What is the best game for role play its self.

What I am looking for is, what tabletop RPG is best for role-play, Story and gives as much freedom as possible to its players to create said story.

A very hard question to answer. I would say that would rest in the hands of the DM. There are so many variants out there and all have the possibility to be as free and provide whatever you wish. But yet again its in the hands of the DM to decide how much freedom, roleplay, story, combat, etc. to implement. If you wish to be a DM then the skys the limit, pick a version (D&D 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, Next, Pathfinder, etc ((I could go on and on)) and use it as a basis. Try and be consistent through out though, sometimes when you start making your own stuff (homebrew) things become unbalanced and players will notice. Hope any of this helps.

If you are looking for collaborative systems in and of themselves, you could look into Fate, Savage Worlds, Dungeon World and the likes. They focus a lot more on being as rules-lite as possible.

My problem comes with the crowds that are commonly found around found around each of them. So wile yes a DM can make all the difference but as a DM i am looking for players that want to be a part of such a game. So i am looking for a game that represents this and brings the rite sort of person.

I run a D&D campaign that pulls from several sources but uses D&D 3.5e as a baseline. It is considered a "Homebrew" because I tweak and make a lot of stuff up myself. Try posting in LFG and be very specific it will be a Homebrew or very open game setting. There are always a group of people out there looking to go outside the normal confines and step into something unique.

Moved to Off-topic.

123mind123 said: What I am looking for is, what tabletop RPG is best for role-play, Story and gives as much freedom as possible to its players to create said story. There's no objective answer, really. It's going to fall down to what works best for a specific GM and group. That doesn't help you at all, of course. If by "story" you mean to have a more narrative bent and/or try to ape dramatic conventions within the context of a roleplaying session, then there's a few choices that might more sense for you to use. Primetime Adventures - it's an RPG where you play as characters on a TV show that you create as a group and the GM acts as a director to guide the flow of the episode. There's a neat playing card mechanic that separates out success, stakes and who gets to narrate the outcome. Depending on how you arrange the season, each character will have more or less influence on an episode. Something Fate based. Fate Core is the latest offering in this sense. Characters are defined as a collection of aspects - interesting and critical components of who they are - and a more traditional set of skills. It does a good job of bringing dramatic conventions into a game with characters getting Fate Points for acting like their aspects and then burning those fate points in order to overcome the antagonist at the end. It works well on Roll20 and has a thriving fan base at the moment. Something tailored to the type of story you want to tell. Polaris covers tales of sacrifice and falling from grace and is heavy on improvisation. Dogs in the Vineyard handles pseudo-Mormon lawmen rooting out evil in towns of the Southwest. Truth and Justice focuses on the stories behind superheroes and to quote the most succinct and awesome review ever lets you "punch a superhero in the girlfriend." If you mention what kind of story you'd like to have, others can probably nail down something a bit more tailored for your needs.

Roleplay does not, and never will, have anything to do with the system you use. It has everything to do with how you run the game and how your players interact with it. If you want more roleplaying, you find players who want to roleplay. The system you use to determine what dice to roll and what mechanics to use don't have anything to do with how you roleplay within a game. It's just a rules system. You can roleplay a game just as well with no rules at all, or with an extremely specific set of rules.

It really depends. An oft-made mistake, the way I see it, is that people confuse systems that are based on role playing with games that encourage role playing and even more so, they confuse role playing with story telling. There are a number of system, some which were mentioned here, which are based on role playing. The system has set rewards for role playing, stats for role playing... etc. However, I find that those types of systems generally get in the way of certain "types" of role playing because of their more advanced rules when it comes to "role playing". If you have a great number of ability scores(or stats, or however you wish to call'em) that influence how your personality should be, how convincing you are... etc then it is very hard for a character to actually develop and it is very hard for you to feel "immersed" in a conversation when you are constantly rolling to see how the conversation is going, and your own words have little effect on it. Personally, I have managed to play 2 campaigns ( one of them a one shot and one of them and ongoing campaign ) with a system that has nothing to do with role-playing almost at all. And I find that those kind of systems are best for role-playing, because the possibilities on what your characters can say and how NPCs will react are, not endless but very diversified. But then again, the way I do campaigns I never really have a "story", I simply have PC's that travel trough a world filled with characters that I create and whether or not they interact with them and what they say to them is their own choice. There are other types of RP-ing, one which seems to be very popular among certain site members here is "collaborative story telling", others are simply based around a GM telling a story and the PCs walking through it... A system "good" for role-playing really depends on how you define role playing and on your players. A system might be great for what you intend to do, but if it has to low of a pace for your players to be interested then it would be better going with a worse one, on the opposite side of the coin, if your players enjoy to theorycraft and powergame certain things then maybe some systems are not complex enough for them. I am of the strong belief that you need to give more details for people to recommend systems that could suit you, the 3 phrases you wrote until now don't make a very good job of explaining, at least to me, what exactly you are looking for. Maybe give an example of game that you saw and though was alike something you want to play, maybe look trough some systems and tell us the elements you dislike and the ones you like and people could help you find a better system ( which contains the elements you liked in the previous one and discards the one you didn't).

