TheRPGSite

OK, this article appeared in my feed this morning. (http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/03/10-tabletop-rpgs-for-beginners.html)

Quote from: Article10 Tabletop RPGs for Beginners

By Bryce Duzan

March 10, 2015  |  3:00pm

You may have heard about the newest edition of Dungeons & Dragons that came out late last year. Perhaps you thought you were interested in trying it, but found the game too complex. Maybe you’ve never played a tabletop RPG before, or maybe you have when you were younger, and you’re interested in trying them again. Maybe you’re just looking for new experiences! Whatever the reason, you should know that D&D is only the tip of the iceberg for what tabletop RPGs are capable of. Furthermore, D&D, in my opinion, is not a great place to start. There is a lot of cruft and historical baggage that needs to be sorted through and it honestly doesn’t do a good job of explaining itself to people who are completely new to the hobby. So, instead, let me recommend some games that are perfect for someone who is new! I’ve sorted this list by weight category (as in how rules-heavy they are) and I’ve also put in what genre each game is, in case you have a particular taste.

As a note, something to consider when you are deciding which game to play is whether you should purchase a PDF file or a physical copy. PDF copies of games are usually much cheaper than their physical counterpart. PDFs of the games below mostly run from $10 to $15, compared to at least $25 for a physical copy. RPGs can be expensive, so while PDFs can be harder to pass around or to look up rules on, they are a much more financially astute option. DriveThruRPG.com is a great place to find PDFs.

Lightweight

Lightweight games are the most basic RPGs, and allow people to get into them without needing much preparation. They are perfect for people who have never played tabletop RPGs before.

1. Fiasco
 Genre: Modern / General



Fiasco, of all of these games, is the most basic example of what an RPG is. All you need to play are a handful of dice, some index cards, and a scenario (several of which come in the core book).

Fiasco is a game about Fargo-esque capers. It’s about small-town people with more ambition than forethought going at each other’s throats before limping away into the epilogue. Play starts by rolling a pool of dice, then building a scenario off the outcome. Each player has a relationship to their neighbors, while some also share a place, an object or a need. Needs are the driving force behind the game, and are usually what spurs on the action. Once the scenario is built, players take turns enacting scenes with each other. When it’s your turn, you get to choose to establish the scene or decide the outcome. The option you don’t choose is chosen by the other players, ensuring that there is always some uncertainty to a scene. Not sure what your scene should be about? Let the others decide! Feeling like your character has had it too easy? Let the others rough them up a bit!

While Fiasco assumes a modern backdrop, the game can take place in any genre. Science fiction, fantasy and westerns can all be used to tell stories!

2. Dread
 Genre: Horror


Dread adds a few more pieces to the “standard RPG formula,” like a game master to oversee the action, but it also removes others. For one example, there are no dice! Instead you have The Tower. The Tower is, well, a Jenga tower. Now, you might laugh at imagining a horror game based around Jenga, but you have to understand how Dread works. When you come to a situation your character might fail at, you must pull a block from the Tower and place it on top, just like Jenga. Do so, and you succeed at your action. You may also choose not to pull the block to fail the action. However, if you try to pull a block and the Tower falls, your character dies. Imagine, each trial you try to overcome could be your last. Very quickly, Dread lives up to its name, as that is what you’ll be feeling as you play the game, which is fast and brutal.

3. Golden Sky Stories
 Genre: Pastoral



Now, it must be said that many RPGs deal with combat in some way. There’s usually some fighting or violence to be had. Golden Sky Stories is a big exception, however. In GSS, you play as an adorable magical animal called a henge in a pastoral Japanese town similar to ones portrayed in Miyazaki films like My Neighbor Totoro. You help the village’s inhabitants solve problems, and not big nasty problems like dragons coming to visit, but small problems, like, “Help, I’m a 6-year old and I like a girl, what do I do?”

GSS bills itself as a “heartwarming RPG,” and it certainly lives up to that. While the game toes the line between lightweight and medium weight, it errs enough on the lighter side to fit into this category nicely. If you are not interested in violence or classic RPG settings bore you, GSS may be what you are looking for!

Medium Weight:

Medium weight games up the ante a bit in terms of complexity, but they are still lighter affairs. All of them employ the standard RPG materials: dice, character sheets and a game master running the whole thing.

1. Fate Core/Fate Accelerated Edition
 Genre: General



Fate Core is more of a gaming system than one game in itself. That is, it is a framework that you can build many different genres of games on top of. The game uses sets of “Fate dice,” special six-sided dice that have a collection of pluses and minuses on them. You roll four dice at a time, adding the pluses and minuses to a skill for your outcome. Fate also uses several freeform mechanics for character creation, like aspects, which are different facets of your character that you can activate for bonuses, and stunts, which let your character break the rules in ways specific to them.

If Fate Core is a little too complex, you can try Fate Accelerated Edition, which pares down the system even more. Now, instead of a list of skills, your character is made up of several different broader sets called approaches.

After picking up the system, you can use several different games that have been built using the engine, or you can simply come up with your own campaign and genre!

Fate Core and Fate Accelerated Edition are both pay what you want, so you can even pick them up for free now and pay for them later.

2. Dungeon World
 Genre: Fantasy


Dungeon World is a game that tries to capture the idea of Dungeons & Dragons while leaving aside the weightier mechanics. Instead of a class loaded down with abilities and spells that you need to reference the book for, each class fits onto two pages, which also serves as your character sheet. The game itself is built on a flexible system that plays with consequence to heighten danger and make for a more intense experience. While many of the mechanics have been extrapolated from D&D itself, they have also been pared down. Bonuses or penalties to a roll will rarely exceed two, you will always roll two six-sided dice to pass an obstacle, and you will always know what number you need to hit for a specific result.

Dungeon World offers more complex options, especially for the GM, like Fronts, which let the GM plan plot points and campaigns around their players. For the most part, however, Dungeon World is a light and easy to understand RPG.

3. Cortex Plus: Firefly and Leverage
 Genre: Science Fiction and Modern



Cortex Plus is the system used by Margaret Weis Productions for many of its RPGs, including two based off of popular TV shows, Firefly and Leverage (Cortex Plus is also used in the sadly discontinued Marvel Heroic Roleplaying). Unlike other RPGs, Cortex Plus doesn’t have you roll one set die for tests. Instead, you build a pool of dice based on all applicable traits and skills. A die that you add to the pool can vary in “size,” which is to say that a four-sided dice is “small” and a twelve-sided die is “large.” The bigger the die, the better you are at what you are trying to do, so at a glance you can easily see how much of a chance you have of succeeding at your task.

Another bonus to the Cortex Plus system is all of the licensed properties it utilizes. If you are playing Firefly, for instance, and you have any familiarity with the show, you know that you will probably be playing a ragtag gang of mercenaries, struggling to scrape by. For people who are completely new to RPGs, having a familiar idea to grab hold of is extremely helpful.

Both Firefly and Leverage have $5 starter adventures which also contain the basic rules of the game, in case you want a cheap entry point.

4. Monsterhearts
 Genre: Horror/Drama



Monsterhearts uses the same base system as Dungeon World, but while the latter aims to emulate Dungeons & Dragons, Monsterhearts lets you tell stories that mash Buffy, Twilight and The Vampire Diaries together. In this RPG, you play as teenage monsters trying to live their lives while subsequently destroying them. Monsterhearts can be dramatic, it can be violent, and it can be darkly funny. It’s also a wholly unique and, when boiled down, fairly simple game. Like Dungeon World, Monsterhearts has a single sheet for each monster that serves as both a character sheet and rules reference. Monsterhearts sits a little higher on the list than Dungeon World even though it has arguably simpler rules because of its mature themes. In this game, you truly have the power to destroy another character’s life, and while physical violence is rampant in many RPGs, mental violence that can be afflicted between teenagers is something fairly unique to Monsterhearts.

Heavyweights:

Heavyweights are just on the cusp of what one might call “complex.” I’d even caution that you try a lightweight or medium game before diving into one of these. Still, they are a good gateway to truly complex games, and many of them are perfect for a first campaign.

1. 13th Age
 Genre: Fantasy



13th Age has very obvious ties to Dungeons & Dragons. It’s a fantasy game full of adventurers, very familiar races and classes, and very similar mechanics. It also, however, has taken a few elements from lighter games to create a unique experience. Instead of choosing from a long list of skills, for instance, you simply give your character backgrounds. A character with “Shady Fence +2” will be good at haggling with others, but also at appraising an item’s value, and many other things as long as you can provide a good reason for it. Another aspect is that you choose a unique thing about your character, something that makes them different from everyone else in the world. This trait usually has little influence on the game itself, and merely helps you flesh out your character more.

It’s little things like these that make 13th Age a more freeform game, and while it shares a few unfortunate ties with Dungeons & Dragons that drag it down, it still makes for a unique and exciting experience.

2. Star Wars: Edge of the Empire and Age of Rebellion
 Genre: Science Fiction



Star Wars: Edge of the Empire and Star Wars: Age of Rebellion are technically two separate games that share the same system, but really, the only difference is that the former focuses on bounty hunters and smugglers while the latter focuses on the infamous Rebellion.

Like Cortex Plus, Star Wars uses a dice pool system, but in this case, the game uses custom dice with special symbols replacing the numbers. There are six main symbols, which boil down to success, failure, critical success, critical failure, advantage, and disadvantage, and there are several different colors of dice. You gather dice depending on your skills (green and yellow) and the difficulty (purple and red) and roll them all together. Add together everything and you can quickly determine success or failure.

Add this fairly unique and simple system with another thing that makes Cortex Plus popular—a recognizable and celebrated license—and Star Wars can be quite the easy sell to make to potential players.

Both Edge of the Empire and Age of Rebellion have $20 starter kits available.

3. Call of Cthulhu, 7th Edition
 Genre: Horror



After a long while sitting in limbo, Call of Cthulhu, 7th Edition is now available, and promises a streamlined and simpler game than previous editions. Call of Cthulhu uses a percentile system, so if you have 25 strength, you’ll want to roll a hundred-sided die (or, more commonly, two ten-sided dice, using one die as the tens place and one as the ones place) and try to get under 25 to succeed. If you couldn’t tell, this game is based on the Cthulhu Mythos, so expect horrible, twitching abominations and minds snapping a-plenty.

Chaosium, the makers of Call of Cthulhu, are offering the quickstart rules for free on their website, so check that out to learn more!

So there you are! Ten easy to learn yet compelling RPGs to introduce you to a world of them. This is, of course, just the beginning when it comes to the myriad RPGs you can find and play, so after familiarizing yourself with these, you might be interested in playing some more complex games, like Apocalypse World, Iron Kingdoms, Mutants & Masterminds and Hillfolk. Go out and explore!


Bryce Duzan is a freelance journalist and game designer, and strives to bring a queer perspective to board games and tabletop RPGs. He can be found on Twitter with the handle @Spincut.

Based on his list, I don't think this guy would know a Tabletop RPG if it jumped up and bit him on the ass.

Seriously, where is Heroes of Hesiod? And why does this guy think that D&D 5E would be a bad starting point?

