what tabletop rpg is the most like a video game rpg? everyone says to stop playing d&d but there are so many games I don't know what to look at. I looked into a few names that I have heard mentioned like gloomhaven but they seem kind of gimmicky. I am looking for a game with tactical map movement, resource management, and a class system with depth but not bloat. for the record I have played games using pathfinder and gurps and hated both of them.
 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
Knowing why you hated things would help. There's a lot of reasons someone could hate either of those things.
In any case, Kamigakari
I hated pathfinder because of the terrible class balance, the ivory tower game design, and lack of significant decision making beyond character builds. I hated gurps because of the "you can do anything" rules that I couldn't figure out how to use to make my character do anything mechanically interesting. in general though my problem with almost every rpg system I've encountered is that whether they are rules light or rules heavy, almost none of the rules are actually meaningful. you sit down at your table and over the course of 2-3 hours you roll dice a dozen times. was this meaningful gameplay that you would feel satisfied about paying $60 for if it were a video game, or is it just a glorified referee system so that guy can't just say "I kill all the bad guys and then convince the king to make me prime minister" without limitations? on a higher meta level my complaint is with the general idea that most tabletop rpg devs seem to have that the game doesn't need to be more than a glorified referee system and that engaging gameplay is only for video games.
I was interested in d&d 4e when it came out but I never got a chance to play it. my biggest complaint with it is that it seems to be filled with system bloat where you have tons of different classes that do mostly the same things with different flavor text.
I think your issue is more with questionable GMs than anything, but you're not wrong about 'lmaa guidelines,' being taken the wrong way in a lot of cases. Also what do you mean by 'without limitations?' The rules are there to arbitrate what's attempted, not to place limitations on what may be attempted.
If all you've gotten out of things as disparate as pathfinder and gurps is "You roll some dice and things happen," your GM was probably awful. Especially as the latter has some of the most actually interesting combat of anything I've played., (ymmv, but I've just not found better. But everyone has to know what the hell is going on and the game IS shit at teaching you.)
All in all, I'd look into jap shit. They're much more into the sort of mechanics you seem after. Honestly, if all you want is mechanically rigid play, you may actually want an adventure boardgame.
pathfinder tries to dress it up with obnoxious feat chains but unless you specifically built your character around one all you can really do as a martial is charge and full attack. for gurps you have to go out of your way to give your character any kind of special attack and I was the only one in the group that even tried.
Zombiecide or Betrayal at Baldur's Gate are fun, but op has no friends to play them with and the lack of balance amidst the "classes" is going to bother him. Maybe he wants a classless system. But then he'd make poor choices and complain still.
>Betrayal at Baldur's Gate
is this a reference to betrayal at krondor?
I don't understand how it can be the wrong genre when video game rpgs are based on tabletop rpgs.
for gloomhaven I only read a few reviews to see what it was like, but it seemed like encounters are basically randomly generated and play out on simple boards instead of having a game master that plans them out and draws a map for each one.
as for the criticisms of tabletop rpgs I have laid out I think they are absolutely about the system and not the players. compare a decision you make in a game like mtg to one you make in a tabletop rpg. in mtg say you have to decide whether to lightning bolt your opponent's llanowar elf. even though it's only turn 1 this is a decision that incorporates many of the game's mechanics like card advantage and tempo and will have significant impact on subsequent turns. in pathfinder or any of the tabletop rpgs I've played nothing feels like you are making an important decision. I move my guy up and attack because it's not like I can do anything else. I roll my skill check to climb a wall and whether it passes or fails is entirely non-interactive.
>I don't understand how it can be the wrong genre when video game rpgs are based on tabletop rpgs.
Well there's your problem. Modern videogame RPGs aren't based on tabletop RPGs.
They're based on videogame RPGs that are based on videogame RPGs that are based on videogame RPGs that were incredibly limited by technology in portraying tabletop RPGs on multiple levels.
You're confused why the real thing isn't like it's distorted inbred simulacrum.
I've still got this screencap laying around that sort of illustrates what TRPG decisnion making and shit is meant to be about. Most of it doesn't exist in the mechanical space, the mechanics are in service to the fiction. At least if your GM/Game isn't bad, or a bad match.
I really think you're in the wrong place, regardless, and that you're not going to find what you want here.
