Which RPG ruleset is the most newbie-friendly?

[kwanzaabot]

Hey y'all, I'm interested in getting some friends of mine to play some kind of RPG, and these are people who have never touched a pen & paper game, though have expressed some interest.

Personally, I'm (somewhat) familar with 3.5 edition D&D, and have the core rulebooks for it, though admittedly it is a little complex, and I worry all the numbers and such could get a little overwhelming for my players eventually.

I've been looking into trying out 4e (or Essentials- what's the difference, anyway?) or Pathfinder, and like the title says, which one of these systems would be the best fit for a group of people who have never rolled a dice with more than 6 sides in their life?

I've heard good things (comparitively) about 4e in this regard, though I've never tried it, so I don't know how true it is.

[Kaervaslol]

From those two systems? As a player, I would say 4e.

If you want a newbie-friendly system alltogether, http://www.basicfantasy.org/.

[Earthwalker]

This is kind of difficult to answer without more information on what you are trying to do. Choice of system has alot to do with what kind of game you are trying to run.

I have heard that 4e is simpler for players to learn for players and easier for a new GM to balance encounters (I have never played it and it really doesn't appeal to what I want from an RPG). DnD is a rules heavy system but is good if you like its interesting form of tachtical combat.

As I said what interests you and the players about RPGs that might help us all point you towards a system.

[Eldan]

It heavily depends on what the people you want to bring into it like. If they want, basically, the story-telling aspect with some rules, get something really, really rules-light where you basically make up your own powers. Something like FATE, or FUDGE, or any number of systems like that.

If they want more combat, and like fidgeting with rules, try 3.5 and just leave out some of the rules the first time around. I've introduced a newbie into the game just fine, by leaving out things like Attacks of Opportunity or most combat maneuvers the first time around. It's really not that complicated as long as you only give them easy rules for what they have to know for their character, go with them over character generation and explain the sheet. 4E would probably work just as well.

[Mastikator]

I've read that D&D 4E is designed to be newbie friendly for both DMs and players. I have never played it myself, but I've read the rules a little and it seems to be a possible candidate as a gateway ruleset for other, more broad rulesets.

[profitofrage]

Although keeping characters alive initially can be a bit hard may I suggest Dark Heresy?
though its rather very different to D&D and the like but in terms of systems its pretty easy to get into.

[Eldan]

DH? I've only talked to one guy who liked it, but it seemed very rules heavy to me.

Or maybe it was just that guy. He basically held a personal twenty minute lecture about his assassin's weapon collection to me.

No, I don't know what Promethium shells are.

[MeeposFire]

If you want to play D&D 4e is by far the easiest for several reasons.

1) It is the most new DM friendly. It is easier to build encounters since you just add the XP of the monsters together and that will tell you what the encounter level is. Follow the guidelines and things should be fairly smooth. You will make mistakes but they will not haunt you as much.

2) It is much harder to make a badly designed character. Especially an essentials character. If you build a bad essentials character then you either tried to do so or you ignored 100% of the advice in the book (such as making a mage with an int of 12).

3) While no game is 100% balanced you will find 4e does a good job at giving everybody a job in combat and being good at it. Everybody brings something to the table and since the roles are defined it helps people know what they are supposed to do.

4) DMing is made even easier since monsters are not made like characters. In 3.5 it could take hours to make a single NPC. In 4e you could whip up NPCs in 1/4 the time and it faster to upgrade monsters since you do not need to add classes or stuff like that.


Now essentials is the "evergreen" 4e D&D product. If you buy that you will have everything you will need though not everything that can be found in the system. Essentials is a good way to go from 3.5 to 4e as essentials did bring back some older material and it would not be as much of a jump.

If you decide to go 4e these are the products I suggest

1) Rules compendium

2) Heroes of the Fallen Lands/Forgotten Kingdoms or Players Handbook 1. Do one of these to start notice you do not need both Lands or kingdoms you just need one (each has different races and classes. Lands has the most famous of each).

3) Monster vault-has the updated monsters which helps make higher level combats more fun.

4) DM's Kit-gives more stuff than the older DMG

[profitofrage]

DH? I've only talked to one guy who liked it, but it seemed very rules heavy to me.

Or maybe it was just that guy. He basically held a personal twenty minute lecture about his assassin's weapon collection to me.

No, I don't know what Promethium shells are.

Its actually rather simple, all percentile based. Like all RPG's it only gets complicated when your really high level, trying to do something insanely awesome/crazy or in your friends case (or what it sounds like) when a PC has so much left over cash they buy a custom gun and put EVERY listed attachment on it.

[Eldan]

It was probably that. And he wasn't even really my friend, he was a guy I had met at the shop and maybe talked to once before. I think he just had a game the evening before and wanted to tell everyone how awesome it was. The problem was that the way he told it, no one got what he was talking about :smalltongue:

"And then, there was this orc boss, and he had like a 95 in that stat, and we only had this rifle, and that rifle with those four attachments, and that grenade, and those sets of armour and we had to roll like a 93, while the ork had to roll only a 73, but luckily, my character was so awesome, and he had the coolest armour in the book with every possible attachment, which were X and Y and Z and pi, and so we..."

