What is a good game someone should play if they have never played a tabletop before?

Hi, I'm a bit new. I've tried to get in a few games , but so far no luck. What game should I try to get into?

I'd say any game - I don't think there are any bad games for beginners.  As long as you realize that it's more about social interaction than a rules system, any game is going to provide at least useful comparisons to determine what you like and don't like down the road.

there are some questions you can ask yourself to help you find out what your game is Would you rather control a single character and focus on it's growth or development, or control a squad and test it out against other people and their squads? then you want to consider settings, which is really something like if you could live in any book, show, or movie, which one would you want to adventure in?

Dave D. said: I'd say any game - I don't think there are any bad games for beginners.  As long as you realize that it's more about social interaction than a rules system, any game is going to provide at least useful comparisons to determine what you like and don't like down the road. Oh ok, thank you.

Nick A. said: there are some questions you can ask yourself to help you find out what your game is Would you rather control a single character and focus on it's growth or development, or control a squad and test it out against other people and their squads? then you want to consider settings, which is really something like if you could live in any book, show, or movie, which one would you want to adventure in? I guess I want to play someone that is contributing to something larger. 

most role playing is about defining a character and growing it, not just rolling dice

While I agree with *some* of the advice above, I don't agree with all of it. Role playing is going to have some common features, no matter what you are playing. And those common features are the important part. But there is still differences in *rule systems* between games, and for someone starting out, some rule systems are easier to pick up than others. Personally, I'd say two you might consider are D&D 4th edition and World of Darkness. In both cases, the rule systems themselves are fairly simplistic, and for your character you probably won't have to learn a lot of special exceptions and corner cases. Over time, as you get more comfortable, you can expand.

I would say D&D 4e or Dungeon World . In any case, the group is more important than the game itself. You're going to want to play with people who are accepting of ideas, focused on making the game better for everyone (not just their character or whatever), and willing to help someone like yourself get your feet wet.

Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 Edition. If you don't have the books and don't want to shell out $50.00 for all three, most of it is available for free from the company as an SRD. Robust, well traveled system with attention paid to the details. Well balanced classes, tons of options!

Dereck, you might want to check out Paizo's Pathfinder system. It is a modification of 3.5 and you can read all the rules on their free website.&nbsp; <a href="http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/" rel="nofollow">http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/</a> - Gauss

The easiest type game to start is any of the D6 West End Games. It allows a new person to focus on playing the game, as all you need is a few 6 sided dice and the ability to add the totals. There isn't many rules and the rules are very easy to pick up in one session. - Vince

Gauss said: Dereck, you might want to check out Paizo's Pathfinder system. It is a modification of 3.5 and you can read all the rules on their free website.&nbsp; <a href="http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/" rel="nofollow">http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/</a> - Gauss Thank you for the link.

Derek V. said: While I agree with *some* of the advice above, I don't agree with all of it. Role playing is going to have some common features, no matter what you are playing. And those common features are the important part. But there is still differences in *rule systems* between games, and for someone starting out, some rule systems are easier to pick up than others. Personally, I'd say two you might consider are D&amp;D 4th edition and World of Darkness. In both cases, the rule systems themselves are fairly simplistic, and for your character you probably won't have to learn a lot of special exceptions and corner cases. Over time, as you get more comfortable, you can expand. Things is I heard d&amp;d 4e is not so good, but I would try world of darkness.

Play the game that speaks to you

You might also consider GMless games like Fiasco . Ultimately, if you play D&amp;D, Dungeon World, or World of Darkness or the like, you're at the mercy of needing a GM. This can limit your options. In more collaborative, improvisational games like this, there is no central arbiter of how things go or anyone that needs do any pre-game preparation. You can pick it up right now and play with your friends and tell some great stories.

