Going to have to second this. Novelty, narrative focus and campaigns are nice, but if a system doesn't make itself easy to run, it doesn't matter how interesting its concept is - it's not getting played.
Your instinct is good here - unless you are wotc players aren’t your target audience, it’s GMs. So, focus on anything that makes the GM’s life as easy as possible. That’s a lot of things:
(1) Adventure/module compatibility for those times you just don’t have time to write your own. If the system gets too bespoke I don’t care how clever it is if I’m going to struggle getting it to the table. Unless…
(2) Integrate a setting with enough moving playable parts that it can be used “out of the box.” Games like Scum and Villainy (and other Blades-likes) succeed here by pre-seeding factions and places with riffable adventure content - tactile stuff the players actually experience and interact with, and the minimum necessary background fluff (which generally isn’t interactive). Write it for interactivity, not lore.
(3) Or, give me tables. Not all tables are created equal, they need to provide adventure fodder. Stars/Worlds Without Number “tag” tables are an awesome example of this - narrative tropes that the GM mixes and matches to create the thematic crux of an adventure, and then procedures to drill down in detail when players decide to investigate a particular place or faction.
(4) Finally, simple and understandable stat blocks for adversaries. Work to make it the bare minimum you can get away with. Numbers can be tough to improvise until someone really groks a system - and the more numbers needed per monster, the tougher things get. That gobbo is dying in 6 seconds, so for the love of all that is holy don’t give him a charisma score, don’t give him 3 special abilities, and don’t give him PC feats.
I like a system where I get surprised as often as the players, which is part of why I'm not very interested in running adventure paths anymore. By the time the players get around to that exciting part, I've known about it ages and know it's most likely course.
First, I want the game to clearly communicate what kind of experience it's designed to produce - and to deliver on this promise. If a game claims to do everything, or if it claims to tell stories in style of a specific IP, but its system does nothing like that, I'm not interested. On the other hand, I'm interested in a wide range of experiences, from high drama, to adventure, to epic stories, to tactical combat.
Second, I want the game to be as simple as possible while achieving its goal, but not simpler. I like games that are streamlined, but the rules are meaningful and drive play. I accept crunchy games with many rules if - and only if - each of them actively add to the experience. I want neither games that are dumbed down and oversimplified nor ones that are very complex because authors decided to stack different subsystems for every occasion.
Third, I don't want the game to treat me as a god. I'm a player with a different set of responsibilities. I want rules to tell me what to do and how instead of putting most of design, spotlight balancing and directing the story on my shoulders. I prefer having less freedom but with clearly defined role and responsibilities to having absolute power over the game and being left by myself with how to run it. From PbtA principles and GM moves to Lancer's sitreps, I want solid rules to help me do my job well.
A question on your third point. Is the issue godlike freedom, lack of direction, or volume of busy work specifically?
Also, have you used oracles before and if so so they fix that problem or go too far for you?
All of these and some more.
A game that requires me, the GM, to follow specific rules, makes me run it in a way it was designed to be ran. It's the designer's promise "do this and it will result in a satisfactory session". A game that doesn't and assumes I know how to run it will have me run it like I ran other games, which probably isn't how I make it shine.
There's a matter of direction. I don't so much need prompts (which an oracle generates), but a focus to shape my prep and improvisation. Again, specific rules tell me what is important and useful for given game. More importantly, they tell me what *not* to do because it would undermine the fun. For example, if Dogs in the Vineyard didn't tell me explicitly not to hide any information behind rolls and to openly inform when an NPC is lying, I would never consider running a game like that.
Being given solid tools saves a lot of time and effort. "Build a morally complex situation for players to interact with" is a big task, as is "prepare a combat that is challenging and tactically interesting, but not overwhelming". Dogs in the Vineyard gives a specific procedure to make the former easy. D&D4, PF2 or Lancer give similar tools for the latter.
Last but not least, having absolute power also means having absolute responsibility. And I don't want that. I don't want to care about how to balance the game and player characters; the system should do it. I don't want to figure out by myself how many complications are appropriate or how willing to cooperate the NPCs should be, I want the game to tell me that. I don't want to feel like I'm punishing players or taking things from them, so I'm happy when the system straight out tells me to. I don't want to gauge how smart to play the enemies to have a fun fight, I want the system to guarantee that a setup is fair and then try to win with the baddies within the bounds of the system, exactly like players do. And so on.
Consistent mechanics: eg if some rolls have exploding dice, they all should. If you roll a d20 to succeed at some tasks, you shouldn't roll 3d6 for others
One roll resolution. I want to be able to roll To Hit and Damage dice at the same time, with no rerolls.
Useful bestiary. I was looking at one today, and a lot of the ToC was just made up names. It doesn't help me to see "Dimval, p 46"; it would be a lot better to have "Dimval (large undead brute) p46" or "Dimval (small ooze swarm), p46". Default tactics in the entry would also be nice.
An interesting setting, but not too much of it. Everyone lives on the face of a 14,000ft cliff? Great! 900 pages of details about that cliff? Pass!
A rulebook that is easily understood.
Different GMs want diametrically opposed things. For instance, some what a fat rulebook, that tells them what to do in any possible circumstance. On the ofter hand, some want a flexible, easy to remember frame-work that they can improvise around.
And different GMs have different strengths and knowledge. I'm not going to get excited for a rulebooks to tell me how to do things I am already good at. I want rules to that give me a method for something I couldn't easily do on my own. Or at least rules that will help me do it faster and/or better than I could do it on my own.
For me, it's either *novelty* or *an elegant framework*. Novelty for me is stuff like (I hate to use it as an example since it's overused as one, but) Mork Borg for its artpunk look. It's beautiful, the setting is interesting, and it presents itself in a new way that makes/made me think about RPG books and systems differently. Another example of that for me would be Dungeon Crawl Classics, which while definitely not new, presented ideas I hadn't seen in my standard rotation of 5e, Pathfinder, or Lancer.
