What are the Top 3 Things that Draw YOU to an RPG?

[Easy e]

Greetings all,

As I spend more and more time trying to understand what games people like to play and why, I realize more and more that I have no idea what people like to play! Therefore, I am interested in the top 3 things that draw your attention and make you want to play a RPG? What are the things that grab you the most?

Of course, three is an arbitrary number but I want to put some limit on it. This is NOT a thread to dismiss or challenge other players preference, just a chance to lay out your preferences and why.

I will give it a shot to get the ball rolling:

1. Quick character design. I like to be able to have a new character made in about 10-15 minutes. Just enough for me to have a handle on who they are and then get into playing them. I am also not too broken up if they die, as a new character is only minutes away.

2. Games where the GM does not roll any dice, only the players roll dice. I find this speeds up game play a lot, and keeps the pace of the game moving, without making players feel like they have lost agency.

3. In my old age, I like to switch games fast and furiously; so I prefer easy to understand rules-lite systems. A lot of crunch just causes me to mix up the rules between games and editions of games.

[Xervous]

In no particular order

1. The system knows what it wants to do and tells you about it. This is lore, mechanics and design intent being presented to the user. For example, BitD wins on all three points, certain editions of Shadowrun would win on all 3 if not for %#$& decking. M&M3 is another great showing even though it’s not a specific setting, as it tells the users what it’s thematically good for, highlights pinch points, and talks about what use cases various rules are intended to address. WHFRP & Dark Heresy score highly for delivering intuitively on atmosphere.

5e D&D gets an F on lore and mechanics/design intent clarity. 3.5e gets an F on clarity and a B on lore.

2. Skewed curve dicepools. In short, I really like the math that comes out of dicepools.

3. Non storytelling system. I won’t play storytelling systems. Their structuring does not make happy brain chemicals. I want a living world before me as a player. If I want to pull on events at the meta level I’ll just settle back in as forever GM or write another post for the discord collab. It’s not a question of “what’s best for the story?” it’s “what would Henric do?” I’m roleplaying here.

[Tanarii]

Easy to run.
Easy to play.
Fast and tense combat.

[Ameraaaaaa]

1 rules light as hell. My only irl player/gm (depends on mood) is my 12 year old bro. For reference the longest system we have fun playing was knave at 7 pages long.

(sidenote We since switched to a homebrew system of mine where character creation is just a name and a class/profession/whatever-fits-the-setting and the only mechanic is roll a d100 roll under skill check with a dc of "how likely it'd be given the circumstances." So a marksmen shooting a moving target from 10 feet away might be like dc 80% or lower. Thinking of switching to flipping a coin and having advantage/disadvantage. Or a d4 with dc 2 being easy, dc 3 being average and dc 4 being hard. We keep it rules light.)

2 freeform traits. Like fate aspects or risus's traits. Makes it easy to use for any setting.

3 one player is capable of surving. Again i only have the one player.

[Telok]

Clarity and precision. Don't say a character is a "professional soldier" or "veteran of battles" or "heroic" when a guard dog is as or more dangerous in combat and focusing the entire character's skills & abilities makes them only 20% better than an untrained small child. Don't say "only roll when its important" without strong clear guidelines on what you mean by 'important'. State things clearly and plainly, honestly clearly and plainly. No weasel words about "all play styles are ok" or "just use plain English" when some styles really truely don't work for what the game purports to do and your rules are actually using special meaning keywords.

No damn fool multiple cross referencing. If I'm having to flip back and forth between spells, conditions, and combat sections just to figure out what your "ice slick" spell actually does then I'm out. No digging important general combat rules out of random gear descriptions. No having four damn things named "disentegrate" and using wildly different rules for all of them. Yeah, no. I might accept a comprehensive cheat sheet with all that stuff in in one place, but it has to be in the actual rulebook and not some homemade thing off in an obscure corner of the internet.

Make hard choices. I want to be conflicted because there are several good options for something but no best options for it. There shouldn't be a single way to be good at skills, or one choice that lets you cherry pick all the best spells, or one true way to be actually any good & relevant in a particular area. There shouldn't a single area of character ability that's so head and shoulders above the others that being a bit below average in that one thing makes a character a drag on the game. There's narrow exceptions to this of course. But a game needs to be intentionally making specific exceptions, not just accidentally violating this point because the designers didn't bother to think.

[Pauly]

1) Logically consistent reality based rules. For me D&D is only fun in the lower levels, but the higher levels get ridiculous. I’m not anti-magic or anti-future tech or anything like that, but there has to be some grounding. I look at rules like Exalted and see nothing in it for me.
Examples: Traveller, Call of Cthulhu

2) A setting that is fun to play in. Original Space 1889 rules were bit of a mess but the setting was so much fun it’s still my all time favorite setting.
Examples: Deadlands, L5R (haven’t played L5R but I have recently looked at it and has elements that speak to me).

3) What Telok said. Which I will summarize as professionally edited rules.
Examples: Anything published by Avalon Hill.

4) A game that knows what it is. The game puts focus on its core concepts but lets you fast forward through the bits that aren’t so important.
Examples: Gumshoe with its focus on investigation. D&D with a focus on providing a bland generic western European inspired fantasy.

[SimonMoon6]

(1) Games that can handle high-powered characters (heroes and villains) without the game falling apart.

For example, D&D 3.X does not do well at high levels. While you can technically make characters of really high power levels, the game just doesn't work at those levels. It's too complicated, there are too many fiddly bits, it's too hard to tell if one 30th level character is balanced well enough to fight another 30th level character, and things tend to devolve into "rocket tag". GURPS is another game that struggles with high power levels. Technically, you can use GURPS Supers to make superheroes, but... no, just don't. The game is fine for normal non-powered people, but super powerful (or even super skilled) people can just make the game curl up and die.

A game that does well at high levels is Mayfair's DC Heroes RPG. While ordinary people can function as characters, you can also have characters in the game with the powers of Superman (either post-Crisis or pre-Crisis, it doesn't matter, the game can easily handle those power levels).

(2) Games that can create a wide variety of characters.

Generally, the things I look at are "how well does the game handle shape-changing characters" and "how well does the game handle 'meta' powers".

For shape-changing, I'm looking for more than Mystique-style "turning into another person". At a minimum, the game needs to handle Beast Boy style "turn into any animal" powers... without it being a Champions-style nightmare of building every possible animal that you might turn into with its own character sheet (animals should already have their own stats in the game... you shouldn't have to create them yourself). But beyond that, I'm also looking at "turn into animate versions of inanimate objects" along the lines of Plastic Man or the Metal Men. Or turn into any shape. Or even the classic "just turn my arm into a weapon" along the lines of what Metamorpho would sometimes do. And these should all be easy in the game system. It shouldn't be a burden to have to use those abilities. D&D 3.X has had issues with "polymorph" abilities. First, they were too powerful, so they got nerfed, but they were still too powerful, so they got nerfed again, and then Pathfinder nerfed them, until you're no longer turning into other creatures but are instead taking on the appearance of another creature, with some but not many of their physical abilities. So, that's no good. OTOH, Mayfair's DC Heroes RPG makes all of these abilities quick and easy to use, without being overpowered (or at least no more so than other powers).