Pretty much anything really, some games require more effort to learn than others but most are pretty simple. I would advise that while not a bad game in and of it's self I would say that 4e has a tendency to be very "board game/RPG hybrid" at times with quite a distinct line, not a bad game overall like some will say, just in my experience not a game that is great to introduce roleplaying through and tends towards rollplaying more often than not by it's nature and can stop players from getting into things in my experience. Pathfinder is very top heavy but quite easy to get into if you have an established GM, even without one it doesn't take much to learn, all the rules are free online (for the cheap people and those who hate books) and the beginner box is one of the best introductions I have ever seen to pnp game. WoD, very easy to pick up but requires investment in what you are playing but great for people just wanting to roleplay... Also not hard to GM (well depending on skillset I guess) Those are the big three (with an honorable mention to shadowrun), but there are many other systems out there.. mutants and masterminds, savageworlds (love savage worlds), dragonage rpg (ehhhhh), GURPS (not my thing really) and stuff like Hackmaster (which is always good) Actually thinking on it again I would say... go with pathfinder and get we be goblins as the introduction... it is free and everything you need to play the game from there is free... Make a decision on the systems after that.

Personal preference is key here. I personally prefer D&amp;D 3.5, Pathfinder, World of Darkness, and Mutants and Masterminds for some of the same reasons stated above.&nbsp; That being said, since this is a new arena of entertainment for you, look to some of your other hobbies and interests to get an idea of what kind of setting, themes, and game systems you may want to play in.&nbsp; For instance, if you like medieval studies/shows/documentaries, you may want to try games that cater to those interests, like D&amp;D, Arcs Magica, Vampire Dark Ages, etc...&nbsp; If you like Mecha anime/manga, you might like something like D20 Modern with the future source book or Big Eyes Small Mouth RPG or something similar. Let your already existing interests be one of your main guides&nbsp;

I do not&nbsp;personally&nbsp;like the 4e system, but it is not a bad place to start. &nbsp;Once you get the swing of it, hopping over to Pathfinder (my personal favorite) is pretty easy.

The only thing I don't like about introducing players with 4e is that I have found that players that spend time with it first tend more away from roleplay during combat and more to meta combat. This is ofcourse all to the tastes of the players though, just thought I would warn. 4e is fun though.

Combat is roleplaying. What you're referring to is acting , narrative description , or in-character interaction which is a form of roleplaying. A form of roleplaying no less valid than combat itself. Whenever you make a choice that your character would also reasonably make, whether that's sweet-talking the princess or swinging a sword at an orc, you're roleplaying.&nbsp; Roleplaying also has nothing to do with system mechanics. OP: Any system will give you a platform for roleplaying and narrative outcome resolution. Which form of roleplaying you prefer and value will be up to you to decide.

Maybe First something like Heroequest or Inquisitor, where you start of with some miniatures. I personally learned just by being thrown into the world. But I wouldn't recommend that.

I learned on the Redbox Edition of D&amp;D and there are a wide variety of retroclones out there to learn on. The earliest form of roleplaying I remember is playing cowboys and indians with some of my friends when I was 6. I say start with a very simple system so that it doesn't overwhelm you and get comfortable with it. You will discover that you will sooner or later want to move on to another system that might be more complex or in a different genre. Good luck with what you decide on and just have fun.

Metroknight said: The earliest form of roleplaying I remember is playing cowboys and indians with some of my friends when I was 6.&nbsp; Good analogy. Roleplaying a cowboy means making decisions cowboys might make ("shoot Indians pew pew"); the same goes for roleplaying an Indian.&nbsp; The rules or mechanics of a RPG simply tells you who falls down when the finger gun goes off. Thus, they have nothing to do with roleplaying, only resolution. A good recommendation, therefore, would be to go with something simple as you say and move up from there.

Iserith said: Combat is roleplaying. What you're referring to is acting , narrative description , or in-character interaction which is a form of roleplaying. A form of roleplaying no less valid than combat itself. Whenever you make a choice that your character would also reasonably make, whether that's sweet-talking the princess or swinging a sword at an orc, you're roleplaying.&nbsp;Roleplaying also has nothing to do with system mechanics. OP: Any system will give you a platform for roleplaying and narrative outcome resolution. Which form of roleplaying you prefer and value will be up to you to decide. I have to respectfully disagree here, combat is not roleplaying, it's roll playing which is part of the GAME. Combat is just using the mechanics of the game to end a situation that you really can't control due to limited options. That is the game part, while in character and description is the roleplaying part. Both work with each other to create a roleplaying game and some people enjoy more role playing then roll playing as well as the other way around.