What 10 games would you suggest to a complete newb who was interested, but hadn't ever tried a Tabletop RPG?

It's hilarious watching storygamers list games they think will interest new blood.

Nothing communicates the unique nature of a tabletop RPG like playing jenga!

Yeah. I don't mind folks including stuff like that on a list if it would genuinely have broad appeal (Dungeon World is big enough I could see it on this kind of list) but this list is exclusively for a niche style. There are many obvious RPGs missing from it. I think any list that focused on one way of playing is a bad introduction to such a diverse hobby. It would be like having a list that is all OSR products or all d20. It just doesn't seem like an honest list of the best games for people just starting out. An honest list would have a good cross section of RPGs, not just RPGs that appeal to the story game community.

Quote from: Writer of the articleCall of Cthulhu, 7th Edition is now available, and promises a [...] simpler game than previous editions.

:huhsign:  Some would argue 'streamlined'... but simpler than previous editions?

Quote from: jeff37923;819549What 10 games would you suggest to a complete newb who was interested, but hadn't ever tried a Tabletop RPG?

I'm not sure I could come up with 10. But, 5e would be at the top of the list and I wouldn't include niche-of-a-niche Rpgs.

Bwuh?  What does this even mean?

QuoteBryce Duzan is a freelance journalist and game designer, and strives to bring a queer perspective to board games and tabletop RPGs.

That must be used to mean "unusual" and not "gay" right?  Otherwise that seems like a tightly and narrowly focused preference.  Then again, it might explain the highly niche selection used.

If we're not talking currently in print games, I'd also add Basic D&D to the list, as well as 5e.  I'm partial to Moldvay's Basic since the player section is literally only a dozen pages or so.  And also probably that RPG for kids game too.

In my experience learning to GM an RPG takes some work since the GM actually has to read and understand the rules well enough to run the game and create a setting/adventure or acquire, read, understand, and recall a published setting/adventure.

On the other hand if we are talking about learning to play an RPG lots of games qualify. Call of Cthulhu or any of the BRP style games certainly belong on a top 10 list as would D&D 5E.

Except for CoC and DW, it's the worst list ever.

Heroes of Hesiod, IIRC, is a 4e hack.

I don't know what is worse, the ideological bias or the all-too-common "newbs are dumb and will only enjoy rules-lite games."

I would have said Tunnels and Trolls seized this niche 40 years ago and never let go.

The only ones on the list I agree with are Fate Accelerated and Dungeon World. Maybe CoC, though I have a dislike of d100 rolls, but that is a personal thing not something wrong with the game.

Even games on here I like (Cortex Plus, FFG Star Wars), I think are bad learning games because they have too many moving parts.

And 5e D&D should definitely be on there.

Hah, I was reading this article earlier and thinking the same things.

Quote from: The Butcher;819556I don't know what is worse, the ideological bias or the all-too-common "newbs are dumb and will only enjoy rules-lite games."

  But isn't one of the core ideas of certain segments of the hobby (that appear to be in the driver seat for 5E) that the overly complex modern versions of D&D alienated new players, and that we should go back to the simplicity of the Red Box or the 'simplicity' of AD&D? ;)

  I'm not a fan of 5E, but I do think 5E Basic does belong on the list. Conversely, I am a fan of 13th Age, and I'm of two minds as to its presence. I think the One Unique Thing and the open-ended backgrounds are brilliant for new players so they don't feel pigeonholed into "these are the three/four/seven/ten types set down by our fathers and Thou Shalt Not Vary From Them!" But I think it depends too much on familiarity with D&D fantasy to be a really good first game. A good second game after D&D, yes; a good first game, no.

  Fate suffers from the problem that it's a toolkit more than a complete game; Savage Worlds, which surprisingly didn't make the list, suffers the same problem. I think new players might be at a loss for "what do we do?" D&D has never had that problem--"go into dungeons, fight monsters, grab treasure/save the princess."

  Unfortunately, many of the games I'd recommend for starting out--Prince Valiant, Star Wars d6, or Marvel SAGA--are long out of print.

Quote from: jeff37923;819549What 10 games would you suggest to a complete newb who was interested, but hadn't ever tried a Tabletop RPG?

I certainly cannot think of 10, and I am also not too fond of very light games (and I think that mixing up inexperience with the inability to understand anything but basic gaming rules is a bit offensive to new players), but these would be my suggestions:

• D&D 5e, especially the free stuff. If people are new to the whole idea, I think it is a good idea to not demand too much investment before they actually tried it. Personally, I think it's the best option right now, but I also think it is the best version of D&D thus far...
• Runequest or BRP or something in that family. CoC for those who are already familiar with Agkham Horror. Mostly because the core system is incredibly transparent and straightforward, making it quite intuitive. This is my go-to system when I make introductory games for people who have never played before.
• speaking of intuitive, GURPS could be a decent choice. It was one of my first games, and I think it is perfectly accessible once you get used to the math. Thanks to the usually successful avoidance of too disasociated mechanics, the game actually becomes quite clear after a while (honestly, I found Gurps a lot easier to understand than AD&D, because the system is a lot better at presenting rules that just make sense). Gurps lite is also free
• something based on the personal interests of the potential player in question. I can see stuff like the Dr. Who RPG, The One Ring (as mediocre as that game is), Vampire etc. for this purpose.  In the past, I used Star Wars (D6, of course) for this purpose, because it makes the game a bit more accessible when the potential player are already familiar with the background. Different people enjoy different things and recognition and familiarity can make a game a lot more interesting.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;819575But isn't one of the core ideas of certain segments of the hobby (that appear to be in the driver seat for 5E) that the overly complex modern versions of D&D alienated new players, and that we should go back to the simplicity of the Red Box or the 'simplicity' of AD&D? ;)
.

No, that's not the reason at all.  For one, AD&D is more complex than 5e or 4e.  The reason was because 4e's style of play didn't appeal to enough gamers and drove too many of them away.  Alienating players had nothing to do with complexity, but with style of play.  They also wanted to avoid a system like 3e where min/maxers ruled the game with a shit ton of feats.

5e's philosophy was to take D&D back to it's roots, keep it streamlined, and incorporate the good things that people liked from every prior edition without getting bogged down with a bunch of crap.

Quote from: jeff37923;819549OK, this article appeared in my feed this morning. (http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/03/10-tabletop-rpgs-for-beginners.html)

Apparently your feed is broken.

I reckon it's a pretty nice list of RPG's for suggesting to total beginners; plenty of low-prep games that run on common tropes, pretty easy to obtain, don't require much specialised kit (The worst is the SW dice, but the starter set comes with them, so that's a non-issue), doesn't require much specialised knowledge before play, and generally emphasise trying things rather than sticking strictly to what the rules offer you.

Fate, C+ and 13th Age are probably the outliers (Fate isn't a game itself, C+ is rubbish, and 13th Age is a particular type of heroic fiction). It probably isn't a list any of us would pick, but it's not for us.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;819575Fate suffers from the problem that it's a toolkit more than a complete game; Savage Worlds, which surprisingly didn't make the list, suffers the same problem. I think new players might be at a loss for "what do we do?" D&D has never had that problem--"go into dungeons, fight monsters, grab treasure/save the princess."

Fate 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.

Quote from: The Butcher;819556I don't know what is worse, the ideological bias or the all-too-common "newbs are dumb and will only enjoy rules-lite games."

The condescension might be upsetting if it weren't so amusingly wrong. IME (insert anecdotes are not necessarily data disclaimer here) it's generally the folks who've been around a while who tend to have the most appreciation for simple/rules-lite systems precisely because they're older; with age naturally comes work and/or family obligations making greater demands on their time (for most folks, anyway), so they want games that are easy to set up, simple to run and don't have a lot of cruft and rules getting in the way and slowing things down. It's the newbies, most of whom seem to get their start in grade school or college, when free time is abundant, who are more willing to chew on a load of crunch.

Quote from: woodsmoke;819596The condescension might be upsetting if it weren't so amusingly wrong. IME (insert anecdotes are not necessarily data disclaimer here) it's generally the folks who've been around a while who tend to have the most appreciation for simple/rules-lite systems precisely because they're older; with age naturally comes work and/or family obligations making greater demands on their time (for most folks, anyway), so they want games that are easy to set up, simple to run and don't have a lot of cruft and rules getting in the way and slowing things down. It's the newbies, most of whom seem to get their start in grade school or college, when free time is abundant, who are more willing to chew on a load of crunch.

   This has been documented as going back to the 80s, when D&D was more popular among more experienced fans and AD&D the game of choice for the newer players, after they got started. Given the prevalence of the Red Box, I wonder if this is related at all to the common approach of "we played AD&D like Basic with more options and a few details added in where we wanted them."

Quote from: woodsmoke;819596The condescension might be upsetting if it weren't so amusingly wrong. IME (insert anecdotes are not necessarily data disclaimer here) it's generally the folks who've been around a while who tend to have the most appreciation for simple/rules-lite systems precisely because they're older; with age naturally comes work and/or family obligations making greater demands on their time (for most folks, anyway), so they want games that are easy to set up, simple to run and don't have a lot of cruft and rules getting in the way and slowing things down. It's the newbies, most of whom seem to get their start in grade school or college, when free time is abundant, who are more willing to chew on a load of crunch.

This is true.  The older I get the less bullshit mechanics I want out of the game.  I just want to focus on the role playing since that is the reason why we are playing in the first place.  These young kids can't understand that and I have to explain it to them about the benefits of rules lite system which I strongly feel is far superior than the big bulky systems.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;819554Bwuh?  What does this even mean?



That must be used to mean "unusual" and not "gay" right?  Otherwise that seems like a tightly and narrowly focused preference.  Then again, it might explain the highly niche selection used.

If we're not talking currently in print games, I'd also add Basic D&D to the list, as well as 5e.  I'm partial to Moldvay's Basic since the player section is literally only a dozen pages or so.  And also probably that RPG for kids game too.

I dunno. I have a very close friend who is gay and both he and his boyfriend would scoff at that list (and they have very different tastes themselves). It needs more superheroes, Deadlands or Shadowrun to fit their particular tastes.

Personally, I have used AD&D2e, Savage Worlds, Dragon Age, Marvel SAGA, Star Wars Saga Edition and Buffy the Vampire Slayer all as beginner RPGs with great success.

I started my kids on the Dungeons and Dragons Boardgame. which is more of a Boardgame with RPG elements than an actual boardgame.
but I did put in a bit of RP here and there.

Then after that I ran Dragon Warriors, Pathfinder and Other Dust (by Sine Nomine).
Now I run 5E for both my kids and  Scarlett Heroes 1 on 1 with my daughter sometimes..

Quote from: Sacrosanct;819554Bwuh?  What does this even mean?
That must be used to mean "unusual" and not "gay" right?  Otherwise that seems like a tightly and narrowly focused preference.  Then again, it might explain the highly niche selection used.