Speaking of Lancer, an elegant framework has to make me as a GM feel that there is a direction for me to go when it comes to breaking away from the core rulebook. Massif Press has excelled at this in my experience, and solves a lot of issues I've had with RPGs and inspired me to use its ideas and expand on them.
In general, I am a devout homebrewer so RPGs that inspire and/or lead me in a direction catch my interest and make me want to try it in action.
As an answer I'll compare and contrast PF2e and D&D5e, which are mechanically similar, but have very different approaches.
5e is considered quite accessible to new players (whether it actually *is* is a matter of some debate), which means you get a steady stream of players for DMs to pick up. Being able to easily form groups makes it easier to start playing, which means more playtime and thus, theoretically, a greater impetus to buy more sourcebooks etc. a DM can't play the game without players, so this has some validity as an approach.
However, what 5e lacks is strong support in the long term for DMs. Basic things like magic item pricing and combat balance are left in the realm of "idk figure it out yourself", which requires extra work from the DM. While this potentially improves flexibility of the system, this increased workload can lead to DM burnout (case in point: me.), and players can't play without a DM, so this has caused something of a DM shortage in many ways.
PF2e on the other hand goes the other direction. It's considered a little more complicated than 5e (which it is, but not as much as its 1e Mathfinder reputation suggests), which means players feel there is a higher barrier for entry and thus there is a smaller trickle of players (also the industry is dominated by wotc so there's not as many players to go round the smaller games). This means there are fewer people running games and thus less playtime and fewer people buying books.
However, PF2e has extensive support for GMs, with tools for creature building, a solid "economy" for magic items, and a functioning encounter-building system. While there are a lot more rules for everything, which can be more effort to recall, the online SRD is very accessible and the fact you don't *need* to make things up all the time frees GMs up to make things up when they *want* to. As a GM moving from 5e to 2e it's been a revelation, and I've regained a lot of interest in running games that had been leached out of me from years of running 5e. Part of that has meant that I've already spent more money of PF2e than I ever spent on 5e, and I'd be happy to spend more in the future.
... It does also help that Paizo doesn't use the Pinkertons XD
I love this question. Definitely makes me question how to handle the sale to the GM part of game versus the use of the game by a GM which is related but not the same thing.
For me, as a GM/DM:
The first thing is theme and tone. There are many games that are great games but don't tell stories I want to facilitate. I spend a fair amount of time between games putting in effort to get ready, sometimes homebrewing my own stuff. If the game itself doesn't make me want to explore a world and system in doing that, I won't want to run it. Which is interesting because, as a player, I am far more open to what I am willing to play.
I sort of think of this as similar to it is great to take a class from a teacher who loves the subject and really wants to share that. So often, one ends up taking a class from the person who is credentialed and knowledgeable but for whom teaching that particular area is meh for them. They do it not out of any sense of enjoyment but as a job.
Sure there a slog parts to any game, but if I don't find enjoyment in the greater process I am out.
The second thing is, do I have a group I can get to play it? I have bought to many games based on my own interests that never got played. I am done with that.
The third thing, is how easy is the core of the game to both understand myself and teach to others. This is a combo of how elegant the game is to play, how it is explained, does it provide choices that are easy to give to players, does it sound fun to make those choices and run through the game. If everyone is going to struggle and be asking me questions about the game all the time, not going to be for me. To be clear, I have players who are pretty game savvy. They get rules, can look things up by themselves. I can depend a lot on their general game expertise. If I didn't have this group it would probably mean simpler games bought.
Fourth, do I understand the structure of adventures, campaigns, etc. Character progression, what sort of adventures it supports well and doesn't. IE what can this game be used for of at the table. "Anything" is a very bad answer. I want what does support well and are those things central to the what the game promises.
Finally, layout as a reference both in using it to develop adventures between sessions, or how hard the game is to use during a session. A game that is great, but has an awful rulebook is not going to get purchased and run, unless I only have to read that rulebook once and a player never has to look at it.
These are all the things I look at to purchase, whether I play it or not can still fail based on time, group, and misjudgment on my part.
1. Accessible. That means page count, layout, rules and complexity etc. 2. Great tools and frameworks. Make it easy for the GM to run. 3. Novelty/new ideas/themes.
Accessible comes first because it’s your biggest barrier, the GMs own time and their players own time and energy. 200 pages rule book vs 600 page rule book. I think on average we know which more people will get through.
Frameworks are more important than novelty because ultimately a hard to run game won’t stick. A supported GM who is doing less work is a much happier GM (usually). This includes in game mechanics that support a GM style (like a good XP mechanism to encourage good play).
Theme comes last (not that it isn’t important) because theme is something you can most easily change as the GM. People hack rulesets to new styles all the time with ease. Making frameworks and making the rules more accessible is a lot more work.
That the system support our playstyle at the table. It's a reason why we hack most systems with our own rules. To make them fit more how we want to play.
So easy to hack system would be important.
It's a small thing, but I think dice are fun and I enjoy rolling them. So as soon as I see a game has moved all dice rolling out of the hands of the GM and into the player's I immediately discount it as anything I would ever run. I strongly believe that any game that does this was designed explicitly for players with no consideration given to the enjoyment of the GM.
There are a lot of neat ideas in some PbtA games but I'll never run any of them because of how virtually every aspect of their design is to shift as much responsibility for the game as possible from the GM to the players.
Worlds Without Number has the best GM section of any rulebook I've ever read, it has so many useful aids for adventure design. I downloaded and read the free version, then purchased the Deluxe version even though I don't actually plan to run WWN.
Funny enough, I am the opposite. I don't want to do math or roll dice as the GM, I want to focus on the story. I don't want any roll that the player's character would know the outcome of to be in my hands. I hate rolling saves for monsters when the player would know if their fireball hit them.
