I've decided to GM a game, now what?

[Rhydeble]

me and a couple of buddies (we're university kids of around 20 years old) want to try out an RPG, and I've volunteered to DM. I already have the beginning of a worldsetting in my mind (heavily aztec inspired) and was wondering what a good system would be to play with. We're probably going to be big on roleplaying, and I want to have the freedom to homebrew the setting and everything. What kind of system can you guys reccomend me.

[vartan]

Do you already have access to a set of rulebooks or are you looking for something free (or will you be buying some game based on the Playgrounds reccomendation)? Any experience gamemastering or playing anything? More info yields better responses on these boards.

[Grinner]

A few suggestions:

• Warrior Rogue & Mage - a largely freeform system. Easy to use and modify.
  
• Microlite20 - a minimalistic version of D&D. Easy to use, but a little more difficult to modify mechanically. Refluffing shouldn't be a problem, however.
  
• Pathfinder - Heavy on rules, but it's a popular suggestion regardless. Several copies of the wiki are available in the download section.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Strands of Fate. For more stuff (I don't know whether it's higher-powered or just fantasy), there's an addition called Strands of Power. It covers almost all settings, and is good mechanically. If you order them online, Lulu Press has good prices for the books, and DriveThruRPG has PDFs.

[Matticussama]

Either D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder could work in an Aztec-inspired setting, if you plan on taking the classic route and making it a magical world with monsters out of Aztec myth being real. All you'd need to do would be to strip the weapons, armor, and classes that wouldn't fit in an Aztec-inspired setting. It also has the bonus of having a lot of material freely available online. There are enough splat books for both systems that detail Native American weapons, cultures, etc that it would be easy to adapt. The down side is that it doesn't really work as well for a low-magic/no-magic game if you want something more historically based.

However, if you're willing to purchase books, I would heavily suggest the World of Darkness system. The system would work either in a magical setting, like above, or in a more realistic environment if you want the game to be more historically based. The WoD Werewolf book is already *heavily* influenced by Native American myths and legends, which could help you out quite a bit if you want the magic-influenced world. If you want the historical setting, then you could use the Hunter book which is designed for "realistic" fighting (swords, guns, bows, etc instead of magic). The World of Darkness system is a lot less rules-intensive than 3.5 or PF, which makes it generally easier to pick up on, and since it is based on a point-buy system instead of a class-based system it gives characters a lot more customization which is generally desirable in a game with a much stronger roleplay focus.

[Rhydeble]

The plot I have in mind deals with the PC's working for their city to collect sacrifices to save the world. I'm pretty sure none of us has actual pen and paper RPG experience, but one or two of the guys LARP and most of us are avid gamers. We're probably going to have a lot of political plotting and powerplay going around.
I don't really have any books or anything, seeing as I haven't played a pen and paper RPG before, and as long as the price is reasonable I'm willing to buy some materials. Rules-heavy games probably won't be a problem, we're all intelligent engineering students. I'd like a system in which inter-party conflict is possible, and prefferably have at least the humanoid NPC's be designed much like PC's (and have this be balanced). Knowing my friends there might be some intra-party plotting, stealing, murdering and taunting, so that should be possible too.
For worldstyle, I'm okay with using magic for the PC's, but I really don't want every other NPC be a caster, because I want such a power to be a gift from the "gods"

[Hiro Protagonest]

However, if you're willing to purchase books, I would heavily suggest the World of Darkness system. The system would work either in a magical setting, like above, or in a more realistic environment if you want the game to be more historically based. The WoD Werewolf book is already *heavily* influenced by Native American myths and legends, which could help you out quite a bit if you want the magic-influenced world. If you want the historical setting, then you could use the Hunter book which is designed for "realistic" fighting (swords, guns, bows, etc instead of magic). The World of Darkness system is a lot less rules-intensive than 3.5 or PF, which makes it generally easier to pick up on, and since it is based on a point-buy system instead of a class-based system it gives characters a lot more customization which is generally desirable in a game with a much stronger roleplay focus.

White Wolf doesn't make good games. The fluff is awesomesauce, but there's pretty much no reason not to just use Strands of Fate instead. In the WoD setting, there's at least one decent reason (don't want to pay for two systems), but when you have the choice of converting "system that you have to be careful not to break too hard" or converting "well-balanced system", the choice isn't that hard.

If you do go World of Darkness, go New World of Darkness, not Old/Original World of Darkness.

