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

[Lord Raziere]

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.

But isn't even about being better! Its just different and actually interesting to me while DnD isn't! I'm not not interested in a superior DnD, I'm interested in something that isn't it at all. its like comparing apples and oranges, except everyone keeps eating apples and doesn't give oranges a try because they don't want to learn how to eat oranges, nevermind if either apples or oranges taste better or not.

[kyoryu]

But isn't even about being better! Its just different and actually interesting to me while DnD isn't! I'm not not interested in a superior DnD, I'm interested in something that isn't it at all. its like comparing apples and oranges, except everyone keeps eating apples and doesn't give oranges a try because they don't want to learn how to eat oranges, nevermind if either apples or oranges taste better or not.

And then you frequently get "you know, this 'orange' thing isn't very good at being an apple at all".

[Mechalich]

D&D is, generally, a highly complex and rules intensive TTRPG. Learning to play D&D, especially to play it well, takes a lot of effort. Many, probably the majority, of TTRPG players are low effort. They want a relaxing hobby that facilitates hanging out with friends and wacky hijinks, not an intensive experience in line with joining a chess club. This, I feel, is responsible for much of the resistance to switching from D&D - learning to play D&D is already more effort than many players are willing to put forward with regard to rules, character options, and so forth. When presented with a new system to learn, players also expect that learning it will take as much effect as learning to play D&D. This may or may not be true, but it is definitely the expectation.

Getting interest in a new system involves overcoming this effort barrier. For a huge percentage of players even if something would be awesome in a new system it's not worth the effort of learning that system, especially if it can be kludged together to operate using D&D at even 50% of its impact. Doubly so if the system is equally as complex or even more complex than D&D. Players are therefore most amenable to switching to new systems that are simple and easy to learn. One of the reasons for the oWoD's historic success is that, for all its many faults, this actually applies to its mechanics (the fluff, not so much).

[NRSASD]

D&D is, generally, a highly complex and rules intensive TTRPG. Learning to play D&D, especially to play it well, takes a lot of effort. Many, probably the majority, of TTRPG players are low effort. They want a relaxing hobby that facilitates hanging out with friends and wacky hijinks, not an intensive experience in line with joining a chess club. This, I feel, is responsible for much of the resistance to switching from D&D - learning to play D&D is already more effort than many players are willing to put forward with regard to rules, character options, and so forth. When presented with a new system to learn, players also expect that learning it will take as much effect as learning to play D&D. This may or may not be true, but it is definitely the expectation.

Getting interest in a new system involves overcoming this effort barrier. For a huge percentage of players even if something would be awesome in a new system it's not worth the effort of learning that system, especially if it can be kludged together to operate using D&D at even 50% of its impact. Doubly so if the system is equally as complex or even more complex than D&D. Players are therefore most amenable to switching to new systems that are simple and easy to learn. One of the reasons for the oWoD's historic success is that, for all its many faults, this actually applies to its mechanics (the fluff, not so much).

I think you hit the nail on the head with that. Of my 20 or so players I can call on, I can think of 4 who would be willing to play another system besides D&D. The other 16 would be willing to try a one shot, but only because they trust me personally, not out of any interest on their part. Additionally, these folks aren't that interested in mechanics. They're happy to dig around and root about with the D&D systems and think strategically or tactically, but none of them would qualify as optimizers when it comes to character building. And I think therein lies the problem; D&D 5E is "good enough" and familiar. Why learn a new system?

[oxybe]

This is what makes me happy to have the group I do have: we have no compulsion to be stuck to one system. Honestly our problem is sticking to one game.

We just got off 2 one-shots of the Alien TTRPG and between those one-shots was 2-3 sessions of MorkBorg, we're currently trying Starfinder for a one-shot since the Alien GM's friend came in from out of town for a month and wanted to run something in person, we'll likely be playing a one-shot of the Witcher TTRPG once the Starfinder one-shot is done. Before Alien was the 5e derivative of Adventures in Middle Earth. We played a few months of CoC a couple years back. After the Witcher we haven't fully decided but AD&D 2e, Blades in the Dark, The GI Joe TTRPG, the Blood & Honor WH40K RPG and Symbaroum were all tossed around as ideas.