He is gay. http://gaygamer.net/author/bryceduzan/

Queer Eye for the RPG Guy?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;819575But isn't one of the core ideas of certain segments of the hobby (that appear to be in the driver seat for 5E) that the overly complex modern versions of D&D alienated new players, and that we should go back to the simplicity of the Red Box or the 'simplicity' of AD&D? ;)

Sort of. See, I wouldn't hand a copy of Rolemaster or Pathfinder or even Savage Worlds to an 11-year-old and tell him to figure it out.

But very often, when the subject of "good introductory games" comes up online, people tend to assume that rules-light = newbie-friendly, despite having been introduced to gaming with BECMI or B/X D&D, or WEG D6 Star Wars or any one of several old games that nowadays no one really thinks of as "rules-light."

Unless one is conflating "rules-light" with "rules-medium stuff I played/play a lot and know by heart and it's a breeze to run" but that's another can of worms entirely.

Anyway, I think the importance of choosing the "right" game pales before the importance of the attitude of thd GM and the rest of the group. It is my experience that voluminous books do intimidate newbs, who might imagine elaborate and obfuscating rulesets. But I put them at ease by clarifying that it doesn't matter because you don't have to know the rules to play a roleplaying game. That is a preconceived notion they carry over from boardgames. All you have to do is to play your role, i.e. your character, and the burden of handling the mechanical bits for the beginner should fall upon the GM, possibly with the help if other players.

If there's interest, I trust that the new player will become familiarized with the rules at his or her own pace, in due time.

Quote from: The Butcher;819621Unless one is conflating "rules-light" with "rules-medium stuff I played/play a lot and know by heart and it's a breeze to run" but that's another can of worms entirely.

Yeah, no kidding.  I rather doubt that there'd be so very much support for D&D on the list here if it wasn't (a) the game the advocates grew up with; (b) the industry leader throughout the history of RPGs; (c) the game with overwhelming name recognition; (d) the game the advocates are familiar with; and (e) the one for which newbies are most likely to find games.

For Chrissake, the two PDFs comprising 5th edition's freebie basic rules total a whopping 178 pages.  GURPS Lite is a third the size, and GURPS wouldn't be my first choice for a newbie, even if I've been teaching it successfully to newbies for 29 years.

D&D is a great pick (almost every edition) not because of nostalgia, but because it has the most GM support. Ready made monsters, ready made well... everything.

Plus its level based, so relative power level is a lot easier to judge and its not as complex as a point build for characters. There are options, but its mostly "choose this or this" when you level.

Even 3.x, which I personally think is too fiddly for new gamers, has such a WEALTH of material to pull from for the average GM that I would still suggest 3.x/PF to a new group before I would suggest most games.

Its not nostalgia, its practicality. Its just one of the easiest games to run, because you aren't thrown out in the deep end of "make every single thing up because there is no support for you" which is where a lot of games sit.

And rules complexity and rules length are HARDLY the same thing. Those 178 pages of the Basic PDF are mostly just character options like class/race/background, things you have pick in creation once and have great guidelines for picking them and they are done. The actual play of 5e is super simple. (and then you have the pages of spells, something else that doesn't add complexity, ready made stuff = easier).

Quote from: The Butcher;819621See, I wouldn't hand a copy of Rolemaster or Pathfinder or even Savage Worlds to an 11-year-old and tell him to figure it out.

I'd give the kid a copy of RIFTS. Here's why:

A) It fun to fuck with kid's heads. Little bastards deserve it.

B) Rifts is a tween's fevered dream of awesomeness. None of that watered down corporate bullshit or aren't we PC hipster indie crap. Rifts is just page after page of GUNS! ROBOTS! BLIND BOOBIE NINJAS! SKULL NAZIS!

C) The kid wouldn't give a shit about the system and their version of the system would probably be really fun to play.

Yeah, I was a fan of the Robotech RPG, so I was probably going to like Rifts, but thumbing through it and seeing all those awesome Kevin Long illustrations...

I'm glad Kevin got into video games where he can obviously make more money, but I wish he had been drawing for Rifts all this time.

Quote from: Spinachcat;819645B) Rifts is a tween's fevered dream of awesomeness. None of that watered down corporate bullshit or aren't we PC hipster indie crap. Rifts is just page after page of GUNS! ROBOTS! BLIND BOOBIE NINJAS! SKULL NAZIS!

That may be the greatest description of RIFTS I think I've ever seen.

Gotta say it - LBB Traveller. With or without the "official" setting, the actual rules are damn simple. The UPP might not be intuitive since it's just a string of numbers, but list them vertically and label them like D&D did and I think that it would be an awesome into RPG. You can (and we did) put an entire character on one side of an index card and then you're off - Ad Astra!

Quote from: Werekoala;819751Gotta say it - LBB Traveller. With or without the "official" setting, the actual rules are damn simple. The UPP might not be intuitive since it's just a string of numbers, but list them vertically and label them like D&D did and I think that it would be an awesome into RPG. You can (and we did) put an entire character on one side of an index card and then you're off - Ad Astra!

I support this.

Originally, I wouldn't have agreed, but then I remembered that after every design sequence in Classic Traveller from character generation to world creation there was an example given with a step-by-step description of how to use the rules.

Quote from: Spinachcat;819645I'd give the kid a copy of RIFTS. Here's why:

A) It fun to fuck with kid's heads. Little bastards deserve it.

B) Rifts is a tween's fevered dream of awesomeness. None of that watered down corporate bullshit or aren't we PC hipster indie crap. Rifts is just page after page of GUNS! ROBOTS! BLIND BOOBIE NINJAS! SKULL NAZIS!

C) The kid wouldn't give a shit about the system and their version of the system would probably be really fun to play.

As someone who got into Rifts at the age of 13, I can't fault your logic.

Quote from: CRKrueger;819646I'm glad Kevin got into video games where he can obviously make more money, but I wish he had been drawing for Rifts all this time.

You and me, brother. Long's art defines Rifts for me.

I'd love to know what video games he's been working on, BTW. Last I knew he was the lead artist on Quake 4.

Quote from: jeff37923;819549What 10 games would you suggest to a complete newb who was interested, but hadn't ever tried a Tabletop RPG?

In no particular order:

1. Red Box D&D
2. WHFRP 1st Edition
3. Marvel Superheroes Basic Set
4. Prince Valiant
5. Doctor Who: Adventures in Time & Space
6. Dragon Warriors
7. Final Fight
8. Ghostbusters
9. Star Frontiers
10. TFOS

Quote from: Sacrosanct;819554Bwuh?  What does this even mean?

"Bryce Duzan is a freelance journalist and game designer, and strives to bring a queer perspective to board games and tabletop RPGs."

I strive to bring an auburn perspective to wargames and tabletop RPGs.

Quote from: TristramEvans;819779I strive to bring an auburn perspective to wargames and tabletop RPGs.

Don't misunderstand me, I don't think his sexual orientation matters one whit as to his ability or qualifications to talk about or recommend RPGs.  It just seemed an odd thing to say on an article talking about the best RPGs for beginners.  Almost like, "RPGs for beginners should be ones with a gay influence to them".  Otherwise, why even mention that he is trying to bring "a queer perspective" to them?

It would be like me doing a list of RPGs I recommend and having at the bottom, "Roderic is a game designer bringing an ultra realism focus to RPGs".  I'm sure you'd assume that the games I'm recommending are ones that focus on ultra realism.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;819783Don't misunderstand me, I don't think his sexual orientation matters one whit as to his ability or qualifications to talk about or recommend RPGs.

Thats what makes it a completely bizarre misnomer. Unless his RPG games are specifically about gay sexuality, his sexual orientation has zero bearing on the game whatsoever. His "queer perspective" is as ridiculously meaningless as my "auburn perspective". I think he's just using it to "sell himself". I guess being queer gets you some manner of social cred among certain youth groups these days, or at least gets one some extra donations to Patreon.

Quote from: TristramEvans;819784Thats what makes it a completely bizarre misnomer. Unless his RPG games are specifically about gay sexuality, his sexual orientation has zero bearing on the game whatsoever. His "queer perspective" is as ridiculously meaningless as my "auburn perspective". I think he's just using it to "sell himself". I guess being queer gets you some manner of social cred among certain youth groups these days, or at least gets one some extra donations to Patreon.

See, that is the thing, his sexual orientation doesn't matter to anybody but himself in relation to gaming. To him though, it is a Big Deal.

Quote from: TristramEvans;819779I strive to bring an auburn perspective to wargames and tabletop RPGs.

And I applaude you for that. I find that true auburn, as opposed to a Miss Clairol version, is insufficiently represented in today's society.

It's a superfluous to me, but essentially harmless comment that makes me think the guy is 22 years old and still trying out personas for fit. Cut him some slack on that comment. He probably is 22 years old.

Quote from: TristramEvans;819774In no particular order:

1. Red Box D&D
2. WHFRP 1st Edition
3. Marvel Superheroes Basic Set
4. Prince Valiant
5. Doctor Who: Adventures in Time & Space
6. Dragon Warriors
7. Final Fight
8. Ghostbusters
9. Star Frontiers
10. TFOS

That's a pretty good list of games. I reckon you could get a bunch of us together and we'd have fun play any of the above; or we could run them for a new player and they'd have fun, too.

But the question is, is it a good list of games to recommend to new players these days? Most of them are out of print, they lack guidance on what play actually looks like, they have a bunch of pitfalls that unwary new players could fall into... they're not bad games, they're just games that are easy to play badly without realising it.

There are also some more issues with them being old; picking out MSH as a specific item (And I really like MSH), that's a game that could make a great intro game today, with only minimal updates required (Refluff it into MCU Superheroes RPG, for one).

Modern games aren't necessarily better, but they're better at explaining themselves because designers have more information on what explanations have and haven't worked. "Well I learnt things the hard way" just isn't good enough any more.

Quote from: Ladybird;819871they're just games that are easy to play badly without realising it.

How did you learn to realize it?  

I'm willing to bet it wasn't due to "game designer X" telling you, or even showing you through his "psychologically safe and unscarring idiot-proof game experience".

You figured shit out, and you're not a brain-damaged or emotionally scarred individual for having done so, are you?

Like everything else in the world, when you first try doing something, you suck, and then you get better, and you may even become great at it.

Constructing something so that you can't fail or can't suck is just going to mean you remain mediocre...forever.

Crutches prevent you from hurting yourself, and they get you the hell off them as soon as possible so you don't cripple yourself for life due to always using them.

You can't hurt yourself playing or GMing a RPG all the awfulpurple bullshit notwithstanding, so there is absolutely no need for any form of preventative measure via game mechanics.

The notion of "protecting new players from themselves" needs to die in a fire after being curbstomped by Godzilla and shit on by King Kong.

Quote from: TristramEvans;819779I strive to bring an auburn perspective to wargames and tabletop RPGs.

Please don't trigger me.  My favorite Shadowrun character died in Auburn.

Quote from: Ladybird;819871That's a pretty good list of games. I reckon you could get a bunch of us together and we'd have fun play any of the above; or we could run them for a new player and they'd have fun, too.

But the question is, is it a good list of games to recommend to new players these days? Most of them are out of print, they lack guidance on what play actually looks like, they have a bunch of pitfalls that unwary new players could fall into... they're not bad games, they're just games that are easy to play badly without realising it.

