Are all tabletop roleplaying games heartbreakers?

[Donnadogsoth]

Have you ever broken yourself trying to play these games? These games are hard to play, even harder to run. From gaming and observing games it seems to me that most of the promise of these games, the opportunities they advertise vividly in their artwork and back copy, their "introduction to roleplaying" blurbs and their lovingly detailed rules, come across in the nature of cheats, tantalising people to how good roleplaying games could be, but aren't, because people suck at it and their games are never going to be a good as the "examples of play" we find in the books--much less actually being as engaging and delightful and interesting as the literary and cinematic and comic book source material most of these games are based on. I find it all rather depressing. Do you?

[exelsisxax]

Did you just give up DMing a high octane dumpster fire, or abandon ship from one?

[Jay R]

I’m sorry you haven’t had a great game yet. I certainly have, so I don’t consider the advertising to be cheats or teases. They are attempts to teach us to play better.

Look at the ads for any game or toy, and you’ll see pictures of people more excited and happy than I usually am when playing. Never trust advertising. Don't ask a game company how good their games are, for the same reason that you never ask a barber if you need a haircut.

But yes, role-playing games can be great fun, with a GM who tries to work with the players, and players who try to work with the GM. It won't be perfect, but nothing ever will. Therefore one requirement for a fun game is to be willing to enjoy something fun, even when it has problems. As Annette Funicello said from her wheelchair, “Life doesn’t have to be perfect to be wonderful.”

Keep looking for a good group, and try to find fun in the midst of games that aren’t perfect.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Much like anything in life, you get better at it with practise.

[Beastrolami]

one other point of comment. DnD isn't the easiest game to DM/run. A lot of people got their start in dnd, but I am of the opinion that it is not the best game to introduce a new player to tabletop role-playing. I don't know how much you've experimented with different systems, but that was the first thing I did when I got into ttrpgs. I looked for the weird games no one had run or heard of before and taught myself how to GM.

If you are curious, here is a list to 10 ttrpgs that are easier to run than dnd https://www.pastemagazine.com/articl...beginners.html

[Donnadogsoth]

Did you just give up DMing a high octane dumpster fire, or abandon ship from one?

No, we've never had anything that dramatically bad, but rather a long litter of false-starts, character-creation-limbo, abortions, boredom, and farces. Our old gaming club was really a character creation club. It went like this:

1.Show up at club
2.Someone shows off the New Game
3.We start making characters
4.Lunch break
5.We continue making characters
6.We go home, never to play the actual game.

I don't mean to imply that I've had no good memories of gaming. I have. I've run a successful campaign, even had a Hollywood ending that no one had predicted, not even myself! I've gamed with polite, eager, decent folk and I have fond memories of interacting with them round the gaming table. But such games took some doing, and remain rare, and I remain irritated by how much good gaming I could have had if only I had been more effective at it. And I'm guessing that my experience is shared by many, especially people who didn't find the right group and reach the right level mentally to let them play and run the games well, and so who abandoned the hobby, or, being smart enough to sus a lemon, eschewed it from the get-go. I find this is a shame.

[neonchameleon]

I know exactly what you mean and no they aren't all heartbreakers but separating the wheat from the chaff isn't easy.

That said the following are entirely different skills:

• Writing an evocative book that reads well
• Tech writing - writing a book that's easy to use at the table and clear at conveying what it is supposed to do.
• Game design.

And what sells books and inspires people to play is mostly the first. For that matter most gamers simply haven't spent the time necessary to judge the third at all. Anyone can write an "introduction to roleplaying" - but most lovingly detailed sets of rules are written by people without the understanding of math to know what the actual outcomes are (Storyteller, RIFTS, and WFRP 1e I'm looking at you!) and to put it bluntly playtesting in the RPG community is generally awful, largely taking place in the writer's main group with the writer at the table and with their friends both knowing the rules and not wanting to upset the writer. So although I'll defend the design of Gygaxian D&D most games simply are not well designed.

My recommendation would be to give Fate, Apocalypse World, Dread, and Fiasco a look.

Edit: And spare me from all games where character creation takes more than half an hour!

