Worst Tabletop RPG

[InvisibleBison]

Video games have multiple franchises known to the public, like Fortnite, Mario, Sonic, CoD, and other ones I'm not going to list. Even board games have a few more games known to the public, even if that's on.y 'Draughts, Chess, Monopoly, and Settlers of Catan'. Why are TTRPGs inherently limited to just one big name?

I think it's because TTRPGs require both a group of people and a significant time investment. Video games generally are either single-player or played with random people on the internet*, so being unable to personally find anyone who wants to play the game you want to play isn't going to limit your ability to play. Board game groups don't typically play exclusively one game for months on end, so agreeing to play a game that one person is excited about doesn't have all that great of an opportunity cost.

*Or so I understand, anyway. I don't actually play any multiplayer video games, so it's quite possible I'm mistaken about this.

[EggKookoo]

Video games have multiple franchises known to the public, like Fortnite, Mario, Sonic, CoD, and other ones I'm not going to list. Even board games have a few more games known to the public, even if that's on.y 'Draughts, Chess, Monopoly, and Settlers of Catan'. Why are TTRPGs inherently limited to just one big name?

RPGs have a certain amount of long-term investment. It's one thing to get together with your friends and choose to play Settlers instead of Monopoly. But you can't switch between RPGs so easily, and the nature of most such games is the end of one session teases the next. While it's true that videogames also don't tend to have a clear leader, MMORPGs do, and we all know what it is.

Google tried to steal people away from Facebook with Google+. Regardless of the quality of that service, it was going to struggle unless it could pull mass amounts of people from FB in a very short timeframe. People are on FB because people are on FB because "many other people on the same social network as me" is the value FB provides. At the same time, it's easier for Bing or GoDuckGo to pull people from Google as a search engine because there's no sense of commitment.

To say D&D prevents you from playing other games is nonsense. Other players prevent you from playing other games, because they're invested in D&D. It's one thing to find an alternative game that you prefer for XYZ reasons. If other people don't appreciate XYZ, it's a fallacy to pin the blame on what they do like.

[Quertus]

Also having a common language and popular icon is good (but wouldn't two or three be better?) so that is some benefit, how does that compare.

Well, WoD (Vampire, Mage, etc), Pathfinder, and 4e have all been up with or replaced D&D as the industry leader at times. So we can actually answer this question.

Granted, my answer for these particular usurpers is that no, it wasn't better, any more than quoting Avengers, Star Wars, Star Trek, Princess Bride, Simpsons, Willow, Buffy, the Gamers, *and* Monte Python during the game isn't better than just quoting Monte Python. But it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Yes. There's a mistaken (false?) premise going on here that if it weren't for TTRPG X (D&D), people would be spreading their time out playing lots of other games. But it doesn't work that way. People would just gravitate to the New Big Thing. So it's fair to blame D&D for being the Current Big Thing but that's mostly independent of its quality as a game. You're really complaining about how people flock to things, rather than the things themselves.

The problem is human nature? Not surprised. Just get rid of all the humans, and the RPG hobby will thrive! (Color blue to taste)

[Xervous]

I think it's because TTRPGs require both a group of people and a significant time investment. Video games generally are either single-player or played with random people on the internet*, so being unable to personally find anyone who wants to play the game you want to play isn't going to limit your ability to play. Board game groups don't typically play exclusively one game for months on end, so agreeing to play a game that one person is excited about doesn't have all that great of an opportunity cost.

*Or so I understand, anyway. I don't actually play any multiplayer video games, so it's quite possible I'm mistaken about this.

Really varies on the game type and player. Games designed around having a population of players will experience pains when population dwindles. This is usually equal parts low player density being stretched across too much digital real estate or the remaining population being an impenetrable fortress of veterans.

[Vahnavoi]

*Or so I understand, anyway. I don't actually play any multiplayer video games, so it's quite possible I'm mistaken about this.

It was and is a major multiplayer format to play on the same computer/console with friends, as is playing with your friends over the internet. Playing with random people is not at all popular now that the technology exists for selective playing. Even when playing with strangers, people utilize variety of match-making functions to play at their own skill level etc.

[noob]

I don't want to hang around with people who think more than one page is "too long" to read.

