How the Game Design of D&D Gives New Roleplayers a Good Experience

[kyoryu]

A game like HERO is, IMO, far more transparent in how builds work and what can be done with the options, with fewer traps and fewer munchkinisms, than something like 3.x -- there aren't that many secrets, and those that exist are more clearly examples of ridiculous cheese.

The tricks and gimmicks of 3.x optimization are more of a "secret alchemy", creating an unlevel playing field based on mastery of system arcana, and opening up more potential for surprises popping up in the GM's face at game time.

This is my point, actually, and one of the main things that turns me off of 3.x (and, of course, the reason that a lot of people into high optimization love it so much).

[Max_Killjoy]

This is my point, actually, and one of the main things that turns me off of 3.x (and, of course, the reason that a lot of people into high optimization love it so much).

(For clarity, I agree with, and was expounding on, that part of your post.)

[JoeJ]

As kyoryu says.

Plus Shadowrun. M&M. Chthulhutech. Call of Cthulhu. Vampire games (SOOOO easy to break). A couple others I've skimmed but not played.

If you're good at mathing at all - point-buy systems are ridiculously easy to break.

Again - probably not broken as hard as casters can do in D&D (at high level - the balance even in 3.x isn't too bad until 9ish - better in Pathfinder though it starts to crack around then too) - but that has nothing to do with classes vs point-buy. That has to do with D&D's caster/martial issues - which are due to the spell system being inherently OP vs martials.

If those are your examples, then you must mean something different by "break" than I would. To take M&M as an example (since it's the one I know best of those you mentioned), I'd have a great deal of trouble believing you could create a character of one type that outshines a character of a different type in that second character's own specialty - such as a shapeshifter who's faster than the speedster, or a crimefighter that's stronger than the powerhouse. And I would completely disbelieve a claim that any PC could trivialize every challenge, given the sheer variety of possible challenges and the fact that GM characters are explicitly exempt from PL and point limitations. Those are the two definitions of "breaking" a game I'm familiar with. If you mean you can create an character who's extremely competent within their own niche, I'm sure you can, but I don't call that broken.

For GURPS, I'm even less sure what you could mean by creating a character that breaks the game. You work with the GM to create your character, so how do you break the game without the GM choosing to let you?

[CharonsHelper]

To take M&M as an example (since it's the one I know best of those you mentioned), I'd have a great deal of trouble believing you could create a character of one type that outshines a character of a different type in that second character's own specialty - such as a shapeshifter who's faster than the speedster, or a crimefighter that's stronger than the powerhouse. And I would completely disbelieve a claim that any PC could trivialize every challenge, given the sheer variety of possible challenges and the fact that GM characters are explicitly exempt from PL and point limitations. Those are the two definitions of "breaking" a game I'm familiar with. If you mean you can create an character who's extremely competent within their own niche, I'm sure you can, but I don't call that broken.

I'd have to look at the system again (I only played it once) but I was able to build a character with way more points than the game intends you to have pretty easily, and combo a couple things which were quite obviously not intended at the game's baseline power levels. (Sorry - not a big fan of the system so I can't say specifics off the top of my head.)

It's not a bad system - and doesn't break as much as blatantly as most point-buy systems - but it's still not very hard to do. (Since it's not as blatant as how much one can break a system like Vampire - maybe you'd prefer the term 'bent' instead of 'broken' :P)

[JoeJ]

I'd have to look at the system again (I only played it once) but I was able to build a character with way more points than the game intends you to have pretty easily, and combo a couple things which were quite obviously not intended at the game's baseline power levels. (Sorry - not a big fan of the system so I can't say specifics off the top of my head.)

It's not a bad system - and doesn't break as much as blatantly as most point-buy systems - but it's still not very hard to do. (Since it's not as blatant as how much one can break a system like Vampire - maybe you'd prefer the term 'bent' instead of 'broken' :P)

??? The number of points you have is set by the GM, and is the same for every player. (The default is 150 points for a PL 10 campaign.). There's no way in the rules to increase that. The PL, also set by the GM, puts a hard cap on skill modifiers, on attack + effect, and on defenses (parry + toughness, dodge + toughness, and fortitude + will). So you could, if you wanted, have an energy beam that can destroy almost anything, but it would be so inaccurate that you'd almost never hit what you were aiming at. That character might be considered broken, but in the sense of being useless, not being OP.

