PDA

View Full Version : Are all tabletop roleplaying games heartbreakers?



Donnadogsoth
2017-05-23, 12:50 PM
Have you ever broken yourself trying to play these games? These games are hard to play, even harder to run. From gaming and observing games it seems to me that most of the promise of these games, the opportunities they advertise vividly in their artwork and back copy, their "introduction to roleplaying" blurbs and their lovingly detailed rules, come across in the nature of cheats, tantalising people to how good roleplaying games could be, but aren't, because people suck at it and their games are never going to be a good as the "examples of play" we find in the books--much less actually being as engaging and delightful and interesting as the literary and cinematic and comic book source material most of these games are based on. I find it all rather depressing. Do you?

exelsisxax
2017-05-23, 01:04 PM
Did you just give up DMing a high octane dumpster fire, or abandon ship from one?

Jay R
2017-05-23, 01:11 PM
I’m sorry you haven’t had a great game yet. I certainly have, so I don’t consider the advertising to be cheats or teases. They are attempts to teach us to play better.

Look at the ads for any game or toy, and you’ll see pictures of people more excited and happy than I usually am when playing. Never trust advertising. Don't ask a game company how good their games are, for the same reason that you never ask a barber if you need a haircut.

But yes, role-playing games can be great fun, with a GM who tries to work with the players, and players who try to work with the GM. It won't be perfect, but nothing ever will. Therefore one requirement for a fun game is to be willing to enjoy something fun, even when it has problems. As Annette Funicello said from her wheelchair, “Life doesn’t have to be perfect to be wonderful.”

Keep looking for a good group, and try to find fun in the midst of games that aren’t perfect.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-05-23, 01:22 PM
Much like anything in life, you get better at it with practise.

Beastrolami
2017-05-23, 01:36 PM
one other point of comment. DnD isn't the easiest game to DM/run. A lot of people got their start in dnd, but I am of the opinion that it is not the best game to introduce a new player to tabletop role-playing. I don't know how much you've experimented with different systems, but that was the first thing I did when I got into ttrpgs. I looked for the weird games no one had run or heard of before and taught myself how to GM.

If you are curious, here is a list to 10 ttrpgs that are easier to run than dnd https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/03/10-tabletop-rpgs-for-beginners.html

Donnadogsoth
2017-05-23, 02:06 PM
Did you just give up DMing a high octane dumpster fire, or abandon ship from one?

No, we've never had anything that dramatically bad, but rather a long litter of false-starts, character-creation-limbo, abortions, boredom, and farces. Our old gaming club was really a character creation club. It went like this:

1.Show up at club
2.Someone shows off the New Game
3.We start making characters
4.Lunch break
5.We continue making characters
6.We go home, never to play the actual game.

I don't mean to imply that I've had no good memories of gaming. I have. I've run a successful campaign, even had a Hollywood ending that no one had predicted, not even myself! I've gamed with polite, eager, decent folk and I have fond memories of interacting with them round the gaming table. But such games took some doing, and remain rare, and I remain irritated by how much good gaming I could have had if only I had been more effective at it. And I'm guessing that my experience is shared by many, especially people who didn't find the right group and reach the right level mentally to let them play and run the games well, and so who abandoned the hobby, or, being smart enough to sus a lemon, eschewed it from the get-go. I find this is a shame.

neonchameleon
2017-05-23, 03:04 PM
I know exactly what you mean and no they aren't all heartbreakers but separating the wheat from the chaff isn't easy.

That said the following are entirely different skills:
Writing an evocative book that reads well
Tech writing - writing a book that's easy to use at the table and clear at conveying what it is supposed to do.
Game design.
And what sells books and inspires people to play is mostly the first. For that matter most gamers simply haven't spent the time necessary to judge the third at all. Anyone can write an "introduction to roleplaying" - but most lovingly detailed sets of rules are written by people without the understanding of math to know what the actual outcomes are (Storyteller, RIFTS, and WFRP 1e I'm looking at you!) and to put it bluntly playtesting in the RPG community is generally awful, largely taking place in the writer's main group with the writer at the table and with their friends both knowing the rules and not wanting to upset the writer. So although I'll defend the design of Gygaxian D&D most games simply are not well designed.

My recommendation would be to give Fate, Apocalypse World, Dread, and Fiasco a look.

Edit: And spare me from all games where character creation takes more than half an hour!

2D8HP
2017-05-23, 03:22 PM
...And spare me from all games where character creation takes more than half an hour!


Preach it!

Super-customization can be a time killing activity as in Car Wars, but there should be a "quick start" option.

Real quick.

I retain my admiration for the 1977 Dungeons & Dragons "Basic set", which was a good complete game in 48 pages, in which you could start fast.

It invited me to DM.

Too many RPG's make being the GM far too intimidating.

All the details may help in selling books, but they make running the game harder.

It sure seems like the most popular RPG's now have way too many wannabe players per willing GM's.

CharonsHelper
2017-05-23, 03:35 PM
That said the following are entirely different skills:
Writing an evocative book that reads well
Tech writing - writing a book that's easy to use at the table and clear at conveying what it is supposed to do.
Game design.
And what sells books and inspires people to play is mostly the first. For that matter most gamers simply haven't spent the time necessary to judge the third at all.

I've long though that there are three general elements of an RPG and its success.

1. The look. This is largely artwork, but also layout, title, and the bits on the back.

2. The setting and general vibe.

3. The mechanics and nitty gritty of the system.

In general, I believe they go in that order of importance for getting people to pick up your game, but they go in reverse order of importance for getting people to stick with it long-term.


Edit: And spare me from all games where character creation takes more than half an hour!

At least for starting characters. I can think of games I like where making a high level character (when not expert in the system) would take longer. But - newbies should really be playing starting characters to begin with anyway.

