Funny how it lists storygame after storygame, but then throws in Call of Cthulu at the end - the only one there I'd recommend as a beginners game (played it at 13 and worked well).
The best intro RPG I know would be Pathfinder Beginners Box, or the old Fighting Fantasy RPG (not Advanced FF) if you want super-simple. WEG d6 Star Wars was great, too. Moldvay or Mentzer Basic and their retro-clones still stand up well, also.

like all the worst elements of a person

bitching about the strange
crying rape culture
bitching about straight men
saying teenagers should not be allowed on public transport
bitching that people are angry about corruption in games journalism
bitching about guns
really shitty attempts at humour (on its own this is not to bad but when you add it to all the other shit)
dirtying good things with his filthy social justice approval (this is a joke i can live with this)
bitching about the battlefield devs making a perfectly sensible decision
something about college homosexual magic (oh that reminds me of my idea for a roving band of evil homophobes who go around with a detect homosexual spell killing homosexuals)
some stupid shit about grease and lgbt people
safe places to fail
bitching about grimdark supers games (not something stupid to think to be honest but the way he presents his opinion makes you want to strangle him)
bitching about morality systems in vidya (this one he is completely right about and he did not even present it in a shitty way but when combined with the other things it seems shitty at first glance)
implying its ok for woman to treat men as sex objects
supporting affirmative action

ok ok i cant go any further

although on the plus side he avoids using a torrent of shitty hashtags and did say something smart about doing the right thing being a perfectly good motivation

Quote from: Ladybird;821048I don't agree that those games are user friendly, or rather: they may have been user friendly compared to other introductory hobby materials back in the 70's, but the rest of the world has moved on and became more user friendly.

While OD&D can be presented better as a game I feel it is a classic. Yes I agree that is important that OD&D or any other tabletop RPG to prosper it needs a very good presentation taking advantage of everything the 21st century has to sue.

However I think the problems with tabletop roleplaying are because it is suffering an identify crisis.

The thing is that tabletop roleplaying are enormously flexible games. You can run them in any number of way ranging from a wargame, a free for all shoot em up, to a theater of the mind session of improv acting.

Back in the late 70s, when I first started playing, people were playing first shooters only it was a session of D&D. If you wanted to be immersed in a interactive world your only choice back then was tabletop roleplaying. What made the D&D fad, a fad, it was the first truly interactive game that was easy to use. Prior to that trying anything like D&D usually wound up with the "Bang your dead, no I am not" problem or was some kind of sport. Circa 1978 when I started there was no other kind of game like D&D and tabletop roleplaying.

But with the rise of personal computers and general board game development, flash forward to 1998 now there was growing range of choice for interactive entertainment.  Then in 2000s they developed movie quality visuals which has an appeal all it own.

Today D&D and tabletop roleplaying is no only the only choice or even the best choice for things like playing a first person shooter.

So is there anything left that tabletop roleplaying still good at?

Yes and that it is continued use of a human referee which give tabletop roleplaying a flexibility that all other alternatives lack. A.I. is still no substitute for human judgment and when it is useful often requires an expert to setup it for the user. The same with the visually appealing CRPGs and first person shooter. You need to develop specific technical skills to change or make anything for them. And even when you have those skill the effort is often very time consuming.

Tabletop roleplaying allows people to immerse themselves in other times and worlds within the time and budget of a hobby.

In short Tabletop Roleplaying needs to focus on making better human referees and do everything that can be done for a person to be a good referee when they pick up a game.

The complexity of a game is a minor detail in this regard. You can't go GURPS level of detail but on the other hand a successful mass market RPG doesn't need to be rules lite like Microlite 20.

The major flaw in many arguments presented in this thread is that changing the rules will fix the problem. That is the same mistake the story gamers make. Rules won't fix tabletop RPGs. What will fix tabletop RPGs are better referees. Because in the hands of a referee who knows what he is doing there is still nothing like tabletop roleplaying.

Quote from: tuypo1;820090its about bad habits if a persons first game has random character gen then they will think of that as the norm

i dont care what you do in your own home i just dont want our children exposed to it

Bullshit. People are perfectly capable of realizing different games have different rules.

For instance, I can play both OD&D and Fate and somehow I don't get the two confused.

Quote from: rawma;820583The game doesn't matter much if they are interested in the genre and there is someone who knows the game to teach it to them.

I find that to be generally be true, but I've found through practical experience that games which feature:

(1) A character creations system which takes a relatively short period of time (20 minutes or less) while featuring choices that can be meaningful without an encyclopedic understanding of the rules; and

(2) A core mechanic and character sheet that makes it easy for me to tell the new player what to roll

Are generally better when I'm introducing new players to RPGs.

Generally speaking, most RPG rulebooks screw up their tutorial nature by spending a lot more time trying to teach the players instead of teaching the GM. You can teach somebody how to play an RPG in less than a page. It's teaching new GMs that's the tricky part (and the most important part in terms of growing the hobby and your game's market).

