Thanks for the full answer. I'll admit I've mostly avoided gaming in stores, but the few times I have in the last few years, there have seemed no end to the number of players. The sad part is many of those players have been jerks or 16 year olds going on 12.

I've run games in game stores and in homes (and in restaurants, in bookstores, at libraries, in public parks, while camping, at a pagan retreat - surrounded by nekkid pagans, in schools, at summer programs, at conventions, and once at midnight in a cemetery...).

I greatly prefer running games at people's homes - it gives a lot more control over atmosphere.

But, yeah - boot the problems fast. That was how I first became a DM - the problem players were the previous DM and his best buddy.

Dear gods, looking at four decades of gaming in a couple of years....

The Auld Grump

Thanks for the great advice so far guys! (both on games and group building)

We don't play at our FLGS due to having a two year old and having her around during games. Also, our store smelled like some serious gamer b.o. until last year or so when they had the carpets replaced.

I may try and push for their Thursday night board game night, though. That could increase player count. We shall see.

As for booting the problems, it is a sad fact but we also have had our fair share of "that guy" at the table. I have become more and more cautious to new players and more and more likely to turn them away. If I had to choose, I pick no game over a game with "that guy." That being said, I am 26 years old and have routinely gamed with people in their 30s and 40s more often than their 20s due to maturity level. I am uncertain of everyone's age in our group but if I had to venture a guess, I would say we average out at mid-30s and that is on the low end of where we have been in previous groups.

I can answer about your concerns with the 4e since i'm still using it:

Pro:
REALLY well balanced and funny combat system if you use it with minis!
EXTREMELY (i really mean it!) easy for the gm to setup encounters and adventures!

Con:
HORRIBLE (i really mean this too!^^) really horrible in managing anything out of combat!


in fact we use the rules for fighting and essentially we have a pure narrative interaction out of combat (bluffs and other things roleplayed of course)

Actually forgot to mention the original Deadlands! Lots of fun, in a Spaghetti with meat! sort of way. Unlike SW the system has flavor, and the game has the best Weird Science rules that I have ever seen, barring, maybe, OGL Steampunk.

You can find Deadland used online, and the PDFs are fairly inexpensive on RPGNow. I just wish that they would allow Print on Demand, I think that there is still a market.

As for 4e.... *WARNING! RANT FOLLOWS!*

I still don't know what was going through the collective mind of WotC at the time.

I have guesses:
Kill the OGL - change all the terms so that no one can use the OGL to clone 4e.
*FAILED* Instead the fans of the OGL played 3.X or switched to Pathfinder.

Make all the important bits ourselves! That's where the money is! And we avoid the glut!
*FAILED* Sales slumped after each book. They managed to glut their own market with monthly releases.

Make everything balanced! Everyone will shine!
*FAILED* Everything felt the same. If everyone can do everything then no one shines. Constant errata to keep things balanced.

Make everything Core! That way all of the players will buy all of the books!
*FAILED* Rules glut, and option paralysis. Min Max players and more constant errata.

Limit GM Fiat! Why should the GM make all the decisions?
*FAILED*Many GMs like to make worlds - not every world needs Dragonborn.... The GM wants to shape his world, not have WotC do it for him.

Make Magic Items disposable! Need to change your Holy Avenger into a Blight Mace? No problem! Even if it was eaten by a Rust Monster you can get the magic back!
*FAILED*Led to very boring disposable magic items.

Let's insult all the previous editions! That will make the folks that still play the older versions change to 4e so they can be cool!
*FAILED* Or make a rift bigger than the one between 2e and 3.X.... And leave folks feeling insulted into the bargain. WotC fired the opening shots in this Edition War - a bad idea no matter which game you support....

Hey Guys! 4e has failed! Let's do D&D Next! now!
*CAUTION* Could be too little, too late. And they are still trying to avoid the OGL, because avoiding it worked sooo well for them during 4e.... Still hope, but I have no enthusiasm....

The sheer arrogance meant that even where 4e shines (I gather that it is very good for encounter design - making adventure design a lot easier and faster) it was being ignored because the rest carried the stench of hubris. Folks felt betrayed.

The Auld Grump, I felt betrayed.

