What do you want most out of an RPG?

[gtwucla]

I want a good story and usually a good mystery. What is top priority for you?

[Professor Chimp]

Having a good time, obviously.

Whatever gives me a good time differs from rpg to rpg. Some I enjoy because they offer a lot of opportunity for great storytelling and roleplaying. Some I enjoy because the mechanics are really fun to play around with. Sometimes the fun comes from the interactions with your fellow players and having a good laugh. The very best games tend to have a well-balanced mix of all three.

[gtwucla]

Having a good time, obviously.

Sometimes I wonder if that is even dependent on the game I'm playing and it all comes down to who I'm playing with. Then I played Rifts...

[Anonymouswizard]

What is top priority for you?

From the game itself (as in, sitting down and playing it) or the rules system? I'm going to refer to the former as the 'game' and the latter as the 'system'.

From the game, as Professor Chimp says it's to have a good time. Although the system can influence whether this is true or not, this depends on the other players, especially the GM. The only truly awful games I've played in were both with the same GM, where the tried to stop us from planning because it didn't include enough combat (the second time was, because of how he had statted the zombies and all the points he had given us [which I sometimes had trouble spending] if we had been able to get to where we wanted we'd have at least one fortress with production facilities [because we managed to rescue a backup generator], the first was when we were planning how to take on an enemy base in Deathwatch [I advocated scouting it out from a distance and blocking all the exits bar one] and were told we were just being dropped onto it in a drop pod*). Conversely, the best games I've been in have been with one of two GMs with very different styles, but are able to play the game as their players want to play (although my superhero is gaining villain points...).

For the system what I'm looking for is a simple and versatile set of rules that is able to adjust to the situation in game. Something I can memorise well enough that I can react to whatever crazy plan my players come up with.

* I could have worked with that, if we'd been dropped a mile away instead of right next door.

[DigoDragon]

Besides having fun (I mean that should go without saying, yes?) I think my personal top priority in an RPG is having NPCs that I get really invested into. Characters that I would care about and enjoy sitting around the kitchen chatting about in-world gossip as much as I enjoy them tagging along on an adventure.

[GrayDeath]

Gonna do it like anonymouswizard.

The Game: NonMorons to play with, good fodd/drink, and an enticing actual Game Exoerience (which for me usually means either a really good plot, very well made world or challenging ... well Challlenges, ideally all three).


From the System: that it fits the intended expoerience.
While I usually prefer the more detailed, more versatile approach, some really simple systems fit like a glove to say 30ies Pulp Fantasy or somesuch).
But generally speaking: the rules have to "click" when you look at them, the old "Easy to learn, difficult to master" analogy fits most systems I like (including 2 selfmade ones). They have to be (relatively) easy to use but offer lots of customization in Building and "improvement".

[Quertus]

A million dollars. Immortality. Truth. Love. Happiness. Protection from ennui.

Oh, wait - things a game can reasonably be expected to deliver? Hmmm....

The opportunity to roleplay a diverse array of personalities. To that end, the rules must not meddle in player choice in controlling their character.

The opportunity to spend time with, and build fond memories with, as many of my friends as possible. This actually necessitates several things. A few of them are that the game must be intuitive (sorry, 2e D&D, your combination of roll high / roll low / roll high without going over / etc mechanics are a failure in that regard), and that the game can't have a high price tag associated with competitive play.

And the game must have high replay value. Let's see... 5 hours a day, times 6 days a week is 30 hours per week. Times 50 weeks is 1500 hours per year. Times 100 years... Ok, I guess it is possible to spend a million hours gaming. I want a game that has that much replay value.

As to what I'd like to be doing? Eh, I'm a war gamer - killing stuff is fine. Although puzzles, exploring the world, and changing the world are fun, too. And exploring, to me, can be something as simple as a consistent rule to explore (like, say, trying to understand Shadow Run magic from within the game, without reading the rules). Also, achieving godhood (or some other, lesser goal) is nice, too.

[Professor Chimp]

good food/drink

... how could I have missed something as obviously essential as that?

So yeah, when playing a game, I expect there to be healthy helpings of chips, snacks, pizza and all the good stuff. And Coca Cola. The real stuff. No cola light or zero and certainly no pepsi.

Oh, and coffee for those late night marathon sessions.

[gtwucla]

... how could I have missed something as obviously essential as that?

So yeah, when playing a game, I expect there to be healthy helpings of chips, snacks, pizza and all the good stuff. And Coca Cola. The real stuff. No cola light or zero and certainly no pepsi.

