What are some "newbie friendly" tabletop rpgs?
I live in a small town, and after a long search I've found no group of roleplayers to join. A few friends and I want to play badly, but none of us have any experience whatsoever.
What would be the perfect game for us to pick up the basics, both as players and DMs?
>>46606111
Depends. What kind of game are you looking to play?
>>46606111
>Barbarians of Lemuria,Mythic Edition (current edition) -- https://www.mediafire.com/folder/7llc83r2xf8bg/Barbarians_of_Lemuria_-_Mythic_Edition
>Barbarians of Lemuria, Legendary Edition (earlier edition, fewer details & more minimalist presentation makes it even easier to learn, but the rules aren't as refined) -- http://www.mediafire.com/download/p5w885sa9a869ma/Barbarians+Of+Lemuria+-+Legendary+Edition.pdf
>Barbarians of Lemuria, House Rules / Patches for Legendary Edition (if you want the bare bones minimalism of Legendary, but with the rules tightened up a bit) -- https://mega.co.nz/#F!CtQR2bST!y_awB-GHCiL3CdK4iLCV7A
>>46606122
Well, we're pretty open minded on the subject, the only thing we're looking for is for it to be easy to pick upin order to get more "casual" classmates of ours to play.
>>46606159
Try something rules lite, like Engine Heart, or Fate.
>>46606179
I wouldn't trust casual noobs to be in the right frame of mind to participate in a good game of Fate. It's a bit too meta.
>>46606111
D&D 5e
>>46606222
Fair enough.
>>46606159
There really is no "one size fits all".
What kind of "casual" are we talking about? That term can mean a lot of things.
>>46606224
it's nice, but players tend to think that D&D is the only good thing to play afeter that
>>46606297
5e is not quite as damaging as 3.5 in that regard, thanks to the lower rules volume.
>>46606111
GURPS Lite or Ultra-Lite.
No I'm not just GURPS memeing, seriously take a look at them, they're super cut down and extremely simplified versions of GURPS, and you can slowly add in more material from the full game as they get used to how things work.
>>46606224
It should be mentioned that while 5e is lighter than its immediate predecessors, it is by no means rules-light.
You want light? I got light.
>>46606398
And the GM's guide.
These four pages are the entire fucking game. Enjoy.
>>46606379
Recommending GURPS to complete newbies is like giving someone a bunch of Lego bricks from different sets without any of the instruction booklets and saying "Play".
>>46606479
Have you ever looked at Lite or Ultra-Lite?
I can guarantee you haven't.
>>46606492
>>46606379
Ultra-Lite is only tangentially related to the rest of GURPS.
>>46606111
Depends entirely on the players and how serious you want it to be.
You could do something 1 page not really serious like Lasers and Feelings, or Scrolls and Swords, maybe World of Dungeons. Speaking of which, Dungeon World technically is really beginner friendly, what with the classes being on the character sheets. I actually kinda like the *World/Apocalypse Engine games for beginners, since there's not a lot of math and you can start playing quite fast. The DM needs to know the systems, however.
I personally had introduced 2 beginners (along with 2 experienced players) with Strike!, and it worked quite well. I printed some cutouts out ahead to make chargen fast, and they did play CRPGs before tho.
>>46606492
As long as my assumption is correct that those two are still dedicated to doing "nothing in particular", my point still stands.
>>46606159
>>46606111
Ryuutama. It's like a fantasy road movie.
https://mega.nz/#F!zdNGUKpb!Xm8_P4VMVFLQa3qsT_dV8g
>>46606111
4th Edition DnD with a subscription to the character creator/creation suite. 10 bucks a month and you don't need to buy any books for creation (except maybe some PDFs to understand what to do).
>>46606677
For pirates, you need the offline character builder, Rules Compendium PDF, and Monster Vault PDF. DMG1&2 help as well.
>>46606602
That would only be an issue if you've some kind of mental disorder that renders you incapable of having any sort of imagination. Which, if that were the case, maybe you shouldn't be trying to get into games wholly reliant on it.
