Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've never played a roleplaying game, but I've played a few years of Wh40K and WHF. I was looking to start playing one, and I was wondering if Warhammer fantasy roleplay was easy enough to get into, with the box set and all. Or is there a particular system I should start from to get some experience?

Thanks for helping out!

WHFRP has the advantage of being set in the same setting as WHFB.

The rules of course are very different and a lot more detailed.

I've never seen a set of role-playing rules so complex that a wargamer couldn't understand them. Usually there are some core concepts and once you have them down, the rest of the game is elaborations such as more spells, more skills and so on.

Most RPGs have a basic mechanism of character attributes like strength and intelligence, and a task system which requires you to roll dice against the difficulty of the task compared with the character skill or attribute. The details of the mechanisms vary but that core concept is in practically all ROGs.

The key thing about role-playing is that you need a group of like-minded people. Some role-players are more into the combat side of things, while others are more into the acting. For example, Savage Worlds is designed more like a detailed skirmish game, while "My Life With Master" is an emotional drama based on being an Igor character in a Frankenstein type of setting and has no combat.

I don't think it matters which rules you start with as long as you like the setting (fantasy/horror/SF) and you can find a group of players who enjoy the same style of adventures.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think it matters which rules you start with as long as you like the setting (fantasy/horror/SF) and you can find a group of players who enjoy the same style of adventures.

^ Quoted for truth!

"Having fun" is the most important thing. And whilst the rules also impact the fun from the game, you do not know how they feel to you until you play. With a setting, however, you mostly know what you want right away.
Even if it's just a genre!

Also, a lot of players you may want to group with will invariably already have their favourites and will only play X or Y, so it might pay off asking your buddies or a local (or even an online) gaming group, too.

My DM and group had a lot of fun with 4e D&D.

The d20 system has the advantage of expansiveness; if you know D&D 3.5 you can easily hop from there to d20 Star Wars, d20 Stargate, d20 Wheel of Time, or whichever other d20 games I forgot to mention.

4e is certainly easier to get into than 3.5, but it doesn't offer nearly as much flexibility; generally people will have strong opinions one way or the other, make sure you know what your group prefers.

Starting out, I'd recommend D&D 3.5 or Shadowrun; both are intuitive systems that can be easily adapted to a wide variety of situations (I've seen and run games set in Warhammer 40k, Star Wars, and Mass Effect using the Shadowrun rules.

Also, whatever you do, avoid GURPS. It is about as far from 'simple' and 'intuitive' as it is possible to get.

Pathfinder just came out with a beginner's box to help people get into the game easily and simply and it's specially designed for people who've never player RPGs before. From reviews I've read it seems to do the job admirably.

It's a d20 game as well, so with a little bit of changes you all could move to quite a few other settings and systems within the same basic ruleset.

I'd link you, but the Paizo store is apparently down.

There is also the D&D Red Box that is for people brand new to RPG's. Walks you through character creation and has both a solo and a party adventure.

Uh, if you want "simple and effective", maybe give the Dragon Age RPG a try. It's pretty basic (all rules fit on about a dozen pages, and this includes class, talent and spell descriptions and weapon/armour/equipment tables), but the rather ingenious "dragon die stunt system" allows you to make combat feel quite unique and awesome.

Here's an example of play I quickly dug up on the nets: http://rdonoghue.blogspot.com/2010/01/dragon-age-actual-play.html
(as an addendum to the above review, Green Rhonin released an expansion set which, amongst one or two new races and classes and some new equipment, actually does contain a list of stunt options for out-of-combat situations, so one of the points is no longer up to date)

But, again, setting/genre preferences should be your priority, at least for starters. You'll get to know the rules of the various systems (and their advantages or disadvantages) in time.

AnomanderRake wrote:

4e is certainly easier to get into than 3.5, but it doesn't offer nearly as much flexibility; generally people will have strong opinions one way or the other, make sure you know what your group prefers.

Wait, why isn't 4e as flexible as 3e?

Cheesecat wrote:Wait, why isn't 4e as flexible as 3e?