Honestly if anything we've gained an appreciation for a more curated game experience through these last years. Yeah we could force something like 5e to do something it's really not meant to do, but we've had a lot of fun with these different and more focused games.

[KorvinStarmast]

D&D is, generally, a highly complex and rules intensive TTRPG.

When 5e came out in 2014 it was less so than it is now. And compared to AD&D 1e, it was very low maintenance.

Learning to play D&D, especially to play it well, takes a lot of effort. Many, probably the majority, of TTRPG players are low effort. They want a relaxing hobby that facilitates hanging out with friends and wacky hijinks, not an intensive experience in line with joining a chess club.

We have a winner. that is my experience as well.

[Mechalich]

When 5e came out in 2014 it was less so than it is now. And compared to AD&D 1e, it was very low maintenance.

5e is certainly lower complexity than many other editions of D&D. However, it is still a fairly complex and mechanically intensive TTRPG overall. Also and importantly, other editions of D&D (and I count Pathfinder as an edition of D&D) that are much more complex are still played and retain significant market share in the US. 3.5 and PF and their variants still see a lot of play. They also represent a lot of the 'why don't we just D&D this' conversation. Because of the OGL there are a significant number of games that utilize what is still fundamentally the d20 system and require minimal effort for D&D players to learn.

[Eldan]

There's a reason that I always start newbies out on some kind of FATE accelerated variant. Ten minutes to explain all the rules, five minutes to make a character.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

There's a reason that I always start newbies out on some kind of FATE accelerated variant. Ten minutes to explain all the rules, five minutes to make a character.

No, disagree strongly here. It's taken me hours of discussion and questions to explain FATE Accelerated to players, and it's still something that some people just cannot get their head around.
I think that comes down to the meta-game being an overt part of the game - it doesn't work well for some people: in my experience, especially people who have never played RPGs.

And I like FATE. I just can't get a gaming group to work with it. D&D is far easier to explain: You have these numbers that say how capable you are, you have this equipment, you tell the GM what you want to do, and they'll ask you to roll this die and add those numbers.

[Anonymouswizard]

There's a reason that I always start newbies out on some kind of FATE accelerated variant. Ten minutes to explain all the rules, five minutes to make a character.

To be fair explaining Fate goes a lot better when you're dealing with actual newbies. If they've played D&D it requires them to do a LOT of unlearning because the core assumptions are so different.

If I got a group of newbies I think I'd start with FAE before moving onto something like Paranoia.

[Eldan]

No, disagree strongly here. It's taken me hours of discussion and questions to explain FATE Accelerated to players, and it's still something that some people just cannot get their head around.
I think that comes down to the meta-game being an overt part of the game - it doesn't work well for some people: in my experience, especially people who have never played RPGs.

And I like FATE. I just can't get a gaming group to work with it. D&D is far easier to explain: You have these numbers that say how capable you are, you have this equipment, you tell the GM what you want to do, and they'll ask you to roll this die and add those numbers.

That hasn't been my experience at all. But I'm also fairly selective with players. Most of the ones I recruit are already fairly excited about cooperative storytelling, not necessarily combat and adventure. Those I would probably start with stripped-down D&D.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Personally i have slightly lost interest in new systems.

I have played so many ... you would have to make a good argument what this new thing can do that all the others can not. And that has to be something i like.

Same to a large extent, though what I have even less time for is overhauls to D&D to make it into something it isn't. I'll read/try new things, but it needs to be something truly unique where the system is required to do something other games don't. I was happy to learn Blades in the Dark for example which achieves a movie heist or the last 15 minutes of an episode of Leverage by banning in depth planning and reconning planning when the gamemaster reveals obstacles.

If you can easily convert characters from your game system to D&D, sorry I'm not interested. If you can't, I'm listening.

[Alcore]

There's a reason that I always start newbies out on some kind of FATE accelerated variant. Ten minutes to explain all the rules, five minutes to make a character.

