"Maybe D&D isn't for you..."

[Schwann145]

When people have complaints/issues/etc with D&D, very often the answer is suggestions to try other games, as something else might suit their tastes better.

I don't disagree at all. However...

Do the people who offer this advice realize how unhelpful it actually is?
For instance, my favorite RPG is Legend of the Five Rings. I'm part of communities of that game/setting, and I couldn't even begin to tell you how to find a game to join. Unless you're offering to run one, you're pretty much SOL, and people looking for a new game are certainly not prepared to run it!

And L5R is not a particularly unknown IP. It's pretty popular for a non-D&D game! Imagine games with even less recognition?
For instance, I'm incredibly interested in trying the 2d20 Conan RPG. I've purchased the rulebook, read through it enough to have a basic grasp of the game, and I think it looks outstanding for the type of game I'd love to play.
And I'm sure I'll never get to play it. I've never seen or heard of any groups playing, let alone advertising open spots, and that's with actively looking!

D&D is THE game. It takes up about 92% of the gaming community's attention, with World of Darkness taking up about 6% of the leftovers.
So while finding a different game might be the right advice, I feel like that alone is never good advice.

"Not happy with D&D? Maybe try and find another game that no one else is playing and you'll probably never find a game for."
How is that helpful?
Am I alone in thinking this?

[Lord Raziere]

I know this pain, man.

I'm an Exalted fan. I'm lucky if I find a game at all.

I like Anima Beyond Fantasy. finding any person willing to run this is a rare find.

I have a bunch of fate games I'll never get to play.

Legends of Wulin will never happen because people prefer to force DnD into being wuxia using supplements.

and when will I ever play Tenra Bansho Zero?

I have a bunch of pdfs that all are good for are reading and probably use as inspiration to write books from because no one's willing to actually play or run them, because DnD not being for someone is only half the problem, the other half is making the other option viable at all against the "I don't want to learn a new system" inertia. if that is the attitude to being asked to play it with me in return, what use is acknowledging that DnD isn't for me? whats the use if no one is willing to pull the other end? this kind of a thing is a two-way street, you can't just tell others to walk down it without making steps yourself.

[Yora]

The most useless advice in RPGs.

There are some other classic stinkers, but this one beats them all.

[Batcathat]

Yeah, it's probably not very helpful advice in a lot of cases, but I also think the opposite can be a problem – where some people stick to D&D no matter how much they have force it into something it's not designed for.

As a Swede, I suppose I haven't had this specific problem as much, since D&D isn't really the RPG here the way it is in other parts of the world, but the basic issue of getting people to play less prominent systems is probably universial.

[Tanarii]

Given that the vast majority of the time the advice is being offered to someone thinking about starting a new campaign with a pre-existing group of players, ie the GM, asking for advice on how to make D&D do something it's incredibly unsuited for, it's usually perfectly applicable and useful advice. Provided, and this is a big caveat, the GM can sell the group on trying a non-D&D system. Easier said than done.

Also for those few times it's suggested to someone looking to be a player, gameshops have folks running non-D&D games all the time. Provided you're playing a current game. I do often see games more than 5-10 years old suggested, and that's not going to work out for someone looking to play. Like, it's unlikely anyone will run Savage Worlds any more. But IIRC there were talks about spinning up a Blades in the Dark campaigns at game stores I frequented before they had to shut down, and Lancer will almost certainly get one eventually.

[Berenger]

According to a 2021 survey, it looks more like this in Germany:

"Which systems are you playing right now?" (https://rollenspielraum.de/2021/02/pnp-umfrage/)

D&D 39,95%
Others 38%
The Dark Eye 38,3%
Call of Cthulhu 25,1%
Shadowrun 24,6%
World of Darkness 15,3%
Homebrew Systems 15,2%
Pathfinder 14,6%
Splittermond 11,7%
Star Wars (various systems) 11,7%
Warhammer 8,7%
Powered by the Apocalypse 8,4%
Fate 7,3%
Savage Worlds 7,0%
17 other listed systems between 4,8% and 1,0%, not included in "Others".


This corresponds to my personal experience as well, as my group of friends tried 15+ systems over about as many years and we had at least one long campaign in several of them (d20 Modern, The Dark Eye, Scion, Star Wars, WoD Vampire, HackMaster, Stars Without Number). Most of the time it's literally just "Hey guys, would you like to check out this great new RPG I bought / got for christmas / read an article about?" "Yeah, okay, bring the books and we'll give it a try." As a matter of fact, I just asked our GM to check out the new Vaesen RPG and tell me if he'd like that as a present for his next birthday. Before I read Yoras comment, I'd have said that this is a fairly typical experience over here. So, it's sometimes hard to remember that this is just not an option for everybody.

[Eldan]

Yeah, that's the case for me too. I've never in my life met a mono-system player. All the RPG-affiliated people I know have at least three systems at home and have probably played a lot more. That said, all the players I know are older and have had more time to experiment. Also, they all played for many years before the current D&D boom.

(If anything, as a teenager and in my 20s, I had problems finding anyone who wanted to play D&D. It had a bad reputation around here and my problem was I never liked DSA.)

[Batcathat]

Yeah, that's the case for me too. I've never in my life met a mono-system player. All the RPG-affiliated people I know have at least three systems at home and have probably played a lot more. That said, all the players I know are older and have had more time to experiment. Also, they all played for many years before the current D&D boom.

Yeah, this is similar to my experience. While not everyone is interested in every single system, most people I know are at least open to the idea of trying something new.

[Satinavian]

Personally i have slightly lost interest in new systems.

I have played so many ... you would have to make a good argument what this new thing can do that all the others can not. And that has to be something i like.

[KorvinStarmast]

Given that the vast majority of the time the advice is being offered to someone thinking about starting a new campaign with a pre-existing group of players, ie the GM, asking for advice on how to make D&D do something it's incredibly unsuited for, it's usually perfectly applicable and useful advice. Provided, and this is a big caveat, the GM can sell the group on trying a non-D&D system. Easier said than done. We started a Tunnels and Trolls (5th edition) game a few years ago, thanks to an adventurous GM, but our problem was that other than me, the other five players basically never showed up two weeks in a row. It's all well and good to talk about starting a new group, but if people won't {scrubbed} show up any DM/GM will eventually let the game die due to a lack of player buy in. Unsurprisingly, one of those same players was in our CoS D&D campaign and ended up bailing out on us. (But the silver lining to that cloud was that Kurt Kurageous joined our on line group. :smallsmile: )

Same GM has offered to start a Blades in the Dark game in a couple of months. I got the books from DTRPG and am hoping this one does not go the way that T & T did.

Game shops? The one near where I live closed during COVID and was barely staying alive before that.
FLGS for me simply isn't an option for the next year or two, at best.

[Berenger]

Personally i have slightly lost interest in new systems.

I have played so many ... you would have to make a good argument what this new thing can do that all the others can not. And that has to be something i like.

Understandable - the more systems you know, the lesser the probability that a new one will offer radically different oportunities. But I'd hazard a guess that you wouldn't be content with picking one of these systems and using it for everything, forever. That is, unless you are a die-hard GURPS fan.

[Thrudd]

This is perfectly reasonable advice, in general. The specifics of any person's situation may make it less useful. If you're a player searching for new games at public venues - it may not always be actionable, but it is still useful advice. At least you'll know to be on the lookout for games run in those systems people here are recommending to you, even if it's less than 1% of GMs that might be running it. You might never see the game being recommended, but at least now you know it exists, right?

If you're a GM, it is also perfectly good advice to recommend a system that is designed to do the things you want to do. If you have players who obstinately refuse to try anything other than D&D, and you know that because you've tried many times to convince them to try different systems, that's information you might want to give when bringing your concerns to the forum.

If you're a GM looking to recruit new players from public venues, it doesn't hurt to offer to run a system other than D&D. True, you might not get much interest depending on the venue you've chosen and your location, but you never know until you try. If, after a while, there's not enough interest, just go back to offering to run D&D. Every chance you get, offer to run the new system. If you find a consistent group, and they come to enjoy your DMing, your chances of convincing them to try the new thing will likely increase.

Of course, the way the advice is presented is sometimes what causes distaste, when the advice giver comes off as condescending or treats someone's concerns and questions as illegitimate, or gives this advice without actually fully reading and comprehending the situation presented. But that doesn't only apply to this particular piece of advice, that's across the board. It's more a problem of people not really paying attention to what the other is saying, and offering useless advice because they haven't grasped the actual concern.

[Easy e]

Wargaming has this same problem, but with Games Workshop games being the dominant game.

Unless you are willing to be the GM, then you are mostly SOL.

[Vahnavoi]

D&D being the only game around the block is self-created and self-perpetuated problem. The solution is and has always been for people to pick up & hold games that aren't D&D. There are no shortcuts. As Tanarii noted, the advice is most commonly targeted at prospecting game masters, not people who never hold games of their own. If you are one of the people who never hold games, maybe it's time to consider changing that. If you insist on not holding games, then yes, the advice may become unworkable. That doesn't make the advice bad.

[Willie the Duck]

"Not happy with D&D? Maybe try and find another game that no one else is playing and you'll probably never find a game for."
How is that helpful?
Am I alone in thinking this?

I think there are a few key issues I think come into play with this.

Firstly, I tend to think of this as the equivalent of the old IT advice of 'Have you tried turning it off and turning it on again?' -- it is frustrating to hear, unhelpful in many many instances, but at the end of the day, a non-trivial number (sufficient to make the potential for frustration worthwhile) of people are served by the advice. People (often highly competent people who know their way around a computer) don't reboot their computers, are certain that that is not the issue, and are resistant to doing so... right up until the IT help desk person requires it as a next step and it solves the problem. There isn't an exact parallel for D&D with RPGs, but it's probably true that, in 1 case out of X, trying a different game to accomplish goal Y was the right answer and person Z has the option to do so, but was so stuck in the D&D framing that this wasn't registering.

Second, there is the issue of what each person's game-group situation looks like. As an example, I have two main groups, and then on occasion check out the FLGS. One group is, effectively, '[current edition] D&D and only D&D and no we don't want to have to learn a new system and yes we will constrain what types of games we run to keep that going,' while the other is more, 'Oh, next campaign, let's try a <genre/style> campaign using <specific game system>.' The FLGS is mostly 5e, but you can also find several other games being played (so you can't go there and find a specific other game group, but you can find groups with other games, and if you would be willing to GM system X, you probably could get together enough people interested in it to get an at-least-12-session campaign run). If someone's experience of gaming groups is closer to the first situation, 'have you tried not-D&D?' is unhelpful. If it is the second, it is helpful (although you probably would have already thought of that). If the third, it would depend (and be most helpful if you can GM the thing). I think differences in how realistic the second situation is probably drives a lot of the difference in whether one considers the advise helpful.