Any argument that "D&D is taking all my player's available game time so I hate it" is just as valid an argument for hating any other activity people might choose to pursue instead of TTRPGs. Video games, books, tv shows, movies, sports, hiking, date night, spending time with your kids, etc.

The Giant's 4e vs. 3e comic in Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tails ended up saying something very similar.

Maybe you do not want to hang around them but it would still increase rpgs popularity if somehow those people started playing rpgs.
And there is also people who are not that much extreme but which considers that 400 pages of rules is just way too much.

[King of Nowhere]

also, don't forget it takes a lot of time to learn an rpg well. I can play lots of videogames at a fairly high level of competence. i can't do that with rpg. it would take too much time to learn them, time that i need to share with my friends, so it's hard to come by (while i could learn a lot with a videogame in single player. technically i could learn a lot of an rpg by reading the manuals, but really, i've done enough studying during my university years and i'm not looking forward to more).
so, while i'm absolutely certain that some of the dozens upon dozens of systems out there i could enjoy more than d&d, it is too unpractical to actually find them. i'd have to learn all those dozens first, and then find the few i could enjoy.
because there would be a point if there was a great game that was better, but i don't think anyone would agree here.

[Glorthindel]

Its the DM's curse; we are forever doomed to run the games we want to play, and play in the games we don't.

Unless you happen to luck into a group that loves a particular system, or have a game that is well enough known (I don't struggle as much with WFRP and Dark Heresy as I do with Shadowrun, as Warhammer/40k are well enough known, especially as I live only a couple of miles from the HQ in Nottingham), odds are, the only way you will get other people willing to play it, is by bringing it to them, and running it yourself, and then you are not getting to play.

In all my years, I have seen exactly one situation where a DM ran a system at another players request (it was me - one of my long time players bought the system and donated me the books to run, so he could play in it. Even with the best will in the world, we didn't get beyond 4/5 sessions)

[Satinavian]

Its the DM's curse; we are forever doomed to run the games we want to play, and play in the games we don't.

Unless you happen to luck into a group that loves a particular system, or have a game that is well enough known (I don't struggle as much with WFRP and Dark Heresy as I do with Shadowrun, as Warhammer/40k are well enough known, especially as I live only a couple of miles from the HQ in Nottingham), odds are, the only way you will get other people willing to play it, is by bringing it to them, and running it yourself, and then you are not getting to play.

In all my years, I have seen exactly one situation where a DM ran a system at another players request (it was me - one of my long time players bought the system and donated me the books to run, so he could play in it. Even with the best will in the world, we didn't get beyond 4/5 sessions)

What i have done a couple of times is start a group with a system i like and an agreement of rotating GMs. It is not bad if at first people who know the system run it but eventually everyones turn comes.

[Telok]

What i have done a couple of times is start a group with a system i like and an agreement of rotating GMs. It is not bad if at first people who know the system run it but eventually everyones turn comes.

That's what I'm planning on doing after the plague dies down. Recruit, teach, swap DMing. I expect it to be about a year after I recruit to get to actually play. About a year long run being normal for my campaigns. That and I found out how to write dice rollers and random table generators into pdfs, so I'll be tacking those onto pdfs of the rule books.

Interestingly I've found that many systems can have the player rules & game actions compressed to a sheet or two. This is the actual stuff a player needs to understand and use their character sheet & in game options, because "tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you what to roll" leaves out a lot in many systems. Generally with 2 sheets and a pregen character I can get people running in almost any game.

[Delta]

What i have done a couple of times is start a group with a system i like and an agreement of rotating GMs. It is not bad if at first people who know the system run it but eventually everyones turn comes.

My problem is that I really dislike groups with rotating DMs. For several reasons I've never had a really enjoyable time with those, so I try to avoid that.

[Vahnavoi]

also, don't forget it takes a lot of time to learn an rpg well.

It takes a long time to learn anything well, but it doesn't take a long time to learn a game sufficiently to have fun with it. The idea that tabletop RPGs are huge timesinks is why quickstarts scenario design contests became a thing: to test if it's possible to design a game you can set up and play fifteen minutes after you've picked it up. And it is. Now the idea just needs to be spread into the general consciousness, first of existing roleplayers, then people in general.

---

Its the DM's curse; we are forever doomed to run the games we want to play, and play in the games we don't.