The differences in the way classes are handled in 4th edition make them difficult to adapt upon. Creating a new class is a massive undertaking now in 4th edition. The dramatic shift in how things are handled between 3/3.5 edition and 4th edition pretty much means that you cannot easily use anything from earlier editions. Even monsters need to be fully rebuilt to fit the new paradigm of how combat works. In 3/3.5 you could take something from an earlier edition and shoe horn it in to make a player happy with minimal fuss. It is just not very simple to do that anymore.

Worst moment for me was a new player in my upcoming 4th campaign who kept coming to me with cool 3rd edition stuff he had found and wanted to make a part of his character and none of it fit at all. Powers are handled totally differently. Magic is handled totally differently. Psionics are handled totally differently. With wild talents psionics always kind of were their own "meta" power set. They aren't anymore.

Finally with multiclassing pretty much gone the way of the dodo you are either stuck with a single class fully or with an amalgam of 2 different classes that are no where near as effective as either of the classes on their own would be. The multiclass feats are barely multiclassing. You get an at-will power for your multi-classed class, and access to another skill. Wow. How pointless is that. Add in that many of the iconic class combos from earlier editions are wholly incompatible now. An elven fighter/wizard is just not feasilbe as a hybrid character because the classes go off totally different stats for their capabilities with 1 being physical and 1 being mental. You just cannot operate effectively as both together. This means in your typical epic level game while your comrades are dropping +15 or so into all of their powers and abilities you are probably closer to +9 or +10 which can make a pretty significant difference to your ability to deal with enemies.

I really do have to admit that I do like the more interesting feel of 4th edition combat. It has taken away the way that combat used to "I hit hiim with my broadsword/mace/staff/whatever" over and over. Now you are doing different things with different effects and its all a bit more interesting and dynamic. Unfortunately that change has taken away a lot of the flexibility you used to have in other aspects of chracter creation and capability. Wow did I just say I like something about 4th edition?? Hahahahahahahaha!

Skriker

It is true. It is more difficult to make the half angel/half dragon Ranger/Monk/Spellsword/Ordained Champion that shoots lasers from it's eyes and does save versus death attacks from it's fingers as a swift action in 4e.

Does every system recommendation thread have to go the way of edition wars?

I'd recommend D'n'D 3.5 or Pathfinder for a simple reason: They require absolutely zero investment beyond a computer with an internet connection. If you're just trying out roleplaying but have a good idea what it is "about" (I mean, you understand how a roleplaying game works) then both of these systems have their rules online in a searchable index, including monsters and so on.

If you want to start off with a set of books, I would recommend the D'n'D core set to a beginner, as it introduces the basic roles in an understandable way, and has lots of decent advice for a beginning GM, and is mechanically elegant and easy to run.
3.5 is more complicated, but hey, free rules. Pathfinder is a pretty polished system. It's not as good as 4th in terms of balance I think, but it's perfectly usable.
http://www.d20srd.org/

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

Da Boss wrote:Does every system recommendation thread have to go the way of edition wars?

Apparently not since so far there hasn't been any in this thread. Just talking or joking about different editions does not an edition war make.

That being said I strongly disagree with your assessment. Not with the systems aspect of it, but of, essentially, going entirely PDF for a first time player. I would argue that for a new player having a physical copy of the book is extremely important as they will be flipping through it quite a bit in the early going.

I can kinda see that, yeah. For me, when I was starting, I was a broke student and I appreciated being able to get into the hobby without a big outlay in terms of books.
But I can see that having books to flick through would have been good.

Ahtman wrote:It is true. It is more difficult to make the half angel/half dragon Ranger/Monk/Spellsword/Ordained Champion that shoots lasers from it's eyes and does save versus death attacks from it's fingers as a swift action in 4e.

Amen

I'd go for D&D as its slipstreamed. 3.x/pathfinder/d20 is clunky. Yes you may have an archetype but with some imagination it makes up for the loss of [FEAT: Grapple with nostril hair +5] type things. Everyone took weapon focus and metamagic anyway. 4e is a healthy balance of fluff vs crunch.

If you want more fluff than crunch then try a world of darkness game (or old world of darkness) but they are dark and need a 'mature' mindset.