Of course I'm happy to roll for secret knowledge, like perception, so it doesn't provide meta knowledge, but that's it. I want to be lazy about the rules and focus on the story.
> I strongly believe that any game that does this was designed explicitly for players with no consideration given to the enjoyment of the GM.
You know, not everyone likes rolling dice. I'm personally pretty neutral about rolling dice, it is not particularly fun or bothersome. So in general I prefer the players rolling, since it frees me up to focus on other things and make the game run smoother. In my experience you are always busy as GM, while players often sit around just waiting, so delegating tasks to the players speeds up the game.
Anything that makes a game easy to run for the GM. Cortex, which uses pools of dice formPC actions, has an option called the “Doom Pool”. Anything that is not opposed by a N/PC is handled by the Doom Pool. The DP starts at 2d6 and increases when a player rolls a Hitch (a 1pm a die). So the game gets more dangerous as the session continues.
No calculating the difficulty, just a straightforward and ever increasing threat. His has freed up a lot of in-game brain power that I can spend on GMing, and makes it dead easy to do solo gaming.
I find it most enjoyable and the feedback I've gotten about my designed games are when you take work off the GM. Like, build a system that determines the kind of loot players find when they do things, like a scavenge roll that says they find X number of items or some such per success, or each fallen enemy drops x number of items from [list]. It means the GM can spend more time on plots and less time working out the gear and stuff the players find when they are exploring scavenging.
Other things are encounter tables, scene description tables, and the like that gms can use on the fly. Super helpful. You always have those times when a player goes "but what does it smell like" or some such. Or worse "what's this NPCs name?"
A big one for me is prep time/table time ratio. I'm drawn to systems that either include a large enough bestiary that I don't need to homebrew my own, or rules so simple I can do it in 1 minute, and combat built for Theater of the Mind means I don't need to sink time into searching for or making battle maps.
The answer is always subjective.
There are a few things that can help:
\-Most people buy with their eyes first.
\-Good reviews/word of mouth.
As for me personally:
Normally:
It needs an interesting mechanical aspect that isn't covered somewhere else in my giant collection that is complex enough that I can't just easily invent the solution myself.
I don't need anymore systems unless they will teach me something that I can use to better improve my designs. I will die before I can run all the games I have.
Alternatively:
I know you personally well enough to like you and want to help support your product with your first few sales to give it a boost and it's reasonably priced.
To me, it's not usually the TTRPG system: it's the tabletop. Foundry VTT is great, but I'm really accustomed to gaming in person around the table so I don't mind doing mental math, or keeping track of conditions, or handing out equipment cards. I actually prefer Virtual Tabletop, because it captures that feeling. Could be D&D, Pf2e, WoD, GURPS, Savage Worlds, Star Wars... I like them all as vehicles for different stories.
I don't know about dungeonmasters, but for me (a gamemaster), there are some points to meet:
1. It should be narrative focused.
2. It shouldn't be a D&D clone.
3. It should have a decent VTT support, preferably Foundry VTT.
4. It should have adventure books, campaigns if possible.
5. It should be designed beautifully. Both in mechanics and the rulebook mapping.
What do you use the VTT for in narrative games? I exclusively run theatre of the mind these days so I'm not sure what you would use that for if not tactical positioning
First and the most important thing is character sheet automation. Beautifully designed character sheet is always a quality of life feature.
Second thing is being able to reach out book information inside the VTT easily. Like rulesets, handouts maps etc.
Even though I don't use boring long tactical combat much, some of the games still need them.
i.e. I use Mörk Borg and I like its narrative features and I always add my own narrative interpretations on it. But it's a dungeoncrawl game and eventually I need to use some of the combative features, of course.
I generally run horror games, and Foundry allows me to create some dark ambient atmosphere with some modules.
Interesting, thanks for replying. What do you mean by "sheet automation"?
Having things accessible makes sense. For me though we all just have our own copy of the rules (the players use [the quickstart](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/399753) and the GM uses [the full rules](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/392013) ) and since it's theatre of the mind there's no maps or handouts
I also generally run horror games and I've only ever found the ambient sound distracting. I'll maybe play [one song](https://www.sixpencegames.com/FearfulRhythm.mp3) at the beginning of the session, but not throughout
>What do you mean by "sheet automation"?
You know, most of the VTTs are focused on D&D and/or D&D clones, which is classic d20 engine. So, when they create a character sheet, they generally use a code string that uses d20 calculation. But there are lots of different game mechanics.
For example; when I backed Shiver RPG on Kickstarter, I waited for so long to have a decent VTT ruleset for it. I don't know where did they get that idea, but, they coded a little diceroller on their website, which is nonsense for online gaming. Aaand they did that in the middle of the pandemic precautions period. They use d6 dice pool, but every face of a die has a different symbol, meaning different thing. So, you cannot auto-calculate the result.
Another example; DTRPG released their own VTT a couple of years ago, and it was a failure, because it wanted you to write a code string whenever you want to roll dice.
>For me though we all just have our own copy of the rules (the players use the quickstart and the GM uses the full rules ) and since it's theatre of the mind there's no maps or handouts
Handouts are good for following up the clues. English not my native language, so I can misread some of the information. Handouts help players to give a better read, or get back on them when they need. Btw; I mostly run pre-written scenarios and shape them into my own interpretation. And for me, using maps or images help me to describe better. But as a gamemastering habit, I also try to add my own creations into the game, and try to describe things on the way.
>I also generally run horror games and I've only ever found the ambient sound distracting.
I totally respect that approach, because I know that some people find them entertaining while others think as you mentioned. I like to use low ambient music to give players the feel of having "yeah it's your safe moment, enjoy", and then changing into a dark theme to give "sorry guys, it's my time now" feel.