Oh, and coffee for those late night marathon sessions.

Mine's usually a bag of salt and vinegar chips and at least 3 pints of good beer (for some reason I always drink almost that exact amount before someone announces that this is a good time to stop).

[Cernor]

I'm mostly a DM, so my experience playing is fairly limited. But if the phrase "DMs run the game they want to play" is true, I want to play in a game exploring exotic locations with lots of lore (mostly hints and clues, which can be investigated further), where the players are based at a location which grows as they adventure, while still being mechanically difficult (fights can be brutal, but scouting and preparation makes them less so). But also one in which choices matter: if you leave a problem to go do something else, that problem escalates.

In my limited experience playing, I want the DM to know the rules, focus on the PCs, and make a believable world. Having NPCs tailor-made to invalidate your actions rubs me the wrong way (in the last game I played in, we were fighting a reincarnated general: I disarmed him, and the DM's response was "well he can teleport his swords back to his hands, despite no prior evidence he was magical"), as do worlds that fall apart if you look at them funny (the "because plot" excuse: anything, no matter how ridiculous, is supposed to make sense if the DM says it does).

[Jay R]

Immersion. I don't want to play the rules; I want to slay the dragon, save the planet, or out-duel the Cardinal's Guards.

I want to spend as little time as possible thinking about rules minutiae at the table, so I can be in the mindset of the Ranger, the superhero, or the musketeer.

There are several ways to achieve this. Original D&D was so simple that you didn't have to think about the rules. Tell the DM what you wanted to try, and he decided how likely it was. By contrast, building a 3.5e character is pretty complicated, but once I'm at the table, if I review the rules for his options in advance, I can just use the feats and abilities.

Flashing Blades has a set of rules that allows the musketeer flavor to come through, including five different dueling styles, character classes that are actually about class (Noble, Gentleman, Rogue, etc.) and additional options like Secret Loyalty, Contact, Inveterate Gambler, Code of Honor, and other period-appropriate Advantages and Secrets.

I have no problem spending lots of prep time dealing with rules. in fact, I rather enjoy it. That's one of the reasons I like Champions and other Hero Systems games. I can spend hours fiddling with the details of advantages and limitations on powers, so I can develop the unique ability I want. I can develop a unique power "Teleport 5", requires an acrobatics skill roll, can change facing, must go through the intervening space," carefully working out the cost and details. Then at the table I don't think about the details, I just say, "I vault over my opponent''s head, turning a somersault with a half-twist, kicking him in the back of the head on the way down." [It's a half-move, followed by an attack.] After doing the careful mathematical prep work, I can get fully immersed in the character.

[gtwucla]

I'm mostly a DM, so my experience playing is fairly limited. But if the phrase "DMs run the game they want to play" is true, I want to play in a game exploring exotic locations with lots of lore (mostly hints and clues, which can be investigated further), where the players are based at a location which grows as they adventure, while still being mechanically difficult (fights can be brutal, but scouting and preparation makes them less so). But also one in which choices matter: if you leave a problem to go do something else, that problem escalates.

In my limited experience playing, I want the DM to know the rules, focus on the PCs, and make a believable world. Having NPCs tailor-made to invalidate your actions rubs me the wrong way (in the last game I played in, we were fighting a reincarnated general: I disarmed him, and the DM's response was "well he can teleport his swords back to his hands, despite no prior evidence he was magical"), as do worlds that fall apart if you look at them funny (the "because plot" excuse: anything, no matter how ridiculous, is supposed to make sense if the DM says it does).

To be honest, I think the question is even more relevant for DMs. Totally agree with the escalating problems and the need for believability.

[CharonsHelper]

As to the game system (since I'd just be repeating others as to players - besides to note that I hate cheaters and even GM fudging rubs me the wrong way) -

1. I like the system to have significant customization so that I can make my character my own mechanically as well as in story.

2. I like there to be solid balance between character types.

3. I like there to be substantial asymmetry between character types. (needless to say - difficult to combine with #2)

4. I like fleshed out worlds which are internally consistent and seem to fit the vibe of the mechanics. (I know that when OGL was new, many game systems tried to work with d20 and failed horribly.)

5. The mechanics should encourage cooperation and combos between players. It just feels so much cooler, and it helps with the feel of #2 even when one player of the combo is more potent.

6. Multiple things to do: Combat is fun (I was a wargamer before TTRPGs) but it should be liberally spiced with scouting, intrigue, talking, exploration etc.