I made this thread because I was in another one about making your own systems and someone recommended using the game that is closest to what you want to make as your jumping off point. I guess there isn't anything like it though so I will just have to start from zero.
That's the best way to do it. About a year ago I wanted to play a Gladiator RPG. Turns out there are none. People suggested DarkSun (the setting), GURPS (which has something akin to it, but I dislike GURPS), to a lot of other RPGs, but setting it in an arena. None of those were what I wanted. So I sat down and looked at how I wanted to portray what I wanted to portray. I went from zero. I stole some mechanics here and there, since people did it a lot better than I could in some aspects. But the basic system is my own, I think. I might have stolen it from something without realizing it, but I don't think so. I don't know of an RPG that is roll stat, add stat number to each result (say your stat is 3, you roll 3 dice and add +3 to each result), and compare from highest to lowest. But it does what I want it to do, and now I have a Gladiator RPG I can run and play.
So if you want an RPG like that, start from what you enjoy in video games, and go from there. Start with the very basics. The dice. Do you want everything resolved with a d10, d6, d100? Or would you rather have a resource system (PP, MP, whatever else). Stuff like that. Then go from there. How is movement done, what are the actions per turn, then races and classes and skills. Leveling up and what that means. You have work ahead of you, but, if you put your mind to it, and more importantly have a group that will want to playtest your game, it's rewarding.
no, it's a reference to Betrayal at Baldur's Gate
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/228660/betrayal-baldurs-gate
A Dungeons and Dragons spinoff at Betrayal at the House on Haunted Hill that has some class thematic special abilities on the character cards. It's fun.
>for gloomhaven I never played the game
Nogaems
>then misunderstood its mechanics completely
Stupid
>and based all my opinions on that understanding.
judgy
>TTRPGs play out like board games instead of having a game master draw a map.
Black person, if you're not playing "theatre of the mind" exclusively TTRPGs will always feel like a board game to (you). More so because (you) want a vidya-like experience.
Other anons have said it. /tg/ is not for you. Play vidya. Enjoy. Don't waste your time trying to get into stuff that's clearly not your thing.
You've got some contradictions in there. I don't think anyone here can help you if you think class balance is important in a TTRPG. Maybe Final Fantasy 14 is the game for you.
I feel like based on this, and I am sure lots of anons will roast me for this, but at least you are sincere in your questioning. I don't think Table top RPGS are going to give you what you want. Some of your issues are 100% group based given what you've said. Despite that, I am going to say its just not the right genre in general since you seem to want a very specific game? At least, not any mainstream ones. Because they are social games by nature, so even the most rules crunchy, simulation game is going to run into - referee GM at some point, or referee with player at some point. Most TTRPGs are written with an eye toward the social/story experience.
I feel like board games/solo RPGs or solo games might be what you want. I don't know what makes Gloomhaven Gimicky to you, but it probably plays more like what you want, than what you don't want. Is it the cardplay? There's a lot of solo games or board games that are more gameplay focused and the "role play" is not really the focus but its not totally absent either.
I also feel like some of the critiques you have with games is a tad arbitrary like, GURPS - that is you and the group not really the system, the 4E issue - jyou don't need to engage with any of the classes you don't want to so their existance is kind of whatever? I don't see why that is a sticking point for you, but maybe I am just misreading you on this.
I agree with this.
Anon wants a board game or war game
>class balance
Not necessary in a TTRPG, cooperation is to cover each other's weaknesses.
>ivory tower
Mindless repetition from reddit and this board.
>lack of significant decision beyond making character builds
That's a GM and player problem, not a system problem.
Based on the rest of your post, you shouldn't play TTRPGs, but instead stick to playing single-player tactical video games, this hobby is not for you.
I don't see how it is a player problem. if you are playing as a martial you don't have many interesting things to do in combat. things like positioning and facing barely matter or don't matter at all. unless you are specifically built with some combat maneuver in mind all you can really do is charge and full attack.
I am really surprised by the reaction this simple question has gotten. I am aware of the game/simulation/narrative triangle concept. I don't think if anyone asked for the most simulationist system anyone would get upset, and someone basically asked for the most narrative system in this same thread and got serious answers, but I ask for the most game system and everyone spergs out and tells me that I shouldn't play tabletop rpgs.