I strongly disagree unless they truly never played an RPG. Even a computer game will give them expectations of what a RPG is.


5e was designed for fast play. Each class has standard gear writen at the start of the class; pick a class, pick gear. Each occupation has an ideal, bond and flaw coded in by a small random table; pick an occupation and pick or roll those other things. This entire time they will be picking skills; now hand them an array and suggest where the biggest number should go.

The core mechanic? Roll a d20, add mods. done. You should take a moment to explain boons and banes but that shouldn't take more than a minute.


5e is actually easier to learn and be competent at than Warrior Rogue and Mage.

To be fair explaining Fate goes a lot better when you're dealing with actual newbies. If they've played D&D it requires them to do a LOT of unlearning because the core assumptions are so different.

If I got a group of newbies I think I'd start with FAE before moving onto something like Paranoia.

I remember my first game of Fate. It was over the internet with session zero being unheard of for me. There was little direction.

It felt like I was handed a blank canvas and all the colors of the rainbow. "Paint the character you want to play". Infinite possibilities, Infinite options; I was paralyzed for days (which isn't long for play by post).


Fate felt like freeform; another method/system i loathe.

[Anonymouswizard]

I remember my first game of Fate. It was over the internet with session zero being unheard of for me. There was little direction.

It felt like I was handed a blank canvas and all the colors of the rainbow. "Paint the character you want to play". Infinite possibilities, Infinite options; I was paralyzed for days (which isn't long for play by post).


Fate felt like freeform; another method/system i loathe.

Fate assumes a LOT more player direction, but it's not unguided if run by the book. But it does start at the big picture and work down. You're not supposed to be actually creating your character before you know what the game's supposed to be about. So you start with the major concept of the game, move onto the major issues, major NPCs and locations, and then finally the characters. Even then you begin at the most broad strokes and then fill in the details, and you can go back and rewrite aspects if the original version doesn't work.

But the book needs to give a much better explanation that yes, your high concept can be 'half-elf warrior without a limp'.

[Willie the Duck]

I love/hate these discussions about which games are 'simple' or 'complex.' The answer is generally both for most of them.

D&D, at it's core, is simple like the board game Talisman -- Simple concepts and play structure, complex at the detail level. Easy to understand the basic components: Classes, races, levels, hit points (to-hit, damage), saves, roles defined (much) by class, spells prepared. But then each spell, magic item, or (especially in modern D&D) class feature is a whole new paragraph that you have to read (and potentially think about the ramifications of it alongside your other abilities). Early (TSR-era basic-classic) had niggling complications like racial class and level limits, no general resolution mechanic and tables where formulas might have been; WotC-era has significantly upped the extra paragraphs what with feats and archetypes and class features and such (and then TSR-era AD&D had much of the complextiy of WotC-era, plus the bizarre limits and lack of core mechanic of basic-classic, so complexity-wise the worst of both worlds). If you use pre-made characters, it takes a player a very short amount of time to be playing the basic structural loop of the game. However, they can go years without knowing all the rules (especially if they tend to stick with things that have worked well in the past, like a favorite race/class/group of spells).

Fate, at it's core, is simple like the board game Diplomacy -- seconds to minutes to explain the core concept, can probably learn all the rules there are to learn in the first play session, but can take hours to forever and a day (especially if you don't pre-select people with pre-existing right mindset) to get people really playing at the floor level of the base gameplay loop.

Both are complex. Both are simple. You can say the same thing about Chess or Go (or football, take your pick which one I mean). IMO it makes more sense to say one or the other is 'simple for,' or, 'simple in the case of,' or similar.

[Telok]

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.

Hey I'd love to play Traveller, I've even run a hacked Classic campaign for 6-9 months.

Alas there's one flgs with 2 tables (one perma assigned to Warhammer & 40k minis) in this town of about 250k. The next two major populations with one flgs each are both 30k at 400 & 800(no road access) miles away. The next city after that is 2100 miles away in another country. Add in a local situation basically cutting out online & limiting gaming to 1/week... yeah. Either I run it if I can sell it well enough, I suck up having to play the current flavor of D&D, or I don't game at all for a few years.