I don't want this to turn into a 4e rant. I will say that I greatly enjoyed the system while we played it. I loved being a DM for it. My players enjoyed it. I loved not using heavy rules for things outside of combat. I house-ruled items. I even enjoyed the combat system. The downfalls for our group almost completely center around multi-classing. We still looked beyond this.

No D&D edition is perfect.

I am also willing to bet that no system out there is perfect.

I feel like comparing editions (or systems) and trying to rank them is comparing apples to oranges. I am not looking for which systems to avoid. I am looking for which systems to try.

Out of curiosity, what were your issues with multiclassing? I personally didn't enjoy it when I played 4e, but I'm curious to hear what your group's complaints are.

4e really was not intended for multi-classing at all.

The writers have admitted that they did not like multi-classing - partly because of the balance issues from 3.0, and partly because they really wanted to nail down what each class could do in combat.

If a class did what you wanted it to do then you were fine, but if you wanted to think outside of the box... they gave you another box.

I think that this was a big piece of why WotC told folks not to bother converting old campaigns and start fresh - they knew what they wanted the classes to do, and for folks that wanted to do what their old characters could do... that didn't work.

Despite what they said on the books - 4e was not a new edition, it was a new game.

WotC would have been better served to market 4e as a new game, and keep the old architecture for D&D. (I would have gone with Dungeons & Dragons Tactics for the title of 4e - it had kind of the same feel as Final Fantasy Tactics.)

I really like what Paizo is doing with archetypes - a lot of multi-classing is removed by tweaking existing classes, but multi-classing itself was left intact.

It is much more of a toolkit. You can bend classes around like pretzel dough.

The Auld Grump

I'm going to throw my two cents, as one of the players in Talae's group.

(Okay, after finishing this, it is more like two thousand cents, but anyway... )

Just to get it out of the way and in hopes of (like Talae) moving this beyond a 4e rant, I will say that I think the 4e game we were playing simply ran its course. It came to an end, and the general feeling seems to be "been there, done that, and its going away...so what else is there?". We really are not taking away any strong feelings about the system, good or bad. So discussing 4e qualities is not lending anything to answering the question of "What's next".

I would say that discussing the nature of the group would be a deciding factor, but I don't think anyone in the group has a real system addiction/preference. Pretty much we either have individually played enough types of games to be open minded or because the person really hasn't played a wide range of systems they therefore also have an open mind. Nor does there seem to be an particular attitude about play dominating the group, no particular demand for a rule to cover everything or abhorrence to having a stat define an aspect of your character. For the most part, if there is a rule around to use in a situation, we use it. If that rule doesn't make sense, we figure it out. If nothing applies or is needed, then we do what is reasonable. If anything, there might be a slight tendency to look beyond stats, rules, and character sheets and just go for it. Setting wise, there isn't a lot of direction or demand at this point either. We're at a state of transition, so as the topic says "Convince" us to play a game.

One limit I will venture on stating is that I do not think anyone is interested in investing in a rule system (in terms of money or time) more than what can be easily justified by the potential payout. By that I mean, the more rules you need to learn/materials required to play there are for the system...well then it either better be good for a very broad range of things or be an absolutely amazing game.

In trying to rank or think about games, I have tried to think about it in these terms. First group of games are those that 3-4 of us can spend no more than an afternoon learning, and then be free to play in multiple settings or run a mini-campaign in one setting over at least the next 3-5 sessions before evaluating and going any further. Meanwhile, if some of the other added people we see in the group come in for a game during that time, they can learn enough of the basics on the fly to participate for a that session. Ideal here are rules one of us might own, have experience with, or be able to get cheap.

The other group are games that we could do in terms of an almost "Quick-Start" set up. Enough of the rules and system can be learned by 1 person beforehand (if that is even needed) and taught to 3 or more people that are around that session. We can then do a one shot day or two of gaming before moving on or developing further. If that system can be used for multiple setting, all the better, but if it is setting specific...no big deal. The big factor with would be access to the rules, even if it is just the quick-start rule set that many of the bigger games have available for free.

Besides FATE, World of Darkness, Fiasco, and a few others that have been raised here already and that I have experience with, I have also brought up:

All Flesh Must Be Eaten (Unisystem rules). Simple and flexible for different settings, but not necessarily good for magic or "power" based character concepts in my opinion.