Quote from: rawma;820583The game doesn't matter much if they are interested in the genre and there is someone who knows the game to teach it to them. Learning a bad game in a functional group is probably better than the best game with the best books.

I disagree, because by your logic as long as the game group is good, then people interested in the pirate genre will enjoy Poison'd, those interested in fantasy will enjoy F.A.T.A.L., and those who like science fiction will enjoy TimeCube.

System does matter.

Sad to see Dragon Age never gets any love in these lists. The Dragon Age 1 boxed set has everything you need to run a campaign with a very accessible system and excellent production values. I guess it's not retro enough for the grognards and too traditional for the hipsters.

Quote from: jeff37923;821163I disagree, because by your logic as long as the game group is good, then people interested in the pirate genre will enjoy Poison'd, those interested in fantasy will enjoy F.A.T.A.L., and those who like science fiction will enjoy TimeCube.

System does matter.

I that is a gross mischaracterization of what anyone said. You pick a couple of toxic systems and one system I've never even heard of as your counter examples. That doesn't show that system matters much, just that for a sufficiently awful system people won't want to use it. Similarly there are settings that some players will not want to engage with no matter what system is used for play. So setting matters.

I think most players are more interested in the setting than in the system. If fact in my experience most players are not very concerned about system at all and casual players (which seem to be most players) predominantly want a system where they don't need much system mastery to be able to make meaningful or interesting choices for their characters.

When considering whether to focus on system or setting for new players, so long as the system is not a hot mess, I think setting is far more likely to engage the interest of a new person than system.

Quote from: jeff37923;821163I disagree, because by your logic as long as the game group is good, then people interested in the pirate genre will enjoy Poison'd, those interested in fantasy will enjoy F.A.T.A.L., and those who like science fiction will enjoy TimeCube.

System does matter.

Well, I said didn't matter much and probably. And all of your examples are not the "base genre" you describe; they're at best a weird corner of the base genre or disturbing elements pasted onto the base genre; any good game group playing one of those will have fixed or ignored the problematic parts. And my comment was about learning the game; "what books would I recommend to new players to learn from?", which I think is a silly exercise because the chances that some newbies are learning only from books are so close to zero as to make the discussion pointless. And by "bad game" I meant one that is difficult to learn from the rulebook or poorly explained or that requires a lot of houseruling to make it work; a functional group will have overcome those obstacles for the newbie.

But you make a good point, that the system does matter because of differences in game mechanics and tone (grittiness, PvP, prevalence of combat or social interaction or whatever, amount of number crunching, level of resource management, etc) for which folding them into genre would be a cheat, but which could easily put off a newbie as much as the wrong genre, and which a functional group might be quite satisfied with. So I agree, it's not just genre but a reasonably compatible style (both in game elements as well as tone). Or, to amend my earlier statement, "Learning a bad[ly written or designed] game in a functional group [with a compatible style] is probably better than the best game with the best books."

Quote from: Bren;821175I think most players are more interested in the setting than in the system. If fact in my experience most players are not very concerned about system at all and casual players (which seem to be most players) predominantly want a system where they don't need much system mastery to be able to make meaningful or interesting choices for their characters.

When considering whether to focus on system or setting for new players, so long as the system is not a hot mess, I think setting is far more likely to engage the interest of a new person than system.

This mirrors my experience (insert "anecdotes are not necessarily data" disclaimer here). While both can be tweaked and worked around to whatever extent a given group feels it necessary, it generally seems much easier to do so with mechanics, as it's usually the setting and bits of lore that really fires up most folks' imaginations.

Of course, depending on the game it might be difficult to separate the two - I'm thinking primarily of the old FASA line. Earthdawn and Shadowrun (and maybe Battletech too; I don't remember about that one) were pretty specifically designed to weave setting and mechanics together. I'm sure it would be possible to pry them apart, but it seems like it would be tedious work. Probably better to just stick to one of the systems designed to be adapted to whatever genre/setting you're playing in.

Quote from: Bren;821175I that is a gross mischaracterization of what anyone said. You pick a couple of toxic systems and one system I've never even heard of as your counter examples. That doesn't show that system matters much, just that for a sufficiently awful system people won't want to use it. Similarly there are settings that some players will not want to engage with no matter what system is used for play. So setting matters.

I think most players are more interested in the setting than in the system. If fact in my experience most players are not very concerned about system at all and casual players (which seem to be most players) predominantly want a system where they don't need much system mastery to be able to make meaningful or interesting choices for their characters.

When considering whether to focus on system or setting for new players, so long as the system is not a hot mess, I think setting is far more likely to engage the interest of a new person than system.

OK, I was being hyperbolic. I'll accept that.