Velaryon
2017-05-23, 03:54 PM
I've had plenty of good games that were more fun than any of the roleplaying examples from the books looked to be. I've also had enough misfires, false starts, and generally bad games to appreciate the good ones.

Running a game, particularly in a rules-heavy system like D&D, is definitely more work than I'd like it to be. So is trying to wrangle a whole group's worth of players to be in the same place at the same time (adulting, mirite?)

A lot of it comes down to finding the right group of people who enjoy playing the same in a similar way, and then sticking with them as long as you can.

Guizonde
2017-05-23, 04:06 PM
Preach it!
It sure seems like the most popular RPG's now have way too many wannabe players per willing GM's.

i've had the opposite problem! too many wannabe dm's and not enough players. don't get me wrong, there will always be enough willing players to kit out a table, but it sometimes feels like half if not more of them are waiting their turn to "tell the best story ever".

since i'm considered an "old-beard" where i live, with a laughable 10 years of experience, i dm often. i don't mind, and i'm laid-back. i'm more into making people enjoy the game and come back for more than create a nitty-gritty brutal atmosphere. tomb of horrors i am not, in short. because of this attitude, i made a few players want to try dm'ing, and of course, it was a trainwreck. i favor rules-light systems so i can avoid remembering both the mechanics and the campaign details, and i take very little notes as a result. i've a story, some basic references, and off i go. guess what happened? i got blamed for "making it look easy". ok, ok. i've got training to remember a lot of information in a short amount of time without the possibility of taking notes. that does help somewhat (it's next to useless in dnd). after giving pointers, i helped the budding dm's to improve and create coherent one-shots. much frustration was had by them, but they're of the "it must be perfect first time, everytime" variety of perfectionnists. frankly, i'd be slack-jawed if a newbie dm'd like a pro on their first try. possibly envious, too.

instead of getting heartbroken over that, i like to look at the good side of things regarding pen and paper, and learning lessons from even the bad experiences. for example, banning anchovies and garlic at the gaming table, or thinking about everyone's preferences equally. obvious things that either i flubbed or saw being flubbed.


Much like anything in life, you get better at it with practise.

don't mind me, i'm quoting for truth.

RazorChain
2017-05-23, 04:19 PM
Have you ever broken yourself trying to play these games? These games are hard to play, even harder to run. From gaming and observing games it seems to me that most of the promise of these games, the opportunities they advertise vividly in their artwork and back copy, their "introduction to roleplaying" blurbs and their lovingly detailed rules, come across in the nature of cheats, tantalising people to how good roleplaying games could be, but aren't, because people suck at it and their games are never going to be a good as the "examples of play" we find in the books--much less actually being as engaging and delightful and interesting as the literary and cinematic and comic book source material most of these games are based on. I find it all rather depressing. Do you?


The fantastic adventures I've had and the stories I can tell are even better than the tantalizing pictures and the blurbs just pale in comparison with the experiences I've had. The examples of play just seem stupid and hollow in comparison.

That is probably the reason I've been playing for decades and am looking forward to the decades to come. In fact I'm giddy with excitement because this thursday I and 6 other middle aged guys are going to be travelling to a summerhouse and roleplaying until sunday. Boy! I am going to have so much fun!!!

Grod_The_Giant
2017-05-23, 04:37 PM
No, we've never had anything that dramatically bad, but rather a long litter of false-starts, character-creation-limbo, abortions, boredom, and farces. Our old gaming club was really a character creation club. It went like this:

1.Show up at club
2.Someone shows off the New Game
3.We start making characters
4.Lunch break
5.We continue making characters
6.We go home, never to play the actual game.

I don't mean to imply that I've had no good memories of gaming. I have. I've run a successful campaign, even had a Hollywood ending that no one had predicted, not even myself! I've gamed with polite, eager, decent folk and I have fond memories of interacting with them round the gaming table. But such games took some doing, and remain rare, and I remain irritated by how much good gaming I could have had if only I had been more effective at it. And I'm guessing that my experience is shared by many, especially people who didn't find the right group and reach the right level mentally to let them play and run the games well, and so who abandoned the hobby, or, being smart enough to sus a lemon, eschewed it from the get-go. I find this is a shame.
It sounds like your problem is that you've got a club that wants to try a new game every week but refuses to commit to actually playing a campaign, rather than anything else. Make the potential GM bring pre-gens.

Aotrs Commander
2017-05-23, 04:42 PM
Have you ever broken yourself trying to play these games? These games are hard to play, even harder to run. From gaming and observing games it seems to me that most of the promise of these games, the opportunities they advertise vividly in their artwork and back copy, their "introduction to roleplaying" blurbs and their lovingly detailed rules, come across in the nature of cheats, tantalising people to how good roleplaying games could be, but aren't, because people suck at it and their games are never going to be a good as the "examples of play" we find in the books--much less actually being as engaging and delightful and interesting as the literary and cinematic and comic book source material most of these games are based on. I find it all rather depressing. Do you?

Nope. I play every week, for twenty-seven years now or thereabouts, DMing most of the time, and I can say that no, not ever.

The examples of play in RPG are mere empty nothings compared to the real thing.

kyoryu
2017-05-23, 05:09 PM
Have you ever broken yourself trying to play these games? These games are hard to play, even harder to run. From gaming and observing games it seems to me that most of the promise of these games, the opportunities they advertise vividly in their artwork and back copy, their "introduction to roleplaying" blurbs and their lovingly detailed rules, come across in the nature of cheats, tantalising people to how good roleplaying games could be, but aren't, because people suck at it and their games are never going to be a good as the "examples of play" we find in the books--much less actually being as engaging and delightful and interesting as the literary and cinematic and comic book source material most of these games are based on. I find it all rather depressing. Do you?

Play different games.