M&M does, by design, let you create a character who is extremely good at a narrow range of things, or one who's pretty good at a wider range.

[CharonsHelper]

??? The number of points you have is set by the GM, and is the same for every player. (The default is 150 points for a PL 10 campaign.). There's no way in the rules to increase that.

Lol - sure there is. It's been awhile, but I remember there being ways to have powers be gear reliant - but basically get 11% more points for free by having it be gear which was integrated into your person & had no limits. I caught that on my first skim through.

[Elderand]

Lol - sure there is. It's been awhile, but I remember there being ways to have powers be gear reliant - but basically get 11% more points for free by having it be gear which was integrated into your person & had no limits. I caught that on my first skim through.

Yeah...no, you're completely and utterly wrong about that. yes you can make power dependent on gear, which gives you some points back but that's at the cost of the power being taken away from you either easily (for armors) or very easily (simple disarm if it's a weapon)
These powers are subject to the same limits that any other powers have and cannot, by definition, be integrated into your person. If they were integrated you wouldn't be getting points back.

[Anonymouswizard]

There are tricks in order to make characters effectively have more points in M&M, but the difference between a character who uses those tricks and one who doesn't is mainly versatility (and even then not always) due to the hard caps on power.

The primary tricks are Devices (where it's assumed that you'll occasionally be without your devices for plot reasons, imagine Tony Stark being attacked in his office and you can see that it might take him a few rounds to become Iron Man), and Arrays (where you can only have one of the powers active at a time, but can change it as a free action). A device gives back one point in five, which is a decent bonus and puts gadget users a couple of steps ahead of other characters (especially as you can easily sink 50+ points into powers, putting you 10 points up), and Arrays vastly increase your versatility for cheap as long as the GM agrees that the array is 'thematic'.

The massive cost saver is equipment, because it turns one point into five as long as the power is weak enough. Note that you can get creative here, I once managed to design a 5 point grappling hook pistol that gave several useful bonuses but was mundane enough to be 'equipment', but the trade off is that any character can theoretically pick the same thing up with half an hour and a trip to the local shopping centre (not always, Zepplin bases are bought with Equipment points as well, but those are a separate issue and actually fairly balanced). Equipment is useful so you don't have to make a roll to acquire a printer or to keep the entire team in contact during an operation.

Note that my current character has a two-point feature that gives him an inbuilt computer and commlink, and it's been established that webcams are included with computers (arguably I have an in-built printer, it's never come up), I essentially paid 1.6 points so they could never be taken away from me (and also I've become the setting's best media drone). Pretty much nobody in the party is using massive optimisation tricks, because we just can't be asked and the GM is new to the system, but we've noticed how our playstyles have made our characters have different niches (I have generally high skills and tend to prioritise points in them slightly above my combat abilities, our weather controller acts as a negotiator, our energy blob is the team sniper, and our powerhouse is there for heavy lifting and geeking over superheroes).

[warty goblin]

So thinking through the pile of RPGs I own, I'm pretty sure D&D 5E is the one I would choose to teach a new player. Not because it's necessarily my favorite, but because it's simple and unified enough I can tell somebody more or less how to play pretty quickly and has a good learning curve for mechanical complexity, so the player can start out knowing how to do a very few things, but there's new stuff introduced frequently enough to keep them interested and engaged with the system. It also presents a nice range of well defined options that are distinct enough I can recommend certain things to a player based on what I know about their preferences. That the options are discrete, categorized and fairly few in number is really handy, since I don't have to convince somebody to create something from thin air and then figure out how to represent it. Instead it's "which of these things seems the coolest?" That's a nice, direct question that gives a person who's a bit weirded out by this enormous brick of a book something to grab onto. The implied setting is also really handy, because I can easily tailor stuff to suit the players' interests, and don't have to worry so much about matching up with a bucket of existing lore I need to read and remember.