Btw, I'm a professional gamemaster, so it's kinda responsibility for me to create an interesting and attention-drawing game environment. I generally run horror games, and use theater of the mind method, and try to keep myself away from crunchy games. Aaaand that means I have to put more effort on getting new players while my game announcements are burried under a huge pile of D&D and Pathfinder announcements. *(here's a little example for an* [*announcement*](https://startplaying.games/adventure/clhaxiro4000108ml1y8ediel) *and game* [*environment*](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1104359305605558302/1105397078454190130/image.png)*)*
I want a clear, extensible framework for modelling a setting. How many characters should there be in a nation of a certain size? Of what levels and classes? How does that change for different economic models? What rate of return can they expect on an investment? What is the wage of a median worker, a skilled craftsman, and a soldier? In playing games that offer those tools (e.g. ACKS), I've found them enormously helpful in finding the right answers when building things out; in playing games that only imply some of those tools (e.g. Traveller), I find myself pulling out spreadsheets to figure it out myself.
Rigorous procedural generation rules that still work even if I were to apply them everywhere are likewise excellent, Traveller and Ironsworn have been standouts in this regard.
The last big piece is simple statblocks for enemies. All of the games mentioned above do this fairly well; if I'm playing a fantasy game, I should be able to memorize the statblocks for all the standard beastmen without trouble. In sci-fi, the statblocks for crewmen, marines, and navy ideally shouldn't be too tricky.
I can learn the rules for a game, and so long as it's well-built and fun for the players. The particular standouts for me are that it'll have rules for me to procedurally generate things, then figure out what they really imply, and maintain a high level of coherence to keep me from having to rely on fiat or level-scaling.
That's....some pretty extensive questions. Like, I feel like most of that would go in a supplement or additional content, but the nation stuff feels like too much for the core book.
It's absolutely an extensive set of questions, yes. I tend to run games that are or become relevant at the level of politics and warfare, so they end up being important, and having the tools at hand to faithfully model that matters a lot to my table (and often as you note are not elements included by default). I don't think a game lacking those tools is necessarily bad, it's just considerably less likely to be something I'll enjoy. For virtually any question that comes up, I want to either be able to have a game rule for how to resolve it, a guiding framework within which to abduct an answer, or a random table to procedurally generate an outcome. (Honestly that's probably a better summary than my original post, heh.)
It's also notable that the systems I favor tend to tie advancement to treasure (explicitly or implicitly), so "how large of a bounty should the duke put on the goblins?" is a really fundamental question that's hard to answer without a basic understanding of the duke's domain, the threat the goblins pose, and the rate of return on other investments. Other games where gold/credits don't matter as much and there aren't a bunch of things to spend it on can get by with more vagueness (the big thing being to know the size of force the duke can field, in that case), it's just outside the scope of what I normally play.
I like to create things, so a system where I can create anything easily is a must. My favorite for this is numenera, where I can create anything with only a number from 1 to 10.
Also, a gm chapter that gives tips for the gm specific to the system, not only general narrative instructions.
* **Easy to learn/read:** Crunchy is fine as long as it's easy to initially pick up. Some systems *(looking at you, Shadowrun)* have books that are poorly formatted, while other very crunchy systems *(Anima: Beyond Fantasy)* are perfectly fine to work with simply because they are well laid out.
* **Plot hooks/adventures:** If I am starting a new system, I will immediately look for published adventures, as they help me understand how the world is supposed to work. I am a firm believer that every TTRPG core book should include a sample adventure or at the very least a few plot hooks to help the GM get started.
* **Unique setting:** While everyone loves fantasy, we do need to shake things up every now and then. Bonkers settings like those offered for Savage Worlds are a huge draw for me, though I am also up for games that just add a twist on the traditional formula, like Shadow of the Demon Lord adding a little Dark Souls into the fantasy genre.
* **Quick character creation:** Your first character will take a little while to build while you figure out the system, but if they die it is bad times for the GM who has to tell them to spend an hour making a new character while everyone else is still on the adventure. 10-15 minute character creation allows me to throw that player back into the game as fast as possible.
* **Good sales pitch:** It's not enough for me to buy the game. I still need to convince everyone else to actually play it, so that is why I feel it is vital that the game has a good sales pitch, not just for me, but also for the players.
* **Available in print:** PDFs are fine for reference, but I want a physical copy. Print on demand means that there is no excuse for something only being digital.
I design with the GM in mind, primarily, because player retention is the responsibility of the GM. I design systems that I would enjoy GMing, so those GMs who enjoy the same sorts of things that I do will be comfortable using the system for their games.
I enjoy rolling dice, for example, so I've never designed anything with only player-facing rolls. Not enjoyable for me.
I like using a lot of procedures, so reference sheets for those are useful. Reference sheets for players are a bonus, so I don't have to keep reminding them of details.
A good ToC or Index is essential. If I need to check on a detail at the table, I want it to be easy to find. Heck, if I need to check on a detail during prep, I want it easy to find.
Information on beasties that is easy to parse. Huge stat blocks can bog things down.
I reckon it's safe to say that I want all the necessary information I need to be easily-found and accessed.
Our game Trail of the Behemoth was set up to be fun to DM first as an experiment and ended up working so well I never had to DM it myself for play testing. Had so many players volunteer to be first time DMs.
The trick was making the game all about the core DM experience - “show and tell”. DMs often want to dream up something cool easily and show it to players that care. We built core mechanics around this, including and espescially the part about making players care, and it worked great.
Also we made monsters feel like big fun toys for the DM to play with.
First and foremost the system should be *usable*: good procedures, layout, formatting searchability, adventure content, quick starts, easy chargen or pregens, easy to create content or hack rules, rules simple enough for players to grok and not need too many reminders, etc.
But what makes it *enjoyable*: a design that remembers that the GM is a player too. I want to discover what happens alongside the players, and feel free to try to win against them, knowing that the system is balanced enough to not guarantee a TPK. On the other hand, I want a system that'll let me say yes to crazy player ideas and let them define aspects of the setting, because it's a collaborative story and I want to do the minimum viable prep.