[kyoryu]

No, disagree strongly here. It's taken me hours of discussion and questions to explain FATE Accelerated to players, and it's still something that some people just cannot get their head around.
I think that comes down to the meta-game being an overt part of the game - it doesn't work well for some people: in my experience, especially people who have never played RPGs.

And I like FATE. I just can't get a gaming group to work with it. D&D is far easier to explain: You have these numbers that say how capable you are, you have this equipment, you tell the GM what you want to do, and they'll ask you to roll this die and add those numbers.

I've had good luck by explicitly pointing out that Fate is very different from D&D, and to expect a different experience. Then lean heavy on the fiction-first - you tell me what your character does in the "internal movie", and I'll worry about the mechanics.

To be fair explaining Fate goes a lot better when you're dealing with actual newbies. If they've played D&D it requires them to do a LOT of unlearning because the core assumptions are so different.

If I got a group of newbies I think I'd start with FAE before moving onto something like Paranoia.

I've never had an issue with new players and Fate. It's always veterans. And that includes me!

[Jay R]

There's a reason that I always start newbies out on some kind of FATE accelerated variant. Ten minutes to explain all the rules, five minutes to make a character.

I felt that way about D&D when I started playing it. Then they published a supplement, and now look what's happened.

[Eldan]

If I started total newbies out on D&D, which I haven't done for years, I would strip the rules down quite a bit. (Like, I introduced a few people to 3.5 after playing it for years, and I certainly dropped most of the various modifiers and stuff like that.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

If I started total newbies out on D&D, which I haven't done for years, I would strip the rules down quite a bit. (Like, I introduced a few people to 3.5 after playing it for years, and I certainly dropped most of the various modifiers and stuff like that.)

I ran a 5e dnd one shot where basically no one knew the rules except "here's a character sheet. Tell me what you want to do. If I ask you to roll a X check, roll that die and add the number by X on the sheet." Went great. Tons of work for me, because I had to know all of their sheets as well. And they were very inventive and creative.

[False God]

I ran a 5e dnd one shot where basically no one knew the rules except "here's a character sheet. Tell me what you want to do. If I ask you to roll a X check, roll that die and add the number by X on the sheet." Went great. Tons of work for me, because I had to know all of their sheets as well. And they were very inventive and creative.

I ran 5E when it first launched, like, books hit the store shelves I made a group. I used a similar approach and it worked out pretty well.

As far as games go, I don't feel like 5E is very rules intensive early on, and with limited material. 3.5 and Pathfinder and even 4E are now because there's more splat than grains of sand, but even still, if you limit "teaching the game" to the core book, it's not that bad.

---
As always, people will pick things up easier/better/faster when they're interested in the subject. I know I learned FFG Star Wars and WoD and L5R fairly rapidly, but barely remember Iron...uh, *googles* Iron Kingdoms. Steampunk just isn't my jam. Of course, figuring out what people are interested in can be far harder than teaching them a system.

[RazorChain]

When I want to try out other games I run them myself.

There is no shortage of people who want to play rpgs but there is always shortage of people who want to run games.

Also I have been in groups that like to experiment with different systems, in the last 35 years I've been playing DnD maybe amounts to 15% of the games.

The funny thing is I started a new group with mostly new players and I ran a Gurps campaign for them for 4 years. When we wrapped up the campaign and started playing DnD they became unhappy by the locked in class options and just the generally lack of options after coming from a system that uses point buy.

People don't play Dnd because it's the best system, they just play it because they don't know any better.

[KorvinStarmast]

People don't play Dnd because it's the best system, they just play it because they don't know any better.

That's not true, though. The italicized part. I've had the chance to play other games, before my ten year break and after it. (And I am excited for a BiTD game starting in a month or two). It's a good system, but "best" will always need to be explained as "best at what?" In my experience "best at providing a fun experience for the players" (which includes the DM) is about the only 'best' criterion that is worth considering for this leisure activity.
For some people, and groups, it's the best game.
For others it is not. Some groups do not prefer to have a DM/GM carry that substantial load that a DM/GM does in D&D and its various clones. A more "GMless" or more "Players as world builders" structure will work better for such a group.