For "meta" powers, I'm looking at those abilities that let you neutralize, copy, or steal (copy and neutralize at the same time) someone's else's abilities. D&D 3.X doesn't do that much (I mean, neutralize with anti-magic field... and there's a class called "spell thief" I guess). Champions makes the math to use powers like these into a nightmare. But Mayfair's DC Heroes RPG makes all such powers relatively easy to use.

(3) Games that can handle a wide variety of settings.

Usually, I don't need some game to have its own setting. I can make my own. And I might want to play a multi-genre sort of game. So, I want a game that doesn't have to be just one thing. If the setting is baked into the rules system, then I can't really use that game unless I want to use the setting. If the setting is trash, then the game is worthless if I can't remove the setting. Like, D&D 3.X doesn't really have a specific default setting (even if it is supposed to be Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms), but it still does have an implied setting where there are cities full of magic shops and you can not change that without destroying the balance (what little there is) in the game itself. No magic shops? Okay, fighters are useless (more than normal). A game that is neutral towards the setting or even suggests how to play in other settings is what I would prefer. Like GURPS can do any setting (just not high-powered ones), Champions can do any setting (but has a lot of math no matter what), and Mayfair's DC Heroes RPG even has rules for playing in settings that are more realistic than a typical superhero setting.

(4) The occasional quirky thing that appeals to me specifically.

Like, the original version of TORG had rules that made atheism just as powerful (or differently powerful) as belief in deities. So, an atheist character had a reason to exist in a world where divine magic could seem to be real. Unfortunately, the new version of TORG has removed that and the creators of the new TORG have made it very clear that they have no intention to ever add atheism back as a playable option.

Or, the original version of TORG had the possibility with exploding dice and an exponential/logarithmic scale to have all sorts of ridiculous things happen. One of my favorites was that when casting a spell, the duration could be based on how well you rolled. And if you rolled really well, a spell might last for years! But they removed that in the new version of TORG. :(

[Quertus]

Magic. Or to be more precise, the setting should feel Magical, full of wonder and mysteries to Discover. And, yeah, I should probably be playing a Wizard.

Internal Consistency. Rules first, everything just works and makes sense. The rules and the setting align. Thinking in character and thinking by the rules are the same thing, produce the same result.

Able to still be playing the same character 20 years from now.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Greetings all,

As I spend more and more time trying to understand what games people like to play and why, I realize more and more that I have no idea what people like to play! Therefore, I am interested in the top 3 things that draw your attention and make you want to play a RPG? What are the things that grab you the most?

Of course, three is an arbitrary number but I want to put some limit on it. This is NOT a thread to dismiss or challenge other players preference, just a chance to lay out your preferences and why.

I will give it a shot to get the ball rolling:

1. Quick character design. I like to be able to have a new character made in about 10-15 minutes. Just enough for me to have a handle on who they are and then get into playing them. I am also not too broken up if they die, as a new character is only minutes away.

2. Games where the GM does not roll any dice, only the players roll dice. I find this speeds up game play a lot, and keeps the pace of the game moving, without making players feel like they have lost agency.

3. In my old age, I like to switch games fast and furiously; so I prefer easy to understand rules-lite systems. A lot of crunch just causes me to mix up the rules between games and editions of games.

Have you heard of the latest version of 'Kobolds Ate My Baby'? I see a high correlation with that and your list. And I agree 100% with your list.

Because I usually DM, I like flexible resolution mechanics that are easy for both players and me to consistently use, but does not tie me to always using them.

I like worldbuilding that doesn't come with a whole new set of rules I have to implement.

I also like player options that are easy to understand and are consistent with the core mechanic. Things like Ki points, sorc spell points in a vanican system, and the like annoy me. One way to run them all.

I like games that have book-keeping (weight and encumbrance) and accountancy (coin counting) mini-games. And I hate mini-games with their own rules (dino races) that only apply that one time in that one place...

I like games that have a distinct feel to them. One of my long time favorites was Basic Action Superhero (BASH) that was generic in representation enough to run everything from nonmagical to fantasy/scifi. It felt like the comic book it wanted to be.

[NichG]

1. I want the act of playing them to be transformational to me the player - I learn something, I explore something I couldn't otherwise, I understand something from a new point of view, I experience a new feeling I had not previously experienced, I gain some kind of insight.

2. I want to be able to engage in very high abstraction levels of open-ended exploration and discovery, in the sense that I don't want to know upon reading the rules 'what the game can possibly be about'. The game doesn't have to provide that structure to be discovered (it could come from the game prompting the GM as to how to create that structure at need, for example), but its best for me if the game doesn't get in the way of making the world feel connected, real, and worth asking questions about. For example, the 'wrought iron cage made of tigers' philosophy of 4e's design in keeping combat and non-combat things strongly siloed, with fireballs not lighting things on fire and so on, doesn't appeal to me. Whereas a game that lets me say e.g. 'okay, there's a lot of combat stuff in the rules, but I want to dig deeply into the economy of how mithril is produced and try to run a mining company' or 'I want to research why there are the schools of magic that there are, and try to come up with a grand unified theory of magic' or 'I'd like to try my hand at ruling a territory' or 'I'd like to find a mate and settle down and farm' is great for me, even if the game doesn't 'support' those things strongly out of the box.

3. I'm not particularly interested in the drama of randomness, challenge, or balance all that much - that is to say, the sorts of push back or 'difficulty' that I'm interested in have to do with mental engagement with the scenarios of the game and not things like feeling threatened, feeling like I'm taking risks, feeling like the outcome is uncertain etc. That doesn't mean all randomness must be removed, but I much prefer a design model in which randomness is a stand in for incomplete information in scenarios than in which its being used to ensure that there's tension.

[Quertus]

For example, the 'wrought iron cage made of tigers' philosophy of 4e's design in keeping combat and non-combat things strongly siloed, with fireballs not lighting things on fire and so on, doesn't appeal to me.

OK, you had me even before this was a 4e comment - what is a 'wrought iron cage made of tigers'? :smallconfused::smallamused:

[NichG]

OK, you had me even before this was a 4e comment - what is a 'wrought iron cage made of tigers'? :smallconfused::smallamused:

It was a way people referred to 4e design philosophy to not let the fiction of an ability mean that its combat functions would imply noncombat uses. So like, 'fireball is a combat AoE damage effect, it doesn't actually produce fire, or heat, or light, or allow you to get through a paper walled house during a skill challenge. Just because you have a ritual that lets you fly out of combat, doesn't mean you can fly in combat. Just because you have a move that shouts the dead back to life in battle doesn't mean you can save someone bleeding out during a surgery. Etc.

