I think Mage: The Awakening 2nd edition was a cleaner version of the game, but yeah no version is something you can just phone in.
I ran a game of it a year or so back, and one player just refused to read the book in any detail. She was always frustrated by not knowing what she could do, or how to do it effectively.
Well, technically there’s Vampire: The Requiem. It’s very similar, but not in the exact same universe. Some of the names are reused, but there’s no canon metaplot, and many details are changed. I personally liked it a lot, but I think it’s less popular than Masquerade.
If you want to roll your own setting, I bet there are generic systems that would work. Fate is my go-to, and I can see how it would work. (Probably a stress track for hunger, some consequence boxes for becoming a monster)
try to talk them out of the idea of “Leveling” they get scared and run back to the system they’re familiar with.
I still think about the time in college I tried to get a D&D friend to consider Mage. I was telling him about how you can just do magic, and the real limitation is paradox and hubris. Like, it’s often not about ‘can you?’ but rather “should you?”
He couldn’t get over “you can just cast whatever you want? Fireballs every turn?”
“Yes, but that’s probably going to make a lot of paradox, and probably isn’t the best way to solve your problem”
“Sounds broken,” he said, and lost interest.
I’m partial to Fate.
It’s very open. You don’t have to worry about looking up the right class or feats. You just describe what you want to play, and if the group thinks it’s cool and a good fit for the story, you’re basically done.
Now, the downside is this requires a lot more creativity up front. A blank page can be intimidating.
I like that players have more control over the outcome. You can usually get what you want, even if you roll poorly, but it’s more of a question of what you’re willing to pay for it.
Every roll will be one of
It’s a lot more narrative power than some games give you. I don’t like being completely submissive to the DM, so I enjoy even as a player being able to pitch “ok I’m trying to hack open this terminal… how about as a minor cost I set off an alarm?” or “I’m trying to steal his keys and flubbed the roll… How about as a major cost I create a distraction, get the keys, but drop my backpack by accident. Now I’m disarmed, have no tools, and they can probably trace me with that stuff later. But I got the keys!”.
It’s more collaborative, like a writer’s room, so if someone proposes a dud solution the group can work on it.
The math probability also feels nice. You tend to roll your average, so there’s less swinginess like you’ll get in systems rolling one die.
Plus, I don’t know any other system that lets me pull my intestines out of my abdomen and use them like a lasso to climb a cliff when I forgot my rope at home.
Nitpick: more narrative systems like Fate let you do this, but then you typically don’t get a lot of crunch. Plus it can vary if your group isn’t on the same wavelength about what’s cool and appropriate for the story.
In session 0 we set a quorum. “We play if there are at least 2 of 4 players here,” for example.
During a session, if some players don’t make it, we’ll decide on the spot what to do. This is typically either “They take care of some of their own business” or “we play them by committee”. Rarely, it’s “the GM plays them.”
In a recent game of mine, one of the PCs bailed. His character backstory said he owned a small business, and since the session started in a low tension scene, we said he had to go take care of that.
In a game where we picked up in the middle of a fight, we decided to play the wizard by committee. It was a little slower than normal, but it worked. After the fight was over, they didn’t do much other than a few committee approved skill checks. I wouldn’t typically make big story decisions or put the character in serious danger when the player was absent.
It’s also important to set attendance rules. Are you okay with people showing up whenever? Or do you want to set an expectation that people will be there every week barring emergencies? Those are two different, valid, modes. For a game that’s trying to have an arc, and not just monster of the week or a dungeon crawl, having players frequently missing can be disruptive. I typically bring that up in session 0, and say that if someone repeatedly misses sessions it might not be the game for them at this time.
I need that meme where in one pane, the gymnast is like flipping over spikes and flames and stuff. Label that one “being creative in D&D”. The other pane is the gymnast just walking across the mat. Label that one “Games that support creativity” or something.
I really like Awakening but it’s hard to find players for it.