Thirdly, I think part of this might be aspirational/idealistic/thinking towards the way things 'ought' to be. After all, D&D will always be the majority of many TTRPG markets right up until a critical mass of people decide that they can use a different system that better fits their goals and set about shifting the market and player base. I think there are a lot of gamers who would really like that to happen (especially, to be fair, if someone else can do the heavy lifting). Also it is very easy to interpret someone else's problems as made up of perfectly spherical cows and thus the theoretically 'right' answer to be appropriate.

Those are the situations where I think these responses are genuine attempts at being helpful. Of course there is a fourth situation, which are people that... well, just aren't. Be that because they are viewing the situation through the lens of 'you are complaining about something being the way I like it, clearly you are the problem,' to merely (mistakenly, but perhaps backed by past experience) assuming that this is just another axe-grinding session in the guise of advice-seeking.

I wouldn't hazard a guess on the actual numbers, but I would bet on #3 is the largest category (just imagine a fellow gamer nerd staring at the computer going, "Whatdya mean unhelpful? The best way to get D&D to emulate this thing that L5R does well is to use L5R in the first place! Why is that not the right answer?!?").


So while finding a different game might be the right advice, I feel like that alone is never good advice.
I think that's it in a nutshell. I think, for a number of people, 'Don't give me the right advice, give me what would be good advice' is, if not a non-starter, at least an unusual framing that would kinda require per-thread prefacing of the question with such a disclaimer. If you have a question, and include, "and yes, I know there are plenty of TTRPGs which already have this functionality. Unfortunately that's not an option open to me in this case," and people still answer with 'play not-D&D instead,' then yes they are being systematically unhelpful. Even then, it's entirely possible that they are really (poorly communicated) saying, "okay, wow. Yeah, I got nothing. My advise would be 'play not-D&D instead,' but you excluded that option, so I really don't have anything to add except point out what my advice would have been." Why bother posting then? Good question.

[Tanarii]

Game shops? The one near where I live closed during COVID and was barely staying alive before that.
FLGS for me simply isn't an option for the next year or two, at best.
Agreed, it's not currently a solid option. Also I sometimes forget not everyone lives in a big city with multiple game shops in spitting distance. :smallamused:

[Jervis]

I’m of the opposite opinion. Getting more people to try new games chips away at DnD’s lead in the west and will make it easier to find other games. Sometimes that means running games yourself to see if you find anyone else who wants to run one for you.

[NRSASD]

Having grown up playing AD&D and being the primary DM for our gaming circle of about 20 people, I’m eager to try new things. That said, our one campaign in Blades in the Dark got the most backhanded compliment I’ve heard. I played it with my veteran crew, and after 3 months I asked their verdict.

“We love it! The world, the characters, everything, except the ruleset. It would work better in D&D.”

[halfeye]

There are also games that aren't RPGs.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you are one of the people who never hold games, maybe it's time to consider changing that. If you insist on not holding games, then yes, the advice may become unworkable. That doesn't make the advice bad. Amen, deacon. :smallcool:

That said, our one campaign in Blades in the Dark got the most backhanded compliment I’ve heard. I played it with my veteran crew, and after 3 months I asked their verdict.

“We love it! The world, the characters, everything, except the ruleset. It would work better in D&D.” Laughed, I did, out loud. :smallbiggrin:

[Lord Raziere]

There are also games that aren't RPGs.

well yeah, but speaking as a videogamer and roleplayer, no amount of playing them can replace or substitute what you want to roleplay. they're fundamentally different experiences and pleasures. my replaying of Skyrim and New Vegas has nothing to do with me wanting to someday play an Infernal Exalted or Getimian. playing Stellaris is fundamentally different from actually roleplaying a star empire. they're designed to hit different parts of brain, so they can't really be compared.

[kyoryu]

I think it's, in general, good advice, but you need to be aware that circumstances vary.

To get people to play other games, I find this works:

1. Accept some people don't want to
2. Be willing to run games
3. Find a pool of players - FLGS, meetup, online, friends, club, whatever.
4. Propose a one shot or at most a short arc of 2-3 sessions
5. Be willing to play with who wants to play, unless you kick them for disruption reasons

In most cases, it's very possible. It's only hard if you can't budge on who you play with ("must be my friends!") or how you play ("can't be online!"). One-shots are always a good idea for new stuff, as the commitment level is much lower, especially if you can provide characters. "Show up one saturday for three hours" is a lot lower commitment than "commit to this every tuesday for a year".

[Satinavian]

I agree.

The best way to get other people to run system X for you is to run system X yourself first. Getting players for a niche system is easier than finding GMs for that niche system. But after you ran a campaign, you know several people who are familiar the rules and if your campaign was not a failure, even some who like the system. Chances are good that one of them would be willing to run the next campaign.

[Alcore]

I have played so many ... you would have to make a good argument what this new thing can do that all the others can not. And that has to be something i like.If for a real life game my go to argument; It is what your friends will be playing

[Jervis]

“We love it! The world, the characters, everything, except the ruleset. It would work better in D&D.”

This is gonna seem weird for a guy who comments mostly in the dnd forums but the idea that X would work better in dnd always makes me irrationally angry. You don’t realize how much those rules morph and break your setting until you stop and think about it. A lot of the “fixes” you need to use dnd to run setting outside of heroic mid-high fantasy all have the problem of creating more issues the more you change. That’s because the problems you’re fixing aren’t so much bugs as they are features, and changing those features means you need to change everything. It’s like using a saw to hammer a nail, it can do it but you aren’t gonna have a easy time. The adventuring day is a good example of this where no matter what you’re doing 4-6 medium to hard difficulty encounters will show up between long rests or else the class balance just stops working.

[False God]

I mean, you're not wrong but...

What other option is there? D&D can only be stretched so far to accommodate certain alternate modes of play, and the further you stretch it, the fewer players you find.

Frankly, I find it's worse than you present. It's not that D&D takes up 90% of the conversation, but 70% of D&D is aimed at shallow, short PUG games. Even looking for a game where you aren't following this year's campaign release or this season's AL or some kind of long-term game you can really invest in and make some friends with is just as hard as finding a game in an entirely different system.

At least suggesting "play something else" expands the potential player pool of "something else". And getting into different systems usually makes you more likely to get into even more new systems. Which if nothing else expands your concept of what a good game could look like.

[farothel]

The last time I played D&D was 3.5 back in 2015 (I don't even have any v4 or v5 books). Of course, I've played Pathfinder, which has similar mechanics. I must admit I've been playing in a highly stable group for almost 20 years now and we often try new things, or get our old stuff back out when someone makes a campaign in it. I've GMed Alternity and Star Trek (also one of the old systems) quite recently (at least after we did the D&D) and currently we have an Alien campaign, a Pathfinder 2.0 campaign and a L5R campaign running with our group (we switch GM duties so everybody can play at times). We had a Vampire Dark Ages and the Pendragon campaign, but those seemed to have stopped.

I think it's a question of asking around and forums like this can help in finding people (or playing online). A lot of game systems have their own, specific, forum and those can also help.

[Jay R]

Do the people who offer this advice realize how unhelpful it actually is?

This advice is quite helpful, but only if you follow it to its correct conclusion.


For instance, my favorite RPG is Legend of the Five Rings. I'm part of communities of that game/setting, and I couldn't even begin to tell you how to find a game to join. Unless you're offering to run one, you're pretty much SOL, and people looking for a new game are certainly not prepared to run it!

Bingo! If you want the game you're playing to change, then you should be the one to change it. You should offer to run the game you want all your friends to play.

This is no different from saying that if you want ice cream, then you should go get ice cream.


"Not happy with D&D? Maybe try and find another game that no one else is playing and you'll probably never find a game for."
How is that helpful?
Am I alone in thinking this?

Don't find a game for it; make a game for it.

Run the game for your group. Emphasize the parts you love. Make them love it too. Eventually, one of them may start to run it, or hear about another game nearby somebody is running.

I have gotten to play Flashing Blades a few times. But the referees who ran it all played in my game first. I ran original D&D for some friends about ten years ago -- then I got to play it for awhile. I have a group right now that I want to play 3.5e with -- so I'm DMing it for them to teach it to them. I've played Chivalry & Sorcery, run by somebody whom I introduced to the system. I've played Champions after running it. I got to play Fantasy Hero after introducing somebody to it. TOON and Pendragon and never gotten to play them.]

But it's the only method that is likely to work -- for all the reasons you documented.

And it's not just RPGs. I get to fence with a lot of people that I taught how to fence.

When you want change to happen, you need to be the change.

[NRSASD]

Amen, deacon. :smallcool:
Laughed, I did, out loud. :smallbiggrin:

That answer still makes me laugh. I wasn’t insulted, just deeply amused. Oh well!


This is gonna seem weird for a guy who comments mostly in the dnd forums but the idea that X would work better in dnd always makes me irrationally angry. You don’t realize how much those rules morph and break your setting until you stop and think about it. A lot of the “fixes” you need to use dnd to run setting outside of heroic mid-high fantasy all have the problem of creating more issues the more you change. That’s because the problems you’re fixing aren’t so much bugs as they are features, and changing those features means you need to change everything. It’s like using a saw to hammer a nail, it can do it but you aren’t gonna have a easy time. The adventuring day is a good example of this where no matter what you’re doing 4-6 medium to hard difficulty encounters will show up between long rests or else the class balance just stops working.

I totally hear that. In my case, I’ve grown up using heavily modified rule sets already, so I’m not shy of reworking things. For example, I’m currently running a French Revolution game using the D&D 5E rules and it works great. Rather than a class, I built 4 lists of feats (most of which were class features from 5E that fit the theme), then told the players to pick one from each. That way, instead of building a bunch of new classes, I had 1 that could be specced into 10. From there, it was easy enough to tweak the weapons, the bad guys, and blam, done.

Point of the matter is, 5E’s d20 ruleset is extremely versatile and useable for basically anything that deals with individual characters (vehicles, groups, or other things not so much). You just need to recreate the things that are connected to it if you want to make it work for you. Is it a lot of work? Yes, but not more than setting a campaign up, plus your players can drop right in with no rule explanations, which in my group is worth a ton.

[halfeye]

well yeah, but speaking as a videogamer and roleplayer, no amount of playing them can replace or substitute what you want to roleplay. they're fundamentally different experiences and pleasures. my replaying of Skyrim and New Vegas has nothing to do with me wanting to someday play an Infernal Exalted or Getimian. playing Stellaris is fundamentally different from actually roleplaying a star empire. they're designed to hit different parts of brain, so they can't really be compared.

There are still more games outside those.

I like Go, I'd sort of maybe like to play contract bridge if it wasn't deadly serious (which I don't know it is, but I don't know that I know anyone who plays), there are sports.