Prose Descriptive Qualities-Just about as simple as it comes, which is a plus and a minus.

GURPS: Not a fan from the little experience I have with it, but worth bringing up as it is by design good for different settings.

One system that another player has mentioned in the past but I have only a passing knowledge of is the Legend of the Five Rings. Might be interesting to hear some thoughts on that from the collective.

As for feedback on the list Talae made off the top of his head earlier.

Fiasco: I am a fan, but it is not meant for campaigns. Would work for exploring settings, but not much else as it by design has no mechanic for resolving conflict. The focus of the rules is on setting up tension and character relationships, so I can se it used as a prequel and then have the game converted in something else system wise.

Leverage: Like the show, not sure it would go over with the whole group as a setting without a supernatural/power aspect to play. From what a brief search tells me of the system, it doesn't look like it adds anything unique to the discussion. I don't see the advantage of getting the system, when I can play the setting with any of a bunch of other options. But maybe I am missing somehting.

FATE: Played a little, also ran a Dresdin Files one shot when it first came out (which is FATE based). Good for any setting with a few tweaks, not too complex, but does present a difficulty as far as easily being able to let someone just walk in for a session if the game lasts more than a one shot. I have also had my doubts, based on limited experience, about it being able to hold up over a longer campaign.

Savage Worlds: Never played, but somewhat interesting (including the Deadlands setting). From what I can tell, rules look easy to grasp and flexible enough to fit into my first grouping of games concept above. The down side, some of the group might have issues with the varying of dice you get for traits.

Mutants and Masterminds: From what I can tell, a D20 based version of a generic rules system. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing in of itself that makes it appealing. Would be interested in knowing if the powers set up is the big attraction.

Marvel Heroic Roleplay system: Can't get a good sense from the descriptions I can find, but seems like a hybrid of FATE and Savage Worlds. That might make it a bit more of a challenge than easing into either of those other games first. Also might be too setting specific. Could one play a Chutlulh games using it?

The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen: Interesting on face value. I played an independent game that sounds like it once I think, but it was set up as a bunch of old explorers/scholors boasting about an adventure in the past (sort of like King Solomon's Mines). Would be fun for a one shot, especially if the system is easy.

Call of Cthulhu: I'm a big fan of Mythos fiction and HPL, and I've never had a problem playing a character with a dark destiny/short life-span as long as it adds to the story. I did not though like the d20 rules, and I have not played the older/different versions out there. I have done a little in the setting with Unisystem/All Flesh Must Be Eatten, and it worked well. So, I guess I would lean toward using the setting but finding a rule set that could be used for other settings. Any similiar experiences?

Pathfinder: As has been stated, it is fairly setting specific, detailed rules, lots of books, and is set up as a D&D alternative. Nothing wrong with that, but again, that's not really a selling point during this transition time.

Last, for myself, I tend to like game systems that include a Advantages/Disadvantages, Edges/Hindrances, Flaws/Backgrounds, or similar mechanic over those that have Feats popping up a set levels and/or that have a list of prerequisites. I'm okay with classes and levels, but find that concepts/archetypes work better over time. One of the reasons I liked All Flesh was because of their advantages and disadvantages systems, same for OWoD which added in Backgrounds.

So...

Convince me on what to play.

(in other words, if you had a group of about 4 gamers together for an average session one day, what would you try to get them to play to have a good time for a day or two)

Anima RPG is interesting.
http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_ ... sp?eidm=64

It has all that you are talking about in terms of rules. However, it takes fantasy and adds some 'Bam!'. Wall running, fighters in thick plate mail with a two handed sword in each hand really works in this setting. The Dominus Exxet book has an interesting section called the compendium of impossible weapons. (Ever want to use a monofilament to slice things up a bit? How about a sword whip? How about a swarm of daggers?)

The setting, Gaia, is also interesting. I recommend the book even if you aren't going to play the game. Its very well written, and is easily adapted into something like say Pathfinder. Its not quite a kitchen sink setting in that its a world on the brink of war, and its politics are well defined. Its a cross between European and Asian cultures. Monotheism (Christian Church) and Inquisitions are the order of the day. The kicker is that its not between good and evil... its between mundane and magic.