I take the nonsensical description to be tacit approval of the separation even when it makes no sense for a coherent fiction.

[Pex]

In no particular order:

1) The game mechanics - how things work.

2) I get to do cool stuff without the game punishing me for doing it.

3) The campaign itself is fun to play in - The DM, other players, the plot.

[RedWarlock]

1. Mechanical complexity. I LIKE more widgets to fiddle. They can have default, minimum options, but if you can combine three different subsystems effectively, I'd like to see it.

2. Nonhuman capacity. I don't just mean a dozen kinds of multicolored humans with different earns/noses, I want to see flying races, non-humanoid PCs, larger AND smaller. In a D&D-style setting, I want ogres, werewolves, centaurs, pixies, and awakened sugar gliders. I don't want them to be kneecapped to a humanoid standard in the translation from the monster to the PC, because of arbitrary PC restrictions, and that includes VIABLE AND UNIQUE variation in species attributes, not just "and pick your two +2s".

3. Customizable mechanics that actually represent the powers they claim to present, with actual variety. PC-class shapeshifters, summoners, etc, who can do something ENTIRELY different from another PC of the same class without being hobbled.

[Quertus]

It was a way people referred to 4e design philosophy to not let the fiction of an ability mean that its combat functions would imply noncombat uses. So like, 'fireball is a combat AoE damage effect, it doesn't actually produce fire, or heat, or light, or allow you to get through a paper walled house during a skill challenge. Just because you have a ritual that lets you fly out of combat, doesn't mean you can fly in combat. Just because you have a move that shouts the dead back to life in battle doesn't mean you can save someone bleeding out during a surgery. Etc.

I take the nonsensical description to be tacit approval of the separation even when it makes no sense for a coherent fiction.

Wait, you mean the phrase was invented for and because of 4e? That explaining its meaning in the context of 4e actually explains the phrase? I mean, I figured with such evocative imagery, there had to be a cool story behind it, I just never imagined it would be so germane to my interests. Sounds like it would be out of character for me to not add this to my lexicon, then.

[NichG]

Wait, you mean the phrase was invented for and because of 4e? That explaining its meaning in the context of 4e actually explains the phrase? I mean, I figured with such evocative imagery, there had to be a cool story behind it, I just never imagined it would be so germane to my interests. Sounds like it would be out of character for me to not add this to my lexicon, then.

I think I first heard someone use it on these forums, but unfortunately I don't remember who (or if they were quoting one of the designers or something), but yeah, it was in the context of explaining how 4e's approach was philosophically different.

Edit: Aha, I got it wrong. It was instead 'wrought iron fence made of tigers', and I guess there was an ENWorld post. https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-wrought-iron-fence-made-of-tigers.241646/

[Atranen]

1. The system knows what it wants to do and tells you about it. This is lore, mechanics and design intent being presented to the user. For example, BitD wins on all three points, certain editions of Shadowrun would win on all 3 if not for %#$& decking. M&M3 is another great showing even though it’s not a specific setting, as it tells the users what it’s thematically good for, highlights pinch points, and talks about what use cases various rules are intended to address. WHFRP & Dark Heresy score highly for delivering intuitively on atmosphere.

5e D&D gets an F on lore and mechanics/design intent clarity. 3.5e gets an F on clarity and a B on lore.

This is top of my list as well. I'm interested in a pretty diverse range of systems -- 5E, heavy combat rulesets like lancer, fast dungeon crawl OSR games, Blades or PbtA games, and the one unifying thing is that the game knows what it wants to be.

I see that via the mechanics supporting the narrative, regardless of what that might be. In OSR, you're investigating dangerous places and die easily--so you have wandering monsters and chargen is fast. In Lancer, you are in a massive mech duking it out with other massive mechs, and so the combat rules are evocative and heavy and the narrative ones light.

To add to this, players and a DM who are interested in the narrative style the game supports. Don't shove a square peg into a round hole; if your group wants a light dungeon crawler, ditch 5e. If your group wants a heist game, play Blades or some hack of it.

I guess that's 1. For the others:

2) A designer and a community I want to support. This might be the biggest one for me. I don't love 5e, but it's got a great (and, crucially, an accessible) community in a way other games don't. They just don't have the same name recognition and that's a barrier to new players. Other games have better or worse communities for what they do as well.

3) Accessible rules. I have a lot of different systems I like playing, so something that's easy to pick up (or at least has pdfs I can get for cheap online) is a big plus.

[Kurald Galain]

(1) Mechanical diversity between characters; this is most apparent in combat but it isn't only about combat. 3E and PF are good examples of this; another system that does it well is Aberrant. A game doesn't even have to be rules-heavy to do this well, but surprisingly some rules-heavy games manage to fail at it.

(2) If your character is skilled at something, the rules back this up. Don't give me such nonsense as "you're the world-class expert so you're a whopping ten percent better at skill checks than your teammates!" or "you're already a superhero at level one and you have to roll to see if you can climb a tree!" This is part of alignment between setting and rules. I suppose I'm also against "you can heal people in combat but not out of combat!" and such, but that really only applies to 4E, doesn't it?

(3) A grand overarching plot and feeling of depth to the setting, with (optional) background material on factions or history whenever you want to look into that. Old-style World of Darkness is famous for this, and I find Pathfinder's organized play program comes close; I haven't really seen this anywhere else. The deep feeling that the world is actually bigger than your party is hard to create.

[Pauly]

Just to reverse it, top 3 things that will drive me away from a game. Trying hard to not just put the opposites of top 3 things hat draw me in.

1) Angst. RPGs are something I do in my precious free time for fun. Anything that’s too angsty depressed or emo will get a hard no from me.

2) Ambiguous outcomes. It doesn’t have to be binary yes/no, but I want the decision -> action -> resolution cycle to be fast and clean so the game can move on.

3) Amateur art. I know the author’s girlfriend’s mother says she’s a really talented artist, but nothing kills my interest faster than some dodgy line art done by someone with no sense of perspective.

[noob]

I am extremely surprised that no one mentioned "the presence of a playerbase" as a thing that draws them toward an rpg.

[animorte]

I am extremely surprised that no one mentioned "the presence of a playerbase" as a thing that draws them toward an rpg.
That was definitely mentioned in different words:


2) A designer and a community I want to support. This might be the biggest one for me. I don't love 5e, but it's got a great (and, crucially, an accessible) community in a way other games don't. They just don't have the same name recognition and that's a barrier to new players. Other games have better or worse communities for what they do as well.
I may have missed another example.

[Xervous]

I am extremely surprised that no one mentioned "the presence of a playerbase" as a thing that draws them toward an rpg.

It’s a bit more nuanced than that. A player base (at all), a medium sized player base, a large player base, a player base in my RL local area. I’d only be mildly concerned about the first one because my main obstacle as a forever GM is time.

[Telok]

I am extremely surprised that no one mentioned "the presence of a playerbase" as a thing that draws them toward an rpg.

