Well, luckily for me I did just drop one of my current adult groups. I was planning to take that time off to recharge, but maybe after that I can look at being a player.
It's Not D&D - My Experiences
I can see that. And honestly, there are several games that I've taken a hardline dislike towards that many people obviously enjoy (Cypher, Dungeon Crawl Classics, etc). If they were bad games, they wouldn't have been publishing a lot of content over many years. (Except for Palladium - that one still confuses me. Haha.)Sounds like maybe the system doesn't work for what you want it to do because there have been a number of Cypher System fans on this forum who I recall telling you that your experiences don't really match up with theirs. That's fine: mismatched expectations are a thing.
The more I talk about other systems, the more I think, maybe I only like the "D&D and similar game experience."
It kinda seems like the other options are either:
gritty and swingy (Cthulhu, WFRP, Zweihander, Alien, Forbidden Lands, Dungeon Crawl Classics, Mork Borg, Savage Worlds)
rules-lite story game (PBtA, City of Mists, etc)
It kinda seems like the other options are either:
gritty and swingy (Cthulhu, WFRP, Zweihander, Alien, Forbidden Lands, Dungeon Crawl Classics, Mork Borg, Savage Worlds)
rules-lite story game (PBtA, City of Mists, etc)
innerdude
Legend
Interestingly, zero-to-hero, tactical rules + long term power progression is kind of D&D's wheelhouse. It's probably the most directly impactful outcome of using class+level design. Like, there's probably no reason to use class+level in design at all if you're not trying to emulate that kind of progression style.
innerdude
Legend
I'd probably add that there's definitely a "gritty and not swingy" option in GURPS, though I am personally not a fan of GURPS at all. There's also "gritty and less swingy" for Mythras and any of the BRP stuff, which it sounds like you're somewhat aware of with Call of Cthulhu.
I'd also posit a "rules-medium with narrative leanings" category with Genesys/FFG and Cortex+. I know you didn't enjoy FFG Star Wars, but it rapidly rose near the top of my list of "Systems I'd gladly run" last year. But I came to it after discovering Ironsworn, and I found it incredibly easy to adapt Ironsworn's narrative principles to the FFG dice system. It was a fantastic match for our group.
Thomas Shey
Legend
Well, probably my biggest ticket games (ones that were run a lot) with Champions/Hero System and various editions of Runequest. I probably could be convinced to run either one again. I've also run Savage Worlds, Aftermath, Villains and Vigilantes, the old Mayfair DC Heroes game, Superworld (yes, superhero RPGs have been a big part of my thing), Alternity, D6 Space, Scion 1e, Shadowrun 1e, 2e and 5e, TORG, Masterbook, Aberrant, Mage 1e, Chill 3e, Megatraveller, Space Quest, Dragon AGE, Mythras (which you could lump in with the RQ stuff if you wanted). I don't think I've ever run anything as an actual ongoing campaign that I wouldn't run again if encouraged, though some wouldn't be my first choices these days. I suspect I've got a good enough eye for rules sets that wouldn't work for me not to commit to running things that really won't suit me and my group (and some just put me off from the get-go (grimdark ain't my thing). There are some things I did as one-offs I probably wouldn't (and a few, like Sabre Fantasy 3e, that I would).
(Now that I think about it, I lie up above; I don't think I'd run Mythras or Dragon Age again; the first is a decent game that really just doesn't do what I want in a fantasy game and the second from my POV breaks down horribly around level eight. I'd also have to think hard about TORG or Masterbook (the card play is clever but has its issues, and is impractical through VTT) and if I did SR it'd be 5e, not the earlier editions).
Edit: And somehow I forgot GURPS, even though I ran two different campaigns with it. It'd take some serious talking to convince me to try again, at least with a modern period game because the 1 second rounds make me nuts in how they work out (though some of the bad experiences I had with that have avowedly been hosed down by the fourth edition).
Last edited:
Thomas Shey
Legend
It also depends intensely on what edition you're talking about. 4e is the only one I think I'd describe as really D&D adjacent (maybe the D20 Modern based one).
Jacob Lewis
Ye Olde GM
I'd like to expand on what @innerdude (and a few others) have touched upon in their posts.
@Retreater I can appreciate that your experiences are your own, and that your opinions are valid. However, it seems to me that you're trying to find "D&D" in games that are not specifically D&D (looking for D&D in all the wrong places?). That hardly seems fair to some of these systems that are not trying to be D&D in any way, shape, or form. It is no wonder why most of these games failed to meet your (or your groups') expectations.
I'm not saying you shouldn't if that is exactly what you're looking for. But you should agree that some of these systems will never satisfy anyone's tastes unless they can change their expectations. Just because two games are labeled as "RPG", doesn't make them the same. Likewise, just because D&D is labeled as an "RPG", doesn't mean it is the best one to handle every style of play. Understanding what it is about D&D that makes it "D&D" helps to decide what you're looking for. More to the point, recognizing it's strengths and weaknesses is as important as deciding what you like (and not like) most about it, and RPGs in general.