The original sin is Magic, and it must be stamped out at all costs. (Not that secret societies of wizards don't exist.)

Even more interesting is that Asian Ki powers are common place. Ever want to play a wall running.. Hadokan dealing... Shadow Ninja? In plate mail with a big sword?

Psyimp has done a wonderful job of articulating what I am trying to get across. I am glad that this thread has been so productive so far and look forward to sharing ideas with my group. I would also love to continue to hear more ideas. Thanks again everyone.

Not to go back to pimping Pathfinder since I seriously doubt what you are looking for, but it really is not as setting specific as it sounds like you think it is. Yes, it is a high fantasy setting, but outside of that, its pretty easy to transport to whatever high fantasy world you may like as all the rules are pretty transparent as to what they do (such as how the Gods work).

I agree with that - my homebrew has very little in common with the Pathfinder setting. (Heck, most of the world is monotheistic - wars happen because folks disagree on how to worship Him.)

The hardcovers allow customizing way outside of the normal rules. The Ultimate Races book adds the ability for GMs to stat up the races that are only found in their games. (I statted up the ogres of my campaign world - Panathean ogres a playable race. A lot less powerful than the base Pathfinder ogre.)

Really, while Paizo would love to sell you everything, the first thing that they sell is a toolkit and some lumber.

The Auld Grump

Yup, what Talae said.

My impression is the Pathfider is no more or less specific than D&D 3.x. That is, fantasy lending itself to high fantasy. While world setting might be fairly customizable and open, I have not been given any impression of it being able to go to other settings as far as games. Maybe genre, is a more fitting term.

So yeah, it really doesn't sound like what we are looking for. Unless you can convince me that for <$40 I can have access to enough Pathfinder material to play three or more of the settings/ genreTalae mentioned a while back (Supers, Space, Pulp-Noir, Cthulhu, Fantasy, Zombies, Cyberpunk and Steampunk, etc) without having to make up as much as the rules themselves provide. That, or point me in the direction of a free/very cheap Quickstart that can be run in an afternoon and will convince me that Pathfinder is an incredible game. '

Anima: Beyond Fantasy
I can't find much in the way of details on a quick search, but some interesting comments in what I can find. A preponderance of charts and perhaps a little complicated to explain to someone stopping in for a day seem to be the possible problems, but a lot of other interesting points that at least make it stand out as a suggestion. Combination of leveling and point buy is intriguing. World setting os interesting sounding, but not necessarily enough for the expense. I might try to spend some time seeing how easily the rules/set up could be used for different genres.

Psyimp, well, the Pathfinder books are $10 for a digital copy direct from Paizo. However, since it is OGL, their is nothing specifically Pathfinder you would need for other genre/settings, just whatever OGL book you want for your setting. Speaking specifically to Pathfinder, though, if you aren't looking for a high fantasy game, definitely not worth looking into.

Genre is most likely the proper word.

There are PDFs that came out for 3e to turn the game in odd directions (Four Color to Fantasy for example explores using D&D for running super heroes). Not entirely successful, but it can be used for some very interesting settings. (Skull & Bones, for example, is a wonderful reworking for a piratical game with magic. Yarrr!)

For a similar base system, but more flexible in regards to Genre, you may want to take a look at True20. Again, there is a $10 PDF for the base game, and a fair number of supplements governing SF, Fantasy, Steampunk,and Horror. And, I am sorry to say, mecha combat as well. (Two different sets of rules for mecha, by two separate companies....)

I have run one short True 20 campaign, in the Darwin's World Post Apocalyptic setting. It can be very lethal. And I mean lethal. An RPG is not a friend to those targeted. *BOOOM! and half the party wondering why they have halos, and what are they supposed to do with these harps...

Some of the True20 rules could be better worded, but once you figure things out it is a very simple system.

A solid generic system using the D20 rules, mostly.

The Auld Grump

Going down the multi-genre track...
These days for multi-genre I'd suggest either Savage Worlds or True20. (Disclaimer, I've never played GURPS which comes up every time someone mentions multi-genre.)

