That was really good. Rich Purnell / Lando Calrissian taking notes was gold.

Intelligence is also an issue. A friend of mine who is IRL quite smart and loves riddles was playing a really dumb dwarf. He had serious issues sticking to his character and halfway though the campaign he abandoned trying to play dumb alltogether. But it can also go the other way round.

Facts and sometimes I'll give them advantage or disadvantage based on the lead up and the back ground I have established for the character. No lead up, the barmaid's been through some shit recently? disadvantage my friend. Chatting before hand, the party are frequent flyers to the bar, the barmaid is single, AND the barmaid is looking for a relationship? Advantage bud, you earned it.

I'm the same way, I play a really dumb barbarian (before the dm changed the house rules, I've just kept the original stats) an am also in charge of our Ledger... So I try to pretend that I'm making mistakes but the spreadsheet says otherwise.. Oops

Based on context I assume they mean in regard to setting and broad strokes mechanics

I would love a few recommendations, if you don't mind. I played mostly Warhammer 2nd edition but can't seem to get around to the latest 4th edition. It feels convoluted and not "balanced", if that makes sense. Every few sessions I keep thinking there has to be a better and/or less complicated system out there. I mostly want the rules to get out of the way of the story we are playing, but still want some depth, differentiation and player choices. And I need a decent magic system, which seems to be the hardest to get right. Any ideas ?

If you want DND with working rules, Pathfinder 2e is what people recommend. Not first edition. I'm not a huge fan since it's still basically DND. If you want a lightweight system that's mostly about narrative, I'm a fan of Fate. But Fate is absolutely not a crunchy system, and it's largely up to the group to agree on what makes sense. Like, if you want character differentiation you can lean on "aspects as permission" and it's right there. (That is, stuff that's true about your character permits you to try stuff. The barbarian can't even try to decipher the runes, because nothing about his character implies he could do that. You can't just blindly roll something. The wizard can try, because of course wizards know runes) The core rules are free, but you can find books with more specifics. I think there's a Dresden files book people like? They don't provide a complex magic system in the core books, but it has some ideas and the toolkit book has more. I also liked the chronicles of darkness games, but they're generally all modern day occult. You can take the core rules and move them to fantasy, if you wanted. It's pretty light and I like it more than DND in all the ways I care about.

if you insist Hey

Ah, Reddit.

Daggerheart.

Man I've so many times been required to say word for word what my character says in my charisma rolls, but because I suck at improv it's been bad. I've gotten nat 20s this way but my DM is like "well what you said is cringy so it wouldn't fly". Literally every DM I have ever had ignored the dice roll and only cared about the improv

Always bothered me. Means that anyone who can't improv well is locked to low char characters.

They suck then. Tell them their skills are inferior.

Aw, they care about my history

Thank you for the detailed answer! I played Pathfinder for a few sessions, but didn't care much for the combat system. I tend to favor conditions over hitpoints these days, and from what I recall Pathfinder was very A+B-C. "Wounded-Dying-Dead" systems are a bit too simplified, but I find around 15 hp to be the maximum I enjoy tracking. Fate looks interesting for sure. It isn't what is was looking for, but the quick rules' overview I just watched was very intriguing. I might try to find a session to watch to get a better idea of how the system plays out. Now Chronicles of Darkness... is not the medieval-fantasy setting I was looking for, but the system hits all the right spots. Around 10hp max, but with pretty much "wounded-dying-dead" superimposed - 9 attributes which combine to give various sub-stats - enough skills to cover basic situations, but room for specialisation as you see fit - rolling lots of dice for epic situations, but counting them fairly simply - and role playing elements integrated into the system through vices and virtues. From what I quickly watched, I love it. I might try to adapt it to medieval fantasy, or just play a a short campaign in the intended world to get a feel for it. Really cool any way, thanks again.

Not with that attitude. When I dm id accept some uhm-ing, erm-ing fumbling players as buttery smooth talkers if they have the rolls.

Oof. That's definitely not how it should go. But GMing isn't something the rulebook is all that good at teaching people how to do, so stuff like this is quite common

Blades in the dark and other forged in the dark systems are famous for being an early breakout in RPG game design. I've run a blades in the dark campaign and it was awesome. Check out the YouTube channel "Quinns Quest" and I'm confident you can comfortably try any game he has reviewed to get a better roleplaying experience than D&D.

"Incredibly, despite the cringe, it works!" They can still have a dig and throw a little shade, but the game is as the game does. When playing checkers and you say "King me" they dont refuse to do it because you didnt do a flourish.

So...you go to bed with them if they roll a 20? Irl?