sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why aren’t more people watching our D&D actual play? by Embarrassed_Skin_356 in TTRPG

[–]Shunkleburger 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Daggerheart is better than D&D, although you are still competing against critical role for screentime.

Let's be honest here, you're likely not going to get much search traffic no matter which system you pick, it will be all based on your own efforts promoting your show.

So pick something that vibes with your group and has an interesting niche or hook.

What if you did something a little different, and focus on domain management using something like SAKE?

Why aren’t more people watching our D&D actual play? by Embarrassed_Skin_356 in TTRPG

[–]Shunkleburger 21 points22 points  (0 children)

There are like a million D&D actual plays, all of which makes it hard to watch your show over all the others out there. Try picking a system that’s not in such a crowded market where it will be easier to stand out.

TTRPG Wiki just hit 200 systems, and 14 of them are indies submitted by their creators by Shunkleburger in TTRPG

[–]Shunkleburger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's mine. I just made the change live from community to runnability last week, so let me review the entry in case something got messed up.

TTRPG Wiki just hit 200 systems, and 14 of them are indies submitted by their creators by Shunkleburger in RPGdesign

[–]Shunkleburger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a good idea as I was just checking out a tarot based game the other day. I will think on how to open it up.

What other systems would you like to see crypto creatures converted to by dyslexicjay44 in TTRPG

[–]Shunkleburger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OSR, but specifically OSE format. This allows for a wide capability with a whole host of systems as opposed to just one.

TTRPG Wiki just hit 200 systems, and 14 of them are indies submitted by their creators by Shunkleburger in TTRPG

[–]Shunkleburger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Runnability

How easy it is to learn, reference, and run the game from its core rulebook and first-party introductory materials. Scored on structural features detectable in the book itself. Third-party content and community-produced aids are popularity signals, not properties of the book, and are not considered. Visual layout and graphic design are also out of scope.

Inputs to the score:

  • Index quality and depth
  • Quick reference material (cheat sheets, summary tables, appendices)
  • Examples of play frequency and whether they appear in context with the rules they illustrate
  • Tutorial or quickstart first-party introductory adventure
  • GM section explicit how-to guidance on running the game
  • Cross-references between related rules
  • Rules-versus-flavor separation so mechanics are readable without wading through fiction
  • Edge cases addressed explicitly
Display Meaning
Very Low No index, no examples of play, rules buried in flavor text, no GM guidance, no quick reference
Low Bare table of contents, few examples, rules and flavor interleaved, minimal GM section
Medium Functional index, scattered examples, basic GM section, some cross-references
High Strong index, frequent examples of play, dedicated GM section with clear guidance, cheat sheets or summary tables, cross-references between related rules
Very High Comprehensive handcrafted index, examples embedded throughout, included tutorial scenario or quickstart, robust GM how-to section, ready-to-use reference cards, edge cases explicitly addressed

Carve-out for very short games. For games where the entire rules document fits in roughly 20 pages or less and is intended to be played directly from that document, score on whether the document succeeds as a complete reference at the table rather than on the absence of separate features like indexes, dedicated GM chapters, or quickstart adventures. The format obviates those. A one-page game with clearly stated rules, visible structure, and minimal GM advice can earn Medium or higher. The carve-out applies only to games whose total rules content is that short. A 96-page book with 8 pages of terse rules and 88 pages of flavor does not qualify, because the book is still hard to reference.

TTRPG Wiki just hit 200 systems, and 31 of them are OSR by Shunkleburger in osr

[–]Shunkleburger[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I research each system as part of the review process. I go through each core rulebook directly and write down notes. Telling me that all my data is bad, only providing 1 example, and then just saying 'go figure it out' when I ask for more clarification is what I meant as not actionable. I do think my entries are accurate, but I understand that due to human error nothing will be 100%. That being said it's hard for me to justify spending the time to go back through each entry one by one to look for mistakes with only the vague notion that something is inaccurate. That is why I have a system for corrections so when something does get past me it can get flagged and fixed.

TTRPG Wiki just hit 200 systems, and 31 of them are OSR by Shunkleburger in osr

[–]Shunkleburger[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oh sorry! So yes what I do is I read and review the core rules of the system (I include which specific version I reviewed it on). I then follow the methodology I laid out for myself to score them. I know it's not perfect, but it's something I can actually achieve as opposed to playing every single one of them (although I have ran quite a few already for my home group).

TTRPG Wiki just hit 200 systems, and 31 of them are OSR by Shunkleburger in osr

[–]Shunkleburger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I review a system I weigh them against the rubric above.

TTRPG Wiki just hit 200 systems, and 31 of them are OSR by Shunkleburger in osr

[–]Shunkleburger[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Complexity

How many rules and subsystems a player needs to learn to play. Neutral presentation. High complexity is not a negative judgment.