[Anonymouswizard]

People don't play Dnd because it's the best system, they just play it because they don't know any better.

That's not quite true. If you want to play mercenaries going into a dungeon to get treasure D&D5e is like the fifth best system I know for it (although Basic Fantasy and Lamentations of the Flame Princess are, IMHO, better). It kinda sucks at anything else, but if that's what you'll want it'll work.

...okay, 5e has moved more towards the SW model of wandering from combat to combat, but you get my point. It does one thing very well.

That's not a bad thing, lots of games do one thing very well and everything else poorly. I wouldn't want to run a dungeon crawl in Unknown Armies. The issue is when people try to torture a game, almost always D&D but not exclusively*, into something it's just not designed to do. The issue is that players assume that 1) every game is as badly designed as D&D (I mean really, does anybody actually use the Inspiration rules?) or 2) that D&D can do that.

But if you want to run a game about exploring a space hulk in a standard space opera setting D&D won't do badly at all (although I'd still prefer Savage Worlds that's a personal preference thing).

* Hello GURPS Superheroes.

[RazorChain]

That's not true, though. The italicized part. I've had the chance to play other games, before my ten year break and after it. (And I am excited for a BiTD game starting in a month or two). It's a good system, but "best" will always need to be explained as "best at what?" In my experience "best at providing a fun experience for the players" (which includes the DM) is about the only 'best' criterion that is worth considering for this leisure activity.
For some people, and groups, it's the best game.
For others it is not. Some groups do not prefer to have a DM/GM carry that substantial load that a DM/GM does in D&D and its various clones. A more "GMless" or more "Players as world builders" structure will work better for such a group.

Best is always subjective but what I mean is for a lot of people DnD IS the best system because they haven't tried anything else.

But then the problem starts when people want to shoehorn every genre emulation into DnD

I mean I probably would have much better luck running a Strixhaven Harry Potter campaign using Ars Magica rather than DnD.

[Tanarii]

People don't play Dnd because it's the best system, they just play it because they don't know any better.

{Scrubbed}

[Telok]

People don't play Dnd because it's the best system, they just play it because they don't know any better.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Perhaps it would attract less misses if worded more like "People who will only play d&d don't play it because its the best at everything, they play it because they don't know or try anything else."

[SimonMoon6]

The issue is when people try to torture a game, almost always D&D but not exclusively*, into something it's just not designed to do.

* Hello GURPS Superheroes.

My impression is that people *think* that D&D can do a lot of the things that it absolutely cannot do well. Just like GURPS, D&D can do a lot of things, but often not well.

For example, does D&D support high level play? Yeah, it's got tables for letting people go up to 20th level and beyond that, there's the Epic Level Handbook. But does D&D do high level play WELL? No, absolutely not. Nobody wants to run a game for 20th level characters, so games usually have to end way before then.

Does D&D do skill-based adventures well? I mean, D&D has lots of skills for players to take, so it should do skill-based adventures well, right? No, absolutely not. Skills are clearly just bolted onto the D&D framework which is simply about combat. There were no skills in 1st or 2nd edition (okay, there was an optional "secondary skill" rule in the DMG and then there were Non-Weapon Proficiencies that were half-hearted attempts at skills), so skills aren't something that integrates naturally into the system. Lots of them are weird and broken (sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way). And DMs still don't want players to use charisma-based skills because D&D is supposed to be about stabbing people, not talking to them! And that's without getting into the fact that there are spells and magic items that can add ridiculously high bonuses to skills, making a person's actual skill level close to irrelevant.

Does D&D do mysteries well? No, there are too many divination spells.

Does D&D do tragic death scenes well? No, the only people who stay dead are mere peasants who can't afford to be raised, resurrected, or reincarnated.

Does D&D do *anything* well other than adventures into a dungeon where you fight monsters in order to take their treasure? Not really. Not even outdoor adventures are really meant for a D&D game, even though there are lots of outdoor-adventure themed character options (druid and ranger).