Hey man, I gave you some real answers up here:
. That said said, GNS theory is flawed, but not for the reason most people think it is. The problem is that GNS doesn't describe different types of RPGs; it actually describes different types of games entirely:
>extreme G
board game
>extreme N
storygame
>extreme S
RPG
So in truth, the further a game gets away from simulationism, the less of an RPG it is. Anons are perceiving from your posts that you aren't much interested in S, so naturally they feel a different sort of game would better suit you. I think you'd be best off checking out the suggestions I gave above or looking into skirmish games. The latter has a high focus on gameplay while still potentially having some RPG elements in unit progression and campaign play.
You’re showing your bias, simguy. Extreme simulation is a physics paper, Dwarf Fortress, or any other autistic mathsfest. The ultimate sim RPG plays itself, acting more like an automaton than a game. It’s certainly not anything approaching the platonic ideal of an RPG.
As a side note, GNS is also flawed because it’s missing I for immersion. The extreme of which would be larp.
>Extreme simulation is a physics paper
No, all of the game archetypes still require player input. The difference is that in a simulationist system (RPG), the consequences of that input are consistent and understandable results in the gameworld. This enhances, not diminishes, player agency.
>As a side note, GNS is also flawed because it’s missing I for immersion. The extreme of which would be larp.
Hm, this seems like a valid point. I'd be tempted to instead label it T(heater), but regardless, that archetype is certainly different from the other three.
why is a system a board game just because it has mechanics designed for player interaction? as long as there is continuity between sessions and you have some kind of character sheet that defines what they can do it should be called a rpg.
>why is a system a board game just because it has mechanics designed for player interaction?
This isn't the issue. The problem is what these mechanics are supposed to be modelling in the gameworld. One of the valid criticisms of 4E as an RPG is that many powers don't model anything reasonable in the fiction. Take marks, for example:
>Fighter marks enemy with his martial skill
>Paladin marks same enemy with his divine power
>mundane first mark is overwritten by divine second mark
What just happened? How would you explain that in-world, without referencing game mechanics? It simply doesn't make any sense. For more on that, see The Alexandrian's critique: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1500/roleplaying-games/4th-edition-dissociated-mechanics
>as long as there is continuity between sessions and you have some kind of character sheet that defines what they can do it should be called a rpg.
That's basically what the video game definition of RPGs has become, but that's not what it has historically meant in tabletop RPGs.
why does it have to model the game word exactly? how come a rules light system abstracting an entire combat down to a couple fight skill rolls is still a rpg but other forms of abstraction make it a board game?
>that's not what it has historically meant in tabletop RPGs
weren't the first tabletop rpgs just people taking their hero characters from wargames and pretending they were levelling up between battles?
I was thinking about 4th edition more and I remembered the main thing that put me off about it even though I was overall interested was how much forced movement there seemed to be. it reminded me of disgaea where the best strategies revolved around throwing people around the map.
> all of the game archetypes still require player input
No, they don’t, because a simulation taken to its extreme doesn’t have any interaction beyond “the players run the sim”. If you’re keeping player interaction, you are still clinging to the gamist angle (“player agency”? A simulation doesn’t care about players), and are thus not taking it to the same extreme that divorced all the other aspects from what you secretly appreciate; that spectrum of experience that is an RPG.
>fighter sets his sights on an enemy
>paladin follows suit
>fighter sees that pally’s got this, and eases up
If we accepted your premise that player input is exclusive to gamism, then the other archetypes would be forced to change as well:
>extreme N with no input
reading a book
>extreme I with no input
living a day of your life
But that's ridiculous, because these categories are meant to describe interactive activities, which necessarily require human input. Even actual simulations are still directed by a human at some level: bare minimum, somebody tells the system what to simulate and with what parameters. I'll grant, though, that my original example for extreme N was bad; it should have been 'co-authoring a book'.
sees that pally’s got this, and eases up
Why can't the Fighter choose not to 'ease up'?
Yeah, they would become multiplayer game, co-authoring, group sci-comp project, and The Matrix. Less unpredictable variables makes a better simulation - and players put dice to shame in terms of unpredictability.
>fighter gets to 0 HP, collapses
>”Why can’t he just choose to?”
>Less unpredictable variables makes a better simulation - and players put dice to shame in terms of unpredictability.
Incorrect. Players without mechanical restriction and RNG tend toward tropes and cliches. It is the combination of player input with mechanics that creates excitement and uncertainty.
gets to 0 HP, collapses
>>”Why can’t he just choose to?”