Nothing's for everyone, people can play whatever they want.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

Am I alone in thinking this?

No you are not and I agree with everything you said. The one thing also to consider is D&D has been successful at making itself a brand thus why it is so big nowadays in that it has marketed itself to reach a wider audience than most other table top games. But that is the problem in my opinion; D&D is no longer a game but a brand.

[Lord Raziere]

There are still more games outside those.

I like Go, I'd sort of maybe like to play contract bridge if it wasn't deadly serious (which I don't know it is, but I don't know that I know anyone who plays), there are sports.

Nothing's for everyone, people can play whatever they want.

Okay.

How does that help me though? A world where we all accept each other's choices while agreeable isn't the point or what solves my problem. That has nothing to do with this.

[Rynjin]

D&D is THE game. It takes up about 92% of the gaming community's attention, with World of Darkness taking up about 6% of the leftovers.
So while finding a different game might be the right advice, I feel like that alone is never good advice.

"Not happy with D&D? Maybe try and find another game that no one else is playing and you'll probably never find a game for."
How is that helpful?
Am I alone in thinking this?

Simply start the game yourself, then bully one of your new players into running the next campaign.

It works.

Seriously, people who are into RPGs are typically into RPGs even if they don't know it yet, even if their only experience is 5e. RPG fans are STARVED for opportunities to game, to the point that the actual system doesn't really matter unless they end up hating that specific system. People are more willing to try new things than they claim to be.

[Pex]

You can enjoy the game and not like aspects of it. Talk about it. Keep playing.

If you don't like a rule enough as a DM you house rule. Keep playing.

If you feel the need to write your own players' handbook of house rules with pages and pages of stuff, then "Maybe D&D isn't for you." Maybe another game system already does what you want and play that. Maybe publish what you wrote and hope enough other people also like it to buy it.

[Psyren]

Yeah, it's probably not very helpful advice in a lot of cases, but I also think the opposite can be a problem – where some people stick to D&D no matter how much they have force it into something it's not designed for.

This. There are a number of things D&D just isn't designed for and doesn't do well. Pointing that out is just being honest.

Also - OP, no one can know how practical or impractical trying a given system is for you until after they suggest it. None of us can read minds to know your access to open-minded (or fed up) groups, nor your tolerance/patience for finding groups online.

[MrStabby]

Yeah, if the advice is offered to an individual - "play a different game" is pretty useless mos of the time. If the advice is offered to a group, then it can be sound. If everyone in the group has a similar problem with the ruleset of the current game then you can maybe agree on common probems and if the advice on which game to move to represents these problems then its probably good advice.

One upside to the dominance of D&D as a system is that more people tend to have played previous versions and have a common experience they can talk about to reflect what they like and what they don't like.

[Anonymouswizard]

In my experience I find there's a big double standard.

If I don't want to play D&D I should run the game.

If I want to find a new group I should be willing to run D&D.

The solution would, of course, be to play with friends, but most of my friends are busy.

Trying to find an online group doesn't help, as for every game of Savage Worlds or CofD looking for members there's twenty to forty games of D&D. It would help that I've got most of a group of friends willing to play, but we're missing one person to bring the party up to three (which is where the fun dynamics are).

The issue is that if it's not D&D the audience is just significantly smaller, no matter how popular. Which can leave you in this annoying position of 'if you don't want to play D&D run the game. But if you want to find a new group you must run D&D'.

[Vahnavoi]

The fork for "if you want a new group, run D&D" applies only if you are prioritizing finding a new group over playing a different game.

If playing a different game is the real point, you don't care about how many D&D games there are for offer. You aren't looking for and aren't competing for people interested in D&D, duh.

The solution is NOT to play with friends. Games are a hobby, you should look for other hobbyists interested in the kind of game you want to play. Limiting yourself to people who are already your friends is limiting and silly.

[Anonymouswizard]

The fork for "if you want a new group, run D&D" applies only if you are prioritizing finding a new group over playing a different game.

This presumes that an existing group to play games with exists.


If playing a different game is the real point, you don't care about how many D&D games there are for offer. You aren't looking for and aren't competing for people interested in D&D, duh.

The solution is NOT to play with friends. Games are a hobby, you should look for other hobbyists interested in the kind of game you want to play. Limiting yourself to people who are already your friends is limiting and silly.

And the people looking to play D&Dvtend to drown out everybody else. It's frustrating.

The thing is that I have friends interested in the kind of game tmI want to play. They're just busy with other things, from young children to new houses to serious medical conditions. As I said, I'm down ONE PERSON from a theoretical game of Unknown Armies, Savage Worlds, or Paranoia (Eclipse Phase, however, just has too many rules and nowhere to buy 2e).

[Vahnavoi]

This presumes that an existing group to play games with exists.

That not what's being presumed. If anything, my point was to do away with the presumption that the people to look for exist within the pool of people interested in D&D.

[Imbalance]

Perhaps the advice should go further:

"Maybe gaming isn't for you..."

Because, let's face it - gamers are a special breed. It's true that a lot of people have been enticed toward our hobby by what they've seen on shows and YouTube, or even have friends that play and make it sound cool. Not all of them are wired to properly engage with multiple aspects of problem solving, role-playing, and statistical/spacial math challenges, let alone derive enjoyment from them. Sure, on this forum it's most often true that the person soliciting the advice is undoubtedly a gamer, but maybe not to the extent that a different TTRPG is going to fulfill the expectations that they imagine they'll enjoy based on illusionary media. The experience that they think they're applying for simply may not exist, or only exists on tv, like how I was led to believe that quicksand was a major problem.

That said, it is helpful advice, because there is next to zero advertising for the existence of other options than D&D besides word of mouth. And even if the shows and cartoons aren't accurately portraying a gaming session, they are doing a great job of making gaming attractive to people who may not have ever given thought to engaging in the hobby, to find out for themselves if they're gamer material or not. So, let them come, try something, become disenchanted but remain curious, ask around, take another chance and possibly find a game they do like, but also let people know that it's OK if they discover that maybe they're just not into this stuff. Or, maybe even if the gaming part isn't their cup of tea, finding the right fellow players is what will make the most difference in whether they enjoy participating, and pointing them toward a game with a different social atmosphere would be the best advice of all.

Point is, as long as someone is open to and asking for suggestions, this community will fall over themselves to try to help. And that is a great thing, even if the advice sometimes seems...not great.

[Tanarii]

In my experience I find there's a big double standard.

If I don't want to play D&D I should run the game.

If I want to find a new group I should be willing to run D&D.

The solution would, of course, be to play with friends, but most of my friends are busy.Ha! I feel your pain. Kinda sorta.

When I wanted to run an open table persistent campaign, I was forced to use D&D 5e. I wanted and tried to get folks interested in D&D BECMI, and couldn't get enough interest. :smallfrown:

Otoh, I could have probably run a small 2-3 person closed table game at just one store if I'd wanted. Those tend to fall apart, so it would have had to be for a specific time frame, but it would have been possible.

So I had to make a hard decision: Play the game system I wanted but not the campaign I wanted, or play the current new hotness D&D system and try to adjust it to run the campaign I wanted. As usual with D&D in general and with 5e in particular, the biggest roadblock you have to design around is resting / adventuring. Luckily 5e is designed for open table official play, even if it's missing critical game structures for old school hex and dungeon crawl play, but the rest/adventuring day design includes a specific kind of single-session open table play ... one in which the characters "return to base" at the end of the session. A bit tricky to make that work with true West Marches*, but it's possible to hybridize with adventuring site crawling.

*I don't know how the original WM guy handled it because it's not like there weren't complaints about wilderness vs dungeon encounter rates and regaining spells pre-WotC D&D.

[Thrudd]

There's no "double standard". No one is contesting the fact that there are far more people playing D&D than anything else. The advice is: If you want to play a different game, offer to run a different game. Maybe you'll get some people who want to play it. No one can promise you'll find players.

If you don't want to or can't run a game, then look for groups offering to run games other than D&D. True, you might not find one right away. But you can keep looking.

Sometimes us adults, who don't have as much time to spend on our hobbies as we'd like, have very limited selection of games due to scheduling, and the demographics says that it's probably only going to be D&D games that fit our schedule. Yup. So what's the point complaining about it, if we can't or aren't willing to do anything to change that? Try to enjoy what other people are running, or don't.

If you only play with your friend group, and they only play D&D, and you can't or don't want to run the game, then again, what's the point complaining to a forum about it? The forum can, at best, give you ideas for how you might convince people to try a new game.

If D&D is the only option for your friends, you can offer homebrew suggestions to make it work more the way you'd like. But when looking for advice about homebrewing your edition of D&D to do stuff other games are designed for, and you know that already, maybe preface that by saying that you don't have the option of switching to a different system.

[Easy e]

I have found it is much easier to get a friend group to shift games than to find random other gamers to play it with. However, my experience has strong personal bias as I prefer in person vs online, and I have had far too many horror stories about TFG with randoms (and sometimes I am TFG to them!).

That said, I have never gotten anyone to try another game system, unless you take the risk of running it first. Conversely, to foster the right spirit of adventure; it helps when you are always willing to try a new system; even if it is not your favorite system.

This reciprocity about trying new things creates a culture of acceptance of new things at the table and within the group. Once you have done it a few times, it becomes the norm.

[kyoryu]

In my experience I find there's a big double standard.

If I don't want to play D&D I should run the game.

Yes.


If I want to find a new group I should be willing to run D&D.

Not necessarily.


Trying to find an online group doesn't help, as for every game of Savage Worlds or CofD looking for members there's twenty to forty games of D&D. It would help that I've got most of a group of friends willing to play, but we're missing one person to bring the party up to three (which is where the fun dynamics are).

Be open to strangers. And you don't need twenty to forty games, you need one.


The issue is that if it's not D&D the audience is just significantly smaller, no matter how popular. Which can leave you in this annoying position of 'if you don't want to play D&D run the game. But if you want to find a new group you must run D&D'.

Nope. As I pointed out, there's a few things you can look at - what you play, who you play with, how you play. You get to decide which of those is most important, and as long as you're flexible on the others, you can probably at least get your first priority figured out. If you're willing to accept D&D, the other two you can be much more rigid in, but some flexibility may be required if you don't wanna run D&D.

[LibraryOgre]

Yeah, that's the case for me too. I've never in my life met a mono-system player. All the RPG-affiliated people I know have at least three systems at home and have probably played a lot more. That said, all the players I know are older and have had more time to experiment. Also, they all played for many years before the current D&D boom.


I have. The two most likely are D&D and Palladium (usually Rifts).

For myself? My favorite is the newer Hackmaster, or Savage Worlds. What do I usually run at the library? D&D. Because if I advertise something else, I don't get anyone.