I had a group for about six months once, and it was pretty good. Except one player just never learned the rules, and refused to read clues. Like they found a clue on site that was like 10 sentences and she was like “I’m not reading all that”.
I feel the same, but tell myself that for many people “DnD” is a stand-in for any sort of imagination game. Like people say “kleenex” for tissue or “xerox” for copy.
This feels like a setup for a comic like
Villain: casts this spell. “You fools! You’re now too gay to defeat me! Cower before my mighty hetero–”
Gay fighter stabs villain
Double gay ranger shoots him with an arrow.
Pause for a beat
Party: “So pride is this weekend you want to go to the beach?”
Like, the spell had no impact on their combat prowess and the bigot thought it would.
Man, I’d love to play more WoD. One time I got a game going and it was a lot of fun. The other times I’ve tried, there was always at least one player who didn’t read the books or pay attention to the explanations, and dragged the game down with “wait, who are they? Why are they doing that? What do I roll?”
Not everyone needs to be an expert on all the minutia, but sometimes it’s just a mood killer to have to keep explaining the basics.
Lots of other good points already made, but I’ll add my own two cents.
When I run a game, I always require players to make characters together. No “go off and make a character in isolation”. That’s just a recipe for disaster. You can have some ideas already in mind, but nothing is canon until the whole group agrees.
Second, everyone needs to have buy-in to whatever the hook is. If the scenario is “you’re starting a courier business at the edge of civilization”, there are lots of good options. Guy on the run from the law. Lady studying local wild life. Intelligent, local, wildlife. Don’t play “guy who doesn’t want to be here and is a total killjoy”
Third, it’s better when characters have connections to each other. You can play the “we just met and we’re forming a relationship!” arc, but like “what if we play ourselves in a fantasy world??” it has been done.
Honestly, everyone should read Fate’s “Phase Trio” https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/phase-trio and the rest of character creation.
Unknown Armies is kind of like this. Most magic requires obsession, and you don’t get a lot of well adjusted, friendly, people who also, say, collects all many of coin and money (money is power) but won’t spend any (that’s giving away your power!)
There’s a bunch of schools of magic but they’re all built on an obsession and paradox. The book is really well written, too. (At least 2e is. I didn’t spend much time with 3e)
Per wikipedia
In 1845, the Southern Baptists separated from the Triennial Convention to uphold the institution of slavery
So they’ve always sucked.
I’d think this would be redundant with existing first amendment rights, but clearly those weren’t enough. Good for Oregon.
Oh, I personally agree. I want my players engaged and adding flavor to the world. If I didn’t, I’d be better off writing a book.
But I used to be more of a “you’re having fun wrong” jerk in my youth, so I make extra effort now to be clear that something might not be for me, it’s okay if you’re all having harmless fun with it. ( I still struggle when people tell me about their game of modern day vampires doing political intrigue run in D&D 5e instead of Vampire, but we all have our foibles. )
I discovered a couple years ago that some players hate being given any creative control over the setting. They’re extremely passive and want to be told a story. that’s a valid way to play, but very alien to me.
When I had a wizard character mention his wizard school I let him color in a lot of details. I’d intervene if it was badly breaking established canon (eg: we said it’s in a remote desert and now you want it to be in a coastal city), but generally it’s great.
Interesting, but I can’t imagine writing out that much of the game’s truth ahead of time. I’m always leaving things undefined so I can slot in a good idea (from me or the players).
Some games ask the players to define the stakes and goals when a conflict starts. This can help keep players on track.
Like, the players are on a journey through the mountains, and as they pass through a tunnel they encounter a giant spider. The default mode is “fight the spider to the death!”. But if you ask the players again “what is your goal here?” they might remember it’s “get through the mountains”, not “kill everything we meet.” Now they might focus on how to get past it safely.
If the DM rewards players for advancing their goals instead of just murder, that can also encourage non-murder behavior.
Running games has definitely helped me run meetings.