Absurd non sequitur. There is nothing about a Paladin marking the Fighter's target that should force him to 'ease up'. That is a post hoc rationalization of a game mechanic which doesn't model anything concrete in the gameworld. It is the same as making up a story about a game of chess: you can attach whatever fiction to it you like, but it's purely fluff on top of abstract mechanics.
Individual marks absolutely model something concrete in the game world.
Nope. It's not concrete if the interaction between marks cannot be explained. From the Compendium:
>This condition reflects the ability of some creatures to claim the attention of a chosen target in battle. When a target is marked, it has a hard time ignoring the creature that marked it. Most marking effects have very short durations, or else they require the marking creature to remain a threat to the marked target.
This sounds ok in a vacuum but instantly collapses the moment two combatants attempt to 'claim the attention of' (mark) the same target.
It goes from "cant ignore that guy" to "cant ignore those guys", how is this hard to get
No it doesn't. It goes from,
>you can't ignore that guy
>you can't ignore that other guy
When logically, if were simply forcing the target to pay attention or get punished, it should become,
>you can't ignore either of those guys
Moreover, consider the case in which the Paladin had marked first. Is is explicitly a divine power. Why would that dissipate if the Fighter decided to get up in the target's face? One is supernatural, the other mundane. There is no in-game reason for one to override the other.
I never said predictable result are better. I said 'consistent' results are better; that is, results consistent with the gameworld, results that don't have to be rationalized after the fact to explain what the hell is supposed to have happened in the fiction. Modelling the gameworld is the very essence of an RPG; without that, you're just imagining fanfiction about a different sort of game.
>>but it doesn’t make sense!
>Then it’s pretty bloody realistic, isn’t it?
Now you're just babbling.
>how come a rules light system abstracting an entire combat down to a couple fight skill rolls is still a rpg but other forms of abstraction make it a board game?
I'm not saying there can't be abstraction; what I'm saying is that the mechanics should model something coherent. If the mechanics and their results leave you scratching your head trying to explain them ("The Fighter HAD to ease up because his Paladin buddy used his divine power on an enemy... for some reason... even though it were more advantageous for them both to press the attack..."), then you're in board game territory ("I guess the Rook really just hates moving diagonally,"). If your abstracted mechanics still produce reasonable outcomes ("He rolled higher on his Fight check so he won the fight,") then it can still be an RPG, even if it's not very interesting.
the rook doesn't move diagonally because it represents a chariot and they're not good at turning
Which is why it can turn 180 on a dime at any time.
I am sympathetic to your suffering dealing with the morons here
Thank you, Anon. I were tempted to give up had I not also at one time been lost in the darkness of ignorance.
If your goal is to simulate mindless cells, sure, but not if the goal is to simulate a fantasy world populated with sapient beings.
Simulate a what now? That sounds like narrativist crap to me.
There is nothing in GNS theory nor in the general definitions of the terms that requires simulations to be of something boring, Anon.
>imagine stationary formations as hills, woods and cities
>imagine moving objects people, war bands and dragons
>???
>profit
But the fighter isn't easing up. He's getting in his attacks unmolested, and probably with flanking bonuses too. At least in this whiteroom scenario with only one enemy.
Furthermore, the supernatural nature of the paladin's mark DOES justify the fighter's mark overriding it. The Challenge has rules, much as a paladin has a code that they must follow, much as their powers depend on adherence of their god's edicts.
Alternatively, two people can't mark the same target because, excepting stuff like hydras, most things only have one "full attention" to devote to the marking creature, and that attention's being shifted around in this scenario as the paladin and fighter get their hits in.
NTA but then the game should express those ideas clearly in the text and not be a rationalization done by the players.
Its the difference between
Magma Ball: The caster conjures a ball of magma at a location within a range of 30 feet from their position, the ball then explodes outwards splashing all targets within 5 feet with magma this deals 4d8 damage and leaving magma in that area.
Vs
Magma Ball: The caster conjures a ball of magma at a location within a range of 30 feet, all targets within 5 feet take 4d8 damage.
those are literally the same thing though
Not to an autist. They think the caster somehow explodes (“within 5 feet... of the caster”)
They are close but by explaining the mechanism of how the actually ball deals damage it makes is more dietetic in the world and also more useful to actions outside of raw combat.