[Anonymouswizard]

Second annoyance: people are all like 'just find a group' or 'just find an online group' like it's easy. Even without taking into account shift work* it can be relatively difficult. Taking into account timing differences and social disabilities and it can become near impossible.

Like yes, I could put up a 'looking for group to play X' online in this forum's finding players area (or Roll20's, or whatever), and I'm not sure why I don't. Probably because I'm too busy coming up with a bloody campaign prompt, or trying to find a fourth member for my prospective RL group.

* Which is why the gaming club near me is out of the question. Mandatory attendance is at least ten out of every twelve sessions.


For myself? My favorite is the newer Hackmaster, or Savage Worlds. What do I usually run at the library? D&D. Because if I advertise something else, I don't get anyone.

Also this. I could likely find a game shop or library that would let me run a game at, but finding players for anything other than D&D is still a massive hurdle. It doesn't matter if I want to run Traveller (or whatever} if nobody wants to play Traveller.

The only thing I've had any success with is Shadowrun, and I don't have the time to prep for that mess of a system anymore.

[Quertus]

Bingo! If you want the game you're playing to change, then you should be the one to change it. You should offer to run the game you want all your friends to play.

This is no different from saying that if you want ice cream, then you should go get ice cream.

When you want change to happen, you need to be the change.

So, I generally agree with what you had to say, and really loved the last line (like, I’d love (you to give permission and) everyone with an extended signature include it level of loved the last line).

But I think likening running a game to getting ice cream is… disingenuous? Like, it could be more like “if you want ice cream, make ice cream”, or even, “if you want ice cream, open an ice cream parlor”, depending on the system, the situation, and the talents and proclivities of the individual involved.


It would help that I've got most of a group of friends willing to play, but we're missing one person to bring the party up to three (which is where the fun dynamics are).

I agree that 3 is a good minimum for certain dynamics. But if the problem is that you need more players… why not make more players? Surely there must be individuals you haven’t approached and tried to groom for the role, right? Or, if there’s not, you could always literally make players. Just 7 formative years of proper training and you, too, can have added to the gamer population. Some assembly required.



Point is, as long as someone is open to and asking for suggestions, this community will fall over themselves to try to help. And that is a great thing, even if the advice sometimes seems...not great.

I’ve always loved and appreciated how helpful the Playground is, especially given how I can be something of a ****. Are you suggesting that, while the Playground may be the best, it isn’t alone in being awesome? That other gaming communities these days often share this trait?


That said, I have never gotten anyone to try another game system, unless you take the risk of running it first. Conversely, to foster the right spirit of adventure; it helps when you are always willing to try a new system; even if it is not your favorite system.

This reciprocity about trying new things creates a culture of acceptance of new things at the table and within the group. Once you have done it a few times, it becomes the norm.

That’s another nugget of wisdom from this thread that I think should be… hmmm…. perhaps “extended signature” is the wrong flavor? Perhaps a wall of “Playground Wisdom”, like “everything I need to know, I learned from the Playground”?

[Thrudd]

I have found it is much easier to get a friend group to shift games than to find random other gamers to play it with. However, my experience has strong personal bias as I prefer in person vs online, and I have had far too many horror stories about TFG with randoms (and sometimes I am TFG to them!).

That said, I have never gotten anyone to try another game system, unless you take the risk of running it first. Conversely, to foster the right spirit of adventure; it helps when you are always willing to try a new system; even if it is not your favorite system.

This reciprocity about trying new things creates a culture of acceptance of new things at the table and within the group. Once you have done it a few times, it becomes the norm.

Yes, I've found the exact same. Be open to trying things, be enthusiastic about the stuff your friends want to do, and it will be more likely that they'll try your thing, as well. Also, just be generally friendly and help everyone have fun - being a stick-in-the-mud or a constant complainer is less likely to convince people that your game will be fun, no matter how logical you think your arguments are.

And yeah, if you want a new thing, you usually need to run it first. When you do a good job running a game, it helps encourage others to want to try it, too. Once, after moving to a new place, I started out joining an existing D&D group as a player. Then I offered to run D&D for them. After that, I was able to get most of them to try other things. I even got to be a player again, eventually- they loved playing "Feng Shui" so much, that one of them started wanting to run it themselves because I just couldn't come up with content fast enough (we were in the service with plenty of down time, so it was possible to play multiple times a week, it just burned me out trying to do that).

Every group I've been with has been willing to try different systems, and usually was already familiar with at least a couple different systems, except for one or two individual stick-in-the-muds- and they usually enjoyed themselves anyway once everyone else peer-pressured them into trying new things. The key to this sort of dynamic might be in-person groups. When people have little or no real-life connection to the people they're playing with, and have the ability to search for games from a big online database, there is less motivation to come out of your comfort zone. So my advice, I guess, would be to search for real-life in-person games if it's at all possible. Even if they start out playing something you aren't interested in, the personal connection makes a big difference.

[Psyren]

Second annoyance: people are all like 'just find a group' or 'just find an online group' like it's easy. Even without taking into account shift work* it can be relatively difficult. Taking into account timing differences and social disabilities and it can become near impossible.

Like yes, I could put up a 'looking for group to play X' online in this forum's finding players area (or Roll20's, or whatever), and I'm not sure why I don't. Probably because I'm too busy coming up with a bloody campaign prompt, or trying to find a fourth member for my prospective RL group.

* Which is why the gaming club near me is out of the question. Mandatory attendance is at least ten out of every twelve sessions.

Would "I'm afraid I can't think of a solution for you, good luck!" be received better? At some point that's going to be the answer as the restrictions/obstacles mount up.

[LibraryOgre]

The only thing I've had any success with is Shadowrun, and I don't have the time to prep for that mess of a system anymore.

I have a Savage Worlds hack (https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-savage-shadows-savage.html), if you're interested. I've also done a bit more the with Matrix rules laid out there... I developed them for another game that's going nowhere right now.

[Lord Raziere]

Yes, I've found the exact same. Be open to trying things, be enthusiastic about the stuff your friends want to do, and it will be more likely that they'll try your thing, as well. Also, just be generally friendly and help everyone have fun - being a stick-in-the-mud or a constant complainer is less likely to convince people that your game will be fun, no matter how logical you think your arguments are.


So "try having a different personality", what great advice. I'll be sure to file it away with the rest of the "just be positive" mottos that don't make sense and don't work for me. Faking positivity is a soul-crushing process that only tires me and makes me feel angry.

[Mike_G]

The "maybe D&D isn't for you" can be dismissive if the question was something like "how can I run a diplomacy focused D&D game?" Are there systems that work better for that kind of thing? Sure.

But D&D is like Microsoft Office. Everybody has it. You can always find somebody who can open a file in Word, even though you might prefer to write in WordPerfect, there's no point in trying to preach how much better it is if nobody can open your files. D&D is the same. There's always a D&D group. You may love RuneQuest, but it's a lot harder to find a campaign to join, or players who are looking for one.

This is a thing that happens in forums, not just this one. There is a tendency to answer question with suggestions that may not be wrong, exactly, but clearly don't respect the spirit of the original question. Like all the "How do I build a Fighter" questions that get answered by "Build a Cleric."

[Anonymouswizard]

lI agree that 3 is a good minimum for certain dynamics. But if the problem is that you need more players… why not make more players? Surely there must be individuals you haven’t approached and tried to groom for the role, right? Or, if there’s not, you could always literally make players. Just 7 formative years of proper training and you, too, can have added to the gamer population. Some assembly required.

I asked. For somewhat different reasons, but I asked.

Apparently we don't have all the necessary equipment to create more humans.


Would "I'm afraid I can't think of a solution for you, good luck!" be received better? At some point that's going to be the answer as the restrictions/obstacles mount up.

Weird as it sounds, yes? It certainly feels better than 'just do...'


I have a Savage Worlds hack (https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-savage-shadows-savage.html), if you're interested. I've also done a bit more the with Matrix rules laid out there... I developed them for another game that's going nowhere right now.

I'll have a look at it sometime, probably after that Mass Effect hack. Honestly the main issue is the same as with most cyberpunk, the cyberware systems in most games suck. Not sure how you've dealt with it, but I'm sure it's better than many games.

[Lord Raziere]

But D&D is like Microsoft Office. Everybody has it. You can always find somebody who can open a file in Word, even though you might prefer to write in WordPerfect, there's no point in trying to preach how much better it is if nobody can open your files. D&D is the same. There's always a D&D group. You may love RuneQuest, but it's a lot harder to find a campaign to join, or players who are looking for one.


Except, this is not a good comparison, as if it was like microsoft office, then all rpgs would do the same thing as DnD. if all rpgs did the same thing as DnD, this wouldn't be a problem, because there'd be no point in switching.

when the entire point of other systems and settings....is that they aren't DnD and don't do the same things as DnD. its not comparing Word to another word-like program, its comparing Word to programs that do completely different things for different settings.

[Jay R]

In my experience I find there's a big double standard.

If I don't want to play D&D I should run the game.

If I want to find a new group I should be willing to run D&D.

The solution would, of course, be to play with friends, but most of my friends are busy.

Trying to find an online group doesn't help, as for every game of Savage Worlds or CofD looking for members there's twenty to forty games of D&D. It would help that I've got most of a group of friends willing to play, but we're missing one person to bring the party up to three (which is where the fun dynamics are).

The issue is that if it's not D&D the audience is just significantly smaller, no matter how popular. Which can leave you in this annoying position of 'if you don't want to play D&D run the game. But if you want to find a new group you must run D&D'.

That's not a double standard; it's just reality. If you want to play D&D, that's easy. Somebody else has already done the work of getting a group interested in playing it and teaching them the rules. Find a group and play.

If you want to play something else, that's hard. Nobody else has gotten a group together and taught them to play. So you have to. It won't be easy, and it won't be quick, and success is not automatic. Pendragon and TOON, but I've never gotten to play them.]

But it can work. That's how I got to play Flashing Blades and Fantasy Hero and Champions.

You want something that takes hard work and lots of time. OK, take the time and do the hard work.

Nothing else will work. That's not a double standard, or even a "standard" at all. It's simply the truth.


So, I generally agree with what you had to say, and really loved the last line (like, I’d love (you to give permission and) everyone with an extended signature include it level of loved the last line).

I hereby grant permission for anybody to cite that line, or anything else I write on these forums. Thanks for asking; that's quite courteous. But my position on such things is this:

I can control who uses my words. Or I can post them to the internet. I was never confused enough to believe I could do both at once.


But I think likening running a game to getting ice cream is… disingenuous? Like, it could be more like “if you want ice cream, make ice cream”, or even, “if you want ice cream, open an ice cream parlor”, depending on the system, the situation, and the talents and proclivities of the individual involved.