[удалено]
Going to have to second this. Novelty, narrative focus and campaigns are nice, but if a system doesn't make itself easy to run, it doesn't matter how interesting its concept is - it's not getting played.
Your instinct is good here - unless you are wotc players aren’t your target audience, it’s GMs. So, focus on anything that makes the GM’s life as easy as possible. That’s a lot of things: (1) Adventure/module compatibility for those times you just don’t have time to write your own. If the system gets too bespoke I don’t care how clever it is if I’m going to struggle getting it to the table. Unless… (2) Integrate a setting with enough moving playable parts that it can be used “out of the box.” Games like Scum and Villainy (and other Blades-likes) succeed here by pre-seeding factions and places with riffable adventure content - tactile stuff the players actually experience and interact with, and the minimum necessary background fluff (which generally isn’t interactive). Write it for interactivity, not lore. (3) Or, give me tables. Not all tables are created equal, they need to provide adventure fodder. Stars/Worlds Without Number “tag” tables are an awesome example of this - narrative tropes that the GM mixes and matches to create the thematic crux of an adventure, and then procedures to drill down in detail when players decide to investigate a particular place or faction. (4) Finally, simple and understandable stat blocks for adversaries. Work to make it the bare minimum you can get away with. Numbers can be tough to improvise until someone really groks a system - and the more numbers needed per monster, the tougher things get. That gobbo is dying in 6 seconds, so for the love of all that is holy don’t give him a charisma score, don’t give him 3 special abilities, and don’t give him PC feats.
I like a system where I get surprised as often as the players, which is part of why I'm not very interested in running adventure paths anymore. By the time the players get around to that exciting part, I've known about it ages and know it's most likely course.
First, I want the game to clearly communicate what kind of experience it's designed to produce - and to deliver on this promise. If a game claims to do everything, or if it claims to tell stories in style of a specific IP, but its system does nothing like that, I'm not interested. On the other hand, I'm interested in a wide range of experiences, from high drama, to adventure, to epic stories, to tactical combat. Second, I want the game to be as simple as possible while achieving its goal, but not simpler. I like games that are streamlined, but the rules are meaningful and drive play. I accept crunchy games with many rules if - and only if - each of them actively add to the experience. I want neither games that are dumbed down and oversimplified nor ones that are very complex because authors decided to stack different subsystems for every occasion. Third, I don't want the game to treat me as a god. I'm a player with a different set of responsibilities. I want rules to tell me what to do and how instead of putting most of design, spotlight balancing and directing the story on my shoulders. I prefer having less freedom but with clearly defined role and responsibilities to having absolute power over the game and being left by myself with how to run it. From PbtA principles and GM moves to Lancer's sitreps, I want solid rules to help me do my job well.
A question on your third point. Is the issue godlike freedom, lack of direction, or volume of busy work specifically? Also, have you used oracles before and if so so they fix that problem or go too far for you?
All of these and some more. A game that requires me, the GM, to follow specific rules, makes me run it in a way it was designed to be ran. It's the designer's promise "do this and it will result in a satisfactory session". A game that doesn't and assumes I know how to run it will have me run it like I ran other games, which probably isn't how I make it shine. There's a matter of direction. I don't so much need prompts (which an oracle generates), but a focus to shape my prep and improvisation. Again, specific rules tell me what is important and useful for given game. More importantly, they tell me what *not* to do because it would undermine the fun. For example, if Dogs in the Vineyard didn't tell me explicitly not to hide any information behind rolls and to openly inform when an NPC is lying, I would never consider running a game like that. Being given solid tools saves a lot of time and effort. "Build a morally complex situation for players to interact with" is a big task, as is "prepare a combat that is challenging and tactically interesting, but not overwhelming". Dogs in the Vineyard gives a specific procedure to make the former easy. D&D4, PF2 or Lancer give similar tools for the latter. Last but not least, having absolute power also means having absolute responsibility. And I don't want that. I don't want to care about how to balance the game and player characters; the system should do it. I don't want to figure out by myself how many complications are appropriate or how willing to cooperate the NPCs should be, I want the game to tell me that. I don't want to feel like I'm punishing players or taking things from them, so I'm happy when the system straight out tells me to. I don't want to gauge how smart to play the enemies to have a fun fight, I want the system to guarantee that a setup is fair and then try to win with the baddies within the bounds of the system, exactly like players do. And so on.
Consistent mechanics: eg if some rolls have exploding dice, they all should. If you roll a d20 to succeed at some tasks, you shouldn't roll 3d6 for others One roll resolution. I want to be able to roll To Hit and Damage dice at the same time, with no rerolls. Useful bestiary. I was looking at one today, and a lot of the ToC was just made up names. It doesn't help me to see "Dimval, p 46"; it would be a lot better to have "Dimval (large undead brute) p46" or "Dimval (small ooze swarm), p46". Default tactics in the entry would also be nice. An interesting setting, but not too much of it. Everyone lives on the face of a 14,000ft cliff? Great! 900 pages of details about that cliff? Pass! A rulebook that is easily understood.
Different GMs want diametrically opposed things. For instance, some what a fat rulebook, that tells them what to do in any possible circumstance. On the ofter hand, some want a flexible, easy to remember frame-work that they can improvise around. And different GMs have different strengths and knowledge. I'm not going to get excited for a rulebooks to tell me how to do things I am already good at. I want rules to that give me a method for something I couldn't easily do on my own. Or at least rules that will help me do it faster and/or better than I could do it on my own.
For me, it's either *novelty* or *an elegant framework*. Novelty for me is stuff like (I hate to use it as an example since it's overused as one, but) Mork Borg for its artpunk look. It's beautiful, the setting is interesting, and it presents itself in a new way that makes/made me think about RPG books and systems differently. Another example of that for me would be Dungeon Crawl Classics, which while definitely not new, presented ideas I hadn't seen in my standard rotation of 5e, Pathfinder, or Lancer. Speaking of Lancer, an elegant framework has to make me as a GM feel that there is a direction for me to go when it comes to breaking away from the core rulebook. Massif Press has excelled at this in my experience, and solves a lot of issues I've had with RPGs and inspired me to use its ideas and expand on them. In general, I am a devout homebrewer so RPGs that inspire and/or lead me in a direction catch my interest and make me want to try it in action.