[RazorChain]

I enjoy optimizing. It's part of why I like RPGs. I generally enjoy optimizing weird concepts to get them up to snuff or power-gaming support roles. I don't want to break the game. But it's also tiring to have to constantly pull my punches to avoid doing so.

I'd rather be able to build whatever I want without worrying about destroying the game for myself & my fellow players.

But at least I'm into the process enough that I'm aware of what I'm doing. In some ill balanced systems, I've known players who have basically stumbled into a broken combo and then start breaking the game. They nor anyone at the table really realized that it's happening (since they were more casual players), but it still left a bad taste in their mouth for the system in general.

There are very few point buy games that you can break if the GM knows his stuff and puts limitations, most point buy games require limits of some kind because of how open they are in comparison to class based games.

GURPS and HERO, to start.

It's common in HERO to limit powers, because the limitations of the point budget just don't do it.

But even with that, a player who knows the system well can easily create a character that outshines one created by a less-well-versed player.

In their defense, though, usually these optimizations are things that at least make some kind of sense, as opposed to the hoop-jumping that 3.x optimizers do.

You don't exactly have to be a rocket scientist to break GURPS....a starting player can easily do so. The only thing you need to do is put enough points into a single combat skill. This is why in most games there is a starting skill cap because if your starting character is good enough to shoot everybody in the eye with a pistol at 200 meters without aiming then you are maybe too good...until someone shoots you back and you die because you neglected your dodge and Health.

As kyoryu says.

Plus Shadowrun. M&M. Chthulhutech. Call of Cthulhu. Vampire games (SOOOO easy to break). A couple others I've skimmed but not played.

If you're good at mathing at all - point-buy systems are ridiculously easy to break.

Again - probably not broken as hard as casters can do in D&D (at high level - the balance even in 3.x isn't too bad until 9ish - better in Pathfinder though it starts to crack around then too) - but that has nothing to do with classes vs point-buy. That has to do with D&D's caster/martial issues - which are due to the spell system being inherently OP vs martials.

Yep just like when I walk around with a sledgehammer most things are easy to break...but that doesn't mean I have to walk around with one and break everything. If someone enforces a ban against sledgehammers then I don't have to go around breaking everything which is why we have limits in point buy games.

But in my experience in most point buy games when you break the system it leaves your character with a weakness....just like the weak willed combat machine that got mind controlled...you know what happened? The rest of the party just killed him instead of restraining him. Or the Assamite combat monster (another PC) that wanted to take out my Tremere vampire? He got outsmarted and blood bonded and added to my power base. He would have made a mincemeat out of my character if I would have fought him on his terms.

Why do we keep ourselves in check and impose limits? Because when you play Cyberpunk long enough you realize that it's all about escalation. The bigger guns you bring the bigger guns the enemy has...and in the end the GM is always going to bring bigger guns.

[RazorChain]

That gets me into the crunch side. I'd argue that the crunch is where most people experience difficulties with RPGs - acting is familiar, storytelling is familiar, and there's no shortage of amateur writers. Similarly the idea of playing a character who tries to solve problems has been hammered in by videogames, which are (again) super ubiquitous, particularly among people likely to try an RPG. Massive, convoluted rules sets? Those are a bit rarer. In my experience it's much easier to find players for rules light games, and if a rules heavy game is happening it at least helps to have it be one which isn't just messy.

I'm going to respectfully disagree. As I have gotten older most people are more accepting of RPG's...it's not like in '87 when I started and nobody knew what the heck I was talking about. Most people who play computer games know of TT RPG's. Almost ALL new players I have met the last 10 years have a prior experience with computer rpg's. This means that to many crunch is no problem really, they are used to picking talents, distributing points, go on a pissing contests about builds, cry for nerfs etc.

The hard part is usually to get them ROLEPLAYING. Sure I could easily run them through a dungeon...which is more like what our esteemed forum member 2D8HP would call an adventure game.

Of course it could just be that we hang around different crowds...you with the creative bunch and me with the IT crowd.