[2D8HP]

...And spare me from all games where character creation takes more than half an hour!

Preach it!

Super-customization can be a time killing activity as in Car Wars, but there should be a "quick start" option.

Real quick.

I retain my admiration for the 1977 Dungeons & Dragons "Basic set", which was a good complete game in 48 pages, in which you could start fast.

It invited me to DM.

Too many RPG's make being the GM far too intimidating.

All the details may help in selling books, but they make running the game harder.

It sure seems like the most popular RPG's now have way too many wannabe players per willing GM's.

[CharonsHelper]

That said the following are entirely different skills:

• Writing an evocative book that reads well
• Tech writing - writing a book that's easy to use at the table and clear at conveying what it is supposed to do.
• Game design.

And what sells books and inspires people to play is mostly the first. For that matter most gamers simply haven't spent the time necessary to judge the third at all.

I've long though that there are three general elements of an RPG and its success.

1. The look. This is largely artwork, but also layout, title, and the bits on the back.

2. The setting and general vibe.

3. The mechanics and nitty gritty of the system.

In general, I believe they go in that order of importance for getting people to pick up your game, but they go in reverse order of importance for getting people to stick with it long-term.

Edit: And spare me from all games where character creation takes more than half an hour!

At least for starting characters. I can think of games I like where making a high level character (when not expert in the system) would take longer. But - newbies should really be playing starting characters to begin with anyway.

[Velaryon]

I've had plenty of good games that were more fun than any of the roleplaying examples from the books looked to be. I've also had enough misfires, false starts, and generally bad games to appreciate the good ones.

Running a game, particularly in a rules-heavy system like D&D, is definitely more work than I'd like it to be. So is trying to wrangle a whole group's worth of players to be in the same place at the same time (adulting, mirite?)

A lot of it comes down to finding the right group of people who enjoy playing the same in a similar way, and then sticking with them as long as you can.

[Guizonde]

Preach it!
It sure seems like the most popular RPG's now have way too many wannabe players per willing GM's.

i've had the opposite problem! too many wannabe dm's and not enough players. don't get me wrong, there will always be enough willing players to kit out a table, but it sometimes feels like half if not more of them are waiting their turn to "tell the best story ever".

since i'm considered an "old-beard" where i live, with a laughable 10 years of experience, i dm often. i don't mind, and i'm laid-back. i'm more into making people enjoy the game and come back for more than create a nitty-gritty brutal atmosphere. tomb of horrors i am not, in short. because of this attitude, i made a few players want to try dm'ing, and of course, it was a trainwreck. i favor rules-light systems so i can avoid remembering both the mechanics and the campaign details, and i take very little notes as a result. i've a story, some basic references, and off i go. guess what happened? i got blamed for "making it look easy". ok, ok. i've got training to remember a lot of information in a short amount of time without the possibility of taking notes. that does help somewhat (it's next to useless in dnd). after giving pointers, i helped the budding dm's to improve and create coherent one-shots. much frustration was had by them, but they're of the "it must be perfect first time, everytime" variety of perfectionnists. frankly, i'd be slack-jawed if a newbie dm'd like a pro on their first try. possibly envious, too.

instead of getting heartbroken over that, i like to look at the good side of things regarding pen and paper, and learning lessons from even the bad experiences. for example, banning anchovies and garlic at the gaming table, or thinking about everyone's preferences equally. obvious things that either i flubbed or saw being flubbed.

Much like anything in life, you get better at it with practise.

don't mind me, i'm quoting for truth.

[RazorChain]

Have you ever broken yourself trying to play these games? These games are hard to play, even harder to run. From gaming and observing games it seems to me that most of the promise of these games, the opportunities they advertise vividly in their artwork and back copy, their "introduction to roleplaying" blurbs and their lovingly detailed rules, come across in the nature of cheats, tantalising people to how good roleplaying games could be, but aren't, because people suck at it and their games are never going to be a good as the "examples of play" we find in the books--much less actually being as engaging and delightful and interesting as the literary and cinematic and comic book source material most of these games are based on. I find it all rather depressing. Do you?