If I want a game enough I make a player base. Advertising can sell anything to someone.

Hmm. I'm wondering if I can go back and squeeze in "doesn't suffer major fridge logic fails mid session on a regular basis" to my first post. Or maybe "the system flaws don't become some of our groups' running snark gags that crop up every session or two".

[EggKookoo]

Greetings all,

As I spend more and more time trying to understand what games people like to play and why, I realize more and more that I have no idea what people like to play! Therefore, I am interested in the top 3 things that draw your attention and make you want to play a RPG? What are the things that grab you the most?


Complexity where it should be; simplicity everywhere else. I don't have a preference for overall complexity. I don't mind a rules-heavy system. But the system should put complexity where it doesn't interfere with at-table gameplay. I'd be okay with a game that encourages me to refactor my PC periodically (leveling, extended downtime, etc.) but when the GM says "what do you do?" my choices should all be at my fingertips. Any at-play complexity should come from the scenario and/or environment, not from my PC sheet.
Mechanics that focus on player role. The GM is playing a different game, mechanically, than the players are. The game system should be designed like a user interface, where the tools presented to the GM are optimized for running encounters, playing NPCs, planning adventures, and so forth. The tools presented to the players should be optimized for PC detail, progression, customization/uniqueness, and so on. I decidedly do not like systems that try to force NPCs to function just like PCs (looking at you, D&D 3e), nor am I an adherent of the "rules as a physics engine" mindset.
Non-combat depth. D&D is the poster child here, but a lot of games provide tons and tons of detail for combat merchanics, while fast-talking your way past a guard is often a single pass/fail roll (if that). I expect a game to prioritize this kind of stuff, so I get that, say, combat will often have the most focus. I just want other interersting mechanical things to do than make attack rolls.


You didn't ask, but things that push me away from an RPG:


Dice pool systems... mostly. They can be done well, but usually they're not. I view them like movie reboots -- okay in principle but usually poorly-done. It's easy to create a system that is a headache to wrap my brain around as a GM. Here I'm talking mainly about stuff like the old WoD d10 system, not just a system that has you add multiple dice.
Single-die systems... mostly. Again, not that there's an intrinsic problem with a system that only uses d6s, or d10s, or whatever one die size. It's just that I don't find multiple dice sizes to be any kind of fundamental issue that's being solved by using only one. It's often touted as a quality feature, but it's not some kind of magic bullet that will fix a bad system.
Special custom dice: It just feels gimmicky to me. Or an attempt to "own" mechanics. While I can understand that, it's just not my thing, I guess.
Too derivative for no reason: This is less common nowadays, but in the years following the release of AD&D 1e, tons of games used a lot of D&D terminology or idioms for no obvious inherent reason. If your game has a "wisdom" attribute that basically means "perception," just call it "perception."

[noob]

Complexity where it should be; simplicity everywhere else. I don't have a preference for overall complexity. I don't mind a rules-heavy system. But the system should put complexity where it doesn't interfere with at-table gameplay. I'd be okay with a game that encourages me to refactor my PC periodically (leveling, extended downtime, etc.) but when the GM says "what do you do?" my choices should all be at my fingertips. Any at-play complexity should come from the scenario and/or environment, not from my PC sheet.
Mechanics that focus on player role. The GM is playing a different game, mechanically, than the players are. The game system should be designed like a user interface, where the tools presented to the GM are optimized for running encounters, playing NPCs, planning adventures, and so forth. The tools presented to the players should be optimized for PC detail, progression, customization/uniqueness, and so on. I decidedly do not like systems that try to force NPCs to function just like PCs (looking at you, D&D 3e), nor am I an adherent of the "rules as a physics engine" mindset.
Non-combat depth. D&D is the poster child here, but a lot of games provide tons and tons of detail for combat merchanics, while fast-talking your way past a guard is often a single pass/fail roll (if that). I expect a game to prioritize this kind of stuff, so I get that, say, combat will often have the most focus. I just want other interersting mechanical things to do than make attack rolls.


You didn't ask, but things that push me away from an RPG:


Dice pool systems... mostly. They can be done well, but usually they're not. I view them like movie reboots -- okay in principle but usually poorly-done. It's easy to create a system that is a headache to wrap my brain around as a GM. Here I'm talking mainly about stuff like the old WoD d10 system, not just a system that has you add multiple dice.
Single-die systems... mostly. Again, not that there's an intrinsic problem with a system that only uses d6s, or d10s, or whatever one die size. It's just that I don't find multiple dice sizes to be any kind of fundamental issue that's being solved by using only one. It's often touted as a quality feature, but it's not some kind of magic bullet that will fix a bad system.
Special custom dice: It just feels gimmicky to me. Or an attempt to "own" mechanics. While I can understand that, it's just not my thing, I guess.
Too derivative for no reason: This is less common nowadays, but in the years following the release of AD&D 1e, tons of games used a lot of D&D terminology or idioms for no obvious inherent reason. If your game has a "wisdom" attribute that basically means "perception," just call it "perception."

Using only 6 sided dice does solve a single issue: the availability of dice.
6 sided dice are way more common than other dices thanks to how many games uses them.
Coins are even more common(for non game reasons) so a rpg using those for randomness would be even more accessible.
However with a 30+ pages system you had to buy the issue of dice availability is moot since you are buying equipment and invest a lot of time to play anyway (basically it is not solving the start up difficulty problem).
Likewise you lose again the interest of dice availability if you require people to roll 20 six sided dice.
It is way too common for D6 based systems to both require you to roll 20 six sided dice but also require you to own a 30+ pages book of rules.

[EggKookoo]

Using only 6 sided dice does solve a single issue: the availability of dice.
6 sided dice are way more common than other dices thanks to how many games uses them.
Coins are even more common(for non game reasons) so a rpg using those for randomness would be even more accessible.

In practice, it doesn't make much difference to me. Dice are not difficult to get, and they last forever.


However with a 30+ pages system you had to buy the issue of dice availability is moot since you are buying equipment to play anyway (basically it is not solving the material problem).

Right. You're already forking over cash for the game itself. Dice aren't expensive and it's not like you need to get a new set for each new system.

[ngilop]

1: The artwork. If the art on the cover and inside as I quickly flip through it look a certain way it has one strike against it.

2: The character sheet. If I look at the character sheet and am not able to understand most of it, that's another strike.

3: The character creation rules. If the rules are not well written, confusing, or downright absurd, that is strike #3 and Its out.

[Atranen]

Using only 6 sided dice does solve a single issue: the availability of dice.
6 sided dice are way more common than other dices thanks to how many games uses them.
Coins are even more common(for non game reasons) so a rpg using those for randomness would be even more accessible.

I playtested a system recently that used playing cards for resolution; basically draw two cards from a deck to get a d% roll. The face cards were separated into a special deck you could draw from an activate as special abilities. Then you could swap the cards you drew or draw an extra card and replace if your character was skilled. The main motivation behind it was accessibility -- the designer said he knew people working with prisoners who wanted to introduce them to RPGs, and dice were a barrier but cards were not.