There are also some more issues with them being old; picking out MSH as a specific item (And I really like MSH), that's a game that could make a great intro game today, with only minimal updates required (Refluff it into MCU Superheroes RPG, for one).

Modern games aren't necessarily better, but they're better at explaining themselves because designers have more information on what explanations have and haven't worked. "Well I learnt things the hard way" just isn't good enough any more.

Availability is the major issue for a few of them, though Star Frontiers and MSH are both available for free (without the need to pirate them) in pdf. Otherwise my assumption is that they would be gifts to people interested in rpgs. Elsewise, only Ghostbusters would actually be hard/expensive to get ahold of from ebay.

As for explaining RPGs to new players, I've yet to come across any game that provided a better introduction than the original Red Box D&D. I say that even as someone who is not a D&D player (of any edition). Only slightly second in that regard would be Prince Valiant. Though I havent read every new rpg to come out in the years since, of the many I have read, none have touched those 2 as the pinnacle of introducing the concept of RPGs to new players.

The rest are on about the same level in that they do a good job defining what rpgs are, how they are played, the role of the GM, and provide introductory adventures. The newest in that group is Doctor Who, the boxed set I have being specifically designed to appeal to non-roleplayers, and it does as good a job as Ghostbusters did 20 years prior.

Granted, the ideal situation is always going to be an experienced GM introducing new players in play. As such, MSH (FASERIP) tops my list as a system that can be explained to people who have never roleplayed before in under 5 minutes

Are there actually people who have a hard time figuring out how to play an RPG in a fun way?[1]

If there are, would those same people play an RPG in a fun way if there was a better explanation of how to play at the beginning of the rules?[2], [3]


[1] Notice I don't say play an RPG the same way as other people or the same way as the designer, just play in a fun way. My friends and I were able to figure out how to have fun playing OD&D after reading the fairly minimalist instructions and examples contained in the little brown books.

[2] There often seems to be an assumption by some people who presumably  learned the rules by having the rules explained to them face-to-face by another person that learning how to play on one's own by reading any old rule book is some esoteric activity that only gaming geniuses can succeed at. I think this assumption is wrong (i.e. it doesn't accord with my experience) and absent some compelling evidence, I see no reason to think it is actually true.

[3] All that being said, I think the Runequest 1 and 2 rules were extremely well written, included useful and entertaining examples that showed (a) how the rules worked, (b) how to play the game, and (c) introduced some of the color of the setting. OD&D is a fun game, but the rules were not as well written as were Runequest or Traveller. Including rules that are easier to learn makes sense if we assume that the new players are supposed to be learning by reading as opposed to learning by doing.

The best RPG to teach new players is whatever one you wanna run. A good GM could make Living Steel quick and fun to play. A shitty GM could turn TOON into the most bogged down waste of time ever.

Quote from: CRKrueger;819877How did you learn to realize it?  

I had fun the first time... after over a decade, I still don't know if I'm any good at it.

But I'm also the sort of person who will look to experts for advice when I start something so that I can get past the "crap at this" stage as quickly as possible, and also accept I won't be much good for a while. This isn't a common trait; many people don't want to admit they aren't very good at something, or to have to work at something.

So this...

QuoteLike everything else in the world, when you first try doing something, you suck, and then you get better, and you may even become great at it.

...is an interesting point. How is someone new to roleplaying meant to know whether the reason they didn't enjoy their first session was because they or their group were new (And crap), or because roleplaying just isn't for them? With no frame of reference, how can you tell that you suck? Those first few sessions are important for getting players hooked.

If people don't like roleplaying, fine, whatever. They can go and do whatever non-roleplayers do with their time. But for those first few sessions, the only thing they'll know is what the books tell them about the game. So short of a couple of more experienced players being at their table...

QuoteI'm willing to bet it wasn't due to "game designer X" telling you, or even showing you through his "psychologically safe and unscarring idiot-proof game experience".

...game designer X is pretty much the only person who can show them how to play the game, through examples and guidelines. There isn't anyone else to learn from. So, yeah, game designers X, Y and Z (Livingstone, Jackson and Costikyan, to be precise) were who me and my friends learned from.

At the end of the day, the core difference between an RPG and any other media is that at some point a player will be asked "what do you do now", and have an essentially-infinite amount of choices. The job of the games designer is:

1. To tell the players "say what you want to do, and you'll be asked what to roll"
2. To tell the GM "if anyone asks you 'what can I do', say 'tell me what you want to do, and I'll tell you what to roll'"
3. To give the GM a framework that can be used to make the call on what to roll, and how to interpret the results

...and in the absence of an expert or one of us, there is nobody else to do that.

QuoteYou can't hurt yourself playing or GMing a RPG all the awfulpurple bullshit notwithstanding, so there is absolutely no need for any form of preventative measure via game mechanics.

Maybe not, but you can learn bad habits that will hold you back later on... I'm sure we've all heard stories of, say, players who think the only solution to a problem is "kill it", or players who will look at their character sheet for their, options when asked "what do you do now", GM's who can't / won't think outside the rules, or GM's who take all challenge and interest out of the game. Now, part of that is a failure on the part of the group... but because RPG's are such a different medium to anything else, a large part is also a failure of the materials used to teach the group.

So while I don't think that new gamers should be "protected from themselves", I do think it's a duty of more experienced gamers (And obv that includes games designers, as they're gamers themselves) to tell newer gamers about the mistakes we made, so they can avoid having to make them too.

Quote from: Ladybird;819903... after over a decade, I still don't know if I'm any good at it.

But I'm also the sort of person who will look to experts for advice...

Statement 1 and statement 2 are connected.

To figure out if you are any good at being a GM there is one tried and tested method. Try being a GM. See if your players are having fun - e.g. do they look and sound like they are having fun; do they come back a second, third, or fourth time to play. If you still aren't sure if they are having fun ask them. If your players are having fun, then bingo, you are at least adequately good at being a GM. Carry on.

The notion that game designers are authorities on being a GM is one of the more pernicious notions preventing some people from trying to be a GM. This is a very minor niche, leisure activity. It doesn't require experts to have fun.

I see experienced GMs and players having a hard time learning and having to teach some of the 4th-gen RPGs rules out there to players new to role-playing. Some might say that old-school RPGs (adventure games) are too simplistic to bother with in this day and age. So maybe that is why they go with Cortex+ or FATE to start new gamers with?

i have never understood people recommending coc for a first rpg a game where you are expected to fail is not in any way a good introduction to the hobby.

i have also never understood why people say 3.5 is a bad introduction sure it has a lot of elements but outside of the grappling rules none of them are particularly complicated.

but as much as i dislike the system i have to agree 5e is perfect for a first rpg.

im not sure why he would recommend fate over risus though but maybe im missing something about fate core that makes it a better choice i only know fate accelerated.

CoC is a great introduction to a hobby whose games are unique in that there are no winners (though plenty of losers, amright? ;)). See also Paranoia.

Quote from: tuypo1;819974i have never understood people recommending coc for a first rpg a game where you are expected to fail is not in any way a good introduction to the hobby..

That is a common misconception among people who only know hearsay about the game and then parrot it without any experience from actual gameplay on their own. The players are not expected to fail in CoC by default. There is, however, the very real chance of failure, and the fact that even if you succeed, that often comes at a price (usually in form of sanity loss). Now, these are two essential lections any new player must learn: In an RPG, you are not entitled to succeed and you will frequently suffer setbacks and hardships even if you do.
Also: Lovecraft is one of the most recognized genre fiction authors. Even if your potential players have never read anything, they will probably recognize Cthulhu, in its sanitized, iconic form (green zoidberg with wings).

that is true about there being no real winners but i still think its a bad mentality to put in new players although the very thing that makes it a poor first game may make it an ideal second game show people both sides of the coin

Quote from: CRKrueger;819877retarded bullshit

i was going to explain how stupid what you just said is but ladybird pretty much covered it

Quote from: Sacrosanct;819580No, that's not the reason at all.  For one, AD&D is more complex than 5e or 4e.  The reason was because 4e's style of play didn't appeal to enough gamers and drove too many of them away.  Alienating players had nothing to do with complexity, but with style of play.  They also wanted to avoid a system like 3e where min/maxers ruled the game with a shit ton of feats.

5e's philosophy was to take D&D back to it's roots, keep it streamlined, and incorporate the good things that people liked from every prior edition without getting bogged down with a bunch of crap.

for me the problem with 4e is that it did not work as a dungeons and dragons game if they had just given it a different name (d&d tactics most likely) it would have been fine

Quote from: Emperor Norton;819623Its not nostalgia, its practicality. Its just one of the easiest games to run, because you aren't thrown out in the deep end of "make every single thing up because there is no support for you" which is where a lot of games sit.

i can agree with almost your entire post here but i must especially point out my support of this point its not something i have ever consciously thought about but your completely right

Quote from: Bren;819840And I applaude you for that. I find that true auburn, as opposed to a Miss Clairol version, is insufficiently represented in today's society.

It's a superfluous to me, but essentially harmless comment that makes me think the guy is 22 years old and still trying out personas for fit. Cut him some slack on that comment. He probably is 22 years old.

its statements like that that remind me just how young i am compared to most of you

Quote from: Beagle;819979That is a common misconception among people who only know hearsay about the game and then parrot it without any experience from actual gameplay on their own. The players are not expected to fail in CoC by default. There is, however, the very real chance of failure, and the fact that even if you succeed, that often comes at a price (usually in form of sanity loss). Now, these are two essential lections any new player must learn: In an RPG, you are not entitled to succeed and you will frequently suffer setbacks and hardships even if you do.
Also: Lovecraft is one of the most recognized genre fiction authors. Even if your potential players have never read anything, they will probably recognize Cthulhu, in its sanitized, iconic form (green zoidberg with wings).

your right i am completely guilty of making assumptions about a game based just on what i have heard im going to go buy coc right now

Quote from: tuypo1;819981your right i am completely guilty of making assumptions about a game based just on what i have heard im going to go buy coc right now

Just go to the Chaosium website and download the free Quick-Start and other PDFs. Don't spend your money if all you want to do is try a system out, that way you can save your money for the things that really matter to you.

thats a good idea

hm this is looking quite interesting so far although i will have to fix the skill improvment rules but thats not a bad thing i take great pleasure in converting random stat gens into something not random (although thats always being in character gen before and this one will be quite difficult in general) although im still not clear if you take a major would from taking half max hp or half current hp.

Quote from: Ladybird;819871But the question is, is it a good list of games to recommend to new players these days? Most of them are out of print, they lack guidance on what play actually looks like, they have a bunch of pitfalls that unwary new players could fall into... they're not bad games, they're just games that are easy to play badly without realising it.

It's why I wouldn't advocate The Fantasy Trip to a newcomer, however much I remain convinced it's the best system for a newbie ever published: with the It Has To Be New fetish in our culture, recommending a system that's been out of print for several decades does a newbie no favors.

Quote from: CRKrueger;819877The notion of "protecting new players from themselves" needs to die in a fire after being curbstomped by Godzilla and shit on by King Kong.