Easy fix: run games you actually want to run, not the ones you want to play in.

[EggKookoo]

It takes a long time to learn anything well, but it doesn't take a long time to learn a game sufficiently to have fun with it. The idea that tabletop RPGs are huge timesinks is why quickstarts scenario design contests became a thing: to test if it's possible to design a game you can set up and play fifteen minutes after you've picked it up. And it is. Now the idea just needs to be spread into the general consciousness, first of existing roleplayers, then people in general.

If I were to tell my players I wanted to switch up from D&D to another game, they would be agreeable but they would also want to know why. Why do they need to learn a new system? What's the benefit? How is it better? I think that would only really work with the players I run games for if they already had serious issues with D&D and were asking to upgrade or try something new. Otherwise I'm saddled with the burden of selling this new game to a group of players who have spent a lot of time getting comfortable with what they have.

I mean, if they're happy with it, I'm happy with it. It's not like D&D is a bad game in and of itself, even if there are ones out there that are theoretically "better" (frankly I like it, even if I would change things here and there).

[Vahnavoi]

If your players are asking questions like that in context of quickplay scenarios, it shows they've not grokked the concept and are still thinking of RPGs as a timesink.

You don't, and don't need to, learn a system to play vast majority of such scenarios. The only person at the table who needs to know all the rules is the game master equivalent. You, as a player, only need to show up and play, with whatever rules you need to know learned as you play, similar to majority of board games and videogames.

The actual, relevant question for the player is: does the scenario sound interesting? Do I want to play a game about a class reunion, or hunting a dragon, or shooting up space aliens? Am I willing to commit for next 45 minutes to test this thing out?

None of these games have to be "better than D&D", they only need to do one thing people are usually not willing to do with D&D.

[Cluedrew]

Granted, my answer for [the] usurpers [that have happened] is that no, it wasn't better, any more than quoting Avengers, Star Wars, Star Trek, Princess Bride, Simpsons, Willow, Buffy, the Gamers, *and* Monte Python during the game isn't better than just quoting Monte Python.

You know its not that I don't believe you... its that I have no idea how I am even supposed to figure out where I fall on this matter. I mean I could go say something about it being easier to find a good quote but is that even relevant across the metaphor?

You know what for communication I'm going to say yes it is. I can describe the trouble-maker as a PC quest giver, but I'm not sure how I would discuss the financer character (a very useful role in the homebrew system I like to run) because it is dependent on a bunch of things that aren't in D&D. I mean I could discuss it, but it would take several sentences to get across an idea that feels on the same level as a many one word archetypes. So its not a big thing but it would be another tool.

So I guess while writing I changed my mind for communication. As applied to the popular icon I haven't had a revelation about how things fall.

[Quertus]

My problem is that I really dislike groups with rotating DMs. For several reasons I've never had a really enjoyable time with those, so I try to avoid that.

What were the issues? Bad GMPCs? Setting consistency? Let us know, and maybe we can help there, too.

You know its not that I don't believe you... its that I have no idea how I am even supposed to figure out where I fall on this matter. I mean I could go say something about it being easier to find a good quote but is that even relevant across the metaphor?

You know what for communication I'm going to say yes it is. I can describe the trouble-maker as a PC quest giver, but I'm not sure how I would discuss the financer character (a very useful role in the homebrew system I like to run) because it is dependent on a bunch of things that aren't in D&D. I mean I could discuss it, but it would take several sentences to get across an idea that feels on the same level as a many one word archetypes. So its not a big thing but it would be another tool.

So I guess while writing I changed my mind for communication. As applied to the popular icon I haven't had a revelation about how things fall.

I mean, I describe Quertus as a verbose, tactically inept academia mage… and *maybe* the word "mage" draws upon people's memories of the top RPGs.

So, while I won't deny that a larger pool of words and concepts is *generally* beneficial for communication purposes, I do question whether the "usurpers" actually added any significant value to the conversation (especially compared to, say, Angry's 8 types of fun, or the concept of a session 0, or point-buy, or other *completely different* systems).

For my example… eh, going in this direction, it's not terribly relatable / relevant. But I guess you could say, it is not *strictly* better to *have* to understand all those systems to understand my description of Quertus than for me to make a description that is solely dependent upon one system.