Looking at the second description it completely lacks how the ball actually deals damage, It could be from heat, or an explosion like in the top one, or it could happen another way entirely.
And then what happens to he ball after the spell is done? It only lasts a turn after all, does the magma just go away?
That's the difference, the top give the full context on the spell and how it is meant to function within the world thus allowing it to be utilized with more simulationist aspects of gameplay.
You can get that from the bottom but it requires the use of GM fiat to fill out the rest of what the spell does which many people do not like due to issues of balancing and the common risks of GM favoritism based off the first person to cast the spell in the group.
they are mechanically the same thing. you are supposed to use your imagination to visualize the bottom version as the top one if you want to. you explain exactly why trying to go beyond the rules as written is a problem. if a game is designed so that magma ball is supposed to be a sidegrade to lightning arrow but then decide that magma ball can do other stuff like set the floor on fire you are disrupting that balance and giving a metagame advantage to players who can use their real life speech skill to convince the gm to give them extra effects.
Which is why putting the top description in the rule book is important. Because unless there is a in universe reason on why magic like Magma Ball cannot be used outside of combat scenarios then the players are going to try and use it outside of combat and so those questions will arise because the players will generally want to interact with the environment around them.
Its the same as a player asking if Lightning Arrow is actually Lightning or just magic that looks like Lightning, because if it is then they will likely want to try and get a target wet in order to fry them. If an answer is not in the rules the same GM fiat problem happens.
All I'm saying is that its better to be as descriptive as possible with what a spell can do so that the players know its actual boundaries and can act accordingly when doing anything outside of trying to deal direct damage.
the top description is the one that leaves room for exploitation because it mentions that the ball leaves magma behind. with the bottom one you can easily point at it and say that according to the rules all it does is 4d8 damage.
Fair enough but there is still the other point which a player might ask which is "What the Frick is a Magma Ball actually"
it's obviously a fire aoe attack spell so I don't really see what the autism is even about.
NTA but
>Fighting in a wooden house
>AoE has objects other than enemies in it
>Casting the spell for utility purpose to heat, melt or boil something
Are all common situations where the top explanation causes the system to break down, while bottom explanation has pretty clear consequences.
The top explanation is what you'd have in a video game, where stupid shit like damaging targets through solid walls with AoE, unburnable shabby wooden doors or indestructible props made of fragile materials are the norm due to engine limitations.
I think you accidentally confused top and bottom. Top is the one that gives a clear description of what the spell actually does in the gameworld. If that's what you meant, I fully agree with you.
Oh yeah my bad
that's back to the metagaming point. in either case the spell is probably meant to just be an aoe fire attack spell. one of them just lets "creative" people try to argue additional use out of it which would disrupt the game's internal balance.
Then why not play a video game or a war game?
Because the big thing that sets tabletop RPGs apart from the others at this point is the ability to interact with the environment and utilize simulationist elements
If your unwilling to make your game's mechanical scope big enough to address those types of actions while still trying to balance them then you should jsut play something more suited to the types of experiences you want.
Video games aren't adaptive to the player and their narrative can't flex.
aside from neverwinter nights they don't make multiplayer video game rpgs. I just want a tabletop game that plays like a video game but with physical dice and other players.
in any other game those players would be obnoxious rules lawyers
Now you're talking about the opposite problem. Rules lawyers tend to use the letter of the law against the spirit. Drown healing, peasant railguns and so on.
Treating the game world as a real space and trying to be ingenious within it is good. Treating the game as a mechanical puzzle and creating absurdities is bad.
there's literally nothing wrong with treating the game as a puzzle that you and your friends have to solve using the abilities provided by the system
I have just explained to you how it can be a problem.
no you didn't this entire thread you have done nothing but post your subjective opinion that only simlationist games are real rpgs
Those "creative" people are actual players who are worth gaming with. It's not a flaw, it's the substance of TTRPGs. If you're not interested in talking to your GM and making in-world use of your character, you are not interested in the game.
Video game number crunchers can tongue my ringpiece.
It's almost like 4e did both of these. It just took the intended mechanics and put them in their own section. The fluff kind of sucks on a lot of powers, but it's present enough. Here's a page from the Player's Handbook, with Force Orb's description being quite close to the one the first anon discussed.
The rules of an ability cannot be both concise and cover every scenario. Choosing the former and letting the GM do their damn job for the latter is what 4e chose.