[profitofrage]

It was probably that. And he wasn't even really my friend, he was a guy I had met at the shop and maybe talked to once before. I think he just had a game the evening before and wanted to tell everyone how awesome it was. The problem was that the way he told it, no one got what he was talking about :smalltongue:

"And then, there was this orc boss, and he had like a 95 in that stat, and we only had this rifle, and that rifle with those four attachments, and that grenade, and those sets of armour and we had to roll like a 93, while the ork had to roll only a 73, but luckily, my character was so awesome, and he had the coolest armour in the book with every possible attachment, which were X and Y and Z and pi, and so we..."

You poor soul.
Dark Heresy does have this habit of causing rambling. See because everything in the game (that isnt a squishy human) can kill you almost instantly..when you DO kill something as big as an ork (something roughly..2 feet taller?) you celebrate...ALOT

[FelixG]

Dark Heresy is a lot of fun..but its theme is a bit...dark for someone you are just trying to get going :smallbiggrin:

[profitofrage]

Dark Heresy is a lot of fun..but its theme is a bit...dark for someone you are just trying to get going :smallbiggrin:

Whats dark about being acolytes for an inquisitor giving the authority to burn whole planets to a cinder because he thinks 2% of its population might be evil ...maybe..sorta.


OH RIGHT..that part.

[Rasman]

if you want a SIMPLE system you should look at Savage Worlds, I don't think it gets much simpler without maintaining a slight complexity and uniqueness to the characters

[Dr.Epic]

I'm throwing 3.5 out there.

[Kurald Galain]

I've heard good things (comparitively) about 4e in this regard, though I've never tried it, so I don't know how true it is.

It's exaggerated, at least.

4E is reasonably easy to learn for people who are already into gaming and who've played numerous boardgames or computer games.

However, it is pretty hard to learn for non-gamers. Your character sheet prints out several pages of similarly-looking powers, and each turn you have to pick one of those - that process can be positively overwhelming, and I've seen several players turned off by this.

For most RPGs, you can simply ask a new player to say what he wants to do, and you'll point to a skill to roll; 4E, when the player says he wants to attack, asks the question "so do you want to attack with deft strike, or with riposte strike, or with a melee basic, or with blinding barrage", to which a novice player may well respond with bewilderment. Effectively, the amount of rules that you have to know in order to play the game is pretty high in 4E, whereas it is almost zero in pretty much every other RPG.

[BayardSPSR]

Email the guys in my sig. They've got one under the unoriginal title of 'Heroism: The TRPG' that functions on a similar premise to D&D - but simpler. There are fourteen stats for each character, but you use them for everything. All you really need to do is roll a d6 and add (with the exception of combat, that works slightly differently).

It's still in development, but it makes up for that by being completely free. So if you're willing to take a shot at something relatively untested and houserule away anything that doesn't work, it might be worth looking into. It's all I play now.



And 3.5? No! As a newbie player, trust me on this: no. The rules are far too Byzantine. Example spoilered:

Let me put it this way: how do you figure out how to hit something with a sword?

Well, first you take your strength. Then you figure out your strength modifier. Then you roll a twenty-sided dice and add it together with your strength modifier (not your strength) and any other bonuses you may have and add it all together. Now you take ten, and add to that the other guys dexterity modifier - not his dexterity - and whatever bonus from armor he has and compare the two. That took long enough, but let's not forget that he might not get his whole dexterity modifier (not his dexterity) depending on his armor. Oh, and he might be flat-footed, which means he might not get ANY dexterity modifier (not dexterity) at all! And then if you're lucky you can roll a dice with an unusual number of sides to see how much you actually hurt him. Oh, but if you rolled a twenty or maybe a nineteen or a twenty or maybe an eighteen, nineteen, or twenty the first time - not counting the bonus for your weapon and strength modifier (not strength) - you call roll that dice two times! Or maybe three! And to kill him, you don't bring him down to zero hit points (don't even get me started on how THOSE are calculated) - you bring him down to NEGATIVE TEN!

You will have to explain this at least twice if everyone's listening carefully before they have the gist of what you're talking about. For me, as of now, this is THE rule I understand. I don't even know what it means to be flat-footed! Please, please take my advice and don't start new players on D&D 3.5. You'll probably spend an entire session just putting the characters together.

[Eldan]

See, that's why I said help them making a character.

I've played 3.5 with total newbies before. As in people who hadn't even played any computer RPGs or complex board games before. It takes about 15 minutes to make a basic core character, ten more minutes to explain the things on their sheets, and in a little over half an hour, you can be playing.

It's really not that hard. The important thing is that people don't have to know all the rules to play. Example?

"I attack."
"Okay. You roll this die." *set down a d20*
*rolls*
"Now you add this number here, which means how good you are at fighting. You rolled high, and he is surprised, so you hit."

That's entirely enough at first, the rest can really be picked up while playing. Explaining all the rules first is tedious, boring and likely to turn newbies off. Just play a bit, first.

[Grogmir]

I'm throwing 3.5 out there.

With the garbage? :smallsmile:

Seriously though, even I'll admit 3.5 offers some advantages over 4th. But being newbie friendly is not one of them.

I don't think DnD in general is an easy game for people to pick up if they've had no experience of the genre, but 4th makes it as easy as possible.