[Knaight]

Of course it could just be that we hang around different crowds...you with the creative bunch and me with the IT crowd.

While that's possible (and there is a skew towards creative people) the majority of the people in my groups recently have been either computer science students, engineering students (chemical, civil, electrical), or people who graduated from said majors and are in various related professional fields. I'll grant that these aren't necessarily representative - I have a theater background (via technical theater, but still), a couple of players have a theater background, we all read a fair few novels, etc.

[JoeJ]

To bring this back on topic, IMO class-based character generation is very newbie friendly if the classes are few in number and easy to understand. OD&D is a good example of this (although it fails in clarity of writing and organization), 3.x is not.

Point-based character generation is also very newbie friendly, however, if it's assumed that the players work with an experienced GM to create their characters (this expectation is spelled out in GURPS). It's not so friendly if you're supposed to show up with a character ready to go, or if the GM is also new.

[Knaight]

Point-based character generation is also very newbie friendly, however, if it's assumed that the players work with an experienced GM to create their characters (this expectation is spelled out in GURPS). It's not so friendly if you're supposed to show up with a character ready to go, or if the GM is also new.

It depends on the game. Distributing 2400 points in HERO* with its hundreds of pages of dry powers text is very different than distributing 85 points in REIGN when using the Enchiridion version and it's relatively short skill list and other lists. It's much the same way that the class system in Torchbearer is never going to give anyone any trouble, and the class system in Senzar is basically a set of nested headaches.

*Technically 600, but when you quantize to the quarter point it works out to 2400.

[Mechalich]

The accessibility of D&D varies significantly from one edition to the next, depending primarily on the number of toggles necessary to build a functional character. 3.X/PF D&D is actually the least accessible versions of D&D, whereas 2e may actually be the most accessible, especially if you don't bother with non-weapon proficiencies. Building a 2e Fighter is extremely easy - the only real choices involved are race and which weapon you feel like claiming and can be done very quickly and in 2e fighters retained viability against casters for much longer (due to weapon spec, flat saving throw values, and certain other factors).

Ultimately though, the ability of an RPG to be newbie friendly is dependent upon two things: mechanisms that serve to foster character concepts and minimizing the number of system mastery decisions necessary to make a competent character.

A game like Vampire is actually fairly good at the first thing. You choose concept, nature, demeanor, clan, and a suite of abilities that naturally serve to fill in an idea. The system works well at figuring out who your character is.

A game like FATE, by contrast, is much more friendly in terms of making a competent character, because you're basically choosing skills to be good at and stunts to occasionally make them awesome, but the system isn't all that good at determining who a character is, since the player is expected to rely on a small number of rather broad aspects - which they have to generate themselves - in order to define their character.

And in terms of setting familiarity, the best game for new players is always a licensed setting that everyone at the gaming table is familiar with, rather than a game that creates its own setting. Star Wars is a very good example. If D&D wanted to make itself more accessible from a setting perspective WotC would need to allow a MtG crossover and turn Zendikar or some other plane into a D&D setting.

[Anonymouswizard]

A game like FATE, by contrast, is much more friendly in terms of making a competent character, because you're basically choosing skills to be good at and stunts to occasionally make them awesome, but the system isn't all that good at determining who a character is, since the player is expected to rely on a small number of rather broad aspects - which they have to generate themselves - in order to define their character..

For Fate I love how for new players I can use a skill pyramid (normally the default one because I tend towards lists of ~20 skills), while with experienced players I can either use a pyramid or just day 'you have 20 skill points, go nuts'. The problem is that, as Fate Core expects you to be able to come up with ideas for Aspects and Stunts on your own it can be difficult for a new player to decide what to take.

I'd generally recommend Fate (specifically FAE) for new players over D&D, because it's simple and easy to run without many problems that D&D has, and easily slots into whatever setting you want. For a setting I'm designing I'm torn between using Fate/a Fate derivative and the d6 system I'm currently using.

[2D8HP]

Introduction
Let me start by making it clear that I'm talking about features of D&D which few RPGs that aren't D&D clones possess, regardless of edition......