Dungeon World or any of the other Apocalypse World-derived games are much easier to run. So is Savage Worlds. So is Fate (if you can grok it). So is Basic D&D (of pretty much any vintage). BRP ain't much harder.

Fate and Apocalypse World are aimed more at producing games that act more like the source material.

Pronounceable
2017-05-23, 05:35 PM
Sounds like failure to commit. While indepth character creation is definitely a cancer upon roleplaying games in general, that club thing you describe is %100 at fault here.

Also you might need a sturdier heart in this life if elfgames can break it that easily.

Jay R
2017-05-23, 05:44 PM
Group A tries to play New Game 1, and fails.
Group A tries to play New Game 2, and fails.
Group A tries to play New Game 3, and fails.
Group A tries to play New Game 4, and fails.
Group A tries to play New Game 5, and fails.
Group A tries to play New Game 6, and fails.

I can see why you might want to conclude that all tabletop roleplaying games are heartbreakers.

But perhaps the reason the results aren;t changing is that you aren't changing what leads to those results. Specifically, the game system cannot fix the problem that the group doesn't sit down on week 2 to play the game.

No game system works if you don't play it.

veti
2017-05-23, 05:55 PM
Have you ever broken yourself trying to play these games? These games are hard to play, even harder to run. From gaming and observing games it seems to me that most of the promise of these games, the opportunities they advertise vividly in their artwork and back copy, their "introduction to roleplaying" blurbs and their lovingly detailed rules, come across in the nature of cheats, tantalising people to how good roleplaying games could be, but aren't, because people suck at it and their games are never going to be a good as the "examples of play" we find in the books--much less actually being as engaging and delightful and interesting as the literary and cinematic and comic book source material most of these games are based on. I find it all rather depressing. Do you?

Do you normally trust, or put much stock in, the blurbs publishers put on the covers of books saying how brilliant they are? If so, I suspect you're in for a lot of disappointing experiences.

RPGs in particular require investment from you. And not just you: also from your fellow players. Without that investment (principally, of time), they're never going to pay off.

Maybe you'd be better off starting a book club instead. Then, continuity is less important.

Cluedrew
2017-05-23, 06:12 PM
No, they all have their learning curves, they all have their faults and not every game will work out. That doesn't mean the systems are bad.

I do agree with one statement. Tabletop/pen & paper role-playing games are hard to play. More than games they are tools, in that you have to master the related craft to use them effectively.

kyoryu
2017-05-23, 06:34 PM
I do agree with one statement. Tabletop/pen & paper role-playing games are hard to play.

Some are harder than others.

Psikerlord
2017-05-23, 10:01 PM
Drop in D&D at stores doesnt really work, not for a proper campaign with continuity.

You are muuuuch better off grabbing the 3 people you get on best with, and running your own home game with you as GM and the 3 players. No need to thank me later: you're welcome.

Ninja-Radish
2017-05-24, 12:18 AM
Play different games.

Dungeon World or any of the other Apocalypse World-derived games are much easier to run. So is Savage Worlds. So is Fate (if you can grok it). So is Basic D&D (of pretty much any vintage). BRP ain't much harder.

Fate and Apocalypse World are aimed more at producing games that act more like the source material.

I would strongly disagree with the "Dungeon World is easy to run" statement, and I'd say it depends on your group's play style. That game pissed my group off so badly and caused so many arguments we didn't meet again for like 6 months afterward. We still don't mention it except as a cautionary tale.

If your players are ok with few rules and everything being DM Fiat, then Dungeon World may work for them. If they want rules to limit the DM's power, you're better off looking at other games.

Knaight
2017-05-24, 03:21 AM
It sounds like your problem is that you've got a club that wants to try a new game every week but refuses to commit to actually playing a campaign, rather than anything else. Make the potential GM bring pre-gens.
Exactly. If you're going to run one shots, run one shots. As is the club seems kind of dysfunctional. Not all groups are like that - I tend to GM for a couple of different groups simultaneously*, with two groups that each meet once per two weeks on average being the standard. The particular players vary, but campaigns still get played routinely, and every so often someone else even GMs one.

*By which I mean the campaigns take place over the same few months, not literally at the same time.

Vknight
2017-05-24, 05:23 AM
Gming is like handling a roasting pork shoulder the adventure is long fraught with peril and when done well delicious in its payoff.
Its best with friends, something to drink(alcohol if you need/want), jokes and a good sense to accept and enjoy everything with one another for the full experience.
Laugh it off sometiems get made make up and do kill the monster to take his loot.

Darth Ultron
2017-05-24, 06:39 AM
. I find it all rather depressing. Do you?

No, but then it is not so different then anything else in life.

Most things are done ''half a try'' or worse. Go to do just about any social anything, and you will encounter this.

And it's very simple: if you don't like the way things are....then you must change them, or do it yourself.

For example: I hate ''non-games'' where everyone sits around and relaxes and talks and tells stories and watches You Tube videos and does anything and everything Except play the game. My solution: Run my own game. We start the game at a set time and do nothing but game. Casual non-gamers are not welcome.

ArendK
2017-05-24, 07:30 AM
Gming is like handling a roasting pork shoulder the adventure is long fraught with peril and when done well delicious in its payoff.
Its best with friends, something to drink(alcohol if you need/want), jokes and a good sense to accept and enjoy everything with one another for the full experience.
Laugh it off sometiems get made make up and do kill the monster to take his loot.

Vknight, I am very likely going to clean up the grammar and jack it for a signature, just so you know.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-05-24, 07:59 AM
Play different games.

Dungeon World or any of the other Apocalypse World-derived games are much easier to run. So is Savage Worlds. So is Fate (if you can grok it). So is Basic D&D (of pretty much any vintage). BRP ain't much harder.

Fate and Apocalypse World are aimed more at producing games that act more like the source material.
I... would actually dispute that. I ran D&D for a while, then spent a while running other things, then went back to D&D. Things like Apocalpyse World and Fate might be easier to learn, in terms of raw rules, and maybe easier to play, but running...?