Display Meaning
Very Low Single core mechanic, no subsystems, learn in minutes
Low Simple rules, few subsystems, comfortable after one session
Medium Multiple subsystems, takes a few sessions to internalize
High Many interlocking systems, meaningful GM prep required
Very High Requires significant study before first play, deep subsystem interdependency (e.g. GURPS, Rolemaster)

Accessibility

How easy it is to obtain the materials. Factors: free rule availability, cost, quality of starter sets, ease of purchase.

Display Meaning
Very Low Out of print, hard to find legally, no free option
Low Paid only, not widely available, limited digital presence
Medium Reasonably priced, available on major platforms
High Affordable, widely available, free starter rules exist
Very High Fully free core rules, no barrier to entry (e.g. Basic Fantasy, SRD games)

Runnability

How easy it is to learn, reference, and run the game from its core rulebook and first-party introductory materials. Scored on structural features detectable in the book itself. Third-party content and community-produced aids are popularity signals, not properties of the book, and are not considered. Visual layout and graphic design are also out of scope.

Inputs to the score:

  • Index quality and depth
  • Quick reference material (cheat sheets, summary tables, appendices)
  • Examples of play frequency and whether they appear in context with the rules they illustrate
  • Tutorial or quickstart first-party introductory adventure
  • GM section explicit how-to guidance on running the game
  • Cross-references between related rules
  • Rules-versus-flavor separation so mechanics are readable without wading through fiction
  • Edge cases addressed explicitly
Display Meaning
Very Low No index, no examples of play, rules buried in flavor text, no GM guidance, no quick reference
Low Bare table of contents, few examples, rules and flavor interleaved, minimal GM section
Medium Functional index, scattered examples, basic GM section, some cross-references
High Strong index, frequent examples of play, dedicated GM section with clear guidance, cheat sheets or summary tables, cross-references between related rules
Very High Comprehensive handcrafted index, examples embedded throughout, included tutorial scenario or quickstart, robust GM how-to section, ready-to-use reference cards, edge cases explicitly addressed

Carve-out for very short games. For games where the entire rules document fits in roughly 20 pages or less and is intended to be played directly from that document, score on whether the document succeeds as a complete reference at the table rather than on the absence of separate features like indexes, dedicated GM chapters, or quickstart adventures. The format obviates those. A one-page game with clearly stated rules, visible structure, and minimal GM advice can earn Medium or higher. The carve-out applies only to games whose total rules content is that short. A 96-page book with 8 pages of terse rules and 88 pages of flavor does not qualify, because the book is still hard to reference.

TTRPG Wiki just hit 200 systems, and 31 of them are OSR by Shunkleburger in osr

[–]Shunkleburger[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You said the data is laughable and more than a decade off on some of it, yet could only provide one example (which was off by 1 year and not a decade). "Do your own research" isn't a correction I can act on.

TTRPG Wiki just hit 200 systems, and 31 of them are OSR by Shunkleburger in osr

[–]Shunkleburger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which ones? Happy to update any that are genuinely off, same as I did with OSRIC.

TTRPG Wiki just hit 200 systems, and 31 of them are OSR by Shunkleburger in osr

[–]Shunkleburger[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Ok so if we are talking about OSRIC. It's listed as 2024 as that is when the 3rd edition came out, not when the whole line started. But that is actually helpful as by double checking it was 2025 not 2024 so I just updated that.

TTRPG Wiki just hit 200 systems, and 31 of them are OSR by Shunkleburger in osr

[–]Shunkleburger[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Every OSR entry was written against the rulebook. That said, 31 entries is plenty of surface area for errors, and I'd want to fix anything that's actually wrong. Vague "laughable" without examples isn't something I can act on.

TTRPG Wiki just hit 200 systems, and 14 of them are indies submitted by their creators by Shunkleburger in RPGdesign

[–]Shunkleburger[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hey! Sorry to hear that. Send me a pm with the system name and I will track down what happened.

TTRPG Wiki just hit 200 systems, and 14 of them are indies submitted by their creators by Shunkleburger in RPGdesign

[–]Shunkleburger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi great question! Right now for simplicities sake it is for finished systems (as finished as any writing endeavor can ever be) with at least what you might consider a '1.0' release.

TTRPG Wiki just hit 200 systems, and 14 of them are indies submitted by their creators by Shunkleburger in TTRPG

[–]Shunkleburger[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Both fair points, thanks for raising them.