The fantastic adventures I've had and the stories I can tell are even better than the tantalizing pictures and the blurbs just pale in comparison with the experiences I've had. The examples of play just seem stupid and hollow in comparison.

That is probably the reason I've been playing for decades and am looking forward to the decades to come. In fact I'm giddy with excitement because this thursday I and 6 other middle aged guys are going to be travelling to a summerhouse and roleplaying until sunday. Boy! I am going to have so much fun!!!

[Grod_The_Giant]

No, we've never had anything that dramatically bad, but rather a long litter of false-starts, character-creation-limbo, abortions, boredom, and farces. Our old gaming club was really a character creation club. It went like this:

1.Show up at club
2.Someone shows off the New Game
3.We start making characters
4.Lunch break
5.We continue making characters
6.We go home, never to play the actual game.

I don't mean to imply that I've had no good memories of gaming. I have. I've run a successful campaign, even had a Hollywood ending that no one had predicted, not even myself! I've gamed with polite, eager, decent folk and I have fond memories of interacting with them round the gaming table. But such games took some doing, and remain rare, and I remain irritated by how much good gaming I could have had if only I had been more effective at it. And I'm guessing that my experience is shared by many, especially people who didn't find the right group and reach the right level mentally to let them play and run the games well, and so who abandoned the hobby, or, being smart enough to sus a lemon, eschewed it from the get-go. I find this is a shame.

It sounds like your problem is that you've got a club that wants to try a new game every week but refuses to commit to actually playing a campaign, rather than anything else. Make the potential GM bring pre-gens.

[Aotrs Commander]

Have you ever broken yourself trying to play these games? These games are hard to play, even harder to run. From gaming and observing games it seems to me that most of the promise of these games, the opportunities they advertise vividly in their artwork and back copy, their "introduction to roleplaying" blurbs and their lovingly detailed rules, come across in the nature of cheats, tantalising people to how good roleplaying games could be, but aren't, because people suck at it and their games are never going to be a good as the "examples of play" we find in the books--much less actually being as engaging and delightful and interesting as the literary and cinematic and comic book source material most of these games are based on. I find it all rather depressing. Do you?

Nope. I play every week, for twenty-seven years now or thereabouts, DMing most of the time, and I can say that no, not ever.

The examples of play in RPG are mere empty nothings compared to the real thing.

[kyoryu]

Have you ever broken yourself trying to play these games? These games are hard to play, even harder to run. From gaming and observing games it seems to me that most of the promise of these games, the opportunities they advertise vividly in their artwork and back copy, their "introduction to roleplaying" blurbs and their lovingly detailed rules, come across in the nature of cheats, tantalising people to how good roleplaying games could be, but aren't, because people suck at it and their games are never going to be a good as the "examples of play" we find in the books--much less actually being as engaging and delightful and interesting as the literary and cinematic and comic book source material most of these games are based on. I find it all rather depressing. Do you?

Play different games.

Dungeon World or any of the other Apocalypse World-derived games are much easier to run. So is Savage Worlds. So is Fate (if you can grok it). So is Basic D&D (of pretty much any vintage). BRP ain't much harder.

Fate and Apocalypse World are aimed more at producing games that act more like the source material.

[Pronounceable]

Sounds like failure to commit. While indepth character creation is definitely a cancer upon roleplaying games in general, that club thing you describe is %100 at fault here.

Also you might need a sturdier heart in this life if elfgames can break it that easily.

[Jay R]

Group A tries to play New Game 1, and fails.
Group A tries to play New Game 2, and fails.
Group A tries to play New Game 3, and fails.
Group A tries to play New Game 4, and fails.
Group A tries to play New Game 5, and fails.
Group A tries to play New Game 6, and fails.

I can see why you might want to conclude that all tabletop roleplaying games are heartbreakers.

But perhaps the reason the results aren;t changing is that you aren't changing what leads to those results. Specifically, the game system cannot fix the problem that the group doesn't sit down on week 2 to play the game.

No game system works if you don't play it.