Phototoxin wrote:

Ahtman wrote:It is true. It is more difficult to make the half angel/half dragon Ranger/Monk/Spellsword/Ordained Champion that shoots lasers from it's eyes and does save versus death attacks from it's fingers as a swift action in 4e.

Amen

I'd go for D&D as its slipstreamed. 3.x/pathfinder/d20 is clunky. Yes you may have an archetype but with some imagination it makes up for the loss of [FEAT: Grapple with nostril hair +5] type things. Everyone took weapon focus and metamagic anyway. 4e is a healthy balance of fluff vs crunch.

If you want more fluff than crunch then try a world of darkness game (or old world of darkness) but they are dark and need a 'mature' mindset.

4e can be suitably story heavy as well biggest factor that effects pen and paper RPG's isn't the rules but the imagination imo.

Cheesecat wrote:4e can be suitably story heavy as well biggest factor that effects pen and paper RPG's isn't the rules but the imagination imo.

It can be as long as you have a GM that takes the game that way and don't play as much in officially sponsored events where finishing all the encounters is the primary goal and the story is a distant second.

I deal with that just by not playing in officially sponsored events.

Skriker

I played in a 'tournament' scenario at GenCon '10 that was brutal. It was definitely more like playing a multiplayer 'Tactics' computer game than anything else. We didn't know they published the character sheets ahead of time so players were expected to have practiced and worked out tactics ahead of time.

The bi-weekly 4th edition game I'm in is completely different. Much more social, and a lot of story content. We're dealing with some 'issues', mainly that the GM doesn't feel we're as challenged by the rules-as-written as much as he'd like. (And he has a point, as most fights haven't been that tough of late.)

Balance wrote:The bi-weekly 4th edition game I'm in is completely different. Much more social, and a lot of story content. We're dealing with some 'issues', mainly that the GM doesn't feel we're as challenged by the rules-as-written as much as he'd like. (And he has a point, as most fights haven't been that tough of late.)

There are actually suggestions for making encounters tougher. The baseline encounter levels, with the perfect mix of classes, can be somewhat easy. There are simple ways to step it up so that they are more challanging. Once you get to a point (around 7th level or so) where the monsters really start getting more special abilities with annoying effects is when encounters stop being quite so easy. The worst are things like beholders that get automatic attacks on targets within a certain area of effect outside of their normal actions.

4th edition is growing on me now that I am running it and have full control over making the sure the roleplaying isn't over taken by the rollplaying. It makes combat much more dynamic than it used to be and have mapped combat spelled out so well really gets rid of the "but I wasn't even near him how did he hit me??!!??" issues that used to be common in D&D combat for years. Now everyone knows where they are and exactly why they have been hit. So it is growing on me. Still not always inspired by the rulebooks, but I think I can survive that.

Skriker

Skriker wrote:There are actually suggestions for making encounters tougher. The baseline encounter levels, with the perfect mix of classes, can be somewhat easy. There are simple ways to step it up so that they are more challanging. Once you get to a point (around 7th level or so) where the monsters really start getting more special abilities with annoying effects is when encounters stop being quite so easy. The worst are things like beholders that get automatic attacks on targets within a certain area of effect outside of their normal actions.

We actually saw the opposite, as we leveled things have gotten easier. It's also a large group, and we don't do more than a couple encounters a night due to delays in combat and generally not playing marathons as we're all old.

Balance wrote:[We actually saw the opposite, as we leveled things have gotten easier. It's also a large group, and we don't do more than a couple encounters a night due to delays in combat and generally not playing marathons as we're all old.

Larger groups usually mean all of the roles get filled at least once which can be a big advantage to the players. It is tough when you have a small group with two strikers and a defender, but no leader or controller. Then it can be really tough. Definitely tweak the encounters *up* when playing with a large group.

I hear you on the lack of marathons and getting older. Back in college it was nothing to pretty much start playing at 8:00pm on a Friday and still be playing at 8:00pm on Sunday with maybe a couple hours of sleep each night, if that. Nowadays I definitely need the sleep...