Oh for pity's sake.

I feel no need to haze newbies, or make them go through the same painfully long learning curves that I did.  Nor am I a drill instructor in boot camp, seeking to "toughen" newbies up.    

This hobby is a freaking pastime, and I'm quite comfy with it having a low barrier to entry.  With that in mind, I'm all for them learning clean games with simple mechanics, so that they can play the game without undue delay or fuss.  If they want to go from there to high-crunch games and complex mechanics, bless their hearts.

But seriously?  The least important part of the hobby should be the mechanics.

Quote from: tuypo1;819990hm this is looking quite interesting so far although i will have to fix the skill improvment rules but thats not a bad thing i take great pleasure in converting random stat gens into something not random (although thats always being in character gen before and this one will be quite difficult in general) although im still not clear if you take a major would from taking half max hp or half current hp.

That's not "fixing". That is the RPG equivalent of "fixing" Hamlet by adding a new ending where Hamlet and Ophelia marry and live happily ever after because you don't like the original. Nobody needs yet another boring fixed point distribution system.
Now, if you actually want to contribute to a game, an alternative character creation system for the milquetoasts,  optimizers and other people who cannot abide random character creation, is not a bad thing. More options and choice is great. However, this is obviously also at least as true the other way 'round, and many systems greatly benefit from a nice, alternative character creation system using random elements.

The first game mentioned on the list(fiasco) isnt an rpg so the whole list is voided...the first game is an improv acting/party game at best.

As for the rest...most are predictable crap from the storygamer crowd or junk that would drive new players away not intro games.

Quote from: Bren;819954Statement 1 and statement 2 are connected.

Yes, but that's mainly down to most of us being similar sorts of people. We're in it for the long term... I suspect we're also literally the worst people to ask about games for newbies. Better would be people who played a session or two and then quit; find out why they quit, and incorporate that knowledge into the next generation of games.

QuoteTo figure out if you are any good at being a GM there is one tried and tested method. Try being a GM. See if your players are having fun - e.g. do they look and sound like they are having fun; do they come back a second, third, or fourth time to play. If you still aren't sure if they are having fun ask them. If your players are having fun, then bingo, you are at least adequately good at being a GM. Carry on.

But what if they aren't having fun? Is it because they don't like gaming, they haven't worked out how to game yet, or because you're not very good as a GM yet? You don't have the understanding yet to fix the issues in a way that doesn't create bad playing habits - frex, if the problem is "we keep fighting monsters and dying", the correct GM solution should be "make it clear that not every monster needs to be fought head-on", rather than "make the players more relatively powerful so they win the fights".

It comes down to the way that RPG's are so massively different to every other gaming media. It comes down to "so what do you do now" having so many possible answers, rather than the limited amount that other games have.

QuoteThe notion that game designers are authorities on being a GM is one of the more pernicious notions preventing some people from trying to be a GM. This is a very minor niche, leisure activity. It doesn't require experts to have fun.

I'm not saying that they are automatically authorities (Although as they'd also be roleplayers, and likely GM's, I'd expect them to know what they're writing about), I'm saying that if a total newbie picks up a game book, the designers are the people that will be teaching that person how to game. Because there isn't anyone else.

Quote from: Ravenswing;819996It's why I wouldn't advocate The Fantasy Trip to a newcomer, however much I remain convinced it's the best system for a newbie ever published: with the It Has To Be New fetish in our culture, recommending a system that's been out of print for several decades does a newbie no favors.

Exactly! If you're going to run a game for someone, it doesn't matter what it is, as long as you know it. Personally I think any sort of "what you see on the sheet is what you need to roll against" system is great for that, because the numbers are nice and obvious, so players can learn the playing rather than the how to play.

The thing I'd probably recommend is Advanced Fighting Fantasy, first edition. The book starts with a brief description of roleplaying, gives you the rules you need for a basic game, then it's "grab some players, here's a scenario and pointers on how to run it". It's literally designed to be picked up and played.

It's also 25 years out of print, though, so... that's a problem, even if it is available for pennies. It's not so much "it has to be new", more "it has to be easily obtainable". The sites with complete PDF's of cool 80's games are great resources, but I wouldn't expect a newbie to find them, and even then I don't feel they're set up for "like what you see? If you're really new, START HERE" use cases.

Quote from: Ladybird;820044Yes, but that's mainly down to most of us being similar sorts of people. We're in it for the long term... I suspect we're also literally the worst people to ask about games for newbies. Better would be people who played a session or two and then quit; find out why they quit, and incorporate that knowledge into the next generation of games.

The point I was making was that in my experience there is a lot of overlap between people who naturally look to outside authorities for guidance and people who have substantial self doubt.

I don't think that RPGs are any more likely than any other leisure activity to appeal to everyone. Table Top RPGs have a substantially smaller market penetration now than they had in 1982. "Better" designed games haven't seemed to affect that. (Though obviously there are other forces at work than simply game design.)

QuoteBut what if they aren't having fun? Is it because they don't like gaming, they haven't worked out how to game yet, or because you're not very good as a GM yet?

In my experience people don't have fun for three reasons (in no particular order).
 
1) The GM is an asshole. Rules can't fix that. Maturity, which sometimes comes with age, can.

2) Playing table top RPGs isn't much fun for that person. Maybe they would enjoy playing WoW online or collaborative fan fiction story writing better. Or maybe they would just rather go drinking and dancing. Rules can't fix that.

3) The person who isn't having fun is a bad fit for the other people at the table. What they find fun is incompatible with what the others find fun. Rules can't fix that.

One might think designer notes could fix #3, but the vast majority of players (i) are not introspective about what they like and dislike and why they like or dislike it, (ii) don't have the vocabulary necessary to talk about what they like or dislike in the ways that game designers and other forum afficianados talk about such things, (iii) aren't interested in talking about game theory.

New players are worse in that they also lack the experiential background to understand what the available choices even are.

QuoteYou don't have the understanding yet to fix the issues in a way that doesn't create bad playing habits - frex, if the problem is "we keep fighting monsters and dying", the correct GM solution should be "make it clear that not every monster needs to be fought head-on", rather than "make the players more relatively powerful so they win the fights".

Or the correct fix might be to make the players more powerful relative to the monsters. Some people like that. Or to let the PCs get powerful fast so it is only an issue for a little while. Some people like that. Or to just not kill the PCs. Some people like that. Without significant experience or any help from game designers, different GMs in the groups I played with came up with their own different solutions. Frequently, wanting something different from the game was a motivator for people to be the DM/GM.

QuoteIt comes down to the way that RPG's are so massively different to every other gaming media. It comes down to "so what do you do now" having so many possible answers, rather than the limited amount that other games have.

And people for whom that is attractive will enjoy RPGs. People who don't find that attractive won't enjoy RPGs much.

QuoteI'm not saying that they are automatically authorities (Although as they'd also be roleplayers, and likely GM's, I'd expect them to know what they're writing about), I'm saying that if a total newbie picks up a game book, the designers are the people that will be teaching that person how to game. Because there isn't anyone else.

And my preference is for the designer to mostly stay out of the way of the new gamer and let them figure out what they want to do with the rules rather than acting as some authority figure telling the new person there is a right way (the designer's way) to play elf games. Early RPGs like OD&D, Traveller, Runequest, and by all accounts Tunnels & Trolls, didn't spend a lot of effort telling people how to play or that there was a right way to play. Good play examples (Traveller and Runequest did much better than OD&D at that) are extremely helpful, but they remain examples of play, not rules for play.

I have seen absolutely no evidence that newer games are any better at introducing new players than those dusty old games. The number of threads complaining about nobody wanting to GM or not being able to find players to play what the GM wants kind of seems to argue that newer games may be measurably worse at introducing new people to RPGs or creating an environment where RPGs are attractive to new people.

Quote from: Beagle;820009That's not "fixing". That is the RPG equivalent of "fixing" Hamlet by adding a new ending where Hamlet and Ophelia marry and live happily ever after because you don't like the original. Nobody needs yet another boring fixed point distribution system.
Now, if you actually want to contribute to a game, an alternative character creation system for the milquetoasts,  optimizers and other people who cannot abide random character creation, is not a bad thing. More options and choice is great. However, this is obviously also at least as true the other way 'round, and many systems greatly benefit from a nice, alternative character creation system using random elements.

its 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

Quote from: Bren;820053And my preference is for the designer to mostly stay out of the way of the new gamer and let them figure out what they want to do with the rules rather than acting as some authority figure telling the new person there is a right way (the designer's way) to play elf games.

I guess I don't see how the designer can get out of the way of the gamers figuring out what they want to do with the rules, when the rules themselves are the designer telling the players how to play that game.

Quote from: rawma;820109I guess I don't see how the designer can get out of the way of the gamers figuring out what they want to do with the rules, when the rules themselves are the designer telling the players how to play that game.

Present the rules in a neutral fashion without spending word count pontificating about how people should use the rules or on the designer's opinion of the one true way to play games. I mentioned several examples of games that explained the rules, provided examples of play, and didn't spend a lot of effort or word count pontificating about how people should play as opposed to how the rules work.

Quote from: Bren;820122Present the rules in a neutral fashion without spending word count pontificating about how people should use the rules or on the designer's opinion of the one true way to play games. I mentioned several examples of games that explained the rules, provided examples of play, and didn't spend a lot of effort or word count pontificating about how people should play as opposed to how the rules work.

You're making up the whole pontificating about how to play and one true way out of whole cloth; it wasn't in Ladybird's post.

i have to agree with rawma your misunderstanding what his views are

that said he could have worded this a bit better

Quote from: rawma;820109I guess I don't see how the designer can get out of the way of the gamers figuring out what they want to do with the rules, when the rules themselves are the designer telling the players how to play that game.

or maybe found something completely different to say its a bit of an odd connection to make

Quote from: rawma;820133You're making up the whole pontificating about how to play and one true way out of whole cloth; it wasn't in Ladybird's post.

I wasn't claiming that Ladybird said anything about designers pontificating. How would you even get that from what I wrote?

Quote from: Bren;820143I wasn't claiming that Ladybird said anything about designers pontificating. How would you even get that from what I wrote?

Because you followed a quotation from Ladybird with "And my preference is [not pontificating]", which would imply that Ladybird was saying something about it. My mistake might have been assuming your statement was not a stupid non sequitur; I will endeavor in the future to avoid assuming your posts make sense.

Quote from: rawma;820145Because you followed a quotation from Ladybird with "And my preference is [not pontificating]", which would imply that Ladybird was saying something about it. My mistake might have been assuming your statement was not a stupid non sequitur; I will endeavor in the future to avoid assuming your posts make sense.

You should stick to Vulcan or whatever your native language is and stop trying to read English. I said what my preference in game presentation was. I even gave examples. I thought the difference between the old style examples I gave and the new style that Ladybird is arguing for as an improvement was clear.

But you seemed confused since you said you didn't see how the designer could get out of the way of the player. Maybe try a course in English as a second language?

Quote from: Bren;820148I said what my preference in game presentation was. I even gave examples. I thought the difference between the old style examples I gave and the new style that Ladybird is arguing for as an improvement was clear.