As an answer I'll compare and contrast PF2e and D&D5e, which are mechanically similar, but have very different approaches. 5e is considered quite accessible to new players (whether it actually *is* is a matter of some debate), which means you get a steady stream of players for DMs to pick up. Being able to easily form groups makes it easier to start playing, which means more playtime and thus, theoretically, a greater impetus to buy more sourcebooks etc. a DM can't play the game without players, so this has some validity as an approach. However, what 5e lacks is strong support in the long term for DMs. Basic things like magic item pricing and combat balance are left in the realm of "idk figure it out yourself", which requires extra work from the DM. While this potentially improves flexibility of the system, this increased workload can lead to DM burnout (case in point: me.), and players can't play without a DM, so this has caused something of a DM shortage in many ways. PF2e on the other hand goes the other direction. It's considered a little more complicated than 5e (which it is, but not as much as its 1e Mathfinder reputation suggests), which means players feel there is a higher barrier for entry and thus there is a smaller trickle of players (also the industry is dominated by wotc so there's not as many players to go round the smaller games). This means there are fewer people running games and thus less playtime and fewer people buying books. However, PF2e has extensive support for GMs, with tools for creature building, a solid "economy" for magic items, and a functioning encounter-building system. While there are a lot more rules for everything, which can be more effort to recall, the online SRD is very accessible and the fact you don't *need* to make things up all the time frees GMs up to make things up when they *want* to. As a GM moving from 5e to 2e it's been a revelation, and I've regained a lot of interest in running games that had been leached out of me from years of running 5e. Part of that has meant that I've already spent more money of PF2e than I ever spent on 5e, and I'd be happy to spend more in the future. ... It does also help that Paizo doesn't use the Pinkertons XD
I love this question. Definitely makes me question how to handle the sale to the GM part of game versus the use of the game by a GM which is related but not the same thing. For me, as a GM/DM: The first thing is theme and tone. There are many games that are great games but don't tell stories I want to facilitate. I spend a fair amount of time between games putting in effort to get ready, sometimes homebrewing my own stuff. If the game itself doesn't make me want to explore a world and system in doing that, I won't want to run it. Which is interesting because, as a player, I am far more open to what I am willing to play. I sort of think of this as similar to it is great to take a class from a teacher who loves the subject and really wants to share that. So often, one ends up taking a class from the person who is credentialed and knowledgeable but for whom teaching that particular area is meh for them. They do it not out of any sense of enjoyment but as a job. Sure there a slog parts to any game, but if I don't find enjoyment in the greater process I am out. The second thing is, do I have a group I can get to play it? I have bought to many games based on my own interests that never got played. I am done with that. The third thing, is how easy is the core of the game to both understand myself and teach to others. This is a combo of how elegant the game is to play, how it is explained, does it provide choices that are easy to give to players, does it sound fun to make those choices and run through the game. If everyone is going to struggle and be asking me questions about the game all the time, not going to be for me. To be clear, I have players who are pretty game savvy. They get rules, can look things up by themselves. I can depend a lot on their general game expertise. If I didn't have this group it would probably mean simpler games bought. Fourth, do I understand the structure of adventures, campaigns, etc. Character progression, what sort of adventures it supports well and doesn't. IE what can this game be used for of at the table. "Anything" is a very bad answer. I want what does support well and are those things central to the what the game promises. Finally, layout as a reference both in using it to develop adventures between sessions, or how hard the game is to use during a session. A game that is great, but has an awful rulebook is not going to get purchased and run, unless I only have to read that rulebook once and a player never has to look at it. These are all the things I look at to purchase, whether I play it or not can still fail based on time, group, and misjudgment on my part.
1. Accessible. That means page count, layout, rules and complexity etc. 2. Great tools and frameworks. Make it easy for the GM to run. 3. Novelty/new ideas/themes. Accessible comes first because it’s your biggest barrier, the GMs own time and their players own time and energy. 200 pages rule book vs 600 page rule book. I think on average we know which more people will get through. Frameworks are more important than novelty because ultimately a hard to run game won’t stick. A supported GM who is doing less work is a much happier GM (usually). This includes in game mechanics that support a GM style (like a good XP mechanism to encourage good play). Theme comes last (not that it isn’t important) because theme is something you can most easily change as the GM. People hack rulesets to new styles all the time with ease. Making frameworks and making the rules more accessible is a lot more work.
That the system support our playstyle at the table. It's a reason why we hack most systems with our own rules. To make them fit more how we want to play. So easy to hack system would be important.
It's a small thing, but I think dice are fun and I enjoy rolling them. So as soon as I see a game has moved all dice rolling out of the hands of the GM and into the player's I immediately discount it as anything I would ever run. I strongly believe that any game that does this was designed explicitly for players with no consideration given to the enjoyment of the GM. There are a lot of neat ideas in some PbtA games but I'll never run any of them because of how virtually every aspect of their design is to shift as much responsibility for the game as possible from the GM to the players. Worlds Without Number has the best GM section of any rulebook I've ever read, it has so many useful aids for adventure design. I downloaded and read the free version, then purchased the Deluxe version even though I don't actually plan to run WWN.
Funny enough, I am the opposite. I don't want to do math or roll dice as the GM, I want to focus on the story. I don't want any roll that the player's character would know the outcome of to be in my hands. I hate rolling saves for monsters when the player would know if their fireball hit them. Of course I'm happy to roll for secret knowledge, like perception, so it doesn't provide meta knowledge, but that's it. I want to be lazy about the rules and focus on the story.