I could nitpick this or that but in general I think you have some good insights.

.... I agree that not having a built in setting is a benefit for D&D, but a problem that D&D brings to the table is that you can't make just any sort of world with it. D&D settings come with built in assumptions that can be quite unintuitive to a new player....

True, D&D is neither "Universal" or "Specific setting"

....Contrast this with something like Dungeon World, which is explicitly designed for the purpose of being newbie friendly....

I bought "Dungeon World" this year because I wanted something more "rules light", and it looks cool.

....I also just had this thought: D&D requires you to simultaneously learn roleplaying and a tactical fantasy war game. The latter isn't required for the former, and mixing the two together makes learning the former harder. And D&D doesn't really provide you with any help on the former part. The early editions don't even care about roleplaying, and the later editions assume you'll work it out yourselves.

Mostly true of early D&D. "Role-playing" really wasn't in the texts of the books, it just sort of happened..... sometimes (we still has big fun though!).

5e D&D at least has some mechanics to encourage some role-playing, but I'm undecided on if that's actually a good thing (first love is the strongest love, and I am very fond of the 48 page 1977 "Basic" D&D rules, probably irrationally so!).

I've run RuneQuest, Exalted, Cyberpunk 2020, Call of Cthulhu, AD&D 2nd ed, Toon and Gurps for beginners in the hobby and I fail to see how the D&D game design is superior in any way, shape or form.

I've long regarded the Runequest/Call of Cthullu/BRP etc. system as more intuitive than D&D, and many other RPG's, and especially when I hear of what people say they want in a RPG, I'm puzzled that Runequest in particular is not more popular.

The rest of the RPG's you cite I either never played (unless you count 1e AD&D as being close enough to 2e), or in the case of Cyberpunk, I just hated (even in the early 1990's I felt that "I can walk out my door for that" to experience a "Cyberpunk-ish" setting that I RPG to escape!).

I've said before that D&D is "Everyone's second favorite RPG", most RPG'ers have a system (even if it's just an earlier edition with lots of house rules) that they like better, the problem is coming to an agreement with actual other people and playing it.

D&D has the advantage of being both familiar and "good enough", that it actually gets played.

It's sometimes said that "No D&D is better than bad D&D" and while I have walked out of some tables that were just too bad, I say "a less than perfect game is still better than no game".

If someone came to me and said "next week (so I had some time to prepare) you'll be able to play any RPG you want, with four actual other people", then D&D would not be my first choice (Pendragon would, then Castle Falkenstein, even though I don't remember the rules, then 7th Sea even though my eyes glazed over when I started reading the "crunch" part of the rule book). But if someone tells me "tomorrow you can play any RPG you want",.I'm going with D&D, because even though I've probably actually spent more table time with other RPG's (Traveller in particular), but the only rules that are well imprinted in my mind are D&D, and Call of Cthullu (dead easy to GM or "Keeper", but not my favorite setting), and I'm a slow learner who finds "crunch" (especially combat rules) incredibly dull. I own many GURPS "Worldbooks" (settings) which I greatly enjoy, but the GURPS core rules? You'd have to pay me well to read them (just so dull)!

The last non-D&D RPG I enjoyed playing was Shadowrun (ironic given my distaste for Cyberpunk), and I had a great time playing it!
The trick?
I never read the rules!
The GM had me play a pre-gen, told me when to roll dice, and all I has to concentrate on was "What do you do?".

It was great!

I'm puzzled that so many GM's complain that their players either "Don't know the rules", or "Don't role-play, and just think of their characters as a collection of stats".

Why are they suprised?

.....That gets me into the crunch side. I'd argue that the crunch is where most people experience difficulties with RPGs - acting is familiar, storytelling is familiar, and there's no shortage of amateur writers....
....Massive, convoluted rules sets? Those are a bit rarer. In my experience it's much easier to find players for rules light games....

I would think so too, but Pathfinder is immensely popular, other TTRPG's?
Not so much.