[noob]

Rotating gms can prevent each individual gm from playing with their strengths due to each of them knowing they will have to hand out the game to the next one.
ex: a gm that is good at making absurd scenarios would not add absurd elements to the rotating setting because they know that the next gm that is good at ecosystem simulation would not like it and then that gm will not go too much in detail about the ecosystem because they fear it might interact with the plans of the next gm that is good at cop investigation scenarios and then in the end none of them do anything interesting by fear of messing the job of the next gm.

[Vahnavoi]

Rotating GMs work fine when each GM has their own game and each GM actually wants to run a game.

Issues with rotating GMs are born mainly from two things:

1) Too many cooks for one soup - the situation described by noob, above, where people are taking turns trying to run the same campaign in the same setting. It's the same problem you sometimes see in freeform: when no single person has real final say over how the game is run, the process of reaching consensus overtakes actually doing things in the game and no longer produces results that'd be enjoyable to anyone.

2) Everybody wants to play; nobody wants to run a game. This is the problem rotating GMs are often supposed to solve, but it's an awful solution. You don't get great games or energetic GMing if all the people involved see GMing as a chore that they have to do to give someone else a chance to play.

[Cluedrew]

To Quertus: I have a theory (or hypothesis because I just thought of it and haven't done anything to test it) that to get the benefits of different "languages" the languages have to be different from each other. There are some rather significant differences in setting and actual mechanics, so we got more from Shadowrun than from Pathfinder (given we already had D&D). A lot of the big systems have the same design philosophy* so there are some things that you might not have a "word" for even if you have played all the usurpers.

* I'm not entirely sure how to describe it, but there is some very different ideas behind the rules in Dungeons & Dragons and Apocalypse World. And sometimes you can tell someone doesn't understand that difference.

To Vahnavoi: The second one was my guess, but I got to ask, is the consensus in freeform roleplaying actually a problem you've had? Because I have done freeform roleplaying and... it never was an issue. But I have seen it repeated elsewhere and I realized I don't know if we were just lucky or maybe people are overestimating how big the problem could be.

[Telok]

* I'm not entirely sure how to describe it, but there is some very different ideas behind the rules in Dungeons & Dragons and Apocalypse World. And sometimes you can tell someone doesn't understand that difference.

Genera-in-mechanics?

Like how superhero systems don't track "wealth" like dungeon crawl resource management games do and it gets weird when supers pcs start trying to loot all the mooks and sell stuff to "buy better guns". There are certain expectations of playstyle in different games that cause issues when the players or dms don't understand that.

The d&d-likes expect looting, buying gear upgrades, and a sort of fantasy of "Wild West rough justice" where the heroes ride into town, kill some bad guys, get a parade, and ride off to the next adventure. Play CoC game that way and it doesn't work out. Even in the default 1920s setting murder and arson tended to be disapproved of even if you did get the right people. Play a supers game that way having heroes with public personas killing everyone who throws a punch and trying to sell their cars on ebay... it starts to go off kilter pretty fast.

[Delta]

What were the issues? Bad GMPCs? Setting consistency? Let us know, and maybe we can help there, too.

Since it's an inherent issue I'm rather confident you cannot. The thing I like most about ongoing campaigns is the ongoing part, having the same (or at least a moderately consistent) group of characters go through a consistent campaign spanning multiple sessions and adventures.

In my experience, that just isn't possible with rotating GMs, at least, in my experience, it just doesn't work. It ends up being not much fun for me as a GM to run (since I don't enjoy running one shot adventures much) and not much more fun playing either (since there just isn't a consistently developing campaign)

[Quertus]

Since it's an inherent issue I'm rather confident you cannot. The thing I like most about ongoing campaigns is the ongoing part, having the same (or at least a moderately consistent) group of characters go through a consistent campaign spanning multiple sessions and adventures.

In my experience, that just isn't possible with rotating GMs, at least, in my experience, it just doesn't work. It ends up being not much fun for me as a GM to run (since I don't enjoy running one shot adventures much) and not much more fun playing either (since there just isn't a consistently developing campaign)

Consistent characters is trivially easy with a rotating GM.

Why do you feel that a rotating GM setup cannot deliver a consistent campaign through multiple adventures? This might help evaluate whether it's possible / how to accomplish it if it is.