Yep. How much work something requires can vary tremendously. Usually, if I want ice cream, I just buy it. I remember as a kid having to mow a lawn for money first. There have even been a couple of times in my life when I needed to make ice cream myself (or rather, work with others to do so). So, yes, I have made ice cream -- mixing the cream, milk, sugar, and flavors, packing the ice with salt , and turning the hand crank over and over and over taking turns for a half hour.

What you want takes as much work as it takes -- right now in the current situation. Decide if it's worth it. If it is, then do the work. If it isn't, then don't do the work.

When you want change to happen, [I]you need to be the change.

[Thrudd]

So "try having a different personality", what great advice. I'll be sure to file it away with the rest of the "just be positive" mottos that don't make sense and don't work for me. Faking positivity is a soul-crushing process that only tires me and makes me feel angry.
The main point was to be open to try new things with your group, and they'll probably be more likely to try things you want to try- the friendly part is extra. But yeah, sorry, truly. I'm not saying to fake it - if it's impossible to express positivity or enthusiasm, it is extremely hard to make connections with people, and those connections are essential to getting what you want, sometimes. RPGs being social games that require interpersonal communications, it's just going to be harder all around for those of us who can't muster up the ability to be at least a little positive and friendly. That's the unfortunate truth.

I'm mostly talking from past experience for myself, my in-person RPG gaming days are pretty much behind me - I've been too far gone into depression or whatever it is for too long, at this point, to probably ever have a friend again. So maybe I feel your pain. Sometimes the intellectual idea of gaming as an outlet for creative expression is more appealing than the reality of this type of gaming- which is a social hobby that works better and is more fun with people who are happy and friendly. I've found, being depressed (or whatever I am) for my whole life, that being around people elevated my mood temporarily - but yes, I would be tired afterwards and return to my normal depressive state. However, despite the chemical conditions of our brains, there is some range of activity and behavior, however small it might be, that we still have control over- at least that's what the therapists have told me. I struggle greatly with the idea that there are things I could do to make my life better, but I am unable to find the will to do them. Maybe I'm wrong, and I actually have no choice- I'm not sure which option is worse. I've come to accept that there's a lot of stuff I just can't do anymore, and a lot of stuff I wish I could have done that I never will, and it sucks.

At the end of the day, friends make the difference. Friends who are understanding and will accept your limitations and help you with your struggles. Friends like that will agree to play a game you want to try, because they want to help you be happy. And being a good friend to them, means sometimes agreeing to play something they want to try, even though you aren't really into it. For those of us who have no more friends like that...well...yeah, it's bleak. Being unable to make friends makes good gaming (the sort that I'd call "good", anyway) pretty much impossible.

[LibraryOgre]

I'll have a look at it sometime, probably after that Mass Effect hack. Honestly the main issue is the same as with most cyberpunk, the cyberware systems in most games suck. Not sure how you've dealt with it, but I'm sure it's better than many games.

'ware is Edges, not money. The edges give you a certain number of points with which to install gear or powers... Bioware gives you fewer points, but it doesn't add to the difficulty of healing you (your physician can overcome the penalty with decent Repair and Electronics skills, but your mage can't). You're also limited to 5 total 'ware edges, plus modification edges if you want to swap things around (meaning you can't load up on 5 Bioware edges then switch everything to cybernetic on a whim).

If you pick up powers, you invest your points from your edges into power points of powers. For example, Farsight can either increase your visual range or reduce your ranged penalties, for 2 points. No roll, just works.

A couple notes: A Datajack is free if you want it, and are willing to limit to touch range (i.e. old-style cable datajacks, rather than wireless ones). Also free are cosmetic and reparative surgery... if you need a new liver, want to change your eye color, or have gender-affirming surgery, those don't cost edges (unless your new liver also makes you immune to poison or something). The difficulties for healing and such aren't "You aren't human", but "You have a lot of plastic and steel in your body, which makes it harder to treat things without messing it up."

If you want to see some of the changes I made to the Matrix stuff (with some different nomenclature, since its NotShadowrun), PM me.

[halfeye]

The "maybe D&D isn't for you" can be dismissive if the question was something like "how can I run a diplomacy focused D&D game?" Are there systems that work better for that kind of thing? Sure.

But D&D is like Microsoft Office. Everybody has it. You can always find somebody who can open a file in Word, even though you might prefer to write in WordPerfect, there's no point in trying to preach how much better it is if nobody can open your files. D&D is the same. There's always a D&D group. You may love RuneQuest, but it's a lot harder to find a campaign to join, or players who are looking for one.

This is a thing that happens in forums, not just this one. There is a tendency to answer question with suggestions that may not be wrong, exactly, but clearly don't respect the spirit of the original question. Like all the "How do I build a Fighter" questions that get answered by "Build a Cleric."


Except, this is not a good comparison, as if it was like microsoft office, then all rpgs would do the same thing as DnD. if all rpgs did the same thing as DnD, this wouldn't be a problem, because there'd be no point in switching.

when the entire point of other systems and settings....is that they aren't DnD and don't do the same things as DnD. its not comparing Word to another word-like program, its comparing Word to programs that do completely different things for different settings.

Not completely different things, just somewhat different things. I started using Timeworks DTP on the Atari ST, changed up to Pressworks from the same publisher on the PC, and they were both great for preparing CVs, far superior to any word processor. However, to make your CV machine readable for potential employers it has to be ****ing Word, or Libre Office, despite the fact that Microsoft also wrote Publisher which is (or was?) a DTP.

[Mike_G]

Except, this is not a good comparison, as if it was like microsoft office, then all rpgs would do the same thing as DnD. if all rpgs did the same thing as DnD, this wouldn't be a problem, because there'd be no point in switching.

when the entire point of other systems and settings....is that they aren't DnD and don't do the same things as DnD. its not comparing Word to another word-like program, its comparing Word to programs that do completely different things for different settings.

One of these days I will learn not to try annalogies on the internet.

The point is it doesn't matter if you have a better thing, whether it's a word processor or RPG or whatever, if nobody else is on the same page. Or you're just sitting home alone with your collection of Betamax tapes gushing about the superior picture quality.

[Lord Raziere]

One of these days I will learn not to try annalogies on the internet.

The point is it doesn't matter if you have a better thing, whether it's a word processor or RPG or whatever, if nobody else is on the same page. Or you're just sitting home alone with your collection of Betamax tapes gushing about the superior picture quality.

But isn't even about being better! Its just different and actually interesting to me while DnD isn't! I'm not not interested in a superior DnD, I'm interested in something that isn't it at all. its like comparing apples and oranges, except everyone keeps eating apples and doesn't give oranges a try because they don't want to learn how to eat oranges, nevermind if either apples or oranges taste better or not.

[kyoryu]

But isn't even about being better! Its just different and actually interesting to me while DnD isn't! I'm not not interested in a superior DnD, I'm interested in something that isn't it at all. its like comparing apples and oranges, except everyone keeps eating apples and doesn't give oranges a try because they don't want to learn how to eat oranges, nevermind if either apples or oranges taste better or not.

And then you frequently get "you know, this 'orange' thing isn't very good at being an apple at all".

[Mechalich]

D&D is, generally, a highly complex and rules intensive TTRPG. Learning to play D&D, especially to play it well, takes a lot of effort. Many, probably the majority, of TTRPG players are low effort. They want a relaxing hobby that facilitates hanging out with friends and wacky hijinks, not an intensive experience in line with joining a chess club. This, I feel, is responsible for much of the resistance to switching from D&D - learning to play D&D is already more effort than many players are willing to put forward with regard to rules, character options, and so forth. When presented with a new system to learn, players also expect that learning it will take as much effect as learning to play D&D. This may or may not be true, but it is definitely the expectation.

Getting interest in a new system involves overcoming this effort barrier. For a huge percentage of players even if something would be awesome in a new system it's not worth the effort of learning that system, especially if it can be kludged together to operate using D&D at even 50% of its impact. Doubly so if the system is equally as complex or even more complex than D&D. Players are therefore most amenable to switching to new systems that are simple and easy to learn. One of the reasons for the oWoD's historic success is that, for all its many faults, this actually applies to its mechanics (the fluff, not so much).

[NRSASD]

D&D is, generally, a highly complex and rules intensive TTRPG. Learning to play D&D, especially to play it well, takes a lot of effort. Many, probably the majority, of TTRPG players are low effort. They want a relaxing hobby that facilitates hanging out with friends and wacky hijinks, not an intensive experience in line with joining a chess club. This, I feel, is responsible for much of the resistance to switching from D&D - learning to play D&D is already more effort than many players are willing to put forward with regard to rules, character options, and so forth. When presented with a new system to learn, players also expect that learning it will take as much effect as learning to play D&D. This may or may not be true, but it is definitely the expectation.

Getting interest in a new system involves overcoming this effort barrier. For a huge percentage of players even if something would be awesome in a new system it's not worth the effort of learning that system, especially if it can be kludged together to operate using D&D at even 50% of its impact. Doubly so if the system is equally as complex or even more complex than D&D. Players are therefore most amenable to switching to new systems that are simple and easy to learn. One of the reasons for the oWoD's historic success is that, for all its many faults, this actually applies to its mechanics (the fluff, not so much).

I think you hit the nail on the head with that. Of my 20 or so players I can call on, I can think of 4 who would be willing to play another system besides D&D. The other 16 would be willing to try a one shot, but only because they trust me personally, not out of any interest on their part. Additionally, these folks aren't that interested in mechanics. They're happy to dig around and root about with the D&D systems and think strategically or tactically, but none of them would qualify as optimizers when it comes to character building. And I think therein lies the problem; D&D 5E is "good enough" and familiar. Why learn a new system?

[oxybe]

This is what makes me happy to have the group I do have: we have no compulsion to be stuck to one system. Honestly our problem is sticking to one game.

We just got off 2 one-shots of the Alien TTRPG and between those one-shots was 2-3 sessions of MorkBorg, we're currently trying Starfinder for a one-shot since the Alien GM's friend came in from out of town for a month and wanted to run something in person, we'll likely be playing a one-shot of the Witcher TTRPG once the Starfinder one-shot is done. Before Alien was the 5e derivative of Adventures in Middle Earth. We played a few months of CoC a couple years back. After the Witcher we haven't fully decided but AD&D 2e, Blades in the Dark, The GI Joe TTRPG, the Blood & Honor WH40K RPG and Symbaroum were all tossed around as ideas.

Honestly if anything we've gained an appreciation for a more curated game experience through these last years. Yeah we could force something like 5e to do something it's really not meant to do, but we've had a lot of fun with these different and more focused games.

[KorvinStarmast]

D&D is, generally, a highly complex and rules intensive TTRPG.
When 5e came out in 2014 it was less so than it is now. And compared to AD&D 1e, it was very low maintenance.

Learning to play D&D, especially to play it well, takes a lot of effort. Many, probably the majority, of TTRPG players are low effort. They want a relaxing hobby that facilitates hanging out with friends and wacky hijinks, not an intensive experience in line with joining a chess club. We have a winner. :smallsmile: that is my experience as well.