So thinking through the pile of RPGs I own, I'm pretty sure D&D 5E is the one I would choose to teach a new player. Not because it's necessarily my favorite, but because it's simple and unified enough....

I'm increasingly pleased with 5e, I just wish they had a step inbetween the "Starter Set", and the PHB in hard print.

....The hard part is usually to get them ROLEPLAYING. Sure I could easily run them through a dungeon...which is more like what our esteemed forum member 2D8HP would call an adventure game....

Thanks for the shout out!

In previous threads I've posted long rants that while D&D was first called a "Wargame", and later a "Role-playing game", "Adventure game" would have been a better designation.

Nice to see someone noticed!

To bring this back on topic, IMO class-based character generation is very newbie friendly if the classes are few in number and easy to understand. OD&D is a good example of this (although it fails in clarity of writing and organization), 3.x is not.....

Man do I agree with you!

The accessibility of D&D varies significantly from one edition to the next, depending primarily on the number of toggles necessary to build a functional character. 3.X/PF D&D is actually the least accessible versions of D&D, whereas 2e may actually be the most accessible, especially if you don't bother with non-weapon proficiencies. Building a 2e Fighter is extremely easy - the only real choices involved are race and which weapon you feel like claiming and can be done very quickly and in 2e fighters retained viability against casters for much longer (due to weapon spec, flat saving throw values, and certain other factors).

I've only glanced at 2e, so I can't be sure, but other TSR D&D rules that were translated from Gygaxian into English ('77 "Basic", '94 "Classic" etc.) seem to me to simpler than 3e, but that may be because I already learned the rules via folklore.

.....I'd generally recommend Fate (specifically FAE) for new players over D&D, because it's simple and easy to run without many problems that D&D has, and easily slots into whatever setting you want....

I own the 2013 "FATE CORE SYSTEM" rulebook, and as long as I can stand to read them, the rules look like they'd work well, but I just can't stand to for very long!

7th Sea or Castle Falkenstein front loads an exciting setting that's a page turner to read, but then the crunch comes in the back and I lose interest in reading more, but I know that I want to play the game!

D&D interposes "fluff" and "crunch" making it easier to digest.

What FATE I've read has been all "crunch", like the GURPS Basic Set.

Boring!

Where"s the "fluff"?

[RazorChain]

The last non-D&D RPG I enjoyed playing was Shadowrun (ironic given my distaste for Cyberpunk), and I had a great time playing it!
The trick?
I never read the rules!
The GM had me play a pre-gen, told me when to roll dice, and all I has to concentrate on was "What do you do?".

It was great!

I'm puzzled that so many GM's complain that their players either "Don't know the rules", or "Don't role-play, and just think of their characters as a collection of stats".

Why are they suprised?

This...you never read the rules. This is exactly why you can take greenhorns and teach them any system you like. When I teach new people to play, I create a character with them, help them out with their backgrounds and then we just play and they get a hang of the rules as they play. And if the system conforms to realistic expectations then this is even easier as the players just describe what they do and the GM knows the rules and can tell them their chances.

[kyoryu]

What FATE I've read has been all "crunch", like the GURPS Basic Set.

Boring!

Where"s the "fluff"?

Fate Core is basically a System Reference guide. If you want a more specific game with more interspersed fluff, read Atomic Robo.

[Mechalich]

I own the 2013 "FATE CORE SYSTEM" rulebook, and as long as I can stand to read them, the rules look like they'd work well, but I just can't stand to for very long!

7th Sea or Castle Falkenstein front loads an exciting setting that's a page turner to read, but then the crunch comes in the back and I lose interest in reading more, but I know that I want to play the game!

D&D interposes "fluff" and "crunch" making it easier to digest.

What FATE I've read has been all "crunch", like the GURPS Basic Set.

Boring!

Where"s the "fluff"?

FATE Core is a basic mechanical system that is intended to be used as a foundation for the construction of gaming systems by 3rd party groups. FATE isn't really intended to be played on its own, the GM either invents a homebrew setting (and some homebrew mechanics, which the system refers to as extras) or utilizes one of a very large number of settings designed to use the FATE Core rules. So you don't actually play FATE, you play the Dresden Files or one of the numerous other settings people have made for FATE. So you don't compare FATE Core to D&D, you compare it to the d20 System.