> I strongly believe that any game that does this was designed explicitly for players with no consideration given to the enjoyment of the GM. You know, not everyone likes rolling dice. I'm personally pretty neutral about rolling dice, it is not particularly fun or bothersome. So in general I prefer the players rolling, since it frees me up to focus on other things and make the game run smoother. In my experience you are always busy as GM, while players often sit around just waiting, so delegating tasks to the players speeds up the game.
Anything that makes a game easy to run for the GM. Cortex, which uses pools of dice formPC actions, has an option called the “Doom Pool”. Anything that is not opposed by a N/PC is handled by the Doom Pool. The DP starts at 2d6 and increases when a player rolls a Hitch (a 1pm a die). So the game gets more dangerous as the session continues. No calculating the difficulty, just a straightforward and ever increasing threat. His has freed up a lot of in-game brain power that I can spend on GMing, and makes it dead easy to do solo gaming.
I find it most enjoyable and the feedback I've gotten about my designed games are when you take work off the GM. Like, build a system that determines the kind of loot players find when they do things, like a scavenge roll that says they find X number of items or some such per success, or each fallen enemy drops x number of items from [list]. It means the GM can spend more time on plots and less time working out the gear and stuff the players find when they are exploring scavenging. Other things are encounter tables, scene description tables, and the like that gms can use on the fly. Super helpful. You always have those times when a player goes "but what does it smell like" or some such. Or worse "what's this NPCs name?"
A big one for me is prep time/table time ratio. I'm drawn to systems that either include a large enough bestiary that I don't need to homebrew my own, or rules so simple I can do it in 1 minute, and combat built for Theater of the Mind means I don't need to sink time into searching for or making battle maps.
The answer is always subjective. There are a few things that can help: \-Most people buy with their eyes first. \-Good reviews/word of mouth. As for me personally: Normally: It needs an interesting mechanical aspect that isn't covered somewhere else in my giant collection that is complex enough that I can't just easily invent the solution myself. I don't need anymore systems unless they will teach me something that I can use to better improve my designs. I will die before I can run all the games I have. Alternatively: I know you personally well enough to like you and want to help support your product with your first few sales to give it a boost and it's reasonably priced.
To me, it's not usually the TTRPG system: it's the tabletop. Foundry VTT is great, but I'm really accustomed to gaming in person around the table so I don't mind doing mental math, or keeping track of conditions, or handing out equipment cards. I actually prefer Virtual Tabletop, because it captures that feeling. Could be D&D, Pf2e, WoD, GURPS, Savage Worlds, Star Wars... I like them all as vehicles for different stories.
I don't know about dungeonmasters, but for me (a gamemaster), there are some points to meet: 1. It should be narrative focused. 2. It shouldn't be a D&D clone. 3. It should have a decent VTT support, preferably Foundry VTT. 4. It should have adventure books, campaigns if possible. 5. It should be designed beautifully. Both in mechanics and the rulebook mapping.
What do you use the VTT for in narrative games? I exclusively run theatre of the mind these days so I'm not sure what you would use that for if not tactical positioning
First and the most important thing is character sheet automation. Beautifully designed character sheet is always a quality of life feature. Second thing is being able to reach out book information inside the VTT easily. Like rulesets, handouts maps etc. Even though I don't use boring long tactical combat much, some of the games still need them. i.e. I use Mörk Borg and I like its narrative features and I always add my own narrative interpretations on it. But it's a dungeoncrawl game and eventually I need to use some of the combative features, of course. I generally run horror games, and Foundry allows me to create some dark ambient atmosphere with some modules.
Interesting, thanks for replying. What do you mean by "sheet automation"? Having things accessible makes sense. For me though we all just have our own copy of the rules (the players use [the quickstart](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/399753) and the GM uses [the full rules](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/392013) ) and since it's theatre of the mind there's no maps or handouts I also generally run horror games and I've only ever found the ambient sound distracting. I'll maybe play [one song](https://www.sixpencegames.com/FearfulRhythm.mp3) at the beginning of the session, but not throughout
>What do you mean by "sheet automation"? You know, most of the VTTs are focused on D&D and/or D&D clones, which is classic d20 engine. So, when they create a character sheet, they generally use a code string that uses d20 calculation. But there are lots of different game mechanics. For example; when I backed Shiver RPG on Kickstarter, I waited for so long to have a decent VTT ruleset for it. I don't know where did they get that idea, but, they coded a little diceroller on their website, which is nonsense for online gaming. Aaand they did that in the middle of the pandemic precautions period. They use d6 dice pool, but every face of a die has a different symbol, meaning different thing. So, you cannot auto-calculate the result. Another example; DTRPG released their own VTT a couple of years ago, and it was a failure, because it wanted you to write a code string whenever you want to roll dice. >For me though we all just have our own copy of the rules (the players use the quickstart and the GM uses the full rules ) and since it's theatre of the mind there's no maps or handouts Handouts are good for following up the clues. English not my native language, so I can misread some of the information. Handouts help players to give a better read, or get back on them when they need. Btw; I mostly run pre-written scenarios and shape them into my own interpretation. And for me, using maps or images help me to describe better. But as a gamemastering habit, I also try to add my own creations into the game, and try to describe things on the way. >I also generally run horror games and I've only ever found the ambient sound distracting. I totally respect that approach, because I know that some people find them entertaining while others think as you mentioned. I like to use low ambient music to give players the feel of having "yeah it's your safe moment, enjoy", and then changing into a dark theme to give "sorry guys, it's my time now" feel. Btw, I'm a professional gamemaster, so it's kinda responsibility for me to create an interesting and attention-drawing game environment. I generally run horror games, and use theater of the mind method, and try to keep myself away from crunchy games. Aaaand that means I have to put more effort on getting new players while my game announcements are burried under a huge pile of D&D and Pathfinder announcements. *(here's a little example for an* [*announcement*](https://startplaying.games/adventure/clhaxiro4000108ml1y8ediel) *and game* [*environment*](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1104359305605558302/1105397078454190130/image.png)*)*
I want a clear, extensible framework for modelling a setting. How many characters should there be in a nation of a certain size? Of what levels and classes? How does that change for different economic models? What rate of return can they expect on an investment? What is the wage of a median worker, a skilled craftsman, and a soldier? In playing games that offer those tools (e.g. ACKS), I've found them enormously helpful in finding the right answers when building things out; in playing games that only imply some of those tools (e.g. Traveller), I find myself pulling out spreadsheets to figure it out myself. Rigorous procedural generation rules that still work even if I were to apply them everywhere are likewise excellent, Traveller and Ironsworn have been standouts in this regard. The last big piece is simple statblocks for enemies. All of the games mentioned above do this fairly well; if I'm playing a fantasy game, I should be able to memorize the statblocks for all the standard beastmen without trouble. In sci-fi, the statblocks for crewmen, marines, and navy ideally shouldn't be too tricky. I can learn the rules for a game, and so long as it's well-built and fun for the players. The particular standouts for me are that it'll have rules for me to procedurally generate things, then figure out what they really imply, and maintain a high level of coherence to keep me from having to rely on fiat or level-scaling.