>>46606751
There is a difference between creating something from something else and creating something from nothing.
Without prior experience you don't have a clear image in mind. And without a clear image in mind, there is not much difference between a generic system and freeform.
>>46606805
The DM creates a setting. This gives the players an image to work with. That the game doesn't come with one doesn't matter, as long as there's a DM to guide them.
>>46606805
I can guarantee you that someone willing to join a fantasy RPG has at least SOME idea of what a fantasy setting looks like.
Same for Sci-Fi.
Same for *insert any genre here*.
>>46606813
Sure.
Except the GM (not DM, that's D&D) is also a newbie.
>>46606844
Yes, and a proper system can fill in the gaps in that SOME idea.
A generic system is only useful if you know EXACTLY what you want to do with it.
>>46606886
>a proper system
Careful, your bias is showing.
>>46606886
>Yes, and a proper system can fill in the gaps in that SOME idea.
Very few systems are intrinsically tied to a specific setting.
>A generic system is only useful if you know EXACTLY what you want to do with it.
No, not really. "I want fantasy" is pretty much all you need to know.
>>46606903
Well, I can't see a generic system as a proper system because it is a collection of potential systems that the GM has to construct first.
You don't call the collection of shelf parts you bought from IKEA a shelf before you've assembled it, do you?
>>46606920
You've clearly never actually used a generic system.
>>46606916
>Very few systems are intrinsically tied to a specific setting.
I have not said anything to that effect.
But every system is intrinsically tied to the range of settings that its mechanics create.
You can shoehorn a different setting into any system, but it will create a disconnect between the narrative and the mechanics.
>No, not really. "I want fantasy" is pretty much all you need to know.
Oh, really? What races are there? Is it a lethal setting? Are characters heroes above the norm? What kind of magic is there? How does it work? Is it preferable over manual labor? Can it replace manual labor in the first place? Etc, etc.
>>46606935
I've tried. OVA.
It was very dissatisfying.
>>46606398
>>46606406
Now thats light. But I seriously can´t picture anyone playing it for a long time.
>>46606972
>Oh, really? What races are there? Is it a lethal setting? Are characters heroes above the norm? What kind of magic is there? How does it work? Is it preferable over manual labor? Can it replace manual labor in the first place?
These can all be answered as they come up. Some of the best fun I had was communal character and world building in FATE/SotC.
>>46606111
To recap this thread:
There is no perfect game for you.
Find any two games that sound interesting to you and do not require you to read three different books each for just the basic rules, play a few sessions of the first game, then play a few sessions of the second game.
Afterwards, keep looking for stuff that interests you.
>>46607014
Not the ones that have an actual effect on the mechanics.
>>46607023
Literally none of those have to have any mechanical bearing.
Even lethality is just down to you deciding what the consequences of 0HP (or whatever the threshold of defeat in your system of choice) is.
Start with D&D like everyone else. It's not easiest RPG out there, but it's still easy and it's the most popular. Mechanics are bit different between editions, 5e is simplest so far and PF can be most complex. They all should be simple compared to many other RPGs though and it helps if you have played D&D based computer games because you're already some what familiar with mechanics.
>>46607079
>D&D simple compared to other RPGs
>even 3.PF
Care to list the RPGs you know of?
>>46606982
>OVA.
>It was very dissatisfying.
That may have more to do with OVA being a fucking awful game than anything.
>>46607078
If you don't see how any of these things have any mechanical bearing I must conclude that you're playing freeform and therefore all argumentation on my part of ultimately pointless because it has nothing to do with whatever you are thinking of.
>>46607094
I don't know or have played the new stuff like FATE everyone speaks about here. Aside D&D I have only experience with mid 2000s GURPS and old Runequest. Compared to those any edition of D&D seems simple to me. I would like to try new stuff, but my current group is pretty much into D&D only and I don't really feel like GMing these days.
>>46607132
>all argumentation on my part of ultimately pointless
You arrived at the correct conclusion at least.