[DeathToGazeebos]

I play for the action mostly. The chance to leave our safe bubble wrapped society behind for awhile and leap from chandeliers and into dragons mouths with weapons drawn.
I enjoy a game system that allows for creative and resourceful actions ESPECIALLY in combat. If the combat system doesn't realistically/reasonably accommodate an attempt to choke hold a guard into unconsciousness while using him as a human shield with out forcing me to take some bolted on afterthought feat type thing than the system is going to severely hamper my enjoyment (*cough* D&D *cough*). It's why I love me the GURPS and GURPS is why I love me some RPGing again.

[Anonymouswizard]

I thought I'd chip in again to explain what I like the game to include.

Characters should be competent, but not godlike. What I'm saying is that, taking D&D power levels, I like to be somewhere between level 3 and level 6. Skilled enough that people would ask me to solve problems, but not significantly above other people. The exception is in Superhero settings, where I just want to be slightly weaker than the villain of the week (or weak enough to have to put effort into solving the disaster).

Action should not be limited to combat. While I do like to bash in my opponent's face action can also be the PCs running around to solve the mystery, a heated debate over whether or not metahumans should be registered, a race to stop Evilman from getting the Crystal of MacGuffin to his boss, attempting to non-violently resolve a hostage situation, or a particularly heated game of chess.

I should be able to turn up to the game with my dice, screen, a folder of NPCs, and a starting point, and then run a successful game session. This means that I just can't run dungeon-based systems without a bit of homebrewing.

[AnBe]

I honestly have no idea what I want anymore

[gtwucla]

I play for the action mostly. The chance to leave our safe bubble wrapped society behind for awhile and leap from chandeliers and into dragons mouths with weapons drawn.
I enjoy a game system that allows for creative and resourceful actions ESPECIALLY in combat. If the combat system doesn't realistically/reasonably accommodate an attempt to choke hold a guard into unconsciousness while using him as a human shield with out forcing me to take some bolted on afterthought feat type thing than the system is going to severely hamper my enjoyment (*cough* D&D *cough*). It's why I love me the GURPS and GURPS is why I love me some RPGing again.

While I fall more on Anonymouswizard's playstyle I also like flexibility in my combat options not tied to things like feats. On the flip side of uber action, how important is risk to you? Would you rather be able to accomplish fantastic things like jumping from chandeliers and such most the time (idea being an emphasis on character creation and game flexibility) or would you rather be able to do what you can normally do most the time but when you go for the chandelier jump into the dragon's mouth do you want a big risk of failure (idea being it makes victory all the more sweet) or something else? Just curious.

[Knitifine]

Tabletop RPGs are just vehicles for collaborative storytelling. So what's most important is that the DM and players (whichever side of the table I fall on) produce a quality story.

[Dienekes]

A fun time, is the big answer. Usually this involves an interesting story that my character (and everyone else in the group) can influence in some way. Things I have to think about, puzzles, they don't have to be real obvious 'figure out this puzzle to open the door', but perhaps trying to walk the tightrope of a political drama where you have to piece together the clues on who can be trusted is a pretty great puzzle if done right.

Now, if the game is combat heavy, I usually respond more to games that have complexity in their melee or un-powered combat. Nothing is more boring than saying "I attack" or "I power attack" every round. Figuring out when to feint, parry, where to strike, how you can dodge, and that sort of stuff is usually way more interesting to me.

[Durzan]

I like games that flow fluidly, and games that I can tweak without breaking too much. And for the most part I seem to be starting to get the hang of how to do that in Pathfinder and Wheel of Time D20.

As far as the kind of game? Well, thats kinda hard for me to figure out, as I like a little bit of everything, and I am still trying to figure out just what my play style actually is as a GM.

I tend to use dungeoneering D20 3.X systems for anything but straight up dungeon crawls. So, A little bit of fun and interesting combat, a dash of diplomacy, a touch of puzzles, a spoonful of colorful characterization & pop-culture references, and a nice helping of suspense with a surprise twist on top, just to top it off. Thats my recipe, or what I aim for as a DM.

[Fri]

What define a tabletop RPG for me is chances to use skills/powers in out of the box and unorthodox way. Like, using ice spell to freeze a river so the party can cross, using architecture degree to understand where to put bomb in the evil overlord lair to destroy it completely, or using illusion to cover a big hole on the ground and lure the undestructible minotaur toward it. Things like that.

[DodgerH2O]

As a DM/GM: I want my players to creatively surprise me on a regular basis. It doesn't have to be plot-derailing or epic, just clever tactics against an opponent or novel solution to a problem work.

As a player: I want a believable world that I can try to immerse myself in and a group of friendly people to explore the world with.