[Mechalich]

When 5e came out in 2014 it was less so than it is now. And compared to AD&D 1e, it was very low maintenance.

5e is certainly lower complexity than many other editions of D&D. However, it is still a fairly complex and mechanically intensive TTRPG overall. Also and importantly, other editions of D&D (and I count Pathfinder as an edition of D&D) that are much more complex are still played and retain significant market share in the US. 3.5 and PF and their variants still see a lot of play. They also represent a lot of the 'why don't we just D&D this' conversation. Because of the OGL there are a significant number of games that utilize what is still fundamentally the d20 system and require minimal effort for D&D players to learn.

[Eldan]

There's a reason that I always start newbies out on some kind of FATE accelerated variant. Ten minutes to explain all the rules, five minutes to make a character.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

There's a reason that I always start newbies out on some kind of FATE accelerated variant. Ten minutes to explain all the rules, five minutes to make a character.

No, disagree strongly here. It's taken me hours of discussion and questions to explain FATE Accelerated to players, and it's still something that some people just cannot get their head around.
I think that comes down to the meta-game being an overt part of the game - it doesn't work well for some people: in my experience, especially people who have never played RPGs.

And I like FATE. I just can't get a gaming group to work with it. D&D is far easier to explain: You have these numbers that say how capable you are, you have this equipment, you tell the GM what you want to do, and they'll ask you to roll this die and add those numbers.

[Anonymouswizard]

There's a reason that I always start newbies out on some kind of FATE accelerated variant. Ten minutes to explain all the rules, five minutes to make a character.

To be fair explaining Fate goes a lot better when you're dealing with actual newbies. If they've played D&D it requires them to do a LOT of unlearning because the core assumptions are so different.

If I got a group of newbies I think I'd start with FAE before moving onto something like Paranoia.

[Eldan]

No, disagree strongly here. It's taken me hours of discussion and questions to explain FATE Accelerated to players, and it's still something that some people just cannot get their head around.
I think that comes down to the meta-game being an overt part of the game - it doesn't work well for some people: in my experience, especially people who have never played RPGs.

And I like FATE. I just can't get a gaming group to work with it. D&D is far easier to explain: You have these numbers that say how capable you are, you have this equipment, you tell the GM what you want to do, and they'll ask you to roll this die and add those numbers.

That hasn't been my experience at all. But I'm also fairly selective with players. Most of the ones I recruit are already fairly excited about cooperative storytelling, not necessarily combat and adventure. Those I would probably start with stripped-down D&D.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Personally i have slightly lost interest in new systems.

I have played so many ... you would have to make a good argument what this new thing can do that all the others can not. And that has to be something i like.

Same to a large extent, though what I have even less time for is overhauls to D&D to make it into something it isn't. I'll read/try new things, but it needs to be something truly unique where the system is required to do something other games don't. I was happy to learn Blades in the Dark for example which achieves a movie heist or the last 15 minutes of an episode of Leverage by banning in depth planning and reconning planning when the gamemaster reveals obstacles.

If you can easily convert characters from your game system to D&D, sorry I'm not interested. If you can't, I'm listening.

[Alcore]

There's a reason that I always start newbies out on some kind of FATE accelerated variant. Ten minutes to explain all the rules, five minutes to make a character.I strongly disagree unless they truly never played an RPG. Even a computer game will give them expectations of what a RPG is.


5e was designed for fast play. Each class has standard gear writen at the start of the class; pick a class, pick gear. Each occupation has an ideal, bond and flaw coded in by a small random table; pick an occupation and pick or roll those other things. This entire time they will be picking skills; now hand them an array and suggest where the biggest number should go.

The core mechanic? Roll a d20, add mods. done. You should take a moment to explain boons and banes but that shouldn't take more than a minute.


5e is actually easier to learn and be competent at than Warrior Rogue and Mage.


To be fair explaining Fate goes a lot better when you're dealing with actual newbies. If they've played D&D it requires them to do a LOT of unlearning because the core assumptions are so different.

If I got a group of newbies I think I'd start with FAE before moving onto something like Paranoia.I remember my first game of Fate. It was over the internet with session zero being unheard of for me. There was little direction.

It felt like I was handed a blank canvas and all the colors of the rainbow. "Paint the character you want to play". Infinite possibilities, Infinite options; I was paralyzed for days (which isn't long for play by post).


Fate felt like freeform; another method/system i loathe.

[Anonymouswizard]

I remember my first game of Fate. It was over the internet with session zero being unheard of for me. There was little direction.

It felt like I was handed a blank canvas and all the colors of the rainbow. "Paint the character you want to play". Infinite possibilities, Infinite options; I was paralyzed for days (which isn't long for play by post).


Fate felt like freeform; another method/system i loathe.

Fate assumes a LOT more player direction, but it's not unguided if run by the book. But it does start at the big picture and work down. You're not supposed to be actually creating your character before you know what the game's supposed to be about. So you start with the major concept of the game, move onto the major issues, major NPCs and locations, and then finally the characters. Even then you begin at the most broad strokes and then fill in the details, and you can go back and rewrite aspects if the original version doesn't work.

But the book needs to give a much better explanation that yes, your high concept can be 'half-elf warrior without a limp'.

[Willie the Duck]

I love/hate these discussions about which games are 'simple' or 'complex.' The answer is generally both for most of them.

D&D, at it's core, is simple like the board game Talisman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talisman_(board_game)) -- Simple concepts and play structure, complex at the detail level. Easy to understand the basic components: Classes, races, levels, hit points (to-hit, damage), saves, roles defined (much) by class, spells prepared. But then each spell, magic item, or (especially in modern D&D) class feature is a whole new paragraph that you have to read (and potentially think about the ramifications of it alongside your other abilities). Early (TSR-era basic-classic) had niggling complications like racial class and level limits, no general resolution mechanic and tables where formulas might have been; WotC-era has significantly upped the extra paragraphs what with feats and archetypes and class features and such (and then TSR-era AD&D had much of the complextiy of WotC-era, plus the bizarre limits and lack of core mechanic of basic-classic, so complexity-wise the worst of both worlds). If you use pre-made characters, it takes a player a very short amount of time to be playing the basic structural loop of the game. However, they can go years without knowing all the rules (especially if they tend to stick with things that have worked well in the past, like a favorite race/class/group of spells).

Fate, at it's core, is simple like the board game Diplomacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)) -- seconds to minutes to explain the core concept, can probably learn all the rules there are to learn in the first play session, but can take hours to forever and a day (especially if you don't pre-select people with pre-existing right mindset) to get people really playing at the floor level of the base gameplay loop.

Both are complex. Both are simple. You can say the same thing about Chess or Go (or football, take your pick which one I mean). IMO it makes more sense to say one or the other is 'simple for,' or, 'simple in the case of,' or similar.

[Telok]

Also this. I could likely find a game shop or library that would let me run a game at, but finding players for anything other than D&D is still a massive hurdle. It doesn't matter if I want to run Traveller (or whatever} if nobody wants to play Traveller.

Hey I'd love to play Traveller, I've even run a hacked Classic campaign for 6-9 months.

Alas there's one flgs with 2 tables (one perma assigned to Warhammer & 40k minis) in this town of about 250k. The next two major populations with one flgs each are both 30k at 400 & 800(no road access) miles away. The next city after that is 2100 miles away in another country. Add in a local situation basically cutting out online & limiting gaming to 1/week... yeah. Either I run it if I can sell it well enough, I suck up having to play the current flavor of D&D, or I don't game at all for a few years.

[kyoryu]

No, disagree strongly here. It's taken me hours of discussion and questions to explain FATE Accelerated to players, and it's still something that some people just cannot get their head around.
I think that comes down to the meta-game being an overt part of the game - it doesn't work well for some people: in my experience, especially people who have never played RPGs.

And I like FATE. I just can't get a gaming group to work with it. D&D is far easier to explain: You have these numbers that say how capable you are, you have this equipment, you tell the GM what you want to do, and they'll ask you to roll this die and add those numbers.

I've had good luck by explicitly pointing out that Fate is very different from D&D, and to expect a different experience. Then lean heavy on the fiction-first - you tell me what your character does in the "internal movie", and I'll worry about the mechanics.


To be fair explaining Fate goes a lot better when you're dealing with actual newbies. If they've played D&D it requires them to do a LOT of unlearning because the core assumptions are so different.

If I got a group of newbies I think I'd start with FAE before moving onto something like Paranoia.

I've never had an issue with new players and Fate. It's always veterans. And that includes me!

[Jay R]

There's a reason that I always start newbies out on some kind of FATE accelerated variant. Ten minutes to explain all the rules, five minutes to make a character.

I felt that way about D&D when I started playing it. Then they published a supplement, and now look what's happened.

[Eldan]

If I started total newbies out on D&D, which I haven't done for years, I would strip the rules down quite a bit. (Like, I introduced a few people to 3.5 after playing it for years, and I certainly dropped most of the various modifiers and stuff like that.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

If I started total newbies out on D&D, which I haven't done for years, I would strip the rules down quite a bit. (Like, I introduced a few people to 3.5 after playing it for years, and I certainly dropped most of the various modifiers and stuff like that.)
I ran a 5e dnd one shot where basically no one knew the rules except "here's a character sheet. Tell me what you want to do. If I ask you to roll a X check, roll that die and add the number by X on the sheet." Went great. Tons of work for me, because I had to know all of their sheets as well. And they were very inventive and creative.

[False God]

I ran a 5e dnd one shot where basically no one knew the rules except "here's a character sheet. Tell me what you want to do. If I ask you to roll a X check, roll that die and add the number by X on the sheet." Went great. Tons of work for me, because I had to know all of their sheets as well. And they were very inventive and creative.

I ran 5E when it first launched, like, books hit the store shelves I made a group. I used a similar approach and it worked out pretty well.

As far as games go, I don't feel like 5E is very rules intensive early on, and with limited material. 3.5 and Pathfinder and even 4E are now because there's more splat than grains of sand, but even still, if you limit "teaching the game" to the core book, it's not that bad.

---
As always, people will pick things up easier/better/faster when they're interested in the subject. I know I learned FFG Star Wars and WoD and L5R fairly rapidly, but barely remember Iron...uh, *googles* Iron Kingdoms. Steampunk just isn't my jam. Of course, figuring out what people are interested in can be far harder than teaching them a system.

[RazorChain]

When I want to try out other games I run them myself.

There is no shortage of people who want to play rpgs but there is always shortage of people who want to run games.

Also I have been in groups that like to experiment with different systems, in the last 35 years I've been playing DnD maybe amounts to 15% of the games.