Iserith said: Combat is roleplaying. What you're referring to is acting , narrative description , or in-character interaction which is a form of roleplaying. A form of roleplaying no less valid than combat itself. Whenever you make a choice that your character would also reasonably make, whether that's sweet-talking the princess or swinging a sword at an orc, you're roleplaying.&nbsp;Roleplaying also has nothing to do with system mechanics. OP: Any system will give you a platform for roleplaying and narrative outcome resolution. Which form of roleplaying you prefer and value will be up to you to decide. Combat "CAN" be roleplaying but depending on how the mechanics work a player can quite often get caught up in meta gaming and forget/not be able to roleplay his/her character in the way that he or she has been outside of combat. That is more what I was talking about. Purely because of how it works and how the skills/powers systems work it can take away options during combat. Basically it is just how the mechanics of a game can effect a player's thoughts and roleplay in certain situations.

Roleplaying is, in part, about making decisions that your character would also reasonably make given the context of the scene. This most certainly includes combat where, arguably, the most amount of decisions are made. Do I attack that orc brute in the doorway or do I rush up the stairs to take out that archer? These are things that your character is also weighing in the context of the game. Now, whether or not the player's contribution to the narrative is to your liking (say, description containing meta information) is a matter of preference. Not every player is capable of giving you flowery prose. So when we talk about combat and roleplaying as being separate, this creates a divide, especially as it relates to one person claiming a superior approach - the old "roleplaying vs. rollplaying" canard, for example. I think it's more inclusive and helpful to the discussion to understand that a combat-driven game is roleplaying just like an "all talking" campaign is roleplaying. They're just different types of roleplaying in some ways.

None of which has to do with the original post. Is this thread ready to be locked/deleted?

It very much is related to the post as the OP has never played a tabletop before and should know that roleplaying can be accomplished with any system regardless of whether the mechanics are focused on combat resolution or on other elements. It's just a matter of him finding the one that best suits him.

There are many ways to go based on the aspects of&nbsp;each game.&nbsp; For your first outing there should be minimal rules clutter, to focus on the storytelling, mystery and fun.&nbsp; &nbsp;In the old days I would answer that question with some suggestions: --DUNGEONS &amp; DRAGONS&nbsp;because it had the most extensive player base (and still a major market share).&nbsp; Your need for help&nbsp;is matched by the huge numbers of players who could help you out and answer your questions.&nbsp; Starter boxed games based on D&amp;D are available. --STAR WARS&nbsp;(in the original West End Games&nbsp;edition or "D6" system) because it was based on a well-known fiction and because the game mechanics (dice-rolling rules) were so easy .&nbsp; The new edition has "d20" rules that resemble DUNGEONS &amp; DRAGONS; I would not say they are so easy any more. --I actually started really learning about roleplaying games from something called STAR FRONTIERS (TSR Inc., 1982), a science fiction game focussed on settled planets and unknown planets.&nbsp; It has tremendous notes about how to play a RPG, how to design and run games yourself, and a fast combat system (all using d100 or "per cent" probabilities) with melee, ranged weapons, vehicle and aerial combat&nbsp;that can all be run at once. &nbsp; A new fan edition (the rules started with "Alpha Dawn") is offered for free download at <a href="http://starfrontiersman.com/downloads/remastered" rel="nofollow">http://starfrontiersman.com/downloads/remastered</a> The printed form of the&nbsp;books are available at a modest cost at lulu.com .

I read the fan edition of the star frontiers and they are very close if not exact copy of the original system. Those were fun days to play. I had a friend run his game during lunch at school and we always had a crowd around our table along. Thanks for the fun memory you sparked with that star frontier comment.