Oh, and 3.5/Pathfinder is also broken. Pathfinder is sometimes flaunted to be better balanced since most of the TO tricks, but in practice, it's really not. Of course, it can be better balanced if the casters play nice. Except it doesn't do low-magic well. At all. At. All.

[Scowling Dragon]

This

Otherwise the above suggestions are fine. Nothing more to add.

[Grinner]

...I'd like a system in which inter-party conflict is possible...

It's worth pointing out that inter-party conflict isn't a result of the system. It's a result of the players when their goals conflict. Basically, it's your job to generate that conflict if you want it in the game.

[dsmiles]

As usual, I'll suggest RISUS, FATE and Fudge. Also, Amber Diceless is pretty fun.

[Knaight]

I've got a few to reccomend, and a few to steer you off of.
Reccomending:
Chronica Feudalis - This is, nominally, made for Medieval Europe. The underlying system is simple however, and with a handful of name changes you have a Mesoamerican setting well under way. It has subsystems for fights, chases, negotiations, and sneaking around, which makes it less combat focused than most, and is generally a good game.

Warrior, Rogue, and Mage - This works for a more D&D like feel, particularly if you use the Warrior, Rogue, and Scholar variant. It is reasonably lightweight, easy to learn, and easily tweaked towards particular settings.

Synapse - If you absolutely have to use something with a lot of rules, use this. Character building takes cultures into account in a very big way, mental statistics are handled extremely well (for once), and the social system is extremely well thought out, where it interacts heavily with the specific psychological desires of individual characters.
Steering Away From:
Fate, Fudge - I love both of these games, but both of them leave a lot up to the GM when it comes to game creation. With some practice, they're good games, but I wouldn't recommend getting into gaming with them.

D&D, Rolemaster, HERO, GURPS, Burning Wheel, World of Darkness - These all have needless amounts of crunch, and while there are those that like that, I wouldn't recommend them as starting games for that reason.

FATAL, Synnibar, Racial Holy War, Hybrid - Somebody is going to recommend one of these sarcastically at some point. They're all horrible, horrible blights on the human species, FATAL and Racial Holy War in particular. You want nothing to do with them.

[Rhydeble]

It's worth pointing out that inter-party conflict isn't a result of the system. It's a result of the players when their goals conflict. Basically, it's your job to generate that conflict if you want it in the game.

I'm just asking because I come from a video-game world, and if you take something like, say, most final fantasies. characters deal in the order of 8000 damage while only having 2000 hitpoints, which makes PvP downright impossible. There's also games like WoW, where PvE and PvP are nothing alike, while I'm looking for something more like GuildWars, were PvE is basically PvP against the computer with some extra stuff on special monsters.

I'm not really looking into systems for the fluff, because I'll probably throw it all out or mutilate it to fit into my setting.
For magic, I'd prefer a system with well-done "plain" combat, but I expect the movers and shakers of the world (including the PC's) to have acces to magical abilities. This can go from the basic anime-ish 'cut something with your sword from a distance' to the purely magical powers I want to give to the higher ranks of the priest-class.

[Lea Plath]

You now enter an intricante dance where you try to kill them and they try to break your system.

Marvel at how they use one of your NPCs to detect traps!
Weep at their rule lawyering of everything!
Devour all their snacks.

[Grinner]

I'm just asking because I come from a video-game world, and if you take something like, say, most final fantasies. characters deal in the order of 8000 damage while only having 2000 hitpoints, which makes PvP downright impossible. There's also games like WoW, where PvE and PvP are nothing alike, while I'm looking for something more like GuildWars, were PvE is basically PvP against the computer with some extra stuff on special monsters.

Oh, you meant martial conflict. Don't encourage that, for players often take things done to their characters very personally. Unless you all are playing the game for the express purpose of PvP, someone's just going to get pissed.

I had been thinking more along the lines of tension, where each player is given an objective and a reward but completing that would prevent other players from receiving the reward.

Or, in the realm of roleplaying, let's say each character as a goal central to him. It's his driving purpose. If your players are actually into RP, then setting up a similar scenario with their character goals will work wonderfully for inter-party conflict.

[Knaight]

Oh, you meant martial conflict. Don't encourage that, for players often take things done to their characters very personally. Unless you all are playing the game for the express purpose of PvP, someone's just going to get pissed.

I had been thinking more along the lines of tension, where each player is given an objective and a reward but completing that would prevent other players from receiving the reward.

Or, in the realm of roleplaying, let's say each character as a goal central to him. It's his driving purpose. If your players are actually into RP, then setting up a similar scenario with their character goals will work wonderfully for inter-party conflict.