The funny thing is I started a new group with mostly new players and I ran a Gurps campaign for them for 4 years. When we wrapped up the campaign and started playing DnD they became unhappy by the locked in class options and just the generally lack of options after coming from a system that uses point buy.

People don't play Dnd because it's the best system, they just play it because they don't know any better.

[KorvinStarmast]

People don't play Dnd because it's the best system, they just play it because they don't know any better. That's not true, though. The italicized part. I've had the chance to play other games, before my ten year break and after it. (And I am excited for a BiTD game starting in a month or two). It's a good system, but "best" will always need to be explained as "best at what?" In my experience "best at providing a fun experience for the players" (which includes the DM) is about the only 'best' criterion that is worth considering for this leisure activity.
For some people, and groups, it's the best game.
For others it is not. Some groups do not prefer to have a DM/GM carry that substantial load that a DM/GM does in D&D and its various clones. A more "GMless" or more "Players as world builders" structure will work better for such a group.

[Anonymouswizard]

People don't play Dnd because it's the best system, they just play it because they don't know any better.

That's not quite true. If you want to play mercenaries going into a dungeon to get treasure D&D5e is like the fifth best system I know for it (although Basic Fantasy and Lamentations of the Flame Princess are, IMHO, better). It kinda sucks at anything else, but if that's what you'll want it'll work.

...okay, 5e has moved more towards the SW model of wandering from combat to combat, but you get my point. It does one thing very well.

That's not a bad thing, lots of games do one thing very well and everything else poorly. I wouldn't want to run a dungeon crawl in Unknown Armies. The issue is when people try to torture a game, almost always D&D but not exclusively*, into something it's just not designed to do. The issue is that players assume that 1) every game is as badly designed as D&D (I mean really, does anybody actually use the Inspiration rules?) or 2) that D&D can do that.

But if you want to run a game about exploring a space hulk in a standard space opera setting D&D won't do badly at all (although I'd still prefer Savage Worlds that's a personal preference thing).

* Hello GURPS Superheroes.

[RazorChain]

That's not true, though. The italicized part. I've had the chance to play other games, before my ten year break and after it. (And I am excited for a BiTD game starting in a month or two). It's a good system, but "best" will always need to be explained as "best at what?" In my experience "best at providing a fun experience for the players" (which includes the DM) is about the only 'best' criterion that is worth considering for this leisure activity.
For some people, and groups, it's the best game.
For others it is not. Some groups do not prefer to have a DM/GM carry that substantial load that a DM/GM does in D&D and its various clones. A more "GMless" or more "Players as world builders" structure will work better for such a group.

Best is always subjective but what I mean is for a lot of people DnD IS the best system because they haven't tried anything else.

But then the problem starts when people want to shoehorn every genre emulation into DnD

I mean I probably would have much better luck running a Strixhaven Harry Potter campaign using Ars Magica rather than DnD.

[Tanarii]

People don't play Dnd because it's the best system, they just play it because they don't know any better.
{Scrubbed}

[Telok]

People don't play Dnd because it's the best system, they just play it because they don't know any better.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Perhaps it would attract less misses if worded more like "People who will only play d&d don't play it because its the best at everything, they play it because they don't know or try anything else."

[SimonMoon6]

The issue is when people try to torture a game, almost always D&D but not exclusively*, into something it's just not designed to do.

* Hello GURPS Superheroes.

My impression is that people *think* that D&D can do a lot of the things that it absolutely cannot do well. Just like GURPS, D&D can do a lot of things, but often not well.

For example, does D&D support high level play? Yeah, it's got tables for letting people go up to 20th level and beyond that, there's the Epic Level Handbook. But does D&D do high level play WELL? No, absolutely not. Nobody wants to run a game for 20th level characters, so games usually have to end way before then.

Does D&D do skill-based adventures well? I mean, D&D has lots of skills for players to take, so it should do skill-based adventures well, right? No, absolutely not. Skills are clearly just bolted onto the D&D framework which is simply about combat. There were no skills in 1st or 2nd edition (okay, there was an optional "secondary skill" rule in the DMG and then there were Non-Weapon Proficiencies that were half-hearted attempts at skills), so skills aren't something that integrates naturally into the system. Lots of them are weird and broken (sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way). And DMs still don't want players to use charisma-based skills because D&D is supposed to be about stabbing people, not talking to them! And that's without getting into the fact that there are spells and magic items that can add ridiculously high bonuses to skills, making a person's actual skill level close to irrelevant.

Does D&D do mysteries well? No, there are too many divination spells.

Does D&D do tragic death scenes well? No, the only people who stay dead are mere peasants who can't afford to be raised, resurrected, or reincarnated.

Does D&D do *anything* well other than adventures into a dungeon where you fight monsters in order to take their treasure? Not really. Not even outdoor adventures are really meant for a D&D game, even though there are lots of outdoor-adventure themed character options (druid and ranger).

It irks me when people think of D&D as the "does everything" game when it's really the "only does one sort of thing remotely well" kind of game.

[Pex]

My impression is that people *think* that D&D can do a lot of the things that it absolutely cannot do well. Just like GURPS, D&D can do a lot of things, but often not well.

For example, does D&D support high level play? Yeah, it's got tables for letting people go up to 20th level and beyond that, there's the Epic Level Handbook. But does D&D do high level play WELL? No, absolutely not. Nobody wants to run a game for 20th level characters, so games usually have to end way before then.

Does D&D do skill-based adventures well? I mean, D&D has lots of skills for players to take, so it should do skill-based adventures well, right? No, absolutely not. Skills are clearly just bolted onto the D&D framework which is simply about combat. There were no skills in 1st or 2nd edition (okay, there was an optional "secondary skill" rule in the DMG and then there were Non-Weapon Proficiencies that were half-hearted attempts at skills), so skills aren't something that integrates naturally into the system. Lots of them are weird and broken (sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way). And DMs still don't want players to use charisma-based skills because D&D is supposed to be about stabbing people, not talking to them! And that's without getting into the fact that there are spells and magic items that can add ridiculously high bonuses to skills, making a person's actual skill level close to irrelevant.

Does D&D do mysteries well? No, there are too many divination spells.

Does D&D do tragic death scenes well? No, the only people who stay dead are mere peasants who can't afford to be raised, resurrected, or reincarnated.

Does D&D do *anything* well other than adventures into a dungeon where you fight monsters in order to take their treasure? Not really. Not even outdoor adventures are really meant for a D&D game, even though there are lots of outdoor-adventure themed character options (druid and ranger).

It irks me when people think of D&D as the "does everything" game when it's really the "only does one sort of thing remotely well" kind of game.

High level D&D works fine. The only issue is the tolerance level of PC power relative to the DM and players to an extent. DMs who are already upset chasms are no longer an obstacle because someone can fly have low tolerance level for PC power. D&D is not wrong for giving PCs the ability to do fantastical things. You don't have to like it, but that's not D&D's problem.

How ironic for me to defend 5E skill use. (I know! I know!) PCs can do wonderful things outside of combat. They explore. They discover. They talk. Some DMs beg for PCs to do stuff other than kill things. The social skills are useful tools to decide NPC reactions so that the DM's own bias won't interfere. Players have to make some effort on their own to convey meaning, but the success and failure of those social rolls can change the outcome of many events. They can end a battle before it begins. Using skills well takes practice of both DM and player.

Divination spells do not end mysteries. Taken at its most basic, asking "Who killed the king?" doesn't necessarily give you the name. You could be given a descriptor of the murderer's clothing or maybe a floral answer describing the relationship between the murderer and king. Even if/when you are given a direct name, that is not necessarily evidence and there's still the matter of finding the murderer. Who the murderer is, while important, may pale in comparison to why or what will happen next.

Raising the dead is not a commodity. There's no 1-800-DIAL-A-CLERIC. The number of people capable of doing it is directly related to the DM setting up the world. Even then they may not advertise it for who wants everyone knocking on their door every day and all night long? Plus by the spell description the soul must be willing, and they might not be for reasons mortals cannot understand. Then there are legal ramifications. Inheritances, passing of Titles, Wills. Someone is dead for a year. Resurrected. Does he get his stuff back?

[Vulsutyr]

Hey I'd love to play Traveller, I've even run a hacked Classic campaign for 6-9 months.

Alas there's one flgs with 2 tables (one perma assigned to Warhammer & 40k minis) in this town of about 250k. The next two major populations with one flgs each are both 30k at 400 & 800(no road access) miles away. The next city after that is 2100 miles away in another country. Add in a local situation basically cutting out online & limiting gaming to 1/week... yeah. Either I run it if I can sell it well enough, I suck up having to play the current flavor of D&D, or I don't game at all for a few years.
My guess was Alaska and I was very pleased with myself when I clicked on your profile.

[Anonymouswizard]

My impression is that people *think* that D&D can do a lot of the things that it absolutely cannot do well. Just like GURPS, D&D can do a lot of things, but often not well.

...

It irks me when people think of D&D as the "does everything" game when it's really the "only does one sort of thing remotely well" kind of game.

Sure, and I wasn't trying to imply D&D was unique or anything. It just gets it more often because of a mixture of a majority only considering it and common misinterpretations about what it does well. Common misinterpretations very happily supported by the designers and marketing.

But even games that theoretically do every genre don't do everything well.

As to high level D&D, it's not perfect. A couple of editions imply that high level magic is more common than it should be, and by this point you crossed the spellcaster/mundane turnover point over ten levels ago. It's not going to let you play gods anywhere near as easily as Nobilis will, for example, but you can kind of glue something together.

Although if we have the power of gods I'd still rather play Nobilis/Glitch.

[Mechalich]

Sure, and I wasn't trying to imply D&D was unique or anything. It just gets it more often because of a mixture of a majority only considering it and common misinterpretations about what it does well. Common misinterpretations very happily supported by the designers and marketing.

Indeed, D&D marketing has always been very happy to claim their system does things - often to the point of writing whole sourcebooks about those things, like 'intrigue' - that it is in fact quite terrible at. This is by no means unique to D&D - WW wrote whole game lines that were absolutely not about the thing that the promotional material claimed they were about at all, like Aberrant - but it looms larger because of D&D's outsize market share.

Somewhat oddly for a relatively niche hobby, in the TTRPG marketplace there's a very significant sense that marketing is everything - that popularity is entirely dependent upon how cool the pitch is, how great the art looks, and so on and the mechanical solidity of a game is way, way down the list of reasons behind a game's popularity. Personally I suspect this has a lot to do with how very few tables play games anything like the rules as written and how a good GM can make a great game out even the most jaw-droppingly terrible of systems. Or, as freeform reveals, no system at all.

[Duff]

There might be a generation/region/country gap here, but as a 51 YO Australian who's played with 3 main groups since 1990 and was part of a Uni roleplaying club, I've never been in a group that only played D&D except for a year or so in high school - and that was just one campaign.
To me, this advice is entirely reasonable.