- - -

With 3.5 my wife, couldn't stat up a character above level 10. It was just too much work, too many options and all turned into a jumble on a character sheet.
With 4.0 and the character builder - she has no problems at whatever level and has hardly ever opened a PHB at the table. She's even preparing to DM! Which would have been immpossible in 3.5.
- - -

Good luck and Happy Rollin'!

[bokodasu]

Well, I always vote for Fudge for newbies. Or oldbies who are tired of remembering fifty thousand rules and just want to do something fun. Or, well, anyone, really.

If you're sticking to versions of D&D... um, can I vote for 1e? Ok, maybe not. The thing is, I don't think 4 is really vastly easier than 3.5, but it does have some other advantages (and disadvantages, depending on your group) for newbies.

If you want to switch, 4e (or 4E, I guess) is a good thing to switch to. If not, make characters for them and walk them through a little at a time. My 7-year-old is playing 3.5 just fine - she told me what she wanted in her character, I built it for her and showed her what tricks she has up her sleeve and she was good to go. (Really good to go - in her first encounter, she took out a kobold wizard on her own, and Greased a troll to neutralize it so everyone else could take it down. That's my girl!)

[LansXero]

See, that's why I said help them making a character.

I've played 3.5 with total newbies before. As in people who hadn't even played any computer RPGs or complex board games before. It takes about 15 minutes to make a basic core character, ten more minutes to explain the things on their sheets, and in a little over half an hour, you can be playing.

It's really not that hard. The important thing is that people don't have to know all the rules to play. Example?

"I attack."
"Okay. You roll this die." *set down a d20*
*rolls*
"Now you add this number here, which means how good you are at fighting. You rolled high, and he is surprised, so you hit."

That's entirely enough at first, the rest can really be picked up while playing. Explaining all the rules first is tedious, boring and likely to turn newbies off. Just play a bit, first.

Thats pretty much how me and my group started to play. We grabbed a PHB and DMG, a module, and set to play. Granted, we have a gamer-ish background, but 'roll 20 and add a number' is pretty simple to understand for anyone.

I think you hit it right on when you said that people dont have to know all the rules before starting. The great thing about 3.5 imho is the amount of flexibility it gives, and the depth of customization and options, as well as how open it is for adjudication by the DM. I know only little about 4E, but it seems that there you can mostly only do whats expresely written on your character sheet (and they are longer than 3.5 sheets), and if something turns off new players fast is being told "no you cant do that". The main selling point of RPGs as opposed to videogames is that flexibility and customizability; using a narrow, restrictive system may not be a good idea. But it depends a lot on what the people want out of the game too.

[Eldan]

Exactly. Want to introduce combat maneuvers? Put a villain next to a cliff. It will take about thirty seconds until someone asks if they can push him. Ta-daa, Bull Rush explained.

[Prime32]

Did someone say simple rulesets? This sounds like a job for Risus (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/risus.htm)!


If you want to play D&D 4e is by far the easiest for several reasons.Depends on what you mean by "want to play D&D". If it's just "want to play fantasy guys who hit things with swords" then hell, GURPS could be the best version of "D&D" for you.

[The Big Dice]

Exactly. Want to introduce combat maneuvers? Put a villain next to a cliff. It will take about thirty seconds until someone asks if they can push him. Ta-daa, Bull Rush explained.

And then never used again because, like many 3.5 rules concepts, it's more complex than it has any right to be. And that goes for any games from the AD&D branch of the family tree. They're all full of pointless complexity for it's own sake.

If you want an easy game to play, GURPS with pregens is very easy. L5R is also very easy to learn and to play. Mutants and Masterminds is both very complicated and very easy. It's easy to go with off the shelf, easily tweaked characters that look like things you know from comic books. But when you get the hang of the system, you can design some very sophisticated characters.

[Eldan]

What's complex about Bull Rush? It's pretty straightforward. You move up to the enemy. You make a strength check against him. You win, you push him back.

[BayardSPSR]

I think you hit it right on when you said that people dont have to know all the rules before starting. The great thing about 3.5 imho is the amount of flexibility it gives, and the depth of customization and options, as well as how open it is for adjudication by the DM. I know only little about 4E, but it seems that there you can mostly only do whats expresely written on your character sheet (and they are longer than 3.5 sheets), and if something turns off new players fast is being told "no you cant do that". The main selling point of RPGs as opposed to videogames is that flexibility and customizability; using a narrow, restrictive system may not be a good idea. But it depends a lot on what the people want out of the game too.

Okay, I kinda have to plug the guys in my sig again. The mechanism in that game for almost everything (something like two exceptions) is:

Roll a dice.
Add the result to two stats (as required by the attempted action - which can be ANYTHING, as there are fourteen stats).
Tell the Narrator/GM the total and he'll tell you whether it worked out.

The two exceptions are combat, which is different in order to run faster, and prayers, which actually work the same way but without stats. You don't have to leave anything out at all. I've had players accurately explaining the rules to new players after having played a single session.

Sorry to rave so much, but I really like it.

[Earthwalker]

What's complex about Bull Rush? It's pretty straightforward. You move up to the enemy. You make a strength check against him. You win, you push him back.