I will say with a hand on my heart, Advanced Fighting Fantasy (2nd edition) is perfect to start people off role-playing. It's a lite-medium system that encourages PCs to evolve and develop their characters. Check it out: <a href="http://www.arion-games.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.arion-games.com</a>

Since it hasn't been mentioned yet...Savage Worlds is a great system. &nbsp;Gives you a lot of control, as a character, on the narrative as you play.

Thanks to the above poster, I just looked into Dungeon World. &nbsp;AMAZING! &nbsp;I can't wait to try this system. &nbsp;I also really appreciate the "business model" of an open community.

@Metroknight: &nbsp;yes, Star Frontiers would have drawn a crowd. &nbsp;It's a fast combat system, keeps things moving. &nbsp;I was running one of the Volturnus modules pitting the player-characters aided by 40 melee-ing Kurabanda against 8 or 9 armed Star Devil Pirates. &nbsp;Amazing that I could run it all without losing my mind!&nbsp;

Basically it comes down to two aspects of the game, Roleplaying and Combat, both go hand in hand to make it a game. :)&nbsp; Based on that, you decide which one you enjoy more and run your game that way, which can be done in any system.. for the most part. The reason I suggested a D6 based system, is that it used one type of dice and everything is very connected to it, all you need to do as a player is roll, count and enjoy!

@David R.: Cool, glad you like it. I've been playing it since Beta and it's a lot of fun. I might be inclined to run a game of it for people who want to try it out. As for roleplaying and combat, I find it unfortunate that the community here likes to separate the two when combat is very clearly a form of roleplaying. It's a divisive view. It's okay to say you prefer less combat in your games, but in doing so, it doesn't mean there's any "more" roleplaying in your game. It's just a different type of roleplaying than combat. People who prefer combat as their primary form of roleplaying aren't any less of a roleplayer than anyone else. It's okay to have a preference. It's not okay to call what someone else does "not roleplaying."

Iserith said: As for roleplaying and combat, I find it unfortunate that the community here likes to separate the two when combat is very clearly a form of roleplaying. It's a divisive view. It's okay to say you prefer less combat in your games, but in doing so, it doesn't mean there's any "more" roleplaying in your game. It's just a different type of roleplaying than combat. People who prefer combat as their primary form of roleplaying aren't any less of a roleplayer than anyone else. It's okay to have a preference. It's not okay to call what someone else does "not roleplaying." You are always going to get this no matter what you do or where you go. Its the nature of the games we play and what we like. I've seen many of fights with World of Darkness players vs D&amp;D players... Its just summed up to, you like your games roleplay heavy or combat heavy, each is fine and one side is no better then the other. :)

The problem is in thinking there's a "versus" at all. You can describe a combat-lite roleplaying game without referring to combat as "not" being roleplaying. Because the latter is flat out wrong and it's divisive to the hobby. I'm sure you can agree we certainly don't need any more of that given the divisions that already exist. To the OP: Roleplaying is about you the player making choices your character would also make, given the context of the game. This includes combat. When seeking out a game, you'll want to find one that allows you to make choices your character would also make in a way that best suits your personal preferences. Since you're new to this, I recommend testing out a few before settling on one. When seeking out a group, be wary of GMs and fellow players that believe combat is not roleplaying.