When the current campaign ends you say to your group "Hi folks, I'm happy to run the next game. I've got an Idea for a Fate game set in a universe where anthopomophic animals all live on different planets. The party start as..."
Anyone else wanting to run something put forward their offering and a decision is made.
The last "game start up" I was involved with was when a friend offered a group that included one mutual friend and one who has played a bit in the past but not with anyone I know.
He offered 5th ed D&D, a post apocalyptic mutant game, an Ars Magic apprentices game and a few other options.

So a change of game normally requires you to sit behind the screen, at least until your group are used to trying different games, then you might get someone else to agree to run the one you really want.

[gijoemike]

There are so many people out that will define themselves like this "I am a D&D 5th ed player." Or "I play D&D 3.5."

These comments are actually absurd. Like a carpenter saying they limit their tool set to 2 items. What? You are a role player or roll player that knows a certain rule set out of dozens of popular rule sets. As a community we need to focus on gameplay and not just a rule set. D&D is combat heavy, there are other rule sets out there that do political intrigue better, or more that do mystery better, or others that are group storytelling focused instead of relying on the DM the most.

I say treat RPG games like we do board games. You play RISK, how about Axis and Allies instead. You play Monopoly, how about trying out Powergrid. You like the game of life, how about "Bring out Your Dead"? One can switch those games up without suddenly not liking Risk/Monopoly/Life. And next time you play you can go back to Risk.

[KorvinStarmast]

There are so many people out that will define themselves like this "I am a D&D 5th ed player." Or "I play D&D 3.5."

These comments are actually absurd. Like a carpenter saying they limit their tool set to 2 items. What? You are a role player or roll player that knows a certain rule set out of dozens of popular rule sets. As a community we need to focus on gameplay and not just a rule set. D&D is combat heavy, there are other rule sets out there that do political intrigue better, or more that do mystery better, or others that are group storytelling focused instead of relying on the DM the most.

I say treat RPG games like we do board games. You play RISK, how about Axis and Allies instead. You play Monopoly, how about trying out Powergrid. You like the game of life, how about "Bring out Your Dead"? One can switch those games up without suddenly not liking Risk/Monopoly/Life. And next time you play you can go back to Risk.
While I like your post (we played Diplomacy long before we tried Risk, and playing one did not mean not playing the other ever again) tribal behavior of varying kinds is a semi natural human thing.
There was a movie based on an album by The Who {Quadrophenia} that explored some of the differences in tribal behaviors between the so called Mods and the so called Rockers.

[Anonymouswizard]

Indeed, D&D marketing has always been very happy to claim their system does things - often to the point of writing whole sourcebooks about those things, like 'intrigue' - that it is in fact quite terrible at. This is by no means unique to D&D - WW wrote whole game lines that were absolutely not about the thing that the promotional material claimed they were about at all, like Aberrant - but it looms larger because of D&D's outsize market share.

Somewhat oddly for a relatively niche hobby, in the TTRPG marketplace there's a very significant sense that marketing is everything - that popularity is entirely dependent upon how cool the pitch is, how great the art looks, and so on and the mechanical solidity of a game is way, way down the list of reasons behind a game's popularity. Personally I suspect this has a lot to do with how very few tables play games anything like the rules as written and how a good GM can make a great game out even the most jaw-droppingly terrible of systems. Or, as freeform reveals, no system at all.

Oh, totally. There's a reason I've spent money on Hell on Earth Reloaded but not the other Deadlands settings, it's just a more enticing pitch for me ,( I do plan to get the others sometime, but not right now).

A thing that's hard for those of us who like using mechanics is that for most people mechanical solidity of a game doesn't matter. They actually don't want to engage with mechanics that deeply, and so 'the D&D skill rules suck' isn't seen as a reason to avoid using it for skill-focusrd campaigns. It's also why this forum is used to D&D combats lasting six real life hours and twelve in-game seconds, instead of half an hour and half a dozen rounds. Most people don't care because they'll never engage with the subsystems or because home patches are easy.

But I've yet to see a GM who could run a decent FATAL game. One who could run almost anything else, but the things in that book are better left untouched. Although FATAL probably failed/succeeded as hard as it did because of it's terrible 'marketing'.

[InvisibleBison]

I say treat RPG games like we do board games. You play RISK, how about Axis and Allies instead. You play Monopoly, how about trying out Powergrid. You like the game of life, how about "Bring out Your Dead"? One can switch those games up without suddenly not liking Risk/Monopoly/Life. And next time you play you can go back to Risk.

There is a significant difference between RPGs and board games in terms of how much time they require, though. Even a one-shot is going to last longer than a game of nearly all board games, and a full campaign is on another level entirely. There's no comparison between "Hey, let's spend forty-five minutes playing this cool game I found next weekend" and "Let's play a six-month campaign of this cool game I found".

[Anonymouswizard]

Forty five minutes for a board game? That's relatively rare in my experience, and serious games can often have similar playtimes to an RPG session. Sometimes longer.

I'd say either twenty minutes or two hours is normal, depending on if the game is meant to be quick or not. Shorter than an RPG session, but two hours can still be a big ask.

(Campaigns are a different issue, but we shouldn't discount one shots.)

[halfeye]

Forty five minutes for a board game?

I play blitz (in Go, where serious professional games can take several days), 10 minutes is probably longer than average (never timed it, couldn't care). I don't want to play slower, I get so annoyed waiting for my turn.

[InvisibleBison]

Forty five minutes for a board game? That's relatively rare in my experience, and serious games can often have similar playtimes to an RPG session. Sometimes longer.

I'd say either twenty minutes or two hours is normal, depending on if the game is meant to be quick or not. Shorter than an RPG session, but two hours can still be a big ask.

Yeah, forty-five minutes is probably an exaggeration. Though the need to go over the rules and answer questions and such like does make playing a game for the first time take a bit longer than normal.

[Vahnavoi]

"Board games" covers a number of game genres with great variance in both set-up and play time. So does "roleplaying games". Most generalized "board games versus roleplaying games" hence only serve to demonstrate the person making the argument has not played enough different board and roleplaying games.

To put some perspective to things: Finnish roleplaying convention Ropecon held a scenario design contest for years. Design goals for these scenarios included that a game group can pick them up with no prior knowledge of a game system, learn the relevant rules in 15 minutes and play through the scenario in 1 hour.

This is one pool of dozens of short roleplaying games, if a short roleplaying game is what you want. If they don't make a splash in these kinds of discussions, it's ironically because they're distributed for free under license by a non-profit organization, instead of being put in a neat box and marketed with big money by a toy company.

[Eldan]

And there are absolutely board games that have six month campaigns. (Gloomhaven, Kingdom Death, any given legacy game).

But yeah, there are some you can handle in an hour.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, forty-five minutes is probably an exaggeration. Though the need to go over the rules and answer questions and such like does make playing a game for the first time take a bit longer than normal.
The rules for a new modern board game usually takes 45 minutes just to figure out and explain. :smallamused:

But you're not wrong, once the rules are known board games tend to be in 2 hours to play range, from Monopoly yo Risk to Axis and Allies to Gloomhaven. Where-as the standard / norm for TTRPGs seems to be 4 hours for a session.

[KorvinStarmast]

Where-as the standard / norm for TTRPGs seems to be 4 hours for a session. I wish. If I could actually get people to show up and participate for the full 4 hours (mostly on line play) I'd throw confetti.

[kyoryu]

Forty five minutes for a board game? That's relatively rare in my experience, and serious games can often have similar playtimes to an RPG session. Sometimes longer.

I'd say either twenty minutes or two hours is normal, depending on if the game is meant to be quick or not. Shorter than an RPG session, but two hours can still be a big ask.

(Campaigns are a different issue, but we shouldn't discount one shots.)

Even twenty minute games tend to be played multiple times in an evening - a two-hour session sounds about right.

This is why one-shots and open table campaigns can help - the investment is much, much lower. That and games that don't require front-loading of a ton of rules.

[Vahnavoi]

Personally I have no strong reason to hold four hour sessions specifically other than the fact that four hours is the minimum amount of work that will net a convention game master a free day ticket to the event. It would not surprise me at all if the standard originated from some event organization or organized play format.

[Anonymouswizard]

Even twenty minute games tend to be played multiple times in an evening - a two-hour session sounds about right.

This is why one-shots and open table campaigns can help - the investment is much, much lower. That and games that don't require front-loading of a ton of rules.

I've played Apples to Apples derivatives for four straight hours before (in fact it's the only way I've played CAH). So yeah, I totally get what you mean about shorter games. The people I know who do regular board games afternoons/evenings generally run for four to six hours while playing two games, including multiple rounds of shorter games.


Personally I have no strong reason to hold four hour sessions specifically other than the fact that four hours is the minimum amount of work that will net a convention game master a free day ticket to the event. It would not surprise me at all if the standard originated from some event organization or organized play format.

It's also just a really good length for a weeknight game session. Savage Worlds points this out: you ask everyone to arrive at six, can be certain that everybody's turned up and has their food eaten or sorted by 7, and then stop at 11 so people can get home by midnight.

[Easy e]

Ours are weekly 7-10 and a lot of actual plays online clock in just under 3 hours for RPG sessions.

This includes chit-chat time as well. Of course, that could be why we are on session 60 of CoS with no end in sight.

[Local_Jerk]

I'm an Exalted fan. I'm lucky if I find a game at all.


Was this always the case with Exalted? Or did the horrible 3rd Edition kill the game, like I knew it would?

[Lord Raziere]

Was this always the case with Exalted? Or did the horrible 3rd Edition kill the game, like I knew it would?

What!? :smallconfused: Thats always been the case, if anything its the best its ever been, since 2nd edition's broken mechanics and horrible lore bits are no longer screwing things up. The only thing I don't like about it the edition is stuff that is relatively minor compared to all the things it fixed so that it function.

Lunars are literally the best they've ever been, Exigents preview is out and is awesome and like funded to meet a bunch of stretch goals like all the other kicksters, DB's aside from being more likely to go to civil war and having more non-realm society detailed are the same in lore but mechanically better. the worst part of the edition is core because Solars don't have the experienced hand of other splats making their charmset not as efficient as others could be, but even then Solars work pretty well.

Honestly, I'm probably just too lazy about where I search for a game online.

[Psyren]

I wish. If I could actually get people to show up and participate for the full 4 hours (mostly on line play) I'd throw confetti.

Pretty much all our sessions are 3-4 hours minimum. We've gone to 8 in some cases if you count food breaks.

[LibraryOgre]

Pretty much all our sessions are 3-4 hours minimum. We've gone to 8 in some cases if you count food breaks.

High school, we could manage 12. With kids and such? I get 3.5 hour sessions because most of my RPGs are library programs I am running.

I may get to play again soon. Last time I can confirm I played was 2013.