D&D has levels and CR tables, which most games don't. They're not perfect, but do you have any idea how many games don't even give you a starting point? The simple fact that you can say "everyone has roughly equal combat ability" makes building encounters about a thousand times easier than something like Fate, where you could have a combat master and a hapless schlub in the same group. Being able to simple go "I have 3 level 5 players, so to challenge them I need about four CR 4 monsters" or what have you is an absolute joy.
D&D has monster manuals, which most games don't. Not only is it much easier to drop pre-made monsters into adventures than to make them up yourself every time, but you can go backwards-- find a cool monster and build a thing around it. Again, less work for the DM makes things easier.
D&D is still the default assumption of the hobby, and it's based around the default assumptions of the hobby. Things like Fate and AW lend themselves to intricate shared storytelling and roleplay-heavy stuff. Which can be fun, but puts a hell of a lot more on the DM than "here's you quest, go solve the puzzles and kill the monsters." D&D is build around your basic talk-to-dudes-go-to-place-poke-around-fight-some-stuff adventures. It's easy to think up run adventures like that.

So yeah. Rules-knowledge aside, I'd say that D&D is one of the easier RPGs out there to run.

CharonsHelper
2017-05-24, 08:25 AM
D&D has monster manuals, which most games don't. Not only is it much easier to drop pre-made monsters into adventures than to make them up yourself every time, but you can go backwards-- find a cool monster and build a thing around it. Again, less work for the DM makes things easier.

...

So yeah. Rules-knowledge aside, I'd say that D&D is one of the easier RPGs out there to run.

I'll +1 this.

I've said it before, but I really think that the Monster Manuals (and associated things like CR) are a secret to D&D's success.

A Monster Manual reduces a LOT of prep-work that other systems can demand of a GM if they don't want to throw variations of the same challenges at the players again and again.

Even a sub-par DM will throw various monsters at you in D&D, and that inherently adds variety and different tactics to games. While the CR system isn't perfect, the sub-par DM is much less likely to either slaughter you or make a cakewalk than he is in a system without it, and all of the various monster special abilities force him to run different monsters at least somewhat differently.

(That was one of the major weaknesses of 4e - within their 'category', monsters felt much more same-y.)

Knaight
2017-05-24, 10:10 AM
So yeah. Rules-knowledge aside, I'd say that D&D is one of the easier RPGs out there to run.

That "rules-knowledge aside" caveat is pretty huge though. You're dealing with a lot of mechanics interacting in D&D, and while I'd agree that the existence of a monster manual is pretty helpful there are plenty of games that have something like it, but shorter. This leaves a lot of games much easier to run than D&D for a lot of people.

With that said: There are also a few different GMing skills to be aware of here. It generally takes a level of thought and judgement pertaining to mechanical implementations to run a rules light RPG, and a lot of that can be replaced by memorization and preparation for rules heavy RPGs. It also takes a certain level of confidence about your thought and judgment for the rules light RPGs, and confidence in your memorization and preparation for rules heavy RPGs, and in my experience it's that more than the actual skills which tend to be lacking. Which is easier frequently comes down to which of your skills you're more confident in.

CharonsHelper
2017-05-24, 10:39 AM
while I'd agree that the existence of a monster manual is pretty helpful there are plenty of games that have something like it, but shorter. This leaves a lot of games much easier to run than D&D for a lot of people.

While I agree that D&D in crunchier than many systems (though 5e is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum - maybe a bit on the lite side) I'd argue that a long Monster Manual is what makes D&D easy to run decent games of.

If a MM equivalent only has 15-20 options, sure that first session will be a bit easier to plan out. But then the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sessions will still be using those same 15-20 options again and again. It's the variety in MMs which makes them awesome.

Knaight
2017-05-24, 10:45 AM
If a MM equivalent only has 15-20 options, sure that first session will be a bit easier to plan out. But then the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sessions will still be using those same 15-20 options again and again. It's the variety in MMs which makes them awesome.

If a game is simple enough those 15-20 options are plenty, because fundamentally you just need enough examples to come up with stuff on your own anyways - and creating opposition can often be done on the fly instead of taking an hour. On top of that, 15-20 options is plenty for a lot of games; as the opposition is just people much of the time anyways. D&D needs an MM largely because it's a very combat heavy game set in a fantasy kitchen sink full of monsters.

CharonsHelper
2017-05-24, 10:48 AM
If a game is simple enough those 15-20 options are plenty, because fundamentally you just need enough examples to come up with stuff on your own anyways - and creating opposition can often be done on the fly instead of taking an hour. On top of that, 15-20 options is plenty for a lot of games; as the opposition is just people much of the time anyways. D&D needs an MM largely because it's a very combat heavy game set in a fantasy kitchen sink full of monsters.

I'm not saying that 15-20 options might not be exactly the max number that a game system is intended to have.

I'm saying that 15-20 options will inherently get repetitive, especially with a sub-par GM who plays them the same each time.

It's not the MM itself which is a secret to D&D's success, it's the inherent variety of play which the MM brings.

Of course - your opinion may vary. Saying such things are a 'secret to...' are inherently subjective statements.

kyoryu
2017-05-24, 10:51 AM
Sure, and those are valid points.

But - the OP was specifically talking about games being *hard to run and play* and not delivering an experience like the source material.

Fate and DW, specifically, do a decent job of targeting those two particular problems.

Knaight
2017-05-24, 11:28 AM
I'm saying that 15-20 options will inherently get repetitive, especially with a sub-par GM who plays them the same each time.