Now the caveat is that no system is truly universal, despite claims. FATE is designed for broad strokes storytelling with vim and vigor that doesn't really sweat the details. The book draws a lot of examples from Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar stories - which represent just such tales - for a reason. In this way FATE is very much the counterpart to GURPS, which is a supposedly universal setting that ultimately wades deep into the weeds and is very detailed, and therefore tends to be grim and gritty as a result. The d20 system generally falls somewhere in between the two. To use a few examples from three very different space operas: Guardians of the Galaxy - go with FATE; Star Wars - d20 looks good; Star Trek - feeling the GURPS. Generalizations obviously, matching setting to system is a fine art and depends on a specific GM's style more than anything, but system mechanics have a great deal of influence on how any given game is going to feel in terms of pacing, consequences, and flexibility.

[kyoryu]

Now the caveat is that no system is truly universal, despite claims. FATE is designed for broad strokes storytelling with vim and vigor that doesn't really sweat the details. The book draws a lot of examples from Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar stories - which represent just such tales - for a reason.

I think the Evil Hat folks are *very* aware of this, actually, though sadly some folks don't want to believe this.

Really, Fate Core does games that feel kinda like TV serial dramas really well. Movies and novels, too. It won't do "Tomb of Horrors." It'll do "Tomb of Horrors: The Movie".

So games like Fate (and I'd put GURPS in this category) are fairly *genre* agnostic. But any game played in that system will have a feel within a certain range.

[Anonymouswizard]

The last non-D&D RPG I enjoyed playing was Shadowrun (ironic given my distaste for Cyberpunk), and I had a great time playing it!
The trick?
I never read the rules!
The GM had me play a pre-gen, told me when to roll dice, and all I has to concentrate on was "What do you do?".

It was great!

I'm puzzled that so many GM's complain that their players either "Don't know the rules", or "Don't role-play, and just think of their characters as a collection of stats".

Why are they suprised?

The thing is, some of us don't mind explaining rules to new players, but have bad experiences with players never learning the rules. Not a problem with the level of 'I don't know how to create a character', one of my friends is like that and yet it's awesome about three sessions into a new system, but I've had cases where we're 4 sessions into D&D/Pathfinder and a player is still asking 'what due do I roll for attacks? Okay, it's a skill check, what due do I roll', which is why I mainly GM games which use one for type because it makes that part of it easier.

TLDR; for lots of us there's a minimum number of rules we want you to learn. We're fine if you don't want to matter the system, but please at least pick up on the basics.

I own the 2013 "FATE CORE SYSTEM" rulebook, and as long as I can stand to read them, the rules look like they'd work well, but I just can't stand to for very long!

7th Sea or Castle Falkenstein front loads an exciting setting that's a page turner to read, but then the crunch comes in the back and I lose interest in reading more, but I know that I want to play the game!

D&D interposes "fluff" and "crunch" making it easier to digest.

What FATE I've read has been all "crunch", like the GURPS Basic Set.

Boring!

Where"s the "fluff"?

Fate Core is basically a System Reference guide. If you want a more specific game with more interspersed fluff, read Atomic Robo.

Kyoru has the nail on the head. Fate has lots of fluff, either in spare setting books or in different builds of the game. Versions of Fate that I'm aware of that come with fluff:
-Atomic Robo
-The Dresden Files
-Ehdrighor (which I'm really interested in)
-Mindjammer
-Spirit of the Century
-Tianxia (Wuxia! I wish the physical version was easier to get over here)
-War of Ashes, Fate of [I cannot remember how to spell it] (uses FAE)

I think the Evil Hat folks are *very* aware of this, actually, though sadly some folks don't want to believe this.

Really, Fate Core does games that feel kinda like TV serial dramas really well. Movies and novels, too. It won't do "Tomb of Horrors." It'll do "Tomb of Horrors: The Movie".