Iserith said: @David R.: Cool, glad you like it. I've been playing it since Beta and it's a lot of fun. I might be inclined to run a game of it for people who want to try it out. As for roleplaying and combat, I find it unfortunate that the community here likes to separate the two when combat is very clearly a form of roleplaying. It's a divisive view. It's okay to say you prefer less combat in your games, but in doing so, it doesn't mean there's any "more" roleplaying in your game. It's just a different type of roleplaying than combat. People who prefer combat as their primary form of roleplaying aren't any less of a roleplayer than anyone else. It's okay to have a preference. It's not okay to call what someone else does "not roleplaying." Lol I came off the wrong way somewhere as I said I don't think that combat cannot be roleplaying I am just saying that sometimes depending on the mechanics it can take people out of their roles and have them start to see it as more of a game during combat. Combat is something that ideally should have just as much roleplay in it as anything else (ie making decisions that your character would based on their knowledge, what fits their character best, situation best and avoiding meta) HOWEVER this is not to say that people who like the gaming aspect and love the meta and like to eschew roleplay in combat or downplay roleplay in combat are bad gamers or wrong either... it is purely what they like in whatever situation or timeframe that they like it in. I wish all well and want people to know that I was not meaning for any ill will in any of this I like roleplay and am glad that people are fans too.

how about saying it is more story driven then mechanics driven? This way it is about the story, no matter how you do it, and not about what dice to roll. just my couple pennies tossed in

"The roleplaying game and/or GMing approach I'm using doesn't allow for many opportunities for combat. If combat is primarily your preferred way of roleplaying, this game may not be the right fit for you." (Honest, accurate, polite.) OR "My game's more about roleplaying than combat." (Inaccurate, divisive, potentially insulting.) As for the issue of being "story-driven," all RPG's and all games are story-driven. Story is an artifact of play - it's created simply by playing. In the moment of play, it's a tale to be told. After the fact, it's a story. If you've done nothing but a three-room dungeon delve and never once spoke in your character's voice or contributed fictional descriptions to your actions, you've still told the story about 5 badasses kicking some orc butt in a dungeon. You've still roleplayed because you've made choices your character might also reasonably make given the context of that dungeon. It might, however, not be your preference as to how you told that story, which is perfectly valid. But you're still telling a story by playing. And, again, you're still roleplaying. Dice are just used to determine outcomes, depending on the system. Dice, complex mechanics, etc. is not indicative of the quality of the roleplaying that comes out by playing a given game.

I guess my view is inaccurate, divisive, and potentially insulting as I know what is expected when I read "My game's more about roleplaying then combat". I will take my couple pennies back and walk away before something else is said. Have a good day.

@Metroknight: Please don't take offense at what I wrote - none was intended. I'm simply suggesting that GMs can more accurately describe their methods and attract the players they really want while not downplaying the preferences of others. It is, in my view, a more positive and inclusive way of doing things.

@ Iserith : I didn't take offense but I could have.&nbsp; We are dealing with human nature here and most people are not going to worry about posting descriptions of their game in an accurate or inclusive way. A lot of experienced gamers that I dealt with understand that "my game is more roleplaying then combat" means that the game will not have as much life and death action scenes as someone who posted "My game is all about combat and not much roleplaying" which tells me that the game all about combat is going to be constant dice rolling as monster after monster after monster keeps coming at the group. This doesn't say that there won't be any roleplaying like "Arial shudders and groans as yet another wave of monsters sweep down on her. With a curled lip she summons her flagging strength to lift her blood soaked katana and starts to hack at the monsters again".&nbsp; All this discussion has gone so far off the OP's post that maybe we should refocus on that and let this discussion slide into archives or this could be continued in it's own thread. I think we all hijacked this thread enough.

Dereck j. said: Hi, I'm a bit new. I've tried to get in a few games , but so far no luck. What game should I try to get into? Hi Dereck. Take a look at this thread called&nbsp; Game Resources . It has a lot of game site links for you to go through and read. That should help you find a game system that interest you. My favored system is called BFrpg and it is a free system. There is a game that is recruiting right now for it so go to the Looking for group forum and find it. Good luck and hope you find a game you have fun in.

Excellent thread Metroknight. Might want to chance the thread link to the first one so he sees everything on top first. Gaming Resources link

@ Lord Nikon : I normally would have done that but I was pressed for time at that moment so I figured it would do the job and I would be able to fix it later but you beat me to it.

Metroknight said: @ Lord Nikon : I normally would have done that but I was pressed for time at that moment so I figured it would do the job and I would be able to fix it later but you beat me to it. Ah I see. Well its all good. Still an excellent thread of reading! Thank you for sharing it.