Putting aside the veracity of this for now, my point is that it isn't 15-20 options. It's effectively infinite options, with the 15-20 examples there to give GMs a good enough grounding to make their own. Going back to the veracity, I'm unconvinced - there's enough video games (e.g. Doom) that manage a wide variety of encounters with 20 or fewer enemies to demonstrate that games can do this, and RPGs are often better positioned to do so as they tend to be less reliant on being all combat, all the time. There's more to encounter design than just "what are you fighting".

2D8HP
2017-05-24, 11:36 AM
Play different games.

Dungeon World or any of the other Apocalypse World-derived games are much easier to run. So is Savage Worlds. So is Fate (if you can grok it). So is Basic D&D (of pretty much any vintage). BRP ain't much harder.

Fate and Apocalypse World are aimed more at producing games that act more like the source material.


I'm not that familiar with Apocalypse/Dungeon World, or Savage Worlds, but both the 1977 "Basic" D&D rules, and the 1994 "Classic" D&D rules were easier to learn and DM, and had plenty of monsters, plus it was real easy to use the AD&D Monster Manual with the simpler Basic rules.

I've looked at the free "retro-clone" Labyrinth Lord, and it's much the same, with plenty of beasties (no "CR's" though, substitute hit dice to rank).

(sample pdf (http://goblinoidgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/GBD1001_no_art.zip))

I also second Chaosium's BRP, which is just so intuitive.
(Here's a pdf sample (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi2yMuqooTUAhVpz1QKHZrTAPAQFggfMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chaosium.com%2Fcontent%2FFree PDFs%2FBRP%2FCHA2021%2520-%2520Basic%2520RolePlaying%2520Quick-Start.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGmy2_JQrnYDUhYIyRJT3ghBDKF-Q)).

They're many BRP based games, the most known of which is Call of Cthullu, which I found to be one of the easiest RPG's to Gamemaster or "Keeper", more D&D like were RuneQuest, Pendragon (my favorite), and Stormbringer, but the most D&D like was Magic World (free pdf "quick start) (http://www.chaosium.com/content/FreePDFs/Magic%20World/Magic%20World%20Quickstart.pdf), which was designed to use "Runequest like rules, but with a gonzo D&D feel".

You can also try just red penciling out most of D&D 5e's rules, and just using the Starter Set and the online free rules (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules)

Koo Rehtorb
2017-05-24, 11:54 AM
Different systems have different sorts of things you have to be good at to play them well.

Modern D&D requires you to know a whole bunch of rules and how they all interact, but since so much of most sessions are taken up with combat there's a lot less pressure to be good at improvisation because you can count on combat being a reliable time sink.

FATE/Dungeon World/etc barely requires you to know any rules at all to make the game work, but you need to be much faster on your feet because a lot more is going to happen in any given session and you can't rely on prep work to cover for you.

What is easier to run really depends on what you're more comfortable doing.

CharonsHelper
2017-05-24, 01:04 PM
Putting aside the veracity of this for now, my point is that it isn't 15-20 options. It's effectively infinite options, with the 15-20 examples there to give GMs a good enough grounding to make their own.

Two points -

1. I specifically made the initial post in the context of needing less GM prep - and creating new foes is a lot of GM prep.

2. I also specifically called out MMs being especially great for sub-par GMs. Sub-par GMs DON'T use the same set of foes in a variety of different ways - that's part of why they're sub-par.

You're arguing against things which I didn't ever say.

kyoryu
2017-05-24, 02:13 PM
both the 1977 "Basic" D&D rules, and the 1994 "Classic" D&D rules were easier to learn and DM, and had plenty of monsters, plus it was real easy to use the AD&D Monster Manual with the simpler Basic rules.

No arguments. However, it doesn't really do a good job of emulating the source material in many ways.

Which is fine, I do love the play style of those games.

2D8HP
2017-05-24, 02:23 PM
No arguments. However, it doesn't really do a good job of emulating the source material in many ways.

Which is fine, I do love the play style of those games.


True.

I thought Stormbringer did a better job of modelling Swords and Sorcery stories, but alas, it's out of print.

:frown:

By reputation Savage World's is good today, but I have no "table time" with it, and it looks unlikely that I ever will (but I still be supplements, as I enjoy reading RPG "fluff".

Donnadogsoth
2017-05-24, 04:27 PM
As an addendum, the idea I'm expressing is the frustration of my younger self who, if truth should be told, should have been told that "These games you're playing around with, you're not going to be able to play them well for another fifteen years."

Is this part of the roleplaying cult, that younger players should not be told this awful truth lest they lose heart?

CharonsHelper
2017-05-24, 04:41 PM
As an addendum, the idea I'm expressing is the frustration of my younger self who, if truth should be told, should have been told that "These games you're playing around with, you're not going to be able to play them well for another fifteen years."

Is this part of the roleplaying cult, that younger players should not be told this awful truth lest they lose heart?

Even if true (I'm dubious) I don't see how that's different from not telling an 8 year old how bad they are at baseball and that the game will change drastically once they start batting against pitchers who can hit the strike zone and have multiple pitches. It wouldn't serve anything there either, and it wouldn't really be true, because the 8 year old can still have fun without knowing what a slider or a two-seam fastball are.

And like I said - I'm dubious. A couple people I started playing with still occasionally mention (in a fond way) the main theme of one of the first campaigns I ever ran, now more than a decade later. (technically it was my 2nd campaign - but the first only lasted a session or two - admittedly it was pretty bad) Would I do parts of it differently now? Sure. But we still had a lot of fun doing it.

Donnadogsoth
2017-05-24, 06:18 PM
Even if true (I'm dubious) I don't see how that's different from not telling an 8 year old how bad they are at baseball and that the game will change drastically once they start batting against pitchers who can hit the strike zone and have multiple pitches. It wouldn't serve anything there either, and it wouldn't really be true, because the 8 year old can still have fun without knowing what a slider or a two-seam fastball are.