So now you are saying that Ladybird said something about designers pontificating ("the new style that Ladybird is arguing for", which you now present in contrast to your preference not to have pontificating).

QuoteBut you seemed confused since you said you didn't see how the designer could get out of the way of the player.

If the players are going to play the game designed by that designer, then how can the designer get out of the way? Send them to another game? Not actually design any rules? Copy some other designer's game rather than design their own game? The rules are how to play; if you write rules, you tell the players how to play.

Quote from: rawma;820163If the players are going to play the game designed by that designer, then how can the designer get out of the way?

I already answered that. I refer you in particular to how OD&D, Traveller, and Runequest 1 or 2 handled rules descriptions and explanations. Unlike Ladybird, I don't see any value to a longer, more detailed, or new fangled explanation. Do you?

What games would you recommend for a new person wanting to play RPGs? Do you think there are games that do a better job than the ones I listed at introducing new players?

theres more to being a best beginers game then ease of learning

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

You are right.

Quote from: tuypo1;820208theres more to being a best beginers game then ease of learning

And you are right again! (I'm as surprised as you are).
 The logical conclusion therefore is that any introductory game must include random character creation to establish the groundworks for a fruitful and creative carreer of potential new RPG enthusiasts. They will face the usual superficial pseudo-balance and overall blandness of pointbuy systems soon enough.

when you think about it its kinda weird how the same arguments can be used to support 2 completely opposite schools of thought

Don't fancy yourself. None of these statements qualify as arguments except in the "I feel this way, therefore it must be true" sense. The sense of mission derived from this overestimation of one's own opinion just requires commenting; it might be confused with a fact otherwise.

that has got to be one of the most nonsensicle things i have read all day

Quote from: tuypo1;820219that has got to be one of the most nonsensicle things i have read all day

You know, I suspected that you don't bother to read anything you write.  Your confirmation in this regard wasn't strictly necessary (but is appreciated): You have proven that with every. single. post. you wrote.

I'm currently of the opinion the best RPG to recommend to a beginner is whatever RPG has subject matter most closely tied to whatever the person is interested in.

I think I might have been better off if my first RPG had been FASA's Star Trek.  I don't think FASA's Star Trek is a good system or even well written.  It's just that I was at my absolute height of Star Trek fandom in those years.

For me, trying to join other existing gamers merely resulted in pain and suffering.  For existing players, RPGs were far too much about a different form of hazing and pecking order posturing.  I didn't really enjoy the act of playing RPGs until I built my own group consisting of my pre-existing friends.  I think I would have enjoyed it much more if I had been indulging my Star Trek fandom as opposed to trying to convince myself to enjoy D&D style swords and sorcery.

For others it would be different.  Back when I was getting rid of RPG books I didn't like, I had a d20 Star Wars Revised I gave to a co-worker's 7 year old.  I was just wanting to get rid of the book because I thought it sucked.  That kid dove into that book, learned to play, and got all his friends to play.  That made me happy.  That's why I didn't just throw the book into the garbage.  I wanted someone to love it like I couldn't.  He got into that game not because d20 Star Wars has any inherent quality.  He dedicated himself to it because the Star Wars subject matter was something he was really into.

Looking back, I see the same thing with some of my own early loves: FASERIP MSH and Robotech being key examples.  Hell, the Robotech RPG sucked ass, but I kept at it because just look at all that Kevin Long art of Veritechs, and isn't it awesome?!!!

Want to get a newbie into RPGs?  Just give them something with source material they like.  It doesn't matter how complicated or how sucky the rules are.  They will figure them out.

Quote from: Gabriel2;820482I'm currently of the opinion the best RPG to recommend to a beginner is whatever RPG has subject matter most closely tied to whatever the person is interested in.

Thanks for sharing. I had been having similar thoughts in this thread. The idea that there is a best system for new players independent of the setting strikes me as a bit off as well.

We played the heck out of FASA Star Trek in the 1990s and great fun. And as you say, that was not due to the system being great, but because we enjoyed playing sessions that went like episodes of the show. We even joked about whether or not the characters should wear fancy Environmental Suits in certain situations then laughed as we said, "No. If we did that, the audience couldn't easily see the actor's faces."

I agree with Gabriel.  The easiest way to get someone to learn something is for it to spark their interest.  So go with the best style that inspires them the most.  If I had to learn with Traveller, I probably wouldn't have played.  Sorry, just no interest in that genre.  I love me my fantasy.  So D&D was perfect.

The least that list could have had was D&D 5e Basic and Pathfinder Beginner Box, but I guess they were too mainstream (if you want to call pnp RPGs mainstream) to be included.

Quote from: Gabriel2;820482wisdom

you know your right

Quote from: Bren;820206I already answered that. I refer you in particular to how OD&D, Traveller, and Runequest 1 or 2 handled rules descriptions and explanations.

You waxed nostalgic without ever giving any specifics. I played OD&D, I liked it and I still like it, but the amount of bizarrely over-specific rules far outweighs invitations to open-endedness. You seem to have some sort of effect/side effect dichotomy going on, where you know the good kind of telling players how to play from the bad kind of telling players how to play.

QuoteUnlike Ladybird, I don't see any value to a longer, more detailed, or new fangled explanation. Do you?

Quote from: Ladybird;819903The job of the games designer is:

1. To tell the players "say what you want to do, and you'll be asked what to roll"
2. To tell the GM "if anyone asks you 'what can I do', say 'tell me what you want to do, and I'll tell you what to roll'"
3. To give the GM a framework that can be used to make the call on what to roll, and how to interpret the results

...and in the absence of an expert or one of us, there is nobody else to do that.

I don't see Ladybird advocating any of the things you claimed.

QuoteWhat games would you recommend for a new person wanting to play RPGs? Do you think there are games that do a better job than the ones I listed at introducing new players?

The 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.

So we are left discussing a hypothetical where someone with no knowledge of RPGs asks me for advice on starting to play RPGs but under circumstances where no experienced player or GM can be part of their group. I already made my annual charitable donation to the group that drops classic books on desert islands in case someone is stranded there and will then have a chance of finding some of the list of books they would want on a desert island, so, no, not much interested in discussing this, let alone with you.

That being said, OD&D books would be one of the worst possible things for someone new to RPGs to learn from on their own, even if you could decide how much of supplements, Chainmail, Outdoor Survival, Warriors of Mars and issues of Strategic Review to include. D&D 5e easily outstrips this: current, well explained, still a manageable amount of rules, free basic PDFs, easy to find a group to learn from.

Small games may be a better vehicle. Less to be overwhelmed by, sooner to be forced onto their own devices to make up more stuff, less likely to break the game over some subtle misunderstanding. Let them read TWERPS.

there are indeed good and bad ways to tell people how to play if you insist thats the only way then its the bad way otherwise its probably the good way

Quote from: rawma;820583You waxed nostalgic without ever giving any specifics. I played OD&D...

I'm not going to type out the examples. If you read the rules you've already read the examples. Go reread them if your memory is hazy.

QuoteI don't see Ladybird advocating any of the things you claimed.

I don't know what Ladybird's desire for better explanations is coming from. All the rules I listed explain those three elements of play.

QuoteSo we are left discussing a hypothetical where someone with no knowledge of RPGs asks me for advice on starting to play RPGs but under circumstances where no experienced player or GM can be part of their group. I already made my annual charitable donation to the group that drops classic books on desert islands in case someone is stranded there and will then have a chance of finding some of the list of books they would want on a desert island, so, no, not much interested in discussing this, let alone with you.

Yeah, I suspected you were more interested in nit picking my post than you were in discussing the topic of the thread.

QuoteThat being said, OD&D books would be one of the worst possible things for someone new to RPGs to learn from on their own...

My experience was that OD&D was relatively simple to learn by reading the books. Which makes me wonder why people like Ladybird and you seem to feel that more or different explanations are needed than were provided by the much more new user friendly games that I mentioned like Traveller and Runequest 1.

Quote from: Bren;821033My experience was that OD&D was relatively simple to learn by reading the books. Which makes me wonder why people like Ladybird and you seem to feel that more or different explanations are needed than were provided by the much more new user friendly games that I mentioned like Traveller and Runequest 1.

I 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. The main competition these days are video games (Lots of tutorials and telling the player how awesome they are), board games (Generally playable straight out of the box), wargames (With the popular ones generally providing some sort of "buy this and you can start playing NOW box"), CCG's (Starter sets, competent "play online with a tutorial mode" apps) and forum RPG's (Never having signed up to a forum in my life, I don't understand these). What do we have for new groups... a few pages in the book saying "RPG's are like lots of other things, but not" and "be good at GM'ing, achieve this by not being bad, you'll work it out".

Another aspect is how much other mediums have appropriated parts of roleplaying, resulting in things that players need to unlearn before an RPG - for example, Bioware's games (Probably the most popular of the console RPG's) are just prettified Fighting Fantasy books, so players need to realise that they have OPTIONS... or WoW players who need to unlearn "the solution to every problem is VIOLENCE". Sure, KILLKILLKILL is fun, but it's a thing that RPG's don't do as well as videogames.

RPG's are a complex medium, and that's what makes them so great, but because they superficially look like so many other things, they're easy to misunderstand... and if potential players do that, if they say "fuck this shit" and we lose them to Call of Duty or whatever, it's going to be harder to get them back.

(If this sounds like I'm advocating "dumbing down" RPG's, well, so be it; I don't believe in working harder than needed purely for the sake of it. But there's plenty of design room between Phoenix Command and Snakes & Ladders.)

Like I've said, I really like the way Advanced Fighting Fantasy (Dungeoneer!, as the first book is called) did it, as an example. It opens with an adventure, broken down into discrete areas to train players to solve problems, and with plenty of advice for the GM on what to do, not do, and how to salvage a situation that turns bad; it ends on a cliffhanger (With the next adventure at the end of the book, with steadily less basic advice as it goes) and the middle of the book is the full rules, for the GM to read between games. That, I reckon, was a good book for new groups; it also helps that the adventures themselves were pretty good (I ran them last year for an experienced group, and we had a blast).

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.

I'm curious if you have ever even read the rules to Runequest 1 or 2. Your comments make me think not as the rules do exactly what you said rules should do and are amazingly easy to learn and even easier to teach and the examples are outstanding. At a page length of 120 pages including 2 sample Cult write-ups, extensive Monster Descriptions, Treasure Tables, 17 Appendices, and an Index it is far more comprehensible to a reader than the vast majority of the 200+ tomes that game companies issue today.

People who would prefer to play Call of Duty, a collectible card game, or Shoots and Ladders should do that. Trying to make an RPG more like any of those sounds like an excellent way finish of the oh, so niche TTRPG market for good.

QuoteRPG's are a complex medium, and that's what makes them so great, but because they superficially look like so many other things, they're easy to misunderstand... and if potential players do that, if they say "fuck this shit" and we lose them to Call of Duty or whatever, it's going to be harder to get them back.