Anyway, it was a fun system and satisfied my criteria.

[NovenFromTheSun]

1. Bestiary. Whenever I get a new PDF the first thing I go for is its bestiary. This is the part that appeals to me both as a prospective player and GM, and if it fails to impress then my enthusiasm for the RPG quickly goes down.

2. Variety: I don’t want to be doing the same thing every session, in either side of the GM screen.

3. Player skill. As a player, I want the things I do while playing the game to have an effect on outcomes (combat or otherwise), not just my character sheet or the dice.

[Eldan]

These days, I care very little about basic mechanics in general. I have a dozen generic or close to generic systems and usually, I can port almost anything over if I don't like the rules.

Mostly, I care about interesting worldbuilding these days. And mechanics that interact with worldbuilding.

[Sneak Dog]

When I see a new RPG, I'll give it a glance for the following:

1. Does it have an attempt at giving magic users and non-magicians similar amount of 'cool unique things'?
I like martials. D&D makes martials boring. Many RPGs follow D&D's footsteps. This is sad.

2. Does it emulate a specific setting with unique game mechanics?
From experience, these RPGs tend to be far more intriguing than generic ones. They have a clearer idea of what characters are, what they are supposed to be able to do and they have a unique mechanic setting them apart. I'm fine with generic ones, but they don't draw me in for it.

3. If I quickly roll up a character I might play, does it have something neat? (Did I just stumble over a rat that can jump two meters into the air? Neat.)
Gotta be able to hook in other people when I GM it. Telling them there's neat character options is an easy road to a one-shot to try the system out.

And bonus one that puts me off:
Are there big meta-mechanics that aren't grounded in the fiction and what the characters do?
Sometimes a mechanic like fate/edge/luck points can align the player and the character in how the fiction works. Often though such mechanics that make the player take actions that don't make sense in the fiction, which breaks immersion. Often by making them take arbitrary actions to gain these points, or stop doing sensible actions because there's no longer any benefit according to the rules.

[Lord Torath]

In no particular order:

#1 Rulebooks that are fun to read. If I've got to read a bunch of rules, you'd better make it entertaining. I've read some deadly-boring text books, and your rules better not be if you want me to read them. 2E AD&D had some fun examples of play, or even just descriptions. I particularly remember a bit describing how your young PC wizard began his career (either with support from his kindly master, or by stealing your austere, demanding, master's spellbook and fleeing in the night). The Spelljammer books had fun quotes on the the sidebars/footers. 1E/2E Shadowrun really takes the cake here, though. The rulebooks have entertaining examples, and the supplements had the shadowtalk comments by other in-universe readers that were a joy to read. The slang was fun, with lots of words like "chummer", "frag", "drek", "slotter", "btl head", things that really drew you in. Later editions have moved away from this, from what I understand.

#2 Evocative setting/art. Something needs to draw me into the game. D&D has a lot of evocative settings, and a bunch of non-evocative ones. The art doesn't need to be great, but it can't be bad. The illustrations in the 1E PHB and DMG are certainly not fine art, but they're funny and engaging. The art in the 2E Dark Sun Terrors Beyond Tyr monstrous compendium is so bad I can barely bring myself to open the book. Brom's Dark Sun art is fantastic. Shadowrun was also very evocative. You say Street Sammy and everyone knows what you're talking about. And no PC (or player) wants to hear the words "Toxic Elemental" or "Insect Shaman". Robotech is another evocative setting, and I've always wanted to play.

#3 Interesting rule set. It shouldn't be too complex, but it should have enough nooks and crannies to play around with. I don't want complexity for complexity's sake, but I don't mind a bit of complexity when it's meaningful. And the rules should support the fluff. The best move should be one that makes sense both from a narrative and a rules-based perspective. Doesn't mean I'll always make the best move, but it should make sense.

[clash]

For me I'm going to go with the things I implemented in my homebrew ttrpg.

1. Steady progression. D&d leveling is too big and too slow. I want smaller gradual increments that feel like the character evolves organically.

2. Customization. I don't care how strong my character gets I want to be able to build the character I want to play. I want meaningful choices with mechanics that represent the theme I am going for.

3. Intuitive rules. Things should happen and be resolved in a way that makes sense. I shouldn't have to consult 3 separate rules to determine if my character can be seen sneaking past an enemy. If I'm doing the same action the same resolution mechanic should be used. If I can cast a fireball I should be able to light a candle or cast a firebolt.

Oh and bonus one.
If magic isn't accessible to the players and can be built into their character sheet intentionally rather than a mother may I feature, then I'm not playing the rpg. Hardstop.

[KorvinStarmast]

1. Coherent setting
2. Coherent concept.
3. Mechanics that I can pick up on in session 1.

[Lucas Yew]

1. Rules As Physics; this automatically includes the "rules over rulings" priority + "PC-NPC Symmetry (or as close to such as possible)".

2. Legal Freedom; as CC-BY(-SA), or the OGL before early this year (le sad...).

3. Intra-Player Fairness; so no blatant Linear Fighters Quadratic Wizards if both archetypes can exist mutually in a single table.

----

Edit: After writing this, I realized that my very signature for GitP also includes the above points, heh...

[JellyPooga]

1) Elegance. This is far more important to me than complexity (or lack thereof) in the rules or gameplay. The game must be and run smooth. If I have to flip to five different sections of the book to resolve a test or scenario, that's too much work mid-game. If, on the other hand, the rules on those five pages are easy to remember and action in the game such that I don't need to be constantly looking them up or require flash/cheat-cards, then elegance of design has been implemented over the top of something that would otherwise be merely complex. This is distinct from being rules-light or simple; both of which I find drive me away from a game these days. I used to like simplicity until I discovered elegance; quick and rapid-fire play is great, but without depth and complexity, rules-light games just feel lacking. I like to be able to engage with my character and others in the game on both a mechanical and a creative/improvisational level; rules-light games tend to miss out on the former and many more complex games miss out on the latter (usually by gatekeeping actions or abilities behind mechanics that you may or may not have access to for whatever reason e.g. "no, you can't attack both goblins at once because you're not a level 5 Fighter").