And like I said - I'm dubious. A couple people I started playing with still occasionally mention (in a fond way) the main theme of one of the first campaigns I ever ran, now more than a decade later. (technically it was my 2nd campaign - but the first only lasted a session or two - admittedly it was pretty bad) Would I do parts of it differently now? Sure. But we still had a lot of fun doing it.

You're presuming the game is one that can be fun if the players don't know what they're doing, like baseball. But what if the game is more like gemcutting? I remember Paranoia, an impossible game if there ever was one. Looked cool, hilarious to read, but unplayable for fifteen-year-olds who aren't stand-up comics.

2D8HP
2017-05-24, 06:21 PM
...should have been told that "These games you're playing around with, you're not going to be able to play them well for another fifteen years."

Is this part of the roleplaying cult, that younger players should not be told this awful truth lest they lose heart?


Yes.

Ignorance is strength.

I started as a DM with the '77 Basic D&D rules (I read all 48 pages three whole times to "get it" first).when I was 10 years old.

Had I all the advice and information available then, and have known how important it all was, I likely would have never started, and I would have missed all the fun of doing it wrong.

I think that overly copious rules, and perfectionism makes playing games seem more difficult than it should.

Vknight
2017-05-24, 06:41 PM
Vknight, I am very likely going to clean up the grammar and jack it for a signature, just so you know.

Sure I wrote it after being up for 48 hours so I'm glad its as legible as it is with my already poor grammar.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-05-24, 06:43 PM
You're presuming the game is one that can be fun if the players don't know what they're doing, like baseball. But what if the game is more like gemcutting? I remember Paranoia, an impossible game if there ever was one. Looked cool, hilarious to read, but unplayable for fifteen-year-olds who aren't stand-up comics.
You're overthinking it. I had fun when I first started playing (and I was self-taught, more or less-- I played the 3e starter set through with my dad and little brother, then bought the PHB), and I have fun today. I've introduced plenty of the people to the hobby, and they've usually had fun from the start too. It's not some high art or mystical nonsense, it's a bunch of friends ****ing around pretending to be elves. Paranoia? Paranoia would be perfect for teens. It's stupid slapstick spy-vs-spy humor. You don't need to be a stand-up comic.

2D8HP
2017-05-24, 06:56 PM
You're overthinking it. I had fun when I first started playing (and I was self-taught, more or less....


Well to be fair Grod, you are kind of a genius.

Donnadogsoth
2017-05-24, 07:45 PM
You're overthinking it. I had fun when I first started playing (and I was self-taught, more or less-- I played the 3e starter set through with my dad and little brother, then bought the PHB), and I have fun today. I've introduced plenty of the people to the hobby, and they've usually had fun from the start too. It's not some high art or mystical nonsense, it's a bunch of friends ****ing around pretending to be elves. Paranoia? Paranoia would be perfect for teens. It's stupid slapstick spy-vs-spy humor. You don't need to be a stand-up comic.

I appreciate I am in the presence of my better, but I will add that "slapstick spy-vs-spy humor" takes some careful orchestration to be filmed for a movie, or even conceived of for a magazine. If the players (or GM, it's almost always the GM's fault if things go South) don't have the moxie to compose such scenes, the game is a bust. All that stuff looks effortless, but it isn't easy, or, at least, it was absolutely not easy for my fifteen-year-old self. Whether I could run a worthwhile Paranoia game today I don't know.

Vknight
2017-05-24, 07:55 PM
I appreciate I am in the presence of my better, but I will add that "slapstick spy-vs-spy humor" takes some careful orchestration to be filmed for a movie, or even conceived of for a magazine. If the players (or GM, it's almost always the GM's fault if things go South) don't have the moxie to compose such scenes, the game is a bust. All that stuff looks effortless, but it isn't easy, or, at least, it was absolutely not easy for my fifteen-year-old self. Whether I could run a worthwhile Paranoia game today I don't know.

Maybe we should do a round of Fiasco sometime Donna that could help its a fun and fairly easy game to learn and perfect for comedy, and one-shots

Recherché
2017-05-24, 09:25 PM
I'm a seamstress in my spare time. I have a bunch of dresses and other garments hanging around in my closet that are far from perfect. I know that there are absolutely flaws with them and that if I were to try and make the same garment now, with the experience I've gained since I first made that project, the new version would be better. I still wear the old dresses, flaws and all because while I might be able to do better they are still good enough. Heck I'm still kind of proud of some of them. Even if they aren't platonic ideals i learned something from the experience and I got a fairly cool dress out of it.

Its the same with games, even if I've learned more about how to run a more awesome game that doesn't mean that the old ones aren't worth something. They were fun while they lasted and I learned something from them. They're mine warts and all.

2D8HP
2017-05-24, 09:46 PM
I enjoy reading stuff like "Angry DM", etc. .(no I don't listen to podcasts or watch videos), but I fear that their perfectionism may dissuade potential GM's from trying. .

I'm reminded a bit of "fashion" and "fitness" magazines that some young people hurt themselves trying to emulate.

Potato_Priest
2017-05-24, 09:54 PM
Every product is advertised as a piece of paradise that will make you perfect and happy.

None of them are.

Some are still worth getting, because they will make you happy sometimes, even if they aren't quite what they claim to be.

I've found D&D to be one of those.


Edit for more info: I have always enjoyed playing D&D (except when my best friend was in the habit of starting pvp. That sort of sucked, but we were all new, and he hasn't done it for over a year.) I've never, ever, played under anyone with more than 2 years of experience, and that is about the same amount that I have myself. It may be that I have lower standards for fun than you do. It may also be that you need to find a new hobby if this one isn't doing it for you.

Vknight
2017-05-24, 10:11 PM
Man this topic has been so pessimistic and downtrodden oh well. Make of it what you will.
Games are a hobby so enjoy them for what they are.