Askren said: Roleplay does not, and never will, have anything to do with the system you use. It has everything to do with how you run the game and how your players interact with it. That's true to a large extent and is probably the biggest element in the quest for roleplaying. However, game mechanics and presentation certainly influence and facilitate the type of game or type of story one wants to produce. Different mechanics can help foster genre emulation and encourage immersion. If it didn't, we'd all be happily playing T.W.E.R.P.S.

Easy Answer: Any of them, as long as all individuals involved are willing to modify rules and such to suit the given situation and needs any system can work Hard Answer: You're going to have to define what you mean by "roleplaying", before I can give a definiative answer

Well i think i have every thing i need. I have been GMing for a long time so i do understand what you all say. Tho i think i have said the wrong question. I have built such a game and have players that think the same way. my problem is that finding people who see the same way has been ridiculously hard. So my new question it how to find people that put story, world and playing there characters above fighting and stats.

Ask them ? Write a description for the game that explains how you plan on running the game and say that you want to put story, world and character above fighting and min-maxing. And obviously, using a system that is very min-max focused might deter the people you want from playing and using a very "simple" system might deter min-maxing and fighting focused individuals from playing.

123mind123 said: So my new question it how to find people that put story, world and playing there characters above fighting and stats. George pretty much hit on it. I do want to add that there needs to be a certain amount of trust between participants in a shared narrative kind of game and so you'll want to work on developing that level of trust. Things like collaborative world building, group character generation and brainstorming sessions can all foster that trust within the group. I'd also recommend playing a mini-campaign of something else to try to screen players ahead of time to get a feel for everyone - things like Fiasco or real old school D&D. On a purely technical aspect, both the LFG forums and search are great places to find like minded people. Post what kind of game you want to run and the type of players you're looking for and see what happens. Google+ communities could also have the type of players you want and I'd also recommend searching general gaming forums like rpg.net and story-games.com.

Post it and they will come. Too many will come. As Dave stated, run a probationary period for folks. If they don't work for your game idea or group dynamic, let them go (nicely) and move on to the next candidate. Having a "session zero" is also very helpful. Session Zero is where all folks get in game as if ready to play and just create characters and chat. You, as the DM, lay out the rules and the world. If the players are helping to build the world (as in Dawn of Worlds), Session Zero is perfect for this. This allows you screen players for the game actually begins. You will quickly learn in this session who the talkers are, who the beaters are (those just out to roll dice and destroy things), and who the quiet ones are.

Well it is nether here nor there. I believe that with the freedom these games entail it should be realistic. since if you say take a sword to the leg or a built to the arm the response should be more towards you cant walk or hold anything in that arm instead of you loosing 12HP. Also I think freedom to the players is essential as this is a world for them to explore. But don't get me wrong I love the narrative as well but i think it is up to the players to create part of that (hence the freedom to play along with the story.).

World of Darkness is focused on roleplaying then fighting.

If you're looking for a game where players are given as much freedom as possible to create a story, I think as much of that has to do with the DM as the system. But, I'd also recommend something like Dungeon World - it is a system which really encourages player empowerment, and the DM section of the Dungeon World book should be required reading for anyone who wants to DM.

WolfCleric said: World of Darkness is focused on roleplaying then fighting. Fighting IS roleplaying. Any time I'm having my character do something that he/she might conceivably do in that situation is roleplaying. And sometimes, depending on the character, the situation, and how I'm feeling at any given moment, that might be talking or it might be stabbing.

123mind123 said: Well it is nether here nor there. I believe that with the freedom these games entail it should be realistic. since if you say take a sword to the leg or a built to the arm the response should be more towards you cant walk or hold anything in that arm instead of you loosing 12HP. Also I think freedom to the players is essential as this is a world for them to explore. But don't get me wrong I love the narrative as well but i think it is up to the players to create part of that (hence the freedom to play along with the story.). One interesting thing here is that HPs can be abstract. A "hit" and HP loss doesn't have to mean contact between weapon and flesh - it could be described narratively as a wearing down of an opponent's stamina and ability to defend himself, with the only actual contact between weapon and flesh being when HP is reduced to zero. The other thing is, making things "realistic" like this might not make it fun or cinematic. Combat would likely be a game of rocket tag, where the first hit basically incapacitates someone because he's spending the next few rounds trying not to bleed out from his new stump. And, "realism" isn't always the most fun or exciting thing - think of how "realistic" most action movies are.

George said: Ask them ? Write a description for the game that explains how you plan on running the game and say that you want to put story, world and character above fighting and min-maxing. And obviously, using a system that is very min-max focused might deter the people you want from playing and using a very "simple" system might deter min-maxing and fighting focused individuals from playing. Assuming by "roleplaying" you mean in-character interaction, min-maxing isn't opposed to roleplaying. I regularly play with groups that bring their A-game in both character optimization and in-character interaction, and I've seen people suck at both.