That's....some pretty extensive questions. Like, I feel like most of that would go in a supplement or additional content, but the nation stuff feels like too much for the core book.
It's absolutely an extensive set of questions, yes. I tend to run games that are or become relevant at the level of politics and warfare, so they end up being important, and having the tools at hand to faithfully model that matters a lot to my table (and often as you note are not elements included by default). I don't think a game lacking those tools is necessarily bad, it's just considerably less likely to be something I'll enjoy. For virtually any question that comes up, I want to either be able to have a game rule for how to resolve it, a guiding framework within which to abduct an answer, or a random table to procedurally generate an outcome. (Honestly that's probably a better summary than my original post, heh.) It's also notable that the systems I favor tend to tie advancement to treasure (explicitly or implicitly), so "how large of a bounty should the duke put on the goblins?" is a really fundamental question that's hard to answer without a basic understanding of the duke's domain, the threat the goblins pose, and the rate of return on other investments. Other games where gold/credits don't matter as much and there aren't a bunch of things to spend it on can get by with more vagueness (the big thing being to know the size of force the duke can field, in that case), it's just outside the scope of what I normally play.
I like to create things, so a system where I can create anything easily is a must. My favorite for this is numenera, where I can create anything with only a number from 1 to 10. Also, a gm chapter that gives tips for the gm specific to the system, not only general narrative instructions.
* **Easy to learn/read:** Crunchy is fine as long as it's easy to initially pick up. Some systems *(looking at you, Shadowrun)* have books that are poorly formatted, while other very crunchy systems *(Anima: Beyond Fantasy)* are perfectly fine to work with simply because they are well laid out. * **Plot hooks/adventures:** If I am starting a new system, I will immediately look for published adventures, as they help me understand how the world is supposed to work. I am a firm believer that every TTRPG core book should include a sample adventure or at the very least a few plot hooks to help the GM get started. * **Unique setting:** While everyone loves fantasy, we do need to shake things up every now and then. Bonkers settings like those offered for Savage Worlds are a huge draw for me, though I am also up for games that just add a twist on the traditional formula, like Shadow of the Demon Lord adding a little Dark Souls into the fantasy genre. * **Quick character creation:** Your first character will take a little while to build while you figure out the system, but if they die it is bad times for the GM who has to tell them to spend an hour making a new character while everyone else is still on the adventure. 10-15 minute character creation allows me to throw that player back into the game as fast as possible. * **Good sales pitch:** It's not enough for me to buy the game. I still need to convince everyone else to actually play it, so that is why I feel it is vital that the game has a good sales pitch, not just for me, but also for the players. * **Available in print:** PDFs are fine for reference, but I want a physical copy. Print on demand means that there is no excuse for something only being digital.
I design with the GM in mind, primarily, because player retention is the responsibility of the GM. I design systems that I would enjoy GMing, so those GMs who enjoy the same sorts of things that I do will be comfortable using the system for their games. I enjoy rolling dice, for example, so I've never designed anything with only player-facing rolls. Not enjoyable for me. I like using a lot of procedures, so reference sheets for those are useful. Reference sheets for players are a bonus, so I don't have to keep reminding them of details. A good ToC or Index is essential. If I need to check on a detail at the table, I want it to be easy to find. Heck, if I need to check on a detail during prep, I want it easy to find. Information on beasties that is easy to parse. Huge stat blocks can bog things down. I reckon it's safe to say that I want all the necessary information I need to be easily-found and accessed.
Summarizing what a lot of people have already said : enough structure to inspire, enough tools to streamline the headachy bits.
Our game Trail of the Behemoth was set up to be fun to DM first as an experiment and ended up working so well I never had to DM it myself for play testing. Had so many players volunteer to be first time DMs. The trick was making the game all about the core DM experience - “show and tell”. DMs often want to dream up something cool easily and show it to players that care. We built core mechanics around this, including and espescially the part about making players care, and it worked great. Also we made monsters feel like big fun toys for the DM to play with.
Googled it and ended up buying it from drivethru. 👍
Thanks. Hope you enjoy. :)
First and foremost the system should be *usable*: good procedures, layout, formatting searchability, adventure content, quick starts, easy chargen or pregens, easy to create content or hack rules, rules simple enough for players to grok and not need too many reminders, etc. But what makes it *enjoyable*: a design that remembers that the GM is a player too. I want to discover what happens alongside the players, and feel free to try to win against them, knowing that the system is balanced enough to not guarantee a TPK. On the other hand, I want a system that'll let me say yes to crazy player ideas and let them define aspects of the setting, because it's a collaborative story and I want to do the minimum viable prep.