2D8HP
2017-05-24, 10:40 PM
Man this topic has been so pessimistic and downtrodden oh well. Make of it what you will.
Games are a hobby so enjoy them for what they are.


Well... I certainly enjoy bloviating and complaining about games as well playing them.

Knaight
2017-05-25, 01:29 AM
I appreciate I am in the presence of my better, but I will add that "slapstick spy-vs-spy humor" takes some careful orchestration to be filmed for a movie, or even conceived of for a magazine. If the players (or GM, it's almost always the GM's fault if things go South) don't have the moxie to compose such scenes, the game is a bust. All that stuff looks effortless, but it isn't easy, or, at least, it was absolutely not easy for my fifteen-year-old self. Whether I could run a worthwhile Paranoia game today I don't know.

There's also the matter of audience standards though. Yes, to some extent there's a learning curve regardless. However, there's a lot of overlap in the skills used to make a game great and the skills used to tell whether or not a game is great, and the novice groups running games that would drive veteran players up the wall routinely have a lot of fun doing so.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-05-25, 07:11 AM
I appreciate I am in the presence of my better, but I will add that "slapstick spy-vs-spy humor" takes some careful orchestration to be filmed for a movie, or even conceived of for a magazine. If the players (or GM, it's almost always the GM's fault if things go South) don't have the moxie to compose such scenes, the game is a bust. All that stuff looks effortless, but it isn't easy, or, at least, it was absolutely not easy for my fifteen-year-old self. Whether I could run a worthwhile Paranoia game today I don't know.
I wasn't trying to argue from authority or anything, just pointing out that my experience, and that of most people I know, is different from your fears. (I specified self-taught to head off "well, you might not have had 15 years of experience but you had someone to teach you," and "as a kid" because that was the age in question)

And you've got an important point in there: "filmed for a movie." Those are not the standards you should be applying here. The stuff that happens in your games isn't going to be cool or funny because you guys are artists, it'll be cool and funny because you're THERE. You and your friends aren't stand-up comics, I expect, but I bet you guys have a good time and laugh at each other's jokes all the same? Even if they're not so funny later on? It's that.

Don't worry about being perfect. Just be.

Guizonde
2017-05-25, 07:49 AM
here's my 2 cents:

i've been playing for about 10 years. i wouldn't be too far off the mark saying i played with over 30 different people. i've played dnd, whfrp2e, falkenstein, the dark eye, cops, pathfinder, star wars edge of the empire, conan, and my homebrew which mixes whfrp and dark heresy. (notably missing: shadowrun and cthulu). those are the ones i can name. there was one involving steam-punk, magical creatures, and the wild west, and i may have forgotten others.

overall, my experience is very positive. i've found good things about every table i've been at, even the trainwreck ones.

dnd: for about 3 years, i toiled under a psycho dm. it taught me team tactics and splitting abilities evenly between the party. when the party worked together, we destroyed encounters and riddles alike. when we tried to go it alone, we got punished severely. it came to a trainwreck with the addition of a that guy playing a mary sue, who complained non-stop about not being the team-leader ooc. too bad, frankly. to this day i still do not like playing dnd, but man if that son of a goat of a dm didn't spin an awesome tale. he made me want to play a system i didn't like for 3 years such was the quality of the story told.

pathfinder: soooooo many one-shots. one i dm'd (trainwreck), but i couldn't have become a competent dm without that experience. i got pretty good at seeing potential and creating flavorful characters. i also got good at recognizing "that guy" before it was too late.

whfrp: my second-favorite system: it started off as a drunken idea of playing rincewind in the warhammer world. you know it wasn't gonna be too serious. ended up being 50% slapstick and 50% survival horror. it came to a stop when the dnd that guy from above came to the table... i'm still miffed about that, because we were at a point where the story was progressing and we were getting pretty awesome. that campaign taught me the system and the basis for my homebrew.

falkenstein: it's a rules-light game played with a deck of cards. nothing serious, but you couldn't play the sheet in that game. i played bugs bunny. a lot of fun for the players, less for the npc's.

my homebrew: i got a team of people i liked together. one was my teammate in dnd, the others had little to no experience playing pen and paper. took a lot of playtesting to get things right. the universe was given to me by a friend. he gave me the beginning of the story and the end. i told the players as much, and gave them free reign to create the middle of the story. in one year, it was a massive learning curve for me to dm, as well as adjust the rules (automatic weapons were tough to handle swiftly). it was such a good experience that the most novice player became dm after me, telling an awesome story, with minimal trouble with the rules. we've been playing in that universe 4 years straight. the same 5 people. took about 3 months to get the right team.

we branched off, as well. those who'd dm'd opened up new tables with people we selected. we had our share of "that guys", but for every "that guy" we had 4 good players (and a couple of this guys, too).

i'm not saying it's all roses and fairies. in a couple of cases, it came to blows. the problem usually wasn't the system, the problem usually was the relationship between different participants, i stayed out of it, and moved on. as a game, pen and paper is incredibly involved. it takes dedication, it takes time, you invest a lot of energy into it (emotional and physical), and that means that you have to see it as a marriage, a real labor of love. if you're not with the right people or you don't pull your weight, it will crumble. it's not easy by any stretch of the imagination, but it is totally worth it. i've lost count of the number of all-nighters i pulled with my teammates and friends playing, tears of laughter streaming down my face, clutching my ribs. it's a sensation like no other, but before you get there, you'll need to invest effort and find the right people. it's a tricky balance between reading people correctly and blind luck. i'm not usually lucky in personal relations, but in a couple of cases that spring to mind, i got blessed by the gods of luck for giving a chance on people.

hope this brightens up this thread. there's a reason i keep coming back to pen and paper. it's worth the effort.

Vknight
2017-05-25, 07:54 AM
Well... I certainly enjoy bloviating and complaining about games as well playing them.