2) Character. I have to feel like my character is competent, rounded and complete. I don't like systems that say "No" to a character being able to do things, or limiting their access to diverse ability. Within the reasonable confines of the character concept and the conceits of the game, of course. For example, one of my biggest gripes with 3e D&D was the way it handled skill points; 2+Int points per level for Fighters (for example) just wasn't enough to fill out everything I'd expect a character of that kind to be able to do, leaving the concept feeling incomplete and/or waiting for more XP/levels to really complete who that character should have been from the start. Which brings me to the second part of this "draw" for me; a character should not feel incomplete at the end of character creation. Systems that utilise level-based advancement are the most guilty of this, either not offering diversity of archetypes or tacking on poorly balanced "multiclassing" systems to try and patch that lack. E.g. If I want to play a sneaky mage type character in post 3e D&D, I'm usually not going to feel like I'm playing that until at least 2nd level. That's a problem. It's not a problem to have strong archetypes or classes that exemplify the kind of characters in that setting, but it is a problem to start play without a good idea of who, exactly, it is that you're playing. Are you a thief waiting to be a mage, or are you a thief that is also a mage? The former is usually going to be unsatisfactory for me (the exception being a character that changes their direction as a result of gameplay; e.g. in a WHFRP game I played once, I was on the path to becoming a Druid when I got my hands on an Orb of Necromancy that changed where that character was heading drastically). The latter is not. The other place where some systems fail here is in not offering enough detail as to who your character is beyond a few key abilities or phrases; it's well and good to say you're a Grizzled Mercenary, but unless you have an ability, abilities or features that exemplify or detail what that actually means in the game, it's just wasted ink.

3) Complete. I don't want to have to fork out £30 every six months just to "keep up" with the current meta. It's not a CCG, LCG, table-top wargame or subscription to my favourite comic book and it's certainly not an MMORPG or mobile game that drinks your money with micro-transactions. I don't want DLC, I want a complete game. No, I don't really want the next edition either. Get it right the first time and let it stand the test of time.

[EggKookoo]

I used to like simplicity until I discovered elegance; quick and rapid-fire play is great, but without depth and complexity, rules-light games just feel lacking.

Thank you for this. It's the kind of thing I've been thinking about in the abstract without really putting into words. I think when many people complain about a game being too complex, they really mean it's inelegant or clunky. Not that there are too many details or moving parts, but that it's some kind of mechanical eldritch horror. Likewise, if someone is looking for a "simple" game, I think what they often might really mean is an elegant game. Something that has a strong core, and all the peripheral functional aspects are just more specific applications of that core idea.

In a similar vein, I think most complaints about TTRPG combat being slow are really complaints about it being boring, not literally reactions to how much real-world time passes during rounds.

[JellyPooga]

Thank you for this. It's the kind of thing I've been thinking about in the abstract without really putting into words. I think when many people complain about a game being too complex, they really mean it's inelegant or clunky. Not that there are too many details or moving parts, but that it's some kind of mechanical eldritch horror. Likewise, if someone is looking for a "simple" game, I think what they often might really mean is an elegant game. Something that has a strong core, and all the peripheral functional aspects are just more specific applications of that core idea.

In a similar vein, I think most complaints about TTRPG combat being slow are really complaints about it being boring, not literally reactions to how much real-world time passes during rounds.

To use some examples;

Earthdawn is wonderfully complex; I use the term "arcane" to describe it because I think it applies. Between more magic systems than I care to count, "dice steps" for conflict resolution, skills vs. talents (many of which overlap or directly duplicate one another with little, if any distinction between the two), a class system that is both restrictive and permissive, rules than span across several locations in at least two separate books and an entire setting conceit in which you will never play anything but a magic user (yes, some of those "magic users" are warriors and such that don't overtly "cast spells", but it's still assumed they're using magic)...the game puts a massive roadblock in the way of even creating characters, let alone playing the game or achieving any kind of system mastery. Even for simple conflict resolution you require several look-up tables. Elegance is distinctly missing from the mix; it's like an old bookshop that hasn't had it's inventory sorted in decades, the one permanent staff member is forgetful and it's changed hands seven times in the last 40 years. There's a ton of fun and exciting ideas floating around, but none of it is any particular order, much of it is contradictory or confusing and finding your way around is a task in itself, let alone achieving what you went in there for in the first place.

GURPS, on the flipside, is often accused of being too complex, but in actual gameplay it's quite the opposite. Yes, character creation can take a long time if you're given free-rein to build anything you like, but a good GURPS GM isn't going to open the kitchen sink and let you dive in; there will be limits. Once you're past char gen, however, the game runs very smoothly once you appreciate that almost everything comes down to a simple difficulty scale of modifiers from -10 to +10 on a target number, roll 3d6 under. Everything. Yes, you can go nitty-gritty style and have a look-up table for falling, jumping, running, how long it takes to dig a ditch, how hard it is to climb a tree, etc. etc...but you can also just know that a -5 modifier is pretty gnarly and -10 is nigh impossible and use good, old-fashioned sense to apply the same logic to any given circumstance. The game is over-designed in that way, but at least it's informative and once you have some system mastery, it actually has a degree of elegance that Earthdawn never will.

The One Ring is my poster child for elegant game design. It has narrative and mechanical impact for choices made both in character creation and as they develop in play (again, both from narrative and mechanical development, which are oft-times interchangeable). Combat is at once abstract and detailed, allowing for narrative beats to hit and roleplaying to occur in the middle of combat without having to bust out a battle-mat or count how many squares your fireball covers, but still allowing for fatigue, damage and morale to have their moments amidst weapons that having varied effects beyond mere damage and magic that is subtle and powerful rather than showy and disposable. On top of that, the system for travel and exploration is a mini-game in and of itself, social encounters go beyond a mere pass/fail dice roll and have genuine consequences, it encourages base building and developing relationships between PC's as well and NPC's, character development that is both lateral and vertical, as well as including development that isn't always positive or additive (yes, both laterally and vertically too!); a lot of development is qualitative rather than quantitive and some is even negative. Resource management is as important as narrative success, failure can be beneficial, you can just declare success (not without cost) if you have an appropriate feature, or roll for success if you prefer to throw caution to the wind (with rewards for success and penalties for failure). To top it all, all of this meshes together without missing a beat, crossing any lines or confusing how anything interacts with any other aspect. As demonstrated in this short paragraph, the game does not lack complexity; there's a lot of moving parts. Where it shines is in how all those parts move together rather than at odds. The only downside for me is that it uses some "funky dice", but they're also just standard numeric poly-dice (d6, used as a dice-pool and a single d12) that use some numbers (the 6 on the d6 and the 1 and 12 on the d12) as something special (and how, if at all, is that different from rolling a 20 for a critical hit in D&D?).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Complexity where it should be; simplicity everywhere else. I don't have a preference for overall complexity. I don't mind a rules-heavy system. But the system should put complexity where it doesn't interfere with at-table gameplay. I'd be okay with a game that encourages me to refactor my PC periodically (leveling, extended downtime, etc.) but when the GM says "what do you do?" my choices should all be at my fingertips. Any at-play complexity should come from the scenario and/or environment, not from my PC sheet.
Mechanics that focus on player role. The GM is playing a different game, mechanically, than the players are. The game system should be designed like a user interface, where the tools presented to the GM are optimized for running encounters, playing NPCs, planning adventures, and so forth. The tools presented to the players should be optimized for PC detail, progression, customization/uniqueness, and so on. I decidedly do not like systems that try to force NPCs to function just like PCs (looking at you, D&D 3e), nor am I an adherent of the "rules as a physics engine" mindset.
Non-combat depth. D&D is the poster child here, but a lot of games provide tons and tons of detail for combat merchanics, while fast-talking your way past a guard is often a single pass/fail roll (if that). I expect a game to prioritize this kind of stuff, so I get that, say, combat will often have the most focus. I just want other interersting mechanical things to do than make attack rolls.