[veti]

Have you ever broken yourself trying to play these games? These games are hard to play, even harder to run. From gaming and observing games it seems to me that most of the promise of these games, the opportunities they advertise vividly in their artwork and back copy, their "introduction to roleplaying" blurbs and their lovingly detailed rules, come across in the nature of cheats, tantalising people to how good roleplaying games could be, but aren't, because people suck at it and their games are never going to be a good as the "examples of play" we find in the books--much less actually being as engaging and delightful and interesting as the literary and cinematic and comic book source material most of these games are based on. I find it all rather depressing. Do you?

Do you normally trust, or put much stock in, the blurbs publishers put on the covers of books saying how brilliant they are? If so, I suspect you're in for a lot of disappointing experiences.

RPGs in particular require investment from you. And not just you: also from your fellow players. Without that investment (principally, of time), they're never going to pay off.

Maybe you'd be better off starting a book club instead. Then, continuity is less important.

[Cluedrew]

No, they all have their learning curves, they all have their faults and not every game will work out. That doesn't mean the systems are bad.

I do agree with one statement. Tabletop/pen & paper role-playing games are hard to play. More than games they are tools, in that you have to master the related craft to use them effectively.

[kyoryu]

I do agree with one statement. Tabletop/pen & paper role-playing games are hard to play.

Some are harder than others.

[Psikerlord]

Drop in D&D at stores doesnt really work, not for a proper campaign with continuity.

You are muuuuch better off grabbing the 3 people you get on best with, and running your own home game with you as GM and the 3 players. No need to thank me later: you're welcome.

[Ninja-Radish]

Play different games.

Dungeon World or any of the other Apocalypse World-derived games are much easier to run. So is Savage Worlds. So is Fate (if you can grok it). So is Basic D&D (of pretty much any vintage). BRP ain't much harder.

Fate and Apocalypse World are aimed more at producing games that act more like the source material.

I would strongly disagree with the "Dungeon World is easy to run" statement, and I'd say it depends on your group's play style. That game pissed my group off so badly and caused so many arguments we didn't meet again for like 6 months afterward. We still don't mention it except as a cautionary tale.

If your players are ok with few rules and everything being DM Fiat, then Dungeon World may work for them. If they want rules to limit the DM's power, you're better off looking at other games.

[Knaight]

It sounds like your problem is that you've got a club that wants to try a new game every week but refuses to commit to actually playing a campaign, rather than anything else. Make the potential GM bring pre-gens.

Exactly. If you're going to run one shots, run one shots. As is the club seems kind of dysfunctional. Not all groups are like that - I tend to GM for a couple of different groups simultaneously*, with two groups that each meet once per two weeks on average being the standard. The particular players vary, but campaigns still get played routinely, and every so often someone else even GMs one.

*By which I mean the campaigns take place over the same few months, not literally at the same time.

[Vknight]

Gming is like handling a roasting pork shoulder the adventure is long fraught with peril and when done well delicious in its payoff.
Its best with friends, something to drink(alcohol if you need/want), jokes and a good sense to accept and enjoy everything with one another for the full experience.
Laugh it off sometiems get made make up and do kill the monster to take his loot.

[Darth Ultron]

. I find it all rather depressing. Do you?

No, but then it is not so different then anything else in life.

Most things are done ''half a try'' or worse. Go to do just about any social anything, and you will encounter this.

And it's very simple: if you don't like the way things are....then you must change them, or do it yourself.

For example: I hate ''non-games'' where everyone sits around and relaxes and talks and tells stories and watches You Tube videos and does anything and everything Except play the game. My solution: Run my own game. We start the game at a set time and do nothing but game. Casual non-gamers are not welcome.

[ArendK]

Gming is like handling a roasting pork shoulder the adventure is long fraught with peril and when done well delicious in its payoff.
Its best with friends, something to drink(alcohol if you need/want), jokes and a good sense to accept and enjoy everything with one another for the full experience.
Laugh it off sometiems get made make up and do kill the monster to take his loot.

Vknight, I am very likely going to clean up the grammar and jack it for a signature, just so you know.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Play different games.