There are cases where martial conflict can work - duels to first blood or whatever are fine, for certain settings. With that said, conflict that isn't martial works better, particularly when it comes to mutually exclusive desires and/or methodologies. Note that the players should know what's going on with these, even if their characters have absolutely no idea that anything is up.

Also, given the sudden focus on combat, video games, and anime, there's another suggestion: Anima Prime. It is a shonen anime/video game roleplaying game, it's available for free online (though the version with pictures costs 5 dollars or so), and it works well for your purposes. There's a little example fluff, but tossing it is effortless.

[Sutremaine]

Marvel at how they use one of your NPCs to detect traps!
Weep at their rule lawyering of everything!
Devour all their snacks.

Originally I read the last line as 'devour all the snacks' and thought it made a great haiku.

[Rhydeble]

I've been looking into this warrior, rogue, mage thing, and it looks like something I can use. The problem is just that I can't find anything about things like movement speeds or anything. (and, stupidly, the distances mentioned aren't in metric, which is an annoyance). Is it better to just wing it with these things, or should I map areas out on paper and giving everyone movement speeds and such?

[Grinner]

I've been looking into this warrior, rogue, mage thing, and it looks like something I can use. The problem is just that I can't find anything about things like movement speeds or anything. (and, stupidly, the distances mentioned aren't in metric, which is an annoyance). Is it better to just wing it with these things, or should I map areas out on paper and giving everyone movement speeds and such?

Many systems use the customary system. But don't let that discourage you. Just substitute in the closest equivalent (in this case, the meter).

WR&M was designed with freeform use in mind. To this end, the game uses the tried and true "winging it" method by default. If you feel the need to assign tactical speeds, by all means, go ahead and do so. In fact, having concrete rules tends to be easier for new players. That said, there isn't much benefit to doing so in WR&M, since all the other effects usually used with tactical movement speeds aren't ruled in.

I like FATE's method of handling movement. Instead of dividing the the area into a grid, it divides the area into zones which can be moved between instead.

Here's a suitable variant rule:

An area where combat is taking place should be organized into a set of zones. Moving from one zone to another costs a character one action. A character can touch anything within the same zone as itself.

[Dumbledore lives]

I'm going to recommend Legend which was created as a better, more balanced 3.5 by some members of the forum. It is fairly simple to learn, though some parts do kind of assume familiarity with 3.5 that you won't have, but most of it is explained well.

[Scowling Dragon]

To me personally, I find legends too simple. Its much more combaty, and its actually not that more balanced.

[dariathalon]

Usually I wouldn't recommend this to a group of beginning players (and especially a beginning GM), but I think it might fit for your group. My suggestion would be to at least consider GURPS. It is a complicated system compared to most of the other suggestions you've been given, but I think that a group of engineering students will probably appreciate this level of detail. Also, it has a lot of sourcebook support for what you're planning. I think the previous edition even had a sourcebook specifically designed to help with aztec style games. I don't think 4th ed. has done a book specifically on this yet, but I would expect various aspects of it to be found in books like GURPS Low-Tech.

The biggest problem you'll probably encounter with it is that it is a toolbox system. It has rules for everything from cavemen hunter-gatherer campaigns to spacefaring campaigns, from the grittiest of realism to superhumans and spellslingers. You, as the GM, would have to go through the options and build your world from them.

A bare-bones version of the rules (GURPS Lite) is available as a free pdf from steve jackson games' website. At least take a look at that document. If you decide you like it, the basic set consists of two books Characters and Campaigns, that you really should get before running a game. If you're looking for further material to draw from there are a lot of splat book possibilities to draw from.

[Rhydeble]

I've pretty much settled for starting out with WR&M, so now I'm preparing the world. I'm currently mapping out the continent the game will take place on, adding things like mountains, rivers, roads and villages, and writing little blurps about interesting locations, as much for myself as for the players. Right now i'm doing most of this in MSpaint and Word, are there any other ways to do this? Paint gives a nice overview of regions for myself, but the map doesn't become very... maplike.

Also, what do you guys and girls and not-otherwise-specifieds reckon is a better way to start. Should I give my players a specific quest at the beginning of the game (go there, clear out this and that dungeon and return with the macguffin), should I give them a more general goal (defeat the centaur tribes), or should I just let them loose upon the world and see what interests them (and hope its an area I've fleshed out a bit).