As you said earlier you miss out rule about AoO when first starting with players as it can be complex to get around. So with Bull rush (with AoO its as simple as moving to your target, carful how you move to avoid AoOs, then push him, if you don't have feat x then you get attacked for it. Then its compare strength. If you win you push him back. Of course it would have been better to get enlarge on you and get the improved bull rush feat.

It gets complicated.

If DnD is what you want to play its fine starting with it. If its not what you want to play so many systems are easier to learn and really really rules light.

Rules light systems do have problems as well.

Learn to play a system that will interest the players.

[Person_Man]

All D&D rule sets and many D&D games are fairly crunch and combat heavy. So if they've never touched a pen and paper game, then I would start them on advanced board game like Castle Ravenloft, Heroclix, or Heroscape. That will give them a good feel for D&Dish combat without bogging them down in serious crunch.

If you want roleplaying, I would start them on a simpler game that stresses just that, like any murder mystery game, Dogs in the Vineyard, or Mouse Guard.

Don't get me wrong, I loves me some D&D and all it's many variants, and spend way too much time thinking about it. But playing it with someone who's never gamed before is like teaching someone how to swim by throwing them off a cruise ship in the middle of the ocean.

[saskganesh]

From those two systems? As a player, I would say 4e.

If you want a newbie-friendly system alltogether, http://www.basicfantasy.org/.

this.

I started a newbie game last week. we got characters generated quickly, did some typical RP set up (i.e. "You meet in an Inn...") some overland travel and then entered the Morgansfort dungeon. two quick combats, a pit trap and a discovered secret door later, we called it a night.

because of the pace, and the very understandable mechanics, everyone is pumped to pick it up next week.

... I usually play Rolemaster 2nd ed. But there was no way I wanted to lose my players by insisting on a crunchier system.

[hamlet]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest Labyrinth Lord. Can be gotten for free in PDF and can be learned, from the player perspective, in about 5 minutes. DM will need maybe an afternoon to read through the 120 page book.

It's also a bit of a gateway drug in that it can lead to more complicated, meatier systems in time.

Also the system behind one of the greater mega-dungeons lurking out there, Stonehell.

[Matthew]

Yeah, Labyrinth Lord or Basic Fantasy are the obvious contenders, I would say. No matter how much anybody might like to believe otherwise, Dungeons & Dragons has always been the basic gateway to RPGs for the vast majority of people. The most recent editions are probably too complicated for real beginners, but it should be an easy graduation from a B/X simulacrums or a modern approximation.

[Skjaldbakka]

I started on Hero Quest, myself. Seeing as you can't buy that anymore, you might start with Descent. In general, for rank newbies to gaming, starting with advanced board games like Descent, Runescape, Arkham Horror, etc is a good place to start.

Then you can go to 4e if you find they like the board game feel, and if they want to try something more complex, Pathfinder or your favorite 3.5 homebrew.

Or if you want something simple but oldschool, BECMI.

[Britter]

Risus. Risus is spectacular. And free.

Mouseguard is also a wonderful system. I like it because it makes for a great gateway into Burning Wheel, which is, imo, a little much for a new player.

If you wanted to stick to the more traditional side of the scale, Mutants and Masterminds, played with the example characters in the book, would be just fine. MnM is the only mainline system that I can really say I like. IT is versatile, flavorful, and can be used in a lot of situations. It also involves a minimal amount of dice rolling.

Avoid DnD and all it's variants like the plague, at least for new people. Though they can be servicable enough and fun in their own right, the systems do not lend themselves well to first time gamers, imo.

[crimson77]

I am going to suggest....
http://www.mojobob.com/roleplay/swordsandwizardry/sw_html/sw_logo.gif

This is a basic (and free under OGL) version of D&D closely aligned with the original D&D concept. It is easy to learn and can be easily transitioned into a 3.5e game later as your players learn the basics of combat and role playing without heavy rules. It is the easiest D&D system I have ever seen to learn and understand the basics. However, it does take some flexibility to play in that it is easy to find "loopholes" so as a DM one has to make decisions based on balance.

Website with rules: http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/?page_id=4
Hypertext rules: http://www.mojobob.com/roleplay/swordsandwizardry/sw_html/index.html
Companion Website with houserules & classes: http://swcompanion.wikidot.com/resources
Another site with houserules: http://www.mojobob.com/roleplay/swordsandwizardry/index.html

I have run a few games using these rules and they can be a lot of fun. Character creation takes 10 minutes and rules can be explained as you play.

EDIT: PM me if you have any questions about this system or are looking for a simple pbp game we may have an opening for an excited player.

[hamlet]

The only reason I would shy away from S&W is that it's a little tougher to wrap one's brain around I find. A little poorer on the organization, and supposing of one's experience with gaming concepts.

It's good. Very good. But in terms of complete gaming newbs, I'd go for LL instead. It has a very easy to grok presentation that just works well.

[Curious]

I really wouldn't suggest 4e to new players, as the rule books, at least the core ones, are unnecessarily complex and extremely difficult to figure out. The format for the chapters is horrendous as well, since they'll tell you you need thing A to activate power B in chapter 4, but won't describe what thing A is until chapter seven, where it tells you that you need to have done something with object C to use thing A in the first place. It took me literally a week to figure out how the combat worked, although admittedly I was only looking over it for an hour or so a day.