Savage Worlds is the faster, lighter starter and a lot of fun to play. In SW the characters are heroes, doing heroic stuff (and getting away with it most of the time) right from the get-go. Once the players get the hang of throwing their characters into the heat of things then play is a blast. Definitely suits players who enjoy a gung-ho, "damn the torpedoes" approach to play and don't mind occasionally losing a character (they can always make another one that will be just as fun). Not the system for people (GMs or players) who like to keep things under control.
The trick to getting flavour into SW is to change the feats (called Edges in SW) and caster types/powers that are available in each setting, instead of automatically allowing all the standard ones from the core rules. Provide a collection of Edges that encourage the play style and flavour you want and the game tends to work out that way (e.g. for a Pirate campaign I created an Edge that included a chance of finding something to swing from when you needed it. The result: Erol Flynn style manoeuvres became a regular part of the action.)

True20 suits more considered GMs and players who like to develop their settings/characters in more detail and over a longer time frame. Like Grump says, the True20 system is actually very simple, it just seems to take a bit longer to pick up. As with SW, a good part of the flavour comes from the feats and powers you allow in each setting, along with custom classes (called Roles) which are pretty easy to create following the guidelines given. Again, the trick to flavour is to avoid defaulting to the standard rules, and provide custom lists specific to the setting. The latest version, True20 Revised, is only $10 and includes good guidelines for customising settings.

I prefer well-developed long-lived campaigns and characters, which I would have thought would mean True20 ahead of SW every time. However, I found SW so much fun to GM and play, including for a couple of 6 month long campaigns, that I'd happily go with either.

Leverage is a Cortex Plus rule system, and very good at reproducing the feel of the show. There are even rules for running it without a GM. It does break down into a kind of dice game, but is fun in small chunks.
Marvel Heroic is the same base system, but breaks down to a dice game in the end as well.
Talea, if your group is really that wishy- washy on what to play next, I'd recommend GURPS. Those rules CAN be complicated, but don't need to be. Never go to their forum, because they LOVE to argue rules over there. If you can find it, I'd try 3rd edition first with basic combat. I've found it a very easy system to make "invisible" to the players and just get into the game. It will take some work on the part of the GM to know the rules well, but after that it's just 3d6 and some mods.

I might also mention that Battlestar Galactica is a decent set of sci-fi rules. (I am a fan of Cortex, can you tell)

While Mutants and Masterminds was developed from the ground up to be a Supers-style game, it can transition to a number of other styles of genre very well. With other genres, however, the GM really needs to crack down and say, "This is what's available, don't stray too far from this." With some work, it can handle almost anything - but it will always have a touch of almost-over-the-top cinematic style to it, which does not suit itself to particular genres (cthulhu and cosmic horror, particularly).

I know GURPS has been brought up and discarded, but I do think that it would be a good one to re-examine. While GURPS is an option-rich system, it handles what Mutants and Masterminds does not - the low-end, gritty 'me against the world' style games, with lots of optional rules you can throw in from the core books to really get things to where you want them (for example, the Critical Hit/Miss tables and the Horror Check system). While all the games I have run with it were high-powered action games (one straight up Supers, as I was running that when I first got the rules, the others being high-powered Fantasy style games), it really lends itself more to the PI, cosmic horror, or various low-powered 'punk style games.

The other two that I have looked at, but haven't done much of anything with yet, are BESM 2e and the various d6 games (Fantasy, Modern, and Space). BESM was a very popular anime-inspired rules-light game in the '90s, and as such, a lot of books were printed for it, and (at least last I checked), as such, it's extremely easy to get a copy for ~$10 through Ebay. Unfortunately, BESM 3e is another matter entirely - while it was well received and fans really wanted more, it only received a small print run, and you'll be lucky to find a copy of it for $100 - more commonly running to the $300+ range.
The various d6 system games, on the other hand, were well put together and based on the original Decipher Star Wars RPG ruleset with some improvements and tweaks. They did not sell well, however, and have since been relegated to many a bargain bin. Another one that, last I checked, was easy to find for around $10. Haven't actually gotten to run or play in the system, but what I saw of it looked fun (and I did take the time to grab all the core books for it).

BESM is a great system! I had no idea that 3rd edition was such a collectors item. I got it from Half Price books for $20 and still have my copy!

I'm also a fan of the West End Star Wars system. I personally prefer it to the D20 iterations. Not as well balanced, but feels more Star Wars-y.