[Siegel]

me and a couple of buddies (we're university kids of around 20 years old) want to try out an RPG, and I've volunteered to DM. I already have the beginning of a worldsetting in my mind (heavily aztec inspired) and was wondering what a good system would be to play with. We're probably going to be big on roleplaying, and I want to have the freedom to homebrew the setting and everything. What kind of system can you guys reccomend me.

If you are not to focused on the setting you could try out Lady Blackbird. It's space opera and a easy beginner system for a short campaign (3-5 sessions).
It's free. It would be good just to get your feed wet for GMing.

[Knaight]

Also, what do you guys and girls and not-otherwise-specifieds reckon is a better way to start. Should I give my players a specific quest at the beginning of the game (go there, clear out this and that dungeon and return with the macguffin), should I give them a more general goal (defeat the centaur tribes), or should I just let them loose upon the world and see what interests them (and hope its an area I've fleshed out a bit).

Get the players to come up with a goal of their own, and focus on that. Once that's under wraps, see about introducing goals for specific players, that don't necessarily align perfectly. Within that, start in the middle of some conflict.

[Sutremaine]

Should I give my players a specific quest at the beginning of the game (go there, clear out this and that dungeon and return with the macguffin), should I give them a more general goal (defeat the centaur tribes), or should I just let them loose upon the world and see what interests them (and hope its an area I've fleshed out a bit).

If you have an area fleshed out and they decide to ignore it in favour of a part of the map with nothing planned, you could transfer some of the fleshed-out area into the blank one and then rewrite the bits you've transferred out. In the case of a planned town being ignored in favour of another that's only a name on the world map, you could transfer the whole map plus any guilds or characters who operate only within the town.

A really short 'go there, do this, come back' quest would probably be a good starting point, if only to get everyone settled into the rhythm of playing a game. If the players would rather be playing in a sandbox, it won't take too long to get off the quest-imposed rails. If they like well-defined goals, they can go find another quest. If they're interested in where their starting quest fits in the wider world, it can be written into an overarching plot.

[Stubbazubba]

I've pretty much settled for starting out with WR&M, so now I'm preparing the world. I'm currently mapping out the continent the game will take place on, adding things like mountains, rivers, roads and villages, and writing little blurps about interesting locations, as much for myself as for the players. Right now i'm doing most of this in MSpaint and Word, are there any other ways to do this? Paint gives a nice overview of regions for myself, but the map doesn't become very... maplike.

Also, what do you guys and girls and not-otherwise-specifieds reckon is a better way to start. Should I give my players a specific quest at the beginning of the game (go there, clear out this and that dungeon and return with the macguffin), should I give them a more general goal (defeat the centaur tribes), or should I just let them loose upon the world and see what interests them (and hope its an area I've fleshed out a bit).

Contrary to some of my fellow posters, I'd recommend giving them a clear, specific thing to do for their first time playing a pen-and-paper game. It will be totally familiar to them since they have video game experience and let's you figure out the system without having to also figure out how the game is played at the same time. Then move to a more-and-more open-ended format until you find a sweet spot between sandbox (totally open, players entirely responsible for making their own goals) and railroad (player goals irrelevant, GM's plot is all-important).

The system you've chosen is probably good, but there's a homebrew system on here that's a lot like it which I like a lot, let me see...here it is. Either way, yeah, as engineering majors, you guys can take anything, complexity-wise. Unfortunately, more complex systems don't always mean you have more or better options; they often mean that it's an imbalanced, untested piece of junk made out of a bunch of independently good ideas, which, when stapled together, are quite a bit less than the sum of their parts. But a streamlined yet crunchy system is always good.

[Knaight]

Unfortunately, more complex systems don't always mean you have more or better options; they often mean that it's an imbalanced, untested piece of junk made out of a bunch of independently good ideas, which, when stapled together, are quite a bit less than the sum of their parts. But a streamlined yet crunchy system is always good.

This can also be a problem in simple systems, such as Savage Worlds.

[Ghost49X]

What type of progression are you looking for your players?
are you looking for something where you "Level up" and higher level characters are always better than lower levels or do you want something open ended where people spend xp or karma on stats to increase them making a begining character who specializes in a combat better (in combat) than a character who focused on social skills.
The 2nd system type tends to steer players away from gaining xp in itself as a goal and you can still have a balanced group where some characters are more or less experienced than others.

I find it easier to assign individual xp in the 2nd system type where as the
1st system type I usually assign shared group xp (it really sucks when people get ahead and there forms a substancial gap in power between people)