You didn't ask, but things that push me away from an RPG:


Dice pool systems... mostly. They can be done well, but usually they're not. I view them like movie reboots -- okay in principle but usually poorly-done. It's easy to create a system that is a headache to wrap my brain around as a GM. Here I'm talking mainly about stuff like the old WoD d10 system, not just a system that has you add multiple dice.
Single-die systems... mostly. Again, not that there's an intrinsic problem with a system that only uses d6s, or d10s, or whatever one die size. It's just that I don't find multiple dice sizes to be any kind of fundamental issue that's being solved by using only one. It's often touted as a quality feature, but it's not some kind of magic bullet that will fix a bad system.
Special custom dice: It just feels gimmicky to me. Or an attempt to "own" mechanics. While I can understand that, it's just not my thing, I guess.
Too derivative for no reason: This is less common nowadays, but in the years following the release of AD&D 1e, tons of games used a lot of D&D terminology or idioms for no obvious inherent reason. If your game has a "wisdom" attribute that basically means "perception," just call it "perception."


I agree with this.

Two things I want to add are

* Toolkit over contract/simulation. I want rules that are just fine being selectively/partially used and often modified to fit. Rules that accept themselves as just part of the UI engine of the game, there to act as scaffolding to help us play a game better. Rules are very useful, to be sure. But not necessary--the ultimate ancestor of role-playing is total freeform. But that's expensive (mentally and socially) to do well, so rules take some of the pressure off. But in the end, we're not playing the printed rules; they do not define the game. They merely assist.
* Going along with that--rules that are modular enough that modifications, extensions, and such don't break things. I shouldn't have to be an expert on the game math before I make any change or create new content. This generally pushes me away from "tightly balanced" (numerically) systems. Especially this means the system should be open to new worlds/settings. Worldbuilding from the metaphysics level up is one of the things I enjoy most. Games that are tightly coupled to the setting make that difficult.

[Witty Username]

1) Freedom of action, mechanics should improve the capacity to act in the game space, not restrict it, if my only options are hack & slash through a problem I migh as well play a computer game.

2) group participation, generally the game should support multiple people and support everyone having some way to affect what is going on, opting out of the social encounter is fine, being excluded because that isn't what the character does is not.

3) The ability to make bad decisions, at character creation and within play. While Trap options are poor, if every option and combination is equivalent there is little reasons for the choice. In short, some amount of optimization should be available, and it should lead to failure some of the time when it is not in use.

[Cluedrew]

Pitch: On a surface level, there needs to be something that does the initial grabbing of my attention. Something interesting that suggests a different type of campaign I'll be able to run/play in this system.

Clarity: After that, you have to get the details of that pitch and the mechanics to support it across clearly. And hopefully also concisely.

Soundness: Then it just kind of needs to hold together. I'm not asking for perfection, especially since I might not even have played it yet, but if there are glaring issues on the first pass that is a problem.

And that is all it takes to get added to my growing list of system I hope to play some day but probably will not.

[Jay R]

You seem to be asking about rules systems, so I will answer that question first. Then I will move on the the important one.

1. A setting or culture or feel that I would like to play in. Flashing Blades, Pendragon, and TOON are the best examples. Flashing Blades is designed to simulate swashbuckling movies and literature. It would be worthless for a historical game set in 17th century Paris, but it’s perfect for Dumas’s 17th century Parisian adventures. D&D settings usually fail this test, but good DM worlds often pass.

2. Rules that make sense – self-consistent, meaningful, and accurate except when accuracy would hurt the game. Hit points are inaccurate, but any accurate system would be far too complex, and make a poor game.

3. Rules I can handle without much thought. Champions passes this test for me, but not for a lot of people. Basic arithmetic is not a barrier for me – but when I play or run the game, I assume I will have to create the character sheets for one or two players.

---

Having said that, the system is rarely the important factor. The essential issues when deciding to play or run a game are as follows:

1. The GM’s competence, imagination, and trustworthiness. Every step of a game funnels through the GM’s thoughts. I have to believe in that process. [Yes, that includes when I run a game. I have to believe that I am competent with that system, have an imaginative approach to that setting, and can be trustworthy.]

2. Other players’ friendliness, teamwork, and camaraderie. RPGs involve hours of time being with these people as a team. It has to be a friendly environment, and they have to be willing to work together as a team.

3. I have to have lots of free time to commit to the game right now. That includes playing time, but also design time, studying the rules, going over notes regularly so I don’t lose important hints, etc. [I read everything a GM sends several times, and I read most things another player writes more than once.]

These three are far more important than the rules system. I will play any system with the right people (when I have time). I wouldn’t play the best system in the world if I didn’t trust the GM and enjoy the company of the players.

[noob]

1. The GM’s competence, imagination, and trustworthiness. Every step of a game funnels through the GM’s thoughts. I have to believe in that process. [Yes, that includes when I run a game. I have to believe that I am competent with that system, have an imaginative approach to that setting, and can be trustworthy.]


Some systems does not have a game master.

[Jay R]

Some systems does not have a game master.

Correct. And since the GM's competence, imagination, and trustworthiness are essential elements for me, I don't play such games.

I'm not describing what all games are like; I am answering the question of the top three things that draw me to an RPG.

[Easy e]

Having said that, the system is rarely the important factor. The essential issues when deciding to play or run a game are as follows:

1. The GM’s competence, imagination, and trustworthiness. Every step of a game funnels through the GM’s thoughts. I have to believe in that process. [Yes, that includes when I run a game. I have to believe that I am competent with that system, have an imaginative approach to that setting, and can be trustworthy.]

2. Other players’ friendliness, teamwork, and camaraderie. RPGs involve hours of time being with these people as a team. It has to be a friendly environment, and they have to be willing to work together as a team.

3. I have to have lots of free time to commit to the game right now. That includes playing time, but also design time, studying the rules, going over notes regularly so I don’t lose important hints, etc. [I read everything a GM sends several times, and I read most things another player writes more than once.]

These three are far more important than the rules system. I will play any system with the right people (when I have time). I wouldn’t play the best system in the world if I didn’t trust the GM and enjoy the company of the players.

I do not disagree with any of these. However, the question was focused a bit more on what can a publisher or designer put into a game that would peak your interest. These three things are great BUT I think the designer/publisher might have a more limited ability to build these into a game itself. Note, I say limited, not 0 ability.