It irks me when people think of D&D as the "does everything" game when it's really the "only does one sort of thing remotely well" kind of game.

[Pex]

My impression is that people *think* that D&D can do a lot of the things that it absolutely cannot do well. Just like GURPS, D&D can do a lot of things, but often not well.

For example, does D&D support high level play? Yeah, it's got tables for letting people go up to 20th level and beyond that, there's the Epic Level Handbook. But does D&D do high level play WELL? No, absolutely not. Nobody wants to run a game for 20th level characters, so games usually have to end way before then.

Does D&D do skill-based adventures well? I mean, D&D has lots of skills for players to take, so it should do skill-based adventures well, right? No, absolutely not. Skills are clearly just bolted onto the D&D framework which is simply about combat. There were no skills in 1st or 2nd edition (okay, there was an optional "secondary skill" rule in the DMG and then there were Non-Weapon Proficiencies that were half-hearted attempts at skills), so skills aren't something that integrates naturally into the system. Lots of them are weird and broken (sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way). And DMs still don't want players to use charisma-based skills because D&D is supposed to be about stabbing people, not talking to them! And that's without getting into the fact that there are spells and magic items that can add ridiculously high bonuses to skills, making a person's actual skill level close to irrelevant.

Does D&D do mysteries well? No, there are too many divination spells.

Does D&D do tragic death scenes well? No, the only people who stay dead are mere peasants who can't afford to be raised, resurrected, or reincarnated.

Does D&D do *anything* well other than adventures into a dungeon where you fight monsters in order to take their treasure? Not really. Not even outdoor adventures are really meant for a D&D game, even though there are lots of outdoor-adventure themed character options (druid and ranger).

It irks me when people think of D&D as the "does everything" game when it's really the "only does one sort of thing remotely well" kind of game.

High level D&D works fine. The only issue is the tolerance level of PC power relative to the DM and players to an extent. DMs who are already upset chasms are no longer an obstacle because someone can fly have low tolerance level for PC power. D&D is not wrong for giving PCs the ability to do fantastical things. You don't have to like it, but that's not D&D's problem.

How ironic for me to defend 5E skill use. (I know! I know!) PCs can do wonderful things outside of combat. They explore. They discover. They talk. Some DMs beg for PCs to do stuff other than kill things. The social skills are useful tools to decide NPC reactions so that the DM's own bias won't interfere. Players have to make some effort on their own to convey meaning, but the success and failure of those social rolls can change the outcome of many events. They can end a battle before it begins. Using skills well takes practice of both DM and player.

Divination spells do not end mysteries. Taken at its most basic, asking "Who killed the king?" doesn't necessarily give you the name. You could be given a descriptor of the murderer's clothing or maybe a floral answer describing the relationship between the murderer and king. Even if/when you are given a direct name, that is not necessarily evidence and there's still the matter of finding the murderer. Who the murderer is, while important, may pale in comparison to why or what will happen next.

Raising the dead is not a commodity. There's no 1-800-DIAL-A-CLERIC. The number of people capable of doing it is directly related to the DM setting up the world. Even then they may not advertise it for who wants everyone knocking on their door every day and all night long? Plus by the spell description the soul must be willing, and they might not be for reasons mortals cannot understand. Then there are legal ramifications. Inheritances, passing of Titles, Wills. Someone is dead for a year. Resurrected. Does he get his stuff back?

[Vulsutyr]

Hey I'd love to play Traveller, I've even run a hacked Classic campaign for 6-9 months.

Alas there's one flgs with 2 tables (one perma assigned to Warhammer & 40k minis) in this town of about 250k. The next two major populations with one flgs each are both 30k at 400 & 800(no road access) miles away. The next city after that is 2100 miles away in another country. Add in a local situation basically cutting out online & limiting gaming to 1/week... yeah. Either I run it if I can sell it well enough, I suck up having to play the current flavor of D&D, or I don't game at all for a few years.

My guess was Alaska and I was very pleased with myself when I clicked on your profile.