[GnomishPride]

In an ideal system, I'd like:

1) the ability to customize my character to a great degree

2) diversity and balance between characters

3) immersion

4) intuitive and accurate mechanics

5) the ability to do really cool things

6) the ability to apply creativity and cleverness to a situation in order to produce the desired result, rather than just number comparison and luck

7) dynamic, flexible, and interesting combat and social interaction

In an ideal game, I'd prefer:

1) a variety of people at the table

2) a DM who is willing and able to work with the players in order to create a great game

3) the ability to play for hours at a time for many consecutive weeks

4) character development

[Kelb_Panthera]

I want from a TTRPG the same thing I want from any complex game; interesting problems to solve with the game's tool-set.

[Cluedrew]

Beside the obvious and the indescribable:

A fast resolution system. And not just single rolls, the entire mechanical side of the game should be over and down with quickly so we can get back to moving the story/plot/character along.

I like there to be enough mechanics to describe the situation and my character, but not a whole lot more than that. Related, I think there should be mechanics for the setting as a whole itself. If it has a gimmick it should come up as part of the rule set.

Low preparation time is nice. For when the plot takes an unexpected turn.

I want a game that takes me away to a fantastic place. Systems tied to settings can do this well, but it isn't always needed.

And probably others I'm not thinking of right now.

[bulbaquil]

For the system:

1. An immersive, consistent world, where I actually feel like I exist there and can respond to the world as such, and be responded to in kind according to the lore set up by the GM. (Meaning, yes, if I am a dwarf and the city is racist against dwarves, then NPCs should behave in a prejudiced manner towards me.)

2. A good story and immersive plot. I want to feel like what I'm doing matters.

3. Tactical combat that employs the surrounding terrain and environment (including weather). I'm tired of fighting on featureless blank grids.

4. To be clearly more powerful than a commoner, but not so powerful as to be a demigod or so as to be immune from such things as disease, guard posts, terrain impediments, or the like - at any level.

5. Risk! Only trivialities should be a guarantee, and no amount of planning or prep work should completely obviate the possibility that things will go wrong (though it should make it less likely). This especially applies to spellcasting, which should always have a chance of failure and possible backlash. To that end, I like games that employ both attack and defense rolls, as it makes combat more intense.

6. Humans as a playable race. This is mandatory.

For the game:

1. To reliably have at least four players plus the GM every session. (Three is pushing it.)

2. A fair GM who knows the rules but also knows when to break or ignore the rules, and when to shoot down obvious attempts to game the system.

3. Players who know and can keep the difference between in- and out-of-character, and who won't try to push their personal causes in-game (unless doing so also makes sense in-game).

4. Trust between the players and GM.

5. Respect for my out-of-game time. The only thing I should be asked to do out-of-game regarding my character is creation and leveling.

[Quertus]

For the system:

1. An immersive, consistent world, where I actually feel like I exist there and can respond to the world as such, and be responded to in kind according to the lore set up by the GM. (Meaning, yes, if I am a dwarf and the city is racist against dwarves, then NPCs should behave in a prejudiced manner towards me.)

2. A good story and immersive plot. I want to feel like what I'm doing matters.

3. Tactical combat that employs the surrounding terrain and environment (including weather). I'm tired of fighting on featureless blank grids.

4. To be clearly more powerful than a commoner, but not so powerful as to be a demigod or so as to be immune from such things as disease, guard posts, terrain impediments, or the like - at any level.

5. Risk! Only trivialities should be a guarantee, and no amount of planning or prep work should completely obviate the possibility that things will go wrong (though it should make it less likely). This especially applies to spellcasting, which should always have a chance of failure and possible backlash. To that end, I like games that employ both attack and defense rolls, as it makes combat more intense.

6. Humans as a playable race. This is mandatory.

For the game:

1. To reliably have at least four players plus the GM every session. (Three is pushing it.)

2. A fair GM who knows the rules but also knows when to break or ignore the rules, and when to shoot down obvious attempts to game the system.

3. Players who know and can keep the difference between in- and out-of-character, and who won't try to push their personal causes in-game (unless doing so also makes sense in-game).

4. Trust between the players and GM.

5. Respect for my out-of-game time. The only thing I should be asked to do out-of-game regarding my character is creation and leveling.

Consistent, what you're doing matters, good players - I can totally get behind that.

Trust is something that should be built, earned. Most of my GMs - and a lot of my players - have done the opposite. I'll lump this under wanting good players.

Superman ignores "disease, guard posts, terrain impediments, or the like". So... I can accept that we don't like the same games in this regard.