All models are incomplete, and thus need rationalisation after the fact. For example:
>he rolled high on his Fight check and therefore won the fight
??? This makes 0 sense. Why would he suddenly win the fight, in a single action?
>”it’s not a single action, it represents multiple-“
You’re rationalising this after the fact! You’re writing a fanfiction over a board game! What if he wanted to throw the fight instead?
>”well he could have rolled using another skill, or lost the fight by rolling high-”
Failing by success?? I thought this was supposed to have ludonarrative resonance? No, no; you’re just making shit up. This isn’t consistent with the game world at all.
You cannot come up with one single abstract that makes sense, without some hand-waving. Not just in an RPG world, but in real life. It’s a constraint of our own world: nothing makes any fricking sense.
>All models are incomplete, and thus need rationalisation after the fact.
Nope, you still don't get it. A generic Fight skill were certainly abstracted, but not dissociated. It is very clear what it would model: the character's fighting ability. It is equally clear what rolling higher than your opponent would mean: the character fought better and therefore won. Very low-rez but still simulationist; no rationalization required.
>What if he wanted to throw the fight instead?
Then he would lose. Our hypothetical scenario contains no mechanic that would force him to try.
Abstraction != dissociation. Abstraction means that the system handles less detail:
>whole combats are resolved by an opposed Fight roll with circumstance modifiers
Dissociation is when the system operates and produces outcomes in such a way that they can only be made sense of by post hoc rationalizations:
>fight to the death against BBEG
>Fighter marks him
>another Fighter marks him too
>first mark goes away for balance reasons
>"t-the first Fighter just decided to ease up, o-ok!?"
>this happens every time even though neither has reason to "ease up"
> It is very clear what it would model
No, it’s not. You are nitpicking and biased, I win bye bye.
I accept your concession.
No, dissociation is when you, the player, are making decisions and not the PC.
nta but you are actually fricking moronic.
Don't get me wrong, that's a valid definition you gave but, and this may surprise you, words can mean more than one thing in different contexts. Almost as if 'disassociate,' is a term for a very general topic.
Look at that word's construction and think about what it actually means. I won't wait.
That's ultimately the same thing. If the mechanics don't model the gameworld, then the player will be making decisions based on mechanics rather than based on the gameworld and his PC's perceptions thereof.
It's not. Mechanics can model the game world and still result in you not making decisions as your character.
Cleanly separate the player and the player character.
glhf
> It is the combination of player input with mechanics that creates excitement and uncertainty.
That’s called a game. You’ve moved the goalpost from “predictable = better” to “predictable is better but only when applied to the result of player actions.” You don’t want a perfect sim. Hell, following that tenet, chess is the best RPG, lol.
>inb4 but the game world
And there’s the narrative bit. My diagnosis was correct: You actually enjoy RPGs as a whole, but because you enjoy the sim side most you’ve singled it out as the be-all-and-end-all. It ain’t.
> There is nothing about a Paladin marking the Fighter's target that should force him to 'ease up'.
Yes there is, he saw his buddy take over. That’s How It Works.
>but it doesn’t make sense!
Then it’s pretty bloody realistic, isn’t it?
>Extreme simulation is a physics paper
Have you ever like...read, the original description of GNS?
"Simulationism," in terms of RPGs, is an attempt to operate the gameworld consistently. Everyone focuses on staying in character, the GM's focus is on the world making sense and not on game balance, etc.
A high simulationism RPG doesn't become a physics model, it doesn't even need mechanics. Really its primary difference from narrativism isn't the 'rules lite/heavy' dichotomy most people think, it's whether player actions are taken for character consistency or for narrative impact/drama/'a good story'.
That is not playing a role. And within the context of being 'in character,' interacting primarily with mechanics and rarely fiction also isn't being in character. So
's assertion that the S is true RPGs, as it's the only point of that triangle specifically focused on actually staying within the role you inhabit, is fairly correct.
What’s more consistent than determinism?
>extreme S = RPG
this post gave me cancer
Conway's game of life is the perfect stimulationist game.
I don't think you understand what balance is for if you're using characters covering others' weaknesses as an example of balance not mattering.
So starting to read this I wanted to suggest Ryuutama. Has food management, based on old Final Fantasy ganes. But then I saw the grid. So there's only two I can honestly suggest. D&D 4e and PF2. PF2 has very little in common with PF1, except the name and dice, maybe some lore. The actual mechanics are very different. The same reasons for both really.