So games like Fate (and I'd put GURPS in this category) are fairly *genre* agnostic. But any game played in that system will have a feel within a certain range.

Evil Hat certainly seem to have realised this with their Worlds of Adventure series, where all of the settings have that kind of tone. While I'm not certain everyone publishing for Fate has, it's interesting to note the similarities in what Evil Hat has published.

[RazorChain]

Now the caveat is that no system is truly universal, despite claims. FATE is designed for broad strokes storytelling with vim and vigor that doesn't really sweat the details. The book draws a lot of examples from Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar stories - which represent just such tales - for a reason. In this way FATE is very much the counterpart to GURPS, which is a supposedly universal setting that ultimately wades deep into the weeds and is very detailed, and therefore tends to be grim and gritty as a result. The d20 system generally falls somewhere in between the two. To use a few examples from three very different space operas: Guardians of the Galaxy - go with FATE; Star Wars - d20 looks good; Star Trek - feeling GURPS.

Haha....I would say Star Trek is too much soap and ends up as WoD while Gurps is more Aliens

[Calthropstu]

The thing is, some of us don't mind explaining rules to new players, but have bad experiences with players never learning the rules. Not a problem with the level of 'I don't know how to create a character', one of my friends is like that and yet it's awesome about three sessions into a new system, but I've had cases where we're 4 sessions into D&D/Pathfinder and a player is still asking 'what due do I roll for attacks? Okay, it's a skill check, what due do I roll', which is why I mainly GM games which use one for type because it makes that part of it easier.

I actually find I have that problem much less in pathfinder than I did for 3.5, and even in PFS organized play, when I do it much more often, and with young children who have much more trouble comprehending this sort of thing, I have enough of the rules memorized that having someone like that around is far less of an issue than having a rules lawyer around who wants to perform lookups of obscure detailed rules regarding spells, feats or abilities that have strange and unusual consequences.

[kyoryu]

Kyoru has the nail on the head. Fate has lots of fluff, either in spare setting books or in different builds of the game. Versions of Fate that I'm aware of that come with fluff:
-Atomic Robo
-The Dresden Files
-Ehdrighor (which I'm really interested in)
-Mindjammer
-Spirit of the Century
-Tianxia (Wuxia! I wish the physical version was easier to get over here)
-War of Ashes, Fate of [I cannot remember how to spell it] (uses FAE)

Also the Reroll Productions stuff:

- Jadepunk
- Shadowcraft

[Knaight]

I would think so too, but Pathfinder is immensely popular, other TTRPG's?
Not so much.

The problem with popularity measures is that one of the big things that popularity affects is what people start with, and D&D is so vastly popular that people who might be interested, try D&D, and turn out not to like complicated mechanics are more likely to abandon the hobby as a whole than to try a game that would suit them. Meanwhile I've found that if you start people with a game that doesn't lean towards complicated mechanics people quickly take to the roleplaying side with no issue.

[Anonymouswizard]

Also the Reroll Productions stuff:

- Jadepunk
- Shadowcraft

Jadepunk actually looks really interesting, I may pick it up at some point, although I'm not sold on Shadowcraft. Didn't actually know this stuff existed, so thanks for pointing it out.

[2D8HP]

The problem with popularity measures is that one of the big things that popularity affects is what people start with....

That's something I wonder about.
TSR B/X seems simpler to me than both 3.x & 5e DnD, but is that just because of familiarity?
Call of Cthullu and other BRP system games, also seem simpler to learn than Paizo and WotC games.
Is that because just I learned those games when I had a younger mind?

[kyoryu]

That's something I wonder about.
TSR B/X seems simpler to me than both 3.x & 5e DnD, but is that just because of familiarity?
Call of Cthullu and other BRP system games, also seem simpler to learn than Paizo and WotC games.
Is that because just I learned those games when I had a younger mind?

It's also a matter of how the complexity presents itself, and where it is.

I think that 3.x looks, at first glance, to be easier, but is actually much more complex. Meanwhile TSR B/X looks more arcane and difficult (steeper initial learning curve) but after you get past that initial bit is fairly easy.