For example, what if you ran through a series of modules - a group of highly connected adventures - but each was run by a different GM? Would that fail to meet your criteria, and, if so, how?

To Quertus: I have a theory (or hypothesis because I just thought of it and haven't done anything to test it) that to get the benefits of different "languages" the languages have to be different from each other. There are some rather significant differences in setting and actual mechanics, so we got more from Shadowrun than from Pathfinder (given we already had D&D). A lot of the big systems have the same design philosophy* so there are some things that you might not have a "word" for even if you have played all the usurpers.

* I'm not entirely sure how to describe it, but there is some very different ideas behind the rules in Dungeons & Dragons and Apocalypse World. And sometimes you can tell someone doesn't understand that difference.

I can't believe that I'm about to side with echo chambers, but… while I *wholeheartedly* agree in the value of diversity of perspective, there is *also* value in talking to someone who holds 99% of your views about why they differ on that last 1%.

So… I think that you need both. I think that there are *different* lessons to learn from "nearly the same" and from "completely different".

And for communication, "D&D, but without XP", or "D&D, but horror" could, IMO, add more value to the conversation than the usurpers have.

But, yes, I think that vastly different systems would add more - if not the same - things to the conversation.

[Mr Beer]

Its the DM's curse; we are forever doomed to run the games we want to play, and play in the games we don't.

Ha ha, yes, this cuts pretty deep.

[Satinavian]

Since it's an inherent issue I'm rather confident you cannot. The thing I like most about ongoing campaigns is the ongoing part, having the same (or at least a moderately consistent) group of characters go through a consistent campaign spanning multiple sessions and adventures.

In my experience, that just isn't possible with rotating GMs, at least, in my experience, it just doesn't work. It ends up being not much fun for me as a GM to run (since I don't enjoy running one shot adventures much) and not much more fun playing either (since there just isn't a consistently developing campaign)

Consistent group is easy. That feels a bit like the 80s/90s TV series where each episode has a closed plot that the protagonists tackle.

Consistent campaign is hard. But you can still do that with rotating GMs, you just have to expand the period each one is GM. There is not actually a need to switch each session or each second session, you can easily switch only after a couple of months, if your table is stable enough.

[Vahnavoi]

To Vahnavoi: The second one was my guess, but I got to ask, is the consensus in freeform roleplaying actually a problem you've had? Because I have done freeform roleplaying and... it never was an issue. But I have seen it repeated elsewhere and I realized I don't know if we were just lucky or maybe people are overestimating how big the problem could be.

It's an occasional problem. It comes up in freeform context because it's a pitfall of consensus decision making, and in absence of a distinct leader some freeform groups strive for consensus.

It doesn't occur in every game - chiefly, I don't see it happening much in games where everyone's mainly concerned with doing their own thing and there is no strong desire for continuity or central plot. That's equivalent to rotating GMs where every GM has their own game.

[DrMartin]

To Quertus:
* I'm not entirely sure how to describe it, but there is some very different ideas behind the rules in Dungeons & Dragons and Apocalypse World. And sometimes you can tell someone doesn't understand that difference.

The way I personally draw this particular line, is between games that assume a rule 0 "the GM in the end decides, his word is law" vs games with the assumption that "the GM is just another player".

Another way to draw the divide is between games where the GM sets the difficulty of tasks and decides the result of the player's actions, VS games where the difficulty of a task and the chances of fail / success are player facing, and the GM has to figure out the reactions to the player's success or fail.

[Delta]

Consistent group is easy. That feels a bit like the 80s/90s TV series where each episode has a closed plot that the protagonists tackle.

Consistent campaign is hard. But you can still do that with rotating GMs, you just have to expand the period each one is GM. There is not actually a need to switch each session or each second session, you can easily switch only after a couple of months, if your table is stable enough.

Just to make it clear, I've tried this quite a few times, this is not a "I think this might be bad in my head", I know you can theoretically do a lot of things to make it work, but in my personal experience, it just does not. I've tried it, and it hasn't been fun, so now I try to avoid it.