1) Grid, movement, and positioning matter.
2) Abilities often boil down to +1, +2, +3, or minus the same.
3) Party comp matters. In 4e that's Controller (CC, debuff), Defender (tank), Leader (healer, buffer), Striker (DPS). In PF2 they aren't defined by name, but basically the same. You'll have your martial, which will be your DPS, your casters, which will be your buff and debuff guys, or healers depending on the class, and a tank.
4) More so for 4e, but ability cooldowns are a thing. Daily, encounter, at will, and utility. In PF2 that's mainly true for Focus spells and spell slots.
5) Classes don't have bloat. While choices matter in both systems, they don't actually add so much that you won't be using older stuff. And builds matter. If you go down one path but choose a thing from another path, then you're actively hurting yourself.
6) Both of them have a video gamey kind of equipment system where you need to upgrade at certain levels to keep progress. This is a bit up to the GM, but he can just give you gold to go and upgrade stuff with runes.
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by resource management here. There's a few ways ro interpret that. Again, Ryuutama has food for example. If you mean more so ammunition and spell slots, cooldowns and the like, you do have that in these games.
I didn't want to make a separate thread for it but I have a similar question as OP:
What is the LEAST video-gamey TTRPG out there? In the way that it is as far away from as possible.
>Class should matter but if a character wants to lear a skill they should be allowed to, race or magical stuff being an exception
>Party comp is NOT some healer/tank/dps derivative
>Abilities let you do entirely new things and have interesting synergies
>No 'x per day' bullshit. Resource use is fine but if your character isn't about to faint from exhaustion you can do what you can do
>If a character finds a cool magic sword or other neat equipment they shouldn't be rendered pointless by character growth. It's THE sword that was sealed in an ancient crypt and has saved you dozens of times.
Few systems I've played/GMd that do some of these:
>Dark Heresy 2e and Only War
-Aptitude system making classes less strict
-After getting your weapon of choice you stay more or less relevant and boost it with talents and mods, rather than replacing
-Weapons beyond best quality are not available for purchase so finding an archeotech "+1 gun" is a big deal
-Psychic powers feel way more magicky than magic in most fantasy RPGs
>Nechronica
-Instead of abstract HP or MP characters use their physical body parts and sanity as resources
-Abilities have neat synergies and can trigger each other to make combos
-Instead of 'dodge' or 'armor save' as a reaction to being attacked you have a whole class of abilities
-Spatial positioning of characters is abstract, chronological positioning of actions has a lot of depth
>Engine Heart
-Ability to sense and understand surroundings and events differs greatly between characters both in and out of combat
-'Healing' is tricky so even small amount of damage per encounter can compound, small fry enemies need to be taken seriously
-Enemies turn into resources, so fully pacifistic appeoach is also not good in the long run
-VERY varied player character options
>What is the LEAST video-gamey TTRPG out there?
It's Everway. And it's not even close.
Everway comes with a deck of cards which only have illustrations (think more Dixit than great Arcana in Tarot). You resolve checks by drawing a card and then imaging how the picture on it would influence your current situation.
Computers are inherently incapable of doing this. Thus this game could never run on a computer.
>inb4 that's homosexual freeform.
>oh no. Fantasizing in a fantasy game. The horror.
So it’s AI Prompting: The Game?
If anything it's the reverse.
How so?
Currently popular AI takes some word salad and turns it into a picture.
Everway requires AI to take a picture and turning it into word salad. Those words would somehow have to be relevant to your fighter trying to sneak past a guard or something.
AI Image classification was in use well before AI generation, you know.
And prompting is the inverse task of classification.
The Dark Eye
But only if you don't want to go battle centric adventures. Combat can be a drag.
Dogs in the Vineyard.
Everway is a good call too, maybe Amber depending on how diceless rpgs fit into whatever categories you're using.
Big, big, big recommendation is Harnmaster (I suggest 3rd edition, HM Gold is too autistic). It looks overwhelmingly crunchy, but it's damn streamlined and flows very fast during actual play once the rules click.
To further expand:
- no classes, instead you have jobs that give you a set of starting skills above the average.