Anyway, as several other posters have stated, 3.5 or Pathfinder are actually quite easy to use in combat at low levels. Just add your dice roll to your strength modifier, and then see if it beats the other guys armor and dexterity modifier. Simple.

[Totally Guy]

Mouseguard is also a wonderful system.

Great for newbies sure, but the hilarious thing is when you show it to RPG veterans who just get confused or angry.

[Britter]

Great for newbies sure, but the hilarious thing is when you show it to RPG veterans who just get confused or angry.

It did take me a LONG time to grok. Heck, it took me like 6 months to even begin to grok Burning Wheel, and I had watched Luke run a demo scenario at PAX, so I have no excuse.

I blame years of DnD :smallamused:

[Totally Guy]

It did take me a LONG time to grok.

This comes from experience, you should see the post I made when I first read it!

[Britter]

To bring this little derailment back on target for this thread.

If you plan on playing DnD with the new guys once they are familiar with RPGs, it may be best to start them on DnD. There is an associated mindset that they might as well learn now.

However, if DnD is not your main game, if you prefer other systems outside of the d20 umbrella, start them on systems that will teach them to play in a manner that is appropriate for the games you want to run.

As Glug and I are discussing, it is easier to understand some kinds of gaming if you have no prior experience. I would rather start a new guy on the incredible challenge of Burning Wheel from Day 1, and possibly lose him due to the complexity, then start him on DnD and almost definitely lose him when he realizes that the Wheel demands a totaly different play style than he has been trained to use by DnD.

[The Rose Dragon]

Faery's Tale Deluxe. It is so newbie-friendly, it is aimed at children and their parents. In fact, one parent I suggested it to has sent me a PM telling me how much his daughter enjoyed it, so it has to be doing something right.

And if you are worried your adult players won't enjoy this, you are not playing with the right adults. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to return to the adventures of Buttercup the Brownie.

[Samurai Jill]

It did take me a LONG time to grok. Heck, it took me like 6 months to even begin to grok Burning Wheel, and I had watched Luke run a demo scenario at PAX, so I have no excuse.

I blame years of DnD :smallamused:
I think part of this is that the appeal of MG and similar systems only becomes clear over the course of dedicated play over multiple sessions, when you get to see long-term character development and control over story. (e.g, for demos, you basically have to hand players these pre-generated characters, so there isn't as much of a sense of personal authorship in terms of their goals and beliefs. By contrast, most anyone can play a session or two of, say, Rune and get a pretty clear idea of what it's about.)

[Aidan305]

Paranoia has one of the simplest systems out there, but is probably a bad idea for a first time GM or a first time player.I'd probably say the same for Mouseguard as well. It's a good system, but it can be tricky for a first time GM.

I'd recommend going with B(asic)R(ole)P(lay), the system created by Chaosium for Call of Cthulhu. It's very simple generation and it's easy to GM and play.

[erikun]

which one of these systems would be the best fit for a group of people who have never rolled a dice with more than 6 sides in their life?
My first question is: How familiar are you with running a RPG campaign? Because there is a bit of difference between a good system for an experienced host to introduce to players, and a good system for an inexperienced host and players to be introduced to.

In general, I've found that more narrowly-defined gaming systems have an easier time being played by a table full of people new to the hobby. Faery's Tale, for example, has a total of 3 stats and 4 abilities for each character. You roll 6-sided dice, with evens being a success. "Hit Points" and "Magic Points" are very easy to monitor (and are, in fact, the same value) and "gold" is easy to keep track of and more than just a number on your character sheet. The contrast, of course, is that if a player desn't want to play a natural-magical character in one of four defined tribes who expends lifeforce for magic effects and trades favors for new abilities, Faery's Tale won't be very helpful.

Especially if you are new to running a RPG, you'll want to shy away from the "generic RPGs", or at least those that don't have a module geared towards what you are looking for. Something like FUDGE will be very easy to understand and work with, but a brand new GM won't be familiar with what parts should be included, what parts should be ignored, and what parts should be focused on. (FUDGE especially, as the DM has to choose what ability scores to make available to players.)

[Kurald Galain]

Paranoia has one of the simplest systems out there, but is probably a bad idea for a first time GM or a first time player.

Yes, but that's also because it tends to rely on meta-humor. Paranoia is technically the easiest system to learn for a beginner, because the players are not allowed to know the rules anyway :smallbiggrin:

[Knaight]

Something like FUDGE will be very easy to understand and work with, but a brand new GM won't be familiar with what parts should be included, what parts should be ignored, and what parts should be focused on. (FUDGE especially, as the DM has to choose what ability scores to make available to players.)

Yeah, as someone who was pretty much brand new when they started Fudge -new to gaming, not just GMing, and I started as a GM-, I can verify that it isn't easy. That said, if you start with a complete Fudge game where someone else has made all the choices, it gets easier. As such, I suggest Blood Sweat and Steel. Its a sword and sorcery Fudge-Fate hybrid, and goes along quite quickly and easily.