But I can't wrap my head around your B5, "Respect for my out-of-game time.". Do you mean that you want a game that involves 0 prep work / 0 learning curve? Do you mean that you want a game that has no downtime activities? Do you mean that you want a game that does not reward / require planning? Or, more likely, do you mean something I just haven't thought of? And, can you give examples of ways this desire has failed to be met in the past?

[bulbaquil]

Superman ignores "disease, guard posts, terrain impediments, or the like". So... I can accept that we don't like the same games in this regard.

Yeah, I'm not much of a supers-level player. In D&D I start getting skittish once levels hit two digits.

But I can't wrap my head around your B5, "Respect for my out-of-game time.". Do you mean that you want a game that involves 0 prep work / 0 learning curve? Do you mean that you want a game that has no downtime activities? Do you mean that you want a game that does not reward / require planning? Or, more likely, do you mean something I just haven't thought of? And, can you give examples of ways this desire has failed to be met in the past?

I mean that, as a player, I do not want to be compelled to keep an in-character journal, have private side sessions, or in any way be required to behave in-character outside of game time, except possibly at the very beginning or when introducing a new character to make sure it meshes properly. Downtime activities and planning are in-character activities, and should ideally be done during the session itself. (Now, I usually don't mind chatting with other players out-of-game, which naturally tends to lead to a bit of IC banter and/or planning, but this is voluntary should not be treated as a requirement for success in the game.)

Learning a new system, character creation, leveling up, etc. are meta-activities and take place at the player level, not the character level. Same goes for things like having XP/loot/etc. doled out after the session - it's just a small character sheet adjustment - and discussing rescheduling or postponement of the game, that's a player-level discussion And if I am GM'ing, of course I expect to spend a considerable amount of out-of-game time doing prep work.

[Psikerlord]

I mostly want...

1. Quick combat with cool/memorable moments.
2. Sandbox style adventures, where the PCs can roam free and make their own stories.

[Vrock_Summoner]

I like systems that give me the option of making all the PCs special snowflakes without making it mandatory. Exalted does well with this, though it can be crap in several other ways, particularly in regards to 2e.

It's rare because it's a very difficult thing to pull off, but I pretty automatically have an affinity for any game that can do "limited-use superpowered transformation" characters with anything resembling balance. Getting those tropes like the Super-Powered Evil Side and Dangerous Forbidden Technique (warning: TVTropes links). Double Cross did very nicely with it, and some god-based games try at it, but it's very rare to see done, much less done well.

Also characters of disparate specializations... The latter is my main gripe with 5e, which was almost worthy of being called "high D&D done right" (as opposed to AD&D-style "low D&D," done right by Basic Fantasy).

Spoiler

Show

"What's that, you'd like to multiclass casting classes with other things and still be competent enough to contribute? We heard about your kind from the 3.5 team, powergamer."

Please, sir, I'd just like my sneaky cleric back! Or even if you won't help me, at least let my sister have her Mystic Theurge! She's dying here!

"You want to multiclass so bad, then don't complain about sitting there and sucking at everything. That's the price you pay, unless you're a munchkin."

*cries self to sleep*

As for the game itself...

I always prioritize having a richly developed cast of NPCs with ever-complexifying relationships with the PCs, a reactive world with the players' decisions in a centrally driving position, and extremely thick but optionally-ingested lore. In general, I run pretty high-powered games - my current one is a Mutants & Masterminds game that started at power level 20 and is a few sessions away from breaking into 24 by now. This is excessive even by my normal standards, but the players are loving the universal (occasionally to the point of physics-altering) consequences of their actions, as well as the feeling of being pretty much the most important and essential good guys out there. The meta-setting is so intricately developed that it's relatively easy (albeit not quick) to extrapolate out what happens after the players make such momentous steps as creating new dimensions or altering aspects of physics.

That said, I admit I do these things because my group likes them, and they're fun for me as a GM, but I don't know if I would play in my own games.

The most important thing for me as a player is that I feel like I've earned something when I succeed. I like characters who are generally competent but way out of their league, in a system that can support things like that. My players love playing beings who make gods look puny, and I love enabling them and creating cosmic threats for them to deal with, but if I were on the other side of the screen, I'd much rather play Dark Souls: Tabletop Edition. (Complete with the undeath mechanics, mind.) I want pre-planning and hoarding to be basically essential, I want to need strategy, and I want to be scared out of my wits even with those advantages on my side.

Though even as a player, I prefer subtly woven lore and exploration to anything like a straightforward plot.