I have no problems doing stuff like a player GMing a "side quest adventure" he wants to run during an ongoing campaign and stuff like that, but in my experience, if there isn't a "primary GM" of sorts, the result isn't a campaign I find enjoyable. And, more importantly, as I said, I do not like GMing myself in such a rotating setup, so again, instead of forcing a square peg in a round hole, I prefer to try and find games I know I'll at least potentially enjoy instead (which of course means GMing 80-90% of the time since hardly anyone else ever wants to run an ongoing campaign)

[Quertus]

In this thread's opposite number, the contention was made that 4e D&D did an excellent job of achieving its design goals. The counterpoint was raised that skill challenges were intended to get everyone to participate, but in addition to mistaking "rolling the dice" for "playing the game", by counting failures, the designers instead produced a system that strongly discouraged anyone not tied for "best bonus" from even thinking about touching the dice, and that this was about as hard as one could fail at meeting their design goals.

Then the conversation branched.

In one branch, it was contended that, eventually, after many failures, 4e developers actually produced a systems for skill challenges which actually encouraged the still not actually "playing the game" goal of getting everyone to roll dice by counting *time* instead of failures. But no citation could be given as to where this supposed change occurred.

In the other branch, Scion (1e) was brought up as failing harder, due to the exponential growth of its epic attribute bonuses. The claim was that this made it impossible for characters even one "tier" apart (in, say, accuracy vs dodge, or damage vs health) to meaningfully interact with one another. The opposed point of view was that this actually made things feel appropriately epic, forcing PCs to think about their approach. The counterpoint was that this was irrelevant, as Scion still failed against its stated goals, and did so worse than 4e skill challenges.

And a request was raised to move the discussion to the worst RPGs thread, which did not seem unreasonable for either branch of the conversation, so here we are.

[Kardwill]

And I need to go back to trying to convince people I know to play Unknown Armies/Paleomythic/Scion/whatever, I almost had a group together but one person can't play for personal reasons.

Then you've still got the same group, minus one player. :)
Which might not be a problem, since a lot of games don't have the "minimum group size because we need a healer" problem that D&D has. Really, I think 3 players and 1 DM is the perfect group size for character centered games like Fate, for example.

Unless there's a problem of "if X isn't there, then Y and Z won't play either"? It happens with some groups, and can be pretty frustrating when you try to "build" a table.

[Anonymouswizard]

In the other branch, Scion (1e) was brought up as failing harder, due to the exponential growth of its epic attribute bonuses. The claim was that this made it impossible for characters even one "tier" apart (in, say, accuracy vs dodge, or damage vs health) to meaningfully interact with one another. The opposed point of view was that this actually made things feel appropriately epic, forcing PCs to think about their approach. The counterpoint was that this was irrelevant, as Scion still failed against its stated goals, and did so worse than 4e skill challenges.

And a request was raised to move the discussion to the worst RPGs thread, which did not seem unreasonable for either branch of the conversation, so here we are.

Epic Attributes are incredibly broken, especially with certain knacks in play. They give automatic successes, which is fine at Hero level (you can have up to three ranks at this tier, which gives four successes, whereas you can roll up to ten dice). It would work just as thematically just to go to one automatic success per rank and recalculate dfficulties, it means that by mid-demigod levels you're beating a standard mortal without rolling any dice but would allow characters with one or two point differences to have decent chances of hitting.

Then there's Fate and Fatebinding. I tend to forget that this system even exists, because it fails and succeeds at it's goals in terrible ways. It's supposed to help create interesting stories with a range of archetypes, and it fails. It's also meant to help ensure that there are recurring characters, which it succeeds at. Horrifically.

If you spend Legend Points (your mana) then your target or a bystander might be fatebound to you. You rolls your Legend stat in dice needing (normally) five successes. Every successful roll lowers the difficulty by one success and causes one or more fatebindings of varying strength. Fatebindings go from 'active while in your presence for the next day' to 'all the time for literally eternity'. Not that the physical range on Fatebindings actually matters, it pretty much just determines how far away the affected mortal can walk while brainwashed. It gets worse, although the end result (gods can't do anything without risking a Fatebinding) is problematic.

You can also fatebind with another nonmortal, but this just means they'll show up again.

The end result is an unwieldy large cast of characters forced to act in particular ways.



EDIT: re. group, five people, with one's attendance being based on the dropped out player. So down to 2_GM, which nobody in the group wants.