Skriker

If you stick around in the RPG world long enough you'll get exposed to D20 systems, so those might be a logical place to start, as people mentioned. The upside is you can find a D20 system for basically any world/genre you want.

Otherwise some alternative systems that might be easier to learn:
Mouse Guard
Legend
Dogs in the Vineyard
Savage Worlds
Traveller

If you play 40k I would highly reccomend looking at the Dark Heresy rpg series from fantasy flight. You only need one book to play so its cheap as far as rpg starter sets go (I got mine for $40 for a new copy on amazon) Its a game based on the players playing as alcolytes for an inquisitor, and is supposed to be heavily story based, but you can still do a combat based game too. The mechanics is based off a d100 system with the characters rolling under their stat which is also a percent. for example, in order to shoot and hit something you have to roll under your ballistic skill (a good one is around 40 ish) they're tons of modifiers so even though you're skills are generally low, you can still succeed. What I highly enjoy about this game both as a gm and as a player is the frailty of the players. If the players do something rather dumb and charge 10 guardsmen, they will almost certainly die. The critical effects are also great, as players can have limbs permanently damaged or blown off if they take too much damage to a certain area. Its a well written system and is easy to understand. If you're leaning with fantasy I would go for dnd 3.5 ed I prefer the rules and the flexibility of character creation. Good luck with choosing your game!

The dark heresy games are kinda cool. though not too simple. but if you are a 40K player, it has the advantage of being a familure setting, which is good for getting down to the role-playing (and the roll-playing is just about getting familure with the rules). i have a note to buy the books through amazon from now on. they are all "full color" books, and hard cover. which means they are very expensive (at least they seem so to me). i like buying books from the Friendly local game shop, but amazon cuts $15-20 off the cost most times. paying pull price for the books made me very dissapointed, which isn't fair because the books are really quite nice (just too expensive at suggested retail).

my personal recomendaiton is for one of White-Wolf's Storyteller system games. i love the old (or "classic") World of darkness. i love Exalted (though i have trouble getting my fellow players interested, and no other ST to run it for me to play in). The base system behind it is easy to pick up and run with. if you did Scantron tests, you can fill out the character sheet (it is all just fill in the dots). i have done some great games in the Word of Darkness, even just as mortals (we threw Cyberpunk themes and style into our WoD setting).

Shadowrun... is weird. i am playing in a game every other week. waves of D6's are rolled. i like the (cyberpunk) style, but the (urban fantasy) of shadowrun could be better. power creep with each book, but eh. lot to keep up on if your honest.

I haven't played it yet, but it is the next big game i am planning on getting running with my players, is The Dresden Files. i love the books, and the roleplaying game is very... different from most of the others i have played. the system is more "abstract" with it's powers / systems, and so it is more about (everyone) telling their story, and less about how many dice you swing around, or which rock power you use to beat scisors power. the damage system is interesting. and character creation is novel with the concept of handing around your character sheet to the other players, and connecting all the characters together in your back-story. love it, and it's a great deal (the whole game is 2 books, i got em for 100 bucks when it came out).

What I found easy on DH was that you know right away if you've succeeded on a roll or not, and it was no problem gauging the strength / success chances of your character even when you were totally new to the system - thanks to everything being based on the 1-100% thing. No comparing target numbers, no attributes being calculated from other attributes.

The only thing I dislike on DH is the power creep I perceive right now, with the first careers having started out pretty normal or even below what you'd expect from the Inquisition, and the newer books introducing stuff that creates a huge gap for no reason. That, and the lack of compatibility between the games of FFG's 40kRPG line.

As far as amazon is concerned, a word of warning, though: I was waiting half a year for them to send me Battlefleet Koronus. Finally cancelled my order and purchased it from FFG directly. No idea what's up with that, but I had the same delay when buying other RPG books that were just released. It's as if amazon doesn't bother restocking for months, or (the more probable reason I guess) the RPG publishers deliberately prioritize local gaming stores over online sellers when it comes to shipping new products.

So, my advice: If amazon doesn't have it in stock, or you even want to preorder a book - do it somewhere else. If they do have it there, ready to send, however, you can indeed save some money.