There are many ways to chose your first game. There are rules heavy and rules light games.&nbsp;There are popular games and games with small followings. There are combat focused games and story focused games. Some games are encounter based, where players are expected to do most or all of the encounters. Skipping encounters may make the party too weak later on. Others are goal based, where players are expected to solve a problem no matter what path they take. Encounters may be entirely optional, and are often created on the fly as the players work the problem. There are games tweeked to evoke a specific setting, and games that work with a lot of settings. There are games for different genres. Here are games I've played: Game Rules Heavy Rules Light Combat Focus Story Focus Encounter Based&nbsp; Goal Based&nbsp; Setting Genre D&amp;D X X &nbsp;X &nbsp; Many Fantasy Pathfinder X X &nbsp;X &nbsp; Many Fantasy Warhammer FRP&nbsp; X X &nbsp; &nbsp;X Warhammer Fantasy Grim Fantasy Call of Cthulhu X X &nbsp; &nbsp;X Many (default is 1920s) Horror Trail of Cthulhu X X &nbsp; &nbsp;X Many (default is 1930s) Horror Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, Deathwatch, Black Crusade X X &nbsp; &nbsp;X Warhammer 40k Grim Gothic Sci-Fi GURPS X X &nbsp; &nbsp;X Many, many All Ashen Stars X X &nbsp; &nbsp;X The Bleed Gritty Space Opera World of Darkness X X &nbsp; X&nbsp; World of Darkness Horror &nbsp;Mouse Guard &nbsp; &nbsp;X &nbsp; &nbsp;X &nbsp; X&nbsp; Mouse Guard Mice with Swords Night's Black&nbsp;Agents &nbsp; &nbsp;X &nbsp; &nbsp;X &nbsp; &nbsp;X Modern World w/ Horror Bourne Identity Meets Vampires The encounter / goal type of game is explained better here by Walt Ciechanowski:&nbsp; <a href="http://www.gnomestew.com/gming-advice/a-tale-of-two-types/" rel="nofollow">http://www.gnomestew.com/gming-advice/a-tale-of-two-types/</a> Edit: I realized I played Traveler for years, and forgot to add that. But the table tool won't let me add a row now. So here: Game Rules Heavy Rules Light Combat Focus Story Focus Encounter Based&nbsp; Goal Based&nbsp; Setting Genre Traveler X &nbsp; X &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;X Many: different eras of same Future Space Opera Game Rules Heavy Rules Light Combat Focus Story Focus Encounter Based&nbsp; Goal Based&nbsp; Setting Genre A Song of Ice and Fire X &nbsp; &nbsp;X &nbsp; &nbsp;X George RR Martin's books Gritty Fantasy

John, wow, that's very good. &nbsp;I was going to "like" then I realized this is Roll20, not Facebook. &nbsp; :0 As an Old School type, I notice that the new games come loaded with flashy art and tied up with lots of details of the game settings. &nbsp;It seems to me like a lot of hand-holding. &nbsp;It wasn't the same decades ago. &nbsp;Games came out more straight-up, less settings and flash. &nbsp;We read honest-to-God paperback fiction books before we became gamers, that was our geekdom then and we had whole shelves of it, so the RPGs said less and merely invited us to put all that fiction to work in our heads.

Pierre, That's a good point. I used to play a lot of games where the GM would put us in one of their favorite books. On the other hand, that's a lot of work, so I can see the appeal of a world ready to run from the starting gate. And then there are some players who want to use every class, ability, spell, item, what-have-you from a game, and can't understand when the GM tries to limit their choices to fit the world they are trying to create.&nbsp; Other players feel that any world becomes a generic grey blah where every genre idea ever considered is brought into the game. They miss the lack of theme. When you read a novel, the setting supports the story.&nbsp; A game that comes with comes with a setting saves the GM from having to defend his rule that "there are no gnome steampunk inventors in my game based on Game of Thrones."