- no HP. You take location-based wounds until you pass out from pain
- default rules support a hex, but just as easily played with theater of the mind
- combat involves both opponents rolling at the same time for attack and defence, and there are multiple defence options
- Actually easily twekable to your taste, either with baked in extra options or your own
- it'd D100 like Dark Heresy, so should be somewhat familiar
D&D 4e and its descendants, such as LANCER, are definitely very gamey. They express everything primarily in game terms, are clear about what things are for and what's expected of the party, etc.
Positioning matters. There are meaningful choices both within and between classes. Resource management depends on what you mean by it- there is a mechanical limiter on your character's adventuring day (healing surges in 4e, repairs in lancer, etc).
Genesys. Like DH2e, it's made by FFG, so you can see some common mechanics between the two, but it takes a distinctly more narrative bent. Many of your points about hte 40k games are applicable, but the dice system makes checks dynamic in a way binary pass/fail or degrees of success can't, and the health system goes beyond meat points. There's "per scene" stuff (which you can just choose to not pick), and it's strongly recommended to either have someone with medical capabilities, but it falls into your points.
>what tabletop rpg is the most like a video game
dnd 4e
explain
already explained by
no, I want you to explain your own claim in your own words without searching through some reddit post for a copypasta
Objective truth of my own words is self-evident and needs no further explanation.
I've already said this guy is hopeless and he should stick to mmos, but maybe the Genesys system would be a good fit. The most popular game using that system would be Star Wars: Edge of the Empire and the follow ups. Asmodee bought the rights to the FFG games, so I don't think any new content is coming out for it though.
B/X with minis
Check out Strike! It's generic 4e dnd that's been cleaned up a bit. It'll do what you want mostly.
A big difference between videa and ttrpgs is even with the perfect system for wha you want, you're still going to have to do some legwork and adaptation. If that's not a thing you like doing you're better off with Ganker and dungeon crawler board games.
OP is in what I call autism purgatory. Not autistic to actually try any suggestions and learn through trial and error but too autistic enough to just accept that he needs to move on from the premise of finding a game that is exactly what he's looking for.
D&D 4E is probably what you want, OP. Yes, there is some bloat, but the focus is strongly on tactical combat, which seems to be that for which you're looking. PF2E tries to do a similar thing. Strike!, Icons, and Lancer are all inspired by 4E. You could also check out Legend, which was based on 3.5 but had some innovative ideas at the time: https://www.hedra.group/legend
At any rate, some of your dissatisfaction may stem from having control over only one character in combat since that majorly reduces the tactical space. You may consider having players control hirelings, summons, or additional PCs to make things more interesting per player.
genuinely, just play a skirmish wargame and roleplay as the units you control
MechWarrior with BattleTech rules is the most fun combat I have ever had the opportunity to play
Final Fantasy RPG
>for a game with tactical map movement, resource management, and a class system with depth
This is going to make people mad but you're looking for D&D 4e. Not to say that it's the video game edition (3.PF is and I'm not kidding) but that it's the one game on the market that is most about these things in its central design philosophy. Indie games usually are about doing something else and the other major games are usually about a flavor or a different mechanic entirely (like how GURPS is trying to be modular to the extreme.)
You should try ICON or Fabula Ultima. Both mimic different kinds of rpg video games
Take a look at Icon by Massif Press. It doesn't have much in the way of resource management, but it does have a class system and attached are how attacks are laid out so it has that tactic game feel to them.
Actually proud of /tg/ for once. TTRPs are not video games. Stop trying to turn them into video games. If you didn't enjoy Pathfinder or 5e (The most video game like systems) you won't enjoy anything, as others have said.
you can't justify this viewpoint at all. look at all the changes larian had to make to 5e to turn it into an entertaining single player game, and it still was obvious that the ruleset was holding it back compared to original systems.
4e or ICON
You want the RPG's hotter older brother with a Jag.
Wargames, Campaign play.
The original TTRPG.
If you don't have wargaming friends, get some.
You're glossing over the fact that in all of your RPG examples (even those listed as positive) have nothing to do with role playing.
When you say what you want you describe a videogame, when you describe what you don't, you describe an RPG, when you provide touchstones for comparison, they are all video-game traits shared with wargames, and none of them are RPG-related.
You don't want an rpg, the best examples you have provide none of the things you demand.
I'd say you don't like the genre, but I'm not even sure you can even tell the three apart.
D&D 4e
and probably also PF 2e
Normally I would be all about encouraging people to stop playing D&D but you actually want D&D 4e.