[Draz74]

Ugh, I looked into Basic Fantasy ... yuck. It's like 1e D&D with some of the cool options removed, but none of the game-slowing mechanics fixed or updated. :smallyuk:

Consider this another vote for Risus. It's got its flaws, but if you're looking for "simple, easy to learn" and "adaptable to many different genres," you can't do any better.

[The Big Dice]

You know Labyrnth Lord is Rules Compendium D&D, and Swords & Wizardry is 0e, right? So either of them is just a new way of presenting an old version of D&D.

Thatt said, I think older versions of D&D (not AD&D and it's WotC children) are great games for beginners. They walk you through the basic concepts of making and playing a character. Then as time goes on they introduce things like strongholds, dominions and mass combat.

And the retro-clones are all pretty compatible with each other, plus they beg to be customised and house ruled.

Consider this a vote for LL, S&W, Dark Dungeons, OSRIC or similar.

[Kaervaslol]

Ugh, I looked into Basic Fantasy ... yuck. It's like 1e D&D with some of the cool options removed, but none of the game-slowing mechanics fixed or updated. :smallyuk:

Consider this another vote for Risus. It's got its flaws, but if you're looking for "simple, easy to learn" and "adaptable to many different genres," you can't do any better.

dude wat?

seriously, it's one of the fastest games out there

[Draz74]

dude wat?

seriously, it's one of the fastest games out there

Tell me that after your Cleric decides to turn undead and you have to look up the table.

[Raum]

I've been looking into trying out 4e (or Essentials- what's the difference, anyway?) or Pathfinder, and like the title says, which one of these systems would be the best fit for a group of people who have never rolled a dice with more than 6 sides in their life?Play whichever game you can get them excited about. If they're actually interested, they'll learn whichever rules are needed. I suspect this is how many of us got into RPGs to start with... :smallwink:

Seriously. A light game may be easy to learn but, in the end, most of us aren't playing RPGs for the system mechanics. Find a setting or situation you know they'll enjoy. Game it out with any system you can teach...but make the game about the setting, situation, and PC choices - not about the system.

Good luck!

[Knaight]

Tell me that after your Cleric decides to turn undead and you have to look up the table.

Or your thief decides to do anything, and you have to look up the table. Or you need to look at the absurdity of fighter attack bonus, and there is another table. Or you need to see how doors work, or how ambushes work, or what trivial item costs what. The game is loaded with little miserable tables.

On the bright side, their example of play is hilarious. It reads like a parody of a dungeon crawl, made all the more funny by the fact it is intended to be serious.

Back to the topic, there is also a game by the name of Chronica Feudalis worth looking into. Its fast, it plays well, its a joy to read, and reading it will insure that RPGs make sense to you.

[DisgruntledDM]

I'm not going to say that it's newbie-friendly, but Legend of the Five Rings has a VERY simple character creation system, at least compared to D&D/Pathfinder, for one reason: All the character creation stuff is in one chapter, as opposed to all over the *@#! book.

[Callista]

What kind of newbies are we talking about here?

It depends on what they want to do.

If you are looking at primarily role-players who just want a basic rule set, then pick something very simple, very basic--something where the rules can be contained in five pages or less.

If they have experience with some kind of CRPG, you might want to find a rule set that contains mostly the same options... NWN, for example, is closely related to D&D 3rd and 3.5.

Casual gamers who mostly like the "kill things and take their stuff" angle would probably like D&D 4th; that's more of a battle-simulation focus with less flexibility than 3rd but also fewer rules.

When it comes to newbies, the best way to get them to learn is not to teach them a simple system but to find a system that will do what they want with RPGs.

[MeeposFire]

For most systems it is best to start with premade characters so people can get used to the system before they have to figure out how the system is built. Just get input of what kind of things your players like and make characters for them (leave the roleplaying stuff to the players but get all the mechanical stuff out of the way for them).

[Togo]

When it comes to newbies, the best way to get them to learn is not to teach them a simple system but to find a system that will do what they want with RPGs.

+1 - get a system that allows them to do things they already want to do. If there's an action film they all like, try something like savage worlds. If they already like comic books, try a super-hero game. If they like the idea of fantasy, then go with that.

Theme is more important than mechanics. If they like the theme, they'll enjoy themselves even if you're handling most of the rules for them. If they don't get the genre, no amount of simple rules will help.

[kwanzaabot]

Wow, thanks for all the tips, guys!

I think I'll probably end up going with 4e, as these potential players are into fantasy-type stuff, and both have experience with computer-based RPGs- one (my sister) usually isn't into video games as much as I am, but finished Baldur's Gate loooong before me. And the other is really into Neverwinter Nights.

So Forgotten Realms seems like the way to go. :D

Just one question: I mentioned this in my original post, but what's the difference between 4e Essentials and regular 4e? Is it just an updated ruleset, or what?

[Kurald Galain]

Just one question: I mentioned this in my original post, but what's the difference between 4e Essentials and regular 4e? Is it just an updated ruleset, or what?

Basically yes. They've changed numerous rules, e.g. feats no longer have tier prerequisites, items have rarity levels, and certain races have their abilities changed. Most importantly, every class in the 4.0 PHB has at-will, encounter, and daily attack powers; whereas several classes in the 4.4 books are intended to use a basic attack every turn. This is meant to appeal to players who like a simpler character, or who think it doesn't make sense for martial characters to have once-per-day powers.