Dungeon World or any of the other Apocalypse World-derived games are much easier to run. So is Savage Worlds. So is Fate (if you can grok it). So is Basic D&D (of pretty much any vintage). BRP ain't much harder.

Fate and Apocalypse World are aimed more at producing games that act more like the source material.

I... would actually dispute that. I ran D&D for a while, then spent a while running other things, then went back to D&D. Things like Apocalpyse World and Fate might be easier to learn, in terms of raw rules, and maybe easier to play, but running...?

• D&D has levels and CR tables, which most games don't. They're not perfect, but do you have any idea how many games don't even give you a starting point? The simple fact that you can say "everyone has roughly equal combat ability" makes building encounters about a thousand times easier than something like Fate, where you could have a combat master and a hapless schlub in the same group. Being able to simple go "I have 3 level 5 players, so to challenge them I need about four CR 4 monsters" or what have you is an absolute joy.
• D&D has monster manuals, which most games don't. Not only is it much easier to drop pre-made monsters into adventures than to make them up yourself every time, but you can go backwards-- find a cool monster and build a thing around it. Again, less work for the DM makes things easier.
• D&D is still the default assumption of the hobby, and it's based around the default assumptions of the hobby. Things like Fate and AW lend themselves to intricate shared storytelling and roleplay-heavy stuff. Which can be fun, but puts a hell of a lot more on the DM than "here's you quest, go solve the puzzles and kill the monsters." D&D is build around your basic talk-to-dudes-go-to-place-poke-around-fight-some-stuff adventures. It's easy to think up run adventures like that.

So yeah. Rules-knowledge aside, I'd say that D&D is one of the easier RPGs out there to run.

[CharonsHelper]

[*]D&D has monster manuals, which most games don't. Not only is it much easier to drop pre-made monsters into adventures than to make them up yourself every time, but you can go backwards-- find a cool monster and build a thing around it. Again, less work for the DM makes things easier.

...

So yeah. Rules-knowledge aside, I'd say that D&D is one of the easier RPGs out there to run.

I'll +1 this.

I've said it before, but I really think that the Monster Manuals (and associated things like CR) are a secret to D&D's success.

A Monster Manual reduces a LOT of prep-work that other systems can demand of a GM if they don't want to throw variations of the same challenges at the players again and again.

Even a sub-par DM will throw various monsters at you in D&D, and that inherently adds variety and different tactics to games. While the CR system isn't perfect, the sub-par DM is much less likely to either slaughter you or make a cakewalk than he is in a system without it, and all of the various monster special abilities force him to run different monsters at least somewhat differently.

(That was one of the major weaknesses of 4e - within their 'category', monsters felt much more same-y.)

[Knaight]

So yeah. Rules-knowledge aside, I'd say that D&D is one of the easier RPGs out there to run.

That "rules-knowledge aside" caveat is pretty huge though. You're dealing with a lot of mechanics interacting in D&D, and while I'd agree that the existence of a monster manual is pretty helpful there are plenty of games that have something like it, but shorter. This leaves a lot of games much easier to run than D&D for a lot of people.

With that said: There are also a few different GMing skills to be aware of here. It generally takes a level of thought and judgement pertaining to mechanical implementations to run a rules light RPG, and a lot of that can be replaced by memorization and preparation for rules heavy RPGs. It also takes a certain level of confidence about your thought and judgment for the rules light RPGs, and confidence in your memorization and preparation for rules heavy RPGs, and in my experience it's that more than the actual skills which tend to be lacking. Which is easier frequently comes down to which of your skills you're more confident in.

[CharonsHelper]

while I'd agree that the existence of a monster manual is pretty helpful there are plenty of games that have something like it, but shorter. This leaves a lot of games much easier to run than D&D for a lot of people.

While I agree that D&D in crunchier than many systems (though 5e is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum - maybe a bit on the lite side) I'd argue that a long Monster Manual is what makes D&D easy to run decent games of.

If a MM equivalent only has 15-20 options, sure that first session will be a bit easier to plan out. But then the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sessions will still be using those same 15-20 options again and again. It's the variety in MMs which makes them awesome.