I'm going to touch on one example that you gave because 1)I have had a lot of experience and success with it, as well as dealing with people who haven't, and 2): it is one of my favorite RPGs to date:
Star Wars by FFG (Edge of the Empire)
Extent of Experience: Ran a 6-month-long campaign; several beginner games at LFGS and Con; some PbP attempts were made, but ultimately decided the system was not well-suited for that format.
Status: Still my favorite RPG system. I am looking forward to introducing it to more people in my new home state (WA).
Verdict: This was one of the first true non-D&D RPGs I looked into when I decided I was done with D&D for a while. Like many others, my first attempt was to invite my (at the time) current D&D group to give it a try. Without having any experience or realistic expectations of how the game was played, we collectively made the same mistake of bringing along our normal expectations of a D&D game.
After a couple sessions, I could feel something was off. My players were feeling it, too. Combat wasn't interesting. There was no "loot" to hand out. It was difficult to gauge how powerful any of the PCs or the NPCs were, thus making it difficult to balance an encounter. That's when I realized our mistake: we were all trying to play D&D with a completely different game!
Since then, I now tell everyone who shows any interest that this game is not for everyone, and it is nothing like D&D. D&D is a game based primarily around combat, power levels, and collecting treasure as power ups. This game is about collaborative story-telling and improvisation. Not every battle needs to be won. Not every obstacle is a fight to the end. Characters do not need to be exceptional in combat in order to be useful or effective. The same dice results can vary, as every instance in the game should be unique.
These are lessons I had to learn over time. But I would've never learned them if I hadn't learned my first lesson, which was to stop thinking that all others games played (or should be played) like D&D, or anything else. That is a rule I now apply to every new game I try, even the ones like D&D.
@Retreater I can appreciate that your experiences are your own, and that your opinions are valid. However, it seems to me that you're trying to find "D&D" in games that are not specifically D&D (looking for D&D in all the wrong places?). That hardly seems fair to some of these systems that are not trying to be D&D in any way, shape, or form. It is no wonder why most of these games failed to meet your (or your groups') expectations.
I'm not saying you shouldn't if that is exactly what you're looking for. But you should agree that some of these systems will never satisfy anyone's tastes unless they can change their expectations. Just because two games are labeled as "RPG", doesn't make them the same. Likewise, just because D&D is labeled as an "RPG", doesn't mean it is the best one to handle every style of play. Understanding what it is about D&D that makes it "D&D" helps to decide what you're looking for. More to the point, recognizing it's strengths and weaknesses is as important as deciding what you like (and not like) most about it, and RPGs in general.
I'm going to touch on one example that you gave because 1)I have had a lot of experience and success with it, as well as dealing with people who haven't, and 2): it is one of my favorite RPGs to date:
Star Wars by FFG (Edge of the Empire)
Extent of Experience: Ran a 6-month-long campaign; several beginner games at LFGS and Con; some PbP attempts were made, but ultimately decided the system was not well-suited for that format.
Status: Still my favorite RPG system. I am looking forward to introducing it to more people in my new home state (WA).
Verdict: This was one of the first true non-D&D RPGs I looked into when I decided I was done with D&D for a while. Like many others, my first attempt was to invite my (at the time) current D&D group to give it a try. Without having any experience or realistic expectations of how the game was played, we collectively made the same mistake of bringing along our normal expectations of a D&D game.
After a couple sessions, I could feel something was off. My players were feeling it, too. Combat wasn't interesting. There was no "loot" to hand out. It was difficult to gauge how powerful any of the PCs or the NPCs were, thus making it difficult to balance an encounter. That's when I realized our mistake: we were all trying to play D&D with a completely different game!
Since then, I now tell everyone who shows any interest that this game is not for everyone, and it is nothing like D&D. D&D is a game based primarily around combat, power levels, and collecting treasure as power ups. This game is about collaborative story-telling and improvisation. Not every battle needs to be won. Not every obstacle is a fight to the end. Characters do not need to be exceptional in combat in order to be useful or effective. The same dice results can vary, as every instance in the game should be unique.
These are lessons I had to learn over time. But I would've never learned them if I hadn't learned my first lesson, which was to stop thinking that all others games played (or should be played) like D&D, or anything else. That is a rule I now apply to every new game I try, even the ones like D&D.
I understand all these points.
I am looking for something that can hit a few of the "sweet spots" that D&D hits while having its own personality and different experience. Specifically, that's something not too swingy/gritty, not too rules-lite/storytelling.
With FFG's Star Wars - I just can't wrap my head around symbols and making important decisions based on vague (to me) rules, and having to defend my interpretations to players with nothing to back me up.
In short, FFG Star Wars doesn't give me the tools I need to be a good GM for that system. My needs in that category are likely different than yours (and the other fans of that system).
Jacob Lewis
Ye Olde GM
Understood. I wasn't suggesting that you should give the system another shot. It is clear that it is not what you are looking for.
(FYI, part of the problem you encountered was thinking that any of the important decisions were to be made just by you (the GM). Collaboration and improvisation is something that a lot of people aren't used to, especially on the player-side.)