That is fair and true enough it can all become very melancholy though either way this has been an enlightening subject on the matter on how others on the forums feel.

Max_Killjoy
2017-05-25, 11:03 AM
I know exactly what you mean and no they aren't all heartbreakers but separating the wheat from the chaff isn't easy.

That said the following are entirely different skills:

Writing an evocative book that reads well
Tech writing - writing a book that's easy to use at the table and clear at conveying what it is supposed to do.
Game design.

And what sells books and inspires people to play is mostly the first. For that matter most gamers simply haven't spent the time necessary to judge the third at all. Anyone can write an "introduction to roleplaying" - but most lovingly detailed sets of rules are written by people without the understanding of math to know what the actual outcomes are (Storyteller, RIFTS, and WFRP 1e I'm looking at you!) and to put it bluntly playtesting in the RPG community is generally awful, largely taking place in the writer's main group with the writer at the table and with their friends both knowing the rules and not wanting to upset the writer. So although I'll defend the design of Gygaxian D&D most games simply are not well designed.




I've long though that there are three general elements of an RPG and its success.

1. The look. This is largely artwork, but also layout, title, and the bits on the back.

2. The setting and general vibe.

3. The mechanics and nitty gritty of the system.

In general, I believe they go in that order of importance for getting people to pick up your game, but they go in reverse order of importance for getting people to stick with it long-term.


As I've been hunting for games, systems, and system concepts / ideas that might work for some things I want to do, I've found so many that are disappointing -- even heartbreaking -- on all three of those aspects.


So many RPG books have serious layout issues.

First, there's the "let's get artsy" problem. Colored page backgrounds and overuse of aesthetic fonts make the text hard to read. Lack of borders, lack of clear paragraph formatting, odd kerning and swerving margins make it hard to follow along, identify breaks, etc. Artwork is inserted randomly, and instead of blocking out space cleanly, the text is just left to flow around it. Asides and sidebars are scattered about, forcing the reader to read around them -- there was one game in particular where the ongoing sidebar took up a randomly-placed 1/4 of five pages in a row, so that you had to read the main text skipping the sidebar, then go back and read the sidebar skipping the main text.

Second, there's the "where the hell do I find that rule?" problem. Are the rules for dual-wielding in the main combat section, buried under one of the combat/weapon skills, hidden in the text of a talent that alleviates the normal penalties, or just hinted at in the "combat modifiers" table? In one particular game, the rules for a character learning / buying magic were scattered across a dozen different pages, and no where was the cost actually spelled out... except in a few words buried in the middle of one obscure sentence in the "talents" section because spells were bought with "talent points". In another game, each segment of character creation is with that part of the system, there's no unified section for character creation at all; and there are not summaries or tables for skills or weapons or anything, you have to read through the entire section for each to get an idea of what's there and what's possible.


Then there's the problem of basic mathematical fails. It amazes me how many game designers very clearly never sat down and spent a couple of hours with a spreadsheet... or who seemingly regard "math" as a dirty word in game design, something to be sneered at with disdain should it ever threaten artistic or narrative purity. Random thought example, they'll say "we're rolling 3d8, and the standard difficulties are 5, 10, 15, and 20!" creating a mess of skewed probabilities against which it's impossible to map meaningful character differences or situational modifiers. I even had one would-be game designer tell me that "skills in my system are going to subtract from difficulty, not add to the roll"... and he couldn't get his head around how mathematically meaningless that distinction was going to be, all else being equal. In another system I've seen, a person with an average characteristic and average skill level for a person in that system and setting... fails about 60% of the time at an "average difficulty" task.

CharonsHelper
2017-05-25, 11:19 AM
Then there's the problem of basic mathematical fails. It amazes me how many game designers very clearly never sat down and spent a couple of hours with a spreadsheet... or who seemingly regard "math" as a dirty word in game design, something to be sneered at with disdain should it ever threaten artistic or narrative purity.

I think that some designers tend to think that playtesting makes math unnecessary. But that leads to issues where the playtester A is just a better optimizer, leading them to nerf what they play into the ground, while playertester B grabs stuff at random, so they buff their choices.

Really - outside of asymmetrical parts (which can be very tricky to balance) systems should be designed with math first with some playtesting to try to break it. Playtesting really helps more for helping things 'feel' right, have a cool vibe, and seeing if some of your base assumptions (which you should have written out) of how play would go were wrong.



there was one game in particular where the ongoing sidebar took up a randomly-placed 1/4 of five pages in a row, so that you had to read the main text skipping the sidebar, then go back and read the sidebar skipping the main text.

Uh oh - I have one part of my game where I did that. I put the '20 questions' of a character (name/what they love/family etc.) in a long sidebar part of the intro chapter. Though - I did make sure not to split any of the individual questions between pages.

I do generally like to put relevant fluff in sidebars. Because, while I like it in the area, I don't want said fluff to clutter up the rules when it's being referenced later.

GentlemanVoodoo
2017-05-25, 01:57 PM
Have you ever broken yourself trying to play these games? These games are hard to play, even harder to run. From gaming and observing games it seems to me that most of the promise of these games, the opportunities they advertise vividly in their artwork and back copy, their "introduction to roleplaying" blurbs and their lovingly detailed rules, come across in the nature of cheats, tantalising people to how good roleplaying games could be, but aren't, because people suck at it and their games are never going to be a good as the "examples of play" we find in the books--much less actually being as engaging and delightful and interesting as the literary and cinematic and comic book source material most of these games are based on. I find it all rather depressing. Do you?

OP, you have described the essential two problems of tabletop gaming; system rules and player mentality. The games you described do exist as in the books but that result is based on how restrictive your players are for such things as min maxing among others. My advice is first find a system you like, then find players who are like minded as you to achieve the type of game you want. You may have to spend some time on it but again such games as you are wanting do exist.