>>46607135
I just facepalmed so hard, I'm pretty sure the entire university heard it.
>>46607169
I know that trying to be helpful and respectful on the internet is little more than self-flagellation, but what can I say? I'm an idealist.
>>46606972
>Oh, really? What races are there? Is it a lethal setting? Are characters heroes above the norm? What kind of magic is there? How does it work? Is it preferable over manual labor? Can it replace manual labor in the first place? Etc, etc.
It's clearly evident that you've never even looked at a generic system. You're applying a level of "generic" here that is well above and beyond any system that exists, even full core GURPS with all of its different genre and subsystem books.
Generic systems have a "core" system that answers half of those questions, just don't include the stuff clearly meant for other genres. If you can't figure out what that stuff is then you're hopelessly retarded. Any generic system worth its salt will have a couple of example races to pic from. Of course they'll be super generic races like elves and dwarves, but OP is looking to draw in noobies here so he's only going to scare people away if he goes "MUH SETTING IS SOOOOO SPESHUL LOOK AT ALL THE TROPES IS SUBVERTS!" Same with magic systems, GURPS is pretty unique in that it's released several different books with several different magic systems, and even then it and every generic system worth its salt will include more than enough example spells to not make it an issue to even need more spells, or at least not need more until you've already got a good grasp on how the system works.
Pretty much every generic system is "This is the game, add this or that for this or that genre" not "this is a huge collection of rules, YOU MUST READ EVERYTHING THEN ONLY PICK A FEW THINGS."
You'd know all this if you actually had any fucking clue what you were talking about.
>>46607212
>I know that trying to be helpful and respectful on the internet is little more than self-flagellation
And this is why instead you masturbate to your moral superiority over filthy generic system freeform players, right?
>>46606479
Which is by far the most fun you can have with Lego. I don't think I've used any instruction booklet more than once.
I've got a bit of a theory here. Basically, the system you're looking for has to be just heavy enough.
If it's too heavy, you'll be spending unreasonable amounts of time looking up rules and tables, won't make progress and get bored.
If it's too light, you'll have an incredibly awkward early experience full of "oh, I could do that?!" and "no, that's not what happens!".
It's got to feel like a game.
Of course, that's all assuming everyone at the table is new.
Thoughts?
>>46607374
So, D&D 5e Basic Rules then.
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules
>>46607404
Yes, I was trying to figure out why many are inclined to suggest D&D even when admitting that it's not a very good system.
But it is the most popular thing around, and quite likely to have been the one we ourselves started in. So maybe we're just suggesting the system we're most used to.
>>46607404
D&D 5e basic is pretty good because it does away with the computer gamey character optimization by having only the four core classes that each cover very broad ground. Some video gamers might be upset because there aren't enough "options" but the truth is these four classes (fighter, cleric, mage, thief) are all you need to roleplay pretty much any character ever.
In fact I would advise against upgrading to the "core" 5e even if you keep playing 5e. 5e itself is pretty sleek and simple, especially if you don't use grid and minis to play.
>>46607596
It would be even better if it did away with the computergamey JRPG class system.
>>46607693
Oh, look. Another guy who failed Gaming History 101.
>>46607693
But that would make character creation more complicated. Class based system is obviously easier for new players than skill based system.
>>46607745
Nah. Instead of "you roll your stats then select class" it becomes "you roll your stat".
>>46607693
People bitched that 4e was already too big of a departure from D&D tradition, do you know how much of an uproar removing classes entirely would cause?
>>46607778
Not only that but at that point would it even be D&D anymore? I'd argue that classes are even more integral to the game than levels or attributes.
>>46607734
Chill, I'm just making fun of >>46607596
Although, the idea does have a certain appeal to it. Maybe I'll check OSRs to see if there's a classless retroclone.
>>46607778
>>46607884
I didn't say it'd be a better D&D, just a simpler game.
>>46608066
*just a simpler game, which would be better for newbies.
>>46606398
>If your Agi is 3 your Att is 2
Is there a typo or am I just too stupid to understand why its 2 instead of 3?
