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

[GentlemanVoodoo]

Am I alone in thinking this?

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

[Lord Raziere]

There are still more games outside those.

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

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

Okay.

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

[Rynjin]

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

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

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

It works.

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

[Pex]

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

[MrStabby]

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

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

[Anonymouswizard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vahnavoi]

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

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

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

[Anonymouswizard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vahnavoi]

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

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

[Imbalance]

Perhaps the advice should go further:

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

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

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

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

Ha! I feel your pain. Kinda sorta.

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

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

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

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

[Thrudd]

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

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

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

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

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

[Easy e]

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

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

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

Yes.

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

Not necessarily.

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

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

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

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

[LibraryOgre]

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

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

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

[Anonymouswizard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Quertus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Thrudd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

[LibraryOgre]

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

I have a Savage Worlds hack, if you're interested. I've also done a bit more the with Matrix rules laid out there... I developed them for another game that's going nowhere right now.

[Lord Raziere]

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

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

[Mike_G]

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

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

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

[Anonymouswizard]

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

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

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

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

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

I have a Savage Worlds hack, if you're interested. I've also done a bit more the with Matrix rules laid out there... I developed them for another game that's going nowhere right now.

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

[Lord Raziere]

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

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

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

[Jay R]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yep. How much work something requires can vary tremendously. Usually, if I want ice cream, I just buy it. I remember as a kid having to mow a lawn for money first. There have even been a couple of times in my life when I needed to make ice cream myself (or rather, work with others to do so). So, yes, I have made ice cream -- mixing the cream, milk, sugar, and flavors, packing the ice with salt , and turning the hand crank over and over and over taking turns for a half hour. [I've never needed to open an ice cream parlor to have ice cream.]

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

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

[Thrudd]

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

The main point was to be open to try new things with your group, and they'll probably be more likely to try things you want to try- the friendly part is extra. But yeah, sorry, truly. I'm not saying to fake it - if it's impossible to express positivity or enthusiasm, it is extremely hard to make connections with people, and those connections are essential to getting what you want, sometimes. RPGs being social games that require interpersonal communications, it's just going to be harder all around for those of us who can't muster up the ability to be at least a little positive and friendly. That's the unfortunate truth.

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

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

[LibraryOgre]

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

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

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

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

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

[halfeye]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike_G]

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

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

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

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