[King of Nowhere]

I'm taking a chance to ask a tangentially related question here: learning a new system obviously requires a lot of time and effort. more for some games, less for others, but still a lot of effort.
you clearly try a lot of different games, so you must have learned all of them. and to change so many games, I assume you only play each one a short amount of time.

so my question is, what draws you to putting all the effort into learning a new system, only to drop it after a few sessions to try something else? what draws you to keep saying "hey, let's try some other new stuff" instead of "hey, we were happy with that system, let's keep using it"? Or perhaps you have multiple gaming groups / a lot more occasions to play rpgs, so that you can play multiple times per week and try a lot of new systems while still devoting a suitable time to each one of them?

[NichG]

I'm taking a chance to ask a tangentially related question here: learning a new system obviously requires a lot of time and effort. more for some games, less for others, but still a lot of effort.
you clearly try a lot of different games, so you must have learned all of them. and to change so many games, I assume you only play each one a short amount of time.

so my question is, what draws you to putting all the effort into learning a new system, only to drop it after a few sessions to try something else? what draws you to keep saying "hey, let's try some other new stuff" instead of "hey, we were happy with that system, let's keep using it"? Or perhaps you have multiple gaming groups / a lot more occasions to play rpgs, so that you can play multiple times per week and try a lot of new systems while still devoting a suitable time to each one of them?

Discovery is part of gameplay for me. New systems mean that I can be figuring stuff out real time as I go, maybe even having new rules be exposed during play. I use the same principle when DMing. So l might reuse bases, but I'll generally write a system's worth of new content for each campaign, tuned for what I want that campaign to explore.

[Jay R]

I do not disagree with any of these. However, the question was focused a bit more on what can a publisher or designer put into a game that would peak your interest. These three things are great BUT I think the designer/publisher might have a more limited ability to build these into a game itself. Note, I say limited, not 0 ability.

A. That's why I answered that question first. You only quoted my secondary answer.

B. I went back and re-read your first post two or three times, and I can't find any suggestion, express or implied, that it was about designers and publishers. If that's what you wanted to ask, I wish you'd told us.

In any event, I gave that answer, then I explained why that isn't the primary consideration. That's the best answer I can give you.

[Telwar]

1) Setting. Back in the day, I was a little into D&D, and GURPS, but hot dang I loved Shadowrun 1e...which was the face of "style over substance" for game design. A game with an evocative setting can excuse a lot of design issues (and if needed, you can port the setting to another system).

2) Choices in character advancement. Basically, I like having choices to make when building and advancing a character. Not necessarily a dozen each level or session, but several, more than "what level of class do I take next."

3) Designer respect for players and GMs. I was tempted to put consistency in writing or unified rules, but both of those I would consider to be part of the designer respecting the audience. I want a system where the designers are excited by their own product and want to help the players and GMs enjoy it as much as they do, rather than working two hours a day sloppily writing rules and then knocking off to play video games.

[Easy e]

A. That's why I answered that question first. You only quoted my secondary answer.

B. I went back and re-read your first post two or three times, and I can't find any suggestion, express or implied, that it was about designers and publishers. If that's what you wanted to ask, I wish you'd told us.

In any event, I gave that answer, then I explained why that isn't the primary consideration. That's the best answer I can give you.

You misunderstand.... it was not a criticism of what you wrote at all. I appreciated it. I apologize as it probably came across that way. Mea culpa.

Just sparked a thought on the topic that I wanted to share. Sorry if it came across as a critique. More me actually thinking a bit and reflecting on IF a publisher CAN add some of those elements. I think they can do things to influence them for sure. It sparked interesting thoughts for me, so thanks.

[Jay R]

You misunderstand.... it was not a criticism of what you wrote at all. I appreciated it. I apologize as it probably came across that way. Mea culpa.

Just sparked a thought on the topic that I wanted to share. Sorry if it came across as a critique. More me actually thinking a bit and reflecting on IF a publisher CAN add some of those elements. I think they can do things to influence them for sure. It sparked interesting thoughts for me, so thanks.

No problem. One of the greatest aspects of internet discussion at its finest is the ability to go back and forth until we finally succeed in communicating. This time it worked. Bingo!

If my GM is superior, then the publisher really can't take that away. On the other hand, it might be possible to make a good GM somewhat better with the right description of how to run the game — but the poor GMs won't read that part carefully in any case.

I don't see how the rules can add to the players' intelligence or imagination — but poor rules could certainly stifle them.

And there is no way the rules can get me hours of playing, running, and design time if I don't already have it.

But really — give me the right GM and players, and enough time to commit to it, and I will cheerfully play pretty much any game. [Of course, a group that good will wind up not using the parts of the rules that are problematic.]

So the crucial aspects that the publisher should focus on (for me) are the three I started with — a setting or feel that appeals to me, rules that make sense, and rules I can handle without much thought.

[Pauly]

You misunderstand.... it was not a criticism of what you wrote at all. I appreciated it. I apologize as it probably came across that way. Mea culpa.

Just sparked a thought on the topic that I wanted to share. Sorry if it came across as a critique. More me actually thinking a bit and reflecting on IF a publisher CAN add some of those elements. I think they can do things to influence them for sure. It sparked interesting thoughts for me, so thanks.

I think that the publisher can do this.
Some techniques.
1) Have an active forum on which the game designers contribute especially with regards to the way they want the game to be played.
2) Publishing a ‘players’ first adventure and setting’ that comes with the initial purchase. Either as a stand alone book or as a downloadable pdf. In this you can set a lot of expectations as to how the players should behave.
3) Designing the system so that it is fast to understand and play, while not actually giving you more time to play reduces the amount of time needed to play.

[Willie the Duck]

1. An interesting hook -- this can be a setting, a premise, a goal, or even a mechanic, there should be something drawing me in. Whether this is 'secrets and conspiracies on a South Mediterranean island in a surreal-modernity setting' or 'cyberpunk with elves' or 'a bog-standard fantasy setting, but with a rigorous and engaging wilderness exploration mechanic.'
2. 'Elegant' mechanics -- quote marks because people are using such terms in multiple ways (so these are 'elegant as I choose to use the term'). For me, they are elegant if they are easy to explain, grasp, and internalize; but also that it is clear why they are there. I'm okay tracking encumbrance for every torch, but you better make it clear that this is because the careful weighing of equipment vs. loot capacity/speed is an important part of the game (and then that important part of the game needs to be compelling, see #1).
3. Focus on (informed) meaningful decisions -- I understand many people care an awful lot about character build options, and others on the specific chances of success (see about 3 threads in this forum as we speak), and similar goals. For me; what's most important is that the primary avenue of success/progress/an interesting play experience is me engaging in the (physical, social, combat, etc.) environment my character finds themselves in -- asking questions, contemplating options, making decisions, and seeing how they play out. My character can have extensive backstory or be tabula rasa; can be infinitely customizable or be 'pick among four classes'; can have a 33% or 90% chance of success -- so long as the mechanism for achieving the outcome is more gated by decisions made during play than elsewhere.