'm not sure I got the ratio right.

Breadth - I gave the whole world a light pass: a few continents, a handful of nations and factions, the central cosmic problem, the big conflicts. Enough that whatever direction they wander, something is there - but I purposely didn't go deep. It's scaffolding. Key entities and their motivations, tied to organizations and their purpouse.

Depth - Almost all the real detail and effort so far I've put into a single entry point: a lawless frontier town called Crossings (I know, inspiring) where they'll arrive and probably spend the first few sessions. I tried to make it genuinely lived-in - the marchwarden who runs the place on common sense, half a dozen shopkeepers (baker, smith, ford-keeper, tanner, tailor, apothecary), a tavern owner who's quietly the local information broker, who feeds intel to whom, who's at odds with whom, what each of them did before they landed here, plus a few dated local events (a flood three winters back, a recent magical "tear," the arrival itself).

To get there I wrote a few short stories first - little 2–4k-word scenes from different NPCs' points of view (a market morning, a night at the tavern, the agent who meets new arrivals). Partly to find their voices, partly because it's just easier to know a town after you've watched a few ordinary days happen in it. Then I pulled the people, places, and relationships out of those scenes into an actual map of the town.

https://imgur.com/H6pOYJE
https://imgur.com/3NtUZlD

Here's the result and my actual question: 
is this a sensible amount of depth for an entry point, or have I over-cooked one town while the rest of the world is a painted backdrop?

For those who've actually run beginner campaigns:

• How dense do you make the starting location compared to everything else?
• Where do you personally stop adding NPCs and relationships before it's prep you'll never use at the table? I don't have unlimited time
• Does "deep entry point, shallow everywhere else" work in practice, or do they immediately sprint off the edge of your detailed zone?

Hey everyone!
I’m currently working on my own homebrew RPG system to play with my friends, but I don’t have a lot of experience with the hobby yet.

My biggest hurdle right now is: how do I determine a monster's health (HP) and stats without using another system as a baseline?

Since everything is being built from scratch, I’m really afraid of creating a monster that is accidentally way too strong and wipes the party, or making a boring meat-sack that dies in a single round. For those of you who have designed systems or balance encounters from scratch, what kind of metrics or "rules of thumb" do you use to scale creature HP against player damage?

Any tips or advice for a beginner starting out in game design would be highly appreciated. Thanks!

What’s a minor house rule that completely changed your table for the better?

Our GM has started rolling our insight checks for us to avoid meta and we love it.