You can use either as a starting point; the PHB1 gives about as many options as the HOFL/HOFK books combined.

[Kobold-Bard]

You shoulnt be nice to newbies. If you throw them right in the D&Deep end they'll appreciate simpler systems all the more int the future.

[Kaervaslol]

Tell me that after your Cleric decides to turn undead and you have to look up the table.

Really? Having a table (small at that) pasted over the DM screen is slow?

Grappling in 3.5 is slow. Combat in 3.5 and 4 is slow. Checking a table takes 4 seconds top.

[Callista]

Price is another consideration. D&D 3.5 is probably the most extensive free ruleset out there (the SRD). I say this as someone who doesn't have a lot of extra money--it is VERY frustrating not to be able to afford rulebooks, and the SRD can fill that gap. Of course, there are other free rulesets that are less well-known, and some of them are much less complex than 3.5, which could be a good thing if your group doesn't want a lot of rules.

[The Big Dice]

Price is another consideration. D&D 3.5 is probably the most extensive free ruleset out there (the SRD). I say this as someone who doesn't have a lot of extra money--it is VERY frustrating not to be able to afford rulebooks, and the SRD can fill that gap. Of course, there are other free rulesets that are less well-known, and some of them are much less complex than 3.5, which could be a good thing if your group doesn't want a lot of rules.

The problem there is, it's free except it doesn't tell you anything about how to play the game. Or have any fluff at all, especially to do with character classes. Same with races. So you get things like what's a Dromite? What's the point of all those charts showing levels when you don't know how they work and what exactly is a Wilder supposed to be all about?

The SRD is of fairly limited utility if you don't have at least the PHB to hand.

[Kurald Galain]

The problem there is, it's free except it doesn't tell you anything about how to play the game.

No, it tells you every single thing you need to play the game, except for (1) point buy values for creating a character, and (2) how much XP you require to gain a level. Both are extremely easy to wing by your DM.

[The Big Dice]

No, it tells you every single thing you need to play the game, except for (1) point buy values for creating a character, and (2) how much XP you require to gain a level. Both are extremely easy to wing by your DM.

Note I said how to play the game.

And it doesn't tell me what I need to know as a player. It doesn't tell me a things about the classes. What's the difference in style between a Wizard and a Sorceror? What are the Psionic classes supposed to be? What are any of the classes supposed to be? Some you can guess from the name, but for a complete novice, what is a Rogue all about?

And for the GM, it tells you nothing about building encounters. About putting adventures together or about running a roleplaying game. Again, for the novice, it's worse than useless. It's a reference document, not a free game. That's why there are key things missing.

[Kurald Galain]

Note I said how to play the game.
Sure, but the OP is already familiar with the game and can explain those things to the players. Such things are best explained in conversation, rather than via a rulebook, anyway.

[The Big Dice]

Sure, but the OP is already familiar with the game and can explain those things to the players. Such things are best explained in conversation, rather than via a rulebook, anyway.

Trying to explain an RPG to someone with no concept of how they work is a little like trying to explain melodic power metal to someone who has only ever listened to Dean Martin. People (and by people I include myself in this) tend to concentrate on the what, the killing things and doing stuff and the character they play, over the how. And that, like raving on about epic guitar solos and intense drumming, coupled with singing about storms and armies and personal triumph over hordes of enemies, often ends up with glazed looks.

[Callista]

So... like, you never played pretend games as a kid? Never wrote a story? Really, it's not a complex concept. RPGs aren't some esoteric practice; they're just an adaptation of the same thing you were doing when you pretended to be a fireman or a superhero at age five.

[MeeposFire]

If RPGs were so easy for everybody you would not see so many threads asking about "easier" games or all the questions people have about game rules. RPGs are not the easiest thing to run. You might find it easy not everybody else does.

[Kobold-Bard]

So... like, you never played pretend games as a kid? Never wrote a story? Really, it's not a complex concept. RPGs aren't some esoteric practice; they're just an adaptation of the same thing you were doing when you pretended to be a fireman or a superhero at age five.

That just reinforces the stereotype that all gamers are overgrown children. Also makes rpgs sound really lame.

[Lycan 01]

How rough is (new) World of Darkness on newbies? :smallconfused:

I myself am a pretty experienced RPG-er, ranging from DnD 4e to Dark Heresy to Savage Worlds. But I'm looking to try out World of Darkness, and I have a little experience with it thanks to a session of Vampire: the Requiem I played last year. The system seemed simple, but the Storyteller also seemed to not know how a lot of stuff actually worked...

At any rate, I'm looking to start a new RPG group or two, and I'm wondering of nWoD would be a nifty new game to learn, and for the potential newbies to learn as well.

[Callista]

That just reinforces the stereotype that all gamers are overgrown children. Also makes rpgs sound really lame.What? Come on, playing superheroes was awesome. And if you lose the ability to have fun playing pretend just because you're an adult, then you might as well put on a suit and go to the office 'cause you aren't gonna like playing an RPG!