So what if it is hard to get people who like other hobbies to play. We aren't "getting them back." They were never interested in creating their own content in the first place. RPGs are a oh, so niche hobby that are not going to be interesting for everyone. Better to accept RPGs for what they are as a creative and experiential activity than to try to morph them into some imitation of other hobbies in a futile effort to increase their market share relative to card games and console and online shooters.

Neither players nor GMs need to be trained. They just need to be interested in using their imaginations and given a system that allows them to play while learning. Your desire to train the players by giving them carefully predigested material sounds like a recipe to train consumers to expect to have to buy more predigested material. It does not sound like a process for helping and enabling creative people see what TTRPGs can do or to learn to do their own creation and to own their own play. Rather than dumbing things down, the latter sort of process would be my goal for RPGs.

What a ridiculous, pathetic propaganda-piece of an article that OP was...

indeed

oh wow i just read the comments on the article and holy shit this has got to be the stupidest thing i have seen all day

A really good open game rpg that almost anyone can get into (if you can find it) is Big Eye's, Small Mouth. Otherwise known as BESM; it's a wacky anime rpg that takes a lot of in house rulings since it can be a broken system.

why the fuck would you suggest a system that requires heavy houseruleing for beginners

looking at the authors twitter he really is a horrible horrible person

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.

For non-D&D play I think the best system is WEG d6 Star Wars. Since that's out of print, get the free Mini-6 RPG - http://www.antipaladingames.com/p/mini-six.html - covers the same bases as Savage Worlds but far more accessible, and includes a bunch of very nice settings (inc a Star Wars ripoff).

In Alexandrian terms it's not a 'complete game structure' because it lacks D&D's default play mode, but that criticism also applies to Savage Worlds and 99% of the RPGs out there - at least Star Wars has 'shoot the stormtroopers'. :D

Quote from: Beagle;821225As it stands, the system was a wasted opportunity in pretty much every regard.

  Green Ronin's about to publish an all-in-one book, so it may get a chance at a relaunch.

They really should.  I do love that 3d6 with one die being the dragon die.  Get doubles with a dragon die and you can pull off special bonus effects depending on the amount you get.  Planning to punch a person and rolled a 6, 6, 3 with a dragon die being a 6.  Congrats you got 6 points to spend on this chart to see how much you fuck that guy over.

Pretty good system that is easy to learn and understand.  Now if they can port it over to other settings instead of being stuck with EA.

Quote from: Snowman0147;821257They really should.  I do love that 3d6 with one die being the dragon die.  Get doubles with a dragon die and you can pull off special bonus effects depending on the amount you get.  Planning to punch a person and rolled a 6, 6, 3 with a dragon die being a 6.  Congrats you got 6 points to spend on this chart to see how much you fuck that guy over.

Pretty good system that is easy to learn and understand.  Now if they can port it over to other settings instead of being stuck with EA.

  From Green Ronin's 2015 plans post back in January:

Quote from: http://greenronin.com/blog/2015/01/19/green-ronin-in-2015/Since we first released Dragon Age, people have been asking us if we were going to release the game system—known as the Adventure Game Engine—separately from the setting. The answer is yes! Our plan for this year is to release Fantasy AGE, a core rulebook for the system that I am working on right now. This will be strictly a rule book with no attached setting. The core of the game will be well-familiar to Dragon Age fans but there are some differences, the biggest of which is the magic system. That of Dragon Age was meant to emulate how magic works in Thedas, so I am modifying it heavily for Fantasy AGE.

Our goal is to release Fantasy AGE in May. Then at the end of July we will release the game's first setting book. This is our big GenCon release and part of something super exciting ... that I can't talk about yet. This will be the focus of our GenCon presence this year and perhaps the biggest RPG story of the year. Watch for an announcement in a few months.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;821258From Green Ronin's 2015 plans post back in January:

Green Ronin's been getting curbstomped by both EA and GRRM as far as their licenses go.  Add to that their small size and it's impossible it seems for them to ever move quickly enough to really jump on the momentum of releases of their licenses tied-in products.

Dragon Age set one was no more limited than the Red Box or Pathfinder Basic.  The delay was the killer there, but now that it's done, it's still a great system for new players, especially with Inqusition being just released.

Quote from: CRKrueger;821260Green Ronin's been getting curbstomped by both EA and GRRM as far as their licenses go.  Add to that their small size and it's impossible it seems for them to ever move quickly enough to really jump on the momentum of releases of their licenses tied-in products.

Dragon Age set one was no more limited than the Red Box or Pathfinder Basic.  The delay was the killer there, but now that it's done, it's still a great system for new players, especially with Inqusition being just released.

   I remember the long wait for the full run of DC Adventures products, too. I think this is why they're continuing the trend they started with that and starting to create unlicensed versions of their licensed games to build on players who were attracted to the licensed games--it means they have stuff to sell those players when the licenses slow down or run out.

  But apparently the all-in-one Dragon Age book (which is different from the Fantasy AGE standalone) is being shown off or at least talked up at GAMA and generating some buzz.

Quote from: estar;821125The 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.

Good post!

Other tabletop games got smart and slick.  An evening's fun in an evening if you will.

Look at boardgames - straightforward core rules in a 20-page booklet, with complexity hived off onto cards.  Narrow focus and strong themes, well-defined gameplay, clever data visualisation, superb production values.

Dungeon crawlers may lack the sheer wonder of your first D&D game, but they handle other aspects well - tactical combat, exploration, resource management, the balance between GM and the party.  A game like Imperial Assault is half a year's campaigning in a £70 box.

A lot of successful wargames these days are quick-play, require smaller armies and are deigned to get you up and running but want you to come back with depth in the rules, and a range of playstyles and options.  Games Workshop are being hammered in the market for big, money and time-intensive games that are full of rules quirks and trap options.

Like GW games, I think RPGs are a mature market.  Companies are making what sells to current gamers - big, colour rulebooks full of edge-case rules and setting detail down to the taps on the Baron's bidet.  GM material always sells less than player material, because fewer people GM.  And there's the worry in a mature market that you're selling heavily to collectors rather than gamers.

What sells well now may not be best for the market as an ongoing concern.  And of course, unlike other tabletop games, there's a fundamental disconnect between the hobby and the industry.

For me, the best two starter games were Star Wars D6 (templates!  In Media Res!) and its predecessor, the work of genius that was 1st Edition Ghostbusters.  And they're 30 years old.  Mini 6 is a cracking game too mind you.

Savage Worlds does try to offer a streamlined game system, and setting books that are a mix of background, scenarios and campaign outline.  But it's a quirky game - there are a lot of trap options generating e.g. combat characters.

It's good that toolkit games like RPGs do exist, much like the wargames you see at shows that are set up on 18ft boards (and yes there are rulesets that cater to those).  And much like the wargaming "minigames" of painting and research, a lot of people get a lot of pleasure out of worldbuilding, optimising characters or creating vehicles.  And for their sheer flexibility and human moderation, RPGs are an unbeatable experience when they work well.  But I don't think RPGs ever addressed the issue of an evening's fun in an evening.

All very much IMHO ;)

And Green Ronin has just announced a Kickstarter for their first AGE setting.

  Somehow, I don't think it's going to be very popular here ...

http://greenronin.com/blog/2015/03/23/ (http://greenronin.com/blog/2015/03/23/)

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

Except I don't know of anyone who actually plays T&T or promotes it.  No, really, I'm not trying to be ugly about the matter.  Aside from some noise about the collector's tin edition and the fact that it's a perennial mention by grognards, I really don't know of any promotion, mention of it, etc.

Quote from: CRKrueger;819878Please don't trigger me.  My favorite Shadowrun character died in Auburn.

You have been warned about Tone-Policing before, CRKrueger.  Take a week off from this thread and see my PM.  Just a friendly warning to everyone else posting - keep it civil or bans WILL be handed out.

Also, everyone here is wrong.  And so is that list.  There aren't ten, the answer is "Any RPG, ever"* with the caveat of "...as long as the GM is patient, knows his target gamer is new and wants to start playing RPGs and wants in turn to introduce that person to RPGs."

I can take the "softest" most rounded-corner general RPG and turn it into a PKing murderfest with my viking hat on so tight it squeezes my brain out of my ears.

Conversely, I can take Hero System and have our theoretical "newbie" dancin' on the ceiling just as long as I'm patient with them and take the time to introduce them to the system and it's complexities.

...

*=obvious jokes like Hybrid and FATAL need not apply

From the ones I've bought, I think Ancient Odysseys fits the bill very well for dungeon crawling goodness.

I also quite like Trollbabe from a funky hippie game perspective.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;821557You have been warned about Tone-Policing before, CRKrueger.  Take a week off from this thread and see my PM.  Just a friendly warning to everyone else posting - keep it civil or bans WILL be handed out.

My eyebrow actually twitched when I glanced at this. LOL

This top-ten list sucks. I'll go with d6 as a good starter system. There are easier ones, but I don't play easy. Ever.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;821562From the ones I've bought, I think Ancient Odysseys fits the bill very well for dungeon crawling goodness.

Good game- very underrated.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;821555And Green Ronin has just announced a Kickstarter for their first AGE setting.

  Somehow, I don't think it's going to be very popular here ...

http://greenronin.com/blog/2015/03/23/ (http://greenronin.com/blog/2015/03/23/)

That's not surprising. They don't have much to offer that they own. Magic Deer and Freeport is all they have. I'm honestly shocked that they didn't cross the streams yet.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;821555And Green Ronin has just announced a Kickstarter for their first AGE setting.

  Somehow, I don't think it's going to be very popular here ...

http://greenronin.com/blog/2015/03/23/ (http://greenronin.com/blog/2015/03/23/)

Blue Rose Returns!

Gotta convince Chris or Nicole to send a copy to Pundit.  :rotfl:

Quote from: CRKrueger;821582Blue Rose Returns!

Gotta convince Chris or Nicole to send a copy to Pundit.  :rotfl:

I would gladly receive a review copy, and would do the review with the same detail and effort I do all my reviews.

Quote from: RPGPundit;821912I would gladly receive a review copy, and would do the review with the same detail and effort I do all my reviews.

I would totally chip into a fundraiser to make that happen. C'mon therpgsite, what d'you say? Each of us throws in a few bucks to mail a copy to Pundit upon release?

Quote from: TristramEvans;821928I would totally chip into a fundraiser to make that happen. C'mon therpgsite, what d'you say? Each of us throws in a few bucks to mail a copy to Pundit upon release?

LOL. Well, I won't refuse it, if there's actually enough interest to make it happen.

Nah, I barely have money to buy games for myself much less for anyone else.

Quote from: Matt;825230Nah, I barely have money to buy games for myself much less for anyone else.

I certainly don't blame you for that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;825632I certainly don't blame you for that.

Not to say I wouldn't like to see your review were someone else to facilitate a copy manifesting itself in your mitts.

I still think Blue Rose sounds like a shitty Spider-Man villain.

Quote from: Matt;825755I still think Blue Rose sounds like a shitty Spider-Man villain.

Or a touchy-feely Chris Claremont era X-Men supporting "hero".

Or a French nemesis for The Scarlet Pimpernel...