However, there is still truth to what I was saying. Lets look at Star Wars as an example, since that is a good choice because everyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows the setting. So far, there are three separate game systems out to cover the Star Wars setting. The d6 Star Wars game, the d20 Star Wars game, and the FFG Star Wars game are those three even though two of them are out of print. Now, judging by which has the least complex rules and thus the lowest hurdle to overcome for new Players - it is d6 Star Wars (anecdotally, I have had drunks in a bar up and playing d6 Star Wars within 15 minutes who would have balked at the complexity of d20 Star Wars and been confused by the gimmick dice mechanic of FFG Star Wars). The system does matter.

Quote from: rawma;821176Well, I said didn't matter much and probably. And all of your examples are not the "base genre" you describe; they're at best a weird corner of the base genre or disturbing elements pasted onto the base genre; any good game group playing one of those will have fixed or ignored the problematic parts. And my comment was about learning the game; "what books would I recommend to new players to learn from?", which I think is a silly exercise because the chances that some newbies are learning only from books are so close to zero as to make the discussion pointless. And by "bad game" I meant one that is difficult to learn from the rulebook or poorly explained or that requires a lot of houseruling to make it work; a functional group will have overcome those obstacles for the newbie.

But you make a good point, that the system does matter because of differences in game mechanics and tone (grittiness, PvP, prevalence of combat or social interaction or whatever, amount of number crunching, level of resource management, etc) for which folding them into genre would be a cheat, but which could easily put off a newbie as much as the wrong genre, and which a functional group might be quite satisfied with. So I agree, it's not just genre but a reasonably compatible style (both in game elements as well as tone). Or, to amend my earlier statement, "Learning a bad[ly written or designed] game in a functional group [with a compatible style] is probably better than the best game with the best books."

Well, I also disagree that newbies will not just be learning from books alone and have a mentor of some kind. I learned Classic Traveller, d6 Star Wars, Mekton, and Basic D&D just by reading the books because I was interested in the genres. I also learned Palladium Fantasy, d20 Star Wars, FFG Star Wars,  and BattleTech by reading the books - but have not stuck with those systems because they were neither user friendly nor did they do a good job in emulating the genre that I enjoyed (IMHO).

Quote from: Emperor Norton;819594Fate and Savage Worlds are both games where if they are being pitched for beginners it should include the caveat "and buy a setting book".

Savage Worlds would actually be a really good beginners game, as long as someone buys a setting book with it.

Definitely. I have also used Traveller, both Classic and Mongoose, as starter games, and have helped GMs using D&D 4E. Another game I would recommend is BedrockBrendan's Network System games though, as with Savage Worlds and GURPS, would also recommend "buy a particular setting book" such as the Terror Network one or (my personal favorite) Servants of Gaius.

Quote from: Larsdangly;819563I would have said Tunnels and Trolls seized this niche 40 years ago and never let go.

Yes to this, BTW.

Quote from: jeff37923;821180OK, I was being hyperbolic. I'll accept that.

QuoteHowever, there is still truth to what I was saying. Lets look at Star Wars as an example, since that is a good choice because everyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows the setting. So far, there are three separate game systems out to cover the Star Wars setting. The d6 Star Wars game, the d20 Star Wars game, and the FFG Star Wars game are those three even though two of them are out of print. Now, judging by which has the least complex rules and thus the lowest hurdle to overcome for new Players - it is d6 Star Wars (anecdotally, I have had drunks in a bar up and playing d6 Star Wars within 15 minutes who would have balked at the complexity of d20 Star Wars and been confused by the gimmick dice mechanic of FFG Star Wars). The system does matter.

I agree D6 is the easiest of those three systems for people to quickly start playing. But there are quite a few systems where a new player doesn't need system mastery to be able to play. The GM can act as their interface to the game world. Any of those systems will be sufficient for players who are interested in the setting. Which is why I see setting as more important than system. That doesn't mean system is unimportant, but unless the system requires that the players are able to master the system to even play the game, system is something that the GM is likely to care a lot about.

QuoteWell, I also disagree that newbies will not just be learning from books alone and have a mentor of some kind. I learned Classic Traveller, d6 Star Wars, Mekton, and Basic D&D just by reading the books because I was interested in the genres.

But probably you were only new to RPGs with one of those games. My experience is not too dissimilar. I first learned about RPGs by reading OD&D and running and playing the game. The vast majority of RPGs since then I also learned by reading the rules.

Quote from: Haffrung;821165Sad to see Dragon Age never gets any love in these lists. The Dragon Age 1 boxed set has everything you need to run a campaign with a very accessible system and excellent production values. I guess it's not retro enough for the grognards and too traditional for the hipsters.

The problem of the Dragon Age game was the utterly horribly publication run. When it came out, there was even a little bit of hype around it. The first box was good as an introduction, but it wasn't a complete game and had only a very limited scope. It took Green Ronin five years to finally publish the last box and complete the game. Five years. By then, not only was there not any buzz left concerning the original release, the original box wasn't even in print any more.
Dragon Age could have been a fine system, if the major contents were released within a year or so. The mechanics were simple and intuitive enough. I personally think that the concrete implementation could have been better, but the basics were decent. As it stands, the system was a wasted opportunity in pretty much every regard.