[Comet]

How rough is (new) World of Darkness on newbies? :smallconfused:

I myself am a pretty experienced RPG-er, ranging from DnD 4e to Dark Heresy to Savage Worlds. But I'm looking to try out World of Darkness, and I have a little experience with it thanks to a session of Vampire: the Requiem I played last year. The system seemed simple, but the Storyteller also seemed to not know how a lot of stuff actually worked...

At any rate, I'm looking to start a new RPG group or two, and I'm wondering of nWoD would be a nifty new game to learn, and for the potential newbies to learn as well.

NWoD is outstanding for newbies. In our group, I was the only one who ever read the books, the rest just sat down around the table on day one and put together characters with me and the book.

Then we started playing, with me explaining the ropes as they went along. We started off with normal human characters for the first session and moved on to Vampire: the Requiem starting from the second. It was probably the longest and definitely the best campaign I have ever pulled off as a ST/GM.

I most often run games like that, because the players aren't usually that interested in buying and reading the books to play, and NWoD worked really well for our purposes. Even I didn't read and memorize everything when we started, I learned more and more as the game went on, like my players.
The basics of NWoD are, well, simple. And the more complicated stuff is not that hard to digest for anyone involved.

edit: note that this mainly applies for core NWoD and Vampire. Those, I found, had easily digestible mechanics and settings that could be slowly unraveled to avoid burying the players under new information every five minutes.

Werewolf: the Forsaken was a bit trickier, since the setting is a bit more involved and the mechanics had a bit more depth, but that wasn't a huge obstacle either.

Mage: the Awakening, on the other hand, is pretty much impossible to run without the players doing studying of their own if you want to retain the intended feel of the game. The magic system and the rules involved are really open-ended and kind of complicated and a big part of the game is the freedom and joy of discovery as you bend those rules to your favour.

I haven't played the other splat, but from what I've read I'd say that Promethean, Changeling and Hunter are all doable with relatively little effort. I'm no expert on those, but I'd be surprised if they reached Mage levels of complication.

[Kobold-Bard]

What? Come on, playing superheroes was awesome. And if you lose the ability to have fun playing pretend just because you're an adult, then you might as well put on a suit and go to the office 'cause you aren't gonna like playing an RPG!

I meant that you shouldn't use the "it's like when you played make believe as a kid" logic for people new to rpgs, it'll generally put people off because it seems so kiddy; not everyone is as comfortable having fun playing pretend as you apparently are.

[claricorp]

Pathfinder is a bit similar to 3.5 though many of the weird or more difficult systems have been changed to be a good deal simpler.

Also a great bonus for pathfinder is you can use all of your 3.5 books with it, they are pretty compatible(though since its a newby campaign you should probly just start with core.

[Ravens_cry]

I agree with 3.5 if you take it piece by piece. Start slow and simple, with pregenned characters. Ask players what they want to do and then show how you do it. Be patient, learning any new rule set is hard. The BASICS of D&D is simple. Roll a d20, add whatever your allowed to add to the result, tell the DM. If you get at or above a certain number, you succeed.
It's that simple.
WoD Storyteller system looks pretty easy to understand and counting successes looks more intuitive then adding numbers.

[Magnema]

I'm going to say Kobolds Ate My Baby! Super Deluxx Edition. I love that game. You only have to choose skills, and even then you only have to choose which skills to take. Death is nothing to worry about, it's an inherent part of the game. The players don't have to know much about how to play. Turns go in order by a stat, and on your turn you can do as many things as you want (although more actions = harder to do each!) The character sheets are only half a page, and you can easily know what everything on it does. I'd say its one of the easiest systems out there, and one of the quickest to learn. It is, however, a somewhat silly game, but if that's OK, then KAMB is PERFECT.

[Samurai Jill]

Theme is more important than mechanics. If they like the theme, they'll enjoy themselves even if you're handling most of the rules for them. If they don't get the genre, no amount of simple rules will help.
I don't disagree, but I consider it pretty lamentable. I find that different genres with the same ruleset wind up feeling pretty similar in the end.

[Callista]

That totally depends--are you spending a lot of time fighting, or are you spending a lot of time role-playing? So, like, D&D and D20 Modern will feel pretty much the same if you're using it as a tactical/strategy game, but quite different if you're using the D&D for high fantasy and the D20 Modern as a crime drama kind of game... y'know? It's a matter of focus, I think, and what your group likes about gaming.

[Samurai Jill]

That totally depends--are you spending a lot of time fighting, or are you spending a lot of time role-playing? So, like, D&D and D20 Modern will feel pretty much the same if you're using it as a tactical/strategy game, but quite different if you're using the D&D for high fantasy and the D20 Modern as a crime drama kind of game... y'know? It's a matter of focus, I think, and what your group likes about gaming.
Kinda... but the thing is, d20 modern/D&D both tend to encourage a focus on the combat side of things, precisely because their rules only provide formal support/detailing in that areas.

I mean, if role-play is what you want, you're basically committing your group to working out a bunch of unwritten social rules for the purpose that aren't even in the text. (And the text can actually get in the way of role-play. e.g, as got mentioned in the 'Alignment Drift' thread, alignment restrictions on class features tend to put a straitjacket on character development. Can you ignore those restrictions? Sure, absolutely. But now you're rewriting the rules... i.e, not actually playing D&D.)