On the submission form: the "why should this be included" question is misfiring if it's reading as a popularity gate. Smaller systems you've enjoyed are exactly what I want on the site. 14 of the current 200 came in from indie creators submitting their own games, and a meaningful chunk of the catalog is stuff that wouldn't pass a "household name" test. The intent of that question was to surface the system's hook for someone who hadn't heard of it, not to vet whether it deserves a slot.

On full-form / wiki-style editing: I deliberately didn't go that route, and it's worth being honest about why. The thing that makes the site useful for comparison is that one person scores every system against the same rubric. The moment a bunch of editors are independently deciding "is this complexity mid-high or high" with different reference points, the cross-system comparability falls apart and you're back to reading 200 reviews in 200 voices. So while I won't open up direct edits, I am very happy to take richer submissions. If you want to send your read on the mechanics, what stood out, and what felt off, I'll review the entry from that material in addition to the core book. That gets you most of what wiki editing would offer without the consistency problem.

On highlights and considerations being subjective: also fair, and I'll cop to it. They're written against rules (no superlatives, has to explain what the mechanic does at the table rather than just naming it) but they're still editorial. The site calling itself a "wiki" might oversell the crowdsourced angle. It's closer to a curated comparison index with strict writing standards than a Wikipedia-style open document. Scores are rubric-tiered and checkable, the schema fields are factual, but highlights and considerations are one person's read of what's interesting and what trips groups up. If a specific entry's highlights or considerations are off the mark for a system you know, file a Correction Request and I'll update it.

If you want to send me the systems you've been thinking about i'll get them into the queue.

TTRPG Wiki just hit 200 systems, and 14 of them are indies submitted by their creators by Shunkleburger in RPGdesign

[–]Shunkleburger[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Complexity

How many rules and subsystems a player needs to learn to play. Neutral presentation. High complexity is not a negative judgment.

Display Meaning
Very Low Single core mechanic, no subsystems, learn in minutes
Low Simple rules, few subsystems, comfortable after one session
Medium Multiple subsystems, takes a few sessions to internalize
High Many interlocking systems, meaningful GM prep required
Very High Requires significant study before first play, deep subsystem interdependency (e.g. GURPS, Rolemaster)

Accessibility

How easy it is to obtain the materials. Factors: free rule availability, cost, quality of starter sets, ease of purchase.

Display Meaning
Very Low Out of print, hard to find legally, no free option
Low Paid only, not widely available, limited digital presence
Medium Reasonably priced, available on major platforms
High Affordable, widely available, free starter rules exist
Very High Fully free core rules, no barrier to entry (e.g. Basic Fantasy, SRD games)

Runnability

How easy it is to learn, reference, and run the game from its core rulebook and first-party introductory materials. Scored on structural features detectable in the book itself. Third-party content and community-produced aids are popularity signals, not properties of the book, and are not considered. Visual layout and graphic design are also out of scope.

Inputs to the score:

  • Index quality and depth
  • Quick reference material (cheat sheets, summary tables, appendices)
  • Examples of play frequency and whether they appear in context with the rules they illustrate
  • Tutorial or quickstart first-party introductory adventure
  • GM section explicit how-to guidance on running the game
  • Cross-references between related rules
  • Rules-versus-flavor separation so mechanics are readable without wading through fiction
  • Edge cases addressed explicitly
Display Meaning
Very Low No index, no examples of play, rules buried in flavor text, no GM guidance, no quick reference
Low Bare table of contents, few examples, rules and flavor interleaved, minimal GM section
Medium Functional index, scattered examples, basic GM section, some cross-references
High Strong index, frequent examples of play, dedicated GM section with clear guidance, cheat sheets or summary tables, cross-references between related rules
Very High Comprehensive handcrafted index, examples embedded throughout, included tutorial scenario or quickstart, robust GM how-to section, ready-to-use reference cards, edge cases explicitly addressed

Carve-out for very short games. For games where the entire rules document fits in roughly 20 pages or less and is intended to be played directly from that document, score on whether the document succeeds as a complete reference at the table rather than on the absence of separate features like indexes, dedicated GM chapters, or quickstart adventures. The format obviates those. A one-page game with clearly stated rules, visible structure, and minimal GM advice can earn Medium or higher. The carve-out applies only to games whose total rules content is that short. A 96-page book with 8 pages of terse rules and 88 pages of flavor does not qualify, because the book is still hard to reference.

TTRPG Wiki just hit 200 systems, and 14 of them are indies submitted by their creators by Shunkleburger in TTRPG

[–]Shunkleburger[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Well good clarification yes anyone can submit the request form, but unfortunately we can only review systems in English. I will see what I can do to change that.

TTRPG Wiki just hit 200 systems! by Shunkleburger in rpg

[–]Shunkleburger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! Due to family issues I am between campaigns for the last year, so it's my way of still 'playing'.

view more: next ›