Quote from: TristramEvans;825771Or a French nemesis for The Scarlet Pimpernel...

Given that the Pimpernel fought against the demented persecutions of revolutionaries gone mad, that would be an apt case.

Quote from: TristramEvans;825771Or a French nemesis for The Scarlet Pimpernel...

La sir, that's deuced clever of you. Sink me if I didn't come near to laughing aloud. Faith! Well done, I say. 'Pon my soul sir, well done.

Quote from: TristramEvans;825771Or a French nemesis for The Scarlet Pimpernel...

Heh, I did that in my Scarlet Pimpernel campaign.  No sooner would the League members deposit their rescuee safely in England than Le Revenant would sweep through, kidnap the poor bastard, and haul his aristo ass back to France for execution.  Got them tolerably hot under the collar ... :D

Quote from: thedungeondelver;821556Except I don't know of anyone who actually plays T&T or promotes it.  No, really, I'm not trying to be ugly about the matter.  Aside from some noise about the collector's tin edition and the fact that it's a perennial mention by grognards, I really don't know of any promotion, mention of it, etc.

I wouldn't recommend it for beginners, either. It's just nuts, with zip for game balance and complex maths to figure out what the heck you're doing as GM when the dice tosses actually make a difference. Ken St Andre is I gather a great storyteller who doesn't really use a rules set, but what's a beginner to do with the book then?

It works after a fashion for programmed solitaire scenarios you replay as one character after another gets killed or has a cakewalk. Some things are pretty deterministic, so you can learn from previous choices, while others are totally random.

I have taught roleplaying with all kind of games. I've had newbies in Vampire, Rolemaster, D&D, RuneQuest, Star Wars, you name it. It didn't make a difference. The importance of the system is vastly overrated.

The only thing a game needs to be great for beginners is to have an enthusiastic and helpful group, specially the GM.

Quote from: Bren;821033I'm not going to type out the examples. If you read the rules you've already read the examples. Go reread them if your memory is hazy.

The only examples of any significance are a failed attempt to subdue a red dragon (which could easily be shorter and more useful) and "Example of the Referee Moderating a Dungeon Expedition" which features both a caller and the attitude that the referee should be hostile to player success.

QuoteYeah, I suspected you were more interested in nit picking my post than you were in discussing the topic of the thread.

And in turn you have no interest in discussing the games I suggested, confirming my certainty that you were only interested in attacking me.

QuoteMy experience was that OD&D was relatively simple to learn by reading the books.

In fact, your stated opinion was "absolutely no evidence that newer games are any better at introducing new players than those dusty old games". You're running so hard from this statement that you won't even clarify which supplements you would include for OD&D.

Mostly this is a huge slap in the face of the OSR folks: perpetually failing to match OD&D despite their best efforts, decades of new ideas and all OD&D's warts: callers, 20 to 50 players per referee, typos, contradictions, etc.

Quote from: Ravenswing;825915Heh, I did that in my Scarlet Pimpernel campaign.  No sooner would the League members deposit their rescuee safely in England than Le Revenant would sweep through, kidnap the poor bastard, and haul his aristo ass back to France for execution.  Got them tolerably hot under the collar ... :D

That would be a bad ass game with a little Tale of Two Cities  and Les Miserables tossed in.

What game system did you use, and why?

Quote from: Imperator;825966I have taught roleplaying with all kind of games. I've had newbies in Vampire, Rolemaster, D&D, RuneQuest, Star Wars, you name it. It didn't make a difference. The importance of the system is vastly overrated.

The only thing a game needs to be great for beginners is to have an enthusiastic and helpful group, specially the GM.

+1.

That said, when dealing with newbies of a less geeky bent, I gravitate towards modern-day horror scenarios, using CoC and/or nWoD. Though many specifically request D&D.

Quote from: Matt;837436That would be a bad ass game with a little Tale of Two Cities  and Les Miserables tossed in.

What game system did you use, and why?

  Didn't Ravenswing write GURPS Scarlet Pimpernel?

Quote from: Imperator;825966I have taught roleplaying with all kind of games. I've had newbies in Vampire, Rolemaster, D&D, RuneQuest, Star Wars, you name it. It didn't make a difference. The importance of the system is vastly overrated.

The only thing a game needs to be great for beginners is to have an enthusiastic and helpful group, specially the GM.

Absolutely. I've introduced new players including young teenagers and adults with Rolemaster Standard System and Hero 6e. Yikes, right? Not really.

• Get the players on board with the campaign concept
• Let them conceptualise a character that they're excited about
• Guide them through character creation
• Emphasise the drama and simple mechanics of the primary task resolution mechanic when it comes to their turn
• Don't punish them for lack of system mastery, but reward them for participating and making decisions which add to the fun. (i.e. if they do something "stupid" which is actually foolhardy according to the mechanics, but is in a good spirit, then fudge it a bit, and only later explain to them why that might not always be a good idea)

The first session is fucking crucial. Make sure that they have a good time, can participate as they wish (or sit back and watch, some players are like that) and that the other players are on the same page.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;837506Didn't Ravenswing write GURPS Scarlet Pimpernel?

How would I know? "Ravenswing."

Quote from: thedungeondelver;821556Except I don't know of anyone who actually plays T&T or promotes it.  No, really, I'm not trying to be ugly about the matter.  Aside from some noise about the collector's tin edition and the fact that it's a perennial mention by grognards, I really don't know of any promotion, mention of it, etc.

Liz Danforth was previewing the cover of the new deluxe edition on G+ yesterday.

Quote from: Phillip;825918I wouldn't recommend it for beginners, either. It's just nuts, with zip for game balance and complex maths to figure out what the heck you're doing as GM when the dice tosses actually make a difference. Ken St Andre is I gather a great storyteller who doesn't really use a rules set, but what's a beginner to do with the book then?

It works after a fashion for programmed solitaire scenarios you replay as one character after another gets killed or has a cakewalk. Some things are pretty deterministic, so you can learn from previous choices, while others are totally random.

I can kinda see what you're saying about the rules and Ken, and if you're used to other rules T&T may seem weird, but me and my friends (all aged 10) sussed it out easy enough as our introduction to the hobby. Don't agree the maths is tough. I'm rubbish at maths, but 10 year old me never had problem with T&T.

As to: "what's a beginner to do with the book then?"

Read it, it's full of great advice on GMing and plenty of great examples of how the game is played. It is actually a very well written, fun to read rule book. Then after you've read it run the introductory dungeon Trollstone Caverns.

Quote from: Weru;837758Liz Danforth was previewing the cover of the new deluxe edition on G+ yesterday.





I can kinda see what you're saying about the rules and Ken, and if you're used to other rules T&T may seem weird, but me and my friends (all aged 10) sussed it out easy enough as our introduction to the hobby. Don't agree the maths is tough. I'm rubbish at maths, but 10 year old me never had problem with T&T.

That you don't care to know the probability you're setting does not make it easy to know. If you did know, you sure weren't "rubbish at maths".

QuoteAs to: "what's a beginner to do with the book then?"

Read it, it's full of great advice on GMing and plenty of great examples of how the game is played. It is actually a very well written, fun to read rule book. Then after you've read it run the introductory dungeon Trollstone Caverns.

I know it's well written and fun to read. I know we get pages of round-by -round tallies of point adds and deductions.  I also know it gives close enough to zero advice on how to improvise the makeshifts when the tedious combat number-crunching is simply futile,  never mind more interesting "saving roll" (or ability-score comparison) situations.

That's what would really be useful: Actual help in adjudicating an adventure game. The "mechanics" have nothing to recommend them over what a bright 10-year-old can contrive.  What actually made Ken's game fun is just what's neglected.

Quote from: Phillip;837762That you don't care to know the probability you're setting does not make it easy to know. If you did know, you sure weren't "rubbish at maths".

To be honest I don't care about probability (in any game).

Quote from: Phillip;837762I know it's well written and fun to read.

Wasn't suggesting you didn't. Was just answering the question and explaining why I think it's a great intro for a beginner.

Quote from: Phillip;837762That's what would really be useful: Actual help in adjudicating an adventure game. The "mechanics" have nothing to recommend them over what a bright 10-year-old can contrive.  What actually made Ken's game fun is just what's neglected.

Well, I wasn't a bright 10 year old, and am definitely not a bright forty-something. As T&T was the first RPG I saw and played I can't imagine me and my mates contriving anything like it without seeing it first.

To be honest, as kids, we loved slinging shit loads of six-siders for round after round. The other thing is; I think the Solos taught us how to apply the SR system in more imaginative ways, and were as big a part of learning T&T, as the rulebook. That said, I still think new players would be fine just reading the rules, rolling up some characters, and having a crack at the Trollstone Caverns.

Quote from: Weru;837765To be honest I don't care about probability (in any game).

Then -- provided you have friends to play with who are likewise -- you don't need T&T or any other set of 'rules'. If outcomes might as well be purely random, then the value is the basic concept and good advice for the gm on such matters as the gm actually can be arsed to consider.

From that perspective, T&T as published in the '70s  (or now) may be adequate -- but adequate is not especially good.

QuoteWasn't suggesting you didn't. Was just answering the question and explaining why I think it's a great intro for a beginner.



Well, I wasn't a bright 10 year old, and am definitely not a bright forty-something. As T&T was the first RPG I saw and played I can't imagine me and my mates contriving anything like it without seeing it first.

To be honest, as kids, we loved slinging shit loads of six-siders for round after round. The other thing is; I think the Solos taught us how to apply the SR system in more imaginative ways, and were as big a part of learning T&T, as the rulebook. That said, I still think new players would be fine just reading the rules, rolling up some characters, and having a crack at the Trollstone Caverns.

Quote from: Phillip;837812Then -- provided you have friends to play with who are likewise -- you don't need T&T or any other set of 'rules'. If outcomes might as well be purely random, then the value is the basic concept and good advice for the gm on such matters as the gm actually can be arsed to consider.

1st level SRs are easy, 5th lvl SRs are tough. Easier if your stats are high, tougher if they're low. That's not random. It's not difficult to parse either.

Quote from: Phillip;837812From that perspective, T&T as published in the '70s  (or now) may be adequate -- but adequate is not especially good.

Adequate?  Adequate? T&T is like a tripped out Middle Earth and Marvel mash-up. That's not adequate, that's awesome.

Right now, I'm running a game for some people who have never played an RPG and I'm using Barebones Fantasy. However, I chose that because I wanted to play it, not because they did. It does have the great benefit of being short, which increases the likelihood of a player reading the rules.

I suspect that most gamers will be familiar with the concepts of most RPGs, seeing as they're built into many computer RPGs  (and of course they came from paper anyway), and the likelihood of finding someone new who has never played a CRPG is pretty remote.

In practice, I have found it doesn't matter a whole lot which RPG is the first one someone plays. If anything, D&D and GURPS are the least suitable, because of the piles of special rules spread over many volumes.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;837506Didn't Ravenswing write GURPS Scarlet Pimpernel?

Did he?  Shit, congratulations on that one, Ravenswing: it was one of the truly excellent GURPS books I remembered really enjoying.